1

General Science / Re: Do Ice Cubes Melt Faster In Fizzy Drinks Than Still Drinks?

« on: 28/07/2020 22:06:38 »

Could also be that some CO2 dissolves in the ice and lowers its freezing point. You might try some properly controlled experiments with, say, Sancerre and champagne, or bottled versus draught Abbott Ale, but don't waste valuable lab time with water.

Do you need volunteers for the experiments?

But more seriously, the bubbles may act to roughen up the surface of the ice cubes creating more surface area and faster melting.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How Did Time Come Into Existence ?

« on: 26/07/2020 19:13:51 »

, or somebody being her own mother.
*resists urge to link to I'm my own grandpa song*

Being already embroiled in several other threads and trying to find the time to create another, I will restrict my comments at this time to noting that the song I'm my own grandpa plays on the jukebox in Heinlein’s short story All You Zombies. This story concerns a gender changing time traveler who is her/his own parents.

3

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 13/07/2020 20:29:11 »

Tell me more details about the whacky action of mesons; I am interested to know more about science discoveries related to various views about the universe.

I have been busy with both RL and with other threads here and have not gotten around to writing a clear exposition of my ideas mentioned above. Plus in replying to another thread, the one about the B Meson, I realized that I need to do some research and correct the math.

In the meantime, check this out.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/hadron.html

4

New Theories / Re: What is a photon ?

« on: 13/07/2020 17:04:58 »

What physical experiment could be performed to demonstrate that particles are Riemann spheres?

Orientate an Electron such that it's axis (pointing from the point 0 to the point ∞) points in the "up" direction. Then it will not emit a photon in the "down" direction.

Also: particles seen from their northern hemispheres will look different as seen from their southern hemispheres.

Wrong. The direction of photon emission when an electron drops from excited state to ground state is random with respect to the electron's spin state, which is the only way of talking about an electron’s axis.  The direction of photon emission is determined in a probabilistic manner by multiple factors including the prevailing magnetic field, of which the nearby nucleus is a major component, and preserving energy momentum conservation over event accumulation.

In addition, electron spin is a matter of angular momentum, in effect spinning clockwise or counterclockwise. It is not a matter of which way a pole is pointing. Electrons with opposing spin values are not ‘upside down’ with respect to each other. They are spinning in opposite directions. To drive that home, the only formulation for spin states that matches measurements is the formalism of angular momentum.  For that to be the case, the clockwise or counterclockwise spin must be with respect to a fixed axis. That is, your hypothetical 0 and ∞ axis must always point in the same direction, negating your argument.

Now explain what differences there may be between the two hemispheres of an electron. Oceans, continents, ice caps? Your insistence that the metrics of a Riemann sphere are those of an ordinary sphere and not the varying metrics of a complex plane mapping argues against any difference.

Also, since the question Kryptid asked is about a physical experiment, how would you determine which photon came from which electron and how to determine the axis orientation of the individual electrons?

So what does “communicated between fields (plural)” mean?

Think of the Feynman diagram of an electron scattering off an electron. What happens is: one electron must tell the electromagnetic field that it wants to scatter of another electron following a path λ, and it must specify its momentum. This must be read off the electron field interacting with spacetime. Then the electron must specify it's expected momentum change. Then the electromagnetic field must compute the virtual photon direction and wavelength and the positions for invoking the creation and annihilation operators, then the virtual photon must communicate the change of direction of momentum to the other electron. Only then can the virtual photon be emitted.

Wow, where do I start?

To begin with, you are using two different meanings of the term ‘field’. Originally you used the term with respect to a particle being a ‘vibration’ in a field, which would imply field theory, a field being a mathematical apparatus for determining the properties at any given point. Now you are using the term to refer to the electromagnetic fields of electrons. Same word, different meanings.

The term λ (lambda) does not appear in Feynman diagrams. That term is used in General Relativity for the Cosmological Constant. What does appear in Feynman diagrams is the term γ (gamma), which is the symbol for the photon. In Feynman diagrams, it is the label applied to the wavy line that indicates the exchange of virtual photons. This diagram show electron-electron scattering.



In Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED) for which Feynman diagrams were first invented, the path is not first chosen. In theory, any path at all might be used, each having its own probability amplitude. This is a wavelike entity. As such, probability amplitudes constructively and destructively interfere with each other. The effective path is the one with the greatest surviving probability amplitude, and usually the only survivor with a resulting probability (square modulus of amplitude) of unity. Paths happen. They are not chosen. There are experiments demonstrating multiple paths being used such as the famous double-slit example.


There are people here who are familiar with deep Physics and deep Mathematics. You cannot make it up as you go along and not get called out.

5

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 08/07/2020 23:08:30 »

if the universe is infinite in space, time, and energy, none of those three characteristics can be bounded. I remain open to any logical ideas.

Bounded is not the operative word. The surface of a sphere is finite yet unbounded. No edge to fall off. A universe that is a 4-dimensional hypersphere would also have no bounds but still be finite. Since time and energy are contents of the universe, they would be finite but have no edges, no bounds.