Multiple Big Bangs

Mathematics and Science; the subtle and ubiquitous arts

Re: Multiple Big Bangs

Post by novalyphe on Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:22 pm
([msg=20905]see Re: Multiple Big Bangs[/msg])

Charlieace wrote:did anybody hear about that big bang replication in switzerland i think it was. they were trying to replicate one but an error occured (thank god). i don't think they should be screwing around with that, and if i hear about it again i'm going to raise hell.


They aren't trying to "recreate the big bang". All it is is a very powerful particle accelerator which will collide protons with a an impact speed of close to 2c. This will provide energy levels necessary to recreate particles which will not have existed since very shortly after the big bang.

The aim of the experiment is less to prove/disprove big bang theory but rather to attempt to identify the Higgs boson in order to validate the theory regarding the existence of the Higgs field.

Back to multiple big bangs... it is possible that the expansion of the universe is slowing down at a rate which will lead to a reconvergance of all matter in the universe but as already stated the conditions which would occur would not be explainable by our laws of physics.
novalyphe
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:15 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: Multiple Big Bangs

Post by Charlieace on Fri Apr 03, 2009 7:56 pm
([msg=21129]see Re: Multiple Big Bangs[/msg])

still...it could make a black hole and end all of humanity. even if there was the slightest possibility of it i'd not want it, and theres a good possibility they can make a black hole, which is incredibly deadly.
GET ME OUT OF AMERICA! MOVE ME TO IRELAND! IT LOOKS COOL THERE!

"In a world where stupidity has become the normal, it is better to be strange."

The Internet is my classroom.

Silence is the enemy.
Charlieace
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 7:57 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: Multiple Big Bangs

Post by Lumina_Flamma on Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:20 pm
([msg=21132]see Re: Multiple Big Bangs[/msg])

I think that the majority of speculation is (IMHO) falsely based on the idea that there "must" be a beginning and an end. It's fair enough to assume that time exists beyond our conception of it, but measurements and markers in time do not. It's hard to imagine, just like absolute nothingness (assuming that there ever has been a point in time at which nothing existed).

So is this like trying to place markers for a "start" and "ending" on the perimeter of a circle? Wherever you put it, it will still be at both the start and end, and the same distance all the way around.

If this is correct, I have a vague personal idea of what a sort of "shape of time" would "look like" visually in 3 dimensions, although obviously that's not really feasible. Bear in mind I have no real knowledge of quantum physics beyond a very basic understanding of some concepts. I base this on a belief that there is no such thing as a "true infinite" number, i.e. one that is literally neverending. This seems logical to me given that the "1" at then end of "1*10^-∞" does not exist; there are an infinite number of 0's before it, therefore we will never actually reach the 1, and therefore "1*10^-∞"="0". Likewise "1*10^∞"="2*10^∞", but in reverse.

In a 2-D representation a circle would seem appropriate given that it has no start nor end. Using "x=1*10^-∞" and "y=1*10^∞"This circle's perimeter would have a gradient of x, and a radius of y. This would mean that since x=0, the line would be completely straight, and of course not a circle anymore; however, since its start must be its end, there is a paradox that means it must be a circle, but is also mathematically a straight line. Also, in order for it to exist in our perceived dimensions, the diameter would need to be 2y. Since 2y is actually the same number as y, its radius is also its diameter, and the only way this is possible while maintaining a mathematically correct shape for a circle would be if both were equal to 0, which would again appear as a straight line that is technically a circle.

This suggests a straight line in appearance but in actuality a curve, and the only way this could be maintained is if the gradient is both a positive number and 0. Which would be x again; theoretically the "1" exists, but it is actually also 0.

Another idea which I have considered is that time, when represented as space like this, is an object in nothingness. While this is hard to picture, so is matter amongst nothing. Since it is nothing beyond the boundaries of time and matter, we can assume that the nothingness is equal to y, and therefore the amount of void that time occupies compared to the total void is equal to x. Since x=0 and y=1, the line has a width of 0, so cannot be seen, but must also exist in theory, hence the width=x.

So visually, all dimensions of the "circle" are 0, yet the circle theoretically exists, (is this something to do with self-perpetuation, "cogito ergo sum" thinking? I don't know). There can be nothing seen no matter how many times it is magnified, because the magnification will always be x no matter how large it is made, but it will still exist... or will it? I confuse myself.

This is just my way of rationalising some concepts which I don't fully understand, and making some big assumptions based on shaky knowledge. What are the flaws of this idea? Could someone explain some of these things further?
User avatar
Lumina_Flamma
New User
New User
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: Multiple Big Bangs

Post by AtlasDark on Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:51 am
([msg=21296]see Re: Multiple Big Bangs[/msg])

Time is a fabrication, what we perceive as tracking occurrences through utilization of reference points; I assume time is a measurement of progression, a unit that we have conceived as a result of needing to reference the completion or progression of a specific event, and thereby adapt to it.

Additionally, how would we come to the conclusion that 1*10^∞ were to equal 0? If it is multiplied to an infinitesimal exponentiation, we cannot thus conclude that there is any set answer as we would continually add 0's, and thus can conclude that 1*10^∞ != 0, hence the 1.
User avatar
AtlasDark
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: Multiple Big Bangs

Post by Lumina_Flamma on Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:06 pm
([msg=21308]see Re: Multiple Big Bangs[/msg])

AtlasDark wrote:Additionally, how would we come to the conclusion that 1*10^∞ were to equal 0? If it is multiplied to an infinitesimal exponentiation, we cannot thus conclude that there is any set answer as we would continually add 0's, and thus can conclude that 1*10^∞ != 0, hence the 1.

Interesting, I didn't think about it this way...
User avatar
Lumina_Flamma
New User
New User
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: Multiple Big Bangs

Post by novalyphe on Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:41 pm
([msg=21310]see Re: Multiple Big Bangs[/msg])

This is just my way of rationalising some concepts which I don't fully understand, and making some big assumptions based on shaky knowledge. What are the flaws of this idea? Could someone explain some of these things further?


The problem with the concept of infinity is that our brains are only designed to deal with finite stimuli and we can therefore not truly grasp it.

This is very similar to trying to visualize a shape in four dimensions, due to the fact we only perceive three dimensions in our surrounding we are not capable of truly dealing with the task.

As such, to say that 1*10^-∞ = 0 is incorrect, since infinity does not actually represent an actual value and hence cannot be used as you have used it.

You would actually have to write (Can't use the mathematical notation on here so bear with me as I explain in english).

The value of the Equation 1*10^-x approaches 0 as x approaches infinity.

i.e. The limit of 1*10^-x as x approaches infinity is 0.

This also applies to all other equations you used which involve infinity, it cannot be used as a real value as it is undefined in itself.
novalyphe
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:15 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: Multiple Big Bangs

Post by AtlasDark on Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:53 pm
([msg=21315]see Re: Multiple Big Bangs[/msg])

In theory, couldn't we postulate that infinity is an imaginary number? Since it holds no definite numerical value, perhaps it could be some form of implementation of i?
User avatar
AtlasDark
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: Multiple Big Bangs

Post by novalyphe on Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:47 pm
([msg=21317]see Re: Multiple Big Bangs[/msg])

i is the square root of -1, nothing more.

complex numbers don't give us any more power to attempt to represent infinity, all they allow is the use of the square root of negative numbers.

Infinity by definition cannot have a fixed value it's infinite...

Look up limits, infinity plays quite a big part there as you are quite often finding the limit of an equation as a variable approaches infinity. It is important to remember though that the variable can never equal infinity since no value, no matter how large is ever infinite.

still...it could make a black hole and end all of humanity. even if there was the slightest possibility of it i'd not want it, and theres a good possibility they can make a black hole, which is incredibly deadly.


As far as I am aware there is no actual evidence to suggest that a high energy collision could result in the formation of a black hole. If there is any I would be very interested.
novalyphe
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:15 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: Multiple Big Bangs

Post by YayPython on Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:12 am
([msg=21556]see Re: Multiple Big Bangs[/msg])

A complex number of infinity?

0><0i? Yeah. Infinity is a concept, not a mathematical number. You can't really do that.
User avatar
YayPython
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: Multiple Big Bangs

Post by CyborgPirateNinja on Sun Apr 12, 2009 3:41 pm
([msg=21642]see Re: Multiple Big Bangs[/msg])

Ok, I am grabbing dimensions into this too, Just to make it more interesting...
And stick with me for a moment will ya?
It's recommended to view the following vids before reading the rest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySBaYMESb8o


Lets say we have laws of physics we know about.
And he have ones we don't know about.
Are laws of physics created when singularity happens?
And are other dimensions affected too?
In the Garden of Eden sat Adam,
Massaging the bust of his madam,
He chuckled with mirth,
For he knew that on earth,
There were only two boobs and he had 'em.
CyborgPirateNinja
New User
New User
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 3:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


PreviousNext

Return to Math & Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron