All Activity

The redshift has little to do with gravitational constant and we have means of testing redshift by understanding the processes involved. We can for example examine hydrogen which is one of most common elements in our universe and using spectrography. There is nothing random that isn't cross checked by numerous means involving redshift. We don't even rely on it as our only means of distance calculation. Quite frankly no one method works for every distance range. A huge portion of papers can be found studying the accuracy of redshift at different ranges and those cross checks using other means such as interstellar parallax. Same applies to luminosity distance. By the way the redshift formula you find in textbooks is only useful at short distances cosmological scale.

The mathematics simply says that the traveling twin's own time is shorter, it explains nothing. Moreover, the path taken by the twin is longer and not shorter, what is shorter is its proper time. You can call proper time a "path" if you please, that's not why it will be a real one, show me this "path" in the sky if you can. Yet, Wikipedia says that there is a paradox except in the case where we postulate a privileged reference frame. How do you know that there is no preferred reference frame where the light is isotropic? You can't know. There is no gravitational field in an accelerated frame of reference, we are in flat space-time, the distance between the accelerating object and the stars varies unlike in a gravitational field, the Doppler effect is therefore kinematic, not gravitaionnel. ---------------------------- I wrote "This is also how Einstein saw it, he thought that there was an ether which was stationary for everyone." It is called the relativistic aether, but it is also a luminiferous ether, it is the Lorentz ether deprived of its state of motion.

You don't know whether the redshift is higher than it should be or not if the problem is a lack of some sinusoidal application to factor in the proximity values of galaxy A and B relative to the observer as I explained earlier. So you don't even know whether the cosmic event horizon or CMBR is the oldest light that's had time to reach the lens or whether it is just a blending that makes objects invisible as the tip of the cone becomes infinitesimal.

Not really. He concluded that space has properties, but it’s not a medium that represents a preferred frame of reference, or is required for light. The aether he spoke of later is not the luminiferous aether of Lorentz theory.

No I don't think so. See the Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_crystal and especially this passage: Time crystals do not violate the laws of thermodynamics: energy in the overall system is conserved, such a crystal does not spontaneously convert thermal energy into mechanical work, and it cannot serve as a perpetual store of work. But it may change perpetually in a fixed pattern in time for as long as the system can be maintained. They possess "motion without energy"[16]—their apparent motion does not represent conventional kinetic energy.[17] I'll admit I know nothing about time crystals apart from what I have just quickly read, but it looks to me as if these things exhibit motion in their ground state. The definition of a ground state is it is the lowest energy state allowed for the system. From that it follows that energy cannot be extracted from the system (unless you break the system up, I guess, which would be a one-off exercise). You have much the same thing with the zero point energy in a harmonic oscillator, or, to give a real example, in the vibrational ground state of a diatomic molecule. There is still residual motion, even at absolute zero (hence "zero point"), but none of it can be extracted as energy.

Welcome to SFN AFAIK a time crystal is predicated on no energy loss, so you’d destroy it by removing energy from it. Like taking energy out of a pendulum - it would stop ticking. It certainly doesn’t generate any energy.

For reference: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04257-w

You don't know anything about it: https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether/ He later changed his mind.

Since Google physicists created the first time crystal, I've been wondering if this new state of matter could be a source of infinite energy. Could a machine be built that can harvest the energy of a time crystal in some form? (I'm in middle school, so I don't have much experience with physics)

Judging by the jumping spider one way to think of a tarantula being less creepy might be to try and focus on either the head or the eyes separately rather than simultaneously in order to avoid multitasking the reflection of the eyes with the slight neurological complexity of their brain. Viewing their retina as a concave lens might imply that the tarantula is mostly neurological whereas viewing their retina as a concave mirror might make the creature appear more transparent and photonic. The eyes are often hidden in smaller spiders such that it’s easier to view the creatures as neurological without the need to view their retina as a lens where the retina might be as small as a concave mirror. In other words if you’re afraid then you could dilute the creature as being deterministic and neurological or as being thoughtless and visual. The way the jumping spider’s eyes are black might imply that their vision is tinted darker or black.

This evening when I get home I will be able to run the formulas for you. Yes you can calculate the vacuum energy density per cubic metre. For that one can get a decent estimate using the critical density formula. (Assuming Lambda is the result of the Higfs field) one line of research. The calculations differ for the quantum harmonic oscillator contributions however that results in the vacuum catastrophe but I also have the related calculations for that as well.

As light climbs in and out of a gravity well it will blue shift or redshift. For example an outside observer looking at infalling material at the EH of a blackhole will see infinite redshift but an observer at the EH will see infinite blue shift. This is due to gravitational redshift The path will be determined by the Principle of least action which correlates the Potential energy and kinetic energy terms. What most ppl don't realize is that the path is never truly straight. That's just the mean average. If you consider all the little infinitesimal changes in direction (sometimes up/down left right etc) then it becomes much easier to understand. As Markus the geodesic equations are the extremum of all the miniscule deviations

Hi, The average vacuum energy is estimated to about 3 GeV/m^3 (the observed). If relying on this value (when the calculated in extremely much higher). -And the Higgs field energy VEV, the vacuum expectation value, is both observed in the LHC experiment and fairly calculated to about 246 GeV. How are these differences explained in QM physics? 3 GeV versus 246 GeV? I understand that the VEV amount is presented without any special volume in mind. But surely the VEV isn't correlated to the cubic meter volume, though must be estimated to the Planck scale. Far minor than the m^3 which the vacuum is given with. The VEV is a universal constant thought to fill all universe with neither any much higher nor any lower energy content. This issue is raised with the condition of both the vacuum energy volume and the Higgs field are without any elementary particles, though being absolutely empty of any visible "matter". -Without even one single photon or neutrino or whatever. The only content is the absolute vacuum itself (3 GeV). The VEV can be regarded for proven with the Higgs boson discovery in 2012. And the vacuum content have with the Planck Collaboration project also been verified. /chron44

Fiber optic cables operate on the principle of total internal reflection, not the photoelectric effect.

Not necessarily. Delusion can be a symptom of mental conditions, but they do not have to be.

To which the first retorts, "Easy for you to say, when your wife makes such good soup!"

A domestic dwelling can have an adverse power factor so the phi in pf = cos(phi) is real and measureable especially if it's heavy on the ac and refrigerator loads (as we are, we've got a mechanic tinkering with our knackered gen set as I type!). The 4,000+ km wavelength I mentioned applies to the time of flight effect over long transmission lines. By the time you see an ac voltage (or current) peak, the last one is long gone. So the phase change over a 10 metre distance is oto 4 second of arc. Good luck measuring that with a multimetre 😊

Thanks. This is what I want to confirm. For the AC case, I really cannot say as the real world and the ideal world may be different.

The latter part of my explanation applies to this. The current is uniform. There’s no way for it to vary.

No, this is wrong. You need to understand the difference between excitation and ionisation. Photons are often absorbed without having enough energy to eject an electron. They just move it to a higher, but still bound, energy state. This creates an excited state of the atom or molecule that has absorbed the photon. The whole of spectroscopy involves processes of this kind.

I am saying the potential difference between the ends of the wire, i.e. a long wire connected to a dc battery.

V here really stands for voltage difference, not absolute voltage. So when you say: Your question reads as if the voltage gradient along the wire is zero. Did you intend that the two ends of the wire are maintained at a constant voltage difference? This would make more sense.

If the voltage is constant (for a real wire) there would be no current. If there is a voltage drop, and thus a current, the current will be uniform even if the voltage drop is not (e.g. if there’s a resistor, or a series of different-valued resistors); there’s no way to vary it. Charge is conserved, so current flowing in to a point equals the current flowing out.

If you repeat your errors I will repeat the corrections. Red light lacks the energy to ionize, so that’s not what’s going on. I’ll leave it to others to correct the biology.

How does a coupling constant appear smaller ? If you apply \(F=G\frac{m_1m_2}{r^2}\) the coupling constant remains constant what changes is the force exerted by the coupling between two masses as a function of radius. Not the coupling constant itself. We describe our observable universe itself in the FLRW metric we know the universe extends beyond that it could be finite or infinite as we can never measure beyond that we deal with what we can Observe and measure. (Region of shared causality)