Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: mbkennel

Dude all of your papers that i've read are so math heavy It literally blew my mind.

Bailed on the Math?!!

You have no idea. Except for one paper, everything I worked on was very pedestrian mathematically.

The stuff which vexed me as an undergrad is considered completely elementary to actual mathemeticians, like first grade arithmetic. In that class there was a bimodal distribution of exam scores. On a scale from 1 to 100, there was a bump around 25, and then a valley, and a smaller bump around 100. Sorting hat please!

I knew of (and friends knew) a guy in college at that time. He's now a rather famous mathemetician. He was, even as a teenager, an insane clown posse level hypergenius above even just plain regular geniuses. He was doing original research on string theory with Ed Witten at age 17 and then switched into "real math".

Today, his mathematics is like from another alien race, baffling to even the best mathemeticians today. In his enormous opus he may have proved the most important outstanding conjecture in mathematics.

www.nature.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: mbkennel

Nice to have a mathmetician to check your work they all ways find something do t they lol

a reply to: mbkennel

Thanks for sharing the link to the math fellow, Im not a put it to math terms myself as obviously also open to theory... but being literary despite mispellings as meaning is still present like relativity being spelled wrong a few times from standard or as a varible that it is having a meaning on its own relative as a pointing to exactly what it is in essence in a previous writ.

But for those not so mathematical the thoughtform of the math is. Chaos and order are both found in the cosmic perspective, on the micro cosmic and macro cosmic. Of course the conjecture was if one builds a structure resilient to such disorder it will keep order. Then returning the volley as proof against the conjecture, the fellow then says well on contact? There was basically a deformation of both on thus contact the one claiming order as a means of conjecture against the chaos of disorder but that both the order and chaos trying to prevent it were no longer in the order or perfection in the defense of conjecture.

So its like the old video game breakout... there is a wall of order to keep the random out but, on impact a section of order is disturbed or removed from that order and the choas also shown as the ball is deflected or changed as a vectorization.

So obviously neither chaos or order emphatically exist as an ideal without some change on a scale whether seen or not, so what may appear permanent and lasting only does so because or resilience or constant rebuild but all is impermanent in that very process making the very order and chaos indistinguhable.

even the neutron that has no particle charge to swap gets contact or an effect from other ones that do, but when set free? it follows photon like a shadow... remember? Where ever there is light... there is darkness, so the attachment is where exactly? In the charge or intent behind the action or reaction one wants or desires to take place as a control, but the process itself is infinity no beginning nor end... it just is what it is until the conceptual defines it as something else for a rote grasping as proof of concept so others can affirm... um yeah thats how it operates as we know it in this circumstance, yet due to relativity? What ground is actually firm enough to walk on?

The subject then becomes paranoid that the cognitive dissonance they hold as truth being self evident and not just a random variable to circumstances in that frame of reference becomes unglued and well obviously then feeling subjected they wish to take charge and subdue instead of being objectivite to all subjects and in such a way... learning and wisdom never ceases to be watered but a hell of a lot of pruning and reevaluation does bring about some order and well that whole thing... just swung around again... so the uncertianty would be did it hit the wall or did it not? well then accepting there was a wall an other and that something of a force as intent obviously there was an observation trying to put an intent or judgement and when that happens? Objectivity looking for certianty loses all objectivity as it then become subject and struck the wall itself.

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it? Well first; what percieved its falling?

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur
do you mean we can't see them because visible light is outshining the x-rays ?

When you talk about "shining" presumably you're talking about the light reaching your eye or telescope, which tends to emanate from the surface of stars in an intensity versus frequency pattern approximating that of blackbody radiation, which, as explained in the video I posted here, tends to have a maximum frequency which depends on temperature, and doesn't emit much in the way of X-rays above that.

So if X-rays aren't coming very much from the approximate blackbody radiation of stars, where are they coming from? While black holes emit no radiation directly, matter spiraling into black holes does tend to emit radiation and it can have very high intensities at X-ray frequencies. There are a handful of galaxies that have extremely hot gas which is so hot it can emit x-rays from thermal bremsstrahlung, but not that many so you don't have a good chance of one of those lining up directly behind a gravitational lens to form an Einstein ring. Even in visible light we have only found a limited number of galaxies forming Einstein rings.

the galaxy doesn't end at this point, where is the gravitational lensing of the things behind ?
you turn up the facts!!

So you want to know why we don't see gravitational lensing of the stars orbiting the Milky Way's black hole? I already explained why those stars aren't lensed, which according to the claim in the video they should be...which is wrong. I'm sure the man who made your youtube source has no idea how to do the math or make any predictions which conflict with observation, and neither do you.

You haven't mentioned what frequencies you are talking about...if you mean visible light, we can't even see the stars orbiting the Milky Way's black hole in visible light because of the Zone of Avoidance

The dust and gas in the Milky Way cause extinction at optical wavelengths

So how do we see them if not in visible light? A limited amount of infrared makes it through all that dust and gas to our infrared telescopes, so we can plot those orbits. If you wanted to see past the black hole to the other side of the galaxy, remember that there's probably as much dust and gas on the opposite side of the black hole as there is on our side of it, so then you're talking about trying to peer through twice as much of it when we can barely "see" through just the part between us and the stars orbiting the Milky Way black hole, and only in infrared.

So with the exception of a few very intense sources, you just won't see much of the other side of the galaxy in infrared and probably nothing in visible light because of the zone of avoidance. Lower frequencies like radio waves don't have so much trouble passing through the zone of avoidance, but partly because of their long wavelength, resolution isn't as good with radio telescopes, and you need fairly good resolution to see gravitational lensing.

and you don't understand what people are telling you

In some cases that's true. Some posts in this thread read like they were written by a Markov text generator and I have no idea what they are telling me. But in the case of your youtube video claiming that stars orbiting the Milky Way's black hole should be gravitationally lensed, there was no problem with my understanding of that statement. The problem is the person making it has no predictions for what should be observed that's different from what is being observed. None of the stars in this GIF are directly behind the black hole and they are roughly the same distance in astronomical terms, so it doesn't lens things to the side of it. If you still think I'm wrong, then show me his predictions for how this should look different if mainstream theory is wrong (but you can't because he doesn't have any):

Stellar Orbits in the Central Parsec


At that link is also a 3D animation of those orbits, but I couldn't find it on youtube so I couldn't embed it here. The 2D animation is based on actual observations, while the 3D animation is based on those at the tail end, but projects the orbits earlier in time from those observations, to make a longer, more informative animation.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: mbkennel

Nice to have a mathmetician to check your work they all ways find something do t they lol

I heard from a friend something Shin said while in college. Paraphrased, "When I was working in string theory, the papers were so new, it was very easy to find all their mistakes." From anybody else that would be the height of arrogance, and yet from him he was so truly humble and gifted you just smiled in awe.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

So obviously neither chaos or order emphatically exist as an ideal without some change on a scale whether seen or not, so what may appear permanent and lasting only does so because or resilience or constant rebuild but all is impermanent in that very process making the very order and chaos indistinguhable.

Honestly I have no idea how to translate that into physics or mathematics or even what it means. Chaos has a particular mathematical and physical definition and means something specific to the scientific field. If I had to say something, I would say for classical determinsitic physics/mathematics, "chaos is a property of an evolving initial-condition dynamical system when it has a positive Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy rate."

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Very nice, the easier thoughtform for grasping this has to do with the way an eye operates, not just the artificial but the natural. When bright light strikes the eye one squints the vibrations are not only felt in the cortex as intensity but the eye lids vibrate at a similar frequecncy until a sort of balance of focus is reached so lensing for better or obscure focus depends on what is being viewed with focus or direct attention... like when you are watching a movie are you focused on one character or another or overviewing the entire sequence of events as they unfold... what about awareness of the vicera during all of this viewing or the floaters or the dirt on the screen or dust inbetween.

Many factors of things viewed and not but all are within sight just not within that relative current spatual awareness that is attached to a particular object of focus or subject of ones observation. The overview effect that has focused on space tourism, gives one a quasi magical view that their own focus or bubble of a world or problems are not as large or overwhelming when seen from such a perspective the world is home to us all, and as a part of humanity? Our global focal shift from an singular being suffering or desiring happness fades with the lines of demarcation, in a wish and hope to bring peace beyond such small mindedness or corruption hoping to rule it all like pecking orders of children and king or queen of the jungle gym upon some silly gain... where others are enguaged in coordinated efforts for all humanity in perspective.

So others subjective to ones own objectivity of focus still misses the well rounded picture... called equality and progression of all sentient beings known and unknown beyond petty my blah blah can beat up your blah blah that stoops to only barbarisim and hasnt graduated from such infantilism of programming to sell people on belief and ideas which of course most of the worlds economies are still fighting those kinds of wars 1000s of years old instead of letting go of silly ideology and moving into a better brighter future for all life here on earth and found elsewhere in the cosmos.

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

So obviously neither chaos or order emphatically exist as an ideal without some change on a scale whether seen or not, so what may appear permanent and lasting only does so because or resilience or constant rebuild but all is impermanent in that very process making the very order and chaos indistinguhable.

Honestly I have no idea how to translate that into physics or mathematics or even what it means. Chaos has a particular mathematical and physical definition and means something specific to the scientific field. If I had to say something, I would say for classical determinsitic physics/mathematics, "chaos is a property of an evolving initial-condition dynamical system when it has a positive Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy rate."

No need when it was a literal form of what the math fellow you shared was describing, I took the math out of it and placed it in an easier to comprehend concept for thought form.

His math was saying there is chaos and order naturally occuring, the fellow bringing in the conjecture said no there can be order without an effect of chaos. Then the fellow on rebuttal as proof against the conjecture, said the order and chaos both become deformed upon contact... as it eludes to the geometry, meaning overall there is both order and chaos and yet impossible to go to either extreme and have a lasting solution as choas and order are equivilents... so basically the equal sign does not really exist as math is still a theory the not equal to sign however is the only cause and effect does not equal correlation, although subjectively equivelent is close enough to repeat a desired effect yet that effect is overall not repeatable using the same materials in different areas and on different subjects via relativity and the uncertainty principle, so in actuality? Not equals is the proof of all mathmatical theory but evidence of some equivelent enough to statistically work... basically no such thing as a contant just a impermanent representation and all is actually a variable subject to change or basically impermanent.

simple math as proof, 1+1=2 apply this to child birth poof 1+1 could equal 1 or with fertility drugs several... so hey have fun if its a passion it just opens up more fields and boots the belief out of science for progress closer to the fact of the matter which is subject to change in the same way.

Hey y'all,

Wanted to share a sentiment and see if anyone else here has ever felt the same.

Zen , subitism, whatever you want to call it. Been reading this one physics paper every morning on the bus to work.. never really clicked and the puzzle remained unsolved.


And then, like zen, it all made sense and the puzzle clicked into place.

Sudden enlightenment. Have any of you guys had a physics moment like that, where you went "oh snap! Now I get it!"

And if so, where and when. Share with us that moment where you finally figured out something you were striving to.

Any turned the corner moments or memories?

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Have any of you guys had a physics moment like that, where you went "oh snap! Now I get it!"

It was more of a math thing but it's math that's used a lot in physics.

When this symbol ∫ was first introduced to me I didn't really grasp the significance and wondered what the heck is this thing and why do I need it?

Then I remember getting that eureka moment one day when I suddenly grasped the answers to those questions and more. The embarrassing part was Newton had invented that infinitesimal calculus math centuries ago (as did Leibniz at the same time), and here I was centuries later still trying to figure it out. That made me feel like I was behind the curve, but at that time I don't think I appreciated what a genius Newton was. That math had to be invented to solve the kinds of problems Newton was trying to solve.

Hey in a sentimental mood and decided to post this link. I'm sure all you physicist will be fully aware of this guys video lecture series and know the man. But for the uninitiated trying to get into physics.

Walter Lewin
www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: masterp
Here is another question which probably hasn't been asked:

Why does matter fall into a gravity well instead of sitting motionless in it when no force is applied to it?

We know that the spacetime is distorted by matter, but why does matter fall into the distortion?

The presence of the distortion itself is not an adequate explanation for why matter falls into it.

to me it is because of the following:

I will give you an analogy albeit imperfect but somewhat descriptive of how I see it.


To begin with we have to conceptually separate space-time and think of it as a landscape, and QM forces that keep any physical body in one piece and balanced.
Take flexible metal plate. This is going to be our space-time. Now cut smaller piece of rubber and glue it to that metal plate flat. That's going to be our physical body.
Now with your hands start bending metal plate. What happens to glued rubber piece in this case? Yes, it will 'repeat' plate bending and get stretched with the plate. While metal plate remains bent, rubber piece will experience deformation. Bending metal plate more will result in rubber piece to unglue from one of the ends and assume 'natural' balanced shape.

Space-time inside gravity affected area has its bending factor gradually curving from modest to more steep. Physical body in attempt to restore original shape will pull it's 'tail' toward 'nose'. Bending of space-time is such that as soon as rubber piece (physical object) seemingly restores its shape, the 'nose' (front section of it) will move further away. Tail will once more try to catch up (never succeeding). In doing so nose moves further again with tail following making that effect a run away.

To an outside observer physical body will appear falling with ever increased speed. That is, if we place a ruler inside that gravity well, markings on the ruler will be further apart with gaps increasing toward center of gravity even if those markings on the ruler are infinitely close. (Each following mark on the ruler is infinitely further apart from the previous if the ruler placed pointing to gravity center).

Physical body 'knows' nothing about gravity effect. Instead it 'feels' negative pressure (stretching) at all times at ever increased rate and tries to restore it. Locally, as some one pointed out, it is not moving but to outside observer it is moving toward gravity center. It will move until 'hits' surface, say Earth. Gravity extends beyond Earth surface all the way to its center. Physical body will stop moving in that case but will still experience stretching. There we have effect of weight. If you lift that physical body off the ground you essentially giving it more room to 'fall'. Physical body will counter your effort lifting it and continue to assert its QM forces to compensate in attempt to restore original shape. You will have to apply your force lifting it more than QM needs to counter gravity metric factor.

About a dozen of pages back I already wrote my vision about it in slightly different wording.

Gravity is no magnetism. There are no forces in gravity. It is strictly geometrical in nature. But once physical body inside that affected area all it is doing is maintaining its balance (shape) and ...falling.

That's' why it does not matter what is the mass of physical body, they all going to fall with the same speed.

If we create true 2D physical body and place it horizontal to the center of Earth that physical body will experience no gravity.



)) there you go one of the possibilities.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Thats not really enlightenment, that comes from having beat ones head about a topic or have become to close to the subject stepping away for however long focusing on something else then once the moment is ripe Newton discovers gravity as it drops on his head. Mmmm and tastee too... but will that apple a day keep a doctorate away?

originally posted by: greenreflections

originally posted by: masterp
Here is another question which probably hasn't been asked:

Why does matter fall into a gravity well instead of sitting motionless in it when no force is applied to it?

We know that the spacetime is distorted by matter, but why does matter fall into the distortion?

The presence of the distortion itself is not an adequate explanation for why matter falls into it.

to me it is because of the following:

I will give you an analogy albeit imperfect but somewhat descriptive of how I see it.


To begin with we have to conceptually separate space-time and think of it as a landscape, and QM forces that keep any physical body in one piece and balanced.
Take flexible metal plate. This is going to be our space-time. Now cut smaller piece of rubber and glue it to that metal plate flat. That's going to be our physical body.
Now with your hands start bending metal plate. What happens to glued rubber piece in this case? Yes, it will 'repeat' plate bending and get stretched with the plate. While metal plate remains bent, rubber piece will experience deformation. Bending metal plate more will result in rubber piece to unglue from one of the ends and assume 'natural' balanced shape.

Space-time inside gravity affected area has its bending factor gradually curving from modest to more steep. Physical body in attempt to restore original shape will pull it's 'tail' toward 'nose'. Bending of space-time is such that as soon as rubber piece (physical object) seemingly restores its shape, the 'nose' (front section of it) will move further away. Tail will once more try to catch up (never succeeding). In doing so nose moves further again with tail following making that effect a run away.

To an outside observer physical body will appear falling with ever increased speed. That is, if we place a ruler inside that gravity well, markings on the ruler will be further apart with gaps increasing toward center of gravity even if those markings on the ruler are infinitely close. (Each following mark on the ruler is infinitely further apart from the previous if the ruler placed pointing to gravity center).

Physical body 'knows' nothing about gravity effect. Instead it 'feels' negative pressure (stretching) at all times at ever increased rate and tries to restore it. Locally, as some one pointed out, it is not moving but to outside observer it is moving toward gravity center. It will move until 'hits' surface, say Earth. Gravity extends beyond Earth surface all the way to its center. Physical body will stop moving in that case but will still experience stretching. There we have effect of weight. If you lift that physical body off the ground you essentially giving it more room to 'fall'. Physical body will counter your effort lifting it and continue to assert its QM forces to compensate in attempt to restore original shape. You will have to apply your force lifting it more than QM needs to counter gravity metric factor.

About a dozen of pages back I already wrote my vision about it in slightly different wording.

Gravity is no magnetism. There are no forces in gravity. It is strictly geometrical in nature. But once physical body inside that affected area all it is doing is maintaining its balance (shape) and ...falling.

That's' why it does not matter what is the mass of physical body, they all going to fall with the same speed.

If we create true 2D physical body and place it horizontal to the center of Earth that physical body will experience no gravity.



)) there you go one of the possibilities.

Nice but one thing is being left out... the parabolia you mention has the rubber glued to the outside of the bend... switch it to the underside? and theres the pocket or bubble. Convex/concave... like? Lenses! Anton Von Layvenhook and Galieo curtsey to you partner and doe see doe...

Sorry Im in a silly mood because I enjoy multifacted points of view on rocks not yet lapped. Science is fun but of course that wole well rounded thing does suck but it means stepping back from ones passion for a bit in moderation does allow a more fresh perspective when coming back to it, this is what drops a lot of the scientific breakthrough gold into peoples laps, and faceted gold in nature is still pyrite by me.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

i asked you a question last week regarding free energy and magnetism and you replied saying that it cant be done

here is a thread on it, can you explain your thoughts on this please
this is exactly what i was talking about and coincidence its now a thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: lSkrewloosel
My thoughts are it seems a lot more noisy and complicated than this method of free energy, so why wouldn't you just go with this method instead?

Power Strip free energy:


By the way youtube is full of hoaxes and fakes, that's what I already told you, right?

There aren't enough details on how to make that power strip or that motor in the thread you posted to re-create either one, but I have some ideas on how to re-create just about every fake on youtube. There's plenty of room to put batteries inside of the contraption in that thread you linked to, so what makes you think it's not running off batteries? It almost certainly is, because if it's not, there's some new physics, and so far the ratio of new scams to new physics is over 1000:1.

Peswiki has this to say about a related patent for a magnetic motor:

Torian Magnetic Motor

There is an expired Brazilian patent that definitely is relevant here, from which the Perendev all-magnet motor was almost surely pirated. It was granted in 1989 based on a working motor that was presented to the Brazilian patent office. Using ceramic magnets, it degaussed rapidly, and because the cost of the magnets and the ridicule heaped on him, the inventor shelved the project. The inventor does not want to be contacted.

Translation: The "free energy" from that patented magnetic motor was anything but "free". It takes a lot of energy to re-magnetize magnets or else costs a lot to buy new ones.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I have mentioned before, my experiences with my observations of light, a bit ago I drew one of those experiences, and today I had a different one, but it included the first effect.

The first effect, I mentioned to you once, saying it looked like little targets, 2 circles 1 surrounding the other; other times, when looking ~near car head lights or street lights for example this effect may be present I have not forced myself to notice because I do notice the effect of lines, but I naturally had the thought that during the day, perhaps the light all around looks like 'lines', 'white...clear?' lines, at least, it clearly passes through air, but it is really that during the day, it is that the laser like lines I see in headlights at night, carries all the information of the scenery seen at day, or something like that, I dont know if the laser lines are seeing photons, interact with my lens, cornea, eye, nerve, brain... and I do not know if that is how the information of matter scenery is relayed to being seen as visuality;


I do not know if these circle in circles, are the make up of my eye or brain, molecular or atomic; obviously they seem to have something to do with photons;

an interesting note that I attepted to depict, is how with the slightest moves of the head, the angle of the 'laser light lines' alter, and I do not remember how the circle circles alter, but I do remember thinking it interesting that the laser light lines would seem to stay solid and in place, for like over second, I could distinguish a single one, but really see maybe 7 - 12 distinct ones, and moving causes them to change in interesting ways; same with the circle circles;






This is similar in that it involves light, and circle circle appears again; but interesting novelties in visual experience;


I was looking at a particular angle with my right eye, looking kind of down and left, while laying down in bed, with my head angled toward a window to the left, the sun shines through; same scenario as the first image, except this time, observation was mustache hair;

a certain angle, and certain focusing of eye (and now I guess it has something to do with that, maybe, the nature of focus, etc.)

and a single hair, I saw as almost 3d, and seemingly much fatter than prior, it looked almost translucent;

and I could see dots that were in a distinct pattern, seemingly vertically and horizontally;

Like vertically, it was not a pattern complex pattern, but it looked like if there were dots in rows and columns, some of the vertical columns were closer together than others;

And I cant recall but I feel I witnessed that depending on the angle, there were either rows of the same color, or columns of the same color;

I know for certain about the rows, just dont know if it did that to columns too;
and with slight movement of the head, the colors would change, still single color stripes... pretty colors too by the way, pastels, rainbowy, translucently;



My question is,,, whats up with that?

a reply to: ImaFungi
You already knew a prism would split white light into colors, but did you know diffraction can do that too? Here's a comparison of a prism on the bottom and diffraction grating on the top:

Diffraction

Comparison of the spectra obtained from a diffraction grating by diffraction (1), and a prism by refraction (2). Longer wavelengths (red) are diffracted more, but refracted less than shorter wavelengths (violet).

You can get some diffraction with a single hair which is probably what you saw. It's not as effective as a diffraction grating but it still results in diffraction.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Photos taken from a cell wall???


Seems MIT's technology review now suddenly thinks there's gold in them thar Qunaitised Inertia hills in relation to the EM drive.

www.technologyreview.com...

a reply to: Jukiodone

What bothers me is that everyone ALSO measures 'thrust' when there's no power applied.

O'course, maybe they do produce thrust with no power applied. Wouldn't THAT be interesting.