It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
We were taught that you never get something for nothing. But now, after a life time of work, I think that in fact you can get a whole Universe for free. ~ Stephen Hawking
Quantum foam (also referred to as spacetime foam), is a concept in quantum mechanics devised by John Wheeler in 1955. The foam is supposed to be conceptualized as the foundation of the fabric of the universe.
Additionally, quantum foam can be used as a qualitative description of subatomic spacetime turbulence at extremely small distances (on the order of the Planck length). At such small scales of time and space, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows energy to briefly decay into particles and antiparticles and then annihilate without violating physical conservation laws.
At the end of your second post, you talk of implosion, and I had this idea; we are in an explosive universe, mainly, with touches of implosions. What if the other side of the Big Bang was an implosion, spiked with touches of explosions?
What if the equation was, instead, something + nothing = thing.
It would respect the example of the pile of dirt versus the hole it left. But instead of having nothing, we still have something at the basis. Because if you put back the pile of dirt in the hole, you are not left with nothing, nor something, but a thing.
The only issue with that is, the Big Bang wasn't really an explosion. The "birth" of the universe was (theoretically, at least) a period of extreme expansion in the first fraction of a second.
The US space agency said Wednesday it is preparing to launch next month a sophisticated orbiting telescope that will use high energy X-ray vision to hunt for black holes in the universe.
The project aims to study the "hottest, densest and most energetic phenomena in the universe, like for example black holes and the explosions of massive stars," said Fiona Harrison, principal investigator for the Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR).
I saw the title thread and thought I'd add that Hawking said time ends in black holes and if we can figure out how that happens then we might learn how time begins in a big bang.
Hawking is part brain child of black holes. I really need to learn more about this. My knowledge is limited to a few things I've seen on TV and some references in books. Pathetic and not good enough.
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
I was expecting you to pop into this thread, but you certainly didn't waste any time!
... (you may have noticed a moderate portion of the info in this thread was actually taught to me by you).
ok I read your comment a few more times and I understand what you are saying. But what would cause the negative side to act on space-time in such a way in the first place? What would produce such "effects of the negative energy side"... in other words, why would it be important to look at the effects of the negative side when anything causing such an effect should be acting on both sides anyway.
Positive energy/mass has positive gravity, "pulling" space in. Negative energy/mass has what we could call negative gravity, "pushing" space out (expansion). On one side, you would have negative gravity promoting expansion. On the other, you have regular gravity, counteracting it. The thing is, the negative particles won't align with the positive particles on the other side. While the positive particles will be locally exerting an inward gravitational pull, there are likely to be negative particles on the other side of space-time at location corresponding to regions between the positive particles. Since the negative particles on the negative side are causing the space-time "fabric" to expand, that means the space between the positive particles on the positive side will also expand. The only areas this won't happen is where no negative particles exist on the other side or where there are positive particles to counteract the expansion (the same is true today,even...regions of mass, such as galaxies, locally counteract the expansion of the universe, so that space doesn't expand inside them).
Of course, the devil's in the details. Strictly speaking, negative energy alone won't cause continuous expansion. That requires negative pressure. But it's no huge stretch to image that negative energy could also exert negative pressure.
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
man thinks he understands the universe