http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/02/01/2015250/Universe-250-Times-Bigger-Than-What-Is-Observable
eldavojohn writes
Quote"The universe is only fourteen billion years old so we are unable to observe anything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe) more than fourteen billion light years away. This makes it a bit difficult for us to measure how large the universe actually is. A number of methodologies have been devised to estimate the size of the universe including the universe's curvature, baryonic acoustic oscillations and the luminosity of distant type 1A supernovas. Now a team has combined all known methods into Bayesian model averaging to constrain the universe's size and their research is saying with confidence that the universe is at least 250 times larger (http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26333/) than the observable universe."
Quote from: Telarus on February 03, 2011, 05:04:08 AM
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/02/01/2015250/Universe-250-Times-Bigger-Than-What-Is-Observable
eldavojohn writes
Quote"The universe is only fourteen billion years old so we are unable to observe anything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe) more than fourteen billion light years away. This makes it a bit difficult for us to measure how large the universe actually is. A number of methodologies have been devised to estimate the size of the universe including the universe's curvature, baryonic acoustic oscillations and the luminosity of distant type 1A supernovas. Now a team has combined all known methods into Bayesian model averaging to constrain the universe's size and their research is saying with confidence that the universe is at least 250 times larger (http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26333/) than the observable universe."
22.5 trillion light years.... damn.
Edit for math fail.
IF you read the link with more info, it says that 250 times may be conservative, and that it seems possible/likely that the universe continues infinitely in all directions (curvature of the universe seems to be 0, which is not consistent with models of a closed, finite universe).
it's a little mind blowing to think that the big bang may only have been a very very small part of what's going on in the universe.
Tin foil time, but I never did believe we live in a finite universe.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 03, 2011, 03:26:46 PM
Tin foil time, but I never did believe we live in a finite universe.
I always liked the idea of infinite amount of matter in an infinite amount of space. It's just that there's more infinite space than infinite matter, if that makes sense.
Astronomers have identified some 54 new planets where conditions may be suitable for life.
Five of the candidates are Earth-sized.
The announcement from the Kepler space telescope team brings the total number of exoplanet candidates they have identified to more than 1,200.
The data release also confirmed a unique sextet of planets around a single star and 170 further solar systems that include more than one planet circling far-flung stars.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12354390
We probably aren't alone either.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 03, 2011, 03:35:09 PM
Astronomers have identified some 54 new planets where conditions may be suitable for life.
Five of the candidates are Earth-sized.
The announcement from the Kepler space telescope team brings the total number of exoplanet candidates they have identified to more than 1,200.
The data release also confirmed a unique sextet of planets around a single star and 170 further solar systems that include more than one planet circling far-flung stars.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12354390
We probably aren't alone either.
This is awesome.
Keplar 11 is an interesting one. If it has an Earthlike planet in the habitable zone (none indicated so far, as far as I can tell), its age has given plenty of time for intelligent life to evolve. Too bad it's 2000 ly away.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on February 03, 2011, 04:01:05 PM
Keplar 11 is an interesting one. If it has an Earthlike planet in the habitable zone (none indicated so far, as far as I can tell), its age has given plenty of time for intelligent life to evolve. Too bad it's 2000 ly away.
Habitable to life and habitable to life as we know it may not be the same thing at all.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 03, 2011, 04:09:00 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on February 03, 2011, 04:01:05 PM
Keplar 11 is an interesting one. If it has an Earthlike planet in the habitable zone (none indicated so far, as far as I can tell), its age has given plenty of time for intelligent life to evolve. Too bad it's 2000 ly away.
Habitable to life and habitable to life as we know it may not be the same thing at all.
This.
If we do discover life on another planet and they look like Star Trek aliens (humans with random bumps added to say "different!" I am going to be stunned.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 03, 2011, 04:09:00 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on February 03, 2011, 04:01:05 PM
Keplar 11 is an interesting one. If it has an Earthlike planet in the habitable zone (none indicated so far, as far as I can tell), its age has given plenty of time for intelligent life to evolve. Too bad it's 2000 ly away.
Habitable to life and habitable to life as we know it may not be the same thing at all.
True, but as far as I can recall, either liquid water or liquid methane would be needed as a solvent, and water is more versatile. Most of these planets seem to be a lot of hydrogen and helium.
That said, it would be pretty cool to find a silicon based insect that drinks methane.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on February 03, 2011, 04:13:32 PM
That said, it would be pretty cool to find a silicon based insect that drinks methane.
Right before it plunged into your eyesocket and laid eggs in your brain.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 04:15:05 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on February 03, 2011, 04:13:32 PM
That said, it would be pretty cool to find a silicon based insect that drinks methane.
Right before it plunged into your eyesocket and laid eggs in your brain.
:lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Blight on February 03, 2011, 03:28:55 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 03, 2011, 03:26:46 PM
Tin foil time, but I never did believe we live in a finite universe.
I always liked the idea of infinite amount of matter in an infinite amount of space. It's just that there's more infinite space than infinite matter, if that makes sense.
Would the matter really be infinite? I can grasp infinite space (I
think), but it would seem to me that the matter in the universe must be finite. Am I mistaken?
Quote from: Hoopla on February 03, 2011, 04:17:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on February 03, 2011, 03:28:55 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 03, 2011, 03:26:46 PM
Tin foil time, but I never did believe we live in a finite universe.
I always liked the idea of infinite amount of matter in an infinite amount of space. It's just that there's more infinite space than infinite matter, if that makes sense.
Would the matter really be infinite? I can grasp infinite space (I think), but it would seem to me that the matter in the universe must be finite. Am I mistaken?
Might not make sense, but infinity is not a fixed numerical value. I might be thinking about it the wrong way, but I can imagine it being possible for infinite matter to fit within a larger infinite space.
The term "larger infinite" makes no real sense.
LOL, this was written in 1830.
Joseph Smith records the following:
31: And Behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me. 32: And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth. And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
Book of Mormon, Moses, chapter 1.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 04:30:37 PM
The term "larger infinite" makes no real sense.
Yeah, I know. I'm just having trouble thinking of a way to put the thought into words. It was the only thing I could really think of.
Smith was hardly the first guy to believe that (see Giordano Bruno for an earlier guy). Think he might have been the first one not to be tortured to death for saying it outloud though.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on February 03, 2011, 04:13:32 PM
True, but as far as I can recall, either liquid water or liquid methane would be needed as a solvent, and water is more versatile. Most of these planets seem to be a lot of hydrogen and helium.
That said, it would be pretty cool to find a silicon based insect that drinks methane.
I think ammonia (or ammonium, I've never been able to remember which does what), has the right physical chemistry properties to make a standin for water too, though I don't know if organic chemicals form in it.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 04:30:37 PM
The term "larger infinite" makes no real sense.
It works mathematically. IE, there are an infinite number of rational numbers, and an even bigger infinity of irrational ones.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 03, 2011, 04:43:27 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 04:30:37 PM
The term "larger infinite" makes no real sense.
It works mathematically. IE, there are an infinite number of rational numbers, and an even bigger infinity of irrational ones.
Yeah, or think of it this way. Imagine an eternal afterlife that literally lasts forever, and say you have two choices. With one, you have sex twice a week, forever. With the other you have sex once every hundred trillion years, forever. Either way, there is an infinite amount of sex involved, but there is a whole lot more of it with the first choice.
Quote from: Pastor Miskatonic Zappathruster on February 03, 2011, 05:48:13 PM
Either way, there is an infinite amount of sex involved, but there is a whole lot more of it with the first choice.
Either way, there is the
same amount of sex in both cases, at least according to set theory. Both amounts add up to "countable infinity" or aleph null. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number#Aleph-naught)
What that basically means is that there is a way to map each natural number to each instance of sex. Though Hilbert's Hotel (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A4080467) is the more usual way of explaining this, rather than infinite sex heaven.
But it has to be said that all the above is fairly abstract maths with only a tenuous connection to any actual physical infinities (if they exist).
What Igor said. It doesn't matter if there is Infinity, or Infinity+1. Both amounts are infinitie. You will never have one bigger than the other, because both never end.
Math tricks aside.
this is a tangent, and I apologize for the threadjack...
but I'm vaguely recalling a mathematician ... Georg Cantor? whose theories involved varying sizes of infinity.
The idea being that there's an infinite number of fractions between each integer. And there's an infinite number of integers too. So the total number of fractions is actually [total number of integers] to the infinite power.
so you end up with this paradox where there are larger and smaller infinities
Are these sorts of things just mathematical masturbation, though? Do they have any place in the experiential universe?
Perhaps, as long as we can say there are infinite supplies of STUPID, but some INFINITE STUPIDS are larger than others.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 07:54:33 PM
Perhaps, as long as we can say there are infinite supplies of STUPID, but some INFINITE STUPIDS are larger than others.
Well, I'll agree with that. There has to be some explanation for 4 fucking seasons of The Jersey Shore.
Quote from: Hoopla on February 03, 2011, 07:52:56 PM
Are these sorts of things just mathematical masturbation, though? Do they have any place in the experiential universe?
one might wonder if the size of the universe has a bearing on the experiential universe. Probably not, at least not in our lifetimes, but it's cool to think about. :p
In college, math majors always struck me as cousins of musicians---
they approach logic with an almost aesthetic sensibility.
they find beauty in symmetry and correspondence, in the tacit relationship between imaginary things. Musicians pursue this beauty in the name of creation and experience, mathmaticians pursue it in the name of truth.
Either way,
Mathematicians and Musicians play all day.
I wonder if theoretical physics has the equivalent of a "jam band".
Tool.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 04:30:37 PM
The term "larger infinite" makes no real sense.
Yeah. You'd probably want to think of it as an infinite space that has a non-50/50 chance of finding matter at any location measure.
YAY, probabilities!
Quote from: Cramulus on February 03, 2011, 07:49:54 PM
this is a tangent, and I apologize for the threadjack...
but I'm vaguely recalling a mathematician ... Georg Cantor? whose theories involved varying sizes of infinity.
The idea being that there's an infinite number of fractions between each integer. And there's an infinite number of integers too. So the total number of fractions is actually [total number of integers] to the infinite power.
so you end up with this paradox where there are larger and smaller infinities
Those have a 1 to 1 correspondence as well actually:
1 1/2
2 1/3
3 2/3
4 1/4
5 2/4
6 3/4
7 1/5
etc
It makes no sense to me but it apparently convinced one of my math professors.
Yes, there is the same amount of rational numbers (fractions) as there are whole numbers. Like Requia said, you can set up a one-to-one correspondence between each fraction and each whole number.
What you can't do is set up a similar correspondence between the natural numbers and the irrational numbers (like pi and root[2]). So, in a sense, there are more of those than there are natural numbers. This only happens because the number of digits in an irrational number is infinite itself. Cantor had a nice little proof of this, which I hope wiki can explain, because I'm running out of time right now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument
Hmm, if certain theories about the nature of space (specifically that there are minimum units of lengths and time) are correct, then there's no reason you couldn't do a 1 to 1 with matter and space.
So there would actually be an equal amount of matter and space, even though there's more space than matter.
Go paradoxes!
I wonder which screwy axiom led to this one.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 03, 2011, 07:06:43 PM
What Igor said. It doesn't matter if there is Infinity, or Infinity+1. Both amounts are infinitie. You will never have one bigger than the other, because both never end.
Math tricks aside.
No.
That's why they call the countable infinity Aleph-Nul. There
are types of infinity that are truly bigger than that. Not just in an infinity+1 way, but in a very fundamental level. The most common example is the infinity of countable numbers (Aleph Nul) versus the infinity of Real numbers, which are uncountable, and called Aleph One.
Whether Aleph One type infinities actually exist in "reality" outside Mathematics, is another question, on which Bucky Fuller has to say a thing or two.
What's beyond Aleph One, like Aleph Two and onwards, either they haven't been able yet to (mathematically) figure out what that would look like, or I don't understand the theory well enough to be able to grasp whether they have or not.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 03, 2011, 07:49:54 PM
this is a tangent, and I apologize for the threadjack...
but I'm vaguely recalling a mathematician ... Georg Cantor? whose theories involved varying sizes of infinity.
The idea being that there's an infinite number of fractions between each integer. And there's an infinite number of integers too. So the total number of fractions is actually [total number of integers] to the infinite power.
so you end up with this paradox where there are larger and smaller infinities
Actually, the fractions, aka Rational numbers also belong to Aleph Null, or countable infinity. It works like this, you can write every fraction as p/q, where p and q are both integers, okay? So now you interpret these p and q as coordinates on a plane, a grid. Then you start in the origin (which is 0/0, but we're going to skip the impossible fractions) and then twirl around the origin in a tight spiral. Now you've got a countable progression, that will ultimately hit every point in the plane (skipping all the p/0 ones cause they're not proper fractions), so you're going to hit every possible fraction at some point. Makes them countable, makes them just as big as the set of Natural numbers.
It's only when you also add the
Irrational numbers (such as sqrt(2), Pi, e and such) that you
really fill up all the tiny gaps between integers and fractions, and then you get the Real numbers, and you get a set that is impossible to count anymore.
Looking at it in another way, the decimal expansion of a fraction always repeats at some point. 1/3 = 0.3333333... and 1/7 = 0.14285714285714... that's the rational numbers. As soon as you also allow decimal expansions that do not repeat, ever, you get a huge inifnity of numbers that are not fractions, and you get the set of Real numbers. Pi has a decimal expansion that (provably) never repeats. But also constructed numbers such as 0.12345678910111213141516171819202121... never repeat and are therefore irrational.
Personally, I hate the set of Real numbers because it's got to do with the Axiom of Choice (which I don't quite understand) and the Banach-Tarski Paradox (which somebody once explained to me satisfactory at a party except I was drunk and now I forgot) which allows for stupid paradoxes such as cutting a sphere into five pieces and reassembling those pieces into two spheres of the same size. Which is patently ridiculous, so I'm siding with Bucky Fuller here on the non-existance in reality of these larger sets of Infinities.
(BTW before you wonder, yes the 5 pieces to cut that sphere are indeed very very fractal and impossibly shaped)
Oh it seems that Requia and Igor said pretty much what I said.
Requia if the fraction correspondence doesn't make sense to you, check my spiral example.
Cantor's diagonal proof is one of those cool Reductio ad Absurdum proofs, my favourite kind :) Basically it says that, ASSUME the set of Real numbers is countable. That means you can make an infinite list of all the Real numbers. The diagonal proof then shows a way, given this list, to construct a Real number that is not on the list, meaning that the list cannot have been complete. WHAAA CONTRADICTION therefore one of the assumptions must be wrong, and the only assumption was that Real numbers are countable, therefore they are not.
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 04, 2011, 12:26:11 AM
What's beyond Aleph One, like Aleph Two and onwards, either they haven't been able yet to (mathematically) figure out what that would look like, or I don't understand the theory well enough to be able to grasp whether they have or not.
AFAIK the Aleph numbers are kind of sketchy, mostly because the Continuum Hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_Hypothesis) (which says that the Aleph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number) numbers and Beth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_number) numbers correspond to each other nicely) has been proven to be independent of the main formulation of set theory - that is, you could have two worlds that both abide by the axioms of ZF(C) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory), in one of which the continuum hypothesis is true, in one of which it is false, and neither world would be paradoxical.
But in a system where the Continuum Hypothesis is true, sets of various Aleph numbers are easy to come by.
Aleph 0:
Counting numbers
Integers, and any infinite subset thereof (prime numbers, even numbers, perfect squares, etc.)
Rational numbers
Turing machines
Set of all finite subsets of any of the above
Aleph 1:
Real numbers
Irrational numbers
Polynomials
Set of all subsets of any Aleph 0 set (e.g., the set of all subsets of the integers.)
Points in N-dimensional Euclidean space
Set of all sequences of integers or real numbers
Set of all continuous functions from the real numbers to the real numbers
Aleph 2:
Set of all subsets of the real numbers (or any other Aleph 1 set.)
Set of all functions from the real numbers to the real numbers
Aleph 3:
Set of all subsets of any Aleph 2 set
Aleph 4:
Set of all subsets of any Aleph 3 set, etc.
If the universe is bigger than 4/3*(Pi)*R^3, where R is the speed of light times the age of the universe, I am calling shennanigans on God.
End of fucking story.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 04, 2011, 05:16:58 AM
If the universe is bigger than 4/3*(Pi)*R^3, where R is the speed of light times the age of the universe, I am calling shennanigans on God.
End of fucking story.
Good point. I'm with you, banging at his door, demanding the situation to be rectified, not only immediately but also retroactively, and he better get his shit RIGHT this time, or we kick him out of the group and have somebody else be the GM for a while.
But it could be that the Big Bang that formed us is only a localized event. What if there were some other Big Bang that occurred simultaneously 154 quadrillion light years away (random number). We would never know about it, but it would still be part of the Universe.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 04, 2011, 05:16:58 AM
If the universe is bigger than 4/3*(Pi)*R^3, where R is the speed of light times the age of the universe, I am calling shennanigans on God.
End of fucking story.
Ok, I think I've got my thought I keep having*. Thanks, TGRR. I think I'll be using that for a long time.
*The RWHN definition of "belief".
Quote from: Doktor Blight on February 04, 2011, 04:44:48 PM
But it could be that the Big Bang that formed us is only a localized event. What if there were some other Big Bang that occurred simultaneously 154 quadrillion light years away (random number). We would never know about it, but it would still be part of the Universe.
There wouldn't be any distance between the two big bangs. Just saying.
As I understand it, the Big Bang was a dilation of space itself. It's not that more universe is being added onto what we've got, it's that what we've got is being stretched, distances keep getting greater, like two points on a balloon as it inflates (except that matter itself is not expanding, otherwise nobody would notice anything).
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 04, 2011, 06:20:22 PM
As I understand it, the Big Bang was a dilation of space itself. It's not that more universe is being added onto what we've got, it's that what we've got is being stretched, distances keep getting greater, like two points on a balloon as it inflates (except that matter itself is not expanding, otherwise nobody would notice anything).
I'm noticing.
The other galaxies are moving away from us because they
hate us.
It's probably for the best. Containment is key with things like this. It's not enough to keep us at the bottom of a gravity well, light years from anything worth ruining. It is also necessary to run.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 04, 2011, 06:28:30 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 04, 2011, 06:20:22 PM
As I understand it, the Big Bang was a dilation of space itself. It's not that more universe is being added onto what we've got, it's that what we've got is being stretched, distances keep getting greater, like two points on a balloon as it inflates (except that matter itself is not expanding, otherwise nobody would notice anything).
I'm noticing.
The other galaxies are moving away from us because they hate us.
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 04, 2011, 06:30:15 PM
It's probably for the best. Containment is key with things like this. It's not enough to keep us at the bottom of a gravity well, light years from anything worth ruining. It is also necessary to run.
Combine this with the Malevolent God concept, and we're pretty close to finishing the Grand Unified Theory of Everything.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 04, 2011, 06:32:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 04, 2011, 06:28:30 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 04, 2011, 06:20:22 PM
As I understand it, the Big Bang was a dilation of space itself. It's not that more universe is being added onto what we've got, it's that what we've got is being stretched, distances keep getting greater, like two points on a balloon as it inflates (except that matter itself is not expanding, otherwise nobody would notice anything).
I'm noticing.
The other galaxies are moving away from us because they hate us.
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 04, 2011, 06:30:15 PM
It's probably for the best. Containment is key with things like this. It's not enough to keep us at the bottom of a gravity well, light years from anything worth ruining. It is also necessary to run.
Combine this with the Malevolent God concept, and we're pretty close to finishing the Grand Unified Theory of Everything.
Not necessarily a bad thing, of course. Better goin' out than comin' in. There's too many fucking people around me as it is, the last thing I want is to hear 100 billion solar systems say "HAI GUISE!"
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 04, 2011, 06:30:15 PM
It's probably for the best. Containment is key with things like this. It's not enough to keep us at the bottom of a gravity well, light years from anything worth ruining. It is also necessary to run.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 04, 2011, 06:30:15 PM
It's probably for the best. Containment is key with things like this. It's not enough to keep us at the bottom of a gravity well, light years from anything worth ruining. It is also necessary to run.
:mittens:
It can be bigger than the speed of light limit would suggest because the speed of light is part of the universe, and in the very tiny fraction of time between time existing and the speed of light existing, things could go much much faster.
(Disclaimer, its been a long long time since I looked at inflation theory seriously, I might be misremembering the explanation).
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 04, 2011, 06:13:53 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on February 04, 2011, 04:44:48 PM
But it could be that the Big Bang that formed us is only a localized event. What if there were some other Big Bang that occurred simultaneously 154 quadrillion light years away (random number). We would never know about it, but it would still be part of the Universe.
There wouldn't be any distance between the two big bangs. Just saying.
I think I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying, but it's been a pretty tiresome week (not in a bad way for some parts mind you). I'll try to come back to this thought later.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on February 05, 2011, 01:41:15 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 04, 2011, 06:13:53 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on February 04, 2011, 04:44:48 PM
But it could be that the Big Bang that formed us is only a localized event. What if there were some other Big Bang that occurred simultaneously 154 quadrillion light years away (random number). We would never know about it, but it would still be part of the Universe.
There wouldn't be any distance between the two big bangs. Just saying.
I think I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying, but it's been a pretty tiresome week (not in a bad way for some parts mind you). I'll try to come back to this thought later.
If there's no universe, there's no empty space. Space is made up of these little things called "Ashtekar Loops", which have structure and no mass (and are thus the inverse of Rush Limbaugh). These little loops are exactly one "Planck Constant" across, and are very dangerous when they form gangs. Anyway, no universe = no loops = no empty space = no distance.
This is why Abhay Ashtekar is illegal in all but 14 states. Nobody likes a smartass.
Have you checked out the Dayjob Orchestra?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNKqJiMfkUs
Quote from: BadBeast on February 05, 2011, 03:41:56 AM
Have you checked out the Dayjob Orchestra?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNKqJiMfkUs
Just to not bury it. No I haven't. half way through now. It's awesome.
Quote from: BadBeast on February 05, 2011, 02:32:35 AM
And also, I remember reading somewhere that lightspeed isn't even a constant, as it travels at different speeds, through
different mediums. So what we are using for light years, may actually only be light moments. And because of the the infinitely ineffable dimensions of the Uni/Multi verse, any system we attempt to quantify Time or Distance with on such a scale is meaningless. And distracting. And far too confusing to try and apply to our little pinpoint of existence. But the Wormhole/Stargate analogy works for Star Trek, Farscape Babylon 5 etc, and I think it's the way to go.
As long as Wesley Crusher isn't involved at all, it should all work out in the end.
Partially right. Actual light waves/particles travel through different media at different rates (something like 1/2 speed for glass and 2/3 speed for water, IIRC) but the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, and that's the one people talk about when they say "speed of light" or "light-years." The speed of light in a vacuum is
also the hard upper limit of speed of anything (rumors, monarchy, gravity, information) in the universe, regardless of medium.
I'm not sure what you mean by "infinitely ineffable dimensions," or by quantifying such things as being meaningless. The scale means there is 1.3 seconds of lag between any earth-moon communications, and about 8 minutes of such lag between the earth and the sun. Seems meaningful to me.
Topic split on account of Shatner. Is now the star trek post in AT.
I meant that the increments we measure distance or time with, are meaningless when you start to think of crossing even our Galaxy using them as a template. I know the numbers are probably do-able, but trying to get a realistic model of it's size, in our heads is absurd. So the numbers describing distance become just numbers, and irrelevant because their immensity isn't anything we have a working model to scale it to.
In that way, we are shackled to the mundane. With the things that are dense enouigh to drop on your foot, and
accurately estimate the weight of. And how long it was since the biggest big lump of dense stuff we can see, or hold in our heads, sinks below the horizon. And all of it would mean nothing at all, without our quick brains. Seeing patterns, making educated predictions, that's what we are really fucking good at. We've nearly thought ourselves right off the Earth, with it's
We can only see the things at the bottom of this gravity well. the slow moving, dense things. But we know that matter is just a tightly packed mass of tiny theoretical parts, going around each other. We can't see the spaces in between quite so well, but that's the way we are going.
Doesn't matter, might matter, Dark matter, Light Matter, Microcosm & Macrocosm are fairly exact models of each other on the Atomic / Solar scale, with the planets and moons being the electrons and neutrons, with the Sun shining on as a nucleus. That is a comparison I can get my head round. BeforeI start losing interest again.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 05, 2011, 05:55:42 PM
Topic split on account of Shatner. Is now the star trek post in AT.
Good move Rog. There's a place for everything, and yesterday, I learned that Trek's place isn't just whereever I carelessly drop it. :fap:
Quote from: BadBeast on February 05, 2011, 06:05:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 05, 2011, 05:55:42 PM
Topic split on account of Shatner. Is now the star trek post in AT.
Good move Rog. There's a place for everything, and yesterday, I learned that Trek's place isn't just whereever I carelessly drop it. :fap:
Well, anyways, I had Scotty beam it up there. NOT JORDE. SCOTTY.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 05, 2011, 06:08:32 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 05, 2011, 06:05:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 05, 2011, 05:55:42 PM
Topic split on account of Shatner. Is now the star trek post in AT.
Good move Rog. There's a place for everything, and yesterday, I learned that Trek's place isn't just whereever I carelessly drop it. :fap:
Well, anyways, I had Scotty beam it up there. NOT O'BRIEN. SCOTTY.
Fixt. That is all.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on February 05, 2011, 05:23:34 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 05, 2011, 02:32:35 AM
And also, I remember reading somewhere that lightspeed isn't even a constant, as it travels at different speeds, through
different mediums. So what we are using for light years, may actually only be light moments. And because of the the infinitely ineffable dimensions of the Uni/Multi verse, any system we attempt to quantify Time or Distance with on such a scale is meaningless. And distracting. And far too confusing to try and apply to our little pinpoint of existence. But the Wormhole/Stargate analogy works for Star Trek, Farscape Babylon 5 etc, and I think it's the way to go.
As long as Wesley Crusher isn't involved at all, it should all work out in the end.
Partially right. Actual light waves/particles travel through different media at different rates (something like 1/2 speed for glass and 2/3 speed for water, IIRC) but the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, and that's the one people talk about when they say "speed of light" or "light-years." The speed of light in a vacuum is also the hard upper limit of speed of anything (rumors, monarchy, gravity, information) in the universe, regardless of medium.
I'm not sure what you mean by "infinitely ineffable dimensions," or by quantifying such things as being meaningless. The scale means there is 1.3 seconds of lag between any earth-moon communications, and about 8 minutes of such lag between the earth and the sun. Seems meaningful to me.
Seems like I remember reading somewhere that space may be able to expand faster than light.
Or maybe I didn't.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on February 05, 2011, 10:09:01 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on February 05, 2011, 05:23:34 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 05, 2011, 02:32:35 AM
And also, I remember reading somewhere that lightspeed isn't even a constant, as it travels at different speeds, through
different mediums. So what we are using for light years, may actually only be light moments. And because of the the infinitely ineffable dimensions of the Uni/Multi verse, any system we attempt to quantify Time or Distance with on such a scale is meaningless. And distracting. And far too confusing to try and apply to our little pinpoint of existence. But the Wormhole/Stargate analogy works for Star Trek, Farscape Babylon 5 etc, and I think it's the way to go.
As long as Wesley Crusher isn't involved at all, it should all work out in the end.
Partially right. Actual light waves/particles travel through different media at different rates (something like 1/2 speed for glass and 2/3 speed for water, IIRC) but the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, and that's the one people talk about when they say "speed of light" or "light-years." The speed of light in a vacuum is also the hard upper limit of speed of anything (rumors, monarchy, gravity, information) in the universe, regardless of medium.
I'm not sure what you mean by "infinitely ineffable dimensions," or by quantifying such things as being meaningless. The scale means there is 1.3 seconds of lag between any earth-moon communications, and about 8 minutes of such lag between the earth and the sun. Seems meaningful to me.
Seems like I remember reading somewhere that space may be able to expand faster than light.
Or maybe I didn't.
Funny enough, that's the principle that warp drive theoretically would use. It has yet to be tested, but if the universe isn't < ~28 billion ly in diameter, it might mean just that.
Well, light needs space to be light. If there is no space it cannot behave in a way definitive of light. So presumably space always gets there first. So it must expand faster than light. Light's wavelengths must need space to exist in. but space can be dark and devoid of light. So space get's it's flag up first, every time. Whether light then bothers to deign space with it's presence, doesn't affect space much. It's always dark first, in all the Creation Myths too. "Out of the the darkness, came forth -----------*
(*Insert relevant newcomer)
In the beginning was the word, and the word was in the bloody dark, because it had not yet said "Lux Fiat".
Holyshit, you just proved Pratchett's "Speed of Dark".
:mittens:
Quote from: Telarus on February 06, 2011, 02:04:35 AM
Holyshit, you just proved Pratchett's "Speed of Dark".
:mittens:
I did?
I mean, I did! It just came to me in a flash of endarkenment.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on February 05, 2011, 10:09:01 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on February 05, 2011, 05:23:34 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on February 05, 2011, 02:32:35 AM
And also, I remember reading somewhere that lightspeed isn't even a constant, as it travels at different speeds, through
different mediums. So what we are using for light years, may actually only be light moments. And because of the the infinitely ineffable dimensions of the Uni/Multi verse, any system we attempt to quantify Time or Distance with on such a scale is meaningless. And distracting. And far too confusing to try and apply to our little pinpoint of existence. But the Wormhole/Stargate analogy works for Star Trek, Farscape Babylon 5 etc, and I think it's the way to go.
As long as Wesley Crusher isn't involved at all, it should all work out in the end.
Partially right. Actual light waves/particles travel through different media at different rates (something like 1/2 speed for glass and 2/3 speed for water, IIRC) but the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, and that's the one people talk about when they say "speed of light" or "light-years." The speed of light in a vacuum is also the hard upper limit of speed of anything (rumors, monarchy, gravity, information) in the universe, regardless of medium.
I'm not sure what you mean by "infinitely ineffable dimensions," or by quantifying such things as being meaningless. The scale means there is 1.3 seconds of lag between any earth-moon communications, and about 8 minutes of such lag between the earth and the sun. Seems meaningful to me.
Seems like I remember reading somewhere that space may be able to expand faster than light.
Or maybe I didn't.
Space does expand "faster" than the speed of light, sort of. Space expands proportionally to itself. So if you have two points that are 5m apart, after some time t they will be 6m apart. During that same time t, a pair of points that were 500m apart have now become 600m apart. The apparent velocity of the second pair of points is 100 times that of the first pair. Taking two points that are sufficiently far apart will yield two points that appear to be traveling away from each other in excess of lightspeed - but that's okay, because nothing is actually moving. The two places are still exactly where they started, only now there's more space in between them now.
This messed up property of the metric expansion of space is how the universe could be both larger than the observable universe, and how it could be larger than a sphere with radius (age of universe)(lightspeed.) [Note that the sphere won't have volume 4/3*pi*r^3, due to space being all warped.]
Quote from: BadBeast on February 05, 2011, 05:59:26 PM
Doesn't matter, might matter, Dark matter, Light Matter, Microcosm & Macrocosm are fairly exact models of each other on the Atomic / Solar scale, with the planets and moons being the electrons and neutrons, with the Sun shining on as a nucleus. That is a comparison I can get my head round. BeforeI start losing interest again.
Electrons don't orbit the nucleus. They do the quantum "I'm somewhere around here, probably?" dance.
My knowledge of Astrophysics and Sub atomic particles comes almost exclusively from listening to Hawkwind,
and reading Comic books. Waddya expect? Stephen Hawking? And don't get me started on the home made "Hardon collider" debacle!