[Closed] Wonders of the Universe - Perspective

work in a job that constantly puts you in direct contact with people less fortunate than yourself.

EDIT, reading that back it almost looks like a harsh comment, its really not meant that way at all.

like you i enjoy being reminded how small we are and how minor our lives are compared to..well.. everything! with regards to retaining a sense of perspective about lifes problems i find that my job working with vulnerable adults does the reminding for me. Not the reason i do the job, but it is something i notice.

Yes it was a great program, although a little padded out for my liking.

In terms of always being aware the perspective of time, i think the saying goes : the world keeps turnin'

also says to me, that there is just no way we are alone in this massive expanse of the universe, and Life must have come before us and will come after us, in some shape or form....

is to find a way of always being aware of that sense of perspective all the time.

I'm not sure that would work for me - when I'm doing something it demands my full attention - and were I to relate it to life, the universe and everything I'd probably drop it and go out and lounge in the sun 🙂

were I to relate it to life, the universe and everything I'd probably drop it and go out and lounge in the sun

That's very true.

Is it possible to function and contribute to our society if you were to think this way? Can you have it both ways with some sort of watered down thought process?

And, yes by the way, in case you were wondering, I [b]HAVE[/b] had a shitty day at work and started drinking too much to compensate 😉

Total perspective vortex anyone?

I cant extrapolate from: "it's an unimaginably vast universe that appears to have repeatable behavior" that: "existence is without meaning".

I'll try to catch this on iPlayer as it sounds as good as his other stuff I've enjoyed.

Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to space.

Rip Douglas Adams.

So there was this big bang thing - we don't know why. Then, after a few billion years, there's us. Then, after about 500 million years, the sun blows up and there's no more us. Then, after millions of trillions of completely GAZILLIONS of year's decay, there's just a sort of evenly-distributed soup of protons that sits there doing nothing. For ever.

Bizarre.

No matter how hard you try you will never be able to grasp just how tiny, how spatially unassuming, is a proton. It is just way too small. A proton is an infinitesimal part of an atom, which is itself of course an insubstantial thing. Protons are so small that a little dib of ink like the dot on this i can hold something in the region of 500,000,000,000 of them, rather more than the number of seconds contained in half a million years.

So protons are exceedingly microscopic, to say the very least. Now imagine if you can (and of course you can’t) shrinking one of those protons down to a billionth of its normal size into a space so small that it would make a proton look enormous. Now pack into that tiny, tiny space about an ounce of matter. Excellent. You are ready to start a universe.

I’m assuming of course that you wish to build an inflationary universe. If you’d prefer instead to build a more old-fashioned, standard Big Bang universe, you’ll need additional materials. In fact, you will need to gather up everything there is every last mote and particle of matter between here and the edge of creation and squeeze it into a spot so infinitesimally compact that it has no dimensions at all. It is known as a singularity. In either case, get ready for a really big bang. Naturally, you will wish to retire to a safe place to observe the spectacle.

Unfortunately, there is nowhere to retire to because outside the singularity there is no where. When the universe begins to expand, it won’t be spreading out to fill a larger emptiness. The only space that exists is the space it creates as it goes. It is natural but wrong to visualize the singularity as a kind of pregnant dot hanging in a dark, boundless void. But there is no space, no darkness. The singularity has no “around” around it. There is no space for it to occupy, no place for it to be. We can’t even ask how long it has been there—whether it has just lately popped into being, like a good idea, or whether it has been there forever, quietly awaiting the right moment. Time doesn’t exist. There is no past for it to emerge from. And so, from nothing, our universe begins

Bill Bryson.

Blows my mind everytime i read it..

Mr Woppit - Member
So there was this big bang thing - we don't know why.

So, what started it then? That's surely THE question!

The question that these things always brings up for me is this:

If the second law of thermodynamics is true, why are we here? If all systems eventually tend towards entropy then what was the power source that created all of this order and what possible reason do we have to believe that the second law will kick in at some point and lead to the heat death of the universe?

CaptainFlashheart - Member

Mr Woppit - Member
So there was this big bang thing - we don't know why.

So, what started it then? That's surely THE question!

Apparently, as there was nothing before it, er - nothing...

Anyone know the make of the cream/beige jacket he was wearing near the beginning? It was rather nice.

Scale of the universe...

http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/

Rich_s that is awesome 😯

If the second law of thermodynamics is true, why are we here? If all systems eventually tend towards entropy then what was the power source that created all of this order and what possible reason do we have to believe that the second law will kick in at some point and lead to the heat death of the universe?

The second law of thermodynamics, as Brian Cox said, does not discount the likelyhood of order, all it states is that order is the least likely option and nature will always try to seek the path of highest entropy.
That describes to me a very fluid universe where anything, including life can exist, given the right circumstances. All it does is make it crystal clear how precious and rare life is.

On the related subject of science v religion, I find it ironic that so many people think creation was one or the other. My education was science based, I am not religious and I've read a few of the modern classic science books (Brief History of Time, God Delusion sort of stuff) but I find some of the modern theories on the origin of the universe no more plausible than what is taught in Sunday School. How many times is science going to invent another (smaller) particle and then hope someone actually discovers it?

A near death experience every now and then. The feeling is excellent, not a care or a worry in the world. You hear the birds sing and everything. Then over a period of time and scowling neighbours faces you end up letting things wind you up and doing crazy things like paying too much attention to adverts for sofas on the tellybox.

Before you know it you start to believe that the world is full of x-factor fans, or evil terrorists whereas in actual fact what they have you believe to be the majority is actually just the noisy minority.

babble babble waffle

The second law of thermodynamics, as Brian Cox said, does not discount the likelyhood of order, all it states is that order is the least likely option and nature will always try to seek the path of highest entropy.
That describes to me a very fluid universe where anything, including life can exist, given the right circumstances. All it does is make it crystal clear how precious and rare life is.

Yeah, got all that. I guess what I want to know is what is the fuel source that allows the order that we have observed to thrive despite the trends described by the second law.

I spent some time discussing this with a physicist friends of mine and her conclusion was that there must be a vast source of energy elsewhere in the universe that fuels the order in this part of the universe. It is [i]the[/i] big question as stated by CFH.

Yes life is unlikely, but it is here despite all of our understanding and Brian Cox's failure to address this huge gaping hole in our understanding somewhat undermines his attempts to be an authority on the matter. Don't get me wrong, I rather like floppy haired science guy but he does rather gloss over some of the bigger questions.

Well it was episode one of a series so reserve judgement until the end of the series.

One theory put forward in an earlier Horizon programme was that information and energy was being beamed across the universe by supermassive black holes, and it was this energy and information that forms the building blocks of life.

One thing that programme did was change my mind on the whole concept of time: Up until now I had always thought of time as an abstract concept that was invented by humans to try and control and define us and the universe.

However, the whole concept of decay described by Brian Cox suggests that time is something that is built into the very fabric of the universe and is in fact vital to the existance of the universe and everything in it. But eventually, it will also be the downfall of everything.

The trick, it seems to me, is to find a way of always being aware of that sense of perspective all the time.

Anyone cracked that one?

If you want to feel small, go outside and look at the stars. Or, if it's cloudy, your most recent mortgage statement.

Well it was episode one of a series so reserve judgement until the end of the series.

True, I will certainly watch the rest of the series.

information and energy was being beamed across the universe

Yeah, I am inclined to believe that there is a lot more to gravity than it just hurting when you take a tumble. 🙂

The most interesting theory I heard was regarding symmetry in the universe, the big bang not being so much an explosion as a violent instantiation. An imperfection in the symmetrical mesh of the matter-less universe caused energy to become matter. Or something. 😕

Still doesn't answer the question why though...

Does there have to be a "why"?

Does there have to be a "why"?

Yes.

If we are to believe that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, one of the foundations of our understanding of the universe, then yes, it does matter. Otherwise causation is nonsense, physics is rubbish and we may as well make up some fairy story about how it all happened. Then I would be a Christian. That is not an option.

[img] [/img]

Crikey ... 😆

If you want to feel small, go outside and look at the stars. Or, if it's cloudy, your most recent mortgage statement.

This works very well but I find it hard to carry the feeling/ experience with me for long.
It's like you get to step out of the game for a bit and are then quickly sucked back in.

billysugger sums it up nicely:

A near death experience every now and then. The feeling is excellent, not a care or a worry in the world. You hear the birds sing and everything. Then over a period of time and scowling neighbours faces you end up letting things wind you up and doing crazy things like paying too much attention to adverts for sofas on the tellybox.

If we are to believe that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, one of the foundations of our understanding of the universe, then yes, it does matter. Otherwise causation is nonsense, physics is rubbish and we may as well make up some fairy story about how it all happened.

I think you're stretching Newton's laws further than he would have liked there. They don't have anything to do with causation outside of the strictly mechanical sense so don't really apply here I reckon.

Does there have to be a "why"?

No, liberating isn't it.

i don't think there has to be a "why?" 🙂

i wonder if he'll cover chaos theory at any point in the series... that'd be tasty.

A phrase which can help with keeping things in perspective for me is:

"This too shall pass"

"This too shall pass" (Persian: ??? ??? ?????, Hebrew: ?? ?? ??????, Turkish: Bu da geçer) is a proverb indicating that all material conditions, positive or negative, are temporary. The phrase seems to have originated in the writings of the medieval Persian Sufi poets, and is often attached to a fable of a great king who is humbled by the simple words. Some versions of the fable, beginning with that of Attar of Nishapur, add the detail that the phrase is inscribed on a ring, which therefore has the ability to make the happy man sad and the sad man happy. Jewish folklore often describes Solomon as giving or receiving the phrase. The proverb and associated fable were popular in the first half of the 19th century, appearing in a collection of tales by the English poet Edward Fitzgerald and being employed in a speech by Abraham Lincoln before he became president. (wikipedia)

i don't think there has to be a "why?"

I think the question 'why' is important. It embodies the adventuring, exploratory nature of humanity and is the reason we build things like the LHC and Hubble. We are curious, so we try and find out how which leads to the question why. I think it is a basic human imperative and I like it.

I do not see what is liberating about ignorance, blissful or otherwise.

We are curious, so we try and find out how

To quote The Big Yin - "How" is the interesting bit. "Why" is just (makes Native American-type wailing noise) voodoo...

Torminalis - Member

I think the question 'why' is important.

i think Nick was referring to the 'big' why, and you're talking about the 'little' why.

big why = is there a greater purpose? / surely everything has a meaning? / why do bad things happen to good people? / why aren't i rich young and beautiful?

little why = how did we get here? / atomic fusion, organic compounds, evolution, the growth of civilisation, and so on.

PS: The universe was not an "instatiation", it just expanded very, very, very fast.

Expanded - past tense? What made it stop then?

according to our best models of the growth of the universe, there was a very early, very brief, period of very rapid expansion which we've called 'inflation' - and it's slowed down a bit since then.

wanna know more about this inflation thing? - then you can bloody google it! 🙂

why aren't i rich young and beautiful?

Speak for yourself 🙂

little why = how

Think about that for a minute..

This is getting heavy. Have you lot been rocking the ganj?

awhiles - AIUI there's some doubt as to whether those models give a good account for inflation stopping. So either the model's wrong or inflation hasn't stopped & the universe is far far bigger than we think. Of course there's nothing in the rest of it either way.

i wonder if he'll cover chaos theory at any point in the series... that'd be tasty

Bloody death metal fan... 😉

but it is here despite all of our understanding and Brian Cox's failure to address this huge gaping hole in our understanding somewhat undermines his attempts to be an authority on the matter. Don't get me wrong, I rather like floppy haired science guy but he does rather gloss over some of the bigger questions.

He was on the radio the other week and addressed this, he said we simply dont know the answers and to be a scientist means being happy to admit that we dont know all the answers at present but we may do one day.

If the second law of thermodynamics is true, why are we here? If all systems eventually tend towards entropy then what was the power source that created all of this order and what possible reason do we have to believe that the second law will kick in at some point and lead to the heat death of the universe?

the 'order' in this part of the universe is not, as far as we know, any different from other parts of the universe. the clumping of matter into galaxies/stars/planets etc is driven by gravity, but is also a high entropy state - you can re-phase the problem such that it can be seen to be entropy driven*.

on a local level, looking specifically at lifeforms, you have to look at it as a system driven question. the 2nd law applies to total entropy levels in systems. Just as apparently odd things like endothermic reactions (ones that take in heat, so the beaker of stuff ends up colder than it started) [i]can occur[/i] despite seeming to be forbidden, since they result in increased entropy, you can also have areas of increased order/decreased entropy so long as the entropy of the system increases. the entropy of another region must be increased by more than the lifeform's entropy decreased - lots of this is done by getting rid of low grade heat.

the fact that we exist is testament to the remarkable ability we** have to export all that entropy into our surroundings.

all pretty remarkable really, but not thermodynamically impossible

* if you're really clever. have seen it done, can't reproduce it here though it turns out
** where 'we' is 'all lifeforms'. seems that a heft dose of good fortune, and cunning use of catalysis helps.

As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know.

Selah.

One thing that programme did was change my mind on the whole concept of time: Up until now I had always thought of time as an abstract concept that was invented by humans to try and control and define us and the universe.

However, the whole concept of decay described by Brian Cox suggests that time is something that is built into the very fabric of the universe and is in fact vital to the existance of the universe and everything in it...

I thought the same but I also thought although time is directional it is not as simple as a path from A to B. It is A,B and A-B.
(haven't got a clue where I read that though).

The entropy thing always bugs me.

They can show a sandcastle blowing away and go "ooh look - entropy - time's arrow". But the sand forms another unique (if not so recognisable) pattern.

But they never show a copper sulphate solution forming itself into crystals, because that would run contrary to the argument.

Creationists are using the anomalies to claim that "some scientists are renouncing the theory of evolution". Which is bollx of course.

But what is amazing is that all the photons released at the big bang, which are still going, 13.7 billion light years from where they started have not experienced time at all. If they were wearing (zero mass) watches, not even 1 second would have elapsed.

Zero mass particles travel at the universal constant, C, speed of light, and at that speed time slows to zero.

The sandcastle thing is not an example of increasing entropy, it's a metaphor for it.

Entropy in a closed system is always increasing. A jar of copper sulfate solution is not a closed system because heat can leave or enter through the walls of the jar.

Anyway. My top tip for perspective is to climb Snowdon on a very sunny clear day. If it's clear enough you can see the coastline of North Wales, Morcambe Bay, and Cardigan Bay. This allows you to SEE the map of the Earth with your own eyes in full 360 vision and you can relate the actual tangible distances with your knowledge of the map of the globe. Then you can, for a brief moment get a real handle on the actual size of the Earth.

It's quite exhilarating 🙂

Entropy in a closed system is always increasing

This is the bit that gets me, the very fact that we have such high levels of order in our solar system/galaxy/universe serves to imply that either:

a) We are not in a closed system
b) The second law is wrong

I once had a vision of universes forming like bubbles in champagne amid an infinite ocean of dark matter and then collapsing in on themselves.

One day I would very much like to take up formal study of physics but I am not sure my maths is good enough. Interesting stuff though and in respect of the OP, somewhat sobering.

a) We are not in a closed system

Of course we're not!

Where's the sealed boundary around our solar system?

Or, if you mean the universe, then it may be a closed system in which case entropy IS increasing. However it is not maxed out yet.

PS the formal study of Physics is not like these TV shows 🙂

Of course we're not!

I did specify the levels of order in the universe, which as far as we know is a closed system, hence my postulation of an ocean of dark matter outside of our known universe to fuel the order that we see.

then it may be a closed system in which case entropy IS increasing

'may' being the operative word, we don't know (least of all me!). My original point on this thread was that if this is a sealed system and the second law is true, how did all this order come to exist in the first place, a perfectly valid question I hope.

the formal study of Physics is not like these TV shows

moly old chap, you seem to be very good at telling me things I already know. 🙂

the second law doesn't require that all regions of all systems have to be at the maximum entropy state possible all, just that changes to that system result in an increase in entropy.

sockpuppet, I know this, I am just curious as to how all of this order occurred in the first place and how we have become sufficiently complex that we can start to have half arsed cracks at explaining it all. 🙂

It is so highly improbable that there has to be some sort of fuel source driving the increased complexity of the universe to the eventual creation of pigeons.

Veering slightly off topic, there seem to be quite a few folk who are interested and eminently more capable than I of understanding all of this mind blowing stuff. I stumbled upon a series of videos a few weeks ago that claim to explain anti gravity and have the maths to back it up. I am in no position to verify this but am interested to hear what the forum thinks of this:

[url= http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread625411/pg1 ]Anti Gravity explained!?![/url]

Bunkum or genuine?

One day I would very much like to take up formal study of physics but I am not sure my maths is good enough.

My GF studied Physics at Uni, I remember looking at some of her work, think equations that literally run to several pages worth of solving. Made me want to vomit just looking at it, never mind trying to solve it, and I used to be good at Maths in high school and college.

Very interesting thread, particularly the Scale of the Universe thingy posted by Rich!

Torminalis - almost certainly bunkum. The whole idea the science tries to quash certain findings is laughable. If there were any shred of a Eureka moment in his research then there would be people all over the place trying to replicate or extend the work so that they could steal the Nobel prize from under his nose.

Any research scientist would sell their kidneys to find the evidence that lets them overturn one of the main established theories - whether that's gravity, evolution, thermodynamics or whatever. The major advances in science tend to come when someone does just this - and there is then a massive clamour to either disprove them or to confirm the actual findings. The fact that this work has been left to quietly slip away suggests that it's not all it purports to be, or that the global academic community isn't interested in overturning the status quo.

That link is full of lolz Torminalis 🙂

The thing I learned about maths at Uni was that it's possible to think you've proved one thing but you've actually made a mistake or a misconception, and you're just wrong.

moly old chap, you seem to be very good at telling me things I already know

Yeah it was my PhD speciality actually 😉

Re order in the universe, I believe there's been some work done showing that if you take something homogenous and expand it rapidly it forms locally dense areas or stringy bits, a bit like if you burst a soap bubble. You end up with a few large drops, in that case.

I don't know what kind of energy caused the rapid expansion but it's clearly the seed for the whole thing. I suppose a fairly tortured analogy would be a big water bomb in a bath. Burst the balloon and the bath fills instantly (ish) with sloshing water and then it eventually comes to rest still and flat. Question is, how did the balloon get there and who burst it?

I dunno, but then I'm no student of cosmology and I am fully aware that me simply being unable to explain it doesn't mean there's a hole in the theory 🙂

NB I am not accusing you of this.

That link is full of lolz Torminalis

Though I am too daft to understand why, I had a feeling it might be. 🙂

Well I mean it made me lol. In that the first vid was all crappy hip hop marketing efforts.

If you've really overturned the scientific establishment then your work will probably market itself, to those who matter.

Yeah, got all that. I guess what I want to know is what is the fuel source that allows the order that we have observed to thrive despite the trends described by the second law

Tormalis - the fuel source you're looking for is gravity. Current inflation theories suggest that the universe expanded under negative pressure from gravity (IAW the General Theory of Relativity), which effectively acted as a bank* prepared to lend limitless amounts of money, or energy in this case.

Calculations suggest that the universe we see today could have come from a ball of matter of mass 10kg squeezed into a point a bit smaller than an atomic nucleus.

* Good thing gravity isn't the universal equivalent of Northern Rock, or the whole thing is stuffed.

Apparently, as there was nothing before it, er - nothing...

Really? Got any evidence to prove this?

Thought not...

got any evidence to prove there was something there before elfin?

thought not....
😉

The moment of the big bang and before is a matter of conjecture. We don't know for sure, so just deal with it 🙂

Yeah but I'm not claiming there was or wasn't anything there before, am I?

See?

Can't have bin 'nothing'. That's like me saying to me mum 'nothing' when she asks what I'm up to. I'm always up to something. To say otherwise is a lie.

Can't have bin 'nothing'

why not?

Explain how something can come from nothing then. Go on.

And BTW I sent you an email t'other day to the addy in your profile.

Can't have bin 'nothing'.

Why not?

Just you can't conceive something doesn't mean it can't have been. Or not been.

Explain how something can come from nothing then. Go on

No, you explain why there HAS to have been something. Just because phil can't explain his position doesn't make your position automatically correct.

Neither can you then.

Well I have to say, I am flippin' glad Elfin turned up cos I was well confused before and now it all makes sense. 🙂

Elfin - IF there was something before the big bang, where did that come from?

Dunstable.

And where did Dunstable come from? 😀

woah there! i haven't stated a position to explain! i merely posted my comment to highlight that somebody asking for proof when they also couldn't provide evidence to prove otherwise...well is a little odd.

I don't know and quite frankly I don't care.

Well, I do actually, if truth be told.

Maybe our universe is just a tiny thing happening inside an atom of another universe, right, and so on and so on, but in some strange and unfathomable (to us anyway) manner, it all loops round so that those atoms within our own universe are actually the universes we're in.

Could be.

No Phil; I wasn't saying that there was or there wasn't, but when someone says there [i]wasn't[/i] something, then they have to prove it.

If they say there [i]might[/i] have bin nothing, then fair enough, but equally, then they can also say there [i]might[/i] have bin something.

Neither can you then.

Neither can I what?

when someone says there wasn't something, then they have to prove it

No they don't. I have read that current theories suggest X, I am not an expert on those theories but I defer to those who are, being in possession of greater knowledge on the subject than I. My own ignorance does not invalidate the idea.

And of course, all talk of the Big Bang is with respect to the Big Bang theory which is simply that. Bleedin obvious that no-one knows for sure innit?

i'm going to leave you and mol arguing over this as i didnt even make a statement to provide evidence for the the first place.

have fun 😆

Go and do something constructive like read my email then.

What did the email say?

No they don't.

Yes they do. If someone claims something as fact, then they need to be able to provide evidence of this fact. Otherwise it's just hypothesis and conjecture, not 'fact'.

Spot the difference:

[i]There was nothing before t'universe began.[/i]

[i]There might have bin nothing before t'universe began.[/i]

Email is private between myself and Phil and needn't concern anyone else. I only mentioned it here cos he hasn't replied that's all.