The 'stuff' of the universe keeps changing

universe
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

The composition of the universe—the elements that are the building blocks for every bit of matter—is ever-changing and ever-evolving, thanks to the lives and deaths of stars.

An outline of how those elements form as stars grow and explode and fade and merge is detailed in a review article published Jan. 31 is the journal Science.

"The universe went through some very interesting changes, where all of a sudden the periodic table—the total number of elements in the universe—changed a lot," said Jennifer Johnson, a professor of astronomy at The Ohio State University and the article's author.

"For 100 million years after the Big Bang, there was nothing but hydrogen, helium and lithium. And then we started to get carbon and oxygen and really important things. And now, we're kind of in the glory days of populating the periodic table."

The periodic table has helped humans understand the elements of the universe since the 1860s, when a Russian chemist, Dmitri Mendeleev, recognized that certain elements behaved the same way chemically, and organized them into a chart—the periodic table.

It is chemistry's way of organizing elements, helping scientists from elementary school to the world's best laboratories understand how materials around the universe come together.

  • The 'stuff' of the universe keeps changing
    The sources of elements in the Universe, from 15 minutes to 8 billion years. Credit: Jennifer Johnson
  • The 'stuff' of the universe keeps changing
    The sources of elements in the Universe, from 15 minutes to 8 billion years. Credit: Jennifer Johnson
  • The 'stuff' of the universe keeps changing
    The sources of elements in the Universe, from 15 minutes to 8 billion years. Credit: Jennifer Johnson
  • The 'stuff' of the universe keeps changing
    The sources of elements in the Universe, from 15 minutes to 8 billion years. Credit: Jennifer Johnson

But, as scientists have long known, the periodic table is just made of stardust: Most elements on the periodic table, from the lightest hydrogen to heavier elements like lawrencium, started in stars.

The table has grown as new elements have been discovered—or in cases of synthetic elements, have been created in laboratories around the world—but the basics of Mendeleev's understanding of atomic weight and the of the universe have held true.

Nucleosynthesis—the process of creating a new —began with the Big Bang, about 13.7 billion years ago. The lightest elements in the universe, hydrogen and helium, were also the first, results of the Big Bang. But heavier elements—just about every other element on the periodic table—are largely the products of the lives and deaths of stars.

Johnson said that high-mass stars, including some in the constellation Orion, about 1,300 from Earth, fuse elements much faster than low-mass stars. These grandiose stars fuse hydrogen and helium into carbon, and turn carbon into magnesium, sodium and neon. High-mass stars die by exploding into supernovae, releasing elements—from oxygen to silicon to selenium—into space around them.

Smaller, low-mass stars—stars about the size of our own Sun—fuse hydrogen and helium together in their cores. That helium then fuses into carbon. When the small star dies, it leaves behind a . White dwarfs synthesize other elements when they merge and explode. An exploding white dwarf might send calcium or iron into the abyss surrounding it. Merging neutron stars might create rhodium or xenon. And because, like humans, stars live and die on different time scales—and because different elements are produced as a star goes through its life and death—the composition of elements in the universe also changes over time.

"One of the things I like most about this is how it takes several different processes for stars to make elements and these processes are interestingly distributed across the periodic table," Johnson said. "When we think of all the elements in the , it is interesting to think about how many stars gave their lives—and not just high-mass stars blowing up into supernovae. It's also some stars like our Sun, and older stars. It takes a nice little range of to give us elements."


Explore further

UNESCO celebrates 150 years of chemistry's periodic table

More information: Jennifer A. Johnson, Populating the periodic table: Nucleosynthesis of the elements, Science (2019). DOI: 10.1126/science.aau9540
Journal information: Science

Citation: The 'stuff' of the universe keeps changing (2019, February 1) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-02-universe.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1654 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 01, 2019
is ever-changing and ever-evolving,

Not the same, then, right? So what's the difference?
"For 100 million years after the Big Bang, there was nothing but hydrogen, helium and lithium. And then we started to get carbon and oxygen and really important things. And now, we're kind of in the glory days of populating the periodic table."
This is simply story telling - there is no observational evidence to back it up.
..and organized them into a chart—the periodic table.
Isn't it strange that random materialistic processes are capable of creating Logically distinguishable characteristics with vast implications for assembly and function? Almost as if to anticipate the creation of planets and life...?

Feb 01, 2019
Notice that Dr Johnson carefully avoids telling us how clouds of gas were able to condense and form the first stars all by themselves with no outside interference in the vacuum of space.
Maybe it's because she assumes that some miraculous invisible and undetectable force was able to overcome the Jeans Mass Limit and get fusion to start and continue unabated.
She also avoids telling us just how those exploding stars were able to broadcast their newly made elements into the clouds of gas so as to form planets around the other stars yet to be born. How did those elements cross over light-years of space to where planets were going to form. And how did so much of it get made when so few traces of exploded stars are around?
Did current stars "form" out of gas or out of clouds of dust? If you're a newly "formed" star, where did you get your dust cloud from to initiate planet "formation"? So many stars - and most with planets - must have been lots of dust going around....!

Feb 01, 2019
is ever-changing and ever-evolving

This phrasing is redundant, since 'evolving' - in a cosmological context - means the same as 'changing'.

On the other hand I would have expected a certain amount of heavy elements also to form early (before stars) with some non-zero probability.

Feb 01, 2019
This is simply story telling - there is no observational evidence to back it up.


Yes fred, we are well aware of what your bibble is.

Feb 01, 2019
repeat post

Feb 01, 2019
repeat post

Feb 01, 2019
SCV, you are a snake. Just reply the comments at hand. Obviously you don't know what to say to it, so you change the subject.

Feb 01, 2019
This is simply story telling - there is no observational evidence to back it up.
---FredJose

Like JaxPaven said in another thread--you're entitled to believe whatever creation story you prefer...

But that Table, as devised by professor Johnson, and the science that backs it up is powerful evidence about what it is that permits you to exist--no matter how creative your personal views may be.

Feb 01, 2019
okeydope bart, here's a reply to your comment.

scv is correct.

you * fred * hax * all the other babble-thumper fools are wrong.

There, better now?

Feb 01, 2019
is ever-changing and ever-evolving,

Not the same, then, right? So what's the difference?
"For 100 million years after the Big Bang, there was nothing but hydrogen, helium and lithium. And then we started to get carbon and oxygen and really important things. And now, we're kind of in the glory days of populating the periodic table."
This is simply story telling - there is no observational evidence to back it up.
FredJose

No. There is evidence to back it up. The evidence comes from something called SCIENCE, which apparently you know absolutely nothing about. Keep your stupid baseless religious beliefs out of it.

Feb 01, 2019
Obviously is, today everyone can be a professor. Good, she does not understand, but is she blind and why is he lying?
-Sun Photospheric composition (by mass)
Hydrogen 73.46%
Helium 24.85%
Oxygen 0.77%
Carbon 0.29%
Iron 0.16%
Neon 0.12%

-Earth Chemical composition
Silica……………SiO2…..60.2%
Alumina………...Al2O3…15.2%
Lime…………….CaO…….5.5%
Magnesia……….MgO……3.1%
iron(II) oxide……FeO…….3.8%
sodium oxide…..Na2O……3.0%
potassium oxide.K2O……..2.8%
iron(III) oxide…...Fe2O3…..2.5%
water…………….H2O…….1.4%
carbon dioxide….CO2…….1.2%
titanium dioxide…TiO2……0.7%

Feb 01, 2019
Oh duckdown, The failure of communication?
Obvious that Professor Johnson doesn't speak your loon quackery.

A while back I was browsing through wikipedia on the subject of Periodic Tables.
I was flabbergasted at the varieties proposed by ingenious researchers.
Some of them are real works of art!

Recently there was an article posted to phys.org. About the discovery of a rare surviving copy of an early table.

Feb 01, 2019
Apparently our Milkyway is 13.5billion years old

A few years shy of this cosmic egg
the first stars burning through their life-time in a few million years flooding our Milkyway with heavy elements
As in all reality our Milkyway is not 13.5billion years old
it is actually 27billion years old as the crow flies
As this crow is the speed of light
this means our Milkyway's been seeding heavy elements for 27billion years
As have all the other galaxies in this Galactic vacuum

Feb 01, 2019
"The 'stuff' of the universe keeps changing"
This is a correct statement from a dialectical point of view which asserts that the universe is infinite, eternal and ever-changing: http://redshift.v...2MAL.pdf

But the claim made here by this Professor of astronomy is based on standard official cosmology (of Big Bang creation in the finite past), is spurious speculation and a mere a deductive tautology and nothing to do with astrophysics! The displayed (so-called) evolutionary Periodic Table is concocted & is mere sophistry. This Professor does not even seem to know the fact that the quasars, which are supposed to be the furthest and the earliest "creations" contains as much iron as the nearby intergalactic dust! https://www.annph...1_0.html


Feb 01, 2019
wonderful tables. How do "dying low mass" stars produce all those heavy elements? What elements do merging black holes produce?

Feb 01, 2019
Obviously is, today everyone can be a professor. Good, she does not understand, but is she blind and why is he lying?
-Sun Photospheric composition (by mass)
Hydrogen 73.46%
Helium 24.85%
Oxygen 0.77%
Carbon 0.29%
Iron 0.16%
Neon 0.12%

-Earth Chemical composition
Silica……………SiO2…..60.2%
Alumina………...Al2O3…15.2%
Lime…………….CaO…….5.5%
Magnesia……….MgO……3.1%
iron(II) oxide……FeO…….3.8%
sodium oxide…..Na2O……3.0%
potassium oxide.K2O……..2.8%
iron(III) oxide…...Fe2O3…..2.5%
water…………….H2O…….1.4%
carbon dioxide….CO2…….1.2%
titanium dioxide…TiO2……0.7%

air, o2, N. animals, c,o, .....How could that be possible?

Feb 01, 2019
Good point
This Professor does not even seem to know the fact that the quasars, which are supposed to be the furthest and the earliest "creations" contains as much iron as the nearby intergalactic dust!

We forgot our iron master of Ironbridge, of the industrial revolution - our Quasars

Feb 01, 2019
@Bigbangcon.
"The 'stuff' of the universe keeps changing"
This is a correct statement from a dialectical point of view which asserts that the universe is infinite, eternal and ever-changing: http://redshift.v...2MAL.pdf

the claim made here by this Professor of astronomy is based on standard official cosmology (of Big Bang creation in the finite past), is spurious speculation and a mere a deductive tautology...!
To make matters worse, these 'publish-or-perish' papers/articles continue to mislead uncritical readers; because most 'science writers' remain totally oblivious to the fact that mainstream is increasingly realising/finding that TREMENDOUS quantities of 'old' ordinary matter has been RECYCLING (deconstructed and ejected to DEEP SPACE) over EONS, via disc-polar-jet systems/processes. Hence all BB-dependent 'fantasy' interpretations/claims re 'timelines', 'proportions', etc are moot. BB 'experts' etc desperately need reality checks. :)

Feb 01, 2019
The Periodic Table could be likened to a book on Ancient History. Nobody alive was there to witness all of the transformations and diversity that came from atoms/particles merging and then transforming into a completely different element due to various changes such as temperatures, E-M and any other natural influences that rendered them either compatible or unable to retain itself as a stable element/unit. The Table exemplifies the beauty and grace of the Natural Order set in the abundance of Time and Space.
Manmade religions have nothing to do with how and why the elements were created and then became so diversified as to transform into something other than the original and with new properties. There too, it can be said that Evolution occurs, and the organic machine is created from inorganic elements.
Once a new element has been added to the Periodic Table, it had better be consistent in its value.

Feb 02, 2019
@ rr
Are you blind or stupid.
It is not difficult (nor) idiot notice, that the stars have 74% hydrogen, 25% helium and 1-1.5% less complex elements, opposite Earth, Moon, Mars. To argue that the stars are creating (instead of decomposed) complex elements is for idiotic from idiots. Look at the real evidence and do not be a lawyer for idiots.

-The Moon Chemical composition
Silica……………SiO2…45.4%..........45.5%
Alumina………..Al2O3..14.9%..........24.0%
Lime…………....CaO….11.8%..........15.9%
iron(II) oxide……FeO….14.1%...........5.9%
magnesia……….MgO…..9.2%...........7.5%
titanium dioxide..TiO2…...3.9%...........0.6%
sodium oxide…...Na2O….0.6%...........0.6%
Total……………………….99.9%.......100.0%
Mars..e plagioclase feldspar NaAlSi3O8 to CaAl2Si2O8; pyroxenes are silicon-aluminium oxides with Ca, Na, Fe, Mg, Zn, Mn, Li replaced with Si and Al; hematite Fe2O3, olivine (Mg+2

Feb 02, 2019
Denying reality based on a Babble about a super magic sky daddy written by drunken stone age sheep herders is psychotic.

Feb 02, 2019
Showing reality based on scientific instruments is a about what we can see. No super magic sky daddy, no drunks, no sheep herders, no stone age maundering.

Feb 02, 2019
Nice graphics!

How do "dying low mass" stars produce all those heavy elements? What elements do merging black holes produce?


The first case is described in the article, white dwarf mergers (or mass accretion from a larger companion) makes supernovas, supernovas make elements through radiative capture of neutrons and protons (s and p processes, IIRC). Black holes may perhaps make elements if they had an accretion disk around one or both, for example the merger release a lot of energy. Though that is speculation from my side and I dunno what has been observed.

So on to the not nice part, the trolling comments that makes erroneous claims and have no references:

story telling

nothing to do with astrophysics

mainstream is increasingly realising/finding that ...

Nobody alive was there to witness


Up front error/irrelevance, see the paper.

[And again for the loons, there are no 'gods', c.f. Planck 2018: 100 % mechanic system.]

Feb 02, 2019
This is simply story telling - there is no observational evidence to back it up.
---FredJose

Like JaxPaven said in another thread--you're entitled to believe whatever creation story you prefer...

But that Table, as devised by professor Johnson, and the science that backs it up is powerful evidence about what it is that permits you to exist--no matter how creative your personal views may be.

Not to quibble, but;
The periodic table has helped humans understand the elements of the universe since the 1860s, when a Russian chemist, Dmitri Mendeleev, recognized that certain elements behaved the same way chemically, and organized them into a chart—the periodic table.

Feb 02, 2019
Denying reality based on a Babble about a super magic sky daddy written by drunken stone age sheep herders is psychotic.

Actually, I'd venture it was the sky daddy who was drunk. Are you aware of all the free floating alcohol around out there in the Universe?
"Here, hold my beer - I wanna try somethin'..."

Feb 02, 2019
I gotta disagree with you bjorn. It is my speculative opinion that this Universe is not mechanical. But rather a frenzy if stochastic processes.

However, that is only on a Universal scale. Locally & temporarily, mechanical processes prevail.

Real Science proves it everyday (or maybe just in this aeon?) with working technology based upon the principles of mechanistic physics.

That is why I concede the superiority of Real Science over the wooloons.
(please do not blow up my city!)

Feb 02, 2019
okeydope bart, here's a reply to your comment.

scv is correct.

you * fred * hax * all the other babble-thumper fools are wrong.

There, better now?
says rrwilliejoe

What you are referring to as "babble-thumpers", as you say due to your ability to not get most things right - the text of the "Holy Bible" is taken LITERALLY by most Christians, Jews and, I assume. Muslims who regard Jesus Christ as a Prophet. The Bible, for the most part, depicts the history of the original Jews/Hebrews who believed that they had been 'chosen' by the Creator God to be His chosen people - simply because they acknowledged His Presence and the Laws that He expected them to follow and to not disobey. They disobeyed anyway while still believing that they had entered into some sort of bargain with God, as long as they made their prayers, built altars, sacrificed lambs and goats, circumcised their boys and male servants, gave money to poor Jews, read the Torah and kept kosher.
-contd-

Feb 02, 2019
-contd-
@rrwilliejoe
So the gist of the Bible actually starts when the father of Abraham and Sarah, (Abraham's half-sister/wife) bade them farewell and the couple, their brother, Lot, and their servants and flocks traveled all the way to the Near East region where the Filistines (Philistines) - now referred to as the Palestinians had their villages, which are now in the state of Israel. The rest is history.
However, in Genesis - the scribes who wrote that portion of the Bible had misrepresented the Truth of God's Creation of, not only the Earth and Moon, but also of the Stars, and, by extension - the whole Universe and its Laws. This is why the first several parts of Genesis seem topsy-turvy and really messed up, because that is the way it was written by the ancient scribes who, as humans often do, create their own rambling versions of the truth instead of what is, is - and quite often, in the wrong sequence of events. This is why those who have read Genesis are often puzzled

Feb 02, 2019
-contd-
@poor deluded rrwilliejoe
OK I have to admit that it isn't only Atheists that are deluded with regard to their opinions of the Holy Bible being mythical, particularly Genesis - it is also religious Christians, Jews and, of course, Muslims who believe that the Earth, Moon and Stars were all created within 6 whole days and nights. THAT is a delusion. For one thing - there is the 24/7/365 timeframes of the Earth, as opposed to the Cosmic timeframe which is what the Holy Angels expected the scribes (who wrote Genesis) to understand and to show their comprehension of the meaning of "Natural Events".
The Earth is but ONE place where 24/7/365 timeframe exists - other planets orbiting their Stars all have differing timeframes from each other. But the COSMIC TIMEFRAME NEVER VARIES. It is ALWAYS the same no matter where in the Universe one goes. And this is what seems to not have been fully explained to the scribes who were taking dictation from one or more of the Holy Angels.

Feb 02, 2019
says FredJose
Notice that Dr Johnson carefully avoids telling us how clouds of gas were able to condense and form the first stars all by themselves with no outside interference in the vacuum of space.


That Dr Johnson omitted telling it is irrelevant. Perhaps she is a Creationist and wishes to avoid having to go through the insults and quackery from fellow Scientists who are atheists.
There are the LAWS of the Universe, Fred. Natural Laws that govern when, where and on what conditions are Stars to be created. The First Stars were, of course, CREATED by a "program" that was designed BY the Creator God. After their creation in the emptiness of the early Universe, the Program/Algorithm extended to the next Stars that followed the same LAWS and the Program/algorithms in order to become new Stars. There are no coincidences.
The Universe is a Mechanical achievement - like a clockwork of infinite duration. As the wheels and gears of the clock turn and click - Stars are created


Feb 02, 2019
-contd-
@FredJose
Stars do not get created just for the sake of being and existing. There are many many conditions that have to be met - otherwise, the dust and gas clouds remain as they are. There is also the TIMING of the cosmic clockwork that determines when and if Stars are created. So that it's self-defeating to expend energy wondering WHY the gas and dust clouds aren't doing anything to create a Star or HOW it happens. Stars need plenty of room to grow and take in the "fuel" from the dust and gas that is available. I don't believe that it was the Creator's intention for every bit of dust and gas to be transformed into Stars. Both Jupiter and Saturn could have become small Stars, but for their small sizes and lack of enough fuel to sustain a good burn/fusion.

Feb 02, 2019
says FredJose
She also avoids telling us just how those exploding stars were able to broadcast their newly made elements into the clouds of gas so as to form planets around the other stars yet to be born. How did those elements cross over light-years of space to where planets were going to form. And how did so much of it get made when so few traces of exploded stars are around?


Not all Stars have planets or Moons orbiting them. So that any newly-made elements that were expelled from an exploding Supernova would be traveling at a great enough velocity to escape being drawn/pulled back into the vicinity of the dead Star. Dust and gases are forms of Matter that are available in the event that a protostar requires that material to become a full-blown Star. The dust and gas travels along with the Galaxy to which it is attached. If there isn't enough of the material, then there is no Star formation. It's like a car's petrol tank about to become empty - even of fumes.


Feb 02, 2019
"Laws of the Universe"?
So servialmaximouse.
When did you gain
the authority
to dictate creation?

To parry-a-phrase:
Laws are born.
Laws live.
& then, Laws die.

Feb 02, 2019
SEU,
However, in Genesis - the scribes who wrote that portion of the Bible had misrepresented the Truth of God's Creation of, not only the Earth and Moon, but also of the Stars, and, by extension - the whole Universe and its Laws.
This is why the first several parts of Genesis seem topsy-turvy and really messed up, because that is the way it was written by the ancient scribes who, as humans often do, create their own rambling versions of the truth instead of what is, is - and quite often, in the wrong sequence of events. This is why those who have read Genesis are often puzzled

You forgot to mention all the other various scribes/copiers who have done the same thing over the years...
By the time it gets here - might as well use it for TP...

Feb 02, 2019
Denying reality based on a Babble about a super magic sky daddy written by drunken stone age sheep herders is psychotic.

Actually, I'd venture it was the sky daddy who was drunk. Are you aware of all the free floating alcohol around out there in the Universe?
"Here, hold my beer - I wanna try somethin'..."
Actually, it's "Here! Watch this!" and usually precedes catastrophes of various severity.

Feb 02, 2019
The amazing thing about what Mendeleev did was that it preceded any notions of the atomic and nuclear structure, but turned out to be right and to be directly connected to those structures. Mendeleev's Periodic Table of the Elements was a watershed in atomic and nuclear physics, and is still used today.

Feb 02, 2019
I have often wondered why creationists feel competent to comment on the Big Bang, and why non-scientists feel competent to comment on science.

Feb 02, 2019
Actually, I'd venture it was the sky daddy who was drunk. Are you aware of all the free floating alcohol around out there in the Universe?
"Here, hold my beer - I wanna try somethin'..."
Actually, it's "Here! Watch this!" and usually precedes catastrophes of various severity.

I was using a punchline from a joke about last words before a fatal accident...
So... yeah

Feb 03, 2019
@ s e u
The composition of super-new and nebula remains. exactly reveals lies from the article. There are no complex elements there. The chemical composition is much smaller than the chemical composition of the stars.
"All nebulae observed in the Milky Way Galaxy .. Their chemical composition, however, is fairly uniform; it corresponds to the composition of the universe in general in that approximately 90 percent of the constituentatoms are hydrogen and nearly all the rest are helium, with oxygen, carbon, neon, nitrogen, and the other elements together making up about two atoms per thousand." https://www.brita...e/nebula

Feb 03, 2019
Dudebro doesn't "believe in" the Periodic Table of the Elements.

According to this wingding, there aren't any "complex elements." One has to assume this means anything with an atomic weight over 20 or so.

Feb 03, 2019
@d s
"Believing" is your field, my evidence. In a table with more than 100 elements, you claim that the first twenty complex (the remaining 90 are simple) elements.
The theme is, proving lies from the article, that the stars after the explosion create complex elements.
There are almost all elements on Earth from the table (exclude artificially created elements). Composition of the stars, Earth, clouds .. I attached. Earth is a top in complex elements, the star is the bottom (with the chemical composition of nebulae and the Universe).
These are official evidence (see link). There are no, here, beliefs.
You're smart, show your evidence! Please do not attach the Bible and Youtube.

Feb 03, 2019
No, son, I require evidence better than that from your claims, and you have none. Whereas gamma ray spectroscopic evidence from GW20170817 provides all I need.

This was published over a year ago: https://arxiv.org...10.05463


Feb 03, 2019
For starters, let's check out Glenn Seaborg, Nobel Prize Winner in Chemistry, 1951: https://en.wikipe..._Seaborg

These trolls will spam anyone. It's disgusting.

Feb 03, 2019
I have often wondered why creationists feel competent to comment on the Big Bang, and why non-scientists feel competent to comment on science.
......using this reasoning begs the question as to why YOU are here?

Feb 03, 2019
I have often wondered why creationists feel competent to comment on the Big Bang, and why non-scientists feel competent to comment on science.
......using this reasoning begs the question as to why YOU are here?


Talking to yourself, janitor-boy? Cretin.

Feb 03, 2019
^^^^^^Can he cure Dunning-Kruger syndrome? If so, Benni is in urgent need of his help.

Feb 03, 2019
Yeah, "Here, hold my beer, I am gonna try something..."

And here we are, billions of years later, Still looking at the mess made!

Feb 03, 2019

But that Table, as devised by professor Johnson...

Not to quibble, but;
The periodic table has helped humans understand the elements of the universe since the 1860s, when a Russian chemist, Dmitri Mendeleev, recognized that certain elements behaved the same way chemically, and organized them into a chart—the periodic table.

Good quibble Whydening Gyre. Better I'd said "...as depicted by professor Johnson..."

Feb 03, 2019
Yeah, "Here, hold my beer, I am gonna try something..."

And here we are, billions of years later, Still looking at the mess made!

And what a beautiful mess it is! Staggering in depth as in it is width.
Sometimes I wonder... maybe too much.

Feb 03, 2019
obscurerist, good question but you misunderstand the several purposes of this site.

Myself. I like to putter around the sciences. I am a satirist & I enjoy pricking the pompous.
No, no, of course I did not mean you ob!
(osst. do you think he believed me?)

First purpose, lots of clickbait headlines to get the eyeballs on the ads. Those pay the salaries. The business of business is business,

The most important, is the public service phy.org provides. By ensnaring the wooloons & stuporstitious. Diverting the crazies from bollixing up the channels of communication between real scientists. A sheeple pen to keep the bleating from becoming a public nuisance.

In addition to providing a collection of thesis material for the Mental Health & Social Sciences students monitoring the commentators.

As much as these prats hate (fear) the psych specialties?
It would make their heads explode if they ever realized their contribution to graduating so many psych students.

Feb 03, 2019
@ da sch
"The cosmic origin of the elements heavier than iron has long been uncertain. Theoretical modelling shows that the matter that is expelled in the violent merger of two neutron stars can assemble into heavy elements such as gold and platinum in a process known as rapid neutron capture (r-process) nucleosynthesis."

Is that your evidence? Your theory (without proof) against official evidence (chemical composition of stars and planets). I do not congratulate you. I congratulate your supporters who are also without any sense of mind.

Feb 03, 2019
Benni

When I'm insulted, I consider the source.

Feb 03, 2019
Denying reality based on a Babble about a super magic sky daddy written by drunken stone age sheep herders is psychotic.

Actually, I'd venture it was the sky daddy who was drunk. Are you aware of all the free floating alcohol around out there in the Universe?
"Here, hold my beer - I wanna try somethin'..."
says Whyde

Uh..free floating alcohol "out there"? Please don't tell me that the Trappist monks have started a brewery in outer space now.
I know that YOU have noticed that Da Schniebo always manages to inject his Babble super magic sky daddy drunken sheep herders delusion/falsehood into almost every physorg phorum that might draw the religious folks in, to deride what they wish to express.
Da Schniebo alias Da Pussyman (and some others in this website) has damned his own Soul that he doesn't believe that he has - so that when all of the cells of his body retaliate by becoming cancerous - Da Schniebo (whoever he is) will fear death - the end of his life

Feb 03, 2019
-contd-
@Whyde
Take care, Whyde - not to fall into the same trap that Da Schneebo finds himself in - where he seizes on every opportunity to make fun of the Creator God. Although Schneebo might think that he is not really making fun of the Creator God when he uses words like "Babble" and "super magic sky daddy" instead of Bible and God - I/We already KNOW what is in his heart and mind - thus, he in his Soul (after we take his Soul from the rotting flesh of his body) will suffer greatly for all eternity. That I can promise you.
The body is only the material part of the Soul, FYI. The cells of the material body - the molecules that consist of the cells - the elements that make up the molecules - the atoms that make up the elements - the quantum particles that make up the atoms - they will ALL reduce to their humble origins. But Da Schneebo's filthy blackened Soul remains to suffer the horrors and pain for all eternity for what he has done while his trillions of cells were alive.

Feb 03, 2019
If its worth saying
obscurerist you misunderstand the several purposes of this site
I like to putter around the sciences am a satirist I enjoy pricking the pompous
No of course I did not mean you ob
osst do you think he believed me
First purpose lots of clickbait headlines to get the eyeballs on the ads Those pay the salaries The business of business is business
The most important is the public service phy.org provides By ensnaring the wooloons & stuporstitious. Diverting the crazies from bollixing up the channels of communication between real scientists A sheeple pen to keep the bleating from becoming a public nuisance.
In addition to providing a collection of thesis material for the Mental Health & Social Sciences students monitoring the commentators
Much as these prats hate fear the psych specialties
It would make their heads explode if they ever realized their contribution to graduating so many psych students

Its worth repeating

Feb 03, 2019
Benni

When I'm insulted, I consider the source.


I know, because Benni knows how to solve Differential Equations & you don't, I give you something to aspire to.

Feb 03, 2019
"Laws of the Universe"?
So servialmaximouse.
When did you gain
the authority
to dictate creation?

To parry-a-phrase:
Laws are born.
Laws live.
& then, Laws die.
says rrwilliejoe

I/We were not given the authority to dictate the Creation - but we had learnt of it. So I am uncertain as to whom you were actually referring - having such authority. Surely you don't mean that FredJose, Bart_A , granville or Whyde had that authority to dictate the Creation.
Perhaps you had meant the dictation of the first book of the Bible - which is Genesis? No, I was not the one who provided the dictation to the scribes.

As to Laws - no Law is "born", so where did you get such a silly idea? There are MANMADE Laws that are often changed/changeable - according to which dictator or Party is in power.
And there are the Laws of Nature that were authorised by the Creator God - those Laws being immutable and unchangeable - and to which all Matter/Energy is subject. Thermodynamics is one

Feb 03, 2019
As to Laws - no Law is "born", so where did you get such a silly idea? There are MANMADE Laws that are often changed/changeable - according to which dictator or Party is in power.
And there are the Laws of Nature that were authorised by the Creator God - those Laws being immutable and unchangeable - and to which all Matter/Energy is subject. Thermodynamics is one


"Thermodynamics is one" as being the most notable 2nd Law of Thermodynmaics, ENTROPY.

Entropy is the reason black holes & Dark Energy & other perpetual motion machinations don't exist.

Entropy is hated by the Pop-Cosmology clan living in this chatroom because entropy is the most self-governing of all the immutable laws of physics, it never needs tweeking or updating.

It would be a lighter load for Pop-Cosmology to carry if they simply accede to self-governance that carry no visible evidence something is guiding it to an unpredictable END. Entropy is completely predictable, dark energy is not.

Feb 03, 2019
Yeah, "Here, hold my beer, I am gonna try something..."

And here we are, billions of years later, Still looking at the mess made!
says Steelwolf

As you can see in the world around you - there are messes, and there are successes.

Most of the "messes" were and are prompted by you humans who are so inept at understanding that you are all "here" - on THIS planet - only to determine whether or not you "belong".
And that determination is determined by the "choices" that you humans make during your lifetime. There are some/certain animals that have made better choices - and not all of them are Soulless.
Only humans deliberately make bad choices and are unremorseful - even happy in their unhappiness and messes. The Creator God (whose existence in which you don't believe) fully expects humans to make messes - as that is the unfortunate nature of Man.

Feb 03, 2019
@rrwilliejoe
ROFLOL
I have just recently noticed that you have transformed the user name "observicist" into "obscurerist". That may refer to an Observer turning into an Obscurer or Obscurantist - both of which seem an adequate impression of said commentator.

Feb 03, 2019
I have often wondered why creationists feel competent to comment on the Big Bang, and why non-scientists feel competent to comment on science.
says observicist aka obscurerist, courtesy of rrwilliejoe

Feb 03, 2019
I have often wondered why creationists feel competent to comment on the Big Bang, and why non-scientists feel competent to comment on science.
says observicist aka obscurerist, courtesy of rrwilliejoe's renaming abilities


You seem perturbed by the freedom felt by Creationists and those who adhere to a religion to express their thoughts in the physorg phorums. Why? Do you imagine that YOU are far more competent to make comments on the science that you have learnt from books, journals, science papers, phyorg articles, seminars, webinars, and word of mouth? Why, and what right do you have to dictate what is to be said and who says it in a science website? You are free to disagree with them; and they are free to disagree with what you have learnt. You are not any better, for all of your book learning, and your arrogance and pomposity and lack of humility are clearly an embarrassment to yourself - whether or not you take it as such. It is well noted.

Feb 03, 2019
∂²Ψ/∂x² + ∂²Ψ/∂y² + ∂²Ψ/∂z² = ?

There's a partial differential equation for you, @Benni. What's the solution? And what is the name of this PDE?

For extra credit, what are the partial differentials with respect to?

Feb 03, 2019
Actually, I'd venture it was the sky daddy who was drunk. Are you aware of all the free floating alcohol around out there in the Universe?
"Here, hold my beer - I wanna try somethin'..."
says Whyde

Uh..free floating alcohol "out there"? Please don't tell me that the Trappist monks have started a brewery in outer space now.

https://phys.org/...ace.html


Feb 03, 2019
∂²ψ/∂x² + ∂²ψ/∂y² + ∂²ψ/∂z² = − [(px²py²+pz²)/h²]ψ

Schroedinger's

Feb 03, 2019
"Thermodynamics is one" as being the most notable 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY.

Notice that it is set down by Men...
Entropy is not unidirectional - That's what makes it predictable.

Entropy is the reason black holes & Dark Energy & other perpetual motion machinations don't exist.

Silly rabbit. It is WHY they exist...

Entropy is hated by the Pop-Cosmology clan living in this chatroom because entropy is the most self-governing of all the immutable laws of physics, it never needs tweaking or updating.

I LOVE entropy. BECAUSE it self governs.
That said, I think you need to re-examine your own understanding of "entropy'.


Feb 03, 2019
SEU

Say whatever you like; I simply wonder why you do so.

This is a physics site, not a theology site.

Feb 03, 2019
Actually, I'd venture it was the sky daddy who was drunk. Are you aware of all the free floating alcohol around out there in the Universe?
"Here, hold my beer - I wanna try somethin'..."
says Whyde

Uh..free floating alcohol "out there"? Please don't tell me that the Trappist monks have started a brewery in outer space now.

https://phys.org/...ace.html

says Whyde

Not fair, Whyde. That article is from 2014, which I never saw.
Methyl alcohol is poison. I don't think that the Trappist monks would brew that stuff out there. Well, maybe on one of the planets of Trappist 1.....maybe.
:)

Feb 03, 2019
∂²Ď�/∂x² + ∂²Ď�/∂y² + ∂²Ď�/∂z² = − [(px²py²+pz²)/h²]Ď�

Schroedinger's

Goggle works pretty good that way, doesn't it.
But...
YOu were supposed to let Benni do it. He's just hopeless, not helpless...

Feb 03, 2019
Actually, I'd venture it was the sky daddy who was drunk. Are you aware of all the free floating alcohol around out there in the Universe?
"Here, hold my beer - I wanna try somethin'..."
says Whyde

Uh..free floating alcohol "out there"? Please don't tell me that the Trappist monks have started a brewery in outer space now.

https://phys.org/...ace.html

says Whyde

Not fair, Whyde. That article is from 2014, which I never saw.

You don't get out much, do ya...
It said MOSTLY methyl. with some ethyl mixed in.
And to an Omnipotent Creator, that shouldn't pose a prob, should it?

And...
while not all of them will be about that free floating methyl or ethyl alcohol in space, Google can present you roughly 640,000,000 references to alcohol in space...

Feb 03, 2019
SEU

Say whatever you like; I simply wonder why you do so.

This is a physics site, not a theology site.
says obs

No duhhh....really? I half expected that The Pope himself would be sitting in.
But actually - The Study that is referred to as Science depends largely on that which has been discovered and recorded as Science Fact. Science was the actions taken by the early scientists such as Galileo Galilei, Copernicus, et al, who were the driving forces that taught the Church leaders that the Natural Order existed. After some time thereafter, the Church could no longer stay the course without acknowledging that discoveries were being made about the natural world/worlds. So they had to relent and include the science facts into Church doctrines. But as I've said many times - the Creation itself - before, during and afterwards - has NOTHING TO DO with church doctrines, those doctrines which are MANMADE and came long long long after the Creation happened.

Feb 03, 2019
∂²ÄŽď��/∂x² + ∂²ÄŽď��/∂y² + ∂²ÄŽď��/∂z² = − [(px²py²+pz²)/h²]ÄŽď��

Schroedinger's

Goggle works pretty good that way, doesn't it.
But...
YOu were supposed to let Benni do it. He's just hopeless, not helpless...
says Whyde

LOL Awww I thought I'd take a crack at it. Don't get peeved over it. Anyway, Benni is probably too busy to respond to Da Pussyman.

Feb 03, 2019
Actually, I'd venture it was the sky daddy who was drunk. Are you aware of all the free floating alcohol around out there in the Universe?
"Here, hold my beer - I wanna try somethin'..."
says Whyde

Uh..free floating alcohol "out there"? Please don't tell me that the Trappist monks have started a brewery in outer space now.

https://phys.org/news/2014-09

says Whyde

Not fair, Whyde. That article is from 2014, which I never saw.

You don't get out much, do ya...
It said MOSTLY methyl. with some ethyl mixed in.
And to an Omnipotent Creator, that shouldn't pose a prob, should it?

And...
while not all of them will be about that free floating methyl or ethyl alcohol in space, Google can present you roughly 640,000,000 references to alcohol in space...
says Whyde

Be that as it may - I am certain that the Creator has much better things to do in His Universe than to imbibe free floating alcoholic beverages

Feb 03, 2019
Drinking and driving is a no-no. And now that Elon Musk has launched his gorgeous red Corvette into the wild blue outer space - there may be more of a reason to take that baby for a ride. LOL
Whoever finds it first - I wish them good luck.

Feb 03, 2019
SEU

You know no more about any creation event than does my pet Blue Tic Beagle (Lady Bugglesworth MacBeagle, familiarly known as Lady Bug, Miss Bug, Buggles, or Bug). My other dog, Ares, being a god, probably knows, but he's not telling -- if he told anyone, it would be my third dog, King Leonidas II, but he hasn't.

No one knows anything about any creation event, including whether there even was one, which is why I, personally, wish you would stop gabbing on about it.

Feb 03, 2019
Schroedinger's
Bzzzzt. Nope.

Feb 03, 2019
SEU

You know no more about any creation event than does my pet Blue Tic Beagle (Lady Bugglesworth MacBeagle, familiarly known as Lady Bug, Miss Bug, Buggles, or Bug). My other dog, Ares, being a god, probably knows, but he's not telling -- if he told anyone, it would be my third dog, King Leonidas II, but he hasn't.

No one knows anything about any creation event, including whether there even was one, which is why I, personally, wish you would stop gabbing on about it.
says obstructionist

So you have made your false argument against the Creator and His Works to include your flea-bitten pets, as though they might bolster your philosophy. It doesn't, of course.
Therefore YOU, personally, may wish all you want - it doesn't change the Truth by any means, that your Soul will be taken after you draw your last breath, just as will happen to Da Schneibo and Captain Beelzebub.
You would not even exist if the Creation hadn't happened - but believe as you will.

Feb 03, 2019
https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

This is what they teach their spawn.

Feb 04, 2019
SEU

Please read what I wrote, again; your reading comprehension needs work.

I wrote nothing whatsoever about any creator; what I wrote was about you, specifically.

I'll make it easier for you: you know nothing about any creation event. You really don't. And you never will.

Feb 04, 2019
Da Schneib

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dw5PpIgVAAIIVyd.jpg:large

This is what they teach their spawn.


I'm beginning to understand that. It's too bad, really.

Feb 04, 2019
Benni

When I'm insulted, I consider the source.


I know, because Benni knows how to solve Differential Equations & you don't, I give you something to aspire to.


So, you're an idiot savant then?

I don't usually respond to your posts, because I don't care for pointless arguments with people not susceptible to reason and not interested in meaningful discussion, but I do note that you rarely, if ever, contribute anything of substance to discussions here, but do incessantly point out that you are capable of solving differential equations. I do not know what things are like in your country, but where I'm from, that's part of high school mathematics for everyone who chooses a science-oriented high school curriculum, and hardly a feat that sets you apart from any first year university student in a hard-science discipline.

So, I really am interested to hear why you think this trivial capability is so important and has any relevance in assessing your qualities.

Feb 04, 2019
Especially considering that @Benni can't solve two different ones when presented with them. So much for the idiot savant hypothesis.

Feb 04, 2019
∂²Ψ/∂x² + ∂²Ψ/∂y² + ∂²Ψ/∂z² = ?

Just as a reminder.

Feb 04, 2019
Benni

When I'm insulted, I consider the source.


I know, because Benni knows how to solve Differential Equations & you don't, I give you something to aspire to.


Lol. From the idiot who can't even do simple maths. As proven.

Feb 04, 2019
Especially considering that @Benni can't solve two different ones when presented with them. So much for the idiot savant hypothesis.


Well, if so that would leave "idiot savant" without the "savant" part.

I would still be interested to hear why Benni is of the opinion that the ability to solve differential equations is the most important factor in determining the value of a contributor's views on any given science article that does not directly relate to differential calculus.

Feb 04, 2019
In The Beginning there was a great Void, and this void was shaped much akin to a bowl. God did fill this void with great amounts of matter, green, crystally and of pungent smell. In another void, directly below the first and shaped as a globe, God created great volumes of water, pure and cold.

God then spoke: "OK, who has a Light?" and Lo, a Lighter was given unto Him. God directed His Lighter at the Void filled with green and did inhale deeply, drawing the vapours from the Green into His very body and declared it Good. (In fact He inhaled so deeply and so long that His friends chided him about 'Bogarting' a reference that He would not get for many billions of years.)

God then did blow His smoke out into yet another void and in so doing did create what we see as our Universe of swirls of gas and dust, smoke from His lungs which in his imagination gained a life of it's own and we see as our Universe today.

This is my Creation Story called the Big Bong Theory.

Feb 04, 2019
Especially considering that @Benni can't solve two different ones when presented with them. So much for the idiot savant hypothesis.


Well, if so that would leave "idiot savant" without the "savant" part.

I would still be interested to hear why Benni is of the opinion that the ability to solve differential equations is the most important factor in determining the value of a contributor's views on any given science article that does not directly relate to differential calculus.
It's a long sad story, about two or three years deep, but the upshot is this isn't the first time @Benni has been presented with DEs and been unable to "solve" them despite all its claims.

Feb 04, 2019
I gathered as much, but regardless of Benni's ability (or lack thereof) to solve differential equations, I am curious as to why this ability would have any bearing on the value of comments on scientific topics that do not directly involve differential calculus. I'm guessing that the reality-based answer would be "it doesn't", but still, Benni obviously thinks it does, so I'd be interested to hear why that is.

Feb 04, 2019
Well, that's a good question, I guess, if you're involved in psychological research.

Among many other uses, PDEs are used in relativity, and @Benni doesn't "believe in" relativity, so it tries to either subsume or denigrate DEs in general to pretend it has some as-yet unrevealed "proof" relativity is wrong that the rest of us here can't figure out because we can't "solve" PDEs.

This is obvious psychotic ideation, if you want to put some notes down.

DEs are where @Benni feels the rest of us "fail," despite the fact that it obviously cannot deal with them rationally, since it doesn't have the training necessary to do so.

Feb 04, 2019
"Differential equations" has become a thing to @Benni, something it knows it cannot ever understand (or at least it believes so) and therefore something no one else can either.

For reference you should see its comments on half-life and average lifetime of subatomic particles.

Feb 04, 2019
That sounds like a fairly reasonable explanation. The reason I'm wondering is because I can't really pin down what Benni's angle is. There are numerous, let's say less-than-meaningful-contributors, on this site, and most of them are easily classified - religious anti-science fanatics, conspiracy theorists who think 'real science' is suppressed (electric universe and others), political extremists (especially active in AGW topics) and a few, like Otto, who appear to be simply argumentative for the sake of it (which doesn't mean that they never push BS and/or have other personal issues they are expressing). Benni doesn't seem to fit into any of those categories, so it makes me wonder what he thinks he is doing.

Feb 04, 2019
Anything I might hypothesize about @Benni's motivations would be speculative at best since I cannot imagine a mindset that deals with reality in that manner. It makes up stories that are only marginally internally consistent, never mind externally, about physics, and particularly astrophysics. Most here see it as yet another irritation to go with the religious anti-science fanatics. conspiracy theorists, and political extremists, and the outright trolls who don't care about anything but whether they get a response of some kind.

TBQH I am far past caring.

Feb 04, 2019
Anything I might hypothesize about @Benni's motivations would be speculative
.......it's ONLY because unlike yourself, and the rest of the Pop-Cosmology clan living in this chatroom, Benni doesn't live in a fantasyland of perpetual motion.

Benni lives & works in the REAL Universe where the orderly physics of ENTROPY & where the orderly physics of CONSTANT MASS=CONSTANT GRAVITY rules everywhere, no exceptions, & none of you foul mouthed name calling ranters in the Pop-Cosmology clans can FALSIFY those IMMUTABLE laws.

Not a one of you in the Pop-Cosmology crowd living here have EVER attempted to take on an issue like trying to FALSIFY the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics & replacing it with the absolute silliness that it can be precluded by Dark Energy, therefore none of you will engage in any discussion of ENTROPY, you never sat in that classroom solving those Differential Equations.


Feb 04, 2019
∂²Ψ/∂x² + ∂²Ψ/∂y² + ∂²Ψ/∂z² = ?

What's the answer, @Benni?

Feb 04, 2019
∂²Ψ/∂x² + ∂²Ψ/∂y² + ∂²Ψ/∂z² = ?

What's the answer, @Benni?
.......OK, you be the one explaining how it FALSIFIES entropy.

Feb 04, 2019
Has nothing to do with entropy. Has to do with you claiming to be able to "solve differential equations."

Obviously and blatantly, you cannot. Here's one:

∂²Ψ/∂x² + ∂²Ψ/∂y² + ∂²Ψ/∂z² = ?

Now "solve" it. Or admit you lied.

Feb 04, 2019
This is simple stuff. Simple mechanics. Invented in the nineteenth century and taught to every physics student in their freshmen year. You either got it or you don't, and @Benni, you don't. Your claim to be any kind of engineer is obviously false. You aren't even qualified to be a technician.

Feb 04, 2019
you never sat in that classroom solving those Differential Equations.


Well, you certainly didn't.

Feb 04, 2019
I gotta disagree with you bjorn. It is my speculative opinion that this Universe is not mechanical. But rather a frenzy if stochastic processes.


I think you mean Torbjorn.

But I was referring to the 2018 3d data release from Planck. It is robust: two independent ways (CMB area and polarization) integrate all cosmological data, including the tension in the local Hubble velocity, and distinguish the type of inflation (slow roll). And from inflation it is perfectly flat space to 100 %, so we can sum over all the objects and their work (energy differences) that is included in the cosmological system general relativistic (and thermodynamic) constrained process.

And yes, stochastic mechanisms is a large part of the mechanical process - but for sure we can now see that no magical activity 'gods' has ever or will ever be part of nature.

Feb 04, 2019
thamks torbjorn for correcting me.
Yes I understand the results you were discussing. To the best of my limited capacity. I certainly have no argument with such verifiable empirical results.
Or even with the conclusions drawn from such research. Makes the technology sing. don't it?

Just as using terms such as Black Holes or metamaterials are placeholders for phenomena we do not yet have more precise definitions. So I use the term Coyote Trickster Goddess as a temporary placeholder for the yet inexplicable "Why" this Universe is such a mucked-up mess.

Yes, your mechanistic physics actually works. At this time in Time. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting the known facts. The MP rules & regulations did not exist during the Big Bang?
& still have some unresolved issues as too how Universal those "Laws" actually are?

I do not accept the reality of the supernatural nor religious dogmas, Thus I am a materialist-atheist.

As a satirist I am a devotee of Coyote.

Feb 04, 2019
Must be awful being benni. So frustrated that the world has gone insane and is completely oblivious to the truths only they and a few other enlightened ones know. To be trapped in a world of obfuscation and lies, so that the evil egotistical "popular scientists" can roll around in their glory and opulent lives full of riches and carnal pleasures at the expense of the public's ignorance of the universe. Oh how the tyranny of the establishment would fall if only people knew black holes were a lie.

Just step back for a second benni and look at the global social structure, across many diverse and competing groups, that it would require for your position to be true. Either some crazy large percentage of scientists are just wrong (and you are right), or all the institutions, including all the admin and all the industries that support the various involved fields are engaged in a systematic international effort to lie to the public of all people... about black holes....

Feb 04, 2019
@ rr
Are you blind or stupid.
It is not difficult (nor) idiot notice, that the stars have 74% hydrogen, 25% helium and 1-1.5% less complex elements, opposite Earth, Moon, Mars. To argue that the stars are creating (instead of decomposed) complex elements is for idiotic from idiots. Look at the real evidence and do not be a lawyer for idiots.
...

Wducks,
They don't necessarily create them when they are an active star. When stars go nova and supernova they produce heavier elements. (Via additional heat and compression shock, to name just a couple)
A star's "remnants" are what make up planets and comets and asteroids.

Feb 04, 2019
...

Just step back for a second benni and look at the global social structure, across many diverse and competing groups, that it would require for your position to be true. Either some crazy large percentage of scientists are just wrong (and you are right), or all the institutions, including all the admin and all the industries that support the various involved fields are engaged in a systematic international effort to lie to the public of all people... about black holes....

Turning,
"All the world's a stage..."
Even Shakespeare knew about the evil worldwide "conspiracy"... :-)

Feb 04, 2019
∂²Ψ/∂x² + ∂²Ψ/∂y² + ∂²Ψ/∂z² = ?

What's the answer, @Benni?
.......OK, you be the one explaining how it FALSIFIES entropy.

"Bbzzzzttt…" Wrong answer.
I said it before and I'll say it again.
You need to revise your understanding of "entropy"... :-)

Feb 04, 2019
@Whyde, don't forget that after GW 20170817, they found evidence (gamma ray spectroscopy) that a lot of heavy elements (that is, higher atomic mass and number than iron) got created during the neutron star merger and they're now spreading into a nebula.

One of the problems with the hypothesis that heavy elements get created in supernovae is that, actually, they don't seem to be. Most of what gets created seems to be elements lighter than iron, which is not surprising as iron is at the bottom of the packing fraction curve. There was an article on here after GW 20170817 about this. It specifically mentioned gold, but that was just for clickbait.

Feb 04, 2019
SEU

Say whatever you like; I simply wonder why you do so.

This is a physics site, not a theology site.
sys obscurerist

Why are you so concerned with what I say? Have I made insinuations about you with regard to your personality, your character, and your obvious egocentricity by which you seem to reflect poorly on those with whom you disagree? Where did you come from? How long have you been commenting on these physorg phorums? Are you someone's sock poopie or do you just fall in line with those whom you believe to be popular due to their 5 ratings?

Personally, I couldn't care less - so that I will not also tell you to "say whatever you like; I simply wonder why you do so".
As I am a Creationist, not a theologist - your mischaracterization of me or your attempt thereof, is of no concern to me.

Feb 04, 2019
∂²Ψ/∂x² + ∂²Ψ/∂y² + ∂²Ψ/∂z² = ?

What's the answer, @Benni?
.......OK, you be the one explaining how it FALSIFIES entropy.

"Bbzzzzttt…" Wrong answer.
I said it before and I'll say it again.
You need to revise your understanding of "entropy"... :-)
says Whyde

Another crack at it coming up -

∂²ψ/∂t²−∂²ψ/∂x²−∂²ψ/∂y²−∂²ψ/∂z²=0

Feb 04, 2019
@ rr
It is not difficult (nor) idiot notice, that the stars have 74% hydrogen, 25% helium and 1-1.5% less complex elements, opposite Earth, Moon, Mars. To argue that the stars are creating (instead of decomposed) complex elements is for idiotic from idiots. Look at the real evidence and do not be a lawyer for idiots.
...

Wducks,
They don't necessarily create them when they are an active star. When stars go nova and supernova they produce heavier elements. (Via additional heat and compression shock, to name just a couple)
A star's "remnants" are what make up planets and comets and asteroids.
says Whyde

But then Da Sch says

One of the problems with the hypothesis that heavy elements get created in supernovae is that, actually, they don't seem to be. Most of what gets created seems to be elements lighter than iron, which is not surprising as iron is at the bottom of the packing fraction curve. There was an article on here after...

Feb 04, 2019
@Whyde, don't forget that after GW 20170817, they found evidence (gamma ray spectroscopy) that a lot of heavy elements (that is, higher atomic mass and number than iron) got created during the neutron star merger and they're now spreading into a nebula.

One of the problems with the hypothesis that heavy elements get created in supernovae is that, actually, they don't seem to be. Most of what gets created seems to be elements lighter than iron, which is not surprising as iron is at the bottom of the packing fraction curve. There was an article on here after GW 20170817 about this. It specifically mentioned gold, but that was just for clickbait.

I wasn't inferring that all heavier elements are created via star death events. It does make sense that higher atomic elements than iron might be a result of a different process...
Explain "fraction packing curve"...

Feb 04, 2019
That sounds like a fairly reasonable explanation. The reason I'm wondering is because I can't really pin down what Benni's angle is. There are numerous, let's say less-than-meaningful-contributors, on this site, and most of them are easily classified - religious anti-science fanatics, conspiracy theorists who think 'real science' is suppressed (electric universe and others), political extremists (especially active in AGW topics) and a few, like Otto, who appear to be simply argumentative for the sake of it (which doesn't mean that they never push BS and/or have other personal issues they are expressing)...
says ThomasQuinn

Just wondering here, Tommy - exactly WHO are these
"religious anti-science fanatics"
of whom you have alluded to as "easily classified"? And what makes you think they are anti-science?
Do you honestly think that anti-science fanatics would spend a lot of their time in a science website if they did not like or were against science?

Feb 05, 2019
The packing fraction curve describes the mass defect fraction that each nuclide has. This is the difference between the atomic mass and the mass of an equivalent number of free neutrons and protons, divided by the atomic mass. The "curve" part comes in because it turns out that this decreases from hydrogen to iron, then starts increasing again beyond iron so it forms a curve across the elements with iron at the bottom.

Both fission and fusion take advantage of it; in fusion light elements get fused to heavier elements and the change in packing fraction is released as energy. In fission, very heavy elements split into lighter ones and the change in packing fraction is, again, released as energy. Once everything gets down to iron, there's no more energy deficit left so you can't get nuclear energy out of iron.

Does that help?

Feb 05, 2019
-contd-
@ThomasQuinn
The physorg phorums are for the general public. I have yet to see a Phys.org declaration that only scientists are allowed to comment in these phorums - unless such declaration is hidden somewhere not apparent. You can disagree with anyone in this site, but it is always much friendlier and less hostile to explain your own stance as to your reason(s) for your disagreement. There are many here who are learning - I am learning as a scholar and interested observer - and some are a bit more advanced in the learning curve. But no matter how well we THINK we know about science - we are STILL ALL STUDENTS. Even the best/top scientists are still learning as they go. So to pretend to know everything and that no errors could have been made is foolish.

Feb 05, 2019
The packing fraction curve describes the mass defect fraction that each nuclide has. This is the difference between the atomic mass and the mass of an equivalent number of free neutrons and protons, divided by the atomic mass. The "curve" part comes in because it turns out that this decreases from hydrogen to iron, then starts increasing again beyond iron so it forms a curve across the elements with iron at the bottom.

Both fission and fusion take advantage of it; in fusion light elements get fused to heavier elements and the change in packing fraction is released as energy. In fission, very heavy elements split into lighter ones and the change in packing fraction is, again, released as energy. Once everything gets down to iron, there's no more energy deficit left so you can't get nuclear energy out of iron.

Does that help?

It did, thanks...

Feb 05, 2019
-contd-
@ThomasQuinn
The physorg phorums are for the general public. I have yet to see a Phys.org declaration that only scientists are allowed to comment in these phorums - unless such declaration is hidden somewhere not apparent. You can disagree with anyone in this site, but it is always much friendlier …
But no matter how well we THINK we know about science - we are STILL ALL STUDENTS. Even the best/top scientists are still learning as they go. So to pretend to know everything and that no errors could have been made is foolish.

As another "(simply) interested observer", methinks you should give the "pretending to know it all" speech to Benni...

Feb 05, 2019
-contd-
@ThomasQuinn
The physorg phorums are for the general public. I have yet to see a Phys.org declaration that only scientists are allowed to comment in these phorums - unless such declaration is hidden somewhere not apparent. You can disagree with anyone in this site, but it is always much friendlier …
But no matter how well we THINK we know about science - we are STILL ALL STUDENTS. Even the best/top scientists are still learning as they go. So to pretend to know everything and that no errors could have been made is foolish.

As another "(simply) interested observer", methinks you should give the "pretending to know it all" speech to Benni...
says Whyde

I did not notice that Benni ever pretended to "know it all". He has mentioned knowing "Differential Equations" and also that he is involved in a science lab - as well as having received a good education in the sciences.
Who am I to judge Benni? And who are YOU or anyone else to judge Benni?

Feb 05, 2019
-contd-
@Whyde
As far as I know - Benni has never hurt anyone in this website in any shape or form. He doesn't use foul language as jonesy does, habitually it seems. He doesn't troll anyone as Da Schneibo does- to a fault.
If Benni is onto something where he works, such as a possible big scientific breakthrough - it would be expected that he would have to be tightlipped about it. Science is like that. On the verge of a possible great discovery in your line of work - however much you would like to brag about it - you can't.
And Benni has an amazing amount of patience with the fools that he encounters in these comment phorums. While they are behaving like bullies in the schoolyard, Benni is behaving as the adult trying to rein in the kindergarten loudmouths.

Feb 05, 2019
SEU

SEU

Say whatever you like; I simply wonder why you do so.

This is a physics site, not a theology site.
sys obscurerist



You've insulted me several times. However, I consider the source.

My students did have a running joke whereby they all would run to the back of the classroom and open all the windows because my ego was using up all the oxygen. I always thought it was hilarious.

I'm not about to tell you where I came from, or my present location.

I've been here for years. It's been years since my last posts.

I've said before I'm no one's sock puppet. I'm no one's follower. If I gave my name, you would know it if you're really a scientist. That's why I don't ever use it.

If you couldn't care less, why are you responding?

Theologist, creationist (young earth?) -- you were spouting theology when talking about me insulting the "Creator God" and stating that my soul would pay. Not very polite, but, then, you're not.

Feb 05, 2019
Theologist, creationist (young earth?) -- you were spouting theology when talking about me insulting the "Creator God" and stating that my soul would pay. Not very polite, but, then, you're not.


.......then what has been all your past bluster about the "eternal neutron" if you're not a theologian? Anyone who believes that within the realm of the ENTROPIC finite Universe, that something INFINITE exists is no less a deluded person than yourself.

You're a big black hole enthusiast but you can't put up observational evidence for what YOU BELIEVE to be the most massive stellar masses to exist in the Universe, however you expect US to have FAITH in what YOU BELIEVE.......no thanks, I'll accede to the Immutable Laws of Physics, it's easier.

Feb 05, 2019
.......no thanks, I'll accede to the Immutable Laws of Physics, it's easier.


You don't know Jack about physics. As proven.

Feb 05, 2019
∂²Ψ/∂x² + ∂²Ψ/∂y² + ∂²Ψ/∂z² = ?

Still waiting for @Benni to solve this.

Run away and hide again, @Benni.

Feb 05, 2019
Once everything gets down to iron, there's no more energy deficit left so you can't get nuclear energy out of iron.

Niggle: ...unless the proton turns out to have a half life of its own ;)
(which is something yet to be established....and which is something the LHC successor could have a look at )

Feb 05, 2019
IMMUTABLE laws, INFINITE mass on a FINITE stellar body, differential equations...


Yep, move along, nothing to see here.

Feb 05, 2019
Benni

I never said one damn thing about an "eternal neutron" -- I said its decay was probabilistic, with decay time following an exponential probability density function. (Do you even know what that means?) Because neutron decay is probabilistic, there is no certainty that any given neutron will ever decay (but it most likely will). You don't know until it decays.

There's a great deal of observational evidence for black holes, just none of it direct, because (guess what?) you can't see a black hole, 'cause no light gets out of it until it's almost completely decayed. Can you see the air? There's still lots of indirect observational evidence for it, like trees swaying, breathing -- you know, simple stuff. And accretion disks for black holes, stars in really wild orbits around something that ain't there, wobbles in gravity (gravitational waves) -- you know, simple stuff, easy to understand.

Yesterday, I could not see
A little man who spoke to me...

Can you see me?

Feb 05, 2019
Benni

I never said one damn thing about an "eternal neutron" -- I said its decay was probabilistic, with decay time following an exponential probability density function. (Do you even know what that means?) Because neutron decay is probabilistic, there is no certainty that any given neutron will ever decay (but it most likely will). You don't know until it decays.


You'll have to forgive Benni. He suffers terribly from stupid disease. He thinks neutron decay has something to do with neutron stars and black holes. We keep telling him that this is due to the Pauli Exclusion Principle. In other words, neutron degeneracy. The poor suffering fool thinks that if he shows that all neutrons decay at 14.7 minutes, then neutron stars, and therefore black holes, cannot exist!
What can one do? Should one really be poking fun at somebody with stupid disease? ............... yeah, why not? Pointless trying to educate the poor fool.


Feb 05, 2019
And accretion disks for black holes, stars in really wild orbits around something that ain't there, wobbles in gravity (gravitational waves) -- you know, simple stuff, easy to understand.


Not to mention gravitational redshift observed from the star S2 as it reached its closest approach to the SMBH;

Detection of the gravitational redshift in the orbit of the star S2 near the Galactic centre massive black hole
GRAVITY Collaboration
https://www.aanda...8-18.pdf


Feb 05, 2019
Observicist - no certainty it ever decays - most likely will - You don't know till it decays
Observicist> I never said one thing on an eternal neutron
neutron decay is probabilistic,
there is no certainty any given neutron will decay
it most likely will - you don't know until it decays

Observicist- mathematician - retired professor researcher in quantum mechanics
of many probabilistically probable skills
that leaves the obfuscated challenged floundering in probabilistic probabilities
the saying goes
have your cake and eat it
have it every way but lose
there's no certainty it will ever decay
it most likely will decay
you don't know until it decays
you have obfuscation to a fine art
you have probabilistics in obfuscation in a twixt
that only a mathematician in probabilistics
Observicist
the master of obfuscation in his art
in silver tongue
it maketh a change Observicist
Maketh a high probability of no - meaneth a high probability of yes

Feb 05, 2019
^^^^^^^^Stop talking crap, you loon.

Feb 05, 2019
granville

Never underestimate the power of probability -- especially when I understand it and you don't.

Feb 05, 2019
The packing fraction in nucleon mass's

As in the energy of mass difference
in energy release of neutrons
what is this the packing fraction
as it applies to nucleons
in reaction that release the energy
the packing fraction is higher in neutrons
even though the decay after emission
even though the neutrons carry energy away
we have to get this the packing fraction curve
in proportion
proportionally correct
in its proportion of mass
to the individual protons and individual neutrons
as this is where
Differential calculus comes to bare
it separates the packing fractions
into fractional mass's within the nucleus
so
Observicist
Have we a Mathematician in this House

Feb 05, 2019
You're a big black hole enthusiast but you can't put up observational evidence for what YOU BELIEVE to be the most massive stellar masses to exist in the Universe, however you expect US to have FAITH in what YOU BELIEVE.......no thanks, I'll accede to the Immutable Laws of Physics, it's easier.

Okay, so what do your "Immutable laws of physics" say about the massive gravitational anomaly at the center of our galaxy?

Feb 05, 2019
Understanding understands understood in probability
granville
Observicist > Never underestimate the power of probability -- especially when I understand it and you don't

In this quantum world
in these quantum fluctuations
where these quantum particles flutter in this quantum breeze
where in this quantum world
probabilities exist
of probabilistics most proud
that as in this macro-world sanity rules
where this universe of neutrons always decay
but
down this rabbit hole quantum world
where positive and negatives
do not equal zero
two wrongs make a right
and yes means no
where no means yes
where
ulitimatly
a neutron never decays means no
a neutron always decays means yes
in this quantum world
yes, no ,no, yes
it makes no never mind
no always equals yes
because
whether in quantum
whether in macro
this neutron in this vacuum always decays
Maketh a high probability of no - meaneth a high probability of yes

Feb 05, 2019
granville

Never underestimate the power of probability -- especially when I understand it and you don't.


........but always negate it for Beta Particle Decay of a neutron. There are no nuclear physics textbooks used in college classrooms which discuss the 14.7 minute lifetime of Neutron Beta Particle Decay as being an indeterminate span of time subject to the chances of probability you are deluding yourself with.

Oh, I know, the next thing you'll be tempted to say is you have such a textbook from college, right? Or maybe jonesy will beat you to it & tell us what page number it's found in one of his Anthropology bone picking textbooks.

Feb 05, 2019
Our Milkycurve

What is this galactic Hole we speak
when contemplating galactic Holes
one cannot discard observational data
as the latest data is galactic curves in rotational forcing
it cannot be discarded as crackpot
because
at our galactic centre of mass
data purports four million solar mass's in tight formation
where surrounding this Hole
is a multi light year accretion disc
even though in our Milkycurve
hide nor hair of this multi light year accretion disc is visible
come to that
neither is this gamma-ray emitting matter falling into this light radius
we can accept up to this light radius is invisible
but
beyond, all in falling gamma-ray emitting matter is visible
so as we cannot see hide nor hair of this mullti light year accretion disc
nor
hide nor hair of this multi light year accretion discs infilling matter
at
only
25,000Lyrs
It's time to pause for thought

Feb 05, 2019
says obscurerist

You've insulted me several times. However, I consider the source.

Theologist, creationist (young earth?) -- you were spouting theology when talking about me insulting the "Creator God" and stating that my soul would pay. Not very polite, but, then, you're not.
says obscurerist

Theology is the study of religions, but also:

"Theology is the critical study of the nature of the divine. It is taught as an academic discipline, typically in universities and seminaries.[1]

Theology is basically the study of deities or their scriptures[2] in order to discover what they have revealed about themselves. While theology has turned into a secular field, religious adherents still consider theology to be a discipline that helps them live and understand concepts such as life and love and that...."

As I am not in the habit of studying deities or their scriptures, I am neither a theologist nor a "young earth creationist", which you had copied from Da Schniebo

Feb 05, 2019
There are no nuclear physics textbooks in college that discuss the 881s life of Neutron Beta Decay

Benni - this sure is a fact
No mention has been seen
except as this discussion on these boards
it does not discuss in this in WOOLLY MAMBO
all it discus's is exponential curves
which
are probabilistics
where a neutron decays 50 - 50
which
Benni, if 50 - 50 is probable
when your down to the last 100 neutrons in this WOOLLY MAMBO
this 50 - 50 probability will be seen
because
Oh wise one observicist, each 1/100 neutron will be decaying 50 - 50
as at the lower echelons of this curve
this curve will become erratic
as neutron decay in a erratic fashion
with sharp peaks
no longer following an exponential curve
but
following an erratic 50 - 50 curve
Benni, observicist and co do not want to find out in WOOLLY MAMBO
how
this
single neutron observed in isolation decays in isolation
Which is self explanatory

Feb 05, 2019
-contd-
@obscurerist
If you had insulted the Creator God, then of course you can look forward to some form of punishment whether you are a believer or not. You (and many others) are simply not in a position to understand fully the uniqueness of the human (homo sapiens) existence as a sentient being. As jonesdave has professed his preference of having been descended from an apelike ancestor, rather than from a created fully-formed human, where the only reason for a relationship with animals was the DNA that had been dropped into the clay from which the first humans were formed - that is jonesy' choice.
If you felt insulted by my mentioning that you would pay - clearly you have no idea how the Creator God feels also by what you say. The immortal Souls of all those who blaspheme against the Creator will pay for their sin(s).

By the way, it was rrwillsj who had changed your user name to "obscurerist". I am only imitating. And this IS a PUBLIC WEBSITE, science or not.

Feb 05, 2019
SEU

I never once asked anyone to stop saying whatever they wanted to say -- I just wondered why they said what they did, and why people ignorant of science feel competent to challenge the practitioners thereof. Challenge all you like, even if you're not competent to do so (which is obvious); I just wonder why you do so.

No, I have no elementary textbooks that talk about neutron decay. My elementary training was not in nuclear physics; I got that in graduate school at the PhD level. Please forgive my mistake.

What you call me makes no difference to me -- I actually think "obscurerist" is rather funny, and something of a compliment. I was not copying Da Schneib, by the way; what I write is my own.

I'm proud to be a member of a species that evolved from primitive apes. In fact, I think it's wonderful.

Please -- this is a request, mind you -- stop with the theology. It's boring. If I have a soul, you're not competent to judge where it ends up, whatever you think.

Feb 05, 2019
Benni

I never said one damn thing about an "eternal neutron" -- I said its decay was probabilistic, with decay time following an exponential probability density function. (Do you even know what that means?) Because neutron decay is probabilistic, there is no certainty that any given neutron will ever decay (but it most likely will). You don't know until it decays.
says obscurerist

I see where the term "statistical probability" likely has come from as applied to Free Neutron Mean Lifetime & Halflife
In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which police authorities have reason to obtain a warrant for the arrest of a suspected criminal or the issuing of a search warrant. It is also the standard by which grand juries issue criminal indictments. The principle behind the standard is to limit the power of authorities to perform random or abusive searches (unlawful search and seizure), and to promote lawful evidence gathering and procedural...

Feb 05, 2019
-contd-
Probable Cause and Statistical Probability are related.

"Probable in this case may relate to statistical probability or to a general standard of common behavior and customs. The context of the word probable here is not exclusive to community standards, and could partially derive from its use in formal mathematical statistics as some have suggested;[2] but cf. probō, Latin etymology.[3]
In U.S. immigration proceedings, the "reason to believe" standard has been interpreted as equivalent to probable cause.[4]"

Probability is too indefinite an explanation for the timing/duration of ANY Neuron Beta decay, which renders it too ambiguous for science to take such a stance. It is too inexplicit.

Feb 05, 2019
Benni, observicist and co do not want to find out in WOOLLY MAMBO
how
this
single neutron observed in isolation decays in isolation
Which is self explanatory


You bet granDy, and don't we all know this already? Well, some of us anyway.

Oh, by the way:
There are no nuclear physics textbooks in college that discuss the 881s life of Neutron Beta Decay
......this in fact is what they discuss.

The textbooks do not discuss Obfuscation's point about an indeterminate probability.

I guess I'm gonna haf to go back up & give you a 4-Star unless you hit the stardust trail of the MilkyCurve & repent.

Feb 05, 2019
Challenge all you like, even if you're not competent to do so (which is obvious); I just wonder why you do so.

No, I have no elementary textbooks that talk about neutron decay. My elementary training was not in nuclear physics; I got that in graduate school at the PhD level. Please forgive my mistake.
......well then, why are you so obscure about the nature of the Beta Particle Decay of a neutron?


Feb 05, 2019
granville,

There's something bright down there, that's for sure. Whether it's coming from our supermassive black hole, or from something else, is yet unknown. We'll figure it out, though. I have great faith in human intelligence. I try not to despair over human stupidity, but you know what they say -- against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.

Milky Way is not the only galaxy with a central supermassive black hole, by the way -- most galaxies have them (some have two), and we look at them, too. Some of them are quasars, some are blazars, and some have inactive galactic nuclei. Inactive galactic nuclei don't have accretion disks because no gas, dust, or other matter are close enough to get sucked down (towards a black hole is always down).

Don't feel left out; Milky Way does have a regulation, general issue, standard, supermassive black hole. We are not bereft.

We even have some pulsars and magnetars (one of those zapped us in 2004 -- we lost some stratosphere).

Feb 05, 2019
SEU

Please -- this is a request, mind you -- stop with the theology. It's boring. If I have a soul, you're not competent to judge where it ends up, whatever you think.


I haven't noticed any request from you to jonesy to stop his foul language diatribes against some of the commenters in these physorg phorums. And yet, you talk of theology where I, personally, have not mentioned anything that is based on theology, particularly since theology encompasses many religions, beliefs, doctrines, dogma, and religious practices of which I have no knowledge.
Creationism has nothing to do with manmade relgions/theology. It is the science of the Creation itself and what came afterward.

That you are unaware of it is irrelevant to me, just as your "probability" is meaningless to those of us who disagree with such a faerie tale made into science fact.

I will continue to express my thoughts on Creationism, mind you, and you will continue to express yours.

Feb 05, 2019
When data are denied, reality is denied.

Good luck with that.

Feb 05, 2019
Benni
SEU

I'm plain as day about neutron decay -- it can't be predicted with certainty because it's probabilistic. You just can't understand me.

The universe is built on probability.

I'm getting the definite impression both of you have neither the vaguest understanding of probability theory, nor how it applies to the quantum world. (If the first is true, so is the second, and I think the first is true. It sure looks like it.) You don't even understand what a memoryless distribution is, and what the only two distributions are that qualify as such. You don't understand mean, variance, standard deviation, the difference between a density function and a probability distribution, how the Gaussian distribution applies to everything, the t-distribution, or anything else about probability theory, yet you talk about neutron decay.

I'm almost certainly contending in vain, here (they called me "the probability god" in graduate school).

Feb 05, 2019
SEU

I never once asked anyone to stop saying whatever they wanted to say -- I just wondered why they said what they did, and why people ignorant of science feel competent to challenge the practitioners thereof. Challenge all you like, even if you're not competent to do so (which is obvious); I just wonder why you do so......

.....Please -- this is a request, mind you -- stop with the theology. It's boring. If I have a soul, you're not competent to judge where it ends up, whatever you think.
says obscurerist

Are you certain that you understand what your are posting in this phorum?

First, you say that you "never once asked anyone to stop saying whatever they wanted to say".

Then, in the same post - you say "stop with the theology".

Smacks of a fair bit of egocentricity on your part, or are you just being ambivalent?
Competency is learnt and, as a mere scholar and interested observer - my future competency is assured. Is your future competency likewise assured?

Feb 05, 2019
https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

This is what so-called "Christians" believe.

Feb 05, 2019
Benni
SEU

I'm plain as day about neutron decay -- it can't be predicted with certainty because it's probabilistic. You just can't understand me.

The universe is built on probability.

says obscurerist

It's only probabilistic for the simple reason that quantum particles such as Free Neutron Beta decay is pure guesswork, conjecture, the practice of voodoo and clairvoyance without the gypsy.
Guessing games, no matter how you wish to define it - is not Science.

What is the probability that the USA and Russia will get into a shooting war with each other?
If a war with Russia happens, what is the probability of the outcome, of who wins and who loses?What is the probability (in numbers) that half (more or less) of the American population will die in this war? The same with the Russian population - how many will die or live?
What is the probability of a sinkhole opening up under your house or your neighbor's house?
Try to guess. Any certainty?

Feb 05, 2019
Down the rabbit hole of quantum fluctuations we go
observicist> The universe is built on probability

All though we speak of macro-world
all we speak of quantum-world
neither exist in all reality except in our imagination
as we feel the oxygen molecule bouncing of our skin
is how, observicist we feel the temperature in the room we stand
so as you talk in quantum probabilities in quantum worlds
there is no quantum world atoms exist in
we are in this quantum world you speak of
our very being is made of these probabilities of which you speak
but
we do not experience these probabilities of which you speak
we are constructed of these probabilities but they do not exist
Observicist, they only exist in your mathematics not in this quantum world we inhabit

Feb 05, 2019
SEU

So-called "foul language" doesn't bother me -- I often use language that makes sailors blush. Would you like me to do so?

Your theology on this site bothers me because you have nothing with which to back it. There are no data behind it -- none. It cannot be falsified. It can't be proven or disproven. Back it with data, and I'll welcome it -- data, not arguments only. Theology on a science site is a waste of computer memory and network bandwidth which, while inexpensive, are not free. It's a waste of everyone's time who'd rather discuss science without metric tons of theological pollution (yes, it's theology) in between posts containing questions and answers. Some people don't know this science and want more information; others have information to share. That's the real purpose of a site like this, whatever is or isn't allowed.

I'm asking you to stop, mind you. I would never even try to make you stop (if I could -- I can't), though free speech does not apply here.

Feb 05, 2019
Unless you hit the stardust trail of the Milkycurve & repent

Benni
How the sinners sinneth
how the sinners repenteth
in rotational forcing in Milkycurves
as was pointed out
in the article of Milkycurves
we have plenty of piccies
of Andromeda
as these piccies
of rotational curves in Andromeda in curves
do not exist
as
presently
no one has seen Andromeda in curves
come to that
neither has any one seen
the Milkyway in curves
Benni, is like your favourite picci
your little cupeth joyeth over floweth in joyeth with
this picci of the Milkyway in curves like all the rest of these piccies
another artistic masterpiece
An Artists simulation

Feb 05, 2019
SEU, Benni, and Grandville live in a deterministic universe.

And unfortunately a Physics 101 education if that.

Feb 05, 2019
I'm plain as day about neutron decay -- it can't be predicted with certainty because it's probabilistic. You just can't understand me.


I understand you "plain as day", that's why as you keep digging deeper you are also piling higher, and that's ALL that Phd of yours is translating into.

It is not PROBABILISTIC a free unbound neutron will decay in 14.7 minutes after separation from a nucleus, it's 100%. It is also the reason why the nuclear physicists who do those lifetime measurements know how long to keep the gate from the reactor tunnel to the Proton Trap open.

Your problem is you have never learned the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma Radiation Decay when applying an exponential decay rate based on half-life. You'd do well to go back & review your competency in evaluating that Differential Equation for exponential decay of radio-isotopes because a neutron is NOT a radio-isotope & you obviously don't know that.


Feb 05, 2019
@Benni

Thanks for the laughs.
You are clearly a moron.

Feb 05, 2019
@Benni

It's clear you have never studied Quantum Mechanics.

I wonder if you think electrons orbit a nucleus analogous to a solar system.

Feb 05, 2019
SEU
Benni
Granville

I've known the mean time to decay of free neutrons was in the realm of 12 to 17 minutes since I was age twelve (they didn't have it pinned down any closer than that at that time), and that it was a probabilistic quantum event, and I knew what that meant. Hence my assumption that that knowledge was in introductory textbooks on the subject.

SEU, "Stop the theology" is a request (and a reasonable one, this being a science site), because I have no authority to enforce it, which everyone knows, and wouldn't if I did. I figured that was obvious. I'm guessing maybe (p = ~0.005) I was wrong; there's a large probability (p = ~0.995), however, that I'm right and you're just trying to make hay about it.

SEU, I'm not the one telling people they are going to pay for the "sin" of insulting the so-called "Creator God." You can't back that up with data. Although, it might be fun to see you try. I doubt you will.

Feb 05, 2019
We knew it all along jimmybobber
jimmybobber> SEU, Benni, and Grandville live in a deterministic universe.

As you inhabit this virtual phys.org world
this world of probabilistic probabilities
we sort of knew it all along, jimmybobber
You were never deterministic, just a probabilistic virtual soul, lost in virtual reality

Feb 05, 2019
But where oh where, Oh Observicist is this documented
observicist> I've known the mean time to decay of free neutrons was in the realm of 12 to 17 minutes since I was age twelve

Where is this experiment on this free isolated single neutron
that is not this WOOLLY MAMBO pulling the wool
as jimmybobber has pointed out observicist
An actual experiment is a deterministic approach!

Feb 05, 2019
@Benni

And when I call you a moron. It's not being mean or insulting. It's the truth. If the truth hurts your feelings then that is something you need to deal with.

@SEU you are a moron too.
@Granville you are a moron too.

Feb 05, 2019
SEU

I don't need any future competency; my past competency is, however, well accepted.

Your religious beliefs are just as man-made as anyone's -- by you (I'm assuming you're human, although some of what you have posted makes me wonder if you think you're human -- stuff about a League of Planets, etc -- and that maybe you should take a trip to your local mental health center -- there are some very nice people there who will help you clear your head). Please stop saying they are not (and they are, indeed, religious beliefs).

Please talk about science, and not about your god. (This is getting more and more fun.)

Feb 05, 2019
And when I call you a moron. It's not being mean or insulting. It's the truth.


OK jimbo, you too are a moron & like most such people have never seen a Differential Equation you could solve or you too would never have attached your credibility to the Obscurity guy who tried faking knowing how to solve Differential Equations & blew it as I pointed out above.


Feb 05, 2019
Still waiting for the solution to

∂²Ψ/∂x² + ∂²Ψ/∂y² + ∂²Ψ/∂z² = ?

This isn't anything esoteric, it's basic mechanics taught in Physics 101.

Feb 05, 2019
Still waiting for the solution to

∂²Ψ/∂x² + ∂²Ψ/∂y² + ∂²Ψ/∂z² = ?

This isn't anything esoteric, it's basic mechanics taught in Physics 101.

That looks French. And my French teacher had narcolepsy (she kept dozing off on her feet in front of the classroom).
SO I didn't learn as much French as I should have...
Or maybe it's Dutch, which I didn't have a class in, at all...

Feb 05, 2019
Still waiting for the solution to

∂²Ψ/∂x² + ∂²Ψ/∂y² + ∂²Ψ/∂z² = ?

This isn't anything esoteric, it's basic mechanics taught in Physics 101.


You should see if shroedinger is available for a date.

Feb 05, 2019
It's not SchČŤdinger. It's basic mechanics.

And you can't solve it.

You lied, @Benni.

Feb 05, 2019
Here, I'll give you the answer: ∂²Ψ/∂r²

Now, what does it mean? What is it?

Feb 05, 2019
You can also write it as: ∂²Ψ/∂d²

depending on how you define d or r. If you use d you are using Minkowski.

Feb 05, 2019
Benni

When did I try to fake knowing how to solve differential equations? I haven't mentioned them at all. I have said I know how to solve for probabilities associated with exponential decay, such as that associated with free neutrons, and how to find the probability of a given number of them decaying in a given span of time, and that's pretty much all I've said, except for some not overly extremely rude invective against you and a couple others.

Respectfully, with respect to and respecting differential equations, you got asked, first, so how about you solve, first? Perhaps that's not fair, given the pile of well-read and well-thumbed DiffEq texts I can see in my bookshelf from where I'm sitting, but, well, sometimes life just isn't fair.

I like to keep my references close, just in case I get an idea. Thinking is fun -- it keeps me young (well, actually, it doesn't, because I'm not, but I like to pretend -- it makes my wife laugh).

I'm the eternal optimist.

Feb 05, 2019
Benni

The bet's off -- Da Schneib did it for you.

You could, if you really want to, answer all those questions about probability theory I asked a while ago about mean, variance, standard deviation, memoryless distributions, etc. I did ask first, after all. (You can add transforms -- what, when, why, how, where, who -- to my list of questions about probability theory, if you like. You probably don't. Pun intended.) And we are talking about quantum mechanics, at least in part.

Feb 05, 2019
A spider wanders aimlessly within the warmth of a shadow
Not the regal creature of border caves
But the puir misguided directionless familiar
Of some obscure Scottish poet

Feb 05, 2019
I figured I'd give it a few days to try to figure it out.

If @Benni were any normal person it would admit it lied.

It's not a normal person; it's a psychotic. It denies mathematics and astrophysical data. Denying math and data is psychotic.

This is the Wave Equation; not the Schrȍdinger version, used in quantum mechanics but the simple one used in classical mechanics. It was first written down by d'Alembert. For that reason it is often known as the d'Alembert equation.

Feb 05, 2019
Da Schneib,

Do you think Benni will remember this helpful instruction of yours? Thereby proving to few and sundry he can solve differential equations.

Feb 05, 2019
It's simply the equation to find the amplitude of a wave at some distance (or radius) from the measured wave at a particular point.

Nice simple classical mechanics. Nothing difficult or esoteric.

I'll be happy to post some PDEs concerning thermodynamics if you like. You won't be able to solve them either considering you don't understand what ▽² means.

Feb 05, 2019
@observer, this troll @Benni lies about what people say. I don't think it is capable of instruction; it doesn't seem to understand probability or fractions, and claims to understand differential equations without demonstrating the capability to figure out what they're saying.

I have personally seen it claim to be a nuclear engineer without any sign of the skills needed for graduation from this curriculum. I have personally seen it claim to be capable of "solving" PDEs without any apparent understanding of what they mean or where they fit into physics.

I don't think there's anything to do but mock and ridicule it. I wouldn't if it didn't lie about what I say, as well as lying about what anyone else says that mocks its psychotic ideation. You have been subject to these lies and you know what I'm saying.

Feb 06, 2019
Try to imagine this troll lying about what you said and misrepresenting physics for a few years and see if you might feel like I do.

Feb 06, 2019
@Benni, explain what ▽² means.

Here's the thermodynamics equation:

∂U/∂r = x ▽²U

Now tell us what it means. This is basic thermodynamics; if you can't explain it you're not qualified to talk about thermodynamics.

Feb 06, 2019
SEU

So-called "foul language" doesn't bother me -- I often use language that makes sailors blush. Would you like me to do so?

Your theology on this site bothers me because you have nothing with which to back it. There are no data behind it -- none. It cannot be falsified. It can't be proven or disproven. Back it with data, and I'll welcome it -- data, not arguments only.

I'm asking you to stop, mind you. I would never even try to make you stop (if I could -- I can't), though free speech does not apply here.
says obscurista

ROFLOL
Oh do shut up, you annoying fatuous little punk. You have a lot of nerve talking as though you were some big shot on this website. And what do you mean by "free speech doesn't apply here"?
When did you transition into Captain Beelzebub. Your words are good imitations of that fool.
There is plenty of data - but an idiot like you and Da Schithead will never be allowed to share in that knowledge. So bugger off - you twat.

Feb 06, 2019
@SEU, you can't "solve" DEs any better than @Benni. So, the only question remaining is whether you're just another psychotic or a sock puppet of @Benni's.

Keep up your whining and I'll give you Schrȍdinger's Equation and see how you deal with that, having mistaken the classical equation for the quantum one.

These fanatics make up their pretentions assuming they're not talking anyone who knows enough to make them look foolish. BZZZZZZT.

Bring it YEC fool.

Feb 06, 2019
And this is their icon of peace:

https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

"Peace" to these individuals is "We beat you up and you submit."

Feb 06, 2019
Or perhaps obscurista and Da Schnot are the same person - where Da Schithead gets to toot his own horn while using this obscure fellow as his wingman - like Abbot and Costello, for example. Yes, that seems quite right.

Feb 06, 2019
Or perhaps @SEU and @Benni are the same person. Both of whom are YEC nutjobs who are off their medication.

Feb 06, 2019
Oh, and noticed @SEU has no more comment on DEs than @Benni. Yet more evidence they're sock puppets.

Feb 06, 2019
Thinking maybe you shouldn't have opened that particular box, dumbshit?

Not to mention the one where you claimed to be an alien mindreader. Read my mind, dumbshit, and tell us the "solution" to the DE:

∂U/∂r = x ▽²U

Feb 06, 2019
But where oh where, Oh Observicist is this documented
observicist> I've known the mean time to decay of free neutrons was in the realm of 12 to 17 minutes since I was age twelve

Where is this experiment on this free isolated single neutron
that is not this WOOLLY MAMBO pulling the wool
as jimmybobber has pointed out observicist
An actual experiment is a deterministic approach!
says granville

I would also like to know. He said that he knew it at age 12, of the decay of Free Neutrons being at 12 - 17 minutes that is supposedly "deterministic". And yet he claims to a "retired scientist/teacher", wasn't it?
It seems that the whole research project to determine "Mean Lifetime" and "Half-life" of a radioactive Free Neutron stinks, as it is claimed that they can't determine ANYTHING UNTIL THE NEUTRON TRANSITIONS INTO A PROTON. So, they are actually waiting for each Free Neutron to become a Proton before they can determine how long it takes to do so. Total bollocks.

Feb 06, 2019
Ummm, where they got the half-life from? You know, by measuring it and stuff, which is called "data," which you are denying.

Duhhh ummmm.

This is easy; YECs are dumbshits.

Feb 06, 2019
∂U/∂r = x ▽²U

Dumbshit.

Feb 06, 2019
ROFLMAO
Da Schithead thinks I'm an "alien mindreader". But before that, Da Schithead thought I was an alien LIZARD in some other physorg phorums. And now he makes haste to get all of his strange ideas into the comment box as fast as his pudgy fingers can type his foolishness - to impress the great Captain Beelzebub who is looking on - waiting to see what else is being said.

Feb 06, 2019
∂U/∂r = x ▽²U

You claimed it. If it's true you'd already know the answer.

You're a nutjob, dumbshit.

Feb 06, 2019
Who is this fathead bozo talking to? And why is it putting up that equation? Doesn't it know the answer?
Methinks there is some question into this fathead bozo's mental mischief that causes it to put up strange symbols, while insisting that someone knows the answer.

Feb 06, 2019
What, no answer dumbshit?

I win.

YEC trolls are so easy.

Feb 06, 2019
And now Da Schithead is claiming to have won. A booby prize, I would imagine. Crazy people who talk to themselves and claiming to win a booby prize. Wow, SNL couldn't be funnier than this.

Feb 06, 2019
You can't say what the equation is.

I win. You lose, which is what luser YECs do.

Feb 06, 2019
I'm listening to "Lunatic Fringe" by Red Rider. It seems quite appropriate.

https://www.youtu...a_G1h3pw

Feb 06, 2019
AND he reiterates winning the booby prize. What a loser.

Feb 06, 2019
Then post the "solution" to the DE, dumbshit.

We're all here watching you, lunatic fringe. We're on guard this time against your final solution.

Did you know that before Nixon got elected, more Republicans were in favor of abortions than Democrats?

Look it up, lunatic fringe.

Feb 06, 2019
Oh noooooo - how it's talking about a "final solution". What can it mean? A concentration camp?
And also talking about abortions. Perhaps Da Schithead believes in Eugenics?

Feb 06, 2019
And yet more lunatic fringe: https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

These YECs are social toxic waste. They need to be sterilized so they don't spawn and torture children: https://www.thewe...e-verses

They're not qualified to be parents. They're sadistic psychotic murderers.

Feb 06, 2019
Sorry what your fellow psychotic sadistic murderers post upsets you, dumbshit. Maybe if you don't want to see yourself pilloried any more you should leave. I got plenty more; neither of those links took me more than a minute to find. Bring it.

Bye now, luser.

Feb 06, 2019
Ho hum How positively boring. Going for a spot of good hot tea and take the dog for a walk. I've named the ground where the dog poops and pees after Da Schneibo. So I tell the dog to go poop on Da Schneibo - and he does it. Good dog.

Feb 06, 2019
This dumbshit thinks it's OK to beat a little kid up and bury him in the snow to die.

See a professional. Get medication. Take it. Don't beat up little kids and bury them in the snow any more, dumbshit.

Feb 06, 2019
Listening to Rush, "Jacob's Ladder." As far from you as anything I can imagine.

It sucks that there are murdering psychotic YECs like you. If there were actually a god you'd all die in agony.

Feb 06, 2019
Da Schneib, I rather do have a bit of a feeling for how you feel, although I can't say it is as intense as what you're dealing with. You have my sympathies. I've been watching for years, but I haven't had it directed at me. I felt I had no choice but to jump in when the nonsense about mean lifetime and half-life and associated absolute dreck started coming from people who either should know better or should know when to shut up and listen.

I do want you to know one thing: SEU has it wrong about me. I'm not Captain Beelzebub, I'm merely Lieutenant Beelzebub. I've got quite a ways to go before I make Captain.

I also want you to know (you already do, to be sure) that I'm by no means you. Others appear to be less than certain about that.

You're right about how nasty they get. It's unbecoming. As the lawyers say, if you have facts, argue the facts. Lacking facts, argue the law. Lacking law, pound the table. They're Kruschev and his shoe.

Feb 06, 2019
Guess I'm the shoe. ;)

It sucks posting on a science site and watching these idiots try to dodge real science questions. Eventually one becomes exasperated and starts using their own tactics against them.

Hope you stick around. Folks who seriously know what they're talking about aren't common here; they mostly leave because of the trolls.

Feb 06, 2019
Used to be you only had them on the global warming threads telling how many guns they have.

Feb 06, 2019
They shout about love
But when push comes to shove
They look for things they're afraid of

He's not afraid of your judgements
He knows of horrors worse then your hell
He's a little afraid of dying
But he's a lot more afraid of your lying

Feb 06, 2019
SEU

You're having trouble with your reading comprehension again. I said I knew free neutron decay was in the realm of 12 to 17 minutes, and probabilistic -- not deterministic. If you're going to insult me, at least get it right. I read it; where, I do not recall. It was long ago.

Free speech doesn't apply to any privately owned website. Whatever the owners don't want said doesn't get said. Free speech is a government concept, not a private one. I also clearly said I was not one of the site bigwigs, owners, enforcers, flunkies, or anything else. If the site rules allow total free speech, that's up to the site owners. If they want to clear and censor everything, they can do that, too.

Are you about to claim I'm gay too, as you have with Da Schneib, given the feminine ending you've suddenly chosen for your friendly nickname for me? You're not very creative; you can do better. Tell my wife.

Neither my body nor brain is little, nor are they punk (they're prog rock).

Feb 06, 2019
Da Schneib, I'll stick around.

You're not the shoe, Benni's the shoe, and you're pounding said Benni on the heads of granville and SEU. They just don't realize it.

I love Rush; I have a 1972 Rickenbacker 4001 4-string bass. I bought it in the same store on Denmark Street in that Moody Blues music video ("I Know You're Out There Somewhere"). The last time I saw Rush, Geddy and I ended up in a corner, afterwards, for a good hour, talking basses, arguing over pick playing vs. fingers (I use a thin circular pick; Geddy uses his fingers just above the bridge). Alex and Neil were hitting on my wife (in fun). Sorry -- someone says Rush, I talk shop. I was a studio musician for a dozen years.

(SEU, I won't bring it up, again.)

Benni, SEU, and granville, of course, won't believe a word of it (few do). Doesn't matter -- it's a nice memory.

I've seen those global warming threads. A guy around the corner has a big sign that says, "God causes climate." I can't get away from them.

Feb 06, 2019
prog rock
Heh. Got seven axes and a recording studio in my addition complete with an 8-track. I spent my time being a fixer of big server systems.

Feb 06, 2019
Just about to start "Red Barchetta." Rush kick today; prolly Yes tomorrow.