martini Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Interesting program. I've often thought that if space is infinite, what's to stop there being another "universe" like ours just immeasurably distant to our own that we can't see it.. Absolutely nothing We may in fact be a universe entrapped in a 'foam' of universes made up of bubbles, of infinite number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Bit arty I thought. Mind you, it might have been a bit tricky keeping people interested otherwise with subject matter like that. I enjoyed the mathematical proofs of how infinity is in fact infinite. Who did you think was more deluded, though? The crazy looking mathematician using the "infinite hotel" as a method of getting his ideas across, of the guy who thought that there is in fact a largest finite number, which if you add 1 goes back to zero. I don't really have a problem with the concept of infinity as a number, but as a dimension it is a bit mind blowing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Who did you think was more deluded, though? The crazy looking mathematician using the "infinite hotel" as a method of getting his ideas across, of the guy who thought that there is in fact a largest finite number, which if you add 1 goes back to zero. What got me was when they said you could travel through space and with the finite principle you would eventually come back on Earth again - how would you know it was really 'your' Earth and not just one of the infinite exact copies in the infinite principle universe? Because they would still say you left them heading in one direction and came back on yourself from another dimension - but it was another (identical) you that left!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Infinity is a necessary mathematical construct to help make allot of maths...well work.. shouldn’t really be described as a number as it doesnt really behave like most 'normal' numbers. in regards to space being infinite, they left out quite a bit of the thinking behind why this may not actually be the case. let me explain! not that i think anyone actually cares but im bored and its better then studying... Firstly you would have to be clear about what your asking. observable universe - no its definitely finite. All of space time - most 'probably' not, as we belive its expanding from the big bang. something cannot be both infinite and increasing in size. as by definition infinity is the upper limit of expansion. the whole of existance/cosmos/multiverse: ie infinite dimensions/universes. quite possible. infact quite probable if you believe inflation or some schools of quantum mechanics or string theory. however if you subscribe to quantum theory pretty much all logic/intuition/reason eventually is invalidated so theres no point thinking about it anyway... the universe is ruddy huge is the only reasonable conclusion.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 What got me was when they said you could travel through space and with the finite principle you would eventually come back on Earth again - how would you know it was really 'your' Earth and not just one of the infinite exact copies in the infinite principle universe? Because they would still say you left them heading in one direction and came back on yourself from another dimension - but it was another (identical) you that left!! think that was a ref to the curved space/time theory. ie the ultimately spacetime is finite and curved in nature. its basically just a scalled up model of the earth - so which ever direction you travel in you will eventually end up where you started. so the universe is actually dougnut shaped... plausable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 As I recall part of the current multi-dimesional theory of space is that there are 10 or 11 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension. Of the spatial dimensions, only the three we experience everyday are "extended" - that is, large enough to interact with on the Newtonian physical scale. The others are microscopic and curled up into loops on the quantum scale. An object moving through the three extended dimensions traverses these quantum-sized dimensions without experiencing them. Imagine a library with 26 rooms, one for authors' named starting with each letter of the alphabet. Each room has 26 shelves, one for the initial letter of each book title. Having located the right shelf, you just look along it until you find the right book. In this analogy, you can move quickly in these three spatial dimensions of "room", "shelf and "along shelf" to locate whichever book you want by simply knowing the initial letters of the author's name and book title. However there are smaller dimesions of "pages" and "words" which you implicitly bypass on your travels. You do not experience these smaller dimensions as you navigate your way to your chosen book. Now imagine the same library from the bookworm's point of view. Inside his book, he will be completely unaware of the larger dimensions of "shelf" and " room" let alone "library". He just circulates around within his book. Now for the noodle baking part: What if the library is in fact on a street full of libraries? What if there are other streets full of libaries on the next town, or the next continent? In other words, what if the three dimensions that we call "extended" are in fact just part of the quantum foam of curled up dimensions in a larger universe? Like the bookworm existing only in his book, we can circulate around in our three spatial dimensions only to keep coming back to where we started, whereas the creatures navigating the higher dimensions can pass through us without even noticing we are there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 ... . . ..now your just making stuff up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 See why can I never explain it like that when talking about this stuff!! that's exactly the idea in my head - and like I've said in the ghost threads we're linked to the beings in higher dimensions in some way that we can't comprehend (when you open a book and have a peek at the bookworm I guess). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Now imagine the same library from the bookworm's point of view. Inside his book, he will be completely unaware of the larger dimensions of "shelf" and " room" let alone "library". He just circulates around within his book. . Have you come across Flatland by Edwin Abbott? Written in the nineteenth century, but tries to imagine a 2D character's response to visiting a 3D world (and a single dimensional world). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Have you come across Flatland by Edwin Abbott? Written in the nineteenth century, but tries to imagine a 2D character's response to visiting a 3D world (and a single dimensional world). Sounds interesting. I've often wondered whether there are 2 dimensional beings living out their lives - we would have no way of detecting them if they were truly 2D I suppose. Maybe our existence effects theirs in some way so we would be like gods to them? Similarly then we would have a very limited ability to understand 4th and 5th dimension beings. I wonder if 2D and 1D space is still linked with time as ours is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Have you come across Flatland by Edwin Abbott? Written in the nineteenth century, but tries to imagine a 2D character's response to visiting a 3D world (and a single dimensional world). I've heard of it but I've not read it (I'm not that well read, really ) I would imagine the 2D world's character would be amazed at how much cheaper and more accurate the satnav's were in the 1D world Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted February 15, 2010 Share Posted February 15, 2010 From the death thread, what came before creation (God or the Big Bang)? What if we're looking at it all backwards? What if the higher dimensions have always been here, and someone in the 5th dimension wanted to create a physical dimension (X, Y and Z) and so had to create time, so there was literally nothing (or everything) before the big bang!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiceRocket Posted March 8, 2010 Author Share Posted March 8, 2010 Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Sounds like a good one. Is it a second part to a previous one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Interesting theories explained in very simple terms - good program Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Set for remote record Cheers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I'm confused; they say stars in the galaxy don't fit the standard gravity model, so they invent dark matter to add mass to the galaxy so that it all fits nicely, and they say they're hunting for dark matter on Earth as it is passing through us all the time, so how come the solar system does fit the standard gravity model? Surely it would behave the same as a galaxy if dark matter were everywhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Well they came up with dark matter to try and make things fit the standard model... then came up with dark energy when they discovered that the universe expansion is actually getting faster... and now they've come up with dark flow since they've discovered sections of the universe not moving as they would expect them to. I wouldn't at all be surprised if it's all just dark bollocks and the standard model is wrong. We just don't understand it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I'm confused; they say stars in the galaxy don't fit the standard gravity model, so they invent dark matter to add mass to the galaxy so that it all fits nicely, and they say they're hunting for dark matter on Earth as it is passing through us all the time, so how come the solar system does fit the standard gravity model? Surely it would behave the same as a galaxy if dark matter were everywhere? the standard model (less dark matter) only breaks down at the very large scale. (ie galactic/cosmological scale). The affect of missing matter only becomes pronounced when you work with very large numbers. The solar system is incredibly small compared to the galaxy- and the affect is negligable at this level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martini Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 the standard model (less dark matter) only breaks down at the very large scale. (ie galactic/cosmological scale). The affect of missing matter only becomes pronounced when you work with very large numbers. The solar system is incredibly small compared to the galaxy- and the affect is negligable at this level. Correct. This is why the standard model appeared to work, until we were able to make measurements on a galactic scale. Either our measurements are wrong, the interpretation is wrong, or the standard model (essentially the laws of physics) is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I think it can all be explained by giant frickin space magnets... with lasers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.