New Model Says the Cosmos Is At Least 250 Times Larger Than the Visible Universe

''How big is the universe anyhow? We know the universe is roughly 4 billion years old and we know how far light travels in a year, so ostensibly it would seem the visible''

Right... Maybe more like 14 billion years old?

No proof reader available I guess. If I remember right, the universe is a bit older than 4 billion years.

I'm amazed to see things like Bayesian statistics and the whole "Galton's ox" thing not being overused more often. As the article says, each number is more unprovable than the last, and while organised, thinking crowds certainly have a history of coming up with things that aren't completely stupid, that doesn't necessarily make using it good science.

Think of a number......................

Now justify it.

WOW! This is very elegant statistical technique. With ever increasing amount of data cosmologists have to work very very hard to understand the data. This techniques shows how much underlying theory changes the results, thus they have to come up with new methods to perform the analysis. Also there is a typo it should be 14 instead of 4, just checked it on www.icosmos.co.uk/index.html (you can play with the parameters to see how the age changes).

Good idea. However, i believe that the numbers come from the analysis, then when they have the numbers they have to justify it. There are many studies that estimated the size of the universe, and this is more about the statistical technique then the final result. As the result will soon change after they have more data from Planck satellite.

I think you mean 13.6 billion years old. =P

I have always wondered, why do people think there should be a size, or end to the universe? Are we going to bump into a wall? Or do we expect it reach the end, and then it will be empty, going on forever? People used to think the earth was flat, and the center of the universe.

I guess the same type of question applies to the Big Bang. What was there before that?

@56Kruiser i think when people say end, they really just mean an end to physical matter, an end to energy, then an end to any particles whatsoever. It is just an term so that we can try to visualize in our minds the existence of everything. if you trully try to understand that there is no end of the universe that it actually wraps in back on itself. Your mind cant comprehend that. We can experience it, so mathematically it makes sense, but can you sit there and try to figure out what EXACTLY this means: there is no true end to the universe you cant leave it, it litterly fold back into itself. its much easier for humans to try to think of a point where nothing more can be measure, what ever it is that you are trying to measure. that can be stars, or microwave energy which goes much further than stars.

Oh please. 250 times the size of the visible universe is "really, really big"?

c'mon popsci. Until we're talken something like 300 times the size of the visible universe, lets not get so dramatic. Now that would be pretty big.

inaka_rob: That model isn't difficult to understand for anyone who's ever played Asteroids. Don't exaggerate incomprehensibility. = )

The cosmos is infinite. No if and or butts.

@gizmowiz

The cosmos is not infinite. If everyone is sure everything began about 13.6 billion years ago, that is a finite amount of time.

If you believe Einstein, Hawking, and almost every physicist out there who say time and space are one in the same, then that would have to mean there is a finite amount of space as well.

Whether or not they will both go on forever is a different story..