Is the Universe Beyond Our Perception?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mt. Nixion
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether the universe consists solely of the dimensions and physical laws currently known to humanity or if there are additional dimensions and forces beyond perception. One viewpoint suggests that if something cannot be perceived, it has no impact on our universe, making it irrelevant to physics. Another participant expresses skepticism about ever knowing such unperceived elements, emphasizing that lack of perception implies a lack of knowledge about their existence. The conversation highlights the limits of human understanding and the implications of unobservable phenomena. Ultimately, the nature of the universe may extend beyond human comprehension.
Mt. Nixion
Messages
47
Reaction score
1
I don't know about you, but I know that everything has limits. So I have a question; Is the universe just three dimensions plus time and contain just the forces, energies, and laws of physics that we know about; or is there more dimensions and physics laws, energies and forces that are in this universe and cannot be perceived by our senses or visualized?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Mt. Nixion said:
I don't know about you, but I know that everything has limits. So I have a question; Is the universe just three dimensions plus time and contain just the forces, energies, and laws of physics that we know about; or is there more dimensions and physics laws, energies and forces that are in this universe and cannot be perceived by our senses or visualized?

If we can answer your question, we would have already known everything in the universe now, don't we?

Furthermore, if there is something that we can't perceive, then what difference does it make since obviously, by definition, it has no effect at all on our universe. We can't tell if it exists or not. A discussion about something we can't perceive in any way whatsoever is not within the realm of physics.

Zz.
 
Whoa that's deep, and I'm far from being an expert, but my guess would be that we will never know, if we cannot percieve them, then I doubt we would know they exsist, just my thoughts anyway...
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top