The Prince Of Darkness To Be U S...
News0 min ago
Is The Universe Entirely Electrostatically Balanced?
33 Answers
Astronomers observe that the universe is not just expanding but that the expansion is accelerating. Frustratingly, the TV shows which try to popularise science among the masses have to stop short of explaining the mechanism proposed by theorists.
In the absence of that, I offer up some ideas which I trust you will relish disassembling (I trust that jim360 will).
i) is there any reason to suspect that the energy of the big bang condensed into *precisely* equal numbers of protons and electrons?
ii) How imbalanced would the numbers have to be for fields as weak as EM to exert the 'push' force, currently posited to be accelerating the expansion of the universe. (I ask despite realising that EM can push matter rather than help stretch spacial dimensions but seek to establish my level of ignorance of the evidence (of accelerating expansion))
iii) Do protons and electrons decay at precisely the same rate? If not, what ought to be in excess, 14bn years on?
iv) Is neutron star material 100% electrostatically neutral?
v) If it had the slightest impurity of proton content, would it be incorrect to regard it as a super-sized atom and would it have electron orbitals? (Even if the gravity would pull in stray electrons, they would have to cross paths with an unpaired proton in order to be squished into another neutron, causing a time delay.)
In the absence of that, I offer up some ideas which I trust you will relish disassembling (I trust that jim360 will).
i) is there any reason to suspect that the energy of the big bang condensed into *precisely* equal numbers of protons and electrons?
ii) How imbalanced would the numbers have to be for fields as weak as EM to exert the 'push' force, currently posited to be accelerating the expansion of the universe. (I ask despite realising that EM can push matter rather than help stretch spacial dimensions but seek to establish my level of ignorance of the evidence (of accelerating expansion))
iii) Do protons and electrons decay at precisely the same rate? If not, what ought to be in excess, 14bn years on?
iv) Is neutron star material 100% electrostatically neutral?
v) If it had the slightest impurity of proton content, would it be incorrect to regard it as a super-sized atom and would it have electron orbitals? (Even if the gravity would pull in stray electrons, they would have to cross paths with an unpaired proton in order to be squished into another neutron, causing a time delay.)
Answers
I thought I'd have a crack at question i), at least. I think the answer is that we would expect the Universe to be electrically balanced, because it started that way, and indeed as soon as there is an imbalance it is normally not going to stay that way. Imbalances lead to instabilitie
22:21 Thu 19th Feb 2015
I'll leave the hard stuff to Jim! (The reason I switched from teaching physics to maths was that there were too many uncertainties in physics!).
However this NASA link might be of interest to you:
http://
However this NASA link might be of interest to you:
http://
Thanks, Buenchico.
I vaguely remember you posting that figure of visible matter being only 5% before. I was taken aback at the time but it reminded me of cups of coffee made from pan-boiled milk. When stirred, the froth would make convincing spiral galaxy shapes which didn't tighten up (as galaxies don't) because the rotating liquid is the major influence on rotation of the overall shape and the attraction between bubbles (and chains of bubbles) is much weaker. These were 1970s cups of coffee, dark matter was unheard of so I would have dismissed what I was seeing as being not worth mentioning (didn't get to hang out with physicists, back then, anyway).
The article mentions 'fresh space' being generated everywhere, like the whole thing is extruding or telescoping out from within itself. A bit bizarre yet, at the same time I get the gist of what they're saying, albeit without a clue as to what evidence to ask for, to verify the suggestion.
I think the nub of the problem is that of action at a distance. EM fields are not just feeble but also very short range. To 'push' would require a continuum of fields rather like a propagating sound wave needs a fluid. Because of lack of ligjt absorption, we know that isn't there.
Likewise I can grasp the concept of "matter tells space how to curve and curved space tells matter how to move" but the idea of 'gravitons' leaves me cold: they would have to travel intergalactic distances to exert their influence and there would have to be continuous streams, flowing in mutually opposing directions for aeons to explain how elements of a galaxy cluster remain together. Such a sustained stream of 'particles' represents massive amounts of energy. (Or is this why they are theorised as massless?)
I vaguely remember you posting that figure of visible matter being only 5% before. I was taken aback at the time but it reminded me of cups of coffee made from pan-boiled milk. When stirred, the froth would make convincing spiral galaxy shapes which didn't tighten up (as galaxies don't) because the rotating liquid is the major influence on rotation of the overall shape and the attraction between bubbles (and chains of bubbles) is much weaker. These were 1970s cups of coffee, dark matter was unheard of so I would have dismissed what I was seeing as being not worth mentioning (didn't get to hang out with physicists, back then, anyway).
The article mentions 'fresh space' being generated everywhere, like the whole thing is extruding or telescoping out from within itself. A bit bizarre yet, at the same time I get the gist of what they're saying, albeit without a clue as to what evidence to ask for, to verify the suggestion.
I think the nub of the problem is that of action at a distance. EM fields are not just feeble but also very short range. To 'push' would require a continuum of fields rather like a propagating sound wave needs a fluid. Because of lack of ligjt absorption, we know that isn't there.
Likewise I can grasp the concept of "matter tells space how to curve and curved space tells matter how to move" but the idea of 'gravitons' leaves me cold: they would have to travel intergalactic distances to exert their influence and there would have to be continuous streams, flowing in mutually opposing directions for aeons to explain how elements of a galaxy cluster remain together. Such a sustained stream of 'particles' represents massive amounts of energy. (Or is this why they are theorised as massless?)
I would have to think about these questions (except iii ) for some time before getting back to you. If you can wait, I'll try to get an answer together over the coming weekend.
In answer to iii, though, electrons and protons both appear to be stable (unless you force them to interact with something, as with electron capture or certain radioactive decays); indeed, the measured half-life of protons is estimated to be something like 10^23 times longer than the currently accepted age of the Universe; electrons are similarly long-lived. The relative levels of each therefore won't change without something else getting involved.
In answer to iii, though, electrons and protons both appear to be stable (unless you force them to interact with something, as with electron capture or certain radioactive decays); indeed, the measured half-life of protons is estimated to be something like 10^23 times longer than the currently accepted age of the Universe; electrons are similarly long-lived. The relative levels of each therefore won't change without something else getting involved.
@O_G
//I always thought they had no real idea, so simply labelled it "dark energy" in the hope that'd convince the rest of society that they know something.//
Do I detect cynicism there? Maybe I share some of it. Part of me craves science which is both elegant and easily understandable, in words, even when the maths is completely OMH. e=mc^2 is understandable: the other stuff with all the Greek letters and symbols most of us don't know the meaning of, is just impenetrable and to take any of it on board would be an act of acceptance/faith, rather than understanding. But let's not go there yet.
@beso
Very good point. Inverse square law: force weakening with distance. Acceleration implies a sustained force.
@venator
Very drôle!
@jim360
Proton decay rates: Very reassuring.
Answer efforts: Very much appreciated, as always. I won't mind waiting.
@mibn2cweus
Long time no see. Thanks for the vid.
//I always thought they had no real idea, so simply labelled it "dark energy" in the hope that'd convince the rest of society that they know something.//
Do I detect cynicism there? Maybe I share some of it. Part of me craves science which is both elegant and easily understandable, in words, even when the maths is completely OMH. e=mc^2 is understandable: the other stuff with all the Greek letters and symbols most of us don't know the meaning of, is just impenetrable and to take any of it on board would be an act of acceptance/faith, rather than understanding. But let's not go there yet.
@beso
Very good point. Inverse square law: force weakening with distance. Acceleration implies a sustained force.
@venator
Very drôle!
@jim360
Proton decay rates: Very reassuring.
Answer efforts: Very much appreciated, as always. I won't mind waiting.
@mibn2cweus
Long time no see. Thanks for the vid.
I don't mean to worry you, but ...
http://
http://
Turtles are too tasty for their own good, woofgang.
@Hopkirk
Interesting article but it's another one of those things where they go straight for the PR whirl. That way, if they do get knocked down by peer review (still pending, in this case, it seems), that gets less attention so the glory takes longer to fade.Nevertheless, it gets people talking and thinking and inspires some to follow the relevant educational path, so perhaps the modern style of working serves a purpose?
@Hopkirk
Interesting article but it's another one of those things where they go straight for the PR whirl. That way, if they do get knocked down by peer review (still pending, in this case, it seems), that gets less attention so the glory takes longer to fade.Nevertheless, it gets people talking and thinking and inspires some to follow the relevant educational path, so perhaps the modern style of working serves a purpose?
Dawkins was on Newsnight, last night, reminding us how little the Arabic world has contributed to science, since the middle ages.
I forget how many points you get for "the Arab world contributed huge amounts to science" but it should be on every debate's Bingo card. (I wish Nicky Campbell's "The Big Questions" audience were issued with debate-Bingo cards).
I forget how many points you get for "the Arab world contributed huge amounts to science" but it should be on every debate's Bingo card. (I wish Nicky Campbell's "The Big Questions" audience were issued with debate-Bingo cards).
I thought I'd have a crack at question i), at least.
I think the answer is that we would expect the Universe to be electrically balanced, because it started that way, and indeed as soon as there is an imbalance it is normally not going to stay that way. Imbalances lead to instabilities, at least overall ones do, because a concentration of positive charges, say, would push each other apart unless there were some balancing negative charge nearby. The result is that matter would struggle to coalesce without balanced charges, and so we might not even be here to wonder about it.
At least the Universe is observed to be electrically neutral overall, but a lot of the time this is in the state of an ionized gas, made up of separate nuclei and electrons, so there can be local imbalances. Just no global one.
On the other hand, the current theories of matter imply that what should be in balance is not necessarily electric positive and negative charges per se, but between matter and antimatter. Thus, in a truly neutral Universe you would expect an equal number of protons and antiprotons, and separately an equal number of electrons and antielectrons, but there is no reason for balance between the two. This is certainly not seen, and this can only be the result of matter and antimatter being not entirely identical. This is partly explained by "CP violation", but not completely. Something more is needed, and physicists are still trying to find the answer to that one.
Separately, there is the curious point that while protons and electrons are in balance with each other, they really needn't be. At the level of the Standard Model of Physics, particles are assigned a charge, but the values are inserted "by hand" to match what is seen. It is, therefore, entirely an accident that the charge of a proton and that of an electron are equal but opposite. One could imagine a world in which the charge of a proton where twice that of an electron, so that neutral Hydrogen would require two electrons rather than one, and so on. I'm not aware of anything in the Standard Model to stop this from happening, other than that it doesn't.
This leads people to consider ways to try to connect the values of the charges of a proton and electron, which means New Physics. In this particular guise it is, genuinely, a "Grand Unified Theory" that people are seeking, which is a different idea from Supersymmetry (or String Theory, etc). In that solution, the Standard Model combines from two separate forces (strong and electroweak) into just the one. At the level of mathematics, everything works beautifully, in particular because the electric charges have to be exactly what they are for the theory to work. Wonderful!
Except...
In a very loose sense, Particle physics say that heavy things decay into lighter things whenever possible, and throws in a prediction for how likely this is into the bargain. By unifying the forces, it is made possible for a proton to decay into lighter things, specifically a "pion" and an electron, something that cannot happen in the Standard Model. It's also possible to predict the rate. The answer you get depends a bit on the specifics of the model, but typically the decay is predicted to occur much, much faster than what is actually seen. So it doesn't work.
While protons not decaying means that normal matter can exist for ages, and so that life can, I think most physicists are bloody annoyed that they don't.
I think the answer is that we would expect the Universe to be electrically balanced, because it started that way, and indeed as soon as there is an imbalance it is normally not going to stay that way. Imbalances lead to instabilities, at least overall ones do, because a concentration of positive charges, say, would push each other apart unless there were some balancing negative charge nearby. The result is that matter would struggle to coalesce without balanced charges, and so we might not even be here to wonder about it.
At least the Universe is observed to be electrically neutral overall, but a lot of the time this is in the state of an ionized gas, made up of separate nuclei and electrons, so there can be local imbalances. Just no global one.
On the other hand, the current theories of matter imply that what should be in balance is not necessarily electric positive and negative charges per se, but between matter and antimatter. Thus, in a truly neutral Universe you would expect an equal number of protons and antiprotons, and separately an equal number of electrons and antielectrons, but there is no reason for balance between the two. This is certainly not seen, and this can only be the result of matter and antimatter being not entirely identical. This is partly explained by "CP violation", but not completely. Something more is needed, and physicists are still trying to find the answer to that one.
Separately, there is the curious point that while protons and electrons are in balance with each other, they really needn't be. At the level of the Standard Model of Physics, particles are assigned a charge, but the values are inserted "by hand" to match what is seen. It is, therefore, entirely an accident that the charge of a proton and that of an electron are equal but opposite. One could imagine a world in which the charge of a proton where twice that of an electron, so that neutral Hydrogen would require two electrons rather than one, and so on. I'm not aware of anything in the Standard Model to stop this from happening, other than that it doesn't.
This leads people to consider ways to try to connect the values of the charges of a proton and electron, which means New Physics. In this particular guise it is, genuinely, a "Grand Unified Theory" that people are seeking, which is a different idea from Supersymmetry (or String Theory, etc). In that solution, the Standard Model combines from two separate forces (strong and electroweak) into just the one. At the level of mathematics, everything works beautifully, in particular because the electric charges have to be exactly what they are for the theory to work. Wonderful!
Except...
In a very loose sense, Particle physics say that heavy things decay into lighter things whenever possible, and throws in a prediction for how likely this is into the bargain. By unifying the forces, it is made possible for a proton to decay into lighter things, specifically a "pion" and an electron, something that cannot happen in the Standard Model. It's also possible to predict the rate. The answer you get depends a bit on the specifics of the model, but typically the decay is predicted to occur much, much faster than what is actually seen. So it doesn't work.
While protons not decaying means that normal matter can exist for ages, and so that life can, I think most physicists are bloody annoyed that they don't.
I can't believe I typed Oddity, instead of Odyssey! (should stop this thread showing in Google results of people looking for the film).
I think I've read about the matter/antimatter annihilation in the early universe and, at one time I took this to be the driving force of the Big Bang itself. Since then, I gather that, in the first 10^-n seconds energy is still busy condensing into subatomic particles and it takes time to assemble baryons. An atom can't annihilate with an anti-partner until its components adopt their respective spins.
By analogy, a fire-breather must first spit their alcohol before they can ignite the cloud of spray. A two-stage bang. (In case of ambiguity, I am not attempting to refer to cosmic inflation, or 'fudge factor' as I like to refer to it!).
I can't recall the source of what I'm recalling but the part which made the biggest impression was the part about the entirety of the cosmos being the conseqeunce of the tiniest of imbalances between matter and antimatter, implying that there was a monumentally huge amount of the two types of matter thrown out by the primary bang.
I think I've read about the matter/antimatter annihilation in the early universe and, at one time I took this to be the driving force of the Big Bang itself. Since then, I gather that, in the first 10^-n seconds energy is still busy condensing into subatomic particles and it takes time to assemble baryons. An atom can't annihilate with an anti-partner until its components adopt their respective spins.
By analogy, a fire-breather must first spit their alcohol before they can ignite the cloud of spray. A two-stage bang. (In case of ambiguity, I am not attempting to refer to cosmic inflation, or 'fudge factor' as I like to refer to it!).
I can't recall the source of what I'm recalling but the part which made the biggest impression was the part about the entirety of the cosmos being the conseqeunce of the tiniest of imbalances between matter and antimatter, implying that there was a monumentally huge amount of the two types of matter thrown out by the primary bang.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.