Quantum Geometry and Planck Length

[mmonaco27]

Hey guys - first post and certainly not last.

 

I recently read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene and I was thinking about the relationship he was discussing about the 2 methods of measuring radius (high energy vs low energy) and how a radius of R would have equal meaning to a radius of 1/R.

 

I started wondering if when the universe reaches a radius of 1.616e34 meters (the inverse of Planck length) might that be the moment a big bang for the next universe occur?

 

(I wanted to look into it more but I was having trouble finding the numbers on the radius of the current universe. The numbers I found were of the visible universe and centered around us. Is there a pinpointed center of the universe and a radius to accompany it?)

 

What are some thoughts on this? I suppose most people either believe the universe will expand forever, contract at some point (possibly at 1.616e34 metes), or simply cease as we know it at some point. Or the universe is not the shape we think it is and those theories don't have meaning.

 

 

Anyway, looking forward to getting flamed on my posts in this community!

[solo]

Hey guys - first post and certainly not last.

Welcome mmonaco27, looking forward to hearing more from you friend.

 

 

 

I started wondering if when the universe reaches a radius of 1.616e34 meters (the inverse of Planck length) might that be the moment a big bang for the next universe occur?

Actually momonaco27, the inverse of Planck length would be (1/1.616E-35) and that would be: 6.188E+34, not 1.616E+34 as you formerly stated. Never-the-less, an interesting thought anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, looking forward to getting flamed on my posts in this community!

NO WAY!!, never happen around here my friend..................solo

[mmonaco27]

the inverse of Planck length would be (1/1.616E-35) and that would be: 6.188E+34, not 1.616E+34 as you formerly stated. Never-the-less, an interesting thought anyway.

 

Oh, thanks - I shouldn't have been so careless. At least my theoretical end of the universe is a bit further off now.

[Martin]

mmo, Roger Penrose has been promoting an idea that has some faint similarity to yours. Penrose idea is much more detailed but yours is faintly reminiscent of it.

 

Penrose has a video lecture in which he shows a lot of pictures and talks about his idea. Maybe your connection is fast enough to get video lectures.

For me, it comes across smoothly without any breaks.

 

I will get a link, so maybe you can watch it if you want. it will overload anyone's brain---dont expect to understand everything just listen and watch---the pictures he shows may give you ideas.

 

penrose idea is that far in future our universe is effectively empty because all the stars have collapsed and collected to black holes and finally even the black holes have EVAPORATED into mere electomagn. radiation, and it is totally flat and homogenous-----just a huge empty space fill uniformly with chilly radiation.

 

Now, says penrose, this perfect uniform flatness is just right for starting off

A NEW UNIVERSE. Dont ask me why;)

he is a famous mathmatician/physicist like hawking (only better, IMHO)

he has this outrageous idea. what can I say?

 

he has a kind of "proof" or plausibility argument to persuade people that once something gets completely expanded till it is virtually empty and no longer has any black holes or bumps or particles (except for light) then (according to him) it becomes fertile ground for a new big bang:rolleyes:

 

well, he is penrose, so maybe he's right

 

(BTW I think all ideas like this are extremely farfetch speculative----but it takes all kinds of ideas including crazy ones!)

 

I will see if I can find the link.

 

good luck:-)

====================================

PIRSA#: 06090005

Title: Before the Big Bang: an Outrageous Solution to a Profound Cosmological Puzzle ( Windows Media , Macromedia Flash , MP3 Audio , PDF)

Speaker(s): Sir Roger Penrose - University of Oxford

Abstract:

Date: 12/09/2006 - 2:00 pm

Series: Colloquium

Location: 405

 

yeah, the SLIDES are available PDF,so that does not take a fast connection. When I want to view it, I click on "Windows Media".

 

The media for the talk is archived in PERIMETER INSTITUTE RECORDED SEMINAR ARCHIVE (PIRSA).

 

You just have to go to PIRSA and type in the number (06090005) and click "view"

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/en/Scientific/Seminars/PIRSA/

 

let me know by posting in this thread if you have difficulty, and please

don't overuse PIRSA, it is a precious resource that a lot of us depend on----the archive has many many seminar talks.

[uncool]

Actually momonaco27, the inverse of Planck length would be (1/1.616E-35) and that would be: 6.188E+34, not 1.616E+34 as you formerly stated. Never-the-less, an interesting thought anyway.

Another thing is that the inverse of Planck length is 6.188E+34 m^(-1), not 6188E+34 m - define your inverses correctly.

=Uncool-

[ajb]

Hey guys - first post and certainly not last.

 

I recently read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene and I was thinking about the relationship he was discussing about the 2 methods of measuring radius (high energy vs low energy) and how a radius of R would have equal meaning to a radius of 1/R.

 

 

 

You are talking about T-duality. It is due to the "extended" nature of strings and compactification.

 

A good introcuction can be found in BUSSTEPP Lectures on String Theory by Richard Szabo.

[bascule]

penrose idea is that far in future our universe is effectively empty because all the stars have collapsed and collected to black holes and finally even the black holes have EVAPORATED into mere electomagn. radiation, and it is totally flat and homogenous-----just a huge empty space fill uniformly with chilly radiation.

 

Isn't the tendency for any thermodynamic system to seek equilibrium?

 

Now, says penrose, this perfect uniform flatness is just right for starting off A NEW UNIVERSE. Dont ask me why;)

 

I've entertained this idea myself sometimes. If you really want to see something nuts, check out Christopher Michael Langan's crazy universe theory (namely he'd describes an equilibrium state called "unbound telesis" from which Self-Configuring Self-Programming Turing machines would somehow spontaneously emerge, with computation, semiotics, and ontology all spontaneously arising from perfect equilibrium.

 

I like to wonder about these sorts of questions (i.e. if intelligent systems didn't manage to consume the universe, or even if they did and simply ran out of resources to continue their own existence, what would happen?) but they're terribly speculative and difficult.

[Martin]

Isn't the tendency for any thermodynamic system to seek equilibrium?

 

...

 

curiously, he arrives at his model from thermodynamic considerations----his argument depends a lot on thermodynamic reasoning

 

he includes the state of GRAVITY (i.e. the shape of space) in calculating the entropy------his thermodynamics is not just particle IN space but it includes space itself in calculation

 

it isnt at all crackpot----he has been right in the past with ideas that seemed farfetched----but it is different all right