New hypothesis on the Universe.

JT,

Sorry, but you will receive no credit for an original hypothesis on this. On April 19, 1943 the same thoughts were first verbalized by Dr. Albert Hofmann. It seems that you have merely paraphrased using less comprehensible wording, the same postulation that has been shared by thousands of Dr. Hofmann's followers.

Einstein's refers to the speed of light not light itself? And the energy's involved. So you are saying that space is light and therefore time? At this point I would like to throw in some thinking of my own. But before that I must point out that I am a novice on this subject, but like a lot of people I give it some thought.

I also like to think of space as infinite, and also, that in nature there is a balance of opposites. So taking up your point of space being light and time? First as space is infinite there is no edge, and secondly as there is no edge, there is no centre. But there is opposites, infinite expansion and infinite contraction? These two forces make up space, dark matter expansion and gravity contract, you then have the problem of infinity, where is the point of equilibrium of these two forces? That point I would suggest is time, move that point and you move and distort space? I would also suggest that these two forces, weak thought thou they may be move at the speed of light. Taking this a bit further, one can speculate that matter is in fact a wave, imagine a piece of wood floating on the water, press down on it and a force tries to return it to the surface, lift it up and a force again tries to return it. A wave oscillating between these two forces, one moment expanding the next contracting, thus suggesting that a proton and electron cannot exist in the same time frame? The bug in that of cause is anti matter. I could go on but I think this address your remarks regarding space. It's interesting.

Regards JD.

I personally can't even comment on your hypothesis since I'm still not convinced the moon isn't painted on the back of a big turtle. But, there's this fellow, Jorrie, who's at least 11.3 times smarter than me and who has a blog on Relativity and Cosmology under the blog heading, and you might try asking him.

Hello JT.

From my VERY remedial perspective (there's a key word), the problem is we are looking at all through a "key hole" which is our perspective and understanding of all things.

Generally, except for those who can begin to understand dimensions outside our own, we can only perceive the "everything" that is, based on our understanding of what we perceived around us. We think of matter, dimension, and time as we understand it, and this limitation causes us to be amazed at what we perceive as "timeless" or "infinite". But, indeed, these very "undefined" elements may be explainable, if only we had a larger perception ... a different vantage point.

I could offer you several analogies, but the fact is when we consider the vastness of "everything" ... as we dabble in the physics and mathematics of the theoretical, there are areas which may truly be totally beyond our comprehension. The quest continues, as is our nature, in minds far superior to mine ... and in minds such as mine too.

We will never give up asking how, when, and why ... and that's a good thing

Any discourse on this subject should be observed by Jorrie, who has the most overall knowledge on such concepts in this forum.

We have several ideas and hypothesis on the Universe.But all these are from the sense of perception which emanate from our brain.Are we sure that the human brain has the capability to look into everything in this Universe?.Or Are there things and dimensions other than what we could see or perceive / imagine with our brain?.

I too look forward to jorries comments for this Forum Thread as I always thoroughly enjoy reading them

The first thing one must consider is Goedel's theorem, which can be paraphrased, in my understanding, that you can not know everything about a system from within the system. That is, as long as you are a part of the universe, you can not know it fully.

The next thing is, the speed of light is NOT constant. There is a maximum value for the velocity of light in a vacuum, but, since there are no absolute vacuums, the actual velocity of light will change depending on the medium through which it passes. There have been experiments (at MIT, for example) where light has apparently been brought to zero velocity for a limited time...Einstein only promises us that the speed of light will APPEAR the same for all observers...

Einstein provides us an equivalence between mass and energy. E=mc^2.

It is possible, and has been suggested by at least some past investigators, that what we perceive as the expansion of the universe is actually the effect of our falling in to the black hole at the center of the Milky Way. There would be no way to determine from where we sit whether the rest of the universe is expanding, or our part of the unverse is contracting...

The microwave background is generally accepted as the reminants of the original Big Bang. The data appear to fit the theory quite well. However, the current theory is only one of an infinite multitude of possible explanations for the evidence. Current theory is continually challenged by each new piece of evidence that is uncovered as we look further and further back in time (i.e., towards the edge of the observable universe). The microwave background could possibly be a local effect- we can not know that it looks the same from Andromeda as it does from the Milky Way, or even that it looks the same from the other side of the Milky Way.

I am especially bothered by the currently accepted time line. Supposedly, the universe is only about 13.9 billion years old (plus or minus a few per cent?) The earth has been around for only about 4 billion years. All those millions of black holes supposedly grew up in that 13.9 billion years. If it took 4 billion years to make earth as it is today, how can you make something so much more massive in only 13.9 billion years? Not only one, but millions of them.

I am no where near as well-informed as Jorrie, and I am but an amateur at this sort of discourse, but these are some of the concepts that disturb me...

Excellent post Mr. Warner! Lot of food for thought there.

-John

Hi cwarner, as John said, a very good summary with some probing questions/statements.

"There would be no way to determine from where we sit whether the rest of the universe is expanding, or our part of the universe is contracting..."

This may be so because it is a relative measurement, but us falling into our galaxy's central black hole? Never! If Einsteins is only more or less right, the dynamics around us would have been very different. We do not observer either expansion or contraction inside the Milky Way, or inside other galaxies.

"The microwave background could possibly be a local effect- we can not know that it looks the same from Andromeda as it does from the Milky Way, or even that it looks the same from the other side of the Milky Way."

I guess anything is possible, but we would have had a very hard time explaining the details of the CMB characteristics if it was a local phenomenon, e.g., we can see it is influenced by distant structures...

"I am especially bothered by the currently accepted time line. Supposedly, the universe is only about 13.9 billion years old (plus or minus a few per cent?) The earth has been around for only about 4 billion years. All those millions of black holes supposedly grew up in that 13.9 billion years."

We belong to a population I star, our sun, which is a mid-age generation. Population II stars are typically very old and many of them must have gone supernova by now, many leaving normal black holes. Also, just about every large galaxy has a supermassive black hole at it's center.

Some black holes may also have been born in the first minutes after the big bang, who knows? In fact, since they are not directly observable, we know very little about black holes, except in theory.

Jorrie

Jorrie- I read an analysis somewhere a couple of years ago that suggested that if one were falling into a Black Hole, one would not be able to detect it, because everything in the immediate neighborhood would be falling at the same rate, and from inside the area, dimensions would not appear to be changing (until one suddenly crossed the event horizon!). That is, we would perceive the distance to nearby stars within the galaxy as maintaining a constant distance from us. As I understood it, we would appear to be getting further away from other structures in the universe, but our region would appear stable. The problem is, Andromeda appears to be getting closer...

Hi cwarner, you wrote: "I read an analysis somewhere a couple of years ago that suggested that if one were falling into a Black Hole, one would not be able to detect it, because everything in the immediate neighborhood would be falling at the same rate, and from inside the area, dimensions would not appear to be changing (until one suddenly crossed the event horizon!)"

No, I'm afraid whoever wrote what you read had it somewhat wrong. If a black hole is really big, one would not feel much of a tidal force as you near and even cross the event horizon. However, the behaviour of the light from nearby and distant stars is very different near a black hole. The whole observable universe gets compressed into a smaller and smaller area, until it becomes just on pinpoint of almost infinitely bright light as you cross the event horizon.

Kip Thorne describes this vividly in his "Time warps and black holes". I have written on some of the math of it on my website (down-loadable pdf from Relativity 4 Engineers)

Jorrie

One of the problems with "popular" science reviews is that, often, as the concepts are translated from professional jargon to plain language, they get distorted beyond recognition. I do not accept the idea that was presented in the analysis I read (possibly in Scientific American, a nortoriously inaccurate translater) as an absolute concept- only something that makes some of this a little easier to comprehend. I am, however, bothered by the tendency of theoretical scientists to make broad assumptions based on very limited observations. We are, of course, only a small pinprick in the overall scheme of things, and we have a limited observational horizon, both physically and temporally. I think Francis Bacon, back in 1620, had some good points:

"..stories invented for the stage [of philosophy] are more compact and elegant, and more as one would want them to be, than true stories out of history...there is taken for the material of philosophy either a great deal out of a few things, or very little our of many things; so that on both sides philosophy is based on too narrow a foundation of experiment and natural history, and decides on the authority of too few cases."

Of course, Francis Bacon originally wrote in Latin, I believe, and some of the gist of his meaning may have been lost in translation...

Hi JT, I'm afraid your hypothesis is a wee bit metaphysical for me, so I'll only comment if there is something well defined and directly testable...

Jorrie

Hi Jorrie,

Thank you everyone for the discussion, and Jorrie especially,
- for being so polite. (to my "offering") And good points raised.

Upon reading it through, I feel I must have suffered what is
a mental aberration! At the time, everything was so clear to
me, that it seemed like "sliced bread." Now, It seems demented!

I have not brought anything new to the table; only suggesting
that "everything " is there with no boundary, and created by no
better (or worse) than in the bible! - Simply brilliant! (aka stupid)

It seems impossible, remembering how I felt about this "inspiration"
to see how stupid it all sounds now. Better to keep my mouth shut
and be thought an idiot, than open it, and prove it!

Thank you all for sorting me out, mentally at least!

jt.

Now they have let me out - I am still in the dark.

"Better to keep my mouth shut and be thought an idiot, than open it, and prove it!"

No, no, no jt! Don't ever think you should keep your mouth shut! As others have pointed out: the only stupid question is the one not asked.

Many of us (me especially) are not skilled in the workings of cosmology and the higher math of cutting edge physics but we still stand in absolute awe of the magnificence of the universe. Like you, I often wonder about things, such as the ones you brought up, time, space, weird particles, anti-particles, etc. Also, metaphysical questions and posits are entirely acceptable. There are many good folks on this forum that will offer opinions and attempt to answer all sorts of questions. You may not get a definitive answer but chances are you'll have been given food for many more questions than you started out with.

Keep at it my friend.

-John

You have no need to appologize- you have initiated a good thread, with important questions...