Ask any question you want about Physics

What do you think about reciprocal theory?

originally posted by: Flux8
What do you think about reciprocal theory?

The parts of RST that have been tested have proved erroneus. The most of RST is untestable.

originally posted by: Pirvonen

originally posted by: Flux8
What do you think about reciprocal theory?

The parts of RST that have been tested have proved erroneus. The most of RST is untestable.

That's 7 understatement even in his book nothing resembling science. And we'll things have changed since the 60s. Just the fact that it claims there is no electrons despite all the evidence to the contrary. People like this theory because it's easier to understand so there is fringe groups our there. But no one that has even done minimal studying van take it serious. Motion cannot cause all the effects and forces we observe. For example Gravity occurs when mass is present and not motion.

He even claims electricity is caused by the motion of atoms through a wire. Think about that for a minute. Where are these atoms coming from and where do they go??

a reply to: Arbitrageur

For this question, we will assume what we are familiar with thus far as 'the universe' (standard model particles/fields - galaxies) is all that exists; After we consider what we can consider in this scenario, we can feel free to consider scenarios in which 'the universe' is not the only material system that exists in what would then be a more extensive reality.

For simplicity sake, instead of imagining 500 billion or whatever galaxies in your mind, lets imagine 100.

So, so far;

The entirety of reality is 100 galaxies, which are, 'complex' (the understatement of eternity) configurations of standard model particles/fields.

If we were to float in the exact middle of the total configuration of these galaxies, and we made appear 100 trillion tiny space ships surrounding us forming a sphere; and each space ship traveled away from a commonly shared by them all center point, eventually after these space ships traveled past enough space over enough time (to spare an interruption by you, the ships traveled a billion to the billionth power greater than the speed of light, because I am trying to ask an intriguing and rational and relevant question and need to utilize complex ideas that may be impossible, but are tools and illustrations used for me to draw out the scenario of reality, which I then will specifically point to the aspect and relation to our reality and understanding of it, and we should be able to see the link and the relevance of the purity of my question, if we are mature enough to not want to attempt to pleasure ourselves by pointing out what would be the content equivalence of grammar error, yada yada, poetic license,).

Ok so eventually the ships will pass all 100 galaxies.

Eventually the ships if we were to then connect their dots, would be something like a sphere surrounding the universe.

The ships could continue traveling in their directions for infinite time and space, because the initial statements of this thought experiment, we agreed that the universe is all that exists, macroly galaxies, the 100.

The ship was just a point to illustrate the relative collective nature of the universe, compared to potentially infinite matter-less, energy-less space surrounding it.

If you are compelled to bring up here, that space itself is energy itself, and therefore the ships could travel infinitely far away from the 100 galaxies, which we call the universe, and still be amongst energy fields, if you want to argue that this is a possibility, I suppose I will ask you to save it until after we finish the line of thinking I set out to journey on.

Or I can say something about it right here; I think it is less likely that there truly is at, not any given time, but all given time, physically infinite content of energy/matter. As it is like saying the number infinity exists; what number is it? What is the last number? And the number after that? And why not multiply that number by itself? and again? This is the nature of infinity, and thus, I do not think quantity, substance, matter, energy, the totality of it, can ever be 'infinte' in quantity; and that is quite obvious, for the reasons I just mentioned. If you ignore these reasons and try to say your favorite deflecting proud boasting punchlines of the glory of your ignorance by claiming that I am wrong because you dont have any reasons to say why I am wrong but that I cannot be right because you are not thinking about what I am saying but I cant be right because if I were right that would mean that I thought about truth and said the truth that told me it must be right and then you would have to also consider this and you cant do that because it doesnt feel good to you. I know 'the universe doesnt have to be the way you think it is or want it to be, we did experiments and something happened 1 time out of a billion just like we predicted and we know there was no error and random random the universe is random and science is made of pure sense but when you make sense I will ignore you because this is a silly site with silly people and I am a serious person and I have teamed up with other serious people to come here and make fun of the people we think are not serious because in the real world we are the silly people and it feels real good to be on top some times'. Every time you tell me 'you gotta learn the math' it is because I am asking a great question, and if any one on this site who has learned the math, cannot answer my question in practical terms, I do not want to waste so much time and energy becoming just like that person, just so I can be like them and not know the answer to the questions I want to know the answers of. If you are not going to attempt to think about my questions, and discuss them with me, you can save the waste of responses telling me to learn math, I get it, every time I speak with you I will tell my self all your go to malfunction responses to my self, and save you the trouble. But, that wouldnt be good for you, because you get off every time you imagine yourself standing on clouds with einstein and feynman and newton on your side, me reaching up to take their hands, and you looking over to them smiling, kicking at my knuckles. Out of all the people on this thread, Einstein would have most liked to have discussions with me, what would make you think otherwise, what do any of you have to offer to physics? I am attempting to be novelty, be progression, be evolution, be the abolisher of ignorance, be the explorer of the unknown.

Anyway;


So maybe you want to say the 100 galaxies are expanding apart from one another;

They will continue to get further and further away.

The essence of my question is;

(oh and I should add here, the main reason you would be compelled to imagine the energy fields going on in all directions for all space and time, is not one of logic and reason and complement by reality, but only due to your own psychology, your own weakness and fear, that it is so much more difficult to comprehend how reality must be, if the energy fields dont go on forever, you wouldnt even have leaped to the thoughts of mine about how the energy fields could extend indefinitely, you just leave it there as a cozy book mark; this sort of comfortable tricks is why the state of physics is probably a mess)

As the galaxies continue to expand, how might this effect the relations between the standard model particles?

The essence of my question is one about the relationship between the most micro fundamental material of reality and the seemingly real classical object structures;

And, like for example even us humans creating the atomic bomb, is an extremely complex cooperation of many classical objects (humans) over much time, doing many things in many ways and on many scales (the entirety of history for goodness sakes)

But this is an example I think, of classical objects, reaching into the most fundamental realm, and altering it.

So the essence is how the macro can effect the micro.

Is the micro/fundamental so tight knit, so solid and dense, that it is so difficult to 'ruin it'.

I mean like, what has to happen with the galaxies for the laws of physics to change?

for new fields and fundamental particles to be made,

How stretched thin must the totality of fundamental substance be, for all fundamental particles to be minimum 5 pounds mass with no components?

Or is reality eternally fated, to be heavy on the micro plane.

Like, so much space, so much distance, and the fundamental particles are secure, even though there is massive structure.

Are massive structures fundamental objects?

Like bose einstein condensate kind, is the object an apple on a table fundamental energetic object of apple, a pure real object,on a pure real table?

Or, IS ALL THAT EXISTS REALLY! fundamental quanta?

And all we perceive as humans, is symbolic, illusionary tricks?

The objectness is real, the structures are real and stable and secure as objects.

But because an apple is made of parts, an apple does not exist?

A car does not exist, only car parts exist? And car parts do not exist, only the fundamental particles that make them up?

Fundamental particles can only be made into, beyond fundamental particles, in certain conditions and circumstances which allow them to form stabilities and 'build up'.

If we had a pool of fundamental particles, and we could invent any possible conditions anywhere in any space to work with this pool of fundamental particles, could we reach into this pool and formulate a little world, with eco system, and trees and apples?

Here are two questions that should be fun...

1. What is the easiest question for physics?

2. What is the hardest question for physics?

Does 'R G B' (colors) have some objective significance beyond relating to humans?

Is it like located in some harmonically significant area in between the highest possible EM frequency and the lowest?

Or is it purely related to our eyes and brain (and other aspects of the earth) that R G B has the significance it does?

a reply to: ImaFungi
Einstein liked debating Neils Bohr. I'm not sure he'd like debating either you or me since I doubt he has the respect for either one of us that he had for Bohr.

About learning from the great minds in science, Isaac Newton, one of the greatest, said "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." If you're claiming you can see farther than anybody without standing metaphorically on anybody's shoulders, that's a stretch to put it politely.

As far as we know energy (photons) and gravity travel at the speed of light in a vacuum, so there's no presumption of infinite size of a gravitational field given the universe has a finite age, but the flatness measurements of the universe do suggest an infinite universe is possible; we just don't know if the universe is perfectly flat, and truly infinite or just nearly perfectly flat but not quite as Michio Kaku suggests. We probably never will know what lies beyond the observable universe because, it's not observable by definition. (barring some warp drive that allows us to observe the unobservable, and kill our grandfather, etc.)

What I thought of when reading your question was an interesting wiki article about possible different fates of the universe which you may want to read. We have to theorize about that because we aren't really sure so by constructing an imaginary universe it's even harder to theorize about it since you didn't describe if it has a cosmic microwave background, etc.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Does 'R G B' (colors) have some objective significance beyond relating to humans?

Is it like located in some harmonically significant area in between the highest possible EM frequency and the lowest?

Look at the RGB color wheel:


RGB color model
From Red clockwise to violet, it corresponds to different frequencies, real colors of the rainbow. However there is no frequency for Magenta, the color between red and blue, so it's the color that has no frequency.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Does 'R G B' (colors) have some objective significance beyond relating to humans?

No.

Is it like located in some harmonically significant area in between the highest possible EM frequency and the lowest?

No.

Or is it purely related to our eyes and brain (and other aspects of the earth) that R G B has the significance it does?

It's related to you having evolved three photopsins that cover a range of light wavelengths that are common in tree canopies and jungles.

eta: "harmonic" and "significant" rarely go together well. This doesn't seem to be one of those times.

a reply to: Bedlam

How is the perception of color explained? Red is different than blue, as the wavelengths are different, but are we 'seeing' more than wave lengths? What is the seeing of the color? Its baffling...

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Bedlam

How is the perception of color explained? Red is different than blue, as the wavelengths are different, but are we 'seeing' more than wave lengths?

Well, you also see the intensity.

What is the seeing of the color? Its baffling...

Your brain takes the inputs from the retina and assigns "color" to objects, but it's not a straightforward mapping. Your visual system does a lot of looking at the color balance of the entire scene and what it "knows" about object colors and adjusts what you perceive to fit.

How you actually "see" an object is a much larger question. Machine vision is a big big field, and it's far from straightforward. People vision is somewhat similar, but far more complex.

originally posted by: Pirvonen

originally posted by: Flux8
What do you think about reciprocal theory?

The parts of RST that have been tested have proved erroneus. The most of RST is untestable.

Could you elaborate so that I can research that?

originally posted by: Flux8

originally posted by: Pirvonen

originally posted by: Flux8
What do you think about reciprocal theory?

The parts of RST that have been tested have proved erroneus. The most of RST is untestable.

Could you elaborate so that I can research that?

Dof to the fact the theory makes no predictions and untestable not much to show you. I will say I know when they had the neutrino that supposedly went faster than light this group jumped out there and said they predicted it. I checked couldn't find anything. Than when it was shown to be an error do to wiring they than claimed well they were not cosmic neutrinos and that's Why. But besides that excuse being silly we know have showed neutrinos don't travel faster than light so I assume that would mean the only testable part of the theory failed. bit when you go to the website it just says incredibly stupid things like stars start our as red giants and gain luminosity and energy as they get older. This in itself is stupid a red giants orbit would have engulfed the earth. Meaning we wouldn't be here and the intensity of a red dwarf is thousands of times below our sun. We would see this in the geological record.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Flux8
What do you think about reciprocal theory?

That's 7 understatement even in his book nothing resembling science.

Well, it was more of a metaphysical challenge to my understanding.

And we'll things have changed since the 60s.

Yes, things change throughout history, including the study of physical nature. Babylonian to Ptolemaic, Romantic to European, etc. We, in current times, shouldn't be immune to such questioning. There is a rational to challenge the status quo, via metaphysical concepts... paradigms.

Just the fact that it claims there is no electrons despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Ahhh, cool. I didn't know it claimed there were no electrons. Would be interesting if I could see what an electron looks like. Not it's effects/affects.

People like this theory because it's easier to understand so there is fringe groups our there. But no one that has even done minimal studying van take it serious.

Well, he did make some points, logically.

How can the uncertainty principle be "science" when the purpose of science is to determine the certainty of a thing?

And he argues the difference between creative sol'ns and inductive sol'ns in scientific endeavor among other things. The more complex/convoluted a "science" becomes (that is the more creative sol'ns that are generated to fill in the gaps and holes in a theory), the more probable the theory is incomplete or incorrect. He is offering another interpretation. But it may very well be false as well!

Motion cannot cause all the effects and forces we observe. For example Gravity occurs when mass is present and not motion.

It does?

He even claims electricity is caused by the motion of atoms through a wire. Think about that for a minute. Where are these atoms coming from and where do they go??

I've had one too many to think about that left-brained for a minute right now, haha. But no, I wasn't aware of that. Thank you for explaining.

But many researchers have made errors initiating a general concept/theory and honed them down. It's nothing new. But I wouldn't want to give preferential forgiveness, either. If I try to hunker down about it, I'd imagine he was talking about the movement of those particular atoms (copper?) through the environment relative to our motion, albeit, within a magnetic field maybe? Like Faraday's paradox maybe?

Could you point out the research (if any) that has been done in regard to this theory? It's intriguing.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Bedlam

How is the perception of color explained? Red is different than blue, as the wavelengths are different, but are we 'seeing' more than wave lengths? What is the seeing of the color? Its baffling...

Simple answer: rods and cones. The human eye responds to wavelengths between 390 and 700 nm. The brain can "mix" colors to enable variations of pure colors. I think some insects can see in the UV range which enables them to perceive patterns.

Are you "seeing" more wavelengths. No - because the human eye doesn't respond to wavelengths outside those ranges. But are other wavelengths of light there? Yes.

Human "reality" is a function of our perception. That's why scientists usually don't use the term "reality". It's the experimental data that counts.

originally posted by: Flux8
Could you point out the research (if any) that has been done in regard to this theory?

I think calling it a theory is too generous, as it doesn't meet the definition of a scientific theory.

When you're barely into reading the assertions of Larson and you see they have obvious contradictions with known observations, what's to research? You know immediately that it's wrong and there's no point in wasting any more time on it, as happened when this astronomer took a look at it and immediately found three claims which he immediately knew were false, explained in the link:

Is Dewey Larson for Real?

In my view, rather than merely a hoax, this is more likely to be the product of one or more sincere crackpots. There's no shortage of these in the world (it's rare for most astronomy departments to go a month without getting a letter or monograph from one), and it has to be admitted (as one of my favorite editors once observed) that some crackpots have highly methodical cracks in their pots. (There's a great editorial in the October 1980 issue of Analog magazine about crackpots it you're interested in seeing other aspects of them.) Sincerity of belief is all that separates the crackpot from the fraud, however, and history is full of examples of people adhering to ideas that turned out to be very wrong.

You can point out that mainstream science has also adhered to ideas that turned out to be wrong, which is true, but unlike crackpots, mainstream science is self-correcting and when enough evidence persuades the scientific community to change its views, it will eventually do so. There are some alternate views to mainstream science that might have a chance of being proven right eventually with more observations, but Larson's ideas are already proven wrong as discussed in the link.

RST makes claims that would make it impossible for computers, cellphones, radios, and televisions to work. Do you see them work? Then RST is wrong.

RST

scientists make mistakes all the time, but Satz absurdly never bothered to test the predictions of his Wrong Theory, despite having worked on RST for approximately three decades. He did not recognize that essentially the entirety of electronic devices would simply not function if he were correct. The able functioning of multiple billions of computers, cellphones, radios, televisions, clocks and the like show us that Satz and RST are not only wrong, but overwhelmingly so.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

If as the sun exists in its energetic manner associated with the continual release/creation/propagation of EM radiation;

The suns body as an object like object, 'shoots out bullets of light, called photons', and this is primarily particle like, if we could pause time and zoom in on the area surrounding the sun, we would see dots/balls/bullets/pieces/parts/bits/particles of substance;

The sun shoots light bullets at earth (in all directions), particles YES!!!!?????

If so;

Where and how do these particles exist, before they are shot away from the sun?

I now genuinely realize why I have been interested in these topics, and why I have been asking these questions, and I cannot waste my time reading volumes of text books to get these rather specific and general and simple but profound answers. I now realize why I am so interested in the nature of light, and need to know how it independently exists. The concept of fields, unless true as existent substance independent of other matter, through me off, you have been all throwing me off, I know this. Either it is on purpose and your fault, or not. Either you are offended by your own ignorance in light of my questions and need to defend your self by ignoring them, or I dont know, just answer the question, field theory is crap, for light, if light is bullets, particles, but then it has to say where they exist before they are created, or if the same number of light particles exist at all times, and they are billiard balls and bounce around, but if they can transform into other particles that just throws everything for a loop again, what a waste of time.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Bedlam

How is the perception of color explained? Red is different than blue, as the wavelengths are different, but are we 'seeing' more than wave lengths? What is the seeing of the color? Its baffling...

Simple answer: rods and cones. The human eye responds to wavelengths between 390 and 700 nm. The brain can "mix" colors to enable variations of pure colors. I think some insects can see in the UV range which enables them to perceive patterns.

Are you "seeing" more wavelengths. No - because the human eye doesn't respond to wavelengths outside those ranges. But are other wavelengths of light there? Yes.

Human "reality" is a function of our perception. That's why scientists usually don't use the term "reality". It's the experimental data that counts.

I suppose I was thinking of the more standard ontological wondering, of how perception is possible, and how the sensuality of red and blue is immediately known as red and blue. Well, like on a computer screen there might be a red circle and a blue circle. The computer is doing what is necessary to create ~object circle red and blue, and how predominantly it is purely light waves, I wonder;

I suppose the question to check that thought, is what the minimal 'mental mechanism' would have to be that could perceive color.

Any way the particles...or waves.... enter our eye, actually enter it, or just contact it?

I wonder what the pixel resolution of the mind is. I wonder if they are rgb pixels. It must be relatively large and there must be multiple screens, true 3d screens or pseudo 3d, I do not know. Can color truly exist with only 2 dimensions... I argue 2 dimensional objecthood cannot truly exist so the question is meaningless. So it must be 3d, and it must be 4d, for time. Well then I can ask, can the perception of color exist purely with just 3d, no time component. But anyway, we still come back to the mystery magic trick, of how to qualitatively represent difference, such as what light particle wave substantially is, and how just out of this 'simple?' component, of light it self, can a mechanism be built, which can receive a 3d or pseudo 3d screening of data, that it most literally experiences as sensual difference. What is being asked is, is the sensual difference between red and blue qualitatively quantitatively more than the difference between particles of light; the answer is obviously yes, due to all that is needed to construct the human body and mind, then the question turns to, what is occurring in the mind, that the arguably lackluster difference between a simple and pure substance like light and the difference between its movement, results in the experience of something more pseudo solid and substantial, like 2d/3d color.

We would be compelled to say the concept of color being 3d is ludicrous, and I am inclined to agree with that, but cant help thinking how and where is this meaning, when considering that the nature of light is 3d/4d in the process of experience of color it is many multiples of these singular events (photons), and the complex body mind system that has many 3d/4d parts and mechanisms on different scales etc. what is the meaning that the experience of color is so obviously 2d. But then again what does it mean that color would be 4d.

a reply to: ImaFungi



Done with your rant?

Your unwillingness to do the work yourself has left you exacerbated because you cannot get people to say what you want them to say. That is, you want them to say something that is not the current 'state of the art'

It is hard to understand what you are actually saying or asking. You ask vague questions in a barrage and then don't accept the answers people attempt to give you, because they don't simply confirm the pre-set answer that you wanted. It is like everything you say is rhetorical without you even realizing it.

Photons are produced and destroyed (energy transferred rather than destroyed) via atomic processes. That is, we start out by producing relatively energetic gamma radiation at the heart of the sun. These photons undergo multiple scattering, and interactions with the electrons in this plasma taking a very long time through their random walk to emerge at the surface. When photons come out at the surface they are not directly the same photons that you started with.

Any evidence for this? Well look at the spectrum of the sun, and match it to what we know about atomic physics and you will see something stark and interesting. You can understand what chemical species of elements are present in the sun's atmosphere. Why? well because the atomic shells can absorb and re-emit photons.

These particles are not just sitting around, there is nothing to 'have to say' they exist before they are created, or that the same number of photons exist at all times. why? what possible reason or postulate means that this would be so?

You call people ignorant, and yet.. display an amazing level of it also. "Field theory is crap"??? really? isn't that a statement of ignorance, that you wish not to understand the theories or models that you are suggesting are wrong.?

a reply to: ErosA433

Ok, a photon leaves the sun, it may not be the same exact photon that 'began?' in the sun?

Regardless, how does the photon begin?

This is a relevant question; Because if you are saying there does not always exist the same number of photons;

You are saying that objects that are not photons can become photons and vice versa;

My question is something like; If there is a moment in time and space between atoms/particles in which no photons exist in relation to them; and then time is progressed, so that these atoms/particles are seen to be moving toward one another; and then they interact in such a way that then photon does exist; where does the photon come from, what physically is formulating a photon, what is the photon physically formulated of, in what state is the energy that exists prior to photon formulation and by what means is that energy forced to exist as object photon?

So then, photons are nothing but bullet particle balls that are shot out from the sun;

If that is the case than photon field theory is crap, because field theory presumes an extended medium of substance that exists everywhere;

If photons are particles that are separate from each other in distance, and thus objectness, and are shot from sun A to earth B, then it is pointless to say there is a field that extends through space, because photon, because light, is nothing but billiard ball like particles;

if light is more than just billiard ball like particles, which I assumed is thought is the case and thus the reason for all the drama and confusion, then we begin the conversation I began in this thread two years ago. About what it must mean for objectness/substance to exist not in a separate billiard ball like matter.

If you think nature has it both ways, that the EM field, is a perfectly attached to itself 3d/4d fabric of material energy, but that it also can detach from itself and break pieces off, and potentially these broken pieces are photons, we run into all sorts of troubling problems, like, how can you say it really exists at all points in space, that is not a willy nilly statement to make, and than also even though photon substance exists at all points in space, though it doesnt because it cant be stationary because it doesnt have mass, and it does exist at all points in space but always moving at the speed of light;

I dont know how it can be both, that the EM field is a very dense 3d/4d medium of photons that exist at all points in space, and do the particles by pass each other, or do they newton cradle, or do they wave as a medium? And also each particle has the opportunity to be moved from a point A to point B. Regardless there is always finite quantity at any given time of photons, whether there is a quintillion billiard balls physically really literally separate from one another as independent object of substance,

Or if there is quintillion to the billionth power photons that are densely packed together and have some not talked about binding force of energy between them, and then all the questions that come along with this.

So which is it, photons are a type of substance that are not linked through a medium;

Or is there a pure medium which physically intimately really touches and links all photons together in a net/web?

Are photons balls that are tossed in a direction

Or are photons links in a chain wave that cant help but domino effectly zipperly chain reactionly, medium wavely move when locally an area of them are moved?

Einstein 'knew?' gravity must be the latter. Because if Gravity 'field?' was just unconnected billiard balls... well... that is just dumb... regardless... even if they are unconnected in terms of binding energy between each particle, they are in relation to one another, dense, stackable, tense enough to be a material medium substance, which collectively has the tensor strength to motivate other objects.

I wonder how differing motions and densities of areas of gravity fields interact with one another; my personal theory of what dark matter is.