Born to do Math 168 – Stuff That’s Big: “Intergalactic, Planetary, Planetary, Intergalactic”
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Born To Do Math
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/01/01
[Beginning of recorded material]
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: IC is, basically, about big structures.
Rick Rosner: The Cosmological Principle that the universe is homogeneous lover large distances in terms of how the universe formed with the galaxies roughly evenly distributed. You’re looking at, taking a step back, a billion-light year swathe of the universe. That’s a huge scale of regularity. What we like to say, recently, is the universe is less homogeneous spatially and more homogeneous temporally, the universe is older than it looks and has been around longer than the apparent age of the universe. That could, possibly, account for some other stuff like when a bunch of galaxies are orbiting each other. They do it in a single planet, like the planets are in a solar system. The deal is, if you give the planets a few hundred million years or a couple billion years after they form, they will, eventually, sort themselves out by orbiting around the central star in a common plane. Because, otherwise, they would collide with each other. It may take a billion years to work out the collisions and have the planets lined up, so things don’t collide as in planets, except asteroid. You can’t have planets hitting one another because you have planets working in a sync with the sync being the same orbital plane.
They are seeing the same things with galaxies rotating around each other. I think that would take than the age of the universe. If you give everything longer than the other apparent age of the universe, then, maybe, that accounts for that.
Jacobsen: Is the summary statement homogenous orbital planes, rotational planes?
Rosner: It takes a long time for dynamic systems like gravity-based systems of a central body or bodies being orbited by a bunch of other bodies. At the solar system level, it takes hundreds of millions of years for things to finishing crashing together and for stuff to coalesce into planets. The Earth-Moon is supposed to have formed through the collision of a couple of planets. They smashed into each other and the Earth reconstituted itself with part away becoming the Moon. Those form over hundreds of millions of years. I assume on a galactic scale this will take far longer. You will not have galaxies forming these systems. It may take a bunch of billions of years. Because you’re talking about objects moving across much larger distances.
Jacobsen: Increasingly large distances over time with the expansion rate of the universe.
Rosner: I don’t know about that. The distances galaxies are at in the current iteration of the universe.
Jacobsen: What do you mean by the “current iteration of the universe”?
Rosner: Yes, that’s an unfortunate phrasing. I tend to disbelieve the while expanding thing. Unless you are adding information to the universe. The average distance among galaxies has been more or less uniform or consistent for more than the apparent age of the universe. Distances among galaxies are not increasing much over time, necessarily, or, at least, over the time scales that we’re talking about.
Jacobsen: Does this really imply any metaphysical statements into metaphysics or simply meaning more dynamic and advanced statements about physics itself?
Rosner: A couple of things, we’ve talked about that you can hypothesize that there is no limit to the size of things that can exist. We live in a big universe. There is nothing that says that the universes that could exist are limited on size. No limit is known to the size of possible universes. That’s thing one. Thing two is, I’m not sure how much redundancy in an efficient system of existence with the system of existence being equivalent to physics. There are the normal subatomic particles, fundamental particles, that make up most of normal matter. Then there are these exotic other families of particles, where these families have the same sets of particles that the particles we’re used to have. But it is a whole other family of exotic particles. It is like the Smith family with 12 members. Then the Smootles have the same 12 members: a grandma, a parakeet, a poodle. Then the Canoodles have the same 12, but are weirder while having the same structure. All roles in the family are kind of the same. I would say that there has got to be a reason for it not being a real redundancy. It either has to be a kind of necessary bookkeeping this. The rules of existence saying that you have this kind of stuff.
Or they perform some function. That you don’t have symmetries if the symmetries are inefficient. You don’t have unnecessary extra shit in physics. So, when you look at it, it is 100% efficient, but it is reasonably close. So, the structures found at every scale all contain information that is essential for something or a couple things. The structures found at every scale are necessary and an unavoidable product of the dynamics of physics. In terms of the physical manifestation that the universe is probably made out of. Everything is unavoidable in terms of structures from small to large. On the information end of it, every structure from small to large has a role to play informational and dynamically.
[End of recorded material]
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
In-Sight Publishing 