dhimokritis

Question about Einstein's constant of gravity

Recommended Posts

Hi every body.

I want to ask some questions about the Einstein’s gravity constant of space.

In co. data I check:

G / ( h *C / (2*pi))  =  6.707524193*10^-39   (GeV./c^2) ^-2

In fact :

 [G / ( h*c / (2*pi*?)] = 2.110689511*10^15 =

 =  1 / (2.176646105*10^-8)^2 = 1 / Mpl^2    (1 / kg^2).

 

The mass of Planck particles ( 1 / (MPl.* MPl.)) converted in energy:

1 / [(MPl.* 10^3) * (5.60958912*10^23)]^2 = 1 / 1.490863053*10^38 (1 / giga e.V.)

The questions:

1-     Is it real this kind of energy? Aren’t Planck mass particles the source of this kind of energy? Aren’t those Planck mass in space since G is constant of space?

2-     This kind of energy create attractive force or repulsive? I mean is this energy gravitate or anti-gravitate? What is the physic’s meaning of ”joule” and“joule^-1”

“e” and “e^-1”, “M” and “M^-1” . “F” and “F^-1) 

 

I am not a physicist. I thought that is interesting to know the physic’s meaning of “Constants of space” if they have one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

I want to ask some questions about the Einstein’s gravity constant of space.

What is "Einstein’s gravity constant of space"? I have never heard of it.

32 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

G / ( h *C / (2*pi))  =  6.707524193*10^-39   (GeV./c^2) ^-2

Where di this expression come from and what is it supposed to mean?

33 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

1-     Is it real this kind of energy? Aren’t Planck mass particles the source of this kind of energy? Aren’t those Planck mass in space since G is constant of space?

If you had a real particle of Planck mass (roughly a grain of salt) and you could convert it to energy, then the energy would be real. 

What makes you think there are particles of this mass in space? How many of them?

38 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

This kind of energy create attractive force or repulsive? I mean is this energy gravitate or anti-gravitate? What is the physic’s meaning of ”joule” and“joule^-1”

Energy, like mass, is a cause of gravity. Gravity only attracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange.

 Really --- I don’t remember where I read this kind of energy called Einstein’s energy of gravity.

In fact I find it in :http://physics.gov/cuu/Constant/Table…..with name

“Newtonian constant of gravity over h bar.”

If you have nothing to say and find it unimportant for your interest let it go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 20.05.2018 at 5:29 PM, dhimokritis said:

The questions: (...) What is the physic’s meaning of ”joule”, “e” and “e^-1”, “M” and “M^-1” . “F” and “F^-1) 

Joule is obviously unit of energy.

e can be elementary charge, it's quantization of electric charge (Q)

or

e can be used in natural logarithm equation (Euler's number).

or

e- is electron, e+ is positron.

M can be mass.

F can be Farad unit. It also can be Faraday constant. Or force..

It all depends on context, which you didn't provide..

 

 

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

In fact I find it in :http://physics.gov/cuu/Constant/Table…..with name

“Newtonian constant of gravity over h bar.”

OK. After a bit of searching, I found the definition here: https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?bgspu|search_for=Newtonian

I don’t know what the significance of that value is or what it is used for.

The nearest thing I can find is the gravitational coupling constant: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_coupling_constant

I can’t see any obvious connection to Planck-scale particles or energy in space. 

44 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

If you have nothing to say and find it unimportant for your interest let it go.

I thought it was interesting, which is why I asked for more information. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, dhimokritis said:

Strange.

 Really --- I don’t remember where I read this kind of energy called Einstein’s energy of gravity.

In fact I find it in :http://physics.gov/cuu/Constant/Table…..with name

“Newtonian constant of gravity over h bar.”

If you have nothing to say and find it unimportant for your interest let it go.

Strange asked a valid question I don't even recognize that calculation or value so was curious myself as to what it means or the source you got it from.

 Its not the standard form of the gravitational constant.

 Nor is it Einsteins constant

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein's_constant

 Not stating it isn't valid simply due to not recognizing it, no one can be expected to recognize every formula lol. Though I recognize an extremely large number of them.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/05/2018 at 5:29 PM, dhimokritis said:

I thought that is interesting to know the physic’s meaning of “Constants of space” if they have one.

The only "constants of space" I know of are the permittivity of free space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity) and the permeability of free space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well. I see the interest about my questions from three participants of forum. Let me express my gratitude for lenience and your curiosity.

Now I will elaborate why I decide to ask the forum some questions that I know nobody of you like them, because they smell of some kind of push in “speculations”.

Nobody of us know why this constant of physic has a space in “table of constants”.  Exact this was my excitement to ask, to know maybe there is any hinted meaning non elaborated till end for some reason. And I am susceptible that maybe this is not elaborated because it opens the box of Pandora in physic.

Even though this constant is not known as an Einstein constant, I think that it has to do with role of his idea that gravity plays an important role in micro-cosmos of physic.

Remember his complain about some lack in quantum, the lack of role of gravity.

And we see in this formula of constant of gravity a link about gravity and quanta.

My answer for every body:

 

Sensei.

 

Yes."All depends on context, which you didn't provide". The formula that I write, if you would have scrutinized, you will find the context: A huge amount of two Planck mass as result of calculation. That is a huge amount of energy. Doesn’t this intrigued your curiosity?

And I think this is for Strange and Mordred.

 

 Strange.

Well. I suppose that you, with your baggage in physic, will be more helpful for some-body that asked for help. Instead you hurried to stop with “spec of mass”. Yes, this speck of mass (Planck particle, Maybe Planck charge of mas) was my initial impulse to ask.

As for: is Newton constant, “constant of space”, I think yes, there it applied - in space.

Right! As you say that constants of space are:  ε0,  μ0, and RK,  Z0 ,  h  maybe etc. I think deserve to be treated differently till now, if they are really Physic.

Mordred.

You say:

“Strange asked a valid question I don't even recognize that calculation or value so was curious myself as to what it means or the source you got it from.”

I think that your own answers about my questions, will be valuable for me because you as theoretician could be scrutinize this “enigmatic constant” more profoundly. And you make me smile about “source you got it from”.

O my! A common person is not allowed to ask questions if they are not from a source for to understand if deserve or not, to give an answer.

Now what about:

 

  G / (h * C / 2*pi.) = ( R * C^2 /  M ) / [ ( R * M * C * 2*pi ) * ( C / 2 * pi * ? ) ] =

                               

                                 =  1 / M * M  1 / Kg^2.

Here R and M Planck constants.

Now send me in “speculation”, if you don’t want to answer here.

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dhimokritis said:

Now send me in “speculation”, if you don’t want to answer here.

Let me first say that I really on face value find your posts as rather garbled and muddled. Let me say secondly, I also find them tinged with  unecessary arrogance, haughtiness and a probable underlying agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

Now send me in “speculation”, if you don’t want to answer here.

Speculations is for people presenting a new theory. Do you have a theory to present? I thought you were just asking questions. 

3 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

O my! A common person is not allowed to ask questions if they are not from a source for to understand if deserve or not, to give an answer.

You are allowed to ask questions. No one has said you can't. (We are also allowed to ask you questions. It seems only fair.) I and others have tried to answer some of them, and asked for clarification about others. So I'm not sure what you are complaining about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

 

  G / (h * C / 2*pi.) = ( R * C^2 /  M ) / [ ( R * M * C * 2*pi ) * ( C / 2 * pi * ? ) ] =

                               

                                =  1 / M * M  1 / Kg^2.

Here R and M Planck constants.

Now send me in “speculation”, if you don’t want to answer here.

 

 

 Ok so thank you for confirming this thread is a personal theory development. Yes it will probably be moved to speculations however as I am already a participant. I will let another member of the moderation staff do so.

 First question why do you have a question mark in your equation ?

  Is this where you believe this illusive constant should be ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Multiplying values with physical constants (like h-bar or c) can be considered as re-expressing the same value in a different measurement system (i.e. in different physical units). That is also true if the value is a physical constant itself (like G). In this case, the coupling constant of gravity has been expressed in a suitable form for a case where energies are measured in GeV/c². This is a very typical unit for energy in accelerator particle physics, where ~100 GeV/c² is a typical energy of a particle. Possible uses could be statements like "see how weak gravity is compared to electromagnetism, which has a coupling of 10^-2" (electric charges have unit 1, actual value is 1/137).

 

The Planck mass/energy mp is the energy that elementary particles would need to have (in a simple quantum gravity) for their gravitational force to become comparably strong to the other forces. Hence, G*mp*mp = 1, which is approximately 10^-2. It should not be understood as a particle class of "Planck particles" or a source of energy. Notable objects which exceed the Planck mass are the earth and the moon. Their gravitational interaction with each other happens to be much larger than their electromagnetic interaction. That would remain true if their masses were expressed in units of GeV/c².

Edited by timo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was evident for me that my post was to be pushed in Speculation. Seems to me, here is some kind of heresy if somebody post in Science sections (reserved for physicists) some-thing that seems to be confusing, muddled, with hidden “agenda” ?!.

Yes. I am a common citizen not physicist, I wants to know, not what is known and sure proved till now, not what some physicist publishes as true verity (seems to me deserve to be published here, or in section of faith), but persuasive explanations about a huge amounts of secrets of nature.  There are so many statements in today physics science, which go further the limit of compression as to became myths.

And isn’t there more confusing that “universe is only space - time”. That space, possess a huge amount of energy, because space is “vacuum” and has nothing inside?

And what I know till now about space, are only “constants of space”. Seems to me that constants of space are physic, I mean possess properties of mater that interacts with mass bodies from elementary common particles till so called black bodies. That energy is the unison of mass mater with anti-mass mater.

My post, I think, asked this question : Posses space some kind of energies in form of particles?

 Was my interpretation about Planck “particles” an option?

Sorry that I am not answering of every bodies post.

 An- other question about link of gravity with electricity, and inside the theme of post about “space is physic”, which seems to me strange is: Coulomb and Newton similarity.

 

  e*e / (4*pi* ε0 *  R) = e * (e/e) * (U1*1) / RPl = e * Upl = E pl

 

   Here (4*pi* ε0) = 1 / ( e / (U1* 1) ) = 1.439964392810^-9 (V*R)

 

Converted this energy in mass :  E pl  / C^2 = Mpl

 

And:

 

G * M^2  / R = (R * C^2 / M) * ( M*M) / R ) = M * C^2 = Epl.

Converted This energy in mass :  E pl  / C^2 = MPl.

 

Seems to me that e, e and M, M are “property of some kind sub -particle of matter”.

And result of interaction of them give --- “Mpl” as “hypothetic particle of Planck”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Beecee, about your “tinged with  unecessary arrogance, haughtiness and a probable underlying agenda.”

I see out of theme and offensive. I am a curious citizen, that ask physicists about question that affect my sleep. So “please” give me an answer in theme, if you want a “Please” for sake of civility.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

My post, I think, asked this question : Posses space some kind of energies in form of particles?

Well, the vacuum has non-zero energy and so all of space is full of virtual particles that constantly appear and disappear (because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle).

So, yes, there is energy and associated particles in "empty" space. 

13 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

Was my interpretation about Planck “particles” an option?

It would be an option if there were any evidence of these Planck particles.

14 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

Seems to me that e, e and M, M are “property of some kind sub -particle of matter”.

And result of interaction of them give --- “Mpl” as “hypothetic particle of Planck”.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say, but it seems that you are going from a general purpose equation that describes the relationship between various factors to assuming it must describe some "real particles".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange

What you call virtual particles give me creepy sensations. Something that came from nothing, I think open the path for fantoms and specters. I think that if science treats the constants of Planck as the boundaries of reality, where is the only limit that the charge (of gravity) has the same dimension of mass particles, then the Heisenberg’s uncertainty is out of meaning. And so is the absurdity infinity of quanta : E = h / dt  = infinite for dt =0

You say: It would be an option if there were any evidence of these Planck particles.

Every body know that to create an evident  “ Planck-particle” you need another much more powerful CERN. I call this a “hypothetic Planck particle”.

 And I think that common particles are structures of  “Sub-particles of mater” every one of them possess properties of electric charges, and gravity charges, both with inverse attractive and repulsive ability.

Yesterday I gave an option of three Hypothetic Planck sub – particles of matter, when I made a parallelism of Newton and Coulomb. Two of them are “antis” and create an electric and gravity fields, linked with the third in center.

This structure make a common particle   if you put, instead of Planck Radius “R” (in denominator) a Compton radius (for ex. Re = 2.81794017 * 10^-15) you will have the electric and gravity energy of electron particle.

To be sure you want a dialog about my post, I want to ask this:

(G*M) / R = C^2 where is gone mass? And is this C^2 a real C*C?

      

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

What you call virtual particles give me creepy sensations.

Well, there's some solid physics.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dhimokritis said:

What you call virtual particles give me creepy sensations. Something that came from nothing

They don't come from nothing. They come from the existing energy (you know mass and energy are equivalent?) Maybe if you understood, you wouldn't find it creepy.

1 hour ago, dhimokritis said:

And I think that common particles are structures of  “Sub-particles of mater”

Again, you would need some evidence of this.

1 hour ago, dhimokritis said:

To be sure you want a dialog about my post, I want to ask this:

(G*M) / R = C^2 where is gone mass? And is this C^2 a real C*C?

Where does that equation come from?

Is C supposed to be c?

What do you mean, by "where is the mass"?

And of course C^2 = C * C,  that is what "squared" means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

  Beecee, about your “tinged with  unecessary arrogance, haughtiness and a probable underlying agenda.”

I see out of theme and offensive. I am a curious citizen, that ask physicists about question that affect my sleep. So “please” give me an answer in theme, if you want a “Please” for sake of civility.

Let me first apologise for the "muddled" comment, on the grounds that obviously English is not your first language. My "arrogance" comment though was more to do with your comment directed at Strange in his attempt to help you, thus......

Quote

If you have nothing to say and find it unimportant for your interest let it go.

But perhaps this could also be explained by the obvious that English is not your first language. What I will say at this time is that I believe the first requirement of anyone with criticism of the incumbent model, or the mainstream view, is to make sure they fully understand the mainstream view. 

I would also add that your criticism of "coming from nothing"  with regards to virtual particles is somewhat askew. Our best reasonings and thoughts at this time are that our very first fundamental particles arose from the decoupling of the Superforce at a short instant after the BB. My apologies again if I have not been of assistance, and my only excuse is that like you, I am also only an interested amateur.

 

PS: Also evidence for virtual particles popping into and out of existence from "nothing"  would be the Casimir Effect, although I'm willing to be corrected on that score.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Swanson   

What you call virtual particles give me creepy sensations.

Well, there's some solid physics.

Swanson. Please give me answers, if you see them somewhat that deserve answers from you, about my post. That is important for me for destruction of my “speculative hypothesis about classic physic that I think interfere with quantum theory, (where I am null of knowledge)

I sincerely would valuate your thought, if they were not so laconic, and so firm.

  

 

 

  •  

  •  


Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum
To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^
I am not a minimum-wage government shill.     Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea

 

Strange

  • SuperNerd

  • Senior Members

  • 2942

  • 17470 posts

  • Location: 珈琲店

Posted 21 hours ago

  22 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

What you call virtual particles give me creepy sensations. Something that came from nothing

They don't come from nothing. They come from the existing energy (you know mass and energy are equivalent?) Maybe if you understood, you wouldn't find it creepy.

O yes. But what is the source of energy? Isn’t energy of gamma rays result of interaction of particles mass - electrons with anti-mass electrons So called anti mater Positrons ?

  22 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

And I think that common particles are structures of  “Sub-particles of mater”

Again, you would need some evidence of this.

You see that my post is somewhat an argument, even though not an evidence. Two Planck particles in denominator of an equation are treated as energy. How? Each of them multiplied by c^2 give energy –in Joules, which further converted in electron volt.               There are known other arguments. Where are gone mass and charge of photons in their creation, and how they reappear in photosynthesis? The my hypothesis is that they coexist in photon in form of sub particles mass and anti mass M / M and e / e in complete equilibrium of forces, and wee perceive only their fields c^2* R/ Rx and U*R / Rx and their c velocity after they are deliberated from third mass sub particle in structure of common sub particle.

            22 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

To be sure you want a dialog about my post, I want to ask this:

(G*M) / R = C^2 where is gone mass? And is this C^2 a real C*C?

Where does that equation come from?

Is C supposed to be c?

What do you mean, by "where is the mass"?

And of course C^2 = C * C,  that is what "squared" means.

G*M / R in Planck constants is linked, I think, with those boundaries that are physics limit.

G = (R*c^2 / M), M and R are mass and distance from counter part anti mass M.

 Hence the result is :  G * M / R equal (R * c^2 / M) * M / R = c^2

Maybe I want to split hair, but we know that velocity is linked with some-think which is moving with an extreme velocity. So c * c , is because are two something:  mass M and anti mass M

 

 

 

  •  

  •  


“Facts don’t come naturally. Drama and opinions do. Factual knowledge has to be learned.”

Gapminder: https://www.gapminder.org

 

beecee

  • Organism

  • Senior Members

  • 205

  • 1236 posts

  • Location: Maroubra Sydney

Posted 20 hours ago (edited)

  On 5/23/2018 at 3:58 PM, dhimokritis said:

  Beecee, about your “tinged with  unecessary arrogance, haughtiness and a probable underlying agenda.”

I see out of theme and offensive. I am a curious citizen, that ask physicists about question that affect my sleep. So “please” give me an answer in theme, if you want a “Please” for sake of civility.

Let me first apologise for the "muddled" comment, on the grounds that obviously English is not your first language. My "arrogance" comment though was more to do with your comment directed at Strange in his attempt to help you, thus......

  Quote

If you have nothing to say and find it unimportant for your interest let it go.

But perhaps this could also be explained by the obvious that English is not your first language. What I will say at this time is that I believe the first requirement of anyone with criticism of the incumbent model, or the mainstream view, is to make sure they fully understand the mainstream view. 

Never mind. I am satisfied with your explanation. I have stressed your record about requirements. Let me ask you as an amateur too: Do you fully understand mainstream view?  Some exponents of main - stream admits that even they don’t.

I think that in speculations must be permitted different alternatives and ideas..  

I would also add that your criticism of "coming from nothing"  with regards to virtual particles is somewhat askew. Our best reasonings and thoughts at this time are that our very first fundamental particles arose from the decoupling of the Superforce at a short instant after the BB. My apologies again if I have not been of assistance, and my only excuse is that like you, I am also only an interested amateur.

Bless you if you truly and fully understand. I don’t understand at all, B.B, SuperForce, coupling etc. I think they are some uncompressible for folk like me. And you have the right to say: then shut up.

PS: Also evidence for virtual particles popping into and out of existence from "nothing"  would be the Casimir Effect, although I'm willing to be corrected on that score.

I too was been truing hard to understand Casimir effect. The electron shield of atoms of two  plates must give an repelling force not attracting.  But the fact that there must be some stronger force attractive, tingled in my mind about the role of gravitate attractive force of M sub-particles which conquers with electric repulsive force, which in the short distances and shire surface prevail the second.  

Edited 19 hours ago by beecee

 

 

  •  

  •  

 

Reply to this

 

   

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 Swanson   

What you call virtual particles give me creepy sensations.

Well, there's some solid physics.

Swanson. Please give me answers, if you see them somewhat that deserve answers from you, about my post. That is important for me for destruction of my “speculative hypothesis about classic physic that I think interfere with quantum theory, (where I am null of knowledge)

I sincerely would valuate your thought, if they were not so laconic, and so firm.

  

 

 

  •  

  •  


Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum
To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^
I am not a minimum-wage government shill.     Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea

 

Strange

  • SuperNerd

  • Senior Members

  • 2942

  • 17470 posts

  • Location: 珈琲店

Posted 21 hours ago

  22 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

What you call virtual particles give me creepy sensations. Something that came from nothing

They don't come from nothing. They come from the existing energy (you know mass and energy are equivalent?) Maybe if you understood, you wouldn't find it creepy.

O yes. But what is the source of energy? Isn’t energy of gamma rays result of interaction of particles mass - electrons with anti-mass electrons So called anti mater Positrons ?

  22 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

And I think that common particles are structures of  “Sub-particles of mater”

Again, you would need some evidence of this.

You see that my post is somewhat an argument, even though not an evidence. Two Planck particles in denominator of an equation are treated as energy. How? Each of them multiplied by c^2 give energy –in Joules, which further converted in electron volt.               There are known other arguments. Where are gone mass and charge of photons in their creation, and how they reappear in photosynthesis? The my hypothesis is that they coexist in photon in form of sub particles mass and anti mass M / M and e / e in complete equilibrium of forces, and wee perceive only their fields c^2* R/ Rx and U*R / Rx and their c velocity after they are deliberated from third mass sub particle in structure of common sub particle.

            22 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

To be sure you want a dialog about my post, I want to ask this:

(G*M) / R = C^2 where is gone mass? And is this C^2 a real C*C?

Where does that equation come from?

Is C supposed to be c?

What do you mean, by "where is the mass"?

And of course C^2 = C * C,  that is what "squared" means.

G*M / R in Planck constants is linked, I think, with those boundaries that are physics limit.

G = (R*c^2 / M), M and R are mass and distance from counter part anti mass M.

 Hence the result is :  G * M / R equal (R * c^2 / M) * M / R = c^2

Maybe I want to split hair, but we know that velocity is linked with some-think which is moving with an extreme velocity. So c * c , is because are two something:  mass M and anti mass M

 

 

 

  •  

  •  


“Facts don’t come naturally. Drama and opinions do. Factual knowledge has to be learned.”

Gapminder: https://www.gapminder.org

 

beecee

  • Organism

  • Senior Members

  • 205

  • 1236 posts

  • Location: Maroubra Sydney

Posted 20 hours ago (edited)

  On 5/23/2018 at 3:58 PM, dhimokritis said:

  Beecee, about your “tinged with  unecessary arrogance, haughtiness and a probable underlying agenda.”

I see out of theme and offensive. I am a curious citizen, that ask physicists about question that affect my sleep. So “please” give me an answer in theme, if you want a “Please” for sake of civility.

Let me first apologise for the "muddled" comment, on the grounds that obviously English is not your first language. My "arrogance" comment though was more to do with your comment directed at Strange in his attempt to help you, thus......

  Quote

If you have nothing to say and find it unimportant for your interest let it go.

But perhaps this could also be explained by the obvious that English is not your first language. What I will say at this time is that I believe the first requirement of anyone with criticism of the incumbent model, or the mainstream view, is to make sure they fully understand the mainstream view. 

Never mind. I am satisfied with your explanation. I have stressed your record about requirements. Let me ask you as an amateur too: Do you fully understand mainstream view?  Some exponents of main - stream admits that even they don’t.

I think that in speculations must be permitted different alternatives and ideas..  

I would also add that your criticism of "coming from nothing"  with regards to virtual particles is somewhat askew. Our best reasonings and thoughts at this time are that our very first fundamental particles arose from the decoupling of the Superforce at a short instant after the BB. My apologies again if I have not been of assistance, and my only excuse is that like you, I am also only an interested amateur.

Bless you if you truly and fully understand. I don’t understand at all, B.B, SuperForce, coupling etc. I think they are some uncompressible for folk like me. And you have the right to say: then shut up.

PS: Also evidence for virtual particles popping into and out of existence from "nothing"  would be the Casimir Effect, although I'm willing to be corrected on that score.

I too was been truing hard to understand Casimir effect. The electron shield of atoms of two  plates must give an repelling force not attracting.  But the fact that there must be some stronger force attractive, tingled in my mind about the role of gravitate attractive force of M sub-particles which conquers with electric repulsive force, which in the short distances and shire surface prevail the second.  

Edited 19 hours ago by beecee

 

 

  •  

  •  

 

Reply to this

 

   

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

 ...

Please try and use the Quote function. It is that link at the bottom that says "Quote". It will quote what people are saying. 

I am not going to try and wade through badly formatted, multicoloured text to try and pick out things you might have said that might be worth responding to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Strange said:

Please try and use the Quote function. It is that link at the bottom that says "Quote". It will quote what people are saying. 

I am not going to try and wade through badly formatted, multicoloured text to try and pick out things you might have said that might be worth responding to.

Thanks strange for help. My bad, maybe further i will be more correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, dhimokritis said:

Never mind. I am satisfied with your explanation. I have stressed your record about requirements. Let me ask you as an amateur too: Do you fully understand mainstream view?  Some exponents of main - stream admits that even they don’t.

I think that in speculations must be permitted different alternatives and ideas..  

Bless you if you truly and fully understand. I don’t understand at all, B.B, SuperForce, coupling etc. I think they are some uncompressible for folk like me. And you have the right to say: then shut up.

I too was been truing hard to understand Casimir effect. The electron shield of atoms of two  plates must give an repelling force not attracting.  But the fact that there must be some stronger force attractive, tingled in my mind about the role of gravitate attractive force of M sub-particles which conquers with electric repulsive force, which in the short distances and shire surface prevail the second.  

 

:) Do I fully understand the BB? or the Casimir Effect?                                                                        What I do understand is that with regards to the universe/spacetime, we have two choices...either it is infinite or it came from nothing :P The overwhelming evidence so far tells us that spacetime/universe [as we know it] did have a beginning at what we call the BB. All our laws of physics, GR and observational data are able to let us reasonably describe and detail the evolution of the universe/spacetime, at least up to 10-43 seconds after the event, up to the present time, and even make reasonable predictions many hundreds of millions of years into the future...

On evolving from nothing, I will give you this link.....https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

Further, to my understanding, or its actual limitation, is that science, cosmology, and the scientific methodology, is certainly for me far easier to understand than any unscientific explanation, tinged with unsupported mythical dogma, with regards to some all powerful, omnipotent deity or any other form of spaghetti monster that ancient man needed to explain the wonders that surround him. Science, particularly cosmology, does that far easier, even if I do not understand it fully.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'd prefer not to quote the last post however you mentioned antimass. This isn't accurate.   Antimatter does not have negative mass no, the only difference between a matter/antimatter pair is the charge.  You can model a lower potential via a greater than zero baseline however as your looking for symmetry relations you set at zero.    For example an observer/emitter under SR each set a baseline at zero under the 4d metrics depending on which is chosen to be the observer..

 For the FRW metric spacetime dilation isn't as involved as many think.

 By this I refer to a class of solutions under GR called the Newton potential. The Newton potential is a good approximation for GR for the LCDM model under the FLRW metric. The influence is expansion which results in using commoving coordinates. 

 Under LCDM the universe is extremely uniform at large scale distribution. The generally accept scale is 100 Mpc at this scale Galaxy and  even LSS filaments anistropic distributions are effectively washed out. 

 Visualize an ocean viewed from a plane the waves get washed out.

 Effects due to anistropic distributions is when relativistic effects occur but under FRLW is localized to the LSS distributions. Not involved on the global field distributions on average per 100 Mpc.

 Now the higher density past originates due to extreme density which also means extreme temperatures. The LCDM model includes a relation to how matter, radiation, and Lambda (DE) evolve over time. These relations each has a thermodynamic equation of state as to how they correspond to pressure and flux under GR as well as the ideal gas laws.

 How these evolve sets the rate of expansion via there pressure influence. Relativity comes into play however in that the rate of moving matter cannot exceed c. 

 Matter has an EoS w= 0, it has very little pressure influence.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)&ved=2ahUKEwiMutCS0qLbAhWlHjQIHcwnAP0QFjAAegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw31ndvIImqIOlRBzme3nePT

wiki covrage but better information here

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ir.isas.ac.jp/~cpp/teaching/cosmology/documents/cosmology01-05.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiMutCS0qLbAhWlHjQIHcwnAP0QFjABegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw37DQF5eUpSBEoC_QefsvGg

 The last link is a generlized listing of whats involved but these are excellent study guides into BB nucleosynthesis due to post  BB density changes. 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde
http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

 

 

The last article has a good lesson on SR in its first chapters.

 Now at [latex]10^43 [/latex] the temperature is so extreme all particles become indistinquishable due to being in a state of thermal equilibrium. This includes the constituent particles that make up a field ie quarks/gluons for strong, ext see links. As the universe cools various particles become distinguishable as they drop out of the thermal dynamic state. Typically photons are used to model this state as temperature is of the electromagnetic spectrum. Photons mediate that field.

 This gives rise to various phase changes under thermodynamics and involves symmetry breaking ie Electroweak symmetry break as one example. Last link chapter 3 and 4 has excellent coverage of one possible sequence.

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

Please use the quote function rather than colored text (especially gaudy colors, which are difficult to read) to respond.

 
14 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

  I think that in speculations must be permitted different alternatives and ideas..  

!

Moderator Note

We have rules about what is allowed in speculation: it must be supported with some combination of: a model, some kind of evidence, testable predictions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

They don't come from nothing. They come from the existing energy (you know mass and energy are equivalent?) Maybe if you understood, you wouldn't find it creepy.

O yes. But what is the source of energy? Isn’t energy of gamma rays result of interaction of particles mass - electrons with anti-mass electrons So called anti mater Positrons ?

The source of energy is the non-zero energy of the vacuum. This is a consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP). To express it very approximately, the zero energy of the various fields vacuum is not precisely defined (i.e. it is uncertain); this "variation" in energy cannot go negative (because you can't have negative energy) and so the average value is greater than zero. 

Or, to put it another way, the HUP says that you can "borrow" some energy for a short time to create some particles. But that energy has to disappear again (be "paid back") within the time specified by the HUP. The larger the energy, the shorter the time the particles can exist for.

19 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

You see that my post is somewhat an argument, even though not an evidence. Two Planck particles in denominator of an equation are treated as energy. How? Each of them multiplied by c^2 give energy –in Joules, which further converted in electron volt.               There are known other arguments. Where are gone mass and charge of photons in their creation, and how they reappear in photosynthesis?

There is no evidence for these "Planck particles" though.

Photons don't have either mass or charge, so the only thing to account for in photosynthesis is the energy; that is used to synthesis more complex molecules (sugars) from simpler ones. The plant (and animals) can later extract the energy from these sugars for growth, etc.

19 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

G*M / R in Planck constants is linked, I think, with those boundaries that are physics limit.

 

G = (R*c^2 / M), M and R are mass and distance from counter part anti mass M.

 Hence the result is :  G * M / R equal (R * c^2 / M) * M / R = c^2

I still have no idea where you are getting these equations from.

19 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

Maybe I want to split hair, but we know that velocity is linked with some-think which is moving with an extreme velocity. So c * c , is because are two something:  mass M and anti mass M

That makes no sense.

The factor c2 (as in e=mc2) is just a conversion factor between mass and energy. It doesn't mean that anything is moving (nothing with mass can move at c, anyway).

19 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

Bless you if you truly and fully understand. I don’t understand at all, B.B, SuperForce, coupling etc. I think they are some uncompressible for folk like me. And you have the right to say: then shut up.

The Big Bang model is pretty simple, in its most general form: the universe was once hot and dense; it is expanding and cooling.

You can get into as much more detail after that as you wish: how much it has expanded and cooled, how we know that, what exact predictions does the model make, how much evidence there is matching all those predictions, and so on and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now