2 ms·

Unobservable is not the same as unknowable. For example, the form of the universe beyond what can be observed could correlate with a testable hypothesis in the

by aydyn 3y ago

Unobservable is not the same as unknowable. For example, the form of the universe beyond what can be observed could correlate with a testable hypothesis in the observed universe.

wholinator2 3y ago
I think the idea is that it could but it would be impossible to know that. It can be fun to speculate but by definition it is impossible to know. It's not just that light can't get in at us, it's that literally the idea of causality cannot travel fast enoigh to reach us. I believe our light cone will keep expanding slightly before accelerated expansion takes over and starts reducing it but that timescale will far far outlive us humans. As it stands right now there is an impenetrable barrier. All of our modern theories and technology for astrophysics and cosmology emerged recently. We haven't know about the big bang for 100 years even. I think it's highly likely that our views on these things will change. For all we know we could be inside a hyperbig black hole inside some much larger universe. We can make models that fit what we're able to see and then use those to extrapolate the things we cannot. But we cannot see what we cannot see. By the way, to me, "unobservable is not unknowable", sounds pretty philosophy to me. All of the physics we cannot observe, we currently cannot explain. Maybe some day with some great minds leap nobody saw coming, maybe hundreds of those, but everything i not of that cannot be observed cannot be known certainly. There must be some interaction, whether we're seeing gravitational waves, light, high energy particles doesn't matter, they still all travel at the speed of light and will be outpaced by expansion at some point.
- aydyn 3y ago
  > It can be fun to speculate but by definition it is impossible to know. I think the distinction is way more blurry than you're acknowledging. For example, the way we "know" what atoms look like is by technology like x-ray crystallography or scanning tunneling microscopes. In these cases, we're in no sense directly observing the atoms, were looking at correlated electric or photonic signals and using mathematical equations to infer what the atoms look like. In this case there truly is an "impenetrable barrier" to observation, instead of speed of light, it's wavelength of visible light. The amount of physics we cannot directly observe is much larger than amount of physics we can, without even getting into quantum phenomenon which we also cannot observe even in principal.

by aydyn 3y ago

Unobservable is not the same as unknowable. For example, the form of the universe beyond what can be observed could correlate with a testable hypothesis in the observed universe.

wholinator2 3y ago

I think the idea is that it could but it would be impossible to know that. It can be fun to speculate but by definition it is impossible to know. It's not just that light can't get in at us, it's that literally the idea of causality cannot travel fast enoigh to reach us. I believe our light cone will keep expanding slightly before accelerated expansion takes over and starts reducing it but that timescale will far far outlive us humans. As it stands right now there is an impenetrable barrier. All of our modern theories and technology for astrophysics and cosmology emerged recently. We haven't know about the big bang for 100 years even. I think it's highly likely that our views on these things will change. For all we know we could be inside a hyperbig black hole inside some much larger universe. We can make models that fit what we're able to see and then use those to extrapolate the things we cannot. But we cannot see what we cannot see. By the way, to me, "unobservable is not unknowable", sounds pretty philosophy to me. All of the physics we cannot observe, we currently cannot explain. Maybe some day with some great minds leap nobody saw coming, maybe hundreds of those, but everything i not of that cannot be observed cannot be known certainly. There must be some interaction, whether we're seeing gravitational waves, light, high energy particles doesn't matter, they still all travel at the speed of light and will be outpaced by expansion at some point.

aydyn 3y ago
> It can be fun to speculate but by definition it is impossible to know. I think the distinction is way more blurry than you're acknowledging. For example, the way we "know" what atoms look like is by technology like x-ray crystallography or scanning tunneling microscopes. In these cases, we're in no sense directly observing the atoms, were looking at correlated electric or photonic signals and using mathematical equations to infer what the atoms look like. In this case there truly is an "impenetrable barrier" to observation, instead of speed of light, it's wavelength of visible light. The amount of physics we cannot directly observe is much larger than amount of physics we can, without even getting into quantum phenomenon which we also cannot observe even in principal.