so many questions, so few answers.gg's

[xxsolarplexx]

recently, for some odd reason i have been feeling a urge to understand how the universe works....and it seems that google can only get you so far before you hit a dead end.

 

i have some simple and strait forward questions but i have not found much information about the subjects online. (maybe its because i do not know how to phrase my questions properly or something)

 

1- what exactly causes planets to orbit a large object like the sun? i have read that a object's gravity bends the space-time around it, how ever, that alone doesnt explain where the initial force that sets the planet in motion comes from. its not possible for bent space by itself to cause a planet to move unless there is another force pulling or pushing it.

 

2-i have read that our entire galaxy is traveling through space at high speeds, if this was true, then i think it may explain how a planet got its initial force that started its motion. the only problem i have with this is, if we are actually shooting through space right now, then we would notice it once we enter space and apply thrust in the opposite direction that we are traveling.

 

its tricky for me to explain this properly, so lets imagine that you build a spacecraft and rocket off into space, physics say that you will still be traveling through space at the speed of the planet you came from. just like jumping out a car while its moving, when you jump out, you actually start out moving at the same speed of the moving car, now, apply this to a spacecraft jumping into space from earth, you should still be traveling through space, you just dont notice it because everything else is moving along with you... so doesnt this mean that if you apply a thrust in the opposite direction then it would seem that you travel faster away from earth when you move in opposite direction, and that you seem to move slower when you thrust towards the direction the earth is moving. the only thing i can think of that explains why we dont notice the different in speed is due to the sheer velocity at which the earth is traveling, i think maybe the earth is moving so fast, that the speed you gain from the trust is so small when compared to the initial speed you begin at , that the difference in speed is not very noticeable.

 

3-is there charged particles in the air all around us? if this is true, then why cant we simply find a way to attract these particles together so that we can use them to generate electricity?

 

4- is there a natural way to speed up a particles motion through space so that we can use that energy it gained in someway to generate electricity?

 

5-can we cheat to get free energy? for instance, pretend you have a box fan, then you funnel the air through cone, which in turn increases the speed the air is moving.....cant we just simply use that extra speed to rotate another fan blade that is attached a electricity genorator and end up getting more energy out of it then what was used to power the first fan?

 

6-is there anyway we can add or remove the protons and other particles of an atom? i read that the only thing that makes a substance different from others is the amount of particles a nucleus has orbiting it. if so, then why cant we simply change one substance into another? for instance, lead into gold, if you manage to somehow add a few more protons to it, then it should turn to gold. so isnt there a way to to make a nucleus attract the protons it needs to be turned into gold? or maybe even force protons to merge with the atom. would electromagnetic wave frequencies be able to effect the behavior of a atom or its particles?

 

can we stop the motion of a atoms particles in order to add or remove particles?

 

7- what is this force that binds a nucleus and its particles together? what is the force that prevents other particles from merging together? is there anything we can do to neutralize a atoms charge in order to allow other particles to be added?

 

8-why are we having problems using fusion to generate more energy then what was put in? is it because of the heat required to excite a atoms energy to a point that it has enough energy to overcome the force that pushes other atoms/particles away from each other?

if having a material that can withstand the high temperature is the problem, then why not just make the fusion machine bigger? from my understand, heat will dissipate over distance....so why not just have a larger machine that can hold the plasma far enough away from the machines walls so that it would be able to withstand the heat?

 

sounds like all we need to do is make a more powerful magnetic field that can hold a plasma from a further distance...

 

9- does every atom vibrate? if atoms are constantly vibrating, then is there not some type of force or pressure wave that emits from the atom? can we not use these vibrations to generate electricity?

 

10-can we change the resonance frequencies of atoms? i read that everything has a unique resonance frequency, and that the particles of a atom or object are what determines the resonance frequency of the object. is the resonance frequency emitted caused by a atoms vibration?

 

is it possible to use frequencies to interact with atoms in any way? or maybe we can directly manipulate a atoms frequency in such a way that it causes the atom itself to change? for instance, imagine you were some how able to change the vibration frequency of a atom, would this cause the atom to change in anyway? maybe force the atom to shed or accept some of the particles that are orbiting it?

[Klaynos]

1. This has to do with how the dust cloud that formed the solar system and planets collapsed. During that collapse you tend to end up with a star with a spinning sphere (then disk) around it. That disk then forms the planets. They already have significant speed relative to the star but gravity turns that speed from just going straight into space but into orbits

 

2.velocity is relative. In the rest frame of the centre of mass (com) of the milky way it is stationary. In the rest frame of the com of Andromeda we are speeding towards it.

 

3. Depends what you mean. The molecules and atoms that make up most of the air and materials around you are electrically neutral. Some of their constituents are charged but as a whole it's neutral we don't notice.

 

4. Not really. Gravity is the obvious one but you expend more energy moving your rock up high than you get back.

 

5. No. You get out less than you put in.

 

6. Yes but it requires a lot of energy. The simplest way is to use a particle accelerator and whack two nucleuses together.

 

7. Strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force are responsible for everything inside a nucleus and nucleons. See question 6.

 

8. It is not trivial to get nucleuses close enough together to fuse. That takes loads of energy. You need to do that efficiently enough that the energy you get out and can capture is more.

 

9. Vibrate is not the right word for atoms. If you have atoms in high energy states then you can use the energy they give off in some way when they go to a lower energy state. This is how lasers work. You need to put energy in to get the atoms into that high energy state. That takes more energy than you get out.

 

10. To a certain extent with things like magnetic fields. There are devices called pokel cells that use this physics. It doesn't really change the atom in they way you're hopeing.

[Raider5678]

Most helpful reply of the year above.

 

Everybody +1 that.

[Sensei]

6-is there anyway we can add or remove the protons and other particles of an atom? i read that the only thing that makes a substance different from others is the amount of particles a nucleus has orbiting it. if so, then why cant we simply change one substance into another?

Yes, we can change one element to other element.

Usually it's done by bombarding it by free neutrons (which have to be created first).

Free neutron has no charge, therefor there is no Coulomb barrier to fight against.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb_barrier

 

Nuclear reactors are creating free neutrons that can be used in transformation.

 

But the main problem is scale.

 

If you have 1 gram of Gold, it has 1 g / 197 g/mol = 0.005 mol

1 mol is 6.022141*10^23 atoms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro_constant

Therefor 0.005 mol is 3.06*10^21 Gold atoms..

 

It's billion multiplied by billion multiplied by 3060.

 

If you would make billion transformations of one element to other element per second, you would have to wait approximately 100 thousand years to get 1 gram of Gold..

 

for instance, lead into gold, if you manage to somehow add a few more protons to it, then it should turn to gold. so isnt there a way to to make a nucleus attract the protons it needs to be turned into gold?

Lead has more protons than Gold.

Lead has 82 protons,

Gold has 79 protons.

After capturing proton it would transform to Bismuth, not to Gold.

 

or maybe even force protons to merge with the atom.

It's professionally called proton capture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-process

 

Equivalent for neutrons, neutron capture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_capture

 

would electromagnetic wave frequencies be able to effect the behavior of a atom or its particles?

Gamma photon with very high energy can destroy atom.

It's called photodisintegration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodisintegration

 

Lower energy x-ray and UV photon can ionize atom (electron is ejected from it).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation

 

Even lower energy photon can make photoelectric effect in some metals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect

Edited May 21, 2017 by Sensei

[xxsolarplexx]

thanks peeps, cleared up a bunch of stuff for me