Ultraviolet & Infrared Light...

[jatslo]

The universe is constantly dissipating disproportional through the process of decay, where decay can be paraphrased into the erosion of atomic particles.<br /><br />Where is the universe dissipating to?

 

[jatslo]

Now that I thought about the end of the known universe for minute, it sounds more likely that all matter will dissipate, and decay long before the universe collapses, and Stephen Hawking’s could provide more details, if he were available to debate in this point in space-time. Someone call him over, I need to have a little one on one with Hawking ;o)<br /><br />Here's his e-mail address:<br /><br />S.W.Hawking@damtp.cam.ac.uk

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">Jatslo - Someone call him over, I need to have a little one on one with Hawking ;o) </font><br /><br />....<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[jatslo]

All I need to do is make DOTS, and I'm a star, WOW!!!

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">jatslo - Jatslo - Someone call him over, I need to have a little one on one with Hawking ;o) </font><br /><font color="orange">a_lost_packet_ - ....</font><br /><font color="yellow">jatslo - All I need to do is make DOTS, and I'm a star, WOW!!! </font><br /><br />Yes, and all you need to do in order to avoid appearing ignorant is to read and comprehend what knowledgable members have been posting in response to your ideas.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">jatslo - Now that I thought about the end of the known universe for minute, it sounds more likely that all matter will dissipate, and decay long before the universe collapses, and Stephen Hawking’s could provide more details, if he were available to <b>debate</b> in this point in space-time. <i>Someone call him over, I need to have a little one on one with Hawking</i> ;o)</font><br /><br />You want to debate Stephen Hawking? It is with great restraint that I wrote nothing more in response than "...."<br /><br />If you would like to post your ideas behind the "dissipation of matter in the Universe before the Universe finally <b>collapses</b> "please proceed. <br /><br />1) What is this collapse of which you speak? <br />2) What comprises the "dissipation" that you refer to?<br />3) How do you know Stephen Hawking doesn't visit this board?<br /><br />P.S. In response to your quip, I have a minimum of 3664 posts if you count those which were done before the Great Crash. That's why I have "Solar System" in my sigline. I estimate less than 100 comprised "LOL", "Me too!", "...." and word association threads. I have never believed that "postcount" is an indicator of anything but loyalty and long-standing to a forum. The newest member can create an overwhelming post full of knowledge, understanding, compassion and eloquent prose. I display mine former tag only in rememberence of the "Great Crash." Regardless of this, every post, by any member, should be evaluated on it' <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">You want to debate Stephen Hawking?</font><br /><br />That's right, you got a problem with that?

 

[petepan]

im still trying to figure out what the heck jatslo is rambling on about. i cant make heads nor tails of anything in this thread.<br /><br />We have seen talk about the colour spectrum, gamma rays, particle annihilation, titanium dioxide, the EM spectrum, how the eye works, ........<br /><br />WTF

 

[thechemist]

<font color="yellow"> a_lost_packet_: You want to debate Stephen Hawking? It is with great restraint that I wrote nothing more in response than "...."<br /><br />a_lost_packet_: I specialize in writing "posts which are longer than necessary. </font><br /><br />Indeed you are <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br />"." would be enough as an answer. Or even better, the null post <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>I feel better than James Brown.</em> </div>

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">A question: WTF, mate? (najaB).</font><br /><br />najaB states this as if najaB is the foremost authority to answer questions. NOT! Okay, I'll bite with the following:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">With respect to particle annihilation, I am curious if the ejected masses are balls of plasma that dissipate, or fade away, and if dissipate is the same as decay? Are you Australian? Better? (jatslo).</font><br /><br />That sounds like a pretty good question! The following is najaB's response:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">When particles and antiparticles meet the annihilation is total - there is NO MASS left to eject.</font><br /><br />WTF kind of answers is that? There is a little more involved, I think. Not only that, but najaB's answer is simply untrue, and it is obvious that najaB id shooting from the hip, rather than executing a simple Google search before he spews out nonsense.<br /><br />Here's another example:<br /><br />I have been stating Gamma Wave repeatedly throughout this thread, and you would think that some of these want to be scientists would have picked up on it, but they didn't.<br /><br />A gamma wave is a large, fast brain wave associated with perception and consciousness.<br /><br />Gamma waves are among the highest-frequency brain waves and appear to be involved in higher mental activity, including perception and consciousness. Research has shown that gamma waves are continuously present during low voltage fast neocortical activity occurring during waking or active sleep.<br /><br />Does that sound like a gamma ray?<br /><br />Gamma rays (often denoted by the Greek letter gamma, ã) are an energetic form of electromagnetic radiation (see Electromagnetic spectrum) produced by radioactivity or other nuclear or subatomic processes such as electron-positron annihilation.<br /><br />I think not!!!!<br /><br />Not only did najaB not answer, najaB didn’t even contribute anything that is related. STOP PRETENDING NAJAB!!!!!!!

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">Electron-positron annihilation is the process that occurs when an electron (which is matter) and a positron (which is antimatter) collide. If they are both relatively at rest (not a likely scenario, practically), they destroy each other upon contact, and produce two gamma ray photons of 511 keV each which are emitted in opposite directions. If they are moving at different relative velocities, the energies of the photons emitted will be higher, in accordance with the conservation of 4-momentum (see below for important details). At higher relative velocities, other particle-antiparticle pairs can also be produced, since there is enough kinetic energy in the relative velocities to provide for the masses of those particles. At much higher relative velocities, there may be enough energy to produce a single neutral Z boson. <br /><br />Photon pair production<br /><br />An important point is that there must be at least two photons produced if photons are produced, since photons are massless particles. This means that their 4-momenta have a norm of zero. However, if there are two photons moving in different directions, their 4-momenta are added before taking the norm, so one ends up with a positive net 4-momentum. This 4-momentum must be the same as the 4-momentum of the colliding electron and positron.<br />The opposite process is known as pair production.</font><br /><br />Do you understand what you just posted? If you do then you should see why people get so frustrated at your posts. If you think you do but are infact just reading and noting the language seems odd then try this exercise.<br /><br />Explain to me what you mean, without resorting to conjecture, what the above description is saying.

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">Explain to me what you mean, without resorting to conjecture, what the above description is saying.</font><br /><br />Precisely! I want to explore this, and that is why I brought up dissipate, decay, alpha, beta, gamma etc.<br /><br />Sure, annihilation means destroyed; however, that is theory. Now, if we are talking about a speed limit of 186,000 miles per second, then what kind of chain of events are taking place in the big bang?

 

[nacnud]

Buy and read this, it will answer your questions.

 

[jatslo]

nacnud, thank you for the link, but I am here to talk about science, not buy books.

 

[i_think]

<font color="yellow"> jatslo - Someone call him over, I need to have a little one on one with Hawking ;o) </font><br /><font color="orange"> a_lost_packet - You want to debate Stephen Hawking? ... How do you know Stephen Hawking doesn't visit this board?</font><br /><br />jatslo, you have already been debating Stephen Hawking! It is improbable, but not impossible, so it must be the truth?

 

[jurgens]

jatslo nice jobing using google and quoting stuff that you don't understand one bit. BTW just so you know people don't have to quote google to be right because lots of people here have taken classes and read numerous literature on Physics.<br /><br />You want to know what happens when an antiparticle and a particle meet? Here<br /><br /><br />You see the picture? First is the before situation, then the after Situation.<br /><br />What you have Before are 2 electrons at rest with a rest mass of 511,000eV, ei E = K + MC^2, where K = 0 and MC^2 = 511,000eV. <br /><br />So that the total energy of the systme is <br />E = MC^2(electron) + MC^2(positron)<br />Note Energy is a scalar and does not depend on Charge, Direction, or if its an antiparticle or not.<br /><br />So when the two come together, because they have opposite charges and opposites attract, by Conservation of energy the two photons that result must have a total energy of E that we found before.<br /><br /><br />Also we know that the energy of a photon is h(nu), where (nu) is the frequency and, (nu); = c/(lamda)<br /><br />where (lamda) is the wavelength of the photon and c is the speed of light we can say <br /><br />h(nu) = hc/(lamda)<br /><br />h being plancks constant and c being the speed of light multiply into a nice number for us to use being 1240eV*nm<br /><br />So <br />Einitial = Efinal<br />Einitial = MC^2(electron) + MC^2(positron)<br />Einitial = 511,000eV + 511,000eV<br />Einitial = 1,220,000eV<br />1,220,000eV = hc/(lamda) + hc/(lamda)<br />1,220,000eV = 2(1240eV*nm/(lamda))<br />(lamda)= 2480eV*nm/1,220,000eV<br /><br />which gives us<br />(lamda) = 0.00203nm<br />or<br />(lamda) = 2.03x10^-12m<br /><br />So the photons that result from the annihilation of the electron and the positron each have a wavelentgh of 2.03x10^-12m<br /><br />going back to <br />(nu) = c/(lamda)<br />we can get the frequency<br />(nu) = (3.0x10^8m/s)/(2.03x10^-12m)<br />(nu) = (1.477x10^20)/s<br />or<br />(nu) = .1477 quintillion Hz<br /><br />ie, you get a VER

 

[jurgens]

Also here is the EM spectrum, taken from LAwrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">jatslo, you have already been debating Stephen Hawking!</font><br /><br />That is doubtful, but plausible, so you're right. I think I would recognize intelligence when I see it, unless Hawking is masquerading incognito ;o)<br /><br />Maybe what is going on here is some sort of territorial dispute? I wish the offenders would limit their antics to the Ad hominem or ATTACKING THE PERSON thread.<br /><br />Its really counterproductive, and misleading to behave this way!

 

[jurgens]

Jatslo read my post, the images are still waiting ot be approved though :-/ but that is an explanation mathematically for particle annihilation.

 

[jatslo]

Thank you JurgenS.<br /><br />I can read the text myself, um, what I want to do, is explore plausibility’s in retrospect to unification theorems. This takes a bit of imagination, and creativity.<br /><br />If that does not make since, then I can rephrase.

 

[jurgens]

Jatslo, you wanted to know about Particle Annihilation and I explained it to you, now you want to know about possibilities that occur form Theories that Unify the 4 fundamental forces?<br /><br />First you need to know and understand the mathematics behind those theorems, and for some odd reason I don't think you know them.<br /><br />So I say this to you, stop using google for your scientific searches and go buy some books.

 

[jatslo]

Now that I thought about the end of the known universe for minute, it sounds more likely that all matter will dissipate, and decay long before the universe collapses, and Stephen Hawking’s could provide more details, if he were available to debate in this point in space-time.<br /><br />Now, is this plausible, or not, and why? Or get Hawking over here to explain it.<br /><br />If you are incapable of imagination, if so, then I am really not interested in continuing this conversation with you.

 

[i_think]

<font color="yellow"> He has NOT been debating Hawking.<br /> </font><br />Agreed. I was trying to show how that Sherlock Holmes quote is not logical, that's why I ended it with a question mark. <br />

 

[jurgens]

Jatslo, it's not that we don't have any imagination. Scientists tend to be some of the most imaginative people around! The problem is we try to use our imagination upon a base of firm science, ie we don't go around spouting whatever the heck we can think of. What we try to do is be imaginative while also trying to provide a logical explanation of how it could happen.<br /><br />The problem people have with your posts is that there is neither logic or mathematics behind them. You can imagine all you want but when what your saying makes absolutely no sense and you keep on making posts like that, after a while we get the idea that "hey this guy has absolutely no clue what he's talking about."

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">He has NOT been debating Hawking.</font><br /><br />I agree too.

 

[jatslo]

I am not claiming to be an expert, nor am I here to prove anything. I am here to flex my imagination, and to see where it leads me.<br /><br />Now that I thought about the end of the known universe for minute, it sounds more likely that all matter will dissipate, and decay long before the universe collapses, and Stephen Hawking’s could provide more details, if he were available to debate in this point in space-time. <br /><br />Now, is this plausible, or not, and why? Or get Hawking over here to explain it.