Interesting Physics

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Interesting Physics
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 . . . 19 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 34041
Credit: 18,883,157
RAC: 18
Belgium
Message 1734159 - Posted: 14 Oct 2015, 12:46:49 UTC - in response to Message 1734156.  
Last modified: 14 Oct 2015, 12:48:02 UTC

I was pondering over something yesterday evening.

We have the unattainability of zero in the law of thermodynamics. If there would be a theory of everything, wouldn't there have to be a general rule that speaks for quantum physics as well as for relativity. What I mean is, the scenario of the big crunch wouldn't exist in that case because there would be an infinite infiniteness. No beginning is possible as well as no end.

If the universe would end in a big rip or big freeze, what would happen with the dark energy? We all know dark energy as a hypothetical force that makes the universe expand at an accelerated rate. If all matter would have died, would the universe still expand because of that force? This also brings me back to the concept of time. Time never had a beginning, nor will it have an end, in my opinion.

In our universe time did had a beginning.
The Big Bang theory says that both time and space was created in the "bang".
It's called the space-time fabric and you cannot separate them.
That universe will end seems impossible to me.
Only that all matter disappears, even blackholes, and all the energy is very dilluted.
I think that our universe will expand for ever and time will never stop.


So the unattainability of zero doesn't affect the concept of time? I believe time and space already existed before the big bang as well (cfr. multiverse theories).

It seems to me the Big Bang theory contradicts that particular law of Thermodynamics.
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1734159 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1734165 - Posted: 14 Oct 2015, 13:10:27 UTC - in response to Message 1734159.  
Last modified: 14 Oct 2015, 13:11:33 UTC

I was pondering over something yesterday evening.

We have the unattainability of zero in the law of thermodynamics. If there would be a theory of everything, wouldn't there have to be a general rule that speaks for quantum physics as well as for relativity. What I mean is, the scenario of the big crunch wouldn't exist in that case because there would be an infinite infiniteness. No beginning is possible as well as no end.

If the universe would end in a big rip or big freeze, what would happen with the dark energy? We all know dark energy as a hypothetical force that makes the universe expand at an accelerated rate. If all matter would have died, would the universe still expand because of that force? This also brings me back to the concept of time. Time never had a beginning, nor will it have an end, in my opinion.

In our universe time did had a beginning.
The Big Bang theory says that both time and space was created in the "bang".
It's called the space-time fabric and you cannot separate them.
That universe will end seems impossible to me.
Only that all matter disappears, even blackholes, and all the energy is very dilluted.
I think that our universe will expand for ever and time will never stop.


So the unattainability of zero doesn't affect the concept of time? I believe time and space already existed before the big bang as well (cfr. multiverse theories).

It seems to me the Big Bang theory contradicts that particular law of Thermodynamics.

But our physic laws was "created" as well in the big bang.
Were there any laws before the big bang?
ID: 1734165 · Report as offensive
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 34041
Credit: 18,883,157
RAC: 18
Belgium
Message 1734173 - Posted: 14 Oct 2015, 13:44:11 UTC - in response to Message 1734165.  
Last modified: 14 Oct 2015, 13:45:58 UTC

I was pondering over something yesterday evening.

We have the unattainability of zero in the law of thermodynamics. If there would be a theory of everything, wouldn't there have to be a general rule that speaks for quantum physics as well as for relativity. What I mean is, the scenario of the big crunch wouldn't exist in that case because there would be an infinite infiniteness. No beginning is possible as well as no end.

If the universe would end in a big rip or big freeze, what would happen with the dark energy? We all know dark energy as a hypothetical force that makes the universe expand at an accelerated rate. If all matter would have died, would the universe still expand because of that force? This also brings me back to the concept of time. Time never had a beginning, nor will it have an end, in my opinion.

In our universe time did had a beginning.
The Big Bang theory says that both time and space was created in the "bang".
It's called the space-time fabric and you cannot separate them.
That universe will end seems impossible to me.
Only that all matter disappears, even blackholes, and all the energy is very dilluted.
I think that our universe will expand for ever and time will never stop.


So the unattainability of zero doesn't affect the concept of time? I believe time and space already existed before the big bang as well (cfr. multiverse theories).

It seems to me the Big Bang theory contradicts that particular law of Thermodynamics.

But our physic laws was "created" as well in the big bang.
Were there any laws before the big bang?


Presumably, from other species, I would like to think. They would answer to completely different laws of physics, is what I think as well.
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1734173 · Report as offensive
KLiK
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 14
Posts: 1304
Credit: 22,994,597
RAC: 60
Croatia
Message 1734187 - Posted: 14 Oct 2015, 14:42:57 UTC - in response to Message 1734072.  

No, they just built a gate with 2 qubits. You need billions of them to make a computer.
Tullio

My first computer had about 100 Kbits back in the 80's:)
A quantum computer needs a lot less of qubits than a classical one with bits to compute special algorithms.
A quantum computer with 100 Kqubits would be a quantum leap.

And The End of Moore's Law is soon here for classical computers...

again, confusing gates/transistors with memory (Kb or KB)... :/


non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU
ID: 1734187 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1734201 - Posted: 14 Oct 2015, 15:43:59 UTC - in response to Message 1734187.  
Last modified: 14 Oct 2015, 15:47:02 UTC

No, they just built a gate with 2 qubits. You need billions of them to make a computer.
Tullio

My first computer had about 100 Kbits back in the 80's:)
A quantum computer needs a lot less of qubits than a classical one with bits to compute special algorithms.
A quantum computer with 100 Kqubits would be a quantum leap.

And The End of Moore's Law is soon here for classical computers...

again, confusing gates/transistors with memory (Kb or KB)... :/

Do I?
Memories are transistors that is either turned on or off.
A gate is a part of a transistor that control the transistor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtI5wRyHpTg
ID: 1734201 · Report as offensive
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 34041
Credit: 18,883,157
RAC: 18
Belgium
Message 1734392 - Posted: 15 Oct 2015, 15:02:22 UTC

ID: 1734392 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1734473 - Posted: 15 Oct 2015, 21:15:10 UTC - in response to Message 1734173.  
Last modified: 15 Oct 2015, 21:28:32 UTC

I was pondering over something yesterday evening.

We have the unattainability of zero in the law of thermodynamics. If there would be a theory of everything, wouldn't there have to be a general rule that speaks for quantum physics as well as for relativity. What I mean is, the scenario of the big crunch wouldn't exist in that case because there would be an infinite infiniteness. No beginning is possible as well as no end.

If the universe would end in a big rip or big freeze, what would happen with the dark energy? We all know dark energy as a hypothetical force that makes the universe expand at an accelerated rate. If all matter would have died, would the universe still expand because of that force? This also brings me back to the concept of time. Time never had a beginning, nor will it have an end, in my opinion.

In our universe time did had a beginning.
The Big Bang theory says that both time and space was created in the "bang".
It's called the space-time fabric and you cannot separate them.
That universe will end seems impossible to me.
Only that all matter disappears, even blackholes, and all the energy is very dilluted.
I think that our universe will expand for ever and time will never stop.


So the unattainability of zero doesn't affect the concept of time? I believe time and space already existed before the big bang as well (cfr. multiverse theories).

It seems to me the Big Bang theory contradicts that particular law of Thermodynamics.

But our physic laws was "created" as well in the big bang.
Were there any laws before the big bang?


Presumably, from other species, I would like to think. They would answer to completely different laws of physics, is what I think as well.

Now I get a headache:)
On quantum scales, there are many second laws of thermodynamics!
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-quantum-scales-laws-thermodynamics.html

Professor Oppenheim added: "While a quantum house will get messier rather than tidier, like a normal house, our research shows that the ways in which it can get messier are constrained by a range of extra laws. Stranger still, the way these second laws interact with each other can even make it look like the traditional second law has been violated. For instance, a small system can spontaneously become more ordered when it interacts with another system which barely seems to change. That means some rooms in the quantum house may spontaneously become much tidier, while others only become messier but only imperceptibly."
ID: 1734473 · Report as offensive
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 34041
Credit: 18,883,157
RAC: 18
Belgium
Message 1734580 - Posted: 16 Oct 2015, 6:35:00 UTC - in response to Message 1734473.  

I was pondering over something yesterday evening.

We have the unattainability of zero in the law of thermodynamics. If there would be a theory of everything, wouldn't there have to be a general rule that speaks for quantum physics as well as for relativity. What I mean is, the scenario of the big crunch wouldn't exist in that case because there would be an infinite infiniteness. No beginning is possible as well as no end.

If the universe would end in a big rip or big freeze, what would happen with the dark energy? We all know dark energy as a hypothetical force that makes the universe expand at an accelerated rate. If all matter would have died, would the universe still expand because of that force? This also brings me back to the concept of time. Time never had a beginning, nor will it have an end, in my opinion.

In our universe time did had a beginning.
The Big Bang theory says that both time and space was created in the "bang".
It's called the space-time fabric and you cannot separate them.
That universe will end seems impossible to me.
Only that all matter disappears, even blackholes, and all the energy is very dilluted.
I think that our universe will expand for ever and time will never stop.


So the unattainability of zero doesn't affect the concept of time? I believe time and space already existed before the big bang as well (cfr. multiverse theories).

It seems to me the Big Bang theory contradicts that particular law of Thermodynamics.

But our physic laws was "created" as well in the big bang.
Were there any laws before the big bang?


Presumably, from other species, I would like to think. They would answer to completely different laws of physics, is what I think as well.

Now I get a headache:)
On quantum scales, there are many second laws of thermodynamics!
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-quantum-scales-laws-thermodynamics.html

Professor Oppenheim added: "While a quantum house will get messier rather than tidier, like a normal house, our research shows that the ways in which it can get messier are constrained by a range of extra laws. Stranger still, the way these second laws interact with each other can even make it look like the traditional second law has been violated. For instance, a small system can spontaneously become more ordered when it interacts with another system which barely seems to change. That means some rooms in the quantum house may spontaneously become much tidier, while others only become messier but only imperceptibly."


It's all about entropy.
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1734580 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1734845 - Posted: 17 Oct 2015, 7:30:09 UTC
Last modified: 17 Oct 2015, 7:33:36 UTC

So the unattainability of zero doesn't affect the concept of time? I believe time and space already existed before the big bang as well (cfr. multiverse theories).


This sentence could very well have come from Stephen Hawking.

As far as I happen to know, Mr. Hawking is not supposed to be speaking for Seti@home, or the opposite way.

Definitely you are able to make science of it.

At least I have been mentioning the subject of thermodynamics.

Getting late. Back later.
ID: 1734845 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1734851 - Posted: 17 Oct 2015, 8:43:41 UTC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Where is the Planck constant being found here?
ID: 1734851 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1734857 - Posted: 17 Oct 2015, 10:27:13 UTC

Los Angeles Times | October 14, 2015 | 11:57 AM
A well known UC Berkeley astronomer facing sexual harassment allegations has stepped down, a senior administration source at the university said today.

The school has faced growing criticism in recent days for its handling of an investigation into professor Geoffrey Marcy. The investigation, sparked by a series of complaints, found that he had sexually harassed students over a nine-year period.
ID: 1734857 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1734859 - Posted: 17 Oct 2015, 10:29:25 UTC

ID: 1734859 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1734949 - Posted: 17 Oct 2015, 18:41:13 UTC - in response to Message 1734851.  
Last modified: 17 Oct 2015, 18:52:49 UTC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Where is the Planck constant being found here?

Here.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/b/b/bbb1b74b511f868d0882a668de23c111.png
ħ is the reduced Planck constant, h/2π.

Planck's constant = 6.6 * 10-34 m2 kg/s
ID: 1734949 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1735023 - Posted: 17 Oct 2015, 23:51:10 UTC - in response to Message 1734949.  
Last modified: 17 Oct 2015, 23:58:14 UTC

Thanks for that, janneseti.

But noticing that the image is quite to the left in the picture.

At least when being visible on my screen.

It almost is cut off at the starting point.

Looking up the Wikipedia article, I actually missed both the line as well as the same figure when reading yesterday.

That became the reason for my confusion.
ID: 1735023 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1735029 - Posted: 18 Oct 2015, 0:07:00 UTC - in response to Message 1735023.  
Last modified: 18 Oct 2015, 0:11:38 UTC

Thanks for that, janneseti.
But noticing that the image is quite to the left in the picture.
At least when being visible on my screen.
It almost is cut off at the starting point.
Looking up the Wikipedia article, I actually missed both the line as well as the same figure when reading yesterday.
That became the reason for my confusion.

Blame Heisenberg and Wikipedia!
ID: 1735029 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1735032 - Posted: 18 Oct 2015, 0:11:45 UTC

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/612340/Origin-of-the-universe-riddle-solved-by-Canadian-physicists-and-er-it-wasn-t-God
A TEAM of scientists have made what may turn out to be the most important discovery in HISTORY – how the universe came into being from nothing.

The colossal question has troubled religions, philosophers and scientists since the dawn of time but now a Canadian team believe they have solved the riddle.

And the findings are so conclusive they even challenge the need for religion, or at least an omnipotent creator – the basis of all world religions.
...
Prof Mir used some mind-boggling mathematics and two recent theories:

• The Minimum Length Scale – a measurement so infinitesimally small that space and time cease to exist.

• Doubly Special Relativity – which takes advantage of the massive energies available just after the birth of the universe.

Under Inflation Theory the tiny energies and lifespan of the virtual particle become infinitely magnified, resulting in our 13.8 Billion-year-old universe.

Just to make things more complicated Dr Mir says we have been looking at the question ‘how did the universe come from nothing?’ all wrong.

According to the extraordinary findings, the question is irrelevant because the universe STILL is nothing.

Dr Mir said: “Something did not come from nothing. The universe still is nothing, it’s just more elegantly ordered nothing.”

He added that the negative gravitational energy of the universe and the positive matter energy of the universe basically balanced out and created a zero sum.

ID: 1735032 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1735044 - Posted: 18 Oct 2015, 0:35:34 UTC - in response to Message 1735032.  
Last modified: 18 Oct 2015, 1:02:35 UTC

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/612340/Origin-of-the-universe-riddle-solved-by-Canadian-physicists-and-er-it-wasn-t-God
A TEAM of scientists have made what may turn out to be the most important discovery in HISTORY – how the universe came into being from nothing.
The colossal question has troubled religions, philosophers and scientists since the dawn of time but now a Canadian team believe they have solved the riddle.
And the findings are so conclusive they even challenge the need for religion, or at least an omnipotent creator – the basis of all world religions.
Prof Mir used some mind-boggling mathematics and two recent theories:
• The Minimum Length Scale – a measurement so infinitesimally small that space and time cease to exist.
• Doubly Special Relativity – which takes advantage of the massive energies available just after the birth of the universe.
Under Inflation Theory the tiny energies and lifespan of the virtual particle become infinitely magnified, resulting in our 13.8 Billion-year-old universe.
Just to make things more complicated Dr Mir says we have been looking at the question ‘how did the universe come from nothing?’ all wrong.
According to the extraordinary findings, the question is irrelevant because the universe STILL is nothing.
Dr Mir said: “Something did not come from nothing. The universe still is nothing, it’s just more elegantly ordered nothing.”
He added that the negative gravitational energy of the universe and the positive matter energy of the universe basically balanced out and created a zero sum.

Yes it's mind-boggling.
If universe is nothing that's mean we are nothing.
The Minimum Length Scale is however rather simple to explain.
In the quantum world everything is quantizised.
Yes. Both space and time comes in packages.

Dr Mir said: “Something did not come from nothing. The universe still is nothing, it’s just more elegantly ordered nothing.”

Should be "more elegantly ordered nothing from the beginning"!
The decay and disorder of our universe started already at time zero.

Another thing about zero sum.
Yes but nothing is perfect.
Even physical laws can be broken given time.
Our existence are only possible because of that fact.
ID: 1735044 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1735049 - Posted: 18 Oct 2015, 0:56:19 UTC

There is a video available on this web-page as well.

Watching it right now and will be back later with a comment.
ID: 1735049 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1735074 - Posted: 18 Oct 2015, 1:59:05 UTC
Last modified: 18 Oct 2015, 2:26:40 UTC

Too late to edit the previous post.

But here is the point.

Definitely janneseti and others around here are or happen to be quite busy when it comes to the subject of physics.

Elementary and particle physics are part of the microscopic world, or more precisely microcosmos.

The knowledge physicists may have about the properties of these particles are supposed to give an explanation for events happening in nature which might be explained by means of mathematic equations.

To be honest, I am not that good when it comes to any of these subjects myself. The knowledge I may have about these equations are mostly from the web, including the Wikipedia.

If you happen to be wearing glasses, you may take the time drying them free of damp and instead of looking into a microscope, or perhaps reading a book, if you are not surfing the web, you might give a thought about the magnificent universe we are part of and which is supposed to be explained in a similar way using mathematical equations for the same thing.

This is the stumbling block.

Even the Planck constant is not able to explain the vastness of space, including the possible presence of both dark matter and dark energy.

You are not even supposed to be finding any aliens by having a knowledge of elementary particles either.

I happen to be having quite good knowledge when it comes to astronomy myself.

If I happen to be asking a couple of stupid questions, are you supposed to be comprehending or grasping my stance when it comes to certain things?

Apparently no.

Is a particle physicist supposed to be better at doing his or her thing than perhaps an astronomer or cosmologist because the subject areas, scales or distances, or maybe even dimensions are so vastly different?

Are we supposed to believe more in discoveries being made in the subject field of particle physics than in corresponding or similar discoveries being made at times about the properties of objects which are part of space?

Are you supposed to be finding any aliens by carrying out research on elementary particles?

Possibly such particles could be explaining propulsion and energy creation, but what about possible thinking?

Are we not supposed to be looking for extraterrestrial intelligence?

Perhaps a clear definition for this concept or subject area is needed.

Right now I am busy doing a couple of other things.

This is the reason you do not see me here every day.

In fact this happens to be Seti@home.
ID: 1735074 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1735132 - Posted: 18 Oct 2015, 6:39:27 UTC
Last modified: 18 Oct 2015, 6:51:15 UTC

I should not have used the word "corresponding" in the previous post.

Rather I should have said "similar" only, or maybe "respective" instead.

The following will need an edit to get finished.

In fact we happen to be doing science both when it comes to the microscopic world, by means of elementary particles and nuclear physics.

Therefore the Planck constant should be a proper way of measuring the properties of such particles and give a representation of how they are supposed to behave.

But compare with a Black Hole in space. Definitely this subject has its own thread, but instead I rather was thinking about the way you are supposed to be doing the same when comparing photons and electrons with the Event Horizon of a Black Hole.

So therefore, no problem with me when it comes to give a description of elementary particles by means of the laws of physics and mathematics.

Black Holes are objects that are natural parts of the universe. We only choose to use mathematics in order to possibly be able to explain the properties of such objects.

Not that I in any way want to disfavor or throw in the towel when it comes to the microscopic world, of course. Definitely I am curious about these things.

But rather say it in this way. If you happen to be having an understanding of nuclear physics and elementary particles, not everything are supposed to be obvious facts when it comes to understanding Black Holes, or even vice versa.

We are supposed to be using the scientific method in order to understand both microcosmos as well as macrocosmos. Despite these worlds being opposite to each other when it comes to size and dimension, there should be evident that the particles of microcosmos are making up the objects of macrocosmos.

Still we may think that the mathematic equations describing the properties of the objects of these different worlds might be different when it comes to explaining these two worlds.

Or you may say it in this way. Neither The Law of Special Theory or even General Theory may be able to explain the properties of elementary particles better than the properties of Black Holes, because both these elements should better be explained by means of mathematical models which are relevant to each type of object, respectively.

Are you supposed to be seeing God when either looking at particles of microcosmos, or clusters of galaxies which may hide supermassive Black Holes in their cores?

For now, our notion of God only does exist by means of the presence of religion and no doubt scientists are not able to see any such presence when carrying out their studies in their respective fields.
ID: 1735132 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 . . . 19 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Interesting Physics


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.