DeepSight:
Dear Agent of Allah

Many thanks for your lucid and well set out responses on the science of the matter and I am particularly delighted at the academic and professional bent you have given to your ripostes.

Whilst I deeply appreciate the effort given to that approach, I only read and follow science but am not a scientist by training.

Hi DeepSight, thanks! I'm encouraged to know that my effort isn't entirely wasted. Also, I'm starstruck!

Hence I would like to ask you one 9r two questions which may divert towards the philosophy and cosmological theory of the matter.

First question which will guide my other questions is this: Into what is the universe expanding.

Thank you.

As for your question, I can approach it in two ways: The first is just pure, brutal, and unqualified honesty. I am ignorant of the answer! However, I assume you expect to hear more than just this from me, so maybe with a bit of imaginative extrapolation I can give a speculative answer that wouldn't severely violate the logic of what we already know about physical objects. This is a bit challenging, certainly more difficult than admitting ignorance. Also, I am not terribly brilliant, so I expect we will have many flaws to discuss afterwards. I welcome your scrutiny, in fact. I will now outline my reasoning below:

1) Obviously, the very first assumption I've made is that on the grandest of scales, the universe is simply a physical object. This is irrespective of the very many expressions of physical laws which we observe internally. My belief is that ultimately, the different objects and laws we observe inside the universe are just transmutations and fluctuations of energy states.

2) From all observations, the universe seems to be expanding at an isotropic rate. So,
(a) This could mean it is experiencing negligible interactions with surrounding physical objects at its peripheries, thus, nothing to inhibit it expansion. However, "nothingness" is a difficult concept around which to wrap my head, so I can't defend this position.

(b) An alternative proposition is that the vastness of the universe notwithstanding, there is a uniform distribution of physical objects with which it is interacting. The remarkable act of coincidence that would bring this about seems extremely unjustifiable to me. Although, you will later see why it is my preferred option.

(c) The easiest alternative is that all ~13 billion LYs worth of observations we've made is just an infinitesimal local spot (with isotropic properties) in an unimaginably vast universe, and the rest of it is inaccessible to probe. A scenario may exist in this proposition, whereby, not all of the universe is expanding, so the universe may just be an elastic sheet with vast regions of expansion and equally vast regions of contraction, and we just happen to be occupying one, not the other. I see no reason why this cannot be the case. But this would render pretty much all the systematic extrapolations we've made in favour of the big bang utterly useless.

3) From quantum mechanics to Newtonian physics, to general relativity, one grim truth seems inescapable: Every law of nature has its scale and boundaries. So it is perfectly possible that our projections of general relativity to cosmic scales might not be fully accurate. There is however, one rule of nature that permeates these boundaries: Hierarchical structures a la configurations of elementary particles, internal atomic configurations, crystal lattices, cellular configurations of bio-organisms, planetary configurations, stellar hierarchies, galactic hierarchies, clusters, super clusters, pervasive fractal patterns and so on. It just seems like every new object which emerges from hierarchical arrangements of reducible parts inexorably speciates into a reducible part of a new meta-object. One could almost say: every object, no matter how tiny or grand, is a universe unto itself. This, I suppose, makes for a tantalizingly natural projection that whether or not the laws of nature change at and beyond the cosmic scales, the universe might just be a tiny atom inside a hierarchically evolved object, call it a "metaverse" if you will, whose laws I may never get to understand. This proposition is my favourite, and the most awe inspiring for me; what's more, it can easily fit within points (1) and (2b), in that the universe remains a single physical object, and may be experiencing isotropic expansion into a metaverse with, yet, undiscovered laws operational at the universe's peripheries.

If you sense that I veered too deeply into the mind of a madman, we can always resolve to settle for the most invoked thought terminating cliche: god did it! Who knows really?

P.S. I should again reiterate that I am definitely ignorant of the answer to your question, before a casual reader treats my madman's musing as a scientific theory!

Double post...sorry

hopefulLandlord:


same here, you can check out that song, you might like it too and its clean, no bad language or seductive words

Alright... Thanks once again.

AgentOfAllah,

[url=creation.mobi/stars-dont-form-naturally]Here is an article[/url] that establishes the impossibility of your theory to account for the present day universe without evoking a god of the gaps. What's your opinion on that fact that cooling clouds of molecular hydrogen(maybe via infrared radiation) alone would have taken a very long time to form the Population III stars, as expressed in the article?

Isn't it also interesting that gas clouds in the act of collapsing have never been observed in galaxies, as the article points out?

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

[url=creation.mobi/stars-dont-form-naturally]Here is an article[/url] that establishes the impossibility of your theory to account for the present day universe without evoking a god of the gaps.

Okay, I've read this article, and it does contain some interesting discussions. Before I delve into the main discussion, I will start by addressing what the article does not do: The article is concerned with one particular prediction of the theory, that is; for the present universe to exist, a group of stars known as generation III stars must have existed. Generation III stars are stars presumed to have Zero metallicity (metallicity is the measure of elements heavier than helium inside a star). The reason they are theorised to have existed is obvious: The early universe had an abundance of only Hydrogen, Deuterium and Helium. Heavier elements must have formed in massive supernovae, so their existence could not have preceded generation III stars. Now, generation III stars have never been observed, but we know how to search for them. What we've been lacking the whole time is the right equipment. This equipment is presently being constructed, and results should start filtering in by 2019. Our present theory would be made impossible if, in the end, we find that GIII stars couldn't have existed. To the extent that this article hasn't shown that GIII stars are impossible, it does not establish the impossibility of stellar evolution theory. As you may know, Proof of impossibility is a thorough framework that goes beyond shooting down one particular proposition.

Now, this article picks a grouse with one specific research that models the known laws of cosmology to reconstruct the present universe. It is very difficult to model the early universe. In fact, one of the central problems is the issue of how the light gases were able to condense under their collective weight to form the first stars. this could have happened in one of two ways: (1) Either the gases cooled down enough to condense, or (2) heavy matter preceded the formation of the GIII stars. This second option is, of course, paradoxical because heavy matter couldn't have preceded the same process that birthed them. In the research discussed by this article, the researchers attempted to work around this paradox by substituting dark matter with heavy matter, under the assumption that dark matter already existed. With this work around, they were able to recreate a picture that bears remarkable resemblance with the present universe. This work around, while clever, is certainly very convenient. It makes no sense to assume that something whose existence we've only inferred through gravitational fields can be treated as existing in the early universe. As such, I pick much of the same grouse as the article you've referenced. That said, I hesitate to diminish the significance of the research because it is actually quite insightful. What this research has shown us is that if we solve the problem of gravitational collapse of the light elements that made up the early universe, all our other formulations are pretty much accurate. I think that's quite remarkable!!!

What's your opinion on that fact that cooling clouds of molecular hydrogen(maybe via infrared radiation) alone would have taken a very long time to form the Population III stars, as expressed in the article?

Speaking of gravitational collapse, one of the leading theories as to how this could have happened with GIII stars is through the dissipation of heat by molecular hydrogen particles. In the formation of contemporary stars, heat is easily dissipated through the presence of heavier compounds such as minerals, silicate, ice and other such formations. Not so for GIII! As such, it seem reasonable that the process of heat dissipation would have been slow because first, the hydrogen molecules would have to be formed, then accumulate over time. However, you also have to remember that the density of the early gas clouds would have been quite high also, which would have facilitated H₂ formation. It is not clear to me why you think this process couldn't have formed the first stars. I'd say given our projections that the first stars formed after 200 million years, all the hydrogen atoms had was time!

Isn't it also interesting that gas clouds in the act of collapsing have never been observed in galaxies, as the article points out?

No, it is not at all interesting! It is not possible to observe them collapse at such distances. If you lived on the moon, you wouldn't be able to observe rain drops collapsing on earth, even though rain drops do collapse on earth. Speaking of which, it is pretty much the same process that allows rain/snow fall on earth that also leads to star formation. If you believe the earth's gravity can cause clouds of condensed water vapour to fall as ice or water when these clouds attain a certain critical density, I am not so sure why you are so adamant that interstellar clouds whose centre masses are thousands of times greater than earth's, cannot cause clouds of condensed hydrogen and helium gasses to collapse. Are you arguing that the physical laws of stars are different than those of earth? This would be quite a remarkable claim!

AgentOfAllah,

I noted the array of different opinions available on the time it took the first stars to appear after the big bang. The article I provided gave it as 1 billion years. Other sources say 200 million years, while other sources say 300-500 million years. That's a lot of confusion there.

Once any hypothesized cloud of hydrogen condenses to a certain size it comes into hydrodynamic equilibrium i.e. the outward force on the cloud caused by the accumulated pressure due to the heating of the compressed cloud equals the inward force on the cloud due to gravity. This is the Jeans limit. At this point no further contraction can occur, unless energy is radiated from the cloud cooling it, and this may take an indefinite amount of time.

Density due to what exactly facilitated the formation of H₂? Remember density=mass/vol. Remember too that primordial nucleosynthesis ended 10-20 mins after BB.

Benekruku:
Rubbish!

So is God that created oxygen?

Everything about the God is all fiction!

Walked on water, healed the sick, woke the dead, fed a million, converted water to wine, patched a ear and none has been replicated by its believers except staged!

Who doesn't know where oxygen comes from or how it can be produced

All this sheeples sef! God created Oxygen and who created Carbon mono Oxide? Devil?

Mental slavery!

You the slave of your imagination.
You comment above prove only one thing, you are not an atheist but a Christian hater

dalaman:


Use God alone and explain the origin of oxygen.

Why don't you do it without mentioning God?

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

I noted the array of different opinions available on the time it took the first stars to appear after the big bang. The article I provided gave it as 1 billion years. Other sources say 200 million years, while other sources say 300-500 million years. That's a lot of confusion there.

I don't know about 1 billion years, but I've seen estimates ranging from 200 million - 500 million years. This amounts to a margin of error that is ~ +/- 1% of the total period span being investigated. When you peer 13 billion years into the past to estimate the birth of the first stars, I'd say such a small margin of error isn't quite as extreme as you've made it out to be.

Once any hypothesized cloud of hydrogen condenses to a certain size it comes into hydrodynamic equilibrium i.e. the outward force on the cloud caused by the accumulated pressure due to the heating of the compressed cloud equals the inward force on the cloud due to gravity. This is the Jeans limit. At this point no further contraction can occur, unless energy is radiated from the cloud cooling it

Jeans formulation is a ratio between the gravitational attraction of the gases and their outward pressure. Should their gravitational attraction exceed their outward pressure, Jeans theory predicts that gravitational collapse will happen. The lowest temperature that H₂ molecules could cool to is around 200K. At this temperature, you'd require exceedingly high mass to overcome Jeans limit. This is in fact why GIII stars are believed to be super massive. This back and forth about whether they can exist or not is quite exasperating. The JWST will answer that in time.

and this may take an indefinite amount of time.

On what basis do you claim this may take an indefinite amount of time?

Density due to what exactly facilitated the formation of H₂? Remember density=mass/vol.

I don't know what your point is, but I believe I was referring to atomic density of the gas cloud (number of atoms/m³). This makes more sense than mass/vol, as gas atoms are discrete particles in space.

Remember too that primordial nucleosynthesis ended 10-20 mins after BB.

So?

AgentOfAllah,

My point: Jeans mass =Kρ^–1/2T^3/2. This mass must be overcome for the gas cloud to collapse. This can be achieved either by assuming that the gas cloud was massive enough, and thus density will increase, reducing Jeans mass. Or you can claim that energy was somehow radiated from the interior of the gas cloud, reducing pressure and thus enabling gravity to cause collapse. Or you can even invent dark matter to compress the gas cloud and induce collapse. I guess the theory is very plastic.

I disagree with your claim that the high density of early gas clouds would "facilitate" H₂ formation. Hydrogen formation before the appearance of the Population III stars ended even before primordial nucleosynthesis(3-20 mins after BB), and so no other process was in place for production of Hydrogen.

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

My point: Jeans mass =Kρ^–1/2T^3/2. This mass must be overcome for the gas cloud to collapse. This can be achieved either by assuming that the gas cloud was massive enough, and thus density will increase, reducing Jeans mass. Or you can claim that energy was somehow radiated from the interior of the gas cloud, reducing pressure and thus enabling gravity to cause collapse. Or you can even invent dark matter to compress the gas cloud and induce collapse. I guess the theory is very plastic.

I am not sure what you mean by "the theory is very plastic".

I disagree with your claim that the high density of early gas clouds would "facilitate" H₂ formation. Hydrogen formation before the appearance of the Population III stars ended even before primordial nucleosynthesis(3-20 mins after BB), and so no other process was in place for production of Hydrogen. Moreover, you have to have mass first before density can exist. Hence my question, "high density due to what facilitated the formation of H₂ in the early gas clouds?"

Oh, I see that you have misunderstood my explanation then. You don't need nucleosynthesis to create hydrogen molecules (H₂), as this is not a nuclear reaction, it is rather a chemical reaction that covalently bonds monoatomic hydrogen. The universe was initially dominated by ¹H, e^-, ¹H⁺. Then, due to an adiabatic rise in temperature inside the gas cloud, a chain chemical reaction forming H₂ occurs. It is initially slow, but then picks up speed as the density of H₂ increases. There are two reactive pathways for such a reaction:

1) ¹H + e^- → ¹H^- + photon
¹H^- + ¹H → ¹H₂ + e^-

or

2) ¹H⁺ + ¹H → ¹H₂⁺ + photon
¹H₂⁺ + ¹H → ¹H₂ + ¹H⁺

AgentOfAllah:
Scientific theories are propositions with predictive powers that can explain several bodies of independently observed facts and natural phenomena. For a theory to be accepted as scientific, it must therefore, be supported by a large body of testable facts, and it must, itself, be falsifiable. As such, for anything to be called a theory in scientific pedagogy, it must have been subjected to, and withstood rigorous scrutiny. A "theory" in colloquial parlance may be "JUST" something, but a scientific theory isn't "JUST" anything. The "many other theories" you've referenced are, in fact, hypotheses, not theories as far as science is concerned. So when I explain something to you using established scientific theories, be rest assured that it isn't just some conjured speculation from scientists[b]..........[/b]

I read this post sometime ago and I always meant to ask if you could explain how something that is supported by a large body of facts be yet falsifiable? That part got me confused.

Geist:
I read this post sometime ago and I always meant to ask if you could explain how something that is supported by a large body of facts be yet falsifiable? That part got me confused.

Falsifiability does not mean the theory is false, it just means the theory possesses an inherent quality that makes it disprovable. A falsifiable claim must satisfy two requirements to be seen as such:

(1) It must make definite predictions on the subject in question
(2) Such predictions must be testable.

For example, I may propose that every human alive has a heart. This claim is yet falsifiable because it meets both conditions. (1) It predicts that you will find any human alive with a heart, and (2) This prediction is testable because the heart is a definite organ that occupies a specific location in our bodies, which can be detected by various independent tools such as a stethoscope, ultrasonic sensors, x-ray imaging and so on.

I may also claim that the hearth pumps because there are imperceptible percussionists tirelessly playing musical rhythms on their invisible bass drums located inside the heart. This proposition may be supported by fact. We do hear the rhythm of our hearts, after all! Yet, it is not falsifiable because, how do you test the presence of imperceptible percussionists?

ROTFL. LoL.


Funny unbelievers at the FP of this thread.

Unbelievers are pretty funny, but, please, y'all really need to accept Christ Lordship over your life.

shadeyinka:


Your lack of basic science is a disadvantage.

In the Beginning God Created the Heavens (Plural) and The Earth.

This include all the elements and compounds in the periodic table and much more.


Now, use the Big Bang to explain the origin of oxygen?

Triple GBAM!!!

You give am well.

AgentOfAllah:


Falsifiability does not mean the theory is false, it just means the theory possesses an inherent quality that makes it disprovable. A falsifiable claim must satisfy two requirements to be seen as such:

(1) It must make definite predictions on the subject in question
(2) Such predictions must be testable.

For example, I may propose that every human alive has a heart. This claim is yet falsifiable because it meets both conditions. (1) It predicts that you will find any human alive with a heart, and (2) This prediction is testable because the heart is a definite organ that occupies a specific location in our bodies, which can be detected by various independent tools such as a stethoscope, ultrasonic sensors, x-ray imaging and so on.

I may also claim that the hearth pumps because there are imperceptible percussionists tirelessly playing musical rhythms on their invisible bass drums located inside the heart. This proposition may be supported by fact. We do hear the rhythm of our hearts, after all! Yet, it is not falsifiable because, how do you test the presence of imperceptible percussionists?

Let me see if I get you correctly. By falsifiable you mean that it is true but could have been false only in this case(a theory) it is true and cannot be false again? Also I would like you to contrast a scientific theory to a law if they are different. I'm sorry if these things seem like what I should understand with all that has been said so far.

Geist:
Let me see if I get you correctly. By falsifiable you mean that it is true but could have been false only in this case(a theory) it is true and cannot be false again?

Please pay careful attention: Falsifiability has nothing to do with whether a theory is true or false! As I've previously explained, it simply means that the theory can be scrutinised and proven false. This can be done by putting its predictions to the test. If however, every time you test these predictions, they reaffirm the theory rather than falsify it, you can then begin to say the theory yet stands true. The more tests of falsifiability the theory withstands, the more compelling it becomes.

Also I would like you to contrast a scientific theory to a law if they are different. I'm sorry if these things seem like what I should understand with all that has been said so far.

A scientific law is an observation, believed to be immutable within certain boundaries, which describes a particular phenomenon/fact. E.g. Electrostatic law and law of gravity.

A scientific theory lends explanatory power to observed facts. As such, one single theory may lend explanation to several bodies of facts. For example, the theory of stellar evolution explains why we observe stars, why modern stars have high metallicity, how planets exist, how elements on the periodic table came to be and so on. Crucially, they can also predict new facts. For example, the theory of stellar evolution predicts that the first stars were supermassive stars with zero metallicity. This prediction is yet to be confirmed, but it is being tested. Should it be proven wrong, then this theory would have failed. It would then need to be replaced or modified.

AgentOfAllah:


Please pay careful attention: Falsifiability has nothing to do with whether a theory is true or false! As I've previously explained, it simply means that the theory can be scrutinised and proven false. This can be done by putting its predictions to the test. If however, every time you test these predictions, they reaffirm the theory rather than falsify it, you can then begin to say the theory yet stands true. The more tests of falsifiability the theory withstands, the more compelling it becomes.



A scientific law is an observation, believed to be immutable within certain boundaries, which describes a particular phenomenon/fact. E.g. Electrostatic law and law of gravity.

A scientific theory lends explanatory power to observed facts. As such, one single theory may lend explanation to several bodies of facts. For example, the theory of stellar evolution explains why we observe stars, why modern stars have high metallicity, how planets exist, how elements on the periodic table came to be and so on. Crucially, they can also predict new facts. For example, the theory of stellar evolution predicts that the first stars were supermassive stars with zero metallicity. This prediction is yet to be confirmed, but it is being tested. Should it be proven wrong, then this theory would have failed. It would then need to be replaced or modified.

When you speak (type), it's like when I hear spanish or French. I understand fvckall but I like the sound.

shaybebaby:

When you speak (type), it's like when I hear spanish or French. I understand fvckall but I like the sound.

Haha! In spite of the fact that your compliment veils a welcome criticism of my developing communication skill, I'll assume you meant more compliment than jibe.

I quite like the sound of Spanish too! But only the Latin American dialects. The European dialect sounds retarded, and French has never appealed to me. It always sounds like it could use a new letter called flem!

AgentOfAllah:


Haha! In spite of the fact that your compliment veils a welcome criticism of my developing communication skill, I'll assume you meant more compliment than jibe.

I quite like the sound of Spanish too! But only the Latin American dialects. The European dialect sounds retarded, and French has never appealed to me. It always sounds like it could use a new letter called flem!

It is indeed a compliment. I listen to Bachata music even though I haven't a clue about the language. But it sounds wonderful.

Same as when you start to write all your stuff, I know it's English, I know it has meaning but it's all too clever for me to comprehend. But the beauty is that you hold such discourse naturally as a matter of conversation.

Its like someone doing a rap of the periodic table.

Latin America, Spain, French, it's all music to my ears. I get mate to speak to me in French just so it can sooth me

New letter Flem? Lmao. Savage.

AgentOfAllah:


Haha! In spite of the fact that your compliment veils a welcome criticism of my developing communication skill, I'll assume you meant more compliment than jibe.

I quite like the sound of Spanish too! But only the Latin American dialects. The European dialect sounds retarded, and French has never appealed to me. It always sounds like it could use a new letter called flem!

Out of curiosity, do you hold all that you write in your head or do you take sneak peaks at textbooks/journals whilst writing?
Confess!

shaybebaby:

It is indeed a compliment. I listen to Bachata music even though I haven't a clue about the language. But it sounds wonderful.

Same as when you start to write all your stuff, I know it's English, I know it has meaning but it's all too clever for me to comprehend. But the beauty is that you hold such discourse naturally as a matter of conversation.

Its like someone doing a rap of the periodic table.

Latin America, Spain, French, it's all music to my ears. I get mate to speak to me in French just so it can sooth me

New letter Flem? Lmao. Savage.

Bachata? Fine taste!! I love bachata too! I've got tons of Mexican friends, and it's all we dance to at their parties. I'm also a percussionist with a Columbian and bossanova group at my institution, so I sometimes perform when I'm not busy doing research.

shaybebaby:

Out of curiosity, do you hold all that you write in your head or do you take sneak peaks at textbooks/journals whilst writing?
Confess!

I am acutely aware that the things I write are being read by many, even if not all agree with them. I also have access to some of the biggest repositories of knowledge in the world. As such, I figured, if anybody would learn anything from me, it best be as accurate as I can present it. So I prefer not to risk making mistakes when disseminating knowledge.

To answer your question, no! I don't rely on knowledge from my head, I'm not that smart! Nor, also, do I take sneak peaks at textbooks and journals. I painstakingly read them until I am satisfied that I understand the knowledge contained therein! Then I summarise as I understand, and hope it is easy enough for anybody to understand. Consider this my petite contribution towards making knowledge open access!


It usually horrifies me to know that my summary is misunderstood because it is too complicated. This means I've done a poor job at it. So you see why I took note of the criticism in your compliment.

AgentOfAllah:


Bachata? Fine taste!! I love bachata too! I've got tons of Mexican friends, and it's all we dance to at their parties. I'm also a percussionist with a Columbian and bossanova group at my institution, so I sometimes perform when I'm not busy doing research.

You are going to have to invite me to one of them parties, some salsa and merengue would be a fine treat.

Research eh? I knew there was going to be something for along those lines going on with you. What's your research field?

AgentOfAllah:


I am acutely aware that the things I write are being read by many, even if not all agree with them. I also have access to some of the biggest repositories of knowledge in the world. As such, I figured, if anybody would learn anything from me, it best be as accurate as I can present it. So I prefer not to risk making mistakes when disseminating knowledge.

To answer your question, no! I don't rely on knowledge from my head, I'm not that smart! Nor, also, do I take sneak peaks at textbooks and journals. I painstakingly read them until I am satisfied that I understand the knowledge contained therein! Then I summarise as I understand, and hope it is easy enough for anybody to understand. Consider this my petite contribution towards making knowledge open access!


It usually horrifies me to know that my summary is misunderstood because it is too complicated. This means I've done a poor job at it. So you see why I took note of the criticism in your compliment.

Don't be too hard on yourself. It is easy to assume the people you chat with have some rudimentary knowledge of the subject when you are so well versed in it yourself. I often do that myself.

shaybebaby:

You are going to have to invite me to one of them parties, some salsa and merengue would be a fine treat.

One day soon, when my anonymity is less of a concern!

Research eh? I knew there was going to be something for along those lines going on with you. What's your research field?

Condensed matter physics, with special focus on optical properties of matter.

AgentOfAllah:
One day soon, when my anonymity is less of a concern!



Condensed matter physics, with special focus on optical properties of matter.

Okay, I'm the slow one here. I know the meaning of the individual words up there, together though.. I'm lost.
What would be the practical application of the bolded?


Anonymity? Why? What you hiding?

shaybebaby:


Okay, I'm the slow one here. I know the meaning of the individual words up there, together though.. I'm lost.
What would be the practical application of the bolded?

Think of matter as subatomic particles like protons, electrons, neutrons, etc. Now, when matter condenses, it becomes many interesting things like atoms, molecules, compounds, crystals, polymers, membranes, tissues, cells, organs, living things, planets, stars and pretty much every physical entity you can imagine. So condensed matter physics is interested in explaining why these subatomic particles behave in the way they behave and express themselves in all these different ways. It is, itself, fundamental science, so it will be a great disservice to pin it down to any sort of practical applications. Yet, the field has proven to be extremely practical in many ways, and I will get to that promtply.

First, I'll quickly gist you about the optical properties of matter. Now, we all have this insatiable curiosity about the universe. Why not? It is a remarkable, marvelous and awesome place, yet shrouded in such delicious mystery that yearns for illumination! Yes! Illumination! Everything boils down to illumination. If you ever were to understand anything about this universe, you must start with light (the bible got this much correct). Light is everything! All matter interacts with light in one way or another. It could be absorbed, reflected, transmitted or radiated. You see something, call it condensed matter, because the cone cells in your eyes absorb light (electromagnetic energy in scientific jargon), converts the energy to electric signals which then paint some kind of picture in your brain that approximates the matter you saw. That condensed matter though, you only saw it for one of two reasons: either it radiated or reflected certain wavelengths of electromagnetic energy which your cone cells are sensitive to. Radiation and reflection occur because the atoms and electrons in the matter are somehow conserving energy. Somethings, you don't see because they transmit light, or they radiate light that aren't within the sensitivity range of your cone cells. The bottom line is that every single matter, from the smallest atom to the biggest star, (even you, yourself) has particular optical properties that can help us to understand its behaviour better, thus inching us ever closer to illuminating the mysteries of the universe.

You asked for practical applications. I will give you some:

(1) How do we know the elements that make up stars: No one has ever been to a star before, so we have no business knowing what stars are made up of, right? Well, recall that I mentioned that every single matter has particular optical signatures that can help us to understand its behaviour better? It turns out the certain elements, when hot, emit very specific colours of light, and when cold, they absorb the same specific colours.
Hydrogen, for instance, emits signature colours of Red (wavelength of 656 nm), Cyan (wavelength of 486 nm), blue (wavelength of 434 nm) and violet (410 nm).

Hydrogen visible spectrum

No other material has this signature, so if you point a spectrometer (a detector that can separate light into its respective wavelengths) at a bright star (like our sun), you will see these specific colour lines missing, which means the sun's atmosphere mainly consists of hydrogen. This is how we know that most stars are mainly made up of hydrogen.

(2) Light emitting devices: Using our knowledge of light-matter interaction, we have been able to come up with ever more efficient ways of generating light cheaply and efficiently for use in ornamentation, signage, germicidal irradiation, lighting, digital devices and optical storage. Simply put, our modern day lives heavily depend on the lessons we have learned from the optical properties of materials.


Some popular applications from the study of Optical properties of materials


(3) Technology of the future: Harvesting solar energy heavily depends on my field of research to come up with very efficient ways to make materials absorb light energy and convert it to electricity, so that we can have cheaper ways to access electricity

A solar field

We can even make forests in the deserts by creating artificial cold suns that give plants enough light energy to manufacture their food, without causing all of the water to evaporate

An LED lit artificial greenhouse

As you see, this field, while it is a justification unto itself, has pretty much invented our modern world, and is poised to invent the world of the future too!

Anonymity? Why? What you hiding?

I'm hiding my atheist arse from people I'd rather didn't find I am one.

AgentOfAllah:


Think of matter as subatomic particles like protons, electrons, neutrons, etc. Now, when matter condenses, it becomes many interesting things like atoms, molecules, compounds, crystals, polymers, membranes, tissues, cells, organs, living things, planets, stars and pretty much every physical entity you can imagine. So condensed matter physics is interested in explaining why these subatomic particles behave in the way they behave and express themselves in all these different ways. It is, itself, fundamental science, so it will be a great disservice to pin it down to any sort of practical applications. Yet, the field has proven to be extremely practical in many ways, and I will get to that promtply.

First, I'll quickly gist you about the optical properties of matter. Now, we all have this insatiable curiosity about the universe. Why not? It is a remarkable, marvelous and awesome place, yet shrouded in such delicious mystery that yearns for illumination! Yes! Illumination! Everything boils down to illumination. If you ever were to understand anything about this universe, you must start with light (the bible got this much correct). Light is everything! All matter interacts with light in one way or another. It could be absorbed, reflected, transmitted or radiated. You see something, call it condensed matter, because the cone cells in your eyes absorb light (electromagnetic energy in scientific jargon), converts the energy to electric signals which then paint some kind of picture in your brain that approximates the matter you saw. That condensed matter though, you only saw it for one of two reasons: either it radiated or reflected certain wavelengths of electromagnetic energy which your cone cells are sensitive to. Radiation and reflection occur because the atoms and electrons in the matter are somehow conserving energy. Somethings, you don't see because they transmit light, or they radiate light that aren't within the sensitivity range of your cone cells. The bottom line is that every single matter, from the smallest atom to the biggest star, (even you, yourself) has particular optical properties that can help us to understand its behaviour better, thus inching us ever closer to illuminating the mysteries of the universe.

You asked for practical applications. I will give you some:

(1) How do we know the elements that make up stars: No one has ever been to a star before, so we have no business knowing what stars are made up of, right? Well, recall that I mentioned that every single matter has particular optical signatures that can help us to understand its behaviour better? It turns out the certain elements, when hot, emit very specific colours of light, and when cold, they absorb the same specific colours.
Hydrogen, for instance, emits signature colours of Red (wavelength of 656 nm), Cyan (wavelength of 486 nm), blue (wavelength of 434 nm) and violet (410 nm).

Hydrogen visible spectrum

No other material has this signature, so if you point a spectrometer (a detector that can separate light into its respective wavelengths) at a bright star (like our sun), you will see these specific colour lines missing, which means the sun's atmosphere mainly consists of hydrogen. This is how we know that most stars are mainly made up of hydrogen.

(2) Light emitting devices: Using our knowledge of light-matter interaction, we have been able to come up with ever more efficient ways of generating light cheaply and efficiently for use in ornamentation, signage, germicidal irradiation, lighting, digital devices and optical storage. Simply put, our modern day lives heavily depend on the lessons we have learned from the optical properties of materials.


Some popular applications from the study of Optical properties of materials


(3) Technology of the future: Harvesting solar energy heavily depends on my field of research to come up with very efficient ways to make materials absorb light energy and convert it to electricity, so that we can have cheaper ways to access electricity

A solar field

We can even make forests in the deserts by creating artificial cold suns that give plants enough light energy to manufacture their food, without causing all of the water to evaporate

An LED lit artificial greenhouse

As you see, this field, while it is a justification unto itself, has pretty much invented our modern world, and is poised to invent the world of the future too!

I'm hiding my atheist arse from people I'd rather didn't find I am one.

Truly fascinating stuff you wrote up there and yes I did grasp most of it based on secondary school biology(cones and rods in our eyes) hence not wondering if you meant traffic cones.

I'll have to assume that so far, the tech isn't yet cost effective enough, there is greater use of wind farms here.

I may have the wrong element here but I recall reading something along the lines of uranium being much cleaner and more efficient (barring safe disposal of waste) than all other methods of generating energy. What you know about that?

AgentOfAllah:



I'm hiding my atheist arse from people I'd rather didn't find I am one.

If they know you well enough offline, they should be able to spot you from the way you come across. My brother read a rant of mine on here and knew it was me even though I had never mentioned that I was active on here. Did know he was even aware of this forum.

Either ways, why do you care? Do you, YOLO!

shaybebaby:


Truly fascinating stuff you wrote up there and yes I did grasp most of it based on secondary school biology(cones and rods in our eyes) hence not wondering if you meant traffic cones.

Right on! There you go! Knew you had it in you.

I'll have to assume that so far, the tech isn't yet cost effective enough, there is greater use of wind farms here.

Well, let's just say there's yet much ground to cover.

I may have the wrong element here but I recall reading something along the lines of uranium being much cleaner and more efficient (barring safe disposal of waste) than all other methods of generating energy. What you know about that?

Indeed, nuclear fission of Uranium atoms is perhaps the most efficient way to generate energy on Earth. Per gram, you'll easily get about 2 million times the energy you get from coal and oil; even way more than that compared to wind and solar. It is also much cleaner than coal and oil but not as clean as solar, wind or hydroelectric generation. The reason is the absence of proper disposal means of nuclear waste like you mentioned. This is a very huge problem because Uranium, once split, emits a dangerous kind of light called gamma ray. Gamma ray is an ionising radiation that can interact with the very nucleons that make up elements. It will therefore rapidly cause the disintegration of biomolecules. So it shouldn't be anywhere near living things. Well, this is why nuclear isn't a good long term energy investment. As the wastes pile up, so too does the risk of severe health and safety repercussions.

If they know you well enough offline, they should be able to spot you from the way you come across. My brother read a rant of mine on here and knew it was me even though I had never mentioned that I was active on here. Did know he was even aware of this forum.

Either ways, why do you care? Do you, YOLO!

My fear isn't of people who know me well enough. See, I come from a Muslim background, and there are yet those among my acquaintances from years past who are dangerously fanatical. I fear what they're capable of doing to me or my family, should my identity be revealed, and I don't feel particularly inclined to provide them with fodder to feed the embers of their fanaticism, until I'm confident we're out of their unpredictable reach. The struggle is real my sister!

AgentOfAllah:

Right on! There you go! Knew you had it in you.


Well, let's just say there's yet much ground to cover.


Indeed, nuclear fission of Uranium atoms is perhaps the most efficient way to generate energy on Earth. Per gram, you'll easily get about 2 million times the energy you get from coal and oil; even way more than that compared to wind and solar. It is also much cleaner than coal and oil but not as clean as solar, wind or hydroelectric generation. The reason is the absence of proper disposal means of nuclear waste like you mentioned. This is a very huge problem because Uranium, once split, emits a dangerous kind of light called gamma ray. Gamma ray is an ionising radiation that can interact with the very nucleons that make up elements. It will therefore rapidly cause the disintegration of biomolecules. So it shouldn't be anywhere near living things. Well, this is why nuclear isn't a good long term energy investment. As the wastes pile up, so too does the risk of severe health and safety repercussions.



My fear isn't of people who know me well enough. See, I come from a Muslim background, and there are yet those among my acquaintances from years past who are dangerously fanatical. I fear what they're capable of doing to me or my family, should my identity be revealed, and I don't feel particularly inclined to provide them with fodder to feed the embers of their fanaticism, until I'm confident we're out of their unpredictable reach. The struggle is real my sister!

Buenos dias. Completely zonked out last night after just two hours sleep the night before.

Must be quite unsettling for you, I imagine. I respect your need to protect yourself and your family.

shaybebaby:

Buenos dias. Completely zonked out last night after just two hours sleep the night before.

Must be quite unsettling for you, I imagine. I respect your need to protect yourself and your family.

Buenos dias!

It is a mildly irritating inconvenience, but I have grown rather used to it.