How does spacetime expand?

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

I'll have to read it again sometime and try to absorb a little bit more.

- Good post btw.

[Schneibster]

Thanks, Jack. We really ought to all be able to understand why the creation of the universe is no longer a gap we can hide a god in, IMHO.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

I agree...But you do understand that the average person (let alone some fundie nutcase who doesn't want to know) has trouble taking all this shit in, right?

[MiM]

Thanks, Jack. We really ought to all be able to understand why the creation of the universe is no longer a gap we can hide a god in, IMHO.

Not that I am in any way apt to hiding gods anywhere, I still think what you posted is only a theory, with a slim chance of hitting anywhere close to what might really have happened. When we approach the very early stages of the universe, all we have is more or less educated guesses ASFAIU.

[Schneibster]

Thanks, Jack. We really ought to all be able to understand why the creation of the universe is no longer a gap we can hide a god in, IMHO.

Not that I am in any way apt to hiding gods anywhere, I still think what you posted is only a theory, with a slim chance of hitting anywhere close to what might really have happened. When we approach the very early stages of the universe, all we have is more or less educated guesses ASFAIU.

Well, that's actually changed in the 21st century (a bit in the 1990s, but most of the research didn't yield fruit until more recently). It was changed by the Hubble, by COBE, and by WMAP. It's not educated guesses any more; there's a lot more information in the CMBR than anyone ever thought even as recently as the 1980s and early 1990s.

For example, it turns out that the background radiation has modes; by identifying the radial frequencies of these modes, and noting which ones cancel and which reinforce, we've been able to come to a number of quite firm conclusions about the topologies the universe can express.

It's very much worth your while to catch up on this stuff; the best source I've seen so far is Susskind's The Cosmic Landscape, Little, Brown, 2005. The stuff I have presented here is a very brief synopsis of the material Susskind presents, and he develops the argument in far, far greater detail.

As recently as five years ago, your argument might have stood; but we're learning new facts at an ever-increasing rate, as we gain more knowledge we gather more technical means to gain yet more knowledge faster. There are experiments underway to detect hypothesized WIMPs by their thermal noise effect on other particles, for example, something we didn't have the equipment to detect reliably as recently as five years ago. If this bears fruit, we will have detected the dark matter.

Fascinating stuff.

[Schneibster]

I agree...But you do understand that the average person (let alone some fundie nutcase who doesn't want to know) has trouble taking all this shit in, right?

Of course. But I expect a better kind here than the general run.

Really, it's the fault of our education system; but also it's the fault of how fast we're learning new stuff. What Master of Science degree holders learned a scant two decades ago is nearly obsolete, as far as understanding the leading edge of research goes these days.

I'm not a big Kurzweil fan, but I have to say that the Singularity seems more likely than not when I look at, for example, the current state of research into Bose-Einstein condensates. Nobody could have imagined that we'd be able to put a macroscopic object into such a state, much less sustain it for more than the briefest of moments.

[MiM]

[... for example, the current state of research into Bose-Einstein condensates. Nobody could have imagined that we'd be able to put a macroscopic object into such a state, much less sustain it for more than the briefest of moments.

Funny you mentioned those. We have(had?) a very succesful cold lab at our university, and one of my friends was very much into looking at those condensates, in late 1980's. I haven't followed his research much, but he is now a professor at a smaller University, where the possibilities to do high notch research, are definitely limited.

[Schneibster]

[... for example, the current state of research into Bose-Einstein condensates. Nobody could have imagined that we'd be able to put a macroscopic object into such a state, much less sustain it for more than the briefest of moments.

Funny you mentioned those. We have(had?) a very succesful cold lab at our university, and one of my friends was very much into looking at those condensates, in late 1980's. I haven't followed his research much, but he is now a professor at a smaller University, where the possibilities to do high notch research, are definitely limited.

That happens too. Pretty quick they're liable to be using BEC chips in computers. Quantum optics is pretty interesting, and much of it involves making lasers propagate in BECs. Pretty cool (sorry).

[Pensioner]

Wow. I think I love you Schneibster! Can you have my children?

That was a terrific post. I am gobsmacked!

Same for me. great stuff I have saved the posts to my hard drive.

[Audley Strange]

Cheers Schneibster, I'm currently working on various elaborate creation myths (don't get uptight, I'm not saying it's a myth) for a project and your post was tip top in that regards.

[Schneibster]

Geez, I'm gonna need a new hat.

Snicker, don't worry, if you call it a myth I'll let it reflect on you.