Jump to content
te0p

Turns out the universe is not very big after all...

Recommended Posts

Because man can scale it to a website.

 

Universe scaled:

 

Pretty sweet thought id share it.

 

This was meant to go in the green room.

Edited by te0p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's fantastic isn't it! Found it just a couple of days ago. One of my favourite pastimes is lying outside on my back on a clear starry night, looking up and trying to visualise the bigness of it all. Now I have a handy dandy cartoon webpage to help me with that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, very interesting...Although if what they have been observing is correct that diagram was outdated when it was being made, the universe is supposed to be expanding at an ever increasing rate.

 

It has been thought of but something I find interesting is when the universe gets to the point it is expanding at the speed of light and passes that speed if Eistein and Physics is right the universe might jump back in time all of a sudden but stay at the same speed making it in some form of infinite backwards loop...Anyway it shall be rather screwy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, very interesting...Although if what they have been observing is correct that diagram was outdated when it was being made, the universe is supposed to be expanding at an ever increasing rate.

 

It has been thought of but something I find interesting is when the universe gets to the point it is expanding at the speed of light and passes that speed if Eistein and Physics is right the universe might jump back in time all of a sudden but stay at the same speed making it in some form of infinite backwards loop...Anyway it shall be rather screwy...

Pretty sure I have read that the expansion of space doesn't violate the theory of relativity (particles can't travel past the speed of light) on account of space can and does expand faster than the speed of light. Edited by nesquick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That perspective is mind blowing.

 

We're (earth) a teeny tiny, insignificant, un-noticable spec in the grand scheme of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now guys, I know that ya'all are a big bunch of newfags, but let me help you:

 

4chan links are temporary, you should find an alternative source.

 

Say it with me kiddies!

 

Now, fortunately, yours truly has a huge (1.11gb, I lost some of it) collection of .swf files, and knows exactly which file you are talking about, even though the link has expired.

 

For the rest of you:

 

http://dagobah.net/flash/Scale_of_the_Universe.swf

 

*bows*

 

*leaves*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, very interesting...Although if what they have been observing is correct that diagram was outdated when it was being made, the universe is supposed to be expanding at an ever increasing rate.

 

It has been thought of but something I find interesting is when the universe gets to the point it is expanding at the speed of light and passes that speed if Eistein and Physics is right the universe might jump back in time all of a sudden but stay at the same speed making it in some form of infinite backwards loop...Anyway it shall be rather screwy...

Pretty sure I have read that the expansion of space doesn't violate the theory of relativity (particles can't travel past the speed of light) on account of space can and does expand faster than the speed of light.

 

I have a problem with the idea particles can't travel faster then light of which my physics teacher can't answer. It being there is not a maximum temperature but there is a minimum temperature. Thus temperature being the movement of atoms you can surpass the speed of light with particles by heating it to some ridiculous degree making the atoms move faster then the speed of light.

 

Anyway if that isn't right you have the problem of neutrinos recently and the fact they supposedly travel somewhat faster then light does. And which the anomaly or what they suspect is one has occurred multiple times in the past but been ignored. So soon hopefully when the scientific community agrees that it is not an error or it is an error we will find out if we can surpass the speed of light.

 

Now guys, I know that ya'all are a big bunch of newfags, but let me help you:

 

4chan links are temporary, you should find an alternative source.

 

Say it with me kiddies!

 

Now, fortunately, yours truly has a huge (1.11gb, I lost some of it) collection of .swf files, and knows exactly which file you are talking about, even though the link has expired.

 

For the rest of you:

 

http://dagobah.net/flash/Scale_of_the_Universe.swf

 

*bows*

 

*leaves*

WAIT WHAT THAT LINK WAS TO 4CHAN. GET IT AWAY, AWAY I TELL YOU...

Edited by TheSingularity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet. I never had this concept in my mind before. Thanks to the link, someway, it's helpful. I'm not sure if the names used in the illustration were real but at least it can be used in schools.

 

No one has ever scaled the universe before, not even the renowned scientists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, very interesting...Although if what they have been observing is correct that diagram was outdated when it was being made, the universe is supposed to be expanding at an ever increasing rate.

 

It has been thought of but something I find interesting is when the universe gets to the point it is expanding at the speed of light and passes that speed if Eistein and Physics is right the universe might jump back in time all of a sudden but stay at the same speed making it in some form of infinite backwards loop...Anyway it shall be rather screwy...

Pretty sure I have read that the expansion of space doesn't violate the theory of relativity (particles can't travel past the speed of light) on account of space can and does expand faster than the speed of light.

 

I have a problem with the idea particles can't travel faster then light of which my physics teacher can't answer. It being there is not a maximum temperature but there is a minimum temperature. Thus temperature being the movement of atoms you can surpass the speed of light with particles by heating it to some ridiculous degree making the atoms move faster then the speed of light.

 

Anyway if that isn't right you have the problem of neutrinos recently and the fact they supposedly travel somewhat faster then light does. And which the anomaly or what they suspect is one has occurred multiple times in the past but been ignored. So soon hopefully when the scientific community agrees that it is not an error or it is an error we will find out if we can surpass the speed of light.

 

There may be no maximum temperature in mathematical only based theory (similar to how if you always halve the distance to a destination you never quite reach it) however physicists generally agree now that is not the case and there are minimum divisions before it becomes utter nonsense and the two points are in fact one (see Plank length) or two temperatures are so high they "behave" exactly the same in every way (see Plank temperature - and by that I mean even if we could measure these things...). Remember as the temperature of the particle increases and therefore energy increases so does the mass. Using the good 'ole formula e = mc^2, if e increases so does m. The particle simply cannot surpass the speed of light as long as it has mass and so far it all points to neutrino's having mass. Each approaches infinity, but never reaches it, therefore never reach the speed of light. Think about the temperature of this universe at the moment of creation - supposedly infinite in both temperature and mass (though I believe infinite is too loosely used). One could not be without the other. If the mass was infinite and the temperature not, that would require a complete rethink of most of physics. So to put that sort of temperature into a single particle would require a complete reversal of entropy (breaking thermodynamics along the way) which means that the particle would gain the mass from all other particles essentially reversing time (and this would require some severe messing with quantum theories - such as the single electron behaviour in electrodynamics). It is hard to explain all this without going in many many tangents to cover all the reasoning behind this.

 

The neutrino experiment has only been verified once and not independently last I heard. That being said, I do not believe Einstein was completely correct, however his theories are the closest approximation we have at this time when it comes to big things (quantum theory is even more successful as a theory since it has been verified to a greater certainty and more often). There are theories out there such as the speed of light is in fact a variable over time that are intriguing and yet to be disproved (though inflation is also yet to be disproved), or that the speed of light is region dependant within the universe or universes... I could go on... We would be arrogant to think we have narrowed down most of physics... we were once when we though Newton was the be all and end all and we improved upon so much of that, so I don't see why that won't happen again and again.

 

And yes space expands at a greater speed than light at an ever increasing acceleration.

 

I would love to find out the neutrino experiment was successful and negated Einstein's theories, but I am pessimistic of this being the case.

Edited by mr harrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, very interesting...Although if what they have been observing is correct that diagram was outdated when it was being made, the universe is supposed to be expanding at an ever increasing rate.

 

It has been thought of but something I find interesting is when the universe gets to the point it is expanding at the speed of light and passes that speed if Eistein and Physics is right the universe might jump back in time all of a sudden but stay at the same speed making it in some form of infinite backwards loop...Anyway it shall be rather screwy...

Pretty sure I have read that the expansion of space doesn't violate the theory of relativity (particles can't travel past the speed of light) on account of space can and does expand faster than the speed of light.

 

I have a problem with the idea particles can't travel faster then light of which my physics teacher can't answer. It being there is not a maximum temperature but there is a minimum temperature. Thus temperature being the movement of atoms you can surpass the speed of light with particles by heating it to some ridiculous degree making the atoms move faster then the speed of light.

 

Anyway if that isn't right you have the problem of neutrinos recently and the fact they supposedly travel somewhat faster then light does. And which the anomaly or what they suspect is one has occurred multiple times in the past but been ignored. So soon hopefully when the scientific community agrees that it is not an error or it is an error we will find out if we can surpass the speed of light.

 

There may be no maximum temperature in mathematical only based theory (similar to how if you always halve the distance to a destination you never quite reach it) however physicists generally agree now that is not the case and there are minimum divisions before it becomes utter nonsense and the two points are in fact one (see Plank length) or two temperatures are so high they "behave" exactly the same in every way (see Plank temperature - and by that I mean even if we could measure these things...). Remember as the temperature of the particle increases and therefore energy increases so does the mass. Using the good 'ole formula e = mc^2, if e increases so does m. The particle simply cannot surpass the speed of light as long as it has mass and so far it all points to neutrino's having mass. Each approaches infinity, but never reaches it, therefore never reach the speed of light. Think about the temperature of this universe at the moment of creation - supposedly infinite in both temperature and mass (though I believe infinite is too loosely used). One could not be without the other. If the mass was infinite and the temperature not, that would require a complete rethink of most of physics. So to put that sort of temperature into a single particle would require a complete reversal of entropy (breaking thermodynamics along the way) which means that the particle would gain the mass from all other particles essentially reversing time (and this would require some severe messing with quantum theories - such as the single electron behaviour in electrodynamics). It is hard to explain all this without going in many many tangents to cover all the reasoning behind this.

 

The neutrino experiment has only been verified once and not independently last I heard. That being said, I do not believe Einstein was completely correct, however his theories are the closest approximation we have at this time when it comes to big things (quantum theory is even more successful as a theory since it has been verified to a greater certainty and more often). There are theories out there such as the speed of light is in fact a variable over time that are intriguing and yet to be disproved (though inflation is also yet to be disproved), or that the speed of light is region dependant within the universe or universes... I could go on... We would be arrogant to think we have narrowed down most of physics... we were once when we though Newton was the be all and end all and we improved upon so much of that, so I don't see why that won't happen again and again.

 

And yes space expands at a greater speed than light at an ever increasing acceleration.

 

I would love to find out the neutrino experiment was successful and negated Einstein's theories, but I am pessimistic of this being the case.

 

Woot another technology and science nerd. No offence lol =P.

 

You mentioned the Big Bang Theory (not the show lol), which I have a problem with as well that being if there was originally nothing, I repeat NOTHING then why would it decide to do something, there is technically nothing, no forces, no matter, NOTHING. So saying you believe the Big Bang Theory you might as well accept religious peoples beliefs in a god, of which again is not supposed to offend anyone I myself am religious as such...(Christian)...Then there is the other problem of why the Universe is expanding which is supposed to be because of the Big Bang Theory, which if that is correct sooner or later Entropy will come into effect and the Universe will begin being pulled back inwards and basically evaporate.

 

This reminds me of a discussion i had yesterday in my Physics class, the majority of the class was like WTF how do you know all this, I just replied I read a lot about science and technology. Anyway then you have Quantum Physics which doesn't quite fit within the classical model so it is kind of fucking up String Theory...

 

I would also like to see Neutrinos being faster then light, I don't like the fact people think Laws in science are the be all and end all and are always right, we thought at one point in history mobile phones and computers were impossible they weren't even imaginable now they exist. And in one point of history it was believed heavier things fall faster then light things, and the world was flat etc. Science even if it is a 'Law' isn't absolute. Technology is constantly changing the way we understand things...

 

And the other problem I had with your argument is E=MC2 is not the full formula, and so many people think that means things that it does not. I can't think of an example that I'm sure is what was believed I remember reading saomewhere people thought because E=MC2 that meant matter was energy or something along those lines. But yes that is not the full formula devised by Einstein.

 

Oh and lets say you got to the speed of light from what we understand if say neutrinos got to that speed time supposedly stops so it would appear to get there faster because time is no longer a factor which doesn't actually make sense if you take into consideration distance and how fast light travels a distance...So...Or well time appears to stop...But maybe you can get to the speed of light and time in a sense doesnt stop if you are measuring how quickly it covers a distance, probably two different things I'm talking about here considering your talking about two different perspectives one from the outside, one being light itself (as though you were light).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woot another technology and science nerd. No offence lol =P.

 

You mentioned the Big Bang Theory (not the show lol), which I have a problem with as well that being if there was originally nothing, I repeat NOTHING then why would it decide to do something, there is technically nothing, no forces, no matter, NOTHING. So saying you believe the Big Bang Theory you might as well accept religious peoples beliefs in a god, of which again is not supposed to offend anyone I myself am religious as such...(Christian)...Then there is the other problem of why the Universe is expanding which is supposed to be because of the Big Bang Theory, which if that is correct sooner or later Entropy will come into effect and the Universe will begin being pulled back inwards and basically evaporate.

 

This reminds me of a discussion i had yesterday in my Physics class, the majority of the class was like WTF how do you know all this, I just replied I read a lot about science and technology. Anyway then you have Quantum Physics which doesn't quite fit within the classical model so it is kind of fucking up String Theory...

 

I would also like to see Neutrinos being faster then light, I don't like the fact people think Laws in science are the be all and end all and are always right, we thought at one point in history mobile phones and computers were impossible they weren't even imaginable now they exist. And in one point of history it was believed heavier things fall faster then light things, and the world was flat etc. Science even if it is a 'Law' isn't absolute. Technology is constantly changing the way we understand things...

 

And the other problem I had with your argument is E=MC2 is not the full formula, and so many people think that means things that it does not. I can't think of an example that I'm sure is what was believed I remember reading saomewhere people thought because E=MC2 that meant matter was energy or something along those lines. But yes that is not the full formula devised by Einstein.

 

Oh and lets say you got to the speed of light from what we understand if say neutrinos got to that speed time supposedly stops so it would appear to get there faster because time is no longer a factor which doesn't actually make sense if you take into consideration distance and how fast light travels a distance...So...Or well time appears to stop...But maybe you can get to the speed of light and time in a sense doesnt stop if you are measuring how quickly it covers a distance, probably two different things I'm talking about here considering your talking about two different perspectives one from the outside, one being light itself (as though you were light).

Believe it or not I quit physics the first time at uni. Then I gained an interest through cosmology and have since again studied it.

 

You are in the right ballpark but sort of missing a few of the fundamentals that don't allow for a lot of what you are saying.

 

The eternal multi-verse is gaining acceptance (in place of a single eternal universe) as it allows and in fact encourages the 'many worlds' and similar "parallel" universe hypothesis whilst maintaining the Big Bang theory and Inflation. This negates any need for something to come of nothing - however something can still come of nothing since there is no such thing as nothing. Empty space is not empty space. Quantum physics allows time and space to be that "something". Though they are related, the Big Bang theory and Inflation are not the same thing and one led to the development of the other. The accelerated expansion is most likely from Inflation. Now since the rate of expansion is faster than the ability of gravity to pull everything together, at this point in time there is no evidence to suggest our universe will collapse (though anything is possible, its just not generally accepted). Entropy does not allow for the universe to "pull back together" and in fact that goes against the laws of thermodynamics (where entropy is described in the first place). Your description of entropy resulting in evaporation is however generally accepted as long as the critical mass of our universe is less than what is required to ultimately maintain bonding of atoms. At this point in time it is either equal to or less than that figure depending which research you favour. This is my main area of interest.

 

Yes Quantum Physics is generally separate to the classical model, but one does not disallow the other. In fact there are some overlaps that encourage both simultaneously - but as of yet no grand unified theory. Quantum Physics is not equal to String theory. String theory is another subset of physics that aims to cover both classical mechanics and the standard model. String theory has no experimental or observational evidence to back it up yet that has been published. Quantum Physics has more than Relativity and to a greater accuracy. Its also inaccurate to describe either as the study of the very small or big since the example of entanglement allows for quantum effects over the distance of our entire universe.

 

This is also one of main interests and I am especially interested in electrodynamics - one electron to rule them all :D

 

Yes I know e=mc^2 is not Einstein's only formula (but it is a complete formula in itself under the circumstances you discussed - however there are variants when dealing with mass-less particles such as photons which also still maintain the light speed limit). But we were discussing neutrinos which do have mass, so digressing to a different formula to describe the same thing does not change relationship. You can't say it isn't the full formula because it is, but it is derived from other formulas that deal with the conversion of matter and energy. e=mc^2 still shows the relationship but does not allow for that conversion. Hence the formula is perfectly adequate to show that energy does not convert to mass but instead if one increases the other must increase. There are several formula's involved in relativity (10 I believe - at a higher math level than I am comfortable with), but just because they are there does not require there use to explain something. That is why Newton's formula's are still in use today. Both are adequate to explain certain phenomena, but Newton's is much simpler. i.e. Newton's formula are still used for space craft trajectories. The minute difference in the results of the formula do not outweigh the significant computing factors. So although e=mc^2 does not make relativity - it does not negate what I said. Most of what I said is generally accepted in physics and is what is taught (and for that reason). I'm not sure what is taught below uni level because that was a long time ago for me. One of my biggest revelations which I distinctly remember was learning that as long as something explains another thing, then it still holds true. So although Newton's laws have major errors with relation to communication of gravity over space, because his formula's explain the trajectory of rockets through space, then it cannot be said that Newton's laws for that purpose are wrong. So until you can prove e != mc^2, then I think that formula is still very safe and still adequately explains the relationship between energy and mass and why the speed of light is the limit and hence why no particles are yet proven to have travelled faster. Now if neutrino's are able to travel at the speed of light, time does not stop, otherwise if it happens that would mean it has possibly already happened and time would've stopped. The experiment that this relates to actually proposes that is the case (that neutrino's have been going faster than light all along). Time external to relative position might appear to stop if you were the neutrino and able to have that consciousness or vice-versa. That's what relativity is about and there a countless books on that for a reason - it can't be explained in a few paragraphs (despite the effort I've put into this thread). Remember if relativity wasn't working then GPS's, global communications and countless other things would fail almost straight away.

 

Laws are only that and can be broken. Every science "fact", theory, law, etc only assists in allowing for a description of a phenomenon to remain true. You can have millions of experiments to "prove" something, but it never really does, because it only takes one to disprove (yes that is really simplifying it... ).

 

I think you may need to reign the ego in and round out some of the edumacation. You might be one of the greatest physicists of all time, but you've got to learn to structure some of your hypothesis so that it doesn't ignore what is already accepted and instead truly disproves it. For example saying there was originally nothing without disproving what has already been published about that 'nothing'.

 

I think I could improve my structure significantly, but I'm trying to put a lot in a short space in as little time as possible.

Edited by mr harrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe it or not I quit physics the first time at uni. Then I gained an interest through cosmology and have since again studied it.

 

You are in the right ballpark but sort of missing a few of the fundamentals that don't allow for a lot of what you are saying.

 

The eternal multi-verse is gaining acceptance (in place of a single eternal universe) as it allows and in fact encourages the 'many worlds' and similar "parallel" universe hypothesis whilst maintaining the Big Bang theory and Inflation. This negates any need for something to come of nothing - however something can still come of nothing since there is no such thing as nothing. Empty space is not empty space. Quantum physics allows time and space to be that "something". Though they are related, the Big Bang theory and Inflation are not the same thing and one led to the development of the other. The accelerated expansion is most likely from Inflation. Now since the rate of expansion is faster than the ability of gravity to pull everything together, at this point in time there is no evidence to suggest our universe will collapse (though anything is possible, its just not generally accepted). Entropy does not allow for the universe to "pull back together" and in fact that goes against the laws of thermodynamics (where entropy is described in the first place). Your description of entropy resulting in evaporation is however generally accepted as long as the critical mass of our universe is less than what is required to ultimately maintain bonding of atoms. At this point in time it is either equal to or less than that figure depending which research you favour. This is my main area of interest.

 

Yes Quantum Physics is generally separate to the classical model, but one does not disallow the other. In fact there are some overlaps that encourage both simultaneously - but as of yet no grand unified theory. Quantum Physics is not equal to String theory. String theory is another subset of physics that aims to cover both classical mechanics and the standard model. String theory has no experimental or observational evidence to back it up yet that has been published. Quantum Physics has more than Relativity and to a greater accuracy. Its also inaccurate to describe either as the study of the very small or big since the example of entanglement allows for quantum effects over the distance of our entire universe.

 

This is also one of main interests and I am especially interested in electrodynamics - one electron to rule them all :D

 

Yes I know e=mc^2 is not Einstein's only formula (but it is a complete formula in itself under the circumstances you discussed - however there are variants when dealing with mass-less particles such as photons which also still maintain the light speed limit). But we were discussing neutrinos which do have mass, so digressing to a different formula to describe the same thing does not change relationship. You can't say it isn't the full formula because it is, but it is derived from other formulas that deal with the conversion of matter and energy. e=mc^2 still shows the relationship but does not allow for that conversion. Hence the formula is perfectly adequate to show that energy does not convert to mass but instead if one increases the other must increase. There are several formula's involved in relativity (10 I believe - at a higher math level than I am comfortable with), but just because they are there does not require there use to explain something. That is why Newton's formula's are still in use today. Both are adequate to explain certain phenomena, but Newton's is much simpler. i.e. Newton's formula are still used for space craft trajectories. The minute difference in the results of the formula do not outweigh the significant computing factors. So although e=mc^2 does not make relativity - it does not negate what I said. Most of what I said is generally accepted in physics and is what is taught (and for that reason). I'm not sure what is taught below uni level because that was a long time ago for me. One of my biggest revelations which I distinctly remember was learning that as long as something explains another thing, then it still holds true. So although Newton's laws have major errors with relation to communication of gravity over space, because his formula's explain the trajectory of rockets through space, then it cannot be said that Newton's laws for that purpose are wrong. So until you can prove e != mc^2, then I think that formula is still very safe and still adequately explains the relationship between energy and mass and why the speed of light is the limit and hence why no particles are yet proven to have travelled faster. Now if neutrino's are able to travel at the speed of light, time does not stop, otherwise if it happens that would mean it has possibly already happened and time would've stopped. The experiment that this relates to actually proposes that is the case (that neutrino's have been going faster than light all along). Time external to relative position might appear to stop if you were the neutrino and able to have that consciousness or vice-versa. That's what relativity is about and there a countless books on that for a reason - it can't be explained in a few paragraphs (despite the effort I've put into this thread). Remember if relativity wasn't working then GPS's, global communications and countless other things would fail almost straight away.

 

Laws are only that and can be broken. Every science "fact", theory, law, etc only assists in allowing for a description of a phenomenon to remain true. You can have millions of experiments to "prove" something, but it never really does, because it only takes one to disprove (yes that is really simplifying it... ).

 

I think you may need to reign the ego in and round out some of the edumacation. You might be one of the greatest physicists of all time, but you've got to learn to structure some of your hypothesis so that it doesn't ignore what is already accepted and instead truly disproves it. For example saying there was originally nothing without disproving what has already been published about that 'nothing'.

 

I think I could improve my structure significantly, but I'm trying to put a lot in a short space in as little time as possible.

Ahh, I have little knowledge really in Physics what I do have I've taught myself, my school Physics teacher isn't able to answer some of these questions I've posed. Another one I posed was what causes gravity, because I haven't read a force that causes gravity but I understand mass somehow causes gravity. So if gravity is just occurring because mass is tightly packed then in a sense the Earth is it's own perpetual motion machine. That is one of the first places I started learning so muich or well wanted answers to was Perpetual Motion, which yes supposedly breaks the second law of thermodynamics, but if you achieve it well the law means nothing...'

 

A lot of what I've said mainly to do with Quantum Physics and the Big Bang theory is based upon recent articles (from PhysOrg mainly and bits off New Science and PopSci by the papers are from PhysOrg) that are papers for the different journals of science so I'm basing it off of as recent information as possible. I'm only currently in year 11 so...Again limited access to certain knowledge seeing as my school can't answer some questions and isn't fond of pushing kids through year 11 and 12 quickly because of SACE -.-...Bah I feel I need to explain my school life story which always comes across as I'm bragging because of what has truly happened...Hmm might leave it out unless you would like me to explain that.

 

I'm not being taught this stuff at school we are only just doing acceleration and gravity among other things.

 

What I meant about Einstein's E=MC^2 formula is that is not the full version of the formula there is a lot more to it then, not sure which one is the full one on Wikipedia too many variations there. Wait found this one:

 

E^2 = (m0^2 * c^4) + (p^2 * c^2)

 

E is the total energy of an object

m0 is the rest mass of the object

c is the speed of light in a vacuum

p is the momentum of the object

 

Oh, and I'm not writting this out scientifically or correctly when it comes to English I have a habit of not bothering too much, and as it is if I did I'm a perfectionist at times so I would go insane over the smallest details.

 

And I also know there is something in space recently had that argument in class, everyone thinking space was a void of nothing whereas I saw it as though if there was nothing something would want to fill it so that was not possible and finally was able to get them to come to realise there is something out there which is like gas in a sense that is very thin dispersed.

 

So wouldn't there be a problem then if the universe is expanding at a rate faster then the speed of light, wouldn't it began to lapse back in time or for some unusual phenomenon to occur. Also reminds me of the fact if you are looking at someone they gets pulled in by a black hole you would see it get to a certain point and then it would appear to never move from that spot. You would never see it enter the centre of the black hole.

 

Probably missed a replied but I've got some things to take care of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, I have little knowledge really in Physics what I do have I've taught myself, my school Physics teacher isn't able to answer some of these questions I've posed. Another one I posed was what causes gravity, because I haven't read a force that causes gravity but I understand mass somehow causes gravity. So if gravity is just occurring because mass is tightly packed then in a sense the Earth is it's own perpetual motion machine. That is one of the first places I started learning so muich or well wanted answers to was Perpetual Motion, which yes supposedly breaks the second law of thermodynamics, but if you achieve it well the law means nothing...'

 

A lot of what I've said mainly to do with Quantum Physics and the Big Bang theory is based upon recent articles (from PhysOrg mainly and bits off New Science and PopSci by the papers are from PhysOrg) that are papers for the different journals of science so I'm basing it off of as recent information as possible. I'm only currently in year 11 so...Again limited access to certain knowledge seeing as my school can't answer some questions and isn't fond of pushing kids through year 11 and 12 quickly because of SACE -.-...Bah I feel I need to explain my school life story which always comes across as I'm bragging because of what has truly happened...Hmm might leave it out unless you would like me to explain that.

 

I'm not being taught this stuff at school we are only just doing acceleration and gravity among other things.

 

What I meant about Einstein's E=MC^2 formula is that is not the full version of the formula there is a lot more to it then, not sure which one is the full one on Wikipedia too many variations there. Wait found this one:

 

E^2 = (m0^2 * c^4) + (p^2 * c^2)

 

E is the total energy of an object

m0 is the rest mass of the object

c is the speed of light in a vacuum

p is the momentum of the object

 

Oh, and I'm not writting this out scientifically or correctly when it comes to English I have a habit of not bothering too much, and as it is if I did I'm a perfectionist at times so I would go insane over the smallest details.

 

And I also know there is something in space recently had that argument in class, everyone thinking space was a void of nothing whereas I saw it as though if there was nothing something would want to fill it so that was not possible and finally was able to get them to come to realise there is something out there which is like gas in a sense that is very thin dispersed.

 

So wouldn't there be a problem then if the universe is expanding at a rate faster then the speed of light, wouldn't it began to lapse back in time or for some unusual phenomenon to occur. Also reminds me of the fact if you are looking at someone they gets pulled in by a black hole you would see it get to a certain point and then it would appear to never move from that spot. You would never see it enter the centre of the black hole.

 

Probably missed a replied but I've got some things to take care of.

Beware of wikipedia. Great for intellectual curiosity, but take it with a grain of salt. At uni level, at any I've studied at, you cannot reference it due to its ever changing format, unsupported writing and inaccuracies. Uni's have great access to peer reviewed publications and even google scholar gets you very far.

 

You have to understand e=mc^2 is the full version of that formula. Einstein himself used it in that manner to describe exactly the same thing I am. There are also other versions of that formula, but it is wrong to say that e=mc^2 is incomplete. That formula is used to show the relationship between mass and energy. The other formulas that are very similar are used for other purposes. Each one is a full formula in its own right. They still show that relationship but they also do more that is unnecessary when explaining that relationship. Now if you were to discuss a nuclear reaction e=mc^2 does not cut it. You know of the tools, but need to apply them appropriately. Part of being proficient is not just knowing the ideas, but relating them and applying them correctly. Thats not to sound condescending as I believe I'm only a fraction of the way there myself. To put an equivalence to what you are doing, it is like trying to describe the area of a triangle using the formula for the volume of a pyramid (though I have a tendency to visualise these concepts as images rather than formulas).

 

I must say that when I was in year 11, I knew none of this and did not really care, so it is fantastic to see what you are doing. I was more interesting in programming back then - and I can relate my failures in that area to what could potentially happen with you.l I got carried away wanting to program bleeding edge graphics, but what I missed in the process was fundamentals like better memory handling, input handling, etc.. So make sure you don't jump to far ahead without rounding out the stuff in between. I don't know about anything else you talked about with school.

 

The universe can expand at a rate fast than the speed of light because though it has a quantum fabric (for want of a better term - (I don't think gas is a very appropriate term)) that fabric carries no information and therefore does not affect our perception of time. Now the movement of information through time is a very interesting topic, but it does not, at this time, have any affect on the expansion of the universe. Your information about the black holes and time perception is spot on but not able to be related directly because the universe is not a black hole. The phenomenon you speak of is a great example of relativity (and at that point quantum mechanics) and actually negates what you premised earlier about particles travelling faster than light. The reason why you wouldn't see that person get 'spaghettified' is because as they approach the speed of light there time appears to slow down to us - relativity (actually if it was possible to observe for a huge amount of time there would be some movement but that amount of time is longer than this universe has been about). To that person time continues on and they still die. As simple as I've put it, it is much much more complicated and Leonard Susskind wrote a book on it - and it took him many years to negate Stephen Hawking's research, so condensing that down any further is difficult.

 

Do some research into what I've discussed and I'd be more than happy to continue this. I don't want to lead you astray - some of what I've touched on is recent.. some is not, and yet it still isn't taught widely. I've tried to point you in the right direction, and I don't want you to settle on what I've said because it is very much an oversimplification of those ideas. Some things should be simple and other things can't help but be complicated. I've learnt to try and keep things simple until I have no choice but to let them be more complicated. For example. the relationship between mass and energy should be simple and can be kept simple, until something else is introduced and then it can't help but get more complicated.

 

To get you started, the idea about information not travelling faster than light is shown when you point a torch at one end of the sky and shine the beam along to the other end of the sky. You have essentially illuminated a distance faster than could be done with a photon traversing the sky itself from that one end to the other. That one baked my noodle at the time. The light has travelled faster than light in that direction but no information is carried in that direction and so it would appear that relativity is broken but it really isn't... This relates back to what we have been discussing.

 

I honestly don't know much about physics and I dare say if you look into what I've said it will take you little time to explain it better. You interest brought me out of forum retirement - and that takes a lot.

Edited by mr harrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember as the temperature of the particle increases and therefore energy increases so does the mass.

Yo mamma is so fat that she's hot.

 

Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beware of wikipedia. Great for intellectual curiosity, but take it with a grain of salt. At uni level, at any I've studied at, you cannot reference it due to its ever changing format, unsupported writing and inaccuracies. Uni's have great access to peer reviewed publications and even google scholar gets you very far.

Yeah the same goes at school these days both primary and secondary. Although it is rather sad because of the fact so many people work to try and make that a world encyclopaedia that isn't full of shit and is accurate. Which reminds me that there are links at the bottom of the page that tell you there sources so you can check the authenticity of the information and how reliable it is. So kind of disappointing schools and universities do that when Wikipedia is trying to do there best to have correct information.

 

You have to understand e=mc^2 is the full version of that formula. Einstein himself used it in that manner to describe exactly the same thing I am. There are also other versions of that formula, but it is wrong to say that e=mc^2 is incomplete. That formula is used to show the relationship between mass and energy. The other formulas that are very similar are used for other purposes. Each one is a full formula in its own right. They still show that relationship but they also do more that is unnecessary when explaining that relationship. Now if you were to discuss a nuclear reaction e=mc^2 does not cut it. You know of the tools, but need to apply them appropriately. Part of being proficient is not just knowing the ideas, but relating them and applying them correctly. Thats not to sound condescending as I believe I'm only a fraction of the way there myself. To put an equivalence to what you are doing, it is like trying to describe the area of a triangle using the formula for the volume of a pyramid (though I have a tendency to visualise these concepts as images rather than formulas).

Ahh okay Einstein did use it for that then. I was reading somewhere the fact someone was using that formula to explain something else of which wasn't that formulas purpose. So another physicist or someone came along and told them what they were trying to prove was incorrect and that the full formula proves that what they are saying is incorrect and does not work. I think it had something to do with when I was looking up information about light and photons, and whether they contain a force besides light. Such as a push force (which only recently did I remember that of course they must because they are trying to make solar sails, although I knew that before hand just forgot or may have known when I was searching for it but it didn't answer the exact question). The idea was if you pumped out enough light could you in a sense make a car levitate, I ened to patent that idea lol =P. So yeah was looking for the specifics about the forces that light and or photons produce.

 

I must say that when I was in year 11, I knew none of this and did not really care, so it is fantastic to see what you are doing. I was more interesting in programming back then - and I can relate my failures in that area to what could potentially happen with you.l I got carried away wanting to program bleeding edge graphics, but what I missed in the process was fundamentals like better memory handling, input handling, etc.. So make sure you don't jump to far ahead without rounding out the stuff in between. I don't know about anything else you talked about with school.

I was when I was 14 but back then I didn't have very good guides/tutorials and which I was more into hacking, but not what hacking is understood to be today more the original version which was programming with a bit of security testing on your own machine and in other peoples system and if you found a security flaw you would let them know and leave a message. It was also the sharing of knowledge about the internet and internet programming languages etc. etc.. Only problem was the guides/tutorials were shit and I didn't have the level of maths knowledge I needed, I also had one that assumed I knew I needed a compiler so I had no idea where to enter the code -.-. Until recently I was given some advice on here about some good programming for beginner books, now I just need to get around to installing a variation of Linux and get started. Oh and all the guides I did have which might have been good were accidently deleted in a system reformat when I was sure I had ported everything of importance over to the other computer via usb but somehow they were lost along with a heap of game guides and character builds for some games like Diablo 2 lol.

 

The universe can expand at a rate fast than the speed of light because though it has a quantum fabric (for want of a better term - (I don't think gas is a very appropriate term)) that fabric carries no information and therefore does not affect our perception of time. Now the movement of information through time is a very interesting topic, but it does not, at this time, have any affect on the expansion of the universe. Your information about the black holes and time perception is spot on but not able to be related directly because the universe is not a black hole. The phenomenon you speak of is a great example of relativity (and at that point quantum mechanics) and actually negates what you premised earlier about particles travelling faster than light. The reason why you wouldn't see that person get 'spaghettified' is because as they approach the speed of light there time appears to slow down to us - relativity (actually if it was possible to observe for a huge amount of time there would be some movement but that amount of time is longer than this universe has been about). To that person time continues on and they still die. As simple as I've put it, it is much much more complicated and Leonard Susskind wrote a book on it - and it took him many years to negate Stephen Hawking's research, so condensing that down any further is difficult.

Hmm okay then that makes sense. I had a teacher who argued with me note he wasn't my Physics teacher he was just supervising us it seems who is just a Metal and Automotive teacher who said that the Universe couldn't expanded faster then the speed of light let alone be increasing in speed because then it would be breaking the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics...Anyway I had read the fact multiple times in science articles that were summaries of Science papers which stated that was the fact that the universe was expanding at an increasing rate. I also pointed out the Black Hole thing because I was trying to say about the fact if it got to the speed of light it wuld appear to you that the object wasn't moving, wait unless it just appears to teleport instead...Will need to look into that book by Leonard Susskind, some of Steven Hawking's ideas seem rather silly like his most recent one that explains the Universe without needing God and that is Gravity causes everything -.- including the formation of the Universe...And the formation of life etc. etc..

 

Do some research into what I've discussed and I'd be more than happy to continue this. I don't want to lead you astray - some of what I've touched on is recent.. some is not, and yet it still isn't taught widely. I've tried to point you in the right direction, and I don't want you to settle on what I've said because it is very much an oversimplification of those ideas. Some things should be simple and other things can't help but be complicated. I've learnt to try and keep things simple until I have no choice but to let them be more complicated. For example. the relationship between mass and energy should be simple and can be kept simple, until something else is introduced and then it can't help but get more complicated.

Sure I shall look into it some more, although it is hard to find a trustworthy answer on the internet these days, get so many philosophy and or physicists with there own pet theories as they call them such as they like String Theory over the other theories that explain the universe. So you end up with bias and incorrect information because they believe one over another.

 

To get you started, the idea about information not travelling faster than light is shown when you point a torch at one end of the sky and shine the beam along to the other end of the sky. You have essentially illuminated a distance faster than could be done with a photon traversing the sky itself from that one end to the other. That one baked my noodle at the time. The light has travelled faster than light in that direction but no information is carried in that direction and so it would appear that relativity is broken but it really isn't... This relates back to what we have been discussing.

Thought of something recently that didn't make sense in my mind the fact light bounces off of what atoms I know it reflects off of surfaces so would that be the atoms. So if it does that wouldn't a push need to occur on the photons and then it also came to mind how photons seem to multiply when reflecting off of things is that true or is that just 'reflection' and then what exactly is reflection then...

 

I honestly don't know much about physics and I dare say if you look into what I've said it will take you little time to explain it better. You interest brought me out of forum retirement - and that takes a lot.

And that is good to hear that I got you out of forum retirement! =D Also quite happy I have another Scientific person on here besides just the Technology guys...I'm both...With a whole lot of other stuff thrown in, I don't like being limited in what I can do and learn...I'm odd and actually like learning and therefore school not just for my friends like most people -___- Like I recently got into philosophy because of the fact science doesn't seem to be able to prove some things and going by the scientific method you can't prove your thoughts exist, because they can not be observed via the 5 senses in anyway because of the empirical system they do not exist in a sense. Along with a whole heap of other ideas I had like you can not truly irrefutable undenialably prove anything is true or false. Someone can always deny it so...Along with a whole heap of other thoughts like you can't prove existence etc. etc.. Anyway that's another conversation lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh okay Einstein did use it for that then. I was reading somewhere the fact someone was using that formula to explain something else of which wasn't that formulas purpose. So another physicist or someone came along and told them what they were trying to prove was incorrect and that the full formula proves that what they are saying is incorrect and does not work. I think it had something to do with when I was looking up information about light and photons, and whether they contain a force besides light. Such as a push force (which only recently did I remember that of course they must because they are trying to make solar sails, although I knew that before hand just forgot or may have known when I was searching for it but it didn't answer the exact question). The idea was if you pumped out enough light could you in a sense make a car levitate, I ened to patent that idea lol =P. So yeah was looking for the specifics about the forces that light and or photons produce.

There are only 4 forces known at this time, none of which are called the 'push' force or 'light' force (gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear). I'm not trying to be a stickler for using the correct terms (I know I'm useless at it) but some terms just can't be used incorrectly (though maybe you are trying to describe one of Newton's laws?) I think what you are describing is another of Einstein's ideas being the photoelectric effect. The paper that he won a nobel prize for, since relativity was still controversial at the time. You are correct, I believe, about applying the formula that involves photons and that e=mc^2 does not apply in this case as far as the conversion of photon energy. Remember though I tend to visualise and not think in formula's because I find it very easy to visualise and I don't find the math anywhere near as easy (i.e. I can visualise special relativity in 3 dimensions which is apparently unusual but could not do that math involved to save my life).

 

Sure I shall look into it some more, although it is hard to find a trustworthy answer on the internet these days, get so many philosophy and or physicists with there own pet theories as they call them such as they like String Theory over the other theories that explain the universe. So you end up with bias and incorrect information because they believe one over another.

Very, very true. Most scientist strive to be impartial but can't help but introduce some bias. Though physics has nothing on medical research... every paper you read you really have to question who paid for it, and that takes a lot of effort sometimes.

 

Thought of something recently that didn't make sense in my mind the fact light bounces off of what atoms I know it reflects off of surfaces so would that be the atoms. So if it does that wouldn't a push need to occur on the photons and then it also came to mind how photons seem to multiply when reflecting off of things is that true or is that just 'reflection' and then what exactly is reflection then...

To increase the amount of photons you need something to generate them. Reflection may change the angles (creating dispersion), capture other photons and change some wavelengths, but unless it is a source will not actually increase them. It may appear to do so, but as per thermodynamics, you don't get something for nothing.

 

... I recently got into philosophy because of the fact science doesn't seem to be able to prove some things and going by the scientific method you can't prove your thoughts exist, because they can not be observed via the 5 senses in anyway because of the empirical system they do not exist in a sense. Along with a whole heap of other ideas I had like you can not truly irrefutable undenialably prove anything is true or false. Someone can always deny it so...Along with a whole heap of other thoughts like you can't prove existence etc. etc.. Anyway that's another conversation lol.

That very astute of you. Philosophy may be lagging behind science due to many of the advancements over the last century but it will always be needed to tackle the questions that can't be tackled through science. Its relationship to the scientific method, or lack thereof depending on your P.O.V. is something ignored by the general public. The scientific method is what keeps string theory where it is and why neutrinos have yet to be proven faster than light. I never got that until I was doing uni so that is yet another reason why I'm impressed with your post.

 

Overall you posted a very impressive post and you have a bright future in whatever you choose to apply your mind to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember as the temperature of the particle increases and therefore energy increases so does the mass.

Yo mamma is so fat that she's hot.

 

Rob.

 

Trust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×