I have another theory sorry idea. Please can i bounce it of you, it occurs to me that both maxwells equations and quantum mechanics cant both be correct regarding light. Yes i know i dont understand QED sorry
My Idea is based on little magnetic dipoles.
Its easy to see how little magnetic dipoles would line up with a permanent magnets field lines. Once things start moving its a little harder to picture, do the dipoles move with the field or do the dipoles merely transfer the energy.
Photons and all kinds of waves are all basically transferring energy from point A to point B. If I use water as an analogy waves compressional waves vortices all exist and move a little more slowly than light so are little easier to get a grip on, you have P waves and S waves travel through the earths crust. Basically molecules move smack into one another transfer the energy but in general dont move far.
I am wrestling with the idea that my little dipoles stay put or move or is there another dimension.
If its a single photon it could just flip the next dipole round a revolution the energy could be transferred from one dipole to the next in the direction required, the speed it flips give the frequency or energy. So it is the energy being transferred and not the dipoles they stay put or very near to where they were.
So how does this relate to electromagnetic waves. There's more dipoles therefore a little more complicated to picture. But if you use an aerial for instance and transmit an electrical wave I picture an electric charge moving up the antennae, which is inducing a magnetic field, or the other way round it doesnt matter. This magnetic field transfers energy to the dipoles which in turn pass it through space, in the form of a sine wave.
I guess a clever mathamatician may be able to infer more about the dipoles from the maximum speed light travels. My maths has faded.
Now if you picture two electromagnetic waves travelling past each other in opposite directions and view them as little packets of energy being passed from one dipole to the next in the opposite directions they will interact on the same dipole.
This is what I think light and photons are and how energy is transmitted, again I hope its not a stupid idea, as I nearly fell of the harbour wall when this popped into my head.
« Last post by Georgia on Today at 12:21:49 »
This topic has been moved to That CAN'T be true !.
« Last post by thedoc on Today at 11:33:07 »
A decade ago a landmark study was published showing that treating Kenyan children for worm infections could increase their attendance at school, as well as bringing health benefits. Since then, many development agencies across Africa have taken the idea on board, as it seems like a cheap, effective and simple way to boost attendance. However,researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine have been taking a closer look at the original data, and found that the benefits of de-worming may have been overstated, as Alex Aiken explained to Kat Arney.
Listen to this Show
If you want to discuss this show, or ask a question, this is the place to do it.
« Last post by LB7 on Today at 11:15:39 »
I think it's possible: the radius at left will be increase a little less because the sum of forces of attraction is a sum of vectors and the angle at right is higher than left. So even there are more balls at right the force of attraction could be higher at left. Need to be calculate. I do that this afternoon.
With the same radius, the angle at right is 54° and the angle at left is 39°.
Maybe it's not enough, but I have three parameters:
The radius at left can change
The pressure can change at left for let F1=F2
The angle decreases more with a higher radius, it's a small difference but it exists
I need to have F1=F2 and have a sum of forces on C2 that don't give a torque on the support or give a counterclockwise torque on the support, why not ?
The best : have F2 > F1 like that the support has a counterclockwise torque on it. The red object too. And Have the left attraction greater than the right attraction, like that the support receives a counterclockwise torque.
« Last post by evan_au on Today at 10:32:13 »
Quote from: BillS
In the case of a black hole that forms from the collapse of a star, is the gravity at the event horizon greater than the gravity at the surface of the original star?
The gravitational acceleration at the event horizon will be far greater than the gravitational acceleration at the surface of the original star.
how does a situation in which two black holes are approaching each other differ from one in which two stars are approaching each other?
Stars in close binary orbits often suck loosely-held gas from the less-dense star, and dump it onto the denser star. This atmospheric stripping starts well before their distance is equal to the sum of their radii. This frequently causes a Type 1a supernova. But the stars are still at a fairly large distance when their stellar atmospheres merge.
Black holes have a much smaller radius than their parent stars, so they can approach to much closer distances, with much faster orbital velocities, but with no transfer of gas between them. They merge when their event horizons touch, which is at a relatively small distance.
« Last post by Aquarius on Today at 10:00:50 »
If gravity is radiated in the infrared spectrum, its light and wouldnt escape, therefore removing any singularities from general relativity.
« Last post by Colin2B on Today at 08:42:12 »
f doesn't change, so if the light slows wavelength reduces.
Just had another idea whist drinking my coffee. If gravity is created by infrared waves emitted from all atoms, does infrared get sucked into blackholes as well, if this is the case will a black hole suddenly cease to exist or would they reach a maximum mass whereby the gravity would stop working.
We are planning to sail down to Cape Town for Christmas so no plans for the UK for at least a couple of years although I'm flying back for a couple of weeks in September to see my folks and check the tennants aren't trashing my house.
Any way the reason I logged back on was I was thinking about CMBR and the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom. CMBR in the the infrared range now going upto 630GHz; this is in line with the sort of frequencies you would get out of the hydrogen atom if you ignored QED cancelling any form of energy getting out except photons. If you viewed the model like a little dipole antennae, that would give me my gravity wave, therefore my idea is CMBR is not all due to a big bang; it's due to little infrared waves coming from all atoms.
The gravity idea rides around a source of radiation and how it might interact with another source of radiation coming from the opposite direction ie between two seperate bodies in space. Light has wave like properties which I view as a vortex and think they would cause an attractive force as they passed through each other.
Conventional wisdom would say a couple of photons smacking into each other at an angle will deflect and change their course; if it's head on and it's a little vortex-like spring described above they could pass unscathed and if radiation in the ether is little magnetic dipoles they they could even interact causing attraction and gravity.
My question is, is this idea worth pursuing?
Sorry my wife just woke up and wants a coffee, so have to go.
« Last post by PmbPhy on Today at 07:55:22 »
Quote from: David Cooper
I'm just trying to help you see that you're no different from the people you're attacking.
I'm surprised at you, David. He never attacked anybody.
Quote from: David Cooper
If you aren't keeping your women under control and making them cover up when they go out in public, there are people who will decide that you are harming everyone who sees them.
That's not what Ethos is doing. He doesn't have control over what other nations allow their men to do to control the lives of their wives.
It seems like you're just trying to get the last word in at this point, David.
© 2000–2013 The Naked Scientists®
The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.