Edtharan Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 A vacuum is an area without any matter. So an area that has all the air removed could be called a vacuum. Also, when you are looking are the spaces between atom and inside atoms then these areas don't have matter in them (they are between then particles that are matter), would also be a vacuum. When you take Hisenberg's Uncertanty Principle into accout then empty space (the vacuum) seeths with fluctuations in energy.
GrandMasterK Posted November 28, 2005 Author Posted November 28, 2005 If light was faster or slower would it make a difference? Are all things distant and velocity relative to light? So if light was slower the unvierse would be smaller and things would be closer together, and if it was slower you'd be slower to so it wouldn't help you out at all?
mrblond5311 Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 If there is no better medium for photons to travel through than a vacuum than is there anyway we can make the vacuum stronger & possibly increase c ? And I'm stilled confused by gravity, isn't it's strength determined by the mass of the object creating it? And does anyone know any thing about the "god" particle they are trying to detect with the new particle accelerator they're building? It's supposed to be the particle that keeps everything moving.....I think?
Edtharan Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 The 'God" particle that they are trying to detect is the Higgs Boson. This oparticle is believed to be responible for the Mass of objects.
mrblond5311 Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 The 'God" particle that they are trying to detect is the Higgs Boson. This oparticle is believed to be responible for the Mass of objects. Sweet, thanks for the help!Now,if there is no better medium for photons to travel through than a vacuum than is there anyway we can make the vacuum stronger & possibly increase c ? Or is this a stupid question? Very possible!
TimbaLanD Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 Sweet, thanks for the help!Now,if there is no better medium for photons to travel through than a vacuum than is there anyway we can make the vacuum stronger & possibly increase c ? Or is this a stupid question? Very possible! How can you make nothing even more nothinger? If you see what I mean! A vacuum is a space with no matter in it. Think of a large room with all the air sucked out. The space in the room is now a vacuum. The room has nothing in it, which means you can’t take anything out of to make it any more vacuumer!!! Light travels at C in a vacuum because there is nothing to slow it down and that’s the best you can get. So the answer is NO, you cant make a vacuum stronger
swansont Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 So the answer is NO, you cant make a vacuum stronger That is not strictly true. In cavity QED you can suppress some of the photon modes (this is responsible for the Casimir force) so you exclude some of the so-called "quantum foam" of the vacuum.
TimbaLanD Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 That is not strictly true. In cavity QED you can suppress some of the photon modes (this is responsible for the Casimir force) so you exclude some of the so-called "quantum foam" of the vacuum. I knew it!!! How can you possible take anything out from nothing? Isn’t that what vacuum is (nothing) BUT I did not understand any of the jargon either so I guess I have a long way to go before I start understanding QED and photon modes! That’s if I ever will understand it!
swansont Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 I knew it!!! How can you possible take anything out from nothing? Isn’t that what vacuum is (nothing) BUT I did not understand any of the jargon either so I guess I have a long way to go before I start understanding QED and photon modes! That’s if I ever will understand it! In case you start understanding' date=' here's the next step, which will surely confuse you more In a vacuum, i.e. devoid of matter, you will still have quantum fluctuations where you get particle/antiparticle pairs popping into existence and then annihilating, all within a time frame allowed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (basically you can violate conservation of energy as long as you do it quickly enough that the referee, i.e. mother nature, doesn't see it) something like [math']\Delta E \Delta t < \hbar [/math] Viewed another way, when you solve the QM equations for a "particle in a box" you get [math]E = (n + 1/2) \hbar \omega [/math], so even if there are no photons of a given frequency, the equations say there is still energy there. Since there are an infinite number of frequencies available (modes), you essentially have an infinity - this is the infamous "zero-point" energy that some perpetual motion cranks purport to exploit. A conducting cavity shields out some of those modes - it enforces a standing wave boundary condition, so some modes are not supported. This means that there is pressure higher on the outside than on the inside, from the difference in mode density, which is called the Casimir force.
sanjaygeorge Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 Quote: Originally Posted by GrandMasterK Another quick question, do we have a measurement for the force of gravity? of course.. gravity is a force. newton is the unit. f = G * (m1*m2)/r^2 where G is a constant ( i can't remember) m1 & m2 are the 2 masses in kg (earth's and person) r is the distance between them
sanjaygeorge Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 the 3 motion formulas can be used v = u + gt s = ut + 1/2 gt^2 v^2 = u^2 + 2gs
TimbaLanD Posted November 30, 2005 Posted November 30, 2005 In case you start understanding, here's the next step, which will surely confuse you more Oh WoW! It was such a good read but I understood nothing!! I should really stick to my day job!!! Basically we still have so much to learn about our universe and it seems like “light” is the key It has made me think of the solar system as a single atom with the planets as electrons revolving around the nucleus (the sun).. For all we know, we could be the sub atomic particles of a greater being and what if our atoms are a solar system to another sub atomic being!!! CRAZY thinking I know but my head is going crazy!!
mrblond5311 Posted November 30, 2005 Posted November 30, 2005 Actually for some strange reason I think gravity is the key & finding a grand unified theory of everything. A quantum relativity theory I think it's called.
5614 Posted December 4, 2005 Posted December 4, 2005 Relativistic quantum mechanics (ie. QM which takes into account relativity) already exists! http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Relativistic+quantum+mechanics+&meta=
swansont Posted December 4, 2005 Posted December 4, 2005 Relativistic quantum mechanics (ie. QM which takes into account relativity) already exists! http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Relativistic+quantum+mechanics+&meta= I think the hiccup is a QM description of GR, i.e. quantum gravity. SR has been incorporated into QM, as your links indicate.
5614 Posted December 4, 2005 Posted December 4, 2005 Doh! I know that! I just saw mrblond5311's "quantum relativity theory" and so immediately thought of relativistic QM (RQM?), which as you rightly say is SR only.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now