1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is the big bang impossible?

« on: Today at 19:51:33 »

What's the charge density of an electron?

Pete, you know I don’t have the maths to do justice to this, but if asked a question, I like to do my best to respond. 

Besides, some day I may want to take you to task for not answering. 

My understanding is that the charge density of a particle is the ratio of its charge to its volume. 

Charge/volume. (?)

I assume, from the context; also from a post of yours in Physics Forums that I struggled with a few years ago; that you are saying that the charge density of an electron is infinite (?)

My thoughts would be along the lines that the charge is finite and the volume is finite, so although the ratio may be mathematically “infinite”, two finite entities do not equal a physical infinity.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can time emerge?

« on: Today at 19:28:46 »

Things move. We know that. If all particles were entangled by being connected together then all their fields must be connected together. This means that all the forces would be evenly distributed everywhere. So that no impetus can be given to anything to make it move. This can apply to many worlds, extra dimensions and a host of other propositions. The imagination can be a dangerous thing when unfettered.

I often think it was a shame that David Bohm’s youthful left-wing affiliation came to light at a time when his fellow countrymen were looking under their beds for “Commies”.  He could certainly have provided answers to most of these points, and might even have shown us how to unfetter our imaginations without too much risk, had he not been ostracised.   

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can time emerge?

« on: Yesterday at 00:20:09 »

  how can space exist in a wormhole when it allows you to step around space

Isn't that just conjecture?

  how can time exist when entry and exit is virtually instantaneous 

If it were virtually instantaneous, would that not involve a brief instant of time?

4

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Do snakes eat people?

« on: 18/06/2018 20:50:32 »

Some interestinf info here.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/03/30/pythons-can-kill-human-minutes-and-swallow-them-hour/99824246/

5

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Do snakes eat people?

« on: 18/06/2018 20:44:55 »

I couldn't get the video to play.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is the big bang impossible?

« on: 18/06/2018 20:07:03 »

What does "+ve energy" etc mean? I never saw that term before.

Sorry if my non-expert terminology is confusing.  Perhaps the following reference to positive and negative energy might help to rectify the situation.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=what+is+a+positive+and+negative+energy+balance&oq=is+there+positive+and+negative+energy+&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.24634j1j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is the big bang impossible?

« on: 18/06/2018 19:58:12 »

And its a matter of fact that if the universe is an open one, which it appears to be more and more, then there's an infinite amount of matter in the universe.

That is, as long as you don't interpret a "fact" as something that requires physical/experimental confirmation.

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is the big bang impossible?

« on: 17/06/2018 23:49:58 »

The total amount of energy in the universe is zero.

I have no problem with the assertion that the balance of energy in the Universe is zero.
 However, I find myself wondering if that is actually the same as saying the “total amount” is zero.

If there is x amount of +ve energy, that is an amount.
If there is x amount of -ve energy, that is an amount.

One may cancel the other, so that the balance is zero, but there is still x amount of +ve and x amount of -ve energy; or can they mutually destroy each other? 
If so, can energy be destroyed?

I’m willing to believe my reasoning is off track, but I need to know where.

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is Nothingness?

« on: 17/06/2018 23:27:31 »

Nice one Pete. Promise I'll credit you if I ever use it. 

10

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Do we need to bring out our tinfoil hats?

« on: 17/06/2018 23:23:27 »

I think I tend to move my mouth more than normal when I think of words myself (enough for others to notice).

Apparently St Augustine is the first person recorded as reading without moving his mouth.  His fellow monks were amazed.

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is Nothingness?

« on: 17/06/2018 22:53:20 »

a paragraph could be proposed and tested among those in the scientific community with the intent of finding a consensus on "how the model addresses the issue of the beginning".

Sadly, what we often seem to need is an explanation as to whether the "author" thinks "nothing" is "nothing" or "something" 

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Which boost would be higher?

« on: 17/06/2018 22:37:17 »

Does this set-up involve the spring hitting a receding object? 

I agree with Kryptid; a diagram would be good.

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is the big bang impossible?

« on: 17/06/2018 22:29:04 »

Hi Lassewe, welcome.

That's where I have a problem with the big bang theory because the theory revolves around the universe expanding from a single point aka a singularity.

Don’t be derailed by the concept of a singularity.  Chris Baird says of singularities:

“In general, singularities are the non-physical mathematical result of a flawed physical theory. When scientists talk about black hole singularities, they are talking about the errors that appear in our current theories and not about objects that actually exist.”

I think it is worth keeping in mind that the same would apply to a BB singularity.
 

  So the universe acording to the theory has been infintively small at one point.

Chris Baird, again:

“….infinities never exist in the real world. Whenever an infinity pops out of a theory, it is simply a sign that your theory is too simple to handle extreme cases. [/quote]

This must suggest that “an infinite temperature” is not something that would occur in the real world.

14

Technology / Re: If you could travel faster than light, could you travel in time?

« on: 17/06/2018 22:05:07 »

For an object starting 'at infinity' and falling freely towards a black hole....

In what sense are you using "infinity" here? 
Is your object infinitely far away; or is it just a large, but otherwise unspecified distance away?

15

Technology / Re: If you could travel faster than light, could you travel in time?

« on: 17/06/2018 22:00:25 »

Time dilation becomes infinite and time stops for the object travelling at c.

Isn’t there still divided opinion about that in the scientific community?

  If this was a physicality and not just a perception then the whole universe would be compressed into a singularity.

So, is time stopping for an object travelling at c just a perception?

Of course this is not a physical reality.

Is the “infinity in the gamma function” a physical reality?  Don’t say “define reality”, that’s a cop-out.

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Which boost would be higher?

« on: 17/06/2018 15:27:10 »

  I assume you meant "root of the mass" instead of "route of the mass"?

I assumed that “route” was intentional.  The mass is moving, the spring is fixed somewhere along its route, and is released at an appropriate time to give the mass a “push”.

That didn’t help me to tackle the question, so I stayed out, but I’d be interested to know if my interpretation was right.

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can we measure the one way speed of light?

« on: 17/06/2018 11:30:22 »

I've not been following this thread, so this might well have been seen already.

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-one-way-speed-of-light-fcc5f05c5e44

If not, it might be of interest.

18

Technology / Re: If you could travel faster than light, could you travel in time?

« on: 16/06/2018 23:17:54 »

Light travels more slowly in a medium, including being completely stopped.

It’s not quite as clear-cut as that. There’s a fair bit on the subject in various places on this Forum.  I’m not the best one to try to find it.

The speed of light is really infinity.

Wouldn’t it require at least one equation involving infinity to establish that?

At the speed of light, you are moving infinitely fast, and you are already there.

That would involve something progressing from finite to infinite speed.  How would it achieve that?

Moving faster than that is literally meaningless.  You get infinities and imaginary numbers out of the equations.

Doesn’t this reasoning negate your assertion that “the speed of light is infinite”?

…. with the physics we currently have and expect to see in the foreseeable future (i.e. without a radical and unexpected change), even that is impossible.

I’ll not argue with that.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we struggle to perceive.  With apologies to Walter.

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could there be "static" instants of time?

« on: 16/06/2018 15:46:07 »

Summary: Considering time as a measuring tool.

1.  Only physical change is relevant.  Time is simply a device we use to make sense of, and to measure this change.  As this is what Lynds seems to be saying, it must be that his “preoccupation” with the idea of static instants is an attempt on his part to address the “misconceptions” of others.
The development of the concept of linear time was necessary for rational beings to make sense the exigencies of the Universe we observe. 

2.  Does time “flow”?  We can, and many authors do, treat time as though it were flowing from past to future.  We can also treat time as being static and consider that we are passing through it.  the “tensed” and “tensless” views of time; or McTaggart’s “A Series” and “B Series” examine these two viewpoints.  Neither of these viewpoints has any validity if time does not exist as an “independent” entity.

3.  The necessity for eternity remains.  If it is physical change that is relevant, there must always have been change.  It follows that there must always have been something to change.

4.  An infinite multiverse, eternal inflation, or even “Platonia”, seem to offer explanations for an eternal “something”, but none of these actually addresses the problem of changes in eternity/infinity. 

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could there be "static" instants of time?

« on: 16/06/2018 13:51:38 »

Of course mathematical points in spaces or time can perhaps be treated as static as mathematics only models the physical world and so has "artistic license"

Beautifully put! 

Mathematics must be the best tool we have for understanding the Universe; but maths is not God.  If someone could produce good evidence that some "intelligence" designed and created the Universe using mathematical rules, I would, of course, reconsider my position, but in the meantime, I'll go with the thought that the Universe is as it is, for whatever reason, and maths is the (astoundingly successful)  creation of the human mind.  I wash I had a better grasp of it.