edinlexusV8 Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 This is a fantastic programme I have seen on BBC4 on the 21st .... I hope some of you would like to watch it ... EVERYTHING explained in a simple sentences ... Two-part documentary which deals with two of the deepest questions there are - what is everything, and what is nothing? In two epic, surreal and mind-expanding films, Professor Jim Al-Khalili searches for an answer to these questions as he explores the true size and shape of the universe and delves into the amazing science behind apparent nothingness. The first part, Everything, sees Professor Al-Khalili set out to discover what the universe might actually look like. The journey takes him from the distant past to the boundaries of the known universe. Along the way he charts the remarkable stories of the men and women who discovered the truth about the cosmos and investigates how our understanding of space has been shaped by both mathematics and astronomy. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00yb59m/Everything_and_Nothing_Everything/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edinlexusV8 Posted March 25, 2011 Author Share Posted March 25, 2011 From Independent - About this programme Last Night's TV - Everything and Nothing, BBC4; Science lesson's out of this world Reviewed by Brian Viner - Tuesday, 22 March 2011 It's always the biggest somebodies who are best able to make us understand that we're a planet of nobodies. This, I think, might even be a paradox that nobody has alighted on before, one I'll call Viner's Theorem, and its latest embodiment is the splendid Jim Al-Khalili, who kicked off his documentary, Everything and Nothing, with a statistic so mind-boggling that my wife refused to believe it. There are more stars in the galaxy, he said, than there are grains of sand on every beach in the world combined. "Surely that can't be right," muttered my wife, refusing to withdraw her scepticism even when I gently pointed out that Jim Al-Khalili is professor of physics at the University of Surrey and a world-renowned authority on mathematical models of exotic atomic nuclei, while she develops a twitch at the sight of a Van de Graaff generator and had to be helped out of a classroom, while visiting our children's prospective secondary school some years ago, after spotting a periodic table. Happily, I empathised with her that day. The chemistry between us owes just a little to our mutual teenage ineptitude in the sciences. In fact, I fared even worse than she did in my science O-levels, not even scraping in physics the F I managed in chemistry. Instead, I was handed a U, standing for unclassified, which at least gave me, with my astounding C in Biology, a rather satisfying run of letters on my certificate. Anyway, the point is that in the subsequent 33 years I've always been playing catch-up, struggling to understand even the most basic of scientific theories. You will appreciate, therefore, the apprehension with which I settled down to watch Everything and Nothing. And yet, such is Al-Khalili's soothing tone and considered use of language that he carried me with him pretty much all the way, beginning to lose me only when he got to non-Euclidean geometry, and finally casting me off into the black hole of complete bewilderment with his assertion, apparently something to do with the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, that one per cent of television static is "the afterglow of creation itself". What had already hooked me, though, was his foray through the ages. I've always loved history, and it turns out that the history of clever people trying to understand the universe is particularly fascinating, with a notable 16th-century champion in the form of Thomas Digges, the MP for Wallingford. These days, of course, Wallingford is best known as the thinly disguised location of Midsomer Murders, the place where to be involved in a murder as killer, victim, policeman or passer-by, you have to be of lily-white, preferably Anglo-Saxon stock. But it was Digges who put the town on the map, with his own map of the cosmos. As I understood it, which as you'll know by now is not necessarily the same as how others understood it, Digges updated and in so doing undermined some of the theories of the celebrated astronomer Copernicus, by showing that stars exist in infinite space. That seems to have been the pattern throughout the centuries. A brilliant scientist makes a discovery, aspects of which are disproved 50 or 100 years later by another brilliant scientist. Whatever, it's probably safe to say that I learnt more in an hour listening to Al-Khalili than I did in four years with assorted science teachers, and underpinning it all were his brief but beguiling portraits of great cosmic ponderers, including the American astronomer Edwin Hubble, a keen Anglophile who liked to stride around his observatory exclaiming "By Jove!" and "What ho!" Al-Khalili is one of those cherishable scientists who understand that people make the world tick no less than particles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTRickeh Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Cool. Love these programmes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbuddy Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 ooo i just seen an advert for this, on sundays yeh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 I watched Everything, looking forward to the second one, Nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edinlexusV8 Posted March 25, 2011 Author Share Posted March 25, 2011 I am also looking forward for part 2 of this Series - Nothing - [ ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pistonbroke Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Very interesting stuff, but his final theory is flawed according to other programs I've seen. He states that the rate of acceleration regarding the expansion of the universe will eventually outrun light, leaving the sky black. But other theories have shown that it is impossible for anything to exceed the speed of light. you can get to 99.99% of the speed, but never exceed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie_b Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Very interesting stuff, but his final theory is flawed according to other programs I've seen. He states that the rate of acceleration regarding the expansion of the universe will eventually outrun light, leaving the sky black. But other theories have shown that it is impossible for anything to exceed the speed of light. you can get to 99.99% of the speed, but never exceed it. Intriguing. I guess I'll need to watch the programme to flesh out this strange hypothesis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Is nothing on telly on Sunday? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Very interesting stuff, but his final theory is flawed according to other programs I've seen. He states that the rate of acceleration regarding the expansion of the universe will eventually outrun light, leaving the sky black. But other theories have shown that it is impossible for anything to exceed the speed of light. you can get to 99.99% of the speed, but never exceed it. I think you've misunderstood general relativity a bit, my understanding is that nothing in the universe can accelerate beyond the speed of light, but the universe itself can expand as quickly as it likes - it already happens in the event horizon of black holes, the space is warped so severely that light is pulled into it. Think of it like objects on a table - they can't exceed a certain speed on the table's surface, but there's nothing stopping me pulling the tablecloth around at a larger speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie_b Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 IIRC it is a black hole's mass that pulls light (and everything else) into it, not the speed at which things may or may not be travelling at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 IIRC it is a black hole's mass that pulls light (and everything else) into it, not the speed at which things may or may not be travelling at. Yes, the black hole's mass warps the space around it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abz Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Is nothing on telly on Sunday? I see what you did there (Even though you can't see "nothing") Thanks for posting it up, I love these programmes, will be watching it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 It's not to do with anything being accelerated beyond the speed of light though, it's just that gravity is too great for light to escape so we can't see what's in there from outside. I'll have to find this on catchup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 It's not to do with anything being accelerated beyond the speed of light though, it's just that gravity is too great for light to escape so we can't see what's in there from outside. Sounds like I've misunderstood it then In that case leaving aside my bad analogy of black holes, I don't see any reason why the universe's expanding couldn't exceed 'C'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pistonbroke Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 It was on the Stephen Hawkings 'universe' program where he explained that nothing would exceed lightspeed, he also theorised that the expansion would eventually slow, then reverse back again. Compressing into a huge super mega monster black hole where everything would be sucked back in, then explode out again......big bang all over again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 It was on the Stephen Hawkings 'universe' program where he explained that nothing would exceed lightspeed, he also theorised that the expansion would eventually slow, then reverse back again. Compressing into a huge super mega monster black hole where everything would be sucked back in, then explode out again......big bang all over again. IIRC not exceeding light speed is a part of the theory of general relativity, speeding up increases an object's mass which in turn increases the energy needed to accelerate it further - and the mass just keeps on rising as you approach light speed meaning enough energy doesn't exist in the universe to accelerate something beyond it. But all this is based on objects that exist in the universe, not the speed of expansion of the universe itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 IIRC not exceeding light speed is a part of the theory of general relativity, speeding up increases an object's mass which in turn increases the energy needed to accelerate it further - and the mass just keeps on rising as you approach light speed meaning enough energy doesn't exist in the universe to accelerate something beyond it. But all this is based on objects that exist in the universe, not the speed of expansion of the universe itself. Something like that yeah, not that I completely understand it my self Plus the speed of light is not a constant, it varies depending on the medium through which it is being transmitted. Speed of light in a vacuum is the usual quoted constant, but even interstellar space isn't a complete vacuum, it still has a few atoms per cubic meter (or something like that). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Something like that yeah, not that I completely understand it my self You blimin should, seeing as how you invented the universe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 You blimin should, seeing as how you invented the universe. A lot of it happened by accident one day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 I love programs like this but I am struggling to find a torrent for it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Something like that yeah, not that I completely understand it my self Plus the speed of light is not a constant, it varies depending on the medium through which it is being transmitted. Speed of light in a vacuum is the usual quoted constant, but even interstellar space isn't a complete vacuum, it still has a few atoms per cubic meter (or something like that). S'true. I read about an experiment where they actually slowed it to something like 7kph! Actually, that's so amazing that it should read 7kph!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy442 Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Caught this tonight, great show, good sunday night with this show followed by Professor Cox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edinlexusV8 Posted March 29, 2011 Author Share Posted March 29, 2011 Hope some of you watched the second part of this amazing two part series - NOTHING (The best of the two parts for me) - Just Brilliant! Available on BBC iPlayer on the following link http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00zwndy/Everything_and_Nothing_Nothing/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian C Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 IIRC not exceeding light speed is a part of the theory of general relativity, speeding up increases an object's mass which in turn increases the energy needed to accelerate it further - and the mass just keeps on rising as you approach light speed meaning enough energy doesn't exist in the universe to accelerate something beyond it. But all this is based on objects that exist in the universe, not the speed of expansion of the universe itself. someone who gets it This shows up the fallacy of the "well if I'm in a car doing the speed of light and turn my headlights on, what happens" argument. 1) a car physically can't do the speed of light due to mass reaching infinity and the energy input required also reaching infinity, and 2) length falls towards zero as well, so good luck finding the button on the dash. The thing about expanding spacetime though, that freaks me a bit, is that why would it affect the physical universe? Can someone run that past me please. My analogy is like, if you got a 10" monitor that was 1000*1000 pixels in size, to those pixels their universe is 1000 by 1000 of the smallest units of measurement they can physically measure. If you then stretched it to 20" square instead, it'd still be 1000*1000 pixels wide and the pixels themselves would, having no frame of reference other than the 1000*1000 grid, see no change whatsoever So how come stretching spacetime is making stuff move further away? I'm not saying it isn't because of redshift and so forth, I just can't get a grip on it. 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.