Dark Energy and Non-Conservative Forces

[DLTherrien]

Is dark energy the root of dark matter

I am not a scientist of any type but I am captivated by the fields and my mind is always trying to think of the unknowns of science from Space-time to Quantum Physics and there are a number of things that bother me so I have decided to reach out today with one idea I have however far fetched it might be and see what kind of responses I get in hopes to broaden my understanding of what is known and possibly not understood. I for one have an issue with the big bang theory and have a hard time believing that billions of galaxies, stars etc. came from an atom sized explosion just to clear that up from the start although I am agnostic in the belief regardless of the evidence. Who knows. 

To get to the point today, I have been thinking about Dark Energy which at this time is really just a placeholder name for the unknown force supposedly pushing our universe apart at an increasing rate. I have been reading up on energy and this is what has me thinking. There is non-conservative energy we get from an explosion. "Now the amount of energy used in a non-conservative way in the explosion, is the difference between the amount of energy released in the explosion and the total kinetic energy of the exploded pieces" I couldn't say this better without retyping so I just copied it from another site to be honest. My question is this. Where does this non-conservative energy go? It doesn't just vanish out of existence I am assuming so surely it is stored somewhere which could mean at a Quantum level perhaps we have not discovered yet, energy at this level could have mass. Now if this is possible which it very well could be, could it also be possible that this mass can only take up so much space which in our basic idea of physics makes sense. 

Before I continue I cannot do the math although I really wish I could so if you can explain how wrong I am, do not do it using Calculus because it will be wasted on me. If you feel like taking the time to write it and explain it though I am all ears. 

If I am correct in theory anyway this is my assumption. We know that during an explosion there is kinetic energy that is transferred to things like heat and that can be measured and accounted for because we know what it is and how to detect it. What about the energy that is "lost" in a non-conservative way? The universe is made up of billions and billions of galaxies which in turn have billions and billions of stars (as far as time can show us anyway due to the speed of light) which we know go supernova which is an explosion; not to mention all the other extremely destructive forces available from the largest to the smallest atomic collisions in a gas cloud. What if this Dark energy is really a conglomeration of all this lost energy that is not accounted for but still exists and if it can have mass or gather mass, how do we know this mass does not compute to our also unknown dark matter created by the overcrowding of this dark energy or non-conservative energy at the Quantum level?  

If the universe was created by this big bang, it as we all know started from an unknown beginning from an unknown source there obviously was something there before the big bang. Also, the universe is expanding but not at a speed as fast as light which it would be if I am correct if there was no friction, also a non-conservative force, slowing it down even at the beginning so there must have been this "Dark Matter" at the beginning of the big bang which caused and still is causing this friction somewhere beyond our horizon. Where did it come from? No one knows but what if? Space is a vacuum with no air but there is obviously some unseen mass there as we are theorizing due to observations. Could this be it and could this "Dark Energy" converting to "Dark Matter" not actually using gravity to expand the universe but instead expanding like a balloon as a limited space is filed more and more with this seemingly infinite amount of created mass that has no where to go? Will the balloon eventually burst and start this all over again with another "Big Bang" or pop creating an even larger "Infinite" universe for the next life forms to study? 

As all theories and answers go, this, even if I was correct raises other questions. How can infinity have limited space and does infinity actually have a boundary making it not infinite after all? What's on the other side? Space. I Am not the first I know to think of that but still.... huh? 

My head hurts thinking of this stuff but it will never stop. Sorry if I bored you but I am just a thinker not a scientist. I did the best I could to try and explain my thoughts. 

- Darren

 

[Markus Hanke]

4 hours ago, DLTherrien said:

Before I continue I cannot do the math although I really wish I could so if you can explain how wrong I am, do not do it using Calculus because it will be wasted on me. If you feel like taking the time to write it and explain it though I am all ears. 

This puts me in a difficult position, because it is not so easy to demonstrate these things without the maths.

Basically, the problem with your idea (and it is commendable that you think about these issues so deeply, so kudos!) is that you are thinking about it in terms of Newtonian physics - you speak of kinetic energy, friction, conservative forces, conservation of energy etc etc. Unfortunately the universe at large scales is not a Newtonian system - many of the concepts you use are meaningless and not defined in this domain. To understand the dynamics and behaviour of the universe at large scales, you really need to use relativistic physics, specifically General Relativity, which is based on the geometry of spacetime. 

To give just an isolated example - the total amount of energy in a region of non-trivial spacetime (which the universe at large scales is) is a difficult to define quantity; there are in fact several different notions of that energy content, depending on your boundary conditions. What’s more, there is also no global law of energy conservation in such regions of spacetime, there are only locally applicable laws. 

So like I said, it’s commendable effort on your part, but it won’t lead anywhere - sorry, but I have to say it as it is.

[DLTherrien]

No reason to apologize. I appreciate your feedback and that is exactly what I was looking for. "there are only locally applicable laws." you mean the Newtonian physics is also applied to we'll say planets, stars and any other mass or is earth somehow special where they only apply here? That is obviously not true. Can it not be that this missing energy escapes this boundary, the planet and ends up in space? I understand general relativity is a proven science. Go Einstein but is that all? Really? Just because it is proven does not mean that is all. In some of my studies there is a quote from a speaker that I thought made a lot of sense and applies to everything we think we know. Something like this. "Man swore we would never be able to fly as he watched a bird soar through the sky" I listen to professionals all the time in videos in all related fields and the thing that keeps me thinking is how often I hear what they say and while most makes sense, there always comes a time where they begin to reach and try and solidify answers even they are not certain of. There will be more answers and also more questions. 1000 years from now will those folks say. "Calculus LOL What a bunch of idiots". That was just math made to convince them they were right. Newton  needed something to aid him in understanding I believe it was the planets orbiting and gravity etc. So he created or stole this new math from the other guy to explain it. Perhaps in the future they will be somewhat correct. It seems to me that while I understand we need the math to figure out calculations, is it also what limits us from discovering beyond what we are convinced is true? Thanks again.

 

- Darren

PS: I am going to register for your site. More to learn. Thanks. 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2018 by DLTherrien

[studiot]

1 hour ago, DLTherrien said:

More to learn.

 

Indeed.

Judging by your posts, you have picked up some sound ideas along with some very unsound ones and have mixed them up.

If you really want to work towards a coherent picture I suggest being more discriminating about your sources in future, and even reviewing your existing ones.

[DLTherrien]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

 

Indeed.

Judging by your posts, you have picked up some sound ideas along with some very unsound ones and have mixed them up.

If you really want to work towards a coherent picture I suggest being more discriminating about your sources in future, and even reviewing your existing ones.

This I already know and is why I am now here. I am open for suggestions. If you were in my shoes, what would you do to find a good starting point that would guide me in the right direction. Only sources I have are the web. Which sources should I trust? I review over and over again what I have learned and I come up with the same questions every time. With so many varying opinions by so many, who do I listen to? Who is correct for sure? It seems there is no one other than what has been agreed upon. Other than that, the study is a murky place that even the "Experts" are at a loss to explain. String theory is a good example. "There must be a way to make it all work together". Without a deeper understanding of the things we still don't understand, how will we ever know unless we look outside of the box we have placed ourselves in? Sometimes I wish I just watched football. Too late. Once you begin to think of this stuff, how do you stop?  

[Markus Hanke]

1 hour ago, DLTherrien said:

"there are only locally applicable laws." you mean the Newtonian physics is also applied to we'll say planets, stars and any other mass or is earth somehow special where they only apply here?

By “locally” we mean in a very small region in and around a point in spacetime - small enough so that curvature can be neglected. This is as opposed to “global”, which signifies a larger region that may not be flat. It does not mean that the Earth is in any way special, since it is true for any point in spacetime, not just here.

1 minute ago, DLTherrien said:

String theory is a good example.

String theory - in spite of its name - is actually only a hypothesis, not a fully worked out model. General Relativity on the other hand is a proper theory, because it has been tested extensively over the past 100 years or so, and found to give the right predictions. We know it works. 

[DLTherrien]

1 minute ago, Markus Hanke said:

By “locally” we mean in a very small region in and around a point in spacetime - small enough so that curvature can be neglected. This is as opposed to “global”, which signifies a larger region that may not be flat. It does not mean that the Earth is in any way special, since it is true for any point in spacetime, not just here.

Thanks. I am going to look into that more and learn of what you say. That opens some doors to isolate my studies. Thank you. 

6 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

By “locally” we mean in a very small region in and around a point in spacetime - small enough so that curvature can be neglected. This is as opposed to “global”, which signifies a larger region that may not be flat. It does not mean that the Earth is in any way special, since it is true for any point in spacetime, not just here.

String theory - in spite of its name - is actually only a hypothesis, not a fully worked out model. General Relativity on the other hand is a proper theory, because it has been tested extensively over the past 100 years or so, and found to give the right predictions. We know it works. 

String theory - in spite of its name - is actually only a hypothesis... So was General Relativity at one time. We'll see. Einstein never got a Nobel Prize for it because at the time it was considered to far fetched even after it was proven. I am rooting for those dedicated to figuring it all out. Without them we would stall. I will continue to monitor all ideas including the we are a hologram idea. Being a computer programmer who understands code,  who knows. We are trying to create Quantum computers. Is that the next step in understanding the Quantum word in more detail? Once that happens, the advances those devices could offer could could exponentially explode to a degree what we know now is placed in the history books,. That is how my mind works. Looking back on our discoveries, all have once been thought of as ridiculous by those  who "knew" they were right. 

[studiot]

 

2 hours ago, DLTherrien said:

Which sources should I trust?

 

To a large extent you will have to make up your own mind using your own powers of reasoning.

We can only offer pointers.

I incline to the view that this is also the best way.

You might find reading through this short thread profitable, in particular my post#5 where I discuss my opinion that scientific reasoning is more important than mathematics, (though I also show I can do the maths if I want/need to in post#7)

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/115119-is-quantum-physics-too-small-to-interact-with-gravity/

 

2 hours ago, DLTherrien said:

Looking back on our discoveries, all have once been thought of as ridiculous by those  who "knew" they were right.

 

The most useful and important advance you could make would be to loose this attitude.

Yes, some advancements have been outright replacements, but most have been extensions / improvements built on existing knowledge.

 

Since the first Man we have looked up at the heavens and observed things we do not understand.

As our knowledge and observational capacity has increased we have understood more and discovered more that we do not understand.

I doubt that situation will ever change.

 

2 hours ago, DLTherrien said:

If you were in my shoes, what would you do to find a good starting point that would guide me in the right direction. Only sources I have are the web.

This puts me into a difficulty since you apparently do not read books?

Why not, there are some really good ones about?

So I am left to say that we can develop a long way on ScienceForums, piece by piece ( I had better not say bit by bit to a programmer )

[DLTherrien]

Thank you for the link @studiot I will most definitely check that out. This is why I finally came here. I grow weary of what is readily available online. Been there done that. I am a knowledge junky. 

[studiot]

To follow on from you being a programmer.

Do you understand that difference between interpolation and extrapolation?

This difference is hugely important since extrapolation is many more times more likely to yield a false answer.

And looking towards the heavens is extrapolation.

 

I would suggest that your first task would be to clearly define what you want to find out about get a proper program (yes of study) for that (another programmer pun   )

EDIT

You should preferably be working from what you know to what you don't/would like to find out.
That is interpolation.

That is not always possible but bear in mind the pitfalls inherent in the other way.

Edited July 6, 2018 by studiot

[mathematic]

 

Quote

Is dark energy the root of dark matter

.  No.  I didn't read the rest of your post (I suffer from MEGO).

Edited July 6, 2018 by mathematic

[Markus Hanke]

17 hours ago, DLTherrien said:

So was General Relativity at one time.

Yes, that is absolutely correct. However, unlike String Theory, General Relativity has been extensively studied and experimentally and observationally tested over the past 100 years or so. We know now that it is a good description of gravity, and we understand the model very well. At this point in time, the same is not true for String Theory - but since physics is a science in constant progress, this may well change in the future. Or perhaps we’ll end up abandoning String Theory altogether, since there are a number of other models that may be better descriptions of the world.

17 hours ago, DLTherrien said:

Is that the next step in understanding the Quantum word in more detail?

It’s rather the other way around - precisely because of our understanding of quantum physics are we now able to start building quantum computers. That would not be possible if we didn’t understand the quantum world to the degree that we do. With this I am not claiming that we have it all figured out (we haven’t) - but we do already know a great deal.

17 hours ago, DLTherrien said:

Looking back on our discoveries, all have once been thought of as ridiculous by those  who "knew" they were right.

This is certainly true. But we need to remember that the reverse is not true - not everyone who is considered ridiculous is necessarily on to something valuable; the vast majority of people simply aren’t. It’s really important to keep this in mind - major paradigm shifts are what drives our understanding of the world, but these are very rare events brought about by exceptional and rare people. Also, such paradigm shifts are not usually based on a rejection of what we already know, but rather on developing a new perspective on known facts. 

Einstein is a good example - he never rejected Newtonian physics (Newtonian gravity is still the asymptotic limit of GR), he simply put it into a new light by relaxing certain assumptions we have had about the nature of space and time. This opened up a new way to understand gravity and spacetime. The next paradigm shift will be similar - GR will remain standing as the classical limit, but quantum gravity will force us to once again look at space and time in a completely different light. And so it goes on.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Markus Hanke

[DLTherrien]

7 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Yes, that is absolutely correct. However, unlike String Theory, General Relativity has been extensively studied and experimentally and observationally tested over the past 100 years or so. We know now that it is a good description of gravity, and we understand the model very well. At this point in time, the same is not true for String Theory - but since physics is a science in constant progress, this may well change in the future. Or perhaps we’ll end up abandoning String Theory altogether, since there are a number of other models that may be better descriptions of the world.

It’s rather the other way around - precisely because of our understanding of quantum physics are we now able to start building quantum computers. That would not be possible if we didn’t understand the quantum world to the degree that we do. With this I am not claiming that we have it all figured out (we haven’t) - but we do already know a great deal.

This is certainly true. But we need to remember that the reverse is not true - not everyone who is considered ridiculous is necessarily on to something valuable; the vast majority of people simply aren’t. It’s really important to keep this in mind - major paradigm shifts are what drives our understanding of the world, but these are very rare events brought about by exceptional and rare people. Also, such paradigm shifts are not usually based on a rejection of what we already know, but rather on developing a new perspective on known facts. 

Einstein is a good example - he never rejected Newtonian physics (Newtonian gravity is still the asymptotic limit of GR), he simply put it into a new light by relaxing certain assumptions we have had about the nature of space and time. This opened up a new way to understand gravity and spacetime. The next paradigm shift will be similar - GR will remain standing as the classical limit, but quantum gravity will force us to once again look at space and time in a completely different light. And so it goes on.

Very well Said. I agree. While many are scoffed at their discoveries, often their theories have come to fruition and that is why I never look at something and say it is ridiculous. Not out load anyway. Well, maybe Bigfoot but that is another story. Newton himself even left the why's of gravity to the reader so I get it. Take what is known and expand on it. 

As far as general relativity goes, I have been looking into it more over the last couple days as I said I would and the whole Idea that space is flat still baffles me as it's significance. OK, so I draw two straight and parallel lines and they will go on for eternity unless I run out of room to draw so that is a flat surface. I get it. I can also do the same on a cylinder or even a cone I imagine. but the concept that space is flat eludes me. I could also draw two straight lines around a globe that wouldn't intersect as long as I didn't start at the poles.

I am aware of the Einstein theory of how gravity works and have been for some time. But my question is this. If a planet such as the Earth warps space and time due to it's weight as does the sun to use the two obvious examples and I will use common sense in our Newtonian physics to explain my question. If I was to take an actual sheet ( flat universe ) and place a bowling ball in the center then roll around a baseball at the edge of the indentation, gravity is going to quickly force it  into the center with the heavier object regardless of the indentation caused by the baseball; not to mention it is actually on a physical plane offering other influences.  Now I am aware that Gravity is actually a very weak force and the distance between and the mass of the two objects in question create the amount of attraction. ( Been watching Einsteins theory of relativity videos From Stamford. Actual recordings of the classes. Learning some Calculus. How did you guys make it through those lectures I will never know. )  Anyway, if this is the case, how is it that a mass so massive as the sun over the last 4 billion years or so has not pulled the earth in to it's inferno considering we are a pebble in comparison while offering our own gravity to the mix ( How we discover orbiting planets around distant stars; the wobble caused by the orbiting planets gravity ) and how is it that the Earth can hold onto the moon when it also is affected by the suns gravity? Seems the sun would win that battle especially during eclipse times when the moon is closest to the sun not on the other side of Earth etc. I figure it is because the Earths gravity being so close to the moon not to mention the gravity of the moon itself negates the very distant suns gravity. Is this correct? Will we eventually before the sun runs out of fuel and goes supernova which will fry us anyway be sucked in or will we always stay in the same orbit as long as some outside force does not interfere? 

 

Getting back to the flat universe idea, it is obviously not really flat or we would look out and see a line at night so what gives. Could you possibly explain that a little more. I am unable to find any real get to the point explanations of what that means. What bugs me is if large masses warp space like the bowling ball/sheet example, what happens to the space above the mass? It must come down to fill the space where the mass used to be when and if it ever was not warping space; like the sudden rush of air into a two litter bottle after you suck all the air out and then allow the opening to be clear again. Surely space has the same effect. If I was to suddenly remove the sun, the space would be completely empty for a microsecond or two I assume which would require it to be filled. Space can not be truly empty or we would have nothing and is why the two litter bottle collapses in on itself when the air is sucked out trying to fill the void. Does this not apply to space? If it does, it seems to me that space must be forever with no end or the constant vanishing of masses caused by things such as black holes eating entire suns would cause the universe to be contracting like the soda bottle trying to fill the voids not expanding faster and faster. 

A final question. If things just float in space we'll say out in the far distant emptiness with the to the lack of any opposing gravity, how is it that a large mass warps anything? If there are no forces on it, it should not go anywhere or cause any disturbance; up, down left, right. This is Newtons law and I assume still applies in space. Perhaps this is that whole dark matter thing being discussed. It must be there and have some sort of gravity and mass otherwise there would be nothing to warp. Thanks. I know I ask a lot but I am learning much here in ways my other sources do not offer. 

[Markus Hanke]

1 hour ago, DLTherrien said:

As far as general relativity goes, I have been looking into it more over the last couple days as I said I would and the whole Idea that space is flat still baffles me as it's significance.

A spacetime being “flat” means that neighbouring events (i.e. events that are close to each other in space and time) are always related to each other in the exact same way, no matter where and when you are. When a spacetime has curvature, the relationship between neighbouring events changes depending on where and when you are. That’s all there is to it.

1 hour ago, DLTherrien said:

OK, so I draw two straight and parallel lines and they will go on for eternity unless I run out of room to draw so that is a flat surface. I get it.

Potentially yes, but this is not yet a sufficient condition to establish intrinsic curvature. See below.

1 hour ago, DLTherrien said:

I can also do the same on a cylinder or even a cone I imagine. but the concept that space is flat eludes me.

What you are hinting at here is the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic curvature. The two are not the same, and largely independent concepts. A cylinder for example is extrinsically curved, but intrinsically flat. Extrinsic curvature happens when a surface is embedded in a higher dimensional space, whereas intrinsic curvature is independent of any embedding. GR uses intrinsic curvature.

The concept of intrinsic curvature is defined by what happens when you parallel-transport a tangent vector along a closed curve in your space that covers all possible directions. If the space has intrinsic curvature, then the final transported vector at the end of the manoeuvre will not coincide with the original vector you started with. 

1 hour ago, DLTherrien said:

I could also draw two straight lines around a globe that wouldn't intersect as long as I didn't start at the poles.

That’s true, which is why the definition of intrinsic curvature uses closed curves spanning all possible directions, rather than just parallel lines. 

1 hour ago, DLTherrien said:

Anyway, if this is the case, how is it that a mass so massive as the sun over the last 4 billion years or so has not pulled the earth in to it's inferno considering we are a pebble in comparison while offering our own gravity to the mix

That is because there are quantities called “constants of motion”, which are similar to the conserved quantities in Newtonian physics. Orbital angular momentum is one of them. If a planet has orbital angular momentum at the time when it first forms, it will retain this orbital angular momentum unless something happens that transfers this energy away (e.g. a major collision, or friction due to gases etc). This is way their orbit is largely stable.

In GR speak, the geodesics that a body in free fall traces out are determined by initial and boundary conditions.

1 hour ago, DLTherrien said:

and how is it that the Earth can hold onto the moon when it also is affected by the suns gravity?

Because the moon is very close, so the influence of the Earth is very much stronger than that of the sun.

1 hour ago, DLTherrien said:

be sucked in or will we always stay in the same orbit as long as some outside force does not interfere? 

It will stay mostly the same.

1 hour ago, DLTherrien said:

Getting back to the flat universe idea, it is obviously not really flat or we would look out and see a line at night so what gives.

I’m not sure what you mean by “see a line”. But anyway, the universe appears flat in space, but it’s not flat in spacetime, because of its ongoing expansion.

1 hour ago, DLTherrien said:

It must come down to fill the space where the mass used to be when and if it ever was not warping space

Mass is always warping spacetime, so I am not sure what you mean by this. Mass does not just appear out of nowhere - it only changes form. For example, a star forms from a disk of gas through self-contraction. The original disk of gas has the same total mass (approximately) as the star that forms from it. It’s just distributed differently. So it is just a matter of spacetime geometry slowly changing over time - it’s not a matter of it being flat at one moment, and then suddenly curved at the next. That’s not possible, because curvature itself - in a certain sense - is also a conserved quantity. It can change, but it can’t be created or destroyed. You can see this by trying to smoothly transform a sphere into a flat sheet - no matter how you twist and deform it, cut and paste it, the result will never be a completely flat and seamless sheet. That’s because you cannot eliminate the original curvature inherent in the sphere. The reverse is also true - you can’t make a perfect sphere from a flat sheet.

1 hour ago, DLTherrien said:

If I was to suddenly remove the sun

This is physically meaningless, because you cannot do this. All you can do is change how the energy-momentum of the sun is distributed, and the geometry of spacetime will change accordingly. But you cannot destroy or create it out of nothing.

1 hour ago, DLTherrien said:

If there are no forces on it, it should not go anywhere or cause any disturbance;

I’m struggling to understand what you mean by this. In the absence of any other sources of gravity, the body will just continue on in its motion, in the same way as it does in Newtonian physics. However, it nonetheless deforms spacetime around it - so if you bring a test particle near to that body, it will “feel” the effects of its gravity.

As an additional remark - GR is a simple application for mathematics that have existed since the 1800s, so all the mathematical concepts you can find in GR are rigorously defined, fully self-consistent, and very well understood. There is no room for interpretations or uncertainties, so far as the maths are concerned. Einstein did not invent any of this, he just made use of something that was already there since the times of Bernhard Riemann, in order to describe the physics of gravity. The area of mathematics used here is Riemann geometry, which is a subset of the broader area of differential geometry.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Markus Hanke

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Off-topic post involving aliens and the supernatural hidden. Let's stay on topic here, and let's stay mainstream.

 

[Endy0816]

Entanglement is roughly like two sides of a coin split in two. Finding one tells you the other. Some weirdness still, but not what media tends to depict.

Dimension = a measurable extent

length, width, depth, time are commonly used/seen.

 

[DLTherrien]

It is on topic to a degree although I no longer care about it. Could have something to do with the bending of time or I used to think so. There will never be an answer. Like they say... it is not science if it can't be tested. 

[swansont]

9 hours ago, DLTherrien said:

It is on topic to a degree although I no longer care about it. Could have something to do with the bending of time or I used to think so. There will never be an answer. Like they say... it is not science if it can't be tested. 

!

Moderator Note

No, it's not. Discussions of the paranormal in a mainstream thread, as an answer to a legitimate area of physics inquiry is off-topic.

Responding to a modnote is, as well.

 

[beecee]

On 7/6/2018 at 12:57 PM, DLTherrien said:

Quote

Is dark energy the root of dark matter

No, DE is that concept which seems to be making the universe/spacetime expand at ever accelerating rates.

DM is mostly some form of non baryonic matter [and unseen baryonic matter] that we need to explain galactic rotational curves.

Quote

I am not a scientist of any type but I am captivated by the fields and my mind is always trying to think of the unknowns of science from Space-time to Quantum Physics and there are a number of things that bother me so I have decided to reach out today with one idea I have however far fetched it might be and see what kind of responses I get in hopes to broaden my understanding of what is known and possibly not understood.

I certainly can relate to your first sentence. Like you I'm not a scientist, in fact I have no university education and am only a retired tradesman with a fanatical interest in cosmology and most other sciences. I have done plenty of reading though by reputable authors such as Weinberg, Carroll, Hawking, Rees, Sagan, Feynman, Thorne and others. Other knowledge I have gained has been through science forums such as this, and the obviously professional replies to questions, by obviously knowledgable professional members.

 

Quote

I for one have an issue with the big bang theory and have a hard time believing that billions of galaxies, stars etc. came from an atom sized explosion just to clear that up from the start although I am agnostic in the belief regardless of the evidence. Who knows. 

I don't think of it like that. The BB in actual fact, [and according to what I have learnt] was the evolution of spacetime [as we know it] itself, from a period of t+10-43 seconds. Before that quantum/Planck period our theories and models fail as they lack the accuracy to measure at such scales. In the first few micro seconds the four forces we are familiar with, were united into one " Superforce"  than as expansion took hold, and pressures and temperatures started to drop, this superforce started to decouple into the four known forces we are familiar with today, gravity being the first at around t+10-35 seconds. During this period and decoupling, phase transitions and " fa;se vacuums" were created and excesses of energy went into creating our very first fundamental particles such as quarks and electrons. As expansion continued and temperatures and pressures dropped even further, quarks united creating protons and neutrons and atomic nuclei. This scenario continued until around t+ 380,000 years, or until temperatures dropped to around 3000K, electrons were then able to be captured by atomic nuclei and our very first element was formed...Hydrogen. Do you see where this is going?? and the associated logic?? This hydrogen and some Helium started to collapse and in time at the core of these monsterious giant collapsing clouds of hydrogen, nuclear fusion started at the cores...our very first stars! From there the obvious continuation of what we know is obvious...super and hyper novas, creation of even heavier elements, more supernova, more stars, planets etc then abiogeneisis and evolution and here we are! 

PS: One important footnote, the closer we go back to the BB, the less certain we are of the exact mechanism and procedures of what I have just detailed. Up to the point of why and where the BB came from, and then all we can do is say we do not know, although even at that point, some reasonable speculation is available.

Quote

My head hurts thinking of this stuff but it will never stop. Sorry if I bored you but I am just a thinker not a scientist. I did the best I could to try and explain my thoughts. 

Good for you! Some pointers I have learnt over the years is that [1] the BB should not be thought of as an explosion in the conventional sense...rather an evolution of space and time. [2] There is no center and no edge, other then the edge of our " observable" universe.  [3] We are still ignorant to a large extent on whether the universe is finite or infinite, and [4] yes some aspects of cosmology and the early stages seem to defy common sense, like the BB arising from nothing, what is the universe expanding into etc etc and like you my head also sometimes hurts. With regards to a universe from nothing, you maybe interested in the following read....https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

Concluding, nonsensical supernatural and/or paranormal explantions are simply unnecessary and superfluous.

Edited July 8, 2018 by beecee

[DLTherrien]

On 7/7/2018 at 11:49 AM, Markus Hanke said:

Of all the things you explained, this is the one thing that bothers me and I think why I have so many questions or doubts we have it exactly right on what we know anyway. "The original disk of gas has the same total mass (approximately) as the star that forms from it. " The approximately thing. Because space is so vast, a small deviation from accurate can be a huge amount of unknown information which is still there somewhere but not computed. Math being off by .000.000.000.000.000.001 in a small space is accurate enough but that raised to the infinite power is larger than what we know is available to us for study now. It's mind blowing for me as I am sure for anyone who thinks to look past the known into what we still don't know. To me, space cannot end because that would mean there would be an edge. On the other side of that edge would simply be more space. That is the one thing that no scientist has ever explained to me in all of my studies. I hear of statements like "a larger infinite". Huh? Is my response to that. If infinite is not measurable then how can it ever be larger or smaller? 

As far as looking out and seeing a line if space is flat is just me looking at the explanation of space being flat and not understanding what they meant. If it was really flat, when we looked out at space, all the things there would seem to be lined up as if we were standing at the edge of a piece of paper. There would be a vector 2 I guess. Just x and z; no y. Talking in game development code now but I am sure you get it. 

I have been looking into this space-time thing and while I understand the basic idea, I also have listened to many different opinions on what time really is and this has occupied much of my time. Pun intended. While time appears to be measurable and seems to be it's own entity using math, is it really there in the sense we apply it? If the sun never rose or set or we never had seasons, would we have ever even thought to "Clock" it? If we were to travel to another world with much more gravity, the fact we would be traveling at a speed much closer to light than normal here on earth and the added gravity on arrival would slow time also, would that really have an effect on our aging process? I don't believe that to be true regardless of the math. Thinking like that to me is the same as thinking the universe at one point revolved around us (Earth) because we were special. Take us out of the equation and use a rock instead. What would be the result if a rock made the same trip? 

 

 

[studiot]

DLTherrien,

I know the input editor of this site is a right royal pain in the ass, but Please don't do this.

Mix up your thoughts with a quote so one can't make out who said what.

Here is what I see on my screen, did Marcus really say this?

 

[DLTherrien]

Sorry.I am still getting used to using the site. This is what I said. So, when I want to just reply, do what I am doing now I guess. I noticed that Marcus for example can quote certain lines of what I said then his response then another quote and on and on. I have been trying to figure out how to do that with my responses is all. Sorry for the confusion. 

It seems that sometimes I can add a comment in response but others I am only offered the quote option. Am i missing something? Mostly I just want to comment. Any individual text I am referencing from the author I can just copy and paste if I want to quote it. 

Edited July 9, 2018 by DLTherrien

[Markus Hanke]

2 hours ago, DLTherrien said:

Math being off by

But the maths aren’t off. What happens is that some of the original mass-energy of the disc gets radiated away as heat, and some of it does not accumulate in the central star, but stays “outside” (that’s the bit from which planets can later form). We can account for all of these things. The “approximately” just indicated that not all of the original mass ends up in the star, but that does not mean it somehow disappears.

2 hours ago, DLTherrien said:

That is the one thing that no scientist has ever explained to me in all of my studies.

Modern cosmology does not propose any boundary to spacetime, so it is not a surprise that this is never mentioned. The notion of “outside”, when applied to the universe, is simply meaningless.

2 hours ago, DLTherrien said:

If it was really flat, when we looked out at space, all the things there would seem to be lined up as if we were standing at the edge of a piece of paper.

Flat does not mean 2-dimensional. Space always has three dimensions, regardless of its geometry. The “flat” means that on average there is no intrinsic curvature in the spatial dimensions, meaning that, if you pick three arbitrary points that are far enough apart, then the angle sum of the resultant triangle will be 180 degrees.

2 hours ago, DLTherrien said:

While time appears to be measurable and seems to be it's own entity using math, is it really there in the sense we apply it?

Yes, it is - but only in the classical domain. But that’s fine for now, because GR is a model of classical gravity only; it does not incorporate any quantum effects. When we look further “out”, towards quantum gravity, things become very much more complicated. But I suggest for now we stick to GR, because you can’t progress further unless you fully understand this first.

2 hours ago, DLTherrien said:

If the sun never rose or set or we never had seasons, would we have ever even thought to "Clock" it?

Probably yes, because rhythmic cycles like that are very common in nature, and also occur in many other contexts.

2 hours ago, DLTherrien said:

would that really have an effect on our aging process?

Yes, it would affect our aging compared to a reference clock someplace else. Time dilation is a relationship between clocks in spacetime, not something that “happens” to just one clock. Note that gravitational time dilation is very well established effect, backed up by a vast body of experimental data.

2 hours ago, DLTherrien said:

I don't believe that to be true regardless of the math.

Beliefs are irrelevant, only the scientific method counts. Gravitational time dilation is very easy to test experimentally.

2 hours ago, DLTherrien said:

Thinking like that to me is the same as thinking the universe at one point revolved around us (Earth) because we were special.

That was a belief that couldn’t be supported by experimental and observational evidence. That is why it was eventually abandoned. Gravitational time dilation on the other hand is supported by lots of experimental evidence. It is even used in everyday engineering applications, so we know it works.

2 hours ago, DLTherrien said:

What would be the result if a rock made the same trip?

It would age less, compared to a reference rock which does not travel. This can be easily ascertained by comparing the ratios of radioactive isotopes (which are naturally occurring in all rocks) between the two. Or simply by attaching a time piece to the rock before it embarks on its journey.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, DLTherrien said:

Sorry.I am still getting used to using the site.

OK.

This was created with the mouse by highlighting the above text in your post and waiting for the black and white quote notification as in my picture.

(sometimes you have to wait a while for this to turn up).

You can continue to extract as many quotes as you like this way.

I assume Marcus does it this way as in his post which appears at the bottom of my screenshot.

 

 

The quote button at the bottom of a post yields the entire post.

You can always use this as an alternative, and delete the parts you don't require.

But my experience is that doing this several times leads to the editor bombing out and the loss of your work.

 

Another difficulty occurs when you want to quote several posts/posters, perhaps also from another page.

You can cut and come again like this from any post on the same page fairly readily.

If you want to transfer from another page I've found two not totally satisfactory options.

 

Firstly you can open another copy of SF in your browser and copy from there, but it is easy to get mixed up as to which is the 'master' and which is the subordinate.

Or you can complete all your references from one page and switch to another.

You will find that when you switch you have apparantly lost your work, but the autosave function will reinstate it when you click in the entry box and you can carry on from there.

 

A final alternative is to simply highlight and copy/paste into a quote box and manually insert the name of the originator at the beginning for each reply.

You don't get the post reference, but they are pretty useless anyway as they are not numbered as they used to be.

 

Does this help?
 

Edited July 9, 2018 by studiot

[DLTherrien]

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

OK.

This was created with the mouse by highlighting the above text in your post and waiting for the black and white quote notification as in my picture.

(sometimes you have to wait a while for this to turn up).

You can continue to extract as many quotes as you like this way.

I assume Marcus does it this way as in his post which appears at the bottom of my screenshot.

 

 

The quote button at the bottom of a post yields the entire post.

You can always use this as an alternative, and delete the parts you don't require.

But my experience is that doing this several times leads to the editor bombing out and the loss of your work.

 

Another difficulty occurs when you want to quote several posts/posters, perhaps also from another page.

You can cut and come again like this from any post on the same page fairly readily.

If you want to transfer from another page I've found two not totally satisfactory options.

 

Firstly you can open another copy of SF in your browser and copy from there, but it is easy to get mixed up as to which is the 'master' and which is the subordinate.

Or you can complete all your references from one page and switch to another.

You will find that when you switch you have apparantly lost your work, but the autosave function will reinstate it when you click in the entry box and you can carry on from there.

 

A final alternative is to simply highlight and copy/paste into a quote box and manually insert the name of the originator at the beginning for each reply.

You don't get the post reference, but they are pretty useless anyway as they are not numbered as they used to be.

 

Does this help?
 

Yes. A big help thanks. It is funny because I was thinking the highlighting text thing might be the answer after I posted.