Is our universe the result of a collapse of higher-dimensional star?

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by jazzabel, Oct 16, 2013.

  1. Cogito

    Cogito Former Mod, Retired Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    36,161
    Likes Received:
    2,827
    Location:
    Massachusetts, USA
    There used to be two major conservation laws, conservation of mass and conservation of energy. Then along came a little equation, e equals em see squared, that melded them into one law.

    There used to be Newton's Three Laws. They are still applicable for most real world problems. It's only when you operate in extreme conditions that the errors start to show up - very high mass, very high velocity, very small masses and distances. For these, new theories were developed that reduce to Newton's Laws as conditions approach what we consider "normal".

    New theories arise when we find conditions for which the familiar laws begin to break down. Invariably, they are refinements of the existing laws, not completely different laws. When they appear to be different, like the first bversions of quantum mechanics, and Newtonian mechanics, it's because another theory is needed to bridge the gap.

    The laws of thermodynamics would reconcile. perhaps with some refinements, if there were a passage to a different universe involved.
     
    jazzabel likes this.
  2. Jack Asher

    Jack Asher Banned Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2013
    Messages:
    3,545
    Likes Received:
    2,083
    Location:
    Denver
    This is a problem with the was people understand science. Their "theory" is actually an incredibly complex series of equations that predict an outcome accurately.

    "Proving" the theory is the fact that the equations work accurately, and disproving it involves finding a weakness and coming up with new equations to explain it.

    Laymen can say "Well it's all theoretical, so you can't prove anything," while they use their GPS that only works based on those theories.
     
    Cogito likes this.
  3. Cogito

    Cogito Former Mod, Retired Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    36,161
    Likes Received:
    2,827
    Location:
    Massachusetts, USA
    There is strong experimental evidence that supports the validity of the Hawking Effect. I don't believe any competent modern physicists dispute Hawking Radiation, although some have suggested refinements.
     
    jazzabel likes this.
  4. Garball

    Garball Banned Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2013
    Messages:
    2,827
    Likes Received:
    1,337
    Location:
    S'port, LA
    Experimental evidence as in tested with replicable and predictable results?
     
  5. Lewdog

    Lewdog Come ova here and give me kisses! Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,676
    Likes Received:
    3,056
    Location:
    Williamsburg, KY
    @Jack Asher Theories that are used in Theoretical Physics, especially those having to do with the universe, can only be proven by using equations that make sense based on actual evidence that has been witnessed. The only evidence we know from a black hole is from quite a far distance and it only comes from measuring the radiation it gives off and has nothing to do with anything that has been seen from the eternal dynamics of it. So yes, it is all theoretical based on equations that are formulated and proven using only the physics that we as humans know.

    Professor Leonard Susskind, one of the pioneers of the string theory disagrees with Hawking. Hawking is quite possibly the smartest man on the planet, but that doesn't mean he is 100% right all the time. If you are to believe everything Hawking says, he also said that he believes in the probability that there is a more advanced society out in the universe and that they will eventually come to earth and take us over much like the Europeans did North America from the Native Americans.
     
  6. Jack Asher

    Jack Asher Banned Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2013
    Messages:
    3,545
    Likes Received:
    2,083
    Location:
    Denver
    1.) He didn't say that there was a certainty that they would come, only that the effects would be disasterous.
    2.) Are you saying they wont?
     
  7. Lewdog

    Lewdog Come ova here and give me kisses! Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,676
    Likes Received:
    3,056
    Location:
    Williamsburg, KY
    I'm not trying to hijack this thread, BUT unless black holes make intergalactic space travel possible, or there are such things as worm holes, OR Einstein is wrong that matter can not travel faster than the speed of light, based on the latest observations, the closest planet that could possibly support life is over 10,000 light years away. That means if matter can not travel faster than the speed of light, and there is no way to make an intergalactic short cut, it would take at least 10,000 years to get here. That would make it impossible.
     
  8. JJ_Maxx

    JJ_Maxx Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2012
    Messages:
    3,321
    Likes Received:
    503
    Looking through history, I would never label anything as impossible. If science has shown us anything, it's that impossible is usually just a 'not right now'.
     
    KaTrian, jazzabel and 123456789 like this.
  9. Jack Asher

    Jack Asher Banned Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2013
    Messages:
    3,545
    Likes Received:
    2,083
    Location:
    Denver
    There is so much things as wormholes. In fact without them the universe would just be a huge cloud of evenly distributed dust.
     
  10. Lewdog

    Lewdog Come ova here and give me kisses! Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,676
    Likes Received:
    3,056
    Location:
    Williamsburg, KY
    All theories that postulate that worm holes exist, also say that they are so unstable that they could never be used for any type of travel.
     
  11. Michael Timothy

    Michael Timothy New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2013
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Toronto
    Could something about the physics of a wormhole allow us to work out equations that may be beneficial for our own travel? We could develop a new understanding of energy at high speeds and put it to use, even if it didn't reach the speed of light. New technology could be designed to allow this. I have no idea if it's possible. I have no real grasp of physics. But it seems possible in speculation.
     
    jazzabel likes this.
  12. jazzabel

    jazzabel Agent Provocateur Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    4,255
    Likes Received:
    1,688
    @123456789: You might be right, but I'm taking being talked about on nature.com as a good sign :)

    @Jack Asher: Thanks for the explanation, I am not sure it is entirely correct. Purely because theories were refined and even disproved before, and finding something previously thought to be impossible is a rule, not the exception. What I am sure of is that there are branches of mainstream physics community who are theorising and calculating answers that indeed support the existence of multiple universes and other phenomena you are dismissing. I'm also sure they aren't ignorant of Stephen Hawking's theories. Some physicists agree, others disagree, on most theories, one thing is in common though, they have to have compelling mathematical proof, and are forever searching for physical proof as well, so I keep an open mind :)
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2013
  13. KaTrian

    KaTrian A foolish little beast. Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2013
    Messages:
    6,764
    Likes Received:
    5,393
    Location:
    Funland
    Slightly OT, but I read from somewhere, I think it was from a science mag, that matter can become infinitely dense after it's passed the event horizon and is sucked into the "hole". Might be a stupid question, but how is it possible to get denser and denser and denser and denser... infinitely?
     
  14. jazzabel

    jazzabel Agent Provocateur Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    4,255
    Likes Received:
    1,688
    @KaTrian: An interesting theory is that as the universe expands until all matter decays and becomes light. Since it has no time or distance scale associated with it, it becomes synonymous with a Big Bang and the new cycle starts.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology
    So the notions of infinity, one way or another,may have a lot hidden in them. It's all a matter of right perspective.
     
    KaTrian likes this.
  15. mammamaia

    mammamaia nit-picker-in-chief Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    19,150
    Likes Received:
    1,034
    Location:
    Coquille, Oregon
    what proof is there of what you are claiming as fact, cog?

    what are you claiming caused the 'big bang'?

    how can there be an 'explosion' of sorts without the existence of any material to 'explode'?

    how can nothingness produce something?

    what you are stating here as 'fact' is still just another 'theory'... yet another childish way humans try to explain what is incomprehensible to them, due to their extremely limited use of their mental capacity... and i strongly suspect that even if we were able to utilize 90% of same, instead of only the 10-15% we do, we'd still be coming up with flawed logic to explain the inexplicable...
     
    JJ_Maxx likes this.
  16. Jack Asher

    Jack Asher Banned Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2013
    Messages:
    3,545
    Likes Received:
    2,083
    Location:
    Denver
    "First there was nothing, which exploded." ~Terry Pratchett.

    Michio Kaku, in Hyperspace, points out that a foundation of string theory is that the upper 6 dimensions exist, tightly coiled, smaller than a plank length. When the energy of the universe is finally exhausted and the "pressure" is no longer exerted on these dimensions they might explode in a new big bang, yielding a universe who properties we cannot even imagine.

    Could the big bang be the result of a smiler decay/explosion? It is impossible to know.
     
  17. JJ_Maxx

    JJ_Maxx Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2012
    Messages:
    3,321
    Likes Received:
    503
    ...or perhaps the universe was created by a changeless, timeless, spaceless entity that has no cause. (God.)
     
  18. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,557
    Location:
    California, US
    Or the flying spaghetti monster :)

    More seriously, though, if god doesn't need a cause, then why does the universe need one? It seems just as easy to say that the universe has always existed in some form as to postulate the existence of a god and say he has always existed.
     
    jazzabel likes this.
  19. Jack Asher

    Jack Asher Banned Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2013
    Messages:
    3,545
    Likes Received:
    2,083
    Location:
    Denver
    You're right of course. It would be better not to examine the universe and just use God to fill in anything we don't understand. This science thing, and the civilization it's produced is really no more than a passing fad.
     
  20. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,557
    Location:
    California, US
    Science is silent as to the question of god, in my view. It's not a topic that is susceptible to scientific inquiry. Most research scientists I know believe in god, but not because of anything science has or hasn't done.
     
  21. JJ_Maxx

    JJ_Maxx Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2012
    Messages:
    3,321
    Likes Received:
    503
    While I appreciate the reply, this is no more than a straw man argument. No one is supporting any of these points, especially myself.
     
  22. Garball

    Garball Banned Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2013
    Messages:
    2,827
    Likes Received:
    1,337
    Location:
    S'port, LA
    Speaking of infinity... How long can the unprovable argument between the existence and nonexistence of God go on?
     
  23. Wreybies

    Wreybies Thrice Retired Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    23,826
    Likes Received:
    20,815
    Location:
    El Tembloroso Caribe
    Ladies and Gentleman, please return the conversation to its original course.
     
    JJ_Maxx likes this.
  24. JJ_Maxx

    JJ_Maxx Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2012
    Messages:
    3,321
    Likes Received:
    503
    The original post is a topic regarding a new theory of the beginning of our universe. In stands to reason that this new theory would be compared with existing theories. Could you please clarify what is out of bounds?
     
  25. Wreybies

    Wreybies Thrice Retired Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    23,826
    Likes Received:
    20,815
    Location:
    El Tembloroso Caribe
    The boundary lies in that this conversation is heading for the train wreck known as mixed epistemology. I was actually siding with you, JJ, when the last few comments seemed to be dismissive and then slightly scornful of the argument you presented.
     
    JJ_Maxx likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice