It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 100
74
<< 97  98  99    101  102  103 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

I understand much clearer now why phase conjugation works on photons due to their large wavelengths. Thanks for helping me better understand that.

Question though.

"There's a reason there's a great big field of interesting nonlinear optics interacting with crystals and their atoms."

Can you explain this deeper? What makes a crystal the medium of choice for non linear optics? Would the finer the crystal the better?




posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: mbkennel

I understand much clearer now why phase conjugation works on photons due to their large wavelengths. Thanks for helping me better understand that.

Question though.

"There's a reason there's a great big field of interesting nonlinear optics interacting with crystals and their atoms."

Can you explain this deeper? What makes a crystal the medium of choice for non linear optics?


Often because they're solid, clear, can have interesting chemistry, and the regularity of lattice sometimes has interesting effects on its own, or can promote interesting, engineerable chemistry which changes the electronic properties of the dielectric.


Would the finer the crystal the better?


What is 'finer' here?
edit on 16-4-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Quality of the crystal, any impurities or imperfections in the lattice. Material the lattice is made of.

Also, thank you for taking the time to answer my hair brained questions. Let me know if I owe you some tylanol or advil as compensation for having to make sense of the stuff I post.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   
MBKennel,

Heres another crazy bassplyr idea to bounce off of you to see if this makes any sense or is just bass on the sauce again.

I was watching a animal documentary and they were talking about penguins and how their feathers afford them superior aquadynamic characteristics along side superior thermal insulation. That got me thinking. Usually a very bad thing, and this is probably the case here too.

What if you were to grow a graphene meta material snowflake? I chose the term snow flake cause they have lots of surface area and minimal weight for their size. A feather would be another good example. Minimal weight, lots of surface area. The more surface area exposed of the graphene the greater the bang for the buck. Manufacture these scales with different ingredients mixed in like quartz and graphene for radio frequency absorption via Fabry -Perot Resonation. Make others that are manufactured to exploit plasmonic qualities to confine light or change it's wavelength. A bunch of extra fine ones just for pure electrical conductivity. Now you have an assortment of scales or feathers in which to mix and match to the desired effect.

From there take a queue from mammals (or birds) that have various types of fur for different applications ( talking about how they have an under coat and a outer coat)

Make a base under coat of quartz and graphene based feathers to absorb microwaves and radio waves to shield the aircraft (or sub) from radar and radio interference.

Make a thick middle layer like down or insulation of just the graphene feathers geared towards pure electrical conductivity. Run plasma through that layer to achieve the drag reduction effects associated with plasma sheaths.

Make a top layer of mix n match graphene feathers. Some of the purely conductive kind to maintain a boundary layer of lowered drag from the plasma. Some made up of the feathers designed to confine light or convert it to less visible wavelengths. And some designed again to absorb microwaves and radio waves.

My crazy idea is if you can make some "ghillie suit" like skin stitched with these graphene "feathers" arrayed in the layers above discussed, could you create a skin that shields the craft from incident or directed microwaves/RF/EM, that has a layer that all of the plasma sheath stuff can happen inside of ( the down thick middle layer) instead of outside the craft and the effects of the graphene skin. The plasma should conduct and swish around between the feathering. The outer layer absorbs more directed EM/RF and Microwaves for stealth while at the same time converting the light from the plasma to less visible or capturing it altogether. The graphene would give the skin excellent thermal management and mitigation. Contain the plasma in something safe. prevent it from escaping the feathering while at the same time doing it's plasma sheath thing along with the drag reduction and further stealth capabilities. Makes the light and EM emissions of the plasma so there is no longer some glowing orb or lozenge skittering across the sky for all to see. Is flexible due to the feathering so that it can be used on mission adaptable components that have variable geometries. Use photons of specific wavelengths as potentially a on off switch for the skin by switching it between graphene and graphene oxide going from conductivity to non conductivity at will and over selected parts if desired.

I dunno, is bassplyr on the sauce again? Does any of this make sense or should I stop taking queues from the animal kingdom.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Are you talking about ram coatings like they use on stealth aircraft??



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Partly the idea could be used for stealth from radar but I'm thinking also for drag mitigation, thermal management, management of light emissions. I'm not even sure my idea even makes any sense or would work. And how one would manufacture such a thing I have no idea either. Just a stupid idea that got into my head by observing animals.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: dragonridr

Partly the idea could be used for stealth from radar but I'm thinking also for drag mitigation, thermal management, management of light emissions. I'm not even sure my idea even makes any sense or would work. And how one would manufacture such a thing I have no idea either. Just a stupid idea that got into my head by observing animals.



Well except for the feather part you decried ram coatings for example ball paint. It has tiny spheres or balls coated ron ball paint. It contains tiny spheres coated with carbonyl iron or ferrite. Radar causes these balls to vibrate from the alternating magnetic field in this paint these vibrations converts of the radar energy into heat. Basic physics take energy and mask it as something else. You then dump the thermal energy in with exhaust vented of course to reduce heat signature. Think of ram coating as a Solar cell convert one form of energy to another.
edit on 4/22/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi


My question is;

Considering the 3d/4d nature, of what it means for the gravity field to have its geometry altered; and for the need of physicality, of substance, by which force is applied; I am wondering what the nature of the gravity field is from mercury to neptune. In question of geometry, and the substance which fulfills that geometric shape.

The sun is relatively very spherical. We can imagine first it creates something of a spherical alteration of the gravity field as it passes through. But I dont know, maybe it makes more a triangular or square.

Oh, well I believe all this proposition was under the false impression that bodies could orbit the sun at a perfect equatorial right angle to its truest north and south poles.

Well its all very interesting regardless, that the sun produces such an indentation, such effect of the gravity field that (yes i know it has to do with mass and not size but still) it is much larger than the size of the sun.



Mercury and Neptune are both caught in the warped space-time that the sun causes. Neptune's local space time is much less curved of course. Those planets also warp space-time towards themselves also. They tug on the sun a little.






Oh but here is a question; labeling the suns constant direction of travel as F for forward; Is the gravitational geometry alteration of the gravity field, as equal as it is 'from mercury to 'pluto', neptune', in that lateral direction, as it is in the up and down direction, its north and south poles? Could the sun be traveling F, while bodies orbited it passing N and S?

So, the nature of the geometry alteration, is that the sun creates a much larger sphere, which is really more of an 'anti sphere' , or a spherical displacement, made in the gravity field.

I am wondering oh this displacement of relative gravity field substance, moves and operates, in the way that it moves massive masses.



The mass of the sun warps space-time (gravity field) towards it in a 3D way so all sides are effected equal. There is no north/south in these terms at all. Imagine a giant round ball under water that could suck water in from every part of it's surface area. The analogy fails but is similar while the ball is filling up.
We do not fully understand space-time so there are still questions.

Nothing moves space-time out of the way, matter can only exist in space-time but it does pull space-time towards it.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Read my previous two responses to you, and answer the questions within. Either you know or you do not know. Your lack of answers hints in the direction of you not knowing.

What is the supposed mass of a graviton, and how many exist on average per square mile?

When the sun passes through an area of gravity field space; how are the gravitons which exist on average all through the gravity field space 'moved'?

How are gravitons connected to one another?

In a square foot of gravity field space; how many gravitons exist on average, and how much space is in between them on average (that last part is to ask, how much more dense theoretically could they be made in regards to one another)?

Does the network of gravitons react to the suns rotation? That is to ask; does the network of gravitons which are moved by the sun (the moving of which is the force of gravity) also move with the implied rotational momentum of the sun?

Are there the least amount of gravitons directly behind the sun (the suns tail), as there might be the least amount of water particle density directly behind a bowling ball (the bowling balls tail; that being, the exact opposite direction of its travel) that is moving through a large pool of water at 10,000 mph?


Your main question - why have we not detected gravitons - is because they are predicted to be very small, possibly at the Planck length and it would take technology far beyond ours to generate energy to explore that scale. Even a supercollider the size of the solar system could not do it. They are predicted to be spin 2 so like light which is spin 1 they are massless and move at light speed. Whole number spins are like that.
They interact with all other particles including themselves which causes infinities of infinities (Alef 1) in the math.
Normally there is only one infinity to cancel out (renormalization), the one infinity shows the electron should have infinite energy because of self interaction. But it obviously doesn't. So you cancel the infinity by adding infinity to the other side of the equation and it goes away.

So the geometry version of gravity is the only one that makes sense right now. Keep in mind that Kaluza once found a mathematical model that explained electromagnetism as just gravity we experience from another dimension.
No one has expanded on it but it's very interesting to some physicists.





Well perhaps it is redirected towards a path of space which does not have a thing in the way, and perhaps this is all that always happens. But the nature of terminology like 'absorbs a photon', had me perturbed. So I suppose what occurs, is that an atom is a network of things, and if light happens to be traveling towards (lets say our container made of atoms) and there is no empty space left for it to continuously travel in, it travels into an atoms empty space?
Its pretty weird how matter is fundamentally different, pretty much what universal birth theories attempt to explain, how common eternal substance was shocked into its hardcore intrinsicalities.



The energy from the EM field is transferred to the electron field in this case. The photon potential that has been realized by the energy is gone so there can no longer be an actual photon. Just the EM field remains with potential and virtual photons. The electron now can use the energy to jump to a higher state or the energy is used for something else entirely.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I have an easy one, but one that I could use a clearer understanding of.

What's the Compton Wavelength all about? What does it measure? Does it's wavelength change according to the particle involved? How does it correspond with other contingencies in the atom or whatever?



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Also, same question for what a Coulomb Constant is.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Q

I dont understand this business about the stars in the sky being long dead an we are only seeing the light.

What happens to a photon of light when it stops travelling?

Does a photon of light allways travel ? If so what propells it ?

Am I too thick to be on here ?



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: joelr


Your main question - why have we not detected gravitons - is because they are predicted to be very small, possibly at the Planck length and it would take technology far beyond ours to generate energy to explore that scale.


Ok, well an area of space, with gravitons all connected, even if a single graviton is very small, a billion gravitons connected (as a section of gravity field) should be more detectable? Just like how a single atom is more difficult to detect than a billion atoms?






So the geometry version of gravity is the only one that makes sense right now.


Baahhhh. The geometry of nothingness cannot effect a massive body. The geometry must be the geometry of something/substance/material. If you took all the matter and energy and fields and everything out of the universe, you wouldnt be able to create an shapes, or geometry. There is only nothing, and something. Yes, 'nothing' has a large role as in 'the potentially very intricate spatial distances in between quantas of something'; yes 'nothing' has a large role as in 'all massive systems of matter are not 100% dense', because, 'there exists spaces of nothing between the quantas of matter'.

So if you had a ring of atoms, would you say the space in between them is a geometric circle? Nothing cannot have qualities, other than being exact areas of distances in between somethings.

If there is a geometry version of gravity, the geometry is geometry of substance.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
MBKennel,

What's your opinion on Frank Znidarsic's work. He claims to have figured out the velocity of the quantum transition coupling Relativity and Quantum physics in a Classical model. Basically says it's a way to force matter into a state of quantum transition freeing and allowing access to all of the fundamental forces. Electromagnetic, gravitational, strong nuclear etc.

Would be nice to have a physicist take a look at it and let me know if the quy's a quack or onto something major and if I should or should not be wasting my time reading up on his equations and trying to make sense of it all.

ecatsite.files.wordpress.com...

edit on 29-4-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ChristianJihad

What propels a baseball afer it has left the pitcher´s hand? Or a bullet after it has left the barrel of the gun? I can completely destroy the gun after the shot has been fired and the bullet continues its flight; the pitcher can do anything he likes after the ball has left his hand and he can no longer do anything about the path of the ball.

When the projectile has left the source, the source is not pushing on the projectile any more.

Same with the photon. After the photon has left its source, be it your hand torch or a star in the universe, anything that happens to the source will have no effect on the photon on its way. The sun no more pushes the photons than it can suck them back in; the photons are tossed out and then they continue on their ballistic path -- until they collide with something.

A photon will travel until it interacts with something. If it is stopped at the interaction, it ceases to exist and its energy is transferred to someone else. It travels ballistically, like any thrown thing.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   
monopoles!

is this like the emergent monopoles created in spin ice and in condensed matter/solid state physics a few years ago or is this more elementary because it is in the quantum flux?

The article says it is not the monopoles predicted in the the standard model and various grand theories of everything but that these are closer than the former discoveries. so what is different about these monopoles to distinguish them from cosmological monopoles?

phys.org...

I wanna know because when we do get to the cosmological monopoles some "magic" is made possible by some of the theorized species.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
monopoles!

is this like the emergent monopoles created in spin ice and in condensed matter/solid state physics a few years ago or is this more elementary because it is in the quantum flux?

The article says it is not the monopoles predicted in the the standard model and various grand theories of everything but that these are closer than the former discoveries. so what is different about these monopoles to distinguish them from cosmological monopoles?

phys.org...

I wanna know because when we do get to the cosmological monopoles some "magic" is made possible by some of the theorized species.



These are simulations being created through spin.. They are basically creating a whirlpool. Causing the magnetic field to all point on the same direction. If the theory is right Monopoles were created when the universe started. In the excessive heat of the universe positive and negative monopole could have existed. So far we havnt found any but if we learn to create them you would be amazed at what we could do. For example think if a material so strong it could withstand anything you could throw at it. Or being able to levitate objects People fear the creation of a monopole but if we could it would be amazing.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Can monopoles not psuedoly be created by using some material which does not allow the magnetic field to pass through it, to cover a pole of a bar magnet?

The reason monopoles are seemingly impossible is because dipole has to do with 3d object, and the universe is entirely composed of 3d objects.

Think about a sphere rotating.

Looking down at the sphere it is rotating clock wise.

Looking up at the same sphere rotating the same way, it is rotating counter clockwise.

That is the nature of dipole.

That two differing effects are rooted in the same objective event.

Because of how that object is unavoidably attached to the force carrier field (material medium) which surrounds it.

A monopole would have to be a sphere which is sliced in half, and the top half and bottom half are spinning in opposite directions, and the halves remain relatively close together, and this object would have to be 'charged'.

Yeah, monopoles are impossible.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 06:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

Can monopoles not psuedoly be created by using some material which does not allow the magnetic field to pass through it, to cover a pole of a bar magnet?

The reason monopoles are seemingly impossible is because dipole has to do with 3d object, and the universe is entirely composed of 3d objects.

Think about a sphere rotating.

Looking down at the sphere it is rotating clock wise.


Looking up at the same sphere rotating the same way, it is rotating counter clockwise.

That is the nature of dipole.

That two differing effects are rooted in the same objective event.

Because of how that object is unavoidably attached to the force carrier field (material medium) which surrounds it.

A monopole would have to be a sphere which is sliced in half, and the top half and bottom half are spinning in opposite directions, and the halves remain relatively close together, and this object would have to be 'charged'.

Yeah, monopoles are impossible.


monopoles can be faked in spin ice and solid state physics. monopoles could theoretically be made by passing a flux line from a magnet through a wormhole with the apertures separated by a suitable distance. natural monopoles may exist. in fact at least one has to exist or have existed in order for the standard model to work as it does.

and yes if we master the monopole we can do magic. materials so strong the average person could not even comprehend the magnitude of difference between monopole matter and normal matter. also infinite energy sources. lots of magic.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

Can monopoles not psuedoly be created by using some material which does not allow the magnetic field to pass through it, to cover a pole of a bar magnet?

The reason monopoles are seemingly impossible is because dipole has to do with 3d object, and the universe is entirely composed of 3d objects.

Think about a sphere rotating.

Looking down at the sphere it is rotating clock wise.


Looking up at the same sphere rotating the same way, it is rotating counter clockwise.

That is the nature of dipole.

That two differing effects are rooted in the same objective event.

Because of how that object is unavoidably attached to the force carrier field (material medium) which surrounds it.

A monopole would have to be a sphere which is sliced in half, and the top half and bottom half are spinning in opposite directions, and the halves remain relatively close together, and this object would have to be 'charged'.

Yeah, monopoles are impossible.


monopoles can be faked in spin ice and solid state physics. monopoles could theoretically be made by passing a flux line from a magnet through a wormhole with the apertures separated by a suitable distance. natural monopoles may exist. in fact at least one has to exist or have existed in order for the standard model to work as it does.

and yes if we master the monopole we can do magic. materials so strong the average person could not even comprehend the magnitude of difference between monopole matter and normal matter. also infinite energy sources. lots of magic.


Strength wise could build a house industructable by even a nuclear blast. Impervious to missile damage and make it like a sheet of aluminum.Or imagine a rope that is like dental floss being able to lift a tank.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 97  98  99    101  102  103 >>

log in

join