Friday, June 19, 2015

A conjecture on scientists in separate, isolated galaxies, and whether their conclusions might vary

Before I begin let me first state that I am quite aware of the possibility that this particular bit of pondering has already been postulated, and perhaps even laid to rest already. I did do some Googling on it and came up empty, but even so, I can only hope that those of you a good deal more informed than I am will forgive the conceit of my presenting it here as if it were anything new at all. As Captain Picard once said “It may be a conceit but it's a healthy one.” Or at least I hope so.

Try as I might to be well informed, there will always be things I will miss. One can only do the best they can with what they have and then hope that they will, from time to time, be lucky enough to stumble over something worth while. In my view it is better to try and fail, no matter how much you might embarrass yourself, than to not try anything at all.

With that out of the way, let us begin. Here is what I hope is a conjecture for you that is just full of interesting questions.

Suppose you have two galaxies. Let's further suppose that both are fairly big as galaxies go, having already done some intersecting with other, smaller galaxies, and have accumulated a lot of solar systems as a result. They both also have, as a result, quite large, mass singularities at their centers, and because of that, as well as all of the intersecting having already occurred, some of the solar systems inside are now moving around the mass singularity at a significant percentage of the speed of light. As such, relative to the singularity, as well as more than a few fellow solar systems, time moves a lot slower for them.

With me so far? Good.

So... Let's now suppose that galaxy A is separated from galaxy B by more than the event horizon formed of both the rate of overall universe expansion and the inherent limits of the speed of light. As such nothing, beyond what they could both get in common before that separation occurred, can translate in the ordinary fashion through space time between our two fast moving solar systems. My first question, then, is what is the time relationship between the two? In other words, would they be in the same rate of time if they were moving around their respective mass singularities at similar speeds, and even if they were, would the synchronization they had relative to the common point of origin (that is, after all, why an atom in one part of the cosmos is supposed to do the same things in another) still hold? Does synchronization at all, in this context, have any applicability in the first place?

Let's take the conjecture further. Let us suppose that both fast moving solar systems have life, and evolved sentients to the point that they have a science that is at the level of where we are today. Let us then allow that they have been observing the cosmos that they can observe, and smashing bits at the quantum level, just as we have done. As such they would obviously, then, be formulating conclusions based upon the separate bubble snapshots of the cosmos, as the light now streaming to them would allow them to perceive. What do you suppose might be the same in their conclusions, and what might be different?

On the face of it you might conclude that the smashing part of their inquiries would yield similar results, but would that necessarily be true? They are both now expanding in an isolated realm of their own vector of time. Not only that, but we cannot be certain that their very small inputs in the quantum world will not have quite unexpected affects on their bit of macro; as we already know that small inputs into very complex systems can yield results far surpassing the scale of the trigger. And then there would also be the random variations of how each set of scientists went about their smashing; with something even a simple as the mind set of the different groups might be applicable here.

Would both solar system groups conclude that there wasn't enough mass to account for the cosmos they perceived? Or that there would be an energy not directly observable now effecting expansion? Might they be right for the wrong reasons? Or just wrong?

Is one of the basic problems here that we are making observations, and forming conclusions, without a proper regard for our own time scale bias? Or, in other words, trying to deduce relationships that can only be truly understood after, say, at least ten thousand years of observation? Or even orders of magnitude more? Does the amount of energy in absolute vacuum disagree with theory precisely because of such bias, let alone the possibility that expansion itself is regionally variable?

And then you throw in the idea of worm holes, as well as quantum entanglement. A pathway to circumvent ordinary space time? And a meaning link irrespective of distance, at the very least, and maybe of time as well?

Hoo boy! My head is sure spinning. I do love it though. Even if this is nothing new to the real brianiacs out there in science land it sure is fun for me to think about.

No comments:

Post a Comment