Here's the reference: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14230368/
Universe might be bigger and older than previously thought
- Thread starter ravells
- Start date
- Status
M
Malenfant
Guest
It's definitely interesting, but I'm waiting til they take some more measurements on the andromeda galaxy and other nearby ones before I'm revising my assumed age of the universe numbers (currently at 13.7 Ga).
Either way, it still seems that our *galaxy* is 13.6 billion years old, from other measurements that don't depend on hubble. So that's what matters when it comes to figuring out maximum ages for stars in Traveller.
Either way, it still seems that our *galaxy* is 13.6 billion years old, from other measurements that don't depend on hubble. So that's what matters when it comes to figuring out maximum ages for stars in Traveller.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
In Timothy Ferris', The Whole Shebang, he reported that one Inflation researcher had determined that the universe might be as large as 10^10^12.
Mr. Ferris, startled, asked his friend, "In what?"
His friend said, "Well now, at 10^10^12, it doesn't really matter!" (It turned out that it was in centimeters, but that isn't that big a difference than lightyears with that size.)
This was in the mid-90s. They've obviously done some refining of their ideas since then.
Mr. Ferris, startled, asked his friend, "In what?"
His friend said, "Well now, at 10^10^12, it doesn't really matter!" (It turned out that it was in centimeters, but that isn't that big a difference than lightyears with that size.)
This was in the mid-90s. They've obviously done some refining of their ideas since then.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
Well, the current idea is that there is nothing. You can't get past the edge of the universe because you literally can't go where the universe isn't.
One of the intriguing theories of the origins of the universe is that the universe itself is a result of a collision between two super-membranes, or "branes". This implies that there's a kind of "space" between two oscillating things that collide every now and then. If this is the case, then there may be some "thing" beyond normal universe existance. By that I mean a kind of "space" beyond normal "space".
Note, this isn't to imply hyper-space, which is a different concept, but yet an entirely different form of space beyond what is theorized.
Amazing what one learns (or perhaps infers) from PBS Nova specials.
Note, this isn't to imply hyper-space, which is a different concept, but yet an entirely different form of space beyond what is theorized.
Amazing what one learns (or perhaps infers) from PBS Nova specials.
What I don't get is that it says that current thinking is that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and about 156 billion light-years wide.
My layman's mind tells me that if it was 13.7 billion years old it should be 13.7b X 2 light years wide = 27.4 billion light years? How do they get to 156b?
My layman's mind tells me that if it was 13.7 billion years old it should be 13.7b X 2 light years wide = 27.4 billion light years? How do they get to 156b?
TheEngineer
SOC-14 1K
Hi !
Universe expansion is an expansion of space itself and not "movement" of mass thru space. Thus its not subject to any lightspeed limitations and the diameter reachable in those 13.7b years is considerable greater.
Best regards,
TE
Universe expansion is an expansion of space itself and not "movement" of mass thru space. Thus its not subject to any lightspeed limitations and the diameter reachable in those 13.7b years is considerable greater.
Best regards,
TE
Thanks Mert but I still don't understand (I'm being dumb)...
I think of the photon wave front from the big bang. Beyond that expansion there is no matter or energy and therefore it cannot be measured as there is nothing to measure it by, so the wave sets out the boundaries of what is 'the universe'. The bang happens and light at the front of everything else rushes out in all directions at the speed of light into the void. The furthest apart in terms of geometry two photons can go is 180 degrees. Both travelling at 1c away from each other.
Where am I going wrong?
Ravs
I think of the photon wave front from the big bang. Beyond that expansion there is no matter or energy and therefore it cannot be measured as there is nothing to measure it by, so the wave sets out the boundaries of what is 'the universe'. The bang happens and light at the front of everything else rushes out in all directions at the speed of light into the void. The furthest apart in terms of geometry two photons can go is 180 degrees. Both travelling at 1c away from each other.
Where am I going wrong?
Ravs
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
You are thinking in 3 dimensions!
The classic way to describe it is this:
The Big Bang didn't happen at one place in the universe and create a 3D light wavefront, it happened everywhere at once, thereby creating the universe.
Imagine a black sphere whose surface is painted with dots. Those dots are galaxies. Our 3D universe is represented by the 2D surface of the sphere.
As the sphere gets bigger, the surface expands and the galaxies get further apart, yet although the surface area (our volume) is increasing, it has a finite value at any given time. Also, the galaxies are not moving across the surface and hence limited by lightspeed, but are being carried with its expansion.
In the past, the universe was smaller, and at one time it was so small that all points on the surface were at one point together - the Big Bang.
The only things outside our 3D universe (beyond the surface of the sphere) in this spherical model are Past (inside) and Future (outside) because the radial dimension into which the Universe is expanding is Time.
Does that help?
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
You're talking about M-Theory developments of String Theory (and both aren't theories yet, they're both just hypotheses).
The Elegant Universe program quite readily admitted that there is no way to test String/M-Theories, and so in the near-term they'll remain interesting hypotheses.
The show also didn't explain a lot of things. Including any information on the rate at which string/membranes collided*, whether or not new collisions emerged as separate universes/dimensions or universes in the same space-time, etc.
I think you mean conjecture, but I understand.
Well, I thought it was interesting. If anything I'm not even an amateur cosmologist, just a former engineering student who grew up with astronomy books. I think the show, differing from the article, was a simple analogous explanation for the average Joe of what scientific minds are doing these days, and not a formal education on the mathematical foundations of the topic.
Well, I thought it was interesting. If anything I'm not even an amateur cosmologist, just a former engineering student who grew up with astronomy books. I think the show, differing from the article, was a simple analogous explanation for the average Joe of what scientific minds are doing these days, and not a formal education on the mathematical foundations of the topic.
TheEngineer
SOC-14 1K
Dont worry Blue Ghost, guess there are only a handfull of people who *eventually* have the math foundations for that topic
AFAIK there are still a few math foundations left to discover in order to make a theory out of this idea.
AFAIK there are still a few math foundations left to discover in order to make a theory out of this idea.
M
Malenfant
Guest
Will you just cut all this cynical anti-science crap you keep spouting, Aramis? I don't know what the hell science did to you, did it blow away some hare-brained idea you came up with about how the universe worked or something?
There's no "Sci-speak" or secret hidden agenda or conspiracy to falsify things. A hypothesis is a testable idea to explain observed data, nothing more. It may or may not be valid, depending on further observations. If it doesn't fit the observations then it's not valid as it stands and the hypothesis needs to be changed. That's all there is to it.
There's no "Sci-speak" or secret hidden agenda or conspiracy to falsify things. A hypothesis is a testable idea to explain observed data, nothing more. It may or may not be valid, depending on further observations. If it doesn't fit the observations then it's not valid as it stands and the hypothesis needs to be changed. That's all there is to it.
just a might touchy today mal?
HYPOTHESIS:
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
The antecedent of a conditional statement.
some keywords are tentative, assumption
and conditional.....
with that in mind one could make the
jump from "true until proven false"
to "false until proven true"...
HYPOTHESIS:
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
The antecedent of a conditional statement.
some keywords are tentative, assumption
and conditional.....
with that in mind one could make the
jump from "true until proven false"
to "false until proven true"...
M
Malenfant
Guest
No, just sick of this anti-science crap. A hypothesis is exactly what it sounds like, is all.
Sure, it's tentative, that's the whole darn point of it. But if data is gathered that supports the hypothesis (and to be clear, the hypothesis has to be tweaked to fit the observations - not the other way round) then it becomes less and less tentative and more proven. Even then, it's subject to change if better data can be gathered - our scientific view of the univere isn't fixed and unchanging, it's changing all the time. Some people seem to think it's less valid because of that, but that's simply not at all true - it'd be a lot less valid if it didn't change at all.
There's no assumption that it's "true" or "false" implicit beforehand in that at all. You formulate a hypothesis (sometimes to explain existing data, sometimes not) and then you test it by making objective observations. If those observations produce data that supports the hypothesis then great, gather more and see if it can be independently confirmed. If it doesn't, then that usuallly means that the hypothesis is either flawed and needs to be change til it fits the observations.
Sure, it's tentative, that's the whole darn point of it. But if data is gathered that supports the hypothesis (and to be clear, the hypothesis has to be tweaked to fit the observations - not the other way round) then it becomes less and less tentative and more proven. Even then, it's subject to change if better data can be gathered - our scientific view of the univere isn't fixed and unchanging, it's changing all the time. Some people seem to think it's less valid because of that, but that's simply not at all true - it'd be a lot less valid if it didn't change at all.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
That is not my understanding of the situation, but I'll have to go off and review what I have read previously before I try and make any further assertions.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
Wasn't there a topic a short while ago (perhaps more than one) about playing nice?
- Status
Similar threads
