Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How big is the Universe?
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3132 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(2)
Message 16 of 39 (531496)
10-18-2009 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by tuffers
10-17-2009 12:38 PM


A good book to help understand the concept of spacetime
Tuffers writes:
es, I understand the idea of dots on a balloon (or raisins in a cake), although to my mind the dots are moving, because they are moving apart from each other as a consequence of the balloon enlarging. In other words, they are not moving under their own steam but they are hitching a ride on something else that's moving (the surface of the balloon in this case). That's why I still find it hard to get my head around the concept.
Actually galaxies also do move in regards to local gravitational forces as well, which is why you see some close by galaxies like Andromeda that are blue shift rather than red shifted. The local gravitational forces between our Milky Way and Andromeda are greater than the expansion forces of the expanding universe. However, this only works locally. The further we go out the faster the universe is expanding away from us. Like the balloon analogy if you put two dots really close to each they will not separate as much as if you put them on opposite sides of the balloon.
The 2 dimensional skin of the balloon in this analogy represents the 4 dimensions of spacetime itself in which everything in our universe resides. That is probably what is hanging you up. You cannot see, touch, feel, or taste the 4 dimensions of spacetime so it is hard for you to conceptualize. However we can detect it through the behavior or objects in space; specifically, the gravitational effects (relativistic effects such as rotating frames of reference, time dilation, relavistic dynamics, etc) of objects upon other objects in space. This is the whole idea behind the Theory of Relativity (both Special and General) proposed by Albert Einstein.
A good book to read that might shed some light on the matter for the average layman is 'The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality' by Physicist Brian Greene.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : correct misspellings and grammer
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by tuffers, posted 10-17-2009 12:38 PM tuffers has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3132 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 34 of 39 (535995)
11-19-2009 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by onifre
11-17-2009 12:55 PM


Re: Imported Universe Response To Onifre
Onifre writes:
What is meant by "spacetime" is a description of the geometry of the universe, ie. Minkowski spacetime. That is finite in size down to Plank scale.
This had an origin, the Big Bang.
I believe the Big Bang Theory explains events that occur after T>0 but does not in itself explain the cause or origin of the spacetime itself.
The origin/cause of the Big Bang is still being hypothesized though Hawkings predicts that our universe, the spacetime we exist in, did not have an origin meaining the concept of time itself cannot have a first cause. Cause and effect are concepts dependent on the concept of time and therefore time is unbounded i.e. it has no one point of origin, as Hawkings predicts. Therefore it makes no sense to say that spacetime had a beginning.
There are other hypothesis/theories that state that our universe (not all of spacetime) had other types of origins i.e. spawned off from other universes (multi-world theory), is part of a large omniverse (the brane), is infinite progression of expansion and collapsing spacetime continuum, etc, or a combination of the above. As we digger deeper into reality we reveal many of these theories are interrelated and have hidden truths that apply.
Just to add another perspective albeit a layman's perspective based on some very limited amount of knowledge.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by onifre, posted 11-17-2009 12:55 PM onifre 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