Just tickled: Atom is 99.999999999999% space. If atom is 200 football courts, proportionately, nucleon is size of basketball, and quarks would be the size of a grain of sand inside the hollow shell of nucleus in the middle floating with no pillow. My queston is: What happen if a super-super accelerator would detect an even smaller fundamental particle curling inside the quarks. Is that still particle or more subler like pure energy?
jsaldea12
5.17.09
Please permit to add: If atom is that spacious, where does that nuclear explosion gets its tremendous release of energy, a million times up greater than conventional bomb?
jsaldea12
5.17.09
e=mc^2
It would depend on the particle fundamental property? It appears not clear yet ...but you have a point there. if, suppose, the quarks is pierced and a more fundamental particle is inside, say, 10,000 times smaller than quarks, and if that new more fundamental particle still has inside a more, more fundamental particle, a point will be reached in which there is nothing inside but space... That is possible? What kind of space is that, is that pure energy? smaller than fundamental particles...Maybe nuclear physicists can answer.
jsaldea12
5.17.09
E=MC2? But where did that energy came from when ultimately, there is nothing but spaces inside in all the shells within shells of atom. The queston then, what kind of spaces are those?
jsaldea12
5.17.09
jsaldea12
5.17.09
QUOTE (jsaldea12+)
where did that energy came from... there is nothing but spaces inside in all the shells within shells of atom.
Your presumption above can't be correct then. You can consider the subatomic particles as field quanta, inherently congealed disturbances or excited states of a quantum field. In any case, energy.
Experimentally the energy of radiation from uranium can be measured. So if a uranium atom, originally of mass Mu decays into two pieces each of mass m0, it can be estimated how much energy will result from an atomic bomb; E=(Mu-2m0)C^2.
Another rough example of how small an nucleus is; Enlarge an atom to the size of the earth, then an atom of this apple would be the size of the original apple, and the nucleus would be 100,000 times smaller still.
Your presumption above can't be correct then. You can consider the subatomic particles as field quanta, inherently congealed disturbances or excited states of a quantum field. In any case, energy.
Experimentally the energy of radiation from uranium can be measured. So if a uranium atom, originally of mass Mu decays into two pieces each of mass m0, it can be estimated how much energy will result from an atomic bomb; E=(Mu-2m0)C^2.
Another rough example of how small an nucleus is; Enlarge an atom to the size of the earth, then an atom of this apple would be the size of the original apple, and the nucleus would be 100,000 times smaller still.
All objects of mass have an infinite size. Gravitation effects extend over an infinite distance in all directions. The determination of size is the result of the method of measurement. In order to measure size you need to probe to a point where you get resistance. At large distances, the interaction with the method of probe is not measurable.
Hi, several times, I alway say that ultimately pure energy will be arrived,..on the space when no more fundamental particles shell to pierce. Call that energy, field quanta..Where did the quanta (similar to light photons) came from, perhaps by several trillion, trillion, all compressed inside that innermost shell of atom, so fzar, the detected quarks? Universally, throughout the universe, all atoms consist of nucleus, quarks,etc. Can we guess?.
About gravitation, I shall be glad to hear your highly-respected opinion. Please see poste: Why is gravity all attraction toward earth?"
Adding, Your computation makes nucleus, quarks, even smaller! But now particle accelerators detected quarks have positive and negative property. Do we know the implications?
jsaldea12
5.18.09
Please permit me to add: neutron decays to proton, to electron. Electron decay to positron, up-down, top-bottom, charm-strange of quarks,and neutron star and black hole are that because proton and electron bind too nuclearly to become neutron star and black hole. Does it mean that all contain both positive and negative properties that science is now beginning to understand?
jsaldea12
5.18.09
^ Does not conserve charge.
No malice, just search for ever-evolving, progresses of science. Before, it was thought that atom is the ultimate indivisible, then it was found that there is nucleus that was thought the heart of atom. Now, it is found that there is still inside the nucleus, smaller worms, called quarks. What is dissected of quarks are three families, up-down, top-bottom, charms-strange. perhaps to hide their true identity, they are that named, but the truth is up,top, charm are positive while down, bottom, strange are negative. What does it mean, right at the innershell, the quarks have positive and negative It means even the nucleus has clear positive and negative property all along, not anymore concept of all positive and neutral neutron....
How is neutron star made. The proton and electron connive and embrace one another too tight to form neutron (is that term correct, neutron, neutral?when it is a law: positive and negative attracts one another and binds!). just thinking. Maybe
our quantum physicist has another say.
jsaldea12
5.19.09
Neutron star formation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvHHZO2wmmg
more on atoms:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh4F5BQ8hgw
This video series deals with a lot of the questions you are asking:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
and this book:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Void/...99225903/?itm=4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvHHZO2wmmg
more on atoms:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh4F5BQ8hgw
This video series deals with a lot of the questions you are asking:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
and this book:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Void/...99225903/?itm=4
Thank you for the many infos, videos of Carl Sagan, etc. but, please, with due respect, this may be something new but it is complete explanation of what is gravity: spacetime of Dr. Einstein PRESSES all over surface of suspended dying star in outer space (itself the skein, matrix of spacetime) and makes dying star collapses to become neutron star, or also to blackhole. The other side of the coin is, there is the attraction gravity of Newton that, conjoins with spacetime gravity of Dr. Einstein, by PULLING from all surface of dying star toward the inteior center, all the atoms , positive to negative attraction and binding, shrinking the space between the positive proton and electrons as attraction becomes strong to one another, until both fused as one, call it neutron star, a spoonful can weigh to some 100,000 plus tons (on earth). So both the spacetime gravity of Dr. Einstein and the attraction gravity of Newton work as one in making gravity in the universe, work as one team, as a matter of fact, both are like two sides in one coin. These two gravities are the very reason why gravity is all attraction toward earth, spacetime gravity of Dr. Einstein all presses from all surface of suspended earth toward the interior center of suspended earth, and at the same time, the gravity of Newton pulls everything on surface of earth downward toward the interior center of earth. the effect is what we experience on surface of earth we call, gravity. Regards.
jsaldea12
5.19.09..
Garbage.
It's not your malice which is in question but your ability to work in a predictive fact-based framework which is in question.
QUOTE (jsaldea12+May 18 2009, 03:44 PM)
Thank you for the many infos, videos of Carl Sagan, etc. but, please, with due respect, this may be something new but it is complete explanation of what is gravity: spacetime of Dr. Einstein PRESSES all over surface of suspended dying star in outer space (itself the skein, matrix of spacetime) and makes dying star collapses to become neutron star, or also to blackhole. The other side of the coin is, there is the attraction gravity of Newton that, conjoins with spacetime gravity of Dr. Einstein, by PULLING from all surface of dying star toward the inteior center, all the atoms , positive to negative attraction and binding, shrinking the space between the positive proton and electrons as attraction becomes strong to one another, until both fused as one, call it neutron star, a spoonful can weigh to some 100,000 plus tons (on earth). So both the spacetime gravity of Dr. Einstein and the attraction gravity of Newton work as one in making gravity in the universe, work as one team, as a matter of fact, both are like two sides in one coin. These two gravities are the very reason why gravity is all attraction toward earth, spacetime gravity of Dr. Einstein all presses from all surface of suspended earth toward the interior center of suspended earth, and at the same time, the gravity of Newton pulls everything on surface of earth downward toward the interior center of earth. the effect is what we experience on surface of earth we call, gravity. Regards.
jsaldea12
5.19.09..
Are they not really one and the same gravity, Einstein having redefined it a bit since Newton?
I always thought of the "other kind" as the gravity that comes from acceleration (pressed to the floor of an elevator going rapidly upward for instance).
Are you proposing a new theory here or just attempting to gain a better understanding of the known theories so far?
jsaldea12
5.19.09..
Are they not really one and the same gravity, Einstein having redefined it a bit since Newton?
I always thought of the "other kind" as the gravity that comes from acceleration (pressed to the floor of an elevator going rapidly upward for instance).
Are you proposing a new theory here or just attempting to gain a better understanding of the known theories so far?
Correct me if I am wrong, but the redefined concept that there is also gravity originating internally from center of earth pulling all objects toward the center of earth but it does not defined what really is that pulling force. My concept of that pulling force is specific: it is the behavior of the opposite law of nature,, re-like repulse, UNLIKE ATTRACTS which I explain in detail in posted article, "Why is gravity all attraction toward earth?". Please post this reply.
jsaldea12
5.19.09.
Please let me add: In german language, there is no distinction between speed and velocity. but Dr. Einstein was referring to speed. Rlativity always involve least, two objects to refer.
I agree with most Eminent Dr. Einstein, Bohr, Bauer, too, but if they were alive today, I dont think they would advice us to stop thinking because what they have spoken is final.
jsaldea12
5.20.09
Since the book was popular physics, and not a textbook, or other scholarly writing like a journal article, quote-mining it to support any point of view is a specious (and dubious) argument from authority.
Scholarly authors like Wald, Misner, Thorne and Wheeler have much developed the topic in actual textbooks which would form a basis to have an expert opinion on the subject. But our new poster jsaldea12 seems to lack a basic understanding of Newton's 17th century description of weak-field gravity. Newton's shell theorem is among the easiest of consequences of physics theories to derive and taught at the beginning of every would-be physicists' career.
Scholarly authors like Wald, Misner, Thorne and Wheeler have much developed the topic in actual textbooks which would form a basis to have an expert opinion on the subject. But our new poster jsaldea12 seems to lack a basic understanding of Newton's 17th century description of weak-field gravity. Newton's shell theorem is among the easiest of consequences of physics theories to derive and taught at the beginning of every would-be physicists' career.
I agree, too, with Eminent Scientists Dr. Einstein, Borhl, Bauer, but if they were alive today I dont think they woud advise us to stop thinking because what they have spoken is final.
jsaldea12
5.21.09
jsaldea12
5.21.09
QUOTE (jsaldea12+May 20 2009, 05:55 PM)
I agree, too, with Eminent Scientists Dr. Einstein, Borhl, Bauer, but if they were alive today I dont think they woud advise us to stop thinking because what they have spoken is final.
jsaldea12
5.21.09
They would advise you to learn something about the subject you're thinking about.
jsaldea12
5.21.09
They would advise you to learn something about the subject you're thinking about.
Just a few hints to the many subjects raised.
- Vacuum can store energy. For instance light emitted one billion year ago by a star that doesn't exist any more when we see it.
- The smaller (or better said, the more confined) the objects, the more energy they have.
- E = mc^2 holds for any kind of energy. Chemical as well. So mass difference is not "the nature" of nuclear energy; mass difference just gets significant and computationally usable there because energy is more concentrated in nuclear reactions.
- Nuclear energy is released either because of strong force when fusing to small nuclei, or because of electrostatic repulsion when splitting a big nucleus.
- Vacuum can store energy. For instance light emitted one billion year ago by a star that doesn't exist any more when we see it.
- The smaller (or better said, the more confined) the objects, the more energy they have.
- E = mc^2 holds for any kind of energy. Chemical as well. So mass difference is not "the nature" of nuclear energy; mass difference just gets significant and computationally usable there because energy is more concentrated in nuclear reactions.
- Nuclear energy is released either because of strong force when fusing to small nuclei, or because of electrostatic repulsion when splitting a big nucleus.
I conform. though something is new about vacuum storing energy. But it is true.
jsaldea12
5.22.09
If atom is 99.999999999999% space, where does nuclear explosion get its tremendous release of energy, 1 - 50 million times up greater than conventional explosion?
jsaldea12
6.3.09
QUOTE (jsaldea12+Jun 2 2009, 04:53 PM)
If atom is 99.999999999999% space, where does nuclear explosion get its tremendous release of energy, 1 - 50 million times up greater than conventional explosion?
jsaldea12
6.3.09
E=mc^2
jsaldea12
6.3.09
E=mc^2
Hi, Newbie & AlexG
E = MC2 refers to energy release. But where does the energy comes from before release, since atom is almost perfectly vacuum/space. Formerly it was thought to come from nucleus, now, it is found that nucleus is hollow and inside are quarks, but quarks can be hollow too!!. Thus, where does the energy come from before release?
Jsaldea12
6.3.09
E = MC2 refers to energy release. But where does the energy comes from before release, since atom is almost perfectly vacuum/space. Formerly it was thought to come from nucleus, now, it is found that nucleus is hollow and inside are quarks, but quarks can be hollow too!!. Thus, where does the energy come from before release?
Jsaldea12
6.3.09
QUOTE
Formerly it was thought to come from nucleus, now, it is found that nucleus is hollow and inside are quarks, but quarks can be hollow too!!.
The nucleus is not 'hollow'. The mass of a proton is 1.6726 x 10-24 grams. The mass of a neutron is 1.6755 × 10-24 grams.
Learn some elementary physics.
QUOTE (jsaldea12+Jun 3 2009, 12:32 AM)
Hi, Newbie & AlexG
E = MC2 refers to energy release. But where does the energy comes from before release, since atom is almost perfectly vacuum/space. Formerly it was thought to come from nucleus, now, it is found that nucleus is hollow and inside are quarks, but quarks can be hollow too!!. Thus, where does the energy come from before release?
Jsaldea12
6.3.09
I'm not a physicist by any means, im just completing my final year of HS physics right now.
Maybe i am thinking incorrectly about what you are asking, but does the law of Conservation of Energy help you?
I do not know if my below statements are correct, but from what i have learned this is what i have concluded (any corrections are greatly appreciated! I am just a student after all
) :
Energy in = Energy out ,
Where does this energy come from? The energy that was put into it during its formation. It may be "spacious" as you state, but based on the reactions in the sun for example, it seems to require tremendous energy to change from one atom to another.
I can only imagine as things become more confined, they would continue to require more and more energy to be created? (offtopic: Just a thought why fundamental particles may have been created in the hot early universe, and later as things cooled down they formed larger particles?)
E = MC2 refers to energy release. But where does the energy comes from before release, since atom is almost perfectly vacuum/space. Formerly it was thought to come from nucleus, now, it is found that nucleus is hollow and inside are quarks, but quarks can be hollow too!!. Thus, where does the energy come from before release?
Jsaldea12
6.3.09
I'm not a physicist by any means, im just completing my final year of HS physics right now.
Maybe i am thinking incorrectly about what you are asking, but does the law of Conservation of Energy help you?
I do not know if my below statements are correct, but from what i have learned this is what i have concluded (any corrections are greatly appreciated! I am just a student after all
) :Energy in = Energy out ,
Where does this energy come from? The energy that was put into it during its formation. It may be "spacious" as you state, but based on the reactions in the sun for example, it seems to require tremendous energy to change from one atom to another.
I can only imagine as things become more confined, they would continue to require more and more energy to be created? (offtopic: Just a thought why fundamental particles may have been created in the hot early universe, and later as things cooled down they formed larger particles?)
Let me continue: Do you know how Big Bang originated? From small size, smaller than PROTON, it unimaginably exploded/expanded/RELEASED BY ITSELF into the whole universe. Now do we know where the energy, better is mass, comes from inside, and inside the nucleus of atom?. Is not such nuclear release from nucleus of atom, fusion or fission, a replica, a reminder of how Big Bang came into being? That such nuclear release from atom can expanded by ITSELF, unimaginably just like Big Bang,. Otherwise how can you account for such extremely, extremely micro-atom which is 99.999999999999% SPACE to produce such several million times greater energy release than conventional energy release.
Jsaldea12
6.3.09
Jsaldea12
6.3.09
Do we know the implication? Big Bang is true.
jsaldea12
6.3.09
Let me continue: Do you know how Big Bang originated? From small size, smaller than PROTON, it unimaginably exploded/expanded/RELEASED BY ITSELF into the whole universe. Now do we know where the energy, better is mass, comes from inside, and inside the nucleus of atom?. Is not such nuclear release from nucleus of atom, fusion or fission, a replica, a reminder of how Big Bang came into being? That such nuclear release from atom can expanded by ITSELF, unimaginably just like Big Bang,. Otherwise how can you account for such extremely, extremely micro-atom which is 99.999999999999% SPACE to produce such several million times greater energy release than conventional energy release. The implication: Big Bang is true.
Jsaldea12
6.3.09
Jsaldea12
6.3.09
QUOTE
Is not such nuclear release from nucleus of atom, fusion or fission, a replica, a reminder of how Big Bang came into being?
Nope, not even similar.
Is there a reason you don't learn any physics, or is it a matter of principle? You can't be a crank if you actually know something about the subject?
Do you agree that atom is 99.999999999999% space? This is not my opinion. Ask the many reputable scientists of the world. Thus, atom is that hollow, the nucleus, the proton, the neutron, electron, and even the quarks, proportionately,is that hollow. If the most fundamental quark is that hollow, proportionately, 99.999999999999%, ..... where would its mass, of .000000000001 get all the tremendous nuclear release of 1 million to 50 million energy release more than conventional release? What if, logically, a more powerful accelerator will detect a much smaller fundamental particle inside the 99.8999999999999% hollow quark. Thus, the unimaginable nuclear release from nucleus of atom, release in itself, expanding in itself, is a reminder of the Big Bang, the biggest release in itself, expanding in itself UNLIMITEDLY, with nothing added, nothing lessen.
jsaldea12
6.3.09
I,m not guest. I am just the same. Regards.
jsaldea12
6.3.09
QUOTE (jsaldea12+Jun 3 2009, 02:01 AM)
Otherwise how can you account for such extremely, extremely micro-atom which is 99.999999999999% SPACE to produce such several million times greater energy release than conventional energy release.
Jsaldea12
6.3.09
I do not understand?
Energy in < Energy out is what you are claiming?
I am (perhaps incorrectly) still thinking it takes that tremendous energy to make these particles (possibly originating from energy transforming into mass in the early universe?). However this is just a guess, if anyone that knows this stuff well, could they explain this concept to me? I'd appreciate it because i am interested in this, just lacking the formal education to go with it.
Jsaldea12
6.3.09
I do not understand?
Energy in < Energy out is what you are claiming?
I am (perhaps incorrectly) still thinking it takes that tremendous energy to make these particles (possibly originating from energy transforming into mass in the early universe?). However this is just a guess, if anyone that knows this stuff well, could they explain this concept to me? I'd appreciate it because i am interested in this, just lacking the formal education to go with it.
QUOTE (Guest+Jun 3 2009, 07:48 AM)
Thus, atom is that hollow, the nucleus, the proton, the neutron, electron, and even the quarks, proportionately,is that hollow.
Wrong.
It does not follow that the nucleus or it's constituants are are 'hollow'. It does mean that the mass of the atom is concentrated in a very small area.
Wrong.
It does not follow that the nucleus or it's constituants are are 'hollow'. It does mean that the mass of the atom is concentrated in a very small area.
Energy in = energy out? But Whoever puts the "concentrated" energy or mass inside the atom, particularly the quarks, with unimaginable nuclear energy release is beyond comprehension, Is there Scientist who can explain this?
Jsaldea12
6.4.09
.
Jsaldea12
6.4.09
.
QUOTE (jsaldea12+Jun 3 2009, 05:09 PM)
Energy in = energy out? But Whoever puts the "concentrated" energy or mass inside the atom, particularly the quarks, with unimaginable nuclear energy release is beyond comprehension, Is there Scientist who can explain this?
Jsaldea12
6.4.09
.
I am just guessing at this:
Maybe these quarks were formed in the early much more confined universe, where greater energy was in smaller space? It may seem beyond comprehension, but i do not know of another means where there would be enough energy to create this mass?
Law of conservation of energy is a basic law this universe is governed by (i do not know of any exceptions at this point, but please feel free to let me know
, i don't mind learning something new). So we must base our explanations upon this basic principle.
I do not know if i can explain this in mathematical terms, as i have not been taught how this law was derived from. Only that it is, and it makes sense to abide by it.
Jsaldea12
6.4.09
.
I am just guessing at this:
Maybe these quarks were formed in the early much more confined universe, where greater energy was in smaller space? It may seem beyond comprehension, but i do not know of another means where there would be enough energy to create this mass?
Law of conservation of energy is a basic law this universe is governed by (i do not know of any exceptions at this point, but please feel free to let me know
, i don't mind learning something new). So we must base our explanations upon this basic principle. I do not know if i can explain this in mathematical terms, as i have not been taught how this law was derived from. Only that it is, and it makes sense to abide by it.
All matters, re-all fundamental particles of matters, are traceable to Big Bang. Though symmetries changed since then, the basic elements of matters, re-the fundamental particles re-grouped, re-asserted, re-assert (unexplainable why, but it must be pre- Design) their existence inside the atoms as are today. In that atom, particularly, the most fundamental quarks is the replica/ heritage of Big Bang, that its awesome nuclear release is imitation of the biggest nuclear energy release of mother Big Bang, expanding incredibly by itself, releasing unimaginable energy by itself but no energy is added nor diminished, in keeping with the law of conservation. (see also posted “Grand Unified Theory”).
Jsaldea12
6.4.09
... .. .
Jsaldea12
6.4.09
... .. .
The Big Bang was not a nuclear event.
You really don't know crap about physics, do you?
You really don't know crap about physics, do you?
QUOTE (jsaldea12+Jun 4 2009, 04:48 AM)
All matters, re-all fundamental particles of matters, are traceable to Big Bang. Though symmetries changed since then, the basic elements of matters, re-the fundamental particles re-grouped, re-asserted, re-assert (unexplainable why, but it must be pre- Design) their existence inside the atoms as are today. In that atom, particularly, the most fundamental quarks is the replica/ heritage of Big Bang, that its awesome nuclear release is imitation of the biggest nuclear energy release of mother Big Bang, expanding incredibly by itself, releasing unimaginable energy by itself but no energy is added nor diminished, in keeping with the law of conservation. (see also posted “Grand Unified Theory”).
Jsaldea12
6.4.09
... .. .
In order to be nuclear, wouldn't that require a pre-existent particle to be split? It does not make sense that the big bang could be related to a nuclear explosion (which comes farther down the line).
Its like saying you are comparing some 2009 sports car to some late 1800's motor. The nuclear explosions would have come after the formation of particles, the big bang just cannot be related.
I am not with enough education to be able to explain these concepts to you with any credibility, as im just grasping them myself. However i would suggest buying at the very least a Stephen Hawking book that can explain some of the concepts more simply.
(unrelated offtopic: awards night earlier tonight at school, got top in grade 12 for physics )
Jsaldea12
6.4.09
... .. .
In order to be nuclear, wouldn't that require a pre-existent particle to be split? It does not make sense that the big bang could be related to a nuclear explosion (which comes farther down the line).
Its like saying you are comparing some 2009 sports car to some late 1800's motor. The nuclear explosions would have come after the formation of particles, the big bang just cannot be related.
I am not with enough education to be able to explain these concepts to you with any credibility, as im just grasping them myself. However i would suggest buying at the very least a Stephen Hawking book that can explain some of the concepts more simply.
(unrelated offtopic: awards night earlier tonight at school, got top in grade 12 for physics
)
QUOTE (Michael J+Jun 4 2009, 12:33 AM)
(unrelated offtopic: awards night earlier tonight at school, got top in grade 12 for physics )
Congrats! I tell you with absolute assurance that your ability to apply critical thinking skills has a lot to do with that.
) Congrats! I tell you with absolute assurance that your ability to apply critical thinking skills has a lot to do with that.
Big Bang was nuclear fission at the moment of explosion, everything pre-existing in that super-super-super etc., etc, bottleneck proton-sized Big Bang was split up, when it expanded and cooling nuclear fusion set in, fusing what was split up, the fusion from hydrogen, to helium, to heavier elements of TODAY have been used as the basis , by more reputable and knowledgeable scientists as the SAME fusion during the making of the universe: as it was before, so it is now, Law of Conservation....
Although my intuition begs to differ, as evidenced in every atom, a replica/reminder of Big Bang, could it be possible that there could be many Big Bangs, by galaxies? As evidenced by uneven blackbody afterglows mapped in outer space? .
Jsaldea12
6.4.09..
.
.
Although my intuition begs to differ, as evidenced in every atom, a replica/reminder of Big Bang, could it be possible that there could be many Big Bangs, by galaxies? As evidenced by uneven blackbody afterglows mapped in outer space? .
Jsaldea12
6.4.09..
.
.
After a ton of criticisms, it’s refreshing to know there is someone who appreciates....
Jsaldea12
6.4.09
Jsaldea12
6.4.09
Big Bang was nuclear fission at the moment of explosion, everything pre-existing in that super-super-super etc., etc, bottleneck proton-sized Big Bang was split up, when it expanded and cooling nuclear fusion set in, fusing what was split up, the fusion from hydrogen, to helium, to heavier elements of TODAY have been used as the basis , by more reputable and knowledgeable scientists as the SAME fusion during the making of the universe: as it was before, so it is now, Law of Conservation....
Although my intuition begs to differ, as evidenced in every atom, a replica/reminder of Big Bang, could it be possible, only, that there could be many Big Bangs, by galaxies? As evidenced by uneven blackbody afterglows mapped in outer space? .
Jsaldea12
6.4.09..
.
Although my intuition begs to differ, as evidenced in every atom, a replica/reminder of Big Bang, could it be possible, only, that there could be many Big Bangs, by galaxies? As evidenced by uneven blackbody afterglows mapped in outer space? .
Jsaldea12
6.4.09..
.
QUOTE
Big Bang was nuclear fission at the moment of explosion
No, it wasn't'. There were no nuclei to either fuse or fission. Nuclei did not form until about 3 seconds into the Big Bang, and then there was only Hydrogen, Helium Lithium and some Beryllium
Your ignorance of physics and cosmology appears pretty close to total.
Think, original, for a moment: This whole universe, the billions of galaxies, trillions of stars, and quadrillions of planets, all, compressed into that proton-size Big Bang before it exploded into the biggest nuclear explosion of all time, in that proton size, all of the universe! Think for a moment, how can that be.. In that proton-size Big Bang before it exploded is SINGULARITY, everything is ONE perfectly compressed unlimitedly inside that proton-liked: Big Bang, re- hydrogen, helium, etc. NUCLEI, EVERYTHING IS SINGULARITY that exploded by itself, expanded by itself UNLIMITEDLY, that even now, the universe is observed expanding by itself, nothing added, nothing diminished. Reiterating, present nuclear explosion, originating from the innermost fundamental quark, which is 99.999999999999% vacuum is very uncannily a replica , a reminder of Big Bang, such mind-boggling nuclear explosion, 100 million times greater, more or less, than conventional explosion, a release by itself, expanding by itself, imitating, a reminder, of mother Big Bang.. In short, nuclear explosion is one evidence that Big Bang did occurred.
Jsaldea12
6.5.09
Jsaldea12
6.5.09
QUOTE
Think, original, for a moment:
Learn some actual physics instead of making it up.
QUOTE (jsaldea12+Jun 4 2009, 10:24 PM)
Think, original, for a moment: This whole universe, the billions of galaxies, trillions of stars, and quadrillions of planets, all, compressed into that proton-size Big Bang before it exploded into the biggest nuclear explosion of all time, in that proton size, all of the universe! Think for a moment, how can that be.. In that proton-size Big Bang before it exploded is SINGULARITY, everything is ONE perfectly compressed unlimitedly inside that proton-liked: Big Bang, re- hydrogen, helium, etc. NUCLEI, EVERYTHING IS SINGULARITY that exploded by itself, expanded by itself UNLIMITEDLY, that even now, the universe is observed expanding by itself, nothing added, nothing diminished. Reiterating, present nuclear explosion, originating from the innermost fundamental quark, which is 99.999999999999% vacuum is very uncannily a replica , a reminder of Big Bang, such mind-boggling nuclear explosion, 100 million times greater, more or less, than conventional explosion, a release by itself, expanding by itself, imitating, a reminder, of mother Big Bang.. In short, nuclear explosion is one evidence that Big Bang did occurred.
Jsaldea12
6.5.09
From what i have read, and how i interpreted my Hawking book (AlexG please do correct me, i don't want to be educating myself with incorrect information!) :
1) Nothing was compressed or however you wish to picture it except energy. These galaxies were not just pre-existent and squished up.
2) Mass came after the big bang.
3) Galaxies formed due to irregularities in the density of space, so mass bunched up there and eventually formed galaxies. (?)
4) You just do not seem to understand... Please do read a book, or at least
wikipedia. You are embarrassing yourself with these crazy nonsense posts.
edit:
It is clear that he has an even lesser understanding of physics than a highschool student (ie: me), so i shall cease my attempts to reason and apply basic logic with him... At least i am attempting to learn, and choose to accept my mistakes as errors, and move on.
Jsaldea12
6.5.09
From what i have read, and how i interpreted my Hawking book (AlexG please do correct me, i don't want to be educating myself with incorrect information!) :
1) Nothing was compressed or however you wish to picture it except energy. These galaxies were not just pre-existent and squished up.
2) Mass came after the big bang.
3) Galaxies formed due to irregularities in the density of space, so mass bunched up there and eventually formed galaxies. (?)
4) You just do not seem to understand... Please do read a book, or at least
wikipedia. You are embarrassing yourself with these crazy nonsense posts.
edit:
It is clear that he has an even lesser understanding of physics than a highschool student (ie: me), so i shall cease my attempts to reason and apply basic logic with him... At least i am attempting to learn, and choose to accept my mistakes as errors, and move on.
When I read what you had to say about the space I thought that couldn't be right. When I think of how much empty space exists within something, I think of density. If the nucleus had that high % of empty space then it would not have densities as high as found here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_density
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_density
Energy and mass are one, convertible, equivalence, according to Dr. Einstein, I agree. Reiterating, everything, hydrogen, helium, all elements were there, call it energy or mass, all were compressed, the most unlimited compressed in that proton-sized
Big Bang otherwise there would have not BIGGEST nuclear release, It is pre-Designed before explosion, and pre-Arranged after Big Bang, the uncanny arrangement inside atom, the setting of electrons, the protons, the quarks, pre-Arranged, who pre-arranged, WHY? as if following and obeying a governing Law, with INSCRUTIBLE LIVING INTELLIGENCE Behind. Can anyone explain why such PERFECT set-up/arrangement of atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks inside the atoms.?. Unless a scientist has reached that point that he can say honestly that he knows nothing, like Socrates, like Newton, then he has yet “arrived”. But I am sure Eminent Scientist, Dr. Stephen Hawkings has “arrived”. You will, too.
Jsaldea12
6.5.09...
Big Bang otherwise there would have not BIGGEST nuclear release, It is pre-Designed before explosion, and pre-Arranged after Big Bang, the uncanny arrangement inside atom, the setting of electrons, the protons, the quarks, pre-Arranged, who pre-arranged, WHY? as if following and obeying a governing Law, with INSCRUTIBLE LIVING INTELLIGENCE Behind. Can anyone explain why such PERFECT set-up/arrangement of atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks inside the atoms.?. Unless a scientist has reached that point that he can say honestly that he knows nothing, like Socrates, like Newton, then he has yet “arrived”. But I am sure Eminent Scientist, Dr. Stephen Hawkings has “arrived”. You will, too.
Jsaldea12
6.5.09...
An ugly mix of scientific ignorance with religion.
All my explanations are scientific but up to humanly limit, so let me reiterate
my scientific explanations:
1.That Big Bang originated from a size smaller than a proton? Completely dense, all matters,, atoms, electrons, neurons, protons, quarks, nuclei, all there in singularity, as one.
2.That from such origin proton-sized, Big Bang exploded, the biggest nuclear explosion of all times., that expanded UNLIMITEDLY by itself, that even up to now the universe is still expanding, nothing added, nothing lessened. Just expanding by itself.
3 That from the origin proton-sized of Big Bang sprung all the matters, re- electrons, protons, etc, all, all the structures, re- the stars, the galaxies, planets, etc. of the universe. all came from Big Bang, nothing is destroyed nor lost, though symmetries changed, in keeping with the law of conservation.
4.Do you believe that atom is 99.999999999999% space, that the electrons, the neutrons, protons, quarks are that vacuum?
5.Do you believe that the present nuclear explosion, originating from the 99.9999999999% vacuumed nucleus of atom, especially, the innermost quarks, is incredibly 100 million times, more or less, greater than convention explosion?. That such is unimaginable enormous nuclear release by itself, expanding by itself, nothing added, nothing lessened, uncannily imitating just like the mother Big Bang.
6.That the present nuclear explosion is actually a replica/an imitation of mother Big Bang, that, in short, the nuclear explosion is one evidence that Big Bang did occur.. .
Would appreciate, from both, answers to all the questions, especially No 6.
.
Jsaldea12
6.5.09
.
my scientific explanations:
1.That Big Bang originated from a size smaller than a proton? Completely dense, all matters,, atoms, electrons, neurons, protons, quarks, nuclei, all there in singularity, as one.
2.That from such origin proton-sized, Big Bang exploded, the biggest nuclear explosion of all times., that expanded UNLIMITEDLY by itself, that even up to now the universe is still expanding, nothing added, nothing lessened. Just expanding by itself.
3 That from the origin proton-sized of Big Bang sprung all the matters, re- electrons, protons, etc, all, all the structures, re- the stars, the galaxies, planets, etc. of the universe. all came from Big Bang, nothing is destroyed nor lost, though symmetries changed, in keeping with the law of conservation.
4.Do you believe that atom is 99.999999999999% space, that the electrons, the neutrons, protons, quarks are that vacuum?
5.Do you believe that the present nuclear explosion, originating from the 99.9999999999% vacuumed nucleus of atom, especially, the innermost quarks, is incredibly 100 million times, more or less, greater than convention explosion?. That such is unimaginable enormous nuclear release by itself, expanding by itself, nothing added, nothing lessened, uncannily imitating just like the mother Big Bang.
6.That the present nuclear explosion is actually a replica/an imitation of mother Big Bang, that, in short, the nuclear explosion is one evidence that Big Bang did occur.. .
Would appreciate, from both, answers to all the questions, especially No 6.
.
Jsaldea12
6.5.09
.
QUOTE
1.That Big Bang originated from a size smaller than a proton? Completely dense, all matters,, atoms, electrons, neurons, protons, quarks, nuclei, all there in singularity, as one.
Bad way of putting it but yes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1.That Big Bang originated from a size smaller than a proton? Completely dense, all matters,, atoms, electrons, neurons, protons, quarks, nuclei, all there in singularity, as one. |
Bad way of putting it but yes.
2.That from such origin proton-sized, Big Bang exploded, the biggest nuclear explosion of all times., that expanded UNLIMITEDLY by itself, that even up to now the universe is still expanding, nothing added, nothing lessened. Just expanding by itself.
Well, with nothing to stop it from expanding of course it will keep on expanding.
QUOTE
3 That from the origin proton-sized of Big Bang sprung all the matters, re- electrons, protons, etc, all, all the structures, re- the stars, the galaxies, planets, etc. of the universe. all came from Big Bang, nothing is destroyed nor lost, though symmetries changed, in keeping with the law of conservation.
Maybe this will help.
http://www.crystalinks.com/bigbang2.jpg
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3 That from the origin proton-sized of Big Bang sprung all the matters, re- electrons, protons, etc, all, all the structures, re- the stars, the galaxies, planets, etc. of the universe. all came from Big Bang, nothing is destroyed nor lost, though symmetries changed, in keeping with the law of conservation. |
Maybe this will help.
http://www.crystalinks.com/bigbang2.jpg
4.Do you believe that atom is 99.999999999999% space, that the electrons, the neutrons, protons, quarks are that vacuum?
Such a space is an exaggeration of the space that exists within the atom not to be confused with the atoms nucleus. It refers to the space around electrons within the atom and the space between electrons as well as between electrons and the nucleus.
QUOTE
5.Do you believe that the present nuclear explosion, originating from the 99.9999999999% vacuumed nucleus of atom, especially, the innermost quarks, is incredibly 100 million times, more or less, greater than convention explosion?. That such is unimaginable enormous nuclear release by itself, expanding by itself, nothing added, nothing lessened, uncannily imitating just like the mother Big Bang.
Even if it were true, that the elementary particles are almost nothing but space you also claimed that all the fundamental particles were jam packed together. If all the particles were jam packed together then suddenly released, with nothing to hold it all back then it would have no problem expanding.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 5.Do you believe that the present nuclear explosion, originating from the 99.9999999999% vacuumed nucleus of atom, especially, the innermost quarks, is incredibly 100 million times, more or less, greater than convention explosion?. That such is unimaginable enormous nuclear release by itself, expanding by itself, nothing added, nothing lessened, uncannily imitating just like the mother Big Bang. |
Even if it were true, that the elementary particles are almost nothing but space you also claimed that all the fundamental particles were jam packed together. If all the particles were jam packed together then suddenly released, with nothing to hold it all back then it would have no problem expanding.
6.That the present nuclear explosion is actually a replica/an imitation of mother Big Bang, that, in short, the nuclear explosion is one evidence that Big Bang did occur.. .
The big bang would be more like a super nova than a fission explosion. Comparing the big bang to a nuclear bomb is like comparing the detonation of tons of high explosives to the burning of a 1 cm square piece of paper.
“Bad way of putting it but yes”…why bad?.... my intuition is also saying bad way of putting it but yes.. This is the way Big Bang is conceived by many prominent scientists, (that it contains the whole universe?). Maybe it could be, ONLY, by galaxies big bangs, as evidenced by many, rather, by all atoms having a big bang replicas. Cannot argue with formidable scientific community. But there is no question Big Bang did occur, and it appears uncannily all nuclear release, supernovas, sun, stars fusions/fissions are evidenced just how Big Bang originated. Big Bang is still here, happening right now! As you mentioned supernova, …also black hole, neutron star are potential. But one of the most telling evidence, within our very nose and eyes, (other than the CMBR detected in all outer space and red-shifting of all galaxies) is the human-made nuclear bomb right here on earth with incredible release of energy, uncannily imitating Big Bang, unearthly, a reminder of Big Bang..
So, you say the space of 99.999999999999% inside the atom is exaggerated. That is the whole scientific community exhaustive investigations. .It appears that if quarks are pierced by more powerful accelerators, it would still be that hollow , no mass, could be pure energy. Anyway, Dr. Einstein is far advanced, his convertible E=MC2. applicable before and after Big Bang..So incredible, so unlimitless inflating from proton-sized energy/mass Big Bang to make up the whole universe. Everything was contained in that incomprehensible bottomless pre-existing original proton-sized Big Bang before its release.. Who can conceived this? Just like the replicas nuclear energy stored, snoring deep in shells within shells inside atoms?
Jsaldea12
6.6.09
So, you say the space of 99.999999999999% inside the atom is exaggerated. That is the whole scientific community exhaustive investigations. .It appears that if quarks are pierced by more powerful accelerators, it would still be that hollow , no mass, could be pure energy. Anyway, Dr. Einstein is far advanced, his convertible E=MC2. applicable before and after Big Bang..So incredible, so unlimitless inflating from proton-sized energy/mass Big Bang to make up the whole universe. Everything was contained in that incomprehensible bottomless pre-existing original proton-sized Big Bang before its release.. Who can conceived this? Just like the replicas nuclear energy stored, snoring deep in shells within shells inside atoms?
Jsaldea12
6.6.09
I disagree with H2O on one thing...
Comparing the Big Bang to a nuclear bomb is not like comparing tons of explosives to burning a small piece of paper.
It's like comparing a supernova to burning a small piece of paper. In fact, I think I am understating the matter quite a bit even at that.
Other than that, it was fine.
Comparing the Big Bang to a nuclear bomb is not like comparing tons of explosives to burning a small piece of paper.
It's like comparing a supernova to burning a small piece of paper. In fact, I think I am understating the matter quite a bit even at that.
Other than that, it was fine.
Well.. for one thing the mass would be substantially different.
In the GR understanding of black holes, an electron-mass black hole may not have angular momentum as high as that of an electron and still have an event horizon.
QUOTE
I disagree with H2O on one thing...
Comparing the Big Bang to a nuclear bomb is not like comparing tons of explosives to burning a small piece of paper.
It's like comparing a supernova to burning a small piece of paper. In fact, I think I am understating the matter quite a bit even at that.
Other than that, it was fine.
Comparing the Big Bang to a nuclear bomb is not like comparing tons of explosives to burning a small piece of paper.
It's like comparing a supernova to burning a small piece of paper. In fact, I think I am understating the matter quite a bit even at that.
Other than that, it was fine.
Yeah it was definitely a major underestimation on my part. I thought of going with a supernova but I wanted to compare a chemical reaction with another chemical reaction. However the big bang would be a nuclear explosion of a kind all its own so comparing a large nuclear reaction with a small chemical reaction would be the more accurate.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I disagree with H2O on one thing... Comparing the Big Bang to a nuclear bomb is not like comparing tons of explosives to burning a small piece of paper. It's like comparing a supernova to burning a small piece of paper. In fact, I think I am understating the matter quite a bit even at that. Other than that, it was fine. |
Yeah it was definitely a major underestimation on my part. I thought of going with a supernova but I wanted to compare a chemical reaction with another chemical reaction. However the big bang would be a nuclear explosion of a kind all its own so comparing a large nuclear reaction with a small chemical reaction would be the more accurate.
“Bad way of putting it but yes”…why bad?.... my intuition is also saying bad way of putting it but yes.. This is the way Big Bang is conceived by many prominent scientists, (that it contains the whole universe?).
The reason it's a bad way of putting it is because it gives the impression that all the bodies that exist in the universe existed at the very beginning all bundled up. It would be a description that could be compared to air being compressed into a small container. That the air (existing molecules) was simply compressed but still existed (as existing molecules). However it wasn't the case. All that exists today formed over billions of years as the universe cooled from a plasma state. However cooling refers to the removal of heat and heat is energy. However that energy simply couldn't disappear from the universe and it didn't. The universe simply expanded. As the universe expands the amount of energy per unit volume of space decreases. This results in the universe cooling while the total amount of energy remains unchanged (which I think has to do with thermodynamics in that energy can not be created nor destroyed).
Expanding, all nuclear processes inside the sun, stars, supernova, and man-made nuclear reactors, and nuclear bombs appear very strongly reminder, replicas of the NUCLEAR Big Bang(although too, too, incredulous). But the beauty is examining inside the atom.
Let me continue: If nucleus is 99.999999999999% space, more fundamental quarks inside that nucleus is that space, too.! Ad if there is a more fundamental smaller particles inside the quark, that smaller fundamental particle would be that space too. That is why there is conceived “superstring” at the bottom of everything, , but it appears that at the bottom is undescribable pure energy, INFINITE, that can expands by itself, inflates by itself infinitely, as evidenced by Big Bang, its efficiency could be 100%. or MORE.
Man-made nuclear bomb is a replica, a reminder of that Big Bang,. ,A modern nuclear bomb, weighing GROSS weight of 1,000 kilograms (the shell weight could be 80%, more or less), can produce a billion kilograms of TNT., yet its efficiency could be 20% more or LESS.in relation to E=MC2.. But all are the same nuclear, the exploding nuclear supernova brighter than the galaxy, , nuclear reactor inside the sun, man-made nuclear reactor, man-made bomb. WHERE WOULD ALL OF THESE GET NUCLEAR COMPONENT IF NOT INHERITED FROM ITS ORIGINAL SOURCE, THE BIG BANG, NOTHING IS LOST NOR DESTROYED, PER LAW OF ONSERVATION DICTATES, ..
Jsaldea12
6.12.09
Let me continue: If nucleus is 99.999999999999% space, more fundamental quarks inside that nucleus is that space, too.! Ad if there is a more fundamental smaller particles inside the quark, that smaller fundamental particle would be that space too. That is why there is conceived “superstring” at the bottom of everything, , but it appears that at the bottom is undescribable pure energy, INFINITE, that can expands by itself, inflates by itself infinitely, as evidenced by Big Bang, its efficiency could be 100%. or MORE.
Man-made nuclear bomb is a replica, a reminder of that Big Bang,. ,A modern nuclear bomb, weighing GROSS weight of 1,000 kilograms (the shell weight could be 80%, more or less), can produce a billion kilograms of TNT., yet its efficiency could be 20% more or LESS.in relation to E=MC2.. But all are the same nuclear, the exploding nuclear supernova brighter than the galaxy, , nuclear reactor inside the sun, man-made nuclear reactor, man-made bomb. WHERE WOULD ALL OF THESE GET NUCLEAR COMPONENT IF NOT INHERITED FROM ITS ORIGINAL SOURCE, THE BIG BANG, NOTHING IS LOST NOR DESTROYED, PER LAW OF ONSERVATION DICTATES, ..
Jsaldea12
6.12.09
Please stop saying 'big bang'.
Deeper intuition …that the same nuclear nucleus in galaxies and atoms, now simultaneously existing, inflating, implicates both have same source, same beginning: same one Big Bang. Regards.
Jsaldea12
616.09
Jsaldea12
616.09
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.