Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 209 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 1
True 1
Page 11 of 20 < 1 2 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 19 20 >
Topic Options
#40119 - 09/13/11 12:54 PM Re: Oh my... [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
I have been discussing QM and the big bang in a number of threads.

I am not a great believer of this but it is worth throwing it out there.

There is the possibility under QM that the universe was the largest bosenova explosion ever seen. The interesting part about such a QM explosion is the initial universe would have been absolute zero and infact the univrese would never have got much warmer than that sort of what we see today.

The real question now is can we make any predictions that could be checked if this were so.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1011.0001v1.pdf
http://vixra.org/pdf/1011.0002v1.pdf
http://vixra.org/pdf/1011.0003v1.pdf
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
.
#40124 - 09/13/11 07:08 PM Re: Oh my... [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
there seems to be 1 huge problem , everything would need to reverse direction in order to head back to the center.

however there isnt anything that could accomplish that.

unless the universe is inside a area that has a pressure and the big bang pushed against it.

then perhaps that pressurized area could eventually push everything back.

or a huge vacuum was created when the big bang occurred and eventually the vacuum would pull everything back.

Im really not concerned with it , I was just trying to see if there was a way that it could happen , thats all.

and I'll leave that type of thing up to you guys.

theres another huge problem also.

a rock cannot create another rock.
atoms dont create atoms.
gasses dont multiply.

all the scientist on earth cannot create a grain of sand.

or a simple hydrogen atom.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#40125 - 09/13/11 08:32 PM Re: Oh my... [Re: paul]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Good links, as usual, Orac. As you can imagine I ran into a problem early in the first one.

Quote:
infinite and (almost) eternal.


How can something be "almost" eternal?

How can something be infinite without being eternal?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#40129 - 09/14/11 01:45 AM Re: Oh my... [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul
there seems to be 1 huge problem , everything would need to reverse direction in order to head back to the center.

however there isnt anything that could accomplish that.

unless the universe is inside a area that has a pressure and the big bang pushed against it.

then perhaps that pressurized area could eventually push everything back.

or a huge vacuum was created when the big bang occurred and eventually the vacuum would pull everything back.

Im really not concerned with it , I was just trying to see if there was a way that it could happen , thats all.

and I'll leave that type of thing up to you guys.

theres another huge problem also.

a rock cannot create another rock.
atoms dont create atoms.
gasses dont multiply.

all the scientist on earth cannot create a grain of sand.

or a simple hydrogen atom.



This a QM effect you need to look at the background of a bosenova explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosenova)(http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/35556)

They first collapse inwards the explode outwards

Quote:

Bosenovas were first created about 10 years ago by adjusting the magnetic-field strength between the atoms in a BEC so that the short-range "van der Waals" forces between the atoms are attractive, rather than repulsive. This causes the BEC to collapse in on itself much like a dying star. It then explodes like a tiny supernova and throws off many of its constituent atoms.


That part I have no trouble with it's the size and scale I have trouble with.



Edited by Orac (09/14/11 01:47 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#40151 - 09/15/11 02:05 AM Re: Oh my... [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
That part I have no trouble with it's the size and scale I have trouble with.


I was thinking that as the compression increases the electrons would be pushed inward causing them to spin faster and faster until they could not hold orbit.

then they are released and cannot find any atom that will accept them.

so they burst outwards in the form of energy. (light?)

this allows the matter to fit into a smaller area.

this continues until the atoms really dont have any electrons as a shell.

there is an enormous space between the nucleus of an atom and its orbiting electrons.

this allows for a awesome amount of matter to fit into a softball sized area.

our moon perhaps !

the way I like to think of it is our solar system is an atom.



the distance from pluto ( was a planet in my day ) and our sun would be removed and only our sun would remain as a part of the compressed mass.

of course our suns mass would also release its energy and become extremely small.







_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#40153 - 09/15/11 02:40 AM Re: Oh my... [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
In QM there really is no orbiting of an electron like the old school physical representation you have above it's just a weird waveform thats what they are doing in bosenova explosions.

There really is no physical "spinning" per say in a classic physics world sense ... spin is a property of the waveform behaviour.

Here is there view of a hydrogen atom
http://www.hydrogenlab.de/


This does a nice presentation
http://www.physikdidaktik.uni-karlsruhe....ptseite_uk.html

If you walk through the slides it will show you the current sort of topology

Oh wow wikipedia have updated there entry as well ... not bad now
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_atom

The waveform representation is second image down on the right.


Like any waveforms they are subject to interference and resonances and thats what they are doing in bosenova explosions.


Thats how they rip the atoms apart the waveforms seem to destructively interfer and get ejected to somewhere else in the space or phased in a way we can't see them there are a number of views on that.

Thats why in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosenova they talk about -> "The 'missing' atoms are almost certainly still around in some form, but just not in a form that we can detect them in our current experiment,"

We have very strong evidence you can't destroy the waves it's a fundemental of QM theory ... Quantum information can not be created nor destroyed. We have attempted in experiments to erase QM information and what we find is it jumps ignoring normal physical rules (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html)

So we say the Qunatum information wave is around somewhere the trick is to find it :-)

In QM the collapse of the universe inwards would represent a state we call degenerate matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter) which is a rather weird thing

Quote:

Imagine that a plasma is cooled and compressed repeatedly. Eventually, we will not be able to compress the plasma any further, because the exclusion principle states that two fermions cannot share the same quantum state. When in this state, since there is no extra space for any particles, we can also say that a particle's location is extremely defined. Therefore, since (according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) then we must say that their momentum is extremely uncertain since the particles are located in a very confined space. Therefore, even though the plasma is cold, the particles must be moving very fast on average. This leads to the conclusion that if you want to compress an object into a very small space, you must use tremendous force to control its particles' momentum.


And thats where the weird part comes from in QM :-)





Edited by Orac (09/15/11 06:42 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#40171 - 09/16/11 12:34 PM Re: Oh my... [Re: paul]
finiter Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/15/11
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: paul
I guess your talking about the big bang.

as in any explosion there would be differences in the magnatude of the force that caused all the stuff to move outward , so no everything would not move at the same speed.'

I would think that the first stuff moved slower because there was more for the explosion to push.

the middle would have moved faster.

the last stuff would move even faster.

sort of an inverted ball.

A good model, provided you remove the concept of explosion. You see, if the speeds were like that you mentioned, then the universe would always be uniform, only that there should be a correlation between the speed and the distance from the centre of the universe (in this model the universe would be spherical, and so will have a centre). If the internal energies of the bodies are proportional to their speeds, ie, the speed-internal energy is same for all at any given time, then the expansion can be regarded as a thermodynamic change involving speed and internal energy. that is there is no need of an explosion.

Top
#40172 - 09/16/11 01:23 PM Re: Oh my... [Re: finiter]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Finiter
If the internal energies of the bodies are proportional to their speeds, ie, the speed-internal energy is same for all at any given time, then the expansion can be regarded as a thermodynamic change involving speed and internal energy. that is there is no need of an explosion.


It is not uncommon for physicists to argue that we should not regard the BB as an explosion, because it is an expansion of everything, rather than a situation in which the Universe is being forced out into pre-existing space. Although I appreciate this line of reasoning, I feel that, in terms of the physical scenario, it is little more than an exercise in semantics. Your distinction appears to be similar. Is an explosion not an expansion brought about by thermodynamic change?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#40178 - 09/16/11 02:29 PM Re: Oh my... [Re: Bill S.]
finiter Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/15/11
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Although I appreciate this line of reasoning, I feel that, in terms of the physical scenario, it is little more than an exercise in semantics. Your distinction appears to be similar. Is an explosion not an expansion brought about by thermodynamic change?

Yes, an explosion is also an expansion brought about by thermodynamic changes. However, there is a difference. Consider a nuclear bomb explosion and a nuclear reactor; both are similar in thermodynamic changes. But in a reactor, the change is controlled one (here, it is controlled by us). Similarly, the model of expansion 'with an explosion' and 'without an explosion' are different.

The thermodynamic change not involving an explosion will be very slow, and the system will be in equilibrium at every instant. Such changes are reversible changes. (A perfectly reversible change is defined as a change that happens infinitely slowly, and where the system is always in equilibrium).In the case of the universe, which is an isolated system, the expansion continues for billions of years (an observed fact), and after that the reverse process or contraction takes place (in my opinion).

Top
#40186 - 09/16/11 08:38 PM Re: Oh my... [Re: finiter]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Finiter
in a reactor, the change is controlled one (here, it is controlled by us). Similarly, the model of expansion 'with an explosion' and 'without an explosion' are different.


Does this mean you disagree with the idea that the Universe might have expanded by several orders of magnitude in a very small fraction of a second?

Quote:
(A perfectly reversible change is defined as a change that happens infinitely slowly, and where the system is always in equilibrium).


So, a perfectly reversable change is one that is never completed?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#40197 - 09/17/11 11:32 AM Re: Oh my... [Re: Bill S.]
finiter Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/15/11
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Does this mean you disagree with the idea that the Universe might have expanded by several orders of magnitude in a very small fraction of a second?

I think that such an expansion is not possible. The expansion starts with maximum acceleration, eventually, the acceleration reaches zero and after that there is negative acceleration. The speed of expansion will be maximum when acceleration is zero.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
So, a perfectly reversable change is one that is never completed?

That is, the system will always be in equilibrium, and so the change cannot go in any direction, unless there is some potential state which favours a change in a particular direction. As the process continues in that direction, the potential state decreases, and another potential state exactly opposite to the initial state is created. As a result the process stops, and the reverse process starts (like a pendulum oscillating).

Top
#40198 - 09/17/11 11:50 AM Re: Oh my... [Re: finiter]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Finiter, how do you define "infinitely slowly"?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#40203 - 09/18/11 10:50 AM Re: Oh my... [Re: Bill S.]
finiter Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/15/11
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Finiter, how do you define "infinitely slowly"?

Infinitely slowly indicates that the system is in a static state of equilibrium. Either the changes in both directions happen at the same rate or no changes happen. Anyway, the system can change in both the directions, but is in a static state if taken as a whole.

Instead of a static state, there can be a dynamic state of equilibrium. Here,the system oscillates between two symmetrically opposite states; here the changes are not infinitely slow, but are smooth as far as the system as a whole is considered. That is, the changes are similar to controlled processes, and not like an explosion.

Top
#40209 - 09/18/11 08:40 PM Re: Oh my... [Re: finiter]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Finiter, I have no problem with either of your definitions, except that neither involves infinity; except for the state in which "no changes happen". In that case, nothing could be said to be happening, either slowly or quickly.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#45904 - 10/31/12 10:18 AM It's not like I died or anything. [Re: Marchimedes]
Marchimedes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 204
[quote name='teacher' timestamp='1351375591' post='2847510']
Hypothetical space.

That is, nothing. Nothing but a vacuum. Materialize a mass in our space and blow it up. The matter will disperse omni directionally. Almost immediately the area occupied by the mass will become empty, the matter moving outward in all directions. Immediately after explosion the matter will slow it's outward expansion. The matter dispersed like the skin of a ball that is constantly expanding will expand until the gravity of the matter overcomes it's it inertia and begins to shrink back again into a single mass at the original point of materialization.

This post is not concerned with the time that the matter shrinks but the time at which the matter is expanding.

The matter can be seen at this time as being dispersed in such a manner as the green area in this image...



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

image from http://www.teber.biz/materials/images/boyut7.jpg

from site http://www.teber.biz

The x,y,z coordinates 0,0,0 being the point at which our matter materialized.

The current accepted theory of how our universe came to be is big bang theory (no, not the TV show with Sheldon who I'm waiting for someone to kick the snot out of). If this is true then the green area of that 3d sphere is the distribution of the matter of our universe. Our telescopes are presently theorized as being able to see 13-14 billion light years away. I call this our visible universe. As within our ability to see there is not empty space one assumes that our visible universe must be within the skin of our 3d ball as detonated by the red outline...



A cross section of our 3d sphere on the x,y axis yields fig. 1 (yes I moved the red section some.) As the farthest we can see is 13-14 billion light years, (I'm gonna go with 14 billion), that would yield us a visible universe that is 28 billion light years in diameter.



As the explosion of matter in a vacuum throws matter in all directions the section in blue directly opposite the red section must also be 28 billion light years across. This means that the diameter of our sphere must be at least 56 billion years.

The current accepted theoretical universal speed limit is 186,000 miles/second. "c", proposed by Einstein.

The current accepted theoretical age of the universe is 13.7 billion years.

As the fastest that matter can move is c, and the universe is 13.7 billion years old then then the theoretical limit of our sphere's diameter is 13.7 x 2, or 27.4 billion light years.

The math doesn't add up, sumpin is wrong. One of these is incorrect...

1. The big bang theory.
The Deuce. How we determine the furthest we can see.
Craps. The age of the universe.
IV. c being the speed limit of matter.

That's all I'm saying in this post, that at least one of those is incorrect.
[/quote]
_________________________
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?

Top
#45905 - 10/31/12 11:27 AM Re: It's not like I died or anything. [Re: Marchimedes]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Marchi, that was answered in your earlier threads.

A reminder: There's no known limit, such as c, on velocity of objects relative to each other, only relative to the spacetime through which they move.

If you'd like to see how the galaxies are arranged, try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0xd0PrYaY8&feature=player_detailpage

...particularly from about 20 minutes into the video.

There's a wealth of such info available. You're not obliged to believe it, of course. You won't be placed under house arrest or anything.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#45909 - 10/31/12 09:28 PM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: redewenur]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
First posted, Sun May 27 2007 08:25 PM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: Marchimedes]
redewenur
==========================
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=45905&page=1
==========================================
The following sounds more like philosophy and theology than science
Quote:
...The Big Bang started without any matter - it was too hot, so there was only energy. The matter could form only after expansion had begun.

"Now they say we might just barely be able to see the edge of our universe"
Now this is the realm of science.
Quote:
- The universe has no edge, but the observable universe does. That's not a limitation of observation technology. We can observe only that part of the universe from which light has had time to travel, i.e., within a distance of about 13.7 billion lt.yrs.
In my opinion, G~O~D is not a being with edges.
Quote:
"I say our visible universe is just one spot on our ball"

- Yes, so do the experts. It's estimated that the actual size of the universe is at least 156 billion lightyears.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html

"The outside edge of our universe would have to be travelling faster than the inside edge."
Travelling in More philosophy and theology? G~O~D is Being, not a being with edges, eh?
Quote:
- The Big Bang started from an infinitely small point, in an infinitely dense state. So, the Big Bang happened everywhere. So, there is no centre, i.e., no one place where the Big Bang happened - it happened everywhere; and there is no edge. On large scales, matter is mutually receding a rate proportional to the separation distance.

"All the mass gets hurled out at the same velocity"


Edited by Revlgking (10/31/12 09:46 PM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#45918 - 11/01/12 07:36 PM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: Marchimedes]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Rev, you didn't comment on the last quote!

I thought you were going to tell us what an "infinitely small point" might be; or what constitutes "an infinitely dense state".

"All the mass gets hurled out....." Out where?

Come on, Rev; you can't quote something and just leave it in the air. smile
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#45919 - 11/01/12 09:31 PM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: Marchimedes]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Are any experts in physics reading this thread? What about those posting here?

Me? Count me among the very curious who studied and enjoyed maths, physics and chemistry, at the high school level, in the late 1940's. I still love to read physics--and I make no claim that I understand everything the experts say. smile


Edited by Revlgking (11/01/12 09:36 PM)
Edit Reason: Always helpful
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#45920 - 11/01/12 10:54 PM Re: It's not like I died or anything. [Re: redewenur]
Marchimedes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 204
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Marchi, that was answered in your earlier threads.


Posts. I'm sure you mean posts. I have no other threads here. Yea, I've alluded to all this before but in that last post there I like to think I put down my thoughts a tad more betterer this time such that Joe and Marsha, Marsha, Marsha six pack can understand what I'm trying to say.

You should try it.

Quote:
A reminder: There's no known limit, such as c, on velocity of objects relative to each other,


Yea, see, right there. I don't speak like that. God's honest truth, I don't know what that really means, but I'll give it a shot...

Have I mentioned my hypothetical spaceship at this site? The HMS Blowme? Not sure. Anyway, at times when I discuss, and when I say "discuss" I mean "pontificate" about mattters concerning the speed of light and such I use the HMS Blowme for illustrative purposes. So I'm in my ship, the HMS Blowme going balls at 99% c travelling say, up the y axis in my little 3d sphere there and the HMS Blowme's sister ship, Bob, is going 99% c down the y axis. So, relatively, they are moving away from each other at 198% c.

Is that what you are talking about?

Quote:
only relative to the spacetime through which they move.


Do they speak English in your little nerdatorium there?

So now I gots to put on my little space/time hat. This does not come naturally to me, it's all so confusifying. A warm up: I'm in the HMS Blowme going 2c, time is passing slower for me (kinda like when you have to listen to your girl talk about her feelings) than it is on Earth. So what you are saying is... yea, I don't know what you are saying.


Quote:
If you'd like to see how the galaxies are arranged, try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0xd0PrYaY8&feature=player_detailpage


I'll watch it, I always watch these things, though I usually end up screaming obscenities at the TV, especially when dark energy rears it's ugly made up head. But as far as how galaxies are arranged is that about galactic clusters, galactic super-cluster and what not?

Quote:
...particularly from about 20 minutes into the video.

There's a wealth of such info available. You're not obliged to believe it, of course. You won't be placed under house arrest or anything.


Is that a veiled insult?

I'm not sure what all that has to do with my "sumpin wrong" post other than are you saying that c as a speed limit is incorrect?
_________________________
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?

Top
Page 11 of 20 < 1 2 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 19 20 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.