Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
It is way more likely that you dealing with artefacts from environmental effects rather than science has missed something as fundamental as this.My experiment is simple enough to be replicated by anyone else. Let's see how many of you can get the same results as mine.
Thermal motion is random and uncoordinated, which is why things don't accelerate in a single direction when they get hot - that would be gross motion.How is the randomness measured?
There is only a difference if you assume that there is some absolute distinction between good and bad. But if that were so, we wouldn't need morality or moral codes!The absolute certainty can only be acquired retrospectively. The moral rules are needed before actions are taken.
Your morality doesn't cover behaviors towards ourselves. Or our environment.Morality refers to principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.In what way is that different fromhow we should behave towards others?
The question here is "where does quantisation of the energy of emr come from". If you accept that it is possible to generate emr of any arbitrary frequency, then it is clear that the energy is not necessarily quantised and the answer is that in many but not all cases it is generated by a quantum process.The formula is E=n.h.f
The Stern-Gerlach experiment was the first detection of quantum spin, except we didn't know it for 4 years. At the time, we didn't even know quantum spin was a thing.And some interesting comments.
TIME CODES
00:00 Intro
01:03 Angular Momentum
02:09 Stern-Gerlach Experiment
03:38 Experiment Results
04:55 Schrodinger Breaks Everything
07:04 Quantum Spin
08:03 Closing Thoughts
08:30 Supporter Shoutout
08:53 Featured Comment
s Isaac Asimov said ?The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny?'?
And this is another great example of that.
Some other fun historical facts about this experiment that really should have failed. They were out of funds when conducting the experiment, so they wrote to an American banker and got money from him (they were not expecting that!).
And when they tried to see the experimental results, they initially saw nothing. But Stern was smoking very cheap cigarettes, and sulfur in the smoke from these cigarettes made the faint traces of silver visible.
"The Stern-Gerlach Experiment (ESI College Physics Film Program 1967)" is a video on youtube that also shows the behavior in a homogenous/non-homogenous field... the magnet doesn't 'align with the poles' but will sit stabilly with either n-s or s-n alignment.... part of that though, is if you spin the magnet around it's magnetic axis, then it will oscillate back and forth....
But then, the curl of an electron beam through a magnetic field is around the magnetic lines of flux - so the atoms will interact with the field, and if they are slightly up or down, interact in such a way as to fully force an alignment through the length of the magnet, and then come out....
That's part of the 'measurement problem' that the quantum thing interacts with the measurement device - and that's not even part of the equations. polarized light is the same - as it interacts with a polarization filter, the resulting photon is probably no longer in the same polarization/alignment as it was; that's why quantum cryptography works - if you put a filter in the way - even if it's aligned the same as the resulting detectors - the signal from the origin vs the signal through it's own filtering is detectable, so a man-in-the-middle attack is identifiable.
So two moral acts can be diametrically opposed. I think you have confused morality (how we should behave towards others) with a survival instinct (how we are forced to behave by circumstance).Your definition of morality is narrower than its definition by dictionary.
If the mass of the charge carrier was a parameter in calculating the force due to a magnetic field it would have shown up long ago in countless experiments.That's why I think it's remarkable. How can it be hidden for so long?
What's the direction that makes a motion thermal, and what direction makes it non-thermal?What's the fundamental difference between gross motion and thermal motion?Direction.
The theoretical background I posted previously should be enough to answer your question.As you can see, the theoretical background of my design for electrodynamic balance is just a logical consequences of Lorentz force, Biot-Savart law, and distribution of electric charges in a current carrying wire. It's quite remarkable that this simple inference has been overlooked by physics community for more than a century.
How very true. And before you applied the brakes, the car had kinetic energy, which turned into heat in the brake discs or electrical energy via the regen system. So what?
What's the fundamental difference between gross motion and thermal motion?
The result of vibration is thermal energy.Before it's converted into thermal energy, vibration wasn't thermal initially.
As airborne charge can easily build up on isolated conductive material, a vacuum chamber would be needed with Teflon stands. Water will be a problem with a vacuum and the two containers will need to be sealed. There may be other possible sources of "contamination" but that's all I can think of at the moment.If that's the case, shouldn't the voltage be independent from the alternating electric current?
On insulated conductive materials stray voltages of similar magnitude often arise and determining their origin could be difficult but it is almost certainly some environmental artefact.How can they be reliably controlled by the alternating electric current?
And the baffling question is why an alternating current should induce a unidirectional movement of static charge.The theoretical background I posted previously should be enough to answer your question.
Here is the visualization of the second experiment, which start from the first as described before. If the charged particle is stationary to the wire, no magnetic force is received.We can make a table showing the force experienced by the stationary test particle in various velocities of both positive and negative particles in the wire. I'll use standard Lorentz force to calculate the force, which states that
Next, the wire is zoomed to show the electrons and metal atoms inside.
From the picture above, the electrons inside the wire move to the left with speed v, but particle q doesn't receive magnetic force.
Now if the wire is moved to the right with speed v, the speed of electrons becomes 0, while the speed of the metal atoms = v. It is shown that magnetic force F is produced downward.
The picture above is equivalent to the picture from previous post.
Here we can conclude that electron's movement is not responded by the particle, while atom's movement produces magnetic force to the particle. It seems that for a long time we had missed the difference between atoms and free electrons which cause electric current and produce magnetic force.
For the second experiment, we will study the effect of the movement of charged particles inside a conductor (or convector) toward the test particle. We will study the hypothesis that magnetic force is not only affected by the magnitude of electric charge that moves inside a conductor (or convector), but also affected by the mass of the particle.
Electric current in a copper wire is produced by the flow of electrons inside. The charge and mass of electrons are always the same, so we need some other particles as electric current producers to get reference. For that we will replace the conductor by a hose filled by electrolyte solution that contains ions, since ions are also electrically charged and have various masses. Some of electrolytic solutions that will be used are NaCl, H2SO4, HCl, CuSO4, FeCl3.
F = B.q.v
Where B is proportional to electric current in the wire, which depends on velocity difference between positive and negative particles in the wire.
v represents the velocity difference between the test particle and the wire. Since the test particle is stationary, it's merely determined by the velocity of positive particles in the wire.
It's assumed that all positive particles have uniform velocity. Negative particle has uniform velocity as well.
The first table below shows the value of electric current, which depends on the difference of velocity between positive and negative particle in the wire.
v+ -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
v-
-4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-3 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-2 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-1 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
1 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
2 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
3 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
4 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
The second table below shows the velocity of the wire relative to test particle. It's determined solely by velocity of positive particle.
v+ -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
v-
-4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-3 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-2 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-1 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
0 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
1 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
2 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
3 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
The third table shows the force experienced by test particle, which is simply the multiplication of each cell in both tables above.
v+ -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
v-
-4 0 -3 -4 -3 0 5 12 21 32
-3 4 0 -2 -2 0 4 10 18 28
-2 8 3 0 -1 0 3 8 15 24
-1 12 6 2 0 0 2 6 12 20
0 16 9 4 1 0 1 4 9 16
1 20 12 6 2 0 0 2 6 12
2 24 15 8 3 0 -1 0 3 8
3 28 18 10 4 0 -2 -2 0 4
4 32 21 12 5 0 -3 -4 -3 0
Here it is.
This video provide theoretical background for designing an electrodynamic balance, intended to study the origin of magnetic force, and its relationship with electricity and gravity.
Practical electrostatics is much more difficult and prone to all sorts of errors than electrodynamics!That's why I installed the re-zeroing switch. Any electrostatic charge imbalance between two sides of the balance should be eliminated when they are connected.
3. What happens if you use two separate sheets of dielectric, one for each can?I don't think it will change the results. The volume of corrugated plastic plate is mainly consist of air.
2. What happens if you use two sheets of dielectric and only move the top sheet?I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you refer to the corrugated plastic plate?
1. Did you repeat all three scenarios? Were the differences statistically significant?I usually made the measurements prior to recording it. Some measurements need to be aborted and repeated due to simple mishaps like loose connections, or the meter display turning off because of being idle for too long. I didn't make many repetitions because they take considerably long time to stabilize. Running 1 Ampere through the liquid for prolonged duration increases its temperature. Usually the current slowly decreases as the experiment goes on longer. But repetition with the same liquid solution (separated by re-zeroing switch) don't vary that much.
