or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › ScientificusUK
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ScientificusUK

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
First off, this is not a thread on Evolution or problems with scientific theory. Lets not go there and I don't want to hear it.

As most of you know, Im not a trained scientist, but have read a few things, and understand most of it, I have been thinking the last few days about the 'nature' of the universe.

I've had a profound thought, and maybe someone could either confirm i'm insane or a genius

I was thinking - what would the universe actually be, if I looked at it from its own point of view, rather than mine.

What would Einsteins theory of relativity mean to a photon?

consider - at the speed of light (c) we know from experiments, that distance is reduced to zero, and there is no time. So since the big-bang, which occured +/- 14 billion years ago to 'us', - in actuality if I was a photon, this occured exactly 0 seconds ago.

Now consider that 'we' measure the known universe as 30 billion light years across, but what is this distance to a photon. Exacly 0.

Now - we know from big-bang theory, that at one point, all the mass of the universe was in one place, and that something caused the expansion we see today.

BUT - from the POV of a photon, there has been no expansion, because the distances from its own perspective is still 0, just like from its perspective this happend 0 time ago.

Now, consider that for distances and time to become 'perceivable' as opposed to 0, then something must be travelling slower than c for 'us' to perceive it as spacial and within time. As we are part of this stuff that is travelling slower than c, we would perceive it.

So I propose (and this is where I dont want to be misunderstood by the nutjobs) that the Big-bang may not have been an expansion of the space, but was infact a change in velocity of some of the matter, slowing down from c, to give the 'appearance' of time and distances.

And as it continues to slow down relative to c, this is why we perceive the universe as expanding.

And this is where it gets interesting - Take Schrodingers quantum entanglement problem. Wouldn't this problem be solved, if infact there is no distance between the two photons regardless of where they are in the universe - because after all there is no time or distance as perceived by the photons, so communication between the two is instant from their POV (because they are still in the same place at the same time), and therefore doesn't require backwards time travel communication or spooky magic, But infact, we only perceive it as a mystery, because we are travelling slower than c, so it is 'us' that 'perceive' a 'non existant' distance and time.

Now take the mystery dark matter/energy we cannot detect. We know it must be there because the state of the universe we perceive means it must be there. But what if dark matter was simply the 'energy loss' of a system (universe) that is running down, thus causing matter to decelerate from c. Dark matter wouldn't really exist, which is why we can't detect it - But is actually the difference between the total energy of the universe if everything was at c (at the big-bang event), and what the universe actually is as we see it now with some matter slowed down.

Consider the models of the universe that have 21 dimensions. All but 3 supposedly curled up into an infinitely small space. A major brain-fuck. But we could explain this, if all the distances are actually 0 for every dimension, and we only perceive time and distance because in our 4 dimesions, there is matter travelling slower than c, while in all the other dimensions, everything travels at c, thus there is no space or time in the other dimensions.

Consider, IIRC no-one knows the mechanics of the propogation of EMR. But we could explain this if there is no actual movement of EMR in space, but we only perceived it as such because we are composed of stuff travelling slower than c.

So in a nutshell, the size of the universe is actually 0, it was created and 'expires' in 0 time, but size and time seems real to 'us' because we are slowing down from c.

PS. I've been drinking, it's past my bedtime, and I havn't read a science book for about 4 years - Thats my excuse anyway.
post #2 of 13
Re: Photon

You've got it sort of. Photons cannot see each other the way we see, well, each other. They are in fact separated by distances and spooky action at a distance takes into consideration that their communication can only travel at the speed of light and is thus not instantaneous.

Re: Everything else.

Dark matter is much more easily conceived as matter (such as neutrons) which neither emit nor absorb light and hence are dark. The need for dark matter comes about based upon the observation that stars on the outskirts of galaxies have much faster rotational velocities than would be expected by any theory of gravitation currently accepted.


I prefer to think that we don't understand time or forces at small scales. This comes with its own bias against the big bang. Honestly, I think given its history that it is simply a means of throwing scientific jargon at the Judeo-Christian creation story and has no basis in reality, but that is neither here nor there.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #3 of 13
um... coool? i think im a lil lost??? a matter fact we talked about the universe and the speed of light... but more so if there were twins, one was on earth, and the other out in space traveling close to the speed of light (c), b/c no one can travel at c but can close to it. and when they're traveling close to it time actually slows down. with this said, the twin traveling close to c ages slower and is physically younger then their twin on earth who aged faster...

and yea.. that was the gist of it... more or less... it was the point of the story...
Lone Wolf
Reply
Lone Wolf
Reply
post #4 of 13
Basically you seem to be saying that if scientists want to make leaps in thinking about quantum theory (as you have done) than they should spend their lives half pissed.
Core 2 Duo 24" iMac, 1 TB, 4 GB ram, Snow Leopard; 2 x 1.5 TB external seagates; Epson R390 Photo printer; Fuji Xerox C1110 laser; Epson 3490 scanner; 64 GB 3G iPad; a tolerant wife
Reply
Core 2 Duo 24" iMac, 1 TB, 4 GB ram, Snow Leopard; 2 x 1.5 TB external seagates; Epson R390 Photo printer; Fuji Xerox C1110 laser; Epson 3490 scanner; 64 GB 3G iPad; a tolerant wife
Reply
post #5 of 13
I am digging your solution to quantum entanglement. They are next to each other, and therefore there is nothing spooky about their entanglement.

Hmm.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #6 of 13
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
I am digging your solution to quantum entanglement. They are next to each other, and therefore there is nothing spooky about their entanglement.

Hmm.

I'm happy someone understood!

Remember who told you first - I may not amount to much in life, but in 20,30,50 years, when science catches up with me, remember that crazy sun-god guy on a Mac forum who solved the problem of the universe - while pissed

Here's to the crazy ones!
post #7 of 13
But their entanglement cannot travel faster than the speed of light in any frame.

Ah well... what does the good scientist know?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #8 of 13
I've thought for a long time that there is no time or space, but that they're just the language that the singularity mumbles to itself in. I think the universe is one, or zero, it doesn't matter. And it always has been and always will be. But it's not made of anything, and it's made of everything, and that's fucking boring. This time and space deal is a hallucination, stretching out a singularity in weird ways, squinting at the same point of light to see if it wiggles.

As for the universe losing energy, where would it go? Energy isn't lost, it's dissipated. Dark Matter is a mathmatical fudge IMHO. These numbers don't line up. The observations must be off!! Yeah.

--B
...


...
Reply
...


...
Reply
post #9 of 13
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
But their entanglement cannot travel faster than the speed of light in any frame.

Ah well... what does the good scientist know?

but the problem IIRC is that if you take 2 photons and they spread out over the entire width of the universe, if you tamper, measure or observe the state of one, you have by default tamperered with the other one at the same time. That is by far faster than light, it's instant, IIRC, this is currently resolved by having 'information' travel backwards in time at the speed of light from the first photon, to the second, so its state is altered concurrently. The whole shebang coined the phrase spooky action.

The problem is, I don't accept time travel backwards, even though theoretically the equasion is symetrical.

So I tried to think of a way there is no conflict.

You should remember that I am not a Scientist, and you should take my drunken ramblings with a bucketfull of salt
post #10 of 13
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bergz


As for the universe losing energy, where would it go? Energy isn't lost, it's dissipated. Dark Matter is a mathmatical fudge IMHO. These numbers don't line up. The observations must be off!! Yeah.

--B

I think the energy dissipates into one of the other 18 dimensions that must have existed at the beginning that later curled up into a small space. The total energy released in the big bang is always the same for the entire universe, but it is gradually being transferred to other dimensions we have no knowledge of - this is why we can predict alot of missing energy, ie dark matter, but we cannot account for it. If the radiation in these dimensions is always travelling at c, then because of my hypothesis above, they will always stay at 0 size.
post #11 of 13
Thread Starter 
BTW, if the energy transferrs to other dimensions, eventually all the energy will be transferred, because it is as pure radiation, the size of this dimension will be 0 according to my hypothesis, and there will be no time. But then we have exactly the same conditions as the big-bang we know, so the whole process will start over again. Therefore the universe is infinite.
post #12 of 13
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
but the problem IIRC is that if you take 2 photons and they spread out over the entire width of the universe, if you tamper, measure or observe the state of one, you have by default tamperered with the other one at the same time. That is by far faster than light, it's instant, IIRC, this is currently resolved by having 'information' travel backwards in time at the speed of light from the first photon, to the second, so its state is altered concurrently. The whole shebang coined the phrase spooky action.

The problem is, I don't accept time travel backwards, even though theoretically the equasion is symetrical.

So I tried to think of a way there is no conflict.

You should remember that I am not a Scientist, and you should take my drunken ramblings with a bucketfull of salt

It doesn't occur at the same time. Everyone hypothesizes that it occurs at the speed of light.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #13 of 13
E=MC2

This means that it does not take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a particle to the speed of light, just a lot.

Inversly it also means that a particle travelling at the speed of light does not experience time as zero, merely very damn slowly (we need a physicist to tell us how slow).
Core 2 Duo 24" iMac, 1 TB, 4 GB ram, Snow Leopard; 2 x 1.5 TB external seagates; Epson R390 Photo printer; Fuji Xerox C1110 laser; Epson 3490 scanner; 64 GB 3G iPad; a tolerant wife
Reply
Core 2 Duo 24" iMac, 1 TB, 4 GB ram, Snow Leopard; 2 x 1.5 TB external seagates; Epson R390 Photo printer; Fuji Xerox C1110 laser; Epson 3490 scanner; 64 GB 3G iPad; a tolerant wife
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AppleOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › ScientificusUK