h a l f b a k e r yThe best idea since raw toast.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
As far as I am aware, either the universe ends in a big crunch, or thermal death.
If it were to end in a big crunch, then it might be possible to ride in a spacecraft, far, far away from the crunch.
Of course, I assume that our descendants have developed unbelievably in technology, and form
compared to now. Perhaps they could even program a VCR by then.
After the big crunch, they would need to wait a few billion years to see what happens next.
'Tau Zero' by Paoul Anderson
http://www.amazon.c...104-7342486-6801534
The crew of a spaceship watch the universe grow old and die. [DrBob, Mar 19 2005]
One way to escape it...
http://en.wikipedia...End_of_the_Universe
Just go back in time, silly. Assuming time behaves predictably towards the gnab gib. [RayfordSteele, Mar 19 2005]
More than one universe.
http://www.pbs.org/...wking/html/ask.html
Cilck on "read answers", scroll down a little and read the answers. It speaks of more than one big bang, of big bangs happening all the time! [zeno, Mar 19 2005]
Evidence for String Theory
http://www.rednova....erything/index.html
Galaxy CSL-1 [JakePatterson, Mar 20 2005]
There's a limit to how far you can go in an expanding universe
http://www.sciam.co...13-852383414B7F0147
[ldischler, Mar 24 2005]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Escaping the gravity of the situation might be a bit tough |
|
| |
My understanding is that there's
nowhere to go when the big crunch
happens. It's not just the objects in
space that are going to crunch, but
rather the whole soup of space itself,
along with all the croutons therein.
Hence, we're going to have to find
another dimension to pop into. |
|
| |
*HOW*ever - I could be utterly wrong
here (it has been known to be the case
in the past). |
|
| |
Incidentally, it is believed that, as the
entire universe becomes a singularity
again, all buttons on all VCRs will start
to behave in a quantum manner, and
hence all possible programmes will be
recorded. |
|
| |
Far, far away gets sucked up in the big crunch, too. You'd have to slide one universe over to avoid the termination of this one. By this time this comes around though, one would be so bored, why bother escaping the inevitable? |
|
| |
Even sliding between universes won't allow you escape from the supercrunch, of course. |
|
| |
So, that's three opinions that the big crunch is inescapable.
Well, someone's got to worry about these things. We can't have everyone running around, escaping from the expanding Sun, hopping from Solar system to Galaxies and so on.
And what for?
To be sucked into a huge black hole, fingernails scratching through the fabric of space-time, singing "Always look on the bright side of life". |
|
| |
Wow, I have been thinking about this for years! |
|
| |
At the gnab gib, space would be highly distorted yes, but not all space. There is evidence of other universes, stemming from other big bangs as it were. Going there and escaping the gnab gib gives me food for dreams with no end. |
|
| |
Why do you think afterwards it would take a few billion years to see what happens next? I think it might be instantanious. Big + |
|
| |
To escape the gravity, the distance would be huge. It would take that long for the light from any subsequent big bang to get to you.
(Assuming the big crunch changes to a big bang).
I wonder if it has all happened before. |
|
| |
[Ling], you might find Edgar Allen Poe's Eureka interesting reading material. It is not a story like he usually writes but a scientific essay desrcibing and explaining the nature of the universe. Though perhaps partly outdated at the moment, it was ahead of the times when published. He writes very beautifully about the big bang and gnab gib as repetitions. |
|
| |
Hmmm. And how would all mini-mes and yous and everyone elses realise that the universe is about to end? Go to the edge of the universe? The universe is meant to be expanding all the time, but where into if it doesn't already exist? And what would crunch it? A gigantic, universe x3 sized beartrap? |
|
| |
This is so halfbaked, so [+] from me! |
|
| |
OK, so as the universe collapses, we orbit it.
The mass of the universe is approx 5.56x10^52Kg. If we orbit at a tenth of the speed of light, then we would need to have an orbital radius of 5x10^12 light years.
|
|
| |
But there's nowhere to orbit, as I
understand it. The problem is not so
much that all the stuff in the universe
collapses, but that space itself
collapses. |
|
| |
It's a bit like an ant trying to walk off
the surface of a shrinking balloon, only
with one more dimension and much
more noise. |
|
| |
To be honest, I've never got my head
around the fact that there's no "space"
outside the universe either. But that's
more of a problem with my head than
with the universe as a whole. |
|
| |
I think that gravity will still be working (even a black holes gravity seems to escape the black hole).
I think that prior to the big crunch, everything might develop into a huge black hole. After that, who knows?
I also think that really empty space (no light, no gravity) will be impossible if there is an object nearby. My uninformed thinking enjoys the thought that objects make their own space.
<Side musing>
If the big crunch ended with the universe at a singularity, and gravity from the singularity ceases to exist, then the lonely spaceship would have no reference. Would it continue to move? Undefined answer. No one could tell. Would inertia cease to exist?
|
|
| |
The whole question of 'relative inertia'
puzzles me (but so do many many
things). Along similar lines is Mach's
problem - if an object were spinning in
an otherwise empty universe, would it
'know' it were spinning, and therefore
would it experience centrifugal (or
centripetal or whatever) forces? |
|
| |
There was a thought experiment along
similar lines: if you spin a bowl of water
on a turntable, its surface will become
concave due to centrifug[/pet]al effects.
So, if you leave the bowl standing still
but spin the universe around it, will the
same thing happen? |
|
| |
(looks over shoulder and finds that he
has wandered far, far from the actual
topic....) |
|
| |
The presently most accepted theory states that our universe started of with the big bang. BUT, it does NOT say that our universe is the only one. The big bang is not the cause of all space and time, it is just the cause of our little patch we call the universe. OUTSIDE our universe there are others. I'm not talking of different dimensions or different kinds of space. Just normal ordinary different universes, they are just far away. |
|
| |
If space itself expands while its contents expand, does that help short-circuit the heat death? |
|
| |
[Zeno] I'm spectacularly out of my depth
here. But, what is between the
universes? As I understood things,
there's no such thing as 'space' beyond
(or between) the universe(s) - space is
an integral property of the universe(s).
So, what is one crossing in going
between universes? |
|
| |
And, if one could travel continuously
through space between two universes,
in what sense are they different
universes? |
|
| |
I think that, by definition, it's
impossible to travel through regular
space to a different universe (just as, by
definition, you can't walk on land from
one island to another). |
|
| |
Is there a cosmologist in the house? |
|
| |
// by definition, you can't walk on land from one island to another// |
|
| |
Well sure you can, with a large enough air tank and a weight belt. |
|
| |
My skewed understanding is thus:
String Theory holds that the
universe is an 11-brane (or an 11
dimensional lump of space)
floating about with many other n-
branes. Only 3 of the 11 spacial
dimensions are normally
observable, because the others are
all "really small" or something.
The Big Bang may have been the
result of our 11-brane coliding
with another n-brane, causing all
the strings to start vibrating or
some such, and vibriting strings
are the building blocks for quarks,
quarks are the building blocks for
protons and neutrons, and so on.
The "inflation" of the universe isn't
simply matter moving apart due to
momentum from the Big Bang, but
rather the three spacial
dimensions that we observe day to
day are getting bigger, causing
objects that are not bound to each
other by one of the four
fundimental forces to... not so
much move as to... find
themselves farther apart from each
other. Eventually we will not be
able to observe galaxies that are
not gravitationally bound to our
own, because we will nolonger be
within their space time light cone.
There will never be a Big Crunch
(or Gnab Gib) because the
inflationary force seems to be
stronger than gravity at the truely
cosmic distances involved. |
|
| |
[2-fries] indeed. Which would be a sort
of transdimensional spaceshippy thing. |
|
| |
JakeP - so, "the three spacial
dimensions that we observe day to day
are getting bigger", so, if there were a
big crunch, it's space that would
collapse rather than just the matter in
it, and hence we wouldn't be able to
step outside and watch from a
comfortable distance. (?). |
|
| |
However, if the universe is indeed
expanding ever-faster rather than ever-
slower, then I guess we don't have to
worry about this. And if Einstein were
alive today he'd be spinning in his
grave... |
|
| |
I think there is a misunderstanding here that might be on my side. I think it is a language thing. I'm not a cosmologist. Let's start from basics: |
|
| |
We live in our solarsystem. It is part of the Milky Way, a starsytem or galaxy, made out of countless solar systems. What I called the universe is made out of countless galaxies. This galaxy-system, if you will, originated with the big bang. |
|
| |
I, as a non english person, think that the word universe is used to describe everything in existence. The whole shabam. The complete and utter infinite reaches of space and time. |
|
| |
That is not the meaning I intended. There are galaxies that did not originate from our big bang, so I said there are are other universes. |
|
| |
In my language we use these words: zonnestelsel, solar system. Sterrenstelsel, Star system or galaxy. Universum, system of galaxies. Heelal, everything. |
|
| |
I mean, ours is not the only big bang, and between it and others there is lots and lots of space. <attempting google search will edit later> |
|
| |
how many big bangs do you want, zeno? |
|
| |
Found nice link, check it out! |
|
| |
[Po], How many have you got? |
|
| |
Zeno - there may well be lots of
universes, but the stuff between them
will not be space. Space only exists
within the (or a) universe. It's like a fish
in a pond saying "outside our pond,
there must be other ponds, with
nothing but water between them". |
|
| |
[ian tindale], infinity is getting smaller. |
|
| |
[Basepair], space, is it nothingness? Or does it have properties? What is it in relation to time and matter? I know little of these things. I do suggest however that we need not the eleven dimensions to think about other big bangs, they just occur inside our "normal" time-space. Lets assume you have a spaceship that can travel at billions of times the speed of light. You would be able to fly there. Yet you would never be able to fly to the eleventh dimension in that way. (leaving aside for the moment the discussion of faster than light travel and what these speeds (billion times the speed of light, I mean come on, get real) would do do time and space and dimensions etc. and the perception thereof) |
|
| |
[zeno] On the need for eleven
dimensions, I don't know - way beyond
me. But I understand that many of the
current attempts to find a theory of
everything require more than three
dimensions (plus time), and I can't see
any objection to them. |
|
| |
But as to "space, is it nothingness?" -
well, not really. Space (and time) are
where things happen, just as a pond is
where things happen. The space
outside the pond is not the same as the
"empty" water in between the things in
the pond. So the Big Bang was not just
like a regular "three dimensional"
explosion happenning in a previously
empty space; it was an explosion that
created space itself. Likewise, most
cosmologists (ie, the small minority
who've written books simple enough for
me to half understand!) say that it
makes no sense to ask what happenned
before the big bang, since time started
then also. |
|
| |
It's all very odd, and I for one cannot
get my head around it in any intuitive
way. But then again, quantum
mechanics is also utterly non-intuitive,
but it generally works well and makes
correct predictions where classical
physics cannot. I guess we are only
equipped (by both evolution and
individual experience) to "get" things
that happen on the timescales and
dimensions that we normally
experience. |
|
| |
The 11 dimensions thing: basically, String Theory says that matter, on the scale of the constituants of quarks, is made of of little strings that are vibrating like violin strings. The kind of matter that you get, ie, the kind of particle, depends on how the string(s?) are vibrating. It turns out that you need 11 dimensions to have enough different ways a string can vibrate to account for all the different kinds of particles. If there were fewer than 11 dimensions, we would expect to see fewer kinds of particles, and if there were more than 11 dimensions, I guess we would expect to see more kinds of particles than we do. |
|
| |
Quite. On the other hand, I get the
feeling that one of the reasons string
theory looks so promising is that it
makes no predictions (beyond those
obervations which went into it in the
first place) which are testable with our
current physical and mathematical
tools. Nothing against string theory,
but I presume the jury is still out on it?
(And whatever replaces it will surely be
even wierder.) |
|
| |
It would certainly have to be replaced by 'braided rope theory.' It's much stronger and can hold more weight. |
|
| |
(Personally, I find string theory to be as the cosmologist's equivalent to 7-day creationism, unprovable and absurd). |
|
| |
[Rayford] I half agree with your
sentiment. On the other hand, it's not
much more absurd than quantum
theory or relativity. Plus, I think string-
theorists are embarrassed at the lack of
testable predictions and would love to
put this right and make the theory
testable. Creationists, on the other
hand, have no intention of looking for
an objective test of their idea. |
|
| |
I can understand that before the big bang, there was no space.
What does that mean? Well I think it means that there was no way to measure distance. Right now, we can measure distance by how long it takes light to go from one place to another. As long as we have light, or I suppose, gravity, then there must be space.
If there was a big crunch, why would all the light fall into the crunch? For that matter, if a spacecraft was orbiting the final singularity as I mentioned earlier, why would space disappear?
For example, away from a black-hole, space seems to be OK. Isn't the big crunch just a huge black-hole? If not, how is it any different?
I still hold the belief that a spaceship could orbit the big crunch. Maybe thermal death for them, big crunch or not.
If not, then our species is doomed.
I can imagine the last person saying "Eureka, I have found the reason for it all", as he is sucked into the final oblivion. |
|
| |
<exerpt from my link, surprisingly what I tried to say does happen in hyperspace, so we do need multiple dimesions> |
|
| |
Similarly, the leading theory among cosmologists today is the multiverse theory, which states that quantum universes are constantly being created out of Nothing. Many of them are probably short-lived; they have a Big Bang, but then rapidly have a Big Crunch and disappear back into Nothing. |
|
| |
(This does not violate the conservation of matter and energy; the matter of the universe has positive energy, but the gravitational field has negative energy, such that the total energy for a closed universe is zero, so it takes zero energy to create a closed universe.) |
|
| |
This means that Big Bangs are probably happening all the time, with entire bubble/universes springing out of the vacuum |
|
| |
[Ling] - All I can do is to relay what I've
been assured of - namely, that the big
bang involves the expansion of space
itself, and that the big crunch likewise
involves the contraction of space itself.
I can't get my head around this either,
but there you go. One vaguely-relevant
fact: it's believed by many that if you
point a spaceship in any direction and
keep going in a dead straight line, you'll
eventually wind up back where you
started because space is finite (though
growing) and curved. It's like an ant on
the surface of a deflating balloon - he'll
try to walk off to somewhere safe, but
will never be able to do so. A truly two-
dimensional ant on the surface of a
shrinking three-dimensional balloon
would probably find this as puzzling as
we three-D humans do in a shrinking
4-(or more-)D universe. |
|
| |
Anyway, as I said, I can't get my head
around it and can only take on trust
what the cosmologists reckon, that the
crunch is the reverse of the bang, and
that it involves the collapse of space
itself rather than just the stuff in it. |
|
| |
[Zeno] - I don't have any problem with
multiple universes popping in and out
of existence. But if they're connected to
our universe by space, then I think by
definition they are part of our universe.
In other words, I think that by definition
we can't go outside our universe (or into
another one) through space. If we can
invent something trans-dimensional or
wormholey or whatever, then of course
anything is allowed. |
|
| |
[Basepair] - It is true that String Theory has gone largely unsupported by observation, however there is a glimmer of hope on that front, I added a link an article about the observation that is theorized to be a double image of a galaxy caused by an cosmic superstring, which is predicted by ST. |
|
| |
[Jake] - thanks for the link - good stuff
(though they seem to only have 10
dimensions; I thought it was meant to
be 11?). |
|
| |
<irrelevant aside> I clicked to enlarge
their image, expecting to see the "twin"
galaxies. A stared at the point
indicated by the little arrow for about
10 seconds before I realized that the
little arrow was my cursor. D'oh of
cosmic proportions.<irrelevant aside> |
|
| |
Yes [Basepair], I was trying to say just that, it's not regular space after all that seperates them, but hyperspace, multidimensional. I did not know this and later learnt it from reading my own link. I was wrong in earlier anno's. |
|
| |
Ah - I see, many thanks. As a famous
(and now very very old and therefore
very very wise) philosopher, have you
had any more luck than I have at
getting your head around all this
'curved space' and multidimensional
stuff? It worries me sometimes.... |
|
| |
Don't eat the pi. It recurses on you. |
|
| |
[UB] How do you plan to get there? Hitch a lift? |
|
| |
No matter how adept you are at getting a lift off a stranger, I doubt that you'd be able to get a lift from the little green/blue/pointy-eared men. I thought they had something called the 'Prime Directive' that prevents them from interfering with anybeing. |
|
| |
As some of you may recall, I posted something about a thing I saw on yahoo news, about some scientists who somehow discovered that the universe is infinite or what-not. I don't know what to believe, but assuming the universe has an 'edge' and this edge just teleports you back to the other, or opposite side of the universe, then what happens in the big crunch? |
|
| |
So... if the universe collapses, doesn't that cause all the matter and space inside to become closer and closer until they reach the center of the universe, and everthing bounces off itself? That would mean that one side of a planet would become the other side of the planet, things would be inside each other! Inside would be out! Planets would be virtually infinitely continuing objects! Everthing might turn into blck holes, because everything would cram together, breaking the phsysical barriers, forcing atoms into other atoms physical barriers! Everything would 'pass through' each other! Like a bad collision geometry error in a video game! |
|
| |
Like I always say, video games are a good example for explaining the universe. Or at least the 3D physical aspect of it. |
|
| |
I believe the big cunch is just the universe collapsing on itself. As for this universe maybe being a repeat of the first time it happened, I think that there was no 'first time', but rather it has been repeating the repeat, for forever! It never happened in the first place, yet it happens anyways. |
|
| |
According to this weeks' New Scientist (slow day at work), there isn't going to be a big crunch. Apparently, the universe is accelerating outwards. The same article claims that, although the universe is only (say) 14billions years old, it's 28 billion light years across.
...oh, no, wait, that actually works. Lemme see that article again... |
|
| |
Yes, it's all a bit discouraging when, just
as string-theorists are about to tie the
knot on the Very Last and Final Theory
of Everything, some bugger discovers
that the whole universe happens to be
expanding ever-faster due to some
hitherto unsuspected force. |
|
| |
It’s centrifugal force. The entire universe is rotating. |
|
| |
Around three axes at the same time?
This I like even less. |
|
| |
Hey... yah nevah no... lol |
|
| |
I've been reading "the constants of nature", and in that book, the author states that there have been studies that show only 3 Dimensions +1 Time are stable enough to produce life that can ask the question, *except* at very small levels (i.e. quantum).
<my thinking>, that might explain why light takes all possible paths? |
|
| |
In my personal, humble opinion... |
|
| |
The biggest obstacle to understanding
these types of theories is that humans
relate everything they experience to
everything else. (Psychologists call this
"schema" thought.) Quantum particles
have nothing (and yet everything) to do
with me, or with anything I do everyday.
I take them on their own, by their own
rules as themselves, and try to
understand them on their own level.
Sure apples and skateboards don't
suddenly pop into existence countered
by anti-apples and anti-skateboards,
but in the quantum universe these
things absolutely do happen. (The
edges of black holes are a nice place to
find proof of it, too.) |
|
| |
If matter paired with anti-matter can
pop into existence from nothing, only
to annihilate one another less than a
few milliseconds later, why can't a
universe and an anti-universe pop into
existence? |
|
| |
Don't worry about fleeing gnab gib...
worry about the anti-Universe that's
going to come crashing into us
sometime in Time. |
|
| |
At the instant of the big-bang, the universe must have been a single, simple thing - probably very much like one of these blob/anti-blob pairs that wink into and out of existence every so often. |
|
| |
However, something else happened, something snuck in through the gap and stopped the usual calculations rounding themselves off and canceling one another out. Trying desperately to annihilate themselves, they interacted with one another and before anyone could do anything about it, had created a whole load of forces and interactions and sub-atomic particles, all still trying desperately to self-destruct. |
|
| |
Of course, because the 'thing' that had snuck in had unbalanced everything in such a slight and subtle way, only a very few were able to wink out of existence, leaving an embarrassed hunk of matter and energy to build itself out of nothing and go flying off in all the new directions it had invented. |
|
| |
Time passed...and all the energy and matter continued to interact in ever complex ways, forming into clumps with a gentle affinity to other clumps. |
|
| |
Soon enough vast galaxies of condensed matter exploded into fiery light, and still the stuff of the universe folded in on itself, trying to simplify, trying to escape from existence. But with each failed attempt, some missed factor created something new, something more complex, and something able to interact with other things in yet more complex ways. A chemical bonded with another chemical, now far too solid to have aspirations of nullism, just exploring the interactive space with its neighbours. The new chemical encouraged those around it to do the same... |
|
| |
And so the story goes on. What if the universe itself exists because of this ubiquitous property of self-referential, self-generating, self-complication? |
|
| |
Maybe, once it has achieved the creation of something so complex, it will be able to work out finally how to end itself. By which point, would it *want* to? |
|
| |
<not relevant to this discussion> One
thing I don't understand - how come
ideas sometimes move to the top of the
Recent list even though no-one has
added an annotation (like this one had
done *before* I added this annotation)?
<nrttd> |
|
| |
Perhaps the anti-universe is travelling backwards in time? Perhaps several universes are travelling 'sideways,' each in their own 'time zone.' |
|
| |
[justibone], yep, you've nailed the issue. Personally, I think there might be a whole bunch of plausible theories that might fit just as well as string theory, or better. |
|
| |
ldischler, that's an interesting link...(or light is getting slower)...seems I don't have to warn my offspring about the end of the universe, anymore.
What a relief! |
|
| |
>>matter paired with anti-matter can pop into existence
from nothing... |
|
| |
This doesn't make sense to me -- it seems like there
shoud be something at work like the a 3D pencil being
poked though a piece of paper and "just appearing" in the
2D world. Are there explanations like this for matter and
antimatter? |
|
| |
At the end of the Universe, more likely:
Twelve, Eleven, Ten, Nine.....and one hell of a firework display. |
|
| |
JHC: "matter paired with anti-matter
can pop into existence from nothing...
This doesn't make sense to
me"
Basically, it comes down
to the fact that nature does not have
the computing power to keep the
natural laws running at infinite detail.
Space just doesn't have enough maths
in it to ensure that every particle has
precise momentum and position, or
that every last shred of energy is
accounted for every moment. So, on a
small enough scale, just about anything
goes. Bigger accounting errors are
more likely to get noticed, but even
these slip through now and again,
which is why even extreme quantum
fluctuations slip through now and again
and give rise to a whole
universe.
That's what I
reckon, anyway. Sort of a cosmology
based on sloppy book-keeping. |
|
| |
//nature does not have the computing power to keep the natural laws running at infinite detail.// |
|
| |
Really? It can only have a finite computing power, if the math is finite. If the math is infinite, then nature will, by law have infinite computing power! |
|
| |
I've been wondering something for a while, does anyone know if black holes gravity comes from 'all around' or a defined point? Like in a star, it comes from the stars center, or does the blackhole just envelop an object in gravity once it crosses the horizon? I just want to know this, it might solve whether one of my ideas actually works or not. |
|
| |
Also, is there an area or limit to how far a black holes gravity can reach? I never really understood if it did or not. Does the gravity reach out across the event horizon? Is the event horizon that disc around the edge of the black hole? Is the even horizon, not an actual thing, but a dimenion, of which things happen on? |
|
| |
I love discussions like this. |
|
| |
A star's gravity does not come from its centre. If you dropped you ultra-heat-and-pressure resistant spaceship into a star and held place near the centre you'd feel hardly any gravity at all. Conversely, a balck hold has all its gravity eminating from the singularity which is zero-dimensional. The closer you get to the centre of a black hole the more gravity you feel. |
|
| |
The black hole's gravity is, like all objects with mass, theoretically infinite. However, because of the inverse square rule it drops off pretty sharpish at a certain distance (affected by the mass) from the singulairty. The event horizon is merely the boundary at which you would have to travel faster than light to escape. |
|
| |
[Evil] "//nature does not have the
computing power to keep the natural
laws running at infinite detail.//
Really? It can only have a finite
computing power, if the math is finite.
If the math is infinite, then nature will,
by law have infinite computing power!" |
|
| |
What I meant was a kind of woolly idea
about why everything is uncertain at the
quantum level. The reasoning behind it
is sort of lousy and anthropomorphic,
but perhaps it has some more objective
correlate. Basically, I don't see how
space can 'obey' laws down to infinite
resolution - there has to be some sort
of 'mathematical gadgetry' inherent in
space to ensure that it acts according to
certain laws, equivalent to sayng that
space has to have some 'computing
power' (I'm putting all this in quotes
because I do not mean it quite literally.)
So, there must be a volume of space so
small (coupled with a duration of time
so short) that there simply isn't the
'computing power' within it to ensure
adherence to the laws. And this is why
things go screwey at the quantum level.
Space just doesn't have the 'computing
power' to apply all the laws
instantaneously over infinitesimal
distances. |
|
| |
But nothing has to 'compute' anything. If you throw a ball into the air and catch it, does nature worry about the increased complexity due to the presence of air drag on the position and velocity? Nope. |
|
| |
Good arguement, nut in a computer, absolutely everything has to happen perfectly, and obey all laws of the engine, in order for it to work properly. If for example you modded the engine, to cause it to do something that would cause an inprobability. The engine, once reaching the improbable situation, would have an 'exception', as in computer terms. |
|
| |
Once this occurs, the computer no longer knows what to do. It crashes. I reverts back to basic code to shut the game down, so it does not cause damage to itself. |
|
| |
I am not sure what happened before exceptions were fixed, but I can imagine a computer over heating, and exploding or something. |
|
| |
Now, if you are right (I'm on neither side here) say for example a nuclear bomb goes off. I think this might be an example of an exception. The reaction from the bomb exploding, causes and exception, resulting in the explosion. But that's just me guessing around. |
|
| |
When a black hole is created, the gravity overcomes the physical barriers that keep objects from imploding in on themselves. I'm guessing if this happens, that the atoms that made up the star, all become all in one spot. |
|
| |
That just sparked a thought in my head, gravity is a bunch of mass all grouped together. Now, the more grouped together, the more gravity it has in one space. So, if you could compact the planet into one space, the more gravity it would SEEM to have, when it actually just has the same as before, but in one space! |
|
| |
Gravity is does not increase as more mass gathers near it, gravity is a set amount of force. It has a set amount of speed that an object can fall. It has a set amount of how much force it can give off as more matter gathers near it! |
|
| |
Like, you have two atoms (I'm sticking with two atoms, even though it is a small amount of matter, because it is easier to understand), and they both have a percent of increase per atom. This percent of increase is .50% per every atom atained. So, the atoms multiply times the .50 %. Now, you have 1. Now, the two atoms cling to each other, and have anough power to attract another atom cluster, equal to or less than their own. Now, they multiply by the .50% again, and the process repeats. |
|
| |
Soon they have alot, and that just multiplies and multiplies! |
|
| |
But, once the gravities force becomes greater than the physical barriers between the atoms, the object compacts, breaking through the barriers. The object turns into a black hole! It has the same gravity as it once had, but it is now all massed together in one spot. This does not account for all the extra gravity, that prevents light from escaping. I don't know where that comes from. |
|
| |
This is nature's way of preventing all the mass in the universe from becoming one big ball. In a black hole, say a bit of matter gets sucked in. What now? Where does it go? We don't know! But, say this universe is not actually 'empty' like we seem to think of it as, but filled with empty, which to actualy nothing, is actually something! So, if there is nothing and it comes in contact with something, it will try to take all of that something and fill it's nothing with that something. But this is impossible, because nothing is infinite (actual nothing, not nothing is infinite, as in jimmy is infinite, nothing as in, THE nothing)! So it just keeps sucking until there is nothing in either universes! So, the something in the one universe gets sucked out, and in a way, deleted! |
|
| |
I have been thinking about how we humans tend to think of ourselves as in empty space, because we are not under water like fish. But in truth, we are unde-air. Look at the trees and grass, it is just like underwater! So, we are 'under-air', but above us is nothing (space), which has very little breathable matter in it. Now, rethink that and you will realize that 'under water' people bringing their environments up in space, isn't so far fatched after all! Just the fact that water is heavier. |
|
| |
We do the same as that, just with air. |
|
| |
So, there are 3 layers, as in 3 dimenions. |
|
| |
1. under water
2. under air
3. space |
|
| |
And (we will refer to nothing, as THE nothing from now on) the nothing is on the outside of all this. This is true because if you think about nothing, as being something, it is fathomable. If it wasn't, we could not comprehend this, would not have a clue that this was possible, which would be impossible, and not even impossible, nor possible, to comprehend! Same way why we cannot comprehend moving in four dimensions. So, if this happend, it would cause an exception, which would crash the game. |
|
| |
Now, imagine lag in a video game, you know how your computer slows down, but you stay in waiting for it to clear up? Well, with a computer, the computer does not know it is lagging, because it has no revelation of time to our universe, as it is to it's universe. So, if we are lagging right now as we speak, we wouldn't know it. Because we have no outside clocks or intervention to show us that we are lagging! It could be a million trillion years of lag in one second in a bigger universe, which ours is inside of. |
|
| |
That is the theory of there being infinitely smaller universes, inside smaller universe, for on an on! An atom in our universe, could be a whole other universe to our universe, but it is to small for us to get to. |
|
| |
Now, say we created another universe, it's entire time span, or life, would be virtually nothing in our time. Which could mean some sort of life developed inside that universe, and maybe even escaped, into our universe! One atom of air in our universe, might be the entire universe for another universe, which would be something we could live on, but to them would be virtually empty space. Which to us is the nothing. It might take several smaller universes to make up one atom in our universe. This could prove the theory that this universe is just happening over and over again, because the smaller universes are mini scale, and REPEATS of our universe! |
|
| |
So, now do you get what I'm going on about? The universe isn't infinite, nor is it finite, it is BOTH, in every aspect. |
|
| |
I think I just had an exception. |
|
| |
Blah blah blah. There's just no escaping the Big Crunch. Why worry though; it might not even happen. Space-Time might just keep expanding as it always has been, at an increasing rate, till there's nary a star visible in the sky. |
|
| |
[Evilpickels] - I'm not sure I followed
that. In fact I'm sure I didn't. But I'll
keep trying. |
|
| |
[Rayfordsteele] "But nothing has to
'compute' anything. If you throw a ball
into the air and catch it, does nature
worry about the increased complexity
due to the presence of air drag on the
position and velocity? Nope."
Well, in a sense, yep. I don't mean
'compute' in the literal sense, but the
ball behaves differently because it is
being impacted by gas molecules.
However, I am thinking more of events
at the quantum level. I guess I am just
rephrasing a very old question which is
'why does nature obey these relatively
simple laws which we can express
mathematically?'. It is kind of an
abstract and unanswerable question
which various physicists have asked -
what is the mechanism by which the
laws of physics are adhered to? |
|
| |
It may be a meaningless question (in
the sense that there may be no way to
approach an answer), or it may not be.
I am not sure, but I just have a gut
feeling that the reason nature behaves
so weirdly on very small scales is that
there just isn't "room" to ensure that
physical laws apply. |
|
| |
[BP] I agree with you about 'compute' making sense there.
But I think (for instance) Fredkin's "universe is a big
computer" means that everything is explainable in those
terms -- not that some stuff is computable and other stuff
not. |
|
| |
When people ask, 'why does nature obey these simple
laws?' I think they mean, 'and not just one law." Like you
say: "what is the (underlying and one) mechanism by
which the laws of physics are adhered to? " |
|
| |
There can't be two or three things at work here - one
that pulls (gravity), one that pushes (EM), and one that
does whatever the fuck it wants to do (Quantum). There's
got to be a way of looking at it where all of these things
are explainable in terms of one of the others. |
|
| |
[JHC] I think we're on slightly different
wavelengths. The question of whether
or not there is one underlying law is
one thing - this is what the quest for a
Theory of Everything is about, and I
suspect there ought to be one such
underlying law. |
|
| |
But regardless of whether there is a ToE
or not (I mean, even if we never find a
link between the forces), there remains
the question of how things obey
whatever laws there are. Two particles
attract gravitationally depending on the
inverse square of the distance between
them - how? There ought to be a
mechanism (or, at worst, one
mechanism for each force) in some
sense. |
|
| |
It's to diffacult to explain, just re-read it. You have to pay very close attention. |
|
| |
//That just sparked a thought in my head, gravity is a bunch of mass all grouped together. Now, the more grouped together, the more gravity it has in one space. So, if you could compact the planet into one space, the more gravity it would SEEM to have, when it actually just has the same as before, but in one space!// is quite contradictory >.< . |
|
| |
But, I still know what I meant by that. I'm not going to bother explaining it. Translating it would be a hassle. |
|
| |
[Evil] //I'm not going to bother
explaining it.// That's OK. Do you
mind if I don't bother trying to
understand it? |
|
| |
Almost a year has passed, and I still think you are all nerds. - - - - Long live the "random" hyperlink. |
|
| |
Then I suppose I ought to offer my congratulations to you, for surviving another year without falling into anything big and black. |
|
| |
OK, let's just say that we (or whoever) makes a spaceship & was able to escape the big crunch. What then? All the stars & other energy sources will be gone. once the power is gone on the ship, that's it.
This ship could be a Dyson sphere that could last the lifetime of it's sun, but that would be just a few billion years. No one knows if the universe will return in another big bang.
This whole arguement reminds me of an episode of Deep Space Nine where the mutants (humans who intelligence was geneticlly inhanced but are also super nurotic) tackled the same problem "we're running out of time! we have only a few billion years at most!" |
|
| |
//If the universe is constantly expanding, then the stuff outside the universe must be constantly shrinking// Or the pressure of the stuff outside the universe is increasing, pushing back on the universe, and limiting its expansion. Or something. |
|
| |