Webb Telescope news

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

@KevWind, here's an article from February which goes into a ton of readable detail on the topic of what Webb does and doesn't tell us at this point. It may be out of date at this point, but a good overview of what Webb (to that point) had and hadn't called into question.

https://www.wired.com/story/no-the-j...ken-cosmology/

I'm not saying it couldn't be the case that the universe is older than we thought. Any knowledge we have is subject to new evidence, and that's of course the power of science. Always questioning itself, always adding to the corpus of knowledge. But for me it would take more than supposition or the possibility of an older universe to say "We just don't know". There are multiple pieces of strong evidence to support the 13.8 billion year age...at this point. I think we need more to overturn the current model.

This resonates for me, from the linked article:



Incredibly interesting topic. I'll never stop being amazed by the enormity of time and space. Just incomprehensible in any real sense. Truly "awesome".

Thanks I will read it

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by Jamolay

To the extent that we understand the universe as we see it.

I do agree with you, but everything we observe is biased by our understanding of our methods. How do we know that we are observing the full picture and interpreting it correctly?

It's an interesting question, and of course this is where any philosophy, belief, or observation meets it's match. We can push it as far as Solipsism, the idea that all we really know is our own consciousness, and that everything we perceive could be an illusion. I could be in a simulation, alone. There's nothing I can do to disprove that. So we must grant that the conversations we have are limited to what we can agree upon as our reality.

This is a good article on how the age is determined: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...f-the-universe

Originally Posted by Jamolay

I think a key point mentioned in a post above is “the age of the visible universe“.

We have no way to measure what may (or may not) be beyond the visible universe. For all we know the Big Bang was just a tiny local phenomenon in a much vaster than vast greater universe.

We only think it is big, because we really are so small….

Actually, we already have a pretty clear idea that the universe is vastly larger than the observable universe.

https://www.space.com/24073-how-big-...-universe.html

They found that the universe is at least 250 times larger than the observable universe, or at least 7 trillion light-years across.

"That's big, but actually more tightly constrained that many other models," according to 2011 MIT Technology Review report.

[Jamolay]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

It's an interesting question, and of course this is where any philosophy, belief, or observation meets it's match. We can push it as far as Solipsism, the idea that all we really know is our own consciousness, and that everything we perceive could be an illusion. I could be in a simulation, alone. There's nothing I can do to disprove that. So we must grant that the conversations we have are limited to what we can agree upon as our reality.

This is a good article on how the age is determined: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...f-the-universe



Actually, we already have a pretty clear idea that the universe is vastly larger than the observable universe.

https://www.space.com/24073-how-big-...-universe.html

Makes sense that someone smarter and more directly involved than me would have thought of. And looked into that idea a bit.

There is a blur between theoretical physics and philosophy, no doubt. But how deal with Shrödingers cat when we aren’t even aware of the box? Not to mention that observing a system from within it is not the best vantage point.

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by Jamolay

Makes sense that someone smarter and more directly involved than me would have thought of. And looked into that idea a bit.

There is a blur between theoretical physics and philosophy, no doubt. But how deal with Shrödingers cat when we aren’t even aware of the box? Not to mention that observing a system from within it is not the best vantage point.

It's true! We can only know what we can know at any given time. We have no idea what's beyond the universe, or if that construct even makes sense.

A pretty good reason to raise one's eyebrows when they suggest they know how it all came about. At some point, "we don't know" is always the right answer. But we know an amazing amount, and what we've learned in the short span of my life blows my mind. I remember when black holes were a wild hypothesis. Now we have images. Incredible.

[Slothead56]

Originally Posted by Horsehockey

All I know is that time definitely moves faster the less of it that you have left.

I’m the OP….of all the posts that leave my head spinning, this is really the only one that truly makes sense….

[srick]

Originally Posted by Slothead56

I’m the OP….of all the posts that leave my head spinning, this is really the only one that truly makes sense….

Heard one akin to that today: “The days grow longer, while the years grow shorter”

[DCCougar]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Shazamm , no wonder I have aged so quickly living at 8000 ft
Thats going to be my excuse from now on

And you can say that Einstein tells you so.

[Jamolay]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

It's true! We can only know what we can know at any given time. We have no idea what's beyond the universe, or if that construct even makes sense.

A pretty good reason to raise one's eyebrows when they suggest they know how it all came about. At some point, "we don't know" is always the right answer. But we know an amazing amount, and what we've learned in the short span of my life blows my mind. I remember when black holes were a wild hypothesis. Now we have images. Incredible.

What is really amazing is our creativity in developing our understanding of the incomprehensible.

[DCCougar]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

This is a good article on how the age is determined: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...f-the-universe

Yes, good one. I think this was where I got my information on the topic: The Birth of Time: How Astronomers Measure the Age of the Universe -- John Gribbin. I see now it's somewhat dated (2001). I think its independent methods for determining the age of the Universe are still applicable (if not always yielding equal accuracies).

[LiveMusic]

Originally Posted by DCCougar

And you can say that Einstein tells you so.

Upon reading the post you replied to, that was my immediate thought. But you seem to have a great grasp on such, would you care to expand on that for a bit cuz I'm not exactly sure why! TIA if so!

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by DCCougar

Yes, good one. I think this was where I got my information on the topic: The Birth of Time: How Astronomers Measure the Age of the Universe -- John Gribbin. I see now it's somewhat dated (2001). I think its independent methods for determining the age of the Universe are still applicable (if not always yielding equal accuracies).

Thanks for the link. I tried to find a synopsis, but nothing online that I could easily find. Not sure I'll get to reading it TBH, but I appreciate ya.

[Sadie-f]

Originally Posted by Jamolay

And what is time? We only age the universe at 14 billion years because that is what we can see with our amazing, but very limited tools. We really have no idea what is out there and what it is all about.

I am pretty sure, though, that if we do encounter extraterrestrial life, it won’t fit our anthropomorphized image of it.

Water and carbon are pretty solid starting points.

The search for life is essentially a search for negative entropy.

[TBman]

Originally Posted by DCCougar

To minimize this effect, you'll want to stay in the lowlands since a clock on top of a tall mountain moves relatively faster than a clock at the base of that mountain. (OK, the difference is barely detectable, but hey. )

Why is that? I always thought that gravity slowed time... Ok, I just answered my own question.... but is it because of lower gravity at higher altitudes or because the higher altitudes are going faster rotationally than the lower altitudes...... Or is it because an African sparrow flies faster than an European one.......

I have a headache now

[Silurian]

Originally Posted by TBman

Why is that? I always thought that gravity slowed time... Ok, I just answered my own question.... but is it because of lower gravity at higher altitudes or because the higher altitudes are going faster rotationally than the lower altitudes...... Or is it because an African sparrow flies faster than an European one.......

I have a headache now

Bear in mind that it's all relative (as Mr Einstein proved). There is no absolute 'slowing' of time.

Two observers, one at sea level (A)and one at 10,000 feet(B)

A will observe B's clock to run fast. B will observe A's clock to run slow. Both are right.

[jmagill]

I love this thread.

I think about this stuff all the time. I'm just as delightfully gobsmacked as anyone here in pondering such questions, and I continue to be dazzled by the findings of the Hubble and now the Webb telescopes. I can hardly wait for their next revelations.

I'd just like to add that, for those who find randomness an unsatisfactory feature of what we know about the Universe and everything in it, the idea of a Creator naturally arises (however we tapdance around it here), but just because we don't yet know the answer to a question doesn't mean we can substitute a supernatural one without evidence.

Just because we don't yet know the answer to a question doesn't mean there isn't one.

The pursuit of such answers is the whole purpose of science.

And now, back to the unfathomable majesty and mystery of the universe...

.