PDA

View Full Version : Is Universe expansion accelerating to prevent information going all the way around?



WaxRubiks
2007-Oct-25, 05:14 PM
In another thread, a while ago, Ken G said that light/information could travel all the way around a hypersphere type universe unless the universe expansion was accelerating. Or I think that is what he said.

And I thought/wondered whether this might actually be the reason why the Universe expansion is accelerating. That it is a funny kind of hypersphere where it would be impossible for information to go all the way around the 3D(or what ever) balloon surface. Perhaps this is the reason for the Universe expanding in the first place.

Is this possible?

speedfreek
2007-Oct-25, 05:21 PM
But why would the universe want to stop information going all the way around?

Noclevername
2007-Oct-25, 05:37 PM
The idea that the Universe has to have a specific "purpose" for being the way it is is a human fallacy, based on our tendency to anthropomorphicize everything. Our brains are hardwired to deal with other humans, so our minds assign human characteristics to nonhuman factors. The Universe has no wants, needs, desires, goals, or purpose. It just is.

Argos
2007-Oct-25, 06:01 PM
But why would the universe want to stop information going all the way around?

Isnt it what they call the Cosmic Censorship?

John Mendenhall
2007-Oct-25, 07:18 PM
But why would the universe want to stop information going all the way around?

Because it makes God dizzy when it goes all the way around.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-25, 07:25 PM
The information going out keeps pushing on the walls of the universe, causing it to expand. :D

speedfreek
2007-Oct-25, 07:53 PM
Isnt it what they call the Cosmic Censorship?

Heh, if only! :) Cosmic Censorship is the theory that, within this universe, all singularities have to be hidden by an event horizon.

Argos
2007-Oct-25, 08:31 PM
Heh, if only! :) Cosmic Censorship is the theory that, within this universe, all singularities have to be hidden by an event horizon.

OK then... :)

I got a long way to go until Im able to make a convincing humor in English...

Noclevername
2007-Oct-25, 09:45 PM
OK then... :)

I got a long way to go until Im able to make a convincing humor in English...

Well, I thought it was funny.

speedfreek
2007-Oct-25, 10:31 PM
OK then... :)

I got a long way to go until Im able to make a convincing humor in English...

I thought it was funny too, hence my "Heh, if only (that were true!)" :) I'm from the east end of London, and some of my ways of phrasing things may not come across properly either!

I posted the actual definition just in case the anyone took you seriously :whistle:

Bogie
2007-Oct-25, 11:48 PM
...Is this possible?
Well, it is possible.

There is no proof that it is a human fallacy to think such a thing anymore than there is any proof that such thing a thing is true. It is human to contemplate the imponderables :). I bet if we are not alone in the universe that it is natural for intelligent beings everywhere to consider such possibilities. Even those who consider it a human fallacy had to think about it long enough to decide for themselves.

It may be that it has always been natural that intelligent individuals contemplate the imponderables and then make individual decisions as to what they believe. Even given the likely hood that the universe and life has always existed (no creation), any worthy God would have always existed too, right.

It is a personal decision and even with everyone on the internet having an opinion, you cant get the answer from someone else.

Jerry
2007-Oct-26, 12:10 AM
I know a scientist who is keeping alive a personal (private) hypothesis that we are really in a Matrix-like environment. Some of the evidence they site includes the original near-sightedness of the Hubble telescope, the failure the Galileo telescope to deploy, the poor resolution of the images from Titan and so on: The makers of this world have to expand memory every time the resolution is increased. It's a fun exercise to play with this, albeit borders on paranoia.

spuntieri
2007-Oct-26, 12:16 AM
According to Hubble the universe is expanding as indicated by the red shift...
so shouldn't some objects be blue shifted giving some indication of the center of the big bang? I have never heard any mention of this. If you have any info regarding this please share otherwise think about it, interesting huh.

Bogie
2007-Oct-26, 12:49 AM
According to Hubble the universe is expanding as indicated by the red shift...
so shouldn't some objects be blue shifted giving some indication of the center of the big bang? I have never heard any mention of this. If you have any info regarding this please share otherwise think about it, interesting huh.Even if there was a center of expansion and an edge of the universe we wouldn't be able to tell. Of course there is the event horizon thing that keeps the edge out of sight, but even without that, expansion is not like an explosion where things move away from each other at different rates as you recede from the center. In an expansion everything moves away from everything else at the same rate as in the following example:

Say the universe expands at a rate of 10% in a given period from time 1 to time 2. If objects A and B were 1,000 light years apart at T1, and objects C and D were 1,000,000 light years apart at T1, then A and B would be 1,100 light years apart at T2 and C and D would be 1,100,000 light years apart at T2 regardless of where they were positioned within the expanding entity relative to each other or relative to the center (which would be undetectable).

Kaptain K
2007-Oct-26, 12:51 AM
1) Some objects are blue shifted (M31 in Andromeda for one).

There is no "center of the big bang" or, better yet, every point in the universe is the center! The big bang was not an explosion of matter into space. The big bang was (is) the expansion of space itself!

WaxRubiks
2007-Oct-26, 06:02 AM
The idea that the Universe has to have a specific "purpose" for being the way it is is a human fallacy, based on our tendency to anthropomorphicize everything. Our brains are hardwired to deal with other humans, so our minds assign human characteristics to nonhuman factors. The Universe has no wants, needs, desires, goals, or purpose. It just is.

I didn't really mean that the Universe had a purpose I just meant "want" in the same sense that the ground doesn't "want"your feet to go through it; ie something that physics won't allow.

astromark
2007-Oct-26, 09:38 AM
snip...
Is this possible?[/QUOTE]

No.

astromark
2007-Oct-26, 09:58 AM
"The Universe has no wants, needs, desires, goals, or purpose. It just is." quote..nocleavername.

Oops, This just has been a long friday.... When it is said the universe is turning in on itself. That does not mean it is. Is it flat? that has been used to describe the shape of things and we all can see it can not be. I mean if I can point a telescope in three very opposing directions and still see a sea of galaxies. It is not flat. (looks nervously about for Int designer squad)
To propose that we can not see something that might contradict what is known because it would prove.... No, That's nuts. There is no agenda. The universe does not know or care for whatever happened to the third planet of the solar system. It never did or will. The reason the red shift is the way it is because those are the parameters of the physics of this reality we have named the universe.

WaxRubiks
2007-Oct-26, 10:10 AM
snip...
Is this possible?

No.


you're sure about this are you?

Michael Noonan
2007-Oct-26, 10:12 AM
As all parts can equally be considered the centre and expansion is causing galaxies to move and the velocity the acquired from accretion gives them another vector velocity ... are we stationary or moving?

Expanding = moving
Accretion = moving

Now if we were to take off in a spacecraft and accelerate to 0.5 c light would 'build up' ahead and make space look compressed.

Compressed to what at any point we could consider ourselves stationary if we are not accelerating.

So do we take into 'any' visual account the distortion on galaxies in relation to relative movement?

Noclevername
2007-Oct-26, 11:28 AM
I didn't really mean that the Universe had a purpose I just meant "want" in the same sense that the ground doesn't "want"your feet to go through it; ie something that physics won't allow.

Well, we are still in the process of figuring that one out. The lightspeeed limitation of information is one most physicists are pretty sure of. The FTL expansion of the Universe is consistent with the Big Bang theory, but whether it's still happening now, and to what degree, is unclear. And in this case information refers to all patterns and products of positive entropy, such as the separation of forces and the formation of matter. We have no clue if anything like that is happpening at the farthest edges of the Universe.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-26, 11:41 AM
In another thread, a while ago, Ken G said that light/information could travel all the way around a hypersphere type universe unless the universe expansion was accelerating. Or I think that is what he said.

And I thought/wondered whether this might actually be the reason why the Universe expansion is accelerating. That it is a funny kind of hypersphere where it would be impossible for information to go all the way around the 3D(or what ever) balloon surface. Perhaps this is the reason for the Universe expanding in the first place.

Is this possible?

From an anthropic perspective the answer is probabbly Yes, if having information going everywhere is somehow a bad idea. That is, having the information going all the way around must somehow be bad for the universe--it's not a good design somehow.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-26, 12:01 PM
I know a scientist who is keeping alive a personal (private) hypothesis that we are really in a Matrix-like environment. Some of the evidence they site includes the original near-sightedness of the Hubble telescope, the failure the Galileo telescope to deploy, the poor resolution of the images from Titan and so on: The makers of this world have to expand memory every time the resolution is increased. It's a fun exercise to play with this, albeit borders on paranoia.
I once read a philosopher of science (Wimsatt) who said it was physically impossible to create a complete model of the universe on a computer because the computer would have to be bigger than the universe. But if you only have to model one corner of it to keep your little human "Webkins" happy . . .