State of the Big Bang Theory - part 4

Woof!!! Now I need to go back and read your prior three postings!

Just amazing the time, money, uneneding mathmatical calculations, numerous if's,and's,and but's, highly technical machines and computers which takes thousands of intelligent designers to manufacture, develop, and implement...all trying to prove there is no intelligent supplier/Creator that formed these cosmological references, and the physical paramaters which rule the universe in which we live. It takes more Quantum Leaps of faith to accept the premise of non-matter into matter, life from non-life, and intelligence, all.....from nothing! (add into that equation speech and the emotion of love and the primordial soup people come up gasping for a spark to make a flame, to heat the soup!) Between paradigms, low i, non-gaussianities and constrained data(which BTW has been so stained and blended that they wish they had a tail..so they might chase it, but they do anyway)...maybe they could work in a little time to work on cures for disease, and other earthly maladies..for it is evident that the entity (read God) did give them some great grey matter, but they start with and assume the wrong premise Imprimus!

Sincerely, Mark Gwynn

Hi Mark,

"...all trying to prove there is no intelligent supplier/Creator that formed these cosmological references, and the physical paramaters which rule the universe in which we live."

Yes, this has occurred to me too.

"It takes more Quantum Leaps of faith to accept the premise of non-matter into matter, life from non-life, and intelligence, all.....from nothing!"

How true!

Regards,

S

"...'It takes more Quantum Leaps of faith to accept the premise of non-matter into matter, life from non-life, and intelligence, all.....from nothing!'...How true!..."

It is only fair and humble enough to assume that nature's rules, as we humbly observe, conceive and comply to, are there as a given fact of creation, not as a measuring rule to our faith, be it whatever.

Non matter into matter require no more faith than accepting that energy forms matter and vice versa, and "matter" can jump into being and out of it, simply by energy converting phases such as temperature and pressure.

Plasma state, is a classical example: Up the temperature goes and matter destroyed into a "particle soup". Down it goes, and nucleons trap each other and unbound electrons, and form atoms back into being.

Intelligence: I tend to suspect that the mere term and concept of intelligence, is made by intelligent beings for self assessment, meaning it's an anthropocentric. If you look at intelligence in biological terms, this is just an extreme consequence of nervous and sensory systems. There is no principle, qualitative difference between a fly's ganglion-type proto-brain and that of human's. The difference is only in the above mention term: "intelligence", which basically is of a quantitative nature, not qualitative.

Not by presence of signalling system (language), measuring (computation) and assessment systems (visualisation, or in human terms, "imagination") etc, etc.

We didn't even establish a common agreeable system to measure this quantity as such, because it has so many facets to be measured interchangeably, and on separate qualitative terms.

If only to add to this confusion, the more we try to formalise our notions of intelligence, in the fields of philosophy, psychology, and artificial intelligence, the more wee seem to go in circles, without real, tangible, advance forward.

I'm not here to proclaim or establish confusion, only to state the obvious: We don't know how nature works. All we can do is faithfully measure it's behaviour, for further assessment.

For me, it's a humbling lesson of pure curiosity.

There's an interesting nuance that's not being caught here (I'm just guessing)... When we talk about E=mc², It means that matter has actually disappeared and has been converted into electromagnetic radiation i.e., light. This typically happens within thermonuclear reactions fission/fusion.

If the temperature of matter is raised to a state where matter becomes a plasma, it has not been converted to energy, the matter itself is just at a higher energy state. Remember, plasma is called the "4th state" of matter.

Please don't morph me!!!!

"...Please don't morph me!!!!..."

Into plasma?

"...matter has actually disappeared and has been converted into electromagnetic radiation i.e., light. This typically happens within thermonuclear reactions fission/fusion..."

Right, only Fusion and Fission nuclear transmutation, merely converts some of the mass (the input/output difference) into energy, and the rest, the remaining mass, stays as matter.

This is how in the sun, H turns to He, then the C,N,O sequence, etc. In Fission, it's up the period table, splitting heavier element into lighter one, leaving the difference mass, converted to energy.

Plasma is, as you stated, matter destroyed by too much kinetic energy, far beyond the atom's inner-bounding forces of it's constituent particles, to hold each other into the form, or order-state (in entropy terms), we call "an atom".

Plasma is, as you stated, matter destroyed by too much kinetic energy, far beyond the atom's inner-bounding forces of it's constituent particles, to hold each other into the form, or order-state (in entropy terms), we call "an atom".

Well, I wouldn't say it's actually "destroyed." Yes, the original atoms are in a messed up state, several electrons have been stripped off. However, no mass is really being lost. If you scramble an egg, you still have an egg, although it's messed up. But the weight and mass are still there. Losing order is not losing mass. Now, if you were to cook your egg with, say, a ten megaton H-bomb, I'd bet some of the egg's mass would be gone.

Also, remember when matter and anti-matter come together, BLAM! No mass at all. Electron+positron=0+plus a couple of X-ray photons.

Here's a question for you... Of all the emoticons offered by this editor, who the heck would ever use this one?! <---I often wondered that. Shows how much time I have on my hands!

Right, in plasma, only atoms destroyed into a particle soup, no mass lost.

"...when matter and anti-matter come together, BLAM! No mass at all..."

The sum of mass there converted into energy, and matter is a form of energy, and back into matter: once allowed by suitable conditions (temperature, pressure, gravity) form subs, then particles, then atoms, then molecules (Up the entropy order scale).

is the "Darling..." emoticon, kinda eyelash-flapping, without the animation.

I kind of think that entropy does not have a real place to play within nuclear physics. Entropy is a more 19th century deal based in thermodynamics - the days of steam power discovery, and why certain pumps couldn't drain coal mines if they were deeper than 32 feet (whatever). It's probably a great tool when figuring out the AC for a new hotel.

However, particles (subatomic to atomic to molecular) seem to demonstrate predictable order and symmetry at all their levels. They pair up correctly or not, and tend to obey quantum mechanics very well, but it's all fairly predictable and orderly, although the order may be a bit more subtle.

No. Entropy was re-applied and stressed to all facets of nature in the fifties, by greats from quantum physics and chemistry to electronics and information theorists, from Feynman to Pauling to Von Neumann, to many others.

The old notion that thermodynamics applied only combution engine efficiency if pretty much over by now, I believe.

You have actual entropy considerations in chemistry on one hand all the way to cosmology and astro physics on the other hand, and information-theory and even cryptology in between.

Thermodynamics applied to all, in the sense that energy is nature's ability to change the state of objects and systems, as it deals with the terms and conditions in which potential energy is applied, distributed, acquired, converted, and spent, but not destroyed. This wide application is often misunderstood.

This would demonstrate it best I think: I was challenged to explain how is it that when helium is cooled, thus loosing energy (the person thought), may still contain residual kinetic energy as a liquid.

I tried to explain: cooling is not loosing energy, if anything it is investing potential energy, in changing it's temperature from the ambient, thus reducing it's entropy, all in accordance to the second law ("..."Cooling is not removing (or the subtraction of) energy. Cooling is merely directive heat-transfer. When you cool an object, you don't destroy it's heat, you merely transfer (or direct) it elsewhere......." Post #587 in reply to #566...").

Then I got: "...And what is cooling, the removal of heat, if not the removal of energy..." and "...how energy can be removed from liquid helium to the point where it is only fractionally above absolute..." So, I had to reply:

Then again, maybe you think that cooling the helium, is removing energy from it - in this case - quite the opposite:

You probably associate energy with heat as one.

Not uncommon until about the eighteenth century, with the abolishment of the "Flugiston" concept, and replacing this with the notion of universal energy, and later, in the nineteenth century, that of entropy, to define the hierarchy of order, to be changed with energy.

Energy, is the natural ability to change the state of objects.

Nothing to do with heat or cold, given this aspect, at least.

Heat, ("thermal") is a transformable, convertible, form of energy. Others are: Electromagnetic, Gravitational, Kinetic, Nuclear, etc.

- end of quote.

My point being: the old association of entropy with heat transfer is correct, but limited to the nineteenths century notions.

Well, kind of yes an no... Heat is like power, and temperature is like Voltage and density is like Amps (current).

You can have two things with the same temperature but with different amounts of heat. This is why when you open the oven you can touch the cake that's at 350° and it feels warm, but if you touch the cake pan at 350°, you'll leave your finger prints behind. Both are 350°, but the density of the pan is far higher than the cake mix, so it has more heat.

Temperature is simply a measurement of the kinetic energy each particle has (i.e., how fast it's vibrating or moving around). Both the cake mix and the pan have the same kinetic energy, but the amount of particles with high kinetic energy in the pan is far more than in the cake mix, which is why the pan leads you running for the burn-spray.

When something is cooled, you're simply transferring it's kinetic energy someplace else. This is why you can cool atoms with a laser. It's difficult, but you set up a device that constantly zaps atoms with light energy that is equal and opposite to the kinetic energy of the atom as it vibrates and moves around. When you slow down the atom, you're cooling it.

The idea of potential energy is slightly different. You're climbing across a mountain range one day, and you find a lake. As you look at it, you say to yourself "What a fine chunk of potential energy I've found!" Why, because you know that this lake is way above sea level and if you crack an opening in the lake you'll be able to use the lake's water dropping through the gravitational field of the Earth to spin turbines and create electricity.

Particles when they are hot tend to give off their kinetic energy as they cool. So a certain amount of energy is lost by the hot particles. On the other hand, particles that are very cold tend to heat up (gain kinetic energy). But this is only because we (human-kind) live in a sort of Luke-warm world. If we were all Lava-men, we'd think that water should always be a gas. And if we were Ice-men we'd believe that water should always be a solid. So entropy really depends on your prospective. It's only because we live in this Luke-warm world that we think that cold things MUST heat up. The potential energy is there only because of the raised temperature we exist in. Try your experiment in Siberia in the dead of winter, and see where your potential energy goes. It ain't there because it's 100° below zero, and your 20° below zero is hot by comparison.

Hail the silicon-base life-forms!!!

What a nice post. I couldn't put it nicer myself. I had to agree with all you said there.

See? I'm left speechless, and that's a lot!

Hi S, a very well done summary, as usual!

You wrote: "If we allow for a non-flat universe, then models with small negative spatial curvature (Ω_k) are a better fit than the power-law ΛCDM model."

As labored in reply #16 to your question in part 3, one should view "...small negative spatial curvature (Ω_k)" with caution. I think it means "negative spatial curvature density", which is the opposite of negative spatial curvature (i.e. positive spatial curvature), confusing as it may be!

I think they came up with Ω_tot as unity with a small statistical bias of being just larger than unity, which means a bias towards a closed universe with positive spatial curvature.

-J

Thanks Jorrie. Your comments in part 3 were very helpful, especially for the spacial curvature. I read the formulas in your book, but couldn't make the connection to the WMAP data. I'm glad to hear that it means bias towards positive curvature. I want the universe to be closed. That will make the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory work. I think it's the one that explains momentum.

Regards,

S

"I want the universe to be closed. That will make the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory work. I think it's the one that explains momentum."

Hello Standards Guy, The above statement, captured from your Thanks to the Jorrie reply, are the types of thinking that skew pure scientific events of experimentation. So wanting for this theory, or that theory to be true, so as to further back the premise they espouse, oft times leads them down a path of pure speculation and assumption. This in turn winds up in the hands of the masses, which results into dogma, and mantra and finds it's way into the text books of public education...all to the demise of pure scientific research, which is observable and repeatable. Anything less is an opinion, and in reality a religion unto itself.

Call these observations and speculations for what they are, not fact, not scientific, but an idea, a religion, a desire, a query into the unknown..but not text book factors for public educators.

Jeez! Lighten up, Francis!!!

Perhaps it just gives him the warm and fuzzies to think of a closed Universe. If it makes him sleep better at night, what's the harm?

"...thinking that skew pure scientific events of experimentation...and finds it's way into the text books of public education"

I'm not so important that my views or wants will change public text books. I am insulted if you are saying that cosmology is my religion. It certainly is not, but is an interest of mine. I found myself way behind in current theory in some former discussions, and so did some catch-up reading. I then decided to share what I had learned with CR4 readers. I don't really care which way the universe is. I only mentioned the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory because back in High school (or before) I told myself that if I ever heard a theory that explained momentum, it must be the correct one. Like so many others, I want to know how things work.

You seem to have made vermin hopping mad. It's OK vermin, I can sleep at night knowing God is watching over us.

Sorry about the misunderstanding. I was not pointing my discussion at you personally. As for the religion remark, what I was trying to say is that some, many, in the so called scientific realm have given over to theories and postulates to the point where they have need of the faith that most Christians do. Just like many cosmological, creation type questions arise as to the beginning of life as we know it, and like those who believe in God and the book he has rendered unto mankind, both need faith. No one has seen the beginning of the cosmos(if there was one) or the structure of how mankind came into being. So, both sides of the cosmological coin are being looked at. One side says creation, the other, evolution(the macro side of it). Both require faith.

Up to most recently the majority of mankind has understood, and taught in the halls of education, that God created and set in motion the physics that we see. Now, the shoe is on the other foot. The schools teach evolution as fact. They kicked God out back in the 60's. We can see the results of this shift in belief. Americas classrooms are full of nihilistic knuckleheads.Immorality is rampant. Shootings, drugs,etc, etc. Years ago chewing bubblegum in class was the big no no. Today teenage pregnancy and abortion are a common thing, even supported with our tax dollars. On and on I could go, but this is not really the forum for it. Please excuse me for what might seem a great deviation from the discussion, but the very foundations on which we stand are the ones that render our viewpoints of the cosmos.

What if God posted a reply to your post? Would you recognize it as God's?

That's a tough one. It may force the man to find who's who within himself...

Well...I probably should not reply to your silly retort...but...God already has replied...only it was several thousand years ago! I just need to make sure I read his word every day and all my questions will be answered!!! That probably sounds trite to those who have not taken the time to study and read the 66 books of God's word. They are timeless, full of the greatest prose, prospect, prediction and have NEVER failed to be correct in it's wisdom to man, or it's scientific foundation. In fact the bible is the foundation of science...take a look if you disagree!