Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,576 Year: 4,833/9,624 Month: 181/427 Week: 94/85 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang or Big Dud? A study of Cosmology and Cosmogony - Origins
mark24
Member (Idle past 5273 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 17 of 94 (3362)
02-03-2002 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by TrueCreation
02-02-2002 6:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Why?"
--Because this tells you how you could bring matter out of nothing, but what is going to cause this to happen? Did nothing all-of-a-sodden feel like it wanted some company and brought about some anti-matter and some matter?

The cause of matter creation is simply the uncertainty principle at work in vacuum quantum fluctuations.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One could say that they briefly "borrow" the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the "debt" back and disappear again. Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles. (Morris, 1990, 24)
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.
The bubbles start out with no matter, radiation, or force fields and maximum entropy. They contain energy in their curvature, and so are a "false vacuum." As they expand, the energy within increases exponentially. This does not violate energy conservation since the false vacuum has a negative pressure (believe me, this is all follows from the equations that Einstein wrote down in 1916) so the expanding bubble does work on itself.
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. Inflation stops and we move into the more familiar big bang.
The forces and particles that appear are more-or-less random, governed only by symmetry principles (like the conservation principles of energy and momentum) that are also not the product of design but exactly what one has in the absence of design.
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)
Where did all the matter and radiation in the universe come from in the first place? Recent intriguing theoretical research by physicists such as Steven Weinberg of Harvard and Ya. B. Zel'dovich in Moscow suggest that the universe began as a perfect vacuum and that all the particles of the material world were created from the expansion of space...
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?
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)
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

Added by edit:
--What causes this Quantum fluctuation of nothing, because would it not be logical to say that if it had no cause, that it could happen anywhere, and possibly happing all the time, with no vigilance in time.

There is no cause , it is the uncertainty of quantum fluctuations in a vacuum that creates matter. If the conditions are right, BANG!
An important prediction of this theory is that the total energy in the known universe is zero. This is mathematically shown here, http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/freenrg/zpepaper.txt
There need be no beginning of time.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by TrueCreation, posted 02-02-2002 6:17 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-03-2002 11:56 PM mark24 has not replied
 Message 23 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-13-2002 4:35 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3946
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 18 of 94 (7351)
03-19-2002 7:34 PM


A new topic (Coffee House: How Old Is The Earth?!) is heading into the area of this topic, therefore:
BUMP TO THE TOP
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7655 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 19 of 94 (7363)
03-19-2002 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by TrueCreation
02-02-2002 6:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
/B]
Here is an extremely interesting link on a simple machine powered by the Casimir effect - it is a device powered by the effect of subatomic particles that appear out of nothing:
http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/021401/Quantum_effect_moves_machine_021401.html
And here is a link explaining the effect:
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~physics/sci.physics/faq/casimir.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by TrueCreation, posted 02-02-2002 6:17 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 94 (7380)
03-20-2002 2:12 AM


Here is an interesting question. If the universe is a zero sum game, and if it result of a singularity event, then , under the right conditions, would it be posssible to generate another universe artificially?
I know this sounds extreme, but think about this, we are able to generate temperatures and enviromental extremes with particle accelerators that haven't been naturally seen since the birth of the universe. Given a few centuries, and advances of particle physics yet to come, I wonder if it would be possible. Mind you, this is just idle speculation.

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 94 (11645)
06-16-2002 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by TrueCreation
02-01-2002 11:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I am aware of this postulate, I read a basic model out of David Walkinson's God Time & Stephen Hawking. This sertainly seems plausable, as if an equal amount of anti-matter and matter coming out of nothing, but I think the problem consists of the cause of such a thing happening.

'cept its not matter/anti-matter. Its matter/gravity. Matter/anti-matter is a very different thing. Just being pickie....
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/antistat.htm
Take care.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by TrueCreation, posted 02-01-2002 11:22 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6185 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 6185 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

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 94 (13466)
07-13-2002 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by w_fortenberry
07-03-2002 11:56 PM


Well, I'll comment on what I can until mark gets back to the thread.
quote:
How can energy exist without matter?
This one is easy. You can have one without the other. The two are interchangable.
quote:
How can friction occur in the absence of matter?
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.
quote:
What do you postulate to be the density of the universe at this point?
I can't find a number, but at this point the density is still very very high. Sorry
quote:
Do these infinite number of universes have any effect on our own universe?
No.
quote:
Why did the virtual particles have to become real particles?
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.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-03-2002 11:56 PM w_fortenberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-13-2002 2:40 PM John has replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6185 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

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 94 (13477)
07-13-2002 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by w_fortenberry
07-13-2002 2:40 PM


quote:
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?

These definitions are colloquial. They won't do you any good in physics.
Try reading this about energy and this about mass
quote:
The idea that energy and matter are the same thing in different forms is based on an improper application of the uncertainty principle.
No, this is way off base. The matter/energy equivalency has nothing to do with the quantum uncertainty principle. Einstein's famous e=mc² is the formula for this equivalancy.
quote:
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?
The size of the universe is expanding rapidly, thus the energy is spread over greater and greater areas, so the temperatures drop locally.
quote:
If the net energy remains the same, would the density of the universe immediately after inflation be the same as the density before?
I am not completely sure what you asking or why. But the answer is probably no. The universe continues expanding even after inflation stops therefore the same energy/mass is spread over more and more area. The density must go down.
quote:
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.
This is an area of physics at the very edge of our knowledge. Much of it is still theoretical. So proof is hard to come by. Mark's argument is however well supported by theory.
quote:
However, if the net energy is still the same, why should there be any change at all?
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.
quote:
You might want to read the April 2002 issue of Popular Science. It discusses some of the problems with this theory.
I'll look it up.
quote:
I noticed that you didn’t answer my final set of questions. Did you run out of time or perhaps not notice them?
You final few questions require some research and thought on my part. I will revisit you earlier post and see what I can do, if someone doesn't beat me too it.
Take care.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-13-2002 2:40 PM w_fortenberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by w_fortenberry, posted 08-03-2002 1:14 AM John has replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6185 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

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 94 (14775)
08-03-2002 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by w_fortenberry
08-03-2002 1:14 AM


quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
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.
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.
quote:
Please note that I did not mention mass in my post. I provided a definition of matter but said nothing about mass.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
It demands that the energy and the mass of a system be proportional.
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.
quote:
You have provided a definition of mass as, the quantity of matter contained in an object.
I did?
[quote]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./quote
Ok. You almost have it here. Note, proportional increase in mass -- NOT MATTER.
quote:
One can infer from this that the extra matter is created by the increase of energy
Got it.
quote:
but the equation does not definitely state that such is the case.
Yes it does. Note the equal sign in the equation instead of a maybe-sometimes sign.
quote:
It merely explains that the result of an increase in energy is an increase in the amount of matter within the system.
Did you get dizzy writing this?
quote:
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.
Energy can exist independently of matter. This isn't a fact. You are back to talking about energy in the colloquial sense.
quote:
The next logical question would be, how does pure energy increase in size?
The universe is increasing in size.
quote:
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.
I do indeed wish to debate it.
quote:
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.
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?
quote:
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.
Is is now? Thought it was the curvature of space-time.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by w_fortenberry, posted 08-03-2002 1:14 AM w_fortenberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by w_fortenberry, posted 08-04-2002 2:37 AM John has replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 94 (14780)
08-03-2002 8:12 AM


Whatever happened to CP violation? As I recall, physicists suppose that an excess of matter was produced over anti-matter. So when they all annihilated, matter was left behind. Otherwise, you would have to explain why we don't see much anti-matter in the universe-if there was, there'd be evidence of light produced by the anti-matter matter collision.
[using information from Page not found – Evolution-Facts]
Problems with background radiation and the redshift-
About background radiation-
1. It should come from only one direction-however, it is omnidirectional. There is no directional unity to it, and without it the radiation proves nothing.
2. It is too weak-Theoretically, it should be, as Fred Hoyle says, "The big bang theory includes a microwave background . . but this success is tempered by the fact that it was expected to be between ten and a thousand times more powerful than is actually the case." *Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (1983), p. 181.
3. Its spectrum doesn't quite exactly match that predicted by the big bang model. Theoretically it should have the 2.7K black body spectrum predicted by the Max Planck calculation, but it doesn't.
4. The spectrum should also be far hotter-
quote:
"Is there a way to decide whether a 3K blackbody radiation spectrum has come from an expanded high temperature radiation or from the heating of a substance from zero to 3? Yes . .
"It is a known fact that there is dust absorbing a fraction of the galaxy's light. Therefore, this dust must be heating up. If the galaxy really is billions of years old, our galaxy's dust would be pretty hot by now, approximately 100K. It would emit a 100K blackbody radiation spectrum many orders of magnitude more intense than a 3K blackbody spectrum. The 100 degree spectrum certainly would be there. If the 3K radiation is a leftover from the big bang, say, 10 billion years ago, then the galaxy would contain two superimposed blackbody spectra. The spectrum from the big bang would be centered at 3K, and the spectrum from galactic dust heating would be centered at 100K.
"Since there is only one measured blackbody spectrum as far as we know, and since galactic gas and dust heating does occur, the one spectrum must be due to galactic dust and gasthe spectrum consistent with a recent creation." Russel Akridge, Thomas Barnes, and Harold S. Slusher, "A Recent Creation Explanation of the 3K Background Black Body Radiation," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1981, p. 182.
The result of this is that theoretically that the temperature of the big bang radiation should be 5K, but it is only 2.7K.
5. It is too smooth-
quote:
"Recent measurements of the density fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation show no fluctuations greater than 2.5 parts in 100,000. No galaxy could grow from a fluctuation that small-even in 15 billion years." *William R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1987), p. 185."
quote:
COBE's job is to explore the microwave background in a detailed way. The spacecraft has already revealed some surprises. As 1990 began it was announced that preliminary sweeps of the sky by COBE showed that the early universe must have been extremely smooth.
"That's surprising, because we know we see vast structures in our universe; huge clusters of galaxies and expanding voids between them.
"Many cosmologists [astronomical theorists] expected COBE to reveal small disturbances in an otherwise uniform flow outward from the Big Bang. These disturbances might have provided the seeds for the large structures we see today [stars and galaxies]. So far, the disturbances are missing, and the evolution from a smooth early universe to today's colossal structures remains puzzling." *Ibid.
6. This background radiation was already predicted without the big bang model-Arthur Eddington in 1926 predicted that a normal radiation of a temperature of about 3.2K was being emitted by interstellar dust particles.
7. The source of the radiation could have many other explanations such as
quote:
"The interstellar dust and gas in our galaxy has absorbed enough of our galaxy's own light to raise its temperature from zero to 3K . . It is the 3K dust and gas that radiates the 3K radiation." Russell Akridge, Thomas Barnes, and Harold S. Slusher, "A Recent Creation Explanation of the 3 K Background Black Body Radiation" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1981, p. 159
Redshift-
There are other explanations for the redshift-
quote:
The distance from our planet to the star has something to do with it. This is quite obvious, and agreed upon by nearly everyone. To say it another way, the redshift is the apparent lengthening of a star's light on a spectrum in relation to how far away that star is from us.
This redshift of starlight is actually a decrease in the energy of light. It has traveled a great distance to reach us from a star, and by the time it arrives the light is not as strong as it once was. This decrease in energy results in a lengthening of the wavelength of that light, when measured with a spectrometer,
Since the redshift indicates a decrease in starlight energy, this loss of energy could be caused by a motion of the stars away from us (the speed theory).
quote:
Gravitational Red-shifts. The pull of gravity on light rays could cause a loss of energy. This would include not only the star it first left, but other stars it passes by. From a study of eclipses, we already know that gravity actually bends light rays slightly. Gravity can and does affect starlight. It could also gradually slow those light rays as they speed through space. The result would be that the farther away a star is from us, the more it would reveal a redshift. None other than *Albert Einstein predicted that it would be discovered that gravity could bend lightand that it would cause a redshift. His prediction was first shown to be correct when the companion of Sirius, a small dwarf star, was found to bend starlight from Sirius.
quote:
Second-order Doppler shift. A light source moving at right angles to an observer will always be red-shifted (the second-order Doppler Effect). This would occur if the universe were moving slowly in a vast circle around a common center.
Moons revolve around planets, planets about suns, and suns about galaxies. Each of these planets, suns, and galaxiesrotates about itself (our galaxy rotates at 500,000 miles an hour). It is very possibleeven likelythat all the galaxies out in space travel in a gigantic circle around a central point in the universe. We know that such circular movement is necessary for balance and stability in moons, planets, and galaxies; why not for the universe as a whole? Such a universal rotation would add stability to all the island universes in relation to each other.
Yet that gigantic orbit would also cause a redshift in the spectra of star light.
quote:
Energy-loss shift. Light waves could themselves directly lose energy as they travel across the long distances of space. This would not be unusual. Other things lose energy, light rays could also. Keep in mind that the redshift is ever so slight. It indicates the loss of only a very small amount of energy. This is also called the "tired light theory. "
Any of the above three reasons alone, or together, could easily explain the redshift. It would explain why the stars and galaxies nearest us always have the least redshift, while those farthest away have the most.
Thus we find that the spectral redshift can easily be explained without inventing an exploding universe with the outermost objects rushing outward at 95 percent of the speed of tight. (Keep in mind that the speed of light is very great; approximately 186,000 miles a second. On this basis, a light-year is a vast distance of almost 6 trillion miles.)
The Arp discoveries-some convincing evidence that there is no relationship between redshift and distance of starlight from us-
quote:
Arp has spent over 30 years researching into these matters at some of the world's largest observatories. At the time of this writing, he is on the staff of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in West Germany. * Kauffmann, another leading astrophysicist, in 1981 declared Arp to be "the most-feared astronomer on earth" (*W. Kaufmann III, "Most Feared Astronomer on Earth" in Science Digest 89(6):76-81, 1981, p. 117.) Arp's research is so pivotal, that it threatens to overturn several foundational bases of modern theoretical astronomy.
Here are three statements from Arp's latest book:
"In case the thesis of this book is correct, we want to know what the factors are that led to this long, implacable rejection of new knowledge, the wasted effort, and the retardation of progress." *Halton Arp, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (1987), p. 5.
"There is massive, incontrovertible evidence for important phenomena and processes.. which we cannot currently understand or explain." *Op. Cit, p. 2.
"It is of profound importance to recall now that for a number of classes of . . objects, there was never any shred of evidence that they obeyed a Hubble relation. . The assumption that. . objects obeyed a redshift-distance relation sprang simply from the feeling that if one kind of object [Sb galaxies] did, all objects must do so. Such a generalization is an example of the oldest of logical fallacies. Nevertheless, it has become an article of faith despite many examples of contradictory evidence. "*Op. Cit., p. 178.
His discoveries include-
quote:
Bridged galaxies disprove the redshift theory. Galaxies are island universes, each with 100 million or more stars. Some of these galaxies have bridgework connections linking them together. The bridges prove that the pair of galaxies are close to each other. Arp has discovered a number of these connected galaxieseach of
which have markedly different redshifts than the other! But if the Doppler effect theory of the redshift were correct, Arp would not have made such discoveries, since each pair of galaxies would share the same approximate distance from us!
quote:
Quasars disprove the redshift theory. Quasars will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter. These are unknown objects which show drastically-shifted spectrums toward the red. Arp has also made discoveries about quasars which provide additional evidence against the current redshift theory.
"The astronomer Halton Arp has found enigmatic and disturbing cases where a galaxy and a quasar, or a pair of galaxies, that are in ap parent physical association have very different redshifts. Occasionally there seems to be a
bridge of gas and dust and stars connecting them. If the redshift is due to the expansion of the universe, very different redshifts imply very different distances." *Carl Sagan, Cosmos (1980), pp. 255.
Other phenomena-
quote:
Slight blueness of distant galaxies. According to evolutionary theory, the "younger" stars visually appear more blue than the "older" ones, which are redder. The stars with the highest redshifts are supposed to be the most distant from us, and therefore the youngest stars [most visually blue in color] of any stars in the skies. They should therefore be very blue but, instead, have the same general blue color as nearby blue stars! This fact totally violates the theory!
And then there's one of TB's favorite topics-
quote:
Redshift data indicate that stars tend to clump at certain distances from us! These distances are multiples of 72 kilometers per second [44.7 miles per second]! Such a situation totally defies the speed theory of redshift! Is there a possible answer? One possibility would be that starlight loses energy as it travels ("tired light" theory), and this weakening is especially shown at multiples of 72 kps.
*Corliss discusses the problem, and notes that, although *Tifft's research is well documented, other astronomers are fearful to consider or verify it. To do so would weaken the speed theory of redshift. Corliss, himself a careful scientific researcher, concludes that, if true, this fact renders impossible both an expanding universe and the formation of stars by the gravitational lumping of gas.
"The clumping of galactic redshift differences at multiples and submultiples of about 72 kilometers per second [44.7 miles per second]. This phenomenon was initially found in galactic clusters, but it appears to extend to other groupings of celestial objects.
"A massive quantity of data has been accumulated for galactic clusters, galaxy pairs, stars, and other objects, primarily by W.G. Tifft and his colleagues. Although the catalogs of data on galaxies is not suspect, the analysis of those data in a way that supports redshift quantization has not been well-received. Supporting studies by other astronomers would generate more confidence in the reality of this phenomenon . .
"Redshift quantization is an anomaly of the highest order. The implications are profound: the expanding universe is contradicted and the formation of galaxies by gravitational attraction is denied." *Op. cit., p. 195.
Galactic Shape Factor-
quote:
How can the shape of a galaxy affect its redshift? But this is so. That discovery indicates there is far more to redshifts than we had thought, and velocity has little or nothing to do with the shifts.
Spiral galaxies are disk-type, with outward rotating arms; elliptical galaxies have a distinctly different shape (a slightly squashed rounded shape). Galaxies are frequently found in clusters. Oddly enough, when ellipticals are in the same cluster with spirals (thus indicating that their distances from us are similar), the spirals will have a higher redshift, which should mean they are farther from us than the ellipticals! This, of course, cannot be true for both are together, and that fact itself strongly undermines the validity of the speed theory of redshift. In the following statements, "S galaxies" are spiral galaxies and E galaxies" are ellipticals.
PHOTONS SLOW DOWN
quote:
*Arp and his associates have found evidence that photons slow down in transit from stars to us. A photon is a single "piece" of moving starlight. The evolutionary theory assumes photons never slow down and are never shifted in their spectra toward the red by gravity. Arp has shown this assumption to be untrue.
These evolutionary theories are like a bunch of blocks stacked precariously on top of one another. The expanding universe theory is based on the speed redshift theory, which, in turn can only survive by ignoring evidence. Perched on top is the Big Bang theory, which desperately needs an expanding universe as evidence that the initial explosion occurred. Down below are little men running around feverishly, trying to find more blocks to pile on, hoping that it will help stabilize the tottering heap.
But there is evidence (by *Arp and others) that photons do slow down. Akridge, a careful scientist, looks at the photon:
"The concept of an expanding universe hinges on the astrophysicists' assumption that no change occurs to the galaxies' photons on their long, undisturbed trip from the galaxies to us." *Russell Akridge, "The Expanding Universe Theory is Internally Inconsistent," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1982, p. 56.
Then Akridge explains a related problem:
"A photon's energy loss is counted twice in the Big Bang expanding universe theory: In the expanding universe theory, free photons must not lose any energy as they travel for vast times.
"A free photon cannot do both at the same time.
"If a free photon loses energy, the Big Bang theory may [or may not] be correct, but the universe is not expanding. However, if the universe is not expanding, free photons do not lose energy, because any photon loss is due to the expansion of the universe . .
"If either the Big Bang or the expanding universe is true, the other cannot be true. Yet, they are both parts of the same evolutionary scheme. Both must be true for either to be true. Therefore, the Big Bang expanding universe theory is false." Op. cit., p. 58.
Among astronomers it is well-known that (1) there is considerable guesswork in determining actual distances by means of the redshift, and (2) there are other possible explanations for it. Actually, if the speed theory were correct, it would mean the universe is enormously large, with galaxies as much as 15 billion light years away from us!
ONLY ONE STELLAR DISTANCE MEASUREMENT IS RELIABLE
quote:
Distances to faraway stars, galaxies, and quasars are important in analyzing aspects of the Big Bang and other stellar theories. Yet, of the several techniques used by astronomers to measure star distances, there is only one reliable method; all of the other methods are either approximations or theoretical guesses. This is the parallax method, which can only be used on those stars which are nearest to us. It is accurate to within 10 percent. (Admittedly, even a 10 percent margin of error is a lot.)
The parallax method was first established in 1838 by Bessel. Since then, the distances to approximately 6,000 of the closest stars have been determined. The closest of these is Alpha Centauri which is only 4.3 light years away. Interestingly enough, the bright summer star, Vega, is only 27 light years distant.
There is no other accurate method of determining stellar distances, although several methods are employed for this purpose.
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-03-2002]

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6185 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

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 94 (14826)
08-04-2002 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by w_fortenberry
08-04-2002 2:37 AM


quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Perhaps you could explain how the definitions I provided are inapplicable to a study of physics.
It isn't so much inapplicable as limited, especially the definition of 'energy' What you've got is a definition that works for everyday life-- bowling balls hitting pins and such, but doesn't work at the extremes-- nuclear explosions for example. The analogy would be Newton's mechanics vs. Einstein's general theory. Newtonian mechanics work most of the time, but not at the extremes. Close to home as example would be that Newton's formulas can't describe the orbit of Mercury. It is too close to the Sun. Einstein's formulas can. Hence, Einstein trumps Newton. The thing is, Newton's formulas are still used and used frequently becasue they work almost all the time. Because Einstien's formulas are more complicated, they are not used unless necessary.
What you are doing is equivalent to taking Newton's (your almost-always definitions) and arguing against Einstein. Using the easier but less accurate definition the argue against the more complicated but also more accurate.
quote:
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?
You've missed the point. 'Matter' occupies ONE LINE. There are no formulas, equations, variables, whatever. The point was to illustrate the importance of the concept.
quote:
By the way, the link you previously provided as an explanation of energy did not contain a definition of energy.
hmmm...... I rechecked the link I provided. I see a full page of defining and more than a dozen equations.
quote:
Please explain why matter is a fuzzy concept, and what philosophical baggage it carries.
I say matter is 'fuzzy' because there are no equations that deal with it. The equations all deal with 'mass'
As for the philosophical baggage, maybe I am taking this part too seriously. Unless you want to get into the history of meta-physics, I probably should just leave this alone. If you want, start it in a new thread.
quote:
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?
I do not believe I am so guilty.
quote:
Would you not agree that, according to Einstein’s formula, the presence of energy is all that is needed to generate mass?
Yes, under the right conditions.
quote:
Is there a lower limit to the amount of mass that can be generated?
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.
quote:
According to the formula, how much energy is needed to generate a nearly infinitesimal amount of mass?
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.
quote:
If only a slightly more than infinitesimal amount of energy is needed, then the very existence of energy demands the existence of mass.
This doesn't follow, or I am not understanding. Can you explain?
quote:
The equal sign is given in reference to an increase in mass not to a creation of matter.
OK.
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?
quote:
Please explain how this equation allows energy to exist independently of matter.
Energy that isn't bound up in an object is existing independently of matter. The equation describes the transformation of one to the other.
May I suggest a book called "E=MC2" by David Bodanis?
quote:
How does pure energy increase in size?
We are talking about the creation of space-time. It is the process of energy transforming into the universe as we know it. I don't see that energy would have to increase in size, just transform.
quote:
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.
Then put the pot of metal in a vacuum in empty space. It will still cool by radiation. This is just nit-picky.
quote:
If gravity is the curvature of space-time, please answer my questions in accordance with that definition.
I am not sure what questions I am supposed to address.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by w_fortenberry, posted 08-04-2002 2:37 AM w_fortenberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by TrueCreation, posted 08-05-2002 10:23 PM John has replied
 Message 40 by w_fortenberry, posted 08-11-2002 3:12 PM John has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024