Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Alan McDougall on 29/11/2008 19:35:19
-
Hi,
A question,
Assuming what we call space outside the event horizon of the universe is a black void extending infinitely outward everywhere in every direction forever.
And you or I found ourselves alone in the unimaginable empty nothingness, inside a hypothetical spaceship that could speed up to an infinite speed in a pico second or less
We then start up our space ship and race into the dark emptiness at infinite speed and then stop.
Would we find ourselves following the image of ourselves?
Would we find ourselves back where we started?
Have we moved?
Have we stopped?
Is motion relative and can only exist if there in another object to compare our position with?
Alan
-
Quite lovely question that one.
How do we prove movement?
It's by comparison with another reference (frame), right?
So do motion exist in that 'sphere' at all as there are no reference frame?
But hey, how about acceleration then?
Well, now it hinges on if your friend have any way to look out.
If he/she doesn't, how will he/she separate a 'gravity' of one .G from a constant acceleration of one .G?
But in this universe he/she wouldn't be helped by any windows, would he/she?
So this person would no matter:) what acceleration constant, jagged or whatever still not be helped by looking out.
And if we assume that this spaceship is a unknown quantity to him/her.
Wouldn't it then be rather logical of him/her to assume that it is a form of 'gravity' no matter how it would act.
What do I win :)
Or?
-
Well, this is the famous 'Mach' hypothesis.
Mach posited that without an external frame of reference then there is no motion (or no way to classify motion).
Newton's bucket was an attempt to clarify this. If you take a bucket of water in this scenario and you spin it, then does the water obey the normal rules of rotational dynamics (ie does the water climb the sides at the edges of the bucket or not?).
A similar example would be two weights connected by a string. If you set the weights spinning around each other then does the string become tight or does it not?
Mach said no. Einstein said (originally) no, but later changed that answer when he considered General Relativity in more detail....
-
The term "event horizon of the universe" is unknown to me - what does it mean? Did you mean to refer to the observable universe? Another problem is that I can't relate to finding myself "alone in the unimaginable empty nothingness" because once I've imagined it it can't be unimaginable anymore.
Because the universe is empty there would be nothing to illuminate your spaceship, to produce an 'image' of it. If you shone a light ahead of you it would be re-absorbed by the hull of your spaceship as you overtook it.
Whether you ended up back where you started would depend on where you steered.
If something could travel at infinite speed it could, like DNA's Infinite Improbability Drive, pass through every point in the universe simultaneously, and probably an infinite number of times too. You say that the spaceship accelerates to infinite speed in a pico second, or less, but as long as it doesn't take infinite time it'll result in infinite acceleration, which will be a pretty positive indication that you've moved, seeing as there aren't any other masses in your universe to produce gravity. The deceleration when you stop will similarly confirm that you've stopped.
-
I think there is a property of matter yet to be discovered yet maybe never to be proven that prevents matter existing in the same location in space time.
It could exist in space but not time if you were not to move.So for you to exist from one moment to the next,even if your ship was the only thing in the universe it would create motion similar to a electron circling the nuclease of a atom but as you are the only thing in the universe you would move in ever increasing circles but never where you started.
Actualy circles is not quite what I was trying to describe because if you were the only object in the universe you would move away from your starting point but at any given point in time you would exist everywhere just not where you have been before.
-
This is quite an old question as has been alluded to already. It would not be the visulisation of the surroundings that much to do with the behaviour of your spacecraft. If it were just this you could be anywhere and simply close your eyes for the same effect :-) However I am sure this was not what was intended to be meant but more that you were to imagine that you and your craft were, effectively, the whole of matter within a (maybe) flat universe. As Lee implies, this may not be a possible allowable configuration with any physical validity, anymore than trying imagine the sound of one hand clapping. Nonetheless I suppose we can theorise (guess?).
In Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) Feynman proposed that action at a distance (fields) could be the sum of all interactions between objects in the universe. To get around the limitations of the speed of light he proposed a (normal) retarded wave and an advanced wave (going backward in time). Summing the relative effects of all these interactions gives a concept of inertia being related to all the other mass in the universe and potentially giving justification to Mach's principle. He only did the calculations for very simplistic cases, with some success, but I think got bored with the immensity of the mathematical task in trying to do it realistically. He believed it should be done, so for aspiring young theoretical physicists there is an opportunity...
The result for the loan spacecraft would be that the laws of physics would have different constants from what we experience in our universe. I imagine that (if it was possible for us or some thinking entity) to exist, that objects would have much less mass (even objects within the spacecraft) or, if you like, inertia. But there would be some because we are not talking about a single solitary particle so all the particles would still be interacting with the others in the craft.
This kind of addresses another thread on the site about what is inertia. It is, according to this theory, related to all the other mass in the universe.
-
The original question in the title is an impossibility. If there is only one object there is no object to throw out to accelerate or retard the object and no object to make the observations. once you have any of these the question does not apply because movement can be measured relative to the stuff you have thrown away.
-
Thinking again (well it do works at times:)
To me it seems that motion is a prerequisite for spacetime.
I can not see a 'frame' in my mind without it.
And as long as we introduce an 'observer' there will be reference frames to measure motion in.
I don't know of any observed 'system' (seen from the inside of it) that won't have some kind of internal 'reference frame'?
Or do you have a suggestion for how that frame should be constructed?
Something consisting of what?
Thought only?
And how c(w)ould one test for that?
do you agree?
-
LeeE
The term "event horizon of the universe" is unknown to me - what does it mean? Did you mean to refer to the observable universe? Another problem is that I can't relate to finding myself "alone in the unimaginable empty nothingness" because once I've imagined it it can't be unimaginable anymore.
I wrongly used the term event horizon, this term relates to black holes sorry.
I meant the edge of the universe assuming of course it has an edge.
It the big bang happened when it was supposed to have happened then this EDGE would be the distance the light from this primordial event has travelled from the birth of the universe to where it is now, some 14.5 billion light years.
My question was about the absolute black nothingness that might exist outside this EDGE extending outward forever and infinite in dimension
Would a single object move in this emptiness with no reference point whatsoever
Alan
-
You've got it fundamentally wrong where you say the "edge" of the universe must be the velocity of light times the length of time since the big bang.
The big bang was NOT an explosion. This term was a derogatory name coined by the "opposition" Continuous Creation camp that stuck. The expansion is the expansion of space itself NOT the velocity of things thrown out from an explosion and as such does not actually involve things moving through space where the speed limit is the velocity of light.
There is therefore no upper limit to the expansion speed of space and our universe could be many times larger than this. If processes like inflation occurred it is probably very many orders of magnitude larger than the farthest distance we could ever see.
The actual velocities of all the galaxies THROUGH SPACE are probably similar to the relative velocities of local galaxies ie a few hundred miles per second or a fraction of a percent of the velocity of light.
-
reading you soulsurfer I start to wonder about mass and expansion.
Let's say that this expansion have no roots in 'c'.
How far might it have gone?
As mass is something created in 'time' which is something following 'c', if you follow me thoughts here:)
So do we have a sphere of spacetime, 'wrinkled' to mass that now are ever expanding into 'virgin' territiories?
-
Whether you ended up back where you started would depend on where you steered.
It also depends on the geometry of spacetime. If you keep going in a straight line in a closed universe, you would return to your point of origin. In an open universe, you would just continue on forever.
-
yor on I am sorry but I do not understand what you are trying to say.
-
Whether you ended up back where you started would depend on where you steered.
It also depends on the geometry of spacetime. If you keep going in a straight line in a closed universe, you would return to your point of origin. In an open universe, you would just continue on forever.
Just a nit-pick really, but that assumes that the closed universe is regular in shape and doesn't change size.
-
Soul Surfer,
There is therefore no upper limit to the expansion speed of space and our universe could be many times larger than this. If processes like inflation occurred it is probably very many orders of magnitude larger than the farthest distance we could ever see.
I know space without mass or energy is mass less and it is this mass less infinite eternal space that might have existed before the creation event into which the universe evolved.
Or at the moment of creation ,if there were a creation, or big bang, that was not an explosion as you said, but it is the term nearly all physicists use.
Space having no mass therefore not under ant constraint could just have expanding into infinity at infinite speed.
-
Well Soulsurfer:)
I was thinking of that BB and the 'instant expansion' of spacetime it created.
What stops it from still expanding?
Thinking about it again:) the question seems two folded here.
1. Either this expansion has an 'motion' over 'c', and may still be 'creating' the right 'properties' for our spacetime.
2. Or the 'expansion' propagated by means unknown to us, not involving the concept of 'motion' at all
In either case the 'possible' size of the universe might be limit less.
How w(c)ould we proof it not?
As gravity is curved around 'our spacetime'.
Those thirteen billions something light-years we can see.
How would one test for such a proposal?
That the 'edge' of spacetime is in fact 'outside' both spacetime, and gravity too, at least as I envision it:)
As gravity to me is an all encompassing 'dimension' or 'field' even if it has a propagation to it at ('c').
Sort of like time:)
----------
And if i traveled to the 'interface' between our space time and the 'edge' and turned on my flashlight pointing away from 'us'.
Would I then see a beam propagate in that 'nothing'.
-
Anyway,
In an totally infinite void of absolute black nothingness, you simple "can not move" and time would have no meaning.
Time and movement are linked
That is my answer for what it is worth
Alan
-
yor_on I still dont understand what you are trying to say. I understand that your preferred language may not be english but please try to explin your thinking simply without missing out any stages in your thinking. Until I can clearly understand your questions I cannot determine if they are sensible answer them or show where you are wrong in your thinking.
There is one fundamental feature in all our current models of the universe and that is it is not possible to ever get to the edge of them because there is no edge to the universe. it is like trying to travel to the edge of our world you would either travel for ever or cross your original path somewhere
-
Just using it as a 'frame' of comparison to our spacetime, I think?
"That the 'edge' of spacetime is in fact 'outside' both spacetime, and gravity too, at least as I envision it:)
As gravity to me is an all encompassing 'dimension' or 'field' even if it has a propagation to it at ('c').
Sort of like time:)"
It just means what you say, that we don't know the 'outside' of our spacetime.
If there is any?
I don't really use 'edge' when trying to decide whatever enclosure spacetime may be.
But I do like the word 'interface' :)
---------
Sorry Soulsurfer, I missed that first question you wrote.
I was thinking (mass=space='c'='spacetime')
Which differs from before inflation, where the only mass was 'quantum sized'.
Therefore freed from the arrow of time (new 'hobbyhorse' of mine I'm testing:)
And therefore from 'c'.
We could see the 'inflation' as growing in a 'time' flowing any which way (arrow:)
Which would allow for an infinite inflation.
Until what we deem matter started to bind our time into a 'time-wise' arrow again.
The only question to my mind is where space gets created from 'matter'.
soup (QM)-Inflation -- Matter <--> SpaceTime (Arrow) ..
And if I will be seen as truly 'certified' after writing this:)
But on the other tentacle?
ah well
-
Well, this is the famous 'Mach' hypothesis.
Mach posited that without an external frame of reference then there is no motion (or no way to classify motion).
Newton's bucket was an attempt to clarify this. If you take a bucket of water in this scenario and you spin it, then does the water obey the normal rules of rotational dynamics (ie does the water climb the sides at the edges of the bucket or not?).
A similar example would be two weights connected by a string. If you set the weights spinning around each other then does the string become tight or does it not?
Mach said no. Einstein said (originally) no, but later changed that answer when he considered General Relativity in more detail....
Bikerman, thinking of it again:)
That has nothing to do with 'gravity' as a phenomena.
It doesn't really matter if the 'gravity' will affect the bucket 'this or that way'.
When we say that we will notice a difference that is from a preconceived perspective in which we 'go out' from a rotational not accelerating object in space and compare the gravitational effects from that to the gravitational effects of an accelerating object.
So it doesn't really discuss the 'matter' in question, 'gravitation'.
Or should we split up 'gravitation' in uniformly accelerating 'gravitation'.
Unevenly accelerating 'Gravitation'.
Coasting 'gravitation'(that would be, only that 'gravitation' created inside that frame by 'particles' residing there).
Earth (matter) defined 'gravitation'.
Its strange, it's like you have two (three? more??) different types that give the same effect.
One is definitely connected to 'matter'
The other one will also give you a 'gravitational' effect.
But it's created by transferring (transforming) more and more energy from an accelerating object.
The third one is the same but then transferring 'energy' to a stationary object (relative us observing)
Like Lightarrows 'black paper'
But if we had a cube that we heated to the same energy amount as what a comparable object 'starts with', when accelerating it, the 'gravitational' effect of that cube would be of a greater magnitude for the accelerating case as compared to a 'stationary' object heated.
-
I see in several posts here that we seem to accept the idea that space is expanding everywhere without question. It seems to me that to accept that notion requires some exceptions that I can't visualize happening. For example, if all space is expanding the space inside atoms must be expanding, and if that is so every thing must increase in dimension right along with space.
How can we measure the expansion; our measuring devices should have expanded also. I am sure someone has thought this out; I have never seen that thinking.
-
I see in several posts here that we seem to accept the idea that space is expanding everywhere without question. It seems to me that to accept that notion requires some exceptions that I can't visualize happening. For example, if all space is expanding the space inside atoms must be expanding, and if that is so every thing must increase in dimension right along with space.
How can we measure the expansion; our measuring devices should have expanded also. I am sure someone has thought this out; I have never seen that thinking.
Yes Vern, I wondered the same.
I've seen a definition that separates matter from space.
But as you say, an atom is 99,99~ space?
Why shouldn't that be affected too?
How about this then:)
According to my new hobby horse 'matter' is some sort of 'symmetry break' which have/creates 'space'.
In that 'symmetry' if there is an 'expansion' it can't affect 'matter' as the force/'energy' creating 'matter' needs to be of a very high magnitude.
Also quarks is said to be bound by an 'inverse' force holding them together.
Getting stronger the more apart they get.
'Space' though, as it is said to allow spontaneous 'particle' creation, as well as 'virtual' particles, might be easier to influence?
That is if you by expanding, sees it as transferring more 'potential energy'.
And something that might be seen as 'work'
Or maybe not 'work' at all?
If we mean something transforming easily by our manipulation.
Space seems rather difficult to transform into energy by us:)
Then that 'space/energy' won't disturb our 'zero' balance as it, just as virtual particles, exist for such a short moment that it doesn't violate HUP (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle)
(as well as Planck time?)
Awh, just a thought.
-----
Is there any way to explain an 'expansion' from your photonics?
(I know that you don't see it as a possibility, but could it be in cooperated if you wanted?)
-
]Also quarks is said to be bound by an 'inverse' force holding them together.
Getting stronger the more apart they get.
Yes; someone told me that QM just keeps getting weirder and weirder; and he was a physicist studying string theory. Remember my twin Mexican hats. [:)] They explain the inverse force so that it fits in my mind without pain. [:)]
The circles are shells of photons bound in resonating patterns to form protons. They are to scale except for the dot in the centre which would be too small to show at this scale. Red is positive charge; blue is negative charge; the shells represent speculative protons each composed of three electromagnetic shells. From the New Theories Forum (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=19935.0)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fpr05.png&hash=c6a7f870055cad8eb38772d9cd544e8b)
-
So, if there was an 'expansion' your photonic atoms would be unaffected too?
-
Someone tried to explain the expansion in another forum as being between galaxies only. Local space was not expanding. That just seemed two weird to be real for my thinking.
-
So, if there was an 'expansion' your photonic atoms would be unaffected too?
I think the atoms as I visualize them would be affected the same as atoms composed of quarks and gluons as in QM theory.
-
yor_on; you are a fast editor; I must go back and re-read your posts to be sure I didn't miss something [:)]
-
But if we had a cube that we heated to the same energy amount as what a comparable object 'starts with', when accelerating it, the 'gravitational' effect of that cube would be of a greater magnitude for the accelerating case as compared to a 'stationary' object heated.
I'm not sure I get your reasoning here. I don't see why the accelerating object must have a greater gravitational magnitude. Now I'm even having trouble making sense of what I wrote [:)] What is a gravitational magnitude?
-
Why would it be only between galaxies?
Like the Universe would have 'weaker' points?
Geometrically seen.
Strange.
But we do have a difference between 'space' and 'matter'.
That give us a three dimensional space.
When 'time' comes into play.
Then we have times arrow.
That can go both ways quantum mechanically.
But macroscopically would create problems explaining how 'logic' and 'consciousness' might develop without it having a consistent arrow in time?
----
And you're right, I never express myself clearly enough:)
So I edit...
-
You think much more deeply than I. I usually just dismiss that which I don't comprehend, like going back in time. Times arrow always points toward the future for me.
-
You can look at it this way.
In the twin experiment you have one twin staying on Earth.
The other one will travel at a uniform acceleration of one G to some star.
Now both of those frames will have the same amount of 'gravity'.
Which one will be older?
Or??
And my idea about that cube is that I see it in both instances as the same 'system' containing the same 'energy'
But the amount of energy in the stationary cube (transformed into mass, sort of (Black paper)) even though having an effect (gravity well/time) will be less than the effect we will observe from our accelerating cube where the gravitational effects (time difference) will be larger.
-
If you engage in a little thought experiment and consider that space-time is flat as in the classical sense; then try to explain relativity phenomena; you will arrive at the Lorentz transformations only when you consider that the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.
The only other way you can get there is to invent some new constituents of matter which must always move at the speed of light.
-
It's you who have created a photonic universe Verne.
And then you have defined parameters that works for it.
I haven't created any universe:)
You're a 'God', or at least as near as we feeble humans might come::))
-
by 'flat' you mean two-dimensional?
---
Or are you referring to 'Minkowski space'.
That is what we have here?
Three dimensions plus time
----
Saying that spacetime becomes flat due to absence of gravity haven't been 'observed' yet?
That is a theoretical definition?
And 'flat' in what manner?
Two dimesions plus time or just not 'curved'??
If it's not curved then the universe would be transformed from 'infinite', as curved, to 'finite' when spacetime became 'flat'.
But I don't see how I otherwise would notice any difference?
As it would be 'invisible' to us.
To me it would become a very unique consistent 'frame of reference' all on its own though.
Without matter or motion.
As fast as you transfered in a motion/acceleration it would not be a 'flat' universe.
Likewise with gravity/mass.
And what about times transformations?
-
by 'flat' you mean two-dimensional?
No; I mean space that does not warp and an arrow of time that always moves toward the future at a constant rate in a special frame of reference that is at rest in the universe. I call that concept flat space-time.
Or are you referring to 'Minkowski space'.
That is what we have here?
Three dimensions plus time
I mean classic space-time as opposed to Einstein-Minkowski space-time. Since we have completely abandoned the flat-space-time concept, we will never find reality if flat space-time is the reality.
-
You're a 'God', or at least as near as we feeble humans might come::))
Gosh! I hope not! Just think of all the starving people of the world that I would have to feed [:)]
-
Do you see a 'golden standard' of time then Vern?
An arrow that is at rest with the whole universe and not frame dependent?
-
Do you see a 'golden standard' of time then Vern?
An arrow that is at rest with the whole universe and not frame dependent?
Time would not be frame dependent, but would seem to be by any observer in their frame. The reason is in the construct of matter.
In this thought experiment time is only frame dependent because matter must distort to move. The only way to force matter to do that is to consider it constructed of something that must always move at the invariant speed of light.
Einstein discussed this with H. Ziegler (http://photontheory.com/Einstein/Einstein06.html#Ziegler) back in 1909. The link points to the discussion.
H. Ziegler: If one thinks about the basic particles of matter as invisible little spheres which possess an invariable speed of light, then all interactions of matter like states and electrodynamic phenomena can be described and thus we would have erected the bridge between the material and immaterial world that Mr. Planck wanted.
-
Yes, I read you stating that matter 'distorts' when traveling.
How would you describe that process without using your schematics Vern?
What do you see as the 'force(s)' acting on 'matter', when traveling?
---------
(Just as a 'by side'!
We seems to have a 'karma' residing at our 'controls'?)
Sounds dangerous:)
-
I like your new Avatar; I couldn't find out how to make one when I last looked at my profile.
To explain how matter must distort if space-time is flat and matter consists of a most elemental thing that must always move at the invariant speed of light; the constituents of matter would be moving in patterns. The constituents of matter couldn't move faster than light; the constituents of matter must squeeze together some to remain in the patterns when the matter moves.
I don't know if that is any more clear; it seems clear to me I guess because I have been thinking of it that way for so many years.
-
(Just as a 'by side'!
We seems to have a 'karma' residing at our 'controls'?)
seems [:)] those pesky s's keep getting in the way of your perfect english [:)]
It would be: we seem to; but it would also be; it seems that; I can see how that can be confusing. But don't worry about it. It make no differences. [:)]
Yes; I noticed we are now getting karma. I looked around and the karma number seems to be related to the posts per day. And the avatar seems to be related to the total number of posts.
Edit: Okay; karma is a peer rating; the little buttons under karma are for voting. I thought it was an avatar at first.
-
And now they're gone again?
Karma?
Illusions all of it:)
-
When did this karma business pop out of the blue?
-
When did this karma business pop out of the blue?
First I saw of it was today; you're doing well; seems folks like your posts [:)]
-
It seems that you can only exercise your karma prowess once every hour (on one person that is)!
-
Hmmm...it appears that my hour has worn off because I have just executed my karma prowess. But now I'll have to wait another hour (before I can rate your posts Vern)!
-
Hmmm...it appears that my hour has worn off because I have just executed my karma prowess. But now I'll have to wait another hour (before I can rate your posts Vern)!
I too exercised mine twice within the last five minutes; I think it has to do with the post. Only one hit per post; but it is good; I find some very rewarding posts occasionally and it is good to be able to reward them.
-
I don't know why they decided to put this karma business in, copying from other forums perhaps? But at least they could have picked a better word than karma I think!
-
Karma is probably built into the board software and they simply activated it. I used to host a few message boards using software I downloaded from the internet and all of them contained a karma button that could be activated by the administrator.
-
Okay.
Anyway, I'd better let you get back on track (after this minor sidetrack). [:)]
Hmmm...I see the thread title is: If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?
I don't know, would it?
-
I couldn't be bothered reading through all of the technical data, sorry [:I]
Would it move? Yes or no? Or is it yet to be proven?
-
There would be nothing to prevent it moving; but absent something to show it relevant to something else, there would be no way to measure the movement. I don't know what the point might be.
-
I think that if there was only one object in an infinitely large universe of nothingness, it would cause something akin to the big bang. This is assuming that the infinitely large universe of nothingness is a void. If it is not a void, I think there would have to be gravity and/or an atmosphere.
-
I think that if there was only one object in an infinitely large universe of nothingness, it would cause something akin to the big bang.
Why do you think that?
-
Apropos the question: it is meaningless!
Movement means displacement in space. Displacement from what, if there is no other object?
-
"If the universe contained only one object, could that object move?"
It would depend on what the scriptwriter said.
Can we put this thread back in its coffin now?
-
If Space is considered a Medium in itself, then Yes it would Move.
All Objects move thru Time.
So probably there aren't any Stationary Objects in the Space-Time Continuum.
I get that to measure Speed or Velocity, other factors other objects are Necessary.
But a Constant increase in the Rate of Acceleration in any direction should kinda produce a Artificial Gravitational Effect, Right?
P.S. - Perhaps Threads older than 5 years should be Locked Up.
(just a suggestion)
-
My Theory of Everything.
Why Infinity Isn?t Big Enough
Alan Stuart Mitchell
2024 09 16
An (AI)5 Publication
A word about my new sub-title: It?s more meaningful than the title itself. Infinity not being big enough is highly unlikely, and gets more attention more quickly than the 4 word Title. Perhaps it?s presumptuous, but time will tell. Meanwhile the real news is that the next three pages leave all readers the task of deciding for themselves how true or otherwise the 4 word Title is. I may have solved the Unification of Gravity with Quantum Physics. It has required no new information, but only a proper evaluation of what has been available for decades. I attempt to explain all of this on one or two pages, in plain English, so that anyone who can read English can understand what I am writing. This includes the Naked Science Forum?s Simpleton Reviewers. AlanM, Fish Hoek. 2024 9 16. 18h15.SAST.
1
CONCLUSIONS
1. Missing anti-matter found in Cosmic Blister Packs.
The simple fact here is that, as matter and antimatter emerge into space-time, they part ways promptly to avoid annihilating each other. They separate not only in space, but also in time. Matter goes forward in time, and antimatter backwards. So all one has to do to find all the missing antimatter is to look back in time. The reference to blister packs is simple. The quantum of matter that erupts with its paired antimatter is blister-packed by its antimatter, entangling the two quantities of energy forming a universe in which life can evolve. Eventually, at the half-life of every universe, the elasticity (ie gravity) of the space-time between them begins to win and gravity itself will pull the two universe components towards each other. After the second and final half-life, as soon as matter and antimatter collide, the Grand Annihilation explosion is colossal, because the universe has been growing, along with its blister pack container, for almost an eternity.
2.Missing dark energy found in common daylight.
This is because every universe that lives and dies normally is completely destroyed. All the energy it ever contained goes back into the Cosmos as photons. As defined by me, the Cosmos is the space-time component comprising all solid waste energy (mass, dark energy, and any other non-photon energy) that is processed by ?black holes?.
So of course all the dark energy is now bright light, and stares everybody who bothers to look for it straight in their faces. They are looking for dark energy and matter, not photons, so that is why I say the ?missing? dark energy isn?t missing at all, it?s just bad accounting.
3.Copious Cosmic Sources of water found in Space-Time.
This is because ?black holes? are processing solid waste continuously, and turning all energy forms like mass, into photons, which the black
2
holes either shoot back into the Cosmos from their north and south poles in massive jets of photons, or ?perspire? through their ?skins? (ie ?Hawking Radiation?). Since Science began, people on earth have wondered where all the water on our ?Blue Planet? came from. Now
We know that it can only be ?black holes?. There is plenty of hydrogen that gets swallowed by black holes, so all they need to create copious quantities of water is oxygen, which they must somehow synthesise from the solid waste they consume. You may be wondering how the water escapes from the black hole where it was generated? Well, here?s where Hawking got it wrong again. He was concerned to think that every black hole hides a ?naked? singularity inside itself. That is not the case. What he conceived as a singularity is in fact a plughole that emits water vapour into space. At the space temperature of 2,7 Kelvin, water inside a black hole readily flashes into vapour, and can then be released through a drain into space, until it comes across a needy planet.
4. Light?s Speed and Dimensional Limits Lifted.
I say this because light has no boundary in space-time, and so bounces back from any object it illuminates. It obviously illuminates the edge of infinity, making a mirror-image of it. This image is at 2,7 Kelvin, and called the ?Background Radiation? that gives speckled images on badly tuned TV screens. Here?s a paradox: how far away is the source of this ?Background Radiation?? It?s obvious again. The source is right here among us. All the photons surrounding us and travelling away from us form the source. If we could do as Einstein imagined, and keep up with all rays of light as they speed away at light speed, we would of course die before we got anywhere near the edge of Infinity. All we need to do to see the edge of Infinity is to photograph the Background Radiation, which was done last Century, and pictures of the Cosmos energy distribution (COBE ?maps?) are published widely in popular astronomy books.
3
5.Time?s Trivialities Truly Terminated.
This is just pointing out the importance of using time in the correct shape for your application. Time is like a chameleon, it comes in whatever shape or colour the user needs it to. To time Usain Bolt running a hundred metres, the timekeeper of choice is a stop watch. A stopwatch is no help at all in successfully landing your rocket on a space station. You need the full Monty on your space and time navigating kit: Up/down forward/backward and left/right in space coordinates as well as all six matching degrees of freedom in time. Hence we come to this conclusion on time trials being unnecessary.
6. In Time Nothing?s Imaginary, All of it is real.
Unfortunately, Hawking got this one wrong. He kept obsessing with the square root of minus one, so some aspects of time seemed ?imaginary? to him. Only Electrical Engineers like me are allowed to use i (the symbol for the imaginary square root of minus one). It?s not a lot of use for us either. It can all be done geometrically on paper in pencil, and in just two dimensions with vector addition and subtraction. Case closed.
7. Universes Death Causes Identified.
This is explained under item 1 above. Gravity does the dirty on all universes. Another case closed.
8. Essential Independent Observer Justified.
This is Philosophy 101, having nothing to do with Science at all. If I?m not there to hear it does the falling tree make any sound at all?
Case closed.
9. Explanation given of Mirror effect at Infinity. See Item 1 again.
10.Holy Grail of Physics Finally Explained.
I must say this is the simplest conclusion so far. Gravity is elevated to its pinnacle by becoming the Lord High Executioner in ?The Mikado,
4
or The Town of Titipu?, by Gilbert and Sullivan. Gravity is just another disguise for the Mikado, as described in item 1 above.
I now close my cases completely.
That?s it Folks.
Thank you for your interest. Alan Stuart Mitchell
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The Universe. Its Beginning and End. Lloyd Motz.
Relativity. The Special and the General Theory. Albert Einstein. 1952.
The Universe in a Nutshell. Stephen Hawking. 2001.
The Greatest Show on Earth. Richard Dawkins.
The Selfish Gene. Ibid.
What is Time. GJ Whitrow.
The Illustrated Longitude. Dava Sobel and William J H Andrewes.
15 Million Degrees ? A Journey to the Centre of the Sun. Lucie Green.
Einstein?s Refrigerator. Gino Segre. 2002.
The Spinning Magnet. Alanna Mitchell. 2018.
Quantum. A Guide for the Perplexed. Jim Al-Khalili. 2003.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71376.0
(This Kindergarten Edition is mainly for their Simpleton Reviewers)
-
Apropos the question: it is meaningless!
Movement means displacement in space. Displacement from what, if there is no other object?
Dark matter of course Alan.
-
I reckon Halc will euthanase this thread as it is now sounding like a thread that was closed due to bickering.
-
Here goes with attempt number three:
My Holy Grail of Physics
The Bare Essentials
AlanM
2024 9 23
This thesis asserts that The Holy Grail of Physics is neither a Mystery, nor a Myth. In support of this assertion, the Author uses existing arguments on the following properties of space-time: 1. Matter and Antimatter. 2. All forms of Dark Energy. 3. Light. 4. Time. 5. Background Radiation. ? Alan Mitchell, 2024. The sting is in the Tale. Reductio ad absurdum is what it takes to explain. It?s a great technique. The Top Property is Time itself. Next Time you look at yourself in a mirror, ask yourself what you see. Most people get this wrong. Don?t feel bad if you do too. You are looking at your Immediate Passed. Your Image is History, the Past. And your Image is already twice as far away from you, and is smaller than you think. Even your Left and Right have been interchanged. Not many of you realise this either, until it?s explained to them. Passage of Time is the Grand Magician. Time has its own built-in Continuous Reset Button. It is permanently on Auto Pilot. Read on to find out why ?Time flies? is the Ultimate Decider of Fate in Our Universe, the only one of infinitely many we cannot hope to know better than our own.
1
MATTER AND ANTIMATTER
All the 20th Century literature examined by the Author, fails to satisfy sound logical expectations in explaining the seeming imbalance of matter and antimatter. Why this should be so is not known, for the simplest possible explanation is adequate in my view, having seen what various authors have postulated.
If one accepts the ideas commonly expressed by authorities like Dr Feynman, matter moving forwards through time is the same as antimatter moving backwards through time. So one has to conclude that as the space-time continuum produced its very first incredibly hot expansion of plasma into existence the matter and antimatter that had enough momentum to move apart rapidly did so with alacrity, to avoid mutual annihilation and an ignominious return to the potential energy source whence they came.
It follows logically that the separation of the matter and antimatter was in both space and time, and geometrically speaking, was measured in light-micro-seconds, a suitably dimensioned spatial measurement that would increase steadily as the mass of both matter and antimatter increased to form the first of many universes that would spread about in space-time. After a typical universe?s half-life, the separation would turn about, and begin decreasing for the next half life, to end in an immensely stronger big bang than the minutely small beginning of that universe, which expanded so vigorously and then steadily increased while the universe matured, produced life and intelligence, then began its downward decline towards its fatal recycling through ?black? hole activities. ?Black? holes basic functions include recycling matter and antimatter by spaghettifying any form of energy and recycling it as photons, the only energy form that ever leaves ?black? holes.
The escape from the intensely strong gravitational acceleration of ?black? holes for photons is mainly via the photon jets that issue from the North and South poles of the 3D jailers. The second route is by ?perspiring? through the porous ?skin? of the ?black? holes, in what has come to be regarded as ?Hawking Radiation?.
So to sum up, there is always an exact equivalent matter-antimatter balance in a typical universe, and it?s logically sound.
ALL FORMS OF DARK ENERGY
As for matter and antimatter, a zero balance criterion applies. It?s even more obvious that, if we accept what quantum theory asserts, when it postulates that sub-atomic particles like photons are their own antiparticles, one ought to realise that both photons and anti-photons are necessarily self-cancelling, thus have no mass, and so are able to travel through the vacuum of space at light speed. To
2
claim that any form of dark energy or dark matter is missing is simply not logical. It is obvious that there is twice as much momentum in light rays as there seems to be, as light rays are massless, and kinetic energy needs to be accounted for appropriately for light. Just looking up at the night sky tells us that light and dark energy being perfectly balanced are what keeps the night sky black, and Olber?s light catastrophe will never happen as a result. Again, it?s all quite logical.
LIGHT and TIME
It is vital to understand fully the relationships between Light and Time. Nothing is as confusing as the philosophical arguments about this topic. In reality, there is no need to make complicated what is quite straightforward.
The Fact of Light is that it is an essential commodity in any universe that wishes to promote life as we know it. Here on Earth there are a handful of life forms that survive in the dark in caves and in the depths of the oceans, but these are not life forms that depend on combining hydrogen and oxygen. Einstein?s thought experiments very aptly describe light experiments which have been proven correct as practical physics caught up with his predictions.
One must read GJ Whitrow?s book ?What is Time? to be thrown to the wolves in confusion as the author quotes mind-boggling ideas about light, and even Stephen Hawking brought forth ideas such as imaginary time to complicate, quite unnecessarily time?s relationships with light.
Living sentient beings of all types use many different clues from light and time to decide the following truths: a) We only move from past to future via the present.
b) We cannot accurately predict the future. c) Entropy will keep increasing.
d) The shape of time is important. To boil eggs only requires six-minute lumps of time. Their shape is not important. To meet up with a space laboratory requires very accurately shaped time, using six degrees of freedom for both the rocket ship and the spacelab?s crews. And three dimensional time is required to blow smoke rings, or to play deck tennis with deck quoits. The ITER and Large Hadron Collider projects both use plasmas in toroidal reactors, but the former (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) will not succeed. It attempts the impossible by trying to confine an intensely hot plasma inside a ring-shaped solenoid, whereas the LHD compresses its much cooler sub atomic particles in an arrow of time 1 dimensional procession as it speeds the particles to very nearly the speed of light
in opposing circles round the toroidal circuit, a much simpler task.
Our most conventional use of time is as a tape measure, to record our timelines in
2
one dimensional space, from birth to death. If one goes off into space and does a two dimensional loop in space, no matter how long one takes to get back where one started from, one rejoins those left behind to discover that both yourself and them have only aged at the same rate. This is logical, because both you and they have used similar intervals of time to do whatever you did. So the twin who goes off into space is still the same age as his brother who was left behind, and Einstein?s paradoxical death of the twin left behind while his brother gets younger steadily while away, is pure nonsense. Another ?mystery? is thus cleared, proving the importance of time?s shape. It?s important to note that it?s the User?s responsibility to use the correct sort of timepiece for the job in hand.
COSMIC BACKGROUND RADIATION
The last topic to explain is the meaning of the Cosmic Background Radiation. This is another, and perhaps the last essential property of 4-dimensional Space-Time the reader needs to understand to decide whether this document hits the target for an acceptable explanation of the similarity between the Gravitational Acceleration Einstein put forward so eloquently, and the seemingly incompatible Quantum Theories of his peers and contemporary colleagues.
This phenomenon was discovered twice, independently, by two different two-man teams whose thought processes converged rather coincidentally. Only the more practically inclined pair was rewarded with a Nobel prize. They were busy trying to eliminate what they originally considered an annoying problem of radio noise in a 3cm radar aerial, which they put down to pigeon droppings in their antenna.
No matter how clean they got the aerial, the noise persisted. Their names were Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. Their rivals were Robert Dicke and James Peebles, who predicted the existence of the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation.
The ironic thing is, though, that to call it what they did, both teams, and science in general, got their description wrong. The microwave noise does not represent an event in the past. It?s continuous. It will go on forever. It is actually, a mirror reflection from the edge of time. Of course, you may well ask, what is it that?s being reflected? Every last photon that keeps pinging on the edge of time, is being reflected off a half-silvered mirror, the blackness behind the edge of time, the only thing actually on the outside of our Space-Time cocoon, the latter expanding forever as it pushes its way out of Everything into Nothing, and using up to 100% (ie Infinity!), leaving zero space for Anything Else, as it goes on and on into Eternity.
3
You be my judges: have we found My Holy Grail?
The tail end of this, the mirror?s tale, is that Outsiders will see Infinity as a microdot!
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The Universe. Its Beginning and End. Lloyd Motz.
Relativity. The Special and the General Theory. Albert Einstein. 1952.
The Universe in a Nutshell. Stephen Hawking. 2001.
The Greatest Show on Earth. Richard Dawkins.
The Selfish Gene. Ibid.
What is Time. GJ Whitrow.
The Illustrated Longitude. Dava Sobel and William J H Andrewes.
15 Million Degrees ? A Journey to the Centre of the Sun. Lucie Green.
Einstein?s Refrigerator. Gino Segre. 2002.
The Spinning Magnet. Alanna Mitchell. 2018.
Quantum. A Guide for the Perplexed. Jim Al-Khalili. 2003.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71376.0
POSTSCRIPT
Jim Alkhalili?s explanation of the double slit experiment as ?Mother Nature?s Conjuring Trick? is a must-read key to understanding what ?black? holes do for the universe: They record the way in which they destroy all matter, so creating ever-increasing Entropy, which is the only information they contain until they expire gently and disappear as Photons into space-time.
To conclude my thoughts on the Holy Grail, imagine being Grand Observer Designate in Hyperspace, looking down on Space Time from the Edge of Eternity. What would you see? Obviously, you would need a very powerful microscope, because Infinity would have shrunk, from your exceedingly privileged viewpoint, to a microdot!
I give up! Three attempts, and the damned thing won't stick!
-
No, you have not found any "holy grail", you have found confusion.