FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Thoughts on a theory...





LittleBlackKitten
Just follow and trust me on this one...

If we were to take every item on the periodic table into one mass, would it even be stable? Wouldn't all the items interact so intensey, that it would be impossible to contain into one solid piece of material?
ocalhoun
Well, for one thing, some of the heaviest elements won't last very long anyway due to radioactive decay, so the stability of the whole construct will be limited by that.

There is also the problem of the noble gasses, and other elements that don't easily combine with anything else, like gold. Getting those elements into the construct would be very difficult, though it might be possible.

That said, I don't see any reason that it would theoretically impossible to combine them all into one huge molecule... But it would be very difficult... And why would you want to?
LittleBlackKitten
Because that right there disproves the big bag in it's entirety.....
ocalhoun
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
Because that right there disproves the big bag in it's entirety.....

At times near the big bang, there were no such things as molecules... or even atoms. Even the basic sub-atomic particles could not exist yet.

The basic chemical building blocks could not coalesce into their current forms under the heat and pressure they were experiencing then. The universe had to cool down quite a bit before things quieted down enough for relatively complex things like atoms could stay in a stable form.
(And even then, most of the atoms would be only hydrogen and some helium... Most of the heavier elements supposedly only came about after the first stars produced them by nuclear fusion.)
Indi
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
Because that right there disproves the big bag in it's entirety.....

^_^; Good grief.

Atomic nuclei didn't even form until several minutes after the Big Bang. Elements (in atomic form) didn't form until over 300,000 YEARS after the Big Bang, and that was only the really light ones like hydrogen and helium. The heavy elements didn't form until millions or billions or years after the Big Bang (and, some possibly never did, naturally).

Seriously, dude, if you want to disprove science, you should learn it first.
Dennise
An interesting thought experiment - yes.

Do you mean take all the protons from every element and put 'em in a small (very small) pile and do the same with all the neutrons and electrons from all the elements .... i.e. one tiny pile containing all the protons, neutrons and electrons from all the elements to make just one 'super element' ...... maybe call it super-giantium?

To restate some of what was said early in this thread:

- This would be very very hard and likely impossible to do
- It would very likely be unstable and very quickly fly apart

But such instability would very definitely NOT disprove the 'Big Bang' theory for reasons stated by ocalhoun, Indi et. al.
Bikerman
No it really isn't like that.
Imagine instead (and this analogy is not a huge amount better because you cannot draw satisfactory analogies, there being no common reference point)....but imagine instead that the nuclei (the protons) are so hot and bothered that they are shaking all over the place. The electrons are also so excited and hot and bothered that they are zooming all over the place. The electrons and the nucleii can't get together to form a proper atom because they are both way too excited and can't stay still long enough. The electrons are way to excited to stay in orbit even if the nucleus could calm down long enough to allow it. The electrons won't combine with each other and neither will the protons - still way too excited. So no super element and no new compound - just very excited protons and electrons zooming hither and thither like a 5 year old on Christmas morning...
If you want the name for this state of matter - it is plasma.
It takes thousands and thousands of years for the protons and electrons to calm down (cool down) sufficient to allow them to interact and form atoms.
At the first instant of the BB things are even more energetic - even the protons can't hold together long enough to form, so they form a different sort of plasma made out of the constituents of protons - quarks and gluons. So you have a soupy mix of these superenergetic sub-atomic particles right at the start. Then it cools enough to allow the quarks to combine (held by the gluons) into protons. Then you get to the second part above and wait another 350,0000 years or so until atoms form....


Now that itself is a massive simplification. The physics looks different - you have something called 'confinement' and 'symmetry breaking' but that is going to stretch me to explain and puzzle the hell out of you, so lets stick with the simple model above).
Radar
As far as ideas to try and disprove the Big Bang go, it's a creative one, but yes, quite clearly wrong.

I'm still intrigued by the idea of the giant mass of one of every element, simply for the sake of it. Hard, but interesting.
Indi
Not just hard - impossible. ^_^;

You see, as the nucleus gets bigger and bigger with more and more protons and neutrons, eventually it gets so big that the electrons orbiting around it smash into it, and blow the whole thing all to hell. (That's the old Rutherford model, of course, which is this →. In the modern quantum model, you have a case where the kinetic energy of the electron is still low enough when it is far enough into the potential well to be "inside" the nucleus, that the exclusion principle comes into play... or more simply, the electron smashes into the nucleus and blows it all to hell. ^_^;)

So you simply can't make an atom that big. Even if you could somehow increase the nuclear force to hold the nucleus together in the face of the repulsive electrostatic force between protons, once you throw the electrons into the mix, whammo, game over. You've got an atomic bomb (and what a mother of an A-bomb you'll have ^_^;).
LittleBlackKitten
So where did these chemicals come from, if they are the key to the big bang?
Bikerman
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
So where did these chemicals come from, if they are the key to the big bang?
They are not the key to the BB. The chemicals come after - resulting from fusion in the Suns which form.
LittleBlackKitten
But still, what put them there? You wanan belive these things came from absolutley nowhere, then exploded, made life possible, then evolved?...I'll take my chances with a creator who stuck it there and made it explode.
Bikerman
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
But still, what put them there? You wanan belive these things came from absolutley nowhere, then exploded, made life possible, then evolved?...I'll take my chances with a creator who stuck it there and made it explode.

Are you familiar with quantum virtual particle pair production? No? Probably best not to venture an opinion then.
First misconception - Nothing is not nothing. What is perceived as 'nothing' is in fact a seething mass of (virtual) particles popping in and out of existence - virtual electron/positron pairs for example. They quickly recombine to annihiliate and vanish in a puff of energy. This is happening all around, even in the deepest space.

Now, the question is how does that explain the whole universe?
Well, everyone knows that 1-1=0. Put another way 0 = +1 -1

So out of 'nothing' it is possible to produce +1 and -1. The key is that the things produced must cancel out to 0. In our universe we have matter and energy, we can call this +1. We also have the force of gravity. We can call this -1. Add them all together and you get nothing.

Why do I say that gravity is -1?

Imagine a little thought experiment.

You have a hollow sphere made of metal plates. The mass of the plates means that there is an amount of gravity outside the sphere. We can show using some simple maths that there is no gravity inside the sphere (it all cancels out). Now, winch the plates outwards so that the sphere becomes larger in radius. We have now put energy into the system (in the form of winching). What is the gravitational result? We still have the same gravitational attraction outside the sphere because the mass is still the same. We now have a bigger volume inside the sphere where there is no gravity.
Conclusion - +energy = -gravity.
So mass+energy-gravity=0
So, the total energy of the universe is zero. Problem solved.

(I must emphasise that I have greatly simplified this explanation and that this is just one hypothesis - there are many more. I have simply summarised this to show that common sense notions don't always guide us very well when looking at deep physics. Our common-sense is evolved from experience and it follows that those things outside our experience are unlikely to conform to notions of common-sense.)
LittleBlackKitten
A couple points.

The implication that you can gain anything from zero is false. Try that with an empty shopping bag; bring me +1 groceries and -1 air. Smile I will even pay for shipping...

Also, who winched the sphere to begin with? It won't do it by itself.

So now that we're making groceries appear from air in a bag and spheres winching themselves, the elements won't just exist for eternity - that's impossible. They HAD to have been put there somehow from something.

Those magically appearing groceries are now going to cook themselves and appear on my plate.
Bikerman
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
A couple points.

The implication that you can gain anything from zero is false. Try that with an empty shopping bag; bring me +1 groceries and -1 air. Smile I will even pay for shipping...
As I said, common sense is little use when looking at physics. The world doesn't behave the way your common sense tells you it does. Your empty shopping bag is already full of virtual protons, positrons, electrons and anti-protons. To arrange them into a piece of fruit would be very improbable, but what does probability matter when you can wait billions of years? Sooner or later remote possibility becomes near certainty, given sufficient time. Unfortunately, unless you have a few trillion years to waste, it is unlikely that I will be able to do a shopping trip anytime soon - even if you pay. What I can do is show you things popping out of nothing..
Quote:
Also, who winched the sphere to begin with? It won't do it by itself.
Anyone - a person, a machine. The point is not that the winch 'happens out of nothing' - the point is that this demonstrates that energy in = less gravity. You put energy in (however you want to do it) and the result is that you have less gravity overall. Therefore positive energy gives negative gravity.
Quote:
So now that we're making groceries appear from air in a bag and spheres winching themselves, the elements won't just exist for eternity - that's impossible. They HAD to have been put there somehow from something.
I love it when people tell me that something they know nothing about is impossible, it makes me smile. Smile

Read the passage again and see if you can understand what it is saying.

You might also find the following helpful
http://www.abarim-publications.com/QuantumFoam.html

But it is worth pointing out that a bit of humility is best when discussing this type of physics. Much of it is out of my reach, and I've been reading and studying for some time. To expect everything to be explained, without first doing a few years of maths so that you understand the actual questions, & physics so you understand the possible answers, is asking too much. You wouldn't expect a chemist to give you a complete and easy to understand account of organic chemistry, so why expect a complete and easy to understand answer to what is a very complex question in physics?

If you really want to analogise it to a bag of groceries then OK.
Each grocery item in your bag has mass. That means that it exerts a force of gravity on everything around it. When you add up the mass (energy is another term for mass, remember einstein? e=mc^2) of all the things in your bag, and the gravitational force that they produce, the sum is zero.
ocalhoun
Radar wrote:
As far as ideas to try and disprove the Big Bang go, it's a creative one, but yes, quite clearly wrong.

I'm still intrigued by the idea of the giant mass of one of every element, simply for the sake of it. Hard, but interesting.


Indi wrote:


So you simply can't make an atom that big. Even if you could somehow increase the nuclear force to hold the nucleus together in the face of the repulsive electrostatic force between protons, once you throw the electrons into the mix, whammo, game over. You've got an atomic bomb (and what a mother of an A-bomb you'll have ^_^;).


...
I thought he was talking about combining it all into one molecule, not one atom. (Or even into just one stable, multi-molecule mass.)

All the elements combined into one atom would be just the same as a lot of one single element combined into a single atom... not really worth the trouble of collecting all the different elements, because either way, you just get a very large group of protons, neutrons, and electrons, formed into a huge atom of a newly-made element, with a very short half-life.

(Come to think of it, that might be a way to test to see if time has a minimum (quantum) unit... If you could construct such huge atoms, continue increasing the size of them, until the life expectancy of each stops decreasing... That minimum time would presumably be the smallest possible unit of time... if there is such a thing.)
Bikerman
Why do you assume that?
There is already a way to establish the sortest possible unit of time (Planck Time) that ties with the other constant and known laws. Planck time is around 10^-44 s. It is the time taken for a photon to travel 1 planck length...
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
Why do you assume that?
There is already a way to establish the sortest possible unit of time (Planck Time) that ties with the other constant and known laws. Planck time is around 10^-44 s. It is the time taken for a photon to travel 1 planck length...

But if two photons arrive at the same place, must their arrival times always be at least 1 Planck time removed from each other? (If not exactly the same time.)
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Why do you assume that?
There is already a way to establish the sortest possible unit of time (Planck Time) that ties with the other constant and known laws. Planck time is around 10^-44 s. It is the time taken for a photon to travel 1 planck length...

But if two photons arrive at the same place, must their arrival times always be at least 1 Planck time removed from each other? (If not exactly the same time.)
If quantum theory is correct then yes.
Indi
ocalhoun wrote:
I thought he was talking about combining it all into one molecule, not one atom. (Or even into just one stable, multi-molecule mass.)

Oh, possibly. If that's what he meant then there's nothing impossible or even strange about that. It would just be a matter of collecting one atom of each element in the periodic table, and then moving them together as close as they will get without imploding. That's doable even today (except that most of the heavier elements have very short half-lives).

But will you get a molecule? i doubt it - i can't see bonds forming with some of the heavier elements. All you'll get is a gas for a little while, until bonds start forming between some of the smaller elements, and the bigger ones are forced out. When all is said and done - given enough time - you will end up with layers of heavy elements on the bottom, medium elements in the middle, and then the lightest elements on the top. Probably not exactly that, because some elements may combine with other elements to form some molecules. Basically, what you'll probably end up with will not be a homogenous mass of everything, but more a case of layers and suspensions and other crap all coexisting... but coexisting separately.
Related topics
"terrorist" my thoughts
Europeans and Americans, your thoughts on "Eurabia"
Theory of a Deadman
Can you give me your thoughts on Burlesque?
Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom
Powerbook G4 Vs Powermac G5 thoughts
my new song - your thoughts...
science vs. religion
Women and Rock Music
Your Thoughts: Google Earth
Harry Potter!
F. Nietzsche
Quantum Trickery - Einstein's Strangest Theory [Quote]
Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura
A few thoughts on the nature of 'I'...
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> The Universe

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.