Science and Technology news... :: View topic

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) · Guest

Dear zanthius.dxun:

<zanthius.dxun@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e76f4616-16a5-4987-8da3-a4851c40763a@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On 29 Jul, 02:25, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
wrote:
[quote]We have already observed that "spontaneous pair
creation" creates both matter and anti-matter. So
the outside of the event horizon *currently* has no
preference.

Yes of course it creates both matter and antimatter,
but if antimatter has a preference to arise deeper into
the gravitational well when a particle pair is created,
it is more likely that the black hole will capture the
antimatter, while the matter will escape as hawking
radiation.
[/quote]
As I said "dual to black holes" should have the necessary
curvature, but show no propensity to preferentially generate
matter.

[quote]Quantum physics does not care at all about size.
Classical mechanics does.

I thought it was generally expected that a theory of
quantum gravity would feature black holes without
singularities.
[/quote]
You can generate classical black holes, and never have an
infintely dense lump of matter at the center. The interior might
look a lot like the Universe we were in, except (and of course)
the interior time would have no relation to exerior time.

And there is no quantum gravity yet, and what "we" want to push
into it before we start is our problem, not Nature>s.

[quote]But not all iron ends up in black holes. A good
portion of it does not.

I am not sure if I need all of it, but I thought that
black holes were in everybody>s future.
[/quote]
No. An infinitely diffuse, cold future is in store for us, one
in which no particle will have any other particle in its future,
and all BHs will evaporate completely. As a default.

[quote]That is what the professor in astrophysics told
me! :)
[/quote]
Better ask again. Hawking radiation provides egress from a BH,
and Universal expansion provide a low enough backgroud temp that
they can.

David A. Smith

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) · Guest

Dear zanthius.dxun:

<zanthius.dxun@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e5850680-5975-47af-94d2-acdadac65499@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On 29 Jul, 04:22, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net
wrote:
As I said "dual to black holes" should have
the necessary curvature, but show no
propensity to preferentially generate matter.

I think antimatter prefers to arise deeper into
a gravity well when a particle pair is created.
[/quote]
Neutron stars are very dense, with very strong gravity wells. No
propensity to generate matter there, as far as we can tell.

[quote]There must be an almost equal amount of
matter and antimatter, and where is the
antimatter, if not inside of those black holes.
[/quote]
There is currently an *exactly equal* amount of matter and
anti-matter made through spontaneous creation. Who said the
matter in teh Universe arose entirely from spontaneous pair
creation?

[quote]There cannot be an asymmetry of more than
like 1 in a billion, and if all the matter in the
universe is only 1 in a billion, then where is
all the energy from the matter and antimatter
which must have reacted and disappeared?
[/quote]
Not in black holes. They would contribute to Dark Matter
(outside of spiral galaxy>s cores), and there cannot be that much
anti-matter there.

[quote]According to WMAP there is just a little bit
more photons in the universe than atoms,
[/quote]
Off by several order of magnitude.

[quote]but if the asymmetry cannot be more than
1 in a billion, then there should be
something like a billion times more
photons than atoms in the universe.
[/quote]
There is.

[quote]This is obviously not the case,
[/quote]
Not so obvious.

[quote]so the antimatter must hide somewhere.
[/quote]
Not if it never existed.

[quote]Better ask again. Hawking radiation
provides egress from a BH, and Universal
expansion provide a low enough
backgroud temp that they can.

That is only if universal expansion is forever.
[/quote]
That is only if the second law of thermodynamics holds sway.

[quote]It could be like in this model:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.0413
[/quote]
Already fails to describe this Universe, unless the "minima"
include a singularity. And we have retuned full circle.
Additionally the "compression stroke" would kill all life with
blueshifted light.

David A. Smith

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) · Guest

Dear zanthius.dxun:

<zanthius.dxun@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a98dfe64-972f-453e-aa49-8d1c94dc35a5@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On 29 Jul, 06:03, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net
wrote:
Off by several order of magnitude.

That is interesting. Take a look for yourself:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/080998/index.html

There is DEFINATELY not a billion times
as much photons as matter in the universe.
[/quote]
Those are estimates of the "equivalent mass" of the photons (and
other constituents) at the time the CMBR quenched, not the
*number*. Considering the energy of a CMBR photon is on the
order of 2 eV... photons far outnumbered other particles at that
time. And matter keeps spawning more...

So you need to keep in mind that "a little bit more" can have
multiple meanings.

David A. Smith

BradGuth · Guest

On Jul 29, 10:23 am, herbertglaz...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
[quote]What makes the BB hard to believe is we were not here. The birth of all
that is was done alone. It happened 22 billion years ago. Spacetime
going back that far needs lots of thinking It was only 4.5 billion years
ago that the Earth was created,and only 2 million years ago that nature
created humankind so it could see itself. Bert
[/quote]
Very good, except extend that time line out to roughly 100 billion
years, and that of our newish 4.5 billion is but 4.5% of the most
likely age of this expanding universe that has grown to roughly 100
billion light years in diameter.

If on average the rate of cosmic expansion was sustained at .5>c', as
such it would have taken 100 billion years in order to have reached
the 50 billion year radius or outer most event horizon of our known
universe.

This means, there have in fact been many bangs to contend with, and
likely more to come. Hardly representative of any singular all-
inclusive BB.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

G=EMC^2 Glazier · Guest

What makes the BB hard to believe is we were not here. The birth of all
that is was done alone. It happened 22 billion years ago. Spacetime
going back that far needs lots of thinking It was only 4.5 billion years
ago that the Earth was created,and only 2 million years ago that nature
created humankind so it could see itself. Bert

Guest

On 30 Jul, 02:40, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
[quote]There were not enough at the time the CMBR quenched. The rest
mass of the *system* of photons was many orders of magnitude less
than you seek. And it must equal the matter plus anti-matter you
want to "subtract out".
[/quote]
Yes, you are right, it must equal the matter plus the antimatter, but
as you said, it is many orders of magnitude less than the matter
alone.

Doesn>t this kind of falsify the hypothesis of the big bang
nucleosynthesis you hold so dear? It is out of proportion with many
orders of magnitude!

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) · Guest

Dear zanthius.dxun:

<zanthius.dxun@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e1675083-bcc1-4bb2-ad99-c39386260bd2@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On 29 Jul, 06:39, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
wrote:
[quote]Those are estimates of the "equivalent mass"
of the photons (and other constituents) at the
time the CMBR quenched, not the *number*.
Considering the energy of a CMBR photon is
on the order of 2 eV... photons far
outnumbered other particles at that time. And
matter keeps spawning more...

Who cares about the number of photons? Not
me! I want the amount of photons you get from
the reaction of 1 billion times as much matter
and antimatter as there is matter in the universe.
[/quote]
There were not enough at the time the CMBR quenched. The rest
mass of the *system* of photons was many orders of magnitude less
than you seek. And it must equal the matter plus anti-matter you
want to "subtract out".

[quote]That is the amount of photons there must be
in the universe, if all the matter in the universe
only constitutes 1 of a billion.
[/quote]
Nope.

David A. Smith

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) · Guest

Dear zanthius.dxun:

<zanthius.dxun@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:be922044-7c2e-4e8d-84bf-ae5d0602a66e@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On 30 Jul, 02:40, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
wrote:
[quote]There were not enough at the time the CMBR
quenched. The rest mass of the *system* of
photons was many orders of magnitude less
than you seek. And it must equal the matter
plus anti-matter you want to "subtract out".

Yes, you are right,
[/quote]
*Never* tell me I am right! My head starts to get big...

[quote]it must equal the matter plus the antimatter,
but as you said, it is many orders of
magnitude less than the matter alone.
[/quote]
No, it is many orders of magnitude less than the 999,999,999
parts (matter + antimatter).

[quote]Doesn>t this kind of falsify the hypothesis of
the big bang nucleosynthesis you hold so
dear? It is out of proportion with many
orders of magnitude!
[/quote]
No you don>t understand. We are not petting my pet theory, but
yours.

My pet theory has the CMBR as what our container Universe looks
like across the event horizon of the BH we are in. I push the
anti-matter problem to the container Universe (ad infinitum, if
necessary).

But there is neither a cycle in the standard model, or my pet
theory. And I don>t see that this topic helps or hinders your
case.

David A. Smith

Guest

On 30 Jul, 05:41, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
[quote]My pet theory has the CMBR as what our container Universe looks
like across the event horizon of the BH we are in. I push the
anti-matter problem to the container Universe (ad infinitum, if
necessary).

But there is neither a cycle in the standard model, or my pet
theory. And I don>t see that this topic helps or hinders your
case.
[/quote]
According to my theory the antimatter is inside of the black holes of
this universe. There might be enough black holes in this universe to
hold all the antimatter, considering that nobody knows exactly how
many black holes there are.

dlzc · Guest

Dear zanthius.dxun

On Jul 30, 1:54 am, zanthius.d...@gmail.com wrote:
...
[quote]According to my theory the antimatter is inside
of the black holes of this universe. There might
be enough black holes in this universe to hold
all the antimatter, considering that nobody
knows exactly how many black holes there are.
[/quote]
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#DM
... maybe.

David A. Smith

G=EMC^2 Glazier · Guest

Brad Nicely posted. Humankind uses Earth times and distances to
measure our universe. I relate that with our relating the Earth
with Planck time and distance. Reality is they are just not relative.
That is why GR does not fit in the micro realm. Universe figures do not
lie but man can figure. Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier · Guest

To ya All Maybe the word bang needs to be changed to fluctuation. Bang
gives the idea of a great explosion,and could be taking our thinking in
the wrong direction?? How about these terms for the beginning of the
universe. A break in the very strongly coupled space energies. A
space transition(symmetry breaking if you will) Gravity creating
evolving space energy into heat energy giving the start for subparticles
to evolve. Gravity creating rips or tears that change the topology of
space. How about space before the beginning had the structure of a
torus(donut) and gravities compression force squeezed it into the hole
(center) and thus adding another dimension,for to have a universe it
needs 3 dimensions plus time. Best to keep in mind good thinking has to
tell you at the very start the universe was ultramicroscopic,and that
means length shorter than a Planck length and time shorter than a Planck
time. Here I can end this with the use of a singularity and again that
tells you the fabric of space(spacetime) suffered a devastating
rupture,and out of this fabric the universe is fashioned. After this
rupture Guth inflating space kicked in. I left out so much I even left
ot my Spin is in theory(shame on me) I just hope you all got my point.
Bert PS a Torus only has two dimensions

Guest

On 30 Jul, 16:23, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
[quote]http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#DM
... maybe.

David A. Smith
[/quote]
If my theory is correct, and all the antimatter is inside of the black
holes, then the matter of the universe doesn>t originate from the big
bang nucleosynthesis, but from hawking radiation.

When considering how many orders of magnitude the standard
interpretation of the big bang nucleosynthesis is out of proportion if
the matter/antimatter asymmetry is 1 to a billion, don>t you think my
theory is a little more likely?

At least my theory explains the antimatter problem a lot better than
the standard interpretation of the big bang nucleosynthesis. Your
interpretation might deal with the antimatter problem a little better,
but you interpretation of black holes being independent universes is a
little far out.

dlzc · Guest

On Jul 30, 10:44 am, zanthius.d...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On 30 Jul, 16:23,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#DM
... maybe.

If my theory is correct,
[/quote]
*Hypothesis*. You produce no numbers, and you require that curvature
be more intense than what is seen with neutron stars.

[quote]and all the antimatter is inside of the black
holes, then the matter of the universe doesn>t
originate from the big bang nucleosynthesis,
but from hawking radiation.
[/quote]
You cannot explain Universal expansion. The matter (and "no"
antimatter) clearly exists back to the "visual singularity" of the
CMBR. So you also have a Big Bang.

[quote]When considering how many orders of
magnitude the standard interpretation of the
big bang nucleosynthesis is out of proportion if
the matter/antimatter asymmetry is 1 to a
billion, don>t you think my theory is a little
more likely?
[/quote]
Not at all.

[quote]At least my theory explains the antimatter
problem a lot better than the standard
interpretation of the big bang nucleosynthesis.
[/quote]
You push it all into a hole! What kind of "explanation" is that?

[quote]Your interpretation might deal with the
antimatter problem a little better, but you
interpretation of black holes being
independent universes is a little far out.
[/quote]
Not from what I have read, it is not far out. And I also don>t handle
the antimatter problem more elegantly than you do. I push it all into
the "past".

David A. Smith

Guest

On 30 Jul, 20:01, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
[quote]You cannot explain Universal expansion. The matter (and "no"
antimatter) clearly exists back to the "visual singularity" of the
CMBR. So you also have a Big Bang.
[/quote]
A "Big Bang" certainly doesn>t explain any accelerating expansion. A
singular "Big Bang" event can only cause decelerating expansion.
Unfortunately we are observing accelerating expansion, not
decelerating expansion. Too bad for the big bang hypothesis.

I don>t think the cosmic microwave background is from a singular
event, I think it has always just been there. When the universe
expands the wavelength of the cosmic microwave background gets longer.
When the universe contracts the wavelength of the cosmic microwave
background gets shorter.

[quote]You push it all into a hole! What kind of "explanation" is that?
[/quote]
Well, if you cannot observe any large amounts of antimatter, then it
must be hiding somewhere. What is a better place to hide than inside
of a black hole?

[quote]Not from what I have read, it is not far out.
[/quote]
Well, it is not the standard interpretation of black holes, that is
for sure.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Astrology - Amateur Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 4 of 7