S1l3nt V1p3r
Sr Member
So... Many... Theories... So... Little... Processing.... Capacity...
UUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH....! *Die*
UUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH....! *Die*
This Is Mind Blowing!
- Thread starter Radioactiv
- Start date
- Status
garth said:
I have taken a few astronomy courses and I am currently taking a physics course that is intensive into the study of visible light. The reason why the study of physics exists is because of the way that physics operate within our universe. That is to say that there may very well be a separate set in other universes. Because space is so incredibly vast, in order for us to shrink it we compartmentalize our universe as the only one in existence. It more than likely is not. Our universe is a sphere of light and sound and marvelous wonders but in all likelyhood it is one out of a very large number. And here's where the big bang explosion and the warp drive theory have similar properties. Imagine if you will that the fabric of space is like the surface of a pond. What happens when you throw a stick of dynamite in? The explosion causes a huge shockwave that distorts the surface of the water (and everything underneath) and creates waves that will actually push moving objects away at the speed of the wave. Apply that to the physics of our universe and you will get whatever objects being pushed along at light speed due to the shockwave effect on the fabric of space pushing the ripples along at light speed. Because there is no opposing force in space (at least momentum-wise) the objects that were thrown away from our universe at light speed will remain at light speed indefinitely. That is why the light that these objects emitted - if any at all - will never reach us.
Think of this: a galaxy that was 13.21 billion light years from the epicenter of the big bang. All of the sudden it is pushed out of its place in space by the shockwave from the massive explosion 13.21 billion years later. The light was .01 light years away from the edge of our universe (currently) before it was displaced and therefore the light that it emitted will never reach us because of it being outside of our universe to begin with and will be traveling away a 1/100th of a year later at the speed of light.
Still not following? How about this then. You are sitting in a car at 0 mph trying to get to a point on the horizon which is about 4 or 5 miles ahead of you depending on your sitting height within your car (assuming that this is a flat sphere that you are traveling on, variable terrain may negate this). There is a car just beyond the horizon traveling at 1mph. As you step on the gas both cars increase in speed in direct correlation to one another. You will never see the car you are trying to catch up to because it will always be just ahead over the next horizon line moving farther and farther away over time. This is the essence of this theory; that you cannot see objects moving along outside of the universe because they are moving slightly faster than our universe is expanding - faster than the speed of light due to a ripple in the fabric of space time.
Last edited by a moderator:
nirvanaking95
Active Member
JEEZ AND ONE OF US IS SUPER MICROSCOPIC OR EVEN A GERM!
Bloodl3tt3r
Well-Known Member
BFDesigns said:
Where'd that theory come from? It's really interesting, but doesn't that assume that the light from that galaxy outside "our" universe doesn't have a way to cross the (ok, i'm probably making up this term) "Universal border" that seperates "our universe" from "outside"? Because the light will be traveling towards the epicenter as the shock wave, and the borders of our universe are expanding outwards, so you have to assume that the light will cross that border at some point in time.
Am I making sense here?
EDIT: unless we're assuming the shockwave will prevent the light from reaching us?
Last edited by a moderator:
UNSC Leatherneck
Well-Known Member
All well and good, and a reasonable theory. Except you misunderstand the Big Bang. The matter in the universe is not moving along a shockwave moving out from the origin of the big bang. It is space itself that is expanding.
UNSC_Leatherneck said:
That's exactly what I was saying. Space is expanding within the borders of our own universe which means that it is pushing the space around its borders outward.
Interestingly enough, the "universal border" seems to create a barrier that will bend light away from actually reaching us. Black holes do this with light in that they bend the fabric of space so that light moves along this fabric in a straight line until it comes to this bend, it then travels along the distortion effectively being bent around its borders.
Astronomers have actually been able to peer out to the very edge and they see this uniform field of green light (according to the History Channel) that they credit with being the actual universal border. Seeing as it has taken 13.2 billion years for the light from this green light field to reach us, it is up in the air as to whether or not it still exists to the point that it continues to bend or reflect exterior light away from the interior of our universe. So your question has merit to it in the fact that exterior light sources may eventually reach us if the green barrier were to disappear. Of course, we'd all be dead before we found out due to the X-billion light years that that light has to travel across.
Last edited by a moderator:
GeneralMayhem
Active Member
I am humbled, just watching that...
heh looks like Ive missed a bit of the discussion... if the universe is everything what is it expanding into?? and with white holes how could they be proved to exist. wouldn't it jut be reflecting everything sent at it with the same force as a black hole? or would it be in a black hole out a white lol wormhole si-fi stuff. idk
AF2OOXL said:
I think what you're getting at is the, "If a black hole sucks sh!t up where does it go and does it come out of a white hole instead?" A white hole may very well be the terminal end of a black hole, or it may even be the exit end of a pipe from another universe, just like a black hole may pipe matter from our universe into an adjacent universe where it comes out of a white hole as spaghettified material. The universe may very well be interconnected in a polymeric web or a crystalline structure as it tumbles through the vast empty void that it's expanding into.
Oh yeah, Here's a graphic that throws down on the Universal Border Theory:
EDIT: I forgot to explain that the "Endless Field of Green" (Universal Border) is actually a bubble of radiation. We are surrounded by an amazingly huge bubble of radiation, add that to the feeling of insignificance as the biggest star in the movie would not even be visible on an atomic level compared to the size of this radioactive bubble.
Last edited by a moderator:
UNSC Leatherneck
Well-Known Member
Ah, but that would imply a stationary absolute frame of reference, which does not exist according to the Special Theory of Relativity. Space is not expanding within the borders of our on universe, it is the universe itself that is expanding, timespace included. Discussions of other universes outside our own are not valid, since those hypotheses can not be tested scientifically. It is a neat idea to think of them, though.BFDesigns said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Bloodl3tt3r
Well-Known Member
UNSC_Leatherneck said:
You never know, it could be that we just don't have the level of technology/understanding required to come up with a way to scientifically test the possibility that other universes exist, which is why we say that it's unable to be tested scientifically.
We just don't understand where we would begin.
Last edited by a moderator:
UNSC Leatherneck
Well-Known Member
I agree, but the inability to test, either through lack of technology or insight, renders any discussion of alternate universes moot.Bloodl3tt3r said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Odessa 086
Member
I have to throw something in, in regards to white holes...Stephen Hawking developed the white hole theory, and in fact, it was a bet he did with his friend. I believe it was a bet in a few dollars or a drink...can't remember now. He developed and worked on the theory, only to reject it in the end as impossible under the laws of physics of this universe. It's a nice thought to have, that white holes may be the outlets of black holes, that whatever drops into the black hole, comes out in another dimension in the form of pure energy, through a white hole, a mini Big Bang of sorts...or that white holes can serve as warp tunnels...And I myself quite like that thought, considering that we were taught that energy cannot disappear, it can only be transformed and all matter is energy.
But we can't forget that there is nothing compared to the vast power of a black hole, especially seeing how we can't even test it properly. The energy that falls in, doesn't disappear and doesn't squirt out of some imaginary white hole on the other side. It remains in the black hole. Remember Hawking radiation? The energy that falls in, feeds the black hole, in a manner of speaking, it keeps it spinning (in case of spinning, charged black holes) amd it creates a paradox of sorts because black holes that feed on this matter also lose it due to their spin and ultimately die from this loss. (I'm sure Bloodletter will remember my essay
)
Okay, now on to the Big Bang...
BF, you seem to be slightly confused in regards to the Big Bang theory...so that you're making me confused as to what exactly your theory is. So here's what I have to say on the matter.
You can't really define the edges of our universe. It didn't expand in a perfect spherical chape, elliptic or whatever. Think of the primordial soup as the yoke in an egg...this yoke boils and boils and pressure builds up, until every bit of space inside the egg is taken...and then the egg bursts. Seeing how every molecule of this yoke has an ever so slight difference in density. Now, think of these molecules as primordial suns. The molecules of higher density will be under more pressure and when the egg bursts, those will be the fastest to expand and will travel furthest. This means the universe has a very erratic shape. Naturally, when you break an egg, the yoke that spills expands as much as it can. But the borders can't possibly become constrained and then have the contents of it expand within those restricted borders. It's impossible. It defies logic to even begin to imagine that something can infinitelly expand within constrained borders. This would eventually lead to a chain reaction of continuous, everlasting explosions once the borders have been reached and the expansion within struggles to keep expanding. Think back to fates of 0-III class stars, their evolution relates to this very well.
We may not know what's beyond the limits of our universe, but to think those limits are terminal, despite the clear evidence of the redshift (Doppler effect), is highly illogical. Laws of physics simply cannot accomodate the thought of neverending expansion within constraints. And if by some chance I got you wrong, and you're saying that when the limits are reached, the universe will collapse back onto itself, implode and afterwards create a new Big Bang, that would mean this universe is a form of a Dyson sphere existing in a larger universe, and that it never ever changes its outward appearance and size. I can't get my head around this, not with everything pointing to another direction.
The space inside our borders does indeed expand, but so do the borders. Everything still is expanding and the rate of this expansion is slowing down, true, but that in no way means it's because the expanding space is reaching its limits. A more logical reason would go something like this...the energy required for the Big Bang was so immense that it sent everything flying out. But this energy dissipates, it gets stretched across larger and larger area and it loses its integrity and grasp as it does this, and this is, according to the laws of physics, perfectly logical. Once all of this energy is so stretched across that the expanding boundaries have no more...fuel to push them forward, they will at some point have to stop. Not because the terminal limits have been reached, because this universe is not a sphere in some void, but because there is no more fuel for the expansion. The borders and space will cease to expand due to this and will slowly start to contract. Why? Because the spider-web of energy that fueled the expansion and was being stretched out thin still holds (think water surface integrity) and once the expansion stops, this energy will want to come back together and will begin pulling the space and its borders back onto itself, leading to eventual implosion, the journey back to the beginning and create another primordial egg that will result in another Big Bang and a new universe. This is a perfect example of that questions "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
Also, you can't really say that there is any specific point where Big Bang originated from...The Doppler effect works in the same way no matter where we listen and how colourblind we may be to the redshift. If there was one specific point of the Big Bang, we would be able to triangulate its position by listening to the echo and interpreting it, but the echo is everywhere and it's the same. Just like you can't change the fact that 2+2=4, you can't interpret the mechanism of Doppler effect, redshift in a way different to the established one.
One more thing...to think that our universe has terminal, predefined and entirely immobile limits would mean there must be something that *artificially* created those limits for our universe, because the universe itself couldn't have done since the early expansion couldn't reach those limits and it still can't. That is simply sci-fi, when everything else is just sci.
Okay, I think I've said way too much so I'll stop now. If there are any questions regarding what I said, I'm eager to attempt to answer more...
Or point you to my graduate paper
But we can't forget that there is nothing compared to the vast power of a black hole, especially seeing how we can't even test it properly. The energy that falls in, doesn't disappear and doesn't squirt out of some imaginary white hole on the other side. It remains in the black hole. Remember Hawking radiation? The energy that falls in, feeds the black hole, in a manner of speaking, it keeps it spinning (in case of spinning, charged black holes) amd it creates a paradox of sorts because black holes that feed on this matter also lose it due to their spin and ultimately die from this loss. (I'm sure Bloodletter will remember my essay
)Okay, now on to the Big Bang...
BF, you seem to be slightly confused in regards to the Big Bang theory...so that you're making me confused as to what exactly your theory is. So here's what I have to say on the matter.
You can't really define the edges of our universe. It didn't expand in a perfect spherical chape, elliptic or whatever. Think of the primordial soup as the yoke in an egg...this yoke boils and boils and pressure builds up, until every bit of space inside the egg is taken...and then the egg bursts. Seeing how every molecule of this yoke has an ever so slight difference in density. Now, think of these molecules as primordial suns. The molecules of higher density will be under more pressure and when the egg bursts, those will be the fastest to expand and will travel furthest. This means the universe has a very erratic shape. Naturally, when you break an egg, the yoke that spills expands as much as it can. But the borders can't possibly become constrained and then have the contents of it expand within those restricted borders. It's impossible. It defies logic to even begin to imagine that something can infinitelly expand within constrained borders. This would eventually lead to a chain reaction of continuous, everlasting explosions once the borders have been reached and the expansion within struggles to keep expanding. Think back to fates of 0-III class stars, their evolution relates to this very well.
We may not know what's beyond the limits of our universe, but to think those limits are terminal, despite the clear evidence of the redshift (Doppler effect), is highly illogical. Laws of physics simply cannot accomodate the thought of neverending expansion within constraints. And if by some chance I got you wrong, and you're saying that when the limits are reached, the universe will collapse back onto itself, implode and afterwards create a new Big Bang, that would mean this universe is a form of a Dyson sphere existing in a larger universe, and that it never ever changes its outward appearance and size. I can't get my head around this, not with everything pointing to another direction.
The space inside our borders does indeed expand, but so do the borders. Everything still is expanding and the rate of this expansion is slowing down, true, but that in no way means it's because the expanding space is reaching its limits. A more logical reason would go something like this...the energy required for the Big Bang was so immense that it sent everything flying out. But this energy dissipates, it gets stretched across larger and larger area and it loses its integrity and grasp as it does this, and this is, according to the laws of physics, perfectly logical. Once all of this energy is so stretched across that the expanding boundaries have no more...fuel to push them forward, they will at some point have to stop. Not because the terminal limits have been reached, because this universe is not a sphere in some void, but because there is no more fuel for the expansion. The borders and space will cease to expand due to this and will slowly start to contract. Why? Because the spider-web of energy that fueled the expansion and was being stretched out thin still holds (think water surface integrity) and once the expansion stops, this energy will want to come back together and will begin pulling the space and its borders back onto itself, leading to eventual implosion, the journey back to the beginning and create another primordial egg that will result in another Big Bang and a new universe. This is a perfect example of that questions "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
Also, you can't really say that there is any specific point where Big Bang originated from...The Doppler effect works in the same way no matter where we listen and how colourblind we may be to the redshift. If there was one specific point of the Big Bang, we would be able to triangulate its position by listening to the echo and interpreting it, but the echo is everywhere and it's the same. Just like you can't change the fact that 2+2=4, you can't interpret the mechanism of Doppler effect, redshift in a way different to the established one.
One more thing...to think that our universe has terminal, predefined and entirely immobile limits would mean there must be something that *artificially* created those limits for our universe, because the universe itself couldn't have done since the early expansion couldn't reach those limits and it still can't. That is simply sci-fi, when everything else is just sci.
Okay, I think I've said way too much so I'll stop now. If there are any questions regarding what I said, I'm eager to attempt to answer more...
Or point you to my graduate paper
UNSC_Leatherneck said:
The only thing stopping us from scientifically testing them towards fact is the limited technology that we as a species possess. However there is evidence of parallel universes existing extradimensionally within our own known universe. There have been experiments where the setup was done in a vacuum and light was released photon by photon through a slit onto a projected screen. Now, based on the physics involved with light, and since the photons were released in a straight line trajectory in a vacuum environment, they should have crossed the vacuum and hit the screen on a point that was completely parallel to the point of release. However, they were deflected by something that did not measure on any scientific instrument or apparatus set up within the confines of the experiment. Something invisible was deflecting the photons since this was a sterile vacuum environment with no free floating particles of anything in it. Thus the theory states that within a universe parallel to our own there was something set in the path of the photons. We just cannot pick up on it.
Another quantum mechanical principle states that anything that can happen will happen (based on opposites, probablility, etc.). If we condense that theory to a single person, we get the person faced with a decision. When said decision is made, there is another universe that is created where the opposite decision was made. This goes on infinitely throughout the persons life. Now on a global scale or even a universal scale, we see that there is an infinite number of parallel universes that can spawn out of a single fraction of a second (This is of course all highly theoretical based on quantum physics and theoretical physics). Even though these universes are never seen by us, they may very well exist on another plain. For instance, you make a decision and as the consequences of the decision (be they good or bad) come to pass, you think about the "What if I had made the opposite decision?" part, and based on what you know you can formulate a series of theoretical events that would have come to pass based on the opposite decision. This string of events may very well be another universe in that of itself. And this seems to be one of those things that humans can pick up on through a grasp of string theory.
And though what Odessa said is true that the universe's borders cannot possibly be perfectly spherical in nature as explosions are not symmetrical in any respect, even in a vacuum, this much is true: that based on what our technology can gather we see a perfect uniform layer of radiation that is green in color much like a sphere. Astronomers have however admitted that even the results are there clear as crystal, this boundary may very well be an extremely distorted layer but due to the fact that our instruments are not sensitive enough to pick this up (it is over 13 billion light years away) we see a green sphere. An illusion created by the insensitivity of our telescopes.
I would also like to add that the universe is indeed expanding and will continue to do so until it runs out of gas. Now there are 2 theories about the eventual death of the universe, the collapse inward on itself theory, and the black hole theory. I can't seem to accept the eventual collapse in on itself as there would have to be a massive gravity well in the center of it all. And based on the law of gravity, I'm pretty sure that the universe cannot collapse back inward on itself (unless there is some physics theory that I missed) into the same point that it was spawned from. It just does not make much sense to me that this gravity well would exist.
The other theory is the black hole theory. And this states that black holes will eventually gobble up the universe and each other which will trigger another big bang. Based on this theory however, the universe will not collapse in on itself. It will just disappear into the black holes as they move throughout the universe growing ever larger until there's nothing left. Then they'll consume each other and there may or may not be another big bang out of this.
Last edited by a moderator:
Odessa 086
Member
String theory doesn't deal with alternate universes, it only suggests that our universe's space-time continuum has 11 dimensions. The theory only attempts to explain the quantum theory of gravity, and is also a highly experimental and theoretical branch of physics not even fully accepted yet.
Bloodl3tt3r
Well-Known Member
Yeah, about that paper... I'm going to reread it sometime, reading it in the middle of the night does nothing towards aiding comprehension, lol.
Just one question on that experiment in a vacuum... does a "vacuum" suppose that there isn't dark matter in there as well? Since apparently (from what I understand from reading things), dark matter has gravity, you'd assume that the presence of dark matter would affect the path of the photon. And I don't think current human technology has a way of affecting dark matter... correct me if I'm wrong?
Just one question on that experiment in a vacuum... does a "vacuum" suppose that there isn't dark matter in there as well? Since apparently (from what I understand from reading things), dark matter has gravity, you'd assume that the presence of dark matter would affect the path of the photon. And I don't think current human technology has a way of affecting dark matter... correct me if I'm wrong?
Odessa-086 said:
You must've missed my point with this. The extradimensional aspect that I was referring to was not the existence of alternate universes based on string theory, it was the existence of alternate universes as a conceptualization of whatever dimension that the mental plain exists on. We as humans exist in 4 dimensions as well as a few others that do not have any correlation with the physical world save that we can take the ideas that we come up with and bring them into the 4 dimensional world.
I was under the impression that dark matter existed only within the confines of empty space. That is to say that it does exist as a cobweb structure throughout the known universe but that it only exists outside of planetary bodies throughout the vast empty spaces that are between say planets and stars. Correct me if I'm wrong but I've never seen anything that lends to the belief that it exists on our world, if it did then it would have a tendency to f*ck with us quite a bit right?
Last edited by a moderator:
Odessa 086
Member
And people are slaves to apes...no, wait...
"You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you! Damn you all to hell!"
"You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you! Damn you all to hell!"
- Status
