
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details 


Author  Topic: Size of the universe  
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member 
Gravity bends light... how do you think that is possible?
Oh, I dunno... You can expand a mathematical matrix. You can expand your mind. Anyway, spacetime is where physical properties reside. Even your own rule here takes place within spacetime. Its kind of its own thing, and not necessarily subject to the rules that take place within it.
That question is nonsensical.


New Cat's Eye Inactive Member

If you want to put 10^35 on one end of a continuum, and 10^25 on the other, and then find out about what size is in the middle, then wouldn't that just be 10^(35 + 26) or 10^9? So we're talking on the order of a nanometer. ABE: Ha! Didn't even see your previous message. I totally read your mind. ABE2: Actually I don't think 10^9 is right. We're talking about 61 total exponents, so the midpoint would be at 30.5 point away from 35, so that'd be 4.5. So that'd be around 0.05 centimeters, or 50 microns, which is about the diameter of a hair. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


New Cat's Eye Inactive Member 
Welcome to EvC, Lurkey! So much for lurking Thanks for joining up and posting.
I guess it would look to be the size of a tennis ball, but the pressure from the density would be so great that you be crused to death.
Not really. Back then there weren't the same kinds of matter as there is today.
Heavier elements are fused inside of stars and then blasted across the universe via supernova. It'd be a very convoluted path back to the origin. I'm picturing it quite a bit differently than a genetic lineage.


New Cat's Eye Inactive Member

Its whatever. Ask away if you want to. If we don't want to reply then we won't


New Cat's Eye Inactive Member

No, there was "some time" after the Big Bang before matter even existed: It was "really fucking short" but it was there nonetheless.
In order to concepualize it, you're gonna have to be able to reduce dimensions in your mind. So, take a cube, it's 3dimensions, and reduce it to 2 dimensions: It becomes a plane. That is, the plane is the "shadow" of a cube. Think about how your shadow on the sidewalk is a 2D representation of yourself. Now, reduce that 2d plane to one dimension: it becomes a line. If you take a sheet of paper (2D) and look at it just from its edge, it makes a line. Again, you can reduce a 1D line into a point in the same way: Take a pencil and look at it down the shaft and it becomes a "point" (0D). That's reducing dimensions in a nutshell. So, on to the analogy. Imagine the globe, the Earth. But just the surface of the Earth. Nothing on the inside just the surface, like a balloon. Let that 2 dimensional surface represent all three spatial dimensions, they're just reduced as per the above. Now, imagine that the lines of latitude represent the timeline. The closer you get to the North Pole, the farther back you are going in time. As you approach the North Pole, as you go back in time, the size of the Universe, the radius of the Earth, keeps getting smaller and smaller. That's the Universe getting smaller and smaller as we go back in time. So what happens when you get to the North Pole? You can't go farther north than that, i.e. you can't go back further in time than that. The surface "wraps back upon itself". That is, it is an asymptote <. clicky. Asking what's before the Big Bang is like asking what's north of the North Pole. Your immediate reaction might be "upwards" from the surface, but due to the dimension reduction, there is no such thing as that. For, when you're at the North Pole, all directions are south. If you're confined to the surface, there is no upwards to point towards. That point, the North Pole, represents the singularity that the Big Band describes. All directions are "forward" in time and there is no such thing as "before". Time, itself, is an integrated part of the dimensions of spacetime, that is there are 3 spatial dimensions and one temporal one. So we're really talking about a 4 dimensions manifold <. again, clicky. That manifold has a finite "shape" and that shape suggests a finite past, but that past "folds back onto itself" and exists at all points that time exists. Its like the Eath exists at all points of latitude even though there is only so far northwards that you can go. So that's the best analogy I've come across, let me know if you have any questions. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : Type. 2D > 1D for a line. Added (0D) to point


New Cat's Eye Inactive Member

Simplifying
Thank Son, lets just keep this rolling.
So the metric is 'how the distances work'. It can be a mathematical equation where you input some particular of the manifold and determine the distance between them. So lets look at the metric we're all familiar with: The old XY Plane. To find the distance to the green dot, we use . That's the metric. You can make the manifold more complicated by adding more dimensions: And this will change the metric.
People can use these manifolds to create some pretty cool shapes. quote: Hrm, that one's not hotlinking: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/...CqnVoStqug/s1600h/rp2+model.jpg lol  Someone made a kitty: source People are even using them to study biology: quote: You can create manifolds to see if and how they match observations to get a better understanding of the underlying causes of the way things happen. Some of the manifolds more accurately match observations of our Universe, itself, even. Like how Einstein's have. As you say:
The blog for the sculpture above had this to say: quote:


New Cat's Eye Inactive Member 
No, not even close. But you should start a new topic, as this is in the Science Forum. Just throw one into the Coffee House and I'll reply there when I see it.



Do Nothing Button
Copyright 20012018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020