1
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Magnetism prevents us walking through walls?
« on: 12/05/2011 09:48:38 »
awesome thank you very much again for your time in answering my questions
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.
Pages: [1]
2
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Magnetism prevents us walking through walls?
« on: 11/05/2011 09:49:45 »
a thought occurred, as human beings i believe that we do not have any kind of magnetic charge as an organism however i guess at the atomic level everything has a magnetic charge apart from the afore mentioned neutrinos. Why is it that when we are made up of billions of atoms the collective charges of those individual atoms adds up to nothing?
3
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Magnetism prevents us walking through walls?
« on: 11/05/2011 09:29:28 »
thats great, thank you very much for your explanations.
4
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Magnetism prevents us walking through walls?
« on: 10/05/2011 15:40:48 »
Good Afternoon,
I saw a documentary the other day which was talking about magnetism and how important this
force is in the universe. The programme stated that it was magnetism at the atomic level that
prevented our hands from being able to push through a wall for example.
It was explained that atoms are mostly space with basically protons, neutrons and electrons
making up the parts. I just wondered is it magnetism that is holding the electrons in orbit
around the nucleus of an atom? If something is emitting some kind of magnetic field, is there
a way to neutralise that magnetic force with an opposite or negative version of that magnetic
field?
Many thanks for your time and patience in reading and answering my question,
Graham
I saw a documentary the other day which was talking about magnetism and how important this
force is in the universe. The programme stated that it was magnetism at the atomic level that
prevented our hands from being able to push through a wall for example.
It was explained that atoms are mostly space with basically protons, neutrons and electrons
making up the parts. I just wondered is it magnetism that is holding the electrons in orbit
around the nucleus of an atom? If something is emitting some kind of magnetic field, is there
a way to neutralise that magnetic force with an opposite or negative version of that magnetic
field?
Many thanks for your time and patience in reading and answering my question,
Graham
5
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« on: 21/10/2010 16:08:32 »
Firstly, thank you all very much for your thoughts and ideas it is much appreciated.
What a lovely and concise description of time. I read in the paper this morning that the first observed galaxy to appear out of the big bangs white soup has been imaged by Hubble and confirmed by the VLT at appx 600 million years P.B.B(Post Big Bang).
Haha brilliant, St Augustine has almost exactly described how I feel about time. Only when I really applied thought to time did I realise how little I understood it. It is certain to me that individualism and separation in society has all but destroyed the long conversations that used to take place on issues such as this. Websites like the Naked Science Forum are a blessing to those who wish to expand there understanding and knowledge of the things around them.
In all honestly I believed that light would exist even if light did not, because as you quite rightly pointed out if the light were "turned off" in the Universe we would still be able to grope around touching and feeling. In asking the question I guess I was trying to understand the nature of time. I understand that time is not a physical thing, such as a particle but rather a measurement applied to universe by an observer. When I read that an image was taken by Hubble appx 600 millions years after the big bang, what they really mean by that is that an image was taken over a distance of X billions of miles relative to our position in space and due to the time take for the light to reach us what are seeing is actually X number of years in the past. I also understand that whether and observer is observing or not time still exists as it is simply the measurement of before, now and next.
I think I am going to stop there for now and think some more on this topic. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions and once again would like to say thank you very much.
Quote
Time is in three parts: Future-which never arrives and exists only in ones' imagination. Present-which exists only for an infinitesimal split second and Past which goes on forever in ones' memory but never returns except as mistakes which we make and are inclined to repeat. Thanks for comments. Joe L. Ogan
What a lovely and concise description of time. I read in the paper this morning that the first observed galaxy to appear out of the big bangs white soup has been imaged by Hubble and confirmed by the VLT at appx 600 million years P.B.B(Post Big Bang).
Quote
Where understanding time is concerned, I think there is no such thing as a stupid question. St Augustine shared our problem and expressed it well: "What then is time? If no one asks me, I know; if I wish to explain it to someone who asks, I know not".
Haha brilliant, St Augustine has almost exactly described how I feel about time. Only when I really applied thought to time did I realise how little I understood it. It is certain to me that individualism and separation in society has all but destroyed the long conversations that used to take place on issues such as this. Websites like the Naked Science Forum are a blessing to those who wish to expand there understanding and knowledge of the things around them.
Quote
A difficult question because it depends a bit precisely what the questioner means. If you just mean would time cease to exist if you could not see anything and could only be aware of things by touching them. groping around an drecognising things by feel requires a sense of time so clearly time exists.
However most of the interactions of which we are aware of are mediated by electromagnetic radiation and light is one particular form of electromagnetic radiation and without this no electromagnetic interactions could happen. This would still leave other sorts of interactions notably gravity by which changes in the environment could be sensed so on the whole Time appears to be a fundamental part of the sort of universe we can understand.
In all honestly I believed that light would exist even if light did not, because as you quite rightly pointed out if the light were "turned off" in the Universe we would still be able to grope around touching and feeling. In asking the question I guess I was trying to understand the nature of time. I understand that time is not a physical thing, such as a particle but rather a measurement applied to universe by an observer. When I read that an image was taken by Hubble appx 600 millions years after the big bang, what they really mean by that is that an image was taken over a distance of X billions of miles relative to our position in space and due to the time take for the light to reach us what are seeing is actually X number of years in the past. I also understand that whether and observer is observing or not time still exists as it is simply the measurement of before, now and next.
I think I am going to stop there for now and think some more on this topic. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions and once again would like to say thank you very much.
6
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« on: 20/10/2010 10:52:06 »
Please excuse me if I am asking a stupid question, but I am trying to understand exactly what time is. When I think about time I immediately link it to light. Astronomers often tell us that they are able to take pictures of the universe billions of years in the past and that this is due to the amount of time it takes for light to travel. As I understand it, if I am looking up into the night sky what I am seeing is actually the past, in the case of the sun light I am seeing approximately 8 minutes into the past where as looking at the stars I could be looking many millions of years into the past. This is where I start to get boxed in with my own limited knowledge and perhaps some of you more knowledgeable people could enlighten me. If there was no light would time cease to exist altogether? I appreciate anyone taking the time to help me try and understand this.
Graham
Graham
7
Chemistry / What is Colour?
« on: 07/03/2008 07:55:29 »
brilliant thank you so much for you patience and your explanation i have a much better understanding now of what it is you are talking about.
With regards to manipulating the energy of the electrons in a given atom, what would be the consequences of this for the atom and the compound.
Take for example the element Gold, would it be possible to change the energy of the electrons to match those of the compound glass so that light could them pass through it or indeed any compound or element?
With regards to manipulating the energy of the electrons in a given atom, what would be the consequences of this for the atom and the compound.
Take for example the element Gold, would it be possible to change the energy of the electrons to match those of the compound glass so that light could them pass through it or indeed any compound or element?
8
Chemistry / What is Colour?
« on: 06/03/2008 14:42:11 »
thank you very much that really helps with explaining things a bit better.
Just to make sure i understand you correctly visible light only interacts with the electrons of atoms, very clear. So with glass for example, the fact that Silicon has been combined with Oxygen, this has changed the amount of electrons as well as the structure of the atom and it is this aspect of the new component, glass over the silicon on its own that allows the light to now pass through.
Oxygen already allows light to travel throught it with little or no effect to my knowledge. Is the Oxygen almost creating gaps in the silicon and allowing the light to travel through it untouched whilst any of the light that comes into contact with silicon atoms would still be refelected?
I know that might be a ridiculously simple way of putting it but please bare with me.
Just to make sure i understand you correctly visible light only interacts with the electrons of atoms, very clear. So with glass for example, the fact that Silicon has been combined with Oxygen, this has changed the amount of electrons as well as the structure of the atom and it is this aspect of the new component, glass over the silicon on its own that allows the light to now pass through.
Oxygen already allows light to travel throught it with little or no effect to my knowledge. Is the Oxygen almost creating gaps in the silicon and allowing the light to travel through it untouched whilst any of the light that comes into contact with silicon atoms would still be refelected?
I know that might be a ridiculously simple way of putting it but please bare with me.
9
Chemistry / What is Colour?
« on: 06/03/2008 10:12:31 »
I was pondering something today and not being of a particularly scientific nature i wonder if someone out there may be able to help. I will state what i understand to be true, please feel free to correct and adjust what i am saying and hopefully i can come to understand the whole concept.
I was trying to understand what the concept of colour is, and how that relates to the elements and objects we see around us. As I understand it, colour is the by product of how Photons interact with a given thing as well as the perspective of the person or thing that is viewing it. Lets assume that i have perfect vision for the purposes of this conversation.
So i have a dish in front of me that contains one gramme of pure gold, lucky me!! The light photons hit the gold atoms, and interact with the electrons. Some might pass through the mass, some might be refracted away from my eyes but some will hit the electrons and then will be returned to my eyes. The result of this process is that i see an object that is Gold in colour.
I guess my first question is why i see any colour at all and the one gramme of gold is not just see through. As i understand it there are no solid elements from the periodic table of elements that are see through. I imagine that this is because the photons are not able to simply pass through the gold atom unaltered. Some are absorbed, some pass through and some are reflected, the photons that are reflected are interpreted as gold by my eyes.
Do the photons interact with the Electrons, Nucleus or Both? I am assuming that the electrons have very little to do with the colour that we see as if we were to change the charge of the one gramme of gold atoms from neutral and therefore change the amount of electrons per neutral atom from 79, the actual colour of the gramme of gold remains the same. This leads me to the conclusion that the aspect of colour must be determined by the interaction of the photons with the nucleus of the atom.
From my basic knowledge of Chemistry the Nucleus is comprised of many smaller components but can be generalised as Protons and Neutrons. In Gold we have 79 Protons, and if the number of protons were changed then the atom would no longer be gold. The number of Neutrons in Gold is 118 (∑(197-79)), and the number of Neutrons can change in the atom without creating a new element, instead this just creates a new isotope of Gold. To the best of my knowledge changing the number of neutrons would not alter the colour of Gold. So does this mean that the colour of Gold, has a direct relationship to the fact that it has 79 Protons, and it is the interaction of light Photons with the 79 protons that leads to me seeing Gold as a gold colour?
Finally, I know that Glass is normally made of Silicon and Oxygen and some types of glass have traces of boron, calcium and sodium. How is it that Silicon in its normal state is not see through but when combined with Oxygen it suddenly is? Is it because on its own Silicon would has 14 protons but when combined with Oxygen this results in SiO2 which has 30 Protons?
Well i think i have spouted just about enough rubbish to give you an idea at what i am getting at and also where my mind is currently at so that someone can hopefully help me out and point me in the right direction.
I was trying to understand what the concept of colour is, and how that relates to the elements and objects we see around us. As I understand it, colour is the by product of how Photons interact with a given thing as well as the perspective of the person or thing that is viewing it. Lets assume that i have perfect vision for the purposes of this conversation.
So i have a dish in front of me that contains one gramme of pure gold, lucky me!! The light photons hit the gold atoms, and interact with the electrons. Some might pass through the mass, some might be refracted away from my eyes but some will hit the electrons and then will be returned to my eyes. The result of this process is that i see an object that is Gold in colour.
I guess my first question is why i see any colour at all and the one gramme of gold is not just see through. As i understand it there are no solid elements from the periodic table of elements that are see through. I imagine that this is because the photons are not able to simply pass through the gold atom unaltered. Some are absorbed, some pass through and some are reflected, the photons that are reflected are interpreted as gold by my eyes.
Do the photons interact with the Electrons, Nucleus or Both? I am assuming that the electrons have very little to do with the colour that we see as if we were to change the charge of the one gramme of gold atoms from neutral and therefore change the amount of electrons per neutral atom from 79, the actual colour of the gramme of gold remains the same. This leads me to the conclusion that the aspect of colour must be determined by the interaction of the photons with the nucleus of the atom.
From my basic knowledge of Chemistry the Nucleus is comprised of many smaller components but can be generalised as Protons and Neutrons. In Gold we have 79 Protons, and if the number of protons were changed then the atom would no longer be gold. The number of Neutrons in Gold is 118 (∑(197-79)), and the number of Neutrons can change in the atom without creating a new element, instead this just creates a new isotope of Gold. To the best of my knowledge changing the number of neutrons would not alter the colour of Gold. So does this mean that the colour of Gold, has a direct relationship to the fact that it has 79 Protons, and it is the interaction of light Photons with the 79 protons that leads to me seeing Gold as a gold colour?
Finally, I know that Glass is normally made of Silicon and Oxygen and some types of glass have traces of boron, calcium and sodium. How is it that Silicon in its normal state is not see through but when combined with Oxygen it suddenly is? Is it because on its own Silicon would has 14 protons but when combined with Oxygen this results in SiO2 which has 30 Protons?
Well i think i have spouted just about enough rubbish to give you an idea at what i am getting at and also where my mind is currently at so that someone can hopefully help me out and point me in the right direction.
Pages: [1]