20 Trillion x 9² is the end to end distance of the Universe?

[SpeedFreek]

I believe your question is misunderstood by some of the members of this community. Although I agree that standard scientific notation should be used when expressing numbers this large, those who are intollerant to your way of expression are without imagination. What I believe you are asking is how freak'in big is the observable universe in miles.
Well I don't have a clue and neither does anyone else on the face of this planet, those who confess to knowing this are jacka__es, ( remember, 100 yrs. ago the Milky Way was the only known galaxy ). However, that said, there is a basic calculation that can be made to describe the size of what is believed to be, as of this time , the size of the universe in miles.

Our most powerful telescopes, and the persons who use them, tell us that we can look back roughly 14 billion light years. ASSUMING that Earth is located in the center, ( that's a big freak'in leap of faith here), and we could see another 14 billion light years in the the opposite direction, that gives us a diameter of 28 billion light years, ASSUMING the universe is roughly spherical.

We see light that has been travelling for 13.7 billion years (the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation), which was originally emitted only few tens of millions of light-years away. In the intervening time since that light was emitted, the universe has expanded to around 1100 times the size, meaning the coordinates where the CMBR we currently detect were emitted from, if they are considered to have receded with the expansion of the universe, will have receded to 46.5 billion light-years away, giving the universe we have observed (as it was in the past) a current diameter of 93 billion light-years. The CMBR is the light we detect that has been travelling for the longest time.

We see light emitted from the galaxies most distant in time. The light has been travelling for nearly 13 billion years (this is worked out based on their dimness and redshift). Those galaxies were only 3.5 billion light-years away when the light we see was emitted (this is worked out based on how big (or close!) they look in comparison to other galaxies). In the intervening time between that light being emitted and us receiving it, the universe has expanded such that those galaxies (or what has become of them since) are estimated to be around 29 billion light-years away. These are the galaxies whose light has been travelling for the longest time.

We see light from galaxies that were apparently receding at the speed of light, 9.1 billion years ago. They were 5.7 billion light-years away when that light was emitted, and today they are estimated to be around 14 billion light-years away. These are the galaxies that were furthest away from us when the light we see was emitted.

I might suggest you read the PDF file link in my signature!

 

[R1]

I need a reminder, I think I forgot what the correct answer is:

If the universe is currently 93 billion lyrs. in diameter, what would the galaxies near the circumference
see when looking outward?

 

[nailpounder]

I believe your question is misunderstood by some of the members of this community. Although I agree that standard scientific notation should be used when expressing numbers this large, those who are intollerant to your way of expression are without imagination. What I believe you are asking is how freak'in big is the observable universe in miles.
Well I don't have a clue and neither does anyone else on the face of this planet, those who confess to knowing this are jacka__es, ( remember, 100 yrs. ago the Milky Way was the only known galaxy ). However, that said, there is a basic calculation that can be made to describe the size of what is believed to be, as of this time , the size of the universe in miles.

Our most powerful telescopes, and the persons who use them, tell us that we can look back roughly 14 billion light years. ASSUMING that Earth is located in the center, ( that's a big freak'in leap of faith here), and we could see another 14 billion light years in the the opposite direction, that gives us a diameter of 28 billion light years, ASSUMING the universe is roughly spherical.

We see light that has been travelling for 13.7 billion years (the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation), which was originally emitted only few tens of millions of light-years away. In the intervening time since that light was emitted, the universe has expanded to around 1100 times the size, meaning the coordinates where the CMBR we currently detect were emitted from, if they are considered to have receded with the expansion of the universe, will have receded to 46.5 billion light-years away, giving the universe we have observed (as it was in the past) a current diameter of 93 billion light-years. The CMBR is the light we detect that has been travelling for the longest time.

We see light emitted from the galaxies most distant in time. The light has been travelling for nearly 13 billion years (this is worked out based on their dimness and redshift). Those galaxies were only 3.5 billion light-years away when the light we see was emitted (this is worked out based on how big (or close!) they look in comparison to other galaxies). In the intervening time between that light being emitted and us receiving it, the universe has expanded such that those galaxies (or what has become of them since) are estimated to be around 29 billion light-years away. These are the galaxies whose light has been travelling for the longest time.

We see light from galaxies that were apparently receding at the speed of light, 9.1 billion years ago. They were 5.7 billion light-years away when that light was emitted, and today they are estimated to be around 14 billion light-years away. These are the galaxies that were furthest away from us when the light we see was emitted.

I might suggest you read the PDF file link in my signature!

AHHHH, finally a breath of fresh air. Okay, so you understand more than I concerning the size of the universe(as damn well all you scientists should) can you answer the poster's question? Because, as of yet, all I've seen is a bunch of politician talk (hot air) trying to show just how prominent and special they are. No I didn't calculate time-dialation,redshift or the influx of dark energy propagating the expansion of the universe exponentionally. If someone would grow a pair and actually answer the poster's question, then I would be impressed! You could argue with me all day long about astrophysics and be right, I concede! In MY profession we at least TRY to answer the customers wishes, and not cry and whine and be so quick to explain why everyone else before me has failed!
You know, instead of observing the atomic nature of the crystalline structure as gravity draws it near, take time to appreciate the fact that it's a god-dam_ed snowflake, and it is beautiful just the way it is, and answer the posters question!! I dare you!Any of you!................Al

Two pages of posts and STILL, I am the only person who has TRIED to answer.

"if you can't bedazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh_t"

 

[Shpaget]

The problem is that OP refuses to accept that his data is flawed. He insist on claiming that the diameter of 93 b ly is not correct and that "20 trillion x 9^2" miles is.
He also refuses to name his source of this info.

20 trillion x 9^2 miles (assuming a trillion is 10^12) is 3,6 x 10^14 miles which equals 61,24 light years (that is sixty one, not sixty one million or sixty one billion; just 61).

If you assume a trillion is 10^18 you get 61,24 million light years, which is still insignificant distance compared to the recent observations and measurements.

The other part of his question also makes no sense.

If I am correct, what would the number be? Hint: 360 astronomical figures.

And what do you want to call this astronomical figure?

Since it is closely related to the first part of the question which is so confusing, there is no way of answering it.
It appears that he asks what should a distance of 1 trillion miles (1/360 the diameter of universe) be called and suggests the name "astronomical figure".
Since 1 trillion miles is not 1/360 of the diameter of the universe there is no use in debating this part of the question.

 

[nailpounder]

The problem is that OP refuses to accept that his data is flawed. He insist on claiming that the diameter of 93 b ly is not correct and that "20 trillion x 9^2" miles is.
He also refuses to name his source of this info.

20 trillion x 9^2 miles (assuming a trillion is 10^12) is 3,6 x 10^14 miles which equals 61,24 light years (that is sixty one, not sixty one million or sixty one billion; just 61).

If you assume a trillion is 10^18 you get 61,24 million light years, which is still insignificant distance compared to the recent observations and measurements.

The other part of his question also makes no sense.

If I am correct, what would the number be? Hint: 360 astronomical figures.

And what do you want to call this astronomical figure?

Since it is closely related to the first part of the question which is so confusing, there is no way of answering it.
It appears that he asks what should a distance of 1 trillion miles (1/360 the diameter of universe) be called and suggests the name "astronomical figure".
Since 1 trillion miles is not 1/360 of the diameter of the universe there is no use in debating this part of the question.

I believe the poster means 360 digits to his/her answer, which all of us disagree with. The term "astronomical " only refers to the perception of the number involved. We could all laugh and explain to ourselves that the poster is nuts, but I doubt that is what this particular format is for. PERSONALLY, I believe this format is for the education for persons who have an interest in cosmology, and the fortitude to endeavor in things not completely understood. My god, if he/she or I knew everything, there would certainly be no reason why I or anyone else would wish to participate!......AL

 

[nailpounder]

FURTHERMORE, it has come to my attention that maybe 93 billion light yrs. is the number that should be substituted
for the 24 billion light yrs. that I suggested in my formula. If that is the case (I'm not arguing) then please simply do the math with the correct data..................is that so hard?..........................AL

 

[nailpounder]

We can only answer what is completely understood. What I understand is that the author seeks a desire to understand the distance,in miles,it is from one side of the Known Observable Universe, to the other. I can not extrapolate what he/she means with the "360 astronomical figures"without further confirmation from the author/poster. I could stress on this inequity till I died, but I won't. Fact is ,there is available data, concerning part of the posit, that can and should be noted, and answered.......................Al

 

[SpeedFreek]

AHHHH, finally a breath of fresh air. Okay, so you understand more than I concerning the size of the universe(as damn well all you scientists should) can you answer the poster's question? Because, as of yet, all I've seen is a bunch of politician talk (hot air) trying to show just how prominent and special they are. No I didn't calculate time-dialation,redshift or the influx of dark energy propagating the expansion of the universe exponentionally. If someone would grow a pair and actually answer the poster's question, then I would be impressed! You could argue with me all day long about astrophysics and be right, I concede! In MY profession we at least TRY to answer the customers wishes, and not cry and whine and be so quick to explain why everyone else before me has failed!
You know, instead of observing the atomic nature of the crystalline structure as gravity draws it near, take time to appreciate the fact that it's a god-dam_ed snowflake, and it is beautiful just the way it is, and answer the posters question!! I dare you!Any of you!................Al

Two pages of posts and STILL, I am the only person who has TRIED to answer.

"if you can't bedazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh_t"

FURTHERMORE, it has come to my attention that maybe 93 billion light yrs. is the number that should be substituted
for the 24 billion light yrs. that I suggested in my formula. If that is the case (I'm not arguing) then please simply do the math with the correct data..................is that so hard?..........................AL

You must have missed my post on page 1 of this thread where I answered the question, clearly and succinctly.

I think a lot of people are overlooking the words I have bolded in the original post.

I'm guessing in miles that the distance from end to end of the Universe is 20 Trillion X 9 to the second power.

If I am correct, what would the number be? Hint: 360 astronomical figures.

And what do you want to call this astronomical figure?

Earth360 has always been talking about miles, since the first post.

The observable universe is 93 billion light-years across. 93 billion light-years = 5.467x10^23 miles

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=93 ... s+in+miles

 

[SpeedFreek]

I need a reminder, I think I forgot what the correct answer is:

If the universe is currently 93 billion lyrs. in diameter, what would the galaxies near the circumference
see when looking outward?

That's the observable universe. We define it based on the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), which was released throughout the universe 13.7 billion years ago. It is thought that the CMBR we currently detect was originally released around 40 million light-years away in all directions, and that anything at that original distance would now be 46.5 billion light-years away due to the subsequent expansion of the universe. We assume that, as galaxies seem to have formed throughout the universe, that there would currently be galaxies 46.5 billion light-years away in all directions, giving the observable universe a current diameter of 93 billion light-years.

But as time goes on, we expect to continue to detect the CMBR, which would have originally been released at a greater distance than the CMBR we currently detect. We expect (due to inflationary theory) that the whole universe is many magnitudes larger than our currently observable part of it. It might even be infinite in extent, or have no edge at all (it might be continuous, like the surface of the Earth). Thus, we can consider there to be galaxies currently outside our observable universe.

So, theoretically, a galaxy currently at the edge of our observable universe (46.5 billion light-years away) would see pretty much the same thing we do - galaxies in all directions with redshifts that increase with light-travel time, and the CMBR coming in from all directions.

Our Milky-Way galaxy would be right on the edge of their observable universe, but the only light they would see that came from this region of space is the CMBR that was released here, 13.7 billion years ago.

 

[R1]

But I thought the most recent consensus was that the universe is finite, and at least somewhat curved.



Also, when talking about 'missing' mass, are they referring to 'within' the observable portion only ?

 

[SpeedFreek]

There is no consensus on the finite v infinite question, and current observations constrain the observable universe to within 2% of being flat. This is means that if the universe is curved, that curvature has a radius far larger than our observable part of it.

The "missing mass" figures are proportional, based on our observations in our observable part of the universe, applied to the universe as a whole. Cosmologists assume that the universe is homogeneous (i.e. pretty much the same everywhere).

 

[neilsox]

20 times 9 = 18 trillion miles; squared = 360 trillion times a trillion = 3.6 times 10 to the 26 th power miles, which is less than the diameter of the visable Universe. Neil

 

[R1]

Yes but 20 trillion * 9squared = 20 trillion * 81 = 1,620 trillion.

Also there are no units specified, but the observable universe is usually measured in light years.
Furthermore, it is growing in size at every fraction of time permitted, as you post,
as you read, at speeds exceeding c.