A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
1. We say the universe began with a "big bang". How do we know there have not been an infinite # of big bangs previously, with another infinity of them to come in the future, before and after the birth and demise of our current deal ?
2. What is currently the farthest object ( star/galaxy ) that we have seen telescopically ?
3. We speak of the "expanding" universe." If this is so, and the other sides, how do we know there are not an infinite # of additional universes ?
dukehjsteve, that is exactly the sort of calvacade of "what ifs" that roil my brain when I get to thinking about this universe stuff..
Going small, I similarly do not understand the objective of smashing atoms or molecules into smaller pieces but obviously there are those who do and I say, "power to 'em." Let me know what you find out
I am content to know we do not know the answers, will never know the answers, it would not change the course of eternal events if we did and there is nothing we can do about it anyway.
dukehjsteve wrote:1. We say the universe began with a "big bang". How do we know there have not been an infinite # of big bangs previously, with another infinity of them to come in the future, before and after the birth and demise of our current deal ?
Coincidently, I just gave my classes my "Annual Multiverse Lecture". to wit:
There are am infinity of universes in the multiverse, and they are all in some stage of their infinitely repeating expansion or contraction. Each time they blink out of existence, they take their space-time with them, so nothing remains, not even space or time. That's why there can be no 'travel' between universes, there is no time or space 'between' them. These cycles also therefore don't even occur in time or space, since that's a construct of each individual universe. The origin of each big bang is a flaw in the nothingness, because, after all, nothing (as opposed to Nothing) is perfect. The flaw is the singularity that holds all matter, time and space of the nascent universe. The singularity is, of course, unstable, because it's an imperfection in the nothingness, so it must explode, creating that universe. Eventually, all energy of the explosion dissipates and it implodes back into itself, taking its time and space and matter with it. Being timeless and infinite in its 'structure', the multiverse is beyond all science and reason, which is why it hurts our brains to try and think about it. We can't - any more than an amoeba can 'think' about us or its own existence.
The purpose of the lecture (which I give with a deadpan expression of 'fact', as if I were explaining a grammar rule) is, of course, to blow their minds and any preconceived notions that they might have had about 'understanding' anything at all.
Wouldn't you like to hear the kids in the halls after his class?
a. is it not intuitively obvious that I can't possibly KNOW any of that? b. when I see their parents after that, they inevitably say it was the dinner conversation for several days and they (the parents) think it's wonderful that someone is finally challenging them in that sort of way. c. no student ends up believing me, lock-stock-and-barrel, but the inevitable outcome is that that start thinking about these sorts of things, instead of just locksteppingly accepting everything they had been taught heretofore. d. we finally come to the conclusion that my story is as feasible as any other.
Anyone can come up with a similarly constructed 'story', but no, no one can PROVE or DISPROVE the story unless there are impossibilities (as we currently define the physics of OUR universe) that render the story untenable.
I would LOVE to hear your version of the story!! (seriously). What I don't like are students who just give up and say, 'I have no idea'. Where's the adventure in that?!
1. We say the universe began with a "big bang". How do we know there have not been an infinite # of big bangs previously, with another infinity of them to come in the future, before and after the birth and demise of our current deal ?
2. What is currently the farthest object ( star/galaxy ) that we have seen telescopically ?
3. We speak of the "expanding" universe." If this is so, and the other sides, how do we know there are not an infinite # of additional universes ?
My head is spinning now, I'll stop.
This is JRM territory, I am an amateur and working without notes (and no looking at Wiki...) Generally, they call it space-time for a reason: the two are completely intertwined. 'Before' the Big Bang there was no time and no space. A corollary is that time will end if the universe collapses back to a point. However, everything at this point indicates that we ain't ever going back. Rather, the expansion is speeding up as Dark Energy is over-coming the retarding effects of gravity. There are alternative theories that have little bit extra that changes such things but are not views that are widely held, I think. JRM has interactions with some of these guys.
I must go now, will add more later if JRM has not covered the territory.
Pego wrote:Do you really prefer speculation unsupported by evidence to admission of ignorance of the subject matter? A flight of fancy over facts?
One of the explicit goals of my class IS to speculate, especially where the facts are insufficient to 'know'. When they speculate (or I do, which is often), we find ways to support or refute the supposition. They will be presented with MANY unsubstantiated ideas throughout their lives and it's my job to prepare them for that - to question everything. Speculation is the human way of "making meaning" out of the randomness of our existence. Existential exercises such as this are paramount in their 'college-prep' experience, college being where 'speculation' is the coin of the realm, at least in the humanities.
Marlow wrote:Existential exercises such as this are paramount in their 'college-prep' experience, college being where 'speculation' is the coin of the realm, at least in the humanities.
But this is science, not humanities. The norm in science is to gather information so the first 'speculation' can be informed rather than a guess.
Not really. As Pego points out, it's metaphysics. Nothing I posit goes AGAINST science as we understand it (not that it's remotely 'true' in any real sense).
Not really. As Pego points out, it's metaphysics. Nothing I posit goes AGAINST science as we understand it (not that it's remotely 'true' in any real sense).
Hey, let's not misquote Pego. I referred to your monologue on universe as metaphysics. A subject matter in question was universe, i.e. science. Your exercises in mental gymnastics with your students are fine as long as it remains just that, mental exercises, not mistaking fantasy for reality.
Pego wrote:Your exercises in mental gymnastics with your students are fine as long as it remains just that, mental exercises, not mistaking fantasy for reality.
As I said before, this is an ENGLISH class, not an astrophysics seminar.
tandfman wrote:Yes, but you're the one who stressed that this was an ENGLISH class.
It is. I was demonstrating an important facet of rhetoric (of which speculation often plays an important part). The AP English Language course is primarily one of rhetorical analysis. The discussion that my 'lecture' engenders gives valuable insight into how one should handle the vagaries of the information that are thrown at us on a daily basis.
Here's a link to the journal issue (Physics Letters B) in which the official discovery announcement papers from the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations are published (p 1-29 for ATLAS, and p 30-61 for CMS). Also, scroll down and check out paper #11 in the issue's Astrophysics and Cosmology section (p 171-176)!
JRM wrote:Here's a link to the journal issue (Physics Letters B) in which the official discovery announcement papers from the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations are published (p 1-29 for ATLAS, and p 30-61 for CMS). Also, scroll down and check out paper #11 in the issue's Astrophysics and Cosmology section (p 171-176)!
JRM wrote:Here's a link to the journal issue (Physics Letters B) in which the official discovery announcement papers from the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations are published (p 1-29 for ATLAS, and p 30-61 for CMS). Also, scroll down and check out paper #11 in the issue's Astrophysics and Cosmology section (p 171-176)!
JRM wrote:Here's a link to the journal issue (Physics Letters B) in which the official discovery announcement papers from the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations are published (p 1-29 for ATLAS, and p 30-61 for CMS). Also, scroll down and check out paper #11 in the issue's Astrophysics and Cosmology section (p 171-176)!
By the way. look at the length of the authors list; the 19th author has a name starting with Ad and they are all alphabetical.
It's also not uncommon for those international collaborations to have authors who are posthumously listed (and I believe there are several in that list). In fact, the entire author listing goes on for at least 10 pages.
