Starship Asterisk*

If we could strip these four down, And divide by 100 trillion times .. would we see the same complexities as we see in our universe?

No or very little mass particle <------- pointing a way back? <--------- to past nothing? to smaller and smaller until what?

temperature goes past zero -1 -360.... What about matter?

mark swain wrote:If we could strip these four down,

What do you mean "strip" them down?

mark swain wrote:And divide by 100 trillion times ..

Divide what?

mark swain wrote:No or very little mass particle

Why not?

mark swain wrote:<------- pointing a way back?

Pointing? Back?

mark swain wrote:<--------- to past nothing?

Eh!?!

mark swain wrote:to smaller and smaller until what?

What's getting smaller?

mark swain wrote:temperature goes past zero -1 -360....

On what scale? Kelvin? If so, what could "past zero" possibly mean?

mark swain wrote:What about matter?

What about it?

Instead of dropping these non sequiters on us, why not take the time to formulate a real question, do some work thinking about it, then post you thoughts showing us what you've done so far and what you think needs doing about it?

Rob

Rob, you just have no appreciation for post-modern physics blog poetry. I believe my prior posts have summed up the subjects of poetry and The Incredible Shrinking Man.

Damn! I knew I was missing something.

Rob

PS
If Mark's musings were set to music, would they be leider? Or loss leader?

He just needs the auto tuner.

http://astrophysics.suite101.com/articl ... e_big_bang

Mass.

lighter and lighter until it reaches zero mass ... then where? is it possible to have particles with a minus mass .. just like temptreture goes down to zero then rises again ..

If hydrogen, helium, lithium, and beryllium were the only things allowed in the very early universe, does there light mass indicate, previous stages from 100 trillion smaller than a atom?

sorry for the vague earlier post.

rstevenson wrote:If Mark's musings were set to music, would they be leider?

German pronounces the second one of two adjacent vowels. Lieder (pronounced with a long e) are songs. Leiden (pronounced with a long i) are pains. Freudian Fehlleistung?

mark swain wrote:lighter and lighter until it reaches zero mass ... then where? is it possible to have particles with a minus mass ..

No.

just like temptreture goes down to zero then rises again ..

Temperature never reaches zero, and it doesn't cross zero into negative values.

If hydrogen, helium, lithium, and beryllium were the only things allowed in the very early universe, does there light mass indicate, previous stages from 100 trillion smaller than a atom?

No. The masses of these elements are quantized. Mass in this case isn't a continuous scale. Hydrogen is the lightest element because it has the minimum number of subatomic particles in its nucleus (1); each of the other elements has a higher quantized mass because more particles are involved. You can't have an atom lighter than hydrogen because if you take away its single proton, you don't have an atom anymore!

The elements you list weren't the only ones "allowed" in the early Universe, they are simply the only ones created given the energies present. Heavier elements came into existence very quickly after that, in a Universe that had exactly the same rules.

apodman wrote:

rstevenson wrote:If Mark's musings were set to music, would they be leider?

German pronounces the second one of two adjacent vowels. Lieder (pronounced with a long e) are songs. Leiden (pronounced with a long i) are pains. Freudian Fehlleistung?

Oops!

Lacking lead time -- and being laden by overwork -- I was led down the wrong path. Now that that has been laid to rest, I will listen to some lieder in my hosen.

Rob

See the Timeline of the Big Bang
Fermilab graphical version here
Also see Elementary Particles

In the beginning there was ultra hot, ultra dense energy. As the universe expanded and cooled, some of that energy took the form of elementary particles. Further expansion and cooling allowed some of those elementary particles to form protons (hydrogen is born) and others into neutrons. The universe was still hot enough at this point to allow nuclear fusion. Neutrons fused with protons to from deuterium (heavy hydrogen), hydrogen and deuterium atoms fused to form helium, hydrogen and helium to form lithium, etc. The universe was rapidly cooling and there wasn't enough energy to form heavier elements and it eventually cooled to the point that it couldn't even sustain fusing the lighter elements. This is only the first 20 minutes of the universe.

rstevenson wrote:Lacking lead time -- and being laden by overwork -- I was led down the wrong path. Now that that has been laid to rest, I will listen to some lieder in my hosen.

Those are usually leder, but are often quite leide as well... especially if you're caught wearing them in the wrong part of town!

Thanks bystander,,

If we having a joke on the subject then i might as well finish of with this final picture

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gSlNhM3fKA4/R ... rglass.jpg

and ask... which side does our universe,, and the anti universe belong?

mark swain wrote:and ask... which side does our universe,, and the anti universe belong?

Since you have failed to define "anti universe", there's no way to answer that.

Chris Peterson wrote:Since you have failed to define "anti universe", there's no way to answer that.

yep,, that,s what they say here.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 67,00.html

but i had a lot more to say about why particles could go from neg to poss..

mark swain wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:Since you have failed to define "anti universe", there's no way to answer that.

yep,, that,s what they say here.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 67,00.html

Actually, it isn't. The article talks about a wildly speculative "anti-matter universe". And what is really to the point are the proposer's comments:

But Goldhaber readily admits that no one has any evidence that an antimatter universe has ever so tampered with the known universe. In fact, man does not now have the evidence—or the tools—to prove or disprove the anti-universe theory. "This is not the kind of debate that is settled overnight," Goldhaber said last week as his fellow scientists began to grapple with his science-fictionlike hypothesis. "I'm only asking a question, not making a statement."

An untestable idea is not a scientific theory. This isn't even a "debate". Questions like this are mainly asked to generate more questions, not to produce any answers themselves.

Chris Peterson wrote:An untestable idea is not a scientific theory. This isn't even a "debate". Questions like this are mainly asked to generate more questions, not to produce any answers themselves.

for every action, there is a reaction. if they say the universe was at some point 100 trillion time smaller than an atom. I must assume it goes even farther. and there will be a shadow from it. you just got to find it.

Hadron Collider trying to crack open particles

http://www.gearlog.com/2009/10/large_ha ... ts_ope.php

it will be found..

mark swain wrote:for every action, there is a reaction.

Non sequitur. And only accurate within a specific context, which I don't see here.

if they say the universe was at some point 100 trillion time smaller than an atom. I must assume it goes even farther.

Why must you assume this? Nature is full of things that change size over time, from a well established minimum to a well established maximum. I can't think of anything that is ever arbitrarily small or arbitrarily large.

The only sure truth about the size of the Universe at the beginning is that nobody knows. It may have been a true singularity (the math works fine, even if intuition fails), or it may have had a finite volume. In the first fraction of a second none of the rules we see today applied. Even the idea of "size" may not have had any meaning.

Chris Peterson wrote:In the first fraction of a second none of the rules we see today applied. Even the idea of "size" may not have had any meaning.

omg the universe is infinite.... what we see,, is just times by one. and again times by one. for ever... you are not allowed to break the rules Chris.

mark swain wrote:you are not allowed to break the rules Chris.

Nobody is allowed to break the rules. Physics is all about figuring out what the rules are, and we don't yet have that completely figured out.

http://scienceray.com/physics/strange-s ... ypotheses/

You may find these interesting.

Mark

mark swain wrote:You may find these interesting.

Glad they called them "hypotheses" and not theories. But the part on black holes was badly out of place. Unlike the first four ideas, which are highly speculative (and most likely false), black holes are observed objects which solidly fit in with existing theory. They aren't hypotheses, and they aren't "amazingly bizarre".

Chris Peterson wrote:But the part on black holes was badly out of place. Unlike the first four ideas, which are highly speculative (and most likely false), black holes are observed objects which solidly fit in with existing theory. They aren't hypotheses, and they aren't "amazingly bizarre".

You can not see a black hole, you can not comment on the invisible until you have all the facts, of which you do not.

you see objects being moved by something unknown....a leaf from your own book chris

mark swain wrote:You can not see a black hole, you can not comment on the invisible until you have all the facts, of which you do not.

you see objects being moved by something unknown....a leaf from your own book chris :)

I could say the same for electrons, and for stars, and for just about everything. That doesn't mean they are unlikely to exist.