Established Member
One obvious question. If the laws of physics are totally different why would you expect to see EM radiation from these other universes?
It read like a series of assertions and analogies. There was nothing scientific in the document to be judged according to scientific opinion.
Order of Kilopi
Why do you say this? It isn't true, and you've been given several counterexamples already. 27 MHz remote controls don't have 11 m antennas. 50/60 Hz interference is a common problem for electronics in spite of the lack of attached 5000-6000 km long antennas. A resonant antenna will be far more sensitive than a random wire, but is not an absolute requirement, and is in fact often impractical due to the need to work with large wavelengths or a wide range of wavelengths.Originally Posted by dapifo
Once again, there is no limit to how slowly a field can change. The sun's magnetic field switches polarity every 11 years, for a wavelength of 22 light years. Longer period oscillations would produce radiation at even longer wavelengths. And that's without accounting for cosmological expansion...we could in principle start to receive a wavefront of such length that we will never see it complete a full cycle, the tail end of the wave train receding from us faster than light. A similar effect is seen with black holes, with emissions from an object approaching infinite redshift as seen by an outside observer as that object approaches the event horizon. Wavelength is not evidence of origin outside our universe. That's it, your question's been answered, end of story. As for your idea of different universes at different scales, you have no evidence and no reason to expect such a thing, and no mechanism for separating them from each other to such a degree that you can consider them separate universes. Phenomena at extremely small or large scales are just that.
Your PDF is riddled with errors, some of which have been corrected in this thread already..."DC EM waves", for example. Your paragraphs about turning the Hubble around are just bizarre. You mention that the universe lacks a center and borders, and in the same paragraph suggest pointing the Hubble away from the center to look at the borders. There is nothing particularly special about the direction the first deep field image was taken in, any other direction not obstructed by nearby objects (like nearby stars or bulk of the Milky Way itself) will show a very similar set of galaxies...you can't point a telescope away from the big bang, there is no such direction. And in fact, Hubble already did another deep field observation in roughly the opposite direction, Hubble Deep Field South. As expected, it looks very similar to the first deep field image.
Established Member
OK, the contetns of the PDF is only a new way of reasoning about the knowledge we know now (state of the art).
There is nothing new with evidences.... that is what I would like to know how to do... If it is possible with our technology (?).
The only new is to show another way of seeing the Global Universe (and Our Universe) extrapolated from what we know so far:
- Our known universe is only a band or level of the Global Universe.
- Throughout the years this band has been increasing thanks to advances in science and technology.
- When I talk about different universes at different scales, I mean different Open Systems, and without borders. Where the laws (and waves) may be specific to certain ranges or spectra, although some may cover different spectra ... or all (?).
- This is the case of EM waves that could (?) exist in all possible wavelengths ... assertion that seems very feasible for large dimensions, ... but for waves less than 10 exp -35 seems more difficult (?).
If these concepts do not contradict current scientific theories too much, I think it offers a much simpler view of the Universe Global .... (?)
If for scientific you understand evidences...then you are right, there are nothing new.... but new ideas could be also scientifics if they have logic and looks reasonables within the current State of the Art (?).
Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple and generally can be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone. Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Good, if simple, is twice good.
Last edited by dapifo; 2012-Jul-09 at 12:23 AM.
Established Member
As you can see I am not an specialist in these fields (theoretical physics and telecommunication). I am more generalist (Industrial Engineer). That is why I am asking here some doubts, and I ask for your help and knowledge to clarify my concepts.
Wavelength is not evidence of origin outside our universe....OK thanks, that concept is very important !!!
But do you think it is possible that exist EM wavetengh smaller than 10 exp -35 ? ... And if yes, could be they evidence of origin outside our universe...coming from a smaler scale?
Your paragraphs about turning the Hubble around are just bizarre.
I am sorry, yes I know...it is only an allegory. Just I was tryng to symbolize a siple (but wrong) way of detecting signals or stimuli (waves) from outside of Our Universe (possibly my poor English leaves it unclear and confuse).
Just two last questions:
- Do you think that the basic ideas of the doccument have any sense?... and that they could describe an wider Universe View?
- Do you can imagine or glimpse some possibe test to evidence its contents?... for both large and small scales?
Order of Kilopi
How? What does it simplify? What does it help explain? It seems to be nothing but additional, unnecessary complexity that describes things in confusing or outright misleading terms. It was a fun read in "He Who Shrank" by Henry Hasse, but I don't see the connection with reality.
If they exist within our universe, they are due to a phenomenon within our universe, regardless of how big or small they are. And it may be possible for photons with planck length wavelengths to exist, but they would just form black holes whenever they interact with anything. Judging from the fact that subatomic particles have exhibited no particular tendency to spontaneously convert into microscopic black holes, my guess is that such photons are not flying around in any notable quantity.
Established Member
How? What does it simplify? What does it help explain?
Well...I think that it is very different to conceive the Universe... as an singular event... started by a Big-Bang...growing isotropically ...as a closed system... and in the end composed of indivisible strings... that with its vibrations cofigure all the paticles of this Universe.
That... to see Our Universe as one more of the billions that would be in the upper scale...which in turn forms part of another order of magnitude greater scale... and that they are open systems with interchance of energy and matter...and in the end composed of infinite entities without end.
To conceive concepts of our physical universe, which may only be valid in part of it (matter, gravitational , weak and strong fields, ...). and anothers who will be valid on several scales (EM field, ...), can help to expand horizons of a theory of everything.
I think it would be ingenuous to believe that the limits of the universe we know today is the last and absolute limits of the universe. This would mean that we already know almost everything (!?) ... And I do not believe we've begun to understand.
Established Member
No. There are simpler and more plausible speculations about the 'wider universe'. Since you put forwards no models, nothing other than some guesswork and fairly wild speculation there really is nothing, scientifically, to address here.Do you think that the basic ideas of the doccument have any sense?... and that they could describe an wider Universe View?
No because your caveat "the laws of physics may be different" makes your idea non-falsifiable. Anything and everything can be evidence for your idea and nothing can disprove it because the laws of physics could be different in such a way as to make any observation work.Do you can imagine or glimpse some possibe test to evidence its contents?... for both large and small scales?
Current theory does not think the universe started with an actual bang. That is because current theory breaks down before the possible singularity. It also says nothing about the universe being all there is, it does not say it is closed. String theory is one of many speculations about what is the deeper theory beneath current models.Well...I think that it is very different to conceive the Universe... as an singular event... started by a Big-Bang...growing isotropically ...as a closed system... and in the end composed of indivisible strings... that with its vibrations cofigure all the paticles of this Universe.
Established Member
Current theory does not think the universe started with an actual bang. That is because current theory breaks down before the possible singularity.
What do you mean?
Well it is obvious that any body likes my proposal about teh 3D RAINBOW ...
When I say that different laws COULD govern in different ranges.... it is something real:
- Strong Field only govern in very small scales (aprox. 10 exp -18 to 10 exp -14)
- Weak Field only govern in small scales (aprox. 10 exp -14 to 10 exp -10)
- Gravity Field only govern in large scales (aprox. 10 exp -10 to 10 exp +30)
Established Member
Exactly what I said. Current theories break down at around a Plank time after the point at which all the lines of the graph converge. Essentially we have no idea how physics behaves at this point so we cannot use our models to make predictions. So we do not know if an actual transition from a singularity occurred. What the model says is that the observable universe expanded from a hot dense state that existed a finite time ago. It says little about things outside our observable universe, little about what happened around the nominal t=0 point.What do you mean?
Nope. Forces have ranges, the have potentials. Gravity still has an effect at small scales - it is just dwarfed by other forces. The Strong force has an effect at large scales, it is just dwarfed by other forces. And you leave out EM forces which operate over all the scales you gave. Different laws do not apply.When I say that different laws COULD govern in different ranges.... it is something real:
Established Member
Ok...do you really believe that the "Global (Whole) Universe" would have an start time?...and messured?
If not...then the Universe we know is not the "Global (Whole) Universe" ... it is only "Our Universe"
And OK...I agree that different forces fields (strong, weak, gravity,...) doesnīt desapear absolutly out of some ranges, but yes they follow an Gaussian function (possible asymmetric).
And I donīt leave out EM forces which operate over all the scales I gave... just for it !!!....and it can follow also Gaussian function but with sigma => infinite !!!
Established Member
no news....bad news ????
Moderator
No not really, it is basically that we don't understand what you want to know, what do you mean with the forces following a "gaussian funcition" (possibly asymmetric)? etc.
Do you mean the strength, the range etc.
if it is asymmetric, would it still be a gaussian?
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
Bi-weekly space physics research "blog" at tusenfem.blogspot.co.at
Established Member
I believe current models do not give us insight into that.
No they don't. They follow inverse square laws or more complex Yukawa potentials.
The form of the EM field is the same as gravity with different sources of 'charge'. So your idea breaks down immediately. The reason gravity is weak at small scales is the fact that it has a low coupling constant. The reason it dominates at large scales is the lack of any neutralisation by opposite charges.
Established Member
Yukawa potentials...are only valid for strong forces (and weak?).
I donīt know about coupling constant, but what I read doesnīt explain what I mean...they are another things !!!
I think that you doesnīt understand what I am trying to explain about scales...
Strong and weak forces doesnīt have any influence at large scales (10 exp +10 meters) ...or at least it is very few... because these forces are caused very small sources (quarks, protons,...)...and they have a very small range although they are very strong..
While the gravitational force (possibly generated in the Higgs boson), it has a longer range but it is weaker and works by accumulation.
Established Member
Think you may find I do.I think that you doesnīt understand what I am trying to explain about scales...
Which is why if you read what I said... I mentioned the 1/r potential (which leads to the inverse square force laws)Yukawa potentials...are only valid for strong forces (and weak?).
It has nothing to do with the size of the source. Each individual particle in the Moon contributes to its gravitational field so all the sources are pretty much the same size anyway. The Strong force has a short range due to the form of its potential. The EM and gravitational forces are so different due to a combination of coupling constants and charge neutralisation.Strong and weak forces doesnīt have any influence at large scales (10 exp +10 meters) ...or at least it is very few... because these forces are caused very small sources (quarks, protons,...)...and they have a very small range although they are very strong..
Gravity does not have an inherently longer range than the EM force at all. It has a longer range than the weak mainly due to differences in the masses of its vector bosons. It has a longer range than the strong thanks to the different potentials. Your comment about the Higgs is wrong too. Gravity is a force. The bosons associated with the field (hypothetical, they have not ben observed) are gravitons. They have to be because you need a spin 2 vector boson to couple to the field (because it couples to stress-energy tensor, not a scalar factor like charge). The Higgs boson is related to the electroweak symmetry breaking and is the boson associated with the broken symmetry of the underlying electroweak field. It is why W/Z bosons have mass and photons do not. It is not 'the source of gravity'While the gravitational force (possibly generated in the Higgs boson), it has a longer range but it is weaker and works by accumulation.
Established Member
Could you imagine what will happen (if it will exist) in a scale of 10 exp+100 meters?...which forces, fields, matters, waves,... will exist? ...the same than in Our Universe?
And in a scale of 10 exp+1000 meters?
Order of Kilopi
It is our universe.
Why would it be any different?
You haven't yet given any reason to think that it is useful to consider events at a particularly large or small scale to be different "universes". You're not going to sidestep the need to address this issue by adding zeros to an exponent.
Established Member
I don't need to imagine. I have a grounding in theories which tell me what we expect to happen and what evidence we would see if things were radically different. We see none of that evidence so there is reason to believe that the same basic laws apply at all scales.
Established Member
You haven't yet given any reason to think that it is useful to consider events at a particularly large or small scale to be different "universes".
I'm surprised you did not see you do not see the value and interest to it.
The mere fact assume (accept) that there are these other scales and means to broaden the spectrum of the current concept of the universe.
Where we are no more than an observer who is in a particular band.
And where the scalar spectra move away (towards the large and small) of this band.
The fact that physical laws and fields may be somewhat different although based on the same principles, does not seem so strange.
We see none of that evidence so there is reason to believe that the same basic laws apply at all scales.
When I mean that fields and laws could be different, I donīt mean that they will be absolutly independent (!!).
But is clear now that the laws and fields are some different at scale of atoms (quantum physics) than at scale of galaxies, although they are dependent and are related by common roles.
Established Member
The foundation of physics goes like this: "The laws of physics are the same everywhere, everytime." This is what is accepted before a law is formulated. Not the other way around. This is what guided Einstein to formulate special relativity. Different laws seemed to behave differently, and he tried hard to make them universal, and succeeded.
Order of Kilopi
Just because you think it interesting doesn't make it valuable.
But, as noted, there is no reason (i.e. evidence) to accept this. No one is just going to accept it because you think it is a good idea.The mere fact assume (accept) that there are these other scales and means to broaden the spectrum of the current concept of the universe.
Established Member
Strange...time no hear from you!!!!..... you are wellcome !!!!...what is the Order of Kilopi?
I donīt try that any body accept any thing....I just whant to discuss it in an educate and reasonable way... like untill now we are doing here....with intelligent and open people.
"The laws of physics are the same everywhere, everytime."
Possibly you had to say: should be...and I agree....there might be a global and single universal law... but in different scales it might work in different ways... like now do strong and weak forces vs gravity field... That sure they will be in the future unified under one law...but they hasnīt now...and they act in a different way at different scales...possible due to "coupling effect" (!!?).
Established Member
Usually scientifics that do the laws of physics try to explain what happen in reality....using mathematics functions that approach to the observation of the real facts.
Some times this models could forsee also real facts... black holes, Higgs boson,...
But current physics laws are so good like they was the Aristoteles laws (F=m.v), before Newton change them (F=m.a), and Einstein inproved both (E=m.c^2).
My oppinion is that these laws are very good within Our Scale of Universe, but for larger sacales (and smaller??)...they could change and need other laws that encompass the previous ones.
Established Member
Its a status awarded to people who have made a certain number of posts on this forum (well BAUT pre-merger, I don't think anyone from CQX had enough anyway though), exactly what this number of posts is is a closely guarded secret but there is said to be a clue in the name itself and the number of the asteroid with the same name.
Order of Kilopi
I never said that.
Moderator
dapifo please do NOT put words in people's mouth. Actually it was ShinAce who used this sentence.
And in order to keep the discussion understandable use the reply with quote button when you reply to comments.
Just picking out sentences as you have been doing and bolding them is not the way to go, as you use bold all the time for things you say yourself.
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
Bi-weekly space physics research "blog" at tusenfem.blogspot.co.at
Established Member
ShinAce (Established Member) did....and it was a reply to him...http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...97#post2045297
I still donīt know to do multi-Quotes to different people (!!?)...too complex for me !!!
Established Member
I donīt know how to do multy-quote of different people in one reply (???)...how I can do it?
I only know to reply one person every time....deleting the parts I donīt need....if necessary
Established Member
If your reply is maybe someday, somehow, unicorns will unify physics, that's fine. It's not a reply that's going to affect any working physicist, though.
Order of Kilopi
There is a little ["+] button at the bottom right of each post. Tick that for each of the posts you want to include in a reply.
Posting Permissions
