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: 57
74
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: KrzYma

Please elaborate firstly to the structure of said detectors and secondly what they in fact 'see', what they think they should see but why its not what is happening.


I did on the muon discovery history lesson... and on LHC
my point of view stays !




posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: mbkennel



Since photons have no mass, it means their rest mass energy equivalence is zero, which is correct.


...ever seen a photon at rest ???


Nope, never have, never will.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   
How is it possible to rationally conclude such a thing as wave-particle duality exists when it directly contradicts the Law of Thought known as the Law of Non-contradiction, which was actually one of the laws or rules used in order to arrive at such a conclusion via logical means? For example, the Scientific Method itself relies upon the Principle of Non-contradiction in order to falsify a given hypothesis.

If we accept that something can be both one thing and another at the same time, then in reality everything is possible and nothing is truly falsifiable, thereby rendering the entire enterprise of science to be nothing more than randomly constructed order within an inherently random and chaotic universe for no means or end other than to play a cleverly devised mind-game with ourselves.

It would also mean that logic is completely shot in the foot, since if something can be both one thing and also another, then the first a priori truth of "I exist" would really have to be considered to mean that "I both exist and do not exist at the same time", in which case we might not be anywhere at any particular moment, in any particular place, making any particular observation; therefore, cancelling out another a priori principle: that which says "I am capable of knowing". Do you see how horribly awry this can go?



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr
my question was...

so... how does [-1]charge attracts [+1]charge
what's the physics behind it ??

you replied...


Fields cause the attraction similar to gravity actually.

attraction is caused by electric resonance, there is no Gravity as a field.
Gravity is just a name describing... things fall down



When two charges interact this causes the electromagnetic field between them to bend. So we end up with a field bending up or down depending on its charge which cause them to interact.

I asked WHY they interact, not how you see they do it!
this is not an explanation but a description

what do you mean they "bend" the field ? where is up and down ??
is it possible you just seeing the graphs on the paper in front of you ??
I think so!



When two charges are close enough to each other the two opposite charges will neutralize the field in between the charges resulting in a net "external pressure" pushing them together.

Two like charges will instead add more stress to the field in between them resulting in a net "internal pressure" pushing them apart.

"external pressure" from what ?? the E field ??
in your analogy as they closer together which means more apart from the "external" force (what force?),
the attraction increases 1/d between them ?
this makes no logical sense at all.
here... 1/d is the force
F1(e)---1/d(f1)---[-1(c)]---1/d(attr)---[+1(c)]---1/d(f2)---F2(e)
if -1(c) distance to F1 or +1(c) distance to F2 increases, the force(external) is decreasing due to 1/d
how comes the attraction is greater if they closer together ??


and if you mean the field surrounding the charge is pushing it You may think about how a charge can move at all if it's "own field" is acting on this charge.
it would cause an immediate stop to the charged particle IF it has to strive against it's own field
and don't tell me a charged particle can only interact with the field of other particles, this would make 1 field for every particle in the Universe which is nonsense, E field is an additive field.


your "explanation" is a description of what you see, but not HOW it works !



Closest analogy i can think of is we have our two guy swimming next to the titanic and shes going under. Ones on one side and his buddy is on the other when the titanic sinks its going to lessen the pressure between them pulling them towards each other and unfortunately down. Where a sub coming up between them would push them apart for the same reason a difference in pressure.

exactly those analogies brought the science to what it is today...
edit on 8-9-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: HillbillyHippie1

If you don't like the way the universe behaves, find another universe to live in.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: HillbillyHippie1

EXACTLY !
I'm with you !

the confusion about the duality lies in the theory itself... so you can switch to a wave or a particle as needed.

in reality, a wave is caused by a particle displacement and a particle is displaced by a wave in an field that carries information of change and so is transmitting the force.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: HillbillyHippie1

If you don't like the way the universe behaves, find another universe to live in.


out of arguments ??



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: HillbillyHippie1


Well welcome to the universe yes its random and chaotic much like life. Sorry if it wasnt set up to some logic that can be easily understood but like in poker we have to deal with the hands we are dealt. The more we try to look for logic and reason the Universe doesnt want to have any of that and continually shows us that it doesnt have to follow the rules we believe to be true. For example Quantum tunneling we see a particle magically appear on the other side of a barrier it shouldnt be able to pass through. Its observed it is a feature of the universe yet it defies all logic since it basically has the particle disappear and reappear on the other side.So even matter has waves and the universe doesnt care if you like it or not.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

You asked for a description of what happens i explained that to you. Now if we attempt to delve deeper into quarks etc we can but i have a feeling we will lose alot of peoples interest. What happens below that level we have no clue you can continually claim physics is wrong. However in the end you have no logical reasoning behind your claims other than you feel it doesnt work that way. So ill you what pick an experiment you believe supports your views and will discuss it.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: HillbillyHippie1


Well welcome to the universe yes its random and chaotic much like life. Sorry if it wasnt set up to some logic that can be easily understood but like in poker we have to deal with the hands we are dealt. The more we try to look for logic and reason the Universe doesnt want to have any of that and continually shows us that it doesnt have to follow the rules we believe to be true. For example Quantum tunneling we see a particle magically appear on the other side of a barrier it shouldnt be able to pass through. Its observed it is a feature of the universe yet it defies all logic since it basically has the particle disappear and reappear on the other side.So even matter has waves and the universe doesnt care if you like it or not.



this sound like the dark ages explanation of God.
It is like it is, I tell you like it is and you have to live with it if you want or not



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr



..you can continually claim physics is wrong.


NO NO NO ! I'm NOT saying physics is wrong !!!
the description of physics/how it works, the interpretation is wrong (not all but at many many points)

see... you can tell something falls because God wants it to fall, or you can tall there is an G force, ignoring all the other forces that are real present, touchable and manipulative for us, rather than some observed illusion



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: HillbillyHippie1


Well welcome to the universe yes its random and chaotic much like life. Sorry if it wasnt set up to some logic that can be easily understood but like in poker we have to deal with the hands we are dealt. The more we try to look for logic and reason the Universe doesnt want to have any of that and continually shows us that it doesnt have to follow the rules we believe to be true. For example Quantum tunneling we see a particle magically appear on the other side of a barrier it shouldnt be able to pass through. Its observed it is a feature of the universe yet it defies all logic since it basically has the particle disappear and reappear on the other side.So even matter has waves and the universe doesnt care if you like it or not.



this sound like the dark ages explanation of God.
It is like it is, I tell you like it is and you have to live with it if you want or not


Do you have an alternate explanation for quantum tunneling if so love to hear it. If not than our current understanding will have to do bottom line is the universe wasnt designed by humans so it doesnt care if we like it or not. Your only objection is you cant understand it and therfore somehow that makes the observation wrong. Now we can discuss what we do know but if you want to know whats truly happening at a fundamental level than i suggest you publish your theory of everything and we can get you that Nobel prize. If your unable to do that than might i suggest trying to learn what we do know instead of dismissing the work of thousands of scientists. Because until you understand what they found your understanding will always be limited.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: dragonridr



..you can continually claim physics is wrong.


NO NO NO ! I'm NOT saying physics is wrong !!!
the description of physics/how it works, the interpretation is wrong (not all but at many many points)

see... you can tell something falls because God wants it to fall, or you can tall there is an G force, ignoring all the other forces that are real present, touchable and manipulative for us, rather than some observed illusion


God has nothing to do with it we are searching for the basic laws of the universe we have diffrent interpretations to attempt to explain what we observe.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr


quantum tunneling


if you talk about the transistor, or tunnel diode, it's the property of the material (semiconductor), how it's proton electron are configured...
and there is even more to that
start at 21:10


and of you are referring to the Scanning tunneling microscope


The STM is based on the concept of quantum tunneling. When a conducting tip is brought very near to the surface to be examined, a bias (voltage difference) applied between the two can allow electrons to tunnel through the vacuum between them. The resulting tunneling current is a function of tip position, applied voltage, and the local density of states (LDOS) of the sample.[4] Information is acquired by monitoring the current as the tip's position scans across the surface, and is usually displayed in image form. STM can be a challenging technique, as it requires extremely clean and stable surfaces, sharp tips, excellent vibration control, and sophisticated electronics, but nonetheless many hobbyists have built their own.[5]


I see no QM, I see electric fields



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

You don't get to choose the results of observation, no matter how counter intuitive or philosophically displeasing they may be to your belief system. What this has to do with "dark ages god" I really don't quite know. Unless you plan on living in an alternate univeres where the rules are different...?



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Choice777

originally posted by: Choice777
I still think it's wrong...or maybe wrong isn't the right word..i'm sure Einstein figured loads of thing out, but on some he MUST bed wrong.
... How about if one is isolated from the universe ? The galaxy is apparently moving at 700km/s in the spaceframe of the universe...if we were to detach ourselves and be stationary in regards to the universe, would we live for 10.000 years ? 1.000.000 years ?
...Otherwise should we assume that : if you move faster, you will age faster therefore is we were to live all life without any fast means of transport we were to live ever so slightly longer ?


I'm not sure if you understood my reply, that your understanding of relativity is wrong, and why. So to me our conversation reads like this if you substitute "theory of gravity" for "theory of relativity" and replace your error in understanding the theory of relativity with an obvious error in understanding the theory of gravity.

Choice: The theory of gravity must be wrong. It says things fall up, but I see them fall down.
Arb: You're misunderstanding the theory of gravity. It doesn't say that things fall up. Learn what the theory actually says before saying it's wrong.
Choice: I still say the theory of gravity must be wrong, well maybe wrong isn't the right word, but I see things fall down, not up like the theory says.

Can you see how this discussion isn't getting anywhere? Again in simple motion like the motion of the Milky way versus the cosmic microwave background reference frame, an observer in either reference frame will see the other's clock going slower than their own, but it doesn't say their actual aging will be different in this case. You have to introduce a more complex scenario than that to get an aging difference, as in the Twin paradox, which is a bit of a misnomer since it's not really a paradox, but it results from common misunderstandings of relativity so you're not the only one who doesn't understand relativity; you have a lot of company:


In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as moving, and so, according to an incorrect naive application of time dilation and the principle of relativity, each should paradoxically find the other to have aged more slowly. However, this scenario can be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity: the travelling twin's trajectory involves two different inertial frames, one for the outbound journey and one for the inbound journey, and so there is no symmetry between the spacetime paths of the two twins. Therefore the twin paradox is not a paradox in the sense of a logical contradiction.
You on the other hand are describing scenarios like the movement of our galaxy as a reference frame relative to the CMB reference frame which DO have symmetry, and this doesn't invoke asymmetrical aging.


There is no way, no reason, and no logic in needing infinite energy to reach the speed of light. That would only be true if the universal speed limit is c...but the only prof for this self imposed or better still selfishly auto imposed speed limit on the world by Einstein is the lack of anything that travels faster.
The NIST experiments must be somehow experiencing some corruption in the communication link between the stationary parts of the experiment and the moving clock...there must be something.
It's not just the NIST experiments which are some of the more recent in decades of many experiments. Probably one of the best examples is the LHC where we keep putting more and more energy into protons and they go from .99c to .999c to .999c to .9999c and so on, until a bunch of protons has momentum which has been compared to a freight train and an aircraft carrier om this video:



That's a lot of momentum for some little tiny protons in a 1mm wide beam, don't you think?


The photon has mass, even if it's insanelly small, but only has a tiny bit of energy, why doesn't it require that '' infinite '' energy required by other objects to reach c ?
We already discussed in depth that it's probably impossible to prove the mass of the photon is exactly zero. All we can hope to do experimentally is place smaller and smaller upper limits on the mass, if it actually is zero, or if not it's so insanely small it may as well be zero. What makes you think it's not zero when so far we've found no reason to believe it's not zero?

Experimental results to date indicate that the photon mass is less than 1x10^-18 eV which of course doesn't rule out that it's zero. It's probably zero but we don't assume so, we actually try to measure the mass.

The bigger problem is neutrinos, which have mass and appear to travel at the speed of light, but maybe it's just such a small amount below the speed of light that we haven't been able to measure the difference?


originally posted by: mbkennel
Einstein always respected experimental results.
I don't think he suggested otherwise, in fact my interpretation is that he confirms that Einstein respected experimental results even when they didn't come out the way he would have liked them to.


originally posted by: Choice777
there's no such thing as infinite energy required to move an atom at c., infinite means infinite, something phisically imposible to exist because it would fill everything including the ''thing'' that contains this universe.
Physicists generally dislike infinities, because in some cases they probably are physically impossible. So the simple way to avoid the physically impossible infinite energy required for mass to travel at c is for the mass to not travel at c, thus infinity is avoided. If you wanted to say why relativity is wrong that's not the reason; we already stated the reason earlier, that the singularity in a black hole is probably not infinitely dense as relativity would predict, so that's one place we think the theory or relativity breaks down. It doesn't seem to break down at all as massive particles approach the speed of light, instead all observations confirm relativity holds in those conditions, as in the video above talking about the momentum of protons at the LHC.

edit on 9-9-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 01:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
No. E=mc^2 corresponds to the energy equivalence of rest mass. Since photons have no mass, it means their rest mass energy equivalence is zero, which is correct. What Einstein actually derived was E^2 = m^2 c^4 + c^2 p^2, and hence for photons E = cp, proportional to their momentum. (And yes in maxwellian electrodynamics fields carry momentum).

This was completely verified by the experimental results from Compton scattering, earning Compton and Einstein Nobel Prize.
You're absolutely right of course, and I made a thread about this very distinction, which by the way, remember the Feynman Lectures book you recommended? That happens to be one of the "offenders" that talks about mass increasing with velocity rather than your correct formula of E^2 = m^2 c^4 + c^2 p^2 where mass does NOT increase with velocity, so there's a lot of misunderstanding and confusion out there. That book sold over 1.4 million copies, and it's not the only one that presents the material that way. I do like Feynman's teaching, but I wish he had taught E^2 = m^2 c^4 + c^2 p^2 as Einstein suggested, instead of "relativistic mass increase".


originally posted by: KrzYma
...ever seen a photon at rest ???
Again, experimental results to date indicate that the photon mass is less than 1x10^-18 eV which of course doesn't rule out that it's zero. Are you familiar at all with the techniques used to determine this upper limit on photon mass?


originally posted by: HillbillyHippie1
another a priori principle: that which says "I am capable of knowing". Do you see how horribly awry this can go?
Maybe it should be "I am capable of obtaining repeatable experimental results and those tell me something about nature". To know that is to know something.

To always know the exact reasons we get the results we do is only explainable to an extent. Anything which has no further explanation is called "fundamental", but what's fundamental today may have a deeper explanation in the future.



originally posted by: GetHyped
You don't get to choose the results of observation, no matter how counter intuitive or philosophically displeasing they may be to your belief system.
As mbkennel said even when Einstein had other ideas he always respected experimental results, and he's not the only one. A lot of physicists don't necessarily like them but they learn to accept that the results are the results and despite myriad efforts to "kick the tires" on wave-particle duality to show something different, the observations persist.


originally posted by: KrzYma
if you talk about the transistor, or tunnel diode, it's the property of the material (semiconductor), how it's proton electron are configured...
and there is even more to that
start at 21:10
She's not talking about tunnel diodes, she's talking about transistors.
Transistors were developed in 1947 and the Nobel prize for those was awarded in 1956.
Tunnel diodes were invented in 1958 and the Nobel prize for those was awarded in 1973, so it's not the same thing.


I see no QM, I see electric fields
Normally increasing electric fields (Voltage) causes increasing current. The interesting thing about tunnel diodes is that they have a region of operation where increasing the voltage causes decreasing current, exactly the opposite of what normally happens.

Saying it's a "property of the material" is akin to saying you don't know why it happens. Before we had quantum mechanics we already had a periodic table of the elements and we could say certain things happened because it was a "property of the material", but once QM was discovered, then we understood WHY those materials had those properties, better than we did before. So again with semiconductors you are glossing over the deeper understanding available by just saying it's a "property of the material".

That video was entertaining though, like at 33 minutes when she said she figured out how to make better computers, but "nobody wants to run their computers at 1 degree Kelvin", I laughed. She also doesn't seem to recognize that humans have both short term and long term memories which are not the same, and computers similarly have different memory levels like L1 cache, L2 cache, RAM, and hard drive. She would have sounded more credible if she talked about increasing the computers L1 cache which is already on the CPU:

www.karbosguide.com...


She said if you integrate the hard drive to the CPU it will be more like humans, but I don't think this is true since as I said humans do have short and long term memory, as demonstrated by cases of people that can lose one but not the other. Not only that but it's also not better due to latency issues as explained here, so I think she's wrong on several ideas, though there was nothing wrong with her description of a transistor:

www.wisegeek.com...

Since it is the job of CPU cache to hold bits of data, you might wonder why there is more than one level of cache. Why have L2 cache at all, much less L3, when you can just make L1 cache bigger?

The answer is that the larger the cache, the longer the latency. Small caches are faster than large caches. To optimize overall performance, the best result is obtained by having the smallest, fastest cache most immediate to the CPU itself, followed by a slightly larger pool of L2 cache, and an even larger pool of L3 cache. The idea is to keep the most frequently used instructions in L1, with L2 cache holding the next most likely needed bits of data, and L3 following suit. If the CPU needs to process a request that isn’t present in L1 cache, it can quickly check L2 cache, then L3.

Cache design is a key strategy in the highly competitive microprocessor market, as it is directly responsible for improved CPU and system performance.
If she has any awareness of that she didn't show it at all, so even if we could do what she suggests and connect a faster hard drive directly to the CPU, I think it would actually lower the computer's performance. I saw this latency issue when I increased my RAM from 4GB to 8GB and it's all the same speed, it's not that the other 4GB wasn't as fast, but the larger address space has a negative effect on speed. Maybe there will be some engineering applications for her research that she hasn't though of yet.

In any case, I'm still waiting for you to explain without quantum mechanics why hydrogen forms H2 (the molecule, not ionized) but not H3 (the molecule, not ionized). You haven't because you can't, so admit QM is needed to explain this. Saying "material property" is also not a very deep explanation of semiconductors, where again QM can provide deeper explanations.

edit on 9-9-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 04:25 AM
link   
How far has quantum entanglement been established until today?
Somehow information or maybe existence itself is bypassing our space.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Choice777

The short answer is:

Post-Quantum Correlations: Exploring the Limits of Quantum Nonlocality

Despite advances in quantum research, physicists still don’t fully understand the fundamental nature of nonlocality.
That article goes on to describe how some experiments refine our understanding of nonlocality.

It's a stretch to say that "information" is being exchanged, since there is no faster than light communication possible in entanglement experiments so far. I think it would be more accurate to say it's a "correlation".


When it comes to nonlocal correlations, some correlations are more nonlocal than others. As the subject of study for several decades, nonlocal correlations (for example, quantum entanglement) exist between two objects when they can somehow directly influence each other even when separated by a large distance. Because these correlations require “passion-at-a-distance” (a term coined by physicist Abner Shimony), they violate the principle of locality, which states that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light (even though quantum correlations cannot be used to communicate faster than the speed of light).



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: HillbillyHippie1

Waves and particles are not contradictory if they are both characteristics of another phenomenon.

Wave and not wave are contradictory, as is particle and not particle, but wave and particle duality is a linguistic orientation towards the collection of ideas and facts about atomic happenings.

A contradictory situation would be analog versus digital as the ultimate smallest baseline structure of reality.

Analog reality would be built of variations of intensity in the stuff of existence, like knots in a string.

Digital reality would be made of "pieces" of existence, like atoms.

I like Analog better, because no matter where you draw a line, or boundary, there is always something on the other side of it.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join