- Thank you received: 0
Universe hot becomes universe cold?
18 years 11 months ago #14597
by Tommy
Reply from Thomas Mandel was created by Tommy
What evidence do you have that the Universe was hot? And what is heat? I think heat is movement, so what you are asking is can the Universe slow down? But aren't we really talking about particles? And if that is so, was there heat before particles? Maybe heat just "dissapates" rather than disappear. If it merely dissapates, then I would say that heat is going into what they call the CMB.
tommy
tommy
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 11 months ago #14599
by Ryan2006
Replied by Ryan2006 on topic Reply from ryan Henningsgaard
conservation of energy is what we are talking about in a bounded universe heat would be trapped so Cosmic Back ground radiation should not be able to show a cooling effect.
ryan Henningsgaard
ryan Henningsgaard
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 11 months ago #14611
by Harry
Replied by Harry on topic Reply from Harry Costas
Man always puts ideas down that he has be influenced by.
To begin with who said there was a start to the Universe.
Who said that the universe was hot to begin with?
Who said that the universe is expanding.
Who siad that the universe is cooling or getting hotter.
If the universe is endless the above statements are meaningless.
Hoo Haa
Its like religion we have thousands of different types depending on how people think. Same with the universe people express what they think and than proceed to add maths and create objects in space to explain or re-enforce some model.
Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i'm my worst enemy.
Harry
To begin with who said there was a start to the Universe.
Who said that the universe was hot to begin with?
Who said that the universe is expanding.
Who siad that the universe is cooling or getting hotter.
If the universe is endless the above statements are meaningless.
Hoo Haa
Its like religion we have thousands of different types depending on how people think. Same with the universe people express what they think and than proceed to add maths and create objects in space to explain or re-enforce some model.
Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i'm my worst enemy.
Harry
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 10 months ago #17006
by Ryan2006
Replied by Ryan2006 on topic Reply from ryan Henningsgaard
Harry foreverism is indeed the way it is if Newton is correct about not being able to create or destroy energy. Foreverism includes multi-universes all it takes is a multiplication sign.
ryan Henningsgaard
ryan Henningsgaard
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 10 months ago #17057
by Harry
Replied by Harry on topic Reply from Harry Costas
There are no multi universes as so to speak
Once you say there is two than you have to bring in another dimension.
Keep with one total universe and all the parts with in call them what ever.
Harry
Once you say there is two than you have to bring in another dimension.
Keep with one total universe and all the parts with in call them what ever.
Harry
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 10 months ago #14780
by SteveA
Replied by SteveA on topic Reply from
I'd read before about a heat pipe that supposedly allowed higher energy particle to escape but lower energy ones remained behind. So heat diffusion might not need be a one way process and it makes you wonder if heat is subjective.
If particles contain a relatively random kinetic energy, there's still usable energy that can be extracted from this - imagine two cars on a freeway that are moving 50 and 70 mphs. If you placed some sort of load between them, you could extract the energy of a 20 mph collision by equalizing their velocities to 60 mph. If particles had no relative motion they'd appear "frozen" to each other, so you effectively extracted the heat from within the system. If you used this energy to emit some high velocity particle, then the observation from the two stationary cars would be of an infinitely hot particle (the "heat"/kinetic energy between these two cars would now be at 0, so any energy elsewhere would appear infinite in comparison ... if they took observations elsewhere to determine their speed to be 60 mph then the hot particle would appear to have finite energy). So, of course, if it's a closed universe the heat never really goes anywhere though more or less of it could be observed depending on the perspective and reference.
If particles contain a relatively random kinetic energy, there's still usable energy that can be extracted from this - imagine two cars on a freeway that are moving 50 and 70 mphs. If you placed some sort of load between them, you could extract the energy of a 20 mph collision by equalizing their velocities to 60 mph. If particles had no relative motion they'd appear "frozen" to each other, so you effectively extracted the heat from within the system. If you used this energy to emit some high velocity particle, then the observation from the two stationary cars would be of an infinitely hot particle (the "heat"/kinetic energy between these two cars would now be at 0, so any energy elsewhere would appear infinite in comparison ... if they took observations elsewhere to determine their speed to be 60 mph then the hot particle would appear to have finite energy). So, of course, if it's a closed universe the heat never really goes anywhere though more or less of it could be observed depending on the perspective and reference.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.373 seconds