It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is the wavelength of... the universe?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 

You don't get resonance in an open system. If the Universe is infinite there is no resonance.

If it isn't the only way to determine its resonant frequency (frequencies, with harmonic effects) is by knowing its limits and if there are reflection of signals from those limits. Good luck with that.

edit on 9/4/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


You are right. There would be no resonance without an 'outside force.' But the universe is not infinite. If it were then so would be the speed of light. The same 'outside force' which acts upon the speed of light also determines the resonance to which the universe may be imposed.




posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:35 AM
link   
lol what if the nothingness reacts with frequency by expanding it's frequency faster like a amplifier as it pushes into the nothingness faster and faster? like fuel for fire. while space has no attenuation " doesn't slow vibrations down" maybe nothingness has positive attenuation "speeds them up" expanding the universe so far and wide it collapses on its self " singularity"

lol im a moron but at lest I blow my own mind



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by digital01anarchy
yes I do! in simple terms [..] Now when you see frequency on a monitor its represented by an up down motion each one up and down motion together would be one ripple from the center the next up down motion would be the next ripple [...] the bigger the rock the bigger the ripple would equal a larger wavelength that lasts longer a smaller rock makes smaller waves shorter wavelengths and frequency would be how many and how fast the ripples come from the center.

The frequency of the universe will change due to attenuation normally space has no attenuation but at the outer shell of the whole universe frequency is still expanding the universe hence there is no way to see when the signal ends until the universe stops expanding


So, in other words, no, you don't.


Originally posted by Dynamike
But the ideas that have been playing through my head all day has a lot to do with space being curved. And I realized that both space and time are curved. They are curved around the speed of light. How do I know this? Because the closer an object gets to the speed of light, the faster it moves through time as well.

For instance, lets just say that all of the planets (and I will be using Pluto even though it is no longer a planet) move at the same speed. In reality they dont move at the same speed so this is the only thing I will change, their distance from the sun will remain the same for this example: Think of how long Pluto would take to revolve around the sun in a semicircle. And then think of how long it would take Mercury. It would only be a fraction of the time for Mercury because it is revolving closer to the sun. And it is the same for how I depicted objects moving through time or space in my drawing.


These paragraphs have nothing to do with each other, and are barely right independently.


That is because time and space is not linear as we may think. It is just a singularity being stretched out.


That's nonsense.


This is where I believe the speed of light, the frequency of the universe, and the amount of potential energy in the entire universe is being held- all in relation to one another.


More nonsense. You can't just throw sciency-sounding words together and assume it makes sense.


The speed of light is a constant in our universe. It is the only constant.


It is not the only constant, there are tons of physical constants. The electron charge, the fine structure constant, the strength of gravity, or the strong and weak nuclear forces, etc, etc, etc.


It is a constant because it is a singularity.


I don't think you know what a singularity is.


Therefore I believe that the speed of light resonates the frequency of our universe, which may be the same or different from other universes which house more or less energy, and/or more or less mass.


Entirely technobabble.


The universe is a singularity that is a particle and a wave. It is a particle in the fifth dimension. It is a wave in the sixth.


And which "dimension" is any of this comprehensible in?



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by digital01anarchy
yes I do! in simple terms [..] Now when you see frequency on a monitor its represented by an up down motion each one up and down motion together would be one ripple from the center the next up down motion would be the next ripple [...] the bigger the rock the bigger the ripple would equal a larger wavelength that lasts longer a smaller rock makes smaller waves shorter wavelengths and frequency would be how many and how fast the ripples come from the center.

The frequency of the universe will change due to attenuation normally space has no attenuation but at the outer shell of the whole universe frequency is still expanding the universe hence there is no way to see when the signal ends until the universe stops expanding




So, in other words, no, you don't.

please explain it to me then out of your extensive knowledge lol! I have a degree in telecommunications and a secondary degree in information security

basically I explained it to you like I would a 5 year old




edit on 5-9-2013 by digital01anarchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by digital01anarchy
yes I do! in simple terms [..] Now when you see frequency on a monitor its represented by an up down motion each one up and down motion together would be one ripple from the center the next up down motion would be the next ripple [...] the bigger the rock the bigger the ripple would equal a larger wavelength that lasts longer a smaller rock makes smaller waves shorter wavelengths and frequency would be how many and how fast the ripples come from the center.

The frequency of the universe will change due to attenuation normally space has no attenuation but at the outer shell of the whole universe frequency is still expanding the universe hence there is no way to see when the signal ends until the universe stops expanding


So, in other words, no, you don't.


Originally posted by Dynamike
But the ideas that have been playing through my head all day has a lot to do with space being curved. And I realized that both space and time are curved. They are curved around the speed of light. How do I know this? Because the closer an object gets to the speed of light, the faster it moves through time as well.

For instance, lets just say that all of the planets (and I will be using Pluto even though it is no longer a planet) move at the same speed. In reality they dont move at the same speed so this is the only thing I will change, their distance from the sun will remain the same for this example: Think of how long Pluto would take to revolve around the sun in a semicircle. And then think of how long it would take Mercury. It would only be a fraction of the time for Mercury because it is revolving closer to the sun. And it is the same for how I depicted objects moving through time or space in my drawing.


These paragraphs have nothing to do with each other, and are barely right independently.


That is because time and space is not linear as we may think. It is just a singularity being stretched out.


That's nonsense.


This is where I believe the speed of light, the frequency of the universe, and the amount of potential energy in the entire universe is being held- all in relation to one another.


More nonsense. You can't just throw sciency-sounding words together and assume it makes sense.


The speed of light is a constant in our universe. It is the only constant.


It is not the only constant, there are tons of physical constants. The electron charge, the fine structure constant, the strength of gravity, or the strong and weak nuclear forces, etc, etc, etc.


It is a constant because it is a singularity.


I don't think you know what a singularity is.


Therefore I believe that the speed of light resonates the frequency of our universe, which may be the same or different from other universes which house more or less energy, and/or more or less mass.


Entirely technobabble.


The universe is a singularity that is a particle and a wave. It is a particle in the fifth dimension. It is a wave in the sixth.


And which "dimension" is any of this comprehensible in?


Alright if you want to banter the civil rules are not to take an opposition and leave it as a "no" or "you are wrong." That is not only rude but it shows lack of effort to prove me wrong or prove your point.

Now to further my points you clearly dispute I will start with curved space. I was merely trying to make an example of how space, much like the surface of the earth which we perceive as being three dimensional, is actually a two dimensional plane that curves. If you like to prove me wrong then you disagree with Einstein's Euclid space.

Secondly, my standpoint on time being non linear is not nonsense. In fact several incredible mathematicians such as Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.

And thirdly, the most important thing I am trying to convey is our universe being considered a singularity. A one dimensional point. In mathematics it is a point at which the derivative does not exist for a given function but every neighborhood of which contains points for which the derivative exists. Also called singular point.

Stephen Hawking states that the universe expanded from a singularity. The singularity is an infinite gravity.

And no those constants you listed are not constants. The weak force has not been measured as a constant. A constant in the effect of what I am trying to portray is a fundamental point that has no variables. I will admit though that gravity may play a role in establishing the answers in the search for a frequency of the universe if there is one. I am just trying to find answers.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Dynamike
That is the question I asked myself the other night. Is it a relevant question? Why not? Scientists postulate that the universe is but one of many and they can interfere with each other; much like a set of photon particle waves.

In order to determine this I thought of what variables we should consider. One of them would be possibly finding the average wavelength of every particle known. Perhaps they would share the same fluctuation. But then I realized that the average would change depending on the average temperature of the universe. Eventually the universe would cool to such a temperature that new particles would form and the ones we know now would be extinct.

Then I thought about the speed of light. And therein I believe lies the answer. Because the photon lies at the edge of the fourth dimensional universe. It has already seen the beginning of time and the end. Which is why I believe that the speed of light can change. But only from one universe to another. And the reason why is this:

The speed of light, the lifespan of the universe, and the amount of potential energy in the universe are directly related to each other. A universe that has more energy has a faster speed of light. This is because it takes longer for the universe to expend all of its energy to a zero point. And the potential energy is the amount of mass that has been excited times the amount of energy that has been transferred.

This is about where I left off. I have thought of a few sketches to help draw out the ideas behind this. I will try to post them later.

What do you guys think about this? Has this question been thought of before? Is there anything that could be applied to this that I missed or that has already been calculated?


wouldn't the wavelength of our universe be that of the supposed background radiation they use to prove it's existence?



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Dynamike
Which is why I believe that the speed of light can change. But only from one universe to another. And the reason why is this:

The speed of light, the lifespan of the universe, and the amount of potential energy in the universe are directly related to each other. A universe that has more energy has a faster speed of light.
The difference between science and religion is that science requires evidence.

If you don't have any, congratulations on your new religion, which is what I'm calling your belief in the speed of light not being constant, if you have no evidence to support it.

Now your idea that the speed of light may not be constant is something scientists have considered. They have not been able to find any evidence of this so far.

I also think the belief in other universes is somewhat of a religion if there is no evidence of other universes, and acquiring such evidence may be impossible (how can you observe something outside your universe?).

If you prefer science over religion, the frequency of the universe (CMB) has been studied in great detail and here is a graph of the frequency (on the horizontal axis):

Cosmic microwave background radiation

The graph shows a peak wavelength between 5 and 6 centimeters.
edit on 4-9-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


Planks Satellite Data indicates you should sit down and shut up....

Any thoughts?



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   

digital01anarchy
lol im a moron but at lest I blow my own mind


ATS should have a "Quote of the year" submission. I would enter this into it.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Aleister
reply to post by Dynamike
 


Well, this is a very interesting question about a topic I've never thought of. With the multi-verse theory taking root and getting more proof, maybe each bubble universe has its own wavelength.


My point exactly. And why not? It only makes sense.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Hijinx
 


Whoaw! Check out ATS...

Anyways; Yeah this is something I considered. However it seems to be just the wavelength left over from the universe expanding from a singularity.

To me that is like filling up a bucket half way with water and then placing it into a pool. Then you tap on the water in the bucket and then try to measure the waves outside of the bucket by measuring the ones inside. Something similar to that, I know its a bit rough but you get the idea right?

Ultimately there may be no variables in the universe that would give us clues to this answer if the question even exists as a valid one. But it is worth considering, I think.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
Planks Satellite Data indicates you should sit down and shut up....

Any thoughts?
You present no data or specific reference, so there's really nothing of substance in your comment that would indicate I should sit down and shut up. You should at least learn how to spell Planck, for starters.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dynamike
reply to post by Hijinx
 


Whoaw! Check out ATS...

Anyways; Yeah this is something I considered. However it seems to be just the wavelength left over from the universe expanding from a singularity.

To me that is like filling up a bucket half way with water and then placing it into a pool. Then you tap on the water in the bucket and then try to measure the waves outside of the bucket by measuring the ones inside. Something similar to that, I know its a bit rough but you get the idea right?

Ultimately there may be no variables in the universe that would give us clues to this answer if the question even exists as a valid one. But it is worth considering, I think.


The wave front from a singularity would be like a bomb going off, a blast wave in fact. It wouldn't have a wavelength. For the Universe to have a wavelength it would have to emanate from a continuous source, Like a white hole. If so it would vary as the amount of vibes/mass was ejected.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Dynamike
 


I would think the answer you're looking for is infinitely more complex as various elements and molecules all have their own frequencies. Hydrogen is a well known very abundant element in our known galaxy as is oxygen as seen in some interstellar gas clouds and nebula. The frequency would be not one but a literal symphony of various vibrations. The most dominant elements and compounds being the "loudest".

Not to mention the interactions of said compounds. We can measure the frequency of our own sun and the planets here at home as well much of what we do know about the composition of distant stars is discovered through radio telescopes measuring known frequencies of elements and compounds in our own neighbourhood. Your question is very complex but that background "noise" is most likely the sum of all the parts. Unless of course it's the faint cleashendo of a distant universe.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by anonentity

Originally posted by Dynamike
reply to post by Hijinx
 


Whoaw! Check out ATS...

Anyways; Yeah this is something I considered. However it seems to be just the wavelength left over from the universe expanding from a singularity.

To me that is like filling up a bucket half way with water and then placing it into a pool. Then you tap on the water in the bucket and then try to measure the waves outside of the bucket by measuring the ones inside. Something similar to that, I know its a bit rough but you get the idea right?

Ultimately there may be no variables in the universe that would give us clues to this answer if the question even exists as a valid one. But it is worth considering, I think.


The wave front from a singularity would be like a bomb going off, a blast wave in fact. It wouldn't have a wavelength. For the Universe to have a wavelength it would have to emanate from a continuous source, Like a white hole. If so it would vary as the amount of vibes/mass was ejected.



Blast waves do have frequencies. Here on earth a blast wave is minute to none compared to some "explosions" in space. In order for that blast wave to come back to us in a measurable way it would have to reverberate back to us. In space outside of the know. Universe there wouldn't be anything for it to reverberate off of assuming it started as a singularity and expanded as such. There would have been nothing before said "explosion" for it to bounce off of. In fact if there was it would shatter all current models and theories on the age of the universe.

With this in mind it's very likely that background noise is our "song"



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hijinx

Originally posted by anonentity

Originally posted by Dynamike
reply to post by Hijinx
 


Whoaw! Check out ATS...

Anyways; Yeah this is something I considered. However it seems to be just the wavelength left over from the universe expanding from a singularity.

To me that is like filling up a bucket half way with water and then placing it into a pool. Then you tap on the water in the bucket and then try to measure the waves outside of the bucket by measuring the ones inside. Something similar to that, I know its a bit rough but you get the idea right?

Ultimately there may be no variables in the universe that would give us clues to this answer if the question even exists as a valid one. But it is worth considering, I think.


The wave front from a singularity would be like a bomb going off, a blast wave in fact. It wouldn't have a wavelength. For the Universe to have a wavelength it would have to emanate from a continuous source, Like a white hole. If so it would vary as the amount of vibes/mass was ejected.



Blast waves do have frequencies. Here on earth a blast wave is minute to none compared to some "explosions" in space. In order for that blast wave to come back to us in a measurable way it would have to reverberate back to us. In space outside of the know. Universe there wouldn't be anything for it to reverberate off of assuming it started as a singularity and expanded as such. There would have been nothing before said "explosion" for it to bounce off of. In fact if there was it would shatter all current models and theories on the age of the universe.

With this in mind it's very likely that background noise is our "song"


We are looking at things with eyes trained for everyday life. " Reality is an illusion albeit a persistent one" Travelling close to the speed of light, Space Time slows down for the traveller. When they come back to Earth at a few years at this speed, many, many years pass on earth.(That's Time travel) This effect is so persistent even the GPS has to be altered because of it. If this is a fact is to believed, then even small accelerations of heavenly bodies, might mean, the age of the Universe is wrong because we are observing something from our point in Space and Time. Time and Speed are tied together so tightly they are the product of each other. So for "gravity field " we could read "Time field." If this is the case then is it fair to deduce, that the opposite might be possible the space travellers instead of accelerating to the speed of light slow down in relation to other observers "Gravity field" So instead of gaining mass as they approach the speed of light, they essentialy loose mass until they disappear from the observers reality altogether. Is this where all the dark matter is? and the other Universes?



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dynamike
Alright if you want to banter the civil rules are not to take an opposition and leave it as a "no" or "you are wrong." That is not only rude but it shows lack of effort to prove me wrong or prove your point.


Prove to me the Enterprise can't destroy the Death Star! If the Death Star tries to fire on the Enterprise, they can just remodulate their shield harmonics!

I can't because it isn't real. I cannot respond to anything you've stated because it is so far into the realm of technobabble it has gone beyond all hope of real meaning.


If you like to prove me wrong then you disagree with Einstein's Euclid space.


Einstein, and I, what with my degree in theoretical physics, both think you don't know what you're talking about, and what you're saying has nothing to do with any real science or math.


Secondly, my standpoint on time being non linear is not nonsense. In fact several incredible mathematicians such as Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.


No, it isn't, and no, they don't. Time is a parameter of an observable (e.g., the electric field at a point, the density of a gas, etc) and parameters are not "nonlinear", that's nonsense. That's mathematical nonsense. "Linear" has a specific, mathematical meaning, that does not apply to something like this.


And thirdly, the most important thing I am trying to convey is our universe being considered a singularity.


It isn't considered that, by any real physicist.


The weak force has not been measured as a constant. A constant in the effect of what I am trying to portray is a fundamental point that has no variables.


There is a constant associated with the weak force, and all the things I mentioned are considered constants by every competent theoretical physicist. And the statement "a fundamental point that has no variables" is not even technobabble, it's just nonsense.


I will admit though that gravity may play a role in establishing the answers in the search for a frequency of the universe if there is one. I am just trying to find answers.


You could start by learning some actual math and physics. And you can start by learning that "the frequency of the universe" is a complete nonsense idea.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by digital01anarchy
please explain it to me then out of your extensive knowledge lol! I have a degree in telecommunications and a secondary degree in information security


I have a degree in theoretical physics (and several others, too, if you want to play the multiple degree game), so if you want to sarcastically consider that "extensive knowledge" don't let me stop you. And you can find the definition of frequency and wavelength in any college intro physics textbook. Note the things the definitions apply to.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Since the size of a cavity determines it's resonance, and we're talking about the infinite expanse, wavelength is 1/frequency, the resonant frequency is constant on (DC), the wavelength is one. THE One.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by anonentity

Originally posted by Hijinx

Originally posted by anonentity

Originally posted by Dynamike
reply to post by Hijinx
 


Whoaw! Check out ATS...

Anyways; Yeah this is something I considered. However it seems to be just the wavelength left over from the universe expanding from a singularity.

To me that is like filling up a bucket half way with water and then placing it into a pool. Then you tap on the water in the bucket and then try to measure the waves outside of the bucket by measuring the ones inside. Something similar to that, I know its a bit rough but you get the idea right?

Ultimately there may be no variables in the universe that would give us clues to this answer if the question even exists as a valid one. But it is worth considering, I think.


The wave front from a singularity would be like a bomb going off, a blast wave in fact. It wouldn't have a wavelength. For the Universe to have a wavelength it would have to emanate from a continuous source, Like a white hole. If so it would vary as the amount of vibes/mass was ejected.



Blast waves do have frequencies. Here on earth a blast wave is minute to none compared to some "explosions" in space. In order for that blast wave to come back to us in a measurable way it would have to reverberate back to us. In space outside of the know. Universe there wouldn't be anything for it to reverberate off of assuming it started as a singularity and expanded as such. There would have been nothing before said "explosion" for it to bounce off of. In fact if there was it would shatter all current models and theories on the age of the universe.

With this in mind it's very likely that background noise is our "song"


We are looking at things with eyes trained for everyday life. " Reality is an illusion albeit a persistent one" Travelling close to the speed of light, Space Time slows down for the traveller. When they come back to Earth at a few years at this speed, many, many years pass on earth.(That's Time travel) This effect is so persistent even the GPS has to be altered because of it. If this is a fact is to believed, then even small accelerations of heavenly bodies, might mean, the age of the Universe is wrong because we are observing something from our point in Space and Time. Time and Speed are tied together so tightly they are the product of each other. So for "gravity field " we could read "Time field." If this is the case then is it fair to deduce, that the opposite might be possible the space travellers instead of accelerating to the speed of light slow down in relation to other observers "Gravity field" So instead of gaining mass as they approach the speed of light, they essentialy loose mass until they disappear from the observers reality altogether. Is this where all the dark matter is? and the other Universes?


Here is the most complex part of light speed travel for any object. To travel at the speed of light exerts such extreme forces on the object even in space, it breaks down into single atoms. Not one thing, besides a single particle has ever been observed traveling even near the speed of light.

I understand what you are saying, but the evidence seems to stack up as the latter. A single photon when it is not observed can be in multiple places at the same time. So rather than time slowing down for the observer, it's the latter. The object experiences time on it's normal path, how ever here it appears as if it has done multiple things all at once, meaning that, that object has traveled both forwards and backwards in time simultaneously.

It's really bizarre, and confusing. How ever, once this object is observed it behaves normally. So if we want to look at background "noise" the moment we observe it, it should be behaving normally, meaning that noise is not us.




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join