A Universe from Nothing: Not that hard to understand.

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Feb 3, 2017.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,123
    Is the mass of a molecule different than the sum total mass of the atoms that make up the molecule?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,321
    Well, for starters, water - even pure water - is not simply a single molecule.
    It is composed of free hydrogen ions (H+), free hydroxides (OH-) as well as H20.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,123
    Thank you, I didn't know that. So in effect, a watermolecule would also include the mass of those free atoms?, in addition to H2O. Is there a fixed number of those particles, or does the term "free" indicate an arbitrary amount contained in a water molecule.?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,123
    Link is in post #291
     
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,637
    But where, in that long Wiki article, is there anything about fundamental symbolic constants? I could not see any reference to these.

    SI is a system if units of measure. A unit of measure is not a fundamental constant. It is an arbitrarily chosen quantity, adopted as a standard for convenience.

    Examples of fundamental constants would be the speed of light, c, or Planck's constant, h. Note that these will have different numerical values depending on the system of units in which they are expressed, e.g. c can be expressed in miles per hour or metres per second, etc.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2017
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,637
    Not if one neglects the infinitesimally tiny relativistic effect on mass of the bond energies.

    A hydrogen atom has a mass of 1 atomic unit, an oxygen atom a mass of 16 units and thus a water molecule a mass of 18 units.

    A collection of Avogadro's Number of water molecules has a mass of 18g.

    The qualification about relativity and bond energy arises from the fact that the bound state of water lies at lower energy (i.e. is a more stable state) than the isolated hydrogen and oxygen atoms. This would mean that in theory, since it contains less energy than the isolated atoms its mass would be very slightly less, by E=mc². But the difference is so tiny that nobody would ever bother with it.

    (Such differences in energy due to stability can however be significant when one considers the much stronger bonding between protons and neutrons in an atomic nucleus, i.e. in the realm of nuclear physics rather than chemistry.)
     
    Write4U likes this.
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,637
    Technically true, but perhaps a bit confusing for Write4U, don't you think?

    The dissociation constant for pure water is 10⁻¹⁴, making the concentrations of H30+ and of OH- each equal to 10⁻⁷ (which is why the pH of water is 7).

    So that means only one molecule in every 10 million is dissociated into ions at any given moment.
     
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  11. Xelor Registered Member

    Messages:
    42
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,123
    Does this in any way restrict the formation of bio-chemicals? We are talking about probabilistic events over enormous time spans, by trillions per second throughout the universe.

    Unless someone can prove that mathematically something cannot occur, I remain optimistic that no matter how we hard try to imitate nature in a lab, it has already been there and done that, long before we came on the scene. IMO
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2017
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,637
    No.
     
  14. Nahor87 Registered Member

    Messages:
    71
    E=mc2
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,321
  16. Nahor87 Registered Member

    Messages:
    71
    Don't panic
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,321
    Hm? Oh, I thought we were just posting random bits of stuff we like.
     
  18. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    332
    0 universe = 0 state. 1 universe = 1 state. Observation requires a state of 1, so a state of 0 cannot be observed.
    There is recourse. It is a mathematical logic, where state 0 can be predicted without observation. Stepping lightly, does state 1 arrive out of state 0? If yes, then how? The argument from there goes, Well it has to. So how? It spontaneously appears out of state 0. This is a simple thought experiment with no basis in reality, as is this: You could say state 1 was created by God or a dragon, where God 'existed' outside of the universe as state 2 or -0, but that is extrapolating on nothing observable (which requires 1), which is the definition of faith. You can hold it as true if you want, but it 'cannot' be proven by observation. Can there be an un-observable state 0? Yes, but only as a thought experiment that cannot be observed, and by definition it is empty. There is no basis in 'reality which requires state 1' for state 0.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2017
  19. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    From post # 42 , by karenmansker

    "Much Ado About Nothing" (Ref. Shakespeare) An alternative hypothesis (Yes MODS . . . Alternative . . . move it there if you want!) : I'd proffer that prior to our currrent universe's creation, there was 'something' within the 'nothing' - a (potential) energy field, EF (or an energy potential field?). The EF was pre-existant, became unstable due to quantum fluctuations (or other subquantum mechanisms), all causing (i.e., causality) a thermodynamic cascade (analogy: water cascading over a waterfall?), ergo, our observable (mass/energy) universe has emerged and is evolving from this continuing creation (EGAD! . . . Continuous Creation!! . . . "Who ordered THAT!"). Albeit, we are now stuck with what is/was the source of the energy potential field . . . and . . . (sigh) there we again run up against a metaphysical 'wall'. [BTW: this hypothesis allows a BB, but does NOT require it!!]
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,321
    Then, by definition, it wasn't nothing.
     
  21. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Of course .

    Look at this way ; how does nothing , no matter how you contort nothing , become something ?
     
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,321
    That's kind of the question on the table.
     
  23. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    It isn't on the table at all .

    Something is complete opposite of nothing .

    Nothing has no , depth , breadth , movement therefore no ability to change nor ability to manifest anything for infinity .
     

Share This Page