Is There an Eternity?

[General_Bloodgeon]

Every time we prove something as Immortal, we find a Mortality.  This is Decay.  It seems as though even Black Holes have Decay.  If this is the case, is there an Eternity to look forward to?  Theoretically, under what conditions would the Universe need to have in order to promote a Limitless Existence?  Do we currently support the movement towards such a potential?  

Postulate:  Can the particle moved along a light beam become a wave without decay.  Simply a wave of light where a particle is unnecessary?  Is this a shift in current reality?

Particles show decay, waves simply move and stop, bounce, and are absorbed - and created?  Are particles simply a stop-motion wave?  I wish I had your guy's training in this subject matter, but what exactly is a particle?  Please include string theory in how a particle is formed please, because I do not have the books on hand.

So, to understand me: What is the nature of a particle/wave - and if Light has a Constant Speed in order to exist, can that speed be achieved without a particle - showing light without physical form?

Anyway, nice to meet you all, I am Ronnie.

[swansont]

13 hours ago, General_Bloodgeon said:

Every time we prove something as Immortal, we find a Mortality.  This is Decay.  It seems as though even Black Holes have Decay.  If this is the case, is there an Eternity to look forward to?  Theoretically, under what conditions would the Universe need to have in order to promote a Limitless Existence?  Do we currently support the movement towards such a potential?  

Immortality/Mortality are terms usually reserved for biological life. I don't think science suggests any form of life is immortal.

13 hours ago, General_Bloodgeon said:

Postulate:  Can the particle moved along a light beam become a wave without decay.  Simply a wave of light where a particle is unnecessary?  Is this a shift in current reality?

Massive particles can't move at the speed of light.

13 hours ago, General_Bloodgeon said:

Particles show decay, waves simply move and stop, bounce, and are absorbed - and created?  Are particles simply a stop-motion wave?  I wish I had your guy's training in this subject matter, but what exactly is a particle?  Please include string theory in how a particle is formed please, because I do not have the books on hand.

String theory isn't necessary here.

We refer to particles because there is some behavior of quantum phenomenon that acts like a classical particle (like a billiard ball), such as being localized when there is an interaction, which is not consistent with a wave description.

13 hours ago, General_Bloodgeon said:

So, to understand me: What is the nature of a particle/wave - and if Light has a Constant Speed in order to exist, can that speed be achieved without a particle - showing light without physical form?

Light doesn't really have a physical form. It's not considered matter.

13 hours ago, General_Bloodgeon said:

Anyway, nice to meet you all, I am Ronnie.

Welcome aboard.

[General_Bloodgeon]

Thank you very much for your reply!  I will take it all into consideration and reform my ideas.

When I remember, Light was defined as the union of a particle and a wave moving at a constant speed... is this still accurate?  Seems the definition has changed.

[Strange]

26 minutes ago, General_Bloodgeon said:

When I remember, Light was defined as the union of a particle and a wave moving at a constant speed... is this still accurate?  Seems the definition has changed.

I don't think light has ever been defined that way. The usual definition is an electromagnetic wave.

At a quantum level, this can be be described as quantum of the electromagnetic field, called a photon. This is not a "union" of a wave and particle, it is something that has some wavelike properties (e.g. wavelength) and some particle-like properties (e.g. localise interaction, indivisibility).

[studiot]

34 minutes ago, General_Bloodgeon said:

I will take it all into consideration and reform my ideas.

What a refreshing attitude. +1

You should go far.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Welcome aboard.

 

Welcome indeed.

[General_Bloodgeon]

57 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't think light has ever been defined that way. The usual definition is an electromagnetic wave.

At a quantum level, this can be be described as quantum of the electromagnetic field, called a photon. This is not a "union" of a wave and particle, it is something that has some wavelike properties (e.g. wavelength) and some particle-like properties (e.g. localise interaction, indivisibility).

Wow, light is beautiful! I will really look at this electromagnetic stuff all over again... it has been quite a long time since I dove into the books!

So, is the speed of light a type of speed limit to the universe.  The Universe is expanding thanks to big bang, and it must have an over all rate... does it then, decay.  Slow down?  How does that work?  My knowledge is very old, about 70's ish when I studied this stuff as a young boy.  Hence particles and waves, trying to explain liquids and solids to a youth.  Anyway, do you all have good books I can look up and read?  I am way out of the modern definitions of what you good folks are worried about, but it falls under Cosmology, because it deals with the general nature of the Universe.  I read Hawking a bit, and time distortion, but need to go back to the basics.

[General_Bloodgeon]

I am assuming that the nature of light determines the age and direction of the universe.  If so, then perhaps it can become a predictor of a future potential.   However, this may not be the case.  I will probably head on over to the Iowa State University library and read some books on everything - they have a decent science core there - and take a look.  I have always used public institutions for these sorts of endeavors, and want to know what is a good way to begin investigating how to form a theory for where our Universe may be headed... towards mass destruction, evolution into a new form, or timelessness?  What have you guys found out so far in your work?  Thank you!

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, General_Bloodgeon said:

I am assuming that the nature of light determines the age and direction of the universe. 

I'm not sure why ...

[General_Bloodgeon]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

I'm not sure why ...

It is merely assumption.. .so why assume anything?  I am just acknowledging it.  You see, back a long time ago we used to think the sun and the sky was eternal.   We used to sing songs about how there was a world without beginning or end.  Well, in a very real way, it seems as though our Universe... Began.  So, it only begs a question: Does it End?  If I look at Hubble, and look at what we are seeing, I am looking at a Universe still in process.  Star creation clusters here, star deaths over there: a basic whirlpool of chaos and creation.  That beauty makes me wonder if it is evolving, or purely chaotic.  If it is evolving... what is it becoming?

I have a lot of questions, and it seems to me we are now at a point in all of our investigations and observations that we can begin to answer them intelligently.  I have had these questions quite a long time, and I am tired of merely praying to God about them.  I want to know what we have seen and what we know so far.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, General_Bloodgeon said:

It is merely assumption.. .so why assume anything?  

I would assume as little as possible; ideally nothing.

1 hour ago, General_Bloodgeon said:

So, it only begs a question: Does it End?  If I look at Hubble, and look at what we are seeing, I am looking at a Universe still in process.  Star creation clusters here, star deaths over there: a basic whirlpool of chaos and creation.  That beauty makes me wonder if it is evolving, or purely chaotic.  If it is evolving... what is it becoming?

“The first Friedmann equation describes how, based on what is in the universe, its expansion rate will change over time. If you want to know where the Universe came from and where it’s headed, all you need to measure is how it is expanding today and what is in it. This equation allows you to predict the rest!”

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-most-important-equation-in-the-universe-9153947e399

[beecee]

6 hours ago, General_Bloodgeon said:

Wow, light is beautiful! I will really look at this electromagnetic stuff all over again... it has been quite a long time since I dove into the books!

So, is the speed of light a type of speed limit to the universe.  The Universe is expanding thanks to big bang, and it must have an over all rate... does it then, decay.  Slow down?  How does that work?  My knowledge is very old, about 70's ish when I studied this stuff as a young boy.  Hence particles and waves, trying to explain liquids and solids to a youth.  Anyway, do you all have good books I can look up and read?  I am way out of the modern definitions of what you good folks are worried about, but it falls under Cosmology, because it deals with the general nature of the Universe.  I read Hawking a bit, and time distortion, but need to go back to the basics.

Light is what we describe as the part of the EMS that is visible to the eye. The speed of light "c" most certainly is the universal speed limit. This essentially means that there is no universal "NOW" and what you see now of the Sun for example, is light that left it 8.25 minutes ago. We are looking into the past at varying degrees, every time we look at the stars in the night sky.

The rate of expansion the last time I looked was about 70kms/sec/Mega parsec.

While all matter in the universe including BHs will decay to their most fundamental parts, it is unknown as to whether the universe/spacetime is infinite or finite. We can say with some certainty that the universe we observe, is around 48 billion L/years in radius, and it extends well beyond this to that part of the universe we are unable to observe.

[General_Bloodgeon]

21 hours ago, beecee said:

Light is what we describe as the part of the EMS that is visible to the eye. The speed of light "c" most certainly is the universal speed limit. This essentially means that there is no universal "NOW" and what you see now of the Sun for example, is light that left it 8.25 minutes ago. We are looking into the past at varying degrees, every time we look at the stars in the night sky.

The rate of expansion the last time I looked was about 70kms/sec/Mega parsec.

While all matter in the universe including BHs will decay to their most fundamental parts, it is unknown as to whether the universe/spacetime is infinite or finite. We can say with some certainty that the universe we observe, is around 48 billion L/years in radius, and it extends well beyond this to that part of the universe we are unable to observe.

Thank you very much... I am now up to date on my hopes and dreams.  Isn't it all so incredible! Anyway, "It is unknown whether the universe/spacetime is infinite or finite" is a good enough answer.  I just have to wonder...   Maybe someday we will have lived long enough to know.