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.

 

Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

page: 39
55
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel

How about learning about 1-d wave equation and then classical acoustics first, it's simpler then EM having only a scalar pressure field.

OK, let's start more basic. Do you know what an ordinary differential equation is? In particular, an initial-value problem for describing equations of motion? Do you understand the concept of a 'differential equation of motion' in physics? If not, start there before complaining about how to intuitively grok quantum field theory.


Is reality composed of differential equations of motion? And that is the quantitative comprehension of the quality of what is doing the motion? And then the particle and field aspect is the attempt to ascribe a qualitative understanding to the bare raw symbolism the math provides?

Im just very concerned for the state of physics that it cant tell me what 'that which exists in/as empty space' is. It is said empty space is pure fields. EM field, gravity field. So do you imagine that in space there are lines, field lines, that are made of EM? And the gravity field is field lines made of gravity essence?

How do these 2 fields exist in relation to each other? Holographically on top? next to? Entwined?

How does one field exist as itself. What is in between the field lines? Or are the field lines all touching, as to make a field fabric or sheet? Are they touching length wise and height wise and width wise? Are the field lines made of particles?

If the field lines are not touching, how are they held together? What exists between them?



Wow you just make all kinds of assumptions. No one in physics thinks empty space is pure fields this is your idea i keep trying to tell you is wrong. I explained ground states each point in space has itss own energy and its own ground state. This means every point in the universe is its own system instead of a tiny ground state energy for a single system, in any given region of space you have lots of systems. These form the ground state energy density, which is more commonly known as the “zero point energy”. You are so stuck on fields you keep running right back to it like a lost puppy. Fields only exist where matter exists you need a particle to have a field period.As i said the true force your looking for is energy. The universe is entirely energy doesnt matter if its fields light or matter its states of energy. And when you have energy it can remain in a rest state or its lowest energy state without adding additional energy. To kick off even this vacuum energy you need to add energy to the system. This is why we cant use vacuum energy to power anything theres no free ride it requires energy to use it.

Let me use this example i heard somewhere the ocean has alot of water theres alot of potential energy from water at the surface to the depths of the ocean. but to use this energy we would need to pump all the water out and capture it as it falls back in. Meaning in the end it would cost us energy to use this potential energy. This is how fields work there is energy there but we need to add energy to use it. So when an electron uses this energy to transfer energy it required energy in the first place.




posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr


Fields only exist where matter exists you need a particle to have a field period.

That's not the way I heared it.

"Photon is the field." ~ buddhasystem



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation
This is why I like students, not followers. Students question what they're told and try to poke at it for inconsistencies, just like you did there.

Well dragonridr was correct about the a particle being required for a field (at least according to theory as I understand it), and the photon is a particle, and that much is consistent with what buddhasystem said which I agree with.

The distinction between matter and energy can get a little confusing though. Photons are massless so I consider them energy rather than matter. (The left side of the E=mc^2 equation rather than the right side). Well then, what about gluons? They are also considered massless, but the quarks only make up maybe 10% the mass of the proton and the gluons apparently make up the other 90% of mass, so are they a form of matter even though they are massless?

This is the closest thing to an answer I can find:

Matter

Before the 20th century, the term matter included ordinary matter composed of atoms, and excluded other energy phenomena such as light or sound. This concept of matter may be generalized from atoms to include any objects having mass even when at rest, but this is ambiguous because an object's mass can arise from its (possibly-massless) constituents' motion and interaction energies. Thus, matter does not have a universal definition, nor is it a fundamental concept, in physics today.
Well there you have it, dragonridr may be right after all if the definition of matter is so muddled we aren't sure what it is anymore.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

In QM matter is energy nothing more and when looking at it energy is matter they both effect gravity they both cause interactions. A photon can become matter i think i showed you that article a while ago. At this point in the game there is no difference. Thats why Dark energy is always included when we talk about the universe its no diffrent from the stars we see it has gravity and effects the universe.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr
This may be the way physicists now think of it, but the way the general population thinks about it, and ordinary dictionaries aren't entirely consistent with these definitions, hence the confusion. For example:

physics.about.com...

Definition: Matter has many definitions, but the most common is that it is any substance which has mass and occupies space. All physical objects are composed of matter, in the form of atoms, which are in turn composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Photons have no mass, so they are an example of something in physics is not comprised of matter. They are also not considered "objects" in the traditional sense, as they cannot exist in a stationary state.
And this is from the physics branch of about.com so one would think a physics-specific definition would be used. I think the term matter isn't well defined anymore.

By any chance do you have a better definition than this?
edit on 29-4-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: dragonridr
This may be the way physicists now think of it, but the way the general population thinks about it, and ordinary dictionaries aren't entirely consistent with these definitions, hence the confusion. For example:

physics.about.com...

Definition: Matter has many definitions, but the most common is that it is any substance which has mass and occupies space. All physical objects are composed of matter, in the form of atoms, which are in turn composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Photons have no mass, so they are an example of something in physics is not comprised of matter. They are also not considered "objects" in the traditional sense, as they cannot exist in a stationary state.
And this is from the physics branch of about.com so one would think a physics-specific definition would be used. I think the term matter isn't well defined anymore.

By any chance do you have a better definition than this?


The definition itself of matter is vague but hasnt really changed where talking property wise as i said matter is just energy to a physicists. Matter is just another state of energy When you go into equations there is no difference except matter is more potential energy.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi


Is reality composed of differential equations of motion?


Ever since Newton, that's what physics, namely interactions and changes, found has worked over and over.


And that is the quantitative comprehension of the quality of what is doing the motion? And then the particle and field aspect is the attempt to ascribe a qualitative understanding to the bare raw symbolism the math provides?


Well, yes. In real physics, the "field" has a specific mathematical meaning.



Im just very concerned for the state of physics that it cant tell me what 'that which exists in/as empty space' is. It is said empty space is pure fields.


Non-empty space too! (Particles are elementary excitations---bumps that don't go away---in the fields).


EM field, gravity field. So do you imagine that in space there are lines, field lines, that are made of EM?


Lines are a graphical technique to display properties of a field for human visualization.



And the gravity field is field lines made of gravity essence?


In modern physics gravity is believed to be special and not necessarily "in" the fields as Yet Another Field. Somehow the future unification will fix this but we don't know what that looks like.



How do these 2 fields exist in relation to each other? Holographically on top? next to? Entwined?


Yes, electron fields, EM fields, all the other fields in SM exist everwhere in spacetime. In principle, some set of values as a function of x,y,z,t. Now in QFT there are wavefunctions of these functions which are really the objects in question but that's a second level.


How does one field exist as itself.


They just seem to do that on their own. There has never been any area of space, say free from electromagnetism----not "zero values of the EM field" ---- but free from the ability to propagate such fields because they don't exist in that geometrical place. It comes as part of the package deal in this Universe.


What is in between the field lines? Or are the field lines all touching, as to make a field fabric or sheet? Are they touching length wise and height wise and width wise? Are the field lines made of particles?


Stop worrying about field lines. They're like lines on a contour plot of a geophysical elevation, just graphical aids for human consumption and play no role in physics.



If the field lines are not touching, how are they held together? What exists between them?


if they're not anything important, it doesn't matter.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   


originally posted by: Arbitrageur
er, in the form of atoms, which are in turn composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Photons have no mass, so they are an example of something in physics is not comprised of matter. They are also not considered "objects" in the traditional sense, as they cannot exist in a stationary state.
And this is from the physics branch of about.com so one would think a physics-specific definition would be used. I think the term matter isn't well defined anymore.

By any chance do you have a better definition than this?


A good translation of the intuitive term "matter" would correspond, in physics, to particles with non-zero rest mass, and conservation laws on their number. This excludes bosons like photons (which have zero mass and can be created/destroyed at will), and includes matter like electrons and nuclei, which, thanks to laws of physics, can sit still and don't easily go away, as the interactions to create or destroy them are very rare in practical human life.
edit on 29-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel


originally posted by: Arbitrageur
er, in the form of atoms, which are in turn composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Photons have no mass, so they are an example of something in physics is not comprised of matter. They are also not considered "objects" in the traditional sense, as they cannot exist in a stationary state.
And this is from the physics branch of about.com so one would think a physics-specific definition would be used. I think the term matter isn't well defined anymore.

By any chance do you have a better definition than this?


A good translation of the intuitive term "matter" would correspond, in physics, to particles with non-zero rest mass, and conservation laws on their number. This excludes bosons like photons (which have zero mass and can be created/destroyed at will), and includes matter like electrons and nuclei, which, thanks to laws of physics, can sit still and don't easily go away, as the interactions to create or destroy them are very rare in practical human life.


Throw in integer spin and even this definition gets murky. Not to mention theres still a debate on if photons have mass. It doesn't break the laws of physics if it does. In fact we can create anti-matter using photons. When you stop a gamma-ray a particle and an anti-particle forming a positron and an electron), but as opposite charges attract, they typically immediately collide, annihilate each other, and produce another gamma-ray. But with powerful electromagnets perfectly arranged, you can keep the 2 particles apart and you have matter well more accurately anti-matter.The only difference really between light and matter is matter cant travel at the speed of light.




Light Changed to Matter, Then Stopped and Moved

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Feb. 8, 2007 -- By converting light into matter and then back again, physicists have for the first time stopped a light pulse and then restarted it a small distance away. This "quantum mechanical magic trick" provides unprecedented control over light and could have applications in fiber-optic communication and quantum information processing.


edit on 4/29/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr


Not to mention theres still a debate on if photons have mass.

Why? If the following is true,


The only difference really between light and matter is matter cant travel at the speed of light.

Help?



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: dragonridr


Not to mention theres still a debate on if photons have mass.

Why? If the following is true,


The only difference really between light and matter is matter cant travel at the speed of light.

Help?


Wow we keep getting onn weird topics in here. Ok it was standard for matter to be considered fermions its a common definition you still see it used. well this definition has been expanded to cover bosons as well like in in HE4 which wouldnt fit under older definition.the problem is were finding more similarities than differences between light and matter. So in physics they kind of avoid using the term altogether really except in an equation when describing a property of a particle.

Now i see i threw you off by what you see as a contradiction so lets talk about that. Now i dont believe it does however there are physists that argue it does have a slight mass,and no this doesnt violate our laws of physics. If the photon did have a small rest mass that would mean that one of lower frequency would travel slightly slower than one of higher frequency. Meaning that little bit of mass that it does have would slightly slow it down we could be talking .999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 the speed of light that was fun on my phone. Any way im convinced it doesnt and ill tell you why we should be able to see it, Short wavelength light coming from a super nova explosion very distant in the universe would reach the Earth a little before longer wavelengths. Sinced this hasnt been observed i doubt its likely. However i have a friend and we had this argument and he will point out to be the distance would have to be great enough to overcome the margin of error in are instruments and believes we may already have seen this and dismissed it. I personally think the argument is well false but alas he could be right and it would require further research. So i cant say with certainty hes wrong.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

On your phone? Save your thumbs.
Remember I'm real simple with this stuff, like this
I thought it was impossible for mass to reach lightspeed. If a photon has mass that would mean a photon could not travel at lightspeed.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: dragonridr

On your phone? Save your thumbs.
Remember I'm real simple with this stuff, like this
I thought it was impossible for mass to reach lightspeed. If a photon has mass that would mean a photon could not travel at lightspeed.


Ok ill explain it this way lets say photons do indeed have a slight mass. What we call the speed of light is simply than the lowest mass that can attain what we would call the speed of light. Higher frequencies would have even a smaller mass and move enev faster. The only problem is the difference we would be talking about would be so small that light would have to travel trillions of light years for us to even notice. So what we assume to be the speed of light without mass is actually the speed of light with almost no mass. This of course means heavier particles will again travel slower than that.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
that little bit of mass that it does have would slightly slow it down we could be talking .999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 the speed of light
Is that the thinking on neutrinos, that they have mass so are traveling the speed of light but maybe such a small hair under that we can't measure the difference?



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr
Frequency doesn't affect velocity. EM radiation travels at lightspeed, period, or I'm done with science!!


No matter how *small* the mass, either SR or GR or both say no lightspeed for mass. Mass increases with velocity I'm told, requiring more energy to accelerate it. Acceleration of mass to lightspeed would approach infinite mass requiring infinite energy... or something like that.

Not trying to be difficult but this is thoroughly confusing.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Its an interesting question, there have been a few anomalous events in a few neutrino experiments around the world that actually suggest they saw a ultra-cool neutrino.

these where in trackers, where two tracks are observed and one of the fitted events that works energetically is the production of a slow neutrino from a inverse beta/electron capture. You observe the neutron, and then another track a small time later.

Now given that the neutrino should travel very close to the speed of light, this neutrino candidate was very late.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel


Lines are a graphical technique to display properties of a field for human visualization.


So do physicists know what the lines represent in reality? Do the lines in their graphical technique = lines that exist in reality?

If not, what are the lines representing? (and I understand either way that answer will entail, energy, they are representing an area or volume of energy that is a space of the universe that is the universe but,) How do physicists think the fields they represent with lines, really physically exist? I read bellow you say the field lines are like those of geographical contortion. So 'there is something there', the something that is there is what I am trying to comprehend, what it is. You are now saying field theory is not in anyway a fundamental replica of reality, but a tool of measuring the fundamental of reality? Like reality is not composed of inches and feet and miles and seconds and minutes and hours, but we can place these tools of measurement on top of reality, to organize our understanding of it, and watch how it moves under our measuring restrictions to compare its parts to its parts.




In modern physics gravity is believed to be special and not necessarily "in" the fields as Yet Another Field. Somehow the future unification will fix this but we don't know what that looks like.


Ok so what do you mean by in the fields. Do physicists really think that there is an entire universally encompassing field for each of the hundreds of fundamental particles? Or is there a general consensus that there are only a handful of all encompassing universal energy fields (EM, Gravity, Higgs, quark, electron, etc.)?

And so if we imagined the universe to be a 3d sphere, and each fundamental field to be assigned a color (red, blue, green, yellow, purple), the field view of reality is in this example, a 3d sphere, full of many colors? And the colors are mixing making new colors, and the colors are 'physically and materially substantial' (as in, being substance...non nothing), and the colors do not represent superficial or arbitrary quality, but as different as classically we know two things can be in terms of quality, the fundamental colors or fields, are of differing quality, characteristics, and so in this sphere, the universe, they interact at different points throughout, depending on their inherent characteristics, the relativistic characteristics of what they have experienced prior that put them in their relativistic energetic trajectory, and all at all points react appropriately by law of quantity and quality to all that is locally surrounding.

I was going to say an, or...is it like this, but that seems like it may be the only interpretation. The ,or, I was going to say was that there colors remain untainted, that in the sphere the colors exist overlapping and there is no bleeding or leaking or lessening of quantity over time, but their reactions amongst and between one another are only temporary and cosmetic interactions from one color to another, or one field to another, but this is also wrong, because it would kind of imply no movement, there needs to be dynamicism for 'things to work and happen', which is time, which is transformation of energy, which is fields changing and interacting.

So I dont know how to view the nature of fundamental fields, as if there can be a pure all encompassing substance that is wholly it self, and then from there parts of it react and change and interact with other pure wholly unto themselves fundamental fields. Would it not seem more likely more of a sort of messiness, like a soup or stew, but one in which all the constituents are able to trade places, but as energy cannot be created or destroyed, the equation is always balanced, so all 'fields' and energy, in theory can turn into and take the place (not over time and space, like right now a quark in my mind can take the place of a quark in the furthest galaxy from here) of any other range of field and energy, because all parts are of the same primal substance, and they are all interchangeable, but for their current circumstances, of relativity, and past circumstances which went into stabilizing and structuring that quanta of energy into its current form.

For example think of that atoms between the surface and core of earth, some of which have been trapped there a long time (if I am not wrong), and in all likelihood will be trapped for a long while still. While in theory it is not impossible for 'that which those atoms are' to be radiated down to the finer fields of the foundation (maybe?). So if this is true, this line of thinking in any semblance, how then is it explained the existence of stable pure fields, who maintain their greater structure, while mingling and being tampered with locally, but remain a great strong pure fundamental field throughout the universe?



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: dragonridr

On your phone? Save your thumbs.
Remember I'm real simple with this stuff, like this
I thought it was impossible for mass to reach lightspeed. If a photon has mass that would mean a photon could not travel at lightspeed.


Ok ill explain it this way lets say photons do indeed have a slight mass. What we call the speed of light is simply than the lowest mass that can attain what we would call the speed of light. Higher frequencies would have even a smaller mass and move enev faster. The only problem is the difference we would be talking about would be so small that light would have to travel trillions of light years for us to even notice. So what we assume to be the speed of light without mass is actually the speed of light with almost no mass. This of course means heavier particles will again travel slower than that.


Basically the whole definition of mass is that which does not automatically travel at the speed of the fastest light, so then when they got to working out the mass of the fastest speed of light they said, well this doesnt fit our definition of mass, so this is the 0 so to speak, the no mass, which all other mass will be compared against?



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: dragonridr
Frequency doesn't affect velocity. EM radiation travels at lightspeed, period, or I'm done with science!!


No matter how *small* the mass, either SR or GR or both say no lightspeed for mass. Mass increases with velocity I'm told, requiring more energy to accelerate it. Acceleration of mass to lightspeed would approach infinite mass requiring infinite energy... or something like that.

Not trying to be difficult but this is thoroughly confusing.



Ok the frequency would indicate lower mass it doesnt affect the mass so lets get that out of the way. Frequency can be directly related to energy which in tern can be related to velocity.Math stuff but just remeber what if we dont know the true speed of a massless particle and this whole time we thought photons have no mass they do. Then what they means is we are simply seeing how fast the lightest particles we know of travel. As i said there is some debate going on like neutrinos which was mentioned just now. What this would mean to physics is there really is no massless particles but heres the catch your going to say well Einstein said a particle cant move at the speed of light right,But that means that if it has a slight mass that that isnt the speed limit its higher than what we think is the speed of light.So than the question becomes what is the fastest particle and what's its mass. Than we could tell the true upper limit anything can travel by removing that mass.

See if photons have mass than frequency becomes important because well there is no upper limit as far as we know that means theoretically there could be an upper frequency that breaks what we assume to be light speed.As i said i dont agree with this line of thought but it is indeed being investigated and i could be wrong.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel


Lines are a graphical technique to display properties of a field for human visualization.


So do physicists know what the lines represent in reality? Do the lines in their graphical technique = lines that exist in reality?


No. If you go to a mountain and look at the contour plots of elevation, are those lines painted on the mountain every 50 feet? No.




If not, what are the lines representing? (and I understand either way that answer will entail, energy, they are representing an area or volume of energy that is a space of the universe that is the universe but,)


It's what you get by integrating (e.g. following) the vector field, as if you drop a few tiny particles of ink and see where they would go if pushed by the vector field at their respective points, meaning that the vector is a direction in space everywhere you go. A vector field is not strange---imagine the flow of a fluid, the velocity everywhere is a vector field. How do you visualize what a 3-d flow is? That's what streamlines are, and in fluid chambers (liquid and gas) they actually do insert colored liquid/gas and the motion turns them into 'streamlines', and these are ways to visualize what is happening in the actual field.itself.


How do physicists think the fields they represent with lines, really physically exist? I read bellow you say the field lines are like those of geographical contortion. So 'there is something there', the something that is there is what I am trying to comprehend, what it is. You are now saying field theory is not in anyway a fundamental replica of reality, but a tool of measuring the fundamental of reality? Like reality is not composed of inches and feet and miles and seconds and minutes and hours, but we can place these tools of measurement on top of reality, to organize our understanding of it, and watch how it moves under our measuring restrictions to compare its parts to its parts.


Reality is closest to what is the same for everybody and yields predictable physical results.





Ok so what do you mean by in the fields. Do physicists really think that there is an entire universally encompassing field for each of the hundreds of fundamental particles? Or is there a general consensus that there are only a handful of all encompassing universal energy fields (EM, Gravity, Higgs, quark, electron, etc.)?


More like the second---that's what the Standard Model means. There aren't hundreds of fundamental particles, there are hundreds of non-fundamental particles which turn out to be collections of fundamental particles.

Roughly there is one "electron field" and all electrons in the universe are various excitations of that field just as there is one EM field and all photons are excitations of this field. Beyond this you'll need to talk to somebody who knows the real details since it's not as simple as this in practice.
edit on 30-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join