OT - Is the universe finite in size?

dogscoff · #1 October 10th, 2003, 05:05 PM

Quote:

If there was a big bang whose cigarette lighted the stuff up?

Dave Lister, using jump leads from Starbug (according to the brummie BTL attendant in "Back to Reality". =-)

Cyrien · #2 October 10th, 2003, 05:07 PM

I have always found it funny that we as humans are constantly making these predictions that encompass everything despite the fact that we can't even manage to get off our own planet and visit the next closest planet. The best we have so far is visiting our own moon.

So we haven't left our planet we haven't explored our solar system we haven't checked out the galaxy, if you follow dark matter theory then the majority of everything out there we still know nothing about and yet we now know the size of the universe how old it is and when it was made?

Don't make me laugh.

Edit - Don't get me wrong. I am all for going out and exploring and finding new stuff and theorizing about it. But I don't think anyone should be taking this stuff about the UNIVERSE too seriously. Our knowledge base and point(s?) of observation are far too narrow and small to make anything even resembling an accurate guess.

[ October 10, 2003, 16:10: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

PvK · #3 October 10th, 2003, 07:36 PM

I'm with you, Cyrien.

PvK

Alpha Kodiak · #4 October 10th, 2003, 08:08 PM

Years ago I saw a show expounding the "Rubber Band Theory" of (I think) sub-atomic particles and their relationships to each other. I really don't remember too much about it, other than thinking, "You guys sure are making very certain statements about stuff you really don't know too much about." The theory might be true for all I know, though I haven't heard anything else about it. I just find it interesting that the guys on TV never say something like, "Well, we noticed that the particles seemed to act kind of like rubber bands, so we think that things might be this way...." Instead they say, "Having observed this phenomenon, we now believe that things behave in this manner...." They neglect first to mention how big a group "we" is, and second neglect to mention just how accurate their observations might be, or what other possibilities might explain their observaions. This is nothing against the actual scientists doing the work, just the guys who get on TV and try to look like they are sure of what is going on. In that particular case, I found it humorous to hear someone expounding on the fact that everything is really held together by rubber bands (my interpretation, not his

).

Cyrien · #5 October 10th, 2003, 08:48 PM

My favorite has always been the number of atoms in the universe. Recently I have started to see it used as a fact by various periodicals. I think what it was stated to be was something around 10^78 to just under 10^81. I don't even want to know what would cause a person to decide that they could guess at the number of atoms in the universe, because a guess is all it is going to be. A rather wild one at that.

Phoenix-D · #6 October 10th, 2003, 08:54 PM

Only 10^78? Twelve grams of carbon have 10^23 atoms all by themselves..

Cyrien · #7 October 10th, 2003, 09:12 PM

Don't know about the carbon but I do know the number was less than 10^100 as that was used as a comparison number for something else in another article. (The number of calculation a 333 Qbit processor would be capable of perhaps). Of course I am just working from memory here soooo. On the other hand I am also pretty confident in the numbers I gave as being the ones "they" gave. So take it up with "them".