Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => Science Experiments => Topic started by: opportunity on 19/04/2018 12:53:08
-
I apologise for making this post because technically I am no longer allowed to post in the "physics" forum, so a certain amount of "IT-shame" is upon me.
According to a moderator, the same one every time.....(jees, guys, can someone else chime in?):
You seem to be creating a lot of irrelevant and unhelpful posts. They are obviously valuable to you, but are not making a significant contribution to the question at hand.
We would be grateful if you could focus more and try to express your ideas in a way that makes a positive contribution otherwise we may ask you to confine your post to the lighter sections of the forum.
Thank you
" seem"....and "not making a valuable contribution".
Am I the golden child and so much more is expected of me? Worse still, I've got ideas, and its being "squeezed" out of me through bastard role-playing, like I'm the orphan looking to find its way?
It's nonsense not to have an ingredient that can look ahead. I'm sort of glad though I'm restricted to the "lighter side".....the "darker side", well, the point is moot.
Whatever. The issue of why I was relegated you can check out in my footprint of posts. If you think it was a fair call, that's fine.
I think though what got under the skin of a few members was my idea of suggesting that replicating a big-bang in a lab contradicts the idea of the big bang itself, as nothing, nothing, apparently, according to Hawking (what is more south than south) existed before the big bang. And thus to design a big bang experiment would make us nothing. It doesn't take a genius to work that out.
Any ideas there, any? Am I missing something in the "process", the "abstract", the "initial conditions" of the proposed experiment that aims to replicate a big bang in a lab given the definition of a "big bang"?
What made me lose hope with the physics section in this forum is that my question relevant to this post was flat-out ignored.
I mean, I mean guys, and gals,.....is physics so scary as to not be able to acknowledge that some experiments jump into concrete and not a pool of water because the actual fine-print wasn't considered?
-
@ opportunity “According to a moderator, the same one every time..”
This is incorrect. More than one moderator took action on your posts, and you were previously warned about your posting behaviour by yet another moderator. Moderators talk to each other and agree what actions are appropriate.
-
Here I am trying to present an idea and you're talking about the dishes?
-
You spent half (the first half)) of the first post talking about "the dishes." How was anyone to know that was not fair game for the thread?
-
The "dishes" I'm referring to is getting rid of people some can't work out.
You're now suggesting I'm dirty with ideas, needing the cleaning up of ideas?
I thought I held a good idea. I was accused of plagiarism.
Look, I will post a good idea, but it won't be on a bridge where trolls live.
-
I think though what got under the skin of a few members was my idea of suggesting that replicating a big-bang in a lab contradicts the idea of the big bang itself, as nothing, nothing, apparently, according to Hawking (what is more south than south) existed before the big bang. And thus to design a big bang experiment would make us nothing. It doesn't take a genius to work that out.
There's nothing about it which contradicts the big bang theory. And its been worked on by the top physicists at MIT. They conclude that its plausible. The new universe becomes a "child" universe.
Is it possible to create a universe in the laboratory by quantum tunneling? by Alan Guth and Edward Farhi, Nuclear Physics B, Volume 339, Issue 2, 30 July 1990, Pages 417-490
It's online at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/055032139090357J
By the way. You're no a golden child. I am and there's only one of us living at a time. :)
-
The hypothetical Big Bang occurred in vacuo and ex nihilo, with no precedent or supporting matrix. Therefore it can happen again, anywhere, anytime, without human intervention. No need for a laboratory, just watch and wait.
Problem is that if Small Bangs are possible, we should be seeing them fairly often, and we don't. But if the only feasible size of Bang is a literal holocaust, we won't ever see it, however or wherever it was initiated.
-
But if the only feasible size of Bang is a literal holocaust, we won't ever see it, however or wherever it was initiated.
Maybe in a laboratory, in a far par of the galaxy, 13bn yrs ago ....
However, the paper @PmbPhy quotes suggests the probability in the lab is very, very low - don’t often see indices of indices! What is interesting is Alan Guth’s suggestion that the bubble would look like a black hole from the parent universe.
[You're no a golden child.
FeS2
But, glad to hear you are the real thing ;D
-
[You're no a golden child.
FeS2
But, glad to hear you are the real thing ;D
Thanks. Very relevant to the question of the OP, whoever that is.
It's nice to have answers with links, but to go to the extreme with accusing someone of being a golden child is a little rough. I'm hoping other moderators can look at this.
-
The hypothetical Big Bang occurred in vacuo and ex nihilo, with no precedent or supporting matrix. Therefore it can happen again, anywhere, anytime, without human intervention. No need for a laboratory, just watch and wait.
Problem is that if Small Bangs are possible, we should be seeing them fairly often, and we don't. But if the only feasible size of Bang is a literal holocaust, we won't ever see it, however or wherever it was initiated.
You mean it can happen in the back seat of a limo, right?
-
I think though what got under the skin of a few members was my idea of suggesting that replicating a big-bang in a lab contradicts the idea of the big bang itself, as nothing, nothing, apparently, according to Hawking (what is more south than south) existed before the big bang. And thus to design a big bang experiment would make us nothing. It doesn't take a genius to work that out.
There's nothing about it which contradicts the big bang theory. And its been worked on by the top physicists at MIT. They conclude that its plausible. The new universe becomes a "child" universe.
Is it possible to create a universe in the laboratory by quantum tunneling? by Alan Guth and Edward Farhi, Nuclear Physics B, Volume 339, Issue 2, 30 July 1990, Pages 417-490
It's online at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/055032139090357J
By the way. You're no a golden child. I am and there's only one of us living at a time. :)
I could have read that myself, probably have in the past.....was hoping for an independent opinion though. No offense, but reddit offers a lot more.
Btw, you can't be serious about the link you offered, right?
Have you read the article?
Here's the "abstract" if you missed it:
Abstract
We explore the possibility that a new universe can be created by producing a small bubble of false vacuum. The initial bubble is small enough to be produced without an initial singularity, but classically it could not become a universe — instead it would reach a maximum radius and then collapse. We investigate the possibility that quantum effects allow the bubble to tunnel into a larger bubble, of the same mass, which would then classically evolve to become a new universe. The calculation of the tunneling amplitude is attempted, in lowest order semiclassical approximation (in the thin-wall limit), using both a canonical and a functional integral approach. The canonical approach is found to have flaws, attributable to our method of space-time slicing. The functional integral approach leads to a euclidean interpolating solution that is not a manifold. To describe it, we define an object which we call a “pseudomanifold”, and give a prescription to define its action. We conjecture that the tunneling probability to produce a new universe can be approximated using this action, and we show that this leads to a plausible result.
Wow. "Alice in Wonderland" has more appeal.
I asked: "Is the idea of replicating the "big bang" in a lab possible?"
I didn't ask if it was possible to replicate our watered down definition of a singularity based on the general idea of a big bang and those alleged outcomes. The article you linked confuses ideas to the extreme, only offering hope for a multiverse in the context of a scientific theory that is incomplete.
Given the answer you have posted, I'm assuming you are answering "no" to my topic question. And that's a shame for physics, as it flies against a lot of hopeful research today, not to mention investment.
Still, your input is very much appreciated.
-
but to go to the extreme with accusing someone of being a golden child is a little rough. I'm hoping other moderators can look at this.
If they do look at this they will see that I didn’t accuse anyone of being a golden child.
-
Yeah, I'm hoping not also.
Still, I think the value of you moderating outsurpasses anything I could post. Outsurpasses, right?
How could I mind?..."happy acres".....light forum.....confined, right.....how many more days is it?
-
The Big Bang is inferred by playing the observational data backwards. If you do this, the playback suggests the universe had a very compact start. This is reasonable inference. The problem is, nobody is able to go earlier than this compact start. Rather this compression point is called time=0. This choice of time has no proof, but is convention.
As far as making little big bangs in the lab, this would be contingent on explaining how t=0 is only an assumption, that has been make into a tradition, like the red suit of Santa Claus. We would need a way to recreate the parameters of t=0 in a micro sized way.
There is a way to address this. The concept of time, only applies to inertial references. At a speed of light reference, time is not the same thing as it is within inertial reference. If we started the universe, with only a speed of light reference, time=0 will be in effect. This is different from the assumption that nothing existed before time exists. Plenty can exist in a speed of light reference, at t=0. Only the inertial universe will be empty.
Space-time is also only appropriate for inertial reference and for time>0. At the speed of light, space-time breaks down. In fact, arguments can be made that space and time are no longer connected at C. At C, the physical universe appears as a point-instant reference. This means you can be anywhere in zero time, since everything overlaps as a point, so you are already there. This is the same, conceptually, as moving in space (point) without time; omnipresent.
That being said, if we had a wave environment, without particle duality, at C, where all the waves added and cancelled, we would have what appears to be nothing at t=0. What we will need to do, is add a particle based partition; introduce particle-wave duality. Particles cannot occupy the same space at the same time.
As a simulation experiment, say we had a wave tank with two wave generators, one on each side, that are 180 degrees out of phase. The wave generators add energy to the tank. However, since the waves cancel in the center of the tank, wave energy does not appear to exist in the stillness. If we had a partition; something that does not follow the rules of wave motion, the hidden energy can made to appear; t>0.
The theoretical appearance of matter and anti-matter,in our universe, is analogous to happens at the partition in the wave tank. One side of the partition will have a tall wave crest. The other side of the partition will have the corresponding deep trough; equal and opposite. This is matter and anti-matter.
After the high and low waves appear in each side of the partition, what would happen if we removed the partition? The waves induced by the partition can no longer cancel, as before. They will linger and mix, before steady is restored, with the crests having more potential energy and entropy than the troughs.
In terms of the wave tank, the trough is an empty gap in the water, surrounded on both sides by walls. The gap is contained. The crest is elevated water surrounded by an air gap on both sides. More can happen, We end up with more variety from the crests; matter and less from the thoughts; anti-matter. Our lab big bang can end up with material substance that is not cancelled.
-
The hypothetical Big Bang occurred in vacuo and ex nihilo, with no precedent or supporting matrix. Therefore it can happen again, anywhere, anytime, without human intervention. No need for a laboratory, just watch and wait.
Problem is that if Small Bangs are possible, we should be seeing them fairly often, and we don't. But if the only feasible size of Bang is a literal holocaust, we won't ever see it, however or wherever it was initiated.
If the BB drives the expansion of space time, why would repeated or a continuous BB's not just expand space time further. Why would they have to appear as points in space time, which we could observe. If a BB could be created in a lab at the quantum level, why would it not just drive the expansion of existing space time via quantum tunneling to the surface of existing space time. I read the abstract of Guths paper posted by PMBY, (Guth papers are not free) Multiple bubbles or BH's all using quantum tunneling or ER Bridges connected to the same bubble /membrane/dimension of space would do the same thing expand space time, would they not. Dark Energy is expanding space time, is this from Quantum bubbles or BH's or none of the above.
-
By definition, I don't think it is possible as t=0 for the universe means there is no human to do the experiment
-
Is it just me who read this
"Is the idea of replicating the "big bang" in a lab possible?"
and thought "I hope not..."?
-
I have a different take on the big bang , a tiny flea-sized piece of spiritual energy divided itself and bang , the Universe was born ...currently expanding but one day it will contract ... spiritual energy is THE ingredient that makes up everything ...