Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The 2nd Law does apply to energy in all cases (hence it is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). That you seem to think the laws of physics only apply at times calls into question your place in this discussion.
You are talking about the control of energy - NOT energy itself.
Do you really not understand the difference?
Everything we assert is an assertion. You have made many assertions, as have I. The difference is you seem unwilling to back up your assertions.Yet another assertion.
I am applying it solely to creation (in a closed system apart from any other forces).Are you talking about how the laws of thermodynamics apply to the universe as a whole and its creation, or something else?
Everything we assert is an assertion. You have made many assertions, as have I. The difference is you seem unwilling to back up your assertions.
The principle of controlling nuclear energy is based on the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. Energy disperses through distance.
For example, D=ME/6r^2 works because the 2nd Law is a constant.
Your turn. Give an example of how energy becomes more concentrated absent any external control.
Can you, or were you just making unsubstantiated assumptions?
I am applying it solely to creation (in a closed system apart from any other forces).
The only way I can see an outcome in the way of creation is if there were several energy sources that existed eternally, and for some reason these sources had an abundance of kinetic energy so that they could somehow interact. But then it still seems the interaction would lead to dispursement (pair production, for example, does not result in order. 1.022 MeV is converted into a b+ and b- particle, each with the mass equlivant of .511 MeV which eventually should collide with their respective opposite and result again in energy, 1.022 MeV traveling in a different direction...and kinetic energy).
I am trying to understand how whatever is thought of to have existed prior to anything being formed could have formed anything.
Good point. What I mean is the first thing.OK. But we should consider that the Universe we know of may have been part of something larger at the point it began.
Good point. What I mean is the first thing.
Either way it is an issue of faith, I suppose. Do we believe in God, or a god? Or do we believe in a preexisting something?
I enjoy thinking about how things could have come about (or how God created). But this is where science becomes scientific philosophy and religion becomes religious philosophy.
LOLAnd in the midst of this, if I actually thought some septic skeptic was only here to put the ol' Kibosh on your faith, I'd be one of the first ones to land full frontal on them. That, I guarantee, would not be a pretty sight!
Thermodynamics had nothing to do with the creation of the universe.If you want to talk origin of the universe you are in way over your head.
I've noticed when you discuss science in this thread there are errors.I am applying it solely to creation (in a closed system apart from any other forces).
The only way I can see an outcome in the way of creation is if there were several energy sources that existed eternally, and for some reason these sources had an abundance of kinetic energy so that they could somehow interact. But then it still seems the interaction would lead to dispursement (pair production, for example, does not result in order. 1.022 MeV is converted into a b+ and b- particle, each with the mass equlivant of .511 MeV which eventually should collide with their respective opposite and result again in energy, 1.022 MeV traveling in a different direction...and kinetic energy).
I am trying to understand how whatever is thought of to have existed prior to anything being formed could have formed anything.
Where the external E field there, is taken as primordial in the cosmological context, no(?)Equation (1) can therefore not occur in the classical physics version of a vacuum where only an external electric field is present devoid of matter;
...
You don't have to conjure up exotic mechanisms such as external energy sources when an external electric field and an atom will do for pair production to occur.
In a local context the external E-field could be the field between two charged plates or the electric field of an atom.Where the external E field there, is taken as primordial in the cosmological context, no(?)
Thanks for the correction. I'm using my phone and didn't catch that one. I understand it is a positron/electron pair. A proton has significantly more mass than an electron.I've noticed when you discuss science in this thread there are errors.
For example in your post #104 you seem to under the impression a proton/electron pair are produced from a gamma photon when it is in fact a positron/electron pair.
A proton is not a positron.
What you are describing are the reactions defined by the equations;
(1) γ → e⁺+ e⁻ which is positron/electron pair production.
(2) e⁺+ e⁻ → 2γ which is positron/electron annihilation.
Where γ, e⁺, e⁻ are the gamma photon, positron and electron respectively.
Notice there is no symmetry between equations (1) and (2); in equation (1) a single photon of energy 1.022 MeV is required for positron/electron pair production whereas in equation (2) 2 x 0.511 MeV photons are created from positron/electron annihilation.
In equation (2) both energy and momentum are conserved, in equation (1) only energy is conserved.
Equation (1) can therefore not occur in the classical physics version of a vacuum where only an external electric field is present devoid of matter; it requires matter such as an atom of atomic number Z to take some of the momentum of the electron/positron pair in the form of recoil in order for momentum to be conserved.
You don't have to conjure up exotic mechanisms such as external energy sources when an external electric field and an atom will do for pair production to occur.
In the case of annihilation when the electron/positron rest mass energy plus kinetic energy exceeds 0.511 MeV a range of other particles are produced.
From a classical physics perspective at cosmological scales the electron number densityDo strong Coulomb fields in a vacuum exist naturally?
So what are the odds that energy spontaneously becomes matter in nature?From a classical physics perspective at cosmological scales the electron number density
nₑ ≈ 1 m⁻³.
At such ridiculously low densities far beyond the very best vacuums found in laboratories this is approximated as an infinitely conductive plasma.
Most people are familiar with Ohm’s law and in its generalized version the equation is
J = σE where J is the current density, σ is the conductivity and E the electric field.
Dividing both sides by E;
J/E = σ
As σ → ∞, E → 0
For infinitely conductive plasmas, the overall electric field is zero hence at cosmological scales the electric field is for all intents and purposes zero.
However there is Quantum Field Theory where a vacuum is a field with the lowest energy.
Vacuum energy is a property of space-time.
There are different types of vacuums including an electromagnetic vacuum.
In this electromagnetic vacuum virtual particle/antiparticle pairs are created as vacuum fluctuations and destroyed in a very short time frame.
These virtual particles have been confirmed experimentally in the lab as the electromagnetic vacuum exerts pressure via the Casimir effect.
- Axis of evil: Some large features of the microwave sky at distances of over 13 billion light years appear to be aligned with both the motion and orientation of the solar system. Is this due to systematic errors in processing, contamination of results by local effects, or an unexplained violation of the Copernican principle?
- Fine-tuned universe: The values of the fundamental physical constants are in a narrow range necessary to support carbon-based life.[15][16][17] Is this because there exist other universes with different constants, or are our universe's constants the result of chance, or some other factor or process? (See also the Anthropic Principle.)
- Problem of time: In quantum mechanics, time is a classical background parameter and the flow of time is universal and absolute. In general relativity time is one component of four-dimensional spacetime, and the flow of time changes depending on the curvature of spacetime and the spacetime trajectory of the observer. How can these two concepts of time be reconciled?[18]
- Cosmic inflation: Is the theory of cosmic inflation in the very early universe correct, and, if so, what are the details of this epoch? What is the hypothetical inflaton scalar field that gave rise to this cosmic inflation? If inflation happened at one point, is it self-sustaining through inflation of quantum-mechanical fluctuations, and thus ongoing in some extremely distant place?[19]
- Horizon problem: Why is the distant universe so homogeneous when the Big Bang theory seems to predict larger measurable anisotropies of the night sky than those observed? Cosmological inflation is generally accepted as the solution, but are other possible explanations such as a variable speed of light more appropriate?[20]
- Origin and future of the universe: How did the conditions for anything to exist arise? Is the universe heading towards a Big Freeze, a Big Rip, a Big Crunch, or a Big Bounce? Or is it part of an infinitely recurring cyclic model?
- Size of universe: The diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light-years, but what is the size of the whole universe?
- Baryon asymmetry: Why is there far more matter than antimatter in the observable universe? (This may be solved due to the apparent asymmetry in neutrino-antineutrino oscillations.)[21]
- Cosmological principle: Is the universe homogeneous and isotropic at large enough scales, as claimed by the cosmological principle and assumed by all models that use the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric, including the current version of the ΛCDM model, or is the universe inhomogeneous or anisotropic?[22] Is the CMB dipole purely kinematic, or does it signal anisotropy of the universe, resulting in the breakdown of the FLRW metric and the cosmological principle?[22] Is the Hubble tension evidence that the cosmological principle is false?[22] Even if the cosmological principle is correct, is the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric the right metric to use for our universe?[23][22] Are the observations usually interpreted as the accelerating expansion of the universe rightly interpreted, or are they instead evidence that the cosmological principle is false?[24][25]
- Copernican principle: Are cosmological observations made from Earth representative of observations from the average position in the universe?
- Cosmological constant problem: Why does the zero-point energy of the vacuum not cause a large cosmological constant? What cancels it out?[26][7]
Estimated distribution of dark matter and dark energy in the universe
- Dark matter: What is the identity of dark matter?[20] Is it a particle? If so, is it a WIMP, axion, the lightest superpartner (LSP), or some other particle? Or, do the phenomena attributed to dark matter point not to some form of matter but actually to an extension of gravity?
- Dark energy: What is the cause of the observed accelerating expansion of the universe (the de Sitter phase)? Are the observations rightly interpreted as the accelerating expansion of the universe, or are they evidence that the cosmological principle is false?[24][25] Why is the energy density of the dark energy component of the same magnitude as the density of matter at present when the two evolve quite differently over time; could it be simply that we are observing at exactly the right time? Is dark energy a pure cosmological constant or are models of quintessence such as phantom energy applicable?
- Dark flow: Is a non-spherically symmetric gravitational pull from outside the observable universe responsible for some of the observed motion of large objects such as galactic clusters in the universe?
- Shape of the universe: What is the 3-manifold of comoving space, i.e., of a comoving spatial section of the universe, informally called the "shape" of the universe? Neither the curvature nor the topology is presently known, though the curvature is known to be "close" to zero on observable scales. The cosmic inflation hypothesis suggests that the shape of the universe may be unmeasurable, but, since 2003, Jean-Pierre Luminet, et al., and other groups have suggested that the shape of the universe may be the Poincaré dodecahedral space. Is the shape unmeasurable; the Poincaré space; or another 3-manifold?
- The largest structures in the universe are larger than expected. Current cosmological models say there should be very little structure on scales larger than a few hundred million light-years across, due to the expansion of the universe trumping the effect of gravity.[27] But the Sloan Great Wall is 1.38 billion light-years in length. And the largest structure currently known, the Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall, is up to 10 billion light-years in length. Are these actual structures or random density fluctuations? If they are real structures, they contradict the 'End of Greatness' hypothesis which asserts that at a scale of 300 million light-years, structures seen in smaller surveys are randomized to the extent that the smooth distribution of the universe is visually apparent.
- Extra dimensions: Does nature have more than four spacetime dimensions? If so, what is their size? Are dimensions a fundamental property of the universe or an emergent result of other physical laws? Can we experimentally observe evidence of higher spatial dimensions?
So what are the odds that energy spontaneously becomes matter in nature?
It has no origin. Nobody knows what form.How is that energy manifest? What form does it have?
Then you just answered your own question about the odds(?)It has no origin. Nobody knows what form.
It has no origin. Nobody knows what form.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?