21

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does information have mass?

« on: 07/11/2019 21:20:31 »

Define your interpretation of information.

22

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

« on: 06/11/2019 23:32:06 »

Also worth viewing

23

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

« on: 06/11/2019 23:19:07 »

@Lloyd Quantum mechanics is just weird. That's the way it is. Probability is the key. It wasn't chosen to be that way by physicists. Look into polarised light and filters.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/light-waves/introduction-to-light-waves/v/polarization-of-light-linear-and-circular

This is where we eventually get to Bell's inequality. Go read up on it!

24

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the energy of a red-shifted photon?

« on: 04/08/2019 09:35:37 »

Where does the energy go, (approximately) inertial version. Say you are standing still and a bowler throws a cricket ball at you. It hurts! Now say you are riding a moped past the bowler and he throws the cricket ball at you. Since you are almost matching the speed of the ball it hurts a lot less. So where did the energy go? It was relative to the velocity of the victim and the bowler.

25

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How well do laymen understand Bell's theorem?

« on: 03/08/2019 12:20:17 »

I just watched this video

. It may well help others to understand better. It is a difficult concept to grasp. Let me know if it helped.

26

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does this equation mean anything?

« on: 18/07/2019 22:32:37 »

Has anyone done the dimensional analysis? 

27

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: SPAM.COM

« on: 18/07/2019 16:30:43 »

Well this user's particular machine is in Clifton, New Jersey. It may well be a compromised PC in a botnet.

28

New Theories / Re: Are all photons mediated in the same way through the quantum vacuum

« on: 16/07/2019 00:01:52 »

Now some food for thought. From here https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/misconceptions-virtual-particles/

"States involving virtual particles cannot be created since quantum field theory has creation operators only for observable particles whose 4-momentum satisfies the mass-shell constraint. For lack of a state, virtual particles have none of the usual physical characteristics of real particles: They cannot be said to exist in space and time, have no position, no meaningful probabilities to be created or destroyed anywhere, no life-time, cannot cause anything, interact with anything or affect anything. Therefore there is also no dynamics, speed of motion, or world lines. (In physics, dynamics is always tied to states and an equation of motion. Neither exists for virtual particles.)"

That sums it up in a nutshell, or off-shell if you prefer. If you wish to argue otherwise feel free to but in new theories.

29

The Environment / Re: How much effect does water vapour have as a proportion of global warming ?

« on: 08/07/2019 23:09:35 »

Maybe it's the fact that once again, the democtatic system fails by popular consensus overriding the the sane conclusion, majority decision on the side of the wrong tangent.

You appear to be arguing just for the sake of it. Taking up an opposite position to prolong a confrontation. I don't see what benefit you are getting from it

30

New Theories / Re: New Theories: Will all moving objects with mass generate gravitational waves?

« on: 23/06/2019 18:33:20 »

All points in a gravitational field have a gravitational potential associated with them. This is not energy and the units for this potential are J/kg (joules per kilogram). The unit for energy is just the Joule. This is the same as the unit for work.

So the potential represents the amount of work required to get an object to a particular point in the gravitational field. This is why it is stated that an object gains potential energy by being moved to the point in the field. That is raised off the ground for instance.

This is an important distinction to remember .

31

New Theories / Re: New Theories: Will all moving objects with mass generate gravitational waves?

« on: 20/06/2019 10:26:50 »

It has to be remembered that acceleration can be a change in speed, a change in direction or both. Both orbital and radial free fall cause acceleration and yet within a falling frame you would detect no gravitational radiation

32

New Theories / Re: Can a photon be visualized ?

« on: 07/04/2019 14:51:54 »

To describe observations the mathematics also has to be able to make predictions. These then can be tested and shown to agree with new observations or not. If a certain constant is required to produce those mathematics then it is used. There is no intention to explain why it is needed. It just works. How would you answer the why? How can anyone observe a vacuum?

33

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: If I tied a magnet to a pigeons head , would it fly in circles ?

« on: 03/03/2019 14:37:36 »

The experiment has been performed. It does have a disorienting affect. Please see for instance https://www.researchgate.net/publication/17893396_Magnets_Interfere_with_Pigeon_Homing/amp

34

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

« on: 03/01/2019 22:42:58 »

If anyone has used a stopwatch they are aware of time as a measurement of change.

35

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

« on: 03/01/2019 21:34:16 »

I like a good debate but the concept of time seems to be flogged to death for no reason. It is simply a mechanical means of measurement of change in one form or another. The fact that those mechanics don't always run at the same pace in different frames is not that difficult.

36

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can gravity be said to act in two opposite directions at once ?

« on: 21/10/2018 12:23:23 »

The gravitational field around an object is three dimensional. As Bored Chemist has explained quite succinctly. If we define spheres around the earth of increasing radius we would find that the force of gravity diminishes with increasing distance from the earth. The sun is so much further away from the earth than the moon that it's overall influence is diminished. This is determined mathematically as others have demonstrated here and elsewhere in other topics. It is worthwhile to pick up some books on the subject. Expand your mind!

37

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is the universe expanding faster than the speed of light?

« on: 25/09/2018 02:15:18 »

If objects with non zero rest mass cannot travel faster than light then this means that gravity itself cannot make them travel faster than light. We are embedded in a universe with an enormous amount of matter surrounding us. All this matter generates gravitational fields. Our view of time is therefore not absolute. Which means our view of speed is not absolute. That is the first point. The second point is what is space? How do we reconcile speed through the vacuum. We can't use a measuring device, since we cannot be considered stationary with respect to anything other than our own 'inertial' frame. Especially not with respect to a vacuum. Therefore we can only determine speed via the shift in frequency of incoming signals. If you have no absolutely stationary markers to go by then signals is all you have. You then determine what you think is the distance and also the speed of an object by interpreting those signals. Since the shifting is pretty consistent it can be taken to show an expanding universe.

38

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does gravity have an infinite range?

« on: 21/09/2018 13:48:55 »

@evan_au This may help with an understanding of the combination of forces.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/unify.html

39

New Theories / Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?

« on: 20/09/2018 19:03:28 »

If you want to brush up on virtual particles then read this article by Matt Strassler.
Virtual Particles:What are they?

40

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What do strange quarks do?

« on: 12/09/2018 17:58:22 »

Outside the nucleus, free protons are considered stable while free neutrons are not. The decay involves flavor change. That is the flavor change from down to up for one of the quarks in the neutron. This flavor change is via the weak nuclear force and results in the change of the neutron to a proton. This involves the emission of a W^- boson. This boson then decays to an electron and an antineutrino. We also find flavour change in neutrinos. This is neutrino oscillation, which is similar to color change among quarks. In that both are 'oscillations'. What causes the neutron to be stable within the nucleus and unstable outside is very interesting. The majority of composite particles are short lived in the current era of the universe.

See also the neutron lifetime puzzle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_neutron_decay

EDIT: On the neutron lifetime puzzle.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/neutron-lifetime-puzzle-deepens-but-no-dark-matter-seen-20180213/