partial and rough translation of an old romanian poem. it is about a scientist/philosopher thinking about the birth of the universe, vastness of space and our ephemeral existence
While the moon is shining over mouldy books-stacks penned by sages
Thinking takes him back through thousands upon thousands of hoar ages
To the very first, when being and non-being were nought still,
When there was but utter absence of both life-impulse and will,
When unopen there was nothing, although everything was hidden,'
When, by His own self pervaded, resting lay the Allforbidden.
Was it an abyss? chasm? watery plains without an end?
There was no estate of wisdom, nor a mind to comprehend.
For the darkness was as solid as is still the shadows' ocean,
And no eyes, had there been any, could have formed of it a notion.
Of the unmade things the shadows had not yet begun to gleam
And, with its own self-contented, peace eternal reigned supreme.
Suddenly, a dot starts moving - the primeval, lonely Other...
It becomes the father potent, of the void it makes the mother.
Weaker than a drop of water, this small dot that moves and bounds
Is the unrestricted ruler of the world's unbounded bounds.
Ever since the vasty dimness has been splitting slice by slice,
Ever since come into being earth, sun, moon, light, heat, and ice.
Ever since up to the present gallaxies of planets lost
Follow up mysterious courses, chaos-bred and chaos-tossed,
And in endlessness begotten, endless swarms of light are thronging
Towards life, for ever driven by an infinite of longing; And in this great world, we, children of a world grotesquely small,
Raise upon our tiny planet anthills to o'ertop the All,
Lilliputian kings and peoples, soldiers, unread, erudite,
We engender generations, reckoning ourselves full bright!
One-day moths upon a mudball measeurable with the chip,
We rotate in the great vastness and forget 'twixt cup and lip
That this world is really nothing but a moment caught in light,
That behind, or else before it, all that one can see is night.
Just like whirls of dust and powder thousands of live granules play
In a glorious ray's dominion and pass over with the ray.
Thus against the never-failing night of time without a bound,
The spontaneous ray, the moment, still fails not to go the round; When it dies, all dies - like shadows melting in the murky distance
For the universe chimeric is a dream of non-existence.
Nowadays a thinker's judgement is restricted by no tether;
He projects it in a moment over centuries together.
To his eye the sun all-glorious is a red orb wrapt in shrouds,
Closing like a bleeding ulcer among all-darkening clouds,
He sees how the heavenly bodies in vast spaces freeze and run,
Rebels that have torn the fetters of the dazzling light and sun;
And, behold, the world's foundation is now blackened to the core,
And the stars, like leaves in autumn, flicker out and are no more,
Lifeless Time distends his body and becomes endless duration,
Because nothing ever happens in the boundless desolation; In the night of non-existence all is crumbled, all are slain,
And, in keeping with its nature, peace eternal reigns again.
Edited by Aquashark at 12:45 CST, 30 December 2008
My favorite philosopher is Ringo Starr. I only listen to people who have seen many people go. Let us listen in to his song "Fading in, fading out" for a bit....
This makes me wonder if there could be life on some other planet in some other galaxy.
And on another note, how can someone honestly believe in the big bang theory? I mean, what of the theory appeals to them? Everything is run too perfectly to be an accident imo.
Scientific theory is not meant to appeal to anyone. It's based on evidence and observation, and then a hypothese is formed, which is then subject to testing.
So why is the big bang theory the main theory which is used? Well one quick reason that I can think of, the universe is expanding out from a central dot, so this leads us to believe something happened at that central point.
Also, it does not need to be an accident at all, it is you that is defining it as an accident, the same way that you have mysteriously come to the conclusion that everything is run too perfectly. (eh?)
lololol. this site..
your response is even worse than neb's post. is that even possible?
the universe isn't expanding "out from a central dot," and there is no "central point." stop talking about stuff you don't understand.
also... pale blue dot. welcome to 1990. I've read that about 10 times and watched various takes on the video over 100 times. watch cosmos ffs.
Nah, he was making a pretty valid point that there is no central point to our universe.
Every galaxy and non-Milky Way object astronomers have observed is redshifted (meaning that the visible light spectrum of those objects is pushed towards the red end of the spectrum). Just like the Doppler Effect of when an ambulance drives past you and the sound goes from high to low, the same effect happens to light.... but the low end (the red end) is what occurs when an object moves away.
From this, astronomers deduce that all objects are moving away from each other in this universe. But this doesn't make much sense if you propose a "central point". The only logical explanation is that SPACE ITSELF is expanding and there really is no central point from which everything is moving away from.
The most unusual thing is that some of the most distant galaxies are traveling away from us at seemingly impossible speeds *and* accelerating. The furthest objects, afaik, more than not are the ones traveling the fastest away from us.
So all indications point towards the expansion of space, rather than the movement of matter *through* space.
Edited by lolograde at 22:19 CST, 30 December 2008
From this, astronomers deduce that all objects are moving away from each other in this universe. But this doesn't make much sense if you propose a "central point".
At least this central point would not be unique. Say, in one way or the other, we life on the surface of a football (a sphere). We can assume the existence of many central points without running into trouble.
I am not a physicist but according to Hawking (the last chapters of "A brief history of time") the following can be imagined: If the universe resembles a higher-dimensional surface of a ball, there is no singularity, because a sphere is always the same in every direction. The universe would just be. And that was it. No need for a big bang.
Edited by agardenchair at 11:19 CST, 31 December 2008
Also, who is to say that the universe isn't infinite? With the way that the Microwave Background is so uniform, doesn't it stand to chance that what we are seeing at the distant edges of the visible universe is only point towards its age? If the universe were 40 billion years old, would we be seeing, just now, objects that were 40 billion light years away? What use is a point - or multi-points - in an infinite amount of space?
I guess we're both getting at the same underlying point here. Our location in the universe, as well as every other position in the universe, is completely arbitrary.
Edited by lolograde at 19:08 CST, 31 December 2008
Actually, the "central point" theory is now being argued with a "line of sight" issue. Apparently, the only reason there doesn't seem to be a center is because it's too far away to see.
I don't see how that theory can't be in direct conflict with Hubble's law of space expansion... if there were a central point (outside of our line of sight), it wouldn't even be recognizable.
EDIT: If you have a link to any related articles on this Line of Sight thing, I'd be very interested in reading the rationale behind it.
"logical explanation is that SPACE ITSELF is expanding"
That has be proven by experiments already, when it came with the conclusion lightspeed is the same, relative to any moving obesrvatory point. Not only that it's expanding, but it's actioning like an elastic between moving objects.
My theory on this: the only way to move out of the moving space (with different speed) , is to reach lightspeed. At which point I doubt the matter will desintegrate, but it will follow rules out of the analitic matter.
Take the spinning rotation, for example. With a diameter big enough, at certain distance from the core any object will reach lightspeed, at which moment it will "glide" on the matter. Point is at this moment, this object, from our point of view, will occupy two different places in the same time, or at least some fragments of this object will be spread all over the space. This would explain the presence of energy coming from unknown sources, and maybe gravitation.
Current theory is that there wasn't a Big Bang to start the universe. If the universe started with only an explosion of matter from a singular point, then all the material in the universe would be uniformly spread out.This isn't the case, though, as we can see globular clusters of galaxies and areas where no galaxies are present. So the new theory, afaik, is that there was a period of great spacial "expansion" and then the big bang happened.
It's kind of a case of what came first... the chicken or the egg. In this case, it was space before matter.
Edited by lolograde at 22:17 CST, 30 December 2008
I always think of how we cant explain so many things yet when that comes up. Our understanding of the big bang theory is so very little.
I mean, we take our assumptions about from universal constants, including rate of expansion etc in this case, but none of those seem to apply to the big bang theory, hence our difficulty in even explaining how it worked.
So, how can we know what a big bang theory lead to? like why the expansion is not the same.
I know, I know, Occam's Razor would be a pretty good answer to my question, but still...
Well, I think there's a pretty good understanding of what the conditions were like at the moments after the big bang because we know, pretty much what has happened over the last 14 billion years (the creation of stars in nebulae, of planets around stars, of galaxies and so on) and beyond that, we can see how the varieties of elements were created from fundamental particles (from Fermi Lab and soon from the Large Haldron Colider). And for these particles to exist in fashion, from what we have observed of their characteristics during those high-speed collisions that particle physics use colliders for, they can deduce what the conditions were like for the particles to exist, join, split, etc.
But beyond that, I think through observation at the particle level and through astronomical level, scientists are able to extrapolate fairly much what conditions must have been like. Going back further than that and we're talking philosophy, though. =)
I was talking about the philosophy part of the big bag, the very beginning :D
And yeah, I know thats an easy way out of a discussion since it cant be explained. But you are right that science can explain alot and you are probably right about that.
If you are into this stuff, did you do some research on why the constants are what they are? that always fascinated me, that everything was "set" just right to make the universe what it is atm.
Not really, the only thing I've been interested in, since I was a little kid, was astronomy. My dad's influence was primary in my interest in this stuff. My father made a career in physics (long retired) and ceaselessly gave me books to read and informative shows to watch (lots of those "future of space-flight" books, Brief History of Time, Surely You're Kidding, Mr. Feynman, etc.). Most of my understanding of physics is superficial, though. I know the big theories, why they fit our understanding of the universe thus far, and I know a more about astronomy than physics in general. But I'm not keen on the specifics. Math was never my forte. =P