Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

RawBert

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Jan 19, 2010
1,729
70
North Hollywood, CA
No, it's not my **** and it's not your mom. ;)

The Huge-LQG (also called U1.27), which stands for Huge Large Quasar Group, consists of 73 quasars and measures 4 billion light-years across. It is the most massive structure known in the observable universe. It was discovered in January 2013 by a team led by Dr. Roger G. Clowes at the University of Central Lancashire. The astronomers used data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.

The Huge-LQG is estimated to be approximately 1240 megaparsecs (4 billion light-years)

The Sloan Great Wall, discovered in 2003, has a length of 423Mpc, which is only just consistent with the cosmological principle.


Huge Quasar Cluster is Largest Cosmic Structure
Link

largest-universe-structure.jpg


What’s the biggest thing in the universe? That would be a cluster of quasars so large it would take a vehicle traveling at the speed of light 4 billion years to cross.

The structure, known as a Large Quasar Group, or LQG, is so massive scientists say it may challenge a fundamental principle of cosmology, laid out by Albert Einstein, which states that when viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.



“While it is difficult to fathom the scale of this LQG, we can say quite definitely it is the largest structure ever seen in the entire universe,” astronomer Roger Clowes, with the University of Central Lancashire, said in a statement.

“This is hugely exciting, not least because it runs counter to our current understanding of the scale of the universe,” Clowes said.

At its widest point, the LQG is about 1,600 times greater than the distance between the Milky Way galaxy and its nearest neighbor, Andromeda, a span equal to about 2.5 million light-years, or 15 quintillion miles.

The research has been published in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Editor’s note: A previous version of this article stated that 2.5 million light-years equates to 15 trillion miles. As noted by some comments below, this number in fact equates to 1.5×1019 or 15 quintillion miles.

Image: The colored background indicates the peaks and troughs in the occurrence of quasars at the distance of the LQG. Darker colours indicate more quasars, lighter colors indicate fewer quasars. The LQG is clearly seen as a long chain of peaks indicated by black circles. (The red crosses mark the positions of quasars in a different and smaller LQG). The horizontal and vertical axes represent right ascension and declination, the celestial equivalent of longitude and latitude. The map covers around 29.4 by 24 degrees on the sky, indicating the huge scale of the newly discovered structure. Credit: R. G. Clowes / UCLan




BTW, the universe is NOT 13 billion light years in size, as the man says at 3:40. Because of expansion, the estimated size of the observable universe is 156 billion light years in diamiter. ...or something.
 
Last edited:

Scepticalscribe

macrumors Ivy Bridge
Jul 29, 2008
63,957
46,414
In a coffee shop.
I was actually thinking Donald Trump's ego. But that's a good answer too.

Very good reply; after all, the vastly expanding ego of the power addicted is considerably greater by an incalculable degree than the squared sum of the added pounds, or kilos, that anyone could ever possibly add to their well padded rump over the course of a human lifespan.

And thanks, OP, for drawing our attention to a fascinating subject.
 

Scepticalscribe

macrumors Ivy Bridge
Jul 29, 2008
63,957
46,414
In a coffee shop.
At warp 10 the Enterprise can get from one side to the other in under 5 hours.

:D

Ah, yes. But, but, but,.....how often could they do Warp 10, and for how long could they continue to do so - (safely)? My recollection is of several episodes where Warp 9 (or 10) could only be maintained for a short (sustained) period of time without.......a negative consequence.
 

monokakata

macrumors 68020
May 8, 2008
2,035
582
Ithaca, NY
It's a wonderful finding, and all the more amazing to me (a certified Old Guy) because my late mother was 21 years old before Hubble demonstrated that there were in fact other galaxies than ours.

Think about it. Before 1924, you could reasonably make the case that our galaxy was the only one.

Fast forward roughly 90 years and we get this kind of stuff.
 

dXTC

macrumors 68020
Oct 30, 2006
2,033
50
Up, up in my studio, studio
At warp 10 the Enterprise can get from one side to the other in under 5 hours.

:D

Ah, yes. But, but, but,.....how often could they do Warp 10, and for how long could they continue to do so - (safely)? My recollection is of several episodes where Warp 9 (or 10) could only be maintained for a short (sustained) period of time without.......a negative consequence.

Trek fan here, so I'll add my 2 bars of gold-pressed latinum... :D

At "true" Warp 10, the Enterprise could reach one end before leaving the other, although none of the ships called Enterprise ever attained the speed on the show. It was also referred to as transwarp, and was usually considered a theoretical "infinite" speed. Captain Janeway and Ensign Paris successfully reached this speed on the Voyager episode "Threshold"; Paris said that he felt himself being everywhere in the universe at once. Of course, there was a really strange physiological side effect, but I'll leave that to the viewer.

There have been several earlier mentions of higher warp factors being achieved (such as the future Enterprise-D in TNG's final episode being equipped for warp 13), but these were either in "alternate timelines" or later re-evaluated as Warp 9.9999999.... or something similar.

As far as safety is concerned:

At speeds higher than Warp 6, use of warp engines start to do small yet cumulative damage to subspace fields (and, connected as they are, to portions of regular space-time), and could harm nearby habitable planets. Thus, the Federation originally set a "speed limit" of Warp 5 for standard missions, in order to minimize subspace damage. However, variable warp nacelle geometry (such as the "folding nacelles" shown on Voyager) proved to reduce subspace tearing and eventually resulted in the later raising of the limit to 6.

Warp 9.975 is the maximum an Intrepid-class starship with a Class 9 warp engine can sustain under normal use; if I'm not mistaken, that's even faster than the Enterprise-E. However, this done repeatedly in the same region of space would likely cause permanent damage in the "fabric" of spacetime, making warp drive locally nonfunctional.
 

whooleytoo

macrumors 604
Aug 2, 2002
6,607
716
Cork, Ireland.
It's kind-of cheating though... since it's not the biggest thing in the universe, it's a group of things spread out over a massive distance. Otherwise, you could just say the universe is the biggest thing in the universe! ;)

Still, it is/they are pretty huge.
 

Mousse

macrumors 68040
Apr 7, 2008
3,489
6,708
Flea Bottom, King's Landing
Trek fan here, so I'll add my 2 bars of gold-pressed latinum... :D

At "true" Warp 10, the Enterprise could reach one end before leaving the other, although none of the ships called Enterprise ever attained the speed on the show.

I think he was using the old TOS warp scale. In TOS, the Enterprise surpassed warp 10 on no less than 3 occasions. Twice it achieved warp 11. In the TOS: Changling, Nomad improve antimatter valve and energy control, although it wasn't really safe. In TOS: By Any Other Name, the Kelvan did the same thing, only better, as Enterprise operated at warp 11 safely.

It once reached warp 14 when the engine was overloaded by a planetary defense system in TOS: That Which Survives.

I'm not sure when they switched over to the new warp scale the topped off at Warp 10. If what they say true, a Klingon Bird of Prey could exceed Warp 10 (new scale). Supposedly, at Warp 10+ (only possible by doing a warp slingshot) you go back in time (ST4: Voyage Home).
 

Squilly

macrumors 68020
Nov 17, 2012
2,260
4
PA
Ah, yes. But, but, but,.....how often could they do Warp 10, and for how long could they continue to do so - (safely)? My recollection is of several episodes where Warp 9 (or 10) could only be maintained for a short (sustained) period of time without.......a negative consequence.

Theoretically... that speed is impossible.
 

eric/

Guest
Sep 19, 2011
1,681
20
Ohio, United States
Theoretically... that speed is impossible.

In the sense of just speeding up to it? No. As you approach the speed of light, with our current understanding, you'll have to obtain an infinite mass, which isn't possible. In the sense of traveling that distance? Nothing that I've ever heard limits it.
 
Last edited:

dXTC

macrumors 68020
Oct 30, 2006
2,033
50
Up, up in my studio, studio
I think he was using the old TOS warp scale. In TOS, the Enterprise surpassed warp 10 on no less than 3 occasions. Twice it achieved warp 11. In the TOS: Changling, Nomad improve antimatter valve and energy control, although it wasn't really safe. In TOS: By Any Other Name, the Kelvan did the same thing, only better, as Enterprise operated at warp 11 safely.

It once reached warp 14 when the engine was overloaded by a planetary defense system in TOS: That Which Survives.

I'm not sure when they switched over to the new warp scale the topped off at Warp 10. If what they say true, a Klingon Bird of Prey could exceed Warp 10 (new scale). Supposedly, at Warp 10+ (only possible by doing a warp slingshot) you go back in time (ST4: Voyage Home).

Yes, the whole warp-factor scale has been a point of debate for some time. I think it stabilized on the "Warp 10 = theoretical infinity" scale sometime during the 90s. I remember that the warp scale on the Star Trek Interactive Technical Manual stopped at 10, and that program was released in 1994 (and one of the best uses for a CD-ROM drive ever).
 

APlotdevice

macrumors 68040
Sep 3, 2011
3,145
3,861
ah, ok.

Though to be fair, who the heck really knows?

One thing is for certain: literally no one knows the size of the universe as a whole. In fact many believe it may not have a finite size. That's why the term "observable universe" exists. We can only see as far as the furthest sources of light which have managed to reach Earth.
 

HowieR32

macrumors member
Jan 27, 2010
64
0
So they found heaven or hell?

Well in a human-primitive-religious sense, it could be considered HELL because it is believed that Quasars are powered by massive black-holes...

Probably created when the inventors of the original Warp Drive in the TREK universe did too many doughnuts around the 'celestial' block, at warp 9.99999 tearing up the space-time continuum.

----------

Yes, the whole warp-factor scale has been a point of debate for some time. I think it stabilized on the "Warp 10 = theoretical infinity" scale sometime during the 90s. I remember that the warp scale on the Star Trek Interactive Technical Manual stopped at 10, and that program was released in 1994 (and one of the best uses for a CD-ROM drive ever).

Oh! Where Can I Get it? Mine was just a book; what they used to call an 'ENCYCLOPAEDIA' back in the day... :rolleyes:

btw, Sarcasm is not real. I want to know where to get the CD :)
 

JAT

macrumors 603
Dec 31, 2001
6,473
124
Mpls, MN
It's amazing how finite some people choose to be. Einstein's theories are based on the speed of light as the top possible speed. Star Trek's fictional theories are based on warp 10 as the same. Etc. Can't even imagine faster?

It's comparable to "the earth is flat", imo.
 

eric/

Guest
Sep 19, 2011
1,681
20
Ohio, United States
It's amazing how finite some people choose to be. Einstein's theories are based on the speed of light as the top possible speed. Star Trek's fictional theories are based on warp 10 as the same. Etc. Can't even imagine faster?

It's comparable to "the earth is flat", imo.

To be fair, such speed and scale is meaningless. We can't relate to it at all.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.