If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Discover)   Universe leans back, unsnaps top pants button, belches and sighs wearily   (blogs.discovermagazine.com) divider line 30
    More: Interesting, universe, Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, Spitzer Space Telescope, kilometres per second, interstellar dust, Type Ia, Big Bang theory, dark matter  
•       •       •

4133 clicks; posted to Geek » on 04 Oct 2012 at 1:52 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



30 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-04 02:02:27 PM  
Great. Now we'll never make it to the adjacent galaxy.
 
2012-10-04 02:24:59 PM  
But what the fark is it expanding into?
 
2012-10-04 02:28:37 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: But what the fark is it expanding into?


Nothingness. Void. The absence of something.
 
2012-10-04 02:34:25 PM  
So this is saying the expansion is linear?
 
2012-10-04 02:43:39 PM  

UberDave: Great. Now we'll never make it to the adjacent galaxy.


Oh, don't worry about getting to Andromeda. There's not much you can do to stop it. :)
 
2012-10-04 02:45:01 PM  
Galactus is not sated yet though
 
2012-10-04 02:51:33 PM  

Khellendros: AdolfOliverPanties: But what the fark is it expanding into?

Nothingness. Void. The absence of something.


Exdeath approves.
 
2012-10-04 03:06:07 PM  
maybe the universe is stationary but we're moving away from everything.

Like its trying to get rid of us or something.
 
2012-10-04 03:14:16 PM  
Time to get back in the saddle, I think.
 
2012-10-04 03:31:41 PM  
well, considering that we're hardly going to be seeing it NOT expanding anytime soon

or ever in comparison to our relatively SHORT time span of existance...

hmm...
human life span 70-80 years
time of recorded history 5000 years
time of human existence 200,000 years
time since the dinosaurs 65,000,000 years
time since life began on Earth 1,000,000,000 years
time of since Earth began 4,500,000,000 years
time since Big Bang 13,750,000,000+ years

the point is moot.

/we're not likely to be waiting around for it...
 
2012-10-04 04:04:41 PM  

Khellendros: AdolfOliverPanties: But what the fark is it expanding into?

Nothingness. Void. The absence of something.


And an infinite amount of it. I wonder if there's even a *trace* of anything in that void, if it would exert a gravitational force on the universe contained within the void...
 
2012-10-04 04:08:20 PM  
From the comments after the article: Actually, if you do the math, the redshift of galaxies tells us precisely at what speed they are *currently* moving away from us! Counterintuitive, but true.

How is it possible that light that left a galaxy a billion years ago has any information about said galaxy's current state?
 
2012-10-04 04:36:20 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: But what the fark is it expanding into?


That presumes that the universe is embedded in something else. This is not the case. "Expansion" can be define completely internally to the universe, without referring to any outside space or "nothingness".
 
2012-10-04 04:39:37 PM  

sxacho: So this is saying the expansion is linear?


No. The Hubble "constant" actually changes with time (but too slowly to measure the changes directly).
 
2012-10-04 04:42:16 PM  

Gnomaana: How is it possible that light that left a galaxy a billion years ago has any information about said galaxy's current state?


You have to combine the initial conditions with the laws of physics (general relativity). Initial state integrated through the dynamics = final state. Of course there are uncertainties, both in the initial state and in the dynamics (e.g. parameters such as the cosmological constant).
 
2012-10-04 04:54:57 PM  

Ambitwistor: AdolfOliverPanties: But what the fark is it expanding into?

That presumes that the universe is embedded in something else. This is not the case. "Expansion" can be define completely internally to the universe, without referring to any outside space or "nothingness".


Funny, I thought "expand" meant "get bigger." You are suggesting the universe is expanding but staying the same size? It is expanding within itself?

The universe is like a mind. It can expand without getting physically bigger.
 
2012-10-04 05:00:07 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Funny, I thought "expand" meant "get bigger." You are suggesting the universe is expanding but staying the same size?


"Expand" means "the distances between objects in the universe is increasing". This definition doesn't refer to anything expanding "into" anything else.
 
2012-10-04 05:05:57 PM  
Ambitwistor: I don't get that at all. Wouldn't the "speed" result be the same with either the universe currently expanding faster than in the past, or that the universe was expanding faster in the past than now? It seems to me that light from a faster, old galaxy would be slightly blueshifted over time as universal expansion slows down to the present, or that light from a slower, old galaxy would be slightly redshifted over time as universal expansion speeds up to the present, and the end result would not be discernable between the two.

Saying that the universe is expanding faster in the present because closer light sources appear to be moving slower than farther away light sources is counterintuitive, to me at least.

I hope I explained what I mean well enough.
 
2012-10-04 05:10:43 PM  
I like how farkers know all the secrets of the universe but don't bother to share it with scientists.
 
2012-10-04 05:35:39 PM  

Jim DiGriz: I don't get that at all. Wouldn't the "speed" result be the same with either the universe currently expanding faster than in the past, or that the universe was expanding faster in the past than now?


What speed result? I'm confused to what you're referring to.

It seems to me that light from a faster, old galaxy would be slightly blueshifted over time as universal expansion slows down to the present

The amount of redshift depends on the ratio of the distance between objects now, to the distance between objects then. If the distance is greater now, even if the rate of expansion has been decreasing (decelerating), you will get an overall redshift. The deceleration just changes the amount of redshift you see from successively older galaxies.

Saying that the universe is expanding faster in the present because closer light sources appear to be moving slower than farther away light sources is counterintuitive, to me at least.

The article isn't talking about the universe's acceleration or deceleration, and thus doesn't directly address the "expanding faster in the present" question. It's talking about the Hubble parameter, which is the ratio of the ratio of expansion to the size. (Basically, (dx/dt) / x.) If we can infer changes in the Hubble constant over time, or assume something about the dynamics directly (that it's decelerating according to some law), then we can talk about how fast it may be accelerating/decelerating.
 
2012-10-04 09:33:44 PM  
We know the universe is expanding and that the expansion is accelerating, and that it all got started with the big bang. Isn't this consistent with the idea that the universe is something like a black hole in a larger dimensional space? Are there any theories that start from this idea? The math would be formidable, I'm sure. Sometime in the future when we have the technology to measure the cosmological constant many orders of magnitude more precisely, maybe we'll detect "lumpiness" in the acceleration of the universe's expansion.
 
2012-10-04 09:58:52 PM  

gilgamesh23: We know the universe is expanding and that the expansion is accelerating, and that it all got started with the big bang. Isn't this consistent with the idea that the universe is something like a black hole in a larger dimensional space? Are there any theories that start from this idea?


The Big Bang isn't a black hole in the traditional sense. I don't know of any higher-dimensional theories in which a 4D Big Bang ends up being an N-D black hole, either.
 
2012-10-04 11:38:00 PM  

UberDave: Great. Now we'll never make it to the adjacent galaxy.


The Milky Way is currently busy nomming on one of the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy and several other nearby dwarf galaxies (Milky Way has a lot of them orbiting it) are on a path to get nommed too. In roughly several hundred million years, Andromeda (and its Dwarf galaxy) and the Milky Way are going to have some hot sweaty galaxy sex and make a very large galaxy.

Still plenty of expansion opportunities.
 
2012-10-04 11:51:12 PM  
Ambitwistor: Okay then, white hole. That sort of explains the dark energy bit, doesn't it? Negative pressure?
 
2012-10-04 11:59:40 PM  

gilgamesh23: Ambitwistor: Okay then, white hole. That sort of explains the dark energy bit, doesn't it? Negative pressure?


No, not a white hole either. See my link. Also, standard white holes don't have negative pressure. They're vacuum solutions without cosmological constant, like standard black holes.
 
2012-10-05 02:04:51 AM  

Ambitwistor: gilgamesh23: Ambitwistor: Okay then, white hole. That sort of explains the dark energy bit, doesn't it? Negative pressure?

No, not a white hole either. See my link. Also, standard white holes don't have negative pressure. They're vacuum solutions without cosmological constant, like standard black holes.


I've got a theory I'd like to run by you, since you sound as if you know what you're talking about. I certainly don't know, I just try to align simple (enough) concepts to lull myself to sleep. Warning, i'm an uneducated buffoon, just trying to align concepts with no training, just a Google here and there and what sounds reasonable.

To quickly run down some basics for the concept:

Matter at it's smallest form is simply a fold in space. As of you took a wormhole (visualize slinky) end to end, it becomes a torus, and tightened down it becomes an impenetrable sphere.

That came about from "nothing" because "space/time" before that was chaos, point A was point B and neither existed, really. That chaos soup basically flickers, and eventually, inevitably, matter(as above happened).

Once that single fold stabilized, that instant, the force (miniscule to us but in the chaos, nearly infinite) caused nearby similar wiggles to become folds and line up like a beard made of metal filings under a magnetic pen.

That's the basics. Physics kick in hard,

Now, a black hole forms, and grows, much as has been described above and in links. Gravity swells, compacts matter more and more. Eventually, and again, inevitably, the force of it all is enough to snap that fundamental form of matter, unleashing a limited version of that initial chaos. At this point, vacuum isn't enough to describe what happens, but rather, destruction of the smallest forms of matter itself. Visualizing a sink drain is adequate, if you pretend that the water disappears. Both ends of the broken Ouroboros are now flailing and not consuming but destroying whatever they touch. If there is vacuum, it is a side effect.

Until such a time as, similarly, out of the chaos comes order, be it from pressure from the neighboring physical presence or chance of alignment of the ends of the Ouroboros once again.

Explosion or dissipation is what typically occurs here, depending on the circumstances unique to that location and instance. Or nothing, as it's possible that a black hole can de-stabilize at it's center and quickly re-stabilize, showing no outward signs that anything changed.(imo, once we get a true black hole, this probably happens quite often).

Anyways, my question and why I wanted it to run it by you:
Am I off my rocker or what?
Does modern science, and similarly mathematics, make my ramblings sound like idiotic make-believe?

I've posted similar things on fark before not asking for input and have been largely ignored. Just wondering if it's because no one wants to talk to the ignorant or crazy guy, or if it's generally agreed upon or meaningless, or a queer combination of both sides of the coin.

Again, not educated in the matter in the slightest. I actually wager the euphoria that lulls me to sleep is similar to what religious people feel when they pray or whatever. I'd try something else, but any sort of fantasy or daydream story tends to either be too much effort, or is like an upper and wakes me up more than it does enable me to sleep, and worrying about reality(bills / relationships) just sucks balls.

Sorry about the ranty nature. It is a lot of little bits of concepts all added over time, but it all kind of needs to be stated to ask about the end answers.

If I'm retarded or nuts, just let me know. If I'm close on a point or three, I'd appreciate links that don't have much math(sort of a ignoramus request isn't it?), I don't have the free time to get that into it. But whatever, let me know and I'll not nose into these threads anymore.

/initially opened because of the incongruity of the fark headline
//one usually consumes foreign material before going into the food coma that the headline implies
///that alone was enough to make me bother to post and I got caught up reading, what for all intents and purposes, is a thread full of questions and answers, figured I'd try out my sheep jumping over the fence theories.
 
2012-10-05 09:26:10 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Matter at it's smallest form is simply a fold in space. As of you took a wormhole (visualize slinky) end to end, it becomes a torus, and tightened down it becomes an impenetrable sphere.


There have been attempts to describe elementary particles as spacetime geometry, such as wormhole mouths (technical reference, or some geometrical or topological "defect" in spacetime (e.g., geons). In general relativity, none of these solutions end up being stable, like matter is. They also have trouble describing matter particles with half-integer spin, i.e. particles that obey the Pauli exclusion principle.

The "single fold stabilizing" idea bears some superficial resemblance to the emergence of forces by the phenomenon of spontaneous symmetry breaking.

I can't make much of your description of black holes. It doesn't seem to bear much resemblance to modern theories. Of course, modern theories can't deal with what happens at black hole singularities in the first place.
 
2012-10-05 10:53:47 AM  
Ambitwistor:

Sorry, "speed" was probably a bad term. I was meaning the overall expansion of the universe would have the same value whether expansion was faster now, and slower in the past, or slower now, and faster in the past. Also, when I said "blueshifted", I probably should have said "slightly less redshifted".
 
2012-10-05 11:03:03 AM  

Jim DiGriz: Sorry, "speed" was probably a bad term. I was meaning the overall expansion of the universe would have the same value whether expansion was faster now, and slower in the past, or slower now, and faster in the past.


There are different expansion trajectories that would lead to the same overall amount of expansion today. The expansion history is determined by both the amount of expansion and rate of expansion; you need both to know the whole history.
 
2012-10-05 01:32:32 PM  

Ambitwistor: omeganuepsilon: Matter at it's smallest form is simply a fold in space. As of you took a wormhole (visualize slinky) end to end, it becomes a torus, and tightened down it becomes an impenetrable sphere.

There have been attempts to describe elementary particles as spacetime geometry, such as wormhole mouths (technical reference, or some geometrical or topological "defect" in spacetime (e.g., geons). In general relativity, none of these solutions end up being stable, like matter is. They also have trouble describing matter particles with half-integer spin, i.e. particles that obey the Pauli exclusion principle.

The "single fold stabilizing" idea bears some superficial resemblance to the emergence of forces by the phenomenon of spontaneous symmetry breaking.

I can't make much of your description of black holes. It doesn't seem to bear much resemblance to modern theories. Of course, modern theories can't deal with what happens at black hole singularities in the first place.


Thanks for reading that mess. Just trying to conceptually bridge the gap of elementary particles coming from nothing. And subsequently what happens in black holes. I would think that black holes, eventually, from the extreme pressure, could conceivably break down fundamental particles, similar to us breaking an atom( and making a bomb out of it.) There is a lot of energy involved.

As far as the creation(ugh, a dirty word) of particles, what I posted isn't necessarily a single possibility, there could be multiple variations of the phenomenon, symbiotic pairs or for a fun paralell, a twisted torus(ie resembles dna ladders). These could account for the wave or socilation present in a lot of theories.

That's part of my motivation, creationist's arguments. "Matter came from nothing? LOL, god did it with magic."
or "Nothing exploded? Riiight"

If we could slim down the concept so that it fits in a fark post...Wishful thinking that it may help people understand, but eh.

/don't care about religion so much
//do care when people try to deny science
 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report