Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: KrzYma

I guess, the brief mention of 'tensor' is the attempt to answer my question.

But what I am asking is, what is the substance that makes up the tensor? Does it exist everywhere throughout the universe, and is a material? Can the substance of this tensor transform into other particles? Is it baryonic? Is it a quantity that never loses or gains, but just a material that warps?

Fungi, simply look at the tensor as the strain energy in the material ( of whatever description ) together with the fixing moment/s of a cantilever or beam as the case may be.
This energy, if transformed into matter is not baryonic.
This energy can increase or diminish but there is no warping of space if that is what you mean.

Ok you do realize you went in a big circle here dont you and said nothing i might add. what kind of energy into mass are you talking about???? And you use the word tensor but seems you dont understand it its just points in space and could be a scalar field or a vector field are you purposefully trying to be vague?

a reply to: ImaFungi

The easiest way to explain an energy transfer from a photon to an electron is to think of a ball floating on water. I f i make alot of waves i can cause my ball to bounce up and down. if i cause big enough waves i can even cause my ball to jump out of the water. This would be the equivalent of an electron moving to a higher orbit.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: KrzYma

I guess, the brief mention of 'tensor' is the attempt to answer my question.

But what I am asking is, what is the substance that makes up the tensor? Does it exist everywhere throughout the universe, and is a material? Can the substance of this tensor transform into other particles? Is it baryonic? Is it a quantity that never loses or gains, but just a material that warps?

Fungi, simply look at the tensor as the strain energy in the material ( of whatever description ) together with the fixing moment/s of a cantilever or beam as the case may be.
This energy, if transformed into matter is not baryonic.
This energy can increase or diminish but there is no warping of space if that is what you mean.

Ok you do realize you went in a big circle here dont you and said nothing i might add. what kind of energy into mass are you talking about???? And you use the word tensor but seems you dont understand it its just points in space and could be a scalar field or a vector field are you purposefully trying to be vague?

Read kyzma and fungi's post above on tensor. tensor stems out of stress, if you don't know.
Read thru my thread on bending or unbending of space

a reply to: dragonridr

It seems this is finally enough proof that you dont actually read what I write?

This post you just responded to, the only purpose of me writing that, was to ask a set up question for a follow up question, the set up question being; does EM radiation emit from an accelerated electron outwards from all 360 degrees surrounding the electron, like a ring of EM radiation which emits from the electron, and which grows in area/circumference over time.

a reply to: ImaFungi
I suppose he could have added that

apple =/= entire universe

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur
My question is, if we imagine 1 electron to be more similar to some local geometric object (like an apple is more similar to being a localized geometrical object/shape and a rock is and a ball is, than saying the apple is not a localized geometric shape but when you hold an apple in your hand you are not holding a 3d geometric object but you are holding the entire universe which can only be described as 1 complete object)...

Sorry I don't even understand that question.

But in your more succinct version of the question, there are two answers, one classical and one in quantum theory.

Classically we usually find electrons in groups in real world systems like radio station transmitters which tend to have omnidirectional EM propagation of say, a radio station, in a plane level with the Earth's surface, but it's not omnidirectional in the third axis (up and down), nor does it need to be since there typically aren't receivers above or below the antenna:

Antenna (radio)

Generally, the dipole is considered to be omnidirectional in the plane perpendicular to the axis of the antenna, but it has deep nulls in the directions of the axis.

In quantum theory, that omnidirectional emission of EM radiation is composed of quantized wave packets called photons, each of which travels in a specific direction. At low frequencies like radio waves they act more like waves than packets, but at high frequencies the packet nature becomes more evident.

By the way, I liked dragonridr's analogy of the ball bouncing out of the water, even if it didn't address how holding an apple is holding an entire universe.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

It seems this is finally enough proof that you dont actually read what I write?

This post you just responded to, the only purpose of me writing that, was to ask a set up question for a follow up question, the set up question being; does EM radiation emit from an accelerated electron outwards from all 360 degrees surrounding the electron, like a ring of EM radiation which emits from the electron, and which grows in area/circumference over time.

The actual angular pattern depends on details of the motion of the electron, but can be calculated with high accuracy with Maxwell's equations. It's not super simple, but these are typical problems in an upper division undergraduate electromagnetism course. Depending on the problem you may use Lienard-Wiechert 'retarded' potentials and then compute gradients of them to get E&B fields.

I've pointed this simulation out to you before.

www.cco.caltech.edu...

Have you started to read the Feynman Lectures on Physics like I said a few months ago?

originally posted by: mbkennel

The actual angular pattern depends on details of the motion of the electron, but can be calculated with high accuracy with Maxwell's equations. It's not super simple, but these are typical problems in an upper division undergraduate electromagnetism course. Depending on the problem you may use Lienard-Wiechert 'retarded' potentials and then compute gradients of them to get E&B fields.

I've pointed this simulation out to you before.

www.cco.caltech.edu...

Have you started to read the Feynman Lectures on Physics like I said a few months ago?

those are the field lines...


here is the EField of one oscillating charge

the language of QM



so... our world is matter and fields.
to describe matter, like proton, neutron and electron, some fancy words has been given by QM to describe the interactions.
NOT explain but describe, using new words for that.

is a photon a thing ? NO!!!
is a quark a thing ? NO!!!

QM it's just a language, adding and adding new words to describe but NOT explaining enything



BTW> the funniest thing is this
Proton - up + up + down
Neutron - down + up + down
(however you arrange those)

again my view of things:

Neutron is proton + electron, that's why unstable outside nucleus
Proton is an charge particle with opposite charge to electron.
Electro magnetic radiation is a wave and not particle

here is the history of the madness..



short comment from me on this..

"... I have done an experiment, the outcome can not be explained, so I guess and add my guess to what I'm sure of.
if this does not fit, I guess again and add more assumptions till it fits the math for my Nobel prize."



this is fun !!

a reply to: mbkennel

Ok, so it seems your answer is: Yes, when EM radiation is emitted from an accelerated electron, EM radiation is emitted in 360 degrees surrounding the electron.

My follow up question is; When EM radiation is detected on a detector, which is emitted from an electron, why is it not measured as 'band' as wide as the detector?

I suppose the answer may be that, because the device 'firing' the EM radiation, breaks the 360 degree propagating wave, and forces only a small degree of it to propagate outwards. But this is still very interesting; so basically an analogy would be dropping a rock in a pond, and near where you drop the rock is a 'hallway' that represents the nozzle of the device that fires EM radiation, so the rock is the electron that is accelerated, the water is its coupling to the EM field, the concentric circle is the EM radiation propagating in 360 degrees outwards, the wave energy that travels down the hallway, represents the EM radiation that travels down the nozzle, and then in a EM emitter used in experiment, the interesting part, I would suggest may be what occurs after it leaves the tip of the hallway. Maybe also what it is experiencing in terms of EM interaction with the material of the hallway, as it is traveling down it.

So, in both cases, in the water case, after a concentric circle wave is corralled down a hallway, when it leaves the hall way will a wave continue 'indefinitely' (if we imagine perfect conditions and no other forces on the water or coming at the wave) in the shape of the hall way? And does the concentric circle wave of EM radiation after leaving the nozzle, travel as the shape of the nozzle indefinitely?

Or with water does the wave 'remember' its original trajectory, and return to this pattern once it leaves the confines of the hallway, it begins to spread out again?

EM radiation, once it leaves the nozzle, does not return to its circle propagation?

a reply to: KrzYma

Thats cool. A question that occurred to me to ask, I am not sure there is any known answer, but was wondering what any of the smartest people might think is the reason;

There are quarks, and leptons, and they have masses that are all quite different from one another, for a made up example


37, 340, 800 ...

etc.

Like the masses have significant differences, like electron, tau, muon. I am wondering why there cant be that collection of 'matter', in intermediate quantities of mass?

Like if an electron is 10, a tau is 100, muon is 300... Why cant particles, made out of 'electron stuff' (the tau and muon appear to be made out of electron stuff) exist at 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, etc. mass values.

we don't know what causes the mass, but we can measure it ( measure or compare to something else ???)
and because we measure different masses on the same charge, this must be some new particle..


this is so funny !!!

Arbitrageur,

I have a question about duality. More directly what you think about Duality of an electron being a particle driven by a wave(couder wave). Or rather do you think that it can act as a wave or a particle depending on its observation. (the ol' slot test.)

www.youtube.com...

The video is an example of what i am speaking of for those who are not familiar with this.

On a side note this does not explain what the slot test does what it does during observation.

Thanks,

Kaaer

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: KrzYma

Thats cool. A question that occurred to me to ask, I am not sure there is any known answer, but was wondering what any of the smartest people might think is the reason;

There are quarks, and leptons, and they have masses that are all quite different from one another, for a made up example


37, 340, 800 ...

etc.

Like the masses have significant differences, like electron, tau, muon. I am wondering why there cant be that collection of 'matter', in intermediate quantities of mass?

Like if an electron is 10, a tau is 100, muon is 300... Why cant particles, made out of 'electron stuff' (the tau and muon appear to be made out of electron stuff) exist at 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, etc. mass values.

EXACTLY !!

it can not be because some guys said so ! get it ?

few hundred years ago, people asked priest why they have rats in they basements easting the crops even if every door was closed... priest said, God created them..


I love science !!

originally posted by: kaaer
Arbitrageur,

I have a question about duality. More directly what you think about Duality of an electron being a particle driven by a wave(couder wave). Or rather do you think that it can act as a wave or a particle depending on its observation. (the ol' slot test.)

www.youtube.com...

The video is an example of what i am speaking of for those who are not familiar with this.

On a side note this does not explain what the slot test does what it does during observation.

Thanks,

Kaaer

sorry, you have asked Arbitrageur and I don't want to be rude coming uninvited to a discussion,
but I must tell you.. just cant help!

there is no duality, particle is a particle and wave is a wave.
Particle create waves, and waves affect particles !

a reply to: KrzYma


en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Sorry if you cant help it was a question about quantum mechanics i thought the original post said to ask em lol.

Here is a like to quantum particle duality where an object behaves like a wave until observed then it displays property s of a particle.

If i misunderstood this post all together i apologize . Thanks for your time

a reply to: ImaFungi

I'm sure you are aware of muons, right ?
those particles coming from space..

so... somebody made an experiment.
somehow a muon was born (new word in the MS language was added)
why ?
it lived too long according to theory so...
it became the proof of reality and time dilation and space contraction.
For QM new particle was born, the strange quark, giving this muon longer live..

can you follow ??

originally posted by: kaaer
a reply to: KrzYma


en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Sorry if you cant help it was a question about quantum mechanics i thought the original post said to ask em lol.

Here is a like to quantum particle duality where an object behaves like a wave until observed then it displays property s of a particle.

If i misunderstood this post all together i apologize . Thanks for your time

NO NO, I apologize if I'm destructing you view of the world

Wave–particle duality is a theory that proposes that every elementary particle exhibits the properties of not only particles, but also waves

I just said it is not true repeating your question

a reply to: KrzYma

You are not destructing my view of the world lol. I just like asking questions so i am more well informed. But if it is not true what are your views on the measurements taken during the Double Slit experiment. Again just asking because i don't know lol. If i am way off let me know lol.

a reply to: kaaer

here, explanation of the double slit


for electrons... take this silicon experiment you know of and think..

BTW: he talks about quantum mechanics ans such because he is a professor and can not talk different, if you understand what I mean