Jump to content

adam SA

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About adam SA

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
  • College Major/Degree
    1st year Biomolecular Chemistry
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Theoretical Physics, Quantum Mechanics
  1. Still havnt been ble to read all your posts, doing it now, but doesnt relativity imply you make one the "constant", and measure the other velocity relative to the "constant"? Can someone pleacse explain to me three things. If one light particle were measured in velocity relative to another with an equal and opposite velocity, why is it not therefore travelling faster than the speed of light (please explain so i can understand )? Does infinity actually exist in our universe anywhere that we actually know, because we know blackholes radiate off energy and slowly die (i think in gravity waves), Is the universe really infinitely big, or is this just a theory (because apparenlty we can measure it)?' And i dont really differentiate infinity from zero, so does nothing really exist anywhere (how do u measure nothing, space/time and Higgs felds always seem present)? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Cheers for that Martin, put it in a way i understand, very enlightening. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedJust watched this, was pretty enlightning in the way it showed light travelling three dimensionally not just "forward or backward", and it makes sense since it is vibrating.
  2. Yeh Plancks constants are amazing, He has got to be one of my favorite scientists, with Shrodinger, Copernicus and Michio Kaku.
  3. I liked this representation of the universe, mainly because they mentioned that we are still redefining our theories, dont take it all for face value, but it is still quiet enlightening. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6CXsvNGkhg&feature=PlayList&p=16F91CAC49800483&index=8 The internet is almost the reason for the information revolution, i recommend these 3 movies to anyone interested in the universe, the future or quantum mechanics. And this one is good for its easy explanations and its representation of the electron, in that its "minute mass means it can occupy a larger space" (please ignore the its almost funny its so bad animations (althought i am currently doing computer graphics design and cant replicate this yet)); Again, these are only good representations, take it with a pinch of salt, but worth a watch
  4. I just always though that like in a vaccuum (if one really exists) that positive and negative matter can appear and dissapear (positive and negative energy), in that you can "borrow" energy from the universe as long as you pay the energy back quik enough. In this, from nothing (singularity, "before" the big bang) why cant you borrow "near infinite" positive and negative energy (mass), and as we know mass creates a "time warp" (like a black hole). So in an essence the universe only existed for an instant, yet because of its immense gravity (like a black hole) it bends wat we perceive as space time enough for us to perceive it as near infinity (near infinity, wasnt that dumb). (if you put an object next to a object with immense gravitational field it would age relatively lower than everything observing it that is not near a large gravitational field)? (I have trouble differentiating zero from infinity, in the same way i have trouble seperating the speed of light from a physical distance. It is hard to express zero without infinity and infinity without zero. We apparently know 1-1 =0 , also f(x) = x-x = 0, whether x be infinity or zero, and infinity is best expressed as f(x) = x/0, in that x can be any number positive or negative) just one of my theories atm, I will soon come up with a better one when i learn more
  5. Thanks StringJunky, you have made a good poing and provided a good example, though: still, it seems to me that one galaxy on one side of the universe would therefore be travelling faster than the speed of light relative to a galaxy on the opposite side of the universe? I understand that the "space" between galaxies is expanding, and so is the "space" inside individual atoms (between electrons and protons etc). This is evident from the amount of Neutrons needed inside an atom to keep it stable (http://algebralab.com/practice/practice.aspx?file=Reading_TheBandOfStability.xml), today more neutrons are "apparently" required to "stabalise" atoms (generally larger ones), and so in the future, elements which are unstable now such as darmstadtium may be able to stabalise, or perhaps even the reverse may be true (dont know how to measure this 1 without alot of "time" to study it). I Just cant help but to see a paradox here, without saying the laws of physics as we know it took time to exist in the form we perceive today (the speed of light has been exceeded in a relative form)? because even if you say it is only the "space" expanding, the space between galaxies is therefore expanding (using light years as a measure of distance). Are some galaxies therefore "dissapearing" from our sight? P.S. I am not trying suggesting i know the answer, though i thankyou all for your help in understanding this
  6. Cheers for the answer but im still a lil confused. "Originally Posted by adam SA It is almost universally (lol managed to use the word universe already) accepted that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. Then why do i keep hearing sizes of 93 billion light years across (wikipedia), and 33 billion years radius from another documentary, and many more bizarre sizes. " By this i am interpreting "distance" in terms of light years, because i always thought the speed of light was a "universal constant" (by this i know ( i think i know) that the speed of light is changing as the "known universe" increases in "size", but i always assumed the speed of light was a constant relative to the size of the universe so it was a perfect measure of "distance", in terms of "space/time"). I also thought that relatively, still nothing could exceed the speed of light, and that light itself posed a paradox that we still cant explain yet (2 light particles travelling away from each other, relatively their combined speed is still only the speed of light? i know this kinda breaks down relativity, is there something i missed?) Do we know of anything actually exceeding this speed other than examples like entanglement etc. (dont want to go into the quantum world yet) I am aware of the "Hyper Expansion" theory by A H Guth. But i thought after a certain amount of "time" (space/time, or whatever it used to be), our interpretations/laws of the physical universe came into place, such as light being the maximum speed. Wasnt this meant to explain why the universe background radiation was so "ordered" as well as explain why the universe has a radius larger than 13.7 billion light years, or has this already been debunked? I need to do some more recent research, i must be living in the past. oh no! Im going to read ur articles this weekend, Thankyou so much for posting the links Iggy.
  7. It is almost universally (lol managed to use the word universe already) accepted that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. Then why do i keep hearing sizes of 93 billion light years across (wikipedia), and 33 billion years radius from another documentary, and many more bizarre sizes. Doesnt this suggest alot of things are travelling faster than the speed of light? away from the "centre" of the universe which occurred 13.7 billion years ago. Does this mean that light from some galaxies has not reached us yet, which to me doesnt make much sense since we originated from a singularity, which kinda suggests we have always been receiving light from them, unless they somehow were travelling faster than the speed of light. I thought that since the universe was measured at 13.7 billion years old, this would imply that the radius could be no greater than 13.7 billion light years across, does this mean that our laws of physics took "time" years to work itself into a "reality"? What is goin on here?
  8. Thank God For the Big Bang. Thank God for Evolution. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThat last post was satirical, i realised people might take it too seriously after i posted it
  9. Cheers for the response. Lol, how do you measure infinity thats a good point, i like that. But yeh we still stuck with infinity as a man made concept I want to know it exists or doesnt. And i find it difficult to seperate infinity from 0, does nothing only exist in concept as well? (the only way i know to express infinity is to use the "number 0" in some form)
  10. Well Does infinity exist in nature? I have recently heard blackholes actually slowly die, they somehow radiate energy (I think in gravity waves). Perhaps Black holes (not the event horizon, the "Actual Stuff") has a real size? Also the bigbang seems to suggest our universe isnt endless, Just really really really big. So the universe Does not go for infinity. Theres a Limited Speed, Mass/energy in the universe and Size. If there is a limit on everything there is a limit on complexity. Do we realy know of any instances in which infinity does exist, or have we created the concept?
  11. Let we start on thesubatomic level, at this level we can never say for sure what is going to happen we can merely predict what may happen, and again this is not always the case. i.e the more precisely we know one property about an electron, the less certain we can know another, heisenbergs principal. An electron may take any/or all possible paths to its destination simultaneously. At the subatomic level nothing is certain. Yet as the number of particles in a system increases (approaches infinity), as we experience in everyday life, we are able to be much more precise with our predictions, in that; as the number of "particles" in a system increases (approaches infinity), we experience the most likely outcome. This to me is evident in the way we experience matter and that we may use more accurately newtonian physics as the amount of particles in that system approaches infinity (though it does break down at the extreme with blackholes etc). So as we approach larger quantities of particles, the most likely result will be observed. (if you roll 2 dice you will not always get the most probable 7, although if you roll it enough times it is the most likely number, the physicssuggests the most likely outcome is governed by newtonian physics not quantum as we reach larger quantities of particles in a system) now let me relate this for a second to infinite universes, let us assume there are infinite universes. We know by the nature of infinity, that if there were such thing, there would be infinite more of the most likely universe ( in that me rolling a 7 is more likely than a 2, more likely me to be typing than to be struck by a gamma ray burst, which caused hubble to fall to earth and sever my left arm and for me to survive ) So now lets assume there infinite universes for a second, and there is such thing as a more likely universe. Therefore there are infinite more of the most likely universe. Now let us assume for a second we can travel to another universe, could we ever, experience anything but the most probable universe since there are infinite more of them. (this does not assume nothing unlikely will happen, if you rolled 2 dice millions of times, by the nature of the large sample size, it is likely something unlikely will happen somewhere in the sample, Hence in the universe it is likely something unlikely will happen due to the large "sample" (Energy/Space/time), i.e. life) This didnt hold much merit even to myself until i started studying the quantum level, in which it seems to suggest as the system gets larger, the results are more easier to predict. I do not know whether infinity does actually exist anywher in nature, the so far general concensus of the big bang seems to suggest th universe has an end, and in some documentaries they suggest to have plotted the boundaries using low radiation, and red shift mechanisms Watch this if you would like some things spelled in laymans terms (mind the animations) And i do not know the answer, it would be naieve to suggest anyone does, Please Discuss
  12. Sorry Repeated thread, accidentally posted in mathematics. im new plz help First of all, this is purely a conceptual question and i do not know the answer. But i have heard that theoretically infinate universes could be the answer (string and quantum theory etc.), and this to me has as many answers as problems. First is the concept of infinity, i find it very difficult to seperate the concepts of infinity and nothing (zero). If one exists, it simply seems natural to me that the other does also. Somehow i find myself to be mathematically minded (im guessing) and to express infinity you must use the "number 0" in some form. First let me express this is simply theory, for discussion purposes on the concept of infinity, and it is impossible to express all i have learnt in a short text. Yet there is one Theory of mine i would like to express, regarding the concept of infinity. We do not know for certain whether infinity actually exists in nature (black holes even seem to loose energy over time?), Though let us for a moment assume infinity does exist somewhere in nature. This is one theory explaining many of the missing puzzles in the universe, from the missing gravity (higgs field) to the big bang etc Now let us try and conceptualise infinite universes... have i lost you yet? I know this is very hard to do and is simply beyond my comprehension, but this is the reason of this site and new thread Assuming Infinite Universes do exist... We know other universes "could" be governed by different laws and different constants (change the value of plancks constant and you have a different set of laws governing the universe). this would give us a total different universe, simply beyond our comprehension. But again this is theoretical and for current purposes let us just assume there are infinite universes Now let us postulate that there is such thing as a more likely universe, such that it is more likely for me to type this document than for me to spontaneously combust doing so. It is more likely for me to talk to you in english than to suddenly learn japanese and speak in Japanese, It is more likely for me to be alive tomorrow than die by a satellite being struck by a meteor and strike me specifically. It is more likely for me to roll a 7 using 2 dice, than to roll a 2 In such a case, in which there "IS" a "more likely universe" (more likely to roll a 7 using two dice than a 2), by the sheer nature of infinity, can we not assume there are infinate more of the most probable universe. this is difficult beause we are dividing infinity into infinity and assuming there is a larger infinity. Lets not assume there is a "larger infinity" simply one which can be reached much quicker. Now this does not create any problems until you would try to travel to another universe, because the simple nature of infinity, and which there are simply infinite more of the most probable universe, could we experience anything other than the most probable universe? I.E. IF there are infinite more of the most probable universe could we experience anything other than the most probable universe. I, Myself did not give myself much credit for this theory, until i started studying more definitively quantum physics (the word quantum, meaning quantised/defined lends much merit to this theory). To the best of our knowledge today ( i say this because everything is basd upon past knowledge and pilt down man, Jans Heindrich schon etc has taught me to be a skeptic) Quantum mechanics has suggested that at the subatomic level, virtually anything is possible, not even the location of an electron can be certain, in that it can take all possible routes to its destination. Yet as we add more and more particles to the tests we can more accurately predict the results, in that as the "complexity" approaches "infinity", we can more accurately define the results. All particles act like waves, yet as the number of these particles come together only the most probable outcome will be observed. Some people might argue well what about life? its random isnt it? well perhaps, as we know, that if you roll 2 dice thousands of times, you will experience many rolls of 2, 11 etc, which just show us that in the most probable universe, some unlikely things will happen. SO, If there are infinite universes and there is a most probably universes, can anything exist but infinite parrallel universes? Please Discuss
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.