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: 293
74
<< 290  291  292    294  295  296 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

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.
Lol all you jokers are wallowing in your ignorance. in time you all will learn to embrace cutting edge science coming from that box you have nicknamed expansion




posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: TerryDon79

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.
Lol all you jokers are wallowing in your ignorance. in time you all will learn to embrace cutting edge science coming from that box you have nicknamed expansion


Cutting edge? I guess my cooker is now cutting edge too.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

The effect is called hadronisation and is kind of analogous to pair production at lower energies with say, electrons.

It can be thought of in a few different ways, but I always like the diagram of pulling a quark away from it's stable configuration, be it in energy and momentum rather than spatial as we might think, which can then cause a couple of things.

As a quark moves away from its neighbours the gluon field uses some of its own energy to create more quarks to conserve color charge, resulting in the production potentially of new quark states, such as say producing a top, bottom, charm or strange. You can then look at that particle decaying in the detector (which it will do very quickly)

but remember, you still have a two body problem, you split a proton, the stuff that came out if it has high enough energy will basically interact with its surroundings, or spontainously hadronize, which means that its gluon field is not really stable and the gluon field will have enough energy to produce a shower of hadrons. In effect converting energy and momentum into mass. We see this as highly collimated 'jets' in the detectors. Jets are most often interpreted as the production of gluons free from the interaction point, or as above, a scattering of quarks



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

But would the continuous addition of energy, as I stated above at a rate equivalent to a temperature increase of 1000K/sec, in attempt to reach the Planck temperature, have a differing effect? Or, at some point, would it reach a state where particle production would equal the input energy and stabilize?



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

Well first you have to add energy to the atom, you can do this in a few ways but it is bound by quantum mechanics and if you did it at rest and simply added a gamma... there would be momentum transfer which would basically produce the effect described above.


If you accelerate it, i still suspect that the process of the lorenz boost would actually cause any space charge effects to cause the split of the proton.

If you did it with a fundamental particle? not sure, but once again i suspect it would begin to shower spontainously way before you get to the plank scale.

Also when you are talking about single particles, temperature is kind of an abstract concept, its not the same as we think of in our day to day lives.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

Thank you.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Part of the no-communication theorem is the assumption that physical observables are applied using a 'projection operator'. I have my doubts about the underlying reality of the projection operator as a fundamental fact of nature, as opposed to a useful approximation when dealing with large many-body systems of an observer and a small quantum system.

If you start with the wavefunction of the universe and look at its time evolution, comprising both observer apparatus and quantum system to be measured, where does the projection dome in?

This has to do with the reality of quantum collapse.
edit on 7-6-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy
So, if quantum entanglement can't be used to transmit information FTL, according to several things I have read about it, why is that? It does seem to be that if it IS an instantaneous action/reaction sequence between the entangled particles, the indirectly effected particle would show a measurable change which could be recorded and interpreted. Or is it that the nature of the effect on the entangled particle is unknowable without disturbing it and reversing or altering the effect? Does it fall under the realm of the Uncertainty Principle, perchance?


Ok, my outlook on this.

If I picture photon as a wave then naturally I know the spin because I controlled emission and where that wave lands (collapses) is up to how close to which sensor emission wave front is ( after all, I cannot engineer perfectly round array of sensors to make it true 'detection' a certainty.

And no, photon wave is not made of individual point like particles. Energy is not quantizible because it can occupy an infinitely small valume of space.
If space is growing gradually and not in 'quantas' then energy is analog, continuous within all of space volume.

)cheers



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel
In that case it sounds like we are in agreement that the "no communication theorem" is not a robust proof.


originally posted by: greenreflections
Energy is not quantizible because it can occupy an infinitely small valume of space.
Please cite the paper(s) regarding this. Thank you.

edit on 2016610 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
Energy is not quantizible because it can occupy an infinitely small valume of space.


Please cite the paper(s) regarding this. Thank you.


This was logical assumption. Logic is part of physics I hope.



edit on 10-6-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
This was logical assumption. Logic is part of physics I hope.
Making a hypothesis to test usually involves some kind of logic, and in the late 1800s this was done for blackbody radiation (light bulbs would be an example). Using logic we assumed what you said, that energy is not quantized. However observations didn't match predictions, which is why the "ultraviolet catastrophe" occurred. In order to make predictions which matched observation, we had to use the not so logical assumption that energy IS quantized, and this resulted in solving the UV catastrophe and allowed us to make predictions which would match observation, in the early 1900s.

So this tells us two things:
1. Trying to make predictions with logical approaches may have worked well for classical mechanics but it didn't always work for quantum mechanics. What decides whether a prediction is right isn't how logical the prediction is, it's whether the prediction matches observation.
2. The fact that you don't seem to know any of this means that you're at least 100 years behind the present in your understanding of physics.

On the basis of #2 I think it's probably best if you let the people who have more up-to-date knowledge of physics answer the questions in this thread.



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
ques

how much does the freq of sunlight received on a geo sync sat differ from the freq of sunlight received directly below it on the earth, and why?



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: greenreflections
This was logical assumption. Logic is part of physics I hope.
Making a hypothesis to test usually involves some kind of logic, and in the late 1800s this was done for blackbody radiation (light bulbs would be an example). Using logic we assumed what you said, that energy is not quantized. However observations didn't match predictions, which is why the "ultraviolet catastrophe" occurred. In order to make predictions which matched observation, we had to use the not so logical assumption that energy IS quantized, and this resulted in solving the UV catastrophe and allowed us to make predictions which would match observation, in the early 1900s.

So this tells us two things:
1. Trying to make predictions with logical approaches may have worked well for classical mechanics but it didn't always work for quantum mechanics. What decides whether a prediction is right isn't how logical the prediction is, it's whether the prediction matches observation.
2. The fact that you don't seem to know any of this means that you're at least 100 years behind the present in your understanding of physics.

On the basis of #2 I think it's probably best if you let the people who have more up-to-date knowledge of physics answer the questions in this thread.



I understand your frustration with me. All I asked if patches of space-time while its expanding could be void of energy if space-time is continues and energy quantized? Quantized to me means 'detectible' at best. Nothing more if that's the case.

cheers)
edit on 13-6-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
ques

how much does the freq of sunlight received on a geo sync sat differ from the freq of sunlight received directly below it on the earth, and why?
The same principle of physics that relates to your question was tested in the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959 and again more accurately in the Pound–Snider experiment of 1965. The formula is given at the link so since you're an engineer I'm sure you'll have no trouble plugging in the numbers. The Pound-Rebka and Pound–Snider experiments were tests of the gravitational redshift prediction of general relativity which says light leaving a gravitational field gets red-shifted and light entering a gravitational field gets blue-shifted.


originally posted by: greenreflections
I understand your frustration with me. All I asked if patches of space-time while its expanding could be void of energy if space-time is continues and energy quantized? Quantized to me means 'detectible' at best. Nothing more if that's the case.
The vacuum, vacuum energy and dark energy are not well understood. From a practical standpoint it's hard to measure what's going on in a "vacuum" because as soon as you bring your measuring instrument into the vacuum, you no longer have a vacuum, you have a measuring instrument.

Quantized should mean more than detectable, as there is a relationship between the amount of energy in a quantum of energy like a photon, and the frequency of the photon [Energy = (Planck's constant) x (frequency)]. That's saying a lot more than just "detectable".



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

imo it should be just the opposite. i do not trust the interpretaion of results in the expts you cited. but nonetheless thanks for your reply



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 01:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Using logic we assumed what you said, that energy is not quantized.


What was the logic used?



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 03:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Using logic we assumed what you said, that energy is not quantized.


What was the logic used?


The logic was to apply the equipartition theorem (relates temperature to energy per degree of freedom) to black-body radiation.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 06:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So this tells us two things:
1. Trying to make predictions with logical approaches may have worked well for classical mechanics but it didn't always work for quantum mechanics. What decides whether a prediction is right isn't how logical the prediction is, it's whether the prediction matches observation.
2. The fact that you don't seem to know any of this means that you're at least 100 years behind the present in your understanding of physics.


Of course I agree with 1. All physics results must come into play when we attempt to understand our world. Even 2 is good, since we must be up to date in knowing all physics results, modern and past.

But the reason I felt compelled to post is that we should also know what the thinking was 100 years ago too. There were many good ideas that have been "discredited" with extremely little experimental evidence requiring us to set them aside. The best example is the Lorentz theory. My son is a physics student, and he wasn't even told about Lorentz. The teaching goes straight to Einstein. And yet, I believe only the Sherwin experiment favors Einstein over Lorentz, and I am not sure how complete the Sherwin evidence is either, as I don't believe it has ever been repeated. Meanwhile, quantum collapse experiments do favor Lorentz over Einstein quite strongly.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 11:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Using logic we assumed what you said, that energy is not quantized.


What was the logic used?


The logic was to apply the equipartition theorem (relates temperature to energy per degree of freedom) to black-body radiation.


And what would the result being non quantized mean; theoretically what would non quantized energy be like? Whats a simple description of any theoretical quality of non quantized energy? (this was, energy, in terms of radiation, particularly yes? so this had to do with how they conceptually, physically, substantially, geometrically, visualized radiation; they must have done so as an aether of sorts? To consider that there was no divisible or indivisible part of 'radiation', therefore its energy was not in reality quantified? Or this is only if it could be quantified by man, not considering the meaning of if it is in reality itself quanta'd or not?)



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: delbertlarson
I believe only the Sherwin experiment favors Einstein over Lorentz, and I am not sure how complete the Sherwin evidence is either, as I don't believe it has ever been repeated.
To really give a proper response to your post I'd have to read the work of Lorentz more closely and I haven't done that yet. My information is from second hand sources so I could be wrong, but my understanding is as follows:

Lorentz himself thought he didn't have his theory quite right as he presumed a preferred reference frame, but he apparently came to believe that his assumption was wrong and Einstein was right that there was no preferred frame. These are some related quotes from Lorentz himself:

Relativity priority dispute

However, a 1916 reprint of his main work "The theory of electrons" contains notes (written in 1909 and 1915) in which Lorentz sketched the differences between his results and that of Einstein as follows:[14]

[p. 230]: "the chief difference [is] that Einstein simply postulates what we have deduced, with some difficulty and not altogether satisfactorily, from the fundamental equations of the electromagnetic field. [p. 321]: The chief cause of my failure was my clinging to the idea that the variable t only can be considered as the true time and that my local time t' must be regarded as no more than an auxiliary mathematical quantity. In Einstein's theory, on the contrary, t' plays the same part as t; if we want to describe phenomena in terms of x', y', z', t' we must work with these variables exactly as we could do with x, y, z, t."
...
And at a conference on the Michelson–Morley experiment in 1927 at which Lorentz and Michelson were present, Michelson suggested that Lorentz was the initiator of the theory of relativity. Lorentz then replied:[15]

"I considered my time transformation only as a heuristic working hypothesis. So the theory of relativity is really solely Einstein's work. And there can be no doubt that he would have conceived it even if the work of all his predecessors in the theory of this field had not been done at all. His work is in this respect independent of the previous theories."
So it seems Lorentz is saying "I was wrong, Einstein is right".

However I agree that these discrepancies aside, the work of Lorentz and even Poincaré had a lot in common with Einstein's work, and if people called it the Einstein-Lorentz-Poincaré theory of special relativity I wouldn't object to that, though I think Lorentz quote above is correct that Einstein probably would have come up with it on his own. Lorentz comes across as perhaps overly modest and the difference he describes seems rather small to me.

Have you got a citation for the Sherwin experiment? (Journal name, publication date). I'm not familiar with that.

a reply to: ImaFungi
moebius is correct about the equipartition theorem being related to the UV catastrophe, but I was thinking at an even more fundamental level of the swings in scientific opinion in the "wave-versus-particle" debate on the nature of light. Newton called particles "corpuscles" and even when Young first did his double-slit experiment in the early 1800s showing the wave nature of light, the results weren't immediately accepted as the corpuscle idea was apparently popular at that time. But as the century of the 1800s progressed, more and more evidence including acceptance of Young's experiment had convinced most that the light had a wave nature.

Well in this debate, the very concept of the wave idea is that it's not quantized, while the previous idea of Newton's corpuscles, the term "quantum" as we know it today hadn't been coined yet but I suppose you could say a corpuscle of light and a quantum of light have a lot in common, since they are both discrete packets of light.

The idea that it couldn't be both was at the heart of the debate for centuries because waves and particles have different characteristics that to some extent are mutually exclusive. Now we generally seem to agree that light can exhibit both wave-like and particle-like properties, which I would say is another example of something derived from experiment that one would not be likely to predict from using logic alone to create a hypothesis. To at least some degree, the experimental evidence of wave-particle duality we now teach defies the previously prevailing logic prior to quantum mechanics that light had to be one or the other.

edit on 2016615 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



new topics




 
74
<< 290  291  292    294  295  296 >>

log in

join