Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: Arbitrageur

About the galaxies spreading apart; I was wondering more;

If the most intimate and true reality is at the most micro level;

This is to say the object apple to us, is something of an illusion, because we do not see the apple as it most truly is;

The apple as it most truly is, is many fundamental particles moving in the ways they do;

So the object galaxy too, (everything more macro than the most fundamental, these arent all statements of fact, declarations of such, these are inquisting notions)

That we can image and perceive, is not truly a large classical object as such;

But we can only comprehend the object as such, by comprehending the totality of fundamental quanta which make it up?

An analogy would be like how humans can reach down into the fundamental realm and alter it, do galaxies as classical objects alter the fundamental realm, or can anything macro ever truly alter any aspect of the fundamental realm, or is it not always only that the exact essence of the quanta of the fundamental realm is the source of the power which effects other aspects of quanta of the fundamental realm?

I was wondering, if the galaxies as classical objects moving apart from one another;

eventually will alter the nature of the laws of physics or the means and modes of existence of fields and matter;

Or then again, can it not be thought that galaxies as classical objects are moving away from each other; can it only be thought that the primary fundamental quanta (which is what galaxies ultimately are) is what is moving as a collective, away from other collectives.

Thinking about how an electron exists over here, and a gigglion miles away an electron exists, and this means that the foundation of the universe, is set in its fundamentality, it is contained and stable, it is foundation, bedrock, the truest aspect of reality is the micro, the fundamental quanta,;

I am thinking about what it might take to have this foundation 'ruined', so that a distant area of the universe, would no longer be able to associate with electronness, these are the types of thoughts that beg all encompassing spatial field theories to be demanded.

I guess I can boil down the wondering to something like;

Think about if one galaxy at the edge of the universe (lets say it is possible there are multiple versions, because I know you like to think that I cannot know that there is an edge, so lets withhold our disbelief's and beliefs and consider what I am saying for a moment, and then after that, you can pose your arguements)

Think about a galaxy at the edge of the universe, got pushed way out, so like imagine all the galaxies of the universe made some relative sphere, and this one galaxy was knocked out of the sphere, quickly too, and its been traveling away from the sphere for a billion years, getting further and further away;

Eventually would the laws of its physics be potentially totally altered? Is it possible that the fundamental quanta could formulate itself into relationships absolutely nothing like atoms and molecules and quarks and such? But entirely different substantial formulations?

I suppose this relates directly to the theories of 'multi verse and universe seeding and birthing and runaway universe or whatever'.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Does color require more than one photon?

Say there exists 1 single photon. And it is moving in the wave length associated with green.

Say there exists another single photon. And it is moving in the wave length associated with red.

Or is that not how it goes.

Does a single photon emitted from the sun, move in the wave length of white?

Or is the concept of white, a false concept; that it is only the sensory apparatus of mind being overloaded?

Black being the sensory apparatus of mind failing to be stimulated by photon.

So when it is said; the sun emits white light; this merely means the sun emits too many photons for the mind to make colors of?

So then I get to my question;

Oh, well now I see immediately why we dont look into the sun;

And I answer my own question, that whenever we are not looking directly into the sun, the direct photons from the sun dont enter our eyes, so we always receive less than full potency photons, as reflected and refracted off of earthly objects, which have their various colors and such.

I guess the basis of my question was wondering about the nature of white, if it is a sort of real wave length color, or if it is just the mechanism of our mind not being able to compute the wavelengths; like a white flower exists, does that just means it reflects too many photons for us to see what color it truly is? But we could theoretically create a device which could determine what color a white flower is, but it would be a psychedelic, dynamic and sporadic tye dye of all sorts of colors many times over registering in many spaces a second?

So white is just incoherent light, but it is interesting because it is still sensed and seen continuously as white, there is something in and of the mind which produces the sensual recognition of white, instead of the sensual recognition of each different wavelength that makes up the white.

Some extra curricular homework; when you are out and about at night, in a car with a dash board with lights, or walking around a neighborhood with street lights, or if a coming car is coming with headlights, without of course looking directly at light ever, try to pay attention to the movements of your head, and how you can orient your head in positions, so that you see the light in interesting ways, I suspect to do at least partly with the contour of eye;

but I recall one that I experience most often, besides street lamps, is lights on dash board of car; green digital clock lights, when the car is dark at night;

And I can move my head around, and see the beams of light extending;

I have also done this at times and in ways, in which I see (not anything like the 'floaties' or whatever, this is a different phenomenon all together) little bullseye like circles, two rings, smaller one in slightly larger, ~perfect circles, and I can move my head and they remain, in certain contexts, and new ones appear;

I am not sure if that is pixels of eye or mind, consistently registering light, but it is interesting none the less.

a reply to: ImaFungi

The sun for you en.wikipedia.org...#/media/File:Solar_Spectrum_by_NOAO.jpg

a nice pictorial representation of what sunlight 'looks like' to us. split up in wavelengths

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Does color require more than one photon?

Say there exists 1 single photon. And it is moving in the wave length associated with green.

Say there exists another single photon. And it is moving in the wave length associated with red.

Or is that not how it goes.

Does a single photon emitted from the sun, move in the wave length of white?

Or is the concept of white, a false concept; that it is only the sensory apparatus of mind being overloaded?

Black being the sensory apparatus of mind failing to be stimulated by photon.

So when it is said; the sun emits white light; this merely means the sun emits too many photons for the mind to make colors of?

So then I get to my question;

Oh, well now I see immediately why we dont look into the sun;

And I answer my own question, that whenever we are not looking directly into the sun, the direct photons from the sun dont enter our eyes, so we always receive less than full potency photons, as reflected and refracted off of earthly objects, which have their various colors and such.

I guess the basis of my question was wondering about the nature of white, if it is a sort of real wave length color, or if it is just the mechanism of our mind not being able to compute the wavelengths; like a white flower exists, does that just means it reflects too many photons for us to see what color it truly is? But we could theoretically create a device which could determine what color a white flower is, but it would be a psychedelic, dynamic and sporadic tye dye of all sorts of colors many times over registering in many spaces a second?

So white is just incoherent light, but it is interesting because it is still sensed and seen continuously as white, there is something in and of the mind which produces the sensual recognition of white, instead of the sensual recognition of each different wavelength that makes up the white.

Some extra curricular homework; when you are out and about at night, in a car with a dash board with lights, or walking around a neighborhood with street lights, or if a coming car is coming with headlights, without of course looking directly at light ever, try to pay attention to the movements of your head, and how you can orient your head in positions, so that you see the light in interesting ways, I suspect to do at least partly with the contour of eye;

but I recall one that I experience most often, besides street lamps, is lights on dash board of car; green digital clock lights, when the car is dark at night;

And I can move my head around, and see the beams of light extending;

I have also done this at times and in ways, in which I see (not anything like the 'floaties' or whatever, this is a different phenomenon all together) little bullseye like circles, two rings, smaller one in slightly larger, ~perfect circles, and I can move my head and they remain, in certain contexts, and new ones appear;

I am not sure if that is pixels of eye or mind, consistently registering light, but it is interesting none the less.

Photons, wavelengths, the sun - whatever does not inherently have color. Humans see color because the eye has photoreceptors, primarily the cones. Think colorblindness - people who can't see any color or just partial color - it's not because the objects they observe have no color - it's because they have a cone dystrophy of some type - can be genetic, drug induced or failure of the cone cells or retina.

There is no such thing as "color" without the human eye. If we didn't have rods and cones, we could still perceive all the physics of light - we just wouldn't see color - probably just black and white. And if humans didn't have eyes, nature probably would have evolved some other sensory mechanism for us to "see" what's around us.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

How many photons are required generally/on average to send a short text message (lets say the text message reads 'Hi');

Difference between say sent from New York to some where in New York;

And from New York to somewhere in California;

Does it send to cell tower, which then sends to cell tower to cell tower to cell tower?

If so, lets consider the original relationship with cellphone and most local cell tower;

How many photons from the phone to the tower?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

How many photons are required generally/on average to send a short text message (lets say the text message reads 'Hi');

Difference between say sent from New York to some where in New York;

And from New York to somewhere in California;

Does it send to cell tower, which then sends to cell tower to cell tower to cell tower?

If so, lets consider the original relationship with cellphone and most local cell tower;

How many photons from the phone to the tower?

One.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Does color require more than one photon?

Say there exists 1 single photon. And it is moving in the wave length associated with green.

Say there exists another single photon. And it is moving in the wave length associated with red.

Or is that not how it goes.

One frequency per photon, but it's not always a color. An X-ray photon has no visible light color.

Does a single photon emitted from the sun, move in the wave length of white?

Or is the concept of white, a false concept; that it is only the sensory apparatus of mind being overloaded?

You didn't do the prism experiment in school where you take nearly white sunlight and see how the prism separates the colors? I thought most schools showed kids that experiment.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I was wondering, if the galaxies as classical objects moving apart from one another;

eventually will alter the nature of the laws of physics or the means and modes of existence of fields and matter;

Did you read the link I suggested in my previous reply?

I suppose this relates directly to the theories of 'multi verse and universe seeding and birthing and runaway universe or whatever'.

You've heard of Occam's razor, right? Ever hear of Newton's flaming laser sword?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

How many photons are required generally/on average to send a short text message (lets say the text message reads 'Hi');

I'm not sure why it matters. The lower the frequency the less we worry about photons. This concept has already been explained several times in this thread. When the frequency gets low enough it's difficult to count photons. Theoretically there are still photons at low frequencies but if you can't count them, I'm not sure why you would care how many there are, and you also have no way to test whether the answer is correct or not.

But, if you need a number for some reason, you can take a stab at how many photons your cell phone emits by calculating how much energy the photons have at your cell phone frequency, then figure out how many of them per second it takes to add up to the total radiated power of your cell phone, which varies but it might be just under 1 watt. They go out in all directions and most miss the cell tower. Here's a photon energy calculator; you just need to know your cell phone frequency and convert that to wavelength:

www.calctool.org...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
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:

I tried to cut through the thinly veiled ad hominems of the author.
Is Dewey Larson for Real?

Example 1: in their view of stellar evolution stars begin as red dwarfs (low surface temperature, low luminosity) and as they grow older their density, temperature, and luminosity increase, culminating in an explosion.

Well, explosions = motion.

We know from the fossil record, however, that the surface temperature of the Earth hasn't changed very much over the planet's history, and since this temperature reflects at least partially the energy input from the Sun, the solar luminosity can't have changed by very much either, maybe a factor of two. That sounds like a lot, but the red dwarfs which are the supposed early stage for the Sun are thousands of times less luminous than the Sun is now. This kind of luminosity is incompatible with the geologic record.

This is a valid point. However luminosity IS the movement of EM radiation through space over time.

Example 2: the prediction is made that hotter and brighter main sequence stars are denser than the cooler and fainter ones; this is directly contradicted by observations of stars.

... By taking repeated spectroscopic observations of the stars we can work out the the orbits of the stars around each other.

Orbits = motion.

This involves using the Doppler effect (see here, among many other places on the web, for something about it) to tell how fast the stars are moving -- this same physical effect is used by radar "guns" to measure the speeds of stars, and then using three of Issac Newton's inventions, calculus and the laws of motion and gravitation, to solve for the orbit.

Speed = motion. Netwon's laws of motion. Orbit= motion.

Example 3: In some of the stuff "worked out" about the structure of the Sun and the nature of sunspots, the implication is clearly made that the oblateness of the Sun (that is, how flattened the Sun's disk appears to us) should change over the course of the 11-year sunspot cycle, in the sense that it should become more oblate as the cycle progresses and sunspots appear at lower solar latitudes. This also is directly contradicted by observations: the oblateness of the Sun is constant over time within the accuracy of our measurements.

There are certainly other problems with their work. I picked out three items that I spotted quickly and could refute in a short amount of time.

"That is, how flattened the sun's disk appears to us". Appear? As in EM radiation? As in luminosity? See above.

In all accounts we have a fundamental property/measurement (denominator), which is motion. That was what Mr. Larson was getting at. However, how would we test that without another Euclidean space per time for reference, hence, it is not testable, and therefore unscientific. That is why I said it was more of a meta-physical proposition.

His main arguments are inductive for sure: Questioning the framework of our observations as being the absolute from which to gauge our universe (dare I say multiverse?).

I will say I have a hard time conceptualizing the reciprocation of Euclidean 3 space (vector) with time (scalar). As one person put it Euclidean 3 time over clock space? Whaaa???

But there's no need to call him a crackpot. That's very poor form and somewhat showing.

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

Why would it be impossible?

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.

The only thing that seems profoundly clear from "rationalwiki.org" is ad hominem after ad hominem... And that the facts should be self evident. So I guess they needed to fill the space with something.

I will look into Satz, but doesn't RST have to do with Mr. Larson? Lets keep apples to apples.

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: ImaFungi

The sun for you en.wikipedia.org...#/media/File:Solar_Spectrum_by_NOAO.jpg

a nice pictorial representation of what sunlight 'looks like' to us. split up in wavelengths

Hey Captain Chief; lets see if you can imagine this;

I didnt ask you all those questions in my response, because I wanted to know about the sun;

I did so, because I wanted to know about your understanding of light;

So that I may ask further questions; relating to different modes in which we know of and experience light;

So that I may ask more questions, so that I may allow us to see how little you comprehend light, and hopefully allow us to question and work towards better understanding light.

This is the reason I have been asking any questions, I have further goals and reasons, beyond the specific question, usually.

It is usually one step in a chain of questions.

a reply to: Phantom423

Can one photon register color in the eye/mind?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
One frequency per photon, but it's not always a color. An X-ray photon has no visible light color.

So one photon has red frequency;

One photon has blue frequency; (stated that way for simplicities sake, I understand it may not be proper)

What is physically different between these photons;

If we imagine them as their particle nature;

Two balls;

What is their difference?

They are traveling the same speed;

They are both 'bobbing up and down' of their own intrinsic accord?

This is why the can of worms is opened!

You didn't do the prism experiment in school where you take nearly white sunlight and see how the prism separates the colors? I thought most schools showed kids that experiment.

You didnt attempt to answer my question? I thought I should have assumed as much.

I asked;

Is white, only! the overloading of our mind?

The bridge between frequencies of photons, which can 'fit in the apparatus', but which do not register as a color, beyond which frequencies are considered non visible?

This insinuates, that the concept of 'visible light' objectively, is nearly purely subjective concept, though we understand this I think; because we can detect light outside of the spectrum of our vision; this obviously expresses that all light is visible light, in regards to an apparatus which has the mechanics to register it, this is obvious and always my point that objective reality exists and equals itself at all times and insinuates hypothetical visibility. Still the sensual nature of color is odd, our actual perception of the limits of colors, like I know there are millions and billions of colors, I wonder if we could make a robot in theory that had a visible light spectrum perception 20 times greater in terms of wavelengths big and small, and if the limits for us red and violet, if its perception would continue to go beyond those and perceive colors we have not and cannot? Do we potentially approach these in some of the billions of colors we can produce, like neon colors and stuff, or is that a whole different thing?

Or is the perception of color, purely an artistic achievement by the mind, that is a million different minds can be created, which perceive the visible light spectrum, and perceive the colors radically differently? (as species of animal may be example of, I know dogs are color blind, but I am saying more, the perception, when you see red and blue you have a relationship with your knowledge and sensual experience of red and blue; could 10 robot or animal minds be created which have sensual experience of all the colors your know, all mixed and matched differently in each mind? Meaning that light is just a '~simple pure' signal to be registered, and most of the work is done by the apparatus of mind.

You've heard of Occam's razor, right? Ever hear of Newton's flaming laser sword?

Either you didnt understand what I wrote or...I dont know what... it is a good question... I think you didnt understand it.

a reply to: Flux8

I have not read any of your discussion or papers included, but just some glossing over and tell me if what I say is relevant;


It seems like the fundamental problem with what I see as being the theory is that;

Motion 'is not a thing'.

So how can 'not something' be the cause of something?

Now he is right that motion is a major if not main factor in the universe and/or reality.

But the modern physics calls motion a type of energy.

A non physical energy.

The importance of motion can be obviously known in a single instance, by imagining if motion did not exist.

Stuff/substance/matter/thing/thingness exists.

Something. Nothing.

Something is what exists.

The something does and is able to; move.

Stuff is in motion.

Motion is not 'some thing';

Motion is an attribute, of things and stuff.

Potentially an unavoidable one, certainly an interesting one, definitely a necessary one.

The fact that stuff can and does move; is the fact of time.

If stuff could not move, space would still exist. Because as far as we know, there is a lot of stuff that exists, and it is not all in the same 1d point space.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

So one photon has red frequency;

One photon has blue frequency; (stated that way for simplicities sake, I understand it may not be proper)

What is physically different between these photons...

The frequency, obviously.

originally posted by: Flux8
I will look into Satz, but doesn't RST have to do with Mr. Larson? Lets keep apples to apples.

Larson died in 1990 but Satz has been the torch carrier for RST since Larson's death.

Basically I didn't see where you offered anything that can be tested in support of RST.

If you're saying there aren't any crackpots in the world because that's a derogatory term, I beg to differ. Yes it may be an ad hom, however, such people do exist, as identified by making claims that have no correlation with or direct contradiction with observational evidence. Some people have made an effort to familiarize themselves with the observational evidence and test their ideas against it. Crackpots generally fail in one or both of those criteria.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Is white, only! the overloading of our mind?

I don't know about "overloading", but all colors are as we perceive them in our minds and white is all of them combined in the right proportion. Some animals can see beyond human vision into infrared or ultraviolet. We can measure the frequencies of those wavelengths but we can't "see" them, unless we "translate" the different infrared frequencies into something in visible wavelengths, which is what we see infrared cameras doing.

Either you didnt understand what I wrote or...I dont know what... it is a good question... I think you didnt understand it.

You mentioned multiverse and my point was if you can't show the existence of other universes in experiment (can you?) there doesn't seem to be much point in debating them. You can ask a question and get lots of answers which may be wrong but not contradicted by any experiment because we don't have a way to measure other universes.

originally posted by: Bedlam
The frequency, obviously.

Yes, the blue photon has a higher frequency and thus higher energy than the red photon.

a reply to: Flux8

The reason electronics wouldn't work with his theory is simple he claims they don't exist. He claims the atom Is the smallest thing in the universe and does not non tain electrons or a nucleus for that matter. He believed atoms moving causes electrical currents. Since we can confirm this isn't how electricity works at all his hypothesis is wrong.we have learned a lot about electricity through experimentation and none of it supports his theory.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

So one photon has red frequency;

One photon has blue frequency; (stated that way for simplicities sake, I understand it may not be proper)

What is physically different between these photons...

The frequency, obviously.

Ok;

So we have two different photons, traveling with/as different frequencies.

What is the meaning of a single photon traveling as a frequency?

A single ball, bobbing up and down?

Is that the closest analogy and capturer of reality?

a reply to: ImaFungi

Yes

a reply to: ImaFungi
There are no classical analogies that adequately describe a photon. The "wave packet" is a decent representation but you can find properties of photons that the "wave packet" description doesn't explain, like entanglement for example.

I don't think it's much like a ball bobbing up and down.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

So one photon has red frequency;

One photon has blue frequency; (stated that way for simplicities sake, I understand it may not be proper)

What is physically different between these photons...

The frequency, obviously.

Ok;

So we have two different photons, traveling with/as different frequencies.

What is the meaning of a single photon traveling as a frequency?

A single ball, bobbing up and down?

Is that the closest analogy and capturer of reality?

No first photons aren't particles and they aren't waves those are just qualities of out photon. It is both it is neither.you want to put photons into a niche they are like nothing else. And at the same time like everything else since even matter can have waves.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

I don't think it's much like a ball bobbing up and down.

If a photon is never like a ball bobbing up and down

A photon is never a particle.

Which insinuates, that somehow, a medium with no parts exists throughout space.

If the medium has parts; those parts can be considered particles.

If the medium has parts, but the parts cannot seperate from one another, the way in whcih the medium moves, cannot be considered particle like;

Just as the movements of ocean cannot be considered particle like;

They can be considered discrete, as in; There is 1 wave. There are 3 waves in that area.

The ocean as a whole medium, can be considered continuous.

Even though it is made of parts.

Well I dont know, personally about the nature of continuous and discrete; it seems quite sketchy.

But any way;

If the sun does not toss out a ball which bobbles up and down, which is called a photon that bobbles up and down as a frequency of spatio-temporal wave;

Than there is a medium which exists throughout the universe;

And the movements of the local particles of the sun; move the medium;

As movements of the local particles of your hand, move the medium of water it is in, and the medium waves;

And the EM medium waves.