Ask MetaFilter questions tagged with universe

Motion Sickness

zylocomotion — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:22:16 -0800

How many directions am I moving in while I'm just sitting here? Any idea of how fast? I'm not really looking for precision, or discussions about relativity, but rather generalities.

I'm guessing that continental drift and the effects of precession would be negligibly slow.

But, best as I can figure out:
Due to rotation, I'm moving eastwards at roughly 1,600 km/h, around the center of the earth.

Then the earth itself is moving about 108,000 km/hr counterclockwise around the sun.

Then the solar system is moving close to 792,000 km/hr around the galactic center.

And the galaxy itself is moving towards the Great Attractor at about 2,160,000 km/hr.

What have I missed? Where the hell is the Great Attractor moving? Isn't the galaxy also moving towards another galaxy in the local cluster, while we both head towards the Great Attractor?

I'm sick at home with the flu and I can't get these questions out of my head. Maybe I shouldn't drink so much TheraFlu. If you can make a FPP out of any of this, then...uh...godspeed. (How fast is that supposed to be? In what direct--oh nevermind)

What is the name of this TV show where you zoom out to see the universe and then zoom down to the atomic level?

kosmonaut — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:57:14 -0800

What is the name of this science TV program where you are continually zooming out farther and farther from the Earth, and then zooming in to the microscopic level in someone's skin cell, while a man narrates? A few years ago I saw this program, maybe on PBS, where every ten seconds the speed of zoom would increase by an order of magnitude, and you see more and more of the universe, and then after zooming out a while, you would reverse direction, zooming in-- eventually into a cell and every ten seconds the speed would decrease by an order of magnitude as you get smaller and smaller into atoms and so on.

It was a really fascinating show and I wish I could figure out the name of it. Surely someone out there knows exactly what it is!

Is it possible to be bad at math and understand the structure of the universe?

diogenes — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:47:40 -0800

Is it possible to be bad at math and understand the structure of the universe? A recent question about the structure of the universe got me thinking about my own attempts to understand these ideas. I'm fascinated by cosmology, but I suck at math. It's a frustrating combination ;) I read cosmology books (like Carl Sagan) and listen to astronomy podcasts, and I feel like I'm gaining some understanding. Am I just fooling myself? Is it only the physicists and mathematicians who truly understand the structure of the universe?

To put it another way, most of my understanding is based on analogies provided by people who understand the math. Are these analogies so partial and flawed as to be useless?

Is the amount of matter in the universe infinite?

borkingchikapa — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 06:31:31 -0800

Is the amount of matter in the universe infinite, too? How does that work? So, okay, say our universe is infinite (current data supports this, right?). Since there are a finite number of ways that particles can be arranged, that must mean that if you go far enough you'll run into an identical earth with an identical history, identical population, an identical you. Even though that's hella weird and I could probably never explain it to my parents, I think I get it.

I'd heard all that before, but I was listening to this Radiolab podcast (which is really very good!) and it doesn't mention the one thing I never understood - doesn't that mean that the amount of matter in the universe must also be infinite?

Honestly, in light of all this other nonsense, that tidbit wouldn't be that hard to swallow if it didn't directly contradict other weird stuff I've heard. For example, according to this episode of Astronomy Cast (maybe I shouldn't be getting all my information from podcasts), the Big Bang created slightly more matter than anti-matter, resulting in a mostly-matter universe. But how could it be more if matter is infinite? They even give a number, I think it's something like ten billion particles of antimatter to ten billion and one of matter.

Now what? Is matter actually infinite? Is one of those wrong? Are they both supported, and there's something I'm missing?

What are the dimensions of the universe?

BirdD0g — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:09:29 -0800

What are the dimensions of the universe? First of all, I'm assuming there's about twelve from what I've been able to find so far. I don't yet have an understanding of m-theory, string theory, or superstring theory, which is where I'm assuming this pondering will lead eventually. In a nutshell, here's what I've got so far in thinking about this myself:

1. SPACE X left/right
2. SPACE Y up/down
3. SPACE Z in/out
4. TIME X diachronic (start to finish)
5. TIME Y synchronic (all possibility)
6. TIME Z (???)
7. COLOR X brightness (light to dark)
8. COLOR Y hue (the rainbow)
9. COLOR Z saturation (gray)

How does sound fit in? What about light (or should my description of "color" be considered "light" instead)?

Additionally, I'm assuming some sort of vortex ring model with a singularity as it seems the natural pattern formed by and infinite X & Y axis (plus seems to make sense in space w/ black holes, big bangs, etc).

I'm also a little confused about the z-axis in general with this vortex ring model, so if anyone has even the remotest idea of what I'm talking about, please chime in.

what should i do with my life / non-religious guidance needed

rawwell — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:35:08 -0800

I am a little out of sorts sorting out my life as it is. Please give me some advice on how I should go about life in my thirties. I am 29, male, an average office worker.
I vaguely understand that there is no deterministic meaning to life.

I currently go from day to day
with the following (suboptimal) behavioral guidelines.

1. chase down every temporary high
2. continue on my quest for wealth

I want to find a more satisfying motive to go on with my life.

Please give me some advice/pointers on how to find a more
fulfilling objective.

Please God don't make me read.

Optamystic — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:39:36 -0800

So, I've seen Sagan's Cosmos. I've seen The Universe. I've listened to Feynman's lectures on physics. What's next? Are there any other television series that will rock my universe?

Λ

plexi — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:28:22 -0800

How is the universe 156 billion light years across if it is only 13.7 billion years old?

Ad Astra Per Aspera!

Rhaomi — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:27:13 -0800

Seeking recommendations for some great space exploration/simulation games. I tend to be an observant, introverted, imaginative person, so any game that offers a rich universe to explore is right up my alley. I'm more of a sci-fi fan than a fantasy one, though, so I prefer space exploration games over the more popular "fantasy world" franchises like Ultima, Oblivion, Fable, and WoW.

Unfortunately, few games in the space sim genre have struck my fancy, so I humbly turn to the Hive Mind for some advice on new titles to explore. Here are some of the games I've seen that have come closest to my ideal, to give you an idea of exactly what I'm looking for:

Noctis - Probably the best example. A staggeringly huge persistent galaxy, with billions of planets and moons to wander. The art style is evocative and spare. First-person, 3-D, and with an emphasis on open-ended exploration. See this review for an excellent description of this game's appeal.

"The real joy of Noctis lies in setting eyes on alien landscapes that nobody has ever seen before. From verdant rain forests to bleak, blasted deserts, the worlds of Noctis never fail to engage the senses. In my voyages I have found icy planetoids so distant from their parent stars that it is impossible to tell where the ground ends and the darkened sky begins. I have swum upon giant worlds with liquid-rock surfaces whose temperatures extend into the thousands of degrees Kelvin. I have watched triplicate stars rise above placid green meadows, their light refracted by a high canopy of crystalline trees. From mountainous peaks extending thousands of meters above rolling oceans, I have gazed down at my distant landing pod and marveled at my own precious insignificance."

Unfortunately, the game's graphics are not the best, there's no sound, and the long-awaited sequel is pretty much vaporware at this point.
Spore - Not out yet, I know, but its vast galaxy of traversable planets teeming with life has more than caught my attention.
Infinity: The Quest for Earth - Also not out yet, but a good example of what I'm after. Persistent universe, billions of planets, ability to land and explore on foot, realistic scales, etc. Developer's page is here, Wiki article here.
Battlecruiser: Millenium - A laughably bad game in most respects, this one captured my imagination as a kid for its large catalog of planets and the ability to enter their atmospheres and walk, swim, and fly across their surfaces. Click here for a decent write-up of the game.
Celestia - Really more of a glorified planetarium than a game. Once you leave the Solar System there isn't much visual stimulation to be found, but I still love this space sim for its great interface and the way it conveys the immense scale of the universe.

And, just to clarify things, here are the types of games that I am NOT looking for:

Space flight simulators - I'm not too keen on having to pilot the orbital equivalent of a Boeing 747 just to get around. The aforementioned Battlecruiser lost a lot of points in this respect. Noctis hit the sweet spot of navigation, with its point-and-click interface and the ability to name and leave notes on locations in a shared database.
Space combat games - Combat can be present, but it shouldn't be the game's primary component.
MMOs or subscription-based games - There are plenty of "WoW in space!"-type games (EVE, Anarchy Online, Star Wars Galaxies), but most of them don't quite fit the bill. The focus in these games is usually on player interaction (trade, combat, role-playing), while exploration is an interesting novelty, or even unavailable. Infinity (mentioned above) comes closest to my ideal MMO exploration game.

So, bottom line: I'm looking for a persistent 3D universe, preferably procedurally generated (millions of worlds or more), that permits open-ended exploration both in-system and on-planet. Something solitary, relaxing, and beautiful, with plenty of visual variety. Online/offline functionality doesn't matter.

Thanks in advance!

The Internet has too many pages...

matty — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 08:56:18 -0800

This is a total waste of my two weeks, but I have to ask! In just the past couple of days, I saw a great website that showed the comparative size of objects - from as small as an atom (or smaller) to the size of the universe. Now I can't find it - and I need it!!

It was mostly black, with a flashy, java-esque interface, with a scrolling size-bar across the bottom from tiny to universe big. Was it from National Geographic? (I can't find it) Was it on Metafilter? (I can't find it).

I've googled, I've checked my internet history and cached pages and files. What was it? Where is it??

I'm looking for the website because it was a great example of the type of technology I'm hoping to use for a web-tool idea...

Help!!

Email to the Universe

allelopath — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:56:58 -0800

Where can I send an email to the Universe? I see I can send an email to god, e.g. http://stewdio.org/emailgod/ but this is not what I'm looking for. Also, it is not necessary, or even desirable, that another human read the email. I just want to send it out "there" and not bounce back. Any suggestions?

A Problem of Scale: Halfway in size between an atom and the universe

0bvious — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:10:04 -0800

"A human is halfway in size between an atom and the known universe"... This is a paraphrased quote I have come across several times. I like it. Who said it first? How true is it in the most literal sense? And, finally, what errors arrive in postulating a universe, or an atom, which can be measured AT ALL from our singular, relativistic, perspective? I found this quote from Cosmic Evolution which further complicates the whole relative size issue:

"Roughly halfway in size between an atom and a human, the amoeba has poor awareness and coordination. It generally responds only at the point stimulated, communicating the information sluggishly through the rest of its body. Although amoebas have developed a crude nervous system, living things that aspire to be more agile—and smarter—surely need quicker internal reactions." - link

Kind of sets another stage from which to view this question.

I also found this quote from Holmes Rolston which further complicates things:

"The human world stands about midway between the infinitesimal and the immense. The size of our planet is near the geometric mean of the size of the known universe and the size of the atom. The mass of a human being is the geometric mean of the mass of the earth and the mass of a proton. A person contains about 10²⁸ atoms, more atoms than there are stars in the universe. Such considerations yield perhaps only a relative location. Still, questions of place and proportion arise." - link

Who first made this often used statement? My earlier questions still stand :-)

Thanks...

QuoteFilter: universe & man

provolot — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:54:54 -0800

QuoteFilter: about the universe and thought. I'm looking for a quote (maybe by Carl Sagan) about the idea that the universe is such a large concept that human beings, as creations within the universe, are unable to correctly comprehend the idea of the universe.

Either that, or the quote was about how human beings are unable to comprehend the creator of human beings, all Gödel-like.

Thanks in advance!

Is there really a Bizarro World?

grumblebee — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:33:00 -0800

What is anti-matter? According to this article, scientists have discovered that there are particles which travel back and forth between our "world" and the anti-matter "world."

I always figured that anti-matter worlds -- actual universes where there might be people, etc. -- were a conceit of sci-fi. I DO know that there is a real substance called anti-matter, but I don't have the physics to understand exactly what it is.

I gather that when the universe was formed, both matter (the stuff we, our houses, our chairs, our dogs, etc. are made of) and anti-matter (whatever THAT is) came into existence. And I get that when matter touches anti-matter, the two substances destroy each other. (I'm not sure why they do.) But how does all this tie into anti-matter worlds?

Is there another universe sitting "along side" ours?

I fought the law

extrabox — Wed, 31 May 2006 05:37:30 -0800

Is there any evidence that physical laws have changed, or could possibly change over time? For example, has the speed of light - since the beginning of the universe - been the same, and will it always remain the same into the future? i.e., Is it possible conditions were so different for the first billion years of the universe that this 'constant' was different than the speed we now measure?

I am interested in the answer to this question as it might apply to any law of physics or 'constants', light is just an example. (Also, I'm aware of experiments that show, for example, that light may be 'slowed' under certain singular conditions...I'm more interested if these laws could change or have changed on a universe-wide scale)

Did Asimov get the origin of the universe right?

Kattullus — Fri, 12 May 2006 14:13:52 -0800

Today's big science news story about a theoretically infinite number of big bangs immediately triggered memories of a non-fiction book or essay by Isaac Asimov that proposed the same theory of the universe. Am I recollecting Asimov's conjecture correctly, which if I remember correctly he proposed almost as a flight of poetic fancy. Does anyone remember what book this was in?

Factoring 'Time' into Astronomic Observations

0bvious — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 23:17:01 -0800

AskMeFi Physics folk: How do astronomers account for the temporal distinctiveness of their galactic subjects in their calculations? I understand that observations of the red shift of quasars delinates a speed increase in the expansion of the universe - yet my brain explodes when I try to understand how the enormous expanse of time is factored into these models. The hardest concepts for me to conceive are ones that factor the enormous AGE of the universe into their workings. I understand that by observing quasar red shift and comparing it to the shift of 'nearby' galaxies astronomers have determined that universe expansion is actually increasing. Surely though the fact that these quasar entities exist 'back in time' alters the nature of the data streaming from them? The photons of light astronomers gather in their observations have not just travelled great distances of space, but also great expanses of time, yet when the light was first emitted from these 'distant' objects their distinction in space was not as great as it is now (i.e. when the universe was smaller) a weird conflict indeed... This is where I reach the event horizon of my understanding.

Why doesn't the time aspect completely alter the nature of evidence gathered? Working with data that comes from billions of years hence must make calculations incredibly obscure.

In what ways is this temporality a help and a hinderance? How are the factors of time, space and motion / change plotted to form the model?

nothingness

leibniz — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 08:52:00 -0800

Does space expanding require more nothingness inbetween? I am told that in modern physics, space is different from nothingness, because space contains vacuum energy, can split into matter/antimatter and because it can be bent and stretched.

My question is this; if what causes the universe to expand is space stretching/getting less dense, does this mean that there's bigger gaps of nothingness within the space, or is it that more space 'grows'? Is the universe completely full up with space/matter/energy, or is there nothingness as well? Or what? Am I thinking of all this too mechanistically?

Why consciousness??

0bvious — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 07:43:06 -0800

Why did consciousness evolve? I was inspired by this quote of Kurt Vonnegut's:

"I was taught that the human brain was the crowning glory of evolution so far, but I think it’s a very poor scheme for survival."

I think Vonnegut's comment extends to the realm of consciousness in general. Why did evolution happen to move in the direction of conscious reflexion when there are surely simpler, more efficicent ways to aid an organism's survival?

Expansive answers more than welcome...

Help me print out the universe

pwally — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 12:07:42 -0800

I want to make a poster out of this massive picture (29 megs) of the center of the milky way. Whats the cheapest way to do this?

Wall Chart with history of universe and Earth

nancoix — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 08:42:55 -0800

EducationalWallChart Filter. I'm looking for printable web page(s) (or, alternatively, a retail product) that show a timeline of astronomical-anthopological events like: when Big Bang occurred; when our galaxy and solar system formed; when life began; when major life forms began and ended (e.g. dinosaurs); when primates appeared; when various proto-humans appeared; when homo sapiens appeared. Must be in TimeLine form. Not something vague and basic -- needs to have lots of detail.

Is the universe finite?

painquale — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:27:41 -0800

Can anyone recommend any good recent articles or papers on whether the universe is infinite or finite? I've heard that scientists suspect that the universe is flat, which lends credence to the infinite-universe hypothesis. I've decided I don't know enough about this. Nothing too technical, please, though I'd prefer something more complex than an article from a newspaper science section.

End of the Universe

scarabic — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 18:43:05 -0800

End of the universe scenarios. I'm familiar with the concepts of "heat death" as well as the universe contracting unto another Big Bang. How else might the universe someday become a completely un-survivable place?

Big Bang

zeoslap — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 08:06:20 -0800

Okay all you astronomers, I just asked this is an older MeFi thread but figured I might get a better response here.

Go back to the big bang and you start off with a single point that exploded and has kept on expanding. So when you look back in time by way of observing distant places would you not end up looking at exactly the same place (the point) no matter which direction you looked?

Entropy

vraxoin — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:25:33 -0800

AskMe physicists: Assuming there were any, where did the entropy from previous universes go? [more inside] My understanding is that the universe at the time of the big bang was in a state of very low entropy, and that we've been using that inherent order to do work ever since the universe began. So, assuming that there was some previous universe, or string of universes, what happened to all then entropy that they generated when they expanded? When gravity collapses gases into stars, for instance, the outpouring of heat and light and whatnot compensates for the "lost entropy" of the highly ordered star. So where would all the entropy have gone in those collapsed universes?