Physics Help Forum Primary constituent entities of the universe.

 Theoretical Physics Theoretical Physics Help Forum

Nov 16th 2013, 09:10 AM   #21

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,527
 Originally Posted by Troll 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.

Nov 16th 2013, 09:13 AM   #22

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,527
 Originally Posted by Troll 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.

 Nov 25th 2013, 06:27 AM #23 Senior Member     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...
Nov 25th 2013, 06:31 AM   #24
Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA
Posts: 157
 Originally Posted by topsquark 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...

Nov 25th 2013, 06:33 AM   #25
Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA
Posts: 157
 Originally Posted by topsquark 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.

 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.
Nov 25th 2013, 06:59 AM   #27
Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA
Posts: 157
 Originally Posted by physicsquest 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...

 Nov 25th 2013, 07:03 AM #28 Senior Member     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...
Nov 25th 2013, 07:43 AM   #29

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,527
 Originally Posted by Troll 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 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 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.

 Nov 25th 2013, 07:46 AM #30 Senior Member     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.

 Tags constituent, entities, primary, universe

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Physics Forum Discussions Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post philipishin Special and General Relativity 1 Aug 23rd 2016 05:15 PM MBW Philosophy of Physics 25 Jun 25th 2016 03:48 AM Mandrake Special and General Relativity 8 Nov 1st 2013 05:31 PM kenny1999 Light and Optics 1 Sep 2nd 2009 10:42 AM arbolis Philosophy of Physics 6 Jul 27th 2009 10:19 AM