Scale of the Universe 2.

[Arm0r]

Really cool little flash game that lets you navigate and learn from the smallest things in our universe to the most vast.   The lay out is the coolest part to me.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/589217

[ex]

Saw a space special last year.  Said the size of the non-visible universe is to the visible universe is as the visible universe is to a single atom.  This puts that idea on a awesome interactive scale.  Amazing stuff.

[quadz]

Saw a space special last year.  Said the size of the non-visible universe is to the visible universe is as the visible universe is to a single atom. 

Hmm, not sure what they would have meant by that.

These are the proportions I've seen discussed lately:

[ex]

Saw a space special last year.  Said the size of the non-visible universe is to the visible universe is as the visible universe is to a single atom. 

Hmm, not sure what they would have meant by that.

These are the proportions I've seen discussed lately:

They meant the size of the universe we can see is equivalent to the size of an atom, while the size of the parts we can't see is equivalent to our observable universe.

Of course, I've heard recent ideas running right along-side that say the universe is a soccer-ball shape and not too much bigger than what we can observe now.

I lean towards the first idea.  The idea of the universe being not too much bigger than what we've already observed doesn't do it for me.  The whole idea of light bending around giant circular walls reflecting light from dead stars, galaxies, and other objects from countless eons ago seems a little far-fetched IMHO.  Don't get me wrong, I think it's POSSIBLE, but not very probable.  It's far more probable that the universe is a beastly huge thing, far bigger than what some are thinking now.  They're going down the wrong path on this one.

However, I am convinced that the universe is finite.  I agree with the concept that an infinite universe has problems existing (the main problem being an infinite number of stars, which would fill the entire sky and incinerate us).  I just disagree that it's only 2-4 times bigger than what we can observe now, which is what some of the big science-heads are saying now.

[quadz]

They meant the size of the universe we can see is equivalent to the size of an atom, while the size of the parts we can't see is equivalent to our observable universe.

Right, I understand what it means in English...  Just wondering on which principles or calculations such a statement would be based.

It's far more probable that the universe is a beastly huge thing, far bigger than what some are thinking now.  They're going down the wrong path on this one.

Probable, based on ...?

BTW, when you say 'universe', do you mean the one that coincides with the Big Bang theory?  Or some other meaning of universe?

[ex]

Not totally sure what calculations they used, but my best guess is that they used the idea of what has been discovered, usually uncovers a LOT more than we didn't know was there.  I tend to lean towards this theory simply because it allows for a larger margin of error.  If I'm wrong, the universe is compact, relatively speaking; fine.  If I'm right, the universe has barely been discovered, and I like that idea a lot more than the idea that we've got it figured out.  Because most the time, we simply don't.

That's what I meant by probable...science has shown us over and over again that every time we discover what we think is the "end" of a topic, all the sudden we open a Pandora's box and discover that we now only know less than 1% of the topic we were sure we "knew" completely.

Just better to keep the ideas of space-time open, as we don't really know what's going on, we're just guessing.

edit:  Yes, I do mean the Universe as we "know" it, based on the Big Bang theory.  To my knowledge, that's the main theory to which 99% of scientists agree, right?

[quadz]

Not totally sure what calculations they used, but my best guess is that they used the idea of what has been discovered, usually uncovers a LOT more than we didn't know was there.  I tend to lean towards this theory simply because it allows for a larger margin of error.  If I'm wrong, the universe is compact, relatively speaking; fine.  If I'm right, the universe has barely been discovered, and I like that idea a lot more than the idea that we've got it figured out.  Because most the time, we simply don't.

That's what I meant by probable...science has shown us over and over again that every time we discover what we think is the "end" of a topic, all the sudden we open a Pandora's box and discover that we now only know less than 1% of the topic we were sure we "knew" completely.

Just better to keep the ideas of space-time open, as we don't really know what's going on, we're just guessing.

Unfortunately, I find what you've written above completely indistinguishable from a Tubby post.

You seem to have taken the most celebrated aspect of science -- as a tool that allows us to toil at the boundaries of our ignorance and incrementally expand the frontiers of human knowledge -- and turned it into: "there's so much we don't know that we haven't learned anything and everything is possible."

And appear to have arrived at that position by way of the most tired cliches and misperceptions: (1) the notion that physicists are repeatedly claiming to have reached the "end" of a topic; (2) the notion that new discoveries tend to overturn and invalidate previously well-tested theories.

Neither of which happens to be true.

Of course our ignorance about the universe is vast.  And of course, with hard work and good fortune, we'll continue to discover surprising and interesting new things about space and time.

But: such new discoveries tend to complement and augment our existing well-tested theories, not render them invalid.

edit:  Yes, I do mean the Universe as we "know" it, based on the Big Bang theory.  To my knowledge, that's the main theory to which 99% of scientists agree, right?

Well, then things get interesting.  Because the Big Bang theory makes predictions which have implications about the size and age of the universe, and these are predictions which are consistently being confirmed by experiment.

So if you're talking about a universe which vastly exceeds the one described by the Big Bang, then you're going to need a theory which includes everything the Big Bang already explains.

That's why I asked what you meant by the term "universe".

I presume you're familiar with the 'metaverse' hypothesis, wherein our own universe would be just one bubble among a multitude of such universes, being spawned by quantum fluctuations?

That's not yet a testable hypothesis, but it does allow for something beyond our own universe without conflicting with existing discoveries.

[ex]

Well, kinda a low blow to go to the Tubby level.

I wasn't saying that either theory is invalid, simply that I lean towards the idea that our universe has a lot more still yet to be discovered, instead of the conflated view that the boundary of the universe is soon to be closed in upon.  It's my opinion, quadz, and that's pretty shitty that you would respond to it in this way.  I thought I made that pretty obvious it's what I personally thought, not that I was invalidating anyone else's opinions or theories, just that I think it's this way personally.  What's wrong with having my personal opinions on this topic?  I love space-time topics, I think they're great, I've studied them my whole life.

I believe our "universe" is a mix-mesh of several theories.  I do believe the Big Bang happened.  I also believe that the universe is an ever-expanding bubble that will eventually pop.  I also believe in the ideas of String theory and quantum physics, just that we've only scratched the surface of these ideas.  We still don't have a explanation for why Black Holes mathematically work out to infinity.  Infinity as a number in a math equation throws the entire thing on its head, and it's things like that which let me know we have a long way to go...which I'm all for, continue the pursuit of knowledge, it's the only way our race may survive longer than what was naturally intended.

I'm surprised at you quadz.  You seem like a level-headed guy, not sure why you felt the need to go to the Tubby level.  I'm not ignorant on this topic.  :/

[ex]

BTW, what I meant earlier by physicists reaching the "end" of a topic was that what they ORIGINALLY thought would be the "end" turned out to be not anywhere near.  That didn't mean I was saying their thoughts were wrong, just not complete.

I love science topics, for the love of god don't align me with Tubby.  lol

[peewee_RotA]

Sounds like there's some mundane argument going on here that I have not yet inserted myself into.


http://www.cracked.com/article_19662_6-real-planets-that-put-science-fiction-to-shame_p2.html?fb_ref=like&fb_source=home_oneline


O.k., carry on.

[fdrjk]

I'm not ignorant on this topic. 

So I take it you're a physicist/astronomer?

[ex]

In my spare time. 

[peewee_RotA]

He's an ex astonaut

[reaper]

Because the Big Bang theory makes predictions which have implications about the size and age of the universe, and these are predictions which are consistently being confirmed by experiment.

My understanding is that theories related to the big bang have mass clumping together at points at the start of the expansion, predicited via relativities universal laws, then you make measurements of gaps between these clumps, and therefore the current edge of the universe can be measured.  I don't think this is related to the size or age of the universe in any shape or form though, in any event "confirmation" of the "universe" is an enormous stretch.  If anything the science has "integrated" itself with religion through theories like the big bang.  While it's an interesting and impressive calculation, it's not very impressive when compared to god.

[quadz]

Well, kinda a low blow to go to the Tubby level.

Indeed.  I almost edited it out before posting, but ... then I kept re-reading what you wrote.    So I left it in for shock value.

I lean towards the idea that our universe has a lot more still yet to be discovered

Who doesn't?  

I wasn't saying that either theory is invalid, simply that I lean towards the idea that our universe has a lot more still yet to be discovered, instead of the conflated view that the boundary of the universe is soon to be closed in upon.  It's my opinion, quadz, and that's pretty shitty that you would respond to it in this way.  I thought I made that pretty obvious it's what I personally thought, not that I was invalidating anyone else's opinions or theories, just that I think it's this way personally.  What's wrong with having my personal opinions on this topic?

I think I see where the disconnect is occurring:

I don't consider myself qualified to hold opinions about any aspect of theoretical cosmology.

All I can really do is try to achieve a layman's understanding of existing theories, what predictions these theories make, how they've been experimentally verified and to what degree of precision, how they've been attempted to be falsified, and what physicists have to say about their expectation of future discoveries and what sorts of problems they're currently grappling with.

If I attempt to reason about the implications of any of these theories, it is an attempt to say, "if I've understood correctly, then _______ ?"  I would not be expressing an opinion, but rather my best understanding, and as such I would surely wish to be corrected if my understanding were flawed.

You asked, "What's wrong with having my personal opinions on this topic?"  It seems to me the danger may be that one's opinions might be resistant to criticism.