41

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What happens when both slits are observed by in the double slit experiment?

« on: 07/11/2019 09:05:11 »

Don't need mathematics to think about it Lloyd. Only if you have another interpretation and then want to have it published. Most of the stuff at the QM level is probabilistic, everything is thought to be a result of that and decoherence. Decoherence can be seen as this small probabilistic level reaching some sort of threshold of interactions and scale leaving the world as we experience it normally.

So in a two slit experiment there is a probability of either one or both slits being 'engaged' by one particle. And the way it unfolds will be defined through your setup. The idea of indirect evidence is increasingly popular in those situations as every time you probe a particle you also force it into a set behavior aka  a 'wave collapse'. Whether one want to think about it first as waves or as particles is more of a question of what you believe than what is right here. I've read physicists stating the particle view while other state the wave view.

42

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is light an independent entity, or is it an effect of a larger mechanism ?

« on: 13/10/2019 19:23:03 »

Maybe

But if it isn't then what is real? I have to go out from myself and I think I exist. I'm sure you do the same which makes it two of us :)

 'photons' are a equivalence to energy as I think of it, and they are also a local effect in that no matter if they propagate or not the only way we can experimentally prove them are at their impact. There is no way to define them when 'propagating' experimentally.

43

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is light an independent entity, or is it an effect of a larger mechanism ?

« on: 13/10/2019 18:23:35 »

In a way CPT, then we have 'energy' that might be called a coin of exchange, as JP defined it. But at a origin you don't have particles of proper mass. You have this idea of 'energy' instead creating proper mass.

44

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is light an independent entity, or is it an effect of a larger mechanism ?

« on: 13/10/2019 16:40:19 »

He's interesting Bill. Time as such is a local definition, invariant locally. It questions what we mean by defining something a locally invariant. Or if you like , lifting up repeatable experiments to 'universal constants'. If you turn your head all universal constants are representations of that idea.

45

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is light an independent entity, or is it an effect of a larger mechanism ?

« on: 13/10/2019 07:12:39 »

Pretty sweet question Petrochemicals. My own take on it is that it is a part of something more.
That's what the two slit experiment tells us, and so called 'delayed choices'.

What it do is to present us with a 'speed', and looked at from my perspective a way to to define durations (aka a 'local clock'). That one seems to hold true at any experiment, but when it comes to how it will express itself in a outcome, as particles or waves is related to more circumstances than 'light' itself.
=

It's a little more complicated than that though as 'light' is a local definition, when it comes to 'speeds' and 'clocks' both. The same as we find other objects to have a varying time and so 'speed of light' when defined from our own local 'time and clock'. To it we can add that the only way you measure a light particle or wave is at a outcome. You don't see 'light' propagating, you see its results.

46

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How Can This Black Hole Be So Big Ton 618 ?

« on: 21/08/2019 11:43:45 »

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/2017/03/17/how-supermassive-black-holes-can-form-without-collapsing-stars/

47

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: what would connect chaos theory with multidimensionallity

« on: 31/07/2019 12:00:58 »

when I think of a fractal 'magnifying it' finding it not to end it's not about 'dimensions' being nested inside it. It's a self replicating system.
=

Maybe this is a good explanation of a Hausdorff dimension. https://www.quora.com/In-laymans-terms-what-is-the-Hausdorff-dimension-a-measure-of

Then again, I'm not that particular to the idea of dimensions and this opens for another interpretation of what it is. I see it as a result, not as an origin. But it definitely confuse me trying to imagine how to translate this mathematic into a universe consisting of 1.5 'dimensions'.
=

Ok, Hausdorff did not question the 'dimensions' we find around us. He just invented a new mathematical approach to describing it in where the result of describing certain types of fractals gives you a fractional number using his definitions. That does not state that you have 1.5 'dimensions' because that is meaningless practically. .5 dimensions doesn't mean anything, the translation of it into a real universe fail to even describe a line. As long as we use what we see around us.

48

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does gravity exert its influence infinitely?. Times two

« on: 02/06/2019 19:26:14 »

You're perfectly correct,
It can't, everything breaks down at 'infinity'

Although it also involves a arrow.
And it´f the arrow is'c' while 'space' is 'ftl'`?

49

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How does gravity exert its influence infinitely?. Times two

« on: 02/06/2019 19:23:57 »

" f space-time is infinite ,how gravity extends to infinity?
 we know infinity is unreachable because it continues forever and no-one reach a finite point.How gravity extends to infinite distances while  infinity is unreachable? how gravity bends and curve space-time everywhere while space time end is unreachable? for gravity to bend space-time everywhere it should reach its end , how gravity bends space-time end while this end is unreachable? " By  Yahya A.Sharif

50

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 29/01/2019 11:17:59 »

no, that's perfectly correct. the energy you measure a photon is dependent on what frame of reference you have, being 'at rest' with it or 'moving' relative it. To define a intrinsic energy you have to be 'at rest' with your experimental setup. Light can both be said to 'red shift' and 'blue shift' depending on ones frame of reference, measuring it. It's in principle similar to two cars colliding, depending on relative speed(s), but in the photons frame we better avoid talking about 'mass'.

51

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What happened before the Big Bang?

« on: 26/01/2019 19:09:35 »

Well Bogie, we all have a tendency to get of track as we feel we're onto something. The New Theories section is more forgiving in that manner. The idea here seems to be that we should try for informing, trying to stay inside the accepted physics borders, more than presenting new ideas (speculating).

52

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 23/01/2019 07:40:27 »

I think this one is a pretty good start
https://www.quora.com/In-laymans-terms-how-did-Max-Planck-come-up-with-the-Plancks-constant-and-what-problem-does-it-solve

What I find fascinating about Planck is his imagination. He had a very long sight, with that formula just being part of it. He would have made a excellent SF writer, in the best sense. https://www.nature.com/news/2007/071220/full/news.2007.389.html

53

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What happened before the Big Bang?

« on: 22/01/2019 19:51:42 »

Interesting

I don't know, but I would probably first look at the projections of the cmb (cosmic background radiation)
doesn't mean that I don't respect the idea of 'standard candles' setting a standard for measuring a distance.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kionasmith/2018/07/05/how-henrietta-leavitt-lit-the-way-to-distant-galaxies/

54

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why does my tea bag always turn clockwise when removed from my mug?

« on: 09/01/2019 13:38:14 »

Couldn't we name this wet string theory?

55

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How remiss is our attitude towards entropy?

« on: 08/01/2019 23:24:54 »

Phyti " A deterministic universe is not possible, since it would require a simultaneous knowledge of its current 'now' state. "

Well, you can. Just allow all possibilities statically.  Forget 'time' for it. Then allow for a arrow and decoherence, scaling it up. Also allow for HUP and 'free will'. Now you got both, your local arrow combined with your free will, redefining your reality in a dynamic manner. 'It's not 'deterministic' in a usual sense, although you can see it as all 'states possible' already are 'known'. The beauty of it is that I don't need to introduce 'new universes' for each 'probability possible', I do it the opposite way, letting your free will create reality, with the rest being 'probabilities' unfulfilled.

You could possibly see it as a result of so called 'super positions'. If one assume that 'systems' unobserved are in superpositions then those include all possibilities too. the definition of a outcome is another thing, but as long as those superpositions exist the system is open for interpretations, no matter what the question or/and circumstances might be. With the probability of a outcome defined by the circumstances surrounding 'the experiment/question' etc.

56

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does time stand still in the quantum world?

« on: 04/01/2019 02:15:11 »

Depends Harri.

First of all, there is no way for an observer macroscopically to be without his local clock . So even if quantum objects would be 'time less', we have no way I know of to prove it. Our clocks always tick.

The other thing is a question of what 'time' is. Is it a 'creation' of SpaceTime, similar to decoherence, scale dependent? Or a 'property' of SpaceTime, both microscopically and macroscopically.

We will always find a past, a 'present' and a future, until we're dead.

57

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does gravity attract masses in space, or does it curve space between them?

« on: 31/12/2018 19:59:02 »

Gravity isn't about densities Mr Megamind. To be so you will need too make it into a 'medium', which it is not.

58

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: If the Universe expanded more slowly, what would happen to light?

« on: 18/12/2018 21:11:07 »

A nice question.

Let's assume space contracts, we still have light propagating at 'c'. The cosmological blue and redshift should show us something, presuming it is correct. But then again, we need some frame of reference noticing it. We could also use distances, as we already do, between stellar objects. It depends on the rate too I would guess.

59

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are there different types of gravity?

« on: 08/09/2018 20:14:04 »

It's tricky Bill. Einstein didn't consider it a geometry, as far as I get it,. He used calculus and thought of gravity and inertia in those terms. the geometric interpretation was something that came without him, not meaning that he didn't see the implications, just that he found it questionable. " he thought that General Relativity was no more and no less geometrical than Maxwells theory of electromagnetism; and that the important achievement of GR was the advancement of the unification programme in direct continuation of special relativistic electrodynamics. Einstein thought that the special theory unified electricity and magnetism, the general theory inertia and gravity. Yet, we shall see that, unbeknown to most scholars, Einstein was emphatic in his belief that this should not be interpreted as a ‘geometrization’of gravity, especially if ‘geometrization’was seen as a reduction of gravity/inertia to spacetime geometry

.... As early as 1926 Einstein insisted, explicitly, that his work should not be understood as reducing physics to geometry, either his work on GR or his (and Weyl's and Eddington's) work on a unified field theory of gravitation and electromagnetism. Interestingly, what seems to be Einstein's first clear statement on the matter was prompted by a letter from Hans Reichenbach. Reichenbach was at the time engaging with Weyl's and Eddington's theories, and wrote Einstein that he thought that seeing electricity as geometrical in Weyl's theory is not more than an illustration (Veranschaulichung), one that, he argued, is equally possible (and equally trivial) in GR. Einstein agreed wholeheartedly, writing ' You are completely right. It is wrong to think that ‘geometrization’ is something essential. It is only a kind of crutch (Eselsbrücke) for the finding of numerical laws. Whether one links ‘geometrical’ intuitions with a theory is a … private matter. '   "

So when speaking about a geodesic it's not a geometric path in his terms, " Already in the first papers in which Einstein starts making use of the metric tensor to give an account of gravitation, he is at pains to establish the status of the geodesic equation as describing the motion of particles as “straight and uniform” (geradlinig und gleichförmig) even when subject to gravity. This would lead him to call the geodesic equation a “generalized law of inertia”; redefining inertial paths such that the category includes motion under the influence of gravity. ..... Already in a note added in proof to Einstein (1912), Einstein had stated that equation (1) gives the equation of motion of point particles “not subject to external forces”.

Thus, it was clear that already in 1912, before even embarking on a metric theory of gravitation, Einstein thought of (static) gravitational fields not as invariant force fields diverting particles from inertial motion. Already, in 1912, he thought of equation (1) as describing inertial motion on one hand, and as describing motion in the presence of (static) gravitational fields on the other. "

"  Einstein effectively states that the very distinction between ‘gravity’ and ‘inertia’ is useful only for relating the theory to its predecessor theories; it is not a distinction from within the theory itself. Put differently, if one just looks at the theory without relating it to predecessor theories, there is no need whatsoever to distinguish ‘inertial terms’ and ‘gravitational terms’ in the geodesic equation. "

By that I understand he meaning that talking about gravity as a force directing the inertia (willingness to keep on indefinitely) of a test particle made little sense to him.

"  In Einstein's mind, the unification was very similar indeed, as the December 1919/January 1920 text on the development of relativity shows. There, he recalls the magnet-conductor thought experiment described in the first paragraph of his 1905 paper on special relativity, from which he concludes. ' The existence of the electric field is a relative one, depending on the state of motion of the coordinate system used; only the electric and magnetic field together can be attributed a kind of objective reality, independent of the state of motion of the observer, i.e. of the coordinate system. '

Einstein then describes how he worked on a review article of special relativity in 1907, and links the above realisation regarding the electric and magnetic field to another thought experiment regarding inertia and gravity: ' Then I had the most fortunate thought of my life in the following form: The gravitational field only has a relative existence in a manner similar to the electric field generated by electro-magnetic induction. Because for an observer in free fall from the roof of a house, there is during the fall — at least in his immediate vicinity — no gravitational field. Namely, if the observer lets go of any bodies, they remain, relative to him, in a state of rest or uniform motion, independent of their special chemical or physical nature '

quotes taken from " Why Einstein did not believe that General Relativity geometrizes gravity " By Dennis Lehmkuhl.

60

New Theories / Re: Who is the author of the theory of tidal resonance?

« on: 18/08/2018 09:43:31 »

No worries Yusup, and, it's not always 'polite' :)
But you will find some good minds here.

And that is what any idea needs