Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AbstractDreamer

  1. If it did exist one moment ago, and if one moment ago doesn't exist right now, what does forever mean right now?
  2. How can expansion have been going on forever, if it never existed even 1 moment ago? If its always been right now, what makes things change?
  3. Why quote me when your response doesn't answer my question?
  4. Apparently a white dwarf type 1a supernova the standard candle can tell us how far it is, by measuring its luminosity. Is this independant of the size of the star? Is space expansion uniform across the entire universe, or are some volumes expanding faster than others? If we measure the red-shifted wavelength of a photon, and we know the expansion history of the space through which it has travelled, how do we calculate the distance of the source if we don't know the original wavelength of the photon? Or is there a shift in the whole spectrum of radiation, that we can use to infer distance, and if so how do we know what the original spectrum look liked at the time when the radiation was emitted from the source? If space expansion causes a lengthening of a photon's wavelength, does that means space expansion operates in a volume with at least one axis that is shorter than the wavelength of the photon? What is the smallest volume of space that can be subject to expansion? Apparently the density of dark energy needs to remain constant. Which of the following statements is true: As space expands, dark energy must be created to maintain density. As dark energy is created, space must expand to maintain density. If space and time are related, and dark energy and space are related, how is dark energy and time related? If space is expanding and the rate is variable, could time be similarly contracting or expanding at different rates?
  5. Given spacetime exists and is relative. Imagine a volume of space is empty. Then within that volume there is nothing for time to be relative to or between. Therefore time cannot exist within that volume. But that spacetime exists was a given. Therefore either space is more that simply volume, or any volume of space cannot be empty. Where is the fallacy?
  6. It became apparent i didn't know enough, I began reading in earnest. So I have been clicking on links and reading a lot of material, trying to absorb such a vast amount of information, and trying to make what little sense I can of it. I don't have much time left, unless i take sabbatical. Then i learnt a few things and tried to apply my knowledge, and its presumed i know a lot more, and I'm a troll. I am not questioning the accuracy of equations. Can you explain your point here? At what point have i attempted to make such assertions, given that i don't deny I'm in no such position? If i understand correctly, observations on those iron filings only demonstrates conservation of momentum. I'm still reviewing vector calculus, so i haven't actually got around to looking at any of the EM equations yet. But i can guess its some function of the magnitude of the source charge, distance from source and maybe some other constants and variables i haven't considered like magnetic polarity. But I'm no where near ready to describe anything mathematically. In English, I think the field exerts a force on the the filings (as long as the fillings are moving as you shake them, or drop them). This force translates that initial motion energy into the free electrons within an iron filing, ultimately causing the filing itself to "move" more than it would without the field, whilst conserving the energy in the system. I guess the lines you see are because its a dynamic system and there are other forces in play that cause the filings to stick together. As each each filing moves to find equilibrium in the EM field, they themselves create small EM fields that affect other filings nearby. However is there anything here that demonstrates field lines exist, or a direct measure of the field itself? A lot of lines can be described by maths. The field line "feels" like a temporal construct only* required to calculate the gradient of the tangent, for direction. Depending on how you perform and break down the calculation from EM equations to the direction of force, it doesn't need to exist. On the other hand, if there is any use in stopping the calculations before obtaining the derivative, and only to obtain the function of the curve - that is the field line - OR if the function can be used to measure something else, then i would concede. Is there anything legitimate in my beliefs? The observation of those traces leaved by charged quantum particles, simply demonstrate ionisation of the medium by free particles. If you subject the chamber to a magnetic field, that might cause the motion of charged particles to interact and move in a pattern that is a presentation of the field. Is this any different to the iron filings but with smaller particles in constant motion?
  7. Very good answers. Arbitrary parameterisation. Pick some numbers till it fits? Hmm. Observed space expansion? Lets make up some Dark Energy Observed gravitational anomalies? Lets make up some Dark Matter Do we have a model of DM that explains all the gravitational anomalies, or are some anomalies more different that others? If the nature of DM and DE is unknown, why do we need to separate the two concepts. Could they be part of a greater underlying Dark Thing that exhibits behaviour of both DE and DM? Isn't the goal of physics to simplify the model? Is there anything to tell us they must be different? Or could there be more types of fundamental Darkness? What other observations do no fit into the QM model at present? How might QM explain DE?
  8. How does quantum mechanics explain or describe observations that space is expanding? If qm cannot describe such phenomenon, is there any other model that can? How does dark energy and dark matter fit into the qm approach. Which of following terms is most likely to exist assuming some unexplained behaviour is observed: Dark Time, Dark Mass, Dark Speed, Dark Spin, Dark Momentum, Dark Field, Dark Direction, Dark Gravity, Dark Observer. Where would unexplained behaviour most likely be observed?
  9. This is a mood test not a personality test. As your mood is unlikely to change over the time it takes to answer the questions, of course it's going to be reasonably accurate. Try doing the test on a bad day. I bet your "personality" is different.
  10. As acceleration = (distance/time)/time If acceleration has direction, then either distance has information on direction, or time has direction, or direction is emergent from a function of distance and time. If velocity has direction in the same manner as acceleration, then time cannot affect direction If velocity has direction in a different manner to acceleration, then time is some fuction of direction or direction some function of time. What properties or attributes does direction have?
  11. I could have googled all the answers and pasted them in. That doesn't mean i understand, or can visualise, or "feel" any of it. I could have also pointed out that your question was as poorly phrased to me as my answer was disappointing for you, but i was happy to stumble along. I'm not really sure why you think my answer based on real things is so disappointing. In my innocence, I tried to describe what i knew (of why the fields were different) from a pragmatic, and realistic perspective. I would like to be corrected on anything i have said that is incorrect (other than calling an ion an atom)? On the other hand, your answer uses fictitious concepts in an unrealistic static environment, without any reference to their imaginary nature. The field lines that you refer to, do they really exist in reality or even in mathematics? If not, then to use something that doesn't exist to describe a difference between two things is non-sequitur. How does something that does not actually exist have a start and termination, and be extendable, and/or loop? To convince me your wonderful tale is better than mine is bold to say the least. Is there anything you have said about these fields that can be measured or observed, and undisputedly considered as existing? So you would fill my head with imaginary descriptions and fictitious models, before giving me a glimpse into some secret truth that would be made so much more difficult to understand after such abusive priming? As i understand, as long as time exists (and continues to "move"), you cannot have the presence of one field without the other. If both fields are in perpetual interaction, then any attempt to describe one as different from the other is only a difference in how you choose to imagine it is modelled, rather than any description of observability or measureability. So arguing about whose imagination is correct is futile. What matters is the mathematics. Mathematically, in a dynamic environment, there is only a single EM field. So whilst it is clear I do not know what I'm talking about, at the very least I'm not delusional, and more importantly i do not impose a false belief on others. I am now classically groomed, for my virgin exposure to the quantum reality.
  12. As far as the human sense of touch is concerned, that is simply an electrical signal delivered from a sensory receptor along sensory neurons to the conscious part of the brain that then decides that something is being "felt". Avoiding the topic of what is consciousness and where it comes from, the perception of touch can be deceived so that you can aware of touching something, but not actually be in close proximity with anything that might cause that perception. Consider the itch you cant scratch or the phantom limb sensation.
  13. Just before a certain supernova collapses into a black hole is the most appropriate situation i can imagine when atoms are "touching" for a period longer than instantaneous. Alternatively, when particles accelerated in the LHC at Cern collide, I can imagine things are very close to each other at the instant of collision.
  14. You cant question me on my apparent hypocrisy in being pedantic, when i had already pre-stated that game is easy to play. Strange's point might be perfectly valid, but does that mean its OK to be pedantic when pointing out a mistake to a newbie (me), but its not OK for a newbie to be pedantic when trying to defend his position? Yet you have stated his point is perfectly valid, and admitted my point is only conditionally valid, when really both points are equally conditionally valid depending on your perspective; only you have chosen only one perspective. Its not obvious why your judgement is so complete and so biased, though it does put to question your ability to think objectively as an individual and actually have your own beliefs instead of just siding with the safest bet. You strike me as a person who would sacrifice truth for comfort, sacrifice principle for acceptance. Not what i would expect from a physicist. It's only insulting if you have an ego to protect, or in this case trying to protect someone else's ego. In hindsight, it has condescending tones, and I would take this statement back. I made no such presumption. To presume that someone with knowledge of "only" pop-science cannot help those who have done the hard hours study. THAT is hubris. Following the questions from Studiot #28, I made a series of statements #29 exposing my lack of knowledge of physics for which i am not ashamed. Someone had asked me questions and i had answered as truthfully as i could and as accurately as could remember. To me, if there was a genuine desire from the responses to be helpful, i would expect not only that mistakes be pointed out, but also to tell me when I'm correct ( or at least along the right lines). I have often been accused of setting my expectations too high. And I'm becoming increasingly aware I'm guilty of that again now.
  15. Wow so you admit you have already made a judgement on me whereby you feel less willing to be helpful. This is getting bad. I never wanted an argument. You have managed to demonise me. Apologies for being a demon. I guess physics is not for me.
  16. If you're just going to be pedantic and argue over semantics, that game is easy to play. You're wrong. Atoms DO have a net charge. Their net charge is ZERO. Wrong again. Football is a lot more than just the players. It consists of physios, scouts, coaches, sponsors, lawyers, groundsmen, fans. Shouting "just kick the ball", perhaps would only make a player laugh. But 60,000 people shouting might inspire him. Certainly 60,000 fans paying his wages might motivate him. So just because you have undoubted knowledge in one field, doesn't mean you can carry that confidence into areas you clearly do not understand. Moreover, be mindful not to let your confidence in your superior knowledge blind you and lock you into a local maxima in the solution landscape, or to allow your confidence to overspill into complacency and arrogance, because that is easy for others to notice and is not becoming. Again you seem convinced that it is impossible to apply cognitive processes learnt from different fields of study and be able to contribute to another field of study (physics). I can only guess at why you are taking such an exclusionist stance. I have made a sincere attempt to improve my understanding of something which i know is out of my depth. Yet i feel most of the responses are overly keen on simply pointing out where I am wrong, and probing my knowledge until i make a mistake and then pointing it out. If putting me off is your intention its working.
  17. I can picture 1 apple + 1 apple = i got 2 apples Everything at the atomic level or smaller is simply modelling through interpretation of observations. Atoms can have a net electric charge, and the range of its affect is an electric field. What gives electrons and protons charge? I dont know other than quark stuff. Magnetic matter can affect stuff, and its range is a magnetic field. What causes magnetism? electrons have a magnetic field and something to do with alignment of "spinning" electrons. Though i recall that "spin" is not an accurate description. Electric and magnetic fields interact, effect and are affected by each other but produce different forces. But the fact they can both be unified means they are one and the same thing at a deeper level. A neutron has no charge but is made up of the same stuff that makes protons. So i guess it could be magnetic but not electric. As far as equations go ,whilst they can be followed and used in the perfect mathematical work of theory and modelling, I cannot visualise interactions like i can when i have 1 apple and what i need to get 2 apples. A footballer does not need to understand anything about physics to have a great idea of how to kick and pass a ball. A goalkeeper does not need to know how to score goals to win a game. Likewise, I dont need to understand something more than someone else, before I can help that someone else who understands more than i do understand more than he/she did before.
  18. Do I need to have an alternate theory before I start trying to formulate a theory, or before i start asking questions about the current theory? That would make it paradoxically impossible for the first theory to have been formulated. Im not even sure what the current interpretations are or what my interpretation is, only that i keep reading the wave-like property belongs to the particle, and that there is some duality of behaviour that is logicially not obvious and requires maybe a waveform collapse or other interpretation. I have a heavy, small, circular, yellow, wooden table. Its duality in weight, size, shape, colour and material is undeniable. Yet each of these "behaviours" is just how the object is manifested under varying criteria. When weighed, its behaviour is heavy. When shaped, its behaviour is circular. There may be an infinite number of measuring criteria, and therefore an equal number of properties. When materialised its behaviour is wooden. When metallised it exhibits no behaviour as it is not metallic. Its also not blue, not square, not fish-like. So, for a given EM radiation, when quantised (as you put it), its behaviour for motion is particle-like. If you have the EM field present, without any form of radiation within the field, can you observe a particle through quantisation? If not, can you then say the particle is a property of the radiation, and not the field. Is there a particle that is immune from the effects the electromagnetic field for its motion? Such as a particle belonging to another field? A graviton? Or can you negate or manipulate the EM field for a time period smaller than it would take for a radiation to traverse the affected volume/distance (or affect a distance larger than radiation could traverse, within the time taken for an observation to be made)? If so, the radiation might then be observed whilst its mediating field is manipulated, and observations made. If the wave-like behaviour alters with the manipulation of the field, without quantisation of the radiation in to a particle, how can you then attribute the wave-like behaviour to the particle, and could then the wave-like behaviour only be a property of the field? If you can differentiate between the radiation and the field, then why cant you differentiate between the particle and the wave? What other properties are observable from EM radiation/field other than the behaviour of its motion? What version of interpretation best describes my perspective, other than simply confused and unscholarly?
  19. I'm happy to accept the EM field is describing something that exists either within or without of our spacetime, despite being itself mass-less and intangible. I disagree with the view that a medium must have mass and be tangible. The electromagnetic field mediates the propagation of electromagnetic radiation. Back to duality. Why must the wave like nature of particles belong to the particle. Might it not just be a manifestation of some aspect of the field that mediates the particle? If all particles mediated within the field exhibit the same behaviour, and other particles not mediated by the the field do not exhibit this behaviour, is it not more compelling to believe the property belongs to the field and not the particle? Is there any evidence to support or refute such a claim?
  20. Im sure I'll be corrected if im wrong: In my ignorance, as far as I understand, but perhaps contrary to the community; if something moves within an environment, then that environment can be considered to be a medium. Classically, a medium is mass-ive. It consists of solid, liquid, gas, plasma which have mass. Sound in motion on Earth, propagates through a relative environment that consists of mass-ive atoms of nitrogen and oxygen (beside other things). This environment or medium is called air and it is gaseous in nature. An tsunami in a ocean propagates through a relative environment that consists of water molecules (besides other things). This environment or medium is called the sea and it is liquid in nature. An earthquake's medium is rock which is solid. Light in motion in deep space propagates through a relative environment that consists of the quantised particles (besides other things). This environment is called the electromagnetic field, which has no mass as it is neither solid, liquid, gas or plasma. Why is this field not a medium? Other than because a purely pedantic definition of a medium must consist of particles with mass, and a field consisting of particles without mass. EM radiation does not require a medium. But it does require a field. Is this just semantics? What is the term for both mass-ive and mass-less environments through which waves propagate? If space (and time) consists of stuff with mass, and anything with mass can be view as a medium for the right kind of relative wave, how is space (and time) not (at least partially) made up of media? The flocking effect is a manifestation of multiple birds. If were going "down/deeper" one level, you could conceivably think of gravity as a field or dare i say "medium" through which a bird moves. Certainly with gravity goggles, a bird will appear to have some form of manifestation. With infra red googles, again the bird has a manifestation. However, can you describe flocking using just a bird and its quantised manifestations in various fields, and extrapolating that data through two (or more) levels of scope? If not, then a purely quantum definition of a flock must be incomplete.
  21. I must apologise for my poor use of words. Im a dreamer, not a physicist. Is the medium for light not the Electromagnetic field? Is spacetime not a superset of all media including EM? If you can clarify, it would help me dream. Just because a flock of birds is quantised by single birds, doesn't mean you can describe the flocking effect by looking at single birds.
  22. You missed my point. My point is: Your statement is true, but only with the presence of the electromagnetic field. I posit that, the field prevents photons from moving at any speed other than c, and prevents any particles with mass from travelling at c. Thus satisfying your statement that a photon cannot be a rest relative to an observer, and that they always move at c.
  23. A photon certainly appears to travel in spacetime, relative to an observer. But could it also be completely stationary (relative to the observer and the entire universe), and that its the medium that causes the relative motion? A piece of flotsam in the middle of the Pacific Ocean has no velocity in and of itself. Over time, its path of movement may exhibit wave-like properties, but this behaviour is also NOT a property of the flotsam. Precisely. Light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. A photon is simply a particle with zero mass at rest. To say the wave-like property belongs to light is essentially describing a property of the electromagnetic field. The photon is the particle. The field is the wave. Where is the duality, other than photon being bound to the field?
  24. This is my last post till tomorrow as I've used up all my allowance. However my question remains unanswered. Just because a photon can exhibit wave like behaviour doesn't mean the behaviour is due a property of the photon. Is it not conceivable that the medium through which the photon is travelling is wave-like in nature, and that the photon is bound to this medium in such a way as to be have no other option but to exhibit this same property? Ps my math is sub standard. Relative to what is required to understand anything, it might as well be non existent. On a separate note, perhaps this post should be moved into the quantum board, rather than theoretical physics. I didn't realise before I posted sorry.
  25. "the energy of photoelectrons increases with increasing frequency of incident light and is independent of the intensity of the light" So the above statement would indicate the particle nature of a photon. Is the wave theory shown with the double slit experiment? But why does the wave like property have to belong to the photon? Why can it not be intrinsic to the fabric of the space through which the particle traverses, and that it is space that exhibits the wavelike properties rather than the photon, and that any single photon is rigidly attached to a single wave?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.