elfmotat

Any imbalance will tend to cancel out over time. Think about it: if some large positive charge builds up on Earth, then what happens? Positively charged cosmic rays will be repelled very strongly, and negatively charged rays will be attracted very strongly. So Earth will start accumulating more negative charges until the planet is electrically neutral again.

In this case I call that by gravitational energy.

KE=(gamma - 1) _* gravitational energy(eV units)

No, don't do that. That makes no sense.

I hope this analogy is okay.

I think he gets it. He just doesn't like Beckham.

In regards to the Green's function comment, a table of common Green's functions can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green%27s_function#Table_of_Green.27s_functions. (Yours is on there.) Additionally, at a glance it should be easy to see that it looks very much like a wave equation. In fact, it looks nearly identical to the Schrodinger equation, except that's it's real everywhere. Should you have no knowledge of Green's functions you could try to solve it by analogy with wave equations.

Test:

[math]\frac{d^n}{dz^n} \left [f(z) \right ]= \frac{n!}{2 \pi i} \oint \frac{f(s) \, ds}{(s-z)^n}[/math]

Awesome. Now I don't need to worry about double spaces .

 

It means decrease volume, with const temperature.

We weren't talking about changing volume.

I'm assuming you're working with ideal gasses? The relationship between pressure, volume and temperature can be found with the ideal gas law:

[math]PV=mRT[/math]

where R is a constant and m is the mass of the gas. So if we hold V and m constant, we get:

[math]\frac{P}{T}=const.[/math]

Or, in a perhaps more useful form:

[math]\frac{P_1}{T_1} = \frac{P_2}{T_2}[/math]

This does indeed say that increasing temperature results in increased pressure. However, you seem to be confusing volume and pressure as indicated by the equation you posted. Pressure and volume are not the same thing. Also, these equations don't say what "causes" what, as you have phrased it, they simply state a correlation between different properties of a gas. In other words, they don't say that "adding pressure" will cause increase temperature, they say that there is a correlation between the pressure of a gas and its temperature. Heating a gas up causes its pressure to go up. I'm not sure what it means to "add pressure" without adding more gas or adding heat.

I'm a bit surprised that this even got past the arxiv screeners. Pure pseudoscientific nonsense is what it is.

It would be helpful if you mentioned what literature you've been reading. You appear to have set a bra vector equal to a ket vector, which doesn't make much sense.

The lowest order scattering process where γ+γ → γ+γ is the following Feynman diagram:

Physically, what the diagram actually means is that a photon will fluctuate into a virtual electron-positron pair, one of them will absorb a nearby photon, the other one will emit a photon, and then they will annihilate to form another photon.

This diagram has four vertices, which means the probability for the process to occur is [math]P \propto \alpha^4 \approx 10^{-9}[/math]. I would calculate the full amplitude for the process, but it involves integrating over d⁴p for each internal line, which doesn't sound like too much fun. But without even calculating the full amplitude, it's still easy to see from the vertex factors above that the probability for the process to occur is going to be very very tiny.

Of course, there are even higher order diagrams which contribute, but each vertex will contribute a factor [math]\alpha \approx \frac{1}{137}[/math] to the probability of that process occurring.

I'm not sure I understand the question.

 

After pair production, it won't be photon anymore, but particle at its antiparticle (or shower of them). But they have concentrated mass, and high kinetic energy.

 

The highest energy photons ever detected:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_gamma_ray

 

The highest kinetic energy believed to be proton ever detected:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh-My-God_particle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_cosmic_ray

Sorry, but I don't see what any of that has to do with anything.

 

In one frame of reference f.e. v=0, [math]\gamma = 0[/math], photon has one frequency/wavelength/energy

when we will be detecting the same photon from other frame of reference f.e. v=0.5, [math]\gamma=1.1547[/math], photon might be redshifted, or blueshifted, and appearing having lower or higher energy..

The event would have to take place at some sort of interaction vertex. A high energy photon could scatter off something (an electron, another photon, etc.) with one of the products being a black hole. A free photon won't spontaneously collapse, for the reason you mention.

AFAIK black hole must exist in the all reference frames to be black hole.

Photon doesn't have reference frame.

I'm not sure I understand. What do photons having rest frames have to do with them turning into a black hole?

 

Black hole from photon... ?

 

Please elaborate this speculation..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_scale#Theoretical_ideas

 

As you identified, I argued that the perceived elitism of scientific community might be another reason to push ordinary people toward creationism or other crackpots. I express both concerns: that this elitism might only be perceived (unreal) because scientific answers are not acceptable by an ordinary person (this is the 'no-win' situation); but also that the elitist behavior might really exist in the scientific community (because of the "why should we care if they are not capable to understand this" stance that I felt several times in this thread, although it was never said directly).

I think you're excusing the crackpots too readily, implying it's not really their fault that they think/say the nonsense that they do. There is nothing elitist about demanding that people actually learn physics before they try to discuss the cutting-edge of physics. It's not as if this is top-secret information that only a select few have access to! Anyone with internet or library access can learn this stuff. I am not a physicist. Physics is not even my major, yet I know a great deal of physics. I spent a fair amount of time learning it because it's interesting to me. It's frankly a bit insulting to suggest that our conversations should be dumbed-down to placate people who haven't put in any time or effort.

If you want to play ball then you need to learn how to play ball. Crackpots are like children who like to pretend they're Derek Jeter. Sure it's imaginative, but in the real world that doesn't count for much.

An eigenvalue is some number, call it [math]\lambda[/math], that satisfies the following equation:

[math]\hat{O} \psi = \lambda \psi[/math]

where [math]\hat{O}[/math] is some operator. If [math]\psi[/math] is a function, we call it an eigenfunction. In quantum mechanics all observables are associated with a hermitian operator (position, momentum, energy, etc.). The function [math]\psi[/math] itself satisfies the Schrodinger equation. Eigenvalues of each observable operator represent the possible values you might get if you were to take a measurement. For example, if we have solved the Schrodinger equation for a particular scenario and we're interested in the spectrum of possible momentum values we might measure for an electron, we simply find all numbers [math]p[/math] which satisfy the equation:

[math]\hat{P} \psi = p \psi[/math]

The only cutoff I can think of would be at the Planck energy scale, where it would likely turn into a black hole.

Latex?

I suppose you could use matrices:

[math]\begin{matrix} \alpha & \beta & \gamma & \delta\\ \epsilon & \zeta & \eta & \theta\\ \iota & \kappa & \lambda & \mu\\ \nu & \xi & \pi & \rho \end{matrix}[/math]

Wrong. I'm simply not blindly accepting what people tell me is the truth, especially not when people don't know the truth because all they have are models. Models don't dictate reality, reality dictates the models, and in reality the idea of absolute motion not existing seems absurd.

Hey, it looks like somebody is finally figuring out what physics is! It generally goes like this: step 1) guess model, step 2) compare model predictions to experiment. Physics cannot and does not give you anything more than a testable model, and nobody has ever claimed otherwise. It's your misconception if you think that science answers meaningless metaphysical questions. It's your problem if you can't wrap your brain around the idea of there being no absolute velocity.

I can't.

So then what the hell are you arguing about?! If you can't even define the thing you're so adamant must exist, then why in the world should I be wasting my time with this nonsense?

No, we don't know that for sure. We don't know what the universe is, so we can't reasonably make such claims.

I don't know how to argue with such a non-argument.

You can't know that, because we don't know if there are directly measurable mechanics behind motion. Something that causes motion to be possible. Or the mechanics that cause particles to have mass, etc. As long as we don't know these things, we can't reasonably make these claims.

Just stop with the metaphysical bunk already. This is a science forum. If you're not interested in science then you can move to the philosophy section.

That implies that you'll never look for anything more if your theories don't give you any reason to look for more. I'm not sure I like that, because you might have found things that none of the models predicted would exist. Things you're only going to find if you look for them.

 

The problem is that there may be a set of mechanics which create the laws of physics we're measuring and modeling. If these laws of physics can be described by themselves, without needing to know of these mechanics that are behind them, then you'll never look for them, because your now complete model doesn't give you any reason to. If those mechanics are measurable somehow, then you're missing things simply because you didn't think looking for anything more was necessary.

 

There is no end game.

Nobody cares if you disagree with the scientific method. That's the way science works. If you want to propose an alternative to the scientific method then go propose it in the philosophy section.

Oh really? How on earth does absolute motion cause the laws of physics to change?

Because that's what "absolute velocity" means, by any standard definition of the word! In the example with aether, Maxwell's equations were expected to be different depending on your speed through the aether. But no laws of physics are changed depending on your velocity, as discovered by experiment. If some preferred frame existed then we should be able to see it, because it means by definition that some laws are velocity-dependent.

I say that all motion is ultimately absolute even if relative motion is all that ordinary observers can see, regardless of what any models tell you. These models are created after reality, and they only describe what we see.

These are just meaningless metaphysical assertions.

I understand perfectly fine what you just explained. I just don't agree that all motion is relative just because we see all motion as relative.

Strange said it already, but this is basically the definition of a religious view. You have some preconceived notion of how the world should behave, and you ignore all evidence to the contrary. Since you've demonstrated a lack of willingness to argue in an intellectually honest manner, I don't think I'll be participating in these shenanigans any longer. Your attitude and style of debate are incredibly tiresome.

I really couldn't care less.

In regard to any further posts: ditto.

99.87% the speed of light,

http://science.howstuffworks.com/induction-info.htm :

 

Induction, in physics, a process by which a magnetized or electrically charged object produces magnetism, an electric charge, or an electric voltage in another object without being in contact with it. The process is called magnetic induction when magnetism is produced, electrostatic induction when an electric charge is produced, and electromagnetic induction when an electric voltage is produced.

Magnetic Induction

An object capable of being magnetized becomes a magnet when placed near a permanent magnet or a wire carrying an electric current. The magnetization of an iron core in an electromagnet is a result of magnetic induction.

Electrostatic Induction

An electric conductor becomes electrified when placed near an electrically charged object. For example, when a charged rod is brought near an electrically neutral conductor, the side of the conductor near the charged rod acquires a charge opposite that of the rod, while the far side acquires the same charge as the rod.

Electromagnetic Induction

An electric voltage occurs in an electric conductor that is either (1) in motion relative to a magnet or (2) in a changing magnetic field produced by a changing electric current. An electric generator produces a current because of electromagnetic induction.

While I understand that, what I want to know is why motion would always be relative just because we see motion as relative?

You aren't listening. Try to come up with your own definition of "absolute velocity." $20 says the way you'll do it is by referencing something you claim has a preferred frame. Except we know for sure (we've done a buttload of tests) that such a preferred frame does not exist.

Before relativity and after Maxwell, physicists thought that light propagated through a medium called "aether." The aether's rest frame was taken to be a preferred frame, i.e. absolute velocity would be measured relative to it. If you ever want to know how fast you're moving relative to the aether, all you need to do is measure the speed of light and compare it to what it would be if you were at rest. That's exactly what Michelson & Morley tried to do. So what went wrong? They figured out that no matter how they tried to do the experiment, it would always give a velocity of zero. In other words, it didn't matter how they oriented the experiment or moved it around, it seemed like we always remain stationary relative to the aether.

Special relativity was proposed as a solution to this puzzle. Einstein started with the principle, "there is no test an inertial observer can perform to determine whether or not he is moving or stationary." Another way to say this is, "the laws of physics are the same for all inertial observers." This was not a new idea (called the

principle of relativity), and was actually widely accepted up until Maxwell's equations, which implied that the speed of light should be independent of reference frame. That's when people tried to abandon it in favor of aether. Einstein said, "no, forget about aether, it doesn't exist. Let's keep the principle of relativity and Maxwell's equations and see what happens." And what happens is we get a theory that agrees wonderfully with experiment.

So, how do we know there are no preferred frames? We've done tests! You keep trying to drag this into the metaphysical, but it's really as simple as that. We're talking about physics after all - comparison with experiment is the end game.

First of all, who says that it isn't detectable? Just because it's not detectable now, means nothing. A thousand years ago we couldn't detect a whole range of phenomena, because we didn't have the means and lacked all the necessary theories.

It would be very easy to spot if a preferred frame existed. Particle accelerators, for example, should work differently depending on the time of the day or year due to Earth's rotation and motion around the Sun. But so far the laws of physics look identical for all inertial observers.

Second, why would you assume that everything that exists can be detected by us?

Why do you assume physicists would be interested in such things? If it can't be detected then it can't be corroborated, and so it belongs on the philosophy scrap pile. Can you prove that pink goblins don't inhabit the core of the Moon? Of course not, but to believe in such things when there is no evidence is ludicrous.

Space isn't nothing, otherwise it wouldn't be able to expand and curve.

However the coordinates you use to describe it are completely arbitrary. The universe doesn't care whether you call a particular point "A" or "B." It continues doing what it does regardless of your choice of coordinates.

What about a hypothetical fixed point in space?

Fixed in which reference frame?

You can keep saying that, but I don't see how motion always has to be relative. I sure hope it's not because relative motion is all we see, because that doesn't mean much.

I think it would help if you try to define exactly what you mean when you say "a velocity that isn't relative." What would that mean? Come back to me with a definition and I'll tell you why it fails.

It doesn't actually matter. Apparently photons don't experience the passing of time. However, why is a rest frame required in the first place? What would the problem be with measuring things from a photons perspective it it wasn't affected by time dilation?

Are you asking what physics would be like if it wasn't the way it is? We can't use physics to describe situations which violate physics.

Anyway, lets try something else. How about the speed of an object relative to space?

This is the same question you've been repeating. It's equivalent to asking what the absolute velocity of something is. There is no such thing - I thought I was pretty clear on that.