Relativity and stuff

[SolManX]

When I found out about dark energy (or more particularly the accelerating expansion of the universe), I was devastated. I'd grown up hearing about the different models of what might happen in the future, and I completely believed that what we'd have was a Big Crunch. The idea that the universe is in a constant Bang-Crunch-Bang-Crunch cycle felt "right" in my child-brain - it had a wonderful symmetry to it, and I felt like I could almost imagine eternity when put like that. So to find out that, as we understand it right now, we're heading in the end for an eternal darkness and that this universe is truly a once-in-existence event, so that when it's over its OVER... yeah, that kind of bummed me out. But that feeling definitely falls into that weird category of my love of science where it comes closer to belief than true science.

My 'favourite' was the model that said the universe would expand but that the expansion would get slower and slower, and so essentially a limit could possibly reached and everything would settle down. That would have been nice

But the thing that really got me was finding out that there's a limit to how far out (in space and time) we can actually see into the universe. Everything we'll ever discover is trapped inside a horizon and nothing from beyond that horizon will ever reach here - ever. It's a bit ridiculous that that makes me sad, but it does.

 

[Drbretto]

Yeah, I am familiar with the big crunch, too. I also subscribed to that one. But, giving up an idea because of new evidence that contradicts it is basically what science is all about! It's what separates it from religion.

Personally, I don't mind when I have an idea that gets proven wrong it just means I get to learn more and come up with a new one.

 

[GamerwithnoGame]

Yeah, I am familiar with the big crunch, too. I also subscribed to that one. But, giving up an idea because of new evidence that contradicts it is basically what science is all about! It's what separates it from religion.

Personally, I don't mind when I have an idea that gets proven wrong it just means I get to learn more and come up with a new one.

Yeah, this is true. I guess its not faith, because I'm not sticking to the idea of the big crunch - the science says that's not what's going to happen, so while it saddens me I accept it

 

[Drbretto]

Expansion accelerating surprised everyone, BTW. In the list of expected outcomes, I don't think one single soul though that the expansion was accelerating. IMO, that was one of the biggest surprise discoveries in history.

 

[triggerfinger12]

The Higgs Field. Look it up. Mind Blown.

 

[Drbretto]

The Higgs Field. Look it up. Mind Blown.

Mind already blown on that one as well!

That one actually made me doubt my stance on Simulation Theory, which as I mentioned before isn't science, but it's related here. The Higgs field kind of reminds me of like a cosmic monitor that's turned off until it's turned on.

Edit: to be clear, my initial stance on Simulation Theory is "go to bed Elon Musk, you're drunk" until I heard about this. Now it's "hmm..."

 

[GamerwithnoGame]

I find the Kurzgesagt videos really informative and useful, especially for my level of understanding, which has lagged considerably over the years. They have one about the Simulation Argument that I haven't seen yet...

 

[Drbretto]

I watched the one on simulation theory. I also subscribe. Lemme find you a link yo're going to absolutely love me for, gimme a minute...

 

[GamerwithnoGame]

My understanding iirc is that some very substantial portion of the universe is supposedly composed of dark energy. This is probably valid, but it also reeks of aether.

Fun thing I just learned: Quintessence is the moniker to given to a hypothetical form of dark energy; quintessence coming from the latin quinta essentia - fifth element, referred to in greek as aether

 

[SolManX]

Fun thing I just learned: Quintessence is the moniker to given to a hypothetical form of dark energy; quintessence coming from the latin quinta essentia - fifth element, referred to in greek as aether

Whoa, I only learned that for the first time a few days ago on a BBC Radio 4 programme on alchemy.

PS. For anyone who's interested , the programme was 'In Our Time' - it covers various subjects ... history, science, philosophy, religion etc. and has a huge archive.

 

[Pyure]

Fun thing I just learned: Quintessence is the moniker to given to a hypothetical form of dark energy; quintessence coming from the latin quinta essentia - fifth element, referred to in greek as aether

wow that's awesome

 

[Drbretto]

Ok this is the main site: https://waitbutwhy.com/archive

But in particular, check out this one on the Fermi Paradox, which was inspired by Kurzgesagt. I've always been familit with the Fermi Paradox, but this goes into it in some real eye-opening depth:

https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html

I thought there was one on simulation theory as well, but I can't find it. So instead, here's a picture of what Andromeda would look like to the naked eye if it was brighter, as an apology

 

[Drbretto]

Fun thing I just learned: Quintessence is the moniker to given to a hypothetical form of dark energy; quintessence coming from the latin quinta essentia - fifth element, referred to in greek as aether

Haha, that's awesome.

It's amazing sometimes how words just fit, almost like the word is being discovered more than made up.

 

[Drbretto]

Also, continuing to pimp my Expansion = Time theory, from the other thread on the other site:

Recently picked up a book on Amazon from Richard Muller called "now: the physics of time"
Honestly, I have yet to read it, but the dust jacket claims he's got a testable hypothesis, the root of which is that the arrow of time is linked to the expansion of space-time

And from my own googlings:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...quicker-older-ageing-bodies-partly-blame.html


*drops the mic*

I invented time, bitches!

 

[GamerwithnoGame]

Whoa, I only learned that for the first time a few days ago on a BBC Radio 4 programme on alchemy.

PS. For anyone who's interested , the programme was 'In Our Time' - it covers various subjects ... history, science, philosophy, religion etc. and has a huge archive.

Man, I need to listen to Radio 4. I used to have it on driving to and from work all the time, but I moved over to podcasts as I had a couple with hundreds upon hundreds of hours to catch up on; plus honestly the news was just depressing me more and more. I don't get angry about anything other than bad drivers while driving any more, which is nice. I've heard of IOT before, and I will definitely look at that archive - cheers!

Ok this is the main site: https://waitbutwhy.com/archive

But in particular, check out this one on the Fermi Paradox, which was inspired by Kurzgesagt. I've always been familit with the Fermi Paradox, but this goes into it in some real eye-opening depth:

https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html

I thought there was one on simulation theory as well, but I can't find it. So instead, here's a picture of what Andromeda would look like to the naked eye if it was brighter, as an apology

Awesome, I will have a look at that! thanks also for the picture, that's bloody cool!

 

[Drbretto]

That site will eat a week to a month of your time. You're welcome.

 

[GamerwithnoGame]

That site will eat a week to a month of your time. You're welcome.

I find http://www.scp-wiki.net/ does that for me too sometimes. Bit off-topic there, sorry.

 

[SolManX]

Also, continuing to pimp my Expansion = Time theory, from the other thread on the other site:

And from my own googlings:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...quicker-older-ageing-bodies-partly-blame.html

*drops the mic*

I invented time, bitches!

Blimey, a decent article from the Daily Mail - hats off for digging that out!

I remember seeing a programme a long time ago (wish I could find it again) that suggested perception of time could be related to the amount of information coming in. More like, the ratio of the amount of info coming over the amount of info stored. The higher the ratio the slower time goes.

 

[Drbretto]

Equate this to a game of minecraft, since it's basically a little mini universe.

Imagine how much slower the outer chunks load the further they go out. Pretend that's a model of relativity. The further out it goes, the longer it would take to render a full frame if you render it like I do with my videos. In other words, the more time it would take to compile the complete picture at any given moment.

so, as the minecraft universe expands, the amount of processing power per frame increases, thus more time passes between ticks. More time passing between ticks = time literally moving faster.

In other words, that covers both angles.

 

[Drbretto]

And here's the only problem I have with every argument for time feeling faster as you get older as a psychological issue. The problem solving process starts with this assumption:

It’s become a common complaint–almost a joke–that time seems to whiz by faster and faster as we get older.

Of course, aging doesn’t grant us the power to disrupt the space-time continuum, so it’s not a real problem. But why do we perceive it to be?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/why-does-time-fly-as-we-get-older/

That, IMO, incorrect assumption has led people to justify false conclusions because of the assumption that it's not simply part of nature.

Edit: I don't have the words yet, but I'm running my little theory by everything else I know about the universe and it still fits every single time, pretty snugly. I'm getting more and more confident. I may have a detail or something off that makes it not exact, but at this point, I would be positively shocked if expansion wasn't essentially in the driver's seat for the arrow of time.

I mean, what other universal force out there continues infinitely in one direction? Everything in space rotates. Why don't we rotate in time? Because time is the expansion of the universe accelerating in one direction forever, so much faster than we rotate that it renders that force more or less insignificant.