Multiverse

[x04ty29er]

The universe is called the universe because we decided to call it the universe, not because it was some God-given insight; we believed it was the only one. ~ does not mean negative, it means approx. This is negative: -. If, as you say, the universe is infinite, then not matter how hot it is, finite heat / infinite area = 0 average heat. If scientists have decided that the average temperature is 2 degrees kelvin, then they have to first assume that the universe is finite; only then can they conclude a non-zero avg temp. All molecules are vibrating. Vibrating is energy. As long as there is energy, there cannot be abs 0. They have gotten down to fractions of degrees in a lab using a laser to stop individual molecules, but thermodynamics prevents the coldness from being retained. Now for the collision question. Imagine a flat table that extends out horizontally in all directions. now imagine a stool underneath that plane that also has a flat horizontal surface that extends out. Do they ever intersect? No. That is why they are called PARALLEL universes. Now for the light question. I agree. Light has no mass, but it has momentum and travels on the plane of space-time. Have you ever seen one of those coin things where you put the coin in and it goes around and around in a little cone shaped thing before dropping into the hole? A black hole is kind of like one of those in space on a macroscopic scale (and not limited to coins). Thus anything can be affected by gravity. E=mc^2 is a theoretical formula. But it has been tested. Atom bombs and nuclear powerplants, how do you think they know what to do? Even if it is false, it gave people enough insight to discover things never befor seen (like a flat city). The mass in one universe does not change because of the others. That is part of the theory.

[Xukaniz]

The universe is called the universe because we decided to call it the universe, not because it was some God-given insight; we believed it was the only one. ~ does not mean negative, it means approx. This is negative: -. If, as you say, the universe is infinite, then not matter how hot it is, finite heat / infinite area = 0 average heat. If scientists have decided that the average temperature is 2 degrees kelvin, then they have to first assume that the universe is finite; only then can they conclude a non-zero avg temp. All molecules are vibrating. Vibrating is energy. As long as there is energy, there cannot be abs 0. They have gotten down to fractions of degrees in a lab using a laser to stop individual molecules, but thermodynamics prevents the coldness from being retained. Now for the collision question. Imagine a flat table that extends out horizontally in all directions. now imagine a stool underneath that plane that also has a flat horizontal surface that extends out. Do they ever intersect? No. That is why they are called PARALLEL universes. Now for the light question. I agree. Light has no mass, but it has momentum and travels on the plane of space-time. Have you ever seen one of those coin things where you put the coin in and it goes around and around in a little cone shaped thing before dropping into the hole? A black hole is kind of like one of those in space on a macroscopic scale (and not limited to coins). Thus anything can be affected by gravity. E=mc^2 is a theoretical formula. But it has been tested. Atom bombs and nuclear powerplants, how do you think they know what to do? Even if it is false, it gave people enough insight to discover things never befor seen (like a flat city). The mass in one universe does not change because of the others. That is part of the theory.

I am aware we called it the universe for a reason. I know it is not a god given sign, but I still believe in only one universe. I dont believe in parallel demensions, sorry, its not my thing.

 

Just because the temperature of the universe is 2 degress kelvin doesnt mean that the universe is finite. The farther away things get from an energy source, the less it is effected by it. Ultimately, an object would have an infinitely small effect on the temperature of any single point in the universe, if it is far away enough.

 

I dont necessarily agree with the whole black hole thing. Light can only be effected by a black hole because it has mass. If light were to have no mass, then there would be no gravitation between the force of the black hole and the light. If I remember correctly from physics, Gravitation = (Gravitational constant)m1m2/(r^2), or something along those lines. I dont believe light could be pulled in to a black hole if it had no mass.

 

And even though they have made atom bombs and nuclear plants doest mean that they are converting mass to energy. No matter what the reaction, there is always conservation of mass. The energy is created through breaking bonds between molecules, not destroying the molecules themselves.

 

Sorry if I am getting in to this too much, this is a lot of fun .

[trumpetman1288]

The Conservation of mass and energy are both defied by E=MC^2. In both a physical and chemical reaction, mass and energy will always remain conserved. Once you get into a nuclear level, however, we know that mass can be destroyed, energy can be created, and so on and so forth. We know that light is usually an indication of energy, but it has no mass or physical properties with the exception of it being visible. In E=MC^2, mass is turned into energy, and theoretically, you can turn energy into mass.

 

So what does all that have to do with black holes and the multiversal theory? Light, being a form of energy can be manipulated by black holes, or even space for that matter. But Xakaniz brings out a good point; light has no mass. If light has no mass, it cannot fall victim to the effects of gravity. Granted, we have found ways here on earth to slow down and manipulate the speed of light, none of which involved using gravity. Light is manipulated by matter or waves that disrupt the frequency at which it travels. A black hole is source of GREAT energy, so it must be producing waves to manipulate light, but light still cannot fall victim to the gravity of a black hole.

[x04ty29er]

lol. Did you not read my previous explaination? Light is affected by gravity, or rather, the curvature of space-time. Shine a flashlight on the wall in a dark room from about 10-20 feet. Put your hand right next to the wall. The shadow is quite well defined. Now, move your hand towards the flashlight. As your hand gets closer and closer to the flashlight, the shadow gets more blurred, thus light bends. Now, as I said before, everything in our universe moves along the fabric of space-time. Gravity causes dents in this fabric, thus causing objects to curve. The gravity equation previously presented is true in Newtonian mechanics. But what if the object were moving very quickly? According to newtonian mechanics, nothing would change, but according to relativity, the force between the 2 objects would increase as the mass of the fast moving object increased relatively. Now light, like all other things in our universe, travels along to fabric. when it encounters a dent or curve in the fabric, it follows it. Gravity doesn't attract. It causes disruptions in spacetime, which in turn give way to the 'falling in' of objects into this vortex, giving the illusion of attraction. thus light is affected by gravity. On a side note, I'm glad somebody likes this thread. There was a particular comment earlier that called this thread, what was it again?, stupid? Anyway, Thanks.

[Xukaniz]

Well, Ive been butchered. I concede lol.

[trumpetman1288]

The theory of relativity may soon prove to be false though. The speed of light, as was recently discovered, is not constant. But that's something else..

 

Light does bend, hence infraction, reflection, and yadda yadda with that, but can we really say that space-time is disrupted by black holes, and if so, why?

 

I mean, yes, there is considerable backing behind so much of there being a bend in time-space, but so much of it is in the theory phase, just as quantum properties are. Sure there is evidence for it, but it's not fact. Furthermore, part of the theory behind black holes involves the theory of relativity, which, like I said, may soon prove to be false.

[x04ty29er]

Yes. I agree. It is theory. That is why the description says discussion of different theories. lol. You do have a good point. However, I would like to hear this theory that says light speed is not constant. I've never heard it before and am quite intrigued.

[MartinHorn]

Yes. I agree. It is theory. That is why the description says discussion of different theories. lol. You do have a good point. However, I would like to hear this theory that says light speed is not constant. I've never heard it before and am quite intrigued.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092.html

 

Explanations about the speed of light.(for everybody)

[Xukaniz]

Also, what are these methods that we have learned to bend light? Are these forces we exert on the light natural? And if they arent, how can a black hole produce these forces?

[actualgirltrombone]

As far as I can tell, the force a black hole uses to bend light is HUGELY INSANE amounts of gravity.

[sax5warrior]

why worry about things gazzillion miles away while you need to worry about things 5 feet away from you

 

we will never know.

[x04ty29er]

Yes we will. We are human and we live in the United States, thus it is our duty to worry about useless things. But, in the future, the things we learn now might be invaluable to us.

[trumpetman1288]

we will never know.

I thought I should further add that the same exact thing was said of other things in the past. People never saw the use of studying atoms and elements. Today, we use that study to create nuclear energy and to find cures to illnesses. That, and as x04ty29er said, the US has a knack for gathering useless information and dealing with things we don't need to be involved with. If you don't believe me, look into the US war history...there has been only 3 wars that the US has NEEDED to be involved with rather than deciding to join or start one.

[bluebellbrass07]

QUOTE (sax5warrior @ Jul 28 2006, 01:42 PM)

why worry about things gazzillion miles away while you need to worry about things 5 feet away from you we will never know.

I like your style of thinking

[sax5warrior]

I like your style of thinking

meh, i manly got that mind from my dad =/

[Fortisimo]

Hm. You obviously have seen The One. The energy of your being being split throughout all your different incarnations and mutually links is quite unlikely. A 'parallel' universe may not be quite parallel but rather went on a completely different path as a result of something different millions, billions of years ago. Time travel is theoretically possible, but only back to the point at which the device was made. Time is relative and is a dimention, like length, width, or height. Now imagine a macroscopic wormhole, it has 2 ends. Load one end into a ship that travels lets just say .8c. Now, according to relativity, the time for the end in the ship passes slower than the time one the other side. By the time the ship returns, it will be in the same spot where it started, many years into the future, far ahead of the other side. But step through the wormhole, and you have just traveled back in time. Light is energy. Energy and mass are interchangable according to E=mc^2. When the universe began, it is believed that there was more energy than there is now. Why? Some of it escaped beyond the edge before the universe expanded enough to contain it. what scientist have decide is that the average temperature of the universe is ~2 degrees Kelvin. Now, if the universe were infinite, this number would have to be 0. could you explain why you believe that the universe is infinite?

Haha, but it depends on how you define universe! Perhaps the universe ends at the point where there is no more matter because it hasn't expanded that far yet- perhaps you define it by temperature, bounded by points where thermal diffusion hasn't occured yet- or perhaps you define it as the edge of the higg's field where matter becomes absolutely meaningless and no longer has the attribute we refer to as "mass". I however, define it as the edge of existenece and therefore must say it is infinite because what would decide where things can no longer exist in any form? Sure, matter wouldn't exist, but energy is still present- that's all that was within our extremely young universe as well, but you wouldn't say it doesn't exist either would you?

 

I think this perhaps is a large misconception- even Mr. Atman seems to have a hard time getting his facts straight here- in his desparation to set forth philosophical views he seems to have a skewed view of reality. For example, when he was talking about the first few instants of the universe, he asked "what happened when photons went past the barrier of the univers", as though that disproved anything. WRONG- the universe expanded faster than the speed of light at first- that's cosmological inflantion, and is also tied to the HIgg's field. Besides, even if a photon were to get beyond the generally accepted boundary, that would only push the bounds out farther, not disprove them altogether. Secondly, when he tried to challenge our cosmological roots once again as he stated almost straight-out that heavy elements beyond iron could not have been made by stars, firstly because it is very hard to happen, and secondly because (he said) the lifespan of a star is 10 billion years versus the eniter universes lifetime of 13.7 billion. This however, is plainly false. Stars that are big enough to drive fusion reactions of such a magnitude actually only surivive for about 10 MILLION years- there could've been 5 generations of stars form the heavier elements and go nova since the dinosaurs were even around.

 

On the subject of the multiverse... this is an interesting and aesthetic idea about the universe in a quantum sense, but I'm afraid its much like the holographic theory developed by either Stephen Hawking or some ofhis associates (I can't remember which) - it is a theory of the entire universe created to rectify one small issue in a specific area of physics, and it is plainly not true. The hologram theory being created to rectify the problem of maximum entropy possible being directly related to the surface area of a black hole, not it's volume, and the multiverse to rectify the electron variations of the double slit experiment depending on at what point we observe the electrons before they hit the photosensitive paper.

[Fortisimo]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092.html

 

Explanations about the speed of light.(for everybody)

Friggin' Sweet- I've always thought that it was a ridiculous idea that the speed of light always has been and always will be constant.