Šta je novo?

Time Will End in Five Billion Years, Physicists Predict

Villy_Da_Man

Slavan
Učlanjen(a)
28.02.2005
Poruke
2,289
Poena
390
Ker Than

for National Geographic News

Published October 28, 2010

Our universe has existed for nearly 14 billion years, and as far as most people are concerned, the universe should continue to exist for billions of years more.

But according to a new paper, there's one theory for the origins of the universe that predicts time itself will end in just five billion years—coincidentally, right around the time our sun is slated to die.

The prediction comes from the theory of eternal inflation, which says our universe is part of the multiverse. This vast structure is made up of an infinite number of universes, each of which can spawn an infinite number of daughter universes. (Related: "New Proof Unknown 'Structures' Tug at Our Universe.")

The problem with a multiverse is that anything that can happen will happen an infinite number of times, and that makes calculating probabilities—such as the odds that Earth-size planets are common—seemingly impossible.

"Normal notions of probability—where you say, Event A happens twice and Event B happens four times, so Event B is twice as likely—don't work, because instead of two and four, you have infinity," said Ken Olum of Tufts University in Massachusetts, who was not involved in the study.

And calculating probabilities in a multiverse wouldn't just be a problem for cosmologists.

"If infinitely many observers throughout the universe win the lottery, on what grounds can one still claim that winning the lottery is unlikely?" theoretical physicist Raphael Bousso of the University of California, Berkeley, and colleagues write in the new study.

Physicists have been circumventing this problem using a mathematical approach called geometric cutoffs, which involves taking a finite swath of the multiverse and calculating probabilities based on that limited sample.

But in the new paper, published online last month at the Cornell University website arXiv.org, Bousso's team notes that this technique has an unintended and, until now, overlooked consequence.

"You cannot use [cutoffs] as mere mathematical tools that leave no imprint," Bousso said. "The same cutoff that gave you these nice and possibly correct predictions also predicts the end of time.

"In other words, if you use a cutoff to compute probabilities in eternal inflation, the cutoff itself"—and therefore the end of time—"becomes an event that can happen."

Universe Is One Bubble in a Boiling Pot

Despite this odd wrinkle, Bousso and colleagues think eternal inflation is a solid concept. Most of the theory's underlying scientific assumptions—such as Albert Einstein's theories of relativity—"all seem kind of innocuous, and it's hard to see what could replace them," Bousso said.

(See "Einstein's Gravity Confirmed on a Cosmic Scale.")

In fact, many physicists think eternal inflation is a natural extension of the theory of inflation, which solved some of the problems with the original big bang theory.

According to early models of the big bang, groups of matter that are now on opposite ends of distant reaches of the universe are too far apart to have ever been in contact with each other. That means the early universe should have been clumpy.

What's more, at the rate our universe is now expanding, its overall shape should have curved over time. Also, the initial moment of creation should have filled the universe with heavy, stable particles called magnetic monopoles.

But observations in the past few years of radiation left over from the big bang say otherwise: The early universe was uniform, the shape of the current universe is flat, and magnetic monopoles have never been conclusively observed.

Standard inflation theory accounts for all this by saying the universe experienced a period of extremely rapid expansion in its first few moments, eventually leveling off to create the flat, uniform universe we see today.

Eternal inflation is a next step in inflation theory, and it allows scientists to avoid some other tricky cosmology questions, such as what existed before our universe (answer: other universes) and why our universe appears to have properties fine-tuned for life (answer: everything is possible).

(Also see "Every Black Hole Contains Another Universe?")

"Although we don't have a theory [to explain the earliest moments of the universe], we have some pretty good ideas about what such a theory would look like ... and these ideas seem to necessarily include other universes," said Charles Lineweaver, an astrophysicist at Australian National University, who was not a member of the study team.

"A good analogy would be that our theories predict a boiling pot of water, and the origin of our universe is the formation of one of the bubbles at the bottom of the pot. The theory strongly suggests the existence of other bubbles, because when you boil water, you never get just one bubble."

Time Coming to an Abrupt End?

But eternal inflation still isn't perfect, as the problem with probabilities in the multiverse illustrates.

If probabilities are to work in a multiverse, there must be actual cutoffs that bring various universes to their ends, study leader Bousso says. According to the formulas used to calculate cutoffs, a universe that is 13.7 billion years old will reach its cutoff in about 5 billion years, his team concludes.

For most people, the idea that a mathematical tool could be elevated to a real-world event might seem strange, but there are precedents for it in physics.

For example, Tufts University's Olum said, there was a time when many physicists resisted the idea that protons—subatomic particles with positive charges—are themselves made up of smaller particles called quarks. (Related: "Proton Smaller Than Thought—May Rewrite Laws of Physics.")

Mathematically, quarks help explain the so-called strong force in the nucleus of an atom—and in the real world they now help account for the "zoo" of strange particles that's been discovered in accelerators.

"People said this idea that there are particles inside of a proton that can never get out and that we can't ever see in isolation is crazy," Olum said. "There was a long time when people thought quarks were just a useful calculation tool, but they didn't really believe in them. Nowadays, though, everybody believes quarks are real fundamental particles."

Along the same vein, if theorists believe in eternal inflation, they either need to believe that cutoffs are not valid techniques for computing probabilities—or that cutoffs are real events that predict the end of time, Bousso and colleagues say.

What a real-world cutoff would look like and what form the end of time would take are unclear, the team says. If it happens, it would probably be sudden and unexpected.

And even if humans could see a cutoff coming, we almost certainly wouldn't be viewing it from Earth.

Scientists think our sun—now a middle-age star at about 4.57 billion years old—will be reaching the end of its life in about five billion years. At that point in time, the sun will run out of fuel in its core and will start to shed its outer layers of gas, inflating to become a red giant and ultimately a planetary nebula.

Earth's exact fate during this event is unclear, but few scientists would argue that life on the planet could survive the sun's death.

End of Time Not Inevitable

Although Australian National University's Lineweaver agrees that calculating probabilities in an eternal multiverse is problematic, he doesn't think predicting a real-world cutoff is the solution.

"I never rule out anything completely, but I don't take this very seriously," Lineweaver said. "I'm going to take questioning the assumptions [behind eternal inflation] more seriously."

Tufts University's Olum also doesn't think physicists should accept the end of time as inevitable.

"Nobody knows why [eternal inflation] should be wrong, but nobody knows exactly why time should come to an end either. To me, these things are on equal footing," he said.

(Also see: "Universe's Existence May Be Explained by New Material.")

Inflation aside, there are many theories in physics for how the cosmos might end. In a "big crunch," for example, the universe would reverse its current expansion and shrink into a black hole.

Then there's the "heat death" theory, in which the universe expands forever until it reaches a state of thermal equilibrium, in which nothing can happen.

Yet another idea is called the big rip, in which the accelerated expansion of the universe eventually rips all matter apart, atom by atom. (Also see "Einstein and Beyond" in National Geographic magazine.)

If the theory of eternal inflation is correct, then even when our universe ceases to be, the larger multiverse will continue.

No matter which scenario sounds most plausible, "there's no need to go off and sell your stocks because the universe is going to end in five billion years," Olum said.

And "either way, we have a long time to get the story right."
......
 
A evo šta znači cutoff

Ker Than

for National Geographic News

Published October 28, 2010

Our universe has existed for nearly 14 billion years, and as far as most people are concerned, the universe should continue to exist for billions of years more.

But according to a new paper, there's one theory for the origins of the universe that predicts time itself will end in just five billion years—coincidentally, right around the time our sun is slated to die.

The prediction comes from the theory of eternal inflation, which says our universe is part of the multiverse. This vast structure is made up of an infinite number of universes, each of which can spawn an infinite number of daughter universes. (Related: "New Proof Unknown 'Structures' Tug at Our Universe.")

The problem with a multiverse is that anything that can happen will happen an infinite number of times, and that makes calculating probabilities—such as the odds that Earth-size planets are common—seemingly impossible.

"Normal notions of probability—where you say, Event A happens twice and Event B happens four times, so Event B is twice as likely—don't work, because instead of two and four, you have infinity," said Ken Olum of Tufts University in Massachusetts, who was not involved in the study.

And calculating probabilities in a multiverse wouldn't just be a problem for cosmologists.

"If infinitely many observers throughout the universe win the lottery, on what grounds can one still claim that winning the lottery is unlikely?" theoretical physicist Raphael Bousso of the University of California, Berkeley, and colleagues write in the new study.

Physicists have been circumventing this problem using a mathematical approach called geometric cutoffs, which involves taking a finite swath of the multiverse and calculating probabilities based on that limited sample.

But in the new paper, published online last month at the Cornell University website arXiv.org, Bousso's team notes that this technique has an unintended and, until now, overlooked consequence.

"You cannot use [cutoffs] as mere mathematical tools that leave no imprint," Bousso said. "The same cutoff that gave you these nice and possibly correct predictions also predicts the end of time.

"In other words, if you use a cutoff to compute probabilities in eternal inflation, the cutoff itself"—and therefore the end of time—"becomes an event that can happen."

Universe Is One Bubble in a Boiling Pot

Despite this odd wrinkle, Bousso and colleagues think eternal inflation is a solid concept. Most of the theory's underlying scientific assumptions—such as Albert Einstein's theories of relativity—"all seem kind of innocuous, and it's hard to see what could replace them," Bousso said.

(See "Einstein's Gravity Confirmed on a Cosmic Scale.")

In fact, many physicists think eternal inflation is a natural extension of the theory of inflation, which solved some of the problems with the original big bang theory.

According to early models of the big bang, groups of matter that are now on opposite ends of distant reaches of the universe are too far apart to have ever been in contact with each other. That means the early universe should have been clumpy.

What's more, at the rate our universe is now expanding, its overall shape should have curved over time. Also, the initial moment of creation should have filled the universe with heavy, stable particles called magnetic monopoles.

But observations in the past few years of radiation left over from the big bang say otherwise: The early universe was uniform, the shape of the current universe is flat, and magnetic monopoles have never been conclusively observed.

Standard inflation theory accounts for all this by saying the universe experienced a period of extremely rapid expansion in its first few moments, eventually leveling off to create the flat, uniform universe we see today.

Eternal inflation is a next step in inflation theory, and it allows scientists to avoid some other tricky cosmology questions, such as what existed before our universe (answer: other universes) and why our universe appears to have properties fine-tuned for life (answer: everything is possible).

(Also see "Every Black Hole Contains Another Universe?")

"Although we don't have a theory [to explain the earliest moments of the universe], we have some pretty good ideas about what such a theory would look like ... and these ideas seem to necessarily include other universes," said Charles Lineweaver, an astrophysicist at Australian National University, who was not a member of the study team.

"A good analogy would be that our theories predict a boiling pot of water, and the origin of our universe is the formation of one of the bubbles at the bottom of the pot. The theory strongly suggests the existence of other bubbles, because when you boil water, you never get just one bubble."

Time Coming to an Abrupt End?

But eternal inflation still isn't perfect, as the problem with probabilities in the multiverse illustrates.

If probabilities are to work in a multiverse, there must be actual cutoffs that bring various universes to their ends, study leader Bousso says. According to the formulas used to calculate cutoffs, a universe that is 13.7 billion years old will reach its cutoff in about 5 billion years, his team concludes.

For most people, the idea that a mathematical tool could be elevated to a real-world event might seem strange, but there are precedents for it in physics.

For example, Tufts University's Olum said, there was a time when many physicists resisted the idea that protons—subatomic particles with positive charges—are themselves made up of smaller particles called quarks. (Related: "Proton Smaller Than Thought—May Rewrite Laws of Physics.")

Mathematically, quarks help explain the so-called strong force in the nucleus of an atom—and in the real world they now help account for the "zoo" of strange particles that's been discovered in accelerators.

"People said this idea that there are particles inside of a proton that can never get out and that we can't ever see in isolation is crazy," Olum said. "There was a long time when people thought quarks were just a useful calculation tool, but they didn't really believe in them. Nowadays, though, everybody believes quarks are real fundamental particles."

Along the same vein, if theorists believe in eternal inflation, they either need to believe that cutoffs are not valid techniques for computing probabilities—or that cutoffs are real events that predict the end of time, Bousso and colleagues say.

What a real-world cutoff would look like and what form the end of time would take are unclear, the team says. If it happens, it would probably be sudden and unexpected.

And even if humans could see a cutoff coming, we almost certainly wouldn't be viewing it from Earth.

Scientists think our sun—now a middle-age star at about 4.57 billion years old—will be reaching the end of its life in about five billion years. At that point in time, the sun will run out of fuel in its core and will start to shed its outer layers of gas, inflating to become a red giant and ultimately a planetary nebula.

Earth's exact fate during this event is unclear, but few scientists would argue that life on the planet could survive the sun's death.

End of Time Not Inevitable

Although Australian National University's Lineweaver agrees that calculating probabilities in an eternal multiverse is problematic, he doesn't think predicting a real-world cutoff is the solution.

"I never rule out anything completely, but I don't take this very seriously," Lineweaver said. "I'm going to take questioning the assumptions [behind eternal inflation] more seriously."

Tufts University's Olum also doesn't think physicists should accept the end of time as inevitable.

"Nobody knows why [eternal inflation] should be wrong, but nobody knows exactly why time should come to an end either. To me, these things are on equal footing," he said.

(Also see: "Universe's Existence May Be Explained by New Material.")

Inflation aside, there are many theories in physics for how the cosmos might end. In a "big crunch," for example, the universe would reverse its current expansion and shrink into a black hole.

Then there's the "heat death" theory, in which the universe expands forever until it reaches a state of thermal equilibrium, in which nothing can happen.

Yet another idea is called the big rip, in which the accelerated expansion of the universe eventually rips all matter apart, atom by atom. (Also see "Einstein and Beyond" in National Geographic magazine.)

If the theory of eternal inflation is correct, then even when our universe ceases to be, the larger multiverse will continue.

No matter which scenario sounds most plausible, "there's no need to go off and sell your stocks because the universe is going to end in five billion years," Olum said.

And "either way, we have a long time to get the story right."
 
tesko da ce tema da zazivi, al ajde ja da dam svoj sud -

multiverse ideja = zemlja ravna plocha ideja. kraj price.


dakle, nauka pre svega nema pojma, kakvi zapravo multiverzumi postoje, AKO postoje, i ima 4 aktivne teorije:

multiverzum postoji u teoriji u vise oblika:

1. konfiguracija vakuum-a po M teoriji (koja je teorija na staklenim nogama). govorimo o tome da ne postoji samo 4 dimenzije koje mi primecujemo - vreme plus tri. postoji ih zapravo 11. aj da objasnim:

kad uzmes da gledas Kanap, iz daljine - on ti deluje kao lajna - 1D objekat. ima samo duzinu/sirinu. kad pridjes malo blize, obratis paznju na debljinu, te ti sada deluje kao 2d objekat, kao traka. tek kad se zabuljish u kanap, primetis da je postojan u 3D konfiguraciji, te ima shirinu, visinu i debljinu.

e, caka je u tome sto su naucnici zakljucili da postoji 11 dimenzija prostora, koje ne primecujemo, jer su suvise male za primetiti.

da ne komplikujemo ovako glasi teorija - preklapanjem "membrana" svake od tih dimenzija, dobijamo jednu konfigurisanu. ostaje na filozofiji da zakljuci da li je nasha konfiguracija prostora JEDINA od preko 10^500 varijacija, ili se sve komplet preprlicu stvarajuci broj dimenzija sa 1 pa petsto nula posle njega.

zanimljivo je da je zakljuceno da objekti iz drugih konfigurisanih univerzuma mogu da sudeluju jedne sa drugima, preko - Gravitacije. sila koja nije ogranicena pojedinacnom membranom.


2. Kvantni multiverzum - za razliku od standardnog verovanja da vreme ima samo jedan jedini tok, i da se sve desilo onako kako jeste, i nikako drugacije, pocev od Shrodingera, i njegove machke, postoji naucno verovanje da je svaki dogadjaj koji u osnovi ima jedan jedini kvant - razdvaja realnost na dva - jedini nacin da se objasne golemi kvantni paradoksi koji postoje.

serija Fringe, ako je neko prati, igra na kartu Kvantnog univerzuma, stim sto su od zilijardu multiverzuma u igri samo dva - koja su na neki nacin povezana.

3. Multiverzumi sa razlicitim fizichkim konstantama - omiljena teorija ateista. u pitanju je tvrdnja da je nash univerzum samo iteracija jednog od X univerzuma, gde svaki od njih ima razlicite fizicke vrednosti, tacnije - fundamentalne sile (jaka, slaba, gravitaciona, elektricna). kad je vec nelogicno da je ovaj svet po svemu savrshen da bi izrodio covecanstvo - ajd' da ubacimo u teoriju da ih ima josh zilion, svi razliciti, a mi smo slucajnost. nauka je ponekad toliko drska ...

4. Jedan u drugome - jos jedan pokusaj da se zaobidje pitanje prvobitnog uzroka (a da ne zvuci retardirano kao Hokingov odgovor) - univerzum nastaje tako sto se u vec postojecem, u crnoj rupi, ili u atomu, ili gde je vec sve naucnicima palo napamet - desi "nesto" (a pod tim nesto se uglavnom svi vataju za kvantne fluktuacije, ili paradoksalne nauchne teorije) te to nesto stvori svemir u svemiru.


pa, pre nego sto krenu da se busaju, sa degenskim izjavama tipa - nema boga, svemir ce da umre tad i tad, a nstao je zbog tog i tog, ovo je ovako a ovo je onako - za promenu bi bilo dobro da makar naprave jednu teoriju koja ce da bude makar po argumentima prihvacenim u nauchnoj zajednici, jacha od ostalih. a ovo su sve filozofsko metafizichke spekulacije - gde ja ne vredjam praksu metafizike i filozofije, vec navodim to zbog nedokazivosti/male verovatnoce pretpostavke.


dacu kasnije u toku dana link, hubble je naleteo na snimak jednog dela svemira, gde se pretpostavlja da fundamentalne sile nemaju istu vrednost - jedino je tako objashnjiv snimak. ako je recimo - to tachno, a to je pretpostavka sa mnogo vishe dokaza , jer ima snimak - pade cela fizika zadnjih 100 godina u bunar. stim sto nas Gravitacija "pretura preko tarabe" upravo tih 100 godina (ponasha se u pojedinim merenjima suprotno kvantnim i klasichnim ocekivanjima zajedno)
 
Pu, bre za 5 biliona godina??? Au a ja planirao zurku za sesti bilenijum svog zivota! :D
 
Poslednja izmena:
tesko da ce tema da zazivi, al ajde ja da dam svoj sud -



dacu kasnije u toku dana link, hubble je naleteo na snimak jednog dela svemira, gde se pretpostavlja da fundamentalne sile nemaju istu vrednost - jedino je tako objashnjiv snimak. ako je recimo - to tachno, a to je pretpostavka sa mnogo vishe dokaza , jer ima snimak - pade cela fizika zadnjih 100 godina u bunar. stim sto nas Gravitacija "pretura preko tarabe" upravo tih 100 godina (ponasha se u pojedinim merenjima suprotno kvantnim i klasichnim ocekivanjima zajedno)

Bilo bi lepo da zazivi na duze :D
Elem, gledao sam emisiju na history-ju o "tajnama" svemira i izmedju ostalog bilo je reci cini mi se o zakrivljenju svetlosne energije koje se desilo prilikom prolaska kroz pomenutu galaksiju. Zakrivljenje svetlosti prilikom prolaska pored svemirskih objekata je kao sto znamo poznata pojava koja predstavlja jedan od postulata specijalne teorije relativnosti i nastaje kao rezultat delovanja gravitacije datog objekta. Medjutim problem sa konkretnom galaksijom je sto je doslo do neocekivanog zakrivljenja usled "nepoznatih" sila. Na kraju cela prica dolazi do zakljucka da je glavni krivac za takvu pojavu tamna energija koja sacinjava vecinu poznatog svemira. Tamna energija predstavlja antipod gravitacije i nasuprot njoj cini da se svemir ubrzano siri nasuprot doskorasnjim razmatranjima.
Tako da i njie bas da pade u bunar, ali sigurno je da ce mnogi postulati iz predjasnjih stotinjak godina biti dovodjeni u pitanje, ako ne i obarani razvojem novih tehnologija za opazanje energetsko masenih pojava u univerzumu (a mozda i sire :D), kao i konkluzijom eksperimenta u CERN-u, ali potrebno je jos vremena jer sta je nasih nekoliko milenijuma postojanja naspram vecnosti postojanja kosmosa. Nikad se ne zna... Nisam od onih koji ce slepo da veruje u boga ili opet ne znam ja kakve teorije metafizicara i njima slicnih (jer ipak su to samoprodukti necijih razmisljanja zasnovani na parcijalnim cinjenicama). Samo znam da postoje nekoliko mogucnosti cijim razvojem ce svemir ili nastaviti da postoji kao staticni prostor, da ce ostati ovakav kakav jeste do kraja koji ne postoji ili ce jednostavno ispariti u singularitetu.
 
Poslednja izmena:
Pu, bre za 5 biliona godina??? Au a ja planirao zurku za sesti bilenijum svog zivota! :D

Na engleskom ti bilion znači milijarda ;) Tj, vreme bi trebalo da stane kada sunce potroši sve svoje gorivo, što je malo čudno, zar ne?

@Igorizta
Hvala na dopsinosu :)

Taj deo kosomsa o kome govoriš, koji ima drugačija svojstva je samo 2,5 milijarde s.g daleko od zemlje, a mislilo se da je dosta dalje. Cela ta sila koja veliki deo glaksija "vuče" u jednom pravcu, protiv zakona inflacije, naziva se Dark Flow, tj Tamni Tok. Dark je naravno što ne znaju šta se događa. Prepostavljaju da je u potanju region prostor/vremena koji ima drugačije prirodne zakone, kao što si rekao, ili drugi univerzum, koji gravitaciono deluje na galakasije iz našega.

Evo i linka ako nekog ne mrzi da čita, ali vrlo je zanimljiv :)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100322-dark-flow-matter-outside-universe-multiverse/

U svakom slučaju, akose ova Dark Flow teorija nakon daljih ispitivanja pokaže mogućom, biće vrlo zanmljivo videti koje će teoriju oni šminkeri teoretski fizičarismisliti,pošto M teorija ne dozvoljava različite zakone fizike u okviru jednog univerzuma.

Evo još jedne zanimljivosti, izgleda da je naš Melčni Put, u stvari slabo aktivan kvazar! Ali da zbog velikog gustog oblaka prašine nismo mogli da vidimo mlazove energije koji izbijaju iz crne rupe.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-space-mystery-structures-gamma-rays-bubbles/

Konačno se posle 10 godina nešto dešava :)
 
Najbolje bi bilo da priznaju da ne znaju nista, ucinili bi svima veliku uslugu a pogotovo mladim narastajima mada opet se boje sta ce sa svetom koji ne zivi u zabludama i cime bi ih kontrolisali
 
nije problem to sto ne znaju. problem je sto je jako diskutabilno staviti pod okrilje "nauke" izjave koje se tichu postojanja.

metafizika, filozofija, religija. tim nizom pa tek onda nauka, bi trebalo da se dodiruju sa postojanjem, i svime.
 
Najbolje bi bilo da priznaju da ne znaju nista, ucinili bi svima veliku uslugu a pogotovo mladim narastajima mada opet se boje sta ce sa svetom koji ne zivi u zabludama i cime bi ih kontrolisali

+1

Ipak, ljudski strah potice od neznanja, a svaka zamisao da nesto se zna i da moze da se objasni cini coveka sposobnijim i zivljim. Covek je svestan da nista ne zna, a i kad bi sve znao vise ne bi bio covek gledajuci ga kroz nasu civilizaciju.

@Igoritza
Slazem se, ali mislim da bi mozda prvo psihologija i sociologija ljudi trebalo da ide ispred ostalih nauka ako vec hocemo da posmatramo coveka, njegove strahove i objasnjenja i shvatanja.
 
+1

Ipak, ljudski strah potice od neznanja, a svaka zamisao da nesto se zna i da moze da se objasni cini coveka sposobnijim i zivljim. Covek je svestan da nista ne zna, a i kad bi sve znao vise ne bi bio covek gledajuci ga kroz nasu civilizaciju.

@Igoritza
Slazem se, ali mislim da bi mozda prvo psihologija i sociologija ljudi trebalo da ide ispred ostalih nauka ako vec hocemo da posmatramo coveka, njegove strahove i objasnjenja i shvatanja.

Lepo receno, ali nije li tema "fizicke" prirode, mislim u ljudskoj je prirodi teznja ka saznanju i objasnjenju nepoznatog (pa makar to i bilo u ovom slucaju kao sto vec rekoh zasnovano na "polu-cinjenicama" nekih metafizicara). Zaista ne vidim zasto bi te nauke trebale ici ispred fizike recimo, ako vec zelimo odagnati strahove razresenjem misterije nepoznatog univerzuma smatram fiziku primarnijom od psihologije ili sociologije... :d nista licno

@ Igoritza
nije problem to sto ne znaju. problem je sto je jako diskutabilno staviti pod okrilje "nauke" izjave koje se tichu postojanja.

metafizika, filozofija, religija. tim nizom pa tek onda nauka, bi trebalo da se dodiruju sa postojanjem, i svime.

Slazem se sa tobom donekle, ali kako se nauka bavi time sa jednog drugog aspekta, mislim da nema potrebe gurati je na kraj reda. Generalno fizika se bavi time na podatomskom nivou i treba joj dati znacaja. Teza o poreklu sveta i zivota ce doci (MOZDA) samo kao nusprodukt istrazivanja tamne materije i energije i crnih rupa. Ti metafizicari su kao recimo nasi politicari, vole da im se ime potura po medijima, jer nisu dostigli novo u struci kao kolege im koje su dospele u CERN, a novinari samo potpaljuju celu pricu radi tiraza, a narod guta li guta i zato se boji, pa imamo price o nestanku zemlje u crnoj rupi zbog hadronskog kolajdera :wall: pih samo se iznerviram kad cujem sta pricaju...
 
498884main_DF3_Fermi_bubble_art_labels.jpg


Evo je i slika sa Fermi :p teleskopa, znam ja da oni to gledaju u mega rezolucijama, ali opet se tu nista ne vidi do oblaka energije. Niti sam ubedjen da imaju pojma sta se desava u jezgru galaksije niti sta postoji tamo... mogu biti "Colectors" :p sto se mene tice. Kad mi kazu bili smo tamo i videli, prema vidjenom kraj sveta kakvog znamo bice za 1000 godina e onda ok, ovako ove pretpostavke i naklapanja za mene su :wave:

Mozda sam bio malo kontradiktoran sebi u prethodnom postu, ali zaneo sam se ;)
kontam da kontate sta sam hteo reci...
 
EKSTRA SLIKA! To se pokalap sa onim linkom koji sam ostavio gore s NGC sajta... Ali opet mi je čudno da nisu videli toliku količinu energije?!
 
IZVINJAVAM SE SVIMA OVO JE TREBAO DA BUDE DRUGI POST

Dva puta sam pastovao isti tekst, OVO JE RIPOFF UNIVERSE

Ker Than

for National Geographic News

Published April 9, 2010

Like part of a cosmic Russian doll, our universe may be nested inside a black hole that is itself part of a larger universe.

In turn, all the black holes found so far in our universe—from the microscopic to the supermassive—may be doorways into alternate realities.

According to a mind-bending new theory, a black hole is actually a tunnel between universes—a type of wormhole. The matter the black hole attracts doesn't collapse into a single point, as has been predicted, but rather gushes out a "white hole" at the other end of the black one, the theory goes.

(Related: "New Proof Unknown 'Structures' Tug at Our Universe.")

In a recent paper published in the journal Physics Letters B, Indiana University physicist Nikodem Poplawski presents new mathematical models of the spiraling motion of matter falling into a black hole. His equations suggest such wormholes are viable alternatives to the "space-time singularities" that Albert Einstein predicted to be at the centers of black holes.

According to Einstein's equations for general relativity, singularities are created whenever matter in a given region gets too dense, as would happen at the ultradense heart of a black hole.

Einstein's theory suggests singularities take up no space, are infinitely dense, and are infinitely hot—a concept supported by numerous lines of indirect evidence but still so outlandish that many scientists find it hard to accept.

If Poplawski is correct, they may no longer have to.

According to the new equations, the matter black holes absorb and seemingly destroy is actually expelled and becomes the building blocks for galaxies, stars, and planets in another reality.

(Related: "Dark Energy's Demise? New Theory Doesn't Use the Force.")

Wormholes Solve Big Bang Mystery?

The notion of black holes as wormholes could explain certain mysteries in modern cosmology, Poplawski said.

For example, the big bang theory says the universe started as a singularity. But scientists have no satisfying explanation for how such a singularity might have formed in the first place.

If our universe was birthed by a white hole instead of a singularity, Poplawski said, "it would solve this problem of black hole singularities and also the big bang singularity."

Wormholes might also explain gamma ray bursts, the second most powerful explosions in the universe after the big bang.

Gamma ray bursts occur at the fringes of the known universe. They appear to be associated with supernovae, or star explosions, in faraway galaxies, but their exact sources are a mystery. (Related: "Gamma-Ray Burst Caused Mass Extinction?")

Poplawski proposes that the bursts may be discharges of matter from alternate universes. The matter, he says, might be escaping into our universe through supermassive black holes—wormholes—at the hearts of those galaxies, though it's not clear how that would be possible.

"It's kind of a crazy idea, but who knows?" he said. (Related: "Are Wormholes Tunnels for Time Travel?")

There is at least one way to test Poplawski's theory: Some of our universe's black holes rotate, and if our universe was born inside a similarly revolving black hole, then our universe should have inherited the parent object's rotation.

If future experiments reveal that our universe appears to rotate in a preferred direction, it would be indirect evidence supporting his wormhole theory, Poplawski said.

Wormholes Are "Exotic Matter" Makers?

The wormhole theory may also help explain why certain features of our universe deviate from what theory predicts, according to physicists.

Based on the standard model of physics, after the big bang the curvature of the universe should have increased over time so that now—13.7 billion years later—we should seem to be sitting on the surface of a closed, spherical universe.

But observations show the universe appears flat in all directions.

What's more, data on light from the very early universe show that everything just after the big bang was a fairly uniform temperature.

That would mean that the farthest objects we see on opposite horizons of the universe were once close enough to interact and come to equilibrium, like molecules of gas in a sealed chamber.

Again, observations don't match predictions, because the objects farthest from each other in the known universe are so far apart that the time it would take to travel between them at the speed of light exceeds the age of the universe.

To explain the discrepancies, astronomers devised the concept of inflation.

Inflation states that shortly after the universe was created, it experienced a rapid growth spurt during which space itself expanded at faster-than-light speeds. The expansion stretched the universe from a size smaller than an atom to astronomical proportions in a fraction of a second.

The universe therefore appears flat, because the sphere we're sitting on is extremely large from our viewpoint—just as the sphere of Earth seems flat to someone standing in a field.

Inflation also explains how objects so far away from each other might have once been close enough to interact.

But—assuming inflation is real—astronomers have always been at pains to explain what caused it. That's where the new wormhole theory comes in.

According to Poplawski, some theories of inflation say the event was caused by "exotic matter," a theoretical substance that differs from normal matter, in part because it is repelled rather than attracted by gravity.

Based on his equations, Poplawski thinks such exotic matter might have been created when some of the first massive stars collapsed and became wormholes.

"There may be some relationship between the exotic matter that forms wormholes and the exotic matter that triggered inflation," he said.

(Related: "Before the Big Bang: Light Shed on 'Previous Universe.'")

Wormhole Equations an "Actual Solution"

The new model isn't the first to propose that other universes exist inside black holes. Damien Easson, a theoretical physicist at Arizona State University, has made the speculation in previous studies.

"What is new here is an actual wormhole solution in general relativity that acts as the passage from the exterior black hole to the new interior universe," said Easson, who was not involved in the new study.

"In our paper, we just speculated that such a solution could exist, but Poplawski has found an actual solution," said Easson, referring to Poplawski's equations.

(Related: "Universe 20 Million Years Older Than Thought.")

Nevertheless, the idea is still very speculative, Easson said in an email.

"Is the idea possible? Yes. Is the scenario likely? I have no idea. But it is certainly an interesting possibility."

Future work in quantum gravity—the study of gravity at the subatomic level—could refine the equations and potentially support or disprove Poplawski's theory, Easson said.

Wormhole Theory No Breakthrough

Overall, the wormhole theory is interesting, but not a breakthrough in explaining the origins of our universe, said Andreas Albrecht, a physicist at the University of California, Davis, who was also not involved in the new study.

By saying our universe was created by a gush of matter from a parent universe, the theory simply shifts the original creation event into an alternate reality.

In other words, it doesn't explain how the parent universe came to be or why it has the properties it has—properties our universe presumably inherited.

"There're really some pressing problems we're trying to solve, and it's not clear that any of this is offering a way forward with that," he said.

Still, Albrecht doesn't find the idea of universe-bridging wormholes any stranger than the idea of black hole singularities, and he cautions against dismissing the new theory just because it sounds a little out there.

"Everything people ask in this business is pretty weird," he said. "You can't say the less weird [idea] is going to win, because that's not the way it's been, by any means."
 
EKSTRA SLIKA! To se pokalap sa onim linkom koji sam ostavio gore s NGC sajta... Ali opet mi je čudno da nisu videli toliku količinu energije?!

Pa nisu imali cime, jer Fermi teleskop (Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope) je lansiran u svemir 2008 godine tako da nisu imali cime da snimaju taj spektar zracenja...
 
Lepo receno, ali nije li tema "fizicke" prirode, mislim u ljudskoj je prirodi teznja ka saznanju i objasnjenju nepoznatog (pa makar to i bilo u ovom slucaju kao sto vec rekoh zasnovano na "polu-cinjenicama" nekih metafizicara). Zaista ne vidim zasto bi te nauke trebale ici ispred fizike recimo, ako vec zelimo odagnati strahove razresenjem misterije nepoznatog univerzuma smatram fiziku primarnijom od psihologije ili sociologije... :d nista licno

Tema jeste "fizicke prirode", ali je po licnom misljenju itekako povezana sa naukama sto je Gdin_M rekao a evo i zasto.. Ne moze fizika daleko da odmakne kao nauka prevashodno zato sto treba OGROMNA kolicina novaca i dobre volje da se neka teorija podupre ili opovgrne, pa tu tehnologija mora da pomogne fizici. Evo, uzmimo samo za primer teleskop kao jedno od vrhunskih dostignuca da bi covek pogledao "gore". Taj (u principu) isti teleskop koliko god da je puta jaci nije nas daleko odmakao, s tim da smo spoznali kako je neka zvezda izgledala pre toliko i toliko vremena plus ~ beskonacnost svemira ali ljudski um ne moze (ili nece) to da prihvati pa se naravno i dalje istrazuje (kako si vec rekao da se "odagna strah" od nepoznatog) sto je u principu odlicno, ali sve su to nekako mali koraci. Uzmimo primer koliko je novaca "samo" od drugog svetskog pa naovamo potroseno ("zbog prirodne selekcije" ? :crash:) ...zamislimo samo da su te pare otisle u nauku, tehnologiju, razne vrste edukacija itd., e to bi vec bio kvantni skok u odnosu na danas, konkretno fiziku. Dobar primer "malog koraka" je takodje akcelerator cestica u Cernu takodje, pa opet silne milijarde su morale da budu ulozene da bi se tek nesto sicusno saznalo. U fiziku, kao jednu od najjacih nauka mora da se STALNO ulaze sa ogromnim naporom i sredstvima a da bi se to postiglo covek kao vrsta mora prvo da se ratosilja "loseg tripa" da ce sa kolicinom novaca "kupiti" STA? :trust: Eternity? I naravno, dokle god se budemo oslanjali na energiju fosilnog goriva, tesko da cemo daleko odmaci.
Sva sreca, pa se s vremena na vreme pojavi neki istinski genije koji moze da posluzi kao idealan primer tih drugih nauka (kako god ih mi zvali) vrednih one dobre strane ljudske prirode pa je jedino bitno koliku i kakvu ce pomoc takav covek da dobije od strane drugih, stoga bih rekao da sociologija, psihologija, edukacija i sl. moze itekako da iznedri i da pruzi ogromnu podrsku krhkoj ali istovremeno veoma mocnoj nauci kao sto je fizika.
I da, vreme kao odredjena dimenzija ili fizicka konstanta ce uvek postojati samo je razlika u "kakvom obliku" i GDE.

P.S. Znam da sam otisao u deblji off, pa ako moderator ne zamera previse neka post ostane. U suprotnom neka se brise. ^
 
Tema jeste "fizicke prirode", ali je po licnom misljenju itekako povezana sa naukama sto je Gdin_M rekao a evo i zasto.. Ne moze fizika daleko da odmakne kao nauka prevashodno zato sto treba OGROMNA kolicina novaca i dobre volje da se neka teorija podupre ili opovgrne, pa tu tehnologija mora da pomogne fizici. Evo, uzmimo samo za primer teleskop kao jedno od vrhunskih dostignuca da bi covek pogledao "gore". Taj (u principu) isti teleskop koliko god da je puta jaci nije nas daleko odmakao, s tim da smo spoznali kako je neka zvezda izgledala pre toliko i toliko vremena plus ~ beskonacnost svemira ali ljudski um ne moze (ili nece) to da prihvati pa se naravno i dalje istrazuje (kako si vec rekao da se "odagna strah" od nepoznatog) sto je u principu odlicno, ali sve su to nekako mali koraci. Uzmimo primer koliko je novaca "samo" od drugog svetskog pa naovamo potroseno ("zbog prirodne selekcije" ? :crash:) ...zamislimo samo da su te pare otisle u nauku, tehnologiju, razne vrste edukacija itd., e to bi vec bio kvantni skok u odnosu na danas, konkretno fiziku. Dobar primer "malog koraka" je takodje akcelerator cestica u Cernu takodje, pa opet silne milijarde su morale da budu ulozene da bi se tek nesto sicusno saznalo. U fiziku, kao jednu od najjacih nauka mora da se STALNO ulaze sa ogromnim naporom i sredstvima a da bi se to postiglo covek kao vrsta mora prvo da se ratosilja "loseg tripa" da ce sa kolicinom novaca "kupiti" STA? :trust: Eternity? I naravno, dokle god se budemo oslanjali na energiju fosilnog goriva, tesko da cemo daleko odmaci.
Sva sreca, pa se s vremena na vreme pojavi neki istinski genije koji moze da posluzi kao idealan primer tih drugih nauka (kako god ih mi zvali) vrednih one dobre strane ljudske prirode pa je jedino bitno koliku i kakvu ce pomoc takav covek da dobije od strane drugih, stoga bih rekao da sociologija, psihologija, edukacija i sl. moze itekako da iznedri i da pruzi ogromnu podrsku krhkoj ali istovremeno veoma mocnoj nauci kao sto je fizika.
I da, vreme kao odredjena dimenzija ili fizicka konstanta ce uvek postojati samo je razlika u "kakvom obliku" i GDE.

P.S. Znam da sam otisao u deblji off, pa ako moderator ne zamera previse neka post ostane. U suprotnom neka se brise. ^

Svakako se slazem sa tobom, jer gde bi zaista bili fizicari bez tehnologije koja im je omogucila da se bave istrazivanjim svemira, a i ostalih fantasticnih i tesko opazljivih pojava. Ali nisi me bas razumeo, ja sam mislio na prednost u odnosu na nauke koje u centar istrazivanja stavljaju coveka i njegov um (sociologija, psihologija, metafizika...)
Sumnjam da ce ukloniti thread, jer su meni off uklonili u roku od 12h... zanimljivo je ovo i dotoce se donekle IT sveta, jer se spominje fermi :d
 
Razumemo se. :)
Poenta mog (preopsirnog) posta je bila da su sve nauke u nekoj korelaciji, vise-manje (ili bi bar trebale da budu).
 
Time will end when you die. If there's no one to measure time - time does not exist.
 
Time will end when you die. If there's no one to measure time - time does not exist.

J**em li ga i to je diskutabilno... "time as we know it will cease to exist", ali ko zna postoji li jos neko ili nesto u svemiru sto meri svoje vreme...
 
Elem posto vidim da je tema skoro pa zamrlarekoh da se javim. Evo hteo bih da podelim nesto sa vama koje interesuje cela materija teorije o elementarnim cesticama i nuzno povezanim temama jedan mali rad jednog od asistenata sa mog fakulteta. Mada ukoliko i neko ko se ne razume moze relativno shvatiti tekst jer je od (skoro) nule objasnjena fizika elementarnih cestica, meni je bilo zanimljivo nadam se da ce i vama :D
http://www.df.uns.ac.rs/infophysics/
 
Poslednja izmena:
procitacu kad stignem. nije uopste teshko razumeti i kvantna mehanika i teorija polja mogu da se shvate cak i bez znanja formuli jer ja ponavljam hiljaditi put - svako od tih otkrica je postignuto filozofijom ne matematikom. zato su najveci umovi povodom ove tematike upravo Bor i Ajnshtajn.
 
procitacu kad stignem. nije uopste teshko razumeti i kvantna mehanika i teorija polja mogu da se shvate cak i bez znanja formuli jer ja ponavljam hiljaditi put - svako od tih otkrica je postignuto filozofijom ne matematikom. zato su najveci umovi povodom ove tematike upravo Bor i Ajnshtajn.

Cool, ali nisam mislio na formule... ne zna bas svako sta je higsov bozon, sta su neutino cestice i da mogu da menjaju ukus... manje vise sve je tamo objasnjeno, uz nuznu upotrebu formula, realno se konkretna tema spominje samo u jednom poglavlju iz kojeg sam i citirao neke delove mojij postova, ostalo mislim da je onako konkretnije od samog "metafizickog naklapanja" bar vecina, a za ostalo se uzimaju pretpostavke. Uglavnom videces da se sad ne raspisujem previse :D
 
Time will end when you die. If there's no one to measure time - time does not exist.

Zapravo, nije tako. I vreme poseduje svoje čestice (tako se barem pretpostavlja), odnosno da je prostor vreme satkan od malih crvotočina atomske razmere koji predstavljaju vreme. Da je vreme nešto imaginarno, kao što kažeš, onda se isto ne bi usporavalo blizu objekata velike gravitacije,poput crnih rupa i neutronskih zvezda, niti bi se uspravalo kad se dostiže brzina svetlosti, već bi normalno teklo. To je dokaz da je vreme zaista dimenzija univerzuma (to i Ajnšatjnova teorija :p)

Pročitaću tekstove sa ovog sajta
 
Zapravo, nije tako. I vreme poseduje svoje čestice (tako se barem pretpostavlja), odnosno da je prostor vreme satkan od malih crvotočina atomske razmere koji predstavljaju vreme. Da je vreme nešto imaginarno, kao što kažeš, onda se isto ne bi usporavalo blizu objekata velike gravitacije,poput crnih rupa i neutronskih zvezda, niti bi se uspravalo kad se dostiže brzina svetlosti, već bi normalno teklo. To je dokaz da je vreme zaista dimenzija univerzuma (to i Ajnšatjnova teorija :p)

Pročitaću tekstove sa ovog sajta

znam ja fiziku iza vremena ;)

govorim o tome da je sasvim nebitno dal svemira ima, ili nema, ukoliko nema nikog da ga primeti.

odatle i indirektno Kalam Kosmoloshki argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument
 
National Geographic je u mojim ocima izgubio bilo kakvu vrednost "naucno" ili kakvog god kanala kad je prikazao onu parodiju od dokumentarca o 11 septembru ......

Procitacu ovaj zid teksta kad budem imao vremena .... ali .... s obzirom koje su suplje price krenuli da plasiraju na NG ...... ne bi me cudilo ni da je ovo neka od nebuloza ....
 
National Geographic je u mojim ocima izgubio bilo kakvu vrednost "naucno" ili kakvog god kanala kad je prikazao onu parodiju od dokumentarca o 11 septembru ......

Procitacu ovaj zid teksta kad budem imao vremena .... ali .... s obzirom koje su suplje price krenuli da plasiraju na NG ...... ne bi me cudilo ni da je ovo neka od nebuloza ....

Ukoliko mislis na text koji sam ja dao, nije prazna prica nekog metafizicara ili filozofa, varas se. Naravno to je ukoliko si mislio na moj link a ne Igoritzin.
Autor ovog sajta je Stevan Armaković. Detektore čestica i detektorske sisteme ATLAS i CMS su napisale Elvira Đurđić i Milica Ranisavljević. Svi su studenti Departmana za fiziku Prirodno - matematičkog fakulteta u Univerziteta Novom Sadu. Teorijski delovi se zasnivaju na predavanjima prof. dr Miroslava Veskovića.
 
To nema smisla, mozda je nebitno u tom trenutku, ali recimo da se negde stvori zivot posle odredjenog vremena i automatski vreme je bitno i u proslosti. Cista filozofija bez smisla :)...

nisi u pravu.

evo ti primer - svemir je jako kompleksan. u isto vreme, misteriozan krajnje i pord sve nauke koju znamo i posedujemo. isti taj svemir - moze a i ne mora da bude onakav kakav ga nauka opisuje. recimo - gravitacija dan danas ima svojstva koja odskacu od njutnove, a bogami i kvantne pretpostavke. kod nas na zemlji, na snimcima iz dubine svemira.

Hawking je ranije postavio bottoms up teoriju, koja moze imati istine, gde recimo - ne postoji ni pocetak, ni kraj svemira. Lissi-jev model postojanja prostor/vremena je genijalan, a opet ne zahteva ni tamnu materiju, ni big bang, ni negativnu energiju.

stoga, mozemo reci naprimer - da je svemir postojao i preko 13 milijardi godina, mozda recimo - milion milijardi godina, a mozemo da kazemo i da postoji 10.000 godina - i da ne budemo apsolutno pogreshni sa izjavom - jer ne znamo za sigurno.

isto tako - svest pretstavlja problem - postoji teorija gde smo mi cista simulacija, animirani u virtuelnom prostoru, i postoji samo svest, nista drugo. a sto se mene tice - to uopste nije blesava teorija, niti "way out there" jer jedino sa chime mi raspolazemo kad analiziramo svet oko sebe - je svest. bez nje ne bi bilo ni problematike boga, ni svemira ni ateizma, ni nicega. ***ovo nije agnosticko teisticka izjava, nisam rekao da je bog nuzno i simulator, a mi u simulaciji, moze da bude neko drugi***

tako da - polako sa sigurnim izjavama. bili su ljudi sigurni da je zemlja ploca, i to mnogo vise vremena nego sto postoji recimo teorija kvantnog polja, ili teorija velikog praska (doduse veliki prasak postoji u drevnim religijama u svom obliku)
 
Nazad
Vrh Dno