
Cosmic voids - CarolineW
http://www.askamathematician.com/2017/06/q-where-is-the-middle-of-nowhere/
======
pavel_lishin
A not-really-spoiler-alert for Iain M. Banks' "Against a Dark Background",
whose title turns out to be a bit of foreshadowing itself: The planet system
where the novel takes place is extragalactic, surrounded by no stars. If I
remember correctly, they can see their nearby galaxy, but nothing nearer.

~~~
blacksmith_tb
An extrasolar (if not extra-galactic) planet is a subplot in Becky Chambers'
kickstarted[1] _The Long Way to a Small Angry Planet_[2], too.

1: [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/beckychambers/the-
long-...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/beckychambers/the-long-way-to-
a-small-angry-planet/updates)

2: [http://www.tor.com/2015/08/14/excerpts-the-long-way-to-a-
sma...](http://www.tor.com/2015/08/14/excerpts-the-long-way-to-a-small-angry-
planet-becky-chambers/)

~~~
pavel_lishin
I thought the titular planet was just near the core, not extra-galactic? Or am
I forgetting one?

------
valarauca1
The existential loneliness of a void is weird. We're privileged to look up at
the stars and ask who's out there.

A species living in a large void would have to develop extremely (compariable
to modern humans) technology to ever prove there was another galaxy within the
universe.

~~~
booleandilemma
This reminds me of Douglas Adams' Krikkiters, whose home planet is completely
surrounded by black dust. It blocks out everything in the sky and so they had
no concept of anything at all existing beyond their world.

[http://aliens.wikia.com/wiki/Krikkiter](http://aliens.wikia.com/wiki/Krikkiter)

~~~
soVeryTired
It'll have to go...

------
CiPHPerCoder
I found the video linked at the bottom interesting too:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rENyyRwxpHo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rENyyRwxpHo)

I'd never heard of Laniakea before.

------
205guy
I found the answer disappointing because the argument has a huge hole in it:
it discounts the atmosphere. The article says the farthest objects earth-based
naked-eye observations can detect are ~70 million light years away, so if
you're in space in the middle of a billion light year void, you won't see
anything. But if the atmosphere has just one order of magnitude attenuation
(or rather you could see 10 times further without it), then maybe you could
see to the 500 million light year edge of your void bubble.

That's what bothers me about these pseudo-scientific columns: they aren't
rigorous and the reader doesn't know it. In this particular case, the author
even changed the reader's question, and then didn't even give a satisfactory
answer, just wanted to write about "cool" things.

------
gmisra
These voids change moving up the distance scale - while our star system is
visibly not inside a void, there is evidence that the Milky Way is inside a
galactic-scale void.

[http://news.wisc.edu/celestial-boondocks-study-supports-
the-...](http://news.wisc.edu/celestial-boondocks-study-supports-the-idea-
that-we-live-in-a-void/)

[https://www.universetoday.com/135954/largest-scales-milky-
wa...](https://www.universetoday.com/135954/largest-scales-milky-way-galaxy-
middle-nowhere/)

------
yummybear
Horrifyingly lonesome - almost complete sensory deprivation. It would be
interesting to experience though.

~~~
pc86
If you were here in a space suit, would you be able to see anything at all? I
would think not, but am not sure.

~~~
idlewords
The linked article answers this. If you had no other sources of light, so that
your eyes could fully acclimate, you might be able to see the faintest smudges
if there were galaxies within 70 million light years.

------
Santosh83
I think we underestimate the importance of a starry sky for the development of
intelligence. A species looking up at complete blackness will probably never
develop higher reasoning or curiosity.

~~~
Raphmedia
Would it? There are plenty of curiosity to be had on the ground, in the air
and under water. Birds flying, insects digging, fishes swimming.

Sure, they might not feel the need to visit space if they had no stars, no
moon and no sun but who knows? They might end up going there anyway due to
population and create their own superstructures.

~~~
Santosh83
The existence of stars gives us (humans at least) an idea that we actually
live in a vast and varied universe and that I think is crucial psychological
motivation to push boundaries and explore. If we lived within a void and
believed that our one planet (and its star) were the universe, we would be
content to develop only those skill & intelligence needed to survive on the
planet. It might stagnate after a point. Of course, even a small telescope
would reveal the distant galaxies, but would a hypothetical intelligent
species get to that point at all?

And even if they could glimpse the distant galaxies, what could conceivably
motivate them to develop space travel?

Am just wondering aloud. Astronomy was (and is) a pretty fundamental pillar of
our scientific development and all that it has brought us. An inky black sky
would have interesting effects upon nascent, intelligent species.

~~~
Raphmedia
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy actually explored the concept.

One planet is in a dust cloud. The sky was completely black, and thus the
people of that planet led insular lives and never realised the existence of
the Universe. They eventually built a small ship and managed to exit the dust
cloud. Upon first witnessing the glory and splendor of the Universe, they
casually, whimsically, decided to destroy it, remarking, "It'll have to go."

The race changed from a peaceful one to the most violent warfaring race of the
galaxy.

