JohnSSM

Aha...good stuff...just did the reading at wiki about blackbody radiation, thermal radiation and Plank's law. I'm floored by what I still don't understand. Ill continue working it out but i do have one big question. IS this EM radiation enabled by the weak force? Or does the weak force dictate a different form of radiation? It seems the bottom line is that anything above absolute zero has kinetic energy which really just seems to equate to "atomic movements" ...Do these atomic movements create "interactions" and those interactions end up radiating subatomic particles due to the weak force? Isnt the weak force with it's W and Z bosons which dictate what gets radiated and why?

Its from the wiki on phonons..."A phonon is a quantum mechanical description of an elementary vibrational motion in which a lattice of atoms or molecules uniformly oscillates at a single frequency" Thanks for the added descriptive...its often in those bits where I find new info...and new questions. Can we consider that there is an electric heated cooking element in a vacuum and we turn up the current and the element begins to glow. But it begins to emit photons for what reason? We sent enough EM current through a material to a point where it "can no longer handle" it. What does that really mean? We added enough current so that the material is pushed to some limit where it begins to emit photons and glow. Or does it emit photons as soon as we pass current through it, and we must turn up the current to get enough to see as a glow? Watching a movie about Edison as a kid, I remember him trying to find a material that could take enough current to glow brightly, but also not burn apart in that process. Heat was killing his light element... So then we take that same electric heated cooking element in a vacuum and we turn up the current and it begins to emit heat, or a change in temperature...its already getting fuzzy for me...In a vacuum, without something to transfer the heat from that element to my hand, or another heat detecting element, how would any transfer of kinetic/heat/temperature energy occur if heat were not in it's own particle? And it makes me wonder about dissipation of heat in a vacuum. To me, heat seems to dissipate much faster than light or nuclear radiation. And the reason I didnt want to use the sun was so as not to confuse any heat energy being emitted from the fusion reactions in the sun. So i used the electric plate as the example instead. I have a few things to google in order to answer my own new questions, but any leads and info would be great. With two objects that are millions of miles apart, and if heat is only due to a temperature difference, how does one object "know" that the other object has less temperature? IT seems a silly thing to ask, but then, heat would be emitted without the need for a temperature difference.,..and those objects with less temperature "absorb" it...I suppose there would be no heat transferred between two objects of the exact same temperature, this is not to say that both objects are not emitting heat energy...If that isnt the case, then it seems that we are implying that the heating element becomes aware of my less-heated hand coming close to it, and then emits some heat energy to bring my hand to equilibrium ...isnt the heat being emitted either way? ie, With or without my hand near it...

I am embarrased to say that in all my reading I have never come across the term phonon. And through all those Feyman youtube lectures...maybe I mistook it for photon or maybe he never said it. Wow...thanks for the lead on that one. Convection and conduction both seem to need "physical" interactions through materials. I guess I dont understand how heat would travel through a vacuum, but if heat is just another form of light, thats not an issue, I come across the term "frequency" a lot when it comes to heat within a material. They describe the equilibrium of heat like it is the equilibrium of a frequency. What dictates the frequency within a material that would "tell" it where to find equilibrium? Im still reading, but made my way through the wiki article on phonons and had that question.

As a human, its easy to just think of light as the thing that allows us to see. So, Ive been trying to "see" light without this bias to be just another gauge boson. And suddenly, gluons and W/Z bosons seem to make good sense and light or photons are really confusing me. I guess Im confused about the quantum purpose of photons. The gluon interacts between particles and "guides" their QCD, W/Z bosons interact and guide QFD which allows for radiation, and isnt this radiation by QFD which spawns every photon in the first place? If light is the gauge boson for the EMF, why cant I charge a magnet with light? I know these questions sound crazy but that is because I have kinda lost my common understanding for what light really is. How does light, or how do photons interact and "guide" electromagnetism? When I first heard the term gauge boson, I figured that these bosons were used to measure, or at least, communicate information about their source to another source, where it then influences that source. Its easily understood for gluons and the WZ bosons, and if they found the graviton, it would make sense there too. But how is light interacting and guiding the EMF for which it is a gauge? I know that light can tell humans all sorts of things, but what does it say to quantum particles involved in the EMF?

Convection and conduction are easy enough to understand, but when it comes to radiation of heat, im wondering why there isnt a particle for heat in QFT. It seems that radiated heat is carried in infrared waves, which are light or at least, EMR. Light and heat are not the same thing (are they?), but it does seem they are both commonly radiated together. Does heat just become a factor of light like "brightness" or "color"? Was there ever a consideration to create a particle for heat or does the photon cover it? Ive done a good bit of research, but these questions have not been answered.

Gotcha...I thought electrons because of the association with EM...it wasnt a well thought statement... Do you all know a good reference page that shows all the fields and the particles that react with them? Do all the gauge bosons interact with all quarks and leptons? Do some only react with others?

But arent they "able to change" because a w or z boson escaped from an elementary particle because the force is weak? If the weak force were stronger, it would keep these W and Z bosons from being able to interact with another particle? This would ruin everything...SO the weak force is still a force, not just a method for emitting particles...even though thats what its main purpose begets...

Well...darn it..its gonna be hard for me to understand this stuff with all these overlooked catastrophes in modern physics... In the end though, Ill bet you that gluons and the strong force become very influential to gravity...shake on it? ten bucks!

But it says that ""the weak force is actually an attractive force that works at an extremely short range of about 0.1 percent of the diameter of a proton," IS that just how close you must be in order to interact through QFD? If it is an attractive force, as this article represents, what is it keeping together? Maybe their own wording was bad...

Yes...that did add some understanding, but its all still pretty fuzzy,,, They discuss how the weak force does "bind" things at very very small distances...But they dont mention what is being bound. "the weak force is actually an attractive force that works at an extremely short range of about 0.1 percent of the diameter of a proton," "By emitting an electrically charged W boson, the weak force changes the flavor of a quark, which causes a proton to change into a neutron, or vice versa. " So, the weak force is what allows the emission of a W boson from a quark? which then changes it's flavor, and then influences the hadron in which it resides? SO the weak force is binding the W boson in a quark? And the strong force is binding quarks and hadrons? Im just trying to nail it down... But the entire thing makes me rethink photons and light...Every source of light involves a quantum reaction of electrons? Its a quantum particle that we are able to see and it's simple purpose is transferring it's quantum info between quantum EM particles? Seeing light is no small thing...its amazing

EM and EMF seem so easy to understand. Gravity and relativity are graspable with enough study. Im in the middle of understanding the strong force and the gluon field. But the weak force is a total mystery to me. Is there a boson field? It seems there may be more than one. But what is the weak force? The strong force is binding energy that keeps quarks and such in their QCD dance. But truly, what is the weak force? Is it the rules that dictate elementary particle interactions, which result in radiation and such? What does it come down to? How can a layman understand it? Ive often thought that maybe the weak force was simply a type of binding energy that wasnt as strong as the strong force. And if it is, what is it binding? All I really know is that we enter the world where elementary particles start interacting and exchanging energy and mass and emitting other elementary particles...IS this the weak force? What is the force? Any type of explanations of references are appreciated.

As I read about the gluon field, it seems to be the only field that is quite active, even in a vacuum state, which I assume is simply "empty". I find it pretty interesting that the field that creates binding energy for many of the elementary particles is there even when the particles are not...but, as you add matter, compression or heat, the gluon field becomes more active...It must...It has all those newly introduced particles to keep bound together. But if the field isn't taking the energy to become more active, from the particles that exist within it, then where does the energy come from? It has to come from somewhere as energy is not created. This is to say, there is not EMF without EM...there is no gravity without mass/matter...Those fields seem to be driven by the energies of "magnets" and "masses". But the gluon field's energy levels seem to increase with demand. Is this any different than gravity increasing when we add more mass? Or the EMF field increasing in intensity as we add more charge? Its really all those animations on the above referenced page that got me thinking about it. The field seems to be in a constant state of change. If you are examining one very small sample chunk of space, and you could "image" the gluon field energy in real time, as those animations represent it, you would see a certain level of activity when no mass was within your sample. But as a truck drives through your sample, the gluon field would increase with activity as the truck passed through it. And when the truck left the sample space empty again, you would see the vacuum level of energy activity again. IS this simply the perturbations of the gluon filed increasing as particles pass through it? It seems to represent a higher energy level. So I think, Where does that energy come from? Looking at those animations may help you understand where Im coming from. As for virtual particles, aren't they referring to an energized field with no perturbations? DO they basically create virtual particles to account for vacuum energies? Once again, Im not at your level of discussion of the topic... "Also be aware that there is a discrepancy of over 100 orders of magnitude between the measured upper bound on the vacuum energy and the theoretical calculations based of QFT." When you say "the vacuum energy" what are you referring to? Is there anything that contributes to vacuum energy in empty space other than the gluon field? And you're also saying that QFT does not solve the vacuum energy question at all. There must be speculation about this discrepancy and the cosmological constant being linked. Yes?

Another quick observation/question. The gluon fields seems to be true vacuum energy...Where might that energy come from while in a vacuum? The literal source of that energy is? As matter enters the field, it increases in activity and energy...where does the energy come from to increase that activity? Can you honestly say that the gluon field is not related to gravity? IF the forces are ever unified, wont this be the reality of the situation? Every field and force would be connected....we just aren't there yet...but isn't that where we want to get?

I just cant escape the obvious thoughts of the gluon field and gravity... Can I ask if you know if the electromagnetic energy of objects adds to their mass? I know that' seems an off topic and wacky question, but if the energy of the strong force can add to mass, why couldn't other energies, like EM, also create the same effect?

NIce...thanks for the confirmation... But... IF quarks are given mass by higgs, and the mass of the quarks is only 3 percent of a proton, why isn't the gluon field considered much more influential in gravity, when gravity seems to be popularly dictated by the higgs boson... When we found the higgs "god particle" we were only finding what causes 3 percent of mass and gravitational influence? Doesn't binding energy seem more godly in this respect?

I mostly wanted to verify this statement, made on this page... http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/theory/staff/leinweber/VisualQCD/QCDvacuum/welcome.html "the masses of the quarks illustrated in this diagram account for only 3% of the proton mass. The gluon field is responsible for the remaining 97% of the proton's mass and is the origin of mass in most everything around us". Is this at odds with the Higgs theory of mass?

But you all refuse to concede to the very effects of relativity...You do not see the universe as I do...and that is simply an effect of relativity...and you all cant admit it! “something to do with the understanding that comes with my beliefs and the lack of understanding that comes with yours” No...that statement is why atheists get angry and call people names and theists often avoid it....but turn it around all you want Since you haven't addressed one point that I have made why we DO get to have our own facts and that fact is undeniable, You're just stating your opinion without proof...which is something atheists are really against...I have identified a few examples of how people do have their own facts and you simply ignore them... It wasnt meaningless drivel...it could be to you, but to me, it meant a lot...some folks can see one asteroid as deadly and horrible and others see it as harmless...and they are both correct... Relativity doesnt have anything to do with clock speeds while travelling or in a gravitational field? of course it does... Im saying that without einstien, maxwell and lorenz, you would have no idea about how gravity actually works...Could you have come up with it on your own? I sincerely doubt it...and if you havent done ALL the math yourself, to prove all these things to yourself, then you are just another religious believer...you dont have proof, you just believe people who say they do...so your belief in relativity is just as unfounded as someone else's belief in Jesus as lord...If you have personally done all the math and logic to figure out relativity and QM, then you do have personal proof...if you havent, then you dont...You have original thoughts perhaps...but that doesnt mean you could have taken the place of Newton...

No...you have offered the insults...the atheists always do...proof of their anger with faith or belief, possibly because it failed them...but i don't have any such feelings anymore...something to do with the understanding that comes with my beliefs and the lack of understanding that comes with yours...the understanding of people... Relativity does mean facts are different for different people...which was my original point... The guy in the elevator who's feeling the effects of acceleration does not know whether the elevator is falling do to gravity or from motors pushing the elevator down...who has that proof? He does not have any All I have to do is put people on either side of a 3 dimensional sculpture of an S...i ask them both to draw what they see...one comes up with an S and the other comes up with a backwards S...who got it wrong? neither... We established that not everyone can learn every bit of science due to personal limits on the ability to comprehend and we also established that MOST physicists would know nothing about general relativity without the teachings of someone else....sounds like a faith to me...

I was truly just coming to comment about this very notion...You are very right in your perspective about relativity and GR...that GR is a tool for creating the absolute frame of reference...but isnt it true that no realtively defined point could actually experience that reality other than just know it through the equations of GR? So the experiments and things we observe from our local views do not always match the results of GR, do they? It is the tool for letting us know that our observations arent truly correct and we must observer them though the framework of GR to truly know what is happening... If two people in rocket ships had no idea about the effects of GR and they were watching each others clock on monitors as one went really fast or through a high energy gravity field...wouldnt each observer see that the other's time does not seem to be running correctly and think someone was "wrong" in the other spaceship? Ill get a smackdown for this for sure... So one guy comes in and says...that effect is what god had to do to each of our points of reference so that we and they could make their own sense of what was happening from the whole... So one guy goes..."God didnt make that happen, it just happened..." and the other..."why dont you just look at your own clock?"

We do get to have our own facts...thats what relativity is all about... You are on a planet far away and an asteroid is about to smash into your planet...by definition, the asteroid is harmful to your existence and not at all harmful to mine...is the trajectory of the asteroid harmful? To you it is, to me it isnt and we are both correct... Relativity makes clocks run at different speeds, it changes the colors we see, it changes the factors of the forces that each of us experience...i dont think thats drivel or word salad... Also moontanman....Can you go ahead and put the theory or GR together without the help of einstein, maxwell and others? Id love to see your original thoughts before you learned their bibles... Do you know how many people experiences gravity everyday and never thought about it? Who really did before Newton? Would you have been like newton? Without their info you would be a caveman... What would you expect me to say when I believe all the forces are a factor of god?

What is the perfectly rational explanation of why anything has a "charge" at all...what do positive charge and negative charge actually denote? could any universe without charge exist? IF so, why does charge exist in this one? Why does a universe need to have all the same fields and particles and forces as this one? Why is a question that physics asks all the time... To me, it seems like you're taking the traits of this universe and seeing them as fundamental needs of other universe models...you seem to normalize this universe as the only possible universe...or the only possible outcome for any universe...as if it couldn't exist any differently...I dont have proof that it could exist any differently, but if it could, would it's fields and particles and forces need to absolutely mirror the ones in this universe? IF not, is randomness the only possible force at play? Ill just ask a direct question about our universe...why does it take three quarks to create a hadron? Could it be 5 or 7 in some other universal formation? OR does it basically come down to being 3 because we need a minimum of 3 to explain the probabilities of quark behaviors?...Its not a smart ass question and I hope its not a stupid question...maybe i still dont see many of the reasons for which things have the traits and behaviors that they do... I imagine a universe before it had any rules...its just unrestrained and undefined energy...there is no charge or spin or mass because there are no fields and no particles...just energy with no other definitions...now turn on the rules...and the energy takes on traits and characteristics of this universe because fields are formed and perturbations occur and here we go...and then does anything happen from chance? it seems to me, once we have those fields and particles that it all behaves as the forces of that field dictate... Im definitely still sorting through this perspective...and info insights and info are appreciated...but hearing that these is no reason to pursue these answers doesnt seem legitimate... And proof is not what it appears to be...when one witness in a trial offers their bit of proof, it often is not enough to prove the entire case...that doesn't make what they are offering untrue or made up...and if everybody could have been at their place in time and place to have witnessed what they have witnessed, they wouldnt need to rely on the oath of one person, but they have to...it is not easy to find truths without math...but how can you use math to solve the question of who is responsible for killing someone? or who is responsible for creating the universe...if there is a natural theory that holds more credibility than mine, I am down to hear it.. Im not sure that I could...are you saying that everyone could be made to understand the math behind GR and QM? NO one would fail? Im not disputing that it isnt real...im disputing that they are truths that i may never understand the reasons behind... Yes...if you look to my last example, when we search for truths and cannot use math to uncover them, we do end up having to trust other people...and it often does not work out...there is still a truth for which they are searching...even without a totally provable answer... Who is the zodiac killer? no one has proof...but the zodiac killer is a person who did exist...there is an absolute truth there...with no proof... I suppose all that Im saying, under the umbrella that I do not have proof to offer the masses, is that because our universe exists, and because it has doctrines that do not seem to be natural to the idea of energy or information, but seem to be guides for how they behave, which is to define them, seems to indicate that they were defined...what power is making those definitions adhere with totality? I detect a god consciousness there...i cannot claim to know anything about it other than definitions cannot exist without a power to define...if the definitions exist, then the power behind them exists...I call that power god, because there is nothing of greater influence over the universe and how that energy has interacted, communicated and evolved...I do suppose it could just be another influence which i cannot see and dont understand and in that, is no different than fire... But in my perspective, those cavemen were right...god is responsible for fire...

No...I dont have to get used to being made fun of since you are in a group who represents the minority of belief....you should become used to being made fun of. I think you are in denial and so do the other believers...so make fun all you want...it makes you look foolish, not me. You dont have to explain why humans have a consciousness, all you have to do is admit that you cannot see feel and experience everything that I can see feel and experience...and since you cannot do that, you cannot disprove my proof...I do not have to prove god's existence to you and I cannot...How could i possible make you see anything different than what you see? IF you do not consider how human's have a consciousness then I cant make you consider it...maybe my point is that computers have a consciousness too...do you have any proof against that? ha Entanglement seems to solve the speed of light issue...although we may not be able to use entanglement to communicate, that doesnt mean entanglement cannot have another universal use... Am i making up the notion that all the energy out there is actually just information? I dont think so. Ive heard the reference of "information" too many times...so, if we defined the universe as information and matter and we defined the fields as realms where certain information is communicated, its seems not a huge leap to claim that all that information and methods of communicating are forms of a consciousness...we have information, we have communication, we have concrete evidence of the results as atoms, molecules and matter and life...but i dont have any proof of a consciousness...there are elements which make a consciousness possible...and probable, depending on the perspective...I dont think I made anything up in these statements...its just a different view of what is out there...but proof, i do not have...do i need proof just to look at proven facts in a new perspective? Its funny...cuz i didnt want it to be this way...I was an atheist from age 8...i never believed...and it was studying physics that brought on these new beliefs and perspectives for me...my mouth never dropped open in sunday school class from hearing the truth...but when i finally made big realizations about GR and QM, i was in awe...more than awe, it was the presence of truth...I think everything we discover through science is a discovery of god... Maybe the power of these realizations has played the "god trick" on me...it is my own humanity which has finally found the purest beauty of truth, and its so important to me, that I give it the godly power i claim it possesses...that could be whats happening...but im careful not to change anything about those truths... Relativity is my most favorite of the truths...that each of us resides in a world that is truly different than all others...and all those relative realities exist at the same time and none of them are "wrong"...they are simply relative...being in that relative space means that we do not know the other forces which may be influencing us... When i really get down to having discussions with atheists, they do often reveal personal reasons for not wanting to believe in god, often times, with a large amount of contempt for any possible god..."How could a god let this happen?"..."what kind of god would do that?"..."If I ever meet god I want to punch him in the throat and ask him why the hell my sister died after having her baby!" When i run into atheists who feel that way, i think to myself, something has injured their ability to WANT to see and find god...and that was very true of my 8 year old self... Since i first confronted feelings that there may be a god, ive just become mildly happier and that mild happiness is growing...so we can equate god with taking anti-depressants...ha "If god asked me to sacrifice my son, or any creature, I’d refuse whatever he threatened because I despise bullies. If god asked me to worship him I’d again refuse because I prize humility above arrogance. If god asked me to be humble, do no harm, be charitable to anyone in need and judge nobody I wouldn’t refuse but that’s how I try to live now." Why would god ask anything of you? It seems you're using stories from man made texts in order to understand who or what god might be...my god would never ask anything of anything...I already believe that everything in the universe is god as a whole...that means you and me....so its strange to think of god asking anything from a part of god...we are allready god's will, whatever that is...but in my perspective, what else could we be? But you have to be able to scrub you brain free of all the man made crap...its no longer anything to consider...we know that god did not punish job in a disagreement with satan...we know there is no satan....those are definitely man made stories and beliefs... Let's be honest about GR and QM though...I put faith in those things being true or proven...I have not done the math which proves them to be real...I do not understand the math which proves them to be real...I just understand the stories...my belief and faith in GR and QM is really no different than a Muslim's belief in muhammed...

The writtings of Ayn Rand inspired 2 big movements...conservatism and satanism...hmmmm

I didnt make up anything in reference to this god...can you quote things that I made up? Yes...It was my new beliefs in god's existence that changed...nothing else has changed besides my own experience...Im not expecting this experience to change anyone else's experience... The way I see it now, both atheists and theists can have proof of their beliefs simultaneously and both can be correct...Its as simple as saying "that asteroid is headed towards me and the same asteroid is heading away from you"...

Yes...using the term magical sky fairy is "making fun"... So you cannot see from my frame of reference, right? Of course my proof would not be proof to you...But you should have a theory of human consciousness and how it exists and you may not be able to find any proof of that answer...it still begs the question, if there is no magic inside us from a sky fairy, then our consciousness is simply a factor of energy, communication and storage...and there is no reason to believe that other systems of energy, communication and storage wouldn't have a consciousness...and it wouldnt be strange or unfounded to believe the universe had a consciousness...it would be strange and unfounded to consider it didnt have a consciousness, to me... I dont think I have made anything up in reference to this God...