The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Can atoms be made?  (Read 14735 times)

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Can atoms be made?
« Reply #25 on: 20/10/2009 14:28:53 »
Quote from: PMB
I believe that he's referring to the fact that the further out in space we look the younger objects appear. E.g. near objects appear just as objects near us appear. But if you observer things out near the furthest we can see then we are esentially looking back in time and things like galaxies appear much younger and less evolved.
Yes; I have seen that assertion that far objects appear younger. However, every attempt to show that far objects are actually less evolved than near objects has failed as far as I know.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Can atoms be made?
« Reply #26 on: 21/10/2009 15:15:18 »
Quote from: PMB
I believe that he's referring to the fact that the further out in space we look the younger objects appear. E.g. near objects appear just as objects near us appear. But if you observer things out near the furthest we can see then we are esentially looking back in time and things like galaxies appear much younger and less evolved.
Yes; I have seen that assertion that far objects appear younger. However, every attempt to show that far objects are actually less evolved than near objects has failed as far as I know.
I don't see the difference. The very meaning of "younger" means "less evolved". They are used as synonymns. E.g. some athuors describe this very same fact as "the farther we look out into spade the less evolved stars appear to be".
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Can atoms be made?
« Reply #27 on: 21/10/2009 16:19:58 »
I meant that I have heard it said a lot that the farther out we look the younger (less evolved) things appear. However, I have never seen that assertion stand up to observation. As far as I can tell, far away objects look just like close up objects. There are young galaxies and old galaxies close to us; there are young galaxies and old galaxies far away.

I have seen studies of far away galaxies that are said to be young; however, not all of them appear to be so. And, the oldest object yet observed contained heavy elements that could not come from a first generation star. :)

Edit: Here are some citations that I think back up my assertions above.


This finding indicates that different frequencies of light move at different speeds in space.

Quote from: the link
The burst is not only spectacular but also enigmatic: a curious time delay separates its highest-energy emissions from its lowest. Such a time lag has been seen clearly in only one earlier burst, and researchers have several explanations for why it may exist.

This finding indicates that first generation stars are seldom found.

Quote from: the link
Objects discovered at such vast distances present a timing problem for big bang theorists. In big bang theory, for a large star to become a black hole or a GRB, it would probably need to be a second (or third) generation star, and it would have limited time to form and use up all its fuel. In the period of 630 hundred million years after the big bang, the first stars would have to “die,” then second generation stars would form from the material left over from the first stars. The second generation stars operated for their entire “lifetime.” Then, one of these second generation stars would have become the GRB at the end of its “life.” It is debatable whether there would be enough time for all this to happen for the GRB to occur so that we would see it.

Astronomers have long believed that early in the history of the universe, just a few hundred million years after the big bang, there would be stars that were different from most stars in the universe today. Astronomers have searched for evidence of these so-called “first generation” or “Population III” stars for years. There is no observational evidence of their existence, but they still play an important role in big bang theory. Such stars would be of different composition, for example, in having no heavy elements and consisting of only hydrogen, helium, and minor amounts of lithium.

No one has detected stars without heavy elements above Helium. In, fact astronomers have observed evidence of elements like carbon and iron in objects that are claimed to be from the early eras of the Big Bang.4,5,6 Indeed, there is evidence that some GRBs contain metals such as iron and magnesium.7 Heavier elements like carbon or iron, according to big bang ideas, could not be produced in the big bang itself but instead must have been produced in supernova explosions that took place when large stars died. Astronomers who operate by naturalistic assumptions and do not allow for supernatural creation as Genesis describes must resort to complicated scenarios like these to explain the origin of the chemical elements.
« Last Edit: 21/10/2009 17:07:24 by Vern »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Can atoms be made?
« Reply #28 on: 22/10/2009 21:25:30 »
If there was a big bang with stars created 'simultaneously' everywhere due to the inflation happening 'ftl' then the light we see, if accepted to move as 'steady' we expect it to move in a vacuum must depict 'younger stars/systems' due to the time that light have taken to reach us. So to see a 'newborn' star its light first have to reach us right? And that the chances observing them decreases with 'distance' relative us observing.
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Can atoms be made?
« Reply #29 on: 01/11/2009 20:27:28 »
Atoms not only can be made, but are continuously made both by nature and by man. Suprenova fuse all sorts of atoms together to produce all the heavier elements in the periodic chart. 

Further, humans have, for decades, been producing atoms not found in nature. And get this. Humans have been producing Anti Matter as well!  None of these accomplishments are brought forth from a primeval nothing. There is nothing magic about any of it.
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Can atoms be made?
« Reply #30 on: 01/11/2009 20:55:26 »
yor_on - you wrote: "If there was a big bang with stars created 'simultaneously' everywhere..."

The universe of the 'inflation era' was not uniform, and this has only recently been confirmed. Maybe it was the Kobi satellite. It means the distribution of matter in the early universe was not uniform.  Indeed, the very clear 'strandy' appearance of the universe today, is in complete coordination with the distribution of microwave background radiation recently found.

As for Red Super Giant Stars, I can say little.  They seem to have been more common in earlier epochs, and endup as Supernova that, among other things, spew forth just about every heavy element needed for life.

However, these type II supernova are quite rare these days. Probably because they have such very short life spans, and their time has come and gone. I think we detect one in the Universe about once every year. Perhaps it is once per year in our own galaxy? The most famous, I believe, is the Crab Nebula that went supernova in 1040 or such, and was closely recorded in Chinese chronicals.




 due to the inflation happening 'ftl' then the light we see, if accepted to move as 'steady' we expect it to move in a vacuum must depict 'younger stars/systems' due to the time that light have taken to reach us. So to see a 'newborn' star its light first have to reach us right? And that the chances observing them decreases with 'distance' relative us observing.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Can atoms be made?
« Reply #31 on: 02/11/2009 09:53:47 »
Can You give references to this inhomogeneity?
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Can atoms be made?
« Reply #32 on: 02/11/2009 11:05:05 »
Quote from: litespeed
As for Red Super Giant Stars, I can say little.  They seem to have been more common in earlier epochs, and endup as Supernova that, among other things, spew forth just about every heavy element needed for life.
I have never seen evidence that this is real. It needs to be real to support the Big Bang scenario, and true believers try and make it real but there is no evidence that earlier epochs were any different than current times.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Can atoms be made?
« Reply #33 on: 02/11/2009 19:35:33 »
Quote from: litespeed
As for Red Super Giant Stars, I can say little.  They seem to have been more common in earlier epochs, and endup as Supernova that, among other things, spew forth just about every heavy element needed for life.
I have never seen evidence that this is real. It needs to be real to support the Big Bang scenario, and true believers try and make it real but there is no evidence that earlier epochs were any different than current times.
If you cut yourself you will bleed. Assuming that you are not colourblind you will notice that the blood is red. That red colour is due to the presence of a compound of iron.
Iron (along with the other heavy elements) is not formed in stars like the sun- they are not hot enough.
Yet iron is present in the universe- you can check this by sticking a pin in your finger.
So there must have been very big hot stars in the past.
There is plenty of evidence- you just won't see it.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Can atoms be made?
« Reply #34 on: 02/11/2009 20:56:38 »
Super giant stars were present in the past and they are present in the current universe. There need not have been a small amount of time with a great amount of super giant stars. There could have been an eternity of time and the amount of super-giant stars that are present now.

So I don't see how the presence of iron is a positive indicator for the Big Bang scenerio. :)
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Can atoms be made?
« Reply #35 on: 03/11/2009 18:24:39 »
Mr. S

Here is a quick reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

"Big Bang" microwave background radiation was postulated prior to its accidental discovery by Bell Scientist fine tuning a communications microwave transmitter. They found microwave radiation reached their antenna, no matter WHERE they pointed it. They even suspected pigeon droppings in the horn antenna.

Atrophysicsts at a local university {Princton?} were already trying to build such an antenna but their device was like a lab bench project. The Bell horn antenna was Commercial and Huge by comparison.  Oddly, the bell lab guys got the Nobel Prize through the simple expedient of having readily at hand the appropriate apparatus.

However, the sensitivity of the Bell Horn was not sufficient to resolve whether this microwave radiation varried from place to place.  This is important because if the universe had no variation during the inflation era, it would not have produced all the clumpped galazies we actually see. Instead, it would be 'Flat'.

Whatever satellite was used to study this issue, the result was conclusive in its results. The microwave radiation DOES vary and varies in accordance with currently observed galactic clusters and super clusters.

 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Can atoms be made?
« Reply #36 on: 03/11/2009 18:33:14 »
Vern,

A guy name Hoyle postulated 1) the universe is infinite and in constant state 2) hydrogen is spontaneously created as the Universe ages, and THREE: All the heavier elements are the result of various thermonuclear reactions within stars.

I am not at all expert in this area, but I think the idea is this. As supermassive red giant stars die a couple of things happen.  First, they collapse rapidly but their mass is so compressed they do two other things. First, they explode in massive thermonuclear reactions that produce the heavier ellements. The explosion sending them all over the place.  Second, they recolapse into a black hole.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Can atoms be made?
« Reply #37 on: 03/11/2009 19:18:33 »
Yes; I know about Sir Fred Hoyle. He did some amazing work. His account of the formation of the heavy elements is pretty much accepted everywhere.

My pet speculative universe is unlimited; space itself extends on forever. It works pretty much as Sir Fred's, but I have it continuously churning atoms into radiation, and radiation back into atoms. I just eliminated the magical creation from Sir Fred's version.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2009 19:20:10 by Vern »
 

Kiran The King Kai

  • Guest
Can atoms be made?
« Reply #38 on: 07/11/2009 09:48:39 »
Hi DIMI,
I don't agree nor disagree what other say..
I know what you really mean to say.
but only way is that energy can create it.

If you really mean MADE .. This is my reply:
NO WAY !
this is not a BIOLOGY to copy or clone using DNA!

This is physics,and lot of big stuff in it.

IF you really mean made ...

you need to match constants
you need to create required conditions (Our mother BigBang would be jealous of you LOL)
You need make subatomic particles
You need 12 dimensions to create strings .. imagine smaller than strings!

ONLY Energy can make atoms. you think the energy is lost but it is not.
after sometime it will be converted to mass . E=mc^2 


Physicist think the they are close to unlock the secrets of nature by unifying all fundamental forces of nature)

We did not do any good progress physics ..
Physics is never ending desire .

we are still missing lots of physics !
we still don't know what to do .. cos quantum physics is big probability which weakens our Ability to understand it..
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Can atoms be made?
« Reply #39 on: 23/11/2009 04:12:03 »
yor_on - you wrote: "If there was a big bang with stars created 'simultaneously' everywhere..."

The universe of the 'inflation era' was not uniform, and this has only recently been confirmed. Maybe it was the Kobi satellite. It means the distribution of matter in the early universe was not uniform.  Indeed, the very clear 'strandy' appearance of the universe today, is in complete coordination with the distribution of microwave background radiation recently found.



Litespeed did you notice the ' '?

I was a little diffuse perhaps but I know that too. But as neither I nor you can say when those stars came to be I used ' ' to emphasize that this process was FTL.

As for what speed of FTL it was?
Well, you tell me, as you seem to be so good?

Don't assume that I don't know what I'm writing of just because I haven't posted here for a while.
-----

As for the granularity of our universe that doesn't need to have to do with the relative 'speed' at which suns where first born.

You can see it two ways.
The first I assume to be the mainstream way in which we treat 'inflation' as a force expanding from a center. The other is mine in which I choose to see it as an emergence from dimensionless point.

Was it this you were referring to perhaps?
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=16665

And you can take a look here if you like for a further discussion.
http://www.bautforum.com/space-astronomy-questions-answers/92720-why-isnt-universe-totally-symmetric-uniform.html

And here for an idea of how to validate inflation as a theory, or not :)

"But Krauss and his team have raised the issue of whether this radiation can be unmistakably tied to inflation.

Krauss team proposes that a phenomenon called "symmetry breaking," can also produce gravitational radiation. Symmetry breaking is a central part of fundamental particle physics, where a system goes from being symmetrical to a low energy state that is not symmetrical. Krauss explanation is that a "scalar field" (similar to an electric or magnetic field) becomes aligned as the universe expands. But as the universe expands, each region over which the field is aligned comes into contact with other regions where the field has a different alignment. When that happens the field relaxes into a state where it is aligned over the entire region and in the process of relaxing it emits gravitational radiation."

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/16/inflation-theory-takes-a-little-kick-in-the-pants/

Which seems remarkably like an 'emergence' to me.
And as this comes from a dimensionless point the discussion about a center have no meaning as it happens everywhere simultaneously ( and now without ' ' :) and the fields interaction will produse the graininess we observe.

I try to keep it mainstream here but I fail :)
« Last Edit: 23/11/2009 04:58:43 by yor_on »
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
Can atoms be made?
« Reply #40 on: 23/11/2009 04:47:40 »
Mad Mark alluded to a pertinent fact that no quasars have been found any nearer than about seven billion light years. If quasars are not young galaxies than why would they not be distributed evenly through out the Universe?

yor, I notice something about inflation, It has another word attached to it called theory,(an educated guess attempting to explain observation)does not mean that inflation occurred. It only means we are attempting to explain observation.
« Last Edit: 23/11/2009 05:08:35 by Ron Hughes »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Can atoms be made?
« Reply #41 on: 23/11/2009 05:01:36 »
And yes, the graininess will become matter which creates space.
Nice, ain't it?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Can atoms be made?
« Reply #42 on: 23/11/2009 05:25:24 »
Mad Mark alluded to a pertinent fact that no quasars have been found any nearer than about seven billion light years. If quasars are not young galaxies than why would they not be distributed evenly through out the Universe?

yor, I notice something about inflation, It has another word attached to it called theory,(an educated guess attempting to explain observation)does not mean that inflation occurred. It only means we are attempting to explain observation.

Yep.

It's a theory.

Do you what the strongest theories are?
Archetypes.

1+1=2.

Self-explanatory ideas we assume to be correct as it is what we build upon.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Can atoms be made?
« Reply #42 on: 23/11/2009 05:25:24 »

 

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