J.C.MacSwell

In my P-Chem class we went over how there is a finite probability that a solid object can pass right through another solid object. So there is a chance that I can run full speed right into a wall and pass right through it. However, that probability is something like 1 in 1x10^(Some insanely large number). For all effects and purposes, it's zero. But mathematically it isn't completely zero.

That's correct. One of the infinite monkeys just wrote a paper on that!

If it's a free proton' date=' yes. But since it's three orders of magnitude more massive than an electron, you won't get the same spectrum out of it for the same force.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by knowing whether to be attracted or repelled.[/quote']

 

I realize that but you would get the same spectrum for the same "route"?

 

Any measureable differences in the resulting photons? (polarization?)

 

As for attraction/repulsion what mediates the electrostatic force? If it is photons how are they "sent" without accelerations of an electron or free proton? So how would an electron (say) know to be repelled or attracted?

Tthe protons don't really play a direct role - they are effectively screened by the electrons, as you say. Any force that are exerted on the electrons get transferred to the protons by the electrostatic force. The whole atom/molecule is affected.

Not sure how this is related but if you "shake" a proton it should send EM similarly to "shaking" an electron. In what way will that "signal" be different? How will an electron know to be attracted and not repelled.

I picture it as a spin "combination" but I have no real idea of the "current" (no pun intended) view.

I think I'm somewhat mixing up EM with "pure" E or M signals, but my "picture" is fuzzy.

No, my Physics book said that gravity is like[/b'] a magnetic field. That's all it said. Then it went on to talk about some mathematical formulas. It never said what creates gravity, or what creates any other forces.

Ahh! As in inverse distance squared.

Quantum field theory has some answers, and like you said... more questions.

Oops, I meant to say magnetic field, not electromagnetic field.

Gravitational field?

Ok, what causes the electromagnetic fields and the gravity? Everyone is talking about forces and everything, yet nobody seems to know exactly what causes them. For example, science books say that gravity is an electromagnetic field,[/b'] however, they never explain what creates it. They just say it is there. Talking about the properties of electrons and other subatomic particles never really answers the question. How can we explain the properties of the universe to understand the properties of matter? Is it something that we as humans just can't understand from a scientific point of view? If you really think about it, can science do anything except create more questions? I can't think of a scientific law that doesn't create more questions that can't be explained.

Science books don't say that! I know my post raises that as a question but it's not even a half baked idea. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I try to make it clear when I'm off the beaten path. In fact I suspect it has been ruled out (given certain assumptions), but I've never seen it before.

As to the rest of your post no one really knows in non-mathematical terms. I find it interesting how people "picture" subatomic levels.

Depends on how you look at it - you could take the center of mass line, and distribute the plantes on either side. But remember, the orbits go all the way around, so you have to project those lines through the origin. What you've done is rotate the whole thing a few degrees - it's still a bowtie shape, and the angle between extrema doesn't change.

Thank-you. You caught me thinking a little too "2-D".

At that level it's the electrostatic force of the orbital electrons.

What about the protons. Obviously they add momentum. Are they sufficiently shielded by their electrons to not play a part in the interaction (more directly than cancelling out part of their electrons fields while transmitting their momentum also through interactions with their electrons)? I'm thinking in the case of elastic collisions.

What causes two objects to collide? How come when two objects collide, they apply a force on each other, and either stop or move in opposite directions? Why don't they just go through each other and keep moving? When programming a video game, nothing happens on its own. If you make two objects move, they won't collide unless you write a collision code and put it in the game. Without a collision code, the two objects would go through each other without causing any interference with the movement of the other object. What creates the collision code of the real world?

I would say that the electromagnetic fields of their particles that are sufficiently "in or out of phase" interact after coming "in range".

Good question and would find it interesting how others picture this.

Two thoughts come to mind:

1. Wave interference in a pond where the waves essentially "go through each other and keep moving". I think this is virtually elastic "collisions" of the water molecules (though they are already "in range" prior to the wave). The wave continues but the molecules return to their original positions except for minor (mostly surface) effects.

2. Gravity: Any possibility (probably not but why not?) that outside of my "in range" there is a small residual (not quite cancelled out) electromagnetic effect that could be the gravitational field? Any thoughts?

Closer than what? It would still be inclined the same with respect to the earth. The relative inclines would be the same no matter which baseline was used.

Closer as in :

Venus does not look to be much further off the "main" plane of the planets (which I am assuming would be close to Jupiter's plane of orbit) than Earth does, just that it's on the "other side". But it looks like they used Earth's plane of orbit as the baseline. so Venus looks further "off" (which I'm guessing brought about the post/remark about Venus.

This made me wonder what plane of rotation the sun itself had.

Another thought is: "how about the asteroid belt"?

'']Huh, I didn't know Venus was so far off, I thought it was pretty stable. But then it does have a retrograde rotation, so thats pretty wierd, I guess that kinda shows that its orbit isn't all that it should be.

It looks like Earth is used as the baseline. If Jupiter was used Venus would be closer than what is shown.

Question: How does the Sun's rotation line up?

Didn't I answer that tomorrow?

.

That's not what you said next week!

Perhaps if we knew what time fundamentally was' date=' we would know whether you can have a time warp.

 

As a small point, [b']if we live in "Space-Time", then wouldn't the deformation of space also deform time?[/b] I don't see how one could be effected, but not the other. If this is the case then "time" near a large mass would be different from "time" in intergalactic space.

 

If that were true, then it would show that "time" could indeed be changed. That being shown, perhaps there would be conditions where a "time warp" would be possible?

 

I'm not advocating the idea, just following the thought.

Don't you do this (immeasurably) every time you move (accelerate, decelerate, change direction)?

Sound doesn't have mass >_> It is a wave, so it can in theory go past light speed without screwing up anything

Does a "pendulum oscillation" have mass? (no?).

Could a pendulum swing at lightspeed in a strong enough gravitational field?

(no again?)

Yes' date=' but Bosons (as oppose to ferimons >_>) alone have the ability to violate certain classical newtonian physical laws such as occuping the same space at the same time with another boson. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Helium-4 only behave like a boson when chilled to almost absolute zero?

As regarding the medium for the sound wave to travel, I suggested the hydrogen under extreme heat and pressure. If the hyrdogen is hot enough, it should technically be able to transport sound waves faster than the light speed barrier >_>[/quote']

 

At high enough pressures sound can break the speed of light "according to Newtonian formulas" (which would not be valid in the same way F= ma does not hold at relativistic speeds).

 

Is this what you are getting at?

All I'm trying to ask is' date=' "What is Mass?".

 

As mass increases relative to velocity, due to kinetic energy increases, could it be that "rest mass" is [b']just a product of molecular kinetic energy[/b].

Not "just" but in part, the way I perceive it (which is probably wrong).

To be more precise (read wrong again) I see it as the rest mass of the object but not of the molecule.

Name the fixed point. Then explain why that's not arbitrarily defined' date=' and why it matters.

 

Timekeeping is generally done in the ECI, or earth-centered inertial frame, since that is most convenient for us. The rotation of the earth does not cause deviations, since the time dilation contribution from the motion is cancelled by the change in gravitational redshift that depends on the oblateness.[/quote']

 

Doesn't this mean that you "age" the same at the Poles as the equator?

 

Wouldn't you "age" faster at the center of the earth?

 

EDIT: Or assuming constant density of the Earth everything inside or on the surface would "age equally and someone at the top of (say) Everest, above this surface, would "age" faster?

What you heard was wrong. The Coriolis force is so small on the scale of a sink or basin that it cannot be responsible for forming any vortex. The reason water goes clockwise or anti-clockwise is due to the shape of the basin and any residual motion of the water; for containers with forced water, the rotation will be in the direction that the water is forced.

Won't it rotate counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere all other things being equal? I live at 45 degrees latitude. I think the force is stronger here than, say, 5 degrees latitude. But is it also stronger here than at the North Pole?

My "completely still" 2 foot diameter basin of water would have more "potential" (insert correct terminology here for the differences in the velocity squareds) across my north/south 2 feet (relative to a polar axis rest frame) than in the other 2 cases.

In simpler terms, you would fall all the way to the center, then your momentum would carry you further until the the gravity wears away your momentum,[/b'] then you start going back to the center. This would be repeated until all you lost all your momentum, then you would stay at the center. Assuming the heat doesn't kill you.

Neglecting friction does gravity "wear away Your momentum"? (I think it does in some theories but not in others).

Isn't it just intensity?

If you dig a hole in the earth and jump there, the gravity pulls you down right? This is a hypothetic situation and I know it cant be duplicated but lets assume for a moment that you can dig a hole deep enough to go through the whole earth. You jump in that huge hole and the gravity will continue pulling you until you get to the center of the earth or what? Will you be suspended in the center or just continue falling until you get to the other side and then start falling again or what?

If the hole is between the poles and you neglect friction you will accelerate to the center starting at 0 velocity and maximum acceleration until you reach the center at maximum velocity and 0 acceleration. You would then reverse the process (acceleration wise) as you continue to the other pole and come to a stop (for an instant) before heading back.

Other "direct routes" would include a corriolis (sp?) like "force" (pseudo force)which will deflect you against the sides of the hole.

How would it affect Special Relativity if the speed of light was not a constant.

What if everything in the universe had a maximum relative velocity of C. This is because as an objects velocity increases' date=' so does its kinetic energy(which has mass), so does its total mass. This extra mass is relative to the observers velocity, so this explains the limit of relative velocity.

 

Light also is limited to C by the same rules.

 

But it would always appear the same to all observers because it is very close to C and when you do the reletivistic velocity additions it would appear the same.

 

Depending how close to C lightspeed is depends how many decimal places we have to measure light to. It could be that light travels at exactly this limiting velocity so we could never measure it any differently.[/quote']

 

Would your photon have have a very small rest mass and would it be possible in theory (the proposed theory) to catch up to it? Would there be a preferred rest frame?

Rat-tat! May I come in?

I sit in the room next-door “Quantum numbers – from sky to brain“ alone' date=' and I think of the same problems.

J.C.MacSwell wrote (02.02.2005 page ):

“If a photon is absorbed by an atom bumping up an electron isn't that an increase of matter (and therefore creation/transformation of energy into matter).”

In my opinion, he is right. But I would like to introduce some clarity.

For example, if to throw a ball onto a wall, from the wall the same ball will jump aside.

But if the photon will fall to a reflecting surface, it never will jump aside this surface.

At first this photon will be swallowed up by substance, then in substance there will be some transformations of the absorbed energy and only then from substance will fly out, so-called, «the reflected photon». Actually it is absolutely other photon. First, because the rotation of polarization in it will be opposite.

I want to pay your attention to the fact of 180-degree turn of rotation of polarization. As photons have no rest mass, they cannot act on substance the same as flying particles-balls. But in fact, the tails of comets deviate under action of solar light. So, it is necessary to search for replacement for rest mass in any other observable physical phenomenon, for example, in turning of an axis of rotation of energy.

One more incontestable fact of that rotating energy shows the properties similar to inert mass, shows behaviour of an axis of a gyroscope at attempt to change its direction.[/quote']

 

 

Picture a model of a spinning spring sent toward the wall. As it hits it digs in in a balanced way (say at two points about the central axis of spin) so that the spin cannot create a translational force vector other than to reverse its spin direction while imparting an equal and opposite spin to the wall at that point (locally). There will then remain the translational momentum/energy which will reflect in the usual way.

 

Just an analogy of course.

'']Also, if it was shot out below the water's surface the water would provide thrust directly forward. If it was shooting out of the water some of the thrust would be directed downwards.

Good point. As a minimum you would lose the "head" height of the jet trajectory (or exit) above the waterline. This would also add to the displacement (effective weight) of the craft unless the jet was redirected downward which would of course lose even more forward thrust.

its a particle, a physical thing, but it isnt matter? O.o

I think that's right.

In another thread I claimed a photon absorbed by an atom added/created matter to the atom but was convinced that strictly speaking (particle physics definition) that was incorrect. That portion of the energy did not represent matter even though you have a mass increase.