Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [New Scientist] Multiverse gets real with glimpse of big bang ripples
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[New Scientist] Multiverse gets real with glimpse of big bang ripples - Page 4

post #31 of 55
On the topic of science theories and discovery, don't you all find it hard to take the latest theories seriously because in the timeline of the estimated life of our universe we've only been here such a short time. How can we even begin to measure and understand anything? I'm not saying it's pointless to search for answers. Just the opposite.
post #32 of 55
I guess I've always thought of the Big Bang along the lines of a star going Super Nova...massive expanding followed by an explosion (or something so close that the term fits) in the center throwing matter every where. Nature has plenty of existing mechanics...I doubt it would invent a new one "just" for the Big Bang. It is a big deal to us, but nature wouldn't care about it.
My System
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
2600K @ 4.7GHz Asus P8P67 B3 GTX 580 EVGA Hydro Copper 2 GTX 580 EVGA  
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
4x4GB G.Skill Ripjaws bunch of 'em Blu-Ray For movies Windows 8.1 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
24.4" Hans G HH251 X2 Yamakasi DS270  Blah 1000watt Super Flower 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Built into Desk Microsoft SideWinder X8 Comfy one... Creative Extreme Gamer 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
2600K @ 4.7GHz Asus P8P67 B3 GTX 580 EVGA Hydro Copper 2 GTX 580 EVGA  
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
4x4GB G.Skill Ripjaws bunch of 'em Blu-Ray For movies Windows 8.1 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
24.4" Hans G HH251 X2 Yamakasi DS270  Blah 1000watt Super Flower 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Built into Desk Microsoft SideWinder X8 Comfy one... Creative Extreme Gamer 
  hide details  
Reply
post #33 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdstock76 View Post

The definitions I've read and seen say otherwise. That an explosion or event happened that threw all matter into "space". That matter collided with other matter creating stars, planets, everything.
Agreed. Science is about truth. Answering questions we have and the journey to those answers. I for one am fascinated by the universe.

The term "explosion" is just a convenient way of expressing the rapid expansion of energy and matter. But no one knows for sure exactly what happened because all of our physical models fail within thousandths of a second of the big bang. The key is reconciliation of gravity with the other 3 main forces (electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear), because the theory is that there existed only one type of energy before differentiating. All we know is that right after the Big Bang, there was a rapid expansion of the universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdstock76 View Post

On the topic of science theories and discovery, don't you all find it hard to take the latest theories seriously because in the timeline of the estimated life of our universe we've only been here such a short time. How can we even begin to measure and understand anything? I'm not saying it's pointless to search for answers. Just the opposite.

Not really. Just 60 years ago we were barely understanding nuclear fission. Today we know nuclear fusion and what drives the Sun and other stars.
Millenium Falcon
(24 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 4930k MSI Big Bang Xpower II EVGA GTX 690 Patriot Viper II Sector 7 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
OCZ Deneva 2 Corsair Force 3 Maxtor Western Digital Green 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Samsung BD/DVD-RW Swiftech MCP655 x2 Black Ice GTX 480 Black Ice GTX 280 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Alphacool Repack Dual D5 Watercool Heatkiller 3.0 Alphacool GTX 690 fullcover Bitspower Big Bang Xpower II fullcover 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8.1 64-bit Professional 3x Dell S2340 Max Keyboard Durandal CoolerMaster V1000 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Azza Genesis 9000B Logitech G700 Roccat Alumic Onkyo HT-S9100THX 
  hide details  
Reply
Millenium Falcon
(24 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 4930k MSI Big Bang Xpower II EVGA GTX 690 Patriot Viper II Sector 7 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
OCZ Deneva 2 Corsair Force 3 Maxtor Western Digital Green 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Samsung BD/DVD-RW Swiftech MCP655 x2 Black Ice GTX 480 Black Ice GTX 280 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Alphacool Repack Dual D5 Watercool Heatkiller 3.0 Alphacool GTX 690 fullcover Bitspower Big Bang Xpower II fullcover 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8.1 64-bit Professional 3x Dell S2340 Max Keyboard Durandal CoolerMaster V1000 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Azza Genesis 9000B Logitech G700 Roccat Alumic Onkyo HT-S9100THX 
  hide details  
Reply
post #34 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagrant Storm View Post

I guess I've always thought of the Big Bang along the lines of a star going Super Nova...massive expanding followed by an explosion (or something so close that the term fits) in the center throwing matter every where. Nature has plenty of existing mechanics...I doubt it would invent a new one "just" for the Big Bang. It is a big deal to us, but nature wouldn't care about it.

It is much, much, much more complicated than a star going super Nova. First, At the first instant of the big bang, if there really is such a thing as a first instant because we don't know how time came into existence, or if it is continuous or discrete, space itself had to be created, and it is argued by physicists that it expanded much more quickly than the speed of light in a process called inflation. This prevented the early universe from collapsing back in on itself . In the early universe, the laws of physics were not the same, as the laws of physics we observe now change as a relative function of the temperature of the universe. For example, forces start to merge at extremely high energies like the electroweak force. Furthermore, there were no traditional three dimensions in our universe until the big bang occurred.

In some sense reality did invent a new mechanical system for the big bang. If you accept the multi verse theory, which is heavily dependent on inflation, then you must accept the anthropological principle, which is that we have to be in a universe with our particular laws because we are here. The multi verse theory posits a bunch of universes in the 6th dimension, if you call it that, which have different laws of physics that are "invented" by random chance in a phase space with all possible values. Perhaps this 6th dimension is finite, but unbounded and unending, which would explain why we have no colliding universes. Universes that can exist exist because their laws of physics are balanced enough survive, and those without the balance don't survive. It's actually just cosmic evolution on an infinite scale. The infinite hotel is a good example. You wouldn't expect to get a particular number in the hotel, but if you were already always in a particular room, then you would expect that room to have the value that you have.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k 5.0 ghz 1.39v Asus p8p67 deluxe SLI 465 4 gb gskill 1600mhz Cas 6 
Hard DrivePower
ocz vertex 2 60 gb 650 watt 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k 5.0 ghz 1.39v Asus p8p67 deluxe SLI 465 4 gb gskill 1600mhz Cas 6 
Hard DrivePower
ocz vertex 2 60 gb 650 watt 
  hide details  
Reply
post #35 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdstock76 View Post

On the topic of science theories and discovery, don't you all find it hard to take the latest theories seriously because in the timeline of the estimated life of our universe we've only been here such a short time.
No.
Quote:
How can we even begin to measure and understand anything?
We all have sufficiently developed brains that allow us to transcend all other animals that do nothing but fight each other over food and sex.
Quote:
I'm not saying it's pointless to search for answers. Just the opposite.
We study patterns we're able to observe in our lifetimes and then scale those patterns back in time to come up with theories of the past.
post #36 of 55
We humans are engineered by nature to make decisions fast. We have to "know", in order to act, and we have to do it fast in order to survive in the environment that forged our existence for hundreds of thousands of years, and the species we've branched from for millions.

Science and scientists, despite being amongst the most patient and informed humans of their time, draw conclusions from sometimes incomplete theories or observations too...that's because beyond theoretical physics, like cosmology, there are applied sciences that need a firm grasp on something to keep going.

E.g. Newton was far from "right" in micro level, but gave the basis for us to make planes and even get in other celestial bodies.
Oppenheimer, Bohm (amongst thousands of others) had "nothing" vs, a modern nuclear physicist, but knew enough to help unleash atomic fission.
We understand little about Quantum physics, yet we are able to contemplate Quantum computers.
Same with modern medicine, and other fields.

These are no "leaps of faith" per se, just reasonable expectations given the known patterns.
Leap of faith is required by the "layman" that will attempt to firewalk...The scientists knows why firewalking on embers doesn't require divine intervention (much like the firewalking leaders know why they are doing it on embers and not fiery stones or red-hot metal plates).

Absolute knowledge and certainty is not required for our progress.
Its a good thing, otherwise there wouldn't be any progress, as the former is unattainable.
FooBox
(20 items)
 
 
Camera Gear
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon E5-1650 V3 3.5GHz Dell C610 Quadro K4200 4GB 32GB PC-2133 DDR4 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Crucial M550 256GB Dell Windows 7 Professional Dell U2412M 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2412M Dell KB-212-B Dell 850W 80+ Gold T5810 
Mouse
Logitech G700 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsGraphics
Canon EOS 6D  EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM  EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM 
GraphicsOptical DriveOptical DriveOptical Drive
EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Manfrotto 190XPROB Tripod Manfrotto 685B NeoTec Monopod Manfrotto 410 Junior Geared Head 
Optical DriveCase
Manfrotto 496 Ball Head Lowepro Mini Trekker AW 
  hide details  
Reply
FooBox
(20 items)
 
 
Camera Gear
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon E5-1650 V3 3.5GHz Dell C610 Quadro K4200 4GB 32GB PC-2133 DDR4 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Crucial M550 256GB Dell Windows 7 Professional Dell U2412M 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2412M Dell KB-212-B Dell 850W 80+ Gold T5810 
Mouse
Logitech G700 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsGraphics
Canon EOS 6D  EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM  EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM 
GraphicsOptical DriveOptical DriveOptical Drive
EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Manfrotto 190XPROB Tripod Manfrotto 685B NeoTec Monopod Manfrotto 410 Junior Geared Head 
Optical DriveCase
Manfrotto 496 Ball Head Lowepro Mini Trekker AW 
  hide details  
Reply
post #37 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcfoo View Post

false
Quote:
Originally Posted by bojinglebells View Post

Because that's what the evidence points towards. Science is not about believing things because they are convenient or comfortable, it is simply an attempt to seek out what actually is

Exactly - science is a attempt to explain. Doesn't claim perfect knowledge.
This doesn't mean that all other interpretations/attempts are a equally credible tho. There are the prevailing theory, plausible but not as well rounded or slightly outdated theories, plausible hypotheses, and a bunch of implausible, all the way to ridiculous - even stupid - hypotheses. Usually, when you pick and choose between facts, you get the latter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bojinglebells View Post

, and so far, the evidence suggests our universe started with a bang. A big one.

Well, to be completely accurate, the prevailing theory is that everything started with an absolute tiny bang, as all mass came to be concentrated in a singularity so small and dense that we cannot even model, where the laws of physics as we know them could not apply...
A tiny bang, with the energy intensity of our whole perceivable (and not) universe.

Think it beats a burning bush (despite being smaller).

Tisk tisk, is that a pot shot at competing beliefs?


The system that produces modern "knowledge" like the subject of this thread is still fundamentally built on far too much speculation (hypothesis) for me to be comfortable with.
Sure, no-body's perfect, and no system is perfect, but that's half my point. There will always be a reasonable alternative.
At the very least people in true scientific spirit should welcome a few nay-sayers.
post #38 of 55
Thoughts after reading the article: "wut"
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 4ghz 1.25v Evga Classified E760/E762 Evga Gtx 480 + Galaxy GTX 480 SLI 6GB Corsair Dominator GT 1600mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Crucial C300 256Gb, Samsung 7200rpm 320gb, 2x W... Windows 7 64-bit Home premium Dell U2410 1920x1200 Wireless Logitech 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Quatro 1200w Corsair 800D Razer Death Adder Office Depot thingy 
AudioAudio
Asus Xonar STX Sennheiser HD555's 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 4ghz 1.25v Evga Classified E760/E762 Evga Gtx 480 + Galaxy GTX 480 SLI 6GB Corsair Dominator GT 1600mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Crucial C300 256Gb, Samsung 7200rpm 320gb, 2x W... Windows 7 64-bit Home premium Dell U2410 1920x1200 Wireless Logitech 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Quatro 1200w Corsair 800D Razer Death Adder Office Depot thingy 
AudioAudio
Asus Xonar STX Sennheiser HD555's 
  hide details  
Reply
post #39 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveHighDPI View Post

Tisk tisk, is that a pot shot at competing beliefs?


The system that produces modern "knowledge" like the subject of this thread is still fundamentally built on far too much speculation (hypothesis) for me to be comfortable with.
Sure, no-body's perfect, and no system is perfect, but that's half my point. There will always be a reasonable alternative.
At the very least people in true scientific spirit should welcome a few nay-sayers.

Naysayers are fine, but you also have to provide some sort of alternative and proof for your alternative. Otherwise, you're just questioning for no reason.

Science doesn't prove the existence of something. It can only prove the non-existence or provide support for the existence.
Millenium Falcon
(24 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 4930k MSI Big Bang Xpower II EVGA GTX 690 Patriot Viper II Sector 7 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
OCZ Deneva 2 Corsair Force 3 Maxtor Western Digital Green 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Samsung BD/DVD-RW Swiftech MCP655 x2 Black Ice GTX 480 Black Ice GTX 280 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Alphacool Repack Dual D5 Watercool Heatkiller 3.0 Alphacool GTX 690 fullcover Bitspower Big Bang Xpower II fullcover 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8.1 64-bit Professional 3x Dell S2340 Max Keyboard Durandal CoolerMaster V1000 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Azza Genesis 9000B Logitech G700 Roccat Alumic Onkyo HT-S9100THX 
  hide details  
Reply
Millenium Falcon
(24 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 4930k MSI Big Bang Xpower II EVGA GTX 690 Patriot Viper II Sector 7 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
OCZ Deneva 2 Corsair Force 3 Maxtor Western Digital Green 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Samsung BD/DVD-RW Swiftech MCP655 x2 Black Ice GTX 480 Black Ice GTX 280 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Alphacool Repack Dual D5 Watercool Heatkiller 3.0 Alphacool GTX 690 fullcover Bitspower Big Bang Xpower II fullcover 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8.1 64-bit Professional 3x Dell S2340 Max Keyboard Durandal CoolerMaster V1000 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Azza Genesis 9000B Logitech G700 Roccat Alumic Onkyo HT-S9100THX 
  hide details  
Reply
post #40 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willanhanyard View Post

Thoughts after reading the article: "wut"

Basically, scientists have found compelling proof for the idea that the universe underwent a massive FTL expansion in size that happened moments after the big bang to create our universe. Essentially its a step closer to definitively proving the Big Bang theory.
The Sleeper
(10 items)
 
 
Sony Xperia Z3
(7 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
AMD FX 8320  Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 MSI Radeon 7950 MSI Radeon 7950 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
8GB Crucial Ballistix Sport 1600mhz Samsung 470 SSD Corsair H80i Windows 7 64 Bit Home Premium 
PowerCase
Corsair HX850 Coolermaster HAF 932 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel SU7300 Core2Duo 1.6 Ghz Alienware OEM Nvidia 335m 8 GB PNY memory 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
Samsing 840 SSD Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit Generic PNP monitor @ 75hz 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Snapdragon 801 @ 2.5 Ghz Adreno 330 3 GB 32 GB  
CoolingOSMonitor
Blow on it Android 4.4.4 1920x1080 LCD 
  hide details  
Reply
The Sleeper
(10 items)
 
 
Sony Xperia Z3
(7 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
AMD FX 8320  Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 MSI Radeon 7950 MSI Radeon 7950 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
8GB Crucial Ballistix Sport 1600mhz Samsung 470 SSD Corsair H80i Windows 7 64 Bit Home Premium 
PowerCase
Corsair HX850 Coolermaster HAF 932 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel SU7300 Core2Duo 1.6 Ghz Alienware OEM Nvidia 335m 8 GB PNY memory 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
Samsing 840 SSD Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit Generic PNP monitor @ 75hz 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Snapdragon 801 @ 2.5 Ghz Adreno 330 3 GB 32 GB  
CoolingOSMonitor
Blow on it Android 4.4.4 1920x1080 LCD 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [New Scientist] Multiverse gets real with glimpse of big bang ripples