A Thought Experiment

[infamous]

Wait...

Wouldn't current day scientists be called philosophers 10,000 years from now? LOL.

Respectfully amt7565, I don't think any of us can perdict the future. As far as any of us know, you may be right, you may be wrong. Time will tell.

[Little Bang]

Tormod, I think you pretty well answered the question, but I remember that I had a test question in one of my first physics classes that I spent way to much time searching for a solution. When I was shown the solution it was short and simple. I had made it so complex that there was no way for me to solve it. I keep hoping that we may be doing that with the Universe.

[infamous]

Tormod, I think you pretty well answered the question, but I remember that I had a test question in one of my first physics classes that I spent way to much time searching for a solution. When I was shown the solution it was short and simple. I had made it so complex that there was no way for me to solve it. I keep hoping that we may be doing that with the Universe.

Truly Liitle Bang, thats what most of us are all hoping for. It may be waiting for us just around the corner.

[Little Bang]

If you look at a computer it's a pretty complicated piece of equipment, it has a display and a bunch of input output devices and yet it's basic operation is nothing more than manipulating ones and zeros.

[coldcreation]

Little Bang, you are right. I think I was referring to the conversion of mass to energy and visa versa and neglected c squared.

 

Returning to your thought experiment. It is very poetic the idea of virtual particles popping incessantly in and out from the depths of the vacuum for a breath of fresh air over the stylized effervesce of a chopping sea before submerging back to the lathering of coral caves from which they emerged seemingly out of nowhere...playing there little game of hide and seek over and over again, again, over and over, again, over and over, again...

 

but i have another idea

 

more soon

[Little Bang]

Infamous, in response to your reply #18 question #2.

 

For my scenario of a universe anti-universe to work they would have to collapse into a black hole anti-black hole meet and anihilate releasing two photons in a larger universe. The picture is unending.

[infamous]

Infamous, in response to your reply #18 question #2.

 

For my scenario of a universe anti-universe to work they would have to collapse into a black hole anti-black hole meet and anihilate releasing two photons in a larger universe. The picture is unending.

Little Bang that is an elegant picture of universal evolution. You may have something there, what we need to do now is describe this view mathematically and then start looking for evidence. This will be the difficult part.

[Little Bang]

Well thank you infamous but it's still just a thought experiment. One of the problems we have is not knowing what kind of particle we are, electron, proton, muon, or neutron, mabye even a neutrino. In order to make any kind of mathmatical stab at the thing we would need to figure out which.

[Little Bang]

Infamous, the stuff your working on could have some benefit here.

[coldcreation]

Suppose that we had a microscopic camera that could zoom down to any size that we want and that it could snap pictures at the rate of one every 10^ -100 seconds. We aim our camera at a spot in space where a vitual particle pair is about to pop into existence, lets say an electron positron pair. What is your idea of what we might see.

 

Imagine the vacuum in reduced dimensions first: something that looks like the surface of the ocean, with peaks and troughs of ground energy, zero-point energy and zero-point fluctuations (ZPE, ZPF).

 

Now we have to fix sea level somewhere. Sea level would normally be centered between the high and low points, because waves rise above then dip below sea level. Numerically let’s use the following pattern: -1, 0, +1, where 0 is sea level (also empty space, or flat space).

 

That can be extended as ...-2, -1, 0, +1, +2... Note that if you were to plot a tsunami, the peak would be much higher, and the though deeper into negative territory. This is my interpretation of Dirac’s lovely sea of particles and virtual particles.

 

This concept with 0 (the vacuum) flanked on one side with real numbers or particles, and the other with negative numbers or virtual particles leaves no limit on the right or left hand sides.

 

Question: Is there a limit in nature, or can this idea lead us to antiBHs and even antiuniverses popping in and out of existence?

 

I would like to hear your opinions.

Mine you know: There is a limit. Not in spatiotemporal extent but in what is allowable and what is not, e.g., those numbers cannot be extended indefinitely. So a BH could not form.

[Little Bang]

Your numbers make a nice graph, but you still don't show how they prevent the formation of a BH.

[coldcreation]

Your numbers make a nice graph, but you still don't show how they prevent the formation of a BH.

 

OK, we’re deviating a little from virtual particles, but it’s important. Lets consider our numbers as representing curvature of spacetime.

 

BHs are supposed to be made initially of real matter so they would be on the positive number side (...-2, -1, 0, +1, +2...) and the number would be large, very large (with a very deep gravitational well, a radical departure from linearity). Now lets look at the negative side. This is like a false vacuum, repulsive, without limit either. BHs are small and deep, but if the negative numbers slide to infinity we have the opposite of a black hole. This I call a white void (not a white hole). A white void (Coldcreation 1996) in super-repulsive and huge in spatial dimension. It expands exponentially and continues to do so without relent. Eventually BHs would meet the antiselves. The result would be the same as the particle-virtual particle pairs. They annihilate. They cannot exist in the same universe.

 

This was an idea I had 9 or 10 lightyears ago, I don’t know if there is any sound logic in it. I think Pauli’s exclusion principle is much more compelling in thwarting BHs than white voids (my conclusion then was that white voids cannot exist either).

 

cheers