The Universe

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

AuthorTopic: The Universe
Inferior
Shock Trooper
Member # 4214
 written Thursday, March 17 2005 11:37 Profile #0
Does anyone else question the truth of the theories of Stephen Hawking?

He claimed that there is no space outside the universe, which contradicts that there are multiple universes; If there is no space outside the universe, the universes should, obviously, be connected. It sounds paradoxal to me.

It also seems illogical to me that black holes, despite their unimaginable gravity, could explode, although not even light, with its incredible speed of 300.000 kilometres per second, can escape it.

Does Stephen Hawking have any proof for his claims?

Before anyone calls me haughty to doubt the intelligence of this genius, I would like to point out that Einstein, whose intelligence was, in my insight, far superior to Stephens intelligence, had an IQ of only 145, 45 above the average.

Intelligence is not the most important trait of a scientist.

[ Thursday, March 17, 2005 11:47: Message edited by: Mind ]
Posts: 356 | Registered: Tuesday, April 6 2004 07:00
The Stew Boy
Infiltrator
Member # 2836
 written Thursday, March 17 2005 11:42 Profile #1
I think there are infinite universes, but only one can exist at any time. If you were in one, and you, say, walked forward, your universe would disappear and another universe, in which you are walking forward, would come into existence. You would not notice any difference. If there is only one universe, then how do you explain Schrodinger's Cat?
Posts: 587 | Registered: Tuesday, April 1 2003 08:00
Ash Lael
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
 written Thursday, March 17 2005 11:44 Profile Homepage #2
I hope Stew is kidding.

--------------------
Sex is easier than love.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Thursday, March 17 2005 12:03 Profile Homepage #3
quote:
Originally written by Mind:

Does anyone else question the truth of the theories of Stephen Hawking?

He claimed that there is no space outside the universe, which contradicts that there are multiple universes; If there is no space outside the universe, the universes should, obviously, be connected. It sounds paradoxal to me.
Hawking is a logical positivist; he doesn't believe in multiple universes, because they're not observable. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics agrees with him, stating essentially that there's only one universe but some things in it are in an indeterminate state until observed.

quote:
It also seems illogical to me that black holes, despite their unimaginable gravity, could explode, although not even light, with its incredible speed of 300.000 kilometres per second, can escape it.

Does Stephen Hawking have any proof for his claims?
Does a mathematical proof count? The energy radiating from a black hole is too weak to be observable, so it's only predicted. (By the way, what black holes do isn't so much emitting particles as absorbing virtual particles with negative mass; maybe this is conceptually less difficult to swallow.)

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Inferior
Shock Trooper
Member # 4214
 written Thursday, March 17 2005 12:23 Profile #4
quote:
Hawking is a logical positivist; he doesn't believe in multiple universes, because they're not observable. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics agrees with him, stating essentially that there's only one universe but some things in it are in an indeterminate state until observed.
Accommodating to a book about his theories I read, he does believe that there are multiple universes.

I also disbelieve that, before the birth of matter, there was no space.
Posts: 356 | Registered: Tuesday, April 6 2004 07:00
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Thursday, March 17 2005 14:58 Profile Homepage #5
Trying to think about things like space and time before such things as matter existed doesn't work. At least not without headaches.

—Alorael, who believes Hawking because Hawking is an expert in the field and he is not. That level of physics is not really accessible to the lay audience.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
the incredible edible PENIS
BANNED
Member # 3477
 written Thursday, March 17 2005 15:00 Profile #6
i have no idea who this hawkins guy is but i want to see some proof

--------------------
Avernum is as addictive as skribbane!!! Withdrawal symptoms are harsh so I just keep playing.
Free skribbane at Wal-mart
Posts: 296 | Registered: Monday, September 22 2003 07:00
Oni of Chaos
Warrior
Member # 5531
 written Thursday, March 17 2005 15:01 Profile #7
It definitley game me a few

--------------------
~the all consuming oni of chaos~
Posts: 79 | Registered: Monday, February 21 2005 08:00
Error
Shock Trooper
Member # 5585
 written Thursday, March 17 2005 15:14 Profile #8
i heard somewhere that other universes might exist in the same space, on a different wavelength or something, and if this was true, it would not contradict Stephen Hawking's theories. however, I probably heard this in a science fiction book or something like that, so wether or not this has any chance of bieng true or any scientific evidence behind it is uncertain.

--------------------
Important Information about Stuff
Posts: 258 | Registered: Wednesday, March 9 2005 08:00
Rupert
Agent
Member # 618
 written Thursday, March 17 2005 15:29 Profile Homepage #9
The whole point of theories is that they are just that. Theories. Now, Stephen Hawkings can be a very intelligent man, however, his theories are merely an interpretation of the minute quantities of data that he sees.

Needless to say, theories change.

I think what I'm trying to say here is, your guess is as good as mine.

--------------------
Aut Tace Aut Loquere Meliora Silencio
Posts: 1487 | Registered: Sunday, February 10 2002 08:00
Dolphin
Shaper
Member # 5437
 written Thursday, March 17 2005 15:41 Profile #10
I have only spiritual prospectives to add to this, and since they can not be physically be proven accurate, or scientifically proven to be incorrect I suppose I have nothing productive to add to this.

--------------------
Nena
Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00
VCH
Shaper
Member # 247
 written Thursday, March 17 2005 17:24 Profile Homepage #11
I like the theory of multiple universes. But then string theory is pretty cool too. Neither has a whole lot of supporting observations though

--------------------
I stop rubber at 160km/h, five times a week.
CANUCKS
RESPEK!
My Style
The Knight Between Posts.
Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00
Inferior
Shock Trooper
Member # 4214
 written Thursday, March 17 2005 22:05 Profile #12
quote:
Trying to think about things like space and time before such things as matter existed doesn't work. At least not without headaches.
Time does not exist. Indirectly, it is merely the movement of matter.

Space has always existed. Otherwise, the enormous black hole which would later mysteriously explode could never have been created.

I've heard of a theory which said that a subatomic particle can escape a black hole if a particle of anti-matter approached it.
I could be mistaken, though.
Posts: 356 | Registered: Tuesday, April 6 2004 07:00
Or else o'erleap.
Law Bringer
Member # 335
 written Thursday, March 17 2005 22:25 Profile Homepage #13
Thinking of the singularity from which the universe expanded as a black whole isn't quite accurate. If we're dealing with relativity, which we are, both space and time stop working in any Newtonian sense. Space still consisted of an infinite number of points extending in all directions, but the distant between any two points approached zero. Everything in what would be the universe was effectively in the same place at the same time; put another way, neither place nor time were conceptually relevant yet. (This somewhat irrelevantly recalls a passage from a Terry Pratchett book about days passing one after another because they had tried passing all at once and it didn't work.)

—Alorael, who has only the most cursory acquaintance with Hawking's work. He'll only point to Thuryl's explanation of black whole particle emission.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Thursday, March 17 2005 23:22 Profile Homepage #14
quote:
Originally written by Mind:

quote:
Hawking is a logical positivist; he doesn't believe in multiple universes, because they're not observable. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics agrees with him, stating essentially that there's only one universe but some things in it are in an indeterminate state until observed.
Accommodating to a book about his theories I read, he does believe that there are multiple universes.
Multiple "universes" in the sense of other 4-dimensional outfoldings of spacetime are not the same as multiple universes in the sense of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

quote:
I also disbelieve that, before the birth of matter, there was no space.
Current physical models require that to be true in order to make sense, and since nobody was around then in any case, I don't see that it should bother you so much whether there was or not.

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Arancaytar
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
 written Friday, March 18 2005 01:13 Profile Homepage #15
Furthermore, what is space if there is no matter? Even in the "vacuum" of space there is a certain amount of matter (mainly hydrogen iirc). Without matter, there is nothing space can be measured by. It might as well not exist.

--------------------
The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki!
"Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft.
"I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Alex
Lifecrafter
Member # 59
 written Friday, March 18 2005 01:34 Profile #16
My theory is that the universe rests upon the shell of a giant turtle. However, we cannot observe the turtle, lest it turns into a nebula of dark matter Schrodinger cats, thereby annihilating the universe in 2+4i (complex) microseconds.

Actually, I prefer empirical science.
Posts: 950 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00
Inferior
Shock Trooper
Member # 4214
 written Friday, March 18 2005 03:09 Profile #17
quote:
Current physical models require that to be true in order to make sense…
Could you give an example of those physical models?

quote:
… and since nobody was around then in any case, I don't see that it should bother you so much whether there was or not.
The quest for knowledge cannot be rationally explained.

quote:
Furthermore, what is space if there is no matter? Even in the "vacuum" of space there is a certain amount of matter (mainly hydrogen iirc). Without matter, there is nothing space can be measured by. It might as well not exist.
There always is some empty space between atoms.

[ Friday, March 18, 2005 04:27: Message edited by: Mind ]
Posts: 356 | Registered: Tuesday, April 6 2004 07:00
Arancaytar
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
 written Friday, March 18 2005 03:20 Profile Homepage #18
Yes, but this empty space is defined by being the space between those atoms. If there were no atoms whatsoever, then where does that leave space?

--------------------
The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki!
"Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft.
"I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Inferior
Shock Trooper
Member # 4214
 written Friday, March 18 2005 03:38 Profile #19
I'm sorry, but this sounds like sophism to me. This is probably, however, because I do not understand your argument.

[ Friday, March 18, 2005 03:51: Message edited by: Mind ]
Posts: 356 | Registered: Tuesday, April 6 2004 07:00
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Friday, March 18 2005 04:11 Profile Homepage #20
quote:
Could you give an example of those physical models.
The universe began from a singularity. A singularity is a point of infinite density; therefore, gravity at that point is infinite. Gravity is the curvature of spacetime, so at a singularity, space curves in on itself to zero size and time does not pass. Now remember, our observable universe started with a singularity; if you "rewind" it to the moment of its beginning, at that point space and time curl in on themselves and cease to have any meaning.

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Inferior
Shock Trooper
Member # 4214
 written Friday, March 18 2005 04:38 Profile #21
quote:
The universe began from a singularity. A singularity is a point of infinite density; therefore, gravity at that point is infinite. Gravity is the curvature of spacetime, so at a singularity, space curves in on itself to zero size and time does not pass. Now remember, our observable universe started with a singularity; if you "rewind" it to the moment of its beginning, at that point space and time curl in on themselves and cease to have any meaning.
You're contradicting yourself, I believe.

Gravity bends space, which indicates that there must have been space when this singularity was born.

Since the matter of this singularity could not move, it could, logically, not explode.

Do all sorts of energy have gravity? Since matter equals energy, I suspect so.

[ Friday, March 18, 2005 04:51: Message edited by: Mind ]
Posts: 356 | Registered: Tuesday, April 6 2004 07:00
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Friday, March 18 2005 11:51 Profile Homepage #22
quote:
You're contradicting yourself, I believe.

Gravity bends space, which indicates that there must have been space when this singularity was born.
But if a point's gravity bends space infinitely, then all of space, as far as that point is concerned, is shrunk down to a volume of zero -- and since the concept of space includes volume, this means there's no space.

quote:
Since the matter of this singularity could not move, it could, logically, not explode.
Pretty much. Applying the laws of physics to singularities frequently leads to results that don't make much sense.

quote:
Do all sorts of energy have gravity? Since matter equals energy, I suspect so.
Good question. I'm no physicist so I'll leave it to someone who is.

--------------------
My BoE Page
Bandwagons are fun!
Roots
Hunted!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Inferior
Shock Trooper
Member # 4214
 written Saturday, March 19 2005 08:33 Profile #23
quote:
But if a point's gravity bends space infinitely, then all of space, as far as that point is concerned, is shrunk down to a volume of zero -- and since the concept of space includes volume, this means there's no space.
Is space equal to volume? In that case, I admit I am wrong.

quote:
Pretty much. Applying the laws of physics to singularities frequently leads to results that don't make much sense.
What law of physics indicates that black holes can explode? I thought Stephen Hawkings was a theoreticus, not a physicist?

If all forms of energy have gravity, it is possible that this singularity was a not a massive globe of matter.

[ Saturday, March 19, 2005 08:34: Message edited by: Mind ]
Posts: 356 | Registered: Tuesday, April 6 2004 07:00
Sarachim
For Carnage, Apply Within
Member # 95
 written Saturday, March 19 2005 09:17 Profile #24
To understand Hawking radiation, you have to first know about virtual particles. Essentially, these particles come in pairs, a particle and its antiparticle, and they pop into existence from nothing and, in most cases, annihilate each other shortly afterward, marking their impact on the workaday world negligible (hence the name "virtual"). I'm pretty sure I've oversimplified this, but it involves quantum mechanics and the actual science is way above my head.

Anyway, Hawking theorized that, since the appearance of these virtual particle pairs is basically random, there must be times when one of them appears just inside a black hole's event horizon while the other appears just outside, meaning that one particle falls into the black hole while the other is ejected outward. The stream of these particles would create the appearance of radiation from the black hole itself, which has been dubbed Hawking radiation.

I don't remember why it is that the negative mass/energy particle is always the one to fall into the black hole, but since a steam of energy is radiating away from the hole conservation requires that the hole itself lose energy or mass. Furthermore, the smaller a black hole is, the faster this effect occurs. The theoretical result is that, if you left it alone long enough, a black hole would shrink faster and faster and get hotter and hotter until it disappeared in a burst of radiation.

Note, however, that this has never been observed, and with stellar black holes it would take longer than the current age of the universe to decay to nothing.
Posts: 567 | Registered: Friday, October 5 2001 07:00

Pages