Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: kaaer
If someone doesn't read a 1 or 2 page thread when commenting, sometimes I get a little annoyed, however with this thread being 43 pages long I have no expectation for anybody to read the whole thread before asking a question, so please note it's not considered an annoyance for the same video and question to come up.

However I would like to point you to the places it's been discussed already, so you can review those and see if they answer your question, or help you frame a question that hasn't been asked/answered yet in the context of what's already been discussed.

First, this gets into quantum mechanics interpretation issues. Did you watch the OP video to see there's no consensus on that? If not I suggest watching it.

Then on page 19 we discussed one of those interpretations called "DeBroglie-Bohm" where the interpretation is that the particle does go through one slit or the other, like in that video you linked to, which was posted by Galileo400 already on page 31 here. Please review the responses to his question.

According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the particle doesn't physically go through one slit and not the other slit, and that interpretation has more followers in the scientific community but nobody has proven which one is correct, so we just don't know, and those aren't the only two options...there are other possible interpretations shown in the OP video though the one promoted by Sean Carroll seems unlikely to me.

So feel free to ask a follow-up question in the context of this previous discussion if that doesn't give you an answer.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you for your reply.
I didn't read all 43 pages. its just a lot to read when i have a specific question. I apologies for that. Thanks for pointing me in the correct direction in the post to answer my question.

Kaaer

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I don't know...
if we look at Walter Lewin lecture on wave propagation, and this "NEW" experiment with silicon particle I think all becomes clear.. there is no mystery in it or any QM possibility to chose..

not for me at all.

a reply to: KrzYma
Even the experimenter doing the silicon particle says he's fully aware it's not an accurate representation of what goes on at the quantum level.

It doesn't give the same interference pattern as the double slit experiment, because nearly all the wave goes through one of the slits, with the particle.

It's an interesting video but you're jumping to conclusions when you say "there is no mystery in it or any QM possibility to chose".

When research is convincing, we see a relatively quick change in consensus as happened shortly after 1998 when "dark energy" research was published. There's been no such change in consensus on QM interpretation based on the silicon particle experiment that even the experimenter says isn't an accurate representation of QM. It makes for a great "through the wormhole" episode though.

originally posted by: [post=18323243]mbkennel

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

One cannot bring some much needed humor to S and T threads and sometimes ask extremely pertinent ques, unless already well versed in MS

originally posted by: KrzYma
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 !!

Then think of all the billions spent to keep the GR dogma alive, yet the MS has not succeeded in begetting a NP for Einstein on GR, though they did succeed in the case of Peter Higgs, though unlike Einstein, his concept about the higgs field was quite correct

Hey Arb, a trick ques.
Why don't astronauts feel the effect of CF while in orbit?

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Hey Arb, a trick ques.
Why don't astronauts feel the effect of CF while in orbit?

Simple answer gravity pulls on all objects the same.

a reply to: Nochzwei
The first question in the thread was about centrifugal force; see the answer to that.

The astronauts do feel the net effect of combined centrifugal and centripetal forces, which are close to equal and in opposite directions and to keep them equal, orbital speed varies with altitude.

The orbit would need to be circular for them to balance exactly, but most orbits are at least slightly elliptical, meaning they are usually slightly out of balance (alternating between slight acceleration and slight deceleration) but without instrumentation the effects would be too small for the astronauts to feel.

What is Microgravity?

Many people mistakenly think that gravity does not exist in space. However, typical orbital altitudes for human spaceflight vary between 120 - 360 miles above Earth's surface. The gravitational field is still quite strong in these regions, since this is only about 1.8 percent the distance to the moon. Earth's gravitational field at about 250 miles above the surface is 88.8 percent of its strength at the surface.

So, astronauts at this altitude experience about 89 percent of the gravity at Earth's surface, which is hardly "micro". What's really "micro" ins't gravity, but the net "G-forces" meaning the difference between centrifugal force and centripetal force , which by the way since you didn't type "CF" out how would I know which one you meant?


a reply to: Nochzwei
I said people can post fringe science as long as they have sources, meaning peer reviewed articles in Journals. One paper that comes to mind is by Dr. Poplowski saying we might all be inside a giant black hole.

Radial motion into an Einstein–Rosen bridge

our own Universe may be the interior of a black hole existing inside another universe.

You can post non-mainstream ideas like that here, if you have peer reviewed sources like that. However this reply is inadequate for claims made in this thread:

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Source is me.

That might suffice if you were the author of a peer-reviewed article published in journal, but even in that case we'd expect you to cite your own publication. If you don't have any better sources than that, please post those ideas outside the science forum since it's not really science.

It adds nothing to the discussion here for people to claim relativity is wrong if they have no sources to discuss. Relativity, like any scientific theory, is subject to modification based on new evidence, so if you have real evidence it's wrong we could discuss that, but if not, I don't see how making comments about how it's wrong adds anything of value to the discussion here.

Thanks for your reply. However the balance of centrifugal and centripetal force is not what keeps the space craft in orbit. The spacecraft is continuously falling towards the earth at the orbital speed, but the curvature of the earth backs away, and this is what keeps the craft in orbit. Though this leads me to another ques, how do they get robotic craft to orbit an asteroid, whose gravity in miniscule?
I don't agree much with peer review, which has been set up to keep these dogmas in perpetuation. Evidence for refuting GR is on my rather unsuccessful thread about bending or unbending of space, where most commenting may have made a hasty retreat imo.
I remember mary rose posting somewhere that nobel prizes have been awarded to non peer reviewed sciences, but cannot tell you offhand which ones. Maybe she will chime in here. If what she says is true then peer review by and large a dogma keeping entity. Surely the blokes in the NP selection committee know what they are doing.
a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: KrzYma
Even the experimenter doing the silicon particle says he's fully aware it's not an accurate representation of what goes on at the quantum level.

It doesn't give the same interference pattern as the double slit experiment, because nearly all the wave goes through one of the slits, with the particle.

It's an interesting video but you're jumping to conclusions when you say "there is no mystery in it or any QM possibility to chose".

When research is convincing, we see a relatively quick change in consensus as happened shortly after 1998 when "dark energy" research was published. There's been no such change in consensus on QM interpretation based on the silicon particle experiment that even the experimenter says isn't an accurate representation of QM. It makes for a great "through the wormhole" episode though.

of course this experiment with silicon is not exactly to scale, I'm talking about the principle.
Particle create waves and those waves "carry" the electron in double slit experiment.
(btw, this is what I was saying for years now... in all my comments on slit experiments with particles)
Light waves in double slit are explained by Walter Lewin in his lecture

There is no duality and this is what I'm saying.

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: KrzYma
Even the experimenter doing the silicon particle says he's fully aware it's not an accurate representation of what goes on at the quantum level.

It doesn't give the same interference pattern as the double slit experiment, because nearly all the wave goes through one of the slits, with the particle.

It's an interesting video but you're jumping to conclusions when you say "there is no mystery in it or any QM possibility to chose".

When research is convincing, we see a relatively quick change in consensus as happened shortly after 1998 when "dark energy" research was published. There's been no such change in consensus on QM interpretation based on the silicon particle experiment that even the experimenter says isn't an accurate representation of QM. It makes for a great "through the wormhole" episode though.

of course this experiment with silicon is not exactly to scale, I'm talking about the principle.
Particle create waves and those waves "carry" the electron in double slit experiment.
(btw, this is what I was saying for years now... in all my comments on slit experiments with particles)
Light waves in double slit are explained by Walter Lewin in his lecture

There is no duality and this is what I'm saying.

The silicon experiment doesnt prove anything it is merely a simulation of what might be happening but even when he was showing it going through the slits it cant replicate the double slit experiment. Now as we discussed there is different interpretations of the double slit experiment in physics. Just depends on which one seems to match the closest to observation. Not only in this experiment but others as well. With the advent of lasers we all but confirmed it travels through both slits. Because we see the wave cancelling each other out to form voids. These occur When two light sources interact that are exactly 180 degrees out of phase at the same frequency. Basically your using light to to cancel out light. This also disproves your earlier claim that some how you cant end up with energy cancelling each other out through what ever crazy math you were using. Showing that indeed there are two sources at the same frequency. You may not like the idea but light does indeed act as a wave. Now as far as photons stop thinking them of them as a particle and a wave there neither and their both. The correct term when discussing photons is acts like a wave or acts like a particle however its what it is a photon.

In order to understand what truly happens with light the first thing you need to study is wave propagation and wave interactions thousands of experiments have been done on wave interactions. Once you understand those than you can look at the pattern of the double slit experiment and it makes sense.

a reply to: dragonridr

You may not like the idea but light does indeed act as a wave.

was I saying something different ?

Because we see the wave cancelling each other out to form voids. These occur When two light sources interact that are exactly 180 degrees out of phase at the same frequency. Basically your using light to to cancel out light. This also disproves your earlier claim that some how you cant end up with zero energy through what ever crazy math you were using.

I wasn't talking about the EM radiation dude !!
read first what I said !!!
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I said..
"...if you put negative charge close to a positive charge the measured charge outside this system is zero, but the field is not zero at all. it's 2 "

if you don't know the difference between charged particles and EM radiation... I'm sorry for you

a reply to: dragonridr

In order to understand what truly happens with light the first thing you need to study is wave propagation and wave interactions thousands of experiments have been done on wave interactions.

please go here
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and stop talking nonsense !

maybe then you will be able not just to understand but also calculate it !

Once you understand those than you can look at the pattern of the double slit experiment and it makes sense.

talking from experience ??
I don't think so because you always talk people down simultaneously showing lack of knowledge yourself

a reply to: KrzYma

That even makes less sense a positive and a negative charge attract one another. This causes a transfer of energy but also creates one field as there field lines join together. Now in order for an atom to be stable it requires a zero charge. Meaning as in all things the universe likes to maintain a balance. If there isnt a balance in charge one of three things occur a charge carrier such as a electrons, ions and holes will distribute the charge. In your universe with everything having a positive charge of 2 nothing would work including electricity!!!!!!

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: KrzYma

That even makes less sense a positive and a negative charge attract one another. This causes a transfer of energy but also creates one field as there field lines join together. Now in order for an atom to be stable it requires a zero charge. Meaning as in all things the universe likes to maintain a balance. If there isnt a balance in charge one of three things occur a charge carrier such as a electrons, ions and holes will distribute the charge. In your universe with everything having a positive charge of 2 nothing would work including electricity!!!!!!

NO, I've never said positive charge of 2... NO!
the charge is 0, the field density is 2.

1[-] charge ( field 1 ) + 1[+] charge ( field 1 ) = 0[-+] charge ( field 2 )

now look at the size of the things
electron 1 to proton 2000
proton is approximately 2000 time larger than electron
(I really do not care about the exact sizes right now)

spherical charge means it's surface density is charge/4piR^2

that's why electron do not fall into a proton !
and if it does, neutron is created, that decays outside the nucleus

you may say electron is a standing wave QM whatever... %$#%*

NO it is NOT, its a sphere, its charge distribution is a sphere



I don't have other links on that right now


Field lines you are talking about represent the direction of force and not the field density,
here is the E field density on an oscillating charge
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: dragonridr
With the advent of lasers we all but confirmed it travels through both slits. Because we see the wave cancelling each other out to form voids. These occur When two light sources interact that are exactly 180 degrees out of phase at the same frequency.

You dont see the wave canceling each other out to form voids. And I thought light cannot interact with light at all?

This also disproves your earlier claim that some how you cant end up with energy cancelling each other out through what ever crazy math you were using.

you just tried to say that energy cancels each other out, by saying you see wave canceling each other out to form voids.

Now as far as photons stop thinking them of them as a particle and a wave there neither and their both. The correct term when discussing photons is acts like a wave or acts like a particle however its what it is a photon.

I tried to attempt this thorough question to your ilk a while back and received only ig norance. Tell me which of these descriptions is closest to your knowledge, and then add whatever needs to be added to it, to make it closer.


1) Light is a particle always. Whenever light exists it is just a particle that travels straight or follows the curvature of space.

2) Light is a wave always. Light is always a string or a 3d medium compression wave (not made of particles?) made of pure un particleated substance.

3) Light is a particle and a wave always. Light is a medium made of particles. Or a string made of particles. Or a particle. That is always moving up and down or left and right. And something that always moves up and down or left and right, is called a wave.

4) Sometimes light is only a particle, and sometimes light is only a wave.


Be more clear in your descriptions... you are using your ignorance to try and state facts. Describe what light is more fully!!

An electron accelerates, what happens? where is the light coming from? Is there a light field that exists everywhere throughout space? Is the entire universe packed to the brim with photons that always have an energy level and always exist, and when an electron accelerates the local photons start a chain reaction wave?

Is the entire universal space full to the brim with 1 substance photon, that would be like the atmosphere if the atmosphere was not made of any particles, but still had local mass and density, and could carry energy? Does the electron hit against or wobble the light medium? Be more clear jerk.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
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?

To further this thought, for whenever MBkennel answers it; If EM radiation propagates as a circle around the electron that increases its area and circumference, does this not also show an increase in energy? I feel these sorts of questions are where my line of questioning 'yall' has led to.

If you imagine a pond, with waterwheels facing a common center. Lets say one pond has all these water wheels spread a decent apart out form one another, lets say pond 1 has 10 water wheels 10 feet away from the common center.

Lets say pond 2 has 100 water wheels 100 feet away from the common center.

And in the common center, in both ponds, is dropped a stone.

So we all know what happens (imagined in pristine lab like conditions, controlled environment), a circular wave of water begins propagating outwards from the point of stone drop.

In pond number 1. Is the energy captured from 1 water wheel, just in the one passing of water wave equal to the energy captured from 1 water wheel in pond 2 upon 1 wave passing?

a reply to: ImaFungi


The easiest way to explain this to you is a parable.

Six blind men were asked to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe.

A king explains to them:

All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the features you mentioned.

Now how does this apply to what were looking at simple depending on what experiment we do we see different aspects of the photon. But in the end its still a photon and it only shows us parts of the whole depending on what we are looking at. The experiment itself decides if we see it as a particle or wave just like what part we touch on the elephant determines how we describe the elephant. The photon doesnt decide to be a particle or a wave it simply shows us whatever aspect we were looking for.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Your making this much more complicated than it need to be. Ok even though a photon has no mass it has momentum and kinetic energy. If a photon contacts an atom it will send most of its energy into the kinetic energy of an electron. Momentum will be maintained and this momentum is added to say the electron and some will hit the nucleus giving our atom new momentum. It doesnt require anything in the background you are just stuck on waves. Remember comparing it to waves is an analogy to help us visualize what is really happening but it isnt an exact analogy. In waves we need something to propagate the waves in a photon the frequency is the wave.

Here lets look at this you can send a radio signal though an atmosphere or through deep space there doesnt have to be something to transfer the energy of the wave like in water. You have been told over and over there is nothing in the background photons use to propagate its not needed.

Now as far as energy transfers matter creates phonons this is basically a lower power photon but this is also way certain reactions we see as a flash of light.And it all deals with frequencies and there interaction much like the floating ball analogy i used earlier.


en.wikipedia.org...