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: 19
74
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well as far as multiverses go the one id probably say is most likely is that universes are created all the time there just so distant that we will never observe them. And we are just one small piece in a much bigger puzzle. Problem is there is absolutely noway to prove it. Where restricted on how far we can see and our visible universe is getting smaller not bigger. But my thought has always been what happens once will likely happen again and again just hopefully not in the same place we are.




posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: Nochzwei

Be nice.
Lol it was a joke. some humor



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Lol let me be the judge about my threads ok. You do not have a monopoly in science.
a reply to: Arbitrageur



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Read, everything I wrote again, try again, and then answer which of those 4 choices, best describes your view of a particle that exhibits particle/wave duality. Because in the other thread, you were arguing that your view, and sciences view, of reality, is that reality, is composed of, quanta which are at once, or at separate times, particles and waves. I gave, yes quite general, but yes, quite all encompassing, descriptions of the possible types of characteristics, that can exist. Please, will you be so kind, to say which one your understanding of reality, and your understanding of QM fall under?

Do real, actual, fundamental, ball like particles exist?

Do real, actual, fundamental waves exist?

Are the waves made of particles?

Are the particles made of waves?

Do the particles wave?

Are the waves particles?

Does a fundamental take up a 3d area and is it composed of no parts?

Is a fundamental wave matter?

Is a fundamental energy?



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Read, everything I wrote again, try again, and then answer which of those 4 choices, best describes your view of a particle that exhibits particle/wave duality. Because in the other thread, you were arguing that your view, and sciences view, of reality, is that reality, is composed of, quanta which are at once, or at separate times, particles and waves. I gave, yes quite general, but yes, quite all encompassing, descriptions of the possible types of characteristics, that can exist. Please, will you be so kind, to say which one your understanding of reality, and your understanding of QM fall under?

Do real, actual, fundamental, ball like particles exist?

Do real, actual, fundamental waves exist?


Yes and yes. Quantum mechanical 'elementary particles' behave in a way which is more complex than classical 'only-particles' and classical 'only-waves', and this behavior is, by theory and experiment, irreducible and fundamental and linked. Which means there are no fundamental physical objects which are exclusively and permanently particle-like and none which are exclusively and permanently wave-like---and that is a falsifiable prediction of quantum mechanics.

In the Bohm-deBroglie interpretation of QM there is a joint particle and wave simultaneously propagating.
edit on 29-7-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Do real, actual, fundamental, ball like particles exist?
I pretty much agree with mbkennel saying yes, with the clarification that the particle-like behavior of photons doesn't necessarily imply to me "ball-like", rather it means that where particle behavior is observed, it's not wave-like and is a result of the quantized nature of the photon. I think "ball-like" is not how I'd describe a photon even when it behaves like a particle. I see the photon particle behavior as more the "packet" part of a "wave packet" concept.


Do real, actual, fundamental waves exist?
Yes, as mbkennel said.


Are the waves made of particles?

Are the particles made of waves?

Do the particles wave?

Are the waves particles?
I did in fact attempt to answer these as best I could by saying I'm open to several of the possible interpretations of quantum mechanics and I don't know which interpretation is correct. The Copenhagen interpretation could be correct in which case I wouldn't say the particles wave, but in Bohmian interpretation, I would say the particles wave, so it depends in which interpretation is correct and I don't know the answer, and I don't think anybody does.

a reply to: Nochzwei
You're right. I don't have a monopoly on science, and nobody does, which is sort of my point that you don't seem to get about science. Science is something that's put out there for other people to judge, starting with peer review. After that when the paper is published, the experiment is subject to replication in other labs by other scientists, which may or may not support the results of the original lab.

Good scientists don't say "I'll be the judge of my own experiment" and imply they don't want others to judge the data on a scientific basis.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Read, everything I wrote again, try again, and then answer which of those 4 choices, best describes your view of a particle that exhibits particle/wave duality. Because in the other thread, you were arguing that your view, and sciences view, of reality, is that reality, is composed of, quanta which are at once, or at separate times, particles and waves. I gave, yes quite general, but yes, quite all encompassing, descriptions of the possible types of characteristics, that can exist. Please, will you be so kind, to say which one your understanding of reality, and your understanding of QM fall under?

Do real, actual, fundamental, ball like particles exist?

Yes


Do real, actual, fundamental waves exist?

Yes

Are the waves made of particles?

No

Are the particles made of waves?

No

Do the particles wave?

Im sure if you wave at them its only polite you know.

Are the waves particles?

No

Does a fundamental take up a 3d area and is it composed of no parts?

Well depending on your definition of fundamental this question is vague at best. If your talking a particle than yes its made up of fermions


Is a fundamental wave matter?

As bill clinton would say depends on your definition of matter but id have to say no.


Is a fundamental energy?

There is fundamental principles of energy but im thinking that's not what your thinking but you seem to have a fascination with the word fundamental. But ill make this simple everything in the universe is made of energy in all its different states.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Read, everything I wrote again, try again, and then answer which of those 4 choices, best describes your view of a particle that exhibits particle/wave duality. Because in the other thread, you were arguing that your view, and sciences view, of reality, is that reality, is composed of, quanta which are at once, or at separate times, particles and waves. I gave, yes quite general, but yes, quite all encompassing, descriptions of the possible types of characteristics, that can exist. Please, will you be so kind, to say which one your understanding of reality, and your understanding of QM fall under?

Do real, actual, fundamental, ball like particles exist?

Do real, actual, fundamental waves exist?


Yes and yes. Quantum mechanical 'elementary particles' behave in a way which is more complex than classical 'only-particles' and classical 'only-waves', and this behavior is, by theory and experiment, irreducible and fundamental and linked. Which means there are no fundamental physical objects which are exclusively and permanently particle-like and none which are exclusively and permanently wave-like---and that is a falsifiable prediction of quantum mechanics.

In the Bohm-deBroglie interpretation of QM there is a joint particle and wave simultaneously propagating.


Ok, lets take one particle that falls under your theory, experiment, falsifiable prediction.

You can give this particle or quanta a name, but for now I will call it quanta.

Is this quanta (singular, one, for this example, and the sake of being thorough) you are referring to in your above response;

always, at all times both a particle and a wave?

never, at all times both a particle and a wave? Meaning, at times exactly a particle, at times exactly a wave.

or, at times a particle which at times waves, and which at times does not wave. And a wave at time which is a particle, and at other times, is not a wave?


Lets say we have a graph, X, Y, axis ( would Z be the 3rd dimension? lets use 2, but always remember the object we are referring to might or must also have depth).

What does our example quanta look like plotted on this graph? I am just wondering about the physicality, a scale or analogy of its possible dimensions or shape.

Does it look more like a sphere maybe that touches X,3 , X,-3, Y,3, Y,-3?

Or a square that touches those numbers? Or a rectangle that touches two of those points of larger values?

Or does it look like a rounded rectangle that does not have straight lines but is wavy?

Is this a snapshot of an object, or is it impossible to separate the physicality of an object from the space (meh, time) in which it 'moves'?

If after we plotted the snapshot of this quanta on our graph, we pressed play, pause,play, pause,play,pause,play,pause,play,pause.... 100 times, then another 100 times, then another 100 times;

how would we expect the quanta to appear over those times? is it moving 'up and down' the graph and THAT, and ONLY THAT is the 'wave nature' of a quanta?

Or, is its physical body not moving up and down the graph at great intervals and value changes, but its body itself, the wavyness of it, is oscillating to relative lower and higher degrees at points along its lengths?

Or both, its physical body is vibrating/waving at its lengths, like if its lengths were jump ropes going up and down, and, the object was moving up and down the graph?



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I pretty much agree with mbkennel saying yes, with the clarification that the particle-like behavior of photons doesn't necessarily imply to me "ball-like", rather it means that where particle behavior is observed, it's not wave-like and is a result of the quantized nature of the photon. I think "ball-like" is not how I'd describe a photon even when it behaves like a particle. I see the photon particle behavior as more the "packet" part of a "wave packet" concept.


What keeps the wave packet a packet, are there any other examples in nature of a wave packet that doesnt spread out over time?

And so you are admitting the actual aspect of what radiation is purely a wave, because thats the deeper truth, when you say a wave packet, you are saying, there is 1 wave, you are admitting that light is a wave. Now this get very interesting! What is the wave of the wave packet made of? Once the wave packet is made, the substance of that wave, is it a 3d line? Is the wave of the wave packet composed of particles strung together, or a wave packet, the wave part, is a line, like a jump rope, vibrating up and down, while moving linearly through space...and time?



I did in fact attempt to answer these as best I could by saying I'm open to several of the possible interpretations of quantum mechanics and I don't know which interpretation is correct. The Copenhagen interpretation could be correct in which case I wouldn't say the particles wave, but in Bohmian interpretation, I would say the particles wave, so it depends in which interpretation is correct and I don't know the answer, and I don't think anybody does.


Thats kind of definitely a cop out. Because you say all the time 'fundamental quanta exhibit wave/particle duality'. Now all these questions I am asking, are trying to get deeper into what you mean by that statement, and though I already had discovered, it seems now you too are discovering, that you in fact dont know what you mean by that statement when you make it.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Keep in mind I never got to do uni and never had physics in high school as it was optional for other science subjects.

If energy can not be created or destroyed how does the second law of thermo dynamics work? Why does energy become unusable from entropy if its considered indestructable?

Also is it theoretically possible the usable energy is not really lost but just shifts to another dimensional space?



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 02:07 AM
link   
EM wave/particle duality. Simply look at the particle as being the instantaneous value,whether measured or otherwise, of a wave.
a reply to: ImaFungi


edit on 30-7-2014 by Nochzwei because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 05:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Aural

For energy to be usable it has to differ from the ground state (energy).

Think of a hot object in a cold room. Cold room is the ground state. The temperature difference is the usable energy. If you leave this system alone for some time, the hot object will heat the room, increase the ground state (or ground energy if you want) and temperature difference will be reduced. But the total energy of the room and the object is conserved. You just cant use it.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
What keeps the wave packet a packet, are there any other examples in nature of a wave packet that doesnt spread out over time?
I don't know of any classical examples, but it's apparently the nature of photons that they can travel 10 billion light years without spreading out. I have no answer for how it is able to do that, as it doesn't seem that intuitive to me, but apparently the main change we see over long distances is red-shifting, or in the case of photons from the Andromeda galaxy, some blue shifting. The fact that light from stars spreads out as many different photons, but individual photons don't seem to spread out is amazing.


And so you are admitting the actual aspect of what radiation is purely a wave, because thats the deeper truth, when you say a wave packet, you are saying, there is 1 wave, you are admitting that light is a wave. Now this get very interesting! What is the wave of the wave packet made of? Once the wave packet is made, the substance of that wave, is it a 3d line? Is the wave of the wave packet composed of particles strung together, or a wave packet, the wave part, is a line, like a jump rope, vibrating up and down, while moving linearly through space...and time?
The wave packet is a solution to the Schrodinger equation as described at this link (see link for full description):

www.eng.fsu.edu...

You can apply that to electrons and photons, but there are some differences which you probably know like photons have no rest mass, and always travel at the speed of light in a vacuum, and electrons have a rest mass, and can never travel quite that fast. My main point was I don't see photons as "ball-like" and one simplified way to think of them is sort of like holding a rope taut at both ends, and flicking one end of the rope to send an energy wave to the other end. Of course real photons are far more complex and all the oversimplified analogies you keep requesting like this will fail at some point to describe all the observed properties, like how can a pulse in a rope pass through both slits of the double slit experiment, what is the rope (there isn't one), and so on. I think what you are constantly trying to do is describe quantum mechanics in classical terms. Don't you think many scientists before you have already tried to do this? Nobody has ever succeeded, and I'm pretty sure you won't succeed either, if this is what you're trying to do.


Thats kind of definitely a cop out. Because you say all the time 'fundamental quanta exhibit wave/particle duality'. Now all these questions I am asking, are trying to get deeper into what you mean by that statement, and though I already had discovered, it seems now you too are discovering, that you in fact dont know what you mean by that statement when you make it.
No, I think I've been consistent in saying that the experimental results are consistent and everybody agrees on those which clearly show wave-particle duality, but interpretation of the experimental results is NOT something everybody agrees on, and saying "I don't know" which interpretation is correct isn't a cop-out if I don't know, and nobody else does either, except for maybe people like you who might think you know, but you really don't, because you make claims you can't prove.


originally posted by: Aural
If energy can not be created or destroyed how does the second law of thermo dynamics work? Why does energy become unusable from entropy if its considered indestructable?
Here's the idea. Take 1 liter of 0.5°C water, and 1 liter of 99.5°C water. If you put them together, the hot and cold water will mix and you'll end up with 50°C water.

If instead of mixing them, you keep them separate, you can use the temperature difference to do work, like maybe run an electric heater using the Thermoelectric effect. The way this happens is that energy flows from the 99.5°C to the 0.5°C water, and you can extract some of this and use it to power the heater. In this case, when the energy transfer is complete, the water on both sides may be 40°C, so where did the rest of the energy go? To the heater. If you took the output of the heater and warmed the water with it, then it would again be 50°C, just as in the first example.

So, no energy is lost. But when all the water is 50 degrees, you can't use any temperature difference to power a heater, because there's no longer any temperature difference.


Also is it theoretically possible the usable energy is not really lost but just shifts to another dimensional space?
The energy is not really lost so there's no reason to introduce other dimensions to explain something that isn't lost. Yes the energy becomes a form that is not as usable, but no energy is lost.
edit on 30-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Im frustrated I had a reply then my internet messed up and ate it up . Thank you two.

I get the part of the dispersing of the energy better but I suppose I just didnt understand why if energy is dispersed it is considered unused. Its only considered usable energy if some sort of transfer is being made? I know the sort term solution is just get more energy of a large and larger source to keep the system going as the unusable enrgy will be usable again once another source to transfer energy into it is there if i am understanding that right. So all things follow this then the whole universe could run out of energy to be usable but what sort of signifigance would that have once every bit is unusable? Everything just fall apart? The whole concept I was going for trying to take a jab at other dimensions that i was asking was me trying to find a solution to entropy in a way although I suppose that wouldnt play in unless there is a direct transfer of energy from another place so I guess thats out mostly. What about dark energy does it interact with normal energy in any ways or potentially might?



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aural
So all things follow this then the whole universe could run out of energy to be usable but what sort of signifigance would that have once every bit is unusable? Everything just fall apart?
Yes, maybe, but we aren't completely sure. I suggest reading this wiki article:

Heat death of the universe

The heat death of the universe is a historically suggested ultimate fate of the universe in which the universe has diminished to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and therefore can no longer sustain processes that consume energy (including computation and life). Heat death does not imply any particular absolute temperature; it only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this is when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium (maximum entropy). The hypothesis of heat death stems from the ideas of William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, who in the 1850s took the theory of heat as mechanical energy loss in nature (as embodied in the first two laws of thermodynamics) and extrapolated it to larger processes on a universal scale.

In a more recent view than Kelvin's, it has been recognized by a respected authority on thermodynamics, Max Planck, that the phrase 'entropy of the universe' has no meaning because it admits of no accurate definition.
So that's one idea about the fate of the universe, but there are others, mentioned in this link:

Ultimate fate of the universe
We aren't sure what the fate will be, but dark energy does suggest the "Big Freeze" or "Heat Death" is one of the more likely candidates, though dark energy isn't fully understood and that's part of the uncertainty.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Okay, here's a toughie for you.

What exactly is going on here?

Separating particles from their properties.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aural
Im frustrated I had a reply then my internet messed up and ate it up . Thank you two.

I get the part of the dispersing of the energy better but I suppose I just didnt understand why if energy is dispersed it is considered unused. Its only considered usable energy if some sort of transfer is being made?


The idea is density and area.

Say there are 2 containers of Gasoline that are 1 gallon each.

One of them is in the trunk of your car.

One of them I take and spill out in a river.

1 gallon of gasoline still exists in both cases. But one is much more 'disorganized' or inconvenient to exert the energy to capture.

Now, put the other 1 gallon gas in your car. Each millisecond your car is running that energy is being used for work, to move parts, its creating heat, etc. All that energy exists still in the universe, that previously existed as 1 gallon of gasoline in a container, but now it would be quite difficult to capture it again, and then turn it into gasoline for your car. Much easier to expend your own energy for ~30 minutes at work, get your 'energy expended in a valuable and productive way coupons (money)' and by some nice handy containers of Gasoline.
edit on 30-7-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax
This is somewhat along the same lines as the questions ImaFungi has been asking about QM interpretation, where we list possibilities, like Copenhagen interpretation versus Pilot wave model versus "many worlds" and so on but we don't know which interpretation is correct. The authors list multiple possible interpretations:

Observation of a quantum Cheshire Cat

With respect to the interpretation of these empirical facts, there are many different approaches and perspectives. We briefly mention here a number of these perspectives.

One approach emphasizes that the weak value’s real part can be viewed as a conditioned average of the observable, reflecting the average value of the weakly measured observable given postselection.

Another perspective does not interpret the weak value as being a real property of the system, but as an optimal estimate of the corresponding observable, given that the postselection is successful. Then it can be argued that the observable has no definite value between pre- and postselection, and the real part of the weak value can be connected to the Bayes estimator of the observable on a pre and postselected ensemble.
I'm surprised I could read the whole paper without having to pay for it!



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I pretty much agree with mbkennel saying yes, with the clarification that the particle-like behavior of photons doesn't necessarily imply to me "ball-like", rather it means that where particle behavior is observed, it's not wave-like and is a result of the quantized nature of the photon. I think "ball-like" is not how I'd describe a photon even when it behaves like a particle. I see the photon particle behavior as more the "packet" part of a "wave packet" concept.


What keeps the wave packet a packet, are there any other examples in nature of a wave packet that doesnt spread out over time?

And so you are admitting the actual aspect of what radiation is purely a wave, because thats the deeper truth, when you say a wave packet, you are saying, there is 1 wave, you are admitting that light is a wave. Now this get very interesting! What is the wave of the wave packet made of? Once the wave packet is made, the substance of that wave, is it a 3d line? Is the wave of the wave packet composed of particles strung together, or a wave packet, the wave part, is a line, like a jump rope, vibrating up and down, while moving linearly through space...and time?



I did in fact attempt to answer these as best I could by saying I'm open to several of the possible interpretations of quantum mechanics and I don't know which interpretation is correct. The Copenhagen interpretation could be correct in which case I wouldn't say the particles wave, but in Bohmian interpretation, I would say the particles wave, so it depends in which interpretation is correct and I don't know the answer, and I don't think anybody does.


Thats kind of definitely a cop out. Because you say all the time 'fundamental quanta exhibit wave/particle duality'. Now all these questions I am asking, are trying to get deeper into what you mean by that statement, and though I already had discovered, it seems now you too are discovering, that you in fact dont know what you mean by that statement when you make it.



Ok a wave packet in fact can and does spread out over time think of radio waves for example. They do this by trading kinetic energy for momentum. This in effect is read shift we see in order for a wave packet to cover the grater area it loses its kinetic energy to maintain its momentum.We see this as a change in frequency.So wave packets have non linear dispersion effects. Photons unlike radio waves do not do this because we also have to take spin into account aka polarization. This spinning by are photon works much like throwing a football it gives the wave packet stability its achieved by the shape of the wave itself. If the pulse or photon has just the right shape, the Kerr effect will exactly cancel the dispersion effect .



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr



Ok a wave packet in fact can and does spread out over time think of radio waves for example. They do this by trading kinetic energy for momentum. This in effect is read shift we see in order for a wave packet to cover the grater area it loses its kinetic energy to maintain its momentum.We see this as a change in frequency.So wave packets have non linear dispersion effects. Photons unlike radio waves do not do this because we also have to take spin into account aka polarization. This spinning by are photon works much like throwing a football it gives the wave packet stability its achieved by the shape of the wave itself. If the pulse or photon has just the right shape, the Kerr effect will exactly cancel the dispersion effect .


this is quite convenient, right ?
EM waves red shift but photons ( theoretical construct ) do not.

now I see why your Big Bang Theory is still holding.
You just use what you want to achieve what's needed

spinning photon ? what comes next ? jiggling - invisible - 10th dimensional - string ??



Just can't believe the cause of red shift is known to you but still the Universe has to expand.

such a crap science, my goodness... scary !




top topics



 
74
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join