Notices
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: The age of the Universe versus The age of its components

  1. #1 The age of the Universe versus The age of its components 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    112
    Hi
    considering that time slows down for a body approaching the speed of light;

    Do sub-atomic particles, dispute the age (13.8billion years) of the universe.

    That is, if i could ask a particle -from the background microwave radiation originating from the big bang- it's age.
    would it answer a couple of seconds, or better still, no time at all
    does it perceive the big bang to have happened this instant.

    Thanks,


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: The age of the Universe versus The age of its components 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by pedronaut
    Hi
    considering that time slows down for a body approaching the speed of light;

    Do sub-atomic particles, dispute the age (13.8billion years) of the universe.

    That is, if i could ask a particle -from the background microwave radiation originating from the big bang- it's age.
    would it answer a couple of seconds, or better still, no time at all
    does it perceive the big bang to have happened this instant.

    Thanks,
    Cosmological time is a subtle thing. You might look at this thread to understand some of the basics. http://www.thescienceforum.com/The-b...ogy-28430t.php

    The frame of a photon is not really an allowable reference frame in special relativity, but in general relativity the world line of a photon is a null geodesic and hence the proper time associated with it is zero.

    The 13.8 billion year age of the universe is associated with a homogeneous and isotropic idealized model, most closely approximated by a frame in which the CMB is isotropic (so moving slowly with respect to most common reference frames) in deep space far away from any massive bodies.

    BTW, this is a legitimate question with a legitimate answer. It is not pseudoscience.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    112
    Thanks Doc,
    I should have accessed this forum years ago when reading the elagent galaxy, or michio kaku, your like make it a great resource for idiots such as i.

    It is very interesting that the proper time associated with a photon is zero,
    as i assume photons to be the building blocks of everything.
    and if they have no time then time is a manifestation of congealed photons.
    Similarly gravity only becomes apparent when enough mass congeals/collects together.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by pedronaut
    Thanks Doc,
    I should have accessed this forum years ago when reading the elagent galaxy, or michio kaku, your like make it a great resource for idiots such as i.

    It is very interesting that the proper time associated with a photon is zero,
    as i assume photons to be the building blocks of everything.
    and if they have no time then time is a manifestation of congealed photons.
    Similarly gravity only becomes apparent when enough mass congeals/collects together.
    Ignore Kaku. He makes flamboyant, unsupported statements just to promote himself and his books.

    This thread discusses some good popularizations.

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/What-...ead-27426t.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Yeah, Kaku has become a koo koo

    He peddles so much pseudoscience on TV it's sickening
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Moving this thread to physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by pedronaut
    It is very interesting that the proper time associated with a photon is zero,
    as i assume photons to be the building blocks of everything.
    and if they have no time then time is a manifestation of congealed photons.
    .
    No

    Photons are not by any means the "building blocks" of everything in any meaningful sense. However, the important implication of is the equivalence of mass and energy, so you might consider energy to be the fundamental building block. But there are quantum numbers that are conserved so, it is a bit more complicated than that.

    You might want to read In Search of the Ultimate Building Blocks by Gerard 'tHooft. 'tHooft is one of the greatest living theoretical physicists who received a Nobel Prize (along with his advisor) for the work in particle physics that was the subject of his PhD dissertation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    But there are quantum numbers that are conserved .
    I have no idea what that means or refers to.


    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    However, the important implication of is the equivalence of mass and energy, so you might consider energy to be the fundamental building block.
    sure. obviously the substance/building block of the Universe is energy, whaterever about the laws/information(software of this matrix).
    I was out sick the day we did particle physics! but i always thought photons to be the smallest particle.
    My gut instinct has always been that there is one fundamental particle, which builds all others.

    I think one fundamental particle, that has just two states, on/off , expanding/contracting etc. would be enough to draw the Universe.
    Obviously, positivistically, my theory is influenced by the proven sucess of the binary system in computing.

    Furthermore, this fundamental expanding or contracting particle is actually our Universe life-cycling in and out through every permutation/parallel Universe.

    now you see why i started this in pseudoscience!


    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket

    You might want to read In Search of the Ultimate Building Blocks by Gerard 'tHooft.
    Thanks for that, only 208 pages, i may just be capable of finishing it. I've added it to my 'to get' list, after the complete works of Spinoza.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by pedronaut
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    But there are quantum numbers that are conserved .
    I have no idea what that means or refers to.


    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    However, the important implication of is the equivalence of mass and energy, so you might consider energy to be the fundamental building block.
    sure. obviously the substance/building block of the Universe is energy, whaterever about the laws/information(software of this matrix).
    I was out sick the day we did particle physics! but i always thought photons to be the smallest particle.
    My gut instinct has always been that there is one fundamental particle, which builds all others.

    I think one fundamental particle, that has just two states, on/off , expanding/contracting etc. would be enough to draw the Universe.
    Obviously, positivistically, my theory is influenced by the proven sucess of the binary system in computing.

    Furthermore, this fundamental expanding or contracting particle is actually our Universe life-cycling in and out through every permutation/parallel Universe.

    now you see why i started this in pseudoscience!


    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket

    You might want to read In Search of the Ultimate Building Blocks by Gerard 'tHooft.
    Thanks for that, only 208 pages, i may just be capable of finishing it. I've added it to my 'to get' list, after the complete works of Spinoza.
    To understand the first sentence you need to learn the rudiments of quantum theory. 'tHooft's boook would be a good place to start.

    There are some VERY speculative notions of basing the fundamentals of physics on information, but they are rather nebulous at the moment and may never go anywhere. Before you chase stuff like that you need to understand the basic ideas of particle physics and the "Standard Model". 'tHooft's book is again a good place to start.

    Skip Spinoza, Buy 'tHooft. It is lot's cheaper, and infinitely higher in value.

    "My son is taking a course in philosophy, and last night we were looking at something by Spinoza and there was the most childish reasoning! There were all these attributes, and Substances, and all this meaningless chewing around, and we started to laugh. Now how could we do that? Here's this great Dutch philosopher, and we're laughing at him. It's because there's no excuse for it! In the same period there was Newton, there was Harvey studying the circulation of the blood, there were people with methods of analysis by which progress was being made! You can take every one of Spinoza's propositions, and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world and you can't tell which is right."
    Richard P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out

    Before you spend money on Spinoza buy The Feynman Lectures on Physics. --- about the same price, but it actually has content.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    ...Photons are not by any means the "building blocks" of everything in any meaningful sense. However, the important implication of is the equivalence of mass and energy, so you might consider energy to be the fundamental building block. But there are quantum numbers that are conserved so, it is a bit more complicated than that....
    One thing that has always puzzled me about "quantum numbers that are conserved..." is the notion that when a particle (of whatever kind) meets its anti-particle the result is a flash of gamma ray photons as far as I know.

    Are there things other than gamma ray photons that are produced by this mutual annihilation? Is the time-reverse of this process the creation of a massive particle with all its attendent quantum number attributes from just highly energetic photons?

    I guess my question comes down to this: Is there stuff in the universe that just can't be created by crashing highly energetic photons together?

    Chris
    It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow.
    Robert H. Goddard - 1904
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •