Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,207 Year: 5,464/9,624 Month: 489/323 Week: 129/204 Day: 3/26 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang or Big Dud? A study of Cosmology and Cosmogony - Origins
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6220 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 22 of 94 (12720)
07-03-2002 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mark24
02-03-2002 6:35 PM


A very interesting post, Mark; however if you don't mind, I would like some clarification on a few of your comments.
quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
In general relativity, spacetime can be empty of matter or radiation and still contain energy stored in its curvature. Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. This is called the "spacetime foam" and the regions are called "bubbles of false vacuum." Wherever the curvature is positive a bubble of false vacuum will, according to Einstein's equations, exponentially inflate. In 10-42 seconds the bubble will expand to the size of a proton and the energy within will be sufficient to produce all the mass of the universe.
How can energy exist without matter?
Isn't the curvature of spacetime caused by the existence of matter?
quote:
As the bubble universe expands, a kind of friction occurs in which energy is converted into particles. The temperature then drops and a series of spontaneous symmetry breaking processes occurs, as in a magnet cooled below the Curie point and a essentially random structure of the particles and forces appears.
How can friction occur in the absence of matter?
quote:
Inflation stops and we move into the more familiar big bang.
What do you postulate to be the density of the universe at this point?
quote:
The so-called "anthropic coincidences," in which the particles and forces of physics seem to be "fine-tuned" for the production of Carbon-based life are explained by the fact that the spacetime foam has an infinite number of universes popping off, each different. We just happen to be in the one where the forces and particles lent themselves to the generation of carbon and other atoms with the complexity necessary to evolve living and thinking organisms. (Stenger, 1996)
Do these infinite number of universes have any effect on our own universe?
quote:
Think about the universe immediately after the Big Bang. Space is violently expanding with explosive vigor. Yet, as we have seen, all space is seething with virtual pairs of particles and antiparticles. Normally, a particle and anti-particle have no trouble getting back together in a time interval...short enough so that the conservation of mass is satisfied under the uncertainty principle. During the Big Bang, however, space was expanding so fast that particles were rapidly pulled away from their corresponding antiparticles. Deprived of the opportunity to recombine, these virtual particles had to become real particles in the real world. Where did the energy come from to achieve this materialization?
Why did the virtual particles have to become real particles?
quote:
Recall that the Big Bang was like the center of a black hole. A vast supply of gravitational energy was therefore associated with the intense gravity of this cosmic singularity. This resource provided ample energy to completely fill the universe with all conceivable kinds of particles and antiparticles. Thus, immediately after the Planck time, the universe was flooded with particles and antiparticles created by the violent expansion of space. (Kaufmann, 1985, 529-532)
How can gravity exist without matter?
If the universe was gravitationaly equivalent to a black hole how did any matter or energy manage to resist that gravitational force?
As I said before, this was a very interesting posting. I look forward to your response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mark24, posted 02-03-2002 6:35 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by John, posted 07-13-2002 12:59 PM w_fortenberry has replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6220 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 23 of 94 (13464)
07-13-2002 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by mark24
02-03-2002 6:35 PM


Still waiting for your reply Mark...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mark24, posted 02-03-2002 6:35 PM mark24 has not replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6220 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 25 of 94 (13470)
07-13-2002 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by John
07-13-2002 12:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
This one is easy. You can have one without the other. The two are interchangable.
Allow me to present a problem with that explanation.
First, let me present the dictionary definitions. Both definitions are from Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary.
Matter: (a) Something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses. (b) An entity displaying inertia and gravitation when at rest as well as when in motion.
Energy: The work a physical system is capable of doing in changing from its actual state to a specified reference state, with the total generally including contributions of potential energy, kinetic energy, and rest energy.
Obviously, the definitions differ far too greatly for the two words to be synonymous. Why then are they often expressed as such?
The idea that energy and matter are the same thing in different forms is based on an improper application of the uncertainty principle. This principle developed through our inability to accurately measure both the position and the velocity of material objects. This accuracy of measurement is unattainable because the light used to locate the particle also causes the particle to change its position so that the position returned to us by the light is different from the current position of the particle. The measurement thus attained also fails when presented as the position of the particle when the light reached it, for the particle being moved by the light produces a shift in the gravitational field which effects all the particles through which the light must travel, thus changing the message that the light is returning. As a result of this inability, our measurements of a particle of matter are really measurements of the effects of that particle on its surroundings. In other words, we can only measure matter through observing the energy it expends. Because of the necessity of measuring matter and energy through the same methods, it is easy to assume that they are one and the same thing. However, this is not the case. Energy being defined as the work or movement of a system can not be defined as the that which is being moved, nor can it exist without the object moved. Matter being defined as anything that occupies space or as anything that has mass, can not be the movement of that mass, for matter can exist without movement. Therefore, matter and energy are two distinct ideas. Matter is the object, and energy is the movement of it. Matter can exist independent of energy, but energy is dependent on the existence of matter.
quote:
I don't like the analogy with friction. Think of it as cooling. As the universe expands, the energy is spread thin. Until that energy level gets low enough the various sub-atomic particles are moving too fast to stick to one another.
You have referred to sub-atomic particles, but according to Mark those particles don’t exist yet. How does energy cool? Isn’t cooling the lessening of heat? Isn’t heat a form of energy? So does the energy cool by loosing energy?
quote:
I can't find a number, but at this point the density is still very very high. Sorry
If the net energy remains the same, would the density of the universe immediately after inflation be the same as the density before?
quote:
No.
If they have no effect on our universe, we cannot measure them. Thus Mark’s argument that we are only one of many universes is made without any evidence to prove it.
quote:
Try a mathematical analogy. You start with zero and derive 1 and -1. So far, no change. Same energy. These are the particle anti-particle pairs. If the expansion of the universe seperates the two quickly enough they don't rejoin and annihilate one another. You still have the same total energy, it just looks different.
However, if the net energy is still the same, why should there be any change at all?
You might want to read the April 2002 issue of Popular Science. It discusses some of the problems with this theory.
I noticed that you didn’t answer my final set of questions. Did you run out of time or perhaps not notice them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by John, posted 07-13-2002 12:59 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by John, posted 07-13-2002 4:50 PM w_fortenberry has replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6220 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 27 of 94 (14771)
08-03-2002 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by John
07-13-2002 4:50 PM


quote:
These definitions are colloquial. They won't do you any good in physics.
Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone. —Albert Einstein, The Evolution of Physics.
quote:
Try reading this about energy and this about mass
Please note that I did not mention mass in my post. I provided a definition of matter but said nothing about mass.
quote:
No, this is way off base. The matter/energy equivalency has nothing to do with the quantum uncertainty principle. Einstein's famous e=mc is the formula for this equivalancy.
My statement was based primarily on the explanation found in the fourth chapter of Stephen Hawking’s book, A Brief History of Time
In Einstein’s formula e=mc, the E stands for energy, the m represents mass and c equals the speed of light. This formula does not demand an equivalency between energy and matter. It demands that the energy and the mass of a system be proportional. You have provided a definition of mass as, the quantity of matter contained in an object. Combining this definition with Einstein’s formula we find that an increase in the energy of a system results in a directly proportional increase in the amount of matter contained within that system. One can infer from this that the extra matter is created by the increase of energy, but the equation does not definitely state that such is the case. It merely explains that the result of an increase in energy is an increase in the amount of matter within the system.
Regardless of whether or not the said inference is correct, Einstein’s equation does not negate the fact that energy cannot exist independently of matter. Rather it is one of the greatest proofs of that fact. If e=mc, then 0e equals 0m, and 0m equals 0e. Energy cannot exist independently of mass, and thus cannot exist independently of matter.
quote:
The size of the universe is expanding rapidly, thus the energy is spread over greater and greater areas, so the temperatures drop locally.
The next logical question would be, how does pure energy increase in size? However, as I explained above, the concept of energy existing independently of matter is an invalid concept. Therefore, unless you wish to debate the statements above, I will skip over this part of our discussion.
quote:
The net energy is the same but it is spread over a large area. Think about liquid iron in a bucket. And imagine it in a perfectly sealed building--- nothing can get in or out. This building is impossible to build of course, but imagine it. Now pour that iron out on the floor of the room. It will spread and cool, changing to solid metal. The temperature of the air goes up, the temperature of the floor goes up but the total energy stays to same its just spread over a greater area.
If we are imagining that liquid iron as a closed system, not effected anything outside of the sealed building or even the building itself, then it would not be subject to any gravity other than its own. In which case, it would not spread out on the floor but would submit to its own gravity by condensing into a sphere in the center of the building.
As for my final set of questions, gravity is a form of energy and thus is subject to the explanation provided at the beginning of this post.
[This message has been edited by w_fortenberry, 08-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by John, posted 07-13-2002 4:50 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by John, posted 08-03-2002 2:03 AM w_fortenberry has replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6220 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 30 of 94 (14817)
08-04-2002 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by John
08-03-2002 2:03 AM


quote:
Sure, but this doesn't mean that you can play willy nilly with the definitions. It is one thing to describe an event or theory in common parlance and quite another to turn around and reason from that language. The problem is called equivocation, and it leads to error. It also has to do with something called linguistic determinism, which describes the way language influences how people think.
Perhaps you could explain how the definitions I provided are inapplicable to a study of physics.
quote:
If you look up 'matter' at Matter -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Physics
you will find a one line definition with the word matter in quotes no less. Look up 'mass' at the same site. This should give you some idea about the relative importance of the concepts. "Matter" is a fuzzy concept loaded with philosphical baggage.
Interestingthe definition found on the page referenced bears a great similarity to the definition which I have already provided. Is this definition equally invalid in physics?
By the way, the link you previously provided as an explanation of energy did not contain a definition of energy. If possible, could you please provide such a definition along with an explanation of its superiority over that which I have already provided?
Please explain why matter is a fuzzy concept, and what philosophical baggage it carries.
quote:
Yeah, it does. Note that Einstein used 'mass' not matter in the formula. This is the bit that allowed the construction of nuclear devices-- the transformation of part of the mass of an atom into energy.
Apparently you are replying to my postings without thoroughly reading them first. May I suggest that you take the time to fully read and digest my statements before you begin your response?
quote:
You are mis-representing the equation. It isn't the energy and mass of a system. It is the amount of energy needed to create mass or the amount of energy released when mass is destroyed. Yes, there is a proportion involved, but not the way you think.
Would you not agree that, according to Einstein’s formula, the presence of energy is all that is needed to generate mass? Is there a lower limit to the amount of mass that can be generated? According to the formula, how much energy is needed to generate a nearly infinitesimal amount of mass? If only a slightly more than infinitesimal amount of energy is needed, then the very existence of energy demands the existence of mass.
quote:
I did?
Yes, in providing a link to a definition of mass you effectively communicated that that definition is one which you accept as correct.
quote:
Yes it does. Note the equal sign in the equation instead of a maybe-sometimes sign.
The equal sign is given in reference to an increase in mass not to a creation of matter.
quote:
Did you get dizzy writing this?
No. The wording used throughout the post was chosen for a specific purpose. This is why I have requested that you fully read and digest what I have written before making any response.
quote:
Energy can exist independently of matter. This isn't a fact. You are back to talking about energy in the colloquial sense.
Please explain how this equation allows energy to exist independently of matter.
quote:
The universe is increasing in size.
Yet the universe at that time is said to consist solely of energy, therefore if the universe increases in size, its components must also increase in size. Thus with the sole component being energy we are back to my question. How does pure energy increase in size?
quote:
You took the analogy further than it was meant to go. It was an illustration, not a formula. Remember up top where I was talking about the danger of turning around and reasoning from colloquial analogy?
The analogy was the only answer you provided for my question, if the net energy is still the same, why should there be any change at all? If the analogy is flawed in its application to that question, please provide another answer.
quote:
Is is now? Thought it was the curvature of space-time.
If gravity is the curvature of space-time, please answer my questions in accordance with that definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by John, posted 08-03-2002 2:03 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by John, posted 08-04-2002 1:04 PM w_fortenberry has replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6220 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 40 of 94 (15210)
08-11-2002 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by John
08-04-2002 1:04 PM


quote:
hmmm...... I rechecked the link I provided. I see a full page of defining and more than a dozen equations.
Though many formulas were presented on the page to explain how energy relates to different concepts in physics, a definition for energy itself was not provided aside from the statement that energy is an abstract quantity of extreme usefulness in physics. Furthermore, of the formulas presented, all but two included mass within the equation. The two which did not were the formula showing energy’s relation to power (E=Pt) and the formula for measuring electrical potential energy (E=QV), but both of these still depend on the existence of material objects. This further validates my claim that energy cannot exist independently of matter.
quote:
Very interesting question. By Einstein's formula, no. But the formula doesn't work at sub-atomic levels. Quantum mechanics takes over. And no one has yet to reconcile the two. Quantum mechanics limit the size.
This assumption is also based on an improper application of the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle states that man cannot accurately measure both the position and the movement of any quantum particle. This inability prevents us from discovering where that particle will be or even was at any point in time. If the universe existed in a quantum state, we would not be able to make any predictions as to the future of our universe because we would be unable to obtain accurate measurements on which to base those predictions. Einstein’s formula is a method by which we can make predictions regarding future measurements based on current measurements. Therefore if we are unable to obtain accurate measurements, we will be unable to apply this formula and accurately predict future measurements. However, it is not the equation that fails at sub-atomic levels; it is our measurements that fail.
quote:
Well, we can't have infinitesimal amounts. See above. But for one unit of mass you need the speed of light squared worth of energy.
What is the base unit of mass? In other words, what is the smallest amount of mass we can measure?
By the way, infinitesimal simply means immeasurably small. Thus I was referring to units of mass which exists on the smallest scale that we are capable of measuring.
quote:
Mass is a measure of matter, yes? (I'd say mass is matter but forget that for now) How can you have an increase in mass without an increase in matter?
Simply put, mass is a measurement of the amount of matter within a given volume of space. Thus an increase in mass would also be an increase in the amount of matter within that space. Notice, however, that I said creation of matter not increase in matter. The two statements are not the same. An increase in mass could be the result of an addition of matter to the given volume from an outside source. Thus an increase in mass does not necessitate the creation of matter.
quote:
I am not sure what questions I am supposed to address.
Please refer to post number twenty-two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by John, posted 08-04-2002 1:04 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by John, posted 08-11-2002 10:09 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024