| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"B.B." |
| Date: |
06 Feb 2005 07:48:02 PM |
| Object: |
The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
What follows in the next paragraph is some quotes from Brian
Greene's "Fabric of the Cosmos". I'd like to ask a couple of
questions. First. Is QM that incompatible with GR as the author
claimed or do real physicists understand it better than pop-sci
account? Second. Does anyone actually believe that our entire
universe were once smaller than the size of the atom? This
doesn't make any sense.
Quoting Brian Greene in "Fabric of the Cosmos"
"Does It Matter?
In practice, the incompatibility between general relativity and
quantum mechanics rears its head in a very specific way. If you
use the combined equations of general relativity and quantum
mechanics, they almost always yield one answer: infinity. And
that's a problem. It's nonsense. Experimenters never measure an
infinite amount of anything. Dials never spin around to infinity.
Meters never reach infinity. Calculators never register infinity.
Almost always, an infinite answer is meaningless. All it tells us
is that the equations of general relativity and quantum
mechanics, when merged, go haywire.
Notice that this is quite unlike the tension between special
relativity and quantum mechanics that came up in our discussion
of quantum nonlocality in Chapter 4. There we found that
reconciling the tenets of special relativity (in particular, the
symmetry among all constant velocity observers) with the behavior
of entangled particles requires a more complete understanding of
the quantum measurement problem than has so far been attained
(see pages 117-120). But this incompletely resolved issue does
not resul t in mathematical inconsistencies or in equations that
yield nonsensical answers. To the contrary, the combined
equations of special relativity and quantum mechanics have been
used to make the most precisely confirmed predictions in the
history of science. The quiet', tension between special
relativity and quantum mechanics points to an
area in need of further theoretical development, but it has
hardly any, impact on their combined predictive power. Not so
with the explosive union between general relativity and quantum
mechanics, in which all
predictive power is lost.
Nevertheless, you can still ask whether the incompatibility
between general relativity and quantum mechanics really matters.
Sure, the combined equations may result in nonsense, but when do
you ever really need to use them together? Years of astronomical
observations have shown that general relativity describes the
macro world of stars, galaxies, and even the entire expanse of
the cosmos with impressive accuracy; decades of experiments have
confirmed that quantum mechanics does the same for the micro
world of molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles. Since each,
theory works wonders in its own domain, why worry about combining
them? Why not keep them separate? Why not use general relativity
for things that are large and massive, quantum mechanics for
things that are tiny and light, and celebrate humankind's
impressive achievement of successfully understanding such a wide
range of physical phenomena?
As a matter of fact, this is what most physicists have done since
the early decades of the twentieth century, and there's no
denying that it's been a distinctly fruitful approach. The
progress science has made by working in this disjointed framework
is impressive. All the same, there are a number of reasons why
the antagonism between general relativity and quantum mechanics
must be reconciled. Here are two.
First, at a gut level, it is hard to believe that the deepest
understanding of the universe consists of an uneasy union between
two powerful theoretical frameworks that are mutually
incompatible. It's not as though the universe comes equipped with
a line in the sand separating things that are properly described
by quantum mechanics from things properly described by general
relativity. Dividing the universe into two separate realms seems
both artificial and clumsy. To many, this is evidence that there
must b e a deeper, unified truth that overcomes the rift between
general relativity and quantum mechanics and that can be applied
to everything. We have one universe and therefore, many strongly
believe, we should have one theory.
Second, although most things are either big and heavy or small
and light, and therefore, as a practical matter, can be described
using general
relativity or quantum mechanics, this is not true of all things.
Black holes provide a good example. According to general
relativity, all the matter that makes up a black hole is crushed
together at a single minuscule point at the black hole's center.
7 This makes the center of a black hole both enormously massive
and incredibly tiny, and hence it falls on both sides of the
purported divide: we need to use general relativity because the
large mass creates a substantial gravitational field, and we also
need to use quantum mechanics because all the mass is squeezed to
a tiny size. But in combination, the equations break down, so no
one has been able to determine what happens right at the center
of a black hole.
That's a good example, but if you're a real skeptic, you might
still wonder whether this is something that should keep anyone up
at night. Since we can't see inside a black hole unless we jump
in, and, moreover, were we to jump in we wouldn't be able to
report our observations back to the outside world, our incomplete
understanding of the black hole's interior may not strike you as
particularly worrisome. For physicists, though, the existence of
a realm in which the known laws of physics break down no matte r
how esoteric the realm might seem -throws up red flags. If the
known laws of physics break down under any circumstances, it is a
clear signal that we have not reached the deepest possible
understanding. After all, the universe works; as far as we can
tell, the universe does not break down. The correct theory of the
universe should, at the very least, meet the same standard.
Well, that surely seems reasonable. But for my money, the full
urgency of the conflict between general relativity and quantum
mechanics is revealed only through another example. Look back at
Figure 10.6. As you can see, we have made great strides in
piecing together a consistent and predictive story of cosmic
evolution, but the picture remains incomplete because of the
fuzzy patch near the inception of the universe. And within the
foggy haze of those earliest moments lies insight into the most
tantalizing o f mysteries: the origin and fundamental nature of
space and time. So what has prevented us from penetrating the
haze? The blame rests squarely on the conflict between general
relativity and quantum mechanics. The antagonism between the laws
of the large and those of the small is the reason the fuzzy patch
remains obscure and we still have no insight into what happened
at the very beginning of the universe.
To understand why, imagine, as in Chapter 10, running a film of
the expanding cosmos in reverse, heading back toward the big
bang. In reverse, everything that is now rushing apart comes
together, and so as we run the film farther back, the universe
gets ever smaller, hotter, and denser. As we close in on time
zero itself, the entire observable universe is compressed to the
size of the sun, then further squeezed to the size of the earth,
then crushed to the size of a bowling ball, a pea, a grain of
sand smal ler and smaller the universe shrinks as the film
rewinds toward its initial frames. There comes a moment in this
reverse-run film when the entire known universe has a size close
to the Planck length-the millionth of a billionth of a billionth
of a billionth of a centimeter at which general relativity and
quantum mechanics find themselves at loggerheads. At this moment,
all the mass and energy responsible for spawning the observable
universe is contained in a speck t hat's less than a hundredth of
a billionth of a billionth of the size of a single atom.
Thus, just as in the case of a black hole's center, the early
universe falls on both sides of the divide: The enormous density
of the early universe requires the use of general relativity. The
tiny size of the early universe requires the use of quantum
mechanics. But once again, in combination the laws break down.
The projector jams, the cosmic film burns up, and we are unable
to access the universe's earliest moments. Because of the
conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics, we
remain ignor ant about what happened at the beginning and are
reduced to drawing a fuzzy patch in Figure 10.6.
If we ever hope to understand the origin of the universe-one of
the deepest questions in all of science -the conflict between
general relativity and quantum mechanics must be resolved. We
must settle the differences between the laws of the large and the
laws of the small and merge them into a single harmonious theory.
.
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
07 Feb 2005 05:30:13 AM |
|
|
"B.B." <physicsofchi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107740882.095889.300540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What follows in the next paragraph is some quotes from Brian
Greene's "Fabric of the Cosmos". I'd like to ask a couple of
questions. First. Is QM that incompatible with GR as the author
claimed or do real physicists understand it better than pop-sci
account?
Yes
Second. Does anyone actually believe that our entire
universe were once smaller than the size of the atom?
Yes
This doesn't make any sense.
Why does it not make sense?
[snip]
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
06 Feb 2005 08:02:59 PM |
|
|
"B.B." wrote:
What follows in the next paragraph is some quotes from Brian
Greene's "Fabric of the Cosmos". I'd like to ask a couple of
questions. First. Is QM that incompatible with GR as the author
claimed. Second. Does anyone actually believe that our entire
universe were once smaller than the size of the atom? This
doesn't make any sense.
[snip 160 lines]
1) Fundamentally incompatible.
GR: c=c h=0 G=G
QM: c=infinity h=h G=0
GR is utterly deterministic. QM has instantaneous events.
2) The Big Bang was not an explosion in space, it was an explosion
of space. Externally observed size is meaningless because there is no
outside. All internal points are at the exact center. All 4(pi)
steradians exactly point to the Big Bang.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "glbrad01" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
06 Feb 2005 10:57:01 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
(snip)
2) The Big Bang was not an explosion in space, it was an explosion
of space. Externally observed size is meaningless because there is no
outside. All internal points are at the exact center. All 4(pi)
steradians exactly point to the Big Bang.
--
(snip)
"All...point to the Big Bang." No they don't. You can't see space in the
first place, and in the second, even the virtuality of space-time has
distant horizons into which distance itself, and therefore everything in the
distance, eventually has to merge together into infinitizing points, the
points merging to smooth background smoothly vanishing from all
[relativity]. Only distance though, that is all. Relativity has graduating
horizons of its own breakdown--possibly put on display by redshifting.
"All internal points...exact center." The exact centers? the distant
horizon in the opposite direction from the above horizon, the Planck
horizon, dividing itself into countlessness in the substrata of the
innermost order of magnitude of subatomic component workings. "Innermost,"
relatively speaking that is. Always "relatively speaking.
Brad
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
07 Feb 2005 11:14:24 AM |
|
|
glbrad01 wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
(snip)
2) The Big Bang was not an explosion in space, it was an explosion
of space. Externally observed size is meaningless because there is no
outside. All internal points are at the exact center. All 4(pi)
steradians exactly point to the Big Bang.
--
(snip)
"All...point to the Big Bang." No they don't. You can't see space in the
first place, and in the second, even the virtuality of space-time has
distant horizons into which distance itself, and therefore everything in the
distance, eventually has to merge together into infinitizing points, the
points merging to smooth background smoothly vanishing from all
[relativity]. Only distance though, that is all. Relativity has graduating
horizons of its own breakdown--possibly put on display by redshifting.
"All internal points...exact center." The exact centers? the distant
horizon in the opposite direction from the above horizon, the Planck
horizon, dividing itself into countlessness in the substrata of the
innermost order of magnitude of subatomic component workings. "Innermost,"
relatively speaking that is. Always "relatively speaking.
The original statement is correct as written.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
09 Feb 2005 10:18:22 AM |
|
|
Well, Uncle All, why not tell why you think your original statement is
still correct even after it was apparently destroyed by Brad's
response? Maybe you don't have a reason other than faith?
TomGee
.
|
|
|
| User: "glbrad01" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
09 Feb 2005 02:08:27 PM |
|
|
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107965902.171792.279690@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Well, Uncle All, why not tell why you think your original statement is
still correct even after it was apparently destroyed by Brad's
response? Maybe you don't have a reason other than faith?
TomGee
Uncle Al's response to you throws out the simple carpenter's work with
clocks and longitude, versus the Royal Astronomical Society, sailor
Columbus's successful voyage in 1492 when every certified scientist
predicted disaster, those wanderful young men in their flying machines when
Lord Kelvin predicted such was impossible, and Stephen Jobs' work in his
garage when von Neumann predicted the future of the size and mass of
physical computers would go in exactly the opposite direction. "Great
spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds..." -- Albert Einstein.
To have brainpower does mean that you cannot and will not be so narrow in
beam with it as to be looking out upon the world and cosmos, in vision,
through a very tight tunnel or cone (no peripheral vision whatsoever).
Brad
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
10 Feb 2005 09:23:17 AM |
|
|
Agreed. Thanks for the great AE quote.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
09 Feb 2005 02:43:18 PM |
|
|
glbrad01 wrote:
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107965902.171792.279690@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Well, Uncle All, why not tell why you think your original statement is
still correct even after it was apparently destroyed by Brad's
response? Maybe you don't have a reason other than faith?
TomGee
Uncle Al's response to you throws out the simple carpenter's work with
clocks and longitude, versus the Royal Astronomical Society, sailor
Columbus's successful voyage in 1492 when every certified scientist
predicted disaster, those wanderful young men in their flying machines when
Lord Kelvin predicted such was impossible, and Stephen Jobs' work in his
garage when von Neumann predicted the future of the size and mass of
physical computers would go in exactly the opposite direction.
[snip]
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "glbrad01" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
10 Feb 2005 03:37:52 AM |
|
|
I understand psychology far better than you think. I own you.
Brad
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
09 Feb 2005 11:02:42 AM |
|
|
TomGee wrote:
Well, Uncle All, why not tell why you think your original statement is
still correct even after it was apparently destroyed by Brad's
response? Maybe you don't have a reason other than faith?
TomGee
1) You are wholly ignorant on the topic.
2) glbrad01 is wholly ignorant on the topic.
3) Science is not a peer vote no matter how foul the mob's stench.
4) The original statement is correct as written.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
07 Feb 2005 09:38:12 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4206CC53.23136871@hate.spam.net...
"B.B." wrote:
<snip>
GR is utterly deterministic. QM has instantaneous events.
2) The Big Bang was not an explosion in space, it was an explosion
of space. Externally observed size is meaningless because there is no
outside. All internal points are at the exact center. All 4(pi)
steradians exactly point to the Big Bang.
So, what was the nature of the stuff that 'space' exploded into? For
example, what whould happen to, say, a photon if it found itself travelling
in this pre-space medium? What would happen to a star if it could be
instantaneously translated to a position in this pre-space medium, and the
gravity it created (if there is no 'space' and maybe time, what happens to
space time, etc. around this star).
Go, easy on me (Al), I'm not a physisist, just trying to get a feel for this
headf**king stuff :-)
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
07 Feb 2005 11:16:31 AM |
|
|
Joe wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4206CC53.23136871@hate.spam.net...
"B.B." wrote:
<snip>
GR is utterly deterministic. QM has instantaneous events.
2) The Big Bang was not an explosion in space, it was an explosion
of space. Externally observed size is meaningless because there is no
outside. All internal points are at the exact center. All 4(pi)
steradians exactly point to the Big Bang.
So, what was the nature of the stuff that 'space' exploded into?
[snip]
Hey idiot, the Big Bang did not explode "into" anything. THE BIG BANG
WAS AN EXPLOSION OF SPACE NOT INTO SPACE. Go back to first grade,
learn how to read for content. Mabye you can get a diversity
scholarship for your studies.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
07 Feb 2005 12:56:21 PM |
|
|
Thank you for your response.
I am, however, still in the dark regarding this concept. I did understand
your original point that the Big Bang was an explosion OF space - this is
what prompted my question so that I might get a bit more of a handle on the
situation.
I'm not a mathematician or physicist, so could not ask my original question
in formal terms. I do, however, follow this group and read popular science
books. So, I was simply trying to ask what was/is outside of the Big Bang
(not the bit that we live in, but the far side of the expansion that has not
had any of the 'Bang' in it yet. I then remembered the concept that
space-time is distorted by massive objects, so wondered what would happen
outside of 'space' if a massive object could be put there (i.e. where there
is no space, yet). I'm only trying to understand, I'm not trying to slag
anyone off or suggest some alternate theory.
I think now (after reading your response) that the outside of the Big Band
does not exist in the same way that imaginary numbers do not exist if you
only want to talk about the real number line or that zero did not exist for
mathematicians in the past, or that different degrees of infinity did not
exist, etc. etc. ?
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4207A26F.660CBC8E@hate.spam.net...
Joe wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4206CC53.23136871@hate.spam.net...
"B.B." wrote:
<snip>
GR is utterly deterministic. QM has instantaneous events.
2) The Big Bang was not an explosion in space, it was an explosion
of space. Externally observed size is meaningless because there is no
outside. All internal points are at the exact center. All 4(pi)
steradians exactly point to the Big Bang.
So, what was the nature of the stuff that 'space' exploded into?
[snip]
Hey idiot, the Big Bang did not explode "into" anything. THE BIG BANG
WAS AN EXPLOSION OF SPACE NOT INTO SPACE. Go back to first grade,
learn how to read for content. Mabye you can get a diversity
scholarship for your studies.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
07 Feb 2005 01:50:35 PM |
|
|
Joe wrote:
Thank you for your response.
I am, however, still in the dark regarding this concept. I did understand
your original point that the Big Bang was an explosion OF space - this is
what prompted my question so that I might get a bit more of a handle on the
situation.
I'm not a mathematician or physicist, so could not ask my original question
in formal terms. I do, however, follow this group and read popular science
books. So, I was simply trying to ask what was/is outside of the Big Bang
(not the bit that we live in, but the far side of the expansion that has not
had any of the 'Bang' in it yet.
NOTHING. One more time: the Big Bang was an exploson OF space not IN
space. All 4(pi) steradians point exactly at the Big Bang. There is
no "outside."
When you cut a Moebius band completely in half lengthwise, where is
the other piece when you are done?
I then remembered the concept that
space-time is distorted by massive objects, so wondered what would happen
outside of 'space' if a massive object could be put there
There isn't any there there.
[snip]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
09 Feb 2005 10:57:08 AM |
|
|
Joe wrote:
Thank you for your response.
I am, however, still in the dark regarding this concept. I did
understand
your original point that the Big Bang was an explosion OF space -
this is
what prompted my question so that I might get a bit more of a handle
on the
situation.
SNIP
So, I was simply trying to ask what was/is outside of the Big Bang
(not the bit that we live in, but the far side of the expansion that
has not
had any of the 'Bang' in it yet. I then remembered the concept that
space-time is distorted by massive objects, so wondered what would
happen
outside of 'space' if a massive object could be put there (i.e. where
there
is no space, yet). I'm only trying to understand, I'm not trying to
slag
anyone off or suggest some alternate theory.
I think now (after reading your response) that the outside of the Big
Band
does not exist in the same way that imaginary numbers do not exist if
you
only want to talk about the real number line or that zero did not
exist for
mathematicians in the past, or that different degrees of infinity did
not
exist, etc. etc. ?
Yes, exactly so, Joe, it is all made up, pure conjecture, and why some
people believe in it is beyond me. Uncle Al believes in Wonderland so
I understand why he thinks it is all fact, researched and confirmed.
Notice that he can't answer your questions directly. If he did, he
would be the top laughing stock of this ng.
He would say (and he does below) that there was a "Great Void" (GV)
into which space was emptied out during the BB, but no BB occurred in
one place, it occurred everywhere at once (Alice in Wonderland deja vu
all over again!!).
Imagine, if you will (even though the human brain is not evolved yet to
the point where we can imagine such a thing), that there is a place
where there is no matter, no energy, and no space, into which the BB
emptied out (either from a single singularity or UA's all-points
singularity). This place must still exist unless it happened to be the
exact size of the current universe, and since the universe is still
expanding, that could not be true. The GV apparently still exists
beyond our universe, even though we cannot imagine such a thing. Yeah
right!
So your question about what exists beyond our universe will not be
answered by Uncle simply because such a place is umimaginable! And
since space came out of the BB, the GV is not space and has none in it.
Uncle says there is no outside, but if there is an inside, there must
be an outside or it is all fantasy.
He claims all points of our universe are at the exact center of the U.
Isn't it oxymoronic to say such a thing? Why would anyone believe in
such nonsense? Certainly I hope you can't and won't.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
09 Feb 2005 01:11:37 AM |
|
|
Joe wrote:
Thank you for your response.
I am, however, still in the dark regarding this concept. I did
understand
your original point that the Big Bang was an explosion OF space -
this is
what prompted my question so that I might get a bit more of a handle
on the
situation.
According to astronomers, the Big Bang is/was an
explosion of everything. Space, time, matter and anti-matter.
There is nothing to get a handle on really, since
it's just a model of how galaxies evolve.
It has no outside because it has no inside either.
I'm not a mathematician or physicist, so could not ask my original
question
in formal terms. I do, however, follow this group and read popular
science
books. So, I was simply trying to ask what was/is outside of the Big
Bang
(not the bit that we live in, but the far side of the expansion that
has not
had any of the 'Bang' in it yet. I then remembered the concept that
space-time is distorted by massive objects, so wondered what would
happen
outside of 'space' if a massive object could be put there (i.e. where
there
is no space, yet). I'm only trying to understand, I'm not trying to
slag
anyone off or suggest some alternate theory.
That is what the universe is doing, but astronomers not
understanding how math works, call it a
dynamic expansion, rather than outside.
I think now (after reading your response) that the outside of the Big
Band
does not exist in the same way that imaginary numbers do not exist if
you
only want to talk about the real number line or that zero did not
exist for
mathematicians in the past, or that different degrees of infinity did
not
exist, etc. etc. ?
That's about right, since imaginary numbers
are just a mathematical property of real numbers.
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4207A26F.660CBC8E@hate.spam.net...
Joe wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4206CC53.23136871@hate.spam.net...
"B.B." wrote:
<snip>
GR is utterly deterministic. QM has instantaneous events.
2) The Big Bang was not an explosion in space, it was an
explosion
of space. Externally observed size is meaningless because
there is no
outside. All internal points are at the exact center. All
4(pi)
steradians exactly point to the Big Bang.
So, what was the nature of the stuff that 'space' exploded into?
[snip]
Hey idiot, the Big Bang did not explode "into" anything. THE BIG
BANG
WAS AN EXPLOSION OF SPACE NOT INTO SPACE. Go back to first grade,
learn how to read for content. Mabye you can get a diversity
scholarship for your studies.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "glbrad01" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
09 Feb 2005 04:32:20 AM |
|
|
The Universe is supposed to have been created via a Big Bang from an
immeasurably small point. Immeasurably because there was no ruler for it and
still is no ruler for it except one.
I've heard and read more than once that the ultimate goal of particule
accelerating and smashing is get back in time moving toward the event of the
Big Bang by reversing the process of supposed evolution of subatomic and
atomic makeup: breaking it down into its component elements down through
orders of magnitude of component levels until they reach through the process
the supposed state of--whatever--as it would have existed in the moment, or
instant, after the so-called Big Bang.
"As it would have existed..."? What existed then? What exists now, not
back then but right now at that component order of magnitude level at,
and/or below, the so-called Planck length, mass, energy, horizon, whatever?
Reversing the process in atom smashing down through orders of magnitude of
subatomic component smashing is time reversal to the first moment following
the Big Bang? What then, GR's Big Bang beginning inside QM's little bang
moment at whatever time it is accomplished, if ever even possibly
accomplished?
If collidors and future super colliders are shooting for reversal of time
to that moment now and in the future then all of the thing, all of it, has
to be there today in one single point component element of many at some
indefinable order of magnitude below the [relative to us] Planck horizon. If
any part of the play [is] down and in there all of the play, all of it
without exception, [is] down and in there.
If every quark and so on is a descendent of the Big Bang point in
evolution, ascending from it in time, created from after it....now let try
to get this straight....then descending down in component orders of
magnitude from the magnitude of the quark, today in time, locates what
[today] with regard to General Relativity as well as Quantum Mechanics?
General Relativity begins at the event horizon of the Big Bang and proceeds
after, before which there was nothing but something utterly chaotically
primordial. Quantum Mechanics begins at the Planck event horizon and rises
above, below which there is nothing but pure quantum chaos (relative to us).
General Relativity can be said to concern the big and massive.
Quantum Mechanics can be said to concern the small and light.
It is said though that there is no real "line in the sand," no real
dividing line between, no real horizon or switch point between, the two from
one to the other. That is a [massive] evasion of the issue. A way of trying
to duck the issue--hide the issue--that you and I seem to be the line in the
sand between, the dividing line between, the horizon and switch point from
one to the other. Yes you and I and our so-called "real world."
Brad
.
|
|
|
| User: "glbrad01" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
09 Feb 2005 05:07:07 AM |
|
|
"glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:RElOd.28769$C24.5930@attbi_s52...
The Universe is supposed to have been created via a Big Bang from an
immeasurably small point. Immeasurably because there was no ruler for it
and still is no ruler for it except one.
I've heard and read more than once that the ultimate goal of particule
accelerating and smashing is get back in time moving toward the event of
the Big Bang by reversing the process of supposed evolution of subatomic
and atomic makeup: breaking it down into its component elements down
through orders of magnitude of component levels until they reach through
the process the supposed state of--whatever--as it would have existed in
the moment, or instant, after the so-called Big Bang.
"As it would have existed..."? What existed then? What exists now, not
back then but right now at that component order of magnitude level at,
and/or below, the so-called Planck length, mass, energy, horizon,
whatever? Reversing the process in atom smashing down through orders of
magnitude of subatomic component smashing is time reversal to the first
moment following the Big Bang? What then, GR's Big Bang beginning inside
QM's little bang moment at whatever time it is accomplished, if ever even
possibly accomplished?
If collidors and future super colliders are shooting for reversal of time
to that moment now and in the future then all of the thing, all of it, has
to be there today in one single point component element of many at some
indefinable order of magnitude below the [relative to us] Planck horizon.
If any part of the play [is] down and in there all of the play, all of it
without exception, [is] down and in there.
If every quark and so on is a descendent of the Big Bang point in
evolution, ascending from it in time, created from after it....now let try
to get this straight....then descending down in component orders of
magnitude from the magnitude of the quark, today in time, locates what
[today] with regard to General Relativity as well as Quantum Mechanics?
General Relativity begins at the event horizon of the Big Bang and
proceeds after, before which there was nothing but something utterly
chaotically primordial. Quantum Mechanics begins at the Planck event
horizon and rises above, below which there is nothing but pure quantum
chaos (relative to us).
General Relativity can be said to concern the big and massive.
Quantum Mechanics can be said to concern the small and light.
It is said though that there is no real "line in the sand," no real
dividing line between, no real horizon or switch point between, the two
from one to the other. That is a [massive] evasion of the issue. A way of
trying to duck the issue--hide the issue--that you and I seem to be the
line in the sand between, the dividing line between, the horizon and
switch point from one to the other. Yes you and I and our so-called "real
world."
Brad
"General Relativity can be said to concern the big and massive" (and
slow....to the point of being indistinguishable from inanimate).
"Quantum Mechanics can be said to concern the small and light" (and
fast....to the point of being indistinguishable from instantaneous).
Brad
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
09 Feb 2005 11:01:11 AM |
|
|
glbrad01 wrote:
The Universe is supposed to have been created via a Big Bang from an
immeasurably small point. Immeasurably because there was no ruler for it and
still is no ruler for it except one.
[snip]
If collidors and future super colliders are shooting for reversal of time
to that moment now and in the future then all of the thing, all of it, has
to be there today in one single point component element of many at some
indefinable order of magnitude below the [relative to us] Planck horizon.
[snip]
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
07 Feb 2005 02:18:50 PM |
|
|
Joe wrote:
Thank you for your response.
I am, however, still in the dark regarding this concept. I did understand
your original point that the Big Bang was an explosion OF space - this is
what prompted my question so that I might get a bit more of a handle on the
situation.
I'm not a mathematician or physicist,
Ditto
so could not ask my original question
in formal terms. I do, however, follow this group and read popular science
books. So, I was simply trying to ask what was/is outside of the Big Bang
(not the bit that we live in, but the far side of the expansion that has not
had any of the 'Bang' in it yet. I then remembered the concept that
space-time is distorted by massive objects, so wondered what would happen
outside of 'space' if a massive object could be put there (i.e. where there
is no space, yet). I'm only trying to understand, I'm not trying to slag
anyone off or suggest some alternate theory.
I think now (after reading your response) that the outside of the Big Band
does not exist in the same way that imaginary numbers do not exist if you
only want to talk about the real number line or that zero did not exist for
mathematicians in the past, or that different degrees of infinity did not
exist, etc. etc. ?
The big bang model has some serious issues and there *are* credible
alternatives. Try Eric Lerner's Plasma Cosmology... don't be fooled by
the mug-shot, he's not a psycho/crank, rather a BSD in the fusion field.
http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/
-A
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
08 Feb 2005 03:46:05 AM |
|
|
Absolute Zero wrote:
[snip]
The big bang model has some serious issues and there *are* credible
alternatives. Try Eric Lerner's Plasma Cosmology... don't be fooled by
the mug-shot, he's not a psycho/crank, rather a BSD in the fusion field.
http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/
I've looked at some of Lerner's pages, looked up the references
he gives for some of his claims, and found out that he has the
habit of distorting what the references actually say...
He is not credible.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
07 Feb 2005 03:11:59 PM |
|
|
Now Now..
gets get one thing strait.
The speed the star stuff was moving then and now is .002 C .
The "'Presure of the inside of the big bang did not blast it into
motion.
The .002 C V of matter was the orbital rotation speed on the balloon
and why space looks flat.
It was going that speed when it was a rotoating balloon.
Second evidence is the shape of BGR.
3rd is a amount of matter and where it is 180 million light years from
the wall of the balloon.
14 billion years at a speed around .001 C.
from its balloon wall that has a speed of toatal mass in orbit .
Mass cant go fast enouph to fall to the center of the gravity pit of a
black hole and befor the gib bang the center of the balloon was all the
universe gravity in foucus at its center.
The max forard speed is 1/2 with a down speed of 1/2 C and we know the
forward speed was .002 C so the rest was down speed.
The universe was a balloon bacause matter cant fall fast enouph to get
to the center.
The walls of the balloon was 114 atoms thick because the atoms not at
the 1/2 C point are forced there . The rule cant orbit lower cant orbit
higher than a fine line of 1/2 c and 1/2 c.
Its so much force atoms formed 114 atoms thick .
a billion light year wide balloon is all the matter and its wall was
114 atoms thick .
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
08 Feb 2005 03:44:48 AM |
|
|
Joe wrote:
[snip]
I'm not a mathematician or physicist, so could not ask my original question
in formal terms. I do, however, follow this group and read popular science
books. So, I was simply trying to ask what was/is outside of the Big Bang
At the time of the Big Bang, and ever afterwards, there
*was* (and *is*) no "outside".
In popular science, the Big Bang is often displayed as
"the whole universe concentrated into one single point".
That *may* be right (we still don't know), but beside this,
there are also two other possibilities - for which the universe
*always* had an *infinite* extension.
So, an easy way to picture the universe directly after the Big Bang
is: *very* hot plasma everywhere, in all directions, going on
to an infinite distance.
The universe has no "end" or "border".
(not the bit that we live in, but the far side of the expansion that has not
had any of the 'Bang' in it yet.
There is no "far side of the expansion", and the Big Bang
happened everywhere at once.
I then remembered the concept that
space-time is distorted by massive objects, so wondered what would happen
outside of 'space' if a massive object could be put there (i.e. where there
is no space, yet).
When there was no space, there also was no time - so putting
something in there was not possible.
And "outside of space" is simply meaningless.
I'm only trying to understand, I'm not trying to slag
anyone off or suggest some alternate theory.
I think now (after reading your response) that the outside of the Big Band
does not exist in the same way that imaginary numbers do not exist
if you
only want to talk about the real number line or that zero did not exist for
mathematicians in the past, or that different degrees of infinity did not
exist, etc. etc. ?
No.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
08 Feb 2005 04:39:59 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Joe wrote:
[snip]
I'm not a mathematician or physicist, so could not ask my original
question
in formal terms. I do, however, follow this group and read popular
science
books. So, I was simply trying to ask what was/is outside of the Big
Bang
At the time of the Big Bang, and ever afterwards, there
*was* (and *is*) no "outside".
In popular science, the Big Bang is often displayed as
"the whole universe concentrated into one single point".
No, wait, a single point as compared to what?
You idiot.
snip
johbn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
08 Feb 2005 04:53:41 AM |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Joe wrote:
[snip]
I'm not a mathematician or physicist, so could not ask my original
question
in formal terms. I do, however, follow this group and read popular
science
books. So, I was simply trying to ask what was/is outside of the Big
Bang
At the time of the Big Bang, and ever afterwards, there
*was* (and *is*) no "outside".
In popular science, the Big Bang is often displayed as
"the whole universe concentrated into one single point".
No, wait, a single point as compared to what?
Huh? What on earth is your problem? One does not need
anything for comparison in order to talk about a "single
point"!
You idiot.
I notice that you still ignore all my arguments in other
thread, still ignore all my questions for references for
your claims, and still resort only to snide comment and insults
in posts to me.
Thanks for admitting defeat.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
08 Feb 2005 05:45:23 PM |
|
|
Carl Sagan used a Dandelion seed and I have used the snow flake. Now
after many years of thinking. I have to say the neutron best represents
our universe. Bert
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
09 Feb 2005 11:04:41 AM |
|
|
Readers please note that there is no Bjoern; it is only Uncle Knowitall
posting support for his ridiculous beliefs.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "B.B." |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
07 Feb 2005 05:50:00 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
1) Fundamentally incompatible.
GR: c=c h=0 G=G
QM: c=infinity h=h G=0
GR is utterly deterministic. QM has instantaneous events.
How do you think will they be unify? What's the thought of
mainstream physicists about this. Do you believe in Loop
Quantum Gravity, M-Theory or what??
2) The Big Bang was not an explosion in space, it was an explosion
of space. Externally observed size is meaningless because there is
no
outside. All internal points are at the exact center. All 4(pi)
steradians exactly point to the Big Bang.
--
Uncle Al
If space and time were once a point smaller than an atom.
What hold it in place. I mean. What is the surrounding of
this singularity? As another way of asking. Let say
the point reach the huge size of this universe. What is
beyond the edge of the universe or what surround this
point that big banged into the universe we know today?
Obvious answer may be "nothing". But If there is
something. Would we know?
To experts like Heymann, Samley, and other geniuses.
pls. share what you think. Thanks.
B.B.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
07 Feb 2005 06:23:10 PM |
|
|
"B.B." wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
1) Fundamentally incompatible.
GR: c=c h=0 G=G
QM: c=infinity h=h G=0
GR is utterly deterministic. QM has instantaneous events.
How do you think will they be unify? What's the thought of
mainstream physicists about this. Do you believe in Loop
Quantum Gravity, M-Theory or what??
Nobody has any idea, nor do I. Both M-theory and LQG are abject
failures if you like your physical theory to be predictive. GR
(metric gravitation, Einstein) isn't even on solid ground because
there is equally perfect affine gravitation (Weitzenboeck) with one
fewer founding postulate.
We are in the process of examining the last remaining class of
Equivalence Principle violation,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
The full parity experiment kicks off in a PR China lab around April.
If there is a net signal in excess of one part in ten trillion
difference/aveage, GR is falsfied along with its founding postulate.
An Equivalence Principle parity anomaly also falsifies Lortnez
invarance - and that takes down 3/5 of M-theory, conservation of
angular momentum, plus quantum mechanics. It could be great fun, all
of it pivoting on an obscure footnote that does not spontaneously
occur segregated in nature.
2) The Big Bang was not an explosion in space, it was an explosion
of space. Externally observed size is meaningless because there is
no
outside. All internal points are at the exact center. All 4(pi)
steradians exactly point to the Big Bang.
--
Uncle Al
If space and time were once a point smaller than an atom.
What hold it in place. I mean. What is the surrounding of
this singularity? As another way of asking. Let say
the point reach the huge size of this universe. What is
beyond the edge of the universe or what surround this
point that big banged into the universe we know today?
Obvious answer may be "nothing". But If there is
something. Would we know?
You keep tinking of it as a grape embedded in a vineyard. There is no
vinyarde.
To experts like Heymann, Samley, and other geniuses.
pls. share what you think. Thanks.
They aren't geniuses, they are knowledgeable and talented and
hard-working on both. The world has so decayed that mere competence
is viewed as a flaming sword of truth.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitch Perkins" |
|
| Title: Re: The Universe in a Grain of Sand |
07 Feb 2005 06:42:30 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
[snip]
Nobody has any idea, nor do I.
Whuzza?
[snip Eotvos update]
If space and time were once a point smaller than an atom.
What hold it in place. I mean. What is the surrounding of
this singularity? As another way of asking. Let say
the point reach the huge size of this universe. What is
beyond the edge of the universe or what surround this
point that big banged into the universe we know today?
Obvious answer may be "nothing". But If there is
something. Would we know?
You keep tinking of it as a grape embedded in a vineyard. There is
no
vinyarde.
Is this *known*, or is the answer known to be currently outside of
all physical models?
Mitch
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
