If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   What if...what if the universe had no beginning...and no end...we'd be, like, in this perpetual Pink Floyd album...whoa   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 31
    More: Weird, universe, gravity, particle astrophysics, GRBs, Journal of Cosmology, space-time, Particle Physics, gravitational fields  
•       •       •

1915 clicks; posted to Geek » on 11 Dec 2013 at 10:00 AM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



31 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-11 08:33:22 AM
Yeah, but what was there before that? And what's on the other side?
 
2013-12-11 08:49:53 AM
Rainbow gravity sounds like a fabulous theory.
 
2013-12-11 10:11:56 AM
All that you touch 
All that you see 
All that you taste 
All you feel. 
All that you love 
All that you hate 
All you distrust 
All you save. 
All that you give 
All that you deal 
All that you buy, 
beg, borrow or steal. 
All you create 
All you destroy 
All that you do 
All that you say. 
All that you eat 
And everyone you meet 
All that you slight 
And everyone you fight. 
All that is now 
All that is gone 
All that's to come 
and everything under the sun is in tune 
but the sun is eclipsed by the moon.
 
2013-12-11 10:16:12 AM
Rainbow gravity? Pynchon was even more ahead of his time than I'd thought.
 
2013-12-11 10:19:00 AM

haemaker: All that you touch 
All that you see 
All that you taste 
All you feel. 
All that you love 
All that you hate 
All you distrust 
All you save. 
All that you give 
All that you deal 
All that you buy, 
beg, borrow or steal. 
All you create 
All you destroy 
All that you do 
All that you say. 
All that you eat 
And everyone you meet 
All that you slight 
And everyone you fight. 
All that is now 
All that is gone 
All that's to come 
and everything under the sun is in tune 
but the sun is eclipsed by the moon.


I love that song
 
2013-12-11 10:28:27 AM
The DM Minions made the article, btw.
 
2013-12-11 10:29:58 AM
A couple months ago, I posted an idea that gravity is actually just refraction. I came to this realization while trying to understand gravity wave detection. Another farker pointed out that refractive gravity theories don't pan out because scalars, tensors, and other things. This sounds to me like a refractive theory of gravity.
 
2013-12-11 10:59:38 AM
Before Reading the Article:  "Rainbow Gravity"?  Sounds like something a random idiot on the Internet made up.

After Reading the Article:  Oh, something actually proposed 10 years ago to deal with the differences between general relativity and quantum mechanics, but might still not be 100% correct due to relative locality.

/ The universe is amazing and confusing.
 
2013-12-11 11:04:28 AM

sxacho: A couple months ago, I posted an idea that gravity is actually just refraction. I came to this realization while trying to understand gravity wave detection. Another farker pointed out that refractive gravity theories don't pan out because scalars, tensors, and other things. This sounds to me like a refractive theory of gravity.


The article says it's not widely accepted, but some physicists decided to look at what would happen if it was assumed to be "correct."
 
2013-12-11 11:05:16 AM
I could almost see this, as long as we restricted our frame of reference to points within the universe. As one were to approach the beginning or end of the universe, with matter and energy so concentrated into one specific spot, something akin to relativistic time dilation could very well become significant. An observer might asymptotically approach the Big Crunch (or Big Bang, if we ever get the hang of moving backward in time), but never actually reach it, and so it would indeed seem like time was infinite.

An observer outside the system wouldn't experience this phenomenon, much like you yourself don't experience time dilation if you aren't traveling at speeds close to c. Thus, such an observer would still see a definite beginning and end. This "outside" perspective wouldn't have much meaning to someone "inside," but it could exist.

Now, does all this mean I agree with the the hypothesis? No. I've no idea how you could even test it. But it does seem at least plausible.
 
2013-12-11 11:45:21 AM

47 is the new 42: Before Reading the Article:  "Rainbow Gravity"?  Sounds like something a random idiot on the Internet made up.

After Reading the Article:  Oh, something actually proposed 10 years ago to deal with the differences between general relativity and quantum mechanics, but might still not be 100% correct due to relative locality.

/ The universe is amazing and confusing.


And big.  REALLY big.
 
2013-12-11 11:55:01 AM

haemaker: All that you touch 
All that you see 
All that you taste 
All you feel. 
All that you love 
All that you hate 
All you distrust 
All you save. 
All that you give 
All that you deal 
All that you buy, 
beg, borrow or steal. 
All you create 
All you destroy 
All that you do 
All that you say. 
All that you eat 
And everyone you meet 
All that you slight 
And everyone you fight. 
All that is now 
All that is gone 
All that's to come 
and everything under the sun is in tune 
but the sun is eclipsed by the moon.


It's much less profound when it's all typed out like that.
 
2013-12-11 11:59:37 AM
So, how is this different to the various cyclical theories of the universe? Big crunch...big expansion...the whell goes round and round.

*hoists beer*
 
2013-12-11 12:00:24 PM
Is subby referring to The Wall, where at the very end of the album the last thing you hear is "So this is where..." and at the very beginning of the album says, "We came in." ?

cassette tape is the best medium in which to listen for that
 
2013-12-11 12:01:00 PM

Stone Meadow: whell = wheel


FTFM
 
2013-12-11 12:01:16 PM

xanadian: 47 is the new 42: Before Reading the Article:  "Rainbow Gravity"?  Sounds like something a random idiot on the Internet made up.

After Reading the Article:  Oh, something actually proposed 10 years ago to deal with the differences between general relativity and quantum mechanics, but might still not be 100% correct due to relative locality.

/ The universe is amazing and confusing.

And big.  REALLY big.


I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to the universe.
 
2013-12-11 12:04:09 PM

Millennium: I could almost see this, as long as we restricted our frame of reference to points within the universe. As one were to approach the beginning or end of the universe, with matter and energy so concentrated into one specific spot, something akin to relativistic time dilation could very well become significant. An observer might asymptotically approach the Big Crunch (or Big Bang, if we ever get the hang of moving backward in time), but never actually reach it, and so it would indeed seem like time was infinite.

An observer outside the system wouldn't experience this phenomenon, much like you yourself don't experience time dilation if you aren't traveling at speeds close to c. Thus, such an observer would still see a definite beginning and end. This "outside" perspective wouldn't have much meaning to someone "inside," but it could exist.

Now, does all this mean I agree with the the hypothesis? No. I've no idea how you could even test it. But it does seem at least plausible.


You're mixing the perspectives up. If I, for instance, watch someone fall towards a black hole, I will see his time increasingly dilated until he effectively stops over the event horizon (and stops reflecting pretty much any light so I can't see him anymore).

From his perspective, there is no time dilation and he continues hurtling toward the singularity at ever increasing speed.

From inside a time dilated frame, there is no time dilation. It is only observable from the outside.
 
2013-12-11 12:05:16 PM
haemaker:
and everything under the sun is in tune 
but the sun is eclipsed by the moon.


I always heard those lyrics as:

and everything under the sun isn't true
when the sun is eclipsed by the moon.


/csb
 
2013-12-11 12:44:12 PM

xanadian: 47 is the new 42: Before Reading the Article:  "Rainbow Gravity"?  Sounds like something a random idiot on the Internet made up.

After Reading the Article:  Oh, something actually proposed 10 years ago to deal with the differences between general relativity and quantum mechanics, but might still not be 100% correct due to relative locality.

/ The universe is amazing and confusing.

And big.  REALLY big.


[crowd shouts] How big is it?
 
2013-12-11 01:35:25 PM
There's no beginning, there'll be no end...

3.bp.blogspot.com

'cause on Christmas you can depend.
 
2013-12-11 03:36:23 PM
What does Thomas Pynchon have to say about this?
 
2013-12-11 03:53:39 PM

haemaker: All that you touch 
All that you see 
All that you taste 
All you feel. 
All that you love 
All that you hate 
All you distrust 
All you save. 
All that you give 
All that you deal 
All that you buy, 
beg, borrow or steal. 
All you create 
All you destroy 
All that you do 
All that you say. 
All that you eat 
And everyone you meet 
All that you slight 
And everyone you fight. 
All that is now 
All that is gone 
All that's to come 
and everything under the sun is in tune 
but the sun is eclipsed by the moon.


There is no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact it's all dark.
 
2013-12-11 03:59:58 PM
I predict Relativity will be proven to be wrong soon
 
2013-12-11 04:22:09 PM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: I predict Relativity will be proven to be wrong soon


Actually, in the past few years, it has been proven over 10,000 times more accurately than ever before.
I believe with a clock that was only +/- a second off over 3.5 Billion years.

It's not that General Relativity is wrong,
it is that we may not be interpreting what we are observing correctly.

More likely, time as we know it, came into existence as the universe did.
 
2013-12-11 04:43:34 PM
Neither the beginning nor the end, or lacks thereof, of the universe has any impact on my short existence, so "What if...?" questions are purely philosophical.
 
2013-12-11 04:46:32 PM

ArcadianRefugee: Neither the beginning nor the end, or lacks thereof, of the universe has any impact on my short existence, so "What if...?" questions are purely philosophical.


Experimental physics is philosophy?
 
2013-12-11 07:15:40 PM
That's what I've always believed (no beginning, no end) We humans are so here today, gone tomorrow 'time' conscious, we cannot grasp the concept of such an idea.
 
2013-12-11 07:44:07 PM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: I predict Relativity will be proven to be wrong soon


Maybe I am biting on a cute succinct troll, but....

We know it is incomplete, as is the standard model, and all quantum theories.  That is a certainty.  To say it could be "wrong" though is a little confusing since it has been confirmed over and over and over using extremely sensitive and widely varying tests.  If by "wrong" you mean just flat out none of it is right, then how has it been supremely successful at describing and predicting everything we observe about the larger than quanta universe around us?
 
2013-12-11 10:20:56 PM
I've always believed in a cyclical universe, a Big Bang, and then, a Big Crunch, and then, a Big Bang....ad infinitum,  no muss, no fuss, no beginning, no end, so simple, so elegant.  Of course, that means that I've typed this, innumerable times before, and will type it innumerable times in the future.  Talk about being in a rut.  Dammit, maybe this is Hell.
 
2013-12-12 01:26:26 AM

zimbomba63: I've always believed in a cyclical universe, a Big Bang, and then, a Big Crunch, and then, a Big Bang....ad infinitum,  no muss, no fuss, no beginning, no end, so simple, so elegant.  Of course, that means that I've typed this, innumerable times before, and will type it innumerable times in the future.  Talk about being in a rut.  Dammit, maybe this is Hell.


Hmmmm ... Nietzsche or Sartre?  Nietzsche or Sartre?
 
2013-12-12 06:44:15 PM

Brokenseas: zimbomba63: I've always believed in a cyclical universe, a Big Bang, and then, a Big Crunch, and then, a Big Bang....ad infinitum,  no muss, no fuss, no beginning, no end, so simple, so elegant.  Of course, that means that I've typed this, innumerable times before, and will type it innumerable times in the future.  Talk about being in a rut.  Dammit, maybe this is Hell.

Hmmmm ... Nietzsche or Sartre?  Nietzsche or Sartre?


Camus can do, but Sartre is smartre.
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report