Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I get what you are saying. I have a follow up question based on your reply if you would indulge me.

Even if for a nano second or a millisecond, what ever amount of time,

are not quantum effects outside of conventional time? I was under the impression that on the quantum level there is no bearing of time. That time is dependant on space and matter. The more density to the mass, the more time has bearing on it.

Is not matter existent in conventional space time only? So then would quantum states not be dependant more on energy than the matter it is created from in the exchange of matter /energy conversions?

Our perception of time then would only be valid here in conventional space time. That a quantum effect could exist on a scale of time that we can not measure- possibly where time has no bearing.

What is a millisecond in quantum "time".

a reply to: tadaman

That is vision, at a basic level. Photons striking the retina and triggering electrical impulses along the optic nerve to the brain.
Now, are you asking if, for instance, a quantum event directly in the brain can be registered as stimuli? If so, yes. Astronauts experience the occasional flashes of light in their field of vision due to high-energy particles striking either the retina or visual cortex.

originally posted by: tadaman
Our perception of time then would only be valid here in conventional space time. That a quantum effect could exist on a scale of time that we can not measure- possibly where time has no bearing.

Some aspects can be measured. For example, when quantum entangled particles are created, they can't move away from each other faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. If they are photons moving through the human body, the top speed is considerably lower as the human body isn't a vacuum.

So if you think you're reading the thoughts of your twin brother on the opposite side of the globe due to quantum entanglement which has a decoherence time nanoseconds, that's not enough time for photons to travel through the Earth to reach you even if they could do that (which they can't). Neutrinos could travel through the earth but they can't explain that kind of psi because you're lucky if you interact with one neutrino in your entire lifetime.

The correlation time for entanglement collapse has been too short an interval to measure, so it's nearly instantaneous.

a reply to: pfishy

Thats kind of cool. I wonder what else happens biologically that we can not detect? Like if emotional states or instinct in organisms are effected by high energy particle collisions with DNA or with organs that have evolved subtly to react to particles impacting them.

I once heard that DNA mutates more in space. That our planets electro magnetic shield diverts much solar radiation, and as such favors certain patterns of mutation.

Ok, I have another question. Since the LHC looks to be back on track for Run 2, and one of the hopeful outcomes is to either prove or disprove Super Symmetry, as well as create possible dark matter particles, would the theorized SUSY particles be a good candidate for dark matter?
And if so, what are the possibilities that there could be organized SuperSymmetric constructs, like atoms and molecules? Or even a 'Dark Universe' of planets and such that we simply can't detect? I know that last one is a huge stretch, but so was walking on the moon 100 years ago. Just saying.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The fact that observation of quantum mechanical entanglement in full form took many decades after the discovery of quantum mechanics, and exceptionally precise and controlled laboratory measurements, and the fact that nobody observed any such phenomenon in other ordinary circumstances, are evidence that persistent entanglement is rare, and almost never macroscopically significant.

Any more than Higgs decay pathways matter for grilling a steak.

Biology does NOT use a) nuclear fusion, b) superconductivity, and probably doesn't use c) entanglement outside of different ends of a single molecule.

a reply to: tadaman

That would be an interesting study. It would probably be better performed on Mars than space, though, because microgravity environments will cause physical changes much faster than cosmic ray strikes could do to dna (at least on a measurable level). Therefore you would want to maintain the control population on Earth, and get the study population in a place outside of Earth's magnetic field but with as close to 1g of gravity as possible. And as Mars doesn't have a magnetic field, and Venus would be impossible to colonize in the first place, it's your best bet. Also, it would have to be a generational study of the test animals, since the mutations wouldn't be noticeable until passed to offspring. Except cancer, of course.

originally posted by: pfishy
Ok, I have another question. Since the LHC looks to be back on track for Run 2, and one of the hopeful outcomes is to either prove or disprove Super Symmetry, as well as create possible dark matter particles, would the theorized SUSY particles be a good candidate for dark matter?

Yes, that was one of the major attractions of SUSY theory, providing a natural explanation for physical, dynamical dark matter.

I'm using the past tense. If SUSY had been real, at least most natural versions thereof, LHC Run 1 would have found it immediately.

It's a nice theory probably let down by experimental fact. So far LHC is almost a bust---we got orthodox Higgs as understood when the Beatles were fresh, and nothing else.

And if so, what are the possibilities that there could be organized SuperSymmetric constructs, like atoms and molecules? Or even a 'Dark Universe' of planets and such that we simply can't detect? I know that last one is a huge stretch, but so was walking on the moon 100 years ago. Just saying.

I don't think people know if there would be interesting bound states of SUSY particles or if more than one species was long-lived or stable. The answer is probably 'no' and occasionally 'yes' for various versions of SUSY theory.

Eros, what's your take?

a reply to: mbkennel

"Biology does NOT use a) nuclear fusion, b) superconductivity, and probably doesn't use c) entanglement outside of different ends of a single molecule."

I apologize, but I must point out a flaw in this statement. Biology doesn't NORMALLY use nuclear fusion. But it can. Have you forgotten Godzilla?

Actually, I was curious as to whether the Oklo reactor would be an exception. Bacteria regulating Uranium reactions and deriving energy from it seems like it might qualify. But I'm not sure of that.

a reply to: mbkennel

I had read the same thing about the failure to discover it in Run 1. It should have found evidence for the selectron or a couple of squarks somewhere during it's initial ramp-up runs, when it was setting constant collision energy records.
Was that disappointing to you, personally? Just wondering.
What, if anything, do you think will come out of Run 2, other than further refinement of Higgs data?
Personally, I would love to see a graviton confirmed. Though from what I understand, only a couple of theories still being considered about them state that they will need the current new energy levels to create. The majority of the other theories were shut down by Run 1 as well.
Oh, and I wouldn't call the LHC a wash simply because we've only found the Higgs Boson. Isn't disproving a theory just as valuable as proving it? It tells us what's not there, so that we know to start looking in new directions for answers. Otherwise we'd just be running in circles. (Like those poor little mangled protons they have to shovel out of it every weekend. Really, someone should call Amnesty International. There's a proton/heavy ion genocide going on in that place. )

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: mbkennel

"Biology does NOT use a) nuclear fusion, b) superconductivity, and probably doesn't use c) entanglement outside of different ends of a single molecule."

I apologize, but I must point out a flaw in this statement. Biology doesn't NORMALLY use nuclear fusion. But it can. Have you forgotten Godzilla?

Actually, I was curious as to whether the Oklo reactor would be an exception. Bacteria regulating Uranium reactions and deriving energy from it seems like it might qualify. But I'm not sure of that.

You've confused nuclear fission and nuclear fusion.

Godzilla was dreamed up in the aftermath of the fission nuclear bombs.

Also the Oklo nuclear reactor is based on fission, not fusion.

For fusion you need higher temperatures and pressures than anything naturally occurring on Earth. Fission is different and occurs spontaneously though to get a chain reaction going you have to concentrate the fissionable materials somehow.

I read something about bacteria regulating a fission reaction and it made no sense to me. It sounded to me like the bacteria just happened to be there where the soluble uranium dissolved in water was flowing into an algal mat and concentrated there. Water slows down neutrons so in that environment it was primarily water that moderated the neutrons. But if you know of a paper on how bacteria regulate fission I'll read it.

a reply to: pfishy

Yes SUSY is all but disproved only hope is if our calculations are wrong. This reminds me of the marble and wood coment by Enstien he wanted the universe to be like marble set facts and polished. Turns out it's more like wood with knots and grains. LHC was great at disproving things and your right just as important it takes people off the wrong path.

As far as dark matter the discovery of what it is helps because it helps complete a picture. Not sure if there will truly be any benefits to us as far as inventions etc. Because dark matter doesn't appear to interact with normal matter. What it will do is confirm we don't have to rewrite our theories of gravity yet.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes, I did indeed confuse fission and fusion. And the Godzilla reference was FAR from serious.
And I haven't revisited the Oklo reactor research in quite a while, so I may have been off base there too. It would seem I need to tighten up a bit today.

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: mbkennel

I had read the same thing about the failure to discover it in Run 1. It should have found evidence for the selectron or a couple of squarks somewhere during it's initial ramp-up runs, when it was setting constant collision energy records.
Was that disappointing to you, personally? Just wondering.

I don't work in the field so I didn't have a dog in the fight. Personally I would prefer to find some stuff that's definitely new, and not as predicted, and which might have technological implications. Better yet, something truly weird---the 'unparticle' theory counts. Even better, something to make warp drive.

So far it's a bust considering the money & effort put into it.

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: dragonridr
Your answer is wrong it is the amount of energy in a unit. Has nothing to do with preventing anything from moving. And thermal energy increases movement of atoms causing expansion has nothing to do with pressure. If we want to be acurate the coefficient of thermal expansion depends on the anharmonic forces between the atoms.

this is your description what's happening and how pressure and temperature becomes two separated but correlated variables.

amount of energy in a unit ? what energy ? kinetic ? potential ?
maybe rather force perpendicular to a surface, the force that prohibits movement.
Temperature is the speed atoms "bounce" of and if too great what makes the bounds break.
Temperature is not the distance atoms move, it's the "collision" interval or the extra acceleration from surrounding atoms, this is where the energy goes to and comes from. Pressure.

The above is all so confusing. In a gas in local statistical equilibrium, temperature relates to energy of atoms (internal and translational degrees of freedom) and pressure relates to momentum they convey upon collision. Temperature is about typical per-atom properties and is the primary parameter in the probability distribution of velocities. For pressure you also need to know the density of atoms to compute net force on an area.

Since translational energy is proportional to v^2 and not v, it means that temperature isn't the average speed atoms move.

The importance two properties were debated in physics in the 1700's through mid 1850's when the nature of thermodynamics and mechanics was becoming correctly understood.

I would like very much being told what is the real nature and explanation (not just some Wikipedia lame explanation) of what is 1/f noise.

originally posted by: pfishy
I would love to see a graviton confirmed.

If we agree, as we should, that 'something' is causing the earth to continuously follow in the direction of the sun (and we agree it is not the sun itself; as in, the sun does not have arms and hands which extends from its body and grasps onto the earth to keep it near), then wouldnt we also agree that 'something' must be literally and figuratively massive; more massive than the earth? And mustnt the 'something' be 'touching' the earth, since the entirety of what we are trying to figure out is 'what is touching the earth to make it move around the sun, because the sun is not touching the earth, the suns body is not touching the earth and carrying it with it; what the suns body does to the 'something' which exists around the sun and around the earth, is what touches the earth, and forces it to follow the sun'.

So why is it so hard to detect that 'something'? That 'something' which is always pushing the earth. Isnt it all around, why is it not detectable? Could it be the predictions of its mass, or the predictions and understandings of earthly mass, make it more difficult to comprehend how the field of gravity exists, how it is composed, and connected to itself, how it reacts to mass?

You know the mass of the sun. You know the mass of the earth. You know if you put the earth in different trials, at different distances away from the sun in increments of a mile, if you did this a million times, the earth would react slightly differently from its placement in the vicinity each time. So what is needed to be known, is how the gravity field is composed. If it is composed of a network of particles, which have great tension strength, all of this stuff must be considered. How many gravity particles exist per cube mile. How that density of gravity particles is altered when the sun is there.

It seems to me it would be impossible not to find gravity particles. Because they must be surrounding all matter. If they were not, how would the earth continually be traveling around the sun?

a reply to: PeterMcFly

You are in good company. Many, many others, including highly qualified theoretical and experimental physicists, are interested in the 1/f noise, given how many different systems and environments feature it.

There is one generalized hypothesis that I feel has potential.
If you have a system that has saturating nonlinear elements, that is, elements that first reproduce the input exactly and for higher amplitudes of input produce only slightly higher output, you can feed simple thermal noise into that system and get (1/f)ˆk noise for various values of k, including the simple 1/f depending on the properties of the saturating nonlinear elements.

originally posted by: mbkennel


What specifically counts as "substance" and what does not?

Is there a word we can agree to use which turns our understanding of eternal reality into absolutely something, and absolutely nothing? Absolutely something being that which is absolutely opposite of nothing.

Something cannot come from nothing.

Something cannot be turned into nothing.

I refer to something, as substance.

The only kink in this discussion, is the nature of movement.

Which is real, but not 'a thing'. But an aspect of things.

A thing exists.

A thing that exists moves.

It is still the same thing entirely.

But there is a real difference.

And its real difference is not 'a thing'.

Movement is not a 'substance'. (unless it is... as I have not deeply considered the nature of movement enough to say)

A thing exists.

That thing which exists, when moving, is said to have more energy.

The thing itself; the thing as it was before it started moving, is the same thing as it is while it is moving.

Then we must consider, how it might require a thing, to make a thing move.

But then we just get entirely into a rabbit hole.

So yes, I will stand by my claim;

Nothing equals nothing.

That which is not nothing.

Is something.

That which is something, can move.

Movement is not 'something'.

Movement is not 'nothing'.

Now last time we discussed these topics, I was trying to think about how movement might actually be actual something, because I was utterly distraught over the nature and meaning of movement, what it is, how it exists, what it means.

So it might be, if there is not pure perfect nothing space

And now I must be clear again, to define these terms I have been using, which I have assumed are so obvious as they speak for themselves, but alas.

When I say pure perfect nothing space.

I am referring to the above axiom of; Nothing equals nothing. Something is not nothing. Something is something.

So if the universe is a lot of different somethings (all ultimately related as 'all the something that exists')

and there is real area and volume of nothing space, in between the somethings;

Then we can imagine the most fundamental particle of something not moving at all, in a space of nothing;

Ok, let me backtrack;

Because something exists. Because something cannot be created or destroyed (only transformed; time). The ultimate quantity of something is finite (due to time; quality is infinite).

This means eventually, if we were to with our minds hypothetically travel in any direction away from the point we are currently at in the totality of something; if we did this for infinite light years at infinite times the speed of light; eventually we would be completely away, from the totality of something that exists.

Now it is possible that there is not infinite nothing space in all directions surrounding the absolute totality of something.

It is possible that due to some reason and the nature of the existence of the totality of something, that the somethings at the edge of the totality, cannot leak out and drift off infinitely into nothing space.

Perhaps because the network of the totality of something is just too connected, too strong, that it is always more compelled to contain itself, then to infinitely break apart forever.

I suppose then we must consider if this universe is the first time something has ever began to splinter; and yes this is about the theory of big crunch and big bang etc.

But it really is impossible to tell; considering what you call a statement, and I call eternal proof, proves that something has alway existed and always will; we have no way to determine the odds if the something had eternally existed in the highest ordered state, and that this expression of universal creation is the first time the totality of something has acted at all.

For the smallest particle of something, lets consider we can take it infinitely far away from the rest of the totality of something, into a pure nothing space.

And lets say, because there, there are no fields, or particles, or light or anything...it is purely absolutely nothing space; that we can allow this most fundamental particle to be perfect still, perfectly motionless.

Oh and shame, do all theories break already, because an actual particle of something is meaningless, because actual particles of something do not exist as objects, but what is required is an entire universal field, to then say; the field is not composed of particles, it is composed of... a certain type of mass soup, and at points amidst this mass soup, the mass soup has solidified in places, and these solidifications cannot be unsolidified, if they are, in another layer of the soup, equal solidifications will appear.

So we cannot drag a solidification of a field, outside the universe, and sever the particle from is field; because we must drag and stretch the entire field, out with us infinitely away from the totality of something.

If we could sever the field. If we could cup our hands around an excitation of field, as a particulate of something which cannot be created or destroyed. And steal it from the totality of something. And bring it infinitely far away into a space of pure nothing. And then let it be perfectly motionless out there.

We would notice that the thing exists. It is an object, a thing, a something.

We would then notice, that if we want to create what is known as movement, we need another thing to move the motionless object.

So lets say we go all the way back to the totality of something, and do the same thing again to get another smallest particulate of something.

Now we have a motionless particle sitting in nothing space.

And a very similar particle, in our hand.

Well of course this reduces all the way back to the nature of consciousness, and our bodies stored energy, and our ability to cause motion to occur.

But anyway. Does all this fall apart anyway, because if we were to toss the particle in our hand, at the motionless one. Being severed from all the fields of the universe; would they even be able to interact? Would they even be able to move?

So yes, one of the puzzling(/necessary/beautiful) things, is the nature of 'aspect'.

We might be compelled to bring up other things like 'human perception of color' as being 'not things' but not nothing.

But perhaps the result, of things, interacting amidst nothing.

This train of thought is so important, to the nature of light, how we define mass and movement, and physics understanding of space and time.

Light is not nothing. Therefore it must be something. The interesting thing is it is thought light cannot be motionless. My argument, is that light is the motive result of an underlying structure/something, that must be something, or have relative motionlessness, or what which what is known as rest mass.

I think those who have been disagreeing with my insights in this thread, are either shills, or people who are very scared of the mistakes of the science of physics.

There are things I know which must be true, which are contradictory to physicists beliefs.

I.e. There must be something which exists. Which when moved. Is light.

Physicists ignore the something which exists, prior to the detection of light.

All this fudging, creates a mess out of physics, and interpretations of reality.

a reply to: Pirvonen

In my entire time on this site, I think this is maybe only the fifth comment that has gone completely over my head. I love it when that happens. Now I have something completely new to research. Thanks!