[cosvis]

Hi Nobody, gunnar and all,

Here we have two very interesting questions. Nobody, asked the question "would nothing lack badness, falsity and ugliness?" I would say that "nothing" lacks goodness, truth and beauty. According to St. Thomas Aquinas philosophy, as I understand it, it is only what is, that is real, good, true, inteligible and beautiful. Thus badness, falsity and ugliness, to my understanding, lack goodness, truth and beauty; they are nothing; they lack some form of reality which, however, could be changed.

Gunnar are you questioning the concept of nothing? I would agree with you that 'nothing' as a concept, "has a place at every table". We are constantly confronted with the idea of "nothing", in the field of the physical, the rational and the morality.

I just want say something about your statement: "where as an origin from energy already in existence is not possible, because it still does not deal with origin." I feel that in this site where we deal with the physical origin and operation of the universe, we are not primarily concerned with the origin of energy. We accept it that energy must be eternal because the physical law of energy is that it cannot be created nor distroyed. I agree that this statement does not give an explanation or a rational cause for the origin of energy. I feel it is impossible to find a physical cause or reason for the existence of eternal energy, however, I can find an answer in metaphysics from the first cause which is the origin of all things, not only physical reality.

Yours Cosvis.

[cosvis]

Hi to all,

May I continue to share with you from my book: "The physical Cosmos." We come to "Chapter IV".

A GRAVITATIONAL-KINETIC FORCE.

As mentioned above, it was Isaac Newton who discovered the law of universal gravitation. He was able to give a formula for the force of gravity which is the weakest of the four known fundamental forces or fundamental interactions in nature. The four fundamental forces so far discovered are gravity, the weak nuclear force, the electro-magnetic force and the strong force. Scientists are trying to discover one theory that would unite all these different forces into one set of mathematical equations. There is already a theory, known as the grand unified theory (GUT) that attempts to combine the known interactions into a single gauge and symmetry theory. In this theory all the interactions merge at a very high energy into a single interaction.

There is another theory that is known as the theory of everything, or TOE. It is trying to provide a unified description of all sub-atomic particles, forces and the development and evolution of the universe. Some scientists would hold that the TOE should also be able to explain the different dimensions observed in the universe. One of the most successful theories is quantum electrodynamics(QED) which helped the development of the gauge theory, the electro weak theory, and quantum chromodynamics, or QCD which tries to include the strong nuclear interaction. The difficulty to include gravity in a unified theory is the weakness of the gravitational force compared with the other forces in nature.

I have already mentioned that Einstein had added an extra cosmological constant to his first general relativity theory in order to counter-act the force of gravity in the universe. This would be a kind of anti-gravity force that would make the universe static preventing it from expanding for ever or to contract into a singularity. Although he rejected this idea later in his life, the idea has often been recalled to explain difficulties. Only recently, some cosmologists suggested the existence of some kind of cosmological constant or anti-gravity force in the context of theories of inflation. If there does exist such a force it could increase the expansion rate of the universe. It would make the universe older, which would allow more time for the formation of galaxies, and the evolution of clusters of galaxies.

To be continued.

Yours Cosvis.

[cosvis]

Hi to all,

Continuing with Chapter IV, "A Gravitational-Kinetic Force", from "The Physical Cosmos":

When looking at the quantum relativity theory, we know that a quantum particle or a virtual mass particle, has momentum and gravity. It has momentum because the momentum of photons or electromagnetic radiation can be observed and measured as Einstein had shown, by the photoelectric effect. In fact, the kinetic energy of the electrons emitted can be measured and depend on the frequency of the radiation. The frequency is the number of quanta particles of the photons. Kinetic energy is the energy of a moving particle that is due to its speed and it carries a potential kinetic force. The force of the moving particle becomes active when the particle hits another object. This phenomenon is obvious when a moving car crashes into a stationary object or when an asteroid crashes into a planet. This same phenomenon is observed when photons crash into an electron giving it extra momentum and mass.

A moving particle which has kinetic energy or momentum, carries or holds a potential kinetic force that is activated at impact. In the case when two ordinary massive objects impact, the momentum and energy of each object is altered and energy can be changed into different forms like heat, electricity, sound and many other forms. The total quantity of energy and momentum of all the elements involved in the impact, however, remain the same. In the case of photons or quanta particles crashing into electrons, the energy of the quanta particles is transferred to the electrons which gain in momentum and mass. But even in this case, the potential kinetic force of the quanta particles was activated during the crash and energy and momentum was transferred to the electrons. The total energy and momentum, however, remain the same.

The difference between an impact of two real massive objects and the impact of quanta particles and a real massive object is that the energy which is carried by the quanta particles are added or absorbed by the massive object like electrons that have gained energy.



To be continued.

Yours Cosvis.

[cosvis]

Hi to all,

I will continue from Chapter IV, "A Gravitational-Kinetic Force."

The energy of the quanta particles is:

E = p c,

where (p) stands for momentum and (c) is the speed of light. The momentum is measured by the virtual mass time the speed of light:

p = m^0 c,

where m^0 stands for the virtual mass. The energy of the quanta particles is thus:

E = m^0 c^2,

The formula of a force in a non-moving frame of reference like the fifth-dimension as postulated above, would be:

F = m^0 a,

where (a) is the measurement of acceleration which is the rate of change of velocity, measured per unit time. But,

a = v / t

where (v) is the speed of the moving object and (t) is the per unit time. Since in the above formula:

v = c,

the kinetic force that occurs when the quanta particles crash into or are absorbed by a massive object like an electron would be:

F = (m^0 c) / 2

The term (m^0 c) , is that of the momentum of quanta particles which means that the kinetic force is preserved in the quanta particles and is activated when the quanta particle crashes or is absorbed into a massive particle like an electron.

I would like to point out that when the quanta particles are absorbed by a massive object like an electron only half the energy of the quanta particles is kinetic, because the formula for kinetic energy is:

KE = (m v^2) /2

This means in the case of quanta particles, only half of the total energy is kinetic energy which is:

KE = (m^0 c^2) / 2

The other half of the total energy of the quanta particles is gravitational. This is in line with Einstein’s relativity laws which demand that an object that increases its speed will at the same time increase its relativistic mass. This is a very important point because it means that the non-relativistic mass of the quanta particles have gained relativistic mass in the moving object. In other words the virtual mass of the quanta particles has become real mass.

When the quanta particles are absorbed by an object, there is no loss of energy but the object has gained the total energy of the quanta particles. Since half the energy of the quanta particles is kinetic, which added momentum to the object, the other half of the energy of the quanta particles is gravitational that added relativistic mass to the object. According to Einstein’s law of relativity the inertial mass and the gravitational mass is equivalent, that is, it is the same. Thus the other half of the energy of the quanta particles is gravitational potential energy which is added to the object when it absorbed the quanta particles, because it has gained relativistic mass. Since the object has gained relativistic mass it has also increased its potential gravitational force. It is then possible to say that the quanta particles also carry a potential gravitational force besides the potential kinetic force. The question to ask is: is it possible that in nature there exist two universal, fundamental opposite forces, one kinetical and the other gravitational?

To be continued;

Yours Cosvis.

[cosvis]

Hi to all,

According to Newtons third law of motion whenever a force is applied to an object, there is an equal and opposite reaction, in other words there must be an equal but opposite force. What then is the opposite force involved when quanta particles crash into a massive object. The other fundamental force of nature is gravity and it is negative since it opposes the kinetic force.

That the kinetic force and the gravitational force are opposite forces can be observed in nature when a satellite circulates a planet. The gravitational potential force acting between the planet and the satellite is balanced and opposed by the kinetic potential force of the planet and the satellite. When the satellite is accelerated by rocket power it moves further away from the planet, its speed is increased and, as it draws further away from the planet, the gravitational force between the planet and the satellite decreases.

If the speed of the satellite is fast enough and the gravitational force is too weak, the satellite can escape the gravitational pull of the planet. This is known as the escape velocity. However, when the orbital velocity of the satellite is reduced, the satellite, if it is still in the gravitational pull of the planet, would start falling in towards the planet. In this case the gravitational potential energy would change into the kinetic energy of the falling satellite increasing its rate of fall. There is no loss of energy but rather the gravitational potential energy is changed into kinetic energy. The total amount of energy in the satellite-planet system would remain the same, not counting, however, energy lost due to friction, heat and any other kind of loss of energy.

It is quite obvious that in nature there exists a kinetic force and it is released when kinetic energy is transferred from one object to another as in the case when an asteroid slams into a planet. The kinetic energy of a moving object depends on its momentum, that is, its quantity of inertial mass and its velocity:

p = m v

where (p) stands for momentum, (m) is the inertial mass of the object and (v) is its velocity. When kinetic energy is transferred from one object to another, a kinetic force comes in operation and it depends on the acceleration given to the new object:

F = m a

where (F) stands for the inertial force; (m) is the inertial mass and (a) is the acceleration. Since the inertial force depends on the momentum and kinetic energy of a moving object, it can be argued that a moving object that has kinetic energy and momentum also carries a potential kinetic force.

It is also obvious in nature, that the kinetic potential force of a moving object is closely linked to the gravitational force and thus to the gravitational potential energy of an object. As could be seen from the example above, the two forces interact and oppose each other. Both the kinetic energies and gravitational potential energies of a inertial system consisting of at least two objects in equilibrium, constitute the total energy of the system and it is governed by two opposite forces kinetic and gravitational. When the velocity of the objects of the system are small compared to the velocity of light, the Newtonian equations of movement can be applied, but in fact, massive objects are governed by the Einstein’s relativity laws and this has a bearing on moving objects.

To ne continued.

Yours Cosvis.

[cosvis]

Hi to all,

Continuing with Chapter IV, A Gravitational-Kinetic Force, from "The Physical Cosmos".

The above phenomenon of the different forces and energies that operate in a satellite-planet system describes what forces and energies are involved in a system between two relativity- massive objects. The phenomenon differs, however, on the quantum level where quanta particles interact with relativity-massive objects like electrons. On the quantum level, when quanta particles are absorbed by an electron, half of the quanta particles’ energy is kinetic and the other half is gravitational. The kinetic energy increases the speed of the electron and the gravitational energy increases the relative mass or the gravitational potential energy of the electron. In this case the total quanta particles with its different energies and potential forces are added to the electron particle. There is no loss of energy and no exchange of energy but only a total absorption of energy. This phenomenon is important when investigating the energy and forces of a black-hole.

If in nature there does exist a kinetic or inertial force that is universal and which is opposite to gravity, it is possible to call it a fundamental force of nature. Such a force would make a mark impact on our understanding of the universe. Just as there exists in nature an electro-magnetic force, so one could argue, that there also exists a fundamental and universal gravitational-kinetic force that governs the universe. The question may be asked whether this universal kinetic force could be the one that Einstein first speculated in his general relativity theory and which is called the cosmological constant?

This universal kinetic force is not separated from the gravitational force but its opposite. Newton’s third law of motion said that for every action or force there is an equal and opposite reaction or force. The equal and opposite force to gravity of the quantum particle is kinetic. Einstein showed that the gravitational mass of an object is equivalent to its inertial mass which is due to its movement. If the gravitational mass and its inertial or kinetic mass is equivalent so must also be its gravitational and kinetic energies and forces. Thus, it is possible to say that the quantum particle carries both gravitational and kinetic virtual mass, energies and forces. This could also give an explanation why the quantum particle manifests both a particle and a wave nature at the same time and why it exhibits a fundamental uncertainty as discovered by Werner Heisenberg.

Einstein seemed to have sensed a necessity of an opposite force in nature that counter-acted gravity and he introduced a cosmological constant in his first formula of general relativity describing the universe. However, Einstein developed his general theory of relativity without including the quantum theory. To Einstein these two theories could not be reconciled because the quantum theory had included the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Einstein saw the universe as being static without any need of expansion or contraction, following strict universal physical laws that could not include any uncertainties. It was Einstein himself who gave rise to the development of the quantum theory by his work on the photoelectric effect for which he received the Nobel Prize. Later, Einstein rejected the idea of a cosmological constant when the general body of cosmologists accepted that the universe was expanding.

To be continued.

Yours Cosvis.

[cosvis]

Hi to all,


In my study of "The Physical Cosmos", the reality of a black hole is very important and thus we come to:

CHAPTER V.

A BLACK-HOLE.

The idea that there exists in nature “dark stars” with such a strong gravitational force that not even light can escape from them has been around for a long time. John Michell (1724-1793) presented such an idea in 1783 to the Royal Society, and Pierre Simon Laplace (1749-1827) independently published the same ideas in 1796. The idea was almost forgotten in the 19th century but became popular after Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Black Holes are thought to be formed as a result of the explosions of massive stars in supernova. Calculations have shown that compact supernova remnant with more mass than three times the mass of the sun would collapse into a black hole. It is thought today that there exists a “supermassive black hole” at the heart of every galaxy.

There is not much known about the black hole but it is speculated that the escape velocity is equal to that of the speed of light. This would mean that mass and energy of the universe can fall in or be absorbed by a black hole, but nothing, no mass, no energy, not even light, can escape from it. The boundary of a black hole is known as the “event horizon” beyond which nothing can be observed from the outside. It was Karl Scharzschild (1873-1916) who discovered the solution of Einstein’s general relativity equation that described a black hole and worked out the formula of its critical radius. This is known as the Schwarzschild radius:

R =(2 G M ) / c^2

where (R) is the radius of a black hole, (G) is the gravitational constant, (M) is its mass and (c) is the velocity of light.

Theoretically, a black hole can be characterised by its mass, angular momentum and by its electrical charge. Apart from these three properties theorists are not certain but they speculate that there exists various kinds of black holes. There are the uncharged, non-rotating black hole described by the Schwarzschild solution; a charged, non-rotating black hole described by the Reissner-Nordstrom solution; an uncharged but rotating black hole described by the Ker solution; and a rotating, charged black hole described by the Ker-Newman solution.

To be continued.

Yours Cosvis.

[cosvis]

Hi to all,

Let me continue with Chapter V, " A Black Hole".

Cosmologists trying to follow the general relativity theory, speculate that the ultimate fate of matter inside the event horizon, is its consumption in a singularity. This is a point where its density is infinite, its space is one-dimensional and where the laws of physics as far as we know, break down. The singularity is a point of infinite density that is speculated to be the end of matter according to the mathematical equation of Einstein’s general relativity theory. It is also speculated that the mirror image of such a singularity is the uniform expansion of the universe as described by the big bang theory. This implies that it was a singularity from which the universe was born.

There have been attempts to discover a mathematical solution that would unite gravity and quantum theory. One of these attempts was made by Roger Penrose (1931-- ) who tried to prove that any mass falling into a non-rotating black hole was crushed into a singularity. However, the big problem of the singularity is that it does not account for the quantum theory but only is a solution to a question that arises from gravity and the general relativity theory.

What I propose here, is to examine the black hole from both the relativity theory and the quantum theory as it is explained above. If one takes a black hole consisting only of quanta particles it must have virtual mass according to the formula:

m^0 = ( f h ) / c^2

where ( m^0 ) is the quantity of virtual mass, (f) is the frequency of the quanta particles, (h) is the Planck constant, and (c) is the velocity of light. Since the black hole consists of virtual mass it must also have energy which is of two kinds; kinetic (KE) and gravitational (GE) energies. The formula for its kinetic energy is:

KE = ( m^0 c^2 ) / 2

and its formula for its gravitational energy is:

GE = ( G ( m^0 )^2 ) / R

where (G) is the gravitational constant and (R) is the Schwarzschild radius of the black hole.

From the energy formula it is possible to work out the radius of the black hole:

E = KE + GE

thus: m^0 c^0 = (( m^o c^0 ) / 2 ) + ( G ( m^o )^2 ) / R

(m^0 c^2) / 2 = ( G (m^o)^2 ) / R

and R = (2 G m^0 ) / c^2

However, since the virtual mass is:

m^0 = ( f h ) / c^2

the radius of the event horizon of a black hole consisting of quanta particles:

R = ( 2 G f h ) / c^4

If the above speculation is true than even a black hole consisting of pure energy, has a radius and can not be reduced to a singularity.

I hope you are able to follow the formula. They are a bit complicated but not too difficult. To be continued.

Yours Cosvis.

[MJA]

Dear Cosvic,

Thanks for sharing your knowledge of physics, it's a good thing to know!

You wrote: "...it was a singularity from which the universe was born."

I think: ...and a singularity the universe is and always shall be.

The equation for this simple thought: =

=
MJA

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by MJA

Dear Cosvic,

Thanks for sharing your knowledge of physics, it's a good thing to know!

You wrote: "...it was a singularity from which the universe was born."

I think: ...and a singularity the universe is and always shall be.

The equation for this simple thought: =

=
MJA

Thanks MJA,we need to keep it simple,or as my grandfather used to say before "they" shot him kiss keep it simple stupid!