7 ms·

This [0] IMHO gives more perspective (don't be taken aback by the flashy images, the good stuff comes after, ~2:50 mark) When watching, remember this is when lo

by lloeki 15y ago

This [0] IMHO gives more perspective (don't be taken aback by the flashy images, the good stuff comes after, ~2:50 mark) When watching, remember this is when looking at the absolute darkest spot of our sky. [0] Hubble Ultra Deep Field in 3D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVjF_7ensg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVjF_7ensg PS: Inevitably, the title reminded me of this: Space is 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 road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

acdanger 15y ago
"The universe is a big place. Perhaps the biggest" - Kilgore Trout
- rokhayakebe 15y ago
  What did the author mean by "Perhaps?"
  - dsr_ 15y ago
    Kilgore Trout is a fictional character. You could ask Kurt Vonnegut, who invented him, but he's dead. You can certainly assume that it's meant to be humorous.
  - njharman 15y ago
    He meant to entertain the reader with a clever turn of phrase. Something good authors are apt to do.
  - batista 15y ago
    For one, it's a clever, humorous phrase, since the conventional wisdom is that the universe IS the biggest place, so there would be no reason for "perhaps". Second, it also entertains some doubt: perhaps the universe IS NOT the biggest place. Maybe the conventional wisdom is wrong. Maybe other places exists, from the mythical and spiritual domain (like paradise and hell and Valhala etc), to the scientific domain (multiverses, many worlds interpretation of QM, etc).
    - wladimir 15y ago
      Interesting thought. I wonder, though, what makes those places separate from the universe? The universe including those other places, metaphysical and scientific, would be even bigger and more mind-boggling.
      - batista 15y ago
        Well, you have to define the universe at some point, and the most common definition on people's minds it's "this thing which our galaxy is in". I would presume that common perceptions don't include such notions as "separate reality split-universes" and sets of multi-verses, and what have you.
mortenjorck 15y ago
I still remember the time I saw the first Hubble Deep Field. The idea that the researchers could point this massive telescope at an empty part of the starfield, run a long exposure, and come back with a plate full of galaxies full of solar systems full of planets, while we've yet to get too far beyond the surface of our own. A lot of people's first reaction always seems to be "we're so insignificant!" And yet, most fascinating to me is trying to reconcile the vast complexities of our planet and of humans with our physical near-nonexistence in the universe. We have infinite complexity in approximately zero space. Kind of a strange thing to consider.
- grannyg00se 15y ago
  "A lot of people's first reaction always seems to be "we're so insignificant!" " Neil deGrasse Tyson often counters this reaction by pointing out that while the universe is vast, we are made of it. So we are not simply small separate objects in a large universe, we are actually part of the physical elements that make it up and come from the same "stuff". At least that's what I gather when he says this: "Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. That’s kinda cool! That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. It’s not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOzkEwaMnaE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOzkEwaMnaE http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/12855.Neil_deGrasse_Tyson http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/12855.Neil_deGrasse_T...
  - JonnieCache 15y ago
    Feynman countered this by saying we're extremely large compared to atoms and fundamental particles, so we can "sit in the middle and enjoy everything both ways." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmzHQljJ4bc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmzHQljJ4bc
zeteo 15y ago
Astronomical numbers may be large but in e.g. computational science people have been dealing with even larger numbers for quite a while now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number
- JonnieCache 15y ago
  Not wishing to be rude but that's peanuts. Try http://www.xamuel.com/busy-beaver-numbers/ http://www.xamuel.com/busy-beaver-numbers/ If anyone can come up with any larger numbers I'd like to hear them. EDIT: Oh and if you think the universe is big and hard to imagine, try considering the phase space of the entire universe! That's the set of all possible configurations of all the particles. Bananas. I encourage you to watch this lecture from Roger Penrose, Aeons Before the Big Bang, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OutKE3tyG94 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OutKE3tyG94 ...if only for the fantastic hand-drawn overhead transparencies in all the colours of the rainbow. They are a delight and I want to see hipster programmers using them at conferences. BTW also watch it for the crazy physics.
  - zeteo 15y ago
    Yes, I know Shannon's number is "small". The point was that it's been around for a while, and that with the right mathematical tools one can deal with such numbers without having their mind boggled.
    - JonnieCache 15y ago
      Fair enough. I clicked on the link expecting to get something like graham's number or TREE(3) or some other monstrosity, and felt kind of cheated when it was only 10^43 ;) Do those mathematical methods really allow us to comprehend these numbers though? They only really allow use to express them as configurations of other numbers don't they? Even if you understand hyperoperations and stuff you're not really gazing upon what those figures really entail. I suppose all mathematics involves notation in the end.
      - 15y ago

by lloeki 15y ago

acdanger 15y ago

"The universe is a big place. Perhaps the biggest" - Kilgore Trout

rokhayakebe 15y ago
What did the author mean by "Perhaps?"
- dsr_ 15y ago
  Kilgore Trout is a fictional character. You could ask Kurt Vonnegut, who invented him, but he's dead. You can certainly assume that it's meant to be humorous.
- njharman 15y ago
  He meant to entertain the reader with a clever turn of phrase. Something good authors are apt to do.
- batista 15y ago
  For one, it's a clever, humorous phrase, since the conventional wisdom is that the universe IS the biggest place, so there would be no reason for "perhaps". Second, it also entertains some doubt: perhaps the universe IS NOT the biggest place. Maybe the conventional wisdom is wrong. Maybe other places exists, from the mythical and spiritual domain (like paradise and hell and Valhala etc), to the scientific domain (multiverses, many worlds interpretation of QM, etc).
  - wladimir 15y ago
    Interesting thought. I wonder, though, what makes those places separate from the universe? The universe including those other places, metaphysical and scientific, would be even bigger and more mind-boggling.
    - batista 15y ago
      Well, you have to define the universe at some point, and the most common definition on people's minds it's "this thing which our galaxy is in". I would presume that common perceptions don't include such notions as "separate reality split-universes" and sets of multi-verses, and what have you.

mortenjorck 15y ago

I still remember the time I saw the first Hubble Deep Field. The idea that the researchers could point this massive telescope at an empty part of the starfield, run a long exposure, and come back with a plate full of galaxies full of solar systems full of planets, while we've yet to get too far beyond the surface of our own. A lot of people's first reaction always seems to be "we're so insignificant!" And yet, most fascinating to me is trying to reconcile the vast complexities of our planet and of humans with our physical near-nonexistence in the universe. We have infinite complexity in approximately zero space. Kind of a strange thing to consider.

grannyg00se 15y ago
"A lot of people's first reaction always seems to be "we're so insignificant!" " Neil deGrasse Tyson often counters this reaction by pointing out that while the universe is vast, we are made of it. So we are not simply small separate objects in a large universe, we are actually part of the physical elements that make it up and come from the same "stuff". At least that's what I gather when he says this: "Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. That’s kinda cool! That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. It’s not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOzkEwaMnaE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOzkEwaMnaE http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/12855.Neil_deGrasse_Tyson http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/12855.Neil_deGrasse_T...
- JonnieCache 15y ago
  Feynman countered this by saying we're extremely large compared to atoms and fundamental particles, so we can "sit in the middle and enjoy everything both ways." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmzHQljJ4bc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmzHQljJ4bc

zeteo 15y ago

Astronomical numbers may be large but in e.g. computational science people have been dealing with even larger numbers for quite a while now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number

JonnieCache 15y ago
Not wishing to be rude but that's peanuts. Try http://www.xamuel.com/busy-beaver-numbers/ http://www.xamuel.com/busy-beaver-numbers/ If anyone can come up with any larger numbers I'd like to hear them. EDIT: Oh and if you think the universe is big and hard to imagine, try considering the phase space of the entire universe! That's the set of all possible configurations of all the particles. Bananas. I encourage you to watch this lecture from Roger Penrose, Aeons Before the Big Bang, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OutKE3tyG94 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OutKE3tyG94 ...if only for the fantastic hand-drawn overhead transparencies in all the colours of the rainbow. They are a delight and I want to see hipster programmers using them at conferences. BTW also watch it for the crazy physics.
- zeteo 15y ago
  Yes, I know Shannon's number is "small". The point was that it's been around for a while, and that with the right mathematical tools one can deal with such numbers without having their mind boggled.
  - JonnieCache 15y ago
    Fair enough. I clicked on the link expecting to get something like graham's number or TREE(3) or some other monstrosity, and felt kind of cheated when it was only 10^43 ;) Do those mathematical methods really allow us to comprehend these numbers though? They only really allow use to express them as configurations of other numbers don't they? Even if you understand hyperoperations and stuff you're not really gazing upon what those figures really entail. I suppose all mathematics involves notation in the end.
    - 15y ago