Slashdot Mirror
The Disappearing Universe
StartsWithABang writes: "If everything began with the Big Bang — from a hot, dense, expanding state — and things have been cooling, spreading out, but slowing down ever since, you might think that means that given enough time (and a powerful enough space ship), we'll eventually be able to reach any other galaxy. But thanks to dark energy, not only is that not the case at all, but most of the galaxies in our Universe are already completely unreachable by us, with more leaving our potential reach all the time. Fascinating, terrifying stuff."
one of the allures for me (and i think a lot of people intrigued with cosmology) is how we can interpret the findings as a macrocosm for our own personal microcosm of awareness and being.
the fact that seemingly inherent in our physical universe is a doctrine of the futility of outward movement (vis a vis reaching a sense of completion or boundary), to me, points to the individual quest for seeking oneself by focusing internally.
Physics graduate student here, and I'd just like to bring something into context before any ./ readers begin an existential crisis.
We don't *KNOW* anything about the dark matter/energy hypothesis yet. They are not well accepted theories like (classical) gravity or electromagnetism, but rather the best answer to questions we don't have any other way of approaching.
Warning: if you subscribe too heavily to these ideas now, you'll be way, way off base later when science starts finding better answers to the accelerating universe and other open questions. This stuff is great for discussion about philosophy and science fiction, but it is far from well accepted science.
Actually this theory says the number of things that could terrify you is disappearing fast. So instead of being comforted by this fact, they are being terrified of running out of things that could terrify them. Universe does seem to be weirder than what you can imagine, indeed!
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
How can that be? I thought nothing could go faster than the speed of light.
Or does the universe not have to obey it's own rule?
We're talking about expansion of space itself, not about a body traveling in that space.
no, I don't have a sig
Much of the idea of wormholes came from the idea that universe might be spherical in topography --- like a hypersphere --- and a wormhole could poke through the hypersphere to create a shorter distance than even a line segment from Point A to Point B.
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question35.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe
But measurements are looking like the universe is flat.
You never know what scientific discoveries the distant future could hold, but at the moment it looks bleak for the concept of wormholes since the universe doesn't seem to be a hypersphere at all.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
"I'm thinking wormholes, warp drives, hyper space."
All of which are are unproven theories. And could be proven to be impracticable (needing an energy the size of a star E stills equals MC^2) or impossible, or dangerous aka destroying the universe.
It may be the Speed of Light is the Speed limit that we cannot break.
In a world where Science Fiction is still fiction, and these wormholes, warp drives, and hyper space are meant as plot devices to move your characters into the story conflict of dealing with something alien. You find that these plot devices are made especially for weekly serial TV or movies with Sequels as you want to keep the same characters time and time again.
Now that said, it doesn't mean we should stop space exploration or trying to break the limits. Even if we could get a fraction of the speed of light say 1/10th the speed of light. We could travel our own solar system as well the sailors of old traveled the oceans. Generational ships can bring us to stars that are within 10 light years of year, and come back to earth without too much diversion of evolution.
Even without having to jump galaxies there is so much in our little neighborhod that we haven't explored.
As per Douglas Adams:
Space is big, I mean really big, you won't believe how mind boggling huge it is. You think it is a far way to the chemist? That is just peanuts to space, listen!
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It's not really that fascinating or terrifying, though. "Based on our current understanding, we will never be able to reach certain galaxies." Ok, that's cool. We can't even reach another star system within our own galaxy at the moment, so traveling to other galaxies is a bit moot as is. We also know our understanding isn't complete, so it's entirely possible that something we don't know will allow us to travel to those galaxies.
Seriously, this doesn't feel like news. We've been working at the whole science and technology thing for what...ten thousand years or so? I say give it a million more and see where we are then, instead of cranking out sensationalist doom and gloom articles. Of course, all the doom and gloom articles tell you that we're not going to make it another decade, let alone a hundred thousand decades, so if you really feed into such things, then I'd say your outlook on the universe is far more terrifying than the article at hand.
Now I'll never find the missing socks
For Andromeda, just wait (very long term stasis recommended) it's comming at us, not sure it's a good thing.
Seriously. Dark energy is hypothetical.
Heard it all before. Earth is flat, humans flying is impossible, break the sound barrier and you die, yadda, yadda...
If you don't understand the difference between a line of uninformed idiots who kept saying "You can't have a rocket in space because there would be nothing to push against", displaying complete ignorance of Newton's laws, and the limits which are the consequence of well-reasoned scientific models such as C being an absolute limit of material acceleration, then you flat out don't understand the difference between a scientific approach and simply drawing limits out of your butt.
It's a bit more complicated than that. General relativity allows you to pick any reference frame, even one that is bent, stretched or distorted in some other way, and do your calculations in that reference frame.
You could pick a "normal" reference frame that obeys the special theory of relativity: speed of light constant everywhere, nothing can go faster, etcetera. Nothing wrong with that, but this turns out to be impractical: we have to pick some place to consider as the center of the universe (for example some place in our immediate neighborhood), and then find that the rest of the universe is moving away at very high speeds, approaching (but not exceeding) the speed of light. This means those galaxies are shrunk in the direction of their motion (Lorentz contraction) and time passes more slowly for them (time dilation). The further you "look" (the infinitely quick kind of looking which you can only do inside a theoretical model, not having to wait for light to get here so we can actually see stuff), the more things are shrunk and the slower time is ticking. At a distance of the speed of light ("c") times the age of the universe, things approach the speed of light and time is passing so slowly that the Big Bang is only just happening right now. In this way of describing the universe, with these coordinates the universe actually fits in a finite sphere around us.
That's a perfectly valid set of coordinates, but I think you'll agree it's not very practical. So physicists invented the cosmological model: imagine a bunch of clocks everywhere in the universe, flying at the same speed as the expansion of the universe (i.e. the same speed as average galaxies in that neighborhood) and ticking at whatever rate the local clocks are ticking at (not synchronized to ours). We define time at any place in the universe as being whatever is indicated by those clocks, not ours. So in effect we change the very definition of simultaneity, moving things from the future into today simply by changing the labeling. Also, imagine measuring sticks available everywhere in the universe, but just like the clocks flying at the same speed as the local expanding universe. To measure distances, we use those sticks instead of our own.
If we now measure everything using local (Lorentz-contracted) sticks and local (time-dilated) clocks, the universe looks completely different. It is truly infinite, the same age everywhere, and distant objects are no longer flat Lorentz-contracted pancakes but look the same as objects in our neighbourhood. Note that this is not a different universe, it's the same one but with different labels stuck onto objects.
Now, with this set of coordinates, it turns out that rays of light don't travel at a fixed speed "c" relative to us, but relative to the local clocks and sticks we used to define the coordinate system. It is still true that nothing can go faster than (local) light, i.e. you cannot overtake a ray of light, but a distant object certainly can move away from us faster than the speed of a ray of light in our neighbourhood. And if some alien over there were to try and shoot a laser beam our way, that light would never reach us because it is traveling towards us at the speed of light relative to the local "space" which is moving away from us faster, like a cosmic conveyor belt. Note that this conveyor belt is not real, it's just a product of our mathematical trickery refefining distances and times.
Of course you might wonder what happens to that alien laser beam in the first coordinate system, where rays of light all travel at the same speed relative to us. Well, in that system, the aliens don't exist yet because time in that part of space is moving very slowly (and has been moving slowly ever since the big bang). And since that part of space is still accelerating away from us ever faster and closer to the speed of light, local time comes to an asymptotic halt before the aliens ever get a chance to shoot that laser.
"Space itself" is just whatever we define it to be. By changing coordinates, we can move things from the past into the future or even into "never". It doesn't matter, it's just math(s), the end result is that we will never see that laser and we will never be able to reach that galaxy either.
The speed of light in a vacuum is always c. It doesn't matter if you're moving at 0.9c. If you shine a torch of light ahead of you, it will still move at speed "c".
What is meant here however is that there is no limit to how fast space itself can expand. So say we have two ends of a ruler 1 meter apart. After a while, space itself would expand meaning that the ruler will now be longer than what it was. There is no theoretical limit to how fast this can happen. It can be greater than c.
After a while, the space between the nucleus and electrons or within the nucleus itself will become too large, ultimately ripping apart for the fabric of reality itself.
Unreachable with current technology perhaps, but who knows about the future?
The future, Conan?
#DeleteChrome
That's not right; only from the light's perspective maybe.. it's still "only" traveling at 186kmph a second, it's not truly instantaneous. And I've never heard of the theory that suggests that if a person leaves earth and travels near light speed he'll be younger when he returns. He might not have aged, but not younger... unless he actually exceeds light speed.
Probably it was some type of a typo where he meant the returning brother is way younger than the brother that stayed (as opposed to just being "way younger" as stated in the OP's poorly worded response.)
Also, and playing Devil's Advocate a bit more, when the OP wrote this:
The time for light to travel from Earth to Andromeda is, essentially, zero (0) seconds
I'm reading it as the time that light (or anything travel AT the speed of light) "experiences" traveling from Andromeda to the Earth (or pretty much from any point A to any point B) is zero because of time dilation. True, it will take 2.5 million years (when measured from the POV of an observer not traveling at relativistic speeds), and travel is not instantaneous, but the traveler itself will experience time at a complete stoppage when travelling at the speed of light (or falling down a singularity) regardless of having traveled one inch or the entire width of the observable universe.
No. That would be assuming you can go faster than the speed of light, without limits, which isn't the case.
Even if you were a massless particle, you would reach the speed of light in less than 1 year of accelerating at 1G, and then, you wouldn't be able to go faster.
Nope. GP was correct: note he said 30 years ship time You can accelerate at 1G indefinitely and you won't exceed the speed of light. You will asymptotically approach the speed of light, and time dilation will make the trip seem very short to the crew on board the ship.
Now calculate the reaction mass required.
pardon me. I get my science from xkcd, which recently stated:
Suppose there are 40 billion habitable planets in our galaxy, and every one of them hosts an Earth-sized population of 7 billion Ted Olsons.
There's your quadrillion. Are you a fan of hive minds?
There was a young lady named Bright,
Who could travel, faster than light.
She went out one day,
In a relative way,
And returned the previous night.
Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.