the universe

MattinSTL said:
Imagine how long it would take to accelerate to the speed of light (if it were possible)... even at 7gs of continuous 24/hr daily exposure... how long would it take? OK... now once you GET to that speed you only have another 100K YEARS of travel at that speed to cross our own galaxy... Now look at some of the Hubble images... up until the last century people thought all those bright points of light were stars... and now we know that there are, in fact, some 50-100 BILLION more galaxies like our own... so when you see an image that shows two galaxies close to each other... and then you realize by our own perspective (of being able to see them as dots)... just what the distances are between us... and perhaps you START to grasp the enormity of the issue!

Few can grasp this even slightly... but some can. While it won't change anything here I think it's about the most interesting topic there is.
Click to expand...

What really bakes my noodle is, if space and time are joined, then you can't really ask what happened before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang.

Actually, there are theories and they get down to quantum mechanics and of course...String theory.

String theory seems to know everything, from the beginning of time to the Colonel's secret recipe :). 11 herbs and spices...11 dimensions...coincidence? I think not! But it's a lot of fun to think about.

Good Sci-Am article here:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=00042F0D-1A0E-1085-94F483414B7F0000&page=1
 
Mark Harris said:
What really bakes my noodle is, if space and time are joined, then you can't really ask what happened before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang.
Click to expand...


Well, I think....


Before the big bang was pure energy.

Ever since the big bang, the expansion of the universe is slowing down, therefore the kinetic energy is being converted to potential energy.

Potential energy is stored within mass ( Potential energy = Mass x "height").

Eventually the expansion will stop - slowed by gravity of the universe itself pulling in. And the expansion will reverse, into a collapse. At that point of maximum expansion, there will be no kinetic energy (from the big bang) and all the energy will be stored potentially within the mass.

As the collapse picks up speed the energy goes from potential back to kinetic. Again this process speeds up faster and faster until the big collapse ("The big suck" :) ) at which moment all matter collides. At the moment of collision, there is no potential energy, all energy is kinetic.

The amount of kinetic energy can be plotted as a big curve, with the minimum as the universe stops expanding and begins the collapse. That same point is the apex of the curve of potential energy.

At the "big stop" - which will hardly be an instantaneous event - we hit one extreme. I think this whole process is an oscillation, a simple sine-wave relationship between energy states and mass.

Einstein's theory of relativity states E=MC2. Energy and Mass are interchangeable based on the velocity (measured from the speed of light, C). At zero velocity, you have no energy, simply mass. And vice-versa.
On a smaller scale it even works on earth with a common term: "weightlessness" - when an object is falling at terminal velocity of gravity, it is said to be "weightless", and by description, appear to have no mess, only the energy of the movement.

At the moment of the big bang (& big suck) the rate of change is greatest between energy and mass. At that instant all mass in the universe converts to energy as both energy and mass invert as their respective curves switch directions and the opposite half of the oscillation begins.

The "opposite" half (the "anti-universe" (anti-matter and all that)) is simply the equal and opposite reaction to the "positive" universe we live in.

That half again eventually "slows" and reverses back through another big bang into the state we are familiar with now.

The process of conversion between mass and energy (and back) repeats itself indefinitely.





At least that's my theory, and I'm sticking to it. :)


- Mikko ... feeling all nerdy and philosophical.
 
You should publish that somewhere. I'm sure some scientists will want to know you figured it all out...

Besides which, relativity is not really applicable at the big bang, as everything was so smashed together and small that quantum mechanics takes over. :)
 
Last edited:
MattinSTL said:
Imagine how long it would take to accelerate to the speed of light (if it were possible)... even at 7gs of continuous 24/hr daily exposure... how long would it take? OK... now once you GET to that speed you only have another 100K YEARS of travel at that speed to cross our own galaxy... Now look at some of the Hubble images... up until the last century people thought all those bright points of light were stars... and now we know that there are, in fact, some 50-100 BILLION more galaxies like our own... so when you see an image that shows two galaxies close to each other... and then you realize by our own perspective (of being able to see them as dots)... just what the distances are between us... and perhaps you START to grasp the enormity of the issue!

Few can grasp this even slightly... but some can. While it won't change anything here I think it's about the most interesting topic there is.
Click to expand...

From our ontological perspective we are forced into this view. However, we've only been doing science a few hundred years. If another civilization has managed to develop science for hundreds of thousands or more years then perhaps they've developed the abilities to utilize other dimensions, and thereby negate the 4-d contraint we currently experience. We've been doing quantum physics for a bit over a hundred years so things like time dilation are comprehensible. I imagine they wouldn't have been two hundred years ago, but then that's still a 4-d ontology.
 
Last edited:
mikkowilson said:
Ever since the big bang, the expansion of the universe is slowing down, therefore the kinetic energy is being converted to potential energy.
Click to expand...

Actaully, quiet the opposite is true. The astronomers researching the expansion of the univerese were looking over data expecting to see just that, the expansion slowing down, but they've found in all actuallity it's speeding up. Something, they don't know what, is pushing galaxy clusters further and further apart from each other, while galaxies that are in closer proximity to each are expected to merge (we're merging with two smaller galaxies as we speak actually.... and then eventually the big one will happen, the merging of the Milky Way and Andromeda.). They're expecting the universe to die in darkness and ice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Freeze

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

___
___
 
Last edited:
I can't believe that Mikko isn't a proponent of the steady-state theory. Oscillations are bad Mikko... dampen that shizzy.

I'm not convinced that time is a physical thing as Einstein put forth, but rather a byproduct... maybe we're living in the exhaust of a vehicle that's racing in all directions... and the multiple dimensions theory is a nice way to clean up infinite decimal places created by math that attempts to explain "time" as a linear and real (meaning SOLID) universal attribute... like mass.

There's probably somebody adept who could argue that we could go back in flavors... to relive that chocolate ice-cream cone at the circus when we were 5... but I'm not so sure that the taste, in that moment, hasn't spun off into the ether... so to speak. Seeing the universe as a contained entity... like an impermeable jar, makes it necessary to explain things like time as real in the literal sense, but how do we know that the point of origination that put the first super-dense matter here in the first place... isn't permeable? Maybe the whole thing has some porous qualities... maybe we're creating too many time-house gases in another dimension?
 
Last edited:
MattinSTL said:
I can't believe that Mikko isn't a proponent of the steady-state theory. Oscillations are bad Mikko... dampen that shizzy.
Click to expand...

That's it! The universe must be iso-elastic! :D


Anhar, yeah, I think I'm going to edit my post slightly to point out that it's just a guess on my art (theory) at the TOP of my post. :thumbsup:

- Mikko
 
Hey Mikko, do you think your predicted "big suck" will last as long as it took the universe to reach its widest mark?
 
Would make sence.

Much the same way that a ball when thrown up in the air, takes as long to come down as it does to go up.


- Mikko ... doesn't honestly have a clue what he's on about astralogically. But it's fun to speculate on this sort of stuff.
 
I went over board again..

I went over board again..

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, :-Cry(DBG):

there are multiple theories being explored, as I understand it one of those has been mentioned here (i.e. the "cyclic model") aka the "big bang, big crunch" theory, if so.....

one of the underlying issue with the cyclic model I think we should be aware is that it creates a big problem, i.e. the "initialization" problem,

To explain this one needs to ask the question which came first? the big bang or the big crunch?

Of course, this can not be resolved, even given an infinite time!

Heres the mathematical proof:

(1) An entity parameter denoted as A can not initiate until another parameter (B) is initiated

(2) An entity parameter denoted as B can not initiate until another parameter (A) is initiated

A != 1 until B = 1, B != 1 until A = 1

And here is a C++ simulation I just wrote to demonstrate the problem, as you will notice you can run this simulation for ever, and it will not produce a 1, test it for your self.

Program Code:

#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

bool fin;
bool a_started;
bool b_started;

int a_start();
int b_start();

int main()
{

//Set intial parameters

a_started = false;
b_started = false;

fin = false;

cout<<"Starting Cycle.."<<endl;

a_start();

system("PAUSE");
}

int a_start(void)
{

if(b_started == false)
{
cout<<"A calling B regress, output = 0"<<endl;
b_start();
}

if(b_started == true)
{
a_started = true;
cout<<"Finished, output = 1"<<endl;
}

return 0;
}

int b_start(void)
{
if(a_started == false)
{
cout<<"B calling A regress, output = 0"<<endl;
a_start();
}

if(a_started == true)
{
b_started = true;
cout<<"Finished, output = 1"<<endl;
}

return 0;
}
Click to expand...

Its late, sorry guys for going over the top again, I'll shut up now, I'm geeking out again.. :) :engel017:
 
Anhar Miah said:
Its late, sorry guys for going over the top again, I'll shut up now, I'm geeking out again.. :) :engel017:
Click to expand...

Heh, I enjoy when you "geek out".

That's quite interesting.

There's some high school video competition thing where we make a video based on something scientific and try to explore something and I'm thinking about entering and doing something about theoretical physics and the creation of the universe and all that is being talked about in this thread.

Anybody have some ideas about how to go about this? I like the idea of explaining something similar to what Mikko said, but I'm afraid that isn't enough "exploring" to win.
 
Anhar Miah said:
Of course, this can not be resolved, even given an infinite time!
Click to expand...

Right there is what "bakes my noodle": Infinity.
If all dimensions are infinite (which they must be, because if they aren't, what's present after they end?) then there was no "start" point. It just always was and always will be. In all times and directions.

And trying to visualize that is about where my brain melts into mush.


According to Newton's laws; every action has an equal and opposite reatcion - so there has to be something equal and opposite to the big bang to initiate it .. and initiate whatever came before that.
And the law of conservation of mass and energy also requires that mass & energy must have always existed.


Maybe these scientific 'laws' aren't so absolute after all.




It's about at this point where I decide that as the answer has no practical application in my lifetime, that maybe I should concentrate on other things.

Like lunch. :cheesy:

- Mikko
 
The universe is finite yet infinite because as one physicist explained to me:

"Space curves back on itself, thus creates the illusion of infinity"

Think of it as living inside of a massive Balloon, where space is the inner linning of that balloon.

I don't know if that has helped to paint a clearer picture. To be honest it gets complicated very fast, I think I'll just let those boffins bake their noodles over it, and then they can explain it to us later :)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, Ok, so space loops back on itself - I'm familiar with that theory. Complex in 3D, but fair enough (I can get my head around that part).

And if every other reality is "flipped" like a Mobius strip (if that makes sense) then we have pretty good coverage.



What what about beyond ('outside') *that*? There has to be *something*.

- Mikko
 
mikkowilson said:
What what about beyond ('outside') *that*? There has to be *something*.
Click to expand...

Yes thats something I've struggled with myself (almost everyone else), its because its nearly impossible for humans to concieve of nothingness, it gets very deep indeed.

Everything has limits, science, and logic and rationality have their limits, where they start to break down.

For science its limit is matter, for logic it is its Axioms, for rationale its symantic laws.

If you would like the maths proof of the impossibility of "nothingness" I have an article (well email transcript of mine) available that explains it.

-Anhar
 
Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.
Click to expand...

--Sir Arthur Eddington

Our minds cannot really conceive of many things in the Universe. A singularity, for example, infinite curvature of spacetime. Don't mean they ain't there. Just means that despite our egocentric nature, it's just possible we might not be the center of it all :)

It's funny, you live in the universe, but you never get to do these things until someone comes to visit.
Click to expand...

--Dr. Zoidberg.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top