TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- A Baffling Physics Question That Should Make You Think
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

Re: Re: Re: Re: A Baffling Physics Question That Should Make You Think

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Why should the universe have a beginning? And what makes you think the big bang must've been the very initial starting point of the universe? As a matter of fact, why do you believe the universe we know is all there is? There could be many more multiverses!

The universe as we know it did have a beginning. The 4 fundamental forces of the universe did not exist before the Planck Epoch (10^-43 seconds after Big Bang). The universe as we know it began at the Big Bang. Whatever happened before is a complete mystery. I also never said the universe we know is all there is.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Baffling Physics Question That Should Make You Think

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The universe as we know it did have a beginning. The 4 fundamental forces of the universe did not exist before the Planck Epoch (10^-43 seconds after Big Bang). The universe as we know it began at the Big Bang. Whatever happened before is a complete mystery. I also never said the universe we know is all there is.

It is a complete mystery.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Baffling Physics Question That Should Make You Think

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The universe as we know it did have a beginning. The 4 fundamental forces of the universe did not exist before the Planck Epoch (10^-43 seconds after Big Bang). The universe as we know it began at the Big Bang.

We know too little about this brief period of time! Just because we're somewhat clueless about what happened back then, it doesn't mean there wasn't anything. Like you said:

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Whatever happened before is a complete mystery.

And that includes any possible starting point, so to speak. This starting point could well be part of a cycle that has nothing to do with a big crunch (which is by far the easiest possibility we can imagine). Maybe the universe is so much more massive than we can conceive, and the big bang was a local thing. Maybe it was just the result of the interaction of two universes. As a matter of fact, it could be an unforeseen consequence of a Heat Death we know nothing about! And, why not? It may have been the only one thing that did come out of nothing, unlikely as it is.

We can barely grasp what it was like during (and before) the Planck Era!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I also never said the universe we know is all there is.

Then why does it seem you consider the beginning of what we call "universe" an absolute start?

multiverse theory is jokes. I like to think our universe is among many universes in a petri dish of some higher cosmic being's science project, and we can be tossed out at any moment!

Re: A Baffling Physics Question That Should Make You Think

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The law of conservation of mass and energy states that matter cannot be created or destroyed in a system, only transferred. So, how did matter and energy get here in the first place? Is it infinite? Well, if it's infinite, and the universe had a beginning at the Big Bang, then WTF?

This is not baffling. You are not an academic at all. This is a very basic physics principle. Stay in school. Have a nice day.

Re: Re: A Baffling Physics Question That Should Make You Think

quote:

Originally posted by KiNeTiC ENeRgY This is not baffling. You are not an academic at all. This is a very basic physics principle. Stay in school. Have a nice day.

a genius i see.

Here, Kryp:

quote:

The Planck Era Written by Sten Odenwald Copyright (C) 1984 Kalmbach Publishing. Reprinted by permission http://www.astronomycafe.net Astronomy Cafe The Big Bang theory says that the entire universe was created in a tremendous explosion about 20 billion years ago. The enormity of this event is hard to grasp and it seems natural to ask ourselves 'What was it like then?' and 'What happened before the Big Bang?'. To try to answer these queries, lets take a brief journey backwards in time. We first see the formation of our own sun about 15 billion years after the Big Bang and then by 5 billion years, the formation of the first galaxies. By 700,000 years, the universe is awash with the fireball radiation that keeps all matter at a temperature of 4,000 degrees. Because of this, darkness is completely absent since every point in the sky glows with the brilliance of the sun. No stars, planets or even dust grains exist, just a hot dense plasma of electrons, protons and helium nuclei. By 3 minutes, we see helium form from the fusion of hydrogen atoms while the universe seeths at a temperature of nearly 1 billion degrees. The average density of matter is that of lead. By 1 second, the Lepton Era ends and the ratio of neutrons to protons has become fixed at 1 neutron for every 5 protons. The temperature is now 5 billion degrees everywhere. At about .0001 second, we watch as the Quark Era ends and the temperature of the fireball radiation rises to an incredable 1 trillion degrees. Quarks, for the first time, can combine in groups of two and three to become neutrons, protons and other types of heavy particles. The universe is now packed with matter as densly as the nucleus of an atom. A mountain like Mt. Everest could be squeezed into a volume no greater than the size of a golf ball! By 1 billionth of a second, the temperature is 1 thousand trillion degrees and we see the electromagnetic and weak forces merge into one force. The density of the universe has increased to the point where the entire earth could be contained in a thimble. Quarks and anti-quarks are no longer confined inside of particles like neutrons and protons but are now part of a superheated plasma of unbound particles. As the remaining history of the universe unfolds, a long period seems to pass when nothing really new happens. Then, at a time 10(-35) second after the Big Bang, a spectac ular change in the size of the universe occurs. This is the GUT Era when the strong nuclear force becomes distinguishable from the weak and electromagnetic forces. The temperature is an incredable 10 thousand trillion trillion degrees and the density of matter has sored to nearly 10(75) gm/cm3. This number is so enormous that even our analogies are almost beyond comprehension. At these densities, the entire Milky Way galaxy could easily be stuffed into a volume no larger than a single hydrogen atom! Electrons and quarks together with their anti-particles, were the major constituents of matter and very massive particles called Leptoquark Bosons caused the quarks to decay into electrons and vice versa. If we now move forward in time we would witness the vacuum of space undergoing a 'phase transition' from a higher energy state to a lower energy state. This is analogous to a ball rolling down the side of a mountain and coming to rest in the lowest valley. As the universe 'rolls down hill' it begins a brief but stupendous period of expansion. The universe swells to billions of times its former size in almost no time at all. In addition to this, a slight excess of matter over anti-matter appears becaus of the decay of massive particles called X Higgs Bosons. As we continue to watch the universe age, the remaining pairs of particles and anti-particles find themselves and vanish in a tremendous burst of annihilation. From this paroxysm, the bulk of the fireball radiation that we now observe is born. The GUT Era is the last stop in our fanciful journey through time. If we had asked what it was like before the GUT Era, we would immediately have entered a vast no mans land where few indisputable facts would serve to gui de us. What does seem clear is that gravity is destined to grow in importance, eventually becoming the dominant force acting between parti cles, even at the microscopic level. G R A V I T Y According to theories developed since the 1930's, what we call a 'force' is actually a collective phenomenon caused by the exchange of innumerable, force-carrying particles called gauge bosons. The electromagnetic force, which causes like charges to attract and dissimilar ones to repel, is transmitted by gauge bosons called photons, the strong force that binds nucleii together is transmitted by gluons and the weak force which causes particles to decay is transmitted by the, recently discovered, W and Z Intermediate Vector Bosons. In an analogous way, physicists believe that gravity is transmitted by particles called Gravitons. If gravity really does have such a quantum property, its effects should appear once quarks and electrons can be forced to within 10(-33) centimeter of one another, a distance called the Planck length. To acheive these conditions, quarks and electrons will have to be collided at energies of 10(19) GeV. An accelerator patterned after the 2-mile, Stanford Linear Accelerator would have to be 1 light-year in length to push particles to these incredable energies! Fortunatly, what humans find impossible to do, Nature with its infinite resources finds less difficult. Before the universe was 10(-43) second old, matter routinely experienced collisions at these energies. This period is what we call the Planck Era. THROUGH A LOOKING GLASS, DARKLEY Since our technology will not allow us to physically reproduce the conditions during these ancient times, we must use our mathematical theories of how matter behaves to mentally explore what the universe was like then. We know that the appearence of the universe before 10(-43) second can only be adequatly described by modifying the Big Bang theory because this theory is, in turn, based on the General Theory of Relativity. General Relativity tells us how gravity operates on the macroscopic scale of planets, stars and galaxies. At the Planck scale, we need to extend General Relativity so that it includes not only the macroscopic properties of gravity but also is microscopic characteristics as well. The theory of 'Quantum Gravity' is still far from completion but physicists tend to agree that, at the very least, Quantum Gravity must combine the conceptual elements of the two great theories of modern physics: General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. In the language of General Relativity, gravity is a consequence of the deformati on of space caused by the presence of matter and energy. Gravity is just another name for the amount of curvature in the geometry of 3-dimensional space. In Quantum Gravity theory, gravity is produced by massless gravitons so that gravitons now represent individual packages of curved space that travel through space at the speed of light. The appearence and dissappearence of innumerable gravitons gives the geometry of space a very lumpy and dynamic appearance. John Wheeler at Princeton University thinks of this as a foamy, sub-structure to space where the geometry of space twists and contorts so that far flung regions of space may suddenly find themselves connected by 'wormholes' which constantly appear and dissappear within 10(-43) seconds. Even as you are reading this article, this frenetic activity is occurring in the hyper-microscopic domain, 100 billion billion times smaller than the nucleus of an atom. For a comparison, the size of the sun and the size of a single atom stand in about this same proportion. Although Quantum Gravity effects are completely undetectable today at the atomic and nuclear scale, during the Planck Era, macroscopic and microscopic worlds merged and the Quantum Gravity of the microcosm suddenly became the Quantum Cosmology of the macrocosm! QUANTUM COSMOLOGY As we approach the end of the Planck Era, the random appearance and dissappearance of innumerable gravitons will eventually force us to give up the concept of a specific geometry to 3-dimensional space. Instead, the geometry at a given moment will have to be thought of as an average over all 3-dimensional space geometries that are possible. Once again, the reason for this is that particles are squeezed so closely together that we can now see individual gravitons moving around in the space between them causing space to become curved. We can no longer get away with saying that the space between two quarks, for example, is flat. This is what we mean when we say that the gravitational force between them is insignificant when compared to the other three forces of Nature. To make matters much worse, not only will Quantum Gravity not allow us to calculate the exact 3-dimensional geometry to space but, at the Planck scale, it will not allow us to simultaneously determine its exact geometry and precise rate of change in time. What this means is that we may never be able to calculate with any certainty exactly what the history of the universe was like before 10-43 second. Today, the large-scale geometry of space is one of three possible types: flat and infinite, negatively curved and infinite or positively curved and finite. During the Planck Era, the 'large-scale' geometry was contorted by wormholes and and infinite number of possibilities were possible. To probe the history of the universe then would be like trying to trace your ancestral roots if every human being on earth had a possibility of being one of your parents. Now try to trace your family tree back a few generations! The farther back in time you go, the greater are the number of possible ancestors you could have had. An entirely new conception of what we mea n by 'a history for the universe' will have to be developed. Even the concepts of space and time will have to be completely re-evaluated in the face of the qua ntum fluctuations of spacetime at the Planck Era! THE BIRTH OF THE UNIVERSE The picture that seems to emerge from using our sketchy outline of what Quantum Gravity theory might look like is that as we approach the Planck Era, gravitons are exchanged between quarks and electrons with increasingly higher energy and in greater number. By the time we reach the end of the Planck Era at 10(-43) second, gravitons will begin to carry as much energy as the other force carriers (Gluons, IVBs and Photons). At still earlier times, a period of complet e symmetry and unification between all the natural forces will ensue. Only one super-unified force exists here (gravity) and only one kind of particle dominates the activity of this age(Gravitons). During the early 70's, the Russian physicists Ya. Zel'dovitch and A. Starobinski of the USSR Academy of Science proposed that the rapidly changing geometry of space during the Planck Era may actually have created all the matter, anti-matter and radiation that existed soon after Creation. In their picture of Creation, the rapidly changing geometry of space created particles and anti-particles with masses of 10(19) GeV. This production of matter and anti-matter removed energy from the enormous fluctuations occuring in the geometry of space and eventually succeeded in damping them out altogether by the end of the Planck Era. They also found that the rate of particle creation increased as more and more particles were created. Several recent studies by Physicists Edward Tryon of Hunter College, R. Brout, F. Englert and E. Gunzig of the University of Brussels and david Atkatz and Heinz Pagels of the Rockefeller University have shed additional light on what Creation may have been like. Imagine if you can, nothing at all! This is the primordial vacuum of space. There is complete darkness here, no light yet exists. The number of dimensions to space was probably not the normal 3 that we are so accustomed to but may have been as high as 11 according to Supergravity theory! In this infinite emptiness, random fluctuations occurred that ever so slightly changed the energy of the vacuum at various points in space. Eventually, one of these fluctuations attained a critical energy and began to grow. As it grew, very massive particles called leptoquarks and anti-leptoquarks were created, causing the expansion to accelerate. This is much like a ball rolling down a hill that moves slowly at first and then gains momentum. The expansion of the proto-universe, in turn, caused still more leptoquarks to be created. This furious cycle continued until, at long last, the leptoquarks decayed into quarks, leptons (electrons, muons etc) and their anti-particles and the universe emerged from the Planck Era. Particle creation stopped once the fluctuations in the geometry of space subsided. So, we are left with the remarkable possibility that, in the beginning, there ex isted quite literally, nothing at all and from it emerged nearly all of the matter and radiation that we now see. This process has been described by the physicist Frank Wilczyk at the University of California, Santa Barbara by saying, " The reason that there is something instead of nothing is that nothing is unstable". A ball sitting on the summit of a steep hill needs but the slightest tap to set it in motion. A random fluctuation in space was apparently all that was required to unleash the incredable latent energy of the vacuum, thus creating matter and energy and an expanding universe from 'nothing at all'. The universe did not spring into being instantaneously but was created a little bit at a time in a 'bootstrap' process. Once a few particles were created by quantum fluctuations of the empty vacuum, it became easier for a few more to appear and so, in a rapidly escalating process, the universe gushed forth from nothingness. How long did this take? The primordial vacuum could have existed for an eternity before the particular fluctuation that gave rise to our universe happened. Physicist Edward Tryon expresses this best by saying that " Our universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time". The principles of Quantum Gravity may ultimatly force us to reconsider questions like 'What happened before the Big Bang?' because they imply the existence of something (time) that may not have any meaning at all. These questions may be as empty of meaning as an explorer on the north pole asking, 'Which way is North?'. Only the complete theory of Quantum Gravity may tell us how to ask the right questions!

Here's yet another take on this issue.

Quantum Theory of Gravity!? Jebus Christ!

Lay men like us cannot even appreciate Newtonian mechanics fully. Let alone understand relativity or quantum physics. How on earth are we going to understand a theory that combines these two? It's all math and it's all specialized math, which is beyond us. you tell me if you can understand the 3-d motion of a spinning top through equations. And that's like a trivial text book problem.

SO the point is, even if quantum gravity answers our questions, although the theory is far from being complete, you and me will have to settle with an answer of "yes" there's something that explains how energy and matter came into existance...that's it. We're not really going to understand anything beyond that.

I've said this earlier in one of those "psychic" threads. Concepts like "Energy" are abstractions. They are mathematical means of explaining dynamics. It's hard to have a physical interpretation of this concept. So even if people answer you, their answers are based on an understanding of the underlying mathematics, which none of us are really familiar with.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Baffling Physics Question That Should Make You Think

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The universe as we know it did have a beginning. The 4 fundamental forces of the universe did not exist before the Planck Epoch (10^-43 seconds after Big Bang). The universe as we know it began at the Big Bang. Whatever happened before is a complete mystery. I also never said the universe we know is all there is.

You're thoughts are gettin messy here. Have you been talking about the universe all along or the "universe as we know it"? If you've been talking about the universe in such a way that it includes whatever existed prior to plank time then the big bang is immaterial in any discussion on the origins thereof; however, if you are talking about the "universe as we know it" then what existed before plank time has no berring on the conversation as pre-plank time is pre-universe as we know it.

Additionally, is it not folly to talk about "previous universe(s)," as the death of any "previous universe" via a big crunch thereby giving rise to "a subsequent universe" via a big bang would really be a reconfiguration of the universe rather then the end of one and beginning of another. If so then one could not simply point to a big crunch of one universe as being the origin of the universe; rather, it would simply be the origin of the current configuration thereof. Ultimately, the question is what gave rise to the initial singularity? (I haz no answers, not even a strong opinion).

you also have to understand that as humans, we have a cognitive bias towards perceiving things.

the human brain excels at things such as pattern recognition, & seeing things as a matter of cause & effect. it's the way we evolved.

the universe doesn't give a shit about what we think of it. quantum theory is a perfect example of this.

an ant traveling on a doughnut will view it as an endless two-dimensional plane. it's an almost eerie (& hopeless) thought to assume that we are in the same boat in some manner, but it's a pretty damn logical (again using the ol' human noggin here) outcome given on what we have so far.

our view is limited, & it's going to stay that way until technology allows us to evolve into the next paradigm. ray kurzweil has written a great deal about it, it's called the singularity. highly recommended. & i apologize in advance if that wasn't exactly coherent, i can elaborate later & provide links later if wanted.

It would be much more interesting for you to apply Newton's silly little laws to the micro level and watch them fail miserably

this is pointless

the cyclical world thing answers no questions at all.

if you have a cyclical expanding and contracting system, you must still question where the system came from originally... and when you come up with a clever theory for that, you will have to question where the content of that theory came from, ad infinitum. this is just the nature of things.

everything is necessarily the cause of everything. there is such a tangled web of causality for every single thing in the universe, and when you untangle this web you end up at the same original and ulimate source, that is BEING, itself.

for this reason it's ultimately pointless to look for causality in the universe. personally, i believe causality is only ever relative causality, simply an effect of looking at the world as a particular subject.




also, a comment on the OP.

isolating a 'system' presupposes that there is a separate observer to view the system. this has essentially been debunked by quantum physical experiments in the last 50 years. anyways you don't even need to do experiments to understand the essential truth of this: if the observer is separate from the 'system', then what 'system' is the observer a part of, and is he subject to the same laws? and if there exists this other system, then what contains this system? in order to recognize it as a system, you'd need an observer, who would have to be part of yet another system...

ultimately there are no systems or observers, there is only pure, undivided being. the best way i have heard this described is as a vast, deep ocean (infinite, timeless potential of everything), and any system or observer or observation or theory or universe or piece of matter is merely a wave or ripple - apparently a distinct object but ultimately indivisible and utterly temporary

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec this is pointless the cyclical world thing answers no questions at all. if you have a cyclical expanding and contracting system, you must still question where the system came from originally... and when you come up with a clever theory for that, you will have to question where the content of that theory came from, ad infinitum. this is just the nature of things. everything is necessarily the cause of everything. there is such a tangled web of causality for every single thing in the universe, and when you untangle this web you end up at the same original and ulimate source, that is BEING, itself. for this reason it's ultimately pointless to look for causality in the universe. personally, i believe causality is only ever relative causality, simply an effect of looking at the world as a particular subject.

^ thanks for saving me the time

Cause? We're talking about causality now?

Run! Soon there will be words about purpose, end, motives, rationality, melted-cheese, and we're going to postulate the existence... OF A GOD!!!

So, what happens if you take the red pill?

quote:

Originally posted by david.michael So, what happens if you take the red pill?

I'm not sure. I just helped ship a bunch of blue pills to the Large Hardon Collider and they're still trying to get it on

Okay, so from what I understand some of you are saying, like Lira, is, there was always matter and energy in existence, and that it is eternal? But there was not always matter in this universe. Right? So if that's true, where did the matter come from?

transferring energy into mass and vice versa does not violate anything

This question has been asked for thousands of years.

Where did we come from? Most people will say God. Those who don't, say The Big Bang.

Then comes: Where did all that matter come from to start the Big Bang? Most people will say "I don't know" or "God".

Then comes: Who created God? Most people will say "Man".

It's an endless chicken/egg cycle.

quote:

Originally posted by ziptnf It's an endless chicken/egg cycle.

The egg came first.

I transfer energy to mass.... in my pants.

Re: Re: A Baffling Physics Question That Should Make You Think

quote:

Originally posted by KiNeTiC ENeRgY This is not baffling. You are not an academic at all. This is a very basic physics principle. Stay in school. Have a nice day.

Please just shut the fuck up.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Okay, so from what I understand some of you are saying, like Lira, is, there was always matter and energy in existence, and that it is eternal?

Well, that's a possibility.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton But there was not always matter in this universe. Right?

I wouldn't rule that out as impossible, either.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton So if that's true, where did the matter come from?

I think that Osdenwald guy said something about stuff coming into existence thanks to quantum fluctuations.

And, before you ask where these fluctuations came from, I don't even pretend to understand Quantum physics, so I'm utterly ignorant about that. There are gazillions of possible answers, so I'm just being a smart-arse pointing out the fact that you're taking too much for granted

quote:

Originally posted by david.michael I transfer energy to mass.... in my pants.

OMG! I transfer mass to energy... in my pants!

quote:

Originally posted by Lira OMG! I transfer mass to energy... in my pants!

It really does work both ways. How's that for baffling?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.