1

New Theories / Re: Origin of magnetic force

« Last post by hamdani yusuf on Today at 05:24:57 »

Before we offer new hypotheses to explain observations, let's learn how previous scientists developed classical model of electromagnetism which eventually led to Maxwell's equations. We can also learn the difficulties they faced, which modern students may often overlook or take for granted.
 
Ohm's Law: History and Biography

Biography of Coulomb and his Equation

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does special relativity explain dimensional components ...

« Last post by Dimensional on Today at 05:16:09 »

Hi again,

I think this is outside of the scope of Galilean relativity because nothing is actually moving in GR.  GR implies a block universe.

   I'm easily confused.   GR is usually an abbreviation of "General Relativity" but I'm going to assume you are using it as an abbreviation of Galilean Relativity.

   I'm not really sure that Galilean Relativity does fully demand the idea of a block universe.   I think we usually forumlate the notion of a block universe after we accept Special Relativity.   However, the fine details about what a "block universe" means may not be all that important.    Just simple Newtonian mechanics already suggests something we would call a "deterministic universe".   This just means that, if Newtonian mechanics is correct, then you should be able to calculate where everything will be and how it is moving at any time in the future  from knowledge about where it is and how it is moving now.    Similarly, you should also be able to calculate where it was and how it was moving at any point in the past  from knowledge about the present.    Overall then, if you had knowledge about the present than it's just a matter of doing some calculations - there's nothing uncertain about the future or past, you would have full knowledge of that.
    A deterministic universe doesn't necessarily mean that the future has already happened, just that that there's nothing especially uncertain or undetermined about it.

    Special Relativity (SR)  probably pushes the notion of a deterministic universe a bit further.   One of the things a good text or lecture course about SR might discuss is the example of what is called the "Andromeda paradox" or Rietdijk–Putnam–Penrose argument  ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk%E2%80%93Putnam_argument ).    These sorts of topics are one of the ways in which you could build up to a more complete notion of a block universe.  Specifically, where you could start to argue that all instants of time and space seem to need to exist.   It's worth mentioning that although these things often have names like "paradox" it's just because Physicist's and Philosopher's have good publicity and media agents and they select the titles.   They aren't usually impossible or logical paradoxes,  it's just that it sounds more interesting to call it a "paradox" instead of "an intersting thing".   
    Additionally, it's not entirely fair to say that the idea of a "Block Universe" is an idea in Physics.  It's an idea in Philosophy that is based on some ideas in Physics, although they often call it "Eternalism".  Physics doesn't really care if you favour a Block universe or Presentism, it just offers some models and allows some predictions to be made.   It's not offering any fundamental truth about how the universe really is, only a few models that seem to be useful.   More to the point, you can easily reconcile Special Relativity with Presentism if you try.   One option is to accept that when an object experiences an acceleration than the universe around them is changed.

    (Please don't get too worried about ideas like a deterministic universe - there's loads of things in physics that can offset or alleviate any concerns, like Chaos theory and quantum uncertainty but that falls outside the scope of this thread).

Sorry, I should not have brought any of this up.  It does not add much to my initial issue.

So the idea of an object to be moving relative to another object doesn't really make any sense in a block universe.

    Are you sure?   Movement is described just as a rate of change of one thing (position) with respect to something else (time).   So this is just a ratio of a small change in one variable to the corresponding small change in another variable.   Just because we, human beings, tend to experience and think of time a certain way, doesn't necessarily grant it any special nature.   It's just something, some variable, we can use to calculate rates of change with respect to.    We could have some other variable like S   - let's give it a silly name like "entropy of the universe" - and just calculate rates of change of position with respect to S.   

I am currently watching the videos that you posted from Leonard Susskind.  Maybe this will help me.

3

New Theories / Re: Origin of magnetic force

« Last post by hamdani yusuf on Today at 05:01:56 »

Not sure what you mean by duty cycle.

4

Technology / Re: Are solar panels worthwhile?

« Last post by wolfekeeper on Today at 04:05:59 »

Nah, not even in the UK.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints/

5

New Theories / Re: Origin of magnetic force

« Last post by Origin on Today at 03:43:33 »

Defining the source of the pulse - the dipole is appropriate.  The dipole is formed when a photon circles in on itself in a double orbit. The electric charge points of the photon wave overlap.

I see you are doubling down on your word salad approach.

6

General Science / Re: Are space and time just two sides of the same coin?

« Last post by Seafire on Today at 02:56:54 »

I tend to think in terms of a dynamic view of time. Do I believe that somewhere in spacetime Anne Boleyn is still being executed, or WWII is still being acted out, no. However, I would never be as arrogant as to say that my view is correct and all other views wrong.
@Halc has probably looked at all the different philosophies, but I suspect your accusatory tone might have put him off further discussion.

Why do you prefer a dynamic view of time that has no observable evidence over a fixed view of time that is observable in the first place? You can't observe past or future, only a fixed and enduring present. I am not saying your view is wrong just that it lacks any evidence.

Here philosophy describes presentism but for some reason it remains untouched by science. I called this a mistake but after a 100 years it seems just a little bit arrogant don't ya think?

Wiki-
Philosophical presentism is the view that only present entities exist (or, equivalently, that everything is present).[1] According to presentism, then, there are no wholly past or merely future entities whatsoever. In a sense, the past and the future do not exist for presentists—past events have happened (have existed) and future events will happen (will exist), but neither exist at all since they do not exist now. Presentism is a view about temporal ontology that contrasts with eternalism—the view that past, present, and future entities exist (that is, the ontological thesis of the block universe theory)—and with no-futurism—the view that only past and present entities exist (that is, the ontological thesis of the growing block theory).[2]

I am also labelled an atheist for not believing in things that aren't there.

7

Just Chat! / Re: What is the value of spam?

« Last post by Petrochemicals on Today at 00:11:36 »

I wonder how effective online advertising actually will be in the future, at present it is apparently effective, but will we begin to become desensitised to it

8

Technology / Re: Are solar panels worthwhile?

« Last post by Petrochemicals on Today at 00:08:50 »

answer is Yes.
Ref: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=84600.0

To produce enough solar panels to generate the electricity for the uks current usage would require somewhere in the region of 1 billion tonnes of co2, for all our usage that figure is at 10 billion . 

And it would break even in a few years at the absolute most.

Meanwhile the price of coal and natural gas is soaring. Some places subsidize their local power with low-cost petrochemicals. The UK used to do that, British natural gas was sold within the UK at cut-price costs, but they're running out in the North Sea. And so the price is now rebounding to the world price-nearer what it probably should have been all along, and suddenly solar and wind actually makes loads of sense.

7 bare minimum in the UK for just the manufacture, neglecting any other concerns. It seems a little like adding a massive carbon load rather than reducing emmissions here.

9

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« Last post by puppypower on Yesterday at 23:33:58 »

To help explain what may be on the other side of the wall, consider the human imagination. I can imagine flying to the sun with wings of wax, then burrowing through the sun, to its core, to get a a nice sun tan. This is all imaginary and cannot occur in space-time, since the way matter and energy are related in space-time will not support this.

Yet, at the level of consciousness and information, space-time is not the limiting factor in terms of the sun tan scenario. My brain does not automatically prevent me from thinking outside of space-time based limits as specified by physics, with respect to energy and material. Such thinking would be limited by social stigma and taboo, but not any practical space-time limitation within my brain's matter or consciousness.

This type of data processing is actually closer to time without space and  space without time. Things do not have to add up as expected of space-time, at the level of information, even when it come from the matter of the brain, that is based on the limits of space-time; free will beyond space-time. 

On the other hand, if I was a development engineer and I was commissioned to build something, I will need to limit my imagination to only the subset of all imaginary combinations, that are allowed by space-time. Outside that box would not be practical for my job. But outside that box has way more options. Space-time is a subset of separated space and separated time, with more limitations.

In a realm where space and time are not connected, we would be in state of infinite entropy, since the possibilities for complexity and randomness would be unlimited, since space-time constraints are not there. The realm beyond the wall can theoretically spawn a subset called space-time.

That other realm will also become the potential, behind the second law, that governs entropy within our universal space-time. Entropy is harder to describe than energy or matter since it comes from a much more expanded reality; beyond what is, into what can be in the future; increase. 

To make our space-time realm appear from space and time not connected, we would need to intersect an independent time line with a space line. Since this will limit the free style complexity, at the point of intersection, entropy will lower locally. and give off tons of free energy potential. This is not energy, yet, but potential to become energy when space-time appears. Free energy is connected to entropy as -TS or temperature times entropy. The BB was very hot, so even a small amount of entropic potential S will go log way when T=10⁵⁰ kelvin.

Since space-time is a subset of space without time and time without space  I would expect they two will stay connected, so extra time potential and/or extra distance potential will continue to overlap space-time. This will create affects like probability, since space-time is no longer limited to 2-D, but is more like 2+-D.

If you look at the inflation period of the BB, where the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, this would be explained as adding some extra distance potential to early space-time or space(+)-time This allows extra giddy-up in space, beyond the time expected of the speed of light, traveling in pure space-time. It adds a partial omnipresent affect, that allows the universe to expand in all directions at the same time.

GR and gravity are based on acceleration, which has the units of d/t/t or space-time plus extra time potential; time line. Mass is connected to extra time potential, which is why it is so hard to interface gravity with the purer space-time affects of the other three forces.

Mass allows space-time references to persist in time, as a range of references in time. Mass cannot move at the speed of light, so it cannot reverse back to the wall, but has to go in another direction that gives the universe persistence in time.

The current expansion of the universe is due to distance potential from the other realm, that we now called dark matter and energy. However, this is not exactly based on energy. The expansion expands all wavelengths of and energy and distances, thereby forces a lowering frequency; lost time potential and less mass equivalent in universal space-time. This increases entropy which absorbs the free energy, bringing us closer to the infinite entropy realm.

This is just a theory but it does open a door in the wall beyond space-time.

10

New Theories / Re: Origin of magnetic force

« Last post by Spring Theory on Yesterday at 23:30:28 »

All charged particles have a magnetic moment due to its "intrinsic" spin.

An intrinsic spin requires an intrinsic axis and hence a source for an instrisic pulse.

But the charge is not because of the rotation.
What's the evidence for the pulse? What's the frequency and duty cycle?

Defining the source of the pulse - the dipole is appropriate.  The dipole is formed when a photon circles in on itself in a double orbit. The electric charge points of the photon wave overlap.  The magnetic fields also overlap. In the case of the electron, the negative charge points radially outward and positive charge points inward.  With a photon pair or two dipoles, you have a shielded positive charge and only the negative charge presented:

The frequency for the dipoles in the free electron is about 2.3229884563E+24 cycles per second. Not sure what you mean by duty cycle.

The best evidence for a pulse would be the fine structure constant.  If the electron was "still", the charge force at the dipole would be 137ish times it's observed average charge,  This is why the fine structure is the electron coupling constant for interactions with photons.

When an electron absorbs a photon, it locks on to the electron dipole in alignment with the photon's electric fields. The photon essentially wraps around the electron in theory. The quantum nature of the photon "selected" for absorption is determined by how many wraps around the electron the photon can make geometrically and have its own dipole created.  You would have 4 wraps for the first photon, 9 wraps for the next one and 16 for the next one, etc. It follows the n^2 energy levels similar to Bohr's model.