Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Largest Object in the Universe Discovered

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the that's-a-big-twinkie dept.

274

prostoalex writes "Quick, think of the largest object you can imagine. Whatever your imagination delivered it probably wasn't an 'enormous amoeba-like structure 200 light-years wide and made up of galaxies and large bubbles of gas,' a newly found object, as USA Today reports."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hmm.. I thought it would have been (-1, Offtopic)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805782)

Paris Hilton's vagina!

Thank you, thank you I will be here all week, avoid the beef, we got a bad case of mad cow going around!

Re: Hmm.. I thought it would have been (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15805875)

| Paris Hilton's vagina!

Probably not. We've seen her boyfriend's scrawny thang.

That's 200 Million, not 200 Light Years (5, Informative)

nincehelser (935936) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805785)

But what's a few orders of magnitude among friends?

Re:That's 200 Million, not 200 Light Years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15805869)

How could CowboyNeal let this slip through? He is in familiar territory.

Re:That's 200 Million, not 200 Light Years (1)

kinnell (607819) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805979)

...which is about as big as 12 gazillion Volkswagen Beetles

Re:That's 200 Million, not 200 Light Years (1)

SCHPONG (715313) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806079)

...or 9.4055997 × 10^21 furlongs!

Re:That's 200 Million, not 200 Light Years (4, Funny)

roseblood (631824) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806093)

Up to 200Million from 200? That's BLOATWARE if I've ever seen it.

Microsoft OS used to work on a 8Mhz machine and now will require a 4Ghz machine(4000Mhz) to run well(MS Vista.) That's only a 500x increase. The 1,000,000 time increase here makes that look like a drop in the bucket!

The universe making MS look good! Gotta love it.

Re:That's 200 Million, not 200 Light Years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15806278)

Microsoft OS used to work on a 8Mhz machine and now will require a 4Ghz machine(4000Mhz) to run well(MS Vista.) That's only a 500x increase.

You do not need a 4ghz PC for vista to run well. Get your head out of your ass. You're not funny or cute.

Gee, Captain... (4, Funny)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805786)

It looks like we've got the Immunity Syndrome [trekguide.com] .

200 MILLION light-years wide... (1)

kclittle (625128) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805787)

... just a minor nit.

Re:200 MILLION light-years wide... (1)

Cheapy (809643) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805932)

Once you get to that distance, does it really matter if they forget the million? It's going to be extremely far anyways.

Re:200 MILLION light-years wide... (1)

Cecil (37810) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806018)

Well, yes, it does, if you're going to call it the largest object in the universe. There are already many things that are thousands or millions of light years across. 200 light years just isn't terribly impressive.

Re:200 MILLION light-years wide... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15806137)

I think his point is that you don't have to bother measuring anything farther than 1000 miles. It won't stop burgers from being cooked and beer from being brewed.

Re:200 MILLION light-years wide... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15806244)

Shut up, we've all seen your Mom's ass and, yes, 200 light years is a HUGE ass. Stop trying to convince us that it's not, and making up excuses for her.

Oh, and I'd still f*** her.

later gator

Mark parent redundant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15806105)

n/t .... Okay, so I get this message: "This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original..."
Sounds like /. needs to fix its algorithm.

Tags: parentredundant, slashdotbug

Re:Mark parent redundant (1)

kclittle (625128) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806166)

Look at the time-stamp of the "redundant" messages -- there's a clue there... :)

200 != 200,000,000 (2, Informative)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805792)

Something 200 light years across is not big (on galactic scales). TFA says the structure here is 200 million LY.

Re:200 != 200,000,000 (1)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806038)

What, you want submitters and editors to start actually reading TFAs now?

Re:200 != 200,000,000 (1)

alienmole (15522) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806134)

Stop being so picky! If you'd thought about it for just a minute, you'd have realized that six orders of magnitute is well within the standard Slashdot margin of error.

Typo (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15805793)

It's 200 *million* light years.

It's GALACTUS!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15805796)

We're all gonna die!

No way (4, Funny)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805804)

It's even bigger than Bono's ego!

Re:No way (1)

Strych9 (126433) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806015)

I thought it was Steve Balmer's ego

Re:No way (1)

TheCycoONE (913189) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806063)

Steve Balmer's ego doesn't even compare with the size of his internal void. Need I remind you: Developers! developers! developers!

Re:No way (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15806156)

Steve Balmer's ego doesn't even compare with the size of his internal void.

ballmer.c: error: invalid application of `sizeof' to a void type

Wow, it really doesn't compare! (I'm so sorry...)

Re:No way (1)

GundamFan (848341) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806067)

Nothing is bigger than Bono's ego.

Re:No way (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15806092)

I believe you are thinking of Ron Jeremy's Member

i'm....on tv.... (1)

ystar (898731) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806082)

It's just a cellphone pic of somebody's junk.

This reminds me (1, Interesting)

Klaidas (981300) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805810)

An enormous amoeba-like structure 200 million light-years wide and made up of galaxies and large bubbles of gas is the largest known object in the universe, scientists say.

This reminds me of an interesting thought I once heard in some movie, it was something like this:
It is possble that our universe is just a tiny piece of some huge creature's nail. If so, a small piece of our nails might be a universe too...

Re:This reminds me (1)

Teresita (982888) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805857)

Klaidas wrote:

It is possble that our universe is just a tiny piece of some huge creature's nail.

And it's closing in on the Great Cosmic Blackboard.

Re:This reminds me (1, Flamebait)

vistic (556838) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805874)

I wish I could mod you down right now for thinking about something that most people probably thought about either a) back in 5th grade, or b) while high.

Hardly a revolutionary or impressive thought, anyway.

Not to mention the fact that there is plenty of science to suggest why this is wrong... such as what we know about the physics of small scales and energies (think quantum mechanics, and how at some point you can't get into finer detail). And the fact that a being that large would not be able to do anything because of the speed at which information could travel over such large distances is limited by the speed of light and other things... Imagine your brain trying to send a signal to your foot, telling it to take a step... but by the time the signal reaches your foot, your brain has already succumbed to the ravages of entropy and no longer exists.

Re:This reminds me (2, Insightful)

thebes (663586) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805908)

But by the very nature of the supposition that we are part of something larger, that means that the larger thing may not be bound by our own rules.

Re:This reminds me (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15806012)

But by the very nature of the supposition that this thing exist, it *is* bound by our rules... namely the speed of light limit, which appears to be fundamental to physics.

That said, it could simply work on a different timescale. It seems, though, that if the lifespan of your "particles" - galaxies - is of the same order as the time it takes light to cross your fingernail, you're pretty much screwed.

Re:This reminds me (3, Funny)

bsander (774553) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806033)

Fear the coming of the Great White Handkerchief!

RTFA (1, Funny)

Mr_Icon (124425) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805813)

That's 200 MILLION light-years wide, you dumbasses. :) I'd like to see a galaxy that fits in 200 LY, not to mention a cluster of them.

Submission is wrong (5, Informative)

nefele (654499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805814)

First of all, the structure is 200 million light years across. The distance from the Sun to the center of our Galaxy is about 26,000 light years, so 200 light years would not be very impressive in comparison.

Also, the article is somewhat misleading itself, as the blob isn't really a homogenous structure. It's just a group of galaxies packed together more closely than other clusters. So it isn't really that much different from other parts of the Universe.

Re:Submission is wrong (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805968)

It's just a group of galaxies packed together more closely than other clusters.

And a galaxy is just a group of stars packed together, etc.

Re:Submission is wrong (2, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806011)

So it isn't really that much different from other parts of the Universe.

You do realize that the Galatic Real Estate Agency will be sending out a team of Space Ninjas after you for trying ruin the market? Remember, in real estate, it's location, location, location!

Remember (4, Interesting)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805820)

Remember that was the largest known object in the universe millions and millions of years ago. Who knows what it would look like today.

I was thinking... (-1, Flamebait)

turtled (845180) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805828)

Hillary Rahdam Clinton's ass...

Wow, (2, Funny)

Megaweapon (25185) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805830)

it's almost as big as my wife!

Re:Wow, (1)

CCIEwannabe (538547) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806020)

Its almost as big as your imagination..

Re:Wow, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15806101)

Shut up Scott Lockwood.

Re:Wow, (1)

kid_wonder (21480) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806255)

Sal [wikipedia.org] , c'mon enough already [tripod.com]

Large Packets of Gas? (1)

vistic (556838) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805831)

Shouldn't the large regions of gas (they say some bigger than the Andromeda Galaxy in dimensions) collapse under gravity and make stars, galaxies, other things? Unless I guess the gas is super hot and full of energy already.

Then again for how far away this is, maybe it already has and we won't be able to see it for a long time. The article doesn't say how far away this is in relation to us... but it does say it's 200 million light years across.

Re:Large Packets of Gas? (3, Informative)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805987)

Well as stated by others the milky way is 90,000 or .09 million light years across.

SO if its 2000 times as big as our galaxy and we are just NOW being able to see it. Its probably REALLY REALLY far away.. I would guess! :)

Another note our cluster of galaxies called the Virgo cluster which containes most of the visible galaxies such as Andromeda is 100 million light years across.

Re:Large Packets of Gas? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15806220)

The article says specifically it is 2 billion years younger than the universe, in astronomy age is distance, so I would say it is 11 billion light years away. There is enough vagueness in the article that it could be closer, but there is no other info to go on.

We're doomed (5, Funny)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805842)

They're here already...
The filaments were recently seen using the Subaru and Keck telescopes on Mauna Kea.
Atleast they seem more interested in using our high-powered telescopes than enslaving mankind.

Re:We're doomed (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805970)

They were trespassing. Book 'em, Danno.

Vista??? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15805844)

"The structure we discovered and others like are probably the precursors of the largest structures we see today which contain multiple clusters of galaxies"
So they found Windows Vista code repository...
Largest object in the universe and full of hot gas :D

Re:Vista??? (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805889)

Only on Slashdot could that joke be modded informative...

Re:Vista??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15805975)

Radio signals emitted from the far reaches of the object are coming through as: "Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all"

Large pockets of gas?..Amend the bible? (3, Funny)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805854)

And yea on the 7th day G-d rested, after taking his gas-x ; )

*ps.. i am SOOO going to hell!

Ogres have a different deity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15806106)

Bloodnut, the Flatulent.

Geee... (0)

elmCitySlim (957476) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805856)

I thought it would be the bandwith created by posting a story on /. I guess I was wrong...

Re:Geee... Bad headline anyway. (1)

Were-Rabbit (959205) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805904)

And I thought it was Ted Kennedy.

The article's premise is completely wrong anyway. It's a bunch of galaxies. It's not a single object. It's like having a headline saying "The largest tomato plant ever!!!" when it's actually thousands of individual tomato plants whose vines have become intertwined.

Couldn't resist (3, Funny)

Toreo asesino (951231) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805864)

"That's no moon......" /starwars

The largest? (1, Insightful)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805865)

I have a particaular objection to the title. "The Largest Object" makes it sound like we know we will never find anything bigger. With the size (infinite?) of the universe, I find that impossible to believe. A better alternative title: "Largest object known to date is 100M LY across"

Sorry to bitch and moan, but it pisses me off when people are so damn loose with the english language.

Also: How is this important? So it's big. What now?

Re:The largest? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15805894)

My sentiments exactly...

Calling this an object is a stretch. It's actually a collection of objects close enough together that they might be considered related by proximity. Under this definition, my laptop and I are one object because we are closer together than I am to the tree in the front yard (or the tree, the laptop, and I are the same object because we are closer together than I am to Buckingham Palace).

I guess this is the biggest collection of objects? No wait, that would be the universe... I guess this is the biggest subset of the known universe. Not as thrilling a headline, but hey...

Re:The largest? (4, Insightful)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806029)

Well its all about prespective. From our distance it appears as one object. I'm sure if you asked a molecule if he was part of an object with the next molecule he would disagree. :)

Re:The largest? (1)

Klaidas (981300) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805945)

You do have a point there.
If we think of it, most of words we use today to describe something will be damn funny after, like, 20 years. One example: I was watching old "Married, with children" episodes. On that episode, they bought a computer. One phrase:
It has a High resolution VGA monitor
How hight is VGA today? :) It's very possible that after some time we will find this article and we will be ROLF

Size 42 (5, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805882)

The largest object that I can imagine quickly is the Universe [uncyclopedia.org] . It's taking longer to imagine the Multiverse as a single object, but it's even more fun.

Re:Size 42 (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806042)

Thank you, sadly I've never visited the uncyclopedia before.. Wow what a vast storage of unknowledge I was missing!!!

Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15805917)

I guess Barry Bonds' head moves down to second place now.

An enormous amoeba-like structure... (5, Funny)

ptelligence (685287) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805926)

Stuck to the lens of the telescope.

The Wall? (4, Interesting)

Zarhan (415465) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805928)

How does this compare to The Great Wall [wikipedia.org] , discovered as a structure in 1989?

Something Bigger (2, Funny)

tawhaki (750181) | more than 8 years ago | (#15805964)

I imagined an enormous amoeba-like structure 201 million light-years wide and made up of galaxies and large bubbles of gas.

Here come the "your moms" jokes (3, Funny)

varmint jerky (810306) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806013)

n/t

Yo mama so big... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15806078)

I saw "Lyman alpha blobs" stuck up her nostril like a booger.

Space is big (4, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806031)

"Space is big - really big - you just won't believe how vastly, hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. You may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."--Douglas Adams

Largest object? Code smell! (1)

kentheman (24620) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806036)

That's got to be one hell of an AntiPattern [antipatterns.com] , I guess.

And its name.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15806044)

...is Harry Knowles.

God? Is that you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15806057)

It's me, Anonymous Coward...

Largest Object? (3, Funny)

Shadyman (939863) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806058)

What, isn't that supposed to be "Your momma"?

New joke for the playground (1)

ChowyChow (149961) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806064)

Your mom

Quick! (1)

nonetheless (600533) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806066)

Somebody get Milla Jovovich! [wikipedia.org]

The star of death? (1)

freaker_TuC (7632) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806071)

It's probably that Deathstar [wikipedia.org] they have been warning us on television about.

Guess it's time to bow to our Sith overlords before it's too late...

I sense you have lost faith in the dark side if you mod this down.

Press release (4, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806091)

... and here's the actual press release [subarutelescope.org] for the discovery in case you want some more meat than given by the simplified USA Today article.

Re:Press release (1)

Chatsubo (807023) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806214)

"A team of astronomers using the Subaru and Keck telescopes on Mauna Kea has discovered giant, three-dimensional filaments of galaxies ..."

If they're merely three-dimensional, that means they don't obey the laws of quantum mechanics? or time?

That's a REMARKABLE discovery!

I don't really understand (1)

kokojie (915449) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806113)

How is it an object if it contains other objects?

could someone convert that to standard units of (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15806114)

volkswagons?

All Hail the FSB (1)

drgroove (631550) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806115)

All Hail - the Discovery of the Flying Spaghetti Monster [wikipedia.org] has finally occurred! Pirates and Pastafarians, rejoyce!

just a cell? (1)

Bizzeh (851225) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806126)

so, we could technicaly just be part of a cell within something so huge, we will never know. like what single celled organismes are to us.

So we found.. (1)

Wescotte (732385) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806128)

God and by the looks of it he has really let himself go.

Big stuff (1)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806130)

Man, to find a thing of that kind is like finding a needle in an enormous amoeba-like structure.

Obligatory... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15806136)

Okay, it's big. But does it run Linux?

Just an amoeba? (3, Funny)

malvidin (951569) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806142)

What's next? A giant space crystal coming to attack Orion?

Re:Just an amoeba? (1)

cory_p82 (751921) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806262)

Anyone else having flashbacks to Starfox [wikipedia.org] ?

Would that not be the universe itself? (1)

Forget4it (530598) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806143)

The largest object in the Universe [wikipedia.org] : Would that not be the universe itself?

When it comes to discoveries like these... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15806157)

I still think Einstein is right with this theory that the micro cosmos equals the macro cosmos.

It's a publicity stunt.... ;-) (1)

Aeomer (990057) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806238)

Naaaa - It's just a publicity stunt for the MIB III movie. It most likely was cheaper for Sony to make than Will Smith's salary. ;-) Possibly even cheaper than a version 1 PS3.

Largest Object in the Universe Discovered (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15806239)

Get out of my pants!

Got a hanky? (1)

abarrow (117740) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806240)

"Ahh, ahh, ahh CHOOO!"

"Look! A huge structure! Wait, it's moving down the screen..."

excuse me? (1)

tubeguy (141431) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806245)

This is an agglomeration of objects, not an "object" unto itself. I just don't get it. What's the big deal? If I'm missing something, please let me know.

Re:excuse me? (1)

Aeomer (990057) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806259)

All object are made up of other objects, we've not yet got to the bottom of final indivisible component of the universe. It depends where you set the boundry. In this case the boundry is there is no 'empty' space between the objects making up this object and hence it is one large object.

Largest Object... (3, Funny)

foxxer (630632) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806249)

I bet it was written in java.

The Immunity Syndrome (2, Funny)

rtobyr (846578) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806269)

I've seen this before. The only way to protect ourselves is to detonate an antimatter bomb [wikipedia.org] inside its nucleus.

What makes a 'single' structure (2, Interesting)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 8 years ago | (#15806272)

What is the criteria by which we call something a 'single' structure? If it's stuff bound by gravity, doesn't gravitational force equally attract everything in the universe? Do we consider stuff bound to itself by one of the other primary forces a single entity?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?