Everything & Nothing

[Sionyn]

no doubt some of you like this enjoy

Episode 1


Episode 2


fixed indeed it was wrong

[saturation]

Great shows, again.  Thanks for the links.  We don't get these in the USA, and when we do BBC sometimes reworks with Discovery Channel to reedit them for US audiences.  Several BBC nature shows with Attenborough were redone using Oprah Winfrey [ horrible] and Sigourney Weaver [ not bad] as narrators and new US made music, but either pales beside Attenborough and the BBC team.  They should just leave BBC productions alone.

[TheEENerd]

Very nice vid. I'm a big fan of BBC docus. They r porns for nerds.

[FreeThinker]

BHAAPH! Everyone Knows that the answer to Everything in the universe is 42, WHERE HAVE THESE PEOPLE BEEN?

[FreeThinker]

OK serious question
If the galaxy's at the edge of the universe are so faraway that the light from them has not reached us yet and all matter originated from the same point in space due to the big bang how did the matter (which cannot travel faster than light) get so far away that it's light cannot travel fast enough to reach us?I seem to remember that (in another program) it was calculated that the furthest stars were further out than the time to the big bang ... so how did they get there. Now my head is hurting, going for a lay down in a dark room

[Sionyn]

indeed plus with the expansion of space bend the light changing its wave length
also strange is that on average i can't walk through walls
but quantum mechanics gives ever a slight chance to
doesn't mean that i going to try it.
But still my mind begins to wonder what is really reality and what is this strange stuff that light doesn't interact with it   

[Simon]

OK serious question
If the galaxy's at the edge of the universe are so faraway that the light from them has not reached us yet and all matter originated from the same point in space due to the big bang how did the matter (which cannot travel faster than light) get so far away that it's light cannot travel fast enough to reach us?I seem to remember that (in another program) it was calculated that the furthest stars were further out than the time to the big bang ... so how did they get there. Now my head is hurting, going for a lay down in a dark room

well the stars did not form instantly so having the "matter" got so far they would need time to congregate into a star ?

I always imagined the universe as finite with others next to it but at that point my mind boggles

[Sionyn]

maybe dave knows or has a funny take on it

[saturation]

As I understand beyond 42, the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.   Also, as as another pointed out, the formation of the various stars can occur anywhere, so what was just gas Y years ago, could be a star today.

There are 2 parts to the universe as we know it, the observable universe, that is within the limits of our tools and ideas, and the 'theoretical' edge, based on the physics of the cosmic background radiation. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

OK serious question
If the galaxy's at the edge of the universe are so faraway that the light from them has not reached us yet and all matter originated from the same point in space due to the big bang how did the matter (which cannot travel faster than light) get so far away that it's light cannot travel fast enough to reach us?I seem to remember that (in another program) it was calculated that the furthest stars were further out than the time to the big bang ... so how did they get there. Now my head is hurting, going for a lay down in a dark room

[FreeThinker]

As I understand it nothing can travel faster than light and therefore matter no mater how small must always travel at sub light speed. The only exception to this is the theory that some unknown as yet particle (I think they are named tachyons) have always travelled faster than light but cannot slow below it. I don't pretend to understand it, but something that has always puzzled me is does light have mass? if it does how does it travel at the speed of light? If it doesn't how can it react with particles etc?.......feel my bad head coming on again 

[deephaven]

As I understand it nothing can travel faster than light and therefore matter no mater how small must always travel at sub light speed. The only exception to this is the theory that some unknown as yet particle (I think they are named tachyons) have always travelled faster than light but cannot slow below it. I don't pretend to understand it, but something that has always puzzled me is does light have mass? if it does how does it travel at the speed of light? If it doesn't how can it react with particles etc?.......feel my bad head coming on again 

There doesn't have to be something with a mass travelling with the speed of light, it's just the 'message' does. It's just like turning on a light, when the current starts to flow, the electrons haven't physically moved down the piece of wire at close to the speed of light,  just the message has. Think of a 1 metre long rod and push on one end so that it moves forward by 1 cm, the other end moves forward by 1cm very soon afterwards, but you haven't traversed that 1 metre in that short space of time.

[EEVblog]

I don't pretend to understand it, but something that has always puzzled me is does light have mass?

I believe the answer is both yes and no (mostly no), depending on how and under what circumstances you look at it.
Light has energy (E=hf), and of course because of "EMC" (Young Einstein joke) it therefore should have a (tiny) mass as well, in theory.
But then it starts to get messy and that's when your head can explode.

Dave.

[youtube]apj4QSN8XQY[/youtube]

[FreeThinker]

As I understand beyond 42, the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.   Also, as as another pointed out, the formation of the various stars can occur anywhere, so what was just gas Y years ago, could be a star today.

There are 2 parts to the universe as we know it, the observable universe, that is within the limits of our tools and ideas, and the 'theoretical' edge, based on the physics of the cosmic background radiation.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

Wow! Thanks for that link now I really understand....not   .
Going back to my original theory of 42, don't understand that either but at least it is consistent. (runs away laughing madly)

http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/definition/42

[Neganur]

I had to take a break at around 8:20 of the second part of the documentary, since I completely lost focus after hearing how the evidence that settled a bitter debate was a powerful hooker telescope.

[Simon]

err, is there a part 2 ? for me it is the same as part one

[FreeThinker]

err, is there a part 2 ? for me it is the same as part one

Check out youtube, part 2 is there.

[saturation]

Yes, it is postulated special phenomena can exceed the speed of light, since dark matter & energy have properties to suggest it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Space-time_distortion

For other things beyond tachyons, see the other links Wikipedia.

Although 42 has been given a lot of meaning since Hitchhicker's Guide made it be, I think its core meaning is its simply absurd.  Since attempts to explain meaning and the universe are subject to exceedingly verbose explanations that still are hard to justify, saying something inert as a number or a symbol gives an answer without an answer.

If you follow this link
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answer_to_Life,_the_Universe,_and_Everything#Answer_to_the_Ultimate_Question_of_Life.2C_the_Universe_and_Everything_.2842.29

You can type in the meaning of life as an "easter" egg in some products and the answer is 42!

The show is 2 parts in one, #1 is Everything and #2 is nothing, for the 1st and 2nd hour.   Some pirate sites carry the full 720p version.

Wow! Thanks for that link now I really understand....not   .
Going back to my original theory of 42, don't understand that either but at least it is consistent. (runs away laughing madly)

http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com/definition/42

[Sionyn]

the irony is if you are massless like photons you have to travel at the speed of light

[Sionyn]

before i forget this might answer your questions on how light interacts with matter

[ShiftPlusOne]

since light is affected by gravity, does that not imply mass?

[Zero999]

since light is affected by gravity, does that not imply mass?

Well light is a form of energy and E = mc² so that would make sense.

before i forget this might answer your questions on how light interacts with matter

Interesting video.

I admit i didn't understand it all. A magnet emits a photon WTF?

Also if light is photons which are particles doesn't that mean the same is true for radio? I know about the particle/wave duality but how could radio waves be in discrete packets call photons? So how could I design a circuit to emit one photon at say 1GHz? Would sending a single electron up and down an antenna of the appropriate length work?

[Simon]

I gave up with that video about light, the narrators voice was highly annoying and they were taking it a bit slow on somew concepts

[jahonen]

since light is affected by gravity, does that not imply mass?

My understanding of the relativity has been that light always travels straight path in the spacetime, but the spacetime is itself distorted by the gravity (black hole causes infinite distortion), so it appears that light bends around the mass (Einstein lense, for example).

Regards,
Janne

[ShiftPlusOne]

since light is affected by gravity, does that not imply mass?

My understanding of the relativity has been that light always travels straight path in the spacetime, but the spacetime is itself distorted by the gravity (black hole causes infinite distortion), so it appears that light bends around the mass (Einstein lense, for example).

Regards,
Janne

Yeah, that thought crossed my mind. I don't understand curved space-time too well, so I didn't want to say it. Does it not apply to mass the same way it applies to light? For example, orbits are the effect of curved space-time as well. Imagine a 2D friction-less plane made of a thin rubbery material, put a lead ball in the middle and that's sort of like the sun. Throw in another ball and let it 'orbit'... in reality the same happen to mass and energy, right?

http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/orbits/
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/GravitationVersusCurvedSpacetime/

[ShiftPlusOne]

Ah, now I have confused myself by saying "the same happen to mass and energy" so then light does not have to have mass. >_<

Edit: What the hell kind of nonsense did I just write in the previous post!? Obviously I wasn't trying to say that light orbits around the sun, but it came out that way. I guess my point was that sure light travels in a straight line around the space-time 'funnel', but so does mass.

Edit 2: Wait, actually light CAN orbit an object (like a black hole). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_sphere Well, at least I wasn't completely crazy.

But to answer my own question, no light does not have a mass.