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
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum TheoryPage 1 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
I thought it would be fun to hear everyone's personal speculations, and follow-up discussions, concerning what lies just immediately beyond our current knowledge and theories in these areas.

And of course, I'd like any suppositions to be presented and discussed with some objectivity and scientific integrity. Moreover, I'm hoping that we don't become dependent on the presence of a religious or anti-science advocate to keep this thread alive, and that we even get participation from those who are genuinely curious.

I'm basically interested in beginning with the following related topics, and some of my opinions...

Concerning matter (as opposed to but not excluding energy), everything is made of the different elements. The different kinds of atoms. An element is according to what atom it is. An atom is made of subatomic particles. Protons, neutrons, and electrons. They are defined by different configurations of these subatomic particles. These particles are in turn made of quarks. It's a proton, neutron, or electron depending on the configuration of quarks. All the different elements/atoms, except one kind, were/are manufactured within stars. That one element is, was, hydrogen. The first stars were nothing but. And at that time there were no other elements, until stars began making them through nuclear fusion. I think that the best way to think about this is that hydrogen is just the default configuration that subatomic particles come together as, before and without anything affecting things otherwise. But so, what might be beyond this, beyond quarks, and "where" might it all "come from"?

There may have been a single initial Big Bang, but it's interesting to me to suspect that the physics which describe the big bang are describing something that happens regularly and plays a more common and present role in how everything happens -

Apply heat, and water boils. But put cold water into space, and it boils. And water at the bottom of the ocean which is hotter than our boiling point doesn't boil because of the pressure...Whatever happens here or there depends on what forces or properties predominate over others. What conditions. Might it be that when and where conditions are right in a given region of space, when it's more truly a vacuum, so lacking of any matter or any kind of energy, forces, or energy transduction of any kind, that matter is allowed to 'fizzle' into existence? Eventually becoming quarks, which then form subatomic particles, then bits of thin hydrogen gas, and then so on. And it's conceivable to me that such a thing could happen without us being able to observe it as such. Not only does it all begin at such a microscopic scale, but also necessarily extremely distant. We'd just point a telescope somewhere and maybe see that there's some hydrogen gas, if we could even be so accurate anyway concerning whether or not a particular locale was empty last year. And development via gravity and then stars would of course take place over very large time scales.

And might it be that some of the ideas about other dimensions which are compressed or folded are misinterpretations as such? Moreover, one can't help but think about the mysteries of attractive gravity versus repulsive, dark energy, dark matter, and the acceleration of the expansion when considering this.

And so I'd wonder from here...is this where black holes are putting everything? For it to re-manifest itself in the aforementioned way when and where conditions are right? Or, on a side note, is it the case with black holes that, with their extreme forces, they are destroying and then resetting a fundamental 'phase' or frequency on which our existence is built such that the matter is then spewed back out but at a different new phase so that it could be a whole different universe, but imperceptible by us because it's founded on this different frequency?

But...if there's another realm from which matter fizzles out in this way, whether or not black holes play whatever role, not necessarily "separate" but simply imperceivable by us, I can see a problem with this presented against it...It implies a perpetual motion or non-entropy to the universe. I suggest the following possibilities, which might also end up revealing a falacy in thinking...

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.

Secondly, how do we know that there's not a perpetual/nonentropy to the larger reality? At different points in history, when we looked at things in smaller ways, we saw that something worked in a certain way, and extended this to think that it was like that further up...but found out that wasn't the case: Maybe we're even smaller than we think, and at some larger reality level a different rule applies. As a side example, in our experience matter and energy can't be created or destroyed...but that might not be the end of the story. It might not end there. Maybe whether or not matter and energy can be created or destroyed becomes an obsolete notion at some point.

So anyway, to wrap up, after giving some context and fuel for speculating on this...is there some other 'realm' from which matter boils out, that isn't just a matter of higher dimensions being folded up? And, what of the nature of this realm? Or, is it that the lack of any existence of space, time, matter, and energy some kind of vacuum which would pull something into being literally from nothing?
 Bezoa
Joined: 7/2/2012
Msg: 2
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 1:31:33 AM
I always thought, that at the other end of a black hole, there would need to be a light explosion sort of thing. Kind of like a star or sumtin else; dunno.

Then, all this talk about quarts and stuff, makes me wishful of seeing the rise of like ubber smaller than nano technology. I mean, if we had power to control matter at such small levels, and knowledge that comes with it, it could eliminate all current diseases maybe. Definitely make for some powerful technology irregardless.

I really didn't understand much of your post, lol. Enjoyed it nonetheless
 scifichicky
Joined: 2/12/2012
Msg: 3
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 1:32:11 AM
Alright, well not to delve into religion... But here is where I feel that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I do not subscribe into a singular big bang, instead multiple. My thoughts are that it has all happened before, many times. Think respiration. Our views and lifespans are as fleas on a dog's back. What we see as God is just the universe breathing, the elements that make everything up the ingredients of a recipe and likewise just as some blend well others don't like oil and water... Matter and anti-matter. The different views of folds into alternate regions the same as a perspective of a flea jumping and seeing another dog.
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 2:00:27 AM
Scifichicky:

...but how do you mean, with this post, that science and religion are not mutually exclusive??
 scifichicky
Joined: 2/12/2012
Msg: 5
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 2:08:00 AM
Symbiotic relationship as it were. You could not have the science without some creator, nor could the creator create without science.
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 10:44:45 AM
Saying that just seems odd -

It's like saying that there cannot be a rock on the beach unless someone somewhere has a rock hammer, or vice versa. They just don't relate to each other that way.

And, whether or not there's a creator has nothing to do with religion. That's not what religion is about. Also, I'm kinda sure that if there's a creator of a godlike sort, that he/she could create without science. Science is the act of man thinking about things. A godlike creator wouldn't need that.

And it certainly isn't a symnbiotic relationship. Science would do much, much better without the other. It's more like a destructive parasitic relationship.

This just sounds like yet another cool-sounding but meaningless cliche' which does nothing but perpetuate a misperception of the whole science and religion situation.

But anyway...others might feel like we should confine our conversation to the thread subject at hand. If you can show some sensible relevence, and speak with sense, please contribute what you may.
 scifichicky
Joined: 2/12/2012
Msg: 7
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 10:55:40 AM
You asked, I answered in my own opinion. No reason to be insulting or have an unjustified superiority complex. Just because you don't understand me does not mean I am wrong or unintelligent, just different.
 etcyl
Joined: 6/13/2012
Msg: 8
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 11:23:31 AM
Hi!

I'm a college astrophysics student. I also have a penchant for computer science. Cosmology is one of my favorite topics. Your ideas are interesting, but I would warn you about a few things about what you are saying.

A lot of your speculation as been proven more or less by astrophysicists, namely concerning the nature of black holes, quarks, stars, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (Energy cannot be created nor destroyed; it is always conserved somehow). These are probably some of the most exotic properties of the universe for sure.

That all said, a lot of this is still speculation for even theoretical physics. We just simply don't have the technology to study everything. CERN and Hadron colliders alike are an excellent start, though. Interesting to watch a species try to mathematically unfold some of nature's best kept secrets, huh? :)

So, first off:

"Might it be that when and where conditions are right in a given region of space, when it's more truly a vacuum, so lacking of any matter or any kind of energy, forces, or energy transduction of any kind, that matter is allowed to 'fizzle' into existence? "

No. Everything in this universe came from an initial "bang" of some kind. This is a really, really bad and poor idea to describe the event known as "The Big Bang", but it's really the best first step we have now. There is a much, much greater, fuller, and richer picture to the answer to where the universe actually came from. As far as we know, initially there was enough anti-matter to cancel out all matter, save a tiny silver that in turn created everything in this universe, including you, me, our computers, dogs, cats, the Milky Way Galaxy, etc. The ONLY instance where matter "fizzles" into existence is your not-so-empty vacuum of space. Vacuum space is actually theorized to be a sea of virtual particles. I don't really know what that means, because I haven't taken any quantum classes yet. But when I do, you'll be the first to know! ;)

"Empty" space is something completely different. As usual! Imagine not even knowing basic atomic theory. It's impressive we've learned this much.

Second off:

"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."

When we discovered this universe was bigger...that was back in the 1920's. There were debated between leading astronomers such as Harlow Shapely. He was extraordinarily bright, and insisted to his colleagues that the evidence for the universe was such that there are "tiny floating islands" all over the place. These of course are galaxies. Originally, we thought it was just our own Milky Way. Not so.

Now, entropy was already an idea posited by thermodynamicists BEFORE this. Physicists were already showing that there was a cooling rate to everything, for instance, our earth. The idea only changed as we incorporated the rest of the universe to it. And it was still relatively a constant. As a whole, the universe is evolving due to entropy, in our standard model. This results in the Arrow of Time, as well. It is far more likely for everything to become more chaotic over time, and far less likely for things to become more ordered. So in general, the universe is becoming less ordered over time.

Think of like at the beach: it's very easy to kick the sand around, right? The wind does a fantastic job at that. To make something ordered like a sand castle, though, requires precise arrangements.

Same goes for black holes. It didn't seem like you were aware of that:

"And so I'd wonder from here...is this where black holes are putting everything? For it to re-manifest itself in the aforementioned way when and where conditions are right? Or, on a side note, is it the case with black holes that, with their extreme forces, they are destroying and then resetting a fundamental 'phase' or frequency on which our existence is built such that the matter is then spewed back out but at a different new phase so that it could be a whole different universe, but imperceptible by us because it's founded on this different frequency?"

No. Definitely no. Your idea is interesting for sure, but you should read up on contemporary astrophysics in this area. Black holes MOST LIKELY evaporate over time. I haven't seen this proven, but from my knowledge Hawking Radiation helped this idea significantly, among others.

So, over time -- 10 to the 100; that's a TEN with ONE-HUNDRED zeroes following it -- black holes eventually evaporate. Entropy.

Eventually there will be a time when the last star goes out. Black holes will remain. They will dissolve. And then we have no model to describe this behavior. This is our other dead end; just like with the Big Bang. It's really more of a Big Butt in cosmology, because it doesn't give us an answer or idea to what was happening prior to this.

ALSO: Black Holes will NOT eat anything up if the matter is not within the radius that which light cannot escape. Anything outside of this Schwarzchild Radius is fine. That's why we can have millions and millions of these Black Holes in our own galaxy without us even noticing them without modern technology.

Also also: we still have no real definition for a singularity. It's a mathematical concept, sure. It doesn't imply anything about what we know concerning the form of matter. It's almost a joke because of that...but hey, at least we have something to work from! I think it's fascinating that everything in this universe has a regular form of energy or matter -- neutron degeneracy, electron degeneracy, solids, fluids, plasma -- but then there is this singularity that we cannot place a regular atomic arrangement for. Very curious.

Until I learn advanced calculus and more quantum theory, my best hunch is that entropy, time, quantum mechanics and / or the conservation of energy / mass will somehow be related in our next fundamental breakthrough. Then again, one of the next biggest breakthroughs will be with dark energy. We hardly know what it is.
 etcyl
Joined: 6/13/2012
Msg: 9
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 11:31:26 AM
Hi Jon.


All that exists is one mind but its a non-duality.


Can you prove that? Other than what you whimsically, loosely suggest using quantum mechanics. Is there a calculus proof? Otherwise, Buddhism and other religious nonsense doesn't apply to physics at all.
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 11:32:59 AM
Jonpofbp - very nice contribution. thanks.

(scifichicky)
That didn't take long. So early and we have our typical jibber jabber about being insulting, having unjustified superiority complexes, and the notion that just because someone's not understood they're not wrong. Look folks, for future reference, this thread is about talking. Communicating. If your statements are challenged or questioned, I would like you to be clear and justify certain kinds of things that you may say, and be willing and able to defend your statements with deliberate-ness and without indulging in the state of being offended...if you even respond at all, which you're not obligated to do. If you can't communicate, without being insecure, way too touchy, misinterpreting tones or responding in a non-productive manner...then you might not enjoy a thread of mine. And, if you bring empty rhetoric, sloppy use of language, or deceptive religious jibber jabber...that's ok, but you better be able to handle being critiqued for pulling any such stunts.

For some odd reason people have such a hard time with the simple act of communicating about anything religious or halfway scientific. That situation needs to improve.
 etcyl
Joined: 6/13/2012
Msg: 11
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 11:36:41 AM
Also:


Everything you experience is an illusion. Its a peice of being seperated out of the non-duality.


Now, this is certainly interesting. My only argument against it is that a simpler solution could resolve that illusion bit. Isn't it easier to assume nothing is an illusion? You can treat everything like one giant heap of evidence in this universe.

My thoughts are strictly mine, and real. Right now I am definitively ONLY in one point in space and time. Right now you are definitively only in one point in space and time, in this universe, as I write this.

Where does invoking illusion to our perception of reality become necessary? Yes, this universe evolved into us. And now the universe is conscious and aware of itself using our mathematics. But where is the illusion part? What does that imply?
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 11:53:36 AM
etcyl -

Yea, that's why I used the word "speculating" in the thread title. We're pushing it already. We really are on the edge of what we think we know. Do you think that the virtual particles in 'empty' space could be what I'm think about? And, before the big bang, everything was there in one point...but was it just 'always' already there, and is it sensible to wonder if it 'came from' somewhere else? Also, could you, and would you be willing, to give us a fuller richer description of the big bang etc?

Things becoming more or less ordered: I'm not sure I completely agree with this. Entropy and chaos are certainly features, but while things become less ordered, we're also seeing elements form, stars and galaxys form, and life begin. I don't think the disorder idea is over-arching or ultimate, because there's also a tendency for order to happen too.

After reading my original post once, and you having written what you did, and it all 'sleeping in our heads' for a time...I'd invite you to read through my post again, and think about it differently. See if it's more palatable. And, thanks for your contribution!
 _TALL_IQ2_
Joined: 2/10/2010
Msg: 13
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 12:08:10 PM
Black holes MOST LIKELY evaporate over time. I haven't seen this proven, but from my knowledge Hawking Radiation helped this idea significantly, among others.

Black holes may just be bubbles in the vast boiling pot of dark energy of the universe, or maybe all multi-universes are just some of those bubbles within the vast Higgs Field infinite ocean of virtual particles/waves/vibrating strings all flying around.

Those evaporating holes/bubbles may just be one of the ways that energy gets distributed more evenly across the universe, instead of it all erupting/colliding at once into another big bang theory...

The human mind is finite, has to be or many people would space out and might become dysfunctional walking dead zombies at realization of the mind-boggling vastness of the cosmos and not-yet-understood science...

Sufficiently advanced technology/science is commonly taken by default for magic or supernatural effects..
The human brain can only deal with so much cognitive dissonance, then it reboots and some start spouting religious nonsense.
That had its purpose, to allow the tribes to continue basic functions like eating, sleeping and breeding with some comfort that the big spaghetti monster in the sky was watching out for them,
as they could relax more and stop always having to be hyper-alert for any possible dangers, whether real or imagined...

Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 1:05:40 PM
hhmmm...

The trick is making these alluring notions lurking just beyond our comprehension more concise.

Someone once asked me a ("philosophical") question which they believed to be really clever in it's implicative rhetoric: Is it possible to know something even if you can't explain it or put it into words? My answer was that yes, it's possible. But it's also possible to not know it, or to be wrong about what you think you know. Because the problem is that if you can't elucidate it very well, that might be because it's wrong. Because what's important is that the point of trying to elucidate things with language is so you can know if what you think you know is correct or incorrect. We should use present language carefully, as well as develop and evolve language properly, because evolving language and it's use goes hand in hand with learning and understanding. Language use is both indicative to knowledge, and the path to it.
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 1:11:35 PM
uh-oh. we've been visited by dwight the homie. it's all going to hell in a handbasket now.

nice of you to bring the entertainment, dwight the. welcome to the show.

not.
 etcyl
Joined: 6/13/2012
Msg: 16
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 1:19:14 PM
This is very interesting.


Colour is perception, sound is perception, the solidness of the desk infront of you is perception and not even atoms exist if you arent gaining information on them.


Not even atoms exist if you aren't gaining information on them? How can the atoms that existed prior to my consciousness not exist? I certainly have not gained any information on the particles prior to the Big Bang, but those were the only particles necessary to build me into this universe, right? In order for me to be here, I require an existence already of particles to evolve into me, no?
 scifichicky
Joined: 2/12/2012
Msg: 17
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 1:23:41 PM
Wow, drink the sun. I am glad you are in Oklahoma as I can almost smell your smug from here... It is faintly resembling the unmistakable odor of bovine manure.
 etcyl
Joined: 6/13/2012
Msg: 18
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 1:28:54 PM

The trick is making these alluring notions lurking just beyond our comprehension more concise.


Our language is ordered. Mathematics is a language. It's ordered, too, and we use it to describe the behavior of our universe. Going from Euclidean Geometry to calculus-based quantum mechanics and relativity theory are certainly advances due to being more concise mathematically. James Clerk Maxwell found four crucial derivatives, mathematical operators or formulas, for electromagnetism. These equations accurately predict the behavior of that familiar force. Others, like Richard Feynmam, have also advanced fields like Quantum Electro-Dynamics significantly.

Our species really has not been on this planet for a long time. Our technology can continue to increase exponentially if we keep studying the bizarre regularities like quantum mechanics, singularities, dark energy, etc.

Everything can be mathematically described if we can be aware of it. Our concepts show that there is definitively a regular nature operating with only particular cases.
 etcyl
Joined: 6/13/2012
Msg: 19
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 1:35:47 PM
Hi jonpofbp,

May I have your definition of: a materialist; a universe a materialist thinks exists; a "mathmatical" universe.

Also, why is it significant that scientific formulae violate "materialism"?
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 2:19:31 PM
It is night. It’s always night. A night without stars, without anything - just an infinite emptiness falling away on every side. And so I float, an invisible being in a nonexistent world. How long have I been like this? I don’t know. It feels like years, but that’s just a feeling because there is nothing here by which to mark the time. I try to remember how it was, but my memories are such pale things, and they grow more pale as time drags on. I would pray, but there is nothing to pray to. And so I hope, for hope is all I have: that one day, as inexplicably as I once did, I will begin to dream the world again.

- Thomas D. Davis
 etcyl
Joined: 6/13/2012
Msg: 21
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 5:15:01 PM
drinkthesun -

Thank you for your post! I love this talk. I typically find myself only wanting to discuss these topics with people who are capable of such, particularly people with Ph.D's ;).

That said, Jon is completely correct by noting this is all speculative. That's what I dislike. The God of the Gaps part.

And that's where your quote comes in:
Also, could you, and would you be willing, to give us a fuller richer description of the big bang etc?


What I meant by the Big Bang being fuller and richer is that, I think there is a bigger idea behind it. I think the model of the Big Bang is flawed and does not have the complete picture to the original evolution of the universe. It does not simplify with everything into some Grand Unified Theory. I think it needs more work. In fact, high energy experiments will help us contribute to this picture.

The best description of the Big Bang you can read on Wiki. I suggest that anything further of understanding will come as a result of you doing real physics research. People are currently looking for new mathematical ways to probe deeper into this stopping point.
 etcyl
Joined: 6/13/2012
Msg: 22
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 5:18:57 PM
Hi Jon

Thanks for your reply. It isn't necessarily the case that I am not willing to accept what you have to say at all.

It is necessarily the case that QM theory will rip of my reality! I just don't think I will care much if it does, so, I'm game.

Where does this theory take us next?
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 23
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 7:01:35 PM


Languages cant quantify infinites.

A planet has completed 1 orbit.
A planet has completed 0.33333 (forever) of an orbit.

It doesnt work. Language and materialism are an attempt to pixelfy a universe which isnt made out of pixels.

Lol.
You're over complicating. Try using 1/3.
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 24
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 7:12:08 PM
Etcyl,
Since you're the cosmology student, I have to ask you... with regards to the expanding universe - is it expanding in the sense that the current contents are becoming farther apart or in the sense that it's amassing more contents? Just curious to get that clarified before I throw in my 2 cents worth.
 ExitingTheStage
Joined: 5/25/2011
Msg: 25
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 7/8/2012 9:14:18 PM
Might it be that when and where conditions are right in a given region of space, when it's more truly a vacuum, so lacking of any matter or any kind of energy, forces, or energy transduction of any kind, that matter is allowed to 'fizzle' into existence?


Fizzle into existence?

From nothing?



Ex nihilo is a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing". It often appears in conjunction with the concept of creation, as in creatio ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing"—chiefly in philosophical or theological contexts, but also occurs in other fields.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Languages cant quantify infinites.

A planet has completed 1 orbit.
A planet has completed 0.33333 (forever) of an orbit.

It doesnt work. Language and materialism are an attempt to pixelfy a universe which isnt made out of pixels.


Funny.
This is an improper use of an infinite mathematical example being used to describe a finite physical certainty.
Funny because it is also another example of a mathematical fact that isn't always applicable in reality.

Something that some devout hard core science fans try to promote too much.

Just because it can be logically calculated does not mean that it exists.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory