Playing with E=m.c^2

Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 06/09/2011 4:27 AM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
Yousuf wrote:
One way to look at it is to think of you standing in a flat prairie.
There's no mountains anywhere nearby, just flatness. Let's say you
wanted to create a hill from the flatness? Well, you'd have to dig out
some dirt from the ground, and pile it up on another section of ground.
After a while you'd have a hill in one section of the prairie, but you'd
also have a hole in another section of the prairie -- positive and
negative, balances each other out.

But it would take energy to dig the hole and move the sand.
So this shifts the problem, but does not solve it,
Or am I missing something here?

Then look at it like a roiling ocean, rather than a rigid ground. From a
distance the ocean looks flat, but close up there are waves in it. At
some point a tidal wave might travel through it.

Yousuf Khan

There exist freak waves too, probably some point where all the wave frequencies
add up at a maximum of the wave form...

Ollie

On 9/6/2011 2:03 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
Rest mass that can fuel work ( e.g. Plutonium ) is finite;
you run out of the stuff, eventually, and it's expensive.

Fission only converts a fraction of the mass of matter into energy,
fusion just a slightly bigger fraction. Matter/antimatter annihilation
would convert 100%.

Yousuf Khan

PRE
antiMatter costs more than Plutonium.
You haven't found a less expensive solution, obviously.

One may dream about what it might cost, as you do,
but that doesn't alter today's reality.

On 9/6/2011 3:18 PM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
Yousuf wrote:

On 06/09/2011 4:55 AM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
Some other things do make sense, but I have also tought that way,
multiple big bangs in a larger space, but also gere he contradics himself,
or at least agrees space and time are separate, as his time stopped,
but at the same (stopped )time he has a huge space with many 'universes' in it.

His point about time stopping when maximum entropy is reached is because
at that point, every particle is going to be a photon, and time doesn't
exist for a photon, since it travels (by definition) at the speed of light.

OK, that is relativity, I understand that way of reasoning.


OK, but then I am with you that 'stuff' will more likely be some condensate.
And no new universe will pop out of that?
It is all theroy of course, but they are already making the bose EInstein condensate
in the lab and playing with it, so maybe some thing can be verified.

My feeling is that as the universe cools down, BECs will be the natural
state of matter eventually. When the universe was young, it was so hot
that the only matter interactions were nuclear reactions. Then later as
the universe cooled down, chemical reactions became possible. As it
cools down even further, then BEC reactions will become possible. With
the advent of chemical reactions, we've been able to achieve some
amazing progresses in life, not the least of which was the chemical
reactions made life itself possible. Billions of different atomic
combinations of molecules can be made with chemistry. I can only imagine
how much new progress can be made with BEC reactions.

With each state, matter loses some excess heat, and becomes even more
stable and entrenched. Standard thermodynamics looks at heat loss as an
increase in entropy which is a bad thing because we lose that energy
from our use. But I think this may be a natural course for matter to
take, and the energy we're losing gives us more stability in the future.

Sean Carroll and other physicists have become worried about the
consequences of Dark Energy. They believe that it will rip the Universe
apart if it continues at its current rate. There's no evidence of that,
for all we know the Dark Energy will dissipate eventually, and gravity
will take control over the Universe again, and Big Crunch can take
effect. Either case, whether the universe ends in a Big Rip, or a Big
Crunch, it's still the end of the universe.

Yousuf Khan

On 06/09/2011 8:48 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
antiMatter costs more than Plutonium.
You haven't found a less expensive solution, obviously.

One may dream about what it might cost, as you do,
but that doesn't alter today's reality.

Well, as has been stated in other parts of this thread, there are some
theories which suggest that matter itself will eventually decay
naturally to energy in the form of photons. No antimatter needed to
hurry up the process, it just decays after a certain number of trillions
of years.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 9/6/2011 3:18 PM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
Yousuf wrote:

On 06/09/2011 4:55 AM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
Some other things do make sense, but I have also tought that way,
multiple big bangs in a larger space, but also gere he contradics himself,
or at least agrees space and time are separate, as his time stopped,
but at the same (stopped )time he has a huge space with many 'universes' in it.

His point about time stopping when maximum entropy is reached is because
at that point, every particle is going to be a photon, and time doesn't
exist for a photon, since it travels (by definition) at the speed of light.

OK, that is relativity, I understand that way of reasoning.


OK, but then I am with you that 'stuff' will more likely be some condensate.
And no new universe will pop out of that?
It is all theroy of course, but they are already making the bose EInstein condensate
in the lab and playing with it, so maybe some thing can be verified.

My feeling is that as the universe cools down, BECs will be the natural
state of matter eventually. When the universe was young, it was so hot
that the only matter interactions were nuclear reactions. Then later as
the universe cooled down, chemical reactions became possible. As it
cools down even further, then BEC reactions will become possible. With
the advent of chemical reactions, we've been able to achieve some
amazing progresses in life, not the least of which was the chemical
reactions made life itself possible. Billions of different atomic
combinations of molecules can be made with chemistry. I can only imagine
how much new progress can be made with BEC reactions.

Of course it is possoible that during all those phases some 'life form'
- and that would be something we could not even imagine -
just like an ant cannot imagine a space shuttle,
took control, and changed the outcome.
Very long time ago in sci.physics somebody wrote (was it Edward Green?)
that if you looked at ocean currents, or river flow,
nothing could ever move againts the stream. upriver.
But now look at fish.
So I want to leave open not only that I have no clue, but also
that this sort of 'defying logic' sort of miracles
can hapen and in fact already exist.
:-)

Ollie



With each state, matter loses some excess heat, and becomes even more
stable and entrenched. Standard thermodynamics looks at heat loss as an
increase in entropy which is a bad thing because we lose that energy
from our use. But I think this may be a natural course for matter to
take, and the energy we're losing gives us more stability in the future.

Sean Carroll and other physicists have become worried about the
consequences of Dark Energy. They believe that it will rip the Universe
apart if it continues at its current rate. There's no evidence of that,
for all we know the Dark Energy will dissipate eventually, and gravity
will take control over the Universe again, and Big Crunch can take
effect. Either case, whether the universe ends in a Big Rip, or a Big
Crunch, it's still the end of the universe.

Yousuf Khan

On 9/7/2011 3:38 AM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
Yousuf wrote:
My feeling is that as the universe cools down, BECs will be the natural
state of matter eventually. When the universe was young, it was so hot
that the only matter interactions were nuclear reactions. Then later as
the universe cooled down, chemical reactions became possible. As it
cools down even further, then BEC reactions will become possible. With
the advent of chemical reactions, we've been able to achieve some
amazing progresses in life, not the least of which was the chemical
reactions made life itself possible. Billions of different atomic
combinations of molecules can be made with chemistry. I can only imagine
how much new progress can be made with BEC reactions.

Of course it is possoible that during all those phases some 'life form'
- and that would be something we could not even imagine -
just like an ant cannot imagine a space shuttle,
took control, and changed the outcome.

Well, this of course goes out of the realm of physics and into the realm
of philosophy, maybe even science fiction or religion. But I do think
that we were put into this universe to take control over this universe.
Thus we are compelled to learn as much about it, so that we can properly
control it. By we, I don't necessarily mean humans or Earthlings, but
the entire community of sentient life that we may one day discover
elsewhere. And by take control, I mean we can make the universe go on
forever sustaining us all, and we in return we direct the universe to
keep it from falling apart.

Very long time ago in sci.physics somebody wrote (was it Edward Green?)
that if you looked at ocean currents, or river flow,
nothing could ever move againts the stream. upriver.
But now look at fish.

If he was talking about the river of time and space, then he has a
point. What if the fish were themselves made up completely of water?
Would those fish be able to swim against the flow of the river? We are
all made up of rolled-up space-time. So at best we're like pieces of ice
floating in water, we're made of the same thing that we live in. Real
fish in real water are made of something different than the medium
through which they travel, so they can move independently through the
water. I am thinking BECs might do that for us in the future, enable us
to move independently of the universe somewhat. We're only just learning
what BECs can do, we have centuries to learn more about them.

Yousuf Khan