Is the universe really infinite? Astrophysicists explain.
Everything on Earth, in our solar system, our galaxy, and beyond is contained within the universe. So how much does science tell us about the all-encompassing, four-dimensional cradle that holds all of space time? A lot.
Philosophers, mathematicians, and astronomers across cultures and centuries have long debated and theorized about the night sky. But in the early 1920's, building on the work of Henrietta Swan Leavitt and others, astronomer Edwin Hubble produced the first clear evidence that the swirling clusters visible through telescopes were actually distant galaxies, comparable to our own Milky Way. By capturing detailed, long-exposure images of space features like pulsing, Cepheid variable stars, Hubble confirmed the true nature of the Andromeda Nebula and others. These weren't just nearby gas clouds, but far away islands of worlds and stars.
In the century since, our ability to see clearer and farther out into space has dramatically improved. The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is the most advanced ever launched, and it routinely provides remarkable imagery from across the universe. Using data from space telescopes and other instruments, astronomers, cosmologists, and astrophysicists are able to deduce and predict many things about the universe's shape, rate of change, and character. Here's what we know, and what we don't.
[ Related: The universe isn't just expanding—it may be spinning. ]
Let's get the disappointment out of the way early: 'There is physically, absolutely zero way that we will ever know,' how large the universe is, Sara Webb, an astrophysicist at Swinburne University of Technology in Australia, tells Popular Science.However, we do know that the universe is larger than 93 billion light-years across. This is the diameter of the sphere of the 'observable universe' that we find ourselves at the center of. Our ability to look out and measure the stars is limited by the age of the universe and the speed of light. The only light we can see is light that's been able to travel to us in the time since the big bang, which happened about 13.8 billion years ago. Therefore, light that's traveled 13.8 billion light-years is the oldest we can see.
However, the observable universe extends farther than 13.8 billion light-years in every direction because, for all the time space has existed, it's also been expanding. That expansion means that light from 13.8 billion years ago has actually traversed 46.5 billion light-years to reach our eyes and telescopes.
'It means, in theory, that space is actually expanding faster than the speed of light, when we add it all up– which really conceptually hurts your brain,' says Webb. 'The nothingness of space and time doesn't really abide by the laws for matter and physical things.'
And though we don't have firm evidence of the universe's total size, Webb thinks it's quite possibly infinite. 'There's no reason that it should be bounded. There's no reason why there should be an edge here or there,' she says.
The existence of edges remains a question mark, but astrophysicists generally agree on the universe's shape: it's flat, though perhaps not in the way you'd imagine. Flat doesn't mean our universe is two-dimensional (space-time exists in 4D, after all). However, it does mean that traveling forward without changing direction in the universe will never get you back to where you started. Instead of a doughnut, a sphere, or a Pringle, the universe is most probably a four-dimensional sheet of paper, says Webb.
Using theories and measurements about light coming from distant stars, multiple astronomers in the early 1900's suggested that the universe was expanding. In 1924, Swedish astronomer Knut Lundmark,found the first observational evidence for universe expansion. Hubble's work confirmed these findings in 1929. These early observations relied on a phenomenon called red shift, which is the visual version of the doppler effect.Think about how sound waves from a passing ambulance siren change pitch with the vehicles' position and speed: sounding higher on approach and lower once the ambulance is speeding away. Similarly, our perception of light waves is also impacted by the lights' movement and velocity. A light moving towards you will appear more blue , and one moving away will appear redder as the peaks and troughs of the wave are compressed and stretched respectively.
Hubble and others noted that the galaxies they were discovering all appeared red from Earth, with more distant galaxies exhibiting the greatest red shift. This suggests that all galaxies are moving away from us. The more distant galaxies appear to be speeding off into space faster because there is more nothingness between us and them to expand.
In addition to red-shift observations, astronomers past and present also rely on 'standard candles' to assess the size and speed of the universe. Standard candles are nifty cosmological markers of known brightness that can be used to observe how light is traveling and changing through space and time, says Abigail Lee, an astronomer and PhD candidate at the University of Chicago. The first type of standard candles discovered were Hubble's Cepheid variables, pulsating stars that emit bright light in a regular, periodic pattern, which can be used to deduce their distance from Earth.
Lee explains it with an illuminating analogy. Imagine a 40 watt incandescent lightbulb. All lightbulbs of shared wattage are the same intrinsic brightness. However, if you look at the lightbulb from 100 feet away, it will appear dimmer than it does at a distance of 10 feet. That relative dimness can be used to calculate how far away the bulb is. It's the same with Cepheids in space. Other standard candles used for the same purpose include certain types of supernovae (i.e. exploding stars), 'tip of the red-giant branch' stars, and carbon stars. 'We know that these stars have the exact same intrinsic luminosity, and so we can use that property to measure distance,' Lee tells Popular Science.
We can approximate the distance between Earth and other galaxies by looking for nebulae that contain these standard candles. In 2011, three scientists were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for demonstrating that not only is the universe expanding, but dark energy is accelerating that expansion.
Dark energy is a mysterious and repulsive force pushing space matter and objects apart. The expansive forces of dark energy are generally thought to be uniform across the entire universe, pushing against all objects equally. However, expansion itself is not uniformly observable. Within our planet, solar system, and galaxy, the attractive force of gravity keeps things relatively bound and less subject to dark energy. And the expansion rate itself is not fast enough to be readily observed on the small-scale. To detect it, you have to observe very distant objects.
Based on his early observations, Hubble first proposed that the universe was expanding at a rate of about 500 kilometers per second per megaparsec (Mpc), where a megaparsec is equal to 3.26 million light-years. The speed of universe expansion came to be known as the Hubble Constant (H0), despite the fact that the titular astronomer's initial estimate turned out to be pretty far off.
We now have a clearer sense of the expansion rate. Scientists generally agree H0 is between 65-75 km/sec/Mpc. If that sounds complicated, it's because it is. The rate of universal expansion is dependent on both time and distance. It's larger across bigger areas of space and longer durations. And the question of the exact speed remains unresolved. Depending on who you ask and how one measures, calculations for the true H0 vary. Broadly, two different approaches to quantifying the H0 routinely yield different results. This discrepancy is known as the 'Hubble Tension'.
By one set of measurements, which rely on relatively close-by standard candle calculations, H0 is 73 +/- 1 kilometers per second per megaparsec. By a different type of analysis, which relies on measurements of cosmic background radiation, H0 is 67 +/- 1. 'Both measurements have such precise uncertainties that there's no room for error,' says Lee.For a time, astronomers thought that more accurate instruments might resolve the tension, bringing these measured values closer together, but that hasn't been the case. 'People are getting better technology, but this tension isn't really improving.' she adds. The most up-to-date calculations, based on JWST data, still haven't brought H0 estimates any closer together.
[ Related: The hunt for the first stars in the universe. ]
'Dark energy is in crisis at the moment, because nothing really agrees, even though all of the science that has been done is incredibly rigorous,' says Webb.
It's possible the discrepancy is still due to measurement errors. However, it's also possible that something larger is going on. Perhaps, Webb suggests, the dark energy forces thought to cause universal expansion aren't entirely uniform. Maybe we need a new theory of physics to unify these observations.Scientists are working on the problem from all sides, considering ways to improve measurements as well as formulating potential big-picture explanations. 'The complementary approaches are good,' says Lee. 'Maybe we can stop looking for errors if people find a physics theory that ties everything together, and maybe they can stop if we find a big measurement error,' she says.
Yet all of this research relies on continued funding and federal investment. The massive proposed cuts to NASA's budget would cancel several major missions, including the launch of the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope. This next space telescope was specifically built to probe the mysteries of dark energy and universe expansion. After years of development, it is nearly ready for launch–ahead of schedule and under budget. Now, there's a chance it will never reach space, leaving a black hole where new discoveries could have been illuminated.
This story is part of Popular Science's Ask Us Anything series, where we answer your most outlandish, mind-burning questions, from the ordinary to the off-the-wall. Have something you've always wanted to know? Ask us.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hamilton Spectator
a day ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Marc Garneau left lasting legacy on Earth and in space, former colleagues say
MONTREAL - Canadian scientists working on asteroid missions, exploring the universe through the James Webb Space Telescope or helping to put rovers on Mars say they can in some way thank Marc Garneau, who left an enduring legacy both as an astronaut and head of the country's space agency. While best-known in later years as a federal cabinet minister, Garneau, who died this week at 76, was also a Navy officer, a systems engineer, and an astronaut with a lifelong passion for science, according to his friends and colleagues. In 1984, he made history as the first Canadian in space when he served as a payload specialist aboard the Space Shuttle Challenger. He returned to space twice more, in 1996 and 2000, before serving as the president of the Canadian Space Agency from 2001 to 2005. 'All his life was devoted to public service,' said Gilles Leclerc, an ex-CSA official who worked with him. 'And he was really a role model to all the Canadian astronauts who came after him.' As CSA president, Garneau laid the building blocks for the space exploration program that would bring together other initiatives previously developed separately, Leclerc said. He was also 'ahead of his time' when it came to being conscious of the environment and understanding the importance of applying space technology for practical uses such as satellite communications. 'During his tenure, he really wanted us to focus more on science: astronomy, planetary science, lunar exploration,' Leclerc said in a phone interview. 'So all these things that now we see, all these missions that Canada participated in, like a mission to the asteroids, two missions to Mars, the James Webb Space had a real strong influence in shaping the future of the space program for a long time.' On Friday, CSA President Lisa Campbell paid tribute to Garneau, who she called a 'cherished member of the space agency family.' 'We remain deeply grateful for his extraordinary public service and enduring contributions to Canada and the world, from making history as the first Canadian in space to guiding the Canadian Space Agency as its president,' she said at an event at the agency's Montreal-area headquarters. 'his integrity, his generosity of spirit touches everyone who had the privilege of working with him.' Flags at government buildings in Montreal have been lowered to half-mast in tribute. Garneau would carry his love of science — as well as his significant technical knowledge — into his next role as a politician, according to his former chief of staff and close personal friend. Marc Roy said Garneau decided to run for office out of a desire to give back after his successful space career. Garneau often spoke about how seeing the Earth from above 'changed his perspective on many things,' including conflicts and environmental protections, Roy said. 'So many things that unfortunately divide us as humans that become so irrelevant when you look at our world from abroad,' Roy said in a phone interview. 'And that desire to want to contribute at an even higher level, at a different, at a policy level, at a governance level is what inspired him to run for federal politics.' Garneau was elected as MP in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce–Westmount in 2008 after failing to win another Montreal-area seat in 2006. Roy said Garneau's scientific background shone through most clearly as Transport minister, when he was able to instantly grasp technical briefings on ships, planes and trains. Above all, his history as a naval officer and astronaut gave him a laser focus on safety, Roy said, in a role that would see Garneau introduce measures including the safer skies initiative, and the oceans protection plan to monitor ship traffic, oil spills and wildlife. Roy said Garneau often spoke about the weight of the portfolio, 'wanting to ensure that he did it to the best of his ability, that he truly understood every decision that he was taking and every decision that was possible for him to make in order to ensure the safety of the traveling public and the safety overall of our trade and transportation corridors.' Roy said Garneau brought a scientist's analytic, 'Spock-like' demeanor to his roles. But he said some of the issues Garneau championed most passionately were social causes, including serving as a joint chair of the special joint committee on medical assistance in dying. And, despite his considerable intelligence, Roy said Garneau remained humble. 'He had a very rare quality in a politician, from his very debut until the very last day before he retired as member of Parliament, which was: he listened more than he talked,' Roy said. He said his friend was diagnosed only months ago with two cancers: leukemia and lymphoma, and died after a battle that was 'brave but short.' Roy said his friend's time since retirement was spent enjoying time with his wife, Pam, and his children, and completing work on his autobiography, 'A Most Extraordinary Ride: Space, Politics and the Pursuit of a Canadian Dream.' Roy said the book gave Garneau closure. 'He wanted to tell the story that, 'I'm just like everybody else and I failed and I've screwed up and I pulled up my socks and I learned from my mistakes and I moved on,'' Roy said. 'And that was very important for him to tell that story, and I'm just so fortunate that he had the time to do that.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 7, 2025.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
James Webb telescope unveils largest-ever map of the universe, stretching from present day to the dawn of time
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Scientists have unveiled the largest map of the universe ever created. Stretching across a tiny sliver of space and almost all cosmic time, it includes almost 800,000 galaxies imaged across the universe. Some are so far away that they appear as they existed in the infant universe, about 13 billion years ago. The map, released Thursday (June 5) by scientists at the Cosmic Evolution Survey collaboration , covers a 0.54-degree-squared arc of the sky, or about three times as much space as the moon takes up when viewed from Earth. To collect the data for the map, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) spent 255 hours observing a region of space nicknamed the COSMOS field. This patch of sky has very few stars, gas clouds or other features blocking our view of the deep universe, so scientists have been surveying it with telescopes across as many wavelengths of light as possible. JWST's observations of the COSMOS field have given us an incredibly detailed view of the universe going back as far as 13.5 billion years. Because the universe has been expanding, visible light that left its source at the other side of the universe gets stretched out, becoming infrared light. This is why JWST was designed to be an extremely sensitive infrared telescope: to detect these faint, stretched-out signals from the beginning of time that we couldn't see with other telescopes. It's already reshaping our understanding of how the universe formed. RELATED STORIES —Catastrophic collision between Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies may not happen after all, new study hints —Universe may revolve once every 500 billion years — and that could solve a problem that threatened to break cosmology —Scientists discover smallest galaxy ever seen: 'It's like having a perfectly functional human being that's the size of a grain of rice' "Since the telescope turned on we've been wondering 'Are these JWST datasets breaking the cosmological model?" Caitlin Casey, a professor of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara and co-lead for the COSMOS project, said in a statement. "The big surprise is that with JWST, we see roughly 10 times more galaxies than expected at these incredible distances. We're also seeing supermassive black holes that are not even visible with Hubble." The raw data from the COSMOS field observations was made publicly available just after it was collected by JWST, but it wasn't easily accessible. Raw data from telescopes like JWST needs to be processed by people with the right technical knowledge and access to powerful computers. The COSMOS collaboration spent two years creating the map from JWST's raw data to make it more accessible for amateur astronomers, undergraduate researchers and the general public to peer into the heart of the universe. You can see it for yourself using COSMOS' interactive map viewer.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
A surprising study revealed biological activity on a distant planet. Weeks later, scientists say there's more to the story
Sign up for CNN's Wonder Theory science newsletter. Explore the universe with news on fascinating discoveries, scientific advancements and more. A tiny sign revealed in April seemed like it might change the universe as we know it. Astronomers had detected just a hint, a glimmer of two molecules swirling in the atmosphere of a distant planet called K2-18b — molecules that on Earth are produced only by living things. It was a tantalizing prospect: the most promising evidence yet of an extraterrestrial biosignature, or traces of life linked to biological activity. But only weeks later, new findings suggest the search must continue. 'It was exciting, but it immediately raised several red flags because that claim of a potential biosignature would be historic, but also the significance or the strength of the statistical evidence seemed to be too high for the data,' said Dr. Luis Welbanks, a postdoctoral research scholar at Arizona State University's School of Earth and Space Exploration. While the molecules identified on K2-18b by the April study — dimethyl sulfide, or DMS, and dimethyl disulfide, or DMDS — are associated largely with microbial organisms on our planet, scientists point out that the compounds can also form without the presence of life. Now, three teams of astronomers not involved with the research, including Welbanks, have assessed the models and data used in the original biosignature discovery and got very different results, which they have submitted for peer review. Meanwhile, the lead author of the April study, Nikku Madhusudhan, and his colleagues have conducted additional research that they say reinforces their previous finding about the planet. And it's likely that additional observations and research from multiple groups of scientists are on the horizon. The succession of research papers revolving around K2-18b offers a glimpse of the scientific process unfolding in real time. It's a window into the complexities and nuances of how researchers search for evidence of life beyond Earth — and shows why the burden of proof is so high and difficult to reach. Located 124 light-years from Earth, K2-18b is generally considered a worthy target to scour for signs of life. It is thought to be a Hycean world, a planet entirely covered in liquid water with a hydrogen-rich atmosphere, according to previous research led by Madhusudhan, a professor of astrophysics and exoplanetary science at the University of Cambridge's Institute of Astronomy. And as such, K2-18b has rapidly attracted attention as a potentially habitable place beyond our solar system. Convinced of K2-18b's promise, Madhusudhan and his Cambridge colleagues used observations of the planet by the largest space telescope in operation, the James Webb Space Telescope, to study the planet further. But two scientists at the University of Chicago — Dr. Rafael Luque, a postdoctoral scholar in the university's department of astronomy and astrophysics, and Michael Zhang, a 51 Pegasi b / Burbidge postdoctoral fellow — spotted some problems with what they found. After reviewing Madhusudhan and his team's April paper, which followed up on their 2023 research, Luque and Zhang noticed that the Webb data looked 'noisy,' Luque said. Noise, caused by imperfections in the telescope and the rate at which different particles of light reach the telescope, is just one challenge astronomers face when they study distant exoplanets. Noise can distort observations and introduce uncertainties into the data, Zhang said. Trying to detect specific gases in distant exoplanet atmospheres introduces even more uncertainty. The most noticeable features from a gas like dimethyl sulfide stem from a bond of hydrogen and carbon molecules — a connection that can stretch and bend and absorb light at different wavelengths, making it hard to definitively detect one kind of molecule, Zhang said. 'The problem is basically every organic molecule has a carbon-hydrogen bond,' Zhang said. 'There's hundreds of millions of those molecules, and so these features are not unique. If you have perfect data, you can probably distinguish between different molecules. But if you don't have perfect data, a lot of molecules, especially organic molecules, look very similar, especially in the near-infrared.' Delving further into the paper, Luque and Zhang also noticed that the perceived temperature of the planet appeared to increase sharply from a range of about 250 Kelvin to 300 Kelvin (-9.67 F to 80.33 F or -23.15 C to 26.85 C) in research Madhusudhan published in 2023 to 422 Kelvin (299.93 F or 148.85 C) in the April study. Such harsh temperatures could change the way astronomers think about the planet's potential habitability, Zhang said, especially because cooler temperatures persist in the top of the atmosphere — the area that Webb can detect — and the surface or ocean below would likely have even higher temperatures. 'This is just an inference only from the atmosphere, but it would certainly affect how we think about the planet in general,' Luque said. Part of the issue, he said, is that the April analysis didn't include data collected from all three Webb instruments Madhusudhan's team used over the past few years. So Luque, Zhang and their colleagues conducted a study combining all the available data to see whether they could achieve the same results, or even find a higher amount of dimethyl sulfide. They found 'insufficient evidence' of both molecules in the planet's atmosphere. Instead, Luque and Zhang's team spotted other molecules, like ethane, that could fit the same profile. But ethane does not signify life. Arizona State's Welbanks and his colleagues, including Dr. Matt Nixon, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of astronomy at the University of Maryland College Park, also found what they consider a fundamental problem with the April paper on K2-18b. The concern, Welbanks said, was with how Madhusudhan and his team created models to show which molecules might be in the planet's atmosphere. 'Each (molecule) is tested one at a time against the same minimal baseline, meaning every single model has an artificial advantage: It is the only explanation permitted,' Welbanks said. When Welbanks and his team conducted their own analysis, they expanded the model from Madhusudhan's study. '(Madhusudhan and his colleagues) didn't allow for any other chemical species that could potentially be producing these small signals or observations,' Nixon said. 'So the main thing we wanted to do was assess whether other chemical species could provide an adequate fit to the data.' When the model was expanded, the evidence for dimethyl sulfide or dimethyl disulfide 'just disappears,' Welbanks said. Madhusudhan believes the studies that have come out after his April paper are 'very encouraging' and 'enabling a healthy discussion on the interpretation of our data on K2-18b.' He reviewed Luque and Zhang's work and agreed that their findings don't show a 'strong detection for DMS or DMDS.' When Madhusudhan's team published the paper in April, he said the observations reached the three-sigma level of significance, or a 0.3% probability that the detections occurred by chance. For a scientific discovery that is highly unlikely to have occurred by chance, the observations must meet a five-sigma threshold, or below a 0.00006% probability that the observations occurred by chance. Meeting such a threshold will require many steps, Welbanks said, including repeated detections of the same molecule using multiple telescopes and ruling out potential nonbiological sources. While such evidence could be found in our lifetime, it is less likely to be a eureka moment and more a slow build requiring a consensus among astronomers, physicists, biologists and chemists. 'We have never reached that level of evidence in any of our studies,' Madhusudhan wrote in an email. 'We have only found evidence at or below 3-sigma in our two previous studies (Madhusudhan et al. 2023 and 2025). We refer to this as moderate evidence or hints but not a strong detection. I agree with (Luque and Zhang's) claim which is consistent with our study and we have discussed the need for stronger evidence extensively in our study and communications.' In response to the research conducted by Welbanks' team, Madhusudhan and his Cambridge colleagues have authored another manuscript expanding the search on K2-18b to include 650 types of molecules. They have submitted the new analysis for peer review. 'This is the largest search for chemical signatures in an exoplanet to date, using all the available data for K2-18b and searching through 650 molecules,' Madhusudhan said. 'We find that DMS continues to be a promising candidate molecule in this planet, though more observations are required for a firm detection as we have noted in our previous studies.' Welbanks and Nixon were pleased that Madhusudhan and his colleagues addressed the concerns raised but feel that the new paper effectively walks back central claims made in the original April study, Welbanks said. 'The new paper tacitly concedes that the DMS/DMDS detection was not robust, yet still relies on the same flawed statistical framework and a selective reading of its own results,' Welbanks said in an email. 'While the tone is more cautious (sometimes), the methodology continues to obscure the true level of uncertainty. The statistical significance claimed in earlier work was the product of arbitrary modeling decisions that are not acknowledged.' Luque said the Cambridge team's new paper is a step in the right direction because it explores other possible chemical biosignatures. 'But I think it fell short in the scope,' Luque said. 'I think it restricted itself too much into being a rebuttal to the (Welbanks) paper.' Separately, however, the astronomers studying K2-18b agree that pushing forward on researching the exoplanet contributes to the scientific process. 'I think it's just a good, healthy scientific discourse to talk about what is going on with this planet,' Welbanks said. 'Regardless of what any single author group says right now, we don't have a silver bullet. But that is exactly why this is exciting, because we know that we're the closest we have ever been (to finding a biosignature), and I think we may get it within our lifetime, but right now, we're not there. That is not a failure. We're testing bold ideas.'