Machine to create new universes - Printable Version
-Shoutbox (https://shoutbox.menthix.net)
+-- Forum: MsgHelp Archive (/forumdisplay.php?fid=58)
+--- Forum: General (/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+---- Forum: General Chit Chat (/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+----- Thread: Machine to create new universes (/showthread.php?tid=72197)
Machine to create new universes by Oxy on 02-28-2007 at 10:46 PM
I just heard off the news that somewhere in switzerland (i think) they're planning to build a machine that will make particles move as fast as the speed of light, and re-create the big bang... and thus, re-creating the earth but at a much smaller scale.
Opinions on this?
RE: Machine to create new universes by Chocolatino on 02-28-2007 at 10:51 PM
well first of all is it possible i mean i know a little science but not an expert so is it possible?
RE: Machine to create new universes by Baggins on 02-28-2007 at 10:52 PM
I thought, how big? The BB even on a smaller scale could blow up the earth.
EDIT: someone mind explaining why we thought it was impossbe for something to go faster than the speed of light?
RE: Machine to create new universes by Rolando on 02-28-2007 at 11:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Baggins
I thought, how big? The BB even on a smaller scale could blow up the earth.
EDIT: someone mind explaining why we thought it was impossbe for something to go faster than the speed of light?
Because when the speed of light is surpassed a huge wave sound is made.. feels pretty much like an earthquake mixed with a tornado.. but its not "impossible" to go faster than speed of light.
RE: Machine to create new universes by Baggins on 02-28-2007 at 11:59 PM
quote:Thanks for clearing that up for me. Whenever I heard about the speed of light the word 'impossible' was always used.
Originally posted by q25
quote:
Originally posted by Baggins
I thought, how big? The BB even on a smaller scale could blow up the earth.
EDIT: someone mind explaining why we thought it was impossbe for something to go faster than the speed of light?
Because when the speed of light is surpassed a huge wave sound is made.. feels pretty much like an earthquake mixed with a tornado.. but its not "impossible" to go faster than speed of light.
RE: Machine to create new universes by ShawnZ on 03-01-2007 at 01:26 AM
...the speed of light is impossible to cross
RE: Machine to create new universes by MeEtc on 03-01-2007 at 01:48 AM
quote:wow, what a lot of Greek
Originally posted by ShawnZ
...the speed of light is impossible to cross
all I could find is
quote:
Originally posted by wikipedia
Even without considerations of causality, there are other strong reasons why faster-than-light travel is forbidden by special relativity.
RE: Machine to create new universes by haydos on 03-01-2007 at 07:09 AM
Not sure how well you heard the news, but wasn't the machine intended to create a black hole, and not another Big Bang?
Hypothetically if it were a new Big Bang it wouldn't automatically create another Earth, that's just ludicrous that everything would work exactly such as the 'real' big bang and create a universe exactly the same.
RE: Machine to create new universes by Vimto on 03-01-2007 at 04:13 PM
Why cant people just leave things alone :\ Every answer is met with another question. LEAVE THE EARTH ALONE! 
RE: Machine to create new universes by Zahid™ on 03-01-2007 at 04:13 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6402493.stm
RE: Machine to create new universes by foaly on 03-01-2007 at 04:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by haydn
Not sure how well you heard the news, but wasn't the machine intended to create a black hole, and not another Big Bang?
Hypothetically if it were a new Big Bang it wouldn't automatically create another Earth, that's just ludicrous that everything would work exactly such as the 'real' big bang and create a universe exactly the same.
The big bang came out of nowhere so by making particles moves as fast as light... (which photons already do by themselfs...) you can never create a similar big bang...
RE: Machine to create new universes by vaccination on 03-01-2007 at 05:01 PM
It wasn't to recreate the big bang ¬¬
And like haydn said, a 'new Earth' wouldn't be formed, at least not for definite!
I read in a magazine(BBC Focus) that they're going to use the same(or similar) machine(proton accelerator?) to try and create a baby universe branching off from our one. By blasting some form of external energy source at a magnetic monopole which would create a tiny black hole, a new universe is formed at the same time. The back hole would then evaporate(due to quantum effects) leaving an eternally expanding baby universe.
It was something like that anyway ;p
RE: Machine to create new universes by M73A on 03-01-2007 at 05:15 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6402493.stm
is that the machine? this thread reminded me of the article. is that what your talking about?
RE: Machine to create new universes by Zahid™ on 03-01-2007 at 07:41 PM
quote:Yeh, thats what we're talking about and i already linked to that article.
Originally posted by M73A
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6402493.stm
is that the machine? this thread reminded me of the article. is that what your talking about?
http://shoutbox.menthix.net/showthread.php?tid=72...d=794369#pid794369
RE: Machine to create new universes by joey on 03-02-2007 at 10:16 AM
but why would you want to? humans are never happy with what we have, everything has to be better and bigger (or smaller in this case).
i know its partly due to natural instict to survive and pass on our genes and evolve but i think we're smart enough to realise that we're not helping ourselves by evolving thus polltuing the environment and killing everything (including us) all around the world. i dont think we need to know what the world was like billions of years ago, its just curiosity thats gone too far. and instead of spending millions/billions on doing things like this, we could use it to help bring the world back to where it was before we messed everything up.
*ICD inhales deeply* =)
RE: Machine to create new universes by John Anderton on 03-02-2007 at 11:38 AM
quote:You've got to be kidding me
Originally posted by q25
quote:
Originally posted by Baggins
I thought, how big? The BB even on a smaller scale could blow up the earth.
EDIT: someone mind explaining why we thought it was impossbe for something to go faster than the speed of light?
Because when the speed of light is surpassed a huge wave sound is made.. feels pretty much like an earthquake mixed with a tornado.. but its not "impossible" to go faster than speed of light.
That is the sound barrier ffs not the "light barrier" (velocity c in lame terms
)As you approach c (the speed of light), matter starts getting converted into energy. And there is a certain equation by Einstein which gives mass of a body at the speed of light. m(at v) is m0 (mass at rest)/(square root of a term)
It shows bodies can't go faster than the speed of light. And that equation is the reason.
The square root term is something like sqrt(1-v/c)
where c = speed of light and v = the bodies' velocity.
If c<v, sqrt is positive and mass is finite. For most velocities humans travel at, v<<<c so v/c~0 (approximately equal to zero)
Hence m is almost equal to m0.
As v->c (tends to), v/c -> 1 and we get m(v) > m(0)
If you take v=c, m(c)=inf.
Thus it is said that mass gets converted to energy (dunno why mass increases though
)If you think of v>c, your mass becomes an imaginary term
haxxAnyway, there are particles which are known to travel faster than light
Wiki ftw 
EDIT: Dodgy
RE: Machine to create new universes by saralk on 03-02-2007 at 07:09 PM
It is impossible to go faster than the speed of light, because there is a thing called time dilation, where the faster you go, the slower time travels (for you personally).
The equation is:
t = to/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
where t is the slower time (i.e. the time that someone not moving would measure you going) and to is the speed that the person moving really fast experiences.
v is the speed you are going, and c is the speed of light.
if v is greater than c, then 1 - v^2/c^2 would equal a negative number, and you can't square root a negative number, well, you can but you get infinity as the answer.
RE: Machine to create new universes by qgroessl on 03-02-2007 at 10:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Baggins
EDIT: someone mind explaining why we thought it was impossbe for something to go faster than the speed of light?
Actually the same was thought of the speed of sound too... All these equations saying it's impossible supports the fact that you CANNOT move faster than the speed of light... BUT.. if there are aliens *which I believe, but not completely*, They must move faster than the speed of light to get here I'm sure... it's just a matter of getting the technology to be able to handle the kinds of things that happen.
Just like with sound... you CANNOT go faster than the speed of sound with a propeller driven aircraft... It's impossible to control it. You can travel faster than sound in it, but not survive it. Same is probably true with light...
Science video last year, dealt with speed of sound/light and Einstein's theories.
RE: Machine to create new universes by Rolando on 03-02-2007 at 10:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by John Anderton
quote:You've got to be kidding me
Originally posted by q25
quote:
Originally posted by Baggins
I thought, how big? The BB even on a smaller scale could blow up the earth.
EDIT: someone mind explaining why we thought it was impossbe for something to go faster than the speed of light?
Because when the speed of light is surpassed a huge wave sound is made.. feels pretty much like an earthquake mixed with a tornado.. but its not "impossible" to go faster than speed of light.
That is the sound barrier ffs not the "light barrier" (velocity c in lame terms
As you approach c (the speed of light), matter starts getting converted into energy. And there is a certain equation by Einstein which gives mass of a body at the speed of light. m(at v) is m0 (mass at rest)/(square root of a term)
It shows bodies can't go faster than the speed of light. And that equation is the reason.
The square root term is something like sqrt(1-v/c)
where c = speed of light and v = the bodies' velocity.
If c<v, sqrt is positive and mass is finite. For most velocities humans travel at, v<<<c so v/c~0 (approximately equal to zero)
Hence m is almost equal to m0.
As v->c (tends to), v/c -> 1 and we get m(v) > m(0)
If you take v=c, m(c)=inf.
Thus it is said that mass gets converted to energy (dunno why mass increases though
If you think of v>c, your mass becomes an imaginary term
Anyway, there are particles which are known to travel faster than light
EDIT: Dodgy
I'm sorry.., I confused the terms
RE: Machine to create new universes by joey on 03-03-2007 at 10:58 AM
so star trek have been wrong the whole time then.... 
RE: Machine to create new universes by NiteMare on 03-03-2007 at 11:10 AM
quote:no, not at all, this was explained on a space channel program, the star trek warp drive consept was said to be plausable because of the warp bubble, which is said to "warp" space by shrinking space infront of the bubble and expanding it behind the bubble, thus propelling the bubble forward, and thus the ship inside the bubble, since this is "warping" space around an object instead of moving saide object through space it suggest faster then light travel is still plauseable, but is currently impractical, since said space warping would require the energy of about a billion suns
Originally posted by ichooselife128
so star trek have been wrong the whole time then....
and no i don't have the calculations like John Anderton
RE: Machine to create new universes by joey on 03-03-2007 at 11:16 AM
i knew star trek was ahead of its time but wow. =)
RE: Machine to create new universes by NiteMare on 03-03-2007 at 11:21 AM
quote:when you look at star trek , expecaly the original, you can see that lots of the "technology" didn't exist when the show was created, but because of the show, has inspiered the invention of similar devices today, such as the cell phone, inrelation to the original "communicator"
Originally posted by ichooselife128
i knew star trek was ahead of its time but wow. =)
This has been a Star Trek Fact from NiteMare
RE: Machine to create new universes by John Anderton on 03-03-2007 at 02:52 PM
quote:I'm pretty sure that is not v and c, its v^2 and c^2
Originally posted by John Anderton
The square root term is something like sqrt(1-v/c)
And good point made by saral is the time dilation.
quote:You can also prove that if you travelled at the speed at light (hypothetically) in a straight line, you could start from point A and come back at the same position but by then the universe would have collapsed or something.
Originally posted by saralk
It is impossible to go faster than the speed of light, because there is a thing called time dilation, where the faster you go, the slower time travels (for you personally).
cbf to check Stephen Hawking's book right now =p
quote:The big bang was created from a singularity. How do you know what caused the singularity? In a universe, for all practical purposes time starts at the big bang because any event before it has no effect on the universe after it. Thus, t=0 refers to the big bang.
Originally posted by foaly
The big bang came out of nowhere so by making particles moves as fast as light... (which photons already do by themselfs...) you can never create a similar big bang...
Thus you can't say how the singularity causing the universe was caused. All you can say that physical evidence states that the universe was at a singular point once in the past. All the mass concentrated at one point.
This singularity at t=0 underwent an event we call the big bang. That is all that we (or at least I know) as of now
EDIT:
quote:err?
Originally posted by NiteMare
and no i don't have the calculations like John Anderton
If you mean travelling faster than light, some particles are known to do that for reasons unknown as of now.
As for the warp bubble concept, it actually states something like if we had a protective bubble, we could create warp holes in the fabric of spacetime and go from A to B in a non linear fashion.
Like if you have a paper. Make 2 points A and B on it. What is the shortest way to go from A to B? A straight line between A and B.
But what if you were allowed to bend the paper and join the points together? Shorter distance, ain't it?
That's the concept. I'm sure there is some math done on it but none with any promising practical interest or with math that the laymen would understand
RE: Machine to create new universes by NiteMare on 03-03-2007 at 11:24 PM
quote:i think this was a different concept then that, what you described sounds more like a wormhole
Originally posted by John Anderton
As for the warp bubble concept, it actually states something like if we had a protective bubble, we could create warp holes in the fabric of spacetime and go from A to B in a non linear fashion.
Like if you have a paper. Make 2 points A and B on it. What is the shortest way to go from A to B? A straight line between A and B.
But what if you were allowed to bend the paper and join the points together? Shorter distance, ain't it?
quote:yes the guy did have math and all that done but it was a TV show so they weren't going to bored everybody with the huge equations:
Originally posted by John Anderton
I'm sure there is some math done on it but none with any promising practical interest or with math that the laymen would understand
RE: Machine to create new universes by Cute Girl on 03-07-2007 at 07:50 PM
ummm. concering the big bang whiped out everything and started the universe... i gota feeling this "big bang" might be big enough to destroy the whole universe XD subsiquently unless we are gonna sacriface outselfs to make another universe i serverely doubt this will happen 
RE: RE: Machine to create new universes by CookieRevised on 03-07-2007 at 08:06 PM
quote:get your sources straight
Originally posted by .OxY
Opinions on this?
quote:Curiosity
Originally posted by Vimto
Why cant people just leave things alone :\ Every answer is met with another question. LEAVE THE EARTH ALONE!
And thank God for that (that is: depends on point of view and if you like me or not
), otherwise I might not have been able to post this on this forum because computers maybe didn't existed...quote:Why?
Originally posted by UTI
if there are aliens *which I believe, but not completely*, They must move faster than the speed of light to get here I'm sure...
Assuming that aliens having the same notion of time as us is just as inproper. For all you know the aliens live 5000 years (note: even on earth there are lifeforms which live thousands of years). In that kind of timespan, you don't need to travel faster than light to reach a distant planet. Also, they might as well have a small civilization on board of their ship, which makes that they can travel for generations and generations...., etc...
In that same aspect, maybe we aren't simply interesting enough to even visit this dirtball called Earth. And we are simply left alone because we're way to primitive in their big black spooky eyes.
All in all, there is no reason why they must be able to travel faster than the speed of light.
quote:It's a bit (fundamentally big actually) different though...
Originally posted by UTI
Just like with sound... you CANNOT go faster than the speed of sound with a propeller driven aircraft... It's impossible to control it. You can travel faster than sound in it, but not survive it. Same is probably true with light...
EDIT: Oh and "You can travel faster than sound in it, but not survive it." <= you can't travel faster than sound with it as they don't generate enough power/speed.
quote:that's only theory... Besides, before the big bang there was nothing (one theory says).... To have a new big bang you first need to destroy everything again... theory of multiple big bangs and expanding/contracting universes...
Originally posted by Cute Girl
ummm. concering the big bang whiped out everything
And other hocus pocus like that
Let the scientists do their job they know what they are doing (well, in a sense they don't, heck the experiments
), we will benefit from it eventually (if goverments , coorperations, millitary don't monopolize/screw it up).Oh and such a machine is nothing new though. The new thing here is that it is again bigger and better than its predecessors. Search google for CERN
(PS: CERN was also the place where the internet as we know it was 'born' btw)
RE: Machine to create new universes by qgroessl on 03-07-2007 at 09:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
EDIT: Oh and "You can travel faster than sound in it, but not survive it." <= you can't travel faster than sound with it as they don't generate enough power/speed.
Not when they're flying level, the reason why you can't survive it is because to fly faster than the speed of sound in a propeller driven aircraft, you have togo into a dive... and after you break the sound barrier friction is greatly decreased (if not absent *I can't remember) so there was no way for the pilots to pull out of the dive.
In the movie they told of many lives that were lost trying to break the sound barrier, it was one of the few science movies that caught my attention and held interest.
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
Why?
Assuming that aliens having the same notion of time as us is just as inproper. For all you know the aliens live 5000 years (note: even on earth there are lifeforms which live thousands of years). In that kind of timespan, you don't need to travel faster than light to reach a distant planet. Also, they might as well have a small civilization on board of their ship, which makes that they can travel for generations and generations...., etc...
In that same aspect, maybe we aren't simply interesting enough to even visit this dirtball called Earth. And we are simply left alone because we're way to primitive in their big black spooky eyes.
All in all, there is no reason why they must be able to travel faster than the speed of light.
You are right... I guess I just never put it into that kind of perspective.... Another way it would be possible is to get technology to put us/them (aliens) into a dormant state until near the destination.
RE: RE: Machine to create new universes by CookieRevised on 03-07-2007 at 09:33 PM
quote:You're mixing things up here.
Originally posted by UTI
quote:Not when they're flying level, the reason why you can't survive it is because to fly faster than the speed of sound in a propeller driven aircraft, you have togo into a dive... and after you break the sound barrier friction is greatly decreased (if not absent *I can't remember) so there was no way for the pilots to pull out of the dive.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
EDIT: Oh and "You can travel faster than sound in it, but not survive it." <= you can't travel faster than sound with it as they don't generate enough power/speed.
You wont be able to dive faster than the speed of sound without aided power because of the air friction. Without the needed power (which must be big, unlike a propellor driven aircraft) you eventually wont go faster.
Without friction, you will fall faster and faster (acceleration would be roughly 9m/s). But with air friction this isn't so, you never would even come close to the speed of sound (without big power to overcome air friction) and the accelartion would be, at one point, 0m/s; you'll fall at the same speed (if you jumped out of the aircraft high enough to reach this point before you hit ground
).Important: friction is not decreased when you fall/dive faster than the speed of sound. It will be exactly the same. Sound speed and friction have got nothing todo with eachother.
Hence:
quote:those pilots didn't lost their lives because friction was close to zero (because it wouldn't), it is because they couldn't control their aircraft anymore because of aerodynamics (the didn't have lift anymore; which is related, but still something different than friction) and ran out of distance...
Originally posted by UTI
In the movie they told of many lives that were lost trying to break the sound barrier, it was one of the few science movies that caught my attention and held interest.
somthing like that... probably can't explain it properly, blah... here is a dutch site: http://www.techna.nl/Kracht%20en%20beweging/valsn...id/valsnelheid.htm
RE: Machine to create new universes by qgroessl on 03-07-2007 at 09:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
those pilots didn't lost their lives because friction was close to zero (because it wouldn't), it is because they couldn't control their aircraft anymore because of aerodynamics (the didn't have lift anymore; which is related, but still something different than friction) and ran out of distance...
Grade 9 science movie... guess I can't expect them to use all the correct terminology... I knew it had something to do with the friction and aerodynamics... Not exactly sure... it was a year ago anyway.
RE: Machine to create new universes by andrewdodd13 on 03-07-2007 at 10:32 PM
Of course, you can actually make light travel faster than c (the speed of "light" in a vacuum) see here.
The idea is that only things with mass are subject to relativistic effects. The general proof for this is:
![[Image: 9a3462ba4f73bb92b700af94c05008ac.png]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/a/3/9a3462ba4f73bb92b700af94c05008ac.png)
And the proof that nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light:
E(kinetic) = ½mv² . Since m->[infinity]; as v²->c², E(kinetic) -> [infinity]; as v²->c².
Of course, if you were to convert mass into a stream of information and then broadcast it as an electromagnetic wave, re-synthesising it at the other end (you'd need to make use of Heisenberg compensators) - then you'd be able to travel at the speed of light, or faster through the super-materials mentioned in the first article above.
It's a shame really, I had my AH Physics test today and none of this came up
.
RE: Machine to create new universes by Voldemort on 03-07-2007 at 10:55 PM
friction is always there, except on a vacuum, uti.
RE: Machine to create new universes by Volv on 03-10-2007 at 04:36 PM
5000 years would still be stretching it for a race to travel from one inhabited planet to another (in the alien scenario). But considering they can reach relativistic speeds such as 0.8 times the speed of light, they will experience a significant length contraction effect (predicted by Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity which has experimental evidence). Length contraction follows the formula;
![[Image: tlgtcon4.gif]](http://home.usit.net/~cmdaven/tlgtcon4.gif)
This effectively means for example, that if we have a distance of 1000 light years which we need to travel to reach somewhere and we are travelling at 0.8 times the speed of light (ie. 0.8c):
L = 1000 * (1 - (0.8c)^2/(c^2)) ^ 0.5
L = 1000 * (1 - 0.8^2) ^ 0.5
L = 1000 * (1 - 0.64) ^ 0.5
L = 1000 * (0.36) ^ 0.5
L = 1000 * (0.6)
L = 600 light years
This would mean that if we are travelling at 0.8c, it would only take us the time that it would normally take to travel 600 light years in order to actually travel 1000 light years, that is, it would take 60% the time that we would normally predict by; distance divided by velocity; The Wonders of Special Relativity!
Now imagine we are traveling at 0.999999999...9 times the speed of light (since travelling at light speed is physically impossible for any masseous object - discussed later):
L = 1000 * (1 - (0.999999c)^2/(c^2)) ^ 0.5
L = 1000 * (1 - 0.999999999999...) ^ 0.5
L = 1000 * (0.00....1) ^ 0.5
L = 1000 * (0.00..1)
L = just over 0 light years
Therefore if we are travelling at 0.999999999...9 times the speed of light it would take us much much less time to travel 1000 light years (or anywhere essentially)
Now for something hypothetical, what if we are actually travelling at the speed of light (ie. travelling at c)?
L = 1000 * (1 - (c^2)/(c^2)) ^ 0.5
L = 1000 * (1 - 1) ^ 0.5
L = 1000 * 0
L = 0 light years (or 0 distance)
Therefore if we are travelling at the speed of light, we have to travel a distance of zero (ie. it would take 0 seconds, since time = distance / speed) to arrive at any point in the universe. But wait, that would mean that we are everywhere at the same time? Uhoh But dont worry about that, because it turns out that we can never actually reach the speed of light (Sorry to get your hopes up)
Now; Why can't we (or any masseous object ie. an object made up of mass) reach the speed of light?
Firstly, when a force is exerted on a mass, the mass gains Kinetic Energy (KE) which is what makes the object move;
KE = 0.5*mv^2
m is mass
v is velocity
Now, what Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity (which is widely accepted as true and has quite a large amount of experimental evidence nowadays) predicted that as force was applied to an object (ie. as the object gained kinetic energy and began moving faster, since KE = movement energy), a smaller proportion of that gain in kinetic energy was going into the velocity itself, instead, most of it was going into the mass of the object (ie. the faster it got, the less its velocity would increase since the energy was going into mass rather than the velocity). This essentially meant that the faster you get, the 'heavier' or more masseous (greater in mass) you become, and since 'acceleration = mass / force', this means that as the mass increases you would need to provide a larger force to get the object to keep accelerating. This means that the faster an object got, the more force would have to be applied to make it get faster, and as it got faster, the heaver it would get which means you would need to apply yet again more force to get it even faster. When graphed it showed that as the object approached the speed of light (ie. as its velocity got closer to the speed of light), the amount of force necessary to make it accelerate further approached infinite, and as it is obviously impossible to provide an infinite force on an object, it is impossible to actually reach the speed of light.
For that reason, reaching the speed of light is impossible for any object consisiting of mass (ie. any object).
Ok, so howcome when I'm moving in my car I'm not fatter than when im standing on the sidewalk? Well firstly you have to realise that the increase in mass is only noticeable when you are travelling at speeds which are comparable to the speed of light (eg. 10% the speed of light or above), and since the speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second, or 1,079,252,849 kilometres an hour then you can see that your car (average 60 kilometres an hour) is going no where near that speed. Now the fact is that you actually are fatter (or greater in mass) when you're moving your car, but the amount of mass which you gain is EXTREMELY small and is hence unnoticeable.
Now you may wonder how light travels so fast if nothing else can? Well the fact is that not much is known about the nature of light, no one really understands how it works or what it is made of - so far quantum physicists have noticed that light sometimes behaves as a self-propagating wave of electric and magnetic fields (hence the name electromagnetic radiation) which allows it to travel at the speed of light (since it has no mass), and at other times light behaves as small particles (referred to as photons) - this is known as lights particle-wave duality.
The fact is that the human civilisation's crappy level of science simply doesnt know the answer...
RE: Machine to create new universes by SikStyles on 03-11-2007 at 09:15 AM
If the scientist ever get to create that big bang what is the guarantee that there will be life on the planet or be life sufficent in that matter as well.
Lets say the 2nd earth is done and all and we'll start taking trees up there. It would take thousands of years for it to create a normal biosphere. The human kind imo doesn't have thousands of years left. At the rate we're going now this earth will be overpopulated, overpolluted.
RE: RE: Machine to create new universes by CookieRevised on 03-11-2007 at 11:23 PM
quote:Don't see the big bang as something massive happening. Big Bang essentially means creating something out of nothing. If scientist say they recreated the big bang or are trying to recreate it, they mean they recreated (or trying) to replicate this on a very small scale. eg: letting some exotic partical appear from nowhere which will proof this or that.
Originally posted by SikStyles
If the scientist ever get to create that big bang what is the guarantee that there will be life on the planet or be life sufficent in that matter as well.
Don't see this as in SciFi movies where an alternative universe is created.
RE: Machine to create new universes by John Anderton on 03-12-2007 at 05:23 AM
quote:That is what Dan Brown's Angel and Demons says but I read once in a book by Stephen Hawking that the prior to the big bang, we can't say what was happening to the universe and either way it doesn't make a difference since whatever happened before it would in no was effect the process/outcome/end result after the big bang.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
Don't see the big bang as something massive happening. Big Bang essentially means creating something out of nothing.
All we know (or may be just I know because the book is obviously a few years old
) is that the big bang was created by a singularity. All the mass of the universe was concentrated at one point (there is evidence to support this).So yes, we did have something before the big bang. Even in Dan Brown's book, his definition of something out of nothing is 2 particles colliding to give you some antimatter however you did need those 2 particles, didn't you?
That book has a lot of holes since its not a scientific book but the machine that CERN possess in that book is quite similar (but a bit bigger) than the one we have here.Basically my point is that you need something initially to create "something out of nothing" though I'm pretty sure that the "something" created can be explained in a few ways. I have a few ideas but without all the data at hand, it isn't right to guess
RE: RE: Machine to create new universes by CookieRevised on 03-12-2007 at 10:14 AM
quote:yep, but that third particle comes out of the blue, it is created. By normal means it would mean it would already have been there (matter/energy is never lost, it is converted). So where did it come from.... "creating something out of nothing". 'something' like that..
Originally posted by John Anderton
So yes, we did have something before the big bang. Even in Dan Brown's book, his definition of something out of nothing is 2 particles colliding to give you some antimatter however you did need those 2 particles, didn't you?
RE: RE: RE: Machine to create new universes by markee on 03-12-2007 at 11:18 AM
quote:So this is all under the assumption that our laws of physics might be flawed? The one I'm refering to is "matter cannot be created nor destroyed".
Originally posted by CookieRevised
quote:yep, but that third particle comes out of the blue, it is created. By normal means it would mean it would already have been there (matter/energy is never lost, it is converted). So where did it come from.... "creating something out of nothing". 'something' like that..
Originally posted by John Anderton
So yes, we did have something before the big bang. Even in Dan Brown's book, his definition of something out of nothing is 2 particles colliding to give you some antimatter however you did need those 2 particles, didn't you?
RE: Machine to create new universes by Eddie on 03-12-2007 at 01:40 PM
This is all very strange to me simply because i am crap at science. But i think it would be cool to make a mini universe and see how it all works out Would certainly be interesting and a large step into further things 
RE: RE: RE: RE: Machine to create new universes by CookieRevised on 03-12-2007 at 04:34 PM
quote:Exactly...
Originally posted by markee
quote:So this is all under the assumption that our laws of physics might be flawed? The one I'm refering to is "matter cannot be created nor destroyed".
Originally posted by CookieRevised
quote:yep, but that third particle comes out of the blue, it is created. By normal means it would mean it would already have been there (matter/energy is never lost, it is converted). So where did it come from.... "creating something out of nothing". 'something' like that..
Originally posted by John Anderton
So yes, we did have something before the big bang. Even in Dan Brown's book, his definition of something out of nothing is 2 particles colliding to give you some antimatter however you did need those 2 particles, didn't you?
'they' say before the big bang matter is all concentrated in the singularity. They can't proof it. Hence some of those experiments I suppose. Also the "create something out of nothing" should be taken not literally I suppose... or not... who would tell... those scientists I suppose
EDIT: and then again, not quite exactly. Our laws of physics are divided into two major groups: the laws of normal physics and the laws for quantum physics. Both are totally different and the one we're talking about is quantum physics.
RE: Machine to create new universes by Weekender on 03-12-2007 at 08:27 PM
First of all, if it works.. cool. =D, could end up being a solution, would be nice to have a Plan B if global warming or whatever makes the earth unhabitable, rather then mars. [that is if they can make a bigger model]
And for some reason if you go faster, then the speed of light, you go back in time... =P
RE: Machine to create new universes by vaccination on 03-12-2007 at 09:24 PM
quote:Erm, but it would take millions/billions of years for it to develop enough for planets and solar systems to be formed, and then even longer for a planet to become inhabitable. and that's IF one becomes inhabitable.
Originally posted by Weekender
First of all, if it works.. cool. =D, could end up being a solution, would be nice to have a Plan B if global warming or whatever makes the earth unhabitable, rather then mars. [that is if they can make a bigger model]
We would die from global warming(if that does kill us) wayyyy before there was a secondary earth for us to move to.
AND THEN, there's the whole problem of actually moving humanity from one universe to another
quote:
Originally posted by Weekender
And for some reason if you go faster, then the speed of light, you go back in time... =P
That's only a theory, no one can prove it since we haven't made anything go faster than the speed of light, yet. (at least I think anyway
)RE: Machine to create new universes by Eddie on 03-13-2007 at 04:17 AM
It would certainly be interesting to go faster than the speed of light Lets enter the Star Wars / Star Trek era yay lol
RE: Machine to create new universes by haydos on 03-13-2007 at 07:44 AM
quote:If, hypothetically a planet formed that was inhabitable, the machine isn't quite big enough to create a planet that could fit 6 billion or so people. The machine would have to be larger than our solar system at least, to fit in a planet, a star, the orbit of the planet...etc etc. It just wouldn't work at all.
Originally posted by Weekender
First of all, if it works.. cool. =D, could end up being a solution, would be nice to have a Plan B if global warming or whatever makes the earth unhabitable, rather then mars. [that is if they can make a bigger model]
RE: Machine to create new universes by Volv on 03-13-2007 at 08:23 AM
quote:w00t Sim City!
Originally posted by Eddie
But i think it would be cool to make a mini universe and see how it all works out
quote:This is true if you're using Newtonian Physics, but thanks to Special Relativity (ugh, that again
Originally posted by Weekender
And for some reason if you go faster, then the speed of light, you go back in time... =P
) not only is it impossible to reach the speed of light, but the speed of light is always constant; so even if you were somehow travelling at 'c' (3e8 m/s ie. the speed of light) then light would still appear to be travelling faster than you, you wouldn't be able to 'overtake' any light waves (and hence 'go back in time').quote:Like I said before, the effects depicted in Star Wars and Star Trek (in terms of travel, not the flashing lights) do not require travelling faster than the speed of light, by travelling at 0.999999999 times the speed of light you can reach any point in the universe within a couple of seconds at most (and that is real physics, and is actually possible). Although by the time you get there Earth would have aged many billions of years (although the people in the spaceship would have only aged the few seconds which it took) - Special Relativity
Originally posted by Eddie
It would certainly be interesting to go faster than the speed of light Lets enter the Star Wars / Star Trek era yay lol
.EDIT: The whole faster than light business is based on Newtonian Physics which says that if you're travelling at 'v', you'll reach your destination in distance divided by 'v' seconds which is simply just WRONG in practice.
RE: Machine to create new universes by Eddie on 03-13-2007 at 08:35 AM
quote:That is kind of freaky when i think about it
Originally posted by Volv
quote:Like I said before, the effects depicted in Star Wars and Star Trek (in terms of travel, not the flashing lights) do not require travelling faster than the speed of light, by travelling at 0.999999999 times the speed of light you can reach any point in the universe within a couple of seconds at most (and that is real physics, and is actually possible). Although by the time you get there Earth would have aged many billions of years (although the people in the spaceship would have only aged the few seconds which it took) - Special Relativity
Originally posted by Eddie
It would certainly be interesting to go faster than the speed of light Lets enter the Star Wars / Star Trek era yay lol
RE: Machine to create new universes by Volv on 03-13-2007 at 12:24 PM
quote:Yeah, it is pretty weird/freaky when you consider that its real and not science fiction
Originally posted by Eddie
That is kind of freaky when i think about it
Too bad we dont have the technology to feasibly get us going that fast (yet)...
RE: Machine to create new universes by John Anderton on 03-13-2007 at 03:10 PM
quote:At 0.99999999*c you would take about 76 or so years to reach the nearest star so excuse me for thinking that travelling at the speed of light won't give us shit.
Originally posted by Volv
Like I said before, the effects depicted in Star Wars and Star Trek (in terms of travel, not the flashing lights) do not require travelling faster than the speed of light, by travelling at 0.999999999 times the speed of light you can reach any point in the universe within a couple of seconds at most (and that is real physics, and is actually possible). Although by the time you get there Earth would have aged many billions of years (although the people in the spaceship would have only aged the few seconds which it took) - Special Relativity
All we can use (for travelling at v->c) is to travel within the solar system quickly. If you want interstellar travel, you my friend need to travel faster than light. Warp travel
Gogo Star Trek(ie)
(
)
RE: Machine to create new universes by Matti on 03-13-2007 at 05:30 PM
Another possible way to travel through time is to establish two worm holes, where if you go through the first one, you get to the second one. And, because this means that you travel a long distance (let's say: the 1st is on Earth and the 2nd on Mars) in a short period of time, you generate a high speed which means you travel through time!
The only problem is to get those worm holes established...
RE: Machine to create new universes by andrewdodd13 on 03-13-2007 at 06:10 PM
Establishing wormholes basically means bending space-time. How do you bend a 3-d object? I have no idea...
Not to mention that it's highly unlikely that the inside of a wormhole will appear and perform like they do in things like Stargate...
RE: RE: Machine to create new universes by CookieRevised on 03-14-2007 at 12:58 AM
quote:no, it doesn't mean you travel through time at all. It means you covered a big distance.
Originally posted by Mattike
Another possible way to travel through time is to establish two worm holes, where if you go through the first one, you get to the second one. And, because this means that you travel a long distance (let's say: the 1st is on Earth and the 2nd on Mars) in a short period of time, you generate a high speed which means you travel through time!
RE: Machine to create new universes by John Anderton on 03-14-2007 at 03:29 AM
I never understood why when I travel at v->c will everyone else on the earth age? 
Special relativity thingo explanation?
RE: Machine to create new universes by Joa on 03-14-2007 at 04:07 AM
sweet
my opinion on this - "we're all gonna die" and nobody will praise me for being a prophet because we'll all be gone
RE: Machine to create new universes by CookieRevised on 03-14-2007 at 07:13 AM
quote:the thing is they don't...
Originally posted by John Anderton
I never understood why when I travel at v->c will everyone else on the earth age?
Special relativity thingo
that is, relativly speaking. Only when you travel back again, you'll notice that they will be older.
This is because time slows down the faster you travel. This has even been proofed IIRC, by sending an atomic clock to space and when it came back it was several thousands of a microsecond further.
Maybe explained wrongly... anyways, look up time dialation (another one of Einsteins subjects on Special Relativity)
EDIT: here is something (googled): http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_time_dilation.htm
RE: RE: Machine to create new universes by Volv on 03-14-2007 at 09:01 AM
quote:Sigh, learn physics
Originally posted by John Anderton
At 0.99999999*c you would take about 76 or so years to reach the nearest star so excuse me for thinking that travelling at the speed of light won't give us shit.
All we can use (for travelling at v->c) is to travel within the solar system quickly. If you want interstellar travel, you my friend need to travel faster than light. Warp travel
Gogo Star Trek(ie)
at the speed you quoted it would only take 5.2066272 HOURS - my estimation of a few seconds was under more of an assumption of 0.99999..9 (to many decimal places). But 76 years is absolute rubbish...You're even wrong in Newtonian Physics, using Newtonian Physics it would only take just over 4.2 years (since the nearest star is 4.2ly and you're almost travelling at the speed of light)
quote:Yes you are 100% correct about time dilation and time passing slower in the moving frame of reference (ie. for the person/object that is moving), although the proof wasnt quite as easy. At school they teach that experimental evidence was provided by synchronising 2 atomic clocks and sending one around the world in a plane, when they were returned the one which was moving (on the plane) was noted to be running behind the one which remained grounded, in reality however, gravity also affects time and space and as such the results were not as simply due to Special Relativity alone (it has however since been proven using more complex reasoning).
Originally posted by CookieRevised
This is because time slows down the faster you travel. This has even been proofed IIRC, by sending an atomic clock to space and when it came back it was several thousands of a microsecond further.
Another source of evidence was given by radioactive particles which are created when radiation from the sun hits the atmosphere (or something like that), whilst these particles (cant remember the name of the specific particles which are most often noticed) have a half-life of about 2 microseconds and as such many are not expected to reach anywhere near the surface of the earth before they decay, however, their extremely high velocities result in them reaching the surface in a greater quantity than would be predicted indicating that time for these particles has advanced slower, and hence it has taken longer for them to decay relative to us on the ground.
RE: Machine to create new universes by Spunky on 03-14-2007 at 03:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by John Anderton
quote:At 0.99999999*c you would take about 76 or so years to reach the nearest star so excuse me for thinking that travelling at the speed of light won't give us shit.
Originally posted by Volv
Like I said before, the effects depicted in Star Wars and Star Trek (in terms of travel, not the flashing lights) do not require travelling faster than the speed of light, by travelling at 0.999999999 times the speed of light you can reach any point in the universe within a couple of seconds at most (and that is real physics, and is actually possible). Although by the time you get there Earth would have aged many billions of years (although the people in the spaceship would have only aged the few seconds which it took) - Special Relativity
All we can use (for travelling at v->c) is to travel within the solar system quickly. If you want interstellar travel, you my friend need to travel faster than light. Warp travel
Gogo Star Trek(ie)
Exactly! If it takes 8 minutes for light to get from the Sun to Earth, then it would take more than just a few seconds to go "anywhere" in the universe. Then you also have to factor in that it would be near impossible to get between 2 points in the universe without running into an obstacle, be it a planet, star or black hole etc. As for going back in time, I think that idea comes from the theory that time dilates for the object (in this case you), making two different time streams, that will never catch up. (seeing as light, by definition, can never go faster than the speed of light) But you would still be in the "current time" wherever you stopped ther journey
I think...
RE: Machine to create new universes by Svip on 03-14-2007 at 06:33 PM
Hm. A mini universe? How can you have a mini universe? Is that like a mini bar? Can I pick things out of it? But I do realise it would have been so much cheaper in the usual universe.
Hell... if they make their universe, I'd like to have permission to form some planets like cheerios.
However, the scientists should focus more on travelling that fast, instead of making small objects do it. Hm, maybe if they can go that fast, we can all ride on them like in Dr. Strangelove, and in the future we may all have our own universe, with uhm universal stuff.
The future is bright, the future is hopefully not Windows based.
RE: Machine to create new universes by Volv on 03-14-2007 at 10:05 PM
quote:Sigh, learn physics and learn Special Relativity, at 0.99999999 times the speed of light it would only take 5.2066272 HOURS to reach the nearest star, if you were travelling at the 0.999999999999999999999999999999999999 times the speed of light (to a very large number of decimal places) it would take only a few seconds to reach any point in the universe (THIS IS WHAT SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS ABOUT).
Originally posted by SpunkyLoveMuff
Exactly! If it takes 8 minutes for light to get from the Sun to Earth, then it would take more than just a few seconds to go "anywhere" in the universe. Then you also have to factor in that it would be near impossible to get between 2 points in the universe without running into an obstacle, be it a planet, star or black hole etc..
In case you havent realised, objects dont behave the same as light. I posted about this on the page before, read the thread before posting incorrect info.
EDIT: As for hitting objects, travelling 'faster than light' in Newtonian Physics (that is, ignoring Special Relativity) it would have exactly the same dilemma, unfortunately you would not enter some type of weird protective worm hole in a different dimension or anything crazy like that just by travelling at any speed (faster or slower than light) and hence you are just as likely to collide with any objects.
quote:This is related to why it only takes a couple of seconds to reach any point in the universe at a speed just below 'c'.
Originally posted by John Anderton
I never understood why when I travel at v->c will everyone else on the earth age?
Special relativity thingo
The fact is that for the people on earth, they see you travelling at 0.99...9c, and observing you, they see that you reach your destination in (distance / 0.99....9c) seconds (just like Newtonian Physics would predict). However, due to the effects of time dilation (that is, a moving object passes through time more slowly), time for you (on the spaceship) is passing 'slower', meaning that for every one of your seconds, you're actually covering more distance than for every one second on earth. So therefore according to you (on the spaceship) it has taken significantly less time to travel to your destination than it has as observed from Earth (because your time elapsed slower than time on Earth), therefore you have only aged by however long it took you to reach your destination (as observed from the spaceship) whereas Earth (and the people on it) has aged by however long it took you to reach your destination as they observed it - clearly [i hope] you can see that you have aged less than those on earth as more time has elapsed on Earth than on your spaceship.
RE: Machine to create new universes by illuzn on 03-14-2007 at 11:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by SpunkyLoveMuff
Then you also have to factor in that it would be near impossible to get between 2 points in the universe without running into an obstacle, be it a planet, star or black hole etc.
Actually, the universe is mostly made up of empty space. Thus unless the size of the craft you were using was around the size of a galaxy or something absurd like that you would never really hit anything.
Universe is mostly empty space
Its only dodgy science books which make us think that the universe is full of stuff, when in fact even our solar system is empty space.
As an analogy think of the atom; if an atom was the size of a football field the Nucleus would be about the size of a pin in the middle of this field. Although yes, quantum mechanics and the heisenberg principle does make this analogy a bit invalid.
If atoms are 99.999999999999% empty space...
RE: Machine to create new universes by andrewdodd13 on 03-15-2007 at 07:45 AM
Although the universe is mainly empty space, there is the occasional hydrogen atom scattered out there. Now sure, that's not bad, cause on Earth you crash into Oxygen and Nitrogen particles every time you move.
But then you're not moving at 0.9999c or whatever. Raindrops are enough to damage missiles travelling at Mach 11 (around 3740m/s). So, travelling over 80,000 times faster than that, a hydrogen particle may just be enough to cause serious damage to an object.
But, by the time we've invented an engine that goes that fast, we'll probably have invented force fields and the like.
RE: RE: Machine to create new universes by CookieRevised on 03-18-2007 at 08:06 PM
quote:Light CAN go faster/or slower... and that is also EXACTLY what that experiment they did (and thus this thread in a sense) is about.
Originally posted by SpunkyLoveMuff
As for going back in time, I think that idea comes from the theory that time dilates for the object (in this case you), making two different time streams, that will never catch up. [u](seeing as light, by definition, can never go faster than the speed of light)[u] But you would still be in the "current time" wherever you stopped ther journey
They showed that a light particle entering a specially prepared chamber would actually leave that chamber before it even entered.
quote:who's talking about mini universes? That was only a 'brainfart' from someone who didn't quite understood what this is about.
Originally posted by Svip
Hm. A mini universe? How can you have a mini universe? Is that like a mini bar? Can I pick things out of it? But I do realise it would have been so much cheaper in the usual universe.
quote:???? Maybe it is better to first understand how something is done, before you can make something or even experiment further.
Originally posted by Svip
However, the scientists should focus more on travelling that fast, instead of making small objects do it.
It's like saying: maybe the Wright brothers should have build a supersonic plane going Mach 8 and twice the size of a 747-400 first, before building their airplane.
quote:tell that to the satelite builders and astronauts who constantly need to repear satelites because stuff flies into it constantly......
Originally posted by illuzn
Actually, the universe is mostly made up of empty space. Thus unless the size of the craft you were using was around the size of a galaxy or something absurd like that you would never really hit anything.
RE: Machine to create new universes by Volv on 03-22-2007 at 08:04 AM
quote:Not to say that you're incorrect (as I dont know too much on the particles-in-space topic), but a that is due to the satellites colliding with particles in the outer atmosphere of the Earth as opposed to particles in 'empty space'. Check out Orbital Decay
Originally posted by CookieRevised
tell that to the satelite builders and astronauts who constantly need to repear satelites because stuff flies into it constantly......
RE: Machine to create new universes by CookieRevised on 03-24-2007 at 04:56 AM
quote:Although it is very true that their is much debris in the outer atmosphere of Earth and that this is a very critical area to be in, there is also a lot of stuff (meteoroids, dust and other particles, ice, etc) floating in space and which could collide with (futur) space ships (which includes high orbit satellites, space shuttle, space station, but also unmanned explorer crafts to other planets, etc).
Originally posted by Volv
quote:Not to say that you're incorrect (as I dont know too much on the particles-in-space topic), but a that is due to the satellites colliding with particles in the outer atmosphere of the Earth as opposed to particles in 'empty space'. Check out Orbital Decay
Originally posted by CookieRevised
tell that to the satelite builders and astronauts who constantly need to repear satelites because stuff flies into it constantly......
eg: although the Hubble telescope has had its share of damage from debris, it also has hundreds of small craters in it from meteoroids, some big enough for concearn and some even damaged the equipment.
Space is far from empty (look at the thousands of craters on space objects, eg: moon, but also planets and other objects). The thing they say is that because of the nature of the universe and the vastness, you could consider it mostly empty. But that doesn't mean the chance of a collisions is as good as null. Because you could easly turn it around too. Because the vastness of the universe, you have a unlimited amount of stuff you could collide into (especially when considering space travel to distance planets).
RE: Machine to create new universes by John Anderton on 03-24-2007 at 05:06 AM
quote:This is why you need warp holes
Originally posted by CookieRevised
Space is far from empty. The thing they say is that because of the nature of the universe and the vastness, you could consider it mostly empty. But that doesn't mean the chance of a collisions is as good as null. Because you could easly turn it around too. Because the vastness of the universe, you have a unlimited amount of stuff you could collide into (especially when considering space travel to distance planets).
No problems of colliding bodies
RE: Machine to create new universes by freddy on 04-12-2007 at 05:21 AM
During ancient time few million years ago, there are connection
star to activate a light enable us to travel between planet to planet.
Now is all gone, human can never achieve light speed as matter or
object will explode to pieces or burn out if an object travel at certain high speed in the universe.
Good imagination only create fiction, as logical sense only apply to
logic perception.