A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Science Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Recycling universe



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 25th 13, 06:49 PM
JAAKKO KURHI JAAKKO KURHI is offline
Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Apr 2013
Posts: 40
Default Recycling universe

Dark matter, the "invisible" mass that scientists believe makes up a large part of the universe, can be explained as being mass that is at one end of a cooling process that all matter goes through. This cooling theory is based on the idea that mass is a permanent entity, and the energy associated with mass is necessary only for matter that is viable and can be detected.

An active and detectable particle of matter becomes undetectable dark matter when its temperature drops to the point where it no longer has any energy. It’s a simple idea: When matter reaches 0 degrees Kelvin, particle activity ceases but the mass still exists. But this presents a scientific problem because it cannot be verified through experiments and with one hitch in the form of the famous E=mc˛ equation.

Imagine that the universe is composed of matter that is always in the process of moving from an invisible, dark-matter state into an energized – and detectable -- state and then back again. Through the natural process of cooling, where active matter radiates thermal energy till all energy charge is spent. The subatomic particles of an atom – the protons, neutrons and electrons -- will use up the available energy and eventually reach 0K. When the matter reaches 0K, the mass of subatomic particles enters a neutral, undetectable state, having no particles in motion and therefore no thermal radiation. In that environment, the mass of an atom remains. And while it would lack any thermal energy, it would maintain a gravitational force, and thus a potential source of Kinetic energy. Instead of the term "dark matter," consider this to be a "neutral mass."

It is mass in a stable state, that requires an occurrence involving extremely high energy acting upon the mass to reconstruct the subatomic particles, set them in motion and further develop an atomic structure. The neutral mass can create such an event, having the property of force of gravity, hence, ability to attract other masses and producing kinetic energy with a cumulative effect that could be quite substantial. Therefore, a body of the large concentration of this undetectable mass, and the increased force of pull of gravity can lead into a collision course with the nearby mass concentration. This event can yield an enormous force of kinetic energy that would re-energize and convert the mass into the viable particles of matter. Hence, to further evolve to the system of a new galaxy, Thus completing the recycling circle.

The above postulation may be a simple task for the nature to accomplish, there are man made hurdles to get over: When the science is considering the puzzling as-yet unanswered questions concerning the make-up of the universe, it’s tempting to rely on faithful maxims such as the centuries-old laws of thermodynamics and Albert Einstein’s formula of E=mc˛. These tools shouldn’t be discounted in the study of molecular behavior, but – bear with me – I’m postulating that they should not be held as universal truths when dealing with a subject such as the make-up of the universe. As the saying goes, sometimes it’s better to think differently, and in this case, I believe that thinking differently actually produces answers to such questions as the nature of dark matter that may be far simpler than what is being bounced around by the scientific community.

Let me lay down the basics: Say we have a particle of matter. This matter has cooled to a point in defiance with current beliefs – it has cooled to the maximum, or rather cooled past the concept of mass-energy equilibrium, and is at zero degrees Kelvin, the environment where the word "temperature" is meaningless. There’s absolutely no heat at all radiating from this entity, nothing being given off that’s observable in any form. Nevertheless, the matter in the state of 0K doesn’t mean that all properties of matter have disappeared. Active matter, consisting of three properties -- mass, gravity and energy -- in a state of 0K has only lost the property of energy, while mass and gravity remain. And the latter element, the force of gravity, is critical in understanding the nature of matter, and hence the universe.

Looked at purely in logical terms, this concept is sound and workable, although it cannot be proven through experiments. And there’s another problem – it happens to fly in the face of some scientific givens. Let’s take a look at what scientific laws are being violated here. The common thread is the idea that mass and energy are indivisibly linked. The laws of thermodynamics – which are about the conservation of energy and entropy – are practical and relevant to the available energy and work output of individual systems in the molecular state, where one form of energy can be converted into another form of energy. However, when discussing a sub-atomic particle at its lowest energy state, we enter a theoretical zone where such practical, observable, and provable laws can no longer be applied.

In other theoretical violations, let’s look at the idea of a mass-energy equivalence according to the equation E=mc˛. When Albert Einstein was formulating an equation for nuclear fission, he knew that there is a tremendous amount of energy available in the nuclei of an atom. To complete his mathematical statement, he needed a substantial number to relate to this huge energy source. The value of component "c", the speed of light, may have nothing more to do with mass and energy other than being a suitably constant large number to use as a multiplier.

Therefore, an arbitrary equation of E=mc˛ can be applied to nuclear energy and most any form of ready-to-use energy calculations, and yield workable results. My point is, when E=mc˛ is used to calculate the mass and energy of an elementary sub-atomic particle at its weakest energy state of near absolute zero, the result may be misleading. The margin of error is a lot smaller when E=mc˛ is applied to the weakest end of the energy spectrum – we’re not talking about thermonuclear reactions at this level. Hence, the theory obtained by the equation E=mc˛ may not be applicable to the behavior of matter in an extremely low mass and energy state.

Perhaps an isolated particle of matter, in the right environment, can continue the cooling process until it has no energy. There is no longer a link. The = sign no longer applies in E=mc˛, matter is alone, and c˛ is a moot variable. This is likely, because any system or object that dissipates heat is using energy, and as a result, any measurable, even the smallest possible degree of change in temperature indicates the use of expendable energy. So, is the recycling universe a viable possibility?
Ads
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Truth About Recycling Sylvia Else Policy 1 August 8th 07 04:29 AM
bookman.artdeco makes ass of self again. Earth Is Recycling Itself Good News! www.peaceinspace.com Misc 6 July 3rd 06 01:05 AM
bookman.artdeco makes ass of self again. Earth Is Recycling Itself Good News! Head West Misc 1 July 1st 06 11:04 PM
Recycling electrical power on project dedalus? Christopher Technology 5 October 27th 03 11:28 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.