Handy andy
-
Posts
492 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Handy andy
-
-
23 minutes ago, Strange said:
you could say it was always there in a different form (initially as a quark-gluon plasma).
Link doesn't seem to work.
Link fixed The Big Bang Theory, Expansion/Inflation plus "Explosion"
How does the initial quark gluon-plasma come into existence?
Could quarks and gluons appear out of an absence of space or perhaps with some interaction with quantum black holes ?
Can quarks and gluons form into hydrogen, if they are in close proximity to each other?
Helium is formed in the sun with heat by transforming Hydrogen into helium.
Do particle pairs need to appear adjacent to each other in three dimensional space, or could they be separated by a universe, but still be entangled, as asked by interested ? Space is expanding still, could the expansion of space between entangled particles drive them apart?
0 -
12 minutes ago, interested said:
Am I right in thinking the original matter in the universe, appeared out of an expanding space, then coalesced into stars and possibly black holes before exploding more dense material throughout the universe.?
The original matter which formed after the expansion of space was hydrogen and helium and a little bit of lithium this is all made up of subatomic particles, which would have been entangled pairs. These entangled pairs would consist of both virtual particles and real particles, quarks, fermions. The energy of these entangled pairs MAY have been greater than the none-entangled equivalent pair of particles. (Swanson)
That to ME seems a fair summary, this link might interest you
0 -
21 hours ago, swansont said:
You have a talent for reading something and concluding something very different from what was written
The eyewitnesses may have reported the event to scientists, the explosion was estimated 5 miles up, a lot of people far away could have seen it. Some eyewitnesses reported being blown of their feet, would they be close enough. LMGTFY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event
I agree I am talented, but with misinformation and straw arguments posted all over the forum, what are we to think.
The following link may be interesting to interested and itoero ref particle creation in space, I personally find it interesting because it disagrees with what some people posted on another thread. Theoretical Photons can turn into very low energy axioms, if I am reading it right.
0 -
On 05/09/2017 at 2:10 PM, Manticore said:
"But now, 105 years later, scientists have revealed that the Tunguska devastation was indeed caused by a meteorite. A group of Ukrainian, German, and American scientists have identified its microscopic remains. Why it took them so many years makes for a fascinating tale about the limits of science and how we are pushing them."
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/06/mystery-solved-meteorite-caused-tunguska-devastation/
Sorry Manticore, on reflection this link is nothing new. The explosion gave of a lot of heat is obvious and is the only thing the scientists have proof for, this was observed 105 years ago. The scientists do not take into account actual eye witness reports that the thing that exploded whilst moving slowly across the sky etc. Thee meteorological observations of very high level electrical activity was not considered, this could have been a close encounter with a collapsed solar flare, ie a plasma collapse creating a huge lightning ball in space etc, there are many explanations. The scientists have simply ignored the eye witnesses reports of a slow moving object exploding, and come to the conclusion a meteor must have entered the atmosphere at horrendous speed and exploded leaving only a trace. They don't even speculate what the meteor was made up of.
It is also little to do with this thread, other than I think it came about re some mention of black holes exploding, and me suggesting matter may be being converted to antimatter due to heat and pressure inside a black hole similar to what is observed in lightning plasma's. Matter may be being continually created in expanding space and being destroyed in black holes.
Swanson confirmed that in theory matter can be created via quantum black holes earlier. I was going to carry on posting, but I have other things to do now. I just wanted to correct my view on the claims in your link. Thanks for the link any way, but on reflection I just don't believe it to be anything new ref Tunguska.
0 -
3 hours ago, Manticore said:
"But now, 105 years later, scientists have revealed that the Tunguska devastation was indeed caused by a meteorite. A group of Ukrainian, German, and American scientists have identified its microscopic remains. Why it took them so many years makes for a fascinating tale about the limits of science and how we are pushing them."
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/06/mystery-solved-meteorite-caused-tunguska-devastation/
Hey Manticore thanks for that, I knew there were microscopic fragments found in a layer but nothing convincing, +100 if I could. You will have to do with a +1
55 minutes ago, Strange said:A quantum fluctuation conserves energy. Where did the energy to heat the universe (from near zero to billions of degrees) come from?
That's why I was suggesting other folk speculate .
55 minutes ago, Strange said:I don't see much difference in meaning between those. The Big Bang is a description of expanding space, so it is quite reasonable to say that [expanding] space created the Big Bang [theory].
I think it is a difference and helps my understanding.
3 hours ago, swansont said:You said "low energy fundamental particles combining and giving of light in the visible spectrum". That's a direct quote. How exactly did I "twist" your words? The mechanism you describe above is nothing like fundamental particles combining.
If the antimatter came from the lightning then the amount of it has to be limited by the energy being generated by the thunderstorm. Tunguska weighs in at tens of megatons of TNT. Thunderstorms, which deposit energy over a period of hours, don't even come in at Hiroshima levels, which is 1000x less than Tunguska.
You need to pay closer attention while reading, because I never said that.
I need to pay closer attention to what I am writing as well as what I am reading, this has been pointed out in the past.
Manticore has covered the Tunguska event, to my satisfaction.
Would you or anyone else like to speculate ref quantum fluctuations and phase transitions at near absolute zero of fundamental particles and virtual particles in a zero gravity environment. ?
A further speculation ref black holes is they destroy matter, by heating it and converting it to antimatter where it produces gamma rays via e+ and e- collisions.
I think that is me done for a while, I have some stuff I need to attend too. Thank you all for your input.
0 -
2 hours ago, swansont said:
In what way would the combination of fundamental particles create light in the visible spectrum? e-e+ recombination gives off 2 511 keV photons. That's as low as it gets.
You need to have a model and/or evidence to present speculations (you've been told this before) . How is this falsifiable? What specific predictions can you make?
You are twisting my words again, I know gamma rays are not in the visible spectrum. But the light appearing from lightning balls is, I suggested ions recombining or other particles to create visible light. An e-e+ collision would as you say produce a gamma radiation which I know is not in the visible spectrum, it could however collide with other atoms and ionize them, which when the electrons recombined with the nucleus would give of photons.
The main evidence I can present of a large fundamental particle possibly existing of matter and antimatter would be the Tunguska event. No other viable provable scenario has been presented except exploding UFO's, or meteorites that exploded leaving no trace. The only evidence for the Tunguska event is a flattened forest, and eye witness reports, including meteorological data pointing to a huge high altitude thunderstorm which kept most of northern Europe in daylight prior to the event for a few days. All of which is very unreliable the forest could have just fallen over, the sky was not illuminated by a high level thunderstorm, and the eye witnesses never saw a slow moving huge ball descend into the atmosphere. One Prediction I could make is that it could happen again, if it was fuelled by a huge amount of natural gas escaping from the Tunguska due to an earth quake, it could happen when BP loses control of a gas drilling operation somewhere. etc
This is not the link strange requested(I am still looking for that one) but it is one alluding to quantum phase transitions at very cold temperatures, which you stated above does not happen. I want to know more on this subject, the pop science link does not give enough detail https://phys.org/news/2017-08-dynamical-quantum-phase-transitions-interacting.html
I would like to know what quantum fluctuations would cause matter to come into existence?. The big bang has the fluctuations before the big explosion which did not happen at a singularity as pop science explains, it happened every where in an already existing and expanding space. I want a feasible mechanism not a explanation that matter has always existed explanation starting in a super dense state.
The reason for my speculation is that trying to get you guys to speculate is like trying to get blood out of a stone.
I keep trawling to find the link for strange.
On 29/08/2017 at 5:03 PM, swansont said:If the energy is internal to the system then it shows up as mass of the system, so you haven't transformed anything. If the atoms are jiggling around and as a result of a collision internal to the system, an atom was put into an excited state, the mass of the system would not change.
Kinetic energy of the center-of-mass of a system is not mass (unless you have redefined what mass means, e.g. relativistic mass)
E2 = m2c4 + p2c2
If an object is in motion, that energy shows up in the second term on the right hand side.
Again not related to the thing I am looking for strange for but
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
A virtual particle does not precisely obey the energy–momentum relation m2c4 = E2 − p2c2. Its kinetic energy may not have the usual relationship to velocity–indeed, it can be negative.[4]:110 This is expressed by the phrase off mass shell.[3]:119 The probability amplitude for a virtual particle to exist tends to be canceled out by destructive interference over longer distances and times. As a consequence, a real photon is massless and thus has only two polarization states, whereas a virtual one, being effectively massive, has three polarization states.
Quantum tunnelling may be considered a manifestation of virtual particle exchanges
Virtual particles are often popularly described as coming in pairs, a particle and antiparticle which can be of any kind. These pairs exist for an extremely short time, and then mutually annihilate. In some cases, it however is possible to boost the pair apart using external energy so that they avoid annihilation and become actual particles, as described in the link above.
0 -
8 hours ago, swansont said:
There are no quantum transitions at absolute zero.
Fundamental fermions will not undergo Bose-Einstein condensation, for what I hope is an obvious reason.
You are twisting my words I was after information, ref fermions at near absolute zero. Other than the usual all I have turned up is things like the bose Einstein states and I was not saying they are linked.
2 hours ago, Strange said:Do youv have a reference to that? I am slightly surprised by that.
I will see if I can find the email it came in, it may take some time. I am following a lot of threads to keep me amused, and should take notes, and mostly don't.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The reason for my question was because, I want to know what quantum fluctuations and or transitions could produce stable entangled particles, the entanglement distance increases with reduced temperature(I think I remember which post mentioned that, and its nothing to do with Bose Einstein states)
OK I am forced to speculate.
The big bang began with multiple quantum fluctuations that filled all of space or an area of space, which caused an explosion and heat. Before that heat was created there was quantum fluctuations, those fluctuations would have been at a very cold temperature, occupying all of space, what ever you perceive that to be. Those quantum fluctuations brought fundamental particles into existence, which was at absolute zero or there abouts. Space itself does not exist without virtual particle fluctuations, space is not empty it is expanding between galaxies as we know.
A lightning ball is most likely a mixture of entangled fundamental particles a mixture of positrons electrons and ions. The light given of is in the visible spectrum indicating there are electrons either recombining with ions, or low energy fundamental particles combining and giving of light in the visible spectrum. The Tunguska event was caused according to eyewitness reports by a large slowly moving ball that came down to approx 5 miles up and went bang levelling a large area of Tunguska leaving no trace of what it was, it is thought it may have been an antimatter matter explosion. It may have been either created by the high altitude electrical activity all over Europe that was happening at the time, or it drifted in from outer space as an example of what caused the big bang. If all of space was a full of entangled fundamental particles or multiple lightning balls that could squeeze each other they might go bang and cause some heating effect and a big bang.
Oh and Space was not created by a big bang, space created the big bang by allowing quantum fluctuations in space, as is happening today causing the visible universe to expand, and seemingly contract around matter holding galaxies together.
I will see if I can find that link ref quantum particles and entanglement distances, it may take some time.
0 -
2 hours ago, Manticore said:
Something/infinity = NaN (Not a Number).
0 is a number indicating nothing, 0 space is nothing. A something that takes up space and is sliced an infinite number of times is as good as nothing, or is as near as damn it nothing.
It could also be considered as just a point in space which is something in the space it occupies, but if nothing exists outside zero space it is nothing.
A forth dimension inside a wormhole could be nothing, that links two points separated by three dimensional space. Wormholes would work like quantum entanglement where c is not the limit of speed for information transfer. The information has transferred from one three dimensional space to another separated via a distance instantly through nothing or a 4th dimension connecting entangled objects.
0 -
8 hours ago, swansont said:
No, he didn't. Not the way we normally understand the phrase.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6850.pdf
"An enlightening treatment of the Schwinger effect is obtained by considering the world-line path integral of a particle in Euclidean signature..."
it's a theory paper. He's at the Center for Theoretical Physics. No co-authors. This wasn't done in a lab.
There is no such thing (in reality) as a zero temperature system.
.
Thanks for the link I need to do a bit of background reading to refresh my brain, on some of the terms.
What do you think of the claims in the paper and specifically " explicitly demonstrate that a particle and an anti-particle, pair produced in an applied field, are connected by a wormhole (in the dual geometry), and so this wormhole should be associated with the entanglement between them. " Is a wormhole more than theoretical and is it associated with entanglement in your opinion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR
Does anyone have a good link to quantum phase transitions at or near absolute zero? All I can find is pop science and its making me speculate. I am specifically thinking of quantum fluctuations of quantum particles in a hypothetical very close to zero kelvin space prior to the hypothetical big bang. I have found loads of stuff on bose einstein condensates and gases etc, but not specifically fundamental particles.The distance apart things can be entangled increases apparently at very cold temperatures. I asked a question earlier ref could two entangled particles appear at opposite sides of the universe in theory at least.
0 -
25 minutes ago, Strange said:
A simpler explanation of Bell's theorem: http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm
Yep a lot easier to read
BUT the last paragraph I wasn't too sure about
"Please note that there is a way out of this seemingly impossible scenario, but the loophole may be difficult to swallow: if Einstein's Relativity is wrong, and the speed of light is NOT a limit for propagation of cause and effect (which is called "signal locality"), then that would give us a way out of the situation. Theoretically, there could exist non-local hidden variables (Bohm outlined such a theory, for example). But regardless, the net effect of Bell's Theorem is profound. Reality is somehow dependent upon how we observe it.
"Can anyone explain how Einstein being wrong gets out of the seemingly impossible scenario?
0 -
Nothing = Something/infinity
0 -
27 minutes ago, Strange said:
According to this article: https://phys.org/news/2017-09-entanglement-inevitable-feature-reality.html
I nearly posted your link this morning on the interested thread on entanglement? but thought better of it.
Link for Bell non locality https://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.2849.pdf
0 -
I posted this on page 2 of this thread
http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205 There are many interesting points that interested may be interested in, ref worm hole creation as an explanation for entanglement, but also directly related to creating particles out of nothing the following paragraph is written
Qoute -Following up on work by Jensen and Karch, Sonner has sought to tackle this idea at the level of quarks — subatomic building blocks of matter. To see what emerges from two entangled quarks, he first generated quarks using the Schwinger effect — a concept in quantum theory that enables one to create particles out of nothing. More precisely, the effect, also called “pair creation,” allows two particles to emerge from a vacuum, or soup of transient particles. Under an electric field, one can, as Sonner puts it, “catch a pair of particles” before they disappear back into the vacuum. Once extracted, these particles are considered entangled. Close Qoute.
Does the above link refute your claim
0 -
2 minutes ago, Strange said:
But real Hell's Angels are something else again.
I think that depends on the class social group and education of the hells angel in question, also the country they originate from etc. I used to know some nice hells angels, I was also aware of some dangerous hells angels who were possibly better suited to living in prison rather than riding a motor bike. The point being you cant judge a persons because of the social group they move in.
0 -
51 minutes ago, Strange said:
That would violate several conservation laws.
Quarks, and particles created from them, interact via electromagnetic forces. Dark matter doesn't. So no.
An up and a down quark would not combine and disappear. And they cannot form a stable particle together. (And they can't exist independently.) But ...
An up / anti-up pair would release about 5MeV. A down/anti-down pair would release twice that. As a pair of photons, in both cases.
No one knows. It hasn't been identified yet.
Earlier I asked
1) Can a black hole develop at the quantum particle level that could capture one half of a pair of quantum particles, leaving the other to carry on its existence for a while longer.
Swanson replied "sure"
The big bang model produces a universe of pre-existing fundamental particles, which coalesced into hydrogen and helium I think you said. Why is it not possible for quarksappearing out of the vacuum of space very slowly
I thinking an up/down quark particle meeting its antiparticle would annihilate and produce radiation. I know a proton is 2 up quarks + 1 down quark giving the proton its +e charge which is normally a stable particle.
0 -
38 minutes ago, Moreno said:
Is it good?
Can you clarify what you mean? are you assuming that when people of different ethnicities mix they will move towards a global average ethnicity, or are you assuming that an ethnic grouping from the assumed free world will over power all the different global ethnicities? How would politics work, are you thinking of a benign world government with a global police force policing the world? What ethnic food would you eat, how would you dress, who would be in charge the Chinese, Americans, Russians, Moslems, Christians etc.
I like travelling and meeting people with different mind sets politics and cultures, it broadens the mind. I am also boarder line anarchistic in some of my views as are many people who travel.
I would say having a global culture where everyone behaves the same would NOT be beneficial, nor would it be likely to happen anytime in the near future.
1 minute ago, Area54 said:Surely multiculturalism implies a measure of separation between cultures and therefore a limitation to the degree of intermixing, therey preserving diversity.
Even if this is not the case humans will, it seems, always find ways of distinguishing themselves from others. We may choose to call these subcultures, but in some cases I suggest they are more distinct from the culture they have arisen from than supposedly distinct cultures are from it. Example: I suspect I have much more in common with Mr. Average from Trinidad than I do with a Hell's Angel.
Mr Average from Trinidad is just as likely to smoke cannabis as is your traditional hells angel. However people riding Harley Davidsons looking like hells angels on the weekend are today most likely executives or merchant bankers, who wear suits to work.
0 -
This is a reasonable link to the Big Bang http://www.atnf.csiro.au/outreach/education/senior/cosmicengine/bigbang.html
At the earlier stages of the big bang quarks arrived on the scene. Could pairs of quarks appearing from the vacuum of space today, combine with other quarks with the help of quantum black holes and form protons?. 2 up quarks + 1 down quark ie a proton.
Could quarks appearing in space be the source of dark matter, and could they be detected ? What level of radiation might an entangled up quark and down quark give off when they recombine and disappear if any? What level of radiation might an none entangled up quark and down quark give off if they combine?
The background radiation from the link above peaks at about 170GHz, using planks E=hf
6.626x10^-34 x 170 x 10^ 12 = 1.12x10^-20 Joules or 0.0070305609544eV which is not much energy.Space is still expanding between most galaxies, and if I read Mordreds space thread correctly space does not exist without a field of some sorts, virtual particles or waves etc. What if any radiation would be given off if virtual particles collided?.
Could a virtual particle pair appear at different sides of the universe through entanglement or a 4th dimension.?
1 hour ago, Strange said:Strange I think you stated on another thread dark matter had been identified, do you have a link stating exactly what it is?
On 02/09/2017 at 1:28 PM, MigL said:Quantum foam is a 'state' of things at below the Planck level.
Suggesting that the 'state of things' changes makes sense; suggesting that the 'state of things' has a 'flow' does not ( to me ).The paper also implies absolute frames and absolute motion.
Which then means all sorts of other things are in play ( and foundations of modern physics crumble ).
That alone makes it a non-starter for me.Sorry for the previous question I had forgotten you had already answered, my question.
0 -
20 hours ago, MigL said:
The fusion reaction up to iron releases energy ( exothermic ), and this powers a star during its lifetime.
To assemble heavier nuclei, energy has to be supplied ( endothermic ).
It is the collapse and subsequent rebound of the core, when a star goes ( super )nova, which supplies the gravitational energy to fuse heavier elements and outshine galaxies.Maybe if you did a little more research into what others are telling you, and a little less flying off in wild speculative tangents...
The process you are describing is for a supernovae, which from the limited research I have done, can not produce, anything more than iron. Is that wrong? Is something like a black hole ejecting matter, not a possible scenario as described in the link above?
Sorry for speculating is just part of how I think, and it happens from time to time.
Do you have any opinion on the link I posted https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0307003.pdf ref gravity.
17 hours ago, swansont said:Virtual particles and fermions are not an either/or choice
It lowers it. It takes energy to turn virtual particles into real particles
It's how they evaporate.
A virtual particle is a transient fluctuation that exhibits many of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, but that exists for a limited time.
A fermion is a subatomic particle, such as a nucleon, which has half-integral spin and follows the statistical description given by Fermi and Dirac
A boson is a subatomic particle, such as a photon, which has zero or integral spin and follows the statistical description given by S. N. Bose and Einstein
Strange answered most of my questions above, but thanks for coming back.
Strange also pointed out after the big bang at very high temperature the result was hydrogen, and not heavy metals as would appear from a black hole or a supernovae.
You agreed earlier that with the help of a quantum black hole particle pairs could be separated in theory. Would this leave the basic building blocks of hydrogen in space?
I do have a bunch of other questions but am dangerously close to hijacking so am going to shut up.
0 -
Old Humour
1 -
1 hour ago, Strange said:
Just a detail: only hydrogen and helium (and a little bit of lithium) were formed this way. All the heavier elements were formed later in stars.
1 hour ago, Strange said:Wrong way round. The black hole contributes the energy corresponding to the mass of the particle and the mass of the antiparticle to convert the virtual/transient pair to real particles. Half of that mass is then returned to the black hole and half escapes. So the black hole loses mass.
This is not so much the decay of matter as pair production from gamma ray photons: https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/11jan_antimatter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
I believe particle-antiparticle pairs created in this way are entangled. But that won't last long as they will soon interact with other particles.
Migl and Mordred pointed that out above ref the black holes above, I hadn't absorbed it.
Thanks for the lightning link +1 , I already new most of this as lightning is an interest of mine. The production of the antimatter is caused by the extreme heat from the imploding plasmas, and high magnetic fields in the clouds induced by extreme currents flowing. The potential explosive effect of lightning balls if compressed could be quite dangerous, and cause an antimatter explosion (Tunguska ?) Lightning balls have been observed to be quite large when formed at high altitude etc There was a huge amount of high altitude electrical activity all over Europe prior to the Tunguska event, possible helped by a suspected huge natural gas release from Tunguska itself following an earth quake, if you read all the available reports, its actually quite interesting.
It was mentioned earlier. All elements up to and including iron can be formed in a sun or supernovae. But where do the heavier elements come from ? Black hole perhaps? And as if by magic I just opened my email and hey presto https://phys.org/news/2017-09-physicists-theories-black-holes-early.html#nRlv
0 -
3 minutes ago, Strange said:
No. That is not what I said. I said your characterisation of the Big Bang was wrong.
I already did in response to your post which started this thread of discussion:
So, to be specific, your description is wrong because it says that matter spread out through the universe (from some sort of creation/explosion). Whereas the "standard model" is that the universe was always full of matter.
Yes I understand all of that. The expansion of space took with it all matter at a very high temperature, and as it cooled it formed into the heavier elements. This Coalesced due to gravity into what we have today, and space is still expanding between galaxies. (except things like the Andromeda galaxy, and a handful of others which appear to be coming this way) You have repeatedly stated space is empty it is not a substance, which as you are aware I don't absolutely believe. Understanding an argument does not mean I believe it to be true.
Which leads me to the concept of the holographic universe and entanglement, and the chicken or egg scenario ref space. Simplifying space can be viewed as a smooth thing, or it can be broken down simply into individual 3 dimensional cubes each of which is connected by a central point, an additional dimension. The three dimensional part of the individual cubes expands to eternity or a distance undefined at the edge of space, whilst the internal points are all connected to a certain extent by the extra dimension, as in entanglement, or wormholes. Philosophically infinite space and zero space must both be able to exist at the same time, allowing entanglement or wormholes across a universe.
The individual cubes concept breaking space down into ever decreasing squares, is perhaps an over simplification.
I note you have just replied to the previous post. I will stop here and have a read.
0 -
On 31/08/2017 at 2:18 PM, swansont said:
It takes energy in that all things require energy owing to losses (that pesky 2nd law of thermodynamics) but the energy of an entangled pair of particles can be the same and unentangled particles.
The idea that wormholes are involved is not mainstream physics. It's not been demonstrated to be true, so the question of what happens with the wormhole can't be answered.
That pesky law 2nd law of thermodynamics. When a particle pair is separated via a black hole leaving one on the outside of the black hole as hawking radiation virtual particle, or as a fermion. Does the particle entering the black hole add to the black holes energy level.?
Over a very long time (eternity) with no other mass entering the black hole could this effect increase the black holes energy level?
At what temperature or pressure can matter start decaying into antimatter, as observed on a large scale in big thunderstorms, (possibly as a result of plasmas at 6000C imploding and transiently producing much higher temperatures circa 20000C, causing molecules in the air to decay into antimatter and matter) Could antimatter inside a black hole cause it to have enough energy to explode some matter out. ?
Would matter and antimatter particles created under that scenario stay entangled, like some super particle, or lightning ball until compressed together.?
0 -
Apologies to Strange for deliberately twisting words
18 hours ago, Strange said:The problem is not that it is brief, but that it is wrong.
Can you correct the sentence I wrote, or write a better sentence covering the big bang.
0 -
10 hours ago, DrKrettin said:
What constitutes historical proof? All evidence we ever have that a particular person existed is in the form of historical documents and monuments. You can't have a simple boundary between "definitely existed" and "no evidence", all you can have is a sliding scale between "existence very highly likely" to "no evidence". Every historic character lies somewhere on that scale, and there is no clear dividing line between "proof" and "not enough proof".
Having said that, given the sparse evidence we do have, I suspect that it is indeed based on a person who actually existed, but that is merely my suspicion.
I suspect a lot of things, but this does not constitute proof, unless I am called as an expert witness.
When was the first historical monument to Christianity erected? Was there ever a statue produced depicting what Jesus or his mother looked like, prior to 322AD.
I was taught C of E (never ever believed) that the virgin birth and the existence of Jesus was intended to represent idealized people NOT Actual people that ever existed. I also learned religion is a tool that has nothing to do with the concept of god.
A little known fact: The holy Roman empire in around 325 AD stopped crucifying people in respect of the new Christian religion and decided to pour molten lead down peoples throats instead of crucifying them.
0
Holographic Universe Hijack (from Quantum Entanglement ?)
in Speculations
Posted
Answered my own question Yes quarks and gluons can form into protons and neutrons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark–gluon_plasma .
How does the initial quark gluon-plasma come into existence?
Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/
The Casimir effect apparently proves the existence of virtual particles.
Can temporary violations become permanent violations? Is that how the original quark gluon state of the universe happened before any bang?