-
Posts
52937 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
264
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by swansont
-
Newtonian gravity depends on mass, and distance from that mass. There is no antigravity. “Artificial” gravity is some other force (i.e. it’s not mass attracting mass)
-
What would it take to make an atomic battery the size of a cell phone ?
swansont replied to Externet's topic in Science News
! Moderator Note In Science News we expect links to actual news -
You’re asking for me to prove a negative. I didn’t say there was evidence it wasn’t an explosion, I said the evidence doesn’t support that hypothesis. You own the burden of proof here, if you want to claim that it was. What does an explosion look like, and what evidence exists? An explosion in a vacuum would have matter expanding from the point of the explosion. There’s no evidence of that. What’s the temperature profile of an explosion? Is it a predominantly uniform temperature everywhere you look? No.
-
As with all science, what we know is based on data and theory. The data are what we observe in nature and as the result of experiment, and the theory is the models we have that’s based on the data and has allowed us to make predictions. It’s provisional, since new data could require a modification of theory. But that’s what it means to know things in science. We know the big bang was not an explosion in space because the evidence does not support that hypothesis. If you want to consider other hypotheses, you’d need evidence for them before we can consider them as something we “know” Large numbers are beyond the average person, but not to scientists who deal with them in the course of their work
-
Physical mechanism how matter absorbs radiation.
swansont replied to avicenna's topic in Classical Physics
The issue is that we can’t investigate what’s happening at the level of detail you seem to be asking about. We have classical and quantum models about how radiation interacts, but it doesn’t tell us what’s happening at very small scales. We can’t probe what the photon is doing, because the photon is the probe. The temperature manifests itself both in terms of the CoM kinetic energy and the excitation of the electrons; for the latter the number of excited electrons varies as e^-(E/kT) where E is the excitation energy i.e. more electrons will be excited at higher temperature, or if the system has a smaller excitation energy -
Physical mechanism how matter absorbs radiation.
swansont replied to avicenna's topic in Classical Physics
I think a classical model works better for a metal. The varying EM field causes the electrons in the conduction band to oscillate; the field transfers its energy and momentum to the metal (mostly to the electrons) The increased KE of the electrons manifests as an increase in temperature -
Banned, as the spam continued
-
Not even that long, I suspect. Dense-packing the trees seems to stimulate growth for the few years observed, but what happens as the trees (literally) branch out? Will the proximity impede growth? What happens as their root systems start interfering with each other - will you run into issues if water is scarce?
-
True for a single magnet, because you induce a magnetic field in the material, but your system would induce opposite fields which would tend to cancel. i.e. the field halfway between the magnets is small, so the induced field is also small.
-
So it depends on M and r. Which means one could say that mass causes gravity.
-
I give up. GR can apparently only be explained using GR Every time i look into GR it’s like pulling teeth; I come away convinced that nobody does a numerical calculation because none of the math is ever presented in a way where that’s possible. I’ve read that GR reduces to Newtonian gravity, but have never been able to find a worked example of that, because nothing is ever presented but the tensor mathematics. Along the line of my frustration, I recall a seminar (on Lie algebra, IIRC) in grad school where the prof was asked what the difference was between contravariant and covariant, and the response was something like “contravariant means the indices are along the top” which is true but doesn’t do anything to advance anyone’s understanding.
-
And what are the boundary conditions of those sets?
-
Do inspiral charged black hole pairs radiate light?
swansont replied to md65536's topic in Relativity
The Coulomb field is static; that’s the 1/r^2 field. EMR intensity drops off as 1/r^2 from a point source, but intensity is the square of the field strength. -
How? Usually there’s only one solution for a given set of boundary conditions.
-
“Allows” doesn’t mean these exist. How would one get a gravitational wave absent energy-momentum? (Maxwell’s equations allow EM waves, but classically you aren’t going to get one in a situation where you don’t have a charge somewhere) The scenario has two parts, the earth influencing geometry and the location. You only addressed the latter. Does mass cause a particular geometry to exist? It’s my understanding that it does. The geometry you have depends on whatever mass (as a first-order approximation) you have.
-
That wasn’t the whole point, though. The geometry tells the mass how to move, but does it cause the mass to exist?
-
Do inspiral charged black hole pairs radiate light?
swansont replied to md65536's topic in Relativity
How does your conclusion follow from the quote? What kind of radiation is it? -
Local ≠ co-located
-
Isn’t the sun’s (or earth’s) field approximately a solution to the Schwarzschild geometry? They are equal, but isn’t that a static solution? And if you perturb the energy-momentum, don’t you get a lightlike fluctuation in the curvature? How is it not local? Gravitational waves are a dynamic effect, though. What if we limit ourselves to a static configuration?