Big Bang In Antarctica: Killer Crater Found Under Ice

[Edinho]

That's because we aren't.

Think about it, millions upon millions of stars in our galaxy. Millions upon millions of galaxies in the known universe (the number could even be limitless). Each star could have anything from 1 to 20 space bodies (planets) orbiting it. Any one of those planets could support "life".

Some of those planets could even support advanced life. Just maybe, there is another advanced civilization out there...

What cooks my noggin is when I think of space. How can something be limitless? It must have an end somewhere. Such thoughts are beyond human comprehension I think...

Anyway, I'm straying off point

For all your postulating, there is no evidence that there is life elsewhere. Your just making an assumption.

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

For all your postulating, there is no evidence that there is life elsewhere. Your just making an assumption.

100% sure there is evidence out there somewhere, just the human race is not capable of finding it at our current level of technological development. In fact i believe its extremly unprobable that we are the only planet that has or has had life on it. Its pretty naive to believe we are the only ones out there tbh.

 

[asim]

lol its funny how people argue the big bang theory and then the other which is god creating the universe yet both are ONE AND THE SAME

ah uninformedness.

 

[axe]

tbh i think its like Men in Black that our universe is just 1 of many giant marbles to green creatures....

 

[SimonTW]

I read this as "There are at least 20 impact craters this size or larger than the moon,"

:/

Perhaps it's all those bad jokes you posted coming back to haunt you.

 

[G18241]

That's because we aren't.

Think about it, millions upon millions of stars in our galaxy. Millions upon millions of galaxies in the known universe (the number could even be limitless). Each star could have anything from 1 to 20 space bodies (planets) orbiting it. Any one of those planets could support "life".

Some of those planets could even support advanced life. Just maybe, there is another advanced civilization out there...

What cooks my noggin is when I think of space. How can something be limitless? It must have an end somewhere. Such thoughts are beyond human comprehension I think...

Anyway, I'm straying off point

plus isnt it expanding all the time, what into :| lol

i cant see our planet being the only place where here is life, it has to be near impossible with the amount of other stars within galaxies there has to be some life somewhere

 

[Arcade Fire]

Actually the universe started out very organised. In fact the moment of the big bang was what can be considered the ultimate source of "low-entropy" or most organised the constituents of the universe have ever been. Systems evolve to be more disorganised over time, they evolve towards "high-entropy". In accordance with the second law of thermodynamics the universe has gradually been getting more and more disorganised overall.

I think what Calibos was talking about was the localised decreased of entropy which seem to have occurred to have occurred to create, for example, places like the earth. Although the second law correctly says that entropy increases on global scales (i.e. across the whole universe) it says nothing about what happens locally. It's completely possible for a small area to be decreasing its entropy, even though as a whole it increases the entropy of the universe. Think of your refridgerator, for example - the classic example of a machine making energy flow from cold to warm, instead of the other way around. But a refridgerator had to be designed, whereas we appear to have arisen purely by chance (ooh, controversial!) so it is pretty incredible that a local patch of (comparative) organisation could have arisen. Or perhaps it's not that incredible - the universe is a big place, after all.

Okay, that's the end of the science - now onto my ill thought-out ramblings. So the early universe was, as you say, the ultimate low entropy configuration - everything in more or less the same place. If you think about it though, how could it have been possible for the early universe to have greater entropy? It was so incredibly tiny that everything was as spread out as it could have been. Fast forward to today, where although we're in a state of higher entropy, we're quite obviously not in a state of maximum entropy. On one scale there are people around - obviously consciousness is a sign of organisation. Moving up a scale, the solar system seems to be quite well-organised and long-lasting. Then the galaxies themselves - if we were in a state nearing maximum entropy we'd expect the universe to be filled with a uniform goo. Instead we see clusters of billions of stars dotted here and there. Even above that, the galaxies tend to form clusters and superclusters. So what's going on? Where did all these variations in density come from? I believe this is one of the questions that modern cosmology is trying to answer. Now that's mind-boggling.

 

[Pickers]

So what's going on? Where did all these variations in density come from? I believe this is one of the questions that modern cosmology is trying to answer. Now that's mind-boggling.

Without going into too much depth, at some short period of time after the big bang the universe ceased to be opaque so photons (generally) could travel unhindered forever more.
WMAP (google image search it) has mapped the microwave background of the galaxy, so what is seen is the surface of this "sphere of last scattering". I find it incredible that although the cosmic microwave background is (to good approximation) isotropic, these small fluctuations exist.

As it happens it could be argued that WMAP is in essence the world best "microscope", and is actually seeing quantum probability fluctuations from this period in history, as its been "explanded" with the universe. I believe these quantum variations were the seeds for galaxies to form.

 

[GordyR]

I think what Calibos was talking about was the localised decreased of entropy which seem to have occurred to have occurred to create, for example, places like the earth.

Indeed AF, I knew Calibos wasn't really talking about about the overall entropy of the universe which is what I was referring to.

Instead we see clusters of billions of stars dotted here and there. Even above that, the galaxies tend to form clusters and superclusters. So what's going on? Where did all these variations in density come from? I believe this is one of the questions that modern cosmology is trying to answer. Now that's mind-boggling.

Forgive me if this is a naive point of view, you know far more about this than I, but is it not possible that its all a game of chance? Much like a pool of water actually has a chance to spontaneously turn in to an ice cube? An ice cube usually melts because there are so many disorganised variations it's molecules could be in, therefore the chance of it melting is so much higher. However there is a tiny probability that the constituents of a pool of water could reorganise themselves as an ice cube. Perhaps over a long enough timeline such tiny probabilities become a reality.

Basically what I am saying is that all the "ordered" things we see in the universe now are the result of an incredibly rare, but every-so-often expectable aberration away from total disorder.

Erm I hope that makes some sense. Feel free to correct me

 

[Arcade Fire]

Forgive me if this is a naive point of view, you know far more about this than I, but is it not possible that its all a game of chance? Much like a pool of water actually has a chance to spontaneously turn in to an ice cube? An ice cube usually melts because there are so many disorganised variations it's molecules could be in, therefore the chance of it melting is so much higher. However there is a tiny probability that the constituents of a pool of water could reorganise themselves as an ice cube. Perhaps over a long enough timeline such tiny probabilities become a reality.

Basically what I am saying is that all the "ordered" things we see in the universe now are the result of an incredibly rare, but every-so-often expectable aberration away from total disorder.

Erm I hope that makes some sense. Feel free to correct me

I think that you're talking about a version of the anthropic principle - i.e. that the reason we see the universe as it is today is because if it were otherwise, we wouldn't be around to see it, and that everything is a big cosmic fluke. Although this is a possible explanation for why the universe has the properties it does, it's not a very useful one for making predictions - and therefore shouldn't be a part of science. You might find this essay interesting reading - despite being in the high energy physics section of arxiv.org, I promise you that it's very readable!

PS I don't know that much about this mate - I'm mainly winging it!

 

[GordyR]

I think that you're talking about a version of the anthropic principle - i.e. that the reason we see the universe as it is today is because if it were otherwise, we wouldn't be around to see it, and that everything is a big cosmic fluke. Although this is a possible explanation for why the universe has the properties it does, it's not a very useful one for making predictions - and therefore shouldn't be a part of science. You might find this essay interesting reading - despite being in the high energy physics section of arxiv.org, I promise you that it's very readable!

PS I don't know that much about this mate - I'm mainly winging it!

Ohh thanks for the link matey. I'll have a read when I get a chance. The anthropic principle wasn't actually what I intended to be getting at, but you're absolutely right, my statement does sit within those ideas.

 

[Psyk]

plus isnt it expanding all the time, what into :| lol

Common misconception about what scientists think about the nature of the universe. When they say it's expanding, they just mean there is energy spreading further and further out. So basically what is normally refered to as the universe is just a small section of space that has stuff in it. That makes me think there has probably been many big bangs that have occured far, far away from the part of the universe we know about.

 

[Pickers]

Common misconception about what scientists think about the nature of the universe. When they say it's expanding, they just mean there is energy spreading further and further out. So basically what is normally refered to as the universe is just a small section of space that has stuff in it. That makes me think there has probably been many big bangs that have occured far, far away from the part of the universe we know about.

Erm... I have no idea where that has come from, but it certainly isnt the opinion of cosmologists...

 

[Psyk]

Erm... I have no idea where that has come from, but it certainly isnt the opinion of cosmologists...

Oh well I'm probably wrong. So do cosmologists actually think that space itself is expanding? I must have misunderstood something.

 

[Pickers]

Oh well I'm probably wrong. So do cosmologists actually think that space itself is expanding? I must have misunderstood something.

Its fairly intense but yeah it could be said that space was expanding. Its like ants running along the surface rubber of an inflating balloon - the rubber expands all around them. For a comprehensive explanation of this expansion (for the interested), you need to look up the Friedmann equations, and the cosmological constant.
I would try and explain my limited understanding, but I'm trying to focus my mind on revision for my last exam at the moment

 

[GordyR]

Erm... I have no idea where that has come from, but it certainly isnt the opinion of cosmologists...

I think I know what Psyk is referring to. One theory is that our universe is one of many finite universes in what could possibly be infinite space. Kind of space within space... With black holes actually being expanding strings i.e. other universes. This is of course just one of many theories.