Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Dimi on 14/10/2009 22:33:42
-
Greetings.
Can atoms be made, or are we limited by the whole of the physical universe by what we have (so if we destroy an atom to release energy, it will never be replaced)
I have wondered that.
A Universal law (by our understanding) would be that something can not come from nothing, correct?
-
Atoms may be made, however current technology could not allow this.
-
I suspect atoms are made routinely in empty space as gamma radiation from stars interacts in space. The most simple atom would be created in the greatest abundance. First we would probably get single protons and electrons forming separately. These then meet up and form hydrogen atoms. This speculation then has the hydrogen atoms accumulating in huge clouds. The clouds eventually form accretion disks from which stars are born. Stars accumulate into galaxies which spew out gamma radiation which continues the cycle.
I suspect it will be about another hundred years before this reality is accepted by the scientific community, which now adheres to the magical Big-Bang notion of universe creation.
Edit: Magic is defined as some mechanism that operates outside of the recognized physical laws of nature to bring about some perceived experience.
-
Yes but no.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-05/957365745.Ph.r.html
-
Well; I scrubbed through the link rereading it a few times; I didn't find anything that suggested that atoms are not routinely created from gamma radiation in space. So I continue to suspect that they are. And I continue to suspect that this is the normal and natural way that nature operates.
Just to restate how it seems that the cosmos works; galaxies spew out gamma radiation and ionic debris which accumulates in clouds in deep space which form accretion disks. These accretion disks then form new galaxies of stars which continue the process. So we have a continuing cycle that can go on and on forever.
-
They must be created all the time!
-
They must be created all the time!
This seems so to me. And for advocates of a steady state universe, there only needs to ba about one proton per cubic mile of space created each year to carry on the cycle. This quantity probably needs study.
-
They must be created all the time!
This seems so to me. And for advocates of a steady state universe, there only needs to ba about one proton per cubic mile of space created each year to carry on the cycle. This quantity probably needs study.
There are problems with a steady state universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox
-
Olbers paradox is not very accurate to use. It would have been best to possibly link to the CMB.
http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html#Olbersparadox
-
The page you have cited doesn't seem to add anything to the discussion.
In any event, the fact that it goes dark at night constitutes a problem for the "steady state universe" idea.
-
The part i wanted you to read was this:
We now know that several of the assumptions made by Olbers (explicitly or implicitly) are incorrect.
-
Olbers paradox is not valid because light does not go on forever in space. We know that it shifts from higher to lower frequencies. We used to say that this was a Doppler effect. Now, I think we say it is the result of expanding space. I like to suspect that it is the interaction of light with space debris. Whatever the cause, light does not go on forever. So Olber had it wrong [:)]
-
Is space expanding or is it a steady state?
-
Is space expanding or is it a steady state?
It's accelerating.
-
Is space expanding or is it a steady state?
I suspect that the universe exists much as it has for more time than we can imagine. Galaxies convert matter into radiation and ionic debris. Radiation and ionic debris recombine in deep space, eventually forming new galaxies. My speculative view is that it is a continuing process that goes on forever.
Lyndon Ashmore (http://www.lyndonashmore.com/) has a view that is close to my speculation.
-
"Tired light" has problems too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light
-
"Tired light" has problems too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light
As far as I can determine, all the problems have been addressed satisfactorily. The most troubling one, as I recall, was time dilation which appears in observations of 1A supernova. Two things about the observations support "tired light". One is that the overall brightness observed is less than it should be. The other is that different frequencies of light move at different speeds. Combine these two and we see that the supernova event may be smeared over time with the fastest light arriving first followed by the slower light. Ashmore provides frequency curves of observations to support this.
-
In this steady state universe you propose, where is the anti matter that would also be created going?
If you were able to create a LHC the size of the solar system you would just about reach E=mc2 and create hydrogen atoms but then your left with the problem of its anti particle ruining your new baby you just spent a fortune on.
Only conditions in the very early proceedings of the big bang allowed some of these new atoms to escape destruction although for the life of me I don't know how they did it,and would love to see a mathematical model to show how hydrogen atoms managed to survive their anti brothers.
-
Can atoms be made, or are we limited by the whole of the physical universe by what we have (so if we destroy an atom to release energy, it will never be replaced)
What do you mean by "made"? IF you "make" a desk you basically construct it from trees, i.e. something else. In this sense one can "make" atoms.
A Universal law (by our understanding) would be that something can not come from nothing, correct?
Not really, but in most cases that's true. It's concievable that the universe was made with a total energy of zero so in that sense it was something from nothing. Negative energy of gravitational potential energy is canceled from the postive energy of mass and kinetic energy.
-
In this steady state universe you propose, where is the anti matter that would also be created going?
The creation process need not create complete atoms at once. There are intermediate standing wave patterns of trapped radiation that must interact to make the atom. At these intermediate stages, the dominate matter will prevail. Since there are three entities required to complete the proton, and the entities are formed in pairs, the intermediate anti-matter entity is annihilated with its matter partner. The whole atom need not be annihilated. It seems to me that the kind of matter that dominates by chance has a better chance of replicating than its counterpart.
Edit: Keep in mind that the intermediate entities are very unstable and can only exist for milliseconds. They don't need a partner to convert back to radiation. In fact, this scenario would have most of the created matter converting back to radiation with only a very small portion actually forming atoms.
-
On another note for your steady state universe if galaxies are continually being created why are all quasi galaxies only observed in the distant past.
-
Can atoms be made, or are we limited by the whole of the physical universe by what we have (so if we destroy an atom to release energy, it will never be replaced)
What do you mean by "made"? IF you "make" a desk you basically construct it from trees, i.e. something else. In this sense one can "make" atoms.
A Universal law (by our understanding) would be that something can not come from nothing, correct?
Not really, but in most cases that's true. It's concievable that the universe was made with a total energy of zero so in that sense it was something from nothing. Negative energy of gravitational potential energy is canceled from the postive energy of mass and kinetic energy.
I still don't see how that is creating atoms. All your doing is altering a state. That isn't creating something from nothing.
-
I still don't see how that is creating atoms. All your doing is altering a state. That isn't creating something from nothing.
That's why I asked you What do you mean by "made"? You didn't ask if they could be made from nothing, hence my question. The word make quite literally means "to put together from components". It doesn't mean to create from nothing. Heavy elements are said to have been "made" in particle accelerators by bombarding lighter elements with a beam of protons.
If you're asking if they can be made from nothing, in the lab, then the answer is no. If you're asking if all the atoms in the universe were made from nothing then the answer is "maybe". Nobody really knows.
-
On another note for your steady state universe if galaxies are continually being created why are all quasi galaxies only observed in the distant past.
I'm not sure what a quasi galaxy is. As far as I know every observation of very distant objects show them to be just like the objects we see up close. Just recently, a gamma ray burst from the farthest object ever observed showed that the parent entity contained heavy elements that could not be produced in first generation stars.
I have kept a mind set for that. I have seen references to far away galaxies as "young" galaxies, but there has never been any evidence that they are young.
-
I'm not sure what a quasi galaxy is. As far as I know every observation of very distant objects show them to be just like the objects we see up close.
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.
Just recently, a gamma ray burst from the farthest object ever observed showed that the parent entity contained heavy elements that could not be produced in first generation stars.
I have kept a mind set for that. I have seen references to far away galaxies as "young" galaxies, but there has never been any evidence that they are young.
[/quote]
-
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 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".
-
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 (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219141458.htm) different frequencies of light move at different speeds in space.
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 (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/from-the-depths-of-space) first generation stars are seldom found.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Can You give references to this inhomogeneity?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. [:)]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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..
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
And yes, the graininess will become matter which creates space.
Nice, ain't it?
-
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.