is there a map of the universe? what is the real size of the universe?
472941
There\nIs\nNo\nMap\nOf\nThe\nUniverse.\n\nThe universe is, in theory, an infinite size. Meaning it has no end or beginning, kind of like American Idol or Myspace.
1049362
yes i do.  it begs the question...so where is the edge of the universe...and what does it look like?  is it moving further outward or just hanging out like a big wall?  very deep.
533282
earth= 5 billion, sun= 7 billion, sky ie universe= 12 billion\nmoon= 4 billion
561415
physically the universe has no limits . but still it is expanding with enormous speed . you can go to this link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space and find out whatever you need about space . good luck
300537
There is disagreement over whether the universe is indeed finite or infinite in spatial extent and volume. Many astronomers and cosmologists believe the universe is infinite due to recent findings in NASA's WMAP project supporting a flat (therefore infinite) universe\n\nHowever, the observable universe, consisting of all locations that could have affected us since the Big Bang given the finite speed of light, is certainly finite. The edge of the cosmic light horizon is 13.7 billion light years (4.19 Gpc) distant. The present distance (comoving distance) to the edge of the observable universe is larger, due to the ever increasing rate at which the universe has been expanding; it is estimated to be about 78 billion light years (7.8 × 1010 light years, or 7.4 × 1026 m). This would make the comoving volume, of the known universe, equal to 1.9 × 1033 cubic light years (assuming this region is perfectly spherical). The observable universe contains about 7 × 1022 stars, organized in about 100 billion galaxies, which themselves form clusters and superclusters. The number of galaxies may be even larger, based on the Hubble Deep Field observed with the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble Space Telescope discovered galaxies such as Abell 1835 IR1916, which are over 13 billion light years from Earth.\n\nBoth popular and professional research articles in cosmology often use the term "universe" when they really mean "observable universe". This is because unobservable physical phenomena are scientifically irrelevant; that is, they cannot affect any events that we can perceive.
983642
Actually, they know it isn't infinite.\n\n\nThe findings are mostly thanks to hubbles big idea and discovery, but they can now confirm that indeed the visible universe is finite thanks to WMAP.\n\n\n\nAs for the possiblity of space outside of the visible universe...we have no idea.
747739
Theories such as string theory predict that the space we live in has in fact 10 dimensions, but that the universe measured along these additional dimensions is subatomic in size. As a result, we perceive only the three spatial dimensions that have macroscopic size.
923222
The smallest anything can be is called Plank length and it is approximately 1.6 × 10 (to the -35th power) meters.  \nAssuming "we" is the earth, we are very small compared to the size of the universe.  The "volume" of the observable universe is about  1.9 × 10 (to the 33rd power) light years, and the earth has a volume of approximately 8.2 x 10 (to the 12th power) miles, or 4 x 10 (to the -26 power) of a light year.  The universe, then, is about 4.7 x 10 (to the 58th power) times bigger than the earth.
224500
Wikipedia claims that the observable universe contains about 7 × 1022 stars, organized in about 100 billion galaxies, which themselves form clusters and superclusters. An Ask the Scientist response to this question claimed that there are about 10 billion (10^10) stars in an average galaxy, \nand there are about 10 billion galaxies that we can observe in the universe, so the answer is 100 billion billion or 10^20. I don't think it is an issue that we have a precise answer for as yet.
319855
The visible universe is supposedly that size because we can see the light from the beginning and therfore base the size on how far light has travelled in the time; However, the universe is not actually that size, since there are areas beyond the Event Horizon which light has not come from yet, and thus the universe is larger than that estimate.\n\n More to answer your point, the universe is expanding at its limits, but as it does so it creates teh space that we as three-dimensional beings can move in, like a dot on the surface of a balloon; If the dot could move anywhere on the surface, it could move all over the balloon, but never cover all of it as it expands. In the same way, the univrese is finite in size, but unbounded in dimension and therefore to practiacl purposes probably infinite.\n\n It's a hard concept and many people have trouble with it.:)
570269
at the present time we define the universe by four dimensions, length, width, height, and time.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
893198
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147\nhttp://universeadventure.org/\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology\nhttp://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm\nhttp://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html\n\nthis is actually a common misconception about the big bang. the universe is not expanding into anything. the universe is four-dimensional, but a two-dimensional version may be something like the surface of a sphere, and it is this surface that is expanding. the universe seems to be finite in size, yet it has no center and no edge. nothing, not even space-time, seems to exist "outside" the universe. the big bang was the entire universe, and everywhere in the universe was once the big bang.\n\nthe earliest, and oldest, radiation we can observe is the cosmic microwave background, and we see it in every direction we look, but the universe was much smaller at that time. the universe had expanded and cooled enuf for electrons and atomic nuclei, about 74 percent hydrogen and 26 percent helium, to combine and form neutral atoms. before this time the universe was much like a heavy fog, but when atoms formed, there were no free electrons to scatter light, and the universe became transparent. today, we see this light stretched to microwave wavelengths by the expansion of space-time.\n\nanything with a cosmological redshift of 1.7 is receding at light-speed, c.  anything with a greater redshift is receding faster than c.  the redshift of the cmb is 1089.  the cmb seems to be at least 78 billion light-years away, but the universe is only 13.7 billion years old.
44714
Universe is ONE and it is ever expanding.\n\nThere are many solar systems like ours in our Galaxy. There are billions of galaxies in the universe.\n\nIf you are interested to know more, check the site http://www.space.com site.
1078826
The simplest answer to your question about the universe's width is that the concept of WIDTH DOESN'T APPLY TO THE UNIVERSE.  The universe is homogenous and isotropic, big words that essentially mean that no matter where in the universe you are, it looks the same in all directions. Astronomers tell us that currently the farthest we can see into the observable universe is about 13.7-billion light years. This implies that there's some kind of edge at that 13.7-billion ly point. However, if we could move to that "edge" and look around, we'd see exactly the same thing we saw from Earth -- space extending outward everywhere for 13.7-billion light years. For the same reasons we can't say that there is any physical central point to the universe.
557686
Ok...we don't know how big the entire universe is. It may well be infinite, which, assuming it is homogeneous, would mean that it has infinite mass. At any rate, physicists currently think it is "much larger" than the observable universe. How much larger? I don't think that they have any evidence. But let's assume that we can see 1% of all visible space. This would make the mass of the universe = 100 * 3 * 10^52 kg, or 3 * 10^55 kg.
629998
The number of stars in the visible universe is estimated to be 70 sextillion, or 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [seven followed by twenty-two zeros].\n\nor\n\nWikipedia claims that the observable universe contains about 7 × 1022 stars, organized in about 100 billion galaxies, which themselves form clusters and superclusters. An Ask the Scientist response to this question claimed that there are about 10 billion (10^10) stars in an average galaxy, \nand there are about 10 billion galaxies that we can observe in the universe, so the answer is 100 billion billion or 10^20. I don't think it is an issue that we have a precise answer for as yet.
659476
"...What are the dimensions (length, width, and height or thickness) of the physical universe (in light years)?..."\nThe universe can't be measured in terms of length, width, and height. Such parameters require some reference point from which measurements can be made, along with some distant boundary where the measurement would end. You simply can't do that with the universe because the universe is isotropic, meaning it's the same in all directions from any observing point. From Earth we can look outward in any direction and 'see' about 13.7-billion light years. From Earth that represents a boundary. Here comes the tricky part: if some alien in a galaxy 13.7-billion light years away from Earth looked outward in all directions (including back towards Earth) they'd 'see' a universe that appeared to be 13.7-billion light years in scope. In other words, the universe has no boundary. To have one it would have to be inside some "thing" else, and there's absolutely no evidence that such is the case.\n\nTo confuse the issue even more, if we had the ultimate telescope with limitless viewing power we still will never be able to see into the universe beyond a certain range. That's because at almost the same instant of the Big Bang the universe briefly expanded faster than light (this doesn't violate relativity because it was the space of the universe that did the expanding). In our 'normal' universe the speed of light is the speed limit which prevents us from ever seeing any of that inflation because it's moving away faster than the speed of light.\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n"...I've read that the universe is thought to be "saddle shaped..."\nMore recent observations point more towards the universe being geometrically "flat." This simply means that the universe appears to be infinite, that its space will expand forever while cooling more and more over the eons.\n------------------------------------------------------------\n"...What does it mean for example, to say that the universe is expanding at a rate of 70 kilometers per second per (x number of light years)?..."\nYou've described the so-called Hubble Constant. (70 km/sec/Mpc) It means if galaxy 'A' is 1 Mpc (1-million ly) away from us it's recessional velocity will be 70 km/sec. If galaxy 'B' is 2 Mpc away then it's velocity will be 140 km/sec It's important to keep in mind though that it's space that's expanding like that, not the galaxies moving THROUGH space; they just get carried along.\n------------------------------------------------------------\n"...I was not able to find a rate of acceleration of expansion..."\nI've been looking for a figure too. So far the only thing I've come up with is -3.15^36 /sec/sec  Darned if I know what the units of measurement are though. Maybe someone else on Yahoo can help us out with that.