[thebrain13 (OP)]

I feel like having some fun here. Einstein said he has one perhaps two very good ideas. I've been a gigantic Einstein fan for a long time. In my opinion he is thinking way farther over peoples heads even today and most people have no idea what he's talking about because they don't read him and invent themselves.

What were his 1 or 2 ideas? If it is one idea the answer is that everything is made of fields. If it is two ideas, it's that everything is made of fields and everything has its own independent relationship with everything else. (relativity)

They are both incredibly deep and it is my strong opinion that the vast majority of physicists today have an often ironically bastardized version of both concepts. My proof is that I bet you I could figure out a "new" theory that your grandmother would understand that is logically consistent for just about anything you could ask me and I'll only use three ideas to do it.

Einstein's fields, Einstein's relativity and the Universal Principle which is my own.

The Universal Principle means the reason for WHY any "law" of physics should exist is always the same, it's like evolution, whatever is the best at replicating itself will exist.

I'll give you my first example. A snowflake.

How can such dramatic unique shapes form out of random water molecules bonding together? How can what happens on one side of a snowflake affect the other? Why should it form sharp edges? Why are snowflakes so unique from one another if every molecule is identical to every other? Shouldn't the natural rules of science and probability lead to some sort of spherical potato shape like hail?

First off the bat, fields. In as unambiguous terms as possible the concept that everything is a fundamental particle is a lie. It's a white lie we tell students and physics undergrads to help them understand better. Fields are complex messy and they form into particles. This is exactly how Einstein describes things and how he would describe the equivalence of mass and energy. We call particles matter and fields energy, but the difference between the two is "quantitative" not qualitative. A particle is simply an area where the field is very strong. High level modern physicists know this but most never transcend the everything is a particle mental framework. I'd recommend watching "The Real Building Blocks of the Universe" from the theoretical physicist David Tong of Cambridge. Quantum Field Theory breaks this persistent myth of "everything is particle".

Becoming proficient in thinking about the nature of fields was a super power for Einstein and we can use it for snowflakes as well. School teaches us how to limit our framework to simple particles and forces but reality is not that simple. If you use that framework on a snowflake you are dead in the water. Identical independently moving objects should not form complex unique macrostructures with sharp edges.

What about fields though? You see, even though the particles are governed by simpler rules, the fields between the particles can be different. Instead of thinking about the problem with only particles and bonds. Think about it in terms of particles(molecules), bonds and fields. If you "need" a particle only mental vision, picture particles, bonds and unique photons bouncing between the crystal structure.

As is always the case in academia math is pretty much always stressed over a true understanding. (a fact I always hated as a physics major), but particles have a way of replicating themselves in proximity to energy. Photons stimulate the creation of other like photons in lasers (stimulated emission) in addition to particles like electrons increase the odds energy/fields will form into them in the proximity of energy in a particle accelerator. This is certainly a good example of the Universal Principle. Particles and fields (same thing different language) replicate.

This means, if you have a certain field between a particle bond in a snowflake that field can impact the nature of what the field becomes in the adjacent bond and on and on, until the whole snowflake is controlled by one standard field. The net affect of this is that the whole snowflake takes on essentially one unified form, the snowflake.

We can further this line of reasoning and ask well why a sharp edged unique structure with six sides. The six sides is simple because that is the repeated structure of the water molecule, everybody knows that. Since it is the same structure rotated every 60 degrees, the same field could spread to 6 wings of the snowflake. Why unique shapes with sharp edges? Think about this the way you would think about evolution. A field or photon could maximize the chances of its recreation if it could form the snowflake into shapes and qualities that make it more likely that another photon could not infiltrate its bonds. Perhaps it works like stealth. The U.S. builds stealth battleships and stealth bombers with sharp flat edges to avoid detection from radar ie. photons.

A snowflake could simply be the structure that makes it the most difficult for other photons to find and infiltrate for their own purposes. Sharp edges help, being translucent helps, and being unique helps as well.

And there you have it. I didn't use relativity, just fields and my evolution like Universal Principle.

Regardless of what you might think, I bet I could play this game with anything. The "trick" is I'm a lifelong aspiring physics theorist and I know people don't understand the meat and potatoes of Einstein. Pretty much anything in 2022 vernacular that is a real Einstein thought looks like a new theory to others.

I challenge the forum, to pick anything in physics I can't explain in a simple "why" language. (not a math contest, my physics major was enough). The only rules are to be respectful and pick something most people know about. People don't have answers for even basic things like, why do objects travel in straight lines and the constancy of the speed of light. I'll answer the first 4 people who ask questions. Let me show you what, "if you can't explain it to your grandmother you don't understand it really means." In my eyes, my "new theories" are Einstein in most of yours their new theories.

One last note, I was a physics major and was truly driven in being the best at it for a long time but I only do physics for fun now. I have a new theory of genetics, cancer and evolution which focuses on how life uses fields. I think these Einstein visuals are going to prove priceless in a new understanding of evolution. For instance, if you asked why is DNA a double Helix using those three theories. I'd say because there are 3 shapes of an E.M. wave and one of them is a double helix, a circularly polarized electromagnetic field. Picture a normal linear polarized wave like in text books and twist it. That's it. Does this sound like a coincidence? If you think so, I'm writing a book detailing about a few 100 more ultra specific "coincidences" like DNA is also a crystal, discovered via crystallography. My model for the snowflake works just like my model for genetics, its not just the bonds that matter to a complete understanding, its the fields within DNA that matters. That's why I picked the snowflake first. Any question about genetics is fair game as well, I'll put together a visual for how fields run the show just like physics.
 
Just be kind, be simple, attack ideas not people or I'll just leave. I'm trying to cure cancer not get in a pissing match with some random dude on the internet.

 

[alancalverd]

Power to your elbow as you work to cure cancer, but you would do well to review your physics course notes. 

Alas, DNA is not a crystal, nor was it discovered by crystallography. It was discovered in 1869 by wet chemistry, and its structure was elucidated in 1953 via a crystallographic technique of x-ray fibre diffraction - "sort-of crystalline" but not a 3-D ordered solid.

And sadly, the bond angle of the water molecule is not 120°, to fit your snowflake hypothesis, but 104.5°, which doesn't confer hexagonal symmetry on anything.

Best wishes for the scientific journey, but be sure of your starting point!

[thebrain13 (OP)]

Come on man. Semantics much? I have always heard DNA was a crystal, but even if it wasn't like you say, the whole premise is that repetitive structures play a role in fields which it obviously has regardless of whether you want to call it a crystal or not.

The "structure" of DNA was discovered from diffraction patterns via crystallography. It demonstrated optical interference patterns like a crystal. Why are you quoting the original isolation of DNA when the premise is about its shape?

Lastly, why are you quoting the angle of electrons from one another in a single water molecule? 104.5. Completely irrelevant. Once it is formed into ice, which is what I was talking about it forms sharp 60 degree angles. Are you honestly trying to find the truth?

[Bored chemist]

[hamdani yusuf]

I challenge the forum, to pick anything in physics I can't explain in a simple "why" language. (not a math contest, my physics major was enough). The only rules are to be respectful and pick something most people know about. People don't have answers for even basic things like, why do objects travel in straight lines and the constancy of the speed of light. I'll answer the first 4 people who ask questions. Let me show you what, "if you can't explain it to your grandmother you don't understand it really means." In my eyes, my "new theories" are Einstein in most of yours their new theories.

What's temperature? What makes thermal radiation different than other kinds of electromagnetic radiation, such as near field, radio wave, or light from plasma or fluorescence?
You can answer them here

[Origin]

You can answer them here, or alternatively, post your answers in my thread.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80604.0

Seriously?  You hijack the thread and then try to direct readers to your own thread.  Very rude, reported.

[Bored chemist]

You can answer them here, or alternatively, post your answers in my thread.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80604.0

Seriously?  You hijack the thread and then try to direct readers to your own thread.  Very rude, reported.

To be fair, the OP asked for it- literally.

I challenge the forum, to pick anything in physics I can't explain in a simple "why" language. (not a math contest, my physics major was enough). The only rules are to be respectful and pick something most people know about.

And "Temperature" is one thing that can be tricky to define.

[hamdani yusuf]

Here's another take on the challenge. How would you explain non-diffractive edge and non-diffractive slit, which I demonstrated in my experiments.

Video #4 : Non-diffractive Obstacle. It shows a case where the edge of an obstacle can block a light beam without producing diffraction pattern. Here the interface between the glass and the air acts as total internal reflector which prevent the light from reaching the area behind the reflector.

Video #13: Non-diffractive slit. Here we put Huygen’s principle as currently accepted explanation for single slit diffraction to the test. To determine whether the space or the edges of the slit as the real interfering point sources, we can conduct an experiment using a slit whose edges are not diffractive. If Huygen’s principle is correct, then we should still get interference pattern even though the edges of the slit doesn’t diffract light.

The rest of the video can be watched here

[hamdani yusuf]

And one of the most basic question in physics.
Why light change its' speed and direction during refraction?

Spoiler: show

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=77687.0

[alancalverd]

Come on man. Semantics much? I have always heard DNA was a crystal, but even if it wasn't like you say, the whole premise is that repetitive structures play a role in fields which it obviously has regardless of whether you want to call it a crystal or not.

But DNA is not repetitive.

Why are you quoting the original isolation of DNA when the premise is about its shape?

because your post talked about the discovery of DNA, not the interpretation of the gross structure of a single molecule.

Lastly, why are you quoting the angle of electrons from one another in a single water molecule? 104.5. Completely irrelevant. Once it is formed into ice, which is what I was talking about it forms sharp 60 degree angles.

Because truth matters to me. I am a physicist (ex-crystallographer), not a priest, politician or philosopher. 104.5 degrees is the hydrogen bond angle, not the "angle between electrons".

In ice, oxygen is tetrahedrally surrounded by four hydrogen atoms with a bond angle 109∘28′

which goes some way to explaining the anomalous density of the ice-1 solid form, but certainly isn't a multiple of 60.

Fact is that the shape of a snowflake is due to macroscopic aerodynamic forces acting on the accretion of microcrystals.

Your misconceptions are quite common but harmless, unless you try to build a scientific edifice on them.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

To be fair, the OP asked for it- literally.

I challenge the forum, to pick anything in physics I can't explain in a simple "why" language. (not a math contest, my physics major was enough). The only rules are to be respectful and pick something most people know about.

And "Temperature" is one thing that can be tricky to define.

[/quote]

I most certainly did literally ask for it. Challenge Accepted. I was starting to think you guys are just chickens. I will answer the first question in regards to temperature. I'm only going to answer one per person and only if it is something a normal science fan would know about which temperature qualifies as such.

Also like I said, I'm only going to use three ideas and I'm going to make it appear like I created a brand new theory with them. Fields, Relativity and my Universal Principle.

First off the bat. Here's a simple yet far reaching idea. I figured this out in middle school. You can tell whether something is exothermic or endothermic with one simple idea. Does it involve something moving closer together? Or does it involve something moving further away? Any experiment where masses move together is exothermic, and any experiment where masses move apart is endothermic.

There are many examples of this and I never missed a problem about exothermic vs. endothermic in physics chemistry highschool etc. just with this one little idea. Evaporation is endothermic as water may leave the skin. Condensation as water condenses on you is exothermic. Same pattern holds true for all phase changes.

Ideal gas law. Condense the gas, create heat. Spread it out reduce heat.

Collisions. If a billiard ball bounces off it is cooler than if it sticks together.

In chemistry if two molecules bond, its always exothermic and if they break apart its always endothermic. 0 exceptions to this rule which is pretty rare for chemistry.

What may appear to be an obvious exception to the rule could be nuclear fission. This seems to contradict the concept as it breaks apart yet releases heat. However, there is such thing as nuclear binding energy and there is a correlation between how tight a nucleus is packed and the energy that is released. Elements that are radioactive like Uranium are more loosely packed then what they may fission into. Essentially a million penguins may in general be warmer than a 1000 penguins in the winter, but not if the million are social distancing and the 1000 are shoulder to shoulder.

Why does this work and how can we use fields to explain it? Well like I said let's talk about Einstein's vision of FIELDS and particles. He envisioned fields as spread out matter and matter as condensed fields. However this is still a work in progress, but we might have some questions for Einstein if we are going to assume that fields can be condensed into particles of quantized mass.

Or to put it in Einstein's words on page 243 of the book the Evolution of Physics written by Einstein and Leopold Infeld.

"Our ultimate problem would be to modify our field laws in such a way that they would not break down for regions in which the energy is enormously concentrated."

I will reiterate the concept that we don't yet have all of the rules of how fields become and act in supposedly "fundamental" particles, but we may suggest one simple little idea here. There must be some sort of force or limit to how much mass/field can be condensed into a particle or else the particle wouldn't have quantized mass, it could be anything.

Perhaps when two particles move closer together they "bleed out" their mass/energy/field. There is your new theory of what heat is, it's smaller bits of field that have no home. When things move closer it bleeds out the field, and when they move further away it sucks up more field. This is why Exothermic reactions tend to be much stronger in magnitude because it is easier to scramble an egg than to unscramble one. It's harder to gather field than it is to release the field within.

The more excess "field" beyond its quantum limit the higher the temperature, the less there is, the lower it's temperature.

Most of us know the technical definition of heat as the average kinetic energy. It is certainly well founded the connection between motion and heat. Perhaps the reason for this perpetual motion is the left overs from the transfer of fields and energy between particles.

And there you have it, a field concept theory you've never heard before that seems to makes sense yet is explaining something people "think" they understand. I'll answer follow ups, but I'd rather limit one question per person. I didn't need to talk about relativity yet, but fields is the true fundamentals of Einstein's relativity. I'm really just interested in proving a point for fun. People don't get Einstein, its a skill that takes years/decades to develop and what your average academic/person thinks he's talking about is just group thinked word salad to me.

[hamdani yusuf]

First off the bat. Here's a simple yet far reaching idea. I figured this out in middle school. You can tell whether something is exothermic or endothermic with one simple idea. Does it involve something moving closer together? Or does it involve something moving further away? Any experiment where masses move together is exothermic, and any experiment where masses move apart is endothermic.

Is exploding grenade endothermic? Or is it exothermic?

[thebrain13 (OP)]

An exploding grenade is exothermic. But the cause of its explosion and the release of heat is molecules bonding together. Short distances overpower macroscopic changes. you could try to formulize the rule like power is governed by mass/ change in distance. It's not a perfect math equation in terms of calculating power as packing and unpacking fields is not equal, although it does answer questions like why nuclear is so powerful as it's changing distances on the scale of the nucleus which mathematically should be much greater than changing larger distances like in the case of chemical bonds. but the concept will hold at least in terms of determining endothermic vs. exothermic.

[hamdani yusuf]

why nuclear is so powerful as it's changing distances on the scale of the nucleus which mathematically should be much greater than changing larger distances like in the case of chemical bonds.

I don't know how to interpret the phrase I put in bold above. 

[hamdani yusuf]

Also like I said, I'm only going to use three ideas and I'm going to make it appear like I created a brand new theory with them. Fields, Relativity and my Universal Principle.

It's okay if your theory doesn't cover some known experimental results. But it's not okay if your theory leads to predictions contrary to experimental results. Except if you can show one or more significant flaws in how the experiments were conducted. 

[hamdani yusuf]

Ideal gas law. Condense the gas, create heat. Spread it out reduce heat.

Ideal gas law says PV=nRT.
In isothermal process of ideal gas,  change in pressure is inversely proportional to change in volume,  with no change of internal energy.

[Bored chemist]

Condensation as water condenses on you is exothermic.

Not necessarily.

[Origin]

I most certainly did literally ask for it. Challenge Accepted. I was starting to think you guys are just chickens.

That seems like a strange thing to say considering your explanation for the first example, the snow flake, was shown to be incorrect.

In chemistry if two molecules bond, its always exothermic and if they break apart its always endothermic. 0 exceptions to this rule which is pretty rare for chemistry.

Yep. That is well known.

What may appear to be an obvious exception to the rule could be nuclear fission.

I would not try to extend the rule for chemistry to nuclear physics.  For instance the fusion of elements into a product smaller than iron release energy but products larger than iron absorb energy.

[Origin]

Perhaps when two particles move closer together they "bleed out" their mass/energy/field. There is your new theory of what heat is, it's smaller bits of field that have no home.

That is not a theory that is a conjecture.  Heat is bits of fields floating around?  That makes no sense.

When things move closer it bleeds out the field, and when they move further away it sucks up more field.

That doesn't make any sense based on what we currently understand.  How could a particle "suck up a field", what does that even mean?

[thebrain13 (OP)]

Condensation as water condenses on you is exothermic.

Not necessarily.

Can you elaborate on that. Condensation is exothermic as far as I'm aware. Is there some special case it is not?