No, what I'm suggesting is the models or collective Model comprising accepted theories must be built upon with building blocks that suit it until whatever one comes up with must be true because it fits. And it does appear that the pieces of the puzzle do get trimmed to make them fit.
Sure, a model often gets adjusted by its modelers to better conform to observations.
This is called fine tuning (at least in physics). Free parameters that can be adjusted indicate an incomplete theory,
such as the "standard model" of particle physics. That sucker has around 18 or more free parameters.
Few scientists confuse a model with reality.
Normally, I'm an acoustics, music and audio guy. But this "space/universe" topic has always fascinated me, ever since I was a little kid.
Skipping past the "near universe", such as our galaxy, and go out to seriously deep space - other galaxies, where does it end? Does it end? What is "space"? Is it a physical thing of some sort? Or, is it beyond our current ability to understand what it is? Really, what is "space"?
I'm just sayin'/askin'.
Skipping past the "near universe", such as our galaxy, and go out to seriously deep space - other galaxies, where does it end? Does it end? What is "space"? Is it a physical thing of some sort? Or, is it beyond our current ability to understand what it is? Really, what is "space"?
I'm just sayin'/askin'.
Last edited:
Definitely there's no physical end to space, though it could curve back on itself, and be closed instead of open.
We don't really know. Space (and time) could have been formed together from "something else".
We have to speak of "spacetime" rather than space or time separately, since they are intimately related (Einstein).
Present theory has an error of 10^120 for the vacuum energy, so there's some way to go for improvement.
Last edited:
Your first sentence is simply describing the 'Scientific Method'.
I can't entirely disagree with your second sentence as there have been instances where experimental results may have been 'selected' to match a hypothesis (Robert Millikan's selection of his oil drop results comes to mind).This Month in Physics History
Fortunately, subsequent experiments are always carried out to confirm or deny the results of the original experiment.
Attachments
It's certainly beyond my ability to understand it! Spacetime (it's not just "space") is a mathematical model understood only by mathematical maestros!
Try getting your head round this! Mathematical Theory of Space-Time | OMICS International
Attachments
I think it is not granted to us to know and understand the answers to the questions being talked about here. If we were to actually grasp the origins of existence, we would set up the sequence of it's destruction.
i
i
It's very unlikely that we could destroy the universe, even in the far future, if our entire civilization
devoted itself to doing so. We are far less than insignificant on that scale.
I suppose we made a start on that in 1926 when British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington suggested that stars draw their energy from the fusion of hydrogen into helium.
This led to the first test of the hydrogen bomb in 1952.
Oh I think we would find a way. It would be our first priority. We would need some help of course but it wouldn't be too hard to find.
I agreed, we can't blow up even our tiny planet Earth:
newtonian gravity - How much energy would it take to blow up the Earth? - Physics Stack Exchange
Humanity, overconfidence is your name!
I don't think we can destroy planet earth even if we tried. Well, it could be a nasty place for "a while" but would for sure do a come back once the humans are gone. To me it doesnt maytter so much - I could see a more successful variant of life... or rather.. mind, for an "intelligent" specie.
As it is believed that the universe expanded rather than really exploded, there should be matter even in "ground zero" as opposed to an explosion where GZ is pretty empty after the bang. In any case of an expansion or a explosion, I think we can assume that it was spherical symmetric. Why wouldn't it? So our observable universe is at the most something like half of the involved matter/energy looking at the direction towards GZ. Surely there must be a direction towards GZ and from GZ. But if it is circular both directions point to the same place...
I'm getting tired... gaaasp... 🙂
//
As it is believed that the universe expanded rather than really exploded, there should be matter even in "ground zero" as opposed to an explosion where GZ is pretty empty after the bang. In any case of an expansion or a explosion, I think we can assume that it was spherical symmetric. Why wouldn't it? So our observable universe is at the most something like half of the involved matter/energy looking at the direction towards GZ. Surely there must be a direction towards GZ and from GZ. But if it is circular both directions point to the same place...
I'm getting tired... gaaasp... 🙂
//
Last edited:
"I don't think we can destroy planet earth even if we tried. Well, it could be a nasty place for "a while" but would for sure do a come back once the humans are gone."
Yup. And, "a while" could be several million years - but you're right - it'll come back and start all over again - probably a little differently.
Yup. And, "a while" could be several million years - but you're right - it'll come back and start all over again - probably a little differently.
"It's space itself that is expanding"
!!!
Then, we have to ask the question: What IS space?
Is it "something", or what? If it's expanding, then, it IS, in our collective minds, something.
This question continues to fascinate me.
!!!
Then, we have to ask the question: What IS space?
Is it "something", or what? If it's expanding, then, it IS, in our collective minds, something.
This question continues to fascinate me.
Last edited:
If there's no center and it's uniform, there must be a geometric model. If not, in what context/definition is there no center and uniform. You simply cannot have expansion in every direction without a singularity in a physical realm and the Universe is a physical realm. So please describe how you visualize this in your mind's eye.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.