Go Back   Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > Theoretical Physics

Theoretical Physics Theoretical Physics Help Forum

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Nov 16th 2013, 09:10 AM   #21
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Troll View Post
In an infinite universe everything that is possible, is... an infinite number of times! If we could look beyond the observable universe (towards the macro), eventually we would see repetition. Likewise towards the micro. The universe would resolve to a fractal.
One of the basic assumptions we have in Physics is that the laws of Physics must be the same all throughout the Universe. We only have circumstantial evidence of this, but if it weren't true we couldn't do Physics at all. So this means that GR is the same theory at any point in the Universe.

As well, there is no Mathematical way to introduce the Mandelbrot set into the equations in general. Perhaps if you are near a really wacky mass distribution with just the right symmetries you could do it, but I doubt such a distribution could exist naturally...the mass distribution would have to be a fractal itself which would devolve into masses smaller than quarks when you get into the details of the structure. You can't go on splitting the masses down into infinitesimal parts.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline  
Old Nov 16th 2013, 09:13 AM   #22
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Troll View Post
A parabola is the intersection of a cone and a plane that is parallel to the axis of the cone...

If the cone has an apex angle of 90 degrees and extends to infinity what would a plot of a parabola look like on a graph that extended to infinity?
Ummmm....Unless it goes through the vertex it would look like, well, a parabola. I don't know what you are trying to say here.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline  
Old Nov 25th 2013, 06:27 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Troll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA
Posts: 157
A question about Michelson - Morely

The experiment demonstrated that there was no "aether", why does refraction of light occur if light requires no medium? I am not proposing that they were wrong... I am just posing a question.
__________________
Deception is a complex concept which the human mind is unable to resolve...
Troll is offline  
Old Nov 25th 2013, 06:31 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Troll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
One of the basic assumptions we have in Physics is that the laws of Physics must be the same all throughout the Universe. We only have circumstantial evidence of this, but if it weren't true we couldn't do Physics at all. So this means that GR is the same theory at any point in the Universe.

As well, there is no Mathematical way to introduce the Mandelbrot set into the equations in general. Perhaps if you are near a really wacky mass distribution with just the right symmetries you could do it, but I doubt such a distribution could exist naturally...the mass distribution would have to be a fractal itself which would devolve into masses smaller than quarks when you get into the details of the structure. You can't go on splitting the masses down into infinitesimal parts.

-Dan
If there is more than one "color" of a given quark then it must consist of subsets.

In an infinite universe, such a mass distribution would resolve at some point... in fact at an infinite number of points (fractals).

I know this is a difficult concept to grasp...
__________________
Deception is a complex concept which the human mind is unable to resolve...
Troll is offline  
Old Nov 25th 2013, 06:33 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
Troll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
Ummmm....Unless it goes through the vertex it would look like, well, a parabola. I don't know what you are trying to say here.

-Dan
If x were the proximity of the plane to the cone, x would always approach 0, hence the parabola would appear as a right angle.

What I am trying to say here is: If the universe were infinite and expanding at an accelerating rate this would be a parabolic function with limits of infinity. When we trace back along this "curve" we will see a horizon at T>0. If we could travel back in time to this point we could still trace back along the curve and see the same horizon at the same offset in time. The Big Bang would be an illusion.
__________________
Deception is a complex concept which the human mind is unable to resolve...

Last edited by Troll; Nov 25th 2013 at 06:40 AM.
Troll is offline  
Old Nov 25th 2013, 06:53 AM   #26
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,425
The experiment demonstrated that there was no "aether", why does refraction of light occur if light requires no medium? I am not proposing that they were wrong... I am just posing a question.

Light requires no medium to travel unlike sound. However if there is a medium, refraction can occur. Unless there is a change in medium, refraction doesn't occur. In short light requires a change in medium to refract, but a medium is not essential for it to propagate.
physicsquest is offline  
Old Nov 25th 2013, 06:59 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
Troll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by physicsquest View Post
The experiment demonstrated that there was no "aether", why does refraction of light occur if light requires no medium? I am not proposing that they were wrong... I am just posing a question.

Light requires no medium to travel unlike sound. However if there is a medium, refraction can occur. Unless there is a change in medium, refraction doesn't occur. In short light requires a change in medium to refract, but a medium is not essential for it to propagate.
Why? What is the mechanism? Certainly it is not a gravitational effect.
__________________
Deception is a complex concept which the human mind is unable to resolve...
Troll is offline  
Old Nov 25th 2013, 07:03 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
Troll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA
Posts: 157
Serendipity has been kind again!

Much Thx, Topsquark, I believe I can now account for the redshift that we have attributed to receding objects that should actually not be receding according to my hypothesis!

Faster than the speed of light?
__________________
Deception is a complex concept which the human mind is unable to resolve...
Troll is offline  
Old Nov 25th 2013, 07:43 AM   #29
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Troll View Post
If there is more than one "color" of a given quark then it must consist of subsets.

In an infinite universe, such a mass distribution would resolve at some point... in fact at an infinite number of points (fractals).

I know this is a difficult concept to grasp...
What does color have to do with this? And you are incorrect about the resolution comment...At this point the "smallest" component of mass that we know of is considered to be an up quark. (Yes we have electrons, etc, but they are not the primary constituents of matter.) So far as we know you can't get smaller than that so fractal mass distributions cannot happen.

Originally Posted by Troll View Post
If x were the proximity of the plane to the cone, x would always approach 0, hence the parabola would appear as a right angle.

What I am trying to say here is: If the universe were infinite and expanding at an accelerating rate this would be a parabolic function with limits of infinity. When we trace back along this "curve" we will see a horizon at T>0. If we could travel back in time to this point we could still trace back along the curve and see the same horizon at the same offset in time. The Big Bang would be an illusion.
The accelerating rate is not modeled on a parabola. You appear to be thinking of the position function of an object moving with a constant acceleration. The acceleration of the rate of expansion of the Universe due to dark energy is not constant over space.

You cannot traverse the path backward...all you can do is try to observe it from the light radiated by the singularity. And how would the Big Bang be an illusion? I don't understand your inference.

Originally Posted by Troll View Post
Much Thx, Topsquark, I believe I can now account for the redshift that we have attributed to receding objects that should actually not be receding according to my hypothesis!

Faster than the speed of light?
What hypothesis? The only one listed in your link refers to a photon moving faster than the speed of light, which as I mentioned in that thread cannot happen.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline  
Old Nov 25th 2013, 07:46 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
Troll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA
Posts: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troll
So observation of a distant massive object would provide a red shift?

If so the red shift would not change unless the mass/density of the object changed or it were receding?


As stated the light would be redshifted. If you are talking about an object you have an additional effect: the deeper the object is in a gravitational potential well, it's clock moves slower according to an outside observer. The frequency shift here is called a "gravitational red shift."


-Dan

So, if the universe and everything in it were expanding at an accelerating rate... A body at a great distance (hence at a great distance in time) would have been much denser when the light we are observing originated, and it would be red shifted dependent upon the distance/mass density of the object?

Is it possible then that the experiment to validate my hypothesis would be that as time passes we could observe more and more of the universe... or would time expansion prohibit that? Ahh! would objects be passing out of our observable universe? If my hypothesis is incorrect, they should be!


UDFj-39546284 (a proto-galaxy) is the most distant object on record (unless someone has more recent info) If you are an astrophysicist perhaps you can calculate when it should no longer be detectable in our observable universe?

Data here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...omical_objects
__________________
Deception is a complex concept which the human mind is unable to resolve...

Last edited by Troll; Nov 25th 2013 at 08:54 AM.
Troll is offline  
Closed Thread

  Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > Theoretical Physics

Tags
constituent, entities, primary, universe



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The end of the universe(by eye) philipishin Special and General Relativity 1 Aug 23rd 2016 05:15 PM
Is the Universe Random? MBW Philosophy of Physics 25 Jun 25th 2016 03:48 AM
The Unobservable Universe Mandrake Special and General Relativity 8 Nov 1st 2013 05:31 PM
what is primary color and what is its significance?? kenny1999 Light and Optics 1 Sep 2nd 2009 10:42 AM
Determinism of our Universe arbolis Philosophy of Physics 6 Jul 27th 2009 10:19 AM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed