Stephen Hawking would disagree.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
You cant make something out of nothing.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Tectonic plates don't move - Earth is growing
I think I'll stick with plate tectonics.
Ah nah that's not correct. Think of it more as the gaps between stuff expanding rather than new stuff being made in the middle. Like a balloon being blown up.Dilbert_X wrote:
Space-time could be expanding, with a corresponding increase in mass.
Now, as to why space time is expanding (at an accelerating rate no less)... let's not go there.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
something more lysergic spawns this sort of thing to begin withJaekus wrote:
I was thinking something more lysergic.Dilbert_X wrote:
Drunk is fine, try that.
jsnipy wrote:
something more lysergic spawns this sort of thing to begin withJaekus wrote:
I was thinking something more lysergic.Dilbert_X wrote:
Drunk is fine, try that.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Our whole perception of the world could just be some abberant energy wave. If I go to sleep before dawn every electron in the universe will align at the zero position simultaneously; everything and everyone everywhere will stop existing. Oh, and trees & landscapes are fractals.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Thats the biscuit.Spark wrote:
Ah nah that's not correct. Think of it more as the gaps between stuff expanding rather than new stuff being made in the middle. Like a balloon being blown up.Dilbert_X wrote:
Space-time could be expanding, with a corresponding increase in mass.
Now, as to why space time is expanding (at an accelerating rate no less)... let's not go there.
You cannot make something out of nothing, when the universe was at its very smallest (pre "big bang") it had the same mass as it will when it is flat. I am pretty sure this is exactly the argument Mr Hawking takes as well
As for expanding at an accelerating rate I read a few articles about it which I really struggled to get my head around lol talked about the flat universe being a certainty and then went in to probability and time travel :S
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2011-08-01 01:19:30)
The basic reason is that about ~10-15 years ago, people looked at Einstein's original field equations for general relativity (which included the additional cosmological constant term on the left-hand side) and found that they actually explained some of the weird phenomena they were seeing, despite Einstein having thrown them out.
The acceleration basically comes down to that said cosmological constant having been observed numerous times in the last decade to be negative (I think, don't quote me as I haven't actually seen it in about a year). Which would imply accelerating expansion. Obviously there needs to be some sort of energy driving this expansion (basically by definition), we just don't know what it is... hence the rather useless name "dark energy".
The acceleration basically comes down to that said cosmological constant having been observed numerous times in the last decade to be negative (I think, don't quote me as I haven't actually seen it in about a year). Which would imply accelerating expansion. Obviously there needs to be some sort of energy driving this expansion (basically by definition), we just don't know what it is... hence the rather useless name "dark energy".
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Well, the universe is simply the imbalance between matter and anti-matter, no-one yet has a clue how they came to be out of balance, or have any idea of what a pre-big bang universe looked like or how massive it was.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
You cannot make something out of nothing, when the universe was at its very smallest (pre "big bang") it had the same mass as it will when it is flat. I am pretty sure this is exactly the argument Mr Hawking takes as well
As for expanding at an accelerating rate I read a few articles about it which I really struggled to get my head around lol talked about the flat universe being a certainty and then went in to probability and time travel :S
Otherwise you're right.
Fuck Israel
There were tenuous signs last year that CP symmetry breaking has been observed live at the LHC. If so that leads straight to an answer for the antimatter/matter inbalance.Dilbert_X wrote:
Well, the universe is simply the imbalance between matter and anti-matter, no-one yet has a clue how they came to be out of balance, or have any idea of what a pre-big bang universe looked like or how massive it was.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
You cannot make something out of nothing, when the universe was at its very smallest (pre "big bang") it had the same mass as it will when it is flat. I am pretty sure this is exactly the argument Mr Hawking takes as well
As for expanding at an accelerating rate I read a few articles about it which I really struggled to get my head around lol talked about the flat universe being a certainty and then went in to probability and time travel :S
Otherwise you're right.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
The logic follows that if the universe is currently expanding, then when you run it in reverse you get to a "singularity" The singularity is the pre-big bang universe I was referring to.
e=mc2
You can convert from energy to mass and vice versa, but you cannot create either energy or mass from nothing. I am not aware of anything observed or theorised that has a higher mass/energy output than input.
e=mc2
You can convert from energy to mass and vice versa, but you cannot create either energy or mass from nothing. I am not aware of anything observed or theorised that has a higher mass/energy output than input.
If you run it in reverse you hit Planck scale/Planck time and you stop. There is nothing more you can say beyond that point.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
The logic follows that if the universe is currently expanding, then when you run it in reverse you get to a "singularity" The singularity is the pre-big bang universe I was referring to.
e=mc2
You can convert from energy to mass and vice versa, but you cannot create either energy or mass from nothing. I am not aware of anything observed or theorised that has a higher mass/energy output than input.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
One theory is that the net universe is nothing, that something exists is a flaw in that theory - or there is a lot of antimatter somewhere.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
The logic follows that if the universe is currently expanding, then when you run it in reverse you get to a "singularity" The singularity is the pre-big bang universe I was referring to.
e=mc2
You can convert from energy to mass and vice versa, but you cannot create either energy or mass from nothing. I am not aware of anything observed or theorised that has a higher mass/energy output than input.
Otherwise maybe something can be created from nothing.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-08-01 03:04:15)
Fuck Israel
You are misunderstanding Dilbert.
The sum of the universe equates to nothing where nothing is the sum of everything. Nothing in that sense does not refer to empty space.
The way I read it was that the easiest way is to create a new number system where infinite is now represented by 0. Then infinite -1 is now 0+1, infinite -2 is 0+2 etc. To get to the traditional value for 0 you have to get infinite and minus everything away from it which becomes an undefined function.
The sum of the universe equates to nothing where nothing is the sum of everything. Nothing in that sense does not refer to empty space.
The way I read it was that the easiest way is to create a new number system where infinite is now represented by 0. Then infinite -1 is now 0+1, infinite -2 is 0+2 etc. To get to the traditional value for 0 you have to get infinite and minus everything away from it which becomes an undefined function.
Most contemporary theories state that the sum total of all energy in the universe is zero, yes.Dilbert_X wrote:
One theory is that the net universe is nothing, that something exists is a flaw in that theory - or there is a lot of antimatter somewhere.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
The logic follows that if the universe is currently expanding, then when you run it in reverse you get to a "singularity" The singularity is the pre-big bang universe I was referring to.
e=mc2
You can convert from energy to mass and vice versa, but you cannot create either energy or mass from nothing. I am not aware of anything observed or theorised that has a higher mass/energy output than input.
Otherwise maybe something can be created from nothing.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
And if it isn't well, it could be eventually.Spark wrote:
Most contemporary theories state that the sum total of all energy in the universe is zero, yes.Dilbert_X wrote:
One theory is that the net universe is nothing, that something exists is a flaw in that theory - or there is a lot of antimatter somewhere.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
The logic follows that if the universe is currently expanding, then when you run it in reverse you get to a "singularity" The singularity is the pre-big bang universe I was referring to.
e=mc2
You can convert from energy to mass and vice versa, but you cannot create either energy or mass from nothing. I am not aware of anything observed or theorised that has a higher mass/energy output than input.
Otherwise maybe something can be created from nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
Heat would still be something though.
Fuck Israel
Dilbert_X wrote:
Heat would still be something though.
Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
You are misunderstanding Dilbert.
The sum of the universe equates to nothing where nothing is the sum of everything. Nothing in that sense does not refer to empty space.
The way I read it was that the easiest way is to create a new number system where infinite is now represented by 0. Then infinite -1 is now 0+1, infinite -2 is 0+2 etc. To get to the traditional value for 0 you have to get infinite and minus everything away from it which becomes an undefined function.
I understand just fine, since the universe exists why don't you explain how it could vanish into nothingness, heat not being nothing.
Fuck Israel
Dilbert_X wrote:
I understand just fine, since the universe exists why don't you explain how it could vanish into nothingness, heat not being nothing.
It isn't vanishing. You are misunderstanding what is meant by "nothing"Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
The sum of the universe equates to nothing where nothing is the sum of everything. Nothing in that sense does not refer to empty space.Dilbert_X wrote:
Heat would still be something though.
The way I read it was that the easiest way is to create a new number system where infinite is now represented by 0. Then infinite -1 is now 0+1, infinite -2 is 0+2 etc. To get to the traditional value for 0 you have to get infinite and minus everything away from it which becomes an undefined function.
This is how to get to the "nothing" you are thinking of "To get to the traditional value for 0 you have to get infinite and minus everything away from it which becomes an undefined function" and is not how anybody is describing the universe.
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2011-08-01 06:54:48)
Zeroing out just means it's conserved.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
I understand just fine, since the universe exists why don't you explain how it could vanish into nothingness, heat not being nothing.It isn't vanishing. You are misunderstanding what is meant by "nothing"Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
The sum of the universe equates to nothing where nothing is the sum of everything. Nothing in that sense does not refer to empty space.Dilbert_X wrote:
Heat would still be something though.
The way I read it was that the easiest way is to create a new number system where infinite is now represented by 0. Then infinite -1 is now 0+1, infinite -2 is 0+2 etc. To get to the traditional value for 0 you have to get infinite and minus everything away from it which becomes an undefined function.
This is how to get to the "nothing" you are thinking of "To get to the traditional value for 0 you have to get infinite and minus everything away from it which becomes an undefined function" and is not how anybody is describing the universe.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Think back to when PCs all ran in 16 colours and you played around on paint. When you painted something grey and then zoomed in, it was made of lots of black and white dots next to each other. When you zoom back out all you see is the grey, all of the individual dots and tones have been lost with just the net result being visible. The grey is the "nothing" yet when you look closer it is actually made up of lots of things which combined cancel out
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2011-08-01 07:04:13)
I, for one, still play around on paint.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Tectonic plates don't move - Earth is growing