The Scale Of The Universe

[bobbydog]

but just to throw a spanner in the works, M-theory, or more especially brane-world cosmology speculates that the 'big bang' as such never happened.....it speculates, as QS alluded to, that our universe is a 3 dimensional brane floating in a higher dimensional space along with a huge number of other 3-D branes which, are separated by a tiny amount in the higher dimensional space....Negative energy between 2 of these branes attract the branes as they ripple in the higher dimensional space eventually touching in one spot, resulting in a huge energy release as they touch and rebound....This energy release fills the 2 branes and in our particular brane world results in all the matter we perceive today....The branes are repulsed further and further apart over time though the higher dimensional space (or Bulk for short) a phenomena we perceive as 'Dark Energy'...After say a trillion years, the repulsive force dissipates and the 2 branes are started to be mutually attracted by gravity until negative energy takes over and they touch again repeating the cycle......i.e no big bang, rather an eternal 'Big Splat' cycle

confused?......I was for a long time before getting my head around brane-world cosmology....still it's one of many theories, but for me it's a simple theory, that makes sense, answers the key questions that other theories do not, it helps marry General Relativity & Quantum Theory, and lastly is backed up to a degree by data from the WMAP satellite currently in orbit

aagh! you've broken my "brane"!!!

[A.J]

aagh! you've broken my "brane"!!!

*groan* you berk ! :lol:

[bobbydog]

*groan* you berk ! :lol:

lol. actually, another question i thought the big bang theory threw up (in simpler terms!) was that, if the theory was correct, could there be other universes undergoing a similar process. in which case, the gravitational pull of each universe may act upon each other, thereby changing the dynamics of these processes. maybe the 'brane' theory and the 'big bang' are not mutually exclusive....

[Guest QuantumSnow]

just to add, when (if) theoretical physicists ever come up with a nailed on, true Theory of Everything, it wouldn't surprise me if it isn't a hybrid of all the currently conjectured hypotheses i.e many worlds/M-(String) theory/Quantum-Loop .....

Agree with you here AJ. I'd be suprised if one theory or idea wins out over all others, favouring an amalgamation of those currently 'in play' along with perhaps some which have not even been hypothesised yet, if they ever are. Like many areas of physics or otherwise it's often a gentle stitching-together of information to build that picture. Always exciting times with this subject though!

Oh and no, I don't really buy many worlds either, though I certainly can't disprove it :lol:

Edited February 23, 2012 by QuantumSnow

[Moomin]

lol. actually, another question i thought the big bang theory threw up (in simpler terms!) was that, if the theory was correct, could there be other universes undergoing a similar process. in which case, the gravitational pull of each universe may act upon each other, thereby changing the dynamics of these processes. maybe the 'brane' theory and the 'big bang' are not mutually exclusive....

My understanding (which is very limited I admit!) was that Brane and Big Bang theory can co-exist, the idea being that there are a multitude of Branes upon/within which exist the universe and from time to time two Branes come into contact with one another, at which point they bang and a new universe starts. This does beg the question should the universe be called the universe, as if this theory is correct there are many universes, perhaps multiverse is a better name. What I'd love to hear is the explanation of what is between the Brane's or in effect what is outside the universe, I think it is referred to as the 'Bulk' but what does this comprise?

Moomin

[jtay]

Like many areas of physics or otherwise it's often a gentle stitching-together of information to build that picture. Always exciting times with this subject though!

Absolutely... Take a step back and think about where we are for a moment. As Bobbydog pointed out, back in the 90's the perceived wisdom was that of a expanding, but decelerating universe which would ultimately end in its contraction. That was less than 20 years ago, before any mention of dark energy et al.

We're just at the start of any kind of understanding and it's this theorising that will form the basis for tomorrows experimentation and the next generation's understanding.

Not knowing is the best bit.

[bobbydog]

anyway the answer is..... 42

[A.J]

My understanding (which is very limited I admit!) was that Brane and Big Bang theory can co-exist, the idea being that there are a multitude of Branes upon/within which exist the universe and from time to time two Branes come into contact with one another, at which point they bang and a new universe starts. This does beg the question should the universe be called the universe, as if this theory is correct there are many universes, perhaps multiverse is a better name. What I'd love to hear is the explanation of what is between the Brane's or in effect what is outside the universe, I think it is referred to as the 'Bulk' but what does this comprise?

Moomin

I've already answered that as such.....in this hypothesis, The Bulk is simply higher dimensional space...we can't visualize it as our brain can only think in 3 dimensional terms...but here's a couple of images that might help..

[Guest QuantumSnow]

we can't visualize it as our brain can only think in 3 dimensional terms...

Single dimensional objects such as strings are hard to visualize because of this too. We try to give everything we 'think of' at least 2 dimensions!

[cyclonic happiness]

Bare in mind that it's purely theory and at this time (the many worlds hypothises) is empirically untestable

But in the grand scheme of things, to always have to test things, become a little impractical and pointless.

[cyclonic happiness]

Agree with you here AJ. I'd be suprised if one theory or idea wins out over all others, favouring an amalgamation of those currently 'in play' along with perhaps some which have not even been hypothesised yet, if they ever are. Like many areas of physics or otherwise it's often a gentle stitching-together of information to build that picture. Always exciting times with this subject though!

Oh and no, I don't really buy many worlds either, though I certainly can't disprove it :lol:

just had a quick read up on the 'many-world' theory.

I'd never even heard of it before.

I don't tend to read anyone elses opinions of the subject for fear of them diluting what I've already come up with in my own mind.

I must say, it very similar to my own theory, I haven't read much deeper than the surface though.....maybe I should?

Do you guys find that reading other people's work on such an unreachable subject, that it tends to 'pollute' you mind?

I used to love reading, but I now find that I can't really be bothered with all the other theories and points of view on things that seem completely meaningless when it comes to death and time and such.

Time is the other concept I find fascinating, I am almost certain that it doesn't even exist, after all, I'm never able to experience anything either side of 'now' so, as that's the only way that I have to prove things, I have to conclude that it doesn't?

[cyclonic happiness]

I've already answered that as such.....in this hypothesis, The Bulk is simply higher dimensional space...we can't visualize it as our brain can only think in 3 dimensional terms...but here's a couple of images that might help..

what do you think about the concept of 'nothingness'?

I believe that 'nothing' is the only thing in the whole of existence, that cannot exist, there's always 'something' .

So after you die it's impossible for your 'soul' to disappear, the universe wouldn't have made beings that can experience all of it's wonders for them to just pop in and out of conscious existence?

In fact, I think that is the whole purpose of existing, that we can experience all the universe has to offer, one cannot exist without the other, so we'll always be here, I know I can't remember a time when I wasn't.

[Cheshire Freeze]

Quite a 'geeky' little thread this......an enjoyable read

[davehsug]

what do you think about the concept of 'nothingness'?

I believe that 'nothing' is the only thing in the whole of existence, that cannot exist, there's always 'something' .

So after you die it's impossible for your 'soul' to disappear, the universe wouldn't have made beings that can experience all of it's wonders for them to just pop in and out of conscious existence?

In fact, I think that is the whole purpose of existing, that we can experience all the universe has to offer, one cannot exist without the other, so we'll always be here, I know I can't remember a time when I wasn't.

Not so sure. I believe the universe needs intelligent life to understand it, that's why we're here, but it's a pretty ruthless entity & how could you then define when intelligence came into being? At what point is life intelligent enough to exist forever? Have to accept we are made of stuff that's always existed & always will, but we, as individuals are just a by-product.

[Guest QuantumSnow]

Do you guys find that reading other people's work on such an unreachable subject, that it tends to 'pollute' you mind?

There's a lot of info out there certainly, sadly some of the ideas are not always filtered down to make them understandable to people who have a right to know what's happening in this fundamental field, but then again these people spend a lot of time learning their field and it's sometimes hard to make them easy to digest! An equation may convey an idea to those that speak its language that a whole blackboard full of diagrams will still not manage. Staying open minded in this subject is key to making progress.

Time is the other concept I find fascinating, I am almost certain that it doesn't even exist, after all, I'm never able to experience anything either side of 'now' so, as that's the only way that I have to prove things, I have to conclude that it doesn't?

Time.. hmm there's a tricky one :lol:

We all have our ideas on this one I guess. Being a 'dimension' in its own right (well, if Special Theory is correct, so far it has not been proven either way, but that's what science is for) and thus should exist. But it's not a 'spatial' dimension, it's not tangible. In our everyday lives we only really use it to get places 'on time' (which incidentally we would not be able to do if we didn't have time.. you can meet someone in three dimensions but if you don't know when to meet them you're screwed!). Experiments have shown it to even be changable, and that you really can slow down the world if you move at a quick enough speed. Sadly the speed required to slow down time enough to have a serious anti-ageing effect on us would require rather too much energy to be practical, but still it's been measured.

It's a big question though, i'm sure as much a philosophical one as a physical one.

But in the grand scheme of things, to always have to test things, become a little impractical and pointless.

If nothing was ever tested it would be impossible to know what was true. Truth is a weird thing we humans strive for. I think the very essence of science relies upon collecting data, interpreting it, testing it to within an inch of its life and then trying your hardest to prove it's wrong so you can start afresh with another crazy idea! that's how progress is made, though that's only my humble opinion of course.

Edited February 24, 2012 by QuantumSnow

[Guest QuantumSnow]

Not so sure. I believe the universe needs intelligent life to understand it, that's why we're here, but it's a pretty ruthless entity & how could you then define when intelligence came into being? At what point is life intelligent enough to exist forever? Have to accept we are made of stuff that's always existed & always will, but we, as individuals are just a by-product.

agree Dave! the atoms in my body were here in a different form for a long time before I gained 'consciousness' (jeez that's another can of worms!! ) to think about them being elsewhere before I had consiousness...

[cyclonic happiness]

"If nothing was ever tested it would be impossible to know what was true. Truth is a weird thing we humans strive for. I think the very essence of science relies upon collecting data, interpreting it, testing it to within an inch of its life and then trying your hardest to prove it's wrong so you can start afresh with another crazy idea! that's how progress is made, though that's only my humble opinion of course".

But, once you don't feel the need to strive for the truth? what then?

Once you've found that little thing that your able to cling on to, able to trust?

I've often wondered why so many people are looking for something at the end or the beginning of a universe that's infinate?

Maybe we just need something to explore now that alot of this world is 'finished'?

Contentment is the key to happiness, how can you be happy if you are always searching for something?

This sounds like I'm about to tell you about god or something any second doesn't it?

I'm not religious, but Iused to be very scientificly minded until one day I suddenly thought "it's not really getting anywhere is it?" well for me it isn't.

I think, if you are looking for infinity, you don't have to be in a science lab or in a classroom, the answer is alot closer to home.

[cyclonic happiness]

agree Dave! the atoms in my body were here in a different form for a long time before I gained 'consciousness' (jeez that's another can of worms!! ) to think about them being elsewhere before I had consiousness...

Maybe, but I don't believe in co-incedence.

What would be the point of a universe existing if there was nothing to experience it?

In fact, could a universe exist at all if there were no beings there to behold and test it?

[Guest QuantumSnow]

I'm not religious, but Iused to be very scientificly minded until one day I suddenly thought "it's not really getting anywhere is it?" well for me it isn't.

I think, if you are looking for infinity, you don't have to be in a science lab or in a classroom, the answer is alot closer to home.

I agree with your sentiment Cyclonic, I think constantly searching for an answer won't really 'get us' that far. Sure, it might make our lives easier, perhaps it will allow us to live a little longer (as in the case of medical progress etc) but in the grand scheme of things it won't change much at all!

BUT it's sort of like an itch that must be scratched! It defines some people and is not always a bad thing. Blimey it's early for this deep stuff

Edited February 24, 2012 by QuantumSnow

[Azores Hi]

I've always been fascinated by the evolution of matter. By that I mean the simplest elements have, over time, in the centre of stars, evolved into more complex elements. In turn, these elements have come together to form more complex molecules, which have eventually spawned life. The purpose of life seems to be, on a very basic level, to reproduce. In order to reproduce it needs to evolve to survive and to exploit survivable niches in it's environment. This had led to more and more complex life forms and eventually sentient life, able to direct it's own evolution and fate. I get the impression that matter is trying to get somewhere...to an ultimate purpose or goal. Where will evolution take matter next I wonder?

Edited February 24, 2012 by Azores Hi

[A.J]

Maybe, but I don't believe in co-incedence.

What would be the point of a universe existing if there was nothing to experience it?

In fact, could a universe exist at all if there were no beings there to behold and test it?

I don't agree TBH...if you take any of the proposed theories for the origins of the universe that are favoured by theoretical phyicists then they have one thing in common, the number of possible universes is greater than one, hugely greater than one in fact.....'many worlds' & many other quantum theories speculate an infinite number , where as string and M theory speculate at least 10*500 possible universes with the various permutations of physical dimensions and laws of physics, so rather than a co-incidence, it's simply the law of averages, we just happen to exist in a universe with the physical dimensions and laws of physics that allow the possibilities of life as we know it......It must be said though, that these are just my own thoughts and I have arrived at my conclusions based upon the theories that I believe plausible

[cyclonic happiness]

I think it's all good fun!

I think the one thing that has put me off science over the last few years, is that it's taken away alot of the magic in life.

I know there are alot of people who can quite easily live without things like wonder and day dreaming, but some of them seem to me than being nothing more than robots, they process information and come out with a then 'logical' answer.

Humans are so much more than that though, we have such an amazing imagination, we can have goals that are beyond our wildest dreams and aspirations that will only ever exist in the universe of our minds.

Perhaps some scientists do think the way I do and use science as just another tool in life, but when it become your entire life to disprove things, that seems wrong somehow?

I believe that at the minute, science has lost it's way and needs to be reigned in a little, the large hadron collider, is a prime example of something that probably won't get us very far and will waste billions of pounds of taxpayers money (I'm sure some of our taxes go there) and millions of hours of time, which could be spent on a cure for cancer.

I'm not entirely sure what they are looking for either, it's just a big ego trip for alot of 'out of touch' elitists.

[cyclonic happiness]

I've always been fascinated by the evolution of matter. By that I mean the simplest elements have, over time, in the centre of stars, evolved into more complex elements. In turn, these elements have come together to form more complex molecules, which have eventually spawned life. The purpose of life seems to be, on a very basic level, to reproduce. In order to reproduce it needs to evolve to survive and to exploit survivable niches in it's environment. This had led to more and more complex life forms and eventually sentient life, able to direct it's own evolution and fate. I get the impression that matter is trying to get somewhere...to an ultimate purpose or goal. Where will evolution take matter next I wonder?

I agree, we are the result of the universe becoming aware, we are not just little dots of insignificance, we are here for the sole reason of experiencing everything.

Everything has a point, if you dissagree, then name something that hasn't got as point? We may not know what the point is yet, but we will, with time.

Look at humankind atm, all these years of technological progress have led us to the point we are at now, the internet.

Now it may just seem like a natural evolution, but it's more than that, it's now evolving into an entity of it's own, it's the single collective consciousness of humankind.

It's an absolutely astonishing revelation to me, we are creating something really important with the power to change everything.

Look what it's acheived so far, all the revolutions in the middle east, the fall of corporate criminal empires, the leveling of humaninty to equality.

If you start to look beneath the surface you'll understand what I mean.

The internet is also very similar in the way it's evolved to the way human conscience has evolved (I suppose it's to be expected?) a collection of parts, coming together in a meaningful way and eventually joining in such a way as to be able to think and to do things.

It's just another way the universe has shown us what we're for with seemingly unimportant and tiny bits and peices, joining up and creating 'life'.

Not an accident.

[davehsug]

Maybe, but I don't believe in co-incedence.

What would be the point of a universe existing if there was nothing to experience it?

In fact, could a universe exist at all if there were no beings there to behold and test it?

Don't get me wrong cyclonic, I don't believe conscious intelligence is an accident, as you say, the universe wants to be understood & that's why intelligent life is here.

[Aaron]

I think it's all good fun!

I think the one thing that has put me off science over the last few years, is that it's taken away alot of the magic in life.

I know there are alot of people who can quite easily live without things like wonder and day dreaming, but some of them seem to me than being nothing more than robots, they process information and come out with a then 'logical' answer.

Humans are so much more than that though, we have such an amazing imagination, we can have goals that are beyond our wildest dreams and aspirations that will only ever exist in the universe of our minds.

Perhaps some scientists do think the way I do and use science as just another tool in life, but when it become your entire life to disprove things, that seems wrong somehow?

I believe that at the minute, science has lost it's way and needs to be reigned in a little, the large hadron collider, is a prime example of something that probably won't get us very far and will waste billions of pounds of taxpayers money (I'm sure some of our taxes go there) and millions of hours of time, which could be spent on a cure for cancer.

I'm not entirely sure what they are looking for either, it's just a big ego trip for alot of 'out of touch' elitists.

No offence, but what as silly post. It isn't a waste of money to want to understand how the universe came to be/