Current theory is that the universe is aproximately 92 billion light years across and expanding. Put another way, multiply incredibly large by gigantic and then multiply that by stupendously enormous to the power huge.
Wikipedia says;
The comoving distance from the Earth to the edge of the visible universe is about 46.5 billion light-years in any direction; this is the comoving radius of the visible universe. It is sometimes quoted as a diameter of 92-94 billion light-years. Since the visible universe is a perfect sphere and space is roughly flat, this size corresponds to a comoving volume of about 4/3 π R3 = 4.0×1032 cubic light-years or 3.4×1080 cubic meters.
The figures quoted above are distances now (in cosmological time), not distances at the time the light was emitted. For example, the cosmic microwave background radiation that we see right now was emitted about 13.7 billion years ago by matter that has, in the intervening time, condensed into galaxies. Those galaxies are now about 46 billion light-years from us, but at the time the light was emitted, that matter was only about 40 million light-years away from the matter that would eventually become the Earth. See comoving coordinates.
Misconceptions
Many secondary sources have reported a wide variety of incorrect figures for the size of the visible universe. Some of these are listed below.
13.7 billion light-years. The age of the universe is about 13.7 billion years, and nothing travels faster than light; does it not follow that the radius of the observable universe must be 13.7 billion light-years? This reasoning might make sense if we lived in the flat spacetime of special relativity, but in the real universe, spacetime (not space!) is highly curved at cosmological scales, and light does not move rectilinearly. Distances obtained as the speed of light times a cosmological time interval have no direct physical significance. [3]
15.8 billion light-years. This is obtained in the same way as the 13.7 billion light-year figure, but starting from an incorrect age of the universe which was reported in the popular press in mid-2006 (e.g. [1] [2] [3]). For an analysis of this claim and the paper that prompted it, see [4].
27 billion light-years. This is a diameter obtained from the (incorrect) radius of 13.7 billion light-years.
78 billion light-years. This figure, as mentioned above, is a lower bound on the size of the whole universe, and has nothing to do with the size of the visible universe.
156 billion light-years. This figure was obtained by doubling 78 billion light-years on the assumption that it is a radius. Since 78 billion light-years is already a diameter (or rather a circumference), the doubled figure is meaningless even in its original context. This figure was very widely reported (e.g. [4] [5] [6]).
180 billion light-years. This estimate accompanied the age estimate of 15.8 billion years in some sources; it was obtained by incorrectly adding 15% to the incorrect figure of 156 billion light-years.
2007-01-22 00:42:52
·
answer #1
·
answered by djoldgeezer 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
you're making one implicit assumption, that the "universe" did not exist earlier the tremendous Bang, that it become "brought about". All we've determined is that what become to develop into the universe become constrained to a singularity, so dense that area, time and the organic residences of count number and power were indistinguishable and meaningless. theory and attempt are proving that aspect isn't an objectively ticking clock yet is challenge to its spatial and quantum power context. If each and every thing is all one component, all in a unmarried aspect, there is not any change and for this reason no time. Any deviation from that state is a diffusion of time (and area) into physcal truth. So we went from a dimensionless universe to a multi-dimensioned universe, introducing time, area and the particular residences of count number/power. yet each and every thing already existed and continuously does exist, in a unmarried type or yet another. The Bang is merely the temporally pointy end of a universe that continuously exists. No "reason" is needed, in user-friendly words change. "Explosion" is a deceptive time period. The Bang become no longer some thing like a chemical reaction. notwithstanding the analogy is sensible. quick boom isn't the "creation" of a few thing, in user-friendly words rearrangement by technique of change of state. An explosion would contain conversion of chemical power to warmth power, or conversion of a strong or liquid to a gas with a intense vapor stress. We journey it as some thing appearing out of nowhere, yet each and every erg and atom become already present earlier the reaction began. in addition, each and every thing contained in the increasing universe become already present on the point at the same time as boom began. we received't say it existed "earlier" in user-friendly words because "earlier" has no meaning in an unexpanded universe. that is continuously existent.
2016-12-02 21:28:24
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
They have an idea when the universe started but when it will end is very uncertain.
Unlike "men in black" I think we have a good idea of the extent of the universe.
The method of the demise of the universe is not speculated upon too often it is too controversial.
The present consensus it about 13.5 billion years,but there may be reasons why it may be much smaller.
2007-01-22 02:06:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by Billy Butthead 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I know it's a flimsy response, but the truth is that, in all likelihood, no man will ever know how large the entire universe is. It's simply vaste, beyond human comprehension. We can explore as much of it as is humanly possible; we can send sattelites, probes, rockets, monkeys- and we'll never really know for sure.
There just aren't enough years in a single human's lifetime to explore the reaches; and no transmitter strong enough.
2007-01-21 22:32:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by Mya 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Our universe will continue expanding for at least the next 100,000,000 years. Hope I am around to see it stop.
2007-01-21 23:10:45
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋