Thought about Space

Pumpkinstew said:
Assuming no annoying interactions conservation of energy says this is just wrong. It might be in the radio spectrum when it gets to us but it'll still be a photon from the far side of the universe.
Click to expand...

What I mean is it takes 1 planck time or whatever for a photon to move one discrete degree of freedom in the universe, a planck length.

When space gets stretched between masses (between galaxies), from our perspective it now takes 1000 planck times to move a degree of freedom. From the photons perspective it still takes 1 planck time.

Eventually it becomes so stretched that it essentially takes infinity planck time to move one planck length, from our perspective. The energy is still there but it can't ever reach us (unless we can fiddle with the fabric of space like that warp drive does).
 
So the empty space between galaxies (which is about as close to a vacuum as you'll ever see) is now responsible for causing light to come to a complete stop?
Even though a fundamental tenet of modern physics is that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant?
 
Pumpkinstew said:
How could you tell one from the other with no frame of reference?



'Space' has a minimum of 4 dimensions and if string theiory is correct many more than that. A Planck length is defined as the smallest discernible unit length in the universe. Smaller than a Planck length is meaningless. So what would compressing it mean?
What about anti-matter does that expand your Planck lattice?
Click to expand...

the 4th dimension is time, or more like probability.

Compressing a planck length just means it is shorter relative to where it got stretched out. Like how matter clumps together because of mavity. Is it really clumped together or has the space in between the matter compressed?

At the most extreme you have a black hole where space could be piled on top of itself it's so compressed. It sucks the degrees of freedom from space in to a super compressed mavity hole.
 
Pumpkinstew said:
So the empty space between galaxies (which is about as close to a vacuum as you'll ever see) is now responsible for causing light to come to a complete stop?
Even though a fundamental tenet of modern physics is that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant?
Click to expand...

Don't feed the troll...
 
Judgeneo said:
You are assuming that the expansion of the 'space' can be faster than the speed of light, when there is no evidence to suggest either way. Yes its not governed by E=γMC^2, but the universal speed limit could still apply
Click to expand...

If all points are expanding away from all other points then the further away two points are from each other the faster they'll be expanding away from each other, surely.
 
Pumpkinstew said:
So the empty space between galaxies (which is about as close to a vacuum as you'll ever see) is now responsible for causing light to come to a complete stop?
Even though a fundamental tenet of modern physics is that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant?
Click to expand...

Light from the galaxies beyond the horizon has stopped from our perspective.

If you're on a spaceship that travels at the speed of light flying from one of those galaxies eventually you'll hit an area of space where you "stop" but really you are still moving, it's just one second of your time equals trillions years of your destination's time, and since their time is running faster the time gap is ever growing. You can never ever get there.

The speed of light is just the maximum information processing speed of the universe. It's always constant where you are.
 
They used to think the universe expansion is slowing down, in keeping with classical physics and momentum. But Hubble discovered that the expansion is speeding up and the farther things are apart the faster the expansion is speeding up.

if you plotted distance to expansion speed on a big enough scale on a graph it would be an exponential curve. When the curve goes vertical that is what I'm talking about. It has passed the horizon of information exchange and might as well be a separate universe.

It happens because of the relative time differential from the densities of quantum degrees of freedom I described.

It's like a cellular automata but the cells are being stretched/compressed with the movement of the information. The cellular density is much higher where the information is.

puffertr.gif
 
Here's an interesting video where they slow down the speed of light to the speed of a bicycle. They shoot a laser in to a super cooled material (Bose Einstein Condensate).

Or my way of describing it, they sucked the degrees of freedom out of the BEC, and put them somewhere else (where the heat from the BEC creation is dissipated to). So when the light from the laser hits this space, there are fewer degrees of freedom so time slows down.

 
So how this "warp drive" would work is it sucks the degrees of freedom from behind the engine, and moves them to the front of the engine, which speeds up time in front of the ship. You're overclocking spacetime!

BTW I posted about the drive a week before it was in the news. I've been reading about it for a couple years it makes perfect sense to me with holographic principle and entropic mavity and information theory.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=22719843#post22719843
 
bam0 said:
If all points are expanding away from all other points then the further away two points are from each other the faster they'll be expanding away from each other, surely.
Click to expand...

The points aren't expanding away from each other, mass is sucking them towards itself (mavity). If ALL points were expanding we wouldn't even notice it, because it's relative.

There is some evidence that the center of our galaxy is a massive black hole. Think of it as sucking the "points" out of the space between our galaxy and the next one. Now think of it as sucking TIME out of that space.
 
Andelusion said:
It depends at what rate the universe is expending, Shirley.
Click to expand...

The rate of expansion is ever increasing. So were it possible to break the speed of light then yes it would reach a point where it would be impossible for that light to ever reach us. However it doesn't look like it is possible.

/thread
 
Dis86 said:
The rate of expansion is ever increasing. So were it possible to break the speed of light then yes it would reach a point where it would be impossible for that light to ever reach us. However it doesn't look like it is possible.

/thread
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The speed of light is a local limit. The expansion of the universe is a stretching of the very fabric of spacetime itself - it's very possible for objects hundreds of billions of light years away to be moving away from us at greater than the speed of light. Seriously, google "cosmological horizon", I'm not making this **** up.
 
SlyReaper said:
Incorrect. The speed of light is a local limit. The expansion of the universe is a stretching of the very fabric of spacetime itself - it's very possible for objects hundreds of billions of light years away to be moving away from us at greater than the speed of light. Seriously, google "cosmological horizon", I'm not making this **** up.
Click to expand...

Listen to this guy. Special relativity states that no information can be sent faster than the speed of light. Between two arbitrary points in a vacuum no information is being sent, thus they can move away from each other at a speed greater than c and special relativity is not being violated.
 
If when you look through a telescope at distant galaxies, what you see happened millions of years ago because the speed of light is quite slow.
Click to expand...

Ya that's it, space isn't huge or anything. :D I would love to explore space in a Star Trek type ship, knowing I was safe it would be great.
 
I don't think space is that actually that huge, the amount of information between us and the next galaxy stays the same, the gap might get bigger but nothing new is being put there. Time is getting dilated relative to us giving the appearance of an ever increasing distance. What is distance but the time it takes information to reach somewhere?

I'm sure when scientists figure all this out in to a coherent "theory of everything" (i reckon entropic mavity is the right direction) it will turn out to be mind blowingly elegant in it's simplicity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom