Biggest Thing in the Universe - Sixty Symbols

[@Sluggernaut]

It's always such a pleasure to see someone so pleased with their own field of study like this. The passion and excitement is really contagious.

[@GPCTM]

They just can't believe the lucky they are every time they receive the monthly check. And they are right.

[@paul9813]

I feel like Ed would be a great first year teacher, Breaks things down and truly loves what he does!

[@adamh6094]

Ed’s reaction to Brady’s final comment at the end 👌🏻

[@Silvah777]

A big blown up projection of just a funny little wobble in a field. Wow.

[@Sebach82]

Love it.

[@tucatnev123]

I've started to teach maths in 1999. That glare is the brief moment when a tutor is proud for the student. The next step is looking for the right introduction for next-step challenging problem.

[@huntergoddard9307]

3:40 The observable universe is not 13 billion light-years across, it's 93 billion light-years across. It's 13 billion years old, but that's not its size.

[@Kneedragon1962]

Yes, that's a bit of a headache. Especially when tv science shows harp on about how what we see at 10 Bil lighyears away, happened 10 bil years ago, so telescopes are a time machine - yada yada yada... Words like 'Inflation' are tossed around, but the significance is not really explained. Either the edge of the universe went away at rather more than C, or we have a logical issue... What would help, would be a brief explanation that because the space has expanded, the speed of light was (relatively) a damn site faster then... The numbers don't add up because the 'number plane' has expanded rather sharply since. And we still have 'inflation' because they still don't add up, even allowing for that.

[@Dannys99887]

Kneedragon1962 Yes, expanding space cosmology introduces all sorts of confusion among non-scientists about light travel time, astronomical distances, and the expansion of the universe relative to an observer on earth during the travel time of light from very distant galaxies. But in this video, a SCIENTIST at 3:40 said "bearing in mind that the entire universe is only about 13 billion light years across...." This is just totally wrong on absolutely every possible level. It cannot be rationalized based on any possible assumptions about its meaning. It's hard to believe that the scientist who said it has any in-depth knowledge of cosmology.......or for that matter, simple basic astronomy.

[@Strider-Ragnarok]

Thank you for this.

[@DANversusWTP]

Josh Baker The rate at which galaxies move away completely depends on their position. The expansion of the universe is accelerating, so think of an X graph becoming a 2X graph, and then a 3X graph and so on, changing every given unit of time. X=1 and X=2 are moving apart much more slowly than X=1 and X=4. So a galaxy trillions of light year away would be moving away from us faster than light, which is legal because it is space itself that is stretching.

[@ronaldderooij1774]

I don't know how big the universe is. It might even be infinite in size. There is theoretical evidence that it is certainly bigger than 60 billion lightyears. But I know that light travels at the speed of light and it travels 1 lightyear per year. So if the universe is indeed 13.7 billion years old, the observable part of the universe cannot be bigger than 13.7 billion lightyears. Sorry.

[@AnimationB]

I did a speech for my Communications class on this discovery. Thanks for showing it to me!

[@alexisrodriguez5268]

"The ultimate elephant in the room." This is extremely quotable.

[@2Sor2Fig]

9:20 I always wondered what got my professors excited and kept them doing what they do (being a Biochemist, one of mine was obviously doing cancer research. The other one was putting phosphorescent proteins into the brains of mice to control their neural systems, which is, hands-down, the single most badass sentence I have ever heard in my life [ think remote controlled mouse, but with more lights and proteins ]). Wish I'd listened to my chemistry and physics lecturers a lot more... the math guy was always interesting, no problem there. He used to wear the same red, hawaiian print shirt every day, had like 8 copies of the same shirt. Said it was because he liked the pattern. On the days we had exams he always wore a blue hawaiian shirt. Of all my lecturers, I remember him the most. Dr Copeland reminds me of him for some reason, which is where this whole thing started.

[@Kavetrol]

They should make a video on light travel distance vs. light travel distance plus space expansion.

[@frankbraker]

Love this show. It makes me want to see an interview with the paper's authors.

[@michamasny8238]

I would appreciate a word on time in this video. I'm guessing all of this stuff isn't stuck on a circle around the Earth so there are probably considerable differences in distance between us and various points on this thing. If the thing is about 4 billion light years then, unless the points of it are close to equidistant from the Earth, some parts of the thing we see will likely be a billion or two years older than others. It seems to me time should be a real factor here since things can change their relative positions in time, especially when they have lots of it. It's a pity it wasn't touched in the video I think.

[@Z3nt4]

That's a rather moot point, though. Even if you're just seing things that were there in the distant past that still doesn't change the fact that at any given point in time you only found those objects in a very specific location. If one of the quasars happened to be 2 billion light years away you would still need to have a few of them scattered all around the 2-billion-years-old sphere cut of the universe to preverse homogeneity, which you don't. If anything, the fact that over billions of years they all happened rather close to one another would strengthen the idea that there is something not quite ordinary going on in there.

[@ToddLewden]

Starmaker by Olaf Stapledon is all I keep thinking about. Fantastic SciFi read! :)

[@Chad_Dabal]

I could listen to these guys all day. In fact I do fall asleep to their lectures w my earbuds. I love how passionate they are and have made this their life's work. I dont understand how this doesn't fascinate everyone. To me this is the most critical subject in life to learn about!

[@tomktia]

I could listen to Mike and Ed all day!

[@Schizopantheist]

light reaching earth from the edge of the cosmic light horizon has travelled perhaps 13 billion light years but of course the objects in that region have accelerated away since then. By convention UK believe astronomers speak of the light-travel-distance of an object rather than its 'real' (assumed) position beyond our light horizon. Hence the confusion, I think.

[@Schizopantheist]

*sorry i meant "by convention -i- believe"

[@ivarbaratheon264]

Idk he's clearly said the entire universe is 13 billion ly across and the structure is a third of the universe that's very wrong

[@DanijelDrnic]

I'd said that at CERN's experiments with accelerated particles missing half formula because I would assume that the approximately 3/4 of the speed of light, or that part of the pulse of light is actually the answer is wrong that A.Einstain have proposed. Photons have no weight because they lose their singularity are therefore 'massless'. Black holes are massless, and the accelerated particles lacked a singular part that gives them mass.

[@dff1286]

I thought the observable Universe was over 90 Billion Light years across. in which case a structure stretching 4 billion light years across would not be terribly large by comparison.

[@jilgin]

DHF F Yes and ''The Universe'' (not just the observable universe, but the entire Universe) is believed to be even bigger and maybe even infinte...

[@Mwstmrlnd]

But that's not how you measure scale -- you have to measure the scale based on the largest known structures we can observe so far. It has nothing to do with the size relative to the observable universe. We don't normally see structures larger than 300 megaparsecs across, and the structure found in the study is over 1200 megaparsecs across, which is abnormal.

[@supersalty5856]

But how about the Hercules Corona Borealis Great Wall? Which is a structure which is 10 billion light years across

[@shawn563]

Super salty that structure wasn't fully discovered until the end of 2012. Perhaps after this interview.

[@Cashman9111]

@@Mwstmrlnd if the universe would be infinite then there could still be waaaaaaaayyy bigger things that we just won't observe, because we are out of their reach

[@HewkiiMusic]

Am I the only one that has this raging phobia of gas giants, Jupiter in particular? When that picture of Jupiter popped up on the screen my heart nearly stopped, and even that when the picture is only in black & white. I guess it's the enormous size and perfection along with the lack of a solid surface that scares me the most.

[@Cosmalano]

There's no need to be scared of them.

[@HewkiiMusic]

I know, that's why it's a phobia, an irrational fear.

[@Cosmalano]

TheOfficialHewkii very true. But I must ask, if given the opportunity to say orbit Saturn, would you go?

[@HewkiiMusic]

electrocat1 Definately not

[@Cosmalano]

TheOfficialHewkii not even to help get over your fears?

[@windowlicker1]

i love how these mind blowing things make me feel. i feel glad to be alive in such a time of scientific discovery. :)

[@loucard1752]

So much better than being burned at the stake!!

[@rholdnr]

That is by far the best advice one could give, listen to this person!

[@KRAZY13omber]

Kind of funny seeing all of the children calling out someone far smarter than them(their google searches) for a slight miss spoken phrase.

[@digitcrusher]

An error is an error no matter who pointed it out.

[@IMOLDIN]

@@digitcrusher Perfectly said but can we have it in math

[@pureruckuspower2165]

@@digitcrusherdamn. Same thing my pops told me daily. But that was in reference to my birth.

[@Memyselfandlazy]

Oh, the hole itself is not lighting up, it's just getting so big and powerful that the force it exerts on gases not yet passing the event horizon (the point of no return from a black hole) shine so very brightly that they produce that level of light.

[@GJames007]

I really do enjoy listening to both of these professors.

[@LilyMyLolita]

"implausibly large structure in the universe" Most catchy essay title ever!

[@ConallofUlster]

Remember that quasars are black holes and are therefore some of the most long lived structures in the universe. Unlike stars, they do not die out via supernovae, but evaporate over large periods of time. These quasars are the result of supermassive black holes which take even longer to evaporate.

[@Ionizationification]

Actually, this is incredibly meaningful and it contains tons of evidence of many things. It helps us understand the universe we live in, and even if we can't visit the objects that we see, it doesn't mean that they don't exist and shouldn't be studied. People spent many hours to make such an observation, and this is important, so don't minimize their efforts.

[@wishcraft4u2]

I'd like to imagine that they somehow power wormholes used by the oldest civilization in the universe.

[@Samrules888]

perhaps they saw that expansion was accelerating and that they would soon be disconnected from other parts of the universe. attempting to counteract dark energy failed so they harnessed it to build wormholes for instant travel to the parts of the universe that were moving away too fast for their ships to reach

[@bitodd]

Since those early photons were emitted, the space between us and the objects that emitted them has expanded, putting them ~46 billion light years away. So we can actually see farther than the limit of the speed of light would lead you to think, based on an odd property of spacetime.

[@kllrbny]

Fractal patterns are for sure all around -- the same sort of physics often give very similar results over wide ranges of scales, simply because the equations aren't size or scale dependent -- the eddies in a stream are caused by the same equations that imply the eddies in interstellar gas flow. But at very small scales, the Planck scale, we currently lack the ability or understanding to look further, it seems (for now) like there is a bottom limit to that fractal relationship....

[@bbbeto02]

For some reason I feel like the principle in all this is similar to the ring of fire on the Pacific ocean that creates all these paterns in a continuous line of vulcans and all because of the tectonic plates. So if you change the subject from tectonic plates to entire universes colliding maybe that's the result. But yeah, that's probably just a silly thought.

[@psitae]

Are there any new developments in this line of research after three years? There are many interesting questions that come from this paper.

[@JustinHallPlus]

In our reference frame the universe is still 26-28 billion lightyears across (13-14bn ly radius). The far off galaxies are expanding away from us at greater than the speed of light due to dark energy, so eventually most of what we can see in the universe will leave our observable universe. You can talk about how far away those distant galaxies may be now, but that isn't where we can observe them.

[@davidsweeney111]

Brady, could you ask professor Copeland if he would do a video about SUSY please, I am very interested in this part of theoretical particle physics and would appreciate his insights, cheers Dave.

[@MekazaBitrusty]

I just love all these videos you produce. Each and everyone of them full of fascinating facts and theories. Don't ever stop making them please. :-)

[@SaveTheFuture]

Keep in mind this stuff is regarding the observable Universe, which is far smaller than the entire Universe, which may be at least 250 times larger.

[@DrDelvan]

The misstep made there was that the *observable* universe is 13 billion light years across, not the actual universe. Most everything mentioned in this video (except Inflation) is discussing the observable universe, which is usually the only part people talk about since the rest of it is to far for us to see. The speed of light is constant to observers in all reference frames, even in an expanding universe, so its still 13.7bn ly or so. The filament is an actual 4 bn light years across.

[@ossian1977]

The size of the universe gives me nightmares...

[@pcdsgh]

Protobionts. (there's your answer) Making the primordial soup is not making life, so I wasn't referring to that. We don't have a full chain from A to Z, but many of the links are there. As it was observed when Graig Venter's team faced a problem that shows that early life reproduced very VERY slowly... so creating life from scratch and waiting for it to evolve won't ever be attempted. His team actually designed new, working life forms on a computer.. totally different story and not abiogenesis.

[@Stunit101]

Wow a video about my genitalia, how nice of you.

[@jomps1]

What I find fascinating is that within those supposed star systems hinted at by the collection of quasars is (probably) a higher likelihood of finding extraterrestrial life; at least, higher than anywhere else in the universe that we know about.

[@noddwyd]

If this is real, and I'm assuming that everyone's assuming it is real, Is this possibly a sign of Type III or even IV Civilization, of a type of entity or entities that we can't even imagine at the moment? I think it seriously bears thinking about. I mean, what a monster...

[@General12th]

It's possible an intelligent entity or civilization assembled these quasars intentionally, but it's not the only possibility. Definitely cool to think about, but it assumes a lot more than the proposed explanation.

[@Mastikator]

We wouldn't be able to imagine them anymore than a single bacteria could imagine us.

[@KimStennabbCaesar]

Mastikator We can also only imagine what imaginings and fantasies any other species have, or other persons than ourselves too really. Who is there to say a bacteria doesn't have imagination? Not very plausible by how we perceive the world works, but basically impossible to disprove.

[@Mastikator]

Kim Stennabb Caesar "it's impossible to disprove" that I am not secretly Gandalf the Grey sent here to defeat Xenon the Space Overlord.

[@KimStennabbCaesar]

Mastikator Now THAT's a battle I would gladly watch! :)

[@souravzzz]

You are correct, it is a common misconception that the radius of the observable universe is 13 billion light years; which is wrong because the universe is expanding.

[@krisbean4064]

The universe isn't 13 billion light years across...

[@abhishekshah11]

exactly my thoughts.

[@rafaelrincon3109]

We don't know, right? Since we can only see the observable universe. We know that it has to be *at least* as big as the observable universe, right?

[@abhishekshah11]

***** but of course.

[@fuzlwuzl]

He means the observable universe itself is larger than 13 billion ly across, it's closer to 90 billion ly across. You're right that we do not know how big the unobservable universe is.

[@williampratama1670]

Adam Moke *over 90 billion light years across

[@BruceNJeffAreMyFlies]

So the theory used to go as follows: The universe was created with almost perfect homogeneity of atomic spread, but there were a few minor gaps that meant the coalescence of the universe was not even. But, and please somebody confirm or correct this, at the end we heard that the more recent theory is not gaps where atoms were not, and was actually caused by quantum fluctuations?

[@brianbatie6650]

An error at 3;43, the observable universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old but the size is far larger than 13.7 billion light years wide, more like 93 billion light years in diameter, and even that doesn't count the area of the universe beyond our cosmic event horizon.

[@jully_mishra]

Currently the observable universe that we can observe is about 13 billion light years, but it is estimated by physicists that the diameter of the entire is universe is about 92 billion light years(according to our current theory), it is just because our universe is only about 13.7 billion years old so light coming from very far away regions, (beyond what our telescopes can observe), so we will take time to observe so far away regions, that we may be able to observe it after some billions of years. Felt happy to comment

[@eldritchinterface7481]

Just to clarify this for people, the universe is expanding FASTER than the speed of light. This does not defy the laws of physics.

[@crackedemerald4930]

It's a funny thing, nothing in the universe can move faster than light, but the universe itself can. That makes that some things far away are moving away from us faster than light can reach us

[@oceanceaser44]

Wow those 10 minutes flew by, that was a very interesting topic. I am interested in how you would determine that this "structure" was very unlikely to occur from a random scatter of quasars

[@ambujarind1991]

at around 3.40, he said the universe was 13 billions light years across. That's not correct, that's the age of the universe.. 13 billions years..

[@SonawanePravin]

+Ambuj Arind Yup.. the observable universe is around 96 billion light years in diameter.

[@Schizopantheist]

+Pravin Sonawane Agreed. But we observe it to be around 13 billion light years in diameter. The real size of the universe is not visible to us!

[@ambujarind1991]

No, it's not 13 billion light years that is visible to us. Actually, the observable universe is about 93-94 billion light years across. That is because of the expansion of the universe. If it was not expanding, visible part of the universe would be 26 billion light years in diameter, not 13.

[@Schizopantheist]

+Ambuj Arind Yes, I understand what you are saying but we cannot see light from 46 billion light years away, we can only see light from around 13 billion light years away. It's true that the objects that were around 13 billion light years away are now (we infer) around 46 billion light years away but we cannot actually see them there (how could we? the light has not had time to reach).

[@ambujarind1991]

Actually we can. Hence, the word observable. It is due to the expansion of space itself that we see light which is as far as 46 billion light years away from us. The light does not travel faster than the speed 'c', it is the expansion of space that enables us to observe such large distances. I hope this clears it up..

[@ChampeonPvP]

@19t2000 the universe that we can see would be about 26 billion light years across. The universe is 13 billion years old, that means that light has had had only 13 billion years to travel. The whole universe is no doubt much larger than that but it is impossible to see further because light from further away could not possible have reached us yet.

[@Tetrahedragon2]

You guys should have guest physicists on the show talking about their latest stuff... and also...Edward Witten... lots of him.

[@Equiinox1989]

Ok, I know some people have already called this guy on it... but I feel the need to clearly address what exactly was wrong with what he said based on modern cosmology. At 3:40 the professor erroneously states that the projected LENGTH of the observable universe is about 13 billion light years across. The estimated AGE of the universe is about 13-14 billion years. It would then make sense that the observable universe should have a radius of about 13-14 billion light years, however space can expand faster than light (It doesn't violate general relativity if space itself expands faster than light). This metric expansion of space over time yields measurements of the actual size of the observable universe to be around 46.5 billion light years in radius or 93 billion light years in diameter. This is a very common mistake among laymen and entry level students, but I find it disturbing someone of this man's status would not be aware of this.... watching him make such a blatantly wrong statement and then giggle about it made me plant my face on my desk.

[@GrantE90]

I posted this reply in another thread, but it also fits your comment. TL;DR: The universe has a comoving radius of ~46.5 billion light years, but the actual size is far less important than age in regards to these large structures. the 13 billion light year figure is an easy yardstick. The structure in this video (Huge-LQG) is roughly 9 billion light years away. The exact size of the observable universe isn't very relevant for the explanation given, the figure of 13 billion light years (rough radius of our observable universe from Earth without factoring the comoving distance resulting from expansion) is just thrown in as a comparison for laymen. The comparison is simply used to highlight the implausibility of such a large structure at an early age in the universe. With an age of 13.82 billion light years, a distance from Earth of 9 billion light years, and an extent of 4 billion light years, we end up with an interesting situation. The structure is not gravitationally bound (unsurprisingly) and both ends are no longer causally connected. It would take 8 billion years for a perturbation (gravitational or otherwise) to travel from one end to the other and back again. The universe had only existed for 4.82 billion years when the light we're seeing from the quasars started its journey. This lack of interaction between the furthest extents doesn't mean its not a "true" structure, it just means it can only have formed from the magnification of a random fluctuation during inflation, a time where our entire observable universe was causally connected. Essentially, the 13 billion light year figure stated in the video is just an easily identifiable yardstick. The video wants to appeal to a broad audience, and its difficult to fully explain the comoving diameter of the observable universe within a 10 minute video without cutting some relevant content about the Huge-LQG structure. Come on guys, there are far more interesting points to debate.

[@LokiLL999]

I enjoy listening to those who think in the infinite.. To grasp the theory of you must think in the infinite ..

[@nyak63RUS]

Can someone explain something to me? At about 1:58 he says that a particular black hole may be active enough to "light up." So if a black hole has a density so high that it produces a gravitational pull that is so strong that nothing can escape it, even light- then how does it "light up?" Where does this light come from if everything, even light, is being sucked into a black hole?

[@maybeanonymous6846]

your mom

[@thetarget]

This must be the most boring but interesting video I watch all day.

[@mikefallopian3191]

3:42.....'the entire universe is only about 13 billion light years across'.....Fckn hell. Blatant falsehood. Who is this guy ? A professor or someone from building maintenance ?

[@beefcakepantiehoes]

Mike Fallopian when astrophysicists or astronomers say that the "universe" is 13 billion light years across they mean the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE

[@BrownHairL]

But it isn't 13 billion lightyears, it's 93, because of the expansion.

[@mikefallopian3191]

Beefcakepantiehose....oh really, dimwit ? Because that would be wrong too. Maybe you shouldn't be speaking for astrophysicists.

[@ivarbaratheon264]

beefcakepantiehoes The OBSERVABLE universe is a lot more than 13 billion light years across

[@osamaghaedy1869]

Brandy pls make video of kbc void. The greatest emptiness in the universe

[@TraitorVek]

Questions: a: Would you think that a black hole eats everything in it's galaxy? b: Do Black Holes form from Stars or are they completely separate? c: Are black holes made of atoms?

[@TraitorVek]

+TraitorVek atoms = also = maybe, electrons

[@dormirenonpotest]

+TraitorVek Answers (or attempts, more like. I'm not a scientist): A: No, objects would orbit around it, just as the solar system won't fall into the sun. *in a stable situation. If the black hole is moving way faster than the stuff around it, it might pull some larger objects in. B: They form when some of a stars mass collapses into an area smaller than its Schwarzschild radius. This only happens under certain circumstances, however. C: Probably not. I think that the fundamental particles would be ripped apart from each other.

[@TraitorVek]

So A: = Yes not No - You seem to be saying 'A' towards the end of your reply. So B: = You're saying all Black Holes form exclusively from Stars. You didn't answer my question (please read the question) So C: = "Probably" is not an Answer Glad you attempted my questions though. :)

[@thevivekmathema]

Some entity that can expland or run faster than light will in fact reverse the time as stated from relativity theory. hence, it may not be possible.

[@pirmelephant]

Why are there "North" and "East" at 5:56? How are those directions defined?

[@fractalnomics]

There is a geometry that predicts these structures, it is the fractal - the fractal attractor. Sounds a little crank - yes, but it is one of the great geometries of our time, and debates of our time - not that your would hear about it. Indirectly (I'm an Economist) I ran an experiment measuring what one would expect to see if inside a fractal: I inverted one. It easily demonstates Hubbles Law (recession of Points, expansion of space), accelerated expansion, and the non homogenous distribution of Galaxies (from rough on small scale to smooth on large), not to mention inflation theory growth speed. My analogy was a tree (a fractal structure) and that we are in the branches, so to speak, surrounded by galaxy clusters. These clusters grow to super clusters at larger scales (>z=1.3) then a smooth zone 'the trunk'. It actually turns out trees do grow at accelerating rates with age. It's a simple explanation, and has lots of work to be done, and this a little bit of the story. The fractal also behaves a QM is described. Check out my paper if interested. Noone seems to be.

[@startroop69]

You're right, the observable universe has a diameter of 93 billion light years, even though the age of the universe is 13.77 billion light years, due to the effect you referred to.

[@Chivas6]

2:46 Looks just like an excellent game I used to play called Ichor. Can't find it anywhere now :(

[@bitodd]

You can't say there's a visible limit of 13.7 billion light years if we can visibly see something >13.7 Gly away. If you want to argue that it doesn't count because we aren't seeing it "as it is now", then you'd leave nothing in the "visible" universe, since our information is always delayed by the limit of distance/c.

[@Dlahusen1]

Thanks for the response.I actually agree with you for the most part, but I think the big bang theory is an exception. I am not ignorant on the science behind big bang astrology and understand the science and assumptions behind it (mostly). However, I think it is like Einsteins cosmological constant, a fudge factor used to fill in a hole. Furthermore, its holier-than-thou-status keeps physicists keep trying to fit square pegs in round holes, instead of truly trying to interpret what they see.

[@TechyBen]

Is the universe consistent with not being random? I wonder if this suggests so.

[@MDK1867]

Dear Brady, I am planning to do a large and important school project on CERN.However, before I attempt this undertaking I want to have a comprehensive knowledge of nuclear physics. My knowledge is so far rudimentary, though I do have a good grasp on the basics. But do you have any good physics books for starters like me? Any suggestions at all would be extremely helpful, as I don't want to buy a book which would turn out to be too technical/complex for me. From Mike (15)

[@zatoichiMiyamoto]

Profesor Copeland is such a lovely person

[@Aldowyn]

Where'd you get the stat for the '90 billion ly across'? From my understanding of the current model, that's impossible. The 'visible' universe means that light has to have had time to travel across that distance to us, meaning that it can't appear to be more than 13 billion light years away (or else the light wouldn't have had time to reach us). It's possible the universe itself is larger (if relative speeds exceed light speed, not sure) but not the VISIBLE universe from my understanding.

[@opmike343]

The thing that blows my mind is what if you keep "zooming" out. Imagine the observable universe being but a tiny grid of what is a massive grid of "observable universe" pixels if you will. Where does it end?

[@Aldowyn]

*googles* After wiki-ing, my best guess is that the ~90 bn ly isn't actually the the observed size of what we can see, like I assumed from 'visible' universe, but the extrapolated estimate of what it should be now assuming our theories are correct. So I'd assume that '4 bn ly' is how big it appears to be to us, without accounting for that estimate of what it is now after the expansion. It seems reasonable to base numbers off of observations instead of extrapolations, I guess.

[@calvintrainer1212]

I always wonder where did the universe got the all mass from to expand. Was it from another dimension?

[@jmorgan87]

The big bang you've heard of did not cause time and space. It was an event in an ocean of protomatter between universes. The root traces farther back than this universe, but since an ancestorless force is void of force-potential, nothing has ever existed. Even so, all things are infinite in existence due to the unfathomable relationship between infinity and negative infinity. Together they churn out reality on a zero-point.

[@JustinHallPlus]

I was just thinking, what if this structure was created from errosion? Seriously, if a dark energy stream proliferated across a large area, couldn't it knock galaxies away from it like blowing on grains of salt on a table? Then the galaxies that were closest together would just happen to avoid the effects of the expanding universe more than the others, so they would stay relatively close together overtme, while more distant galaxies would fly apart faster... What do you think?

[@hellojacklow]

So what is the significance of this structure? Will it create voids around the quasar because of its immense size and eventually everything around it collapses to form giant black holes?

[@moncef0147]

yup they actually are, he has a lot of other channels ans websites and blogs and stuff, you can check his website, i don't know if youtube will allow me to post it here, it's bradyharan com.

[@SuperSabaca]

ok. stupid question here. how do we tell how long ago something was on these sorts of scales? for example, time is passing differently on earth to where the gps satellites are, because the mass of our planet forces space time to behave differently. well what about when all the matter and space was essentially crammed to a point? assuming you could go back to that time and survive it, would your perception of time's passage be different than the measurements we have given those early events?

[@elengul]

The Universe is more than 13 billion light-years across. It's only roughly 13.8 billion years old, but, due to the expansion rate (not taking anything exotic like inflation theory), the visible Universe is more like 93ish billion light-years across.

[@MrTurdworthy]

So there was just one thing that i was curious about. And that was that wouldn't you want to compare the size of the structure to things during it's "time". Because light only travels so fast and if it is a large distance away it may be millions if not billions of light years away and so we are viewing the past. Now if we were able to view what it looks like today or even what other areas of space looked like during that time would there be more of these large structure.

[@bigmac8u]

3:38 "bearing in mind that the entire universe is only about 13 billion light years across".... I was always under the impression that the radius of the observable universe was quit a bit larger, 45 billion light years across. Have I misinterpreted what he said?

[@Powd3r81]

Gosh but let me tell ya, the after fact is so much more beautiful, you really have to appreciate the math to go after this sort of thing

[@ciarfah]

03:44 does he mean the observable universe here, also throughout the video and in the title I assume this is what he means by 'the universe'

[@jasonlindsay2082]

Could there be other large structures in other parts of the universe that'll then make it more homogeneous that we just haven't detected yet

[@fordsfords]

It's interesting. I probably watched this for the first time 2, maybe 3 years ago. And at the time I thought, "wow, this is cool". Since then, I've learned a lot about astronomy and cosmology. For some reason I clicked on this video again, and now I think, "WOW! THIS IS COOL!" I love that having more knowledge makes the universe an even stranger and more wonderful place. To the person who thinks that understanding the rainbow makes it less mysterious and beautiful: you don't know what you're missing. :-)

[@hawaiiguerilla]

i think the universe is expanding and compressing making it possible to have a very old universe. and were in the expanding time.

[@kllrbny]

(cont'd)... As well, our ability to see beyond the 42 billion light year sphere of the visible universe means that even if there is structure larger than that, we will never be able to see or prove its existence. Maybe. But again, for now, there seems to be an upper limit on things. So unless we dramatically and fundamentally change our understanding of the universe, it might not be all that a big a jump to say it is indeed the biggest structure we may ever observe.

[@ZoggFromBetelgeuse]

3:40 "The universe is only about 13 billion light years across". Do you mean the actual universe, or the _observable_ universe ?

[@whajtohdlsdkfn]

I would have responded to your point if the comment was coherent enough to understand what your point was. and yes I am aware of the saying

[@v3n0w]

Hi! If not by quantum effects, how can we explain this fluctuations? I mean, how was it explained before quantum mechanics come into play? Is there any other possible explanation? Kind regards.

[@MrKorrazonCold]

The Largest objects are actually filaments! They are Clusters of galaxies! "The greater the energy or mass the greater the spherical inward absorption and outward emission rate of EM-waves forming Einsteins curvature of spacetime. Magnetic fields always at right-angles forming spirals when light spheres superimpose crest and troughs become in phase their spacetimes will synchronize as the inward absorption causes them to resonate together towards the same moment of time the moment of emission."

[@akashashen]

Please Note: 13.8 Billion years is light travel time, NOT THE SIZE OF THE KNOWN UNIVERSE! 46 billion light years is the distance from Earth to the edge of the Observable Universe. Light traveled through an expanding Universe. @DeepSkyVideos should cover this sometime to save us from the unnecessary debate.

[@Thorloar]

Could it be that we simply have the wrong scale for the universe, could it actually be much larger than we think so that such a large structure is actually part of a homogeneous universe?

[@ShamanShawn]

so is the observable universe 93 billion or so light yrs across (due to the expansion of spacetime) or is it 13.7 billion light yrs across? i was finally convinced of the former not too long ago.

[@RWZiggy]

but if the observable universe is on the order of 1E-23 or less of the whole, maybe these structures are regular and repeated but just on a bigger scale than we can ever see

[@joshhennig9716]

is this an old numberphile? just found this channel!

[@arsenalfanrichi]

Assuming this is towards the centre of the universe, could it be possible that matter is still spewing from the centre?

[@andjelatatarovic8309]

I love your channel! Thank you!

[@saimon174666]

Meaning, if you stopped the universe from expanding for a while and start moving in one direction, where would you end?

[@draginofwar]

Question: Is it a moving object?