|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 23, 2010 22:08:16 GMT 1
Looking at Prof. Robert Winston's programme about the top ten scientific breakthroughs of the past 50 years tonight (BBC 1, 8.00pm, 23/12/2010), the one about the BB raised the problem of what the universe is expanding into. The expert Robert questioned said it could be that we are expanding into some kind of hyperspace in a multiverse, so the entrenched idea (by at least some cosmologists) that the BB is actually creating time and space from absolutely nothing could well be a naive one. STA, where is your assertion that there was nothing pre-existing the BB now? I seemed to have been right all the time.  www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00x13kj/How_Science_Changed_Our_World/ |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jan 5, 2011 14:00:11 GMT 1
<quote>...the one about the BB raised the problem of what the universe is expanding into</quote>
It is only a PROBLEM if you start from a misconception -- that for something to expand (or bend), there has to be something into which it does the expanding (or bending). That is just plain wrong.
There MAY be a hyperspace outside our own, but that is NOT because of the misconception above. And there are various alternative cosmologies (such as the ekpyrotic universe) that have a different picture.
But that doesn't mean you were right all along, just that you are still wrong for the same reason as you were wrong before -- in assuming that an expanding space needs something into which it expands.
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 5, 2011 17:02:48 GMT 1
<quote>...the one about the BB raised the problem of what the universe is expanding into</quote> It is only a PROBLEM if you start from a misconception -- that for something to expand (or bend), there has to be something into which it does the expanding (or bending). That is just plain wrong. There MAY be a hyperspace outside our own, but that is NOT because of the misconception above. And there are various alternative cosmologies (such as the ekpyrotic universe) that have a different picture. But that doesn't mean you were right all along, just that you are still wrong for the same reason as you were wrong before -- in assuming that an expanding space needs something into which it expands. You seem to be shifting your ground here, STA. You seem to want to make people think that the spacetime universe we are familiar with is somehow an independent and unconnected part of a possible greater whole. This strikes me as being a rather parochial view of cosmology as it will probably be found in time that there is a universe of universes of which ours may be just one. The ekpyrotic universe idea does not seem to be supported by the current data, although I'm not saying it's wrong, just that the multiverse model provides a better mathematical fit. |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jan 5, 2011 19:14:06 GMT 1
Not at all. I'm just saying the SIMPLEST model is an expanding universe not expanding INTO anything, and not part of any larger construct. Which always comes along with the misconception that is if something is expanding, it must be expanding into something.
There are obviously more complicated models, where our universe is part of something larger, but you can't properly understand these more complicated models unless you can first get your head round the simplest models, and until you can get your head round the (non-)problem of what our universe is expanding into. You still seem to think this is a problem, that is answered by the hyperspace/multiverse ideas, which is just plain wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 5, 2011 20:20:21 GMT 1
Not at all. I'm just saying the SIMPLEST model is an expanding universe not expanding INTO anything, and not part of any larger construct. Which always comes along with the misconception that is if something is expanding, it must be expanding into something. There are obviously more complicated models, where our universe is part of something larger, but you can't properly understand these more complicated models unless you can first get your head round the simplest models, and until you can get your head round the (non-)problem of what our universe is expanding into. You still seem to think this is a problem, that is answered by the hyperspace/multiverse ideas, which is just plain wrong. I find it quite astonishing that you can dismiss a more complex and subtle interpretation of what the universe is when many able physicists/cosmologists cannot. Or, are you reverting to your well known tactic of invalidating what I have to say on the subject because I'm not really 'one of you?' Have we returned to the 'dog in the manger' approach you like to employ whenever you wish to belittle someones ideas? Even Brian Cox wouldn't agree with you here. |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jan 6, 2011 14:09:16 GMT 1
I didn't dismiss it, I just said that you have to understand the SIMPLE stuff (like why it is not necessary for there to be something into which the universe expands), before you can even attempt to understand the more complicated stuff.
I suggest you also learn the meaning of 'necessary'..............
|
|
