The limits of physics

[DevilSolution]

This is a general question really. What is the limit for things we can measure? for example we can see single atoms through a powerfull microscope i believe but we cant see the electron valence orbitals as described by schrodiners equations, i mean we take the math behind it and test it by how chemicals react and form shapes based on what would be expected from the equations but we cant see a single instance of an electron can we? I dont know maybe the guys at CERN can and if they can is it for a temporary moment? And what do they use to capture an electron moving? Im guessing camera's dont have that good a lens or frames per second so it must be electro magnetic right? send a wave in and measure the disturbance? in vacuum like conditions?

 

And light aswell, we can capture (or recognise) when a light particle hits a photon detector, but can we capture a stream? or if that light was strobing on every other particle, such that there are single photons gaps for every other photon, would the detector only capture the stream? because light travels faster than electricity even in a super conductor, so there should be quite a large gap in which the light can stop and start and because its so fast the current wouldn't changed (else there is something faster than light), so we can capture single photon responses or maybe it requires a certain amount to interfere with the voltage on the super conductor. Im guessing they work in a similar fashion to photovoltaic devices bit instead of capturing current it measures disruption?

 

I know we can capture Em signals such as satellite and radio and i presume that EM waves play a major role in measuring things the microscope or eye cant see, so this is what im fundamentally getting at, is the limit of physics the spread at which EM waves move or is there some other ingenuous method of capturing things smaller than the atom? Another question, what if a particular particle doesnt have an effect on the EM wave? In the same way dark matter is "supposed" to be all around us but we have no method of capturing it.

 

what if there are sub particles inside sub particles that are like in a state of no energy but inside a nucleus of sorts, could we capture that or would that particle evade us forever because its dormant, or acts when its energy state is low (such as a vacuum or without being acted on by a force) and then becomes dormant once a force acts upon the atom as a safety measure?

 

Essentially im wondering what the absolute measurement is for physical objects we cant see through a microscope.

Time must play an important role, for example even when were capturing the EM disturbance or a voltage change, are they not all relative to time? As in the first example light moves faster than electricity so the time difference between the two matters greatly. By the same token could there be something that is so fast it evades even EM waves? i mean other than high radiation waves like gamma were the frequency is limitless (?) could something faster not slip through undetected?

 

Also the higgs boson, did they actually capture and find the particle for mass? or was it just major progress that they had found something new that could be evidence of a higgs? Like they spent so much money on it you'd imagine that they would be selling books on its discovery and explaining in finite detail exactly was mass therefore is. (because cant forces also act as a mass, or should i say particles being acted acted on by a force can be seen to have a mass that is actually the effect of the force not the atom or particle itself)

 

one final note, if the SOL is the fastest thing in the universe, could we not use that as a measurement of time? in so much as whatever the shortest distance the particle can move (in what ever form, from one subatomic particle to the next or one atom to the next) whatever the shortest distance is surely defines our use of time? I know time is a rather abstract concept in so much as its not tangible, it can "apparently" move at different speeds according to space time? i presume its seen like something that flows much the same way a wave does. and if so, thats why time should be measured by EM waves, even if time has "moments" that are infinitely small theres no use comprehending it because we cant use or measure anything by it, actually attaching it to something we can measure that is the fastest thing that can be captured then there would be no need to define it as anything else, it would strange to define it as anything else, We only need it for the things we can measure so we base it on that. If we can measure say a photon hitting an electron and then capture it again hitting another (faster than the electrons moved) then that would be the shortest measurement. Its the same as saying for example that if a quark proves to be the smallest known particle, why not measure things in terms if quarks? its pointless talking in terms any less than a quark because thats the smallest, therefor everything else can be described by some measure of a quark. The ideas analogous to time in so much as if its the shortest thing we can measure then its useless talking in terms of anything being slower, therefore we can tie EM and time together as being one and the same, time and distance could be defined as functions of EM waves when its determined what the limit is for our being able to measure. Like i said there could exist a particle thats so fast it evades being captured by anything we can use to measure, and thus we would have no use for defining any "time" variable to it, however if its shown that the smallest measurement we can capture is say between two quarks within the standard model (or which ever sub atomic particles sit closest) then nothing can be faster than the speed that photon is travelling and were just using a measuring device (probably an EM wave) to capture what that instance actually is. Then everything else exists as a measurement of that instance. anyway enough rambling i've probably over explained why time should be tied to EM waves.

 

Not that i want to discredit space time or anything, i just think its the best scientific approach in terms of what were physically capable of measuring. Absolutes.

 

Oh and one final note in regards to particles exists in 2 places or states at the same time, i dont discredit the notion, but i believe there to be illusions or that would seem like illusions due again to our lack of measurement (there is an answer for how and why were just not capable of answering it without wild speculation). Things such as particles and atoms coming into reality when theres a conscious observer or quantum entanglement or even string theory to some degree are useless to science, when you cannot measure it or observe it then its philosophy mixed with maths. And with regards to our observation of a particle existing in two places or separate forms depending on whether there is an observer or not will eventually be files away under "schizophrenic universe".

 

In other words im preferentially keeping concepts such as time away from concepts such "quantum entanglement", it may be due to lack of understanding but i get alot of information through documentaries and they seem to over exaggerate things sometimes some my comprehension of some these concepts may not be grounded. Even with observational data im still a sceptic of this area of science as being pseudo science or "best guess" when there is infact an objective truth shrouded by illusion

 

Sorry for the long ant and over explaining, i just hope to have the concept of time fully defined in the scientific sense and also partially annoyed that such great minds are probably wasting there time on competing theories that may never be proven.

 

Rant over.

Edited December 1, 2015 by DevilSolution

[Sensei]

I dont know maybe the guys at CERN can and if they can is it for a temporary moment? And what do they use to capture an electron moving? Im guessing camera's dont have that good a lens or frames per second so it must be electro magnetic right? send a wave in and measure the disturbance? in vacuum like conditions?

Electron, or other charged particle, with high kinetic energy, while passing through medium is ionizing medium (and decelerating), and further electrons of medium are ejected and accelerated.

This is how trace in f.e. Cloud Chamber is created. And can be seen by naked eye.

Long thin trace is from electron, short bold trace is from alpha particle.

Here you have instruction how to build Cloud Chamber by yourself.

It's cost $30-$50 while using dry ice.

But you need to have 1 kg (here they don't sell smaller amount) each time you want to run it.

Electronic cooled versions (Peltier cooler) is much harder and more expensive to build. But more convenient to use.

 

Bubble chambers are using liquid gas near 0 K temperature.

f.e. liquid hydrogen below 33 K.

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

Difference is in used medium.

 

Further development of particle detectors:

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

 

Other device you might be interested in is mass spectrometer.

It's separating particles depending on their masses.

f.e. split atoms of same element to their isotopes, each one to separate container for further experiments.

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

Edited November 30, 2015 by Sensei

[DevilSolution]

Thats really cool stuff, so those electrons are free ions from a molecule or are they in some some other chemical form?

 

They dont move as fast as i thought they would but i suppose that's a big area compared to a tiny radius.

[Sensei]

Thats really cool stuff, so those electrons are free ions from a molecule or are they in some some other chemical form?

 

They are electrons from beta decay minus of radioactive isotope nucleus.

 

and

they can be electrons from decay of f.e. muon-, pion-, pion0, secondary cosmic rays, that were created from primary cosmic rays.

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

[DevilSolution]

I'll have none of that cosmic malarkey in here thank you very much.

 

Nah thats cool, so they basically build a highly ionized chamber that lets electrons (and other sub atomic particles) flurry around showing their paths with the dry ice, thats top notch. speaking of cool scientific experiments have you seen how sound waves can levitate objects?

 

Also are we agreed on the new definition of time? need to get the message to the masses.

Edited November 30, 2015 by DevilSolution

[swansont]

Maybe you break things down instead of asking 20 questions all at once. What works for one range of values (e.g. energy) doesn't necessarily work for another.

[DevilSolution]

aww come on swanson you covered me for electro magnetics page where i asked loads more questions.

And you mean that linking time to SOL or EMW's wouldnt work because?

 

The only change would be by what we define time as rather than this abstract idea that no one has pinned down yet, im simply suggesting that it makes logical sense to define time in terms of the smallest "moment" in a wave that can be measured.

[StringJunky]

aww come on swanson you covered me for electro magnetics page where i asked loads more questions.

And you mean that linking time to SOL or EMW's wouldnt work because?

 

The only change would be by what we define time as rather than this abstract idea that no one has pinned down yet, im simply suggesting that it makes logical sense to define time in terms of the smallest "moment" in a wave that can be measured.

Time is what clocks measure... everything else is philosophy. Let's agonise over the ontology of distance instead and see if we get any further.

Edited November 30, 2015 by StringJunky

[swansont]

aww come on swanson you covered me for electro magnetics page where i asked loads more questions.

And you mean that linking time to SOL or EMW's wouldnt work because?

 

The only change would be by what we define time as rather than this abstract idea that no one has pinned down yet, im simply suggesting that it makes logical sense to define time in terms of the smallest "moment" in a wave that can be measured.

 

It's not just a matter of being able to measure it, it's being able to measure it precisely. With your definition you need a calibrated length in order to define a time, so time would be a secondary standard, and how do you actually realize the measurement of the time and disseminate it?

 

Many of your other questions are not specific enough to answer, since the answer depends on the details you have omitted. How do you measure an electron? It depends on what you're trying to measure and what the energy scale is.

[DevilSolution]

It's not just a matter of being able to measure it, it's being able to measure it precisely. With your definition you need a calibrated length in order to define a time, so time would be a secondary standard, and how do you actually realize the measurement of the time and disseminate it?

 

Many of your other questions are not specific enough to answer, since the answer depends on the details you have omitted. How do you measure an electron? It depends on what you're trying to measure and what the energy scale is.

 

Im glad you mention that time would be a measure of distance because here we can kill two birds with one stone, if the smallest instance of time is the shortest distance we can measure the photon travelling then we also have the smallest unit measurement for distance aswell which would encapsulate time and distance together. It will take 7 units of time to travel 2 units of distance. There would be no fundamental changes to the current format, seconds would just be an accumulation of the unit time and meters the accumulation of the unit distance. What is useful however us the fact that we now have 2 objective definitions for both time and distance and by talking about time in any less than this unit would be meaningless, because nothing exists in that shorter space of time. Your taking an abstract notion and turning it concrete whilst also creating the smallest unit for distance that would make sense aswell. To talk of distance in any less than this unit would be pointless, because what we measured was the time it took for a photon to travel the shortest distance, there is nothing shorter.

 

time would be a secondary standard as much as distance would be, they are of equivalence in terms of notation. It makes logical sense to define them in these terms, what time and distance are secondary to is EMW's and thats only because its the tool with which we use to measure them with. There the 4 primary forces in nature, EM, gravity, strong and weak force respectively. It's obviously an end goal in science to relate everything together uni-formally so there are no contrasting theories, Now having time and distance be a property of EM doesnt mean they are exclusive to EM, infact by using them in the other forces we are tying EM to the other forces and partially unifying them.

 

Now to find the smallest unit of length is tricky, because obviously we dont know the distance of every object to another, however i would suggest looking inside the atom perhaps for 2 sub atomic particles that follow each other? or sit close to one another, secondary to that idea would be to use the tightest electron configuration and based on the probability the electron can be anywhere within that space and moves randomly within that space, you could fire 2 photons into the space and measure when each hit the electron, but i guess this would only be a measure of electron speed. I dont know much about neutrinos but arent they supposed to be almost as fast as the SOL? if thats the case then use the same method as above but on a neutrino, you'd have run exponential permutations of the method to find smallest measurement between the two photons relative to the neutrino, this would also be a measurement of the speed of a neutrino however because they are secondary to the SOL, they would probably have the highest probability of capturing one movement to the next. If multiple neutrinos exist within the same space (again i dont know much about the standard model) then its problem solved as eventually these 2 neutrinos moving close to the SOL within such a small area will eventually reach a point where there is practically no gap between them and given we can some how accurately measure this (keep a stream of photons going into the neutrino space and measuring there displacement or such (again i dont know how photons react, can they exist in neutrono space? and do they reflect off neutrinos?) that would be my initial approach anyway perhaps a chemical with an ionic bond, where the substituted electron has moved there should be some gap between the connection of the chemical and where the two closest valence shells sit, you could measue the distance between the connection again through probability eventually both electrons should be at their furthest possible position from their nucleus and given the added probability an electron can sometimes go beyond its shell. This could be the shortest distance? (not sue about how tight ionic bonds are im just throwing out ideas)

 

I honestly have no idea about size dimensions and lengths between subatomic particles so this is pure speculation, however im sure an actual scientist with enough knowledge in the field should be able to come up with some method for finding the smallest distance. Im merely suggesting that it makes logical sense to interpret and define time and distance in this way.

 

In regards to the second part of the reply i meant movement. Both my questions and statements are in the format of stipulation, obviously the way in which i make some of the statements implies question rather than answer. If anything i should have structured it more clearly rather than typing as i think, but for the most part its fairly obvious what the question is . I said capture by the way not measure, "how do we capture electrons movement".

Edited December 1, 2015 by DevilSolution

[Sensei]

You're talking about hypothetical quantization of space, and quantization of time.

You should therefor get familiar with Planck units, such as Planck length and Planck time.

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

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

As you can see they're billions times smaller than anything we are able to measure currently.

 

[swansont]

 

Im glad you mention that time would be a measure of distance because here we can kill two birds with one stone, if the smallest instance of time is the shortest distance we can measure the photon travelling then we also have the smallest unit measurement for distance aswell which would encapsulate time and distance together. It will take 7 units of time to travel 2 units of distance. There would be no fundamental changes to the current format, seconds would just be an accumulation of the unit time and meters the accumulation of the unit distance. What is useful however us the fact that we now have 2 objective definitions for both time and distance and by talking about time in any less than this unit would be meaningless, because nothing exists in that shorter space of time. Your taking an abstract notion and turning it concrete whilst also creating the smallest unit for distance that would make sense aswell. To talk of distance in any less than this unit would be pointless, because what we measured was the time it took for a photon to travel the shortest distance, there is nothing shorter.

 

 

No, you can't kill two birds with one stone. You have a circular argument, using time to measure distance and distance to measure time — you can't measure one without knowing the other. You can't have three meters be ten nanoseconds and ten nanoseconds be three meters, because I don't know what three meters is in order to measure the ten nanoseconds, and vice-versa. They have to be independently defined.

 

Further, the shortest measurable distance is a function of the available technology. That would keep changing, and continually redefining standards would be a mess, politically (science politics, mostly) and practically. If there is a physical limitation of that distance, we are nowhere close to being able to measure it.

I honestly have no idea about size dimensions and lengths between subatomic particles so this is pure speculation, however im sure an actual scientist with enough knowledge in the field should be able to come up with some method for finding the smallest distance. Im merely suggesting that it makes logical sense to interpret and define time and distance in this way.

 

Your speculation lacks a basis in physics, It's basically pointless to critique it. Things don't behave the way you are describing, which is quite classical in nature. QM places different limitations on what we can do.

[Strange]

It is possible to image electron orbitals and confirm that they match theory: http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v3/n4/abs/nchem.1008.html

[DevilSolution]

So its that cloud looking structure they saw? looks pretty cool, is the darker region based on angle or size?

 

No, you can't kill two birds with one stone. You have a circular argument, using time to measure distance and distance to measure time — you can't measure one without knowing the other. You can't have three meters be ten nanoseconds and ten nanoseconds be three meters, because I don't know what three meters is in order to measure the ten nanoseconds, and vice-versa. They have to be independently defined.

 

Further, the shortest measurable distance is a function of the available technology. That would keep changing, and continually redefining standards would be a mess, politically (science politics, mostly) and practically. If there is a physical limitation of that distance, we are nowhere close to being able to measure it.

 

Your speculation lacks a basis in physics, It's basically pointless to critique it. Things don't behave the way you are describing, which is quite classical in nature. QM places different limitations on what we can do.

 

I think your getting confused, although they share the same definition in terms of measurement they ultimately function differently, as i said in my previous post "it can travel 2 units of distance in 10 units of time" so obviously its travelling at 1/5 the speed of light, but also time exists as a constant, that measurement of an "instant" is constantly ticking away, where as distance is relative to object and force etc.

 

Its as i said in my OP what is the limit of physics? is there one? and if so it must surely based on the SOL? thats the simple premise here.

As for finding that distance, scientists should put there brains together and think of an optimal method.

 

In all honesty its not far from the "atomic clock" method, except were ditching frequency for the photon. and not necessarily concerned with the frequencies they use either, using optical frequencies when you have gama frequency just hows that isnt the best possible method. And even with gama frequency, i dont imagine its faster than the SOL, would seem to break the rules of physics, a wave where its frequency is faster than the speed it travels? This is the whole point im trying to make though, what the limit? if gama radiation > SOL OR neutrino > SOL then you start thinking different, but until then the SOL is that unit. (and its not likely to happen either, how do you measure something faster than the SOL when the SOL is the basic tool for measuring, its mathematically possible ovcourse, but it would be hard to prove)

 

And as far as this measurement always changing, thats dependant on the method and accuracy used in finding the smallest distance that can be measures and also if the SOL is the fastest thing that exists. optimum method + SOL being the fastest = best solution.

Edited December 1, 2015 by DevilSolution

[swansont]

 

I think your getting confused, although they share the same definition in terms of measurement they ultimately function differently, as i said in my previous post "it can travel 2 units of distance in 10 units of time" so obviously its travelling at 1/5 the speed of light, but also time exists as a constant, that measurement of an "instant" is constantly ticking away, where as distance is relative to object and force etc.

 

 

How do you know if it has gone 2 units of distance? How do you know 10 units of time have passed? You have no independent way of realizing either measurement.

 

In all honesty its not far from the "atomic clock" method, except were ditching frequency for the photon. and not necessarily concerned with the frequencies they use either, using optical frequencies when you have gama frequency just hows that isnt the best possible method. And even with gama frequency, i dont imagine its faster than the SOL, would seem to break the rules of physics, a wave where its frequency is faster than the speed it travels? This is the whole point im trying to make though, what the limit? if gama radiation > SOL OR neutrino > SOL then you start thinking different, but until then the SOL is that unit. (and its not likely to happen either, how do you measure something faster than the SOL when the SOL is the basic tool for measuring, its mathematically possible ovcourse, but it would be hard to prove)

 

And as far as this measurement always changing, thats dependant on the method and accuracy used in finding the smallest distance that can be measures and also if the SOL is the fastest thing that exists. optimum method + SOL being the fastest = best solution.

 

Frequency can't be faster than the speed of travel, since they are two different things. Comparing them is nonsensical.

 

I suggest you know less about how atomic clocks work than you think you do.

[DevilSolution]

I dont really claim to know a great deal, just drawing a parallel. As for realizing the measurement its quite simple, once the smallest distance and appropriate method were to be found, whatever that distance is, is a measure of the SOL, some tiny proportion. lets say a centillion of a second, namely because it sounds good and is tiny, well we know how big a centillion is so we just scale it into seconds based on that. Every second we have experienced a centillion "moments" of time. Same applies to measurement except you'd scale a meter different to a second, as its an actual distance a centillion of meter would expressively larger than a second, containing multiples of centillions i'd imagine.

 

I missed Sensei's comment on plank time and space which seems to relate closely so ill research them for now. Until the physics is possible or as the OP stated we actually define what the physical limits are, they fit the void.

[swansont]

But as I stated, the smallest distance we can measure is a technical limitation, so that's not something you can use to define a standard. It will be different depending on the equipment you use, and the people doing the experiment.

[Tirth Raj]

Just think of Universe where everthing works in reverse direction

you'll find limit of everything...

 

According to me ,

 

You just have to think in perfect way, to understand such topics like Big Bang,

We can say It's limit of Physics to Think 'What before BigBang!'

But whatever that was there must be some physics behind that ....

 

->perpetual motion machine is an exceptional case ...