Science General Discussion

[Legend]

hmm interesting thought about absolute speed though... I mean there are constants, like gravity and the speed of light, but I wouldn't call those "absolute speeds" either. If there is an absolute '0' is there an absolute max heat value? So I suppose I could pose the same question as per absolute inertia, could there also be an absolute speed? Time is a constant I'd say, but it does seem to be mostly relative in how we track time, but a moment passes regardless of how different the measures could be made to distinguish by how much it has passed.

To define an absolute speed we would need absolute parameters for measure in terms of time and distance. Temperature seems simpler in terms as it is merely a measure of a singular factor.

Again I pose the question, but in different terms: Is it possible for an object to exist with absolutely no external force being applied to it? Absolute inertia or 0 speed?

Theoretically yes for forces, but that only gives constant inertia or speed.

[Raven]

No, I'm just remembering what my Astrophysics teacher taught us so I'm not sure what this "Big Freeze" is.  Space is supposed to be at 0K since it expands, it doesn't move.  But it's near 3K.  Which led scientists to believe that the 3K background radiation is the remnants from the Big Bang when it was still a singularity of infinite energy.  Though I was thinking about more and I'm unsure if that radiation will dissipate or not and the 3K might be a result of the universe thinning it out as it expands.  Thus it thinned out to 3K and should settle to an near 0 level but not at it.  Not sure what would be true, I'd have to ask a physicist on what would happen to the radiation.

From what I understand space will approach absolute zero but never truly achieve it nor will absolute zero be possible so long as it can be observed. Observing something influences it at the quantum level which makes it impossible to measure an absolute zero state. Space is not empty. It has quantum makeup just like anything else. The only way absolute zero is truly possible is for everything in the universe to be in that state so that no observations can be made and thus no quantum excitements can occur.

This is assuming that things at the quantum level can also be put to a halt which, from our current understanding, they actually cannot. Things that happen on a macro scale often mean jack to things on the quantum scale but things on the quantum scale can quite easily influence those on a macro scale. As long as something is happening at those tiny scales absolute zero cannot truly be achieved which means it never will be, based on our current understanding, since things at the quantum level often do as they dang well please regardless of what even common sense would tell you.

The Big Freeze is the growing scientific consensus on the ultimate fate of a lone universe in which the expanding distances of matter, lack of gas to form new stars, and increasing number of black holes eventually lead to an entire universe at near absolute zero which is incapable of sustaining life as we know it. A state of maximum entropy is then reached where information can no longer be processed. Basically, everything becomes freezing fudgy cold to the point where everything dies and then eventually nothing can happen at all. The good news is that quantum activity will still likely, at some point, give rise to a type of big bang which would start a whole new process.

[darkknightkryta]

hmm interesting thought about absolute speed though... I mean there are constants, like gravity and the speed of light, but I wouldn't call those "absolute speeds" either. If there is an absolute '0' is there an absolute max heat value? So I suppose I could pose the same question as per absolute inertia, could there also be an absolute speed? Time is a constant I'd say, but it does seem to be mostly relative in how we track time, but a moment passes regardless of how different the measures could be made to distinguish by how much it has passed.

To define an absolute speed we would need absolute parameters for measure in terms of time and distance. Temperature seems simpler in terms as it is merely a measure of a singular factor.

Again I pose the question, but in different terms: Is it possible for an object to exist with absolutely no external force being applied to it? Absolute inertia or 0 speed?

Not sure about a max temperature, but I would assume that the singularity that the Big Bang came out of would be it.  Same with speed.  Nothing but light can move at that speed, which is why its considered the limit.  Also, regardless of relativity, light moves at a constant speed in a vacuum, doesn't matter what velocity the observer is moving in.  This also causes causality problems if information was to move at light because of inertial references.

[darkknightkryta]

From what I understand space will approach absolute zero but never truly achieve it nor will absolute zero be possible so long as it can be observed. Observing something influences it at the quantum level which makes it impossible to measure an absolute zero state. Space is not empty. It has quantum makeup just like anything else. The only way absolute zero is truly possible is for everything in the universe to be in that state so that no observations can be made and thus no quantum excitements can occur.

This is assuming that things at the quantum level can also be put to a halt which, from our current understanding, they actually cannot. Things that happen on a macro scale often mean jack to things on the quantum scale but things on the quantum scale can quite easily influence those on a macro scale. As long as something is happening at those tiny scales absolute zero cannot truly be achieved which means it never will be, based on our current understanding, since things at the quantum level often do as they dang well please regardless of what even common sense would tell you.

The Big Freeze is the growing scientific consensus on the ultimate fate of a lone universe in which the expanding distances of matter, lack of gas to form new stars, and increasing number of black holes eventually lead to an entire universe at near absolute zero which is incapable of sustaining life as we know it. A state of maximum entropy is then reached where information can no longer be processed. Basically, everything becomes freezing fudgy cold to the point where everything dies and then eventually nothing can happen at all. The good news is that quantum activity will still likely, at some point, give rise to a type of big bang which would start a whole new process.

Space is empty, so to speak.  Which is why it should be at 0K.  Obviously right now that's not the cause because of the radiation.  Like I said, it depends what happens to this radiation.  If it dissipates completely then the universe will become 0K with whatever sun, planet, etc, inbetween giving off energy and moving.

I recall the universe burning out of hydrogen in the trillions of years.  Its one possibility.  The other is a contraction.  It depends what the cosmological constant ends up being.  There was a third option I can't remember right now.  I really wish I knew where my astrophysics book went :/.

[Raven]

Space is empty, so to speak.  Which is why it should be at 0K.  Obviously right now that's not the cause because of the radiation.  Like I said, it depends what happens to this radiation.  If it dissipates completely then the universe will become 0K with whatever sun, planet, etc, inbetween giving off energy and moving.

I recall the universe burning out of hydrogen in the trillions of years.  Its one possibility.  The other is a contraction.  It depends what the cosmological constant ends up being.  There was a third option I can't remember right now.  I really wish I knew where my astrophysics book went :/.

The third is everything being pulled apart. Nicknamed the Big Rip.

[Mmm_fish_tacos]

I believe in the contraction theory. Basically, the universe exploded and we are still experiencing that effect. Over time it will stop expanding and start contracting on its self, and then explode again, starting the whole cycle over.

[Raven]

I believe in the contraction theory. Basically, the universe exploded and we are still experiencing that effect. Over time it will stop expanding and start contracting on its self, and then explode again, starting the whole cycle over.

Apparently, as of today, scientists have less support for the idea because more of them believe that gravity is not slowing the expansion of the universe down like they previously thought. Rather, the expansion is accelerating from certain observations. There are some other factors that need to be considered though. What will ultimately happen to the universe is far from decided and most theories revolve around this being the only universe. There are some others that say this is not the case.

[the-pi-guy]

Apparently, as of today, scientists have less support for the idea because more of them believe that gravity is not slowing the expansion of the universe down like they previously thought. Rather, the expansion is accelerating from certain observations. There are some other factors that need to be considered though. What will ultimately happen to the universe is far from decided and most theories revolve around this being the only universe. There are some others that say this is not the case.

#DarkEnergy>DarkMatter

[Raven]

#DarkEnergy>DarkMatter

Among other things. Dark Energy being a big part of it.

[Mmm_fish_tacos]

Apparently, as of today, scientists have less support for the idea because more of them believe that gravity is not slowing the expansion of the universe down like they previously thought. Rather, the expansion is accelerating from certain observations. There are some other factors that need to be considered though. What will ultimately happen to the universe is far from decided and most theories revolve around this being the only universe. There are some others that say this is not the case.

There is still much force behind the expansion. We wont be around when the universe slows down. Where are you reading this? Because i was watching a "through the worm hole" just a few months ago or maybe weeks that talked about that. Maybe that episode was dated but couldn't be that old. Is the scientific community changing it's mind that quickly? Then again, that's all they talked about during that episode and didn't talk about the others.

[Raven]

There is still much force behind the expansion. We wont be around when the universe slows down. Where are you reading this? Because i was watching a "through the worm hole" just a few months ago or maybe weeks that talked about that. Maybe that episode was dated but couldn't be that old. Is the scientific community changing it's mind that quickly? Then again, that's all they talked about during that episode and didn't talk about the others.

Don't watch The Discovery Channel. Just don't.

[Mmm_fish_tacos]

Don't watch The Discovery Channel. Just don't.

Lol, why? and fastest reply on earth.

[Legend]

Don't watch The Discovery Channel. Just don't.

Mythbusters is amusing though!

[Raven]

Lol, why? and fastest reply on earth.

A lot of times channels like that will use outdated information, pay actors to act like scientific authorities, fool scientists into thinking they're doing a show on something and then take their words out of context, and all the while telling things in a more entertaining and shocking way that betrays what it actually is. The History Channel is especially notorious for that and The Discovery Channel was caught spewing battleship a few times from what I heard. You're better off googling the stuff you want to know about. I'll tell you this much, Wikipedia is way more helpful than any TV you'll watch and there are websites out there with good information.

[Mmm_fish_tacos]

I love the discovery channel. and they do bring in real scientist, so it's not like they should completely disregarded. But they may not structure their shows the way a university would their classes.