Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 76
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum TheoryPage 4 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
I may have found the flaw in your GUT (Grand Unified Truth):


sƃuıpuǝ ǝʌɹǝu ɥʇıʍ ʞɔɐɹʇ ǝʌıʇsǝƃıp ɐ uɐɥʇ ǝɹoɯ ƃuıɥʇou ǝɹɐ ǝM ˙ǝqnʇ ǝuo ɟo spuǝ oʍʇ ʎldɯıs ǝɹɐ snuɐ puɐ ɥʇnoɯ ǝɥ┴

Shouldn't "ʞɔɐɹʇ" be "ʇɔɐɹʇ"?
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 77
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/15/2012 2:02:45 PM
^^^^ahhaha LMFAO^^^^
 gedanken
Joined: 9/2/2009
Msg: 78
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/15/2012 5:59:13 PM
@MrGoodManUK

Soooo, if we take an atom of Helium with 1 proton, 1 neutron and 1 electron

First, you made a little error; this is not a Helium atom that you have described , but rather it is an isotope of Hydrogen, a Deuteron to be exact, also known as Heavy Hydrogen. The simplest atom in the universe is, of course, Protium: 1 proton and one electron. So, with a Protium atom, which also accounts for most of the observable mass of the universe, and has 2 positive particles (2 Up Quarks) and 2 negative particle (1 Down Quark and an electron); does this affect your theory?

As well, could you be a little bit more specific as to how much charge is missing from each particle. Is the same quantity (as opposed to ratio) of Coulomb charge missing from each particle. I assume that it was you mean, since you desire to create an imbalance in charge on an atom.

And finally, reference that imbalance,

...that all atoms would hold a slightly negative bias.
Electrons flows from negative to positive so this would make all atoms have a net attractive force.

...just clarify that when you say 'hold a slight negative bias" that you mean that all matter (the earth, a human, an atom of lead, etc) would have a slight positive charge (which is why they are attracting the electrons)?
Thanks in advance.
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/25/2012 3:39:54 PM
...still makes me sad that this subject if frequently dipped into and even argued over in other threads, yet this (kind) of thread is about to die.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 80
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/27/2012 10:16:47 PM

this (kind) of thread is about to die.

Not if I have anything to say about it it won't! I think all that's needed is a bit of a recap of what we know so far about our glorious universe. (of course it doesn't hurt to make it a bit entertaining too). So without further ado, here's a little something to (hopefully) garner a bit of interest and start the speculation going again.:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 81
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 8/27/2012 10:34:34 PM

...still makes me sad that this subject if frequently dipped into and even argued over in other threads, yet this (kind) of thread is about to die.


Maybe what this thread needs to get it going is a little God.

So with that in mind, remember to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoaktW-Lu38&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 9/1/2012 6:44:33 PM
Ok, if we're making fun of me (?), and posting outrageous vids...here's something which could produce hours of ridicule. Except, I have this scary funny feeling that some thread visitors would take it seriously.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAm-kbzT7xw&feature=related
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 83
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 9/1/2012 8:57:56 PM

Ok, if we're making fun of me (?), and posting outrageous vids...here's something which could produce hours of ridicule. Except, I have this scary funny feeling that some thread visitors would take it seriously.

I'm even more scared than you are, since you are probably right. Your vid certainly outdid any of the others!
For my own part, I was just trying to get the speculation going again by giving the thread a bump and posting a little something loaded with scientific facts that was also entertaining. I had no idea what would follow, or I would not have done it.

I'd like to hear some peoples' speculation regarding virtual particles. Are they created "as needed" by various fields like gravity, or do they just spring into being anywhere at random?
 MikeZt
Joined: 1/2/2011
Msg: 84
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 9/1/2012 9:28:00 PM
There is something in physics called the uncertainty principal. It basically states we cannot know a particle's exact energy and position at the same time, only one or the other. This prevents us from controlling matter at the sub-atomic level.
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 85
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 9/2/2012 7:09:20 AM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAm-kbzT7xw&feature=related

I watched this entire video and loved it. (Yes, I know it's all bullshit)
What I can't figure out is why the guy that made it is posting it free on youtube... A little more character development and a bit deeper plot line and that could be a 7-10 part blockbuster movie, ala Harry Potter or perhaps Starwars. I'd pay to see it.
 Jonathan.Hillebrand
Joined: 8/7/2011
Msg: 86
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 9/8/2012 8:30:46 PM
Statement: Particles only exist while under observation
What is the significance of this concept? If they exist in two different states but fallow rules in both of these states that run the same path, i.e. you look in a box and there is a flower then you close it and look again and it’s still a flower, what is there to gain from perceiving the same reality twice? What insight will we gain from gaining information on atoms in wave form?
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 9/8/2012 9:29:54 PM
I'm compelled to repeat my message 80. However...

I did laundry today. I put clothes into a washing machine, and turned it on. I left. 30 minutes later I returned.

I sometimes wonder if a clothes washing machine is going to break down and not really agitate the clothes but me not know because I didn't hang around to watch it. You can often tell, of course, by how the clothes smell and look, and if they're pressed up against the outside of the basin, which indicates that at least the last spin must've taken place.

Does a falling tree in a forest make a sound if no one is there to hear it? Does it really not exist if no one is there to see it?

Do my clothes get washed because I expect them to and make it happen with my mind? They're only in a washed state when I open the lid and look? There have been a few times when I discovered my clothes not washed because a machine was broken down and I didn't know, fully expecting them to be clean. And now and then I wonder if a machine is operating properly such that I'll find my clothes clean or not.

If no one is there to see the tree. To hear it. Hhmm. Does it have to be a human? What about a cricket, or a mockingbird? But then, wait a minute...everything happens within an ecosystem of cause-and-effect. Is our perception so special? Whether or not some energy is transduced in the act of perceiving, energy is always being transduced nonetheless. If a bit of energy doesn't go into our eyeballs, but instead is involved in a different exchange, other than being used by a creature's senses or mind, why would what happens be so different?
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 88
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 9/15/2012 12:15:50 PM

Firstly, this doesn't have to imply any kind of perpetuity or non entropy. When we discovered the universe was bigger than we thought at whatever point in history, or with more goings-on in how things operate, we just pushed back the arrival of entropy, and we just found more steps that things go through, making energy last longer as opposed to being of some perfect perpetual nature. Maybe there's just more to things, per this other realm. It'd still be a major 'gap', and who knows what's there. It could be huge, and complex.


What I find interesting is we are also finding out the universe may not be as big as we thought. It most likely isn't limitless. With the m-theory concepts of branes our universe would seem to be a like a bubble attached to a super structure of universes and like bubbles where they meet a breach can occur and one universes matter would inflate a new one 'relatively' instantly.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100322-dark-flow-matter-outside-universe-multiverse/

After using two additional years' worth of data and tracking twice the number of galaxy clusters, "we clearly see the flow, we clearly see it pointing in the same direction," said study leader Alexander Kashlinsky, an astrophysicist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.

"It looks like a very coherent flow."

The find adds to the case that chunks of matter got pushed outside the known universe shortly after the big bang—which in turn hints that our universe is part of something larger: a multiverse.


Where the guessing and speculating comes in is that the first assumption you have to make is that movement comes from pushing and not pulling so the movement can only be caused by one of two things. One is the original inflation event which should say that the direction in reverse would be the origin of the inflation or the opposite and that a breach has occurred and matter is moving from our universe into another attempting to equalize some form of 'pressure' at the point of breach.

Would have to wonder what happens to matter as it passes through... is it broken down into the base components and rapidly distributed where dark energy organizes it into clumps and the clumps gain in size and density until galaxies are born? If relativity and mass and time all interrelate as expected then the breach would appear very dense and time would appear to slow down as matter enters yet possibly that same time period is instantaneous on the other side as the new universe inflates with all the building blocks of nature that we have.

I don't think higher dimensions or folding of space and time are required. However their would have to be a requirement of a limit to the size of our universe. It is just really really really big from our perspective.
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 9/15/2012 9:16:38 PM
107:

I just wish I personally knew more of the data that they go on to produce such hypothesis, because I would have much to say on these matters one way or the other, and otherwise many of the notions you mentioned...how they're interpreting what's seemingly sketchy data...just still seems a little hokey to me.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 90
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 9/15/2012 9:46:33 PM


I just wish I personally knew more of the data that they go on to produce such hypothesis, because I would have much to say on these matters one way or the other, and otherwise many of the notions you mentioned...how they're interpreting what's seemingly sketchy data...just still seems a little hokey to me.


It's okay that it does sound hokey. It was speculating and I made it up. Based on:

really cool intro to string theory and talks about the branes and how they connect as a super strong and super small dense points along filaments. Only the first one is necessary for the concepts.
http://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/string-theory-and-m-theory/id414063531

Inflation:
The universe 14 billion light years from the sun. Evenly distributed. No obvious big band directional flow. Supports super rapid inflation theory due to the even distribution of matter.
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/universe.html

Inflation big bang:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation or just inflation is the theorized extremely rapid exponential expansion of the early universe by a factor of at least 1078 in volume, driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density.[1] The inflationary epoch comprises the first part of the electroweak epoch following the grand unification epoch. It lasted from 10-36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10-33 and 10-32 seconds.


Dark flow towards a large gravitational force
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/05/dark-flow-tugs-from-beyond-the-observable-universe/

Astonishingly, a newly identified phenomenon called dark flow could slash through cosmic uniformity, casting the Copernican Principle into doubt. Dark flow represents the movement of hundreds of galaxy clusters at about two million miles per hour in the direction of a patch of sky between the constellations Centaurus and Vela.


What they didn't account for in the above quote is that Einstein showed that gravity does not pull. It pushes. We remain on the ground because space is pushing us down and not that the earth is pulling us down.
**could use a better source but this is getting long.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_gravity_push_or_pull

According to Einstein's theory of General Relativity, gravity is a push. The space around an object is malleable and is warped by that object. So in Earth's case the Space is pushing us back down to earth.


So, because gravity pushes then it would require space around dark flow to be pushing in the direction and towards a point. That would have occurred in the big bang (inflation) itself however it was too fast and the matter to distributed. That is why there isn't an obvious path in the 'map of the universe'. So, to account for the 'dark flow' that's why I think it doesn't make sense that a super large gravitational 'pull' is occurring from something outside the universe but rather a pin prick and exchange like a bubble. That way energy is flowing through the breach and 'pushing' matter with it.


Super Structures:
The largest structures in the universe actually match as a version of the brane structure outside of the universe as they are described as 'filaments'
http://www.universetoday.com/399/the-largest-structure-in-the-universe/

Astronomers have used the Subaru and Keck telescopes to discover gigantic filaments of galaxies stretching across 200 million light-years in space. These filaments, formed just 2 billion years after the Big Bang, are the largest structures ever discovered in the Universe. The filaments contain at least 30 huge concentrations of gas, each of which contains 10x the mass of the Milky Way.


Feel free to poke holes in this. I really am speculating and have zero math ability to even come close to anything representing anything more than a philosophical thought experiment.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 91
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 9/15/2012 9:59:35 PM

What they didn't account for in the above quote is that Einstein showed that gravity does not pull. It pushes. We remain on the ground because space is pushing us down and now that the earth is pulling us down.
**could use a better source but this is getting long.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_gravity_push_or_pull


Dude, your reference concludes that there is no difference other than semantics. It is both a push and pull.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 92
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 9/15/2012 10:10:38 PM

Dude, your reference concludes that there is no difference other than semantics. It is both a push and pull.

**could use a better source but this is getting long.

damn... I tried to say that the reference sucked. Hell, go find a copy of Einsteins special relativity and interpret it how it pleases you :)
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 9/15/2012 10:34:08 PM
109:

I don't feel compelled to poke any holes in your speculating just for the sake of poking holes...your comments are very much on topic and down my alley of thinking on these subjects...and your speculations and philosophical thought experiments are just what I was wanting for this thread.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 94
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 9/15/2012 11:05:54 PM

Hell, go find a copy of Einsteins special relativity and interpret it how it pleases you :)


Hell no, I have little math ability as well. I was just interested in the push/pull thing so wanted to find out more.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 95
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 9/15/2012 11:40:54 PM
:)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/relativity-and-the-cosmos.html

It's all kinds of non intuitive until you think about it. Basically the picture of newtons gravity of pulling is that the spinning body of mass creates a gravitational force which pull objects towards it. Einstein threw in the mind bending concept that the mass of the object warped time and space around it which in effect causes space to be the force pushing down. It sounds crazy to consider bending space and time but kind of explains why we have never been able to create an 'anti gravity' device nor detect it's origins. To counteract gravity you would technically have to reverse the mass of the earths warping of space and time. Good luck with that :)

As for the speculation that there is an external super massive force pulling matter within out galaxy towards it then that would basically mean we would have to be orbiting that object in some way and free floating and in that case it would have to occur across all of matter pretty evenly as the object would seem to be required to be much larger then us in order to cause any motion. It just gets kind of sloppy. The only way for some matter to move and not others just doesn't work. If we were orbiting a super crazy large object there would be no 'flow'. It wouldn't be detectable unless it was a long cycle wave like the oceans and the moon.

So, pushing makes more sense to me. Also, because it isn't 'universal' that would indicate a point. The only way for a point to cause a movement is much like a leak. We can not really tell the direction of the leak actually so its just assuming that the leak is outward.

Whats a bit screwed up about this is that there are other things that would also necessarily follow:
1 - It happened before and is a cycle that is repeating
2 - all matter that exists that formed and created our existence originated from another universe where it would have to have been just as likely for matter to operate on the same rules as ours therefore life most likely existed/exists in other universes
3 - the universe will inevitably burst and transfer its matter to repeat the cycle.

Not very 'special' nor magical is it.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 96
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 9/18/2012 7:47:06 AM
So this is it? No ideas? Empty?

I was hoping for something... Other ideas would be kewl...

Anyway, I had an error in what I wrote above... I said that the only way for some matter to move and not others would be if we were to move and not others were if we were orbiting something... then a refrence to the tides. Technically we wouldn't have to be orbiting something but something could be in orbit with us much like the moon. Which is where I got the 'like the tides' thing from.

Then I was wondering about the difficulty explain the gravity push vs the gravity pull thing and the moon.

http://suite101.com/article/how-the-moons-gravity-causes-tides-and-tidal-forces-a364542

The Moon causes ocean tides on Earth. Specifically the difference in the Moon's gravitational force acting on different locations on Earth causes tides.

The gravitational force between two objects depends on the distance between the objects. Earth is large enough that the location on Earth closest to the Moon is significantly closer than the location on Earth furthest from the Moon. Hence the lunar gravitational force is strongest on parts of Earth directly underneath the Moon


So, technically (and a huge difference) is that the mass of the moon creates its own bend in space/time which counteracts earths bend in space/time making space push down on us just a tad less.

I couldn't find a single reference using Einsteins version of gravity explaining the moon other than the moon is stuck in the earths space/time dimple.

Apparently Einstein was proven right again recently
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/07/scientists-prove-einstein-right

According to Einstein, an apple falls to the ground not because it feels the force of Earth's gravity but because the apple is responding to the curvature of space-time near the Earth's surface caused by the planet's huge mass. In the same way, the Sun bends space in a manner that allows Earth to revolve around it.


Found this:
http://universe-review.ca/F03-supercluster.htm

By analyzing the absorption lines of magnesium and iron atoms from quasars more than ten billion years away, astronomers in 2010 found that the fine structure constant is smaller (by 1/106) on one side of the universe and bigger on the other side with an axis close to the direction of the Darkflow. It is also aligned with a dipole in the abundance of deuterium in the early universe, and another dipole for the intensity of light emitted by supernovae. It is estimated that the chance of being a genuine effect is about 99.9937%, but a scientific discovery traditionally has to be at 99.99937%. If such effect is real, then special relativity has to be revised, and life may not be possible in some parts or epochs of the universe. It also implies that there may be more dimensions as predicted by the superstring theory.


Because this does seem to be a gravitational effect more than a simple motion effect that would go more on the side of a large object with its own space/time dimple interfering with ours and having a tide like effect.

Bothers me that it is to a point rather then a hemisphere.... Maybe in a few million years we would observe the point change positions indicating orbit.

When is someone going to update all the language with gravity to reflect Einsteins description :)
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 97
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 10/5/2012 12:40:55 AM

Kind of similar with what I was trying to explain on this thread, post 107
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/15419393datingPostpage5.aspx


The following quotes were taken from the "Making 'god' unfalsifiable.." thread (I didn't want to highjack that thread).


How about this Cress. Drop the infinite amount of the special blackholes. There only needs to be one.



Our universe was already created. The whole inflation thing... Already happened. The one required hole was that first hole to create the universe. It's continued existance is not required and likely can't continue unless an stability between universes was reached.


If all physically observable singularities (the one at the beginning of our universe and all black holes) are universes, then there are two ways we can gather information about what a singularity/universe is: we can observe the way our universe functions (this would be the inside of a singularity) and the way our universe interacts with independent observable singularities within it (i.e. black holes/the outside of a singularity).

First I have some questions and comments for you.


How about this Cress. Drop the infinite amount of the special blackholes.
 

I do not think that there are an infinite amount of anything, since infinity cannot be reduced to a manageable quantity. However, how do you propose to reduce all black holes to a single black hole?


Our universe was already created. The whole inflation thing... Already happened.


Already created? It had to happen somewhere at some point.


The one required hole was that first hole to create the universe.


Yes "to create..." our "...universe", but what about all the other observable universes just in our universe alone, not to mention the other universes in our parent universe or it's parent or its siblings, ad infinitum. This cannot be reduced to a manageable figure.


It's continued existance is not required and likely can't continue unless an stability between universes was reached.


By observing "black holes/singularities/universes" (if indeed that is what they are) existing independently within our own universe we can see that a stability between universes is reached.

I'm sorry Aries, for the last three hours I have been battling a freight train of a head ache (I've thrown everything I have at it and it still keeps going). I had intended to elaborate further, but I am afraid that at the moment thinking has become rather difficult. the above will hopefully be enough to get us both on the same track as I am still not understanding entirely where you are coming from. Also I have not read all of your posts in this thread in their entirety, yet. I will do this tomorrow, and either continue elaborating or respond to anything new you have written, then.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 98
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 10/5/2012 8:34:29 AM

f all physically observable singularities (the one at the beginning of our universe and all black holes) are universes, then there are two ways we can gather information about what a singularity/universe is: we can observe the way our universe functions (this would be the inside of a singularity) and the way our universe interacts with independent observable singularities within it (i.e. black holes/the outside of a singularity)


Just because they call them black holes and singularites does not mean they are origins or holes. They are not vacuums either.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/black_holes.html


Black holes are the evolutionary endpoints of stars at least 10 to 15 times as massive as the Sun. If a star that massive or larger undergoes a supernova explosion, it may leave behind a fairly massive burned-out stellar remnant. With no outward forces to oppose gravitational forces, the remnant will collapse in on itself. The star eventually collapses to the point of zero volume and infinite density, creating what is known as a "singularity." Around the singularity is a region where the force of gravity is so strong that not even light can escape. Thus, no information can reach us from this region. It is therefore called a black hole, and its surface is called the "event horizon."
But contrary to popular myth, a black hole is not a cosmic vacuum cleaner.


What I am saying is that where a breach in the universe occurs between universes it is NOT a black hole but may appear to be one and it will never be in the middle. It can only be at the literal walls of the universe which must exist for the universe to be finite in size and which must exist if there are multiverses. The real hole would have negative mass on the opposing side of the whole and positive mass on our side and to balance out the difference matter from our universe would necessarily have to suck through the hole and be ejected into the new universe. The hole must be relatively small or else we would all be going for a ride. As our space moves into the hole it pushes matter with it which causes pressure and density and would make this even appear like a black hole. The difference would be that it is a hole. There is an entrance and an exit. There can not be billions of them scattered throughout our universe because that makes no sense. Collapsed stars would not magically transform into tunnels. You can not cause a hole on the inside middle of a balloon. If you want to look at the infinite possibilities throughout the mulitiverses in order to create an infinite amount of universes that is an entirely different endpoint. I'm saying that for any one universe there would only need to be one which would not need to exist forever and a new one would not need to be formed in the future. In fact there could eventually only be a single universe remaining and no more material remaining to create another. There could be an end to the universes. The last one needs to pop. Although that isn't referring to the super universe containing the universes which must exist in a multiverse. Then things start getting silly again. So multiple dimensions are made up to try to account for this.

So, you can keep the infinity if it is required for math but math models are just models. Only one would be required and they are not black holes as black holes that everyone knows about are collapsed stars and not magical tunnels to never never land.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 99
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 10/6/2012 8:05:16 AM
Ahh, very good. Now I am beginning to understand where you are coming from.


Just because they call them black holes and singularites does not mean they are origins or holes. They are not vacuums either.


Your reading the idea all wrong.

Wiki:


Black-hole cosmology

A black-hole cosmology (also called Schwarzschild cosmology or black-hole cosmological model) is a cosmological model in which the observable universe is the interior of a black hole. Such models were originally proposed by theoretical physicist Raj Pathria,[1] and concurrently by mathematician I. J. Good.[2]

Any such model requires that the Hubble radius of the observable universe is equal to its Schwarzschild radius, that is, the product of its mass and the Schwarzschild proportionality constant. This is indeed known to be nearly the case; however, most cosmologists consider this close match a coincidence.[3]

In the version as originally proposed by Pathria and Good, and studied more recently by, among others, Nikodem Poplawski, [4] the observable universe is the interior of a black hole existing as one of possibly many inside a larger universe, or multiverse.

According to general relativity, the gravitational collapse of a sufficiently compact mass forms a singular Schwarzschild black hole. In the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory of gravity, however, it forms a regular Einstein-Rosen bridge, or wormhole. Schwarzschild wormholes and Schwarzschild black holes are different, mathematical solutions of general relativity and the Einstein–Cartan theory. Yet for distant observers, the exteriors of both solutions with the same mass are indistinguishable. The Einstein–Cartan theory extends general relativity by removing a constraint of the symmetry of the affine connection and regarding its antisymmetric part, the torsion tensor, as a dynamical variable. Torsion naturally accounts for the quantum-mechanical, intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of matter. The minimal coupling between torsion and Dirac spinors generates a repulsive spin-spin interaction which is significant in fermionic matter at extremely high densities. Such an interaction prevents the formation of a gravitational singularity. Instead, the collapsing matter reaches an enormous but finite density and rebounds, forming the other side of an Einstein-Rosen bridge, which grows as a new universe.[5] Accordingly, the Big Bang was a nonsingular Big Bounce at which the universe had a finite, minimum scale factor.[6]


What I am saying is that there is no three dimensional, and therefore observable (either telescopically of microscopically) edge of the universe. There is a two dimensional edge of the universe but it isn't exactly an edge per-say and it exist in all places in the universe.

To understand this it helps to think of the universe as a two dimensional sheet with no beginning and no end. regardless of having no beginning or end this sheet is finite, however. The best way to understand this, is to imagine tying a knot into a two dimensional set of strings (not related to string theory). I am not going to tell you how to tie one of these knots (quantum gravity is mine and if anyone wants it I'll take a professorship at the university of my choosing thank you).

All physically observable singularities (as to differentiate from purely mathematical singularities) tie these knots and create universes. Once one of these knots is tied and a  new universe created, using the material that was initially deposited into the singularity, we get the appearance of dark flow to this material within this new universe (that is to say, three dimensionally all the material seems to be aimlessly wandering in a single direction which has nothing to do with moving or being drawn toward any specific point within said universe, it is simply flowing a two dimensional path, to which there is no end or beginning). As a side, tying one of these knots is also what gives us time independent between universes, and this has something to do with the material deposited into the singularity and the knot itself which I do not yet fully understand.

Some problems with this idea:

This gives rise to an infinite multiverse of singularity universes which cannot be reduced to a manageable quantity, which does nothing to help us explain "why things  exist" it just pushes "why" beyond the boundaries of our own universe, which may indeed be the case; however, I think that this is unlikely. (although, my model does predict an next to all reality,that is to say, a place beyond all universes, which can be reached from within all universes, by achieving what I have labeled a "mono-directional singularity" - braking the light speed barrier - which would ultimately allow the study of "why" to continue and potentially, ultimately, hopefully, come to a conclusion.

This model indeed gives us quantum gravity (without a doubt). Most likely, however, my miss interpretations of the model lay with understanding the relationship between the material deposited into a singularity and dimensionally creating a universe (i.e. tying the knot) thus resulting in the creation of time (however, it may be that time is not created in this event, only closed off, which brings us back to mono-directional singularities, and the continued pursuit of "why" outside of all universes.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 100
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 10/6/2012 9:15:00 AM
Oops {edit^^^

Second to last paragraph should read as follows:

(although, my model does predict an >>>exit<<< to all reality...
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory