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: 292
74
<< 289  290  291    293  294  295 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
centrifugal is not a force. You mixing up terms. Thank you.
It's a "fictitious force" or "pseudo force", as described in The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume I section 12-5. I'm not mixing up terms, I'm applying the term the same way Feynman refers to it in his physics textbook. He also discusses whether gravity might be a pseudo-force, though I suspect anybody falling off a ladder would still think it seems like a real force.
edit on 201665 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I have a friend who fell off a ladder 4 days ago, and was just moved from Intensive Care to a less-closely monitored unit. He now has a lazy eye that wasn't lazy before, and can just barely eat oatmeal. I believe he would tend to agree with your views on the reality of gravity as a force.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

Even a fictitious force can have consequences.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

And I just found out that they moved him back to the ICU a few minutes ago. Sorry, not trying to get off topic.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

That is so freakin' weird!
And what? No vomit?
Peoples be crazy.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: Phage

And I just found out that they moved him back to the ICU a few minutes ago. Sorry, not trying to get off topic.


So sorry about your friend, I know it's worrisome. Hope he will be okay.
(I have no business on this thread, I'm like Penny trying to talk to Sheldon Cooper, but I did want to send my best to your friend.)
edit on 6/5/2016 by angeldoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

Of course you have reason to be here. I'm not a physicist by any stretch of the imagination. That is, presumably, what this thread is for. Like am AMA for the mechanisms of the universe

And thank you very much for your concern
edit on 6-6-2016 by pfishy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 06:24 AM
link   
New question. Is it possible to heat matter to the Planck temperature by any known or theoretical means? Ignoring the implications it would have for the matter in question, of course
Actually, no. Can matter even be heated to that temperature? Obviously there's a good probability that it would have to be something absolutely indivisible, like a quark or an electron, lest you risk whole atoms just going all haywire and taking off thier underwear right in the middle of the bar. But can any matter as we know actually be imparted with that much thermal energy? And is there any way that it is even conceivably possible to do so?
edit on 6-6-2016 by pfishy because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-6-2016 by pfishy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   
I used to like to read about physics, well the theories anyway, not much on all the math. But the more I read, the more I realized that the scientists would often just make things up to explain non predicted results of the experiments. In quantum physics things seem to just vanish into probability. The double slit experiment, as old as it is, coupled with the quantum eraser experiment, seems to say the the conscious observer is what collapses the wave functions creating the reality that we observe. The second law of thermodynamics seems to say that there is an outside force acting upon us, else we would have devolved into a chaotic sea of randomness. That, coupled with the simple fact that observations, for my nearly 50 years, has constantly shown me that explosions, large and small (got to witness a Fort Knox live fire OH YEAH!) never, ever produces and increase in structure. Quite the opposite actually. This all tells me, that there is an outside force, and that makes me believe that there is a God and a spirit realm. Of course that leads to even more questions, but the way I see it, this world has way too much structure to simply be the result of a perpetual accident.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I have a friend who fell off a ladder 4 days ago, and was just moved from Intensive Care to a less-closely monitored unit. He now has a lazy eye that wasn't lazy before, and can just barely eat oatmeal. I believe he would tend to agree with your views on the reality of gravity as a force.
Sorry to hear that. Both of my grandfathers died at fairly early ages as a result of "fictitious forces" like that so just because they're fictitious doesn't mean they can't hurt or kill people.


originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pfishy

Even a fictitious force can have consequences.
Indeed. That's pretty wild. At least some of them had enough sense to wear helmets.


originally posted by: pfishy
New question. Is it possible to heat matter to the Planck temperature by any known or theoretical means? Ignoring the implications it would have for the matter in question, of course
Actually, no. Can matter even be heated to that temperature? Obviously there's a good probability that it would have to be something absolutely indivisible, like a quark or an electron, lest you risk whole atoms just going all haywire and taking off thier underwear right in the middle of the bar. But can any matter as we know actually be imparted with that much thermal energy? And is there any way that it is even conceivably possible to do so?
Right after the big bang is probably the hottest temperature we've calculated, though the earliest parts of the universe are somewhat speculative, partly because we don't have a theory of quantum gravity. For the same reason it's difficult to answer your question without that theory, but I think most scientists would probably guess that it's not achievable by any currently known technology.

The hottest temperatures we've made at the LHC are hotter than a supernova but both are just a small fraction of the Planck temperature, and for that matter just a fraction of the temperature right after the big bang. So the claim that the LHC produces "Big Bang conditions" is an exaggeration, the big bang was much hotter than trillions of degrees and the Planck temperature is even hotter.

a reply to: craterman
Sorry, what was your question?



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

OK, a bit of a continuation of this topic. If we took, say, a charm quark, and somehow managed to hold it still (no movement along any axis relative to the observer, save any inherent rotation), then heated it at a rate of 1000K/s until the Planck temperature was reached, what do you think we would observe? If we could observe it without utterly destroying ourselves and our reality in the process.
Would the quark even maintain it's structure or recognizable properties at the halfway point? The 2/3 point? How would we see this particle being altered, if it is?



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

And in the LHC creating "big bang conditions", I've always had the impression that it is a temperature supposedly not seen since the bing bang, not necessarily as high as it. Also, I think it refers to the state of matter present as a result of the collision, such as the quark/gluon "soup" not occurring in any natural conditions except for the big bang.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

you are trying to debunk the undebunkable. just admit you have lost and call it quits



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: ErosA433

you are trying to debunk the undebunkable. just admit you have lost and call it quits


You mean the undebunkable that has been thoroughly debunked?

Your box is nothing more than a show of scientific ignorance.

Go heat expansion.
edit on 662016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Next time I have to go up a waist size on my pants, I'm going to blame heat expansion.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: ErosA433

you are trying to debunk the undebunkable. just admit you have lost and call it quits
Yes we've seen your undebunkable proof of the base rising. Wait, no we haven't.


originally posted by: ErosA433
Seriously, Nochzwei, if i didnt know any better id say you are just trolling
I can't say I know any better at this point. I don't.


originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: Arbitrageur

OK, a bit of a continuation of this topic. If we took, say, a charm quark, and somehow managed to hold it still (no movement along any axis relative to the observer, save any inherent rotation), then heated it at a rate of 1000K/s until the Planck temperature was reached, what do you think we would observe?
Maybe I don't understand the question. To me it reads like this question:

"What happens to a car when you put the car in park, with the parking brake on, and put chocks under the wheels so it can't move, and accelerate it to 300 kph?"

I can't answer that question because don't know how to do that. Is it moving at 300kph or is it standing still? The question infers it's doing both at the same time, so I don't know how to interpret that. Here's a simplistic diagram of the relationship between temperature and motion:

zonalandeducation.com...


a reply to: pfishy
That's correct. I'm glad you have a deeper understanding than what the headlines say. Not everybody does.


originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: TerryDon79

Next time I have to go up a waist size on my pants, I'm going to blame heat expansion.
I was hoping I could blame that on the expansion of the universe but the math didn't work out.

edit on 201666 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: TerryDon79

Next time I have to go up a waist size on my pants, I'm going to blame heat expansion.


I tend to blame it on an increase of gravity compressing me from the top down which forces me to bulge in the middle.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

OK, let me change the parameters a bit, then. Imagine there is a sensor/camera/whatever that is locked in a position to follow the particle and always maintain the same distance and velocity so as to appear stationary from the perspective of the particle. Then the particle is allowed to move freely. And obviously the sensor/camera/whatever package is a construct which is accessible to but not limited by the physics of this universe. Therefore invulnerable to adverse effects of any velocity or other energy gain while tracking the particle.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy
I'm not an expert on the LHC so I can only answer based on my limited understanding of what happens at high temperatures in the LHC. Composite particles like protons and neutrons don't survive at the highest temperatures but are converted to quark-gluon plasma. Some of the energy in the quark-gluon plasma can create new particles. I think it's exceedingly difficult to conduct the experiment you propose with a single quark but I would expect that as you keep adding energy to it, once the energy gets high enough to form other particles, I would expect other particles to form.

This is basically the reason we can't see quarks separated from protons. As we keep adding energy to the quarks, before you get enough energy to separate the quark from the proton, more particles are formed from all the extra energy. That process is described in this video and I think it will provide some insight into the answer to your question (particularly the 12 seconds from 3:00 to 3:12):

Your Mass is NOT From the Higgs Boson


It's not exactly the same situation you describe but I think the same idea applies that when you keep adding energy to a particle one thing that can result is the creation of more particles. If there's no way to stop that process then that's one means by which the particle will shed the extra energy you apply to it before it reaches the Planck temperature or even much lower temperatures.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So, provided that there is a gluon field equivalent, and a Higgs field equivalent ,to attempt to heat a particle in such a manner could essentially reproduce the big bang in an empty bubble universe...



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 289  290  291    293  294  295 >>

log in

join