alt_f13 Posted August 19, 2003 Posted August 19, 2003 The universe is an anomaly. If time is just one of the several dimensions produced by the big bang, then it must be able to stop much in the same way it started. When I think of the Universe going on forever, I come to the conclusion that infinite instances of us will reoccur in the future. The universe started and may well end, but that would mean the end of time, which has been described as a "byproduct" of existence. In which case, there is no infinity in that direction. I cannot bend my mind around that for this reason: After time stops, a new universe could form. It happened once, why not again? It might not even happen on the same organization of dimensions that we have now, but I will come back to that. If a new universe does form, it does so AFTER our universe ended....but time ENDED with it. So how did/will this happen? And, if time ended, and a new different dimension is perceived as time, when will/did that happen(ed)? I am not aware of any way to describe these events in our language. Time is just a dimension, so, a universe might exist on all the same places, but on a different part of the time dimension. That is obvious. But the same could be said for every other dimension, including the other three we are accustomed to. And in all these dimensions, there are bound to be overlaps, which could account for anomalies in space and those elusive particles that last for fractions of a second. BUT If the universe ends like it started, are these dimensions not lost? In conclusion(?) the universe appears on infinite points along the same dimensions, including time, Infinitillian miles away/years away/ what ever unit you use to measure other dimensions with, but it didn't/won't happen because when the universe ends, the dimensions end. You cannot stop it, because after it ends, it will have an infinite amount of time to happen again, when time does not exist.
Dave Posted August 19, 2003 Posted August 19, 2003 I've read about this elsewhere. Nobody really knows anything about this - anyone could theoretically be right.
alt_f13 Posted August 21, 2003 Author Posted August 21, 2003 I have one thing to add. There must be a limit to how many universes can exist; the limit may even be one. I say this because as I stated earlier, infinate universes occupying the dimensions we are accustomed to would result in visible overlaps. Also, where is the evidence that time is a dimension similar to spacial dimensions. I have read this oftain, but I have not read any true theories on it. Where are the papers related to these topics available? A quick answer on why would also be nice.
Loki Posted August 21, 2003 Posted August 21, 2003 Hmm... I don't understand why time stops at the end of the universe. Could you elaborate/explain alt_f13? The only feasible theories that I've read about that relate to your topic alt, are those of the "big crunch" and "infinite expansion." The big crunch would happen if the critical mass (or something like that, i dunno) in the universe is reached. All of the mass in the universe will stop accelerating and reverse its motion. This would, I assume, include photons of light(?). alt_f13, are you saying that, accordiing to laws of relativity, time would "stop" in this big crunch? the other theory, being the infinite expansion theory, would occur if there weren't enough mass in the universe to reverse the acceleration. Everything would just die out eventually. sorry if that was off-topic, i didn't full understand what you were getting at. but just to add my own opinion, it hurts my mind just to conceive of time coming to a stop. but then again, the same thing happens when i try to think about eternity.
YT2095 Posted August 21, 2003 Posted August 21, 2003 Infinate expansion has now been proven. not down to low mass reasons, but we are being pushed appart by dark matter at an ever increasing rate, the big bang is actualy getting faster!
Loki Posted August 21, 2003 Posted August 21, 2003 YT2095 said in post #6 :Infinate expansion has now been proven. not down to low mass reasons, but we are being pushed appart by dark matter at an ever increasing rate, the big bang is actualy getting faster! could you cite a resource? i've read about this in recent publications and it is still unconfirmed whether the mass in the universe is "too high", "too low", or "just right". so, when was this "proven"?
alt_f13 Posted August 22, 2003 Author Posted August 22, 2003 Loki - same here... my mind is always in a sling. Infinate universes.. you will re-exists an infinate ammount of times, and have, for that matter. Non infinate universes.. what are the chances that we are so close to the begginning of the universe and it is going to go on forever? Pretty small considering thats 15 billion years/infinity. Lets just say the chances of existing at any one point in a universe that exists for ever are infinately small. I don't know if humanity will ever have an answer to this. I do not believe it is within the destiny of the universe for it to be solved. The thing is, as I stated in my previous comments, if the universe is to end, and thus all the dimensions described in string theory et al. (including time), when would the next universe start? There is no before or after when there is no time. No time means no references. So when do these events take place? Personally, I think the universe could not stand the stress of having nothing in it, and buckled under its own nonexistence. Holy crap, having memories of things that never happenned. Seriousely. Not joking. Not deja vu either.
YT2095 Posted August 22, 2003 Posted August 22, 2003 all I can remember is that it was some guys that used their own telescopes, then bought scope time at a better one, and THEN bought Hubble time. they didn`t publish at 1`st because the idea seemed to ridiculous, but simultaniously on the other side of the world the same discovery was made and they published, soon to be reinforced by theoriginal scientists. apparantly we`re aware of only 5% of the types of mater that exist (think periodic table) the other 95% and it`s attributes, we don`t have a clue about! exciting and daunting at the same time if you ask me.
Rasori Posted December 14, 2003 Posted December 14, 2003 Ohh, god, one of the many things that gives me a headache. Theoretically, if time is considered a dimension, and the universe was created with the Big Bang (which thus meant the dimensions, which I think someone said there were 11 total- can anyone list them? I get lost after three ), then when the universe is destroyed it is logical that the dimensions (thus time) will cease to exist. Then something else could happen. Who knows, maybe something somewhere will decide to make the space hat the universe took up a giant replica of Central Park. See, I can't go on after the universe ending because then brings the major headaches: If the universe is in space (and I believe it is SPACE that allegedly goes on forever, and the UNIVERSE that has an end sooner or later) then what happens if the universe ends? There's now a gap in space which will be filled by space... but what does space come from? If the Big Bang created the universe, what created space? Better yet, whatever created space, what canvas was space made on? And what canvas was that canvas made on? It just goes on and on and on (need *I* go on?)
Sayonara Posted December 14, 2003 Posted December 14, 2003 Rasori said in post #10 :I think someone said there were 11 total- can anyone list them? I get lost after three Don't worry about it, they're arbitrarily assigned
alt_f13 Posted December 19, 2003 Author Posted December 19, 2003 M theory needed 11 just because of the math eh? And I think time is only our perception of movement through one of the dimensions. Physical change and progression probably happen outside of any particular dimension. Jeez. It's all like video games anyway. All this "dimension" percieved out of the same flat fabric of spacetime. Just bad math created in a big ole' cosmic joke of a universe. Branes and branes of minute quantum disturbances resulting in the false hope of life meaning more than an amplitude reading on a multidemsional UHF canvas.
jpat1023 Posted January 4, 2004 Posted January 4, 2004 Big headache...to many "ifs" that cant be proven wrong or right. what if we are witnessing the begining of the universe right now. who's to say 15billion years is a long time??sure to us it is, but a week(or less?not real big on organic science) is a life time to a fly and and thats nothing to us. talk like this always gets me thinking about the end of Men In Black. Where it zooms out further and further until it shows our universe as just a marble in a bag.
elfin vampire Posted January 4, 2004 Posted January 4, 2004 If time is just one of the several dimensions.. "...according to this theory time is robbed of its independence. This is shown by the fourth equation of the Lorentz transformation."-Albert Einstein, Theory of Special Relativity. Another quote by Albert Einstein: "Time cannot exist without space." In order for time to stop, my dear man you must either: a) travel at c: the Speed of Light in vacuo b) remove all matter and mass from the universe c) stand within an area of such gravitational force that either a or b become utterly irrelevant. In around 1999 Sky and Space magazine announced that it had been discovered the rate of the expansion of the galaxies was increasing under a steady rate of acceleration. I'm uncertain, to be perfectly honest as to the implications upon the Hubble constant in calculating the distance of astronomical bodies such as quasars and other protogalaxies, however assume it is an exponential consideration which leaves proposed distance calculus unaltered. Oh, dimensions: 1. Length 2. Breadth 3. Depth 4. Circumference 5. Space-time ie. there are five which have thus far been established in physics. Universes within universes (ie. black hole universes and such), fall into category 4, a fairly recent addition and having been largely overlooked for much of the development of physics and geometry.
alt_f13 Posted January 10, 2004 Author Posted January 10, 2004 How many dimensions were the branes proposed to have? And it is unclear for me as to how the branes can interact on a timeline. Suppose branes collided, causing some sort of catastrophic disturbance in our universe, when would it happen? Does our time line and that of the branes coincide? How so/not seeing as it is proposed that these branes are responsible for our universe and its dimensions and yet the one action begets the next? Would there not be an exact time at which the branes collide and we feel the effects?
JaKiri Posted January 10, 2004 Posted January 10, 2004 7, if memory serves, curled up into a calibi-yau space.
Radical Edward Posted January 10, 2004 Posted January 10, 2004 alt_f13: are you thinking about ekpyrotic there? the concept of ekpyrotic is that the big bang is indeed caused by colliding branes. essetially you start off with a nice flat, uniform universe (like ours will be) that draws the branes together. they then collide and start a big bang, which expands until it gets nice and flat, drawing the branes together again, ad infinitum.
alt_f13 Posted January 11, 2004 Author Posted January 11, 2004 Si exactum. In which timeline does this all happen, if the big bang happens at the same moment as the brane collision. Is there an underlying timeline that we don't experience?
Duke Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 Does time have to actually exist? I dont think the presence of the 4th dimention is essential to the existance of our universe. Maybe the universe is just made up of mass and movement. If time was a dimention and an itegral part to the universe then surely it could be manipulated.
aman Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 If a brane had 2 dimensions and was composed of evenly diffused energy that was equal to more than 50 percent of what is needed per unit area for matter to form, then colliding of branes which seem empty would cause a spot in space to have over 100% energy needed to create matter. I can visualize a brane with undifferentiated energy diffused since it would need energy to at least maintain the size of the 2 dimensions. Intuitively I can see three possibilities. Two branes collide at a point and spark, two branes collide as cones at their points and continue to express an expanding circular area of 100%+ energy to create matter as long as they touch, and two branes collide and one is sucked into the other. Time should start from the moment of collision since the existance would change in an ordered fashion relative to the collisions speed.. Just my thoughts Just aman
aman Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 elfin vampire said in post #14 : Oh, dimensions: 1. Length 2. Breadth 3. Depth 4. Circumference 5. Space-time [/b] I wouldn't classify all these as dimensions but infinities and I think #4 could be better described as direction. From each point is an infinite number of directions or radii. Just aman
alt_f13 Posted January 13, 2004 Author Posted January 13, 2004 Wait, wait. But how can they collide without a time dimension? It seems to me that there would be underlying temporal dimensions. That is why I'm wondering if there indeed is a time dimension. MrL_JaKiri said in post #16 : 7, if memory serves, curled up into a calibi-yau space. Would two branes then have to corrospond along every dimension? They could be very large, could they not, and potentially make contact in several places at the same time? Could there possibly be another universe within our three dimensions created at another place on the branes?
Radical Edward Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 alt_f13 said in post #18 :Si exactum. In which timeline does this all happen, if the big bang happens at the same moment as the brane collision. Is there an underlying timeline that we don't experience? from what I gather, it is the same time, no underlying time required. Ekpyrotic is an M-Theory thing though, so it is pretty new: http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/
budcamp Posted January 16, 2004 Posted January 16, 2004 As far as the accelerating Universe is concerned, all of that data was based on observing 9 super novae. That is not much of a sample when one considers that there are between 100 and 200 billion stars just in our galaxy. "The fields of science are littered with the bones of discarded theories" The popular press had a field day with that theory, so even kindergarten kids have heard about the accelerating universe. The press is probably as accurate with that as with their other stories. As far as multi dimensions are concerned, I like this little limerick Steven Weinberg, a professor, returning from Texas Brings dimensions galore with which to perplex us But the extra ones all Are rolled up in a ball So small they can hardly affect us
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now