I think I just found a major contradiction in theoretical physics.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

That sounds fine, except..... the laws of physics aren't the same at every point in space. It's generally thought that within a black hole, the laws of physics as we understand them break down. So, the idea that the laws of physics are the same everywhere must be false.

whose laws? if you believe that alien space craft that visit earth and move in ways that deify of the laws of physics as we here on earth understand them. then your right,

the idea that the laws of physics are the same everywhere must be false.

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
That sounds fine, except..... the laws of physics aren't the same at every point in space. It's generally thought that within a black hole, the laws of physics as we understand them break down. So, the idea that the laws of physics are the same everywhere must be false.

I think the wording is throwing you off here. Laws of physics don't 'break down' anywhere. Laws of physics are laws of physics, they work exactly as they do everywhere.

What breaks down is our understanding of those laws, as you mentioned. Just because we don't understand what happens does not means laws themselves stop working. One day we will have a newer theory and we will understand perfectly what goes on in and out of black holes, and there won't be any mystery around it and we won't be saying anything breaks down.

And cosmos can absolutely have an edge. In fact many string and information theories predict that all information could be written on the edge, or the membrane of the universe, it is a 2D surface that projects, in 3D, all that happens within the volume; almost as a hologram projection of a lower dimensional surface.

Depends if you have the right laws.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
I think I just found a major contradiction in theoretical physics.

In order to think "outside the box", you need to understand what's in the box, which you don't yet understand, and not many of us do, because there's a lot in the box to understand.

Most theoretical physicists hold that space must go on forever, and dismiss the idea that there might be an "edge" to the universe.

I'm not 100% sure I understand the argument correctly, but Steven Hawkins said that there can't be an edge to the universe because that would mean that the laws of physics aren't the same at every point in space.

That sounds fine, except..... the laws of physics aren't the same at every point in space. It's generally thought that within a black hole, the laws of physics as we understand them break down. So, the idea that the laws of physics are the same everywhere must be false.

Yes our laws of physics break down in a black hole, but it does not follow from that that the idea that the laws of physics are the same everywhere must be false. The models say given certain conditions here's what should happen and that would be the same everywhere those particular conditions exist. The problem is our models don't work in the center of a black hole conditions, but maybe someday they will.

Your argument is a bit like saying, the laws of physics aren't the same on the moon and the earth since people can jump higher on the moon, but the laws are actually dependent on the conditions (the mass and radius of the planet in that case), and the black hole laws are dependent on black hole conditions, but we just don't know exactly how that works yet. We do up to a point.

Measurements suggest the universe is quite a bit larger than the observable universe, but we can only guesstimate how much larger and can't rule out the universe being infinite.

How Large Is The Entire, Unobservable Universe?

Observations from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the Planck satellite are where we get the best data. They tell us that if the Universe does curve back in on itself and close, the part we can see is so indistinguishable from "uncurved" that it must be at least 250 times the radius of the observable part.

This means the unobservable Universe, assuming there's no topological weirdness, must be at least 23 trillion light years in diameter, and contain a volume of space that's over 15 million times as large as the volume we can observe. If we're willing to speculate, however, we can argue quite compellingly that the unobservable Universe should be significantly even bigger than that...

The answer to the biggest of all questions, of whether the Universe is finite or infinite, might be encoded in the Universe itself, but we can't access enough of it to know. Until we either figure it out, or come up with a clever scheme to expand what we know physics is capable of, all we'll have are the possibilities.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: bounder
Every time we put a better telescope up there we put our current understanding of the universe in jeopardy.

There is a point that no telescope -- no matter how good -- can see.

That's because (theoretically) the apparent expansion of the universe from our point of view is faster than the speed of light. So there is light emitted from some parts of the universe that has no possible way to ever reach us (reach Earth/our eyes/ a telescope).

I think you might be able to find a better way to word that after reading this abstract or paper:

Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe

We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light. We explain why this does not violate special relativity and we link these concepts to observational tests.

Yes some parts of the universe are unobservable but the reason you give for that seems to imply we can't observe things receding faster than the speed of light, which according to that paper, we can. See in particular "Misconception #3: Galaxies with recession velocities exceeding the speed of light exist but we cannot see them"

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
Most theoretical physicists hold that space must go on forever, and dismiss the idea that there might be an "edge" to the universe.

I'm not 100% sure I understand the argument correctly, but Steven Hawkins said that there can't be an edge to the universe because that would mean that the laws of physics aren't the same at every point in space.

That sounds fine, except..... the laws of physics aren't the same at every point in space. It's generally thought that within a black hole, the laws of physics as we understand them break down. So, the idea that the laws of physics are the same everywhere must be false.

UndiesFormMitchEgan, his name was Stephen William Hawking.



Also, according to the Big Bang Cosmological models, the matter universe has been expanding from a point of singularity for a finite period of time, and therefore its extent could not be infinite.

At present, there is also a horizon beyond which any objects which may otherwise be visible, are now moving away from us at nearly the speed of light, and therefore we cannot see anything of them because the light from them has not reached us yet (and may even never reach us). This creates a boundary on what we can observe spatially about the universe, even if it extends far further.

Other theories of the universe are also bounded in some way or another. Even an infinitely recursive universe or multiverses must have boundaries from the 'outside'.

Once you allow a single infinity in the universe, it breeds other infinities, too. So I strongly doubt any true infinities are anything more than errors in our calculations fed by voids in our understandings.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

That sounds fine, except..... the laws of physics aren't the same at every point in space. It's generally thought that within a black hole, the laws of physics as we understand them break down. So, the idea that the laws of physics are the same everywhere must be false.

I think the key there is 'as we understand them'. Nobody claims that we've mastered physics.

I can't prove any of the following, but I've imagined the universe either as a sphere-like shape that loops back on itself, or else as extending forever. The other interesting idea I've wondered is whether when we look up into the sky and see all the quadrillions of galaxies, if maybe somehow most of them are 'reflections' of each other, like at different points in time, like some sort of weird red shift/gravitational lensing. Of course, none of those are more than cool sci-fi ideas in my head at this point, but who knows what's out there?

As Arbitrageur said, one must know what is inside the box before they can actually think outside it.

The statement regarding blackholes is as said, not a 'Gotcha' moment. Every physical law we have tested in the presence of a blackhole, works perfectly within predictions within uncertainties.

If the fundamental underpinnings of physics changed from place to place you would expect for example, that different parts of the night sky would look different... observation... they dont. What i mean by this is that physics appears for the most part underpinned by a low number of fundamental parameters. I think you would summarize it down to 7 constants.

If you are to say "Well how do we know G is the same over there" or "How do we know that the speed of light is the same everywhere"

Well, if it wasn't we wouldn't be able to classify stars like we do, the chemical elements that make emission and absorption lines in their spectra wouldn't make sense, we wouldn't see a simple 'red or blue shift' but something more chaotic. If you change some of these parameters even by a tiny amount, you can theoretically prevent fusion from being possible, change how chemistry works, a whole host of nightmares.

The fact we do look at the night sky and the Hydrogen lines, appears, where they should in spectrum is a great indication that all is fairly uniform. Also goes for certain classes of Supernovae, in that the mechanism which creates them is extremely specific and they give out exactly the same energy and have near identical decay profiles.

There are so many checks and balances that... because physics 'doesn't appear to work' beyond the event horizon of a blackhole, mean for 99.9999999999% of the rest of the universe things arn't identical

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: gortex

I'm still keen on the Universe being on or in a Black Hole theory.

I like the idea myself.

But the question still begs if we exist within the event horizon of a Black Hole, then what does the blackhole exist within?

"Turtles all the way down" is as good an answer as any other i suppose.

I've been doing some thinking about this kind of thing. If you're inside a black hole (and could somehow continue to exist) then no matter how hard you attempted to escape the black hole, you'd never be able to get out. You'd need to be able to accelerate yourself with an infinite amount of energy, which of course can't happen. In fact, you wouldn't even be able to see the edge of the black hole. Since light itself cannot escape, then all of your sight lines would bend back inward, and you would just end up seeing some other point inside the black hole (or possibly even your own reflection, if you manage to get the angle just right). Of course you'd never be able to accelerate any form of matter fast enough to reach the edge, so questions like "what would it feel like?" could never be answered.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan



Aye, you couldn't far as i can establish, or even be able to test the premise of the argument because of well physics.

Still got to ponder what the singularity exists in all the same, which is another thing that cannot be tested without being able to step outside of the space-time that constitutes our universe.

It's not something that could ever be measured or observed far as i can establish hence not a question with any sort of definitive answer.

originally posted by: DragonsDemesne
I can't prove any of the following, but I've imagined the universe either as a sphere-like shape that loops back on itself, or else as extending forever. The other interesting idea I've wondered is whether when we look up into the sky and see all the quadrillions of galaxies, if maybe somehow most of them are 'reflections' of each other, like at different points in time, like some sort of weird red shift/gravitational lensing. Of course, none of those are more than cool sci-fi ideas in my head at this point, but who knows what's out there?

My argument about sightlines suggests the same thing. If you try to view the boundaries of the universe, the light waves will be bent back in, so you'll end up seeing some other part of the universe. Much like a mirage that causes you to see water or land in the wrong place.

The quantization of energy is actually a cheat, this is a well known fundamental flaw even Einstein acknowledged.

Theoretical physics is one thing, experimental physics is another.

There were limitation going into QM that were well known at the time but it works and allowed us to keep working in physic (on a blackboard)

Well what you are experiencing now is that limitation, that why we need an extension or another language which compliments CM and QM.

Planck in effect cheated by quantizing energy to solve the blackbody radiation problem... the rest is history and I might add some of einsteins best jabs.

originally posted by: andy06shake
It's not something that could ever be measured or observed far as i can establish hence not a question with any sort of definitive answer.

We're basically pissing in the wind asking these type of questions with the current state of physics... Theoretical physicists know it too (well the top ones anyway) but they'd be out of a job if they told people the truth.

The tool (math) is broken and I believe because it is manufactured, it's not something that exists in nature. If math doesn't exist in nature then that means you are not discovering/uncovering it but rather manufacturing it.

The current state of physics leads you to one of two camps, you're either a realist accepting math is broken and that we need another tool or the curren tool needs modified or you end up in one of the various new age cult of the quantum sects proclaiming they have know something so profound about the universe that they discovered using math/physics, but they just can't explain to you or show you (sound familiar?)

150 years and all we got from the marxists (quantum physicists) regarding the nature of these type of questions is Honey I Shrunk the Kids and/or Antman.

Smaller and smaller and smaller... Sounds very introverted doesn't it?

Enter camp Marxism, enjoy your stay...

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
Most theoretical physicists hold that space must go on forever, and dismiss the idea that there might be an "edge" to the universe.

I'm not 100% sure I understand the argument correctly, but Steven Hawkins said that there can't be an edge to the universe because that would mean that the laws of physics aren't the same at every point in space.

That sounds fine, except..... the laws of physics aren't the same at every point in space. It's generally thought that within a black hole, the laws of physics as we understand them break down. So, the idea that the laws of physics are the same everywhere must be false.

Laws of physics (our natural science, the study of nature) breaks down in a black hole because the problem is with the math itself (which is not exempt from philosophy)

Blame the Indians (Buddhists) this is not western philosophy... The problem stems from the number 0.

It doesn't exist, nothing (no-thing) can't "exist"

Think about that... And you easily see why we run in circles.

We had a bit of an infection in western thought which has not only given us the atomic bomb and an infinitely scrambled mind (quantum encryption) but it ha also given us Marxism

It's all connected...

To be or not to be, that is the question...

No self, no mind, emptiness, nothingness, zero, these are Eastern concepts... and very dull (inferior) because you obviously exist.

It is not particularly rooted in our western minds as our science is the mechanistic study of nature.

The light shines in the darkness... therefore choose life.

a reply to: XipeTotex

Physics are only real if you are a turkey scientist.

Physics is only plural if you have the vocabulary of a tadpole.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

I do not believe that your observation is a contradiction. In fact, it is physics that defines the very conditions you are referring to. There may be parts of a singularity that are beyond our realm of observation. But the parts we can observe, we can define with physics as a constant. The conditions outside a black hole vs. inside are defined by physics, even though there are parts we have yet to experience or observe.

The constant nature of physics means we should assume the parts we can not see are still definable with physics, until observation dictates a different path. Everything is a theory until it can be proven with predictable and repeatable results. But we must assume that the physics does not change until we have evidence that suggests otherwise.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

That's the part that got me for the longest time until I was able to verbalize it (to myself anyway)

How can one study the mechanics of "nothing" using physics? that's not science.

It's an infection, a glitch.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: gortex

I'm still keen on the Universe being on or in a Black Hole theory.

I like the idea myself.

But the question still begs if we exist within the event horizon of a Black Hole, then what does the blackhole exist within?

"Turtles all the way down" is as good an answer as any other i suppose.

I've been doing some thinking about this kind of thing. If you're inside a black hole (and could somehow continue to exist) then no matter how hard you attempted to escape the black hole, you'd never be able to get out. You'd need to be able to accelerate yourself with an infinite amount of energy, which of course can't happen. In fact, you wouldn't even be able to see the edge of the black hole. Since light itself cannot escape, then all of your sight lines would bend back inward, and you would just end up seeing some other point inside the black hole (or possibly even your own reflection, if you manage to get the angle just right). Of course you'd never be able to accelerate any form of matter fast enough to reach the edge, so questions like "what would it feel like?" could never be answered.

In one direction, you would 'see' all the light that had ever fallen into the black hole after you fell below the Schwarzschild radius - for all of history after that time. The extreme time-dilation means that an instant of time for you, the trapped observer, would be similar to all subsequent history of time to any 'outside' observers.

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: andy06shake
It's not something that could ever be measured or observed far as i can establish hence not a question with any sort of definitive answer.

We're basically pissing in the wind asking these type of questions with the current state of physics... Theoretical physicists know it too (well the top ones anyway) but they'd be out of a job if they told people the truth.

The tool (math) is broken and I believe because it is manufactured, it's not something that exists in nature. If math doesn't exist in nature then that means you are not discovering/uncovering it but rather manufacturing it.

The current state of physics leads you to one of two camps, you're either a realist accepting math is broken and that we need another tool or the curren tool needs modified or you end up in one of the various new age cult of the quantum sects proclaiming they have know something so profound about the universe that they discovered using math/physics, but they just can't explain to you or show you (sound familiar?)

150 years and all we got from the marxists (quantum physicists) regarding the nature of these type of questions is Honey I Shrunk the Kids and/or Antman.

These are not science, they are silly stories based on popsci misunderstandings.

Smaller and smaller and smaller... Sounds very introverted doesn't it?

Enter camp Marxism, enjoy your stay...

At smaller and smaller scales, the rules change because all known things actually have discrete sizes.

For instance, if you are too small compared with the frequencies of light, how could you ever detect light? And since everything has discrete quanta of measurements, what would happen if you try and shrink things down to fractions of those minimal discrete possible step sized values?

originally posted by: chr0naut
And since everything has discrete quanta of measurements,

"Quanta" that's like little groups of measurements right?

Little groups of everything...

Enter the Marxist realm of science, we'll call it quantum physics.