Cool Universe

auspicious · 21-01-2020 1:18pm #1

A quick question.
After inflation and when the universe cooled enough to allow hydrogen to form, where did that heat dissipate to?
Did the continued much slower expansion create room for the heat to spread out?

Zubeneschamali · 21-01-2020 1:23pm

auspicious wrote: »

A quick question.
After inflation and when the universe cooled enough to allow hydrogen to form, where did that heat dissipate to?
Did the continued much slower expansion create room for the heat to spread out?

Yes, all the way down to the Cosmic Background Radiation at 2.3K

auspicious · 21-01-2020 1:39pm

I could spend all day asking questions here.
One more.
Where is the universe expanding? At the edge? Between galaxies? I.e where is the new space being created?

mosii · 21-01-2020 1:54pm

I believe, at the subatomic particle/ quantum level , every particle is moving in a rotational/angular momentum of some degree,even of plank size dimension.Our knowledge of our solar system,and universe ,tells us every thing is moving in a rotational and angular dimension,of an extremely large measurement.With the advent of Black holes,i believe that these are connections to another superior universe,which is a small or a large part of a multiverse. I think its designed this way ,so as to never have a finite answer ,as to why we exist at all. We dont know where we came from,and we dont know where we are going. I would imagine we are all going back to stardust,but im not sure where our consciousness comes into play in all of this,buy i think it might have a bearing.

Zubeneschamali · 21-01-2020 2:06pm

auspicious wrote: »

Where is the universe expanding? At the edge? Between galaxies? I.e where is the new space being created?

It is expanding everywhere, there is no middle and no edge.

We only see it between us and distant galaxies because it is small and nearby things in our galaxy and other local galaxies are held together against the expansion by gravity.

auspicious · 21-01-2020 2:11pm

Maybe dark matter is the 'fallout' of this expansion and gravity battle....

mosii · 21-01-2020 2:12pm

Are we been pushed,or been pulled.We could be inside the connections between universes .Going from one black hole to another.

Fourier · 22-01-2020 11:57am

mosii wrote: »

I believe, at the subatomic particle/ quantum level , every particle is moving in a rotational/angular momentum of some degree

Particles don't move or have angular momentum at the quantum level.

mosii · 22-01-2020 1:48pm

yes they do

mosii · 22-01-2020 1:53pm

Electrons are not literally spinning balls of charge, but they do have intrinsic angular momentum. Spin angular momentum is real angular momentum

Zubeneschamali · 22-01-2020 2:01pm

mosii wrote: »

Spin angular momentum is real angular momentum

It can be modelled as angular momentum, it behaves that way mathematically.

Does that mean it is real? I don't think so, since electrons are not really little grey charged spinning balls.

mosii · 22-01-2020 2:11pm

String Theory seems to think the move

mosii · 22-01-2020 2:12pm

String Theory seems to think they move.VIBRATIONS at plank level.

mosii · 22-01-2020 2:14pm

Everything is moving .

Fourier · 22-01-2020 2:25pm

mosii wrote: »

yes they do

They don't. They impart angular momentum into classical objects like our experimental equipment, but it's not a property of the particle itself. This is a consequence of the Kochen Specker theorem.

ps200306 · 22-01-2020 2:50pm

auspicious wrote: »

After inflation and when the universe cooled enough to allow hydrogen to form, where did that heat dissipate to?
Did the continued much slower expansion create room for the heat to spread out?

auspicious wrote: »

Where is the universe expanding? At the edge? Between galaxies? I.e where is the new space being created?

The units of the Hubble constant (~70.0 km/sec/Mpc) can give the impression that we are speeding away from the distant galaxies and, by implication, must be speeding toward something else unless more space is injected like air pumped into a balloon.

I found the idea of a scale factor helpful. It gives more of an idea of a cosmic ruler that grows with time. (Real rulers don't grow with time only because they are prevented from doing so by electromagnetism, just as individual galaxies are prevented by gravity). The Hubble constant falls out of the scale factor -- it's the rate of change of the scale factor divided by its value at any point in time.

By ignoring the scale factor you can also define a "co-moving" distance between galaxies that doesn't change with time. Galaxies with an unchanging separation are just "going with the flow" (which we've even named the Hubble flow). Any deviation from the Hubble flow has to be caused by gravitational interactions.

The scale factor also helps answer your first question about heat. We're talking about radiant energy here, in the form of CMB photons. As you might expect, the matter density of the universe is inversely proportional to the cube of the scale factor, as density is inversely proportional to volume. The same is true of the number of CMB photons per unit volume of space. But the changing scale factor also redshifts those photons. So the radiation density of the universe changes inversely with the fourth power of the scale factor -- much quicker than the matter. That's why they talk about the early universe being radiation dominated, and the later universe being matter dominated (i.e. evolution determined by gravity).

mosii · 22-01-2020 6:37pm

String Theory seems to think they move.VIBRATIONS at plank level. Are vibrations movement?

Fourier · 22-01-2020 6:52pm

mosii wrote: »

String Theory seems to think they move.VIBRATIONS at plank level. Are vibrations movement?

First of all String Theory is unproven experimentally.

Secondly String Theory is a quantum theory as well. So the strings aren't vibrating (nor are they really strings) it's that they impart vibrations (simplifying here) into a classical device.

ps200306 · 22-01-2020 7:21pm

mosii wrote: »

String Theory seems to think they move.VIBRATIONS at plank level. Are vibrations movement?

I never got past wave mechanics but I presume the fields in QFT and the strings in String theory are at least somewhat related. I'm guessing the vibrational states of the strings determine properties of particles in a similar sense to how the waves in wave mechanics are quantum probability amplitudes. They are purely mathematical constructs that evolve according to mathematical rules. If they have some ontological connection to the actual particles whose properties they describe, we don't know what it is. It's probably more accurate to say that particles don't exist down at the quantum level. In wave mechanics their trajectories were travelling wave packets -- it's possible for a wave packet to be in motion without the wave going anywhere.

Wave_packet_%28dispersion%29.gif

mosii · 22-01-2020 7:29pm

String Theory ,,,,In string theory, < I KNOW THEY ARE NOT REAL STRINGS>one of the vibrational states of the string gives rise to the graviton, a quantum mechanical particle that carries gravitational force. Thus string theory is a theory of quantum gravity..Is the graviton not a particle? These things at all levels have got to be moving in some way, albeit in some different state maybe,in my opinion,theory, but i cant prove it . String Theory ,Someday it might be experimentally proven or disproven ,as Richard Feynman said 50 years ago,if it does not agree with experiment,then it is wrong,which is only common sense.

oriel36 · 22-01-2020 7:50pm

auspicious wrote: »

I could spend all day asking questions here.
One more.
Where is the universe expanding? At the edge? Between galaxies? I.e where is the new space being created?

For your own wellbeing I would suggest you stay away from these people as they have no respect for geometry or the Universe. They live in a celestial sphere bubble without knowing nor caring and seem well pleased to dictate to those who know no better counter-productive ideas that no sane person would entertain.

The background for all motions is space and especially close by in our solar system neighbourhood where we and all the other planets move through space in much the same way as cars move from A to B without considering space as a property even if it does contain solar radiation (light) or the lack of it (night).

Astronomers, genuine ones, deal with the motions of planets, moons and other objects like comets, asteroids and so on through space and use specific points of reference to account for these motions, the Sun in the case of the planets and the planets in the case of their moons. For instance, we Venus move around the central Sun in much the same manner as we see Jupiter's satellites move around their parent planet -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcrBAuLBXag

http://www.insideastronomy.com/uploads/gallery/album_7/med_gallery_40_7_128459.jpg

You can even see Jupiter's satellites 'wink out' as they pass behind the planet and into the umbra as a means to appreciate the phases of Venus as they show its fully dark side when it is between our slower planet and the central Sun -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7U5VbasKr4&t=95s

Don't strain your imagination trying to visualize the idea of 'expanding space' as it is a waste of a mind and diminishes genuine astronomy.

ps200306 · 22-01-2020 8:03pm

oriel36 wrote: »

For your own wellbeing I would suggest you stay away from these people as they have no respect for geometry or the Universe.

:D:D:D:D

And for your sanity I suggest you don't entertain oriel36 with an answer, as he will then post the same thing forty times in a row as he has done under different pseudonyms here for years. Let's keep the loonies on their own thread.

mosii wrote: »

String Theory ,,,,In string theory, < I KNOW THEY ARE NOT REAL STRINGS>one of the vibrational states of the string gives rise to the graviton, a quantum mechanical particle that carries gravitational force. Thus string theory is a theory of quantum gravity..Is the graviton not a particle? These things at all levels have got to be moving in some way, albeit in some different state maybe,in my opinion,theory, but i cant prove it . String Theory ,Someday it might be experimentally proven or disproven ,as Richard Feynman said 50 years ago,if it does not agree with experiment,then it is wrong,which is only common sense.

No, it turns out they don't have to be moving in some way. At the quantum level there are only probabilities that a particle will be found at some location. The evolution of the probabilities mirror classical trajectories to some extent on aggregate. Although the particles can also do things that are completely prohibited by classical trajectories. At the quantum level there is nothing you can point out and say "that's a particle moving".

oriel36 · 22-01-2020 8:25pm

There are a lot of voodoo merchants setting lower limits such as a 'Planck length', however, when a discussion arose 20 years ago with the mathematician John Baez, he basically disappeared and was not seen again.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/sci.physics/_zO9GpWrWCI/GFH4NEKP1EgJ

As for Feyman, these people had no respect for astronomy as Roemer proposed his 'equation of light' about 25 years before Newton's empirical doctrine -

"The Character of Physical Law", and in the pages on Newton's law of
gravity (pages 22-23) he mentions that observations of the moons of
jupiter showed that they "were ahead of schedule when Jupiter was
close to the earth and behind schedule when it was far away, a rather
odd circumstance. Mr. Roemer [Olaus Roemer, 1644-1710, Danish
astronomer], having confidence in the Law of Gravitation, came to the
interesting conclusion that it takes light some time to travel from
the moons of Jupiter to the earth..." Feynman

If people like having things made up for them by bluffers and astrophysics is entirely bogus then so well and good, but if they value their perceptive judgments then they will be welcome back to astronomy and the actual history stretching back to remote antiquity.

If achievement is making these experimental theorists look like dunces then that isn't much of a comfort so better to become familiar with observational astronomy as it was once practiced.

Fourier · 22-01-2020 8:36pm

mosii wrote: »

String Theory ,,,,In string theory, < I KNOW THEY ARE NOT REAL STRINGS>one of the vibrational states of the string gives rise to the graviton, a quantum mechanical particle that carries gravitational force. Thus string theory is a theory of quantum gravity..Is the graviton not a particle?

What I mean is that they are nothing like strings or string-like at all. It's called string theory because certain processes (like quantum tunnelling) in the theory can be approximated well with classical one dimensional objects (i.e. strings).

If string theory is correct then there is a graviton particle.

mosii wrote: »

These things at all levels have got to be moving in some way

They aren't. You can prove it. They're not moving, they're not stationary. The concept of position or speed or momentum don't apply to them.

Fourier · 22-01-2020 8:50pm

ps200306 wrote: »

I never got past wave mechanics but I presume the fields in QFT and the strings in String theory are at least somewhat related.

Indeed they are. In String Theory the "strings" give rise to quantum "fields". Again though as always these things aren't really strings or fields. For example quantum fields are only so named because in certain experiments they affect devices in a way that is the same as classical fields.

It's probably more accurate to say that particles don't exist down at the quantum level

That's provably true in quantum field theory. Particles don't exist except as a certain type of excitation of a certain types of devices (e.g. a Geiger counter)

No, it turns out they don't have to be moving in some way. At the quantum level there are only probabilities that a particle will be found at some location

Exactly. Quantum Theory tells you the chance that a quantum object will affect a classical object, like a piece of experimental equipment, at some location (i.e. 40% chance of the device developing a mark in its upper right corner) but it doesn't describe the quantum object itself.

oriel36 · 22-01-2020 8:58pm

Fourier wrote: »

They aren't. You can prove it. They're no moving, they're not stationary. The concept of position or speed or momentum don't apply to them.

People don't have time for this crap anymore even if it entertains those who want to go down that particularly Victorian rabbit hole.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427391-600-alices-adventures-in-algebra-wonderland-solved/

Astronomy in the 21st century doesn't owe anything to empirical theorists, imaging and time lapse makes it an enjoyable pursuit once more as people grow out of the silly indulgences of clockwork solar system modelers and their Victorian counterparts.

Fourier · 22-01-2020 9:04pm

oriel36 wrote: »

People don't have time for this crap anymore even if it entertains those who want to go down that particularly Victorian rabbit hole.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427391-600-alices-adventures-in-algebra-wonderland-solved/

Astronomy in the 21st century doesn't owe anything to empirical theorists, imaging and time lapse makes it an enjoyable pursuit once more as people grow out of the silly indulgences of clockwork solar system modelers and their Victorian counterparts.

Huh? I wasn't talking about the solar system, I was talking about particles.

oriel36 · 22-01-2020 9:23pm

Fourier wrote: »

Huh? I wasn't talking about the solar system, I was talking about particles.

Celestial sphere enthusiasts and experimental theorists have their own thing going as I mentioned so many times and it has nothing to do with astronomy, its methods and its insights.

Carry on, I am sure you will all disappear in a cloud of meaningless voodoo.

Fourier · 22-01-2020 9:24pm

oriel36 wrote: »

Celestial sphere enthusiasts and experimental theorists have their own thing going as I mentioned so many times and it has nothing to do with astronomy

Yeah but I'm not talking about astronomy.

mosii · 22-01-2020 9:26pm

Are you talking about the wave function?

Fourier · 22-01-2020 9:29pm

mosii wrote: »

Are you talking about the wave function?

The wave function is part of the mathematics of quantum theory, but I wasn't talking about it specifically.

Just that particles don't have properties like motion or speed or angular momentum.

mosii · 22-01-2020 9:52pm

Look at it this way,if i look down at the ground right now,can i see if i am travelling at 67000 mph.Its stationary to me. My point is ,relativity ,on the classical stage and the quantom/particle stage,we just cant quantify it ,or observe it.

Fourier · 22-01-2020 9:57pm

mosii wrote: »

quantom/particle stage,we just cant quantify it ,or observe it.

No. Quantum objects are not moving or stationary. It's nothing to do with relativity.

mosii · 22-01-2020 10:17pm

I dont mean the theory of relativity,my point is, I am in a state , a position and i dont know what speed im going, or my position in that state ,until another state is opened or realised to me,only then can i realise one or the other,.This i think is a super position,but my own thinking is ,that there is movement of some order, which could involve quantom tunneling and/or entanglement.I see this as part of a bigger position of connection to another universe through black holes,which allows for the increasing rate of expansion of our Galaxy and Universe.As i said before ,we dont know a starting point,and we dont know an end point.Maybe i am explaining the many worlds theory ,in my own way.

Fourier · 22-01-2020 10:22pm

mosii wrote: »

I dont mean the theory of relativity,my point is, I am in a state , a position and i dont know what speed im going, or my position in that state ,until another state is opened or realised to me,only then can i realise one or the other,.This i think is a super position,but my own thinking is ,that there is movement of some order, which could involve quantom tunneling and/or entanglement.I see this as part of a bigger position of connection to another universe through black holes,which allows for the increasing rate of expansion of our Galaxy and Universe.As i said before ,we dont know a starting point,and we dont know an end point.Maybe i am explaining the many worlds theory ,in my own way.

This is hard to make sense of, but quantum tunneling and entanglement don't involve moving.

mosii · 22-01-2020 10:38pm

Not on the information you are going by,but in the fullness of time ,maybe we will find out information is been communicated,so as to cause and effect quantum entanglement,in my opinion ,something has to be doing this .This is why i am saying ,movement might not occur in our state or system,but in another state or system ,that we have not yet realised ,movement is happening. Its difficult to explain,my thinking sorry. Imagine primitive man,did he know he was travelling on a tiny rock at vast speeds around a galaxy,a galaxy travelling around a universe a great speeds.Only through time did man realise this ,and so have a basic understanding of whats happening around us.

Fourier · 22-01-2020 10:41pm

mosii wrote: »

Not on the information you are going by,but in the fullness of time ,maybe we will find out information is been communicated,so as to cause and effect quantum entanglement,in my opinion ,something has to be doing this

It has been proven already (roughly 30 years at this point) that no information is being exchanged in entanglement.

mosii · 22-01-2020 10:44pm

Was he Irish

Fourier · 22-01-2020 10:45pm

mosii wrote: »

Was he Irish

Who? I'm not sure what you mean.

ps200306 · 22-01-2020 10:47pm

oriel36 wrote: »

There are a lot of voodoo merchants setting lower limits such as a 'Planck length', however, when a discussion arose 20 years ago with the mathematician John Baez, he basically disappeared and was not seen again.

Yeah, well, that's quantum weirdness for ya. :pac:

mosii · 22-01-2020 10:48pm

Sorry ,was it JOHN BELL ,that disproved communication in entanglement?

Fourier · 22-01-2020 10:50pm

mosii wrote: »

Sorry ,was it JOHN BELL ,that disproved communication in entanglement?

Not exactly. Although his work is involved in the study of entanglement.

He proved that there cannot be a causal/mechanical theory of how the correlations in entanglement come about.

mosii · 22-01-2020 10:52pm

He was great.Thanks for info.

Fourier · 22-01-2020 10:53pm

No problem!

ps200306 · 22-01-2020 11:23pm

Fourier wrote: »

He proved that there cannot be a causal/mechanical theory of how the correlations in entanglement come about.

Would it be fairer to say he proved there cannot be a local causal theory.

Fourier · 22-01-2020 11:25pm

ps200306 wrote: »

Would it be fairer to say he proved there cannot be a local causal theory.

He proved that. Later work by Spekkens, Wood, Pusey, Bendersky later eliminated more general causal theories.

Fourier · 22-01-2020 11:39pm

I should say specifically that Robert Spekkens showed all such theories would need to be fine-tuned. Ariel Bendersky showed they'd need to be uncomputable (i.e. their equations cannot be solved, even by an infinitely powerful computer) and Sally Shrapnel has shown they'd need to be contextual (they "know" how we are going to measure them).

This combined with the fact that they can't be made to match relativistic particle experiments (like the LHC) has essentially left them a dead end as of 2020.

ps200306 · 23-01-2020 12:58am

Fourier wrote: »

...they'd need to be contextual (they "know" how we are going to measure them).

I presume that's the basis of super-determinism that I've seen Gerard 't Hooft talking about. On the face of it, it just sounds too freaky to be true.

On the other hand, the alternatives are all pretty weird too. Strange old world.

Fourier · 23-01-2020 1:21am

ps200306 wrote: »

I presume that's the basis of super-determinism that I've seen Gerard 't Hooft talking about. On the face of it, it just sounds too freaky to be true.

On the other hand, the alternatives are all pretty weird too. Strange old world.

The options for a causal theory have been narrowed down to the following. I'll mention how they are contextual in some cases.

Nonlocal. Faster than light transmission of information. One particle signals to the other faster than light what measurement it undergoes.
Multiple Worlds. Fairly obvious meaning.
Acausal. The past and future communicate. Particles signal back in time to their past selves how they were measured.
Superdeterminism. The initial conditions of the world were such that we are deterministically bound to perform incorrect experiments that lead us to false conclusions. Entanglement isn't real, we're just fated to obtain corrupted experimental data suggesting it is.

The problem is as of 2020 all look pretty poor with more and more theorems proving deeper and deeper problems with them. Further deeper investigation into Quantum theory has also shown mathematical structures in the theory which are very hard to understand in any of them.

For this reason the majority view is still the Copenhagen view: there is no causal mathematical model of how the correlations in entanglement come about. At a certain level nature is non-mathematical and only properties choosen by the observer come into existence. The micro level of Nature is not a "machine" which can be described mechanically. All you can do is calculate probabilities for how it might affect our macroworld, but it cannot be comprehended

mosii · 23-01-2020 2:35pm

For this reason the majority view is still the Copenhage view: there is no causal mathematical model of how the correlations in entanglement come about. At a certain level nature is non-mathematical and only properties choosen by the observer come into existence. The micro level of Nature is not a "machine" which can be described mechanically. All you can do is calculate probabilities for how it might affect our macro world, but it cannot be comprehend

I think conciseness comes in along somewhere,but how are we ever to know? I actually think,that someday there will be a connection found between the micro and macro world,but we will probably be stardust by then.

Fourier · 23-01-2020 3:52pm

mosii wrote: »

I think conciseness comes in along somewhere,but how are we ever to know? I actually think,that someday there will be a connection found between the micro and macro world,but we will probably be stardust by then.

Conciousness doesn't enter into quantum theory.

There is already a connection "found", namely quantum theory. It is the theory about how how the micro affects the macro. The problem is there is no theory about what the micro is like in and of itself.

Cool Universe

Comments