Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: sudkjain on 02/06/2012 06:50:43
-
Let me start by saying, "Long live Albert Einstein."
The worst thing about knowledge is that many a times it makes you turn a blind eye to the obvious.
Years of learning is now a sky kissing high-rise standing over a strong foundation of our belief in basic laws of Physics. Now, if someone tells you that all this while you were building upon a false ceiling, nobody would ever believe.
Conservation of mass and energy are two such postulates, until Einstein came up with his special formula E=mC^2, thereby busting the myth.
I would like to go little farther than the great game changer. Let’s rise above finity & approximation and travel back in time before the conception of our universe. There was a lonely singularity in nothingness. Incidentally, at one point it broke silence with a bang. A miniature universe was born as some energy changed into mass, time & space. This universe started expanding with more and more energy transforming into time-space and mass. Heavenly bodies started getting bigger and bigger while time gradually ticking faster and space dimensions getting bigger. Energy level of universe has been falling ever since and so is it's absolute speed. Space and mass are expanding while time is shrinking on the descending speed scale. Similarly gravity is gradually decreasing. In layman's lingo, universe photo frames are getting bigger and changing faster progressively. The next billion years will be much shorter in duration than previous billion years.
Going by this postulate, million years ago the earth was relatively much smaller as compared to what it is today. In fact the dinosaurs were not big animals. It is their fossils which have grown so large with time which make us think that they were very big creatures.
From here we can predict the future & the end of this universe. And on a spaceship we can traverse the past...
It is simple to understand. Speed of universe on a scale of 'C' (speed of light) to 'Zero' is the timeline i.e. a particular absolute speed corresponds to a particular time period. If one is able to attain an absolute speed other than that of the existing universe, one will find oneself in that time period. One can only go in past because it is possible to attain speed more than that of the present universe only. Future remains physically out of reach as going slower is not possible because absolute speed is not a vector quantity.
-
Conservation of mass and energy are two such postulates, until Einstein came up with his special formula E=mC^2, thereby busting the myth.
Einstein never claimed that mass is not conserved if that's what you're thinking. In fact inertial mass is very much conserved. Since E is conserved and E = mc2 it follows that m is conserved.
To me the rest is nonsense
-
As a SF it has certain qualities, as long as you build in some circular logic in it so that it challenge the reader :) As a physical hypothesis it becomes very difficult to believe, as well as to prove. As for the rest of it it becomes troublesome. To argue that mass isn't a conserved property in a SpaceTime must then come from the argument that energy may not be conserved and therefore, as 'energy' is a equivalence to 'mass', also consider oneself able to question mass. But it's a circular logic. Take a look at this http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html and see what you get from it.
Myself I expect SpaceTime to be in balance (equilibrium), there are too many things pointing to that. Although how an accelerating expansion can be conjoined to such a proposal is something of a bother to me.
-
To assume 'energy' to disappear you need to ask yourself, to what/where?
either you then define some more 'dimensions' in where the excess, or disappearing, energy then finds its way, or you assume that there is a state beyond 'energy' like some black hole of negation. some try a approach in where the energy not conserved might join, or create, a expansion as I understands it. Introducing more dimensions or this you still can have a equilibrium though. The case in where there is no equilibrium is the one where 'energy' gets negated as in 'gone'. But energy is a result from and in transformations as I think of it, it's a conceptual coin more that anything 'touch able'.
so what you really ask, or state, is that you don't think the universe has a equilibrium, which also will have consequences for its homogeneity, and isotropy.
-
Friends, here I am claiming that the energy is giving way to growing mass and space-time dimensions.
Yes, I agree with you that the universe is in equilibrium but in quantum equilibrium. Just like the electrons in an atom shells. Say for C to 9C/10 'a' level of energy, for 9C/10 to 8C/10 period 'b' level of energy and so on and so forth...
While, the existing laws of physics will hold good with in a speed range. Transition from one level of speed range to another will mean loss or gain of energy.
Eg. the entire spectrum of frequencies & wavelengths of light showcases the above model of universe. Shorter wavelengths or higher frequencies represent beginning of the world, i.e. tighter space dimensions and dilated time. While long wavelengths or lower frequencies take us towards the end of this universe, i.e. expanded space dimensions and contracted time period.
-
Well, depends on how you mean possibly?
Photons and waves are both 'immortal'. The two things 'down or up'-shifting their 'frequencies' are 1. the observer dependency in where the observer will 'influence' the 'energy' he will measure depending on A. gravity B. relative motion. Then you have 2. The 'expansion' that is defined, although only from a wave perspective, as being able to down shift that 'energy' the observer measure. I never seen that explained from a 'photon perspective' myself? But from a wave perspective it makes some sense :)
And only 2 can be said to represent a observer independent 'reality', if it is correct?
Maybe I'm missing something in my description, but I think this is the main stream definition. To argue that the universe goes from very high energy to a state of 'low energy' can be compensated, possibly? By arguing that this is a result from an expansion. Like inflating a 'bubble' containing a conserved amount of 'energy'. and just possibly btw, although I'm sure there are some thinking in those terms :)
-
When you suggested that mass, in the case of matter, is expanding in size as the universe ages, I was impressed. That is an excellent thought-exercise...
but as I considered your theory, I thought about particles. In order for dinosuar fossils to expand, (as you claim,) then:
1) the atomic particles would need have been expanded significantly
or
2) the fossils increased in size due to an increasing abundance in particle-matter.
obviously the second option is ridiculous. But the first option... it suggests that atomic structure is increasing in proportions.. hmm.. is this really plausible? I suppose the majority of structure of the atom is 'empty space'... it may be sound to hypothesize that the empty-space within the context of an atom is expanding just as well as the rest of the universe-- and thus atoms are increasing in size.
if everything is increasing in size in this way, that is proportionally, then perhaps the change would be indiscernable over time.
...but what does that say about the strength of electromagnetic bonds and forces?? does this mean that the electromagnetic coupling of particles into atomic structures are getting stronger over time, to compensate for the increasing volumes of space?
hmmm.... I don't know if that is really sound, even in light of an omni-proportional increase in size...
-
Yes, Dave. It's the first option. ...and i think you are rite on electro-magnetic forces getting stronger, snatching ground from weakening gravity, which is space n time elasticity. The following time period will see a swelled up periodic table ie there will be many more elements on it than what we have today. The universe started with the first and we are into the seventh period today. Going by Bohr, next and the last will be the eighth period, where the element with atomic number 137 may be the terminal point.
-
you mean that Bohr and Dirac both fancied this hypothesis? wow, I didn't know that..
Well, I have another question:
You say that time is actually speeding up. I would think that it is speeding down. In my opinion, as a metaphysician, (so please do forgive me,) time is actually slowing down as space expands. This is due to my conception of Space-Time relativity, which suggests that Space-Time relate to each-other in inverse proportions.
Again, I'm sorry, I know this isn't established theory, but let me substantiate my point with something more traditional:
As gravity is weakening, as you suggest, then per the principle of Gravity Time Dilation, wherein we find that Time accelerates faster in stronger gravitational fields, and slower in weaker gravitational fields-- then Time, in the context of your theory, should also be going slower. Becauase gravity is getting weaker on the universal scale.
-
Dave, I think you got it wrong. As per Gravitational time dilation theory, clocks farther from massive bodies (or at higher gravitational potentials) run faster, which conforms to my theory. Gravitational potential increases as you move away from the source of gravity or in other words, into weaker gravity.
-
oh, yes, that's right... I got it backwards..
hmm?
-
This postulate clears the path for the unified theory. It also shows consistency with the thermal entropy. The rate of change of entropy during the earlier days of universe formation was slower than what it is today. The rate of change of entropy is increasing with time. The entropy is the measurement of time and rate of change of entropy determines the duration of period at a particular moment in time. With rate of change of entropy increasing, length of period is decreasing along the time arrow. Thus previous billion years was a longer period than the succeeding one in absolute terms. Wowla! Shutter speed of god's camera is going up.