BF2S Forums The Universe

Good write up, although 15 billion seems a little big, I thought the most distant galaxy we've located was around 11~ billion lightyears.

Hakei wrote:

Good write up, although 15 billion seems a little big, I thought the most distant galaxy we've located was around 11~ billion lightyears.

Approximate. I think 11~billion is old news. Probably before the acceleration of the Universe was factored in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#G … luster_age

ATG wrote:

My understanding of the universe{s} is that there are ten or eleven dimensions. These appear to facilitate big bangs as the different ' bubbles ' sometimes collide. It may be a repeating cycle and indeed our reality seems to be smaller than a speck of dew on a blade of grass in a field of wild flowers.


Moderne physics has not gone beyond the string theory and it is silly, tbh to try as we have more  pressing issues our science people should be dealing with like solar power, reclaiming water, new propulsion for space travel.
Trying to understand the mechanicals of the universes is putting the cart before the horse as we need to survive as a species.

Trying to learn about the dimensions is just silly. I could only get my head around some parts, was just confuzzling.

ATG wrote:

My understanding of the universe{s} is that there are ten or eleven dimensions. These appear to facilitate big bangs as the different ' bubbles ' sometimes collide. It may be a repeating cycle and indeed our reality seems to be smaller than a speck of dew on a blade of grass in a field of wild flowers.


Moderne physics has not gone beyond the string theory and it is silly, tbh to try as we have more  pressing issues our science people should be dealing with like solar power, reclaiming water, new propulsion for space travel.
Trying to understand the mechanicals of the universes is putting the cart before the horse as we need to survive as a species.

ATG the ultimate goal of science is a theory for everything. The historical pursuit of this theory (Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Einstein..etc) have led to many practical and meaningful innovations. If I were to have started into a discussion of unification theory I would have bored 95 percent of this forums members to death. Shit I threw a few pictures in just to help hold attention in this thread.

heh.
yup.


fuck all, it's confusing.
Planet formations has always been a big interest of mine. All planets are failed stars in that they form exactly the same way.
As your sig points ( ed ) out, Jupiter is a star that failed to ignite.

Kmarion wrote:

Watch http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
Meet me back here in 3 hours.

I've watched that twice - once on the telly, and once online. I swear, it was one of the most interesting things I've watched that I didn't get too confused about. It actually explained a lot of things in terms that a layman could understand.

Smithereener wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Watch http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
Meet me back here in 3 hours.

I've watched that twice - once on the telly, and once online. I swear, it was one of the most interesting things I've watched that I didn't get too confused about. It actually explained a lot of things in terms that a layman could understand.

Egg-zactly .

Then once you've got the spark become a complete dork.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p1932479

Hakei wrote:

Good write up, although 15 billion seems a little big, I thought the most distant galaxy we've located was around 11~ billion lightyears.

It's generally accepted at closer to 12-13 billions years, but even the age of the universe cannot be found with certainty. Since we don't, and honestly cannot, know what the exact nature of the beginning of the universe or how it has progressed, putting a specific age on it is impossible.

Currently it is believed that not only is the universe expanding, but that this expansion is actually speeding up. This acceleration has brought into question many of the current models (such at the FLRW model) that are based on a homogeneous universe that is expanding at a constant rate. As we study more and more of the universe we see that there it is most likely not homogeneous, and there are distinct formations at the cosmic level (hundreds of light years across), though a fairly decent model can be made by making up for these perturbations in the FLRW model. (don't ask me about the math) The acceleration of the expansion, however, calls into question the current models that were used to predict the age of the universe, so we can say the age of the universe with less certainty than we could a decade ago.

This acceleration has made cosmologists look at the old models, and for the most part they are pointing to a cosmological constant, knows as dark energy. (ohhhh, ahhhhh) Dark energy was actually the idea that Einstein had called his biggest blunder, and ironically it is now being looked at as the biggest thing since GR.

Dark energy can most readily be thought as as reverse gravity. In a universe filled with matter that wants to do nothing but pull stuff towards it, how could it not only be expanding, but be expanding faster? The answer is all the stuff that is between the planets, basically in what we know as a void right now, there is energy that wants to push things outward. According to the current models (wouldn't be the farm on it) the universe is actually about 70% of this dark energy, that is undetectable in almost every way. There are various groups working on ways to detect them, generally using exotic particles such as neutrinos, but none have been successful so far. (to my knowledge)

These approximations are trying to fit a flat universe however, one that will eventually cease to expand, but never contract. The data is very close to fitting a flat universe, but apart from that there is not much reason to believe it is flat, as opposed to open or closed, so unless it can be proven that we are in a flat universe, it seems like the physicists are making the data fit the equations, not necessarily the other way around. In fact all of this is still very much in the air, I wouldn't give any of it too much weight until someone proves string theory (sounds freaking crazy, but pretty much everyone I've talked to that knows what they're talking about thinks it's a load of bullshit), finds the gravitron, or in the best case scenario, unifies GR and quantum mechanics. It's not that the cosmologists don't know what they're doing, but there are so many possibilities, and we know so little, that it's hard to put too much faith in our conclusions.

edit: Yeah, ATG that's string theory. Extra dimensions are present in some other theories, but not like string. As it was explained to me by this guy, string theory is kinda what happened when a bunch of college physicists got drunk and started doing "hey what if"s.

"Oh hey man, what if like, between our dimensions, there were extra dimensions between those dimensions, and that's where like, gravity and stuff comes from, how these like, 12 dimensions are folded around each other"

"Oh dude, that's totally right, and what if like, all the particles in the universe were actually made by little strings all folded around on themselves to make tiny particles and stuff"

Seriously, what the fuck. String theory hasn't proved to be of any use at predicting anything, so unless it gets real useful real fast, it's not going to be anything other than a mental acid trip minus the acid.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

okay, one thing that has always troubled me.  Mass/energy cannot be created nor destroyed.  So as the universe expands, does that mean that the total amount of energy in the universe is decreasing?  Not being destroyed, but having to stretch over a more and more vast expanse?  (If that makes any sense).  Would that mean that eventually everything would come to a near stand-still?

Heat death.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

edit: Yeah, ATG that's string theory. Extra dimensions are present in some other theories, but not like string. As it was explained to me by this guy, string theory is kinda what happened when a bunch of college physicists got drunk and started doing "hey what if"s.

I thought it was what you got when you tried to make Einsteins theory and quantum mechanics coexist. I'm still waiting for the guys at Fermilab to destroy the Universe (tbh) . The least they could do is give us a death ray.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If they actually did that it would have put a lot of physicists out of a job. (one of my points that you should sit up and listen if it was actually done)

Man don't even get me started on particle accelerators. They were planning a MASSIVE one, named Isabelle, out here in Waxahachie, Texas. 54 freakin miles in diameter I think it was! Damn thing got canceled before it was anywhere near complete though.

Congress doesn't have the heart to pay for it.  Cowards!  At least CERN is supposed to get the LHC running soon, so particle physicists can begin looking for the Higgs boson again.

And I totally agree with your take on string theory.  It's all postdictions, and nothing more.

I love it when people assume everyone else is an evilutionist