The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics  (Read 20827 times)

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #50 on: 26/02/2014 06:35:45 »
Bill S

Yes, when I say infinite space, I'm referring to the fabric of space/time which I assume is the only "infinite" thing in existence or at least the fabric of space much bigger then the finite universe But beyond the limits of the finite universe there is nothing (to the best of my knowledge)

The fabric of space is endowed with properties which are quite mysterious, I can't honestly say that I know what it is or how old it is. The only thing I know is that the finite universe Is a sphere which exists in the infinite universe, I can only assume that Both aspects of the universe are infinite (in time) while only one aspect is (infinite in size) time and gravity are not direct properties of the fabric of space, it's the result of the interaction between the finite universe and the infinite universe.

Imagine the fabric of space without matter or light (energy) gravity wouldn't exist and time would be meaningless because nothing would change.

Now imagine matter and light without the fabric of space to move through, gravity wouldn't exist and time would be meaningless because nothing would change.

So you see time and gravity is the result of the relationship between these 2 aspects of the cosmos.

So To clarify the relationship between the finite universe and the infinite universe, the interaction between the 2 parts of the universe gives rise to time and gravity.

Both the finite and infinite universes are infinite (in time) and only the infinite universe is infinite (in size) so both aspects of the universe are permanent fixtures.

light and matter are traveling through the fabric of space which gives you time and gravity. THAT'S WHAT TIME IS.

gravity is also the result of "stuff" moving through space too you see if you accelerate matter to nearly the speed of light then they get heaver and thus get more gravity. time slows down do to the speed of the atoms.

"Time is effected by how fast something is!" there fore time is a result of matter/light (finite universe) interacting with the fabric (infinite universe) so time is meaningless/nonexistent outside the area of the point the finite universe stops and light finds it's largest orbit. beyond that point nothing ever changes because the finite universe never interacts with the infinite universe at that point.

so what happens when you have the fabric of space and it docent interact with matter/light?  Gravity wouldn't exist and time would be meaningless/wouldn't exist because nothing would change.
« Last Edit: 26/02/2014 08:31:51 by ScientificSorcerer »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1830
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #51 on: 26/02/2014 20:16:44 »
SS.

I think I am going to have to chop this into bite sized chunks.

Quote
Yes, when I say infinite space, I'm referring to the fabric of space/time……..But beyond the limits of the finite universe there is nothing….

I must be misunderstanding this bit.  You seem to be saying that the infinite universe is composed of “the fabric of space/time”, but beyond the finite universe there is nothing.  How can this be if the infinite universe is composed of space/time?
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #52 on: 26/02/2014 20:48:38 »
Oh sorry my bad. You caught my bad wording :-) when i said nothing is beyond that point, I ment nothing BUT empty space and no time. Because at that distance the infinite universe dosent  interact with the finite universe time dosent exist because nothing ever happens in that area of space, matter and light dont ever come into contact with the fabric that far out, so time is meaningless / dosent exist because nothing ever changes, nothing will ever happen to it at that point. Just empty space for infinity. It sounds similar to that statement i think you came up with near the begining of this thread about the bridge and roads going off for infinity on both sides of the bridge. Just imagine the bridge being the finite universe and infinity going off in both directions.

So in a sence space is just space not ''space time'' time is the result of the interaction between the finite universe and space.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1830
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #53 on: 26/02/2014 21:45:40 »
Thanks SS, that clarifies that bit.

Am I right in thinking that the extent of the interaction between finite and infinite universes would be the spherical surface between the advancing light and the infinite space?

To return to your earlier post:

Quote
The only thing I know is that the finite universe Is a sphere which exists in the infinite universe, I can only assume that Both aspects of the universe are infinite (in time) while only one aspect is (infinite in size) time and gravity are not direct properties of the fabric of space, it's the result of the interaction between the finite universe and the infinite universe.

You may have noticed in other threads that I tend to use the term “cosmos” as roughly equivalent to your “infinite universe”.  If I do that here please don’t think this is an attempt to “improve” your terminology.  :)

It is very difficult to talk about infinity/eternity without using terminology that is rooted in linear time and 3D space.  Thus we talk of infinite time, or infinite space.  However, infinity/eternity must be timeless and spaceless.  A second is finite, and nothing finite can become infinite.  A cubic metre is finite, so the same applies.  Anything that is infinite must always have been infinite, and must always be infinite.   

I need to check your view of this before trying to go any further, just to avoid getting crossed wires.
 
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #54 on: 27/02/2014 00:10:17 »
Consider a situation where a big bang occurs and the resulting universe is expanding exactly like the balloon analogy. When neighbouring bubbles collide gravity will cause a new big bang singularity if enough mass is compressed and the whole thing starts again. In this view light does not need to orbit the bubble but could in fact be pushing its surface outward. The image below shows four adjacent expanding bubble universes. Think of it like wave interference. BTW you only need 1/4 of the mass of each bubble to meet and compress to reproduce a singularity equal to 1 original universe. Of course this is idealized and mass/bubble sizes would vary as would their relative positions.
« Last Edit: 27/02/2014 00:14:27 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #55 on: 27/02/2014 00:56:31 »
Bill S and JeffreyH

you said "nothing finite can become infinite" this is true, But there is only one thing that  is infinite in the "cosmos" and that's the fabric of space. It's infinity in it's most pure form and we live in it, it surrounds us and we get a pretty good view of it from earth. now when finite things interact with the infinity you get something that is in-between time and gravity are like electro and magnetism two sides to the same coin of infinity.
there are only 3 things that exist in the cosmos. energy, matter and space these are the characteristics of each.

energy fields (electro and magnetism)

Nuclear fields(strong and weak forces)

cosmic fields(gravity and time)

these three things interact with each-other, one could not exist without the other. it's like the try-force off of that game legend of Zelda.



the trinity that comprises the 3 dimensions I want to show you a picture I drew a long time ago, Its saved on my computer but I don't know how to upload pictures from my hard drive, only from urls It has to do with sacred geometry just overlap 3 circles (each circle represents one aspect of the universe) and if you draw lines through it you get the try-force. How do you upload Images fro your hard drive?
« Last Edit: 27/02/2014 01:04:10 by ScientificSorcerer »
 

Offline jonycarz

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #56 on: 27/02/2014 03:51:36 »
I feel it is a problem with the theme I am using. I have two installs on the same server. One with a standard theme and the e-mail redirect works fine. The one using the theme Zaffatasa has the problem with the e-mail redirecting back from the contact form.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1830
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #57 on: 28/02/2014 21:28:55 »
I found this quote among my notes from a few years ago.  It’s from one of Paul Davies’s books, but without checking I can’t say which one.

     “The conclusion seems inescapable that any cyclic universe that allows physical structures and systems to propagate from one cycle to the next will not evade the degenerative influences of the second law of thermodynamics.  There will still be heat death.”   

However, Davies also says:  “One way to sidestep this dismal conclusion is to suppose that the physical conditions at the bounce are so extreme that no information about earlier cycles can get through to the next.  All preceding physical objects are destroyed, all influences annihilated.  In effect, the universe is reborn entirely from scratch.

SS, is this how you see it?
 
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #58 on: 01/03/2014 00:32:21 »
In a Way yes, When the singularity is formed and it contains all of Q and A (the finite universe) then it will implode All matter in the universe will be converted into energy, less then a minute after the singularity collapses and explodes, matter will form out of the energy. No matter can escape this fate the big bang cycles renews the universe like a phoenix being reborn from it's ashes.

I don't know what your quote meant regarding the the second law of thermodynamics and "degenerative heat"
I believe what he meant was that heat will eventually be nonexistent because it will be converted into light and escape into "A" (the outer reaches of the universe)  in that case the universe will continue to cool down until space reaches near absolute zero, As energy escapes into ''A'' but that wont impede the construction of the singularity in the end. Its the force of gravity that causes the renewal of the universe not heat.

I Feel the need to draw this picture regarding the the 3 forces of the universe take a look

                                                                           /\
                                                                         /    \
                                                                       /        \
                                                                     /  space  \
                                                        gravity /_________\ time
                                                                 /  \               /\
                                                               /     \            /    \
                                                             /         \        /        \
                                                           / matter \     / energy \
                                                         /________\ /_________\
                                                                      electricity

The 3 forces of the universe space, matter and energy each force interacts with each other force to give toy everything in the universe

when space interacts with matter you get   = gravity
when space interacts with energy you get   = time
when matter interacts with energy you get = electricity (charge)

then each in-between force interacts with each other
electricity+gravity=electric fields
electricity+time= magnetic fields
gravity+time= gravitational fields

and so on.

I think that each of the 3 forces interact together to give us everything in the universe
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #59 on: 01/03/2014 00:52:48 »
This thread seems to be veering way off the mainstream physics track and into new theories.  If you guys want to keep going on non-mainstream ideas regarding the fundamental forces and nature of the universe, I can move it to New Theories.  If if you'd rather keep it here, I'd just ask that you keep it to mainstream ideas.

Thanks!
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #60 on: 01/03/2014 04:51:07 »
This thread seems to be veering way off the mainstream physics track and into new theories.  If you guys want to keep going on non-mainstream ideas regarding the fundamental forces and nature of the universe, I can move it to New Theories.  If if you'd rather keep it here, I'd just ask that you keep it to mainstream ideas.

Thanks!

I'm happy to just talk about mainstream ideas but the topic being the big bang is problematic in itself. It can't be anything but speculative past a certain point.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #61 on: 01/03/2014 05:21:39 »
In a heat death scenario all the mass is still present and so all the energy. At that point time is the dominant factor space and matter are in an unknown state. We can't say more than that. Interestingly in a black hole time also becomes dominant and space-like. There is an equivalence between both situations. In one situation, expansion of the universe, matter is continually moving outwards and expanding. In the black hole the mass is moving continually inwards and contracting. This appears to balance out but the consequences are uncertain as there is no available data to link the two situations.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1830
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #62 on: 01/03/2014 17:31:15 »
JP, 
Obviously, neither I nor SS was the OP, but we do seem to be hogging the space a bit.  For my part I would be quite happy to go to New Theories, or to stay here.  Possibly NT would be the safest bet so as not to impose restrictions on the imagination. 
I've just been reading Jim Baggott's "Fairwell to Reality" and find myself wondering if we should have a "fairytale physics" forum.  :)
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #63 on: 02/03/2014 00:29:25 »
Yeah My original theory didn't Include the whole "trinity" think, that's just me getting off topic. But In the end There will be a "big crunch" But unlike the "big crunch theory" My Theory has nothing to do with a "fireball" which is how the big crunch theorists contend. Instead my theory states that the big crunch will be a super black hole.

Conspirologist Said something a wile back about "dark matter", I completely forgot to tell ya'll about my theory on dark matter. I Have a really good complete theory on the nature of dark matter. but first take a look at this short video about dark matter.

The story of dark matter begins with the big bang.


moments after the big bang, matter was reformed out of energy. When this happened equal numbers of protons and electrons were made. soon after that the first element was formed (hydrogen). then stars begun to take shape because of the force of gravity and produce more and more elements via the process of fusion.

When a fusion reaction occurs, "a lot of energy is released" were does that energy come from? the answer to that question is "some matter is converted into energy" and as a result some "mass" is lost. but only a small amount of matter is converted into energy.  It's sort of like when you make some anti matter and put it into contact with regular matter, the result is that the two matter particles destroy each other and matter is converted into energy.  The question is, in a fusion reaction what part of the atom is converted into energy?

Does the energy come out of the proton or the electron or both? I've heard in some physics papers that the energy comes out of the protons so I'll make an example out of that.

If the big bang created equal amounts of protons and electrons in the beginning and the stars are destroying protons then there will be a miss-match of + and - meaning that there is more negative charge in the universe then positive charge. were do the extra electrons go? how does that effect the universe? Basically some electrons will float around in massive clouds of negative charge that are spaced far apart because the negative charge repels other negative charge. But some electrons will negatively charge some elements and those negatively charged elements will be attracted to other elements in equilibrium, to attempt to transfer it's charge. That attraction force is mistaken for gravity.

It is perfectly logical that there can be a miss-match of + and - because you can do it in the lab! imagine if you made just 1 positron and put it into contact with 1 electron, the 2 would destroy each other and the be converted into energy. now there is 2 less electrons in the universe (because the positron was at one time an electron), and now you have a miss-match of + and - particles in the universe, I hope I explained that in a way that makes sense.

I would also like to point out a flaw in dark matter theory. and that is why they hang out in big clouds. If the dark matter has gravity then why don't they just clump together to form zones of high pressure like regular matter does when they form stars? why is dark matter in these big spread out clouds?

take a look at this link http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/eso1217b.jpg
Notice how it isn't concentrated in clumps like regular matter? It doesn't Have the same properties of gravity because if it did then it would clump together into invisible dark matter galaxies and dark matter balls, Instead it remains sped out like a gas or something. You see It's something else, It has to repel itself to remain like a cloud, yet attract galaxies together to make them spin faster. Dark matter is electrons!

Free floating electrons don't interact with light at all, just look at an electric field, It's invisible yet electric fields repel and attract. It's like a monopole magnet, repelling it's self and being attracted to it's opposite charge.
In this case the electrons charge elements and are attracted to neutral elements. that electric pull is what we call dark matter.

of coarse electrons do have mass and gravity, which is why you can see dark matter through gravitational lensing. but it's gravity is not the bulk of the attraction force, it's the electric attraction that gives dark matter it's influence over the shaping of galaxies and whatever.

So on recap.

-dark matter is the result of a miss-match of protons and electrons in the universe. dark matter is electrons.

-Dark matter remains sped out in clouds because of the repulsion effect that dark matter has on it's self. do
 to like charge repulsion.

-Dark matter attracts things together because of the way it charges elements and those charged elements
 are attracted to neutral elements. this electric attraction force is mistaken for gravity.

-electrons do have some mass and gravity which is why you can see it through gravitational lensing. it's
 gravity does help attract things together BUT the bulk of the attraction force is do to "electric" attraction.

Before dark matter theory was even discovered there was a concept called "The either" which was supposed to "free energy" The famous Albert Einstein believed in this concept and so did Nikola Tesla.  Dark matter is the "either" free electrical energy floating around in space.

I know this doesn't make a whole lot of sense at first glance, But I DARE YOU to try to find a flaw in this theory.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #64 on: 02/03/2014 08:47:27 »
All the electrons would repel each other and fly off in opposite directions thus no electron cloud. Also any extra electrons may be gobbled up to form neutrons in isotopes.
« Last Edit: 02/03/2014 08:49:23 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #65 on: 02/03/2014 19:42:48 »
The electrons would repel each-other yes, But they would also be attracted to each-other via the force of gravity.

look at these charts.

this chart represents how much electric fields weaken with distance.


this chart represents how much gravitational fields weaken with distance


Electric fields are stronger then gravitational gravitational fields but both fields do exist in electrons so electrons will repel each-other and attract each-other But electric fields keep electrons from getting too close and gravitational fields keep the electrons from getting too far. A massive far spaced cloud could form it.

Dark matter clouds are bigger then entire galaxies and are very spaced apart.

Lets say that dark matter isn't electrons for a moment, lets just say it is something which is invisible and dost interact with anything. But it has gravity. (which is the main stream Idea) How do you explain why dark matter doesn't form dense invisible galaxies or take shape?  the force of gravity in regular matter causes matter to clump up into dense balls and galaxies but that seems not to be the case with dark matter. why?

It seems to me that dark matter doesn't just interact with gravity because if it did then it would take a similar form of galaxies, invisible galaxies. instead it takes the form of clouds, there must be some other force involved right? that's were I got the Idea about electric fields attracting things together but keeping the clouds from getting too dense allowing for a cloud like shape to be possible.

Dark matter also likes to hang around near regular galaxies for some reason, maybe the electrons are attracted to the neutral atoms in a galaxy and that attractive force keeps the electrons from just flying off.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #66 on: 02/03/2014 22:32:37 »
It could be possible but how do you test it?
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #67 on: 03/03/2014 07:05:16 »
That's a good question JeffreyH. The answer to that question remains an enigma to me. But you don't necessarily have to physically look at something to know it's there.  Mathematically speaking, I bet you could calculate If there is indeed a miss-match between protons and electrons by seeing if protons are "actually" being destroyed in the stars "and not electrons". If that's true then It might as well be proven.

you could "sort of" test it by blowing up an H-bomb too.

Because if stars have been destroying protons sense the big bang through the process of fusion then the miss-match of +and- has actually been getting bigger sense that point, (the amount of dark matter in the universe is getting bigger and has been sense the beginning).

I don't think anyone has invented a telescope that can see electric fields out in space, so I don't think you can look at this stuff with a telescope and realize that dark matter is just ordinary electrons. Maybe you could measure radio waves coming off of discharges or something, but I wouldn't know how that would work

 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #68 on: 03/03/2014 08:17:13 »
So what you are saying is that as the number of isotopes goes up then there is an imbalance. Surely through a proton being + and an electron being - these balance out so there is no overall change in the balance of charges.
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #69 on: 03/03/2014 09:00:00 »
The gravity wave idea while cool may not be true. Shortly after the Big Bang gravity separated out true. It was 380,000 years before the universe cooled enough for matter to form, at this time there was more dark matter than dark energy this changed over time and now we have more dark energy than dark matter. Also how do you account for the very end expansion rate it was different in the beginning than it is now?
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #70 on: 03/03/2014 22:39:49 »
JefferyH

I said nothing about Isotopes, I simply said that the stars destroy protons in the process of fusion. The protons are turned into energy (that's were the huge amount of energy is released from) the stars eject those electrons via solar winds, If the big bang created equal amounts of protons and electrons in the beginning then just one fusion reaction would create an imbalance.
overtime more fusion reactions occurred creating more of an imbalance. until the imbalance reaches what we have today. Individual atoms will become - charged thus the attraction force of those atoms is greatly increased because of electric attraction to neutral atoms. But the charged atoms repel each-other keeping those atoms from getting too close. But a majority of the - charge will remain as free electrons because there isn't enough atoms to go around. so those free electrons hang around galaxies waiting to charge an atom.

alan hess

I see were your logic comes from but I think you miss understand were the gravity waves come from. the gravity waves came from "the super universe sized black hole before the big bang" what scientists call the singularity, The big bang didn't "create" everything because that would violate the first law of thermodynamics. all the matter and light in the universe was contained inside this big o black hole, it's gravity was more powerful then every black hole and star in the universe combined. when it was all converted into energy in an instant (when the big bang occurred) that huge gravity field just disappeared warping space like ripples in a pond. That's were the gravity waves came from.

as for you saying there was more dark matter then dark energy a long time ago you are mistaken in the way you worded it. There was more "matter" in the universe at that time the imbalance had-dent really effected much so there was not that much dark matter/imbalance but as the universe lost mass from fusion then dark energy/gravity waves were more effective because there was less mass plus thing were more spread out allowing for the entire gravity wave to effect matter.. you must also realize that these gravity waves are huge, billions of light years across and as you ride the wave it's intensity changes depending on what part of the wave your riding. we are probably near the bottom of a wave were space is most spread out.
« Last Edit: 03/03/2014 22:44:55 by ScientificSorcerer »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #71 on: 03/03/2014 23:10:42 »
JefferyH

I said nothing about Isotopes, I simply said that the stars destroy protons in the process of fusion. The protons are turned into energy (that's were the huge amount of energy is released from) the stars eject those electrons via solar winds, If the big bang created equal amounts of protons and electrons in the beginning then just one fusion reaction would create an imbalance.
overtime more fusion reactions occurred creating more of an imbalance. until the imbalance reaches what we have today. Individual atoms will become - charged thus the attraction force of those atoms is greatly increased because of electric attraction to neutral atoms. But the charged atoms repel each-other keeping those atoms from getting too close. But a majority of the - charge will remain as free electrons because there isn't enough atoms to go around. so those free electrons hang around galaxies waiting to charge an atom.

alan hess

I see were your logic comes from but I think you miss understand were the gravity waves come from. the gravity waves came from "the super universe sized black hole before the big bang" what scientists call the singularity, The big bang didn't "create" everything because that would violate the first law of thermodynamics. all the matter and light in the universe was contained inside this big o black hole, it's gravity was more powerful then every black hole and star in the universe combined. when it was all converted into energy in an instant (when the big bang occurred) that huge gravity field just disappeared warping space like ripples in a pond. That's were the gravity waves came from.

as for you saying there was more dark matter then dark energy a long time ago you are mistaken in the way you worded it. There was more "matter" in the universe at that time the imbalance had-dent really effected much so there was not that much dark matter/imbalance but as the universe lost mass from fusion then dark energy/gravity waves were more effective because there was less mass plus thing were more spread out allowing for the entire gravity wave to effect matter.. you must also realize that these gravity waves are huge, billions of light years across and as you ride the wave it's intensity changes depending on what part of the wave your riding. we are probably near the bottom of a wave were space is most spread out.

Surely the mass will be more spread out on the rising or falling crests of a wave? Also  mass is lost to photons during fusion. This can be either from an electron exchange or a nucleus. So again I don't see where you would get an increasing imbalance. Some of these will be gamma rays. Some as radio waves. Some as visible light.
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #72 on: 04/03/2014 00:54:21 »
Jeffery H

"gamma ray bursts" is not really what Im talking about. This has nothing to do with ionizing radiation A,B,G. or isotopes

What I'm talking about is fusion. Naturally fusion occurs everywhere in stars. It takes hydrogen and converts it into helium and so on up to iron. BUT when it fuses the 2 atoms together "energy is released" FROM the atoms. More specifically that energy comes from the nucleus, much like gamma rays. But fusion reactions don't produce gamma rays, instead it releases all kinds of light like visible light, uv light, infrared and so on. (from the nucleus) that energy release triggers a loss of mass because the law of conservation. I think Einstein made an equation showing how that works, (E=mc2) Now that energy comes from the nucleus not the electron cloud.

In a hydrogen atom there is just one thing in the nucleus for that energy to be released from, it's proton. So mass is being lost from protons. I'm no expert on fusion, I'm just resiting what I read. I don't know how "some" mass can be lost from an atom like that but apparently that's how it works. If that's true and mass is being lost form protons alone then that would mean that there would be less protons then electrons, there-for there must be an imbalance.

and the gravity wave crest is when space would be most condensed and the wave bottom would be when things would be most spread out, it's like a red and blue shift, as you climb the wave things get closer together, as you slide down the wave things get farther apart, we are sliding down a wave right now so things are getting spread out it's a sine wave so the acceleration changes depending on  were you are on the wave. that's dark energy.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics
« Reply #72 on: 04/03/2014 00:54:21 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums