Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cosmology 101
AshsZ
Member (Idle past 5400 days)
Posts: 35
From: Edgewater, FL USA
Joined: 05-17-2008


Message 46 of 79 (472452)
06-22-2008 2:06 PM


I've had a list of questions regarding this topic - more like a compilation of questionable ideas of which I would like to throw out there in hopes to find some answers on as well as open the door for others to do the same as I.
There are a lot of aspects of physics which seemingly become paradoxical and/or counterintuitive, concepts which appear to have two (or more) correct but diametrically opposed explanations, and so on and so forth. I'd like to throw some of these out to start a sort of Q and A post. And so, I'll divulge >>>>
The idea that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate is a conclusion based on observation of objects in the cosmos - we find that the further out we look, the faster the objects are moving away from us. While it seems scientists are infatuated with trying to explain why objects are moving like this, I haven't heard a lot of questions about the implications of this observation.
Does this mean that at some point, waaaay out there, objects are actually moving away from us at the speed of light? If so, wouldn't this mean that these objects would virtually have infinite mass? And if this is so, would this mean that our universe is basically bordered by a black hole?
Also, the further away you look, the further back in time you are seeing. Since this is the case and we see objects moving away from us at greater rates of speed the further away we look, wouldn't this mean that the universe isn't actually expanding? i.e. if you look out at 7 billion light year miles and see objects moving away at 500,000 miles per hour and then look out at 14 billion light year miles and see objects moving away at 1,000,000 miles per hour, wouldn't this mean that the expansion rate is actually slowing? 14 billion years ago things were moving 2x the rate they were moving 7 billion years ago. If you continue to divide the distance you look out, things are moving even slower away from us. Taking this one step further, does this mean everything you see out at 14 billion light year miles was actually right where we are at this moment? Would space then be the shape of an infinite number of toroids with an itty-bitty "hole" at the very center where we exist - our observations are as if we are looking along the surface of a loop of time and space? Not saying this in any sort of "centric" way - us being at the very center is just a condition of observing the universe.
I am aware of the concept of "comoving distances", which basically states that what we observe out in the cosmos isn't actually as old as the light year miles would suggest. This is because when the whole thing went "boom", the light from distant objects was emitted across expanding space, which made it actually travel further distance to reach us. Because of this, the visible universe is 46 billion light years in any direction. This throws the 14 billion year metric I used above a bit off, so lets just entertain that previous paragraph as if you are looking out 46 billion light years. With this small correction, the question above still stands - wouldn't this mean you are actually looking right back to "here" and that the universe isn't really expanding at an accelerating rate?
Going back to the idea that the universe is essentially "encased" by a black hole, and tying this into the looped universe, that would imply that the universe actually started out as a black hole. Perhaps we are in some iteration of the "other side" of a great crunch event which created a black hole containing ALL of the universe. This idea is something that makes it difficult to imagine the big bang - if you had all of the universe in some really tiny volume, wouldn't that be a black hole? How could it go BANG and expand? Or perhaps the "big crunch" isn't everything gravitating back to one point, it is everything hurtling into the bordering "black hole" - being spit back to the beginning and cycling all over again? Out there at the "edge" there could be someone watching US cross that point and "poof" we're on the other side of the loop.
If there really is a black hole border, might this explain the accelerating expansion we see? I dont like the idea of "dark matter" all that much - it seems to be a convenient crutch to explain the observation. How can scientists come up with a concept of dark matter when it is apparently something that cannot even be detected, measured, etc? They only see an effect and dont appear to have solid theory to explain it other than making something up out of thin space. That explanation sounds like we should start drinking the aether and hop in the orgone hot tub with some ladies and call it a good idea, LOL. Seems to me there's a problem with our current paradigm. We are trying to make sense out of things but have some incorrect ideas at the fundamental levels of understanding which are preventing us from seeing the real thing...
Also, a question on gravity... What would happen if you were to significantly slow or even stop the local time of the space of an object? i.e. time dialation.. Would gravity have a lesser to no effect on that object?
Many more Q's but enough for now.

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Agobot, posted 06-22-2008 2:37 PM AshsZ has not replied
 Message 52 by Straggler, posted 06-22-2008 3:22 PM AshsZ has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 47 of 79 (472459)
06-22-2008 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Force
06-22-2008 12:47 PM


Re: Back to The OP
Are scaler fields a complete inference or is there evidence that they exist?
Good question - first off, there is nothing unusual about scalar fields. On the contrary, they are the simplest type of field. All of the fields that we deal with every day are more complex than scalar fields - they are vector, spinor, and tensor fields. But as of yet, we don't have any direct evidence of a scalar field. The one scalar field we really think exists is the Higgs field, and we're hoping to discover direct evidence at the LHC within the next year or so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Force, posted 06-22-2008 12:47 PM Force has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 48 of 79 (472461)
06-22-2008 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by AshsZ
06-22-2008 2:06 PM


Having evolved from something as simple as a bacteria or a jellyfish, it'd be a real miracle if we, the descendants of the bacteria and the mutated sea creatures, find out all those answers. It wouldn't make sense if everything in the universe made sense to us. Considering where and what we come from, it wouldn't make sense at all. Einstein pondered on this, saying "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by AshsZ, posted 06-22-2008 2:06 PM AshsZ has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 49 of 79 (472462)
06-22-2008 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Agobot
06-22-2008 3:07 AM


Re: Multiverse
Agobot writes:
I obviously meant to say to support life on Earth.
No, you said that the fundamental forces and just about everything about the universe is finely tunned to support our form of life. Therefore, I'd like to see you demonstrate this by taking a little flying lesson up in space without a space suit. Or perhaps you'd like to take a walk on Mars without a life support suit.
So on to the question - how do you know there's life outside of earth? Care to present your evidence? Care to dress your space suit and take us to where alien life might be?
No, you're the one that claims that the universe is finely tuned to support life. You're the one that claims the universe is teeming with life. The burden of proof is on YOU. Since most of the universe is just empty space, show us how finely tuned the universe is for life by going up in orbit without a life support space suit.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Agobot, posted 06-22-2008 3:07 AM Agobot has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 50 of 79 (472463)
06-22-2008 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by cavediver
06-22-2008 6:38 AM


Re: Multiverse
cavediver writes:
Nonsense. Everything about the Universe is precisely what is required to enable life on at least one planet.
And if you had bothered to read the rest of my post rather than quote mining me, you'd see that I referred to planet Earth as an oasis in an infinitely large desert. Whether or not everything about the universe that enables life on at least this one planet is another question.
Ago claimed that the universe is finely tuned to support our form of life. I'd like to see him prove this claim by going out into space without a space suit. It's a simple challenge for such a bold claim.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by cavediver, posted 06-22-2008 6:38 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by cavediver, posted 06-22-2008 3:19 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 53 by Agobot, posted 06-22-2008 5:03 PM Taz has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 51 of 79 (472466)
06-22-2008 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Taz
06-22-2008 2:41 PM


Re: Multiverse
Ago claimed that the universe is finely tuned to support our form of life. I'd like to see him prove this claim by going out into space without a space suit. It's a simple challenge for such a bold claim.
I really don't see the relevance of your request to what you say Ago claimed. If the Universe did have the sole divinely inspired purpose to bring us into existence, it has done its job perfectly well. And Ago didn't even claim this - he said:
The strentgh of the fundamental forces in the universe(force of gravity, speed of light, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, proton mass, etc.) is so finely tuned(to support life?)...
He's not even sure he's talking about life in general, never mind anything about Earth. He is obviously confused over what he has read, so trying to argue with his misconception of someone else's point seems rather fruitless!
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Taz, posted 06-22-2008 2:41 PM Taz has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 52 of 79 (472467)
06-22-2008 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by AshsZ
06-22-2008 2:06 PM


Rate of Expansion > Speed of Light
This topic has come up before.
Checkout the following (link to Cavediver's main explanation - follow the messages before and after for a fuller picture)
Message 28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by AshsZ, posted 06-22-2008 2:06 PM AshsZ has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 53 of 79 (472478)
06-22-2008 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Taz
06-22-2008 2:41 PM


Re: Multiverse
Taz, even slight deviations in the laws would result in a universe devoid of stars and life. If, for instance, the force of gravity were just a few percent weaker it could not squeeze and heat the matter inside stars to the millions of degrees necessary to trigger sunlight-generating nuclear reactions. If gravity were only a few percent stronger, however, it would heat up stars, causing them to consume their fuel faster. They would not exist for the billions of years needed for evolution to produce intelligence. If we accept the idea that the universe was created by god, it would terminate our future research on the subject. The other possibility is that the Universe is the way it is because, if it wasn't, we would not be here to notice. According to this topsy-turvy reasoning, known as the "anthropic principle", it is hardly surprising that we find ourselves in a universe which is fine-tuned for the existence of galaxies, stars and life. We could hardly have evolved in a universe that was not!
The anthropic principle leads to the idea that our universe is one of countless others. In each universe of this "multiverse", forces like gravity have different strengths. An unavoidable consequence, however, is that most universes lack the special conditions needed for the birth of galaxies, stars, planets and so on. As a consequence, there'll probably be countless lifeless universes. And if you kind of accept the idea of natuaral selection of universes, there will always be at least one fit to support life. Or maybe, our universe could be the outcome of an experiment carried out by a superior intelligence in another universe(creating a singularity and fine tuning the cosmological constants so that life as we know it is possible). If you don't accept this, i am afraid, currently, your only other option is creationism.
Currently, both science and religeon lack the ability to pinpoint what started all - if a Supreme Being made the first universe, who or what made the Supreme Being? And, if everything began with a mostly-dead ensemble of universe containing the intelligent mother universe, how did that come about?
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Taz, posted 06-22-2008 2:41 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by NosyNed, posted 06-22-2008 9:43 PM Agobot has not replied
 Message 55 by Taz, posted 06-22-2008 9:45 PM Agobot has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 54 of 79 (472502)
06-22-2008 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Agobot
06-22-2008 5:03 PM


alternate laws
Taz, even slight deviations in the laws would result in a universe devoid of stars and life.
This appears to be untrue. Only if you take particular deviations is it true.
This article discusses it from one point of view:
http://www.newscientist.com/...the-flexilaws-of-physics.html
quote:
If the universe came with any old rag-bag of laws, life would almost certainly be ruled out. Indeed, changing the existing laws by even a scintilla could have lethal consequences. For example, if protons were 0.1 per cent heavier than neutrons, rather than the other way about, all the protons coughed out of the big bang would soon have decayed into neutrons. Without protons and their crucial electric charge, atoms could not exist and chemistry would be impossible.
But Some deviations of some laws produce this result but according to these folks it might not be true for all deviations.
My other universe is a Porsche | New Scientist
quote:
The weak force is responsible for the radioactive beta decay of atomic nuclei and is considered essential for a complex universe like ours. Take it away, and you might expect the "weakless" universe to be wildly different from our own.
Only Harnik, Kribs and Perez have discovered it isn't. They considered what would happen to crucial processes in the history of the universe - the forging of elements in the big bang, the powering of stars and supernovae explosions. By examining the equations that describe these processes, they made an astonishing discovery: the weakless universe is still capable of supporting observers.
...
Remarkably, however, Harnik and his colleagues have discovered that there is still a way for weakless stars to shine. It all depends on the relative proportions of ordinary matter and radiation created in the weakless big bang, a measure of the heat of the event. In our universe, the first few minutes were hot and dense enough for protons and neutrons - collectively known as baryons - to fuse to create deuterium, helium and lithium. Because neutrons cannot decay in the weakless universe, there would be many more of them free to fly around and fuse with protons to make deuterium. Harnik and his colleagues have calculated that with a slightly hotter big bang, 10 per cent of matter in the weakless universe would be deuterium, compared with just 0.001 per cent in ours.
It is a key difference. "The extra deuterium in the weakless universe enables stars to leapfrog the first step in the reaction chain and derive heat from the second step, turning deuterium into helium-3," says Harnik.
So that is one very BIG deviation that can still produce a working universe. They then discuss another one with a big difference.
With our own that produces 3 very different sets of laws that "work" according to their calculations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Agobot, posted 06-22-2008 5:03 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 55 of 79 (472503)
06-22-2008 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Agobot
06-22-2008 5:03 PM


Re: Multiverse
Ok, I'll bite.
Ago writes:
Currently, both science and religeon lack the ability to pinpoint what started all - if a Supreme Being made the first universe, who or what made the Supreme Being? And, if everything began with a mostly-dead ensemble of universe containing the intelligent mother universe, how did that come about?
Let me guess. The answer to both questions is that the god of abraham created the universe and that nothing created him because he is eternal and always have been. Good enough answer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Agobot, posted 06-22-2008 5:03 PM Agobot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Coyote, posted 06-22-2008 10:53 PM Taz has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 56 of 79 (472506)
06-22-2008 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Taz
06-22-2008 9:45 PM


Re: Multiverse
Ago writes:
Currently, both science and religeon lack the ability to pinpoint what started all - if a Supreme Being made the first universe, who or what made the Supreme Being? And, if everything began with a mostly-dead ensemble of universe containing the intelligent mother universe, how did that come about?
Let me guess. The answer to both questions is that the god of abraham created the universe and that nothing created him because he is eternal and always have been. Good enough answer?
This is a Science Forum.
Perhaps you could provide some evidence for your answer (other than religious belief).

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Taz, posted 06-22-2008 9:45 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Taz, posted 06-22-2008 11:01 PM Coyote has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 57 of 79 (472508)
06-22-2008 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Coyote
06-22-2008 10:53 PM


Re: Multiverse
Coyote writes:
Perhaps you could provide some evidence for your answer (other than religious belief).
You should ask Agobot for the evidence, not me. He was the one that brought up the supreme god/creator thing being the only explanation for this fine tunning thing. All I did was try to guess which deity he had in mind for being this supreme creator. I guessed it was the god of abraham.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Coyote, posted 06-22-2008 10:53 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Coyote, posted 06-22-2008 11:05 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 60 by Agobot, posted 06-23-2008 5:18 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 68 by Force, posted 06-24-2008 4:37 PM Taz has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 58 of 79 (472509)
06-22-2008 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Taz
06-22-2008 11:01 PM


Re: Multiverse
You should ask Agobot for the evidence, not me. He was the one that brought up the supreme god/creator thing being the only explanation for this fine tunning thing. All I did was try to guess which deity he had in mind for being this supreme creator. I guessed it was the god of abraham.
Excuse me, I missed that part.
Agobot? Any evidence?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Taz, posted 06-22-2008 11:01 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Agobot, posted 06-23-2008 4:24 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 59 of 79 (472541)
06-23-2008 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Coyote
06-22-2008 11:05 PM


Re: Multiverse
Coyote writes:
Excuse me, I missed that part.
Agobot? Any evidence?[
Evidence for the existence of god? Hehe, I am an atheist. I have no problem saying f**k god 365 times a year. Taz is just talking out of his ass.
I said this fine tuning could come from:
1. Multiple universes, one of which is ours
2. Billions of planets within our universes, one of which is our habitable planet Earth(although this doesn't really explain the fine tuning of the cosmological constants)
3. A singularity and a big bang created by other intelligent beings outside our universe and outside our 3 dimensional world
4. God - least probable scenario, but for the sake of statistics we shouldn't rule this one out
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Coyote, posted 06-22-2008 11:05 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 60 of 79 (472544)
06-23-2008 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Taz
06-22-2008 11:01 PM


Re: Multiverse
Taz writes:
You should ask Agobot for the evidence, not me. He was the one that brought up the supreme god/creator thing being the only explanation for this fine tunning thing.
The only explanation I've given? What are you smoking man? You were the one claiming to have been mud wrestling with god.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Taz, posted 06-22-2008 11:01 PM Taz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024