Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[exchemist]

And another year begins, with still no "CONTAINER" !

Your hovercraft appears to be full of eels.

 

[gnostic]

But science afaik does not know the radiation power of the total em radio frequency continuum spectrum in free space, frequency by frequency. There is no way yet to measure them once wavelengths get to a certain size afaik. If a way is developed to measure them and they amount to a significant force, the Casimir effect in the macro could be shown to be a factor in 'gravity', they could be called gravity waves...wait just kidding, that name is already taken. What are these gravity waves they are detecting btw?

I have consistently used the term Casimir effect principle in this discussion when referring to the macro, the principle being that radiation pressure between objects in space is less than that from free space, due to the limited frequency spectrum range between the objects as opposed to the full spectrum from free space,and thus there would be a tendency for the objects to move towards each other.

I am talking about radio waves at very long wavelengths.

I was not thinking of the 'gravity waves' we hear about in the media as causing gravity, but I made a joke about it.

These 3 posts of yours don’t make any sense.

What does Casimir Effect (CE) have to do with gravity?

The CE have to do with field fluctuation resulting in forces in vacuum of space between a couple of boundaries, but CE description related to Quantum Field Theory, MORE SPECIFICALLY relating to electromagnetic waves.

Hence the talk of wavelength on the subject of Casimir Effect.

Wavelength have more to do with EM waves (or with sound waves), but have nothing to do with gravity or with gravitation.

Why are you confusing EM with gravitation or Casimir Effect with gravitation?

The Casimir Effect may also be linked to the vacuum energy known as zero-point energy (ZPE), but anything to do with ZPE you might want to ask @Polymath257, @ratiocinator or others who have this far in physics, because I don’t know much about ZPE.

Anyway. You seemed to be confused whenever YOU bring up Casimir Effect.

Might I suggest that you read What is Casimir Effect? from Scientific American. Hopefully this article will clear some of the confusion about Casimir Effect.

 

[Polymath257]

Said by one who even don´t understand the logics that supernovas cannot explode several times in a row and subsequently therefore cannot be used as examples of any nucleosynthesis theory at all.

Happy New Year

We do know supernova happen and destroy the original stars. Your example suggests that a very few may not.

So how does that affect nucleosynthesis? Not at all.

 

[Polymath257]

Compared to several other debaters, you certainly do. Still, you´re having troubles to combine different parts of the E&M forces and processes in nuclear formations.

Different 'parts' of the E&M forces? You mean the electric force and the magnetic force?

I have no trouble at all discussing E&M forces in nuclear reactions. But their main contribution is to keep the nuclei away from each other, preventing fusion, unless the energies are very high.

Also here you´re having troubles understanding when I speak of "plasma" in general. I speak of the cosmic clouds which provides the needed atoms in order to make "plasmatic fusions" which binds atoms together to all kind of firm matters in cosmos.

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. At the very least, you seem to be redefining the notion of 'plasma' (which negates the 'plasma physics' viewpoint). You seem to consistently disregard the energies required to get fusions reactions, which only happen in the interiors of stars, neutron stars, or around black holes. They also happened in the very early universe.

You should now know by now what you can do with your weak gravity. Free floating gases and dust in cosmos or, in the atmosphere, does not suddenly contract and fuse to firm matters. It needs an EXTERNAL force to be moved at all, as it once was moved by an external force different from "gravity".

This is just wrong. Gas and dust in the cosmos appears in *huge* clouds that are light years across. This is fully enough for the mass to be large enough for gravity to be relevant.

Once again, the more mass you have, the more gravitational force you have.

Regarding the concept of "pressure" in nucleous processes you have to focus on the E&M Z-pinch effect and plasma fusion.

Quote:
"The first real effort to build a control fusion reactor used the pinch effect in a toroidal container. A large transformer wrapping the container was used to induce a current in the plasma inside. This current creates a magnetic field that squeezes the plasma into a thin ring, thus "pinching" it.

"The first real effort to build a control fusion reactor used the pinch effect in a toroidal container. A large transformer wrapping the container was used to induce a current in the plasma inside. This current creates a magnetic field that squeezes the plasma into a thin ring, thus "pinching" it.

Here you have a scientific explanation of the nuclear fusion process instead of your weak unexplained gravity arguments. And such a nuclear z-pinch process also takes place in galactic centers via electric currents which creates the magnetic fields.

These were in fusion reactions *on Earth* that happen at MUCH higher temperatures (and happen much faster) than what happens in the interior of the sun.

And, yes, in the lab gravity won't be a significant force promoting fusion. The masses involved are just too small. So an alternative is required for fusion in the lab. You just described one of the alternatives.

I said:
One can read several pages of physical encyclopedia of nuclear descriptions WITHOUT any direct notion of the specific E&M fundamental forces. They´re talking of fusions of atoms without even thinking of the E&M properties of atoms.

Do you really think your weak gravity can overcome the significant much stronger E&M and change such an E&M reppelling force to work as an attractive and fusing force?

Once again, yes. If there is enough mass, there will be high pressure and high temperatures at the center. it is the temperature and pressure that are required for fusion to happen. In the core of the sun, the temperature is fairly low (only 50 million degrees K compared to billions in Earth-based fusion labs), but the pressure is very high (due to gravity and a LOT of mass).

I don´t think your one way weak non electromagnetic force can do just that.

What you think is pretty irrelevant. Gravity is additive, so a LOT of mass (like in the sun) will produce a LOT of gravity. E&M has two charges, which are usually in balance. And that means that E&M forces tend to cancel out except *very* locally.

So, gravity is an inverse square force, but it is also additive. If you double the amount of material, the force doubles. If you multiply the amount fo material by 10, the force is also multiplied by 10. But, if you double the separation, the force goes down by a factor of 4.

The electric force, on the other hand, is also inverse square. But, if you have both a positive and a negative charge, the combined force goes down as the inverse cube. So, if you double the distance, the force decreases by a factor of 8. if, instead, you have 2 positive and 2 negative charges, the combined effect goes down as the fourth power: doubling the distance decreases the force by a factor of 16.

Now, take an oxygen atom, for example. There are 8 positive charges in the nucleus and 8 negative charges in the electrons. That means that the combined electric force decreases as the 6th power: doubling the distance decreases the net force by a factor of 64. This effect dominates as long as you have enough cancelling forces. Even getting a small distance away will bring the net force to almost zero.

This is why gravity is dominant in astronomy: the masses are large and the effects of the charges cancel out. The mass of the Earth is enough to make things fall as we see them. Even more, it is enough to keep the atmosphere around the Earth, giving the air pressure you so like to talk about.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

OK, well the CMBR frequency distribution includes radio waves. Here is a link showing the radiation distribution by frequency, as measured by COBE:

https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/cmb.htm


The radio region, if you exclude microwaves, would be from about 1GHz and lower, i.e. the far left hand side of the graph. You will see there is not much intensity at such long wavelengths. The peak of the curve in is the microwave region.

By very long wavelength, I am speaking of tens, hundreds, thousands, etc., of Km, not cm.

 

[Polymath257]

By very long wavelength, I am speaking of tens, hundreds, thousands, etc., of Km, not cm.

Exactly. And such wavelengths have *very* low energy. A photon with a wavelength of 1Km has an energy that is 1/100,000th that of one with a wavelength of 1 cm. That means the zero point energy associated with such (in other words, the energy where there is exactly *one* photon of that wavelength) is very, very low.

The reason the zero point energy is called that is that it is the *lowest* possible energy in a situation. So, it would have *one* photon of the longest wavelength allowed. For the system between the Earth and the Moon, that is a very, very, very low energy. Hardly close to what is required to describe the force of gravity.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Exactly. And such wavelengths have *very* low energy. A photon with a wavelength of 1Km has an energy that is 1/100,000th that of one with a wavelength of 1 cm. That means the zero point energy associated with such (in other words, the energy where there is exactly *one* photon of that wavelength) is very, very low.

The reason the zero point energy is called that is that it is the *lowest* possible energy in a situation. So, it would have *one* photon of the longest wavelength allowed. For the system between the Earth and the Moon, that is a very, very, very low energy. Hardly close to what is required to describe the force of gravity.

Still, a 1 Km wavelength emitting source 100,000 times greater than that of the 1 cm source would result in equal energy.

That is not to say I am not taking note of your point re gravity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still, a 1 Km wavelength emitting source 100,000 times greater than that of the 1 cm source would result in equal energy.

Why do you think that would happen?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why do you think that would happen?

Depends on the source, a 1 cm wavelength suggests a relatively small point source, a 1 Km wavelength otoh would require a larger source, I am not a scientist but I imagine some suns would transmit wavelengths at thousands of Km from solar surface activity, as well as the 1 cm, but from different types of solar activity. Their energy levels would be different.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Depends on the source, a 1 cm wavelength suggests a relatively small point source, a 1 Km wavelength otoh would require a larger source, I am not a scientist but I imagine some suns would transmit wavelengths at thousands of Km from solar surface activity, as well as the 1 cm, but from different types of solar activity. Their energy levels would be different.

Wait a second. Are we still talking about the Casimir Effect? Or have you moved on?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Wait a second. Are we still talking about the Casimir Effect? Or have you moved on?

I have used the term Casimir effect principle, principle being the operative word, when referring to the macro workings of the effect as distinct from the micro which refers to the Casimir experiment with zpe. Here is a 15 second graphic which illustrates that when there are two objects in free space bathed in the same spectrum of radiation pressure, due to the frequency cut off of larger wavelengths present between them, there is greater energy on the outsides tending to push them closer. It does not depend on frequency.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

These 3 posts of yours don’t make any sense.

What does Casimir Effect (CE) have to do with gravity?

The CE have to do with field fluctuation resulting in forces in vacuum of space between a couple of boundaries, but CE description related to Quantum Field Theory, MORE SPECIFICALLY relating to electromagnetic waves.

Hence the talk of wavelength on the subject of Casimir Effect.

Wavelength have more to do with EM waves (or with sound waves), but have nothing to do with gravity or with gravitation.

Why are you confusing EM with gravitation or Casimir Effect with gravitation?

The Casimir Effect may also be linked to the vacuum energy known as zero-point energy (ZPE), but anything to do with ZPE you might want to ask @Polymath257, @ratiocinator or others who have this far in physics, because I don’t know much about ZPE.

Anyway. You seemed to be confused whenever YOU bring up Casimir Effect.

Might I suggest that you read What is Casimir Effect? from Scientific American. Hopefully this article will clear some of the confusion about Casimir Effect.

Read my last post to SZ and see if that helps.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This is not addressing the subject of gravity directly, but does touch on the principle of radiation pressure moving things in space. Radio waves could construct buildings in space

 

[gnostic]

Depends on the source, a 1 cm wavelength suggests a relatively small point source, a 1 Km wavelength otoh would require a larger source, I am not a scientist but I imagine some suns would transmit wavelengths at thousands of Km from solar surface activity, as well as the 1 cm, but from different types of solar activity. Their energy levels would be different.

Yes. The sun do radiate all sorts of radiations and their accompanying energies:

• Visible light (eg sunlight, and the colors)
• Infrared, which transfer thermal energy, eg heat
• Ultraviolet (ionizing radiations)
• Gamma rays (another ionizing radiations)
• Neutrinos

The sources of gamma rays and neutrinos, originally come from the sun’s interior - the core.

The core is made of very dense plasma of mostly hydrogen. Because the core is both massive and very dense, therefore the gravitational force cause enough heat to start thermonuclear fusion on the ionized hydrogen atoms, fusing them into helium atoms.

This process of fusing hydrogen atoms into helium atoms, is called Stellar Nucleosynthesis. This type of nucleosynthesis, is known as proton-proton chain reaction (look it up).

There are other types of Stellar Nucleosynthesis from much more massive stars that fuse new elements heavier than helium, like carbon nucleosynthesis or cycle of carbon, nitrogen and oxygen (CNO Cycle nucleosynthesis).

And the fusion also cause release of immense heat, as well as gamma waves and neutrinos. The heat will radiate outwards to the upper layers as well as sun’s surface.

It is thermonuclear fusion reaction at the core that cause the surface of hydrogen plasma to become hot enough to be incandescent. And it is this that provide our planet the source of light, heat (infrared) and ultraviolet.

What I have explained here, is actually abbreviated version. The details are more complicated. But my points were to show you some of the sources of radiation that come from our Sun.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes. The sun do radiate all sorts of radiations and their accompanying energies:

• Visible light
• Infrared, which transfer thermal energy, eg heat
• Ultraviolet (ionizing radiations)
• Gamma rays (another ionizing radiations)
• Neutrinos

The sources of gamma rays and neutrinos, originally come from the sun’s interior - the core.

The core is made of very dense plasma of mostly hydrogen. Because the core is both massive and very dense, therefore the gravitational force cause enough heat to start thermonuclear fusion on the ionized hydrogen atoms, fusing them into helium atoms.

This process of fusing hydrogen atoms into helium atoms, is called Stellar Nucleosynthesis. This type of nucleosynthesis, is known as proton-proton chain reaction. There are other types of Stellar Nucleosynthesis from much more massive stars that new elements heavier than helium, like carbon nucleosynthesis or cycle of carbon, nitrogen and oxygen (CNO Cycle nucleosynthesis).

And the fusion also cause release of immense heat, as well as gamma waves and neutrinos. The heat will radiate outwards to the upper layers as well as sun’s surface.

It is thermonuclear fusion reaction at the core that cause the surface of hydrogen plasma to become hot enough to be incandescent. And it is this that provide our planet the source of light, heat (infrared) and ultraviolet.

What I have explained here, is actually abbreviated version. The details are more complicated. But my points were to show you some of the sources of radiation that come from our Sun.

Thank you gnostic.

 

[gnostic]

Read my last post to SZ and see if that helps.

I understand the Casimir Effect to certain extents.

But it is you who sounds confused.

The Casimir Effect have to do with EM, not with gravitation. Casimir Effect belonged to Quantum Mechanics or Quantum Field Theory.

If you are serious wanting to understand or discuss about gravitation than I think you need to read up on General Relativity.

 

[gnostic]

Thank you gnostic.

You are welcome. And happy new year, Ben.

I am in the same boat as you. I know something about the science behind nature, but not as much I would like.

What I meant by the last part in the above paragraph: There are so much to learn, and very little time to do so. I am still learning.

If I want to learn about some, I’d read. If I get stuck on something I’ve read, I will ask questions.

But I am willing to share what I have learned in the past years, as well learn something from others.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I understand the Casimir Effect to certain extents.

But it is you who sounds confused.

The Casimir Effect have to do with EM, not with gravitation. Casimir Effect belonged to Quantum Mechanics or Quantum Field Theory.

If you are serious wanting to understand or discuss about gravitation than I think you need to read up on General Relativity.

Gnostic, so here are some scientific papers I linked to that got us here.. I had asked members to see if any were credible and they have been addressed to some extent. You need to go back and see the beginning, this has all been covered, I don't know how you missed them.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...y_and_the_Emergence_of_Gravity_Two_Hypotheses

Gravity and Zero Point Energy - ScienceDirect

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:214280/FULLTEXT01.pdf

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are welcome. And happy new year, Ben.

I am in the same boat as you. I know something about the science behind nature, but not as much I would like.

What I meant by the last part in the above paragraph: There are so much to learn, and very little time to do so. I am still learning.

If I want to learn about some, I’d read. If I get stuck on something I’ve read, I will ask questions.

But I am willing to share what I have learned in the past years, as well learn something from others.

Yes, that's what I've been doing with thread, asking questions and learning. To catch glimpses from time to time of the awesomeness of the universe stills my mind. Which after digesting, I have a lot more new questions, wash, rinse, and repeat...

And thank you, happy new year to you gnostic..

 

[gnostic]

Yes, that's what I've been doing with thread, asking questions and learning. To catch glimpses from time to time of the awesomeness of the universe stills my mind.

In my earlier years in high school, I had wanted to become astronomer, but I gave up that dream, when I realized there were no courses nearby, and universities that did offer them, weren’t taking much undergrad students.

So astronomy was something I will be interested in, but could never do it for living.

In my senior years, I have dreamed of studying architecture, and the few places that offered the course, I couldn’t get in, but I got into civil engineering.

Just some things in life will take you to places that you don’t plan for.

Anyway, in recent years, like in the last 15+ years, I have been learning different science in my own times, including astronomy and cosmology that I didn’t learn when I was younger. Forums like this, and the I joined before RF, renewed my passion for science that I didn’t study for.

I am far more curious about sciences now, then, back then when I was in high school or even at universities.