186.000 miles a second. Why?

[John Cuthber]

If these imaginary dense-packed particles are not infinitely stiff there can still me movement.

 

Since no such conditions exist, what difference can it make?

You seem to be writing science fiction and then trying to use it to describe the real universe.

[studiot]

Sorry to disagree with you Mordred, but your four states of matter refer to the physics definition.

 

Chemists recognise quite a few more.

 

Mitch

 

The study of these four states and their properties lies within the realms of classical physics, 'particle' sizes that are atomic or greater.

 

We further distinguish between pure substances and mixtures of several pure substances, because many properties are different for mixtures.

 

In fact there are more modes of motion available to solid substances than to the other three fluid states because fluids do not support shear stresses.

 

The study of modes of motion is called mechanics and the particular branch of mechanics that is relevent here is called continuum mechanics. Here, Euler's equations of motion play a greater part than Newton's (They amount to the same thing, it's just that Euler wrote them in a more convenient manner for internal motions within solids and fluids)

 

The study of atomic packing is called crystallography.

Here the atoms are regarded as "balls" with definite radii. That is size and shape are taken intio account. Possible crystal structures are studied by (mathematical) processes equivalent to placing marbles in a box or jar.

If you do this you will see that there is a great deal of empty space between marbles.

Mixtures can be packed together much more tightly, that is in fact the theory of concrete mix design, but empty space cannot be completely eliminated without an infinite range of aprtcle sizes.

 

Quantum tunnelling is apparent in modern physics where sub atomic particles can penetrate through apparantly solid other particles by a process known as quantum tunnelling.

The electronics driving you computer and mine use this effect.

 

 

So particle size and shape are important.

 

Does this help?

Edited May 27, 2014 by studiot

[Mordred]

no problem Studiot, I'm certainly not a chemist lol, those definitions were from some chemist websites. May have not been the best of sites.

 

quantum tunneling also occurs in a higher vacuum or energy state, with particles tunneling to a lower vacuum or energy state. Inflation is one such process.(earliest form of inflation (false vacuum) Hawking radiation at the accretion disk is another. There are numerous forms, Unruh radiation, Hawking radiation, Schwinger mechanism, Parker radiation, I can't recall the name of the one related to strictly magnetism. However there is also a tunneling process at magnetars., neutron stars etc These are all cosmology based applications involving quantum tunneling.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Mordred

[Mitch Bass]

 

Mixtures can be packed together much more tightly, that is in fact the theory of concrete mix design, but empty space cannot be completely eliminated without an infinite range of aprtcle sizes.

 

One question I asked not long before in this post was: would there be motion in a ballon filled with a one substance and no empty space. Your response to me was to ask the following question: Why wouldn't there be motion? One person, after reading our posts, said that the discussions we were having were insignificant because I started to ask about what if the universe contained no empty space and was made of one substance. I then asked not only if there would be motion in that universe but also if that universe could be exactly like the one that exists at this very moment in which we live. The person t said that the questions about the hypothethical situations i was creating were non signiifcant because they could never exist and it was like I was creating science fiction. The person who made this post does not upset me by questioning the signifcance of my questions. I can assure you as well as him that all these creations are being asked for a very definite reason and in terms of me trying to understand the reality of the universe and how it operates.

 

You said at the end of your last post that the size and shape of a particle are important. However, if you were trying to help me by indicating that the size and shape of a particle are important for me to find the solution of my question about motion in a universe that is filled with one substance and no empty space, than I will ask you in a univese without empty space, could particles even exist? You know what I think I just realized a thing that is starting to allow me to make sense of an enorous amont of what was once confusion. I am thinking of the word particle. I am thing about the word in its most pure form. The first syllable is 'part'. So in a univesre that has only one substance and no empty space there could be parts of that one substance that are moving in a direction and amounts and speeds that the other parts of the one substance are not . I was curious about the words "atomic packing" which you had used many posts ago. Thank you for explaining the concept. You eventually wrote

 

"Mixtures can be packed together much more tightly, that is in fact the theory of concrete mix design, but empty space cannot be completely eliminated without an infinite range of particle sizes."

 

I have a question about this last statement and a reason for asking this question I will soon explain how the reason has to with the very few question I was exploring on the first post I made for this thread. You have made a statement that emtpy space cannot be eliminated without an infinite range of particle sizes. By this last statement you are indicating a very strong concept that I think you will find yourself disagreeing with. By you saying that empty space cannot be eliminated utlizing atomic packing because you could never have all the different particles sizes and shapes you would need for that process of empty space elimination. However by you are saying that empty space elimination is not possible becase a lack of what you would need to make it happen, So I ask you this: Do you think empty space even has the potential to be eiminated? I mean by this, my guess is that if empty space exists the most you can do would be to alter its location. If you had every size and shape particloe you could desire, wouldnt atomic packing suceed in doing nothing more than what happens when you squeeze out the air in a ballon. The ballon does not have the air but the air does still exist. Althought the mistake is within my own reasoning. It seems I am sort of giving empty space a proprties that matter has which is that it can be manipulated and altered by not eliminated. They talk in the quantum mechanics about particles at the level come into existence out of nothing and than sometimes quickly no longer exist again. This has been said to be one of the many things about quantum mechanics which goes against common sense and makes quantum mechanics seem to be such a strange and mysterous world. However I can tell you it has been discovered that the observance of the phenemenon I just mentioned is not what people thought it was. Things are not just coming into exiistence in a place of empty space and then going back to be no longer existing. The observations that have lead people to believe this and many other of the so called things about quantum mechanics that go again so called commmon sense have been explained to be a misintertation of observation. The reality of the activity that goes on at the quantum sized world has been explained in a way which common sense can easily grasp.

 

I have run and did no get a chance to preview this post and for that I apolgize. I will do so later upon my return. I can only hope that as it is now it makes sense and any mispelled word can be understood throght conext clues.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Mitch Bass

[studiot]

Mitch you cannot progress if you just design your own questions, ignoring a large part of what is said to you.

 

I laid out a list of areas or subjects you should enquire into to help you find out more.

 

I am happy to say more about any of these.

 

But I do not know you or what you already know, so I have kept it short to start with.

 

Do you understand that there is a dividing line in the physics of matter when we talk about particles bigger than an atom or smaller than an atom.

[derek w]

If gravity is a curvature of space-time and gravity waves travel at the speed of light.Does this not suggest that the speed of light is governed by the rate at which space-time can be distorted?

[swansont]

If gravity is a curvature of space-time and gravity waves travel at the speed of light.Does this not suggest that the speed of light is governed by the rate at which space-time can be distorted?

 

Or they are both governed by some cosmic speed limit of information transfer.

[Delbert]

I would suggest Brian Cox & Jeff Forshaw's book: why does E=mc²?.

 

I thoroughly recommend it.

 

I would've also liked to have made a contribution to this thread, but I'm only on the second reading of the above book!

[Strange]

If gravity is a curvature of space-time and gravity waves travel at the speed of light.Does this not suggest that the speed of light is governed by the rate at which space-time can be distorted?

 

Except that light does not propagate by distorting space-time. However, the speed of light is determined by the permittivity and permeability of free space; I suppose you can think of these as defining the rate at which electric and magnetic fields can be changed. Only time will tell if there is some underlying reason why they have the values that they do.

 

Imagine if a person is in a car traveling at sixty miles an hour. If that person throws fa gun out the window at four miles an hour the total speed of the gun would be sixty four miles an hour. if, after the gun was thrown out the window, the gun went off and a bullet was fired, the speed of the bullet would be the speed of the car plus the speed of the thrown gun plus the speed of the bullet. So if the bullet travels at three hundred miles and hour and the gun was thrown out the window at four miles an hour and the car was moving at sixty miles an hour…would I be wrong to suggest the bullet would travel at three hundred and sixty four miles an hour.

 

Actually that is only approximately true. In reality speeds do not add linearly like that (which is why nothing can accelerate to the speed of light). However, at these speeds, the difference is immeasurably small.

 

 

So... if the Earth is traveling at a certain speed and the solar system is traveling at a certain speed and the Milky Way is traveling at a certain speed and then finally in the very end, what if the universe as a whole, if everything that the universe included was moving at a certain speed…hmmm….maybe the entire universe is moving as one at a certain speed while what is contained within it moves the speed of the universe plus however fast the indivual sections of the universe are moving.

 

It is important to realise that speed can only be measured relative to something else. So you can say the Earth is stationary (when calculating the orbits of satellites, for example) or that it is orbiting the (stationary) Sun. Or that the sun is moving relative to the galaxy. But these are all just arbitrary choices; there is no "real" velocity.