20
   

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

 
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2017 07:02 am
@farmerman,
Ah, come on, you know I'm a homo-bigot. It's not about life per se, it's all about us(homo sapiens).

To ros' point, it's all about what you consider perfect. Earth is in the 'Goldilocks' zone, not too harsh, not too easy.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2017 08:52 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
To ros' point, it's all about what you consider perfect. Earth is in the 'Goldilocks' zone, not too harsh, not too easy.
Just to be clear, the various Anthropic principles effectively support the idea of natural process in evolution and blunt the claim of "perfection" in conditions.

The analogy I've used before is that all sunsets are unique. Yet each one, from its own perspective, would perceive conditions to be perfect for its formation and its alone. Yet a sunset is an expression of the conditions available. The conditions were not created to give rise to it, the very act of doing so would be meaningless and wasteful beyond measure.

We are like the Sunset considering itself. Hopefully we are smart enough to know that other sunsets could have been, and still will be.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2017 09:49 am
@farmerman,
This is a response to TomTom also. This quote from my previous remarks is the wiki explanation of stellar nuclearsynthesis. It states that their is no evidence that heavy elements are being produced in stellar events. It is just a belief as the restat3ment of the quote says.
Quote:
the fusion produced nuclei are restricted to those only slightly heavier than the fusing nuclei; thus they do not contribute greatly to to the natural abundance of the elements. Nonetheless this insight raised the plausibility of explaining the natural abundances of all the elements in this way.
This hardly sounds like accurate science (raised the probability). From what? From zero chance of happening to slightly above zero?

It doesn’t matter what type of fusion has happened over the eons, there is no scientific evidence revealing a process of fusion or a combination of types of fusion that can fuse hydrogen and lithium into heavy atoms like uranium.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2017 11:22 am
@brianjakub,
so the elements visible (as a small sequence of all elements naturally available) come from what?

Why did your wiki just talk about "Big Bang" nucleosynthesis???

I wonder why we call it fusion?. Im not gonna go back but I dont recall that wiki even covering neutron or proton capture or C or other element "burning"

brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2017 11:53 am
@farmerman,
My previous post was about stellar nucleo-synthesis. I doubt stellar nucleo synthesis is responsible for all the heavy elements in the universe. We have no evidence of it except at the elements exist. If heavy elements are being created in the stars or supernova then there must be something organizing simple Light elements into complicated heavy elements through fusion.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2017 11:58 am
@brianjakub,
Where did all the hydrogen come from?The big bang needed gravity For the initial singularity to exist, and it takes matter for gravity to exist so how can there be gravity before there is matter to Cause gravity? what came first the chicken or the egg?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2017 12:33 pm
@brianjakub,
"organizing"? so thats yer conclusion. Weve created supreheavy elements by the same methods identified in stars and novae and brown dwarfs etc.
A new element only needs to add protons (the no of neutrons or electrons is kinda meaningless.)

I now think you wish to try to find a way to deny that the evidence from the entire spectra of stars have anything to do with nucleosynthesis going on at those stars classes.
I can fairly easily follow evidence of exothermic nucleosynthesis up to and including iron. Beyond that, various capture and "burning" are beyond my knowledge. I suggest that a good modern physics book or P chem of Cosmology would be more capable than I.
However , because we hqve evidence of spectra of stars with iron cores and giving off massive amt s of heavier elements (up to and including iron) is evidence enough for me that bout 1/2 the periodic table is synthesized by xothermic means.Remember it has only to do with the proton count, isotopes are still children of the element under consideration.



brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2017 01:49 pm
@farmerman,
You didn’t answer my chicken or the egg question. Which came first gravity or matter? The answer has to be matter. Matter had to exist first because gravity is a result of matter. How do you have infinite density before the big bang without Gravity?

And what is matter but pieces of space that have certain spin in relationship to other pieces of space moving a certain way within certain boundaries storing energy in order wouldn’t you agree ?
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2017 02:03 pm
@farmerman,
Just because a star is giving off heavy elements it does it mean they are being created inside the star. We have made super heavy elements from heavy elements. We have not gone through the process from hydrogen through lithium through hired to a super heavy element. It has never been witnessed. A good modern physics book does not tell you where the heavy elements came from. It does not tell where the light elements came from. It’s does not tell where gravity comes from. It does not say which came first gravity or matter. But it does say gravity is necessary for every element To be produced.

I am giving off carbon dioxide from my body but my body never created a carbon Atom.

You could not create heavy elements just by adding protons there has to be a certain number of neutrons and electrons for an isotope of any ATom to be stable enough to exist more than a millisecond.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2017 03:41 pm
@brianjakub,
a good physics text will describe the sequences and fusion and proton capture and burning processes .Remember, weve created about 10 superheavy elements by adopting the natural processes .

You need to cobble together a more compelling argument than "I dont believe it happens this way'
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2017 03:43 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
am giving off carbon dioxide from my body but my body never created a carbon Atom.
didnt have to. Maybe if we jack you up a few Kelvin youd make Calcium
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2017 06:12 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
a good physics text will describe the sequences and fusion and proton capture and burning processes.
. Show me one.
This quote from wiki on stellar nucleosynthesis is why you can’t.
Quote:
The fusion-produced nuclei are restricted to those only slightly heavier than the fusing nuclei; thus they do not contribute heavily to natural abundances of the chemicals. Nonetheless, this insight raised the plausibility of explaining all of the natural abundance’s of the elements in this way.


You are calling an insight that suggests something happened which statistically is unlikely to happen good science. Stellar nucleosynthesis cannot arrange the neutrons, protons, and electrons properly to form stable atoms without some kind of guidance or template.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2017 06:33 pm
@brianjakub,
you are missing the entire concept> nucleosynthesis didnt apparently occur to fill in the entire periodic table at once. As I said, we can easily understand exothermic reactions of fusion that take us to iron. The methods then become rather disparate or at least dissociated, including ; H fusion;(3 pathways I believe); Helium fusion ;,Lithium ,Carbon,Neon,Oxygen, Silicon "burning";then Neutron capture; and proton capture .

Id suggest you start with Modern University Physics (14th ed ) originally Hugh Young ed. (Young passed in 2013 so Freeman changed the name to University Physics with Modern Physics) Addison-Wesely Pub. Then please visit ALL the wiki's about nucleosynthesis. Theres more to be read besides just BB N, also the recipe of the mass and energy that existed before the BB.

Its true that fusion develops elements slightly more proton dense than the fused. Remember , fusion can marry several disparate atomic number initiates. The number of radioactive are immaterial, as are the number of neutrons and electrons.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2017 06:40 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
Stellar nucleosynthesis cannot arrange the neutrons, protons, and electrons properly to form stable atoms without some kind of guidance or template.
arrange "propperly"?? what the heck does that imply?? As we saaid, only protons matter in the atomic number of the elements.

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2017 08:14 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Leadfoot wrote:
"To ros' point, it's all about what you consider perfect. Earth is in the 'Goldilocks' zone, not too harsh, not too easy."

Just to be clear, the various Anthropic principles effectively support the idea of natural process in evolution and blunt the claim of "perfection" in conditions."


I usually keep the two separate but I was using the license given by the OP title. I didn't mean perfection for our physical existence but for our spiritual development. Physically, it's actually kind of a hell-hole. Come to think of it, it's kind of a hell-hole spiritually as well. Which is apparently - Just Right
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2017 08:28 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
I didn't mean perfection for our physical existence but for our spiritual development.

Ah, I see.

Well, in that case this is getting too far outside of my area of expertise, so I will have to bid you happy explorations and go back to watching from the sidelines.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2017 06:01 am
@rosborne979,
Happy Trails
0 Replies
 
kk4mds
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2017 03:03 pm
@brianjakub,
Hydrogen was the first element to form after the big bang because it is the simplest. All other elements came from that.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Dec, 2017 10:47 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
arrange "propperly"?? what the heck does that imply?? As we saaid, only protons matter in the atomic number of the elements.


Quote:
The neutron is a subatomic particle, symbol
n
or
n0
, with no net electric charge and a mass slightly larger than that of a proton. Protons and neutrons constitute the nuclei of atoms. Since protons and neutrons behave similarly within the nucleus, and each has a mass of approximately one atomic mass unit, they are both referred to as nucleons.[5] Their properties and interactions are described by nuclear physics.

The chemical and nuclear properties of the nucleus are determined by the number of protons, called the atomic number, and the number of neutrons, called the neutron number. The atomic mass number is the total number of nucleons. For example, carbon has atomic number 6, and its abundant carbon-12 isotope has 6 neutrons, whereas its rare carbon-13 isotope has 7 neutrons. Some elements occur in nature with only one stable isotope, such as fluorine. Other elements occur with many stable isotopes, such as tin with ten stable isotopes.

Within the nucleus, protons and neutrons are bound together through the nuclear force, and neutrons are required for the stability of nuclei. Neutrons are produced copiously in nuclear fission and fusion. They are a primary contributor to the nucleosynthesis of chemical elements within stars through fission, fusion, and neutron capture processes.


The protons, neutrons, and electrons are all fermions that contribute to the properties and stability of matter and have 1/2 integer spin. That spin means the protons and neutrons are arranged and moving in a very specific way in the nucleus, and at the same time are interacting with the electrons in a similar but slightly less orderly way. That spin is being established as these particles interact with each other and the higgs bosons of the higgs field. The pattern revealing these particles paths become somewhat evident in the shape of the electron orbitals.

Quote:
Big Bang nucleosynthesis[edit]
Main article: Big Bang nucleosynthesis
Big Bang nucleosynthesis occurred within the first three minutes of the beginning of the universe and is responsible for much of the abundance of 1H (protium), 2H (D, deuterium), 3He (helium-3), and 4He (helium-4). Although 4He continues to be produced by stellar fusion and alpha decays and trace amounts of 1H continue to be produced by spallation and certain types of radioactive decay, most of the mass of the isotopes in the universe are thought to have been produced in the Big Bang. The nuclei of these elements, along with some 7Li and 7Be are considered to have been formed between 100 and 300 seconds after the Big Bang when the primordial quark–gluon plasma froze out to form protons and neutrons. Because of the very short period in which nucleosynthesis occurred before it was stopped by expansion and cooling (about 20 minutes), no elements heavier than beryllium (or possibly boron) could be formed. Elements formed during this time were in the plasma state, and did not cool to the state of neutral atoms until much later.[citation needed]


That statement is pure speculation. At one time there was no matter nor a higgs field in the universe. Matter has an extreme amount of order in the nucleus as the particles and antiparticles interact to obtain the 1/2 spin of fermions. The higgs field is also required to provide the nuclear forces that give matter mass. None of those things were present in the initial universe, and that initial underlying order in the Higgs Field had to be established before matter could acquire mass, and for gravity to become a resultant force of matter interacting with the higgs field.

Quote:
Production[edit]
The QGP can be created by heating matter up to a temperature of 2×1012 K, which amounts to 175 MeV per particle. This can be accomplished by colliding two large nuclei at high energy (note that 175 MeV is not the energy of the colliding beam). Lead and gold nuclei have been used for such collisions at CERN SPS and BNL RHIC, respectively. The nuclei are accelerated to ultrarelativistic speeds (contracting their length) and directed towards each other, creating a "fireball", in the rare event of a collision. Hydrodynamic simulation predicts this fireball will expand under its own pressure, and cool while expanding. By carefully studying the spherical and elliptic flow, experimentalists put the theory to test.

How the QGP fits into the general scheme of physics[edit]
QCD is one part of the modern theory of particle physics called the Standard Model. Other parts of this theory deal with electroweak interactions and neutrinos. The theory of electrodynamics has been tested and found correct to a few parts in a billion. The theory of weak interactions has been tested and found correct to a few parts in a thousand. Perturbative forms of QCD have been tested to a few percent. Perturbative models assume relatively small changes from the ground state, i.e. relatively low temperatures and densities, which simplifies calculations at the cost of generality. In contrast, non-perturbative forms of QCD have barely been tested. The study of the QGP, which has both a high temperature and density, is part of this effort to consolidate the grand theory of particle physics.

The study of the QGP is also a testing ground for finite temperature field theory, a branch of theoretical physics which seeks to understand particle physics under conditions of high temperature. Such studies are important to understand the early evolution of our universe: the first hundred microseconds or so. It is crucial to the physics goals of a new generation of observations of the universe (WMAP and its successors). It is also of relevance to Grand Unification Theories which seek to unify the three fundamental forces of nature (excluding gravity).

Expected properties[edit]
Thermodynamics[edit]
The cross-over temperature from the normal hadronic to the QGP phase is about 175 MeV. This "crossover" may actually not be only a qualitative feature, but instead one may have to do with a true (second order) phase transition, e.g. of the universality class of the three-dimensional Ising model. The phenomena involved correspond to an energy density of a little less than 1 GeV/fm3. For relativistic matter, pressure and temperature are not independent variables, so the equation of state is a relation between the energy density and the pressure. This has been found through lattice computations, and compared to both perturbation theory and string theory. This is still a matter of active research. Response functions such as the specific heat and various quark number susceptibilities are currently being computed.

Flow[edit]
The equation of state is an important input into the flow equations. The speed of sound is currently under investigation in lattice computations. The mean free path of quarks and gluons has been computed using perturbation theory as well as string theory. Lattice computations have been slower here, although the first computations of transport coefficients have recently been concluded. These indicate that the mean free time of quarks and gluons in the QGP may be comparable to the average interparticle spacing: hence the QGP is a liquid as far as its flow properties go. This is very much an active field of research, and these conclusions may evolve rapidly. The incorporation of dissipative phenomena into hydrodynamics is another recent development that is still in an active stage.

Excitation spectrum[edit]
The study of thermodynamic and flow properties indicate that the assumption of QGP consisting almost entirely of free quarks and gluons is an over-simplification. Many ideas are currently being developed and will be put to test in the near future. It has been hypothesized recently that some mesons built from heavy quarks do not dissolve until the temperature reaches about 350 MeV. This has led to speculation that many other kinds of bound states may exist in the plasma. Some static properties of the plasma (similar to the Debye screening length) constrain the excitation spectrum.

Glasma hypothesis[edit]
Since 2008, there is a discussion about a hypothetical precursor state of the Quark–gluon plasma, the so-called "Glasma", where the dressed particles are condensed into some kind of glassy (or amorphous) state, below the genuine transition between the confined state and the plasma liquid.[19] This would be analogous to the formation of metallic glasses, or amorphous alloys of them, below the genuine onset of the liquid metallic state.


The quark gluon plasma they observe today by destroying matter is what they are observing as they destroy the order already established by the higgs field and matter. They know they need more order for this to work that is why they discussing a precursor state of so-called Glasma. That state is going to create a problem which is ,"explaining how the order in the Glasma was established by randomly occurring processes. These topics are not discussed in your physics books except as pure speculation with very little evidence. I am suggest some intelligence established the Glasma whe he said let there be light thus, creating the higgs field and the underlying order necessary to give matter mass by interacting through the higgs mechanism and provided stablility by establishing the nuclear forces.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Dec, 2017 11:09 am
@kk4mds,
How was the Higgs field formed so that hydrogen would be stable and have mass? How were the particles forced into the pattern necessary to have the 1\2 integer spin of a fermion?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 08:13:47