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: 14
74
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Could you explain Scalar technology and how an interferometric system would be used and how it would appear?




posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 01:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
But now for the fun part some physicists, such as MIT's Edward Farhi, Alan Guth and Jemal Guven have even considered whether it would be possible to create a universes in the laboratory. The idea is to shrink a chunk of matter to such high densities, forcing it to become a black hole.According to them this ball of matter could branch off to create a baby universe inside the black hole.



originally posted by: Nochzwei
Even if you were able to do that, there is no danger as it will create its own space
Maybe, but what about the black hole? Video related, shows one possible result if calculations are off (black hole consumes everything around it):



If Hawking was right about Hawking radiation the black hole would "evaporate" quickly so what's shown in that video shouldn't be able to happen, but Hawking radiation hasn't been confirmed in any observation, so we aren't really sure. Besides, if Hawking radiation does evaporate the black hole quickly, how can they do the experiment? If they found some way to prevent Hawking radiation then we might be back to the scenario in the video of the black hole "consuming" matter around it.

a reply to: dragonridr
Yes it could be a dangerous experiment to create black holes in a lab, especially if they don't immediately evaporate like the Hawking Radiation model suggests.


originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Could you explain Scalar technology and how an interferometric system would be used and how it would appear?
Questions like this need more context. If you're referring to Bearden's scalar technology, there are two explanations in the following link, one in real physics and one in the land of woo, the latter being mostly where Bearden resides:

The main current proponent of scalar wave pseudophysics is zero-point energy advocate Thomas E. Bearden



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 04:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The main current proponent of scalar wave pseudophysics is zero-point energy advocate Thomas E. Bearden



Bearden says that scalar waves differ from conventional electromagnetic transverse waves by having two oscillations anti-parallel with each other, each originating from opposite charge sources, thereby lacking any net directionality. The waves are conjugates of each other, and so, if left unperturbed, can pass through ordinary matter with relative ease. So they are not included in mainstream physics. They don't work like ordinary longitudinal waves either. (Got that?)[6]


Tesla researcher Prof. Konstantin Meyl posted this comment on Sterling Allan's website in an article by Hank Mills entitled "Tesla's Scalar Fields Still Beaming On!":


The Laplace Operator

On March 31, 2011 2:06 PM MST, Konstantin Meyl wrote:

Subject: Re: About Scalar Field and an Italian Book

There is one comment, making clear, where the problem is localized:

Karl Palsness wrote:

"You should read about Scalar .. it is a "Scalar FIELD" there should be no such thing as a "Scalar wave"; and there is a "Longitudinal Wave", instead of scalar wave. Scalar waves just don't exist according to the word scalar meaning size. A Tesla coil has a scalar field around it...and emits a longitudinal wave..."

If a scientist is using an expression, he first has to define, what the meaning is. This is what I do in my books, but in America, nobody seems to read my writings. I explain that the scalar wave is nearly the opposite of a scalar field. The expression is more than 200 years old and in mathematics exactly explained by the field equation of Laplace.

The Laplace Operator (describing the distribution of a wave in space) may be separated in 2 parts: grad div - curl curl. The second part is explaining the EM wave, a transverse wave, while the first part gives a scalar wave: The div applied on a vector is scalar! This is why scalar particles or vortices as part of the wave equation are propagating as a scalar wave. But they are propagating in the direction of a field vector and by this the wave is longitudinal and has a direction. In mathematics it is known, that the grad applied on a scalar is a vector again. This is why the scalar wave is propagating in one direction, not in a scalar way, as Karl Palsness wants the scalar wave to do. So he has to read the literature first before he is spreading nonsense in the world wide web.

My opinion about the education in the states is not the best. Lets help to improve it.

pesn.com...



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose
As explained in the link I posted, Bearden isn't the only one peddling this scalar pseudoscience (for example Richard Hoagland also jumped on the bandwagon, that should add some credibility too, right?--NOT!), and it cites a number of hoax medical devices or "treatments" claiming to use scalar technology, which if you're "lucky" will cause no harm except for removing that nasty lump from your wallet as the price to pay for gullibility.

The more harmless cranks only sell books and DVDs, but I've never seen any of them market a useful device that actually does anything with the so-called scalar waves. If you ever see such a useful device using "scalar technology" please let me know. Pending that it's in the same class as Randall Mills Blacklight Power hoax, where none of us will ever live to see any useful device based on these pseudo-technologies.

By the way I can't resist posting some of Meyl's more easily falsified claims:

Neutrinopower and the existance of scalar waves

Professor Konstantin Meyl ...also presented the theory that neutrinos are scalar waves moving faster than the speed of light. When moving at the speed of light, they are photons. When a neutrino is slowed to below the speed of light, it becomes an electron.
Remember the whole "faster than light neutrino" debacle at CERN? There were also attempts at other facilities to replicate that experiment, all of which conclusively showed that neutrinos don't move faster than the speed of light and the initial report of such from CERN was the determined to be the result of a faulty connection in the test equipment. Aside from the "faster than light" issue, there are other problems with this claim about neutrinos, photons and electrons all being the same thing traveling at different speeds, can anybody spot them?



edit on 19-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose

Not tesla waves again People dont understand Tesla was playing with radio waves nothing more he just didnt realize it. Atesla coil at its most basic is a resonator. However it uses electromagnetism and not sound waves. His toy took on mythical proportions remember at his time no one understood radio waves. see even marconi called his device a spark transmitter they thought early radio was transferring electricity through the air. Now we understand EM fields and how they propagate but even when they invented radio they thought it worked on an entirely wrong principle. Tesla was smart but he didnt understand what he was playing with. At that time scientists were experimenting with electricity it was new and truly didnt understand its effects. In fact among scientists notarity was gained by how large of sparks you can make in your lab.

Now even Tesla really didnt know what he invented with a Tesla coil. A Tesla Coil can be used as a step-up transformer, but Tesla himself hated this notion. In fact, the high voltage actually comes from resonance, not from the high turns-ratio as with induction coils. Tesla preferred to use them not as transformers but instead as single stand-alone coils. He'd drive them with high voltage AC through the "ground wire" at the base. No primary coil needed however Tesla adjusted the amount of coupling by adding a conventional transformer between the dynamo and the main coil (though not necessary ).

Conventional transformers get there voltage step-up based on turns-ratio of their primary and secondary coils. Tesla did it through an effect known as "resonant rise." In Resonant Rise the central role is played by the bell-like ringing or "Q-factor" of the resonant coils. The longer a coil can ring the greater the energy it can accumulate, and the higher the voltage it can produce.

So his coils were not magical they were a transformer that also happen to work on frequencies meaning it actually had properties of a cb radio.Bottom line Tesla waves later called scalar waves is just a complete misunderstanding of electronics.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

How/why do two metals of very similar composition 'cold weld', in for example, space?



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Can the theorized 'Graviton' particle, be transformed into other particles, and can other particles decay into graviton?



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If you were forced to think about how an electron actually existed as itself, and were given a pen to attempt to draw how one appears as itself, an electron, in free space; To be most accurate would you just make 1 dot on the paper?

And in the universe, the EM field (along with some other fields too right?) are unavoidably (maybe?) 'attached' to this electron. If those fields actually 'are something', that is to say, if the EM field exists, is anything, than would it be most approximate to draw that as lines heading towards that dot, and then touching it, or dots heading toward that dot?

And also now, the electron has its own person 'strongish field' very locally surrounding itself right? This is the meaning of 'electrons can only get so close together before they repel one another'. Well, is this just suggesting its not the physical dot itself that is touch touch repelling, but its what the electron is doing to its local field lines, that create the most 'powerful field line torque mess' nearest the electron, which another electron cant penetrate that area, like a very thick brush forest of field lines, which thins out the further you get away.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
How/why do two metals of very similar composition 'cold weld', in for example, space?
This "cold welding" is thought to be one possible reason why the Galileo high gain antenna had difficulties deploying. After looking at the 66 page document about this phenomenon, I don't see a real clear explanation of the cause, but the photomicrographs give some clues:

esmat.esa.int...
It explains why it tends to happen more in space, and how to avoid it:

A common failure mode seen during the testing and operation of spacecraft is termed ‘cold welding’. European laboratories refer to this as ‘adhesion’, ‘sticking’ or ‘stiction’.
I think sticking is probably a better description than cold welding, since I don't think there's any "welding" going on but this may explain the sticking from page 23:


Look at that picture on the right, it almost reminds me of a microscopic type of "velcro", if that makes any sense. It's not exactly hooks and loops like velcro, but microscopic features that can interlock with each other. The Impact photo is different and the microscopic cause of sticking may also be different.


originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Can the theorized 'Graviton' particle, be transformed into other particles, and can other particles decay into graviton?
Since you can't see me wave my hands on this message board I'm not sure my answer will be adequate:

www.fnal.gov...

At the moment, gravitons are entirely theoretical constructs that delicately walk the knife-edge precipice between the domains of scientific respectability and the shady world of hand waving.
If they exist, and we don't know if they do, they are thought to be massless, so that would impose some limitations.


originally posted by: ImaFungi
If you were forced to think about how an electron actually existed as itself, and were given a pen to attempt to draw how one appears as itself, an electron, in free space; To be most accurate would you just make 1 dot on the paper?
That depends. We know it has a "wavicle" or wave-particle duality. I'm not sure we know how to draw a "wavicle" or if there is such a thing as an accurate drawing of that.


And in the universe, the EM field (along with some other fields too right?) are unavoidably (maybe?) 'attached' to this electron. If those fields actually 'are something', that is to say, if the EM field exists, is anything, than would it be most approximate to draw that as lines heading towards that dot, and then touching it, or dots heading toward that dot?
See above, I'm not sure all observed natural phenomena can be accurately drawn.


And also now, the electron has its own person 'strongish field' very locally surrounding itself right? This is the meaning of 'electrons can only get so close together before they repel one another'. Well, is this just suggesting its not the physical dot itself that is touch touch repelling, but its what the electron is doing to its local field lines, that create the most 'powerful field line torque mess' nearest the electron, which another electron cant penetrate that area, like a very thick brush forest of field lines, which thins out the further you get away.
Yes this shows the "dot" doesn't work, but the "dot" doesn't work for a photon either and it has no electric charge we know of, to repel other photons, so the electric charge is another property besides wave-particle duality.

edit on 21-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


Did you understand anything from all those pages about why/how 2 materials dont stick together on earth, but they do in space?

Could it be the surrounding EM field around the two materials and/or the gravity on earth? Is that the only real difference? So without those, the electrons of the materials just vibrate and start intermingling with the other and then just turn into the same object in the way of a 'connection'?



If the source/phenomenon of gravity is not responsible via a particle, what is another theory as to what is responsible for it? Assuming gravity does occur via particle, under that assumption, would you like to try to answer the questions I posed?



About the electron. Well...UGH. There must be some local 'thingness', to it or else the total universe would just be every planck length full of electrons. So there must be some reason and way why that is not the case, and instead, there are specific areas (nooo its not specific because uncertainty principle and wave yaaa yaaaaa, so I will neglect everything else you are saying because you entered the few words I know how to combat with my pull string talking point) of 'what is termed an electron'.

So if field lines are a real thing, if a field is a real thing, if it exists separate from the electron. Then thats pretty weird, and good luck explaining that. If it doesnt, WHY IS IT TALKED ABOUT OR MENTIONED AT ALL. Oh, theres not a field, thats heaven and all the fairies and angels push the electrons where god wants them to go.

So, besides the local areas of electronness, between the electrons, all the space where there are no electrons, is there field, is there field lines?



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Did you understand anything from all those pages about why/how 2 materials dont stick together on earth, but they do in space?

Could it be the surrounding EM field around the two materials and/or the gravity on earth? Is that the only real difference? So without those, the electrons of the materials just vibrate and start intermingling with the other and then just turn into the same object in the way of a 'connection'?
I figured you might read it, but yes as I said it explained that much, because of oxidation which happens on Earth but not in space:

STM-279 page 9

On the ground it is unusual to witness adhesion between metallic interfaces independently of whether they are subjected to impact or fretting. This is because the surfaces are re-oxidised after each opening, so that the next
closing is made on new oxide layers. In space, the oxide layers are broken irreversibly.



If the source/phenomenon of gravity is not responsible via a particle, what is another theory as to what is responsible for it? Assuming gravity does occur via particle, under that assumption, would you like to try to answer the questions I posed?
There are so many different ideas, but the problem is, we will probably not detect a graviton anytime soon, and almost certainly not within our lifetimes, so speculating about things which cannot be experimentally confirmed doesn't seem productive to me, though if others want to do so, feel free. Dragonridr mentioned the bicep2 experiment in the last thread that provides indirect evidence for quantized gravity, but he also posted some debate about the reliability of this interpretation if I recall correctly.

Quantum gravity

Many of the accepted notions of a unified theory of physics since the 1970s assume, and to some degree depend upon, the existence of the graviton. These include string theory, superstring theory, M-theory, and loop quantum gravity. Detection of gravitons is thus vital to the validation of various lines of research to unify quantum mechanics and relativity theory...

There are a number of other approaches to quantum gravity. The approaches differ depending on which features of general relativity and quantum theory are accepted unchanged, and which features are modified.[39][40] Examples include:

Acoustic metric and other analog models of gravity
Asymptotic safety in quantum gravity
Causal Dynamical Triangulation[41]
Causal sets[42]
Group field theory[43]
Hořava–Lif#z gravity
MacDowell–Mansouri action
Noncommutative geometry.
Path-integral based models of quantum cosmology[44]
Regge calculus
String-nets giving rise to gapless helicity ±2 excitations with no other gapless excitations[45]
Superfluid vacuum theory a.k.a. theory of BEC vacuum
Supergravity
Twistor theory[46]
Canonical quantum gravity
E8 Theory
Geometrodynamics



About the electron. Well...UGH. There must be some local 'thingness', to it or else the total universe would just be every planck length full of electrons. So there must be some reason and way why that is not the case, and instead, there are specific areas (nooo its not specific because uncertainty principle and wave yaaa yaaaaa, so I will neglect everything else you are saying because you entered the few words I know how to combat with my pull string talking point) of 'what is termed an electron'.

So if field lines are a real thing, if a field is a real thing, if it exists separate from the electron. Then thats pretty weird, and good luck explaining that.
Schrodinger helped invent quantum mechanics but he didn't like it, I'm guessing because he thought it was weird? Who said it wasn't weird? It's natural for nature, but our brains evolved to do hunter-gatherer stuff, not to understand the apparent weirdness of subatomic particle behavior.


So, besides the local areas of electronness, between the electrons, all the space where there are no electrons, is there field, is there field lines?
It's kind of an unanswerable question, isn't it? If you have nothing, how are you going to make any measurements of that nothing, with nothing? As soon as you introduce something to make measurements to see what is there, it's not nothing anymore. I think we went over this in the last thread.

edit on 21-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Shroedinger's Frog. That would be a much more interesting conundrum.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Gravitons are tough i can give you more examples of why there unlikely but we do know somethings there. So its up in the air. Gravitons have sort of been detected even at CERN what i mean by sort of is in collisions there is missing mass they believe this to be the graviton as it slips into another dimension. As for gravitational waves again were not detecting the graviton just its effects the reason the graviton was hypothesized is it would be a way to link particle physics and Einstein. Einstein saw gravity as a wave in his calculations it helped him understand the interactions.

But to be honest we sometimes see what we want to for example the missing mass could be an unknown boson we arent aware of with an unknown force. My biggest problem with a graviton is it has to be a boson but with one very unique property it would have to control time. This is where i doubt its existence i think gravity isnt a force but an effect of curved space. But i could be wrong but this is the problem between relativity and particle physics. Particle physics needs it to be a guage boson and relativity needs it to be a pseudo force much like centrifugal force.

I can present the arguments for and against if you like but i cant tell you which one is right. I will say for me the argument against makes more sense but im sure string theorists would argue just as vigorously in the other direction.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

you said gravity you dont tihnk is graviton, but curved space. As far as I can tell, those concepts are not mutually exclusive, in fact, the idea of particles comes as a deduction from the concept of curved space. When one asks, well what is the space made of? What is the space that can curve, made of? If it is not made of particles, 'what is it made of'? How does a substance that takes up a cubed area not have parts? And what does this mean?



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

you said gravity you dont tihnk is graviton, but curved space. As far as I can tell, those concepts are not mutually exclusive, in fact, the idea of particles comes as a deduction from the concept of curved space. When one asks, well what is the space made of? What is the space that can curve, made of? If it is not made of particles, 'what is it made of'? How does a substance that takes up a cubed area not have parts? And what does this mean?


You are so stuck on space and what it is the problem is your looking at the wrong thing. Look it is not quite correct to say "gravity warps space." It is better to say the presence of mass/energy warps space (and time). LIke the presence of the Sun warps space and time in its vicinity.I remember a quote dont remember who said it but it went something like this. Mass and energy grips spacetime and tells it how to curve -- and curved spacetime (gravity) grips mass and energy and tells it how to move. So mass and space are interlinked cant have one without the other makes sense if you think about it. Mass needs a place to be and space can only be defined using mass. They key to the universe is time we use time to define space. Space is nothing more than the time it takes something to move. Thats what i meant by a graviton needs to effect time not space. When we talk of warping space for example we are talking about making it so we can cross it in a shorter time. A warp drive would actually change space it makes time in front compress and time behind it expand. Meaning you cross space in alot less time.

I tried to explain this partly to you earlier when i said what you were really asking about is time just didnt feel like walking you through how linked spacetime is. Ever ask yourself why the less gravity there is the quicker time moves? We see the effecton earth with our own satellites.
edit on 7/22/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

you said gravity you dont tihnk is graviton, but curved space. As far as I can tell, those concepts are not mutually exclusive, in fact, the idea of particles comes as a deduction from the concept of curved space. When one asks, well what is the space made of? What is the space that can curve, made of? If it is not made of particles, 'what is it made of'? How does a substance that takes up a cubed area not have parts? And what does this mean?
You are on to something. Yes space is not curved, never was and never will be.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 02:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

I suppose that depends on your definition of curved.

Kind of a blanket thing to say with no proof to back it up.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 03:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Nochzwei

I suppose that depends on your definition of curved.

Kind of a blanket thing to say with no proof to back it up.
It may be easy to test this curved space hypothesis, I suppose.
Erect 2 pinholes say 1.5 m high, say 1 mile span between them and align them using a laser light. Now put a very sensitive light intensity detector behind one of the pinholes. Now move a fully loaded boeing 747 across, between the pinholes, several times and detect any change of intensity of the light when it is not obstructed by the landing gear. If there is no change in the intensity would mean space is not curved and vice versa.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 03:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Ummmm, nope. Nice try.

Are there any actual experiments to back up this 'theory' of yours?



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Gravitons- Shmavitons.

Space is made up of discrete bits (Quanta) as per the Bose Einstein Condensate model of a super fluid vacuum.
Where there are more space quanta -it makes space more dense.
Gravity is the "averaged out" effects of Quantised matter traversing the density gradient of Quantised space.

We know that the above model of "bits making a whole" already occurs in "nature" and how we discovered this defines our journey from thinking mice appeared from "nothingness" in grain to understanding cells, molecules, atoms etc make up larger objects.

Surely if we are looking for a space/time/ gravity model, Quantised space is the answer.

If we are in the gradient already ( average space) when we (the average number of quanta that make a human) move to a locality with denser OR less space, the affects are instantaneous (as the density gradient is the cause and everything in is the effect) = Speed of Gravity Solved

We are in Space/Space occupies all the gaps in everything we perceive so we have a linked mechanism of action for Gravity= Gravitons other exotic particles not required.

In a Super fluid Vacuum Theory version of quantised space, mass generation would be the equivalent of the Gap Generation Mechanism in Superconductors= Higgs Boson Mass Generation Solved.

Quantised Space causes stable causality as each discrete Quanta has its own unique numbers of resonances since formation/last contact with other Quanta.= Space/Time Question Solved

Black Holes are areas of very dense space that reach a type of criticality where maximum spatial density of Quanta is achieved: Black Holes solved




What does OP think about space being a BEC'esque Super fluid Vacuum specifically being made up of Quanta and this providing ( as per Einsteins suggestion I believe ) a probable likely answer to the more mysterious aspects of Physics.


edit on 22-7-2014 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-7-2014 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
74
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join