It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Before The Big Bang

page: 17
20
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

I asked for clarification. You gave it. I understand your meaning as for example, you believe energy cannot be added nor subtracted from the system, but it still can expand infinitely such as the space between the photons, you explained to me about earlier, will keep expanding after all the energy in the Universe has been reduced to spares radiation.


That's essentially right. The energy of expansion is vacuum potential energy, so the total energy content of the universe is conserved. Eventually, it dies out, but, at the moment, a majority of the expansion is possibly driven by the interaction of antimatter in the large-scale voids with regular matter in the filaments. This, too, will eventually die out.




Oh, and "metric tensor vectors" is redundant. A vector is a tensor.
Sure is.
< And that means I'm trying to be funny.


I know...that was dry humour on my part. Very dry. Almost parched.
edit on 5-6-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
 



I just can't accept it because the Universe contains a finite amount of energy

Oh so you "just can't accept it"... how brilliant your reasoning, you just ignore all facts and go with what you want to believe. Why don't you try learning some quantum mechanics because this simply isn't up for debate, it's fact. ALL MATTER HAS A WAVE COMPONENT, there are many experiments which have proven this fact, you cannot ever predict the exact position of a particle because it's not really a freaking particle, it's a probabilistic wave form. You can not possibly begin to explain the nature of matter without bringing quantum mechanics into the picture. Your idea of reality is vastly outdated.


I can't get over myself as i'm all "that." That's what you're asking. You are asking me to do away with some of my self confidence.

It's called having a sense of humility, to be humble rather than egotistic, to realize no one knows everything and in fact most of us know a lot less then we think we know.

You should pay attention to quote I provided on the first page of this thread:

"The only real wisdom is knowing you know nothing" ~ Socrates
edit on 6-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 





Oh so you "just can't accept it"... how brilliant your reasoning, you just ignore all facts and go with what you want to believe. Why don't you try learning some quantum mechanics because this simply isn't up for debate, it's fact. ALL MATTER HAS A WAVE COMPONENT, there are many experiments which have proven this fact, you cannot ever predict the exact position of a particle because it's not really a freaking particle, it's a probabilistic wave form. You can not possibly begin to explain the nature of matter without bringing quantum mechanics into the picture. Your idea of reality is vastly outdated.


No wonder he wont take your word for what you state when you say against your self. First you say in big letters: ALL MATTERS HAS A WAVE COMMPONENT. Than you go on to say that its not really a freaking particle. Its a wave form.

If you read about your wave form. That wave can only be found in matter/particles.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



First you say in big letters: ALL MATTERS HAS A WAVE COMMPONENT. Than you go on to say that its not really a freaking particle. Its a wave form.

I can see why CLPrime is getting a headache...


Of course it's not really a damn classical "particle" if it has a wave component. The old model of matter as some sort of solid clump of deterministic particles is outdated. All particles are actually particle-waves, they can act as both classical matter or as a quantum wave depending on the circumstances. We simply refer to the structure of matter as "particles" because it's much easier and it's still actually true under certain conditions... but in reality it's not true most of the time.

I honestly can't even be bothered explaining this stuff... it's clear I am debating with people who learnt science 20 years ago and refuse to update their knowledge. Maybe you guys should try learning something about quantum mechanics before acting like you some how understand it. It's clear you understand nothing of it and you refuse to budge from your old paradigms. We don't live in a classical deterministic clockwork universe and I think it's high time you guys started to come to terms with that.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
If you could nullify our gravity, nullify the Galaxy's gravity, nullify the Universes's gravity in a test tube and set off a nuclear blast inside the test tube....Would it go boom, grow...then pull back together and continuously explode?

I think the Universe is an artificially made engine, in someone's test tube in their laboratory.


We have set off nuclear bombs in space but due to gravity from many entities in this universe and that the vacuum of space isn't exactly empty with the solar wind and particles....that's why the energy from our nukes in space was absorbed and there was no continuous Nuclear Engine cycle...ie a new Universe.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by spy66
 



First you say in big letters: ALL MATTERS HAS A WAVE COMMPONENT. Than you go on to say that its not really a freaking particle. Its a wave form.

I can see why CLPrime is getting a headache...


Of course it's not really a damn classical "particle" if it has a wave component. The old model of matter as some sort of solid clump of deterministic particles is outdated. All particles are actually particle-waves, they can act as both classical matter or as a quantum wave depending on the circumstances. We simply refer to the structure of matter as "particles" because it's much easier and it's still actually true under certain conditions... but in reality it's not true most of the time.

I honestly can't even be bothered explaining this stuff... it's clear I am debating with people who learnt science 20 years ago and refuse to update their knowledge. Maybe you guys should try learning something about quantum mechanics before acting like you some how understand it. It's clear you understand nothing of it and you refuse to budge from your old paradigms. We don't live in a classical deterministic clockwork universe and I think it's high time you guys started to come to terms with that.


Your problem is that you are so hung up on the quantum level that you dont understand the big picture. You dont understand what other people are talking about. That is because you have no understanding of the quantum level. Because if you did you would argue differently.

I have been talking about expansion, contraction "pressure" and dimensions/matter, and you dont even know that its quantum related.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

I have been talking about expansion, contraction "pressure" and dimensions/matter, and you dont even know that its quantum related.


This coming from someone who thinks that an infinite volume qualifies as a single dimension and that there needs to be a pressure gradient in order for vacuum energy to exert negative pressure.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


ChaoticOrder, have you been over to LilDude's other thread? (Other as opposed to the one PurpleChitten started for him)
edit on 6-6-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by spy66

I have been talking about expansion, contraction "pressure" and dimensions/matter, and you dont even know that its quantum related.


This coming from someone who thinks that an infinite volume qualifies as a single dimension and that there needs to be a pressure gradient in order for vacuum energy to exert negative pressure.


Yes it is.

You can't have a negative absolutely empty space all by it self. A absolute vacuum is actually a neutral space.
A absolute empty space will only be negative when something is put into it. Otherwise its absolutely natural.

You can never have a property present that is more neutral/negative than a absolute neutral space. Never.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 



this might be off topic/dumb........but I was thinking about how only a small percentage of skilled individual humans would be able to perform precise tasks, and calculations, and measurements with their physical body/by hand.... humans have created many machines and instruments to create more perfect shapes and measurements.... my question is how does the universe make such perfect shapes and measurements, precise calculations,,..... you will say the laws of physics,,,,, now if the universe does not have senses and motor skills like us but can still create a more perfect sphere then i could with clay,, what does this say,,,, the laws of physics are the universes senses for creation,,its means of creating order?



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

Originally posted by CLPrime

Do you know what an isolated system is?


Yup en.wikipedia.org...


Good, then you know that, by definition, an infinite system is an isolated system.

Oh, and "metric tensor vectors" is redundant. A vector is a tensor.


eh, it could be a scalar tensor as opposed to a vector tensor, so specifying which one may be important in some cases ....or could be specifying that they're looking at the tensor properties of the vector as opposed to individual vectors... or....

... I can see how the phrase could be useful...



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
God existed before the big bang, it has been repeated that you cannot create matter or energy out of nothing. I was a physics major in college, I know.
edit on 053030p://6America/ChicagoWed, 06 Jun 2012 17:16:17 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Not sure about "God" existing before, let alone after the big bang, but certainly something had to, because the bang had to be sat in something for it to occur.

Apparently one way to describe virtual particles, is that their annihilation provides the energy to bring them into existence on the first place, for them to annihilate ergo matter created from nothing.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
God existed before the big bang, it has been repeated that you cannot create matter or energy out of nothing. I was a physics major in college, I know.
edit on 053030p://6America/ChicagoWed, 06 Jun 2012 17:16:17 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)


Well i guess you need to do some more research you cant stop learning after graduation.Because the fact is we can create something from nothing in fact we all ready have. Ill try to explain first a vacuum isnt really a void.A vacuum is a balanced combination of antimatter and matter or particles and anti particles.Now we cant observe there characteristics because they cancel each other out. Leaving empty space with a sum of 0. When matter and antimatter annihilate each other they produce gamma-ray photons, and these high-energy particles of light can produce additional electrons and positrons which can be coaxed into making all kinds of particles by adding a magnetic field.If strong enough this causes the cacuum to break down creating matter.CL P could probably explain this better.


To sum it up in a void one can produce electrons and those electrons can be coaxed into becoming a number of other particles.And when your done you have more particles than you started with (because you started with a vacuum). In theory this happens in nature near pulsars and neutron stars. Something for nothing.Now before you say its impossible because you took physics here is the experiment.


www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
edit on 6/6/12 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
God existed before the big bang, it has been repeated that you cannot create matter or energy out of nothing. I was a physics major in college, I know.
edit on 053030p://6America/ChicagoWed, 06 Jun 2012 17:16:17 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)


Than you should also know that no physical or scientific law can create anything from nothing. Or that a mathematical equation can form anything from nothing. Because non of the laws exist where there is nothing.

It is insane to believe that a physical or scientific laws exist where there is nothing. Or that mathematical equations exist where there is nothing. Its just insane that people can believe this. They can not understand science.

One person have stated this and he's name is Hawkins.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


It is insane to believe that a god with infinite intelligence would allow himself to be understood. for instance lets take the smartest humans known..IQ 250-300. God has infinite IQ, the ratio of gods intelligence to the smartest person to have ever lived is still infinite. We are not meant to comprehend God, just to accept it.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
God existed before the big bang, it has been repeated that you cannot create matter or energy out of nothing. I was a physics major in college, I know.
edit on 053030p://6America/ChicagoWed, 06 Jun 2012 17:16:17 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)


Well i guess you need to do some more research you cant stop learning after graduation.Because the fact is we can create something from nothing in fact we all ready have. Ill try to explain first a vacuum isnt really a void.A vacuum is a balanced combination of antimatter and matter or particles and anti particles.Now we cant observe there characteristics because they cancel each other out. Leaving empty space with a sum of 0. When matter and antimatter annihilate each other they produce gamma-ray photons, and these high-energy particles of light can produce additional electrons and positrons which can be coaxed into making all kinds of particles by adding a magnetic field.If strong enough this causes the cacuum to break down creating matter.CL P could probably explain this better.


To sum it up in a void one can produce electrons and those electrons can be coaxed into becoming a number of other particles.And when your done you have more particles than you started with (because you started with a vacuum). In theory this happens in nature near pulsars and neutron stars. Something for nothing.Now before you say its impossible because you took physics here is the experiment.


www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
edit on 6/6/12 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)


this is just theory no?

"To sum it up in a void one can produce electrons and those electrons can be coaxed into becoming a number of other particles"

whos the one doing the producing? and where/what is the void?


"A vacuum is a balanced combination of antimatter and matter or particles and anti particles."

so the vacuum of space, is, what it is as a vacuum, because all of the galaxies,planets,stars, moving in space... this action creates the vacuum? or even if the galaxies,planets, stars werent here the space would still be a vacuum, a balanced combination of antimatter and matter? or if all the galaxies stars and planets(energy) was not taken out of space there would be no matter or anti matter?



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
God existed before the big bang, it has been repeated that you cannot create matter or energy out of nothing. I was a physics major in college, I know.
edit on 053030p://6America/ChicagoWed, 06 Jun 2012 17:16:17 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)


Well i guess you need to do some more research you cant stop learning after graduation.Because the fact is we can create something from nothing in fact we all ready have. Ill try to explain first a vacuum isnt really a void.A vacuum is a balanced combination of antimatter and matter or particles and anti particles.Now we cant observe there characteristics because they cancel each other out. Leaving empty space with a sum of 0. When matter and antimatter annihilate each other they produce gamma-ray photons, and these high-energy particles of light can produce additional electrons and positrons which can be coaxed into making all kinds of particles by adding a magnetic field.If strong enough this causes the cacuum to break down creating matter.CL P could probably explain this better.


To sum it up in a void one can produce electrons and those electrons can be coaxed into becoming a number of other particles.And when your done you have more particles than you started with (because you started with a vacuum). In theory this happens in nature near pulsars and neutron stars. Something for nothing.Now before you say its impossible because you took physics here is the experiment.


www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
edit on 6/6/12 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)


this is just theory no?

"To sum it up in a void one can produce electrons and those electrons can be coaxed into becoming a number of other particles"

whos the one doing the producing? and where/what is the void?


"A vacuum is a balanced combination of antimatter and matter or particles and anti particles."

so the vacuum of space, is, what it is as a vacuum, because all of the galaxies,planets,stars, moving in space... this action creates the vacuum? or even if the galaxies,planets, stars werent here the space would still be a vacuum, a balanced combination of antimatter and matter? or if all the galaxies stars and planets(energy) was not taken out of space there would be no matter or anti matter?


Follow the link dont be scared but in case you only scanned it here let me quote this for you.




Photons of light from the green laser were allowed to collide almost head-on with 47-billion-electronvolt electrons shot from the Stanford particle accelerator. These collisions transferred some of the electrons' energy to the photons they hit, boosting the photons from green visible light to gamma-ray photons, and forcing the freshly spawned gamma photons to recoil into the oncoming laser beam. The violent collisions that ensued between the gamma photons and the green laser photons created an enormous electromagnetic field. This field, Melissinos said, "was so high that the vacuum within the experiment spontaneously broke down, creating real particles of matter and antimatter."



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
To the OP, any chance you have some calculations to back up your theory, or is it just a philosophical attempt at understanding the universe? Either way, you pose some interesting concepts!


And some people here need to give up the classic viewpoint of physics and brush up their understanding of quantum physics. While I only studying quantum mechanics for a few semesters, I feel like it has helped me comprehend some of the more complex concepts presented by some posters.

Truly understanding Hawkings ideas and theories requires years of study though, so anything most posters speculate should be taken with a grain of salt



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by clevelandklik
To the OP, any chance you have some calculations to back up your theory, or is it just a philosophical attempt at understanding the universe? Either way, you pose some interesting concepts!


And some people here need to give up the classic viewpoint of physics and brush up their understanding of quantum physics. While I only studying quantum mechanics for a few semesters, I feel like it has helped me comprehend some of the more complex concepts presented by some posters.

Truly understanding Hawkings ideas and theories requires years of study though, so anything most posters speculate should be taken with a grain of salt




I got a question for you:

What would a equation look like that could form particles from a absolutely empty space?
How would you describe this with bits?

Which physical or scientific laws do you know of within quantum mechanics that will apply for a absolutely empty space to produce a wave form? Probably non of the above, so what is it that can form something from nothing?

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
20
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join