It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The ripples detected by the telescope, Bicep2, were faint spiral patterns from the polarization of microwave radiation left over from the Big Bang. They are relics from when energies were a trillion times greater than the Large Hadron Collider can produce.
These gravitational waves are the long-sought markers for a theory called inflation, the force that put the bang in the Big Bang: an antigravitational swelling that began a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the cosmic clock started ticking. Scientists have long incorporated inflation into their standard model of the cosmos, but as with the existence of the Higgs, proving it had long been just a pipe dream.
Imprinted on the cosmos when it was a subatomic quantum speck, they have been blown up a trillion trillion times and spread across the sky for inspection.
LightSource
I feel we "tuned" into our universe however there are infinite other universes observed as well.
Elton
LightSource
I feel we "tuned" into our universe however there are infinite other universes observed as well.
Any universe I can live in will likely seem like it is tuned to my life form.
The rest is interesting, but I think early on the universe may have observed itself (before life).
edit on 27-3-2014 by Elton because: missing words
LightSource
I will leave you with what's called schrodingers' cat where there is a cat in two boxes and... Well i'll let Michio Kaku explain. There are two theories he presents and I feel that both are correct in a way. First our I feel our universe was created through observations. I believe the second theory is correct for outside our universe. I feel we "tuned" into our universe however there are infinite other universes observed as well.
immoralist
well the proof that we are no longer a sub atomic quantum spec is that we can see those things and we can also see the rest of the universe (well, what we can see at least) and its actually VASTLY larger. The proof of the inflationary model within general relativity is that you can trace the paths and vectors of objects in the universe backward and everything appears to get closer together I would imagine as you conceptually turn back the clock. Furthermore everything we can see that is far away is redshifting due to a doppler effect (hubble pointed this out I think) and things that shouldnt look that red in the spectrum are red because they are rushing away from us and eachother.
The perspectivist notion of the relative size of the sun due to distance and perspective is a valid point and extremely important, but I dont think its particularly illustrative in proving any theory that proposes that we are still in a very very small quantum portion of space time.
LightSource
immoralist
well the proof that we are no longer a sub atomic quantum spec is that we can see those things and we can also see the rest of the universe (well, what we can see at least) and its actually VASTLY larger. The proof of the inflationary model within general relativity is that you can trace the paths and vectors of objects in the universe backward and everything appears to get closer together I would imagine as you conceptually turn back the clock. Furthermore everything we can see that is far away is redshifting due to a doppler effect (hubble pointed this out I think) and things that shouldnt look that red in the spectrum are red because they are rushing away from us and eachother.
The perspectivist notion of the relative size of the sun due to distance and perspective is a valid point and extremely important, but I dont think its particularly illustrative in proving any theory that proposes that we are still in a very very small quantum portion of space time.
Vastly larger can only be stated by something that is observable therefore a "size" is attached to it. there is no "size" in something that is infinite. No matter how large or small something is it is only relative to the observer. If our universe is expanding (not sure if expanding would even be the right word in this subject) or just in an infinite space then it would be so small you couldn't even see it unless it is observed.
Lets say I was in infinite space and I started walking. I would never run into anything I would just walk forever. But due to observation I notice a spec of light. As I walk towards this spec of light it gets bigger and bigger. Once I get to this light I realize its a universe. The act of observation caused this universe to be given a "size" and to be created. Or rather maybe when consciousness discovered the law of total probability it then created universes but there is no size in infinite.
immoralist
LightSource
immoralist
well the proof that we are no longer a sub atomic quantum spec is that we can see those things and we can also see the rest of the universe (well, what we can see at least) and its actually VASTLY larger. The proof of the inflationary model within general relativity is that you can trace the paths and vectors of objects in the universe backward and everything appears to get closer together I would imagine as you conceptually turn back the clock. Furthermore everything we can see that is far away is redshifting due to a doppler effect (hubble pointed this out I think) and things that shouldnt look that red in the spectrum are red because they are rushing away from us and eachother.
The perspectivist notion of the relative size of the sun due to distance and perspective is a valid point and extremely important, but I dont think its particularly illustrative in proving any theory that proposes that we are still in a very very small quantum portion of space time.
Vastly larger can only be stated by something that is observable therefore a "size" is attached to it. there is no "size" in something that is infinite. No matter how large or small something is it is only relative to the observer. If our universe is expanding (not sure if expanding would even be the right word in this subject) or just in an infinite space then it would be so small you couldn't even see it unless it is observed.
Lets say I was in infinite space and I started walking. I would never run into anything I would just walk forever. But due to observation I notice a spec of light. As I walk towards this spec of light it gets bigger and bigger. Once I get to this light I realize its a universe. The act of observation caused this universe to be given a "size" and to be created. Or rather maybe when consciousness discovered the law of total probability it then created universes but there is no size in infinite.
But the universe isnt considered to be infinite, only VAST in size, VAST is almost beyond observationally large but its not infinite. Who is proposing that our universe is infinite? The universe is observable after all...
We've chosen to define a meter as something that is independent of our size.
LightSource
No matter how large or small something is it is only relative to the observer.
LightSource
Elton
LightSource
I feel we "tuned" into our universe however there are infinite other universes observed as well.
Any universe I can live in will likely seem like it is tuned to my life form.
The rest is interesting, but I think early on the universe may have observed itself (before life).
edit on 27-3-2014 by Elton because: missing words
That gets into a whole new question of what is "life". Is life something that breathes? Or is life something that is conscious? I feel life is consciousness and that could just be in the form of energy.edit on 27-3-2014 by LightSource because: (no reason given)
Arbitrageur
reply to post by IambTrochee
In the context here, it's the definition of a unit of length. The observation may be of something say half as long so then we say the observed length is half the referenced unit, or 0.5 meters.
To look at it another way we could build robotic observers of various dimensions, from the size of a cell phone to the size of the LHC. No matter the size of the observer, they will all observe 0.5 meters, even though the cell phone sized observer is smaller than 0.5 meters and the LHC sized observer is much larger. The point is that in this system the size in meters is independent of the size of the observer.
edit on 27-3-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification
bigfatfurrytexan
LightSource
Elton
LightSource
I feel we "tuned" into our universe however there are infinite other universes observed as well.
Any universe I can live in will likely seem like it is tuned to my life form.
The rest is interesting, but I think early on the universe may have observed itself (before life).
edit on 27-3-2014 by Elton because: missing words
That gets into a whole new question of what is "life". Is life something that breathes? Or is life something that is conscious? I feel life is consciousness and that could just be in the form of energy.edit on 27-3-2014 by LightSource because: (no reason given)
The term "life" is on the verge of becoming an archaic term.
What do we mean with the word "life"? Carbon based biology? A symbiotic system, like a planet, or solar system? A consciousness, which can lack a biology? A being with will, regardless of consciousness or not?
That latter one...that is interesting. Consider a being living in our realm, but not interacting with our realm in any recognizable way? Would that still be "life"?
I think we will need to describe things differently in the long run. Because there are many things that could be called "life", some of which lack conscousness and biology.