Yuri Danoyan Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Some kind of exotic repulsive force in the form of vacuum energy is supposed to be responsible for acceleration of expansion of the Universe which started about 7 Gyr. ago. If suppose the expansion of space obey to Fibbonaci Number Law it can explain this acceleration. See picture remembering Big Bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Danoyan Posted January 25, 2013 Author Share Posted January 25, 2013 Paul Dirac provided alternative scenarios for the continuous creation of matter in the Universe 'additive' creation (new matter is created uniformly throughout space) pic.3 (Arithmetic progression) 'multiplicative' creation (new matter is created where there are already concentrations of mass).pic.1,2 (Geometric progression) Possible reconciliation 2 scenarios possible by a spiral as analogy formed from squares whose sides had Fibonacci numbers as their lengths The polar equation for a golden spiral is the same as for other logarithmic spirals, . Wonderful new coincidence occur when age of the Universe 13.7 Gyr compared with Fib(#7)=13....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) It actually does seem like you could model the "growth" of matter as a Fibonacci sequence, you could reduce either to sigma notation and then into terms of "n" and plot the sequence, almost like the growth of a population in a way, but we don't actually have evidence that matter is being "created" anywhere, at least not in such massive scales, we simply discover more of the universe and find that it does not appear to have a finite boundary. You can reduce either to sigma notation into. By the way what does that graph actually represent? I see no labels on the axis. It would make sense that you could model the amount of matter with a Fibonacci sequence, but really we don't have enough evidence to support the universe works that way. Edited January 30, 2013 by SamBridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Danoyan Posted January 30, 2013 Author Share Posted January 30, 2013 It seems to me ordinary explosion obey to Random Law. But Big Bang is deterministic and superdeterministic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 It could hypothetically work but as you know there's conservation laws and the big bang definitely wasn't deterministic not only because of all the science we have but we don't have any evidence to know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Danoyan Posted February 1, 2013 Author Share Posted February 1, 2013 "We don't have any evidence to know that. We don't have evidence also about inflation starting from Planck mass and Planck density http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang Planck epoch is stupid idea http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0191 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 We do have some evidence actually, because as we other data about the universe, if you play it backwards the universe appears to become hotter and denser. While this does not directly lead to the big bang of course, there are conditions created in labs which have temperatures equal to temperatures that were predicted to exist in the early universe such as quark gluon plasma which takes more than millions of degrees to generate, so we can study those materials and make inferences about the past and say that those materials existed when the universe was at a specific temperature, and when the universe was at that specific temperature, it had a certain predicted density and effects on matter. There's no way of knowing if it's totally accurate of course, but it is some evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Danoyan Posted February 1, 2013 Author Share Posted February 1, 2013 The density that you mean is false density because Planck lentgh is false value. How about other idea? Every Fibonacci number mean single dimension....The Universe changed dimensions 11 times until 144 Gyr Is the M - theory right ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 The density that you mean is false density because Planck lentgh is false value. How about other idea? Every Fibonacci number mean single dimension....The Universe changed dimensions 11 times until 144 Gyr Is the M - theory right ? It's somewhat logical, but still mainly just a collection of extrapolations, especially when you deal with Planck time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Danoyan Posted February 2, 2013 Author Share Posted February 2, 2013 Planck time is the same senseless idea as the Plank length. Only Planck mass is real entity.. Planck mass is the "bridge" between mass of stars and mass of proton. Mstar=10^35g Mst/ Mpl=[Mpl/Mpr]^2; [10^35/10^-5]=10^40=[10^20]^2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) Planck time is the same senseless idea as the Plank length. Only Planck mass is real entity.. Planck mass is the "bridge" between mass of stars and mass of proton. Mstar=10^35g Mst/ Mpl=[Mpl/Mpr]^2; [10^35/10^-5]=10^40=[10^20]^2 No Planck time and length aren't meaningless because there are phenomena which can happen over such distances and in such time, such as the exchange of bosons between particles in a nucleus or interactions with the strong force and quarks to keep them bound, how light moves through a liquid object or air, ect. Edited February 2, 2013 by SamBridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Danoyan Posted February 2, 2013 Author Share Posted February 2, 2013 If G and c vary with the same speed, only Mass Planck unit have sense Pay attention to formula Lpl and Tpl where G and c fraction where the numerator and denominator are different indicators It is.absurd... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 If G and c vary with the same speed, only Mass Planck unit have sense Pay attention to formula Lpl and Tpl where G and c fraction where the numerator and denominator are different indicators It is.absurd... Gravity and light have the same speed but they are entirely different things. Light is combination of an oscillation in an electric field and an oscillation in a magnetic field, while gravity is a distortion in the fabric of space or some kind og coupling with Higgs Bosons, they are completely different mathematical systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Danoyan Posted February 3, 2013 Author Share Posted February 3, 2013 Is it possible 2 diifferent things vary with same speed but depend from third entity, from vacuum energy. for example? I try to imagine this situation next way:{CGS units] G vary from 10^-8 until 10^-27 and then stopped.19 order magnitude c vary from 10^10 until 10^-9 and then stopped.19 order magnitude. In the end of every cycle of the Universe constants become: h = 10^-27 G= 10^-27c= 10^-10 Mpl = 10^-5g. eternal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Gravity I don't think stops at any distance, it get's weaker and it's strength indefinitely approaches 0, same with light and it's probability density. Light has probability density, gravity doesn't, gravity is just a field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Danoyan Posted February 4, 2013 Author Share Posted February 4, 2013 Gravity and constant of gravity are different things. Gravity is field Light is electromagnetic field also Interesting what happen with mass when decreased G and c.? To my opinion mass of atoms,specially atom of hydrogen, undergo to increasing. Mass of proton Mpr=1.672x10^-24g ; Mass of electron Mel=9.109x10^-28gMpr/Mel=1836.152 . Longevity of one cycle of the Universe Ut=10^18sec Masses of proton and electron grow up, but different way Future Mprf =1836.152x12=22033.824arithmetic sequence, additive law Future Melf= e^0 x(exp) ^10=22026.465; geometric sequence, power low In some point 2 values of mass become equal. Future Mprf=1836.152x11.995=22026.465(more precision) Final value Mel=2.0^-23g; Mpr=2.0x10^-23g Mpr/Mel=1 and possible annihilation. Birth of many photons. Neutron decay n (p,e,neutrino) give birth fornext cycle of the Universe. That is my scenario.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) This "longevity of the universe cycle" is not something that exists in science, I don't know why you are basin any physics off of it and I don't see exactly how it pertains to an indefinitely growing Fibonacci sequence. If matter is being continuously created but the universe is not expanding in size, I've never really heard of that, no one's ever seen large amounts of matter being created. If in some way matter is being created as the universe expands, the gravity may or may not pull everything back together. No offense but what you're saying seems like word salad, protons can't have the same direct mass, but through the relative mass of energy they can, but there's no reason to think why that would cause annihilation unless you perhaps mean a positron created by applying energy with the relative mass of an electron to an atomic system but even then there's still some matter and energy left over. Edited February 5, 2013 by SamBridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Danoyan Posted February 5, 2013 Author Share Posted February 5, 2013 Question about duration of cycle have sense if exist cyclic universe theories. Answer to your next question you can read there http://vixra.org/abs/1212.0080 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Question about duration of cycle have sense if exist cyclic universe theories. Answer to your next question you can read there http://vixra.org/abs/1212.0080 I wouldn't call it a "theory", a theory is based off of scientific data, we have never observed a "cycle" of the entire universe and don't even know if it has an end or not or even how exactly it began. You will also have to specify which article you wanted me to view, some seem vague. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Danoyan Posted February 6, 2013 Author Share Posted February 6, 2013 How about cyclic models? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model Today seem vague... but tomorrow ? http://blog.vixra.org/category/crackpots-who-were-right/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 How about cyclic models? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model Today seem vague... but tomorrow ? http://blog.vixra.org/category/crackpots-who-were-right/ I'm not saying they don't make sense, I'm saying we don't really have any observable evidence they exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Danoyan Posted February 6, 2013 Author Share Posted February 6, 2013 In addition to observational data must be cleared from the old dogmas such as the Planck length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzwood Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 (edited) (Offtopic: I like how dividing Fibonacci sequence numbers converges to the golden ratio: x²-x-1 = 0) Edited February 6, 2013 by Fuzzwood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Danoyan Posted February 6, 2013 Author Share Posted February 6, 2013 If you like you can read http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fib.html 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