Talk of the Day

[Fe]

Well, I hardly knew ya'. So I guess I can't really say much beyond Good luck with everything!

Now then, back on the topic of Cosmology, anyone heard of Null Physics? http://nullphysics.com/ It's pretty interesting. Every physicist/cosmologist/random SOB seems to think it's a bunch of gibberish, though. I was just hoping I could invoke some positive responses from some people (much of it makes perfect sense to me). Anybody have an opinion on this?

And yes, I'm back, whoopedydoo for anyone that cares (hopefully someone)

[Parabox]

Happy birthday, Phazar.

Null Physics is filled with reasoning fallacies at the least.

[Fe]

I guess some of it is a little radical. But the first part used only logic for reasoning, none of that is completely incorrect. It was an interesting book though.

And yes, happy birthday!

[Quietus]

I didn't read past the first three questions.  The answer to those questions is currently 'we don't know', and beyond that anybody trying to provide an answer is a fool.

[Phazar]

Thanks, guys!  And no, I'm still not dead from this site, just had a lot going on.  For example, I just spent my birtdhay at college orientation.  Wow, how did I get here?

[X-tradyte]

Happy Be-lated birfday, sorry I didn't get to ya, yesterday :(.

[Phazar]

Also, I am currently in the process of moving all my hacks and files to my new laptop.  I will be relocating in a few months, and it would be advisable that I take my MetConst work with me.

Edit: Oh, and to Zhs2 and the others who care: I am no longer using IE.  I've finally switched over to Firefox.

[Parabox]

Hey, you got smart!

[Fe]

Even if it is completely wrong (probably, but you can't prove that), it does raise some good questions regarding the big bang theory. Primarily, how can space itself expand into a region already present by definition? And what is it expanding into? Not to mention the time before time problem, which raises questions like: What was there before the big bang? If time was created at one particular instant (big bang), how could it have changed in such a way that requires time itself, if there was no time up until that 'moment'?

[Crashtour99]

These are some of the interesting questions that M Theory tries to answer.
The basic idea is that universes are created through the interactions of super string membranes.  When they collide it results in a big bang type reaction that is instantly divorced into it's own dimensions creating a separate universe.  There was no space or time before the big bang, because our universe didn't exist before that.  Along those lines, space and time are created by the presence of energy and matter, and without those you don't actually have anything.  Even the vacuum of space has a positive pressure because it contains energy and matter (even if it is minute).  If you were to travel to the edge of the universe and try to cross that boundary, it would be like a carrot on a stick, always out of reach because your presence would create spacetime expanding the boundary.

This is of course entirely contingent upon M Theory being true, and as far as I know there isn't any proof that it is except for highly complicated math stuffs.  It takes more than just math to prove a scientific theory.

[snarfblam]

Disclaimer: I know nothing about null physics, have no formal education in theoretical physics, and everything written below is probably incorrect and/or conceptually flawed.

Primarily, how can space itself expand into a region already present by definition?

Xavier, a region exists within space. How does a region exist outside space by definition? And the question of what it is expanding into doesn't necessarily make sense. Many theories speculate that our universe is part of a containing space (one possible kind of multiverse, which you would be inclined to think of as a higher-dimensional p-brane if you are a fan of M-theory), but that's speculation and it's really a matter of how you define space.

Speculation aside, if space is defined as the geometry of our universe, space doesn't need to expand into anything, certainly not a containing space. Expanding space is a matter of space having increasing bounds over time. It's tempting to try and visualize it, but what if you consider it to be something more purely mathematical. Everything has a position within the universe. The range of positions available is increasing. The mechanism by which that happens depends on your mathematical model for the universe, but it does not inherently imply a containing environment.

As for what there was before the big bang, why does there have to be a "before the big bang." Time is a dimension, just like space, and like other dimensions, it isn't "flat." If all the other dimensions curl up into a point at the beginning of time, why should time extend beyond that point? The question "how could it have changed in such a way that requires time itself" implies that time exists in time. That's like thinking of space as existing within space. It seems like a misconception to me. Time and space can vary throughout their own geometry without existing within a higher-dimensional space.

The very idea of that time has a fundamental forward and backward direction seems flawed, IMO. All evidence says that physics is basically symmetrical with respect to time. Virtual particles even treat space as time-like and vice-versa. A reasonable conclusion is that the "arrow of time" is not a fundamental property of the universe or its physics, but rather its contents, and how they vary throughout the universe. We tend to say that entropy increases over time. Maybe a better way of putting it is that time occurs over a gradient of entropy. We observe the big bang as a point of extremely low or possibly zero entropy, hence the beginning of time. (I prefer to think of it as the center of time. Rather than the typical "conical" shape we visualize the universe as having, I find a "spherical" shape to be more attractive).

    Edit: ninja'd by Crashtour!

[Fe]

Maybe I was a little ambiguous in my queries, and I have heard of M-Theory (ever heard of The Elegant Universe?), but a theory that is correct should be a provable theory. Not to say that M-Theory is incorrect. You can't 'disprove' a theory, per se. And I do suppose a Multiverse is possible, but there is no way to truly prove it.

The number of dimensions that constitute some region or universe is how many coordinates are needed to specify a single point in the region or universe. (you should all know this) In our case, it would be four, (x,y,z,t). If the universe was created at some point and defined by the four aforementioned dimensions, how many dimensions constitute the 'region' that was before the universe? M-theory obviously evades this problem, but let's just (hypothetically) say that M-theory is wrong, and there is no Multiverse. Before the universe, was there simply nothing? And I understand bounded or finite dimensionality perfectly well, you just cannot travel beyond the dimensional 'boundaries'. So what you're trying to get at is that you simply cannot pass the temporal boundary of t=0?

[zephyrtronium]

a theory that is correct should be a provable theory.

The things studied in quantum physics are, by their very nature, immeasurable, and therefore quantum physics itself is unprovable.

You can't 'disprove' a theory, per se.

I have a theory that 1 is equal to 2. But I can disprove it because 1 is not equal to 2 by definition.

Thank you, and have a good troll.

[Fe]

Sure. But can you prove that definition correct?

[Parabox]

One could deduce this empirically, if I am not mistaken. By experience we see that we have something we call fingers. There is a certain amount of these fingers. They may not all be the same, but if we generalize them under the moniker of 'finger', we can deduce that there are ten of them.

[Fe]

I can see what you're saying here... but to prove yourself, you must now explain the abstract concept of '10'. For if you cannot explain what a number is or what it means, your argument is invalid.

Yeah, I'm stubborn as a mule in a debate

[Silver Skree]

There are four lights.

[Fe]

Meh, this little debate has dragged on for a few days now... I don't really feel like it anymore...

[Parabox]

We give names to things, it's human nature. We call it ten in English, tien in Dutch, etc. We do this so that we may communicate and thus understand one another, without this no hightened chances of survival, which lies at the base of human instinct.

[FullOfFail]

Had to edit this post due to myself almost going into a seizure.

10x :lol:= :whoa:

[personitis]

Sooooo, looks like  have a trip to Florida's east coast within the month possibly. To add to that, I may also be going to New York City. Anyone nearby?

[Fe]

I'm in eastern Mass. But I doubt you'd want to meet me :S

[snarfblam]

Eastern MA here, too. If you're up for a five hour drive we can totally have a few beers.

[Parabox]

Requiescat in pace, my crazy friend.

[Quietus]

Requiescat in pace, my crazy friend.

If you're goin' with the Latin side, then you can't really follow it with anything, since it's a request - assumedly to some higher power.  It means 'may this person rest in peace', and not just 'rest in peace'.