41

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 31/08/2023 19:56:31 »

it is during entropy that everything happens

What does the phrase 'during entropy' even mean?
That's like saying 'during momentum', like they describe a period of time.

The entropy of Earth has more or less been constant over the last billion years, and an awful lot of interesting stuff has happened during that period, so I'm not so sure if the interesting stuff happens when entropy is changing, but you also didn't say 'when entropy was changing'.

1)  the entropy I am referring to is taking place in a finite space that is surrounded by the infinite greater universe

Earth say ...
Again, entropy isn't a process that takes place. It's a value that can be measured, that can change.
 

In line with a premise that all space has always existed, any space that happens to be associated with, i.e. within the vacinity of the aftermath of a big bang event, has a higher energy density than the average density of the greater universe

High enough localized mass density (very little mass is required) that the matter would all exist within its own Schwarzschild radius, meaning it is a big collapse with no outward 'explosion' so to speak. It would result in an instant black hole with a event horizon radius far greater than the radius of our observable universe.

Just saying. That's what necessarily happens if you bang new matter into a small region of existing space. One can be in denial of gravity of course, but then why does it hurt when I fall down?

42

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Quantum Entanglement and Interstellar Communication.

« on: 29/08/2023 16:01:26 »

Don't think so, Alan, but I am not good enough( not good at all!

No, you very much are good enough, and you are correct here.

Now force your particle into an up state:  you therefore know mine is down, and I can measure it.

This is very much wrong. Entanglement does not mean that 'what is done to one particle affects the other'. Yes, a message could be sent if that were true, but it isn't. Spooky action at a distance (as it is called) has never been demonstrated. If it was, all the local interpretations that forbid it would have been falsified.

Spin entanglement says (in short) that if you measure both things in the same way, the results will be correlated.  If you force one of the particle spins, that is the same as declining to take one of the two measurements, leaving nothing to compare.

43

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 21/08/2023 00:22:53 »

We know time passes, but the beginning of time is not easily established. Was there a beginning, or has time been passing eternally?

...
Obviously, All the above imagined images would have Different Time slots.
(egg-t1, crack-t2, served-t3)

Yes, true even if time isn't something that passes. Those three states still have different time slots.

If the Egg is a Fundamentally essential object, without which, no still images can be imagined.

Have no idea what you might be suggesting with this one. An egg hardly seems fundamental, and an image is not an egg, and we have plenty of images of things (unicorn is traditional) that seem not to exist.

Can We then conclude, Without the Egg, Time does not Exist.

That's like saying without the unicorn, time doesn't exist. Time can exist just fine without an egg.
Time can exist without motion, but it's harder. The paint fades over time. That's evidence of time without utilizing the motion of anything.

How do We really measure Time?

Typically by counting regular events. That works, flow or no flow. There is no way to detect flow, so one cannot measure time by any empirical detection of flow.

How do We measure Entropy without the Existence of molecules, atoms, electrons, protons, quarks etc etc?

There would be no 'we' to measure it without that stuff. Entropy isn't especially a particularly meaningful thing without matter or radiation to measure.

Hope some of this helps.

44

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 13/08/2023 01:14:08 »

From Zero's link: Alan Guth.

Just to clarify, the quote does not appear anywhere on the Negative energy wiki page liked by Zero, but it does appear on the blurb for Alan Guth's book, which is one of the references on that wiki page.

Theory of known American theoretical physicist Alan Harvey Guth of the inflationary universe modifies the scientific Big Bang theory, describing the origin of all space, time, matter, and energy, 13.7 billion years ago, from the violent expansion of a singular point of extremely high density and temperature.

Don't know who wrote this blurb, but it is wrong, and I don't think Guth would have worded it that way. The universe was never a singular point since you can linearly (older model) or exponentially (inflation theory) expand one all you want and it will remain a point.

Yes, Guth was one of the major contributors to inflation theory, a significant change and improvement to the big bang model.
This universe is not in conflict with say the Cyclic model of Penrose, which stacks one conformal universe atop the next in infinite series. So in that sense, it does not refer to any one 'the beginning' since there are always more before and after.

If I interpret this correctly, it means that this diagram

can be stacked one atop another, but I might be wrong about that.

45

Just Chat! / Re: Is "new theories" getting worse?

« on: 11/08/2023 13:52:06 »

On a tangentially related note, is Gilyermo a bot?

Spam bot, banned. The point of the post storm was apparently to bury the (writer help) spam in a post in the paroxetine topic.

Always suspicious of a new user, especially one that puts out multiple (useless) posts like that, all at once. The last 7 posts were 30 seconds apart. No human can do that unless all the pages were pre-composed and all you needed to do was change windows and hit the post button.

46

Physiology & Medicine / Re: The Reason For Head Hair.

« on: 06/08/2023 21:06:25 »

Every human being seems to have head hair, or at least be born with it. What purpose does it serve?

Cooling and sunburn protection is a fair guess. Back when such things were evolving we were semi-aquatic, losing hair most other places for swimming/wading, but keeping it on the part that sticks out of the water.
Why does it grow to unlimited length?  Very few species have unchecked hair growth. A cat for instance always has nicely uniform thickness of fur. Human head/beard hair is not fur since it grown unchecked, unlike groin and armpit hair.

Or like many things in human evolution, do we have it because we thought it was attractive at one point?

That's getting it backwards. One evolves to be attracted to a fit mate. A good head of hair spells health over those missing it. A strong beard spells masculinity. I don't think the beard much serves to cool and such since there's hardly any surface blood flow at the chin.

Why does the male lion grow a mane?  If it was heat, the females would need it too. I think the lions need it for combat protection.

To keep your head warm.

If warmth was wanted, we'd not have lost the hair everywhere else. Humans mostly evolved in very warm climates. Those migrating further to colder climates started getting some of it back, but lacked the time to complete the task.
So you put hair in the paces you want kept cool, nappy hair especially which stays wet longer.

Global Warming will turn future Humans..
Bald?

Humans are not currently being eliminated due to excessive hair, even in the warmest places. But take away our grip on technology and humans on warm beaches may well reverse the current trend.

47

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 02/08/2023 18:11:02 »

any chance you could expand on the statement that "the universe is not classical"

In a classical universe, there is no retro-causality (effect before cause) and that objects exist even in the absence of measurment (the moon is there even if never measured).
Bell's theorem proved that at least one of those two principles (locality, counterfactual definiteness, respectively) must be false. No valid quantum interpretation supports both. The universe cannot be classical since it cannot obey both principles.

48

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 01/08/2023 16:32:06 »

What we can observe and/or detect could certainly be a finite expanding universe from a singular event

One observes/detects events and objects, not the universe itself,  So while the universe is still infinite in extent, the contents of it (the parts that exist relative to say our local galaxy cluster) is a very finite list. The rest is counterfactuals.

Positing the existence/state of things that have not been measured gets you classical physics, and it has been demonstrated (proved even) that the universe is not classical.

49

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 12/07/2023 04:36:55 »

I get that. I define "universe" as all that is, all matter, energy, everything, all connected in the sense that everything occupies one contiguous, infinite space.

Suppose there exists a 5 dimensional being. That can't exist in 3 dimensional space, infinite or not. If it's all connected, then 'universe' is confined only to things with a location in that one space, and not all the existing stuff that isn't in that space.  So the statement seems somewhat self-contradictory.

I don't know. Negative energy? Any examples?

Gravitational energy (PE) is negative. An object that is infinitely distant from all mass (or an object in a massless universe) has zero PE.  Any mass nearby contributes it a more negative potential than that.

50

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 07/07/2023 21:01:52 »

there being just one universe, and only one

Well I suppose that depends on your definition of 'universe' and of 'there being' as well. I mean, I take an relational empirical approach, which is even more unusual than most of the stuff you propose. So I define 'there being' relative to X as anything measured by X. That means 'the universe' (all that is measured by X' is quite finite in both space and time. Some star like our own, but in a galaxy 7 BLY away? It doesn't exist to me since I cannot measure it. It isn't in my universe.

You can define this more conventionally, like ('everything that exists'). A thing either has this property or not, so there can be only one set of all things that have this existence property and another set of the things that don't. The universe is the former set. There can by definition be only one of those, and it would even be logically inconsistent to talk about a different universe, since if it existed, it would be part of the one universe by definition. Your post seems to indicate your holding this more conventional definition. The distant star exists even though no light from it has ever reached here yet.

Would it then be safe to say that the infinite universe is full of an infinite amount of matter

Pretty safe, but it doesn't follow. A universe that is infinite but only has 'stuff; locally in one place would have a finite amount of material, and thus most of the infinite space would be dead empty. Some some additional postulate of say homogeneity would get the infinite matter to logically follow.

and [an infinite amount of] energy

That presumes more stuff as well, in particular that the mean energy density of the universe is positive. Since there is very much negative energy out there, maybe the negative energy outdoes the positive stuff. It also doesn't seem to be conserved in a cosmological frame, so the energy is always going both up and down. Dark energy for instance is always going up, but light energy and kinetic energy and such always go down over time. This may not be true in a model like you describe since the cosmological frame is an expanding one with finite time since the beginning. You don't really have a mathematical model that would be needed in order to answer the question of whether your universe has infinite energy or not.

51

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why do kettles make a whoooarr sound?

« on: 06/07/2023 15:06:21 »

  It seems that most people think it's the water that is the main source of the vibrations, probably due to water vapour bubbles being created at the bottom and condensing back into liquid higher up.   Could be.   There's a big change in volume moving from gas to liquid so there may be some rapid local pressure changes when a bit of steam condenses.   Those might travel like pressure waves through the water (either to the surface of the water or to the body of the kettle which will then also locally vibrate).

Thought about it some more.  The bottom of the kettle acts as sort of a drum, amplifying action happening there and transferring  the vibration to the air.
So I place my bets on the creation of the bubbles from liquid state as it touches hot metal. The condensation just isn't going to do anything dramatic and will result in an inaudible fizz at best.

So the liquid sort of explodes into gas. That's the noise. Towards the end there is no liquid at the bottom and it all boils before reaching the metal. Hence less noise at the end.

And yes, if you boil water in a pan, you get the same noise, and it sort of goes away if you stir, only to return moments later when you stop. I think one can stir the water fast enough (at least when it's still pretty cool) that the water touching the very hot (well over boiling temp) metal still hasn't a chance to conduct enough heat away to boil instantly.

52

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why do kettles make a whoooarr sound?

« on: 06/07/2023 06:46:01 »

I have an electric stove and the sound is quite loud. It momentarily increases in intensity if you move the kettle say a cm or so to the side, exposing new 'colder' kettle-bottom to the hot portions of the burner.  But the sound comes from a gas setup as well.  It calms down to being quite quiet just before the boil sets in. My kettle has a fairly defective whistle and one needs to keep an ear out for the quite before the storm, so I've become more attuned to it.

OK, so I do think it is either noise from boiling right at the bottom. The gas makes it a very short distance before condensing back into liquid. But this can't be all since it would continue to make the noise once the boil is reached, and it kind of doesn't. Water at a full boil doesn't make a whole lot of noise at all. So maybe its the condensation going on (the bubbles ending) that makes the noise. That stops happening at the end and it just goes into a rolling boil.

53

New Theories / Re: How the Solar energy is created?

« on: 29/06/2023 18:14:49 »

"This process, known as a PP (proton-proton) chain reaction, emits an enormous amount of energy.

The PP reaction is part of the fusion process. It doesn't make any helium, but it makes one deuterium nucleus out of two protons. The fustion reactors on Earth for instance don't do this, and they mine the ocean for already-existing deuterium and tritium and do only the easy part: Merging two deuterium nuclei into a helium nucleus.

PP is prevalent in smaller stars, but the CNO cycle (a catalytic reaction) is more prevalent in larger ones.

"getting two identical elements to combine is actually very hard.
Because they have the same positive charge, they naturally repel each other."

Well that's true of any nuclei, identical or not.

"The waste produced by nuclear fusion is less radioactive and decays much more quickly."

I think they mean 'more quickly than the waste of fission'.

1. How the Sun could increase its internal temp to that ten million Celsius in order to start the fusion process?

Anything under pressure is going to rise in temperature

How the internal pressure in the sun due to gravity can gain so high temp?

Compression causes higher temps. Here's a typical article going on about it, but most of them concern squeezing of air and not so much stellar processes. There is an incredible amount of energy released by all the mass of a star falling so deep into a major gravity well. It would fall further, but the ignition of the star creates a counter-pressure that staves off further collapse for as long as the reaction can be maintained.
https://www.tec-science.com/thermodynamics/thermodynamic-processes-in-closed-systems/why-does-pressure-and-temperature-increase-during-the-compression-of-a-gas/

Do we have any way to measure that internal temp?

Models. No way to directly measure it. We only see the surface and can measure energy output, mass, magnetic fields, etc.

2. How do we know that in its core, the sun fuses about 620 million metric tons of hydrogen every second?

Energy output can be directly measured. E=mc2 does the rest.

Can we really measure that quantity or is it just based on some mathematical assumption?

All measurement is based on mathematical assumptions, so same thing.

So somehow there must be some radioactive radiation due to fusion activity. Do we really see any radioactive radiation from the Sun?

The waste products tend to stay and decay right in the sun. I imagine there are trace amounts in the solar wind and such. One such product is positrons, and those very much don't lost long enough to reach the surface. They don't decay, but they find electrons and annihilate them.

4. If Fusion activity was real, why it can't run out of control and bomb the entire Sun

The temperature of the sun prevents the density of the fuel from reaching explosive levels. That changes when the fuel runs low and the temperature can no longer maintain enough pressure to hold the star material at its current radius. Then collapse occurs, and the gravitational energy released from that collapse ignites the next layer of fuel (helium say) and that does explode.

6. It is stated: The energy, heat, and light from the sun flow away in the form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR).

Much of which is visible light, yes. We directly observe that, yes, even EMR in other frequencies.

7. So why we can't agree that the Solar energy is created ONLY by its EM energy?

It isn't created by EM energy at all. EM energy is the product, not the fuel.

8 Why this EM energy can't be created by external tidal forces on the Sun without any need for the Fusion activity idea?

There are almost no tidal forces on the sun. There's nothing large and close enough to produce them.

9. Why do we insist to add the idea of that invisible Fusion activity?

Because there's the only other source of energy would be that of falling material, and that is nowhere near enough to maintain the energy level for billions of years. A week maybe is it. This question seems to sound like fusion denialism.

54

New Theories / Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?

« on: 14/06/2023 21:07:13 »

do bring up the term "non-locality" where a system exists in two different parts, i.e. in two places in the universe at the same time.

All systems (anything consisting of more than one fundamental thing) exist in different places at once. Non-locality doesn't refer to that, it refers to cause and effect happening faster than c, or reverse causality, etc.

I think entanglement implies that entangled particles can be separated and yet function as a single system.

Entangled particles exhibit correlations between measurements. They don't function as a system.

Doesn't Inflation break Entanglement?

The inflation epoch happened before there were particles to entangle, so I'm not sure there can be a meaningful answer to it.

55

New Theories / Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?

« on: 14/06/2023 18:20:03 »

causing gravitational waves that eventually overlap

Any kind of waves from multiple sources will (if close enough) eventually overlap.

would the big bangs be considered to be entangled, i.e. not signaling faster than light events?

Entanglement isn't 'signalling faster than light'. It's a correlation of quantum measurements. It is unclear how to take a quantum measurement of something as classical as a big bang, and how one would expect to measure a different big bang in such a way that a correlation could be noted or not.

56

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are there any philosophical or other implications to the underlying randomness

« on: 07/06/2023 03:17:20 »

I also  assumed that randomness  was the only interpretation of QM  that  was accepted .

There is no interpretation called 'randomness'. I think you mean the category of non-determinstic.
Of the 13 basic types of interpretations listed in wiki, 2 are agnostic, 7 non-deterministic, and 4 of them deterministic, meaning no randomness, no 'god rolling dice'. I would include relational interpretation as a 5th one there because it also has no randomness, but wiki lists it as non-deterministic.

So the decay of the nucleus is only of significance when it is measured (to my mind) and  this "measurement" is a synonym with "interaction"

Good point. For one, 'measurement' and 'interaction' are essentially the same thing in QM (with a couple exceptions). You seem to take the non-realist approach that says the decay doesn't exist until measured. I agree with that, but keep in mind that it's a choice, not something known.

Do you stand by your explanation that some occurrences (eg nuclear decay)  take place on their own and without a "partner" in the physical  environment (the wider system they are part of)?

There are valid counterfactual interpretations that say the decay happens even if not measured. Either way, the decay isn't 'caused' by anything, so whether it takes an interaction or not, it's still an uncaused and empirically random occurrence. Given the realist interpretation, it doesn't take two for the decay to occur, so no partner required. A partner is only needed for it to be measured. A tree falling in the forest makes no noise if there's nothing to measure the event. That makes no sense at the classical level since it is impossible for any part of the forest (or of Earth) to not measure the tree falling in it.

More generally,perhaps are not all systems ,large or small interconnected?

Well that's what the Schrodinger's box thought experiment illustrates. The box represents the isolation of a system from the outside, a severance of that connection. This has been demonstrated in the lab for 'large' things (something big enough to see without aid), which were isolated enough to be placed in superposition of state for a time. The procedure to isolate it would not be survived by a cat. Anyway, it constitutes a real situation where two systems were not interconnected for a time. It gets much easier with distance. A planet currently 20 BLY away is permanently not interconnected with Earth today, so there's an example of systems forever not connected, at least per a local interpretation. Given a non-local interpretation, one can influence the other faster than light. Maybe they share entangled particles or something.

57

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: What are Rocks & Sand?

« on: 31/05/2023 23:28:13 »

Any ordinary looking small rock on the side of the road, what is it made up of?

A native rock (one not put there by the road construction process) is sometimes just the local stuff, which would be loose slate near me.

what's inside a single miniscule grain of sand?

Sand is usually something from the watershed of nearby rivers. I grew up in Michigan where the entire lower part of the state is made up of sand and rocks, made of, well, Canada actually. None of it is 'native', but instead all pushed there from up north. Somewhere deep down is actual Michigan rock, but none of us has actually seen it.
Go to Florida and all the sand is made entirely of ground-up sea shells. In Hawaii the sand is black volcanic stuff. Local stuff in all cases.

Where I live now the beaches are all fake, so who knows where they found the stuff.

58

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 29/05/2023 23:16:11 »

Why is Space temperature stuck at -270?C ?

It isn't. It's still falling, but being so close to zero already, it hasn't much further to go.

So why can't it go extremely low?

It's already extremely low.

is ' intesimally ' even a valid word?)

Interesting word, sort of combining 'infinitesimal' and 'intensely'.

Was the temp of the Observable universe ever between 21?C to 24?C?

1, it's the entire universe, not just the observable part. Yes, it was all those other temperatures along the way to where it is now.

Are Measurements lower than -273?C possible?

Zero K is as low as it gets. There are articles that claim some sort of negative energy and express it as lower than zero temperature, so you'd probably be able to google something that claims otherwise.

Ya i know, it's Absolute Zero, but i wanna know if We have instrumental capabilities to Measure lower temps or not?

Any instrument can display a negative number, but if nothing is actually colder than zero, it wouldn't be a measure of anything's temperature.

next im gonna inquire about BH temps, so be prepared.

See no-hair theorem. It says that BH has mass, charge, and angular momentum, and no other properties. Temperature isn't one of those.

59

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 23/05/2023 00:39:57 »

When We say the Universe is expanding, rather at an accelerated rate...
That's what We are currently Observing at the Edge of the observable Universe, Right..

Not right. You have to look more nearby to notice the acceleration since it is a more recent thing. The further away you look, the further in the past you see. So we notice things nearby expanding at a proportional rate greater than those currently further away. That's the acceleration, but it started about 6 billion years ago when the constant density dark energy became a greater density than the gravitational energy of all the mass, which became less dense as things moved further apart. So at that point, dark energy more than cancelled the gravity, and acceleration of expansion began. It was deceleration before then, so if you look as far as you can, the most distant galaxies, they're receding at a proportional rate that indicates that there had been a deceleration of expansion going on for over half the current life of the universe.

So, should We say it " is " expanding, or say it " was " expanding?

It is expanding and always has been expanding. If it ever started contracting (it won't), then matter would have won, and it would eventually end with a big crunch. But the expansion rate is currently accelerating, but used to be decelerating.

There used to not be event horizons, but continuous acceleration forms them, so there is our event horizon now about 16 BLY away. Light currently emitted beyond there will never reach our local galaxy group ever. That doesn't mean we can't see galaxies further away than that. It's just that the light emitted from those galaxies was from when those galaxies were much closer by.

60

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 20/05/2023 23:24:54 »

1) Is the Pioneer Anomaly resolved?

Yes, it was. Turns out that residual heat from the plutonium power source radiated heat preferentially in the direction it is moving, related to the way they spin. The lack of spin explains why most other craft (Voyager) don't exhibit this.

2) Infinity has no end point, but does it have a starting point?

Mathemtically, a line is infinite in length in both directions, but a ray is only in one direction and is bounded on the other. So it works either way.
For instance, the there's not a finite quantity of whole numbers, but they have a starting point. The integers do not.