Astronomy & Space Exploration

I still find it ridiculous that people can work this kind of thing out. Three years of work to make sure they hadn't made an error, brilliant stuff. I often think if I'd made different choices at a-level or whatever I'd have liked to have gone into physics or something, but it must be pretty easy to get out of your depth there and I'm fairly sure I would've been. Should be some great discoveries over the next decade, I'm hopeful we'll see a planet with liquid water in the atmosphere.
 
This is indeed a great discovery. Now we only need to find the gravitons and a few brilliant minds who can weave all this into the great theory of everything.

Oh yeah and "in before creationist declare this discovery is the hand writing of god" or similar nonsense but I'm probably already too late.
 
When the effect is the beginning of time itself, that question becomes a little more complex.
 
Yes. As the Big Bang theory states that the dimension of time came into existence (at least in our universe, if there are several, or infinite amounts), it's kind of like asking what's blacker than the blackest shade of black.
 
I hate thinking about what was before the big bang and what caused it. Because there has to be something there for it to happen, right? Right guys?
 
VeevaVee said:
I hate thinking about what was before the big bang and what caused it. Because there has to be something there for it to happen, right? Right guys?
Click to expand...

Part of me feels like the question of what existed before time is radically inapporpriate.

Conversely, I would imagine such a question would take on a different context if couched within the Multiverse theory where fluttering "Branes" who occassionally touch one another set off big bangs resulting in new Universes being born.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/26/tech/innovation/asteroid-rings/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Ring around the asteroid!

140325172356-asteroid-rings-story-top.jpg
 
VeevaVee said:
I hate thinking about what was before the big bang and what caused it. Because there has to be something there for it to happen, right? Right guys?
Click to expand...

It's kind of the wrong question to ask. If you're thinking classically/conservation of energy/something-can't-come-from-nothing, well the universe's total energy is zero. Always has been, always will be. Gravity's 'negative' energy balances out all the other 'positive' energy. So there's no violation of something from nothing in those terms because mathematically speaking, we're still nothing. Walking around starting wars, listening to music, falling in love, doing everything in a big big thing that cancels itself out to a neat and tidy zero. The entirety of existence is - mathematically speaking - a teeny tiny statistical fluctuation in a vast nothingness, kicked off by an equally tiny fluctuation in a quantum field. If the conditions are just right you can posit a universe's version of a chain reaction like this and a ripple effect of probabilities setting each other off. (That's what the big announcement was from a few days ago, concerning what is believed to be evidence of that ripple effect.)

The above line of thinking was a large part of Stephen Hawking's 'no need for a God to explain the Big Bang' from a few years ago. Which was pretty irresponsible considering you still have the glaring question 'Well then where did the damn quantum field come from!?'

Went off on a bit of a tangent but again, 'Something can't come from nothing, right?' is the wrong question to ask since technically we're still nothing. Hope that kind of explained that aspect.

Keep in mind that all of the above is just theory and this particular angle - something can't come from nothing - is the first thing to go out the window should someone prove the universe isn't a closed system.
 
Perhaps a bit off topic but I was watching a documentary the other day and they mentioned the Scrodinger Cat. I googled it but still can't understand it. Anyone cares to try an explanation?
 
hungrywing said:
It's kind of the wrong question to ask. If you're thinking classically/conservation of energy/something-can't-come-from-nothing, well the universe's total energy is zero. Always has been, always will be. Gravity's 'negative' energy balances out all the other 'positive' energy. So there's no violation of something from nothing in those terms because mathematically speaking, we're still nothing. Walking around starting wars, listening to music, falling in love, doing everything in a big big thing that cancels itself out to a neat and tidy zero. The entirety of existence is - mathematically speaking - a teeny tiny statistical fluctuation in a vast nothingness, kicked off by an equally tiny fluctuation in a quantum field. If the conditions are just right you can posit a universe's version of a chain reaction like this and a ripple effect of probabilities setting each other off. (That's what the big announcement was from a few days ago, concerning what is believed to be evidence of that ripple effect.)

The above line of thinking was a large part of Stephen Hawking's 'no need for a God to explain the Big Bang' from a few years ago. Which was pretty irresponsible considering you still have the glaring question 'Well then where did the damn quantum field come from!?'

Went off on a bit of a tangent but again, 'Something can't come from nothing, right?' is the wrong question to ask since technically we're still nothing. Hope that kind of explained that aspect.

Keep in mind that all of the above is just theory and this particular angle - something can't come from nothing - is the first thing to go out the window should someone prove the universe isn't a closed system.
Click to expand...

That's way over my head but thanks for trying to explain!
 
JustAFan said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat
Click to expand...
So if I leave a book on my bed and leave the room, the book can either be there or not, only when I return and see it will I define reality?

I mean the many worlds theory I can understand, but the Copenhagen interpretantion doesn't seem to help much more than the example I gave. I'm probably missing something.
 
maniak said:
Perhaps a bit off topic but I was watching a documentary the other day and they mentioned the Scrodinger Cat. I googled it but still can't understand it. Anyone cares to try an explanation?
Click to expand...

It's a bit of an unfortunate simile/metaphor because he's trying to use a tangible object to describe a seriously intangible system. From your next post it seems you actually understand it while thinking you might be missing something.

Basically the cat angle is unnecessary for people past a certain level of intelligence as it acts as a barrier that their intelligence naturally tries to pick at while all he's trying to say is that on the quantum scale all potential outcomes are layered over each other at the same time. Sort of the underlying fabric of possibility.

maniak said:
So if I leave a book on my bed and leave the room, the book can either be there or not, only when I return and see it will I define reality?

I mean the many worlds theory I can understand, but the Copenhagen interpretantion doesn't seem to help much more than the example I gave. I'm probably missing something.
Click to expand...

No, you're not. If you follow it all the way up to its 'physical world' implications then it's exactly that 'book' sort of if-a-tree-falls stuff. A room doesn't exist until you walk into it, etc. Do we 'create' what we observe - albeit all within certain probability guidelines that arise as classical physical laws arise themselves from quantum probability? Does specific energy/information create specific energy/information like a boat creating bow waves ahead of it, etc.

The crazy thing about the many worlds theory is that in theory, there are worlds where the many worlds theory isn't true. This is one of its detractors main arguments.

VeevaVee said:
That's way over my head but thanks for trying to explain!
Click to expand...

Now I feel bad. Basically in the classical sense, you're right and something can't come from nothing, end of story.

But in the quantum world, things can and do appear out of nowhere, but that still leaves the question 'Well where the bloody blue feck does the quantum world come from?'

Yes, I realize that probably didn't help at all. #damndirtyapes
 
hungrywing said:
It's a bit of an unfortunate simile/metaphor because he's trying to use a tangible object to describe a seriously intangible system. From your next post it seems you actually understand it while thinking you might be missing something.

Basically the cat angle is unnecessary for people past a certain level of intelligence as it acts as a barrier that their intelligence naturally tries to pick at while all he's trying to say is that on the quantum scale all potential outcomes are layered over each other at the same time. Sort of the underlying fabric of possibility.



No, you're not. If you follow it all the way up to its 'physical world' implications then it's exactly that 'book' sort of if-a-tree-falls stuff. A room doesn't exist until you walk into it, etc. Do we 'create' what we observe - albeit all within certain probability guidelines that arise as classical physical laws arise themselves from quantum probability? Does specific energy/information create specific energy/information like a boat creating bow waves ahead of it, etc.

The crazy thing about the many worlds theory is that in theory, there are worlds where the many worlds theory isn't true. This is one of its detractors main arguments.



Now I feel bad. Basically in the classical sense, you're right and something can't come from nothing, end of story.

But in the quantum world, things can and do appear out of nowhere, but that still leaves the question 'Well where the bloody blue feck does the quantum world come from?'

Yes, I realize that probably didn't help at all. #damndirtyapes
Click to expand...

Apes with dubious hygiene notwithstanding I think the Noodely one is the only rational explanation.
 
Shamwow said:
It's a giant city!



This kind of shit cracks me up. Skip to 5.00 for his incredible analysis.
Click to expand...


He's got to be on a wind up. He can't genuinely think that there's a giant city on Saturn that Astronomers pixelate out and pretend is a storm. Not unless he's KE7-deep in the ketamine.

Oh dear. I checked the youtube comments. I'm frankly surprised these people even manage to turn on their computers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.