I am doing philosophical work based on the meaning of life. I have read a lot on the atoms, radioactivity and everything. But I cannot really find an
answer to the question of: are stable element (non radio active elements) eternal ?
I can hardly imagine that is the case. For me even stable atoms needs to consume energy to maintain their integrity so how cannot they change over
time ?
Answer or luseful link appreciated
tkBlind Angel - 22-2-2004 at 08:49
No they aren't eternal, each element has is half life, those who aren't radiactive have the half-life of their constiuant, i think that the
proton half life is something like 1x10<sup>38</sup> years (or something like this) it's a pretty long period but they aren't
eternalMarvin - 22-2-2004 at 10:19
Atoms do not need to consume energy just to exist, this would be a violation of conservation of mass/energy.
Nothing is eternal, but only because the universe is not eternal.
Blind,
My understanding is that noone has actually been able to observe a proton decay. The failiar of experiments Ive read about imply that its half life
cannot be less than a certain value, but do not rule out it being stable.I am a fish - 22-2-2004 at 13:54
Quote:
Originally posted by Blind Angel
i think that the proton half life is something like 1x10<sup>38</sup>
Different models make different predictions. The lower experimental limit to the proton half-life is of the order 10^33 years (which is short enough
to rule out some models).Pyrovus - 24-2-2004 at 00:15
Quote:
Nothing is eternal, but only because the universe is not eternal.
I would dispute this. According to current observations we live in an open universe, which will expand forever. Admittedly, though the jury is still
out on this.
I suspect "stable" nuclei would last for far longer than their constituent protons due to the stabilising influence of the strong nuclear
force. After all, neutrons outside a nucleus are highly unstable, with a half-life of about 12 mins, but in the nucleus last almost indefinitely. That
said, "stable" nuclei will decay eventually, but by that stage the universe will be incapable of supporting life and be a VERY boring place
consisting of endless vacuum with the odd photon or neutrino here and there.IgnorantlyIntelligent - 28-2-2004 at 13:39
Nothing is eternal so what do you think will happen once all elements near their end and our univers is no more. Eventually, could there be another
big bang? Without matter and anti-matter floating around(so to speak) this couldn't really happen. Could it? One day, might there never be
anything ever again? EVER is a loooooooong time.Pyrovus - 28-2-2004 at 20:00
Sorry, but if the universe doesn't recollapse then it will last forever - showing that at least one thing can be eternal. It isn't going to
suddenly decide, "right, I suppose I probably shouldn't be around forever, so I'll just stop existing". The universe will continue
on forever, as empty and as active as George W Bush's brain. Then again, if you believe in the philosophy that things only exist because they are
perceived to exist, then the universe will cease to exist the instant the last sentient organism dies.
If the universe does recollapse, there could perhaps be another big bang - this is the basis for the "oscillating universe" model, in which
the universe is in an infinite cycle of big bangs/ big crunches, with all the energy in the universe being continually recycled. If there is not
another big bang, however, (provided there aren't other universes) there will just be nothing, but not "eternal" nothing, because time
itself will cease to exist.chemoleo - 28-2-2004 at 20:18
I find this a very interesting thought, does the universe exist if no sentient being is around to perceive it? How about you die, does the universe
vanish once you enter the realms of heaven or hell?
How about that, does the universe exist when I am in deep sleep? Does the moon exist when I don't look at it? In fact, does anything exist UNLESS
I look at it?
Does my looking at it prove the existance of something (to me?)? After all... I could be deep inside a computer program... thinking my thoughts are
unique... while in fact I am just zillions of electrons, where there are master programmers to look at what I am doing/thinking, and where I am
nothing but a mere experimental subject.
Just like you are . In fact you might be a master programmer yourself, making me write this , and evaluating me right at this moment!
Prove me I am wrong!
Just a thought - an interesting one to me, that is
Edit: I realise this might be considered 'insane' - but then, 'Gedanken sind frei' (thoughts are free), and there arent many
things I like more than exploring ideas and thoughts.
Anyway... prove me wrong! I say, we all sit in a big fat computer (or just myself), and everything is an illusion!
[Edited on 29-2-2004 by chemoleo]Pyrovus - 28-2-2004 at 21:21
The only thing anybody can ultimately prove is their own existance. Everything else we perceive about the world comes from our senses. We cannot prove
that anything else exists because we cannot prove that our senses are telling the truth - the movie "The Matrix" demonstrates this concept
superbly. For all I know, I am the only thing that exists, and everything else is just a figment of my imagination (though I hope that isn't
true, for considering the state the world is in it wouldn't say anything good about my imagination!).
You can prove your own existance (I'm of course assuming you exist in order to be able to prove your existance), however, it is impossible for me
to prove you exist. In terms of existentialism, selfishness rules.
, and evaluating me right at this moment!