Up in New England, luckily, Earl may be hitting up in Mass., but as far as here in RI is concerned, it's only about tropical storm level (significantly less damaging than a hurricane) and therefore won't last very long, and won't be as strong as it was down south.
So today, Stephen Hawking finally came out with his new book: The Grand Design, co-authored by Leonard Mlodinow. This will be available on Amazon on Tuesday, September 7th.
I was very surprised to hear that in his new book, instead of speaking about quantum mechanics and Einstein's relativity like he usually does, he actually describes the universe from a String Theory point of view instead!
I don't know if you realize how apocalyptic this is: Since when does Hawking involve himself with String Theory????
For the past however-many-years-he's-been-here, he has written books upon books upon papers of quantum mechanics, Einstein's relativity, his formulas, his own work with black holes, and that was about all. Then all of a sudden, he disappears into the dark for a while, and *Poof!* he suddenly transforms into an expert on String Theory as much as he is about Einstein's relativity!
The fact is, I have never in my entire life seen someone as inspiring as Stephen Hawking. A man living with ALS for over forty years longer than doctors said he would. When he was in college and was planning to attend Cambridge University to get his Ph.D. was when he was diagnosed with ALS, with only a few years to live.
And here he is today, still alive, still able to communicate, and still able to write books upon books about his research and knowledge. This man is a genius.
I'd update more, but... I have a surprise for you viewers out there. The next post will be on Saturday, and I'm not, under any circumstance, ruining the surprise! ;)
Showing posts with label Space. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Space. Show all posts
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
"Anyway, I was thinking more of a bio-social exploration with a neuro-chemical overlay"...
"Wait, are you asking me out?"
Yes, this was another quote from The Big Bang Theory. One of the best.
Although I won't get into just how the heck you get dating out of that remark, because it's more neuro-science related.
Anyways, I thought I'd comment on what I learned while reading "The Day Without a Yesterday" and tell you that I brought "A History of Zero" back to the library today for obvious reasons.
Anyway, in "The Day Without a Yesterday", it talks about how LeMaitre should have gotten more credit for some things that Einstein took most of the credit for. This was because, back when Einstein was around, there began the fight between quantum mechanics and Einstein's relativity. Quantum mechanics, at first, could not agree with Einstein's Relativity, until a Russian mathematician (I forget his name) mathematically figured out how they would go together. Then, Einstein found Special Relativity, a term he coined for the Russian mathematician's formula. So pretty much they worked together for a while on it.
Anyways, when they still didn't agree before the Russian mathematician stepped in, there were a number of debates of Einstein's relativity versus the newly-founded Quantum Theory. Einstein was troubled because it turned out his relativity wasn't so great after all. He was bummed, and he was trying to distract himself by being more outgoing with his friends, but the trouble of his relativity (only General at this point) removed all possibilities of truth without expanding it and changing it somehow. The Russian mathematician pointed out that in his General relativity formula, he needed the upside-down triangle-looking symbol (ummm I have no idea what it's called... That's delta, I think?) which made space-time curve matter, and matter curve space-time, but working with quantum theory just a little bit more.
Then came along Einstein's find of special relativity, which clashed once again with quantum theory just a bit longer.
The reason why I like this book is because it not just shows the achievements of Einstein, but it shows who helped him and who should get credit for what things, too. Einstein didn't do all the work, you know.
Also, more about "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene, I find it astounding how similar string theory and my theory are. Except for the garbage can theorem (I still can't type that with a straight face), the fact that I'm saying space-time can rip is intriguingly similar to that of string theory.
I'm curious as to how string theorists say that space-time can also repair itself, so hopefully I'll get to that part soon.
As for "A Brief History of Time", I stopped because I wanted a more one-focus book right now, not a general one (which is weird because usually I prefer those)... I guess it's because I know most of the stuff in that book so I need something more focused on stuff I don't know instead.
Ah well, I am definitely keeping up more with this.
P.S. After a long period of time, I'm planning on putting all the posts into a book-form, so stay tuned!
Yes, this was another quote from The Big Bang Theory. One of the best.
Although I won't get into just how the heck you get dating out of that remark, because it's more neuro-science related.
Anyways, I thought I'd comment on what I learned while reading "The Day Without a Yesterday" and tell you that I brought "A History of Zero" back to the library today for obvious reasons.
Anyway, in "The Day Without a Yesterday", it talks about how LeMaitre should have gotten more credit for some things that Einstein took most of the credit for. This was because, back when Einstein was around, there began the fight between quantum mechanics and Einstein's relativity. Quantum mechanics, at first, could not agree with Einstein's Relativity, until a Russian mathematician (I forget his name) mathematically figured out how they would go together. Then, Einstein found Special Relativity, a term he coined for the Russian mathematician's formula. So pretty much they worked together for a while on it.
Anyways, when they still didn't agree before the Russian mathematician stepped in, there were a number of debates of Einstein's relativity versus the newly-founded Quantum Theory. Einstein was troubled because it turned out his relativity wasn't so great after all. He was bummed, and he was trying to distract himself by being more outgoing with his friends, but the trouble of his relativity (only General at this point) removed all possibilities of truth without expanding it and changing it somehow. The Russian mathematician pointed out that in his General relativity formula, he needed the upside-down triangle-looking symbol (ummm I have no idea what it's called... That's delta, I think?) which made space-time curve matter, and matter curve space-time, but working with quantum theory just a little bit more.
Then came along Einstein's find of special relativity, which clashed once again with quantum theory just a bit longer.
The reason why I like this book is because it not just shows the achievements of Einstein, but it shows who helped him and who should get credit for what things, too. Einstein didn't do all the work, you know.
Also, more about "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene, I find it astounding how similar string theory and my theory are. Except for the garbage can theorem (I still can't type that with a straight face), the fact that I'm saying space-time can rip is intriguingly similar to that of string theory.
I'm curious as to how string theorists say that space-time can also repair itself, so hopefully I'll get to that part soon.
As for "A Brief History of Time", I stopped because I wanted a more one-focus book right now, not a general one (which is weird because usually I prefer those)... I guess it's because I know most of the stuff in that book so I need something more focused on stuff I don't know instead.
Ah well, I am definitely keeping up more with this.
P.S. After a long period of time, I'm planning on putting all the posts into a book-form, so stay tuned!
Friday, July 30, 2010
Finally, an Answer! Why the 'Not Allowed' Assumption...
So, I was emailing with my teacher, Mr. Levesque, and I asked him to read my blog.
After reading it, he emailed me a very good answer about why most or all scientists agree nothing can go faster than the speed of light.
The answer is *drum roll please*
Einstein!
Well, Einstein's equations.
Einstein's equations have indeed been experimentally proven, which means that if you could go faster than the speed of light, your mass would be infinite (a fraction with zero in the denominator = not real or infinite).
This means that if in the case they did find Tachyon particles (or something like them only photons or something) that go faster than the speed of light, Einstein's equations would have to be altered in such a way that they still expressed relativity in the same way it did before, only without this issue of the non-existent fraction.
What I want to ask is, if in the case black holes could be used as a tunnel for Tachyon particles (or photons or something) that go faster than the speed of light, (which I still believe rips space-time creating the black holes, but it has to be small but dense enough to do so), then couldn't these particles or photons or whatever end up even in another dimension?
Couldn't that explain why the mass wouldn't be comprehensible?
It's almost like the issue with perceiving the fourth dimension: Although we can somewhat perceive it and look at it, we cannot figure out what exactly it means because it is not in this dimension. Such as how we perceive four- dimensional objects made up of three dimensional objects put into one, instead of just a four- dimensional object, like other four-dimensional objects do.
Now, an interesting question came up while I was speaking to Sam about the dimensions. He pointed out that according to the pattern, the zero dimension would be able to perceive everything in the negative-one dimension.
Now, what the heck is the negative-one dimension?
Well, since everything is a square of what it was before, let us look at the pattern:
A hypercube is a cube, cubed.
A cube is a square, cubed.
A square is a line, squared.
A line is a point, extended ("lined" if you want to make it follow the pattern)
A point is what?
Maybe the zero dimension is the lowest it can go?
If the negative one dimension does exist, I'm assuming it is inverted from that of the first dimension.
But what is the inversion of a line?
Perhaps this line is the opposite of what it would be in the first dimension? (A line pointing the exact other direction relative to whatever is observing it)
And perhaps if we were to perceive not only the negative one dimension, but all others, instead of the ones we have now, perhaps if we thought we were moving one direction we would be moving in the exact opposite direction, making it difficult to move and do things.
Which maybe is why all of us are in this dimension instead of the negative third dimension (natural selection, I suppose?)
And I'm kind of weirding myself out speaking about natural selection on a universal scale. Has this been mentioned or thought of before?
I have no idea.
I guess that's another thing I'll have to answer!
After reading it, he emailed me a very good answer about why most or all scientists agree nothing can go faster than the speed of light.
The answer is *drum roll please*
Einstein!
Well, Einstein's equations.
Einstein's equations have indeed been experimentally proven, which means that if you could go faster than the speed of light, your mass would be infinite (a fraction with zero in the denominator = not real or infinite).
This means that if in the case they did find Tachyon particles (or something like them only photons or something) that go faster than the speed of light, Einstein's equations would have to be altered in such a way that they still expressed relativity in the same way it did before, only without this issue of the non-existent fraction.
What I want to ask is, if in the case black holes could be used as a tunnel for Tachyon particles (or photons or something) that go faster than the speed of light, (which I still believe rips space-time creating the black holes, but it has to be small but dense enough to do so), then couldn't these particles or photons or whatever end up even in another dimension?
Couldn't that explain why the mass wouldn't be comprehensible?
It's almost like the issue with perceiving the fourth dimension: Although we can somewhat perceive it and look at it, we cannot figure out what exactly it means because it is not in this dimension. Such as how we perceive four- dimensional objects made up of three dimensional objects put into one, instead of just a four- dimensional object, like other four-dimensional objects do.
Now, an interesting question came up while I was speaking to Sam about the dimensions. He pointed out that according to the pattern, the zero dimension would be able to perceive everything in the negative-one dimension.
Now, what the heck is the negative-one dimension?
Well, since everything is a square of what it was before, let us look at the pattern:
A hypercube is a cube, cubed.
A cube is a square, cubed.
A square is a line, squared.
A line is a point, extended ("lined" if you want to make it follow the pattern)
A point is what?
Maybe the zero dimension is the lowest it can go?
If the negative one dimension does exist, I'm assuming it is inverted from that of the first dimension.
But what is the inversion of a line?
Perhaps this line is the opposite of what it would be in the first dimension? (A line pointing the exact other direction relative to whatever is observing it)
And perhaps if we were to perceive not only the negative one dimension, but all others, instead of the ones we have now, perhaps if we thought we were moving one direction we would be moving in the exact opposite direction, making it difficult to move and do things.
Which maybe is why all of us are in this dimension instead of the negative third dimension (natural selection, I suppose?)
And I'm kind of weirding myself out speaking about natural selection on a universal scale. Has this been mentioned or thought of before?
I have no idea.
I guess that's another thing I'll have to answer!
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
The Actual Text from the Library that I Freaked Out Over...
The is the exact paragraph of the book that made me so excited when I read it at the library!
Because of something else, like another universe was filling up our universe by sending stuff into it through a white hole, the white hole would be like the hole of the balloon, and the person would be the other universe, sending stuff through the black hole... Only it may not be intentional. Maybe this black hole is so supermassive that it just eats everything!
This is what got me so excited: The fact that another universe sending in matter through a black hole into a white hole on our end would make SO much sense when you think about the Garbage Can Theorem.
(By the way, I'm going to have to come up with a more scientific name for that sooner or later...)
Or I could call it the Garbage Can Theorem and have hundreds of scientists laugh at me and say it's the dumbest thing they've ever heard...
In any case, have fun reading that paragraph, that's all I'll put online from the actual text, though I have some more diagrams to upload later once I read through some more of the book.
Thanks for reading!
And thanks for the add, Kyle!
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Questions on Black Holes and Light...
So, I read a bit more about the alternate dimensions last night, and it's funny, because Stephen Hawking says that it's impossible to visualize the fourth dimension, when Lisa Randall with other theoretical physicists have recently found out how.
Of course, "A Brief History of Time", again, was published in 1989 - 1990.
I am currently getting a TON of books, not only be Hawking, but by Feynmann and some of his lectures, too, to get some variety. Once I'm done with this book, I'm going to read into "The Day Without a Yesterday" (I can't remember the author right now) which was published in 2005. It has to do with Le-something(can't remember his name either)'s work, with all his papers stored in a university in Belgium.
Back to Hawking, what I found was possibly a way to disprove that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. When he was talking about special relativity, Hawking says that this was when Einstein came up with General Relativity, which works with Gravity... The only problem is, no one can really evaluate the formula without having all their own measurements, which is very faulty and not very sufficient.
This leads to a few questions...
Does gravity have a lot to do with what I'm doing?
Yes, it does.
Should I pay more attention to gravity?
Indubitably, yes.
And so, I'm going to study this further, because I feel that there has to be something greater out there than this formula that so many have failed to use, and it seems that there has to be something much more sufficient, accurate, and describes more than just gravity between planetary and solar bodies.
I feel that the formula needs to be tweaked somehow, and can be, but at the moment (for me, at least) there's too many unknowns. I'll have to narrow that down.
Before I can do that, I want to know what each of the symbols mean, because there's one that I'm not really sure what it is. I think it's absolute velocity, but I'm not sure. I'm going to check up on that later.
What I also think is, that there has to be a material out there that can withstand going at speeds faster than light, and that the "light cone" of an event (I just learned about this myself -- you know how everything you can see is because light reflects off of it? a light-cone is a drawing of a three-axis graph that I'll post tomorrow, that's shaped like a cone, and anything outside of the cone cannot exist, apparently.) Isn't a boundary of matter, but everything that we can see. I mean, if you think about it, air that we can't see is being touched by light obviously, but whether it's pitch black or blindingly white, you can't see the air in front of you.
That's why it brings me some questions:
Is everything really affected by light in some way?
I mean, black holes can carry light into their gravitational fields, so that means they must be even more powerful, right?
I am going to continue on this journey through A Brief History in Time, and I'll post some diagrams tomorrow, promise this time.
Of course, "A Brief History of Time", again, was published in 1989 - 1990.
I am currently getting a TON of books, not only be Hawking, but by Feynmann and some of his lectures, too, to get some variety. Once I'm done with this book, I'm going to read into "The Day Without a Yesterday" (I can't remember the author right now) which was published in 2005. It has to do with Le-something(can't remember his name either)'s work, with all his papers stored in a university in Belgium.
Back to Hawking, what I found was possibly a way to disprove that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. When he was talking about special relativity, Hawking says that this was when Einstein came up with General Relativity, which works with Gravity... The only problem is, no one can really evaluate the formula without having all their own measurements, which is very faulty and not very sufficient.
This leads to a few questions...
Does gravity have a lot to do with what I'm doing?
Yes, it does.
Should I pay more attention to gravity?
Indubitably, yes.
And so, I'm going to study this further, because I feel that there has to be something greater out there than this formula that so many have failed to use, and it seems that there has to be something much more sufficient, accurate, and describes more than just gravity between planetary and solar bodies.
I feel that the formula needs to be tweaked somehow, and can be, but at the moment (for me, at least) there's too many unknowns. I'll have to narrow that down.
Before I can do that, I want to know what each of the symbols mean, because there's one that I'm not really sure what it is. I think it's absolute velocity, but I'm not sure. I'm going to check up on that later.
What I also think is, that there has to be a material out there that can withstand going at speeds faster than light, and that the "light cone" of an event (I just learned about this myself -- you know how everything you can see is because light reflects off of it? a light-cone is a drawing of a three-axis graph that I'll post tomorrow, that's shaped like a cone, and anything outside of the cone cannot exist, apparently.) Isn't a boundary of matter, but everything that we can see. I mean, if you think about it, air that we can't see is being touched by light obviously, but whether it's pitch black or blindingly white, you can't see the air in front of you.
That's why it brings me some questions:
Is everything really affected by light in some way?
I mean, black holes can carry light into their gravitational fields, so that means they must be even more powerful, right?
I am going to continue on this journey through A Brief History in Time, and I'll post some diagrams tomorrow, promise this time.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
In an Infinite Universe, an Infinite Amount of Stars...
So, Hawking came to the conclusion that an infinite universe could not work because we'd have an infinite amount of stars, making the sky blindingly white, all the time, especially at night, because an infinite amount of stars = infinite amount of light. So, this idea was brought down by Einstein and, instead, we now think that the universe has a barrier of some sort, or something to contain it, but that our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate because of dark energy.
This really does make a whole lot of sense considering, even if you said that different stars' lights reached us at different times, the sky would still be bright-white all the time.
Tonight I'm going to read more of it so that I can FINALLY get to the good part about the Special Relativity Formula. I was just getting into it on sunday, when I reached my family reunion, and since then, I haven't had time.
I just got back from a Paw Sox game (unfortunately they lost) :( but it was funny because everyone thought it was a half moon, when it was a Waxing Gibbous tonight. The name origins from "Waxing" meaning "building up" or "growing, and "Gibbous" meaning "almost" as in "almost full" or "almost empty".
Unfortunately, the general population doesn't pay attention to details during seventh grade science class....
But anyways, I've learned a lot about Newton in this book so far (A Brief History of Time).. I've learned that he believed that all the universe and it's matter and materials were just an illusion. When another scientist was told of his opinion, he yelled "It, I refute!" and stubbed his toe on a rock he kicked.
I didn't know Newton's Laws had so many exceptions: This is generally not very well known, and Hawking explains them vividly. This includes his theory of how time worked: That everything was at an absolute rate, relative to absolute time, in an absolute universe. Einstein shot this down when he discovered that when you go near the speed of light, objects contract, and clocks slow down. This explained that time is not absolute: Thus getting rid of the Absolute Universe theory and creating Special Relativity Theory, that the faster matter moves through space, the more mass it gains. Actually, once it goes near the speed of light, the matter can have twice or even 2.5 times the amount of mass it had before. This is quite strange when you think about it.
But when I was thinking about it, wouldn't this explain other dimensions? Going near, at, or even past the speed of light to create a hypercube, then the hypercube comes out of a white hole into the past (which to us is the present, if it was at or past this speed), and the reason we can only view some planes of it is because it is flickering and traveling through our space?
It's an interesting theory... I'll have to give it more thought.
Once again, sleep continues to prevail me, so I will post more tomorrow about alternate dimensions, and possibly even the diagram!
Thanks for the follow, Marshall!
Also, everyone, feel free to 'like' this blog on Facebook!
This really does make a whole lot of sense considering, even if you said that different stars' lights reached us at different times, the sky would still be bright-white all the time.
Tonight I'm going to read more of it so that I can FINALLY get to the good part about the Special Relativity Formula. I was just getting into it on sunday, when I reached my family reunion, and since then, I haven't had time.
I just got back from a Paw Sox game (unfortunately they lost) :( but it was funny because everyone thought it was a half moon, when it was a Waxing Gibbous tonight. The name origins from "Waxing" meaning "building up" or "growing, and "Gibbous" meaning "almost" as in "almost full" or "almost empty".
Unfortunately, the general population doesn't pay attention to details during seventh grade science class....
But anyways, I've learned a lot about Newton in this book so far (A Brief History of Time).. I've learned that he believed that all the universe and it's matter and materials were just an illusion. When another scientist was told of his opinion, he yelled "It, I refute!" and stubbed his toe on a rock he kicked.
I didn't know Newton's Laws had so many exceptions: This is generally not very well known, and Hawking explains them vividly. This includes his theory of how time worked: That everything was at an absolute rate, relative to absolute time, in an absolute universe. Einstein shot this down when he discovered that when you go near the speed of light, objects contract, and clocks slow down. This explained that time is not absolute: Thus getting rid of the Absolute Universe theory and creating Special Relativity Theory, that the faster matter moves through space, the more mass it gains. Actually, once it goes near the speed of light, the matter can have twice or even 2.5 times the amount of mass it had before. This is quite strange when you think about it.
But when I was thinking about it, wouldn't this explain other dimensions? Going near, at, or even past the speed of light to create a hypercube, then the hypercube comes out of a white hole into the past (which to us is the present, if it was at or past this speed), and the reason we can only view some planes of it is because it is flickering and traveling through our space?
It's an interesting theory... I'll have to give it more thought.
Once again, sleep continues to prevail me, so I will post more tomorrow about alternate dimensions, and possibly even the diagram!
Thanks for the follow, Marshall!
Also, everyone, feel free to 'like' this blog on Facebook!
Monday, July 19, 2010
The Juiciest Part of "A Brief History of Time" So Far...
So, tonight, I wasn't going to post, because my throat is killing me, as well as my stomach... But besides feeling like crap, I did happen to read more of "A Brief History of Time", and it was amazing!
I'm at the part where Hawking begins to talk about Einstein and the French guy (Can't remember his name) making the Theory of Relativity, and I was just getting into the part that most applies here, about the Theory of Special Relativity, which is the formula I had used originally to show why I thought I could pull through with "This does not mean you can't go faster than the speed of light, this means it is inconceivable to us because we are moving into the future, but when you go faster than the speed of light, time flips over relative to you, and you begin going BACK in time!"
Now, I didn't really get to explain the whole theory, so I'll say some more about the diagrammed aspect of it. Yes, I have a diagram, but unfortunately I couldn't find the energy to draw up a good one for the website...
It consists of an hourglass-shaped drawing with a little square near the top left corner of the page, and an arrow showing the square (representing matter) spiraling into the black hole, going straight through an Einstein-Rosen bridge (wormhole) and spiraling out of a white hole near the bottom. On the side there are two markings, positive infinity (the black hole) and negative infinity (the white hole) representing the direction of time away from zero, where you'd be meeting the speed of light, as if represented by a number-line of some sort.
Now, my next goal is to come up with some sort of equation to represent time according to when it flips over, and such. I was thinking of playing with the d=rt formula, kind of, only mixed with E=MC^2, and possibly even more mixed with the Special Relativity formula (which is a bit confusing when put into typing), and making it something of my own.
The Garbage Can Theorem (haha) keeps coming to my mind, and I'm thinking of what Stephen Hawking said too, about how the Creator of our universe (if there was really one Creator, who knows?) didn't have time: That time is only a dimension of our universe, but that maybe time has always happened with the Creator, too, we just don't know. He said that the common sense-way of thinking about time not being connected to space somehow may have to be altered (I mean, it was in 1990 but still), this may solve some of our problems. For instance, time could be a thing of reality outside our universe, too. Or it could only be for this universe, in this dimension. I mean, time doesn't really exist for the second dimension, so why should it exist for the fourth, the fifth, the sixth?
It's interesting to think about what the fourth dimension looks like: according to Lisa Randall, we already know. You see, to the second dimension, you can see one side of something 3 dimensional at a time. So to us, we can see a three dimensional figure that's one side of a four-dimensional object at a time.
Let's look at the hypercube. It consists of two large cubes connected by six smaller cubes making a ring around the middle of the two. If this were to pass into our plane, we'd see one cube appear, and that one disappear, then another cube, then that one would disappear, and so on...
So you see, it's very hard to visualize (I mean, obviously it'd be pretty weird if some random cubes appeared in the night sky and disappeared one after the other...)
But it makes sense, if you think about how if you're only looking at one side of cone, and you make cuts through it (like the plane barrier does) then you can only see slices of the cone at a time. It's sort of like that. You can only see one part a time, because of the way the planes of the dimensions work, slicing the objects so you can only see one part at a time.
Anyways, for tonight, I'm done.. I was going to talk more but I still feel like crap. It was great posting though!
Also, thanks for the follow, nick!
I'm at the part where Hawking begins to talk about Einstein and the French guy (Can't remember his name) making the Theory of Relativity, and I was just getting into the part that most applies here, about the Theory of Special Relativity, which is the formula I had used originally to show why I thought I could pull through with "This does not mean you can't go faster than the speed of light, this means it is inconceivable to us because we are moving into the future, but when you go faster than the speed of light, time flips over relative to you, and you begin going BACK in time!"
Now, I didn't really get to explain the whole theory, so I'll say some more about the diagrammed aspect of it. Yes, I have a diagram, but unfortunately I couldn't find the energy to draw up a good one for the website...
It consists of an hourglass-shaped drawing with a little square near the top left corner of the page, and an arrow showing the square (representing matter) spiraling into the black hole, going straight through an Einstein-Rosen bridge (wormhole) and spiraling out of a white hole near the bottom. On the side there are two markings, positive infinity (the black hole) and negative infinity (the white hole) representing the direction of time away from zero, where you'd be meeting the speed of light, as if represented by a number-line of some sort.
Now, my next goal is to come up with some sort of equation to represent time according to when it flips over, and such. I was thinking of playing with the d=rt formula, kind of, only mixed with E=MC^2, and possibly even more mixed with the Special Relativity formula (which is a bit confusing when put into typing), and making it something of my own.
The Garbage Can Theorem (haha) keeps coming to my mind, and I'm thinking of what Stephen Hawking said too, about how the Creator of our universe (if there was really one Creator, who knows?) didn't have time: That time is only a dimension of our universe, but that maybe time has always happened with the Creator, too, we just don't know. He said that the common sense-way of thinking about time not being connected to space somehow may have to be altered (I mean, it was in 1990 but still), this may solve some of our problems. For instance, time could be a thing of reality outside our universe, too. Or it could only be for this universe, in this dimension. I mean, time doesn't really exist for the second dimension, so why should it exist for the fourth, the fifth, the sixth?
It's interesting to think about what the fourth dimension looks like: according to Lisa Randall, we already know. You see, to the second dimension, you can see one side of something 3 dimensional at a time. So to us, we can see a three dimensional figure that's one side of a four-dimensional object at a time.
Let's look at the hypercube. It consists of two large cubes connected by six smaller cubes making a ring around the middle of the two. If this were to pass into our plane, we'd see one cube appear, and that one disappear, then another cube, then that one would disappear, and so on...
So you see, it's very hard to visualize (I mean, obviously it'd be pretty weird if some random cubes appeared in the night sky and disappeared one after the other...)
But it makes sense, if you think about how if you're only looking at one side of cone, and you make cuts through it (like the plane barrier does) then you can only see slices of the cone at a time. It's sort of like that. You can only see one part a time, because of the way the planes of the dimensions work, slicing the objects so you can only see one part at a time.
Anyways, for tonight, I'm done.. I was going to talk more but I still feel like crap. It was great posting though!
Also, thanks for the follow, nick!
Thursday, July 15, 2010
My Inspirations and Otherwise...
Hey there! Thanks for the follow, Jolie :)
Instead of blabbering on and on about physics and math today, I'd like to say who and what were my inspirations behind this project.
The project's first inspiration was my dearest friend and the world's best teacher, Mr. Levesque, who had first got my mind simmering with ideas by showing us the Special Relativity Formula.
Secondly, it was Nikodem Poplawski, who came up with the time-change effect in black holes and white holes connected by Einstein-Rosen Bridges (worm holes)
Thirdly, it was those cosmology heroes that I grew up watching and obsessing over and giving my heart to, Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan, who gave me the first idea of learning about astronomy.
Fourth, my friends who have tried to help me with this project, especially Kyle Oelofse, who actually succeeded.
And finally, to my family who has been so supportive of me working on this project. I couldn't have done it if they hadn't given me the encouragement to write down my ideas, and when I'm done, share them with the world.
Now that I'm done thanking everyone in my life, let's get down to some serious business.
Well actually, it's not so serious.
I'm deciding to make this a not-so-filled with babbling sentences about astrophysics and such down, because I figure, it's only the second post. I should save the juicy stuff for later, right?
So I've decided I'm going to make a mini-FAQ about my theory.... Not answering every question, but just a few to get the basic idea.
So, what happens if you reach the speed of light, but you don't go faster or slower than it?
---Well, then time would stop relative to the matter. To the matter, everything would stop moving.
Okay. So what if you slow down after going faster than the speed of light, and begin going slower than it?
---Than whatever time era you've come into through the white hole or worm hole, you're going to become invisible in, and if you're in the middle of outer space, it might be kind of hard to tell which it is...
But when you get closer to the speed of light, you gain more mass, correct?
---Well, I know this is referring to the Special Relativity formula, and no offense to Einstein, but I am beginning to question whether this formula was created to show that you can't go faster than the speed of light, or if you actually, physically can't.
Has anyone ever tried going to the speed of light?
---To be honest, I'm not sure, but what I do know, is that once you get near the speed of light, everything else slows down. You could come back to Earth, and you could have aged 20 years (how ever long you were moving for in real-time), while your spouse or friends have only aged 1.
Unfortunately, that's all for today. I'm lacking a bit in motivation tonight, as I just came back from a date and I'm pretty tired. I'll be more productive with this information tomorrow.
Instead of blabbering on and on about physics and math today, I'd like to say who and what were my inspirations behind this project.
The project's first inspiration was my dearest friend and the world's best teacher, Mr. Levesque, who had first got my mind simmering with ideas by showing us the Special Relativity Formula.
Secondly, it was Nikodem Poplawski, who came up with the time-change effect in black holes and white holes connected by Einstein-Rosen Bridges (worm holes)
Thirdly, it was those cosmology heroes that I grew up watching and obsessing over and giving my heart to, Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan, who gave me the first idea of learning about astronomy.
Fourth, my friends who have tried to help me with this project, especially Kyle Oelofse, who actually succeeded.
And finally, to my family who has been so supportive of me working on this project. I couldn't have done it if they hadn't given me the encouragement to write down my ideas, and when I'm done, share them with the world.
Now that I'm done thanking everyone in my life, let's get down to some serious business.
Well actually, it's not so serious.
I'm deciding to make this a not-so-filled with babbling sentences about astrophysics and such down, because I figure, it's only the second post. I should save the juicy stuff for later, right?
So I've decided I'm going to make a mini-FAQ about my theory.... Not answering every question, but just a few to get the basic idea.
So, what happens if you reach the speed of light, but you don't go faster or slower than it?
---Well, then time would stop relative to the matter. To the matter, everything would stop moving.
Okay. So what if you slow down after going faster than the speed of light, and begin going slower than it?
---Than whatever time era you've come into through the white hole or worm hole, you're going to become invisible in, and if you're in the middle of outer space, it might be kind of hard to tell which it is...
But when you get closer to the speed of light, you gain more mass, correct?
---Well, I know this is referring to the Special Relativity formula, and no offense to Einstein, but I am beginning to question whether this formula was created to show that you can't go faster than the speed of light, or if you actually, physically can't.
Has anyone ever tried going to the speed of light?
---To be honest, I'm not sure, but what I do know, is that once you get near the speed of light, everything else slows down. You could come back to Earth, and you could have aged 20 years (how ever long you were moving for in real-time), while your spouse or friends have only aged 1.
Unfortunately, that's all for today. I'm lacking a bit in motivation tonight, as I just came back from a date and I'm pretty tired. I'll be more productive with this information tomorrow.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The Modern Time Machine.. What it is, and Why I came up with this Project
Today, also known as Bastille Day, I am currently writing this blog (and eating croissantes with nutella) to log my newest journey through the field of astrophysics as a high school student.
Since the summer of 2007, I've been struck by wonder and awe at how much we can learn from physics, and how we can use it to our advantage. The astronomy, well, that's the part that makes it absolutely outstanding and so challenging to grasp in our tiny little brains.
The physics behind how the universe works exactly is always being debated with an extensive amount of theories and evidence surrounding each. The Big Bang Theory may in fact be a wonderfully thought-out and supported theory (and the most amazing and hilarious show I've ever seen!!) , but I do know a few things about physics, and I find that there are much more interesting theories out there than an infinitely dense particle exploding to create everything as we know it.
M-Theory, otherwise known as String Theory, is having an unfortunate lack of evidence, whether it be just because it sounds insane, or the person who thought it up was insane???
Let me quote XKCD, a beloved web-comic:
One scientist is speaking to another, and says, "I just had an awesome idea. Suppose all matter and energy is made of tiny, vibrating strings?" The other responds, "Okay. What would that imply? " The first scientist answers, "I dunno."
Here is the link: http://xkcd.com/171/
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how the String Theory was born.
The sole purpose of this blog, besides making fun of M-Theory and talking about general astrophysics, is that I've decided to make a commitment to trying to find evidence for my hypothesis:
That matter which has the potential energy to move faster than the speed of light can move, or be used as a portal to move (in the case of space-time continnua, a.k.a. black holes) to make time move backwards relative to itself.
This hypothesis is based off of the work of Nikodem Poplawski, who is testing a model of the universe moving forward in time out of a black hole, and an alternate universe like ours moving backwards in time through a white hole (the opposite effect of a black hole).
It is also based on the fact that I have been plugging numbers into Einstein's special relativity formula, and have come to the conclusion that to move faster than the speed of light (330,000kps^2), instead of the mass gained after movement being the square root of a positive number, it is the square root of the opposite of a number, also known as a "Complex" or "Imaginary" number.
Now, when putting in the square root of the opposite of one, stated as (i), the answer comes out to be positive or negative .000000054^2, which may explain that nothing can move slower than the positive of this number, but I'm not entirely sure about the negative of this number.
Before I go on, I will explain more math and science tomorrow. For now, I'd like to state exactly why I named this blog "The Modern Time Machine".
This is a project I've been contemplating for a good three-four months, since I stepped into Mr. Levesque's Algebra II class on a March morning, eager to learn some math, and ended up learning some science, too. I was so excited when we learned this special relativity formula, especially since we don't do astrophysics or astronomy at my school. And suddenly, everything I had learned in the past few years clicked: The bowl of knowledge in my young, developing brain began churning and boiling with everything I had collected about astrophysics: every article, every word, on every page I had printed out from sciencedaily.com (the best science news resource on the net!)
And suddenly, a few days later, I was on a plane to Florida, and I began scribbling away with my calculator in hand, plugging in numbers and making hypotheses in my head, all mixing together to create one thing: the idea that something can go back in time. The idea that something, somewhere probably is. Something that's so hard to perceive, yet, I could find reason to believe it.
And finally, my mind flashes to Star Trek, when they go faster than the speed of light. Black holes, the speed of light, mass, density, gravity... Time. It all mixes together, making every segment of my brain leap with excitement.
And everything works together.
And instead of relaxing while in Florida with my family, I spend much of my time thinking about how I'm going to fit all of this information onto paper or something tangible. So I put all of my math work into a binder, and let things settle. I wrote down my hypotheses about three different times, making sure I have every little detail down the way I want it.
And while we're in Florida, we go to a place I've always dreamed of seeing: The Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral. And I took a picture of one of the signs that made me light up inside: The sign that says "Unlocking the Secrets of the Universe" and talks about how the Hubble Space Telescope works at unlocking the mysteries of the universe around us, and I'm just thinking to myself, I might of already have.
But the fact that it's named "The Modern Time Machine" leads to many questions, too. Have I thought of building a time machine? Yes, but that's not the main concept of the project. How is this modern related to other ideas of the universe? Well, it's modern because it's the most recent outlook about time and space that anyone can think of besides quantum mechanics (which could just happen to be completely made up if proven so) and string theory (which has no tangibility) and of course, the famous Big Bang Theory (you should watch the show on CBS, it's wonderful!)
And so, it shows us the journey of moving back through time, using space-time continua, which could very well be our modern time machines, as opposed to the old, man-made time machines of the old science fiction shows such as Star Trek.
Since the summer of 2007, I've been struck by wonder and awe at how much we can learn from physics, and how we can use it to our advantage. The astronomy, well, that's the part that makes it absolutely outstanding and so challenging to grasp in our tiny little brains.
The physics behind how the universe works exactly is always being debated with an extensive amount of theories and evidence surrounding each. The Big Bang Theory may in fact be a wonderfully thought-out and supported theory (and the most amazing and hilarious show I've ever seen!!) , but I do know a few things about physics, and I find that there are much more interesting theories out there than an infinitely dense particle exploding to create everything as we know it.
M-Theory, otherwise known as String Theory, is having an unfortunate lack of evidence, whether it be just because it sounds insane, or the person who thought it up was insane???
Let me quote XKCD, a beloved web-comic:
One scientist is speaking to another, and says, "I just had an awesome idea. Suppose all matter and energy is made of tiny, vibrating strings?" The other responds, "Okay. What would that imply? " The first scientist answers, "I dunno."
Here is the link: http://xkcd.com/171/
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how the String Theory was born.
The sole purpose of this blog, besides making fun of M-Theory and talking about general astrophysics, is that I've decided to make a commitment to trying to find evidence for my hypothesis:
That matter which has the potential energy to move faster than the speed of light can move, or be used as a portal to move (in the case of space-time continnua, a.k.a. black holes) to make time move backwards relative to itself.
This hypothesis is based off of the work of Nikodem Poplawski, who is testing a model of the universe moving forward in time out of a black hole, and an alternate universe like ours moving backwards in time through a white hole (the opposite effect of a black hole).
It is also based on the fact that I have been plugging numbers into Einstein's special relativity formula, and have come to the conclusion that to move faster than the speed of light (330,000kps^2), instead of the mass gained after movement being the square root of a positive number, it is the square root of the opposite of a number, also known as a "Complex" or "Imaginary" number.
Now, when putting in the square root of the opposite of one, stated as (i), the answer comes out to be positive or negative .000000054^2, which may explain that nothing can move slower than the positive of this number, but I'm not entirely sure about the negative of this number.
Before I go on, I will explain more math and science tomorrow. For now, I'd like to state exactly why I named this blog "The Modern Time Machine".
This is a project I've been contemplating for a good three-four months, since I stepped into Mr. Levesque's Algebra II class on a March morning, eager to learn some math, and ended up learning some science, too. I was so excited when we learned this special relativity formula, especially since we don't do astrophysics or astronomy at my school. And suddenly, everything I had learned in the past few years clicked: The bowl of knowledge in my young, developing brain began churning and boiling with everything I had collected about astrophysics: every article, every word, on every page I had printed out from sciencedaily.com (the best science news resource on the net!)
And suddenly, a few days later, I was on a plane to Florida, and I began scribbling away with my calculator in hand, plugging in numbers and making hypotheses in my head, all mixing together to create one thing: the idea that something can go back in time. The idea that something, somewhere probably is. Something that's so hard to perceive, yet, I could find reason to believe it.
And finally, my mind flashes to Star Trek, when they go faster than the speed of light. Black holes, the speed of light, mass, density, gravity... Time. It all mixes together, making every segment of my brain leap with excitement.
And everything works together.
And instead of relaxing while in Florida with my family, I spend much of my time thinking about how I'm going to fit all of this information onto paper or something tangible. So I put all of my math work into a binder, and let things settle. I wrote down my hypotheses about three different times, making sure I have every little detail down the way I want it.
And while we're in Florida, we go to a place I've always dreamed of seeing: The Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral. And I took a picture of one of the signs that made me light up inside: The sign that says "Unlocking the Secrets of the Universe" and talks about how the Hubble Space Telescope works at unlocking the mysteries of the universe around us, and I'm just thinking to myself, I might of already have.
But the fact that it's named "The Modern Time Machine" leads to many questions, too. Have I thought of building a time machine? Yes, but that's not the main concept of the project. How is this modern related to other ideas of the universe? Well, it's modern because it's the most recent outlook about time and space that anyone can think of besides quantum mechanics (which could just happen to be completely made up if proven so) and string theory (which has no tangibility) and of course, the famous Big Bang Theory (you should watch the show on CBS, it's wonderful!)
And so, it shows us the journey of moving back through time, using space-time continua, which could very well be our modern time machines, as opposed to the old, man-made time machines of the old science fiction shows such as Star Trek.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)