|
Post by Neo Stella on Nov 7, 2003 9:45:01 GMT
Al, I noticed the ads appearing and put it down to a key word or phrase triggering them. This world wide web system is evolving as is everything else. I remember reading once (can't remember where) "Whatever you focus your mind on, expands." This is similar to what Einstein said about the mind, once expanded never returns to its original dimensions.
Also, like almost everything, science has two sides to it. On the one hand it expands our knowledge of the physical universe, on the other hand it limits our ability to understand its meaning.
|
|
Sven Golly
Moving
"In the night you hide from the madman you're longing to be"
Posts: 800
|
Post by Sven Golly on Nov 7, 2003 23:10:25 GMT
Hey MM, is he full of crap? Why hasn't someone already thought of his theory?
|
|
|
Post by madscientist on Nov 8, 2003 9:55:13 GMT
;D Greeting chaps,
Al, just boned up on a couple of bits, made bit of an oops on the black hole front. They can produce matter, but not from light. In theory (they all say that don't they!) matter and anti matter pop into existence from nothing all over the place but anhialate each other almost immediately. However if this occurs next to a black hole one on the constituents can be dragged off over the event horizon before the destruction can take place.
Next bit. Any creation of matter would be more energetic than the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) which is detected as fluctuations of 1000ths of degrees Kelvin around 3 Kelvin and would thus be detected (there are or have been space probes to detect most of the EM spectrum from Gamma to x-ray to UV to Vis to IR to Near IR to mm to sub mm to microwave and also radio on earth, so I'm pretty sure that it would not have been missed. Also the rate of creation would be pretty impressive to preserve the balance. Good old Einstein postulated that matter and energy are interchangable thus there should be some way to turn EM radiaton created in fusion in stars and other physical processes such as accretion disks around black holes, supernova etc back into matter to be 'reburnt' in stars to continue generating energy. Again this is possible but it requires very high energy EM. In a process called pair production an gamma ray (usually emitted from spontaneous fusion or in a nuclear reactor/bomb) looses energy as it decelerates during interaction with an atomic nucleus. If the gamma ray has energy greater than 1.022MeV then an electron positron pair are created (which usually anhialate each other and generate a distinctive pair of gamma rays of 0.511Mev). For this to be effective it would have to happen to every gamma ray around a black hole, and for every electron positron pair to split before anhialation and for the positrons to be drawn in to the black hole and not the electron!. Right, it is also seen in space that the energy generated by energetic processesgenerally looses energy by 'warming up' the surrounding space, be it gamma rays heating accresion disks to release x-rays or UV from proto stars heating proto planetary disks to emit in the IR...it goes on. Also non of the processes can completely be 100% efficient as we can see the universe i.e. light from these processes reaches us to see (and any one/thing else in the universe that may be watching). This is basically boiling down to the second law of thermodynamics which, if you get to the point, states that you can't get something for nothing (no perpetual motion machines...). So, do I think the universe will go on forever? Not at the moment. There were three possible outcomes for the universe depending on the density of matter: 1: It will expand for a bit then collapse in on itself, the big crunch.
2: It will expand forever but at an ever decreasing state
or
3: Will expand an accelerate away faster and faster.
1 is pretty self explanatory.
2 means that the universe will run out of fuel and all that will be left are black holes that swan about eating light and rock (although that does not necessarily mean the end for you n me as it is possible with very big and clever machines wot don't exist here yet to extract energy from a spinning black hole). (then again it might be at this point that the black holes start to evaporate, but into what I do not know!).
3 means that eventuall the force that is accelerating the universe will become stronger than the nuclear forces holding atoms and later still even protons etc together.
At present the big wigs are edging towards 3!
However (again) that is just in our universe, it has been postulated that at the time of the big bang that an infinite number of universes were created each with it's own set of laws of physics, so we might be our selves in another universe where the 6 numbers were slightly different and matter is being recreated all the time at just the right rate to replace that that is lost. ;D
All the love
MM
Remember, the camera never lies, but cameras can't talk and don't usually develop the film or mess about with reality in dark rooms!
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Nov 8, 2003 16:43:54 GMT
;D Greeting chaps, Al, just boned up on a couple of bits, Hey, I resemble that! Sven and MM, If you guys recall...My intial point was that artistic conceptual thought should point the way to research. I would not characterize my recent facisnation with 'strings' as 'boning-up'. I'm just a quick study and a conceptual thinker. I'm an artist, muscian and philosopher, not a scientist. I don't let facts get in the way of the truth! made bit of an oops on the black hole front. They can produce matter, but not from light. In theory (they all say that don't they!) What oops?...I was using your comments attributed to S. Hawkins theory's (I may have misconstrued the point though)Next bit. Any creation of matter.... It's happening whether I can prove it or not. But I did not necessarily mean creation..more like recreation of matter. You'll have to admit, there WAS creation of matter at some point. This is basically boiling down to the second law of thermodynamics which, if you get to the point, states that you can't get something for nothing (no perpetual motion machines...) How many billions of years does it take to equal 'perpeptual'? Elements of the universe, I think, will surely change; but, not be destroyed. All th matter and energy that now exists, will still exist for infinity..just in another formSo, do I think the universe will go on forever? Where will it go? Not at the moment. There were three possible outcomes for the universe depending on the density of matter: 1: It will expand for a bit then collapse in on itself, the big crunch. 2: It will expand forever but at an ever decreasing state or 3: Will expand an accelerate away faster and faster. 1 is pretty self explanatory. 2 blah-blah-blah 3 means that eventuall the force that is accelerating the universe will become stronger than the nuclear forces holding atoms and later still even protons etc together. The force that is accelerating the universe is what my theory tries to understand. I'm willing to let my theory or thoughts evolve as the science or math dictates. perhaps it ALL started with one thought. The alpha event could be no more than a subotomic particle that split. We might have even had a 'little bang' that has progressively multiplied. However it started, I don't think (on an intuitive and ratuional level) that it has or will, ever stop. The universe is expanding into infinity, by regenerating itself. At present the big wigs are edging towards 3! I ask once more MM, what exists in the area of the original big bang event?
|
|
|
Post by madscientist on Nov 8, 2003 21:04:40 GMT
;D dear Al, For a quick study and conceptual reader, artist, musician and philosopher you are very well informed (meant as a true compliment). I initially thought that I was conversing with a professional number cruncher workinf for NASA or something (honest!). I am not eloquent with words, I am, as the monica implies, a scientist to the core. I have been an amature astronomer for 20 years, have a degree in physics and chemistry and at present work a a radiation protection adviser at a nucler power station. I was only boning up to clarify what I put down in words, to ensure that I was standing on the shoulders of giants and not breaking their collar bones . Just trying to put the present 'convensional' thinking on the screen! Anyway... Why dont quantum physics blow up to the larger universe. Not sure, never really studied the math behind relativity and it's ages since I studied quantum theory, so I'm a bit rusty. From what I remember though... There are four fundamental forces, electromagnetism (magnetism and electrostatic attraction/repultion {re Maxwell}, gravity {Einsteins bit} and the nuclear strong and nuclear weak forces. QM mainly deals with the nuclear forces {Pauli, Heizenburg, Bhor}. I can't remember which way round they go, but one is attractive and works only over short distances and the other is repulsive and works over larger distances. There is a gamult of weird and wacky particles (quarks, gluons that zip about dishing these forces out). Anyway, the larger universe mostly works with gravity and that is probably propogated by waves, so initially there is the main difference (particles vs waves). But take that away and introduce the mystic vacuum energy that is supposedly pushing every thing apart you have a similarity (attractive and repusive forces in the big and little world!). Vacuum energy may be related to strings! West wishes, regards and respect MM. If you know that tomorrow may never come, what will you do today?
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Nov 9, 2003 0:34:25 GMT
I am highly flattered dear sir! I can't begin to match your expertise. But a naive eye is sometimes not clouded by the facts, as conventional thought presents them. People are very protective of their theories, especially scientists whom have devoted their lives to research. But tenure does not equal wisdom. And elitism is thwarting to the dynamics of the free expression of new ideas. I do want to continue this thread though. Maybe we could get a few more people involved. There are so many variables and possibilities here. Not with just "String Theory" and the origins of the universe; but maybe some of these 'universal topics: * The "Chemistry of Music" * Reason vs Emotion * Eastern Philosophies * Existential experiences * Pre-cognitive thought and ESP Maybe some of you have your own theories of "The ultimate root of all reality" Hey MM, what if the Big Bang was like a pack of firecrackers going off in several far flung parts of the universe simultaneously or in sucession? But the main thing I keep asking is. What would be left of the original Big Bang site?? Would it not be empty space if everything is expanding away from that one explosion? Help me to understand.
|
|
Sven Golly
Moving
"In the night you hide from the madman you're longing to be"
Posts: 800
|
Post by Sven Golly on Nov 9, 2003 0:54:55 GMT
I'll give it a whirl if someone else will post here first.
|
|
|
Post by Neo Stella on Nov 9, 2003 23:12:48 GMT
MM, After reading your posts, I'd be interested to hear your view on the subject of spirit.
|
|
|
Post by madscientist on Nov 10, 2003 21:03:52 GMT
;D Well, hello all, Good to hear again from you Al. Right, what would be left of the original big bang site? Easy answer You are sitting in it!! Before the bang there was nothing (something for you philosophers to chew over) absolutely nothing, in fact nothing for there to be nothing in than KaBooomm! the universe was created, nothing more than an ultra dense soup of energy infinitely small, it then starts to expand...time passes and simple matter starts to form, quarks etc, then electrons and protons, eventually neutrons, all still very hot! electrons can not bind to protons and thus absorb all photon energy...time passes...universe cools, electrons bind to protons and elements form, Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium only!! time passes.... stars form, group to galaxies, stars go super nova creating elements from Boron upwards....time passes....planets form....time passes....you n me arrive! So as I said you are sitting in the site of the bang, so is everything else and the only thing left over is the CMB. The funny thing is the real egg heads recon that the big bang also created time so to talk of 'before' the big bang doesn't make sence!! ;D New One...Spirit...soul?...ghost? Yes, I think, which is really strange because I don't really belive in a god type being. Got to go now...Pizza has just arrived at door ;D Will converse again soon. Best wishes all MM. Is the grass really greener on the other side of the fence or have the neighbours just been spreading more s**t on their garden?
|
|
|
Post by Neo Stella on Nov 10, 2003 23:43:14 GMT
Spirit....Soul....New level of consciousness. Lock yourself into a system and there you play only one kind of game. Imagine, create, form another way of being and there you have it, a new system. Nothing is always the start of something, the relationship has eternal non existence. The ultimate conundrum of self, the only way to truly know, is not to.
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Nov 11, 2003 0:32:39 GMT
Now that we've solved the mysteries of the Universe, let's move on. ;D JK, I'll keep it up as long as you guys will. MM I appreciate your response. Until I can get someone to crunch numbers, I'll backburner my theories. I'm positive I'm right though. I don't know that I believe so much in spirits as I do in 'lingering vibrations' that some, more than others, could be atuned to. It has been said that the words of Jesus and other historical figures voices are still reverberating. We could record them if only they could be distinguished and identified. Sounds impossible, but how small or insignificant is any thing relative to time and space? As I said earlier, vibrations created on a sub-atomic level could dictate emotion and behavior much like the amino acids of deoxyribo-nucleic acid form the human genome and specific traits in individuals. "Strings" may be the transmitters of all that is physical and spirtual. Hyper perceptabilty or pre-cognitive thought would be interesting to discuss. Any takers here? Zan, MM NEO anybody... I too have trouble MM with a traditonal God image. I do think that there is a higher power which rules the universe. How could there be hope and understanding of beauty without the ability to have faith in the order of the universe? I have faith that my brakes follow the laws of physics. I have faith that when I cross the road, most people won't purposely run me over. I also think that well wishes, prayer or collective conciousness has an effect on the physical and mental attitude of our surroundings. It can work for the religious or the spirtual individuals. Without a higher power, we would all go insane and kill each other....Wait a minute...some of us do. Even more reason for me to believe that positive energy, specifically love and good will, are the strongest powers in the universe. This enlightenment will be the salvation for all. XXX I Love Life!!
|
|
|
Post by Neo Stella on Nov 11, 2003 0:50:53 GMT
Al Truest, you are a truly positive searcher!
Remember, the higher, or deeper, (Depending on your point of view) you reach into consciousness, the more profound the vibration. As all existence is vibration, then you can feel your true self ; part of a creative being that can be aware of itself, God in the waking, i.e.
US
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Nov 11, 2003 1:14:03 GMT
NEO, what are your sources? I have patched my philosophy together from a myriad of sources, but "String Theory" kind of 'tied-up' the package for me. Even though, I think the conclusions I draw are not the over-riding focus of the other string-theorists.
|
|
|
Post by Neo Stella on Nov 11, 2003 1:37:46 GMT
Al, the drawback of contempory science is its continuing need to be completely objective, i.e. outside and observing phenomena. However, true understanding of any subject requires the student to become involved with the material being examined, not seperate from it. Being objective is only one part of a deeper understanding. Embracing the great mysteries, Love, Spirit, God, Self, Truth whatever names you want to give them gives us a desire to continue searching.
The biggest influences on me have been:
Napoleon Hill....Think and grow rich Wayne Dyer.....You'll see it when you believe it Martin Rees......Just six numbers & Our cosmic habitat Ken Wilber.......Boomeritis & A brief history of everything
&
Emily Bronte....Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Post by madscientist on Nov 11, 2003 20:40:57 GMT
NEO, re your first influential book... are you a millionaire yet? Over here in the UK there has just been a programme on TV about the effect of prayer and another on the effect of 'healers' on the body. In the one on prayer a heart surgeon said that o group of his patients were prayed for by different groups and that the mortality rate of a particular procedure was (can't remember exact figure) about 40%. At the end of the trial only 3% had popped their clogs and joined the chior invisibule. No explanation. Similar results were seen from the healer but it was unsure if the healer had an impact or whether or not the patients just belived that they would get better and so did (by the by the healer was not treating serious heart conditions!). I belive in chi, y'know, body energy flows etc. Body works on electric. So does brain box. So generate enough positive thought energy (or what ever you want to call it) then there is no real reason why a small part of that can reach it's intended target (and probably any one else in the way!). Yes, I also suppose that some people may be better tuned to this energy, different ariel to pick it up on (slightly different shaped/spaced nervous systems perhaps). Bit garbled I know, don't often think about this sort of stuff..so thanks guys for making me think a bit ;D. Also, some bloke thought of the collective consience, who and what he really meant I don't know...expand someone please Keep well everyone. MM
|
|