Our Universe/Multiverse.

Big_Z

Big_Z

MilForum Recon
Does anybody here like to study Cosmology, Astronomy, or Physics? I am talking about topics such as Dark matter, Dark energy, Black holes, Neutron stars and Quasars. The mechanics behind these topics including thier origins and thier fates. Grand unified theories, States of equations and so on. I have always wanted to debate these subjects but can never find anybody who takes a interest.
 
I am always losely following the current discussions in this field and have a (layman) interest in them, though I rather focus on the philosophical consequences of the scientific models.

Rattler
 
I am curious how you apply philosophy to these subjects. Can you expand? I am a cold analytical number cruncher by nature so I only see the mechanics of it.
 
Big_Z said:
Does anybody here like to study Cosmology, Astronomy, or Physics? I am talking about topics such as Dark matter, Dark energy, Black holes, Neutron stars and Quasars. The mechanics behind these topics including thier origins and thier fates. Grand unified theories, States of equations and so on. I have always wanted to debate these subjects but can never find anybody who takes a interest.
Click to expand...

There are numerous groups, forums and other sites that are available where you can most likely meet a fellow debater :) I enjoy looking and reading about the subjects you mention but educated more in the health sciences here and be of no fun :/ :D sorry
 
Last edited:
I find it completely fascinating but to be honest I haven't put much time into it because I don't think it is worth pursuing unless you are going to put a LOT of time into studying these things.

It's head-expanding stuff. In a recent PopSci they talk about the "dark flow," apparently every body in the known universe is moving towards a point outside the visible universe. There must be something unimaginably huge over there.
 
C/2nd Lt Robot said:
I'm currently getting my butt handed to me in Intro to Astrophysics - but I'm not dropping the class.
Click to expand...

It seems complicated when you look at it as a whole. Just take it level by level and everything will start to make sense. The mechanics of it are designed level by level. You will here the word constituents allot, it is a hierarchical subject.
 
Yeah, every semester it seems I make the same mistake and look at what's to come . . . at some point I'll learn I think. I've learned a number of interesting facts about the sun (I become more and more amazed by it each lecture). I believe something on the order of 10^17 kg of mass is lost due to the solar wind alone each year . . . and that's not including energy generation, sun spots, etc. And granuals (sp) the size of the US rise and fall hundreds of kilometers everywhere on the sun's surface in just a matter of days.
 
You should check out Neutron stars. Imagine craming 1 and a half suns down into a object 13 kilometers across and that is a Neutron star. They form from the cores of massive stars that go supernova. The star explodes blowing off the outer layers. The core starts to collapse but is stopped by neutron degeneracy preasure. If it collapses any further it turns into a black hole. It is called a Neutron star because it is formed entirely of neutrons.

If you are taking astrophysics I am sure you know what a atom is made up of. Protons, neutrons and electrons. Gravity is so immense that is causes electrons and protons to merge, creating neutrons. Atoms are 99% empty. So that means our Sun is actually 99% empty because it is made of atoms. Neutron stars break down atoms and are 99.99999% full if that makes since, there is no empty space. I can't remember exactly what the speed is but if you dropped an object from 5 feet off a neutron star it would hit the surface somewhere around 1/4 the speed of light. The surface of the star is extremely smooth, no more then 5 cms difference at any point because of the pull of gravity.
 
Big_Z said:
I am curious how you apply philosophy to these subjects. Can you expand? I am a cold analytical number cruncher by nature so I only see the mechanics of it.
Click to expand...

BigZ, I know I still owe you a reply, but RL is in the way big atm, cannot collect enough time to write that looong article to lay out what I refer to.

A short first shot would be the "Schroedingers Cat" angle and everything that goes along with it when we try and understand what reality is/might be: To what extent is reality as we perceive it *made/fabricated* by the observer (you)? As with the half dead half alive cat, do there exist unlimited realities in which we the observers just decide (unconsciously?) which one to percieve and "cement"? etc.... Googling it sure will bring up plenty of philosophical material on that angle.

Still, FDR, it is not forgotten, hopefuly I will find the time to sit down and answer in detail.

Rattler
 
Last edited:
I am reading and learning :D definitely fascinating though and I love stars. Looking forward to the Orionid and Leonid showers.
 
Big_Z said:
I am curious how you apply philosophy to these subjects. Can you expand? I am a cold analytical number cruncher by nature so I only see the mechanics of it.
Click to expand...

Finally found something that shades some light on what I perceive as the basic connection beween mathematics, logic and philosophy, a nice article by David Deutsch: PHYSICS, PHILOSOPHY AND QUANTUM TECHNOLOGY

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=...EcMXc4&sig=AFQjCNEjmypJY-vYWo1IzCiSMTNBagWmLA

He found a nice, imaginative way of quantifying the philosophical relevance of different science fields by first placing sciences (subjectively) on a scalre ranging from "Fundamental" to "Derivative" and then adding another dimension, the "Grade of mathematic relevance" to them that scales from "purely abstract" as more mathematic to "empirical science" as less mathematical:

gview


He then goes through all kind of speulation and intrprets them under the strict physical universe/multiverse view (one of them e.g. the idea that our universe might be a giant computer and the percieved "laws of physics" nothing more than the expressions of some sophisticated software) and argues that computational theory needs to find a place in a - yet to be elaborated - bigger concpetual theory, "quantum constructor theory" that describes the "hardware" that consitutues the perceived "laws of physics".

He then starts outlining what he calls "hints" of bits of a future theory that will, in a unified way, address real resources such as energy and volume and time, rather than formal resources.

The full quantum constructor theory will incorporate the particle physicists’ ‘theory of everything,’ including quantum gravity, as well as the quantum theory of computation and thermodynamics. We may hope that it would be able to answer exotic questions like: can we build a black hole and spin it up until it becomes a time machine? Can we collapse a black hole and have it form new universes which we can design, and if so what are the constraints on that?
Click to expand...
Nice read and highly recommended for ppl interested in those kind of musings.

Rattler
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top