29 Oct 08
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAn electron is a pointlike particle but also a wave with a size.
I'm not sure how far you've delved into quantum theory, but the notion of a "point" in space to denote the "end" of some object becomes blurred; it doesn't make much of a difference for, say, the Earth, but for singular objects like an electron or possibly, the singular universe before the Big Bang, it makes a large difference. You can't really define a on in the case of the universe, because the huge mass significantly curves spacetime.
If we consider the seed of universe, the 'thing' that became universe as we know it today, as a pointlike particle, then it also is a wave.
If this seed, the mass-and-energy particle, sometimes called the singularity particle, is seen as wave then it also have a size.
At this moment the diameter of the universe is considered being very small, sometimes called a singularity, then the mass-and-energy particle as a wave must have a size being larger than the universe.
Sounds as a paradox to me...
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe key point is that the "size" of waves doesn't necessarily "stop" at a certain point, rather the amplitude of the wave falls off exponentially.
An electron is a pointlike particle but also a wave with a size.
If we consider the seed of universe, the 'thing' that became universe as we know it today, as a pointlike particle, then it also is a wave.
If this seed, the mass-and-energy particle, sometimes called the singularity particle, is seen as wave then it also have a size.
At this moment ...[text shortened]... cle as a wave must have a size being larger than the universe.
Sounds as a paradox to me...
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraA pointlike particle, with a mass (and energy) as the universe itself... It's size of influence must be huge...?
The key point is that the "size" of waves doesn't necessarily "stop" at a certain point, rather the amplitude of the wave falls off exponentially.
(But you're right, I don't know much of quantum theory, I'm an amateur in this field.)
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasDue to relativity (influences cannot travel faster than the speed of light), "size of influence" also depends on the timeframe you're considering.
A pointlike particle, with a mass (and energy) as the universe itself... It's size of influence must be huge...?
(But you're right, I don't know much of quantum theory, I'm an amateur in this field.)
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasI knew a magnetics researcher who was outstanding in his field.
A pointlike particle, with a mass (and energy) as the universe itself... It's size of influence must be huge...?
(But you're right, I don't know much of quantum theory, I'm an amateur in this field.)
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasI tend to agree. Do you believe that there may have been a series of "Big Bangs", each one signaling the end/beginning of a universe? As you can see, I've been watching the Science Channel too much. 🙂
I don't believe in a singularity state of the universe. If a singularity point is infinitly small with an infinit density of matter and/or energy, then I think it is a simplification. In a singularity like this, the unification of quantum theory and relativity is impossible.
Lately, more and more articles in scientific magazines are speculating of a 'P ...[text shortened]... nderstanding of time and space before we can begin to understand a larger universe than ours.
Also, I met a fellow at the Socrates Cafe last week--knowledgeable fellow, he was. Fully accepting of the Big Bang theory, of evolution, etc. But he categorically denied Quantum Physics, saying he "did not believe" at all in quantum mechanics. Now, is Quantum Theory a proven thing? Or, in the words of GW Bush, is "the jury still out" on that one?
29 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydDefine "proven thing".
I tend to agree. Do you believe that there may have been a series of "Big Bangs", each one signaling the end/beginning of a universe? As you can see, I've been watching the Science Channel too much. 🙂
Also, I met a fellow at the Socrates Cafe last week--knowledgeable fellow, he was. Fully accepting of the Big Bang theory, of evolution, etc. But he Theory a proven thing? Or, in the words of GW Bush, is "the jury still out" on that one?
Also, why didn't he believe in quantum physics?
29 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydI don't believe in (true) singularities in neither BigBang nor black holes. I think these are simplifications in mathematics only, not in real world.
I tend to agree. Do you believe that there may have been a series of "Big Bangs", each one signaling the end/beginning of a universe? As you can see, I've been watching the Science Channel too much. 🙂
Also, I met a fellow at the Socrates Cafe last week--knowledgeable fellow, he was. Fully accepting of the Big Bang theory, of evolution, etc. But he Theory a proven thing? Or, in the words of GW Bush, is "the jury still out" on that one?
If I believe a series of BigBangs? It's a tough question.
The BigBang theory only deals with our universe where t > 0, not when t = 0 nor t < 0. So a pre-bangian or inter-bangian universe is out of reach by the BigBang theory. So I have to speculate freely.
I don't think our universe is a one-time-only universe. It's ours, but not the only. Perhaps there are many, perhaps even infinitely many universes in the same 'time' in a supraverse. When our universe is over and done with, then it's definitely over, without a trace. But there are others.
When we talk about our universe we use properties of 'time' and 'space'. There are simply no words for 'time' and 'space' in a supraverse. We have three macro-spatial dimensions and one macro-tempral dimension in our universe. How many are there in the supraverse? Does 'before' and 'after' have any meaning in this supraverse? Does meter and lightyears have any meaning there? Are there more classes of dimension than only the spatial and temproal ones? I see our universe and its laws only as a special case of the supraverse.
Enough with speculations. Perhaps I change them tomorrow. I'm not sure about anything about before and after our universe.
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraproven = reproducable in a laboratory, getting the same results, etc.--right?
Define "proven thing".
Also, why didn't he believe in quantum physics?
I gathered that he did not agree with certain quantum principals like "there are sub-atomic entities" (quarks, muons, etc.). He also didn't not believe that a photon acts the way the quantum physics guy claimed (moves through solid matter was one claim). They debated a bit and the physics dude called him "Newtonian", but said he was in good company. Needless to say, most of the rest of the table were only observers to the conversation...
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasSorry you don't like to speculate. I found your thoughts very interesting.
I don't believe in (true) singularities in neither BigBang nor black holes. I think these are simplifications in mathematics only, not in real world.
If I believe a series of BigBangs? It's a tough question.
The BigBang theory only deals with our universe where t > 0, not when t = 0 nor t < 0. So a pre-bangian or inter-bangian universe is out of reach ...[text shortened]... m tomorrow. I'm not sure about anything about before and after our universe.
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydWell, it's important to realize you can't actually "prove" anything in an absolute sense (other than trivial facts), but quantum physics does indeed produce very accurate predictions. For example, the empirical measurement of the fine-structure constant has a relative error of 10^-11 compared to the value computed from theory.
proven = reproducable in a laboratory, getting the same results, etc.--right?
I gathered that he did not agree with certain quantum principals like "there are sub-atomic entities" (quarks, muons, etc.). He also didn't not believe that a photon acts the way the quantum physics guy claimed (moves through solid matter was one claim). They debated a bit a ...[text shortened]... Needless to say, most of the rest of the table were only observers to the conversation...
On a side note, photons can in fact go through solid (and opaque) matter. This is easy to verify experimentally, which has been done.
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydI remember the time when I knew 'everything' about the Universe, how it all started, what was before and what will happen with it. Now I know more and therefore I am more unsure of everything.
Sorry you don't like to speculate. I found your thoughts very interesting.
I'm afraid of saying 'this' and 'that' because I cannot stand for it. Speculations tend to change over night. By writing it down in a Forum like this feels like my speculations are carved in stone. I rather read other's speculations for a while.
30 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasRemember I sent an email to Martin Bujowold, the guy who wrote the article in Scientific American about the 'space atoms' where the universe did not begin from an infinitely dense spot? the Bouncing Universe piece. So he answered, I did some quick math and came up with 4600 space atoms that held all the mass in the universe but he said I did something wrong, it comes out to 10E56 space atoms. And he said calculations are ongoing about black holes, he said he thinks the density levels according to that theory is the same as the density in the BB. Pretty intriguing implications if true, supporting the mother/daughter universe idea, where a vastly larger universe spawned our universe which came from a black hole on that side to a white hole on our side, percieved as the big bang, and further, that black holes in our universe are spawning daughter universes as we speak. So if his # of 10E56 space atoms holding all the mass of the universe, then it occupies a volume of ~10E18 plank units on a side, or a sphere, however it would arrange itself.
I remember the time when I knew 'everything' about the Universe, how it all started, what was before and what will happen with it. Now I know more and therefore I am more unsure of everything.
I'm afraid of saying 'this' and 'that' because I cannot stand for it. Speculations tend to change over night. By writing it down in a Forum like this feels like my speculations are carved in stone. I rather read other's speculations for a while.
If that theory is true, it brings to mind the question of how we percieve mass, we would only be a little pinch on the butt of the big universe that spawned us, only a miniscule amount of mass from that universe destined to become ours, but the black holes that form from our universe that would spawn a new one would be only a miniscule amount of mass compared to our universe, so how long could that keep up, making a new universe with as many galaxies as there are in OUR universe, is there a different kind of mass in each level where each universe percieves itself as having something like the same mass as the parent? This is a strange situation.