6 ms·

And... another author that doesn't get it or looks for a controversial, clickbaity title. The correct way to state it would be to say: "We are seing things tha

And... another author that doesn't get it or looks for a controversial, clickbaity title. The correct way to state it would be to say: "We are seing things that are currently 46B light years away but since they are so far away we see them as they were 13.8B years ago when they were much closer than they are now." I see absolutely nothing difficult about that statement unless you really need to create some piece of content and you figured out you will make something difficult so that you can then make it a little bit easier and be a hero.

deepsun 7y ago
I personally prefer to avoid saying "currently" for far away objects, because I don't understand it. Only what's in our light cone.
buboard 7y ago
your explanation would naturally raise the question why the difference. you can't really explain it without mentioning the expansion of the universe
mellosouls 7y ago
Your dismissal underestimates the qualifications and pedigree of an established and excellent populariser of "cool" scientific topics. Sure he goes for clickbaity articles now and then, but he's pretty good at them in my experience, and your summary is both incorrect (there is no "current" over that distance scale) and leaves all explanation out.
- eanzenberg 7y ago
  It’s about as wrong as looking out a window and claiming the earth is flat “because it’s easier to imagine.” Just as dangerous, too...
jeffdavis 7y ago
It's at lesst a little confusing how something went from 14B light years away to 46B light years away (seems to be a distance of 32B light years total travel) in 14B years.
- corrund 7y ago
  It's called "mathemagick".
  - ggggtez 7y ago
    No, the universe is expanding. No magic required.
    - corrund 7y ago
      Infinite amount of dark mathemagic is required for faster than light expansion of nothing.
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        Not really.
        troubler 7y ago
        FTL speed requires infinite amount of energy in this iteration of physics, except for case when vacuum is not empty, but even in this case medium cannot move at supersonic speed of medium, while still in one piece. If far away vacuum moves at FTL speed, then there must be "sonic" barrier somewhere.
        saagarjha 7y ago
        It's the fabric of spacetime that's expanding. Nothing physical is moving and thus no energy is necessary.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  You aren't stationary and space itself is expanding. The metaphor I normally see is a balloon being blown up.
  - 7y ago
ianai 7y ago
There’s a huge difference between click bait and this. Click bait makes a crazy claim anyone would want to click on, “click here to learn the secret of immortality”, and delivers something mundane with little connection like “antioxidants are good.” This is choosing a compelling title for a topic or concept that otherwise might be a little boring or otherwise get viewer clicks - aka, marketing.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Yet you can't account for them now being 46B light years away without breaching C, or encompassing the expansion of the universe, within which things are moving. I think he manages a clear explanation of that without scaring away too many. Your "correct" version on the other hand, leaves more questions than answers, not least of which being how do we ever get 46B ly distance in something 13.8B years old. Then you have to cover the expansion, relativity, and hey presto you've written the article. Just skimming the other comments here makes it clear it's not a topic that's well understood or intuitive. Clickbait it ain't, and the title is a very fair question. I'm really disappointed to see this the top voted HN answer right now...
- rotrux 7y ago
  Right - It is not clear how we can see something more than 13.8B ly away since it would take more than 13.8B years for signals of its existence to reach us. From our frame of reference, that would mean the emission started before the big bang.
- lmilcin 7y ago
  This was described almost hundred years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law "(...) the notion of the universe expanding at a calculable rate was first derived from the general relativity equations in 1922 by Alexander Friedmann" The space expands. It's been known for a long time. We might not know why exactly this happens and there is still some discussion about ultimate fate of the universe although prevalent theory is that it will expand at an ever faster rate until every molecule will be torn from each other and matter will no longer be able to form.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    Great, now you’ve started to touch on the points mentioned in the article.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Sure, but the high school, pop science and TV explanations of relativity and the universe rarely consider anything apart from the two trains travelling toward each other, nearing C, with an observer aboard one train. People can grasp that relatively easily, along with doppler explanations of red shift. Every decent attempt to take a step or two further is to be approved. :) When tracks start moving as well it gets mind bending, and no longer intuitive. Now we have multiple scenarios where the combination of track movement (universe expansion), and train movement result in it being "obvious" you have to exceed C somewhere, which we're told is impossible. Otherwise how can the distances end up where they are. It's between these two points most non-physicists stop as it starts to feel deeply contradictory.
heavyset_go 7y ago
It's a pop science article, and I'm sure the audience that's into pop science articles found it interesting and probably learned something. I'm not really sure what you expect.
KoftaBob 7y ago
The way you state it pretty blatantly leaves the question of "if they're 46B light years away, then how is the universe not at least that old?". This comment heavily reminds me of the mannerisms of professors that have the mentality of "I deeply understand this subject from years of past studies, so you should be able to understand it from my vague and half assed explanation alone".

deepsun 7y ago

I personally prefer to avoid saying "currently" for far away objects, because I don't understand it. Only what's in our light cone.

buboard 7y ago

your explanation would naturally raise the question why the difference. you can't really explain it without mentioning the expansion of the universe

mellosouls 7y ago

Your dismissal underestimates the qualifications and pedigree of an established and excellent populariser of "cool" scientific topics. Sure he goes for clickbaity articles now and then, but he's pretty good at them in my experience, and your summary is both incorrect (there is no "current" over that distance scale) and leaves all explanation out.

eanzenberg 7y ago
It’s about as wrong as looking out a window and claiming the earth is flat “because it’s easier to imagine.” Just as dangerous, too...

jeffdavis 7y ago

It's at lesst a little confusing how something went from 14B light years away to 46B light years away (seems to be a distance of 32B light years total travel) in 14B years.

corrund 7y ago
It's called "mathemagick".
- ggggtez 7y ago
  No, the universe is expanding. No magic required.
  - corrund 7y ago
    Infinite amount of dark mathemagic is required for faster than light expansion of nothing.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      Not really.
      - troubler 7y ago
        FTL speed requires infinite amount of energy in this iteration of physics, except for case when vacuum is not empty, but even in this case medium cannot move at supersonic speed of medium, while still in one piece. If far away vacuum moves at FTL speed, then there must be "sonic" barrier somewhere.
        saagarjha 7y ago
        It's the fabric of spacetime that's expanding. Nothing physical is moving and thus no energy is necessary.
michaelmrose 7y ago
You aren't stationary and space itself is expanding. The metaphor I normally see is a balloon being blown up.
- 7y ago

ianai 7y ago

There’s a huge difference between click bait and this. Click bait makes a crazy claim anyone would want to click on, “click here to learn the secret of immortality”, and delivers something mundane with little connection like “antioxidants are good.” This is choosing a compelling title for a topic or concept that otherwise might be a little boring or otherwise get viewer clicks - aka, marketing.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Yet you can't account for them now being 46B light years away without breaching C, or encompassing the expansion of the universe, within which things are moving. I think he manages a clear explanation of that without scaring away too many. Your "correct" version on the other hand, leaves more questions than answers, not least of which being how do we ever get 46B ly distance in something 13.8B years old. Then you have to cover the expansion, relativity, and hey presto you've written the article. Just skimming the other comments here makes it clear it's not a topic that's well understood or intuitive. Clickbait it ain't, and the title is a very fair question. I'm really disappointed to see this the top voted HN answer right now...

rotrux 7y ago
Right - It is not clear how we can see something more than 13.8B ly away since it would take more than 13.8B years for signals of its existence to reach us. From our frame of reference, that would mean the emission started before the big bang.
lmilcin 7y ago
This was described almost hundred years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law "(...) the notion of the universe expanding at a calculable rate was first derived from the general relativity equations in 1922 by Alexander Friedmann" The space expands. It's been known for a long time. We might not know why exactly this happens and there is still some discussion about ultimate fate of the universe although prevalent theory is that it will expand at an ever faster rate until every molecule will be torn from each other and matter will no longer be able to form.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Great, now you’ve started to touch on the points mentioned in the article.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Sure, but the high school, pop science and TV explanations of relativity and the universe rarely consider anything apart from the two trains travelling toward each other, nearing C, with an observer aboard one train. People can grasp that relatively easily, along with doppler explanations of red shift. Every decent attempt to take a step or two further is to be approved. :) When tracks start moving as well it gets mind bending, and no longer intuitive. Now we have multiple scenarios where the combination of track movement (universe expansion), and train movement result in it being "obvious" you have to exceed C somewhere, which we're told is impossible. Otherwise how can the distances end up where they are. It's between these two points most non-physicists stop as it starts to feel deeply contradictory.

heavyset_go 7y ago

It's a pop science article, and I'm sure the audience that's into pop science articles found it interesting and probably learned something. I'm not really sure what you expect.

KoftaBob 7y ago

The way you state it pretty blatantly leaves the question of "if they're 46B light years away, then how is the universe not at least that old?". This comment heavily reminds me of the mannerisms of professors that have the mentality of "I deeply understand this subject from years of past studies, so you should be able to understand it from my vague and half assed explanation alone".