Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Bedlam

Isn't seeing oncoming headlights a good thing?

Sure - but if you made it a bit leaky on one side or the other, or turned them a bit off of 90 degrees, you could see the light bouncing off the road but not be blinded by the headlights themselves. You'd never have to dim them.

problem would be you need to see your headlights bouncing off the street. You would effectively blind yourself to the road in front of you. 9 Know YOU Didn't Think ABOUT THAT Part lol. To be honest I said at first that's a good idea then I figured out why we shouldnt.

originally posted by: dragonridr
\
Your the fool that put our electron into some jiggling robots hand. Thinking un some way this does something. We need to get our electron moving at close to the speed of light not jiggle it by a robot. Your showing a complete lack of understanding of magnetic field. And sadly this is frustrating because I know I've explained this to you along with everyone else. The only way your electron held by your robot will do anything is if it throws it or another one placed a positron near it than at least we can form a diapole.

How come all the literature of physics exclaims;

EM RADIATION IS CREATED WHEN A CHARGED PARTICLE IS ACCELERATED

IS THIS IMPLYING THAT EM RADIATION EXISTS PRIOR TO THE PARTICLE BEING ACCELERATED, AND IT IS ONLY EM RADIATION ITSELF WHICH ACCELERATES THE CHARGED PARTICLE, AND THEREFORE THAT SAME EXACT EM RADIATION ITSELF, WHICH PROPAGATES AWAY, AFTER ACCELERATING THE PARTICLE?

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: ImaFungi

Do any of you know how I could successfully contact the smartest most passionate theoretical physicist in the closest real physical proximity to where I live?

Yes. Be admitted to graduate school in physics in your local university. You'll have to learn and understand undergraduate physics first.

Ahh, thats why there are so many problems in physics and so many student robots how produces endless tautologies based off of misinterpretations which cant solve them. You know what they say; Sanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results, and you surely reside in sanity.

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: ImaFungi

That's all baloney. Physics knows for sure.

The Lienard-Wiechert potentials give the exact answer for classical physics, which are expectation values for quantum physics in the usual limit of significant photon number occupation.

I've even pointed you to on-line real-time simulations for teaching which shows field lines (in 2-d) where you can move the charge around and see the effects on propagating fields.

Computing the exactly low photon count numbers need QED but the computations are exact, even if very difficult.

As people have said time and time again, there is no conservation law on photon number therefore photons don't have to "come from" anything other than accelerating charges or time-dependent elementary magnetic dipoles.

Where do the 'sound wave phonons' come from right when the band begins to play? Same place.

Ok now we are getting somewhere, now we are cooking with photons.

That 2d representation you showed me;

First problem;

You have to magically click a mouse on it and drag it;

Theoretically in reality, this would be impossible without messing with the energetic environment in non trivial ways;

Secondly;

those lines that wiggle/wave when the mouse does drag the point charge;

Do they represent material which exists prior to the mouse dragging the point charge?

These are necessary questions for you to answer, so that I may then ask you more questions about your answer, and we can continue this process, until I better understand, where your understanding fails.

a reply to: dragonridr

You're no fun.

a reply to: ImaFungi

No.

So. To continue the LCD question. As has been surmised, the relevant part of an LCD to light is polarization. Obviously, as is demonstrated by the fact you're looking at one, they work. They work by manipulating polarization.

So light can be polarized, and that can be manipulated.

Next question, how and why do polarizers work?

originally posted by: Bedlam
So. To continue the LCD question. As has been surmised, the relevant part of an LCD to light is polarization. Obviously, as is demonstrated by the fact you're looking at one, they work. They work by manipulating polarization.

So light can be polarized, and that can be manipulated.

Next question, how and why do polarizers work?

Through dichroism. When having two polarizors at right angles. They absorb the incoming light.

originally posted by: Bedlam
So. To continue the LCD question. As has been surmised, the relevant part of an LCD to light is polarization. Obviously, as is demonstrated by the fact you're looking at one, they work. They work by manipulating polarization.

So light can be polarized, and that can be manipulated.

Next question, how and why do polarizers work?

If a containment of water existed far away from any large body of mass (insinuating 0 gravity);

And there was a motorized 'rudder' which moved back and forth;

If it moved back and forth, would it create movements in the water that would wave on stabley;

polarized in relation to if the rudder was turned 90 degrees, and now moving up and down?

Would the waves in that water (to be clear, the experiment is done not on the surface, but in the middle of under the water (there being no gravity near, there would be technically 'no under') in these two different trials, be considered polarized in relation to one another?

a reply to: ImaFungi

And so we approach the crux of the problem.

How do polarizers work? What about them causes the light to be polarized?

eta: hold your last question...it's the next step after "what is a polarizer, in itself?"

originally posted by: ImaFungi
And there was a motorized 'rudder' which moved back and forth;

If it moved back and forth, would it create movements in the water that would wave on stabley

No.

You can see what happens when you move something back and forth underwater in this video at 14m39s:

Turbulence


It doesn't "wave on stabley"(sic).

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
Through dichroism. When having two polarizors at right angles. They absorb the incoming light.

What was the point of the question you answered? Why do you think he asked the question?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
And there was a motorized 'rudder' which moved back and forth;

If it moved back and forth, would it create movements in the water that would wave on stabley

No.

You can see what happens when you move something back and forth underwater in this video at 14m39s:

Did you miss the part where I said;

"If a containment of water existed far away from any large body of mass (insinuating 0 gravity)"


The reason I used this potential thought experiment example was to attempt to show bedlam that it might be possible to create the effect of polarization by using a medium;

As he seems to think the fact that polarization can be detected in light equals the fact that light cannot be a mediumic existent.

The reason I say, lets imagine this thought experiment as the area of pure water being away from any large body of mass;

Is because if I am attempting to push the limits of analogy of light to being mediumic (geniuses are allowed to invent words, especially if they are speaking to someone intelligent enough to intuit the meaning); we would need to consider that the light field/medium would be a medium which exists throughout the entire universe, and if we are imagining under the conditions of the universe being all that exists in/as reality, there would be no large mass beyond the universe, which would effect the total light medium (so no true up or down etc. which on earth we define as in relation to the center of mass of the large body we exist on and of);

I intuited that utilizing water medium in this thought experiment may not express the purity of its potential as a relatant, if it is under the conditions of there being a 'heavy down', the force of gravity toward the center of the earth;

Thus, In the first statement of the reply you are replying to, I made it clear, and I assumed what I have just written here would have been contained in that statement, as an obvious understanding;

That you must imagine the area of water existing away from any massive body, because I and we are attempting to comprehend the potential reactions and effects in medium which have no gravitationally biased reference frame, as would any medium of water on earth.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Did you miss the part where I said;

"If a containment of water existed far away from any large body of mass (insinuating 0 gravity)"

You get turbulence with or without gravity, so no I didn't miss that.

The reason I used this potential thought experiment example was to attempt to show bedlam that it might be possible to create the effect of polarization by using a medium

But you didn't.

As he seems to think the fact that polarization can be detected in light equals the fact that light cannot be a mediumic existent.

I think you misinterpreted what he said or meant. Can you please provide me with an exact quote where he said that? I thought he was referring to the manipulation of polarization in the LCD, not just that it was polarized.

Seismic SH and SV waves are horizontally and vertically polarized as the H and V indicate, so there's no doubt that polarization can exist in a medium, but your example in water doesn't work.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok, is turbulence, the term for 'the system stabilizing itself'?

As in, the collective masses surrounding those masses that are involved in being a wave; dampen the wave, and eventually diminish it, or absorb it?

Would there be any conceivable way in which the surrounding masses were so sturdy and structured, that if a wave was created in the middle, the wave would not leak out into the surrounding masses (ok, I see here, we are making analogy to sound waves prior, in the concept of turbulence, and your point) so that the wave is created in the middle of the medium, and the masses surrounding the masses that are waving, are so sturdy in their collective bondage, that the wave is forced to continue on perfectly as itself in the direction it was started in?

I cant point to the exact places Bedlam has said what I said he said, but he has said it multiple times in this thread; he believes the existence of light has nothing to do with it existing in some collective medium type way.

The concept of light being 2 waves which perfectly create each other and not only do so traveling in a straight line, but also then are ultimately effected by the geometry of gravity, but the light remains doing its wave thing, while not being just particle/ball traveling in a path of up and down up and down, but that there is actually something linearly string like wobbly wave like...come on man... somethings up.... there is still mystery here.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok, is turbulence, the term for 'the system stabilizing itself'?

You could google it, or watch the video on turbulence I just posted.

Would there be any conceivable way in which the surrounding masses were so sturdy and structured, that if a wave was created in the middle, the wave would not leak out into the surrounding masses

Not very eloquently stated, but the material properties account for why seismic waves can be polarized and why attempting to make polarized water waves underwater doesn't work.

I cant point to the exact places Bedlam has said what I said he said, but he has said it multiple times in this thread; he believes the existence of light has nothing to do with it existing in some collective medium type way.

All physicists I know of state this, but this is a different claim than "he seems to think the fact that polarization can be detected in light equals the fact that light cannot be a mediumic existent".

The concept of light being 2 waves which perfectly create each other and not only do so traveling in a straight line, but also then are ultimately effected by the geometry of gravity, but the light remains doing its wave thing, while not being just particle/ball traveling in a path of up and down up and down, but that there is actually something linearly string like wobbly wave like...come on man... somethings up.... there is still mystery here.

Perhaps more of a mystery to you than to physicists who have devoted years to learning about this. I think most physicists probably go through the "WTF" moment when they realize their brain that evolved to serve the survival needs of hunter-gatherers was not well equipped to visualize things on a subatomic scale, because, we never had any need to do that to survive. And then, they get over it. Maybe you'll realize that someday too and switch from "hunter-gatherer" mode to "physicist" mode.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok, here is a good representative question I think.


Lets say all that existed for eternal time was a simple robot with pre wound gear-like mechanism arms;

And; exactly 2 electrons (besides the electrons that make up the robot, but lets consider ignoring those, and then how different the response would be if we did not ignore those)

And; how ever you understand the fundamental nature of light to exist.


Lets imagine the robots fingers are so fine grain they can hold an electron between them;

The wound mechanism was set on a magic timer of sorts (you know all this conjecture may and/or may not be important, but I may and/or may not need to gloss over these details, to attempt to point at the most substantial and essential content of my wonderings and concern) so that just as in this moment of thought experiment you and my immaterial spirits are arriving on the scene for you to perfectly tell me what ought to happen, as from your claims of knowledge and understanding I trust that you know how light exists, and thus you will be able to tell me what happens, when the wound mechanism begins, moving its arms;

Moving its arms, with 1 electron in each hand between 2 fingers;

How must the mechanism have to been constructed, as to move the electrons (at all? to create photon?) in relation to one another to create photon?

Keep in mind; I know I said the claims of 'this is all that exists'; and I did not say 'photons exist'; because I am waiting till you, or another potential smart person who reads this and knows how light exists; to fill in the blanks, of how light would have to exist in this reality I have depicted, in order for light to be created when the experiment begins;

The follow up question I will ask after the above is dealt with;

in relation to how long the mechanism is wound to last for, and relation to the force of the mechanisms arms movements; Do we figure these details will be in proportion to the amount of photons generated?

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: ImaFungi

Do any of you know how I could successfully contact the smartest most passionate theoretical physicist in the closest real physical proximity to where I live?

Yes. Be admitted to graduate school in physics in your local university. You'll have to learn and understand undergraduate physics first.

Ahh, thats why there are so many problems in physics and so many student robots how produces endless tautologies based off of misinterpretations which cant solve them.

People who haven't studied actual physics make far more misinterpretations. Right now you can't differentiate actual mysteries in physics from your own ignorance. Even when people are trying to lead you to the answer.

You know what they say; Sanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results, and you surely reside in sanity.

originally posted by: ImaFungi


Ok now we are getting somewhere, now we are cooking with photons.

That 2d representation you showed me;

First problem;

You have to magically click a mouse on it and drag it;

Theoretically in reality, this would be impossible without messing with the energetic environment in non trivial ways;

Secondly;

those lines that wiggle/wave when the mouse does drag the point charge;

Do they represent material which exists prior to the mouse dragging the point charge?

These are necessary questions for you to answer, so that I may then ask you more questions about your answer, and we can continue this process, until I better understand, where your understanding fails.

We've told you the same thing many times: the underlying physics (classically) is that of a field which has existed since the big bang. Oscillations on top of that can be created and destroyed, and the elementary motions of that field (in quantum field theory) are known as photons which you can think as a particular basis function for the configuration of a field. The photons are created and destroyed and yet the underlying field was always "there" ready to be excited and altered by maxwell's equations.

The electric field lines in the demonstration are not physical objects, they are visualizations, like stream lines, of the electric field formed by a hypothetical integration in vector space at a snapshot in time.

Electromagnetic radiation is something that the electromagnetic field is doing not being.

If you want to understand more carefully what the words above actually mean, and the truth is not in the linguistic description but the mathematics and the experimental consequences of the theory, you'll need to study physics for real and shut up for a while until you learn enough to ask better questions.