1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is there a connection between quantum fields and a probability wave?

« on: 24/12/2013 21:49:12 »

Thanks.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Is there a connection between quantum fields and a probability wave?

« on: 22/12/2013 21:06:04 »

?

Thanks
Magnus

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are virtual particles exclusively virtual, or do some exist in reality too?

« on: 16/10/2012 05:37:25 »

Thank you very much for the explanations.


Thanks,
Magnus

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are virtual particles exclusively virtual, or do some exist in reality too?

« on: 04/10/2012 18:31:51 »

Hey,
Don't follow all what you write.....but one essence is that there are a lot of phenomenon;
interactions between particles (with "virtual particles"), electric force of an electron (that is influenced by a cloud of "virtual particles"), and many more.
They are solved mathematically, and then this solutions can be built on different "explanations" although presently no-one has been able in experiments to verify any of
the explanations (so-far at least). All the explanations has pros and cons, are mostly theoretically possible, and the future will show us the answer.

If I'm totally wrong - bring it easy on me - otherwise my already bad self-esteem in this subject will suffer more :-)

Magnus

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Virtual particles

« on: 04/10/2012 04:17:07 »

That's highly irritating :-(.........so we are writing books, making tv shows, spreading an explanation that we know is not true,
just for the sake of having an intuitive explanation that mathematically would predict/solve an observation we know...but otherwise have nothing with reality to do.
I've been trying to bend my head around virtual particles, borrowing time, etc.....

But very much thanks for your answer.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Are virtual particles exclusively virtual, or do some exist in reality too?

« on: 03/10/2012 05:45:31 »

Hi.

I understood from a previous answer that virtual photons are a mathematical tool/description, but has no real existence.

Is it the same for all virtual particles, or do other virtual particles exist in reality?

Thanks,
Magnus

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does virtual photons exist?

« on: 22/09/2012 21:15:50 »

Thanks for a prompt answer!

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Does virtual photons exist?

« on: 22/09/2012 20:08:49 »

Hey,
red in a book (forgot which one) that they exist, that they can even be measured in giving an electron slightly more energy than i has by it self.
Now reading "the theory about almost everything", and they mean that the virtual photon is a "handy concept" but apart from this no one knows
if they exist....

Can anybody enlighten me?

Thanks Magnus

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What exactly is a force?

« on: 27/07/2012 22:26:38 »

Is it un-polite to build on a question? If so neglect this...
I think this question is very interesting, and have understood that it is an interaction between particles with the current definition of force.

But particles make this interaction often (always?) with messenger particles that does not carry the force
but rather the information. In electromagnetic force the messenger particle is a photon, and it is "used"
both to signal attraction as well as repulsion. How?
And to the original question, what is REALLY force?

Polarized energy? And What is energy? Guess nobody knows??

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is TIME only a perception?

« on: 27/07/2012 20:14:10 »

Aristotle's view of time would be of the sun orbiting the earth.
Or, perhaps the movement of a pendulum, or clock mechanism.

As far as no true definition of time.  I think that may be one of the limitations of the current physics and "space-time".

Our current generation of super-clocks are calibrated based on the hyperfine transitions of various elements, with the assumption that these transitions are "constant".  But clearly these transition energy levels drift with gravity and velocity.

Nothing with mass can ever move at the speed of light.  And nothing without mass (such as light) can ever move at any other speed

Perhaps under ideal conditions. 
The speed of light, of course is variable depending on the medium and conditions.

You are probably correct about the limitations. I was thinking more of the principle. And if I were a photon, I have understood
that time does not exists. Think this was a topic actually in Naked Scientist, but I will check current understanding.
Anyhow, principle of time = movement * speed limit..... maybe stupid, but gives me a intellectual stimuli :-)

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is TIME only a perception?

« on: 27/07/2012 17:16:52 »

Think Aristoteles made this thought;

Aristotle predated Einstein by about 2000 years.
I don't believe the ancient Greeks had a concept of a measurable finite speed of light, and certainly not a time/velocity dependence.

There are many different interpretations of time.  What is real is that we all are born, get older, and pass on. 

There are many experiments that indicate that our measurements of time varies with gravity and velocity.  However, for any fixed frame, the progression of time is very real, and essentially constant.

Aristoteles said that time is movement. Einstein never defined time as far as I now. Had a practical view of "time is what we measure with clocks". If he defined time and you know where to find it, pls tell me. I'm not sure that your definition is answering the question though, what you mention is just an effect. If you are Buddhist you would add some more births as well :-)

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Is TIME only a perception?

« on: 27/07/2012 06:37:03 »

Think Aristoteles made this thought;

Is time something that we perceive as an effect of speed limit and consequently it would not exist without movement?

Different particles/energy's have different speed limits, this gives the consequence that things does not happen instantly, hence time is "there".
The speed limit is due to the fact that space has a density, or something that prevents infinite speed.
When you travel fast, the space is compressed and in a way giving higher density, means that the speed limit within that fast travel, will be reduced.
In a way you could also say that some part of the speed is already used in the travel, and less is left over for other activities.

The movement of a particle, for instance the decay of a free neutron, could depend on that there are a number - chain of internal activities that need
to be happening in order for the decay to happen. These are happening with the speed limit of each activity, summing up to 15 minutes. If you move the
neutron in higher overall speed, some of the speed limit is used - or density is greater, meaning that the speed limit for this internal processes are lower. 
Then the decay takes longer.

An observer is depending on internal processes in order to observe. If you move the observer with light speed, no speed is left over for the internal processes of
observing. Or - space is so compressed that speed limit is 0. Means that for the observer time stands still - or do not exist.

Gravitation and acceleration warps space and gives it higher concentration = lower speed limit.

This would mean that time as a perception does not exist at 300k/sec, and also not when everything is standing still.
Time as we define it would be a perception only and would not exist absolute.

I mix a bit here between speed limit - "used speed" and density of universe..... and I guess that all this has been tested and rejected since this is something
that probably was tested a few hundred years ago.....but would be interested to hear your thoughts.

Thanks,
Magnus

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Flatness of Universe

« on: 26/07/2012 22:46:12 »

Hmmm....Guess you know the answer (I know what I can read) but I get curious why you ask...?

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Flatness of Universe

« on: 26/07/2012 05:58:07 »

Hi,

I heard a lecture where one of the measurements was checking the distance of spots in the cosmic background radiation,
and they measured exactly. Conclusion of this was that universe has been flat since that time - 400.000 years after big bang.
This is what puzzles me. Shouldn't be so.....


Magnus

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Is the Universe flat?

« on: 25/07/2012 05:55:26 »

Hi again.

I have understood that the universe is flat and has been so since the time of the cosmic background radiation.
Different measurements are confirming this.

The shape of universe is depending on density, Omega, which then is 1.

BUT; I believe that the density of universe has to have been higher before, with more of the energy compressed into
smaller space, and in the future the density should be lower.....

How can then universe have been flat, and be flat?

Thanks

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How do photons lose energy in red shift?

« on: 25/07/2012 05:49:10 »

Hi,

I have the same understanding as bizerl. If I am a photon, I will have the same energy independent the observers speed?
I have a certain energy and I cannot know if i meet  an observer that is closing into me (blueshift) or one leaving me (redshift).
The energy is there.....and if not; then it is even more interesting

Second question; Disregarding the redshift (or blue) seen due to Doppler, will the wavelength change due to the expansion
of universe during the travel pf the photon? I have heard that it is said that the radiation energy in universe is reduced due to
this fact, but if it is;

1. What "stretches out" the photon? It must then in my view interact with something?
2. If energy is lost, where does it go? Energy conservation?

Thanks,
Magnus

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How do photons lose energy in red shift?

« on: 21/07/2012 15:19:37 »

Interesting discussion, but I guess I cannot really follow....sorry for asking again....

As I understand it a Photon is a quantifiable unit. This unit has different energy levels (by it's own) and this is manifested by wavelength.
If we have a Doppler effect, with us seeing a red shift (sign of lower energy), there should really not be lower energy, since the longer wavelength
is only created by the speed of the object that emits the photon - away from us. This should in this case mean that the photon has the same energy, but we
see it different depending on our frame of reference. Are we travelling toward the object (and photon) we would even see a blue shift I guess? So in this case
the observers motion relative the source of the photon decides if it is red or blue shift, but in "absolute terms" the photon has the same energy
as when it was emitted?

Is it the same when the photon get stretched by an expanding universe? If so, the photon should have the same energy, and we should have the same
effects as above?

If the photon looses "absolute" energy, where does that go?

Second - or first question - why does universe drag the photon "apart"? What is interacting with the photon so that it cannot keep the wavelength?
Other particles does not seem to get spread out due to universe expansion?

Or, is this just an accelerated Doppler effect?

Thanks,
Magnus Carlsson