Time Travel: Other Dimensions, Parallel Universes, Black Holes, and Quantum Physics

[Megalodon]

I find this amazing: Apparently it’s possible to send someone into the future. It’s not even theory, but fact. We’d done it before with the astro/cosmonauts. It’s a one-way trip though; no going back.

The “time machine� would have to be a vehicle capable of leaving the earth, traveling at a great velocity, and returning to earth safely.

Many of us have already heard that time slows down and mass increases as you approach the speed of light. What may seem like a month for you, could be a century on earth. It’s not known at this time exactly how fast and how long you’d have to go for a result like that. Then again, a lot of things are not known about carrying something like that out.

I never thought there was anything but the third dimension, but apparently time is considered the fourth dimension, giving us four known dimensions. But then there’s a theoretical fifth dimension, which is a parallel universe to our own. It doesn’t make any sense to me beyond that.

And then there are these theory’s about black holes. These aren’t actually holes, but instead huge and dense objects, probably dead stars. One tablespoon of this material could weigh as much as the earth. The theory has something to do with the gravity warping time and space, which confuses me. I know some of these objects have enough gravity to influence entire galaxies and suck up light, but if time and empty space is not tangible like matter or energy, then how is that possible? Probably why it’s still theory, (but nevertheless, the leading theory). Other theory’s about black holes involves harvesting their energy to attain light speed.

As for traveling back in time, some experts (including Einstein) say it’s possible, but I think there would have to be trillions of parallel universes, each representing every moment in time from the beginning to end. Otherwise, I can’t see how you could travel to a time that already happened. What’s happened has happened. To go back would also raise too many paradox questions.

Am I the only one here that is completely amazed by this kind of science?

:strooper:

Here’s some links that really inspire the imagination:

http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/

http://freespace.virgin.net/steve.preston/Time.html

http://www.timetravelresearch.com/

[Steve_B]

Originally posted by Megalodon
I find this amazing: Apparently it’s possible to send someone into the future. It’s not even theory, but fact. We’d done it before with the astro/cosmonauts.


Trust me, this has not happened. I think we would have seen something about it on TV if it had. :)

[Megalodon]

I did the other night on TLC. It was a Russian cosmonaut who spent two years aboard a space station I believe. How far he went into the future was either a matter of seconds or fractions of seconds.

To go far into the future, we would need a propulsion system capable of greater speeds, which we are far from attaining.

[MarkS]

I personally think that dark matter is more interesting than time travel. The fact that it exists, cannot be seen and there's more of it than visible matter, on the order of a 98% to 2% ratio intrigues me.

I also started thinking about a certain gravitational theory. Some scientists think that gravity is not a force, but rather a pressure. Then it cliked. What if dark matter was liquid in nature? All matter in the universe literally "swims" in it. If dark matter was attracted to visible matter (maybe dark matter is anti-matter?), it would exert a uniform, downward, pressure on the matter it surrounds. This would appear as warped space around the matter, as proved by how star light wraps around the sun. The "boundary" between it and visible matter could almost be considered a surface skin, possibly the "fabric of space" that is refered to in popular literature, but existing just outside of 3 dimensional space. You would never actually touch it, even though you'd be surrounded by it.

Unfortunately, I do not possess the math skills to properly prove or disprove the theory.

[jon007]

Originally posted by Megalodon
I did the other night on TLC. It was a Russian cosmonaut who spent two years aboard a space station I believe. How far he went into the future was either a matter of seconds or fractions of seconds.

To go far into the future, we would need a propulsion system capable of greater speeds, which we are far from attaining.
How did they figure this out?

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by jon007
How did they figure this out?

Einstein proved this was possible in his mathematical equations so we've known this is possible for a while now. So I think they were already studying it for this reason. I'm not sure how though. Super-accurate time clocks would work, I presume.

As for the dark matter being liquid, I suppose it’s possible, but I’d think the intense gravity would pull each object into a perfect ball of material harder than anything else. It’s no stretch to say that all the stars in the Milky Way, including our sun, is orbiting around something(s) unimaginably massive. Even other dark objects could orbit even bigger dark objects. Dark matter is certainly intriguing. Most people think of space as planets, stars, nebulas, and asteroids, but the truth is the vastly majority of what exists out there is something quite different.

[Steve_B]

Originally posted by jon007
How did they figure this out?

I just tried it and IT WORKS! I traveled 20 seconds into the future and I looked back on myself typing this, AMAZING! Of course you have to take into consideration that I had my first beer 5 hours ago and I'm new at time travel.

[Steve_B]

Originally posted by SBSB
I just tried it and IT WORKS! I traveled 20 seconds into the future and I looked back on myself typing this, AMAZING! Of course you have to take into consideration that I had my first beer 5 hours ago and I'm new at time travel.


I just now came back from a two year journey into the future. I found out that I have no future so I'm going to travel back in time three years to relive the last years of my life.

[Alberio]

Four dimensions you say? Ha!

Latest theory says 11 dimensions or more.

Do some reasearch on these subjects to blow your mind. Google searchs work well.

String Theory
Super Luminal
Quantum Mechanics
Gravitational Lensing (proof of dark matter, you can actually see the evidence of the dark matter in hubble photos).

Also the book 'hyperspace' is a good read. About half of it went over my head at 99.97% of the speed of light.

Also, black holes are no longer theory. They are fact. Super massive black holes exist at the center of all spiral shaped galaxies. Evidence of their existence has been photographed and the have been proven mathematically by timing the velocity of matter circling the event horizon. They of course cannot be photographed directly because they reflect no light.

Also many cosmologist theorize that there may be infinite paralell universes. I know one of them has an evil Captain Kirk and Evil Spock (with a beard).


mjd

Chew on this:
It is has been proven that the universe is expanding. What's it expanding into?

[sorenb]

Originally posted by Megalodon
What may seem like a month for you, could be a century on earth. It’s not known at this time exactly how fast and how long you’d have to go for a result like that. Then again, a lot of things are not known about carrying something like that out.



During my physics study, I was under the impression that this could indeed be calculated by means of the general theory or relativity.
As far as I remember, you can even use the special theory of relativity, if you make some simplifying assumptions (which are actually wrong).

What I find really weird is this: If one takes the genral theory of relativity word for word, then nobody lives in the same "now" as anyone else. In a sense, we all inhabit our own little solipsistic now-universe.

sorenb

[jon007]

I need to figure out how to stop time. I dont have time to do hardly anything now that i am a dad. A little time stopper thingmajig would come in real handy. Already tried the beer....didnt work.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Alberio
Four dimensions you say? Ha!

Latest theory says 11 dimensions or more.


That's the last figure I'd read as well.

I read a book on string theory last summer; really mind-boggling stuff for those who are not dedicated to it.

Dave

[MarkS]

nevermind

[Josh125]

Originally posted by Megalodon
Einstein proved this was possible

Minor but a crutial correction to this, it was a theory. Far from proven.

On the dark matter, does anyone know if the ratio is size based or density based? I seem to remember it was X times more dense than visable matter so that's why there is a crazy ratio of it.

[ClemSnide]

I can't remember all the facts, but I believe there was an experiment conducted on an astronaut many years ago. NASA, I believe, took some type of chronological dating (thing...) on an astro. before he went off to space, and when he returned they did it again. The result was that he was fractions of a second younger than he should have been. This then proved Einsteins theory that when approaching light speed time slows down.

I don't remember all the facts as I read this prolly 5 years ago, so... Or this could have all been a dream I had that eeped its way into my conciousness.

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by Alberio
String Theory Super Luminal Quantum Mechanics Gravitational Lensing ... Chew on this: It is has been proven that the universe is expanding. What's it expanding into?

I searched for all those and needless to say, I'm still sucking it all in. As for the question of where the universe is expanding, I always assumed it was just empty space. But now that I know that empty space isn't nothing, it's something, and that this probably isn't the only universe, I wonder. You could say I'm "chewing" on it alright. What do you think?

Originally posted by sorenb
What I find really weird is this: If one takes the genral theory of relativity word for word, then nobody lives in the same "now" as anyone else. In a sense, we all inhabit our own little solipsistic now-universe.

Yes, so basically the watch on my wrist is going slower than the watch on someone in Antarctica, according to one of the most respected theories in science. I’m closer to the equator so I believe that I am traveling faster through space than someone on the pole. (Remember this is such a small difference that I doubt we could even detect it with current technology.)

Originally posted by jon007
I need to figure out how to stop time. I dont have time to do hardly anything now that i am a dad. A little time stopper thingmajig would come in real handy.

If time stopped, we wouldn’t notice because we would stop with it. Between the movement of the galaxy out deeper into space, the orbit of the sun in our galaxy, our orbit of the sun, and our planet’s rotation, we’re going unbelievably fast, but no where near light speed.

If you find a little Thingmajig that can do that, I implore you to tell us about it. Too bad beer doesn’t work. Maybe peyote. I’d love to travel in time.

Originally posted by Josh125
Minor but a crutial correction to this, it was a theory. Far from proven.

Theory then, proven now.

Originally posted by Josh125
On the dark matter, does anyone know if the ratio is size based or density based? I seem to remember it was X times more dense than visable matter so that's why there is a crazy ratio of it.

It has mass, giving it that crazy gravity. It probably has volume too. That same TLC show I was talking about says that a spoon of that material is so dense that it could weigh as much as the earth. I wonder, if some of that material is iron, would the iron atom still look the same? Or would this material not be in the form of atoms/elements, but instead just protons and neutrons?

[Steve_B]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Josh125
Minor but a crutial correction to this, it was a theory. Far from proven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Theory then, proven now.
__________________________________________________

He is right, it is not fact but theory!

[capt. insano]

my cats breathe smells like catfood

[MarkS]

Originally posted by capt. insano
my cats breathe smells like catfood

Ah yes, good 'ol Schroder's Cat. Classic.

[Alberio]

Megalodon, what do I think? I think the study of astro physics is extremely fascinating and (especially for the layman) frustrating.

I like to say that there are never any answers, only more questions.

Ever go to a dark sky site with a large telescope? Astronomy is my second hobby (or perhaps my first). I've looked back into time and space more than 200,000,000 years. I finish an observing session feeling both insignificant and spiritually charged (and I don't believe in religion. It's hard to explain).

Ok that's enought about what goes on in my head. It's a private place! Too bad you don't live in Michigan. I'd invite you out for a night under the milky way.

mjd

PS, my avatar is one of my favorite viewing targets.

[madmikey]

This then proved Einsteins theory that when approaching light speed time slows down.

Just to clarify, you can't prove something with only one test. This didn't prove that time slows down, just that time MAY slow down. There could be many other factors influenceing time other than speed. Who knows maybe in another thousand years we'll have this time travel thing down. I hope my ancestors come back to see me, wait then I'd probably already have met them.

[Alberio]

Ah, one of time travel's paradoxes. If it becomes possible in the future how come no ones come back to visit us.

Perhaps it's because they're afraid they'll create a rift in the time continuem?

[MarkS]

I've been thinking about that paradox. It stands to reason that if you even so much as think about it AND have access to a time machine, either you never go or you fail.

[FLnewbie]

Does Nothing Exist?

So does nothing exist? In a universe so full of something how do we comprehend the concept of nothing? Einstein’s theory of relativity, in its so simple yet so complex way, tells us that the universe is expanding. Where is it going? Where are we headed? A professor of mine on college told the class one day that he didn’t comprehend certain aspects of the Big Bang Theory until that morning when he was preparing for our lecture on the birth of matter. He told us that until that morning he didn’t understand what it meant for the universe to be expanding. It isn’t expanding into something, it was merely getting bigger. So the universe is expanding into nothing. So what is nothing? Nothing is where your one red sock goes between the time you load your washer and the moment you look for its partner amidst the warm pile of clean laundry on the bed. Nothing is where the penny goes when you drop it into a well and you never hear it hit bottom. But this version of “nothing� is still something. The one red sock you find a few months later torn to shreds under your bed, sequestered by the dog who turned your “nothing� into something. The penny turns into a good-luck piece to the rescue crew who has repelled down the narrow well to save the dog or the child who was a little too curious. So here we see that the curiosity of the child is the same as the adult. What is nothing and where does it lead?

This is a blurb I wrote years ago for somebody. The fact is the universe isn't expanding into something, it's just getting bigger.

[ez1ez]

MIT has a heavily secured building just for the research of time travel....

[electric130]

Originally posted by ez1ez
MIT has a heavily secured building just for the research of time travel.... so how do you know about this? i'd like a visitors tour of every room of it:p

[madmikey]

The fact is the universe isn't expanding into something, it's just getting bigger.

How is it getting bigger? What are it's limitations? If it's not expanding into something then what is it expanding into?

Being finite creatures we do not understand the theories of and infinite universe.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Megalodon
Theory then, proven now.

As mentioned above, while it certainly gives evidence to the theory, it is still just a theory with evidence (a widely accepted one at that), not proven fact.
I seem to remember this topic coming up in another thread about the differences between hypothesis, theory, and law. :D

Dave

[MarkS]

Originally posted by FLnewbie
Does Nothing Exist?

So does nothing exist? In a universe so full of something how do we comprehend the concept of nothing? Einstein’s theory of relativity, in its so simple yet so complex way, tells us that the universe is expanding. Where is it going? Where are we headed? A professor of mine on college told the class one day that he didn’t comprehend certain aspects of the Big Bang Theory until that morning when he was preparing for our lecture on the birth of matter. He told us that until that morning he didn’t understand what it meant for the universe to be expanding. It isn’t expanding into something, it was merely getting bigger. So the universe is expanding into nothing. So what is nothing? Nothing is where your one red sock goes between the time you load your washer and the moment you look for its partner amidst the warm pile of clean laundry on the bed. Nothing is where the penny goes when you drop it into a well and you never hear it hit bottom. But this version of “nothing� is still something. The one red sock you find a few months later torn to shreds under your bed, sequestered by the dog who turned your “nothing� into something. The penny turns into a good-luck piece to the rescue crew who has repelled down the narrow well to save the dog or the child who was a little too curious. So here we see that the curiosity of the child is the same as the adult. What is nothing and where does it lead?

This is a blurb I wrote years ago for somebody. The fact is the universe isn't expanding into something, it's just getting bigger.

The big question is just how far it can expand before ripping itself apart.... We know that the universe is expanding into nothing. This stands to reason that some part of the universe, possibly dark matter or some other unversal construct is stretching.

[Wolverine]

One hypothesis I've read states that our 4 dimensions of the universe (x,y,z and time) expand into 4 other dimensions (of the 11), which are then shrinking, so that there is no true net expansion, when all of the dimensions are taken into account.

Dave

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by Alberio
Ever go to a dark sky site with a large telescope? Astronomy is my second hobby (or perhaps my first). I've looked back into time and space more than 200,000,000 years. ... Too bad you don't live in Michigan. I'd invite you out for a night under the milky way. PS, my avatar is one of my favorite viewing targets.

Considering what you can see up there with a good telescope, I can see why it’s one of your favourite hobbies. If I had my own telescope, it would be one of my favourites too. It’s one of those things that educates but confuses at the same time.

I will always remember one time I visited Seattle when I was 19. My friends and I were walking around Green Lake under a beautiful starry night. Along the beach path, we happened upon a man with a large telescope. He was so excited by what he was looking at, he called all of us young people over to join him. Sounds like something someone would never do… kind of creepy for both parties. But it wasn’t. We were amazed. Then he educated us on what you could actually see with quite of bit enthusiasm.

Tell me, how much does it cost for a “large� telescope that can look at galaxies 200 million light years away? Can you see Quasars? Those things amaze me.

Originally posted by MarkS
The big question is just how far it can expand before ripping itself apart.... We know that the universe is expanding into nothing. This stands to reason that some part of the universe, possibly dark matter or some other universal construct is stretching.

As far as I know, it’s been ripped apart since the big bang. All the matter "globed" together from gravity, forming the objects we know today, while still maintaining an outward momentum from the centre of the universe. Some galaxies travel in clusters outward, some galaxies travel alone. Galaxies on the other side of the universe are actually traveling away from us. Andromeda is traveling with us in a larger cluster. Anyone correct me if I’m wrong.

Beings on planets around the stars on the outer edges of the most outer galaxies could look up at night and see a starless night (unless they were looking the wrong way and/or had a obstructive atmosphere). They’d be looking at nothing. It’s a magnificent thought. Dark matter could be out there, too.

Although nothing can’t be nothing. It’s something if travel through it influences the passage of time, and if our universe can expand into it. Maybe this is where the Fifth Dimension comes in. Concepts like this, as Madmikey pointed out, is something maybe our human brains are not up to the task of understanding.

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by Wolverine
One hypothesis I've read states that our 4 dimensions of the universe (x,y,z and time) expand into 4 other dimensions (of the 11), which are then shrinking, so that there is no true net expansion, when all of the dimensions are taken into account.

That's a very cool hypothesis. So empty space is just the result of all 11 dimensions, and the reason why there can be an end to space?

[ClemSnide]

MadMikey - that's true, my writing style and choice of words does not transfer well into discussions of science. I'm quite aware of the scietific method and the necessity of concistant results to even consider a hypothesis a workable theory.

[Steve_B]

Originally posted by madmikey
This didn't prove that time slows down, just that time MAY slow down. There could be many other factors influenceing time other than speed.

Every time I drive my Corvette and I approach light speed I start to feel younger, so that proves it.:lol:

[csanchez77]

I wonder...if noone throws a penny in the well for good luck, will the child still fall in reaching for that penny that was not there...but then the penny would not have its oppurtunity of providing good luck to the rescuers who went for a child who never fell in.

[ez1ez]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ez1ez
MIT has a heavily secured building just for the research of time travel....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote by: electric130
so how do you know about this? i'd like a visitors tour of every room of it....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There are rooms there that don't exist...well they exist only for some.

[Alberio]

Mega - I would say an 8" is the smallest telescope that will go real deep. I have a 10". It was about $1000.00 with another $1000.00 spent on accessories.

I thought I read one time that there was a quasar that could be seen with good back yard scopes. But I know that quasars are the most distant objects in the universe. So I dunno for sure. Don't quote me.

mjd

[fuzyfuzer]

Originally posted by Wolverine
One hypothesis I've read states that our 4 dimensions of the universe (x,y,z and time) expand into 4 other dimensions (of the 11), which are then shrinking, so that there is no true net expansion, when all of the dimensions are taken into account.



That's a very cool hypothesis. So empty space is just the result of all 11 dimensions, and the reason why there can be an end to space?

i don't think that this would mean that there was an end to space i think it just means that space is oscilating like a wave

that would also explane the big bang in a way because it would be the transition of our univers starting to expand versus contracting

at least that is just the thought of simple high school student :p

[BigBird]

I have a glancing familiarity with quantum theory and string theory, mostly from watching documentaries on the subject. Sadly, I'm no mathematician so I lack any real understanding of the current theories of how our universe works.

The only thing I have to add to this discussion is this: what an exciting event it will be when we reach a level of understanding that allows us to manipulate matter and energy at their most fundamental levels. The possibilities literally stagger the imagination - time travel? creation of new matter from subatomic particles? unlimited energy? "traveling without moving?"

The question then becomes: when will human nature evolve to the point where we can handle such technology without destroying ourselves? Or, in other words, when will human thought progress past the "mindless apes + the internet" stage that we seem to be stuck in.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

[Orchids]

I have read as much as possible over the years on Quantum Physics, it is a fantastic voyage each and every time.

What really confuses me is gravity. I can see the effects of gravity, but what exactly is it? If you can tell me what it is, then tell me the particle or wave (The partical has been given the name "gravitron: but has yet to be detected) which carries this force.

To me gravity is much more confusing because we can see it's effects, but have no real idea of what it is. Maybe it has to do with dark matter, or maybe super strings; who knows.

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by BigBird
...what an exciting event it will be when we reach a level of understanding that allows us to manipulate matter and energy at their most fundamental levels. The possibilities literally stagger the imagination - time travel? creation of new matter from subatomic particles? unlimited energy? "traveling without moving?"

I sometimes wish I was born further in the future so I could be alive to see some of that happen. I guess I'm just lucky to be typing on this computer.

As for time travel... is it really conceivable that time can go in backwards? I can see how time can slow down inside something while the rest of the world passes it by, sending it in the future, but I don't see how it can go back. They're saying that going beyond light speed probably does that, but I don’t' know.

Imagine this: A spaceship given 'er through space at 130% the speed of light. The ship itself is going forward distance-wise, but it's also going backwards time-wise. The people inside the ship walk backwards or what? What happens before the ship is built? They could reverse themselves right out of existance. Paradoxs again... How does Pythagoras explain that?

Originally posted by Orchids
What really confuses me is gravity. I can see the effects of gravity, but what exactly is it? If you can tell me what it is, then tell me the particle or wave (The partical has been given the name "gravitron: but has yet to be detected) which carries this force.

I have no idea what gravity is. Can anyone explain? Isn't it like a field similar to a magnetic field?

[Megalodon]

Check out this Hubble picture... it's absolutely amazing. As you look out deeper into space, you look beyond the stars of our own galaxy. Those spots of light are not stars, but galaxies, each containing billions of stars and quadrillions of planets. And remember, that's only 2% of what is actually there.

[Alberio]

Current laws of Physics dictate that something with mass cannot exceed the speed of light.

Therefor time slows down as the ship gets closer and closer to the speed of light, but never goes backwards.

I've read that a ship traveling 99.97% the speed of light can cross our galaxy in 30 years ship time while 100,000 years would have passed on earth.

On the other hand I read of an experiment that shot photons through a rare gas that increased the photon speed to 400x the speed of light. The article also stated that the experiment completed before it was started. I can't figure that one out.

mjd

[BigBird]

I was under the impression that when an object with mass reaches the speed of light, it also achieves infinite mass, making it impossible to travel at the speed of light.

I watched a show on string theory the other night. One of the propositions of string theory is that strings inhabit something like 12 dimensions and that the dimensions are very close to one another (something like 1,000,000ths of a millimeter). The types of energy that a particle emits are specific to individual dimensions. Gravity, for example, is not a force that is very powerful in this dimension, while magnetism is. String theory presents the possibility that gravity is considerably more powerful in other dimensions than in those of which we are aware.

String theory raises many interesting questions. It's as close as we've come to the "theory of everything that Einstein was pursuing the end of his lifel I think research into string theory will result in many technological breakthroughs that might eventually free us from the bonds that hold us to the space and time that we currently inhabit.

Support your local theoretical physicist!!!!!

[musicsmaker]

How do I get paid to think about stuff like this?

[BigBird]

How do I get paid to think about stuff like this?

Get a job at "High Times" magazine.

[Alberio]

That's pretty funny.. (High Times).

It's almost as hard for me to fathom the brains that can figure out the math involved in these theories than it is to think about the theories themselves.

I have a BS in science and have studied science for decades yet this stuff just goes right over my head for the most part.


That's what's so nice about reef tanks. I am god and my subjects must adhere to the laws of physics that I create!

[musicsmaker]

Yea it was funny, but I would like a serious answer if there is one. I have thought about stuff like this since about 2nd grade.

[BigBird]

Sorry if that last reply was a bit flippant . . .

Musicmaker: have you ever read "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawkings? (http://www.hawking.org.uk/home/hindex.html) It's an interesting discussion of relatively current cosomological theory in layman's terms, or as far into layman's terms as you can get such complicated ideas.

The problem with trying to get paid in the field of cosmology is that you have to be some sorta uber-genius. Generally, these guys are employed by colleges and are some of the most intelligent people on the planet. In other words, it's probably a difficult field to break into. Hawkings started his career with his Phd dissertation. I've looked at one of his non-layperson books -- I'd like to say that it was over my head, but not being a genius mathmatician, I couldn't even understand the basic concepts. It's like a different language. Crazy . . .

[musicsmaker]

I remember two different points from this thread. One was something to the effect of an object with mass achieves infinite mass as it approaches the speed of light. The other was about creating matter out of "nothing" (anti-matter?).

What about photons? They are moving at the speed of light, correct? Can we stop a photon in order to examine it? Perhaps a photon starts out as "nothing". What theory does this apply to? Any?

PS ~ BigBird, thanks for that link and for the references/suggested reading material.

[crazyrebel003]

^

[Orchids]

A photon is an anomaly of science. It has properties of both a wave and matter. As a wave it is traveling at the speed of light since in essence it is light, on the other hand....

An object with mass cannot attain the speed of light, but what if the object is already (since time began) traveling at a speed greater than the speed of light. Did this object start it's journey at the end of time and is now racing towards the dawn of time?

No one has mentioned as yet the thoery of wormholes as a means of traveling htrough space and time.

One more thing. In thoery, all humans are assembled from atoms. Since an atom is almost all empty space, is it possible for us to allign our empty space with the empty space of a wall and walk through it?

[crazyrebel003]

Orchids---
I have read as much as possible over the years on Quantum Physics, it is a fantastic voyage each and every time.

What really confuses me is gravity. I can see the effects of gravity, but what exactly is it? If you can tell me what it is, then tell me the particle or wave (The partical has been given the name "gravitron: but has yet to be detected) which carries this force.

To me gravity is much more confusing because we can see it's effects, but have no real idea of what it is. Maybe it has to do with dark matter, or maybe super strings; who knows.
_______________________________________________

I beleive that matter bends the three demensions that we know it into a funnel. Say the sun is in the middle of the funnel. We are on the slope of the funnel. Earth is trying to travel in one direction due to inertia, but keeps falling back down the funnel and is there for at an equalibrium so it rotates orbits around the sun. Same with our planet and the moon.




I question that I have is where did everything begin? Was it that one day there was just matter and it appeared from no where? Will this happen again? Did it come from anti-matter? Where is all of this anti-matter?

What if this is it? What if one day all that we have done will be lost? What if there is no after life and our planet and all information about our culture and way of life is ereased? All of this hard work will be lost and there will be no trace of our civiliztion anywhere. I guess this is why we believe in religion so we have a hope of always having a future.

[JB NY]

String theory takes care of all the little problems of gravity and such. and unifies the theories of quantum mechanics and relativity into one, extremely complicated theory. Whether it true or not is still being debated. I believe string theory, or something like it, will be found to be real at some time.

Black holes are cool too, what's up with all that matter, where does it go? Neutrinos go about the speed of light, yet can easily pass through the planet in a fraction of a second. Expanding universe, does it start to contract as some point only to collapse on itself and start another big bang. lots of fun stuff to endlessly talk about!

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by Alberio
Therefor time slows down as the ship gets closer and closer to the speed of light, but never goes backwards.

That's what I would assume. I can't see time going backwards anyway. I'm sure it can stop and speed up, but other than that, no. That would mean that life is predetermined as it rolls forward and back on the timeline.

Originally posted by Orchids No one has mentioned as yet the thoery of wormholes as a means of traveling htrough space and time.

Those are pretty cool… if they even exist. It’s interesting that the existence of such a thing fits in with Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.

Originally posted by Orchids
An object with mass cannot attain the speed of light, but what if the object is already (since time began) traveling at a speed greater than the speed of light. Did this object start it's journey at the end of time and is now racing towards the dawn of time

It would bite if it turns out that wormholes don’t exist, because the only other mode of star travel would be a sub-light speed craft that would take thousands or millions of years earth-time to make a round trip. More than 4.4 millions years earth-time to go to Andromeda and back. Wow, you’d get to go to another galaxy, and return to earth millions of years in the future. I don’t know what they’d find here though. Humans would look different, if we still lived here, or lived at all.

Originally posted by crazyrebel003
I beleive that matter bends the three demensions that we know it into a funnel. Say the sun is in the middle of the funnel. We are on the slope of the funnel. Earth is trying to travel in one direction due to inertia, but keeps falling back down the funnel and is there for at an equalibrium so it rotates orbits around the sun. Same with our planet and the moon.

If earth stopped moving, it would fall directly into the sun, would it not?

Originally posted by crazyrebel003
I question that I have is where did everything begin? Was it that one day there was just matter and it appeared from no where? Will this happen again? Did it come from anti-matter? Where is all of this anti-matter?

Good question. My next post will be what I found written by a respectable scientist on most widely-accepted theory there is on the subject.

[Megalodon]

WHERE DID MATTER COME FROM?

It is said, and rightly so, that cosmology is the branch of physics that asks the grandest questions. After all, few questions within science can equal the impact of: “Where does the universe come from?� or “What is the fate of the universe� or “Where does the matter we are made of come from?�

But perhaps even more exciting than asking these questions is the fairly recent power that we have of answering them, at least partially, through a rational study of nature.

Most of us learned in high school that matter is made of atoms and that atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons. What we don’t usually learn in high school is that to each particle of matter there is another particle, an “anti-particle,� which is essentially the same as the particle but with opposite electric charge.

Thus, the negatively charged electron has its “anti-electron,� called a positron, which has positive electric charge; the proton has an anti-proton, and so on. Now comes the interesting part. According to the laws of particle physics, matter and antimatter should be present in the universe in equal amounts. And yet, we have ample observational evidence that, at least in a very large volume that surrounds us and extends far beyond our galaxy, there is much more matter than antimatter.

When particles collide with their anti-particles, the effects are devastating; they both disintegrate into electromagnetic radiation, their energy carried away in neutral particles called photons. In other words, if there were as much antimatter as matter in the universe, we wouldn’t be here to ask grand questions. The universe is somehow unbalanced, biased toward the existence of matter over antimatter. One of the greatest challenges in modern cosmology is to unveil the roots of this cosmic imperfection.

As with any scientific explanation, we need a few “basic ingredients,� a minimum amount of knowledge from which to build our models. The first ingredient we need is the Big Bang model of cosmology. According to this model, a small fraction of a second after the “beginning,� many kinds of particles and their anti-particles, in equal amounts, roamed about and collided with each other immersed in tremendous heat, as in a cosmic minestrone soup.

In this hot cosmic furnace, many different types of particles were being cooked, not necessarily the familiar quarks (the constituents of protons and neutrons) or electrons. As the universe expanded and cooled, a sort of selection mechanism not only biased the creation of quarks and electrons over other types of particles, but also generated the excess number of particles over anti-particles. Surviving the annihilation with their antimatter cousins, these excess particles organized themselves into more complex structures, until eventually atoms, mostly hydrogen, were formed when the universe was about 300,000 years old. The mystery, then, is to understand what kind of physics could generate this bias.

At first, resolving this question seems impossible. How can we possibly understand the mechanism that selected the existence of matter over antimatter during the earliest stages of evolution of the universe? In 1968, Andrei Sakharov, best known as the father of the Soviet bomb, proposed a recipe to generate more matter than antimatter in an expanding universe.

He suggested that three conditions must be satisfied in order to produce the matter excess. First, there must be a way of creating both more matter and antimatter particles of the kinds which are important to us—that is, the kinds that make up the atoms we are made of. Then, there must be a mechanism to bias the creation of more matter than antimatter. And finally, once we have an excess of matter particles over their antimatter partners, we must make sure that this excess is not erased as the universe continues to expand.

The first of these conditions is the creation of both baryons and anti-baryons from collisions involving the other particles present in the primordial soup. Baryons are particles which interact via the strong nuclear force, the force responsible for holding the nucleus together. Protons and neutrons (a.k.a. nucleons), and their constituent parts called quarks, are all baryons. At low energies, the number of baryons participating in collisions between different particles is conserved: that is, just like electric charge, the total number of baryons before an interaction equals the total after.

If we are interested in making baryons, as we must in order to create matter in the universe, this conservation law is not very useful. According to Sakharov’s requirement, however, at very high energies the interactions between elementary particles should not conserve the number of baryons. That is, at high energies both baryons and anti-baryons can be created from “other� particles. These high energies are naturally realized in the hot furnace of the early universe.

But this first condition does not differentiate between baryons and anti-baryons. At high temperatures we could still create the same number of each, and that wouldn’t cause a bias toward matter over antimatter. We need a second condition. Once the high energies of the early universe allow for the creation of baryons and anti-baryons, we need a condition that selects, or biases, the creation of baryons over anti-baryons, an arrow pointing in the correct direction (i.e., toward matter).

In 1964, J.H. Christenson and his collaborators found experimental evidence that interactions between certain baryons do indeed exhibit this bias.

It is as if Nature has its own biases, in this case toward more baryons. If this is true in laboratory experiments, no doubt this will also be true in the early universe. Making excess matter over antimatter is not as hard as it initially seemed to be. But this is still not the whole story. One more challenge remains, which has to do with the physics of hot systems, also known as thermodynamics.

One of the properties of very hot systems is that they have no memory of their past. Imagine a coffee spoon which is initially cold. Now immerse one of its ends into a very hot cup of coffee. What happens? Although initially only the end in the coffee will be hot, very quickly the whole spoon will be equally hot. You won’t be able to tell which of the two ends was immersed into the coffee cup; the system (coffee spoon and hot coffee) lost its “memory.� Another term for this loss of memory is thermal equilibrium. If the early universe was in thermal equilibrium, any excess baryons would have been deleted; in equilibrium, the net baryon number is zero. In order to maintain the baryon bias as the universe cools, we need to make sure the universe doesn’t “lose its memory� and delete the new baryons. Therefore, we need a third condition.

We need what are called “out of equilibrium� conditions. In order to “freeze� the net number of baryons produced by the first two conditions, the early universe could not have been always in thermal equilibrium. We are very familiar with systems that are out of thermal equilibrium in our everyday life. An example is condensation of steam. More specifically, imagine a container filled with hot steam which is immersed into a large bucket with cold water. The steam, being too hot compared with the cold water, is out of thermal equilibrium. In order to attain equilibrium it will go through a phase transition; the steam will cool down and condense, going from a gas phase to a liquid phase. As it does so, we will observe the appearance of droplets of the liquid phase that will grow and coalesce. The phase transition ends when the steam is completely converted into water.

How does this reasoning apply to the early universe? Strange as this may sound, the universe also went through phase transitions. Particles—and their properties—are also sensitive to temperature. The standard model of particle physics successfully describes how particles interact at energies over a thousand times larger than nuclear energies. According to this model, at very high temperatures all particles but one, the so-called Higgs particle, have no mass, while at lower temperatures they acquire a mass through their interactions with the Higgs particle. We say that matter has two different “phases,� above and below the temperature at which particles like the quarks and the electron acquire a mass.

Thus, as the temperature of the early universe dropped, it went through a phase transition, and particles gained their mass. Like water droplets in steam, droplets of the low temperature (massive) phase appeared within the high temperature (massless) phase, growing and coalescing, in a typical out-of-equilibrium phase transition. Since only in the high temperature phase are baryons created in excess over anti-baryons (recall that the first two conditions apply only at high temperatures), these excess baryonic particles will penetrate the droplets of the massive phase, like viruses invading cells, becoming the net baryon number in the low temperature phase. As the droplets grow and coalesce, the whole universe is converted into the massive phase, completing the phase transition. According to our current models of “baryogenesis,� the creation of the excess baryons occurred when the universe was about one thousandth of a billionth of a second old. The protons and neutrons we are made of are the fossils of this primordial event.

So is this it? Is our work finished? Far from it. The simplest particle physics models we have do not generate the observed excess of matter over antimatter. Even worse, our true understanding of the complicated dynamics of these phase transitions is at best incomplete, leaving many questions unanswered at the moment. We have the broad outline of an explanation for the generation of matter in the universe, but the details are far from being understood.

Dr. Marcelo Gleiser, Associate Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Dartmouth College.

[oz]

I have a time machine. Its also known as the Tivo. I can pause time, go back and forth at a click of a button. hehe

[oz]

Hey I got a question for you experts. IT IS possible (in theory anyway) to travel FASTER than the speed of light right ?

I mean if it was possible to travel AT the speed of light why would it not be possible to travel FASTER than the speed of light.

Oh and another thing, someone was talking about "antimatter", that's frozen anti-hydrogen right ?

[crazyrebel003]

I printed that long article out so when I am at school I will have something interesting to read.(A little bit off topic)

What are your guys thoughts about people landing on the moon? It would be so strange if no one ever did and that if the goverment was lying this whole time.

[oz]

Megalodon,

So does God play dice or not ?

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by oz
Hey I got a question for you experts. IT IS possible (in theory anyway) to travel FASTER than the speed of light right?

I'm not an expert, but as the theory goes, matter gains mass as it goes faster, until at the speed of light, it reaches infinite mass. Time also slows down until it stops at this point. So whatever that means. What's everyone else's take on that? I'm a little confused myself.

Originally posted by oz
Oh and another thing, someone was talking about "antimatter", that's frozen anti-hydrogen right?

No. My next post will be another article I found on anti-matter.

Originally posted by crazyrebel003
What are your guys thoughts about people landing on the moon? It would be so strange if no one ever did and that if the goverment was lying this whole time.

I believe they did land on the moon. If they didn't, then yes, that would be strange all right. Are "they" capable of that big of a lie? But I don't believe every conspiracy theory I hear. One's of science are a different story.

To go off-topic a little more here, I also don't believe aliens helped the Ancient Egyptians build the pyramids, I don't believe in ghosts, and I don't believe in almost all of what you see on X-Files either. You know, in case somebody was wondering.

Originally posted by oz
Megalodon, So does God play dice or not ?

It's interesting that you should ask me. I can think of about ten different ways on answering that, but none of them are appropriate for the RC Lounge.

[Megalodon]

ANTI-MATTER

R. Michael Barnett of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Helen Quinn of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center offer this answer, portions of which are paraphrased from their book The Charm of Strange Quarks:

In 1930 Paul Dirac formulated a quantum theory for the motion of electrons in electric and magnetic fields, the first theory that correctly included Einstein's theory of special relativity in this context. This theory led to a surprising prediction—the equations that described the electron also described, and in fact required, the existence of another type of particle with exactly the same mass as the electron but with positive instead of negative electric charge. This particle, which is called the positron, is the antiparticle of the electron, and it was the first example of antimatter.

Its discovery in experiments soon confirmed the remarkable prediction of antimatter in Dirac's theory. A cloud chamber picture taken by Carl D. Anderson in 1931 showed a particle entering from below and passing through a lead plate. The direction of the curvature of the path, caused by a magnetic field, indicated that the particle was a positively charged one but with the same mass and other characteristics as an electron. Experiments today routinely produce large numbers of positrons.

Dirac's prediction applies not only to the electron but to all the fundamental constituents of matter (particles). Each type of particle must have a corresponding antiparticle type. The mass of any antiparticle is identical to that of the particle. All the rest of its properties are also closely related but with the signs of all charges reversed. For example, a proton has a positive electric charge, but an antiproton has a negative electric charge. The existence of antimatter partners for all matter particles is now a well-verified phenomenon, with both partners for hundreds of such pairings observed.

New discoveries lead to new language. In coining the term "antimatter," physicists in fact redefined the meaning of the word "matter." Until that time, "matter" meant anything with substance; even today school textbooks give this definition: "matter takes up space and has mass."

By adding the concept of antimatter as distinct from matter, physicists narrowed the definition of matter to apply to only certain kinds of particles, including, however, all those found in everyday experience.

Any pair of matching particle and antiparticle can be produced anytime there is sufficient energy available to provide the necessary mass-energy. Similarly, anytime a particle meets its matching antiparticle, the two can annihilate each another—that is, they both disappear, leaving their energy transformed into some other form.

There is no intrinsic difference between particles and antiparticles; they appear on essentially the same footing in all particle theories. This means that the laws of physics for antiparticles are almost identical to those for particles; any difference is a tiny effect. But there certainly is a dramatic difference in the numbers of these objects we find in the world around us; all the world is made of matter. Any antimatter we produce in the laboratory soon disappears because it meets up with matching matter particles and annihilates.

Modern theories of particle physics and of the evolution of the universe suggest, or even require, that antimatter and matter were equally common in the earliest stages—so why is antimatter so uncommon today? The observed imbalance between matter and antimatter is a puzzle yet to be explained. Without it, the universe today would certainly be a much less interesting place, because there would be essentially no matter left around; annihilations would have converted everything into electromagnetic radiation by now. So clearly this imbalance is a key property of the world we know. Attempts to explain it are an active area of research today.

In order to answer this question, we need to better understand that tiny part of the laws of physics that differ for matter and antimatter; without such a difference, there would be no way for an imbalance to occur. This distinction is the subject of study in a number of experiments around the world that focus on differences in the decays of particles called B-mesons and their antiparticle partners. These experiments will be done both at electron-positron collider facilities called B factories and at high-energy hadron colliders, because each type of facility offers different capabilities to contribute to the study of this detail of the laws of physics--a detail that is responsible for such an important property of the universe as the fact that there is anything there at all!


Maria Spiropulu is a physics doctoral candidate at Harvard. Her response follows:

Let's start by defining matter. People have asked "what is matter?" for quite a long time. Democritus, the ancient Greek philosopher and mathematician, envisioned structure in the building blocks of everything and he called the basis for this structure an atom; he wrote, "nothing exists except atoms and empty space: everything else is opinion." At the atomic level, the world can be described in terms of the elements, including hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and the like.
As it turns out, though, atoms are not the fundamental constituents of matter. When we zoom closer into matter, by probing at smaller distances, the subatomic world unfolds. The closer we look, the stranger this world, the quantum world, actually behaves. We can not make a direct connection with it: at a small scale, objects do not behave like rods or balls or waves or clouds or anything we have ever directly experienced. But the quantum mechanics of this world does let us describe how atoms form molecules.

It also enables us to depict the "motion" of certain particles inside atoms. Indeed, atoms are made of electrons that whiz around the fixed protons and neutrons in their nuclei, which are made of quarks. These particles all interact with each other by means of "force messenger" particles, such as photons, gluons, W's and Z's. Based on the attributes of these particles, we assign them identification numbers, or quantum numbers. And by means of symmetries and conservation laws involving the quantum numbers of the particles, we can describe their interactions. Examples of such numbers are charge and intrinsic angular momentum, or spin.

If a is any particle and this particle has no attributes other than linear and angular momentum (which include energy and spin), then a is its own anti-particle--one of the constituents of antimatter. For example, the photon is its own anti-particle. If a particle has other attributes (such as an electric charge Q), then the anti-particle has the opposite attributes (or a charge of -Q). The proton and neutron have such attributes. In the case of the proton, its positive charge distinguishes it from the negatively charged anti-proton. The neutron--although electrically neutral--has a magnetic moment opposite that of the anti-neutron. Protons and neutrons have another quantum number called the baryon number, which also has the opposite sign in the corresponding anti-particles.

The operation of changing particles with anti-particles is called Charge conjugation (C). Particles and anti-particles have the exact same mass and equal, but opposite charges and magnetic moments; if they are unstable, they have the same lifetime. This period is called the Charge Conjugation-Parity-Time (CPT) invariance, which establishes the fact that if you interchange particles for anti-particles (C), look in a three dimensional mirror (P) and reverse time (T), you cannot tell the difference between the them. The most stringent tests of CPT to date are measurements of the ratio of the magnetic moments of the electron and positron to two parts in a trillion and measurements of charge per mass of the proton and antiproton--found to be 0.999,999,999,91 to 90 parts per trillion.

Antimatter came about as a solution to the fact that the equation describing a free particle in motion (the relativistic relation between energy, momentum and mass) has not only positive energy solutions, but negative ones as well! If this were true, nothing would stop a particle from falling down to infinite negative energy states, emitting an infinite amount of energy in the process--something which does not happen. In 1928, Paul Dirac postulated the existence of positively charged electrons.

The result was an equation describing both matter and antimatter in terms of quantum fields. This work was a truly historic triumph, because it was experimentally confirmed and it inaugurated a new way of thinking about particles and fields.

In 1932, Carl Anderson discovered the positron while measuring cosmic rays in a Wilson chamber experiment. In 1955 at the Berkeley Bevatron, Emilio Segre, Owen Chamberlain, Clyde Wiegand and Thomas Ypsilantis discovered the antiproton. And in 1995 at CERN, scientists synthesized anti-hydrogen atoms for the first time.

When a particle and its anti-particle collide, they annihilate into energy, which is carried by "force messenger" particles that can subsequently decay into other particles. For example, when a proton and anti-proton annihilate at high energies, a top-anti-top quark pair can be created!

An intriguing puzzle arises when we consider that the laws of physics treat matter and antimatter almost symmetrically. Why then don't we have encounters with anti-people made of anti-atoms? Why is it that the stars, dust and everything else we observe is made of matter? If the cosmos began with equal amounts of matter and antimatter, where is the antimatter?

Experimentally, the absence of annihilation radiation from the Virgo cluster shows that little antimatter can be found within ~20 Megaparsecs (Mpc), the typical size of galactic clusters. Even so, a rich program of searches for antimatter in cosmic radiation exists. Among others, results form the High-Energy Antimatter Telescope, a balloon cosmic ray experiment, as well as those from 100 hours worth of data from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer aboard NASA's Space Shuttle, support the matter dominance in our Universe. Results from NASA's orbiting Compton Gamma Ray Observatory , however, are uncovering what might be clouds and fountains of antimatter in the Galactic Center.

We stated that there is an approximate symmetry between matter and antimatter. The small asymmetry is thought to be at least partly responsible for the fact that matter outlives antimatter in our universe. Recently both the NA48 experiment at CERN and the KTeV experiment at Fermilab have directly measured this asymmetry with enough precision to establish it. And a number of experiments, including the BaBar experiment at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and Belle at KEK in Japan, will confront the same question in different particle systems.
Antimatter at lower energies is used in Positron Emission Tomography.

But antimatter has captured public interest mainly as fuel for the fictional starship Enterprise on Star Trek. In fact, NASA is paying attention to antimatter as a possible fuel for interstellar propulsion. At Penn State University, the Antimatter Space Propulsion group is addressing the challenge of using antimatter annihilation as source of energy for propulsion.

See you on Mars?

[oz]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by oz
Megalodon, So does God play dice or not ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by Megalodon

It's interesting that you should ask me. I can think of about ten different ways on answering that, but none of them are appropriate for the RC Lounge.

I was referring to Einstein's phrase 'God does not play dice'.
He was unhappy about the apparent randomness in nature.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/images/god4.gif

I was just wondering what the consensus is today with the recent strings theory and all. Let me then rephrase the question.

Is the universe evolves in an arbitrary way, or it is deterministic ?

[BigBird]

Is the universe evolves in an arbitrary way, or it is deterministic ?

I think you've just rephrased the old science v. religion question.

If, by "arbitrary," you mean that the universe is evolving in accordance with the laws of nature and without guidance by some other force, such as an intelligent overseer, I believe universal evolution is arbitrary.

[oz]

Originally posted by BigBird
I think you've just rephrased the old science v. religion question.

I forgot I guess I shouldn't have used the word "God". BrianD could have shut down this thread. lol I just wanted to know if its predictable or not, that's all. I like reading this stuff but my brain is too small, the more I know the less I understand. Is the universe finit or infinite ? Is it expanding or shrinking ? Similar to some of the questions asked at the beginning, is there an end of time and beginning of time, if so when. What came before the Big Bang ? Is the universe simply a particle, a singularity, or its made up of countless small particles ? If there's a black hole, is there a white hole ? Regarding the parallel universe, I swear sometimes I think I've "been there and done that" on what I'm doing, you know Deja Vu ?

[musicsmaker]

One thing a lot of people don't understand about black holes, is that they are not really holes. They are balls of solid matter that are so dense that they create a gravity that is so strong that not even light can escape it. It looks like a "hole" because of the way it effects light, but in reality it is a solid "ball".

[BigBird]

One kinda interesting note about black holes (saw this on a PBS documentary).

Gravity, at the strength that it exists around a black hole, has an effect on time. Infinite gravity causes time to "stop" from the perspective of a viewer outside the hole. I guess infinite gravity causes a warping of time within the boundary of the infinite gravity, known as the "event horizon."

So, if your buddy, the astronaut, fell into a black hole, he would be frozen in a nearly 2-dimensional state forever at the event horizon of the black hole. If the technology was ever developed to retrieve him, he could be saved, even millions of years afterward. For him, the millions of years would pass in an instant.

However, gravity as powerful as a black hole causes extreme differentials. If you were falling toward a black hole, feet first, the difference in gravity between your head and your toes would be extreme and start pulling you to bits. While your head might be experiencing millions of "earth gravities," your feet might be experiencing billions of earth gravities. As you grew nearer to the black hole, the differential would become so powerful that it would begin to rip you apart at a subatomic level.

Interesting.

[alde]

Originally posted by Alberio
Current laws of Physics dictate that something with mass cannot exceed the speed of light.

I thought it was proven that light does have mass. That light is made up of particles.

[Alberio]

light does not have mass. light has been accelerated past the speed of light. Mass has not been.


I wonder what the speed of dark is? Stephen Wright.

[BigBird]

Also, I recently heard that its been proven that gravity travels at the speed of light.

So, if the sun were to suddenly vanish, the earth would continue to orbit the spot formerly occupied by the sun for about 8 minutes.

[musicsmaker]

That is just crazy.

[oz]

Originally posted by Alberio
I wonder what the speed of dark is? Stephen Wright.

That's easy, same as speed of light.

Ain't that right.





"Let me start out with the standard disclaimer...I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven't taken calculus, I don't work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions..."

[oz]

Originally posted by musicsmaker
That is just crazy.

Yes its crazy but its true. The BBC said so here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2639043.stm)

[BigBird]

How can anyone be as brilliant as Einstein??

How do you pull the theory of relativity out of your backside without substantial testing. We don't even have the technology today to fully test the theory, we might never have it.

While it might not prove to be 100% correct, it's a rather stupendous guess considering what he had to go on.

I get a minor thrill every time I finish the New York Times Crossword. Sheesh.

[PerryinCA]

Originally posted by BigBird
How can anyone be as brilliant as Einstein??

How do you pull the theory of relativity out of your backside without substantial testing. We don't even have the technology today to fully test the theory, we might never have it.

While it might not prove to be 100% correct, it's a rather stupendous guess considering what he had to go on.

I get a minor thrill every time I finish the New York Times Crossword. Sheesh.

I would argue that there are many as brilliant (intellegent), but I believe that A.E. possessed a strong sense of creativity. There was another physicist that was working on a similar concept about the same time as Einstein, but lacked some of the necessary math in order to be taken seriously.

I wish I could finish the crossword. ;) And don't forget to distinguish knowledge from intellegence.


-Perry :)

[Alberio]

Gravity is a particle millions of times smaller than a string. (which is millions of times smaller than an Axiom).

Gravity is also the fabric of space and time. Gravity travels at a small percentage of the speed of light (*^). By accelerating gravity to nearly *^ we actually fold space. We then move our sub-luminal space craft forward a few miles, decelerate the surrounding gravity and Voila, we are several light years away.

I just pulled the theory of super luminal space travel out of my
()*(). I are a genius!

[Wolverine]

One of the arguments against the concept of the gravitron is that there is evidence that the effects of gravity are faster than the speed of light. I.e., if you put a mass in a location, the effects are gravity are immediately apparent (without the "lag" you would detect with light). So, from that standpoint, some believe that whatever it is that causes gravitational force can travel faster than light. Of course, this is still being argued (at least the last I heard, which is not all that recent).

Someone mentioned that the laws of physics say that matter cannot travel faster than light. It's true that the current theories state that, but those theories are not laws, and may be found to be false at some point (or false given certain conditions).

Dave

[Megalodon]

GRAVITY

How much of the universe can you pinch between your thumb and finger? Maybe a lot more than you think. Far reaches of the cosmos may lie less than a millimeter away. Whole other universes may be within your grasp. Even if you cannot see these distant places and other worlds, you may be in communication with them through that most familiar of forces, gravity.

In just two years this seemingly preposterous proposal has become one of the hottest theories in physics. The Los Angeles Times and New Scientist have already written it up for the public, the BBC and Discover magazine have stories in the works, and this summer Scientific American will feature an article by its originators, Nima Arkani-Hamed of Berkeley Lab's Physics Division and the University of California at Berkeley, Savas Dimopoulos of Stanford University, and Gia Dvali of New York University.

Arkani-Hamed and his colleagues came up with the theory (which is still awaiting a catchy name) to explain why the Standard Model of particle physics can give a common explanation for all the forces of nature -- except gravity. Many other attempts to explain this failure have been made, but the new theory has an enormous advantage over them all: it can easily be tested in giant particle accelerators already under construction and in tabletop experiments already underway.

One facet of the puzzle is the huge disparity between the apparent strength of gravity and that of electromagnetism and the nuclear forces. Although we think of gravity as strong -- we can get hurt if we fall down -- compared to electromagnetism, gravity is astonishingly weak. It takes the whole mass of the Earth to hold a pin on a tabletop; a toy magnet can lift it easily.

This weakness makes it difficult to study gravity's relationship to the other forces. For example, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, scheduled to begin operating in 2005, will probe an energy region where electromagnetism and the nuclear forces show themselves to be aspects of a unified force. To incorporate feeble gravity in this picture would require energies so vast they have not existed since the first moments of the Big Bang.

Yet what if gravity only seems weak? What if, unlike electromagnetism and the nuclear forces, gravity is not confined to our everyday world of three spatial dimensions and one time dimension? If gravity is acting in two or three or several other dimensions as well as the familiar four, we may be experiencing only part of its effects.

Mathematics has no trouble describing multidimensional spaces, but human brains aren't built to visualize more than three spatial dimensions. Imagine instead that our world is reduced to a single spatial dimension, an arbitrarily thin strand of fiber-optic cable.

Photons, the quantum particles of electromagnetism, easily move back and forth along our fiber, but they are trapped here. There may be other fiber-worlds, some right next to ours, but because our photons can't move sideways and reflect objects outside, they can't bring us the news.

Gravitons, the quantum particles of gravity, have no such limitation. Indeed, in a universe with extra dimensions, we might feel the pull of mass in those other dimensions even though they are invisible.

Not long after Isaac Newton saw the apple fall in 1665, he devised the gravitational constant, G, needed to calculate the attractive force between masses at different distances. Scientists have long assumed that G is fundamental and unchanging.

But, asks Arkani-Hamed, "What reason do we have for assuming that G is fundamental? It has only been measured down to about a millimeter. What if gravity is actually as strong as the other forces at distances we haven't measured yet?"

To measure the gravitational attraction between two masses requires that the masses be smaller than the distance between them -- easy to calculate with apples falling toward the Earth, but much more difficult with weights smaller than a millimeter in diameter.

And, says Arkani-Hamed, "As the test masses get smaller, residual electromagnetic effects come into play and swamp gravitation. Nobody knows what the real force of gravity is at short distances."

In a world of three spatial dimensions, gravity obeys an inverse square law: if you halve the distance between masses, the gravitational attraction between them quadruples; cut the distance to a third, and the force increases nine times. In four spatial dimensions, however, gravitational force is proportional to the inverse cube of the distance. With each additional dimension, the power of the inverse law increases.

These extra dimensions would have to be limited in extent, unlike the three endless dimensions we're accustomed to, or else we would have seen their effects already. Consider a performer on a high wire. To her, the wire might as well be a single dimension, along which she can travel only forward or back. But a flea on the wire sees a second dimension, the wire's circumference -- a "rolled-up" dimension that brings a flea traveling along it right back where he started.

For gravity to be strong enough to unite with the other forces at energies accelerators can reach, our world would need only two extra dimensions, extending about a millimeter. More than two extra dimensions would be smaller still.

Objects close enough to lie within them would experience phenomenally greater gravitational attraction. This leads to specific predictions that can soon be put to the test of experiment.

One class of experiments will take place in accelerators, where high-energy collisions could create ripples in the higher-dimensional space, in the form of gravitons escaping into the extra dimensions. Collisions of this kind would appear to violate the first law of thermodynamics, the conservation of mass and energy.

Even more startling to contemplate, accelerators may be able to create black holes, regions smaller than the radius of the extra dimensions where gravity is so strong that nothing can escape. Small black holes quickly evaporate by Hawking radiation -- consisting of orphaned members of pairs of virtual particles whose partners are swallowed by the hole, and which carry off some of the hole's mass -- and this low-energy radiation from a high-energy collision in an accelerator would be an unmistakable signal that a black hole had been formed.

Another class of experiments will take place on the tabletop, where increasingly sophisticated systems of moving masses are directly measuring the force of gravity at ever closer distances. With one such experiment, Jens Gundlach of the University of Washington recently measured G more accurately than ever before, at distances under a millimeter. So far, Gundlach has seen no sudden wild increases in gravitational attraction, but there's still a big gap to close.


Implications for String Theory and Dark Matter

Although the theory of gravity in extra dimensions is not string theory, which characterizes fundamental particles as bits of "string" vibrating in numerous, incredibly compact extra dimensions, Arkani-Hamed and his colleagues have shown that their theory is in fact compatible with string theory.

Imagine, rather than a single-dimensional optic fiber or a high wire, that the photons and other bosons that carry electromagnetism and the nuclear forces are confined to a two-dimensional "wall" in a multidimensional "bulk." Only gravitons are free to move off the wall. In string theory, such walls are called "D-branes."

The picture suggests possible solutions to many outstanding questions in physics and astrophysics. If there are other 'branes in the bulk -- real worlds less than a millimeter from our own, stacked up like sheets of paper -- invisible masses confined to these parallel worlds could be the universe's mysterious dark matter, whose gravitation we feel even though its source is invisible.

"Or instead of invoking parallel universes, we might live on a folded universe," Arkani-Hamed suggests. "In this view, 'dark matter' might be just ordinary matter, because the light from a star on a fold only one millimeter away might have to travel billions of light years along the wall to reach us. Although we feel its gravity, we haven't seen it yet."

Arkani-Hamed says that "all the old mysteries of the Standard Model can be addressed in this theory," and that, indeed, "the most extraordinary thing about the theory is that it didn't die an immediate death. It explains a lot and raises a lot of possibilities, yet it contradicts no experimental results." He adds, "If we do the experiments, we have a good chance of seeing evidence for or against these ideas in the next 10 years."


- Paul Preuss, Science Beat, Berkeley Lab

[Orchids]

String theory and all of this still does not explain gravity. What controls this force of attraction. The force of gravity is felt over the vastness of the cosmos, why how? It is still very much unkown. It keeps me up at night thinking about it. It is very humbling

[SPC]

Originally posted by oz
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by oz
Megalodon, So does God play dice or not ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I was referring to Einstein's phrase 'God does not play dice'.
He was unhappy about the apparent randomness in nature.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/images/god4.gif

I was just wondering what the consensus is today with the recent strings theory and all. Let me then rephrase the question.

Is the universe evolves in an arbitrary way, or it is deterministic ?

Einsteins theory (large bodies) is orderly, Quantum physics (atomic level) is chaos. Einsteins statement about the dice was in referrence to Quantum physics which he never believed to be true, however, I don't know of any physicist today who debate the validity of this theory.

I have read where the #1 goal of most physicsits is to find a way to unify these two theories (both are excepted theories), the String Theory is the closest so far.

[Megalodon]

Questions asked by Oz:

Is the universe finit or infinite?

I don’t know for sure, but I’d say infinite.

Is it expanding or shrinking?

It’s been expanding since the Big Bang. At this time, nobody can really speak for any other dimension or universe that may or may not exist.

Similar to some of the questions asked at the beginning, is there an end of time and beginning of time, if so when?

Scientists think the beginning of the universe was roughly 16-billion years ago during the Big Bang. It was then, so it’s thought, that time started. It doesn’t seem very old considering the earth is roughly five-billion-years-old. But as for the question, ‘was there time before the Big Bang?’ IMO, I can’t see why not, but maybe in the “pre-Bang� universe, there was no passage of time.

What came before the Big Bang?

I don’t think anyone knows. Maybe the universe had already exploded, expanded, and then eventually contracted from gravity, into another ball of particles and energy, then exploded into our own ‘big bang’ universe. Maybe space has been doing that for a very long time, perhaps a trillion-quadrillion times already, and our universe is just the by-product of the latest cycle, taking up a mere few trillion years of existence.

Or maybe this is the first time this has happened and all galaxies will continue to travel outward into the vacuum of dark nothingness, until they cool trillions of years from now, and all carbon-based life in the Third Dimension dies out with the stars. Maybe there are many Third Dimension universes doing this in space like ours, but they are just so far away that current technology can’t detect them.

Is the universe simply a particle, a singularity, or its made up of countless small particles?

Countless small particles, to be sure.

If there's a black hole, is there a white hole?

Not really. Stars can appear white to us, and some of them have unreal gravity too, sucking things up all the time. But it stands to reason, if the star is giving off light, it’s not on the same level as a ‘hole’ because light is obviously able to escape. A star might eventually become a hole however, by collapsing upon itself from gravity after nuclear exhaustion, and becoming so dense, it can create a small event horizon around it. I always assumed the star stopped shinning because it was dead, and that’s why it became black.

Regarding the parallel universe, I swear sometimes I think I've "been there and done that" on what I'm doing, you know Deja Vu?

I know what you mean, but déjÃ* vu is in our heads.

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by BigBird
How can anyone be as brilliant as Einstein?? How do you pull the theory of relativity out of your backside without substantial testing. We don't even have the technology today to fully test the theory, we might never have it.

It was found that Einstein had a huge brain, with plenty of dendrite growth in the cerebral cortex. No surprise to me. As far as my research goes, Einstein truly was the most amazing scientist ever. As Big Bird said, he pulled these so-far-correct theories out of his backside without the technology to test.

Originally posted by PerryinCA
And don't forget to distinguish knowledge from intellegence.

I couldn’t agree with you more. I’ve been telling people that since I was 16. If this other scientist you’re talking about was more intelligent than Einstein, then he must have been a super-genius that couldn’t cope with the stupidity of the world around him and was therefore unable to focus. Guess he missed out. I’ve scored 145+ on both knowledge- and intelligence-based IQ tests respectively, making me ‘gifted,’ but I did horrible in the education system, especially math, so I can see how it can happen.

Originally posted by Orchids
String theory and all of this still does not explain gravity. What controls this force of attraction. The force of gravity is felt over the vastness of the cosmos, why how? It is still very much unkown. It keeps me up at night thinking about it. It is very humbling

Isn’t it funny how in our day of age, scientists still don’t understand what keeps our backsides to our seats? How embarrassing if there are any advanced alien species actually monitoring our progress.

The only theory that makes sense to my limited human brain is the graviton particle theory. Waves would have been understandable too, but we already know that's not it. Those three-dimensional answers are understandable because it's something tangible, like photons and electrons.

But the latest theories in the GRAVITY article I just posted still don’t explain all that much to me either. I think I know why. I keep reading in my research that it's always very hard for us to grasp because we evolved to think only three-dimensionally. It doesn’t really spark a whole lot except confusion in our heads when we think of space, time, and gravity being so related, all the while interacting in several more dimensions and also with anti-matter. It’s complex math that has no problem explaining it all. We can think only matter and energy in three-dimensions, from the perspective of animals on a small planet.

Originally posted by SPC
Einsteins theory (large bodies) is orderly, Quantum physics (atomic level) is chaos. Einsteins statement about the dice was in referrence to Quantum physics which he never believed to be true, however, I don't know of any physicist today who debate the validity of this theory.

You mean Einstein was actually wrong about something? That might be because he didn't have the technology to study sub-atomic particles as we do now. The truth is that the universe is much more random that people think. Einstein, as any person of his day, would have been shocked by this revelation.

[SPC]

You mean Einstein was actually wrong about something? That might be because he didn't have the technology to study sub-atomic particles as we do now. The truth is that the universe is much more random that people think. Einstein, as any person of his day, would have been shocked by this revelation.

It has been said that if Einstein would have accepted Quantum Theory during the last 20 years or so of his life, he may have made real progress towards unifying. As it was, he spent the last years of his life basically going in circles trying to prove that there must be order on all levels. I don't blame him though (not that I think on his level:D ), randomness is a difficult concept for the human species, especially when he knew that large bodies followed an order.
Steve

[greenbean36191]

On the dark matter, does anyone know if the ratio is size based or density based? I seem to remember it was X times more dense than visable matter so that's why there is a crazy ratio of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It has mass, giving it that crazy gravity. It probably has volume too. That same TLC show I was talking about says that a spoon of that material is so dense that it could weigh as much as the earth. I wonder, if some of that material is iron, would the iron atom still look the same? Or would this material not be in the form of atoms/elements, but instead just protons and neutrons?

Not all dark matter has "crazy gravity," it just doesn't give off electromagnetic radiation. Dark matter covers anything in the universe that does not give off any electromagnetic radiation, therefore we can't see it and it is dark to us. We can see the effects of the gravity though. Dark matter could range from a few subatomic particles to several solar masses. I think think when you talk about "crazy gravity," you are talking about black holes. I'm not sure if they are concidered dark matter these days or not because we can see the huge jets of radiation they shoot off into space. In any case you could never take a spoon full of a black hole or measure its density because it has infinite size and density. No none of the material in a black hole is iron. Here is the basic breakdown of how a black hole forms. To keep things simple I will just talk about what is going on in the core and not the outter layers of the star.

The core of a large dying star creates higher and higher elements through fusion until it gets to iron. Once a star reaches iron fusion would take more energy than it would release, so the star has to do something new to stay alive. To make a long process short it breaks the iron up into subatomic particles and they are all lost except for neutrons which are squished to the point that they can't be compressed any farther; the core has reached Neutron Degeneracy Pressure (NDP). You are left with a neutron star which is just a big ball of neutrons. This might be what you were talking about with the teaspoon of matter thing because they are very dense. If the neutron star is 3 solar masses or more, its gravity will be enough to overcome the NDP and after that there is nothing to stop gravity. The star will keep collapsing in on itself infinitely and its gravity will be so much that it sucks anything within the schwartchchild radius (event horizon) in at the speed of light.

As for the what are we expanding into question, here is my theory:
Black holes keep collapsing infinitely (but not forever because they eventually evaporate), but what are they collapsing into? I beleive that the black holes are collapsing into the edge of the universe via another dimension. This is hard to understand since we are 3D creatures, but just think of it like a giant Klein bottle. The universe only has one side and what goes in the black holes comes out on the edges and then is recycled.

[PerryinCA]

I couldn’t agree with you more. I’ve been telling people that since I was 16. If this other scientist you’re talking about was more intelligent than Einstein, then he must have been a super-genius that couldn’t cope with the stupidity of the world around him and was therefore unable to focus. Guess he missed out. I’ve scored 145+ on both knowledge- and intelligence-based IQ tests respectively, making me ‘gifted,’ but I did horrible in the education system, especially math, so I can see how it can happen.

I am in the same box. My issue is boredom, and a tendency toward ADHD (mind wondering around continually). I tend to funtion best in a creative environment rather than a "learning" environment. Concentrating on anything for a prolonged period of time for me is a huge pain in the rear.

The ability to learn, concieve and understand are different functions of the mind, and not necessarily linked.

[Coral Dilema]

Originally posted by SBSB
I just tried it and IT WORKS! I traveled 20 seconds into the future and I looked back on myself typing this, AMAZING! Of course you have to take into consideration that I had my first beer 5 hours ago and I'm new at time travel.

Cool, Now you can travel 2 days into the future and avoid the hangover!

[RARZILLO]

Even after every question has been answered.
After every feat has been accomplished.
What is most amazing is that the Universe has figured out a way
to look upon itself.

Richard

[Coral Dilema]

My Drunken theory:

E=MC^2 is an accepted theory, This is similar to power theory in electronics.

Power = Resistance * Current^2

so, Energy = power, resistance = mass, current = speed of light.

So what is the equivalent property to voltage?

Ohms law tells us that Volts = Resistance * current
So X is equal to mass * speed of light and
Energy is equal to Mass * speed of light^2

Could the missing property be gravity?

If it is, the following formula would be correct,

Speed of light = Gravity/Mass (we all know the speed of light is constant . . or is it? more later)

Mass = Gravity/ speed of light

Energy = Gravity^2/Mass

So lets solve for Gravity:

Gravity = Mass * speed of light
Gravity = Energy/ Speed of light
Gravity = Square root of Energy * Mass

SO, its time for another beer.

Ok, back from fridge,

I said earlier that the speed of light was a constant, thats not entirely true. I have seen a document somewhere that showed how we were able to slow down the speed of light TREMENDOUSLY by passing it through an extremely cold block of something, I think it was CO2 but im not sure, and it was about 3 or 4 degrees Kelvin.

SO, if we can alter the speed of light, theoretically we can either reduce gravity on an object by reducing the speed of light around it and keeping the mass the same, OR we could reduce the mass of an object by slowing the speed of light and holding gravity constant.

Einsteins theory tells us that as we approach the speed of light, our mass would decrease, and if we were traveling at the speed of light, we would BE light, as observed by a stationary person.

Now to figure out where time figures into this calculation, hmmm, time for another beer.

Hmm, if i drink a beer at the speed of light will I reduce my mass (beergut) and increase my gravity (attractivness) . . . Hmmm, time to chug.

Nothing on Earth is more dangerous than a redneck with free time.

[Steve_B]

I remember reading about how they were able to determine if someone was a witch, back when they did stuff like that. They theorized that if you burned a witch with wood, and because wood floats, if the accused floats then she is a witch. But some argued that a goose floats so that would make a goose a witch. So the conclusion was reached that if you put a witch and a goose on a scale that the lighter one was actually the witch. Well something like that……….:confused:

[oz]

dark matter:
Form of matter that exists of particles which don't emit any (electromagnetic) radiation, making it invisible and hard to detect. Some physicians think that dark matter can function as an energy source. Dark matter exists in the Mar Obscura nebula.
Dark matter seems to have some exotic properties. It makes
objects continually phase in and out of our universe. This property can cause depressurization on board of starships, because the hulls phase in and out.

This is according to Star Trek.

hehe

[cryosphere]

I still want to know...if you are travelling in your vehicle at the speed of light and you turn on your headlights, what would happen?? :-)


Also, maybe our space is one big pulse within another space that is in it's expansion mode and has yet to contract. There's got to be something outside of our own space even if it is nothing.

[Orchids]

We will put aside that fact that traveling at the speed of light is currently impossible. So, if you are traveling at the speed of light, then in fact you are light and your lights are already on. Suppose now you are traveling at the speed of light and then go downhill, will you accelerate? If you do, what happens to your lights, I don't know that answer.

[oz]

Originally posted by cryosphere
I still want to know...if you are travelling in your vehicle at the speed of light and you turn on your headlights, what would happen?? :-)



Interesting. I would like to know too, if you were on a train traveling at the spped of light and you run from the back of the train to the front, are you then going faster than the speed of light ?

[Steve_B]

Originally posted by Orchids
We will put aside that fact that traveling at the speed of light is currently impossible. So, if you are traveling at the speed of light, then in fact you are light and your lights are already on. Suppose now you are traveling at the speed of light and then go downhill, will you accelerate? If you do, what happens to your lights, I don't know that answer.

hmmm, more deep thoughts to ponder.

[Aquaman]

To me gravity is much more confusing because we can see it's effects, but have no real idea of what it is. Maybe it has to do with dark matter, or maybe super strings; who knows. Perhaps Dark matter is in fact gravity, Which is the result of energy thats given off by each living object.


How can anyone be as brilliant as Einstein??

How do you pull the theory of relativity out of your backside without substantial testing. We don't even have the technology today to fully test the theory, we might never have it.

While it might not prove to be 100% correct, it's a rather stupendous guess considering what he had to go on

Well actually Einstein Theory is quite flawed. So is much of the math for EM theory. Try taking a look at this site. http://www.cheniere.org/toc.html Click on the link 34 Flaws in classical EM Theory

Then read this http://www.cheniere.org/references/maxwell.htm

[SPC]

Originally posted by Aquaman
Well actually Einstein Theory is quite flawed. So is much of the math for EM theory. Try taking a look at this site. http://www.cheniere.org/toc.html Click on the link 34 Flaws in classical EM Theory

Then read this http://www.cheniere.org/references/maxwell.htm

....but, you might want to read this first;)
http://www.phact.org/e/z/beardenreview.htm
Steve

[Orchids]

SBSB,

In fact, you and the train are one system and the system is still traveling at the speed of light. The difference in your speed and the speed of light is so great as to be statistically insignficant.

Ah, insignificant, all this talk makes me feel that way.

[BigBird]

Sorry, but . . .

Aquaman, you don't really believe that crap, do you??

Tom Bearden - the complicated futility of ignorance.

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by Aquaman
Perhaps Dark matter is in fact gravity, Which is the result of energy thats given off by each living object.

Be sure that's not the way it works. :rolleye1:

How much life would there have to be throughout the universe to generate enough energy to create all the dark matter and gravity? Or is it just life on Earth that does this?

Did Maxwell and Bearden believe this?

[greenbean36191]

Today in astronomy class we were talking about boring old quasars so I was thinking about this thread instead of listening. I was thinking about why you cna't go faster than the speed of light. As you get closer to the speed of light time slows down until you reach the speed of light where time stops. So if you went faster than the speed of light time would go backwards which would mean that you would go back in time to before you were going faster than light and then from there you could accelerate to faster than the speed of light again and go backwards in time again.... So essentially you would be stuck at the speed of light because everytime you tried to go faster you would be sent backwards to where you started.

Did you know there are quasars 20 trillion times brighter than the sun?

[oz]

Its amazing that people like Einstein and Hawkins don't (didn't) go crazy thinking about this stuff.

[shadofax69]

Im going to tag along on this one its very interesting and I have actually had a modern physics class where we have studied this stuff. I cant respond now but ill will as soon as im done with me organic 3 final.

[cryosphere]

and now to really throw a wrench into all of this theorizing....if a cow laughs, does milk come out of its nose???

...can you tell I'm at work with nothing better to do??

[BigBird]

I have a question . . .

I've seen several telescopic photos of black holes that show jets of matter moving away from the hole's "polar regions," does anyone understand how that works??

[BigBird]

Forget it, just answered my own question.

Look here (http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html) for an interesting FAQ on black holes.

[HolyBanana]

Here is something else to discuss.
Did you think Einstein knew stuff that he did not dare to reveal to us because he thought we where not ready or we where too primitive? Do you think he knew more than what he revealed?

[SPC]

Originally posted by HolyBanana
Here is something else to discuss.
Did you think Einstein knew stuff that he did not dare to reveal to us because he thought we where not ready or we where too primitive? Do you think he knew more than what he revealed?

IMO no, from what I have read his ego would have been to big for that.
Steve

[Aged Salt]

Steve, he might have to get in line for posting on "who goes bb..." thread then:D Bob

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by greenbean36191
Did you know there are quasars 20 trillion times brighter than the sun?

That's sooo bright. They're not just one object, but globs of stars at centres of galaxies, aren't they?

Originally posted by BigBird
Look here (http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html) for an interesting FAQ on black holes.

That's a good place to look. I think I was getting dark matter mixed up with black holes. Aren't they quite related though? I would assume dark matter could turn into a hole by having enough mass.

Originally posted by HolyBanana
Here is something else to discuss. Did you think Einstein knew stuff that he did not dare to reveal to us because he thought we where not ready or we where too primitive?

All humans are always too primitive, IMO. Even for a genious, even he didn't get that far. But I'm thankful for the work he did do. If he knew, I agree that his ego would have let it spill.

[greenbean36191]

That's sooo bright. They're not just one object, but globs of stars at centres of galaxies, aren't they?

I think so. I fell asleep during that part. :D Needless to say I didn't do very well on the test.

[Alberio]

Those of you who enjoyed this thread may enjoy this article.

Interstellar travel (seriously) (http://space.com/businesstechnology/technology/interstellar_travel_031217-1.html)

Sounds like some great science should be happening around mid 21rst century. Too bad I'll be 95. So even If I'm alive I won't give a crap.

mjd

[greenbean36191]

I was reading an article in Florida Today about time travel and I was stunned when I read this:
"... During the past four decades, these scientists revived an idea first considered in Albert Einstein's era. It suggested black holes rotating about one another might create a tunnel connecting different parts of the universe, or a 'wormhole.'
They found that negative energy, a type of theoretical energy associated with antigravity, would be required to hold a wormhole together. And quantum teleportation was reported in 1997 by Germany's University of Innsbruck researchers, who instantly transferred the properties of one light particle, or photon, to another.... A few experiments were proposed to send tiny subatomic particles back in time, Kaku says. Experiments would rely on repulsive forces between closely spaced metal plates, the 'Casimir effect,' to generate a kind of negative energy. However these remain just ideas."

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by rspar
I'm no physics man but I don't think you'd go back in time it's like dividing a number you'll never get to zero.

On a giant planet with intense gravity time goes slower? So if you had a telescope powerful enough you could watch people going slower or faster because time was different for them?

I'm one of those people who believe that matter reaches an infinite mass as it hits light speed, making such a velocity impossible for matter. I also believe time cannot go backwards, only sped up or slowed down.

On a planet like that, time would be going slower, yes. But perhaps not much slower. The cosmonaut on the Space Station only went a fraction of a second forward in time after returning to Earth, so it wouldn't have sounded like he was talking in fast forward.

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by celica
I think this idea applies to the speed of time, until somebody actually travels at the speed of light and proves/disproves all these theories. Then again, if time traveling backwards is true, then someone travelling at the speed of light could travel long enough to reverse their very existence.

I don't think you can travel backwards either. Time slows down as your mass reaches infinity as you go faster. Read through the articles in this thread and then tell me you're not convinced time can be manipulated.

[musicsmaker]

Quick question: Does anyone know how long it takes light to get here from mars?

[rspar]

186,000 miles per second someone do the math.

[Steve_B]

Originally posted by musicsmaker
Quick question: Does anyone know how long it takes light to get here from mars?

About the same as it takes to go from Chicago to Disneyland in an old VW bug.

[greenbean36191]

Quick question: Does anyone know how long it takes light to get here from mars?

Only a few minutes. I think it was something like 15?

[Steve_B]

Originally posted by greenbean36191
Only a few minutes. I think it was something like 15?

Bada Bing!!!! Is that you in the avitar?

[greenbean36191]

Nope that's my g/f..... I WISH! No, really that's Carmella Decesare.

[Steve_B]

Originally posted by greenbean36191
Nope that's my g/f..... I WISH! No, really that's Carmella Decesare.

Oh sorry, I thought you were a really hot chick that looks like a swim suit model. Never mind, I'm so dissapointed:(

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by musicsmaker
Quick question: Does anyone know how long it takes light to get here from mars?

If both planets were lined up in their orbits, just over four minutes. I guess SBSB is a fast driver or something.

[musicsmaker]

Originally posted by greenbean36191
Only a few minutes. I think it was something like 15? Let's say it were 15 minutes, and lets also say that you could put a large mirror up there and see it with a telescope here on earth. If you could see the reflection and focus back in on earth you would see what happened 30 minutes ago. Weird, eh?

[nemnoch]

I am a backyard astronomer as well and love lugging out my scope to check out the night sky. It trulyis awesome seeing stellar object with your own 2 eyes.

Anyway, I have always been facinated by Neutron stars - here is some nifty info on them - Neutron Stars (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/961006.html)

And for amusement, check out Your Weight on Other Worlds (http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/weight/)

[Coral Dilema]

nice avatar greenbean36191 . . . . . . . what were we talking about? Using a quasar as a reef light?

[bmcelhinn]

I'm surprized nobody has brought up the old grandfather paradox. If you went back in time and killed your grandfather before he married your grandmother, then you wouldn't be born. But if you were never born, you couldn't go back in time to kill your grandfather, so he'd be alive.

[BigBird]

Instead if killing your grandfather, can you become your own grandfather? Would you be arrested for incest immediately after your birth despite the fact that you had not yet commited the act?

What are those little things on the end of shoelaces called? Are flies called flies because they fly? If so, why aren't bald eagles called bald flies?

[musicsmaker]

Ah, so that's the sound of one hand clapping.

[bmcelhinn]

Whoa, shouldn't we all be working? it's 1:24 here and I've got an appointment with a client in 26 minutes!! Don't you people work!?!?! If I could travel 6 hours into the future, then come back 7hrs there would be 2 of me in my office and one could go to the appointment and the other could hang out with the rest of you lazy bums on RC!!!

[bmcelhinn]

Double Post... Did future me post the second one??

[greenbean36191]

What are those little things on the end of shoelaces called?

Aglets

[BrianD]

Greenbean, you have PM.

[greenbean36191]

Brian, you're no fun. I will just have to find a more family friendly girl. What is the limit on family friendliness? How far over it was I?

[bmcelhinn]

Greanbean, maybe someday I'll be able to travel back in time and see your old avatar again.

[BrianD]

Greenbean, please handle this via PM.

[musicsmaker]

To be honest... I think that when they discover EXACTLY what causes gravity, we will have the answer to a lot of these unknowns.

[tszetela]

Sorry, this thread is to long to read!

On the topic of time I would suggest a two books by Stephen Hawking called "A Brief History of Time" "the Universe in a Nutshell. Both books cover the "Time Travel" mentioned on TLC.

.. and most people who study these things agree that the parodox problem supports the theory that travel back in time is not possible. Only the change in relativity for forward movement of time is possible. Of course the new movie "Butterfly Effect" may chaing everyones minds!!! LOL

[iCam]

Here is a pic I found of a dust ring surrounding a black hole.

[musicsmaker]

How far away is that?