You might have noticed I called the God thing a "decision," and predicted that someone can still find a way to draw the conclusion that God does not exist. This theory for example. While having absolutely no basis in empirical fact, it does have the convenient feature of allowing the proponent to take the position that the Universe did not have a beginning. Nevermind that it looks as though it did. The Undulating Universe is for people who understand that a Universe that had a beginning........would point to a Creator.

Yes, it would point to a creator in our own feeble minds. However, the tv show that began this thread mentioned the theory that there was no beginning or end to the universe. it just always "was and will be". Furthermore, the Big Bang theory hasn't even been around that long. And since it's been around, we've learned all sorts of new things like quasars, gamma ray bursts and dark matter, which throw monkey wrenches all over the place. And if the interior of a black hole is a place where the laws of physics break down, then that would imply that our own logic doesn't apply there either. Hawking made some supposition long ago that God invented physics and then left everything else alone. And physics seems to apply just about everywhere in the observeable universe. But what about the gravitational effects of dark matter, which has no mass? How the hell does that work? Why are there exceptions to physics all over the place? And where does information go once it's in the black hole? If nothing can travel faster than the speed of light (sort of a manmade law), how would it ever be possible to know things about parts of the universe too far away for its light to have reached us since the Big Bang?

DOH!

Just to clarify:

Stephen Hawking's Universe is a PBS three DVD set I own where he talks about big bang, black holes, and dark matter.

The Elegant Universe is a PBS three DVD set I own where they talk about string theory.

Well the show last night talked about dark energy pushing the expanding universe faster than the speed of light for a time after the big bang. That's a relatively new theory, I think.

Still, expand the universe out for a few billion years, then contract it for a few billion, rewrite it all from scratch.


Maybe if we were born with a million fingers, the numbers wouldn't seem so large.

I wonder how this faster than the speed of light hypothesis works. It's the shortcoming of the show only being two hours long, IMO. Interesting ideas like this were glossed over. Still, it was interesting and entertaining. :)

There was a blurb a few weeks ago about some German scientists who has supposedly broken the speed of light. I think shot a beam between some mirrors that were only a few meters apart. So that had to be some pretty precise measurment. Seems to me it'd be a lot easier to do between mirrors on the moon and maybe Mars or somewhere with not too much atmospheric interferance.

I'll try to dig that up on the internet. Interesting stuff.

Was this the "teleportation" thing that had to do with electron positions being linked between remotely spaced atoms or whatever - that raised a bit of a ruckus a couple years ago IIRC.

Just dug this up.


Scientists Claim To Break Speed-of-Light Barrier
By Maia Weinstock
Staff Writer
posted: 06:06 pm ET
19 July 2000



If zooming beyond the local speed limit is punishable by law, then some scientists may have a gargantuan speeding ticket to pay.

In a controversial experiment reported in this weeks journal Nature, scientists at the NEC Research Institute in Princeton, New Jersey claim to have broken the ultimate speed limit -- the speed of light. Though hotly contested, some say this achievement could dramatically increase the speeds at which we can send and receive information.

Taught in physics classes the world over, Albert Einsteins theory of special relativity holds that no object or information can move faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, or 186,000 miles (300,000 kilometers) per second. But NECs Lijun Wang says he created an experiment in which a light beam raced through a gas-filled chamber so quickly, it exceeded the speed of light by a factor of 300. Whats more, the light pulse appears to have left the confines of the chamber before it even entered a seemingly impossible occurrence according to theories of causality, which predict that causes must always precede their effects.

"It sounds crazy, but this can actually occur," said Raymond Chiao, a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley. Chiao, one of a group of researchers who have been working to break the speed-of-light limit, explained that although a common object such as a baseball could never be flung faster than the speed of light, pulses of energy with certain complex properties have been known to bend the rules.

In fact, several recent experiments, including one done by Chiao earlier this year, have pointed to energy pulses zooming faster than light speed. Yet each of these experiments has been encumbered by severe limitations on measurement or observation of the energy pulses. In contrast, this latest experiment is being touted by some as the most dramatic example yet of light breaking its own speed barrier.

"The effects are much larger and more spectacular" than previous observations, said Chiao.

In Wangs experiment, a pulse of light passed through a small chamber filled with atoms of elemental cesium. A light beam traveling through such a medium has two different velocities a velocity for the individual light waves in the beam and a group velocity for the entire beam. Oddly, some light waves in the beam can actually travel backward for miniscule amounts of time, creating a sort of "tail" behind forward-moving waves. As such, a light wave and its tail can leave the gas cavity at different times, creating the effect that the light beam has left the cavity before its even entered.

Confused? Youre not alone. In fact, even scientists who are familiar with this area of study are unsure about the details of Wangs experiment. And many scientists said the experiments results are still open to interpretation.

William Happer, a physicist at Princeton University argued that several specific problems exist with the experiment, including the fact that pulses get distorted when passed through any media other than a vacuum, or empty space. In addition, he said Wang and his colleagues performed the experiment in a way that doesnt tell the whole story, and that it can be interpreted incorrectly. "This is anything but dramatic," said Happer. "If you look at the data, theres essentially no evidence that [the beam] is going faster than the speed of light."

Whats more, most scientists agree that even if such a beam can be proved speedier than light, it would probably not be able to carry any information. Such a feat could conceivably allow data to be sent back in time, thus violating laws of causality and sending quantum physics into disrepair.

Others are more optimistic as to the possible benefits of Wangs experiment. "For some applications, for example, to computer circuits, this might be very important and useful," said Chiao.

Anyone knows that before the "Big Bang" there was an event best described as the "Big Cratch".

Best,

Kurt

Who was slapping the big cratch?

Frogger, I hadn't seen that one, but the article I'm talking about was totally different and done in Germany. Impressive nonetheless, shooting particles through a gas-filled chamber is not a vacuum. I find it an amazing feat in itself that such speeds can even be measured in such relatively miniscule distances. When you figure light travels around the Earth's equator seven times in the amount of time it takes you to snap your fingers once, I'm blown away by measuring something that fast in a lab. Even in a particle accelerator I find it amazing.

The speed of light is slow and the size of the universe is extra-small, relatively speaking.

Lol!

Actually the universe is trapped inside a jar in my closet.

So we're all in the closet?

http://www.yourdailymedia.com/i/u/TqT3jUTg.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1189026480.jpg

Yep... sorry. :p

Not with a teapot present! :eek:

Alfred E. Newman