1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Should Theoretical particle physicists and String theorists learn chemistry?

« on: 11/12/2011 23:25:42 »

A lot of studies related to the origins of our physical laws relate to symmetry breaking as the temperature cool down from the big bang.   This is like a phase change in which structure and rules condense out of an amorphous state.

Theoretical particle physicists and String theorists tend to assume that this process is random and the laws can settle how they like.  This might be because this makes the problem much more tractable but it leads to a vast number of possible models from which it is almost impossible to identify the route that could lead to a universe with properties similar to ours and they therefor tend to think that in a "multiverse" our universe is very improbable. 

However chemists have been studying processes like this in detail at the quantum level for many years when they look at the physical chemistry of condensed matter.  They would tell you that this symmetry breaking process is far from random and relates strongly to the stability and longevity of the potential resulting structures.  This could mean that complex universes like ours are far from rare but almost inevitable. 

Isn't it time therefore that our Theoretical particle physicists and String theorists learned a bit more from the chemists.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Toroidal gravitational collapse? physical laws changing with dimensions?

« on: 27/09/2010 11:47:21 »

I don't often ask questions on these pages but concentrate on answering them however this is a question that this been exercising my mind for some time and maybe one of the naked scientists themselves or their friends might like to have a go at answering it.

A lot of cosmology and astronomy is based on mathematical models.  Now the validity of these models is only dependant on the quality of the thinking involved in setting these up.  It is therefore quite possible to miss a trick if you exclude some details that could be significant.  I have been very familiar with these problems in my work as a scientific innovator over many years.  Looking at the way models are often presented in the original papers and in the more popular texts I am wondering if a significant effect has been ignored that could  produce some innovative physical situations.

Consider first some basic gravitational physics.  The gravitational  effect of  the following structures

    1  an infinite gravitating cylinder 
    2  an infinite thin gravitating planar sheet

I appreciate that these are purely theoretical structures but you will understand what I am getting at later.  We are all familiar with the inverse square law associated with a simple point or spherical lump of material that produces all the models of which we are familiar  however the infinite cylinder displays a gravitational field that is a simple inverse first power law,  Not a square law,  and an infinite sheet demonstrates a constant field irrespective of distance.  This effectively modifies the law of gravity and matter could behave very differently under these conditions.

The question is could any structures that approximate infinite cylinders or infinite planes ever happen in our universe?

Consider now the gravitational collapse of a large rotating cloud of gas etc.  As it collapses conservation of angular momentum around its main rotation axis causes its rotation to speed up  and the usual model of collapse is that the cloud tends eventually to form a disc  and eventually a sphere however it will also still possess some net angular momentum around other axes that could possibly result in a toroidal structure  (like a smoke ring).

The main question therefore is a stable toroidal gravitational collapse possible?  and What would the properties of objects like this be like?  Bearing in mind that a thin toroidal loop could approximate to an infinite cylinder and that a thin toroidal surface could approximate to an infinite plane.

I know of only one object where gravitating loops or toroids appear in the standard literature and that is in the ring "singularity" described in the model of the rotating (Kerr) type of black hole but that does indicate that a toroid must be considered as a possible result of gravitational collapse.

I have several ideas worked out for what could happen and how these relate to the universe that we observe but  to talk about these would consign this thought to the new theories area whereas this is clearly a simple question based on current science.

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Should physicists have a new word to describe things of an unlimited extent?

« on: 10/02/2010 20:25:39 »

Infinity is essentially a mathematical concept and its mathematical use leads to many problems of understanding when it is applied ad hoc to the physical world.  Many awkward questions on these pages are caused by the rigorous application of mathematical concepts of infinity to physical situations.

There is a television programme on infinity in the BBC horizon series starting in a few minutes time that will probably illustrate these quite well.

When I deal with infinities in a physical sense I tend to use the term indefinite rather than infinite because the true situation is usually that something will bridge the gap even though we may not fully understand it at the moment.

What do you think about infinity?

4

New Theories / New thinking on the route to a theory of everything

« on: 13/12/2009 22:46:28 »

I have already posted some of this thinking under the heading of "Evolutionary cosmology"

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=11668.0

Any true "Theory of Everything" must explain the origin if the observed "Big Bang" and show the true continuity if the multiverse.  The multiverse is an indefinitely nested and extended set of individual observable universes.  that includes our own observable universe within it.

It also has to show how the fundamental laws of physics originate and how they might have come to a rather fine tuned set of values.

This probably means that our observable part of the universe will during its existence create other universes in a scale invariant process like a fractal.

The most obvious source for this is the formation of black holes within our observable universe. The insides of these are "seeded" with material from our universe and could in theory form the start of a whole new universe that has evolved from our universe.

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / The rotational energy of a maximal rotating black hole

« on: 06/01/2009 20:20:10 »

The only really interesting sorts of black holes are those that rotate because it is virtually impossible to create one that isn't rotating.

Now this rotational energy has a maximum value for a given mass of black hole. 

Does anyone know what the maximal rotational energy of a given mass of black hole is,  how this value varies as the total mass of the black hole gets larger and how this compares with the gravitational mass energy of the black hole?

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / The Trouble with Physics

« on: 23/05/2008 23:16:35 »

I have just finished reading Lee Smolin's recent book  "The trouble with Physics"

I just cannot reccommend it highly enough on several counts.

It is an excellent clear and understandable book for the layman on the development of modern physics rict up to current string theory and quantum gravity from one of the most well read and unbiased experts in the area.  It goes on to analyse the philosophy and socioligy of current physics research and finds some significant weaknesses that may have caused the lack of any real progress in the last thirty years.

It will give you "entrepreneurs in physics" out there a good idea for what you really need to do to generate some innovative physics.  This is not trying to find "mistakes" in well accepted theories but in genuine innovative thinking.

7

New Theories / Evolutionary cosmology

« on: 28/11/2007 00:53:07 »

As always, if you Google something you find a lot of references for a pair of words so its best to define them first.  Evolutionary Cosmology is an idea that is now being looked at by a small number of reputable philosophers and cosmologists.  I am also particularly interested in it and have been so for many years well before others went public on it so I thought I might put some of my ideas together here.

It starts from the fact that the "big bang" cosmology has several loose ends notably what caused it and what was going on before that.

It is observed that laws of physics are very finely balanced to allow atoms, nucleosynthesis, and life to form and have certain similarities with the way things are finely balanced in a living ecosystem so what if universes spawn other universes and evolve in a physical way?

So evolutionary cosmology looks at the processes that might allow this to happen. Tries to understand what physical evolution might mean and tries to put this together in a model that fits current physical knowlwdge in a way that the whole process might be tested and verified.

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Has anyone seen comet 17P Holmes yet

« on: 31/10/2007 09:59:39 »

I did last night and tried to take some pictures of it.  It's really amazing!

Comet 17P Holmes is a tiny periodic comet that has been known about for about a century.  Its normally extremely faint and only observable with large telescopes.  It has just passed its closest approach to the sun on its approximately 7 year orbit.  It was first found when it had an outburst that made it visible to the naked eye.  Now 100 years later it's done the same thing again. and is as bright as a medium brightness star and easily visible to the naked eye even in urban environments.

Unusually for comets it is in a very good position for observation from the northern hemisphere visible all night and almost overhead late in the evening in the constellation of Perseus.  the following website gives lots more information about it

http://www.cometography.com/pcomets/017p.html

When I looked at it through my 8 inch telescope last night it looked just like the big picture at the start of the website with a big dim disk a brighter central portion and a very bright spot near the middle.  a small telescope or binoculars will show clearly it is a comet with the naked eye it looks like a slightly fuzzy star.  It has no tail at the moment but that is probably partly a result of the angle that we are looking at it

Unfortunately I got the focussing a bit wrong in the photos That I took of it and the although it's clearly visible the pictures are not worth posting.  I will try again if we get another clear night soon. 

If it follows a similar course to the last outburst it will probably be visible for at least a week or two.

9

New Theories / Have the laws of Physics evolved to be what we find in our universe?

« on: 02/09/2007 11:39:06 »

This is intended to be a stimulation for serious and considered replies and not someting to drag the cranks out of the woodwork.

Our planetary ecosystems are so carefully meshed together and things work so well that it was quite difficult initially to believe that they were not created by some super intelligent designer, but now all (including most of the main religions) except a few cranks accept that life has evolved from simple chemical beginnings to become what it is today.

The laws of physics also seem to be very improbable with critical constants set at finely defined levels to ensure that atoms and complex nuclear and electromagnetic chemistry can exist.

Several serious cosmologists have gone so far as to suggest that the laws of physics may have undergone some sort of process of evolution.  Notably Lee Smolin who suggests that some of the features my be to maximise the number of black holes (? other universes,  the longest lived things in our universe) that can be formed although he could see no immediate process as to how this might happen.

Can I suggest a mechanism whereby the laws of physics may have evolved to become what they are today. 

We are all familiar with quantum mechanical uncertainty and as interaction energy rises the laws pf physics tend to get more and more "fuzzy"  allowing greater departure from norms and new particles to pop out of nowhere for brief periods provided the energy balance works out OK in the long run.  We also know that in the past our universe was incredibly dense and hot but expanding and cooling.

The particle physicists talk about times when all the physical laws were united and there were "symmetry breaking processes" that caused the initially very vague laws to settle down to the ones that we have at the moment.  They seem to view this process as essentially random but maybe it isn't quite so random and the way it settles down is most likely to be a way that creates interesting "recycling" processes that tend to give structures in the universe much longer lives than the extremely brief particle particle interactions that would normally take place.  That is the laws of physics have "evolved" to create an interesting universe and such a universe is not as unusual as might be expected if the symmetry breaking processes were truly random.

10

New Theories / String theory

« on: 10/12/2006 00:20:00 »

The most successful theories of everything that are around are based on superstrings.  They depend on the existence of fundamental, short, tensioned strings or loops that can oscillate in various modes to create the particles and force fields that we experience in our universe. 

These strings have clearly defined properties (size tension dimensionality etc)but these are just taken as given and not explained in any way.

I would like to suggest that a tiny space time vortex may have these properties.  Consider a vortex in water Or a tornado the rotational energy creates a tensioned single dimension stringlike structure that could have many of the properties required and it should be possible to model vortexes like this using current fluid dynamic knowledge (extended a bit into at least four or five dimensions)

Another important point is that the basic quantum of quantum mechanics is essentially a quantum of angular momentum that describes rotation or a vortex so this could be a good starting point for a quantised real theory of everything

how do others feel about this?

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / An anti gravity machine for real!?

« on: 08/09/2006 11:15:59 »

This week's New Scientist has got an article in it about a new electromagnetic drive for spacecraft that could be much more efficent than the currently being tested ion motors.  

It is so way out that I double checked the date wasn't  1st April

It has been dsigned and tested and found to work by   Roger Shawyer a respected aerospace scierntist at Portsmouth University.

Apparantly the idea has been around for some time but it is the way that it works is so far off beam I still find it difficult to believe and am looking for the catch.

You feed microwave radiation into a high Q resonant cavity that is shaped.  The shape is a tapered cylindrical waveguide with one end greater than the other and the idea is to get as much energy stored in the cavity that you possibly can.  He is feeding about a kilowatt into a cavity with a Q in the region of 6,000 - 50,000.

The enegy in the cavity produces a force on the cavity along its axis and in the direction of the largest end.  He explains it as the enegy in the cavity produces a force on the walls of the cavity and the force is greater on the wider end than the narrow end so there is a net external force on the cavity.  Note, no throwing energy out the back like a rocket! the energy is entirely contained in the cavity and the force depends on how much you can get in there.

OK the force is not very great, his first prototype only produced a force of 16 millinewtons but a later model with a higher q gave 300 millinewtons,  a great deal more thrust than that produced by the recent ESA SMART-1 Ion engine.

It is claimed that in theory using a superconducting cavity of the quality used in big accelerators forces of  30,000 newtons per Kilowatt might be achieved. this is enough to lift a car!

The downside.  You are not getting something for nothing and the moment you start accelerating the object the force drops and energy is drawn from the cavity and needs to be replaced  but the device could produce a static anti gravity force very efficiently.

This is the nearest thing to an antigravity machine I have ever seen and is coming from a very reputable scientific source but I am still finding it difficult to believe.


Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / A rotating universe

« on: 09/06/2006 10:59:01 »

some months ago one of our regular contributors asked if the universe was rotating.  the 10 june editin of the New scientist  has some interesting comments on this.

These also seem to link into my one of my interests, The classical properties of rotating black holes and gravstars.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

13

Guest Book / Hello from soul surfer

« on: 18/01/2006 20:34:23 »

I've been on this forum for a couple of months now and am beginning to get the measure of it.  I find it interesting and plan to be around regularly for some time.  I am happy to help people out with anything that I can, and willing to explore solidly based new ideas but I won't treat trolls or loonies gently.  Genuine humour is another thing but us scientists must be a bit careful when we crack jokes to ensure that some less well educated types don't take them literally and run off with completely the wrong idea.

You can find a lot more about me by looking at my profile and web pages.

As a retired physicist and engineer it worries me some of the things that we get from younger people about the quality of their science teaching.  OK on pages like this some of it may just be a wind up but I have other verified examples of the physical sciences being taught by very poorly equipped teachers.  I think that it would be much better if quality video based instruction and simple labwork was supported by controlled ask a scientist websites like this.

If anyone wants to talk openly with me please post to this topic otherwise if you send me an email make sure that you identify the naked scientist site in your header or I might chop it unread as spam.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Discuss: Will my skin soak up the calories in skin cream?

« on: 16/04/2012 13:59:48 »

This week we find out if a liberal slathering of oil based moisturiser makes up part of our daily calorie quota. Plus we ask, are monitor screens and e.books more than your standard page turner, leaving you tossing and turning and up all night?....
Listen to this Show

or  

If you want to discuss this show, or ask a question, this is the place to do it.

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Heim-theory

« on: 10/01/2006 19:56:12 »

If you want to explore new theory that offers some interesting possibilities look into Heim theory

http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads/A_Abstract.pdf

there is an article on it in this week's New Scientist but they have sensationalised it a bit by concentrating on some of the more spectacular possibilities.

Heim theory as a quantum gravity theory has been around for quite a long time is being taken more seriously by the scientific world.

The most important thing that it appears to do is predict accurately the masses of the fundamental particles quite accurately which at the moment is more than any other theory of everything manages.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Is there a lower limit to quantum interactions?

« on: 29/12/2005 16:56:12 »

And if so does it have any effect on cosmological models?

Gravity and electromagnetism are the long range forces that govern the operation of the large scale universe the enegy associated with their quanta are h nu  where nu is the frequency of the radiation. so low wneregy interactions imply low frequency quanta.  Now the age of the universe is reasonably well defined (around the time of the big bang) so quanta with frequecies lower than the time from now back to the big bang can't exist (yet)

Now electromagnetic interections re on the whole quite quick and nrutralised by scale but gravitational interactions on a large scale can be very slow indeed, involving interactions lasting billions of years a significant proportion of the time since the big bang. so some of the quanta that are needed to express these interactions may not have time to exist yet.

What's more looking back in time/distance these lower limits would be higher than they are now.

The effect this would have on interactions would be that some of the theoretical force between chunks of the universe would be misssing until the universe was big enough to hold the quanta (this is a bit like the casimir effect using the whole universe as a cavity)  OK the effect would be very small now and might represent a tiny part of the missing bits of the universe that are accounted for by dark matter or dark energy but extrapolating back to the beginnig it could have a big effect on the way our universe started.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

17

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Walking With Monsters - Life before dinosaurs

« on: 09/12/2005 16:05:49 »

While I applaud much of the effort used to recreate images of ancient creatures and environments, I wish they would give a more balanced view of the lifeforms around in the periods without just picking on the biggest and most aggressive beasts and the gory bits.

Mind you the saga  "When stromatolites ruled the world" would not be noted for its excitement  []

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Do Individual photons posess bandwidth?

« on: 29/11/2005 11:39:51 »

This is a question that thas stumped most of the serious scientists that I have asked.  Their normal response is to say that is a really good question and that they would like to know too.

I would visualise a narrow band photon as one that was a long wave train and a broad band one just a few waves long.

I know that the emission and absorption processes for photons can be have different bandwidths because their spectral lines can have inherently different widths. The spectral lines from very short lived processes are broad because the short time introduces uncertanty in frequency but emissions from long lived metastable states are very narrow and used as frequency references.

Normal spectroscopes require many photons to determine the statistics of their precise frequency but, is it in theory possible to measure this property in a single photon?  If so bandwidth is another property of a photon that must be included in its description and effectively increases its information content.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Relativistic orbits under gravity

« on: 26/11/2005 19:15:17 »

I have been trying to find good references to this on the web but so far have not been very successful (although it has led me to this interesting forum).  However a quick scan suggests that there are not many real experts around here only lots of interested parties with interesting ideas.

The real question is that when one body is orbiting another body under grvitational attraction at speeds significant with respect to the velocity of light what is the value of the mass of the body you should use in the calculation of the orbital parameters is it the rest mass of the body or the rest mass plus the extra mass associated with the velocity of the body, because as a body increses its velocity towards the speed of liht it gets more difficult to accelerate it further and this can be interpreded as an increase in its effective inertial mass

Also what do relativistic orbits look like. I know that a tiny relatavistic effect is suppose to cause a rotation of the perihelion of the planet mercury but what happens when elliptical orbets get more extreme

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things