tar

Mordred, You might try one equation. I am half way sure I will not comprehend its meaning. I have talked myself into not believing that an immense and complicated universe can be symbolized in a couple of lines. I always have real trouble grasping where the analogies are strong and meaningful and where they are shaky or assumptions are made that I am unaware of the process that was gone through to get to the conclusion. Where terms were dropped, or approximations made. It generally seems odd to me that we talk about how the universe will look in 600 billion years, when we don't even know how our eyes will work by then. Regards, TAR

Mordred, Did it generate any galaxy types we don't know about? What I mean, is did it show us what to look for, or just verify what we already guess is true? On the strings stretching around the voids, I would suggest in an analogy type of way, that you can stretch a piece of gum into a very long and thin string, without requiring space to expand in some unexplainable fashion. Regards, TAR

StringJunky, I will have to leave you with that thought. I have no reply because it makes no sense to me. I do not comprehend what you are talking about. You are making something up, and not relating it to the waking world, where I can experience the things we are referring to as dimensions. Are you saying that any variable I can imagine is a dimension? Like would it make a difference if I was standing to your left or right or if I had my eyes closed, or if I was spinning on my heel? What is on your list of parameters that qualify as dimensions? Regards, TAR (Good luck with the smoking cessation by the way. Read the nicotine tapering method thread in Medical, Phi for All has some good advice...helped me quit for good.)

StringJunky, But before the place became transparent to photons, there were electrons and protons, and these things existed over here and over there, and gravity and vibrations and energy gradients were certainly possible, creating a difference between over here and over there. That there could be something that happened everywhere at once would require both time and space to talk about. And if we are not talking about the three dimensions of space and the one of time that define spacetime, what dimensions are we talking about? Regards, TAR Strange, I don't see a problem either, if the time it takes various forces and energies to propagate are built into the simulation...but the simulation posted here had us navigating through the web in a manner completely ignoring the size of the place and the effects that traveling that fast would have on what was being seen. Regards, TAR

Strange, Point taken about the usefulness of simulations...but simulation of a complete process and arrangement from start to finish, with all important variables included is one thing, because you have the starting conditions, interactions and ending conditions, all understandable and checkable. It is something quite different to simulate the rotation of a galaxy, being the one side is happening 100,000 years away, in terms of information travel time, from the other end. Regards, TAR

Strange, Yes, very impressive, and indeed with the right inputs and programming the model can approach reality, and as you say confirm the model is correct. But there is the slight chance, that a different correction to a different program would also result in a simulation, that looked like our empirical view of the place. It is reverence to the state of the art that is what I am playing devil's advocate against. The program is already fixed and decided upon, before it is run. Corrections are made and the thing is reprogrammed to end up more closely approximating reality. The equation is tweeked to accommodate some additional terms. So how much can you learn from a program that is already set. It is like doing a Sudoku that is already designed. Yes it is going to wind up with all the columns and all the rows and all the boxes with the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9...but it was supposed to. So my cudos to the state of the art, but the model is not as interesting to me as the place that is being modeled. The place holds more surprises and beautiful relationships just the way it appears, than do the equations, that are already static and prone to human error, simplification, and omission, and misinterpretation. The point, in terms of this thread is to question StringJunky's concept of a hot/dense state, with no dimensions. You perhaps can write an equation, but what does it mean in terms of reality? How do I design the thought experiment, without the use of time and space? Regards, TAR

I understand the idea of a simulation, and appreciate its value, but there are aspects of reality that are ignored that might be very important. You say that on a large scale the place is homogeneous and isotropic, but yet we do have large scale structures in the place, walls of galaxies, voids and great attractors, to where identity can be viewed, where looking in one direction looks different then looking in the other. That is, when thinking about the evolution of the voids, are there areas of space, where the voids are of different sizes or density, like a fractal type situation, where there is character to the landscape, at every level? Don't we need to care both about our current model and the current actual empirical view? You need the one, to comprehend the other. And without taking relativistic considerations into account you lose the reality of the situation. After all, we are talking about the genesis of the universe, which has already happened. We can only consider such in our imaginations, guided by what we see, and the implications thereof.

StringJunky, Nice video, but it is after all a simulation, and it is VERY unrealistic to then navigate through the simulation as is done at the end. Exciting, but not very useful. It makes one think they can see the whole thing at once. I am thinking mostly about the fact that the navigation was at superluminal speeds. Just for instance, at that speed, as you approached an item you should see it moving backward and devolving, which does not occur in the simulation. As a matter of fact you would not "see" it at all, as the electromagnetic waves hitting your eyes would be at such high frequencies as to be considered gamma rays or cosmic rays. It establishes a model in one's head that does not correspond with the huge nature of actual universe. I am thinking you make the same mistake when considering the early universe while in a hot dense state, as some one thing, with no dimensions. Regards, TAR

StringJunky, Understood. But if for instance, I have a question about the evolution of the voids, I cannot tell, since relativistic effects are not modeled, whether the distant voids are the size and shape they actually would be, at 13.8 billion years old, or if the distant strings pictured at a distance if 1 billion lys are actually the size and shape they were at 12.8 billion years old, since that would correspond to the data received from the telescopes. So the size of the model matters, and the depth of the model matters, and there is not a realistic way to consider the whole volume as existing at once. You either have the way you know it could be, or the way it looks, and if you have a "purpose" for showing the thing, you have obscured some information from the actual that would be good to include, so that people looking to learn, or figure something out, are not misinformed. Regards, TAR

StringJunky, That picture of the filiments. How "true" is it? Is it a computer model, or is it constructed from actual data? How enhanced is it, and do you know the scale modifications and color modifications and brightness modifications? Which direction is it taken in, and what would it look like in the other direction? The reason I ask is several fold. One from remembering that there is a great attractor that semi local galaxies seem to be influenced by, when cataloging the relative motions of the galaxies, and it would be good to see what that "looks like" in terms of filiments. Two, I have this thing about distant things, that they show us arrangements from the past, and was wondering what kind of corrections were applied to the data, to paint a filament picture where all components were of the same age and what age that might be representing. That is, is it the way it looks when you look, or is it the way the current universe is probably arranged, according to extrapolation and imagination. The difference being, if it is from actual data, one can make inferences from the arrangement. If on the other hand its an artist's rendering, you can explore only the artist's mind. Regards, TAR Why the question is important to me, for this discussion, and others, is because like(you) StringJunky considering a whole universe as homogeneous and events happening everywhere at once, people tend to consider the whole universe at once, and I tend to think it is way to big for that, and that the distance itself is one of the most important defining factors in the reality of the place. It is exactly what keeps everything from happening at once. And one important reality, that a brain that is within the universe, can take a picture of the place, or build a model, but neither is as true as the place itself.

Just read that a particle coming into existence due to a quantum fluctuation lasts a very short time and the more energy the shorter. A universe would have a lot of energy and therefore if the HUP holds in this case the universe would have left existence immediately upon arriving.

StringJunky, But conceptually do you place the quantum fluctuations over here and over there and happening in sequence, or do you think one quantum fluctuation occurred everywhere at once? That is, was there already time and space within which the fluctuations occurred, or did a singularity bifurcate due to some accident and then continued to evolve in reaction, or some attempt to get back to the static situation that existed prior the accident? Regards, TAR

StringJunky, So, the strings of galaxies are more "physically connected" than the voids between, which may have developed during expansion, or may have started existing during the inflation stage (do you know when voids started?) but must have, time wise, started to form sometime after the hot/dense phase. I am guessing that a void would be counter intuitive to a hot/dense phase. But still if you travel with light along a fiber of the web, it takes time to get from one part of the string to the next. Even without a void between, there would be distance for impulses to cover. Regards, TAR

String Junky, So the whole universe is gravitationally bound? That is, every item is within 200million lyr of 200million lyrs worth of other items? Where would there be space that could expand? If not between A and B or A and D or A and Z or between A and ZZZZZZZZZ? Regards, TAR Or is it like a soap bubble where the soap adheres to soap and the other side of the void gets further away as the bubble grows?

String Junky, Probably a question for another thread, but if the distance between A and B does not change because they are within 200million lys of each other and the distance between B and C does not change because they are within 200 million lys of each other, where has the distance between A and C increased, even though they are 400 million lyrs distant and the forces of expansion should be in force? Regards, TAR

String Junky, I understand the words you are saying, but do not know what they mean in terms of this discussion of what was within causal distances, when the universe was smaller. Plus I am not sure what it is that is expanding, if nothing within 200million lys of anything else is subject to the expansion. Regards, TAR

String Junky, So units of measure found on the atomic level or human body level, or planetary level, or solar system level, or galactic level can be used as standard units, that would not change over billions of years of universal expansion? Regards, TAR

Thread, So, question. Does the unit measurement between quarks change at the same time as the measurement between galaxies? Regards, TAR

DrP, There are symetries and dual figure relationships I am exploring that are very satisfying to me. More than orange slices. I have always struggled mightily with the sphere, and its geometry and am looking for a system that deals more in whole numbers and fractions, than approximations, to label the positions on the sphere, and the area and volume as well. I could not divide the orange slice smaller and smaller in such a regular fashion as I can the twelve diamond sections. Regards, TAR

String Junky, Sorry, I will bow out. I don't know any hard science. Regards, TAR

String Junky, Sorry I don't have the answers, just speculations, but I don't agree that there was a "timeless" time. It makes no sense to suggest such. How could you have a time period in which there was no time. How long could such a period last? If it lasts longer than no time, then it is not timeless. Regards, TAR

String Junky, "Seeing" is irrelevant, of course, because the place did not become transparent to photons for many many years, but very relevent is if the one part of the place could feel the other through impulses and vibrations, and gravity and heat exchange and such. These actions, putting one piece of the place within the causal reach of any other peice of the place is exactly the thing the universe had before you could share info with photons, and is central to the thread question. Regards, TAR If galaxy formation happened around 1 billion years old and the CMB is around 400,000 thousand years old, then the opaque time of the universe, after hydrogen was ionized and before neutral hydrogen reformed, there was lots of time when the place was hot and dense, but not the same everywhere. The CMB shows anisotropy, or hot and cold spots at the 400,000 mark, so stuff was happening differently over here than it was over there, at that point. Suggests that if you would go back from there toward the BB, lets say to 200,000 years, it would be different over here then over there. At what point to you suggest that we had an over here and an over there that was not unique in position, arrangement, heat, and motion?

Thread, Still trying to determine if the area between the circles is of equal area in each division. On the way I have applied the circles, or ovals to the triangle sphere I developed earlier, with the shield shapes that show themselves when you divide a tetrahedron into the twelve sections. So it is like the four sides of the tetrahedron unfolded and laid flat to give a two dimensional view of a sphere, looking at all sections at once. This to show the "plus two" nature of the sphere and its divisions when you compare the number of circles on the intersections of the divisions with the number of divisions. Here, the three points of the diamond make up one circle, the sides, since folded over have half circles on them, and the center half circle on each side is actually a full circle, since the center of each side represents a point of the tetrahedron where the circle is around a three point, like at the points of the large triangle. Here you can see how the sphere comes around on itself and will have two more circles on the division intersections, then it does have divisions. Regards, TAR

String Junky, Well simultaneous everywhere might go for when the place turned transparent, for instance, but this does not mean the one end could see the other end immediately. Perhaps I can't understand your usage of the word simultaneous. If you subscribe to the two senses of now idea, then what happens everywhere in the universe, like every part's 13,780,954,567th birthday, happens everywhere at once, but this does not mean you can see even what is happening on a close star, immediately. So how big it is makes every difference. Like a sugar cube dropped into a hot cup of coffee at once...there is a corner of it, that gets wet before the other. And if you have an observer at one end of the hot dense, and an obsever at the other, they will experience an event that happened to the whole place at once, at the same time, but they will not experience the other end experiencing that thing, for billions of years, or potentially as Strange allows, maybe never. So size matters. Regards, TAR

Strange, We could be, because of inflation and expansion, out of possible view of parts of the universe further away than the parts that have just cleared and are viewable as the CMB. But how would Hubble expansion make anything closer than the CMB disappear? If we ever saw it, we can still see it because it is closer than the CMB. Regards, TAR String Junky, Just how hot and just how dense? I mean if it is not one point, and has depth and width and height, then it would take time for an impulse to get from here to there, within it. Regards, TAR