1

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'.

2

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).

3

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/

4

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?

5

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.

6

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.

7

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.

8

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.

9

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.

10

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

11

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

« on: 17/08/2018 21:08:33 »

and Yusup. People like to think of them self as 'elite', that means that community projects as Wikipedia will be attacked,  but Wikipedia is a community project expecting people to avoid bias, it's like open code in that effect, so there will be back reactions when something is found biased, and that then will be discussed on the 'talk side' of whatever 'Wikipedia Page' you are looking at. Those wanting to be that 'elite' complaining are usually not one of those people. They keep themselves away, and so become part of the problem instead of a solution. Meaning that they mostly don't dare to state what they think, where they should.

12

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

« on: 17/08/2018 20:40:18 »

Yusup. Instead of spewing out new questions on this, go and open it up in New Theories.
It's very clear that you're not satisfied with peoples answers, that means that you already have a opinion.
Place that one in New Theories.

Or be banned
Because that is what I would do if I was a moderator here.

Looking at this sub forum it seems you fill it up Yusup, asking the same questions in various disguise,
That's not how the TNS is thought to work.

13

New Theories / Re: On what theory was the Chinese calendar of the tides of 1100 formed

« on: 15/08/2018 22:49:52 »

Got a link?
As you specifically ask for 1100

But I would guess it was based on the moon. 
http://www.chinesehsc.org/chinese_calenders.shtml

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: False Vacuum; Who, What, Where, When, Why?

« on: 13/08/2018 01:51:19 »

This is the main stream definition

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/vacuum-decay-ultimate-catastrophe

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Did the Big Bang happen where Earth now is?

« on: 23/02/2018 16:08:40 »

Correct on all points Sir.

A Big Bang must originate wherever one is, the proof of that is teleporting yourself to the origin of first light, then look back at the place you 'just left' :) It will now become your 'new' origin of 'first light'.

=

Is there a global setting for turning of those idiotic yellow half moons, once and for all?
Sorry, meant just moons, don't know why I thought of it as 'half moons'?
Poor eyesight?

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can kinetic energy be distributed?

« on: 22/12/2017 09:24:41 »

http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/negative-temperature.cfm

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is 'time' fundamental?

« on: 12/12/2017 16:23:46 »

No Demalk, it's a simple thing I'm directing you too. The main reason for a quantuum entanglement being so mysterious is the fact that in a simplest case the probability for a spin to be up or down is 50/50.  But the 'other side' of a down converted photon, into two, will always 'know' the outcome of the other. And the main thing here isn't even that :) It's the probability itself that should be interesting. You might even want to argue that both things coexist in this case. 'Free will', as well as a deterministic outcome for the 'other part'.

And HUP is HUP

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is 'time' fundamental?

« on: 10/12/2017 11:21:13 »

What one need to see is that modern physics is a paradigm change. In the Victorian era (as well as some people before) we thought that everything could be calculated, but that's no longer true. Everything becomes 'fuzzy' given enough time. We still have those principles laws and properties though, and we presume those to hold locally where ever we are, which is amazing enough I think, considering the 'fuzzy ness' you meet extrapolating into the future by iterations for example.

Thinking of it 'time' seems to be a very local constant.

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is 'time' fundamental?

« on: 10/12/2017 11:05:13 »

You also write " If the quantum dice are rolled by something that is contained within our universe and behaves according to its laws, i.e. background energy, isn't it then fundamentally knowable how the dice will land, i.e. isn't the information to calculate it present in the universe, and isn't it then only due to our inability to calculate it that it seems fundamentally probabilistic? "

No, we can't even predict a planetary orbit if we calculate far away enough into the future. It's not just about us missing 'information', it's more of a principle. This universe are built on principles, 'properties' and 'laws', and physics are just the tool(s) we use to understand it. That's what a probability is, a statistical tool for defining possibilities, created from experiences of outcomes and educated guesses finding their proof in reproducibility. To me that thinking belongs to the Victorian era preferring everything to be deterministic but that one, I would say, is already passed.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is 'time' fundamental?

« on: 09/12/2017 22:35:24 »

You have to be wrong there Demalk, either that or the physics we define :)
So, wanting to prove that idea will involve overthrowing physics, which is a slightly bigger task than convincing me.