Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    First images from Euclid are in

    (dlmultimedia.esa.int)
    1413 points mooreds | 14 comments | 21 Oct 24 20:15 UTC | HN request time: 0.29s | source | bottom
    Show context
    neom ◴[22 Oct 24 00:08 UTC] No.41909872[source]▶
    Some of that zooming in made me feel pretty damn uncomfortable. It really is f'ing massive out there huh. Makes me wonder what this is all about, I'm sure it's something, I wonder what. :)
    replies(18): >>41910015 #>>41910437 #>>41910440 #>>41910444 #>>41910670 #>>41910845 #>>41911871 #>>41912134 #>>41913189 #>>41913514 #>>41913608 #>>41914208 #>>41914357 #>>41916581 #>>41918228 #>>41919777 #>>41924732 #>>41925552 #
    1. layer8 ◴[22 Oct 24 12:18 UTC] No.41913514[source]▶
    It’s even more “massive” down below. There are only 27 orders of magnitude between human size and the size of the observable universe, but 35 orders of magnitude between human size and the Planck length. ;)
    replies(5): >>41914401 #>>41914794 #>>41915445 #>>41917080 #>>41927543 #
    2. ThomasBHickey ◴[22 Oct 24 14:03 UTC] No.41914401[source]▶
    'Fundamentals' by Frank Wilczek explores this: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/554034/fundamentals...
    3. worldsayshi ◴[22 Oct 24 14:42 UTC] No.41914794[source]▶
    It could really be much larger beyond the observable horizon though? But I guess we will never know.
    replies(3): >>41915385 #>>41917218 #>>41923882 #
    4. seanw444 ◴[22 Oct 24 15:38 UTC] No.41915385[source]▶
    Unless faster-than-light travel becomes possible.
    5. aoeusnth1 ◴[22 Oct 24 15:43 UTC] No.41915445[source]▶
    And a currently unknown number of OOMs (possibly infinite) beyond the observable horizon.
    6. lynguist ◴[22 Oct 24 18:16 UTC] No.41917080[source]▶
    So we are rather “large” beings and not small ones.

    Are these orders of magnitude scaled by 10 to go from one to the next?

    replies(2): >>41917160 #>>41919268 #
    7. 0x5345414e ◴[22 Oct 24 18:24 UTC] No.41917160[source]▶
    Yes
    8. layer8 ◴[22 Oct 24 18:28 UTC] No.41917218[source]▶
    It might, and that’s part of the reason why I put a smiley. On the other hand, the larger you go, the less relevant it becomes, because if the light cones don’t touch then it might just as well be a separate universe.
    9. malodyets ◴[22 Oct 24 22:12 UTC] No.41919268[source]▶
    Powers of 10 is the classic presentation: https://youtu.be/0fKBhvDjuy0
    replies(1): >>41923622 #
    10. statnamara ◴[23 Oct 24 10:28 UTC] No.41923622{3}[source]▶
    I haven't seen this in many years, it really is a spectacular way of making you feel the vastness of the universe and the difference in scales.
    11. tsimionescu ◴[23 Oct 24 11:29 UTC] No.41923882[source]▶
    It could also be much smaller below the planck scale, but not causally connected to our level. That is, nothing in known physics prevents their being entire universes of particles that are so small that it is impossible to ever detect them with any of the Standard Model particles.
    replies(1): >>41929050 #
    12. veunes ◴[23 Oct 24 17:53 UTC] No.41927543[source]▶
    Mind-blowing, right? It's wild to think we’re just floating in the middle of all that
    13. worldsayshi ◴[23 Oct 24 20:35 UTC] No.41929050{3}[source]▶
    Right, can we reasonably rule out that such interactions don't happen in special circumstances that are hard for us to measure? Like in stars or black holes?

    (Or randomly and very seldom but often enough in vast interstellar space to give rise to dark matter like phenomenon?)

    replies(1): >>41932065 #
    14. tsimionescu ◴[24 Oct 24 04:58 UTC] No.41932065{4}[source]▶
    We can't rule out the existence of something like this, so of course we can't rule out interactions with something we don't even know exists. But there's an infinity of things we can't rule out, but for which we don't have any reason to believe might exist, so it's not very interesting to speculate about them.