Mike Smith Cosmos

Euclidean geometry makes sense if you just add an extra dimension to a plane. You can modify equations to equal the same answer. Can you really think of a reason why they wouldn't be the same everywhere? What would be altering the fundamental forces of nature? Or all of a sudden making them exist and not exist in different locations?

I can not see yet much of an answer to ... Are the laws spread about by matter,field, or universal right ?

* If the laws are spread by Matter then in the absence of matter , say in a void , or intergalactic, then laws may be distorted.

* If the laws are spread about by Fields then the laws will go everywhere fields go.

* If the laws are universal right then they could be the same everywhere

. . Which one , two or all or none ?

Have we established yet whether the laws of Physics are conveyed by Fields, particles, Space, the total of them all or from outside ?

The useable energy doesn' t peak when the core becomes iron. At that point there is no more energy left to liberate via the fusion process and the star is overcome by its gravity. The subsequent collapse and 'bounce' lead to the violent stellar explosions, but this energy is provided by the gravitational field. Not fusion.

 

I'll repeat, unless we consider degrees of freedom, order and disorder are subjective and not quantifiable, so I hesitate to use that definition of entropy.

Surely in chemistry , where elements are combining so as to become molecules and compounds. The degrees of freedom are much reduces from freely moving anywhere, to moving only in the direction of molecule and compound production. A similar argument , I would have thought could be argued for nuclear fusion, Rather than atoms, or particles being free to diffuse in multi degrees of freedom , rather combination of particles , right up through the life chain , demonstrates less degrees of freedom , following convergence , thus following a decreasing entropy.

If you believe something just because he says it and not because there is evidence, you have violated one of his highest regards, which is science.

As far as I know it the electron is one of the most common particles, which is very small, very fast, yet approachable. I and many others have and are still making a living out of the manipulation of electrons. The movement of this easily manipulated particle, can produce magnetism , it can produce electro-magnetic waves that hare off at the speed of light into the "ether" and appear thousands of miles away with information. No one seems to have broken it down into smaller particles like the proton into quarks. Our current high tech , industrial world exists by dint of the little electron , yet still we do no fully get to grips with quite what it is and how it behaves , what with spin, probability, wave/particle duality, location, etc etc.

You can produce a few in your lap with a battery and a piece of wire, or a balloon and a jumper for that matter.

Perhaps, as photosynthesis, utilizes electrons, our future energy requirements may yet be found in a new manipulation of electrons. Also the major part of the earths crust consists of Silicon. What are we doing, the future lays before us in the humble yet prolific 'ELECTRON'

So, I read somewhere that antimatter can be considered as normal matter but moving in backward time. This might make sense theoretically, but, what does it mean physically ?

It is a bit absurd, if you think about it.

We are so concerned with the forward relentless day and night movement of time . Atomic particles are more involved with ' change ' thats' all that matters to the particle . We call the particle going in the other direction " anti matter " So we might be worried but the particle is occupied more with change, rather than does the sun come out today.

"The laws of physics are the same in all fields frames of reference" (or similar) indeed is a key phrase in relativity. But that is not the same as "the laws of physics are the same everywhere". The latter talks about the physics at locations/areas, the former about how physics laws should be formulated in order to be robust under the rather different ways to describe a location/area in relativity.

Surely the frames of reference are where ever we wish to do some form of relativistic calculation. and that could surely be anywhere in the entire universe you choose ( namely everywhere ), to make our frame of reference, anywhere you care to choose.

How about in the middle of a Galactic void, just outside the Virgo Cluster , where the Galaxies occupy the area as if on a bubble surface, particularly where Galaxies Clump in Groups. Now move sideways into the center of the Bubble of the Void.

Form a Frame of reference there ;- Can we really assume the laws of Physics are the same "in the void " as another Frame of reference on the Lab. bench. ?

Similarly place a frame of reference in the center of the sun, center of a Galaxy or Black hole, the internal atomic structure ( say in between a neutrons' internal quarks) ?

Are we not assuming at little bit too all encompassing ?

(EDIT: The following is in reply to your original post, not the 2nd one where you asked further questions)

I don't really think that "the laws of physics are the same everywhere" is particularly tied to relativity. "Astrophysics" and "cosmology" may be more adequate characterizations of the fields where this assumption is important. And in e.g. astrophysics, the laws of relativity being the same is pretty much equally important as the law of chemical elements' spectral lines being the same. I also disagree with the notion that the assumption was fundamental for relativity. It's merely important for some of its applications (as mentioned).

I thought that " the laws of physics are the same in all fields of reference " was one of the founding assumptions of Einstein in his approach to relativity. And that if that were not true then his theory would not be true . However I may have got it wrong ! If so I appollogise both to you and Einstein .

.

That's a far reaching question with far reaching implications, if the the laws of physics are the same everywhere

and if that all there is and always has been, that would indicate a pure evolutionary nature of reality where everything

here can therefore be expalined under these laws without exception.If the laws of physics are different elsewhere

that would indicate a much more complex reality with many more unknown properties and a possible deliberate

nature of these properties.

 

I need to see what comments come in. But I have this hunch ( only a hunch) that under certain circumstances or locations or sizes, we are someday going to find out that the laws of physics are not the same in all places but change according to some yet not understood ways. Not in the way that everything falls apart.Or that stability goes out the window. Far from it, changing laws may open up new avenues of Super-science. But I do not know. I was rather hoping others may have some ideas about the issue.

Electrons are very claustrophobic. If you try to localize one within a box ( made of atoms ), at some point the electron will experience degeneracy pressure from being too close to the state of another electron, and will as a result become extremely frantic and energetic. When this energy ( as momentum ) requires the speed of the electron to approach the speed of light, the electron cannot increase its momentum any further, no matter if the pressure sqeezing it is equivalent to a white dwarf star. However it can continue to increase its energy and momentum if it becomes more massive. It does this by merging with a proton to form a neutron. This is what happens in neutron stars where neutron degeneracy then rules.

 

The Higgs mechanism was active during the electroweak dissociation era. An era too energetic for our current particles. It must therefore influence the whole universe. And no, there is no 'outside'.

Ok. I have got that. About the degeneracy, and how the Neutron stars form. So in the early fire ball of the big bang, the quarks combined First into Neutrons , then to protons and electrons, plus presumably the Higgs field shot out into the 'blue yonder' before everything else arrived up at that boundary between .....something .... and nothingness ...............Pushing the nothingness forward ahead of itself

Then 300 -400 thousand years later the free electrons recombined with the protons to make hydrogen everywhere, at least for a while .

Thanks.

There have been tests

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2008/06/19/are-the-laws-of-physics-the-same-throughout-the-universe

Yes but that particular test in 2008 on quasar matter to do with electron- proton mass ratio,only shows that matter laws appear to be very similar if not identical. That's fine , but I would have expected that.otherwise the universe would fall to bits.

What I am getting at , is :

A ) Are the laws built up as some form of inherent nature of matter, that maintains laws around them in space as they work with each other in reasonable proximity. ?

B) Are these laws maintained in some form of universal field ( like Higgs Field , or another field ) , that pervades all of space.?

C) Are the laws of physics viewed as the very nature of the universe, beyond Matter and Fields ?

D) A-n-other

Each of these categories could result in interesting implications IF say ;; The laws only worked in the reasonable proximity of matter, what happens in inter-galactic space.?. What happens in Vast Astronomical structures like VOIDS in Space . What happens at 10 to the minus goggle?

If they are the very nature of the universe . Where did they come from? Did they come out with the Big Bang, Just before the big bang,

OR what?

As " The Laws of physics are the same everywhere " is one of the fundamental assumptions of relativity, the answer to this question may have some baring on what happens ,where ?

If there were truly nothing then that's what there would be, nothing, there wouldn't even be "distance". There is some medium for the existence of existence, and in every 3-D location that exists, a fermion will have mass, so I could only extrapolate that higg's fields, like the probability of particles themselves are in fact "everywhere".

Ok so here is this medium, which I presume you mean " space -time" filled with the Higgs field. And at no further distance 'over there' is 'nothingness'. Fine. but how far out has this "Space-time " containing Higgs field 'gone' (in its initial inflationary Z....i....iipp out?)

And it's the Higgs field that interacts with the electron, giving it mass and limiting its speed to less than the speed of light.

Is the Higgs field 'everywhere' . Like everywhere where there is SPACE-TIME, as opposed to the ' Nothingness' which presumably is just over the border of Space-time.

As far as I can understand, a particle can be absolutely measured for momentum or location inversely proportional to each other.

 

So if we're measuring an electron's momentum absolutely, then its position is entirely unknowable.

 

However, do electrons not travel at the speed of light? If we nab an electron to measure its position, why can we not assume it was travelling at the speed of light just before we measured it, therefore measuring absolute momentum and position?

 

I'm a quantum rookie, so be kind to me and my ignorant question!

Hi.

There is a post Called " Heisenberg Principle " about (7 or 8 down) the list on quantum physics which has a fair bit of discussion on this point.

It May help. Then again it may not !

 

 

Entropy is related to the lack of USEABLE energy of a system.

As an example, when a system converts all its energy to heat and comes to thermal equilibrium, no more energy is available to do work, and entropy is maximized. Thiis is commonly known as 'heat death'.

When a lot of hydrogen has converted to deuterium , then doubled to helium, surely useable energy is available all the way up to IRON , where the binding energy graph peaks. Then the star collapses and goes either super nova or red giant depending on its mass compared to our sun. ( Much more Supernova, same or less Red giant )

What I don't know, is if one was representing ENTROPY graphically say in the way that three dimensional space -time can be represented as a 3D lattice with distortions near heavy objects. Whether an Entropy 3D lattice would look like a elongated rectangular cubic form , running in time from left to right , uniformly the grid intensifying as one moved right (forward in time).{ general increase in entropy as the universe ages and cools} BUT when examining the 3D grid closely , one would see small regions where the density of the grid changed to more spread out showing regional lowering of entropy around say nuclear fusion, molecular construction, maybe even life forms ? Yet still generally an increase of entropy as the universe ages and Cools.

What say you ?

.

Antoine,

I have done quite a lot of mechanical vibration experiments, for various reasons. One side issue that came to the surface, was to do with tuning forks. ( musical style. ) . The two halves of the tuning fork oscillate in anti-phase, of necessity , namely the left hand leg would be going exactly out left while the right hand leg would be going out right ( exactly in anti-phase).

I believe this could explain the Pauli Exclusion principle with electrons where electrons prefer to be in pairs yet can not be in exactly in the same state. So I presume one electron in a pair will be one direction spin and the other electron the opposite spin ( anti phase ). They would be very happy like the two opposing arms of a tuning fork. With two halves of a tuning fork it is impossible to work in phase. Similarly the electrons cannot ( Pauli exclusion) work in the same state of spin. Rather than some device from outside ( Pauli Exclusion law/rule ) preventing the electrons behaving exactly the same, they require the opposite to work against. Like a couple skating on ice. Try and lean backwards going in a tight circle is impossible, yet with a partner leaning in exactly the opposite direction is shear delight . So the electrons have an absolute requirement for opposite states ( + and - spins ). I think ! Suggest ! Propose !

Does this fit in with your idea ?

 

 

I think I now have my first shot of the Early bombardment of the infant Earth some 4 ,300 MYA ( million years Ago )

 

 

DSCF0034.JPG

 

 

Artists Impression

Help , Get me out of here !

No.

Lower symmetry means decreased energy of a system. Which means less energy to do work. Which means increased entropy of the system.

.But surely after fusion to He nucleus there is more energy to do work with.

Starting state

Mass before fusion is

( e=mc squared equivalent ) of 2 x P plus 2 X N {4 Particles} plus no Binding energy [ Disordered ] less usable energy

Finishing state

Mass after fusion is

( e = mc squared equivalent ) of 1 X PPNN plus Binding energy { 1 item only } [ more Ordered ] more usable energy

Then there are all the bits and pieces that come off in the process plus some radiation ( disordered ). ??

Not sure where they fit in to the entropy bit .?

Other than a source of more mass and energy which is obviously what comes out of the Sun and spreads out across the Universe including Earth.I think this bit is part of the disordered ( more entropy ). They did however come out in between the Start state and the finishing state of the System .

.

Damm, this mouse at work keeps double clicking and duplicating my posts,

Is there a way to get rid of the second post ?

yes go into edit your post at bottom . delete everything by back space. then save . it should vaporise as there is nothing there.

 

He-4 has less entropy than the 4 free protons, but that's not the whole system.

 

 

You correctly mention a proton decay — each involves the emission of a positron and a neutrino. i.e. more particles, many possible states, when 2 protons fuse to form deuterium.

 

The step where a proton fuses with the deuterium releases a gamma. Another particle emitted. And after that you have to consider which branch you take, but the final answer is the same: there is no decrease in entropy of the system in fusion.

I will have to take your word for it. I am not sure I am up to the calculation of working out numerically the total entropy before and after the fusion process. Intuitively I feel that all these , and similar constructive processes are opposite to the destructive processes which we define as an increase in entropy. Surely symmetry would indicate a decrease in entropy ? No ?

I'm pretty sure spin just has something to do with the direction of oscillation. So a particle doesn't have to physical spin it just have to "wave" in a certain forwards or backwards manner.

The mathematicians who explain spin seem to have no requirement for a visual model, claiming that some aspects of the universe are not described in any form we know. I personally don't see why we cant say its a little bit like this , a little bit like that, and mainly the other.

Having done some model investigation of atom simulated devices, I have come to the conclusion that the electron does indeed exist fairly near to the nucleus, but so as to absorb some form of rotational energy ( angular momentum) the electron moves in a complex motion , best working against an opposite partner electron having an opposite motion. ( all this working in partial arc motion) Thus to some extent there is probably an oscillatory nature of some sort. This is probably anathema to puritan mathematical atomic physics specialists who would prefer to leave it as a value with no model. I shall probably be hacked to death for ever muttering such non (mathematical only) comments, (primarily due to the Copenhagen agreement ( namely to draw a line under the unknown, and shut up and calculate ). I personally feel we should move on .

Whether that helps you with your oscillations , I don't know. ?

Keep thinking!

Entropy is a property of a system, not a location. Discussing entropy "at the point of nuclear fusion or molecular activity" is meaningless. Discussing the entropy of that system before and after is not. (the entropy goes up)

.

Surely if we put a line around a possible nuclear fusion say (2 x Hydrogen nucleus ) namely 2 protons to form p-p then decay to p-n then repeat 2x (p-n) = pp-nn (Helium nucleus) . The net result is surely a decrease in entropy by both definition a) an improved order b) increase in energy potential without net inflow of energy. Otherwise surely 'Suns' would not work. Decrease in entropy in this special confined, defined system as per Alpha2cen .?

Or have I got it all wrong ?

At first, we set the system as the Universe. Then, the universe time can go by the periodical difference of the Universe entropy.

But, the local time flow can be changed with the state of local space-time.

Not really sure that I understand what you are saying. Could you spell it out in idiot style language. Thanks.

Time is a property of the whole universe. It obeys the theory of relativity.

In the fabric of space time , as per Einstein theory of general relativity, does not the fabric get very distorted at special locations. Eg at locations of great mass say black holes or a star, or a planet. Strange things happen with time as you near a black hole. Does not the same apply when the distance is very, very small .( m1m2 g/r squared). Say at the point of nuclear fusion or molecular activity ?

If so what is happening to time/ local entropy at these places ? Presumably the whole universe does extend down to very small distances, and although the mass of particles is small, the very small ( r squared term on the bottom line) surely makes gravitational attraction very large at these distances thus distorting the fabric of Space-Time ?? Was this not what Richard Feynman was talking about with "trouble with infinities "

.

Locally, the Entropy decreased regions exist, but total Entropy is increased.

The problem depends on how to set the system area.

If we are in the sphere of influence of any of the regions you mention above of " Entropy decreased region " do we then experience a reversed direction of time ?

.

I've heard many physicists put forward the second law of thermodynamics as an explanation of the vector of time. Can someone explain to me why that is not circular reasoning? It seems that it merely says that entropy increases with time therefore time must increase with entropy. How is that not circular? Isn't a better proposal needed for an explanation?

If the Flow of energy ( which itself has a mystical connotation of 'something ' appearing in different forms), is the driver of change in entropy. Namely the flow of energy from a high temperature to a lower temperature, then it can be said entropy is increasing, as more order moves to more disorder. A change has occurred which is identified as less ordered. We might perceive this as a movement forward in time. Thus the direction in time is 'named' by definition.

Now what happens to time, or our perception of time ( yet another mysterious 'something' ..TIME .. ) when we create a situation where entropy is reduced , namely it cant be by heat energy flowing from low temperature to high temperature 'forbidden by definition ' and by observation. But if a state of increased order occurs without the supply of energy, then maybe a decrease of entropy occurs and time is perceived to have changed direction ? ( or stopped )

( Is this what occurs in nuclear fusion Hydrogen to Helium , ( more ordered ? ) in the center of the Sun energy is concentrated or increased not spread out ? ).At least until the Sun shines, then we are back to forward spreading out of energy and disorder and increased Entropy. What happened in that little ' ...moment ... ' of fusion ? Hum !

.Not sure if this is any help. It might present more questions. !