Basic newbie questions universe expansion, science database, SI units definitions

  • #1
Hi everyone, I am a 41 year old and a newbie and I have a few questions...

1. Is there a single global database of public domain scientific knowledge on the internet?

1.1. If not should there be?

2. Why aren't the base unit definitions for the International System Of Units based on a single Hydrogen atoms properties and characteristics?

2.1. Should they be?

3. If an explosion creates a shock wave and the big bang was an explosion, did it create a shock wave that defines the full size of the universe, and all the matter stuff(being the fiery bit) is simply trying to catch up and fill the reality void created by the shock wave.
would this explain why the universal expansion is speeding up (suction from the reality void ahead of the fiery bit pulling the matter towards it)?

Sorry about the last question being a bit messy and why is there no spell checker/correcter at the top of the input box for creating threads?

Thanks...
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
22,089
3,286
1. Is there a single global database of public domain scientific knowledge on the internet?
No.

1.1. If not should there be?
No.

3. If an explosion creates a shock wave and the big bang was an explosion, did it create a shock wave that defines the full size of the universe, and all the matter stuff(being the fiery bit) is simply trying to catch up and fill the reality void created by the shock wave.
would this explain why the universal expansion is speeding up (suction from the reality void ahead of the fiery bit pulling the matter towards it)?
The big bang was not an explosion. That's a misconception. The big bang theory doesn't tell us anything about the origin of the universe, how it came to existence or why. It merely tells us that the universe expanded from a smaller, it is around 10 billion years old. The big bang theory does not tell us anything about explosions or that the universe was one an infinitesimal dot/singularity.
 
  • #3
collinsmark
Homework Helper
Gold Member
2,909
1,293
Hi everyone, I am a 41 year old and a newbie and I have a few questions...
Here's my take,

1. Is there a single global database of public domain scientific knowledge on the internet?
Nope.

But arXiv.org is a very good start. Although it's purpose is not necessarily to be the global database of scientific knowledge. Sure it's a place to store scientific knowledge, but not an exclusive one. It is what it is, limitations notwithstanding.

1.1. If not should there be?
Nope.

2. Why aren't the base unit definitions for the International System Of Units based on a single Hydrogen atoms properties and characteristics?

2.1. Should they be?
What do you think?
 
  • #4
I think the SI base units should be based on the Hydrogen atom because it would unify the definitions in a more intelligent/professional way and make it easier to teach the definitions to everyone.

I also think there should be a single database of scientific knowledge (possibly managed by the UN) to counteract all the false science on the internet and to make it easier for schools/people to get the official line on what we know as a species. It could also help prevent repetition of work by scientists so we can learn more at at faster rate.
Of course I understand that discoveries need to be verifies independently.
I don't mean there should only be a single copy of the database.

I also think that there should be an equivalent tables to the periodic table of elements for quantum particles and one for universal energies.
 
  • #5
As for the Big Bang, I'm sorry I always thought that it was an explosion of reality that came from a bomb comprising of the laws of physics, time and a single type of pure energy.
 
  • #6
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,829
6,650
I think the SI base units should be based on the Hydrogen atom because it would unify the definitions in a more intelligent/professional way and make it easier to teach the definitions to everyone.
There is a reason why we define units in the way we do. Units are generally based on the gold standard for how well we can measure the corresponding quantity in order to have the unit as well defined as possible. It would be utterly absurd to have the main source of error in a measured quantity arising from the uncertainty in the units used.
I also think there should be a single database of scientific knowledge (possibly managed by the UN) to counteract all the false science on the internet and to make it easier for schools/people to get the official line on what we know as a species. It could also help prevent repetition of work by scientists so we can learn more at at faster rate.
This is unachievable. Partially because there will be bias in what to include. Who decides what goes into the database and what does not? Even with something as extensive as the arXiv preprint server, people will repeat earlier studies.
 
  • Like
Likes shaun curley
  • #7
22,089
3,286
I think the SI base units should be based on the Hydrogen atom because it would unify the definitions in a more intelligent/professional way and make it easier to teach the definitions to everyone.
Not just any definition would be a sensible definition for a unit. It must be a reliable measurement (you need to measure the same thing time and time again, independent of place, time and person). Second, it must be a readily accessible unit. If it takes too much work to determine the length of 1 meter, it's not a useful unit. Third, it must be able to be measured by a very accurate measure, meaning not much variance. Does your unit achieve this?
 
  • Like
Likes shaun curley
  • #8
I thought we had Hydrogen's particulars nailed... I surprised by the revelation that we struggle with measurement accuracy for Hydrogen, but I understand and agree that accuracy is vital.

As for the database, I thought science was about discovering universal truths for public enlightenment so the would be no bias towards scientist or institutions. with only the scientific facts being listed in the database. With repeats of studies only serving as confirmation of the truth (listed on a separate database) not replacement of an individuals work.
Could the truth be listed alone with a reference to the scientist(s)/paper(s) being listed separately, or do scientists suffer ego or the need for fame so as to acquire funding?
 
  • #9
22,089
3,286
I thought we had Hydrogen's particulars nailed... I surprised by the revelation that we struggle with measurement accuracy for Hydrogen, but I understand and agree that accuracy is vital.

As for the database, I thought science was about discovering universal truths for public enlightenment so the would be no bias towards scientist or institutions. with only the scientific facts being listed in the database. With repeats of studies only serving as confirmation of the truth (listed on a separate database) not replacement of an individuals work.
Could the truth be listed alone with a reference to the scientist(s)/paper(s) being listed separately, or do scientists suffer ego or the need for fame so as to acquire funding?
Sadly, science doesn't give us truths in the absolute sense. At best, science provides more and more approximate models of reality. We know those models are incomplete and we try to make them better. But we are fully aware that we might never hit the truth at all.
 
  • Like
Likes shaun curley
  • #10
Thank you all for your responses, I am very grateful, you have reduced my ignorance without mocking said ignorance.

Maybe the light at the end of the tunnel is someone showing the rest of us the way forward.
 
  • Like
Likes micromass
  • #11
22,089
3,286
So about this science fact database. It's a neat idea, I'll admit that. But we already have such a database, wikipedia. Wikipedia has a lot of flaws, but there is no reason a science database would do a better job. In order to make a science database better than wikipedia you'll need people willing to contribute to the database. These people will need to be professional scientists of course. And there's the problem! Professional scientists do not have the time to invest in this kind of thing. They want to do research and have to do so much administration as it is. The people who are willing to contribute will be the same people contributing to wikipedia right now, so we won't really get anything better.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #12
collinsmark
Homework Helper
Gold Member
2,909
1,293
I also think that there should be an equivalent tables to the periodic table of elements for quantum particles and one for universal energies.
There's this. Here is a T-shirt I wear every laundry cycle:

61mPUT8xXbL._UX342_.jpg


Edit: I'm wearing it now! :woot:

Another edit: The shirt was made before the Higgs discovery, so that particle isn't there. But that makes for interesting conversation.
 
  • #13
I was told not to trust wikipedia to much as anyone could write for them, but I guess with so many people reading it any falsehoods would be found and removed. The point about the admin of a database is a good one as well.

Oh and ...nice t-shirt.

cheers.
 
  • #14
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,829
6,650
with so many people reading it any falsehoods would be found and removed.
As any frequent visitor here can testify, this sadly is not the case...
 
  • #15
22,089
3,286
I was told not to trust wikipedia to much as anyone could write for them, but I guess with so many people reading it any falsehoods would be found and removed. The point about the admin of a database is a good one as well.
Oh no, that was not the point of my post. You should definitely not trust wikipedia over the words of an expert.
 

Related Threads on Basic newbie questions universe expansion, science database, SI units definitions

Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
771
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Top