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.
originally posted by: DanielKoenig
a reply to: delbertlarson
Because if I take the statement, as being the crown, and whole, of the defining capstone of EM Radiation production and existence: The only thing we know about the generation of EM radiation is that it coincides with electron acceleration (pardon me, is it charged particle acceleration in general?
An accelerated proton produces EM radiation? If a single quark could be accelerated would it produce EM radiation?
You see the essence of my crux is: Where does EM radiation come from? Where and how is it produced? Does the same quantity and quality of EM radiation always exist?)
Then this leads me to ask something like: If you could theoretically hold a single electron between your fingers, and you existed in a vacuum in between the milky way and the nearest galaxy: And you accelerated the electron up and down up and down 1000000 times: Would you be creating EM radiation?
When stars were first made, did they happen to be made in ores of EM radiation: and the stars like pinata's (making the distinction between baryonic matter, and EM RAdiation: When I say the star, or star, I do not mean EM radiation: I refer to only the atoms which make up the star, nucleus, electrons (we can ignore gluons for now, I hope): so imagine all these atoms, like a cage, like a net, like lattices of lattices: did this giant thick 3/4d cage of atoms, happen to big bally coelesce surrounding a huge field of ""EM Radiation"" "stuff" "substance":
The electrons of the atoms in the stars movements would be like your finger holding the electron moving it up and down up and down, would be like taking your finger and leaning over your filled bathtub and dipping it in and out and in and out and in and out: would be like being fully submerged in the ocean and taking your hand and moving it up and down and up and down: all of these forcing the propagation of the surrounding "Stuff Medium" away from the point of your mass fingers acceleration.
It is either: Something like that is the case: or not.
And the or not, would entail, that Em radiation would then be: not part of some all encompassing medium: but more similar to how atoms, an electron, nucleus, exists separate from everything else, as its own singular entity:
A local area of EM radiation in either potential, would be "separate" in that it is "different than its immediate surroundings",
How do we as scientists and physicists approach determination, of whether Em Radiation exists like separate baseballs exist (or self propagating waving snakes: who are also made of particles!!): Or like the all encompassing ocean medium exists?
In this methodological commentary, we use Bem’s (2011) recent article reporting experimental evidence
for psi as a case study for discussing important deficiencies in modal research practice in empirical
psychology. We focus on (a) overemphasis on conceptual rather than close replication, (b) insufficient
attention to verifying the soundness of measurement and experimental procedures, and (c) flawed
implementation of null hypothesis significance testing. We argue that these deficiencies contribute to
weak method-relevant beliefs that, in conjunction with overly strong theory-relevant beliefs, lead to a
systemic and pernicious bias in the interpretation of data that favors a researcher’s theory. Ultimately, this
interpretation bias increases the risk of drawing incorrect conclusions about human psychology. Our
analysis points to concrete recommendations for improving research practice in empirical psychology.
We recommend (a) a stronger emphasis on close replication, (b) routinely verifying the integrity of
measurement instruments and experimental procedures, and (c) using stronger, more diagnostic forms of
null hypothesis testing.
originally posted by: DanielKoenig
a reply to: joelr
define energy: "Again it's all just energy... and some of the vast energy inside each atom is released...Much of the energy is released as photons. "
How is the energy released in photons?:
Each Atom.
In what form does 'vast energy' exist in Atom?
In what way, in what form, does 'vast energy', as it exists in the answer to question above, 'release', 'become' photons?
originally posted by: DanielKoenig
"The fields for all of the particles are already everywhere in space-time. " psychotic video game child statement
The field of quantum optics defines all of these rigorously and completely with quantitative accuracy.
originally posted by: wickd_waze
If the moon was obliterated by an asteroid or by some other means, will the oceans go through any kind of violent events or changes?
Like the author of that article, I don't believe the LHC will have enough energy, and of course the gap between an energy of 10^4 GeV at the LHC and the hypothesized string theory energies of 10^19 GeV is enormous. How large would the collider need to be and where would it get the energy to test that? Regardless of the specific answer it's far beyond the capabilities of the LHC and even the proposed larger collider in China.
The strings can become excited to higher modes, which is a prediction specific to string theory and in principle observable. The energy necessary to make these excitations depends on the radius of string theory’s extra dimensions: The smaller the radius the larger the energy necessary to excite the strings. The most natural scenario puts the radius of the extra dimensions at the string scale: on the order of 10^19 GeV, give-or-take. In this case, testing string theory is hopelessly out of reach of the LHC, which reaches ~10^4 GeV at maximum, even with the recent upgrade.
In the case that string theory’s additional dimensions are quite large and in the range testable by the LHC, they would make themselves distinctly noticeable. The production of tiny black holes is one of the predictions. This process becomes possible because the extra dimensions make gravity on short distances much stronger than General Relativity with only three space dimensions predicts. For the same reason also the production of gravitons, the quanta of gravity, would become possible at the LHC if the extra dimensions were large. These phenomena give rise to specific observables that have been computed in great detail.
Additional dimensions by themselves would not tell us that string theory is correct, because this is only one ingredient of the full theory. However, if we were able to find evidence for extra dimensions it would speak very strongly for string theory and one also would expect true string phenomenology, that might reveal itself for example in string balls or fuzz balls, to be not too far away. Extra dimensions are the best-case scenario to test string theory at the LHC.
Physicists thoroughly scanned the previous LHC runs for signatures of black holes or graviton production that would speak for extra dimensions. They found exactly nothing. The possibility still exists that the somewhat higher energy of the upcoming run will deliver the sought-after evidence, which is a convoluted way of saying I don’t believe it but some of my colleagues refuse to give up hope.
originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: mbkennel
The field of quantum optics defines all of these rigorously and completely with quantitative accuracy.
Except for when it is off by roughly 100 orders of magnitude.
The shell game that we play ... is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate.