Science Quiz #2: Is E=mc² right or wrong?

What do you think caused these 38 bursts of energy?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

in your language of standard theory you already have an answer you believe in, don't you ?

I said
"What happens to them, if they really annihilate each other in terms of mass annihilation or just doing a charge reversal I can not tell you now."

I didn't run the experiment nor I know exactly what is going on there

how about my question ?

Why do not create ordinary matter first, instead of antimatter ?

a reply to: KrzYma

Matter and antimatter are created in pairs (from energy), so they are created at the same time. See this video at 2:55


www.youtube.com...

We already knew matter falls down, but scientists wanted to study the antimatter to see if it falls down or up as they didn't know. Now apparently they've determined anti-matter also falls down, so the charges are "anti" but apparently not gravitational attraction.

a reply to: KrzYma

Could it be that when Particle and anti particle collide to create radiation and 'so called annihilation', there are still matter particles involved, they are just difficult to detect? Like because the particles have different spins and stuff, the interaction releases greater amount of radiation then when particles of same signs interact, so physicists think that the particles themselves must have dissipated, but is it possible they turned into different matter particles, like those which make up dark energy field, or dark matter, or something else.

originally posted by: St Udio
c²

the speed of light squared ? I understood that nothing exceeds the speed of light

is the process of chain-reaction continuously re-doubled until the reaction happens at quadruple the speed-of-light and goes Boom ?!

I speculate that a propelled mass --- like a starship --- given enough thrust, is capable of going into the superluminal realm [faster that light speed] without suffering the effects of mass elongation --- at the speed of light barrier --- as long as it's surrounded by an outer magnetic shield of some sort.

a reply to: Erno86
There's a lot of evidence that speculation is false. Electromagnetism has never been recorded traveling faster than light, so the flaw in that idea is that the magnetic field won't go faster than light.

If you want to speculate about FTL spaceships, I suggest reading "Sonny" White's speculation at NASA which doesn't have as much evidence to contradict it:

Warp Field Mechanics 101 Dr. Harold “Sonny” White NASA

The problem is, such a warp drive needs negative mass, and we don't know how to make negative mass. He says dark energy seems to have similar properties so it might not be impossible, but that's still quite a leap.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Erno86
There's a lot of evidence that speculation is false. Electromagnetism has never been recorded traveling faster than light, so the flaw in that idea is that the magnetic field won't go faster than light.

If you want to speculate about FTL spaceships, I suggest reading "Sonny" White's speculation at NASA which doesn't have as much evidence to contradict it:

Warp Field Mechanics 101 Dr. Harold “Sonny” White NASA

The problem is, such a warp drive needs negative mass, and we don't know how to make negative mass. He says dark energy seems to have similar properties so it might not be impossible, but that's still quite a leap.

I'm not a fan of warp drive...yet I assume that since I've seen an alien starship --- back in 1976 --- that obviously used a magnetic shield surrounding the starship to contain the plasma surrounding it --- It would have to be a starship that has broken the speed of light barrier, with the help of a magnetic shield.

A static magnetic field or shield, which does not include changing fields, which would make it a gravitational field --- like a planet --- sufficiently strong...will bend light.

The speed of light is the upper limit for the speeds of objects with positive rest mass. Photons have no rest mass, yet bend because of their relativistic mass= hf/c^2.

Photons in a effective field follow a circular path whose size depends on the strength of the effective magnetic field.

Yet a magnetic shield --- surrounding a starship ---- has no mass...that should be able to negate the effets of the speed of light barrier.

yes the age old,, transform Golden Energy into Leaden existence,, or was that the other way around?

lol

originally posted by: Erno86
I'm not a fan of warp drive...yet I assume that since I've seen an alien starship --- back in 1976 --- that obviously used a magnetic shield surrounding the starship to contain the plasma surrounding it --- It would have to be a starship that has broken the speed of light barrier, with the help of a magnetic shield.

A static magnetic field or shield, which does not include changing fields, which would make it a gravitational field --- like a planet --- sufficiently strong...will bend light.

Where did you get this? I don't see any source. Static magnetic fields have never bent light in any experiment or observation so far as I know...correct me if I'm wrong with a peer-reviewed source.

van.physics.illinois.edu...

Q:How far can a magnetic field bend light?... - Jon (age 15)

A:Hi Jon --Nice try. Unfortunately, the path light takes is not affected by the presence of a magnetic field. Light itself is composed of an oscillating electric and magnetic field, and one very important property of electric and magnetic fields is what we call "linearity." ...

there is a small expected deviation from linearity of electric and magnetic fields due to quantum mechanics and the ability of electrons to pop out and go away on microscopic time scales. This only becomes noticeable for very very high frequency light colliding with other very very high-frequency light (it wouldn’t be noticeable and may even have exactly zero effect for a static magnetic field and visible light -- I haven’t done any calculations). There are plans to make such a light-light collider, but it requires a many-mile electron accelerator to get the energy of the light high enough.

So far as I know, light being bent by a static magnetic field has never been measured, and I'm not sure if any theory even predicts it's possible. I know theory predicts light may bend other light due to the gravitational effect of the energy of the photons, but first, it's normally too small an effect to measure and second I've never seen a source saying that this applies to a static magnetic field. According to my interpretation, that physicist is trying to say that the effect may be exactly zero, but even if not, it's probably going to be too small to measure with a static magnetic field.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


What are your thoughts on the quantum theory of interaction of electromagnetic waves in a photon plasma system? ---- Where photons in a plasma can have a strong interaction with electrical or magnetic fields...For example: Lighted photons plasma matter being ejected from the poles of a spinning black hole.

E = 1.3 mc2 approx.
a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Erno86
For example: Lighted photons plasma matter being ejected from the poles of a spinning black hole.

I don't know what "Lighted photons plasma matter" means, sounds like gibberish unless you're missing some words. Black holes themselves don't eject anything except possibly Hawking radiation but this hasn't been confirmed.

A plasma accretion disk can rotate around a black hole creating powerful magnetic fields that can accelerate charged particles to near the speed of light, and these accelerated particles can give off their own radiation.

news.discovery.com...

matter, which has collected in a hot accretion disk, falls toward the black hole’s event horizon — the distance at which the black hole’s spacetime warping is so intense that even light cannot escape. Some of the matter passes through the horizon, adding to the black hole’s bulk, but the rest is redirected via intense magnetic fields, ejecting it from the poles at relativistic speeds.

a reply to: Nochzwei
How did you come up with that?

But Stephen Hawking has apparently reversed his theory on black holes, by saying there is no event horizon near a black hole ---- but an "apparent horizon" ---that can eject matter.

Plasma is the fourth state of matter...that can carry photons.

a reply to: Erno86
Hawking's new idea is by no means universally accepted in the scientific community, in fact some physicists think it solves the firewall problem but then creates even bigger problems:

Notion of an 'event horizon', from which nothing can escape, is incompatible with quantum theory, physicist claims.

Polchinski, however, is sceptical that black holes without an event horizon could exist in nature. The kind of violent fluctuations needed to erase it are too rare in the Universe, he says. “In Einstein’s gravity, the black-hole horizon is not so different from any other part of space,” says Polchinski. “We never see space-time fluctuate in our own neighbourhood: it is just too rare on large scales.”

Raphael Bousso, a theoretical physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former student of Hawking's, says that this latest contribution highlights how “abhorrent” physicists find the potential existence of firewalls. However, he is also cautious about Hawking’s solution. “The idea that there are no points from which you cannot escape a black hole is in some ways an even more radical and problematic suggestion than the existence of firewalls,” he says.

Also while it's radical to physicists, I don't see it as that radical to the rest of us. Hawking already proposed Hawking radiation can escape a black hole so now he's saying maybe some quantum stuff could let some other stuff escape, however it's still essentially a black hole and still most stuff doesn't escape if I understand his new idea correctly. I would also ask why we haven't made observations of this stuff escaping from the black hole at the center of the Milky Way?

Plasma is the fourth state of matter

correct

...that can carry photons.

source? I don't even know what "carry photons" means, but this statement makes no sense. photons travel at the speed of light, and plasma travels at less than the speed of light, so they don't go at the same speeds, thus contradicting the idea that one "carries" the other. As I already said, accelerated plasma can "Emit" photons, but this is a completely different concept than "Carry".

a reply to: Arbitrageur

One example: While the plasma is radiating from the Sun's core --- after the fusion reaction has been complete --- it also carries the photons --- which are bouncing around in the plasma --- too the Sun's surface.

a reply to: Erno86
That's not an accurate description of what happens. The photons are absorbed by the plasma, but then there is no longer a photon. The plasma then emits a different photon. The photons eventually find their way to the surface through this absorption and re-emission process, without being carried to the surface by the plasma.

I really don't know how anyone can take science at face value. I mean, don't misconstrue my words. It is just that science has been "revolutionized" so, so many times, and the scientists of the day think that is it. But, no matter how many die-hards there were, they are eventually proven wrong, and the ones who prove them wrong, are even later proven wrong themselves.

I am very pleased that in the newest edition of my microbiology textbook, the author makes note that science is always in a state of transition and flux, and things are very likely to be one day change as we know more and more. My professor today even said, "This is only what we know right now," that we could one day discover a new type of organism that defies everything we have observed. (I forget her exact words, but she said it very eloquently.)

But, yes, e=mc^2 is wrong, the sun is not the center of the solar system, and there are things faster than light. So get studying!

a reply to: iosolomon

Evidence is taken at face value. Science changing its position when new evidence comes in is a good thing. But until such evidence comes in, it doesn't really make a great deal of sense to posit ideas under assumptions unsupported by evidence.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: iosolomon

Evidence is taken at face value. Science changing its position when new evidence comes in is a good thing. But until such evidence comes in, it doesn't really make a great deal of sense to posit ideas under assumptions unsupported by evidence.

I wrote, "Don't misconstrue my words." What you say is true, however, I was saying that you should not cling to dogma just because "the evidence" shows that the dogma is right. Dogma has always been the antithesis to science, and even today, in 2014, with all our "enlightenment" dogma STILL continues to hinder advances in science. Have you ever spoken to a physicist? They scoff at you --literally-- if you suggest that there is something faster than light or if e=mc^2 is wrong. And if they could burn you to the stake, trust me, some of them would. So the point I was saying, don't cling to your dogma. Don't be so naive. And take everything with a grain of thought.

EDIT: Why are people so blind to reality? Why did I even get such a reply like this?

originally posted by: iosolomon
Have you ever spoken to a physicist? They scoff at you --literally-- if you suggest that there is something faster than light or if e=mc^2 is wrong.

What sort of response would you expect when making an assertion that is not supported by evidence?

originally posted by: iosolomon
Have you ever spoken to a physicist? They scoff at you --literally-- if you suggest that there is something faster than light

It would help if you would read the thread. I just made a post about a NASA scientist talking about faster than light travel, if only he can make some negative mass to power the spacecraft. Other scientists may say, "ok good luck with that" since they don't know how to make negative mass either. But if someone else says they can break the speed of light by winding the rubber band on their model airplane tighter, well of course such an idea will be scoffed at because there's too much evidence to contradict it.

Also there are distant galaxies that have now and always have had recessional velocities greater than the speed of light, which doesn't violate relativity, so scientists don't have a problem with faster than light if there are observations to support the idea.

Learn about science, then discuss what's possible or not based in what we do know, which obviously isn't everything. Scientists have actually searched for faster than light particles, but haven't found any:

Tachyon

Despite theoretical arguments against the existence of faster-than-light particles, experiments have been conducted to search for them. No compelling evidence for their existence has been found.

However quantum teleportation is faster than light and many experiments have verified this.