Posted on 09/24/2004 8:17:42 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
Scientists studying the deepest picture of the Universe, taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, have been left with a big poser: where are all the stars? The Ultra Deep Field is a view of one patch of sky built from 800 exposures.
The picture shows faint galaxies whose stars were shining just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.
"Our results based on the Ultra Deep Field are very intriguing and quite a puzzle," says Dr Andrew Bunker, of Exeter University, UK, who led a team studying the new data."
"They're certainly not what I expected, nor what most of the theorists in astrophysics expected."
"There is not enough activity to explain the re-ionisation of the Universe," Dr Bunker told the BBC. "Perhaps there was more action in terms of star formation even earlier in the history of the Universe - that's one possibility.
"Another exciting possibility is that physics was very different in the early Universe; our understanding of the recipe stars obey when they form is flawed."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
IIRC, you and I have had this or similar exchange once before.
can you provide us a single physical example, on Earth, where an object can be better located beyond the basic 4D?
No. It is not possible to model a finite yet boundless volume.
No, we can see light from a billion lightyears from us.
But, if at one point in the distant past, before the big bang, everything was condensed into a tiny area, how far out into space will I have to look to see the time when everything was not actually farther out in space, but was condensed into a tiny area?
You can't, you run out of time before you run out of space, at last estimation.
So, you are saying either that space started before time started, which doesn't sound possible, or that there was an empty 'buffer space' surrounding the condensed matter before the big bang? If the latter is true, how will we ever have any idea how old the universe is, because there will be no reference for how long the 'buffer space' existed before the big bang happened? Also, why would that empty 'buffer space' have expanded outward and retained its emptiness after the big bang? Wouldn't it have been filled with matter from the big bang, and then started expanding?
Every argument you have, I have heard at least 1,000 times.
I keep asking a rather simple question:
Can you give me an physical example of these multi-dimensional mathematical theories. No "Flat Land" fictional books, but an actual physical example?
This should have been such a simple thing to do. For years, I was ashamed to even ask the question. It would make me look rather stupid and ignorant.
I view it as a mathematical convenience.
As I said before, "No."
By extension of the theory, I should be able to view a section of the sky that is a total void.
If not, why not?
The theory is only valid if we are located in the exact center of the Universe.
B I N G O
You have just won the prize for the most correct answer.
I could explain it.
But I won't. Way too busy.
Must be a side effect of global warming and Bush giving deals to his oil buddies. At least that is what we'll hear reported by Dan Rather and company.
Inflationary theory. In a nutshell, while it is impossible to move through space at greater than the speed of light, space itself has no such limitation. The idea is that the early universe did just that.
Can I assume all this fascinating theoretical speculation is being conducted in an islamic country?
Of course, the universe from the quantum domain to the cosmological domain might be nothing that we can form a true mental picture of based on everyday experience. In the very small and the very big we are seeing surprising things that don't mesh well with things in our daily lives.
Oh no! It's proof of the Steady State Theory. Well, maybe not.
---
Can you give me an physical example of these multi-dimensional mathematical theories.
---
Yes. It the three dimensional "shadow" of a 4-dimensional "cube," just as a sphere exists two-dimensionally as a circle.
We are physically incapable of perceiving the fourth dimension directly. However, we can observe the effect 4-dimensional objects would have in three dimensional space.
The following website allows you to see the three dimensional representation of a fourth dimensional cube.
http://pw1.netcom.com/~hjsmith/WireFrame4/tesseract.html
If our universe were expanding in the fourth dimension (the geometric fourth dimension, not the relativistic one everyone talks about that includes time), we would be unable to observe the expansion directly because we are physically unable to observe the fourth dimension. However, like the model above, we CAN observe the three-dimensional effects a fourth dimensional expansion would have. The background microwave radiation, the apparent equal expansion of the universe away from earth in all directions, the radiation boundary, the universe being larger than observable in three dimension, etc. are all three dimensional manifestations of a fourth dimensional expansion.
If you are unwilling to accept this, then you are unwilling to accept neutrinos because we cannot observe them directly.
As I said before, I fully accept the concept of x, y, z and time (4 dimensions) as a physical reality.
Any additional dimensional space has not been physically demonstrated. If you do have an example of this, then I would be most excited to learn about it.
Until then, please spare us with the "flat land" fiction. Freepers actually do have a rather high education.
Much better link:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
Ah, sort of like the "Emperor's New Clothes"
That link that you have just provided is being copied and read at the moment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.