41 replies to this topic

[kraemahz]

http://prospectmagaz...ils.php?id=6701

Unfortunately, the energy necessary to manipulate these higher dimensions, rather than just observe them, is far beyond anything available to us in the foreseeable future: 1019bn electron volts, or a quadrillion times the energy of the large hadron collider. To operate here one needs the technology of a super-advanced civilisation.


In order to organise a discussion of advanced extraterrestrial civilisations, astrophysicists often use the classification of Type I, II and III civilisations introduced by Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev in the 1960s, who ranked them by their energy consumption.


One might expect that a Type III civilisation, using the full power of its unimaginably vast galactic resources, would be able to evade the big freeze. The bodies of its citizens, for example, might be genetically altered and their organs replaced by computerised implants, representing a sophisticated merger of silicon and carbon technologies. But even these superhuman bodies would not survive the big freeze. This is because we define intelligence as the ability to process information. According to physics, all machines, whether they are computers, rockets, locomotives or steam engines, ultimately depend on extracting energy from temperature differences: steam engines, for example, work by extracting energy from boiling water. But information-processing, and hence intelligence, requires energy supplied by machines and motors, which will become impossible as temperature differences drop to zero. According to the laws of physics, in a uniformly cold universe where temperature differences do not exist, intelligence cannot survive.

An article about the heat death of the universe from the newest edition of Prospect, details of proposed ideas to flee from a dying universe.

[kraemahz]

Similar, yes, but I feel this article is better overall. Not only does it go into the discussion of civilization types, which to me smacks of a Transhumanist outlook, but it was written by Dr. Kaku himself.

[kraemahz]

For ease of reading I'll just sum up what he says near the bottom are feasable means of saving civilization from annihilation based on current understandings of physics and biology.

-Find a naturally occuring wormhole.
-Create a "Kerr ring" a spinning construct with enough mass to naturally collapse into a black hole. However, with sufficient centrifugal forces it should rend spacetime instead of collapsing into an infintesimal dot.
-Create a negative matter wormhole, in a similar manner this should 'puncture' space but with greater stability than a Kerr ring.
-Create a "baby universe" using positive matter compressed to 10^80 g/cm3
-Cause an implosion with a massive laser array. (This seems to be the same thing as the above line, only better described. Appearantly 10^28 eV is enough to create an event similar to the Big Bang) Kaku says:

Strange as it may seem, it requires no net energy to create an entire universe.

Who knows, maybe this happened before? The kind of force that kind of explosion would make might have pushed anything even remotely nearby billions of lightyears away from the epicenter.
-If all else fails, and wormholes turn out to be too unstable for a macroscopic object to survive, civilization might need to be recreated by a few nanobots.

[circuitblue]

I've just started Kaku's new book "Parallel Worlds," which seems to cover the article material but simply in a lot more depth. While the escaping the universe ideas mentioned therein seem most speculative (at least up to ~p. 50; and as they have to be given the current state of knowledge regarding the characteristics of our universe) the book covers a lot of cosmology very eloquently and clearly. It's a fun read, check it out

[John Schloendorn]

If you excuse a question from a cosmology newbie: When you create that baby universe thing, there would better be temperature differences in it for us to eat, right? From where would they come? Can they be larger than the input from the mechanism that creates it?

[kraemahz]

Yeah, Parallel Worlds is great.

While theoretical physics is still speculative, quantum physics shows that anything probable is possible, so you only have to show that something works within the laws of physics to prove that it's possible.

I'll try a quick explaination, but it may not do so well because I'm unsure I have it grasped fully myself. One of the consequences of inflation theory, the theory that says that space is constantly expanding at all points, is that a new universe could sponanously "bud off" of a parent universe. This is achieved by an interpretation of the first law of thermodynamics: if there exists negative energy to cancel positive energy, then the net change in energy of this system is zero, nothing is technically created in the interaction. The budding process, however, is probably a one-way wormhole, not only that but it would also require some manipulation to even get to the size you could put something through it. If it is possible I don't think theres any way you could use it as a heat engine, for one thing he was describing that the connection between the budding universe wouldn't last very long before it broke off completely, so it wouldn't be a source of free energy.

[Infernity]

I believe that what's beyond the known universe- is not relevant yet. So is the supposedly 'time' before the if was- creation of it.
Arr, time is also something works according to the 'rules' of the current known universe...

Yours
~Infernity

[antilithium]

I believe that what's beyond the known universe- is not relevant yet. So is the supposedly 'time' before the if was- creation of it.
Arr, time is also something works according to the 'rules' of the current known universe... 

That's hard to say because we have many definitions of "time". I believe there are two departments of thought, time as an onotological entity and time as framework "measurements". Accord to Kant time is an a priori notion (along with space) that isn't a "subtance" but an errr... framework. For example, you happan to be stargazing and you notice the star Vega. Well, the light radiating from it takes twenty-five years to contact your retina. Thats twenty-five light years. (duh!) In other words: the quanty of how far something is relates to the quanty of how *far* events are.

Stay with me, I'm halfway done.[thumb]

There's the other notion know as causality (I'm betting you determinist are going to love this). Imagine every event representing a domino, ok. Something causes the first domino to topple, then another, and another... The question: "Where does it start and where does it end?" It could be an infinite series of causes because there's *no* logical contradiction.

I think "what's beyond" our "universe", is nothing but an even larger universe...

But I'm just talking crap as usual. [tung]

Edited by antilithium, 09 April 2005 - 04:18 AM.

[Infernity]

antilithium

I think "what's beyond" our "universe", is nothing but an even larger universe...

As it would, that means it is the same universe. So you didn't reach the beyond...
Lets not think of it, we didn't even explore our earth totally, nor the galaxy we are in nor further than that and we are jumping to beyond the universe, heh easy boy.

~~~

Here are some interesting things I found whom classifying "time" spelled with capital letters differently.

• TIME
[>] The facility on memory lighting boards for playing back timed fades at the touch of a button.

• time
[>] a measured or measurable period, a continuum that lacks spatial dimensions. Time is of philosophical interest and is also the subject of mathematical and scientific investigation.

• TIME
[>] [A23/B37] Generally, Kant defines time as "a determinate form...in which alone the intuition of inner states is possible", adding "and everything which belongs to inner states is therefore represented in relations of time....space and time are such that they belong only to the form of intuition, and therefore to the subjective constitution of our mind, apart from which they could not be ascribed to anything whatsoever". Kant asserts that time is an a priori intuition (a form of sensibility), that it is transcendentally ideal, that it is a condition to which all appearances must conform, that temporal determination depends on a spatial permanent, that we represent time by means of space, that time is necessary for the application of the categories, and that time is meaningless apart from application to objects.

• Space-time
[>] The four-dimensional continuum of relativity physics, motionless and changeless, for motion and change are relative to particular physical realities taken in terms of an individual space and time.

• Time, conceptual
[>] The spatialized or mechanized time of clocks and mechanical counters one, continuous, and infinite, having one irreversible dimension (i.e., the absolute time of classical physics ).

• Time, perceptual
[>] Experiential or "lived through" time, the succession of specious presents (units of lived-through presents rather than knife-edged presents), heteromorphic (each moment unique), essentially subjective but sharable in the group experiences of given cultures.

• Time
[>] A fundamental property of the universe. It indicates the direction in which energy will flow during a chemical reaction. For example, in thermodynamics heat will always flow from a hotter body to a cooler one. If it were to flow in the reverse direction, time would have to be travelling backwards. This is never observed to happen. Special relativity predicts that time passes at different rates depending upon the strength of the local gravitational field and the speed at which you are travelling. Despite these strange effects, time always flows forwards.

~~~

Time is one of the greatest natures mysteries.

Yours
~Infernity

[antilithium]

antilithium

As it would, that means it is the same universe. So you didn't reach the beyond...
Lets not think of it, we didn't even explore our earth totally, nor the galaxy we are in nor further than that and we are jumping to beyond the universe, heh easy boy.

Thats what I mean! Hey, it doesn't hurt to try. Just because any unobservable physical phenomena that isn't scientifically relevant doesn't says: WED' SHOULDIN' CARE, BECAZ' IT CANTS BE PROVEN!
- The final conclusion from one of the (PhD in astrophysics) professors... This guy has no sense of imagination.

When I said "universe" I meant the observable universe. So far (is that a pun[LOL]) the most distant object seen (to my knowledge) is 13.6 billion freaking lightyears away. That's older than the solar system! If you keep looking further and further, you'll eventually hit TEH BIG BANG' BABY( of course that would be impossible). Then infernity my dear, everything would disappear. WHO TURED OUT TEH LIGHTZ! According to theory we're at the stage when the universe was compressed into a tiny'weeny singularity. Everything was molded into that single one-dimensional point.

Now then, what 'am I getting at? The thing I'm curious about is "Was there something larger than this here singularity?" Because the formulation of quantum gravity avoids the infinities associated with classical singularities. Current physics doesn't have an answer for this. Which is the race for TEH THEORY OF EVERYTHIGEZ... I PLACE MY BET ON STRING THEORY! THE FINEST OF THE RACE HORESE. But I'm not going to go into that.

What I should have said in the previous post, was I believe our universe is part of a never ending series of "multiverses" I'm a big acolyte of M-theory.

Hope I didn't bore you. [glasses]

Edited by antilithium, 09 April 2005 - 06:58 PM.

[Infernity]

No, kid you didn't bore me, I wonder a lot about that. Always did.
Assuming the multiverses thing is correct, that's still does not explain the infinity.
I think the human mind simply cannot store such information, no place for infinity... Not at once at least.
Moreover, when everything was compacted- where was it? all the vacuum that it supposedly soaked in- heh is actually a part of the known universe too, in terms that we, humans termed according to our physics... So- what the hell?

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

Edited by infernity, 14 April 2005 - 07:21 PM.

[antilithium]

No, kid you didn't bore me, I wonder a lot about that. Always did.
Assuming the multiverses thing is correct, that's still does not explain the infinity.
I think the human mind simply cannot store such information, no place for infinity... Not at once at least.
Moreover, when everything was compacted- where was it? all the vacuum that it supposedly soaked in- heh is actually a part of the known universe to, in terms that we, humans termed according to our physics... So- what the hell?

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

“WHAT YOU TALKIN’ ‘BOUT INFERNITY "

*Our* vacuum in fact wasn't even an vacuum. (Oh yeah, since you called me an kid, how 'bout I call you Little Miss [lol]) *No offense*

Remember want I said about the singularity being an one-dimensional point. Well you can't *have* a one-dimensional vacuum... but your going to love this.

M-Theory states that our universe is in fact a "membrane". Hance the letter M. Meaning that space is not defined but changable. What does this have to do with the orgins of the vaccum (space). Lets create an bigger picture, bigger than our universe: the Megaverse. Now in our universe space is defined with four dimensions: the manifold, which is three dimensions of *movement* and one of time. The megaverse is made of eleven mathematical dimensions, ok. And it in itself is made up of a "false vacuum".

Now things are going to get really weird.[tung] M-Theory goes on to say that there are many (alot) membranes "floating" around the false-vacuum. When all of the sudden two membranes collide. Thus creating our universe.Their values mixed and sparked the singularity into everything: space, time, etc.

And I know your going to say: WELL WHAT ABOUT THE MEGAVERSE. WHERE DID IT COME FROM?
You know what, no-one knows. But I'd rather have infinite amount of *places* than to stay in a single room. All this is speculation and string theory is unproven. But I still think it's cool. [lol]
"WHAT THE HELL???"

I believe that if someone creates an baby-uni wouldn't a cosmological constant applie here as well? What I mean, an constant sort-of sets the ground rules (laws) of an universe.
Oh well...

If the theory is true, I wonder if there's 11-dimensional life? And if that's true than maybe a Type III or IV civilization could convert themselves into computational patterns in the megaverse.
They would still be finite beings and would no more comprehened eternity than us.

Remind me of when I first ask my mother about an apple...
Mama, what's an apple?
An apple is a fruit.
What's the apple made of?
Food, dear.
But way is it food?
Because it makes you stronger.
How does it make me stronger?
Ok, time for bed.

[Infernity]

recurrence

I was thinking, the only way for us to digest our universe is by put know unlimited limitations.

Lemme explain.

I know it's crazy and 50% not even reasonable, but, maybe our known universe is a small thing in a multiverse which is a smaller part of another one etcetera.
As perhaps maybe the quarks are multiverses it-selves.

Now, the question whom will come up shall be: Where does it end? How can you digest that? That's still infinite...
My point is, maybe that's a circle. Maybe after few serials of multiverses, it comes out that it is matching exactly some particle of energy.

In such case, everything will be clearer... We won't have to handle the infinity problem too much, only know that circle has no end. That's the only unended story...

time

In such case, that would be the next problem bothering us. The time in each place in different multiverses...

[?] question

How do we call EVERYTHING? I mean, beyond the universe, and multiverses and all the contains elements. Is there a name but "everything"? is "cosmos" the name, or is it just a synonym to "universe"?

That's weird supposedly, the determination of "universe" suppose to be everything, it suppose to change according to what we know. all the multiverses supposedly- are still part of that great system. So are we determining it differently just for making it easier? or is it because of different laws of physics? or maybe just because that's a new part in the universe which we explored? In that case we can still call it universe, since it is suppose to be everything.

As a "moment" is the shortest term of time. That doesn't mean that if somehow something will be smaller it will have another name, but simply the term of a "moment" will change to be that...

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

P.s. I think that throwing theories as I did may be not the wisest thing to do, it's like believing in god- making up an answer for make it easier to us. Perhaps I need to research. ~->This is Ltd!<-~

[Infernity]

Oh heh, and *Little Miss* shall be ok kid [lol] .

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

Edited by infernity, 10 April 2005 - 03:37 PM.

[knite]

id have to agree with those who believe this subject irrelevant, simply because i can virtually guarantee that properties and laws will be discovered between now and the (unbelievable number of years?) big freeze. i mean, scientific discovery tends to have somewhat of a snowball effect, humanity as we know it has been about for what? 20000 years? and that vast majority of scientific progress has been made in the last 2000, and a large majority of THAT 2000 in the last 200.

[antilithium]

id have to agree with those who believe this subject irrelevant, simply because i can virtually guarantee that properties and laws will be discovered between now and the (unbelievable number of years?) big freeze. i mean, scientific discovery tends to have somewhat of a snowball effect, humanity as we know it has been about for what? 20000 years? and that vast majority of scientific progress has been made in the last 2000, and a large majority of THAT 2000 in the last 200.

What's up Knite and good of you to comment.
Some of what you said does have a little truth to it. But just because something seems irrelevant doesn't mean that one can't speculate about it. Did you know that the two Geek philosophers: Democritus and Leucippus presented the first theory of the atom in 5th century BC. During that time there was no way to prove if the atom existed. So therefore it was irrelevant. But that never prevent others to construct its foundation of its understanding which lead to *our* atom.

Look at nanotechnology. Before Feynman's lecture no-one had the slightest clue. But he established the foundations of the notion and many others built upon it. In terms of progess saying something like "We shouldn't try because it's irrelevant." Or that the science isn't mature enough is non-sense.
Because speculation is an essential building material. Without speculation you don't have the support for more framwork.

If this subject is irrelevant due to the lack of sufficient "progress" and the fact that it is only speculation. Then this very website would be irrelevant because immortality and its implications are (like this subject) largely unknown. You could also say the same about MNT, space colonization, BMI and advance AI. All those things are still in the stage of speculation. And this is also an truth.
I don't want to offend you. But the fact that scientific progress is a faction of the duration of our race is irrelevant. Why? Progress is also related to technology, which increases efficiency and thus speeds the amount of progress. This is the center point of the techologcal singularity that so many people are excited about.

Anyways, I really apprecate your opinion of the matter.

I was thinking, the only way for us to digest our universe is by put know unlimited limitations.

Lemme explain.

I know it's crazy and 50% not even reasonable, but, maybe our known universe is a small thing in a multiverse which is a smaller part of another one etcetera.
As perhaps maybe the quarks are multiverses it-selves.

Now, the question whom will come up shall be: Where does it end? How can you digest that? That's still infinite...
My point is, maybe that's a circle. Maybe after few serials of multiverses, it comes out that it is matching exactly some particle of energy.

In such case, everything will be clearer... We won't have to handle the infinity problem too much, only know that circle has no end. That's the only unended story...

Well it seem that someone has been doing they're homework.
The fact that an our known universe is apart of some never ending progression of universes, isn't crazy. Because there is an infinite continuation. The megaverse becames *smaller* on an even higher dimensional plane (a 10^4 dimensional universe). Plus (like you said about quarks) our universe may have have smaller universes with dimensional planes starting at 0 and into the negatives. However this notion creeps the hell out of me sometimes: I'M MADE OUT OF TINY UNIVERSES, I EAT TINY UNIVERSE and I CRAP TINY UNIVERSES. See what I mean.

Then there's recurrence where *everything* repeats itself. In order for this to work you can't have an *outside* universe. So no megaverse and no multiverses. The only thing that exist is the known universe. Instead, we have a finite number of parallel universes. But first lets go over how the universe will end. One, the universe will expand forever. Two the universe will expand than implode. Three the universe will expand so much that it would dissolve. If we applie recurrence than ending two will do. This is because causality is in a feed back loop. Every parallel universe is born from the previous universe with an higher dimensional plane than the last. The universe collapse than is reborn as an "higher" plane. At the end of the cycle the cosmos collapse into its first state. And because of that we have endless recurrence. So I may have typed this post many time before. [tung]

Where does it end? No-one knows.
An finite being will never comprehend the notion of eternity.

The problem of time is an easy one. Remember, time is an dimension itself. Multiverses have an different set of dimension. And some of them may not even include time. No multiverse is alike.Some have time, others don't.

When I said EVERYTHINZES. I meant to say the known universe, our universe. Not the multverses or the parallels.

Oh yeah. Sometimes its ok to throw different theories into the blender. You may get a new undiscovered flavor.

MILKSHAKES TASTE GOOD! LITTLE MISS!

[knite]

i didnt say dont speculate about it, im just sayin its totally irrelevant to do so. by the time it happens not only will any theory you or i have come up with be gone from any kind of history, but the human race will be a completely different species, if we are even around by then. i mean, this is a time that is so far away that its almost unimaginable. i guess i should refine what i was saying, its not irrelevant, its irrelevant at this point and time. for example, say the big freeze was right around the corner (bear with me =) ) this is akin to a big giaganto asteroid about to crash into earth during platos day, there is not a thing he can do about it, even if he did know it was comin

and theres a large difference between speculation about immortality, space colonization, etc. as those things are more or less immenent (especially in comparison to the timeline of the big freeze)

and as well, the fact that our scientific progress has this exponential growth to it is not irrelevant, because its important to see this pattern when you think about a time that is
10^100 years away which, assuming there isnt a finite amount of knowledge to acquire (which would make surviving the big freeze pointless), it means that we have no possible way of seeing the rediculously amazing advancements humanity has made, im not talking star trek, by the time this happens it will be so far beyond its unfathomable, akin to plato trying to predict todays world, only a million fold.

[Infernity]

I'M MADE OUT OF TINY UNIVERSES, I EAT TINY UNIVERSE and I CRAP TINY UNIVERSES. See what I mean.

Heh, kid it is funny, as we may actually be in someones crap right now too [":)] .
Imagine that a piece of crap contains a so we call intelligent race such as ours [tung].
Hmmm, interesting to think about black holes in that context, I mean black hole in my ass [lol]

And lemme tell you why time will be a problem (like it has not caused problems now [lol] ...)
Err, so chaotic. [glasses] Forget it, I need to get up to more specific examples, I have a kinda chaos in my head...
I was always in kinda arranged chaos, as all I do, That's why I hate working in partners, I am a perfectionist, most of the time I am the only one understands what I am doing. Till I finish, then they all are impressed.
Heh, reminds me of some mathematic problem that was given in class which took me a very short time to answer, and the devil next to me argued that's not a way to solve it. The funny thing is it was correct in contra to the very long numbers he got. He argued that my way is not a way to solve, but it was a sophisticated way, shorter, more complex to think of and much easier to me- chaotic, but according to my order-head. [sfty]

When I said EVERYTHINZES. I meant to say the known universe, our universe. Not the multverses or the parallels.

Well then it's not 'EVERYTHING'... when I say 'EVERYTHING' I mean EVERYTHING [!]

Hmmm, interesting to think about black holes in that context, I mean black hole in my ass [lol]

knite,
The irrelevant is clear to me. Simply what's beyond our universe is unreachable theoretically, all we can reach shall be termed as a part of our universe...
So beyond our universe is what we won't be able to know as I'd simply call the universe *EVERYTHING*, in my terms...

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

Edited by infernity, 13 April 2005 - 11:09 AM.

[antilithium]

i didnt say dont speculate about it, im just sayin its totally irrelevant to do so.

So, in other words your saying that its irrelevant to speculate, no? [huh]

...its irrelevant at this point and time...

I know man, I know... But I like talking about it.

and theres a large difference between speculation about immortality, space colonization, etc. as those things are more or less immenent (especially in comparison to the timeline of the big freeze)

There may be a difference, but no-one knows the outcome... And besides, the universe may not end with an big freeze.

...the fact that our scientific progress has this exponential growth to it is not irrelevant...

I meant to say: the matter that scientific porgress is shorter then the lifetime of humanity is irrelevant

10^100 years away which, assuming there isnt a finite amount of knowledge to acquire

What's to say that an hyper-advanced Type III or IV civiliaion needs to wait until the universe ends. They may have already departed.

...we have no possible way of seeing the rediculously amazing advancements humanity has made, im not talking star trek...

Star Trek? Star Trek can lick my balls... Keep in mind that the topic isn't anthropocentric. We're talking about intelligence and life itself.

Imagine that a piece of crap contains a so we call intelligent race such as ours .
Hmmm, interesting to think about black holes in that context, I mean black hole in my ass.

Yes, our universe was born from the cosmosologcal anus. Ever few bajallion years, the all mighty would have bowel movements... MAN THAT CHIMICHANGA WAS GOOD! NOW ALZ I GOTZ TO DO IS TAKE A NICE CRAP! And so it begin... ARRR HAHHHH ITZ AN BIG ONE! God pushed and pushed and pushed with all his might and nothing came out. Until God gathered his remaining strength and gave it one last push. ARRRRRRR! LET THERE BE LIGHHTTT! And so our cosmos is born.

And lemme tell you why time will be a problem (like it has not caused problems now  ...)
Err, so chaotic.  Forget it, I need to get up yo more specific examples, I have kind chaos in my head...

I'll be waiting...

I was always in kinda arranged chaos, as all I do, That's why I hate working in partners, I am a perfectionist, most of the time I am the only one understands what I am doing. Till I finish, then they all are impressed.
Heh, reminds me of some mathematic problem that was given in class which took me a very short time to answer, and the devil next to me argued that's not a way to solve it. The funny thing is it was correct in contra to the very long numbers he got.  He argued that my way is not a way to solve, but it was a sophisticated way, shorter, more complex to think of and much easier to me- chaotic, but according to my order-head.

Errr... Is this some kind of metaphor or something. Or have you been smoking weed. [mellow]

Well then it's not 'EVERYTHING'... when I say 'EVERYTHING' I mean EVERYTHING

Hmmm, interesting to think about black holes in that context, I mean black hole in my ass

Okay... Now your starting to worry me.
So, in your context EVERYTHING is EVERYTHING. Got it. [thumb]

I have some big time studying to do. Post next time peoples.

[Infernity]

Errr... Is this some kind of metaphor or something. Or have you been smoking weed. [mellow]

Hehe, well kid I was thinking the same thing when you wrote this:

Yes, our universe was born from the cosmosologcal anus. Ever few bajallion years, the all mighty would have bowel movements... MAN THAT CHIMICHANGA WAS GOOD! NOW ALZ I GOTZ TO DO IS TAKE A NICE CRAP! And so it begin... ARRR HAHHHH ITZ AN BIG ONE! God pushed and pushed and pushed with all his might and nothing came out. Until God gathered his remaining strength and gave it one last push. ARRRRRRR! LET THERE BE LIGHHTTT! And so our cosmos is born.

Hehe, you have a gap in your education to think I smoke anything but fresh air...

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[armrha]

I think the generally accepted definition of universe is: 'Everything that exists everywhere.'
This would include all seperate realities, any place where any thing could be. If we discovered another bubble-universe seperate from ours, it wouldn't be so; it'd just be another part of the 'universe'.
A good distinction would be calling what we know the visible universe.

[Infernity]

armrha, I wrote the same thing in other words a bit above in that thread... I also considered another possible claim- just determine 'universe' as everything that works according to the rational physics we know- to make it easier. But when I think of it, it is still a part of the *EVERYTHING* known universe... Here is the quote:

[?] question

How do we call EVERYTHING? I mean, beyond the universe, and multiverses and all the contains elements. Is there a name but "everything"? is "cosmos" the name, or is it just a synonym to "universe"?

That's weird supposedly, the determination of "universe" suppose to be everything, it suppose to change according to what we know. all the multiverses supposedly- are still part of that great system. So are we determining it differently just for making it easier? or is it because of different laws of physics? or maybe just because that's a new part in the universe which we explored? In that case we can still call it universe, since it is suppose to be everything.

As a "moment" is the shortest term of time. That doesn't mean that if somehow something will be smaller it will have another name, but simply the term of a "moment" will change to be that...

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[antilithium]

I think the generally accepted definition of universe is: 'Everything that exists everywhere.'
This would include all seperate realities, any place where any thing could be. If we discovered another bubble-universe seperate from ours, it wouldn't be so; it'd just be another part of the 'universe'.
A good distinction would be calling what we know the visible universe.

Point taken...

Hehe, you have a gap in your education to think I smoke anything but fresh air...

Good... I've had friends who smoked all day, and they're pretty much losers.

Back to the topic, I been thinking... What if it possible for iintelligence to became so advance that the eventual expansion would have no effect on them. I remember reading about zero-point energy in detail. Our vaccum isn't really empty but it seethes with energy. Would it be possible to use that energy during the heat death?

Intelligence itself is adaptive. If it survived till the heat death what its form look like? I wonder...

[Infernity]

And I keep referring also to black holes...
What is it? energy? minus energy?

Ugh perhaps I should start another thread...

~Infernity

[antilithium]

And I keep referring also to black holes...
What is it? energy? minus energy?

Ugh perhaps I should start another thread...

~Infernity

Jeez, take it easy, Little Miss.
Black Hole
[pirate]

[armrha]

And I keep referring also to black holes...
What is it? energy? minus energy?

A black hole is a simple concept. Take a look at our sun. It's a very heavy thing, yet it's spread out over a very large area. The fusion reactions going on inside the sun cause internal pressure to counteract the gravity of the sun, preventing it's mass from shrinking too far. It's kind of a balancing act; The pressures of all those elements being so clumped together (99% of the solar system's mass is in the sun) push elements together with a lot of pressure, and natural fusion takes place, releasing a lot of energy and pushing all kinds of elements and matter to the surface, chain-reacting a lot more fusion reactions, hydrogen fusing into heavier helium. A star will continue to fuse, going through different releases of energy and intensity throughout it's lifetime, but the fusing is what keeps it generating energy and luminosity. It's what keeps all that mass alive. If you kept adding matter to our sun, about 8.751248 × 10^29 kg (875,124,800,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg if you don't know scientific notation) of hydrogen, you'd reach the amount of mass known as the Chandrasekheer limit. At this point, instead of... relatively... harmlessly cooling and dying as our sun would have, the whole star would fuse elements up to iron, before hitting a truly iron barrier. The temperatures and pressure inside even this large star wouldn't be enough to fuse anything else. The modified sun would rapidly decrease in size, becoming denser and denser by the second, as the fusion reactions keeping it active died out. The core would be compacted and compated into a giant husk of iron, until the outer rim of the collapsing star hit what is known as the electron degeneracy pressure, or where the internal core of the star is so dense that the outer collapsing material collides into the electron shells of all those iron atoms. The next step isn't exactly intuitive, but the process can kind of be thought like pull back a rubber band. A humongous portion of the entire outer shell of the star bounces back outwards with the force of colliding with that unmoveable object. This is called a supernova. The star will explode, releasing as much energy as it produced in the last 100 million years in a month. What remains in the center, the 'supernova remnant' is an iron core that's still too dense to really insist on being iron. The pressure of the enormous mass crushes through the electron degeneracy pressure, breaking the electrons off of their paths to degenerate matter. The star can continue to shrink until it reaches the neutron degeneracy pressure (with the protons and electrons hitting each other, releasing a neutron and resulting in a neutron), or the place where the tremendous force of the shells of the neutrons themselves will hold back the relentless pressure from the gravity. Now if you made the star even weightier, something to the range of 3.9 × 10^30 to 5.9 × 10^30, you'd have too much mass even for the neutron degeneracy pressure to hold back.

This is the limit. This is where space just breaks. Nothing left to hold back the gravitational onslaught, the remnant shrinks down, crushed beneath it's own schwarzwilder radius. No one knows what's left behind that limit, though many theories exist. Basically it's just something so heavy that gravity pulls harder then light can move with a certain point: And light being the fastest thing prevents us from ever getting any information out of it. It's a mathematical oddity of space, and probably the most bizarre thing I can concieve. It's either wonderfull elegant or a horrible travesty of nature, you decide.

[Infernity]

Heh thanks antilithium, I think armrha gave some material I wanted to read more but thanks.

armrha,

about 8.751248 × 10^29 kg (875,124,800,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg if you don't know scientific notation)

Heh I sought what does that "^" means but sadly didn't find, then I continued reading and found the answer in the same sentence right after it, thanks for considering .

No one knows what's left behind that limit, though many theories exist. Basically it's just something so heavy that gravity pulls harder then light can move with a certain point: And light being the fastest thing prevents us from ever getting any information out of it. It's a mathematical oddity of space, and probably the most bizarre thing I can concieve.

Awww heck, but that's the most interesting curious part :\ That's like stopping a thriller just before it's about to end.
Thanks anyway, I did learn from it, but I actually was wondering more about the unknown part .

So weird is our cosmos...

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

Edited by infernity, 14 April 2005 - 09:31 PM.

[kraemahz]

Hmm...I left this topic alone and look it explodes, heh.

Infernity, the ^ symbol is called the caret (or circumflex), commonly used to denote power. 8.751248 x 10^29 means 8.751248 times ten to the twenty-ninth power. Another way to write powers is 8.751248E29, which I prefer (E means exponent in this case).

The black hole is really the ultimate toy of astrophysicists. No one is certain just what goes on even close to a blackhole, so they're pretty much free to interperet the forumlas however they want. Partially one of the reasons they are the focus of so much debate is that certain interpretations of them say they can do all kinds of crazy things: punch holes in spacetime, rewind time, things like that. The physics describing them definitely isn't bad physics, but it's pure mathematics lacking observable data about the phenomenon in question based on other more normal forms of physics. What we really need is a solid theory of quantum gravity (how gravity and quantum mechanics interact) to fully be able to describe a black hole within reason. Or anything for that matter.