Science Circa 2017

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by The God, Mar 16, 2017.

  1. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,485
    And atomic number 137 element is coolly named as Feynmanium...
     
    sculptor likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,116
    YES!!

    Actually I have now found what I would regard as a reliable description of the issue Feynman identified at atomic number 137. I see now what you were getting at. https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/column-the-crucible/3005076.article

    You will see the conclusion is that some of this has been overhyped.

    You are however quite right that there are predicted to be problems maintaining stable neutral atoms, as opposed to ions, at some theoretical point. I did not know this before, so thanks very much for drawing it to my attention.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Another day, another lesson.
     
    sculptor likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,485
    Of course, you are not rejecting. You feel that something more shd come.

    I think apart from normal objections around inflation, it has one more major issue which needs addressing . The theory indirectly accepts that the smallest quanta of time is Planck's time, even though there is no basis for this. What if smallest quantum of time is 10°-34 seconds not 10°-43 seconds?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    I dont know?
    Alex
     
  8. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,485
    Even I don't know. Seems it was a rhetoric question.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. sweetpea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    673
    My bold.
    Alex, I'm not too sure if I'm understanding you here, are you saying you can't see how something finite in size can go to infinite in size? Is that right? As I understand it...
    You may already know, The state of the maths when reaching or nearing time zero for our observable universe was suggesting infinite energy density .i.e. The maths reach a singularity. That's doesn't mean a single point in space, it means everywhere in space. i.e. The big bang singularity is not a point singularity like that of a black hole.
    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2017
  10. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    Thank you for trying to explain things.
    I am confused I tbought it grew from something small at least.
    Alex
     
  11. sweetpea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    673
    Alex, did you see the link.
    It maybe convenient to think of an infinite size universe, and that every point in that universe is the centre of an observable universe. (Our observable universe is just one place).Then, as the expansion is run backwards the points get closer together (point density increases) but there is still an infinite area of points. In other words, the whole infinite universe has an energy density at or near infinite at every point in it. i.e. The condition everywhere in that infinite universe is that of infinite energy density at time zero or nearing zero.
    Edited. After reading Exchemist's post below. Took out the word smaller.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2017
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,116
    I think the problem is what one means by "small" in such a context, when the whole of spacetime itself is shrunk. If your ruler has shrunk too, in what sense has anything become "smaller"?
     
  13. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    Yes that is why I am confused.
    Alex
     
  14. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,485
    You are rightly confused....

    .....The condition everywhere in that infinite universe is that of infinite energy density at time zero or nearing zero...

    I am confused here, I do not think we had infinite universe at t = 0 with infinite density everywhere in that infinite universe. This is going towards multiverse. There is a single set of equations, back trace it to t=0, that t=0 is conceptualized as temporal point and spacetime evolved afterwards. So these set of equations do not give you infinite universe with everywhere conditions of infinite density.
     
  15. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,485
    This is where any member conversant with GR maths can jump in..

    1. Which part of GR confirms that speed of gravity is c?

    2. In weak field the GR reduces to Newtonian, so does the maths automatically lead to speed of gravity as infinite from c?

    3. If we ignore this speed part, and add couple of suitable correction terms in Newtonian, would we not get an amended Newtonian sufficient to explain all observation as explained by GR? I am not talking about MOND.
     
  16. sweetpea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    673
    Sorry for confusing you. I will guess what your confused about...I'm not talking here about the rapid inflation period (the link I gave does not relate to this rapid inflation period).

    The whole of an infinite universe can be said to start at time= zero. Then it starts expanding everywhere. Whether there are different rates of expansion in different parts is another story (Multiverse). The point to remember is that our observable universe is just a small part of of this infinite universe. Every point in this infinite universe can be considered to be at the centre of its own observable universe.
    If the expansion rate is the same throughout the infinite universe, then you find the energy density increases to infinite, or near that, everywhere as the expansion is run backwards to time zero.
    Now, by my reckoning Alex, you are in bed (04.00 a.m). Sweet dreams.
     

Share This Page