Physics

[LiamOS]

A lesser purpose of this thread is to allow members to ask questions about physics which they need clarification on or want an explanation on.

In my time spent here, I've been told many a time how conventional science fails and falls short in areas. As such, I decided to make this thread. However, as there are many on the subject of Biology and its many branches, I felt one to address the issues in physics would be appropriate.
For the purposes of this thread, physics covers Nuclear Physics, Particle Physics, Astronomy, Cosmology, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics(QCD, QED...), Electromagnetism, Optics and Thermodynamics.
The conventional theories in each field will be taken, in the context of this thread, as the best explanation currently available:
The Big Bang, the Standard Model(Particle physics), etc.

Questions for debate:
-Other than that which we do not yet know(Higgs Boson, etc.), are there any significant shortcomings in the conventional physics of the day? If so, where and why?
-Some theories are based on underlying assumptions. Are any of these assumptions flawed or not necessarily true?

With our current knowledge of the universe from a physicists point of view, is it logical to infer than a deity is a necessity? Why or why not?

On a final note, this is a physics thread, so don't hold back on using mathematics as support for your hypotheses.

[JohnPaul]

mich wrote:

Massless particles
Massless particles have zero rest mass. Their relativistic mass is simply their relativistic energy, divided by c2, or m(relativistic) = E/c2.[8][9] The energy for photons is E = hf where h is Planck's constant and f is the photon frequency. This frequency and thus the relativistic energy are frame-dependent

Would you please explain to me how mass or energy, (eiither one) is magicly derived from frequency? Not the math! Plain English, please!

John

[LiamOS]

gain,my intent is not in arguing against your explanation but showing where I get confused.

Then either your continued confusion is a shortcoming on my part or on the part of physics. I'd hazard a guess that I'm the culprit here.

Would not this force explained in terms of momentum due to our explanation of the photon in terms of a particle though? Would Maxwell have used the description of momentum or wouldn't he rather have explained it in terms of pressures coming from the light medium (ether) such as the qualities of permeability and permittivity?

The concept of light having momentum as a particle(Even at zero mass) is somewhat intuitive. However, the point of my example was to demonstrate that momentum arises from considering light as a wave only(Which is the description given by Maxwell's equations).
As for what Maxwell might've thought, I don't think I can accurately answer that, but in light of the postulates of special relativity, pressures from a medium make little sense.

Here is an explanation taken from wikipedia ( so I understand that it might not be accurate) about the relativistic mass of a photon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80 ... quivalence
Massless particles
Massless particles have zero rest mass. Their relativistic mass is simply their relativistic energy, divided by c2, or m(relativistic) = E/c2.[8][9] The energy for photons is E = hf where h is Planck's constant and f is the photon frequency. This frequency and thus the relativistic energy are frame-dependent

This is largely correct, but it's a rare mind who finds contemplation of relativistic mechanics intuitive.

Also, in case you or anybody else is interested in this sort of thing(And familiar with basic quantum mechanics), here is a very nice paper discussing the nature and evolution of the wavefunction of a photon(Specifically a massless, spin-1 particle) as solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation and such.

[mich]

mich wrote:

Massless particles
Massless particles have zero rest mass. Their relativistic mass is simply their relativistic energy, divided by c2, or m(relativistic) = E/c2.[8][9] The energy for photons is E = hf where h is Planck's constant and f is the photon frequency. This frequency and thus the relativistic energy are frame-dependent

Would you please explain to me how mass or energy, (eiither one) is magicly derived from frequency? Not the math! Plain English, please!

John

First, John, I am not a scientist of any sort so I may not be able to help you very much; secondly, what youv'e quoted does not come from me but from a wikepedia definition.

From what I understand, Planck's equation for the energy of light, in order to explain the observed blackbody radiation is E = h * f , where f is the frequency. Einstein himself observed the photoelectric effect where he found that the light's frequency was what contained the energy levels as opposed to the light amplitude; the higher the frequency, the higher the energy content.

Andre

[mich]

gain,my intent is not in arguing against your explanation but showing where I get confused.

Then either your continued confusion is a shortcoming on my part or on the part of physics. I'd hazard a guess that I'm the culprit here.

Would not this force explained in terms of momentum due to our explanation of the photon in terms of a particle though? Would Maxwell have used the description of momentum or wouldn't he rather have explained it in terms of pressures coming from the light medium (ether) such as the qualities of permeability and permittivity?

The concept of light having momentum as a particle(Even at zero mass) is somewhat intuitive. However, the point of my example was to demonstrate that momentum arises from considering light as a wave only(Which is the description given by Maxwell's equations).
As for what Maxwell might've thought, I don't think I can accurately answer that, but in light of the postulates of special relativity, pressures from a medium make little sense.

Here is an explanation taken from wikipedia ( so I understand that it might not be accurate) about the relativistic mass of a photon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80 ... quivalence
Massless particles
Massless particles have zero rest mass. Their relativistic mass is simply their relativistic energy, divided by c2, or m(relativistic) = E/c2.[8][9] The energy for photons is E = hf where h is Planck's constant and f is the photon frequency. This frequency and thus the relativistic energy are frame-dependent

This is largely correct, but it's a rare mind who finds contemplation of relativistic mechanics intuitive.

Also, in case you or anybody else is interested in this sort of thing(And familiar with basic quantum mechanics), here is a very nice paper discussing the nature and evolution of the wavefunction of a photon(Specifically a massless, spin-1 particle) as solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation and such.

I just downloaded the document on the wavefunction on my e-book; it looks interesting.

thanks
Andre

[JohnPaul]

mich wrote:

Massless particles
Massless particles have zero rest mass. Their relativistic mass is simply their relativistic energy, divided by c2, or m(relativistic) = E/c2.[8][9] The energy for photons is E = hf where h is Planck's constant and f is the photon frequency. This frequency and thus the relativistic energy are frame-dependent

Would you please explain to me how mass or energy, (eiither one) is magicly derived from frequency? Not the math! Plain English, please!

John

First, John, I am not a scientist of any sort so I may not be able to help you very much; secondly, what youv'e quoted does not come from me but from a wikepedia definition.

From what I understand, Planck's equation for the energy of light, in order to explain the observed blackbody radiation is E = h * f , where f is the frequency. Einstein himself observed the photoelectric effect where he found that the light's frequency was what contained the energy levels as opposed to the light amplitude; the higher the frequency, the higher the energy content.

Andre

Hello, Andre,

I did not mean my question as a deliberate challenge to you. I really do not understand how frequency can be equated with energy or mass. Maybe a symptom or result of energy, yes, but the same thing, no. How is the energy carried?
What little I know of a photon is that it does not really exist except when it happens to be observed to interact with something else. How it gets from here to there or what it is while unobserved is a complete mystery. Saying that it takes all possible paths doesn't really help to make it concetely and intuitively clear either.

Thanks,

John

[Crazee]

There are no non-physical methods of physical travel. You can imagine however that you travel to Bahamas but it would be another story.

True, there are no non-physical methods of physical travel, that's like saying there are no bachelors that are married. What I'm saying is that, based on anecdotal evidence, it is a possibility that our consciousness can travel out of the body in a non-physical way. It would be a non-physical method of non-physical travel.

If you look at this from a philosophical perspective, than there are many weird ways to think about it. Couldn't all that we everything that happens could just be something we imagined? To me, "imagine" just means to experience in one's mind.

And the facts supporting OBEs are .... ?
I think I saw some physiology research addressing the claims for OBE. I thought that there are some pretty good physical explanations to how our brain works in certain situations.

I'm not sure there are. Could you link me some research? Scientists can correlate certain aspects of brain activity with doing certain things, and OBE's may be one of them. The easiest mistake to make in science is to equate correlation to causation. I think we've been doing that too much in the field of neuroscience.

Please watch here:

This video is good and shows that at least some OBE's could be attributed to dreams. But it is a logical fallacy to say that his experience with OBE's is universal and therefore all OBE's are dreams.

[arian]

Now, where, in all of the time since the Big Bang, do we see matter, energy, space and time all descending into the Quantum realm?

Black Holes.

Grumpy

I've hypothesized that black holes are gateways to other dimensions due to very similar reasons. That doesn't mean that we would be able to physically survive a trip through one. I think that if more research was done on Out-of-Body experiences and Astral Projection, than we could plausibly send someone's consciousness through a black hole in the future.

Sorry, but I can't see any connection between Black Holes and Out of Body Experiences. Do you suggest there is one?

Black holes are where all human knowledge absent of GOD is stored and kept, where the truth is never illuminated, but forever hypothesized, or assumed. Just like before the first epoch, empty chaos in darkness.

Out of body experiences are done by the mind, ... no? So our debates are actually out-of-body experiences. Not only that, but we can share these out of body experiences with our fellow man, some of these can be blurry (if we do not quite connect with the other persons reasoning) and some can be real nice (when we do connect) So I don't see why 'we could not plausibly send someone's consciousness through a black hole in the future'?

I have a question:
Why is it that as we travel further from an object, it seems to be smaller and smaller?
We know the sun is 1,392,000 km in diameter. yet it looks like 10 inches dia to me here on earth, why?
Its surface is about 5,505 deg C, yet I feel it at about 80 deg F average here in Phoenix, AZ. Why?

Is my senses off? Am I delusional? Is the sun 1,392,000 km in dia or not? Is it 5,505 deg C or not? Why does distance alter my perception, my reality?

Is it like El Pacino said; "We couldn't handle the truth!"??

Just wondering?

[100%atheist]

Now, where, in all of the time since the Big Bang, do we see matter, energy, space and time all descending into the Quantum realm?

Black Holes.

Grumpy

I've hypothesized that black holes are gateways to other dimensions due to very similar reasons. That doesn't mean that we would be able to physically survive a trip through one. I think that if more research was done on Out-of-Body experiences and Astral Projection, than we could plausibly send someone's consciousness through a black hole in the future.

Sorry, but I can't see any connection between Black Holes and Out of Body Experiences. Do you suggest there is one?

Black holes are where all human knowledge absent of GOD is stored and kept, where the truth is never illuminated, but forever hypothesized, or assumed. Just like before the first epoch, empty chaos in darkness.

Out of body experiences are done by the mind, ... no? So our debates are actually out-of-body experiences. Not only that, but we can share these out of body experiences with our fellow man, some of these can be blurry (if we do not quite connect with the other persons reasoning) and some can be real nice (when we do connect) So I don't see why 'we could not plausibly send someone's consciousness through a black hole in the future'?

I have a question:
Why is it that as we travel further from an object, it seems to be smaller and smaller?
We know the sun is 1,392,000 km in diameter. yet it looks like 10 inches dia to me here on earth, why?
Its surface is about 5,505 deg C, yet I feel it at about 80 deg F average here in Phoenix, AZ. Why?

Is my senses off? Am I delusional? Is the sun 1,392,000 km in dia or not? Is it 5,505 deg C or not? Why does distance alter my perception, my reality?

Is it like El Pacino said; "We couldn't handle the truth!"??

Just wondering?

I should admint that it seems that cannabis this year is especcially strong.

If you take a quarter and put it IN your eye, it will be as big as your eye. But if the same quarter is 100 ft. away from you, you will not likely to see it at all. ... very sad.

I am really confused by what caused you to produce your last post...

[David 2.0]

I try to keep abreast of the situation...

I run slow.


It seems like we have struck out lately on our search for the "Higgs Boson"...


Is that important?
I know we are looking for it, but admitting my ignorance, I am not sure why?
Is this to push the standard model?

[arian]

Now, where, in all of the time since the Big Bang, do we see matter, energy, space and time all descending into the Quantum realm?

Black Holes.

Grumpy

I've hypothesized that black holes are gateways to other dimensions due to very similar reasons. That doesn't mean that we would be able to physically survive a trip through one. I think that if more research was done on Out-of-Body experiences and Astral Projection, than we could plausibly send someone's consciousness through a black hole in the future.

Sorry, but I can't see any connection between Black Holes and Out of Body Experiences. Do you suggest there is one?

Black holes are where all human knowledge absent of GOD is stored and kept, where the truth is never illuminated, but forever hypothesized, or assumed. Just like before the first epoch, empty chaos in darkness.

Out of body experiences are done by the mind, ... no? So our debates are actually out-of-body experiences. Not only that, but we can share these out of body experiences with our fellow man, some of these can be blurry (if we do not quite connect with the other persons reasoning) and some can be real nice (when we do connect) So I don't see why 'we could not plausibly send someone's consciousness through a black hole in the future'?

I have a question:
Why is it that as we travel further from an object, it seems to be smaller and smaller?
We know the sun is 1,392,000 km in diameter. yet it looks like 10 inches dia to me here on earth, why?
Its surface is about 5,505 deg C, yet I feel it at about 80 deg F average here in Phoenix, AZ. Why?

Is my senses off? Am I delusional? Is the sun 1,392,000 km in dia or not? Is it 5,505 deg C or not? Why does distance alter my perception, my reality?

Is it like El Pacino said; "We couldn't handle the truth!"??

Just wondering?

I should admint that it seems that cannabis this year is especcially strong.

If you take a quarter and put it IN your eye, it will be as big as your eye. But if the same quarter is 100 ft. away from you, you will not likely to see it at all. ... very sad.

I am really confused by what caused you to produce your last post...

Aah, I wish it was cannabis, .. it would take some of this neck and back pain away,

So are you saying that a quarter 'shrinks' with distance to a point where it can eventually ... 'blip!' and disappear? No wonder you are a 100%atheist my friend, you are easily fooled by perception which in turn makes it easy for you to be indoctrinated by theories.

The 'reason' I posted this is to raise awarenes to our perception, which is not reality, but a tool to enjoy reality with our physical senses.

I read on Wikipedia that during a solar-eclipse, they noticed that stars near the sun looked somewhat out of position (light bending), claiming the suns gravity was the culprit, ignoring the 1,388,5524 km of sunlight still beaming around the moon around and past us (earth) which effects the tiny starlight we are observing.

The sun is 1,392,000 km in diameter no matter how big it 'looks' to us here on earth.

The sun shines a beam of light towards earth 1,392,000 km in diameter, not the 8" or so we see.

the moon is 384,403 km from earth and 3,476 km in diameter, leaving 1,388,524 km of unblocked sun beam coming around the moon much of it still hitting our earth, and the rest passing us by.

By putting a quarter on my eyes, does not block the 1,392,000 km Dia. sun-beam shining towards earth, and would not give us a good perspective in observing the stars shining next, or near the sun, and a solar eclipse is not much different.

I hope that explains a little more of my post. Thanks 100%atheist, ... and easy on the cannabis this New Years Eve,