Re: Stray Thoughts & Provocative Questions
- From: "T Wake" <taswakeAt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:10:51 +0100
"Mr. Knowitall" <ir911@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:XURAe.2260$6e3.326121@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> obvious scientific blunders, please be kind with any comments or replies.
> I
> have taken part in several other newsgroups on Usenet and quite frankly,
> most of them are brutal places in which to express one's voice or opinion.
This is no better than any of the other groups. Most posters are cranks, I
will leave it to you to decide who is and who isnt, and to decide if you
wish to be seen as a crank or not.
> For the sake of clarity, the term "billion" referred to throughout is
> 10^9.
> Apparently North Americans and Europeans (or other cultures) refer to the
> same value by different names.
In English a Billion is 10^12, in scientific notation it is 10^9. Generally
it helps to avoid using words and stick to numbers. Less ambiguity.
> If you have "something" that meets all of the requirements of the concept
> of
> existence...such as the physical universe, this logically implies the
> presence (or existence) of something that is NOT the physical universe.
> What
> would you call that...other than simply *nothing*?
Nope, flawed logic. Everything is "inside" the infinite universe. There is
no "outside" the universe.
(long paragraph next, snipped into USENET friendly chunks).
> What came first...space, energy or matter? The order of existence is
> rather
> crucial.
The concepts we as humans define as space, energy and matter came into
existence simulatneously. We have no way of scientifically conceptualising
what came before.
<snippage>
What you are asking is unanswerable. Can you think of an experiment to test
what there was before space? If not, it isnt science. It is hard enough to
imagine the universe as it is today let alone reverse all the way to the
time before time.
>Whatever this something was, scientific conjecture
> commonly describes it as being an infinitesimally small singularity that
> defies human understanding.
Its not scientific conjecture. Its simply conjecture.
> Key question though...was it a single material
> *particle* or was it a single unit of non-material *energy*?
If anything, energy. Difficult to prove though. If it was "particles" then
gravity would have worked and the inflation wouldn't have occured and you
wouldnt be sending message on your computer.
>This kind of
> thing is extremely difficult to talk about since neither matter nor energy
> yet existed at this point. They were both components of this same *one*
> thing...and in this context, so was "space" and "time".
Define "one" thing please.
Energy can have existed. What time scales are we talking now?
>The current vogue in
> astrophysics is the obvious "Big Bang" theory that even the average modern
> citizen is somewhat familiar with. This contends that the primeval
> singularity somehow became "unstable" and suddenly began to very rapidly
> expand in size with what we would now describe as immeasureable explosive
> force.
No, you are mixing Big Bang with inflation here. The two events were (if
they happened) separated by time.
>This event *literally* put everything we can observe or measure today
> into motion. Clearly, it could not have been analogous to a chemical
> explosion since none of the chemical elements yet existed. Nor could it
> have
> been analogous to a nuclear reaction since none of those atomic particles
> or
> forces yet existed.
It is probable that all the fundamental forces existed immediately after the
Big bang (to within 1x1-^47 seconds). If they didnt, the quest for a unified
theory is doomed to fail.
>Those things only came into existence long *after* the
> initial expansion.
How long is long?
>The ultimate *magic* trick...but performed by who or what
> to entertain who or what? I really want to avoid bringing mysticism of any
> kind into it, but at some point it becomes the only viable alternative to
> the questions that science will probably never be able to answer
> satisfactorily.
Nope. It isnt the only alternative and it is far from viable. Your suggested
alternative (ID in another guise I suspect) raises more questions than it
will ever answer.
Why does it have to have been performed by "someone" or "something?"
The fundamental forces of nature unify at higher energies so the logic is
actually that in the energy sea of t=1x10^-43 onwards they were all working
fine.
> Is it just me or have I not seen a growing trend among
> serious "leading-edge" physicists/astronomers/cosmologists over the last
> few
> decades that are tempted to use the word "magic" to describe or explain
> their findings?
Its just you. Or it may be the product of reading too much coffee table
science. I graduated ten years ago and there were NO examples of the word
magic being used to explain anyones findings.
> I have read or heard some who say that not only is their
> research becoming more and more exciting, but is beginning to approach
> what
> some describe as almost "scary" in nature.
Everyone has their own opinions. Scary is an unusual choice of words.
> Does "space" contain energy and matter...or does "matter and energy"
> contain
> space? The definitive answer to that question has huge implications and
> repercussions no matter which one is ultimately true. Our scientific
> observations and measurements reveal that indeed what appears in our
> perception to be solid matter, is in fact mostly empty space...and that at
> least *some* of the myriad of sub-atomic physical particles that compose
> matter appear to spend half of their physical existence *somewhere else*
> other than in this physical reality...in a sort of "blinking" fashion.
> Where
> are they while they're not here? That "thing" we call space appears to be
> an
> actual medium that physical matter is suspended or floating in.
This is why everyday logic falls down when faces with physics. Yes the vast
majority of the "space" occupied by an atom is empty. However, it has to be.
As we dont know where any of the particles are at any given time, without
this space uncertainty falls down.
> How can light that left its source some 15 billion years ago be reaching
> our
> region of space that has only existed for 6-8 billion years?
Where do you get the 6-8 billion years from?
Not to mention, the distance an object is "today" is based more on the
expansion of space as opposed to where it was when light left the star.
>In other words,
> the location that we occupy didn't even exist when that light began its
> journey toward us. Has the intervening space (distance) between the 2
> locations been continually expanding to accommodate the travel of the
> light?
Yes. Go to wikipedia and search for "Hubble Constant."
> How else can the facts be explained? Is it really an "expansion" of a
> discretely identifiable object (and therefore has an edge or at least a
> surface) or is "new" space constantly being added.
Distances are increasing in all directions. Expansion of space doesnt
require a surface or an edge.
> like more water being
> added to a container? Do we exist in a physical universe that resembles a
> loaf of rising raisin-bread dough? I realize that's long been a cliche,
> but
> it's an apt description.
Is that a statement or question?
In the rising bread dough is more dough being added?
Be careful with metaphors.
> Obviously an observer located at that distant source is not yet aware of
> the
> presence of our location...since the light from our location has only
> reached a distance of some 4-8 billion light years in their direction.
The light from our Sun may have gone 5 billion light years, however the
light from our region of space has travelled exactly the same distance as
the one coming towards us.
Make sure you see the difference between our Solar system and our region of
space.
> Any
> observer located in that position of origin will not become visually aware
> of the physical region of space that we occupy for another several billion
> years.
Nope. They wont become aware of our Sun for another several billion years.
> Is the source of that light still actually there in the same position?
> Where
> is it actually located now? Surely it has either moved within 3D space or
> has entirely ceased to exist for some reason.
Define "now." Now for us or now for them? It is very likely that a light
source we see 1x10^10 ly away is no longer in existence using our time frame
as a reference. This is not provable though.
> The Red-Shift phenomenon poses some interesting problems. Observations
> tell
> us that most large clumps of matter (from individual galaxies to galactic
> superclusters) are apparently receding from us at velocities approaching c
> itself.
Not most clumps. Only the ones very, very far away.
Good value for H_0 is aroun 60 Km s^-1 Mpc^-1
So to be going at nearly 300 000 kms^-1 it would need to be nearly 5000 Mpc
away - which interestingly enough is 1.6x10^10 lightyears, or close to the
age of the universe.
One school of thought uses this to imply that inflation is a proven theory,
as large scale structures from very close the big bang are actually
receeding at >c.
>At least that's the velocity they *had* several billion years ago.
> What true velocity have they achieved by now?
Who knows? Is it the velocity they "had" then? Or is it the velocity the
light coming to us has "now"?
>Where are they headed and what
> is causing them to do so? Would those objects not "disappear" from our
> detection once their recessional velocity >=c?
Yes.
>The really odd thing is that
> no matter the relative position of an observer within the universe, the
> same
> measurements can be made.
Yes. Great isnt it. Without this assumption Physics would be in the dark
ages.
> If our present technology places an estimated (but incorrect)limit on the
> observable universe, it would logically mean that the radius of the
> observable universe from our vantage point is some 15 billion light years
> in
> every direction.
Yes, I see where this is headed though and its flawed.
>This assumption immediately implies a curved (spherical)
> shape that has 3-dimensional volume and we are arbitrarily (out of
> necessity) placing ourselves at the centre of it.
That is the problem with assumptions. We are at the centre of nothing more
than what we can see in all directions.
If you stand in the middle of an open plains and you can see for three miles
in every direction, does that make you at the centre of the planet?
>This also logically tells
> us that the observable diameter of the universe is some 30 billion light
> years across. This translates to some 30 billion years of time...which
> clearly exceeds our age estimates by a factor of 2.
Yes. Inflation is used to circumvent the age / size problem.
> The question is simply
> this...how can the hypothetical observers on opposite sides of the
> circumference of this great sphere be able to detect the presence of each
> other since that distance between them exceeds the limits of space and
> time
> that we have established?
They cant.
Sphere is the wrong metaphor to use. The universe is infinite. An observer
1.5x10^10 light years away from us can see 1.5x10^10 light years in every
direction.
>
> Some interesting facts concerning such a hypothetical spherical universe
> using r = 15*10^9 LY:
>
> volume = 4/3*pi*r^3 = 1.4137166941e31 cubic light years
>
> surface area = 4*pi*r^2 = 2.8274333882e21 square light years
>
> circumference = 2*pi*r = 94,247,779,607.6938 light years or
> 5.5403681958e23
> miles. It would take a modern Magellan traveling at c, more than 6 times
> the
> estimated age of the universe as we presently understand it, to
> circumnavigate such a sphere.
Good job its not a sphere then.
> Some estimates claim that the total of atomic particles <10^80 and the
> mass
> of the universe is ~3*10^55 grams. Those are of course very large numbers,
> but still astonishingly small compared to 64! which = 1.2688693219e89. The
> significance of the number 64 is simply that it is the number of squares
> on
> a simple chessboard and there are some 10^120 possible moves in a game of
> chess. Isn't it boggling that a reasonably simple/complex human mind game
> can produce a number that significantly surpasses and virtually *dwarfs*
> all
> of these "astronomically" large numbers?
Nope not boggling at all. You are assuming that all possible moves are
capable for all peices and in every game. Each peice has a much smaller
number of options on each turn. You have added up every single possibility
for each peice (both sides).
> Photons (visible light) apparently are not affected or limited by time or
> space...they appear to have a life duration that approaches infinity. Does
> this mean that every photon that contains a minimum of 1 part of some
> humanly recognizable visual image has a virtually infinite lifetime and
> will
> never cease to carry its visual data?
No. Photons do contain information, but what we look at as a recognisable
image requires millions of photons. Each on its own is simply a carrier of
the EM force.
>Photons also seem to never collide
> with or interfere with each other. Otherwise, we'd all be seeing just one
> homogenized mess of indistinguishable visual data.
Nope - photons do collide and interference is the basics of the photon
inferference pattern which identifies the wave action of light.
>One would have to presume
> that all of space/time *must* be constantly filled with photons traveling
> in
> every direction from an almost infinite number of sources. They also seem
> to
> have some constant "power" to them in the sense of horsepower or Watts as
> a
> measurement of work. Their velocity never seems to slow down but they can
> easily be caused to bend or change direction by the medium they are
> traveling through or even by gravity.
Not easily. Takes lots of gravity for example.
>What happens to a photon that falls
> below the velocity of c? Is that even possible? Since it can't simply
> cease
> to exist, it must "morph" into some other form of energy.
It depends on how strict you are in the definition of c. It can be the
"speed of light" in which case the speed may change but the photon is always
going at c. Or it can be the speed of light in a vacum in which case the
photon (travelling through a different medium) assumes a different speed as
a fraction of c.
> It seems logical that *any* type of EM radiation should have an unlimited
> lifetime and therefore an unlimited range...including what we call "radio"
> and "television".
Yes. Our TV and Radio signals are heading into space for ever.
> However, they seem to depend on the "power" that generated
> their waveform. In other words, a radio message that is broadcast with a
> power of 1 Watt appears to have a much shorter range and lifetime than say
> a
> 50,000 Watt commercial radio station.
No. Its range and lifetime are the same. Our ability to recognise and
understand the signal are what counts here. Low power is too "weak" to be
picked up by our recievers over a certain distance.
> Gravity *must* be a force that is unrestricted by time and space. It must
> be
> a force that has instantaneous effect throughout our physical reality or
> the
> entire fabric of space and time itself would collapse into chaos.
Nope. Very, very wrong.
Can you explain why it has to be instantaneous? Why should it travel faster
than light? Gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces, but on large
scales is magnified to the point where it has an effect.
> Does this speck of cosmic dust that we inhabit ever occupy (or re-occupy)
> *exactly* the same region of space more than once?
Who knows. Your guess is as good as anyone elses here.
> How can it since our
> entire solar system itself is moving within a galaxy that itself is moving
> within a cluster of other galaxies that is also moving within a
> super-cluster of other galaxies that is moving at a rapid velocity toward
> some distant destination (and consequently away from some point of
> origin)?
Ok. Works for me.
> If you were to actually plot this continuous 3D movement through space,
> what
> in blazes would that plot look like? Is it possible to calculate how many
> degrees of freedom our cumulative motion has?
Three dimensions is very limiting for the universe. However we have a very
hard time plotting anything in 3D. Generally people prefer to use two
dimensions and imagine the extra one. This is why most metaphors fail.
> If every mass of physical matter in the universe is gravitationally
> influenced by ever larger masses of physical matter...in the sense that
> everything appears to be orbiting some larger mass...what is the ultimate
> centre that every thing else orbits? *What* is it...and *where* is it?
Not everything orbits something. Large structures may well orbit a large
mass object (maybe even black holes) however between structures there is no
signs of any "orbital" behaviour.
> Since the observable physical universe appears to have no centre, no edge
> and no boundaries, how do we know for sure *where* we are placed in space
> and time?
We dont. We shouldnt try. Non-locality.
>Does a grain of sand know which beach of which planet it exists
> upon? How does one go about describing the physical coordinates of such a
> grain of visible matter?
Exactly. Dont try to work out where we are in the universe, other than
"here."
> The concept of time requires at least 5 things in order to have any
> meaning...at least 2 objects of physical mass (or units of energy?),
> distance (space), movement and an observer that is capable of measuring
> those phenomena. If any one of those elements is missing, then time itself
> has no real meaning.
Only to people trying to conceptualise it in those circumstances.
> Time travel in this physical reality is apparently impossible. Time
> appears
> to move in one direction only.
Yes. No one has proved otherwise (other than in purely theoretical terms).
Second law of thermodynamics buts in here.
>It is part of a physical universe that
> appears to have *at least* 4 dimensions...some modern physicists theorize
> as
> many as *10* "hidden" dimensions to accommodate their "string" theory.
Well, not 10 hidden - 10 spatial dimensions of which we interact with 3 on a
daily basis. 11 if you include time.
>Why
> restrict true reality to only 3, 4 or 10 dimensions...why not allow for
> the
> distinct possibility that the number of possible dimensions are virtually
> infinite in scope?
Because the mathematical formula demands 10 spatial dimensions.
>The other 3 dimensions seem to have no restrictions
> placed upon vector of travel or magnitude.
You would be suprised. Try moving in only one dimension. Try moving without
taking time to do it.
>Why should the 4th dimension of
> time have any restrictions placed on its vector of travel or magnitude?
It has the same restrictions as the other dimensions, however second law of
thermodynamics implies we cant reduce entropy which forces a direction of
from before through now to after.
>Our
> observation of "time itself" is based only on peculiar and very specific
> biological and astronomical measurements that are relatively meaningless
> to
> all but the inhabitants of this particular vantage point.
Yes.
> Why not a perfectly valid reality of 1 dimension...or 2?
Because then gravity wouldnt work. The square of the separation implies 3
spatial dimensions.
>What makes our
> particular universe of 3 or 4 dimensions so distinctive or special...other
> than the fact that we appear to occupy it?
Nothing. I dont agree with the anthropmorphic principle.
>Any observer cannot logically
> arrive at 3 without first passing through the requisite values of 0, 1
> and
> 2. It's important to not ignore the weird value of 0 dimensions. Some say
> that the thing we call space itself is dimension 0.
Not many people though. Even less sane people. 0 is a big problem because
the mathematics fail.
> Faster than light travel (or even travel at velocity c) is supposedly
> impossible for physical matter to achieve, according to Einstein's
> calculations. His mathematical argument clearly states that common
> material
> matter requires infinite mass and therefore infinite power to even
> *achieve*, much less *exceed* such a velocity. Wasn't the same thing once
> said about human-powered flight itself...along with the imagined limits of
> supersonic travel by a physical mechanical device such as any modern jet
> powered aircraft?
Big difference. One was based on assumptions without scientific backing, the
other is based on proper science.
>
> Modern physicists are discovering on an almost daily basis that Newton's
> and
> indeed Einstein's theories and calculations are valid to a certain
> degree...but are ultimately flawed in some fundamental way...much like the
> physical reality of the heliocentric universe that Ptolemy once described
> was long ago proven to be false by Copernicus.
Really, which theories have been falsified then?
.
- References:
- Stray Thoughts & Provocative Questions
- From: Mr. Knowitall
- Stray Thoughts & Provocative Questions
- Prev by Date: Re: Stray Thoughts & Provocative Questions
- Next by Date: Re: Photon Entanglement
- Previous by thread: Re: Stray Thoughts & Provocative Questions
- Next by thread: Re: Stray Thoughts & Provocative Questions
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
