|
Beyond the Universe
|
Chaos' thread on UFO's, Bigfoot and Ghosts, gave me a idea to see who believes in the Universe, Multivere, Dark matter, life on different planets and Galaxies.
How big do you guys dream, how far away can you imagine? Post any and all info you find Interesting, any question that are unanswered and any theories you may have. I will go first Dark Matter From what I have seen, dark matter is everything that exists outside the Universe, the Idea that Gravity draws planets towards the star that creates it, but if this is true, why are planets pulling further away, how would this be possible? Dark matter is the anti gravity, the idea that the opposite of gravity exists and if so, what is creating it? Here is a Nasa write up on some of the Ideas behind it Dark Energy, Dark MatterIn the early 1990's, one thing was fairly certain about the expansion of the Universe. It might have enough energy density to stop its expansion and recollapse, it might have so little energy density that it would never stop expanding, but gravity was certain to slow the expansion as time went on. Granted, the slowing had not been observed, but, theoretically, the Universe had to slow. The Universe is full of matter and the attractive force of gravity pulls all matter together. Then came 1998 and the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations of very distant supernovae that showed that, a long time ago, the Universe was actually expanding more slowly than it is today. So the expansion of the Universe has not been slowing due to gravity, as everyone thought, it has been accelerating. No one expected this, no one knew how to explain it. But something was causing it.Eventually theorists came up with three sorts of explanations. Maybe it was a result of a long-discarded version of Einstein's theory of gravity, one that contained what was called a "cosmological constant." Maybe there was some strange kind of energy-fluid that filled space. Maybe there is something wrong with Einstein's theory of gravity and a new theory could include some kind of field that creates this cosmic acceleration. Theorists still don't know what the correct explanation is, but they have given the solution a name. It is called dark energy.What Is Dark Energy?  *This image is copyright of its original author Universe Dark Energy-1 Expanding UniverseThis diagram reveals changes in the rate of expansion since the universe's birth 15 billion years ago. The more shallow the curve, the faster the rate of expansion. The curve changes noticeably about 7.5 billion years ago, when objects in the universe began flying apart as a faster rate. Astronomers theorize that the faster expansion rate is due to a mysterious, dark force that is pulling galaxies apart.NASA/STSci/Ann FeildMore is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 68% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe.One explanation for dark energy is that it is a property of space. Albert Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothing. Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property that Einstein discovered is that it is possible for more space to come into existence. Then one version of Einstein's gravity theory, the version that contains a cosmological constant, makes a second prediction: "empty space" can possess its own energy. Because this energy is a property of space itself, it would not be diluted as space expands. As more space comes into existence, more of this energy-of-space would appear. As a result, this form of energy would cause the Universe to expand faster and faster. Unfortunately, no one understands why the cosmological constant should even be there, much less why it would have exactly the right value to cause the observed acceleration of the Universe.  *This image is copyright of its original author Dark Matter Core Defies ExplanationThis image shows the distribution of dark matter, galaxies, and hot gas in the core of the merging galaxy cluster Abell 520. The result could present a challenge to basic theories of dark matter.Another explanation for how space acquires energy comes from the quantum theory of matter. In this theory, "empty space" is actually full of temporary ("virtual") particles that continually form and then disappear. But when physicists tried to calculate how much energy this would give empty space, the answer came out wrong - wrong by a lot. The number came out 10[sup]120[/sup] times too big. That's a 1 with 120 zeros after it. It's hard to get an answer that bad. So the mystery continues.Another explanation for dark energy is that it is a new kind of dynamical energy fluid or field, something that fills all of space but something whose effect on the expansion of the Universe is the opposite of that of matter and normal energy. Some theorists have named this "quintessence," after the fifth element of the Greek philosophers. But, if quintessence is the answer, we still don't know what it is like, what it interacts with, or why it exists. So the mystery continues.A last possibility is that Einstein's theory of gravity is not correct. That would not only affect the expansion of the Universe, but it would also affect the way that normal matter in galaxies and clusters of galaxies behaved. This fact would provide a way to decide if the solution to the dark energy problem is a new gravity theory or not: we could observe how galaxies come together in clusters. But if it does turn out that a new theory of gravity is needed, what kind of theory would it be? How could it correctly describe the motion of the bodies in the Solar System, as Einstein's theory is known to do, and still give us the different prediction for the Universe that we need? There are candidate theories, but none are compelling. So the mystery continues.The thing that is needed to decide between dark energy possibilities - a property of space, a new dynamic fluid, or a new theory of gravity - is more data, better data.What Is Dark Matter? *This image is copyright of its original author Abell 2744: Pandora's Cluster RevealedOne of the most complicated and dramatic collisions between galaxy clusters ever seen is captured in this new composite image of Abell 2744. The blue shows a map of the total mass concentration (mostly dark matter).By fitting a theoretical model of the composition of the Universe to the combined set of cosmological observations, scientists have come up with the composition that we described above, ~68% dark energy, ~27% dark matter, ~5% normal matter. What is dark matter?We are much more certain what dark matter is not than we are what it is. First, it is dark, meaning that it is not in the form of stars and planets that we see. Observations show that there is far too little visible matter in the Universe to make up the 27% required by the observations. Second, it is not in the form of dark clouds of normal matter, matter made up of particles called baryons. We know this because we would be able to detect baryonic clouds by their absorption of radiation passing through them. Third, dark matter is not antimatter, because we do not see the unique gamma rays that are produced when antimatter annihilates with matter. Finally, we can rule out large galaxy-sized black holes on the basis of how many gravitational lenses we see. High concentrations of matter bend light passing near them from objects further away, but we do not see enough lensing events to suggest that such objects to make up the required 25% dark matter contribution.However, at this point, there are still a few dark matter possibilities that are viable. Baryonic matter could still make up the dark matter if it were all tied up in brown dwarfs or in small, dense chunks of heavy elements. These possibilities are known as massive compact halo objects, or "MACHOs". But the most common view is that dark matter is not baryonic at all, but that it is made up of other, more exotic particles like axions or WIMPS (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles).
The next idea I have been drawn to, is the Multiverse.
Our universe has a time frame, 14-15 billion years ago, we know this due to the light rays that are the furthest visible light that came from a massive explosion known as the Big Bang. The big bang was basically the same idea as a Supernova, which is a star that has condensed to the smallest possible size, packed it self with soo much energy until it finally bursts. Shooting its "guts" across the galaxy. These "star guts" condense, cool, get blown around by cosmic winds etc. To create new stars, planets etc. But in laments terms, why would there be only one Universe? Just because we can see only one explosion, what does that mean? We once thought the world was flat because we didn't have the tools to explore further, we once thought there was one solar system, one sun etc. We simply are limited by the technology we have available. Here is the Idea behind the Multiverse Big Bang Discovery Opens Doors to the "Multiverse"Gravitational waves detected in the aftermath of the Big Bang suggest one universe just might not be enough.  *This image is copyright of its original author This illustration depicts a main membrane out of which individual universes arise; they then expand in size through time.ART BY MOONRUNNER DESIGNDan VerganoNational GeographicPublished March 18, 2014Bored with your old dimensions—up and down, right and left, and back and forth? So tiresome. Take heart, folks. The latest news from Big Bang cosmologists offers us some relief from our humdrum four-dimensional universe.Share Share on emailEmailMore » Gravitational waves rippling through the aftermath of the cosmic fireball, physicists suggest, point to us inhabiting a multiverse, a universe filled with many universes. (See: "Big Bang's 'Smoking Gun' Confirms Early Universe's Exponential Growth.")That's because those gravitational wave results point to a particularly prolific and potent kind of "inflation" of the early universe, an exponential expansion of the dimensions of space to many times the size of our own cosmos in the first fraction of a second of the Big Bang, some 13.82 billion years ago."In most models, if you have inflation, then you have a multiverse," said Stanford physicist Andrei Linde. Linde, one of cosmological inflation's inventors, spoke on Monday at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics event where the BICEP2 astrophysics team unveiled the gravitational wave results.Essentially, in the models favored by the BICEP2 team's observations, the process that inflates a universe looks just too potent to happen only once; rather, once a Big Bang starts, the process would happen repeatedly and in multiple ways. (Learn more about how universes form in "Cosmic Dawn" on the National Geographic website.)"A multiverse offers one good possible explanation for a lot of the unique observations we have made about our universe," says MIT physicist Alan Guth, who first wrote about inflation theory in 1980. "Life being here, for example."LunchtimeThe Big Bang and inflation make the universe look like the ultimate free lunch, Guth has suggested, where we have received something for nothing.But Linde takes this even further, suggesting the universe is a smorgasbord stuffed with every possible free lunch imaginable.That means every kind of cosmos is out there in the aftermath of the Big Bang, from our familiar universe chock full of stars and planets to extravaganzas that encompass many more dimensions, but are devoid of such mundane things as atoms or photons of light.In this multiverse spawned by "chaotic" inflation, the Big Bang is just a starting point, giving rise to multiple universes (including ours) separated by unimaginable gulfs of distance. How far does the multiverse stretch? Perhaps to infinity, suggests MIT physicist Max Tegmark, writing for Scientific American.That means that spread across space at distances far larger than the roughly 92 billion light-year width of the universe that we can observe, other universes reside, some with many more dimensions and different physical properties and trajectories. (While the light from the most distant stuff we can see started out around 14 billion light-years away, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, stretching the boundaries of the observable universe since then.)Comic Mismatches"I'm a fan of the multiverse, but I wouldn't claim it is true," says Guth. Nevertheless, he adds, a multiverse explains a lot of things that now confuse cosmologists about our universe.For example, there is the 1998 discovery that galaxies in our universe seem to be spreading apart at an accelerating rate, when their mutual gravitational attraction should be slowing them down. This discovery, which garnered the 2011 Nobel Prize in physics, is generally thought to imply the existence of a "dark energy" that counteracts gravity on cosmic scales. Its nature is a profound mystery. About the only thing we understand about dark energy, physicists such as Michael Turner of the University of Chicago have long said, is its name."There is a tremendous mismatch between what we calculate [dark energy] ought to be and what we observe," Guth says. According to quantum theory, subatomic particles are constantly popping into existence and vanishing again in the vacuum of space, which should endow it with energy—but that vacuum energy, according to theoretical calculations, would be 120 orders of magnitude (a 1 followed by 120 zeroes) too large to explain the galaxy observations. The discrepancy has been a great source of embarrassment to physicists.A multiverse could wipe the cosmic egg off their faces. On the bell curve of all possible universes spawned by inflation, our universe might just happen to be one of the few universes in which the dark energy is relatively lame. In others, the antigravity force might conform to physicists' expectations and be strong enough to rip all matter apart.A multiverse might also explain away another embarrassment: the number of dimensions predicted by modern "superstring" theory. String theory describes subatomic particles as being composed of tiny strings of energy, but it requires there to be 11 dimensions instead of the four we actually observe. Maybe it's just describing all possible universes instead of our own. (It suggests there could be a staggeringly large number of possibilities—a 1 with 500 zeroes after it.)Join the "multiverse club," Linde wrote in a March 9 review of inflationary cosmology, and what looks like a series of mathematical embarrassments disappears in a cloud of explanation. In a multiverse, there can be more things dreamt of in physicists' philosophy than happen to be found in our sad little heaven and earth.Life, the Universe, and EverythingThe multiverse may even help explain one of the more vexing paradoxes about our world, sometimes called the "anthropic" principle: the fact that we are here to observe it.To cosmologists, our universe looks disturbingly fine-tuned for life. Without its Goldilocks-perfect alignment of the physical constants—everything from the strength of the force attaching electrons to atoms to the relative weakness of gravity—planets and suns, biochemistry, and life itself would be impossible. Atoms wouldn't stick together in a universe with more than four dimensions, Guth notes.If ours was the only cosmos spawned by a Big Bang, these life-friendly properties would seem impossibly unlikely. But in a multiverse containing zillions of universes, a small number of life-friendly ones would arise by chance—and we could just happen to reside in one of them."Life may have formed in the small number of vacua where it was possible, in a multiverse," says Guth. "That's why we are seeing what we are seeing. Not because we are special, but because we can." Learn more about the birth of our universe in our April issue.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...nce-space/
What is faster than the Speed of light? How can we achieve warp speed? Is it even possible?
All questions that have been asked and are being researched as we speak. We already know that nuetrinos that shoot from a Supernova reach earth faster than the Light, but how is that possible? Its because nuetrinos are so small that normal blockades that Light cannot penetrate and has to go around don't stop Nuetrinos, they technically reach the earth faster than the light itself. Not quite the same idea, but its a start. Here is a write up on themFaster-Than-Light Neutrinos Aren'tThe same lab that first reported the shocking results last year, which could have upended modern physics, now reports that neutrinos "respect the cosmic speed limit"Jun 8, 2012 |By Clara Moskowitz and SPACE.com  *This image is copyright of its original author Paolo Lombardi INFN-MI The final nail in the coffin may have been dealt to the idea that neutrino particles can travel faster than light.The same lab that first reported the shocking results last September, which could have upended much of modern physics, has now reported that the subatomic particles called neutrinos "respect the cosmic speed limit."Physicist Sergio Bertolucci, research director at Switzerland's CERN physics lab, presented the results today (June 8) at the 25th International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics in Kyoto, Japan."Although this result isn't as exciting as some would have liked, it is what we all expected deep down," Bertolucci said in a statement.The new findings come from four experiments that study streams of neutrinos sent from CERN in Geneva to the INFN Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy. All four, including the experiment behind the first faster-than-light findings, called OPERA, found that this time around, the nearly massless neutrinos traveled quickly, but not that quickly. [10 Implications of Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos]Last year, OPERA measured that neutrinos were making the 454-mile (730-kilometer) underground trip between the two labs more speedily than light, arriving there 60 nanoseconds earlier than a beam of light would.At the time, the physicists were stunned because such a result seemed to break Einstein's prediction that nothing could travel faster than light. This idea is at the heart of his theory of special relativity, on which much of our modern technology and scientific understanding is based.The OPERA researchers weren't sure what could explain their anomalous results, having checked and rechecked their work, so they released their findings to the larger community of physicists in hopes that experts around the world could help them figure it out."The story captured the public imagination, and has given people the opportunity to see the scientific method in action — an unexpected result was put up for scrutiny, thoroughly investigated and resolved in part thanks to collaboration between normally competing experiments," Bertolucci said. "That's how science moves forward."Labs around the world, including the other experiments at Gran Sasso — called Borexino, ICARUS and LVD — as well as the MINOS experiment in Illinois and the T2K project in Japan, tried to recreate the OPERA findings. None were able to do so: Every time, neutrinos appeared to obey the speed limit of light.Now, the OPERA scientists think their original measurement can be written off as owing to a faulty element of the experiment’s fiber-optic timing system.
Nothing tickles the mind more than the concept of time and space. Good topic Pockets.
 
Space, the final frontier....!!!
 *This image is copyright of its original author Live long, and prosper!!! 
This is also another topic I loved most. But after reading lot of books, seeing tv shows. I concluded it's all imagination. Nothing is well proved. Though I like work of Stephan hawking most and Einstein theory of relativity but i still think it's not 100% true.
(09-16-2014, 08:59 PM)'sanjay' Wrote: This is also another topic I loved most. But after reading lot of books, seeing tv shows. I concluded it's all imagination. Nothing is well proved. Though I like work of Stephan hawking most and Einstein theory of relativity but i still think it's not 100% true.This is a long way away from "imagination" Nuetrino's are proven, for example, light from a supernova that reaches Earth and the same nuetrino's from that same supernova that are detected by a massive detection center are proven as well. For instance, science is by far more conclusive then you are giving it credit for. The invention of the microwave, airplanes, space travel etc. Are all because of Nasa, and the work its done. The understanding of gravity, solar powered technology etc. Like Stephan Hawking says, our future survival is in space exploration.
You are right, But I was talking about the different theory regarding universe, Like how it is expanding, How it is working etc.
Science has not proven everything (09-17-2014, 01:08 AM)'sanjay' Wrote: You are right, But I was talking about the different theory regarding universe, Like how it is expanding, How it is working etc. You are right, but that's what makes it so great. Remember, gravity was only a theory, planets rotating around the sun, the earth being round, etc. All of these were theories until technology proved them right. We certainly know enough to ask amazing questions that prove old ideas wrong or right and will continue to do so.
The last time that I saw, Gravity is a "Law", not a "Theory". On the other hand, Evolution is a "theory", and an incomplete one, yet.
Sanjay is right, most of the postulates of Hawking (and other Physics) are pure imagination, just based in formulas that can be also inaccurate. IF Science is the search of truth, we most accept the fact that most of those theories are purely hypothesis that has not been proved yet. This is the worst mistake of modern Science, most people and young students don't dare to criticize the modern postulates and those same scientists ignore all new idea. From my point of view, many scientists have created a new "religion", which is close to new ideas. This forum is the best example, in this case, about animal behavior, we postulated new ideas, but if we present them in the academical world, many "scientists" will burn us just because we don't think like them. Hard words, but based in truth and experiences (mine and from other people) in the academical world. (09-17-2014, 09:38 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: The last time that I saw, Gravity is a "Law", not a "Theory". On the other hand, Evolution is a "theory", and an incomplete one, yet. Gravity was a theory before it was a law. All discoveries are theories until they are Proven. The world being round was a theory, the gravitational pull of the sun was a theory, rotating around the sun was a theory, etc. Not sure what you're trying to say here. These ideas I posted are based off of scientific evidence, they are by no means "proven" but they certainly have enough evidence behind them to be more likely than the original ideas we had before.
Largest known Stars
Stars are the center to planets, their gravitational pull is what forces planets to orbit, the radiation they admit is also what keeps or allows planets to bare life. If a planet has a OZ layer strong enough to resist the stars planets it allows life to form. At least in the case of earth, life doesn't necessarily need a star to survive though, really the only thing that life needs is water, or at least we think. Proof of this is on our very own planet, deep sea creatures that never see the sun are as abundant as creatures who survive from it. If you want to feel small, look up into the sky. Stare at the brightest light at night, those are stars and sometimes one of the few planets we can see from earth. Each one of those stars could be as large as the sun or 100s or 1000s of times larger. They have planets just look ours, moons, solar winds and gasses and their own gravitational pull that comes from them. Some of them could already have turned in to supernovas and exploded and the light has just not hit us yet. You look up and you are literally looking into the past, this light is "lightyears" away and we wont live long enough in our lifetime to see them implode unless the exact right time frame occurs. Here is a list of the 10 largest stars known to manStars are immense balls of burning plasma that are held together by their own gravity. The star that we are most familiar with is our Sun. However, compared to many of the other stars in the Universe our central stars is, well, kinda puny. Below is a list of the 10 largest (by diameter) stars known to exist in the Universe.A few caveats: First, this is only known stars, there could be larger ones out there. Second, some of these stars are variable, meaning that they regularly expand and shrink. And lastly, there is, like virtually all astronomy measurements, an inherent bit of error. But it should be fairly close.  *This image is copyright of its original author Tim Brown/ The Image Bank/ Getty Images 1. VY Canis MajorisThis red hypergiant star is by far the largest known. It has an estimated radius between 1800 and 2100 times the radius of our Sun. With this size it would reach nearly to the orbit of Saturn if placed in our solar system. The star is located roughly 4,900 light-years from Earth in the constellation Canis Majoris.AdsHome Solar Systemsunrun.comGo Solar For $0 Down With Sunrun. Free Install Upkeep & Maintenance.Solar Systemhorizonsolarpower.com/SaveNowAre You Overpaying For Electricity? Reduce Electric Bill & Save Now!2. VV Cephei ALocated in the constellation Cepheus, about 2,400 light-years from Earth, this red hypergiant star is estimated to be between 1,600 and 1,900 times the radius of the Sun.3. Mu CepheiAlso located in the constellation Cepheus, this red supergiant is about 1650 times the radius of our Sun. It is also one of the most luminous stars in the Milky Way galaxy, at more than 38,000 times the Sun's luminosity.AdsLockout Tagout Softwarewww.nisoft.comeclipse, for your Lockout, Tagout and Safety Permit Software needs.Top 10 Best Cloud Storagethetop10bestonlinebackup.comCloud Storage Providers Reviewed. Read Our in Depth Reviews!4. V838 MonocerotisThis red variable star located in the constellation Monoceros, is about 20,000 light-years from Earth. It may be larger than either Mu Cephei or VV Cephei A, but because of its distance form the Sun its actual size is difficult to determine. Therefore a range is typically given of between 1170 and 1970 solar radii. 5. WOH G64Once thought to rival Canis Majoris this red hypergiant located in the constellation Dorado has recently been determined to be about 1,540 times the radius of the Sun. It is actually located outside of the Milky Way Galaxy in the Large Magellanic Cloud, another nearby galaxy.AdsConsumer Reports Websitewww.consumerreports.orgFind the Top & Worst Rated Products Unbiased Tests, Ratings & Reviews6. V354 CepheiSlightly smaller than WOH G64, this red hypergiant is 1520 solar radii. At a relatively close 9,000 light-years from Earth, V354 Cephei is located in the constellation Cepheus.7. KY CygniKY Cygni is at least 1420 times the radius of the Sun, but some estimates would have it topping this list at a whopping 2,850 solar radii. However, the actual value is thought to lie closer to the lower bound, bringing it down to number 7 on our list. It is located about 5,000 light-years from Earth in the constellation Cygnus.8. KW SagittariiRepresenting the constellation Sagittarius, this red supergiant is no slouch at 1460 times the radius of our Sun. 9. RW CepheiOur third entry from the Constellation Cepheus, this star may not seem all that large in its own neighborhood, but there aren't many others in our galaxy or nearby that can rival it. This red supergiant's radius is not well agreed upon, being placed somewhere between 1260 and 1650 solar radii.10. BetelgeuseOur final entry, and the last star known to have a radius in excess of 1000 times that of our Sun, Betelgeuse is probably the most well known of the red supergiants. This is partially due to the fact that at roughly 640 light-years form Earth, it is very close compared to the other stars on this list. Also, it lies in perhaps the most famous of all the constellations, Orion. This 1,180 solar radii star is expected to go supernova any time, which would usher in an unprecidenced opportunity to witness such an event so closely. More » http://space.about.com/od/stars/tp/The-T...-Stars.htm
What is a light year?
Some people hear "light years" and they can't comprehend how far away that actually is. A light-year is a unit of distance. It is the distance that light can travel in one year. Light moves at a velocity of about 300,000 kilometers (km) each second. So in one year, it can travel about 10 trillion km. More p recisely, one light-year is equal to 9,500,000,000,000 kilometers.Why would you want such a big unit of distance? Well, on Earth, a kilometer may be just fine. It is a few hundred kilometers from New York City to Washington, DC; it is a few thousand kilometers from California to Maine. In the universe, the kilometer is just too small to be useful. For example, the distance to the next nearest big galaxy, the Andromeda Galaxy, is 21 quintillion km. That's 21,000,000,000,000,000,000 km. This is a number so large that it becomes hard to write and hard to interpret. So astronomers use other units of distance.In our solar system, we tend to describe distances in terms of the Astronomical Unit (AU). The AU is defined as the average distance between the Earth and the Sun. It is approximately 150 million km (93 million miles). Mercury can be said to be about 1/3 of an AU from the Sun and Pluto averages about 40 AU from the Sun. The AU, however, is not big enough of a unit when we start talking about distances to objects outside our solar system.For distances to other parts of the Milky Way Galaxy (or even further), astronomers use units of the light-year or the parsec . The light-year we have already defined. The parsec is equal to 3.3 light-years. Using the light-year, we can say that :
 *This image is copyright of its original author http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/Star...ion19.html
The actual speed of light in vacuum is 299,792, 458 m/s
and in vacuum light travel 9,461,000,000,000 km in a year. The largest unit of distance is parsec which is equal to 3.26 ly |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |