Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: Nochzwei

No. Timey wimey rays.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
ques:

what kind of radiation would a time machine produce?

I presume you're talking about these "anti-gravity time machines" which also exhibit the same "anti-gravity" radiation effects as your "anti-gravity time machine"?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: ErosA433

lots of anti-gravity occurring in this youtube video

It is a known affect - happens all the time, the other thing that occurs sometimes is well known and understood

dvxuser.com...

this page as a great explanation of other effects too.

The type of radiation is called "electromagnetic" and that phenomenon is known as "charge spill" or "smear" in the source Eros cited.
If you use a camera with a CMOS sensor instead of a CCD image sensor you won't see this charge spill or smear effect because the different types of camera sensors operate differently and some are less subject to charge spill. See the two pictures of the chandelier at the link Eros posted. The CCD image shows your "anti-gravity time machine" streaks and the CMOS image doesn't.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nochzwei

No. Timey wimey rays.

Lol thats not sciency answer. btw are you one of those comedian mods as well, that move cutting edge science threads to the skunk works?

a reply to: Nochzwei
You don't like Doctor Who?

btw are you one of those comedian mods as well, that move cutting edge science threads to the skunk works?

Do you see the word moderator on my profile? I don't.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: delbertlarson

According to your theory; are photons made of preons? Are gravitons (gravity substance medium particle) made of preons?

What are the main differences between A, B and C; fundamental mass, spin, charge?


Can A's turn into B's and C's and vice versas? Or when the universe was created, x amount of A's were created, y amount of B's were created, z amount of C's were created; and they cannot be created or destroyed or transform completely into new particles, but depending on momentum and proximity, they combine to form larger conglomerations of matter?

What is the meaning of charge in relation to the preons (I guess to further ask anything about that, I need to know your answer to the first question, if preons make up photon; interestingly you mentioned preons make up leptons; which means you believe electron is not fundamental but made up by preon?)

In the ABC Preon Model photons are not made up of preons - photons are the force carrier for electromagnetism pretty much just like in the standard model. I do not make any proposed changes to gravity.

In the original paper, the A particle has a mass of about 45.5 GeV, electric charge 0, neutrinic charge -1. B mass 34.5 GeV, electric charge -1, neutrinic charge -1. C mass 69 GeV, electric charge +2, neutrinic charge +3. The neutrinic charge is a new charge for the neutrinic force, which replaces the strong force. All bound preonic states have neutral neutrinic charge.

If you smash an A Abar pair they can annihilate and the energy can then create a B Bbar pair or a C Cbar pair, but under low energy situations the preons don't disappear, appear nor change from one to another.

Yes, leptons are states of a B bound to an Abar. The electron is the ground state, muon the first excited state, tauon second excited state. This solves the generation problem.

A Google search for "Delbert Larson ABC Preon" will help you find more info.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nochzwei

No. Timey wimey rays.

Timey wimey? Have you heard yourself?

originally posted by: Nochzwei
so you mean beta or gamma/cosmic rays?

*facepalm* because you know, normal beta radiation has a range of 10 miles. Cosmic rays do indeed have a very long range, but, do not have any sort of instant kill factor when passing through something like... a human.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: delbertlarson
On a later post I see you mention that some physicist claimed that the standard model are the new epicycles. Was that me?

No, it wasn't you. There was a post just over a year ago in this thread of a video with no comments (which violates the site terms and conditions) but I watched it anyway. It was by Alexander Unzicker, and I'll give a brief description of the video that was lacking in the original post.

Unzicker presents his "7 deadly sins of particle physics",

1. Overwhelming Complication
2. Suppression of Basic Problems
-doesn't predict masses, mas ratios,etc
-relation to gravity
3. Historical Ignorance-Kuhnian crisis.
4. The "There is always a signal" illusion
5. Theoretical Wishful Thinking
6. The Big Parroting (groupthink)
7. Lack of Transparency

Virtues of particle physics

1. Actually connected to enormous quantities of experimental results
2. Actually connected to quantum mechanics
3. Actually connected to relativity
4. Actually publishes falsifiable theoretical proposals
5. Actually falsifies them

ques:
what were the heart rates of astronauts, on an average, on the moon?

originally posted by: Bedlam
Timey wimey? Have you heard yourself?

Phage gets a high score for his impression of Dr. Who, but Dr. Who gets low points for using terms like that which don't sound very "sciency". Star Trek Next Gen gets higher points for that, probably because they sometimes sent scripts to a physicist consultant to review to give the script some semblance of scientific legitimacy for the future date the series was set in.

a reply to: mbkennel
I thought the "can't be falsified" claim by Unzicker was a stretch. But as long as the experimental evidence matches the model which is possible with an epicycles type model, up to a point, it may be difficult to ascertain if the model is an epicycles-like model or not. One might actually need the superior model to then be able to point to the epicycles model and then say "this is how we know the epicycles-like model was wrong and this new model is better". The fact that Unzicker offers no such superior model at the end of his criticisms makes his talk very unhelpful.

It's apparent the vast majority of particle physicists would likely have problems with some of Unzicker's other claims, something he tacitly acknowledges in his "groupthink" claim.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
ques:
what were the heart rates of astronauts, on an average, on the moon?

That's a question about the history of the space program, not about physics, but we can make an answer about physics. General relativity predicts that clocks on the moon will run at a different rate than clocks on the Earth due to lower gravity on the moon. The difference is so small it wouldn't be evident in something like a heart rate which is low frequency compared to an atomic clock, but the difference could be measured with an atomic clock.

Heart rates are also highly variable depending on the amount of exertion, excitement level, etc. Armstrong was probably on adrenalin at touchdown when his heart rate was 150bpm, which is understandable since he almost ran out of fuel by the time he found a suitable landing spot. I never heard any statistics about any averages.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Bedlam
Timey wimey? Have you heard yourself?

Phage gets a high score for his impression of Dr. Who, but Dr. Who gets low points for using terms like that which don't sound very "sciency".

(sheepish look) It's the next line after "timey wimey, wibbly wobbly stuff" IIRC, by maybe Doctor 10.

The old lady had seen every Doctor Who, got me hooked on it, then I found out half the profs in the EE department were Who freaks.

Yeahh...It has to be me who jump starts dead horse topic)

Smart bunch, any guesses why physical bodies fall toward gravity well center at the same speed regardless of their mass?

)

a reply to: greenreflections
This question was already asked, I think by you, and the many problems with the format of the question were already explained. In a vacuum it's acceleration that results from gravitation, not speed, and the acceleration is only the same at the same radius from the center of mass, assuming a spherical object. At different radii the acceleration is different, for example acceleration at the ISS altitude is only about 90% of acceleration at Earth's surface, and even on Earth's surface acceleration is slightly different at the poles versus the equator because the Earth isn't perfectly spherical.

In Earth's atmosphere objects can reach a "speed" known as "terminal velocity" which happens after an initial period of acceleration when the air resistance prevents further acceleration. These speeds are not all the same for objects of different masses. For example, a spider, a mouse and a human all have different terminal velocities, which are roughly correlated with their mass to surface area ratios.

If you reword the question as was previously suggested last time you asked, to something like "why do objects of different masses like a bowling ball which is 145 times more massive than a golf ball accelerate at the same rate if you drop them to the ground?", there are a couple of simplistic answers.
1. In classical mechanics you could say that there's 145 times as much force on the bowling ball because it's 145 times more massive, so acceleration ends up being the same.
2. From a general relativity perspective you could say each experiences the same distortion of space-time.

Lastly, does a falling object really experience gravitation? Einstein's happiest thought:
einstein.stanford.edu...

Einstein's happiest thought (1907): "For an observer falling freely from the roof of a house, the gravitational field does not exist" (left). Conversely (right), an observer in a closed box—such as an elevator or spaceship—cannot tell whether his weight is due to gravity or acceleration.

You also raised a question about centrifugal force. I referred you to the "pseudo-force" chapter of the Feynman lectures where he explains that not only is centrifugal force a pseudo or fictitious force, but gravity has some of the same characteristics (such as the apparent force being proportional to mass).

a reply to: Arbitrageur

From a general relativity perspective you could say each experiences the same distortion of space-time.

yes, that's how I understand it. Thanks! But what would it imply? That only physical body's own dimensional shape matters when inside gravity affected area? What would be a mechanism for such a phenomenon? Coordinate system gradually being altered to in vector like fashion toward gravity center?


Here is an experiment we can actually make. Take 100 kg one physical object and 1 gr of another object. 1 gr object is 100 km in diameter, 100 kg object is the size of an apple. Now drop them somewhere Moon premises.

This should show that there is proportional difference of the 'end' (tail) coordinate of more massive object while both 'noses' would accelerate same rate (neck to neck) always.
In essence, 100 km in diameter object from my outside pov will be stretched along gravity vector (elongated) more with proportion number as a result if I compare the two before entering gravity well.


cheers)

originally posted by: [post=20910988]greenreflections


Here is an experiment we can actually make. Take 100 kg one physical object and 1 gr of another object. 1 gr object is 100 km in diameter, 100 kg object is the size of an apple. Now drop them somewhere Moon premises.

This should show that there is proportional difference of the 'end' (tail) coordinate of more massive object while both 'noses' would accelerate same rate (neck to neck) always.
In essence, 100 km in diameter object from my outside pov will be stretched along gravity vector (elongated) more with proportion number as a result if I compare the two before entering gravity well.


cheers)

Now go ahd and try it. you will find nothing will be stretched nose or tail

originally posted by: greenreflections
Here is an experiment we can actually make. Take 100 kg one physical object and 1 gr of another object. 1 gr object is 100 km in diameter, 100 kg object is the size of an apple. Now drop them somewhere Moon premises.

I don't know how you can make either one of those, because the 100 kg object is more dense than any normal substance I know of (and it's not massive enough to achieve the density of a neutron star), and the 1g object is less dense than the least dense substances I'm familiar with. Maybe you got those reversed? If you made a typical 100ml volume apple shape of the densest stable element in the periodic table it wouldn't be much over 2kg, say if it was made of platinum which has almost twice the density of lead it's only about 2.1kg. It would need to be made of a substance roughly 100x more dense than lead to fit your scenario.

This should show that there is proportional difference of the 'end' (tail) coordinate of more massive object while both 'noses' would accelerate same rate (neck to neck) always.
In essence, 100 km in diameter object from my outside pov will be stretched along gravity vector (elongated) more with proportion number as a result if I compare the two before entering gravity well.

They will stretch because tidal effects cause the closest part of the object to be more strongly attracted than the most distant part of the object (or are subjected to greater distortion of space-time geodesics if you prefer), so the greater the size of the object the greater the tidal effect.

In fact we are slightly stretched by these tidal forces, but not so much that we notice. Our feet are subject to stronger gravitational attraction than our heads when we are standing up. The further from Earth we go the less we are stretched by this tidal effect. This tidal effect becomes very pronounced when approaching a stellar mass black hole, in a process often called "spaghettification".

No Arbi, I did not mix up anything. 1 gr 100 km wide in diameter and 10 kg size of apple ball made of soft rubber.(I know I said 100 kg in above post). Drop both while 500 km above Moon surface.. They both will hit the 'ground' simultaneously. It does not even matter what numbers I put here.

You see, you think of gravity as real force even knowing it is not. My premise is that physical body's reaction being inside gravity affected area is governed by it's dimensions rather then mass.

That's the whole 'juice' about GR. Physical body must fill (dimensionally occupy) all available spatial space. 3-D sphere is perfect example. When occupied spatial space altered (like entering gravity well) making more spatial space available, the sphere would grow (fill that space out).
Of course, there is a limit at how much out or deformed that rubber ball shape can assume. It is due to internal atomic bonds. Entering gravity well any physical body would try to hold original shape when spatial space offers more. That would lead to deformation from internal bonds point of view.

End (tail coordinate) of 100 km object would show more elongated when compared to 'nose' of smaller object proportionally.

It's like shining with flash light in dark apartment. To find which room is where you need to overlay with physical entity, like light to see the scape.

GR in my opinion is a concept describing the base, physical environment and its qualities, inside which atomic bonds and events exist. And they are interconnected in that respect.

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: [post=20910988]greenreflections


Here is an experiment we can actually make. Take 100 kg one physical object and 1 gr of another object. 1 gr object is 100 km in diameter, 100 kg object is the size of an apple. Now drop them somewhere Moon premises.

This should show that there is proportional difference of the 'end' (tail) coordinate of more massive object while both 'noses' would accelerate same rate (neck to neck) always.
In essence, 100 km in diameter object from my outside pov will be stretched along gravity vector (elongated) more with proportion number as a result if I compare the two before entering gravity well.


cheers)

Now go ahd and try it. you will find nothing will be stretched nose or tail

I just wanted to point out that the reason two physical objects accelerate at the same rate, has to be regardless of mass because of the very fact. That leaves 'dimension' as the only option explaining gravity effect other wise.

originally posted by: greenreflections
End (tail coordinate) of 100 km object would show more elongated when compared to 'nose' of smaller object proportionally.

By how much? You've done the general relativity math to calculate this?

a reply to: mbkennel

Virtues of particle physics

1. Actually connected to enormous quantities of experimental results
2. Actually connected to quantum mechanics
3. Actually connected to relativity
4. Actually publishes falsifiable theoretical proposals
5. Actually falsifies them

I agree with your first three points, but not the last two. I will take up number 5 first. When it comes to the standard model, what possible experiment could be done that would falsify it? Relativity, yes. Quantum Mechanics, yes. Those are falsifiable theories. But the standard model? Any new particle just gets kluged in, there is no predictability on masses at all, and an enormous number of parameters have been arbitrarily fudged or made up just to fit the data. Please let me know if you can think of anything that would cause the standard model to be falsified, rather than just seeing parameters adjusted, new ones added, or elementary particles or forces added as new things are found.

As for number 4, I have found that if you have an idea that is truly new, that it is extremely hard, if not impossible, to get published in any journal that anyone actually reads. Additionally, I have been literally shouted down when expressing my views. While being paid as a physicist I was often warned that what I thought should not be stated out loud, as it might harm my reputation or my institution and I might lose my job or lose funding for my projects. There are internal reviews that must be passed before one even submits to a journal. It is all quite stifling. There is a true fear that if anyone is ever publicly humiliated for being wrong, that an entire University may lose millions in funding. But of course it is the place of science to propose theories and find which ones are wrong! As long as the existing data doesn't indicate error prior to the critical experiments, there should be no shame that a new experiment invalidates the theory.

As one example of what goes on, my ABC Preon Model is often rejected because it is well known that a fermion cannot be a force carrier. This is stated with the air of the final judgement of an expert, with no room left for argument. Just a known fact. But I believe this prejudice comes from what I recall about first order Feynman diagrams, as I believe they preclude a fermion force carrier. Again, as I recall, at a vertex spin conservation with a fermion force carrier would flip the interacting particle from a boson to a fermion or vice versa, and hence the proclamation is made that my model is clearly wrong. Then there usually follows a bunch of ad hominem attacks and a claim that this flaw is just one of many (none of which are ever specified), followed by a judgemental proclamation to reject my model. That is how reviews seem to be done these days.

Note however that a fermion force carrier would simply not have a first order term in the perturbation expansion that underlies the Feynman approach, but that the even order terms could still exist, so this isn't really a proof at all that fermions can't be force carriers. Further, isn't SUSY exactly that - that fermions are the force carriers? And beyond that, why should theory B be constrained by the postulates of theory A, even if we stipulate that theory A is extremely successful in what it treats? (QED is great. QCD not so much. Why should a new strong force theory have to follow what QED does?) The important thing is how the theory stands up against experimental data.

So I would claim that it isn't falsification based on experimental data that is often going on in the review process - it is falsification based on a disagreement with existing theory. And even the existing theory isn't often understood all that deeply by those who do the reviewing. The reviewers minds are often closed - they already know the truth.

Now there may be some other reason that the claim is made that fermions can't be force carriers, and if you know of them I'd like to consider them. However, the experimental evidence right now is so strong for the ABC Preon Model that I am inclined to believe it is correct. And hence I'd like to examine in detail any argument that fermions can't be force carriers. I look forward to any response you may have.