Pharyngula

Posted by: Martin | December 19, 2009 9:34 AM

Wow! I actually had to stop watching that after a certain point! It's literally like the Total Perspective Vortex in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, except my reaction was (to mix my cultural references) a lot less like Zaphod's and more like Bloom County's Oliver Wendell Jones. The immensity of the universe is so staggering to contemplate I just want a cookie.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | December 19, 2009 9:42 AM

And thinking it was all made so we can exist is in no way arrogant or narcissistic.

(Here is xkcd's not as visually stunning, but funnier, showing of the observable universe)

Posted by: vanharris | December 19, 2009 9:44 AM

But where was Jebus?

Posted by: NonStampCollector | December 19, 2009 10:00 AM

Sorry, a man walking on water is much more impressive. Especially since he believed that demons caused disease.

Posted by: DB | December 19, 2009 10:08 AM

It was the realization of the immense scope of the universe that first lead me from theism to deism to atheism.

It is unbelievable to me that anyone can contemplate the universe for even a minute and still cling to any form of theism. their are over a hundred billion stars in our galaxy alone and millions upon millions of galaxies more, countless planets spanning an expanse so large it is simply beyond the realm of human comprehension. To look at that and be able to think it exists merely as a pretty backdrop for us while we sort out the important stuff like what you can eat, who you can have sex with and whether or not women should wear hats, To think that it is the petty minutiae of our day to day lives that is whats of grand cosmic, eternal significance takes a level of arrogance I cannot begin to understand.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 19, 2009 10:16 AM

it sucks when PZ uses the best comment as the post title

Posted by: Aratina Cage | December 19, 2009 10:21 AM

Incredible visualization! Now I too have seen everything there was. I really liked how the camera spun around to show Orion's Belt (which I see in the sky most nights and use to find my favorite constellations) when the full Earth came into view.

How likely would it be to find something like this playing at religious gatherings (without a god edited in somewhere)? The known universe is beautiful yes, but it was and is completely inhospitable for the most part. How do sheeple explain even the smallest slice of it such as the existence of the other planets in our solar system?

Posted by: Dave Dell | December 19, 2009 10:26 AM

"Consider the true picture. Think of myriads of tiny bubbles, very sparsely scattered, rising through a vast black sea. We rule some of the bubbles. Of the waters we know nothing..."

From "The Mote in God's Eye" by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | December 19, 2009 10:36 AM

What about one that goes the other way now. I want to feel big again...

xkcd again.

Posted by: Jndala | December 19, 2009 10:45 AM

Lovely, what a great thing to wake up to on a Saturday morning! My only complaint, of course, is the lack of resolution when we get past the planets in our solar system. Why don't we have starships that travel at relativistic speeds yet?

Posted by: UXO | December 19, 2009 11:27 AM

Actually, to be pedantic, it's the entire known universe in 3.5 minutes - the remainder's the trip home. Making good time, one might say! :)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | December 19, 2009 11:43 AM

I am impressed.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | December 19, 2009 11:46 AM

"I can see how someone could see god in all of this, it is a true majestic mystery after all..."

I'm not sure how. To me, it just underlines how small the god concept really is, at least in the morality play of Christianity.

Posted by: Evil Eye | December 19, 2009 11:52 AM

The only thing that is misleading is that the universe is a spheroid. There is no center to the universe and no outer edge. This spheroid they show is of the "known", or observable universe. What we can look at so far. The universe is not a 3 dimensional bubble. Everywhere is both the center AND the edge.

We haven't seen the entire universe yet. Just that much.

Think of it this way...

Where is the center of you? Not geometrically, but where is your beginning?

Posted by: Psychodigger | December 19, 2009 11:59 AM

Fucking amazing. I thought it was going to be a bit of a boring clip, until I realised the six minutes were already over, and I wachted it a gain! Indeed a ridiculously end way to end (in my case) a saturday.

@ #10 Well said!

Posted by: Sclerophanax | December 19, 2009 12:18 PM

I absolutely loved how they showed you the actual scale of the solar system. I'm so sick of how just about every bit of CGI showing the planets where you move away from the Earth and through the solar system, past the other planetary bodies, which apparently is supposed to show us something informative completely fucks up the distances: Mars is usually about as far away from the Earth as the moon should be, Jupiter only twice as far and Saturn just next to it.

We are incredibly far from anything else, even the nearest rocky planet. Staring at the place we are shown Earth should be and waiting and waiting for it to appear while moving towards it at an immense speed really helps drive the point home. Earth is a tiny little speck in a vast emptyness. And there are no nearby islands in this sea of nothing. If everybody realized this, maybe we wouldn't be so careless about squandering the Earth's very limited resources.

Posted by: tsg | December 19, 2009 12:36 PM

I'm not sure how. To me, it just underlines how small the god concept really is, at least in the morality play of Christianity.

Yes, really. Here's this really, really, really big place, the entirety of which god is supposed to hold domain over, and you want to tell me he cares the least little bit that some microscopic nit on a microscopic dot near a microscopic point of light gajillions of miles out there somwhere is thinking about his neighbors wife?

Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | December 19, 2009 12:37 PM

a bit fuzzy on the details, what?

Posted by: bcoppola | December 19, 2009 12:39 PM

Martin #2:

The immensity of the universe is so staggering to contemplate I just want a cookie.

Word. I find that a cookie is a fine palliative for many of life's conundrums and travails. And I don't even have blue fur.

Posted by: hyoid | December 19, 2009 1:01 PM

When the camera gets way out there like that, I always want it to turn around and look the other way.

Posted by: Draken | December 19, 2009 1:03 PM

I wa reminded of Powers of ten. Hope they do a 'remake' of the way into microscopic world too.

Posted by: wisnij | December 19, 2009 1:14 PM

In my above statement, I meant that in the video, the universe was represented as a spheroid.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | December 19, 2009 1:34 PM

What's up with the 46 billion light-years on top? There's no such thing as 46 billion light-years. Or what have I overlooked?

That's the physical distance of the observable universe i.e, the distance to the furthest objects which we can see (distance from they are now, not when the light was emitted). If space wasn't expanding that would simply be speed of light x age of the universe (i.e, ct_o) . However, since space is expanding it's c∫₀ ^t_o dt'/a(t'), where a(t') is the scale factor, which changes with time. Apparently if you work it out it comes to ~46 billion light years.

Posted by: Brian English | December 19, 2009 1:42 PM

Nice imagination evilutionists. Tell me, if evolution is true, how do you explain how evolution created the universe and life? It can't. More fairy tales.

I. Am Poe.

Posted by: creating trons | December 19, 2009 1:53 PM

Evil Eye: I'm trying to get this. when I watched it the first thing that came to me was that it appeared that the earth was the center of the universe. but we are just the center of our known cosmic horizon, correct? if the universe is expanding, and I believe it is, wouldn't we be closer to one edge than the other? is there an edge?

Posted by: anotherplayaguy | December 19, 2009 2:08 PM

But, but, but ... How can this begin and end in Europe? Everyone knows that the center of the Universe is the U.S. You cannot have a UniverSe without a U and an S.

Posted by: Coldwell | December 19, 2009 2:09 PM

How awful to think I'm stuck here on this rock with you people.

Posted by: Evil Eye | December 19, 2009 2:30 PM

"Evil Eye: I'm trying to get this. when I watched it the first thing that came to me was that it appeared that the earth was the center of the universe. but we are just the center of our known cosmic horizon, correct? if the universe is expanding, and I believe it is, wouldn't we be closer to one edge than the other? is there an edge?"

Saying that we are at the center of our own cosmic horizon is perfectly acceptable.

No matter where you are in the universe, your horizon will be different than anywhere else.

Our perspective from Earth can look in any direction and look back toward the beginning of time. But someone far out of our distance of visible light will also have their own bubble. Still the same universe, but that's as far as they can see. We cannot look beyond the time it took the first light to reach us. That doesn't mean there is nothing farther. (further?) It just means that right now... all we can see is back to the moments that light was created.

Here... let me analogize it for you.

You look to the west. There is a horizon. Is that the edge of the Earth? No.

It is simply as far as you can see.

The universe is a HUGE place and in every direction you are looking back in time.

Imagine the surface of a bubble being 3d instead of 2d. There is no inside or outside of the bubble. Only the surface in 3 directions.

Everything on that surface is the center or no center at all.

Where is the center of the surface of a basketball?

Posted by: negentropyeater | December 19, 2009 2:43 PM

Evil Eye beat me to it by one minute...
that's the problem with blogs. When you are typing a response, you never know if someone else is typing a similar response at the same time.

Posted by: creating trons | December 19, 2009 2:59 PM

thanx, both of you. that makes more sense to me. is it safe to assume that light is traveling faster than the expansion, so that one day we may see the edge of expansion in real time?

I live in the smokie mountains and have 3 telescopes. the night view there is awesome.

I tried reading A Brief History of Time twice and couldn't finish the book. this shit is so far over my head, but I'm not giving up. a clear night, a glass of whiskey, and a telescope. my perfect evening. unless its cold. then we'll start a fire. maybe add some bacon.

Posted by: David Utidjian | December 19, 2009 3:04 PM

Reminds me of the "Powers of Ten" video by Eames... hmmm. Yep, youtube has it also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2cmlhfdxuY

-DU-

Posted by: Schpwuette | December 19, 2009 3:12 PM

negentropyeater, #57

That's how I always thought of it, but recently I've seen talks saying that the universe is 'flat' (and therefore has no net energy).

Can you clarify how the universe can be a 3-sphere (or at least have no edge/centre) and flat at the same time?

I'm guessing when they say flat they mean something different to I'm thinking of...

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 19, 2009 3:23 PM

How can this begin and end in Europe?

? The Tibetan Himalayas are in Europe?

Posted by: Brian English | December 19, 2009 3:39 PM

#67 Perhaps Eurasia?

Posted by: Douglas Watts | December 19, 2009 3:55 PM

when I watched it the first thing that came to me was that it appeared that the earth was the center of the universe.

-- head desk --
-- head desk --
-- head desk --
-- head desk --

Posted by: Hampus | December 19, 2009 4:01 PM

Sometimes I think I can sort of understand why some people want to believe in a god. Videos like this leave me wondering why on earth (and all the rest) anyone would want to cheapen the majesty of the universe by pasting a petty, childish wizard onto it.

Posted by: Moggie | December 19, 2009 4:21 PM

Knowledge, with humility and a sense of awe. Who needs religion, when science does the job so much better? Thank goodness some people are looking outwards, rather than arguing about what you can do with your penis or what you're allowed to wear.

Posted by: creating trons | December 19, 2009 4:48 PM

#75 me too, can we compare?

Posted by: UXO | December 19, 2009 4:59 PM

@Douglas: It would be absolutely correct to say the earth is at the centre of the known universe, or at the centre of the observed universe, or at the centre of the currently observable universe, or even at the centre of our universe. I'm all for modesty, but we really are at the centre of our own universe.

In fact, one of the alternatives to inflation theory (which, let's face it, is pretty ugly and arbitrary) is that the universe is in fact not homogenous, and that we occupy a relatively unique area. So... y'know... maybe we are special?

Posted by: negentropyeater | December 19, 2009 5:04 PM

Schpwuette,

flat means that it can be described by a Euclidean geometry, ie a geometry with no spatial curvature.

The topology of the universe is more generally that of a 3-manifold. Depending on the curvature, there are different possible 3-manifolds. If the curvature is nul (flat), for example you have the 3 torus. If it is positive, you have for example the 3 sphere. If it is negative, you have the so called horn topologies.
Current measurements seem to indicate that the spatial curvature is very close to zero, which makes it very difficult to come up with a sufficiently precise figure and determine which of those 3-manifolds is the correct topology.

Comming back to the first point, none of these 3-manifolds has a center nor an edge.

I know, the whole thing is not very easy to explain. It gets easy when you've studied differential geometry though.
And 3-manifolds are just so damn difficult to visualize ;-) I just prefer the equations.

Posted by: Conversational Atheist | December 19, 2009 5:28 PM

@ # 60: "is it safe to assume that light is traveling faster than the expansion, so that one day we may see the edge of expansion in real time?"

Let's break into two parts:
"is it safe to assume that light is traveling faster than the expansion"

No, current standard thought is: during inflation, space expanded way faster than the speed of light, and things that are 'far enough away' are currently receding faster than the speed of light. (This is OK by way of relativity).

Also, the CMB, the surface of last scattering, ever since about 300,000 years after the Big Bang, is the farthest 'back' we could see (in photons). So, when the universe was 1,000,000 years old, you could see back to the surface 300,000 years after Big Bang.

Today, 13.7 billion years post Big Bang, the farthest back we still see is 300,000 years after the Big Bang.

"so that one day we may see the edge of expansion in real time?"

No in two ways: there is no 'edge' of expansion. And, it appears that the expansion rate is accelerating, so eventually (REALLY long time) the Milky-Way-Dromeda will essentially be an island that can see nothing else. We wouldn't see anything past our own galaxy -- essentially the 'far enough away' to be receding faster than light becomes a distance 'close' to our galaxy.

Posted by: consciousness razor | December 19, 2009 5:31 PM

creating trons, #60:

is it safe to assume that light is traveling faster than the expansion, so that one day we may see the edge of expansion in real time?

Posted by: creating trons | December 19, 2009 5:46 PM

Yea, I should have quilified that we would not be here long enough to realise the info in person.

but lets talk about the time past our existance on this planet. will our planet survive? I guesss not. how will we continue our existance? short term is mars, but we need more than short term answers.

Posted by: UXO | December 19, 2009 6:12 PM

Yea, I should have quilified that we would not be here long enough to realise the info in person.

@creating trons: Speak for yourself! I'm banking on Ray Kurzweil's predictions of physical immortality, followed roughly by Asimov's "The Last Question"!

Posted by: Evil Eye | December 19, 2009 6:28 PM

Using 3d analogies to explain a 4 dimentional space is hard.

But I can explain the "expanding faster than light" question.

Nothing is moving faster than light. Space is filling in the gaps faster than light can get across it.

Think of a sidewalk with 3 sections. You start walking, but for every step you take another section (space) is added. If it takes you 2 steps to complete 1 section, soon you will find that you can not only not see the other end of the sidewalk, but you can never reach it.

Posted by: Schpwuette | December 19, 2009 6:43 PM

@negentropyeater

Aha. It all makes sense now. Thanks. A torus shape hadn't occurred to me...

Posted by: creating trons | December 19, 2009 7:04 PM

you guys are great. thanx for the education. I want more.

Posted by: negentropyeater | December 19, 2009 7:43 PM

Tim Rowledge #87,

This reminds me of the Kardashev scale :

Level 1 civilization has achieved mastery of the resources of its home planet, Level 2 of its solar system, and Level 3 of its galaxy.

We're now a Level 0.7.

Will we ever reach 1 ? (my guess is no, humans aren't sufficiently rational)

Posted by: Darren | December 19, 2009 8:37 PM

Do you think Phil will become jealous and start posting about Cephalopods? ;)

Posted by: Evil Eye | December 19, 2009 10:18 PM

@ creating trons

might I suggest Astronomycast?

http://www.astronomycast.com/

Posted by: Jack | December 19, 2009 11:14 PM

Lovely, but it doesn't even begin to give a real sense of the scale. The pan-out accelerated outrageously yet gave the impression of being at more-or-less the same rate. Necessary, of course - we'd all be long dead before it finished, otherwise.

Posted by: Evil Eye | December 20, 2009 12:21 AM

@ Thomas
"Big Bang" is somewhat of a misnomer.

It should have been called the "Big Expansion.

There was no "bang". Just a sudden inflation of energy from a zero-point to everything that is now.

There is more to it than that, but much more than need be explained on a biological/atheist blog comment section.

Posted by: monado | December 20, 2009 1:23 AM

Try "Powers of Ten".

And the annual Powers of Ten Day celebration will be especially powerful because it will fall on October 10 '10.

G'night, all!

Posted by: scooterKPFT | December 20, 2009 3:39 AM

Great

now I'm like a gazillion years old via twin paradox, thanks alot

Posted by: creating trons | December 20, 2009 5:50 AM

Dust: this must be a generated image. I don't see any clouds.

Posted by: daveau | December 20, 2009 8:55 AM

Is it just me, or is everyone tired of this Himalayocentrism?

And this is all we know, so far...

Posted by: Dust.....spy | December 20, 2009 11:32 AM

creating trons:

if you scroll to the bottom of the satellie view page, you can change your viewing options, and one of them is clouds. The page defaults to the 'Living Earth' option, but the are lots of options to play around with.

I like to look at different satellite links and play "where in the world is this?" I can't always tell. Some of the nightside views of the earth are stunning.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnG39uMFt69kwCKZ8DoxtmMCvmzr5chx94 | December 23, 2009 7:39 AM

Just another reminder: everything all biologists have worked on so far, is restricted to that insignificant little speck of dust called Earth. That is how insignificant biology is.

Posted by: alberty788 | February 11, 2010 12:12 AM

The expansion of space is accelerating and on large enough scales it is faster than the speed of light. Much of the universe (most?) is already beyond the visible horizon. In the very distant future, everything except the closest objects will be outside the observable universe. You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this topic to be really something which I think I would never understand. It seems too complicated and very broad for me. I am looking forward for your next post, I will try to get the hang of it! houses