[–] Gladers 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Article is full of words but said nothing

[–] MyDrunkAccount 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Forbes, did you expect anything else?

[–] 1Iron_Curtain 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I understand you are a physicists, so I have a generally question to ask? Is there such a thing as a general center of the universe(like a kind of quasi-anti-gravity center from which the universe dilates and "expands") and from which the general mechanisms behind the general and special law of relativity are "determined" and in a sense its some sort of general quasi-deterministic(partially indeterministic at the subatomic level) mechanism that everything to some degree is "determined" by over a certain "range of energy/mass probabilities" recapitulating them around things that give rise formation to the planets and different galaxies.

I would assume we would not have a general law or rule or a way of tracking this system, but could there be something in quantum physics that can explain this mechanism at work within the universe, if it did exist?

I just am not a believer that the universe never existed at one point, that the core(perhaps dark matter?) is just some empty/vacuous system of "absolute energy" that is just static, and that everything just erupted out of a vacuum without any there already be some underlying mechanism at the subatomic level that churned the universe into a state of awakening itself.

[–] The_Cat [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

There is no center to the universe. Every point moves away from every other point, and the further you look, the faster things are moving away from you. It's like a piece of rubber being stretched in all directions equally. We don't know if the universe is finite or infinite, we just know that it looks like it's roughly the same everywhere, and every point will look like the center because everything else is receding.

On the dark matter/dark energy that @Son_Of_Hate dismissed out of hand: This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how these concepts came to be.

Up until fairly recently, astronomy and cosmology operated under a simple assumption: all the stuff that we (can) see is all the stuff that exists. Which was partly a assumption out of necessity, since all information we get from astronomy is in the form of light, and partly a well justified assumption since all matter that we know of interacts with light. (I'm glossing over neutrinos now because they're irrelevant to the story.)

After taking more and more measurements, it appeared that our observations we did using light seemed to be missing something. Things weren't moving at the right speeds, or were appearing heavier than they should be. So this can mean one of two things: 1. There is matter there that we can't see (the dark matter hypothesis) 2. Our current understanding of gravity is incomplete (Modified Newtonian Dynamics - MoND)

Both the dark matter hypothesis and MoND have been studied extensively, and it turns out that only the dark matter hypothesis properly corresponds to observations without the necessity of tweaking parameters for every single case and every single scale. It works for galaxies, for clusters, for superclusters, for cosmological models. MoND needs to be reparametrized for every scale and usually doesn't transfer well from case to case. So currently, the dark matter hypothesis is preferred over MoND. People are still trying different variations of modified gravity, including modified versions of general relativity, but so far nothing has come up that actually works, and most modifications tend to break general relativity in very fundamental ways. It's not discarded entirely, but the evidence in favor of dark matter gets stronger every year.

In case of dark energy, this is an idea that dates back to Einstein. If the universe itself has a certain baseline energy density (the cosmological constant), then this would work as a sort of expansive force. From observations it appears that the unvierse is not only expanding, it is doing so at an accelerating pace. This corresponds very well to the idea of a cosmological constant which is driving accelerated universal expansion. However, it's extremely difficult to get reliable and precise measurements of this, and our theoretical models which should predict a sensible value for the cosmological constant seem to be off by a lot. So there are a lot of unknowns surrounding dark energy. So far, it seems like dark energy is real and we have a fairly good estimate of its strength. But better observations are necessary, and it would probably help a lot if we could develop a working theory of quantum gravity. Only time will tell.

One final note: don't believe amateurs like @Son_Of_Hate who think they're smarter than experts for dismissing things they do not understand. Don't be like that. It's annoying and all you're doing is embarrassing yourself. If you don't understand something, ask and you might learn. Dismiss and you will remain ignorant.

Edit: This is a fairly good summary.

[–] 1Iron_Curtain 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Good read. I look forward to reading more from you. I was always fascinated with physics from a young age, but never really got to study it in depth.

[–] Son_Of_Hate 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I'm going to attempt to answer some of these questions. Specifically, the question of the center of the universe. As I understand it, no, there is no center from which the universe is expanding. In fact, the universe isn't expanding in the sense that most people think of it; it's not pushing out from some center. It more like the distance between things is increasing. The analogy that's usually used is a balloon with dots on it. As the balloon is filled with air, it expands. As it expands, the dots move further away from each other. However, no one spot can be said to be the "center"

Now, you could explain that the universe exists in some higher dimension and that the center is outside of our perception, but that is outside of my expertise. As for your questions on dark matter, the only things I can add are a bit of history and clarification. Basically, we have a bunch of theories about how things should work, but our measurements don't agree with them. Rather than admit that our theories are wrong and try to fix them, we assume that we are awesome and that the measurements are wrong. Thus, dark matter and dark energy were created to make our theories right.

Dark matter was added because we measured all the mass and all of the gravity in the universe (more or less) and found that there is more gravity than the mass we measured would create. So we assume that there is a bunch of mass that we can't detect creating all the gravity that we can detect (because making a new theory of gravity would be too much work). Likewise, dark energy was created when we noticed that the expansion of the universe was speeding up. Our current understanding says that if something is speeding up, energy must be added to it. Again, rather than say our understanding is wrong, we say that there is a bunch of energy that we can't detect moving things around.

[–] 1Iron_Curtain 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Does what you say about Dark Matter indicate a Higgs Boson Unified like center of gravity? Wouldn't this be hard to figure out with traditional classical Quantum mechanics, because it could not figure out how things in this realm would exactly function(partly because its some "criss-crossing" flow of indeterminism and determinism mechanization at the subatomic level.

Wouldn't this be the crux of the Grand Unified Theory. Also, even though it can be figured out and approximated quantum-ally(I made that word up) and since you say you have to invent things into your own theories(a good starting point when you are dealing with the non-perceptual/non-intuitively grasped), would not making that logical leap and the logic used to work at the problem be sort of Quantum in its structure.

I am not coming out at it from the perspective of a physicist, which puts me at a deficit, because of the need to understand the mathematics, classical mechanics, and general physical rules/laws, but this is not exactly a classical case and so I am trying to see this as a kind of Russell's paradox(a system that is not included in the set and class of other systems, but is the Union for them and contains them all, simply because it is not class A, B, C but class Omega).

[–] Merchant_Menace 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

If you want to understand how things move through space, study general relativity. The whole vortex thing is retarded.

[–] kammmmak 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

So from 2d to 3d

[–] derram 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

https://archive.fo/qlXGM :

Our Motion Through Space Isn't A Vortex, But Something Far More Interesting

'But our true cosmic address, and our real cosmic motion, is far more complex and interesting than a mere model such as this. '

'Our Milky Way galaxy is huge, massive, and most importantly, is in motion. ', "The Solar System isn't a vortex, but rather the sum of all our great cosmic motions.", "On the largest scales, it's only gravity that determines the motion of everything, including us, as we move through the Universe."

'As the Earth rotates on its axis, it hurtles us through space at nearly 1700 km/hr for someone on the equator. '

This has been an automated message.

[–] Native 3 points -1 points (+2|-3) ago 

it's only gravity that determines the motion of everything,

You know it's bullshit when they throw out the magical term 'gravity'

[–] satisfyinghump 4 points -3 points (+1|-4) ago 

No it's not. We are not flying through space like this.