Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: greenreflections

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: Arbitrageur

No, no, PHOTONS are little wooden balls painted yellow. Electrons are little wooden balls painted black.

At least in every toy atom/molecule kit I ever had.

at least you acknowledged paint as being a medium to your black and yellow.

But of course. How else do you get them that color?

They also have little holes in so you can attach them with the wooden sticks that hold the atom together.

I wonder you still have that job in a lab) That's where our tax money go into? You play darts with your lab buddies all day on my expense?

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: Arbitrageur

No, no, PHOTONS are little wooden balls painted yellow. Electrons are little wooden balls painted black.

At least in every toy atom/molecule kit I ever had.

I stand corrected, LOL.

originally posted by: greenreflections
Lone black hole will act as any other celestial body me thinks. There will be tidal irregularity in its shape, imo, especially when another black hole approaching. Why did you ask?

originally posted by: greenreflections
No kidding? I was naturally referring to event horizon shape. Geesss..

How specifically do you think the event horizon shape is supposed to be affected by other masses?

I'm not aware of any theory that says it would be.

originally posted by: KrzYma
what it shows is how MS science works !

No, what it shows is what's stated in your next comment:

I'm talking about how it is presented to the common population dude !

Yes that's what it shows. There's not a mainstream scientist alive who thinks that model is accurate. The "common population" doesn't have the math skills, or training to understand the real mainstream science so they get a dumbed-down version like that.

So decide what you're arguing against, the actual science, or the way it's dumbed down for the "common population", which is it?

If it's the latter I have no disagreement, I can hardly make it though a TV documentary about science without finding lots and lots of errors in the way things are explained, but there's no point in asking the editors to make corrections since there's a reason they dumbed it down; they'd lose too much of their audience with the more complicated explanation.

So in other words yes the model in your youtube video is inaccurate and yes this is an example of the way science is dumbed down for non-scientists. If you have problems with that, so do I but there's no good solution. If you have problems with the real science then discuss the real paper, not some dumbed down youtube video.

actually it is the opposite of what you think..

I'm well aware of all the errors in the way science is explained, so if that's what you meant it's not opposite of what I think. My pet peeve is all the articles I read about "Scientists measure light faster than the speed of light", when in fact they did no such thing and if you read the paper that's not their claim, usually it's something like the phase velocity exceeded the speed of light, which is not how fast the light travels.

originally posted by: KrzYma
I did miss this one... so please show me the picture how an atom looks like !

I think I can see how it looks... uncertainty plays a big role in it, right ?
but this even works against the theory of point like charges in atoms, right ?

Yes the images happen to match our models, how much of a coincidence is that? This is more accurate than the models with the wooden sticks and painted balls.


New Microscope Reveals the Shape of Atoms

originally posted by: VitalOverdose
reply to post by Nathwa

 

Well it proves that the maths we have been using to simulate atoms and the theories we have come up with about the way they work are correct. It means we are on the right track to understanding how the universe works.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/48da3d162815.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/68cbe40a92ea.gif[/atsimg]

We are indeed clever little monkeys

Yes but some more clever than others I'm afraid.

so.. if there is nothing "exact" to "bounce" off why should compton scattering be real, or better said the way it is described ?

Speaking of dumbing things down, if you get your science from TV or youtube videos instead of from a proper education you're bound to have some misconceptions and it's never as simple as the dumbed down models.

But the Heisenberg uncertainty principle doesn't prevent electrons from interacting, it only places limits on how accurately you can know the position and momentum simultaneously.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Yes the images happen to match our models, how much of a coincidence is that? This is more accurate than the models with the wooden sticks and painted balls.

SACRILEGE! DISBELIEVER!

a reply to: Arbitrageur

How specifically do you think the event horizon shape is supposed to be affected by other masses?

I'm not aware of any theory that says it would be.

I just said it in my post above. Event horizon will show tidal elongation. Since black holes never been observed as lone objects, it is hard for me to present experimental evidence.

Do you think when two black holes approach they are not affected by effects of gravity from each other? And if they do, what makes you think event horizons of both will show no sign of it?

Are you working in the same lab as Bedlam?


cheers)))

originally posted by: greenreflections
I just said it in my post above. Event horizon will show tidal elongation. Since black holes never been observed as lone objects, it is hard for me to present experimental evidence.

Do you think when two black holes approach they are not affected by effects of gravity from each other? And if they do, what makes you think event horizons of both will show no sign of it?

What is at the event horizon for another massive object to pull on? Nothing. If there's nothing there then there's nothing there to distort with tidal forces. This shouldn't be a hard concept.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Stephen Hawking says in the intro to 'A Brief History Of Time' that he was told every equation he included in the book would halve the sales! So the only one he included was E = mc squared.

originally posted by: Poon
So the only one he included was E = mc squared.

Yes and even that is simplified to the point it's "wrong", since the complete and correct equation might reduce book sales.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Erno86





Where is the paper describing what you're talking about?

As far too my knowledge...no known paper exists --- since it's my own hypothesis.

I would like to know more about link between first law of thermodynamics and death ? Anyone ???

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Erno86

you know so much about LHC so I have to ask you...

what kind of detector is detecting the UPquark ?
what kind of detector is detecting the DOWNquark ?
what about gluon detection ??

how do they work?
how are they made and what kind of material they are composite of ???

Since we are different and when posed with questions I will do my best to answer rather than just simply saying "Watch this" or " You dont get it, you are mainstream"

Scientists actually didn't have any belief back in the 50s and early 60s that the quark model developed by Gell-Mann and Zweig was anything more than a mathematical construct. What was believed is that the model might be useful in determining interaction rates and behaviour but was not representing anything physical.

So, how were they detected? well lets get the first thing straight, they are not directly detected alone. They are detected by looking at deep inelastic scattering events in a electron-proton experiment. The first experiments where largely unsuccessful from low energies up to 20GeV, generally interactions were elastic (the electrons being deflected and not imparting any energy upon any internal components. The community largely thought this to be evidence for a soft proton, not point like but also not made up of separate parts, more of an intense charge cloud.

As experiments where made more accurate and the control over the input energy greatened, along with the energy. The first inelastic scattering events were detected in the late 60s. So what was detected?
Well what was detected was excited states of the proton, the so called Delta(1232) resonance which decays to either a Pio and a Proton, or to a Pi+ and a Neutron.

The two main observables are the angle of deflection and the energy of the electron or the biprodicts of the interaction, using this information, one can look at the kinematics of the interaction, the decay products at different energies and angles and one can determine that the nucleons have internal structure composed with spin 1/2 particles with fractional charge. It is way to complicated to explain fully on a forum or indeed in a youtube video... but after a little look there is a rather long video showing it...with a script read by a computer



So what is observed is not a simple point like bounce, but something much more complicated and often results in a hadronisation jet emerging from the target.


How the detectors work, iv explained basically before.

Materials? Well in the case of the LHC, the silicon strip detectors are basically... silicon, the ECal is basically made from a steel support structure, a scintillating tile calorimeter which i believe is plastic scintillator, there is also an lead-argon calorimeter which is lead plates bathed in liquid argon, the liquid argon being the detection media.

Anyway, can only really imagine that this will be largely ignored KrzYma, as no information appears to get past your own dogma.


You ask many questions... but you listen to no answers that don't fit your dogma... plus... you yourself give zero answers of any more substance than to say "FIELDS!"

Neutrons... why are they not stable? Well lets also ask the following, a neutron decay, you get out a proton, electron and neutrino...

So you say! AHA! yes well a neutron is really a bound proton and electron... OK so... why don't deep inelastic scattering events give you extra electrons that pop out of the nucleus?

Why do the electrons and protons that pop out as a result of a neutron decay exhibit 3 body kinetics rather than 2??

Why do neutrons get absorbed by nucleons but protons do not?

You say there is no thermonuclear reaction driving the sun... so where do all the neutrinos come from?

Neutrinos not real?

What about the detection of SN1987?

SOoooo lets get some answers Sir... come on?

originally posted by: MonaMonina
I would like to know more about link between first law of thermodynamics and death ? Anyone ???

The link is, when you croak, the energy present in your body isn't destroyed.

You radiate, convect or conduct away your thermal energy to the environment.

Then, your chemical energy is, over time, carried away by insects, worms, plants, bacteria, fungi and the like as food.

It's the process known generally as 'decay'.

This might be a dumb question but can somebody explain what is the difference between an Atomic bomb and a Nuclear bomb? Are they they same thing or is a nuclear bomb soley from Uranium and an Atomic bomb is non-Uranium?

originally posted by: Marcus069
This might be a dumb question but can somebody explain what is the difference between an Atomic bomb and a Nuclear bomb? Are they they same thing or is a nuclear bomb soley from Uranium and an Atomic bomb is non-Uranium?

Those two terms are basically the same. A thermonuclear bomb has fusion in.

a reply to: Marcus069
They can be the same thing, or not.

Atomic bomb is a somewhat "archaic" term. Nuclear being a bit more up to date.

Based on that, an Atomic bomb is generally considered to be a fission weapon whereas a nuclear bomb could be either fission or fusion.

I just thought of something very interesting...
Our current understanding of creating a traversable wormhole requires negative energy. The reason we need negative energy, to my understanding, Is because it keeps the wormhole from closing in on itself due to strong gravitational fields. For sake of argument, let's assume the whistleblowers who say creating an artificial gravitational field is possible, are correct. Could we create our own gravitational field lining the inside of the wormhole, doing what we would need negative energy to do? But in this case we don't need negative energy, suddenly it becomes more plausible.

To help clarify, an artificial field of gravity should be capable of changing direction. Where as matter would pull inward, we could make an artificial one push outwards against the wormhole.

What do you think?

originally posted by: Marcus069
This might be a dumb question but can somebody explain what is the difference between an Atomic bomb and a Nuclear bomb? Are they they same thing or is a nuclear bomb soley from Uranium and an Atomic bomb is non-Uranium?

Fusion gives off more energy per weight of explosive than fission.

The fusion reaction bomb is named Themonuclear, I guess because a fission explosion is required, (I think the heat of the fission reaction is the thermo part) like a blasting cap, to get the fusion reaction going.

can anyone explain what Schrodinger meant by zitterbewegung.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

It's what his cat said when he tried to put it in the box.

originally posted by: MonaMonina
I would like to know more about link between first law of thermodynamics and death ? Anyone ???

"from my cold dead hands"


quote: Charlton Heston

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
I just thought of something very interesting...
Our current understanding of creating a traversable wormhole requires negative energy. The reason we need negative energy, to my understanding, Is because it keeps the wormhole from closing in on itself due to strong gravitational fields. For sake of argument, let's assume the whistleblowers who say creating an artificial gravitational field is possible, are correct. Could we create our own gravitational field lining the inside of the wormhole, doing what we would need negative energy to do? But in this case we don't need negative energy, suddenly it becomes more plausible.

To help clarify, an artificial field of gravity should be capable of changing direction. Where as matter would pull inward, we could make an artificial one push outwards against the wormhole.

What do you think?

Some scientists claim that once a starship enters a wormhole...the wormhole would collapse due to the starship's vibrations.

They also claim that you would need the power of a Super Nova, in order to create a wormhole.

That's why I believe that wormholes are a dead end...as far as interstellar travel for a starship is concerned.