Can we conceptualise the shape of the universe?
Discussion
I've read a few books and watches some lectures but I lack the confidence to enter into a debate on it I'm afraid, Prof Lawrence Krauss is your man. But my understanding is that the "universe from nothing", he proposes is a very plausible and well regarded theory. More importantly, it wouldn't be fair to scientific community to say, "we don't know" anymore.
My recurrent objection in these threads though, just lies with ignorance somehow being a virtue of these big events, as if the mystery holds more value than the truth, which is that whilst it may not be mainstream knowledge yet, a great deal of the "big questions" have been answered, at least to a reasonable confidence.
My recurrent objection in these threads though, just lies with ignorance somehow being a virtue of these big events, as if the mystery holds more value than the truth, which is that whilst it may not be mainstream knowledge yet, a great deal of the "big questions" have been answered, at least to a reasonable confidence.
I've come to the party late here, but a few things I think could be added.
Firstly on measurement of the size of the universe. The stated reason we cannot and will not be able to measure it is because we can only measure at the speed of light, for which the universe is expanding at.
However, afaik, whilst something cannot travel accelerate through the speed of light, something could travel faster than the speed of light if it was at this speed when it was created. Perhaps this could enable us to "see" the edge of the light-universe, although in doing so you would be enlarging it with whatever was being used to measure it
next up, the theory of there not being time, only an order of events, hence nothing before the big bang not being an issue. I can only see this working if the expansion of the universe was slowing, so we could end up with a big crunch. As I understand it the universe is accelerating it's expansion, more quickly in a specific direction, which could mean either something pushing it out faster at that point, or gravity from another universe. If it's the latter then we can't say there was nothing before the big bang, because there would be other, infinite big bangs out there.
Coming back to a point I mentioned in that last part, something accelerating the universe's expansion, this could be dark matter etc, however I have a feeling we are missing a trick with gravity. We know so little about what it is and why it is so weak. I also wonder if gravity can affect light, can light affect gravity. Or have we misunderstood light and gravity, are they the same thing? Einstein never managed to reconcile the two, so I am unlikely to either! To me though, it would seem sensible that this question is resolved before too much time/effort is spent elsewhere on things that could turn out to be quite fruitless.
Edit: I'm going for a banana, the universe is a giant banana (if no-one else has this bet on already?)
Firstly on measurement of the size of the universe. The stated reason we cannot and will not be able to measure it is because we can only measure at the speed of light, for which the universe is expanding at.
However, afaik, whilst something cannot travel accelerate through the speed of light, something could travel faster than the speed of light if it was at this speed when it was created. Perhaps this could enable us to "see" the edge of the light-universe, although in doing so you would be enlarging it with whatever was being used to measure it
next up, the theory of there not being time, only an order of events, hence nothing before the big bang not being an issue. I can only see this working if the expansion of the universe was slowing, so we could end up with a big crunch. As I understand it the universe is accelerating it's expansion, more quickly in a specific direction, which could mean either something pushing it out faster at that point, or gravity from another universe. If it's the latter then we can't say there was nothing before the big bang, because there would be other, infinite big bangs out there.
Coming back to a point I mentioned in that last part, something accelerating the universe's expansion, this could be dark matter etc, however I have a feeling we are missing a trick with gravity. We know so little about what it is and why it is so weak. I also wonder if gravity can affect light, can light affect gravity. Or have we misunderstood light and gravity, are they the same thing? Einstein never managed to reconcile the two, so I am unlikely to either! To me though, it would seem sensible that this question is resolved before too much time/effort is spent elsewhere on things that could turn out to be quite fruitless.
Edit: I'm going for a banana, the universe is a giant banana (if no-one else has this bet on already?)
Efbe said:
I've come to the party late here, but a few things I think could be added.
Firstly on measurement of the size of the universe. The stated reason we cannot and will not be able to measure it is because we can only measure at the speed of light, for which the universe is expanding at.
However, afaik, whilst something cannot travel accelerate through the speed of light, something could travel faster than the speed of light if it was at this speed when it was created. Perhaps this could enable us to "see" the edge of the light-universe, although in doing so you would be enlarging it with whatever was being used to measure it
next up, the theory of there not being time, only an order of events, hence nothing before the big bang not being an issue. I can only see this working if the expansion of the universe was slowing, so we could end up with a big crunch. As I understand it the universe is accelerating it's expansion, more quickly in a specific direction, which could mean either something pushing it out faster at that point, or gravity from another universe. If it's the latter then we can't say there was nothing before the big bang, because there would be other, infinite big bangs out there.
Coming back to a point I mentioned in that last part, something accelerating the universe's expansion, this could be dark matter etc, however I have a feeling we are missing a trick with gravity. We know so little about what it is and why it is so weak. I also wonder if gravity can affect light, can light affect gravity. Or have we misunderstood light and gravity, are they the same thing? Einstein never managed to reconcile the two, so I am unlikely to either! To me though, it would seem sensible that this question is resolved before too much time/effort is spent elsewhere on things that could turn out to be quite fruitless.
I mean I'm not an expert, but you really are speaking with authority on what appears to be a massive level of ignorance here.Firstly on measurement of the size of the universe. The stated reason we cannot and will not be able to measure it is because we can only measure at the speed of light, for which the universe is expanding at.
However, afaik, whilst something cannot travel accelerate through the speed of light, something could travel faster than the speed of light if it was at this speed when it was created. Perhaps this could enable us to "see" the edge of the light-universe, although in doing so you would be enlarging it with whatever was being used to measure it
next up, the theory of there not being time, only an order of events, hence nothing before the big bang not being an issue. I can only see this working if the expansion of the universe was slowing, so we could end up with a big crunch. As I understand it the universe is accelerating it's expansion, more quickly in a specific direction, which could mean either something pushing it out faster at that point, or gravity from another universe. If it's the latter then we can't say there was nothing before the big bang, because there would be other, infinite big bangs out there.
Coming back to a point I mentioned in that last part, something accelerating the universe's expansion, this could be dark matter etc, however I have a feeling we are missing a trick with gravity. We know so little about what it is and why it is so weak. I also wonder if gravity can affect light, can light affect gravity. Or have we misunderstood light and gravity, are they the same thing? Einstein never managed to reconcile the two, so I am unlikely to either! To me though, it would seem sensible that this question is resolved before too much time/effort is spent elsewhere on things that could turn out to be quite fruitless.
I mean that's fine, but saying things like "we know so little about what is is and why it is so weak", is you speaking with authority on behalf of the scientific community, who have actually made huge breakthroughs in the past few years, and have in fact explained why it is so weak. Higgs boson? Remember that?
Also there is no big crunch, an open universe is proven, dark matter is evidenced by a number of observations including gravitational lensing (predicted by Einstein, and observed), you can't travel faster than light, and you can't see beyond the visible universe.... And no, gravity and light aren't the same thing for f
k's sake. At least have a bit of humility when you start such non-sense!Prof Prolapse said:
I mean I'm not an expert, but you really are speaking with authority on what appears to be a massive level of ignorance here.
I mean that's fine, but saying things like "we know so little about what is is and why it is so weak", is you speaking with authority on behalf of the scientific community, who have actually made huge breakthroughs in the past few years, and have in fact explained why it is so weak. Higgs boson? Remember that?
Also there is no big crunch, an open universe is proven, dark matter is evidenced by a number of observations including gravitational lensing (predicted by Einstein, and observed), you can't travel faster than light, and you can't see beyond the visible universe.... And no, gravity and light aren't the same thing for fk's sake. At least have a bit of humility when you start such non-sense!
lol, wasn't meaning to offend anyone, or come across with any authority on this subject.I mean that's fine, but saying things like "we know so little about what is is and why it is so weak", is you speaking with authority on behalf of the scientific community, who have actually made huge breakthroughs in the past few years, and have in fact explained why it is so weak. Higgs boson? Remember that?
Also there is no big crunch, an open universe is proven, dark matter is evidenced by a number of observations including gravitational lensing (predicted by Einstein, and observed), you can't travel faster than light, and you can't see beyond the visible universe.... And no, gravity and light aren't the same thing for f
k's sake. At least have a bit of humility when you start such non-sense!I am well aware of higgs boson, but I thought there was a lot more work to fully understand this area, for which answers will potentially come from new telescope being built
my non-sense: https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0505/0505194....
more around string theory, gravity and no need for dark matter: https://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.... Although personally I think dark matter sounds more plausible
Einstein spent many of his later years working to reconcile light, electro magnetism light etc, an answer for which could well be the GUT.
Efbe said:
lol, wasn't meaning to offend anyone, or come across with any authority on this subject.
I am well aware of higgs boson, but I thought there was a lot more work to fully understand this area, for which answers will potentially come from new telescope being built
my non-sense: https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0505/0505194....
more around string theory, gravity and no need for dark matter: https://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.... Although personally I think dark matter sounds more plausible
Einstein spent many of his later years working to reconcile light, electro magnetism light etc, an answer for which could well be the GUT.
I'm not offended, or trying to be rude, but I continue to be perplexed by your state of knowledge compared to your confidence of it. I am well aware of higgs boson, but I thought there was a lot more work to fully understand this area, for which answers will potentially come from new telescope being built
my non-sense: https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0505/0505194....
more around string theory, gravity and no need for dark matter: https://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.... Although personally I think dark matter sounds more plausible
Einstein spent many of his later years working to reconcile light, electro magnetism light etc, an answer for which could well be the GUT.
There's always work to do, it's science, advances are incremental, not monumental, and every answer invites more questions. But fundamentally yes, there is now sufficient knowledge to say that "we" know why gravity is the weaker force. As I said earlier, on balance of probability, it's wrong to say "we don't know" (even if you don't know).
Re: String theory/dark gravity. I believe what you're providing here is fringe science and not widely accepted as truth, string theory requires a fantastic number of assumptions before it works, dark gravity would seem to similarly be backing a long shot, but I don't profess to know much about it. But Dark matter is straight forward, and fits with existing observations, and it sits well with existing theories. Here;
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/04/20...
Your "non-sense" link is an an unpublished essay written by a chap in India. It is not a peer reviewed publication, from the introduction I'm also don't believe it substantiates your point.
I'm still a bit lost about what you're talking about Einstein reconciling light and gravity. The GUT he proposed, said wasn't possible, and then was proven (probably) right all along, because of the aforementioned greater understanding of gravity. I'm not sure if it's been entirely reconciled, or it's relevance. My understanding of the GUT was it explains the interactions between forces, what it doesn't do is propose they are "the same thing" as you assert earlier.
If your'e suggesting that future modification to the GUT might mean that dark matter theories based on the existing knowledge of gravitational lensing effect might be wrong... Well yes, but until that happens we have theories that fit the data and observations. Why not just rely on those and the body of evidence that supports them instead of claiming it's all just a wonderful mystery and increasingly siding with the most mystifying, and unlikely, theories?
the link I gave, rather than being original research gave quite a nice summary of the work Einstein, Maxwell, Kaluza and others had carried out, their aims, where they had failed and where they expected it to go.
The lensing you are referring to is something I mentioned in passing, which is the link between light and gravity. Gravity affecting light, but not the other way around yet afaik.
I have been writing informally and briefly so a little maybe getting lost in the translation. I am not claiming light is gravity, more that they have a relationship could mean they are essentially manifestations of the same thing, as we would expect in matter-darkmatter.
When I said GUT, I meant TOE, as in the theory of everything, for which currently we cannot reconcile gravity. Unless I have missed something massive, this is still unsolved. It is this link from the other interactions to gravity that we are in need of, and without we are very much in the dark on how it all works. This is not to say science is a massive mystery, we do know a huge amount about the universe and the discoveries keep on coming and largely backup what we expect.
The lensing you are referring to is something I mentioned in passing, which is the link between light and gravity. Gravity affecting light, but not the other way around yet afaik.
I have been writing informally and briefly so a little maybe getting lost in the translation. I am not claiming light is gravity, more that they have a relationship could mean they are essentially manifestations of the same thing, as we would expect in matter-darkmatter.
When I said GUT, I meant TOE, as in the theory of everything, for which currently we cannot reconcile gravity. Unless I have missed something massive, this is still unsolved. It is this link from the other interactions to gravity that we are in need of, and without we are very much in the dark on how it all works. This is not to say science is a massive mystery, we do know a huge amount about the universe and the discoveries keep on coming and largely backup what we expect.
Edited by Efbe on Thursday 23 November 14:25
ok, so my point if I haven't made it is that the size/shape of the universe is a calculation of the Speed of Light times the length of time the light has been travelling for, which is thought to be c14bn years.
I was thinking what if...
the curvature of light by gravity as seen in the lensing means this equation is not perfect, because the gravity at the big bang could have been huge, whilst not changing the Speed of Light(which cannot be changed) but changing the curvature of the light so it spiraled out.
However if there is a TOE, then the attributes of gravity could be linked to light, so could this mean gravity behaves differently in a black hole, or at the start of the universe. Perhaps this spiraling could explain why different parts of the universe are expanding at different rates, removing the need for a multiverse theory?
I was thinking what if...
the curvature of light by gravity as seen in the lensing means this equation is not perfect, because the gravity at the big bang could have been huge, whilst not changing the Speed of Light(which cannot be changed) but changing the curvature of the light so it spiraled out.
However if there is a TOE, then the attributes of gravity could be linked to light, so could this mean gravity behaves differently in a black hole, or at the start of the universe. Perhaps this spiraling could explain why different parts of the universe are expanding at different rates, removing the need for a multiverse theory?
It's not hugely complicated but it's a bit more complicated than that. For size, and just as a for instance, you need the Hubble constant "H0", not just multipled by "c" (which is just the fastest speed possible, and happens to be the speed of light, I think this where you confused me!), for the shape of the universe being demonstrated as open and flat, you need a combination of observations of the matter distribution at the beginning of the universe, and you need it to fit existing mathematical models.
There's two constants just there, and another is gravity, "g". At the moment of the big bang, why would it not be same? Perhaps it was different before, but not during or after I would not have thought? Again, at the very least it would be eventually become clear based on the distribution of matter?
You're talking about the refinement of TOE changing understanding of how gravity works in certain circumstances. I don't know, I'm doubtful but perhaps it could, but TOE simply aims to explain the relationships between, well, everything. During any refinement what TOE will most likely do, rather than result in disregarding of nearly a hundred year old demonstrable theory, is far more likely to reinforce it. Again, it's all about rational beliefs being made with respect to the balance of probability and science being an increasingly incremental process, cosmology doesn't exist in a state of constant upheaval.
I don't understand what you mean by the need for a "multiverse theory" in an expanding universe, I'm not aware that assumption is required for it to work.
There's two constants just there, and another is gravity, "g". At the moment of the big bang, why would it not be same? Perhaps it was different before, but not during or after I would not have thought? Again, at the very least it would be eventually become clear based on the distribution of matter?
You're talking about the refinement of TOE changing understanding of how gravity works in certain circumstances. I don't know, I'm doubtful but perhaps it could, but TOE simply aims to explain the relationships between, well, everything. During any refinement what TOE will most likely do, rather than result in disregarding of nearly a hundred year old demonstrable theory, is far more likely to reinforce it. Again, it's all about rational beliefs being made with respect to the balance of probability and science being an increasingly incremental process, cosmology doesn't exist in a state of constant upheaval.
I don't understand what you mean by the need for a "multiverse theory" in an expanding universe, I'm not aware that assumption is required for it to work.
Prof Prolapse said:
Also there is no big crunch, an open universe is proven, dark matter is evidenced by a number of observations including gravitational lensing (predicted by Einstein, and observed)
An open universe is not proven, it is a leading theory, but it is still unproven one way or another.. We do know the universe is almost flat, but a definitive answer is beyond our current instruments.https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html said:
We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe.
Dark matter and Dark Energy are also not done deals. The search for WIMPS has failed, yet we should be able to detect them with current technology is they exist as hypothesised.A question you guys may be able to answer.
If gravity acts upon two objects as a straight line between them.
Then if spacetime between these two objects is curved, does the gravitational line between them curve with spacetime, or remain constant. If the former, would this mean gravitational pull could waver if a black hole came between two objects and so distorted spacetime? Or does this question not work, because the spacetime between the two objects will remain the straight line even if space time is distorted, and the distance will remain the same between them that the gravity will operate on.
If gravity acts upon two objects as a straight line between them.
Then if spacetime between these two objects is curved, does the gravitational line between them curve with spacetime, or remain constant. If the former, would this mean gravitational pull could waver if a black hole came between two objects and so distorted spacetime? Or does this question not work, because the spacetime between the two objects will remain the straight line even if space time is distorted, and the distance will remain the same between them that the gravity will operate on.
Lately I have been trying to read into this as it also fascinates me, I’ve been scouring the internet for easy to read articles/videos helping someone with no knowledge on the subject to understand easier but all I see are articles that end up with all these equations beyond me or YouTube videos with cheesy american narration complimented by ‘scary’ noises playing in the background. I saw a film called interstellar which gives an interesting view on parraell universe’s, time and what not but I still didn’t understand it. I had given up on the subject until I saw this thread, it’s nice to see how a forum has so many extremely intelligent individuals available to answer any question you have!
I watched a video showing a journey trough to the end of the observable universe, at the end it says it would take something like 11 billion light years to reach it and it got me thinking, if all of this is true and we’re that insignificant, what is the point in existing unless someone made us? And if someone did make us, who made them!
If the universe is that big, 11 billion light years wide/long/round/doughnut shaped (the video was made in 2006), that must mean there is other life out there, can a being travel at the speed of light, is it possible for us to travel to another galaxy. I may seem like a 6 year old to some of you but these are questions I’ve always wanted to know the answer to!
Us as a human race....what is our significance to the universe if there are more STARS in the universe than there is grains of sand on the planet. Why do Porsche GT3 allocations or speeding tickets matter?
Sorry about all this, I’ll see myself out
I watched a video showing a journey trough to the end of the observable universe, at the end it says it would take something like 11 billion light years to reach it and it got me thinking, if all of this is true and we’re that insignificant, what is the point in existing unless someone made us? And if someone did make us, who made them!
If the universe is that big, 11 billion light years wide/long/round/doughnut shaped (the video was made in 2006), that must mean there is other life out there, can a being travel at the speed of light, is it possible for us to travel to another galaxy. I may seem like a 6 year old to some of you but these are questions I’ve always wanted to know the answer to!
Us as a human race....what is our significance to the universe if there are more STARS in the universe than there is grains of sand on the planet. Why do Porsche GT3 allocations or speeding tickets matter?
Sorry about all this, I’ll see myself out
Efbe said:
A question you guys may be able to answer.
If gravity acts upon two objects as a straight line between them.
Then if spacetime between these two objects is curved, does the gravitational line between them curve with spacetime, or remain constant. If the former, would this mean gravitational pull could waver if a black hole came between two objects and so distorted spacetime? Or does this question not work, because the spacetime between the two objects will remain the straight line even if space time is distorted, and the distance will remain the same between them that the gravity will operate on.
Those two object would have mass and therefore gravity (current mainstream thinking). Direct would probably be a better word than straight, since their gravity would curve/distort spacetime. Constant gravity would require they had no motion, in reality everything has some motion, so let assume they are orbiting each other. The movement would result in the formation of gravity waves. Gravitational waves have very recently been detected. If a blackhole came between them it would also distort space time. The mechanics are complicated, even after nearly four hundred years our solutions to the three body problem are limited.If gravity acts upon two objects as a straight line between them.
Then if spacetime between these two objects is curved, does the gravitational line between them curve with spacetime, or remain constant. If the former, would this mean gravitational pull could waver if a black hole came between two objects and so distorted spacetime? Or does this question not work, because the spacetime between the two objects will remain the straight line even if space time is distorted, and the distance will remain the same between them that the gravity will operate on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4XzLDM3Py8
Edited by 4x4Tyke on Thursday 23 November 22:53
Chestrockwell said:
questions
This subject is certainly not my forte, but I can help point you in the right direction for some answers.Other life out there... well fortunately there's a mathematical equation for that: N = R* • fp • ne • fl • fi • fc • L
Which basically tells us it's a maybe, but we don't know all the variables of this equation to answer it.
more on it here: https://www.space.com/25219-drake-equation.html
Problem is if there is life out there, by the time we saw it, given the distances involved, a long time would have passed for that light to reach us, so whatever we see is quite likely to be gone.
The speed of light is a very interesting topic. Only light can go at this speed, oh and gravity it turns out. And nothing can go faster. Well nothing useful anyhow. There are some exceptions here:
http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/what-travels...
Everything else is relegated to going under the speed of light. Sorry starwars/red dwarf/star trek, Hyperspace/FTL/Warp drive isn't here yet.
Efbe said:
This subject is certainly not my forte, but I can help point you in the right direction for some answers.
Other life out there... well fortunately there's a mathematical equation for that: N = R* • fp • ne • fl • fi • fc • L
Which basically tells us it's a maybe, but we don't know all the variables of this equation to answer it.
more on it here: https://www.space.com/25219-drake-equation.html
Problem is if there is life out there, by the time we saw it, given the distances involved, a long time would have passed for that light to reach us, so whatever we see is quite likely to be gone.
The speed of light is a very interesting topic. Only light can go at this speed, oh and gravity it turns out. And nothing can go faster. Well nothing useful anyhow. There are some exceptions here:
http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/what-travels...
Everything else is relegated to going under the speed of light. Sorry starwars/red dwarf/star trek, Hyperspace/FTL/Warp drive isn't here yet.
The drake equation is pretty cool, it kind of suggests the universe should be teaming with life, but we see no evidence for that. The Fermi paradox, which suggests intelligent life is extremely rare to the point were Earth is practically unique, or intelligent life doesn't survive long enough to have an impact on the universe. Perhaps if more people learnt it in school we wouldn't be so careless with our planet.Other life out there... well fortunately there's a mathematical equation for that: N = R* • fp • ne • fl • fi • fc • L
Which basically tells us it's a maybe, but we don't know all the variables of this equation to answer it.
more on it here: https://www.space.com/25219-drake-equation.html
Problem is if there is life out there, by the time we saw it, given the distances involved, a long time would have passed for that light to reach us, so whatever we see is quite likely to be gone.
The speed of light is a very interesting topic. Only light can go at this speed, oh and gravity it turns out. And nothing can go faster. Well nothing useful anyhow. There are some exceptions here:
http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/what-travels...
Everything else is relegated to going under the speed of light. Sorry starwars/red dwarf/star trek, Hyperspace/FTL/Warp drive isn't here yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
Edited by 4x4Tyke on Thursday 23 November 23:34
4x4Tyke said:
Those two object would have mass and therefore gravity (current mainstream thinking). Direct would probably be a better word than straight, since their gravity would curve/distort spacetime. Constant gravity would require they had no motion, in reality everything has some motion, so let assume they are orbiting each other. The movement would result in the formation of gravity waves. Gravitational waves have very recently been detected. If a blackhole came between them it would also distort space time. The mechanics are complicated, even after nearly four hundred years our solutions to the three body problem are limited.
Thanks Tyke.I think the really interesting part is whether anything can affect gravity, specifically for me, light. If gravity can bend light as seen in gravitational lensing, does this suggest that the light is also affecting the gravity? If it does affect it, can it reduce it, or just bend it as happens with light.
Google tells me I need to fully understand the stress–energy tensor, my brain tells me to sleep first, this topic may hurt!
Chestrockwell said:
Lately I have been trying to read into this as it also fascinates me, I’ve been scouring the internet for easy to read articles/videos helping someone with no knowledge on the subject to understand easier but all I see are articles that end up with all these equations beyond me or YouTube videos with cheesy american narration complimented by ‘scary’ noises playing in the background. I saw a film called interstellar which gives an interesting view on parraell universe’s, time and what not but I still didn’t understand it. I had given up on the subject until I saw this thread, it’s nice to see how a forum has so many extremely intelligent individuals available to answer any question you have!
I watched a video showing a journey trough to the end of the observable universe, at the end it says it would take something like 11 billion light years to reach it and it got me thinking, if all of this is true and we’re that insignificant, what is the point in existing unless someone made us? And if someone did make us, who made them!
If the universe is that big, 11 billion light years wide/long/round/doughnut shaped (the video was made in 2006), that must mean there is other life out there, can a being travel at the speed of light, is it possible for us to travel to another galaxy. I may seem like a 6 year old to some of you but these are questions I’ve always wanted to know the answer to!
Us as a human race....what is our significance to the universe if there are more STARS in the universe than there is grains of sand on the planet. Why do Porsche GT3 allocations or speeding tickets matter?
Sorry about all this, I’ll see myself out
If parallel universes exist, we will likely never know about them; everything we know suggests that 'our' universe is a closed system (not the same thing as the open closed geometry already discussed). There are some hypothesis about branes and bumping universes, but AIUI they are extremely fringe. There are others that suggest each quantum event spawns a parallel universe to take the other path; again very fringe. There are theories that the universe is simulation, i.e. God is computer programmer, usually tied to quantum uncertainty being a kind of lazy evaluation.I watched a video showing a journey trough to the end of the observable universe, at the end it says it would take something like 11 billion light years to reach it and it got me thinking, if all of this is true and we’re that insignificant, what is the point in existing unless someone made us? And if someone did make us, who made them!
If the universe is that big, 11 billion light years wide/long/round/doughnut shaped (the video was made in 2006), that must mean there is other life out there, can a being travel at the speed of light, is it possible for us to travel to another galaxy. I may seem like a 6 year old to some of you but these are questions I’ve always wanted to know the answer to!
Us as a human race....what is our significance to the universe if there are more STARS in the universe than there is grains of sand on the planet. Why do Porsche GT3 allocations or speeding tickets matter?
Sorry about all this, I’ll see myself out
"what is the point in existing" is a fair question, but good is not the strongest hypothesis, never mind the only option. The universe exists because it can exist is the Occams Razor explanation.
Based on current and foreseeable physics, the speed of light is a hard barrier. I'm a big Sci-Fi fan but the idea that humans will ever discover hyperspace or travel to another galaxy is absurdly unlikely. Star hoping across the milky way is plausible but the engineering and time-frames are probably centuries ahead of us. The solar system is extremely hospitable environment as far as the universe is concerned, but is still incredible dangerous compared to Earth.
4x4Tyke said:
Prof Prolapse said:
Also there is no big crunch, an open universe is proven, dark matter is evidenced by a number of observations including gravitational lensing (predicted by Einstein, and observed)
An open universe is not proven, it is a leading theory, but it is still unproven one way or another.. We do know the universe is almost flat, but a definitive answer is beyond our current instruments.https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html said:
We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe.
Dark matter and Dark Energy are also not done deals. The search for WIMPS has failed, yet we should be able to detect them with current technology is they exist as hypothesised.If you want to dispute that then I would honestly be fascinated to hear the reasons why, but it's not a rational position to simply state that a small degree of uncertainty means we should continue to exist in absolute uncertainty about the shape of the universe until it is resolved. That is my recurrent point throughout this thread, and the only one I am perhaps sufficiently confident to continue to maintain.
So yes, I agree in so much as there is a degree of uncertainty (in some of these points more than others) but I believe what I've said remains valid. My understanding for example is that "Dark matter", is just something made up because there isn't enough matter in the universe to fit the maths, it's just term. We don't have to wait until we discover what it is, that doesn't necessarily make the assumption any less valuable, or mean all of cosmology will be re-written when we find it precisely what it is.
It's like the global warming thread here, the biggest problem the naysayers have is they don't understand it isn't a house of cards waiting to tumble.
Chestrockwell said:
Lately I have been trying to read into this as it also fascinates me, I’ve been scouring the internet for easy to read articles/videos helping someone with no knowledge on the subject to understand easier but all I see are articles that end up with all these equations beyond me or YouTube videos with cheesy american narration complimented by ‘scary’ noises playing in the background. I saw a film called interstellar which gives an interesting view on parraell universe’s, time and what not but I still didn’t understand it. I had given up on the subject until I saw this thread, it’s nice to see how a forum has so many extremely intelligent individuals available to answer any question you have!
I watched a video showing a journey trough to the end of the observable universe, at the end it says it would take something like 11 billion light years to reach it and it got me thinking, if all of this is true and we’re that insignificant, what is the point in existing unless someone made us? And if someone did make us, who made them!
If the universe is that big, 11 billion light years wide/long/round/doughnut shaped (the video was made in 2006), that must mean there is other life out there, can a being travel at the speed of light, is it possible for us to travel to another galaxy. I may seem like a 6 year old to some of you but these are questions I’ve always wanted to know the answer to!
Us as a human race....what is our significance to the universe if there are more STARS in the universe than there is grains of sand on the planet. Why do Porsche GT3 allocations or speeding tickets matter?
Sorry about all this, I’ll see myself out
I've mentioned Krauss twice already when it comes to the origin of the universe because I think he's a legend, his lectures are on youtube, and accessible for lay people (although I needed to watch it more than once!). Krauss also likes to argue the atheist view point. I watched a video showing a journey trough to the end of the observable universe, at the end it says it would take something like 11 billion light years to reach it and it got me thinking, if all of this is true and we’re that insignificant, what is the point in existing unless someone made us? And if someone did make us, who made them!
If the universe is that big, 11 billion light years wide/long/round/doughnut shaped (the video was made in 2006), that must mean there is other life out there, can a being travel at the speed of light, is it possible for us to travel to another galaxy. I may seem like a 6 year old to some of you but these are questions I’ve always wanted to know the answer to!
Us as a human race....what is our significance to the universe if there are more STARS in the universe than there is grains of sand on the planet. Why do Porsche GT3 allocations or speeding tickets matter?
Sorry about all this, I’ll see myself out
The multiverse thing is a nice, but not widely held theory as I understand it. I'm not actually convinced it's a scientific theory either, as I don't think it could possible be disproven. Then again, "Rick and Morty", is awesome, so it certainly has value.
I think it's a fair chunk more than 11billion years to the edge of the visible universe isn't it? It's also accelerating away from us at a phenomenal rate.
There's four things key to understanding your place in the universe. (1) There is no god (2) there is no plan (3) you are insignificant (4) we are all going to die, and the universe we inhabit, is probably the most hostile to life of any possible universe shapes (back on topic! Is that five?)
Now off topic, but important, that doesn't mean life can't have value. There's masses of philosophy Existentialism is the whole philosophy which deals with the idea of defining everything via oneself as opposed to some magic bearded entity doing it for you. Similarly Nihilism, depending on your exact interpretation, doesn't mean life is without value, it just means it has no intrinsic value. I am very strong believer in Nihilism, in that pretty much reject any idea of intrinsic value (or morality but that is for another thread) but I thoroughly enjoy being alive, and recommend it to all my friends and family. Personally I devote my time to my family, what I feel is a positive use of my time, and I try and enjoy my brief time in the sun before I return to the nothingness we all came from. In many ways life has more value when it's not infinite, "a thing is not beautiful because it lasts".
But it's not for everyone. Some people find that a bit hard to swallow, and prefer to rely on gods, heaven, hell, and all that jazz. You can normally see them, clutching at the mysticism, waiting for a gap in knowledge big enough that their big beardy abrahamic magical god could poke his head through and wave at us, as they always have done.
Anyway, a fun digression.... I need to shut up now.
Edited by Prof Prolapse on Friday 24th November 09:43
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff