Q: Why Is There Nothing?

[Dubbelosix]

It's all about energy and matter, even fields are energy and matter. But what I am trying to get across, is that the lack of antimatter shows an asymmetry which cannot be explained under a zero energy universe model.

[GAHD]

It's all about energy and matter, even fields are energy and matter. But what I am trying to get across, is that the lack of antimatter shows an asymmetry which cannot be explained under a zero energy universe model.

That right there is why I encourage you to refresh yourself on dimensional analysis.

 

As for antimatter symmetry: are you sure? What's an anti-photon and how do we detect things outside our cozy little matter-bubble? What overall charge is the solar wind? How would an ionic anti-hydrogen react to solar wind? What would an antimatter black hole look like from the outside?

Beyond that. standard model has a LOT of papers on asymmetry of matter and it's decay rates of binding energy...

 

I hear what you're saying, I think there's a lot of things out there to address it if you spend 10 minutes on arXiv with the right keywords...

[Dubbelosix]

I don't need to ''brush up'' on dimensional analysis, I do it every day in my equations. 

[Dubbelosix]

I am very sure about the asymmetry of matter to antimatter, it was once believed we were the left over of a massive explosion, but we still have not enough, or no evidence to support this. This is why CPT-violation, a Lorentz violation in SR is almost universally accepted now. 

[GAHD]

I don't need to ''brush up'' on dimensional analysis, I do it every day in my equations. 

and yet, you're talking heat energy as if it's rules are comparable to gravity and weak force? The units don't match. Dimensional analysis 101 right there; match your units.

[Dubbelosix]

Heat energy and gravity are in fact related in a model called thermodynamic entropy. You can always compare a real force with another real force, but gravity is not even a real force, its very misunderstood in this context. Relativity is quite clear, that gravity is a psuedo force and applications of heat has strong relationships to pressure variations in a universe. The pressure of the universe for instance, was very large when it was in its primordial form, but it also had an extremely large curvature. 

[Dubbelosix]

And please... stop it with this dimensional stuff, I am more than aware of dimensional analysis, its the models you are speaking of. That is not strictly a matter of dimensional analysis alone, it is really about consistent physics and the models we use. For instance, gravity is not quantized if it is not a real force. 

[GAHD]

And please... stop it with this dimensional stuff, I am more than aware of dimensional analysis, its the models you are speaking of. That is not strictly a matter of dimensional analysis alone, it is really about consistent physics and the models we use. For instance, gravity is not quantized if it is not a real force. 

Meters per second by standard, can be converted into joules of heat on impact or negative joules as a set AFAIK. Can't actually be directly combined into a GUT without = 0 to a crazy sigma.

Heat energy and gravity are in fact related in a model called thermodynamic entropy. You can always compare a real force with another real force, but gravity is not even a real force, its very misunderstood in this context. Relativity is quite clear, that gravity is a psuedo force and applications of heat has strong relationships to pressure variations in a universe. The pressure of the universe for instance, was very large when it was in its primordial form, but it also had an extremely large curvature. 

?a model called thermodynamic entropy? Do point me to it. I've yet to see this model. I don't see how you can be talking about MOND and Entropic gravity but that's all that comes up when I search it.

 

You can break acceleration down to raw energy no problem, but one is a positive energy and the other is a negative energy. They have to sit on opposite sides of an equation to balance it, or they have to be divided with an =sqrt.x^2 on the end in every scenario I've seen. I mean you could confuse the joule-newton-meter with gravity acceleration rather easily, but it doesn't make sense to do so since the gravity acceleration increases towards barycenter and thus has to be negative where a thermal joule or a newton-meter-joule is always a positive value representing a different energy conversion for work. That right there points towards the balancing act mass-energy has vs negative-energy as well if you think about it.

 

Quick note on your universe comments, I have to mentally insert "observeable" quite a few times to have it fit in most of the frameworks I know of. even then "extremely large curvature" reads very wrong to me, where did you get that from?

[Dubbelosix]

Meters per second by standard, can be converted into joules of heat on impact or negative joules as a set AFAIK. Can't actually be directly combined into a GUT without = 0 to a crazy sigma.

?a model called thermodynamic entropy? Do point me to it. I've yet to see this model. I don't see how you can be talking about MOND and Entropic gravity but that's all that comes up when I search it.

 

You can break acceleration down to raw energy no problem, but one is a positive energy and the other is a negative energy. They have to sit on opposite sides of an equation to balance it, or they have to be divided with an =sqrt.x^2 on the end in every scenario I've seen. I mean you could confuse the joule-newton-meter with gravity acceleration rather easily, but it doesn't make sense to do so since the gravity acceleration increases towards barycenter and thus has to be negative where a thermal joule or a newton-meter-joule is always a positive value representing a different energy conversion for work. That right there points towards the balancing act mass-energy has vs negative-energy as well if you think about it.

 

Quick note on your universe comments, I have to mentally insert "observeable" quite a few times to have it fit in most of the frameworks I know of. even then "extremely large curvature" reads very wrong to me, where did you get that from?

 

Well this shows what little you do understand, you see, physics isn't primarily about dimensional analysis, it's about a consistent theory. I don't just put equations together for the sake of it. I really don't want to talk about this with you if you keep making these kinds of arguments.

 

I have took time to explain things to you but I don't see you taking much off of it.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

By the way, thermodynamic entropy existed even before MOND (which I certainly do not support because it is a smudge factor theory) and the notion of gravity and thermodynamics came long before Verlinde.

[Dubbelosix]

But if you really are interested instead of constantly objecting, I have already studied a new avenue for thermodynamic implications for the expansion of a universe, in which I have updated for the usual Verlinde theory

 

https://prebigbangstate.quora.com/The-Semi-Classical-Friedmann-Equation

[Vmedvil2]

I tend to think the universe is a Large black hole so I agree with dubbel that there has to be some curvature despite how small the curvature would be for a black hole the size of the universe. The reason for me thinking that the universe is a large black hole is due to at the edge of the universe it is like a event horizon as not even light can escape this edge as to travel outside this edge of the universe that is expanding you would need to travel faster than light, much like the edge or event horizon of a black hole. When the Universe exploded in the Big Bang expansion just started to happen, but you could never travel past the edge of the visible universe as it would mean violating the speed of light for matter which makes it like a Large Black Hole, the universe has a event horizon in which the visible universe is held meaning it has curvature like a Black hole and nothing can escape out the visible universe like a event horizon limit.

Edited June 22, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[GAHD]

But if you really are interested instead of constantly objecting, I have already studied a new avenue for thermodynamic implications for the expansion of a universe, in which I have updated for the usual Verlinde theory

 

https://prebigbangstate.quora.com/The-Semi-Classical-Friedmann-Equation

Gotcha, that's an alt theory linked not standard model. If that's yours you should label your units better. I'll look more at Verlinde's stuff, spaghetti monster theory is always kinda fun to untangle. Just to be clear you're talking about one of the subsets of gauge-string theory, correct?

 

Thing is from Standard Model gravity IS a fundamental force...Not saying it must be gospel, but I am saying it's going to need some real proof to overthow that assumption. That is after all one of the reasons they haven't finished a GUT/TOE that holds under scrutiny.

 

As a side note while I dig into it: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05433-9 This was cross referenced in relation to the idea of emergent gravity from entanglement. The abstract reads as "nah it's not thermodynamic outside of very specific cases" It's going on my pile with the rest, do add it to yours too if you have time. Stamped from 2018.

 

 

Well this shows what little you do understand, you see, physics isn't primarily about dimensional analysis, it's about a consistent theory. I don't just put equations together for the sake of it. I really don't want to talk about this with you if you keep making these kinds of arguments.

 

I have took time to explain things to you but I don't see you taking much off of it.

It does show I have little understanding how temperature can relate to gravitational influence. I CAN see how people would mis-apply the joules conversion if they didn't understand how it's derived and how it actually works (as above).

 

We are going to disagree here re:dimensional analysis and physics. If you don't have a quanta to work off of you can't do physics in a meaningful way. Reality observation -> theory -> test -> repeat.  Anything less than that is silly IMHO. If you just willy nilly switch up values because you don't understand their units you will get things wrong. You can't build a bridge that weighs 14 meters, and you can't measure light frequency in grams. You CAN misapply equations to get those 2 answers though. You cannot be consistent if you don't keep your quanta consistent.

 

Flat space, the measurements for it, etc.. are well supported by observations and math AFAIK. Like I pointed out in the "flatness problem" link even early universe must have been VERY flat and the CMB shows VERY flat as far back as we are allowed to see at the moment. So I want to know why you think there must have been "extremely large curvature" in the early universe since that would be a data set outside of my knowledge base and a very important one since it conflicts with a lot of observations. If it's something you derived yourself, you REALLY need to go check that math. If it's an honest mistake no harm no foul but do mentally correct it as everything I've seen points to MORE FLAT in the past than the present, and pretty darned flat in the present.

 

 

 

...at the edge of the universe it is like a event horizon as not even light can escape this edge as to travel outside this edge of the universe that is expanding you would need to travel faster than light, much like the edge or event horizon of a black hole. When the Universe exploded in the Big Bang expansion just started to happen, but you could never travel past the edge of the visible universe as it would mean violating the speed of light for matter which makes it like a Large Black Hole, the universe has a event horizon in which the visible universe is held meaning it has curvature like a Black hole and nothing can escape out the visible universe like a event horizon limit.

...I don't follow that logic. Unobservable universe (to us) is past that horizon, but anyone 10 billion light years away would see a totally different universe-sphere that extended 10 some billion years past what we see (and less than us in the opposite direction). I mean, ya we can't conceivably get there, but that doesn't mean it's an equivalent horizon (yet).

 

Edited June 23, 2019 by GAHD
postmerge

[Dubbelosix]

It's pretty accurate, all it is a modified Friedmann equation that takes into respect thermdynamics and irreversibilty. But go on, call it alternative if you want, zero energy universe are also alternative and not mainstream. But this is the sworded world of the academic process of accepting something.

[Dubbelosix]

Victor, the universe [is like a black hole] I haven't stated it is one. I used the black hole analogy because it is the closest fundamental system to the universe when it was very young, in which the universe had a structure that was very similar to a black hole. It just so happens, I use the black hole because it applies to all the same properties we expect to come from the universe. For instance, when the universe was young, it had a very large curvature, and small black holes equally have large curvatures. When a universe exponentially increases in size, the curvature flattens out but does not reach zero, unless it was infinite in size, which could never happen because infinity is concept, not something which can be reached in principle.

[Dubbelosix]

The standard model is WRONG simple as that. It [may be] a mainstream assumption that gravity is quantum, but I can assure you from first principles of relativity, it cannot be quantized. The reason why is so simple it is remarkable how physicists have managed to fu-ck everything up. It all comes down to gravity being a pseudo force and we do not quantize such fields in principle.

[Dubbelosix]

I'll go even further, physicists are well aware that quantizing gravity has lead to many problems - to the point in which physicists are still largely clueless as to why the divergence problems exist, that many are now stating that gravity cannot be quantized. The sad thing is no one seems to be understanding why, but at least I have given an underlying scientific reason as to why this mistake has happened. The mainstream of science is not always right, but in fact is often held on a monolith of idea's that are taken often as a truth and this is one good reason why modern physics has become so dangerous.