1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can electro-magnet make an electric field to charge mobiles and other gadgets?

« on: 20/08/2016 20:52:19 »

Asko Wiedel asked the Naked Scientists:
   I have an elector-magnet that has two positive poles.
Will this magnet make an electric field to charge  cellphone or other gadgets?

What do you think?

It can but it'd be a total waste of time and effort. If you varied the current in the electromagnet then it would generate a time varying electric field. That can then be used to charge a cell phone or whatever after the current has been rectified (i.e. made to flow in only one direction). However you'd be better of using what it was that made the time varying current in the first place.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Doe's the Earth's magnetic field follow the inverse square Law?

« on: 10/04/2016 20:35:55 »

As title.

No. The magnetic field of the earth is approximated as that of a magnetic dipole. And a dipole behave as a 1/r³ outside the Earth. See:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment

Read right after where it says and hence magnetic field strength is.

All you have to do is think of it in terms of two magnetic monopoles. Although monopoles don't exist,. magnetic dipoles do exist.

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Was Einstein wrong? or mearly not looking due to lacking a very specific reason?

« on: 07/04/2016 06:30:19 »

Einstein developed the "Theory of General Relativity" which was a theory but now its considered fact (or a truth) of science, but has retained "Theory" due to its development. Einstein was a fairly simple man, not much different that most, other than a deep fascination of light stemming from childhood, that few may truly understand.

No law of physics can ever be thought of as being a fact. Such a thing is contrary to the nature of the philosophy of physics. Several times throughout the history of physics, a scientific theory has been found to be inaccurate and in most cases had to be modified. Take as an example; Newton's Law of Gravity had to be modified to be bring the theory up to meet inaccuracies. In this case Newton's law of Gravity had to be replaced with General Relativity. It had to be changed so that the deflection of light rays passing the sun. Originally it was off by a factor of two. Also the theory did not correctly predict the speed and frequency of light as it moved through the suns gravitational field.

4

Famous Scientists, Doctors and Inventors / Re: Did Einstein steal HA Lorentz's idea?

« on: 07/04/2016 00:55:17 »

E = mv^2 is not a Newtonian expression. The energy, E, in Newtonian mechanics that you have in mind is kinetic energy and changes only with speed whereas in relativity it's the total energy which equals the sum of rest energy + kinetic energy. etc.

Yes, good answer. Nice to see you.

Are you a moderator here? How do you feel about anthropogenic climate change? I expect to find skeptics like Bored Chemist and Tim the Plumber at sites like this, but alancalverd is a moderator. I totally disagree with his take on this important subject, and unlike with waitedavid137, I DO understand this subject fully. These guys make me want to lose my cool and get trolled right out of here.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65677.0

No. I'm not a moderator here. I own my own forum. It's in my website that I created to help people learn physics. The website itself is under construction and will be so for a very long time. However the forum is in use. It's an invitation only forum.

david waite is a moron. He's like that because he can't admit to his mistakes when they're pointed out to him.

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How can a change in a length of light affect the length of space?

« on: 02/04/2016 11:31:37 »

How can a change in a length of light affect the length of space?

Photons are particles of light. That means that the have zero size at all. The wavelength of photons refers only to the distribution of photons, not an actual length in space.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How do I explain quantum spin for a lay person?

« on: 30/03/2016 03:37:37 »

I was asked today at a Q and A session by a member of the public to please explain what physicists mean when they talk about quantum spin.

I'd be really interested in how everyone here would have approached this please?

This is something which is very simple to define. Answer: Spin is the z-component of an intrinsic angular momentum of a particle. That's actually the definition that you'd find in a quantum mechanics text (Which axis is depends on the naming convention used in an experiment).

From Wikipedia under Spin_(physics)

The most convenient quantum mechanical description of particle's spin is therefore with a set of complex numbers corresponding to amplitudes of finding a given value of projection of its intrinsic angular momentum on a given axis.

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is a photon positive, negative or neutral?

« on: 29/03/2016 16:24:47 »

Joe - Are you asking whether a photon has charge or not? If so then it's charge is zerp

A photon is neutral and is a magnetic vibration when in free space.

Photons are neither electric or magnetic fields. The (Lorentz) force on a charged particle by an electromagnetic wave comes mostly from the electric component of the EM wave.

If it interacts with matter; then that electromagnetic magnoflux energy can be captured by a molecule which has an electron enclosure which makes it appears to be a negative charge vibration

That's an inappropriate way to describe the effects of photons interacting with atoms or molecules. If the photon has an energy corresponding to one of the possible energy transitions of the atom/molecule then, if the atom is in the lower energy state corresponding to that difference of energy then the atom goes into the higher energy state while the photon disappears.

8

New Theories / Re: Is Dark matter really the byproduct of matter and antimatter?

« on: 26/03/2016 05:42:34 »

Anti matter - matter reaction are theorized to completely annihilate.

If you collide an electron with a positron they annihilate producing two photons. When a neutron and an antineutron collide they don't produce only photons.

  It's believed to be one of the most efficient mass-entergy conversion.

For a process to be efficient the process must perform or function in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort. However since we're talking about energy your comment doesn't apply to matter/antimatter reactions.

  Its used in this fashion in very limited set of circumstances, because anti-matter production and containment are both very difficult to manage, given it's inherit natural reaction with anything not anit-matter.

Annihilation between matter and antimatter is not very different than any other nuclear  reaction. It's only when matter and it's anti-particle annihilate do they do annihilate each other.

Basically antimatter is mass that has had it's spin reversed to that of matter.

There's more to it than that. The anti-particle to a specific particle also has opposite charge if one of then particle's is charged. Since the antiparticle of a particle of charge q and baryonic number B has charge -q and baryon number -B, it must have also a third isospin component -t_z, where t_z, is the isospin z-component of the corresponding particle.

Dark matter is thought to be a by-product produced of supernova and hypernova events.

I think you have that wrong. See arxiv dot org slash abs slash astro-ph slash 0411454

Black holes are also essentially dark matter, but they have so much highly localized gravity, that the math about them bends and breaks coherence too.

Before I say anything on this comment, what does coherence mean in this context?

Nova episodes are the most violently explosive, densely packed regions of mass, believed to exist outside of the remaining black hole, at the time of the nova event, which is when and where dark matter is primarily produced.

May I inquire to wheat your source is for this comment please? Thank you.

Gravity on the other hand is more of a one way operator.  Given enough gravity, gravity beats electromagnetism, which produces star light, heavier atoms and black holes, when they battle (so to speak).

If you have matter which produces tension then the effect will be gravitational repulsion. Also under certain distribution of matter which has tension in such as a large field then you will float or accelerate away from the field.                         

Now we've tried smashing atoms together.  They produce the most energy when we smash anti-matter and matter together, so atom smashers usually resort to this experiment.

The amount of energy released from matter/antimatter annihilate changes form. It doesn't produce energy since energy is conserved.

9

New Theories / Re: Is Dark matter really the byproduct of matter and antimatter?

« on: 26/03/2016 04:43:13 »

I have a theory on what dark matter and dark energy is. I think dark matter is the byproduct of matter and antimatter, while dark energy is the byproduct of antimatter binding to antimatter. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

The byproduct of matter and antimatter is simply matter and antimatter again. There is absolutely no reason to think that dark energy is as you speculate. byproduct of antimatter binding to antimatter is just more antimatter if and only if the particles are charged. Dark energy is nothing like anything we've seen before and doesn't behave as you speculate. It doesn't even behave  like ordinary matter in that it behaves just like either negative pressure (i.e. tension) and thus acts like negative mass.

10

Famous Scientists, Doctors and Inventors / Re: Did Einstein steal HA Lorentz's idea?

« on: 26/03/2016 04:35:32 »

I'm a big fan of Albert Einstein, so I just wanted to clear the air about this. It is true that Lorentz, a Nobel Prize winner, published the equations of relative motion a year before Einstein. These equations still bear his name. Einstein's original contribution (E=mc^2)is actually derived by simply substituting the speed of light (c)into a Newtonian equation: E=mv^2.  So why does Einstein get all the credit? I think I know the answer, but I want to hear from others.

No. Einstein never stole anything. For details of the history behind it please see:
See: www dot newenglandphysics dot org slash common_misconceptions slash einstein_did_not_plagiarize dot htm

E = mv^2 is not a Newtonian expression. The energy, E, in Newtonian mechanics that you have in mind is kinetic energy and changes only with speed whereas in relativity it's the total energy which equals the sum of rest energy + kinetic energy. etc.

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is number 1 equal to?

« on: 25/03/2016 13:05:05 »

What is number 1 equal to?

I've got to say that this question really wasn't necessary. The answer is obvious as I'm sure you know. You could have simply looked it up in Wikipedia. I can't post links yet so you'll have to find it yourself. Simple Google it. I starts off by saying the following

1 (one; /ˈwʌn/ or UK /ˈwɒn/, also called unit, unity, and (multiplicative) identity), is a number, a numeral, and the name of the glyph representing that number. It represents a single entity, the unit of counting or measurement. For example, a line segment of unit length is a line segment of length 1.

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why do photons have the same speed regardless of the velocity of their source?

« on: 25/03/2016 12:54:33 »

Btw...are you Pmb Pete who used to post before?  If so, I'm glad to see you back.

Yep. That's me. I was unable to figure out how to login with my old account so I had to create a new one. Thanks for the warm welcome back.

Again, please take note that I simply don't know why they use Doppler shift. And I only trust textbooks and journal articles for thinks like that.

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why do photons have the same speed regardless of the velocity of their source?

« on: 24/03/2016 07:14:17 »

Colin - To clear this up for any confused readers, the reason* why Pmb does not know why the Pound Rebka had to use a time varying Doppler shift in the signal, (this being the man made Doppler shift used to measure the natural phenomenon) is because the speed of light is constant, and over a constant distance there 'should not' be any such relative motion as to cause a Doppler shift (this being the naturally occurring phenomenon) in the gravitational shift in light over a fixed distance of the gravitational field.

That's not why I don't know why the experimenters used Doppler shift in there experiment. The reason is that I simply don't know the theory behind the workings of the experiment itself. For example; it may be that they got a decrease in experimental error by doing it that way. I simply don't know.

However there simply is no theoretical reason why they had to do it like that. Theoretically all they needed was a photon emitter and a photon detector which measures wavelength.

By the way it's not true that the speed of light is constant. That only holds in inertial frames, i.e. in gravitational fields. Here is a derivation for a uniform gravitational field/accelerating frame of reference and around a spherical body (i.e. Shwarzschild spacetime).

Go to www dot newenglandphysics dot org slash physics_world slash gr slash c_in_gfield.htm

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why do photons have the same speed regardless of the velocity of their source?

« on: 23/03/2016 13:06:21 »

So Pmb - you are now telling me that the experimenters created a Doppler shift of gamma rays by a mechanism that is clearly obvious, and well documented in Pound Rebka link, (and indeed by most of the posters here, including myself)... and then used this man made Doppler shift to measured WHAT?
Because as far as I understand, they used this man made Doppler shift of the gamma ray, to measure a naturally occurring Doppler shift of light being shifted by the gravitational field!!!

If this thread was about the Pound-Rebka experiment then I wouldn't have responded to this thread because I'm not an experimental physicist. As you said, everything you want to know about that experiment is posted in Wikipedia. I only responded to the question I quoted. I simply don't know why they had to have a time varying Doppler shift in the signal. I do, however, know experts who'd know this. I'll ask them about it and get back to you.

15

New Theories / Re: What is it about free electrons .....?

« on: 23/03/2016 04:44:29 »

of all electron interactions,  there is a very high likelihood of this being so.  The point to ascertain next is how this may be possible.  In order to do this  it is necessary to turn to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle  as related to energy and time:



This equations states that if an interaction takes place in an extremely short time on the order of  10^-15 sec. the Laws of Conservation of energy are not violated.

That's a common misconception. It doesn't mean that at all. From Introduction to Quantum Mechanics 2nd Ed. by David Griffiths page 118

It is often said that the uncertainty principle means that energy is not strictly conserved in quantum mechanics - that you're allowed to "borrow" energy delta E, as long as you pay it back in a time delta t~ hbar/(2 delta E); the greater the violation, the briefer the period over which it can occur. Now, there are many legitimate readings of the energy-time principle, but this is not one of them. Nowhere does quantum mechanics license violation of energy conservation, and certainty no such authorization entered into Eq. 3.74. But the uncertainty principle is extraordinarily robust: It can be misused without leading to seriously incorrect results, and as a consequence physicists are in the habit of applying it rather carelessly/

This text is known as the best undergraduate text in quantum mechanics. It's used at MIT for their undergraduate quantum mechanics course.

16

New Theories / Re: Double Slits how it works ?

« on: 23/03/2016 04:24:12 »

You're not talking about Young's double slit experiment. That experiment sent single photons towards the double slits. The beam width is greater than the size of the two slits. The pattern that is built up as a large number of photons pass through the double slits forms the same pattern as a beam of light would.

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why do photons have the same speed regardless of the velocity of their source?

« on: 23/03/2016 04:12:56 »

Very good Pmb!!!

Now could you please tell me how, within the Pound Rebka experiment, a Doppler shift can be identified within the gravitational shift of light when there is no relative motion between the light source and the receiver other than the oscillations of the speaker cone...

Doppler shift is function of the speed of the source and nothing else. The source of gamma rays is mounted in the center of the loudspeaker and is attached to the cone so that as a signal is sent to the speaker  the source moves back and fourth. Therefore there is a relative motion between source and receiver. There can only be a Doppler shift when the source is moving as is the case here.

Note: This has nothing to do with the original question so this is an off-topic discussion.

18

New Theories / Re: Are we able use this energy ?

« on: 22/03/2016 15:27:23 »

please start the signal  X Hz

UNIVERSE  also  X Hz


What You will hear ?

You have a wrong idea of resonance. Resonance is defined as follows

In physics, resonance is a phenomenon that occurs when a vibrating system or external force drives another system to oscillate with greater amplitude at a specific preferential frequency.

The frequency will not change at any place in your setup. You two sources of EM waves which are directed towards each other with the antenna in the middle. The energy density in the wave will depend on the phase of the waves.

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why do photons have the same speed regardless of the velocity of their source?

« on: 22/03/2016 15:18:54 »

I learned that light travels at the same given speed no matter if a light source is static in a fixed place or the source is moving towards you in that same space.

What is it that decelarates a photon that is emitted from an object moving toward you with say half the speed of light to come back to exactly the fixed speed of light.

That's called the invariance of the speed of light. It's the second postulate of special relativity. It's referred to as a postulate because nobody knows why the speed of light is independent of the speed of source.

However you can think of the reason as due to the properties of spacetime. When you change from one frame of reference, e.g. the frame in which the source is at rest, to one in which the source is moving then you're changing to a frame where, as determined from the rest frame, distances parallel to the motion of the source are shorter and where time intervals are shorter, both in exact proportions so that the speed of light has the same speed in all inertial frames.

20

New Theories / Re: The Gravitational Distortion of Space

« on: 19/03/2016 02:14:57 »

We have all seen computer graphics showing gravity as a three-dimensional grid with a star and a planet deforming the grid.

Those diagrams show the relationship between radial distances and circles around a stellar object.

  This is a nice visualization of gravity, but let’s consider the real-universe implications.  It means that in certain regions - according to Einstein’s theories - space itself is distorted, being compressed or expanded due to the effects of gravity.

The correct term is "curved," not "distorted." E.g. you wouldn't say that the surface of a basketball "distorted" would you'd? It's said to be curved.

First space has no properties. It is just a measurement.

That's quite wrong. Space does have properties such as being curved. Saying that it is "just" a measurement does nothing but prove that point since what is t ere is what is measured.

The distortions of what Einstein calls space are really the compression and or expansion of the gravitational wave which exists in dark matter/ dark energy.

Dark matter and dark energy has nothing to do with his question.

There are three forms of energy, linear, angular, and spherical.  All matter constantly radiates dark matter/energy. this is emitted in jumps.When a sphere of dark energy is radiated it kicks against the previous quanta of dark energy. The kickback causes gravity. thus the universe is full of what I call dot-waves. You cannot see them because they are spherical energy and you only see linear and angular forms of energy such as a photon.

All of those ideas are dead wrong. May I ask you where you got these ideas from?