What is the Universe expanding into..

Do you think there was anything before the big bang?

  • I don't think there was anything before the Big Bang

    Votes: 56 12.5%

  • I think something existed before the Big Bang

    Votes: 200 44.7%

  • I don't think the big bang happened

    Votes: 54 12.1%

  • I think the universe is part of a mutiverse

    Votes: 201 45.0%
  • Total voters
    447
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#5,141
I had a great time with the semi-classical Rydberg Hydrogen Atom. -13.6eV work constant to 1S ground state.

Created 5 main series of Spectral Lines. You can see them in the Sun and Stars: Lyman, Balmer, Paschen, Brackett and Pfund! Still remember them. 😀

Interestingly and surprisingly, 1S and 2S "spherical" orbitals have zero angular momentum. So a 2S can't decay to a 1S. No angular momentum to make a photon, you see. But an "elliptical" 2P can decay to a 1S.
 
#5,142
Bonsai said:
The problem is it takes an enormous amount of effort and an uncommon intelligence to be a leading scientist in a given field. I envy these people and I am jelous, but I respect them because when I look around at how we live today in terms of STEM that we take for granted, its because of these folk.

Its just too easy to dismiss science because an individual is intellectually lazy, or not equipped, to understand this it. I am 64, and remember kids popping off (at least one every 1-2 years at the schools I was at) from leukaemia. By the time my kids went to school it was rare and nowadays very rare.


Lots of other stuff as well. We don't get these huge changes by denying science.

🙂
Click to expand...
No doubt, genius comes with effort. I think you probably used the wrong phrase..I am not jealous or envious of the dedication one commits to in reaching scientific mile stones. I am grateful to those with the wherewithal to serve us in this way. But we all suffer from the human condition and notoriety can and does get in the way. Holding out for proof is not the same as denial. If that was the case, we'd still be in the dark ages.
 
#5,143
system7 said:
We used to detect particles every month in Physics "A" Level. 🙂

Millikan's Oil drop experiment for electrons, which came in discrete chunks of "e" charge.
Click to expand...
Was part of your task to actually calculate the charge on the electron using your measurements? Did you already know a previously measured value? These questions come to mind from reading about the experiments made after Millikan to make such measurements, as told by Richard Feynman in his "Cargo Cult Science" talk. Later measurements weren't a "scatter plot" around the now-accepted value that one might expect, but rather they asymptotically approached it from Millikan's value!

I find that talk and some other writings so compelling from a scientific point of view that I've put links in the pinned tweet on my Twitter account:
https://twitter.com/ben__bradley/status/1345531954867941376
 
#5,145
Discopete said:
Holding out for proof is not the same as denial. If that was the case, we'd still be in the dark ages.
Click to expand...
I suggest you read this essay:

Science: Not just for scientists | Science | The Guardian

I think you will agree with much of its contents.

"It is vital that the processes and products of science are readily available for the public to understand and interrogate. This is not to say that science isn’t regulated. One of the distinctive strengths of science is peer review; the process by which scientists hold each other to account.

This self-governance undoubtedly strengthens research but it shouldn’t absolve the rest of us from the responsibility to challenge and improve the science being done on our behalf."
Click to expand...
 
#5,147
benb said:
Later measurements weren't a "scatter plot" around the now-accepted value that one might expect, but rather they asymptotically approached it from Millikan's value!
Click to expand...
In Millikan's notes, certain specific drops were omitted. It has been said that he considered them to be obvious errors, because they veered away from his expected value for the charge of the electron and towards the value of that of his rival, Felix Ehrenhaft. Data on 115 oil drops was omitted from his notes.

However, close scrutiny shows that when he thought his measurements were 'wrong', due to his apparatus not working 'right', he threw out measurements that were not only close to his own calculation, but also those that were close to his rival's calculation.

His big error was that he claimed that "no drop" had been omitted. He didn't have to pretend that he included every drop, and yet he did. He didn't actually 'cheat', but a lot of scandal ensued.

Did a Case of Scientific Misconduct Win the Nobel Prize for Physics?
 
Last edited:
#5,148
For a very light but entertaining introduction to Quantum Theory may I suggest

Introducing Quantum Theory: A Graphic Guide (Introducing...) eBook: McEvoy, J.P., Zarate, Oscar: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store

You can get it on Amazon Kindle for about $5 (£3.50 in the UK)

And don't forget Daniel Fleisch's very excellent 'A Students Guide to . . . ' series covering Schrodinger's equation and Maxwell's equations.

There isn't a Paul Dirac equation Students Guide book AFAIK because no one would be able to follow it 😀

Here' s a nice practical Maxwell's equations intro
 

Attachments

Last edited:
#5,149
I would say it's a bit idealistic. The demographic is just not there for science at these levels to be all inclusive. Whatever transparency is lacking should definitely be taken to task, though. I'm satisfied with peer review comprising the regulatory angle. But that's what has to be published as verification. However the top of the pyramid leaves little by which to be scrutinized. I get that. Time is of the essence, right?



The question that article immediately brings to mind in reference to trust is regarding climate science. Not long ago it was 50/50 in terms of assigning culpability to humans for climate change. For that matter there was fierce debate on whether climate change was even a real thing. What is the breakdown now? How many scientists are firmly anchored in Big Business's back pocket?
 
#5,150
Discopete said:
How many scientists are firmly anchored in Big Business's back pocket?
Click to expand...
Next thing you'll be telling me is that the world is full of greed and corruption! 😱

That's not something I regard to be pertinent to this thread so will be moving back to contemplating where science has taken us, and will take us in the future.

Perhaps to the very edge of the universe - and beyond!
 

Attachments

  • Beyond the Universe.jpg
    Beyond the Universe.jpg
    834.2 KB · Views: 68
Last edited:
#5,156
for the rocket scientists amongst us, her is the full technical report on the Saturn 5 ropcket written by one of its senior designers Walter Haeussermann, one of the guys the US took after WWII. It also discusses the computer used.

Amazing what they could achieve with 32k of memory and 3700 metric tons of thrust (at lift-off)!

Saturn V Rocket Performance Report

Little bit of vector calculus somewhere in there as well. Should keep Steve happy!
 
Last edited:
#5,160
Galu said:
Perhaps to the very edge of the universe - and beyond!
Click to expand...


Thinking about that about that. Is there an edge to the universe, to an outside observer?

What might it appear as, to an observer here, if a bubble universe ploughed into or against ours, since ours seems to be everywhere?

Are the compacted dimensions postulated here wreckage from another collision or other collisions?

If there are indeed other bubble universes, or microfoam universes, what lies between them and us?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom