Message boards :
MilkyWay@home Science :
Is it posible that the universe are colapsing at this very moment?
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Send message Joined: 6 May 09 Posts: 217 Credit: 6,856,375 RAC: 0 |
A good point, but I've wondered, if the gravitons couple with space, how do they escape the event horizon of a black hole? If they couple to space, and create a region that only allows for motion towards the singularity, It seems as though the graviton itself would be unable to escape the event horizon. I suppose the gravitons could couple weakly to space, and travel 'outside' of space (hidden dimension[s], etc), but this line of reasoning seems a bit speculative for my tastes. Eventually due to QM limits, science will find the smallest observable unit of gravitational force, and possibly dub it the 'graviton.' But by that time we will know a lot more, so it doesn't pay to speculate. I'll be taking an advanced quantum field theory course next semester, we'll see what they have to say about it. My opinions may change yet. :) |
Send message Joined: 11 Apr 10 Posts: 25 Credit: 375,893 RAC: 0 |
That's why I said earlier that such advanced theories are currently not much more than playing around with some advanced mathematics without any factual base. But that also encompasses the big bung theory. Alan Guth, inventor of the Inflation theory (bolted on to the big bung) freely admits that his calculations, and theory, is wrong. Yet big bungers hold on to the thought religiously. Why? And the Casimir effect, how is that justified with 16 elementery particles, +2 hypotheticals. Don't they need their opposite spin particles to make sense? Those other 16 particles that were MADE UP i.e. NO EVIDENCE FOR except the fact that mathemeticians needed them for QM to make sense? |
Send message Joined: 11 Apr 10 Posts: 25 Credit: 375,893 RAC: 0 |
And when you have a higgs boson and a graviton that justify and qualify the other 16 particles, one can start spouting QM as a usable, testable theory. Not a mathematical theory that produces questionable experimental evidence based on hypothetical particles. |
Send message Joined: 26 Jul 08 Posts: 627 Credit: 94,940,203 RAC: 0 |
That's why I said earlier that such advanced theories are currently not much more than playing around with some advanced mathematics without any factual base. Again, you are mixing something up. There is clear evidence for the Big Bang and there are some observed properties of our universe, which may be explained by one or more inflationary phases. Those theories are being worked on and their predictions are currently checked against measurements and observations (like the cosmic background radiation data). And yes, it is right that Alan Guth in his original work (where he came up with the inflation idea) used a too simple model. But this is not the end of it all. There are competing models, extensions to it and generally a lot of people trying to improve the theory. This is simply work in progress. And the Casimir effect, how is that justified with 16 elementery particles, +2 hypotheticals. Don't they need their opposite spin particles to make sense? Those other 16 particles that were MADE UP i.e. NO EVIDENCE FOR except the fact that mathemeticians needed them for QM to make sense? I know the 16 already observed elementary particles of the standard model and the sole missing one is the Higgs. What is the second hypothetical? And by the way, the 16 known particles have of course their antiparticles (the photon and the Z0 are their own antiparticles), which were observed too. But the spin doesn't change of course. What do you mean with "opposite spin"? Spin is a quantity which can only have positive values (greather than or equal zero). So I have no idea what you are talking about. Or are you mixing the standard model with something you heard about some proposed supersymmetry theories? That would be of the quite speculative category (and unlikely that it is correct as there are a whole bunch of competing theories). But it wouldn't change anything on the Casimir effect either way. |
Send message Joined: 26 Jul 08 Posts: 627 Credit: 94,940,203 RAC: 0 |
And when you have a higgs boson and a graviton that justify and qualify the other 16 particles, one can start spouting QM as a usable, testable theory. Not a mathematical theory that produces questionable experimental evidence based on hypothetical particles. The graviton has nothing to do with the standard model. It was only proposed to exist in analogy to the other exchange particles, but it is not part of the theory. We have currently quantum mechanical formulations of the electromagnetic, the weak and the strong interactions, the gravitation isn't part of this. There is simply no quantum mechanical formulation of gravitation, all we have is the good old classical gravitation (which is quite good for most stuff actually) and Einstein's General Relativity (which isn't a quantum theory either). So more or less all what was proposed for the graviton so far is something like: "if something similar to the other 3 theories exists, we shall name the gauge boson (exchange particle) of gravitation the graviton". It is not clear if a gauge invariant quantum theory of gravitation even exists. All tries for a formulation failed so far (one of it was even termed "last hope theory"). The quest for a quantum gravitation theory is still open (and highly speculative as experimental checks are extremely difficult). In the moment it looks like as it will be a bit different than what we have for the other 3 interactions (which are all gauge theories). Loop quantum gravitation is apparently something else (I don't know what they are talking about ;) where maybe no graviton is needed at all. But back to your quote. Quantum mechanics is so well tested and proven that your quote above simply makes no sense at all. A lot of stuff around you wouldn't work without it! |
Send message Joined: 11 Apr 10 Posts: 25 Credit: 375,893 RAC: 0 |
But quantum theory is NOT a complete theory until the higgs mechanism is found. No proof, no cigar, unworkable theory. One simply cannot PROVE an incomplete theory. You don't have all the pieces of the jigsaw. Scientists think they know what they are, but can NOT prove the existence of THEORETICAL particles by experiment. The mathematics of it all may be brilliant, but it is not describing observable real world events because you can't prove the existence of a particle that PROVES QT. |
Send message Joined: 26 Jul 08 Posts: 627 Credit: 94,940,203 RAC: 0 |
But quantum theory is NOT a complete theory until the higgs mechanism is found. No proof, no cigar, unworkable theory. That sounds like you are trolling. Maybe I should stop feeding you :] Edit: By the way, it is not possible to prove that any theory is "true" and in a rigorous view, every theory is only an abstraction of the world. All what can be done is to check if a theory consistently describes the observations and experiments and if it has predictive value for new experiments. And frankly, quantum mechanics and the standard model as a whole does a quite marvellous job so far. But it is also true that the theory currently reaches to the edges what can be checked experimentally. So there is always the possibility that the theory needs some refinement, when new experiments come up. This is called scientific progress. To sum it up, one can work quite well with current theories. |
Send message Joined: 11 Apr 10 Posts: 25 Credit: 375,893 RAC: 0 |
Well, pardon me. Sounds more like you can't defend an incomplete theory. No Higgs, no theory. That's kind of how it works. Edit: Even better. Here's the link to a youtube video where the scientists say what i just told you. No Higgs, no theory. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XbKZwXK-3c&feature=related I suggest you go trolling there for information straight from a LHC scientists mouth. |
Send message Joined: 11 Apr 10 Posts: 25 Credit: 375,893 RAC: 0 |
I'll rephrase what i said, may have been a bit off. No higgs, no Standard Model. All predictions, experiments, theories...null, void, invalid, worthless. Can't have a set of massless particles flying around at the speed of light unable to slow down to form matter, can we now? Just wouldn't be scientific. |
Send message Joined: 26 Jul 08 Posts: 627 Credit: 94,940,203 RAC: 0 |
Well, pardon me. Sounds more like you can't defend an incomplete theory. No Higgs, no theory. No, it's not. The Higgs mechanism is only the best bet (right now) for that missing part of the standard model. There are in fact a few other ones which one has to look at, if the Higgs would not be found. And as food for thought, that we have now quantum mechanics, doesn't make the classical mechanics useless. The latter is simply a limiting case of the former. Edit: Even better. Here's the link to a youtube video where the scientists say what i just told you. No Higgs, no theory. I suggest you try to understand what the people are saying there. |
Send message Joined: 11 Apr 10 Posts: 25 Credit: 375,893 RAC: 0 |
It can be argued that the most interesting discovery would be that we cannot find the higgs proving practically that it isn't there. That would mean that we really haven't understood something, that's a very good scene for science. Revelations sometimes come from the fact you hit a wall and you realize that you truly haven't understood anything. That's what the bearded dude states. I agree, that's how science works. In essence, we don't find it, we've been wrong all along? Haven't understood Quantum Mechanics? |
Send message Joined: 26 Jul 08 Posts: 627 Credit: 94,940,203 RAC: 0 |
It can be argued that the most interesting discovery would be that we cannot find the higgs proving practically that it isn't there. That would mean that we really haven't understood something, that's a very good scene for science. Revelations sometimes come from the fact you hit a wall and you realize that you truly haven't understood anything. It means, that then the Higgs mechanism isn't responsible for the masses, or at least not in it's current version. That's what he finds interesting, to look for other explanations that may reveal some new, deeper principles. That's what I said already, in that case one has to look at another or a refined mechanism for that. But it wouldn't invalidate quantum mechanics. Not by a long shot. |
Send message Joined: 11 Apr 10 Posts: 25 Credit: 375,893 RAC: 0 |
Ok, i stand corrected. From what i could gather of the 3 episodes and various other viewings and readings was this. If the higgs mechanism wasn't found, there was no way to add mass to the massless particles to allow them to form larger particles...based on the theory of the standard model. It's ok to be able to do wonderfull things with the particles in mathematics and hypothetical experiments, but if we can't give them mass it's all pretty pointless. It just gets to me, really annoys me, that when something doesn't seem to work in 'science' these days, the theory doesn't get reworked. It simply gets stuff added to it. Invented stuff added to it to make the equations balance. It doesn't have to be real, just an an added concept or abstraction to make the maths work. I'll shut up now. Just frustrated by the lack of what i call 'science' in science. I mean, how can you have this dense soup of super heavy 'syrup' all around us, and not be able to detect it? Yet massless particles are detected. Edit: This Higgs mechanism. May it only have been around, and able to act upon these particles and form mass as we know it during a certain period of the big bang? |
Send message Joined: 18 Nov 07 Posts: 280 Credit: 2,442,757 RAC: 0 |
It just gets to me, really annoys me, that when something doesn't seem to work in 'science' these days, the theory doesn't get reworked. It simply gets stuff added to it. Invented stuff added to it to make the equations balance. It doesn't have to be real, just an an added concept or abstraction to make the maths work. That really isn't anything new - it's been going on as long as there have been scientific theories. Take Galileo's idea that the planets rotate around the Sun in circular orbits, for example. Because his theory wasn't quite right, natural philosophers of the time were able to keep supporting the idea of the Earth as center of the universe, and all the problems were 'explained' away as anomalies. It was only when Kepler introduced elliptical orbits that they couldn't get around it anymore, and this was a significant paradigm shift (for more on those, see Thomas Kuhn's work). Now, I'm not saying that's a good thing. But it also doesn't mean we should throw away all our theories the moment something unexplained comes up, or we'd have nothing to fall back on. Of course string theory doesn't really fit with this as it hasn't really yielded any useful predictions despite over 30 years of work, and ideas like the anthropic principle really aren't a good sign in my opinion - it's possible that it's true, but it's entirely unhelpful. |
Send message Joined: 11 Nov 07 Posts: 232 Credit: 178,229,009 RAC: 0 |
Succinctly, no. Nothing with mass in the universe can travel at the speed of light, and massless particles (such as photons) can only travel at the speed of light. (These are consequences of the Theory of Relativity, much of which has been experimentally verified) All of the evidence that we have points to a universe that is constantly expanding, and if it suddenly stopped expanding, we would be able to see this as the light from the 'stopped' objects reaches us. So if a galaxy 10 million light years away stopped moving away and is now moving towards us, we would notice it unless it turned around less than 10 million years ago. This is assuming that the turn-around is sudden, and that's not how the universe tends to work. :) If the space ( and galaxies) are emerging from a rotating point they will not need to stop in their path before they start falling back to the starting point. They can be constantly moving in a curved path. And regarding 'nothing can be moving faster than the speed of light' that's not absolutely true. An object that moves 'with' the space can be moving much faster than the speed of light relative an other object that are moving in an other part of space. I have read that there are calculations done that shows that a galaxy that has a red shift of Z>1.6 'now' will we never be able to se because the movement of space itself will outrun the speed of light before it can reach us and what say that it can't be shrinking faster than light? Also the increasing of mass with speed seam to be merely a definition as a fast moving object does not have a stronger gravity than a non moving object. It seams to me that the theory of relativity merely handles how electromagnetic information travels in the local, non expanding, space. I am not well educated, just curious and fascinated in questions like this and I know that saying that mass is moving faster than light is like swearing i a church for some of you guy's :) |
Send message Joined: 11 Apr 10 Posts: 25 Credit: 375,893 RAC: 0 |
Well, according to Roger Penrose, “We can imagine that for a sufficiently massive and concentrated body, the escape velocity could exceed even the velocity of light! When this happens, we have a black hole.” Reverse engeneering, anything caught by that particular black hole would be sucked in at a speed exceeding the speed of light. Correct me if Roger Penrose isn't saying this. |
Send message Joined: 10 Nov 07 Posts: 96 Credit: 29,931,027 RAC: 0 |
Well, according to Roger Penrose,“We can imagine that for a sufficiently massive and concentrated body, the escape velocity could exceed even the velocity of light! When this happens, we have a black hole.” No, he’s not. Consider that the escape velocity from the surface of the Earth is about 11 km/s. This means that no (unpowered) projectile can get free of the planet’s gravity unless it’s going at least that fast. That doesn’t mean that falling objects must travel at that speed or faster. |
Send message Joined: 15 Sep 10 Posts: 22 Credit: 249,595 RAC: 0 |
Hi all, this is my first post in the forums but l have been crunching for some time now. The bang occurred every place. Fortunately it was a while ago. All points were one at bang time. The separation we observe today is due to the creation of space by the expanding bang over time. Time and space are not independent variables but aspects of the same thing. |
Send message Joined: 15 Sep 10 Posts: 22 Credit: 249,595 RAC: 0 |
Is it possible that the universe are collapsing at this very moment but wee are unable to se it? Years ago, unfortunately too long ago to remember details, I came across something about Einstein's thought experiment buddy at Princeton whom I seem to recall was not a physicist. In any event the idea of a rotating universe came up but didn't work out for some reason. Way too vague to help but maybe someone here can remember enough to google it. |
Send message Joined: 27 Apr 10 Posts: 35 Credit: 90,828,595 RAC: 0 |
I think you'll find that it's just as damaging to science to totally dispose of an entire theory on account of some flaws or inconsistencies, as it is to arbitrarily invent new concepts in an attempt to fill in the holes in a flawed theory. Even though a theory is incomplete (like string theory), it can later be revealed to be a piece of an even larger puzzle as new knowledge is discovered. If you've just thrown it away as worthless, then it may have to be completely rediscovered in order to put the puzzle together correctly. This has happened quite a few times throughout the history of science and mathematics, and it unnecessarily impedes progress. |
©2024 Astroinformatics Group