No Big Bang?

[4merper4mer]

Is that one of your code names?

 

 

No but it might have been Tom Brady in drag.

 

My code names are difficult to understand. Is it really hard to understand that Edelman would be into someone Dudish?

 

BTW, you better check that your shots are up to date. Code name Haris Pilton has been asking about you.......a lot. She used to pay a lot for Sven's time and ever since you killed him she has only really paid for conversations with Sammy. She has a lot of pent up frustration. She said Sammy has given her a lot of new ideas and she wants to try some of them out on you.

[Beerball]

No but it might have been Tom Brady in drag.

 

My code names are difficult to understand. Is it really hard to understand that Edelman would be into someone Dudish?

 

BTW, you better check that your shots are up to date. Code name Haris Pilton has been asking about you.......a lot. She used to pay a lot for Sven's time and ever since you killed him she has only really paid for conversations with Sammy. She has a lot of pent up frustration. She said Sammy has given her a lot of new ideas and she wants to try some of them out on you.

what has the hamster been telling her?

[DC Tom]

If there was no big bang, how would the expansion of the universe be explained?

 

Imagine a circle with an area of one square inch. The perimeter of the circle is 2*sqrt(pi). (From the area, the radius is the square root of 1/pi, and the perimiter of the circle is the radius times 2 times pi.) About 3.54 inches (ironically close to 3.5, actually.)

 

Now imagine a square with an area of one inch. The perimeter is 4 inches (1 square inch is a 1x1 square - four one-inch sides.)

 

So we establish that different shapes with the same area have different perimeters.

 

Now imagine that we take that circle, and morph it in to a square, while keeping the surface area constant. The perimeter gets larger, meaning that the distance (as measured around the perimeter) between any two points on the perimeter increases. The perimeter expands.

 

Now call the shapes "manifolds," call surface area "volume," and call the perimeter "surface area," and restate the principle: for any given manifold of constant volume, the surface area need not be of constant value.

 

Now extrapolate that further into abstract dimensionality. An N-dimensional manifold (n-manifold) has a volume in N dimensions, but a "surface area" of M < N dimensions. So basically, the surface of the n-manifold can change in M-dimensions while the volume stays constant in N-dimensions.

 

Now note that, while M < N, M can arbitrarily be less than N. We're familiar with M being one less than N (a surface is measured in two dimensions, volume in three), but that's not required. M could be two, or five, or 13 less than N. So let's postulate an n-manifold where N = 7, and M = N-4 = 3. That's a seven-dimensional volume with a three-dimensional surface. Since the surface can change with constant volume, that's a changing three-dimensional "surface" that, depending on how it's changing, might be getting larger.

 

Now call that 7-manifold "the universe". We're living on the three-dimensional surface of a universe with N dimensions (I just picked 7 as an arbitrary number), where our surface is expanding while the universe doesn't expand (i.e. maintains constant volume in N dimensions.)

 

That's the Neil deGrasse-Tyson explanation. I don't know how the mathematics would work out in the theory in question, but that's the basic principle of it: we live on the changing M-dimensional surface of a constant-volume N-manifold, where M = 3 and M < N.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which also means that the Big Bang can easily be considered nothing more than an M-dimensional expansion of the surface of an N-manifold (where M<N, and M and N are unknown). Which also means that the Big Bang did not necessarily originate from a singularity, since a singularity in M dimensions is not necessarily a singularity in N dimensions.

[Azalin]

 

Imagine a circle with an area of one square inch. The perimeter of the circle is 2*sqrt(pi). (From the area, the radius is the square root of 1/pi, and the perimiter of the circle is the radius times 2 times pi.) About 3.54 inches (ironically close to 3.5, actually.)

 

Now imagine a square with an area of one inch. The perimeter is 4 inches (1 square inch is a 1x1 square - four one-inch sides.)

 

So we establish that different shapes with the same area have different perimeters.

 

Now imagine that we take that circle, and morph it in to a square, while keeping the surface area constant. The perimeter gets larger, meaning that the distance (as measured around the perimeter) between any two points on the perimeter increases. The perimeter expands.

 

Now call the shapes "manifolds," call surface area "volume," and call the perimeter "surface area," and restate the principle: for any given manifold of constant volume, the surface area need not be of constant value.

 

Now extrapolate that further into abstract dimensionality. An N-dimensional manifold (n-manifold) has a volume in N dimensions, but a "surface area" of M < N dimensions. So basically, the surface of the n-manifold can change in M-dimensions while the volume stays constant in N-dimensions.

 

Now note that, while M < N, M can arbitrarily be less than N. We're familiar with M being one less than N (a surface is measured in two dimensions, volume in three), but that's not required. M could be two, or five, or 13 less than N. So let's postulate an n-manifold where N = 7, and M = N-4 = 3. That's a seven-dimensional volume with a three-dimensional surface. Since the surface can change with constant volume, that's a changing three-dimensional "surface" that, depending on how it's changing, might be getting larger.

 

Now call that 7-manifold "the universe". We're living on the three-dimensional surface of a universe with N dimensions (I just picked 7 as an arbitrary number), where our surface is expanding while the universe doesn't expand (i.e. maintains constant volume in N dimensions.)

 

That's the Neil deGrasse-Tyson explanation. I don't know how the mathematics would work out in the theory in question, but that's the basic principle of it: we live on the changing M-dimensional surface of a constant-volume N-manifold, where M = 3 and M < N.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which also means that the Big Bang can easily be considered nothing more than an M-dimensional expansion of the surface of an N-manifold (where M<N, and M and N are unknown). Which also means that the Big Bang did not necessarily originate from a singularity, since a singularity in M dimensions is not necessarily a singularity in N dimensions.

 

I think I actually kept up with that. It's easier to understand as equations rather than trying to visualize it. So let me ask this - of the 7 N dimensions in your example universe, wouldn't we be living on a changing 4 dimensional surface, or would time automatically be a constant among all of the surfaces, and not actually counted as an individual surface's dimension?

 

Also, would bosonic strings actually connect the surfaces together at the subatomic level?

[4merper4mer]

what has the hamster been telling her?

 

 

I don't know. Those conversations are private per the contract. Just be careful because she is easily fooled and he is not a huge fan of yours.

[DC Tom]

 

I think I actually kept up with that. It's easier to understand as equations rather than trying to visualize it. So let me ask this - of the 7 N dimensions in your example universe, wouldn't we be living on a changing 4 dimensional surface, or would time automatically be a constant among all of the surfaces, and not actually counted as an individual surface's dimension?

 

 

Maybe. I'm actually not up on the cosmology enough to know if current theory would consider us to be on a 3- or 4-brane. I think we're on a 3-brane, but I would not be surprised if it was an open issue for research, since while it could be made to adequately the accelerating expansion of the universe (if the "time" dimension is expanding or contracting, it impacts measurements of distance and velocity over time), it's also not testable by any method I can think of.

 

I kept my example to 3 dimensions because it was conceptually easier. We perceive 3 dimensions concretely...time, we perceive much more abstractly. But the principle easily extends to as many dimensions as you want.

 

 

Also, would bosonic strings actually connect the surfaces together at the subatomic level?

 

This sentence gives me flashbacks of Geordi Laforge subjecting the dilithium crystals in the Jeffries tubes to a tachyon burst.

 

I stopped at QCD; never got to string theories. I'll have to do some studying - give me an hour.

[Azalin]

 

This sentence gives me flashbacks of Geordi Laforge subjecting the dilithium crystals in the Jeffries tubes to a tachyon burst.

 

I stopped at QCD; never got to string theories. I'll have to do some studying - give me an hour.

 

I stopped trying to grasp Star Trek's techno-babble as soon as they started talking about' Heisenberg Compensators'.

[Gary M]

 

 

Maybe. I'm actually not up on the cosmology enough to know if current theory would consider us to be on a 3- or 4-brane. I think we're on a 3-brane, but I would not be surprised if it was an open issue for research, since while it could be made to adequately the accelerating expansion of the universe (if the "time" dimension is expanding or contracting, it impacts measurements of distance and velocity over time), it's also not testable by any method I can think of.

 

I kept my example to 3 dimensions because it was conceptually easier. We perceive 3 dimensions concretely...time, we perceive much more abstractly. But the principle easily extends to as many dimensions as you want.

 

 

 

This sentence gives me flashbacks of Geordi Laforge subjecting the dilithium crystals in the Jeffries tubes to a tachyon burst.

 

I stopped at QCD; never got to string theories. I'll have to do some studying - give me an hour.

 

That's why I tried to hijack this thread with yoga pants, but I failed to distract the real nerds.

[Beerball]

That's why I tried to hijack this thread with yoga pants, but I failed to distract the real nerds.

perhaps trying it again would be helpful.

[DC Tom]

perhaps trying it again would be helpful.

 

Not really. Yoga pants are an excellent example of quantum duality, since they exist in a superposition of the states "hot' and "stupid."

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Not really. Yoga pants are an excellent example of quantum duality, since they exist in a superposition of the states "hot' and "stupid."

 

Not sure about that... She looks like she knows her way around a quantum equation.

 

[DC Tom]

 

Not sure about that... She looks like she knows her way around a quantum equation.

 

 

You wish. Quantum mechanics is the study of the infinitesimally small, after all...

[K-9]

... I stopped at QCD; never got to string theories. I'll have to do some studying - give me an hour.

You're slipping.

 

Serious question: if we all found out tomorrow, with absolute certainty, the origin of the universe, how would that impact us on a personal level? What does that change for us moving forward?

[DC Tom]

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-two-big-bangs-1493194f5cd9

You're slipping.

 

Serious question: if we all found out tomorrow, with absolute certainty, the origin of the universe, how would that impact us on a personal level? What does that change for us moving forward?

 

Well...for starters, some group, no matter what the answer, would lose their collective ****. And the rest of us would suffer for it.

 

For that reason alone, I hope the Christians are wrong. If they're right...well, the scientists have nukes...

[Ted William's frozen head]

Intriguing idea. The write-up is ****, though. I have to read the actual paper to judge. The thing that immediately jumps out at me is that although they're trying to eliminate the singularity of the Big Bang, their idea as written up in that article easily extends to a general theoretical principle, which raise a whole host of questions (for starters, singularities aren't unnatural or artificial - the phase transformation of water to ice is a de facto singularity, and very real and observable. And then there's the obvious fact that, if they're explaining away singularities, their theory should be able to describe and predict the structure of black holes.) But that may just be a feature of the write-up being ****, like I said.

 

One important point: Physics Letters B is hardly a top-shelf journal. It's related to Physica, which isn't a bad journal itself, but anything with "Letters" in it is for papers whose authors prioritize speed of publication over scientific rigor and thorough peer review. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just written to a looser scientific standard, and should be treated accordingly.

Here is a plug for free courses @ MIT. This is a course in Quantum Mechanics that I am currently auditing. If you want to learn about Cosmology, and what is 'under the hood' of the Universe, start HERE:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ3bPUKo5zc#t=13

Edited February 11, 2015 by Ted William's frozen head

[DC Tom]

Here is a plug for free courses @ MIT. This is a course in Quantum Mechanics that I am currently auditing. If you want to learn about Cosmology, and what is 'under the hood' of the Universe, start HERE:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ3bPUKo5zc#t=13

 

Do I SOUND like I need to learn about cosmology or quantum mechanics?

 

I've probably forgotten more about QM than they teach in that class. Literally.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

 

 

I stopped at QCD; never got to string theories. I'll have to do some studying - give me an hour.

 

Are you intellectually honest enough to confirm that under some versions of string theory, there is at least one parallel universe in which you are an idiot?

[DC Tom]

 

Are you intellectually honest enough to confirm that under some versions of string theory, there is at least one parallel universe in which you are an idiot?

 

I'm intellectually honest enough to agree that there's a possibility of at least one parallel universe where I'm an idiot. But that possibility is not subject to confirmation.

 

I'm also intellectually honest enough to admit that, in an alternate universe where I'm an idiot, you all are still bigger ones.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I'm intellectually honest enough to agree that there's a possibility of at least one parallel universe where I'm an idiot. But that possibility is not subject to confirmation.

 

I'm also intellectually honest enough to admit that, in an alternate universe where I'm an idiot, you all are still bigger ones.

 

What about the alternate universe where everyone is DC Tom? In a world of 7 billion Tom's, who's the idiot and who's sniping from the balcony??

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

 

What about the alternate universe where everyone is DC Tom? In a world of 7 billion Tom's, who's the idiot and who's sniping from the balcony??

There's one DC Tom, and he's the idiot. There's a giant balcony and we're all sniping down at Tom.