My equation to model the expansion of the universe

[BigBlugga]

You're one to assume that I don't have a life, and Lord of the Rings is in your sig...? Has it occured to you that I'm both fun AND smart?

You could have owned him with that one sentence imo...

[Conrad_Jalowski]

To Oss Spy:

Never relent in the pursuit of knowledge but continue to acquire more pieces of information and do not slavishly accept the words or stated viewpoints of others without questioning their premises. Forever stimulate your intellect so as to dispel the ignorance of others and to remove your own layers of ignorance. While the majority of people may be tepid in acquiring more knowledge for intellectual pleasure, always pursue your intellectual ambitions. Always aim for great and noble things and refuse to consign yourself to lower standards or to inferior pursuits which is the path of the ignorant.

In my personal opinion, there is no greater joy or pleasure than devouring a book or gorging upon the vast wealth of knowledge contained within books. As a voracious reader, I view the acquisition of knowledge as the noblest endeavor of the human species. Never lose your burning desire for knowledge or your passion for books as the greatest sagacity arises from the relentless pursuit of knowledge and from an overwhelming passion to determine the guiding principles of the cosmos. The person who has been endowed with a lofty and superior intellect possesses an insatiable appetite for knowledge and harbors a desire to bring order from chaos, to offer balance and stability to a world of disequilibrium and to discover unity amidst the disunity and fragmentation of the world.

[trogdor1316]

Completely ignoring Conrad...

Yeah, most of us are either too young or too uncaring to want to read that math. And the ones of us who actually did read it (me included, for the record), are too stupid to know WTF it means.

So yeah. You're awesome, hooray, you know math, but this thread fails because of our idiocy. Sorry 'bout it.

[Derick]

I think this a very thought provoking thread. Nicely done.

Now a few ideas I had..

Would it not be better to attemp to use distance as a measure for time? If you can find an equation that relates to the relative expasion rate of the universe without using the factor of time then you could substitute time with distance. I realise that to calculate the rate of anything you would need time, so i propose instead of trying to work out the expansion over the entire life of the universe only calculate the rate over a known time period.

This may sound a bit pointless, but if you then use that to calculate distance of expansion, you should in essence be able to work out the total expansion and then the time from that??

I am most likely very wrong as I FAIL epicaly at maths. I dont know, you should try it and see if it works.

[Derick]

I'm not sure but I don't think it's constant, especially during inflationary epochs.

Duely noted, BUT, the reason I suggest distance as a substitute is not because it fits best but because it will be the easiest to work with. We cant get even close to accurite enough with time. So, using a distance average I believe we can get the closest to correct result.

On the subject of the dark matter debate, we are not to sure of the nature of dark matter yet so it would be near impossible to factor it in correctly.

This is however just my opinion.

[Humility]

Relativistically speaking, I think you forgot to factor in the speed of light. Now, I'm a Renaissance man, I focus on learning a little bit of everything rather then a lot in any specific subject, so I am in no way an expert.

The reason that part is VITAL is because the larger something grows the more energy it takes to grow at a fixed rate, and since ε is a constant (which means once we find the unit of energy ε will become a number and not a variable) ε will not grow with the universe (which will now be referred to as Σ), ε is dispersed throughout Σ. This is because there is more or less the same amount of energy at the edges of our universe, and the larger the edges get, the thinner the energy gets and thus δ (the rate of expansion) decreases (which is exactly where ε-(Σ/ε) comes into importance.) Now we have the equation Σ=β^(ε-(Σ/ε)).

This post right here, now it was my understanding that it only takes more energy to expand at a constant rate the more expanded you get relative to the speed of light, but in this case we are speaking purely relative of one part of the universe to another. In which case, remembering gravity, the energy needed to expand at a constant rate actually decreases the further apart it gets. Which is why the rate of slowing is itself slowing down.

[Derick]

Relativistically speaking, I think you forgot to factor in the speed of light. Now, I'm a Renaissance man, I focus on learning a little bit of everything rather then a lot in any specific subject, so I am in no way an expert.



This post right here, now it was my understanding that it only takes more energy to expand at a constant rate the more expanded you get relative to the speed of light, but in this case we are speaking purely relative of one part of the universe to another. In which case, remembering gravity, the energy needed to expand at a constant rate actually decreases the further apart it gets. Which is why the rate of slowing is itself slowing down.

If im not mistaken, the speed of light is more a measure of distance then time. Also to factor in the time it takes light to run from end to end in the universe will be even more impossible then equating the expansion of the universe.

Lastly the highlighted segment shows that what you are saying is this: As the expansion of the universe slows down, it also speeds up. That makes no sense.

But like I always say, this is just my opinion.

[Derick]

I know the speed of light is measured in km/h but in my experience it is more commonly used to measure distance.

I understand that at the begining the universe was 50-50 matter/anti-matter but, if we look at simple physics eg. Newtons laws, then I believe we can see the relationship they hold to one another. Namely energy cannot be destroyed or created, only changed. We thus need to assume that it requires less energy to generate matter then anti matter hense the larger quantinty of matter.

Now, if assume that the universe is 15billion years old, then we already have a time factor to use.

And I agree, using light as a measure is not at all viable in the universe as in is not a constant.

[Derick]

I think that the anihilation of matter and anti-matter creates energy, and that before the moment when gravity came in action, 95% of the anti-matter had already disappeard.
It implies two possibilities
1- Matter and anti-matter were never at equal ammounts
2- Something happened, removing anti-matter or adding matter, because matter and anti matter are worth the same, but anti-matter is the opposite.
(A quark anihilating his negative quark won't get the ammount of the negative quarks to go lower, since the positive quarks also turns into energy upon its contact with a negative quark.)
The only thing explaining how the particles acted during the first moments of the universe is the fact that there was a total of 9 dimensions, making interactions between particles act differently than now. Six of the nine dimensions were down on themselves in a radius equal to the Planck length, 10^-43m, making the interactions between particles optimal for the creations of stars and galaxies.

And yes it is used as a distance because the light you zoom at is older than the light you see with the naked eye.

I think that between the two of us we are currently going very far from the origanal theory of the tread lol...

But, I thiink the most pertanent question in terms of matter/anti-matter interaction and creation would not be there relationship with one another but rather there origin. Also, we need to know if all 9 dimentions operate within the same laws of time and physics. If not, then we are on a wild goose chase. Im not a big believer in quark theory as the "proof" is not readily available. I think string theory is the way to go here. But since strings are theoreticaly infinite we cannot calculate infinity. (we are not Chuck Norris)

What say you my learned friend?

[Derick]

I don't really like the strings, I think they'll have to prove it in labs before I can really trust them, cause right now they are hypothetical, just like the planck particles and 90% of the theories explaining the universe.
For me, the only "great unification" is a certain level of temperature that simply removes the laws of physics. Also, my other problem is the fact that we can't really know if our universe is pulsating, if there is more than one (well I think so) and if there is, as some people say, alternate universes, which act like symetric particles, but without having the same laws of physics as ours (gravity could have a positive worth in those universes, there could be 11 dimensions, the optimal ammount, or 2 dimensions.)

Who knows?

I think the only thing we can really say for certain at this moment in time is that green house gasses affect global warming.

String theorys math is sound. The proof however, past the initial math will be impossible to find. Thus we conclude that we have to follow the rule of thumb stating that math cannot lie. To this end we can determine that string theory is not only a theory but is the reality of our current universe.

Now, let me pose this question to you, where did the seed of the universe eminate from?