Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist
You apparently don't understand what it is you don't understand. Let me try to clarify by referring to your previous post:

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
The standard theorists have continually run into problems getting measurements to agree with their theories, so what they end up doing is, instead of altering their theories, they create systems of measurement that utilize "moving yardsticks."

There is no problem getting measurements to agree with the theories because the theories don't predict any specific values in general, though it would be nice if they did. That's the dream we would like to happen, to develop a theory which predicts what the constants should be, then we could check measurements against the theory.

The article you linked doesn't suggest anything like that. It only talks about improved measurements, but there's no predicted value to compare them with. With better measurement methods, we would hope to see less variability in the measured results.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok we are talking past each other.

Let me give you an example.

The speed of light is declared to be 299,792.458 km/s, this declaration is achieved by defining the meter as the distance traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second.

Thus, the speed of light will always be 299,792.458 km/s, no matter if the real distance it travels during that time varies significantly or not.

It's a sham measurement.

Thus when light constants are used in various models, it is purely an assumption that the constant is actually constant. It might not be constant at all!

a reply to: KyoZero

As Arbittrageur pointed out, a "Planck Length" is (hypothetically) the smallest possible unit of measurement, but that length is far far (far far far) smaller that anything we can measure with our current technology, or maybe with any technology.


One interesting thought experiment associated with measurement is the "Coastline Problem" or "Coastline Paradox"...

Imagine that you want to measure the length of a coastline. The measurement you get can be said to be limited by the size/precision of the measuring device you are using. For example in the images below (both taken from Wikipedia), if I want to measure the length of the coastline of the island of Great Britain, I would get different answers depending on the length of the measuring stick I used.

If I used a 100 km-long measuring stick, then I get a length for that coastline of 2800 km:



However, if I used a 50 km-long measuring stick, then the answer I get is 3400 km. That's because then I can get that finer measuring stick into more crags, bays, and inlets.


The finer my measurement method gets, the longer the coastline measurement gets. If my measuring stick was 1 meter, you could image that I could get that measuring stick into even finer "craggy" areas, and the measurement of the coastline would even be longer than when I used the 50 km stick. Imagine if my measuring stick was only 1 cm long; the total measurement of the coastline would be greater yet.

Taking this to the next logical level, lets imagine that I am able to use a microscopic measuring stick. I would be able to measure around each grain of sand and crystal of rock....and the coastline measurement I would again be longer than the previous measurement.

Now, what if there was no limit to how small my measuring stick could be. If I can continue using progressively infinitely smaller measuring sticks, then theoretically the measurement of the length of Great Britain's coastline could be said to actually be infinite in length (!)

Obviously (at least you would think), considering that the perimeter of Great Britain is a closed shape encircling a finite area, the coastline should have a finite length. But this thought experiment says otherwise -- hence the paradox.

One solution to this paradox would be to say that it is impossible to use infinitely smaller measuring sticks, and that eventually you would reach the lower limit for the length of your measuring stick (which would be the aforementioned "Planck Length"). The coastline measure using a Planck Length measuring stick would result in the longest possible measurement of the coastline -- which would make it finite.

Wikipedia -- Coastline Paradox

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Perhaps Pauli Exclusion is not universally applicable?

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
It's a sham measurement.

Thus when light constants are used in various models, it is purely an assumption that the constant is actually constant. It might not be constant at all!

The fact that we define the unit isn't a sham, that's simply the definition.

Measuring is another story, and some physicists actually do look for evidence regarding whether constants are constant or not. See this link and it has a list of references on the topic:

Have physical constants changed with time?

Over the past few decades, there have been extensive searches for evidence of variation of fundamental "constants." Among the methods used have been astrophysical observations of the spectra of distant stars, searches for variations of planetary radii and moments of inertia, investigations of orbital evolution, searches for anomalous luminosities of faint stars, studies of abundance ratios of radioactive nuclides, and (for current variations) direct laboratory measurements.

However measurement variability isn't considered good evidence that a constant isn't constant, and as you pointed out there is some of that in previous measurements of the gravitational constant. Maybe the method you cited will have less variability.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So you define good science as assuming constants are actually constant, even though we have no proof of said constants actually being "constant?"

How many assumptions do you need to make your theories work?

Have you ever sat down and created a list of all the assumptions that are necessary to keep the standard model propped up?

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

In response to your article, here's a 2013 article that talks about the variance of G

www.scientificamerican.com...

Of course, we aren't going to see any modern articles talking about the variance of c because physicists just threw out bothering to measure it at all.

So don't sit there and tell me there is no evidence for variance.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You're a smart guy Arbitrageur.

Why do you continue on supporting a model of cosmology that I know you know is a load of junk science?

Think of all the school kids that get this junk served up to them as gospel.

Think of all the money wasted on useless experiments that could have gone towards something productive.

What are you doing man?

I can tell the evidence in support of EU is eating away at you. It has to be gnawing on your conscience. You're avoiding me. You're playing this roll you have built up over your career, but it's just a roll man. It's fun to play the underdog once and a while. You should try it sometime.

On ATS there are no mods to censor the EU evidence. ATS is where the big boys play who aren't afraid to deal with the contradictions in the standard model. We could never have these conversations on any other physics board. I'm sure you are aware of this fact. The other scientists are too afraid to even look at the evidence. That says a lot about you.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist
The big bang bothered me more in the past because I couldn't imagine so much matter and energy in such a small space, but since I realized a couple of things:
1. Nature is indifferent about what I can imagine, so that's not really such a big deal for me anymore.
2. I really couldn't piece the evidence together any other way, and yes I've looked at evidence for alternate explanations to see if they made any sense, and I ended up seeing why they were rejected. I didn't just reject the ideas because someone else told me to.

However there are still numerous other unsolved problems with the standard model, and in cosmology. These problems bother a lot of physicists. One of them used to be the solar neutrino discrepancy, but I think that one was resolved around 2003 or so, so just because a problem is unsolved doesn't mean it won't be solved.

More importantly, any unsolved problems with mainstream science don't do anything alone to confirm alternate models, though EU proponents try to use this sales pitch, as to other cranks peddling other alternates to mainstream science. I'm fairly satisfied with the resolution to the solar neutrino problem and I can say now that I don't hesitate for a minute to say the sun isn't powered by electricity, and it's not because that's what I was taught, it's because the evidence supports nuclear fusion as the power source, though the result of this fusion cauldron can result in some interesting electrical properties of the sun, but these are within mainstream science.

I have read the links you posted positing alternates to standard cosmology like alternate redshift explanations, but my conclusion that redshift really means what mainstream thinks it dos aren't from ignoring that, it's from reading the links and concluding the evidence for the alternate models is lacking.

In short, inadequacies of mainstream models don't support any other model. Alternate models must stand on their own evidence and the electric universe model doesn't do that in many ways. It would be nice to solve some of the mainstream science unsolved problems, but I see EU as jumping from the frying pan to the fire, with many more problems, so it doesn't really solve anything and it's got even more problems than the standard model.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok, let's put your convictions to the test.

So you believe this paper showing 3 billion to 1 odds of discordant redshift is merely a coincidence.

You believe 85% of the universe's light is somehow "missing," even though the CIV effect could easily explain this.

You believe this is a picture of an erupting volcano spraying "lava" 100 km into the air. Look at that picture and tell me with a straight face you believe that's an erupting volcano.

As for the Sun, you still think a fusion model can explain it even though helioseismology says convective flows are moving 100 times slower than models thought possible?

You really believe this stuff?

Give me a break.

You're too smart to buy that crap. You're putting on some kind of act.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok, let's put your convictions to the test.

So you believe this paper showing 3 billion to 1 odds of discordant redshift is merely a coincidence.

There are problems with that paper. The 3 billion to 1 odds are for three galaxies having coincidental placement, but it's better explained with only two objects having coincidental placement, lowering the odds dramatically. Even if the odds are a million to one, if there are 100 billion galaxies, you should be able to find 100,000 examples of things that defy million to one odds of coincidences. In that perspective it's not really compelling that the two small objects can't be a coincidence, of appearance, like this:


Their argument is that foreground objects and background objects can't line up by coincidence. I say that not only that they can, but that they will, just because of the vast numbers of astronomical objects, we will inevitably see what look like coincidences in alignments, and Arp has other examples which are even less credible.

You believe 85% of the universe's light is somehow "missing," even though the CIV effect could easily explain this.

If mainstream is right, there must be ~5 times more matter than we can see to account for gravitational effects. Now you report the finding that there's also 5 times more UV light. Your source even includes the speculation that this 5 times more matter and 5 times more light could be related. Why couldn't they be related?

An astonishing five times too much, in fact, and it is leading astrophysicists to speculate that the photons could be coming from an “exotic new source“, or even decaying dark matter.

Of course that's speculation but I see nothing that compels me to throw mainstream theories out the window, especially since there are 5 times more of both unexplained matter and unexplained light.

You believe this is a picture of an erupting volcano spraying "lava" 100 km into the air. Look at that picture and tell me with a straight face you believe that's an erupting volcano.

Why not?

As for the Sun, you still think a fusion model can explain it even though helioseismology says convective flows are moving 100 times slower than models thought possible?

I never said we had all the answers about the sun, but claiming it's electric is no answer. That electric sun model has far worse problems than that example.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So just discard two of the four objects found to explain away the first paper, make sense to me. (I'd like to see the "problems" with this paper spelled out in detail, I'm curious why you would just discard two of the four objects found.)

Believe in invisible undetectable matter to explain things instead of laboratory proven physics, make sense.

Believe a picture of a hole in the ground is actually an erupting volcano spewing lava 100 km into the air without any smoke or lava plume being present, makes sense.

And just brush over the monumental problem of convective flows being to slow.

You're not that dumb.

This is some kind of act being played. It's like a gigantic trolling game or something.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So just discard two of the four objects found to explain away the first paper, make sense to me. (I'd like to see the "problems" with this paper spelled out in detail, I'm curious why you would just discard two of the four objects found.)

Believe in invisible undetectable matter to explain things instead of laboratory proven physics, make sense.

Believe a picture of a hole in the ground is actually an erupting volcano spewing lava 100 km into the air without any smoke or lava plume being present, makes sense.

And just brush over the monumental problem of convective flows being to slow.

You're not that dumb.

This is some kind of act being played. It's like a gigantic trolling game or something.

Boy i guess the guys at thunder bolts needs to update there material this was around early 90s.studies have shown discordant galaxies do not occur more often than can be explained by line-of-sight coincidences, and also there is independent physical evidence that discordant galaxies all have physical properties consistent with a cosmological distance; for example, those with higher redshift tend to be smaller and fainter than other members of the group.

Now convective slows the old model used to assume convective flows traveled straight up newer data showed us long term tubules that form circles trapping convention due to the spin of the sun. This is observed especially around the poles which also explains less sunspots in those regions two mysteries solved at once Hurah.

You really got to stop using those EU sights for information they never give you updates.Funniest part is you think by finding something that puzzles science somehow proves EU. Reminds me of religion anything that couldnt be explained was god go figure right.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I like the guy's style as he is all about intuitive models that we can understand based on what we see in nature but I understand its not for everyone.

The Maths in question is:

"The geom­etry of Quantised Space pre­dicts that there is a max­imum and min­imum limit for space­time cur­va­ture. The ratio of a circle’s cir­cum­fer­ence to its diam­eter can be used to rep­re­sent these limits. In regions of zero cur­va­ture this ratio takes on the value of 3.141592653… or π.
A quan­tized geom­etry requires that a max­imum cut off for cur­va­ture also exists, which leads to a min­imum opposing value for this ratio. Work is cur­rently underway to show that when quan­ti­za­tion is defined on the Planck scale the most con­trasting value for this ratio will be 0.302822121… a number we are rep­re­senting with the Cyrillic letter ж (pro­nounced zhe). This number, along with π and the five Planck para­me­ters of quan­tized space­time (lP, mP, tP, AP, TP,π and ж), qst pre­dicts the values of 31 of the con­stants of Nature with extreme pre­ci­sion!"

My ability to translate something described in a mathematical fashion is limited but as far as I can tell from the above, if space has a minimum and maximum curvature, this means it probably is made up of geometric shapes resembling spheres.

Given that there are several formulas that use Fibonacci numbers to compute Pi would this not be a big clue that "nature" is basically just the geometry of a quantised universe manifesting itself in all things of matter (including life) - "as above- so below" etc.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So just discard two of the four objects found to explain away the first paper, make sense to me. (I'd like to see the "problems" with this paper spelled out in detail, I'm curious why you would just discard two of the four objects found.)

I don't "discard" any of the objects.

The two foreground objects may be linked but the redshift discrepancy isn't that huge between those, and it's also the case that a distant observer looking at the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies would see two relatively close objects that should have about the same redshift if they are about the same distance, but they won't because there are other motions going on in the universe other than expansion. In fact Andromeda is blue-shifted, so you could say that destroys the whole red-shift paradigm if you have an overly simplistic interpretation of the Hubble law and ignore other motion.

The redshift discrepancy however with the two background objects is too large to explain with the type of motion between the Milky Way and Andromeda. However I don't discard those observations either. I simply reject the notion that their placement can't be a coincidence and their math is way off on the odds of that happening because it's only 2 coincidental objects, and their math of the odds is based on 3 coincidental objects.

In the analogy of the picture I posted of the human hand holding the sun, I don't deny or "dismiss" either the hand or the sun. I reject the notion that the hand is actually holding the sun, even though I admit it sort of looks that way, because I don't think the appearance that they're at the same distance and related means that they are necessarily at the same distance.

The number of objects in the universe is astronomical, and when dealing with astronomical numbers, unlikely events not only become likely, they become almost certain to occur.

If the odds of winning the lottery are 100 million to one, you can correctly say that winning it is unlikely. But if you enter 100 billion lotteries, how many times will this unlikely event occur? You'll likely win somewhere around 1000 times, so do you see how an unlikely event becomes very likely when dealing with astronomical numbers?

originally posted by: dragonridr
those with higher redshift tend to be smaller and fainter than other members of the group.

Yes, exactly, and guess what? That is exactly the case with the example cited.

www.discordancyreport.com...
Objects 2 and 3 have the higher redshift and are definitely smaller and fainter than objects 1 and 2, which is perfectly consistent with them being more distant, even without the redshift confirmation.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
The Maths in question is:

"Work is cur­rently underway to show that when quan­ti­za­tion is defined on the Planck scale the most con­trasting value for this ratio will be 0.302822121… a number we are rep­re­senting with the Cyrillic letter ж (pro­nounced zhe). This number, along with π and the five Planck para­me­ters of quan­tized space­time (lP, mP, tP, AP, TP,π and ж), qst pre­dicts the values of 31 of the con­stants of Nature with extreme pre­ci­sion!"

That's not math, that's a hand-waving argument.

"Work is underway, and when it's done it will predict the values of 31 constants of nature." is a paraphrase of the math. How does this predict 31 constants of nature? Work is underway. (waves hand-this is not the math you are looking for). Maybe he has finally developed a long sought comprehensive theory, but he needs to show the work for it to be evaluated. The work isn't shown here.

Lol. I'm surprised that, some people are still working on curvature of space, which is only a hypotheses and not been proven for over 100 years
a reply to: Jukiodone

a reply to: dragonridr
By any chance have you read this paper? The string theorist who posted on ATS said loop quantum gravity isn't taken seriously but some of the guys on physicsforums said they find it an interesting paper, and I'm not sure if I can take the string theorist seriously:

An Invitation to Loop Quantum Gravity

Here's the thread on physicsforums discussing it (see post 5):
www.physicsforums.com...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Objects 2 and 3 have the higher redshift and are definitely smaller and fainter than objects 1 and 2, which is perfectly consistent with them being more distant, even without the redshift confirmation.

Oops too late to edit my original post, but NGC7603 isn't numbered, so that should read:

"Objects 2 and 3 have the higher redshift and are definitely smaller and fainter than object 1 and NGC7603".

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: dragonridr
By any chance have you read this paper? The string theorist who posted on ATS said loop quantum gravity isn't taken seriously but some of the guys on physicsforums said they find it an interesting paper, and I'm not sure if I can take the string theorist seriously:

An Invitation to Loop Quantum Gravity

Here's the thread on physicsforums discussing it (see post 5):
www.physicsforums.com...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Objects 2 and 3 have the higher redshift and are definitely smaller and fainter than objects 1 and 2, which is perfectly consistent with them being more distant, even without the redshift confirmation.

Oops too late to edit my original post, but NGC7603 isn't numbered, so that should read:

"Objects 2 and 3 have the higher redshift and are definitely smaller and fainter than object 1 and NGC7603".

No havnt read it but i will now thanks.

Ok so you all are either gonna get sick of me soon or love my enthusiasm? I dunno...

Also...this is my new favorite thread. I adore physics and cosmology and can grasp some things but I still have tons of questions

I have more

First off...thank you all for the explination on accuracy and exactness. That was clear, plain and simple and I am grateful

One of my favorite hobbies it to (poorly) contemplate paradoxes...I absolutely love them though I admit while I can fully grasp a few, most are way out of my league

So here is one of my favorites that I am still not quite sure about

I apologize in advance if I am simplifying these questions or asking them incorrectly

Why does entropy increase with time? Why is disorder the usual end result in a system? Is there some force that allows for entropy to be the order of the day?

originally posted by: KyoZero
Why does entropy increase with time? Why is disorder the usual end result in a system? Is there some force that allows for entropy to be the order of the day?

There's an over-simplified answer, which is the first post in this thread, followed by an extremely complicated response in the 5th post, but disregard all the other posts which don't really add anything:

www.physicsforums.com...

I think the 1st post has good intuition even if it omits all the subtleties.

Also, in non-isolated systems, it's not necessarily true that entropy always increases. That rule applies to isolated systems and we've even found an expected exception to that rule in a lab experiment.