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: 97
74
<< 94  95  96    98  99  100 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Thanks dragon, I was one of those who perceived extra dimensions incorrectly until now...lots to learn! Would the parallel universe(s) be identical to ours or vary I wonder?

So, if I'm understanding correctly, in essence string theory is really just a blind shot in the dark in order to satisfy the need to understand. To the laymen it's taken as fact so it's surprising to learn how unfounded it really is.




posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: Arbitrageur
That brings to mind a question. At what velocity were the neutrinos observed to travel? Given that we believe them to have a miniscule mass, they cannot have achieved C, so what was the eventual determination?

Welcome to the wonderful world of experimental error.

No experimental result is ever perfectly accurate, so scientists try to add up what they think all the possible sources of error might be and how much effect they might have.

The measurements indicate speeds both faster and slower than the speed of light, but according to the paper they concluded that when you take all error types into account, the measurements are consistent with the speed of light. Here is one of the data sets they published on 20 measurements, where if they traveled at the speed of light, they would be plotted at zero on the graph. As you can see, most measurements indicated either faster or slower than the speed of light. I read this as probably variation in error not variation in speed:

Measurement of the neutrino velocity


That shows an average just below the speed of light but consistent with the speed of light when errors are taken into account, for that data set. Overall I think they reported an arrival time 6.5 nanoseconds earlier than would be expected in traveling at the speed of light, with an error range of plus or minus 15 nanoseconds. The conclusion of the paper is that:

The results of the study using CNGS muon neutrinos with an average energy of 17 GeV indicate a neutrino arrival time compatible within errors to the one computed by assuming the speed of light in vacuum


If the speed of light is 299792458 meters per second, and if neutrinos might be traveling at something like 299792457.999 meters per second, hopefully the above graph indicates why these measurements aren't accurate enough to tell the difference. So, we don't really know exactly how fast they are, nor exactly how much mass they have, as they are difficult to measure exactly.


(There's something fun about being able to call something on the quantum scale comparatively miniscule, even to other particles at that scale. Don't know why I enjoy it, it just makes me grin.)
In the case of the neutrino, it fits! A proton is 1836 times more massive than an electron which is something like 2.5 million times more massive than a neutrino though I'm not sure about the last number since I'm not sure how much mass the neutrino has, but that should give an idea of the sense of mass scale.


originally posted by: humanityrising
So, if I'm understanding correctly, in essence string theory is really just a blind shot in the dark in order to satisfy the need to understand. To the laymen it's taken as fact so it's surprising to learn how unfounded it really is.
I'm just as surprised to find out it's taken as fact by the layperson, as you are surprised it's not taken as fact.

Even though I like Morgan Freeman, I couldn't stand watching that "through the wormhole" show because it didn't do an adequate job of explaining how speculative some of the topics were. From that perspective, perhaps I shouldn't be too surprised by your comment.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: joelr


There are 2 ways to look at gravity, as geometry, a space-time curvature that may or may not be able to be quantized or as a force as in one of the fundamental forces. In other words quantized just like the other forces. In that model there are exchange particles (the virtual particles) that mediate the forces and interact with virtual particles from other forces to create an effect.
In the case of gravity, objects with mass would emit gravitons, quanta of the quantum gravity field. The gravitons would interact with particles of all other fields in a way that causes a pull towards the source of the gravitons. Always a pull. The graviton could have an anti-particle, the gravitino that could reverse the effect or maybe just have other opposite features.

In the geometry version (general relativity) mass simply bends space-time. It doesn't define what space-time is exactly because it's a theory of gravity not space-time. We could say space-time is the collection of all the fields plus whatever the heck time is. Here curved space-time holds potential energy that can be used if mass comes into contact with enough of it. So if enough potential energy exists then mass will accelerate through the curved space-time towards the massive object. I'm trying to avoid just saying the mass "falls" through curved space because then the question arises as to why would something fall?

So the potential energy is used and in turn there can be some loss of the planets momentum energy for energy conservation.


The way I look at gravity, as you have mentioned the 2 ways is this;

What is the physical reason a mass can follow another mass without touching?

The answer must be; Substance must exist in between them, potentially all surrounding them, and thus it is what the masses do to this substance which surrounds them, which forces masses to behave in such following ways in certain proximity to another mass.

The geometry of gravity field aspect; We have an area of universe with no planets or stars or asteroids in it, very few atoms, and potentially we can say; 'this is something of an average geometry of the gravity field, because there are no masses near this area, which would interact with the gravity field, and alter its geometry'.

So, we have a star and a planet, but first we have a star. We pass a star through our area of universe with no planets or stars or asteroids in it, which we can say is something of an average geometry of gravity field.

The dense masses that are held together to create the total mass that is the star, interacts with the average nature of the gravity field, and alters its geometry. The altering of geometry is not 2d substanceless geometry. The altering of the geometry of the gravity field, is the altering of energy density.

In order for the gravity field at points, to 'move', which is obviously required for the sun to pass through it, and for its, geometry to be altered, the very meaning of which, is the energy density of points of the gravity field, being compounded.

The star traveling through the field.

If it did not alter the energy density of the field, of which equals an alteration in 'space time' (gravity field) geometry, then there would be 'nothing' which would alter the direction of travel of a mass which comes near the star.

To say that the geometry of the gravity field is altered, but that this has nothing to do with substance and energy, is to say something meaningless.

So, as the star travels through the gravity field, it is 'pushing' the substance which is the gravity field, 'out of its way', which is the alteration of the gravity fields geometry.

The star is traveling in a direction around the galactic center. If we agree on that, we can agree that the star has a relative 'tail', strictly meaning the constant direction opposite of the direction the star is traveling in.

Now we know the star, in relation to its tail, has the effect of gravity (inverse square law) from a very relatively close proximity (mercury) to a very relative far proximity (neptune).

My question is;

Considering the 3d/4d nature, of what it means for the gravity field to have its geometry altered; and for the need of physicality, of substance, by which force is applied; I am wondering what the nature of the gravity field is from mercury to neptune. In question of geometry, and the substance which fulfills that geometric shape.

The sun is relatively very spherical. We can imagine first it creates something of a spherical alteration of the gravity field as it passes through. But I dont know, maybe it makes more a triangular or square.

Oh, well I believe all this proposition was under the false impression that bodies could orbit the sun at a perfect equatorial right angle to its truest north and south poles.

Well its all very interesting regardless, that the sun produces such an indentation, such effect of the gravity field that (yes i know it has to do with mass and not size but still) it is much larger than the size of the sun.

Oh but here is a question; labeling the suns constant direction of travel as F for forward; Is the gravitational geometry alteration of the gravity field, as equal as it is 'from mercury to 'pluto', neptune', in that lateral direction, as it is in the up and down direction, its north and south poles? Could the sun be traveling F, while bodies orbited it passing N and S?

So, the nature of the geometry alteration, is that the sun creates a much larger sphere, which is really more of an 'anti sphere' , or a spherical displacement, made in the gravity field.

I am wondering oh this displacement of relative gravity field substance, moves and operates, in the way that it moves massive masses.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
The way I look at gravity, as you have mentioned the 2 ways is this;

What is the physical reason a mass can follow another mass without touching?

The answer must be; Substance must exist in between them,
I imagine our ancestors used a similar thought process when they asked the question

"Why does it rain some days, and not other days?
The answer must be; There must be a rain god in the sky who decides when to make it rain".

As far as I can tell we have as much evidence for the invisible rain god as for the invisible substance you speak of. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence but I wouldn't say that argument persuades me of the existence of either of those.

Newton said he understood gravitational effects but not the cause. Einstein's GR theory shed some more light on it but still doesn't exactly explain why mass/energy bends space time, so at some point we have to say, "we don't know".

"Substance" to me means something that has "mass" and if that's not what you mean by "substance", the term is too broad to be useful. If you mean field, call it field. Gravitons might be real though they are difficult to confirm experimentally, but even if they explain gravity, I don't think I'd call them "substance".


here is a question; labeling the suns constant direction of travel as F for forward; Is the gravitational geometry alteration of the gravity field, as equal as it is 'from mercury to 'pluto', neptune', in that lateral direction, as it is in the up and down direction, its north and south poles? Could the sun be traveling F, while bodies orbited it passing N and S?
The sun's motion isn't quite constant as it's orbiting the Milky way, so this is could be called centripetal acceleration. However it's a large orbit so we can neglect that if you wish (though the sun can't). The disk of the solar system is at an angle of about 60 degrees to the disk of the Milky Way galaxy, so the planetary orbits are about 30 degrees shy of being perpendicular to the direction of the sun's motion.


edit on 8-4-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

As far as I can tell we have as much evidence for the invisible rain god as for the invisible substance you speak of.


Substance is always the reason. There is only that which is. And what that which is will become. And what that which is can possibly become.

Take a massive body. Take another massive body. Put them in a vicinity. They start moving towards one another. Substance besides the massive bodies are needed to explain this.




"Substance" to me means something that has "mass" and if that's not what you mean by "substance", the term is too broad to be useful. If you mean field, call it field. Gravitons might be real though they are difficult to confirm experimentally, but even if they explain gravity, I don't think I'd call them "substance".


I use the term substance to mean the eternal quantity of energy which exists. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy exists. Therefore energy has always existed and energy will always exist. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore an exact quantity of energy has always existed and always will exist. Energy does not equal nothing. Therefore everything that 'exists' is energy, which I refer to as substance.

Substance/matter/something/thing/thingness/stuff/not nothing

There is a lot of not nothing, that exists in between planets. And planets, interact with this field of not nothing/substance/matter.


Yes one of the most confounding things to me is the nature of movement. And movement being energy. Therefore I cannot say movement is 'something' or substance, or 'movement' 'exists'. There needs to be substance in order for the concept of movement to exist, and we dont need to worry about 'their needing to be substance' because I just proved above that substance exists regardless eternally.




The sun's motion isn't quite constant as it's orbiting the Milky way, so this is could be called centripetal acceleration. However it's a large orbit so we can neglect that if you wish (though the sun can't).


I was not concerned with how straight the sun traveled or any detailed. The main point was that there is an obvious forward motion of the sun, ignoring its rotation, just looking at it as a sphere spiraling around a center. Plotting its path over a million years, we would agree that its path would have a 'forward' direction, and an abstract, hypothetical 'backwards' direction, of which I can call the suns tail.




The disk of the solar system is at an angle of about 60 degrees to the disk of the Milky Way galaxy, so the planetary orbits are about 30 degrees shy of being perpendicular to the direction of the sun's motion.


Think of the sun as the sphere it is. Think of the gravity field as the medium of stuff/substance/matter/energy it is.

Think of the sphere traveling through the field.

Think of the sphere pushing/displacing/altering/warping the material of the field out of its path.

Think about how it must do this, how the field must be composed and connected, in order for the sphere to do this, and for other spheres, to become forced to follow the momentous path of the moving field.

It is a wake. It is a rip tide. The gravity medium is substance/matter/material/energy, and the sun moves it.

Giving it relativistic mass, even though it should have rest mass ( BECAUSE IT EXISTS!!!!!!!) (Mass should be the minimal requirement 'to not be nothing')

The collective local movements of the field, moved by the sun;

Moves the bodies, that are said to be effected by the suns gravity.

The force mediators.

If I have a ball in a pool. And we are 10 feet away. And I start pushing the water that is in between me and the ball, towards you. We can say the water is the force mediator, between my body, the body of the ball, the medium of the water, and your body.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Just a question for clarification. You were asking, basically, if the planets and other bodies of the Solar system could successfully maintain what would be essentially a polar orbit with relation to the forward direction of the Sun's path through the galaxy, correct?
Also, what direction of the orbital plane were you using for the scenario? Perpendicular to the forward motion of the Sun? (In other words, flat against it)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy


Just a question for clarification. You were asking, basically, if the planets and other bodies of the Solar system could successfully maintain what would be essentially a polar orbit with relation to the forward direction of the Sun's path through the galaxy, correct?


One question I asked, and I am ignoring all the planets and asteroids in the solar system, to get to the raw simple fundamentals of the situation of mass, massive masses, and the nature of gravity.

So, I was referencing mercury, and neptune, as distance points, within the influence of the suns gravity field warpage.

If we imagine the central black hole of the galaxy, and the sun orbiting around it, if you were to put an arrow right off the suns surface area, which aimed in the direction the sun was always traveling (ultimately, around the center), we could do the same for the tail/backside of the sun.

I think because of the suns motion, there would be a difference if 'all of the sudden' mercury and neptune were to appear at their separated distances in trial 1 aligned with forward direction travel of the sun; and in trial two, alligned with the tail backside of the sun.

So I have been stressing the attention as to what may occur on the suns backside, in terms of the sun as a massive object, and its interaction with the gravity field.

And how the interacted with gravity field, interacts with other bodies.

Now that we have forward travel front of sun, and backside tail of sun (of course we are disregarding the suns rotation, thats why I said imagine an arrow just off the suns surface)

We can also label a north pole and south pole, which in reference to the suns forward direction of travel, would be right angle, perpendicular, poles, up and down.

One question I asked, which is unrelated to the others, but potentially is very relevant and ties in; Is could bodies appear in the north pole south pole axis and orbit the sun in that direction.

Now I dont even know if bodies appeared in the tail direction at their distances, if they would start orbiting the sun.

If they would start orbiting the sun;

That must tell us that the gravity field itself is substance/material that is also orbiting.

I have posited that it may be do to the suns rotation, that the gravity field itself has a rotation, and it is this rotation which acts like a treadmill which carries the bodies in orbit.

If the gravity field does not rotate in such a way;

Then one only can explain the orbits by suggesting they have kept their orbiting momentum all the time, and that the gravity field is not like a treadmill, but like a solid bowl, which the planets constantly swirl in.

But my other question;

Now imagine a bowl, and stack another bowl on top of it.

Imagine the sun is in the center of this bowl, just imagine a sphere, use a big bowl and imagine a ping pong ball as the sun.

Imagine moving the bowls forward, though we can say the ping pong ball is moving forward, and the bowls follow it every where it goes (the bowls being the subsequent geometry alteration of the gravity field du to the suns existence amongst it, and potentially, as I posit, extra torquage due to the suns movements).

This is where my question comes in;

Imagine now you had two marbles, one smaller than the other or uber details are not that important.

Imagine the two marbles could appeared as scaled down distance of mercury and neptune in the bowls aligned with the axis of backside/tail.

If mercury was at the equatorial center in accordance to sun up and down N and S;

There would be 'nothing' (no substance/material) to force it to stay in place.

So my question is;

The gravity field must be a medium of substance/material;

And I am wondering how this material is moved out of the way, and moved, and moving, so that mercury would be surrounded by a density of substance, which carries it around the sun.

And is what is meant by inverse square then; that the areas density of gravity field substance decreases at the inverse square?



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I have a question.

Does bioelectric energy ever pass into a quantum state at any point?

Is there any interaction between a bioelectric field at a quantum level and the macro universe?

Is there anyone who can point me in the right path?



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi
"And is what is meant by inverse square then; that the areas density of gravity field substance decreases at the inverse square?"
It would seem, if the gravity field is as you theorize, that since it is all pervasive it's density would be uniform throughout the Universe. Perhaps in that scenario the effect a massive body has on it would be to organize a field 'direction' of sorts, allowing it to influence other bodies. Which could lose coherence at an inverse square rate.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman
It would depend, I suppose, on exactly what you mean by passing into a quantum state. If emissions of various wavelengths of light count, then absolutely it does. Since photons are emitted by electrons returning to lower energy states, it is certainly bioelectric energy causing a quantum interaction.
If this isn't what you meant by your question, could you clarify a bit further, please?



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

As far as I can tell we have as much evidence for the invisible rain god as for the invisible substance you speak of.


Substance is always the reason. There is only that which is. And what that which is will become. And what that which is can possibly become.

Take a massive body. Take another massive body. Put them in a vicinity. They start moving towards one another. Substance besides the massive bodies are needed to explain this.


What specifically counts as "substance" and what does not?






"Substance" to me means something that has "mass" and if that's not what you mean by "substance", the term is too broad to be useful. If you mean field, call it field. Gravitons might be real though they are difficult to confirm experimentally, but even if they explain gravity, I don't think I'd call them "substance".


I use the term substance to mean the eternal quantity of energy which exists. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy exists. Therefore energy has always existed and energy will always exist. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore an exact quantity of energy has always existed and always will exist. Energy does not equal nothing. Therefore everything that 'exists' is energy, which I refer to as substance.


That's a bad definition. Energy is a *property* of physical systems, the way the height of people is a property of homo sapiens biological phenotype. And in full general relativity, the concept of energy conservation is not perfectly well defined anyway. And energy conservation comes from deeper physical symmetry as now understood from the Noether theorems.



Substance/matter/something/thing/thingness/stuff/not nothing

There is a lot of not nothing, that exists in between planets. And planets, interact with this field of not nothing/substance/matter.


OK, then call it a field which is more specific, and what physicists use because it describes the structure of the apparently experimentally successful theory.


Yes one of the most confounding things to me is the nature of movement. And movement being energy.


No movement is not energy---one can compute energy as a function of movement.


Therefore I cannot say movement is 'something' or substance, or 'movement' 'exists'. There needs to be substance in order for the concept of movement to exist, and we dont need to worry about 'their needing to be substance' because I just proved above that substance exists regardless eternally.


You proved nothing, just asserted.

The standard physics description of the laws of physics is more precise and enlightening. Good idea to learn it.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I think that space what ever it is, is another form of matter and energy. All are facets of something else. This could explain non locality.

Are there scientists who think the same?



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I have a question.

Does bioelectric energy ever pass into a quantum state at any point?

Is there any interaction between a bioelectric field at a quantum level and the macro universe?

Is there anyone who can point me in the right path?


Well not sure what you mean by pass into. But our body definately uses quantum mechanics as well as causes effects. When your heart beats you send out a detectable wave. Or the heat you produce from bioelectric energy you constantly transmit thermal energy think night vision gogles.

Internally we have processes going on like breathing oxygen it usees delectron acceptor in the electron transport chain. Basically the electron moves from organic compounds (e.g. glucose) down to oxigen (where it has a lower energy level) releasing the difference in energy, which the body can use to do work (or generate heat). Don't think this is what you meant but the rest gets into weird pseudo science. And we'll I'm not going to promote that.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

If I eat an electron that's entangled with another one far away, do I also eat the second one?



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: ImaFungi
"And is what is meant by inverse square then; that the areas density of gravity field substance decreases at the inverse square?"
It would seem, if the gravity field is as you theorize, that since it is all pervasive it's density would be uniform throughout the Universe. Perhaps in that scenario the effect a massive body has on it would be to organize a field 'direction' of sorts, allowing it to influence other bodies. Which could lose coherence at an inverse square rate.


I'm not sure here exactly the question but standard definition of the inverse-square law is any physical law stating that a specified physical quantity or intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity. Or simply put the further away from the source we get the weaker the field. And we can see this field drop and can do the math to tell us the strength at any distance.

Now gravity for example does reach out to the infinite just not enough to do any work. What I mean is we could have a planet in the andromeda galaxy and yes it's gravity waves reaches earth. But the gravity waves are so near zero as to be undectatable.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   
The replies to my question were great. They definitely sent me on the right path. I was thinking wave frequencies from different chemical and electrical interactions in the body that produce variable wavelengths that interact with known quantum processes or change on a quantum level.

Where I was going is neuron transmission of information in the brain via electrical pulses or chemical processes there in that have a detectable quantum entanglement or can be made to have such with particles going into or coming out of quantum states.

basically if the organism can get stimulus from particles interacting on a quantum level and if the stimulus can be expressed in neurons while exchanging information along the bodies natural neurological pathways via bioelectric impulses.

We know certain particles act differently on a quantum level when observing them....just wondering what the mechanism for that can be.

edit on 4 8 2015 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: QueenofWeird
a reply to: dragonridr

If I eat an electron that's entangled with another one far away, do I also eat the second one?



No in fact you would break entanglement and sever the conection. Entangled particles are each seperate particles and just because something happens to one doeant mean the other automatically has the same thing hapen.
edit on 4/8/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr
a reply to: tadaman

Of course quantum effects play a role in biological processes. But the common "pseudoscience" argument about persistent entanglement in say human or anything else warm-blooded like rat biological systems doesn't seem like good science to me. For example here's a paper arguing that mainstream criticism of biological entanglement effects is flawed, but it's got a lot of hand-waving and no hard data.

Plausibility of Quantum Coherent States in Biological Systems

We perform entanglement experiments all the time, so if there's entanglement in rats, that lasts for any significant length of time, let's see the experimental results showing that. Lacking experimental observations showing that (which are absent in the above paper), I'm more persuaded by the arguments that entanglements have very short lifetimes in warm-blooded biology. Even the optimistic view of that paper is only arguing that the entanglements may last for milliseconds instead of nanoseconds.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I was just trying to answer the quoted question within the parameters of ImaFungi's idea.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 94  95  96    98  99  100 >>

log in

join