With next to zero technical knowledge to back it up, my working theory is that the Simulation Hypothesis is correct and that moment of the Big Bang is akin to an old monitor flashing on and the light expanding from a point in the centre of the screen. Then to wrap my head around this idea that the universe is always expanding, I chalk it down to the ever expanding memory needed to run such an ever program over time.
It's bollocks obviously, but it helps me stay sane to rationalise things with "The Universe According to Diarm".
I came across this Sir Roger Penrose hypothesis recently - conformal cyclical big bangs. I'm not a physicist, so this won't be right (but I hope it gives the right flavour) but he's found a mathematical way to map the way photons behave at the heat death of the universe onto the behaviour of particles at the Big Bang. So a big bang that emerges naturally from the end of the universe. He says there will be evidence for past universes in the cosmic background radiation. Link that it explains it here.It really is.
I am fascinated with Cosmology in general.
It is those minute fractions of a second after our universe burst into life (out of seemingly nothing) that is really mind boggling.
Like where did all that energy come from. Although I am aware of the Perpetual Cosmological Inflation theory, whereby minute Bubble Universes come into being.
Some fail to become 'viable' and give back their energy, while others like ours do develop.
Who knows eh?
I don't buy the simulation hypothesis to be honest. It doesn't explain anything, doesn't make any testable predictions, and it's just a bit too religious sounding for me. But I can see why computer people like it.With next to zero technical knowledge to back it up, my working theory is that the Simulation Hypothesis is correct and that moment of the Big Bang is akin to an old monitor flashing on and the light expanding from a point in the centre of the screen. Then to wrap my head around this idea that the universe is always expanding, I chalk it down to the ever expanding memory needed to run such an ever program over time.
It's bollocks obviously, but it helps me stay sane to rationalise things with "The Universe According to Diarm".
I came across this Sir Roger Penrose hypothesis recently - conformal cyclical big bangs. I'm not a physicist, so this won't be right (but I hope it gives the right flavour) but he's found a mathematical way to map the way photons behave at the heat death of the universe onto the behaviour of particles at the Big Bang. So a big bang that emerges naturally from the end of the universe. He says there will be evidence for past universes in the cosmic background radiation. Link that it explains it here.
Human missions to Mars could be at risk after new research revealed that long-duration space travel can impact the structure of astronauts’ kidneys.
Samples from more than 40 space missions involving humans and mice revealed that kidneys are remodelled by the conditions in space, with certain parts showing signs of shrinkage after less than a month in space.
Future missions to Mars were not ruled out, though the scientists said that measures to protect the kidneys would need to be developed to avoid serious harm to astronauts. Methods of recovery could also be introduced onboard spacecraft, such as dialysis machines.
There is so much we are going to learn sending the first humans on, essentially, a suicide mission. All these weird new defects and illness caused by space and radiation.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/human-missions-mars-doubt-astronaut-090649428.html
This is making quite a few waves (so to speak) in physics and cosmology circles.
Basically, time - not as a dimension, but rather simply an illusion that is an emergent property of quantum entanglement.
Time is what we call experience in reference when it has to be comprehensible. There is something that corresponds to it and time dilation is absolutely correct so I'd be very wary of new theories when relativity handles both the presence and absence of time already.
Could time at its most fundamental level not just (seems wrong to use the word just) be the result of entropy or the framework that allows entropy to do its thing?Time is what we call experience in reference when it has to be comprehensible. There is something that corresponds to it and time dilation is absolutely correct so I'd be very wary of new theories when relativity handles both the presence and absence of time already.
Time is what we call experience in reference when it has to be comprehensible. There is something that corresponds to it and time dilation is absolutely correct so I'd be very wary of new theories when relativity handles both the presence and absence of time already.
I think it depends on the "lens" you use. That's a valid, imo, approach but I wouldn't say it is truthful (without a lot of explanation). I mean you can use classical physics, still, with some interesting adjustments to explain quantum logic and thus much of quantum science but that is not normative. The world is still understanding all of these things. The dubious part of that paper is the idea that the universe might be static to an outside observer (the thought-experiment part of "outside observer" which is genuinely mathematical fiction). Makes for interesting reading though.Could time at its most fundamental level not just (seems wrong to use the word just) be the result of entropy or the framework that allows entropy to do its thing?
If quantum, to be logical, then quantum "time" effects already extant. If we are talking about the fundamental nature of "time", rather than our understanding of it, which is where it does get tricky (becoming conceptually a kind of Sapir-Whorf relativity of experience issue), then it has to be whatever it is already, with quantum science merely advancing an understanding of the "whatever it is already" component.True, but we do have to be able to explain time at a quantum level and one that works for both as well. Granted, our understanding of quantum physics is currently lower but it's anther interesting dilemma for scientists to work out.
True, but we do have to be able to explain time at a quantum level and one that works for both as well. Granted, our understanding of quantum physics is currently lower but it's anther interesting dilemma for scientists to work out.
I would say more than mildly.
With H2O, you can get hydration and oxygen for rocket fuel.
Yeah, that would seem a big obstacle. Would be pretty big from a life POV though, as it's a lot easier to get to than Europa.It's great news if true, but they also say it's 10-20 km below the crust. It may very well be easier to use the water we already know about on the surface (even if it isn't in liquid form).
It's great news if true, but they also say it's 10-20 km below the crust. It may very well be easier to use the water we already know about on the surface (even if it isn't in liquid form).
Yes, it is. Fascinating video. Wonder why the hatch opens inwards, pressure I guess but sill expected it to open the other way.That fact this isn't headline news is mind boggling to me. It's hidden on the science news page on the BBC and even then it's like the 5th story.
Quite good...
Been popping up a lot for me, but then I guess it depends on your algorithmThat fact this isn't headline news is mind boggling to me. It's hidden on the science news page on the BBC and even then it's like the 5th story.
Yep. It gets more granular & is replete with dialogue from the protagonists. It's all historical footage spliced together extremely well.What's different between this and film? Worth watching ?
Quite good...
I'm optimistic about Starships potential although I think theres a lot of big technical issues to overcome before it can be used for more than hauling cargo to orbit. Even in that capacity I think it will be transformational. I will give credit to Musk for making Spacex happen, and for making these big bets (what a disappointment he is on a human level though), but the real operational hero of Spacex is the appropriately named Gwynne Shotwell.Musk might be a complete lunatic, but he has single handedly moved on innovation ten fold in the last 10 years. You might love him or hate him but you can’t deny that he’s a visionary in the field of space exploration.
There’s a documentary on Netflix called Return to Space and it’s a great watch.
I'll never get bored of watching spacecraft land vertically, especially with an explosion. It looks like a Chinese vehicle is close to getting it right now.
The video is 2 hours long. Are there cliff notes as to what was achieved here?That fact this isn't headline news is mind boggling to me. It's hidden on the science news page on the BBC and even then it's like the 5th story.
Musk might be a complete lunatic, but he has single handedly moved on innovation ten fold in the last 10 years. You might love him or hate him but you can’t deny that he’s a visionary in the field of space exploration.
There’s a documentary on Netflix called Return to Space and it’s a great watch.
New exoplanet discovered orbiting Barnard’s star 6 light years away. Apparent surface temp of 125° . Revolves around its star once every 3 days.
I have long believed that the vast majority of stars have planets/planetary systems.
