Sun Getting Smaller

[Kraj]

Therein lies the problem for scientists, because they can't prove it by experimentation or an equation, they can't and won't accept it.
That doesn't mean infinity doesn't exist

It doesn't fit the laws of nature as we understand them but again it doesn't mean it doesn't exist

Um, yes. But when two possibilities conflict, doesn't it make more sense to go with the one that has some evidence rather than the one that has none? Saying the universe is infinite because we haven't found the end is more of an assumption than a theory. Space-time curvature may only be a theoretical model, but it explains observable phenomenon and answers questions that previous theories were unable to answer.

Perhaps many scientists falsely believe that science is absolute, but I think most understand there are always possibilities beyond what we can prove, see or even imagine. But in order to accomplish anything, they must accept the best explanation currently available and work from there.

 

[jsanders]

The two strangest (hard to imagine) aspect of the expanding universe is the possibility that the physical laws that govern the universe are expanding. No one has any idea of what lies beyond. So the human imagines nothing going on forever. Which is something Right?

The second is that the universe has expanded further than it could have (in its theoretical 13 billion years) if it were governed by the universal constant.

 

[statsman]

I believe it was Einstein who originally came up with the theroy that the universe is expanding, that space is curved and that energy and matter are inter-changable.

The problem is we won't be in a position to prove or disprove his work for about another 100,000 years.

 

[The Stoat]

I believe it was Einstein who originally came up with the theroy that the universe is expanding, that space is curved and that energy and matter are inter-changable.

The problem is we won't be in a position to prove or disprove his work for about another 100,000 years.

http://www.sdss.org/news/releases/20000413.qso.q.html

 

[jsanders]

Actually Stoat you were augmenting my post more than answering statsman’s.
Don’t you find it bizarre that the universal constant (C, the speed of light) doesn’t apply to the expansion. And that in reality the laws are expanding. Definite food for occupying your mind in the morning traffic.

 

[The Stoat]

Actually Stoat you were augmenting my post more than answering statsman’s.
Don’t you find it bizarre that the universal constant (C, the speed of light) doesn’t apply to the expansion. And that in reality the laws are expanding. Definite food for occupying your mind in the morning traffic.

What i was trying to show was that we already know now - not in 100,000 years time - that the universe is expanding. Hubble found that out by experimentation in 1929 -iirc - we have the hubble constant as a result.

I don't actually think that it is strange.

You need to be clear about what you are defining. Space the "empty bit" between matter is actually something. That space is capable of moving.
The time honored visual representation is that of dots on a rubber sheet. Pull the sheet equally in all directions and the sheet expands and the dots move. You've simple expanded the space in which they sit.

So space is something. It can grow and maybe even shrink.

Now another visual representation of my own.

A swimming pool. You are a fish in the pool - a very clever fish - The shape of the pool can define some of the measurable properties of the the water in the pool i.e. the pressure at the bottom of the pool is a function of it's depth. As a fish you swim to the bottom and notice the pressure increase and you say "wow this pool must be deep".

But the pressure doesn't define the material that goes to make that pool, say concrete. We can infer things about the container that it's deep and perhaps strong but only so far.

The next step.

I think of the universe as a solid object that allows things to move through it -concrete water- odd maybe but it helps me . The solid object defines the properties of the things that are able to move through it and the movements they are allowed to make but it has it's own properties. As objects in the solid we can infer things about the solid from the interactions we have with it and those we can observe between it and other objects. We also observe interactions between other objects and ourselves.

This bit i have real trouble with. I think that objects in the solid are fundamentally limited in their ability to understand the solid because the solid cannot be described by the sum of our interactions with it or with the properties it bestows on us or other objects in it. It effectively defines the limits of what we can observe and therefore understand.

One of those properties of the solid we know is that it can expand at ever increasing speeds but anything that moves through it can only travel as fast as C. There is no obvious causal relationship between these two observations. At another fundamental level of physics they may be joined but we may also be limited in our understanding by virture of the fact that we exist in the solid.

Now my head hurts.

Anyway that's probably total BS but it helps me make sense of it and that's all the really matters.


TS

 

[KenHigg]

I have no idea of what you just said...

I'm still stuck on the crackers in bed thing

 

[The Stoat]

I have no idea of what you just said...

I'm still stuck on the crackers in bed thing

I prefer cookies far more in line with current thinking in physics

 

[Kraj]

I think what Stoat is trying to say is that it appears the properties of the universe as a whole are very different than the properties of small, observable objects (like stars ). The ramification of this is that we can observe how the small objects behaive in the universe and we can infer things about the universe through those observations, but our understanding of the universe as a whole is limited because we can't observe the behavior of the universe as a whole.

Or I may have completely missed the point.

 

[The Stoat]

I think what Stoat is trying to say is that it appears the properties of the universe as a whole are very different than the properties of small, observable objects (like stars ). The ramification of this is that we can observe how the small objects behaive in the universe and we can infer things about the universe through those observations, but our understanding of the universe as a whole is limited because we can't observe the behavior of the universe as a whole.

Or I may have completely missed the point.

Sort of. I think that the Universe is made up of more than the observable portion. The Universe defines everything in it and the way it's done so prevents us from having the tools to understand all of it. The description of the sum of all the observable parts of the Universe is less than the description of the Universe as a whole.

Look at it this way. You've got the Physics of Einstein that talks about the large structures of the Universe, space and time. You've got quantum mechanics that describes the world of atoms. Possibly there is an over arching theory that will link the two. Possibly not. The possibly not part is that there could be a property of the Universe that creates the other properties we view as Einsteinien or Quantum and that is a third physics that is not observable or inferable by the the other two.

As a metaphor. When you use a normal microscope to look at a section of a plant. You can see cells and cellular structure such as cellular nuclei and perhaps cellular division. You can't see the atoms that make these structures. Light cannot differentiate things that small. We may have been handed a microscope by the Universe that only lets us look at a cellular level - Spacetime and Quantum. The physics that the Universe gives us may not contain anything to let us see what creates that physics in the first place.

TS

 

[KenHigg]

Wouldn't the fact that we even try to define and establish the concept of a 'Universe' mean that another one could exist? And then ... Well never mind. I think you've sold me on the cookies though

 

[Kraj]

The physics that the Universe gives us may not contain anything to let us see what creates that physics in the first place.

Hmmm....well, yes that's certainly a possible explanation of why we haven't found the connection between quantum physics and general relativity. But I think the more probable explanation is that we simply haven't found it yet. There have been countless questions throughout history that science couldn't answer....and then someone found the answer. It just takes time and effort. That's not to say you're wrong, but we've barely scratched the surface in our knowledge of the universe, so I think it's a bit early to question whether it's possible to fully understand the universe or not.

Wouldn't the fact that we even try to define and establish the concept of a 'Universe' mean that another one could exist?

Well, sure. But if other universes exist it's not really relevant unless we can interact with them in some way.

 

[KenHigg]

..., so I think it's a bit early to question whether it's possible to fully understand the universe or not.

Especially when we can't even figure out Col & Rich...

 

[KenHigg]

Well, sure. But if other universes exist it's not really relevant unless we can interact with them in some way.

Relevant to what?

 

[Rich]

Especially when we can't even figure out Col & Rich...

We seek only the truth and social justice, what's there to figure out?

 

[KenHigg]

We seek only the truth and social justice, what's there to figure out?

Why your gameplan seems to be faltering?

 

[Kraj]

Relevant to what?

Relevant to us. If there is a universe that we can't interact with and doesn't affect us in any way, then there's not much value in pondering it.

We seek only the truth and social justice

Like a barrister, eh?

 

[KenHigg]

Relevant to us. If there is a universe that we can't interact with and doesn't affect us in any way, then there's not much value in pondering it.

IMHO an infinite percentage of the universe is irrelevant to us, but some still ponder it

 

[dt01pqt]

Hmmm....well, yes that's certainly a possible explanation of why we haven't found the connection between quantum physics and general relativity.

I think this will prove important in finding out about the universe. To understand the big we need to understand the small. Quantum mechanics seem to be random but what is really random anyway? It might be that we need this chaos; it's a sort of lifeblood of general mechanics. The thing is we are trying to solve the problem from the point of view that we understand the rules of general mechanics be aren't we merely looking at typical modelling. Just because we might be wrong doesn't mean there aren't rules there.

 

[The Stoat]

Hmmm....well, yes that's certainly a possible explanation of why we haven't found the connection between quantum physics and general relativity. But I think the more probable explanation is that we simply haven't found it yet. There have been countless questions throughout history that science could answer....and then someone found the answer. It just takes time and effort. That's not to say you're wrong, but we've barely scratched the surface in our knowledge of the universe, so I think it's a bit early to question whether it's possible to fully understand the universe or not.


Well, sure. But if other universes exist it's not really relevant unless we can interact with them in some way.

Actually it's a question that has been asked for quite sometime. Quantum physics and Relativity are physics of the early 20th century. For the last 80 odd years we've been using them to understand the universe but we've not been able to unite them.

I've been reading about brane theory. It's "relatively" new and it seems it clashes with what have become almost fundamental absolutes of modern physics and cosmology but i reckon it will be something really wacked out that actually ends up doing the job. The maths is way way beyond me but the ideas are interesting. That's why i like physics it's ideas are accesible even if the maths isn't.
http://www.esi-topics.com/brane/interviews/DrJian-XinLu.html