What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers’ points of view on the headlines making news.
276 Comments
- inactive, on 08/20/2008, -2/+84Space is big. REALLY big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.
- inactive, on 08/20/2008, -6/+71Here's how things came to be:
South Park style:
http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/11/03/evolution-so ...
Family guy style:
http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/07/09/evolution-vs ... - chrislongridge, on 08/20/2008, -4/+67That's easy, It's 42.
- 1ncu3us, on 08/20/2008, -0/+57I can't wait until Google Milky Way comes out
- skelliewag, on 08/19/2008, -0/+49I just hope that when they do find out they remember to include SPOILER in the title, i.e.
SPOILER: Click here if you want to find where the universe ends - hauntedchippy, on 08/20/2008, -1/+48Pedantry: CERN is the organisation. You mean the LHC. 20 days according to the website.
- BXRWXR, on 08/20/2008, -1/+46There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
- jknevitt, on 08/20/2008, -1/+42If you're standing on a beach, you can measure how big it is by observing without ever knowing how many grains of sand are beneath your feet. The Greeks managed to calculate the circumference of the Earth without ever having circumnavigated it. We humans have a pretty good track record of measuring the supposedly immeasurable.
- mlpoulter, on 08/20/2008, -2/+42Let me get this straight- some commenter on Digg thinks they know better than the qualified experts in this area, and yet it's the experts who are guilty of collosal arrogance?
- hauntedchippy, on 08/20/2008, -4/+44Yeah they're all bastards. Lets pack in this whole science thing and just head back to the trees eh?
- Patrikc325, on 08/19/2008, -7/+46We will all find out soon when the CERN fires up.
- ChstrCopperpot, on 08/20/2008, -2/+22Arrogance? Who's being arrogant? Science never claims to know everything, it only claims to be an open and honest search for answers, unclouded by "beliefs". Every theory is open to modification if the data is there. It is the OPPOSITE of arrogance.
- borez, on 08/20/2008, -5/+24I guess it a good way of getting research grants though.
- opticwind, on 08/20/2008, -1/+19I think you have all missed the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy quote and proved yourselves to be quite foolish. So long and thanks for all the bitch.
- 5xSTUN, on 08/20/2008, -0/+17Wonderful... I've just arrived at the fabulously beautiful planet Bethselamin. Anyone know why they're weighing the tourists as they get off the ship?
- byronm, on 08/20/2008, -0/+17If you think that's weird, watch the fantastic PBS "The Elegant Universe" series on string theory ;) When there are multiple universes flapping around in different dimensions it really gets you thinking.
PS, its available on the PBS website.. just login and search for it. - EntropyFan, on 08/20/2008, -2/+18With thinking like that, we would never have left the Dark Ages.
We use the tools we have to make the best estimates we can. Every clue leads us to the next fact, which usually have a few more clues attached.
And 'stars in our galaxy' is a counting exercise. the problem is most of our galaxy is hidden from us.
If we were above the plane, you could go 'one, two, ...' and get the answer. Not exactly difficult. - dazparkour, on 08/20/2008, -0/+16And afterwards, it's going to be exactly >.< this big.
- Inferno52386, on 08/20/2008, -1/+16My question is, what is outside of the universe. Shouldn't the universe be in something else? Maybe the universe is actually very small in comparison to what is holding the universe...Maybe?
- breadfred, on 08/20/2008, -3/+18You wonder if they can change a tire on their car. I wonder if you are capable of thinking.
- mstachiw, on 08/20/2008, -2/+17Scientists finally find the little groove at the beginning of the universe to stick the lip of the measuring tape in
- purecheese, on 08/20/2008, -1/+16This pretty much sums it up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwvPHx4galM
at least according to Yakko, Wakko and Dot. - krystofr, on 08/20/2008, -1/+16I still don't get how the universe "grows"... what space does it "fill up" as it gets bigger? There must be something beyond the universe if the universe is, indeed, getting bigger... no?
- inactive, on 08/19/2008, -4/+18Well written as usual. make sure you see the multimedia sections of the article.
- alperea, on 08/20/2008, -1/+14yes you are sorry. fortunately there are much smarter people than you working on these problems.
- quill, on 08/20/2008, -0/+13"For all they know, the universe is the size of our galaxy because everything else vaporized 100,000 years ago and the light of long-dead stars and galaxies is going to continue lighting up our telescopes for another 50,000 years before we figure out something went wrong."
I see the issue now. You don't understand what scientists are actually trying to measure.
They aren't trying to determine how far away the most distant star is. They're trying to measure the actual fabric of the universe. Spacetime is "real" thing. It's not just an abstract set of coordinates. Spacetime has a size and it has a shape. The entirety of all physical matter might fit within a sphere the size of a pea, but that doesn't determine the size of our universe.
It's an important question, because the size and shape of spacetime helps to explain how the universe was created, and this in turn will teach us (and confirm/deny) certain aspects of quantum physics and string theory. This is such a big and enormous topic that it's hard to convey within a comment, but you need to understand that this is a really different thing from measuring a galaxy. - diceau, on 08/20/2008, -0/+13Both shows are a class act ... the Simpsons one was great too.
STOP PRAYING TO THAT STALK! - MV559er, on 08/20/2008, -3/+16"The universe is a big place, perhaps the biggest." - Vonnegut
- cotaskmemalloc, on 08/20/2008, -1/+14whiterice0, I wish people like you, who clearly don't understand science, would just keep your ignorant mouths shut.
- dafragsta, on 08/20/2008, -0/+12Maybe it is, or maybe it spans infinity.
- thegrantman, on 08/20/2008, -3/+15I honestly do not know what you're talking about.It's a calculation.A very complex one. The more information we get,the closer we'll come to solving it.If I'm reading your comment correctly,you think that everytime we learn something that 2 more unknowns will pop up in its place? I don't believe that our body of knowledge is a Hydra.
- breadfred, on 08/20/2008, -5/+17Correction: this universe is so expansive that it goes beyond YOUR comprehension. There might actually be people out there who have studied astronomy and are more capable than you or I in abstract thinking!
- quill, on 08/20/2008, -1/+12The problem is that the question is far too complex to resolve within the confines of a digg comment box. One good way for the layperson to be brought up to date on the latest quantum and string theory ideas would be to read "The Elegant Universe" and "The Fabric of the Cosmos". These two books (which require no degrees and no mathematics to understand) will get you caught up with current scientific theories. (Even conflicting theories, where they exist.)
But to try to answer this here:
The question of "how many stars in a galaxy" and "how big is the universe" are very different and require completely different approaches to solve. This is just like saying "How can you get a rocket to the moon when we haven't even explored every part of our oceans?" The two things are very different and you can't exclude one just because we haven't achieved the other.
The size of the universe can be calculated and analyzed using a unique set of tools -- both literal tools as in satellites, telescopes, and probes, but also theoretical tools like mathematical models. And mathematical models can be extraordinarily accurate despite being non-physical. For example, they were used to guess the existence of the Neutrino -- which was only experimentally confirmed decades later. - slapded, on 08/20/2008, -1/+12more caramel
- TheCatsPants, on 08/20/2008, -1/+12"What I'm saying is stop telling the public you're close to discovering the size of the universe when you can't figure out a way to send someone to the next closest planet."
We can, it's just getting them there alive that's the problem. And then getting them back again (assuming they want to). And the money.
Anyway, your beef is with the reporting of science, not with science itself. I'm sure the scientists involved grimaced when they saw the snazzy headline. The public like their science simple, not dragged down with all the error-bars and 'what-ifs'. - thegrantman, on 08/20/2008, -4/+15We can't right now...but we will eventually.
- quill, on 08/20/2008, -0/+11"whiterice0, I wish people like you, who clearly don't understand science, would just keep your ignorant mouths shut."
Woah woah woah. Wrong attitude. I disagree with whiterice0, but I don't want him to keep his mouth shut. That kind of demand is a bigger step backwards that whiterice0's own statements.
What he needs to do is to ask more questions, and to be willing to hear the answers. And he's totally allowed to question the answers. That's a *good thing*. That's science.
Now, there's a difference between questioning and covering your ears with your hands and screaming "lalalala I can't hear you, I don't understand what you're doing, and I don't want to understand it."
As long as he doesn't devolve into that second thing, I'll encourage him to keep posting here. He just needs to read the replies to his posts. - silfiriel, on 08/20/2008, -0/+10You mean there's only 20 days left, to find out.
- quill, on 08/20/2008, -0/+10Hi cotaskmemalloc,
You may want to read the popular fiction series "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". It's a side-splittingly funny set of novels (a trilogy...in five parts), and that's where this "theory" is from. - cotaskmemalloc, on 08/20/2008, -2/+12You're the exact same type of person that thinks the Apollo program was worthless. People like you will never understand the benefit of science.
Also, you're an idiot, and clearly have no understanding of general relativity. If you did, maybe you'd be able to grasp why "flying some spaceship with an odometer from one side of the universe to the other in ever direction" wouldn't work. Why stop there? You don't understand inflationary cosmology, either. I could keep going on and on about why you're wrong, but I'm tired and want a Red Bull, so I'm going to go get one. - pradvan, on 08/20/2008, -0/+10That was pretty funny. I guess religious freaks are digging you down...
- j3ff86, on 08/20/2008, -0/+9*punches you in the stomach while you stretch arms*
- TheInfamousOne, on 08/20/2008, -1/+10Yes because while one research project is going on, every other scientist across the globe must stop what they're doing and wait for it to be finished.
- netdroid9, on 08/20/2008, -0/+9Google Galaxy?
- theOster, on 08/20/2008, -0/+8silly
- teh_techie, on 08/20/2008, -0/+8As a site note, did anyone notice that if you double click on any work in the article of the nytimes, it launches a window with a definition of the word using answers.com. WHY DIDN'T ANYONE TELL ME THAT!!?
- designerutah, on 08/20/2008, -1/+9"How does knowing how big the Universe is benefit mankind?" Short term answer is there is no concrete benefit. Long term answer is that understanding basic building blocks always benefits mankind. If our ancestors had said, "Why bother trying to calculate the size of the Earth? Just go measure it." We wouldn't have developed the math and engineering techniques to measure it. But once we had the math, that helped us calculate the mass of the Earth. And that helped us figure out what escape velocity is. And that allowed us to successfully put satellites into orbit. And so on, and so on. You do like your cell phone, right? Global communications? Knowing the weather? These are all "unanticipated but real benefits" of knowing how big the Earth is.
Science is important. And part of science is knowing how big, small, far away, etc. things are. Physics is the branch of science most concerned with measuring the physical size of the Universe. Theoretical physics deals with things that aren't understood. And Cosmology is the one of the most esoteric branches of theoretical physics. But out of this "vague crap that never benefits mankind" has come literally thousands of products with real benefits. From silicon chips to global communications to medical imaging technology to nuclear physics. At one point, these were all fields of study and measurement that had no "real, known benefit to mankind."
To deal with your second point, space exploration isn't just a show of power and technology. It is nothing more than a breeding ground for hig technology, and a testing ground for rapid advancement in difficult engineering. Concepts to consider here. Rockets (WWII) used in war, but theororized by science for space exploration, then led to jet engines (fighter planes, but also jet liners, jet boats, and Jet Skis, etc.
To get a good idea of what the "space race" did to help mankind, there are lists of concrete technologies developed for the space race that are beneficial to mankind. These lists cover the spectrum, from microwave ovens to carbon-fiber technology. Better medicines to cell phones. Improved materials (Teflon, velcro, etc.) to weather prediction models. The list is long, and involves almost every major level of human endeavor. Look it up yourself. But it has been calculated (sorry, I have forgotten who did this) that the return on investment for the 60s space race was on the order of 25 fold.
Personally, a few millions here and there is a good way to create new products, new technologies, and advance human understanding in massive ways that bring up the overall quality of life for mankind. Saying otherwise is a political lie told to help cut the budget of NASA while lining pork barrel policies with cash. - TheCatsPants, on 08/20/2008, -2/+10"When these people can tell me accurately what the weather will be like tomorrow, then I'll listen to the more complicated stuff."
So you think that predicting the future state of a chaotic system like the weather isn't complicated? I think I'd rather have a stab at establishing the inital conditions of the universe. - drkroman9, on 08/20/2008, -0/+7maybe the very concepts of 'small' and 'large' lose all meaning because there is simply a lack of space by which to reference such ideas. the quintessential concept of nothingness.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 278 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is