Question CYCLIC UNIVERSE

[G_x0a]

I value the preservation of scientific clarity, which will be something that does not need to be written down and will always be respected, from me.

And of course that respect does not come from you, whether I understand you or not, is irrelevant.

 

[Harry Costas]

Hello Cat
You said no universe.
Please define the Universe.

 

[Harry Costas]

NASA has assumed the universe is 13.8 billion years old.
And try to work within that scope. Read the following.

No single astronomical image reshaped our understanding of the universe like the Hubble Deep Field observations. Source: NASA Science https://share.google/HXNvK5nBJe6tFPs5h

Shared via the Google app

 

[Catastrophe]

Hello Cat
You said no universe.
Please define the Universe.

Harry, there are innumerable "observed universes".
What is the total of these?
What about other collections of items including galaxies?
Maybe none are observed?
Then, the total of observed universes is "The Universe"? We do not know.
What if only one star is not observed?
So "The Universe" cannot be defined in any certain (unequivocal) way.

Do you accept that so far?

Cat

 

[Harry Costas]

Hello Cat
Always love your writing.
Good on you.

 

[Catastrophe]

We are getting into metaphysics/philosophy.

If something cannot be defined, then it does not exist as a "known" object.

You can define "The Universe" as "all there is", but what does this mean?

What do you mean by "is"?
We come back to what does science say "exists"?
Science is based on observation, measurement and deduction.

There must statistically be much that science does not / can not observe . . . . . .
Because too far away, too small, cannot be observed in any way.
Do you say "if cannot be observed, cannot exist"? I think not.
Think about what we discovered by using new methods e.g., IR, UV, X-rays, et cetera.
But if you allow "cannot be observed", then you let in fairies and dragons.

I say, if something cannot be observed/understood, then what are you naming?
If you cannot discuss it, then what are you talking about.
Hence I say that the idea of "The Universe" refers to something unreal.
"The map is not the territory".

Hence, I say that there can only be "observable universes".
But what is not unobservable by us, may be observable by others.
Therefore "The Universe" cannot be defined, and becomes metaphysical.


Cat

 

[Harry Costas]

Hello Cat
That's so true if you are limited in information.
Relatively speaking.
The Universe is what it is.

 

[Catastrophe]

And your definition of "The Universe"?

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

I was asking Harry.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Hello Cat
That's so true if you are limited in information.
Relatively speaking.
The Universe is what it is.

In what way was my #231 limited in information?

Cat

P.S. Sorry, Q&As got mixed up there.

 

[Harry Costas]

We are limited in our information.

The Universe is all.
The deeper we look, the more we find.

 

[Catastrophe]

Harry, you seem to be agreeing with me.

We are limited in our information.

As I stated, there are parts of the "Universe" from which light has not had time to reach us.
For all we know, it could take another 1000, or 10,000, years or more.
"The Universe" is unknowable. We will see more, but never all.

The Universe is all.. The deeper we look, the more we find. <Yes>

Cat )

 

[Harry Costas]

Yes, we do agree.

We will see a few more billion years into the deep field in a few more years.

 

[Harry Costas]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mBOQ3KrbjE

 

[Harry Costas]

We know we cannot create or destroy matter.
So, how does matter recycle and rejuvenate?
The understanding will explain how the universe works.

Submitted on 9 May 2024]

Recycling failed photoelectrons via tertiary photoemission​

M. Matzelle, Wei-Chi Chiu, Caiyun Hong, Barun Ghosh, Pengxu Ran, R. S. Markiewicz, B. Barbiellini, Changxi Zheng, Sheng Li, Rui-Hua He, Arun Bansil

A key insight of Einstein's theory of the photoelectric effect is that a minimum energy is required for photoexcited electrons to escape from a material. For the past century it has been assumed that photoexcited electrons of lower energies make no contribution to the photoemission spectrum. Here we demonstrate the conceptual possibility that the energy of these 'failed' photoelectrons-primary or secondary-can be partially recycled to generate new 'tertiary' electrons of energy sufficient to escape. Such a 'recycling' step goes beyond the traditional three steps of the photoemission process (excitation, transport, and escape), and, as we illustrate, it can be realized through a novel Auger mechanism that involves three distinct minority electronic states in the material. We develop a phenomenological three-band model to treat this mechanism within a revised four-step framework for photoemission, which contains robust features of linewidth narrowing and population inversion under strong excitation, reminiscent of the lasing phenomena. We show that the conditions for this recycling mechanism are likely satisfied in many quantum materials with multiple flat bands properly located away from the Fermi level, and elaborate on the representative case of SrTiO3 among other promising candidates. We further discuss how this mechanism can explain the recent observation of anomalous intense coherent photoemission from a SrTiO3 surface, and predict its manifestations in related experiments, including the 'forbidden' case of photoemission with photon energies lower than the work function. Our study calls for paradigm shifts across a range of fundamental and applied research fields, especially in the areas of photoemission, photocathodes, and flat-band materials.

 

[Catastrophe]

We know we cannot create or destroy matter.
So, how does matter recycle and rejuvenate?
The understanding will explain how the universe works.

Via energy? e = mc^2 and all that?

Cat

 

[Harry Costas]

Hello Cat
Yes
We know E=MC^2

Let's look at the Sun.
Atoms within the solar envelope are photodisintegrated into Protons and Neutrons when entering the Sun's core.
Within the core, Protons gain an electron and change to Neutrons.
The dipolar electromagnetic fields expel Neutrons and change to Protons.
Protons, as Hydrogen, undergo fusion with other atoms and keep forming all other atoms.

A perfect cyclic event that keeps going.

The core of the Sun has 95% of the solar system's total mass.

 

[Catastrophe]

We know we cannot create or destroy matter.

Yes, but we know that matter can be converted into energy.

. . . . . . and energy can be converted into matter.

Energy can be converted into matter. This concept is described by Einstein's famous equation E=mc², which demonstrates that energy (E) and mass (m), the matter equivalent, are interchangeable, with 'c' being the speed of light. Scientists have demonstrated this through pair production, where a high-energy photon can be converted into a particle and its antiparticle (e.g., an electron and a positron).

Cat