Spyman Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Interesting info Mr. Spyman. So the ultimate fate of 97% of the stars in our galaxy, or perhaps all galaxies, is the white dwarf stage, to slowly cool into a black dwarf over trillions of years, the other 3% collapse into neutron stars or black holes? Yes. "Stellar remnants After a star has burned out its fuel supply, its remnants can take one of three forms, depending on the mass during its lifetime. White dwarfs Neutron stars Black holes" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution However I still have a question. If the whole Universe was expanding down to the molecular level, because the cosmological constant does effect objects down to the molecular level, how would we know? The cosmo constant does not affect objects down to the molecular level. It doesn't even affect stars within a galaxy. If the gravity within a galaxy is enough to overcome the cosmo constant, then certainly electromagnetic forces would overcome the cosmo constant a Trillion Trillion Trillion times over. And the nuclear forces are WAY more powerful. No, I think he is right. From my calculations, every meter will gain an additional length of about one 10,000,000th the size of an atom every second. How would we notice? Well for starters, if atoms and molecules would grow -> then we would grow, and if everything was growing at the same rate as space is expanding, then how would we be able to notice that space was expanding in the first place ? Secondly, I would think that if atoms and molecules would grow, with a different rate than space expansion, even if it is by a small amount, it would likely wreck havoc with particle physics as we know it. But I would like an expert to step in and make a comment here... I think the expansion effects all objects in all sizes, but like Airbrush says, the other forces are so much stronger on smaller distances that they overpower and negates the effect of expansion. what are the characterists of the nothing that the big bang occurred in? I don't think science can answer with confidence what the initial conditions was at the "ignition" of the Big Bang yet, but it's not likely to be scientifically answered with "nothing". In science there is always a primordial condition to the event, which science use to try and explain the outcome with, if we take away that, all that is left is Magic. Further on, even if Relativity breaks down, when we try to go back in time to before BB, it has time as a fourth dimension, so if space turns out to be finite, we can still have an infinite space-time. The future seems to be endless, at least for me...
tar Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Spyman, Well I can go along with that. Once something is, especially something as substantial as our universe, its difficult to imagine a way it could un-be. 'cept maybe if all the items and anti-item pairs eventually cycle their way back into contact with identical opposites and annihilate each other. But I doubt that will happen by next Tuesday, so I think we are safe to say that the universe will stay intact for as long as we are likely to need it. Regards, TAR
Spyman Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 'cept maybe if all the items and anti-item pairs eventually cycle their way back into contact with identical opposites and annihilate each other. Currently there seems to be much more matter than antimatter in the universe and even if we later find out where the missing antimatter are, the law of conservation of energy tells us that there would still be a universe, but now with "only" energy inside it instead of both energy and matter. "The baryon asymmetry problem in physics refers to the apparent fact that there is an imbalance in baryonic matter and antibaryonic matter in the universe. Neither the standard model of particle physics, nor the theory of general relativity provide an obvious explanation for why this should be so; and it is a natural assumption that the universe be neutral with all conserved charges. The Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter; as such, there should have been total cancellation of both. In other words, protons should have cancelled with antiprotons, electrons with antielectrons, neutrons with antineutrons, and so on for all elementary particles. This would have resulted in a sea of photons in the universe with no matter. Since this is quite evidently not the case, after the Big Bang, physical laws must have acted differently for matter and antimatter." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry "The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The only thing that can happen with energy in a closed system is that it can change form, for instance kinetic energy can become thermal energy. Albert Einstein's theory of relativity shows that energy can be converted to mass (rest mass) and mass converted to energy. Therefore, neither mass nor pure energy are conserved separately, as it was understood in pre-relativistic physics. Today, conservation of “energy” refers to the conservation of the total mass-energy, which includes energy of the rest mass. Therefore, in an isolated system, mass and "pure energy" can be converted to one another, but the total amount of energy (which includes the energy of the mass of the system) remains constant." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
Airbrush Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Question. What is the canvas upon which we paint our model of the universe? Or what are the characterists of the nothing that the big bang occurred in? Or if you take away space and time, matter and energy, what is left? Like Spyman said, "nothing" is hardly the word to use. What may appear to be nothing to us now, will probably prove to be infinitely complex, just like everything else. Before the Big Bang there certainly existed a profound potentiality for existence as we know it, and that ain't nuthin'.
toastywombel Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 The cosmo constant does not affect objects down to the molecular level. It doesn't even affect stars within a galaxy. If the gravity within a galaxy is enough to overcome the cosmo constant, then certainly electromagnetic forces would overcome the cosmo constant a Trillion Trillion Trillion times over. And the nuclear forces are WAY more powerful. It does effect objects down to the molecular energy, it is minimal but it is still there. The other forces do overpower it, but the cosmological constants effect on the surface of the earth has been measured and it was 0.(with 29 zeros)1 percent the force of the gravitational pull of earth. It has an effect even though its minimal. Furthermore If the galaxies are fixed in space how come the earth is moving away from the sun, and the planets are moving away from the sun?
liarliarpof Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 P.S. First, I wholeheartedly agree with Airbrush's response. Second, if I'm reading toastywombel correctly, that appears to be the EPR Paradox reworded, and that issue has pretty much been considered settled. Keep in mind, however, it deals only with communication, or transfer of information, not the transportation of matter.
dr.syntax Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 Ever since I was a young boy, I have wrestled with trying to understand space. In particular, I have never really understood how space is supposed to never end. I really don't see how that's possible. Everything ends somewhere. Where one thing ends the next begins. Can people please provide thoughts on this? REPLY: Ever since I was a child I always felt it had to go on forever. What did you expect to run into, some sort of wall or something. Even if you did there would have to be more space beyond the wall. Also, ever since I learned of space expanding and such I still feel the space itself was always there whether all the matter and energy originated with the big bang, the never ending space was and is still there. In this sense the big bang is an event that occurred within this infinate and never ending space, Just because there is no matter or energy there does not mean that space itself is not there. I still believe that and nothing I have ever read or seen on TV has changed my mind about that. ...Dr.Syntax
Sayonara Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 I still believe that and nothing I have ever read or seen on TV has changed my mind about that. ...Dr.Syntax Perhaps the appropriate mathematics would be a more fitting tonic.
toastywombel Posted October 18, 2009 Posted October 18, 2009 REPLY: Ever since I was a child I always felt it had to go on forever. What did you expect to run into, some sort of wall or something. Even if you did there would have to be more space beyond the wall. Also, ever since I learned of space expanding and such I still feel the space itself was always there whether all the matter and energy originated with the big bang, the never ending space was and is still there. In this sense the big bang is an event that occurred within this infinate and never ending space, Just because there is no matter or energy there does not mean that space itself is not there. I still believe that and nothing I have ever read or seen on TV has changed my mind about that. ...Dr.Syntax Actually spacetime expands with the Universe. Furthermore if there was an infinite amount of spacetime in the universe it would create a problem. Space can only be defined by objects in space. If there are no objects in the space it is undefined. Also if you argue that space is infinite, you would have to argue that time is infinite. If time was infinite, then there would be an infinite amount of time before and after the Universe was created. If there was an infinite amount of time before the Universe was created, then the time of creation would never be reached because it would take an infinite amount of time to get to that point.
dr.syntax Posted October 18, 2009 Posted October 18, 2009 Actually spacetime expands with the Universe. Furthermore if there was an infinite amount of spacetime in the universe it would create a problem. Space can only be defined by objects in space. If there are no objects in the space it is undefined. Also if you argue that space is infinite, you would have to argue that time is infinite. If time was infinite, then there would be an infinite amount of time before and after the Universe was created. If there was an infinite amount of time before the Universe was created, then the time of creation would never be reached because it would take an infinite amount of time to get to that point. REPLY:That is exactly what I believe. There was no beginning to time or space and there will never be an end to time or space. All sorts of things may begin and end in time and space, but the two always have been and always will be infinant in both directions so to speak. quite frankly it seems self evident and could not be otherwise. It seemed that way to me as a child and nothing I have learned of has ever in the least little way caused me to question that self evident fact. ...Dr.Syntax
StringJunky Posted October 18, 2009 Posted October 18, 2009 Also if you argue that space is infinite, you would have to argue that time is infinite. If time was infinite, then there would be an infinite amount of time before and after the Universe was created. If there was an infinite amount of time before the Universe was created, then the time of creation would never be reached because it would take an infinite amount of time to get to that point. You could also say if an infinite amount of time has passed, everything that was going to interact would have happened and the universe would now be in a state of energetic equilibrium. All matter would have long since dissipated into energy. We are still here, so it seems to me. an infinite amount of time has not passed.
toastywombel Posted October 18, 2009 Posted October 18, 2009 You could also say if an infinite amount of time has passed, everything that was going to interact would have happened and the universe would now be in a state of energetic equilibrium. All matter would have long since dissipated into energy. We are still here, so it seems to me. an infinite amount of time has not passed. Exactly my point, space and time are finite not infinite
StringJunky Posted October 18, 2009 Posted October 18, 2009 Also if you argue that space is infinite, you would have to argue that time is infinite. If time was infinite, then there would be an infinite amount of time before and after the Universe was created. If there was an infinite amount of time before the Universe was created, then the time of creation would never be reached because it would take an infinite amount of time to get to that point. You could also say if an infinite amount of time has passed, everyrthing that was going to interact would have happened and the universe would now be in a state of energetic equilibrium. All matter would have long since dissipated into energy. We are still here, so it seems to me. an infinite amount of time has not passed.
toastywombel Posted October 18, 2009 Posted October 18, 2009 REPLY:That is exactly what I believe. There was no beginning to time or space and there will never be an end to time or space. All sorts of things may begin and end in time and space, but the two always have been and always will be infinant in both directions so to speak. quite frankly it seems self evident and could not be otherwise. It seemed that way to me as a child and nothing I have learned of has ever in the least little way caused me to question that self evident fact. ...Dr.Syntax But there was a beginning to time and space and as far as we know it was the big bang. Spacetime does not exist without matter and energy in it. It is undefined! Mathematically you are wrong. Its like asking for the function of a graph with no points on it. It is undefined
Spyman Posted October 20, 2009 Posted October 20, 2009 The Big Bang is AFAIK not thought to be the beginning of the Universe, and we already have mathematical models, although still in early stages and very speculative, that reaches back in time beyond the ignition of BB event. "The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang "One of the main problems with the Big Bang theory is that at the moment of the Big Bang, there is a singularity of zero volume and infinite energy. This is normally interpreted as the end of the physics as we know it; in this case, of the theory of general relativity. This is why one expects quantum effects to become important and avoid the singularity. However, research in loop quantum cosmology purported to show that a previously existing universe collapsed, not to the point of singularity, but to a point before that where the quantum effects of gravity become so strongly repulsive that the universe rebounds back out, forming a new branch. Throughout this collapse and bounce, the evolution is unitary." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce
Airbrush Posted October 20, 2009 Posted October 20, 2009 (edited) You could also say if an infinite amount of time has passed, everyrthing that was going to interact would have happened and the universe would now be in a state of energetic equilibrium. All matter would have long since dissipated into energy. We are still here, so it seems to me. an infinite amount of time has not passed. You are assuming that the Big Bang (BB) is all there is, and there could be no other BBs, before or after ours. We know nothing about before OUR BB. The Big Bang could just be another temporary condition of localized space-time. At one time the Earth was the entire universe, then the galaxy, now the observable universe is supposed to be "all there is". Edited October 20, 2009 by Airbrush
StringJunky Posted October 20, 2009 Posted October 20, 2009 You are assuming that the Big Bang (BB) is all there is, and there could be no other BBs, before or after ours. We know nothing about before OUR BB. The Big Bang could just be another temporary condition of localized space-time. At one time the Earth was the entire universe, then the galaxy, now the observable universe is supposed to be "all there is". Even if there were BB's prior to our BB, time (as we know it) would still start with ours...there is no absolute external reference (constant time), we can use, to measure ALL the BB's together by....it's practically pointless to set the 'clock' before the last one. As we know presently , time started with the BB...everything else is just speculation at the moment. I don't discount the idea of previous BB's because there must have been preconditions that started this one (and that is one scenario) but, I think, there will not be any physical evidence for a previous universe ( or time) because it will have been destroyed in the transition to the present one. The BB was the beginning of the expansion of EVERYTHING...it didn't occur in a localized area of spacetime. Spacetime grew with it.....that's if I understand the BB model correctly. Even if the Universe is more expansive than we think it is, it is still The Universe, we don't need to pluralize it by 'creating' more than one in our minds. I will say, at this moment in time, I'm just trying to understand the Standard Model and this is where I am at in my understanding.
Airbrush Posted October 20, 2009 Posted October 20, 2009 I agree with you about absolute time. We will probably never know about the "time" or anything else before our BB. "The BB was the beginning of the expansion of EVERYTHING...it didn't occur in a localized area of spacetime. Spacetime grew with it.....that's if I understand the BB model correctly." It was the beginning of everything visible to us. We don't know anything about structures beyond our visual horizon. There could well be regions far beyond the edge of our BB that are totally empty of atoms. There could be an infinite number of finite BBs contained in infinite space. Or beyond our visual horizon matter is doing something else like antimatter, or stuff we never even imagined.
toastywombel Posted October 20, 2009 Posted October 20, 2009 I agree with you about absolute time. We will probably never know about the "time" or anything else before our BB. "The BB was the beginning of the expansion of EVERYTHING...it didn't occur in a localized area of spacetime. Spacetime grew with it.....that's if I understand the BB model correctly." It was the beginning of everything visible to us. We don't know anything about structures beyond our visual horizon. There could well be regions far beyond the edge of our BB that are totally empty of atoms. There could be an infinite number of finite BBs contained in infinite space. Or beyond our visual horizon matter is doing something else like antimatter, or stuff we never even imagined. I agree, Stephen Hawking said that trying to explain existence before the big bang is like asking for a point south of the south-pole. It is undefined.
daniellos3 Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 I think space is kinda like on Scooby Doo when they are being chased by the creepy guy they met in the beginning that is actually the bad dude they are after that is trying to run everyone off so he can take the hidden gold money for himself, but during the chase the run thru a door, and come out thru the door acroos the hall, just to run back thru the same door again. Think of it as a continues loop, or if you are standing in front of door looking in a dark room, with the exact same door behind you. You then throw a ball into the door in front of you, and it hits you in back of the head. Either that, or I am in a drug induced Dr. Seuss nightmare. that has to be the most original metaphor known to man..
walsh155 Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 space is hypothesized that were are connected to a multitude of multiverses and that there is only life in our universe because it was hot enough to harneess life.Billions of years in the future the universe will become to cold to habour life it will be just to cold
druvitale Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Space does not necessarily have to be infinite. Space may wrap around on itself giving the perception of it being infinite. But for this to be possible we must live in 4 dimensions while we can only perceive 3. In order to help visualize this imagine you live in 1 dimension, a straight line. You can move forward and backwards. If this 1 dimension wraps around on itself you then have have a circle, 2 dimensions. As you move around the circle you only perceive to be moving only forward or backwards but you are also moving up and down. The same holds true for 2 dimensions. Its the same as living on this planet, even though you perceive to be only moving forwards/backwards or left/right, you are moving around a sphere so you are also moving up and down. So if space is actually wrapped around on itself we must live in 4 dimensions of space.
Hackenabush Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 (edited) Ever since I was a young boy, I have wrestled with trying to understand space. In particular, I have never really understood how space is supposed to never end. I really don't see how that's possible. Everything ends somewhere. Where one thing ends the next begins. Can people please provide thoughts on this? Even the most intelligent of us on the planet would give themselves a headache trying to work that one out. To me space seems endless, and cannot end. But because it's so vast, maybe somewhere there are identical worlds like ours, with intelligent beings. But although I'm not a churchgoer, I have to admit that there must be a power, (God) if you like, that made this possible. Scientists are now talking about bending space like a folded paper, so that the two ends meet, thereby shortening space travelling time. But I have trouble with this theory, because, if you were to try this by cupping your hands in a bath of water and pull the water up in each hand to meet, there's not a void left, because the rest of the water fills the emptiness right away. So why should space be different??? However,there are things I believe, that we are simply not meant to know. Hackenabush Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedspace is hypothesized that were are connected to a multitude of multiverses and that there is only life in our universe because it was hot enough to harneess life.Billions of years in the future the universe will become to cold to habour life it will be just to cold Your point is well taken, but it must have been cold before it got hot in the first place. How it heated up is the mystery, although planets colliding can generate heat. The thing is, there are so many universes with large stars in each of them, that the mind boggles with the awesome power of it all. God must have a mindblowing collection of batteries up there. But you can bet that in five or six hundred years the scientists will discover stuff that would probably send us all into the mad house if we were to know it now. Edited October 25, 2009 by Hackenabush
walsh155 Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 there is a theory that we are likely connected to loads of othere universes and even multiverses but our universe only contains life because that our universe was just cool enough to support life and in millions even billions and trillions of years time our universe will be to cold due to expansion or to the universe expanding and when it expands it will likely hit another universe and there will be a massive explosion like the big bang again and no life no matter what there adapted to all life will be gone.there is also othere reasons why just our universe has life it could be due to the right amount of dark matter or electromagnetnetic radiation or that when massive stars explode (supernovas) throw out carbon and that carbon entered the solar system when it was forming it was able to contain life because we are around 18% carbon based life and that is how there is life on earth and also that all life started in the ocean as cells this is due to the oxegen it the atmoshphere after volcanic eruptions millions of years ago and that how there is life in the solar system.
toastywombel Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 This might be my insanity creeping out, I haven't taken my pills for a few weeks. What if the universe isn't expanding or never has expanded?? Say it remained at its original pinpoint size but everything inside it shrunk. I mentioned a few posts back about magically putting a 12 inch ruler in a black hole and it becoming miniscule in size but if you jumped in beside the ruler it would still be 12 inches. Someone mentioned that gravity could possibly be a push effect instead of a pull effect, how would that fit in with my theory?? If every fundamental particle in the universe is shrinking in size as time passes then something must be applying a squashing force to them, could that be gravity?? I think we must remember the positivist approach. We will never know if a theory is accurate, only if it works. If everything is shrinking, it most likely would not be because of gravity, because gravity is much weaker than the other three forces. But even if everything is shrinking so it appears that the Universe is expanding it is a mute point. Mathematically, if we are shrinking it would be the same as if Universe is expanding. The theories behind the Universe expanding work with our current observations, that is why it is accepted. Whether it is all matter shrinking or the Universe expanding is impossible to answer. Ex) If you and I were in a void and you grew 10 times my size it would be the same as if I shrunk 10 times your size. There is no constant to compare to, so there is no way to tell the difference.
Recommended Posts