What exactly is all this stuff in the Cosmos?

[R300will]

Gene Vincent said:

R300will said:

So what powers the forces/fields and will it run out?

This sounds like a smart-alec answer but it's not.

The forces are an attribute, a property, of their quotient of the energy account, they differ because they each have only these values, they are like they are because of that, their spin and their iso-spin etc.

Fields are again an account of energy and it's probabilities as the layers combine to interact to produce those force attributes.

The energy is there and is insoluble, it won't go away, it is a quotient or quantum sum, as it can go nowhere it can neither run out on us or disappear.

So if the universe goes through this heat death scenario, and all of the matter that was there is completely disordered into photons that have practically stopped moving, the fields will all still be present and have the same force capability? why is it that everything will change apart from them?

I do enjoy science but this quantum stuff is hard work to get my head around.

[Gene Vincent]

R300will said:

Gene Vincent said:

R300will said:

So what powers the forces/fields and will it run out?

This sounds like a smart-alec answer but it's not.

The forces are an attribute, a property, of their quotient of the energy account, they differ because they each have only these values, they are like they are because of that, their spin and their iso-spin etc.

Fields are again an account of energy and it's probabilities as the layers combine to interact to produce those force attributes.

The energy is there and is insoluble, it won't go away, it is a quotient or quantum sum, as it can go nowhere it can neither run out on us or disappear.

So if the universe goes through this heat death scenario, and all of the matter that was there is completely disordered into photons that have practically stopped moving, the fields will all still be present and have the same force capability? why is it that everything will change apart from them?

I do enjoy science but this quantum stuff is hard work to get my head around.

Damn you, that's a bloody good question!

My instinct says immediately that the heat death won't actually happen and mathematically that seems right, but I am doing a little maths on a sheet of paper and the result appears to produce a filament type of heat lined cosmos, so an absolute zero does not occur but areas barely above it do accompa

Nope. kill that, it doesn't happen and the fields remain constant but the interaction between them slows due to probability being stretched.

I think it is actually a really good question and want top have a bit of time on it, the fag p[acket maths need fleshing out, give me 24hrs.

Got it!

The weak force decays in effectiveness prior to total heat death halting all further entropic decay.

Somewhere in the region of about 0.9deg above absolute.

Yep, the fields stay intact, but the action of decay falls off the probability scale (tends to '0') roughly where I said earlier, I'll punch some numbers tomorrow into a machine and get a more accurate number.

Edited by Gene Vincent on Wednesday 18th July 00:15

Edited by Gene Vincent on Wednesday 18th July 00:19

[R300will]

Gene Vincent said:

Damn you, that's a bloody good question!

My instinct says immediately that the heat death won't actually happen and mathematically that seems right, but I am doing a little maths on a sheet of paper and the result appears to produce a filament type of heat lined cosmos, so an absolute zero does not occur but areas barely above it do accompa

Nope. kill that, it doesn't happen and the fields remain constant but the interaction between them slows due to probability being stretched.

I think it is actually a really good question and want top have a bit of time on it, the fag p[acket maths need fleshing out, give me 24hrs.

Got it!

The weak force decays in effectiveness prior to total heat death halting all further entropic decay.

Somewhere in the region of about 0.9deg above absolute.

Yep, the fields stay intact, but the action of decay falls off the probability scale (tends to '0') roughly where I said earlier, I'll punch some numbers tomorrow into a machine and get a more accurate number.

Right i think i'm with you. So like you said the magnetism force comes from the poles of a magnet, where do these other fields come from and how did they get there?

[Gene Vincent]

R300will said:

Right i think i'm with you. So like you said the magnetism force comes from the poles of a magnet, where do these other fields come from and how did they get there?

No-one knows.

I have an opinion.

In an earlier post I mentioned that it is very likely that this Cosmos is the product of many failed attempts to produce something stable, the reasoning behind this is simple, the chances of the intricate relationship and existence of anything coming from a single point in the Universe to populate this huge Cosmos is remote and finally through chance the balance was achieved and we are here.

That endless re-iteration finally hit upon this slightly evasive formula we have now, the checks and balances work and this Cosmos is fairly stable, violent but essentially stable.

But it remains only an opinion, until we actually understand the first moment and what it was we are in the dark.

Perhaps the constant failed attempts each started as something entirely different to what finally produced this Cosmos, so what was in place in attempt number '1000' collapsed and in so doing added a further element to what finally became stable enough to produce this one. This Cosmos could be attempt No1 but could equally be attempt No5,000,000,000,000,000 or beyond.

[R300will]

Gene Vincent said:

R300will said:

Right i think i'm with you. So like you said the magnetism force comes from the poles of a magnet, where do these other fields come from and how did they get there?

No-one knows.

I have an opinion.

In an earlier post I mentioned that it is very likely that this Cosmos is the product of many failed attempts to produce something stable, the reasoning behind this is simple, the chances of the intricate relationship and existence of anything coming from a single point in the Universe to populate this huge Cosmos is remote and finally through chance the balance was achieved and we are here.

That endless re-iteration finally hit upon this slightly evasive formula we have now, the checks and balances work and this Cosmos is fairly stable, violent but essentially stable.

But it remains only an opinion, until we actually understand the first moment and what it was we are in the dark.

Perhaps the constant failed attempts each started as something entirely different to what finally produced this Cosmos, so what was in place in attempt number '1000' collapsed and in so doing added a further element to what finally became stable enough to produce this one. This Cosmos could be attempt No1 but could equally be attempt No5,000,000,000,000,000 or beyond.

So your saying it's possible that there was a big bang like ours, but the result wasn't stable so it fell back, and repeated itself with little changes each time until it could become stable? Evolution of the cosmos sounds cool.

[IainT]

R300will said:

So your saying it's possible that there was a big bang like ours, but the result wasn't stable so it fell back, and repeated itself with little changes each time until it could become stable? Evolution of the cosmos sounds cool.

That sounds incredibly sensible and would provide a good answer to why we've ended up in a universe with stable 'laws'. Of course we could only make such an observation in a stable universe but it does suggest a mechanism that essentially guarantees it.

Next job for the scientists/mathematicians would be to work out how we could test the theory and actually test it!

[offendi]

Thanks GV , imformative and interesting . I cant ask any serious questions about your work but chappeau sir