Can we conceptualise the shape of the universe?
Discussion
avinalarf said:
Quantum Physics is fascinating.
Simply put it says that the outcome of an an experiment is altered when/if it is observed.
Yes I'm not a scientist but I was reading up on how a quantum computer might work recently. One of the key challenges is keeping a quantum system perfectly isolated to avoid quantum decoherence. Basically you want the particles to interact with each other but not the rest of the universe, which seems completely bizarre but is how you get the quantum 'magic'.Simply put it says that the outcome of an an experiment is altered when/if it is observed.
Also leads to the many-worlds interpretation and all possible alternate histories and futures being real. Which is even more crazy.
you cannot conceptualise the shape of the universe, or size, before you get your head around this
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/icebridge/multi...
that's just our own planet and you probably didn't know the comparison....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ2tt5d4h_A
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/icebridge/multi...
that's just our own planet and you probably didn't know the comparison....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ2tt5d4h_A
The Spruce goose said:
Some argue spacetime has no time dimension
“One can travel in space only, and time is a numerical order of his motion.”
https://phys.org/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime...
So before the big bang time doesn't need to exist, no motion, no time. What caused the motion could be by the appearance of virtual particles, that can come of of nothing.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/somethi...
"Virtual particles" can become real photons--under the right conditions
Interesting. I remember something similar was said on here a little while ago. People did not like the notion at all. “One can travel in space only, and time is a numerical order of his motion.”
https://phys.org/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime...
So before the big bang time doesn't need to exist, no motion, no time. What caused the motion could be by the appearance of virtual particles, that can come of of nothing.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/somethi...
"Virtual particles" can become real photons--under the right conditions
anonymous said:
[redacted]
here's a good video on empty space.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzLDkMfR_60
"Something From Nothing": Virtual Particles and Gravity
4x4Tyke said:
Topologically a universe could be a Coffee cup or a donut, they are the same 'shape'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iHjt2Ovqag
by my definition a donut has jam in the middle so the item in that video must be a dough ring. Of course the same topological joke would work if the coffee cup were full, then the coffee could morph into the jam. Does the universe have a hole in the middle? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iHjt2Ovqag
PugwasHDJ80 said:
what shape is a black hole?
www.quora.com%2FWhat-is-the-shape-of-a-black-hole''The shape of the black hole's event horizon can be calculated. For a stable black hole it is an oblate spheroid, like the Earth, with its oblateness corresponding to its spin. Outside the event horizon there are some other areas of interest, such as the ergosphere and the photon sphere.''
Edited by The Spruce goose on Saturday 18th November 22:16
i think we live in a world where what really matters is pretty superficial, celebs lifestyles etc. Nothing of real meaning is ever in the mainstream, i mean on a Saturday night prime time people don;t watch scientists discuss the latest theorems.
i wish i was more clever to truly understand it, as it is fascinating to think we are just scraping the surface of what we know I think some thing will come of of quantum understanding, computers, even power plants utilising pressure variances in virtual particles etc.
The good thing about questions like this is, is that philosophy could answer as many of the questions as science can, and anyone can philosophise.
i wish i was more clever to truly understand it, as it is fascinating to think we are just scraping the surface of what we know I think some thing will come of of quantum understanding, computers, even power plants utilising pressure variances in virtual particles etc.
The good thing about questions like this is, is that philosophy could answer as many of the questions as science can, and anyone can philosophise.
Edited by The Spruce goose on Saturday 18th November 22:57
rog007 said:
Genuine question; does any of this matter?
Of course the human mind is inquiring; but if we stopped inquiries in to this specific area, would it matter? Is it all just a bit of fun or does it have any real impact on day to day stuff?
If we didn't understand relativity, then GPS would very quickly become unusably inaccurate as the clocks on the surface of the earth drift apart from those orbiting in satellites.
Neither of those applications were even dreamt of when Einstein and Bohr were making their fundamental theoretical breakthroughs 100 years ago.
Whilst the immediate practical applications of pure science are rarely obvious, they can be profound and have truly massive impacts on our society. So yes - this stuff matters.
rog007 said:
Genuine question; does any of this matter?
Of course the human mind is inquiring; but if we stopped inquiries in to this specific area, would it matter? Is it all just a bit of fun or does it have any real impact on day to day stuff?
It also matters to answering the really big questions of life the universe and everything. We live in what is called a fine tuned universe, it only exists because a number of universal constants lie within very narrow ranges. A slight variation in any of those and the universe could not exist.
It matters in practical ways as well. The progressive in lower cost of computing, communications, GPS are all built on this physics. Increasingly accurate measuring instruments for physicists, can be applied in factories and consumer devices. That smart phone in you hands, is a result of this.
A practical Quantum Machines will change everything, futurology is hard, but a QM upgrade things in ways we are only just beginning to fathom; it will open up whole new areas of computations for medicine and material science. QMs have the potential to solve problems in physics that are intractable with current computer technology. We cannot really predict where that will lead but the sort of leap forward we got from existing computers is entirely plausible.
PugwasHDJ80 said:
what shape is a black hole?
This is a good question and SG has posted a good 2D projection, which we can visualise in higher dimensions.Take that image of gravity wells and mirror it. It applies from any direction, up/down, left/right and forward/back. Project those gravity from any direction and you get a sphere.
Black holes spin, so their shape is a flattened sphere. The shape of the event horizon is the same but further out and that is the only part we could actually see/detect.
Now visualise that sphere through time, as a fourth dimension and the shape of the core is like a rod and the Event Horizon is a tube.
The thing to remember is these visualisation apply in every dimension.
Edited by 4x4Tyke on Monday 20th November 15:40
4x4Tyke said:
PugwasHDJ80 said:
what shape is a black hole?
This is a good question and SG has posted a good 2D projection, which we can visualise in higher dimensions.Take that image of gravity wells and mirror it. It applies from any direction, up/down, left/right and forward/back. Project those gravity from any direction and you get a sphere. Block holes spin, so the shape is a flattened sphere. The shape of the event horizon is the same and that is the only part we could actually see/detect.
Now visualise that sphere through time as a fourth dimension and the shape of the core is a rod and the Event Horizon is a tube.
The thing to remember is that picture applies in every dimension of space.
And this is the problem with mankind trying to conceptualise the universe- we try to turn everything into something we can imagine and visualise whereas some of the concepts involved are just impossible to visualise or to truly undersatnd using our frame of reference!
You can't "conceptialise" the universe because you can't think in 3D. It's that simple.
I'm also sure Lawrence Krauss and his like have published books on the answers to these questions.... From memory;
It will expand infinitely, faster and faster, until everything is so far apart there will be no interactions. Whoever is left will look at the night sky and see only darkness, and the universe will die cold, we live in the very small period by which life, or indeed anything, can exist.
It's all pretty cheery.
For example, only 10% of the weight of a proton is made from the three quarks. The other 90% mass is particles coming into and out of existence.
All IIRC, head f
k or what?
Go on youtube, and search "Lawrence Krauss, a universe from nothing". I'd also strongly advise reading the book.
I'm also sure Lawrence Krauss and his like have published books on the answers to these questions.... From memory;
avinalarf said:
Thing that baffles me is,if the Universe is expanding what is it expanding into ?
"Nothing" (Note intentional use of inverted commas).avinalarf said:
Is the Universe creating "space" as it expands ?
Yes. The only thing that moves faster than light, is the space for it to move into.avinalarf said:
Even if it is,then that void into which it expands is a something.
So what is that something?
You're basing this assumption on what you know to be true as a mammal on a floating rock, the universe doesn't work that way. There is no void.So what is that something?
avinalarf said:
One theory is that eventually the Universe will stop expanding and will collapse into itself,the "Big Crunch".
I rather like this theory as it provides a cycle,Big Bang,Big Crunch...then when the collapse ends there is another Big Bang.
We live in an open universe. Page one of the thread showed the "clumps" of matter from that would be seen based on each possible universe, that's what the pretty colours are. We live in the "open model", and these have been experimentally proven. The open universe also fits the maths best (or so I read).I rather like this theory as it provides a cycle,Big Bang,Big Crunch...then when the collapse ends there is another Big Bang.
It will expand infinitely, faster and faster, until everything is so far apart there will be no interactions. Whoever is left will look at the night sky and see only darkness, and the universe will die cold, we live in the very small period by which life, or indeed anything, can exist.
It's all pretty cheery.
avinalarf said:
Problem is what created the first Big Bang ?
In "empty" space particles are routinely created from "nothing". These virtual particles only exist for fractions of moments, however, in a long enough time line, in the right conditions, particles accumulate, and the big bang becomes inevitable. For example, only 10% of the weight of a proton is made from the three quarks. The other 90% mass is particles coming into and out of existence.
All IIRC, head f
k or what?Go on youtube, and search "Lawrence Krauss, a universe from nothing". I'd also strongly advise reading the book.
Edited by Prof Prolapse on Tuesday 21st November 14:37
Halmyre said:
4x4Tyke said:
Roofless Toothless said:
4x4Tyke said:
I think there are some people that could really understand it, but they are rare. Hawkins level intellects and attuned to this sort of thinking. Probably only a handful in the world as a whole.
Believe me, I do know what a doughnut looks like.Prof Prolapse said:
In "empty" space particles are routinely created from "nothing". These virtual particles only exist for fractions of moments, however, in a long enough time line, in the right conditions, particles accumulate, and the big bang becomes inevitable.
Vacuum 'zero point' energy.But the t=0 and t<0 conditions are still all but speculation.
Vacuum energy still needs 'time' for the quantum fields to vibrate with 'zero point' energy as I understand it.
Atomic12C said:
Vacuum 'zero point' energy.
But the t=0 and t<0 conditions are still all but speculation.
Vacuum energy still needs 'time' for the quantum fields to vibrate with 'zero point' energy as I understand it.
You're going to have to explain that a lot more if you want me to understand it.But the t=0 and t<0 conditions are still all but speculation.
Vacuum energy still needs 'time' for the quantum fields to vibrate with 'zero point' energy as I understand it.
Point remains, the "universe from nothing" theory is fairly well established, and really the premise shouldn't surprise anyone, given we're all here to be surprised.
Prof Prolapse said:
You're going to have to explain that a lot more if you want me to understand it.
Point remains, the "universe from nothing" theory is fairly well established, and really the premise shouldn't surprise anyone, given we're all here to be surprised.
Yes true, the big bang theory is well established, but the trigger for what caused the big bang at t=0, as I understood it, was not defined.Point remains, the "universe from nothing" theory is fairly well established, and really the premise shouldn't surprise anyone, given we're all here to be surprised.
Our current understanding of what the laws of physics were at t=0 (or even at t<0) are just speculation at best - aren't they?
Regarding zero point energy - you may have seen this video as its a popular youtube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh898Yr5YZ8
disclaimer : my comments are purely based up on taking an interest in the subject rather than any formal education on it. "As I understand it" is me opening the door to be educated if I'm missing the mark on the established theory.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff