The Largest Known Structure In The Universe

[AB Editor]

An international team of astronomers led by the University of Central Lancashire in the UK has discovered "the largest known structure in the universe." The team says that the recently observed large quasar group — comprised of dozens of highly energetic star-like objects — has a typical size of 500 Megaparsecs, but the size of the cluster is closer to 1200 Mpc at its widest point. To put that into perspective, the distance between our own Milky Way galaxy and Andromeda is about 0.75 Mpc.

The discovery has larger implications for the study of cosmology too. Albert Einstein’s Cosmological Principle states that the universe looks the same regardless of the observation point when viewed at a large enough scale. Einstein’s principle — combined with modern cosmological theories — suggests that astronomers shouldn’t be able to find structures larger than 370 Mpc. This particular large quasar group isn’t the only structure to question Einstein’s theory either: the team is also looking at "similar cases which add further weight to [the] challenge." The group of astronomers say that they will continue their research in the meantime.

Source: http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/15/3878252/astronomers-find-the-largest-structure-in-the-universe

No question, it's just pretty cool.

[mibn2cweus]

naomi24
By the way, ^ that's ^ pretty much the radius of the observable universe . . . innit?

Got to wonder what is there among the unobservable.
08:15 Thu 17th Jan 2013

Curiosity killed Schrödinger's Cat . . . or did it? ;o)

It does appear that the observable part is slipping, at the speed of light, into the twilight zone of invisibility, at an ever accelerating pace, and that's all we have to go on. Seems the more we learn about our universe the more space 'God' needs in which to hide. ;o)

[naomi24]

Mibs, //It does appear that the observable part is slipping, at the speed of light, into the twilight zone of invisibility ..... Seems the more we learn about our universe the more space 'God' needs in which to hide. //

Good plan though, eh? ;o)

[mibn2cweus]

Sly devil . . . ain't He?

[naomi24]

Dead sneaky. Oo-er! Looking at your new avatar, invisibility isn't catching, is it - or are you just hob-nobbing? ;o)

[starone]

It's not only pretty cool, it is fantastic. My only regret is I will not live long enough to see Flash Gordon conquer the Universe (this is a joke btw, just in case you think I am serious.)

[mibn2cweus]

naomi24
Dead sneaky. Oo-er! Looking at your new avatar, invisibility isn't catching, is it - or are you just hob-nobbing? ;o)
18:49 Thu 17th Jan 2013

There, how's that? Not too overtly self-indulgent . . . is it? :o/

[naomi24]

Welll ..... how can it put this diplomatically? Ah, yes......

Sperlatt!! ;o)

[DaisyNonna]

So?

[Zacs-Master]

Is it correct to say 'size of the cluster is closer to 1200 Mpc at its widest point'. Should it not be size of the cluster WAS closer to 1200 Mpc at its widest point, as the time the light has taken to reach us is so great, or do radio telescopes (which i presume was used to observe the cluster) actually 'see' things as they are now?

[mibn2cweus]

Zacs-Master
Is it correct to say 'size of the cluster is closer to 1200 Mpc at its widest point'. Should it not be size of the cluster WAS closer to 1200 Mpc at its widest point, as the time the light has taken to reach us is so great, or do radio telescopes (which i presume was used to observe the cluster) actually 'see' things as they are now?
23:02 Thu 17th Jan 2013

All frequencies of light travel at c . . . however, whether they're referring to an adjusted current size or simply its apparent size is a good question?

[rowanwitch]

I like the idea that things can still give us a bit of a wow moment... except that I can't actually imagine something that big without frying my brain.... and Starby it won't be Flash Gordon it will be the vogons

[Zacs-Master]

I'm pleased you agree it's a pertinent question mibn. I've never considered before whether radio observatories see things as they are now (not sure how they can really over such vast differences bit I'm no scientist) or as they were. If we don't get an answer I'll post a seperate question.

[Zacs-Master]

differences = distances (tut)

[naomi24]

Zacs, maybe you should post a separate question anyway. It's a good question.

[mibn2cweus]

Well actually, what I am questioning is are they basing their measurement on direct observations of its apparent size or is this measurement derived from a projection of what its actual size would be now based on expectations of how it might have grown in size since the light we now see began its journey?

[boxtops]

I am almost certain that Brian Cox mentioned this on the Starwatching prog a couple of weeks back. It's incredible to us mere mortals.

[naomi24]

Wasn't that what Zacs was asking? That's how I understood his question.

[naomi24]

^^That was to mibs.

[mibn2cweus]

naomi24
^^That was to mibs.
14:56 Sat 19th Jan 2013

The follow up question seems geared more toward a specific aspect of this question, "do radio telescopes give us a picture of how things are now or how they were in the distant past when the light we see now began its journey."
As I noted previously, all light travels at c (the velocity of light) radio electro-magnetic radiation varies from visible light in the frequency (colour) of the wave but all frequencies travel at the same speed . . . c.

But that brings into question how the measurement was derived, which the original question seems to allude to. Is the measurement based on raw imagery or has the measurement been adjusted to take propagation time of the image we are receiving into account.

[Answerprancer]

Cor! ...I bet that has some gravitational pull.