Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
TiffToff88

The Great Universe Debate

By TiffToff88, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Captain...

Captain...

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It is perfectly possible, however, that when the Big Bang expansion event happened (I really dislike that term) that other universes were "created" (again I use that term loosely) by the chance event that caused the initial expansion of ours. That's what the multiverse theory is based on, really.

 

Regarding "before" the Big Bang event - it's really something of an moot point, as time is just something used to measure another dimension within this universe...and before that event there were no dimensions. 

I wasn't saying that the big bang event caused other universes, but in the dimension where the big bang happened (is it still considered to be caused by a collision/impact) then there must be scope for more big bang events to occur completely independent of our big bang. So within in that dimension there are millions of universes and does that dimension itself have a creation event? At some point we have to get back to something that has always been and always will. That is the bit that messes with my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kopfkino

Kopfkino

Posted
Posted

Never really been particularly interested in what's out there beyond our earth, such as studying our own solar system, when we still don't know enough about our own planet yet (Oceans being largely undiscovered for example). Not saying looking at it isn't valuable though.

However, the concept of time has interested me for a while now, particularly at its intersection with philosophy. I agree with Nietzsche that it is a paralysing thought that if space and time are infinite, and the probability of a world such as our own coming into existence is >0, then our existence must occur an infinite number of times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TiffToff88

TiffToff88

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Although the ideas behind the multiverse theory are fascinating. i can't bring myself to believe it. The universe - our universe is defined (by wikipedia) as "The Universe is all of space and time (spacetime) and its contents, which includes planets, moons, minor planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space and all matter and energy."

 

For there to be more than one universe, it would have to be redifined as "The Universe is all of space and time (spacetime) and its contents, which includes planets, moons, minor planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space and all matter and energy... apart from al the other places where all of space and time exists.

 

By definition, THE Universe IS everything that is, was and ever will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
urban.spaceman

urban.spaceman

Posted
Posted

There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. 

 

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

 

- Douglas Adams 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain...

Captain...

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, TiffToff88 said:

Although the ideas behind the multiverse theory are fascinating. i can't bring myself to believe it. The universe - our universe is defined (by wikipedia) as "The Universe is all of space and time (spacetime) and its contents, which includes planets, moons, minor planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space and all matter and energy."

 

For there to be more than one universe, it would have to be redifined as "The Universe is all of space and time (spacetime) and its contents, which includes planets, moons, minor planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space and all matter and energy... apart from al the other places where all of space and time exists.

 

By definition, THE Universe IS everything that is, was and ever will be.

But you are putting our definition on something we didn't create and have no control over. Definitions are not absolute and can change. I think it is now called the "known universe" or the "observable universe" for that reason.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, TiffToff88 said:

@leicsmac you're my new favourite person.

 

I do have one question on the multiverse theory... What's in the gaps between the many universes? there cant just be nothingness, but if there is something connecting the universes, would that not make them one big universe?

 

My head hurts.

Hahaha, thanks. lol

 

To be honest you could ask a dozen different theoretical cosmologists that question right now and you'd get a dozen different answers. The simple truth is that we don't know and we might never be able to quantify if there are gaps at all, let alone what might lie between them (if indeed such a thing is comprehensible).

 

1 minute ago, Captain... said:

I wasn't saying that the big bang event caused other universes, but in the dimension where the big bang happened (is it still considered to be caused by a collision/impact) then there must be scope for more big bang events to occur completely independent of our big bang. So within in that dimension there are millions of universes and does that dimension itself have a creation event? At some point we have to get back to something that has always been and always will. That is the bit that messes with my mind.

It's now thought to be a quantum event of some kind - not an impact per se, but some kind of interaction. And yes, there is very likely more scope for different events of the same kind to happen - in theory.

 

The idea of an infinite space in which that happens - "turtles all the way down" - may seem pretty paradoxical, but only if you assume that time and space as we know them are legit dimensions in wherever that is - that's more than likely not the case.

 

 

1 minute ago, KingGTF said:

Never really been particularly interested in what's out there beyond our earth, such as studying our own solar system, when we still don't know enough about our own planet yet (Oceans being largely undiscovered for example). Not saying looking at it isn't valuable though.

However, the concept of time has interested me for a while now, particularly at its intersection with philosophy. I agree with Nietzsche that it is a paralysing thought that if space and time are infinite, and the probability of a world such as our own coming into existence is >0, then our existence must occur an infinite number of times.

There is an awful lot to find out about our own planet - especially the oceans - but these things can certainly be done concurrently.

 

If the "space" (loose term) where such events occur is indeed infinite, then yes - there are a very large number of possible universes that will have spawned within that space...but that's a big if and something that likely can't be quantified anyway.

 

1 minute ago, TiffToff88 said:

Although the ideas behind the multiverse theory are fascinating. i can't bring myself to believe it. The universe - our universe is defined (by wikipedia) as "The Universe is all of space and time (spacetime) and its contents, which includes planets, moons, minor planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space and all matter and energy."

 

For there to be more than one universe, it would have to be redifined as "The Universe is all of space and time (spacetime) and its contents, which includes planets, moons, minor planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space and all matter and energy... apart from al the other places where all of space and time exists.

 

By definition, THE Universe IS everything that is, was and ever will be.

 

As Cap said above, we are limited in this by our own ability to observe which is almost always going to be flawed. Indeed, though the idea of other things beyond our grasp to observe are interesting they don't actually hold much relevance other than with the effect they have on the visible Universe (like whatever it is that is causing the degree of gravitational force that is making the Universe expand much faster than it should do).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buce

Buce

Posted
Posted

 

I have a question, @leicsmac:

 

I read recently that a spaceship crossing the Galaxy at the speed of light (hypothetical, I know) would take 70,000 years to complete the journey, as observed from without, yet for the crew only 14 years will have passed.

 

Can you explain - in layman's terms - why time passes more slowly for the crew?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joachim1965

joachim1965

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

I have a question, @leicsmac:

 

I read recently that a spaceship crossing the Galaxy at the speed of light (hypothetical, I know) would take 70,000 years to complete the journey, as observed from without, yet for the crew only 14 years will have passed.

 

Can you explain - in layman's terms - why time passes more slowly for the crew?

Speed and time are relative, the faster you travel the slower time passes for the traveller.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Space is boring. More people need to focus on social justice on this planet.

Very boring. But occasionally...

 

aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kv

 

...terminally exciting (the ultimate social justice, now that I come to think of it).

 

We should consider accordingly.

 

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I have a question, @leicsmac:

 

I read recently that a spaceship crossing the Galaxy at the speed of light (hypothetical, I know) would take 70,000 years to complete the journey, as observed from without, yet for the crew only 14 years will have passed.

 

Can you explain - in layman's terms - why time passes more slowly for the crew?

I'll certainly try! :thumbup:

 

From special relativity, the speed of any physical object and the speed of light aren't added together (because the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant). This means that if an object containing a clock is moving by comparison to one that is at "rest" relative to it (like a clock on a spaceship and a clock on Earth, for instance) the light takes a longer time to get from the "stationary" object to the moving one, with it taking longer and longer as the moving object moves faster and faster relative to the stationary object (because, again, the speed of light doesn't change).

 

The end result of this is the clock on the moving object appears to tick faster than that on the stationary one, and time "appears" to go faster for the spaceship crew. However, neither they nor the observers watching on Earth for 70000 years would actually notice any difference. Indeed, with time dilation taken into account, a crew could cross the entire observable universe in a human lifetime if their craft was consistently accelerating at 1g.

 

That's a pretty crude summary, but you can look up articles concerning "Time Dilation" that cover things in a little more depth.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
Just now, joachim1965 said:

Serious question time, scientists  now accept that time travel is theoretically possible. I assume they only mean into the future?

Yeah. In fact due to relativity it's not only plausible, but inevitable - a spacecraft going from Earth at high speed WILL appear to experience time more slowly than Earth does, so it will appear to travel into Earth's future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Izzy

Izzy

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Q. What do you do if you see a Spaceman?

 

A. Park in it, man :D

 

(That’s my contribution done. I’ll let you boffins crack on and I’ll just observe from a galaxy far, far away... :thumbup:)

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...