Church. Why?

[stickygirl]

For the cake
225ml ( 8 fl oz) sunflower oil
225 g light muscovado sugar - but I use plain brown
4 medium eggs
225g plain flour
1 1/2 teaspoon baking powder
1 1/2 ground cinnamon, sugarcube size of fresh ginger chopped fine
200g carrots coarsely grated

Icing
120g icing sugar, 100g double cream, 100g butter + teaspoon of vanilla essence

Preheat oven 170c. Grease & line baking trays 8-inch ( I use silicon ones )
Make a mud pie with oil, sugar, eggs, then add flour, soda, spices. Finally stir in carrots and dollop into trays.
I find 35 mins is long enough but it's never played tricks: when it's brown and a poked fork isn't wet, it's done. Don't over cook it so it starts to frazzle.

Pop them out onto a tray to cool.

Icing
Make sure the butter is soft, then slop in the cream and vanilla , getting it as smooth as possible before adding icing sugar ( I do it by hand but a blending thing would be helpful )
A dusting of icing sugar when you've added the icing between the layers makes it pretty.

YW. I'm making one tomorrow for a friend who's calling

 

[Tryharder62]

Because no complex molecules existed in the early period after the Big Bang. It took some time even for protons and neutrons to emerge.

I expect those were in force from the beginning.

Wasn't all matter created at the the very first moment of time. Then weren't protons and neutrons always there since the moment of time?

 

[pecksniff]

Wasn't all matter created at the the very first moment of time. Then weren't protons and neutrons always there?

No, I don't think so. It's complicated. Big Bang:

The Planck Era

The Planck era is the time era from absolute zero to about 10-43 seconds (the eponymous Planck time) after the Big Bang. We have no working theory for this time span yet, and hardly any observational data — correspondingly little can be said about it with certainty. However, at these short times and high energies, gravitation is expected to have been as strong as the other three fundamental forces (strong, weak and electromagnetic interaction), and all four forces may have been unified into one[10].

The Universe in those times was extremely tiny, much smaller than a subatomic particle, hot, and smooth even if as it began to expand quantum variations would begin to cause small fluctuations of density on it.

Grand Unification Epoch

After 10-43 seconds, the universe still quite tiny despite having somewhat expanded had cooled down to a chilly 1032 K, causing gravity to split off the other three forces. While the Standard Model of particle physics cannot accommodate such a Grand Unified Theory (GUT), many theories beyond the Standard Model, e.g. Supersymmetry, can. In quantum field theory (the description of particle interactions on the fundamental level), particles do not have bare masses — mass is a consequence of a process called spontaneous symmetry breaking. In the highly symmetric GUTs, particles are massless.

Inflation

The cosmic inflation concept proposes that about 10-36 seconds after the initial moment, when it had cooled to 1028K, the universe underwent a period of rapid expansion which smoothed out the density fluctuations mentioned above. Inflation was developed by Alan Guth in the early 1980s to solve some problems with the standard Big Bang theory. These are:

The horizon problem: Matter in the present Universe is extremely homogeneous; the density of galaxies and gas clouds is the same no matter which direction we look. Furthermore, the temperature of the photons of the cosmic microwave background from one direction are the same as from the opposite direction. These photons come from two points in the universe that were never in contact. Yet somehow, they are the same temperature! The only way to resolve this was if the Universe expanded very rapidly in its early stages.

The flatness problem: Kinematic tests and data from the CMB fluctuations suggest that the Universe is flat. Moreover, the only way that large-scale structure could form is if the Universe was flat. If the Universe were closed, with the density much greater than the critical density, ρ >> ρcrit, then the universe would have collapsed to a singularity a long time ago. (This scenario, by the way, is called the big crunch.) But if ρ << ρcrit then the universe would have started expanding very rapidly, and the galaxies and large scale structure that we see today could not have formed. The way inflation does this is by demanding that (classical) inhomogeneities be washed out. Or, more precisely, they be stretched to scales much larger than the observable universe. (Interestingly, inflation also predicts that various regions of the universe be causally disconnected (that is, they cannot communicate with each other), which allows for the possibility of a multiverse.)

The monopole problem: Many grand unification theories (GUTs) predict the existence of magnetic monopoles, and moreover predict that they would've been produced in large numbers in the initial very hot state of the Universe. However, we see very few of these in nature.[11] Inflation solves the puzzle of magnetic monopoles by spreading them out over vast spaces in a relatively short (tiny fractions of a second, but longer than the lifetime of the universe prior to the onset of said inflation) period of time -of course this point is moot if GUTs were wrong and monopoles did not exist at all-.

The initial fluctuations problem: As mentioned above, small over- and under-densities in the early Universe were the seeds for the formation of galaxies and large scale structure. The question remains, though: why are the fluctuations there, and what dictates their form? Inflation says that they are there from quantum (not classical; remember, those are wiped out by inflation!) fluctuations when the Universe was Planck-sized. They were then amplified to galactic scales. Inflation also predicts the form of the fluctuations.

This inflation occurred at a speed much faster than the speed of light, expanding the Universe at least 1026 times (1078 times in volume) and probably still much more. By the time the Universe was a fifth of a microsecond old, it was the size of the solar system.[12], having cooled to "just" 1022K.

Of course, the natural question to ask about inflation is "What bizarre form of matter could cause that?"[13] It turns out that if you have a scalar field with the right potential, then an inflationary epoch will take place, and it will satisfy the conditions to solve the problems listed above. Using the right potential, one can also arrange for a graceful exit. This means that there will be a smooth transition from the inflationary epoch to a Friedman expansion. There are many concrete inflationary scenarios (which of course result from choosing a potential) that have been proposed.

So, what is the 'inflaton', the particle that caused it? Physicists originally thought that the Higgs field was the field causing inflation (or, the Higgs boson is the inflaton). However, the potential (the Higgs, or Mexican hat potential) does not have the right properties, so some other scalar particle must be the inflaton[14]. It is currently thought that the inflaton is a "beyond the Standard Model" particle.

Another important piece in this story is the phase transition known as reheating. Reheating is the process by which the inflation field decays to the other particles, like quarks, electrons and photons.

So, those particles -- and protons and neutrons, which are composed of quarks -- did not exist until after reheating.

 

[Tryharder62]

Which one, there are four.

Nice try....there are three. Sean you can definitely school me on the Law of Thermodynamics. My thought process (see the post above) was that he was saying that protons and neutrons emerged later but they would have had to be there in the beginning of time. I do know that is part of the Law(s) of Thermodynamics.

 

[jaF0]

Wasn't all matter created at the the very first moment of time. Then weren't protons and neutrons always there since the moment of time?

That's one of the big fallacies. There was no 'very first moment'. That is a human attempt to explain what humans cannot understand.

 

[Tryharder62]

No, I don't think so. It's complicated. Big Bang:

So, those particles -- and protons and neutrons, which are composed of quarks -- did not exist until after reheating.

Boy you've got a bunch of problems. D...just kidding) Seriously though, doesn't one of the Laws of Thermodynamics say that matter cannot be created or destroyed?Aren't protons and neutrons in matter?

 

[jaF0]

So, those particles -- and protons and neutrons, which are composed of quarks -- did not exist until after reheating.

Watch it hoomon!!!


https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-InPaPLWcniQ/V-5y5MpgSVI/AAAAAAAABiE/rZB0NNGp93wWS_YiCJzAJt6ZOk-J8V4eACPcB/s320/Screen%2BShot%2B2016-09-26%2Bat%2B9.54.18%2BPM.png

 

[jaF0]

doesn't one of the Laws of Thermodynamics say that

Again, a human concept of explanation.

 

[MartinHeidegger]

Boy you've got a bunch of problems. D...just kidding) Seriously though, doesn't one of the Laws of Thermodynamics say that matter cannot be created or destroyed?Aren't protons and neutrons in matter?

Protons and neutrons are composite particles. The early universe would have been too hot for them to exist. As for matter being created and destroyed, that's a more complicated story, but is probably not true, in general. Einstein's general relativity theory, for instance, makes conservation on cosmological scales poorly defined.

 

[Tryharder62]

That's one of the big fallacies. There was no 'very first moment'. That is a human attempt to explain what humans cannot understand.

You are really into that argument aren't you? I think it is better to go around trying to understand things than to ignore them. Right now I am trying to understand my cat. He doesn't really like toys, but he has a long shoestring that he makes a big production out of dragging up to our bed at night. I know it can be a gift of something he is proud of. He also makes a big production of taking it downstairs in the morning. The only other thing he really likes is when my husband cuts shoe insoles. The little bit that is cut off he can play with for days. The vet said it was ok to let him do it. Does he have some kind of a foot fetish? Enquiring minds want to know.

 

[Tryharder62]

Again, a human concept of explanation.

OK, I'll go ask my cat.

 

[pecksniff]

Boy you've got a bunch of problems. D...just kidding) Seriously though, doesn't one of the Laws of Thermodynamics say that matter cannot be created or destroyed?Aren't protons and neutrons in matter?

Matter can be transformed, and some forms of it -- not now, but in the very very early stages of the universe -- do not include protons and neutrons.

So, there was no DNA then. DNA emerged later -- and only on the surface of this one planet, so far as we know so far.

RNA might be more relevant here anyway:

Possible Role in the Formation of Life

RNA structures store information, and certain types (called ribozymes) are able to manipulate other strands of RNA or assemble proteins out of amino acids. Short sequences can also replicate themselves if certain substances are present in the environment, and these compounds have been shown to form under the natural conditions that dominated the primitive earth. These characteristics may mean that RNA had a role in the formation of life.

One prominent theory states that RNA began to assemble itself into small, fragile strands. Most of them would fall apart under the harsh conditions of the time, but some would have been able to effectively reproduce themselves. Through random structural changes, some of those might have started assembling proteins from the amino acids floating in the sea, creating a self-replicating RNA-protein complex. If these proteins helped the strand to effectively reproduce, they would be kept and enhanced by natural selection, eventually leading to the formation of lone proteins more effective at reproduction than RNA or its complexes.

 

[Tryharder62]

Protons and neutrons are composite particles. The early universe would have been too hot for them to exist. As for matter being created and destroyed, that's a more complicated story, but is probably not true, in general. Einstein's general relativity theory, for instance, makes conservation on cosmological scales poorly defined.

I do understand what you are trying to say and I appreciate it. I can't say it doesn't frustrate me to no end. Is it fact, as usually implied, or is it not? Thanks

 

[Sean]

Nice try....there are three. Sean you can definitely school me on the Law of Thermodynamics. My thought process (see the post above) was that he was saying that protons and neutrons emerged later but they would have had to be there in the beginning of time. I do know that is part of the Law(s) of Thermodynamics.

No, there are four. And there is no reason the massive particles had to be present just after the big bang. The particles in the Bohr model aren't fundamental.

 

[Sean]

Boy you've got a bunch of problems. D...just kidding) Seriously though, doesn't one of the Laws of Thermodynamics say that matter cannot be created or destroyed?Aren't protons and neutrons in matter?

No law in physics says matter can't be created or destroyed. Matter gets destroyed all the time, stars do it on a massive scale.

 

[MartinHeidegger]

I do understand what you are trying to say and I appreciate it. I can't say it doesn't frustrate me to no end. Is it fact, as usually implied, or is it not? Thanks

That protons and neutrons are composite particles? That's considered factual to a very high degree of confidence. The particles that make them up, the quarks and gluons (they're called, a different class of particle) are standard fare at large particle accelerators.

That the early universe would have been too hot for protons and neutrons to exist? Also high degree of confidence. It follows from known physics, but isn't something that is directly observable with current technology. As far as I know. Gravitational wave astronomy might put these observations within reach in the near future, but is going to require some clever experiments.

That matter isn't conserved? That's more tricky, because the theory that would be the context for that conclusion doesn't really exist yet. Most physicists would say conservation on cosmological scales is problematic in Einstein's theory, though some others try to patch it up. Most also say conditions are right in the early universe, the inflationary epoch, for most of the matter in the universe to come ex nihilo. But to have a better understanding we really need to unite Einstein's theory with quantum mechanics, which hasn't successfully been done yet.

 

[Tryharder62]

No, there are four. And there is no reason the massive particles had to be present just after the big bang. The particles in the Bohr model aren't fundamental.

Well you definitely got me on that one because I didn't know there was a 0th Law of thermodynamics. So what do you think when you hear that energy cannot be created or destroyed?

 

[Tryharder62]

That protons and neutrons are composite particles? That's considered factual to a very high degree of confidence. The particles that make them up, the quarks and gluons (they're called, a different class of particle) are standard fare at large particle accelerators.

That the early universe would have been too hot for protons and neutrons to exist? Also high degree of confidence. It follows from known physics, but isn't something that is directly observable with current technology. As far as I know. Gravitational wave astronomy might put these observations within reach in the near future, but is going to require some clever experiments.

That matter isn't conserved? That's more tricky, because the theory that would be the context for that conclusion doesn't really exist yet. Most physicists would say conservation on cosmological scales is problematic in Einstein's theory, though some others try to patch it up. Most also say conditions are right in the early universe, the inflationary epoch, for most of the matter in the universe to come ex nihilo. But to have a better understanding we really need to unite Einstein's theory with quantum mechanics, which hasn't successfully been done yet.

Are you a teacher? Very interesting.

 

[jaF0]

The Illutions and Kartoniks out there are laughing hysterically at the silly Earthlings and their vain attempts to explain things and how badly wrong they are.

 

[Tryharder62]

No law in physics says matter can't be created or destroyed. Matter gets destroyed all the time, stars do it on a massive scale.

"Thermodynamics is the branch of physics that deals with the relationships between heat and other forms of energy. In particular, it describes how thermal energy is converted to and from other forms of energy and how it affects matter."

Is the stars mass destroyed or redistributed?

 

[pecksniff]

Nice try....there are three.

Four -- it can get confusing because one of them is numbered "zeroth."

Zeroth law of thermodynamics: "When two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a reservoir, they are in thermal equilibrium with each other."
First law of thermodynamics: "The total energy of the Universe is constant."
Second law of thermodynamics: "The entropy of an isolated system does not decrease."
Third law of thermodynamics: "As the temperature of a perfect crystal approaches zero, its entropy approaches a constant."[1]

The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Laws may be humorously summarized in non-scientific form as:

1. You can't get something for nothing.
2. You can't even break even unless you cool the temperature to absolute zero.
3. It's impossible to actually reach absolute zero.

The second law is the one usually cited as why a perpetual motion machine is impossible.

 

[Sean]

"Thermodynamics is the branch of physics that deals with the relationships between heat and other forms of energy. In particular, it describes how thermal energy is converted to and from other forms of energy and how it affects matter."

Is the stars mass destroyed or redistributed?

It's converted to energy. A star is basically a big H bomb.

 

[pecksniff]

It's converted to energy. A star is basically a big H bomb.

Until they run out of fusionable elements. Eternity = the heat death of the universe.

 

[Sean]

Until they run out of fusionable elements. Eternity = the heat death of the universe.

That's the logical consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[Tryharder62]

STICKY GIRL!!!!THANKS FOR THE RECIPE

For the cake
225ml ( 8 fl oz) sunflower oil
225 g light muscovado sugar - but I use plain brown
4 medium eggs
225g plain flour
1 1/2 teaspoon baking powder
1 1/2 ground cinnamon, sugarcube size of fresh ginger chopped fine
200g carrots coarsely grated

Icing
120g icing sugar, 100g double cream, 100g butter + teaspoon of vanilla essence

Preheat oven 170c. Grease & line baking trays 8-inch ( I use silicon ones )
Make a mud pie with oil, sugar, eggs, then add flour, soda, spices. Finally stir in carrots and dollop into trays.
I find 35 mins is long enough but it's never played tricks: when it's brown and a poked fork isn't wet, it's done. Don't over cook it so it starts to frazzle.

Pop them out onto a tray to cool.

Icing
Make sure the butter is soft, then slop in the cream and vanilla , getting it as smooth as possible before adding icing sugar ( I do it by hand but a blending thing would be helpful )
A dusting of icing sugar when you've added the icing between the layers makes it pretty.

YW. I'm making one tomorrow for a friend who's calling

Wish we lived close. That sounds delicious.