Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-23-2017 8:59 PM
406 online now:
edge, halibut, jar, JonF, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Phat (AdminPhat), Porosity (7 members, 399 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,909 Year: 27,515/21,208 Month: 1,428/1,714 Week: 271/365 Day: 40/73 Hour: 4/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
151617Next
Author Topic:   Size of the universe
Lurkey
Junior Member (Idle past 1681 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 11-03-2012


Message 196 of 248 (678073)
11-04-2012 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by NoNukes
11-04-2012 10:20 PM


Re: lost in space
Hi CS and NN. Love your work! Yeah a convoluted path for sure!

But look let me retract – I’ m learning so much from these threads, reckon I should hold any questions ‘till I’ve lurked quite a bit longer.

Have to say though, you guys are all so clear and patient with it. I’m stoked I came here to try and learn some physics.

With thanks,

Lurkey


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by NoNukes, posted 11-04-2012 10:20 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-04-2012 11:41 PM Lurkey has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11816
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 197 of 248 (678074)
11-04-2012 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Lurkey
11-04-2012 11:36 PM


Re: lost in space
Its whatever. Ask away if you want to. If we don't want to reply then we won't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Lurkey, posted 11-04-2012 11:36 PM Lurkey has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16172
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 198 of 248 (678097)
11-05-2012 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by NoNukes
11-04-2012 10:20 PM


Re: lost in space
NoNukes writes:

Almost certainly all of the matter present today was converted back and forth between matter and energy multiple times.

There must have been was a lot of conversion back and forth between matter and energy in the very, very early universe, if that's what you're referring to, but I think much of the hydrogen, helium and lithium are unchanged since first condensed out of the cooling universe. Most of heavier elements formed by stellar processes and by nova and supernova are probably also unchanged since first formed.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by NoNukes, posted 11-04-2012 10:20 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by NoNukes, posted 11-05-2012 5:15 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10069
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 199 of 248 (678155)
11-05-2012 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Percy
11-05-2012 7:35 AM


Re: lost in space
There must have been was a lot of conversion back and forth between matter and energy in the very, very early universe, if that's what you're referring to

That was indeed what I was referring to. The question was about tracing atoms back to the origin of the universe.

but I think much of the hydrogen, helium and lithium are unchanged since first condensed out of the cooling universe

After the cooling of quarks, the cooling of hadrons, and the matter-anti-matter annihilation, yes. At some point in there we can trace most hydrogen atoms to currently existing hydrogen atoms. Most of the helium too except that some of that is made in stars and through nuclear decay.

Lithium is produced in some stars and consumed in others. Most lithium atoms were produced together with the hydrogen and helium as you describe.

Most of heavier elements formed by stellar processes and by nova and supernova are probably also unchanged since first formed.

Yes. So we cannot trace the identity of these atoms back to the origins of the universe or to any other early part of the origin of the universe.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Percy, posted 11-05-2012 7:35 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Lurkey
Junior Member (Idle past 1681 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 11-03-2012


(2)
Message 200 of 248 (678309)
11-06-2012 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by NoNukes
11-04-2012 10:20 PM


Re: lost in space
I’m getting the feeling this will be my answer:
Probably no meaningful tracing.

But doesn’t all matter ultimately date back to the big bang? It doesn’t have to be an atom…i’d settle for the thing that makes the things that make the atoms.

Hay and was just a side-line question too. I now totally retract my original (what does the universe look like from the inside when it was the size of a tennis ball). Seems now I might as well have been asking for a photograph of the inflation field!

So look, I won’t follow it up, but I will confess to what was in my mind at the time. I wanted to hear that the universe would look infinitely big (not wrapped up back on itself, but stretching out forever). And this was part of my ‘master vision’ = the size of the universe is like the comparison between natural and even number infinities.

In my mind, I had drawn those 2 infinities as a venn diagram…..little circle inside big circle. Voila. Today’s universe (natural numbers) and tennis ball universe (even numbers). Both exactly the same size, both infinitely big AND one smaller than the other. Kinda. Smaller is the wrong word, but ffs don't start picking at it.

Ok so its a fantasy. Just some ideas are so hard…eg I HATE the universe-wrapping-back-on-itself kind of infinity, but somehow the universe-stretching-out-forever kind is ok. Similarly, infinitely small and infinitely big is ok, but I can only deal with the transition if there is no middle ground. A tennis ball size universe really freaks me out!!

Hey and why is it a little hard to NOT imagine the tennis ball universe from a spectator’s view……and, it is impossible TO go to that view when imagining today’s universe?!

Reckon I got me some internal problems.

So, I’ve taken a few deep breaths. Think I need to put the whole concept away until I learn some maths. I’m hearing from you all that calculus is a good starting spot.

Still very much enjoying this forum btw.

Take care,

Lurkey


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by NoNukes, posted 11-04-2012 10:20 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-07-2012 12:23 AM Lurkey has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11816
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


(11)
Message 201 of 248 (678317)
11-07-2012 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Lurkey
11-06-2012 11:11 PM


Re: lost in space
But doesn’t all matter ultimately date back to the big bang?

No, there was "some time" after the Big Bang before matter even existed:

click to enlarge

It was "really fucking short" but it was there nonetheless.

Just some ideas are so hard…eg I HATE the universe-wrapping-back-on-itself kind of infinity,

In order to concepualize it, you're gonna have to be able to reduce dimensions in your mind. So, take a cube, it's 3-dimensions, and reduce it to 2 dimensions: It becomes a plane. That is, the plane is the "shadow" of a cube. Think about how your shadow on the sidewalk is a 2-D representation of yourself. Now, reduce that 2-d plane to one dimension: it becomes a line. If you take a sheet of paper (2D) and look at it just from its edge, it makes a line. Again, you can reduce a 1D line into a point in the same way: Take a pencil and look at it down the shaft and it becomes a "point" (0D). That's reducing dimensions in a nutshell.

So, on to the analogy. Imagine the globe, the Earth. But just the surface of the Earth. Nothing on the inside just the surface, like a balloon. Let that 2 dimensional surface represent all three spatial dimensions, they're just reduced as per the above. Now, imagine that the lines of latitude represent the timeline. The closer you get to the North Pole, the farther back you are going in time. As you approach the North Pole, as you go back in time, the size of the Universe, the radius of the Earth, keeps getting smaller and smaller. That's the Universe getting smaller and smaller as we go back in time. So what happens when you get to the North Pole? You can't go farther north than that, i.e. you can't go back further in time than that. The surface "wraps back upon itself". That is, it is an asymptote <--. clicky. Asking what's before the Big Bang is like asking what's north of the North Pole. Your immediate reaction might be "upwards" from the surface, but due to the dimension reduction, there is no such thing as that. For, when you're at the North Pole, all directions are south. If you're confined to the surface, there is no upwards to point towards.

That point, the North Pole, represents the singularity that the Big Band describes. All directions are "forward" in time and there is no such thing as "before". Time, itself, is an integrated part of the dimensions of spacetime, that is there are 3 spatial dimensions and one temporal one. So we're really talking about a 4 dimensions manifold <--. again, clicky. That manifold has a finite "shape" and that shape suggests a finite past, but that past "folds back onto itself" and exists at all points that time exists. Its like the Eath exists at all points of latitude even though there is only so far northwards that you can go.

So that's the best analogy I've come across, let me know if you have any questions.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : Type. 2D --> 1D for a line. Added (0D) to point


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Lurkey, posted 11-06-2012 11:11 PM Lurkey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Lurkey, posted 11-07-2012 3:46 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply
 Message 203 by Son Goku, posted 11-08-2012 5:36 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 205 by kofh2u, posted 11-09-2012 6:05 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Lurkey
Junior Member (Idle past 1681 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 11-03-2012


Message 202 of 248 (678408)
11-07-2012 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by New Cat's Eye
11-07-2012 12:23 AM


Re: lost in space
what a great post!!

thanks CS


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-07-2012 12:23 AM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1082
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.0


(2)
Message 203 of 248 (678501)
11-08-2012 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by New Cat's Eye
11-07-2012 12:23 AM


Re: lost in space
I've nothing to add to Catholic Scientist's informative post. I just wish to explain the term manifold, in case the Wikipedia page is not sufficient.

Essentially a manifold is an shape where you can label the points using a set of real numbers. The number of real numbers needed is called the dimension of a manifold.

For example the Earth's surface would be a two-dimensional manifold as any point on its surface can be labelled using two real numbers (longitude and latitude).

The space of all states of a classical particle is also a manifold, any state can be described using six real numbers (six-dimensional manifold), three for the position of the particle and another three for the value of its momenta in each direction.

Some shapes (or spaces, which is the technical term) are too bizarre to be described using real numbers, although the use of these spaces is limited in physics.

If the manifold has a notion of distance between its points, then it is called a Riemannian manifold or a Pseudo-Riemannian manifold if one of the dimensions is time. The surface of the Earth is a Riemannian manifold, since there is a distance between points on the Earth's surface. The space of states is not, as you can't really say how far states are from each other.

How the distances work on a particular manifold is given by an object called the metric. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity basically says that the energy density of matter determines the metric of spacetime.

That is, the energy density of matter at a point affects how the rules of distance work near that point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-07-2012 12:23 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Omnivorous, posted 11-08-2012 5:48 PM Son Goku has not yet responded
 Message 215 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-10-2012 1:12 PM Son Goku has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 560 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 204 of 248 (678503)
11-08-2012 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Son Goku
11-08-2012 5:36 PM


Re: lost in space
Thanks, Son Goku. That was a perfect sidebar to CS's post.

And this...

Son Goku writes:

That is, the energy density of matter at a point affects how the rules of distance work near that point.

...turned on a little light bulb in my mind that had somehow never managed to fire.


"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Son Goku, posted 11-08-2012 5:36 PM Son Goku has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1413 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 205 of 248 (678658)
11-09-2012 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by New Cat's Eye
11-07-2012 12:23 AM


Re: lost in space

Hi Cath sci,...

....there was "some time" after the Big Bang before matter even existed:

click to enlarge
It was "really fucking short" but it was there nonetheless.

The main point is that all matter, all the heavens and the earth and everything in it appeared in a single event just as Genesis says so clearly, right?

It is clear that the Bible was right long before Science was sure that Universe DID have a beginning, 13.9 billion years ago.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, (the Formative/Cosmology Era), God, (the Uncaused First Cause, or the Dark Energy which pre-existed the material Universe, perhaps), created... (all that which has followed the Big Bang from the singularity of Planck Time which consisted of

Seven Stages:
1) The Inflation Era
2) The Quark Era
3) Hadron Era
4) Lepton Era
5) Nucleosynthesis Era
6) Opaque Era
7) Matter Era,...
in an enormous Einsteinian energy transformation, E = mC^2),...
... the (matter composing the) heaven (beyond the Solar System) and the (accretion disk which congealed into the planet) earth.

(Gen 1:1)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id19.html

(The seven stages of the Big Bang underline the favorite number of God)

Here the whole cosmic evolution is expressed as seven stages of unfolding.

Edited by kofh2u, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-07-2012 12:23 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Rahvin, posted 11-09-2012 6:17 PM kofh2u has responded
 Message 207 by Boof, posted 11-09-2012 6:54 PM kofh2u has responded
 Message 212 by NoNukes, posted 11-09-2012 11:24 PM kofh2u has not yet responded
 Message 213 by Percy, posted 11-10-2012 8:23 AM kofh2u has responded
 Message 227 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-13-2012 11:18 AM kofh2u has responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 780 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 206 of 248 (678660)
11-09-2012 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by kofh2u
11-09-2012 6:05 PM


Re: lost in space
1) You're just choosing arbitrary divisions for your mythical "days." You could just as easily divide the evolution of the Universe into 2, 3, or 10 different "days" by choosing different arbitrary divisions. In this respect, your Bible is no more or less correct than any random guess.

2) The Bible presents Creation as occurring in six days, not seven. On the 7th, "he rested," remember? You should cut down your arbitrary divisions by a day.

3) The Biblical Genesis myth compresses the origin of at minimum the solar system into the first day. The rest is used to create various forms of life, which obviously precludes using the 7th day for the "formation of galaxies."


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by kofh2u, posted 11-09-2012 6:05 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by kofh2u, posted 11-09-2012 7:22 PM Rahvin has not yet responded
 Message 210 by kofh2u, posted 11-09-2012 7:25 PM Rahvin has responded
 Message 229 by kofh2u, posted 11-30-2012 10:51 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Boof
Member (Idle past 60 days)
Posts: 97
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


(7)
Message 207 of 248 (678667)
11-09-2012 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by kofh2u
11-09-2012 6:05 PM


Re: lost in space

(The seven stages of the Big Bang underline the favorite number of God)

Tremble before me mortals, I am God the almighty, creator of all. I am beyond, space, time and matter! I am eternal and omnipotent!

Also I'm a virgo, my favourite number is 7 and I just LOVE the smell of burnt goat.

I know, off topic - but seriously...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by kofh2u, posted 11-09-2012 6:05 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Omnivorous, posted 11-09-2012 7:17 PM Boof has not yet responded
 Message 216 by kofh2u, posted 11-10-2012 5:39 PM Boof has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 560 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 208 of 248 (678671)
11-09-2012 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Boof
11-09-2012 6:54 PM


Re: lost in space
I'd give you more cheers if I could...

Do you come here often?


"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Boof, posted 11-09-2012 6:54 PM Boof has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1413 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 209 of 248 (678673)
11-09-2012 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Rahvin
11-09-2012 6:17 PM


Re: lost in space
Rah,

1) You're just choosing arbitrary divisions for your mythical "days." You could just as easily divide the evolution of the Universe into 2, 3, or 10 different "days" by choosing different arbitrary divisions. In this respect, your Bible is no more or less correct than any random guess.

Not me, I'm jusr quoting the scientists who explain the stages of the ig Bang by favoring this division into seven steps.

As you say, they coiuld predominantly have choosen to think out the relationship between events and decided to break it down differently.

But what seems true is that science tends to select seven quite often, and here, the seven steps have been posted by others on other threads.

1) But if you list another scientist for us, let's examine if it is really beneficial.

2) And, since seven supports the Bible, why choose to make artifical waves???


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Rahvin, posted 11-09-2012 6:17 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1413 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 210 of 248 (678675)
11-09-2012 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Rahvin
11-09-2012 6:17 PM


Re: lost in space

2) The Bible presents Creation as occurring in six days, not seven. On the 7th, "he rested," remember? You should cut down your arbitrary divisions by a day.

No... the bible is right about seven:

1. Formative/Cosmologic Era-Hadean Era/ = First Day

2. Hadean Era-Archaean Era/ = Second Day

3. Archaean Era-Proterozoic Era/ = Third Day

4. Proterozoic Era-Paleozoic Era/ = Fourth Day

5. Paleozoic Era-Mesozoic Era/ = Fifth Day

6. Mesozoic Era-Cenozoic Era/ = Six Day

7. Cenozoic Era-Common Era/ = Seventh Day


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Rahvin, posted 11-09-2012 6:17 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Rahvin, posted 11-09-2012 7:31 PM kofh2u has responded
 Message 214 by Eli, posted 11-10-2012 10:17 AM kofh2u has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
151617Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017