Why I disagree with static eternal universe

Jim

I am well aware of Albert Einsteins famous equation, all things down to the very fundamental level contain energy, an atom a huge amount if we consider its minute size. But a tiny amount in the grand macro order macro reality.

Matter crudely put is frozen energy and all matter contains a huge amount of energy. It is said that a sugar size cube of matter could destroy a city

Atoms in the highly excited state are hugely entropic and Hanse Bethe used this highly entropic state of the uranium isotope or enriched uranium to develop the fission bomb.

The chemical that drove the critical mass balls went from low to high entropy in a fleeting moment. And the enriched uranium balls released its enormous energy by the almost instantaneous flow of low entropy of the atom to the huge entropy of the atoms that split and became a controlled chain reaction of the first Los Alamos atomic fission bomb.

The hydrogen fusion bomb was of course more efficient in converting matter atoms into energy, by almost instantaneous flow of entropy from low to high entropy.

If you want the complex maths around this I will come back with what I understand about the process

Alan

I feel as if I am a small boy holding but a teaspoon of knowledge standing before the Infinity Ocean of all knowledge

Hi, All

I hope this post is not too off topic, but I would like to get a feel where this forum is going, so to speak.



Reading your posts again leads me to ask you, do you think that size or scale has no real meaning in the grand order of reality. Thus you have universes going down smaller and smaller even near infinitely and the same on an upward scale universe into a greater super universe etc.

An eternal cycle of creation and destuction and rebirth?

Thus when we state the unimaginable size of our own universe we are speaking subjectively and relatively

Our universe thus might just be a quantum speck in an unimaginably larger universe and this larger universe only a speck in a much larger universe.

Thus relativity holds true in scale, time and dimensions

Like Russian dolls

Alan


I feel as if I am a small boy holding but a teaspoon of knowledge standing before the Infinity Ocean of all knowledge

Hi Alan, I would argue that the solution to the entropy problem will be found in negative refractive index. I think that we have two sorts of space, electromagnetic and gravitational, which are in one to one correspondence. We can think of gravitational space as being "bigger" or "smaller" than e.m. space. Gravitational space can be seen as being informationally smaller.

We have an exponential in information theory and also in entropy and I would argue in gravity. Read the quote in terms of entropy. The link to the article is also posted.

...These quasi static field components decay with distance from the source, which means that the final image always contains less information than is contained in the source. physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/19415

This next link it to a pdf file that goes into the detail of how neg r.i. works. It's not an easy read but a quick read through does give insight into how a faster than light speed can pull off the trick.

www.citeulike.org/user/pak/article/3052031

That equation T = mc^2 / k (1 - sqrt(1 - v^2 /c^2)) needs to be changed to allow for a negative refractive index. Also, we are dealing with photons, so we need to make it half mc squared. So let's change that first number one to three. That's because the terms in the square root can now add up to two.
T = (1 /2 mc^2 / k (3 - sqrt(1 - v^2 /c^2))

If we say that the speed of gravity is much much larger than the speed of light, then we are concerned with the ratio. Now I say that the ratio has a good chance to be equal to h. Though we could do the same maths with Tom's lowest estimate of twenty billion times c.

Preserve that ratio and look at the equation when the fastest anything can go at is the speed of light but allow for the possibility of a negative refractive index. All that changes is the sign from minus to plus in the square root, above some value for v when the ratio equals h. A value of 7.71700697831E-09 metres per second.

When v^2 = c^2 we get 1.5 - sqrt 2 and for when v = 7.71700697831E-09, giving us h, we have one point five, minus the square root of one minus h. Working it out for a photon of 1E-38 kg mass equivalent, we get 5.16142945316E 01 Kelvin. There are two temperatures but they barely differ from each other.

Well, here we are talking about something extremely cold. v = 7.71700697831E-09 is a very low velocity, something almost stopped. It's what our universe is going to look like in billions of trillions of years time. A bose einstein condensate. A time when everything is the square root of h above absolute zero. Pretty bleak, like a Carlisle pub on a sunday afternoon.

Everything stacks up in a straight line parallel to the y axis. Now here I play a hunch, that graph looks remarkably like Riemann's conjecture. In a nutshell this question is, how fair are Gauss' prime number dice? The answer would be that they are very fair. It would mean that prime numbers play a prime; excuse the lousy pun; role in the quantisation of the universe.

Hi Stoat, You and I have had this conversation before where the negative refraction is where the hidden charge interactions are taking place at nuclear levels which results in virtual pair production. Arguing that the dampening effect of an electrostatic field shields and conserves the true nuclear forces creating the appearance that charge conservation is static and low level but in reality this ENERGY does not really equal mass times light squared. We are fooled to believe this because of this buffering static field that looks to not be in motion, whereas as you know nuclear explosions reveal that this external/internal energy exchange is extreme. Mass circulations with in the infinite space circulate around ISO-DUAL pairings, each funneling extreme amounts of energy through the system slightly out of phase causing CPT violations, and the blind spot is in the negative refraction. So, in reality over long distances there is always pairing between ISO-DUAL forward and reverse time domains taking place causing mass formations and motion. I totally disagree that any 'death' or staking could take place that allows MASS to exist only in one direction in time---this would be a violation of causality and impossible because there is zero cause for such an event. Without the constant two way energy exchange between ISO-DUAL pairing, in which we only see left handed charge symmetry, mass would immediately evaporate back into aether. John

Hi John, the more I think about this subject the more it seems to be fraught with difficulties. We know that soft gamma rays can collide and create an electron positron pair. The electron toddles off, the positron hits another electron and we get a slew of mesons. These in turn decay to electrons. We don't seem to get the creation of another gamma ray pair.

Okay we've got soft gamma rays but we also have hard gamma rays, can they create proton anti proton pairs? I don't see why not. So, where do gamma rays come from? Neutron stars, black holes, and the strong magnetic fields of the galaxy. There's also the idea that they come from k capture, where an atom in the vacuum is forced to "eat its children". An electron falls into the nucleus and disrupts it, the result is once again a slew of mesons.

It might well be the case that galaxies are continuously replenishing their stock of hydrogen in that case. But let's say that the stars go out and it gets very very cold. The only way we could know that there's anything out there would be by using gravity sensors. Apart that is for black holes, as the universe cools towards absolute zero, black holes will radiate away exponentially. That would mean that galaxies would unravel. Of course, because we are looking at an exponential cooling, this will take forever.

We'll end up with a lumpy colloid. Now if we look at a lump of copper, at absolute zero, it will still have an electron Fermi velocity. If there are photons in it they have to have infinite wavelength. What's moving them? However, a very cold universe is not made of copper. There will be a Fermi sea of charged particles and neutrinos. There should be Cooper pairs of electrons, and protons. We still haven't much of an idea how these pairings overcome their mutual repulsion.

This cold universe will behave as if it were one super atom, it would be a super magnet and superconductor. Having a protonic current and an electron current, it sounds like it's actually some sort of tank circuit. Pretty weird eh?