Naked Science Forum
General Science => General Science => Topic started by: Chaswell on 09/02/2017 15:53:03
-
A graph can show in two dimensions the principal of wave decay to zero energy, that is, with constant frequency to nil amplitude.
Now think about wave decay if the wave has formed a ball as in say, ball lightning.
It would now seem that a zero amplitude condition might not be possible as there could be constructive amplitude interference at the centre of the ball.
This interference might lead to a temporary wave structure and perhaps a more permanent one if a second wave of a compatible frequency were added.
I have not found any text book references to this so can the forum help?
-
Atomic-S
Some 20 odd years ago I became interested in witness accounts of ball lightning.
There is a puzzle which hinges on a satisfactory explanation of how a ball of energy can form and move through the atmosphere, and in some cases structures, last for minutes of time and then either disappear or explode violently.
Three dimensional wave theory does not seem to cover such extreme events.
I have tried to give the forum something to work with by outlining a theory, which may be new.
Hopefully this reply makes my post less obscure.
-
this may be of interest: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23712393
-
Thanks, chrisalSPO, a good read. Unfortunately the frustration of the scientists is so evident.
There have been many experiments where energy balls have been created. One, never to be repeated at home experiment, involved a micro wave oven. A clear picture of a large plasma ball was obtained just before the door blew off.
All of the experiments and natural sightings seem to be screaming that the science of waves is not complete. The forum has a along reach so perhaps someone, maybe in an unrelated science discipline, can find something inspirational here.
-
Witnesses have described the balls as floating under the influence of what is probably an electro magnetic force. A ball of energy not being affected by gravity suggests there is something not understood either about gravity, the ball, or both. A new look at gravity might be worthwhile.
Consider each atom either as a place for particles or as a homogenous ball of waves. The position of each atom in space is identified more by the position of the centre than its extremity. It can be shown that each atoms structure is hugely energetic with reaction times that are extremely fast.
Now consider the effect time dilation might have on the atoms structure. Is it possible that all of the structure is affected at once so that the distribution of the energy in the structure is displaced. Displacement would mean the atoms energy was being continuously moved to new place. This movement might be observed as an acceleration directly towards the source of the time dilation, that is, when the the source was close. If, however, the source was at an extreme distance the effect of displacement might be delayed somewhat so that the movement might be some degrees off centre. If the delay reached 90 degrees then the atom would not be accelerated to a greater speed.
The concept of inertia would not be involved.
This fanciful concept of gravity would condemn ball lightning to a form of plasma. As I understand it, plasma does not have a structure so it would not be sensitive to the effect of time dilation. It would also not interact with atoms in a normal way but it would be sensitive to electrical magnetic fields.
One witness flying in a commercial aircraft at cruise altitude at night, reported a pale blue ball of about 30 cm drift off the wing. It entered the the darkened cabin and drifted along past the sleeping passengers but when it passed his seat it disappeared.
You really can't make this up.
-
Witnesses have described the balls as floating under the influence of what is probably an electro magnetic force. A ball of energy not being affected by gravity suggests there is something not understood either about gravity, the ball, or both. A new look at gravity might be worthwhile.
That makes as little sense as saying that smoke (which is also hot) is seen to rise; so we need to look again at gravity.
-
Fair criticism Bored Chemist, but the subject is far more complex than heated smoke, which cools and the soot particles drop.
Some witnesses report radiated light, sometimes a buzzing or humming noise but not radiated heat and even although the ball subsequently proves to be loaded with energy. Some seem to carry almost no energy.
See Wikipedia on Ball Lightning and The Hessdalen Phenomena. There are many stories and a host of theories from ionised gases to juggling with miniature black holes.
The witnesses describe so many different encounters with ball lightning that a definitive explanation for them all seems to be as far away as ever, so why not speculate?
-
There is a lot of rotational energy in a galaxy and how it all comes about is controversial.
If an object is dropped then the energy released at impact can never exceed the energy taken to lift it. This must be true no matter how far away the object is before it is dropped. For example, if the distance of separation is extreme, and there is no outside influence, then the impact between the object and the planet will take place centre of gravity to centre of gravity. Because the driving force is limited and despite the almost limitless amount of time, the speed at impact must be limited otherwise the impact energy limit would be exceeded (approximately 25,000mph for Earth).
Of course the above scenario ignores the reduction in time dilation at extreme distances might possibly have between the planet and the atoms of the object. Any deviation from a centre to centre connection would result in rotational behaviour.
At extreme distances rotational behaviour might dominate due to time being different and the direction of displacement of the atoms structure being different.
Never more than now is Gravity under assault but there has been no meaningful success.
Dark Matter, however, is the favoured solution but it relies on finding stuff, that at the moment, is invisible.
Revised Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) has had some success but relies on changing the the rules on Gravity without any good cause.
There is no theory I know of that can explain the behaviour attributed to Dark Energy.
I hope there is something here that stimulates debate.
-
I recommend a read of The New Scientist - The Collection.
Relativity:
Einstein's Mind Bending Universe.
In particular pages 86 thru 88 - Differently equal.
Well worth a read as the concepts are put clearly.
-
I hope these posts stimulate debate and a desire to do your own research.
A spectroscopic analysis from a sample of Hessdalen Phenomena light has shown an indication of of a gas content. Unfortunately, this has still not resulted in an agreed understanding of how the lights and other similar phenomena form and which, in the case of ball lightning, can retain energy for a considerable time.
The standard model of the atom could be considered as analogous to a construction of Leggo bricks held together by magic forces, not that this detracts from its success. But it seems when there is a need to explain extreme phenomena the model becomes extremely stretched. It could be that it's success is the source of its failure. It seems physics has a bag of magic forces that is dipped into when it's use can be justified mathematically.
The standard model of the atom allows the atom to be affected by time but there is nothing in the model that explains why the atom slows time, and yet, the effect builds rapidly until there are extreme events.
Time dilation is a fact of nature, which is confirmed daily by atomic clocks and it seems all atomic processes are affected by it. Is it not reasonable then to assume that the rate of gravitational acceleration is proportional to the intensity of the local time dilation field. Inertia would then play no part in the rate of acceleration of an object dropped from a height, however, the energy from inertia would be evident at impact.
Perhaps all equal signs in mathematics should be challenged by asking fundamental questions. Perhaps the most fundamental question of all should be: what does E=MC2 mean? No, not what does it do, but what does it mean?
-
Total Speculation: Could it be one of those unknown subatomic particles that scientists at the LHC are still searching for?
-
Very true king this is a story but it is the nature of the subject, but make no mistake, getting to the fundamentals of this subject is laying down a challenge to physics. Physics seems to be complacently comfortable with the present understanding of the world and in many places it tells a story too. Particle physics may solve the puzzle but it seems the growing list of particles is getting difficult to assimilate. Good mathematics based on a good model can do wonders but there is always the danger that the model becomes real when in fact it is far from the truth. Einstein has managed to construct a model based on the nonexistence of gravity for which inertia and compressed space is substituted. Is this a story?
-
The New Scientist, 29th September 2012, Special Issue - What is Reality, pages 34 thru 47, gives a good interpretation of the results and consequences of the double slit experments.
The results seem to do more to confound than elucidate, which is probably caused by bringing earlier concepts to the double slit experiments, that is, the standard model, which in itself is a carefully constructed view of reality based on the interpretations of experiments. Is it possible then, that there could be different interpretations of previous experiments? Is it possible that the ball wave structure described in the first posting in this thread could be applied in the double slit experiments and in many other cases?
I don't feel obliged to explain how a ball wave structure could form, but I am sure that once formed it would be difficult to break as the information in the structure would be difficult to lose, and other nearby structures could easily absorb small amounts of energy provided the frequencies were compatible.
-
The route to solid structure from the big bang is not agreed as there seems to be many pitfalls. What this post is about is to suggest that science may be persisting with a concept that although perfectly sensible on the the face of it, it is in fact a blind alley. Atoms are not solid but are dynamic, vigorously reacting strucures, that tantantalisingly, behave in confusing ways. Surely, working backwards to the big bang to search for the path to solidness is futile when solidness is not the behaviour observed. The standard model is good but the orbit of Mercury was eventually explained thru a radical new idea, it now seems the standard model has its own Mercury due what is being observed on a daily basis world wide.
-
It seems that the standard model predicts that antimatter came into existence in equal quantities with matter. It does not seem possible that the wave function of each matter could be fundamentally different. If antimatter eliminates matter then perhaps the only stable construction possible could be by waves.
Mass being constructed from waves may seem pretty far out, but one advantage of the concept is that no mass or anti-mass is possible. True, waves can interact, but that is not the same concept as antimatter completely annihilating matter. It seems that waves are both positive and negative at the same time, so it seems perfectly possible that only one kind of mass could have been created at the big bang
The results in the double slit experiment seem pretty wonky, but it might not be the results that are so wonky, instead it might it be the expectations. Why should a careful injection of mass buzz about from one ‘antenna’ to the next ‘antenna’ like a wave? But, then, maybe what was injected in the first place was a wave construction with its own rules?
I hope you can make allowances as you read this but yet concede that only when considering mass interacting in an environment where it influences time can sense be made of the behaviours observed. Ball lightning may also seem wonky but maybe it also obeys its own rules.
-
The planet Mercury deviates in its orbit because of changes in its environment due to differences in spacetime. What this means is that Mercury is a mass with a centre of gravity, which is where the differences are measured from. All of the mass is affected so there seems no point to ponder, but is the planet being considered conveniently as a Newtonian mass being upset in its behaviour by Einsteinian gravity? Is it not more reasonable to ask does this mean every atom of Mercury is sensitive to spacetime and behaves accordingly? Is it not more reasonable to say that the energies that bind the atoms of Mercury are being constantly adjusted under the influence of spacetime. Can this idea be taken further and ask if the position of the atom of Mercury are affected by spacetime then what effect does spacetime have on the position of all atoms? Is this now a point to ponder?
-
The planet Mercury deviates in its orbit because of changes in its environment due to differences in spacetime.
You are talking about the precession in the perihelion of Mercury's orbit.
- In other words, Mercury's orbit is an ellipse. The point where it is closest to the Sun is called perihelion.
- According to Newton, Mercury's orbit should trace the same ellipse, over and over
- Astronomers noticed that (over centuries), the perihelion was not in the same place, but moved a little around the Sun
- Einstein explained this by time dilation in the stronger gravitational field close to the Sun
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury
What this means is that Mercury is a mass with a centre of gravity, which is where the differences are measured from.
It is true that there is a small time dilation effect as you move from Mercury's center of gravity to the surface and above the surface.
But that has nothing to do with the precession of Mercury's perihelion, which has to do with the Sun's gravitational field.
-
Evan I did not appreciate that the planet would have its own spacetime anomoly, so thank you for pointing it out, which probably adds to the debate.
The sentence you quote was only written to emphasise that the difference in distances would be measured from a known point .ie the planets cg. Again thank you for your time.