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.

 

The Science Thread here

page: 9
25
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


Cool! (or...Hot!)... When all that radiation and neutrinos are created (where do neutrinos come from?) are electrons and nuclei 'vaporized' ? Right before a star goes supernova lets say there are an exact number atoms composing the star, and as it goes supernova are there the same number of atoms in that area? Or the reaction is nuclear and disassembles atoms, but all the subatomic masses of the atoms still remain? Does Em radiation, especially extreme amounts related to nuclear events such as supernovae, owe any of its quantity and energy to the weak and strong forces? Is more energy emitted when an atoms nuclear forced bonds are pried and is this due to the forces that were being used to hold the nucleus together and the protons and neutrons themselves together, was 'unleashed' ?




posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Much of the production is believed to be via inverse beta decay. As a star collapses a extremely dense compact object is created (which might later also explode depending on the mass of star) the material from the outer regions of the star fall in on it. You basically have an extremely hot, dense, solid core and gas that is hot and dense that is accelerating due to gravity falling upon it, simulations state possibly hitting the surface at maybe 15-20% the speed of light. This state is perfect for any electrons to be captured on protons, generating a neutron and neutrino.

You might say that the outer crust of the central compact core undergoes heavy nuclear transmutation during the supernova.


On the energy... that is a difficult question and i dont think there is a solid answer, but the way id think of it is that, fusion will continue (at a broken, jolty level), there is much catastrophic changing of states, and rapid heating/cooling and physical movement of matter during them. All will generate photons, the reason they are so bright is that in a star it can take years for radiation to reach the surface, during a supernova because much of the outer regions of a star are blown off or disrupted, radiation can sometimes come directly from the core (or at least pass through less matter before going into free space). As for the strong and weak interactions... again this is only in terms of nuclear disintegration or transmutation. So you will expect a broad range of EM radiation at various intensities depending upon the extreme conditions where the atoms producing them are located.

Remember you have an object that goes from compact, with densities in the tonnes per litre (possibly higher) out to near vacuum by comparison. Speaking of quantum states you generate de-generate matter in such objects, it wouldn't be surprising to me if a simple rearranging of the atoms in such matter would generate bursts of radiation as quantum states are reorganized, and filled up

edit on 13-6-2013 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-6-2013 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 06:31 AM
link   
I have a small science question I would like a clear answer to.

Would our gravity be higher if the planet did not spin? is centrifugal force a component in planetary gravity?

I mean if im standing on the surface, I am essentially moving on the outer edge of a giant circle which is spinning. Is that spinning in some small way opposing the inward gravity and trying to fling me out into space?

Thanks!

Also, if I could safely get to and survive at the very centre of the planet, would I experience zero g?
edit on 14-6-2013 by siliconpsychosis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by siliconpsychosis
 


curious.astro.cornell.edu...

You are right, that because of centripetal acceleration you will weigh a tiny amount less at the equator than at the poles. Try not to think of centripetal acceleration as a force though; what's really going on is that objects which are in motion like to go in a straight line and so it takes some force to make them go round in a circle.
The difference is about 3 tenths of one percent.

And yes, the Earth's gravitational field should be zero at some point near the center of the Earth, so you're right about that too. However I'm not sure it's completely zero g because you and the Earth would still be orbiting the sun, so that gravitational attraction is not canceled at the center of the Earth.
edit on 14-6-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by siliconpsychosis
 


curious.astro.cornell.edu...

You are right, that because of centripetal acceleration you will weigh a tiny amount less at the equator than at the poles. Try not to think of centripetal acceleration as a force though; what's really going on is that objects which are in motion like to go in a straight line and so it takes some force to make them go round in a circle.
The difference is about 3 tenths of one percent.

And yes, the gravitational fields should sum to zero at some point near the center of the Earth, so you're right about that too.


great, thanks!

so it is a tiny amount of effect, but there none the less.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Ok another, somewhat deeper question.

Where, basically, does everything "go" ?

Take a random star, any type, does not matter. It is emitting various radiations relatively evenly in a radiant sphere shape, expanding ever outwards. Say some photons manage to never actually interact, reflect or be absorbed by something and just keep going and going. Where do they end up? Where is the end?

If the universe is somewhat spherical, and those photons just keep going around and around eventually they would get back to where they started? With a powerful enough telescope, could we see in space a point of light created by photons from our own star?

If the universe is not infinite, is there a wall of photons and radiation at the "edge" which just keeps getting bigger and bigger and more and more stuff gets there?


And deeper question 2:

If we take the law of conservation of energy as utter truth, that energy (or mass) cannot be simply created out of nothing, surely the universe, big bangs, cycle of universes, multiverse, quantum foam, branes, WHATEVER, has to have always existed, just because there is mass and energy.

Making the reason of existence - just because it is ?????
edit on 14-6-2013 by siliconpsychosis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by siliconpsychosis
If the universe is somewhat spherical, and those photons just keep going around and around eventually they would get back to where they started?
We haven't proven it's not spherical, but the measurements show it's so flat that if there's a spherical shape, the sphere is huge. I think the margin of error in the flatness measurements is less than 1%.


With a powerful enough telescope, could we see in space a point of light created by photons from our own star?
The problem with this idea is it would take longer than the Earth and the sun would last. But the concept of ending up back where you started if you keep going in one direction hasn't been ruled out completely if the universe is nearly flat but still spherical in geometry.


If the universe is not infinite, is there a wall of photons and radiation at the "edge" which just keeps getting bigger and bigger and more and more stuff gets there?
No I don't think so since if it's not infinite it would possibly have a geometry like the spherical geometry you mentioned.


If we take the law of conservation of energy as utter truth, that energy (or mass) cannot be simply created out of nothing, surely the universe, big bangs, cycle of universes, multiverse, quantum foam, branes, WHATEVER, has to have always existed, just because there is mass and energy.
My take is that the idea that matter and energy aren't created or destroyed but can be converted from one to the other only arose once our universe came into being.

The laws of our universe didn't exist before our universe existed. Moreover, the laws of physics in the earliest part of our universe are still not confirmed, such as the inflaton particle and field that is thought to have caused cosmic "inflation".



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Conservation of energy and momentum is what people often forget about when they talk about the creation of virtual particles or virtual pairs as defined by the uncertainty principle in absolute vacuum. If a virtual pair is created, it must be destroyed within the time dictated by the uncertainty principle. If that wont happen, the process wont happen either.

Many 'thought' experiments on this subject are often deeply flawed, such as a notion that "Oh we should be able to detect virtual particles being created in vacuum" well yes and no, by detect you are implying that you have a detector there... which means no vacuum.

"oh but the virtual particle can travel"

But it cannot because it can only exist for a tiny amount of time, which is not long enough for it to cross the width of an atom.

See the problems?

Maybe you say "Oooh but the uncertainty principle is not true" well maybe its not, but its worked very well thus far, and has been tested and 'appears to be correct'. I think its important to remember this point

"Just because you want something to be true, doesn't mean that it is, take a step back, get over yourself forget what you want, and come back with a wider eye and more open mind than before."
(that is not said to anyone here, but more of a general statement)


edit on 14-6-2013 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErosA433
Much of the production is believed to be via inverse beta decay. As a star collapses a extremely dense compact object is created (which might later also explode depending on the mass of star) the material from the outer regions of the star fall in on it. You basically have an extremely hot, dense, solid core and gas that is hot and dense that is accelerating due to gravity falling upon it, simulations state possibly hitting the surface at maybe 15-20% the speed of light. This state is perfect for any electrons to be captured on protons, generating a neutron and neutrino.


This is due to my ignorance but; When free electrons are captured by/on protons how is a neutron and neutrino generated? (this is potentially an unrealistic example of an atom, apologies) So lets say there is an atom with 4 protons, 4 neutrons, and 4 electrons. And there is a free electron heading towards this atom. The electron enters the atom passing the 4 electrons surrounding the nucleus, and collides with a proton? This collision morphs the proton into a neutron, what was once an electron has completely dissipated (even though an electron has no components?) and now a neutrino exists (so is a neutrino like a split electron? or the same thing as an electron just a different wave function signature...are all bits of subatomic energy just different wave signatures, like frequencies, or musical notes, and when they interact they make different frequencies and there are different harmonies etc.?) (what would the difference between negative charge and positive? is it all relative and only has to do with some element of the wave function, its frequency? or its angular momentum? or if it spins clockwise or counter, or at what frequency it vibrates on a horizontal plane, or does it depend on the relative alignment of two wave functions compared to one another comparing all their physical variables and qualities that determine in each moment whether it will be positive or negative related to other relative wave functions?





As for the strong and weak interactions... again this is only in terms of nuclear disintegration or transmutation. So you will expect a broad range of EM radiation at various intensities depending upon the extreme conditions where the atoms producing them are located.



Ok cool, thanks for your responses. What I meant to ask regarding strong and weak force, is that it is known there is a force that holds protons and neutrons themselves together (the 3 quarks in each together?). Where does that force come from, or if you just have 3 quarks and put them near one another they wont form a proton (even if they are the right quarks for the job), they need the strong force to hold them together. Or is strong force another way of saying, when these 3 quarks come near each other for some reason they stay together as a proton, there fore there must be some force that keeps them together? And then is this the same force that keeps the nucleus together? For some reason when protons and neutrons get together they stay together, so is it really proposed that there is some force besides the quarks themselves, and the protons and neutrons themselves that hold them together? What im asking is, if there is some 'extra force' like the protons and neutrons can combine forces and take pressure of each other, or lesson their energy levels or relative masses, to contribute to some optimus prime like force that allows them to stay in close proximity, im asking if that strong force is viable as some detectable energy when an atom is busted apart. The strong force is keeping the quarks together and the nucleus together, when the nucleus is violently separated, where does the binding force go (is the main question i was asking)? Does it make new particles? Does it get sucked back into the energy levels of the protons and neutrons? Could the lack of this force be the reason neutrons cant exist very long outside a nucleus?



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



The electron atomic orbital is seen as more wavelike, not particle-like, which is why the electron is not said to more around the nucleus as you suggested. It's more like a standing wave. It does behave like a particle when jumping from one orbital to another but that's not really a movement around the nucleus, and what we mean by that is that the energy is quantized. The behavior is still very wave-like before and after the transition.


So when an electron occupies an orbital,

Does it fill the whole obital all of the time? Like smoke in a bottle?

or does it have more cohesion or viscocity like liquid in a vacuum? and leave empty places in the orbital as it moves?



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 


I would also like to ask; Is the reason the electron behaves as it does in the orbital because of forces felt by the electron from the nucleus, forces felt by the electron from other electrons in the orbital, and forces felt by the electron in the immediate environment surrounding this atom?



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

The electron atomic orbital is seen as more wavelike, not particle-like, which is why the electron is not said to more around the nucleus as you suggested. It's more like a standing wave. It does behave like a particle when jumping from one orbital to another but that's not really a movement around the nucleus, and what we mean by that is that the energy is quantized. The behavior is still very wave-like before and after the transition.


So when an electron occupies an orbital,

Does it fill the whole obital all of the time? Like smoke in a bottle?
en.wikipedia.org...

A more accurate analogy might be that of a large and often oddly shaped "atmosphere" (the electron), distributed around a relatively tiny planet (the atomic nucleus). Atomic orbitals exactly describe the shape of this "atmosphere" only when a single electron is present in an atom. When more electrons are added to a single atom, the additional electrons tend to more evenly fill in a volume of space around the nucleus so that the resulting collection (sometimes termed the atom’s “electron cloud”[6]) tends toward a generally spherical zone of probability describing where the atom’s electrons will be found.



Originally posted by ImaFungi
I would also like to ask; Is the reason the electron behaves as it does in the orbital because of forces felt by the electron from the nucleus, forces felt by the electron from other electrons in the orbital, and forces felt by the electron in the immediate environment surrounding this atom?
Those are factors but the standing wave behavior causes the wave function probability plots to not match the force distributions that you would consider if only looking at classical forces (without quantum mechanics).



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Those are factors but the standing wave behavior causes the wave function probability plots to not match the force distributions that you would consider if only looking at classical forces (without quantum mechanics).


Ok so besides what I mentioned, the additional information is the electron itself' energy potential? What causes the standing wave behavior and is this behavior only occurring when the electron is captured in an atoms orbital or are free electrons also standing waves? If we had a particle, for example a spherical ball of playdoh (because we thought electrons were particles, but then it turns out they might be waves or standing waves), and then we squeezed it out so it was no longer spherical but more like a long rectangular pancake or like a long hot dog, and then we held this shape either in the center or on both ends and moved our hand up and down, this would create a wave pattern. Are you saying that naturally, if all that existed in the universe was 1 electron, it would vibrate up and down (maybe other directions too) creating a standing wave frequency? The nature of the electron is that of a quantity vibrating regularly on its own?



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Hi all you smart people! A friend asked me a question yesterday and it's been on my mind ever since.

From what I remember, a diamond is coal that has been under great pressure and heat. Right?

If so, then there's this question: We can burn coal for energy, so can a diamond be burned for energy?



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 

Sure. But coal is a lot cheaper.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Question:If gravity is said to be weakened as the universe expands, and dark energy is the dominant force that is driving the expansion of our universe, then how could it be that dark energy can "push" or "move" a galaxy but doesn't rip apart the galaxy as it does so? Does dark energy not permeate the empty space within a galaxy and impose it's force on all the matter within it? Shouldn't it be a more dominant force than gravity to the point that it pushes all matter away from each other?

I hope my question makes some semblance of sense, and if it does, I realize there may not be a concrete answer to this



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Question:If gravity is said to be weakened as the universe expands, and dark energy is the dominant force that is driving the expansion of our universe, then how could it be that dark energy can "push" or "move" a galaxy but doesn't rip apart the galaxy as it does so? Does dark energy not permeate the empty space within a galaxy and impose it's force on all the matter within it? Shouldn't it be a more dominant force than gravity to the point that it pushes all matter away from each other?

I hope my question makes some semblance of sense, and if it does, I realize there may not be a concrete answer to this


Makes a lot of sense to me. If we had a cluster of objects floating in a pool of water and turned on a water jet at the bottom of the pool, those objects would be pushed apart. Why not the same scenario with dark energy and the galaxies?



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by jiggerj
 

Sure. But coal is a lot cheaper.


Really? If the fire was hot enough it would set a diamond to burning?



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 

Yup. Hot enough and with a good oxygen supply.


edit on 6/21/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Question:If gravity is said to be weakened as the universe expands, and dark energy is the dominant force that is driving the expansion of our universe, then how could it be that dark energy can "push" or "move" a galaxy but doesn't rip apart the galaxy as it does so? Does dark energy not permeate the empty space within a galaxy and impose it's force on all the matter within it? Shouldn't it be a more dominant force than gravity to the point that it pushes all matter away from each other?

I hope my question makes some semblance of sense, and if it does, I realize there may not be a concrete answer to this
Yes the question makes perfect sense and since dark energy still isn't completely understood the answer is less than concrete. As far as we can guess based on the available data, dark energy does seem to also permeate all space and if it does, it also tries to push galaxies apart as you describe. It might even be trying to push the Earth away from the sun. The reason it only succeeds a tiny bit is that gravity is a much stronger force.

For example, the strength of the dark energy force has been modeled in our solar system, and the result was that the magnitude of the expected effect would be too small for us to measure, and moreover would be dwarfed by other effects like the fact that the sun is losing mass as it converts hydrogen to helium so the Earth's orbit is increasing far more rapidly from that than from any possible dark energy effect, and it's not increasing all that rapidly from the loss of mass in the sun.

While the earth-sun distance seems vast on human scales, it's tiny on the cosmic distance scales over which dark energy is thought to operate. So the two reasons dark energy has a lot more effect on galaxies separating are:

1. There is more space between galaxies for the dark energy to add up to significant amounts, and
2. They are so far apart that gravitational forces are weak and unable to largely offset dark energy force as happens inside the galaxy

Even a galaxy supercluster has enough gravity to largely offset the metric expansion of space, so to get a lot of expansion you need to look at larger scales than that.
edit on 21-6-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join