Another crackpot idea.

[dimreepr]

Powley's principle seems 2 suggest, for me at least, that all the atoms and all the energy was created or established at the moment of the big bounce or if you will the big inflation. It suggests that all the atoms in the universe was created at this point. What if the atom is accreted around quarks, the energy condenses space/time by means of standing waves, because space/time is in a very weak but generally positive ground state*, thus stretching space/time and creating gravity.

 

 

*For me space/time is in a generally positive ground state but look microscopicaly and it's a seething mass of changing states going from positive to negative. Allowing Durac's equation to be true (which it is) far be it for me to disrespect such a genius.

 

Edited January 1, 2012 by dimreepr

[michel123456]

Who is Powley?

[dimreepr]

Who is Powley?

 

 

his exclusion principle explains why matter appears solid and is really quite a fundamental rule for quatum science.

Edited January 1, 2012 by dimreepr

[michel123456]

Ah. Pauli.

[dimreepr]

Ah. Pauli.

 

sorry never seen his name so just guessed at spelling.This makes me sound very stupid but I'm not classicaly trained.

Edited January 1, 2012 by dimreepr

[michel123456]

sorry never seen his name so just guessed at spelling.This makes me sound very stupid but I'm not classicaly trained.

You should. For a moment I thought you spoke about Paley known for the watchmaker analogy, and I was terribly confused.

 

Thanks to your last answer, now I am not confused about Pauli, I am simply confused about the rest. I guess when you

talk about "the big bounce or if you will the big inflation" you mean the Big Bang.

[mississippichem]

sorry never seen his name so just guessed at spelling.This makes me sound very stupid but I'm not classicaly trained.

 

That would imply that you have never read anything about him or his exclusion principle. Might better do that.

[mathematic]

Powley's principle seems 2 suggest, for me at least, that all the atoms and all the energy was created or established at the moment of the big bounce or if you will the big inflation. It suggests that all the atoms in the universe was created at this point. What if the atom is accreted around quarks, the energy condenses space/time by means of standing waves, because space/time is in a very weak but generally positive ground state*, thus stretching space/time and creating gravity.

 

 

 

*For me space/time is in a generally positive ground state but look microscopicaly and it's a seething mass of changing states going from positive to negative. Allowing Durac's equation to be true (which it is) far be it for me to disrespect such a genius.

 

 

Your first sentence is completely wrong. All that is known is that the universe (immediately after the big bang) was a high temperature collection of photons and other stuff, all of which could interact. It took a little while (fraction of a second) to settle down into a plasma made up of photons, protons, neutrons, and electrons. Further along other light nuclides (H2, He, Li) formed. After about 300,000 years things cooled down enough that atoms formed.

 

All other elements were formed in stars, a much later development.

[dimreepr]

That would imply that you have never read anything about him or his exclusion principle. Might better do that.

 

 

I'm sorry it would have been more correct for me to say I've never felt his name spelled.

[dimreepr]

Your first sentence is completely wrong. All that is known is that the universe (immediately after the big bang) was a high temperature collection of photons and other stuff, all of which could interact. It took a little while (fraction of a second) to settle down into a plasma made up of photons, protons, neutrons, and electrons. Further along other light nuclides (H2, He, Li) formed. After about 300,000 years things cooled down enough that atoms formed.

 

All other elements were formed in stars, a much later development.

 

 

Firstly the number of clock ticks it takes for this process to form atoms, is irrelevant. Secondly how can you say I'm completely wrong when, as you say, you don't completely Know the answer.

 

You should. For a moment I thought you spoke about Paley known for the watchmaker analogy, and I was terribly confused.

 

Thanks to your last answer, now I am not confused about Pauli, I am simply confused about the rest. I guess when you

talk about "the big bounce or if you will the big inflation" you mean the Big Bang.

 

 

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

[questionposter]

What, how do you get this idea from the simply notion that basically particles with mass can't occupy the same space simultaneously? That effect can even be observed in the macroscopic realm.

[dimreepr]

What, how do you get this idea from the simply notion that basically particles with mass can't occupy the same space simultaneously? That effect can even be observed in the macroscopic realm.

 

 

The fact, that every atom in the universe occupies a different energy level and that changing the eneregy level in one atom will change the energy level for every atom in the universe. This connectivety is what informs the idea.

[mississippichem]

The fact, that every atom in the universe occupies a different energy level and that changing the eneregy level in one atom will change the energy level for every atom in the universe. This connectivety is what informs the idea.

 

Then your idea is dead at the start. Go read a book on elementary quantum theory.

[dimreepr]

Then your idea is dead at the start. Go read a book on elementary quantum theory.

 

 

Thank you for destroying this hypothesis, I'm afraid I really don't have the time or means to read books easily. Could you please summarise the reason, just to finally rid me of this question.

 

Thank you in advance.

[mathematic]

Thank you for destroying this hypothesis, I'm afraid I really don't have the time or means to read books easily. Could you please summarise the reason, just to finally rid me of this question.

 

Thank you in advance.

 

It is very simple - there is no theoretical or experimental evidence for such a thing.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Moving this to speculations, where it belongs.

[mississippichem]

Thank you for destroying this hypothesis, I'm afraid I really don't have the time or means to read books easily. Could you please summarise the reason, just to finally rid me of this question.

 

Thank you in advance.

 

Certainly,

 

The fact, that every atom in the universe occupies a different energy level and that changing the eneregy level in one atom will change the energy level for every atom in the universe. This connectivety is what informs the idea.

 

Every atom in the universe does not occupy a different energy level, that is not the Pauli Exclusion Principle. The Pauli Exclusion Principle says that no two fermions can occupy the same state simultaneously. Here the word "state" is in the quantum mechanical sense of the word, meaning the quantities that describe the condition of the fermion at a moment in time.

 

It is perfectly acceptable that two fermions (electrons are the best known non-composite example) can have identical energies, however they will differ in some other way with respect to their states. For example, two electron could have identical energy and be in different locations, or could have different spins.

 

Changing the energy of one atom or electron will not in fact change the energy level of every other atom in the universe. If this were so, spectroscopy in general would be impossible.

 

Sorry, I may have have come across a bit discouraging. I'm just trying to be direct and tone is hard to convey in text so...don't let me discourage you from pursuing your ideas. Just make sure you have sufficient background knowledge before attempting to create a hypothesis.

 

Some of the mathematics behind the Pauli Exclusion Principle is a bit hairy but there is some low hanging fruit out there that I believe is easily accessible for anyone. I encourage you to go and find a book that suits your level of desired depth and level of mathematical prowess.

[dimreepr]

Certainly,

 

 

 

Every atom in the universe does not occupy a different energy level, that is not the Pauli Exclusion Principle. The Pauli Exclusion Principle says that no two fermions can occupy the same state simultaneously. Here the word "state" is in the quantum mechanical sense of the word, meaning the quantities that describe the condition of the fermion at a moment in time.

 

It is perfectly acceptable that two fermions (electrons are the best known non-composite example) can have identical energies, however they will differ in some other way with respect to their states. For example, two electron could have identical energy and be in different locations, or could have different spins.

 

Changing the energy of one atom or electron will not in fact change the energy level of every other atom in the universe. If this were so, spectroscopy in general would be impossible.

 

Sorry, I may have have come across a bit discouraging. I'm just trying to be direct and tone is hard to convey in text so...don't let me discourage you from pursuing your ideas. Just make sure you have sufficient background knowledge before attempting to create a hypothesis.

 

Some of the mathematics behind the Pauli Exclusion Principle is a bit hairy but there is some low hanging fruit out there that I believe is easily accessible for anyone. I encourage you to go and find a book that suits your level of desired depth and level of mathematical prowess.

 

Thanks you've been very helpful. Could you reccomend a suitable book that is around the 3rd/4th years degree level please.