Very basic cosmology question

  • 107 Replies
  • 36561 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #50 on: 17/05/2005 00:01:50 »
When you say "non-moving", non-moving relative to what? Surely everything in the universe is in motion.

It wasn't me - a big boy did it & ran away
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #51 on: 17/05/2005 20:51:29 »
'Non-moving' by comparison - relativistic speeds, where GR excels. Quantum Mechanics is better at describing things at the particle end.

The other abbrevs are RP (Roger Penrose) and SH (Stephen Hawking) btw, one of whom I greatly admire... [:)]

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.

*

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2582
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #52 on: 17/05/2005 21:29:18 »
Something which just occured to me as an interesting idea was what would happen if near the beginning of the universe there were more dimensions and they all curled up sort of in the inflation phase...

<begin unqualified and probably incoherent babble>

I wonder if a collapsing dimension could somehow dump lots of energy into the other dimensions as it were... sort of what happens if you stand on a balloon (that doesn't burst)... you loose a dimension and grow lots in the other two.

If you think of how gravity works if all the dimensions were closed but some smaller than the others - say we have a fourth dimension called w which is the small one

everything would be closer together in the w dimension than in the other ones so the mass would all tend fall towards itself along the w dimension more than teh other 3. when two objects got close to each other they would orbit round each other and fly apart in a random direction - often in the x,y, or z directions - so overall you would be converting potential energy in the w direction and converting it into kinetic energy in the x, y and z directions...  

so the w direction would collapse into a small loop and everything would suddenly accelerate in the x,y and z directions... would this appear to us afterwards as inflation?

apart from anything else if it happened really late it would screw up the assumptions about the brightness of a light source as intensity wouldn't go as 1/r^2 any more. I think it would screw up a lot more than this including orbits as there are no stable orbits in more than 3 dimensions, so it would have to have happened before the universe went transparent...

Maybe I should have gone to some of the optional cosmology courses and then I could talk more convincingly or see more of the great big holes in this... ho hummm
« Last Edit: 17/05/2005 21:29:48 by daveshorts »

*

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #53 on: 17/05/2005 22:16:04 »
Interesting idea, could explain where the extra dimensions in string theory 'go to'.

On an equal tangent: you know what set me off thinking that if you try to unravel space backwards, stuff does not fit, and you have to start thinking how it sort of breaks down from a 'rational' number of dimensions? Our number system, which you could see as a 'representation' of how we count reality, has similar problems. I could show you very simple rules in numbers, that break down as you approach zero, or long before that, near three actually you can say things suddenly work out differently than 'before'. Also think primes. When I was young both 1 and 2 were considered primes, with 1 as a kind of obligatory odd duck, and 2 as the only even prime, making it unique. Nowadays primes start at 3. Easier on the rules... that single simple shift speaks volumes, though. There is something distinctly strange going on at that cusp.

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.

*

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #54 on: 17/05/2005 22:46:50 »
Here's one example where you see the simplest of rules go very linear - above three, that is.

http://www.research.att.com/cgi-bin/access.cgi/as/njas/sequences/eisA.cgi?Anum=A076505

That's only one example, mind you. And they cannot always be explained because the 'numbers are too small' or 'don't fit' or whatever. It's like a spiral suddenly twisting differently, more tightly.

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #55 on: 18/05/2005 12:39:29 »
OK, I follow that "Hello" thing but I'm not sure I understand the significance of it.

It wasn't me - a big boy did it & ran away
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #56 on: 18/05/2005 18:18:59 »
Short answer: if you do statistics, your population cannot be too small. Likewise, for certain phenomena to occur at all, you need a basic framework of particles/forces in place. If you keep taking away stuff, at specific points you see the rules change. Shapes and configurations can be equally important, there appears to a minimum in necessary complexity.

Now what daveshorts is trying to do is similar to what I'm researching: see what happens with the rules in different situations.

To give you a better, but harder to grasp, example of how rules change in different 'areas' in number theory, here's Robin's theorem, which states that below 5041 our neat number system does something totally peculiar:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RobinsTheorem.html

now interestingly, 5040 is a number already acknowledged by Plato to be very special, and its neighbour 5041 is interesting not only because it's 71*71, but also because it ties in with how many cannonballs you can stack in a minumum space.

This is completely different what goes on above 5041, btw. This is of interest to a lot of people because of its possible implications not only in all kinds of prime number theories etc, but also in cryptography. They want to know if this 'hickup' in number theory has any cousins 'out there' in higher number regions, where their calcs could screw up bigtime, and predictions/theorems like the Goldbach suddenly would no longer hold.

Where it all comes togethere is that the series I gave you and other, more important ones agree and to a certain extent not only confirm, but help to better explain  the behaviour of quarks in QCD and how they combine to create mesons.

Those rules are essentially calculations - bookkeeping if you will. Lie groups, su(3) etc and how crystals are built up are all related, simply because similar rules apply.

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #57 on: 18/05/2005 21:27:34 »
I'm aware of the low population rule. Have you come across "Life" on a computer? I think that illustrates the point quite well.
As for Robins & Goldbach - erm... I want my mummy!

It wasn't me - a big boy did it & ran away
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 749
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #58 on: 19/05/2005 02:16:17 »
Here it is! It's been coded in Java! John Conway's Game of Life.

http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

I still remember that Scientific American article. Was that really 1970? I programmed it in FORTRAN and BASIC, and ran it on timesharing mainframes and S100 bus microcomputers. Damn, that's making me feel old.
"F = ma, E = mc^2, and you can't push a string."

*

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #59 on: 19/05/2005 19:39:29 »
Game of Life is different in the sense the rules stay the same no matter what size the population, although you could program that different.

My point is just that the opposites of primes, the Highly Composite Numbers (those with the most divisors) are spitting images in their behaviour and composition compared to how particles are built up under different circumstances (combinatorics again), and there are striking similarities how the 'rules' collapse, or break down depending on where you are...

Especially if you find out that these numbers come with '3' at heart (Niven Harshad numbers), like the number of quarks in particles, and that they propagate in a 24-fold cycle (always), which happens to be the number of possible mesons you can make - the building blocks of all matter.

To put it in a nutshell: with high numbers (read: a lot of particles), things behave differently than if you go towards 1 (a singularity of sorts, too). And the way these series break down is maybe capable of teaching us a trick or two without having to smash atoms, because at heart the same thing happens.



The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
« Last Edit: 19/05/2005 19:44:57 by chimera »
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.

*

Offline pope

  • First timers
  • *
  • 1
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #60 on: 19/05/2005 23:16:28 »
the energy comes from the earths core
popepope

*

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2582
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #61 on: 20/05/2005 00:32:40 »
Ok.... urr was this supposed to be posted here?

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #62 on: 20/05/2005 12:10:05 »
quote:
Originally posted by chimera

Especially if you find out that these numbers come with '3' at heart (Niven Harshad numbers), like the number of quarks in particles, and that they propagate in a 24-fold cycle (always), which happens to be the number of possible mesons you can make - the building blocks of all matter.

To put it in a nutshell: with high numbers (read: a lot of particles), things behave differently than if you go towards 1 (a singularity of sorts, too). And the way these series break down is maybe capable of teaching us a trick or two without having to smash atoms, because at heart the same thing happens.



So are you saying that numbers & sequences of numbers determine how particles behave? Or that the behaviour of particles somehow determines maths? That sounds very Qaballistic (ancient Judaic teaching is that numbers are the basis of creation & everything has a numeric value. The way these values interact to produce other values is the very key to creation, life & an understanding of God).

It wasn't me - a big boy did it & ran away
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #63 on: 20/05/2005 13:15:50 »
No, not determine, as much have parallel behaviour with how particles act. Not as strange as it sounds, because we use all kinds of metaphors be they prisms, pieces of cardboard with holes to see which hole the light goes trough to make stripes, and ultimately the computer as super-abacus that allows you to take simple calculations a lot further, and put them in nice graphs that look more like plants than anything to do with numbers, or anything else.

Quabbalists would probably freak out from using Clifford algebra, where a times b does not equal b times a (i.e. is non-commutative), fractals, Lie groups, shapes that exist only in 4 dimensions, and the sheer domain of numbers that are involved. 858899288969751 is a unique number for instance, but to find out it's the only Carmichael under 10^16 that's 15 modulo 24 really takes a computer, I think, although you can even check that result with your ordinary 32-bit desktop calculator. You won't find any others, though. Pretty strange, that.

So basically, you look for surprises in places where there should be no such surprises and compare the differences with other regions. My 'galaxies' of numbers are no more or less real than the 'real' galaxies which you only can see on film, btw - they're too dim for the naked eye. Most people don't realise they only know those nice swirlies from pictures, and can never find them looking up, even on the clearest of nights. You have to lock a camera into looking at the same spot for a very long time to pick them up.

Never heard anybody complain about that, either [:)]

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #64 on: 20/05/2005 19:09:33 »
Rob - I'm still don't see the significance of some of the maths you're talking about. When you say that "858899288969751 is a unique number for instance, but to find out it's the only Carmichael under 10^16 that's 15 modulo 24", not being a mathematician, I don't see what's so unusual about that. To my mind, saying that 4 is the only square of a whole number < 3 is just the same.
I think I'd better butt out of this post because obviously it's all about esoteric maths & I haven't a hope in hell of understanding it. But thanks for trying
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #65 on: 20/05/2005 19:39:54 »
It's not so important, just a curious side-effect of something that IS of relevance, but indeed, let's drop it.

Just remember that numbers pop up in the weirdest of places:

here's how to calculate pi by throwing a needle repeatedly over a few lines drawn on a table...:

http://www.mste.uiuc.edu/reese/buffon/buffon.html



The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #66 on: 21/05/2005 23:25:48 »
Now that pi thing has really melted my brain!

It wasn't me - a big boy did it & ran away
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #67 on: 22/05/2005 10:59:12 »
Careful with the cotton-tips, then. [:)]

Back to the topic: howcome we can only see 12 billion years of light.

Strangely, as I mentioned in another topic, there are structures withIN that area that by all accounts have to be older than that, by quite a margin: 80 billion years for super-clusters to form as they are now.

Maybe gsmollin would like to take a shot at that one? Can't say I've heard any really good explanations for that yet, and would make the whole original question slightly silly, wouldn't you agree?



The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
« Last Edit: 22/05/2005 10:59:42 by chimera »
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.

*

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2582
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #68 on: 22/05/2005 11:38:13 »
I think the reason that there is a limit to how far we can see is that before 12 billion years ago the universe was a plasma so was opaque to light - the light released by all the hydrogen atoms catching electrons at the end of this period forms the microwave background radiation. (greatly red shifted for UV to microwave)

I would have thought that the estimates of the age of super clusters were pretty dodgy as cosmologists are working on very little solid data and don't entirely understand the physics yet.

*

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #69 on: 22/05/2005 12:40:18 »
quote:
Originally posted by daveshorts

I would have thought that the estimates of the age of super clusters were pretty dodgy as cosmologists are working on very little solid data and don't entirely understand the physics yet.



Well, I wouldn't call the results of 5000 galaxies 'very little solid data' and it's true the physics isn't yet known, 80 billion years is a conservative possibility.

The entire pattern stretches across a quarter of a diameter of the observable universe, a distance of over seven billion light-years. At the known expansion speeds both current and past that would add up to a 150 billion range figure.

keywords: supercluster, Tully, Fischer, Great Wall



The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.

*

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2582
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #70 on: 22/05/2005 16:25:50 »
Maybe it is because I am more of a solid state type of person I find the number of layers of calculations that are enevitable in cosmology... worrying. Basically a very small change in the physics, or even in their data would radically change their conclusions.

I don't know anything about this particular example, but data from 5000 galaxies could be rubbish, depending on what the error bars are, how sensitive their model is to the data, how good their model is etc etc.

essentially you may be right or not - I don't trust cosmology enough to get worked up about its results...

*

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 749
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #71 on: 22/05/2005 23:35:47 »
These numbers have always been at issue, so this is no news. The first expansion numbers for the universe put its age at less than the earth's. Cosmology is not an exact science. The steady state proponents have been quoting those big numbers for about 50 years to discredit the big bang theory. This problem falls under "details". There are fatter fish to fry. As the more fundamental problems get good answers, the rate of organization of superclusters will fall out. I think the answer will be that the organization of the supercluster is primordial. We are seeing an imprint of a structure that formed in the first instant.
"F = ma, E = mc^2, and you can't push a string."

*

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #72 on: 23/05/2005 20:07:46 »
If it's primordial, then why does the process seem to be speeding up, one could ask oneself.

Found this quite recent link that explains why neither dark-matter or the newer dark-energy theories are quite capable of getting to grasps with the phenomenon:


http://universe-review.ca/F03-supercluster.htm#fluctuations

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)

[typo]
« Last Edit: 23/05/2005 21:31:43 by chimera »
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #73 on: 23/05/2005 21:00:39 »
There's some quite interesting stuff on that link: but i'll need to read it through a few times to really get a grasp of it.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #74 on: 23/05/2005 21:43:12 »
Yeah, as I said, just came across that one, pretty new. Think they use some Java menu or so, and I've got that turned off just now, but also check out the main page, it's pretty extensive:

http://universe-review.ca/

Oh, and I see they've now mapped over 3 million galaxies, not the measly 5000 local ones.

Correction - that's several weeks down the reading drain. That's a lot of goodies.  [:)]

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
« Last Edit: 23/05/2005 21:46:51 by chimera »
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #75 on: 23/05/2005 21:59:52 »
Oh my good God - it'll take ages for me to read that lot. I'd better get another crate of Stella!
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #76 on: 23/05/2005 22:30:39 »
Well, thanks a bunch. I just started reading the QED section and now my brain's frazzled!
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #77 on: 23/05/2005 23:21:54 »
Ha, and no turning back to the pristine 'before' state via worm-hole, either! Timetravel is strictly Verboten from now on. Gosh, those 911 laws are getting tougher and tougher, with some nasty possible side-effects for our supermassive black friends themselves:

One physicist told BBC News they could see problems with Hsu's and Buniy's conclusions.

"Violations of the null energy condition are known to occur in a number of situations. And their argument would prohibit any violation of it," they commented.

"If that's true, then don't worry about Hawking radiation from a black hole; the entire black hole vacuum becomes unstable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4564477.stm

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.

*

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 749
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #78 on: 24/05/2005 22:11:21 »
quote:
Originally posted by chimera

If it's primordial, then why does the process seem to be speeding up, one could ask oneself.

Found this quite recent link that explains why neither dark-matter or the newer dark-energy theories are quite capable of getting to grasps with the phenomenon:


http://universe-review.ca/F03-supercluster.htm#fluctuations

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)

[typo]



"Most theories attribute the origin of large scale structures to quantum fluctuation, which occurred near the beginning of Big Bang. The fluctuation is subsequently enlarged by the inflation and served as a blue-print for the large scale structures such as the superclusters. Figure 03-08 depicts the supercluster formation from quantum fluctuations. The dot at the top shows the actual size, just at the end of inflation. An enlargement (about 300X) of a small section of the universe at this time is shown in the middle. Eventually, after about 14 billion years, the imprint has accumulated enough matter and form the Coma supercluster today. In gravitational terms, the superclusters are merely slight irregularities on a basically smooth universe. It requires only one part in 100,000 of its rest-mass energy to pull the structure apart."

Exerpted from your link, http://universe-review.ca/F03-supercluster.htm#fluctuations
"F = ma, E = mc^2, and you can't push a string."

*

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #79 on: 25/05/2005 11:25:27 »
A bit one-sided excerpt, but naturally, in our deterministic universe, the seeds of such a structure should in theory be there from inception, can't have emergent properties at every junction, now could we. The issue was not that they're not OLD. How old, is, as you can also find on that page, still far from clear, even with the latest theories.

Still impressed by the effort of the people putting those pages up.

On a related note, gsmollin, do you think there's a similar 'lattice' structure underlying all known physical phenomena, or is it strictly field and particle in your view?

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.

*

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 749
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #80 on: 25/05/2005 16:00:28 »
quote:
Originally posted by chimera

A bit one-sided excerpt, but naturally, in our deterministic universe, the seeds of such a structure should in theory be there from inception, can't have emergent properties at every junction, now could we. The issue was not that they're not OLD. How old, is, as you can also find on that page, still far from clear, even with the latest theories.

Still impressed by the effort of the people putting those pages up.

On a related note, gsmollin, do you think there's a similar 'lattice' structure underlying all known physical phenomena, or is it strictly field and particle in your view?

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)



Well we could always swap quotes back and forth like a couple of debating evangelists... Give me your best shot. I don't understand your last question, so I can't answer. Since I have no info on that, I suppose the answer is "Insufficient data for meaningful answer."
"F = ma, E = mc^2, and you can't push a string."

*

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #81 on: 25/05/2005 19:00:30 »
quote:
Originally posted by gsmollin
Well we could always swap quotes back and forth like a couple of debating evangelists... Give me your best shot. I don't understand your last question, so I can't answer. Since I have no info on that, I suppose the answer is "Insufficient data for meaningful answer."



Nah, we're too old for that crap, I guess.

As to my question:

ok, let me rephrase that, your honour: does the witness think the vacuum in outer space in its empty state already contains all possible attractors and phase spaces as mathematical entities in their own right, or are they only inherent as boundary conditions to the physical properties of real reactions?

Simply put, is empty space already the recipe, or just the an empty drawing board without any real say to what's written on it.

[edit - clarified]
« Last Edit: 25/05/2005 19:02:11 by chimera »
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.

*

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 749
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #82 on: 25/05/2005 21:46:44 »
I don't think there is any "recipe". I do think that cause-and-effect have far-reaching consequences. As an illustration, those pictures of galaxy clusters look a lot like foamy bubbles. It could be quantum foam, the tiniest spaces possible, blown up to megaparsec size by cosmic expansion. We could count the bubbles of galaxy clusters and say that's how big the universe was at the beginning, in quantum foam bubbles. We could also be wrong about that, but its just an illustration of my point. The tiny foam became galaxy clusters. Now in those galaxy clusters we have a huge amount of detail. Now, the largest structures were only quantum foam in the beginning, so there was no recipe for the small structures. The quantum foam does not control what you ate for lunch, but it has something to do with the placement of the galaxy that contained the stars that supernovaed eons ago to synthesize the elements in your lunch. You might not be here at all, except for the quantum foam, but if you ate an unhealthy lunch, don't blame it on the quantum foam!
"F = ma, E = mc^2, and you can't push a string."

*

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #83 on: 25/05/2005 22:28:32 »
Does look like foam a bit, doesn't it? Could you estimate its fractal dimension? It's not 3, that's clear.

On a side note, just been reading something really strange. Could you even begin to explain what would be needed to turn a star looking like one of those tesla balls, all hairy sparks?

And finally, this has been bugging me longer: if the universe was really hot once, and this is a nearly frozen blown-up version, is it not gaining in structure more than losing it, like water gains structure by becoming ice?

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.

*

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 749
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #84 on: 26/05/2005 16:40:11 »
quote:
Originally posted by chimera

Does look like foam a bit, doesn't it? Could you estimate its fractal dimension? It's not 3, that's clear.


I don't think so. It's 4D spacetime now, when it was quantum foam, it could have had as many as 11 dimensions. This is where it gets really complicated, and becomes the domain of the specialist.

quote:
On a side note, just been reading something really strange. Could you even begin to explain what would be needed to turn a star looking like one of those tesla balls, all hairy sparks?


I don't understand this question. You will have to supply more information. Is this about high voltage or astronomy?

quote:
[And finally, this has been bugging me longer: if the universe was really hot once, and this is a nearly frozen blown-up version, is it not gaining in structure more than losing it, like water gains structure by becoming ice?


Oh yes! It's becoming more complicated every second. That is the second law of thermodynamics at work.
"F = ma, E = mc^2, and you can't push a string."

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #85 on: 26/05/2005 20:47:58 »
quote:
Oh yes! It's becoming more complicated every second. That is the second law of thermodynamics at work.



Erm... I'm obviously going to show my ignorance here but I thought the 2nd law stated that the level of entropy could never decrease. If structures in the universe are becoming more coherent, doesn't that mean they are becoming more orderly & that the entropy IS decreasing? [?]
Isn't the implication of the 2nd law that the universe should be more disorganised now than it was at the start?
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #86 on: 26/05/2005 20:57:52 »
Yep, same question here. Stuff ought to get more boring, according to 2nd law. Oh, and this kind of foam does have a pretty simple fractional dimension, not something OTT at all, pretty simple even. I'll look it up.

Here's a picture of what I meant btw, gsmollin, like a star gone plasma, could that be 'done', even as a weird scenario?

http://www.cebunet.com/kirlian/sparks.jpg

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.

*

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #87 on: 26/05/2005 22:01:55 »
quote:
If structures in the universe are becoming more coherent, doesn't that mean they are becoming more orderly & that the entropy IS decreasing?

When water becomes ice that's because although the matter becomes more ordered energy is released and so the distribution of quantised energy becomes more DISordered. The reason why it happens at low temperature is because essentially the energy distribution (enthalpy) becomes more important than the matter distribution (what people sometimes think of as entropy) (I'm not sure if that's a good or even a valid description, but it's sort-of how I think of it) anyhow, look up "Gibbs free energy" if you want a clearer explanation.

I wouldn't know whether there's any sort of parallel on the grand astrophysical scale (I'm a chemist, of sorts).

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #88 on: 27/05/2005 00:21:26 »
A chemist? PAH! heh [:p]
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #89 on: 27/05/2005 00:23:02 »
Rosy - on a serious note... are you saying that the entropy of the energy increases but the entropy of the physical material decreases?

It wasn't me - a big boy did it & ran away
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #90 on: 27/05/2005 00:35:37 »
Pretty much, yeah. The ice structure contains more hydrogen bonds than water, bond formation of any sort releases energy, and so there's more free energy drifting round the universe as a whole in consequence. More energy quanta have more different ways of arranging themselves, so overall the disorder increases.
If you're interested, check out this lecture handout (I don't *think* it's a firewalled site)... there are bits missing 'cos it's intended to have gaps to fill (the great fight for students' attention), but I think it should make sense even without those bits (and I guess you could find more info elsewhere on the web)
http://www-teach.ch.cam.ac.uk/teach/IBA/MELT_handout.pdf

*

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2582
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #91 on: 27/05/2005 00:42:49 »
Yeah things on a large scale may be getting more ordered in some ways, but on a microscopic scale things are getting much more disordered so overall things are getting more disordered, just like when ice freezes the ice gets more ordered but the universe less so.

One of the big increases in entropy in the universe now compared to near the big bang is the amount of space the photons have in the universe.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #92 on: 27/05/2005 14:13:55 »
quote:
The ice structure contains more hydrogen bonds than water, bond formation of any sort releases energy, and so there's more free energy drifting round the universe as a whole in consequence. More energy quanta have more different ways of arranging themselves, so overall the disorder increases.



Now hang on... something sounds wrong here. For however long it was after the Big Bang there was no matter, only energy: so how can there be more energy now when some of that initial energy has become particles? No matter how you look at it there must have been more energy at the start.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 749
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #93 on: 27/05/2005 18:19:29 »
I'm only going to comment on what I meant in my remark about the large scale structure of the universe.

First, we have to be careful, since the second law is very tricky. Its tricky enough, that I'm not sure about its applications. However, in this case, I think it is clear. The primordial universe was a a highly uniform state. Its temperature fluctuations where millionths of degrees out of millions of degrees, at least at one instant of its development. This is astounding uniformity, and has long been the subject of study, since it was an essential input to the big bang theory. It is no longer so uniform. It has stars and galaxies with densities as high as black holes, and then vast empty spaces. The average temperature is 3 kelvins, but it reaches millions of degrees inside stars. Not uniform. This is all disorder, and its been increasing ever since the beginning. That's what I meant about the formation of galaxy clusters showing the second law at work. What was once a fluctuation of 10e-12 is now a fluctuation of 10e8. I hope that clears this up.
"F = ma, E = mc^2, and you can't push a string."

*

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #94 on: 27/05/2005 19:45:58 »
quote:

Now hang on... something sounds wrong here. For however long it was after the Big Bang there was no matter, only energy: so how can there be more energy now when some of that initial energy has become particles? No matter how you look at it there must have been more energy at the start.



I can't put my finger on it, but it has all the hall-marks of sleight-at-hand, but with the unique twist the trick is taking place too slow for the human eye to notice the switch. No offense to gsmollin, he makes all the correct provisos.

Somehow this does not make sense. Assuming the universe started out with a grand sum of energy available, expansion alone would have made this less, per given volume.

So 'order' is a lack of energy, nice for the 'powers that be' to know that.

Doesn't all this mean the universe will freeze at one point in time? Solid? The Ultimate Ice Age? Without any energy to reconvert matter into energy?
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.

*

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 749
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #95 on: 27/05/2005 20:19:54 »
quote:
Originally posted by chimera

Yep, same question here. Stuff ought to get more boring, according to 2nd law. Oh, and this kind of foam does have a pretty simple fractional dimension, not something OTT at all, pretty simple even. I'll look it up.

Here's a picture of what I meant btw, gsmollin, like a star gone plasma, could that be 'done', even as a weird scenario?

http://www.cebunet.com/kirlian/sparks.jpg

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)



You showed me a Kirlian photograph. It's a type of photography using high voltage, and it usually shows haloes around objects. This was all the rage during my college days. I remember the girl who lived downstairs getting all excited about it; she had some Kirlian images of people and it showed these "auras" around their heads. She was all agog about it being their souls or something, and I just poo-pooed the whole thing as a corona discharge. Not smart. I think I could have parlayed that into a trip into her pants if I had only acted interested. Oh well, just another lost opportunity from my youth. I think that mid-life crisis is just the realization of all the times you screwed-up in your youth, and it gets you crying in your beer...

Now look what you started, with your stupid Kirlian photography! You got me monologing about lost girlfriends. Well, I think I'll go get some beer and cry into it.

Meanwhile, you can Google "Kirlian photography" if you're really interested in it. Here's the first hit http://skepdic.com/kirlian.html

Shortly later: Wait a second! That was a pic of the corona streamers from a Tesla coil. What's the question? If you back up one level into that URL, you can see the whole story about the Tesla coil and the Kirlian pics taken with it. So what's the question? Can you do that? Sure! Just make a Tesla coil. It's real 19th century sparks and arcs. Just beware of those neon-sign transformers, they WILL kill you if you get across them!
« Last Edit: 27/05/2005 20:30:53 by gsmollin »
"F = ma, E = mc^2, and you can't push a string."

*

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #96 on: 27/05/2005 20:40:32 »
Mmm. Interesting, but I'm afraid you're missing my point here, somewhat. I could have showed you some other pictures of Tesla balls, like these:

http://www.osiwanlan.de/tesla_research/tesla_2a/globe3.jpg
and
http://www.electronixandmore.com/tesla/teslav1_7.jpg

which are more like it, although the Kirlian looks somewhat similar. I was wondering if a star could be transformed into plasma with filaments shooting out into space like that - would there be any physics that you know of that would cause something like a large amount of gas like a star e.g. going 'plasma', in brief. I mean, if the question is not too odd, else forget it.

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.

*

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 749
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #97 on: 28/05/2005 13:46:08 »
Oh, maybe I understand now. Let's try again.

I think you are referring to the solar wind. All stars have a solar wind. This is happening all the time to our own sun. It ejects a plasma of charged particles. We can see them as auroroas when they hit the upper atmosphere. Also, there is a related phenomenon called the sun's corona, a million-degree atmosphere. You can see that in any good total-solar-eclipse picture.

Then there are the special phenomena. A helium flash is an explosive ejection of the sun's outer layers as it transfers from hydrogen to helium as its nuclear fuel. That won't happen for billions of years, and its a good thing, since we wouldn't survive it.

Other events in the life of stars cause large solar winds. In some stars, solar wind may remove the majority of the mass of the star.

Is that the question, or am I still missing the point?
"F = ma, E = mc^2, and you can't push a string."

*

Offline sia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 12
    • View Profile
    • http://www.theuniphysics.info
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #98 on: 28/05/2005 14:22:23 »
quote:
Originally posted by DoctorBeaver

I've read those links & i'm just as confused as ever. So, answer me this... if photons travel at the speed of light there must come (or have been) a time when some reach the edge of the universe. What happens then? Do they just go phut? Or do they cause the universe to start expanding at the speed of light with the photons forming the edge?



I chose your question among many similar about the “expanding universe” and photons and so on.

It isn't the universe that is expanding, it is the light's waves that are displaced by elongation.
This is an entropy-effect that forces the electrodynamic waves to accelerate towards equilibrium.

The quanta or photon is a misinterpretation of measurings of hot-body radiation.
Planck analyzed measurements of temperature and wavelengths and found that
there was a small fractional difference between the wave-units.

Planck's mistake was to transform the wave-units to frequency-units.
He did so to find the energy per time-units (second).
His interpretation that he didn't understand (and no one since then) was
that energy is: the wavelengths/sec x fractional difference.

But the reality behind is that a continual elongation of the electrodynamic waves
displaces the radiation at fractional the size of Planck's number (the light's entropy constant).
Planck compare one wave-unit with one (any) other and found that there was a small fractional difference between them. This fractional elongation difference was interpreted as a quantum-unit (or photon-fiction).

The same measuring did Edvin Hubble, and even he misinterpreted the measurings.
He measured the radiation from galaxies and compared their spectral-lines displacement to their approximated distance.
He found that the redshift was proportional to the distance.
As there was no other interpretation than the velocity-related Doppler-displacement, he (reluctantly) calculated the redshift as an expansion-velocity.

But as you can see at my web-site: newbielink:http://www.theuniphysics.info [nonactive]
both Max Planck and Edvin Hubble have measured the same displacement,
but made different interpretations. None of them have understood why.

I offer you here the accurate and complete explanation, and,
I will later give you more interesting and intelligible information.

Ingvar, Sweden

 

*

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
    • View Profile
Re: Very basic cosmology question
« Reply #99 on: 28/05/2005 14:41:20 »
quote:
Originally posted by gsmollin
Is that the question, or am I still missing the point?



No, I think we're getting there... so basically a star with its disk 'blacked out' would already look like a tesla coil. Is the similarity coincidental, or is that hot plasma you see during an eclipse also an electrical phenomenon in that sense?
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.