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: 277
74
<< 274  275  276    278  279  280 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 03:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: masterp
Here is another question which probably hasn't been asked:

Why does matter fall into a gravity well instead of sitting motionless in it when no force is applied to it?

We know that the spacetime is distorted by matter, but why does matter fall into the distortion?

The presence of the distortion itself is not an adequate explanation for why matter falls into it.



Well, technically it remains motionless locally.

It is important to realize that a motionless object is still moving, in time. What happens in curved spacetime is that this motion in time is distorted and you get spatial components, fall.

You are dealing with 4 dimensional motion, can't treat time separately (like in flat spacetime)


Why the direction of motion in time is towards the center of the gravity well and not away from it (for example)?




posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Not sure if this question was asked somewhere in the beginning of this thread.

But, I've always wanted to know.

What made you want to become a physicist. Was there a moment in your life where it just dawned on you that you wanted to be a physicist" Was there something that influenced you to become one. Was there something you wanted to do first and then later changed?

SO why are you a physicist?

I'm talking to you MBKennel, Eros, Arbi, Tom et al Each one of you guys have different personalities and likely different reasons. I'd like to hear about em.
edit on 13-4-2016 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur



Light exists, right? And it has a quantized nature, right? To say photons don't exist is to say that light doesn't exhibit quantized behavior, and such a claim disagrees with experiment, and when a claim disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.


Yes, light exist, and not, it's not quantized, that's what you don't get !
EM is continues and not in chunks !

EM emitter emit EM radiation in bits and this is what you "read" at all the fancy detectors you've build and than you call it a quanta.
Quanta is description of state and not a description for being.
you simply don't understand cause and effect, you are mistaken effects for cause

you can call those EM "chunks" a photon or whatever, it does not exist the same way piece or quiet does not exist.
also right or wrong do not exist, but I think understanding it is to much for you


those are just words describing a perception or sensation but it is not a physical real thing !
I'm sorry for you, you missing this point...




...you didn't know the difference...

does it make you feel better ? when I come down to your level and use therms you believe in ?
I needed to point out for you one of two, which btw I know none of both exist, to make it clear for you.
and you try to gain it to your advantage ?



..since now you at least admit they aren't the same


NO, I don't admit anything!
As I said, you believe those photons and virtual photons exist, I know they don't.
I was just separating those two therms so you understand what I'm talking about



We know more now than we knew 50 years ago, and then we know more than 50 years before that,


really ??
how is the progress from not knowing how it really works 10.000 years ago, to not knowing how it works 50 years ago, to not knowing how it works today, in any manner to be seen as positive ??
You kidding, right ?

OK, I will give you a chance to prove those photons are real...
please collect... 5 photons should be enough as a proof... and send them per UPS to me, would you ?



How do you explain the photoelectric effect without photons?
The photoelectric equation was proven to be correct but the wave theory doesn't allow for it to work.
So you will need to take away Einstein's Nobel Prize and show us the replacement theory for starters.



posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: joelr

what about photoelectric effect? It was concluded photon is an isolated corpuscular of energy traveling in space. Right?

Yes and no, imo. Like I have said times before, why not to accept photon as a 'spark', an event of wave-like single quanta of energy being absorbed? Photon is wave-like in transit but when that wave-like quanta encounters an element it contracts to a point on physical contact. That's photon. It is a term to describe quanta (smallest amount of energy that can be detected). Does not mean single quanta of energy (photon) is a particle at all times of its existence.

From the moment of release to the moment of deflection (absorption) it is a spreading (inflating) ball with its frequency value being its depth. A layer of energy portion leaving an atom in all directions at once like an enclosed shell with walls certain (minimum possible) thickness.

That's my vision. And why not?

'Photon' when hits another atom and gets electron released, if we continue discussing photoelectric effect, cannot squeeze any more 'sparks' from same atom, neighboring atoms are affected instead. Given detector (metal plate) surface is not perfect, light dots will start flashing seemingly at random but with enough pulses receding pattern will become obvious if we connect double slit experiment to that overall picture. Light intensity and duration prove nothing in that respect, just so you not going to involve it in your answer.

My bottom line is that photon is both. Energy is not carried in discrete packets, it is how we can 'digest' it, in quants.

And at last, what photoelectric effect experiment would look like if energy was a continues flow only as a conclusion? What would it take from that experiment to conclude that photons are a flow and not a discrete particle ? What an outcome should be? The answer to this question would be 'no effect at all'.
But would this mean there is no inter atomic interactions exists? Silly, really.



cheers)


edit on 15-4-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-4-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Just to clarify..
Photon is wave-like and point-like but not at the same time.



posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: joelr

what about photoelectric effect? It was concluded photon is an isolated corpuscular of energy traveling in space. Right?

Yes and no, imo. Like I have said times before, why not to accept photon as a 'spark', an event of wave-like single quanta of energy being absorbed? Photon is wave-like in transit but when that wave-like quanta encounters an element it contracts to a point on physical contact. That's photon. It is a term to describe quanta (smallest amount of energy that can be detected). Does not mean single quanta of energy (photon) is a particle at all times of its existence.

From the moment of release to the moment of deflection (absorption) it is a spreading (inflating) ball with its frequency value being its depth. A layer of energy portion leaving an atom in all directions at once like an enclosed shell with walls certain (minimum possible) thickness.

That's my vision. And why not?

'Photon' when hits another atom and gets electron released, if we continue discussing photoelectric effect, cannot squeeze any more 'sparks' from same atom, neighboring atoms are affected instead. Given detector (metal plate) surface is not perfect, light dots will start flashing seemingly at random but with enough pulses receding pattern will become obvious if we connect double slit experiment to that overall picture. Light intensity and duration prove nothing in that respect, just so you not going to involve it in your answer.

My bottom line is that photon is both. Energy is not carried in discrete packets, it is how we can 'digest' it, in quants.

And at last, what photoelectric effect experiment would look like if energy was a continues flow only as a conclusion? What would it take from that experiment to conclude that photons are a flow and not a discrete particle ? What an outcome should be? The answer to this question would be 'no effect at all'.
But would this mean there is no inter atomic interactions exists? Silly, really.



cheers)




Yes photons have wave and particle behavior. But the wave-only theory failed to explain photoelectric effect.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR
I think we are all born with a natural curiosity about how nature works. Over time, some people seem to lose that interest to varying degrees, but I think the people who retain it the most are most likely to become physicists, if they have the requisite skills and abilities, like being good with math.


originally posted by: greenreflections
I have never said gravity is form of magnetism, this is silly. I am strongly against that notion.
And I did not have a hypothesis.


Here is what you said:

originally posted by: greenreflections
The 'charge' seems to be an ability of a certain looped standing wave to harmonize or not to harmonize with another wave on contact.
How is that not hypothesizing a "looped standing wave"? Unless you're claiming it's a theory instead of a hypothesis? Do you know what hypothesis means? What is that if not a hypothesis?

I didn't say it was a claim that gravity is a form of magnetism, but I did make that analogy because the claim that charge is some kind of "looped standing wave" seems the same to be from the perspective that it appears to be a brain fart that one cannot explain how it can be tested. So why aren't you just as dismayed at your own "looped standing wave" comment as the "gravity is a form of magnetism" comments, if they have an equal amount of support?


originally posted by: greenreflections
My bottom line is that photon is both. Energy is not carried in discrete packets, it is how we can 'digest' it, in quants.
The graph below says otherwise.


And at last, what photoelectric effect experiment would look like if energy was a continues flow only as a conclusion?

What would it take from that experiment to conclude that photons are a flow and not a discrete particle ? What an outcome should be? The answer to this question would be 'no effect at all'.
There's not much effect at low frequencies. Here's a plot of blackbody radiation intensity versus frequency and at low frequencies you're right, you can't tell any difference between continuous energy flow model (labelled "classical" below) and discrete quanta model, however look at what happens at higher frequencies. You can't say "no effect at all", it has a huge effect and the continuous model (classical) fails badly at matching real world observations (labeled "real" below) which happens to match the quantized energy model:


That's from and explained in this video:

Max Planck Solves the Ultraviolet Catastrophe for Blackbody Radiation by Doc Physics


edit on 2016416 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433



X-rays follow the same optical rules as all photons...

they do ?
why don't you build an X-ray microscope using glass lenses then ?



Need to actually do some research there matey

learn physics...
they DON'T !!



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



Keep in mind that the sources of strong X-rays are fewer than sources of light, because the X-rays produced in the cores of stars like our sun never make it to the surface. So, I doubt you'll see an Einstein ring of an X-ray source like we see in visible light where there are billions and billions of stars emitting visible light in the galaxies that form Einstein rings.


do you mean we can't see them because visible light is outshining the x-rays ?



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



Same thing with the stars orbiting the Milky Way black hole. They aren't more distant objects, so why should they be magnified?

the galaxy doesn't end at this point, where is the gravitational lensing of the things behind ?
you turn up the facts!!
and you don't understand what people are telling you


"who says there isn't?"

show me there is !!

if you have the formula for calculating the gravitational lensing you can "correct the image" and show me what is on the other side of the milky way, right ?



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr



Next we have actually determined the mass of blackholes based off something called an Einstein ring. In other words we have shown black holes distort gravity.


?????

so... you take the observable, apply assumptions to it and if it holds the theory it is the right assumption ?
and then you take the assumed that was formed by observable to prove the theory is right ?



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: joelr



How do you explain the photoelectric effect without photons?


simple... mater to mater interaction
emitter disturbs the EM... receiver reacts to this distortion

nothing "travels" though EM, EM propagates !

photon is an idea to describe interaction, not a real thing



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: joelr



Yes photons have wave and particle behavior. But the wave-only theory failed to explain photoelectric effect.


did it ?
photoelectric effect is just a theory of the observable
try this
separate charges... shine UV on them and see what happens

it works on both probes ..
edit on 16-4-2016 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: joelr


Yes photons have wave and particle behavior. But the wave-only theory failed to explain photoelectric effect.


What exactly makes you think so?

My position on nature of light is not disproved by photoelectric effect. Because it has nothing to do with effect itself and I personally do not understand what exactly led scientific community to make this conclusion, really.

As I have posted in the past, light (energy) when unbound exists as a wave. Very simple. It is a matter of interpretation only. Experiment has more significance correlating light intensity and duration with how actively electrons are being emitted. Well, good.

Photon is an event. Spark is an event, for example. Thunder clap is an event. But I do not conclude those sparks are traveling individually through space-time like snow flakes or rain drops. Its like saying wood made of fire because we conducted an experiment where wood is burning.

That's primarily for a reason that there is no way to describe individual seeds of light existing as particles. There, to begin with, has to be a mechanism that keeps 'photons' as particles (or particle-like, if that makes it sound more scientific to you). With wave it is easily explained and imagined. And if photon is a particle, how do you know what direction it will leave an atom premise?

Quanta of energy leaves an atom in all directions and continues expanding in a form of wave function if there is nothing on its way (like a slit). It is imo the very meaning of uncertainty. Energy quanta stays a wave until encounters our detector which can only process light bubble in portions reducing it to a single instance. Continues light flow would be 'processed' by many atoms as they saturate energy state limit.
The wave contracts (spark) on the moment of physical contact. That's 'photon', a thunder clap)))))


cheers) thanks for your replies.












edit on 17-4-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-4-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: masterp

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: masterp
Here is another question which probably hasn't been asked:

Why does matter fall into a gravity well instead of sitting motionless in it when no force is applied to it?

We know that the spacetime is distorted by matter, but why does matter fall into the distortion?

The presence of the distortion itself is not an adequate explanation for why matter falls into it.



Well, technically it remains motionless locally.

It is important to realize that a motionless object is still moving, in time. What happens in curved spacetime is that this motion in time is distorted and you get spatial components, fall.

You are dealing with 4 dimensional motion, can't treat time separately (like in flat spacetime)


Why the direction of motion in time is towards the center of the gravity well and not away from it (for example)?



yup, I think it is valid to say no point in space-time is same ever. Even if I describe repetitive type of motion as an orbit. If I apply time factor to it on my hypothetical diagram the orbit would look like a spiral.

The direction of motion toward gravity center has nothing to do with time, imo.
I will put it this way, the direction of motion of physical body inside gravity affected area has nothing to do with time.
What exactly you were thinking to ask?

)



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections

Pretty sure the poster was asking why time has a vector towards a center of large mass taken as gravity.

Time is basically particle decay from one form to another in an exchange of particle charge swaps, the farther away from a mass conglomerate of particles the less time seems to pass. Like the two twins one in space and one on earth aging at different rates. The closer one is to a massive particle body in density the more that density tries to pull particles free from that body meaning more charge swaps from collision happen closer to a particle mass or conglomerate than not. This rate of decay can be seen as a time realitive to specific densities. But beyond decay or replacement of particles removed from the mass or renewed... time still remains realative to the charges of the particles. Much like in nutrition we lose potassium faster than copper so density required for nutrition varies by individual... but there is a standard base model, whether that is correct whos to say?

But the same thing occurs based on particle types and charge swaps present with the space a body happens to be in and the consituants of other bodies that may or may not have a specific pull to cause particle swaps to occur in larger or less numbers than normal.

A magnet for instance has a charge very swap freindly with iron but what exchange is the iron getting? eventually all the electrical swaps will take place and the magnet will become full the iron ceases to be iron from decay also and the two are no longer the starting particles. this obviously leads to neutrality as more neutrons are then present than particles with charges to swap.

Of course every particle has a wave function, light has a varied wave form depending on the spectrum or function in which it occurs the photon is a very fast moving particle, meaning by itself? it likely does not have a charge but because it is so fast in its wave form it collides enough times to produce visible light from the charge swaps when observed.

Planck was observing ocillation changes or frequency of varied materials as current passed through the filiment, the resonance of materials could either work in harmony and resonate to shake off photons or not and blow the element... like a singer shattering a crystal glass through a resonance of waves.

light bulbs are vaccumed so there is less collision with other particles, remove the vaccum and poof blown filment as it cannot match the large standing wave form colliding and trying to pull it apart at a greater particle frequency than one contained... this is why LEDs are so damned thick with a heavy guage and coated ends inside to vibrate the desired color as electricity arcs like a spark instead of a filiment to resonate, the LED actually increases the resonance of the like particles they are coated with as more electrity passes through them in particle exchange than normally would... this of course is simply speeding up the decay of whatever particle it is coated with.

Space time is curved simply because of what was stated earlier less dense space Vs. denser space for particulate swaps. So naturally it is going to appear to bend towards in and around bodies of mass as others closer and of specific charges drawn flow towards it... a larger star naturally wants to consume the energy of a smaller star so they pull towards eachother over time in a photoelectromagnetic way until they binary or collide or burn out before they meet...

We are basically a system on a collision course the proxima/alpha centari system, of course many other draws and factors such as planetary masses and vectors must be taken into account but it can be quantified by variables but even then still remain just that a variable of approximation.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

I dunno, exactly. I was in college, taking physics and math courses. I hit real analysis and bailed on math.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Dude all of your papers that i've read are so math heavy It literally blew my mind.

Bailed on the Math?!! It would be scary to see what woulda happened if you went all math instead. Wow, if thats math light for you.......



Man i feel inferior and inadequate sometimes compared to you guys.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: ErosA433



X-rays follow the same optical rules as all photons...

they do ?
why don't you build an X-ray microscope using glass lenses then ?



Need to actually do some research there matey

learn physics...
they DON'T !!


Your wrong they do the difrence is the energy level. X ray photons are so energetic that they cause photon ionization. This is where the X-rays basically are photons is absorbed by one of the inner electrons in an atom, this collision causes an electron to fly off the photoelectric effect. The reason we can't use glass lenses is the xrays being so energetic is absorbed by the glass. Visible light refracts because it cannot effect glass. Everything has an aborbtion rate if its made if atoms. Here you can have fun playing with different elements.

physics.nist.gov...


Oh one more thing we do have lenses that focus x rays based off of physics and knowing they are photons. The lens is designed with holes and the holes focus them to a point. The lens, which was invented by Dr. Anatoly Snigirev, his wife, Dr. Irina Snigireva. In my lab we use something called a zone plate to focus x rays. Looks a lot like a compact disk so we can use lenses we just have to keep in mind the absorption rate of the material we use.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: dragonridr



Next we have actually determined the mass of blackholes based off something called an Einstein ring. In other words we have shown black holes distort gravity.


?????

so... you take the observable, apply assumptions to it and if it holds the theory it is the right assumption ?
and then you take the assumed that was formed by observable to prove the theory is right ?



This makes no sense if any theory doesn't match observable effects its invalid you know like electric universe theory. It doesn't match observations such as neitrinos we know the sun produces them yet EU can't explain it. Then my favorite plasmas do not form a continuous spectrum yet oddly our sun does. Again EU has no explanation for this other than magic.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 274  275  276    278  279  280 >>

log in

join