Rookey Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 This post is on behalf of my astrophysicist brother! "Light going into a black hole, can't escape thus remains in the black hole. I.e. If someone goes to jail, and they can't escape, where are they? You're also right, black holes are an infinite point in space time - a Dirac delta point around a singularity spawning a conical shell protruding through 4 dimensional space." Hope this helps Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted June 25, 2011 Author Share Posted June 25, 2011 This post is on behalf of my astrophysicist brother! "Light going into a black hole, can't escape thus remains in the black hole. I.e. If someone goes to jail, and they can't escape, where are they? You're also right, black holes are an infinite point in space time - a Dirac delta point around a singularity spawning a conical shell protruding through 4 dimensional space." Hope this helps Dave I'm sorry but that just sounds like somebody spouting words they've learnt in a clever sentence designed to throw off people who don't understand the subject. It doesn't explain why the information is destroyed (just cos it can't escape, doesn't mean it's destroyed), and it doesn't give any explanation as to why the singularity with Dirac delta orbit is infinitely small and massive. This seems to be the only reason I can think of why holographic theory would have to come about, so I need to understand where this infinitely small singularity is proven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rookey Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Cool, well he was just heading home when I collared him for this... He's back for a bit later today so I'll ask him to put something more in depth down in writing then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJI Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Black holes are places in space-time whereby super strong gravity exists. They can also exist as very tiny black holes, and these do expire over a short time. But my knowledge of physics and maths says that anywhere where you find the term 'infinity' in a maths equation when trying to find an 'explaination for the universe' then this means a break away from 'reality' and a substitution of an assumption. Meaning that when you are talking about the VERY small or the VERY large it can mean you 'miss the mark' by some significant degree. I do think that some of these 'fringe' explainations of the universe such as 'hologram' theory fit their own line of maths very well, but they do rely on an assumption somewhere along the line; and whereever this assumption line appears in the maths, it usually has the term 'infinity' in it. I'm just repeating a conversation here that I had with one of my 'physics' mates on facebook a while back. This is an old school mate of mine who is now working in Germany for the European space agancy. I, like many of you guys can only talk to him on a layman basis, but this is one guy who knows a lot about physics and maths. I do think however that all these new theorys are great for this area of science, as each one can be interpreted and dissassembled for its accuracy, and then reassembled in to a more accurate version that could more accurately observe the universe. As for the 'loss of information' issue, until we have a better understanding of anti-matter/dark energy then I think the main laws of physics may stand the test of time. Just recently scientists held anti-matter for a record amount of time. http://www.channel4.com/news/cern-scientists-break-anti-matter-record Holding it for longer, as the article says, will enable them to study it and understand it better. It will surely unlock more secrets and lead to better theories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian C Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Good stuff, Ian, but I think you're getting caught up on the words. UNIVERSE is just an (old) word, universal, singular, whole, oneness etc. With the invention of multiversal theories I think the meaning of the word is lost, maybe we need a new word. I know what you're getting at however and I think in your terms the multiverse theories would be a part of the singular creation realm universe with lots of (multiverse) bubbles inside of it. So yes we could 'go to' all those other bubbles if we had the tech, as they must all be linked somehow. But the creation realm and the creator decides the rules of all those bubbles, so I don't think it's as clear cut as you're making out like they must be all more or less the same with the same rules - he makes the rules after all, there's nothing to stop him deciding that the creation realm is completely out of reach, and the bubble next to ours happens to be inside out so we'd all die if we managed to jump across. If we had the tech, as you say, to go to another bubble universe, then from the perspective of "the Universe is everything we can ever interact with", it's not a separate universe any more is it? It's just a hard to reach bit of the same universe. I'm going on the concept that the word "universe" tries to portray - i.e. everything. If thing A is connected in any way to thing B, then both thing A and B are in the same universe. If you have a superbeing in a creation realm spitting out bubble universes that have varying laws of physics, well, the creation realm hosts these universes, doesn't it? Ergo, they are a part of it. The creation realm must have an underlying structure that supports the bubble universes' different laws of physics, much like an emulator. But then that means our laws of physics are running under the same emulation. And that means there is communication between the creation realm and our universe, which in turn means we are just a part of the "real" universe that includes the creation realm and all bubbles in it. Once again, we are back to "they are just hard parts to reach" when you are considering "all of existence". If the creator then goes "aha well I'll make them utterly separate from the creation realm" then the superbeing must lose all contact for all time with the bubble universe, otherwise it's still connected or capable of being connected the the rest of existence in some fashion, and therefore still part of the main universe. If the superbeing does lose connection to it, for all time, then from the perspective of the creation realm it's as good as being destroyed. The information is gone, and you can never know anything more about it. And it also means the creator isn't omnipotent any more One problem with a creation realm is - who made it How can an omnipotent God need a universe to exist before they do? That's not omnipotent then is it, they are just a denizen of that realm. Creator blokey can still only create stuff that runs on the emulation layer, still bound by physical laws in the creation realm. Did you watch Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman? It was a bit slow but the last episode last Sunday was awesome! Going through creation possibilities, they were saying we have computers powerful enough to simulate movements of planets accurately, and in 50 years we could conceivably simulate the entire known universe. No, I didn't, I don't really watch TV. However, that last bit is utter cobblers How can you simulate the entire universe using something inside that universe? The simulation would have to simulate the simulation, ad infinitum. It's impossible. Plus if you wanted to store the details of every single particle in the universe, you've need to use every single particle of the universe to act as data storage. Otherwise, where the hell do you store the information...? New Scientist did an article on maximum information density once, apparently the memory stick of the future will have to be as dense as a neutron star and be about a billion degrees centigrade Once you go past that, your data turns into a black hole and tadaa, you lose the information forever. Bit like Lotus Notes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted June 25, 2011 Author Share Posted June 25, 2011 I'm going on the concept that the word "universe" tries to portray - i.e. everything. If thing A is connected in any way to thing B, then both thing A and B are in the same universe......... ........One problem with a creation realm is - who made it How can an omnipotent God need a universe to exist before they do? That's not omnipotent then is it, they are just a denizen of that realm. Creator blokey can still only create stuff that runs on the emulation layer, still bound by physical laws in the creation realm. I agree, but I was just saying you're using the word too literally. It doesn't matter if the definition of the word doesn't stand up, the point is the creator in his realm could easily create a load of bubbles and put us in one of them, then we would call it our universe without knowing that by the definition of the word we actually mean the creation realm. Same with omnipotence and any other god-like ability, the analogy of an ant farm is a good one saying to them in their (sort of) two dimensional plane we would be unseen and unknown but we can actually control the whole thing and watch over it etc. So we're in our house in our universe which is inside the creation realm which is itself inside something else (we could go into dimensional stuff but lets keep it simple, it's in a big white room). Again it's irrelevant what our definition of omnipotence is, to us the creator of our ant farm is all powerful and so by our definition is omnipotent, whether the creator knows what's outside his white room only means he's limited in his own terminology. No, I didn't, I don't really watch TV. However, that last bit is utter cobblers How can you simulate the entire universe using something inside that universe? The simulation would have to simulate the simulation, ad infinitum. It's impossible. Plus if you wanted to store the details of every single particle in the universe, you've need to use every single particle of the universe to act as data storage. Otherwise, where the hell do you store the information...? I hope it wasn't meant like that, I took it as meaning we could simulate the complexity of it on a smaller scale, and therefore could become gods ourselves - so in effect an extremely complicated ant-farm. Just mind boggling to think we can create that, kind of makes the idea of a creator a lot easier to digest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian C Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 I agree that the ant farms would have little idea of what was going on outside of them, but I think we've strayed off the original point now my some margin Your original point was that there had to be multiple universes, in order to randomly end up with this one. My response was it doesn't matter, this is the only universe we possibly could have ended up with, otherwise we wouldn't be here talking about it (much to the relief of anyone who's accidentally stumbled into this thread). And if we could prove there were other universes, then we prove that actually there aren't, just that the universe is bigger than we thought and some bits are hard to reach I might have accidentally derailed things by adding in the creator discussion I can't digest the idea of a creator at all, I mean, who created the creator? And the place they create in? You don't need a self-referential spiralling argument (and the super-creator created the creator realm, and the super-super-creator created that one etc etc), it's a ridiculously complex solution when compared to "we can only exist in this type of universe, so the probability of us being in this type of universe is 1". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted June 25, 2011 Author Share Posted June 25, 2011 Yeah and I know what you're saying about the universe, it does get me when supposedly clever people on TV say "Isn't it amazing that this incredible fluke happened", well no, because if it didn't we wouldn't know about it, the fluke HAS to have happened. But anyway, it's my thread so I'll allow it going off topic . I do kind of like the creator idea though, I like to think of it more in terms of dimensions that we don't understand. I don't subscribe to the usual theories for dimensions, so it's only in our 4th dimension that your idea of a creator being in a realm, created by a creator, who also has a 'god' that created his realm etc. etc. If we step aside and say there's a 5th dimension which may be something weird that we can't even conceive, maybe it's infinity. So a 5th dimensional being is drawn along by infinity, meaning he has control over what we know as time and space, they exist in infinity but also in every point and time in our universe (or multiverse, or bubble, or whatever). Then there's a 6th dimension that might be thought, so a being of thought who understand infinity. Basically, our feeble explanations of "where does the creator live then eh?" doesn't quite cut it, there's no way we can even conceive of the realm they exist in, just as the ants can't conceive of how we think, how we drive a car or make a sandwich, the most clever ant in the world might understand that the tree next to them points a different way to the ground, the same as our most clever humans might understand what happens in a black hole - we're still a long way from understanding anything about a being that could create all this though. BTW. I make a point of saying I believe in a creator, not a god, if we do have a creator he sure as hell isn't listening to us or giving a t*ss about what we're doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian C Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 The idea of "where did our universe come from and what was there before it" is always a mind squeezer. People can't imagine 'nothing', to them thats just a big empty space, like when there is no tasty food in the fridge. The concept of actual proper 'nothing' is a dimensionless nothing, it's like the opposite of infinity. No up, down, sideways, not even time. I mean, how can something not exist for no time and yet be everything there is It's terrifying to think about. So yeah, I agree, trying to envisage extra dimensions and so forth is quite implausibe However. I think we can have a stab at logical constructs, which is what we've been doing. Ants don't have an awareness of self, never mind being able to think about this sort of nonsense. I think the premise "ah but for all we know we are in an ant farm equivalent" is an unfair start to things, you may as well say "There is Stuff that you don't currently know about and may never evolve enough as a race to know about, therefore stop thinking about anything we don't currently fully understand now" which is basically going back to religion (don't think or question or investigate anything you don't understand, just invoke 'god'). What else. Hm, infinity. Well, the universe (as in, sum total of everything), is our infinity. It has to be, if it isn't, it's not the whole universe is it So all the extra dimensions are infinite as well. And part of the universe. So I'm still not buying it. I have to go back, reiterate, and just plain harp on, that the creator is still going to exist in, interact with, and therefore be bound by physical laws of their realm. This still causes the infinite recursion of who made the maker. I still say, Occams' razor, it's easier and more elegant (thank you Cliff for reminding me of that word in the 2009 thread we resurrected!) that the universe sponto'd into existence and here we are. It doesn't matter how it appeared/was created as it's separate from anything that isn't the universe. It doesn't matter how many times it's happened, especially as the concept of time and numbers doesn't exist outside of the universe anyway, see definition of "nothing" above Anyway, I think I'm going in circles and getting tiresome now You've got my definition of why the question of multiverses is irrelevant, and any proof of separate universes is immediate proof that they aren't actually separate but in fact part of ours. And that there can't be a grand creator at the top of the tree. And discussing anything that is 100% outside of our universe for all time is a pointless exercise. Thank you for helping my nightshifts go a lot faster though, this certainly beats getting depressed seeing the umpteenth thread containing a YouTube link and the word "lol". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian C Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Double post due to scabrous work internet. Or possibly a white hole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted June 26, 2011 Author Share Posted June 26, 2011 double post due to scabrous work internet. Or possibly a white hole. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverSoop Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Did anyone watch the last episode of through the wormhole with Morgan Freeman? Very, very interesting Two scientists in theorical physics have come up with a mathematical and practical threory of where the 'big bang' came from. They are saying that our universe isn't two dimensional, it infact, is eleven dimensional and beyond our universe, is a parallel universe...think of it like a curtain head on and behind that curtain, is another curtain and so on. They say, our universe started when the two collided causing and big bang and thus, our universe was born. Over time, the radiation cools, the universe expands over time due to dark energy, collapes back in on itself as dark matter wins the war and then it cycles over and over to infinity. NASA's WMAP supports this theory... If this is the case, well the mind boggles as to how many universe's there actually are out there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Aren't all these theories pretty much worthless until someone comes up with a scientific method of proving them? I mean - with historical scientific theories there was sufficient evidence around that the theory was validated by behaviour easily observable to all. With things like black holes and parallel universes, I can't help feeling that the human race will have long since wiped itself out before we get anywhere close to clarifying any of these theories, and whilst they make for interesting discussion, it's hard to determine the difference between genuine theories and the twaddle coming from someone who just wants be the next Hawking. Hell - just working out how light or gravity works would be good for starters, before we worry about parallel multiverses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooley Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 will any of this help my lazors do more pew pew in eve lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted June 29, 2011 Author Share Posted June 29, 2011 Did anyone watch the last episode of through the wormhole with Morgan Freeman? Very, very interesting Two scientists in theorical physics have come up with a mathematical and practical threory of where the 'big bang' came from. They are saying that our universe isn't two dimensional, it infact, is eleven dimensional and beyond our universe, is a parallel universe...think of it like a curtain head on and behind that curtain, is another curtain and so on. They say, our universe started when the two collided causing and big bang and thus, our universe was born. Over time, the radiation cools, the universe expands over time due to dark energy, collapes back in on itself as dark matter wins the war and then it cycles over and over to infinity. NASA's WMAP supports this theory... If this is the case, well the mind boggles as to how many universe's there actually are out there... I thought the last episode was about possibilities of a creator? I liked the analogy with the Sims computer game, how it matches our regular and quantum physics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverSoop Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 I thought the last episode was about possibilities of a creator? I liked the analogy with the Sims computer game, how it matches our regular and quantum physics. No not that one mate, that was a couple of weeks back now...you missed the most recent episode You should of watched it, it was very interesting and was about what I have said above Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mellonman Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 After spending alot of time in the lab i can now confirm the ianc theroy about the ants having no conception of there life at the greater scale and that there would only be one universe not multiverse as the universe is infinate and never ending please look at my findings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.