my own little theory

The non amateur stuff. Hawking, black holes, that sort of thing

Moderators: joe, Brian, Guy Fennimore

vodka_man
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:54 am
Contact:

my own little theory

Post by vodka_man »

Hi fellows astronomers. My name i Sasha Shibanov and i am 15 years old, iI live in melbourne, australia. This may seem quite young to most of you but i think i've come up with something nice here. (I am new to the forum and registrated only to ask that question)

Recently i have done a project in school (year 10) about the creation of the universe. we were meant to research different theories about the creation of the universe and combine them in order to retell the creation story of the universe.
i have thought about it for quite a while and came up with a simple thing (of my own) which i have not mathematically proven (I haven't got enough knowledge to) but have a simple application in real life.

I think that one dimension can be created from another. for example, if we take a 3D leb pencil and start drawing with it on a piece of paper we (theoretically) can draw as much as we want and therefore create a 2D "universe" from a 3D object. this can be done from the smallest 3D object.

now since the 4th dimension is time maybe, using time as a 4th dimension we can create and infinite 3D universe.
I would like to know your thoughts about it if possible.

Thanks in advance, sasha.
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Post by joe »

I'll give it some thought but first....Vodka man...15? :shock:
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.
vodka_man
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:54 am
Contact:

Post by vodka_man »

lol thats just a nickname i use in all kinda forums
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Re: my own little theory

Post by joe »

vodka_man wrote:I think that one dimension can be created from another. for example, if we take a 3D leb pencil and start drawing with it on a piece of paper we (theoretically) can draw as much as we want and therefore create a 2D "universe" from a 3D object.
Hi Sasha,

Is there not a flaw here? The 2D universe you are creating comes from a 3D object, the pencil as you state, but eventually the pencil will be "worn down" as you create or draw. Therefore any 2D universe that is created from a 3D universe is limited by the amount of 3D matter available.

Can there be such a thing as a real two-dimensional object in a three dimensional world?
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.
vodka_man
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:54 am
Contact:

Post by vodka_man »

yes i hav tohught about it....

but as i said this was just an example.... look if there was to be even an atom. you could keep slicing it forever and therefore the amount of 2D matter you can create is ulimited.
i hope you understand what im saying...
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Post by joe »

vodka_man wrote:yes i hav tohught about it....

but as i said this was just an example.... look if there was to be even an atom. you could keep slicing it forever and therefore the amount of 2D matter you can create is ulimited.
i hope you understand what im saying...
My example was using your example.

You cannot slice an atom infinitely. You will very quickly reach a point (pardon pun) where you will not be able to see where matter is. Matter is not smooth but comes in quanta and once you've reached the smallest of these you can slice no more. As I was suggesting though, a slice is not two dimensional, it is still three dimensional only very small in one dimension. Can you suggest to me something that has only two dimensions?

If you concede that an atom is three dimensional - you are going to slice it up after all to create the infinite two dimensional universe - then each slice is still going to have three dimensions. Each slice will be made up of that which is smaller than an atom, not slices of atom....or proton or quark, etc.
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.
vodka_man
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:54 am
Contact:

Post by vodka_man »

hmmm you are right.... and there no really such thing as a two dimenssional object (in our world). And you are right that i we keep slicing it we will still have alot of 3D objects
But i'm talkin about Theory, not a practical thing, so are you sure that in theory this is ot possible?

you say that matter comes in quanta but has anyone really seen it or proven it ? (im sorry for my lack of knowledge as im only in year 10)
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Post by joe »

vodka_man wrote:you say that matter comes in quanta but has anyone really seen it or proven it ? (im sorry for my lack of knowledge as im only in year 10)
It's a perfectly reasonable and pertinent question Sasha so no need to apologise at all. :D (In fact you are in good company. It occupied the mind of Albert Einstein for quite some time)

The problem is that it's not that easy to answer. The short answer is that practically all of the physical theories of matter work ONLY IF matter comes in quanta or "packets". If matter (and energy) was continuous we would not see the world in the way that we do.

It becomes very difficult to see something very small because the instruments we use to see with have an effect on the thing we are looking at. For example our eyes need light to enter them in order to see. This light is reflected off the object we wish to see. That object, if it is very small, has thus been changed by the light before we see it. It's the same for everything but the effect is only significant when you are trying to see single particles.

To see something smaller than an atom, a proton for example, you need to seperate it from the nucleus which takes huge amounts of energy and usually involves pounding it with other particles. Think of the effect that has on the proton before you "see" it.

Going even smaller, protons are made of quarks (we are told) that are stuck so fast together that the amount of energy used to "see" them actually causes other quarks to be produced!

So....has anyone ever seen a quantum of matter? I'm not sure :?

(Please step in anyone who actualy might know what they are talking about on this subject)
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.
vodka_man
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:54 am
Contact:

Post by vodka_man »

kool....i get you now, and i started having quite abit of a doubt about my theory, as it does preatty much contradicts the laws of conservationg of mass.
The qestion of how the universe was troubling me (and many others) for quite a while.
how about that "twin universe" theory, where there's positive and negetive matter. can anyone give me a nice source of info' about this theory?

I dont really belive in the big bang, because if if it did happen, that little condenced ball had to come from somwhere, and expand somewho (thats how i came to think about my theory).
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Post by joe »

Have a look HERE
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.
vodka_man
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:54 am
Contact:

Post by vodka_man »

thanks ill have a look
davep
Posts: 2814
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 11:07 am
Location: South Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by davep »

vodka_man wrote:I dont really belive in the big bang, because if if it did happen, that little condenced ball had to come from somwhere, and expand somewho (thats how i came to think about my theory).
Why "had to"?
vodka_man
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:54 am
Contact:

Post by vodka_man »

what do you mean by that "had to"?
well matter and energy can't just be created out of nothing....can they? :roll:
davep
Posts: 2814
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 11:07 am
Location: South Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by davep »

vodka_man wrote:well matter and energy can't just be created out of nothing....can they? :roll:
Well, that's what I'm asking you -- why do you think they have to be?

Take the hypothesis you first proposed and illustrated with a pencil. You didn't get rid of the "it has to come from somewhere" problem -- all you did was put the problem back one step. To follow your analogy: if the picture was created by the pencil then where did the pencil come from?
vodka_man
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:54 am
Contact:

Post by vodka_man »

yep thats quite a problem ;)
ummm well i dont really know (no-one does :)) but i think thats the matter-antimatter thing is quite right....or close to it
Post Reply