Gizmo Posted August 5, 2009 Posted August 5, 2009 I like the theory that all events presented as "random" (the double slit experiment, Schroedingers cat, etc) or as having two equally possible outcomes causes dimensions to split down two paths: in one world, the isotope decays and kills the cat, in the other, it doesnt and the cat lives. Each world then continues perpendicular to each other with no further contact between them. When you consider the trillions of atomic "decisions" such as this that occur throughout the universe every second, the number of dimensions is essentially infinite. This is backed up fully by every piece of scientific fact currently accepted - the only reason it is not commonly accepted by the majority of scientists is the baffling amount of baggage this idea presents.
Daft Posted August 5, 2009 Author Posted August 5, 2009 How did the big bang happen? What set it off? Do we have an idea?
dwarf Posted August 5, 2009 Posted August 5, 2009 I don't understand how anyone could come up with a definitive concept of that so I find it hard to believe anything of the sort.
Gizmo Posted August 5, 2009 Posted August 5, 2009 Well, the idea is there is a certain amount of seemingly random events at quantum level. Another of my lovely analogies: the movement of a particle is often similar to that of a Knight in chess. It goes from A to B, but there are several different paths it could have taken, all of which are equally valid. If we set up an experiment to find out which of these equally real possibilities has occurred, we "collapse the wave function" (according to the Copenhagen interpretation, the most widely accepted theory) and make one of the possibilities real, removing the others. The thing is, it's impossible to say which is real until we observe it; which is were Schroedingers undead cat comes in. By the Many Worlds Theory, one was always real in our world, as we split off from the other at the time it occurred, and it happened differently in a now seperate world. This works slightly better, in that it allows for all the potential outcomes to be real at the same time, which is something of a hole in the Copenhagen interpretation that is somewhat looked over and simply explained as a quirk of the quantum world. But obviously, the idea that there is an infinite number of galaxies each perpendicular to each other on another dimensional axis is hard to accept, so the ManyWorlds Theory is not widely taken.
Gizmo Posted August 5, 2009 Posted August 5, 2009 Oh, and as for what sparked the Big Bang theory: nobody knows! Thats why its still a theory, and not a fact :p
dwarf Posted August 5, 2009 Posted August 5, 2009 Gotcha, I think. Yeah right haha! That went so far over the top of my head that I couldn't even think of a clever quip to use in this sentence.
Gizmo Posted August 5, 2009 Posted August 5, 2009 Yeah right haha! That went so far over the top of my head that I couldn't even think of a clever quip to use in this sentence. In very basic terms: some things that happen at particle level can happen in many ways, and we can only know by observing which. At this point, either the other possibilities disappear, or they exist in a seperate world on a dimension perpendicular (NOT parallel) to our own.
Shino Posted August 5, 2009 Posted August 5, 2009 The ManyWorlds theory is insane if you think how infinite different universes were created just at the big bang.
Daft Posted August 5, 2009 Author Posted August 5, 2009 Yeah right haha! That went so far over the top of my head that I couldn't even think of a clever quip to use in this sentence. In the terms Gizmo put it, it really wasn't that complicated.
dwarf Posted August 5, 2009 Posted August 5, 2009 Maybe I'm just a simpleton. Maybe I'm a more kinaesthetic (sp?) learner than a whatever-the-other-one -is-learner.
Gizmo Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 The ManyWorlds theory is insane if you think how infinite different universes were created just at the big bang. Exactly. This is the only reason that it isn't the primarily used theory. But then again, the Copenhagen Interpretation also requires us to accept that there are 3 times as many phasic space dimensions as there are particles in the unverse (so every electron, neutron, and proton needs 3 dimensions). For reference; there are 90 trillion in every human body. So really, the two really carry just as much baggage as each other, (if you consider the numbers to be so vast as to essentially be infinite in both cases, which in human comprehension terms, it is), only under the Copenhagen interpretation the 3 dimension rule is rarely applied to anything more than 3 particles at once, so the vastness of the assumption it requires kinda gets overlooked. Not to mention that the Copenhagen interpretation forces you to accept that a cat can be alive and dead at the same time.
Daft Posted August 6, 2009 Author Posted August 6, 2009 Okay, now you've lost me. I thought this picture was pretty amazing. This wide, sharp telescopic view reveals galaxies scattered beyond the stars at the northern boundary of the high-flying constellation Pegasus. Prominent at the upper right is NGC 7331. A mere 50 million light-years away, the large spiral is one of the brighter galaxies not included in Charles Messier's famous 18th century catalog. The disturbed looking group of galaxies at the lower left is well-known as Stephan's Quintet. About 300 million light-years distant, the quintet dramatically illustrates a multiple galaxy collision, its powerful, ongoing interactions posed for a brief cosmic snapshot. On the sky, the quintet and NGC 7331 are separated by about half a degree.
dwarf Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 (edited) Those images manage to confuse me. It doesn't feel like a photo because if you consider the following idea of me laying down a bit of paper, splattering some sand on it and then I've drawn a globe on it it doesn't seem real. Hard to explain. I guess I'm sort of saying that the galaxy almost looks too flat and 2D, and there's not really any perspective. Edited August 7, 2009 by dwarf
Daft Posted August 10, 2009 Author Posted August 10, 2009 Have you ever seen a moonbow? Just as rainbows are lit by the Sun, moonbows are lit by the Moon. Since the Sun is so much brighter than the Moon, sunlit rainbows are much brighter and more commonly seen than moonbows. The above movie captures not only a moonbow, but several rainbows, moving clouds, and the starry sky visible in 2009 February over Patagonia in Chile. The slight movement of the rainbows is due to the changing sky position of the Sun. Since moonlight is itself reflected sunlight, the colors are nearly the same. Both rainbows and moonbows are created by light being scattered inside small water droplets, typically from a nearby rainfall. The raindrops each act as miniature prisms, together creating the picturesque spectrum of colors seen.
Eenuh Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 Just want to say that we'll be passing through the Perseids in the next few days which means lots of shooting stars! The peak is supposed to be on 11 and 12 August, with about 60 or more shooting stars per hour! Though of course you'll need a cloudless sky for this. =P
Shino Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 Just want to say that we'll be passing through the Perseids in the next few days which means lots of shooting stars! The peak is supposed to be on 11 and 12 August, with about 60 or more shooting stars per hour! Though of course you'll need a cloudless sky for this. =P Awesome, lots of wishes.
Daft Posted August 10, 2009 Author Posted August 10, 2009 Awesome! I might go to Hampstead Heath or Alexandra Palace, see if I can see anything.
Blue_Ninja0 Posted August 12, 2009 Posted August 12, 2009 Those images manage to confuse me. It doesn't feel like a photo because if you consider the following idea of me laying down a bit of paper, splattering some sand on it and then I've drawn a globe on it it doesn't seem real. Hard to explain. I guess I'm sort of saying that the galaxy almost looks too flat and 2D, and there's not really any perspective. I think this is the inverse idea of what you're talking about. A sphere, yet 2D. The ManyWorlds theory is insane if you think how infinite different universes were created just at the big bang. There is no ammount of infinite. There's only one infinite and the term infinite itself doesn't fit in anyone's mind. But that theory makes some sense. Well, it's just a theory.
Gizmo Posted August 12, 2009 Posted August 12, 2009 There is no ammount of infinite. There's only one infinite and the term infinite itself doesn't fit in anyone's mind. But that theory makes some sense. Well, it's just a theory. It's the most successful theory in terms of explaining every piece of scientific evidence so far accumulated in the most full terms. Nothing ever observed contradicts it, unlike every other theory I'm aware of. It''s just so radical that people dismiss it as science fiction.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted August 12, 2009 Posted August 12, 2009 There is no ammount of infinite. There's only one infinite and the term infinite itself doesn't fit in anyone's mind. But that theory makes some sense. Well, it's just a theory. Infinite can be big or large according to my physics teacher. Imagine all even numbers above 0. There are an infinite number of them. Then imagine both all equal and unequal numbers above 0. There are still an infinite amount, but it's a bigger infinite number than the other.
Recommended Posts