To answer your only question mark: Of course it's the planet's formation date.
The unasked other half of this sequence is, when is the constituent elements formed? And the answer is: the death of earlier stars, ie: During the convulsions of novas and supernovas.
That, in turn, answers the why not everything the same age question.
Technically, we do peer into the big-bang everyday because we are cocooned inside of it. However, we can only see a tiny surrounding portion of it. And current thinking is our surrounding view is reducing at an accelerating rate - with far galaxies dropping off the visible edge as they get too far away.
To answer your only question mark: Of course it's the planet's formation date.
The unasked other half of this sequence is, when is the constituent elements formed? And the answer is: the death of earlier stars, ie: During the convulsions of novas and supernovas.
evanh,
A couple of simple answers would have been sufficient, but you had to turn it into something else.
To answer your only question mark: Of course it's the planet's formation date.
The unasked other half of this sequence is, when is the constituent elements formed? And the answer is: the death of earlier stars, ie: During the convulsions of novas and supernovas.
Ok, thank you. Latency has caused me frustration. But that is what I was asking. Why isn't all matter the same age.
Hard to tell if you are listening sometimes. You have stated many wacky ideas along the way, hence many have welcomed the downing of this thread based just on the topic alone.
Keep cool guys. This is the universe we are discussing. Not Trumpy.
There was no center of the big bang. The current assumption is the "Cosmological Principle" which states that the universe looks much the same no matter where you are in it or which direction you are looking in. So far we have no evidence to the contrary. That implies the big bang did not happen at a point. Rather it's just that the universe was infinitely dense and hot at some time. Everywhere. Of course the part of the universe we can ever see, the "observable universe", is limited by the speed of light. Our observable universe could be said to come form a "point" at the big bang.
Why isn't everything the same age? Well, depends what you mean by "thing". If I have two hydrogen atoms, created during the big bang, they are getting on for 14 billion years old. If I mash them together to make a helium atom then that helium atom is new.
How old is MikeDYur? It would be silly to say he is 14 billion years old because that how old his atomic parts are. The arrangement of atomic parts we call MikeDYur came together quite recently.
Why isn't everything the same age? Well, depends what you mean by "thing". If I have two hydrogen atoms, created during the big bang, they are getting on for 14 billion years old. If I mash them together to make a helium atom then that helium atom is new.
That's like building a new car model from old Legos...
The thread title is not absolutely nonsense. At least every "normal" electrical motor is magnetically powered. There are electrostatic motors like piezo drives and mems structures like dlp mirrors.
But somehow with this title is implied, something very exciting happens, that is: make something from nothing. And for free.
Up to now we found a few rules, that determine our live and existance. The most important are: Energy is conserved, Momentum is conserved. That doesn't explain, what energy and momentum is, but now we have a framework where we can fix other concepts. We know, whenever we find a situation, where the energy is not conserved, we did not break the rule, but we found, that there is another form of energy, we have to identify.
The same is true for momentum. We collide particels and create gamma radiation, that is high energy photons. Now we see, that the momentum during the collision was not conserved. It doesn't break the rule, is just shows: gamma quants have the property of a momentum.
@Heater, You had never mentioned it but, you would make a good teacher, not sure if there is enough money to suit you. You have a good way of explaining thing's, simple terms a layman can understand, or as technical enough for the scientist or engineer to pay attention.
Thanks for saying so. Hope my ramblings do some good in the world. Even if it is just a giggle or smile. I don't think I'd have the patience or stamina to be a teacher though. Not in a high school anyway.
I have to make things as simple as possible. I am simple myself
Problem is finding simple ways to explain or demonstrate things can be very hard.
@heater: correct! Confusion often comes from using concepts in unexpected ways. So my aim is: show that our perception is misleading if we do not the same moment understand the foundations. You easily find followers the moment you say: energy is quantizised. But what does that mean? Take a photon: you can have photons of every color. That is: every energy. So the spectrum of photon is a continuum. How can we say: photons are quanta?
But there is a quantum that exactly has a value of 1 and is so universal, that we can suppose that this quantum already existed before the big bang!
Nobody said all quanta were the same size. The size of a quantum of energy is related to frequency, E = hf.
Now riddle me this:
A hydrogen atom 13.8 billion light years away undergoes some transition and emits a photon. The energy of that photon is a quanta and so the photon has frequency f = E/h.
13.8 billion years later, after traveling half way across the observable universe, the photon arrives here and I detect it. I find that it is red shifted due to the expansion of the universe. It has a much lower frequency, down in the microwave range. So the energy that I observe it has is much less.
Interesting question. Current theory of red shift would say that the energy was expended overcoming the difference in velocity between that atom and the person or instrument that detected it. Of course that answer sheds some doubt on the validity of conservation of mass/energy.
Let's think about bullets instead of photons. Say I point a gun at you and pull the trigger. They energy contained in the powder, E, propels the bullet at you with velocity v. The bullet carries the energy to you and does lots of damage. E = mv²/2 and all that.
But what if I'm racing away from you in a very fast car? Now that bullet arrives at you more slowly. So the energy it delivers to you is less. If I'm going fast enough the energy is so little you hardly notice the impact. Where did the bullets energy go?
We could say the energy of the bullet that I put in to make it move very fast, relative to me, was lost in slowing it down to when it arrived slowly at you. That does not seem right.
This should be simple high school, Newtonian physics. For some reason I don't see it just now.
N.B. Not that I want to shoot anyone here. Or anywhere else.
Comments
The unasked other half of this sequence is, when is the constituent elements formed? And the answer is: the death of earlier stars, ie: During the convulsions of novas and supernovas.
Technically, we do peer into the big-bang everyday because we are cocooned inside of it. However, we can only see a tiny surrounding portion of it. And current thinking is our surrounding view is reducing at an accelerating rate - with far galaxies dropping off the visible edge as they get too far away.
What result?
evanh,
A couple of simple answers would have been sufficient, but you had to turn it into something else.
Ok, thank you. Latency has caused me frustration. But that is what I was asking. Why isn't all matter the same age.
How did you come to that conclusion, from what we were discussing?
And BTW bs was in small case.
EDIT: It really blows me away that you didn't know such trivia.
Are you are savior, than you are wasting time here.
I note you didn't answer the question.
No, you didn't come to that conclusion from all that I posted in this thread? You are looking for something that isn't there.
There was no center of the big bang. The current assumption is the "Cosmological Principle" which states that the universe looks much the same no matter where you are in it or which direction you are looking in. So far we have no evidence to the contrary. That implies the big bang did not happen at a point. Rather it's just that the universe was infinitely dense and hot at some time. Everywhere. Of course the part of the universe we can ever see, the "observable universe", is limited by the speed of light. Our observable universe could be said to come form a "point" at the big bang.
Why isn't everything the same age? Well, depends what you mean by "thing". If I have two hydrogen atoms, created during the big bang, they are getting on for 14 billion years old. If I mash them together to make a helium atom then that helium atom is new.
How old is MikeDYur? It would be silly to say he is 14 billion years old because that how old his atomic parts are. The arrangement of atomic parts we call MikeDYur came together quite recently.
Yes please !
But somehow with this title is implied, something very exciting happens, that is: make something from nothing. And for free.
Up to now we found a few rules, that determine our live and existance. The most important are: Energy is conserved, Momentum is conserved. That doesn't explain, what energy and momentum is, but now we have a framework where we can fix other concepts. We know, whenever we find a situation, where the energy is not conserved, we did not break the rule, but we found, that there is another form of energy, we have to identify.
The same is true for momentum. We collide particels and create gamma radiation, that is high energy photons. Now we see, that the momentum during the collision was not conserved. It doesn't break the rule, is just shows: gamma quants have the property of a momentum.
The thread title is fine, now that it has a giant "NOT" at the end! Hmmm....sort of, possibly, maybe. It would be a very non-standard way to say it.
We generally refer to motors by what you have to put into them to get them to work: wind, steam pressure, gasoline, electricity etc.
Certainly there is magnetism at work in there but it would be like saying a petrol engine is powered by it's gudgeon pins.
Thanks for saying so. Hope my ramblings do some good in the world. Even if it is just a giggle or smile. I don't think I'd have the patience or stamina to be a teacher though. Not in a high school anyway.
I have to make things as simple as possible. I am simple myself
Problem is finding simple ways to explain or demonstrate things can be very hard.
But there is a quantum that exactly has a value of 1 and is so universal, that we can suppose that this quantum already existed before the big bang!
Now riddle me this:
A hydrogen atom 13.8 billion light years away undergoes some transition and emits a photon. The energy of that photon is a quanta and so the photon has frequency f = E/h.
13.8 billion years later, after traveling half way across the observable universe, the photon arrives here and I detect it. I find that it is red shifted due to the expansion of the universe. It has a much lower frequency, down in the microwave range. So the energy that I observe it has is much less.
Where did that missing energy go?
Interesting question. Current theory of red shift would say that the energy was expended overcoming the difference in velocity between that atom and the person or instrument that detected it. Of course that answer sheds some doubt on the validity of conservation of mass/energy.
Let's think about bullets instead of photons. Say I point a gun at you and pull the trigger. They energy contained in the powder, E, propels the bullet at you with velocity v. The bullet carries the energy to you and does lots of damage. E = mv²/2 and all that.
But what if I'm racing away from you in a very fast car? Now that bullet arrives at you more slowly. So the energy it delivers to you is less. If I'm going fast enough the energy is so little you hardly notice the impact. Where did the bullets energy go?
We could say the energy of the bullet that I put in to make it move very fast, relative to me, was lost in slowing it down to when it arrived slowly at you. That does not seem right.
This should be simple high school, Newtonian physics. For some reason I don't see it just now.
N.B. Not that I want to shoot anyone here. Or anywhere else.