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.

 

Things you'd like to ask a theoretical physicist.

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


I'm not sure what forces are covered by the word charge. Magnetism breaks down at high temperatures, but could black holes have order and magnetism? And the strong/weak nuclear forces are now more or less electrical. They were completely their own catagory for a while.




posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 

This seems like the time to bring up the no-hair theorem:


The no-hair theorem postulates that all black hole solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations of gravitation and electromagnetism in general relativity can be completely characterized by only three externally observable classical parameters: mass, electric charge, and angular momentum.
Electric charge is definitely one of the three externally observable properties postulated by that theorem.

Edit to add:

Originally posted by Astyanax
Of course, most ATS members would probably argue that saying ‘leave it to the experts’ is just asking to have the wool pulled over one’s eyes by powerful conspirators. In scientific matters, though, and especially in physics, there’s often nothing else one can do.
You enphasized "can" but I'd argue that "should" may have been a better choice. We've seen too many Einstein bashing threads and such on ATS showing what people CAN do, which is bash theories they don't really even understand!


edit on 8-12-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


[@Moduli:] I see you've gone to great lengths to sound smart with this one, but it really wasn't necessary. The Euler-Lagrange equations do, for example, model particle movement when subjected to a force, but, in that case, you surely know that the equation becomes the familiar F = ma... that is, force = mass x acceleration.

Nicely put, and well deserved.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Wow I really enjoyed reading through this thread. I'm a junior in high school and I am planning on majoring in Physics and going on to get a Ph.D in college. If no one minds I will ask a question myself.

This might seem vague but, if the Higgs Boson (god particle) or whatever you wanna call it is magically discovered by the LHC is Switzerland, would this change our current understanding of physics? If so, what percentage of our theories do you think we would have to scrap and start over with? Such as what gives individual particles mass down to the smallest element etc.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
How does the Ionic breeze work? How does the van der graph work? Can you strip electrons and gather them up, while you push protons somewhere else? What happens when you make an electron rotate? What happens when you have multiple electrons rotate around in a metal container? Static electricity, why does it make your hair stand up? What happens if you put them all together in one device? Is there such a thing as a static electric wall?
I am totally ignorant here, give me a break.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by tokyodynamite
 


This might seem vague but, if the Higgs Boson (god particle) or whatever you wanna call it is magically discovered by the LHC is Switzerland, would this change our current understanding of physics?

No, it would confirm it. But if the LHC is not found, the Standard Model is probably in big trouble.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by cloaked4u
 


How does the Ionic breeze work?

Same way as any other sea-breeze. The Ionian coast cools down faster than the adjacent sea, the air over it cools too, causing a pressure drop, and air blows in from offshore to equalize the pressure. Or something like that.


How does the van der graph work?

You get a very big sheet of graph paper, dip the van tyres in ink and just drive.


Can you strip electrons and gather them up, while you push protons somewhere else?

No, electrons oil their naked bodies so it’s hard to catch them, and protons are stubborn little beggars who won’t be pushed around.


What happens when you make an electron rotate?

She pretends to be dizzy and refuses to pole-dance.


What happens when you have multiple electrons rotate around in a metal container?

No pole-dancing electrons for you that night.


Static electricity, why does it make your hair stand up?

Because it’s bloody terrifying, why do you think?


What happens if you put them all together in one device? Is there such a thing as a static electric wall? I am totally ignorant here, give me a break.

Break over. Back to class for you.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Just as i thought. When confronted with questions you obviously cannot answer, you ridicule. IS THAT INTELLIGENCE? Who cares what the question is, but you just ridicule. WHAT ARE YOU SCARED OF? Those were my questions. SO WHAT. Continue to ridicule and show your inteligence.




posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Just as i thought.

You thought?



When confronted with questions you obviously cannot answer, you ridicule.

What the heck is an Ionic Breeze? I look it up and it turns out to be an air ionizer. You want to ask a theoretical physicist how an ionizer works? A high school teacher could tell you that.

And there is no such thing as a van der graph. If you had asked how a Van de Graaff generator worked, you might have got a different answer.

Electrons don’t rotate. They do have a quality known as ‘spin’ but that isn’t really rotation. You can change the spin orientation of an electron by shining a light on it. Here’s more information – though you’ll have to pay PRL to read the whole paper.

When your hair is charged with static electricity, all charges have the same sign. Like charges repel each other, so your hair separates and seems to stand up from your scalp.

The rest of your questions are gobbledygook, as far as I can tell.


WHAT ARE YOU SCARED OF?

You, of course, you big scary fierce thing.

Happy now?
edit on 9/12/11 by Astyanax because: of my own lousy spelling.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


more ridicule, more intelligence. I see where this is going. S.P

Continue on. I will let you exsplain the realms of the universal bubble. I believe you are very good at exsplaining the bubble theory. Do you think the BUBBLE is getting bigger?
I fear the universe BUBBLE could pop at any moment.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
If time is basically change in matter, does not time need space in order for this change to take place?


Time is not "change in matter", that doesn't make sense. Space and time are parameters that describe the distribution of matter.


Originally posted by morkington
If a black hole is supposedly a point of infinite density (I find this ridiculously hard to believe as the mathematical concepts of 'point' and 'infinity' do not seem to fit in a physical world), how can it have an edge and be in this physical universe?


There's nothing wrong with points or infinities in physics. They are perfectly reasonable things. For example, wrap up a piece of paper into a cone. If you could wrap it perfectly, the tip of the cone would be a point, and the curvature of the cone is zero everywhere except at the point of the cone, where it is infinite. Yet a cone, even an idealized one, is a perfectly well-behaved object with nothing wrong with it at all.



What I mean is, if the gravitational force is subject to the inverse-square law and fades in strength the further away you get from the massive object, how can you 'fade' from infinite density to finite density?


Strong gravitational fields do not drop off as 1/r^2, only weak ones do. Strong ones can die off fast enough that what you're thinking about does not happen. But you need to understand solutions to Einstein's field equations to see this.



Given that infinity isn't 'a very big number' but is beyond number, how can this mathematical concept of infinite density be considered a physical reality and be said to exist within a finite universe?


Infinity *is* just a very big number! Consider the interval:
0 < x < 1
And now transform x->1/x. The interval becomes
infinity > x > 1
There's nothing wrong with this process because the point zero was not included, so we never said anything like "1/0 = infinity".
Thinking about this more carefully (taking an undergraduate level analysis class) leads you to the conclusion that the intervals (0,1) and (1,infinity) should be thought of as "the same" in some sense, so infinity is just a point you can never get to from the set you start in, just like you can never get to x=1 in (0,1).


Originally posted by ImaFungi
What do you believe, if any, the significance of the reoccurring themes of spirals and swirls in the universe?

Absolutely none at all. They are all just due to conservation of angular momentum (or geometric arrangements of things not being regular if you want to include static roundish things as "spirals" too).



if the universe is expanding, where and what are the areas the universe has not yet expanded into?

It doesn't expand into anything. There are a billion lengthy answers to this on the internet so I will let you google and read them. Similarly for the rest of your comments.


Originally posted by Maslo
I have a question. If nothing can escape from beyond the event horizon, how come black holes can have electric charge? Charge is carried by exchange of (virtual) photons, and photons travel at the speed of light. How can mass beyond the event horizon exchange a photon with mass on the other side, when no photon can escape from beyond the horizon? Or are virtual particles not subject to gravity?


This is a very good question, and the answer to it is not really elementary. You don't need to think about virtual particles to answer this question (that is, this problem exists in classical GR with no quantum mechanics). In some sense, this happens because of conservation of charge. But really, you can think of the "visible" properties of the black hole in some sense as existing just outside the horizon, and, being outside, have no trouble propagating out. Why that's a good idea, how that works, or what the full answer is, requires understanding how to solve Einstein's field equations with nonzero electromagnetic fields, which you can find in any graduate textbook on GR, and is not too hard to understand (but not too easy either).


Originally posted by tokyodynamite
This might seem vague but, if the Higgs Boson (god particle) or whatever you wanna call it is magically discovered by the LHC is Switzerland, would this change our current understanding of physics?


In some sense, no, it's entirely expected to find it. It's demanded that it must exist in some way by mathematical consistency (in the same way that 1+1=2 implies 1 million + 1 million = 2 million; you don't actually need to get two piles of a million things, put them together into one pile, and count to see if you have 2 million things).

What is interesting though, is that *all* its properties are not fixed by consistency, and it will be interesting to see what the details are. And depending on them, may tell us about new physics, stringy effects, etc.

edit on 9-12-2011 by Moduli because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
If time is basically change in matter, does not time need space in order for this change to take place?


Time is not "change in matter", that doesn't make sense. Space and time are parameters that describe the distribution of matter.




Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects.[1] The temporal position of events with respect to the transitory present is continually changing; events happen, then are located further and further in the past. Source


Sorry for my ignorance, but time is as far as I understand it 'change', and I would assume that change is related to motion, energy or matter.

If time is a parameter that describe matter's distribution in either the past or the present or future, I do not understand how if nothing were to change (e.g everything is frozen) time could be said to exist.

As my original question stated: If time is basically change, does not time need space in order for this change to take place? Whether it's change in the location - one place to another, or change in form - e.g the rearrangement of atoms or molecules, or even thought - electrical signals from here in the brain to there; I cannot see how time could exist independently of space.

Although I can see that space could exist independantly of time - e.g hypothetically if time froze, x would still be a specific distance away from y.

If time is not change then what is it? And if it is then how could it exist outside of space?



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by tokyodynamite
 


This might seem vague but, if the Higgs Boson (god particle) or whatever you wanna call it is magically discovered by the LHC is Switzerland, would this change our current understanding of physics?

No, it would confirm it. But if the LHC is not found, the Standard Model is probably in big trouble.


Probably?

I'm sure it would be really, really big trouble. Just think of the investigative committees!

Q: So Herr Doktor Schreiber, you are saying that one day, the entire particle accelerator, which cost hard-working German taxpayers at least 20 billion euros, just "got lost"?

A: Ja, it is so, like the sock you can't find in the dryer.

Q: Yes, just like a sock. A 20 billion euro sock. Are you Greek by any chance?
edit on 10-12-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-12-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-12-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-12-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Life is the only "thing" that goes against Entropy. If it didn't there would be no womb, no healing of a cut, no tree from a seed, no organism from an egg. Life is the only thing that holds entropy at bay, for a while. Then a new baby is born and the cycle begins again. How is that for "fairy magic" or ancestor lineage?



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Viesczy
You guys are too deep, easiest one is:

What's it like making a dump truck full of money without ever having to produce tangible results beyond the math you use to create your specific reality?


Derek


The only time string theorists make a dump truck full of money is when they're working for a counterfeiting gang.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


Originally posted by Moduli
Time is not "change in matter", that doesn't make sense. Space and time are parameters that describe the distribution of matter.

Time is a dimension along whose axis changes may be observed in the distribution of matter in space. To a human observer, regardless of what instrument or system modulates the observation, ‘time passing’ implies an observed change in the distribution (and often the state) of matter relative to the observer. So you are quite right, even if your wording was not precise enough to satisfy our knowledgeable but difficult friend. ‘Changes in matter’ – essentially, changes in the scene about us – are the only way we can know time is ‘passing’, namely that our own position along the t axis is changing. It may not be scientifically sound to say ‘time is passing’, any more than it is to say ‘space is passing’ – but it is not at all hard to understand what you were getting at, and in a relativistic sense you are actually quite right.


If time is basically change, does not time need space in order for this change to take place?

Time, as we have seen, is not basically change; it is a parameter in which change takes place. Change requires both time and space. Quantum tunnelling effects and suchlike don’t seem to occur in time (the state transition appears to have no duration) and there are probably other exceptions that I am too lazy to think about right now, but for all that, any change in the state of any observed system must occur in space as well as in time. This is true even of a lump of lead sitting somewhere getting hotter – or colder.


I cannot see how time could exist independently of space.

You’re right; it can’t. A one-dimensional universe is a static universe.


Although I can see that space could exist independantly of time - e.g hypothetically if time froze, x would still be a specific distance away from y.

I wonder. A frozen universe is an unobservable universe, except from without. Unless you’re one of those people who believes in ‘multiverses’ (and usually, even then), such observation from outside is impossible or meaningless. So I would say that space could no more exist independent of time that time could do without space.

In fact, time and space in relativity are part of the same continuum: the arena in which everything exists and happens. Though, just to make things confusing, the continuum, the arena, has physical properties of its own.

Familiarizing yourself with the concept of light cones will help you get your head around the space-time relationship.


If time is not change then what is it?

Moduli already answered this. It is a ‘space’ in which change takes place. A dimension. A degree of freedom (in the technical sense of the term) if you like. We only know of its existence because we perceive change – or rather, it is an entity we postulate in order to make sense of that perception.


edit on 10/12/11 by Astyanax because: of any.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Originally posted by Astyanax
If the LHC is not found, the Standard Model is probably in big trouble.

Well spotted. Many thanks, and a star for your trouble.

But you know, the scope of quantum phenomena may yet surprise us...



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel
Q: So Herr Doktor Schreiber, you are saying that one day, the entire particle accelerator, which cost hard-working German taxpayers at least 20 billion euros, just "got lost"?

A: Ja, it is so, like the sock you can't find in the dryer.
At 5 minutes in this video you can see the location of the lost socks, on the other side of a black hole:

Black Hole

Since some have speculated the LHC might create a black hole, might it not also travel through the black hole and end up next to the socks?

However if the ride through the black hole is anything like what's portrayed in that video, it looks scary.

but yeah, we know Astyanax meant the Higgs and not the LHC



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Here's the question plaguing me about physics:

What do you have to go through to get funding for your research?

In other words: Who has science by the balls?

I want to know that modern science is free for undue interference from outside parties before I start taking its work too seriously.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by l_e_cox
 


What do you have to go through to get funding for your research?

The only funding a theoretical physicist needs is enough money to keep her in A3 notepads and pencils. Though access to computers can help.


edit on 10/12/11 by Astyanax because: there was a lot of superfluous stuff earlier.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join