Well I gather this particular void is spacetime which just so happens to not have much matter in it, as opposed to any other sort of void which isn't spacetime.
Apparently it helps if you think of spacetime as the surface of a balloon which is being blown up - albeit with 11 (or 13?) dimensions rather than 2.
See... easy!
Dark Energy may be load of old cobblers shock report
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
Well, Dig, ya' know this Irish friend of mine years ago told me the secret as to why the Irish only put 239 beans in a can. See, if you add one more, it makes it two-farty beans!
WA:
11,13, either way you slice it the time for it is still arbitrary - and what is worse, the amount of matter within it would have to be arbitrary also. I mean, if you have half the amount of matter than what you calculate in your equation for it, then how much more space - time would you need?
What further complicates it is - and youy brought it up - the other dimensions would only add more juice. When we talk of the universe we apparently only refer to what we can experience by sight which at present is out only means of measuring it at present. In other words - it relegates it down to only 3 of the dimensions. If you add the 4th (time) whoa boy - now you complicate the whole equation a million fold just with that one. Once you started getting into the folded dimensions - sheesh - I'd doubt even a quantum computer would be able to fully calculate the results within a century.
I just think they're making the figure for its age of the "void" up to suit what they need to satisfy their theory - which is baaaaaad science - even worse than mine!
WA:
11,13, either way you slice it the time for it is still arbitrary - and what is worse, the amount of matter within it would have to be arbitrary also. I mean, if you have half the amount of matter than what you calculate in your equation for it, then how much more space - time would you need?
What further complicates it is - and youy brought it up - the other dimensions would only add more juice. When we talk of the universe we apparently only refer to what we can experience by sight which at present is out only means of measuring it at present. In other words - it relegates it down to only 3 of the dimensions. If you add the 4th (time) whoa boy - now you complicate the whole equation a million fold just with that one. Once you started getting into the folded dimensions - sheesh - I'd doubt even a quantum computer would be able to fully calculate the results within a century.
I just think they're making the figure for its age of the "void" up to suit what they need to satisfy their theory - which is baaaaaad science - even worse than mine!
i'm not lookin' for who or what made the earth - just who got me dizzy by makin it spin
I'm not sure I even disagree with you there, Rich, though I wouldn't exactly call it bad science. Bad science, so far as I understand it anyway, is stuff that actually lies or is otherwise utter bollocks (eugenics, everything ever said by "Dr." Gillian McKeith), this is just a theory or, I suppose, hardcore mathematics with knobs on. I know there's a lot of interpretation involved but I don't think there's much choice there, and besides 9 out of 10 cosmologists apparently prefer dark energy to this model, for what any of that may be worth.
Mind you, on a related note and as you brought it up, I'm personally hugely sceptical about quantum computers - plenty of articles in New Scientist about them and what they could do, but thus far not one writer has thought to describe what it's actually made of, what goes in where, and what joins up to what so that it works. The bloody things could be made of cheese for all that its possible to tell from the pages of NS...
Mind you, on a related note and as you brought it up, I'm personally hugely sceptical about quantum computers - plenty of articles in New Scientist about them and what they could do, but thus far not one writer has thought to describe what it's actually made of, what goes in where, and what joins up to what so that it works. The bloody things could be made of cheese for all that its possible to tell from the pages of NS...
Lol - probably millions if not billions wouldn't!
But like they say - a void is a void is a void, so still, I have to agree with Ish in that you can't measure the time of a void - there's nothing to measure - unless you take time as a totally independent theme - and then the void becomes infinite - ergo - still unmeasurable.
I just disagree with them trying to set a limit and saying "it was this old with this much mass" - it's conjecture to make it fit their theories.
But like they say - a void is a void is a void, so still, I have to agree with Ish in that you can't measure the time of a void - there's nothing to measure - unless you take time as a totally independent theme - and then the void becomes infinite - ergo - still unmeasurable.
I just disagree with them trying to set a limit and saying "it was this old with this much mass" - it's conjecture to make it fit their theories.
i'm not lookin' for who or what made the earth - just who got me dizzy by makin it spin
Whether he was correct or not Einstein answered this problem years ago.
He stated that the was universe infinite and bounded.
He claimed that if you stood at edge of the universe and stared into the infinity you would in theory see the back of your head as light would have been bent so often in its transit of gravity wells that it could never leave the known universe.
Which tells me B****r all!
He stated that the was universe infinite and bounded.
He claimed that if you stood at edge of the universe and stared into the infinity you would in theory see the back of your head as light would have been bent so often in its transit of gravity wells that it could never leave the known universe.
Which tells me B****r all!
-
Forum Monk
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:37 pm
- Location: USA
I don't think they are talking about voids in the sense of huge empty expanses of space. Of course I am speaking relatively, because even inside a galaxy core, there are huge expanses of empty space. So I think they mean those areas which are relatively free from matter when compared to a place dense with matter, such as the vicinity of a galaxy or galaxy cluster.
In fact, it makes some sense when you consider that areas which have more matter are probably expanding at dfferent rates than sparse areas because mutual gravity may be impeding the expansion because even though gravity is the weakest of the fundemental forces its effects across space are amazing.
The thing that needs an explanation, imo, is what is expansion? Its quite amazing that even though we think of time as a sort of universal constant, time over there can be different than time over here depending on the amount of matter over there vs. here. Its very "heady" stuff. The world of the theoretical physicists is a little different than ours. They have a different reality and all we can do is look at them and nod our heads and walk away hoping to God he knew what he was talking about because we sure don't.
In fact, it makes some sense when you consider that areas which have more matter are probably expanding at dfferent rates than sparse areas because mutual gravity may be impeding the expansion because even though gravity is the weakest of the fundemental forces its effects across space are amazing.
The thing that needs an explanation, imo, is what is expansion? Its quite amazing that even though we think of time as a sort of universal constant, time over there can be different than time over here depending on the amount of matter over there vs. here. Its very "heady" stuff. The world of the theoretical physicists is a little different than ours. They have a different reality and all we can do is look at them and nod our heads and walk away hoping to God he knew what he was talking about because we sure don't.
That's why I find it so fascinating, the combination of concepts for which we have absolutely no intuitive frame of reference coupled with the possibility that some of these concepts may have a literal reality beyond mere theory - I mean the simple stuff like red shift / blue shift is pretty hard to deny and - Jesus! - what if superstrings are more than just a fancy idea?Forum Monk wrote:Its very "heady" stuff. The world of the theoretical physicists is a little different than ours. They have a different reality and all we can do is look at them and nod our heads and walk away hoping to God he knew what he was talking about because we sure don't.
I think it was the old classic of wave/particle duality of light (that split beam test) that first got me into the idea that maybe it wasn't all just the mathematical equivalent of word games - proof that the universe is far weirder than we might think. And vacuum diagrams - oh boy!
I think it tells you that the light has travelled one complete circuit of the balloon, so to speak.Digit wrote:Whether he was correct or not Einstein answered this problem years ago.
He stated that the was universe infinite and bounded.
He claimed that if you stood at edge of the universe and stared into the infinity you would in theory see the back of your head as light would have been bent so often in its transit of gravity wells that it could never leave the known universe.
Which tells me B****r all!
That's the point of the balloon model I guess. There would be no such thing as a last cluster except as defined in relation to oneself. I think FM probably understands this better than me and might be able to explain it without sounding like a children's entertainer.Digit wrote:Indeed it does WA, but here again logic breaks down because the last star in the last cluster would have to be shining 'outwards', away from all gravity wells. It certainly wouldn't under those conditions circle the balloon.
Unless of course, I'm completely wrong with the balloon thing.
-
Forum Monk
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:37 pm
- Location: USA
Does this help?War Arrow wrote:That's the point of the balloon model I guess. There would be no such thing as a last cluster except as defined in relation to oneself. I think FM probably understands this better than me and might be able to explain it without sounding like a children's entertainer.Digit wrote:Indeed it does WA, but here again logic breaks down because the last star in the last cluster would have to be shining 'outwards', away from all gravity wells. It certainly wouldn't under those conditions circle the balloon.
Unless of course, I'm completely wrong with the balloon thing.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/balloon0.html