Programming C, C++, Java, PHP, Ruby, Turing, VB
Computer Science Canada 
Programming C, C++, Java, PHP, Ruby, Turing, VB  

Username:   Password: 
 RegisterRegister   
 The nature of everything.
Index -> Off Topic
View previous topic Printable versionDownload TopicSubscribe to this topicPrivate MessagesRefresh page View next topic
Author Message
Insectoid




PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:28 am   Post subject: The nature of everything.

I kinda just wanna have a fun discussion about the nature of life, the universe, and everything. Not 100% science-based, but focused more on philosophical answers with a fleshed-out idea and some sort of logical argument backing it up, and the implications of that argument. Feel free to disregard one or two logical errors if it would promote an interesting discussion (or if the error is the point of your idea). I don't want the coolest ideas exactly, but the ideas that work to explain an un-explainable concept in the most logical way possible. We live in a world where time dilation and quantum entanglement are actual things. Let's have fun thinking about what else could exist.

What always bugged me was the chicken-and-egg problem of matter. As far as I know, every particle we've discovered has in turn been made of some kind of smaller particle that we don't understand. The mass of an object is the sum of the mass of its component particles. The mass of those particles are the sum of the mass of their component particles, and so on. The boson that was discovered might finally explain it, but tbh I know too little about quantum mechanics to pretend I know what the boson does.

My unscientific explanation is that the smallest particle acts as a universal pointer, pointing to our universe. The universe itself is this particle. There are is only one instance of this particle, and it is comprised of itself. It's like the self-contained galaxy in Men in Black, but on a grander scale. The smallest particle is like a window on the edge of the universe. If you could reach the edge of the universe, you'd pop into the universe next to it, which is just the other side of the same universe 'cause there's only one.

Energy passing through the edge of the universe re-appears on the other side. This movement is itself the source of energy, causing the tiny universes to vibrate (or something like that). Energy causes itself. The tiny energy on a quantum scale is the same energy on a cosmic scale. It's not one causing another; it's the same thing that just is. This also conveniently maintains the conservation of energy, because all energy flowing out is also flowing right back in.

I dunno how to use this to explain how the universe could have started though. Maybe time has the same sort of feedback; go back far enough and you'll end up in the future. There was no origin, time is just on a loop. I haven't thought about this enough to flesh out the idea though.


Anyway, I'm not claiming or even suggesting that any of this is true. I just looked at the problem and tried to come up with something that fit. Feel free to discuss it or post your own crazy theories.
Sponsor
Sponsor
Sponsor
sponsor
mirhagk




PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:12 pm   Post subject: RE:The nature of everything.

Well space is just the lack of something, so it's easy to imagine infinite lack of something. The universe is anywhere where things are in space. If there's no matter or energy in a part of space, you can consider it non-existent (it doesn't affect anything, so long as it exists once something navigates to it). With this theory it's easy to see that the universe is constantly expanding, as particles and energy move farther out. If the universe had an ending point, then the universe would be nearly evenly spaced out as gravity would pull from every direction, instead of clumped together as it is now.

If you learn about the Boson Field you'll probably learn more about the questions you're asking, it just will be difficult. Instead of trying to replace complicated physics with an abstract idea, it's best to just learn the complicated physics, or ignore the problem.

Just think of the universe as an excel sheet. You can expand an excel sheet forever, but the system doesn't consider empty parts of the excel sheet as existing. Your excel sheet is just what's filled out, you can safely ignore the fact that it can expand out forever, because that's not a part of the excel sheet (yet), even if you can see where stuff might go.
miami405




PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 2:04 am   Post subject: Re: The nature of everything.

it's probably the system.Cause everything depend and run on system.If we try to draw or paint Nature, it can end up a real mess. For example, ask a child to draw a tree without its leaves -- at best, the result will look awkward. If we build something that does not have an exact symmetry, it looks a bit strange. How come Nature does not make aesthetic mistakes?
DemonWasp




PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 2:30 pm   Post subject: RE:The nature of everything.

In terms of decomposing particles into smaller, more elementary particles, we know of several particles which are presumed to have no subdivision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle . These include quarks, leptons and their antiparticles, among others.

The rest of your post is (from a scientific perspective) nonsense. Entertaining, but strictly not science. If you want to learn more about reality, I suggest reading A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking (http://www.amazon.ca/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168). It's a short, introductory-level book on physical concepts including relativity, quantum mechanics, and the bounds of the universe (as I recall; I read it years ago and might be mixing my memories of other books in with it).

The current best theory on the end of the universe is known as "the heat death of the universe" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe). It suggests that the universe will eventually become so evenly uniform that no further work (in the physics sense) will be possible. All life will cease, all chemical reactions will cease, etc.

@miami405: I'm not sure I understand your point. However, nature regularly "makes aesthetic mistakes": there are a LOT of ugly things in this world, even symmetrical ones. If anything, we find plants and animals we would regularly see as "beautiful" because we have a LONG evolutionary history of seeing those things. Leafy greens and furry animals tend to indicate an environment that humans (and pre-humans) can live in, so of course we're attracted to those things.

Imagine the rainwater in a puddle. "Gee," thinks the rainwater, "this hole in the ground sure is shaped an awful lot like me!". The hole isn't shaped like the water, the water is shaped by the hole it inhabits. The world isn't aesthetically pleasing to us; we find it pleasing because we live in it.
Display posts from previous:   
   Index -> Off Topic
View previous topic Tell A FriendPrintable versionDownload TopicSubscribe to this topicPrivate MessagesRefresh page View next topic

Page 1 of 1  [ 4 Posts ]
Jump to:   


Style:  
Search: