Ask any question you want about Physics

This subject of general interrelated topics in physics became the topic of another thread where it wasn't the original topic, so I thought it might be a good idea to continue the discussion in this thread where it will be on-topic. Here is the previous thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The current topic is about quantum mechanics (QM), and whether this quantum mechanical model is an accurate representation of reality or not, but you don't have to limit questions to this specific part of physics, you can ask any questions in this thread as long as the topic has something to do with physics.

The scientific consensus is that the QM model makes accurate predictions so it's an effective model.
However there is no scientific consensus about the underlying reality of the model. The most popular interpretation is called the "Copenhagen interpretation", but there are others, some of which are discussed in this video:

Quantum Mechanics (an embarrassment) - Sixty Symbols


I'm not personally a fan of the "Many worlds" interpretation mentioned in that video but even the proponent of that interpretation says the troubling part isn't that scientists don't agree with his favorite, it's that there's no consensus, on ANY of the interpretations.

So as an introduction to this topic of asking questions about physics, I think it's worth noting that as admitted in this video, scientists don't have all the answers and don't claim to. So if your question was, "Which interpretation is correct?", as explained in the video, nobody knows, so not all questions can be answered. We could however discuss things like pros and cons of various options in cases like this.

Some people have the idea that scientists like the implications of QM, but actually it was not accepted with open arms because it doesn't seem compatible with a human sense of logic. One of the founders of quantum mechanics, Erwin Schrodinger said:

www.brainyquote.com...

I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.

Most people don't like it when they first learn about it, because the experimental results don't agree with what we think is logical, so we try different versions of the experiments over and over and over again, and they always give us the same results, consistent with QM but not with our human logic. I think most scientists finally accept the experimental results, and that they cannot be explained classically, but some non-scientists like this man with a background in computer software thinks experiments can be explained classically:

Russ Blake Spring Theory HD


What's funny about that lecture is that Feynman said in his lecture that he won't say the universe is like a ball bearing on a spring, because that's not how it is, but essentially Russ Blake says it's like a ball bearing on a spring. If he can prove it I guess he will get a Nobel prize but physics is a complex subject and he's right about at least one thing, which is that if you don't have a degree in physics, the physics community doesn't take your ideas seriously.

But Blake is wrong if he thinks it's about snobbishness, it's not. The reason is that for people like him to think "outside the box", they first have to know what is "inside the box", and that's what a physics degree gives you. There is a whole lot of experimental evidence for what's inside the box, and people unfamiliar with that come up with ideas to solve problems without knowing about experiments that already falsify these ideas.

In spite of his lack of physics degree, the first 10 minutes of the video explaining all the problems with modern physics is actually a fairly accurate description of the major unsolved problems. He would be a hero if he solved even one of them, and apparently he thinks his classical solution solves all of them!?

There's food for thought to get you thinking. Feel free now to ask any physics questions, and hopefully some of the people on ATS who know physics can help answer them.

It is often said that gravity and centrifugal 'force' aren't really forces, although they act like forces.

So what are they, then?

I've always thought the Shroedinger's Cat riddle was a little funny. Put a cat in a box. I can give you a definitive answer after about 3 months. The cat is definitely dead.

What's the point? iT DOESN'T prove ANYTHING! and your scientist, so your just going to talk down to us anyway. IIt's like talking to politicians, or democrats or republicans. Again. Pointless. I used to LOVE science. Now I realize that Science, Politics and Public Education all have one thing in common. They are all USELESS and should be discontinued. Then the planet will devolve into what it is supposed to be. A comfy little creche were angry monkey can wait out his days, waiting for the Sun to die. Without the perversions of science, politics or public education,this would be a groovy place. But your saying "without us, nothing in life would be worth while and nothing would work" Yeah. Can do without the arrogance also.

originally posted by: Astyanax
It is often said that gravity and centrifugal 'force' aren't really forces, although they act like forces.

So what are they, then?

Gravity is a force, which is one of the three or four fundamental forces (depending on how you count them, the electro-weak force can be counted as one or two).

Centrifugal force is a "fictitious" or "apparent" force, but what they say about it not being a real force is the correct view according to physicists. The basic concept is "an object in motion tends to remain in motion", so when your car goes around a corner fast, you feel like you're flung to the outside of the turn by a "centrifugal force", but it's really just your inertia trying to keep you going in the same direction, and inertia is not a force, it's inertia.

en.wikipedia.org...

The centrifugal force is what is usually thought of as the cause for the outward movement like that of passengers in a vehicle turning a corner, of the weights in a centrifugal governor, and of particles in a centrifuge. From the standpoint of an observer in an inertial frame, the effects can be explained as results of inertia without invoking the centrifugal force.

originally posted by: skunkape23
I've always thought the Shroedinger's Cat riddle was a little funny. Put a cat in a box. I can give you a definitive answer after about 3 months. The cat is definitely dead.

Finally, an unambiguous answer to the riddle, or a modified version of it anyway!

originally posted by: tencap77
What's the point? iT DOESN'T prove ANYTHING! and your scientist, so your just going to talk down to us anyway. IIt's like talking to politicians, or democrats or republicans. Again. Pointless. I used to LOVE science. Now I realize that Science, Politics and Public Education all have one thing in common. They are all USELESS and should be discontinued. Then the planet will devolve into what it is supposed to be. A comfy little creche were angry monkey can wait out his days, waiting for the Sun to die. Without the perversions of science, politics or public education,this would be a groovy place. But your saying "without us, nothing in life would be worth while and nothing would work" Yeah. Can do without the arrogance also.

As I said in the OP:

So as an introduction to this topic of asking questions about physics, I think it's worth noting that as admitted in this video, scientists don't have all the answers and don't claim to.

I think people who think scientists are arrogant don't know that many real scientists. Sure a few people are arrogant in every field, and science is no exception. But most scientists are pretty honest about what they don't know, which is still quite a bit. They also admit that what they think they do know can be falsified or revised by a new observation or experiment, and this is the very definition of science, and to me it's not nearly as arrogant as say, some religious doctrines.

If it weren't for science, you wouldn't have been able to make that post, or have internet access.

A few months ago thereabouts, a plane with a very unique sounding engine(military/experimental methinks) flew overhead and used some sort of psychotronic weapon on me.

The air around me smelled burnt and I could definitely feel like I was being hit by some kind of radiation.

What was this?

I have no post-secondary science education, the last time I was in a science class was in high-school in the early 90's. Please take this into consideration if you choose to answer my question(s).

If a lighter-than-air object is spinning in a spiral, could that give the object propulsion against gravity? (terrestrial gravity, near sea level, at room temperature).

Could a persons body heat create a thermal difference to cause lighter than air objects to float (upward) when in close proximity to the person? (terrestrial gravity, near seal level, at room temperature)

Those will do for now. Please dont laugh.

a reply to: PraiseTheHighestOne
Sorry, no idea.

originally posted by: RifRAAF
If a lighter-than-air object is spinning in a spiral, could that give the object propulsion against gravity? (terrestrial gravity, near sea level, at room temperature).

If I understand your question, this describes the motion of helicopter blades as the helicopter ascends.

Could a persons body heat create a thermal difference to cause lighter than air objects to float (upward) when in close proximity to the person? (terrestrial gravity, near seal level, at room temperature)

It's conceivable but I've never done such an experiment, but here's what I'd try: get a very light thin plastic bag like a dry cleaning bag or grocery store produce bag, but any holes need to be sealed. Then when it's cold, exhale your warm air into the bag and see if you can create a miniature "hot air balloon". Not sure if it will work, depends on how hot your air is, how cold it is outside, how heavy the bag is, etc. I think the average human gives off the equivalent of something like a 100W light bulb worth of heat, which is probably more than a small Chinese lantern and they obviously float; the trick is how to concentrate that heat into something that can use it. By the way if you've been exercising you give off even more heat so you might have better luck after running a mile.

Quantum entanglement seems to infer the structure of our universe is not as black and white as the great Einstein once theorized which seems to side with theories that suggest our universe is a holographic projection ....
www.nature.com...

Love to hear your thoughts on quantum entanglement. Will one day it allow us to see other worlds without the need of telescopes.

This is a serious question. I understand that quantum physics applies to the micro-scale. How do you imagine that it could overlap into the macro-scale in such a way that two observers could find themselves relocated in space and time? I'm talking about maybe 10 miles and an hour or two. I have experienced this with a witness. As far as I'm aware there was no alien abduction scenario.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
Thanks--that was helpful. 100w globes do give off enough I think heat, just look at the dust floating up above an on desk lamp.

What I meant by spinning in a spiral is a little different to helicopter blades. A spiral, like a spring sort of, spinning and advancing upwards, as if drilling thru the air. Not like the Michaelangelo helicopter model, more of a coiled thread.

It has been helpful, thanks.

a reply to: glend
My thoughts are that the No communication theorem will probably hold to be true, but of course I could be wrong and it's entirely conceivable an experiment could be performed to falsify this theorem.

If that theorem holds, then I don't see how it could allow us to see other worlds without telescopes, or communicate faster than light. However, quantum entanglement does have a very useful application which we apparently now need. Crypto based on quantum entanglement may be the only type of encryption which can't be hacked by the NSA or spies in general.

a reply to: skunkape23
No idea, not sure if anybody else can help with that. Quantum mechanics also applies to larger objects, but in general, the larger the object, the less noticeable the quantum effects.

originally posted by: tencap77
What's the point? iT DOESN'T prove ANYTHING! and your scientist, so your just going to talk down to us anyway. IIt's like talking to politicians, or democrats or republicans. Again. Pointless. I used to LOVE science. Now I realize that Science, Politics and Public Education all have one thing in common. They are all USELESS and should be discontinued. Then the planet will devolve into what it is supposed to be. A comfy little creche were angry monkey can wait out his days, waiting for the Sun to die. Without the perversions of science, politics or public education,this would be a groovy place. But your saying "without us, nothing in life would be worth while and nothing would work" Yeah. Can do without the arrogance also.

Ill let you in on a secret scientists love arguing about science and we try to come up with things that would seem outrageous but can be proved by science. As far as questions you get the best questions from people trying to learn.Now your issue with humanity well thats another issue entirely us talking apes try to do the best we can.And education is never a bad thing public or otherwise me personally i think education should be free even college because i see education as a right. But that aside i will say there is alot of politics involved in colleges but probably not the way your thinking mostly with grants and tenure.

originally posted by: PraiseTheHighestOne
A few months ago thereabouts, a plane with a very unique sounding engine(military/experimental methinks) flew overhead and used some sort of psychotronic weapon on me.

The air around me smelled burnt and I could definitely feel like I was being hit by some kind of radiation.

What was this?

The only thing i could possibly think of is a pulse jet in which case you might feel a vibration because they use resonant combustion.Also you can get a strage feeling around helicopters for the same reason really. So it would be like standing in front of a speaker you could feel vibrations. You wouldn't feel radiation at all unless i guess it burned your skin much like a sun burn so it wouldnt be radiation.

originally posted by: RifRAAF
What I meant by spinning in a spiral is a little different to helicopter blades. A spiral, like a spring sort of, spinning and advancing upwards, as if drilling thru the air. Not like the Michaelangelo helicopter model, more of a coiled thread.

You mean like the Leonardo DaVinci aerial screw, but thinner? You could compare those designs to the helicopter, but from my limited knowledge of aeronautical engineering, the tail rotor is essential to the helicopter or any similar alternate designs like you're thinking of. The reason is the tail rotor prevents the helicopter from spinning around as you try to accelerate the rotating blades.

There is an alternative to tail rotor designs that instead uses two main counter-rotating blades, which can cancel out and balance each others rotational effects, but that would be really hard to do with coils.

originally posted by: RifRAAF
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Thanks--that was helpful. 100w globes do give off enough I think heat, just look at the dust floating up above an on desk lamp.

What I meant by spinning in a spiral is a little different to helicopter blades. A spiral, like a spring sort of, spinning and advancing upwards, as if drilling thru the air. Not like the Michaelangelo helicopter model, more of a coiled thread.

It has been helpful, thanks.

Sounds like your thinking more fluid dynamics water has been used to simulate air pressure in flight i know it sounds odd but heres an example.But for the sake of your experiment remember air has to move around it very similar to water. A propeller in the air or under water works the same. In your example if you created spirals as your balloon increased altitude you could make it spin. with weather balloons they try to just the opposite and limit the spin with stabilizers.

www.retronaut.com...

Should we continue on about why physics is where we are now and how Einstein started it than got scared of the implications?

a reply to: dragonridr
Yes, Einstein seemed intent on finding a better explanation for experiments in quantum mechanics (that would seem more logical to him), as illustrated in his Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. After Einstein's death in 1955, a man named Bell came up with a theorem in 1964 "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox" that some physicists think was one of the most important theorems ever, while others seem to think it not that important. It apparently showed that Einstein's hope for finding more deterministic explanations might not be fulfilled (and so far they haven't been), does this sound about right? Feel free to elaborate.

originally posted by: Astyanax
It is often said that gravity and centrifugal 'force' aren't really forces, although they act like forces.

So what are they, then?

Physicists don't know what inertia is, except that it's a property of matter. I don't think they like being asked this.

I know for a fact they hate it when people talk about the centrifugal and inertial forces in general. They like to claim inertial forces don't exist, aren't real.

They like to call these forces fictitious or pseudoforces:

en.wikipedia.org...

And pretend they're no real, they don't exist.

And what they especially hate is using the equivalence principle to claim that inertial forces are, actually, real forces.

Because, in the reference frame of the wheel or the accelerating body / vehicle, they are indistinguishable from gravity and external acceleration in the opposite direction.

So, according to the equivalence principle, they are, in fact, forces.

en.wikipedia.org...

Boy, do they hate it when you say that!

That'll get you banned from their forums tout suite.

originally posted by: glend
Quantum entanglement seems to infer the structure of our universe is not as black and white as the great Einstein once theorized which seems to side with theories that suggest our universe is a holographic projection ....
www.nature.com...

Love to hear your thoughts on quantum entanglement. Will one day it allow us to see other worlds without the need of telescopes.

Saved yours for last partly because its interesting. Quantum entanglement has some very weird implications for the structure of the universe but being a hologram isnt one of them,what i find interesting is maybe space its self doesnt exist so when w move the particles away from each other to them they never moved this is one theory to explain how they communicate faster than light. Then there are some others as well like involving time Einstine showed us individuals can have different reference frames though thru experiment this doesnt seem to be the case as far as i know anyway. But in theory you could have someone ahead of someone else in time much like are GPS sattelites there time reference is slightly different then ours down here on earth.The clocks at GPS orbital altitudes will tick faster by about 45,900 ns/day because they are in a weaker gravitational field than atomic clocks on Earth's surface.We constantly have to readjust them done now through software but for all practical purposes those satellites end up going ahead of us in time.