Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Big Bang and String Theory


mental invalid
 Share

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Harpo Marx:

The theory I like to believe in is that the universe is continuing to expand and doesnt stop.

 

 

i like to think.. that the universe is infinite.. my reasoning is.. well.. how is the universe just going to stop?.. there is the whole black hole thing.. but those move around.. and it isnt like there is some kind of invisble.. or visible wall surrounding the universe.. or is there? my friend.. who i actually havent talked to in awhile.. believes there is something bigger then the universe (i also really like this theory.. im not sure if he thought it up himself.. or if he got it from somewhere) but our universe is like.. one of many 'bubbles' in a larger, greater space.

 

these are the times that i wish i focused more on science instead of reading plato. peace.

 

 

------------------

yes.. yes i am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

......ok so my head is spinnin'...mamero what the deal with the idea of bubbles that hawking touches on in brief history....does this question make any sense? i figure you mite know and raels thought made me think of it.....and im glad there is no fate, i never did buy into the fact that there is free will and gods plan-you cant have both...so there is no fate, but remember there is karma...roe

 

ps-good lookin on carmens crotch shot....sometymes i feel like the universe does revolve around a womans, uh, well, ya know......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a fountain of information on this topic out there, so many possible explanations for what the universe really is, and so many questions. I wish I could know the answer(s) to at least one of these in my lifetime.

 

One thing I've come up with on my own, is that the real "mystery of the universe" is something the human mind can't comprehend. Similar to the way certain animals only see things in black and white, and wouldn't understand the notion of color. Or a how a blind man can't visualize things the way someone with sight does. It's, at least for now, beyond our mental grasp. Some humans, like Einstein & Hawking, have simply come closer to reaching that next level of awareness than others.

 

Try picturing a "new" color. One that doesn't look red, or blue, or green, or yellow, or like anything you've ever seen. Really sit and try to think of one. Or try and picture a sense beyond sight or sound etc.., and what it might feel like. Your brain doesn't know where to begin.

To me, THAT'S the universe. It's something that a person's brain can't fathom without evolving, or at least being awakened a little further beyond its current state of cognizance.

 

Maybe there's infinite universes.

 

Maybe the entire universe is actually a tiny particle of something unbelievably fucking big. And maybe that unbelievably big "thing" is also a particle that makes up something which might even be part of something else.

 

If the universe started as a big bang, or expansion, then what surrounded our little universe before this happened? Was there a space that the universe filled, or was there an endless void of "nothing" reaching off into a distant horizon of even more "nothing"?

 

Who knows. Cool shit to marinate on though.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Raels (edited 05-24-2001).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest imported_El Mamerro

Exactly how I feel, Rael. We could probably come to an understanding that says how we got where we are, but without actually having been present for eternity, we'll never know for sure. One little bit of info to keep you guys thinking:

 

According to string theory, the smallest portion of regular space is the Planck length (which is 10 to the negative 20th power smaller than the size of a proton). If the universe were to be compressed smaller than this size, it would "bounce" back out. I say it in quotation marks because it doesn't exactly bounce... it just begins to retain the same physical properties it had when it was big. This means that there would be absoultely no discernible differences whatsoever between a normal sized universe or a sub-Planck length one. So is our universe really big, or is it really small (under the Planck length)? Are there a lot of mini-universe withing each Planck-sized portion of space that look just like ours?

 

Read "Timeline", by Michael Crichton. He explores the possibility of "time" travel by sending compressed information describing a human being through wormholes in quantum foam into parallel universes that mirror our own, and which are created at every instant in time... so traveling to the past would be actually traveling into a separate universe. Not feasible according to string theory, but kinda feasible with a point-particle description of physics. Pretty dope shit. Beer,

 

El Mamerro

 

PS: Harpo, my SN's Mamerroid. I'll look you up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
Originally posted by El Mamerro

Rael, I think I read somewhere that there is a possibility the universe ISN'T gonna collapse. If I find the info I'll let you know.

 

That is indeed a very popular theory. It has something to do with the total amount of matter in the universe, like if there's enough matter it will eventually begin to contract, and if there's not enough it will continue expanding forever, in effect putting all our surrounding galaxies farther and farther away. This is called the "runaway universe" theory, I believe, they had a Nova on it a while back. The show actually made it seem like scientists researching the matter were close to the conclusion that our own universe is runaway. I wonder what implications this could have on the thermodynamic arrow of time? Since the universe would never contract, and thusly reverse entropy, would the universe eventually reach a state of complete disorder and stay like that forever?

 

Oh yeah, Mental Invalid, I would appreciate that story as well. My email is Xeroshoe76@hotmail.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple tidbits:

1.If you're going to talk about the theory that the universe is donut-shaped, don't use the word "donut", use the word "torus" (the scientific term for donut-shaped). It enhances your credibility.

2.There was a theory that maybe matter was being created as fast as it was being destroyed elsewhere, so everything would remain constant. It's called the "steady state theory" and I think it's wack. I believe it exposes a fundamental neurosis in its inventors, namely a fear of change, a desire to have everything comfortably static.

3. I like the donut (sorry, "torus") theory. It's a refreshing alternative to the Big Bang stuff. I always had a big problem with the Hubble Law, which states that the further away a celestial object (galaxy, quasar, etc.) is from us, the faster it is moving away from us. When I first read that, a big red flag went off in my head. Hello, how about an INSTRUMENTATION ERROR that is compounded at greater distances. (If you've ever worked with a divider - a drafting instrument like a compass used to mark off equal distances in succession - you know that the tiniest error early on will be magnified with each step you take with the divider, and if you went a mile you'd be off by many feet.) I never trusted the methods we use to measure huge distances in space to be accurate, so it seems logical that a compounded instrumentation error could be at work in making it look like the Hubble Law is for real.

4. On a related note to #3, I don't believe the speed of light is constant. We've proven that light is affected by strong gravitational sources (or else you could see black holes). So, light traveling enormous distances through space must necessarily suffer drag as it passes near strong gravitational sources. I argue that redshifted light is just "slow" light that has come a long way, and can't tell us exactly where it came from, or rather what has happened to its source since it began the trip. All the experiments I have read about which purport to measure the speed of light utilize "fresh" light that has not traveled a long time from its source, so no discrepancies in its speed are found. I believe Einstein got around this problem by MANDATING that the speed of light be constant, and simply suggesting that space is "curved" instead. I don't buy it and I think that assigning a constant speed to light is a limiting way of conceptualizing the universe, and leads erroneously to the assumption of a Big Bang.

Of course, Einstein and Hawking and other leading minds in cosmology are way smarter than I, and could probably trash my argument in short order. (They would do so with complicated math, and I would be lost quickly, because I don't conceptualize well from math.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cracked Ass

, I don't believe the speed of light is constant.

 

Einstein died a 'lunatic' primarily based on the fact that he couldn't quantify a universal application of Newton's 3rd law. I have always held the notion that the crux was based on the 'constant speed of light' theory...

 

In case any of you upstarts want to tackle Einstein's issue, it basically asks 'why is there no ANTIgravity?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, first we need to quantify 'gravity'... I hope we can all agree that is a force of infinite attraction... therefore, antigravity would be a force of infinite repulsion...here's a little home experiment...

 

think polarity and magnets, if ou combine them one way, the magnets attract each other, the opposite way and they repel... now, take that concept to a universal level... the theory is that all the planets remain in their relative obits due to the constant force of gravity... so... if everything has an equal and opposite reaction, where then is the opposite if gravity? We've discovered black holes, the ultimate statement of gravity, but where are the 'white holes'? Using what Cracked has postulated about 'light drag'...

 

Where then is the force that not only stops, but reverses light... it's an accepted idea that light travels in one direction until halted by a reflective surface. I suggest that light is more akin to AC current, it travels both ways constantly, the alternation being microcosmic and unmeasurable with current devices.

 

Let us never forget that time is the 4th dimension... onward to the 5th!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK it's 4AM where I am and I'm fading fast, so pardon my imminent incoherence.

Gravity operates in relationship to size and distance. It's weaker at greater distances and for smaller masses. Perhaps antigravity operates at dissimilar masses and distances than its counterpart. Antigravity could be repulsion at the smallest of levels: that force which prevents matter from shrinking smaller than Planck's Length. It would be a force that doesn't seem apparent or effectual among the more "standard" sizes of things like planets or galaxies.

Of course I'm still foggy on the whole unification thing - strong nuclear, weak nuclear forces, and all that. Another round is called for tomorrow.

Thank you and goodnight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dude, but we're fully on the same path... of course, assuming that gravity it duality, then infinite expansion (largeness) can be equal and opposite to an infintessimally small force, it's a balanced view but a view unaccounted for in all of Einstein's theories... and a balance that he could never achieve on paper...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest imported_El Mamerro

One point to quickly clarify something... By the constancy of the speed of light, Einstein didn't mean so much to say that light travels at a constant speed, but that the speed at which it travels is an absolute in the universe. That is, nothing can go faster than the speed of light. But anyways, light hasn't been proven to be able to be speeded up or slowed down, but yes, there are tons of ways yo can fuck with photons to get such results. One particulary neat experiment involved shooting two photons down a path, and placing an obstacle in front of one... Turns out that the photon with an obstacle in its path would arrive faster than the unimpeded one. If you haven't heard of it, I can explain it and it'd make a lot more sense.

 

Second, Super(symmetric)string theory has already provided us with a way to quantify gravity as gravitons, and provided the equations for the vibrating patterns of both the graviton and antigraviton strings (a quantum field theory of gravity). Just like electromagnetic, strong, and weak forces are composed of photons, gluons, and weak gauge bosons respectively, so it is believed that gravitational force should also be particle-based. Antigravity, however, remains elusive and unproven, but if the universe DOES turn out to be supersymmetrical, then it MUST exist. Actually finding the smallest quanta of energy of the feeblest of all the forces has proven to be quite a challenge, and it might be beyond our scope forever. May the discussion continue... beer,

 

El Mamerro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright so I ran into this old chinese man while painting the front of his store, he used to do research work during WWII and has been fucking up my mind with alternative Physics theory. First about all this big bang theory, this guy claims that its not true. Mamerro what you said about the big bang not actually being a bang is on the right track. It is more like a simple expansion of energy. Now what energy and matter is in free space is the real mystery here. What Physics teaches us in the classroom is that energy is the capability to do work and that matter occupies space but these definitions are just engineering tools rather than a helpful way to work out theories.

Another thing is that the universe is not steadily expanding as everyone believes. Based on red shift and blue shift light waves we can observe in some merging universes that there is evidence for contraction as well as expansion. So the universe is very much fluxuating and not in such a static space that we believe.

I started a web site (that is very incomplete) but you can find some original audio samples of this guy explaining elementary Physics and new Physics theory. Enjoy.

http://www.dausone.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cracked Ass

Couple tidbits:

1.If you're going to talk about the theory that the universe is donut-shaped, don't use the word "donut", use the word "torus" (the scientific term for donut-shaped). It enhances your credibility.

 

My old name doesn't work for some reason, but it was me who brought up that statement. I used the word donut because that's how it was explained to me and seemed easy to understand ... wasn't really looking for credibility, I'm not a scientist or anything and just thought it was a pretty cool idea. ;)

 

Also, from what I understand, weren't Einstein's major-yet-unachieved goals to find an explanation for the curved geometry of gravity and the existence of subatomic particles? You guys seem to know more about the subject than me, but I find the shit fascinating. El Mammerro or someone help me out -- what would be a good book about planetary astronomy or Einstein's theories that would make sense to a simpleton such as myself ... ?

 

 

What's up Smart, I'm back near your area -- hit me up on hotmail or somethin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest imported_El Mamerro

Alright... I just noticed that it'd be hard as hell to simply explain the experiment in words, so I drew a crappy little diagram to illustrate it a bit:

 

http://newcamp.net/hector/images/diag.jpg'>

 

 

Ok, so here's how it goes... Photons aren't this tiny little dot-particle looking thing; you can't pinpoint a photon's exact location because besides having particle qualities, it has wave qualities, which "spread" its location out. So when you're trying to explain the actual location of the photon, you talk about it existing as a probability wave, that is, an area where it might be located at a certain point in time. In the diagram above, the probability wave of each photon is not-so-cleverly illustrated as a circle with a dot in the middle, poised at the starting line. The dot in the middle of the wave represents the photon's most LIKELY place to be within the probability wave, but keep in mind it can be anywhere in that circle.

 

Now the photon on the right has a big block with a tiny tunnel in the middle standing right in its path. The photon on the left is allowed to proceed unimpeded. You'd think that the photon on the right would finish the race last because of having to struggle through the tiny tunnel, but it happens to be the opposite way.

 

The photons take off, and the one on the right slams against the block. Just like a wave of water, most of that photon's probability wave is deflected by the block (notice the crappier-than-normal circles bouncing backwards), and the amount of probability wave that gets through the tunnel is much smaller than how it started out, but it squeezed through the tunnel at the same speed as the photon on the left, so they're still both tied at the front. Their probability waves arrive at the finish line at the same time, but since the one on the right is much smaller, its entire probability wave goes across the finish line before the other photon's entire probability wave does. That means that no matter where the photons are on their respective probability waves, the one on the right is bound to arrive before the one on the left.

 

Keep in mind this exeriment had to be done thousands and thousands of time and the results averaged out... In a lot of these tries, the photon happened to be in the probability waves that bounced back from the block, and never made it to the finish line... Or the photon on the left happened to be at the very front of its probability wave and crossed the finish line before the one on the right... you get the idea. But over time, the results piled up, and considerably more often than not, the photon on the right beat the one on the left's ass. The experiment has been refined to the point where scientists can "speed up" an photon over 250 times the speed of a normal photon, and this in turn gets misinterpreted in the newspaper as scientists breaking the light barrier.

 

Well, I don't know if this made sense or not, but there it is. Hope you enjoyed it. Beer,

 

El Mamerro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...