/sci/ - Science & Math

because I don't know how to survive through that cycle. Better than entropy though.

Why not?

>>4759884
Because the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not decelerating.

Because if the Big Bounce Cycle was true, the Universe would be slowing down in its expansion today, but instead the movement of galaxies away from the Milky Way show its speeding up towards a cold, dark oblivion.

Shit sucks I know.

>>4759890
I don't even believe in the cylical universe theory, but it clearly shows that at a certain point, the universe is expanding. How retarded are you?

>>4759900
That's what he's saying.

Are you dyslectic or just clinically retarded?

>>4759909
dude, you are so fucking dumb

>>4759900
>doesn't know what acceleration means
Nigga, take some high school physics.

>>4759890
>>4759900
It's because the curvature of the universe is not spherical(which would lead to a Big Crunch), or elliptical(which would lead to an approximately steady state of no expansion or contraction), but flat, which leads to infinite expansion and entropic death.

>>4759922
A spherical geometry doesn't necessitate a big crunch. Why would it?

>>4759922
as far as you know

>>4759891
That's based on a lot of assumptions. At this point, it's a lot more reasonable to say we just don't know.

Sometimes, there is an accepted, conventional theory because it is extremely well-supported by evidence and unlikely to ever be disproven.

Sometimes, there is an accepted, conventional theory because it ties the evidence we do have together fairly well and forms some common ground for discussion, even though the evidence is poor and open to interpretation and the theory is likely to be looked back on by future generations with amusement.

>>4759932
It would, because a spherical curvature would mean that the force of gravity is strong enough to curve the universe into itself, meaning that it would also be strong enough to halt the expansion, and thus would be strong enough to cause a Big Crunch.

>>4759950
No, as far as our best measurements can tell.

>>4759912
That is too fucking far, how dare you call me that.

>>4759958
>because a spherical curvature would mean that the force of gravity is strong enough to curve the universe into itself
But the collapse or expansion of the universe would be dependent on the density of the universe. I just don't see why the geometry would be the sole determining factor.

>>4759967
Let me repeat myself: because the geometry is an indication of the relative strength of the relevant forces.

>>4759995
I'm not saying you are wrong, but I don't see why that would be true.

>>4759900
He didn't just say expanding, he said 'accelerating'.
There's a difference.
One that shows quite clearly that gravitational forces are (for whatever reason) not strong enough to pull our universe back together.

What started the cycle? Probably asked before but I'm just wondering. Something had to initially start the first big-bang if there was nothing before the singularity, so what exactly started the first big bang.

>Inb4 big bang

>>4760052
You can't start a causal loop, nor does causality have any meaning without time (no time because time would only exist within the loop itself).

>>4760034
>>4760034

Isn't the belief of the acceleration based simply on the fact that, since the galaxies are expanding outwards in some sort of pseudo-sphere, that even if their expansion were slower, the 'cubic area' of the universe would inevitable be bigger than ever before?

>>4760067

Illustrated to make my question clearer.

What's there to say that the acceleration is constant?
Maybe it's accelerating now, but maybe it will run out of steam later and starts to decelerate. Just like a car running out of fuel.

>>4760067
>>4760082
No.

A long winded explanation of why the universe has to be flat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

>>4760458
There are theories saying the universe is a Torus. Like in an jrpg, if you to in a direction you will end up in the same place you started.

>>4759920
>thinks that acceleration must be constant

>>4759995
Then what does a hyperfold (or whatever it was called) universe imply? Negative gravity?

>>4760066
>You can't start a causal loop
God would like to have a word with you on the other side of infinity

the big bang
started from a central point, forever expanding
no friction in space, nothing to stop material movement

known fact, galaxies collide
if all came from a central point, forever expanding out
how is this possible

>>4760827
Everything becomes black holes. The singularities connect across spacetime, interconnecting all of the mass in the universe. The black holes all join together to form one big happy family, and then the combined singularity bubbles into a separate universe

>>4760832
okay, stars implode and become black holes
they'll absorb any matter around them
these holes are still masses forever expanding outward
with even less potential for them to be slowed

for everything to collapse in on itself, there would need to be a pull the extended to the edge of existence (which is forever expanding)

>>4760843
No, the black holes connect across spacetime by bending it, so that all their singularities join together

Also
>ITT: People assume that physical laws remain constant throughout all time and space

We dont know the density of the universe.

density of the universe------type of universe-----------fate
greater than crit. density----closed-----------contract back to singularity
equal to crit. density-------------flat------------------reach max. size and stop
small to crit. density-----------open-----------------------expand forever

>>4760856
>implying the laws of nature change due to their nature

how can the black holes connect across space/TIME
unless they're worm holes
if they are worm holes then they are already connect
if they are already connected then your theory is in motion
if your theory is in motion then
WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE...O NOOOOO

>>4760827

>the big bang
>started from ALL POINTS, forever expanding
>no friction in space, nothing to stop material >movement

there is no "center" to the universe. Every direction we look we see the big bang.

Now start thinking with portals

>>4760872 here

>>4760856
It is possible for two black holes to collide. Once they come so close that they cannot escape each other's gravity, they will merge to become one bigger black hole. Such an event would be extremely violent. Even when simulating this event on powerful computers, we cannot fully understand it. However, we do know that a black hole merger would produce tremendous energy and send massive ripples through the space-time fabric of the Universe. These ripples are called gravitational waves.

Nobody has witnessed a collision of black holes yet. However, there are many black holes in the Universe and it is not preposterous to assume that they might collide. In fact, we know of galaxies in which two supermassive black holes move dangerously close to each other. Theoretical models predict that these black holes will spiral toward each other until they eventually collide.

Gravitational waves have never been directly observed. However, they are a fundamental prediction of Einstein's theory of general relativity. Detecting them would provide an important test of our understanding of gravity. It would also provide important new insights into the physics of black holes. Large instruments capable of detecting gravitational waves from outer space have been built in recent years. Even more powerful instruments are under construction. The moment they detect their first gravitational wave, you are sure to hear about it!

>>4760884
thats not how the theory works man

im not saying your wrong, im just saying its irrelevent to this discussion

>>4760872

>>4760896

>>4760897

i'd say its pretty relevant as the notion that the big bang "started from a central point" is a fallacy

>>4760905
but it had to...ever seen a firecracker

>>4760924
Define "point"

>>4760905
the center is the start, whether it is still the center or not doesn't matter to this discussion which is over

>>4760922
but firecrackers aren't single points

>>4760926
Define "define"

>>4760924

>>4760922

Your thinking of a space where an event "the big bang" happened in and created the universe (like a firecracker in the floor). I'm telling you that the big bang is that space. All conceivable points exist inside it, there is no meaning to "outside" the big bang. It contains that space and space did not exist before it.

If there were a central location in the universe as the source of the big bang we would be able to look in one direction and see it. Strangely enough, we see it in every direction which is exactly what the WMAP CMB shows here >>4760884

What if aliums have resolved the singularity at the edge of the galaxy, already?

we aren't able to explain the universe with our limited senses. why are any of you even trying?

>>4761119
Aliums don't exist.

>>4760896
>>4760904
Revised image based on these, makes it more clear I hope

Is time recursive? Are we repeating history again for the Nth time?

>>4760034
what is this shit about acceleration is beating the force of gravity? what ever is accelerating will eventually decelerate due to gravity's influence, and return to what body's gravitational field i acting on it. gravity will always act on 2 bodies no matter the distance between the two objects, they will always come back together. This is Newtonian type shit, Phys 101.

The original idea could be right, the problem with why most of y'all think it is incorrect is because you are too busy buying someone else's theories and not evaluating the theories presented to you. Just because someone with an over inflated ego tells you a theory is correct, doesn't mean that it is. in the words of Einstein "Forgive me Newton" he had cracked what all of modern society, at that time, thought was law (not theory). Stop buying everything you hear because you don't understand it yourself, pick up a book, search the internet and evaluate it yourself. No one is certain of anything when it comes to this field.

Sincerely,
You don't know me, go fuck yourself

differently from religion, i'm open minded,
And this seem to be possibly logic to happen.
There can be more proof once we get to know more about the black holes and what happens inside them.

Here we go.

According to all observations, our universe is the 4th one on this chart.

>>4761837
But the expanding universe might hit a wall of some at one point and bounce back towards the center.

>>4761853
No

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/

>>4761831 bodies no matter the distance between the two objects, they will always come back together.

Nope you've clearly failed physics 10. It's a potential energy problem. Give an object more kinetic energy than the total gravitational potential integrated from zero to infinity and it's never coming back down. It's known as escape velocity when dealing with projectiles.

>>4761882
BUT WAT IF UNIVERSE IS TORUS???

>>4761882
But that's like saying the expanding universe has infinite energy, which violates laws of physics.

My personal theory, after having taken general relativity, thermodynamics, and e&m coupled with some research on black holes is as follows. For the purposes of this post, the word universe will mean a group of matter and energy that is able to interact. This is an obvious restriction due to the speed of light. The term multiverse will simply mean all matter and energy that exists, whether it can interact or not.

Hawking's radiation is the key to this; it has not yet been directly observed but it has been indirectly proven to exist. Getting into that is beyond the scope of this post, so roll with it for now. At some point, every black hole will dissapate due to this radiation. This will happen when the mass of the black hole is no longer great enough to contain the energy and matter packed into such a small space, and entropy forces this viloent dissapation to occur.

This is a big explosion. Due to the gravitational time dilation of all that mass trapped there (before it explodes it's frozen in time) this process takes a fraction of a second, but if viewed from another universe (but that's not possible, remember) it would take quite a while. The matter and energy is then affected by other black holes, which try to pull it in due to their own gravity, resulting in an expanding universe.

So essentially, infinitely multiple black holes and universes concurrently exist, and matter is merely redistributed through out them due to entropy and hawkings radiation.

Come at me, bro.

>>4761894
That did present a big problem when we observed that universal expansion was accelerating.

One of the major things people have been working to figure out.

>>4761903

shit, I reworded this and then copied in the old version:

>So essentially, infinitely multiple black holes and universes concurrently exist, and matter is merely redistributed through out them due to entropy and hawkings radiation.

Should be

So essentially, infinitely multiple black holes and universes concurrently exist within a multiverse. General relativity, quantum mechanics, electrodynamics, and subatomic physics dictate how this happens but only really affect particles as they transition between the big bang and black hole stages. Matter and energy are merely redistributed through out the multiverse due to entropy, gravity, and hawkings radiation.

>>4761894
No. You do not need to give an object infinite kinetic energy to for it to never fall back down. This is really basic stuff, you shouldn't be on /sci/ if you don't understand it.

I have a rock . For simplicity lets pretend I'm at the center of the Earth instead of the surface, and I want to throw it infinitely far away (AKA it never comes back down).

int(v)dv = int(-GM/r2)dr
1/2 v2 + C = GM/r

Put in your initial conditions, r = r(0), v = v(0)

C = GM/r(0) - 1/2 v(0)2

1/2 v2 - 1/2 v(0)2 = GM/r - GM/r(0)

1/2 v2 = GM/r - GM/r(0) + 1/2 v(0)2

We need v2 >= 0 for all values of r, with equality at the escape velocity.

GM/r - GM/r(0) + 1/2 v(0)2 = 0

As r -> inf, GM/r -> 0

- GM/r(0) + 1/2 v(0)2 = 0

1/2 v(0)2 = GM/r(0)

>>4761853
the observable universe is 96% empty space, the rest of what we cant see is probably more of the same shit, galaxies and stars bits oh hydrogen and maybe helium, you know simple basic atoms.
but beyond that is nothing, just empty space, pure empty, not even a single atom, just nothing, and to say there is a "wall" is ridicules, where does this wall come from, how does it act, what is it made of?
once all the matter has dissipated and spread apart they wont carry enough force to come back together. the end, everything has either collapsed into a black hole or or gone far enough away that nothing could effect it, ever.
>>4761774
theres nothing new there, its the same stuff being moved around, also why would a white hole only push in one direction, simple answer it wouldn't.

>>4761965

I think his 'white hole' idea is that black holes will tunnel into a different dimension and when the black hole itself disappears (due to hawkings radiation) the wormhole closes and there's a big bang.

That being said, I think that alternate dimension wormhole ideas are pretty stupid and that there are much more elegant theories.

what if the universe is surrounded by an astronomical ring/hollow sphere of matter that is far outside the observable universe, and it is causing the accelerated universal expansion through gravitational forces.

>>4762000

eventually all of the universe's matter reaches and combines with this ring/sphere of matter, creating a vacuum so strong that it tears at the fabric of spacetime, causing another big bang that continues to add to the thickness of the ring/hollow sphere. Eventually, after many big bang generations, the ring/sphere will be thick enough that the vacuum it causes isn't powerful enough to cause another big bang, resulting in entropy.

A sentient system wouldn't allow it. Consider after billions of years advanced races would have science that far exceeds our own (and we are a young species), they would have the potential to have some effect on the structure of the universe (thus affecting the information within it).

>>4762015

you've read one too many green lantern comic books, my friend

>>4762000
where would the ring come from?
>>4762014
srsly where would this come from?

>>4762051

what am I a genius.

>>4762058
no, your a retard, because thats FUCKING STUPID.

>>4762061

so is string theory and a bunch of other shit scientists are circlejerking over these days. Seems everyone here has their head so far up their own ass that they can`t even tell when someone is purposely abusing holes in the system to make a point.

>durp what is falsifiability?

>>4762072
get the fuck out of my /sci/

>>4762083


>mad

What if there's a force that is yet to be observed that acts over extremely long distances that will pull all the matter back together again?

>>4762072
There is nothing wrong with String theory.

>>4762109
except that it doesn't account for supersymmetry and is needlessly complicated

>>4762109
>IQ fundie

GTFO RETARD!

>>4762095

I shall call it hawking force

>>4762109
>except that it is not a scientifc theory

String theory is a mathematical circle jerk, nothing more. It adds nothing new to our understanding of the universe, nor to it confirm or predict any new phonomia. It has no experimental confirmations what so fucking ever.

>>4762112
>except that it doesn't account for supersymmetry
This is nonsense. There's more superconformal algebras from string theory then there is from the SUSY community itself. I work with strings in D=2 all the time.

>>4762113
I am not a retard.

>>4762131
You have some sort of metal retardation bro. It is obvious. Just admit it!

>>4762126
>String theory is a mathematical circle jerk
No, it is not. It is an extension of field theory to promote an extra internal degree of freedom as to remove infinities from perturbative calculations involving quantum gravity. The additional dimensions arise naturally and are required to maintain stability in the solutions.

>It adds nothing new to our understanding of the universe
It adds plenty. The philosophical and empirical implications are astonishing. It offers insight to may other fields, such as condensed matter. Even if it is falsified, It has inspired a surge of new mathematics such as AdS/CFT.

>nor to it confirm or predict any new phonomia
Blasphemy. There are countless ways to test string theory, and it predicts plenty. It is not yet testable sadly due to current collider luminosities.

>It has no experimental confirmations what so fucking ever.
Indeed, although there will be constraints/evidence arising within the coming years.

>>4762131
Why do you act all retarded then?

>>4762151
>admits there is no evidence to confirm string theory

>continues to bullshit about how great it is

You are the definition of a retard.

>>4760860
no

The most you can do is slow down the expansion rate. If quantum foam stopped expanding, time would appear to stop, gravity wouldn't mean anything anymore, and nothing would move and no acceleration could happen - all that energy would go somewhere perhaps, but gravity does not determine the fate of the universe.
so say i

>>4762154
I do not "act" retarded. Please elaborate.

>>4762151
Are you a troll?

>>4762164
So then are "are" retarded?
What particular disability do you have?
Down syndrome? You seem like a guy with doen syndrome

>>4762165
I am not a troll. What is wrong with you? What do you not like about String theory?

>Implying a bunch of monkeys on a rock will be able to understand the universe

>>4760905
I agree

>>4762167
>IQ Fundie
>not a troll

0/100

>>4762169
I do not have any mental impairment.

>>4762181
I am not a troll.

Hey IQ Fundie how does string theory reconcile with the quantum wave function?

>>4762184
Hey IQ fundie, why is your mom's vagina so loose?

>>4762188
It does not. It falls under the Born approximation and all interpretations of such remain unaffected. Replace the particle/wave with a string/string packet respectively.

>>4762195
How much cum do you swallow a day? Do the engineers get jealous?

>>4759884
>IQ Fundie

More like retarded homosexual! AMIRITE OR AM I RIGHT?

>>4762151
Why do you troll /sci/ so much?

>>4762202
>>4762196
>>4762197
>>4762198
i was playing along at first with the whole "string theory isn't science" thing but now you just seem needy and desperate, this is the lowest form of trolling, at least understand the concept to come up with bullshit holes int the theory to than troll...

>>4761882

You see Celestial bodies as projectiles?

Well when a black hole it is deleted from existence so therefore there is nothing that can then explode in a big bang. But then again this is only based on one theory of black holes.

>>4765115

When a black hole absorbs something.

I thought that when Kurzweil talks of "singularity" he means the singularity of consciousness, not suicide.

>>4765115
I had the same thoughts. It's similar to the way in which supernovas occur.

>>4759891
Actually, the mass of the universe is accelerating at millions of miles per hour to a single point outside of the observable universe. Entire superclusters of galaxies are being moved by it from billions of light years away. Whatever it is, it's incomprehensibly massive.