Large Hardon Collider

[Psion]

Wow, now that's something new to me. But now it makes me wonder about that supposed outside pulling force or somesuch that seems to be pulling from outside our universe. Or whatever it was, some sort of anomaly I can't remember too much about right now, maybe because I'm sleepy. It was about either part or all of the universe being pulled in some direction instead of spreading evenly out? I'm not sure But I had thought it would just be another universe, sorta like another big bang that occurred elsewhere and was pulling our known portion to it. Now I don't even have a clue what it could be if gravity travels at lightspeed, since if we were affected by such a universe it would mean we'd also have to see it, no?

[Altariel]

As far as we know the expansion of our universe seems to be evenly distributed everywhere equally. In fact it seems to be accelerating equally everywhere too, such that at some point in the far future all galaxies outside of our own gravitationally bound supergroup will no longer be visible to us!

Perhaps you are referring to Penrose's claim of discovering ripples in the cosmic background radiation a several months ago? http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...cled-universe/

I'm not a physicist nor do I play one on TV but I approach the conclusions his team has drawn from its findings a bit of a skeptism. They had made the claim that these findings are evidence of gravitational waves created by collisions of between black holes during a previous universe before our big bang which became "encoded" into our Cosmic Background Radiation.

There are suggestions that perhaps our universe is embedded within a higher dimensional multiverse and that perhaps the one you and I are tied to might "crash into" other universes over the course of trillions of years. A few years ago there was a good read in SciAm talking about this proposition but I cannot find the link for at the moment. It has also been suggested that perhaps gravity isn't bound only to our 3 familiar directions and so it "leaks" into higher dimensional space which accounts for why it seems so weak relative to the other known forces. These are however only ideas with no known way to test or falsify which make them beyond the realm of science per se.

[foopy]

K, so witchcraft.

fuck! i actually agree with psion.





hehe, this is fun, i'll be back with more questions so you sciencefags can practice your elementary cosmology explanations.

(thanks for answering, jk about being sciencefags.)

[Chun Liroy]

No, just stop. Leave the Smolin/Magueijo fire starters at the door. Its fine if left in the theoretical realm, and yes, I have all of Magueijo's books so I know exactly the end result of a VSL discussion.

See Woozie/Max round 6

I was going to put a disclaimer for Woozie saying I'm joking and to not type out a 4 page response but then I fell asleep.

Edit: Kaylia, I thought the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light? If that's true then it it were to collapse during some event (if the big crunch all fantasy now?) wouldn't it theoretically effect us faster than the speed of light. That is, if it collapses at the same speed it expands.

[Pirian]

Don't think it's expanding faster than the speed of light. I also don't think we can measure just how quickly it is expanding, other than to say "really really fast". We can measure how quickly other objects are moving away from us, but I don't know if that's the same thing as universal expansion on the outer edges, and it's not faster than the speed of light otherwise we would see black in the night sky instead of stars

[Chun Liroy]

Well the black in the night sky thing would only apply to areas on the edge of the universe. We live in a sphere with a diameter of 13.7 BLY (I'm probably way off, just the visible universe to us), but we know things are past it that we can't see because their light hasn't reached us yet. If there was any "black" sky that'd be at the edge of the universe as it was expanding and then it would be black because no stars have formed yet, no?

[Pirian]

Well, if the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light then the night sky would be black because speed speed at which the light traveling from other stars to us is less than the speed at which we're moving away, so it never catches up. That doesn't happen so logically we can conclude that we are traveling less than the speed of light (and consequentially, we can deduce that if everything is expanding away from everything else at the same rate, then it's not even expanding at more than half the speed of light).

Also, I may be taking your statement too l the literal, but new starts only form where there's material (ie. at this point, the remnants of another star). The expanding universe is only expanding because there is matter on "edge" of what we understand as the universe. What is beyond that is purely speculation, because it's impossible to see out that far with current technology, but it is safe to say that it is "black" at the edge or the universe.


Also, someone who actually knows wtf they're talking about, please stop me or correct me where I am wrong. I love physics, but since changing majors it's been a while since I have studied all this crap so I may be remembering something incorrectly

[Mizango]

Edit: Kaylia, I thought the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light? If that's true then it it were to collapse during some event (if the big crunch all fantasy now?) wouldn't it theoretically effect us faster than the speed of light. That is, if it collapses at the same speed it expands.

What am I? Chopped liver. First thing Leroy is that "space" does expand faster than light, mainly because light itself is contained within space. Your thought on "Nothing can traverse space faster than c" is true because space isn't traveling though space, space is the vessel in which c and the rest of us are traversing.

Big crunch, big chill, call it what you will but no one knows for sure. Are you talking hypothetically?

[Mizango]

Also, remember that we are never looking in the present when it comes to space, everything we see is how it appears 8 mins ago, 12 hours ago or even 65, 000 years ago. Keep that concept in mind too when you read space related material.

[Chun Liroy]

I addressed Kaylia because he said that nothing outside our visible universe would effect us, so then I was thinking about the universe collapsing on itself. So yeah, it was all hypothetical lol.

@Pirian, I just don't know :<

Edit: And Miz, at that point, as far as theoretical intelligent beings, wouldn't they also be limited by the speed of light, thus if they point their "telescope" in our direction all they see is some barren wasteland of a planet? It would be cool to travel somehow faster than c through some sci-fi esque thing, then look at the earth in a time when dinosaurs roamed. Crude window into the past :D

[Mizango]

Oh ok lol.

[foopy]

so this morning, while showering, i was thinking of time dilation and space shit. soon as i stepped out of the shower, the clock that hangs in my bathroom fell off the wall and sent glass flying all over the floor. time is fucking with me.

moving along.

ok, so i'm speeding away from the earth at .9c and everyone on earth is aging super fast (or rather i'm aging super slow?).

but from my frame of reference, the earth is moving away at .9c and the inhabitants of earth are the one that experience slower time. i assume that is not the case, because in fact i'm the one being acted upon, while the earth is static. or something?

what happens when i turn off my engines and just coast at .9c? now i have no force being imparted on me, i think i'm completely still, and the universe around me is the one "moving" at .9c. which one of us undergoes time dilation? both of us? still me? whose clock is ticking at what speed? FUCKCDSJSHFJSFUIFSKLJDFN

damn, i can't even come up with a coherent question to pose to you guys, sorry.

basically, when NOT accelerating (assuming that even plays a role), how do you know who is speeding around, therefore who is experience time dilation thingy?

[Chun Liroy]

I think it's all you, because you are the one that is travelling at that speed, while everything around you is normal speed. But I'm dumb so who knows.

[Eliseos]

Can't reply in detail since bg is blocked at work and I'm answering on my phone, but this should explain it http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=575

Edit: didn't see miz's post.

[Khamsin]

so this morning, while showering, i was thinking of time dilation and space shit. soon as i stepped out of the shower, the clock that hangs in my bathroom fell off the wall and sent glass flying all over the floor. time is fucking with me.

moving along.

ok, so i'm speeding away from the earth at .9c and everyone on earth is aging super fast (or rather i'm aging super slow?).

but from my frame of reference, the earth is moving away at .9c and the inhabitants of earth are the one that experience slower time. i assume that is not the case, because in fact i'm the one being acted upon, while the earth is static. or something?

what happens when i turn off my engines and just coast at .9c? now i have no force being imparted on me, i think i'm completely still, and the universe around me is the one "moving" at .9c. which one of us undergoes time dilation? both of us? still me? whose clock is ticking at what speed? FUCKCDSJSHFJSFUIFSKLJDFN

damn, i can't even come up with a coherent question to pose to you guys, sorry.

basically, when NOT accelerating (assuming that even plays a role), how do you know who is speeding around, therefore who is experience time dilation thingy?

Isn't this basically the twin paradox? Both twins see the other as moving near the speed of light, but only one is actually accelerating/decelerating.

[foopy]

Isn't this basically the twin paradox? Both twins see the other as moving near the speed of light, but only one is actually accelerating/decelerating.

right, but what about when no one is accelerating? just coasting along. does nothing happen then? in regards to time dilation and shizzles.

[Eliseos]

You aren't accelerating at all if you're moving at a constant .9c. You'd be decelerating if you cut your engines off and decided to coast.

[foopy]

You aren't accelerating at all if you're moving at a constant .9c. You'd be decelerating if you cut your engines off and decided to coast.

decelerating due to? space friction? i thought that'd be nearly negligible.

[Mizango]

What you want is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_hypothesis

Time dilation isn't a bi-product of acceleration.

[Eliseos]

Space isn't a vacuum, and when you're travelling at that speed its pretty easy for something like hydrogen particles to slow down. Plus you'd have gravitational pull from nearby stars etc pulling you down.