[Nature] A population of red candidate massive galaxies ~600 Myr after the Big Bang

[Space Lynx]

According to current estimates, the robot will never hit a barrier because the universe is expanding faster than the robot can fly the rocket. So even if there is a barrier, we will never know.

I don't believe the multiverse theory either, btw. An infinite universe suggests infinite, never repeating things, and not variations of the same thing.

well, let's hypothetically add in it can travel faster than the universe is expanding, it wouldn't matter imo. the universe is expanding into something, not nothing. the concept of nothing does not make sense to me.

 

[bug]

I don't remember making a flat-earthers comment in this thread, however I do think the whole concept is silly because it ignores known, provable facts. As for the way I come off, don't intend to be belittling as a general rule. It can come off that way because of the way I present information, very directly and sometimes bluntly. I have no fear addressing a thought that has been presented and is incorrect with a statement of such often with a correction. Yet there have been a few times, when someone offers something that seems like a directed jab or insult, that a very striking response is made.

I made the flat-earthers comment, so let me elaborate a bit.

There are several types of scientists, as well a a couple of types of those questioning science.

Those that question are either informed or, more often, those who simply reject what they don't understand.
Scientists also come in several flavors: the good ones will always know how to explain everything in layman's terms. Then there are scientists without a firm grasp on their work. those will get easily annoyed and belittle you (some of good ones can do that too, if you tire them enough). And then there are scientists or teachers that don't really understand their stuff. Those will always belittle you or use any means necessary to discourage you from asking questions.

Hence, the trick is to inform yourself on the subject first. And then try to direct your questions towards the right persons.

 

[authorized]

well, let's hypothetically add in it can travel faster than the universe is expanding, it wouldn't matter imo. the universe is expanding into something, not nothing. the concept of nothing does not make sense to me.

Nothingness doesn't make sense to you, yet infinity does? Not picking on your personal opinion, it's just that both concepts are quite inconceivable to our monkey brains.

 

[Space Lynx]

Nothingness doesn't make sense to you, yet infinity does? Not picking on your personal opinion, it's just that both concepts are quite inconceivable to our monkey brains.

Light can still travel though the empty voids of space, and through Dark Energy, and even through black holes (some research has shown light shooting out the other side of a black hole from what I understand), so nothing is something if it can interact with light, therefore the empty void is not nothing, and if the universe is expanding, that "nothing" was always there, so it makes it something, because it was never nothing.

although, I am going to have to ask you to forgive me, cause I just confused myself and now my head hurts lmao

edit: for something to be nothing, it would have to be devoid of existence itself, therefore light would not travel through it --- this is where my head starts to hurt

 

[bug]

Light can still travel though the empty voids of space, and through Dark Energy, and even through black holes (some research has shown light shooting out the other side of a black hole from what I understand), so nothing is something if it can interact with light, therefore the empty void is not nothing, and if the universe is expanding, that "nothing" was always there, so it makes it something, because it was never nothing.

although, I am going to have to ask you to forgive me, cause I just confused myself and now my head hurts lmao

edit: for something to be nothing, it would have to be devoid of existence itself, therefore light would not travel through it --- this is where my head starts to hurt

Well, if your heard didn't hurt enough, let me see if I can help: is a brick wall nothing and devoid of existence, because light can't travel through it?

 

[AnotherReader]

Light can still travel though the empty voids of space, and through Dark Energy, and even through black holes (some research has shown light shooting out the other side of a black hole from what I understand), so nothing is something if it can interact with light, therefore the empty void is not nothing, and if the universe is expanding, that "nothing" was always there, so it makes it something, because it was never nothing.

although, I am going to have to ask you to forgive me, cause I just confused myself and now my head hurts lmao

edit: for something to be nothing, it would have to be devoid of existence itself, therefore light would not travel through it --- this is where my head starts to hurt

Light can not pass through the gravitational singularity that's a black hole. Light can pass through the accretion disc surrounding a black hole if it has one. Black holes can produce light by feeding on normal matter such as stars. During this process, relativistic jets of particles are created via the Blandford–Znajek process and those particles generate photons as they decelerate.

 

[Space Lynx]

Light can not pass through the gravitational singularity that's a black hole. Light can pass through the accretion disc surrounding a black hole if it has one. Black holes can produce light by feeding on normal matter such as stars. During this process, relativistic jets of particles are created via the Blandford–Znajek process and those particles generate photons as they decelerate.

Pretty sure I saw a video from Dr. Becky at Oxford University, she specializes in black holes, and it was either earlier this year or last year where she showed some cutting edge detection from JWST showing a black hole emitting some light from its other side, a big discovery if I remember from the video. Don't have time to find it now.

Well, if your heard didn't hurt enough, let me see if I can help: is a brick wall nothing and devoid of existence, because light can't travel through it?

A brick wall is an entity though, it is not nothing, it is something. Of course light can be blocked with something, but the argument here is about nothing's possibility of existence in an empirical sense.

 

[AusWolf]

well, let's hypothetically add in it can travel faster than the universe is expanding, it wouldn't matter imo. the universe is expanding into something, not nothing. the concept of nothing does not make sense to me.

The universe expanding doesn't mean the boundaries expanding, but large, distant objects, like galaxy clusters getting more distant from one another. That's very possible even in an infinite universe. Although, I also find it imaginable that only the portion of the universe visible to us is expanding, but there's something different going on on a larger scale. There's also "the great attractor", a spot where a bunch of our local galaxies seem to be heading for some yet unknown reason.

Travelling faster than light brings up some paradoxes that Cool Worlds and PBS Space Time have some great videos about on YouTube - they're worth checking out. A warning: if you're a Star Wars or Star Trek fan, they'll shatter your illusions a little bit (still worth watching, though).

 

[Shrek]

A brick wall is an entity though, it is not nothing, it is something. Of course light can be blocked with something, but the argument here is about nothing's possibility of existence in an empirical sense.

Let's say one has a region where time has come to a relative halt; one now has a wall that is made of nothing.

the universe is expanding into something, not nothing.

Does this get us into an infinite loop? if the Universe must be embedded in something then that something must be embedded into ...

 

[authorized]

Does this get us into an infinite loop? if the Universe must be embedded in something then that something must be embedded into ...

It's an assumption that we tend to intuitively make but can't prove or even make a solid argument for.

There's also "the great attractor", a spot where a bunch of our local galaxies seem to be heading for some yet unknown reason.

I thought it's been explained already with new observations and turned out to be just a bunch of concentrated galaxies in a region behind the milky way that is difficult to observe.

 

[AusWolf]

I thought it's been explained already with new observations and turned out to be just a bunch of concentrated galaxies in a region behind the milky way that is difficult to observe.

Yes, it's difficult to observe, that's why it's just a theory so far, as far as I know.

Does this get us into an infinite loop? if the Universe must be embedded in something then that something must be embedded into ...

It's an assumption that we tend to intuitively make but can't prove or even make a solid argument for.

Is this still a discussion of the universe, or a discussion of our mental concepts of it? What we think, and what we can and cannot imagine have very little to do with what is.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Nothingness doesn't make sense to you, yet infinity does? Not picking on your personal opinion, it's just that both concepts are quite inconceivable to our monkey brains.

Speak for yourself. I can conceive of and imagine both quite easily.

 

[Shrek]

I'm with authorized on this; trying to conceive of an infinite Universe being born from nothing is hard.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I'm with authorized on this; trying to conceive of an infinite Universe being born from nothing is hard.

Oh completely agree. The Universe didn't spring forth from nothing. As physics(and life in general) has taught us time and again, you can not get something from nothing.

 

[bug]

Speak for yourself. I can conceive of and imagine both quite easily.

And then you said: let there be light!

 

[Shrek]

Oh completely agree. The Universe didn't spring forth from nothing. As physics(and life in general) has taught us time and again, you can not get something from nothing.

Then one asks where did the pre big-bang state come from till one is left with the claim that it has always been (that is one infinity I can't imagine)

The great thing is that the total energy of the Universe is zero (there is negative gravitational energy) so if it did come from nothing, energy was conserved.

 

[Space Lynx]

I'm with authorized on this; trying to conceive of an infinite Universe being born from nothing is hard.

I think the answer lies in there is no beginning, which is a hard concept for us to wrap our heads around. existence is existence itself. I don't think it all came from nothing.

I think there is no infinite regress problem to the Big Bang either, most likely its some kind of cycle we will never understand, just as everything else in nature seems to be a cycle.

I think it is all very beautiful honestly, I don't know how anyone could be sad by that. To know that every fabric of my existence is part of this great cycle, its all very beautiful in my eyes. It has always been and always will be. Again, I am just guessing, I honestly have no idea. This seems most likely to me based on what I know though

 

[Shrek]

most likely its some kind of cycle we will never understand, just as everything else in nature seems to be a cycle.

But cycles run down (entropy increases), so one would need an entropy reset mechanism.

The idea of no starting point (it has always been) is, as I mentioned before, an infinity I can't get a grip on.

 

[Space Lynx]

But cycles run down (entropy increases), so one would need an entropy reset mechanism.

The idea of no starting point (it has always been) is, as I mentioned before, and infinity I can't get a grip on.

I don't fully understand entropy, never have. Only thing I can think of is that maybe entropy works differently at that kind of scale. Maybe everything rolls back in on itself, causing the big bang to repeat itself like in a loop, this idea has never made sense to me either though, I just think there are things in physics we may never understand. I don't know. I think that we are able to contemplate these things at all is amazing, it really is strange isn't it? We aren't much different than animals in many ways, but we can think of things beyond their scope in immense ways. It is strange and wonderful at the same time lol

 

[Shrek]

I'm for the 'it came from nothing', but can see how rediculous that might seem; I highly recommend the book.

A Universe from nothing
Lawrence Krauss

That the Universe has zero overall energy seems a big clue to me.

 

[Vya Domus]

I'm for the 'it came from nothing', but can see how rediculous that might seem; I highly recommend the book.

A Universe from nothing
Lawrence Krauss

The premise of these ideas can easily be invalided.

The argument boils down to the behavior of certain quantum fields which generate virtual particles, however the existence of such fields is not a given, you cannot just claim these fields exist and that's the end of the story.

As it stands there is zero evidence and nor is it mathematically possible for anything to have existed from nothing.

 

[Shrek]

Zero point energy is the reason Helium remains liquid at 0K

 

[Vya Domus]

Zero point energy

Zero point energy requires a field. No defined field, no zero point energy.

If you can't explain how a quantum field can simply arise out of nothing then any subsequent explanation that relies on this mechanism cannot be used as proof that the universe came from nothing.

 

[Shrek]

Fair enough, so let's suppose there was something before the big-bang; where did that come from?

Just as an aside, there are no proofs in science (that is why we have mathematics)

 

[Vya Domus]

Fair enough, so let's suppose there was something before the big-bang; where did that come from?

Impossible to answer, there is no mathematical mechanism that can describe such a system.

I think it's time for people to come to terms with the fact that not everything will have an explanation.