SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Cogito who wrote (179284)1/14/2012 12:31:56 AM
From: Sam  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 542122
 
Ira Flato had a physicist on today who tried to explain that. It made absolutely no sense to me. I've had physicist friends try to explain it as well. They try to explain it in plain English (like a loaf bread expanding in an oven; or like being on the outside of a balloon that is being blown up), but it doesn't make the slightest sense to me. They look so earnest when they are giving their explanation that I am sure they think that they are making sense, but I just don't grok it. My imagination just doesn't seem to run that way. As far as I am concerned, Kant was right with his antinomies--our poor little brains are not structured in a way that can grok the nature of space and time. The universe can't be infinite and it can't be finite, time can't have a beginning and it must have a beginning.

A pity. These are a fascinating questions. Maybe because they are so paradoxical and enigmatic.



To: Cogito who wrote (179284)1/14/2012 12:48:41 AM
From: bentway  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 542122
 
"Both popular and professional research articles in cosmology often use the term "universe" to mean "observable universe". This can be justified on the grounds that we can never know anything by direct experimentation about any part of the universe that is causally disconnected from us, although many credible theories require a total universe much larger than the observable universe. No evidence exists to suggest that the boundary of the observable universe constitutes a boundary on the universe as a whole, nor do any of the mainstream cosmological models propose that the universe has any physical boundary in the first place, though some models propose it could be finite but unbounded, like a higher-dimensional analogue of the 2D surface of a sphere which is finite in area but has no edge. It is plausible that the galaxies within our observable universe represent only a minuscule fraction of the galaxies in the universe. According to the theory of cosmic inflation and its founder, Alan Guth, if it is assumed that inflation began about 10-37 seconds after the Big Bang, then with the plausible assumption that the size of the universe at this time was approximately equal to the speed of light times its age, that would suggest that at present the entire universe's size is at least 1023 times larger than the size of the observable universe. [12]If the universe is finite but unbounded, it is also possible that the universe is smaller than the observable universe. In this case, what we take to be very distant galaxies may actually be duplicate images of nearby galaxies, formed by light that has circumnavigated the universe. It is difficult to test this hypothesis experimentally because different images of a galaxy would show different eras in its history, and consequently might appear quite different. A 2004 paper [13] claims to establish a lower bound of 24 giga parsecs (78 billion light-years) on the diameter of the whole universe, meaning the smallest possible diameter for the whole universe would be only slightly smaller than the observable universe (and this is only a lower bound, so the whole universe could be much larger, even infinite). This value is based on matching-circle analysis of the WMAP data; this approach has been disputed. [14]"

en.wikipedia.org



To: Cogito who wrote (179284)1/14/2012 10:27:04 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water  Respond to of 542122
 
Yup, the concept of nothingness boggles the mind--if it is nothingness.