Universe level Standards (Continued)

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It does have multiple estimates, but that does appear to be one of the more widely estimated baselines with more scientific backgrounds to back it up.

 

[Kaltias]

Based on what? It only says that it's the size proposed by the model of cosmic inflation.

I'll say it again, if the scientific community can't settle on a single model, we shouldn't pretend to be able to do it either, because they would obviously do it if possible

 

[AKM sama]

They don't need to settle on an accurate value, we just need the low-end estimate. Wikipedia basically gives 3 estimates:

The lower estimate is 250x.

The general estimate 3x10^23 times.

And the higher estimate is 10^10^10^122 times.

I don't see why we can't go with the low-end proposed by wikipedia instead of the observable universe which we know for a fact is not the true extent of the universe by a long shot.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

They can't settle, but the point is the general belief is that it's even larger than that. All we know is it's astronomically larger than the observable universe, it could be anywhere between that and infinite, if it is finite, it doesn't change the the reasons for it approaching infinity via growth. And 10^23 times the diameter of the observable universe is merely a baseline if anything. The 250x didn't really have much of a source.

A baseline is still a reasonable justification.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with AKM.

 

[Andytrenom]

Using observable universe for 3-A feats kinda seems similar to using horizon distance for storm feats.

No one really thinks there's a thunderstorm exactly 20 kilometers away from a character everytime they decide to make the weather worse. But since we don't know how far away it actually is, we have to default to the minimum known distance.

The case is kinda different in that there a lot of things to go over that can clue us into the real size of the universe but, just saying, using observable universe for 3-A isn't the same as saying "the universe is actually only the size of what's observed, nothing more".

 

[Sera_EX]

Also, I am sorry that you feel stressed out Sera.

And I'm sorry for losing both my patience and my composure.

I just don't get it. Let's say AKM sama makes a thread proposing we don't use statements to rank characters, only feats and powerscaling. Obviously most of us would vehemently disagree with that. Would you voice your disagreement in detail on the thread as quickly as possible? Or would you wait until AKM had already been discussing this extensively with the community on two threads, one of which reached max number of posts, and the revision was basically accepted?

I'm not at all upset that some staff disagree, discussion is good, but at the last minute? When I'm already overworked and exauhsted from personal life + fatigued from discussing this same topic for 10 days??

Btw, sorry for using you so randomly for an example AKM, it's a habit. I was going to use Andy but I bully him enough

 

[Antvasima]

I agree that the disagreements are coming late at this point, yes.

 

[Kaltias]

All we know is it's astronomically larger than the observable universe, it could be anywhere between that and infinite, if it is finite, it doesn't change the the reasons for it approaching infinity via growth. And 10^23 times the diameter of the observable universe is merely a baseline if anything. The 250x didn't really have much of a source.

A baseline is still a reasonable justification.

1) There is literally a source for the x250 and 10^23 is definitely not a baseline

2) There is also a theory saying that it could actually be smaller than the observable universe (Although don't ask me to explain how they got there because i don't study astrophysics)

Also, not sure how the fact that the universe grows is relevant to this topic.

Regardless, I stand by what I said. We have no idea about how big the universe actually is, so instead of trying to pick what we think is the most correct interpretation (which is something that we have absolutely no business discussing) we should use the observable universe as a baseline because at the end of the day, we only know that the universe is bigger than the observable universe by an unknown amount.

 

[Skalt711]

Well, I've read a scientific document that seems to be related to the 250x size multiplier and I didn't found any mention of the number 250 that would be specifically referred as the 250x size multiplier. But it states other numbers that may or may not be related to the size multiplier. I didn't understand this document well

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

The 250x one has speculative math. That study was from 2011. Our universe is expanding 3.16 million light years every second, assuming I read that number right. That 250x multiplier one also states that "the universe is very likely to be astronomically larger."

Edit: it's also based on an assumption.

 

[Executor_N0]

Well, I've read a scientific document that seems to be related to the 250x size multiplier and I didn't found any mention of the number 250 that would be specifically referred as the 250x size multiplier. But it states other numbers that may or may not be related to the size multiplier. I didn't understand this document well

The visible Universe equal to 1 hubble volume. The document says "The curvature scale of the Universe is conservatively constrained to be R_c > 42 Gpc (99%), corresponding to a lower limit to the number of Hubble spheres in the Universe N_U > 251(99%)". So the universe would be more than 251 bigger than 1 hubble volume.

It's what the websites says:

Cosmologists often refer to the Hubble volume ― a volume of space that is similar to our visible Universe. Light from any object outside of the Hubble volume will never reach us because the space between us and it is expanding too quickly. According to the team's analysis, a closed universe would encompass at least 251 Hubble volumes.

 

[Skalt711]

@Executor N0

Thank you for the help

So, according to the document, the universe would take at least 251 Hubble volumes. Assuming that the universe is a sphere, we can get its radius by using the formula ((3/4)¤Ç x volume)1/3.

Firstly we need to discover the universe's volume. Let's take a fast guess and say that Hubble volume's radius is 14.4 billion light years, which equals to 1.36224 x 1026 meters. The volume of a sphere is 4/3¤Çr3. So, the Hubble volume is 4/3¤Ç x (1.36224 x 1026)3 = 1.0588867032917403693820500605535 x 1079 cubic meters. Don't forget to multiply it by 251. The result is 2.6578056252622683271489456519894 x 1081 cubic meters. Hmmm, I think that it's a big number.

Secondly we need to use the radius-generating formula. ((3/4)¤Ç x (2.6578056252622683271489456519894 x 1081))1/3 equals 1843224003697141410588844269.2593 meters or 194843975020.83947257810193121134 light years.

 

[Ugarik]

The calc above is correct but I couldn't follow the entire discussion. Is this the standart for Low 3-A or 3-A?

 

[Skalt711]

3-A

 

[Ugarik]

I think 3-A should remain as "Infinite within a universe" as we have no accurate data about how big the actual universe is because we can not observe it. Everything else is just scientific hypothesis and I don't think it's good idea to use them as our standarts

 

[Agnaa]

I'm obviously no astrophysicist and even no calc member, but I don't think it's right to treat the universe as a sphere. As far as I know, measured values of the cosmological constant have the universe being almost perfectly flat on large scales. For it to wrap around itself into a sphere in the space of 250 mere Hubble volumes sounds a little bit impossible.

I'm also not sure if they're assuming perfectly packed Hubble volumes like that, but I am seriously out of my depth for this point.

 

[Ugarik]

I'm obviously no astrophysicist and even no calc member, but I don't think it's right to treat the universe as a sphere. As far as I know, measured values of the cosmological constant have the universe being almost perfectly flat on large scales. For it to wrap around itself into a sphere in the space of 250 mere Hubble volumes sounds a little bit impossible.

I'm also not sure if they're assuming perfectly packed Hubble volumes like that, but I am seriously out of my depth for this point.

The real problem is that we don't know

 

[Skalt711]

@Ugarik

I don't know...

I personally think that we should keep our Tiering System as is, but with some renaming work being done.

3-A's new name would be Material Universe level, High 3-A's new name would be High Material Universe level and Low 2-C's new name would be Universe level. I've chosen the Material Universe name because the current statement of 3-A and High 3-A (with stripped 4D definition) defines the material universe, the universe that is composed of matter, while Low 2-C defines the space-time continuum, the universe that is composed of space and time, where matter is placed.

 

[Agnaa]

Scientific hypothesis can 100% be usable. We don't need to be 100% certain, we just need to have a reliable source for calculating the entire volume instead of doing it ourselves.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Id like to voice my opinion lol.


"According to NASA, scientists know that the universe is flat with only about a 0.4 percent margin of error (as of 2013). And that could change our understanding of just how big the universe is." [Source is here .]

"According to the theory of cosmic inflatio, theentire universe's sizeis at least 10^23 times larger than the size of the observable universe."[Source is here .]


" In fact, Guth's calculations suggest that the entire universe may be at least 1023 times bigger than the size of the observable universe (the part within the horizon, that we are able, at least in principle, to see), roughly equal to the ratio of the size of the observable universe to the planet Earth." [Source is here. ]

The theory of cosmic inflation is the most accepted current theory by scientist in the cosmology community.

Edits:

According to the theory of cosmic inflation, if it is assumed that inflation began about 10^ÔêÆ37 seconds after the Big Bang, then with the plausible assumption that the size of the Universe before the inflation occurred was approximately equal to the speed of light times its age, that would suggest that at present the entire universe's size is at least 3├ù10^23 times the radius of the observable universe

"And on top of that, the rate of expansion has not been uniform. For a brief fraction of a second after the Big Bang, there was a period of accelerated expansion called inflation, during which the universe grew at a much faster pace than it is growing now. Whole regions of space will never be observable from Earth for that reason. Mack noted that assuming inflation happened, the universe is actually 1023 times bigger than the 46 billion light-years humans can see. So if there is an edge to the universe, it's so far away Earthlings can't see it, and never will." [source is here. ]

"t Ôëê 10-35 s, 1027 K (1016 GeV, 10-32 m) : Inflation The rate of expansion increases exponentially for a short period of time. The universe doubles in size every 10-34 s. Inflation stops at around 10-32 s, by which time the universe has increased in size by a factor of 1050. This is equivalent to an object the size of a proton swelling to 1019 light years across!
The whole universe is estimated to have had a size of ~1023 m at the end of the period of inflation. " [Source is here the source here is cms.Cern]

"The most widely accepted theory as to how this might have been possible is known as The Cosmic Inflation Theory, which was first proposed in 1980 by the American physicist Alan Guth, developed out of Steven Weinberg's Electroweak Theory and [[]]." [Source is here. ]

"Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted" [Source is here. ]

 

[Skalt711]

Hmmm, maybe it works.

 

[Sera_EX]

The names are fine as is.

 

[Hagane_no_Saiyajin]

You know, some universes in fiction work differently than our universe. Let's take universe 7 for example:


As seen here the main DB universe is simply the visible universe but several realms within one, definitely not flat, domain.

And these realms are by a guesstimate the size of galaxies if not universes themselves. It has been suggested/thought to be that heaven was the size of the universe and there is not reason why the other realms could be the same.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

I don't see how this affects the current discussion at hand at all, which is about the unobservable universe size.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Id like to voice my disagreement on 250x multiplier with the following blow lol.


"According to NASA, scientists know that the universe is flat with only about a 0.4 percent margin of error (as of 2013). And that could change our understanding of just how big the universe is." [Source is here .]

"According to the theory of cosmic inflatio, theentire universe's sizeis at least 10^23 times larger than the size of the observable universe."[Source is here .]


" In fact, Guth's calculations suggest that the entire universe may be at least 1023 times bigger than the size of the observable universe (the part within the horizon, that we are able, at least in principle, to see), roughly equal to the ratio of the size of the observable universe to the planet Earth." [Source is here. ]

The theory of cosmic inflation is the most accepted current theory by scientist in the cosmology community.

Edits:

According to the theory of cosmic inflation, if it is assumed that inflation began about 10^ÔêÆ37 seconds after the Big Bang, then with the plausible assumption that the size of the Universe before the inflation occurred was approximately equal to the speed of light times its age, that would suggest that at present the entire universe's size is at least 3├ù10^23 times the radius of the observable universe

"And on top of that, the rate of expansion has not been uniform. For a brief fraction of a second after the Big Bang, there was a period of accelerated expansion called inflation, during which the universe grew at a much faster pace than it is growing now. Whole regions of space will never be observable from Earth for that reason. Mack noted that assuming inflation happened, the universe is actually 1023 times bigger than the 46 billion light-years humans can see. So if there is an edge to the universe, it's so far away Earthlings can't see it, and never will." [source is here. ]

"t Ôëê 10-35 s, 1027 K (1016 GeV, 10-32 m) : Inflation The rate of expansion increases exponentially for a short period of time. The universe doubles in size every 10-34 s. Inflation stops at around 10-32 s, by which time the universe has increased in size by a factor of 1050. This is equivalent to an object the size of a proton swelling to 1019 light years across!
The whole universe is estimated to have had a size of ~1023 m at the end of the period of inflation. " [Source is here the source here is cms.Cern]

"The most widely accepted theory as to how this might have been possible is known as The Cosmic Inflation Theory, which was first proposed in 1980 by the American physicist Alan Guth, developed out of Steven Weinberg's Electroweak Theory and [[]]." [Source is here. ]

"Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted" [Source is here. ]

Quoting myself to bump it... But.. this thread is almost 355 comments long..

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I feel like you guys are doing way too much. The grand majority of verses use the observable universe as the standard size of universe. I feel like you're just splitting hairs here and causing unneeded upheaval to try to be as scientifically accurate for fictional battles.

 

[Elizhaa]

I feel like you guys are doing way too much. The grand majority of verses use the observable universe as the standard size of universe. I feel like you're just splitting hairs here and causing unneeded upheaval to try to be as scientifically accurate for fictional battles.

The grand majority of verses DO NOT use the observable universe as the standard size of universe. We low-balled the size to the observable universe for Calculations.

Honestly, I don't mind the low-balled but accuracy matters.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

How many verses do they specifically state the size of the universe to be larger than the observable universe?

The majority of human beings think the observable universe is the size of the universe. Why are we assuming authors by default know the universe is way unknowningly bigger?

 

[Andytrenom]

The majority of human beings think the observable universe is the size of the universe. Why are we assuming authors by default know the universe is way unknowningly bigger?

Where exactly are you getting this information from?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Like, I can only imagine universes which have been actually stated to be bigger than the observable universe, and given actual concrete sizes will now lose their special status of being way above baseline. (Hades's hyperdimension comes to mind)

@andy because when you google the size of the universe it gives you the size of the observable universe.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

This is getting off topic, but I am an avid saint seiya fan. Classic saint seiya followed the big bang theory, yes. But episode g assassin's, and Omega which are canon follow the cosmic inflation theory the verse also follows the logic of the universe being a singl-space time continuum. Hades also maintain several universes which are pointed out to be separated by a super Dimensional. This is going to cause me to on a rant (as they are higher existential universes from what I researched, scanned, and read.) Lol so I'll stop there,


But this was already addressed before (but not accepted.) most verses use the logic of a universe being a space-time continuum or a timeline. That is what I'm inclined to believe.

Most people believe "the universe" to be the totality of all existence, and creation. They mostly believe that time is interwoven as one with the universe thus being a space-time continuum/timeline.

 

[Andytrenom]

And common sense tells you that '''observable''' Universe isn't the full size of the universe. You'd have to think very little of the average person's intelligence to say they think observable universe is all there is.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Ask the average person how big the universe is, and they will either tell you the size of the observable universe or say they don't know or google it and then give you the size of the observable universe.

They certainly don't say, "well the true size of the universe is unknown but is theorized as being exponentially bigger than the observable universe".

I"m not saying the average person is unintelligent. I'm saying they don't care enough to know the details, and why should they? the size of the universe has little bearing in their day to day lives unless they're actively involved in things that deal with the physics of space, like fictional battles.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

And also, other verse sites across the web use the observable universe as the standard universe size. It's just going to cause so much confusion and extra work and for what? Accuracy.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Sera said the Universe isn't flat though; probably not a sphere a cylinder of some sort perhaps; but it's definitely not flat flat. Though, our destruction calculator is based on spheres and 250 or 10^23 refers to the radius or diameter, meaning Area would be squared for those numbers, with the destruction table being cubed which ever number decided.

 

[Antvasima]

The names are fine as is.

Agreed.

Also, thank you for the help TheUpgradeManHaHaxD.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

Most people believe "the universe" to be the totality of all existence, and creation. They mostly believe that time is interwoven as one with the universe thus being a space-time continuum/timeline.

Does that mean that they treat predating it as infinite speed?

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Most people believe "the universe" to be the totality of all existence, and creation. They mostly believe that time is interwoven as one with the universe thus being a space-time continuum/timeline.

Does that mean that they treat predating it as infinite speed?

I was just saying the average person believe that lol. I'm not making a proposal with it lol

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

The names are fine as is.

Agreed.
Also, thank you for the help TheUpgradeManHaHaxD.

Your welcome ^~^