Theories - Time Travel, Parallel Dimensions, Etc.

[Blobbenstein]

of course topologically speaking, a duck is the same as a sphere. So if we're looking at a 3-duck, I'm not sure what that would mean. Maybe some parts would expand and other parts collapse, depending on the local curvature.

 

[FortyTwo]

Come on, now. That's silly. Everyone knows there isn't a giant blue grid in space.

 

[Blobbenstein]

I do believe that this universe isn't everything, but I don't know what is 'outside'.

We are a bit like the people in flatland, except it is the surface of a sphere, and the surface is 3D.

 

[FortyTwo]

I do believe that this universe isn't everything, but I don't know what is 'outside'.

We are a bit like the people in flatland, except it is the surface of a sphere, and the surface is 3D.

Yeah, I've got to read that at some point.

Also the dimensional hierarchy has little to do with the boundaries of the Universe, but it's an interesting thought.

 

[Blobbenstein]

Last time I looked, there were links to free editions of Flatlands, on the wiki page. But you probably know that. I bought the book anyway, but I haven't read it; read a lot of it at school in one of the lessons, so I remember the gist of it.

 

[FortyTwo]

Last time I looked, there were links to free editions of Flatlands, on the wiki page. But you probably know that. I bought the book anyway, but I haven't read it; read a lot of it at school in one of the lessons, so I remember the gist of it.

Okay when I'm done reading the things I'm reading right now I'm going to either read it online or get it out of the library.

You read something like Flatland in school? That's pretty lucky.

 

[Blobbenstein]

we had things called 'electives' at my school where you could choose what you did for some of the lessons, and I think that that lesson was a science fiction elective, or something. We also read A Pail Full of Air, and watched Dune, although I could have done without Dune.

 

[nog]

It's a firm belief of mine that "time" as we know it doesn't exist.

I think science needs a revolution based on our understanding of time, so I'd kind of agree with you there.

There's just a bunch of matter and a bunch of other stuff and it goes about its business continuously. That's a grossly unscientific sentence right there, but why complicate it?

Yeah, I'm not sure what that means, but I'll just accept it.

I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded part. It seems you were trying to say that the explanation you were previously referring to (the traditional interpretation of the Big Bang model) doesn't satisfactorily answer certain questions about the Universe. Either that, or that there are other explanations which make more sense? For some reason I had difficulty interpreting that sentence, sorry.

I think that was a thought that didn't have time to fully expand in our expanding universe. Perhaps it has something to do with a duck. I don't know.

I meant other possible explanations (to the given evidence that is purported to be evidence of the big bang), that have not been satisfactorily addressed (not answered, since they're not necessarily questions. ).

The primary evidence given in support of the Big Bang model are, observed large scale galactic redshifts, CMB, relative amounts of light elements, observed galactic formations, and the age of the universe.

Unfortunately there are also some issues with the whole model which I think are swept under the rug (like where's the supposed anti-matter, since the theory predicts equal amounts of formation of matter and anti-matter), and what is this dark energy and dark matter (useful to have a 70 to 95% fudge factor to explain away and make the theory fall in line with observed CMB, relative amounts of light elements, observed galactic formations as well as the age of the universe).

As for the first, do you mean to say you don't believe that everything in existence once occupied a much, much, much smaller region than it does today (I mean this in the loosest terms because technically space is space and it's only going to occupy something that's actually in existence, i.e. the Universe), and that you don't believe that it began expanding (NOT outward ) at some point?

I feel like it's not about belief. I don't want to take it there. It's about understanding the observed evidence. For example, what we know is that there is a redshift from distance galaxies. This is interpreted as galaxies moving apart and I am concerned that not unlike that video, people stay with this idea and don't move from it.

While galaxies moving apart (again distant galaxies not nearby ones) is an interpretation, it's still that, an interpretation. It's fine to say, "what if this is what's going on" and then see where that leads. Based on that (along with other interpretations of evidence) we've arrived at the Big Bang Model. However, what if our (scientific consensus) interpretations are wrong? The evidence is where we need to start in order to really understand.

 

[FortyTwo]

Yeah, I'm not sure what that means, but I'll just accept it.

In wordier terms, I believe that the future and past only exist in the loosest sense, based on our experiences as living organisms with the ability to remember events and to plan for things that have not happened yet. The Universe only ever exists in one state, and that's why it'd be impossible to travel to the past.

Kind of like Steven King's The Langoliers except without the ability to go back to the past shadows of the world and, of course, the creatures that eat time.

I think that was a thought that didn't have time to fully expand in our expanding universe. Perhaps it has something to do with a duck. I don't know.

I meant other possible explanations (to the given evidence that is purported to be evidence of the big bang), that have not been satisfactorily addressed (not answered, since they're not necessarily questions. ).

Okay, that makes sense.

The primary evidence given in support of the Big Bang model are, observed large scale galactic redshifts, CMB, relative amounts of light elements, observed galactic formations, and the age of the universe.

Unfortunately there are also some issues with the whole model which I think are swept under the rug (like where's the supposed anti-matter, since the theory predicts equal amounts of formation of matter and anti-matter), and what is this dark energy and dark matter (useful to have a 70 to 95% fudge factor to explain away and make the theory fall in line with observed CMB, relative amounts of light elements, observed galactic formations as well as the age of the universe).

I agree with you there. Perhaps the continued research of subatomic particles will explain some of that mess.

I feel like it's not about belief. I don't want to take it there. It's about understanding the observed evidence. For example, what we know is that there is a redshift from distance galaxies. This is interpreted as galaxies moving apart and I am concerned that not unlike that video, people stay with this idea and don't move from it.

While galaxies moving apart (again distant galaxies not nearby ones) is an interpretation, it's still that, an interpretation. It's fine to say, "what if this is what's going on" and then see where that leads. Based on that (along with other interpretations of evidence) we've arrived at the Big Bang Model. However, what if our (scientific consensus) interpretations are wrong? The evidence is where we need to start in order to really understand.

I guess I can see what you're saying with this. As in, people are ignoring some of the most important pieces of the picture, slapping a label on it, and calling it done?

We definitely don't know even a fraction of what there is to know, and we probably never will.

 

[nog]

I guess I can see what you're saying with this. As in, people are ignoring some of the most important pieces of the picture, slapping a label on it, and calling it done?

Yeah. Plus if there's an issue, just use a band-aid and move on (I know this is a gross exaggeration, there are reasons why people come to the conclusions they do). I simply take issue with the level of complexity and assumptions necessary for the Big Bang Model..

We have inflationary theory to explain issues with the CMB (yet I thought the CMB was supposed to be evidence for the Big Bang, yet to be evidence, we have to make up something and fudge numbers for it to be). Or symmetry violations and baryon number not being conserved to account for the missing anti-matter.

What about dark matter and even further dark energy, two items we know nothing about other than it explains some piece of evidence that we don't fully understand. Let's invent something that we don't really know the properties of to explain something we don't really understand. To me, that doesn't make sense.

The list goes on.

It's not a tidy theory that we can easily look at the list of assumptions, it's complex and every time I read deeper or come to a question I realize there's another assumption. Yet it's often portrayed as being really simple and explaining what we see (most notably the redshift of distant galaxies, the CMB, etc).

We definitely don't know even a fraction of what there is to know, and we probably never will.

I don't know about you, but I don't even know a decimal of what there is to know. I haven't even gotten to the point of not knowing a fraction of what there is to know.

 

[FortyTwo]

Yeah. Plus if there's an issue, just use a band-aid and move on (I know this is a gross exaggeration, there are reasons why people come to the conclusions they do). I simply take issue with the level of complexity and assumptions necessary for the Big Bang Model..

We have inflationary theory to explain issues with the CMB (yet I thought the CMB was supposed to be evidence for the Big Bang, yet to be evidence, we have to make up something and fudge numbers for it to be). Or symmetry violations and baryon number not being conserved to account for the missing anti-matter.

What about dark matter and even further dark energy, two items we know nothing about other than it explains some piece of evidence that we don't fully understand. Let's invent something that we don't really know the properties of to explain something we don't really understand. To me, that doesn't make sense.

The list goes on.

It's not a tidy theory that we can easily look at the list of assumptions, it's complex and every time I read deeper or come to a question I realize there's another assumption. Yet it's often portrayed as being really simple and explaining what we see (most notably the redshift of distant galaxies, the CMB, etc).

I don't know about you, but I don't even know a decimal of what there is to know. I haven't even gotten to the point of not knowing a fraction of what there is to know.

Yes to all of this.

I think.

Either that or I'm too tired to form a coherent response.

 

[Blobbenstein]

I think it is worth looking for dark matter, just in case it is actually a form of matter.

 

[nog]

I think it is worth looking for dark matter, just in case it is actually a form of matter.

I agree.

My issues are more just with the Big Bang Model.

What about time traveling parallel 3-ducks?

 

[Blobbenstein]

 

[nog]

For awhile I thought the Pioneer anomaly and Hubble's Law might be linked.

 

[nog]

I've also thought about that if there really is an expansion of space, why don't we also talk about the corresponding contraction of time (not unlike the opposite in relativity of time dilation and length contraction)? Since if time is contracting, maybe that's why it seems like time goes faster the older I am.

 

[Blobbenstein]

does anyone know, if when things go faster the length contraction is matched by a width expansion, so if a ball were to go close to the speed of light it would appear to flatten out like a ball of dough......I wondered this partly as the wave function would have to maintain the same 'volume' sort of although I know that that spreads out indefinitely.

Also I have wondered, if the wave function were to spread out indefinitely across a 3-sphere, then it would come back t0 the start, but billions of years later, if it weren't for the expansion of the universe. I have wondered if dark matter were some product of delayed passed wave functions.

 

[Blobbenstein]

I suppose the sum total of a wave function probability thing is 1? I'm unsure of such things......but would it have to equal 1 across space at all times? Maybe that is why things have momentum.....if you move an object then that send out a change in shape of the wave function at the speed of light, and maybe that change in shape of wave function comes back and make the object appear to move further, which again causes a shape of the wave function to move off a c, and with this repeat pattern, an object appears to keep going, and appears to have momentum.

 

[nog]

does anyone know, if when things go faster the length contraction is matched by a width expansion,

According to Relativity, there is only length contraction along the direction the object is moving. There is no associated change along other dimensions.

so if a ball were to go close to the speed of light it would appear to flatten out like a ball of dough......I wondered this partly as the wave function would have to maintain the same 'volume' sort of although I know that that spreads out indefinitely.

I'm not really sure what you mean by the wave function would have to maintain the same 'volume.'

 

[Blobbenstein]

I'm not really sure what you mean by the wave function would have to maintain the same 'volume.'

well I'm not really read up that much on wave functions, but could it be said that say x percent of the wave function would form a ball...Like the chance of finding a particle is 10% within volume Q, where Q is a sphere? Depending on whether the object was moving maybe.


eta: and at close to the speed of light Q would be a flattened ball, with the same volume.


someone on another forum agree with this, and said it was one case where QM and relativity agreed, but then other people said it wasn't so..