The Universe

[Scunnered]

He's crabbit today, had a wee dig at scunnered for not liking "the SNP" as well. Nothing a good night rest won't sort out.

I get far too much rest, and I'm always crabbit

I only asked him a couple of questions. Asking questions isn't a sign of crabbitness, it is a sign of curiosity.

I didn't get the impression that you were having a go... On this occasion

[glasgow jock]

Mental, crazy, unimaginable, how all this matter (moons, planets, stars & galaxies) billions of them, apparently came from nothing (just before the big bang), just cant get my mind round it all, fascinating stuff.

[glasgow jock]

I think he is just looking at it from a different angle this time. The program that I saw a while back he was talking about the sheer size of the numbers involved. He was looking at the vast numbers of galaxies in our universe and the vast number of stars in each galaxy and then the vast numbers of planets that there could be in all those solar systems. From memory, I think he went onto the Drake Equation and how, when you plug in the numbers, it might appear that it is "likely" that other intelligent life forms exist in the universe.

This time round he is looking at all the coincidences that have happened to Earth which have allowed intelligent life to evolve. Coupling all of those together it points towards the probability of it happening, somewhere else in the universe, might be unlikely.

It is important to remember that in both programs he is talking about intelligent life civilisations capable of developing some form of communication throughout space. The arguments for and against any other life forms throughout the universe are a wee bit different.

I would guess that if you asked him the question "Are there any other intelligent life forms out there?" then e would possibly say that the probability is somewhere between "likely" and "unlikely" but the real answer is that "we don't know".

Anybody who tries to tell you that they do know, probably isn't a scientist.

[hunchy]

There may not be another side, so there may be no answer to the question.

The answer could be "Mu"

http://www.awakin.org/read/view.php?tid=583

Ask bill Drummond he knows all about the justified ancients of mu

[thplinth]

The 'big bang' has as much scientific credibility as as 'let there be light' IMHO.

[biffer]

The 'big bang' has as much scientific credibility as as 'let there be light' IMHO.

What exactly is your evidence for doubting that theory?

[exile]

Ask bill Drummond he knows all about the justified ancients of mu

mu mu... which links to the Illuminatus! Trilogy and conspiracy theories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Illuminatus!_Trilogy

Edited December 4, 2014 by exile

[giblet]

What exactly is your evidence for doubting that theory?

Its the concept of "nothing" existing before. I've always subscribed to the thought that we are in a universe where we potentially are just part of some bigger universe, and then another universe and so on. Its our concept of size, how do we know if our Universe isnt some other kind of entity and our Suns are atoms and the planets are like electrons?

[biffer]

Its the concept of "nothing" existing before. I've always subscribed to the thought that we are in a universe where we potentially are just part of some bigger universe, and then another universe and so on. Its our concept of size, how do we know if our Universe isnt some other kind of entity and our Suns are atoms and the planets are like electrons?

But you've got the concept of "nothing" right there, kind of. It's not that there's absolutely nothing, but the currently favoured theory is that the big bang was a singularity (a point where physical laws break down) which exploded and brought the universe as we know it into existence. However if you think about it, for a singularity to exist, there have to be physical laws for it to break, so there has to be some kind of other-verse, for want of a better word, in which the singularity formed. One of the most popular is brane theory, where this other-verse is a higher dimensional space composed of branes (short for membranes) which are effectively higher dimensional surfaces - this goes back, kind of, to what I said earlier about the surface of the earth being a two dimensional surface sitting in a three dimensional space, but the analogy isn't exact. the brane our universe sits on would be a four dimensional surface in a higher dimensional space. It'd be pretty much impossible for us to break out of our four dimensional space though, because the laws of nature would be completely different in the higher space - time wouldn't even flow in the same way, let alone spatial dimensions making sense and having another 7 or 8 other time or space dimensions that we have no concept of screwing with our existence. It's not just that it'd be confusing, our atoms would probably rip apart, possibly even the subatomic particles which they're made from would be unstable - energy might not even be the same thing out there. If you've ever read Flatland by Edwin Abbot Abbot, some of this is alluded to from the point of view of creatures who live in a two dimensional space contemplating the existence of a third dimension.

The suns as atoms and planets as electrons is good stuff when you're on the weed, but not much else

[biffer]

Just announced

http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1440/

At a recent meeting ESO’s main governing body, the Council, gave the green light [1] for the construction of the European Extremely Large Telescope (E-ELT) in two phases. Spending of around one billion euros has been authorised for the first phase, which will cover the construction costs of a fully working telescope with a suite of powerful instruments and first light targeted in ten years time. It will enable tremendous scientific discoveries in the fields of exoplanets, the stellar composition of nearby galaxies and the deep Universe. The largest ESO contract ever, for the telescope dome and main structure, will be placed within the next year.

The E-ELT will be a 39-metre aperture optical and infrared telescope sited on Cerro Armazones in the Chilean Atacama Desert, 20 kilometres from ESO’s Very Large Telescope on Cerro Paranal. It will be the world’s largest “eye on the sky”.

Edited December 4, 2014 by biffer

[biffer]

Here's a size comparison next to the London Eye

[biffer]

Or, seeing as this is a football board, next to the Allianz Stadium

[Toepoke]

If you have a powerful enough telescope to look back at stuff happening close to the Big Bang, would you be able to look at what eventually became us?

Fries my brain so it does.

Anyway, the USA's first steps to Mars happening in 30 minutes...

http://www.nasa.gov

[Orraloon]

If you have a powerful enough telescope to look back at stuff happening close to the Big Bang, would you be able to look at what eventually became us?

Fries my brain so it does.

Anyway, the USA's first steps to Mars happening in 30 minutes...

http://www.nasa.gov

Do they have an estimate as to when they hope to set foot on Mars? Not sure I'll be around long enough to see it.

[biffer]

If you have a powerful enough telescope to look back at stuff happening close to the Big Bang, would you be able to look at what eventually became us?

Fries my brain so it does.

Anyway, the USA's first steps to Mars happening in 30 minutes...

http://www.nasa.gov

Nah, unfortunately the light from what happened to us is travelling away from us so we wouldn't be able to see it.

[biffer]

Do they have an estimate as to when they hope to set foot on Mars? Not sure I'll be around long enough to see it.

I think "around 2030" was the last thing I heard.

[Orraloon]

Nah, unfortunately the light from what happened to us is travelling away from us so we wouldn't be able to see it.

I thought he was talking about looking in the future, could be wrong though.

Would I be right in saying that the furthest back in time we can currently "see" is the background microwave radiation left over from the "Big Bang"?

[Orraloon]

I think "around 2030" was the last thing I heard.

16 years, that sounds pretty quick. I might make it after all.

[biffer]

I thought he was talking about looking in the future, could be wrong though.

Would I be right in saying that the furthest back in time we can currently "see" is the background microwave radiation left over from the "Big Bang"?

So far as I understand it, yes. CMBR is the radiation from the explosion. Which is right at the start of the universe. But it all gets a bit wibbly wobbly timey wimey.

[thplinth]

Its the concept of "nothing" existing before. I've always subscribed to the thought that we are in a universe where we potentially are just part of some bigger universe, and then another universe and so on. Its our concept of size, how do we know if our Universe isnt some other kind of entity and our Suns are atoms and the planets are like electrons?

We don't. Vast changes in scales are something we cannot imagine readily. My guess is that the universe will be infinitely scaler (if that is a word) i.e. it will prove infinite if you journey up the size scale or down it. Sort of like a mandlebrot set to use that analogy. I think fractal is a strong possibility as well.

[Toepoke]

Nah, unfortunately the light from what happened to us is travelling away from us so we wouldn't be able to see it.

Ah right, I suppose it's like sitting at the back of a train pulling out of a station and watching the station get further away from you. What you see of the station happened in the past but you could never see your train there.

Or maybe not???

[Orraloon]

Ah right, I suppose it's like sitting at the back of a train pulling out of a station and watching the station get further away from you. What you see of the station happened in the past but you could never see your train there.

Or maybe not???

Aye, it's kinda like asking "where in the universe did the "Big Bang" happen?". The answer is it happened here, there and everywhere else you can think of. We are all part of the "Big Bang" and it's still happening.

[glasgow jock]

Keep it going chaps truly fascinating (fries ones brain though)

Heard that American / Japanese physicist on TV last night saying the vastness & numbers involved almost guarantees intelligent life out there in the cosmos, suppose we will find out one day in the future.

[biffer]

Ah right, I suppose it's like sitting at the back of a train pulling out of a station and watching the station get further away from you. What you see of the station happened in the past but you could never see your train there.

Or maybe not???

Pretty good analogy

[biffer]

Keep it going chaps truly fascinating (fries ones brain though)

Heard that American / Japanese physicist on TV last night saying the vastness & numbers involved almost guarantees intelligent life out there in the cosmos, suppose we will find out one day in the future.

That's the thing for me. The numbers involved are completely brain frying, and the idea that life only came about once in that huge pool of possibility is, to me, preposterous.

A wee numbers example. If you could drive to the moon in your car, ignoring all the obvious problems, just to drive that distance, at 60 mph, not stopping, not sleeping, not refuelling, it would take you six months.

The sun is 390 times as far away. so it would take you 145 years to drive that far.