Questions and Answers
 

Combined, the musicbanter intellectual mindscape contains a lot of knowledge and expertise. Some of us are rich with life experiences and interests while others have more specialized knowledge in areas such as philosophy, art, design, law and of course biology.

This is a thread simply for asking questions. This could be anything - a question about greek mythology, the evolution of languages, what is the golden ratio, how does a car engine work or maybe you need some help with your math homework.


Astronomy : I have a question for someone who might know some astronomy. Does anyone know theoretically what should happen to the universe billions of years down the line? I think I read once that black holes will swallow all matter and then the black holes will melt together to form one super-black hole .. but that even this one will "evaporate", eventually leaving a universe with nothing but a kind of "background radiation" somewhere down the line.

Is this really a likely course of events or does popular scientific theory predict a different scenario?

I don't know anything about astronomy really but i read a similar theory to the one you mentioned i think the theory you're talking about is called "the big crunch". I also remember the article discussing another theory called the "big freeze" where the unviverse expands to such a size that it becomes to cold to sustain life or something like that. Hope someone can help you out on this, i'd like to see the answer to that question as well lol. Awesome idea for a thread btw.

From what I've gathered ... there'll be something called "Big Crunch" which is the opposite of a Big Bang [a bit of what you described above]. And after that, another Big Bang ... and the cycle continues.

The universe has been described as being like a gigantic (or at least extremely big) expanding elastic band because the universe has been constantly expanding since the 'big bang'.
What would happen when the universe reached it's furthest possible extent?
Would it tear and disintegrate, or more interestingly, would it begin to retract causing the universe to reverse in direction and return to it's original state?
And if this was the case, then would time travel backwards and how would it effect us as humans?
Would we be born old and gradually get younger (as in the curious case of Benjamin whatsisname) until we were born, thus ending our life?
Or, if that wasn't the case and it only effected those who were around at the time, would we remember what had happened, say 5 years previously?
And would we be able to apply our knowledge of that to benefit us personally?
Or, would time continue in a straight line (if it does at all) and we live out our lives normally as the universe slowly gets smaller?

I thought the most popular theory at this point in time is an extension of the Big Bang theory; that the universe is still expanding from the 'bang' and that when it is done expanding is will retract, reversing back into a small amount of space meaning everything will get crushed into a dense area... and then a 'Big Bang' will happen again and the universe will expand again etc.

This is of course in layman's terms and chances are I'm not correct but I remember hearing all about this at an astronomy talk I went to about a month ago.

Didn't they discover that the universe was expanding quicker too?

Oh well, seems my thread didn't work out as well as I hoped. I had to go out there and have a look. I quickly came across an article by Michael D. Lemonick from Times magazine.

TIME.com - End of the Universe

There was also a link to the universe's timeline there which was interesting.

>> http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101.../timeline.html

These events are undoubtedly disputed, so if some astronomer or phycisist should drop by, some more input would be appreciated.

Oh well, I have another question and this time, it's about football :p: (soccer to you crazy americans)

Football clubs "buy" players from other parts of the world. But if there's a world championship, what proportion of the players on the national team have to be from that country? Is it simply all of them or some kind of number?

Yeah, I'm a football newb :(

The short answer is all of them. It can get a bit more complicated than that though.

For instance, there's a bloke called Shola Ameobi who's played in the English youth teams, but is just as qualified to play for Nigeria because of his ancestry. American goalkeeper Brad Friedel plays for the US but, I think, can also play for Germany if he wants. Famously, half of the first, internationally successful Irish team were actually born in England and Scotland - players like John Aldridge, Paul McGrath, Ray Houghton and so on - but qualified for Ireland caps through having Irish parents or whatever.

A player only gets to choose one team to play for though. So, basically, all of a nation's representatives in a world cup have to be from the nation they're representing, in some form or another.

^Wow, super! Thanks for the answer :D

By the way, aside from world championships, in theory - could a team like Manchester United be comprised entirely of foreign players? :p:

At club level, yeah, a team can be made of any number of foreign players. At least I think so anyway. I have a feeling FIFA (the world's football governing body) have put a restriction on teams made entirely of foreign players entering international club competitions like the Champion's League and so on.

Man U are actually quite good when it comes to having a first team made of, at least, British players. It's teams like Arsenal who are the main culprits of having whole squads of players from overseas.

wasnt there rumours about having the levels of forign players to a team reduced? i cant remember the maximums & minimums but i heard that somewhere!

I think those are the FIFA restrictions I was on about - something like a team has to take at least 5ish 'homegrown' players to international competitions with them. With all the wonga they're bringing to the British leagues, I doubt it's gonna concern the Premier League and so on.

I could be wrong though.

sorry i only skimmed your post :$. i doubt it will concern any teams up here, (i dont think). but i can see some clubs being heavily affected, maybe just one, or two :laughing:

Hi Toretorden,
While I am not a physicist, my dad is, and based on discussions with him I can say that your cited article's description of the universe's eternal expansion sounds correct. In other words, no "collapse" is predicted, but rather an infinite expansion...resulting in matter becoming farther and farther apart. I recommend you check out this article in Scientific American Magazine, because the article describes the evidence that led scientists to conclude there was a Big Bang, followed by continual and accelerating expansion of the universe:

There should be some limit I feel, some teams are just feeling drunk on the trades, Real Madrid is just freaking me out these last couple of years. [Yeah I know Madrid isn't in Britain]

Actually, I knew the crunch hypothesis is quite old and abandoned. It was still the only prediction I really knew about. Thanks again for the answers. :)

Am I the only one wondering about stuff though? :p:

i always wonder how humans actually work. i do know how they work. but i want to know what causes the chemical reactions, and how it all just happens? followin' me? its kind of hard to explain :(

That's a hard question because it's extremely general and could touch on a wide variety of subjects and if you wanna get into the intricacies of it all, of course then we don't know everything yet and you could devote years of study to something like that. It's still possible to summarize the very basics. You might know them, but I could try and sum them up :p:

Humans are made up of many cells. Each cell came from a splitting parent cell, so cells are made by cells. The inside of the cells are somewhat closed to the outside environment by a membrane and they have a core where you find DNA. Now we've split humans up into three parts, humans - cell - DNA.

DNA are very long molecules made up of 4 repeating parts and you can imagine it almost as a long double strand of letters (A, C, G, T).

AGCTTCGTC
GATCCTACT

These letters are complementary (a C on one side means a T on the other) and can be read like a code. The DNA codes for proteins. The chemical processes in your body are catalyzed by enzymes which are proteins whose blueprints are found in the DNA.

Not all the DNA is used in all cells. Different cells use different genes to produce different proteins that do different jobs, f.ex facilitate different chemical reactions. The reading and translation from DNA to proteins is also done by proteins.

This is pretty inaccurate and simplified, but to summarize : Humans are made from a blueprint in their cells called DNA. The DNA codes for proteins which are large molecules that do jobs like facilitating chemical reactions in your body. Different cells produce different proteins which is why they are different. All the cells together (liver cells, muscle cells, skin cells) make up a human.

The first cell containing your DNA and which first started splitting into the multitude of cells that make up you came from your parents and theirs came from their ancestors and so it goes backwards in time until the start of your lineage thousands of millions of years ago.


I've tried to keep this simple on purpose and while I don't think it answers your question, perhaps it'll help you formulate a new one. ;)

I'm not sure why so many people are worried about what is going to happen to the universe in tens of billions of years.

I don't think anyone here is gonna be around that long, except Urban, his hatred for everything is so powerful that it has made him immortal.

Do they though? Don't think I ever met someone who worries about that.

Well, if you believe in an etternal afterlife you might possibly be around for that long, but I think any kind of afterlife would exist on a different plain from the universe as we know it.

Hi kayleigh,

Toretorden gave a good description of how we are, each of us, a community of cells that grow as they do by following the instructions that are their DNA molecules, with the environment having some impact on how the instructions are used.

My interest in life and how it works inspired me to study biology. You get a feeling for "how humans (living organisms) actually work" by studying general biology, anatomy, cell biology, and biochemistry, and then chemistry and physics. Usually students start with biology, then take physics, then chemistry, but may not get to really feel or see how the information combines to give a deeper understanding of how life works until they get to biochemistry (and enzymology). I feel biochemistry, the chemistry of life, really shows best on a fundamental level how our bodies use food energy to keep themselves and their processes going.

I get really excited about the topic of how we work! For example, do you recall that inside your cells are small oval structures, the mitochondria, which allow your cells to transfer some of the energy of food into the energy of a type of molecule (ATP) that cells use to drive cell processes? This process requires oxygen, and is essentially like a controlled fire. When you mix wood, oxygen, and a spark, you get fire. In us, the food that we eat is what gets "burned," but the body doesn't release all the energy as heat. Instead, a lot of the energy is bound up as chemical energy...the energy that is in the bonds holding one atom to another.

Also, something else fascinating is that our cells have mitochondria because long ago one of our (free-living) ancestor cells engulfed (but did not digest) a free-living bacterium, according to the theory of endosymbiosis (which is accepted as fact because of all the evidence).

So, we humans (and other animals) are like a slow, controlled burning fire...and we are partly bacterial in origin! Weird and wonderful.

I love the way we living beings are like one gigantic organism that stretches through time, like a growing vine, where only the tips of the branches remain alive. Each of us feels like a separate being, but in fact is actually just the present-time manifestation of this giant organism (life) that began billions of years ago.

I don't worry about what will happen to the universe far in the future...but I definitely think about it. Learning about what science predicts gives me a sense of perspective...and a sense of sadness for those organisms who will probably evolve on other planets far in the future and, due to the universe's expansion, will not be able to see and learn as much about the universe and its origins as humans can now.

Another biology student, yey! Some good classic analogies used above. Can't beat a few good analogies to get across a potentially complicated concept. I think the key to a good understanding of something complex is to be able to make it understandable to a wider audience. Guess that's why people like Dawkins and Hawkings are so successful as popular (to an extent) fiction writers.

i understand the structure of DNA etc, as when i dont Biology, it was the sections which included humans in which i was most interested in. as i wanted to know how and why everything in a human works, but what starts it all off? is the mother/baby relationship basically like jumpstarting a car?
anyways thanks Tore, that decribed some stuff i actually found confusing and difficult at school :D.

i can relate to that in bold! thats why i want to study Biology :D.
the italics i found was a good metaphor to describe the way in which the body works, thanks.
i found the rest helpful also, thanks Veg! :)

Just to nitpick, A (adenine) is complementary to T (thymine) and G (guanine) is complementary to C (cytosine). Triplets of these also code for amino acids, which in turn generate chains of protein with specific structures related to their function. Just to elaborate.

:)

Hello kayleigh, I would say that with humans it begins with sex :)and that a new individual forming is more like an avalanche than jumpstarting a car. Once an egg and sperm cell...both individual, free-living cells...unite to form a single cell (kind of like the reverse of eating!), the cell divides to form two cells, and each of those divide, and so on and so on....like a tumor, but with organized structures. I view there as being no "beginning" of a human because the egg and sperm that united to become what would grow into me were also "me" in the sense that they were alive and I continue their life. Many embryos (perhaps 1/3rd, I recall reading) have defects causing them to die before a person even realizes she is pregnant. When you ask about how a human works, do you mean you are interested in how all the embryonic cells divide and move around to create the different parts of a baby human?

Oh, good catch, dollarsandcents! I just sort of bleeped right over whether the fake DNA sequence correctly used complementary nucleotides on annealing strands!

no its not that, ive learned all that :p:, its what drives the body to actually work. what is there, that makes the body does what it does, its hard to explain, once i find the right words i will come back cos its crossing wires right now :(

show off! im surprised you never mentioned the replacement of Thymine by Uracil in RNA :).

The central dogma, duh!

;)

What? I know that of course. How could I get that wrong? Embarassing :confused:

Hm, it is quite hard to understand what you are asking.

Let's try something different. In nature, you can have evolution. Put a bit simply, it's something that happens when you have things which can replicate, can change (for better or worse) and compete for resources. Organisms are not the only things which can be said to evolve. As an example, fashion can evolve. The fashion ideas can replicate in that they can spread from person to person, they can change and give rise to modified or new ideas and there are only so many customers to buy them. Customers are a bit choosy, so some clothes made from certain ideas will sell better than others and vice versa. Some fashion ideas will die out while others live on and change into new ideas in the future.

The basic common scientific hypothesis for how life started is that early on, what would become life were molecules, nucleic acids like DNA and/or RNA, that were able to change like they do today by mutation. They could also replicate, but this required resources that they were competing for. Maybe they existed only in the tiniest cracks, the tiniest spaces where the chemical processes on which they were dependent on were protected enough for it to work. Quite possibly, replication in the early phase wasn't easy and would often yield mutated, broken copies. Mutation outside of replication could also be dangerous. However, on rare occasions one would change in a way that it improved or gained a new ability that overall made it a bit more succesful at replicating itself than the others - for example a chemical process included in getting resources was made more stable. The most successful would produce more copies and would more often pass those good qualities on to their offspring. Although you probably wouldn't consider them to be "alive" at the earliest stage, they were evolving - improving and gaining abilities over generations.

There could be different strategies, some could work together, some could perhaps utilize more aggressive tactics and destroy others, some could perhaps parasitize others. Let's not get swamped with details, though - the point is that when something like this starts evolving, you get a rise order and complexity. It's simply a matter of cause and consequence. Eventually, over countless generations, one of these proto-lineages evolved into us and a multitude of other organisms (okay, we got bits of viral/prokaryote DNA as well and there are horizontal gene transfer events in life's history and so on, but to keep it simple).

I don't think you're asking for an explanation on evolution or how life came around, but important from early on were certain chemical processes on which proto-life depended upon. Without such processes, they would not be able to replicate. As Erica wrote, your own life comes from your parents life which came from their parents life again. There's a "living" unbroken chain of these chemical processes going on in your ancestors down to the very earliest proto-life of your earliest ancestors. As Erica wrote, humans are not so much starts as they are continuations. If you wanna know where your "life processes" really started, you have to dig very deep indeed - back to life's start.

I hope that gives just a slight bit more insight!

edit :

Hah, skimming over it I see I've basically repeated some of the points already made and a point I myself tried to make in my first answer. Oh well, if this doesn't answer your question, perhaps it narrows it down a bit. ;)

Perhaps we would be crushed into singularity, but it may not be the end. If the Universe returns to it's original state, would everything happen as it did the last time around? So would we be born again, just as we were before? Would we live up until that point where the Universe collapses again? How many times has the Universe done this before? How many lifetimes have we lived but not realised?

Probably a rubbish theory but I find it quite romantic.

Like a cosmic 'Groundhog Day'?

Romantic? I can't think of anything worse!

You don't find it romantic that you've made this post a trillion years ago?

It could explain things like deja vu, psychics etc.

I have another question for someone who knows astronomy. Not someone who thinks they know astronomy, because then I might as well answer my own questions.

http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/wp-content...-don-dixon.jpg

Anyways, what's a quasar? The way I understand it is that it's a particularly big black hole at the center of a galaxy - but I'm guessing black holes at galaxy centers is a common feature. Quasars are particularly big? There's some kind of radiation streaming out from the "top and bottom" of it? Why does it do that? Shouldn't all galaxies develop quasars as their black holes swallow more and more mass?

I could look it up I guess, but I figured "why not milk this old thread a little more?" .. So, anyone who knows this stuff?

Like a cosmic 'Groundhog Day'?

Romantic? I can't think of anything worse!

^ :laughing: