Notices
Results 1 to 62 of 62
Like Tree18Likes
  • 1 Post By frumpydolphin
  • 3 Post By RedPanda
  • 2 Post By RedPanda
  • 1 Post By Cogito Ergo Sum
  • 2 Post By tk421
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 2 Post By tk421
  • 1 Post By Howard Roark
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By Howard Roark
  • 2 Post By Mayflow
  • 1 Post By KALSTER

Thread: what if the big bang consisted of enough energy to make the universe

  1. #1 what if the big bang consisted of enough energy to make the universe 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    77
    So Einstein said that huge amounts of energy can make mass, and not sure where but I also heard that stuff was travling faster than the speed of light when the universe started, which requires insane amounts of energy, could this energy have made all the mass in the world today.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    This theory says E=mc^2, therefore with no mass there is no energy. 0 times anything is still zero.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    This theory says E=mc^2, therefore with no mass there is no energy. 0 times anything is still zero.
    The correct equation is E = mc^2 + p^2c^2.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Are you sure you do not mean that E^2 = the rest? This is for a particle at rest only, I believe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    This theory says E=mc^2, therefore with no mass there is no energy. 0 times anything is still zero.
    there would still be mass just the basis of the big bang would be energy, whithout mass what would he moving at the speed of light? (Rhetorical please dont answer with light or electrons)
    Mayflow likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    This theory says E=mc^2, therefore with no mass there is no energy. 0 times anything is still zero.
    there would still be mass just the basis of the big bang would be energy, without mass what would be moving at the speed of light? (Rhetorical please don't answer with light or electrons)
    This I wonder as well. I just can't fathom that there was nothing that caused the big bang universe (if this is one.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    (Rhetorical please dont answer with light or electrons)
    After you added this, I feel compelled to say light, but not electrons.

    As for the OP, yes, the Big Bang theory extend to just after the initial bang. That tiny ball contained all the energy in the universe today. Shortly after that, matter condensed out of it in a process called baryogenesis.

    Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    (Rhetorical please dont answer with light or electrons)
    After you added this, I feel compelled to say light, but not electrons.

    As for the OP, yes, the Big Bang theory extend to just after the initial bang. That tiny ball contained all the energy in the universe today. Shortly after that, matter condensed out of it in a process called baryogenesis.

    Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    By "light" do you implicate photon activity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,844
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    So Einstein said that huge amounts of energy can make mass, and not sure where but I also heard that stuff was travling faster than the speed of light when the universe started, which requires insane amounts of energy, could this energy have made all the mass in the world today.
    Not only that: ANY amount of energy implies an effect on mass according to E = mc˛. For example a charged battery has more mass than a discharged one - though you would struggle to measure the difference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    This theory says E=mc^2, therefore with no mass there is no energy. 0 times anything is still zero.
    I think you have misunderstood what E=mc^2 refers to.
    It is the mass-energy equivalence.

    (In layman terms) this means that if you had a certain amount of mass, it could be converted into a certain amount of energy - and vise-versa.

    It does not mean that if there is no mass then there is no energy.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Chemist, Probably the charged battery has more potential energy, but that I do not think it has more mass.
    Last edited by Mayflow; April 20th, 2014 at 05:02 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Are you sure you do not mean that E^2 = the rest? This is for a particle at rest only, I believe?
    AlexG gave you the general, correct answer. It accounts for the energy of both massive and massless particles. It also properly handles the case where the former has a nonzero velocity with respect to your rest frame. It handles the important case of photons, which have no mass, but certainly have energy. Your use of only a subset of the correct equation is why RedPanda had to correct your statement that "no mass = no energy."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Red Panda, if E = 0*the speed of light squared, E = 0.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Probably the charged battery has more potential energy...
    Technically, it's chemical energy.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Red Panda, if E = 0*the speed of light squared, E = 0.
    No - it is a conversion equation.

    Hopefully this question will help you understand:

    If it takes 5 apples to make 1 apple pie, you could write that as
    5 x A = P
    This means that you can convert 5 apples into 1 pie.

    Now - imagine that you have 10 apples.
    How many apple pies do you have?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Red Panda, if E = 0*the speed of light squared, E = 0.
    Why don't you re-read what AlexG wrote, rather than repeatedly making erroneous assertions? You're just getting in the way of answering the OP's question. It's fine if you don't know what you're talking about, but it's not fine that you keep injecting your misconceptions into another's thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,966
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    So Einstein said that huge amounts of energy can make mass, and not sure where but I also heard that stuff was travling faster than the speed of light when the universe started, which requires insane amounts of energy, could this energy have made all the mass in the world today.
    Some have considered the possibility that the universe has zero energy. See, e.g., Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I don't know where you heard the bit about "stuff...traveling faster than the speed of light," but that's bollocks. Ignore whoever wrote that. Just take a look at the references listed at the end of the wiki entry above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    If I have 10 apples, I have 10 apples.What has that to do with pies? I don't want to make or eat pies unless I get like starved but then I would probably just eat the apples instead of making two pies out of them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    If I have 10 apples, I have 10 apples.What has that to do with pies? I don't want to make or eat pies unless I get like starved but then I would probably just eat the apples instead of making two pies out of them.
    Ah...I see. You are just being a fuck-wit.
    Carry on.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Trolling again.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    This is frumpydolphin's topic - if he or she wants me to leave he or she has but to ask.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    This is frumpydolphin's topic - if he or she wants me to leave he or she has but to ask.
    The thread may have been started by the OP, but this is a public forum. I believe adelady went to some lengths to explain this to you when you tried to assert "ownership rights" to a thread. I guess you weren't paying attention. If you say something stupid, offensive, or otherwise disruptive, the right to opine is not limited to the OP.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    This is frumpydolphin's topic - if he or she wants me to leave he or she has but to ask.
    As I said: carry on.
    Never let it be said that you haven't removed all doubt.
    tk421 and PhDemon like this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    This is frumpydolphin's topic - if he or she wants me to leave he or she has but to ask.
    The thread may have been started by the OP, but this is a public forum. I believe adelady went to some lengths to explain this to you when you tried to assert "ownership rights" to a thread. I guess you weren't paying attention. If you say something stupid, offensive, or otherwise disruptive, the right to opine is not limited to the OP.

    Member adelady has indeed explained that here (cf. post #71).
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    It is not your guy's topic not mine, it is FrumpyDolphin's topic. I will do as is the wish of the topic starter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    It is not your guy's topic not mine, it is FrumpyDolphin's topic. I will do as is the wish of the topic starter.

    From post #71:
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady
    And you don't own any thread here. It's not your space, it's our shared space. If you want to control a discussion and who participates in it and how they participate, start your own blog. This is a casual common room. It's not hired out as a private lecture theatre.

    Forum members do not own their thread(s) in the same way that parents do not own their child(ren).
    tk421 likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    As I said, I will do as the topic starter wishes if he or she even wants to come back here again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    As I said, I will do as the topic starter wishes if he or she even wants to come back here again.
    That's fine, but you would also do well to heed my advice about not posting bollocks, and accepting corrections when you do post bollocks. We all make mistakes, but you reject all efforts at correction.

    If your skin is so thin as to be intolerant of criticism and correction, then you really have very few options. Simply declaring that you'll only heed the wishes of the OP is not going to work.
    PhDemon and Howard Roark like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    As I said, I will do as the topic starter wishes if he or she even wants to come back here again.
    That's fine, but you would also do well to heed my advice about not posting bollocks, and accepting corrections when you do post bollocks. We all make mistakes, but you reject all efforts at correction.

    If your skin is so thin as to be intolerant of criticism and correction, then you really have very few options. Simply declaring that you'll only heed the wishes of the OP is not going to work.
    I will only comply with the wishes of the Originator of the topic's wishes. You do NOT belong here casting accusations at me on someone else's topic. Talk to the topic, not to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    As I said, I will do as the topic starter wishes if he or she even wants to come back here again.
    That's fine, but you would also do well to heed my advice about not posting bollocks, and accepting corrections when you do post bollocks. We all make mistakes, but you reject all efforts at correction.

    If your skin is so thin as to be intolerant of criticism and correction, then you really have very few options. Simply declaring that you'll only heed the wishes of the OP is not going to work.
    I will only comply with the wishes of the Originator of the topic's wishes. You do NOT belong here casting accusations at me on someone else's topic. Talk to the topic, not to me.
    They don't own the topic and they don't get to determine who can or cannot participate and in what way they are allowed to do so.
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I will only comply with the wishes of the Originator of the topic's wishes. You do NOT belong here casting accusations at me on someone else's topic. Talk to the topic, not to me.
    You can do whatever you wish (until, perhaps, your childish disruptions finally strain the moderators' patience beyond the breaking point) -- I can't control you. However, you seem not to understand the reciprocity of that arrangement.

    Further, I make no accusations. It is a matter of scientific record that your statements regarding Einstein's equations are simply wrong. You stubbornly continue to ignore that fact. Perhaps you believe that ignoring your errors will somehow make you appear more credible as a source. I assure you that it works the other way. It shows that you are willing to sacrifice correctness and rigour for the petty and transient fantasy that you know what you're talking about.

    As to "talking to the topic," that's precisely what I've done. I can't help it if you insist on injecting your noise into the topic. That will stimulate a correction from the science-minded denizens of this forum (and what's the name of the forum, again?).
    PhDemon and Howard Roark like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Mayflow:

    You just can't help yourself, can you? For the last time, thread starters do not own threads. Threads are required to be conducted according to the forum rules and norms, which means you are NOT free to inject misconceptions into every thread and then refuse correction. You are doing nothing other than a disservice to the OP. Stop now or face suspension.
    Last edited by KALSTER; April 21st, 2014 at 05:04 AM.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    This theory says E=mc^2, therefore with no mass there is no energy. 0 times anything is still zero.
    The correct equation is E = mc^2 + p^2c^2.
    Not quite, there are a couple of mistakes:
    tk421 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,966
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    This theory says E=mc^2, therefore with no mass there is no energy. 0 times anything is still zero.
    The correct equation is E = mc^2 + p^2c^2.
    Not quite, there are a couple of mistakes:
    Thanks for the always-eagle eyes, xyzt -- I mentally suppled the radical and square when I read the original.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    This theory says E=mc^2, therefore with no mass there is no energy. 0 times anything is still zero.
    The correct equation is E = mc^2 + p^2c^2.
    Not quite, there are a couple of mistakes:
    Thanks for the always-eagle eyes, xyzt -- I mentally suppled the radical and square when I read the original.
    I know, funny how our subconscious covers up (compensates for) the mistakes :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Moderator Warning: To Mayflow - I wish to make explicit what Kalster has clearly implied.
    1. Your contributions in this thread have been counterproductive because they have included false assertions.
    2. You have exacerbated this by refusing to acknowledge those errors.
    3. (You do not own this thread and nor does the OP.)
    4. Only the following actions by you are acceptable: do not post in the thread again; or, post to acknowledge your errors; or, post with facts that match those of the world of science at large.
    5. Any other action will result in a a suspension.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Probably the charged battery has more potential energy...
    Technically, it's chemical energy.
    I believe it is also potential energy until the current has a path to flow in and it becomes kinetic energy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    it becomes kinetic energy.
    No it doesn't.
    You should have heeded John Galt's post.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    This theory says E=mc^2, therefore with no mass there is no energy. 0 times anything is still zero.
    The correct equation is E = mc^2 + p^2c^2.
    Not quite, there are a couple of mistakes:
    Thanks for the always-eagle eyes, xyzt -- I mentally suppled the radical and square when I read the original.
    I know, funny how our subconscious covers up (compensates for) the mistakes :-)
    This does seem like the correct formula in complete form. E =sqrt{ (mc^2)^2 + p^2c^2}
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    This theory says E=mc^2, therefore with no mass there is no energy. 0 times anything is still zero.
    The correct equation is E = mc^2 + p^2c^2.
    Not quite, there are a couple of mistakes:
    Thanks for the always-eagle eyes, xyzt -- I mentally suppled the radical and square when I read the original.
    I know, funny how our subconscious covers up (compensates for) the mistakes :-)
    This does seem like the correct formula in complete form. E =sqrt{ (mc^2)^2 + p^2c^2}
    Despite agreeing with me (or just because of that), your claim above that

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow
    This theory says E=mc^2, therefore with no mass there is no energy. 0 times anything is still zero.
    is still just as wrong, since , i.e., contrary to your incorrect claim, .
    Mayflow likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Yes, in "light" of this momentum thing - my answer was incorrect and incomplete. I found what I think is a good and helpful explanation here...

    Q & A: How does light have momentum without mass? | Department of Physics | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
    KALSTER and John Galt like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Good. Thank you. Progress. Always welcome.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Amazing.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Really guys? I do not always understand what I see or hear, but xyzt made a good and reasonable post that I could learn and explore from.

    I do not always have to understand to appreciate however as in this question I got wrong in a course



    LIFE AS WE KNOW IT

    (1 point possible)
    Below is a list of possible ways in which the universe could have been different. Some of these changes would make life as we know it impossible in our universe.
    Tick the boxes next to all the changes that would definitely make life as we know it impossible. You may assume that there were many more protons than neutrons even before neutrons start to decay.
    I did get one right answer but apparently all are correct but the second one according to the teachers. Also I believe the topic had to do with Big Bang theory.


    Decreasing the binding energy of deuterium, so that deuterium cannot form until an hour after the Big Bang.
    Increasing the binding energy of deuterium so that it can form less than ten seconds after the Big Bang
    Having a persistent perfect balance between antimatter and matter
    Greatly increasing primordial fluctuations
    Greatly decreasing primordial fluctuations
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    The problem is not that you might not know, it is that you assert stuff and refuse correction. Now that you have done so it is fine.
    Mayflow likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    xyzt made a good correction/addition for my knowledge base. That is acceptable any time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    77
    So whats the answer could the energy create all matter today, and for all the people arguing about Mayflow, as long as you guys stay on topic (arguing about the topic included) then you can stay but it appears to me that an argument off topic started a while back, please don't continue it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    So whats the answer could the energy create all matter today...
    Some of the matter that exists today was created by humans.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    So whats the answer could the energy create all matter today...
    Some of the matter that exists today was created by humans.
    Using pre-existing energy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    77
    Well....I geuss it would require insane amounts of energy, but, "The only thing impossible is impossibility"~ Phineas and Ferb
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    So whats the answer could the energy create all matter today...
    Some of the matter that exists today was created by humans.
    Using pre-existing energy.
    Yes - but not pre-existing matter.
    The question was about matter, not energy.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    So whats the answer could the energy create all matter today...
    Some of the matter that exists today was created by humans.
    Using pre-existing energy.
    Yes - but not pre-existing matter.
    The question was about matter, not energy.
    No way - show me a reference that supports your case. Are you thinking about particles formed in the LHC machine?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    No way - show me a reference that supports your case.
    You can't think of an example...

    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Are you thinking about particles formed in the LHC machine?
    ...but then provide an example.

    Are you ok?


    (And I think there are other examples of pair production.)
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    No way - show me a reference that supports your case.
    You can't think of an example...

    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Are you thinking about particles formed in the LHC machine?
    ...but then provide an example.

    Are you ok?


    (And I think there are other examples of pair production.)
    I was just trying to think what sort of matter you are thinking of. It's been a while since I've had to think about it.

    So did you answer my question? "Show me a reference that supports your case. Are you thinking about particles formed in the LHC machine?"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I was just trying to think what sort of matter you are thinking of. It's been a while since I've had to think about it.
    Does it matter what kind of matter the matter is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    So did you answer my question?
    Yes.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I was just trying to think what sort of matter you are thinking of. It's been a while since I've had to think about it.
    Does it matter what kind of matter the matter is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    So did you answer my question?
    Yes.
    Unununium was quoted as being man made but really how much of it was man-made?
    Chemical Elements.com - Unununium (Uuu)
    You are not just talking about man-made compounds and isotopes are you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    You are not just talking about man-made compounds and isotopes are you?
    I was talking about matter being made by humans, as you can see from what I wrote:
    Quote Originally Posted by panda
    Some of the matter that exists today was created by humans.
    Something like this:
    http://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract...RevA.87.062107
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Robbitybob1, are you being deliberately obtuse?

    We know that we have created matter from energy. You even gave an example. It does not matter what matter was produced in this way, since the single, central point was that man has made matter from energy. Yet you continue running around this established point with a bunch of irrelevancies. Why?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Robbitybob1, are you being deliberately obtuse?

    We know that we have created matter from energy. You even gave an example. It does not matter what matter was produced in this way, since the single, central point was that man has made matter from energy. Yet you continue running around this established point with a bunch of irrelevancies. Why?
    No, I was just wanting a simple answer as to what matter existing today was man-made. RedPanda said "Some of the matter that exists today was created by humans." I have accepted that could be true in nuclear reactors and particle accelerators.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    The way in which you asked that question gave the impression that you doubted it was true. Your subsequent posts seemed to confirm this. I suspect Red Panda felt the same way and may have been puzzled and perhaps frustrated by it. (I would be interested to hear from Red Panda if my supposition is correct.) I do believe you are a sincere person RobbittyBob, but you don't half say some weird things in some very weird ways.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I suspect Red Panda felt the same way and may have been puzzled and perhaps frustrated by it. (I would be interested to hear from Red Panda if my supposition is correct.)
    'Puzzlement' would probably best describe my emotional response to bob's replies.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,966
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    So whats the answer could the energy create all matter today, and for all the people arguing about Mayflow, as long as you guys stay on topic (arguing about the topic included) then you can stay but it appears to me that an argument off topic started a while back, please don't continue it.
    Did you bother to read post #17? If not, you should. The answer to your question has been there for quite some time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Expanding universe without big bang?
    By Neuntoter in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: December 13th, 2013, 04:07 PM
  2. Big Bang might not be the origin of the universe
    By saha.subham in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: September 19th, 2009, 03:53 AM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: January 7th, 2009, 12:47 PM
  4. Did the Big Bang Create the Universe?
    By Raggedjoe in forum Physics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: December 19th, 2008, 01:11 PM
  5. The Universe and the Big Bang
    By hvv in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 21st, 2008, 07:54 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •