YT2095 Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 here`s an Idea I`ve been boucing around in my head for some time. "when it ALL ends" if you gather all the elctrons and put them into a pile and the same with neutron, protons, photons etc... all in their neat little piles and then try to make the most inert unreactive, non radioactive material you can think off and scatter it asunder throughout the space the universe ocupies, what can stop it being gravitationaly pulled back in again and blowing up? using the conservation of energy and matter theories, is it actualy possible that the "Universe" as we know it and all the particles within it will NEVER cease? the though reminded me a little from the "perpetual motion" thread, and that it can`t occur on a MACRO scale, and that electrons orbiting a nucleus doesn`t count as a machine. well not being able to get any more MACRO than the Universe I was wondering what it`s rest state would be or if indeed there COULD be a "rest state" ever? any ideas guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 I believe this is called the closed universe theory. It proposes that the mass of the universe is such that it will eventualy colapse in on it self, effectivly causing a "Big Bang" and creating a new universe. The converse is the open universe theory in which matter continues to disperse and cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 Afaik the open universe theory predominates at the moment, in fact the approx time until "heat death" is pretty much known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted December 5, 2003 Author Share Posted December 5, 2003 yeah, I read something about the "heat Death" and constant expansion ideas. it also mentioned something about "dark matter" too. it would be interesting to see if "closed universe" theory would actualy qualify as a "perpetual Motion" mechanism though, and whether or not it could be exploited in anyway on a smaller scale? there are a few points about this closed universe system that I can`t seem to reconcile in my thinking. it expands, dies off, recolapses and starts over again, well that sounds ok in words. but I can`t help but feel that eventualy it would "wind down" and reach a happy medium, a state where is does neither. magine hanging a spring with a weight attatched to one end, any pull this weight downwards (we`ll call that state maximum expansion) then when you let go the spring will contract and stop when it reaches compression( we`ll call that state maximum compression). if we consider max compression as the big bang and max expansion as when all is scattered dust ready to reform under gravity. eventualy the spring after several 100 bounces will reach a stable possition and not move in either direction. wouldn`t the same happen with the closed universe system eventualy also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfson Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 The closed theory is all about the conservation of entropy, i can't see the universe coming to a rest, well at least for another 1.0e100^m. Try looking at Geometry of the Universe that usually gives a better explenation than i can.gl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted December 5, 2003 Author Share Posted December 5, 2003 sure I agree, in fact I wouldn`t even hazzard a wild guess at when it stops. but the principal is either one of 2 things, it represent perpetual motion, OR my "Spring" analogy... I personaly think the spring analogy is the safest bet, as I`m not a believer in "perpetual motion" per se. and so I`de be interested in formulating a mental picture of what the Universe were to be like when the "spring" stops moving. as to yet, I can`t come up with a clear picture. perhaps it because the OPEN universe theory is true? the "closed universe theory" doesn`t seem to fit any mental picture I can envisage? the open one does, in fact it seems to fit perfectly (appart from the dark matter, I consider that as just smoke). but if you throw a grenade and it goes off, there will be bits of stuff everywhere, and it`ll never come back and reform into a grenade again. also there will be parts of unactivated explosive in mid air still reacting (like our stars) and cooler bits (like our planets) flying about. eventualy, all will cool, all will be the max distance as possible from the initial BOOM, and will come to rest. THAT scenario seems to fit quite nicely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 I would agree that the open universe theory prevails. YT, the only problem I see with the spring analogy is that the forces you are envisioning are different than the ones the universe would experience. If its mass is too great for the speed at which matter is moving, it will colapse. I don't know what would prevent it from having the exact same mass and speed the next time, creating an infinite loop. Mabey you can let me know what you were thinking of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VendingMenace Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 i would agree with jordan here. The reason why we cannot have perpetual motion is that any machine must loose energy to the environment outside of it. Thus, every machine eventually grinds to a halt due to its loosing energy. But to where would the universe loose energy? It is is loosing energy, it must be loosing it to something, and that something would by definition would be part of the universe. It seems (at least to me) that the universe should always have the same amount of energy (energy cannot be created nor destroyed). Thus, if is a closed system, it would seem that by definition it would be a perpetual motion machine. Thatr is just how it seems to me -- perhaps my reasoning is wrong :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 The problem with the whole equation is we accept the matter part and the movement of masses and describe them but then we add gravity which we still don't totally understand, and then we have to address the forces of against gravity and also what the hell are neutrinos doing? I think we are a surface reflecting a whole bunch of stuff passing through and we don't have to worry about it collapsing into nothing cus if it does, nobodies gonna be there. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
multi Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 The problem with the weight on the spring analogy is that with the closed system it all re triggers with the big bang. if you put this over to the weight with the spring deal a closer analogy would be allowing the weight to reach its resting point and then flicking it with your finger every time it came to the top. it would then never come to rest unless your finger got tired Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 2, 2004 Author Share Posted January 2, 2004 ok, fair enough, and I see your point, so what would be the cosmic equivalent of the "finger flick" be then? (Please don`t say God, I know it`s Pseudo Science and the thread is borderline ridiculous, but it has SOME interesting ideas) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 What's that you say? God is a Slinky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 2, 2004 Author Share Posted January 2, 2004 ROFLOL, ya could just be right there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Well it's better than Alannis Morrisette. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 2, 2004 Author Share Posted January 2, 2004 What isn`t tho? well since this IS the Pseudo Science section, and I`m unlikely to come out with anything as oddball as some of the threads in here, I thought I`de have a go what do you think of the Fractal Like patern idea, coincidence? or maybe that`s just how the universe likes to organise itself? and orbital pattern whether it be round a Sun or a Nucleus seems to me to be the most efficient path to take (I don`t want to get too factual as it`ll spoil it) so might there be other little cities on an electron somewhere (saved it again, it definately belongs here now) LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 This isn't Pseudoscience, it's in Quantum Mechanics atm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
multi Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Back to the original question of "what can stop it being gravitationaly pulled back in again and blowing up" we may want to think Dark matter It is neat and it accounts for the missing matter in the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Dark Matter only accounts for "missing mass" if you can show that it's actually there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 2, 2004 Author Share Posted January 2, 2004 Opps, my bad! I think it belongs in there tho, as the ideas presented were just that. more a curiosity really, and non of it proven, as to what I sugested. I think the classical model seems more fitting for sure.I think I`ll move it into there anyway, if this pops up on a search engine, it`s hardly likely to be helpfull to anyone, cya in Pseudoscience section Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Well, if you want it in Pseudoscience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 2, 2004 Author Share Posted January 2, 2004 well yeah really, it`s not exactly DEFFINATE Science, it was just an idea really, so probably best here me thinks, unless we edit out the nonsensical stuff, besides, it`s still available for veiw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 ekpyrotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now