1
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?
The following users thanked this post: RD
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
2
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.
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.
The following users thanked this post: Harri
3
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.
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.
The following users thanked this post: Harri
4
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.
.... 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.
The following users thanked this post: Bill S
5
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
But you will find some good minds here.
And that is what any idea needs
The following users thanked this post: Yusup Hizirov
6
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.
The following users thanked this post: Yusup Hizirov
7
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.
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.
8
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
As you specifically ask for 1100
But I would guess it was based on the moon.
http://www.chinesehsc.org/chinese_calenders.shtml
The following users thanked this post: Yusup Hizirov
9
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
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/vacuum-decay-ultimate-catastrophe
The following users thanked this post: Bogie_smiles
10
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?
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?
The following users thanked this post: petelamana
11
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
The following users thanked this post: jeffreyH
12
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
And HUP is HUP
The following users thanked this post: demalk
13
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.
Thinking of it 'time' seems to be a very local constant.
The following users thanked this post: demalk
14
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.
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.
The following users thanked this post: demalk
15
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.
So, wanting to prove that idea will involve overthrowing physics, which is a slightly bigger task than convincing me.
The following users thanked this post: demalk
16
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« on: 09/12/2017 22:23:19 »
Demalk, that's definitely wrong "In that statement you acknowledge my definition of randomness: that it is the absence of information. "
If you think of entanglement you will see why.
And HUP.
It's not about a absence of information, it's what modern physics builds on, probabilities. And 'free will' could be seen as an 'conscious' extension of those principles.
If you think of entanglement you will see why.
And HUP.
It's not about a absence of information, it's what modern physics builds on, probabilities. And 'free will' could be seen as an 'conscious' extension of those principles.
The following users thanked this post: demalk
17
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« on: 30/11/2017 07:14:35 »
I would like to address the question "Is 'time' fundamental?" once more.
In quantum mechanics time is a necessity, in General Relativity not so.
Have a read.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time
And as I said, in Relativity it depends on what you think is more correct. A generalized 'universe' or a 'local universe'. Einstein saw it as a 'whole universe', then 'time' becomes a 'global variable' definable from your local wristwatch, as well as relative motion and mass. If you treat it locally though, it's no longer a variable, instead it becomes a constant 'time evolution', just as thought in quantum mechanics.
=
What one have to see here is that using your wristwatch as some golden standard stops making sense as soon as you accept the idea of time being a chimera. It actually includes that wristwatch you're using too, if so.
Do you die?
In quantum mechanics time is a necessity, in General Relativity not so.
Have a read.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time
And as I said, in Relativity it depends on what you think is more correct. A generalized 'universe' or a 'local universe'. Einstein saw it as a 'whole universe', then 'time' becomes a 'global variable' definable from your local wristwatch, as well as relative motion and mass. If you treat it locally though, it's no longer a variable, instead it becomes a constant 'time evolution', just as thought in quantum mechanics.
=
What one have to see here is that using your wristwatch as some golden standard stops making sense as soon as you accept the idea of time being a chimera. It actually includes that wristwatch you're using too, if so.
Do you die?
The following users thanked this post: demalk
18
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is 'time' fundamental?
« on: 27/11/2017 06:24:26 »
Interesting read Jeffrey, and I agree Evan, from where and what can they stipulate a 'outside'? I don't consider time to be 'relative' in relativity as suggested in that text though. Your clock, the 'wristwatch' you use won't give you a longer (or for that sake 'shorter') lifespan, whatever trick you try, unless you find a way to freeze yourself down to then revive you. Doing that won't allow you to consciously enjoy those days passed in a frozen condition though, and according to everything we know time still pass even when you don't know it.
Time is a local constant, just as 'c' is one.
=
Using my analogy, now try to make time a result of entropy :)
=
The text is based on general assumptions about how and what a universe 'is', sort of like you watching a 'whole universe' through a telescope. Doing so you then define 'islands of time' slower and faster than your wristwatch, but locally measured, aka in a same frame of reference, all clocks 'ticks' alike. It's not relativity that is wrong, it's just our presumptions about what a universe is.
Actually, what is important here is the stipulation that ones 'lifespan', locally measured, never will change, no matter what speed, mass, etc etc you find yourself to be in/at. It's simple, time is a local constant and one proof of it is being in a same frame of reference.
Btw: so is 'c' :)
A local constant I mean, every constant is, or has its base from local observations. 'repeatable experiments' (observations) creates them, those all being of a local nature. It's just us lifting them up to a global representation
Time is a local constant, just as 'c' is one.
=
Using my analogy, now try to make time a result of entropy :)
=
The text is based on general assumptions about how and what a universe 'is', sort of like you watching a 'whole universe' through a telescope. Doing so you then define 'islands of time' slower and faster than your wristwatch, but locally measured, aka in a same frame of reference, all clocks 'ticks' alike. It's not relativity that is wrong, it's just our presumptions about what a universe is.
Actually, what is important here is the stipulation that ones 'lifespan', locally measured, never will change, no matter what speed, mass, etc etc you find yourself to be in/at. It's simple, time is a local constant and one proof of it is being in a same frame of reference.
Btw: so is 'c' :)
A local constant I mean, every constant is, or has its base from local observations. 'repeatable experiments' (observations) creates them, those all being of a local nature. It's just us lifting them up to a global representation
The following users thanked this post: Bogie_smiles
19
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Observation = Information = Quantum Entanglement?
« on: 15/11/2017 10:58:36 »
Ok
There are some things I wonder about reading you
How do you consider 'time', 'illusionary' or 'real'
Or better perhaps, what is it (time) to you?
And information, there's this example I'm sure you've seen, writing a formula on a block of ice. Does that information still exist as the ice is gone?
==
Btw: I will reread you and hopefully find some more questions
There are some things I wonder about reading you
How do you consider 'time', 'illusionary' or 'real'
Or better perhaps, what is it (time) to you?
And information, there's this example I'm sure you've seen, writing a formula on a block of ice. Does that information still exist as the ice is gone?
==
Btw: I will reread you and hopefully find some more questions
The following users thanked this post: demalk
20
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Observation = Information = Quantum Entanglement?
« on: 13/11/2017 02:36:13 »
Then we come to information. This is where you will need to explain as good as you can what you see that as. Otherwise we will be lost in a quagmire.
The following users thanked this post: demalk
Pages: [1] 2