Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: Hyperboles
heck I don't think so. planets are actually falling vertically towards the sun. if the sun suddenly disappeared they would not fall vertically towards the centre of the sun any more, but would eventually essentially start falling vertically towards the centre of the galaxy
a reply to: Arbitrageur

"falling vertically towards the sun" - Is that an awkward way to say that they are orbiting the sun?

And yes, Arbitrageur is ignoring galactic orbital motion, for the sake of simplicity I would assume. He describes planet motion in sun reference frame which is a good approximation for human time scales.

In a way, yes

Lol ques:
Does the human genome has any manner of em wave transmitter built into them?

Yes I know that. I never said that all planets along with the sun are not falling vertically towards the centre of the galaxy
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Hyperboles
You said " start falling vertically towards the centre of the galaxy" and I said they wouldn't "start" orbiting the galaxy because they're already orbiting the galaxy and now it sounds like you're denying that you used the word "start".

As for your "lol ques", this thread is "Ask any question you want about Physics" not "Ask any lol ques about Biology"

what I meant was that the planets will eventually fall into the galactic plane
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Time to check in. I've continued to read this thread and a few others, but haven't contributed much in a while. Thanks to Arbitrageur and Eros for your contributions here. Those were some interesting things you shared about early nuclear testing a while back.

-

Back in mid-December the aether model was to the point of final cleanup and checking. Both Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force equation were rigorously derived from five force postulates plus an assumed two component aether. However, two of the postulates seemed to directly contradict each other and it was a bit contrived. Then came three months of absence due to intense demands on my time from two jobs and family needs.

The aether work resumed in mid March. Motivation of a simpler set of postulates was possible by slightly modifying the underlying physical model. The new derivation soon hit a problem however, as again there was an issue with the flow law. Later I found physical justifications for the flow law and now the two-part flow law works with simple physical underpinnings. The next difficulty came with the grad-phi derivation (part of the Lorentz Force Equation.) It took time to understand things, but that is now done. The goal is to have publication sent in for review by the end of 2019, and earlier if possible.

The new approach involves only three very simple postulates and an assumed fermionic, continuous, two-component aether. The postulates are: 1) The density of negative-aether always equals the density of positive-aether; 2) A flow force is proportional to absolute flows and proportional to the detached-aether density; 3) A tension is proportional to the aetherial separation within a quanta, plus whatever is required to offset any externally applied force. From that underpinning the individual parts of Maxwell's Equations and the Lorentz force equation are derived in about 60 pages, double spaced. While all pieces are now done, there is still a need to integrate the document, clean it up and review it. Unfortunately, that process often unearths an issue that can set things back. But progress is being made.

-

I also have more thoughts about the quantum eraser we discussed at length. (Not the second version, from the Wikipedia article. I think my explanation for that one was sound. But I believe my earlier explanation on the first one was not satisfactory.) Here's the picture for the first one:



What I think is happening is that the continuous wave function hits the BBO and makes two entangled wave functions, W1 and W2. W1 goes to D0 and collapses there. When W1 collapses at D0, W2 (which is heading to D1, D2, D3 and D4, if there is a D4) also collapses instantly. If W1 collapses to point A on D0, and A is a point that has zero value when the coincidence filter is applied to D1, then the collapse of W1 leads to a collapse of W2 so that W2 cannot collapse later at D1 - that path is now forbidden. W2 can now only travel and ultimately collapse to D2 or D3 (or D4, if there is a D4 in a symmetric position to D3). Simple as that.

The same type of reasoning applies for other points at D0. Once the collapse occurs at D0, the collapse of W2 occurs to proportionally alter W2 in such a way that certain paths have enhanced probabilities and others less.

Of course the above simple explanation for QM requires us to set relativity aside, as does any realist interpretation of QM results. Einstein made that point, and his realism is sound. It is his relativity that is problematic.

Thank you for your listing of all the other ideas out there, but I will stubbornly stick to realism in an aether, since that view of physics is simple and understandable and it gets all the right answers every time.

Its a good thing, if you have actually devised an experiment that validates your theory

Imo, if the time field is called aether, then it would sound reasonable
a reply to: delbertlarson

ques
how is it that an illusion of a jet fighter or a flowing river created by a magician on a stage can be recorded on a camera and what are the physics behind such illusions?

a reply to: Hyperboles
The modern tricks don't seem to rely on physics as much as clever engineering and misdirection. The phrase "smoke and mirrors" in English originates from old illusions that used exactly that to make objects appear and disappear. Mr Wizard showed in one episode how to make himself transform into a skeleton and back again using smoke and mirrors, but you could make human-sized things appear and disappear that way.

The larger objects in modern performances are too big for that technique, but here are a couple of secrets revealed. This Magician makes an elephant appear in the middle of a parking lot.

How to Make an Elephant Appear


This explains the record setting trick to make the Statue of Liberty disappear and re-appear, which made the Guinness book of world records as the largest object to do so, but if you want to set a new record you can make the moon disappear and re-appear the same way. If you make the moon disappear, be sure to put it back so the Earth's rotation doesn't wobble too much.


How Did David Copperfield Make the Statue of Liberty Disappear?

Ah ok thanks, but what if someone takes a flash photo in real time, what would it show?
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Hyperboles
You're trying to ask a generalized question as if all illusions are performed the same way, and I showed with two different examples of large items appearing and or disappearing that they are not performed the same way. So, I don't think generalities are an appropriate way to consider this topic.

For the example of the elephant that appeared in the parking lot where there was no elephant before, there would be no problem photographing the animal. If you made a jet appear the same way again there would be no problem photographing the jet, but that's not the only way to perform the illusion.

I don't really think this is a physics topic, but if you have a specific illusion you have questions about, make a thread to ask about it in below top secret, and include the video of the illusion if you have it or a link to a description of it so it's more specific than your overly general inquiry. I started a thread about an interesting illusion myself, and got some good insights in the replies. It was an illusion from a TV show that was posted on youtube so I used the TV forum, but there may have been a copyright issue since it looks like the video has since been removed.

Possibly the best illusion....EVER!‏ Saw a person in half, staple them back together.

If you are standing in the parking lot, and the elephant was made to appear, but is actually not there, then how could any camera photograph it. On the other hand would you be able to walk thru the elephant?
Imo there is some very advanced physics or black arts at play here, which is the reason, I posted here.

yes ive seen a video somewhere couple of months back, where 2 persons are cut in half and their halves swapped and then back again to their originals
a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Hyperboles
but is actually not there

Watch the video, the elephant actually is there. Like magic, but not really magic.

No advanced physics is involved, it's a combination of clever engineering and misdirection like most large illusions. There might be a little physics in the old "smoke and mirrors" illusion in how photons get reflected from glass or mirrors, but I think most people consider one-way mirrors, and faint reflections in glass to be somewhat mundane and not examples of advanced physics. Illusionists used those smoke and mirrors illusions long before we became aware of the photon and the physics of how photons work.

If you want to talk about the physics of making things appear and disappear, there is research being done in that area for invisibility cloaking, but so far what I have seen are crude demonstrations in the lab of small objects "disappearing" or becoming invisible, such as paper clips. However I doubt this type of technology can be used for larger objects like making a plane appear or disappear yet. Maybe someday, but just look at how contrived this laboratory setup is, and you should be able to tell why this tech is not going to lend itself to illusionists at the present time. But who knows, maybe in 100 years illusionists or the military will be able to make planes appear and disappear with this or similar technology.

This video doesn't demonstrate a flash photo of the invisible paper clip, but the paper clip is really there and my guess is it won't show up in the flash photo because the photons are being redirected by a crystal if I understood his explanation correctly.

Making a paper clip invisible?

He says this can make things invisible on the scale of centimeters and millimeters, so that obviously doesn't include a plane yet, but that's probably the ultimate goal of a lot of research, to be able to scale it up for larger objects, and use it in the field.

For now camouflage may provide the best illusion we have for large objects, and that's what was used in as part of the elephant appearing illusion.

ah thanks, will take a look at the video. but if the elephant is actually in the parking lot you would be able to touch it
a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Hyperboles
if the elephant is actually in the parking lot you would be able to touch it

If this wasn't a physics thread and you used an ordinary definition of touch, yes you could touch the elephant.

But as I tried to explain to Ima Fungi and Daniel Koenig, who don't seem to accept field theory's view of "action at a distance" and want to "simplify" an understanding of how something affects something in terms of touch, that's a dead end in modern physics since using a more pedantic physics view of "touch", you can never really "touch" anything. So even what Daniel thinks is "touch" is not really touch, it's also action at a distance, though a very short distance.

Why Physics Says You Can Never Actually Touch Anything

It’s a fundamental scientific truth that things are often not as they seem, or at least, they are not as we perceive them to be. It throws everything we think about the universe into a new light.

So in some sense the perception that you can "touch" an elephant is another illusion, though a very realistic one. Even simple concepts like touch can become complicated when viewed through the lens of modern physics.The illusion of "touch" involves not only the electromagnetic interaction, but also the Pauli exclusion principle, which itself is sort of mind-blowing, if you think about it.

ok thanks
tho this is mind boggling, if you could touch it, you could weigh it too
then in effect the magician has translated an elephant from the jungles of Africa to the parking lot?
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Hyperboles
I don't understand why you're still going on about the elephant without watching the video that shows how that illusion is performed. The video doesn't say where the magician got the elephant, but I'd guess it was borrowed from a circus.

While this thread is about physics and not illusions, there's an interesting illusion related to an impossible object popularized by the physicist Roger Penrose so maybe being the idea of a physicist gives it a weak link to physics. The object is sometimes called the "Penrose triangle" or the Penrose tribar" which Penrose said is "impossibility in its purest form".

Penrose Triangle


He's probably right that the object is impossible, at least in 3 dimensions of space and one of time, but some artist decided to create an illusion of the impossible triangle, which I'd say looks pretty good from this angle, though as with the elephant appearing illusion, and the statue of Liberty disappearing and re-appearing illusion, once you change your viewing angle or perspective, you can tell how the illusion was performed.

Penrose Triangle illusion


So even though the artist didn't make an impossible triangle popularized by a physicist, I like the illusion.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
ok thanks
tho this is mind boggling, if you could touch it, you could weigh it too
then in effect the magician has translated an elephant from the jungles of Africa to the parking lot?
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Watch the video. It's just a trick that anyone could do --- if they had access an elephant, like the magician did.

It's quite simple. The elephant and its handler were hiding 100 meters +/- away on the edge of the parking lot behind a fake backdrop (a backdrop painted to look like background trees).

When the magician put up the canvas screen in the middle of the parking lot, the elephant then was walked from its hiding place behind the fake backdrop to its place behind the screen in the middle of the lot. The canvas screen in the middle of the lot was blocking the path of the elephant's walk from the camera, so it didn't show up on camera.

After the elephant was in its new position, the canvas was dropped and the elephant "appeared".

There is nothing physics-related about this trick at all.

What, if any concerns do you have for rollout of 5G? I realize part of the concern involves biology and that is not you're dept, but I have been trying to determine exact specs involved and can't find a concise answer. Some concern is the placement of antennas everywhere for the coming IOT. 5G will not have enough penetration ability so numerous antenna will be everywhere in neighborhoods,cars, refrigerators, stoplights etc.. Does this linking network strengthen signal dangers either through intensity or proximity? I read that crowd control microwave weaponry used 95Ghz and 5G may use a from 5 to 90Ghz.

There appear to be lack of, as in zero funded studies by industries to determine any danger. This baffled me but I began thinking, well, how will they know/measure long term effects from an initial effort?
I get that the energy is non ionized but I wanted to ask here to people that know, if you objectively see any dangers in general.

Thanks

ETA. Relevant Thread

a reply to: waftist
I've seen the fear mongering about 5G. I don't claim to have all the answers but I do know something about the topic. Bottom line is I think the higher frequencies in 5G are probably safer, and 5G can use the same frequencies used in weaponized crowd control though I don't see that as a bad thing.

Let's start with the current 4G technology which I think uses frequencies from about 0.6 GHz to 6 GHz. There are conflicting reports about its safety, but the biggest concern I have after researching the topic is that all the smart phone manufacturers seem to realize there's a problem with smart phones giving off too much radiation if you mash them against the side of your head while talking on them, so they put in their instructions to not do that but keep some minimum distance between your head and the smart phone. That distance varies by manufacturer and possibly by device (higher power devices may suggest a larger distance). The problem as you might guess is that almost nobody even reads the instructions so most people aren't aware they are supposed to keep a minimum space between the phone and their head.

There have been cases where people got brain tumors in a spot near where they held the phone against their head for long times, being heavy users of the technology, so that would be my biggest concern. Possibly anecdotal to some extent though safety studies have conflicting results, so I think the manufacturer's recommendations for minimum distance need to be followed. The second biggest concern might be if you were a technician servicing cell tower antennas that were powered on, your exposure can also be quite high being way closer to the antennas than the general public.

So that was 4G, now let's talk about 5G. It can use the same frequencies as 4G, plus some higher frequencies, so the total frequency range is expanded from the same low end as 4G to a much higher high end. The higher the frequencies, the less they can penetrate conductors and your body is partially conductive. So I actually see the higher frequencies used by 5G as a good thing from a safety perspective, since I'm happy that they can't penetrate very far into my body. If there really was a link between the people getting brain tumors near where they held their 4G phone up to their head (I don't know if the claimed link is real), it would be because those frequencies were penetrating into the brain and causing some cells to get damaged in the brain. The higher frequencies in 5G can't penetrate as far.

At the frequencies of 35 GHz (I think for now the 5G implementations are approximately in this ballpark) and 94 GHz (approximately what the crowd control weapon uses, but future 5G implementations can and probably will use something near this), if the radiation resulted in some kind of cancer, I think would be less likely to penetrate to the brain and would affect the skin instead, which I think is a whole lot easier to deal with than brain cancer. There have been a few injuries from the weaponized crowd control devices using frequencies like 95 GHz, but again they are skin effects, like burns. If that crowd control weapon is aimed at you, you'll feel like your skin is on fire. Usually the test subjects haven't got actual skin burns from getting that sensation, because as soon as they move away from the device the burning sensation stops and their skin is ok, but in a couple of cases the subjects actually got burned skin. That is a known risk if you get too much of those 5G frequencies, though I never heard of anyone getting a skin burn from 5G like they have from the crowd control weapon.

Whether long term exposure at lower power levels of 5G frequencies might cause skin tumors I don't know, but but those frequencies actually have been researched for effects on animal tissue, contrary to some claims floating around. Here are some references to the research, and the paper titled "Lack of effect of 94-GHz radio frequency radiation exposure in an animal model of skin carcinogenesis" suggests the study didn't find skin cancer from that frequency, but it can definitely burn your skin at high power levels. I'm really not expecting to see people get burned skin from 5G, though there's a slim chance you might get skin burns if you got too close to a crowd control weapon at similar frequency.

Active Denial System FAQs
Chalfin, S., D’Andrea, J.A., Comeau, P.D., Belt, M.E., and Hatcher, D.J. Millimeter wave absorption in the nonhuman primate eye at 35 GHz and 94 GHz. Health Physics, 83(1): 83-90, 2002.

Foster, K.R., D’Andrea, J.A., Chalfin, S., and Hatcher, D.J. Thermal modeling of millimeter wave damage to the primate cornea at 35 GHz and 94 GHz. Health Physics, 84(6): 764-769, 2003.

Jauchem, J.R. A Literature Review of Medical Side Effects from Radiofrequency Energy in the Human Environment. Journal of Microwave Power and Electromagnetic Energy, 32 (2): 103-124, 2003.

Jauchem, J.R. Ryan, K.L., and Frei, M.R. Cardiovascular and thermal responses in rats during 94GHz irradiation. Bioelectromagnetics 20:264-267, 1999.

Mason, P.A., Walters, T.J., DiGiovanni, J., Beason, C.W. Jauchem, J.R., Dick, J.E., Mahajan, K., Dusch, S.J., Shields, B., Merritt, J.H., Murphy, M.R., and Ryan, K.L. Lack of effect of 94-GHz radio frequency radiation exposure in an animal model of skin carcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis 22: 1701-1708, 2001.

Nelson, D.A., Walters, T.J., Ryan, K.L., Emerton, K.B., Hurt, W.D., Ziriax, J.M., Johnson, L.R., and Mason, P.A., Inter-species extrapolation of skin heating resulting from millimeter wave irradiation: modeling and experimental results. Health Physics, 84(5): 608-615, 2003.

Nelson, D.A., Nelson, M.T., Walters, T.J., and Mason, P.A. Skin heating effects of millimeter wave irradiation: Thermal modeling results. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 48:2111-2120, 2000.

Pakhhomov, A.G., Akyel, Y., Pakhomova, O.N., Stuck, B.E., and Murphy, M.R. Current state and implications of research on biological effects of millimeter waves. Bioelectromagnetics 19:393- 413, 1998.

Ryan, K.L., D’Andrea, J.A. Jauchem, J.R., and Mason, P.A. Radio frequency radiation of millimeter wavelength: Potential occupational safety issues relating to surface heating. Bioelectromagnetics 78: 170-181, 2000.

Walters, T.J., Ryan, K.L., Nelson, D.A., Blick, D.W., and Mason, P.A., Effects of blood flow on skin heating induced by millimeter wave irradiation in humans. Health Phys. 86(2): 115- 120, 2004.

Walters, T.J., Blick, D.W., Johnson, L.R. Adair, E.R., and Foster, K.R. Heating and pain sensations by millimeter waves: Comparison to a simple thermal model. Health Physics 78:259- 267, 2000.