Is This Man A Good Pick For Secretary Of...
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
// Dawkins was on Newsnight, last night, reminding us how little the Arabic world has contributed to science, since the middle ages. //
um yeah - and the Greeks havent contributed to Literature since around 100 BC - and the Latins or whomever I mean they're even stopped speaking the language for chrissakes !
And the Anglos - they're never been able to write decent music - Handel was German by the way
and the point is...?
and he might as well say - and the British have stopped winning Nobel prizes....or
German nuclear physics was Great ! in the thirties and then it seemed to go phut !
um yeah - and the Greeks havent contributed to Literature since around 100 BC - and the Latins or whomever I mean they're even stopped speaking the language for chrissakes !
And the Anglos - they're never been able to write decent music - Handel was German by the way
and the point is...?
and he might as well say - and the British have stopped winning Nobel prizes....or
German nuclear physics was Great ! in the thirties and then it seemed to go phut !
I was considering q's iv and v, but figure that in the end any answer I give to those would be pretty much just speculation. For what it's worth, I think the answer to iv is yes, and to v that any imbalance would last for such a short time that there would never be a chance to form such orbitals, although they would be weird things as the gravitational attraction would dominate at such a scale. I think then that neutrons stars form because indeed the gravitational attraction destroys any chance of electrons forming stable orbitals, resulting in them pulling in and reacting with the protons as you say with a delay, but never having a stable orbital and so never being viewable as a super-sized atom. But that is little more than an educated guess. Hopefully my answers to i, ii and iii are more accurate and helpful.
Astronomers observe that the Universe is not just expanding but that the expansion is accelerating
Can someone explain to me how we can be certain of this given that the light takes millions or billions of years to reach us from the distant galaxies and therefore the proof of expansion data (red shift) is millions or billions of years old. What if the universe stopped expanding say 5 billion years ago. We wont know that for another 5 billion years? Needless to say, I am a layman on these matters
Can someone explain to me how we can be certain of this given that the light takes millions or billions of years to reach us from the distant galaxies and therefore the proof of expansion data (red shift) is millions or billions of years old. What if the universe stopped expanding say 5 billion years ago. We wont know that for another 5 billion years? Needless to say, I am a layman on these matters
@gangesboy
Good question, worthy of its own thread.
I don't know if this article is sufficiently in layman's terms but by all means ask again.
http://
Good question, worthy of its own thread.
I don't know if this article is sufficiently in layman's terms but by all means ask again.
http://
@jim360
We have no way of knowing but it would be cool if they'd acquired copies of the kind of stuff which was lost in the fire at the Library of Alexandria. Understandable if they kept all the stuff they could use - technical and scientific - and ditched all the Greco-centric stuff (history, literature, art etc).
We have no way of knowing but it would be cool if they'd acquired copies of the kind of stuff which was lost in the fire at the Library of Alexandria. Understandable if they kept all the stuff they could use - technical and scientific - and ditched all the Greco-centric stuff (history, literature, art etc).
It's actually not an unreasonable question. One simple answer might be that "we don't" -- physics relies on the assumption that the laws of physics are identical regardless of where you are in the Universe, and this seems to work as an assumption, but it's not really provable.
For your specific question, a sudden "stop" of the expansion rate can be reasonably safely ruled out. There is a general principle that most things happen fairly smoothly, so a sudden stop can be ruled out on those grounds, although again it's more a principle than a fact. On the other hand, the data we have on expansion comes across a whole set of effective age ranges from just a few tens of millions of years to almost the start of the Universe, so we can be confident that the Universe was expanding over almost all of its life so far. Since in that time the expansion rate has also appeared to increase, it seems unlikely that suddenly in the last couple of million years that picture has changed to no expansion at all. In order to achieve this something would have to happen at every point in space to reverse the expansion rate. Whatever that thing it you can bet its consequences would be fairly spectacular and not go unnoticed even at local scales.
All the same, it's not really certainty. But the next best thing, "overwhelming balance of probability".
For your specific question, a sudden "stop" of the expansion rate can be reasonably safely ruled out. There is a general principle that most things happen fairly smoothly, so a sudden stop can be ruled out on those grounds, although again it's more a principle than a fact. On the other hand, the data we have on expansion comes across a whole set of effective age ranges from just a few tens of millions of years to almost the start of the Universe, so we can be confident that the Universe was expanding over almost all of its life so far. Since in that time the expansion rate has also appeared to increase, it seems unlikely that suddenly in the last couple of million years that picture has changed to no expansion at all. In order to achieve this something would have to happen at every point in space to reverse the expansion rate. Whatever that thing it you can bet its consequences would be fairly spectacular and not go unnoticed even at local scales.
All the same, it's not really certainty. But the next best thing, "overwhelming balance of probability".
You are welcome.
And now, a gratuitous shot of comet 67P, with the beginnings
of a tail from multiple jets
http://
And now, a gratuitous shot of comet 67P, with the beginnings
of a tail from multiple jets
http://
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.