Mordred Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 Oops I missed that thanks for catching that Migl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graybear13 Posted July 5 Author Share Posted July 5 3 hours ago, MigL said: No. Gravity 'creates' weight, not mass. Mass is an intrinsic property of the system; equivalent to its 'internal' energy. This is not the only energy a system can possess; there are also 'external' sources, such as momentum and stresses/strains, which, all taken together, modify space-time to produce the geodesic paths we attribute to gravity. Can you have weight without mass? Somehow it has to go from no thing to something with weight. If it's not gravity that makes that happen, what is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 1 hour ago, graybear13 said: Can you have weight without mass? Somehow it has to go from no thing to something with weight. If it's not gravity that makes that happen, what is? Mass measures how much matter is in an object, while weight measures how gravity affects the mass. Gravity gives the same mass a different weight on planets with differing gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graybear13 Posted July 6 Author Share Posted July 6 16 hours ago, Phi for All said: Mass measures how much matter is in an object, while weight measures how gravity affects the mass. Gravity gives the same mass a different weight on planets with differing gravity. Understood, but respectfully the question is 'how is matter produced from nothing or next to nothing?' Is there something in big bang math that accounts for this? Maybe it happened in a split second as exotic particles, but there has to be a framework or process for the first cause, what ever that might be, to produce protons and neutrons. What does that framework look like? Does the Higgs boson explain this process? Does this same framework produce the fusion reaction that is star ignition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 (edited) We do not know where the energy/mass originated in the BB model. We can only extrapolate back to \(10^{-43}\) s of the BB. The estinated particle count being \(10^{90}\) particles. Particles can be created or destroyed the energy to do so is contained in the relevant fields involved. Keep in mind mass is resistance to inertia change. Energy is the ability to perform work Field is any collection of objects/values. So mass and energy are related via \[E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2\] So they are simply properties of a system or state. Neither exists on its own. The work is done by the fields involved however that does not imply the field is more fundamental than particles. Simply that the work is performed to generate particles via fields. Edited July 6 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 2 hours ago, graybear13 said: Understood, but respectfully the question is 'how is matter produced from nothing or next to nothing?' Is there something in big bang math that accounts for this? Maybe it happened in a split second as exotic particles, but there has to be a framework or process for the first cause, what ever that might be, to produce protons and neutrons. What does that framework look like? Does the Higgs boson explain this process? Does this same framework produce the fusion reaction that is star ignition? How did we get from “everything is made of neutrinos” to the Big Bang? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 15 minutes ago, swansont said: How did we get from “everything is made of neutrinos” to the Big Bang? The 'scatter brained' approach to learning Physics ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graybear13 Posted July 8 Author Share Posted July 8 On 7/6/2024 at 2:36 PM, swansont said: How did we get from “everything is made of neutrinos” to the Big Bang? How do we get from Big Bang to everything is made of neutrinos? The reason I asked if there was a force, perhaps the Higgs boson, comparable to mesotron in the Big Bang theory is I am trying to find a way to agree with Big Bang. Maybe the amount of time from first cause to the creation of enough hydrogen gas to light it up, is the biggest problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 First step is to understand that the BB model does not tell us how the universe was created. The model only describes the earliest condition our math can describe before you get the mathematical singularity conditions at 10^-43 seconds. A universe from nothing is only one of the numerous possibilities . Other possibilities is our universe bounced from a previous universe and Cyclic universes are two other possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graybear13 Posted July 9 Author Share Posted July 9 16 hours ago, Mordred said: First step is to understand that the BB model does not tell us how the universe was created. The model only describes the earliest condition our math can describe before you get the mathematical singularity conditions at 10^-43 seconds. A universe from nothing is only one of the numerous possibilities . Other possibilities is our universe bounced from a previous universe and Cyclic universes are two other possibilities. Thank you Mordred, Another possibility is an ocean of alpha particles (neutrinos) reorganizing into the atomic universe. I think it is important to understand the first cause of our atomic cosmos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eise Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 4 hours ago, graybear13 said: Another possibility is an ocean of alpha particles (neutrinos) reorganizing into the atomic universe. No, alpha particles are not neutrinos. They are so different that you cannot say 'Ah, neutrinos do not work for my idea? Then maybe alpha particles do?'. You are just throwing words around without knowing the concepts behind that words. For a mind that knows nothing, everything is possible in his fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joigus Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 On 7/5/2024 at 5:23 AM, Mordred said: Lol should be clear that post was more for @Joigus. Thanks, Mordred. I'm all in favour of sterile-neutrino hypotheses. I recently tried to draw attention on Turok et al.'s idea of time-symmetric universe with sterile neutrinos being responsible for dark matter. For very long I've thought the next development is much more likely to come from a wildly new reinterpretation of familiar ideas than the familiar interpretation of wild new ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 2 hours ago, joigus said: Thanks, Mordred. I'm all in favour of sterile-neutrino hypotheses. I recently tried to draw attention on Turok et al.'s idea of time-symmetric universe with sterile neutrinos being responsible for dark matter. For very long I've thought the next development is much more likely to come from a wildly new reinterpretation of familiar ideas than the familiar interpretation of wild new ideas. I feel much the same way the problem I have isn't getting sterile neutrinos the correct behavior characteristics for cold (non relativistic matter) that math I posted above but the sheer quantity that would be needed. Even if you have 3 flavors of sterile neutrinos I haven't been able to calculate sufficient quantity nor seen any decent calculations showing how to get sufficient number of sterile neutrinos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graybear13 Posted July 9 Author Share Posted July 9 6 hours ago, Eise said: No, alpha particles are not neutrinos. They are so different that you cannot say 'Ah, neutrinos do not work for my idea? Then maybe alpha particles do?'. You are just throwing words around without knowing the concepts behind that words. For a mind that knows nothing, everything is possible in his fantasy. Thank you Eise, Sorry for the confusion. I should not have used alpha particle not knowing it's true definition. What I mean to say is, an ocean of the basic units of materialized energy (neutrinos) systematizing into the atomic universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 34 minutes ago, graybear13 said: What I mean to say is, an ocean of the basic units of materialized energy (neutrinos) systematizing into the atomic universe. Neutrinos are not “the basic units of materialized energy” and there isn’t a pathway for neutrinos to form atoms. They don’t interact in ways that would allow that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eise Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 14 hours ago, swansont said: 15 hours ago, graybear13 said: What I mean to say is, an ocean of the basic units of materialized energy (neutrinos) systematizing into the atomic universe. Neutrinos are not “the basic units of materialized energy” and there isn’t a pathway for neutrinos to form atoms. They don’t interact in ways that would allow that. You see, @graybear13, that is the problem. You do not even know what neutrinos are, so your proposal is dead from the beginning. So why do you throw so many absurd hypotheses into a science forum, suggesting that physicists would have a blind spot in their world view: 'Oh my, Why didn't I think of it!? Atoms could be made up by neutrinos! Good that people with fresh minds are also looking at this!'. Really? You think like that? If not, why you go on formulate hypotheses that every physicist knows will not work? Not even realising the difference between alpha particles and neutrinos, why do you even think you could bring up meaningful hypotheses based on them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graybear13 Posted July 11 Author Share Posted July 11 20 hours ago, Eise said: , suggesting that physicists would have a blind spot in their world view: 'Oh my, Why didn't I think of it!? Atoms could be made up by neutrinos! I suggest that you think again. Atoms most certainly are made of basic units of materialized energy. It's the only thing that makes sense. When you just blew by the atomic strong force is when you dropped the ball. You still don't have a clear understanding of it. It's mesotron! The view from down here in the sand box tells me that it looks like you are stuck, grasping at straws for something to justify your LHC for one thing. I remember before you turned it on for the first time you said that "God Particle" was going to be some great breakthrough. Now you say that you have discovered the Higgs boson. You gave out a Nobel Prize and congratulated yourselves, but down here I don't get it. Hasn't helped me. So I wouldn't be to proud of yourselves. "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them" Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 7 hours ago, graybear13 said: The view from down here in the sand box You’re not in a sandbox, though. You’re in a litter box pissing on everything you see while contributing nothing more than turds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 7 hours ago, graybear13 said: I suggest that you think again. Atoms most certainly are made of basic units of materialized energy. It's the only thing that makes sense. When you just blew by the atomic strong force is when you dropped the ball. You still don't have a clear understanding of it. It's mesotron! ! Moderator Note Your previous thread on mesotron was shut down for a lack of science. You were told not to bring it up again. You can peddle your pet theory somewhere else. 7 hours ago, graybear13 said: The view from down here in the sand box tells me that it looks like you are stuck, grasping at straws for something to justify your LHC for one thing. I remember before you turned it on for the first time you said that "God Particle" was going to be some great breakthrough. Now you say that you have discovered the Higgs boson. You gave out a Nobel Prize and congratulated yourselves, but down here I don't get it. Hasn't helped me. So I wouldn't be to proud of yourselves. "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them" Einstein The standard, thankfully, is not whether you understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 9 hours ago, graybear13 said: The view from down here in the sand box tells me that it looks like you are stuck, Your view is hampered by your own acknowledged lack of knowledge. As an analogy, children are often perplexed at what the adults are doing, and offer their opinions the way you do, but it's mostly just guesswork without the requisite knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts