0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Also in this very thread you've made arguments that were based on nothing but the meaning of words like equivalent and matter. If you can do it why can't I?
Hawking disagrees with Hawking specifically on this topic, you fool:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-admits-the-biggest-blunder-of-his-scientific-career-early-belief-that-everything-8568418.html
I still don't believe you about the "quick calculations." Care to show your work?? I say you're full of crap. I'm no Calculus expert, but I know enough about it to know those calculations aren't quick, and they aren't something you could just pull out a pocket calculator like you were balancing a checkbook. Those equations are complex and comprised largely of Greek symbols and such, single characters in the equation represent another whole equation, etc.
That source is atrocious (a website about a deep sea robotics is not a good place to learn about the quantum mechanics of metals). It is trying to use an almost completely classical description for something that is inherently quantum mechanical. I actually tried looking around and most basic explanations of conduction have the same exact problem. The general thing to do is to treat the electrons like they form an ideal gas. In an ideal gas the mean free path is expressed as 1/(π*d˛*ρ) where d is the diameter of the particles and ρ is the density of the particles. The density of free electrons in say copper (only the free electrons can conduct) is 8.5*10^28*(1/m^3) the classical radius of an electron (which is definitely too big and generally an electron is thought to not have a radius at all) is about 2.8*10^-15 m giving a diameter of 5.6*10^-15 m. Putting that into the mean free path calculation above says that on average and electron in copper should travel about 12 cm before it hits another electron if we treat the electrons as classical particles. We know that the resistance of a metal wire is directly related to the mean free path of the electrons in the wire. For copper at room temperature we can calculate the actual mean free path of the electrons from actual measured properties with our classical assumptions. When we do this we get a mean free path of electrons in copper of about 40 nm. This number is much much much smaller than 12 cm. Which means that electrons basically always collide with something else (phonons, lattice defects, etc) before they collide with each other or in other words electron-electron collisions cannot explain the conduction of electricity. To put it another way even though the density of the electrons seems high the electrons are actually relatively far apart compared to their size and therefore do not interact. Of course for simplicity we've ignored the uncertainty principle which will change the numbers a bit but will not make up the difference in size between 40 nm and 12 cm.
Similarly, you've been acting like you're some sort of authority on physics for the last couple of weeks now, even though you clearly only half understand what you are talking about.Why can't we do that to you? We're half-authorities on science too, you know. This is a public forum, not the IPCC.
Can we all please try to keep this thread polite and, at least outwardly, friendly. Don't want to lock the thread.Thanks
I am doing nothing but pointing out statements that are false using sources, mathematics, and logic. I have more than sufficiently demonstrated my level of understanding. I could give my qualifications but those are meaningless words. What matters is demonstrated ability and I have done that.
As your peer, I respectfully disagree.
I still can't get over the fact that you compared the wavelike properties of a photon to an earthquake a few pages back.
Now, in the post above, you've "cited your work," but you're talking about electricity and conduction. What does that have to do with black holes? Trying to be "focused and polite" ??You're all over the place.
You are obviously somewhat knowledgeable, but your take on physics is piecemeal and incoherent at best. You're like the impulse lawn sprinkler of physics. Plus, nobody who is deep into this subject calls the stuff of the universe "matter" anymore. Mass and energy are the terms I use to discuss "matter," and I'm just a layman. In that respect, you are a Rutherford atom in an electron cloud world.
Matter, in fact, is an ambiguous term; there are several different definitions used in both scientific literature and in public discourse. Each definition selects a certain subset of the particles of nature, for different reasons. Consumer beware! Matter is always some kind of stuff, but which stuff depends on context.
Waves are waves are waves are waves. All wave things (and wavelike things) obey the same set of mathematical principles called wave mechanics. The particular property we were discussing (the ability to have both transverse and longitudinal oscillations simultaneously) is a property all waves share. Although I do occasionally slip and forget. I am after all only human.
Now compare the above with f(x) =x sin 1/x^2.
Tell me something I don't know.
Of course waves are waves are waves are waves. But like I said, a photon travels forward in space as two waves along a geodesic described by the intersection of two perpendicular planes. A photon cannot travel forward along those two planes and also travel forward in a third plane perpendicular to both of them. The only movement possible along that plane is in a direction AWAY from the geodesic the photon is travelling on. That is physically impossible. In order to oscillate in a third dimension, a photon's wave energy MUST stop travelling forward in space along a geodesic at speed c. That is physically impossible, no matter how many earthquakes you bring to the table.
You could be a little less condescending, you know. That's why I talk to the way I do. You seem to forget that I am also human when you are belittling me and force feeding me your peculiar brand of physics, and I don't appreciate it.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 11/03/2016 21:10:10Now compare the above with f(x) =x sin 1/x^2.Interesting diagram Jeffrey , I am not even sure if we are discussing the same thing, I am not even sure we are discussing, but your diagram and maths look similar to what I am trying to say about singularity
Ah but can singularities be observed?
Quote from: jeffreyH on 12/03/2016 00:44:30Ah but can singularities be observed?They can if they are within the range limit of observation be detected by sight or possibly other means.
You say that with conviction. What is your evidence?
It has nothing to do with it being impossible for a wave to have three perpendicular modes of oscillation. Pointing out your errors and attempting to share my knowledge is not an act of belittling.
I never said it did. That's your error, not mine.What I actually said, for those of you who can actually read, is that there cannot be FORWARD MOTION along three planes at the same time. In fact, I specifically said the forward motion of a photon becomes confined to an oscillation when that photon interacts with a particle at a point location." "Forward motion" is not the same thing as an "oscillation," I just wanted to share my knowledge with you.
Suggestive of negative mass/dark energy expanding the metric?
Quote from: Craig W. Thomson on 12/03/2016 14:41:08"Forward motion" is not the same thing as an "oscillation."The key point to all of this is that for any spherical wave if you draw three mutually perpendicular planes through the wave front the wave will have motion along all three of the plains.
"Forward motion" is not the same thing as an "oscillation."
Maybe that's YOUR key point, but what's that got to do with my original point? This is why I say you are the impulse lawn sprinkler of physics. You're always spewing out physics knowledge that has nothing to do with what I am talking about, going off on tangents. I have been trying to talk about photons this whole time. Photons don't travel as plane waves (you said "plain" waves). Motion along three planes is possible as an oscillation, but an oscillation does NOT constitute "forward propagation through space at c along a geodesic."
In short, a photon travels along two perpendicular planes at c when alone, its energy oscillates at a location in space when it is part of an atom. If you're saying something other than that, you are wrong, and I don't care how many tangents you go off on, how many links you post, or how much you want to win this debate. A photon cannot travel forward through space at c when its energy has been absorbed by another particle located at the intersection of the photon's geodesic and a plane perpendicular to it.
I would also point out that if everything IN the universe is cyclical, why would the Universe itself not also be cyclical?
Quote from: jeffreyH on 12/03/2016 00:44:30Ah but can singularities be observed?"Observation" generally means some sort of particle exchange has occurred. When you look at things with your eyes, you are seeing photons that "bounced" off stuff, then were absorbed by electrons in your retina. When we "observe" particles, we basically "bounce" or "crash" other particles off them and see what happens to them, or observe how different particles scatter after the collision. You can't observe a black hole because any particle you accelerate toward it in order to make an observation simply gets absorbed and dissappears; it won't bounce off the singularity, nor will scattered particles come out of the singularity to be observed after such a collision. It simply merges with the singularity. I suppose you could make the observation that the black hole pulls a little harder on you after it absorbed the particle you tried to observe it with if you had an unbelievably accurate scale.I think a better questions is, "Can a singularity even exist?" I think there is a point beyond which mass and energy cannot be compressed any farther because there needs to be enough room for particles to oscillate a bit. I think a true "point" singularity is impossible. A point, by definition, has no length, width or depth, so it can contain nothing. A "true" point is in fact imaginary. As such, I am a firm believer in the idea that before they reach a "point," black holes rather reach a "critical point" of mass/energy density similar to the Chandrasekhar limit for a type 1a supernova. I think that when a supermassive black hole consumes enough supermassive black holes, eventually that mass and energy reaches "a point" where it cannot be constrained any farther into an actual "point," and when mass/energy content for a super-supermassive black hole reaches approximately 1 Universe, it all gets released in an explosive Big Bang event, a sort of "mega-supernova."This idea solves two problems. First, entropy is seen as a one-way process. My idea is that when particles merge with a black hole's contents, that's the reverse of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis taking place in there where we can't see it. A Big Bang as such amounts to an "entropic reversal." Whatever mathematicians may say about black holes and entropy, to me, logically, there's nothing more "ordered" than a miniscule space containing billions of galaxies worth of condensed mass/energy plasma soup that wants to expand, fill space and decay to less volatile forms. I often compare this to a bottle of compressed gas. Taking the lid off the bottle is the Big Bang. Black holes "put the gas back in the bottle." One-way entropy contradiction solved. Second, a finite universe with a Big Bang starting point and a heat death ending point doesn't make much sense according to mass/energy conservation. There should be something before and after the Big Bang. I don't think everything was "created" at the Big Bang. Mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, that's basic Thermodynamics. My idea makes the universe cyclical, with something existing both before and after our present Universe. I would also point out that if everything IN the universe is cyclical, why would the Universe itself not also be cyclical? There are multiple examples of everything in the universe, from quarks to atoms to molecules to planets to stars to galaxies to galaxy clusters to superclusters, supernovae, black holes, etc. There's no process in the universe that happens "just once," there's no "single" example of anything. Therefore, I have a hard time believing there's just one Big Bang. To me, it makes more sense to think of our present universe as a particle of sorts, which can be "created" and "annihilated," but that doesn't mean the stuff it's made of ever actually ceases to exist. It just exists as some particular entity for an arbitrary period of time before undergoing some other transformation to its mass and energy.
While that is all interesting in its own way you assume to know the level of my knowledge. Of course I know that you can't observe a singularity. I was posing a question to Thebox.
I actually didn't ever say "plain" waves. I did accidently say "plain" when I was referring to mathematical planes but I never said "plain" waves. You in fact quoted the one and only time I made that mistake which wasn't about plane waves and tried to apply it my entire post. Either you are having trouble reading or you are simply lying in an attempt to make me angry.
The number of planes along which a single photon travels is always three.
That's a very dubious claim. Just for starters nucleosynthesis in stars isn't cyclic. Heavier elements are built up but never return to being hydrogen or helium.
Quote from: agyejy on 13/03/2016 18:24:10I actually didn't ever say "plain" waves. I did accidently say "plain" when I was referring to mathematical planes but I never said "plain" waves. You in fact quoted the one and only time I made that mistake which wasn't about plane waves and tried to apply it my entire post. Either you are having trouble reading or you are simply lying in an attempt to make me angry.You said: "...the wave will have motion along all three of the plains." Okay, so the rain in Spain stays mainly in the plains, but what about the spherical wave of an earthquake? Don't get mad. Stop making mistakes.
Quote from: agyejy on 13/03/2016 18:24:10The number of planes along which a single photon travels is always three.FALSE! Just plain false. Or, just plane false. Whichever you prefer.
I said: "I would also point out that if everything IN the universe is cyclical, why would the Universe itself not also be cyclical?" Your reply:Quote from: agyejy on 13/03/2016 18:24:10That's a very dubious claim. Just for starters nucleosynthesis in stars isn't cyclic. Heavier elements are built up but never return to being hydrogen or helium.That's not a claim. That's a question.
Big difference. Speaking of claims, despite your earlier claim, I think YOU are trying to make ME mad. That's why you keep reading things into my posts that I didn't say. If you put that question back into the context where it belongs, it makes sense. I said, "There's no process in the universe that happens "just once," there's no "single" example of anything. Therefore, I have a hard time believing there's just one Big Bang." Now, of course, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is part of the context of the Big Bang. Maybe you should try leaving my statements in their context where they belong.
You don't know what's happening in a black hole because they can't be observed. My suggestion is that Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is being reversed inside black holes. Mass, energy, particles, light elements, heavy elements, all of it is merging into a plasma soup, just like the plasma soup that emerged from the Big Bang before it started decaying to more stable forms.
I am eagerly awaiting your latest straw man argument. The suspense is killing me.
So what is your view on gauge gravitation theory?
You libel me in basically every post for no reason and I'm supposedly the one trying to make you angry?
Prove it. I'm pretty sure I actually already linked at least one reference on the propagation of single photons (if not I can and it wasn't that last thing I linked on light propagation either). Single photon wave functions travel forward while also dispersing (getting larger) in directions perpendicular to their motion. The wave function spreads into a spherical cone and the photon can be found anywhere on the edge of that spherical cone. Thus you can't describe the propagation of a single photon without taking into account all three dimensions.
there is no point in idle speculation.
"Libel" is me trying to damage your reputation. You're "agyegy," a sock puppet, so the only reputation you have that I am aware of is your reputation for going off on tangents, obfuscating issues, putting words in my mouth, bloviating at great length, contradicting factual statements, being a condescending know-it-all, and a stalker that followed me here from physforum.com.I'm almost starting to think you are waitedavid137's sock puppet. Why is it you always target me? There's plenty of other people to correct out there. I think I know the answer. Like him, you are a pseudointellectual. You can't think. All you can do is regurgitate. I think memorizers like the two of you feel threatened by actual smart people.
What do you mean, "prove it" ?? Are you this dense for real, or is it an act?Again, a photon travels forward along the intersection of two planes in a straight line at c in a vacuum. You can consider that line the intersection of plane x and plane y. If the photon wishes to continue travelling in a straight line along the intersection of the x and y planes, it CANNOT FOLLOW A STRAIGHT LINE IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. It can ONLY OSCILLATE along the z plane. Again, except for maybe entangled particles or some strange case, a single particle like a photon cannot go two different directions at the same time. If it is following a straight line, it cannot follow a perpendicular straight line simultaneously. I grow weary from having to explain this to you about a dozen times in as many days in plane, plain English. Get yourself an English tutor, a science teacher, a therapist, or all three, but leave me alone if you're going to waste my time with your endless obfuscation.
Then please leave this thread immediately.
You are interpreting the schematic diagrams of light propagation too literally. For a plane wave it is understood that the magnetic and electric fields both extend to infinity in both perpendicular directions.
You seem to keep forgetting, math is a language, and no language captures the essence of reality 100% correctly. Stop taking mathematics so literally.
False. It is understood that "infinity" is not a legitimate solution to an equation. I'm only beginning to learn Calculus, but I think what you are referring to is a "limit, " as in:Limit (mathematics)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIn mathematics, a limit is the value that a function or sequence "approaches" as the input or index approaches some value. Limits are essential to calculus (and mathematical analysis in general) and are used to define continuity, derivatives, and integrals.So, maybe according to the mathematics, those fields "approach" infinity or something, but they do NOT actually extend to infinity.
Here is a little bit about wave propagation:https://www.cis.rit.edu/class/simg712-01/notes/basicprinciples-07.pdfGenerally speaking there is no such thing as a perfect plane or cylindrical wave because they require an infinite plane or line to generate them. All waves propagating through space have some spherical nature to them because their sources are all finite in extent.
For cylindrical and spherical waves things are a little different but the electric and magnetic fields still overlap. In the case of a single photon the electric and magnetic fields generally only have appreciable magnitude over a relatively small area but they still overlap at every point in that area. That area also increases with time and the peak intensity decreases with time so that the overall energy stored in the fields remains the same.
Sorry to be the one to have to tell you, but there's another limit: The speed of light. No part of a photon can be infinitely far away because it would take infinitely long to get back. In fact, when a photon is absorbed, that takes place "in an instant." The photon is annihilated and an atom in an excited state is created on the spot. There's no hanging around for hundreds of millions of years waiting for some component of a photon to get back from the Andromeda Galaxy.
In the case of a single photon the electric and magnetic fields generally only have appreciable magnitude over a relatively small area but they still overlap at every point in that area. That area also increases with time and the peak intensity decreases with time so that the overall energy stored in the fields remains the same.
Well for starters I clearly had this to say about single photons
You have a lot to say. Too much, in fact. You're doing that thing that waitedavid137 does, which never works out well. Would you like to throw in a few words about the kitchen sink? Or maybe some more information about "plain waves" that readers would find helpful.
Quote from: Craig W. Thomson on 17/03/2016 15:48:56You have a lot to say. Too much, in fact. You're doing that thing that waitedavid137 does, which never works out well. Would you like to throw in a few words about the kitchen sink? Or maybe some more information about "plain waves" that readers would find helpful.Just to be clear your current line of argument is that I've provided too much support for my statements and because of that I am wrong? That is a very interesting line of reasoning. Also, I really suggest you stop trying to provoke me into anger (we've already cleared up that I never made the "plain" typo when speaking of plane waves). I find it slightly humorous but the moderators might eventually start to take a dim view of it. We've already been asked to stay civil at least once in this thread.
. As far as moderators "taking a dim view of things," I already have a debate on climate change going with alancalverd, a "skeptic moderator" who is apparently as full of crap as you. Maybe you should try to become a moderator.
No, my argument is that you can't stick to the subject. I'm talking about photons, all of a sudden you're describing how spherical wave fronts act in an earthquake. I basically said photons can't travel in a straight line at c and in another straight line perpendicular to that at c, and you posted a bazillion science facts about everything under the sun to try to discredit the argument, but you never did. You've been trying to provoke me to anger for several months now, just in case anyone who is reading this doesn't know about you from physforum.com like I do. Your patronization and condescension is way out of line, especially since you only half know what you are talking about. As far as moderators "taking a dim view of things," I already have a debate on climate change going with alancalverd, a "skeptic moderator" who is apparently as full of crap as you. Maybe you should try to become a moderator.Is there one single web site out there that isn't polluted with half-wits? I really thought science forums would be different.
Quote from: Craig W. Thomson on 18/03/2016 12:32:39. As far as moderators "taking a dim view of things," I already have a debate on climate change going with alancalverd, a "skeptic moderator" who is apparently as full of crap as you. Maybe you should try to become a moderator.Whoa! that is a rather rude and disrespectful thing to say about a moderator. You are the one who is privileged to be here, you and your friend have done nothing but moan at each other ''flaming''. Neither of you are an authority on science, STOP being so deluded.
For a plane wave it is understood that the magnetic and electric fields both extend to infinity in both perpendicular directions.
Quote from: agyejy on 15/03/2016 22:02:58 For a plane wave it is understood that the magnetic and electric fields both extend to infinity in both perpendicular directions. False, just on the premise of Zeno's Paradox alone. I don't even need to go into the complex mathematics in great detail. Gravity is a field. Part of the math needed to understand how gravity works is that it falls off as a square of distance from the gravitational source. Nothing terribly complicated about that math. So, you are talking about a "summable series," which is finite. That's a pretty simple math concept as well. That's what I've learned. Fields are an example of a summable series, not an example of infinity.What's that you said? "Ah so instead your argument is that the theory and mathematics specifically designed to describe the propagation of light (and any wave motion in general) doesn't actually describe the propagation of light. Honestly this argument isn't really any better than the other one."Let me clarify: Magnetic, electric and gravitational fields diminish with distance, that is. I don't want you to go off on a tangent about color charge and quarks. Still talking about photons here.
By mathematical definition a plane wave is a wave in which all planes perpendicular to the direction of travel have completely uniform electric and magnetic fields. It is why true plane waves aren't physically possible and only approximations to actual waves that exist under very strict circumstances. The way the strength of a field varies with distance from the source depends entirely on the shape of the source.
Thebox just ignore them. Their only aim seems to be to pollute your thread. Who knows, it may be the same person using two usernames and talking to themselves. Let them get on with it. It is getting very boring now.
If you don't understand how and why approximations are used and how to connect them to the physical reality then you really have no chance of understanding physics.
Again, I don't need you to tell me what I already know:"A mathematical model is never a completely accurate representation of a physical situation-it is an idealization. A good model simplified reality enough to permit mathematical calculations but is accurate enough to provide valuable conclusions. It is important to realize the limitations of the model."That's from the Calculus Early Transcendentals textbook on my desk, and it's a lot less wordy than your verion you just posted. If you want to be a teacher, go get a teaching certification and be a teacher, but quit forcing lessons on me that I DON'T NEED.