Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: dragonridr

Yeah thats the point where is the other electron in your explanation?? Thats the point Arb was trying to make and you just tried to gloss over it. Qm can explain it but id be interested in any other theory you have.

what is it you don't get ?
in the bond there are only 3 protons and 2 electrons, that's why there is this "+".. H3+

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

I'm done explaining, I already did for the attractive force between atoms and the Casimir Effect, all that follows from that need some thinking from your side..

go here, go through the videos, maybe you will understand

I've just read some topics on ats and on the Internets about this so called mercury plasma engine which is apparently first described by some guy Fouche, and also appears on the website of some Hungarian company.
Apparently it used a mass of mercury or some sort of monoatomic element sometimes?!? and apparently it spins it at about 50/60000rpm and the electrons inside spin at in some sort of vortex or screw like fashion and the whole thing has a pressure of about 250.000 ATM. Is there even such an enclosure possible ?
It is said that this plasma torus engine thingy reduces gravity/inertia by 89%.
Do you know anything about it ? There's talk of the electrons moving together in such a manner in their screw trajectory that they behave like a Bose Einstein condensate.

a reply to: KrzYma


To create a bond an atom shares an electron and well hydrogen only has one. This is the point you seem not to grasp electrons this create a covalent bond which holds the two atoms together in a diatomic (two atom) molecule H2. But H3 doesnt link to the end like you think it creates 2 bonds with the other two atoms. But wait its only got one electron how can are hydrogen atom create two bonds. Please explain this to us without physics thx. Now you can answer the question without trying to gloss over it and ignore the missing electron.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hessdalen lights and Earthquake lights may not be explained, but there's nothing about either one that violates the laws of physics, as would say, a craft going 5000 miles an hour making a right angle turn with no turning radius that would tear the aircraft apart and kill any occupants which would be like bugs splattered on the windshield of a car going 60mph.

I don't think you got the gist of what I was asking, For if a craft and its occupants had Zero Mass then it could take a sharp right turn at 5000 miles per hour and not have its occupants splatter against the walls of the craft.


Further here is my train of thought in very basic explanation...with the assumption that plasma balls have no mass..

~ A Plasma ball has no Mass and as such would not be affected by Gravity, Inertia nor the speed of light limit

~ A Plasma ball can create its own magnetic field (Apparently)

~ Any object within that Plasma ball would be under the influence of the Plasma balls magnetic field totally, and isolated from from any outside forces.

~ Therefore a craft within a Plasma ball would also not be affected by Gravity, Inertia or the speed of light limit. ?

~ The energy needed to propel a Plasma ball to any speed would be minimal.

Also with most of the universe missing (Apparently) and the universe being 99.999% Plasma..Source...Could this be a possible explanation......That plasma is hiding the missing mass.?

Just a thought.

a reply to: dragonridr
must be something beyond your absolute threshold of perceptibility

originally posted by: KrzYma
so H3+ looks something like this
( + )(-)( + )(-)( + )
slightly juggling chain with no place for another electron

If that's your explanation, then why doesn't H2 also get rid of one electron and look like this:

( + )(-)( + )

But, H2 normally doesn't get rid of the extra electron like H3 does, and you can't explain why one does and the other doesn't, without QM, can you?

QM can explain it.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

there is no H2 in the beginning, there is plasma, Ions and free electrons.
they are the building blocks for H3+

H2 is here on Earth and not in (ISM)
two different things

H3+ is unstable here because of the interaction with the surrounding atoms.
( vacuum chamber has walls to )
you have shown the diagram with the potential oscillation, the wave function you call.
it "waves" because it is not "alone"

originally posted by: Choice777
I've just read some topics on ats and on the Internets about this so called mercury plasma engine which is apparently first described by some guy Fouche, and also appears on the website of some Hungarian company.
Apparently it used a mass of mercury or some sort of monoatomic element sometimes?!? and apparently it spins it at about 50/60000rpm and the electrons inside spin at in some sort of vortex or screw like fashion and the whole thing has a pressure of about 250.000 ATM. Is there even such an enclosure possible ?
It is said that this plasma torus engine thingy reduces gravity/inertia by 89%.
Do you know anything about it ? There's talk of the electrons moving together in such a manner in their screw trajectory that they behave like a Bose Einstein condensate.

?

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur

there is no H2 in the beginning, there is plasma, Ions and free electrons.
they are the building blocks for H3+

This explanation has a huge problem.

You say H3+ forms where there are lots of free electrons. And H3+ has a positive charge, and negatively charged free electrons should be strongly attracted to it. So, why aren't the free negatively electrons attracted to the positively charged H3+ ions and why don't they combine to form neutral H3? You really can't explain this just by considering electric charge without QM, or at least you haven't explained it yet.

H2 is here on Earth and not in (ISM)

Not true in fact H2 is more abundant in the ISM than H3+:

eprints.ucl.ac.uk...

H2 is the most abundant molecule in the interstellar medium

I think you may have misread the source saying H3+ was one of the most abundant ions, which is true, but H2 isn't an ion. H3+ is more common in lower density gas clouds, and H2 is more abundant in higher density gas clouds, so by mass, or number of molecules, H2 would be the more abundant molecule.

H3+ is unstable here because of the interaction with the surrounding atoms.
( vacuum chamber has walls to )

It's highly reactive in the ISM too, and when it gets a chance to give up the third proton to something else, it does:

www.berkeley.edu...

A highly reactive molecule, H3+ is composed of three hydrogen atoms linked in the form of an equilateral triangle - three bare protons enveloped in a cloud of two electrons. H3+ readily donates an "extra" proton to other atoms or molecules, leaving behind a hydrogen molecule, H2, the main component of molecular clouds. The molecule that accepts the proton is then activated, itching to start another chemical reaction.

"H3+ acts like a strong acid," McCall said. "It's very happy to give up one of its protons to any molecule it runs into."

However you still haven't explained why with all those free electrons floating around it doesn't form neutral H3.

originally posted by: ken10
I don't think you got the gist of what I was asking, For if a craft and its occupants had Zero Mass then it could take a sharp right turn at 5000 miles per hour and not have its occupants splatter against the walls of the craft.

If you are really here to examine this concept scientifically, the first thing a scientist needs is some evidence. Since there is no reliable evidence of such turns, then it's not scientifically necessary to work too hard to explain them scientifically, and especially we don't want to compound a misperception problem by the person who thought they saw such a maneuver, by piling on additional made up false claims.

Further here is my train of thought in very basic explanation...with the assumption that plasma balls have no mass.

~ A Plasma ball has no Mass and as such would not be affected by Gravity, Inertia nor the speed of light limit

We can study plasma and know it has mass, so I see no reason anybody would assume plasma balls have no mass.

~ A Plasma ball can create its own magnetic field (Apparently)

Yes this much is consistent with modern physics provided the plasma ball is rotating or otherwise moving, moving electric charges create magnetic fields.

~ Any object within that Plasma ball would be under the influence of the Plasma balls magnetic field totally, and isolated from from any outside forces.

~ Therefore a craft within a Plasma ball would also not be affected by Gravity, Inertia or the speed of light limit. ?

Dr Harold "Sonny" White at NASA is working on some advanced propulsion concepts using real scientific ideas which as dragonridr said rely on the exotic matter with "negative mass", but no such matter is known to exist so it's pretty speculative. If such exotic matter exists and if we could create and utilize it, then I suppose the science is there for a faster than light "warp drive", but that's a lot of big ifs. However even in that highly speculative realm, I'm not sure if exotic matter would endow all the properties you'd like to attribute to it.

Here's a video of Dr White talking about this topic, based on what we know about it:

Also with most of the universe missing (Apparently) and the universe being 99.999% Plasma..Source...Could this be a possible explanation......That plasma is hiding the missing mass.?

Until we find the missing mass I suppose we have to consider various options. ErosA433 posted a chart of many different ideas about what might explain the missing mass, but to my knowledge plasma hiding mass wasn't one of the possibilities, though I didn't fully understand every acronym on the chart.

He knows more about dark matter than I do so if he sees this post perhaps he can comment on whether that's one of the possibilities.

a reply to: Choice777
There's a video of Fouche saying it's all fiction. That's the one thing he said that's most likely to be true.

It is speculated that the alleged TR3 B uses such a drive. But both tr3b and this mercury plasma are best in the realm of a remote possibility. Engineering wise such pressures and rotations are difficult to create and even dangerous if created and put on board a flying machine.
a reply to: Choice777

a reply to: Choice777

The future of mankind Challenge,  Theory--- dark or missing matter is "transitional matter,"it is neither what it was ,or yet ,what it is to become,in transition it still has mass and is still matter.It must do this in time ,finite as it may be nothing can move faster than the speed of light.Without going into detail this will fill the spaces in the periodic table.Everything is nothing without time,all would cease to exist in transition if this is not true.We can only do so much with current known elements/matter ,this is the key to the future we all dream of.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
It is speculated that the alleged TR3 B uses such a drive. But both tr3b and this mercury plasma are best in the realm of a remote possibility. Engineering wise such pressures and rotations are difficult to create and even dangerous if created and put on board a flying machine.
a reply to: Choice777

Ok first ignore all that sinning mercury to create anti gravity doesnt work. Now what would it require to simulate anti gravity on earth would be to play with magnetic field lines. Much like trying to push to like poles together on a magnet. There is one thought i had as a possible way to do this. And thats to create whats called a magnetic mirror. These can be used to contain plasma and basically reflects magnetic fields. In theory i suppose this may be possible to generate a magnetic field while deflecting the other. Mind you however this is just a thought experiment on my behalf. Biggest problems would be control and the amount of energy required would be off the scale. But even this wouldnt truly be antigravity consider it a very messy work around. If your interested here is an article on the Mirror Fusion Test Facility and how they use magnetic mirrors to confine plasma.

Now i reluctant to even mention this because this is fringe area in science to say the least but the cool thing about physics its fun to speculate what if.

originally posted by: dragonridr
Ok first ignore all that sinning mercury to create anti gravity doesnt work.

Not only will it not work to create anti-gravity, but I doubt mercury will form plasma under those conditions, will it?

www.rense.com...

The plasma, mercury based, is pressurized at 250,000 atmospheres at a temperature of 150 degrees Kelvin, and accelerated to 50,000 rpm to create a super-conductive plasma with the resulting gravity disruption.

150 degrees Kelvin is -123 degrees Centigrade. If my info is correct the melting point of Mercury is -38.87 degrees C, so -123 is way below the melting point.

Further, when you pressurize a substance, doesn't it generally make it more difficult for the substance to boil? So even at atmospheric pressure, Mercury isn't even a liquid at -123 degrees C, much less a gas or even hotter plasma.

Pressurizing it only makes it that much harder to form a plasma. I never found a phase diagram for Mercury at various pressures as exists readily for water, but if you make one I'm pretty sure Mercury won't even be a gas at that temperature and pressure. It would be a solid, wouldn't it? Completely opposite end of the phase spectrum from plasma phase, which would require either higher temperatures, or lower pressures, or both.

The entire claim just seems ridiculous at face value.

A few "easily answered" questions:

1. Physically creating a photon.
I'm not referring to the oscillating magnetic/electrical fields making up a photon ... rather I want to know HOW a photon comes into existence in the 1st place. What mechanism does nature use to build a photon and how does this mechanism "stitch" a magnetic and electrical field together ?

2. Speed of a photon when created.
I'm assuming that because a photon travels at the speed of light that one of two possibilities exist: (a) at the "exact" moment that a photon comes into existence, it's already traveling at the speed of light or (b) the photon comes into existence with velocity >= 0 but < light speed and then over time, accelerates up to light speed.
Which option is it ?
If (a), how can something come into existence ALREADY moving at light speed ?
If (b), how long, from the instance of creation, does it take the photon to accelerate and reach light speed ?

3. Time to create a photon.
I have trouble wrapping my head around the notion that the process of photon creation takes zero time ... so I have to assume that a minimum amount of time must elapse between when the photon did NOT exist and the moment that creation has finished and the new fully formed photon comes into existence.
So how long does it take to create a photon ?

4. Photon "assembly".
Because a photon is not a zero-point entity and has dimensionality and therefore has length ... and assuming that it takes some "minimum" amount of time to create a photon ... does the photon creation mechanism create the photon "fully assembled" so to speak, or is a photon assembled "bit by bit" over time ?

5. Photon / electron interaction.
Here I would like to know what mechanism transfers the energy carried by the photon across to the electron ?
Does the photon have to be in "physical contact" with the electron before the energy transfer can take place or does the energy transfer begin to take place as the photon is approaching the electron but with some distance still separating them ? In other words, does the energy transfer initiate when the photon and electron are within a minimum distance of each other or only when they "contact" ?
How about the energy transfer itself ... does the energy transfer take "zero time" or is a minimum amount of time required to transfer all the photons energy ? Again, I can't wrap my head around an energy transfer taking "zero or no time at all". So I assume that some "minimum" amount of time is required.

If the photon and electron can initiate energy transfer between them across the space separating them as the photon continues to approach the electron, what mechanism notifies the photon that it has reached a minimum or "optimum" distance and can now begin to transfer energy to the electron ?

Does the photon have to be approaching the electron directly head-on for energy transfer to take place ... or can the photon pass by the electron without directly approaching it and STILL transfer it's energy to the electron ? In other words, a grazing or near-encounter.

6. Photon structure and stability.
What happens to the photons structure and stability during energy transfer to an electron ?
If it takes time (no matter how small) for the photon to transfer all of it's energy to an electron, what happens to the stability of the photons structure during the transfer process ?
In other words, if at time t1, the photon has transferred 25% of it's energy to the electron, is the photons structure still physically identical to it's structure before it's encounter with the electron. Does the photons original structure continuously change as it gradually transfers all of it's energy ?
What is the photons structure like at the point in time when it has transferred say, 99% of it's energy. Does it still retain the same original structure ? What about when it's transferred 99.999999% ?

Pressurising will cause freezing/melting/boiling points to be elevated. So forming a plasma may be possible, but the alleged contraption or tr3b producing anti gravity seems far fetched. Gyroscopic effects are possible though, but to what extent im not sure.
a reply to: Arbitrageur

What if the pressure is normal and it reaches the 250.000 atm while it's plasma ?
There was some talk about it replicating or beying a ''bose-einstein condensate''..which is really something special, apparently one of these condensates, hell knows what kind of state of matter it even is 5th, 6th ? , was able to slow down light to about 20cm/s.
And what about that element 115 that some claimed to have this vey small island of stability that some said exists and makes it stable enough for ''anti gravity'' tech, while others dismissed not only element 115 as ever possibly existing but also saying the stability island is impossible for it's electron numbers/configuration..i dont know what exactly.

My thought is simple....how many singular ufo sightings have there been so far in the entire recorded history of man ? 10.000+ or maybe 100.000+ ? I suspect way into the 100.000s....heck there's thousands per year per each country in the world.
IF just one , 1, is real, then it's EPIC. And i have another simple thhought, sort of like an axiom of mine: in any system with sufficient numbers, no matter how absurd the filter, there will always be a non zero percentage.
Example: percentage of world population that has died from injuries caused by toothpicks, even one toothpick....as absurd as it sounds, there must be at least one person, somewhere, at some point in time that has dies like this, either by the toothpick being tipped in poison or infected, either by getting shocked and tripping and smashing the head on some object....surely somewhere somehow somebody had died because of a toothpick.
Same with ufo, out of all the sighting surely at least one must be real...especially considering the vastness of the universe, and the implied multitude of planets, and the fact that , YES, some people actually wake up with fresh scars right after ''dreaming'' of being abducted. Was just reading some random webpage 2 nights ago, on some article about a doctor performing operations to remove objects from people, and the reply fields below were just full with replyes in various languages from various people, some actually stating they are ''desperate'' to have whatever they found under their skin removed after realizing what had potentially happened to them.

Anyway...i believe chances are someone if coming to this planet from far far away, therefor they must have mastered something that contravenes gravity's effects. The question is how, not IF.

And on the talk about there not being any materials with ''negative mass''...well air doesn't have any special property until you heat it, then it rises amongst the other air...what if the key is some process that will make normal matter not have trully ''no mass'' but a lot ''less mass'' than the rest of the matter which hasn't undergone this unknown process ? Then it would just like being quite transparent to gravity.

To achieve anti gravity, you have to negate time. Negative/exotic matter is not necessary. You may read thru my thread on bending or unbending of space.
Yes at times I wake up with scars after astral travel of sorts, but don't know if it is abduction or not.
a reply to: Choice777

a reply to: Nochzwei


The phase diagram for Mercury is very similar in form to water, although obviously has a shifted liquid phase making it liquid at room temperature.

As has been stipulated, by others the behavour of cooling it down, and then applying high pressure (ordering you do this is irrelevant) but basically if you cool to 150K, data shows (from the only phase diagram for Mercury I could find, that applying 70,000 ATM still would not move you out of the solid phase, and it actually works against you, not with you.

That is, lower temperature tends to make things progress from gas to liquid - liquid to gas, and higher pressure is the same, gas to liquid- liquid to gas.


So the statement made that pressurizing it will help you turn it into a plasma is physically unsupported and an incorrect statement

Yes you are right, maybe the temps as speculated are not correct, I was thinking of higher temps than speculated where this is possible and nothing like 150 K at all.
a reply to: ErosA433

originally posted by: tauristercus
A few "easily answered" questions:

Great questions but not easy, some may not have answers.

1. Physically creating a photon.
I'm not referring to the oscillating magnetic/electrical fields making up a photon ... rather I want to know HOW a photon comes into existence in the 1st place. What mechanism does nature use to build a photon and how does this mechanism "stitch" a magnetic and electrical field together ?

I've never read about any experiments which would tell us how this works, but then there are a lot of experiments I don't know about so that doesn't mean it hasn't been done. My guess is that there's not really any good answer to that question, since it's hard (maybe impossible?) to "watch" a photon being created to see how it's done. If someone else is aware of experiments I'm not they can cite them and we'll see what they tell us.

2. Speed of a photon when created.
I'm assuming that because a photon travels at the speed of light that one of two possibilities exist: (a) at the "exact" moment that a photon comes into existence, it's already traveling at the speed of light or (b) the photon comes into existence with velocity >= 0 but < light speed and then over time, accelerates up to light speed.
Which option is it ?
If (a), how can something come into existence ALREADY moving at light speed ?[
If (b), how long, from the instance of creation, does it take the photon to accelerate and reach light speed ?

In a vacuum the speed of light is always c. There is no reason to assume any acceleration, since the photon has no mass it's not like trying to accelerate a car or other massive object.

3. Time to create a photon.
I have trouble wrapping my head around the notion that the process of photon creation takes zero time ... so I have to assume that a minimum amount of time must elapse between when the photon did NOT exist and the moment that creation has finished and the new fully formed photon comes into existence.
So how long does it take to create a photon ?

On page 41, (see link below), mbkennel explained that when a photon interacts with an atom to absorb the photons energy, the time it takes might be about the time it takes light to travel across the width of the atom. If you wanted more precise timing I think there are clues in Compton scattering experiments. I'm not sure about emission but if the process of photon emission and absorption is somewhat symmetrical, then you'd be dealing with a similar time frame, though I don't know what experiments have measured this, if any.

4. Photon "assembly".
Because a photon is not a zero-point entity and has dimensionality and therefore has length ... and assuming that it takes some "minimum" amount of time to create a photon ... does the photon creation mechanism create the photon "fully assembled" so to speak, or is a photon assembled "bit by bit" over time ?

This is related to question 1 and the answer is similar, we can't really observe the process of photon creation, but you can't have half a photon.

5. Photon / electron interaction.
Here I would like to know what mechanism transfers the energy carried by the photon across to the electron ?
Does the photon have to be in "physical contact" with the electron before the energy transfer can take place or does the energy transfer begin to take place as the photon is approaching the electron but with some distance still separating them ? In other words, does the energy transfer initiate when the photon and electron are within a minimum distance of each other or only when they "contact" ?
How about the energy transfer itself ... does the energy transfer take "zero time" or is a minimum amount of time required to transfer all the photons energy ? Again, I can't wrap my head around an energy transfer taking "zero or no time at all". So I assume that some "minimum" amount of time is required.

If the photon and electron can initiate energy transfer between them across the space separating them as the photon continues to approach the electron, what mechanism notifies the photon that it has reached a minimum or "optimum" distance and can now begin to transfer energy to the electron ?

Does the photon have to be approaching the electron directly head-on for energy transfer to take place ... or can the photon pass by the electron without directly approaching it and STILL transfer it's energy to the electron ? In other words, a grazing or near-encounter.

mbkennel partially addressed this previously here. I suggest reading that and if you want to refine your question in light of that answer, feel free. What I'll add is that the "grazing" question is difficult to answer because the wave function of the photon and related theory says that the actual position of the photon is indeterminate (until it's not), so we don't know precisely where it is just prior to the interaction, only where it's likely to be. So for example the highest probability might be a "grazing" trajectory but in actuality the photon may have been located elsewhere in a lower probability but still possible location.

6. Photon structure and stability.
What happens to the photons structure and stability during energy transfer to an electron ?
If it takes time (no matter how small) for the photon to transfer all of it's energy to an electron, what happens to the stability of the photons structure during the transfer process ?
In other words, if at time t1, the photon has transferred 25% of it's energy to the electron, is the photons structure still physically identical to it's structure before it's encounter with the electron. Does the photons original structure continuously change as it gradually transfers all of it's energy ?
What is the photons structure like at the point in time when it has transferred say, 99% of it's energy. Does it still retain the same original structure ? What about when it's transferred 99.999999% ?

Like photon emission, photon absorption is not easy to observe directly and I don't see how we can say what the state of a photon which is 50% absorbed by an atom would look like because to my knowledge that hasn't been observed. I'm not aware of any experiments that even suggest such a concept as 50% of a photon (or 99.999999%) would be a useful concept.