An upper limit for density of energy?

newtonian · Sep 16, 2005

Just trying to figure out how God created our universe. Could the "Big Bang" [or some similar model] have been partially due to exceeding some upper limit for the density of energy - at least according to the laws created for our universe? But, to answer that, we first have to know if such a limit exists. Hence my question. This could be really complicated, since it could involve an intersection point for additional dimensions, or an intersecting point between different branes at the origin of our universe. Such an intersecting point could have near zero volume, as in the theorized singularity at the origin of our universe. Or, alternately, can large amounts of energy be contained in absolutely zero volume - i.e. zero 3D volume [perhaps being contained in other dimensions set to input energy at a point singularity in our 3D mode]?

nexium · Sep 16, 2005

Can we have a trillion joules per cubic picometer? Maybe, but logic suggest an upper limit at less than such an energy density = 10E48 joules per cubic meter.

kmarinas86 · Sep 16, 2005

edit - Post moved two posts down

Saiph · Sep 16, 2005

That's a good point kmarinas. A black hole could be considered an upper limit to density. Any denser, and you only increase the size of the BH...any less and you can still pack more in there. Another limit would be that at which the energy spontatneously converts to matter due to the high concentrations (lots of energy required to make matter). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

kmarinas86 · Sep 16, 2005

The Black hole is the upper limit of density. The upper limit of density depends on the volume, which depends on the radius, which depends on the mass. The density at the perimeter at a certain value of radii within a black hole is constant for any black hole, given that the value for the radii is the same. In general relativity, radius of a black hole is exactly proportional to its mass. Schwarzschild-radius http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Schwarzschild-radius The distribution of all matter in a black hole is not just at the center, although the density in the center becomes infinite at infintesimal radii. But the perimeter around this center has mass (suspended due to infinite time dilation). A black hole has a density gradient, just like how the sun, moon, and planets have density gradients that are least on the surface. This density at certain perimeter is defined by maximum possible mass inside any volume, even if the volume's radius is 1 billion light years. An important constant that is involved here is 1.48*10^-27 meters / kg which equals 2G/c² The mass-radius relationship for Black Hole is: Radius = Mass * 1.48*10^-27 meters / kg So the density-mass relationship is: Density = Mass / (4/3 * PI * (Radius)³) Whereas the mass is proportional to radius, overall density of a black hole is inversely proportional to the square of its radius. The wider it is, the less dense it is at the perimeter. The density of matter at the perimeter (or the surface rather) of a spherical black hole = (Mass A - Mass B) / (Radius A - Radius B)³ Where Radius A is the Schwarzchild radius, and Radius B is a radius infintesimally smaller than Radius A. Radius A = Mass A * 1.48*10^-27 meters / kg Radius B = Mass B * 1.48*10^-27 meters / kg Here is a mathemati

newtonian · Sep 16, 2005

kmarinas86 - Thank you - that is a lot of information! However, you are addressing the limit for mass - my question concerns energy. Also there is the infinite density and infinitesimal radii - that is the standard theory for black hole centers - though I have some doubts about it really being infinite density. I suspect that while there may not be any limit to density for matter, there may be a limit to density for energy. And this limit may change with temperature. And, I may as well ask the next logical related question: is there an upper limit to temperature?

kmarinas86 · Sep 16, 2005

Could the edge of the universe per 1/6th of the night sky be the surface of a super large black hole? Gravitational Redshift = 1 / sqrt(1-2GM/rc²) r = radius of black hole + distance from black hole <pre> distance mass radius bilionLY time dilation 2E+53 2.9E+26 0 #NUM! 2E+53 2.9E+26 0.25 14.00 2E+53 2.9E+26 0.5 8.64 2E+53 2.9E+26 0.75 6.81 2E+53 2.9E+26 1 5.81 2E+53 2.9E+26 1.5 4.70 2E+53 2.9E+26 2 4.07 2E+53 2.9E+26 2.5 3.65 2E+53 2.9E+26 3 3.34 2E+53 2.9E+26 3.5 3.11 2E+53 2.9E+26 4 2.93 2E+53 2.9E+26 4.5 2.78 2E+53 2.9E+26 5 2.65 2E+53 2.9E+26 5.5 2.54 2E+53 2.9E+26 6 2.45 2E+53 2.9E+26 6.5 2.37 2E+53 2.9E+26 7 2.30 2E+53 2.9E+26 7.5 2.23 2E+53 2.9E+26 8 2.18 2E+53 2.9E+26 8.5 2.13 2E+53 2.9E+26 9 2.08 2E+53 2.9E+26 9.5 2.04 2E+53 2.9E+26 10 2.00 2E+53 2.9E+26 10.5 1.96 2E+53 2.9E+26 11 1.93 2E+53 2.9E+26 11.5 1.90 2E+53 2.9E+26 12 1.87 2E+53 2.9E+26 12.5 1.84 2E+53 2.9E+26 13 1.81 2E+53 2.9E+26 13.5 1.79 2E+53 2.9E+26 14 1.77 </pre>

newtonian · Sep 16, 2005

Saiph - Are you aware of some new theory in cosmology I missed? To my knowledge, please correct me if I am wrong, energy does not spontaneously convert to stable matter at the extremely high temperatures at the origin of our universe. Or are you referring to the creation of matter in the lab through high energy input in a small volume? On the latter, is there a critical density-temperature graph for the spontaneous creation of matter from energy? {that is a tangent from my original question] On that radius of the Black hole, isn't that the radius to the event horizon rather than the radius of the actual matter and energy contained within?

Saiph · Sep 16, 2005

both actually...the only thing is it creates a particle, anti-particle pair. This pair then moves off, and recollide, typically creating no net gain in mass. But it does redistribute the energy a bit, thus creating a limit to the possible density. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

newtonian · Sep 16, 2005

nexium - First, I assume 10E48 is 10^48, i.e. 10 to the 48th power. Second, where or how did you derive 10^48 joules per cubic meter? And now to look up what a joule unit is! OK, one Newton moving one meter (i.e. the energy equivalent of) Now to look up what a newton is! OK, One Newton is: an S1 unit of force = force equivalent to accelerating one kilogram of matter to one meter per second per second.

newtonian · Sep 16, 2005

Saiph- Do we have some estimate as to how that would play out at the origin of our universe? I would assume temperature would determine the limit - i.e. that the limit would change with temperature. And what was the temperature at the origin of our universe? Do we have an estimate at to what time after the big bang the first matter - antimatter pairs were created from energy? Or could it be that said creation actually started the big bang?

kmarinas86 · Sep 16, 2005

Newtonian I can answer the last question: On that radius of the Black hole, isn't that the radius to the event horizon rather than the radius of the actual matter and energy contained within? Both. Matter undergoes increasing time dilation the closer it is to a black hole's event horizon. To get significantly close to it, time may pass billions of years in our galaxy, and by the time Andromeda hits us, the matter still hasn't cross the event horizon. Think of an onion with many layers. For the volume of mass within particular layers in the black hole, there are event horizons (one for each location/distance within the black hole). This limits how much mass can fit in a certain volume. As the layers of mass are added to the black hole, the radius of it necessarily increases. Therefore the edge of the black hole has mass, hovering just over the scwharzschild radius of the black hole its hovering over. This is not only analogous to onions, but also of Russian dolls (those egg-people within egg people), the surface each egg-person being the schwarzschild radius for mass exterior to its volume.

Saiph · Sep 16, 2005

well, that is generally how the beginning of the unverse is thought to have occured: Huge spasm of energy...matter and energy streams out...you know, this matter energy equivelance and transition is key to the big bang. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

newtonian · Sep 16, 2005

Kmarinas86 - May I assume the latter picture is of egg-people rather than Japanese Raelians? Time dilation - yes, time may have played a part in the origin of our universe. While I agree with many that our universes space-time was created at the origin or beginning (Genesis 1:1); yet I also believe primordial time existed long before that and is independent of our universe. That being said, how was time created at the beginning? And how does the density limit for matter compare witb the density limit for energy, and how does temperature effect both limits?

newtonian · Sep 16, 2005

Saiph - Yes, but there is no general consensus as to what caused that huge spasm of energy. I was just exploring the possibility of the First Cause having inputed enough energy to exceed the density limit of energy and tmeperature. Temperature is, of course, caused by energy per volume - or density of energy - am I correct?

kmarinas86 · Sep 16, 2005

Suppose that there are 6 black holes of equal size and equal radius. If distributed orthogonally (like the six arrows on three axes), they can't merge together without distorting themselves. If 6 black holes with a radius of "1 unit" have a mass of "1 unit", two of the black holes can merge into black hole with a radius of "2 units". But if they are approaching at all the same time, from 6 directions (of up, down, left right, forward, and back), the matter on the surface of the black holes will tend to exchange faster. The spending of gravitational potential due to gravitational attraction causes the outer layers to increase in kinetic energy and allowing them to be knocked out of the surface (given that the black holes are suffciently close to one another). 6 black holes of radius "1 unit" cannot fit in a volume of radius "2 units" so it they slow down as they approach, never contracting within the radius of "6 units". Therefore, if the black holes are spread orthagonally this way, there will be a bit more than 4 units of distance between opposing black holes (on opposite ends of an axis), and they cannot get as close as "4 units" itself! That is, assuming that the system is perfectly symmetrical and the black holes being equal to each other.

kmarinas86 · Sep 16, 2005

That being said, how was time created at the beginning? When there is exactly infinite time dilation, time is paused, and not moving. Time may be considered to be "nonexistent" when it is "paused". However, somehow, time must "eternally paused" or never paused at all. This is because for the rate time to change, time itself must change, and if it is paused absolutely, then its rate cannot ever change. So this paradox means that time has always been changing (assuming that it is linear and one-dimensional). And how does the density limit for matter compare witb the density limit for energy, and how does temperature effect both limits? The density limit for matter (or atoms) is the density of the stars, the density limit for atomic nuclei is the neutron star, and density limit for quarks and the ever smaller is the black hole. http://www.google.com/search?q="temperature+of+a+neutron+star" Stars have a surface temperature measured in thousands of kelvins. Neutron stars have temperatures measured in millions of kelvins. Black holes have temperatures that increase the closer matter is to the schwarzschild radius, nearly infinite temperatures.

Saiph · Sep 16, 2005

but it's also the entire idea behind how you go from the energy of the bb to having matter in the universe (that, and matter/anti-matter asymetry). kmar: Actually, they'd likely distort and combine into a single Bh with a radius appropriate for the combined mass (minus that lost as gravitational radiation). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

kmarinas86 · Sep 16, 2005

Actually, they'd likely distort and combine into a single Bh with a radius appropriate for the combined mass (minus that lost as gravitational radiation). Yes, that happens after a very, very, long time (perfect symmetry is impossible when non-symmetry exists, therefore the system will eventually merge). They will distort over many millennia, and exchange some energy along the process. By exchanging the energy, the black holes may actually lose concentration of their mass, eventually forming a "cloud" in the center the fills up the region called a black hole. - sort of like how you would make a huge star through the compacting of many huge jupiter size masses which are practically merged with each other. The black holes would be "squished" in the direction of their gravitational center because the matter on the outer edge would have less time dilation than on the inner edge.

newtonian · Sep 16, 2005

kmarinas86 - Yes, I understand somewhat and appreciate your addressing the density limit of matter in various forms, going down to the quarks and whatever is smaller. Remember, however, I am trying to get an answer to the density limit for energy!

vogon13 · Sep 16, 2005

Recent findings suggest the majority of the 'heft' we associate with matter is due, in fact, to the energy of motion of 'matters' constituent quarks and gluons. Rather blurs our old definition of 'mass', doncha think? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

newtonian · Sep 16, 2005

vogon13 - Were you referring to spin as motion, or some other form of motion of quarks? Yes, motion is related to energy. Can you have motion within a singularity of infinetesimal radius?

vogon13 · Sep 17, 2005

IIRC, it was spinning and 'zinging'. Apparently the quarks 'rattle about' the insides of the nucleons rather violently. If somehow all your quarks and gluons settled down and 'shed' their energy, you would detonate rather dramatically. Erf! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

kmarinas86 · Sep 17, 2005

Recent findings suggest the majority of the 'heft' we associate with matter is due, in fact, to the energy of motion of 'matters' constituent quarks and gluons. Rather blurs our old definition of 'mass', doncha think? Could all mass simply be kinetic energy of the very small? HMMM..... WOW

newtonian · Sep 17, 2005

vogon13 - I echo kmarinas86's wow! Vogon13 - And we thought nuclear explosions were powerful! Just curious: what portion of the energy present in mass (matter) is actually energy of motion of quarks and gluons? As a percentage, I mean? Is this part of the reason why the speed of light is in the equation e=mc^2? I mean: motion is speed, and quarks are in motion. Uh oh - are scientists learning how to build a quark bomb - I.e. how to release the energy of quarks, etc.?

An upper limit for density of energy?

newtonian

Guest

nexium

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

Saiph

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

newtonian

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

newtonian

Guest

Saiph

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

Saiph

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

Saiph

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

newtonian

Guest

vogon13

Guest

newtonian

Guest

vogon13

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

newtonian

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page