| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Name Redacted" |
| Date: |
17 Feb 2005 03:32:44 PM |
| Object: |
Dark energy, expansion, and nuclear particles |
I saw a re-play of NASA TV's panel discussion of dark energy and a
question occurred to me: One panelist stated that the accelerating
expansion of the Universe may lead to atoms being broken apart. He did
not then argue expansion would cease accelerating.
Could, at some point, protons also be torn apart? Noting that protons
are made of quarks and the fact that quarks can't, under normal
circumstances be separated, would expansion separate quarks? What I am
wondering about is that I read energy is required to separate quarks,
which is simply converted into another quark meaning we can't see
"naked" quarks. So what would happen? Run-away quark production
leading to infinite mass?
.
|
|
| User: "mushnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark energy, expansion, and nuclear particles |
17 Feb 2005 07:48:22 PM |
|
|
"Name Redacted" <wnyer12@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108675964.210925.108420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I saw a re-play of NASA TV's panel discussion of dark energy and a
question occurred to me: One panelist stated that the accelerating
expansion of the Universe may lead to atoms being broken apart.
Scale, man Scale. What does expansion have to do with atoms breaking apart?
Why should they be tied together?
Besides, Didn't they prove the universe is not "accelerating or
decelerating" expansion?
He did
not then argue expansion would cease accelerating.
Could, at some point, protons also be torn apart? Noting that protons
are made of quarks and the fact that quarks can't, under normal
circumstances be separated, would expansion separate quarks? What I am
wondering about is that I read energy is required to separate quarks,
which is simply converted into another quark meaning we can't see
"naked" quarks. So what would happen? Run-away quark production
leading to infinite mass?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark energy, expansion, and nuclear particles |
17 Feb 2005 11:11:48 PM |
|
|
One panelist stated that the accelerating
expansion of the Universe may lead to atoms being broken apart.
The universe may expand, but it cannot become larger. It is closed, and it's
size is fixed relative to an observer.
This could very well be related to disintegration of atoms or other
astrophysical phenomena, but it's very unlikely that our world will ever be
destroyed as a result of this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Bloomquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark energy, expansion, and nuclear particles |
17 Feb 2005 10:09:01 PM |
|
|
Lefty wrote:
The universe may expand, but it cannot become larger. It is closed, and it's
size is fixed relative to an observer.
How about that receding fringe? Or, are you just baiting Uncle Al?
(I'm ready for a pile of 'Idiot' from here even if it is me... :)
Best, Dan.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark energy, expansion, and nuclear particles |
18 Feb 2005 12:30:30 AM |
|
|
Lefty wrote:
The universe may expand, but it cannot become larger. It is closed, and
it's
size is fixed relative to an observer.
How about that receding fringe? Or, are you just baiting Uncle Al?
(I'm ready for a pile of 'Idiot' from here even if it is me... :)
heh heh -
Well, I could be trying to coax something out of him, even though I've
already made his idiot list.
Even though the universe may be expanding, beyond a certain size it ceases
to exist relative to an observer. This is possible because the universe is
really open, but it is closed relative to an observer. The argument is quite
simple and does not contain any "word salad".
And yes, I am an idiot.
The amazing thing is that even an idiot could see that this is logical, and
yields a classical explanation of non-locality, and yet people prefer the
"mysticism" of QM.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark energy, expansion, and nuclear particles |
18 Feb 2005 09:34:50 AM |
|
|
"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
news:xLCdnczuW9z97YjfRVn-hw@comcast.com...
[snip]
This is possible because the universe is
really open, but it is closed relative to an observer.
So whenever everybody simultaneously closes their eyes, the universe
unfurls a little, only to close up again whenever anybody peeps.
--
Franz
"As we grow older and older we understand more and more and we do less
and less"
Puppi
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Bloomquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark energy, expansion, and nuclear particles |
18 Feb 2005 10:41:18 AM |
|
|
Lefty wrote:
Even though the universe may be expanding, beyond a certain size it ceases
to exist relative to an observer. This is possible because the universe is
really open, but it is closed relative to an observer. The argument is quite
simple and does not contain any "word salad".
And yes, I am an idiot.
The amazing thing is that even an idiot could see that this is logical, and
yields a classical explanation of non-locality, and yet people prefer the
"mysticism" of QM.
You seemed to have cobbled up something that makes sense to you. I don't
see it. There is nothing mystical about QM. It is just a model of the
observable. Well tested at that.
You are not the first to think you see clearly 'how' nature works. Once
you start applying this sureness objectively to all the nuances of
nature, you may find otherwise.
Best, Dan.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark energy, expansion, and nuclear particles |
18 Feb 2005 03:59:36 AM |
|
|
Lefty wrote:
Lefty wrote:
The universe may expand, but it cannot become larger. It is closed, and
it's
size is fixed relative to an observer.
How about that receding fringe? Or, are you just baiting Uncle Al?
(I'm ready for a pile of 'Idiot' from here even if it is me... :)
heh heh -
Well, I could be trying to coax something out of him, even though I've
already made his idiot list.
Even though the universe may be expanding, beyond a certain size it ceases
to exist relative to an observer.
Is this a strange way to say "the part of the universe which we can
observe is only finite"?
This is possible because the universe is
really open, but it is closed relative to an observer.
And what is this supposed to mean?
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark energy, expansion, and nuclear particles |
18 Feb 2005 03:58:08 AM |
|
|
Lefty wrote:
One panelist stated that the accelerating
expansion of the Universe may lead to atoms being broken apart.
The universe may expand, but it cannot become larger. It is closed,
How do you know?
BTW, exactly the case of a closed universe (as opposed to a flat or
open universe) is the only case where the universe indeed *does* get
larger.
and it's size is fixed relative to an observer.
And what is "relative to an observer" supposed to mean here?
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark energy, expansion, and nuclear particles |
18 Feb 2005 03:56:58 AM |
|
|
mushnick wrote:
"Name Redacted" <wnyer12@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108675964.210925.108420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I saw a re-play of NASA TV's panel discussion of dark energy and a
question occurred to me: One panelist stated that the accelerating
expansion of the Universe may lead to atoms being broken apart.
Scale, man Scale. What does expansion have to do with atoms breaking apart?
Why should they be tied together?
Read up on "Big Rip".
Besides, Didn't they prove the universe is not "accelerating or
decelerating" expansion?
No.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark energy, expansion, and nuclear particles |
17 Feb 2005 04:07:57 PM |
|
|
Name Redacted wrote:
I saw a re-play of NASA TV's panel discussion of dark energy and a
question occurred to me: One panelist stated that the accelerating
expansion of the Universe may lead to atoms being broken apart. He did
not then argue expansion would cease accelerating.
Could, at some point, protons also be torn apart? Noting that protons
are made of quarks and the fact that quarks can't, under normal
circumstances be separated, would expansion separate quarks? What I am
wondering about is that I read energy is required to separate quarks,
which is simply converted into another quark meaning we can't see
"naked" quarks. So what would happen? Run-away quark production
leading to infinite mass?
The expansionary disintegration of reality is at least 500 years in
the future. Don't sweat it. Don't be overly concerned with academics
playing grantology games, either.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark energy, expansion, and nuclear particles |
18 Feb 2005 04:02:45 AM |
|
|
Name Redacted wrote:
I saw a re-play of NASA TV's panel discussion of dark energy and a
question occurred to me: One panelist stated that the accelerating
expansion of the Universe may lead to atoms being broken apart. He did
not then argue expansion would cease accelerating.
Could, at some point, protons also be torn apart?
According to
<http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/43/4/9>,
yes.
Noting that protons
are made of quarks and the fact that quarks can't, under normal
circumstances be separated, would expansion separate quarks? What I am
wondering about is that I read energy is required to separate quarks,
which is simply converted into another quark meaning we can't see
"naked" quarks. So what would happen? Run-away quark production
I would guess so.
leading to infinite mass?
Ever increasing is not the same as infinite.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark energy, expansion, and nuclear particles |
18 Feb 2005 12:01:15 AM |
|
|
Name Redacted wrote:
I saw a re-play of NASA TV's panel discussion of dark energy and a
question occurred to me: One panelist stated that the accelerating
expansion of the Universe may lead to atoms being broken apart. He did
not then argue expansion would cease accelerating.
Could, at some point, protons also be torn apart?
Possibly... and everything else.... But that's in the distant future.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
