Quantum Mechanics

Krauss and Turner (A Cosmic Conundrum), give a good argument concerning an expanding universe using the cosmological constant ( space ,time, gravity). Their mathematical equations differ dramatically from Einstein's. The cosmological term and QVE are equivalent, but one is a property of space and the other of energy. Particle and anti-particle pairs (virtual particles). What is the latest info on dark energy and the big rip?
Please explain the Hubble riddle vs. gravatational attraction? Being brief, not to bore, I question no more.
Questioning Questions of Questions

 

And so we see that at certain levels physics becomes philosophy.
Not that I'm surprised.
Cut out the middleman, simply study Philosophy.
Jack

 

Same

Jack,
I love the concept of Philosophy, but I question what I do not understand. Need proof. And will talk Phil. with you anytime. I think Philosophy energizes thought, but limits itself. Think about this.
Cannot accept a concept without working all the available information. Accepting something, because I have difficulty explaining it, just ain't in my limited repetoire.
Clay (The Philosophical Paradox)

 

You'd need a LOT more math and physics background than I ever DREAMED of having even to attempt to give a good answer BUT...

It seems to me that the ultra distilled totally math-free "don't worry your pretty little head about it (pat-pat)" version from Scientific American (am I the only one who thinks SciAm went MAJORLY downhill in the past few years?) is that dark energy is probably real and probably necessary because even with dark matter, there isn't enough in the Universe.

I also think that cosmologists are upset by some observations that tend to show that the rate of expansion is INCREASING, difficult to explain without a major rethink.

What could POSSIBLY drive such an accelerated expansion?

I'll quit babbling.

 

Same

Noseborn48,
You are right about SA. But my point was, re. expansion, and red-shift. I figure this info is fairly old, so I was attempting to get more current data. I'm still a book kinda guy and cannot do equations on this machine. Numerous legal pads, chalkboard.

Also when doing searches, I tend to get too many sites. And some want me to pay for info. we have paid for.

My buddies at the uni. send me faxes, but I get stuck, and they take weeks to get back. Some of the math is out of my league, so I need help. It's a hobby. And you are not babbling.

How is your back?
Clay

 

Same

I figured it was realtors.

 

Same

My subscription to SA is free. I can drop $1-200 mo. on books, easily, and the info is old already. So, I'm a cheapskate and try to slide. I'm also out of space for storage. Read a rag, in the trash.
Books are hard to toss.


If you go to Virtual Quantum Mechanics (web), from KSU, you can start getting into the math. If that's too simple, go to "An Intro. to Quantum Mechanics". It can grow on you.

Have fun,
Clay

 

Same

Steve,
Dimentional transference is one theory.

 

Same

Nosborne48,
Apologize for my misspelling, attempted writing w/o reading glasses. What is your level of math? This is a great pastime, but requires some heavy duty comprehension of physics. If you are trying to make a statement, please be more specific.
I'm not an attorney, are you a mathematician ? My inquiry was focused on a specific question. You stated the obvious.
I learn from several folks, on this forum, and being computer illiterate is my fault. If you can contribute to my inquiry, expound on your knowledge, or allow someone else to answer my questions.
If you feel better, because you can understand SA, you should be proud. Most people cannot. And as stated, it has become pablum.
I only try to learn. No agenda. And help where I can. That is why I directed you toward references. You expressed an interest in the subject. Your importance is not diminished.
Because someone's interests are more intracate, does not give allowances for your feeble attempt at embarrassment. E-mail your mathematical reply, or do your homework.
For a curmudgeon, I'm a fairly nice guy. And you pose no threat.
This new(to me) form of communication is fantastic. I'm very inept.
Perhaps, one day, I'll be able to ask a question, without the sarcasm. My stupid question on blogs, was answered by several helpful individuals. And I will not attempt same.
Admitting one's lack of knowledge, is not an acknowledgement of
lack of ability to learn. If you choose to be an adversary, no problem. If you choose to be a teacher, and student, fine. There are several intellects, willing to overlook my inadequacies, that advise, rather than play games.
If all works , as intended, I'll be fighting (again) to keep your homeland secure. I suggest you volunteer to do the same. If your commitments require your presence, no problem, I understand.
Clay

 

Great reflections, Nosborne. You´re truly a Renaissance man.

I am not very informed, but what about the obvious answer, why would it stop accelerating if nothing is preventing them it doing so? Or do you expect the gravitational forces that are suppossed to decrease the acceleration rate? I think traditional mechanics could përfectly explain that if we suppose the universe doesn´t do *work*(W = F x ds) when it expands. Or if we suppose that the university hasn´t reached yet the point in which gravitation forces are greater than expansional forces at which point expansion rate would decrease. I don´t know if it makes sense.....


And regarding those cosmological constants ...... Einstein called them himself the major blunder of his life. They are just created to fit a model so..... I mean, isn´t it like forcing them so everything works smoother? I tend to distrust them.

 

Same

Gravity is a weak force. With expansion it becomes weaker. Simplicity, wrong answer. Philosophy, no answer.
Simple physics- The farther an object from another, the less influence on either. The mass of an object can only effect objects within a certain field. This effect is always present, just deminished.
The mass of our galaxy + the mass of close galaxies is attractive, but DE/DM contravene attraction/constriction. Eventually all galaxies will expand to infinity, not introducing dementional conversion.
Theory is: Expansion to oblivion/ alternate universe(s). When black holes(galactic centers) either run out of food, or become so massive they take a break. As space/time is torn, galaxies disappear.
This is accepted, the process is questioned. Arguments? Answers? Kick me in the ass? Res jesti. No fifth. No Miranda.

Nosborne,
Explain high energy and matter physics.
I don't practice law. If you have a physics question, ask.
If I have a legal question I will certainly ask.
If you need to play games, have at it.
Best wishes,
Clay

 

If the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, it won´t do that to infinity as you claim since its entropy will proportionally increase as well and it will run out of energy to a quantum vacuum. There won´t be means to come back.

Any degree in astrophysics or cosmology by distance? I think UNISA has one. UNED, in Madrid, has a 5 year degree in theoretical physics, I think.


Regards

 

I presume this has something to do with dementia? Which seems to be the topic of this thread ...

 

same

Lack of sleep, approaching dementia.

 

Same

JVL,
The stars become more distant, the matter becomes unable to condense, the stars burn out. My infinity, in simple terms. Just a jerk with a hobby, spelling problems, insomnia, no typing or computer skills. Appreciate the help. We can estimate the size of the universe, but cannot guess the expansion, yet. De...di..dahmensional shift.

 

For heaven's sake, Clay, relax. Looking over my post, I honestly can't see how I was playing any sort of game with you. I disclaim any pretension to real understanding; that's why I made the reference to babbling.

Your non-mathematice comments refer to things about which I have heard and read in a non mathematical way. I am certainly unequipped to give any real explanation.

Please feel free to ignor anything I've written!

BTW: I HAVE seen it posited that the Universe will expand at a sufficient rate the "stay ahead" of increasing entropy. Just curious; do you have an opinion?

 

Same

Nosborne48,
My apologies, too tired, and reading into things too much. Yes, my current opinion coincides with yours. I'm just cranky, deserve a kick in the ###. Stuck again and aggravated with myself. Sorry for my poor manners.

 

It´s not for me but I jump in if it´s OK.

What do you mean? That the universe´s expansion is so rapid that variations in entropy can only take place later? That´s perverse. Can you defeat entropy really? HOW?

 

Same

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't seem to work the same at subatomic levels. Time does/doesn't move in at least two directions. Puzzling, and a pain in my rear.