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: 41
74
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: ImaFungi
You asked this before and I didn't understand the first time either. I don't see how rotation of the universe could explain observations, nor do I know how to use the terms "left" and "right" in discussing rotation. Have you got a sketch of your idea?


How do you not comprehend what I mean. Think of 2 galaxies as 2 balls if the idea of a galaxy moving through intergalactic space adds some perplexion.

The idea of accelerated expansion, was assumed do to the receiving of redshifted light from distant galaxies.

This means, after receiving the light, the people who assumed accelerated expansion said "Oh, this means if we are looking ....

Ok I will stop to simplify....

What I mean with our observational directionals

If we are looking out at a galaxy.... we are facing that galaxy.... are you familiar with the meaning of when you are looking at something.... and you have a left hand and a right hand... that if you hold your arms outstretched out, your right hand out and left hand out... and the thing you are looking at is aligned with your body...and now it is more and more aligned with your right hand... say it was a person walking...you can say the person walked to my right...

If you imagine our galaxy to be a person....facing a galaxy we wish to measure... and you understand my colloquial directionals.... meaning the direction we are facing, holding out hands out..... if we take a step forward, that is our forward... if we take a step back, that is our back... if we take a step to the right, the is our right.... if an object comes towards us... it is coming towards us... if an object is moving away from us it is moving away from us... if an object is traveling to our right it is traveling to our right... if an object is traveling to our left it is traveling to our left...

So there is an object we are facing.... we are a galaxy... it is a galaxy.... we are receiving the light it is emitting...

The congregation of Universal accelerated expansioists believe that... all galaxies...when you are a galaxy....and you are looking at another galaxy.... that galaxy is moving away from you...and you are moving backwards... and if you had 4 faces looking in 4 opposing directions around your head.... (the theory would be screwed)... but you would see all galaxies moving away from you...

If you as a galaxy....are moving to your left... and the galaxy you are facing....is moving to your right... would the light you receive from it be redshifted?




Velocity is distance per unit time which is one way to describe movement, so while it's closely related to time, it's not time.


No I didnt say that, I didnt say unit, or distance. I said 'energy/matter exists', time is THE FACT (only only the fact) that it moves.

Notice I say nothing of units or measurements, it is only an observation. 2 simple observations.

Non nonstuff exists. (meaning, stuff exists)

Stuff moves.

Those two facts = what the word time, at its most base, means.

I propose this as a question. And if you do not have an answer or agreement or argument to my proposed statement and question.

I would greatly appreciate you supplying the minimum definition of 'what time is'

The word 'time' exists.

why?

What does the word at its most primal, baseness, essence = ?




posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
If you as a galaxy....are moving to your left... and the galaxy you are facing....is moving to your right... would the light you receive from it be redshifted?
If the motion is linear, yes.

However if the motion is due to rotation and you are both facing the axis of rotation at a fixed distance from the axis (not spiraling out from the axis), then no. This is why I didn't understand your question, as this is what I thought you were describing, and there's no redshift in this case from those objects.

If one or both of you were spiraling out from the axis, then yes.


No I didnt say that, I didnt say unit, or distance. I said 'energy/matter exists', time is THE FACT (only only the fact) that it moves.
It's difficult to say something "moves" without there being some "distance" involved, so even if you didn't mention distance, movement implies distance, does it not?


The word 'time' exists. What does the word at its most primal, baseness, essence = ?
So the perfect definition has eluded scholars for centuries and you think I'm about to get a Nobel prize for having the perfect definition? Sorry to disappoint:


Time has long been a major subject of study in religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a manner applicable to all fields without circularity has consistently eluded scholars.
However, I'll go with this meaning:


Some simple, relatively uncontroversial definitions of time include "time is what clocks measure"
This definition works for me. If it doesn't work for others, that is ok, but I don't know how to help them, or if they think this is a misunderstanding, they apparently don't know how to help me either, but I'm open to suggestions.



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

You need to change the way you look at the universe.Galaxies arent moving apart in inflation. Let me start by saying the motion of galaxies is irrelevant. Lets create a new way of looking at it lets start with a chess board. Each square is 1 x 1 in . meaning we place pieces on the center of the squares and they would never be more than one in apart. now are squares expand to say 1 foot x 1 foot but are pieces remain the same size. Next 1 mile than 10 then 100 miles, so now our squares are 100 miles by 100 miles move the chess pieces but at this point its totally irrelevant even if we moved them at ten mph each. Our original 8in by 8 in board is now 800 miles by 800 miles and in the next moment will be 8000 miles by 8000 miles. eventually now matter how fast you move the pieced towards each other the board will not allow them to reach each other making there motion irrelevant.

Now the other problem with expanding space in your analogy is you would have to be outside the universe some how to even observe that effect in the first place. Which brings me to expanding time i read someone posted about sorry forgot who i apologize. But if time were expanding it wouldnt make any difference to our reality and the reason why is simple. Lets say we can travel through time at 1 sec per second which we do now. But lets say time was expanding at 2 sec per sec mathematically these two equations are the same meaning there is no way for us to even notice. As long as this expansion of time is always equal which it would be we have no possible frame of reference to compare it to.

Lets look at it this way are sun is 8 light minutes away we see the sun not as it is now but as it was 8 min ago. now lets say we look at a star in the center some where around 26000 light years meaning were seeing it as it was not as it is. So this would have been the early stages of humanity and homo sapiens just popped up on the scene. See time is relative we are seeing the universe in the past not the present. Meaning time isnt even consistent when we look at the universe.



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 11:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=18299401]ImaFungi
The word 'time' exists.

why?

What does the word at its most primal, baseness, essence = ?



Simple definition would be: Its just an entity which existed b4 the big bang and was the cause of this big bang.
It still exists as the 4th dimension, but ticks much slower than at/b4 the big bang so that the em wave can propagate thru empty space.
em wave ,space and time as we know them were born at the same instant after the big bang.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Side question: Does EM radiation only have an effect (meaning cause movement) on electrons, or does it have an effect on protons or neutrons too?


Protons certainly as they're charged. Neutrons, only indirectly through magnetic effects.

Now these atomic transitions, the wavelength of the photons are large enough that what's really happening is that it affects the relative relationship of electron and positively charged nucleus (where all the protons are). But since electrons are so much lighter than nuclei, it's a pretty good approximation that the electron will be doing almost all of the moving and changing.




EM radiation causing an electron to move up an energy level, really makes that electron physical travel at a greater velocity? Is it the electrons linear travel around or about the nucleus that is faster, and/or is it the electrons vibrational frequency that speeds up?


It's quantum mechanics so it isn't quite simple linear travel or 'vibrational frequency'. The total energy would be going up and that's a combination of potential energy (you had to expend energy to pull the electron further away from the nucleus on average) and kinetic energy (properties of the wavefunction of the electron).



And, so... An EM wave is heading toward an atom with an electron in it that is able to become excited. (Is the EM wave bigger or smaller physically than the electron, like in terms of width? In this scenario does the electron usually absorb all the EM wave, or a fraction of it?)


The EM wave has a wavelength around the radius of the typical orbit/wavefunction of the electron around the nucleus. It is much much much larger than any reasonable definition of the electron's radius or the nucleus's radius.

It's the system of the electron & proton which absorbs the energy & momentum of the EM photon in effect. The energy is contained in the relative potential (since they are normally attractive because of their charges) and kinetic energies. There is no conservation law on the number of photons so the EM wave itself can fully disappear.



So the EM wave is heading towards the electron, this EM wave is 'something that exists', as in, it is not absolute, complete, pure, nothing.


If you're saying there's a difference between a photon and not a photon, then yes.



So the EM wave is heading toward the electron, and than the pico second it starts to touch the electron (right? or does it touch the electrons local EM field (whatever that means)?) is the pico second that real EM that just existed, begins to cease to exist, and instead of a real thing that just existed, continuing to exist, now another real thing that has existed, and continues to exist, is now moving faster?


It isn't a picosecond. The timescale is roughly the time it takes light to traverse an atom. And it's spatially wide so it's pushing on the nucleus and the electrons, and in opposite directions because of their opposite charges.



So, do you assume the EM wave became the electron, physically meshed with it?


Not really.



Do you assume the EM wave became the local EM field that surrounds the electron, in a reinforcement kind of way, the momentum of the EM wave crashed into the electron EM field, and caused it to 'get fatter' which jolted the electron to move faster, and because there was now a greater quantity of energy located near the electron, there was a domino effect of reactions that occurred with the surrounding energy/matter topography, mainly squeezing an electron out, because there was too much energy now to contain it in the space it occupied? But then, the electron cant hold onto that newly fattened local EM field that surrounds it, so it pushed it out again, which equals the original EM wave that it pulled in, and thus, the electron is sucked back into that energy state, it is now allowed to occupy.


Not quite, incoming EM radiation wasn't stuff that has to be "squeezed inside", it's more like waves incoming which push around electrons and nuclei in their relative motion and the electrons have certain 'resonant patterns' (wavefunction solutions of the atomic physics) that they like to stay in, but those are a property of the configuration of the electron and nucleus.


edit on 18-8-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: [post=18299401]ImaFungi
The word 'time' exists.

why?

What does the word at its most primal, baseness, essence = ?



Simple definition would be: Its just an entity which existed b4 the big bang and was the cause of this big bang.
It still exists as the 4th dimension, but ticks much slower than at/b4 the big bang so that the em wave can propagate thru empty space.
em wave ,space and time as we know them were born at the same instant after the big bang.


In kind of with imafungi on this one time always existed see if it didnt the first instant creating the universe couldnt have happened. And when the universe in the distant future becomes cold and dark and all matter reaches absolute zero time will still exist its just we wont have a way to measure it.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
...time always existed see if it didnt the first instant creating the universe couldnt have happened.

Not necessarily.

If the creation of time was the catalyst for the creation of the universe, then maybe the creation of time preceded creation of the universe for only a very short instant. What I'm saying is that maybe (as you say) the universe could not form until time started, but once time started, the creation of universe followed almost immediately -- in an brief instant after time began. Under this hypothesis, the universe was created because time was (somehow) created.

So, similar to your idea, time exists independently of the universe; but I'm saying that maybe time existed without the universe for only that brief moment until the universe burst into being, rather than time always existing and then one day our universe just happened to pop into existence.

As to why/how time was created under this hypothesis???...I have absolutely no idea.


edit on 8/18/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: [post=18299401]ImaFungi
The word 'time' exists.

why?

What does the word at its most primal, baseness, essence = ?



Simple definition would be: Its just an entity which existed b4 the big bang and was the cause of this big bang.
It still exists as the 4th dimension, but ticks much slower than at/b4 the big bang so that the em wave can propagate thru empty space.
em wave ,space and time as we know them were born at the same instant after the big bang.


In kind of with imafungi on this one time always existed see if it didnt the first instant creating the universe couldnt have happened. And when the universe in the distant future becomes cold and dark and all matter reaches absolute zero time will still exist its just we wont have a way to measure it.
Im also saying that time existed b4 the big bang, only difference is Im talking of universes own time and not mans chronometer time.
Yes the universes own time will always be there, even in the end when even em wave will cease to exist.
What we currently measure is always mans chronometer time.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Im also saying that time existed b4 the big bang, only difference is Im talking of universes own time and not mans chronometer time.
Yes the universes own time will always be there, even in the end when even em wave will cease to exist.
What we currently measure is always mans chronometer time.


Time is God in this sense, right ?
Omnipresent, independent, eternal...



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr



Which brings me to expanding time i read someone posted about sorry forgot who i apologize. But if time were expanding it wouldnt make any difference to our reality and the reason why is simple. Lets say we can travel through time at 1 sec per second which we do now. But lets say time was expanding at 2 sec per sec mathematically these two equations are the same meaning there is no way for us to even notice. As long as this expansion of time is always equal which it would be we have no possible frame of reference to compare it to.


That's the problem I've having with all this, ". . . there is no way for us to even notice." And to expand on that, there is no way for us to calculate or understand correctly, at this time or maybe ever.
If this is the case then there really is no hope for a solution unless we create another type of physics? mathematics? this is where my understanding ends at the moment.
edit on 8/18/2014 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: dragonridr



Which brings me to expanding time i read someone posted about sorry forgot who i apologize. But if time were expanding it wouldnt make any difference to our reality and the reason why is simple. Lets say we can travel through time at 1 sec per second which we do now. But lets say time was expanding at 2 sec per sec mathematically these two equations are the same meaning there is no way for us to even notice. As long as this expansion of time is always equal which it would be we have no possible frame of reference to compare it to.


That's the problem I've having with all this, ". . . there is no way for us to even notice." And to expand on that, there is no way for us to calculate or understand correctly, at this time or maybe ever.
If this is the case then there really is no hope for a solution unless we create another type of physics? mathematics? this is where my understanding ends at the moment.


Math isnt the problem as i said mathematically it doesnt matter. Now as far as what time actually is well thats another matter entirely in this case its not creating new physics because we havent defined it in the first place. See the universe is very slick it hides time dilatation from us. Everyone has there own time even you and me your time is different than mine but we are both moving so slowly we dont see the difference. But when we move faster the universe plays a trick length contraction occurs. So lets say your an astronaut going to Jupiter and you travel from earth at half the speed of light and arrive there. you would arrive in roughly 70 min. To you the distance was much shorter if we talked and compared distances you would tell me jupiter was around 300 million miles from earth i would say no its not it is 939 million kilometers . You would than tell me you traveled their in 70 min i would tell you no it took you 10 hrs.

Time dilation and length contraction are just different parts of the same effect. to make up for your time slowing the universe contracts making distances smaller so light can still travel at the same speed. The universe does everything it can to hide what time truly is and thats the problem. The only way we will be able to actually measure it is to somehow leave our universe theoretically if i could ope a worm hole between two points i might be able to detect the difference between the two times. Just like i said no two people have the same time also no two points in the universe.
edit on 8/18/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/18/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Im also saying that time existed b4 the big bang, only difference is Im talking of universes own time and not mans chronometer time.
Yes the universes own time will always be there, even in the end when even em wave will cease to exist.
What we currently measure is always mans chronometer time.


Time is God in this sense, right ?
Omnipresent, independent, eternal...
WOW couldn't have put it better myself. Bravo
Though I as a Christian would not call time as God but an entity created by Him.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Is it safe to say at this point that physics beyond the standard model has hit a major and almost impassable dead-end? Correct me if I'm wrong, but supersymmetry (SUSY) is looking to be a major failure, and the fabled M-theory is only becoming further removed from experiment, if it wasn't already.

Are there any new tantalizing hints or approaches that could solve the problems of the quantum vacuum energy, dark energy/matter, quantum gravity, etc? Is it a safe bet that these problems won't be tractable any time in the near future given the required energies needed to even probe and the scales that new physics would emerge?



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Diablos

yeah, so far LHC has been mostly a dud. Standard Model is awesomely predictive numerically and an ugly theoretical hack and there's not much else we know and we still have no clue about dark matter or dark energy.

From an outsider, it looks like the first major accelerator with no major discoveries of unexpected stuff.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Diablos
Good question. There are no definite plans and they might never get funding, but CERN is talking about a 80-100 km long successor (large circle on bottom) to the 27km long LHC (smaller circle on top):

physicsworld.com...


I'm not holding my breath.

Another possibility I saw mentioned that doesn't seem that practical yet is to somehow use the higher energy particles hitting the Earth to advance research. The maximum energy at LHC of 13 TeV when it restarts in 2015 will be larger than the 8 TeV it had before the shutdown.

There are some particles coming from space with higher energies, up to 100 million TeV, which are used calibrate the detectors on the LHC but not for research:

phys.org...

At the ATLAS experiment at CERN, physicists and engineers are testing their subdetector systems – using particles from outer space.

During its last 3-year run, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) achieved its highest-energy collisions at 8 TeV. But when the LHC starts up again in 2015 it will hit 13 TeV, which means new challenges for the large detectors ATLAS, CMS, ALICE and LHCb. Subdetectors on the ATLAS experiment will have to be thoroughly tested for performance at high-energy. But how do you test a general-purpose particle physics detector for high-energy collisions when there are no particle collisions taking place? "Cosmic rays," says ATLAS run coordinator Alessandro Polini.

These high-energy particles from outer space are mainly (89%) protons but they also include nuclei of helium (10%) and heavier nuclei (1%), all the way up to uranium. The energies of the primary cosmic rays range from around 1 GeV – the energy of a relatively small particle accelerator – to as much as 100,000,000 TeV
The 100,000,000 TeV particles are rare but there are a whole lot more particles at lower energies which are still far higher than anything the LHC can produce, as shown in this graph:

Cosmic rays


Cosmic ray flux versus particle energy


The challenge is how to make those high energy particles more useful in experiments (beyond calibrating the LHC detectors, and beyond the research at counting experiments like AMS which are counting them and measuring their energy). AMS found a surplus of positrons and hopes to be able to say if it could be related to dark matter, or something else:


"The first results from the space-borne Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer confirm an unexplained excess of high-energy positrons in Earth-bound cosmic rays." These results are consistent with the positrons originating from the annihilation of dark matter particles in space, but not yet sufficiently conclusive to rule out other explanations. Samuel Ting said “Over the coming months, AMS will be able to tell us conclusively whether these positrons are a signal for dark matter, or whether they have some other origin.”


ATS member ErosA433 is working on the latest dark matter experiment slated to go online in the coming months and maybe it will find something. He made a thread about that topic:

Direct Dark Matter Detection [A review]
It would be nice to figure out what dark matter is, since it's most of the mass in the universe.
edit on 19-8-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Here is the next step this is the plan put out by Fermi labs.




Charting a course for the next decade, the report calls on Fermilab to build a so-called long-baseline neutrino facility. The megaproject would fire neutrinos 1300 kilometers to a gigantic underground detector filled with 40,000 tonnes of frigid liquid argon set 1480 meters down in an abandoned gold mine in South Dakota. It would study how the three types or "flavors" of neutrinos morph or "oscillate" into one another as they zing along at near light speed. Researchers are looking for an asymmetry between how neutrinos and antineutrinos oscillate, which could help explain how the evolving universe generated so much matter and so little antimatter.

Fermilab researchers already have a specific plan for such a project, called the Long-Baseline Neutrino Experiment (LBNE). But budget constraints have whittled it down so much that it's no longer worth doing, P5 says. It recommends starting over to build an international experiment even more ambitious than the original LBNE proposal. But DOE, the main funder of U.S. particle physics, would most likely have to cede control of it, says Fermilab’s director, Nigel Lockyer. "To me, this is a transformative moment," he says. "But the U.S. government has to accept that it has to give up something in the way they normally do things."


news.sciencemag.org...



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
My question,

What is length contraction. How it has come to be?


Thank you.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: darkorange
Did you read the post a few posts before yours?
Link



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr



So lets say your an astronaut going to Jupiter and you travel from earth at half the speed of light and arrive there. you would arrive in roughly 70 min. To you the distance was much shorter if we talked and compared distances you would tell me jupiter was around 300 million miles from earth i would say no its not it is 939 million kilometers . You would than tell me you traveled their in 70 min i would tell you no it took you 10 hrs.


I'm not sure about this.
this is true if you talk about mathematics and numbers that come out of some equations.

Time dilation and length contraction is what an observer sees. Not the travelling man.
For the traveller, Jupiter is still...


Because both planets travel in an elliptical path around the sun, Jupiter's distance from Earth is constantly changing. When the two planets are at their closest point, the distance to Jupiter is only 365 million miles (588 million kilometers).


was it a trick of yours using miles and kilometres in one sentence ??
Don't do it !! stay in one unit please

anyway...
the measuring stick stays the same and Jupiter is always about 588 million kilometres away at the closest distance.
(1m is 1m, velocity independent)

Time dilation again:
if one travels 1 light hour away from an observer, and this is speed independent, the traveller only looks like his time goes slower.
After the distance of one hour is reached, traveller's time is 1 hour behind observer's clock, and vice versa !!!
If traveller moves back (decreasing the distance), for the observer, the traveller's time goes faster and after meting again at observer's point both have the same time.



Yeh yeh.. I know, GPS argument again !
NO! this phenomena is to the Field density not velocity (stationary orbit)


OK I have to add..
travelling trough distances at great speed has some effect, compressed Field in front and decompression behind...


edit on 19-8-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-8-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

If measured and you were travelling near the speed of light your yardstick would be longer. Meaning that your instruments would just tell you and object is closer than it is,Only when we compare it to another observers measurements would you notice the difference.So lets say we have a computer and it tells us Jupiter is 4.2 au from earth. But during your journey you plot your course youll find you didnt travel 4.2 au but considerably less like 90 percent or better depending on how close to speed of light. This is the same reason even moving near the speed of light a beam from a flash light can still go forward the distance it has to travel is shortened to make up for the time dilatation. If just one or the other occurs you would notice but together unless you have an outside observation to compare it to the effects are unnoticeable.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join