max_pooper: BigBooper: BigBooper: These physicists found that the ultimate warp speed limit is 10³²C - or roughly 3.3 trillion trillion light years per second, and would require 10³¹J of energy. This speed is so fast, you could travel to the edge of the visible universe (14 billion light years) in 4.4 femtoseconds."

That didn't copy right the first time. Now fixed.

You mean I can't visit the Restaurant at the End of the Universe for less than the amount of metabolic energy in the cheese burger I would eat there? Damn.

If you ate a cheeseburger with the metabolic equivalent of 10³¹J of energy, your farts would destroy galaxies.

max_pooper: Barry McCackiner: I've read Stephen Hawking's books, I was a Science major in school, and as a hobby I try to keep up on all of the modern science ideas and theories. I still don't understand how this works. I don't understand how the light is just now reaching us. The more I think about it the more confused I get. Maybe I shouldn't be thinking about it in 3 dimensions but I can't help myself.

Marty you're not thinking 4-dimensionally...

Actually, it confuses the crap out of me too. Big band theory (and observed red Doppler shift) indicates that the universe is expanding. So if this new cluster of galaxies is 12.7 billion light years away, then the light that is just now reaching us did not travel 12.7 light-years to get here. The galaxies were actually closer to the Milky Way when the photons actually left the stars. I get a headache just thinking about it, if I actually saw all the math written down on paper I think me head would go super nova.

They still covered most of that distance. It's the empty spaces that are expanding so the photons journey was getting longer as it flew.

Barry McCackiner: OK I looked it up and I guess the Universe is 93 Billion light years across according to estimates. That doesn't make sense either. If the Universe started at a single point and it is 14.whatever billion years old then the widest it *should* be is 28 billion light years across and that would be assuming that the matter on the leading edge was traveling at an AVERAGE speed of the speed of light for 14 billion years. Yeargh my brain is exploding.

The maximum speed for celestial objects to move is the speed of light, but the space in between can expand faster than light. So something or other...

What if time, the way we think of it, is backwards, and we are merely counting down to the beginning?

What if C-A-T really spelled "dog?"

Bondith: BigBooper
It's from the first Geek Thread of the day. A new theory of warp drives for FTL travel. From that article "Interestingly enough, there is a limit to how much spacetime can be warped under M-theory. These physicists found that the ultimate warp speed limit is 1032C - or roughly 3.3 trillion trillion light years per second, and would require 1031J of energy. This speed is so fast, you could travel to the edge of the visible universe (14 billion light years) in 4.4 femtoseconds."

So in other words, the only thing we need for near infinite speed is near infinite power!

1.031kJ is a pittance, unless there are some details from the original article I didn't read.

Yeah, no. Not 1031... 10^31. That little ^ makes for one ginormous ass-load of difference.

Barry McCackiner: OK I looked it up and I guess the Universe is 93 Billion light years across according to estimates. That doesn't make sense either. If the Universe started at a single point and it is 14.whatever billion years old then the widest it *should* be is 28 billion light years across and that would be assuming that the matter on the leading edge was traveling at an AVERAGE speed of the speed of light for 14 billion years. Yeargh my brain is exploding.

The big bang involves space itself expanding. Two things were one meter apart, space expanded, and without either of those things moving, they are now two meters apart. Etc.

No, it doesn't make much intuitive sense, because in our daily lives, nothing does that. Think of it like a balloon. Make two marks on a partially inflated balloon, inflate it further and look at them. They're farther apart, but neither moved (in the reference frame of the balloon's surface at least). The surface of the balloon is our reality, the points are objects in space.

Semi-related: I've never seen Carl Sagan's Cosmos, but I notice it's available for streaming on Netflix. Is that worth watching?

Tenga: Evil Kirk vs Bad Ash: We're not looking out at older things, we're looking in at younger things.

Unless we're the center of where the Big Bang originated, doesn't that have to be true in some direction?

Wayne 985: Semi-related: I've never seen Carl Sagan's Cosmos, but I notice it's available for streaming on Netflix. Is that worth watching?

Oh possible God yes! The man's voice alone is calming and zen, like Allen Watts.

Barry McCackiner: I've read Stephen Hawking's books, I was a Science major in school, and as a hobby I try to keep up on all of the modern science ideas and theories. I still don't understand how this works. I don't understand how the light is just now reaching us. The more I think about it the more confused I get. Maybe I shouldn't be thinking about it in 3 dimensions but I can't help myself.

You think in such three-dimensional terms. How small you've become.

/obscure?

Also - the balloon analogy albeit simple, often times explains things beautifully.

Before blowing up a balloon, get a felt tip pen and put a few dots on it. Examine what you have just done. Before you do anything, this is time 1 (0 was getting the balloon). Now blow up the balloon 1/4 of the potential size it can be. The dots have moved from their original position to a new position (we'll call this time 2). Blow the balloon now up to its maximum without popping it (we'll call this time 3)

Each point in time we'll add some new dots to represent newly formed galaxies.

Time 0 isn't observable, at the very least, to us at the moment (it may be who knows).
Time 1 is observable so long as the position of the source of light happens to be within reach for that original source of light to reach us.
Time 2 could be observable, depending on the source light's position from us (lets just say the observer shows up here)
Time 3 cannot be observed (now lets say the observer has the technology to look around)

Of course, this is hugely over simplifying the universe. It is most likely not a balloon. All this time, time is progressing forward in some direction, so objects are continuously moving and the light an object emitted either: hit us, missed us, or just isn't capable of being observed.

(my head hurts, someone correct me if I'm wrong on something in regard to how time works, but I'm pretty sure that light is also the greatest troll in existence).

Wayne 985: Semi-related: I've never seen Carl Sagan's Cosmos, but I notice it's available for streaming on Netflix. Is that worth watching?

Yes, it's definitely worth watching.

max_pooper: Actually, it confuses the crap out of me too. Big band theory

The theory that more instruments is better.

namatad: wait
what?
that makes those galaxies about 2 billion years old???
WTF!!!

...and that's assuming the Milky Way galaxy is the center of the universe, which it probably is not. It could be far, far older than that.

Malivon: Barry McCackiner: I've read Stephen Hawking's books, I was a Science major in school, and as a hobby I try to keep up on all of the modern science ideas and theories. I still don't understand how this works. I don't understand how the light is just now reaching us. The more I think about it the more confused I get. Maybe I shouldn't be thinking about it in 3 dimensions but I can't help myself.

You think in such three-dimensional terms. How small you've become.

/obscure?

Also - the balloon analogy albeit simple, often times explains things beautifully.

Before blowing up a balloon, get a felt tip pen and put a few dots on it. Examine what you have just done. Before you do anything, this is time 1 (0 was getting the balloon). Now blow up the balloon 1/4 of the potential size it can be. The dots have moved from their original position to a new position (we'll call this time 2). Blow the balloon now up to its maximum without popping it (we'll call this time 3)

Each point in time we'll add some new dots to represent newly formed galaxies.

Time 0 isn't observable, at the very least, to us at the moment (it may be who knows).
Time 1 is observable so long as the position of the source of light happens to be within reach for that original source of light to reach us.
Time 2 could be observable, depending on the source light's position from us (lets just say the observer shows up here)
Time 3 cannot be observed (now lets say the observer has the technology to look around)

Of course, this is hugely over simplifying the universe. It is most likely not a balloon. All this time, time is progressing forward in some direction, so objects are continuously moving and the light an object emitted either: hit us, missed us, or just isn't capable of being observed.

(my head hurts, someone correct me if I'm wrong on something in regard to how time works, but I'm pretty sure that light is also the greatest troll in existence).

Yeah OK I always forget about the medium of space expanding. I think this can also be combined with the fact that light travels in very weird ways when it is influenced by gravity (which is what I think you are referring to in the last comment). Something like where light traveling in the same "distance" as we know it can take longer to get somewhere because of the affects of gravity and the warping of space-time. Anyways, shiats crazy.

Wayne 985: Semi-related: I've never seen Carl Sagan's Cosmos, but I notice it's available for streaming on Netflix. Is that worth watching?

No. Left wing rubbish.

You are better off with Walker, Texas Ranger or Touched By An Angel.

/seriously, thanks for the tip. I've not seen it either but farkers rave about it. Going in my queue.

Fark Me To Tears: Astronomers find a cluster of galaxies 12.7 *billion* light years away. Seriously, that's Farking amazing

That doesn't make any sense, subby. If God created the heavens and the earth only 6000 years ago, then how can light from galaxies 12.7 billion light years away reach here in only 6000 years? Hello? Professor Einstein? Can you explain this one to us?

Jeez, subby. Get your scientific facts straight with the Lord.

God created a 13.75 billion-year-old universe 6,000 years ago.

Which one will Elon Musk retire on? All he needs is a 100kg of antimatter, 3D printed in a private space station from asteroid material. Wow, what great times we live in!

Wayne 985: Semi-related: I've never seen Carl Sagan's Cosmos, but I notice it's available for streaming on Netflix. Is that worth watching?

If you're asking, it means you already want to. Yes. Go watch it. Sagan bestrides all like a colossus of yore, you'll get over the hokey late 70s special effects in about 5 seconds.

Wayne 985: Semi-related: I've never seen Carl Sagan's Cosmos, but I notice it's available for streaming on Netflix. Is that worth watching?

I believe its best viewed after smoking a certain plant.

/Carl would have wanted it that way

J. Frank Parnell: Roger_the_Shrubber: Perhaps because some things simply are perpetually amazing.

Not sure what your point is. Are you implying there should be no passion and fascination in science?

Are you still fascinated and amazed by magnetism, like the Insane Clown Posse?

Just saying that old news isn't very exciting, even if it's science related. There is nothing about this 'discovery' that should come as a surprise.

Oh well, so we don't share the same definitions of "fascinating" and "amazing". Sorry if my "not sure what your point is" comment came across a little coarse. However, to respond:

Am I amazed by a hunk of metal that sticks to the fridge without glue or tape? No of course not.
Is the aurora borealis pretty cool? Yup.
Are solar flares kinda awesome? You bet.
Am I grateful that the iron dynamo a couple thousand miles beneath our feet helped promote complex life and still protects us from a dangerous universe? Oh my yes.

So am I still fascinated and amazed by magnetism? Unashamedly yes.

big pig peaches: How many parsecs is that?

About 15.3.

Jubeebee: Those were put there by God to help ancient sailors with 8.2 meter infrared telescopes navigate the oceans.

Dumping Atheists drivel like this is as bad as if someone came in and started preaching about God.

Go be smug somewhere else.

Barry McCackiner: the widest it *should* be is 28 billion light years across and that would be assuming that the matter on the leading edge was traveling at an AVERAGE speed of the speed of light for 14 billion years.

In general relativity, "velocity" is a purely local idea. It does not scale directly to huge distances or times because it does not take into account the expansion of space itself.

For that you need something like Comoving Distance, which doesn't have an easily defined relationship to general relativity.

profplump: Barry McCackiner: the widest it *should* be is 28 billion light years across and that would be assuming that the matter on the leading edge was traveling at an AVERAGE speed of the speed of light for 14 billion years.

In general relativity, "velocity" is a purely local idea. It does not scale directly to huge distances or times because it does not take into account the expansion of space itself.

For that you need something like Comoving Distance, which doesn't have an easily defined relationship to general relativity.

So, if you take the example of the balloon with spots, we don't know the rate of expansion, and we don't know if that expansion has been regular or irregular.

I'm sure that's oversimplified by a factor of 1000, but am I right?

Today. Astronomers find a cluster of galaxies 12.7 *billion* light years away. Tomorrow. Young earth creationists say that "The data is flawed, misinterpreted, false or there's something else wrong with it because it does not verify our wishful thinking."

/believes there is a God that created everything, but is not blind to scientific fact

Every time we can see further out, we "discover" more stars and planets and solar systems and galaxies. Hell, it's *almost* like the entire universe was full of nothing else. I bet when we can see even further out, we'll find....more stars and planets and solar systems and galaxies.

dbirchall: animal900: The astronomers used the massive 8.2 meter Subaru telescope....

Since this is really all I'm taking away from the article, I need someone to photoshop a bunch of lab coats in an observatory looking at the sky through the tailpipe of a Forester. Please.

One or two people who work there actually have those... but the scope itself was built by a division of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, while Foresters are built by a division of their competitor, Fuji Heavy Industries. It took a while and a lot of lawyers to sort that out.

/My profile photo may be vaguely relevant to this link

Fun facts: Subaru is the Japanese name for the Pleiades star cluster. If you look at the Subaru logo, you'll notice that... My God, it's full of stars!

Despite the nickname of "The Seven Sisters" The Pleiades are often depicted (as in the Subaru logo) by only six stars. This is because most people can only discern six distinct stars with the naked eye.

Re: this balloon analogy (and more interesting reading), see "Misconceptions about the Big Bang -- Baffled by the expansion of the universe? You're not alone. Even astronomers frequently get it wrong" (LGT PDF, pops)

I can't comprehend all the logic that makes up the universe so I just takes pictures of it...

Roger_the_Shrubber: Am I amazed by a hunk of metal that sticks to the fridge without glue or tape? No of course not.
Is the aurora borealis pretty cool? Yup.
Are solar flares kinda awesome? You bet.
Am I grateful that the iron dynamo a couple thousand miles beneath our feet helped promote complex life and still protects us from a dangerous universe? Oh my yes.

So am I still fascinated and amazed by magnetism? Unashamedly yes.

I have respect and an admiration for things like that, but i reserve the 'farking amazing' status for new discoveries.

Barry McCackiner: OK I looked it up and I guess the Universe is 93 Billion light years across according to estimates. That doesn't make sense either. If the Universe started at a single point and it is 14.whatever billion years old then the widest it *should* be is 28 billion light years across and that would be assuming that the matter on the leading edge was traveling at an AVERAGE speed of the speed of light for 14 billion years. Yeargh my brain is exploding.

Cosmic inflation means the universe can be significantly larger than the speed of light allows for. Just because the fastest thing in the universe can't keep up doesn't mean the Universe waits for it.

wjllope: Re: this balloon analogy (and more interesting reading), see "Misconceptions about the Big Bang -- Baffled by the expansion of the universe? You're not alone. Even astronomers frequently get it wrong" (LGT PDF, pops)

The balloon analogy that I used was overly simplistic, had flaws, and simply cannot explain how the universe works.

However, it does work in the sense that you can use it like any device to teach or explain something so it doesn't overly complicate the matter. Once you over complicate anything, you loose.

The universe has no defined, absolute center - I think anyone with some sense of this will agree.

Where is this going?

We're small. We're so incredibly small. The universe is big, it will remain big, and we'll never be able to fully realize just what is beyond; our own visible portion of it because when it comes to big numbers, we suck at comprehending the vastness of it all. Perhaps the reason we cannot begin to understand hugely complicated things is because the universe is just so mindbogglingly huge. You'll never fully comprehend what you may read regarding the universe because it will continue to become distorted with new data that will challenge what you just read. Science is amazing, but what is more amazing is the drive that humans have to find an answer to a question that will probably remain unanswered for a very long time.

TLDR: Humans are small. Universe is big. Center of the universe is not you or a balloon. Questions are the best tools we have and should be asked all the time (unless they've been answered, are very obvious to answer, or are as amazingly profound as the universe is in the realm of sheer stupidity that they shall be ignored) so science can continue its job to find the answers.

Madbassist1: Yaxe: Cosmic inflation means the universe can be significantly larger than the speed of light allows for. Just because the fastest thing in the universe can't keep up doesn't mean the Universe waits for it.

ah yes...'cosmic inflation' another in the long line of 'If we can't get the numbers to fit, we'll just change the farking rules!'

/see dark matter, dark energy et al.

Fine, YOU unify classical and quantum physics then.