The best estimate for the size of the universe is about 93 billion light years. Seems to me that there are 2 answers to this question that could be considered correct.
93 billion light years is just what we can see. I suppose it is theoretically possible that we are in a simulation and the universe stops at exactly the point we can no longer see it. If that's what you're claiming, then good point.
It is a fact that we don't actually know the size of the universe, so "We don't know..." is the correct answer no matter what assumptions we do or don't make about what is or is not beyond what we can observe.
I agree with stevediverse. I wish more of the scientific community would use the "I don't know" answer when that is truly the case. Instead they just hypothesize and make theories with questionable scientific evidence, and then the public begins to spread the information claiming it as fact.
The universe is all matter resulting from the big bang, and the limit of the speed of anything coming from that single point in time and space is the speed of light, and we know the age of the universe, so this is really not a good question. "Possibly infinite" is not a valid answer, from our current scientific understanding.
@bostjan. The Big Bang did not happen from a single point. It happened everywhere at the same time. Also, the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. All of this is, of course, very confusing. But the question is correct.
The Big Bang is indeed a model of the early universe that started as a singularity. After seeing your comment, I think it is more clear that the issue boils down to scientific modeling versus religious dogma. Please remove the question.
The question is correct. But don't take my word for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
"Because we cannot observe space beyond the edge of the observable universe, it is unknown whether the size of the universe in its totality is finite or infinite. Estimates suggest that the whole universe, if finite, must be more than 250 times larger than the observable universe. Some disputed estimates for the total size of the universe, if finite, reach as high as..."
Thanks for trying to make the options clearer; however, I'm still not satisfied. The question asks the "approximate" diameter of the universe. Approximate implies estimation, so any question of the form "what is the estimated/approximate ____" should not have "I/we don't know" as a valid answer, especially when the known universe has a very measurable diameter. Secondly, I don't know why wikipedia says that the universe is infinite. All of modern science's best cosmological models have the universe with a finite dimensionality. Perhaps if the question was reworded "What is the exact diameter of the universe," the answer would be clear from those options, but as it is worded, the question is not correctly answered by any of the options.
Also, and this is not a particular route I want to argue, since it's a little fringe, but there are some who consider the universe to end wherever anything going on beyond that point no longer has any interaction at all with anything else. That somewhat valid definition of the term (the definition cannot yet be discarded on logical grounds, even if it likely will someday) is necessarily punished by the question. Ultimately, it's up to you to decide what to do, but I recommend removing the question if it can't be reworded clearly. - or at least run it by a qualified Cosmologist and see what he or she thinks.
It's a friggin quiz, Mr. "I'm still not satisfied", not a scientific paper. Plus, you talk a big talk as if you knew of what you talk, but you're not even aware of the concept of dark energy, as demonstrated by your speed of light comment. Get off your nitpicking high horse and relax.
I recommend 28 billion light years. Most people know that the universe is about 14 billion years old, and nothing is faster than the speed of light, and so figure that the radius of the universe can be no larger than 14 billion light years and the diameter no larger than 28 billion. Then the number is based on logic, but it still punishes ignorance (as opposed to the observable universe vs. whole universe debate which punished knowledge).
Actually, if you flashed a light in every direction away from you at t=0, the diameter of the sphere of light particles at t=14 G y would be exactly 28 G ly in your frame of reference.
There is the 'Observable Universe' and 'The Universe'. Although we can roughly measure the size of the observable universe by measuring it's rate of expansion, we cannot be sure if this observable universe is the entire thing in itself or if it is embedded into a larger and much more complex outer universe.
We cannot interact with the outer universe and don't know if the laws of physics as we know in our universe, hold in this region. Think of it as our observable universe being an air bubble floating in the larger ocean which is the actual universe.
That's the observable universe. It's not that nothing further than that exists, it's just that at that point due to the expansion of the universe it expands so much from earth that everything behind it moves away from earth faster than the speed of light, which is why it's physically impossible for us to see anything further
Wait... the tagline for Jurassic Park was "An adventure 65 million years in the making." Has it really been a million years since that movie came out? Time flies.
It seems it's a recent modification, cause in fact the commonly accepted date used to be 65 million years. I read many books about dinosaurs when I was a kid, including actual paleonthology books, and watched documentaries, and it was always 65. The 66 date seems to come from a study from 2013, which concluded, and I quote, "66,038,000 years ago - give or take 11,000 years".
The question on climate change is dubious. We still can't be certain that CO2 emissions are the primary cause, though they are doubtless a factor. Also technically the greenhouse effect would be the answer. CO2 Emmisions themselves do not warm up the Earth.
This is because 95% of the population is not scientifically astute, and prone to accept political answers promulgated by other people who are not scientifically astute. So you might say 95% of respondents agree with the wrong answer.
although we can never be certain, scientific consensus seems to be that it’s now beyond reasonable doubt that CO2 emissions leading to the greenhouse effect are the primary cause.
From my understanding, the greenhouse affect is only worsened by carbon emissoins. Which does warm the earth. But its hard to say how much of an effect this actually has on the global warming. Some theories suggest that the earth has been naturally warming for over a century.
It's a common rhetorical trick. We can't be certain of anything. Technically yes, we can't be sure of climate change. Neither can we be sure of gravity. Or the existence of other people. The entire universe could be a simulation.
If you are going to take a position that is in opposition to scientific consensus and common sense, then come armed with something stronger than "we can't be sure". Post evidence at the very least.
I wonder why you chose to include this question. I would disagree that it is common sense. There certainly are scientists that agree that CO2 emissions from human activity are to blame. But there are also scientists who disagree. Those that agree seem to make up the consensus because their message is broadcasted much louder, where the opposing view is intentionally muted. I love that there is a quiz on scientific facts, but I hardly consider this a fact.
There is no scientific consensus. The "consensus" is political, based mostly on IPCC reports published by the UN and revised a number of times, always downward and away from your "consensus." The word "consensus" doesn't even apply to science. "Fact" and "proof" and "data" are the relevant terms. Historically, atmospheric CO2 level increases FOLLOW warming periods, not the other way around.
nah it's not mate, your postulations that it's a political issue is the only political piece of this puzzle. i find it much easier to believe that the multi-trillion dollar oil industry is paying off politicians and media hacks to push a narrative which supports their own wealth than believing that for some reason a global band of scientists decided to troll the earth by inventing a massively elaborate hoax and then providing tons of scientific evidence for it, because... reasons??
Because they're funded by businessmen who are looking to profit off of it; cause apparently the alternative energies market is much more lucrative than the fossil fuels one.
The entirety of science really is based on consensus. In science there literally are not absolute facts, just theories that hold well to model the universe.
You can always find "a" scientist that disagrees, or several; but the overwhelming consensus (which represents our best current model) is that climate change, as we see it occurring now, is primarily caused by human activities.
If greenhouse effect is to blame, then fine; but to claim that the greenhouse effect is responsible *rather* than humans would be like a drunk driver claiming that it was simply a transfer of momentum and rapid acceleration that killed the family of four, "not me." I would argue increased CO2 emissions is a valid answer for a cause of climate change.
CO2 emissions are a major contributor to the greenhouse effect, so it's technically correct. Our emissions being the prime factor for global warming is scientific consensus.
Not really. It's asking for the coldest temperature which is 0 Kelvin.
It's not asking for the lowest value of temperature. If you read about your link more you'll find that even though they created a state with negative Kelvin values, that state is hotter than positive temperatures due to the definition of the Kelvin scale.
It goes from +0 to +∞ to -∞ to -0 with increasing "hotness".
Viruses alter your DNA and this altered DNA is then passed down to your children. Your DNA is very much changed. It's an important concept to understand.
I think maybe he means something like even if it is altered it is still my dna. Gosh now I am even getting my own brain in a twist haha. But I think he is aiming for the more philosophical/semantics approach.
like if what yours is now mine, is it still yours or is it mine..
I don’t think your characterization of how viruses alter DNA is accurate, QM. Viruses don’t as a matter of course change the DNA of every cell across the body. For instance, a respiratory virus certainly won’t affect sperm and egg cells in a human host in most cases. Yes, it is possible for dormant virus DNA to transfer from parent to child, but I assume this is unlikely and happens most often with retroviruses. Most viruses infect some finite number of cells before the immune system builds antibodies to prevent further spread through the body. Virus DNA does sneak into the human genome, but the DNA of every cell certainly isn’t being changed every time a person gets a cold.
You really ought to stop promoting the THEORY that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels is the PRIMARY cause of increasing global temperature because while it MIGHT be true, neither you nor anybody else knows that for a FACT. Your answer is political, not scientific.
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."
Does this mean that all scientific theories are true? Not necessarily. But "theories" as you dismiss them, are supported by rigorous evidence. Plate tectonics is a "theory". The Earth revolving around the sun is a "theory". In terms of science, "theory" is a very high standard.
True, I think we should also remove the question about Earth being bigger than Mars because this is part of a political attempt to discredit Elon Musk's plan to colonise Mars by diminishing the size of the planet. Until we can get a tape measure long enough to measure around the edge of both planets it will also just be a theory, not a fact.
Why not? This is a science quiz. The scientific community is in overwhelming accord on the issue. Things usually become "political controversies" because opportunists, zealots, and craven politicians exploit them to drum up fervor among their supporters and separate them from their money. There are people out there who deny the Holocaust. If they gain political power, does it become inappropriate to acknowledge that the Holocaust happened? Are we only allowed to acknowledge something until some sleazy politician makes an issue of it? Politics often has nothing to do with reality. It should not be considered in a science quiz.
The climate change question is best removed from this quiz as it comes across as the quiz master endeavouring to make a political point rather than test scientific knowledge. "Since records began" is disingenuous as it ignores the oldest data that exists, which is ice core surveys. While it is probable CO2 has contributed toward temperature rises, it is far from certain it is the primary cause.
Isn't the temperature infinite? It could always be colder or hotter in other places in the galaxy. Maybe we also have more than one universe. Maybe we have millions. So it could be colder/hotter in those.
No. Temperature is defined based on the vibration of particles. You can't have "negative" vibration so the temperature can't be below absolute zero.
I suppose there could be other places in the universe (or in a different universe) where concepts such as mathematics, logic, and cause and effect don't exist in the same way.
In which case the answer could be anything. But the answer to every question can be anything you want in that case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
"Because we cannot observe space beyond the edge of the observable universe, it is unknown whether the size of the universe in its totality is finite or infinite. Estimates suggest that the whole universe, if finite, must be more than 250 times larger than the observable universe. Some disputed estimates for the total size of the universe, if finite, reach as high as..."
We cannot interact with the outer universe and don't know if the laws of physics as we know in our universe, hold in this region. Think of it as our observable universe being an air bubble floating in the larger ocean which is the actual universe.
For some reason I thought Mars was larger than Earth...
It's pretty hard to debate at this point that humans are having a huge impact on our climate though.
If you are going to take a position that is in opposition to scientific consensus and common sense, then come armed with something stronger than "we can't be sure". Post evidence at the very least.
Yeah, it's ridiculous.
You can always find "a" scientist that disagrees, or several; but the overwhelming consensus (which represents our best current model) is that climate change, as we see it occurring now, is primarily caused by human activities.
If greenhouse effect is to blame, then fine; but to claim that the greenhouse effect is responsible *rather* than humans would be like a drunk driver claiming that it was simply a transfer of momentum and rapid acceleration that killed the family of four, "not me." I would argue increased CO2 emissions is a valid answer for a cause of climate change.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130104143516.htm#:~:text=2-,A%20temperature%20below%20absolute%20zero%3A%20Atoms%20at%20negative%20absolute%20temperature,hottest%20systems%20in%20the%20world&text=Summary%3A,getting%20colder%20than%20zero%20kelvin.
It's not asking for the lowest value of temperature. If you read about your link more you'll find that even though they created a state with negative Kelvin values, that state is hotter than positive temperatures due to the definition of the Kelvin scale.
It goes from +0 to +∞ to -∞ to -0 with increasing "hotness".
https://www.quantum-munich.de/119947/Negative-Absolute-Temperatures
like if what yours is now mine, is it still yours or is it mine..
"Yes, it is possible for dormant virus DNA to transfer from parent to child, but I assume this is unlikely and happens most often with retroviruses."
I also never said it was likely.
Yes, it happens with retroviruses. And yes, some of your DNA comes from viruses.
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."
Does this mean that all scientific theories are true? Not necessarily. But "theories" as you dismiss them, are supported by rigorous evidence. Plate tectonics is a "theory". The Earth revolving around the sun is a "theory". In terms of science, "theory" is a very high standard.
They are waiting for us in remote trees
They eat the bones
How do we know?
Australia.
I suppose there could be other places in the universe (or in a different universe) where concepts such as mathematics, logic, and cause and effect don't exist in the same way.
In which case the answer could be anything. But the answer to every question can be anything you want in that case.