> Does the author essentially mean that the smaller universe still had only a part of it observable? No, I think John C. Mather there is focused wholly on the

> Does the author essentially mean that the smaller universe still had only a part of it observable? No, I think John C. Mather there is focused wholly on the concept of infinity. So even if the whole observable universe (30 billion light-years across) got squished to the size of a golf ball, the whole universe (infinity light-years across) would still be infinite, because multiplying infinity by some small constant still equals infinity.