Possible matter being Created/Destroyed?

Eimacman

Universal expansion does have an effect. However, how that effect is felt depends on the binding energy/force and the kind of binding energy/force. Take an atom for example. It will not distort or deform at all because of universal expansion until the force of such expansion reaches parity with all the forces holding an atom together, Electromagnetic, Strong and Weak Nuclear, Electroweak etc. At that point the atom will suddenly come apart. Other binding energies/forces such as molecular bond strength, Vander Waals attraction, Gravitation, and so on will react according to their various properties. Any change caused by such expansion is significant if a sufficient amount of time passes, [itex]10^{1000000}[/itex] years for example.

Even then, any matter thus effected will only be changed into energy, and with entropy →∞ such energy will not most likely be useful.

phinds

Can you provide any citation to a paper that shows that there is ANY expectation that "dark energy" will ever become strong enough to overcome those forces? I have never heard that before.

Eimacman

Greetings, phinds:

I believe that this article may be enlightening on the subject: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4060v2.pdf


Eimacman.

phinds

Thanks for that. I'm not able to judge the merit of their argument, but it's certainly interesting.

phinds

This seems to be a contentious issue, but I agree w/ your point of view (not that the universe cares whether we think that way or not)

Ich

Note that the Big Rip scenario violates certain basic assumptions in physics, so that it is rejected as a serious possibility by mainstream cosmologists. Still, it's interesting and pretty cool, as you can use words like "phantom energy" in that context.

twofish-quant

The issue is that we don't know what dark energy consists of. So in order to describe it, we talk about "w". w = pressure / density.

What the paper talks about is what happens in the universe for given values of "w". The observed value of w seems to be -1. If w==-1, then gravitationally bound objects are stable. If w is less than -1, then you get a runaway effect called the "big rip". The universe expands, this releases energy, which causes the universe to expand more, which releases more energy..... Eventually the entire universe expands so quickly that subatomic particles are destroyed...... The reason that everything gets destroyed if w<-1, is that the speed of expansion of the universe goes to infinity, which destroys everything.

Farahday

It started? Really?

Before something can change, before it can act or be acted upon, it must exist.

This is a rather simple axiom, intrinsically self-evident since any who might dissent must believe in things that don't exist. Existence in the absence of change is possible, change in the absence of existence is not. The fact that existence is required in order for change to occur explicitly means cause and effect is a function of (derived from) the phenomenon of existence. The Universe didn't suddenly transform from a condition of non-existence into a state of physical being because existence isn't a condition or a state of being, it is the phenomenon of being, itself. No phenomenon can be the product of its own subordinate derivative and the incongruities that result from any conceivable premise of creation are obvious.

Logically, existence is NOT the result of cause and effect (creation/beginning)

phinds

I should have said it EXPANDED from everywhere. Modern cosmology does not make any statement about what the singularity was, so you MAY be right. Quantum mechanics is weird enough that you may also be wrong.

Whovian

Okay. As you appear to be attacking ever minor wording issue of Phinds's, I'll try to counter that argument.

I believe Phinds was saying that it occurred everywhere, not that it started everywhere.

Perhaps you mean as it can change, as it can act or be acted upon?

EDIT: Looks like Phinds beat me to it!

twofish-quant

I don't think that "cosmology by word game" is a valid approach. One problem is that "ordinary language" is far, far too imprecise a tool to make a scientific argument. The reason physicists use a lot of math is that you can define things to extreme precision. When a mathematician uses the term "exist" they write down a precise and unambigious definition of what they mean by "exist"

Sorry, I don't accept these sorts of axiom. The reason that I don't is that I've seen very weird things in physics, and a lot of those things are hard, perhaps impossible to describe with ordinary language which is designed to describe the things that we are used to in our daily life.

For example, if you deal with electrons you quickly find that they don't follow "ordinary rules of logic." They do follow rules, and these rules can be defined mathematically, but they are just not the ordinary rules of logic. So when you describe the behavior of electrons, you have to use special terms, and learn a whole new set of logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic

And there is an entire branch of mathematics devoted to non-classical logic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-classical_logic

If you try to reason about electrons with ordinary logic and ordinary language, you end up with a mess. So when people start using ordinary logic and ordinary language to reason about the big bang, it's hard for me to accept those arguments.

Which logic?

Farahday

Have a physical (not necessarily material) presence in the cosmos. Must have quality (even inertness is a quality), quantity (no matter how infinitesimal or large) and relative location (you can point to it).

Yes, like bosons that can occupy the same physical location simultaneously. Conditions can exist simultaneously at multiple locations, but existences cannot. I view bosons as a phenomenon - a condition propagated among and between fields - in fact the phenomenon of mass, itself, is just a condition...just ask Uncle Al Einbeermug...that can appear here and reappear there without traversing the distance between or even be partly here and partly there, creating vast uncertainty as to where it might actually be. Existences can't do that, only conditions have that capability.

Haldane tells us that the world is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine. But Occam readily assures us that if theories sound far-fetched, it's probably because they are.

phinds

No, not in quantum mechanics.

Farahday

Nor in the land of Oz.

Drakkith

This is incorrect.

As you can see, this has nothing to do with sounding far fetched. A great many things can sound far fetched but are fundamental principles and theories in science.

Farahday

Yes, they are on the Razor's edge.
If you quote a few, I'd be happy to cuss and discuss their validity. Theories and principles are very different. I know of few fundamental principles that aren't the personification of simplicity.

Drakkith

What does that even mean?