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.

[100%atheist]

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?

Particle physics is not my field, but as far as I understand, Higgs boson is a still missing particle predicted by the standard model. If it is found, the model works, if it is proven it is not there then another model is needed. Potentially, there is a lot things at stake in a distant future such as the control of gravity and time-space travel.

[ThatGirlAgain]

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?

Particle physics is not my field, but as far as I understand, Higgs boson is a still missing particle predicted by the standard model. If it is found, the model works, if it is proven it is not there then another model is needed. Potentially, there is a lot things at stake in a distant future such as the control of gravity and time-space travel.

The Higgs Boson may or may not have been found.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16116230

Despite the misleading title of an otherwise pretty good book, the Higgs Boson has nothing to do with God. It is a particle predicted by the Standard Model that would account for the masses of other particles. Confirmation of it's discovery and verification of its attributes would fill in the last missing piece in an otherwise outstandingly successful theory.

[Goat]

The Higgs Boson may or may not have been found.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16116230

Despite the misleading title of an otherwise pretty good book, the Higgs Boson has nothing to do with God. It is a particle predicted by the Standard Model that would account for the masses of other particles. Confirmation of it's discovery and verification of its attributes would fill in the last missing piece in an otherwise outstandingly successful theory.

It wasn't the higgs that was found, but another paritcle that was predicted that could give some particles their mass

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breakin ... discovery/

[ThatGirlAgain]

The Higgs Boson may or may not have been found.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16116230

Despite the misleading title of an otherwise pretty good book, the Higgs Boson has nothing to do with God. It is a particle predicted by the Standard Model that would account for the masses of other particles. Confirmation of it's discovery and verification of its attributes would fill in the last missing piece in an otherwise outstandingly successful theory.

It wasn't the higgs that was found, but another paritcle that was predicted that could give some particles their mass

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breakin ... discovery/

From the article:

Chi-b (3P) particle belongs to the boson family of particles just as the sought after Higgs boson does. While the Higgs boson is suspected of giving all particles mass, Chi-b (3P) could explain how the mass of various elementary particles join together to make more massive, complex structures.

Interesting. Thanks.

[100%atheist]

Despite the misleading title of an otherwise pretty good book, the Higgs Boson has nothing to do with God.

This is what I like the most about the history of its nickname "God's particle".
From WiKi:
"As an atheist, Higgs is reported to be displeased that the particle is nicknamed the "God particle". Higgs is afraid the term "might offend people who are religious".[14][15] This nickname for the Higgs boson is usually attributed to Leon Lederman, but it is actually the result of Lederman's publisher's censoring. Originally Lederman intended to call it "the goddamn particle", because of its elusiveness.[16]"

[spoirier]

Again,my intent is not in arguing against your explanation but showing where I get confused. Would not this force explained in terms of momentum due to our explanation of the photon in terms of a particle though?

The descriptions of light in terms of waves on the one hand, in terms of particles (photons) on the other hand, are but two approximations of one the quantum law, that are each describable in the language of classical mechanics.
The description in terms of classical waves applies when the photons number is large and its value is undetermined (its undetermination is >> 1)
The description in terms of classical particles applies when the scale of the considered phenomena is much larger than the wavelength of the light involved.

These two domains of approximation have an intersection, a class of phenomena where they both apply, where both explanations in terms of particles or of waves are valid.
In fact this class of double approximation is very familiar to us as it is the way light most often appears to us in everyday life: it is the field of geometrical optics.

So, both "explanations" of the momentum of light, either in terms of the momentum of photons, or in terms of the force that the magnetic field applies to the electric current in a material absorbing the light, are equally valid, as two classical approximations of the same thing.

The same laws of geometrical optics can be "explained" in two ways: either in terms of classical particles or of classical waves. Moreover, the description in terms of particles can itself be reduced to a sort of third possible "explanation" by a pure space description getting rid of the time dimension, as photons have zero mass and go at the speed of light (too fast for us to track it): that is the laws of geometrical optics. A light ray (say, a laser one, with fixed frequency), can be compared to an elastic at equilibrium. An elastic that can be stretched without modifying its tension, whose value (equal to its linear density of energy, just like surface tension but with 1 dimension instead of 2) only depends on its environment (refractive index). The surface (say, an horizontal one) separating two materials with different refractive indices, exerts a vertical force on the ray; the point of intersection remains at equilibrium with respect to its horizontal movements slipping on the surface, so that the horizontal components of the tension on each side must stay the same. In other words, the amount of potential energy that each side would provide to this point for any given small movement on the surface, must cancel.
Now when the same question of geometrical optics is analyzed in terms of waves, the role of the potential energy is played by the oscillations number : for every small segment on the surface, the number of oscillations of the wave along that segment must stay the same whether it is measured on either side of the surface.
This is how we can see that different "explanations" in the language of classical physics, correspond to the same mathematical theory.

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?

This equality may seem difficult to understand as long as you assume energy to be a sort of primary physical substance before quantum mechanics is introduced and gives it further properties.

Instead, the real situation is that energy is a mathematical quantity that emerges from the laws of quantum physics, and that the frequency of quantum processes stands as the very definition of this quantity.
To understand how it happens that this quantity appears to us in the form of "energy", we need to remember the classical characterization of energy, that is a quantity which is conserved. So, to make a short story of that, the point is to explain the "law of conservation of frequency" in the same way as how it happens in quantum physics to give the conservation of energy.

Again this "law of conservation of frequency" can be directly experienced and understood as a daily life phenomenon, so to speak. All our radio communication systems are directly based on it. It simply says this: any radio wave emitted at a given frequency, is received anywhere at the same frequency. At least as long as all obstacles that the wave can bounce on, stand still. But if some object moves, then the frequency is modified by the Doppler effect. This corresponds to the case where a photon bounces on the object, and exchanges energy with it. The change of frequency has a precise value depending on the directions of the wave before and after, and on the movement of the object; it does not depend on how much of the wave bounces on it. Only two wave frequencies can be detected: the initial one and the reflected one (and possibly more obtained after bouncing on the object several times or through different trajectories), but none in between. So is the case for the photon: either it bounces on the object and exchanges energy with it, or it does not, but as long as we separately measure the different frequencies, there is no option in between.

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

A single photon cannot be detected at different places because the only way to detect it is by absorbing it. As the absorption of a radio wave cannot modify its frequency, its detection at different places requires this same frequency to be detected at different places. But if we start with only one unit of a given amount of energy, then we cannot get several copies of the same amount of energy at the end.

I have written here a simplified but still mathematically accurate expression of quantum physics, that includes the description of the quantum system involved in the double slit experiment, showing how its "paradoxical" properties are derived. I introduced it with metaphysical arguments for mind-matter duality, which I personally see as the most natural interpretation of the theory.

[spoirier]

My idea is that since our current understanding of physics says that no matter can maintain its shape when it travels into a black hole, than if we want to explore the interior of a black hold, we would need to find a non-physical way to travel into it.

Non-physical methods of travel are usually referred to as OBE's when they are involuntary, and astral projection when they are induced voluntarily. If certain people that are very good at traveling outside of the body could be recruited by science, than maybe they could attempt to see the inside of a black hole in an out of body state.

Just a theory of mine.

Aren't you afraid such experiences may be a little... dangerous ?
Who really knows whether after an astral visit inside the black hole they will still be able to come back ?
Not mentioning that even at the speed of light a round trip to the nearest black hole may take centuries.

[arian]

My idea is that since our current understanding of physics says that no matter can maintain its shape when it travels into a black hole, than if we want to explore the interior of a black hold, we would need to find a non-physical way to travel into it.

Non-physical methods of travel are usually referred to as OBE's when they are involuntary, and astral projection when they are induced voluntarily. If certain people that are very good at traveling outside of the body could be recruited by science, than maybe they could attempt to see the inside of a black hole in an out of body state.

Just a theory of mine.

Aren't you afraid such experiences may be a little... dangerous ?
Who really knows whether after an astral visit inside the black hole they will still be able to come back?

Are you referring to the fact that we are more than just this physical body/brain? What I mean is, if you believe we can travel to another place, yet our brain remains in this body, ... what would be 'traveling'?

Why would you see any danger in an astral visit inside the black hole?

I myself see that our mind is 'instantaneous', as soon as we think it, we are there, what do you think?

How do you see and understand the human psyche, as a form of physical-energy (please forgive the crudeness of my questions, I had very little schooling), or something 'beyond' the physical limitations, thus not under the 'laws of physics'?

Not mentioning that even at the speed of light a round trip to the nearest black hole may take centuries.

If light had speed, ... and as claimed that light has been slowed down to 30mph, and now even 'stopped', then shouldn't we re-calculate the distances of stars we see today? I mean what if in the billions of years that beam of starlight passed through some gasses that might have slowed it down to a walking speed, then (as claimed) jumped back to its original speed that was 'claimed' to have been measured some 200 years ago?

You seem to put a 'speed-limit' on even our thoughts, ... because you have learned (indoctrinated) that light has speed. Give me any distance, and I can be there and back with my mind as soon as you have defined that distance.

I have traveled way beyond black holes, ... I have 'seen' (as in understood) with my mind 'nothing', and can define it through my physical senses, and was able to make the trip safely and 'instantaneously'.

Thank you spoirier, eagerly waiting for your reply.

[spoirier]

I myself see that our mind is 'instantaneous', as soon as we think it, we are there, what do you think?

The ability of imaginary travel does not inform on how things can go for effective space travels.
According to Relativity theory, the travel of a beam of light is instantaneous relatively to itself. In other words, a traveller that would (nearly) follow a beam of light to another place in the universe, would perceive this trip as (nearly) instantaneous, though he does not go faster than light. If he does this an then comes back, he will feel having made a short trip, however many years would have passed on Earth meanwhile.
I know that the EPR paradox suggests there may be something not strictly local, deep in the spiritual realities. However the precise meaning and range of consequences of this is not clear. Despite this paradox, the laws of physics don't provide any means to effectively send information faster than light, and even explicitly describe the "reason" of this impossibility, by rejecting the concept of simultaneity altogether: as it takes minutes for the light to go between Earth and Mars, the events that "happened on Mars in the last minute" that we did not yet get signals about, are not really past events yet, so to speak. Therefore, any idea that disembodied minds may break this limit of the speed of light and thus make trips that some physically acceptable frame of reference would describe as a travel into the past, remains highly speculative, as long as no experience supports it.

And in general relativity, the very definition of what makes it impossible for objects to go back after crossing the horizon of a black hole, is that a way back would have to go faster than light.

And anyway, what scientific magazines usually don't tell you for fear of disappointing the cherished sensationalistic fantasies that help them sell more paper, is that there is hardly any mystery of what happens beyond the horizon of a black hole. Where space is, it follows the equations. Until it reaches its end. If I don't mistake (I understand some but not well all existing knowledge on black holes), only the last infinitesimal fraction of time before the destructive end, escapes description and prediction by current theories. Thus anyway, the question of what happens there in these last infinitesimal fractions of time, is hardly more mysterious than the question of how particles interact in every such infinitesimal fraction of time in the "normal conditions" anywhere.
And ideas that black holes may behave as a short way to some other region of space-time, are more inspired by Star Trek than by what the equations of General Relativity really say.

If light had speed, ... and as claimed that light has been slowed down to 30mph

Confusions should be avoided between on the one hand the universal constant c that is the ultimate speed limit of objects and information transfer according to relativity, and just happens to coincide with the speed of light in the void; on the other hand, the speed at which some given wavelength of light happens to go in some given material.

if in the billions of years that beam of starlight passed through some gasses that might have slowed it down to a walking speed,

Any significant slow down of light in some regions would easily be detected by the lens effects it would produce. And, well, such important decreases of the speed of light only happen in special conditions that cannot be found in interstellar space.

You seem to put a 'speed-limit' on even our thoughts, ...because you have learned (indoctrinated) that light has speed.

My belief is not based on what professors says, but on what the laws of physics say and what this suggests. Professors have been indoctrinated for their teachings (the choices of which theories they teach) by the experimenters'confirmation reports, who have been indoctrinated by the experimental results they obtained. The results of their experiments have themselves been indoctrinated by the behavior of the physical systems, which were themselves indoctrinated by God. But who indoctrinated God ?
You can also read more comments on this by another author.

I don't put a speed-limit on our thought. I was already clear : I just don't know and I see no clear argument in either way, so I don't give myself the right to pretend to know whether the mind can go faster than light or not, when the truth is that I have no way to decide that question in the current state of science.
What is your definition of "indoctrination": does it consist in pretending to know something (e.g. that the mind must surely be able to go faster than light), or in just admitting that we currently have no way to decide such a question, when this is the case ?

Give me any distance, and I can be there and back with my mind as soon as you have defined that distance. I have traveled way beyond black holes, ... I have 'seen' (as in understood) with my mind 'nothing', and can define it through my physical senses, and was able to make the trip safely and 'instantaneously'.

Very good. In this case, just tell us the respective numbers and main characteristics of the main planets of the nearest 10 stellar systems from here, and then we'll be able to check in the next few decades (for example with the James Webb Space Telescope now in construction) whether your perceptions were correct.

How do you see and understand the human psyche, as a form of physical-energy (please forgive the crudeness of my questions, I had very little schooling), or something 'beyond' the physical limitations, thus not under the 'laws of physics'?

I see the laws of physics, and especially the thermodynamic time arrow, as emerging from the properties of universal conciousness. In particular, time with its irreversibility, is a fundamentally metaphysical necessity (unlike the mathematical expression of time in the laws of physics where it may as well be replaced by a reversible space dimension). For more details, just visit my metaphysics page I linked above, containing my presentation of quantum physics.

[TheAtheist]

The Higgs Bosun is called the God particle because there is little doubt that both do not exist.