Unidentified Object in Space, Scientists Puzzled

[fussel]

While life may exist elsewhere, remember that the population of the universe is, of course, zero:

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

You didn't get the reference? Don't panic! There's always time to read this book, before anyone else has:

http://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Hitch...1824365&sr=8-4

/edit:

You will either love this book/books or will think "meh, stupid nerd humor".

Also, about the discussion about the dark night sky, IMO, red-shifting is a sufficient explanation for that. You just can't see all that light, instead it creates the noise on a radio tuned between channels and other things.

[Max™]

The observation of telescopes and the CMB don't hold red shift as a viable explanation.

Regarding the infinite distance question, the only infinities that exist, are mathematical ones. The universe is a finite thing, it is nonsensical for many reasons to consider it possessing any infinite values.

Yes light is bent by massive bodies, but it isn't significant enough to explain Olber's paradox unless you wish to postulate some sort of massive boundary to the universe which we cannot see beyond.

I favor reducing things to simpler forms, eliminating postulates, not producing them.

[Purrrfect]

Great thread, would recommend to others! A+

Really wish I had time to read more on these subjects. ;;

[Suburbanelite]

All of you who don't believe in life outside earth are just selfish dicks who want the universe to yourselves. Grow the fuck up.

http://whoisbarackobama.name/who-is-barack-obama.jpg

He approves.

[Silenka]

Hitchhiker's Guide is like... the epitome of silly nerdiness but oh god it's awesome...

Spoiler: show

I liked the dolphins. I also liked the idea that how to fly is just by throwing yourself at the ground and missing XD

[Mizango]

Maybe you guys could help me solve two problems i have about observing objects behind a certain distance. My english isn't good enough to describe this as detailed as i would like to, but i hope you can understand it anyway.

As i understood it, light consists of photons which emit from objects like a star or a universe etc. When we see a universe in space it is because we "catch" the photons approaching us from there. But if you go to an infinite distance, shouldn't the angle between single photons become big enough that we could slip between them and just miss any light from that object. I mean that after an infinite distance even the smallest difference of angles (a planck length) will become infinite itself. We could get lucky and still catch a photon of that object, but there would also be the chance to just miss them.

First off light does not dissipate its energy as it travels through space. It can only dissipate its energy if it physically interacts with matter. Light itself is just that; a form of energy, and does not need to be "replenished" once it is it emitted. This is because light is made up and bound together by an electric field and a magnetic field which produce and support each other as the light beam travels through space. Hence, a light beam is "self-sustaining" so to speak.

The only thing that stops this from going on forever is when a light wave interacts with some form of matter (ie. a planet, dust, gas etc...). Its energy is then absorbed by the matter it has come into contact with. Sometimes the material may re-emit the light, but usually at a much lower energy. And since space is mostly empty the chances of these waves encountering some matter is relatively small. Hence, light can propagate outward for long lengths of time.

But by the same token, as the waves of light spread out the intensity (or brightness) does indeed gets weaker. This is because there are a fixed number of waves spreading out into a larger area. This is known as "the inverse square law", because at any given point in space the intensity of the light decreases as the inverse square of the distance from the original light emitting source. Nonetheless, its energy content and make up remains the same through this process.

[Fahren]

Obviously another civilization far away built a Large Hadron Collider and we're watching their planet be destroyed.

I lol'd irl

[Smergle]

The observation of telescopes and the CMB don't hold red shift as a viable explanation.

Regarding the infinite distance question, the only infinities that exist, are mathematical ones. The universe is a finite thing, it is nonsensical for many reasons to consider it possessing any infinite values.

Yes light is bent by massive bodies, but it isn't significant enough to explain Olber's paradox unless you wish to postulate some sort of massive boundary to the universe which we cannot see beyond.

I favor reducing things to simpler forms, eliminating postulates, not producing them.

I don't understand how you can say the universe is finite. Just because what we can see as of now is finite. Does not make the universe finite. Time has not elapsed long enough for us to see the infinite. I'm not a scientist or anything that is just my view on the matter.

[Kaylia]

I don't understand how you can say the universe is finite. Just because what we can see as of now is finite. Does not make the universe finite. Time has not elapsed long enough for us to see the infinite. I'm not a scientist or anything that is just my view on the matter.

An infinite universes would create a bunch of problem with our current understanding of physics.

Also, try to "define" an infinity in our reality. Infinity is a very useful mathematical concept, but its another thing when you apply it to the real world

[Mizango]

I don't understand how you can say the universe is finite. Just because what we can see as of now is finite. Does not make the universe finite. Time has not elapsed long enough for us to see the infinite. I'm not a scientist or anything that is just my view on the matter.

The universe is observationally finite - about 13.7 billion light years in every direction from earth. For all practical purposes, that makes it spatially finite.The space between 'objects' is hypothesized to have expanded much faster than light immediately after the big bang. That is what we like to call cosmic inflation.

Universes 'external' to our own remain speculation. No means to affirm their existence has been devised and validated and one thing science teaches you is that you have to have "proof" before you can declare something as fact. So again, from what we OBSERVE and by studying the Redshifts of stars and galaxies once again lend credence to the though that things are finite to an extent.

You may want to read up on CMB and WMAP imaging if you want to see the "observable" universe and why we use the term finite when describing the universe as a whole.


Edit: Kaylia beat me to it lol.

[Woozie]

I don't understand how you can say the universe is finite. Just because what we can see as of now is finite. Does not make the universe finite. Time has not elapsed long enough for us to see the infinite. I'm not a scientist or anything that is just my view on the matter.

Our reasoning for believing the universe is finite isn't because "what we see as of now is finite". Thus, rejecting that line of reasoning doesn't refute any scientific arguments as to why the universe is finite.

We believe that the universe is finite based mainly on observational and mathematical data. A universe that's infinite would "look" much different than a universe that isn't - and by look, I mostly mean mathematically. Our best evidence and mathematics seems to support a finite universe, but there are plenty of scientist out there who believe that the universe is infinite. So this isn't one of those matters that's already settled, it's still up for debate. I personally believe that the universe is finite, and as far as I know, this belief is the majority among scientist right now.

Edit: Two people beat me to it, so don't feel bad, Miz x_x

[Mizango]

HAHA

[Woozie]

Well, to my defense, my phone rang while I was typing, so at least I have an excuse.

[Mizango]

Well, to my defense, my phone rang while I was typing, so at least I have an excuse.

So my plan worked then? Great success!

That was totally a diversion.

[Kuya]

Doesn't really matter; we have more than enough space to cover and we might not even get a chance to do that.

[AoE]

Sorry to go off topic but anyone else prefer to call it the Large Hardon Collider instead of Hadron?

[Woozie]

I prefer to keep my large hardons away from high speed collisions.

[Mizango]

I prefer to keep my large hardons away from high speed collisions.

This is the only correct answer.

[Max™]

There is a line of thought that argues our universe is a finite 3+1 D bubble in a larger universe, which may be infinite itself.

Unfortunately, it is rather difficult to even consider ways to prove an idea like that.

As Woozie said, mathematically, there are aspects of the universe which would be completely inexplicable if it were infinite. Never mind the hell it would play on any form of quantum theories, having to consider truly infinite iterations of events, rather than treating them as renormalizable functions.

As for large hardon collisions as I say, dicks touching is unaesthetic.

[Boyiee]

There is nothing wrong with a little Helmet Rubbing once in a while.