Jump to content
empleat

hijack from An infinite and eternal universe

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

Why not just stop thinking about it and say "It is out of my hands and what will be, will be."

Because without that paralyzing fear, comprehension could just all of a sudden strike a person, and they'd have to completely change for the better. Good heavens, man, what a suggestion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Because without that paralyzing fear, comprehension could just all of a sudden strike a person, and they'd have to completely change for the better. Good heavens, man, what a suggestion!

In part, one might be like this as a subconscious strategy to avoid personal responsibility for the direction ones life has taken. I would hazard a guess that '"Deep State" conspiracies are borne from such inner musings. A feeling of having no control over ones destiny.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Why not just stop thinking about it and say "It is out of my hands and what will be, will be." That's pretty much how I handle anxieties that I feel I have no control over.

That is soo naive!

Spoiler

I mean: do you know how feels extreme pain? I bet: if you were in that situation and you knew there is a possible chance of it repeating over and over forever: you would change your opinion quickly!

18 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Because without that paralyzing fear, comprehension could just all of a sudden strike a person, and they'd have to completely change for the better. Good heavens, man, what a suggestion!

I am very open-minded. I almost never come to definitive conclusions, if I can't prove something empirically, or at least by logic! I know - science is not concerned with finding a proof. And basic premises of any theory could be wrong. It is just some theory, which fits all data best and is accepted in scientific circles... Lately scientists themselves attack Inflation and some scientists called other scientists - uncritical believers:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/?sh=581a72acb45e

E.g. materialism can be false! Everything is un-provable, but also irrefutable (at least from current understanding so you don't crucify me :D)! Except: I think, therefore I am. And I leave my opinions open to a change!

Spoiler

I just say (given current understanding) or something. If it is not certain. But problem: this is so absolutely and utterly terrible and I am aware of what it would involve! Why to risk it? If I die and there won't be anything, after a life. I would rather decided and be wrong, then do nothing and suffer infinitely! Then I wouldn't care: since I am nothing. I never wanted life to begin with! But alternative is so ming-bogglingly terrible, I don't want to even risk it!

 

Edited by empleat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, empleat said:

So that means, we don't know if light experiences time?

I made that mistake once. The point is that there is no inertial FoR that is valid for light. The best we can say [I think] is that light does not experience time...according to a photon, it can traverse the universe in no time at all.

 

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, beecee said:

I made that mistake once. The point is that there is no inertial FoR that is valid for light. The best we can say [I think] is that light does not experience time...according to a photon, it can traverse the universe in no time at all.

 

So even if light is absorbed. E.g. as thermal energy. Is it still light? As:

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Energy isn't s substance, so this is an incorrect assessment. Also, light can be heat. It depends on where it originated.

Can light change back and forth to matter, or not? EDIT: Or rather from mass to massless and in opposite? As I again forget about energy being property of particles.

 I was interested: if you could e.g. make light from a person and if he would stay light forever. This is obviously very hypothetical, even impossible probably for long time. If it was possible like in 50 years, I would go for it perhaps :D But even light probably doesn't stay light all time, or it is not convertible - no idea!

Edited by empleat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, empleat said:

That is soo naive!

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

  Hide contents

Science is not concerned with finding a proof. And basic premises of any theory could be wrong. It is just some theory, which fits all data best and is accepted in scientific circles... Lately scientists themselves attack Inflation and some scientists called other scientists - uncritical believers:

 Science models according to the current data, and experimental and observational evidence. Those models/theories also make predictions, that in time, are validated. eg: Einstein's GR told us a 100 years ago that catastrophic collisions/mergers etc, should produce gravitational waves...that prediction of GR has now been validated as we all know. I like saying that scientific theories simply gain in certainty over time, and as they continually match observational data. 

 

11 minutes ago, empleat said:

So even if light is absorbed. E.g. as thermal energy. Is it still light? As:

Certain wavelengths of light are absorbed, others are reflected which enable us to see it in a colour according to the frequency and/or feel it as heat. This is stretching my knowledge somewhat, but I believe that as electrons absorb photons, and there energy state changes, new photons are emmitted. [Others may like to tidy that up as needed.] 

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, beecee said:

Science models according to the current data, and experimental and observational evidence. Those models/theories also make predictions, that in time, are validated. eg: Einstein's GR told us a 100 years ago that catastrophic collisions/mergers etc, should produce gravitational waves...that prediction of GR has now been validated as we all know. I like saying that scientific theories simply gain in certainty over time, and as they continually match observational data. 

Yeah not to say, that it is not incredible work! And verified by countless experiments, or consistent without many doubts, like theory of Evolution. E.g. in case of Inflation, you can change the theory: so it fits almost any data and problem is - we don't know initial conditions. So we don't know from what we should extrapolate! And reason for them!

 I am terrible at giving examples: e.g. what if I was Boltzman Brain and everything was just intricate hallucination and wasn't true?!

We are limited by our senses. And everything is essentially guessing, as you can't get behind certain point in time and you get into singularity. And how do you even know, what you see from your senses is real? We could be in a simulation. Scientists even proposed practical experiment, but it wasn't realized yet, because it is technically impossible ATM, or perhaps, because philosophical implications! That's what I mean. 

While it is not likely that something like GR, or Evolution will change any time soon. Still can we ultimate know the truth, that is the question!

Edited by empleat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, empleat said:

Yeah not to say, that it is not incredible work! And verified by countless experiments, or consistent without many doubts, like theory of Evolution. E.g. in case of Inflation, you can change the theory: so it fits almost any data and problem is - we don't know initial conditions. So we don't know from what we should extrapolate! And reason for them!

 I am terrible at giving examples: e.g. what if I was Boltzman Brain and everything was just intricate hallucination and wasn't true?!

We are limited by our senses. And everything is essentially guessing, as you can't get behind certain point in time and you get into singularity. And how do you even know, what you see from your senses is real? We could be in a simulation. Scientists even proposed practical experiment, but it wasn't realized yet, because it is technically impossible ATM, or perhaps, because philosophical implications! That's what I mean. 

While it is not likely that something like GR, or Evolution will change any time soon. Still can we ultimate know the truth, that is the question!

Sadly, I once upset a student of Philosophy when I quoted "science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know:" Bertrand Russell from memory.

I love philosophizing myself. I often think whether a BH leads to a ERB [Einstein Rosen Bridge] and wormhole, then to a hypothetical White Hole. eg: Our BB could be a WH and at the arse end of another BH in another universe! 😜 Then as my brain gets further frazzled, I just say WTF and go do some gardening or down the local for a schooner of VB!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, beecee said:

Sadly, I once upset a student of Philosophy when I quoted "science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know:" Bertrand Russell from memory.

I love philosophizing myself. I often think whether a BH leads to a ERB [Einstein Rosen Bridge] and wormhole, then to a hypothetical White Hole. eg: Our BB could be a WH and at the arse end of another BH in another universe! 😜 Then as my brain gets further frazzled, I just say WTF and go do some gardening or down the local for a schooner of VB!

Yeah I read about these things and I can't even imagine them! I have already problem imagining warping of space time and similar concepts, like time around black hole (as I wondered, if black hole could cause time loop in a vicinity). Or 4D. I have aphantasia - I have no mind's eye (almost no mental images), but I Am great in logic. Sometimes: I can see some, but I wouldn't call them images! More like black blurs... It is like they are behind black cover, or something. And have no continuity. BTW Stargate is my all time favorite TV Show, there are plenty of wormholes :D

Edited by empleat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, empleat said:

So even if light is absorbed. E.g. as thermal energy. Is it still light? As:

No. When light is absorbed, the photon ceases to exust.

Quote

Can light change back and forth to matter, or not?

Yes, under certain conditions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, swansont said:

No. When light is absorbed, the photon ceases to exust.

If photon is matter and it ceases to exist. What is left then? You said: there are particles and they have energy. So then is it turned into another particle? Because of conservation of matter and energy: "matter, or energy can't be destroyed". In layman terms: thing is what are all forms of photons? Even if I turn myself into light, would that mean, that possibly light can be turned back into particles from which I Am? At some point could it turn into something conscious? Does this has any practical implications?

You are not here to tell me everything. I asked more like in a sense: if you think (theoretically/hypothetically) there could be an escape.

I don't know if there is even remote answer to this, probably not, as it may depend on far far future! Even black holes will evaporate as radiation. It seems like nothing lasts forever! Even if I was light. Or did something, it wouldn't probably last! Only thing I would life for, if there was like a possible escape, lets say in 50 years theoretically possible! And even then, not sure if I wanted to risk it. Because most likely there is not!

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes, under certain conditions.

Wait and now I Am confused. I thought matter doesn't change into energy. Instead there is matter, which has energy. And some of these particles are massless. I am not even sure what it means. As E = mc^2. Would massless mean no energy?

Edited by empleat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, empleat said:

If photon is matter and it ceases to exist.

Photons are not matter, as I stated previously.

Quote

What is left then? You said: there are particles and they have energy. So then is it turned into another particle?

The energy can simply be added to the object absorbing the photon (also the linear and angular momentum)

Quote

Because of conservation of matter and energy: "matter, or energy can't be destroyed". 

Matter is not a conserved entity.

Quote

In layman terms: thing is what are all forms of photons? Even if I turn myself into light, would that mean, that possibly light can be turned back into particles from which I Am? At some point could it turn into something conscious? Does this has any practical implications?

You can’t turn yourself into light.

Quote

Wait and now I Am confused. I thought matter doesn't change into energy.

You asked if a photon can be turned into matter

Quote

 

Instead there is matter, which has energy. And some of these particles are massless. Which I am not even sure what it means. As E = mc^2. Would massless mean no energy?

No, massless does not mean no energy.

The full equation is E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2

Photons have momentum, and energy. E = pc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, empleat said:

Yeah I read about these things and I can't even imagine them! I have already problem imagining warping of space time and similar concepts, like time around black hole (as I wondered, if black hole could cause time loop in a vicinity). Or 4D. I have aphantasia - I have no mind's eye (almost no mental images), but I Am great in logic. Sometimes: I can see some, but I wouldn't call them images! More like black blurs... It is like they are behind black cover, or something. And have no continuity. BTW Stargate is my all time favorite TV Show, there are plenty of wormholes :D

I'm ready to be corrected on this as an amateur, but time near the EH of a BH is not seen to stop. eg: If you watching from a safe distance, watched the more intrepid me approaching a BH's EH, you would simply see me further and further redshifted...get a more powerful 'scope, and you would see me redshifted even further, in fact to infinity and fading from view. Whereas from my point of view, I would cross the EH, and via tidal gravitational effects, be spaghettified and then ripped asunder into my most fundamental particles as I approached the singularity.

Favourite TV show? Star Trek..movie? 2001: A Space Oddysey.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, massless does not mean no energy.

The full equation is E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2

Photons have momentum, and energy. E = pc

You didn't answer. So there is nothing, which can be done? Anyways this was a desperate attempt, last hope I guess. So I wanted to ask... But I already knew there isn't probably anything, which can be done on 99.999999...% As who knows what would happen with particles from which I am in trillion trillion trillion years and in the next iteration. However it is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, empleat said:

Wait and now I Am confused. I thought matter doesn't change into energy. Instead there is matter, which has energy. And some of these particles are massless. I am not even sure what it means. As E = mc^2. Would massless mean no energy?

Light has no rest mass as it is never at rest...it does though have momentum, which explains solar sails etc.

4 minutes ago, empleat said:

You didn't answer. So there is nothing, which can be done? Anyways this was a desperate attempt, last hope I guess. So I wanted to ask... But I already knew there isn't probably anything, which can be done on 99.999999...% As who knows what would happen with particles from which I am in trillion trillion trillion years and in the next iteration. However it is...

Even with nuclear fission...it is not matter that is changed into energy per se...it is the release of "binding energy" holding sub atomic particles together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, beecee said:

I'm ready to be corrected on this as an amateur, but time near the EH of a BH is not seen to stop.

This kind of depends on what exactly you mean by “seen to stop”; in particular it depends on which clock you use, as measurements of time are always purely local in curved spacetimes. As measured on a far-away, stationary clock (Schwarzschild time), the in-falling test particle never reaches the horizon, as that would require an infinite amount of Schwarzschild time. As you correctly say, it will just be “seen” from this vantage point to move more and more slowly as it approaches the EH, and become more and more red-shifted.

On the other hand, for a clock co-moving along with the freely falling test particle (Gullstrand-Painleve time), nothing special happens at all - it will record a finite and well defined amount of proper time to  reach the horizon, and also a finite and well defined amount of proper time to the “crunch” at the centre. The horizon itself won’t even be easily noticeable by such an in-falling observer; it’s locally as smooth and regular as any other region outside the BH. It’s only when they fire their thrusters in order to get back out to “far-away” that they will notice something being amiss, because no matter how much radial thrust is applied, they cannot stop themselves from falling further in; they can’t even remain stationary wrt to some external reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

This kind of depends on what exactly you mean by “seen to stop”; in particular it depends on which clock you use, as measurements of time are always purely local in curved spacetimes. As measured on a far-away, stationary clock (Schwarzschild time), the in-falling test particle never reaches the horizon, as that would require an infinite amount of Schwarzschild time. As you correctly say, it will just be “seen” from this vantage point to move more and more slowly as it approaches the EH, and become more and more red-shifted.

On the other hand, for a clock co-moving along with the freely falling test particle (Gullstrand-Painleve time), nothing special happens at all - it will record a finite and well defined amount of proper time to  reach the horizon, and also a finite and well defined amount of proper time to the “crunch” at the centre. The horizon itself won’t even be easily noticeable by such an in-falling observer; it’s locally as smooth and regular as any other region outside the BH. It’s only when they fire their thrusters in order to get back out to “far-away” that they will notice something being amiss, because no matter how much radial thrust is applied, they cannot stop themselves from falling further in; they can’t even remain stationary wrt to some external reference.

Eloquently put, and the way I see it also. 

The first unstable orbit would be about 2 Schwarzchild radius? Any thrust is going to send them into the BH, or beyond that 2xS radius. 1.5 Schwarzchild radius is the photon sphere for a Schwarzchild BH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, empleat said:

You didn't answer. So there is nothing, which can be done? Anyways this was a desperate attempt, last hope I guess. So I wanted to ask... But I already knew there isn't probably anything, which can be done on 99.999999...% As who knows what would happen with particles from which I am in trillion trillion trillion years and in the next iteration. However it is...

Sorry, what? You asked “Would massless mean no energy?” and I gave my answer - no, along with an explanation of the energy of a massless particle, such as a photon.

 

Quote

So there is nothing, which can be done?

Done about what?

11 hours ago, beecee said:

Even with nuclear fission...it is not matter that is changed into energy per se...it is the release of "binding energy" holding sub atomic particles together.

Nuclear binding energy is a deficit of energy - energy that has already been released. It increases in exothermic reactions. 

Also, energy does not hold things together. It’s the strong nuclear interaction (force) that holds nucleons together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, swansont said:

Done about what?

I guess you didn't read my first post. Is there anything (hypothetically/theoretically) that could be done about Eternal Return - to avoid it?

In CCC only light, radiation and massless particles can cross into another aeon (next iteration of the universe). So there is a hope perhaps.

https://youtu.be/PC2JOQ7z5L0?t=669

Although I have no idea, if particles from which is my brain, could be changed to these types of particles... As I heard particles will lose mass in heat death era...

Also there is Big Bounce and so many other scary scenarios, even I heard heat death is mostly accepted. Who knows...

Edited by empleat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, empleat said:

Also there is Big Bounce and so many other scary scenarios, even I heard heat death is mostly accepted.

None of these are scary scenarios.  We will all have been dead for untold billions of years before any of these possible outcomes.  Have a cup of tea and chill out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

None of these are scary scenarios.  We will all have been dead for untold billions of years before any of these possible outcomes.  Have a cup of tea and chill out.

Except: if you will exist again in the next universe! If it is infinite cycle, sooner or later, you would live again...

Edited by empleat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, empleat said:

Except when you will exist again in the next universe?

What an absurd thing to worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, empleat said:

Except: if you will exist again in the next universe! If it is infinite cycle, sooner or later, you would live again...

No, the chances of matter orientating again to the configuration that is you  is zilch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, StringJunky said:

No, the chances of matter orientating again to the configuration that is you  is zilch.

If there is infinite time??? Also we don't know, if it will be the exactly same universe, or with a slightly different initial conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, empleat said:

I guess you didn't read my first post. Is there anything (hypothetically/theoretically) that could be done about Eternal Return - to avoid it?

No, I ignored it. I’ve only been addressing physics misconceptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.