Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Ill_handle_it

Bbc Horizon - Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong ? Horizon

Recommended Posts

Thanks for posting this. Although it doesn't keep me awake at night, this question (the origins of the universe) is something that I do think about regularly.

Certainly, science is progressing at quite a rate. It wasn't all that long ago that scientists genuinely went along with the idea that there might be people like us living on Venus, when actually some really basic common sense about the atmosphere and proximity to the sun means we can easily see this not only is nonsense, but always was nonsense.

But we can't really go anywhere yet. When we do finally explore somewhere, we tend to find nothing like what we'd expected. Titan and Europa spring to mind.

When I watch programmes on the subject I see a number of people trying to prove mathematical formlae on a blackboard. Don't get me wrong, I'm no astronomer, physicist or anything of that ilk, but I think "All you've done is prove a formula, you haven't really answered anything". Put another way, although maths is supposed to be able to model anything, I'm not sure it will solve the riddle; that we can apply it practically.

Stephen Hawking was on Horizon recently in this programme (no longer available, but I think you'd really enjoy this one). What was fascinating is that because he can't write or type he has to think conceptually, and perhaps, almost uniquely. He struggled for 30 years to describe how his original hypothesis about black holes and the universe could be true. He believed in it, but it won't write out in a formula on a blackboard and therfore gained little credibility.

Now, I'm not bigging myself up here (hopefully) but his original theory is explained in the first few minutes of the episode and it took me about ten seconds (not thirty years) to reach the same conclusion he eventually did. Basically, that black holes are in fact an exit point from this universe. That's why nothing comes back out again. I'd already thought this: I don't see the universe as some sort of contiguous thing (whether it's "nothing" or "dark matter"). Worm hole theory comes into play here. It's like the universe is some sort of container, but with "gaps". Imagine a box - the universe is inside it. There's a tiny litttle gap in the box out of which all light and matter vanishes, a bit like a difference in pressure between in and out causing that effect. Yes, matter really can and does vanish. It isn't necessarily destroyed, though. It's just left our "domain" (that was the key issue with his hypothesis)

I suppose the issue to explain the standard model is that it's like a fish trying to explain water. Even if the fish had the intelligence, can it appreciate that the matter in which it lives is actually "matter" of some sort?

My closest analogy for the Big Bang is this (genuinely interested in peoples thoughts and if I'm just mad): take a glass of water and hold it in front of you over a flat surface. Then drop it so the glass smashes. The water, which was contained in the glass, is now spreading everywhere (the big bang). However the water is not contiguous - it binds together but is pulled apart and so the "pool" contains gaps and even tiny bubbles. That's the universe, and the gaps and bubbles are analagous to black holes.

Still doesn't explain where the glass of water came from, though, does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this. Although it doesn't keep me awake at night, this question (the origins of the universe) is something that I do think about regularly.

Certainly, science is progressing at quite a rate. It wasn't all that long ago that scientists genuinely went along with the idea that there might be people like us living on Venus, when actually some really basic common sense about the atmosphere and proximity to the sun means we can easily see this not only is nonsense, but always was nonsense.

But we can't really go anywhere yet. When we do finally explore somewhere, we tend to find nothing like what we'd expected. Titan and Europa spring to mind.

When I watch programmes on the subject I see a number of people trying to prove mathematical formlae on a blackboard. Don't get me wrong, I'm no astronomer, physicist or anything of that ilk, but I think "All you've done is prove a formula, you haven't really answered anything". Put another way, although maths is supposed to be able to model anything, I'm not sure it will solve the riddle; that we can apply it practically.

Stephen Hawking was on Horizon recently in this programme (no longer available, but I think you'd really enjoy this one). What was fascinating is that because he can't write or type he has to think conceptually, and perhaps, almost uniquely. He struggled for 30 years to describe how his original hypothesis about black holes and the universe could be true. He believed in it, but it won't write out in a formula on a blackboard and therfore gained little credibility.

Now, I'm not bigging myself up here (hopefully) but his original theory is explained in the first few minutes of the episode and it took me about ten seconds (not thirty years) to reach the same conclusion he eventually did. Basically, that black holes are in fact an exit point from this universe. That's why nothing comes back out again. I'd already thought this: I don't see the universe as some sort of contiguous thing (whether it's "nothing" or "dark matter"). Worm hole theory comes into play here. It's like the universe is some sort of container, but with "gaps". Imagine a box - the universe is inside it. There's a tiny litttle gap in the box out of which all light and matter vanishes, a bit like a difference in pressure between in and out causing that effect. Yes, matter really can and does vanish. It isn't necessarily destroyed, though. It's just left our "domain" (that was the key issue with his hypothesis)

I suppose the issue to explain the standard model is that it's like a fish trying to explain water. Even if the fish had the intelligence, can it appreciate that the matter in which it lives is actually "matter" of some sort?

My closest analogy for the Big Bang is this (genuinely interested in peoples thoughts and if I'm just mad): take a glass of water and hold it in front of you over a flat surface. Then drop it so the glass smashes. The water, which was contained in the glass, is now spreading everywhere (the big bang). However the water is not contiguous - it binds together but is pulled apart and so the "pool" contains gaps and even tiny bubbles. That's the universe, and the gaps and bubbles are analagous to black holes.

Still doesn't explain where the glass of water came from, though, does it?

Great post! Nice to see something more cerebral on HPC. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I watch programmes on the subject I see a number of people trying to prove mathematical formlae on a blackboard. Don't get me wrong, I'm no astronomer, physicist or anything of that ilk, but I think "All you've done is prove a formula, you haven't really answered anything". Put another way, although maths is supposed to be able to model anything, I'm not sure it will solve the riddle; that we can apply it practically.

Generally, in astrophysics/particle physics, it goes Observation->Hypothesis->Maths->Generate Prediction->Build a bigger telescope/collider->Test Prediction->Observation (confirm or deny previous hypothesis)

Without the maths, you are stuck at throwing out hypotheses.

And most mathematicians would certainly not claim to be able to model anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post! Nice to see something more cerebral on HPC. :D

This board has the answers to everything. It's never failed me yet.

So, where did the water, or original matter come from, then?

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this. Although it doesn't keep me awake at night, this question (the origins of the universe) is something that I do think about regularly.

Certainly, science is progressing at quite a rate. It wasn't all that long ago that scientists genuinely went along with the idea that there might be people like us living on Venus, when actually some really basic common sense about the atmosphere and proximity to the sun means we can easily see this not only is nonsense, but always was nonsense.

But we can't really go anywhere yet. When we do finally explore somewhere, we tend to find nothing like what we'd expected. Titan and Europa spring to mind.

When I watch programmes on the subject I see a number of people trying to prove mathematical formlae on a blackboard. Don't get me wrong, I'm no astronomer, physicist or anything of that ilk, but I think "All you've done is prove a formula, you haven't really answered anything". Put another way, although maths is supposed to be able to model anything, I'm not sure it will solve the riddle; that we can apply it practically.

Stephen Hawking was on Horizon recently in this programme (no longer available, but I think you'd really enjoy this one). What was fascinating is that because he can't write or type he has to think conceptually, and perhaps, almost uniquely. He struggled for 30 years to describe how his original hypothesis about black holes and the universe could be true. He believed in it, but it won't write out in a formula on a blackboard and therfore gained little credibility.

Now, I'm not bigging myself up here (hopefully) but his original theory is explained in the first few minutes of the episode and it took me about ten seconds (not thirty years) to reach the same conclusion he eventually did. Basically, that black holes are in fact an exit point from this universe. That's why nothing comes back out again. I'd already thought this: I don't see the universe as some sort of contiguous thing (whether it's "nothing" or "dark matter"). Worm hole theory comes into play here. It's like the universe is some sort of container, but with "gaps". Imagine a box - the universe is inside it. There's a tiny litttle gap in the box out of which all light and matter vanishes, a bit like a difference in pressure between in and out causing that effect. Yes, matter really can and does vanish. It isn't necessarily destroyed, though. It's just left our "domain" (that was the key issue with his hypothesis)

I suppose the issue to explain the standard model is that it's like a fish trying to explain water. Even if the fish had the intelligence, can it appreciate that the matter in which it lives is actually "matter" of some sort?

My closest analogy for the Big Bang is this (genuinely interested in peoples thoughts and if I'm just mad): take a glass of water and hold it in front of you over a flat surface. Then drop it so the glass smashes. The water, which was contained in the glass, is now spreading everywhere (the big bang). However the water is not contiguous - it binds together but is pulled apart and so the "pool" contains gaps and even tiny bubbles. That's the universe, and the gaps and bubbles are analagous to black holes.

Still doesn't explain where the glass of water came from, though, does it?

I subscribe to the Metraverse theory...hence the big bang was two or more Universes colliding with each other within a Metraverse (or whatever). Many scientists agree that the conventional big bang theory is flawed, the problem is agreeing on the alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly, science is progressing at quite a rate. It wasn't all that long ago that scientists genuinely went along with the idea that there might be people like us living on Venus, when actually some really basic common sense about the atmosphere and proximity to the sun means we can easily see this not only is nonsense, but always was nonsense.

But we can't really go anywhere yet. When we do finally explore somewhere, we tend to find nothing like what we'd expected. Titan and Europa spring to mind.

I beg to differ on these points.

Regarding Venus, I think you're referring to sci-fi rather than science. It's been clear to planetary scientists for a long time that any sort of life like us is impossible on Venus. I bet you can't find a recent scientific paper proposing the existence of humanoid life there!

I can't comment on Europa, but I'm quite familiar with Titan, having long ago as a student worked on the Huygens part of the Cassini-Huygens mission to Saturn and its moons. Titan has an opaque atmosphere, and at the time we simply did not know whether its surface was solid or liquid, so the Huygens lander was designed to cope with landing on either. Some scientists had proposed that the surface might consist of hydrocarbon seas/lakes on a crust of water ice and, in the event, that is pretty much what Huygens found. Sure, the mission filled in a lot of unknown and very interesting detail about Titan, but it did largely vindicate rather than disprove the prior hypotheses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beg to differ on these points.

Regarding Venus, I think you're referring to sci-fi rather than science. It's been clear to planetary scientists for a long time that any sort of life like us is impossible on Venus. I bet you can't find a recent scientific paper proposing the existence of humanoid life there!

Not if you go back far enough, but still recently enough to say that the studies were scientific. However ideas about the habitability of Venus at the time would be speculation, or hypotheses at best, and I'm sure that anyone serious about the subject would've agreed with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not if you go back far enough, but still recently enough to say that the studies were scientific. However ideas about the habitability of Venus at the time would be speculation, or hypotheses at best, and I'm sure that anyone serious about the subject would've agreed with that.

I suppose so. Looking on Wikipedia, I imagine that the failure of spectroscopic methods to find any oxygen in Venus's atmosphere in the 1920s would have finally scuppered the idea of earth-like life there as far as the scientists were concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this. Although it doesn't keep me awake at night, this question (the origins of the universe) is something that I do think about regularly.

Certainly, science is progressing at quite a rate. It wasn't all that long ago that scientists genuinely went along with the idea that there might be people like us living on Venus, when actually some really basic common sense about the atmosphere and proximity to the sun means we can easily see this not only is nonsense, but always was nonsense.

But we can't really go anywhere yet. When we do finally explore somewhere, we tend to find nothing like what we'd expected. Titan and Europa spring to mind.

When I watch programmes on the subject I see a number of people trying to prove mathematical formlae on a blackboard. Don't get me wrong, I'm no astronomer, physicist or anything of that ilk, but I think "All you've done is prove a formula, you haven't really answered anything". Put another way, although maths is supposed to be able to model anything, I'm not sure it will solve the riddle; that we can apply it practically.

Stephen Hawking was on Horizon recently in this programme (no longer available, but I think you'd really enjoy this one). What was fascinating is that because he can't write or type he has to think conceptually, and perhaps, almost uniquely. He struggled for 30 years to describe how his original hypothesis about black holes and the universe could be true. He believed in it, but it won't write out in a formula on a blackboard and therfore gained little credibility.

Now, I'm not bigging myself up here (hopefully) but his original theory is explained in the first few minutes of the episode and it took me about ten seconds (not thirty years) to reach the same conclusion he eventually did. Basically, that black holes are in fact an exit point from this universe. That's why nothing comes back out again. I'd already thought this: I don't see the universe as some sort of contiguous thing (whether it's "nothing" or "dark matter"). Worm hole theory comes into play here. It's like the universe is some sort of container, but with "gaps". Imagine a box - the universe is inside it. There's a tiny litttle gap in the box out of which all light and matter vanishes, a bit like a difference in pressure between in and out causing that effect. Yes, matter really can and does vanish. It isn't necessarily destroyed, though. It's just left our "domain" (that was the key issue with his hypothesis)

I suppose the issue to explain the standard model is that it's like a fish trying to explain water. Even if the fish had the intelligence, can it appreciate that the matter in which it lives is actually "matter" of some sort?

My closest analogy for the Big Bang is this (genuinely interested in peoples thoughts and if I'm just mad): take a glass of water and hold it in front of you over a flat surface. Then drop it so the glass smashes. The water, which was contained in the glass, is now spreading everywhere (the big bang). However the water is not contiguous - it binds together but is pulled apart and so the "pool" contains gaps and even tiny bubbles. That's the universe, and the gaps and bubbles are analagous to black holes.

Still doesn't explain where the glass of water came from, though, does it?

It's whetever, wherever and however I precieve it to be. End of. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very sceptical about these supposed faster-than-light particles. I think the answer, when it is found, is going to be the biggest facepalm in science history.

Now, I'm not bigging myself up here (hopefully) but his original theory is explained in the first few minutes of the episode and it took me about ten seconds (not thirty years) to reach the same conclusion he eventually did. Basically, that black holes are in fact an exit point from this universe. That's why nothing comes back out again.

Not quite. Black holes are predicted to evaporate (over an incredibly long period of time, due to a process proposed by Hawking himself - Hawking radiation. Although, to be fair to you, the partlicles are emitted from the event horizon (the boundary of the black hole), not from within the black hole itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very sceptical about these supposed faster-than-light particles. I think the answer, when it is found, is going to be the biggest facepalm in science history.

Not quite. Black holes are predicted to evaporate (over an incredibly long period of time, due to a process proposed by Hawking himself - Hawking radiation. Although, to be fair to you, the partlicles are emitted from the event horizon (the boundary of the black hole), not from within the black hole itself.

Layman meets knowledge in this thread, I think :)

(Just to clear, I'm in the former category)

But, the main issue was where all the matter that went into the black hole, goes. No scientist seemed to be prepared to move from the idea that the matter cannot be destroyed, it can only be "recycled". It's a "golden rule".

So, if the black hole evaporates, and the matter is still "inside" it, does the matter "evaporate"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Layman meets knowledge in this thread, I think :)

(Just to clear, I'm in the former category)

But, the main issue was where all the matter that went into the black hole, goes. No scientist seemed to be prepared to move from the idea that the matter cannot be destroyed, it can only be "recycled". It's a "golden rule".

So, if the black hole evaporates, and the matter is still "inside" it, does the matter "evaporate"?

No, there is a phenomenon called quantum foam, whereby pairs of particles of matter and antimatter are spontaneously created. If this happens on the boundary of a black hole, the matter in the black hole is gradually eliminated by colliding with the antimatter; the new matter particle escapes somehow. And this is at the boundary of my understanding, BTW, i'm no particle physicist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very sceptical about these supposed faster-than-light particles. I think the answer, when it is found, is going to be the biggest facepalm in science history.

I don't think it'll be a facepalm moment. Even the experimentors seem sceptical about it and seem to think that the most likely explanation is that they've screwed up somehow. They just haven't worked out what they did wrong yet. But they're being open minded enough to at least entertain what seems like the impossible. That's the right way to make progress IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This board has the answers to everything. It's never failed me yet.

So, where did the water, or original matter come from, then?

;)

the sea of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the sea of course.

Interesting thing to me is that we always look for a point of origin. We like to say 'This started the reaction. This moment in time.'

Thing is, we don't do very well at all with the concept of infinity.

So basically, in the beginning, there was nothing, or a large lump of everything, which exploded.

Either this is a reaction that has been going on forever in past and will do so in future (everything gathers, explodes, expands into galaxies, eventually contracts and goes back again), hence a complete repeatable cycle, or, we're saying that a large lump of nothing has been around for an infinite amount of time before it blew up, created the universe, and so on.

The question about whether the galaxies are ever going to stop moving further apart and eventually all coelesce again is of interest to me. The rest i'm kind of thinking that no human is equipped to understand - it's like the program trying to understand the programmer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thing to me is that we always look for a point of origin. We like to say 'This started the reaction. This moment in time.'

Thing is, we don't do very well at all with the concept of infinity.

So basically, in the beginning, there was nothing, or a large lump of everything, which exploded.

Either this is a reaction that has been going on forever in past and will do so in future (everything gathers, explodes, expands into galaxies, eventually contracts and goes back again), hence a complete repeatable cycle, or, we're saying that a large lump of nothing has been around for an infinite amount of time before it blew up, created the universe, and so on.

The question about whether the galaxies are ever going to stop moving further apart and eventually all coelesce again is of interest to me. The rest i'm kind of thinking that no human is equipped to understand - it's like the program trying to understand the programmer.

In my mind, with that water analogy - if the creation and expansion of the universe is analagous to the water hitting the surface and "exploding" outwards and spreading, then the universe would appear to expand "infinitely" at first as it "stretches", but eventually is pulled apart and loses cohesion. After which, nothing much happens, but some parts of it become inaccessible from others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my mind, with that water analogy - if the creation and expansion of the universe is analagous to the water hitting the surface and "exploding" outwards and spreading, then the universe would appear to expand "infinitely" at first as it "stretches", but eventually is pulled apart and loses cohesion. After which, nothing much happens, but some parts of it become inaccessible from others.

time is changing speed....thats why it "looks" like there was a big bang, and why the universe "looks" likes its expanding.

this change in speed takes energy, and therefore accounts for the "dark matter" they cant find...they cant find it because their eyes are not open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yer I think that's about right :o) Of course I'm in no way qualified to comment on the validity of the standard model. I listen to Alan Watts quite often and he suggests that the universe is an expression of its self - it can't be defined or explained with words,symbols or concepts. I've heard theoretical physicists suggest that maths is not only the best way of explaining the universe but in fact the only way to explain the universe. I prefer to believe that the universe doesn't have an explanation,it isn't solvable - its meaning if anything,is its meaninglessness.

Thanks to DTMark for posting

- I had no idea that Hawking's was not highly regarded within this particular scientific community. The guy who is helping Hawking with his work must be very patient. I kind of get the feeling Hawking is past his best and that for some reason he won't let it go - I guess he has very little else. Sad really. Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SO, in the big bang all the matter and energy of the coming universe was in a very, very small space.

And what would the Schwarzchild radius of that mass be?

So how did the proto-universe escape it's own event horizon, or are we in a black hole?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SO, in the big bang all the matter and energy of the coming universe was in a very, very small space.

And what would the Schwarzchild radius of that mass be?

So how did the proto-universe escape it's own event horizon, or are we in a black hole?

Well there's the thing huh. I like the way at the start of the Horizon documentary the narrator says "suddenly and without warning". How can suddenly exist before there was anything ? And who could you warn ? Ultimately,despite what they would have you believe,I think it's unlikely we'll ever be able to comprehend time & space. They'll keep coming up with new theories ad infinitum none of which will ever be fully verifiable,unless of course god decides to cough. To quote Lao Tzu

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao;

The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.

The named is the mother of ten thousand things.

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.

Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.

These two spring from the same source but differ in name;

this appears as darkness.

Darkness within darkness.

The gate to all mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SO, in the big bang all the matter and energy of the coming universe was in a very, very small space.

And what would the Schwarzchild radius of that mass be?

So how did the proto-universe escape it's own event horizon, or are we in a black hole?

thats easily explained...we are NOT in the universe in which a big bang occured.

We are IN the big bang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.

Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.

Amazing, I love that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.