The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Quote from: Atomic-S
Then insert, immediately in front of the film, a piece of energized light-amplification material such as neodymium laser glass.

You could inject a single incoming photon into an optical amplifier. Using the principle of the laser*, it would turn into a group of photons with the same frequency and phase. This would illuminate the slit nicely, producing a clear interference pattern; however, you would no longer be illuminating the slit by a single photon (which was the original premise).

*Or several other optical effects
2
General Science / Re: N/S Differences with Australia
« Last post by evan_au on Today at 12:28:36 »
...and we enjoy a swim at the beach and an outdoor BBQ at Christmas.
3
Quote from: Gazza711
wasn't there a greek astronomer which new what newton did beforehand.I feel newton just explained his findings.
The Greeks watched the skies carefully. Reconstructions of the Antikythera mechanism reproduce some of these motions with remarkable accuracy (probably for casting horoscopes). The Greeks had some great geometers, but they were not very much into calculations with data - their numbering system alone would discourage any but the most enthusiastic accountant.

Tycho Brahe was Danish, and produced measurements of the positions of the planets that were far more accurate than any previously recorded.

Johannes Kepler was German, and used Tycho's measurements to deduce that planets followed elliptical orbits.

Newton (and others at the time) showed that the only force that could produce this path is an inverse square law. Newton acknowledged his predecessors when he wrote in a letter that "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants".

Kepler was not infallible - he thought that gravity was due to magnetic attraction between the Earth and other bodies in the Solar System. We now know that the Earth's magnetic field is not nearly strong enough to produce the effects of gravitational attraction over interplanetary distances.

Quote from: Gazza711
the moons atmosphere is made from sodium...so why does the moon attract water(salty water infact)
And today, we know that the Van Der Waals forces between atoms in the atmosphere of Earth, the Sun (and especially the extremely good vacuum that passes as an atmosphere on the Moon) is too short-range and too weak to operate over planetary distances - in fact these forces are insignificant over a 1 mm distance.
4
Quote from: gazza711
..wasn't there a greek astronomer which new what newton did beforehand.
No.

Quote from: gazza711
I feel newton just explained his findings.
Incorrect.

Quote from: gazza711
Before newton, many knew of the movements of the stars.
You're confusing the motion of the stars with the cause of that motion.

Quote from: gazza711
The fact that they saw these events and recorded them, and then newton using historic evidence and an apple gave him the theory of which Einstein offered another explanation.
And that explanation is that there is a gravitational force between any two bodies.

Quote from: gazza711
If newton hadn't said what he did, would we be stuck with einsteins theory.
Einstein's theory reduces to Newton's theory in the case of weak gravitational fields and slowly moving bodies and sources with low pressure and stress.

Quote from: gazza711
you must remember that an illusionist can convince an audience because he understands the trick.
Which is totally irrelevant to this subject and something that all physicists are acutely aware of.

Quote from: gazza711
This was 150 years ago. didn't even have cars.
What was 150 years ago?

Quote from: gazza711
I would love to see a working example of the exact experiment,then I will shut my trap for a month.
What experiment?

There are plenty of experiments in almost every aspect of physics and every law and prediction made in physics. You just have to look for them. Please don't expect us to do your work for you.
5
General Science / N/S Differences with Australia
« Last post by Teakhat on Today at 10:35:46 »
Moss grows on the South side of our trees....
6
Quote from: gazza711
simply-what evidence do we have.anal I know,but ive seen many things since theorizing this that is defeating this theory.dont forget that science theorises a lot about things about space.there is no proof that I know of that shows 2 objects of different sizes attracting one another due to GRAVITY.This experiment doesn't work in space either does it?
There's an enormous amount of experimental facts and observations which demonstrates the existence of gravity. Originally Newton first demonstrated its existence by being able describe the motion of the planets by postulating the existence of a gravitational force F = GMm/r2 between any two objects whose distance between the bodies and the size of each body are such that each can be considered to be a particle. It also works for a point charge anywhere outside a spherically symmetric massive body. The Cavendish experiment demonstrated this was also true for objects of much smaller sizes. Every single experiment that has ever been done to verify Newton's law of gravitation has been proved correct within its domain of applicability and no experiment has ever been done to prove it's wrong within its domain of applicability.

Read about - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Newton.27s_theory_of_gravitation

You claim "there is no proof that I know of that shows 2 objects of different sizes attracting one another due to GRAVITY" which only demonstrates that you don't know a lot about gravitational experiments.

You claim that Im not a scientist, But seen too many things in front of me that disprove attraction. which doesn't really mean that it's disproved but that you don't understand it, that's all.
Usually, you don't find water in the desert- that's the thing about them.[/size]You certainly do not find it by dowsing.Nobody has ever tested it properly and found it to work.I'm intrigues that you saw the Cavendish experiment on you tube.Recently, YouTube celebrated it's tenth anniversary.Cavendish did his experiments two hundred years earlier.Do you really think he had a video camera?So; answer the question.What foam did Cavendish use about 150 years before it was invented?Also, do you understand that, even if he had magically got some sent back in time, it's still not a good enough insulator to retain a static charge for the duration of the experiments he did?

there is plenty of water in most deserts. you just have to dig deep enough. Ive seen it. Surely sand people back in the day didn't just decide to settle in these areas because of unknown reasons.

Im not stating facts or trying not to, Im mearly debating science that has been proven to be flawed many a time.

You are arguing against yourself.
If there's plenty of water and you just have to dig then you don't need dowsing do you? But, if someone waved some hazel twigs around first and said "this is the place"  then some people would be conned into thinking he was dowsing. As you say "You must remember that an illusionist can convince an audience because he understands the trick."

It's true that science gets things wrong, but the beauty of the system is that it corrects itself- that's why Newton was a step forward from Galileo and Einstein was a step further.

But the obvious reality is that gravity exists - we know this because we don't drift into space.
It's obvious that it works for things that are not on the Earth- that's why we have tides.
And so on.

Yet you say " But seen too many things in front of me that disprove attraction."
Well, name one.
And we will show you why it's not that it disproves attraction; it's just that you don't understand how things work.
7
Quote from: Atomic-S
Quote
Assuming it is possible, measuring the position x of the particle means to put its state in an autoket eigenvector of position so its momentum Px (x component of momentum) is then completely undetermined in this new state.
No, because the time at which the position occurs remains highly indefinite.
That's incorrect and probably based on a misconception of the time-energy uncertainty principle. There is no such thing as " time at which the position occurs remains highly indefinite."  Position is measured at a specific time. That means when you measure the position of a particle you simultaneously look at the clock and record what it reads. Take a photon hitting an array of photon detectors or CCD for example. When the photon hits a "pixel" which the array of photon detectors or the CCD is composed of the time is recorded. Time is a parameter in QM, not an observable.
8
Quote from: alancalverd
The evil twin of an autobra.
Why can't you be serious? You waste a lot of my time with these silly remarks.
9
Quote from: Atomic-S
Consider a  barrier (plate) having two parallel slits close together. Is there any way to measure their spacing using only one photon?
No. However, if you have an ensemble of such experiments and execute each experiment only one time with one photon for each experiment then the answer becomes yes. You'd be able to obtain the width of the slit by analyzing the collection of data from all experiments.

Quote from: Atomic-S
What if we were to do the following: Set up the source of light having a narrowly defined wavelength, then the slits, and then the detector such as photographic film.  Then insert, immediately in front of the film, a piece of energized light-amplification material such as neodymium laser glass.
What is a light-amplification material?
10
New Theories / Re: The magnetic piezoelectric generator
« Last post by Yahya on Today at 07:25:03 »
 this device generates huge piezoelectricity energy , by putting small work:



 we have four identical magnets 1,2,3,4. magnets 1,2 repels each other magnets 3,4 attracts each other magnet 1 and 3 are fixed to a brown bar that goes inside magnet 2 , the two magnets 1 and 3 are in equilibrium because repel between 1 and 2 always equals attraction force between 3 and 4 they move freely from left to right , magnet 4 is fixed to quartz in purple color when we move the magnets 1,3 with little force magnet 4 press the quartz to generate huge voltage.


    the mechanical force applied to the quartz to generate electricity is the attraction force between magnet 3 and 4 , the attraction force is mutual , magnet 4 attracts magnet 3 but this was canceled by the repel force between 1 and 2 , however magnet 3 pulls magnet 4 and magnet 4 press the quartz by this magnetic force to generate electric voltage.

    by moving magnets 1 and 3 horizontally we increase and decrease the stress of magnet 4 on the quartz material that will generate electricity continuously. because the two magnets 1 and 3 are in equilibrium we move them with little force.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
SMF 2.0.8 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines