stupid physics questions

[Tanatoes]

Here's my take on the question of why the physical constants in our universe are so well suited to our particular form of life: I believe that our very existence and ability to ask the question is proof of an infinite number of other universes with different constants. It's like saying "Wow, it sure is a strange coincidence that the Earth is so well suited to our biological needs." The fact of the matter is that we evolved on Earth with this particular set of circumstances already in place (a high concentration of water - just the right amount of energy from the sun that most of that water is liquid most of the time, the right amounts of oxygen, nitrogen and carbon around for plants and algae to form this particular atmosphere, which produced a niche for life forms that process oxygen and consume plants to replicate themselves.) There could well be methane-based self-replicating chemical reactions in the depths of Jupiter that are wondering "Why is it that Jupiter is so perfectly suited to our existence?"

So, yes, things like C and the gravitational constant and such happen to work out to allow physics and chemistry that are compatible with our physiology because we came into existence in this universe. There is nothing special about this universe just as there is nothing special about Earth. We are surrounded by an infinite number of other universes with other rules, just as we are surrounded by an infinite number of universes where the constants are the same as in our universe, but the outcomes are different.

As to finding a way to unify Quantum Physics and Einstein, well I'm still working on that. My current theory is that all phenomena in the universe we believe we inhabit are the result of interactions with adjoining universes. That is to say, our universe is in constant contact with, and is constantly being influenced by, other universes - most of which are virtually the same as ours. One question asked often about photons is "if they behave like waves sometimes, what are they waves IN?" There's no aether that they flow through (because there is nothing that alters the speed of light relative to the direction of motion of the viewer.) In my mind I'm toying with a sort of "universal cross-universe barrier" - a sort of surface where universes intersect and interact. Only it's not a plane - it's a multi-dimensional omni-present surface.

My theory goes like this: There are an infinite number of simultaneous universes all around us. But relative to us some are more plausible than others (share constants and original configurations.) Probability and predictability in our universe is the result of "universe density." Although there are an infinite number of universes where a blue police box are about to appear behind you there are far fewer of those than universes where it does not. (As there are fewer whole numbers than irrational numbers - even though there are an infinite number of both.) Where there are high densities of universes with similar outcomes (such as TARDIS stubbornly NOT appearing) they create a sort of "inertia of probability" within each-other.

I'll admit I have a lot of work to do on my theory... but I'm a busy guy. It sort of percolates in the back of my mind, and I'm confident that at some point, with the right inputs, it will coalesce and everything will make perfect sense. Then I'll build a TARDIS of my own and start exploring.

[Darkflame]

My current theory is that all phenomena in the universe we believe we inhabit are the result of interactions with adjoining universes. That is to say, our universe is in constant contact with, and is constantly being influenced by, other universes

Influence implies a force transmitted in some way from one to another.
I believe there is tests somewhere to see this effect with gravity, only they were looking for the effects of higher dimensions and not other universe's.
(although, really, from what you describe it seems almost the same thing, if we assume these universe's are touching ours ver a " multi-dimensional omni-present surface.", which would be much like two adjacent 4D slices of a 5D object. They are in contact with all 4D's of any one slice, and are merely displaced from eachother ver the 5th dimensional axis).
As gravity works uniformly in all dimensions...as far as we know...it should be a method to see influence beyond the spacetime we know for sure.

My theory goes like this: There are an infinite number of simultaneous universes all around us. But relative to us some are more plausible than others (share constants and original configurations.) Probability and predictability in our universe is the result of "universe density." Although there are an infinite number of universes where a blue police box are about to appear behind you there are far fewer of those than universes where it does not. (As there are fewer whole numbers than irrational numbers - even though there are an infinite number of both.) Where there are high densities of universes with similar outcomes (such as TARDIS stubbornly NOT appearing) they create a sort of "inertia of probability" within each-other.

I had a similar theory, but not nearly so well worked out.
I just pictured the universe as a infinite array of every possibility, and we experience a path though it according to what is most probable at any one time. Kinda "path of least resistance".

[Stuart B]

Here's something that's been bugging me on and off for the past few months:

Theoretically, if the Earth were to stop rotating, would everything suddenly feel heavier due to there being no centrifugal force from the spin of the planet?

[Dio]

Obviously yes, but if you work it out, not by much. It was a problem-solving problem I did at A-level or first year degree level - IIRC we had to work out an estimate for how much the long jump world record would increase by if the Earth stopped rotating. Can't remember the exact answer. Would only take a few minutes to work out if you looked up the appropriate equations mind.

[disciple]

[disciple]

Spoiler: show

Hmm they all move at the same time?

[pogo]

I don't think you'd have to wait for the rope to be pulled. I think it will move without it if there's little or no friction. When stationary the tension in each of the ropes supporting the left weight should be 10. Those in the ropes supporting the right weight 30. I.e. the right weight is pulling harder on the rope which loops between them, so the rope will be pulled through the middle weight, the right weight will go down, the left one up. Once it can go up no further the middle one will be pulled up the same way until it can go no further too, and they all will stop. Pulling on the rope will I think speed this up a little – with less rope they will get to the final position quicker – but not by much as gravity will act on them very quickly.

[toxibunny]

C moves first. plus, the fact that information has a top speed means that we live in a simulation. you mark my words...

[toxibunny]

plus, dangling nobs.

[F-ZeroOne]

Is it true that natural philosophy has now advanced to the point where a chap can actually challenge Sir Issac Newtons assertion that the Universe was created by God?

(Sorry... something about the way the press reported on Professor Hawkings recent comments this week has somewhat wound me up, and this seemed a suitable thread to release some of the tension from the spring... )

[pogo]

(Back after another YY owtage) Another thought on how to explain the three weights on a string. Imagine that instead of being held by an upright ape the other end of the string were tied to the top bar in place of the rightmost pulley. As far as the 'C' weight is concerned it is the same: it's supported by two ropes going up. And the right end of the system is heavier than the left end. What's more the system can lose energy if the A weight goes up and the C weight goes down, so it will: it will lose gravitational (potential) energy, which will become kinetic energy, so the weights will speed up until they hit something. And this will happen so quickly that whatever the ape does will make no difference: the rope might as well be tied up.

[gilesgoat]

Obiviously in a black hole the mass is HUGE but NOT infinite.

If it would be infinite would it so the event horizon radius ? ( i.e. the black hole would expand as the whole universe ? ).

.. erm .. seems I already found the answer by myself .. R = 2MG/C^2 so if M is infinite then R is infinite too.

Incredible a black hole with the mass of Earth would have an event horizon 9mm in radius .. still .. a 'dot' of 9mm with the gravitational field of earth ..

[Darkflame]

C moves first. plus, the fact that information has a top speed means that we live in a simulation. you mark my words...

But if, outside the simulation, they have no such limit, why would they need to have a limit inside? Surely instant computation would be possible?

[pogo]

Obiviously in a black hole the mass is HUGE but NOT infinite.

If it would be infinite would it so the event horizon radius ? ( i.e. the black hole would expand as the whole universe ? ).

.. erm .. seems I already found the answer by myself .. R = 2MG/C^2 so if M is infinite then R is infinite too.

Incredible a black hole with the mass of Earth would have an event horizon 9mm in radius .. still .. a 'dot' of 9mm with the gravitational field of earth ..

Difficult to form though: it won't form through gravitational collapse on it's own, so to make a black hole with the mass of the earth you would need to force together enough mass in one spot to make it stick together of it's own accord. Sort of how a fusion bomb works, except on a wholly unimaginable scale. You could try and make a smaller one and have it hoover up the Earth, like the Red Matter in the last Star Trek film, except a black hole with much less mass than the moon will evaporate (thankfully, otherwise black holes formed in accelerators would consume us), so you'd still need something implausibly big and massive as raw material - the moon for example.

[gilesgoat]

Yeah I tought so I mean "if there's not enough gravitational force to begin with what would make it collapse ?".

Get the Earth well, it has obiviously not the force to crash itself to bits, a big exploding star is needed to begin with.

Yet about that famous/infarmous Hawking Radiation I really would like once to someway find an explanation that I can
understand that would satisfy me enough to think "ok, I can see now WHY they thing this is SUPPOSED to happen".

It's still a THEORY NOT PROVEN by any experiment/measurement so far, so as far as I know "We do not know", it could
well be that micro black holes would not evaporate at all .. and that would be "fun" then .. if they ever will manage to make one ..

Stephen Hawking could be wrong and this theory turn out maybe to be NOT EXACTLY as he tought it should be.

And that would be fun again.