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: 226
74
<< 223  224  225    227  228  229 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Have they Observed the Weak and Strong Forces or proven what they actually are.

Kinda like we can prove gravity exists, we observe it. We just have no actual idea of what it really is. As question of not what it does, but what it was.
edit on 29-12-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: greenreflections



Weight is the effect of QM forces of the bucket that are acting upon changed shape of the bucket. Thats where the trick of weight comes in. For as long as there is 'an obstacle' (Earth surface or your hand keeping the bucket from falling down), there will be effect of weight. If there are no obstacle, the object is weightless.


what QM forces ??
what is a quantum mechanical force ???

the mathematical strong force ??
it's a myth, an mathematical construct to hold the theoretical grain particles together.

look, we know like charges repel ( nobody knows why... "facepalm" )
the theoretical atom model puts those grains (protons) together to get a nucleus, but this is an dilemma, those "spheres" should repel and fly away from each other...
..so, one "smart guy" said, there must be a force holding them together !!!
and so, strong force was invented

nobody saw it, nobody touched it... all mathematical invention for the purpose of a theory.



Man, from what I was talking about above, QM does not have to be what you are arguing about. My thinking was such that it does not matter what exactly holds rubber ball in the original geometrical shape in one piece. Name them any way you want but these forces that keep the shape of rubber sphere in original round shape are existing albeit not important in how it is achieved in my case.



edit on 29-12-2015 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-12-2015 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

I will hazard a guess as to the lightsaber. Bear in mind this is just speculation.

First, given what we know about 'light', given what we know about a 'light saber', it's probably premature or even misleading to think that because you can turn it on like a flashlight that it must be light.

I would guess that 'if' a light saber gets invented, it will be more like a laser, it could possibly have effects that will 'cleave' matter, or break matter sub-atomic bonds and not necessarily be 'hot' like a beam of sunlight or molten plasma.

How can it have a defined 'end point' rather than just going off into space? Well I would assume that if we could make a 'forcefield' that -this- is what is containing the energy, possibly shielding the 'heat' if any, and perhaps there's some nano-technology that determines a contained 'length'.

So the real answer is that we don't really know what questions to ask, we just know that the 'movie' device is portable, shielded, can cleave matter and then also not burn the wielder.

What do we have right now that's close? Well we have 'toys' which sound like the LS. We have high powered purple lasers which can burst balloons and burn wood. What's kind of cool is that often 'movie fantasy' can drive actual inventions.

In reality IF we actually had sword length matter disrupting wands, it would be too dangerous to swing around in a crowded space - so part of the invention would be to 'tune it' to only cut bad guys, or tune it to not slice through the wrong furniture.

Hope this has been amusing if not super scientific.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
of course, biggest question I ask myself what is causing a 'run away' effect of 'falling'.
The gradient geometrically stretches 'nose' faster then 'tail', creating QM negative pressure along axis Z inside the ball.

This way tail will drag behind new center of balance never catching up true round shape ever.


cheers!)

edit on 29-12-2015 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   
i want to talk about quantum entanglement.

basically, two electrons that are paired together have a 50% chance to spin the same way, when separated by space they can "communicate" with each, supposedly faster than light. How? no one knows.

i dont believe that anything can move faster than light with our current evidence. Is this whole quantum entanglement communication theory based purely on chance? or is this a new mysterious frontier science has discovered? im not sure where to research this because youtube and the internet is full of biases and psudo science. if anyone smarter than me can help me out it would be great, as this topic has bothered me for a long time.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Maverick7

your talk of purple lasers brings to mind a different question. color of the laser or lightsaber blade would mean a difference in wave length and energy. wouldn't a chump be using a red blade that's closer to infrared? (Sith putz's) but a real OG Jedi use something closer to higher frequencies and energy density like deep blue (lukes original blade & his fathers original sword as a young jedi)or purple lightsabres (like mace windu aka Samuel l. jackson)

personally I'd go for the purple lightsabre.

but physics wise would color of blade or lightsabre matter? "aww. you got a crappy power source your blades only red?"


deploys deep purple almost ultraviolet blade.

or what about empire v. rebellion. empire star destroyer captains all like "hmmph!! red turbolasers! hahaha! our #es GREEN!!! way more energy!!!" pewpew! rebellion gets worked over....again.
edit on 29-12-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: vjr1113
i want to talk about quantum entanglement.

basically, two electrons that are paired together have a 50% chance to spin the same way, when separated by space they can "communicate" with each, supposedly faster than light. How? no one knows.

i dont believe that anything can move faster than light with our current evidence. Is this whole quantum entanglement communication theory based purely on chance? or is this a new mysterious frontier science has discovered? im not sure where to research this because youtube and the internet is full of biases and psudo science. if anyone smarter than me can help me out it would be great, as this topic has bothered me for a long time.


Right now physics really doesn't have an answer for you. We cab obsetve the phenomenon but only have gueses about what's happening. So I'll rin through a couple but first lets take it out if the realm of particles and define what were talking about. Lets day u have two envelopes and two cards one black and one red. We have someone put them in the envelope and you fly to the moon. You get there and we open our envelopes you have a red card and you know I have a black one.

Now we will enter back in to physics physics tells us that until we measure something it is in what's called a super posituon. This means it could be red or black card and the act of opening our envelope will cause it to choose one state over another.This is exactly like our envelopes still not strange. But here's the catch when you open your envelope mine would open also. Now how does my envelope know you opened yoirs?? This is the strange part there is more information in this then we can detect.

Now the ideas to explain it first and one I tend to lean towards is dealing with time. Information is being sent back through time to the point of where they became entangled. In physics we know particles can move either forward or backwards in time they really don't care they just have a bias we can't quite explain. But much like a particle can be in several positions at once its suspected it can also be in several times at once.

Now the second there is information that is being transfered instantanously as far aa we can tell. To do this would require space itself to be an illusion so to speak. Meaning our envelopes were never truly separated. Well how can that be back to particles being able to be in multiple positions at once either our particles continue to pop on and out at the point they were created meaning they never really separated. Or there is a smaller dimension that they pop into and out of that's small enough that we can't detect it. This goes back to the big bang certain dimensions expanded others didn't but they are all still here.

And finnally ill mention this because it still comes up but for the most part has been determined to be very very very very unlikely. That there is no randomness at all. This is all predetermined and not all that strange there is information coded at the creation of is already preset as to what they are. To us it looks random but only because we don't have all the information we need to predeterminw the outcome. Major draw back here it means everything in the universe is set cannot be changed and must happen in a particular way. If we knew the right information we could accurately predict the future or even determine what happened at any point in the past.

Hope that helps a little as I said at the beginning we don't know so other possibilities may come up as we continue to experiment.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

i guess my biggest problem is the use of electrons that have a 50% chance of having a certain spin. if i remember correctly super position was proved with an accuracy of 85-87%, ill have to look it up again. i would be more comfortable if the tests were always 100%, but it seems to me that it's just a game of odds.

if they used a particle that has something like a 1% of super position after being separated, that would be more convincing evidence that particles can communicate faster than light. that being said, if entanglement is true, it will be interesting how we will use faster than light data in the future.

em how do i explain this better ^
if the testers used a particle that had 100 different movement/spins instead of an electron that only has two possible spins, and was shown to super impose 100% of the time.
edit on 29-12-2015 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: dragonridr

i guess my biggest problem is the use of electrons that have a 50% chance of having a certain spin. if i remember correctly super position was proved with an accuracy of 85-87%, ill have to look it up again. i would be more comfortable if the tests were always 100%, but it seems to me that it's just a game of odds.

if they used a particle that has something like a 1% of super position after being separated, that would be more convincing evidence that particles can communicate faster than light. that being said, if entanglement is true, it will be interesting how we will use faster than light data in the future.


I won't say its imposible but I will say its very unlikely this would allow faster than light communication. What it does allow is some very neat effects with imaging and also an encryption method that is impossible to break.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 10:47 PM
link   
these are the vids ive seen HERE
edit on 29-12-2015 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)


and HERE
edit on 29-12-2015 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-12-2015 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)


i just dont agree that a use of an electron is the best way to test this theory
edit on 29-12-2015 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: vjr1113
these are the vids ive seen HERE

and HERE

i just dont agree that a use of an electron is the best way to test this theory


It's already been proved in what's called dense coding this is where quantum computers come in. Its been proved experimentally ill let wiki give you the general idea got to get to bed 😊
en.m.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

hm thanks i was not aware of this



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 01:33 AM
link   
I'm late on the topic, but has anyone mentioned using Plasma particles, as a source for a lightsaber??? Is it possible to do so???

Plasma


Plasma (from Greek πλάσμα, "anything formed"[1]) is one of the four fundamental states of matter, the others being solid, liquid, and gas. A plasma has properties unlike those of the other states.

A plasma can be created by heating a gas or subjecting it to a strong electromagnetic field applied with a laser or microwave generator. This decreases or increases the number of electrons, creating positive or negative charged particles called ions, and is accompanied by the dissociation of molecular bonds, if present.

The presence of a significant number of charge carriers makes plasma electrically conductive so that it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields. Like gas, plasma does not have a definite shape or a definite volume unless enclosed in a container. Unlike gas, under the influence of a magnetic field, it may form structures such as filaments, beams and double layers.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: JuJuBee

Sure.
Create a plasma and shape it with a magnetic field.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr



The hadron collider has proven the strong and weak nuclear foece. It isn't just mathematics it is an obervation of billions of collisions. Your argument is silly and uninformed.


REALLY ?? HOW ???
because they have sensors that respond to electric fields so they read some data from the ripples in EM field they produce by the "collisions" ??

please show me how it is proven otherwise than just in mathematical form !!



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: vjr1113
basically, two electrons that are paired together have a 50% chance to spin the same way, when separated by space they can "communicate" with each, supposedly faster than light. How? no one knows.

i dont believe that anything can move faster than light with our current evidence.
Did you watch the video in the opening post by Sean Carroll? One of the consequences of his preferred Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics is that nothing travels faster than the speed of light, not even quantum entanglement. Of course it's not mainstream because we teach superposition and Copenhagen interpretation in textbooks, but as far as I know even mainstream physicists can't prove Sean Carroll's preferred interpretation is wrong, we just don't know which interpretation if any is correct, which was the whole point of the first OP video.


Is this whole quantum entanglement communication theory based purely on chance?
You've got something garbled, it's a "NO communication theorem", not a "communication theory". Michio Kaku provides an over-simplified explanation that doesn't consider all the implications of Sean Carroll's video in the OP, but he does discuss the randomness:



a reply to: Maverick7
If you're saying that some of the free will discussions are not science-based, I must agree. But mbkennel brought science into the debate with this question:


originally posted by: mbkennel
Is there an empirical experimental diagnostic which could distinguish a mind with free will from one without?
Again if the answer to that question is yes, then the results of that scientific experiment would be in the realm of science.

For example I know of no scientific experiment to determine whether God exists, but one might perform an experiment to test certain aspects of God such as whether or not prayers are answered. A scientific experiment was performed to test this which says something about whether prayers are answered. So you could also argue that prayer is not within the realm of science but that's only true until a scientific experiment is designed to test some aspect of prayer.

So I'm still waiting for someone to answer mbkennel's question about what scientific experiment would test for free will. The fact that you cite Newcomb's Paradox only reinforces the fact that people arguing about free will aren't arguing about the same thing and that's part of the problem; there must be at least a dozen different ideas about what is meant by free will and that so-called "paradox" which isn't really even a paradox doesn't seem to have anything to do with some of the other 11 meanings of "free will". It also doesn't answer mbkennel's question since we are fresh out of omniscient deities or whatever Newcomb posits can make perfect predictions so even if it pretends to be an experiment it can't really be performed. In a sense it's as flawed as the question "what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" because both of those are also fantasy concepts that can't be tested in a real experiment without giving them more specific definitions.

About your flatlander example, does the flatlander have free will to choose to move in any direction in their plane? If so what does that have to do with whether or not they know about up or down, or whether they can move in those directions?

So let's come back to mbkennel's question of what scientific experiment can test for free will if anybody wants to discuss this topic further, and no it's NOT Newcomb's Paradox . If there's no answer then I'm inclined to agree with Maverick questioning how the topic fits in a thread about physics questions.


edit on 20151230 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
Well that is a huge clue into the reality of gravity. Einstine would say gravity doesn't exist it is simply frames moving. For example take our elevator we enlarge our elevator to cover the entire universe you jump and the entire universe rushed up to meet you.
Yes I've misquoted Einstein by saying something like "If you don't believe in gravity then go jump off the roof of a tall building", but what Einstein actually said in 1907 was "For an observer falling freely from the roof of a house, the gravitational field does not exist":

einstein.stanford.edu...


Einstein's happiest thought (1907): "For an observer falling freely from the roof of a house, the gravitational field does not exist" (left). Conversely (right), an observer in a closed box—such as an elevator or spaceship—cannot tell whether his weight is due to gravity or acceleration.



originally posted by: greenreflections
Any merit to all that gibberish I wrote above?
You can refer to your own post as gibberish without getting in trouble, but it's not good manners for other people to call it that.

Physicists have their own language which does use some words with specific definitions and meanings, but it's largely mathematical and since you didn't provide the mathematical expressions to clarify the meaning of what you wrote it's hard to evaluate. It's not clear to me for example whether you're trying to agree or disagree with existing theories such as relativity and quantum mechanics.
edit on 20151230 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



Einstein's happiest thought (1907): "For an observer falling freely from the roof of a house, the gravitational field does not exist" (left). Conversely (right), an observer in a closed box—such as an elevator or spaceship—cannot tell whether his weight is due to gravity or acceleration.


acceleration compare to what ??
elevator is the reference frame for the guy inside and it can not accelerate at all,
only for outside observer the elevator can accelerate but not for the inside !!!
you need God to have gravity dude... an universal observer



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
only for outside observer the elevator can accelerate but not for the inside !!!
If there's no window in the elevator you can't tell if the weigh scale is registering due to gravity or acceleration.

But if the elevator has windows and it's a space elevator, you might be able to tell if you're accelerating toward the moon if you see the moon getting closer out the window at a faster rate, even from inside the elevator. That's why it says you can't tell the difference in a "closed box". If the window lets you see outside you might be able to tell the difference, from an "open box".

edit on 20151230 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma




acceleration compare to what ??

Acceleration compared to yourself.
Acceleration is a change in the velocity of an object. It is relative to the object itself.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 223  224  225    227  228  229 >>

log in

join