Isn't the current theory just that given the singularity it does not matter what happened before.
The way I understand the current theory, there isn't really a before in the sense of time. Time is a function of the expansion of space, so when there was no space expanding there was no time, no before.
Any before if there was a before would be complete inmeasurable, and incomprehensible to us at our current state.
I heard a great interview today with a professor out of Tel Aviv who was part of a team that discovered a way to mess with Quarks to create a power process 8 times more powerful than a hydrogen bomb.
had they believed there was a potential to militarize the discovery the professor said they would have buried it.
Motivated by their findings, they then focussed on the much-heavier bottom quarks. The same binding process, they claim, would theoretically release approximately 138 MeV, which is almost eight times as much as hydrogen fusion (which also powers hydrogen bombs). Naturally, this set off alarm bells, with the researchers hesitating to go public with their findings.
"If I thought for a microsecond that this had any military applications, I would not have published it," professor Marek Karliner told Live Science. But, further calculations suggested that causing a chain reaction with quarks would be impossible -- mainly because they don't exist long enough to set each other off. Plus, there's the fact that this type of bottom quark fusion is completely theoretical.
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
You could plausibly get cosmic radiation down to modern-day-chernobyl levels through that. The atmosphere on earth does serve to reduce radiation significantly; people who live in the himalayas get roughly 4x the cosmic radiation of those living at sea level. If you could develop a similar atmosphere around Mars, even without any magnetic shield, you could get the cosmic radiation down from seriously dangerous levels of 400+ millsieverts a year, down to a manageable 100 millisieverts. (100 mSV a year is around where we know that it starts to produce cancer).
This is not good enough for humans to be exposed to full time; but through nuclear age, we've learned a lot about how the worst effects of radiation can be largely managed through shortening exposure. If humans are spending most of their time in lead-shielded bunkers, they could live manageably on an atmospheric Mars. Space travel has deadly radiation not simply because of the intensity of the radiation, but because we're talking about weeks or months of unblocked radiation. No need for that in a colony scenario.
As well, a lot of life on earth has much better radioresistance than we do. If you could create an atmosphere, you could hypothetically design an ecosystem of plants and animals with a high radioresistance; natural selection may eventually produce species with improved radioresistance as well. It's not generally a useful survival trait on earth beyond a few extremophiles, so we don't see many animals with it. But in sites like Chernobyl, plants have evolved some radioresistance in a relatively short amount of time. It's definitely something that needs more research. You might never get large mammals, which are particularly vulnerable, but plants and simple animals including insects and shellfish have much higher levels of radioresistance.
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus
None of it makes any sense really.
Is yours a religious take on the big bang? Why can’t it be the beginning of everything?
Didn’t they recently discover/theorize that it’s impossible to be in a simulation because the computing power necessary to simulate the actions of tiny particles would make it larger than the universe itself or something like that. It was probably posted in here.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
No not at all. I was raised a christian but if I had to pick a religious take on creation it would be the Hindu's bindu vipshot theory by far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AltaGuy
Why can’t it be the beginning of everything?
The theory of the big bang says that the universe exploded out of a dense singularity, but it can't explain why it still has an almost uniform temperature and it kind of goes against the theory of relativity as well.
I suspect in the near future we will find out that dark matter/energy and black holes will change the way we look at the universe, I also believe we'll find out it's even more vast and older than the scientists thought
The Following User Says Thank You to Snuffleupagus For This Useful Post:
Didn’t they recently discover/theorize that it’s impossible to be in a simulation because the computing power necessary to simulate the actions of tiny particles would make it larger than the universe itself or something like that. It was probably posted in here.
Unless those things are only calculated when someone tries to measure them. So you don't need to caclucualte the position of every particle in the universe. They can just be approximated.
Also that calculation assumes the inverse outside the simulation is the same as the universe within the simulation.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Didn’t they recently discover/theorize that it’s impossible to be in a simulation because the computing power necessary to simulate the actions of tiny particles would make it larger than the universe itself or something like that. It was probably posted in here.
In the theory that a simulation is impossible, there is an assumption that the simulator would be working with the same rules as us and simulating everything equally. If the scale and physics of their universe are beyond ours or if they are only simulate things we look at, the problem is largely solved.
As a subscriber to the simulation theory you could ask why it took us 100 years to detect gravitational waves, and now we do it within days of turning on LIGO, maybe they still had to write the code, maybe protons, neutrons and electrons were single indivisible particles 150 years ago, but as we edge towards the nuclear age a layer of depth was added. Limiting a simulation to the extent of human observation at the scale of the world and expanding on it is a seamingly achievable task, setting boundries like the event horizon does allow for the possibility .
There are real problems I have with the computer simulation model;
#1) is it's cop-out, basically creating a new deity "there is a creator because I can't explain everything"
#2) it relies on the non existent perfect universe paradox, basically people have confused cause and effect, we evolved to suit the conditions of our world, and had things been different either we would be different or we wouldn't be here to ask the question.
#3) it just doesn't pass the Occams Razor smell test for me, are we observing reality or is the world the elaborate design of some geek in his moms basement?
#4) Why is the universe so big, they could have put the event horizon much much closer, maybe universe needs to be this big, you need to get to 3 generation stars before life is possible, But it seams like the creator of a universe could make it smaller if the point was to simulate us.
#5) Where are the Aliens, If the point of simulating the universe is physics the detail of life seams like a waste of resources making us a paradox. If the purpose is to study life than there should be life at every opportunity, just for efficiency sake. It should be very easy to find other examples of life.
Bacteria found on the outside of the International Space station could be alien life, according to a cosmonaut who has visited the satellite.
Spacewalkers regularly take samples and materials from the outside of the station when they head outside for what are officially called "extravehicular activity". Those samples are then taken down to scientists on Earth, who study them to understand the workings of the International Space Station and possibly life in space.