|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Big Bang or Big Dud? A study of Cosmology and Cosmogony - Origins | |||||||||||||||||||
w_fortenberry Member (Idle past 6132 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: |
A very interesting post, Mark; however if you don't mind, I would like some clarification on a few of your comments.
quote: How can energy exist without matter?Isn't the curvature of spacetime caused by the existence of matter? quote: How can friction occur in the absence of matter?
quote: What do you postulate to be the density of the universe at this point?
quote: Do these infinite number of universes have any effect on our own universe?
quote: Why did the virtual particles have to become real particles?
quote: How can gravity exist without matter?If the universe was gravitationaly equivalent to a black hole how did any matter or energy manage to resist that gravitational force? As I said before, this was a very interesting posting. I look forward to your response.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
w_fortenberry Member (Idle past 6132 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: |
Still waiting for your reply Mark...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
w_fortenberry Member (Idle past 6132 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: |
quote: Allow me to present a problem with that explanation. First, let me present the dictionary definitions. Both definitions are from Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary. Matter: (a) Something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses. (b) An entity displaying inertia and gravitation when at rest as well as when in motion. Energy: The work a physical system is capable of doing in changing from its actual state to a specified reference state, with the total generally including contributions of potential energy, kinetic energy, and rest energy. Obviously, the definitions differ far too greatly for the two words to be synonymous. Why then are they often expressed as such? The idea that energy and matter are the same thing in different forms is based on an improper application of the uncertainty principle. This principle developed through our inability to accurately measure both the position and the velocity of material objects. This accuracy of measurement is unattainable because the light used to locate the particle also causes the particle to change its position so that the position returned to us by the light is different from the current position of the particle. The measurement thus attained also fails when presented as the position of the particle when the light reached it, for the particle being moved by the light produces a shift in the gravitational field which effects all the particles through which the light must travel, thus changing the message that the light is returning. As a result of this inability, our measurements of a particle of matter are really measurements of the effects of that particle on its surroundings. In other words, we can only measure matter through observing the energy it expends. Because of the necessity of measuring matter and energy through the same methods, it is easy to assume that they are one and the same thing. However, this is not the case. Energy being defined as the work or movement of a system can not be defined as the that which is being moved, nor can it exist without the object moved. Matter being defined as anything that occupies space or as anything that has mass, can not be the movement of that mass, for matter can exist without movement. Therefore, matter and energy are two distinct ideas. Matter is the object, and energy is the movement of it. Matter can exist independent of energy, but energy is dependent on the existence of matter.
quote: You have referred to sub-atomic particles, but according to Mark those particles don’t exist yet. How does energy cool? Isn’t cooling the lessening of heat? Isn’t heat a form of energy? So does the energy cool by loosing energy?
quote: If the net energy remains the same, would the density of the universe immediately after inflation be the same as the density before?
quote: If they have no effect on our universe, we cannot measure them. Thus Mark’s argument that we are only one of many universes is made without any evidence to prove it.
quote: However, if the net energy is still the same, why should there be any change at all?You might want to read the April 2002 issue of Popular Science. It discusses some of the problems with this theory. I noticed that you didn’t answer my final set of questions. Did you run out of time or perhaps not notice them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
w_fortenberry Member (Idle past 6132 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: |
quote: Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone. —Albert Einstein, The Evolution of Physics.
quote: Please note that I did not mention mass in my post. I provided a definition of matter but said nothing about mass.
quote: My statement was based primarily on the explanation found in the fourth chapter of Stephen Hawking’s book, A Brief History of Time In Einstein’s formula e=mc, the E stands for energy, the m represents mass and c equals the speed of light. This formula does not demand an equivalency between energy and matter. It demands that the energy and the mass of a system be proportional. You have provided a definition of mass as, the quantity of matter contained in an object. Combining this definition with Einstein’s formula we find that an increase in the energy of a system results in a directly proportional increase in the amount of matter contained within that system. One can infer from this that the extra matter is created by the increase of energy, but the equation does not definitely state that such is the case. It merely explains that the result of an increase in energy is an increase in the amount of matter within the system. Regardless of whether or not the said inference is correct, Einstein’s equation does not negate the fact that energy cannot exist independently of matter. Rather it is one of the greatest proofs of that fact. If e=mc, then 0e equals 0m, and 0m equals 0e. Energy cannot exist independently of mass, and thus cannot exist independently of matter.
quote: The next logical question would be, how does pure energy increase in size? However, as I explained above, the concept of energy existing independently of matter is an invalid concept. Therefore, unless you wish to debate the statements above, I will skip over this part of our discussion.
quote: If we are imagining that liquid iron as a closed system, not effected anything outside of the sealed building or even the building itself, then it would not be subject to any gravity other than its own. In which case, it would not spread out on the floor but would submit to its own gravity by condensing into a sphere in the center of the building. As for my final set of questions, gravity is a form of energy and thus is subject to the explanation provided at the beginning of this post. [This message has been edited by w_fortenberry, 08-03-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
w_fortenberry Member (Idle past 6132 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: |
quote: Perhaps you could explain how the definitions I provided are inapplicable to a study of physics.
quote: Interestingthe definition found on the page referenced bears a great similarity to the definition which I have already provided. Is this definition equally invalid in physics? By the way, the link you previously provided as an explanation of energy did not contain a definition of energy. If possible, could you please provide such a definition along with an explanation of its superiority over that which I have already provided? Please explain why matter is a fuzzy concept, and what philosophical baggage it carries.
quote: Apparently you are replying to my postings without thoroughly reading them first. May I suggest that you take the time to fully read and digest my statements before you begin your response?
quote: Would you not agree that, according to Einstein’s formula, the presence of energy is all that is needed to generate mass? Is there a lower limit to the amount of mass that can be generated? According to the formula, how much energy is needed to generate a nearly infinitesimal amount of mass? If only a slightly more than infinitesimal amount of energy is needed, then the very existence of energy demands the existence of mass.
quote: Yes, in providing a link to a definition of mass you effectively communicated that that definition is one which you accept as correct.
quote: The equal sign is given in reference to an increase in mass not to a creation of matter.
quote: No. The wording used throughout the post was chosen for a specific purpose. This is why I have requested that you fully read and digest what I have written before making any response.
quote: Please explain how this equation allows energy to exist independently of matter.
quote: Yet the universe at that time is said to consist solely of energy, therefore if the universe increases in size, its components must also increase in size. Thus with the sole component being energy we are back to my question. How does pure energy increase in size?
quote: The analogy was the only answer you provided for my question, if the net energy is still the same, why should there be any change at all? If the analogy is flawed in its application to that question, please provide another answer.
quote: If gravity is the curvature of space-time, please answer my questions in accordance with that definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
w_fortenberry Member (Idle past 6132 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: |
quote: Though many formulas were presented on the page to explain how energy relates to different concepts in physics, a definition for energy itself was not provided aside from the statement that energy is an abstract quantity of extreme usefulness in physics. Furthermore, of the formulas presented, all but two included mass within the equation. The two which did not were the formula showing energy’s relation to power (E=Pt) and the formula for measuring electrical potential energy (E=QV), but both of these still depend on the existence of material objects. This further validates my claim that energy cannot exist independently of matter.
quote: This assumption is also based on an improper application of the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle states that man cannot accurately measure both the position and the movement of any quantum particle. This inability prevents us from discovering where that particle will be or even was at any point in time. If the universe existed in a quantum state, we would not be able to make any predictions as to the future of our universe because we would be unable to obtain accurate measurements on which to base those predictions. Einstein’s formula is a method by which we can make predictions regarding future measurements based on current measurements. Therefore if we are unable to obtain accurate measurements, we will be unable to apply this formula and accurately predict future measurements. However, it is not the equation that fails at sub-atomic levels; it is our measurements that fail.
quote: What is the base unit of mass? In other words, what is the smallest amount of mass we can measure? By the way, infinitesimal simply means immeasurably small. Thus I was referring to units of mass which exists on the smallest scale that we are capable of measuring.
quote: Simply put, mass is a measurement of the amount of matter within a given volume of space. Thus an increase in mass would also be an increase in the amount of matter within that space. Notice, however, that I said creation of matter not increase in matter. The two statements are not the same. An increase in mass could be the result of an addition of matter to the given volume from an outside source. Thus an increase in mass does not necessitate the creation of matter.
quote: Please refer to post number twenty-two.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024