The Thinking Man's Universe: Part 1 of 3, Rules of Cosmology

[kellyaesmith]

to infinity and beond



[watsisname]

Very good video, thanks for sharing. :)

If I may ask a question, I am curious if there are any proposed methods of observing or somehow determining what the nature of the structure above "Big Bang" size would be. Naturally the expansion of the universe creates a boundary that we cannot beyond, because objects past the boundary are receding faster than light, and since the expansion rate is increasing there's little hope of those objects ever coming into view.

Any thoughts are appreciated. :)

[watsisname]

@watsisname

Oops, I should have watched the other 2 parts before asking that, my apologies.

[TheGodofReason]

@watsisname

Well, actually the other two posts don't mention the prevailing methods for seeing some possible shape to the Big Bang. Currently it is the frequency of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation that is used to determine any "shape" to the Big Bang. Right now everybody is falling all over themselves trying to confirm total homogeneity. But sooner or later, an accurate enough satellite detector will produce a CMB radiation profile that will tell the tale.

[watsisname]

@TheGodofReason

Indeed. Hopefully the Planck mission will reveal something interesting to that effect. :)

My guess is that the expansion we see in our universe is just a "local" phenomenon, and that it's just part of a much larger structure that contains areas that either expand or contract, like a roiling foam.

May or may not be true, but it both fits with Bayesian logic, and would help explain the flatness problem without relying on inflation at least.

[PaulRietvoorn]

nice

[artilary6]

Absolutely brilliant. I think the same way (not braggin). It only makes perfect sense that our known and visible universe is not all that there is. Equally interesting is the idea that subatomic particles are likely made up from yet smaller and smaller particles, maybe eventually dwindling down to nothing material at all.

[tatsumakisempyukaku]

by universe, if this guy is referring to our space/time domain of existence, then it is not virtually infinite. Our universe, that part that we come to know via the senses, has limits. It can only get as small as 10^-33cm. Anything smaller than that loses locality and becomes everywhere. Even the smallest unit/quanta of time is 10^-43 seconds. The point being that there are observable limits in our macro & micro world. We live in a digital simulation. It's like we're in a game or matrix

[TheGodofReason]

You are incorrect, my friend. Those two Plank values you cite are only where the math we use to model the universe fails to make any sense. In the real world we have no idea at all what might exist that those scales. The only limits we have discovered are the limitations of our own instruments to observe the universe.

[tatsumakisempyukaku]

inductive reasoning just does not have the force that deductive reasoning has. And it never will because inductive reason is an a posteriori way of thinking. Whereas, deductive reasoning is an a priori way. That's why we do not need empiracle data/observation to verify mathematics, logic

[TheGodofReason]

You need to review the definitions of your terms.  Deductive reasoning is about the hard data at hand. These videos are about the most probable nature of the data beyond our purview. This necessarily requires inductive reasoning. In fact almost all theorizing requires inductive reasoning. Much of the Big Bang is based on inductive reasoning.

[tatsumakisempyukaku]

the first part of this vid is talking about nothing more than inductive reasoning. However, inductive reasoning is flawed because it never gives you 100% certain results. That's why every single scientific conclusion in the past has been wrong and if we apply baye's theorem to that phenomena, we can safely "assume" that every current and future scientific conclusion will be wrong..Not that science is not practical,but induction has limits. Check out John hagelin on consciousness on youtube.

[TheGodofReason]

That not a very accurate way to look at the succession of theories. Newton's law was not found to be "wrong". It was found to be insufficient to model all the observable behavior of the universe. It was relegated as a special case of the more generalized model of Relativity. It is the succession of ever more generally applicable models over more locally relevant models that will characterize the next century of progress (if we don't kill ourselves off in the mean time, that is.).

[wisam1987]

brilliant

[SuperNerd1973]

It's like watching the Mr. Garrison Show, M'kay. Where's Mr. Hand?

[TheGodofReason]

Unless you have some specific argument or counter proposal, you're sitting on him.

[artificial3g]

Man's universe??Litsen 2 ya.

[TheGodofReason]

Mea culpa. The Thinking (Wo)Man's Universe. Even the implication of the possessive nature of understanding is suspect. I give.  I'll change the name.

[Niveous23]

I see people saying the "universe is more complex than YOU are capable of understanding" in the replies.

That sounds , at least to me, someone hugging their idea and bashing someone's other point.

I'm not too smart, but I try to pay attention to science. And I do enjoy philosophy. The idea that man should at the very least consider an infinite chain and that they won't get an immediate or a possible long term specific answer is humbling.

And a little humility is good.

[TheGodofReason]

And it's in pretty short supply. Thanks for weighing in. -Mike

[SourcesAreEverything]

Niveous23, I believe what is meant by that statement, or at least should be meant by it, is that the universe may be more complicated and strange than WE are capable of understanding at the moment. I find that line of thinking to be very humbling :-)

[creamsykle]

My thought process was always very similar to what youre describing; thanks for helping me better understand my own thoughts.

[TheGodofReason]

You welcome.  It's a pretty intuitive adjustment, and doesn't really take any technical liberties other than to presume a larger scope. later, C. -M

[YogiToad]

Such men as you TGR are needed in the world, men who can have an expanded perception out of the box. We are a kindred spirit you and I.

[TheGodofReason]

Thanks, 'Toad. Nice of you to say. And actually, it's Mike. The God of Reason is a reference to our over reliance on rational thought and is the title to a book I wrote. Sometime I need to rename my site. The God of Reason sounds way arrogant when exactly the opposite is what I intending. Later YT.

[NMFUntouchable]

You are suggesting that the scientific method should be thrown out and we should adopt a philosophical approach and assume answers because they fit rules someone thinks up.

The reason our ideas change is because we develop experiments that give us new information. We use that information to build upon.

But I will agree that this universe is far more complex than YOU are capable of understanding.

[TheGodofReason]

I am suggesting that the scientific method says that the 40 orders of material hierarchy of the universe outweighs the 2 orders of homogeneity at the scale of galactic clustering. If the cosmological principle is good science, then the hierarchical principle is great science.

That you have devised an idealized model of a homogeneous universe means nothing. We always idealize our models to fit the local evidence, and they always change to accommodate the new data that lies just out of sight.

[YogiToad]

I never heard him once say that the scientific method be thrown out so your argument is a straw dog. Also, have you ever heard of Bulk Space? No, then I guess the universe is much more complex than YOU are capable of understanding also.

[ScenesFromPalacio]

Thanks for opening my mind to a whole new way of thinking..I've got no background of astronomy and am a total layman but i can understand the principle you describe..Thanks for being so eloquent and understandable..Great stuff!

I'm moving to part 2 :)

[TheGodofReason]

You know, Scenes, I'm really happy to hear that, and happy that you are going to view the next video, but part 2 to turns out to be a little boring for the average Joe. It's more a technical defense of my position to cosmologists than it is a further development. You (and anyone else who's just wanting the hear the "idea "parts) should skip to part 3. Later -M

[TheGodofReason]

I've swapped the titles and hence the positions of the 2nd and 3rd videos.

[soupdragon42]

OK, It seems I was a little hasty in sniping this approach. Interesting. I will dig further. DVD

[soupdragon42]

The Big Bang is dead. Get over it!

[TheGodofReason]

I'm way ahead of you. My position is that, even if the red-shift data actually indicates mutual group recession, the Big Bang is just a local little pop. The third video shows several alternative scenarios.

I even like the new steady state theories where galaxies spawn new little galaxies all the time in a fractally evolving expansion. In fact the main thrust of the whole series is precisely that the Big Bang as currently proposed is dead. (You just looked at the title shot, didn't you?)

[FreiheitKampfer]

Bayes' Theorem cannot tell you that the universe is infinite, it can only tell you that it is very probably much larger than we observe.

Nor can it tell you that you can get infinitely smaller particles, it can only tell you that it is probable that we will continue to find smaller parts.

[TheGodofReason]

That's true. (Actually I say we should consider it "virtually" infinite.) But for the purposes of the video what you say is both correct and sufficient. What is important is that we can be fairly confident that that there is at least one more structure beyond the Big Bang (and probably many more).

[FreiheitKampfer]

Bayes' Theorem cannot tell you that the universe is infinite, it can only tell you that it is very probably much larger than we observe.

Nor can it tell you that you can get infinitely smaller particles, it can only tell you that it is probable that we will continue to find smaller parts.