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.

 

questions of physics

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I have some ?'s about physics about the speed of light, so if you have any answers please respond.

1) Why do scientists believe that the speed of light is the limit?

2) At what rate does matter apear to increase as you go faste?

3) Does antimatter have negative effects of matter (attracts antimatter, repels matter, or does it just negate gravity?

4) How fast would a antimatter propelled shil travel in an area with gravity/ and one without gravity.

5) How is antimatter made.

6) Have there been any "successful" cold fussion experiments since the University of Utah?

7) Have there been any advancement and uses of superconductivity?

8) What would happen if we sent a crap load of nukes into Jupiter?

9) Would it be possible to go fast enough( assuming you can excede the speed of light) that atoms and smaller particles can be viewed with out microscopes from an observer?

10) What is the smallest known particles?

11) Has anyone else done studies using plasma for energy since Nasa gave it a try?

12) Has the photoelectric effect been explained yet?

These are just some ?'s I had, any resonces are appreciated.




posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by templersstorms1312
I have some ?'s about physics about the speed of light, so if you have any answers please respond.

1) Why do scientists believe that the speed of light is the limit?


You sure got a lot of questions. I will try to answer the questions I have the best understandings of.

Because scientists haven't found out anything that travels past the speed of light and by Einstein's equation, nothing can travel past speed of light and Einstein has been proven correct too many times to check again.


2) At what rate does matter apear to increase as you go faste?


Huh? Not sure I follow that.


8) What would happen if we sent a crap load of nukes into Jupiter?


First of all, why in the hell would you do that? Second, assuming we produce to power to carry the nukes and detonate them, I think nothing would happen.


9) Would it be possible to go fast enough( assuming you can excede the speed of light) that atoms and smaller particles can be viewed with out microscopes from an observer?


The thing you can't, so the question can't be answered.


10) What is the smallest known particles?
Quarks.


12) Has the photoelectric effect been explained yet?
You mean the one Einstein got the nobel prize for?

Surf



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   
? 2 is refering to how much mass apears to increase as someone goes closer to the speed of light.

?8 I heard that Jupiter was close to becoming a scond sun and if it only had more H it would go into fussion, and if we nuked it it might do it anyway.

?12 What was his results.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by templersstorms1312
? 2 is refering to how much mass apears to increase as someone goes closer to the speed of light.

?8 I heard that Jupiter was close to becoming a scond sun and if it only had more H it would go into fussion, and if we nuked it it might do it anyway.

?12 What was his results.


Mass increase? You mean the actual rate of increase when you give in the values for E = mc2? I doubt we can compute that.

The tiny nukes we are going to send is going to affect Jupiter becoming the second sun, no way.

My memory is far from competent, but I have never heard of it never being explained. I think Plank came up with the idea and Einstein proved it mathematically.

Surf



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by templersstorms1312
I have some ?'s about physics about the speed of light, so if you have any answers please respond.

1) Why do scientists believe that the speed of light is the limit?

2) At what rate does matter apear to increase as you go faste?


These questions are related. The equation used is:

Mass = Mass(rest)/Sqaure Root (1-v^2/c^2). This equation governs how large an object appears to be based in it's apparent velocity, rest mass and the speed of light (c). As v reaches c, the bottom equals zero, which makes the apparent mass unsolvable (it was approaching infinity).



3) Does antimatter have negative effects of matter (attracts antimatter, repels matter, or does it just negate gravity?


Anti-matter does not negate gravity. Gravity behaves exactly the same with regards to anti-matter and matter. A particle and it's anti-particle will have an opposite charge - so they will attract each other. When they contact each other they destroy each other turning 100% of their mass into energy.



4) How fast would a antimatter propelled shil travel in an area with gravity/ and one without gravity.


Exactly the same, see above



5) How is antimatter made.


In a labratory environment, 2 photons (energy) with energy equal to the mass of the matter/anti-matter are collided with each other creating the particle and anti-particle. For example, if you have two 511KeV photon beams intersecting you will create a large number of both electrons and positrons.




6) Have there been any "successful" cold fussion experiments since the University of Utah?


A better question is if there have ever been any succesfull repeatable cold fusion expirements.




10) What is the smallest known particles?



It depends how you define small. If you mean mass, it's probably the nuetrino, although there are a large number of subatomic particles and I don't know the mass of them all. If you mean actual size, I have no idea.




12) Has the photoelectric effect been explained yet?


Yes, it is well understood and has been for a signifigant amount of time.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Forgive me if I give any answer to a qeustion that has already been answered.

1. Because Einsteins equation, Energy is equal to Mass at C(the speed of light) squared.
2. It technicly increases in small incrimensts as you go faster, if your traveling at 10mph and speed up to 50mph, your matter has increased, however its such a small amount its unnoticable, as you go faster and faster, it becomes more noticable.
3. The only effect A-M has on normal matter, is an explosion when collided.
4. It would be relative to the amount of energy your using.
5. I have no idea, I use to know though.
8. They would explode, it would cause a bright spot to appear for a minute or so where they exploded, the brightness would differ depending upon how far into the atmosphere you detonated them.
10. I think a few aerospace firms have, but they dont put alot of research money into it, I could be wrong though.
12. Yes, quite some time ago.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
I have a good base knowledge in physics, but I am not an expert. I can however answer these questions in a lot of detail if you want. Just let me know because it will take me some time to show you. Simple answers to these questions are possible, but you will never truly understand them until you understand how we came to the knowledge and why.

If you are truly curious, or even out to prove them wrong, and want my detailed explanations, let me know. (Though I am sure others in here can do a better job than me.)

Well, I must say though, I don't know what would happen to jupiter....

[edit on 2/1/2005 by Seapeople]



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by templersstorms1312
I have some ?'s about physics about the speed of light, so if you have any answers please respond.

1) Why do scientists believe that the speed of light is the limit?

Because it is. It's the universal constant.


2) At what rate does matter apear to increase as you go faste?

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking.


3) Does antimatter have negative effects of matter (attracts antimatter, repels matter, or does it just negate gravity?

Matter and antimatter annihalate each other. Nothing negates gravity, though.


4) How fast would a antimatter propelled shil travel in an area with gravity/ and one without gravity.

There are no areas without gravity. But asking how fast an antimatter propelled ship is like asking how fast a plane travels.


5) How is antimatter made.

The only method that I know of is using a particle accelerator to bounce (don't quote me on this) electrons off of a tungsten plate, which creates positrons.


6) Have there been any "successful" cold fussion experiments since the University of Utah?

There haven't been any successful cold fusion experiments. Cold fusion isn't even really possible.


7) Have there been any advancement and uses of superconductivity?
And you can't look this up because...?


8) What would happen if we sent a crap load of nukes into Jupiter?

They would blow up. :|


9) Would it be possible to go fast enough( assuming you can excede the speed of light) that atoms and smaller particles can be viewed with out microscopes from an observer?

I fail to see the correlation between the speed of light and the size of atoms.


10) What is the smallest known particles?

Quarks, bosons, and leptons.


11) Has anyone else done studies using plasma for energy since Nasa gave it a try?
See #7.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Its worth noting that the speed of light can be broken when a group of photons are on the move, the group velocity can be greater than the speed of light.

See Below from BBC:

Beam smashes light barrier



By BBC News Online science editor Dr David Whitehouse
Scientists have seen a pulse of light emerge from a cloud of gas before it even entered.

This astonishing and baffling observation was made by researchers from the NEC Research Institute in Princeton, US.

They conducted an experiment that involved lasers, a chamber containing cold caesium atoms and a super-fast stopwatch.

The end result was a beam of light that moved at 300 times the theoretical limit for the speed of light.

It was Einstein who said nothing physical could break this barrier because, among other things, to do so would also mean travelling back in time.

Dramatic demonstration

But the NEC scientists believe their work does not violate Einstein's theory.

Writing in the journal Nature, Dr Lijun Wang and colleagues say their light beam raced through the atom trap so quickly that the leading edge of the pulse's peak actually exited before it had entered.

If this sounds confusing, then do not worry. Many physicists are uncomfortable with it too despite their explanations that it is a natural consequence of the wave nature of light.

Although the work of Dr Wang's team is remarkable, it is not the first time that this sort of "trick" has been performed - but it is certainly the most dramatic demonstration.

Earlier this year, a team of physicists made a microwave beam travel 7% faster than light speed. Last year, they announced that they had even slowed light down to almost a crawl.

Anomalous refractive index

To achieve their peculiar effect, Dr Wang's group fired laser beams through a trap of caesium atoms.

By adjusting the frequency of the laser beams to match those of the energy levels in the atoms, the researchers were able to achieve an effect called "anomalous refractive index." This boosts the pulses' so-called "group velocity" to a speed faster than what we understand to be the speed of light - just short of 300 million metres per second.

The group velocity of a light pulse depends upon the mixture of frequencies within the pulse and the medium through which it travels. It need not be the speed of the pulse itself.

The important thing, however, is that whilst the group velocity can be manipulated to be faster than the speed of light, it is not possible to use this effect to send information faster than the speed of light.

Because of the fast group velocity, the leading edge of the pulse appears to leave the caesium-filled chamber 62 billionths of a second before it arrives.

Causality principle

And according to Dr Wang, this strange result does not threaten Einstein's theories - in particular, the causality principle, which states that a cause must precede its effect.

Or so almost all physicists think - for now. Privately, some admit that experiments such as Dr Wang's may force a reassessment of some cherished ideas.

According to Dr Guenter Nimtz, of the University of Cologne, who has carried out similar experiments, the NEC work is very exciting.

He told BBC News Online: "The effect cannot be used to go back in time, only to reduce the time between cause and effect a little bit.

"The reason for this," he said, "is because the light pulse has a finite length of time, much longer than any gain obtained by a faster-than-light speed."



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by templersstorms1312
1) Why do scientists believe that the speed of light is the limit?

2) At what rate does matter apear to increase as you go faste?

3) Does antimatter have negative effects of matter (attracts antimatter, repels matter, or does it just negate gravity?

4) How fast would a antimatter propelled shil travel in an area with gravity/ and one without gravity.

5) How is antimatter made.

6) Have there been any "successful" cold fussion experiments since the University of Utah?

7) Have there been any advancement and uses of superconductivity?

8) What would happen if we sent a crap load of nukes into Jupiter?

9) Would it be possible to go fast enough( assuming you can excede the speed of light) that atoms and smaller particles can be viewed with out microscopes from an observer?

10) What is the smallest known particles?

11) Has anyone else done studies using plasma for energy since Nasa gave it a try?

12) Has the photoelectric effect been explained yet?

These are just some ?'s I had, any resonces are appreciated.


1. I believe it's because of the relativity case. Best example is the aircraft and missle launch compared to aircraft and headlights. Aircraft is traveling at x velocity launch missle at y velocity, z = x + y. Aircraft is traveling at x velocity turn headlights on at c velocity (speed of light) z = c.

2. Probably impossible to calculate the 'rate' because it would depend on a lot of factors you don't have control over. In all reality a group traveling at some velocity with another part of it's whole increasing in mass will not have all of its particles traveling at that same velocity (very slight difference due to atomic structures) General thought: I would imagine a type of blur effect.

3. No. Antimatter is just the substitute where -e = -mc^2. Don't imagine the mass as negative, it's only negative because of it's frame of reference to ordinary matter.

4. don't understand your question.

5. Do a search of CERN. There are also threads here at ATS.

6. Yes. Cold or fusion reactions are being intensively researched and hopefully right around the corner. www.abovetopsecret.com...

7. Aerospace corps are trying to incorporate the uses of supercon. to space craft launches.

8. LOL what?

9. No. Take this as an example. No matter how correct someone's vision is there is always a limit on how far away an object can be viewed and still be distinguishable from it's surroundings.

I have a feeling your trying to ask if those objects are traveling at the speed and light and you travel with that same velocity you'll be able to see them. Of course.

10. I'm not sure. Quarks? the boson? maybe there are objects even smaller we just can't view due to technology.

11. Don't know. Google it.

12. You know of the photoelectric effect so I'm assuming your asking a deeper question dealing with it. Yes, it has been explained.

FUN! If any of that is wrong lemme know. Hope that helps



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 09:59 PM
link   
What would happen if we really did blow up any of our nearby planets?? or even blew up all of them? How would it effect the planet earth? Will it be sent hurling into the sun?



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 02:54 AM
link   


What would happen if we really did blow up any of our nearby planets?? or even blew up all of them? How would it effect the planet earth? Will it be sent hurling into the sun?


Are orbit would get royally screwed if we blew up any of the planets. (Actualy I'm not sure about pluto)
The resukting debris from one or more planets would find its way here, and destroy us.

Um why would you want to blow up a planet anyways?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join