swansont Posted August 22, 2015 Posted August 22, 2015 In Earth terms it's a large mass, in Universal terms(the Milkyway has a much larger mass) the mass is minor. If magnetic fields are not playing a part in keeping G constant everywhere, what is causing it to be so? It's constant because physics is the same everywhere. Why would there need to be something maintaining that?
Ant Sinclair Posted August 22, 2015 Author Posted August 22, 2015 I realise You will know of the Eddington Number, I believe it's a ten to the eighty number, is it correct if I remeber correctly that He suggested that for every proton there is an electron, and possibly a positron, does this still hold today?
swansont Posted August 22, 2015 Posted August 22, 2015 I realise You will know of the Eddington Number, I believe it's a ten to the eighty number, is it correct if I remeber correctly that He suggested that for every proton there is an electron, and possibly a positron, does this still hold today? What's the connection to the discussion?
Ant Sinclair Posted August 22, 2015 Author Posted August 22, 2015 What's the connection to the discussion?Will Iam wanting to get My Head Around Gravity swansont, and was thinking that in order for Me to do this I would need to know all the mass/energy values in the universe and where it is 'hanging' out and in what form, So I thought the Eddington number might be a sound place to start.Does this number still stand and is it thought that there are equal numbers of electrons and also positrons for each one of the 10e80 number of protons?
swansont Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 That's the rough estimate for protons in the observable universe, give or take a factor of ten or so, with a like number of electrons. Not positrons.
Ant Sinclair Posted August 23, 2015 Author Posted August 23, 2015 That's the rough estimate for protons in the observable universe, give or take a factor of ten or so, with a like number of electrons. Not positrons. swansont didn't Paul Dirac say that for every particle there has to be an anti-particle - is this not accepted today, or is Eddingtons number the total number of protons/anti-protons in the Universe with similar numbers of electrons and positrons to equal them?
Strange Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 swansont didn't Paul Dirac say that for every particle there has to be an anti-particle - is this not accepted today, or is Eddingtons number the total number of protons/anti-protons in the Universe with similar numbers of electrons and positrons to equal them? There is an anti-particle for each type of particle (some, like photons are their own anti-particle). But there is not the same amount of matter and anti-matter - the reason for this is one of the great mysteries of cosmology. However, if there were an equal amount of both, then they would have annihilated early in the universe's history and we would not be here to wonder about it! Will Iam wanting to get My Head Around Gravity swansont, and was thinking that in order for Me to do this I would need to know all the mass/energy values in the universe and where it is 'hanging' out and in what form, So I thought the Eddington number might be a sound place to start. I'm not sure you really need to know the amount and distribution of mass in the universe to understand gravity. But it might help with understanding things like expansion. Also, the Eddington number probably isn't the right way to go about it. The modern estimate of the number of protons is derived from the estimated mass of the observable universe. It is thought to about 1080 which is quite close to Eddington's value.
Ant Sinclair Posted August 24, 2015 Author Posted August 24, 2015 There is an anti-particle for each type of particle (some, like photons are their own anti-particle). But there is not the same amount of matter and anti-matter - the reason for this is one of the great mysteries of cosmology. However, if there were an equal amount of both, then they would have annihilated early in the universe's history and we would not be here to wonder about it! I'm not sure you really need to know the amount and distribution of mass in the universe to understand gravity. But it might help with understanding things like expansion. Also, the Eddington number probably isn't the right way to go about it. The modern estimate of the number of protons is derived from the estimated mass of the observable universe. It is thought to about 1080 which is quite close to Eddington's value. I again disagree with the two sentiments strange in Your last post, the Eddington number is crucial and even more crucial an accurate Eddington number, because with an accurate value, true values can be worked out and also patterns can be seen forming. I've seen a range of candidates ranging from e78s to e82s and initially used a 'Tuned' 6.67e79, but as this culminated in the Universes total mass/visible Universal mass ratio being 18.6 - I thought this needs to be a whole number as sytems are wholes so I used 18 to back-engineer the Eddington Number, this turned out to be 6.457e79(approx). So now We have a place to start with how much, we can begin to evaluate the where is it, and in what form. Universe total mass = 6.457e79 × Proton and Electron mass = 6.457e79 × 1.6726e-27 + 6.457e79 × 9.1094e-31 = 1.08e53kg Now if We divide 1.08e53kg by 18 We get 6e51kg, the mass estimated to be the visible matter, but NASA puts this percentage at 4.6% of the Universes total mass, using the 'Tuned' Eddington number the masses add up ie the 6e51 but the percentage is 5.55%? While thinking on this I think it should be thought on also, that is there an 'anti-matter' equivalent mass for the visible Universe?, and if so another 5.55%, consuming a total of 11.11% of the Universes total mass, leaving 88.89% to be accounted for in dark matter and dark energy, if I've being doing the maths right?
Strange Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 the Eddington number is crucial and even more crucial an accurate Eddington number, because with an accurate value, true values can be worked out and also patterns can be seen forming. But it is impossible to calculate an accurate value for the number of protons in the observable universe. You can only get a rough estimate from a rough estimate of the total mass of the observable universe (by looking at the average distribution and sizes of gas and galaxies, for example). Note that Eddington's value was largely numerology so it is surprising he came within a factor of 10 of modern estimates. I've seen a range of candidates ranging from e78s to e82s The reason there is such a wide range is because there is no way of getting an accurate value. but as this culminated in the Universes total mass/visible Universal mass ratio being 18.6 Do you really mean the mass of the whole universe? That is currently thought to be at least 150 times the size of the observable universe (and may, of course, be much more than that and maybe infinite). A good explanation of how that figure is derived here: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/07/18/how-big-is-the-entire-universe/ I thought this needs to be a whole number as sytems are wholes I can't see any reason why the observable universe should be an integer fraction of the entire universe. so I used 18 to back-engineer the Eddington Number, this turned out to be 6.457e79(approx). How do you get from 18 to 6.457e79? (And how do you get such an implausibly precise number?) Universe total mass = 6.457e79 × Proton and Electron mass The electron mass adds less that 0.1% which is hundreds of times smaller than the errors in the estimate for the number of protons, so I think you can ignore it. Now if We divide 1.08e53kg by 18 We get 6e51kg Why are you dividing by 18? While thinking on this I think it should be thought on also, that is there an 'anti-matter' equivalent mass for the visible Universe? No. There is a minute amount of antimatter in the universe, pretty much zero. Any antimatter that is created will almost immediately be annihilated. leaving 88.89% to be accounted for in dark matter and dark energy, if I've being doing the maths right? Dark matter and dark energy are currently thought to make up about 95% of the universe. But I wouldn't say dark energy was "mass". Dark matter make up about 84% of the mass of the universe.
Ant Sinclair Posted August 25, 2015 Author Posted August 25, 2015 "It's impossible to calculate the number of protons in the Universe" - No it isn't, I've done it and it's 6.457e79 "The reason there is such a wide range is because there is no way of getting an accurate value" - Yes there is and it is 6.457e79 "Do you really mean the mass of the whole universe? That is currently thought to be at least150 times the size of the observable universe" - Yes the mass of the whole Universe is 1.08e53kg "I can't see any reason why the observable universe should be an integer fraction of the entire universe" - Open Your eyes and I mean that constructively "How do you get from 18 to 6.457e79? (And how do you get such an implausibly precise number?)" - Please read the statements in the thread "The electron mass adds less that 0.1% which is hundreds of times smaller than the errors in the estimate for the number of protons, so I think you can ignore it" - Coming from someone with such high rep points seems absurd to Me - Yes to Get My Head Around Gravity all has to be accounted for "No. There is a minute amount of antimatter in the universe, pretty much zero. Any antimatter that is created will almost immediately be annihilated" - So why the Great Anti-Matter Mystery? "Dark matter and dark energy are currently thought to make up about 95% of the universe. But I wouldn't say dark energy was "mass". Dark matter make up about 84% of the mass of the universe" - This is wrong, it is 88.98% -2
Strange Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 (edited) "It's impossible to calculate the number of protons in the Universe" - No it isn't, I've done it and it's 6.457e79 Please show us how you got this number. And how you have confirmed it is correct. Also, the number of protons in the observable universe must be changing as the universe expands and our observable horizon increases. Yes the mass of the whole Universe is 1.08e53kg How do you know how large the whole universe is? No one else does. "I can't see any reason why the observable universe should be an integer fraction of the entire universe" - Open Your eyes and I mean that constructively Please show me what I should be looking at. "How do you get from 18 to 6.457e79? (And how do you get such an implausibly precise number?)" - Please read the statements in the thread OK. You say that you invented a "tuned" value. How did you "tune" it? Or is it just a guess? And then you invented a factor of 18. "The electron mass adds less that 0.1% which is hundreds of times smaller than the errors in the estimate for the number of protons, so I think you can ignore it" - Coming from someone with such high rep points seems absurd to Me Can you explain why it is absurd? I think it is absurd to try and be 0.1% accurate about a number which can only be estimate to a factor of 10 at best. "No. There is a minute amount of antimatter in the universe, pretty much zero. Any antimatter that is created will almost immediately be annihilated" - So why the Great Anti-Matter Mystery? That is the anti-matter mystery. Why is there so little of it. This is wrong, it is 88.98% Are you going to correct the Wikipedia page, then? Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the universe Remember you will need to provide a reference (and this forum won't count). Edited August 25, 2015 by Strange 1
imatfaal Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 ! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. What started off as a narrow and sensible question regarding gravity, quasars, and the universal nature of physical laws has changed into a confused mess. Ant Sinclair You have been making completely unsupportable and in most cases simply incorrect statements in the main science fora - this is not acceptable. Please stick to asking questions, exploring mainstream science, and discussing academically settled topics when in the main fora. The Speculations forum is set aside for just the sort of personal ideas that this thread has become. But please note you will be asked to answer questions, counter arguments, and provide evidence (from articles or otherwise) to support your contentions. Do not respond to this moderation - report this message if you think it is unfair 1
Ant Sinclair Posted August 25, 2015 Author Posted August 25, 2015 " Please show us how you got this number. And how you have confirmed it is correct" - I will when the time is right and this will be in the H-Bonds thread "Also, the number of protons in the observable universe must be changing as the universe expands and our observable horizon increases" - I'm not saying the 6e51 isn't variable 'in Our observations' " How do you know how large the whole universe is? No one else does" - Others have put this value in the ball-park of around 1e53kg, Iam just quoting it precisely "Please show me what I should be looking at" - I will on H-Bonds "OK. You say that you invented a "tuned" value. How did you "tune" it? Or is it just a guess? And then you invented a factor of 18" - It wasn't guessed or invented I plainly saw a ratio, the fine tuning was done to this ratio for a reason as will be shown in H-Bonds "Can you explain why it is absurd? I think it is absurd to try and be 0.1% accurate about a number which can only be estimate to a factor of 10 at best" - Because of the energy in the electrons "That is the anti-matter mystery. Why is there so little of it" - It can't be seen because something is hiding it, because it's hidden doesn't mean it doesn't exist "Are you going to correct the Wikipedia page, then?" - No somebody will do it for Me
Strange Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 (edited) I will when the time is right The same old arrogant evasiveness. " How do you know how large the whole universe is? No one else does" - Others have put this value in the ball-park of around 1e53kg, I am just quoting it precisely Please provide a source for this number. I am fairly sure you have not understood what it is but I can't really explain without the source you are quoting it from. "Can you explain why it is absurd? I think it is absurd to try and be 0.1% accurate about a number which can only be estimate to a factor of 10 at best" - Because of the energy in the electrons That doesn't explain anything. What do you mean by "the energy in the electrons"? Do you just mean the energy equivalent of the mass? Or their kinetic energy (which you are not taking into account)? Or ...? It can't be seen because something is hiding it, because it's hidden doesn't mean it doesn't exist What is hiding it? How can anything hide it? " How do you know how large the whole universe is? No one else does" - Others have put this value in the ball-park of around 1e53kg, Iam just quoting it precisely "As nobody knows the size of the universe, one cannot really talk about the mass of the universe, though one can talk about the mass of the observable universe." "Now, the size of the observable universe is about 14 billion light years, and using the above value of density gives you a mass (dark and luminous matter) of about 3 x 1055 g" (in other words, 3 x 1052 kg) http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/our-solar-system/101-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/general-questions/579-what-is-the-mass-of-the-universe-intermediate So it is pretty clear that the number you are using is for the observable universe. The whole universe must be at least 150 times bigger (i.e. more than 4.5 x 1054 kg, or more than 42 times larger than your figure). And, of course, it might be a hundred time or a billions times larger. Or even infinite. Edited August 25, 2015 by Strange
Ant Sinclair Posted August 25, 2015 Author Posted August 25, 2015 Strange in fear of getting bogged down and not moving forward with this(Quasars and Gravity) You'll have to assume several things, 1) Mass of Universe = 1.08e53kg 2) Number of Particles In Whole Universe = Number of Variations in Particle Types × 6.457e79 3) Mass of Visible Universe = 6e51kg 4) There is a mass equivalent to the visible matter in the Universe that is hidden of 6e51kg Where is it all?, it can only be in one place and that has to be inside of the Universes' Limits. We know some of these limits already but need to know the outer limits and this is 1.363e12LY(99%), if You use a 169GHz example frequency and take 1% of it ie 1.69GHz, then do a Red Shift Calc on these values, You get 99%(if I've calculated correctly) the size of the Universe, add 1% and it's there. Strange You weren't so far off when You said 150 times the size of the visible Universe when in fact it's fairly close to 100 times, meatloaf did say 1 out of 3 ain't bad. So now We have the outer frame work of 1.37e12LY Ps Strange, Iam not the one displaying arrogance, I've felt a few times on threads that I was being rail-roaded into positions, and that's why I had to present these ideas the way I did - maybe slightly dis-gentlemanly but word play is so tedious
DrP Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 (edited) Ps Strange, Iam not the one displaying arrogance, Where is the H-Bond thread you talked about? PS - And you can't just expect him to assume the figure you gave are correct - what rot! Edited August 25, 2015 by DrP
Ant Sinclair Posted August 25, 2015 Author Posted August 25, 2015 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86147-split-from-energy-constants-were-massive-clouds-of-h-bonds-responsible-for-the-big-bang/?hl=%2Benergy+%2Bconstants quote name="DrP" post="881872" timestamp="1440527155"] Where is the H-Bond thread you talked about? PS - And you can't just expect him to assume the figure you gave are correct - what rot! I know DrP but it's hard sometimes debating with strange, there is the matter of the missing anti-matter - all I'm asking is for some assumptions to be accepted for now, I'm not asking him to get a tatoo on his arm or anything. The values I gave him are reasonable values DrP and he must know this or is out of his depths in this area of physics. -1
imatfaal Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 ! Moderator Note http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86147-split-from-energy-constants-were-massive-clouds-of-h-bonds-responsible-for-the-big-bang/?hl=%2Benergy+%2Bconstants Where is the H-Bond thread you talked about? PS - And you can't just expect him to assume the figure you gave are correct - what rot! I know DrP but it's hard sometimes debating with strange, there is the matter of the missing anti-matter - all I'm asking is for some assumptions to be accepted for now, I'm not asking him to get a tatoo on his arm or anything. The values I gave him are reasonable values DrP and he must know this or is out of his depths in this area of physics. Ant Sinclair One more jibe like this "and he must know this or is out of his depths in this area of physics" and staff will be discussing whether you have crossed the line and we need to consider sanctions. This is pretty much a prototype ad hominem - ie x doesn't agree with me because x is ignorant. This is explicitly against the rules. You must stop this now. Please also take a moment to re-read the rules of both the Forum and of the speculations sub-forum. You do not have the leeway to make outlandish claims and then refuse to back them up. Do not respond to this moderation - report this post if ou feel it is unfair FYG - if you wish to discuss a toy universe (this is not a term of mockery it is merely what they are called) in which you set certain parameter to thence explore the hopefully simplified physics then please do so explicitly. You cannot set parameters to the universe which we know are false - nor dogmatically insist that unproven/unprovable contentions are true. 1
swansont Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 You'll have to assume several things, ... 4) There is a mass equivalent to the visible matter in the Universe that is hidden of 6e51kg Why do we have to assume this? Can you independently show that it's true, or a reasonable assumption? Because if it isn't, why bother entertaining any conjecture based upon it?
Strange Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 Strange in fear of getting bogged down and not moving forward with this(Quasars and Gravity) You'll have to assume several things, 1) Mass of Universe = 1.08e53kg 2) Number of Particles In Whole Universe = Number of Variations in Particle Types × 6.457e79 3) Mass of Visible Universe = 6e51kg 4) There is a mass equivalent to the visible matter in the Universe that is hidden of 6e51kg I am not going to "assume" any of these things. Especially as your numbers are significantly different from those produced by experts. As for this: "2) Number of Particles In Whole Universe = Number of Variations in Particle Types × 6.457e79" There are NOT 1079 types of particles. There are 17 currently known (slightly less than double that if you count anti-particles as separate types). We know some of these limits already but need to know the outer limits and this is 1.363e12LY(99%) How do you know that? , if You use a 169GHz example frequency and take 1% of it ie 1.69GHz, then do a Red Shift Calc on these values, You get 99%(if I've calculated correctly) the size of the Universe, add 1% and it's there. This appears to be utterly meaningless, without some further justification.
Mordred Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 Looking over this thread, I'm having a difficult time piece mealing where your getting your numbers from. However you should look at a more reliable methodology. Is this post. He includes the related formulas, as well as references. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/90189-neutrino-mass-from-fermi-dirac-statistics/#entry881547 1
Ant Sinclair Posted August 26, 2015 Author Posted August 26, 2015 Looking over this thread, I'm having a difficult time piece mealing where your getting your numbers from. However you should look at a more reliable methodology. Is this post. He includes the related formulas, as well as references. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/90189-neutrino-mass-from-fermi-dirac-statistics/#entry881547 Orions work is professional looking and so I presume maybe wrongly physics/math is His profession. I heed Your message and probably My best route to get the ideas of this thread across is put the full lot down in documents then I won't get held up on certain assumptions that need to be made, the four I asked for earlier and one more concerning something that strange said about there are 17 particles - nearly correct again strange, the fith assumption would have been there are 6 types of particle each with 2 satellites making a total of 18, making a total of 18 × 6.457e79 particles in the Universe.
Strange Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 I won't get held up on certain assumptions that need to be made, the four I asked for earlier and one more concerning something that strange said about there are 17 particles - nearly correct again strange, the fith assumption would have been there are 6 types of particle each with 2 satellites making a total of 18 What are these 18 particle? I can only find 17: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle#/media/File:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg What are the 6 types? What do you mean by "satellites"? Why would anyone accept these assumptions when you provide no justification for them. (And they appear to be contradicted by actual evidence.)
swansont Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 My best route to get the ideas of this thread across is put the full lot down in documents then I won't get held up on certain assumptions that need to be made, the four I asked for earlier and one more concerning something that strange said about there are 17 particles - nearly correct again strange, the fith assumption would have been there are 6 types of particle each with 2 satellites making a total of 18, making a total of 18 × 6.457e79 particles in the Universe. Your best route would be to comply with the rules and guidelines for posting here. Otherwise you might not be posting here at all, which makes it quite difficult to get ideas across.
Recommended Posts