The Universe

[NorthAyrshireKillie]

Before I go watch that video Ric posted.

Confi, surely there is intelligent life in another galaxy?

Edited May 30, 2013 by NorthAyrshireKillie

[Confidemus]

Before I go watch that video Ric posted. Confi, surely there is intelligent life in another galaxy?

Tbh, we would fucking foolish and naive in the extreme to believe we are the only life in the Universe.

We're just nowhere near it.

[NorthAyrshireKillie]

Tbh, we would fucking foolish and naive in the extreme to believe we are the only life in the Universe.

We're just nowhere near it.

Yeah, that's what I thought . You forgot ignorant

[NorthAyrshireKillie]

Btw that radio show about the multiverse is fuckin awesome

[Confidemus]

Yeah, that's what I thought . You forgot ignorant

I think any sensible right minded person, in this day and age, given the enormity of the cosmos and being aware of what life needs to survive. would accept there are possibly millions, if not billions or trillions of other civilisations out there in the Universe/s..

[~~~]

Material World on Radio 4 today did a great discussion on multiple universes and the big bang based on the recent Planck results. Not only that the other half of the programme is all about time. A really good listen for anyone interested in this subject. You can catch it on the iPlayer here...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01snlsw/Material_World_Multiverses_Culturedriven_Evolution_Lee_Smolin_on_Time/

No rush to listen to it. Gonna be on the iplayer for a long time

[Hedgecutter]

If we're that insignificant, is there not a pretty high chance that what we understand the universe to be and how it actually works is a pile of old tosh seeing as we can only see what's probably a tiny bit of it? We didn't even properly understand how our own planet worked until about 100 years ago, even the simple discovery of sea-floor spreading not being accepted until the 1950's... yet people feel confident about things effin light years away?!

The idea of creating the concept of 'dark matter' to explain why our sums don't add up sounds a bit flawed IMO. Not far off engineers openly tampering with a few numbers to get their results to half-match the ones I give them in my line of work. We both know our models are wrong and will openly admit it... It's just a matter of how wrong we are.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Hedgecutter

[Confidemus]

If we're that insignificant, is there not a pretty high chance that what we understand the universe to be and how it actually works is a pile of old tosh seeing as we can only see what's probably a tiny bit of it? We didn't even properly understand how our own planet worked until about 100 years ago, even the simple discovery of sea-floor spreading not being accepted until the 1950's... yet people feel confident about things effin light years away?!

The idea of creating the concept of 'dark matter' to explain why our sums don't add up sounds a bit flawed IMO. Not far off engineers openly tampering with a few numbers to get their results to half-match the ones I give them in my line of work. We both know our models are wrong and will openly admit it... It's just a matter of how wrong we are.

I'm pretty sure every physicist and scientist would be delighted to have our current understanding of the Universe proved wrong. Even the big bang and inflation are just theories. There's certainly an almost inifinite amount more of the Universe that we don't know than what matches our current understanding.

We don't know what happens inside a black hole. We don't fully understand dark matter and dark energy. We don't know what the ultimate fate of the Universe is We only know from observation one inifintessimaly tiny insignificant speck of a corner of the observable Universe and much of that is up for debate.

Up until a micro-second ago in terms of the age of the Universe, we thought the Earth was flat. We thought the Sun was a perfect golden disc hanging in the sky. We thought that we were literally the centre of the Universe.

We know a lot more now, but nowhere near as much as there is to know.

f**k me, that was deep for me...

[Ric]

Not far off engineers openly tampering with a few numbers to get their results to half-match the ones I give them in my line of work. We both know our models are wrong and will openly admit it... It's just a matter of how wrong we are.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. If you are going to argue the case for and against quantum theoretical physics then you need to put it in a frame of reference. It's not something new, if we consider Max Planck as the origin, and was being discussed before the 1st world war. We were theorising about sub atomic particles when the most advanced weaponry was a rifle and a bayonet while charging across a muddy field on horseback. At that time almost everything was theoretical because we had not developed ways of testing and observing the results. As time has passed the simplest theories have been observed, documented then used to build further theories. Essentially this is why places like CERN exist, because the theories need vast amounts of energy to do the tests necessary. However when achieved this technology is providing evidence for theories that were devised 50 or 60 years ago.

The Higgs Boson is a prime example of this. The Standard Model (which, to put it in it's most simplest of terms is effectively 'E=mc² for the quantum world') defines the particles at a sub atomic level. As part of this we realised that there was a problem in terms of mass and how it is generated the subatomic particles in the Standard Model didn't have the properties to provide it and as we all know everything must have a mass, no matter how minuscule in size. The Higgs sat there being theorised since the mid 60's with people claiming it a flight of fantasy, or that it was (as your argument suggests) there to make up the numbers. It wasn't until we had the capability to perform experiments with extreme levels of energy, the LHC, that was started to see results that would hint towards the existence of the Higgs. What's interesting is that the observations matched the maths, but not quite in the way expected. I had argued for some time that there was likely to be more than just one type of Higgs (this is not some massive leap on my own, it was a recognised viewpoint within the field) and this has come to fruition it seems, at least with the data we have now, as there seems to be a Higgs field rather than a single boson (a boson is just a subatomic particle type) and we will see what the results are when the LHC is revamped and provided with more power. There are certain scientific criteria that need to be met in order to officially announce something as "real" or "true" and that hasn't quite been matched with the Higgs. Not officially. The mass (no pun intended) of evidence behind it though will mean that the revamped LHC will probably tick that off the list sometime in the next couple of years. However the theories and the mathematics to back them up was solid, and the results were as expected it's just that as an analogy we've theorised where in the haystack there is a needle, we've then found that location but it turns out to be a pin. Both meet the criteria of what was needed; metal, sharp, tiny, surrounded by lots of hay, etc.

That example shows us that theoretical physics is built up on a base of a multitude of other results, theories and observations. It's simply not possible to come out with a credible theory just by saying "Well we need a value of 4 at the end of this and if we somehow squeeze these two 2's into the other side of the equation then we're sorted". These things are studied intensely and built on (as well as dismissed - I am in no way suggesting that every new theory is valid and just waiting confirmation) until we get to a point where we can actually do some sort of experiment to provide observations and results to back the theory up.

TL;DR: It's totally incorrect to suggest modern quantum theories such as Dark Matter are somehow scribbled on the back of a fag packet, and is fine so long as the numbers add up.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Ric

[Boomtown Boy]

I dont have the intellectual capabilities to understand what this means so stopped reading somewhere into the 2nd paragraph.

edit, the last wee sentence at the bottom would have summed it up for me

Edited May 31, 2013 by Boomtown Boy

[Mr. Brightside]

Is space really the final frontier?

[Hedgecutter]

That was more in reference to dark matter alone, not quantum physics. Correct me if I'm wrong but is dark matter not essentially 'our equations don't work, let's make up something we can't see'?

I accept there probably is actually something there if we see things mysteriously being pulled towards something, it's just the general attitude towards it all - we generally accept what we already know as being hard 'fact' and base future developments on things that might be slightly wrong. That uncertainty then multiplies over time.

Basically I like to grasp at straws and hope that what we currently understand is disproved in place of something better allowing us to get to Jungle Light Speed by the time I die. Over 30 years I've seen us go from Beetamax to Blu-ray and we need to accelerate this at least... two times more (think Zoolander here) to fulfil my dreams.

[renton]

That was more in reference to dark matter alone, not quantum physics. Correct me if I'm wrong but is dark matter not essentially 'our equations don't work, let's make up something we can't see'?

I accept there probably is actually something there if we see things mysteriously being pulled towards something, it's just the general attitude towards it all - we generally accept what we already know as being hard 'fact' and base future developments on things that might be slightly wrong. That uncertainty then multiplies over time.

Basically I like to grasp at straws and hope that what we currently understand is disproved in place of something better allowing us to get to Jungle Light Speed by the time I die. Over 30 years I've seen us go from Beetamax to Blu-ray and we need to accelerate this at least... two times more (think Zoolander here) to fulfil my dreams.

The problem lies in your first sentence. If it was simple as 'our equations don't work' then the equations would be scrapped and it would be back to the whiteboard. the problem is that the equations do work, and have been proven to work over a wide range of models and experiments. So when presented with the case where you have something that doesn't fit the model as written, but with knowledge that the model accurately descirbes other cases well, it leaves you having to redefine the model inputs, rather than the model itself: in this case unnacounted for dark matter and energy.

Edited May 31, 2013 by renton

[Confidemus]

Is space really the final frontier?

Space is the ONLY frontier, my good man.

[Gnash]

A couple of points to pick up on over the past few pages.

Firstly, the comparison about grains of sand and the universe is that there are as many stars in the known universe as there are grains of sand on Earth. There are thought to be roughly 250 billion stars in the Milky Way - this many grains of sand would only fill a space as big as a large house.

Second, whether there are other civilisations in the Milky Way or elsewhere in the universe is highly speculative. Some of the components of Drake's famous equation are completely unknown and can really only be guessed, so the end result is really a complete guess as well. In particular the proportion of planets that could support life that actually do go on to develop life, and the proportion of planets with life that go on to develop civilisations, are unknown. If each of these turn out to be 1 in a 100 trillion, then we almost certainly are the only civilisation in the universe.

If there are loads of civilisations out there, given the amount of time they have had to develop compared to human civilisations, then there are almost certainly civilisations that are far more advanced than ours. So why can we not see any evidence of them? Maybe they're deliberately keeping away from us and using technology we can't detect, but it seems highly unlikely they would not have used the electromagnetic spectrum to communicate at some point - and we have found no evidence of this despite decades of searching.

[dorlomin]

That was more in reference to dark matter alone, not quantum physics. Correct me if I'm wrong but is dark matter not essentially 'our equations don't work, let's make up something we can't see'?

The 'equation' is gravity. It works damn fine. Dark matter is simply stuff that does not glow like stars do, although 'stuff' as we think of it is known as 'bayronic matter'. Most dark matter is likely 'non bayronic' i.e. not made of of atoms. Its hardly novel for us to know of the existence of things decades before they are detected. Neutrinos and anti matter would be a classic example of something we knew existed in theory before we detected them in experiments.

[Confidemus]

A couple of points to pick up on over the past few pages.

Firstly, the comparison about grains of sand and the universe is that there are as many stars in the known universe as there are grains of sand on Earth. There are thought to be roughly 250 billion stars in the Milky Way - this many grains of sand would only fill a space as big as a large house.

Second, whether there are other civilisations in the Milky Way or elsewhere in the universe is highly speculative. Some of the components of Drake's famous equation are completely unknown and can really only be guessed, so the end result is really a complete guess as well. In particular the proportion of planets that could support life that actually do go on to develop life, and the proportion of planets with life that go on to develop civilisations, are unknown. If each of these turn out to be 1 in a 100 trillion, then we almost certainly are the only civilisation in the universe.

If there are loads of civilisations out there, given the amount of time they have had to develop compared to human civilisations, then there are almost certainly civilisations that are far more advanced than ours. So why can we not see any evidence of them? Maybe they're deliberately keeping away from us and using technology we can't detect, but it seems highly unlikely they would not have used the electromagnetic spectrum to communicate at some point - and we have found no evidence of this despite decades of searching.

I did say the Universe, then you mentioned how many stars are in the milky way.. Have a look at this:

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/are-there-more-grains-of-sand-on-earth-or-stars-in-the-sk

"It's a question that every future scientist probably asked during that first trip to the beach as a child: Are there more sands of grain on Earth, or stars in the sky? Well, scientists now finally have an answer, and it might surprise you, according to NPR.

Though it would be an impossible task to actually count the sand and stars, a group of scientists at the University of Hawaii recently came up with a reasonable way to get an estimate. And since Hawaii is home to some of the world's most renowned observatories and beaches, we'll take their word for it.

They began with postulating an average size for a grain of sand and by calculating the number of sand grains in a teaspoon. Then the number of beaches and deserts in the world were factored in. Multiplied all together, the number is staggering. Since you aren't likely to own a calculator with enough digits to represent the result, here it is in shorthand: 7.5 x 10¹⁸ grains of sand. In simpler, though equally as incomprehensible terms, that is 7 quintillion, 500 quadrillion grains. Or in terms simpler still: a lot.

Calculating the number of stars is even trickier, since the limits of space are still largely speculative. Our scope is limited to what we can view from Earth and Earth's orbit, with our eyes and telescopes. If we opt to limit our scope to the number of stars that are observable with the naked eye, on a clear night from Earth, then the grains of sand will get an easy victory. Even with minimal light pollution, we aren't likely to make out more than a few thousand stars. So scientists upped the ante by estimating the number of stars that are potentially observable by Hubble. If you include every object that twinkles in the night sky, from ordinary stars, to quasars, to red dwarfs, to whole galaxies, etc., then the number of stars in the observable universe is astounding. The number? 70 thousand million, million, million stars.

For the mathematically disinclined who may still wonder which number is larger: It's the stars, by far. But before we're ready to crown a champion, let's put things in perspective. Earth is one tiny little planet in the context of the whole universe. The fact that it contains so many sand grains compared to the number of stars in the sky is pretty awe-inspiring. It just goes to show that the universe is just as vast when you look at it closely as when you look at it from far away.

To put this fact in even sharper perspective, the University of Hawaii researchers decided to add a third contestant. They asked: how many molecules are there in a drop of water? It turns out that it takes just 10 drops of water for the number of H₂O molecules to equal the number of stars in the sky.

That's pretty mind-blowing, when you really consider it. The thought experiment might also beckon another way of thinking about the vastness of the universe: Perhaps everything that we know to exist is itself contained entirely within a single "cosmic" raindrop, just one of countless other such drops in the whole of reality.

It just goes to show, perhaps the only thing as limitless as the universe itself is the human imagination and our sense of wonder."

Also regarding your point about why civilisations haven't got in touch with us yet? Are you aware of how fucking vast the Universe is?

[Gnash]

I did say the Universe, then you mentioned how many stars are in the milky way..

No, you said this:

And whilst pondering that, think on the fact that there are more stars in the Milky Way galaxy than grains of sand on all the beaches on Earth.

Then, whilst you're at it, think on the statistic that there are more galaxies in the known Universe than grains of sand on all the beaches on Earth.

Also regarding your point about why civilisations haven't got in touch with us yet? Are you aware of how fucking vast the Universe is?

Are you aware of how fucking vast 100 trillion times 100 trillion is???

[Confidemus]

No, you said this:

Are you aware of how fucking vast 100 trillion times 100 trillion is???

Point taken Still pretty impressive numbers, tbf.

Is it as big as a googolplex?

Edited June 1, 2013 by Confidemus

[KeeperDee]

Point taken Still pretty impressive numbers, tbf.

Is it as big as a googolplex?

1e+28

according to Google Calculator. So I'd imagine it's a fucking enormous number.