Your living on it. round and round it goes.. when it will stop nobody knows..Originally Posted by trash
The only thing Perpetual is the search for it
We'll until the Sun swallows it up.
Member since March 2002 and still in the Blue
The Earth's rotation is slowing down.
Energy is being lost to the moon.
The Moon is speeding up in it's orbit and is getting further away.
Eventually the earth's rotation will be tidal locked to the moon as the moon is to the Earth or the moon will pick up enough energy to leave Earth orbit.
Space 1999 !
What is perpetual?
Something that doesn't stop? - BS. Space, time world exists only in our imagination. As soon as we disapear the Perpetual motion stops for us as the time and space stops with our disapearance.
If it stops for one person then it can't be real Perpetual only partialy Perpetual, isn't it?
Our biggest problem with search for the Perpetual motion is we always add energy to the equation. Energy will be used and motion will stop eventually. The key for the Perpetual motion is to find it outside of energy, time and space. That means not in our world or at least in our life time.
Partially Perpetual ? Is this like Agnostic ?
... for us as the time and space stops with our disapearance.
Hehe.. the tree falling in the forest scenario.
The concept of time being a figment of our imagination is a valid argument, it does pose some difficult questions.
One of my friends was a supporter of the 'no time' concept. When discussing the issue of time in physics I set some restrictions upon him. He was not to use temporal words like "time" nor use any units of time, years, days, seconds, period, pause etc.
I wanted to see if he could describe the topic being discussed without any reference to time. It's actually more of a challenge and quite fun to do.
The general gist of the idea is that there is no time, there is only now.
Problem is now happens at different times in different places and at different rates. That's relativity.
Another aspect of time is that it is asymmetrical. If time is a point rather than a line. Why do you remember yesterday and not tomorrow ?
Yesterday, today and tomorrow are different points in the universe.
If it weren't for time, everything would happen at once !
Why can we slow time down, but not speed it up ?
Why can we travel into the future, but not the past ?
If an electron travels at the speed of light, then there is no time for this particle, it exists everywhere in the universe at the same time.
Sourcing energy from outside of space time ... tricky, but I can highlight an example of where this might be happening.
The expansion of the universe, in particular the acceleration of the expansion. This energy is either internal or external to our universe.
We appear to have a start of time. The big bang.
What follows is one of three things.
A big crunch, where the universe ends in a single point.
This seems strange that the gravitational field of the universe as a whole is so large that it can drag all of time and volume back in upon itself.
Don't black holes do this trash ?
They do, but they don't have infinite volume. They have a defined volume of space which they occupy. What a big crunch is would be a central black hole that continues to suck more and more and more matter into it that it grows to a hypermassive scale. bigger than a galaxy, bigger than clusters of galaxies. So big that it no only sucks in stars, but whole galaxies. So big that it engulfs the whole universe and then big enough to crunch itself out of existence.
It would appear obvious without any maths that the universe doesn't have enough matter in it to accomplish this.
At best we may hope for a super massive back hole that consumes all the existing matter, but it would never be big enough to collapse space and time outside of a defined (but large) event horizon. There would still be space and volume outside of the black hole to define it.
The second was the universe will continue on forever. Matter will clump together and eventually the universe would just be a very big cold dark place.
Photons of light would just leak out in every direction forever.
A rather dull uninteresting purgatory.
The current theory of expansion leads to all the matter in the universe being continually accellerated. As this continues to happen time for that matter slows more and more until it is traveling at the speed of light and time stops.
The end of the universe.
It reminds me of Wilee Coytee falling off a cliff, his feet fall before his head does
When you get to the end of the rainbow and find the pot of gold, you discover that cannot enjoy it's wealth because you cannot take it home.
Good one guys.
Some posts I could actually read and make some sense of.
What happens if I press alt + F4?
Time will stop,
The whole world will stop.
What happens if I press alt + F4?
maybe because time is as constant as the universe is finite in size. the big bang introduces time and space at the same time as its energy flow into it eventually converting itself into matter. consider the strong force gravity instead of nuclear and photons as energy only containing an emg field. consider every bit of matter having a gravity of its own made stronger by combined fields. space is empty/void (ignore dark matter for now). energy and matter will continue on a path outwards until such a point that even energy itself cannot escape the pull of surround matter. eg photon fired off at the edge of the known universe has no other influence to it other than the masses behind it, so it starts to track back in a large loop until it eventually collides with some matter/black hole etc. this greater mass will define the point where that energy rests, as for everything in the universe.
the end result of a collapse would not be matter, but pure energy which once it is bound as much as nature allows (whatever that may be) a nuclear reaction and big bang. from this i would say that time is on an velocity arc that would mean very little to us. seeing time as finite as the matter/energy in the universe it may be that we can only go forward in time due to the current acceleration of time but see only a slowing of time. ie someone accelerates closer to the speed of light in any direction will come closer to the acceleration of time itself.. hmm or maybe the other way around hehe.
Problem with that is that matter is accellerating, not slowing down or coasting as you've mentioned, leading to a 'big crunch'. The accelleration is currently unexplained, dark energy. (as opposed to dark matter which holds galaxies together). We also expect that dark matter is also responsible for the unexplained accelleration in deep space probes.
The problem you have with a big crunch becomes obvious when you consider the universe coming down to the last two black holes rotating around each other as they devour each other. A bit hard to ignore the hawking radiation from each black hole, which really ruins the big crunch, but we can say that the other black hole is big enough to mop up all the photons of the other black hole.
The real mess comes when you realise that as they orbit each other gravitational waves are radiating from them. Gravity isn't supposed to be able to travel faster than the speed of light, yet, can gravity escape gravity ? doh! another part of the universe that doesn't seem to make sense.
If you consider the motion through time as a specific motion like motion through space. IF you're moving at the speed of light on any one spatial vector, you cannot be moving through any of the others at any speed.
Apply this to the time line as if it is a spatial vector. The same thing happens.
I wonder if there are multiple dimensions of time ?
getting a bit far fetched here, but anyway.
if the spread of time is like a shockwave travelling at the speed of light through the void then time would have expansion on three fronts, including time itself ie acceleration of time which would eventually reduce to steady and a slowdown.
the fact that no new energy can be created means that this must be a finite function ie it must eventually run out of steam and gravity cause it to collapse back in on itself. either we are still accelerating in reality or maybe the time accelerating away from us lets us see a skewed vision of the past and present. we only see light, but what if light travelling away from us towards the edge of the current universe actually accelerates away from us due to time, we see a much shorter distance than is actually there, whereas we look to the origins and we see light that is taking longer to get to us and thus we see a much longer distance than is there. light will be affected by time just as much as by gravity. the red shift would be greater for a slower timebase. until close to the middle light is moving so slow that light itself can no longer exist, only lower bands of the spectrum decreasing until time almost stops and the lowest of band manage to escape with the immense gravity fields associated.
on the collapse of the universe with time contracting matter and antimatter collide when time = zero.
of course the gravity would be such that each black hole would collapse into each other forming just one black hole. obviously the total energy in the universe is not divisible by 2 hehe.
I'll give you an example of why the universe won't collapse.
If you take a glass and half fill it with water, then add 1/4 of a glass more water to it, then a further 1/8th and then a 1/16th and so on. How many more times will you have to add a diminising value to the glass before it overflows ?
In theory, you can add an infinite, but reducing amount to the glass.
Surely it will overflow ? No. Law of diminishing returns sees that the volume follows a natural logrythm ending about 1.71828182.
The effects of gravity dimish with an inverse square effect.
1/(2^2) + 1/(4^2) + 1/(8^2) + 1/(16^2) ... = ~ 0.33
For the universe to colapse in on itself we would be looking for something above 1.
These aren't exact values, I've just modified them a little to make them easier to understand.
What it amounts to is the amount of energy used to eject matter from the big bang is greater than all of the energy availble from gravity in the universe.
If you're car didn't have brakes, but instead had to burn fuel to slow down.
If more than half a tank of fuel was consumed, we'd never be able to stop.
"the fact that no new energy can be created "
Here in lies a little problem. If there is no new energy, then the universe should be coasting... ie, either expanding at a constant or decellerating rate.
This implies that no new energy is effecting the expansion of the universe or gravity internal is slowing down the expansion.
But this isn't the case, it's accellerating, which means either some internal pressure is contributing energy to the expansion OR something external to the universe is contributing. Given that there is nothing outside of the universe... we're left with a little bit of a problem.
New energy appears to being added to the universe. This also kind of fits in with classical physics. If we have a closed system and we add energy to it, then either the pressure, temperature increases or... it expands to keep these constant.
You've introduced something interesting. Time accelleration. We have to be careful because an intergral of time suggests that the rate of time is changing, within the bounds of what we observe (relative) to stopped.
It's interesting to not, no matter how much you slow down time, time for the observer will not appear to change and stopped will always appear infinitely away.
It appears we cannot perform calculus on time ???
If time runs at 1 second per second, how do we measure it when it's running at 2 seconds per second ... opps ! Now my head hurts.
"obviously the total energy in the universe is not divisible by 2 hehe."
It's not that silly. And there's no reason why you cannot quantify half the energy in the universe
eg, more than half the fuel tank has been used !
Half the universe is matter, half the universe is antimatter. Oh hangon....
The universe is Asymetrical ! There is almost no anti-matter and well, lots of matter. Hmmm -0.01 + 0.99 = 0.98 A bit too much matter ? Add some salt !
ok, but who says the amount of energy needed to cause the big bang is larger than the total store of energy when the core does not need to hold that energy for any length of time. consider the big bang as a recurring event as time passes zero, and the expansion of time is the only thing that allows it.
as the collapse occurs the energy spins into ever grouping larger black holes until even tiny imbalances in gravity would pull others into it because the imbalances become smaller, the time for this to occur is longer. eventually the time would stop, nothing is actually moving. once again considering time as dependent on gravity, its momentum would carry it past or maybe it wouldnt.
in other words because time is not moving you can hold matter and antimatter together without annihilation providing just a core of energy for when time is advanced.
the big bang would explode as energy only at the speed of light. if time is included with this, acceleration of matter away from the explosion is possible until such a time that gravity becomes the dominant force that it is, defined by the finite nature of the energy the universe come from.
how much antimatter is in the universe is not really known, only our little corner of the universe is known to be mainly matter.
this project here-
will be up and running in a year or so and will investigate whether there are any signs of large scale matter/antimatter reactions.
Observation is that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. So something is changing. Either ... energy is being added (from somewhere or nowhere) or ... another way to describe accelleration is not a object getting faster, but rather time getting slower around it. Either way... it requires energy and that source has to be accounted for.
The problem with the coalescence of the universe is that the event itself radiates energy (and information). The key to demonstrating the end of the universe is showing an end to information. Black holes are example of information destruction, though I'm not sure what the latest is on hawking radiation, if information is preserved.
The problem with a big crunch is that you have to show the destruction of volume. The three dimensions of space need to be void in your point of view.
While you have gravity, you have volume !
This happens inside a black hole, but while there is volume outside the event horizon you theory can't work. The solution is to make the black hole as big as the entire universe. That works, but clearly there isn't enough material in the entire universe to create a black hole that big.
If all of the matter and energy in the universe where collected up stuffed into this theoretical black hole, the event horizon would be super massive, but still it would radiate energy out into the rest of the universe, the volume outside the black hole. The universe cannot end this way.
Matter / Antimatter ... the problem still is.... where is all the antimatter ?
We know the stuff is possible, we see positrons etc. Unless you can demonstrate either where all the antimatter is or how matter can convert to antimatter then that solution is on very shakey ground.
Interesting to note that if you consider Feyman diagrams, antimatter runs like matter traveling backwards in time.
"the big bang would explode as energy only at the speed of light"
This is correct, so the expansion of the universe is subject to it's own time dilation. So while the universe is about 14 billion years old, it's diameter is currently about 156 billion light years across.
yeah, this hurts my brain too.
"how much antimatter is in the universe is not really known, only our little corner of the universe is known to be mainly matter."
This is a bad assumption not based on any valid evidence. To suggest that our piece of the universe is different because we can't be sure what the rest of the universe is like is an argument from infinity.
Reality is that the universe appears the same everywhere we look. The exceptions do not out number this observation.
The most valid evidence is that matter and antimatter attract each other eletrostatically as well as gravitationally. Lets assume we have an antimatter galaxy. It will be emitting antimatter cosmic radiation. Anti-photons, Positrons, Anti-gammas, anti-protons, anti-alphas. We do not see this anywhere.
Futher more antimatter when it annihilates matter, it emits gamma radiation of very precise energies. This is like a fingerprint for antimatter. There are no observations of this specific radiation.
The AMS looks interesting. It's actually a very simple mass spectrometer sooped up. A lot of year 7/8 high school students are given a demonstration of how mass spectrometers work using wilson cloud chambers.
I'm guessing they won't find any anti-alphas, I suspect they will find plenty of positrons, and even some anti-protons, but not very many.
I'm having an information overload just thinking about one anti-alpha particle, millions/billions/trillions of them would cause some issues.
It would be really cool if lots were detected, but my bet is on zero.
it seems to me that cpt symmetry and violations point to an external time that has an arrow in only one direction at any given time. matter or antimatter, an outward arc and its return where t reverses.
the black hole theory, you just have to tie gravity to time the way we see distortions in time with large gravity fields, where there is no point in time where the energy can be lost to.
That would appear to be the case with gravity, black holes and time. But the point where that happens is the event horizon.
The problem is that the event horizon is a finite volume in real space time.
For it to be the end point of the universe it needs to be infinitely big, else everything outside of it still exists.
The real universe is the opposite of this. Inside the universe we have space time, outside, there is nothing. No space, no time, no volume, no nothing
All of this ties together with the Hubble constant and the shape of the universe and whether or not it is flat.
Rather than me babble on about it, I pulled up an old link from NASA on the WMAP probe. It's got some nice pictures and explains why there is essentially nothing wrong with mobihci's theory, just the evidence for why it will never happen.
Current prediction is that time stops at inifinity.
There are different kinds of infinity. An open universe model we continue on forever. We arrive at the imaginary point infinity at a place in space.
The accellerating (current model) we arrive at the imaginary point infinity at a place in time.
Personally I think the current model sounds kinda cool. Time runs out before space does.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks