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: 240
74
<< 237  238  239    241  242  243 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: geezlouise
LOL. Guys, I just want to declare... I'm now addicted to this thread.
It is hilarious, you're all amazing.



But ok, can any of you recommend any good starting books about the fields, or particle physics, or both? If I can get it on my phone I'll buy it and read it.
The book we've been recommending to imafungi was made free online a couple of years ago, but I find it easier to use the pdf version since I can skim the whole thing more quickly, otherwise the content is the same as the online version. It's this one:

The Feynman Lectures on Physics

However this is only the most basic text and you can take several entire courses on quantum mechanics alone which is not discussed in much depth in that book. There are free courses online about deeper topics like this one on quantum mechanics and you can find more from MIT opencourseware on youtube also:

MIT Quantum Mechanics course on Youtube

By the way I seem to recall that imafungi had a hard time making it through the first 30 minutes of the first quantum mechanics video, where I think he was already in denial that the world works that way. For that matter, even the professor at 26 minutes says he similarly had a hard time accepting these experimental results, but he finally did, and I doubt imafungi ever has.

edit on 201618 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   
lol Oh my god this is great! Ty!



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



Chronology of the Universe

the very earliest universe was so hot, or energetic, that initially no matter particles existed or could exist perhaps only fleetingly. According to prevailing scientific theories, at this time the distinct forces we see around us today were joined in one unified force. Space-time itself expanded during an inflationary epoch due to the immensity of the energies involved. Gradually the immense energies cooled – still to a temperature inconceivably hot compared to any we see around us now, but sufficiently to allow forces to gradually undergo symmetry breaking, a kind of repeated condensation from one status quo to another, leading finally to the separation of the strong force from the electroweak force and the first particles.


What it means ''a kind of repeated condensation''?
Especially, what ''condensation'' means here, leave alone 'repeated'?

thank you.


edit on 8-1-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections
I'm not the author of that so I can't be sure what they meant exactly but here are my thoughts. It seems to me like they are trying to paraphrase the process of the term that precedes that expression, Symmetry breaking, and of course that such occurs repeatedly.

However keep in mind that what this is attempting to describe is how the universe went from obeying physics we don't know to the physics we do know, hence the state the particles "condensed from" can't really be described accurately until we know the big bang physics better. But the quark gluon plasma that we think the earlier state "condensed to" is being researched, and has been compared to a "liquid":

Early Universe was a liquid

In an experiment to collide lead nuclei together at CERN's Large Hadron Collider physicists from the ALICE detector team including researchers from the University of Birmingham have discovered that the very early Universe was not only very hot and dense but behaved like a hot liquid.
However it's not really a liquid, it's a separate state of matter from solid, liquid or gas, and different even from ordinary plasma, but it's only observed in particle colliders.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If a quantity of material is very hot and very dense, what very hot means is; parts moving rapidly in relation to one another; right?

Hot water, a hot pan, is hot, because the particles that make up the material are vibrating more than if the material was considered cold; right?

So the early totality of matter, was very dense and very hot; does it being very hot, necessarily suggest that it already had relative parts?

It was not one gigantic super fundamental particle that existed with no parts right?

So I guess I would wonder, for starters, how parts in a dense material can vibrate very hotly relationally to one another; and what might cause them to do so?

How would dense material parts, begin in an incredibly rapidly vibrating state?



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If a quantity of material is very hot and very dense, what very hot means is; parts moving rapidly in relation to one another; right?

Hot water, a hot pan, is hot, because the particles that make up the material are vibrating more than if the material was considered cold; right?
I don't think "vibrating" describes thermal motion in liquids and gases too well, for example I wouldn't call this "Vibrating", would you?



However with that clarification, yes that's pretty much the idea behind thermal energy.


So the early totality of matter, was very dense and very hot; does it being very hot, necessarily suggest that it already had relative parts?

It was not one gigantic super fundamental particle that existed with no parts right?
How early do you want to go? The quark-gluon plasma had parts called quarks, but if you go earlier than that, as I said you're getting into physics we don't know and our models don't work together at such high energies, but the most common hypothesis is that prior to the quark-gluon plasma there was maybe some kind of energy in a form we don't really understand.


So I guess I would wonder, for starters, how parts in a dense material can vibrate very hotly relationally to one another; and what might cause them to do so?
Having lots of energy would cause them do do that.


How would dense material parts, begin in an incredibly rapidly vibrating state?
I doubt it's possible to give a comprehensive answer to that question until we know the physics we don't know, if I interpret your question correctly.

I can't accurately model how the quark gluon plasma evolved from the prior state if I don't have a good model of the prior state, and I don't think we do. This is where you need something like a unified field theory, or a theory of everything, or some kind of more comprehensive theory than what we currently have available. Relativity and quantum mechanics don't have a lot of conflicts until you get into modeling things like the big bang and black holes, and then they don't work well together.

edit on 201619 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   
that was actually most important part of your quote. ''Condensed'' might hold the key to mass creation and source of effect of gravity. I will clarify making it as continuation of my previous posts about the mechanism behind the motion (the fall) of objects when inside gravity well area.

Yes, I think the term ''gravity'' is inaccurate. In a view I have described in those posts earlier, better term would be ''effect of gravity''. Gravity is not a force. It is a pseudo force. It has nothing to do with forces as there is no push-pull action. Gravity is, in my opinion does not have a field. Gravity field is very loose term and confusing with QM fields of forces. Gravity has area of effect.

Alright, does not really matter, I just wanted to make is clear, mostly for myself)) Ha-hahaha))
And it will prepare further the reader to my not so original way of thinking.

Given now I 'know'' in my head how objects happen to move toward center of gravity well source, it is time to discuss what is causing that gravity well to form. Again, it is not my invention and has nothing to do with anything new. I am attempting to build very simplistic explanation for myself as how effect of gravity comes to be and to answer 'condensation' meaning.

What is energy to me? For the sake of explanation lets back engineer the term. If we break all elements, all atoms, all weak, strong, electromagnetic forces, if we break all the matter, just dissolve it hypothetically, all we going to have left is energy. Without answering more curious questions as what exactly energy is lets stop at just this assumption.

When all is broken down all I have left is energy. Indeed, we all made of that stuff, primordial energy which is basic building premise and 'block' in itself for everything else to form, seems like. I am writing my ideas for fun given only Einstein GR as fundament. I did not study his theories but I got the idea.

Just let me know, wise folks, if my thinking is in line with accepted agenda.

Lets take say square rubber sheet firmly fixed on all four ends. Then I pinch it with my fingers some where in a center. Yes, you guessed right, I scooped some rubber between my fingers making tension increase not only in the area immediately surrounding the 'scoop' but entire rubber sheet would be affected to some degree with most felt effect of that in the center. Condensation point? Yes.
Rubber sheet is stretched now with most resistance to that stretch right around the scoop point. In essence this created a gradient of stretch intensity being strongest right around the center of the scoop. The further away from it the less affected area.

What I describe is local phenomenon. In no way I have meant entire cosmos in this case. My fingers scooping center of the rubber sheet would represent condensation, albeit from GR pov.

Bottom line is that fabric of space-time is being scooped stretching rest of it. That scoop is mass. That mass is compressed uniform energy state. The following effect of falling object in affected area read my previous posts.

Don't beat me up badly) Where I make mistake in my basic thinking?


cheers)










edit on 9-1-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 07:08 PM
link   
mass therefore is resistance factor. Uniform energy tension 'wants' to acquire that space-time knot back to uniform state.
edit on 9-1-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
I am writing my ideas for fun given only Einstein GR as fundament. I did not study his theories but I got the idea.

Just let me know, wise folks, if my thinking is in line with accepted agenda....

I scooped some rubber between my fingers making tension increase not only in the area immediately surrounding the 'scoop' but entire rubber sheet would be affected to some degree with most felt effect of that in the center. Condensation point? Yes.
I don't understand your use of "condensation point" in this context, but I'm glad you're having fun. Here are some contexts where I've seen "condensation point" used:

Condensation Point-temperature

The condensation point of a substance is the temperature at which it changes from a gas to a liquid. The boiling and condensation points of a substance are always equal.


Condensation Point-Math

a point of which every neighborhood contains an uncountable number of points of a given set.


Solids and liquids can be referred to as forms of "condensed matter" but if we take a familiar object such as the Earth for an example of condensed matter, it has a radius of over 6000km so it's hardly a "point".


originally posted by: greenreflections
mass therefore is resistance factor. Uniform energy tension 'wants' to acquire that space-time knot back to uniform state.
I don't really know what "mass therefore is resistance factor" means. I know what the words mean separately, but I don't understand them in the context you've strung them together.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   
As said, the early universe is thought to have been entirely energy dominated, from the theroetical beginning, through the inflation era, during this phase, the dynamics of the universe where entirely set by high energy photons and neutrinos probably. A complex soup of photons, likely dark matter and then neutrinos, in all it would be mostly energy and very little stable matter, what ever matter is produced would quickly decay back to photons, or be transmuted in some way by photons and then back into energy.

The only thing really changing at this time is time and the expansion of the universe. Eventually after about 50,000 years there is a switch, a point at which matter becomes stable in the radiation environment and physics as we understand it appears to work. The cosmic microwave background theorised as the remnants of the photons that where emitted and scattered up to this point in time, continue to be scattered, just because the energy density of matter at this point is increasing and is larger than the photon energy density doesn't mean the switch flips and this is what the CMB looks like... the freeze out point for the CMB is later, when the average scattering length of the photons is very much larger than the distance between particles... i think... have to check my notes.

This occurs around 300,000 years after the big bang



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   
does high humidity effect wifi reception. seriously guys im still trying to figure out why my top tier WiFi set up performs so bad 15 feet away in my bathroom.

lately I've been noticing that if there is steam from the shower in the bathroom the WiFi drops to next to nothing. open a window to vent the steam and I get a few more bars. or just open the door to let out the steam, close it again and for a minute or two perfect wifi. then as the steam builds WiFi goes down. is there more than some anecdotal connection to what I'm seeing. humidity regard wifi?

edit on 10-1-2016 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR
I would think the microwave signals would interact with the water molecules in the air, being lost as heat, though the heating would be small due to the low power involved.

What becomes of the information carried by the waves that are no more?



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I think DenyObfuscation is right. It's the dipolar water molecules that absorb microwave or wifi radiation well, which is why the microwave instructions tell you to add a little water to dry stuff you're trying to heat up, so the water can absorb the microwaves. They both operate at about the same frequency. So that's probably it, your wifi is "microwaving" the humidity in your bathroom and that's why you're getting a tiny bit of extra heat from the humidity, instead of more bars on your wifi device.

Ask the Wi-Fi Guru

In very humid conditions, there theoretically could be enough moisture in the air to absorb some of the wireless signal. But RF experts tend to doubt the effect would be very strong unless your router is literally inside a cloud.
I think the "inside a cloud" description could apply to bathroom humidity conditions after a long hot shower.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

uh I'm currently force flowering plumeria over the winter in my bathroom with 5 large plants. so yeah it's almost literally cloud like in there. trying to replicate the tropics in there for about two months. 450 watts of light. 80 degrees and a steamshower once a day to keep the humidity high. when the doors closed and I'm in there showering you literally get clouds floating by at mid chest level.

so you're right its plenty cloud like in there.
edit on 10-1-2016 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   
What's the deal with Nitinol?



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: dashen
What's the deal with Nitinol?


What about it?



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

How is it able to exert 50 tons of pressure per square inch with just a minor temperature change



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Bedlam

How is it able to exert 50 tons of pressure per square inch with just a minor temperature change
Water exerts something like 75 tons per square inch when going from 4C to 0C, the reason is somewhat similar, crystals form in water. In nitinol it transitions from one crystalline structure to another with a Martensitic transformation.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Any tips how to whip some up at home with a forge?



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Any tips how to whip some up at home with a forge?
I hear it makes good bearings but you can buy those already made if you need them. They are made with a patented process. You could try to read the patent and see if that has clues. All I know is that you mix about 40% Nickel and 60% Titanium by weight, or some small variation of that, and that it's very difficult to make it have the special properties you're probably interested in.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 237  238  239    241  242  243 >>

log in

join