Physics Smart Guys Question (chingon)

[cyclist]

Given enough time, a hypothetical chimpanzee typing at random would, as part of its output, almost surely produce one of Shakespeare's plays (or any other text).

[Lurker]

Did anyone else catch the show on the science channel about parallel universes?  That was mind boggling.

[Stupid Fitz]

Pretty sure it is all like the last episode of Lost.  2 dudes are just playing a game with all of us and every time we just jack it up fighting over religion, territory, etc.  Pretty soon we will blow this joint up and the 2 dudes will be all, "those stupid frackers did it again".  Then it will start all over. 

[FelixRex]

And doesn't there have to be something on the other side of the edge of the universe? It can't just be like the outer wall in the Truman show.

I mean, if there's something past it then it's a pretty sh1tty "edge"

What about this?

Could the universe in fact be finite and unbounded...similar to the surface of the globe? You can keep going and going and not hit an unpassable barrier, but the area of the globe is finite just the same.

[steve dave]

Could the universe in fact be finite and unbounded...similar to the surface of the globe? You can keep going and going and not hit an unpassable barrier, but the area of the globe is finite just the same.

Yeah, I think that has potential.  I would wave at kat kid as I kept blasting by him in my rocket ship that was so fast I made the loop every 5 minutes. 

[FelixRex]

Could the universe in fact be finite and unbounded...similar to the surface of the globe? You can keep going and going and not hit an unpassable barrier, but the area of the globe is finite just the same.

Yeah, I think that has potential.  I would wave at kat kid as I kept blasting by him in my rocket ship that was so fast I made the loop every 5 minutes. 

[Dirty Sanchez]

In college, I remember arguing that before anything existed, nothing existed, and if nothing existed, then it must have been possible for nothing to be.

Then I said "See, Dad. It is possible to do nothing with your life."

Douglas Adams said you could have no tea.

[FelixRex]

Without a doubt, the first two years of my college career were almost, but not quite, entirely unlike nothing.

[ew2x4]

There are a few possible explanations-

Parallel universes- In the 5 or so theories on how parallel universes are in existence, all of them involve creation and destruction of universes. So before our big bang- there was a void surrounded by other universes.

Isaac Asimov's explanation- In "The Last Question", he details a fictional, yet philosophical, origin of our universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question

Spiritual explanation- "In the beginning, God created the heavens and Earth." To me, this is an origination of mankind's story on Earth. Not the origin of God and all matter in the unobservable universe and beyond.

Alternatives- Scientist Frank J. Tipler has used physics to create the Omega Point theory. It basically describes our universe as self sustaining in the sense that it was created by a singular point during the big bang, and it will terminate at a singular point (the omega point) during the big crunch. In his theory, that point will culminate in every piece of knowledge sustaining forever- ie resurrection- ie heaven. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point_%28Tipler%29 I only link to wikipedia because it's the easiest description to read.

[steve dave]

Yeah, but none of that stuff explains where the first thing originated from.  That's the confusing part for me.  I get everything else.

[michigancat]

the concept of eternity is far more mind-boggling than how the universe started to me for some reason.  It makes me physically ill thinking about the possibility of my soul floating around for "eternity".

[ew2x4]

the concept of eternity is far more mind-boggling than how the universe started to me for some reason.  It makes me physically ill thinking about the possibility of my soul floating around for "eternity".

I've always thought this too. I've always tried to comprehend eternity and never quite got there.

[steve dave]

the concept of eternity is far more mind-boggling than how the universe started to me for some reason.  It makes me physically ill thinking about the possibility of my soul floating around for "eternity".

Yeah, but the eternity part is the part about the universe starting that I can't grasp.  "it's always been there" isn't a valid answer for me.  And, if it hasn't always been there then I need to know where it came from and "it came from nothing and a huge explosion made it something" is not a valid answer for me either.  

[michigancat]

the concept of eternity is far more mind-boggling than how the universe started to me for some reason.  It makes me physically ill thinking about the possibility of my soul floating around for "eternity".

Yeah, but the eternity part is the part about the universe starting that I can't grasp.  "it's always been there" isn't a valid answer for me.  And, if it hasn't always been there then I need to know where it came from and "it came from nothing and a huge explosion made it something" is not a valid answer for me either. 

We have basically the same questions, I'm just more self-absorbed than you.  I can deal with a giant explosion at t=0, but how does it affect me?

[steve dave]

the concept of eternity is far more mind-boggling than how the universe started to me for some reason.  It makes me physically ill thinking about the possibility of my soul floating around for "eternity".

Yeah, but the eternity part is the part about the universe starting that I can't grasp.  "it's always been there" isn't a valid answer for me.  And, if it hasn't always been there then I need to know where it came from and "it came from nothing and a huge explosion made it something" is not a valid answer for me either. 

We have basically the same questions, I'm just more self-absorbed than you.  I can deal with a giant explosion at t=0, but how does it affect me?

Dunno.  I'm just really worried about not understanding stuff.  Like, my biggest fear of not living forever is not being around to know about huge discoverys and stuff.  Like, what if I died and the next day the trapped a Loch Ness Monster or something.  That would be a huge kick in the junk.  You know?

[FelixRex]

the concept of eternity is far more mind-boggling than how the universe started to me for some reason.  It makes me physically ill thinking about the possibility of my soul floating around for "eternity".

Yeah, but the eternity part is the part about the universe starting that I can't grasp.  "it's always been there" isn't a valid answer for me.  And, if it hasn't always been there then I need to know where it came from and "it came from nothing and a huge explosion made it something" is not a valid answer for me either.  

Either something always was or something came from nothing.

Don't both of those violate laws and stuff?

I'm also unconvinced by the "infinite regression" explanations. It just strikes me as the scientific equivalent of "turtles all the way down", like replacing "god" with "time" to explain whatever we don't understand. 

[ew2x4]

the concept of eternity is far more mind-boggling than how the universe started to me for some reason.  It makes me physically ill thinking about the possibility of my soul floating around for "eternity".

Yeah, but the eternity part is the part about the universe starting that I can't grasp.  "it's always been there" isn't a valid answer for me.  And, if it hasn't always been there then I need to know where it came from and "it came from nothing and a huge explosion made it something" is not a valid answer for me either.  

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000UP881S

Also, are you talking about "the universe" as in the universe we are in or are you including all parallel universes and all matter outside of our universe in there as well?

[steve dave]

the concept of eternity is far more mind-boggling than how the universe started to me for some reason.  It makes me physically ill thinking about the possibility of my soul floating around for "eternity".

Yeah, but the eternity part is the part about the universe starting that I can't grasp.  "it's always been there" isn't a valid answer for me.  And, if it hasn't always been there then I need to know where it came from and "it came from nothing and a huge explosion made it something" is not a valid answer for me either.  

Either something always was or something came from nothing.

Don't both of those violate laws and stuff?

I'm also unconvinced by the "infinite regression" explanations. It just strikes me as the scientific equivalent of "turtles all the way down", like replacing "god" with "time" to explain whatever we don't understand. 

Yep.  I mean, it almost has to be that our laws of physics are not valid anywhere else.  Like we are just some podunk county that has our own laws of physics that don't apply at any of the infinate (< though this really won't apply anywhere else) other places out there that have completely different laws.  So, time is like just another dimension and doesn't exist while some other dimension does that we can't comprehend because it doesn't exist in our existance.  Plus, we could never know of it's existance because their physics and laws or whatever don't mesh with ours.  I think I'm sounding like a crazy bum on a street corner rambling here but whatevs.

[The1BigWillie]

Somewhere in our ever expanding universe 'Clams is bleeding from his eyelids becauses he wants to respond to this thread so badly. 

[cyclist]

Somewhere in our ever expanding universe 'Clams is bleeding from his eyelids becauses he wants to respond to this thread so badly. 

   <------should have named this emoticon 'clams.   

[frankencat]

Pinto explains everything at the end of this vid

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=38133499

[cyclist]

Pinto explains everything at the end of this vid

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=38133499

QFMFT !

 

[Chingon]

the concept of eternity is far more mind-boggling than how the universe started to me for some reason.  It makes me physically ill thinking about the possibility of my soul floating around for "eternity".

Yeah, but the eternity part is the part about the universe starting that I can't grasp.  "it's always been there" isn't a valid answer for me.  And, if it hasn't always been there then I need to know where it came from and "it came from nothing and a huge explosion made it something" is not a valid answer for me either. 

Either something always was or something came from nothing.

Don't both of those violate laws and stuff?

I'm also unconvinced by the "infinite regression" explanations. It just strikes me as the scientific equivalent of "turtles all the way down", like replacing "god" with "time" to explain whatever we don't understand. 

Yep.  I mean, it almost has to be that our laws of physics are not valid anywhere else.  Like we are just some podunk county that has our own laws of physics that don't apply at any of the infinate (< though this really won't apply anywhere else) other places out there that have completely different laws.  So, time is like just another dimension and doesn't exist while some other dimension does that we can't comprehend because it doesn't exist in our existance.  Plus, we could never know of it's existance because their physics and laws or whatever don't mesh with ours.  I think I'm sounding like a crazy bum on a street corner rambling here but whatevs.

A step in the right direction is to realize that time IS just another dimension.  When dealing in relativistic dynamics, you use a 4-vector (ct,-x,-y,-z) instead of the regular 3-vector (x,y,z).  The whole idea is that space and time are not separate things, but one unified concept: space-time.

Both space and time manifested themselves at the moment of the Big Bang.  The Big Bang wasn't an explosion into anything, but a rapid expansion of everything.  In fact the Universe is still expanding.  For the most part every galaxy in the Universe is rapidly accelerating from every other galaxy in the Universe.

As for the edge of the Universe, well when cosmologists talk about the size of the Universe they mean the size of the observable Universe, how far away can light reach us.  The Universe at this point in time (IMHO) is expanding so rapidly that for all intents and purposes there is no edge, the "edge" is always moving away faster than the speed of light.

[steve dave]

A step in the right direction is to realize that time IS just another dimension.  When dealing in relativistic dynamics, you use a 4-vector (ct,-x,-y,-z) instead of the regular 3-vector (x,y,z). 

Hmmm...We must look like a bunch of bumbling retards to advanced alien races then, what with our not being able to move around in time.

[WillieWannabe]

Im kinda curious about this....do scientists, physicists, and others of the sort go to church? or is that not something that goes well with their profession?

[Chingon]

A step in the right direction is to realize that time IS just another dimension.  When dealing in relativistic dynamics, you use a 4-vector (ct,-x,-y,-z) instead of the regular 3-vector (x,y,z).  

Hmmm...We must look like a bunch of bumbling retards to advanced alien races then, what with our not being able to move around in time.

We do move in time!  In fact one of the neat things about relativity is that that 4-vector I used about "position" well, it turns about to be invariant which is means that if you take something akin to its magnitude( ct^2 -x^2-y^2-z^2) it always stays the same value.  As a consequence we are always moving through space-time at the speed of light, it just depends on in what direction (ct,x,y,z).  When you are sitting still you are moving at the speed of in the direction of time.  When you move through a space-coordinate you are moving through time slower since the magnitude of the 4 vector must stay the same.  Imagine a right triangle, once side is your speed through time, the other is your speed through space, and the hypotenuse is your speed through space-time which must always equal c^2 (c=the speed of light).  You make one side bigger, the other must get smaller to compensate.  So the faster you go, the more time slows down for you.  This has been experimentally shown with atomic clocks.

As for going backwards in time, well you would need to be able to go faster than the speed of light, which is unfortunately impossible.

[Chingon]

Im kinda curious about this....do scientists, physicists, and others of the sort go to church? or is that not something that goes well with their profession?

Some do, some don't just like any other profession.  One of the best physicists I personally know goes to church every Sunday.  And you know what, no one in the physics community really cares one way or the other if you go or not.  As long as your work is scientifically sound, you can worship the sun-god Ra and no one will say peep.  (Over-generalization I am sure, you can find exceptions out there both ways I, but they are in the massive minority.)

[steve dave]

A step in the right direction is to realize that time IS just another dimension.  When dealing in relativistic dynamics, you use a 4-vector (ct,-x,-y,-z) instead of the regular 3-vector (x,y,z).  

Hmmm...We must look like a bunch of bumbling retards to advanced alien races then, what with our not being able to move around in time.

We do move in time!  In fact one of the neat things about relativity is that that 4-vector I used about "position" well, it turns about to be invariant which is means that if you take something akin to its magnitude( ct^2 -x^2-y^2-z^2) it always stays the same value.  As a consequence we are always moving through space-time at the speed of light, it just depends on in what direction (ct,x,y,z).  When you are sitting still you are moving at the speed of in the direction of time.  When you move through a space-coordinate you are moving through time slower since the magnitude of the 4 vector must stay the same.  Imagine a right triangle, once side is your speed through time, the other is your speed through space, and the hypotenuse is your speed through space-time which must always equal c^2 (c=the speed of light).  You make one side bigger, the other must get smaller to compensate.  So the faster you go, the more time slows down for you.  This has been experimentally shown with atomic clocks.

As for going backwards in time, well you would need to be able to go faster than the speed of light, which is unfortunately impossible.

Yeah, Flight of the Navigator.  I should have phrased it, "Not being able to move around in it very good or choose my direction".

[Chingon]

Flight of the Navigator was a damn good movie. 

All of our space research money should be devoted to making the next space shuttle look like this:

[steve dave]

Flight of the Navigator was a damn good movie. 

YES.  His nurse went to a Twisted Sister concert and he said, "Who's she?"