pantheory

There was a body which have zero volume, infinite density and infinite mass. It is called the singularity.

RAJA,

The question is: what was before that? The answer would involve at least one of the many hypothetical versions of the Big Bang model. There presently is no mainstream consensus concerning an answer.

It's alright, you would be saying so without a valid argument anyway so...

 

*I jest harshly but in good humor.

I truly appreciate jest and good humor I have theory, reasoning, and I believe a valid argument. I have designed a test (not quite so easy) for this assertion if you wish to discuss it in the speculation forum, " alternative to Big Bang" thread. The same experiment would also be a test of my model of gravity.

added: What, this is the speculation forum? but not my thread. Could I start explaining my model here, or do I need to save the "differences in the speed of light" for my own thread?

//

Yes, the speed of light is constant.

This is the mainstream part of the forum or else I would assert otherwise

A wormhole doesn't change the speed of light, but changes the distance between 2 points, providing a shortcut.

It's kind of a cheat. If you measure the distance between the two points with ordinary space, but allow light to travel between the two along a different distance, then light can travel at c but for a much shorter distance. To calculate a faster than light speed, you'd use the longer distance, which is a cheat because light didn't actually travel that path.

Cheaters never prosper, or fly through any wormholes either, that I know of

Personally I doubt that's possible. Defining distance with "ordinary space" seems to be consistent. Any cheats and corresponding violation of causality would probably involve inconsistencies, and the universe appears to be consistent as a rule.

I agree

//

md65536,

Since the difference between two reference points in time can result in no change, I don't think that "change" is quite the essence of time, at least not on a small scale...

It would seem that there will always be changes between any two time frames based upon the definition of a "time frame." Proton spin is at a rate (if I remember correctly) 10^22 cps, concerning showing the same face to an observer every other spin. This can also be an ideal type of time measurement device. Accordingly everything either has spin or changes its relative condition/ position defining a time interval, therefore two different time frames requires by definition that changes have taken place. s Any time frame must include the surrounding ZPF which also has ever continuous changes to it such as trillions of neutrinos passing through it every second.

But then again, since an oscillation repeats, you'd need to distinguish between similar phases, such as by counting the cycles. On a larger scale or with more complexity, time may be a measurement involving change... though "entropy" seems a more appropriate word.

Changes of entropy are as valid as any other change for describing a time interval, but changes in entropy cannot be used as a measurement device concerning an exact time quantity, seemingly only an estimate of time can be made.

The important thing I think is that it's not a measure of the amount of change itself, but rather a measure based on the regularity with which a reference (a clock or a timing process) oscillates.

I agree. Oscillations are one manner of counting time; Rotation/ spin is another, flow rates are another (such as a water clocks or a sand glass), pendulum swings (as in a grandfather clock) etc. Each clock device must also have a counting mechanism.

The concept involved is: As matter and energy have existence, so must their state of existence continually change: hence time.

Please pardon me if my idea is wrong, because i'm only 14 years old.

Out of the mouth of babes can come the most profound questions.

Your idea is not wrong. In my opinion the simplest explanation of time concerns the changes that have occurred during an interval of existence. Time and change can accordingly be equated

..

md65536,

..Upon further thought: Perhaps "time is the length between events occurring at the same spatial location".

Your definition is good. Time as a length can be described as the length of an interval between two time frames in the same location. An extended definition might be:

Time is a relative measurement of an interval of change that has occurred between two time frames, as calculated, or compared with the changes that have occurred within an elapsed-time measurement device and standard (such as a second, day, year, etc.).

..

I expect that I am missing something that disproves my theory, so if you know something I don't, PLEASE prove me wrong: I just watched the episode of "through the wormhole" where they discussed the possibility of faster than light travel. In the episode, various people were proposing the idea that the speed of light was not constant throughout the universe, but instead, light was capable of moving faster, depending on its proximity to a cosmic string, a photon sized superhighway that snakes throughout the universe following the path of a photon released from the big bang. This is a counter solution to the cosmic inflation theory that solves the problem of how energy could be equally dispersed over the universe, despite originating at one point and being restricted to the speed of light.

 

My question is two-fold: First, is it possible that the speed of light CAN be affected by increasing the starting velocity, but that the difference in total velocity would be imperceptible? Afterall, what's an extra 50 mph from a moving car, compared to the speed of light?

 

Second, space-time dictates that the rate of time varies depending on gravity and velocity. Imagine that the universe was like an infinite number of televisions in a row and some of the televisions were playing normal speed, some slow motion, and some fast forward, varying due to gravity. As a beam of light moved from television to television, would the speed of the photons vary according to the local speed of time, or would it remain constant regardless of the local time, meaning it would go relatively faster in the slow motion sections and relatively slower in the fast forward sections? In either case, wouldn't the speed of light be relative to location, gravity, and base velocity? Any and all help would be appreciated. Sorry for being a little longwinded.

Most standard model theories propose the speed of light is constant, according to Special and General Relativity. As to big differences in the speed of light, like wormholes etc., this is not the standard model. My expectation is that the speed of light does vary in velocity, based upon variations of gravitational fields, but probably not be much. I expect it varies a slight amount here on Earth up vs. down, but such a proposal has not been tested to such precision since the precision clocks needed to do such a test have only been around for a couple of decades.

//

Sorry that I didn't get right back with you my friend, got company last night. And today, I'm trying to get my Dodge ready to race this weekend. As to your suggestion; Let me be clear pan........, I don't have what could be considered a coherent theory as yet. I find myself vacillating between the standard model and my first love, the aether theory that began this journey into scientific wanderings many years ago. I mentioned earlier that my contribution to this thread was, for the most part, an invention in aether speculations. And because this is your thread, I sincerely don't want to hijack it and cause consternation between us. I found your post here very interesting and although I agree for the most part, there are still things about your theory that I have problems with. Make no mistake however, I'm not here to subject you to needless scrutiny just to find fault. I do have a sincere interest in your view of things. I've found thru my 69 years on this planet that we really only learn when we listen to others.

 

Nevertheless,.....Let me say this: There are many things that I'm quite sure of and many more that I simply have not a clue about.

 

I will get back with you pan..... and discuss these questions some time to marrow. Until I have a coherent view of what I consider absolute fact, I will not pretend to have a theory. Many people will tell you about their theories when in fact, all they have is a very weak hypothesis.

 

.................................Cygnus47

Cygnus47,

69 huh, You probably graduated from H.S. the same time I did, 1960? I would guess nobody else in this forum has been developing theories as long as I have, since 1959. This is the speculation forum so nobody is going to expect that you will always have an answer that is consistent with observation or your model. You can always preface the idea with something like "this idea/ model is in its beginning stages."

So if or when the mood strikes just jump in and present your ideas. I don't think it could hurt I would like to invite you as my friend on this forum. Do you know how to do it? A couple people have invited me whereby I accepted, but I haven't figured out how to invite someone else yet

best regards, Forrest Noble

...small arcs, each of which in-falls into the BH, due to practicalities, of initial emission angle/direction, and/or interaction, with in-falling matter, streaming thru the radiation 'belt' ?

All your reasons seem like good ones. Although most such light-arcs would fall into the black hole, some of the EM radiation will be radiated outward, reflected, or otherwise bent outward by adjacent matter enabling us to see the sometimes bright light produced within the torus. Some of this EM radiation might even orbit the black hole once or twice before being interrupted, since the torus diameter accordingly would be relatively small; but my guess is that if so such radiation would only be a small portion of the total radiation produced.

//

It appears then that we may agree more than we first assumed. I think it fair to say that we both understand all particles to be nothing more than localized energy vortices. Whether it be a single proton or a large collection of matter, at the very root of it all lay these individual vortices of energy we call particles. Taking that position to it's limit, one must concede that solid matter is an allusion. If we can agree upon this fundamental idea, we can advance our speculation further.

Both models can travel down this road comfortably together

I'm pushing this concept because, if we can exclude the necessity for a material aether and settle for one composed of only energy, then I may return my attention to an aether theory. Remembering of course what I understand energy to be. Only the changing shape of a dimensionally diverse cosmos limited by the law of Entropy.

Unfortunately on this note the road diverges between models see pantheory.com , (which is this model being presented here). The aether of this model is particulate (spring-like strings of fundamental particles), granted very small. An entire string length would accordingly be roughly estimated to be 10^-30 meters, or smaller. This is like an aether theory of the 19th century where pure energy does not exist, only energy of motion concerning matter or these field "strings."

I suppose one could accuse me of viewing the universe as only a geometric peculiarity and to this charge I must confess. A geometric peculiarity changing with the advance of time governed by the law of Entropy. That's why it's called space/time.

This particular model is a steady-state model concerning the observable universe. Galaxies evolve over time but the general appearance the observable universe remains unchanged. There is a different explanation for redshifts so accordingly the observable universe is not expanding.

Cygnus, why don't you put your model on the board here and then others, as well as myself, will question further details of your model

Since I think that reality is relatively simple, I believe this characterization is often wrong.

Please explain a little bit.

This is the classical physics section so I cannot explain the details in this thread, but I believe that all of reality consists of just one particle with one innate mechanical force and nothing more. Accordingly there is nothing complicated in reality. You can ask questions concerning the details if you wish in the speculation forum, "alternative to the Big Bang model." It is based on my 400 hundred page book/ theory of theoretical physics and cosmology.

One could. But if you believe you know a simple valid perspective/ definition, you could simply provide it .

//

I just pointed out 'the absence of a simple valid perspective/ definition'. ..

Concerning this thread I think the Kinetic Theory of Heat simply explains the "what is heat" question. No matter what the question in physics I believe the answer is relatively simple. Of course I do not know all the correct answers to everything but can give the answers (which I consider valid) according to my model.

Cygnus47,

I think I understand the differences but wished to point out the similarities in that matter according to this model, involves a vortex which is aether energy of motion, and that this vortex energy (motion) of aether is what we observe to be a solid which has kinship, I think, to matter as a "localized orbital energy flux."

You cannot separate "Heat" and put it in a bottle.

You can't, how shocking. You mean you propose to discard phlogiston theory?

//

Very true my friend.................Even though I once was captivated by the aether theory but have since adopted the standard model as my point of security, I still have room in my imagination to speculate on the finer points of these theories. As a side to your last post which BTW, I find very provocative, allow me to submit one possible aether scenario of my own.

 

I find the notion of a material universe to be somewhat suspect. I realize that statement may shock you along with many others but allow me to explain. The closer we look at nature and the smaller the objects we observe, the line between matter and energy starts to get very blurred. We've all become acquainted with the formula: E=Mc^2, the matter/energy equivalence formula. I personally think the distinction between the two is made way too much of. My personal view of the universe is one where matter is only; Localized orbital energy flux. So plainly spoken, I really don't see much difference between the two. Only the very small difference we see between the humid air we breath and a funnel cloud. One has no structure to it and the other has, if not solid by absolute definition, a very violent and focused shape.

 

I've made this point to preface my next one, that I see little if no difference between matter and energy. And because I view both to be virtually the same, I'll choose Energy as my point of focus. This leaves us with the question: What is Energy?

 

String theory makes great issue about numerous dimensions which have yet to be proved. But, IMHO, the greatest contribution these theories have presented is the importance they place on the shape of things. This is where I see Energy and The Shape of things coming together. In truth, Energy is the attribute of change which the law of Entropy says has a direction. That direction is the advance of time and our changing universe.

 

In a nut shell, before I bore everyone to death. If I were to invent an aether theory, I would define the aether as the changing shape of the universal field. This field is not material, it has only the attribute of Energy which is only the changing shape of space/time. Because dimensions are not material, the aether need not be either. This eliminates the need for one to establish proof of a material aether, which has to date, stymied all attempts at it's development.

 

Just my two cents.....................................Cygnus47

The idea of matter and energy being close to the same thing, would seem to date back to the 19th century when several aether vortex models of matter were presented. One of these models was quite sophisticated and most were mainstream. My own model represents matter as a spinning loop, concerning a spring-like strand of elementary particles. As these loop spin, they accordingly would produce a vortex in the aether field that surrounds them. Accordingly the vortexes would contain much more material than the spring-like strand and therefore would represent the majority of the particle mass we observe

//

Would a BH, accreting matter from an orbiting accretion disk, be orbited, close to or at its EH, by a "ring of light" ?? Please ponder the "head-light effect", whereby accelerated charged particles, moving relativistically, emit hard radiation, focused in their forward direction. Thus, as ions are dragged down into the BH, they will emit "headlights" of radiation, focused forward, around the BH. Would such radiation combine, to produce an annulus of orbiting photons, or "light ring", around the BH ??

I think it is a matter of opinion depending on differing BH models, but my opinion is that your conjecture may be pretty close. The difference, I think, is that it may appear to be an annulus in form but instead would be a combination of small arcs of radiation that when combined together might resemble a torus.

Some other predictions of this model

-- Supernovae and gamma ray bursts will be found, according to their redshifts, at the edge of the presently observable universe, currently believed to be ~13.7 B .. ...... light years away.

-- The Big Bang model and the expansion of the universe model will be replaced within about 20 years.

-- A physical aether will be discovered/ or generally realized, within about 20 years.

-- Present Quantum Theory will be overthrown in about 20 years, most of the math of Quantum Mechanics will remain. The explanations will mostly all change.

Anyone can make predictions but only a theory can explain empirical justification for them.

Simple, is it? That is what one would expect, at least about the fundamentals in physics. But, even the fundamental concepts like heat, force, etc. are not well defined.

I agree they are not well defined at present, but I believe the concepts and definitions are quite simple. In time I think present arguments professing complication of fundamental physics will disappear based upon future observations

These words seem more philosophic than pertaining to science, their meanings depending upon the school of thought.

You are correct. This is the present way of looking at simple explanations, as being philosophical or metaphysical. Since I think that reality is relatively simple, I believe this characterization is often wrong.

If asked to define, one may just beat about the bush and ask, "now you got it?"

One could. But if you believe you know a simple valid perspective/ definition, you could simply provide it

//

JohnB,

The maps of Africa during the past and maybe prior ice ages, seem to indicate that there was no water for cultivation in the northern most half of Africa. Without water and rainfall, simple agriculture would not be possible. There seemed to be little habitable areas for humans during these times in northern Africa excepting for isolated areas and even these might have began to dry up forcing residents to escape by the easiest route which would have been moving east along the Mediterranean.

http://1.bp.blogspot...etation_map.png

During times of more rainfall man may have been able to travel greater distances, traveling through the middle east and settling in areas where water and game were more abundant. Until we domesticated plants like grain and fruit, we remained hunter gatherers. The first plows were probably made of wood or hand axes tied to wood, with one or two men pulling and one man controlling the plow. Before cultivation we existed in numbers like carnivores, such as lions. After we domesticated plants and animals we multiplied into numbers like gazelles

As you have suggested, more stable climates with increased rainfall, and melting glaciers, probably provided the water needed for man to flourish out of Africa.

.... I think it is absurd to assume that there could have not been any form of time before the Big Bang. We know nothing, so far, about what existed before the Big Bang, and nothing should be excluded without scientific reason. There could just as well have been another universe before the Big Bang, and our Big Bang destroyed it, wiping out any trace of what pre-existed our universe.

Models of a finite universe, like the original version of the Big Bang, cannot logically allow time to have existed before the beginning of the universe, whatever that beginning might have been. This is logically based upon the definitions of the words themselves, "finite" and "universe." On the other hand, infinite universe models concerning time such as alternative Big Bang versions, most multi-verse models, Plasma cosmology models, most steady state models, and most theological models, all assert that time had no beginning.

//

pantheory, on 17 August 2011 - 10:28 AM, said:

 

... when in the infra-red range we call such radiation heat, when in the visible range we call it light, and so on.

In common practice, yes, but that's wrong. Light from the sun is heat, even though much of it is in the visible range. The sun is approximately a blackbody, at about 6000K. It radiates energy as a result: that's heat. Most objects with which we are familiar, that are above ambient temperature, are not incandescent, so most of the radiant energy is in the infrared. That is likely what leads to the misconception that IR=heat.

Noted

..

What is heat?

 

(i). Potential energy

(ii). Kinetic energy

(iii). The state of an individual particle/wave

(iv). The state of an individual atom

(v). The state of a collection of particles/waves

(vi). The state of a collection of atoms, ie, a body

(vii). Something else

Like michel123456 pointed out, there may be semantics involved concerning heat vs. temperature. The related theory has been called the Kinetic Theory of Heat even though I believe that maybe temperature might be a better word for it. Like everything in physics, I believe, it is a simple concept. You apply heat to a source by radiation, conduction, or convection, and its molecular structure increases its oscillation. By these means heat can come from anywhere. Generally speaking everything has a temperature to it which is a symptom of its internal molecular oscillation, concerning a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma. This oscillation can produce waves of EM radiation emanating from its surface. When in the infra-red range we call such radiation heat, when in the visible range we call it light, and so on.

//

How can be time defined in the simplest way? According to my theory, time can be defined as 'change' in any form, any place in the universe. Any type of change in the real universe is called time. It can be changing of state, shape, size, color, temperature, force applied or the place etc.

 

So we can say that if there no change in the universe, there is no time in the universe. Because time is the 4th dimension, so if time is not there, the whole universe becomes 3 dimensional. Then the universe will stay like a paused video if there is no time. Can you prove it is not?

You've got it! "An interval of change" is the simplest explanation of time. Physics has different factions to it and because of that different ideas concerning what time really is. Yours, I believe, is by far the simplest and best definition/ understanding of the fundamentals of what time really is

//

I was looking for some example.

 

The Sun. It radiates and produces a lot of entropy. But the reverse mechanism, an object eating radiation, is the same logical: I don't see any aberration or maybe I miss something.

The only object that eats more radiation than it produces is a black hole, you might consider one an example of reverse entropy.

//

There is a very common example in litterature about entropy and the arrow of time. You keep a glass in your hand, you let it fall down, the glass breaks. You never observe the reverse situation where the broken pieces jump together in your hand: the example shows the one-way direction of the arrow of time. (except in a movie played backward)

 

On the other hand, living organisms use overall physical entropy to organize, sometimes compared as a spark of negative entropy in the general frame of the second law of thermodynamics.

 

So I was wondering if the example with the glass is applicable, because glass is a product we humans have made, a product of a living organism. One can not extract safe conclusions about physical systems on the basis of observation of living organisms.

 

The same goes about the example of milk getting dissipated in your coffee, because milk is a product of a living organism and coffee too (from the coffee bean, since plants are living).

 

If one takes another example, like the clear water of the river mixing into the ocean, one will not observe the salted water from the ocean climbing up the river and becoming clear fresh water, but one will eventually observe the water from the oceans evaporate, then fall as rain on a continent and form a river of fresh water. In this sense, one would observe the salted water getting into the river again.

 

Just some thoughts.

I think the two simple examples to a type of negative entropy would be life and gravity. In both the motion of time is from molecular and temperature dissipation, to a condition of high organization and isolated complexity.

I think the broken glass idea might not be a bad analogy concerning the arrow of time, the meaning being one cannot change what has already happened -- such as going backward in time.

referring to my quote:

...what one model might perceive as evidence in favor of the model, another's interpretation and argument might be that the same observation provides evidence against the model.

Either the observation fits the model or it doesn't.

I thought different interpretations of the same thing share the same predicted observations. Where the observations differ, the models differ (not just the interpretations).

Can you give an example of what you mean?

(bold added)

For example, the Big Bang (BB) model lists "fluctuations in the CMBR" as evidence in favor of the BB model. These fluctuations are also called the Power Spectrum. Many different steady-state models point out that the largest voids have been observed to have a lower MBR temperature than their surroundings, suggesting that the CMBR is simply the accumulation of galactic heat by matter in intergalactic space, an argument against the BB model.

These are some other examples concerning my above quote:

Large-scale structure of the universe

Age of stars

Evolution of galaxies

Time dilation of type 1a supernova (but no time dilation concerning the light curves of quasars)

Dark matter

Dark energy

Consistency

These are all listed as observational evidence in support of the BB model. //////// http://www.talkorigi...my/bigbang.html

On the other hand I have seen other arguments whereby these same "observed" characteristics are considered to be evidence against the BB model. It seems to just depend on the opinion of who is doing the interpretation of observations as they relate to competing models, and who is doing the related analyses/ comparisons

The meaning to this difference of interpretation/ opinion is that all sides sometimes can claim Eureka! as new observations come in , each side thinking that proof has been observed in favor of their favorite model. These are examples of the quandary of logic involved

I believe that the ultimate understanding of something in physics comes from an understanding of the math.

 

 

For example, you might say "The power density of a sound wave decreases as it expands" and that might give you a grade-school understanding of it, with very limited usefulness.

 

Or you could say "The power density of a sound wave is proportional to 1/r^2" and that gives you a precise and useful mathematical understanding of it, but you might not know why it is so.

 

Or you could say "The power of a sound wave propagating as a spherical shell remains the same as the sphere expands, and is spread evenly across the surface area of the sphere," but you might not know that surface area is proportional to r^2.

 

The last two statements say the same thing, and they are both mathematical (area is a geometrical concept which is mathematical).

Using just numbers and equations might work well but leave you unenlightened; using just words may give you knowledge without being able to apply it. Having the math and understanding why it works is in my opinion the essence of true understanding.

 

That said, it must be noted that physics can progress just fine without knowing why the equations correspond to reality. Observations still give you useful data, and those data can be used to evaluate the equations and suggest new ones. I do believe that knowing "why" (and having logical explanations to go along with the math) does provide extra insights that suggest new ideas which lead to new experiments, observations, and theories. Logical explanations are a bonus; the math is required.

Physics as a science is often theoretical concerning its equations, but it is primarily math. Physics concerning its definition is:

The branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy. The subject matter of physics, distinguished from that of chemistry and biology, includes mechanics, heat, light and other radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism, and the structure of atoms.

....Using just numbers and equations might work well but leave you unenlightened.

I agree very much with this quote of yours. I think that an understanding of reality should be an important goal of explanations in physics, even when such explanations explain a number of possibilities -- which I think is preferable to one illogical explanation.

Your above explanations of the related equations are logical, and therefore will probably always be part of a standard explanation, and you probably did not copy it, but explained it based upon your insight alone

I believe illogical explanations, on the other hand, are strong indications that they do not know what they are talking about even though the math is reliable -- Quantum Theory comes to mind