The Universe Is Net Exothermic

[HydrogenBond]

If you look at the universe, matter interactions are both exothermic and endothermic, where matter  loses or gains energy. For example, the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen to make water is exothermic, while the fusion of atomic nuclei to make uranium is endothermic. The first reaction causes matter to give off energy, while second causes matter to absorb energy. 

 

If we look at the net total within the universe, our universe is net exothermic. The universe is cooling which means giving off energy. Stars net gives off energy, via exothermic fusion reactions, etc, even though endothermic nuclei will also be created. 

 

If we took a high energy photon, to make matter and antimatter, such as an electron and positron, the potential has increased. This is not stable, but will try to lower potential to reform energy. If the matter and anti-matter or inertial state was at lower potential, there would be no change. 

 

Energy exists at the lower potential than matter; appears as an exothermic universe, as matter converts back to energy. 

Edited March 20, 2015 by HydrogenBond

[HydrogenBond]

Say we started with a reaction chamber that contains an empty volume that is near absolute zero, that is also under a vacuum. We slowly crank up the energy value from radio waves, to IR, to visible, to UV, to X-rays, to gamma rays and beyond. At a certain point, matter and antimatter appear as high energy photons split. When the potential of the energy reaches a certain point, matter appears in chamber; endothermic formation of matter. 

 

If we stop all the energy input and allow the chamber to radiate; exothermic, the matter and anti-matter stop forming and that which had already appeared, will return to energy, as the particles combine and annihilate back to energy; in direction of lowering potential.

 

On the other hand, if we continued to crank up the energy even more, more and more matter/antimatter particles will accumulate in the chamber, because the high energy photons that move at C can split easier, than the separated inertial  particles, which move less than C, can recombine. There is a phase difference, that favors deconstruction of photons into matter, over reconstruction of photons from matter; endothermic accumulation of inertial particles. 

 

The common confusion about the claim that matter is at higher potential than energy, even though matter has been made in the lab, from scratch, from high energy, is connected to the stability of common chemical matter; electrons, protons and neutrons. This stability makes matter seem to be at lower potential. 

 

The confusion can be clarified with an example; C-4 is a military high explosive. This material contains a lot of potential, but it is very stable and can be molded and dropped without fear of explosion. It needs a detonator, before its potential energy can be released. Common matter is the same way, in the sense it is high potential that is stabilized, but it can be detonated. The detonator is the energy needed to push the material up an activation energy hill to the top. Once it reaches the top, it can slide down the other side to a point of even lower potential; pure energy.

 

Like the C-4 example, the matter of the universe, which formed at extreme energy, early in the universe, without the appropriate detonator remains very stable. But like C-4, there will still be oxidation that occurs on a small scale. With matter, the analogy, results in the exothermic universe. 

 

. 

Edited March 22, 2015 by HydrogenBond

[HydrogenBond]

Fundamentally, matter is at higher potential than energy, which is why matter net converts to energy; exothermic universe, instead of energy net forming matter; endothermic universe.

 

None of which I said is a strange claim, yet here we are. Do these forums have anyone who is knowledgeable about physics to make a rational assessment? I don't need validation for the truth. The reason Hypography has become a shadow of its former self, is because unqualified people appear to be lording over the forums in an irrational way. It makes this place appear pointless to new members.

 

This style could be due to laziness. If you scare people away, there is less work to do. The moderators used to be able to cope with facts. 

Edited March 23, 2015 by HydrogenBond

[Buffy]

It's in strange claims because you obviously have no clue as to what you're talking about. 

 

Are exothermic reactions taking place? Sure.

 

Are they larger than the amount of endothermic reactions taking place in the entire universe? This is where you get into trouble, because these terms are defined within the context of an arbitrarily defined system and to measure the gain or loss of energy is only relevant within the pressure and volume of the system you define.

 

The universe is expanding, and it has no "outside the system" (at least not one that's at all relevant from a cosmological viewpoint), so there's no way to even measure the "net" here.

 

What you're likely confused about is that the ENTROPY of the universe is indeed increasing, but that's a different thing. You may wish to study it.

 

As to what might drive people away, it's giving the imprimatur of legitimacy to incredibly uninformed conjectures like this one. 

 

You might want to address some of these issues, or this thread may be destined for the Silly Claims forum.

 

 

 

I believe alien life is quite common in the universe, although intelligent life is less so. Some say it has yet to appear on planet Earth, :phones:

Buffy

[pgrmdave]

The universe is cooling which means giving off energy.

Could there be other explanations for the universe cooling, like expansion? If the universe is expanding while the quantity of matter/energy remains constant then we would expect to see a universal reduction in the density of energy/matter, which would be an effect akin to cooling without requiring the loss of energy from the universe.

 

It seems to me that if we can measure the average expansion rate and the average temperature drop we should be able to see whether the cooling is better explained by a loss of energy, an increase in size, or a combination of the two (or something else entirely). I'm not a physicist though, so I have no idea what kind of calculations or measurements would actually be needed.

[Buffy]

Could there be other explanations for the universe cooling, like expansion? If the universe is expanding while the quantity of matter/energy remains constant then we would expect to see a universal reduction in the density of energy/matter, which would be an effect akin to cooling without requiring the loss of energy from the universe.

 

That's it. You got it.

 

For fun, look up "Enthalpy"...

 

 

Entropy shakes its angry fist at you for being clever enough to organize the world, :phones:

Buffy