Cosmology

[Koliedrus]

If you're interested and wish to discuss it, I'm game. Otherwise ignore this and go about your business.

I suppose I should start by sidestepping the obvious reference to "cosmetology". If you thought that when you loaded the thread, kiss my ass while I strain. (Sorry, it happens far too often. The reference, not the straining. No wait, that's wrong, I'm regular so...)

In order to get you up to speed, I'll have to include this link :
http://www.sciam.com/2001/0101issue/0101peebles.html

Smoke 'em, drink 'em, do what you do.

I'm gonna get smashed and try to make sense of the recent theories and potential findings as time permits. You do the same (as you see fit) and post your opinions and questions.

Have a good holiday!

------------------
Character is like a fence - it cannot be strengthened by whitewash.

[KiwiTrip]

but i dont wear makeup http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/frown.gif

hee hee hee.. just kidding.. i couldnt resist..

[Zombie]

I'm interested in stuff like this, but I don't know enough about to even be called ignorant about it. I'm fascinated by the search for life out there. I was reading about scientists finding organisms 10 miles up in the atmosphere and how everybody is arguing whether or not they can be terrestrial in origin. Cool stuff!

[Koliedrus]

Here's one that's had be stumped for quite some time...

I'll have to regurgitate some "facts" and ask that you take my word that they are indeed the truth.

We live in a universe with four obvious dimensions:

1) Up/Down
2) Left/Right
3) Forward/Back
4) Time

Easy so far, yes?

In your mind, stretch out a sheet or rubber and put an apple in the middle.

The curve of the rubber sheet represents the affect of a massive object on the fabric of Space/Time (minus one dimension)

Now, here's where I'll need you to take certain established physical laws for granted... (e=m*c^2)

The closer your proximity to a massive object in space, the slower the progression of time.

In other words, if you headed out in a spaceship and fell into a close orbit around a neutron star and I had a really good telescope, I could look through the window of your spaceship as it zoomed around the star and it would seem to me as though you were on "pause". From YOUR perpective, though, I would look like I was in Fast Forward.

Proximity to a MASSIVE object has an effect on the observer's perspective of time.

Hopefully, you have enough information to share my quandry. Here goes...

When the Universe was young, all matter and energy was confined to a small space.

If we could take a bubble of our current space/time back to the first few moments of creation, would the gravitational density of the Universe allow us to see quantum particles interract as if they were in slow motion?

Edit: Thought I had the answer. I was wrong. The quandry remains.

[This message has been edited by Koliedrus (edited 12-28-2000).]

[Zombie]

If I understood your question correctly, my guess is the answer is no...the proximity to the desity of both yourself and the bubble of our time/space would be relatively the same as right here/now because of the simple fact that both you and the bubble would have to exist in the same time/space for you to observe the quantum particles, therefore the proximity of the density of all that compressed matter/energy would be having the same effect on you and the bubble simultaneously. Frames of reference and all that.

[Koliedrus]

I'll be damned, Zombie! You're close http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/smile.gif

The problem is that the hypothetical bubble needs to be completely self contained in this thought experiment.

Think of the bubble as a spacecraft. All external forces and negated by the membrane.

Let's say we take it back to BANG +500k years.

I have a problem thinking that time progressed at the same speed then as it does now.

Good bullshit! You're an artist, poet, musician or potential lawyer.
Either way it looks like your brain works http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/smile.gif


------------------
Character is like a fence - it cannot be strengthened by whitewash.

[Koliedrus]

Let me try this again while the thought is still fresh.

The speed of light may be the speed limit for matter and energy within the confines of our space/time but the rate of the expansion of the universe is not limitted to c.

From the looks of current theory, the universe experienced (or is currently experiencing) a phase of rapid expansion. It that's true, the visible edge of the universe is only a fraction of its actual radius.

I'm starting to get a handle on Quintessence and how it might effectively replace the Cosmological Constant. I don't have the math to back it up but the space/time bubble thought experiment fits in some ways and fails in others. If the expansion proceeds at a constant rate while the progression of time depends on the density of matter and energy then the ...

Shit! I lost my train of thought!!


Oh well. My little girl is back asleep. The universe can wait.

[Koliedrus]

Throwing out a carrot for Spaceboy.

Here Spacey Spacey Spacey!

[Zombie]

My question is this:

Density (or rather the byproduct of gravity) can alter the trajectory of light, curve it and such, but I was under the impression that motion was the thing that altered time, i.e. the closer you come to the speed of light, the slower time goes. In other words, density/gravity in and of itself has no effect on timeflow, yes?

If this is the case, would this not nullify your entire question? Unless the universe is slowing down as it expands, time would be constant no matter what your relative position in time or space to the big poof.

[Koliedrus]

Originally posted by Zombie:
My question is this:

Density (or rather the byproduct of gravity) can alter the trajectory of light, curve it and such, but I was under the impression that motion was the thing that altered time, i.e. the closer you come to the speed of light, the slower time goes. In other words, density/gravity in and of itself has no effect on timeflow, yes?

If this is the case, would this not nullify your entire question? Unless the universe is slowing down as it expands, time would be constant no matter what your relative position in time or space to the big poof.



A good question indeed.

The reason the theory is entitled "Relativity" is because matter, energy and motion are all relative. Using the famous equation, you could (given the proper technology) convert a kitchen match into enough energy to lift Mt. Everest and hold it suspended above the Earth for a period of time.

An extremely massive object (such as a neutron star or black hole) changes space/time. Notice that I use space and time in the same sentence.

It's true that an object's local time slows as it approaches the speed of light. It's also true that its MASS increases as the cosmic speed-limit is approached.

Hopefully, you can see that velocity through space and stationary masses have equal influence on the fabric of time. One of the most pronounced issues of e=mc^2 is that a small object requires infinite energy and acquires infinite mass when accelerated to the speed of light.

The Twin Paradox is a good example of how velocity approaching c alters time. My question deals with proximity to a massive object (in this case, the specific density of the universe at Bang+500k years).

Time DOES move at different rates depending on velocity approaching c and/or proximity to a mass that creates a substantial gravity well.

As another example, consider that you are in a spaceship that is between Sol and Alpha Centauri A. Your ship isn't getting closer to or farther from either star. In essence, your position in space stationary relative to the two most massive objects in your vicinity. You also have a set atomic clocks that give you accurate times for Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.

Mars-time will move a tad slower than yours because of the mass of the planet. Earth-time will be slower still. Saturn and Jupiter-times will be substantially slower.

Now, imagine that one of your clocks was linked to another that's deep in the gravity-well of Cygnus X-1 (a black hole). Your local clock would continue to click off the seconds while the clock at Cygnus would click off a second every few years (relative to your local flow of time).


Thanks for the brainburn, Zombie. Continue.



[This message has been edited by Koliedrus (edited 01-06-2001).]

[King Bastard]

I still get muddled by the thought of an object moving faster towards c, gaining mass til it hits infinity, yet never collapsing back in onto itself. Am I stupid or ignorant here?

Another layman's observation: Light particles....

how in the hell can something that is actually moving at c not rip thru whatever it hits? Just going off of things I know to be true. A bullet gets fired from a gun, accelerates to it's target, and penetrates if possible. Sol fires off particle X, which accelerates towards Terra, yet gets deflected by the atmosphere shifting it into the blue spectrum. At least that why I was told the sky is blue....

Damn, now my head hurts as well.

------------------
I'm a firm beliver in a ruling class, especially since I rule: Randall Graves-Clerks

[Koliedrus]

Originally posted by King Bastard:
I still get muddled by the thought of an object moving faster towards c, gaining mass til it hits infinity, yet never collapsing back in onto itself. Am I stupid or ignorant here?



One thought at a time, please http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/wink.gif

Relativity dictates that a particle (mass) CANNOT attain the velocity of c. That's why c is the cosmic speed limit. No one here can figure out how to pass it.

It would take infinite energy to accellerate even the smallest particle to the speed of light. If you can work out what happens from there, I'm all ears.

As for blue skies, you'll have to put that in Lessons so I won't lose it.



[This message has been edited by Koliedrus (edited 01-07-2001).]

[The Rapist]

If I remember my quantum theory, then all time exists in the here and now. The same is to be said for quantum matter, that the postulate is that all possible quantum states are present all at one time. If we were able to reduce down to the level of quantum foam, then we would indeed be able to view all of history, through all its bifurcations at any one time. Interesting that IBM has now developed a quantum chip that allows for calculations to be made using the quantum state of two particles, that only exist in theory. If I can find the link, I will post it.
"One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small..."

[Koliedrus]

Point taken, Rapist. Well put.

My confusion stems from my own inability to grasp certain concepts of space/time. If I try to imagine the "Big Picture" I always fail. No matter how hard I try to incorporate multiple dimensions into my view of "now", I end up in Flatland.

In my mind, I can take a time-machine back to the early years of the universe. Since time flows faster in our current epoch, I can imagine quantum interactions happening in slow motion as I examine the early stages of existence.

My problem is one of perception. I don't question the mechanics of reality as we understand it. I DO have trouble superimposing our current timeframe atop that of the early years of the universe.

"Any questions?"

"Yes, but I don't know what to ask!"

"Join the club."

[Zombie]

All of this begs the question:

If you had two people, one a skinny little waif, the other a rotund sumo wrestler, both wearing the handy-dandy Acme Atomic Clock-Watch (accurate to the nth degree, water-proof and shock-absorbent, too) and both watches synchronized to precisely the same exact time...

...put the waif on a stool and have her sit calmly, while the wrestler jumps on a nearby bullet train and rides for one hour, ending up at the point where he left..

...the two compare watches. Would the time be different now?

[Koliedrus]

Pffft. Naw, man. It's 7:54. Oh wait. Now it's 7:55! I'm spooked!

Actually it's been tested and confirmed. One clock remained on the ground and the other went in an airplane. The difference was miniscule but measurable.

[The Rapist]

Should space/time travel ever be realistic, I shall choose returning to this country 500 years ago, way before any whiteman or attorney stepped foot on this soil. I would enjoy the pristine beauty of virgin land and little to no idiots for thousands of miles. The nice thing about wilderness, is that stupidity is quickly dispatched by any passing cougar, bear, Indian, badger, etc. Something that civilization has yet to find an accurate solution for. I am still looking for that link to the IBM computer.

[King Bastard]

Just dont drop your disposeable lighter if ya do. I read a really good Heavy Metal story that had a spin in it like that, twas good stuff.

------------------
I'm a firm beliver in a ruling class, especially since I rule: Randall Graves-Clerks

[River Rat]

The nice thing about wilderness, is that stupidity is quickly dispatched by any passing cougar, bear, Indian, badger, etc. Something that civilization has yet to find an accurate solution for. .[/B]

That is absolutely fucking brilliant http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

Truth


Unfortunately all of this mathematics mumbo jumbo is way over my head. I therefore can give no coherent or intelligent response to the actual topic. Other than to say time travel fascinates me to no end.

[Koliedrus]

Digging for perspective. Note the post dates.

Still searching...

------------------
Oyster-brain in a cookie jar.

[Skywalker]

*malfunctions*

i have become obsolete
-end transmision

------------------
"Do or do not. There is no try..."

[Dog Breath]

I think the biggest confusion exists around the "speed of light" (c).
This cosmic speed limit is an illusion in my opinion. If light travels at a fixed speed then the light shining from behind us in our course of motion would not be light from our perspective. As we travel through space we would only be able to see ahead and a great dark abyss would follow us. If you look up you see stars all around. We are traveling in some direction. Why can we see the "light from the stars behind us.
I think the uncertainty principle explains why light is only measured at one speed. I think higher speed light shows itself to us by appearing as a different frequency of light. Red light being the slowest and violet being faster gamma rays being the fastest measurable at hundreds the speed of light.
Light is the highest speed we can measure not the fastest speed there is. In my opinion velocity is relative and infinite.
The Michelson experiments designed to detect and prove the existence of "the ether" showed light travels the same speed in the direction the earth rotates as it does against the rotation of the earth. logically one photon was traveling 800 mph faster than the other (800 mph = approx earth rotation???).
If you fire two photons at each other they collide at twice the speed of light. It is still all relative. At the speed of light matter appears to be pure energy at any rate above it it still remains energy and we can not measure it's speed greater than (c).

------------------
Woof.
If it's so sick, why are you laughing?
<IMG SRC="http://sites.netscape.net/mydogbreath/dogbre2.gif" border=0>