Awkward question. Sorry. There wasn't enough space.
While discussing physics, science, quantum theories, and everything else with my brother. We stumbled upon a puzzling question.
The universe is not flat. Period. Given that this is true, light (And therefore time), travels faster at the center of the universe than traveling at the edge of the universe.
Is this true?
"Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so."
- Ford Prefect, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
- Ford Prefect, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
that idea is very interesting.the time ( in conformity with velocitt) can generates
shapes geometrics for the space,and in the connection of the space and time(+spacetimes)generate the shapes of the particles.
shapes geometrics for the space,and in the connection of the space and time(+spacetimes)generate the shapes of the particles.
Really, it's more of a question of whether space time is actually stretched as you travel toward the farthest edges of the Universe.
If so, time will travel faster for you relative to anyone on the inner section.
If so, time will travel faster for you relative to anyone on the inner section.
Time is relative to the observer. The speed of light is constant in vacuum, so time
is constant. Otherwise c would vary and not be a constant.
Time is relative to the change of energy state as measured in a fixed volume of
space, from a fixed point of reference.
Moving points of reference create doppler effects.
LL
is constant. Otherwise c would vary and not be a constant.
Time is relative to the change of energy state as measured in a fixed volume of
space, from a fixed point of reference.
Moving points of reference create doppler effects.
LL
QUOTE
ResidentGeek Posted: Sep 18 2007, 12:25 AM (And therefore time), travels faster at the center of the universe than traveling at the edge of the universe
i do not consider that the universe has a centre and therefor an edge (
), unless you define edge as something other than a boundary that limits an area or volume what do you and your brother think the universe is contained in for the universe to have a defined edge ? what is the edge made of and what is on the other side of the edge ? similarly where is the centre of the universe ? how many centillion light years from earth is the centre or is it a few km's outside Tokyo ?
I've heard the Tokyo isn't a bad guess but no. 
I referring to a toroidal universe. I know that there is technically no edge to the universe, But for all intensive purposes let's call the outside portion of a 3D torus, the EDGE.
If my understanding is correct, then theoretically, parts of a toris universe would be "stretched".
If space/time is being stretched, then relative to a viewer on the inner circle of the torus, light would be traveling faster than the speed of light, and therefore, time would travel faster.
Light would only be traveling as fast as it is, but it would appear otherwise.
I referring to a toroidal universe. I know that there is technically no edge to the universe, But for all intensive purposes let's call the outside portion of a 3D torus, the EDGE.
If my understanding is correct, then theoretically, parts of a toris universe would be "stretched".
If space/time is being stretched, then relative to a viewer on the inner circle of the torus, light would be traveling faster than the speed of light, and therefore, time would travel faster.
Light would only be traveling as fast as it is, but it would appear otherwise.
hello ResidentGeek 
okay got it now...
okay got it now...
QUOTE
If my understanding is correct, then theoretically, parts of a toris universe would be "stretched".
what do you think about, that after a while the torus may not resemble a torus ie on the large scale is the universe being stretched uniformly ? QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If my understanding is correct, then theoretically, parts of a toris universe would be "stretched". |
what do you think about, that after a while the torus may not resemble a torus ie on the large scale is the universe being stretched uniformly ?
then relative to a viewer on the inner circle of the torus, light would be traveling faster than the speed of light, and therefore, time would travel faster.
then relative to a viewer on the inner circle of the torus, light would be traveling faster than the speed of light, and therefore, time would travel faster.
since that the speed of light is a constant and the basis of the definition of distance, could it also mean, that speed of light does not change but the inner circle of the torus (are they a cult ?) is stretched to a different degree than the outer circle of the torus ? time is a relative, not because the speed of light changes but the distance over which it travels can (relatively speaking).
kjw:
That's it! I wasn't sure how to describe it, but yes. Light has farther to travel for the stretched portion, versus the non-stretched portion, so therefore, time is traveling at a different rate.
Is this correct?
( And I don't know... Could be a cult. LOL
)
That's it! I wasn't sure how to describe it, but yes. Light has farther to travel for the stretched portion, versus the non-stretched portion, so therefore, time is traveling at a different rate.
Is this correct?
( And I don't know... Could be a cult. LOL
)
OK ResidentGeek
it could only be considered that time would progress at a different rate when comparing the inner region to the outer region. if i were in the inner circle time would appear to progress at the same rate as that if i were to travel to the outer circle and experience time there.
the different rate you are describing is a relational effect when the outer region is compared to the inner region, but is not evoked by either region in isolation of the other.
did i make a mess of the train of thought ???
QUOTE
Light has farther to travel for the stretched portion, versus the non-stretched portion, so therefore, time is traveling at a different rate.
it could only be considered that time would progress at a different rate when comparing the inner region to the outer region. if i were in the inner circle time would appear to progress at the same rate as that if i were to travel to the outer circle and experience time there.
the different rate you are describing is a relational effect when the outer region is compared to the inner region, but is not evoked by either region in isolation of the other.
did i make a mess of the train of thought ???
As I understand it (and its probably not very well..) the answer directly to your questions is no. The "shape" of the universe does not effect the speed of time unless our entire universe is spinning some how some way and we just don't know it..
But also as I understand time dilation where you are in the universe can have different time speeds. If you are moving any where in the universe as we are right now on earth flying around the sun, flying around the center of the galaxy, in a galaxy flying around our universe, then your time moves slower than someone who is not moving. The strength of the gravitational fields around you and how your are being affected will also change the effect of time dilation. If you are in a strong field your time will be slower to an observational observer who is in weaker fields.
In theory tho... there is an arbitrary point in this universe at any given time where the cumulative effect of all gravitational fields nullifies out (ergo you are pulled equally in every direction of space by gravity and the net effect of gravity is zero). This point is probably moving at all times as space, matter, and all energy is always moving about the universe. But in theory if this point were to be a constant spot and you were to sit in it you would see all objects in space move very slowly and you would in essence be the fastest thing in the universe as you would have the net effect of ZERO gravitational time dilation.
Again as I said this point is probably always moving and in theory it could be moving faster than light as it itself is just an arbitrary point picked do to special circumstances.. nothings actually moving your just picking a new point as to where gravity has a net effect of zero. Its probably even possible to have multiple "points" too I believe (may be wrong.. i don't know).
Thats just my thoughts on this subject. I am not a scientist, physicist student, doctor or anything else.. just someone who spends to much time browsing the Internet and thinking bout this stuff.
But also as I understand time dilation where you are in the universe can have different time speeds. If you are moving any where in the universe as we are right now on earth flying around the sun, flying around the center of the galaxy, in a galaxy flying around our universe, then your time moves slower than someone who is not moving. The strength of the gravitational fields around you and how your are being affected will also change the effect of time dilation. If you are in a strong field your time will be slower to an observational observer who is in weaker fields.
In theory tho... there is an arbitrary point in this universe at any given time where the cumulative effect of all gravitational fields nullifies out (ergo you are pulled equally in every direction of space by gravity and the net effect of gravity is zero). This point is probably moving at all times as space, matter, and all energy is always moving about the universe. But in theory if this point were to be a constant spot and you were to sit in it you would see all objects in space move very slowly and you would in essence be the fastest thing in the universe as you would have the net effect of ZERO gravitational time dilation.
Again as I said this point is probably always moving and in theory it could be moving faster than light as it itself is just an arbitrary point picked do to special circumstances.. nothings actually moving your just picking a new point as to where gravity has a net effect of zero. Its probably even possible to have multiple "points" too I believe (may be wrong.. i don't know).
Thats just my thoughts on this subject. I am not a scientist, physicist student, doctor or anything else.. just someone who spends to much time browsing the Internet and thinking bout this stuff.
Perhaps along the same mode of thinking that liquid, in this case light in the universe takes the shape of its container.
... or time.
Anyone considered that time might speed up in the future?
I mean if the hypersphere is expanding at an exponential rate?
What is the speed of time?
I mean if the hypersphere is expanding at an exponential rate?
What is the speed of time?
Yes it would affect the speed of time from place to place in space. Have a look at my formulae that I potulated in 2006.
t t t t t t t t t[Present]------------------------ D{Dense vacuum}[Past]
_________________ Is an equal ratio too _________________________________
----T T T T T T [Past]------------------------d{less dense vacuum} [Present]
t t t t t t t t t[Present]------------------------ D{Dense vacuum}[Past]
_________________ Is an equal ratio too _________________________________
----T T T T T T [Past]------------------------d{less dense vacuum} [Present]
i have comments on two distinct subtopics here.
1. about speed of time:
what does it even mean? "speed" means rate of change with time, and how would one measure time changing with time? it is no sense at all.
imagine if time in the whole universe suddenly starts to go half as fast. is that ok? i think it will be no difference at all - if all processes advance at half their usual rate, that would include clocks as well, and as a result we will not notice any difference at all.
for this reason, "speed of time" is just a meaningless phrase in general.
now, when comparing two different places, it has some sense - because now we are not trying to give an absolute measure for "speed of time", but only to find a relation between the two places... but it is also possible that instead of considering them to have a different speed of time, we just consider the speed of actual physical processes in them to be different... say, the speed of light is different, not time. both interpretations would be equally valid.
but we've not found any such differences yet anyway, so it is pointless to argue about semantics now.
2. about the shape of the universe.
it is a common misconception i think, but most theories don't imply the existence of "center of the universe", or any other differences between regions of space.
when the shape of the universe is said to be like a torus, don't take that literally. what is usually meant by that is just that it's closed, looping. but it does not mean that you will find shorter loops in some regions of space (inner side) and longer loops in other regions (outer side). most theories consider space to be homogeneous. any part of space is absolutely equivalent to any other. there are no "inner" and "outer" fragments, in spite of what you might be imagining visually.
1. about speed of time:
what does it even mean? "speed" means rate of change with time, and how would one measure time changing with time? it is no sense at all.
imagine if time in the whole universe suddenly starts to go half as fast. is that ok? i think it will be no difference at all - if all processes advance at half their usual rate, that would include clocks as well, and as a result we will not notice any difference at all.
for this reason, "speed of time" is just a meaningless phrase in general.
now, when comparing two different places, it has some sense - because now we are not trying to give an absolute measure for "speed of time", but only to find a relation between the two places... but it is also possible that instead of considering them to have a different speed of time, we just consider the speed of actual physical processes in them to be different... say, the speed of light is different, not time. both interpretations would be equally valid.
but we've not found any such differences yet anyway, so it is pointless to argue about semantics now.
2. about the shape of the universe.
it is a common misconception i think, but most theories don't imply the existence of "center of the universe", or any other differences between regions of space.
when the shape of the universe is said to be like a torus, don't take that literally. what is usually meant by that is just that it's closed, looping. but it does not mean that you will find shorter loops in some regions of space (inner side) and longer loops in other regions (outer side). most theories consider space to be homogeneous. any part of space is absolutely equivalent to any other. there are no "inner" and "outer" fragments, in spite of what you might be imagining visually.
Well as far as speed of time and frame of reference here is an easy example for you as to what we mean. Lets say you have 2 clocks that move at exactly that are perfectly synchronized. Nano second to nano second both these clocks give you the same time. Now you tie an unbreakable string to one clock and let it drift close to a black hole where its time is modified by the gravitational time dilation effect proposed by Einstein in general relativity. Now when you pull the clock back to you and compare the times on the clocks you will see that less time passed for the clock closer to the black hole than the one you kept with you. And yes they have actually confirmed this effect through several tests.. Please wiki "Time Dilation" for references.
I havent really gotten into the whole shape of the universe question yet.. I think its more of those who think about what shape is the "brane" that our universe is on than the shape of our observable universe.
I do believe that there is a center of our universe and we will find it at some point. Its either the original center of the big bang and its defined as the center because its the point from which everything expanded out from or, they will define some form of gravitic center which is middle point for all mass around it (ergo the middle point from galaxies on one side of the universe to the other side). But who knows when they might want to get around to looking for something like that.
I havent really gotten into the whole shape of the universe question yet.. I think its more of those who think about what shape is the "brane" that our universe is on than the shape of our observable universe.
I do believe that there is a center of our universe and we will find it at some point. Its either the original center of the big bang and its defined as the center because its the point from which everything expanded out from or, they will define some form of gravitic center which is middle point for all mass around it (ergo the middle point from galaxies on one side of the universe to the other side). But who knows when they might want to get around to looking for something like that.
The shape of the universe is 4dimensional hypersphere. It expands forever and time increases.
BURT SP
BURT SP
Does the unerverse affect the speed of time? It would make intrisic sense to me. After all, a fluid will take the shape of it's containor.
space has a fluid or gaseous type of container so therefore is somewhat very uncontrolled and un understood. listen to Zephir blather about Aether about 5 times and I guaratee you'll see at least two pictures of it.... Now the problem is Zephir was good with pictures.... We all serve a part in figuring things out though I think that understaning the fluid nature of this so called container or even gaseous natue even would be a better description. Almost like ocean with obstacles and even those reefs you don't see.
QUOTE (visual+Oct 1 2007, 12:45 PM)
i have comments on two distinct subtopics here.
1. about speed of time:
what does it even mean? "speed" means rate of change with time, and how would one measure time changing with time? it is no sense at all.
imagine if time in the whole universe suddenly starts to go half as fast. is that ok? i think it will be no difference at all - if all processes advance at half their usual rate, that would include clocks as well, and as a result we will not notice any difference at all.
for this reason, "speed of time" is just a meaningless phrase in general.
now, when comparing two different places, it has some sense - because now we are not trying to give an absolute measure for "speed of time", but only to find a relation between the two places... but it is also possible that instead of considering them to have a different speed of time, we just consider the speed of actual physical processes in them to be different... say, the speed of light is different, not time. both interpretations would be equally valid.
but we've not found any such differences yet anyway, so it is pointless to argue about semantics now.
2. about the shape of the universe.
it is a common misconception i think, but most theories don't imply the existence of "center of the universe", or any other differences between regions of space.
when the shape of the universe is said to be like a torus, don't take that literally. what is usually meant by that is just that it's closed, looping. but it does not mean that you will find shorter loops in some regions of space (inner side) and longer loops in other regions (outer side). most theories consider space to be homogeneous. any part of space is absolutely equivalent to any other. there are no "inner" and "outer" fragments, in spite of what you might be imagining visually.
time has no speed
time is duration of material change into space
material change has speed
you can travel into space only and not in time.......
1. about speed of time:
what does it even mean? "speed" means rate of change with time, and how would one measure time changing with time? it is no sense at all.
imagine if time in the whole universe suddenly starts to go half as fast. is that ok? i think it will be no difference at all - if all processes advance at half their usual rate, that would include clocks as well, and as a result we will not notice any difference at all.
for this reason, "speed of time" is just a meaningless phrase in general.
now, when comparing two different places, it has some sense - because now we are not trying to give an absolute measure for "speed of time", but only to find a relation between the two places... but it is also possible that instead of considering them to have a different speed of time, we just consider the speed of actual physical processes in them to be different... say, the speed of light is different, not time. both interpretations would be equally valid.
but we've not found any such differences yet anyway, so it is pointless to argue about semantics now.
2. about the shape of the universe.
it is a common misconception i think, but most theories don't imply the existence of "center of the universe", or any other differences between regions of space.
when the shape of the universe is said to be like a torus, don't take that literally. what is usually meant by that is just that it's closed, looping. but it does not mean that you will find shorter loops in some regions of space (inner side) and longer loops in other regions (outer side). most theories consider space to be homogeneous. any part of space is absolutely equivalent to any other. there are no "inner" and "outer" fragments, in spite of what you might be imagining visually.
time has no speed
time is duration of material change into space
material change has speed
you can travel into space only and not in time.......
QUOTE (BURT SP+Oct 4 2007, 02:49 AM)
The shape of the universe is 4dimensional hypersphere. It expands forever and time increases.
BURT SP
You don't like cheese, do you, by any chance?
pete
BURT SP
You don't like cheese, do you, by any chance?
pete
ResidentGeek. Why do you think the basic laws everything exists by differ in any part of the universe? What we call time can be influenced by a number of other conditions like gravity, the light barrier, etc.
The universe is probably a 3D sphere. There is no evidence more dimensions exist.
The universe is probably a 3D sphere. There is no evidence more dimensions exist.
hawksecho. What we call time is what Man has assigned as a measurement of the natural rate of alteration of what is in the universe. A copper atom left to it's own devices will always vibrate at exactly the same rate, anywhere. Ten miles per hour is ten miles per hour anywhere in the universe.
AF JunkyW. In the past I have shown here that time dilation does not exist. It is a name for certain effects used by people too lazy to look for rational explanations.
I'm not making myself clear.
Time is relative to the speed of light.
If space/time is stretched at the outer reaches of the universe, then relative to someone at the center of the universe (Inkaat or Farsight perhaps?) they would move much more slowly. Relative to the center of the universe, the light has a farther distance to travel.
It's like a ball on a string.
At 15 mph, it will rotate around you body rather quickly if it is only 2 feet from your body. If it is 40 feet from you body though, it will take much longer to make a single revolution.
My question can be boiled down to a single question.
Is space/time stretched the further out in the universe you go, or is there simply more of it?
Time is relative to the speed of light.
If space/time is stretched at the outer reaches of the universe, then relative to someone at the center of the universe (Inkaat or Farsight perhaps?) they would move much more slowly. Relative to the center of the universe, the light has a farther distance to travel.
It's like a ball on a string.
At 15 mph, it will rotate around you body rather quickly if it is only 2 feet from your body. If it is 40 feet from you body though, it will take much longer to make a single revolution.
My question can be boiled down to a single question.
Is space/time stretched the further out in the universe you go, or is there simply more of it?
" If space/time is stretched at the outer reaches of the universe "
I don't think so, we do see a expanding universe but shouldn't that be related to a expansion 'in every point' . And if that is the case then the expansion should be 'even' and not accelerated the 'farther' you look. And time is something that are very local but reachable to all, we see that all timeframes are 'connected' as we can see the whole universe, not caring for objects different acceleration. They are all there as a 'whole' experience to you whenever you 'observe'. The same as gravity seems to be, in every point, acting 'instantly' on your rockets course change.
I don't think so, we do see a expanding universe but shouldn't that be related to a expansion 'in every point' . And if that is the case then the expansion should be 'even' and not accelerated the 'farther' you look. And time is something that are very local but reachable to all, we see that all timeframes are 'connected' as we can see the whole universe, not caring for objects different acceleration. They are all there as a 'whole' experience to you whenever you 'observe'. The same as gravity seems to be, in every point, acting 'instantly' on your rockets course change.
But gravity is not instant. If the sun were to suddenly disappear, it would take eight minutes for the light from the sun to finish it's intended course to the earth.
The effects of the missing sun would take at least that long to reach the earth. Otherwise, gravity travels faster than light. An impossibility as we know it.
It is also impossible to create or destroy matter. You can convert it to energy but there is a set amount of matter in the universe that entropy acts on, slowly whittling away at.
If space/time is NOT indeed being stretched, then isn't more space being created? Not matter, but space? Something has to stretch or else the expanding universe isn't expanding. It's creating more of itself. It's growing bigger.
In a way, this COULD explain a bit of entropy. Since Absolute zero, (By law of thermal dynamics), can never be reached, heat is being dispersed consistently.
So.
Either, more space is being created each day,
OR
Space is being stretched. More so on the outside than the inside. Which is it?
The effects of the missing sun would take at least that long to reach the earth. Otherwise, gravity travels faster than light. An impossibility as we know it.
It is also impossible to create or destroy matter. You can convert it to energy but there is a set amount of matter in the universe that entropy acts on, slowly whittling away at.
If space/time is NOT indeed being stretched, then isn't more space being created? Not matter, but space? Something has to stretch or else the expanding universe isn't expanding. It's creating more of itself. It's growing bigger.
In a way, this COULD explain a bit of entropy. Since Absolute zero, (By law of thermal dynamics), can never be reached, heat is being dispersed consistently.
So.
Either, more space is being created each day,
OR
Space is being stretched. More so on the outside than the inside. Which is it?
Yes you are right :)
But as soon gravity has been established it's always 'there' and will as far as i know react 'instantly' at any course change.
The gravity wells and mountains are there even though, as i understand (and you) it do take some time for it to be established.
As for that meaning that there are a force moving called f ex gravitons i doubt :)
What's sure is that it takes time for a change to register on restmass, (ahh) spacetime :)
As you know entropy :) Wanna take a shot on 'virtual particles'?
My very own opinion is that if something has a observed impact on spacetime it matters :)
So either we stop saying that they are virtual or we explain how something 'flickering' not really 'there' can influence spacetime (and as i see it entropy:)
As for how we expand i think my view holds :)
As long as nobody prove me wrong that is ::))
By experiment.
But as soon gravity has been established it's always 'there' and will as far as i know react 'instantly' at any course change.
The gravity wells and mountains are there even though, as i understand (and you) it do take some time for it to be established.
As for that meaning that there are a force moving called f ex gravitons i doubt :)
What's sure is that it takes time for a change to register on restmass, (ahh) spacetime :)
As you know entropy :) Wanna take a shot on 'virtual particles'?
My very own opinion is that if something has a observed impact on spacetime it matters :)
So either we stop saying that they are virtual or we explain how something 'flickering' not really 'there' can influence spacetime (and as i see it entropy:)
As for how we expand i think my view holds :)
As long as nobody prove me wrong that is ::))
By experiment.
A Schroedinger effect on space/time? Possible, but probably not. Schroedinger's principle applies only on a quantum level.
"If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" Schroedinger might say no, but in reality it did. Does it matter? No. But because we don't deal with matter on a quantum level, Schroedinger's principle doesn't apply. Not that we know of anyway.
But my question still stands.
If an expanding universe is "stretching" as it expands, (like a balloon), then space/time is stretching as well. This means that someone at the center of the universe would view someone at the edge of the universe as moving very slowly.
If this is not the case, and the universe is actually growing, (Creating more of itself), then doesn't this violate the law stating that matter can neither be created or destroyed? I know it's not matter but assuming that string theory is correct, the brane world would be becoming larger as the universe expands. This means either the density of attached strings is lower or there are more of them being created to compensate for the increased size of the brane world.
((I'm a bit rusty with string theory. I'm assuming that this is accurate?))
"If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" Schroedinger might say no, but in reality it did. Does it matter? No. But because we don't deal with matter on a quantum level, Schroedinger's principle doesn't apply. Not that we know of anyway.
But my question still stands.
If an expanding universe is "stretching" as it expands, (like a balloon), then space/time is stretching as well. This means that someone at the center of the universe would view someone at the edge of the universe as moving very slowly.
If this is not the case, and the universe is actually growing, (Creating more of itself), then doesn't this violate the law stating that matter can neither be created or destroyed? I know it's not matter but assuming that string theory is correct, the brane world would be becoming larger as the universe expands. This means either the density of attached strings is lower or there are more of them being created to compensate for the increased size of the brane world.
((I'm a bit rusty with string theory. I'm assuming that this is accurate?))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
" Manifestations
There are many observable physical phenomena resulting from interactions involving virtual particles. All tend to be characterized by the relatively short range of the force interaction producing them. Some of them are:
* The Coulomb force between electric charges. It is caused by exchange of virtual photons. In symmetric 3-dimensional space this exchange results in inverse square law for force.
* The so-called near field of radio antennas, where the magnetic effects of the current in the antenna wire and the charge effects of the wire's capacitative charge are detectable, but both of which effects disappear with increasing distance from the antenna much more quickly than do the influence of conventional electromagnetic waves, for which E is always equal to cB, and which are composed of real photons.
* The strong nuclear force between quarks - it is the result of interaction of virtual gluons. The residual of this force outside of quark triplets (neutron and proton) holds neutrons and protons together in nuclei, and is due to virtual mesons such as the pi meson and rho meson.
* The weak nuclear force - it is the result of exchange by virtual W bosons.
* The spontaneous emission of a photon during the decay of an excited atom or excited nucleus; such a decay is prohibited by ordinary quantum mechanics and requires the quantization of the electromagnetic field for its explanation.
* The Casimir effect, where the ground state of the quantized electromagnetic field causes attraction between a pair of electrically neutral metal plates.
* The van der Waals force, which is partly due to the Casimir effect between two atoms,
* Vacuum polarization, which involves pair production or the decay of the vacuum, which is the spontaneous production of particle-antiparticle pairs (such as electron-positron).
* Lamb shift of positions of atomic levels.
* Hawking radiation, where the gravitational field is so strong that it causes the spontaneous production of photon pairs (with black body energy distribution) and even of particle pairs.
Most of these have analogous effects in solid-state physics; indeed, one can often gain a better intuitive understanding by examining these cases. In semiconductors, the roles of electrons, positrons and photons in field theory are replaced by electrons in the conduction band, holes in the valence band, and phonons or vibrations of the crystal lattice.
Antiparticles have been proven to exist and should not be confused with virtual particles or virtual antiparticles. "
Ah well i beg to disagree. Schrödinger's cat is live and well :)
Or for all i know? Dead?? :)
Awh i do have terrible taste
" Manifestations
There are many observable physical phenomena resulting from interactions involving virtual particles. All tend to be characterized by the relatively short range of the force interaction producing them. Some of them are:
* The Coulomb force between electric charges. It is caused by exchange of virtual photons. In symmetric 3-dimensional space this exchange results in inverse square law for force.
* The so-called near field of radio antennas, where the magnetic effects of the current in the antenna wire and the charge effects of the wire's capacitative charge are detectable, but both of which effects disappear with increasing distance from the antenna much more quickly than do the influence of conventional electromagnetic waves, for which E is always equal to cB, and which are composed of real photons.
* The strong nuclear force between quarks - it is the result of interaction of virtual gluons. The residual of this force outside of quark triplets (neutron and proton) holds neutrons and protons together in nuclei, and is due to virtual mesons such as the pi meson and rho meson.
* The weak nuclear force - it is the result of exchange by virtual W bosons.
* The spontaneous emission of a photon during the decay of an excited atom or excited nucleus; such a decay is prohibited by ordinary quantum mechanics and requires the quantization of the electromagnetic field for its explanation.
* The Casimir effect, where the ground state of the quantized electromagnetic field causes attraction between a pair of electrically neutral metal plates.
* The van der Waals force, which is partly due to the Casimir effect between two atoms,
* Vacuum polarization, which involves pair production or the decay of the vacuum, which is the spontaneous production of particle-antiparticle pairs (such as electron-positron).
* Lamb shift of positions of atomic levels.
* Hawking radiation, where the gravitational field is so strong that it causes the spontaneous production of photon pairs (with black body energy distribution) and even of particle pairs.
Most of these have analogous effects in solid-state physics; indeed, one can often gain a better intuitive understanding by examining these cases. In semiconductors, the roles of electrons, positrons and photons in field theory are replaced by electrons in the conduction band, holes in the valence band, and phonons or vibrations of the crystal lattice.
Antiparticles have been proven to exist and should not be confused with virtual particles or virtual antiparticles. "
Ah well i beg to disagree. Schrödinger's cat is live and well :)
Or for all i know? Dead?? :)
Awh i do have terrible taste
Forgive me if I missed something but I'm not exactly seeing where this comes into play with my given question of the shape of the universe. 
Woops, got sidetracked here :)
Sorry
Sorry
Interesting topic yes, but right now I'm simply trying to find an answer to my question...
Hi RG, et. all,
I just read a very good write up by Good Elf on the "Particles have mass, How?" thread. The gist I got was that using the Deep Field pictures from the Hubble, they were able to see the very young universe. There were many important observations of expansion and early galaxy development that I need to revisit, but I believe it may help you some.
The analogy of the surface of an expanding balloon was used to explain the Hubble expansion, but because the universe was so young that far away, the expansion looked more like we would expect today.
I'm sorry I can't explain it any better, but it was a post from about 3 days ago. You should be able to find it. (BTW, if you can help me figure out how to link to those things, I'd appreciate it!)
Take care Bro.
Peace,
Ron
I just read a very good write up by Good Elf on the "Particles have mass, How?" thread. The gist I got was that using the Deep Field pictures from the Hubble, they were able to see the very young universe. There were many important observations of expansion and early galaxy development that I need to revisit, but I believe it may help you some.
The analogy of the surface of an expanding balloon was used to explain the Hubble expansion, but because the universe was so young that far away, the expansion looked more like we would expect today.
I'm sorry I can't explain it any better, but it was a post from about 3 days ago. You should be able to find it. (BTW, if you can help me figure out how to link to those things, I'd appreciate it!)
Take care Bro.
Peace,
Ron
what part of the universe being homogeneous and there not being a center did you not understand?
Thanx Ron, You can link to a post by clicking the word "Posted on" above each person's post.
It will show you the link to it.
visual,
Stating that the Universe is homogeneous is just a theory. Just like the expanding universe is also just a theory. You can keep saying it, but I disagree. Either the universe ends somewhere, (With who knows what past it), or it just keeps going for forever.
This question is assuming that the universe is not infinite and that there IS a center. In which case, your argument is invalid.
It will show you the link to it.
visual,
Stating that the Universe is homogeneous is just a theory. Just like the expanding universe is also just a theory. You can keep saying it, but I disagree. Either the universe ends somewhere, (With who knows what past it), or it just keeps going for forever.
This question is assuming that the universe is not infinite and that there IS a center. In which case, your argument is invalid.
The universe can be finite and still without an "end" and a "center"... the classical "surface of a sphere" analogy shows it. Inflating the sphere also shows how space can be expanding, and so on...
But it's not anything you've not heard before, I'm sure.
You even talk about stretching balloons yourself, but i get the feeling in your analogy the universe is not the surface of the balloon, but the volume... or else how does it have an "edge" or a "center"? That makes the analogy quite useless.
And I'm sorry to tell you, but you can't expect anything more than "just a theory" as an answer. What did you think, that God or someone will post a specific answer that is 100% true?
Very well, then.
42
Other than that, it is a fact that all our current observations and knowledge do not reveal any differences in different regions of space... so the supposition that space is indeed homogeneous, while not 100% certain, is a sound one.
Since you insist, i can go along with your assumption that there is a center, though.
You give two alternatives,
The first one I understand you imagine as just more space appearing at the "edge", for matter to expand into. I wonder why can't you assume that empty space already exists to infinity beyond the "edge"?
Your second alternative, stretching of space, can technically again be "creating of more space", just the "new space" doesn't appear on the edge of the old space, but is distributed throughout the old space instead. I still don't understand why this "stretching" wouldn't happen evenly throughout the whole universe? According to you, it happens "More so on the outside than the inside", but why? The most logical assumption, I think, is that it either happens evenly everywhere, or only on the very edge itself, like in alternative 1
But it's not anything you've not heard before, I'm sure.
You even talk about stretching balloons yourself, but i get the feeling in your analogy the universe is not the surface of the balloon, but the volume... or else how does it have an "edge" or a "center"? That makes the analogy quite useless.
And I'm sorry to tell you, but you can't expect anything more than "just a theory" as an answer. What did you think, that God or someone will post a specific answer that is 100% true?
Very well, then.
42
Other than that, it is a fact that all our current observations and knowledge do not reveal any differences in different regions of space... so the supposition that space is indeed homogeneous, while not 100% certain, is a sound one.
Since you insist, i can go along with your assumption that there is a center, though.
You give two alternatives,
QUOTE
Either, more space is being created each day,
OR
Space is being stretched. More so on the outside than the inside.
OR
Space is being stretched. More so on the outside than the inside.
The first one I understand you imagine as just more space appearing at the "edge", for matter to expand into. I wonder why can't you assume that empty space already exists to infinity beyond the "edge"?
Your second alternative, stretching of space, can technically again be "creating of more space", just the "new space" doesn't appear on the edge of the old space, but is distributed throughout the old space instead. I still don't understand why this "stretching" wouldn't happen evenly throughout the whole universe? According to you, it happens "More so on the outside than the inside", but why? The most logical assumption, I think, is that it either happens evenly everywhere, or only on the very edge itself, like in alternative 1
Ok, I understand the surface of the balloon analogy. That makes a lot more sense.
But if it is indeed the volume rather than the surface area, then the question I'm asking is:
Would the universe look more like this:
With obvious stretching toward the ends,
Or this:
With evenly sized "pieces" of space. No stretching.
You're balloon surface sounds like a good explanation though. It's probably correct too.
The only thing I need to know is if the expansion of the universe happens more out at the farther reaches of the universe than where we are at.
A "simple" test could be used to find an answer.
Take a series of Hubble shots consecutively and see whether there are a greater concentration of stars in one direction versus another.
If so, chances are that we've got a "Center" to our universe. There should be a greater concentration toward the center if there really is an origin to the universe.
But if it is indeed the volume rather than the surface area, then the question I'm asking is:
Would the universe look more like this:
With obvious stretching toward the ends,
Or this:
With evenly sized "pieces" of space. No stretching.
You're balloon surface sounds like a good explanation though. It's probably correct too.
The only thing I need to know is if the expansion of the universe happens more out at the farther reaches of the universe than where we are at.
A "simple" test could be used to find an answer.
Take a series of Hubble shots consecutively and see whether there are a greater concentration of stars in one direction versus another.
If so, chances are that we've got a "Center" to our universe. There should be a greater concentration toward the center if there really is an origin to the universe.
QUOTE (ResidentGeek+Oct 17 2007, 08:59 AM)
Thanx Ron, You can link to a post by clicking the word "Posted on" above each person's post.
It will show you the link to it.
Well, for crying out loud! I've been doing it the hard way, by opening tabs, cutting and pasting, etc.
Now, If the mods would turn off flood control...
It will show you the link to it.
Well, for crying out loud! I've been doing it the hard way, by opening tabs, cutting and pasting, etc.
Now, If the mods would turn off flood control...
OK, I purposely didn't post immediately when I saw your pretty pictures, tried to give it a day of thought... and I'm still not sure what to think about them. So my post may still sound more like "thinking aloud" than anything conclusive.
Well, first of all, please oh please don't turn into a zephir
Other than that, I still don't see what the second image is trying to represent at all... it only shows the surface of the sphere, so doesn't give an idea about how the size of "pieces" scales with the distance from the center...
But I guess I understand your idea - it doesn't scale... it has the same size "pieces" everywhere, just more of them on the outside.
More "pieces" just means more space, greater volume, longer lengths for the circles the larger the radius is; a circle is a circle and an arc is an arc, not a straight line through curved space or some such junk;
This is just the normal geometry we all know and love, am I right? We just have normal flat euclidean space (maybe ignoring some tiny local curvatures caused by matter), and matter is bunched up in it in the shape of a sphere... you are right then, if we are not in the center, we should see much more stuff towards the center... the closer we are to the edge the more obvious the differences should be...
I don't think we've seen anything like that though.
Now then, what could the first image represent? I have several possible interpretations...
One possibility is that each "piece" represents the same amount of space as measured from inside that "universe"... each line segment is the same length, and is a straight line, despite it being curved on the image.
But I have two "gripes" about this interpretation...
First, if all of these lines are considered straight, all of the drawn "corners" are right angles, etc, how is the "curvature" on the drawing "obvious" at all? How is it relevant, and what does it represent? Isn't the presented geometry in fact just "flat" space, but looping in two dimensions and bounded in the third dimension? It can just as well be represented by a wide and short parallelepiped, with the clarification that the top and bottom bases are actual bounds or edges, while the vertical surfaces around it are just a "warp portal" or something, linking each point on them with the same point on the opposite side.
Sorry, I'm not into pictures... maybe I'd draw you some if you say you don't understand me
Second, why is the "center" missing from the picture? Is it possible to include it, and what would the picture really look like in it?
If the tangential segments become larger the further from the center they are, shouldn't the radial segments do so too? This seems like a minor gripe at first thought, but I think it is important when we try to imagine how the image would look closer to the center.
With ever decreasing segments the closer we get to the center, we will essentially have infinite many segments before we reach it, so effectively it is just a point infinitely far... This version of the picture I think would be equivalent to the "bounded/warping flat space" I described above, just with one of the bounds removed... essentially, a space looping in two dimensions, and in the third dimension it is infinite in one direction and bounded in the other direction... a parallelepiped with a bottom base, but without a top, going infinitely high instead, and again with the mentioned "warp" sides.
If on the other hand the radial segments do not become shorted with approaching the center... I'm not sure at all what we will have.. somehow perfectly parallel lines happen to join into a single point, within a finite distance... not a geometry I can imagine. Infinite curvature, or something?
Well, now that I think about it, the square with "warp sides" thing that I described won't work exactly the same as "surface of a sphere", as a large-scale measurement from inside would be able to determine exactly in which directions it is aligned... a flat circle or cylinder with "warp circumference" on the other hand would tend to distort objects passing through it... so some kind of "surface of a sphere" looping of space is probably the only accurate description...
You are correct then, such a curvature will be indeed obvious, or at least potentially detectable in "large scale" measurements, meaning on the same order as the length of the loop. But in fact a smaller radius means a bigger curvature, so I think the "obvious stretching" would be towards the center, not "towards the ends". The strange thing that happens with parallel lines in the center itself is actually "infinite curvature"... singularity perhaps?
I don't see why we'd have that looping happen in only one or two dimensions and not all three, and I don't see why its curvature (or the distance from a "center") would be related to the third dimension... it is just not symmetric, I prefer to think that a realistic model will have all spatial dimensions be equivalent and indistinguishable.
And now a completely different interpretation of the picture can be had if it were not a drawing of space itself, but spacetime. Time can be assumed the radial dimension, and space in each moment is a spherical surface (it is a 2d analogy, of course)... all moments together forming a spherical volume... but it's still not the best representation, as the curvature of space may not be so directly related to time...
I doubt this is what you meant in the first place, and I don't see how it would relate to the second image, so I'll put a stop here.
Gah.. my head hurts now. But I may come up with something else in a few days...
Well, first of all, please oh please don't turn into a zephir
Other than that, I still don't see what the second image is trying to represent at all... it only shows the surface of the sphere, so doesn't give an idea about how the size of "pieces" scales with the distance from the center...
But I guess I understand your idea - it doesn't scale... it has the same size "pieces" everywhere, just more of them on the outside.
More "pieces" just means more space, greater volume, longer lengths for the circles the larger the radius is; a circle is a circle and an arc is an arc, not a straight line through curved space or some such junk;
This is just the normal geometry we all know and love, am I right? We just have normal flat euclidean space (maybe ignoring some tiny local curvatures caused by matter), and matter is bunched up in it in the shape of a sphere... you are right then, if we are not in the center, we should see much more stuff towards the center... the closer we are to the edge the more obvious the differences should be...
I don't think we've seen anything like that though.
Now then, what could the first image represent? I have several possible interpretations...
One possibility is that each "piece" represents the same amount of space as measured from inside that "universe"... each line segment is the same length, and is a straight line, despite it being curved on the image.
But I have two "gripes" about this interpretation...
First, if all of these lines are considered straight, all of the drawn "corners" are right angles, etc, how is the "curvature" on the drawing "obvious" at all? How is it relevant, and what does it represent? Isn't the presented geometry in fact just "flat" space, but looping in two dimensions and bounded in the third dimension? It can just as well be represented by a wide and short parallelepiped, with the clarification that the top and bottom bases are actual bounds or edges, while the vertical surfaces around it are just a "warp portal" or something, linking each point on them with the same point on the opposite side.
Sorry, I'm not into pictures... maybe I'd draw you some if you say you don't understand me
Second, why is the "center" missing from the picture? Is it possible to include it, and what would the picture really look like in it?
If the tangential segments become larger the further from the center they are, shouldn't the radial segments do so too? This seems like a minor gripe at first thought, but I think it is important when we try to imagine how the image would look closer to the center.
With ever decreasing segments the closer we get to the center, we will essentially have infinite many segments before we reach it, so effectively it is just a point infinitely far... This version of the picture I think would be equivalent to the "bounded/warping flat space" I described above, just with one of the bounds removed... essentially, a space looping in two dimensions, and in the third dimension it is infinite in one direction and bounded in the other direction... a parallelepiped with a bottom base, but without a top, going infinitely high instead, and again with the mentioned "warp" sides.
If on the other hand the radial segments do not become shorted with approaching the center... I'm not sure at all what we will have.. somehow perfectly parallel lines happen to join into a single point, within a finite distance... not a geometry I can imagine. Infinite curvature, or something?
Well, now that I think about it, the square with "warp sides" thing that I described won't work exactly the same as "surface of a sphere", as a large-scale measurement from inside would be able to determine exactly in which directions it is aligned... a flat circle or cylinder with "warp circumference" on the other hand would tend to distort objects passing through it... so some kind of "surface of a sphere" looping of space is probably the only accurate description...
You are correct then, such a curvature will be indeed obvious, or at least potentially detectable in "large scale" measurements, meaning on the same order as the length of the loop. But in fact a smaller radius means a bigger curvature, so I think the "obvious stretching" would be towards the center, not "towards the ends". The strange thing that happens with parallel lines in the center itself is actually "infinite curvature"... singularity perhaps?
I don't see why we'd have that looping happen in only one or two dimensions and not all three, and I don't see why its curvature (or the distance from a "center") would be related to the third dimension... it is just not symmetric, I prefer to think that a realistic model will have all spatial dimensions be equivalent and indistinguishable.
And now a completely different interpretation of the picture can be had if it were not a drawing of space itself, but spacetime. Time can be assumed the radial dimension, and space in each moment is a spherical surface (it is a 2d analogy, of course)... all moments together forming a spherical volume... but it's still not the best representation, as the curvature of space may not be so directly related to time...
I doubt this is what you meant in the first place, and I don't see how it would relate to the second image, so I'll put a stop here.
Gah.. my head hurts now. But I may come up with something else in a few days...
time relation is relative to the observer.......if i was at the edge of the universe, i would see that the space- time center of the universe is much faster........
QUOTE (visual+Oct 17 2007, 11:13 AM)
what part of the universe being homogeneous and there not being a center did you not understand?
This relies on the mainly discredited big bang idea.
This relies on the mainly discredited big bang idea.
If spacetime expands, as in the universe is expanding, then the fine structure on which everything is based would change and the speed of light would increase, etc.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.