Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok, I suppose touching wasnt the right word or focus. More of what I am wondering is; Is all that exists the quantum realm, that classical objects are nothing but quantum objects. Classical objects are nothing but quantum objects relatively stable in a systemic way. So when classical objects interact, do classical objects 'even exist', or is there only quantum? Considering the existence of the human body, from understanding that there are primary fundamental micro particles that make up everything that can be made, is quite something. I guess I am wondering if all the information of reality is contained in the quantum world, that suppose you were a god outside the universe, and you didnt see humans and trees as we see humans and trees, you just got a feed of all the quantum particles on/of earth, would only a map of all the quantum particles of earth, depict all the classical objects of earth? Is the quantum reality enough to comprehend the mechanisms and objects of all of reality? If you received a feed of all the quantum particles of earth and how they moved, their relative distance to one another, and you watched it over time, would you see the figure of a human body walking towards a tree, grabbing an apple, if classically that was what was occurring, is the quantum orientations not only enough to comprehend the classical aesthetics, but is the quantum orientations all that exist, and the classical world is a persistent illusion. When your hand picks up a ball, is your object hand picking up object ball, or is a system of quantum particles picking up a system of quantum particles? Its this deal with scale thats getting me, like I suppose though its like how a car is made of parts, and once the parts are organized properly, a car exists and can do what it can do, just like a molecule is made of parts, and the parts need to be organized properly for the molecule to have its abilities of existence. But is a car anything other than its parts? is a molecule anything other than the atoms and fundamental that make it up, is reality anything other than the tiniest parts that make it up?

originally posted by: Nochzwei
opposite to GR

Two candles burning at different brightness levels when one has a stronger breeze blowing on it like the experiment in your signature thread doesn't prove antigravity, nor that the thousands of experiments showing GR has time dilation right are all wrong and that the true time dilation effect is opposite to GR.

a reply to: dragonridr
It seems to me to be far from settled. Here's a paper published a week ago in which the author says "The Black Hole War” that Leonard Susskind wrote about in 2008 is still going on:

The Incomplete Semiclassical Analysis of the Black Hole Information Paradox and its Completion via Entanglement of Radiation and Quantum Gravity Degrees of Freedom

a universally accepted explanation does not have emerged in our view (see however the so-called BH-war, [3]).

As we do not intend to give a review of this quite varied (battle) field with important papers going in the hundreds we will only cite a few representative papers which are standing in a closer relation to our own approach

Here are some more relatively recent papers that say the solution may be that remnants of black holes remain that preserve information:

Black Hole Remnants and the Information Loss Paradox
Virtual Black Holes, Remnants and the Information Paradox

Here's a paper that is sort of supporting something along the lines of what you're saying, but even this author says it's merely a possibility so it doesn't sound resolved to me:

Black Holes, Information and the Universal Coefficient Theorem

Comments: I give a possible solution of the so called "information paradox" for black holes. The "missing information" appears to be encoded in a non-trivial way in the topology of the field space

a reply to: ImaFungi
Here's a paper that might interest you:

The classical limit of quantum theory

It talks about how the more accurate quantum theory can result in classical predictions at the classical limit. Classical analysis is often much simpler and we still use it in cases where it's accurate enough because of that. You could try to evaluate everything from a quantum mechanics perspective but if it's a lot more work and the results are no better in classical situations which are at the classical limit, why do all that extra unnecessary work?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Nochzwei
opposite to GR

Two candles burning at different brightness levels when one has a stronger breeze blowing on it like the experiment in your signature thread doesn't prove antigravity, nor that the thousands of experiments showing GR has time dilation right are all wrong and that the true time dilation effect is opposite to GR.

Lol. Cute gif.
Counter ques. How does time dilation affect the internal workings of an atomic clock?

a reply to: Nochzwei
I'm still waiting for you to detail for me all the very simple and fundamental flaws in the experiment in your signature video, like why watching two candles burn at different intensities in different environmental conditions doesn't really prove anti-gravity, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. I could literally write an entire book on all the flaws in that experimental setup which are extremely simple and obvious.

If you can't explain why two candles burning at different brightnesses doesn't prove anti-gravity, there's really no point in discussing the internal construction of atomic clocks. You need to learn how to master simple concepts before trying to understand more advanced concepts.

I don't know if this thread is still open for discussion but I would like to know

Are there any materials floating in space which are not affected by the gravity of celestial bodies, ie, suns and planets etc.?

originally posted by: Twenty38
I don't know if this thread is still open for discussion but I would like to know

Are there any materials floating in space which are not affected by the gravity of celestial bodies, ie, suns and planets etc.?

Similar question to the topic of this;

Lets say for eases sake there were no planets, just the sun, moving through space. And then lets imagine 1 rock or boulder, that just appears at the earths distance away from the sun. As the sun is moving, the boulder just appears trailing it (also how would the result change depending on where the boulder appeared, in relation to the suns direction of travel). What exactly is the sun doing to the 'gravity field' that effects this boulder once it appears? The suns existence alters the gravity field, in such a way that a boulder/mass that appears even behind the sun, will be physically moved, by the momentum of the gravity field.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Nochzwei
I'm still waiting for you to detail for me all the very simple and fundamental flaws in the experiment in your signature video, like why watching two candles burn at different intensities in different environmental conditions doesn't really prove anti-gravity, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. I could literally write an entire book on all the flaws in that experimental setup which are extremely simple and obvious.

If you can't explain why two candles burning at different brightnesses doesn't prove anti-gravity, there's really no point in discussing the internal construction of atomic clocks. You need to learn how to master simple concepts before trying to understand more advanced concepts.

Lol. Do I have to spell it out on your own thread?
Time dilation my friend causes anti gravity and time dilation causes the freq of light from the candle to increase, hence higher intensity light.
::rolling eyes::

originally posted by: Twenty38
I don't know if this thread is still open for discussion but I would like to know

Are there any materials floating in space which are not affected by the gravity of celestial bodies, ie, suns and planets etc.?

ATS closes threads when they get to about 400 pages, so we have a ways to go before it gets closed at that limit.

Because of the inverse square law, an object 10 times further from the sun experiences 100 times less gravity from the sun, so the gravitational force drops off fairly rapidly. As the distance approaches infinity, the gravitational force approaches zero, but you can't get infinitely far away, ever, right? So from this perspective the answer would be no.

However, if you word the question differently, you might ask "Are there any places in the universe where the gravitational fields from different directions cancel each other out?" you have a better chance of getting something closer to a yes answer. You might for example imagine a spot between superclusters of galaxies which is being pulled on in all directions nearly equally such that gravitational effects are minimal. Even in this case it's hard to imagine no effect when we look at the large scale structure of the universe and see that galaxies attract each other at immense distances, and form clusters, and those clusters form superclusters.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
What exactly is the sun doing to the 'gravity field' that effects this boulder once it appears? The suns existence alters the gravity field, in such a way that a boulder/mass that appears even behind the sun, will be physically moved, by the momentum of the gravity field.

If you want to find out exactly what the model says is happening you'd have to do something you seem unwilling to do which is read some textbooks and or take some courses.

If you want to see the model in a simplified analogy which is commonly used to show space-time curvature, here is such an analogy:

Sun Curves Spacetime, Planets Follow the Straightest Paths

So in this analogy of curved space-time, an object without orbital motion would tend to roll "downhill" into the gravitational well of the sun. This illustration shows objects with orbital motion which don't roll downhill due to that motion, but the motion is affected by space-time curvature as illustrated.

If you make a model like this out of a rubber sheet with a bowling ball depressing the middle, you can place a marble on the rubber sheet and see what happens.

As for the motion of the sun, you could try replicating that by putting the apparatus in the back of a van and seeing how it works when the van and thus the bowling ball representing the sun are in motion. As long as the motion is steady, it will work more or less the same way as it did when the van was parked, if you're inside the van looking at it. Of course an observer standing outside the van will see a more complex motion of the marble as the van is moving.

Here an hour and half of science history for those who are interested in it
www.youtube.com...


about 1:12:00 he starts to explaining Einstein's photoelectric effect and then the basics for QM to work.

Kirchhoff's Law is useless, so one condition for QM is obsolete,
www.youtube.com...


The interpretation of the photoelectric effect is also wrong.
It's not the EM but the material that is responsible for the electron outcome.

Now, your talk about intensity and wavelength and how this prove your theory is right ...
Intensity is the coherent movement of the emitters, with more emitters you get more intensity,
the wave is bigger, if we can call it so, the directional change in the field however is the same like if you use one emitter only, it is independent of the number of emitters.
All that matters is the wavelength... for a specific metallic material that will kick out an electron.

I told you before the EM carryover only information of direction (well, is more complex, there are 3 components of the field... )


... if you still think some graphs on paper with probability functions, negative kinetic energy, uncertainty or space curvature is shaping the real world... you are wrong !!

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: KrzYma
what about the charge ? does it get added too?

If there are an equal number of protons and electrons falling into the black hole, the all that charge gets added but the net charge is zero in that case. If for some reason the number of protons and electrons is unequal then whatever charge imbalance exists will be added to the black hole's existing net charge.

if the cause for bending light is not gravity but electric field density which is slowing down time, or better said propagation speed, so called black hole seeming to be a time frozen region in space.

So when the NIST lab moves one of their clocks up a meter and it runs faster, are you saying that results from a change in electric field? Electric fields are much stronger than gravity so it would be very easy to test this electric field idea. You can e-mail NIST and ask them if they tried moving their clock in a region of varying electric field density. They seem pretty convinced their resutls are consistent with relativity meaning gravity would be affecting it, not an electric field.

According to relativity the passage of time is relative, so from Earth's perspective, the time passage may be very slow near the event horizon, but if you were falling into a supermassive black hole and could live through it, you could fall right past the event horizon and time would seem to pass normally for you.

"a time frozen region in space" sounds like an absolute statement but there is no absolute time. Time is relative.

you still don't understand what I say...
even if two opposite charges, calling them like you do, +1 and -1 in mathematical sense cancel each other, the net field is not going to 0 !!
1 + 1 = 2
minus or plus is just the direction, why can't you see it ??
q1*q2/r2
so opposite becomes minus or attraction, two equal, repulsion...

So when the NIST lab moves one of their clocks up a meter and it runs faster, are you saying that results from a change in electric field?

NO, it is not the charge !! its the field density !!
This is also valid for red shift which varies with different E field intensity in plasma as shown in experiments.
This explains the quasar - galaxy redshifts difference we observe and gravity is not included in any of this.

the clock goes faster if the field density is lower and goes slower if you move this clock in this field.

originally posted by: KrzYma
Now, your talk about intensity and wavelength and how this prove your theory is right ...
Intensity is the coherent movement of the emitters, with more emitters you get more intensity,
the wave is bigger, if we can call it so, the directional change in the field however is the same like if you use one emitter only, it is independent of the number of emitters.
All that matters is the wavelength... for a specific metallic material that will kick out an electron.

Wave theory doesn't work this way, nor do waves in the real world, like water waves. Watch this demonstration of two emitters of water waves beginning at 4:30 where the wave amplitudes from the two emitters reinforce at some points and cancel at other points:

The Original Double Slit Experiment


How can you claim that they are waves but that they wouldn't behave like waves?

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: KrzYma
what about the charge ? does it get added too?

If there are an equal number of protons and electrons falling into the black hole, the all that charge gets added but the net charge is zero in that case. If for some reason the number of protons and electrons is unequal then whatever charge imbalance exists will be added to the black hole's existing net charge.

if the cause for bending light is not gravity but electric field density which is slowing down time, or better said propagation speed, so called black hole seeming to be a time frozen region in space.

So when the NIST lab moves one of their clocks up a meter and it runs faster, are you saying that results from a change in electric field? Electric fields are much stronger than gravity so it would be very easy to test this electric field idea. You can e-mail NIST and ask them if they tried moving their clock in a region of varying electric field density. They seem pretty convinced their resutls are consistent with relativity meaning gravity would be affecting it, not an electric field.

According to relativity the passage of time is relative, so from Earth's perspective, the time passage may be very slow near the event horizon, but if you were falling into a supermassive black hole and could live through it, you could fall right past the event horizon and time would seem to pass normally for you.

"a time frozen region in space" sounds like an absolute statement but there is no absolute time. Time is relative.

you still don't understand what I say...
even if two opposite charges, calling them like you do, +1 and -1 in mathematical sense cancel each other, the net field is not going to 0 !!
1 + 1 = 2
minus or plus is just the direction, why can't you see it ??
q1*q2/r2
so opposite becomes minus or attraction, two equal, repulsion...

So when the NIST lab moves one of their clocks up a meter and it runs faster, are you saying that results from a change in electric field?

NO, it is not the charge !! its the field density !!
This is also valid for red shift which varies with different E field intensity in plasma as shown in experiments.
This explains the quasar - galaxy redshifts difference we observe and gravity is not included in any of this.

the clock goes faster if the field density is lower and goes slower if you move this clock in this field.

What your arguing against obsetvations. Two opisit charges cancel each other out because they are a wave function. Even electrons are waves overlap two opisit waves we get no wave. Think of waves simple ones if the through of one wave matched the peak of another we get a straight line. Two identical waves will increase the wave it really is a case of +1 and -1 =0.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

This reminds me of an old saying "you can't comb a hairy ball flat without creating a cowlick" of course there are areas were a wave cancels out when dealing with more than one.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

your example displaces the surface perpendicular to it's normal. This is one way to represent a moving charge, but you can also move those sources parallel to the surface and any angle in between.

but what's the problem with that ?
two sources twice the wave height at maxima, right?
...so in your understanding higher slope, right ?

But in reality addition in interfering EM waves doesn't change any slope in anything. There is no slope except in your 2d function on paper.
EM field doesn't work the way your mathematical function does. The wave has "the same slope" no matter how many sources, it's "directional strength" becomes bigger, intensity
- and NOT that the emitters displace more. which does change the wavelength.

That is why you get more electrons out with more intensity, more sources more waves maximas due to interference, more maxima account when it hits the metal.
The "directional change" for an electron to be kicked out is and stays the same,
you know that, you say they have the same energy...

now why ? ? ....because this is one metal material emitting those electrons,
and they triggered by the same directional change in velocity given by EM

Photoelectric effect is a material property and not photon existence proof.
In EM nothing moves, there is no mass and so no momentum in it !
There is acceleration due to charge difference, but I think you guys don't even look any closer into it anymore.

Or, what was the explanation for a charge existence ?

a reply to: dragonridr

What your arguing against obsetvations. Two opisit charges cancel each other out because they are a wave function. Even electrons are waves overlap two opisit waves we get no wave. Think of waves simple ones if the through of one wave matched the peak of another we get a straight line. Two identical waves will increase the wave it really is a case of +1 and -1 =0.

I explained it in my previews post...

this waves you talking about are functions on paper, if you add or subtract them, or any number in mathematics, you can always get 0 or with normalization a 1 if you like.

in real there is no negative direction or force that opposites it's own direction.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes, I am familiar with the 2d model. But when trying to understand how reality actually exists, mass and gravity field relationship in 3d/4d it gets slightly more mysterious, or more difficult to explain.

Because a 3d 'well', is a hole. So how can an area vacant of stuff, effect a mass?

So to make your 2d analogy better with the sheet, imagine there is a bowling ball on top of a sheet, but there is also another sheet on top of the bowling ball, and the sheets are always 'stapled' together at the corners (and of what I know about reality, I want to say stapled at all points there is no mass near), so both sheets are very taught, and the bowling ball is rolling through, and so we imagine where ever the bowling ball is, the geometry of the collective sheets is different than its average geometry. So we put a marble behind the moving bowling ball, and so now do we see that, as the bowling ball continues to move, the moving of the geometry of the sheet (snapping back to average) will push the marble forward continually towards the bowling ball? However this is where and why the analogy gets tricky. Because, can we admit that the distance from the sun to neptune is relatively very far? So if we equalled that distance and made a marble appear a scaled down distance from the bowling ball equal to neptune distance, and at the same time we also had a marble at a scaled down distance from the bowling ball equal to mercury; considering the 3d nature of the gravity field displacement caused by the sun/bowling ball, if we have just seen that a 3d version of the sheet analogy is a mass making a 'hollow hole' in its medium surrounding, how does the gravity field geometry effect mercury, and neptune, if the entire idea is that the sun is removing gravity matter from its vicinity. But...nevermind I think I got it. Is the idea that the planets are not traveling around the sun at an angle of 90 degrees to the suns perfect up and down pole, but yes that the planets must be riding closer to the poles of the sun, because thats where the arc wake of gravity field is continually collapsing.

a reply to: dragonridr

I think I need to add...

Two opisit charges cancel each other out because they are a wave function.Even electrons are waves overlap two opisit waves we get no wave.

NO, charges are not waves, they are the field sources,
a wave function describes the field, could be it's intensity or change in intensity or curvature of some other function... this isn't even something "one", a charge is something "one"

A picture of something is not that thing !

Two identical waves will increase the wave it really is a case of +1 and -1 =0.

if you add them on paper..
What is happening in reality very simplified is this, "test charge" A is in distance D to charge B
Charge B changes position, the distance now is different.
This is the only thing that changes
Now, if you have 1000 B sources in synchronized motion and an A charge, you can not add those all together.
Because for every source B the displacement relative to A is the same.
You can scale the source up in terms of single emitters but not the effect of displacement which is the same regardless the emitter count as long as they move coherent.

a reply to: KrzYma

Ok you might want to get into this a bit deeper. When i said waves it was a simplification.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: ImaFungi
But...nevermind I think I got it.

Good I'm glad you've got it, because I didn't understand what you were saying about the poles of the sun.

I don't see how the gravitational interaction has much to do with the poles of the sun, either the magnetic or the rotational axis poles, with the possible exception of something like the precession of Mercury due to frame-dragging which is an effect oriented according to the sun's angular momentum

a reply to: KrzYma
This sounds a lot like Wal Thornhill's pseudoscientific idea about gravity, which doesn't even qualify as fringe because it easily shown false. There are separate threads on electric universe, so this type of pseudoscience would be on topic in those threads. We can discuss fringe science here, but pseudoscience is going too far.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


I only referenced the sun having poles, to imagine a sphere having for our desired reference frame a north and south pole of to our perspective; straight up and down.

And then used that, to reference what would be perpendicular, a 90 degree angle to that up and down.

Then, considering that the sun is ultimately traveling through a gravity field, which may have a similar energy density relationship of 'Sphere" in "rectangular? Square? Sphere? Chaos?" 'gravity field space'.

Regardless. I considered the shape of the gravity field, which would be created by the sun traveling through the gravity field. The indentation the sun makes in the gravity field, is what causes bodies to be unable to avoid escaping the force of the indentation made.

I then wondered, what the arc/shape/geometry of the gravity field would be at the 90 degree angle, perpendicular direction, in accordance to 'straight up and down pole' reference frame.

I then wondered how it would work in the dimension of 'the suns surface area on its tail', tail in accordance to the opposite direction of which the sun is traveling through space (around galactic center).

So the inverse square law.

But what the geometric substance of that inverse square law means.

Considering there is gravity medium, substance.

There is sun, substance.

The sun is traveling through gravity medium.

And this is causing the gravity medium to contort in such a way that;

Another mass added at any of the possible distances from the suns tail

will be forced to travel along with the sun.

This means that the gravity field is a substantial field.

That its own mass, plus (or times) the mass the suns motion relativistically gives it.

Is enough continuous momentous mass, that it can force another mass

To follow the arc of the suns wakes curve