PDA

View Full Version : Proof we are in the matrix: Olber's Paradox



PAH
11th October 2011, 15:53
While musing the +/- of solar panels I began to wonder why the universe appears dark if there are so many stars in it. :rolleyes:

Looks like I'm not the only one to question this apparent flaw in the matrix logic:

Olbers' paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox)

Now, which pill is it I should be taking? :eyes

[Off to patent a solar panel that generates electricity from redshift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift)ed wavelengths. :smokin]

original PM
11th October 2011, 16:12
well not really.

Olbers paradox is only a paradox if you hold to the steady state universe theory as it is that type of universe that should have stars in al directions

the big bang/inflationary model does not insist that the universe is the same in each direction - as confirmed by the COBE sky map.

TimberWolf
11th October 2011, 16:24
It would be interesting to know what proportion of the area of the sky around us does intersect matter. I thought the Hubble telescope had trouble find empty sky.

I heard an amusing anecdote that they pointed it at an empty piece and in it saw 3000 galaxies. That's galaxies, not stars nor dust.
Hubble Deep Field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field)

OwlHoot
11th October 2011, 16:32
Curiously, the first person to suggest the correct resolution of this "paradox" was author Edgar Allen Poe !

linky (http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/cs_paradox.html)


... So why is the night sky dark? The first scientifically reasonable answer was given in 1848 by the American poet and writer Edgar Allan Poe! He suggested that the universe is not old enough to fill the sky with light. The universe may be infinite in size, he thought, but there hasn’t been enough time since the universe began for starlight, traveling at the speed of light, to reach us from the farthest reaches of space. ...

TimberWolf
11th October 2011, 16:41
Curiously, the first person to suggest the correct resolution of this "paradox" was author Edgar Allen Poe !

linky (http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/cs_paradox.html)

Yeah but, if I understand correctly, he was wrong. With an expanding universe, the sky can be filled with stars.

NickFitz
11th October 2011, 16:56
Yeah but, if I understand correctly, he was wrong. With an expanding universe, the sky can be filled with stars.

And the stars that fill the sky would be wherefrom the starlight that hadn't had time to arrive came, making him right.

Unless you believe he was saying that the not-yet-arrived starlight was coming from where stars weren't.

TimberWolf
11th October 2011, 17:15
And the stars that fill the sky would be wherefrom the starlight that hadn't had time to arrive came, making him right.

Unless you believe he was saying that the not-yet-arrived starlight was coming from where stars weren't.

He didn't know about the big bang but was right in that there are stars whose light will never reach us.

But in an inflationary universe, light is also red shifted, in effect the sky could be filled with stars whose light is dimmed.

suityou01
11th October 2011, 17:25
While musing the +/- of solar panels I began to wonder why the universe appears dark if there are so many stars in it. :rolleyes:

Looks like I'm not the only one to question this apparent flaw in the matrix logic:

Olbers' paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox)

Now, which pill is it I should be taking? :eyes

[Off to patent a solar panel that generates electricity from redshift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift)ed wavelengths. :smokin]

Professor Brian Cox said once on the beeb that a lot of light in the universe has stretched cos of the big bang and you can't see it, only hear it on the radio.

Or summat like this.

NickFitz
11th October 2011, 17:52
Professor Brian Cox said once on the beeb that a lot of light in the universe has stretched cos of the big bang and you can't see it, only hear it on the radio.

Or summat like this.

So Eddie Grundy is the light of the universe? :eek:

suityou01
11th October 2011, 18:02
So Eddie Grundy is the light of the universe? :eek:

No, Chris Moyles. :laugh

DimPrawn
11th October 2011, 18:09
Hours of fun reading through the details of all the paradoxes.

List of paradoxes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes)

gingerjedi
11th October 2011, 21:01
Black Holes, light cannot escape.

Panic over.

AlfredJPruffock
11th October 2011, 22:32
He didn't know about the big bang but was right in that there are stars whose light will never reach us.

But in an inflationary universe, light is also red shifted, in effect the sky could be filled with stars whose light is dimmed.

Thats why Space Telescopes such as ESAs Herschel and Planck examine the Infra Red and MicroWave Realms of the Universe to in effect - Travel back in Time to examine to the formation of Star Sytems and for Planck - sampling microwave energy from Big Bang iteself - and perhaps beyond if the Planck data confirms the existence of Multi-Universe ..

Meaning the detection of the signature of microwave energy from a time before the supposed time of the creation of the Universe .. theres a noble prize somewhere in that Planck data !

The visible Universe being only one aspect of the Universe and Time is not what you may think it is.

TimberWolf
12th October 2011, 07:44
The visible Universe being only one aspect of the Universe and Time is not what you may think it is.

Time is what it's defined to be.

NotAllThere
12th October 2011, 07:52
He didn't know about the big bang but was right in that there are stars whose light will never reach us.

But in an inflationary universe, light is also red shifted, in effect the sky could be filled with stars whose light is dimmed.It is. It's called background radiation, at about 3K.

At my local GP's practice, I always have a choice of two. And I never know which to see. It's a real pair o' docs.

Bunk
12th October 2011, 09:33
It is. It's called background radiation, at about 3K.

At my local GP's practice, I always have a choice of two. And I never know which to see. It's a real pair o' docs.

I believe this is your coat? :igmc:

scooterscot
12th October 2011, 10:57
While musing the +/- of solar panels I began to wonder why the universe appears dark if there are so many stars in it. :roll eyes:

Look I'm on holiday,

It's taken humans nearly 200 years to answer the question, why is the sky dark? And it's not until very recently (the last 20 years or so) we've understood why.

Simply put the accelerating expansion of the universe prevents distant light from ever reaching us.

Arturo Bassick
12th October 2011, 11:02
Simply put the accelerating expansion of the universe prevents distant light from ever reaching us.That would mean the Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light!

scooterscot
12th October 2011, 11:05
That would mean the Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light!

No.

Arturo Bassick
12th October 2011, 11:08
No.Then the light would reach us! (eventually)

AlfredJPruffock
12th October 2011, 11:29
Time is what it's defined to be.

The Time that can be deescribed is not the True Time - nor even Tea Time.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rgs/alice25a.gif

TimberWolf
12th October 2011, 11:32
The Time that can be deescribed is not the True Time - nor even Tea Time.



There is no 'true' time, everyone's clock ticks at a different pace.

AlfredJPruffock
12th October 2011, 11:50
Then the light would reach us! (eventually)

Aye AB

In fact you are correct in a way - your earlier point regarding the Universe expanding faster thatn the speed of light is true - if Big Bang theory is correct - that in the milliseconds followng the First Light - the Universe did expand faster than the speed of light - some Cosmologsts atribute this to that during the those frst milli-seconds the nomal Laws did not apply.

And of course if the data from Planck confirms that the MulitVerse theory is correct than Big Bng theory in turn is obsolete - well -we should all sit down and have a good cup ot tea.

So it goes.

filthy1980
12th October 2011, 12:04
during my key stage 3 science lesson i also asked my teacher at the time, if sun illuminates the earth why is space dark? simple answer came back, because light rays need to bounce off something to be visible

maybe i've misunderstood the question but isn't that still the case?


(unless my science teacher lied to me, he is in prison now having been convicted of sex with a minor)

Zoiderman
12th October 2011, 12:05
during my key stage 3 science lesson i also asked my teacher at the time, if sun illuminates the earth why is space dark? simple answer came back, because light rays need to bounce off something to be visible

maybe i've misunderstood the question but isn't that still the case?


(unless my science teacher lied to me, he is in prison now having been convicted of sex with a minor)

He probably lied to him/her

gingerjedi
12th October 2011, 12:13
Indeed not. Time is an illusion and tea time is doubly so.

Lunchtime Shirley?

PAH
12th October 2011, 12:34
because light rays need to bounce off something to be visible


So it's possible that our sun is in fact the only star in the universe, and all the others are just reflective planets. :eek:

Hubble isn't seeing into the past from the point of the big bang but into the past from how far our sun's light has reached. :eek:

[Does that nobel prize come with plenty of wonga and scantilly clad babes gagging for man to explore where few have explored before? :smokin]

scooterscot
12th October 2011, 18:31
Oh for pities sake. A nice drive around Tenerife and you've still not figured it out.

Myself included, we often assume the universe is static. If this were the case the universe would be flooded with light.

Space does not need to expand faster than light travels, it took nearly 200 years for humans to understand this.

Imagine travelling on the road a 100 miles to you destination. After the first mile travelled you've got 199 miles to go, 2 miles into the journey you find you've got 298 miles to go and so on.

This is what is happening to the photons that finally make it to us and why the visibility of the edge of space as we know it is limited.

Arturo Bassick
13th October 2011, 07:18
Oh for pities sake. A nice drive around Tenerife and you've still not figured it out.

Myself included, we often assume the universe is static. If this were the case the universe would be flooded with light.

Space does not need to expand faster than light travels, it took nearly 200 years for humans to understand this.

Imagine travelling on the road a 100 miles to you destination. After the first mile travelled you've got 199 miles to go, 2 miles into the journey you find you've got 298 miles to go and so on.

This is what is happening to the photons that finally make it to us and why the visibility of the edge of space as we know it is limited.Common sense tells me this "flooded with light" business is bollocks. I see the light from distant stars as functioning similarly to light from a torch a mile away. I can see the torch shining from that distance (therefore the light has reached me BTW) but it is ineffective at illuminating the place I am standing as it is so dispersed.