The Universe

[redcannon]

Ok, here's the story. I'm thinking of becoming a discordian, but first I need to know if the philosophy behind it can be backed up by science. and so here is my question (and the reason why this isn't in Religion):

Is the universe stable? Is it based on stable material? I know that there are unstable elements that decay into stable elements, but there is evidence that even protons decay after incredibly long periods of time, and that atoms are not as stable as Quark Matter, which is not as prevalent in the universe...

i might sound confusing right now, mostly because I am confused myself.


so i'll ask again in different wording in case it helps:

Suppose the universe is around forever, and will never end up collapsing on itself or beconstently oscillating or ripping apart from the inside out. suppose the universe stops expanding, and does not begin to re-expand or fall in on itself. will all atomic particles eventually decay in smaller peices of matter until there are no more atomic particles in the universe?

(P.S. Im sure any educated physicist can look at this and point out a million mistakes i made in the words i used and so forth, but please try to be nice) :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

What evidence is there that protons decay -- other than that derived from 'thought experiments'?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

http://www.marxist.com/science/chaostheory.html

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Er, why this link to a simple-minded book (which reads like a creationist tract, minus 'God') that cannot be bothered to get formal logic right?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Because unlike your post, it addresses the topic of this thread.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dr R:


Because unlike your post, it addresses the topic of this thread.

I merely asked a question (about something in the original post).

But, you might as well have quoted a creationist tract for all the genuine science Reason in Remission contains.

[redcannon]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 08, 2007 05:27 am
What evidence is there that protons decay -- other than that derived from 'thought experiments'?
ok, you got me, there is no evidence of proton decay yet, but it does work with a lot of Grand Unification Theories. also, they may be proved in the proposed Hyper-Kamiokande dececter, if it ends up being built.


but back to my question

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RedC, that is what I thought, they have an extremely long half-life on the Standard Model, but that model itself is looking a little shaky of late.

[redcannon]

well, through this, another (clearer) way of questioning has come to mind. I could simply ask "what is the fate of the universe" and make intrepetations based on that. so far, with the universe ending in such ways as the Big Rip and the Big Crunch, the universe appears to be unstable.

so what are the odds that the universe will stop expanding but not end up in a Big Crunch situation? If that is the case, and protons do not infact decay, then I suppose that would mean that the universe is stable, although I should probably put more than a few minutes of thought into it.

[redcannon]

Upon further review and deep studying into just how amazing the universe is, I find that it is unstable, to say the least. I could go into my reasoning, but it is truly mind-boggling, and infact very humbling.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

My advice is: sure learn all the scinece yoiu can, but remember the vast majority of theories have been wrong, and are now on the scrap heap, so there is a high probability that for any randomly selected (current) theory, it is wrong.

The Standard Model is already looking rather shaky.

So for all we know, the universe might last for ever (whatever that means!).

[redcannon]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 13, 2007 09:58 am
My advice is: sure learn all the scinece yoiu can, but remember the vast majority of theories have been wrong, and are now on the scrap heap, so there is a high probability that for any randomly selected (current) theory, it is wrong.

The Standard Model is already looking rather shaky.

So for all we know, the universe might last for ever (whatever that means!).
good point, however now I am at a different dilemma. I am now tied between Discordianism and Existentialism. Both sounds pretty convincing, although Existentialism has more backing to it.

[socialistfuture]

now you're getting into philosophy as well.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red:


I am now tied between Discordianism and Existentialism. Both sounds pretty convincing, although Existentialism has more backing to it.

I am not sure what to say, except don't bother with either.

[Hegemonicretribution]

You don't have to pick a position.....although I will disagree with Rosa and say that you could do worse than starting from an existentialist position. Discordianism is quite amusing as far as I have discovered; unless there is a secret truth to it that everyone is hiding from me...

As for the main point of this thread, well it doesn't take a physicist to assert that the most likely explanation of the universe is that we do not know as of yet. From this we can conclude that it would be stupid to invoke some random concept because we can (god for example). We must also accept, as it has been put foward, that most approaches will end up being largely discredited over time.

If you must choose a position then you must also accept the shortcomings of it, and when it comes down to these issues the ideas suggested do not distance us enough from the bible nuts.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Heg, on the contrary, I agree with you: you could do worse than start from an existentialist position -- but not by much -- for example, flat earth theory.

[redcannon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 03:58 am
now you're getting into philosophy as well.
it was philosophy to begin with, but i try to make it physical, somehow

[redcannon]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 14, 2007 03:51 pm
Heg, on the contrary, I agree with you: you could do worse than start from an existentialist position -- but not by much -- for example, flat earth theory.
Rosa, what's wrong with existentialism? I kind of like the idea, I can use big words like "subjective" and "a priori" when talking to theists and why they're wrong. For purposes of me not sounding like an idiot, let's please not bring Soren Kierkegaard into this.

and hey, it could be worse, I could be considering Nihilism.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:05 pm
Is the universe stable? Define this, what would make the universe stable?


Is it based on stable material? The current theory is that all matter is really quantized...so no, the material "isn't" stable.

There is a finite, positive probability that the hadrons will decay.


I know that there are unstable elements that decay into stable elements, but there is evidence that even protons decay after incredibly long periods of time, and that atoms are not as stable as Quark Matter, which is not as prevalent in the universe... If Quark matter (if such a thing exists) were so stable, why isn't it more prevalent?

And why doesn't a proton or nuetron count as "quark matter"? They're made out of quarks.

The plain fact of the matter is that protons decay into other particles! It doesn't magically disappear.

I think you need to read up a little more on particle physics ;)


Suppose the universe is around forever, Define "forever".


...and will never end up collapsing on itself or beconstently oscillating or ripping apart from the inside out. Why wouldn't it implode in on itself? Or constantly be oscillating?

And why on Earth would it be "ripping apart from the inside out"? You act as if there's something outside the universe, what a Newtonian concept! :o


...suppose the universe stops expanding, and does not begin to re-expand or fall in on itself. will all atomic particles eventually decay in smaller peices of matter until there are no more atomic particles in the universe? Uhm...well, gravitational attraction of matter would cause the universe to come together, electromagnetic repulsion will cause it to expand.

Since we don't know whether the speed of gravity is faster than light or not, this may or may not cause an oscillation.

This has no relation to whether a particle decays or not however.

[redcannon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:05 pm
Is the universe stable? Define this, what would make the universe stable?
I mean do its atomic and subatomic particles stick around forever



I know that there are unstable elements that decay into stable elements, but there is evidence that even protons decay after incredibly long periods of time, and that atoms are not as stable as Quark Matter, which is not as prevalent in the universe... If Quark matter (if such a thing exists) were so stable, why isn't it more prevalent?

And why doesn't a proton or nuetron count as "quark matter"? They're made out of quarks.

The plain fact of the matter is that protons decay into other particles! It doesn't magically disappear.

I think you need to read up a little more on particle physics ;)
by "quark matter" i meant this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QCD_matter)

also, about the particle physics: its hard to get a handle on without help.




Suppose the universe is around forever, Define "forever".

i mean never, ever ever ever will it end. ever. however, i meant it purely hypothetically.



...and will never end up collapsing on itself or beconstently oscillating or ripping apart from the inside out. Why wouldn't it implode in on itself? Or constantly be oscillating?

And why on Earth would it be "ripping apart from the inside out"? You act as if there's something outside the universe, what a Newtonian concept! :o
i'm talking of the Big Rip. "inside out" shouldn't be taken so literally.



...suppose the universe stops expanding, and does not begin to re-expand or fall in on itself. will all atomic particles eventually decay in smaller peices of matter until there are no more atomic particles in the universe? Uhm...well, gravitational attraction of matter would cause the universe to come together, electromagnetic repulsion will cause it to expand.

Since we don't know whether the speed of gravity is faster than light or not, this may or may not cause an oscillation.

This has no relation to whether a particle decays or not however.
again, hypothetical. in order for the universe to be around "forever" it can't be collapsing over and over again. it relates to particle decay because i wonder if after a while particles would begin to decay.







Uhm...well, gravitational attraction of matter would cause the universe to come together, electromagnetic repulsion will cause it to expand.

on a totally serperate subject, do you think you can explain to me what electromagnetic repulsion is? :rolleyes:

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 11:32 pm
by "quark matter" i meant this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QCD_matter)

also, about the particle physics: its hard to get a handle on without help. Well, QCD matter as explained in the article exists only at extreme conditions and high temperatures...it really isn't all that stable.


i mean never, ever ever ever will it end. ever. however, i meant it purely hypothetically. So as time approaches infinity?

But time is on equal footing as space, you know with relativity.

So saying "What if the universe lasted forever and..." is meaningless.


i'm talking of the Big Rip. "inside out" shouldn't be taken so literally. The big rip depends heavily on the "dark matter" hypothesis being true...and that's not necessarily the case.

There was a paper by Woodard about having gravity be off by a factor of 1/r that solved the empirical problem of General Relativity without resorting to dark matter.


again, hypothetical. in order for the universe to be around "forever" it can't be collapsing over and over again. Why? There was a big bang already, why can't there be another?

This is the current hypothesis put forward by quantum cosmology, by the way ;)


it relates to particle decay because i wonder if after a while particles would begin to decay. Bear in mind the scale too, you only really care about decay at the quantum scale. Classical approximations work just as well, and you can use isotropic matter as an approximation too ;)



Uhm...well, gravitational attraction of matter would cause the universe to come together, electromagnetic repulsion will cause it to expand.

on a totally serperate subject, do you think you can explain to me what electromagnetic repulsion is? :rolleyes: When two bodies that are electrically charged are positioned close to each other, they either attract or repel.

If the charges of the bodies are opposite, they attract. Otherwise they repel.

This repulsion based on electric charge is the electromagnetic repulsion I speak of.

[redcannon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 12:36 am


on a totally serperate subject, do you think you can explain to me what electromagnetic repulsion is? :rolleyes: When two bodies that are electrically charged are positioned close to each other, they either attract or repel.

If the charges of the bodies are opposite, they attract. Otherwise they repel.

This repulsion based on electric charge is the electromagnetic repulsion I speak of. [/quote]
and this is what keeps the universe expanding?

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 12:26 pm



on a totally serperate subject, do you think you can explain to me what electromagnetic repulsion is? :rolleyes: When two bodies that are electrically charged are positioned close to each other, they either attract or repel.

If the charges of the bodies are opposite, they attract. Otherwise they repel.

This repulsion based on electric charge is the electromagnetic repulsion I speak of.
and this is what keeps the universe expanding? [/quote]
It's more complicated than just electro-magnetism.

Come to think of it, I am not sure if there is a satisfactory answer to the question "Why is the universe expanding?" Of course, I never really cared much about why insomuch as how in Cosmology.

There are, when I last read Feyman's lectures on gravitation, 30 known forces acting in the universe (including gravity and electromagnetism). Perhaps at certain scales some of them are really the same force, I don't know.

Currently the explanation for force (well, all forces except for gravity, gravity is a problem child...it always has been) is that it is the exchange of momentum via "intermediating bosons" (particles responsible for transferring the momentum).

Electromagnetic repulsion is really electrons changing trajectory because of collisions with photons (in an overly simplified picture).

So there is a "speed of electromagnetism" -- the speed of light (photon is a light particle, and however fast it goes would be however fast electromagnetism "acts").

There is still open dispute about the "speed of gravity"...largely because everyone in the field speaks very loud and very fast without anyone listening to anyone else, with the net result that nothing productive gets done.

However there have been fascinating results recently from Ashtekar dealing with the initial singularity problem of the big bang...according to Loop Quantum Gravity, it was a bounce not a bang. The math is both rigorous and convincing to support such a hypothesis, and it appears from the background radiation data that it is indeed what happened.

But the short version is that it's still disputed, and it's unlikely there'll be an answer anytime soon without more empirical data.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red C:


Rosa, what's wrong with existentialism? I kind of like the idea, I can use big words like "subjective" and "a priori" when talking to theists and why they're wrong. For purposes of me not sounding like an idiot, let's please not bring Soren Kierkegaard into this.

and hey, it could be worse, I could be considering Nihilism.

Like all philosophies, it attempts to state a priori truths about reality (or about us humans) based on a few tortured words, which theses, when examined, can be shown to nothing more than mistaken beliefs based on the systematic distorton of language.

Nihilists are no better nor no worse, just slightly more confused.