universatile

Kharakov,

that was the best Ive heard it explained scientifically yet. Curious-when you say the matter was always there does that mean it had not beggining and has no ending? Would you say then that time is more circular than linear, eating its tail?
Any good books on that?
thanks

Kharakov

Universatile-

I just meant there was a constant amount of matter/energy- maybe even an infinite amount. I was referring to the cycle of destruction and reformation of galaxies, and/or whole areas of the universe.

Time is linear- although in an infinite amount of progression it is possible that the same pattern could form twice. I believe that it is unlikely for the exact same pattern to form twice because of all the factors involved.

No books on that, it might even be false. I re-read QED by Richard Feynman 4 or 5 days ago. This lead me to put together the idea of high energy photon decay into an antiparticle/particle pair in the midst of many such occurences (tons of pairs forming and annihilating eachother in a very dense soup) and I realized that even without CP violation that it should be possible for certain groups of material to form (antimatter concentrated areas/ matter concentrated areas) into larger groups. I also realized that some of the matter (or antimatter) would have to be isolated from the rest of the matter, maybe in a black hole.

This lead me to speculate as to how the matter could all escape the black hole at once, and spread out to form a galaxy or section of the universe. I said to myself- hey, what if the opposite form of matter (antimatter for matter...) in a galaxy (or section of the universe) somehow ended up either in seperate sections of the universe, or in a black hole? This matter would eventually all meet up in a central black hole- cancel itself out into pure photons, which are massless energy. Walla- no black hole anymore- and lots of photons spreading out ala big bang.

Just maybe- if the matter from the last big bang spreads out far enough- it is going to start running into matter from other big bangs. And eventually, somewhere, a whole large chunk of matter is gonna cancel itself out again. <boom>

-k

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Kharakov ]</p>

John Page

My mind is still reeling from the speed of gravity link you posted - I guess the conclusion is the speed of gravity from an intertial frame of reference in the context of LR/SR. It provoked some thoughts:

1. Why do we need to have "something" (waves/particles) involved in creating action at a distance? I guess we always seek the "how" after observing "what".
2. It seems we naturally tend to a mental model of "instantaneous" events that are merely synchronous.
3. If gravity travels faster than light, does that result in light traveling backwards in time wrt gravity's frame of reference?
4. From your response to unitile above, what proof do we have that Newton's "conservation" of stuff really applies universally? Is this just a mental model we have ended up with because our minds seek causality?
5. Here's a link to the <a href="http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1958/press.html" target="_blank">Cerenkov Effect</a> posted in the Science forum. This seems to beg the question that just because we can't detect things going faster than light doesn't show they can't exist (which is why I was so interested in you gravity link).

Fascinating, Thanks, John

Shadowy Man

I think a few things need to be said at this point.

Kharakov: A constant cycle of galaxy formation and destruction is an interesting concept, but how would this theory explain, for example, the cosmic microwave background?

John Page: Be careful about reading too much into that article about the speed of gravity. It was written by Tom Van Flandern, a person whose theories (which include, but not limited to, an exploding planet explaining the asteroid belt, quasars not being distant objects, artificiality of the face on mars, etc.) are *highly* criticized by many members of the scientific community.
Not that having outlandish theories makes him necessarily wrong, but neither does having a Ph.D. in astrophysics make him right.

Also, Cerenkov radiation is created by an object moving through a medium faster than light propagates through that medium. The object is still not moving faster than c.

John Page

Thanks for the warning - I found it interesting but have to rely on others scrutiny for its scientific validity.

Cheers, John

Kharakov

John-

1. There is always a cause , with infinite regression of course.

2,3. Gravity is theorized to be the actual distortion of spacetime caused by matter, so it doesn't actually travel- it is actually a part of the matter. So I agree that gravitation is better termed as synchronous.

My theory as to why matter is attracted to other matter has to do with the fact that even in the smallest particles of matter, there is constant movement- so the exchange of particles averages out in the direction of the gravitational distortion of spacetime.


4. I don't believe in absolute proofs, and agree that it could just be a mental framework based upon the fact that many of our minds seek causality. I do think that causality is a potentially useful error in our interpretation of the physical universe.

5. I don't know if "spooky action at a distance" (quantum entanglement) counts as faster than light travel, and someone else posted a response to the Cerenkov Effect. I am agnostic as to whether anything will ever be discovered that propagates faster than the speed of light.

-k

Kharakov

If there is an approximate synchronicity in the events of galactic collapse/reformation it could explain the cmb.

There is the possibility that there are many big bangs and eventually the matter from our big bang will combine with matter from other big bangs and possibly cancel out other black holes.

The matter from our big bang could collapse into the central point of gravitation of the known universe, cancel out the antimatter and reform the universe once again. However, popular opinion states that the universe is in a state of accelerating expansion- which makes it more likely that there is matter outside the known universe that is attracting our matter. This goes back to my previous statement that there is the possibility of many big bangs occuring, and eventually meeting and reforming to create additional big bangs.

-k

Kharakov

Thanks for the warning, I still enjoyed the article that he wrote and he is correct about the angle of sunlight reaching the earth vs. the angle of the sun's gravitation being off by 20 arc seconds, which is the example I used the article for.

-k

John Page

++k:

I'm not sure. Consider a cascade of succesive events, some of which result in no cause. We can never detect this if the only way we can perceive events is when they have an effect on (cause) something else.

In this way, one can imagine a partially causeless universe that (under my causal theory of cognition) we can never know. And hey, we arrive at a universe that doesn't need an apriori cause, it just happens.

I know I'm playing with definitions a bit here but we might use the human condition to explain apparent conundrums in physics.

Cheers, John

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

universatile

I am having trouble envisioning a linear cycle. I can describe one linearly. (A circle is even to linear for me, I believe that cycles occur in the 3 dimensions, so a cycle as we percieve it would therefore be spherical.)
Do you mean to say that a process of destruction and reformation occurs on a galactic level, but not an entire universal level? Would this mean that Time is relative only to the perameter of its own cycle of destruction and regeneration, occuring at different speeds in different parts of the universe?

thanks

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: universatile ]</p>