Cool Universe

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

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.

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.

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

String Theory seems to think the move

Everything is moving .

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 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.

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 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".

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 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 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.

Are you talking about the wave function?