Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: Hyperia
Could you explain this to me as if i were a retard?

phys.org...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

=)

It's a very difficult concept to explain according to the physics professor in the video below, who tries to make an analogy to dumb it down, but even the dumbed-down analogy is hard to follow. I think it's not possible for a retard to understand it. Many other concepts in physics, yes, but this one maybe not. Probably not. Anyway if you want to watch the dumbed-down analogy trying to explain it, here's the video. This professor actually met John Bell who came up with these tests and apparently Bell is one of his personal heroes, and the professor thinks Bells tests are one of the greatest ideas in all of physics. Start playing the video at time index 41:20

He uses an analogy of a dealer dealing cards to try to put the Bell tests in layman terms. He put a lot of work into that presentation and analogy so I hope it helps but if it doesn't, at least feel reassured by his comments about the difficulty level of this concept. Not everybody is going to get it, and it can even take physics students a while to grasp it.

Two of the greatest minds in physics, Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr, were debating which interpretation of experimental results was correct. Experiments using Bells tests apparently proved Albert Einstein wrong, according to the video at least, though I'm not sure if mbkennel would agree (is he still around?). This latest article you cited is apparently further proof that Einstein's idea was wrong, but I'm still not sure if mbkennel would agree and he might have a point. There are also some alternate possible explanations of quantum mechanics to consider as explained in the first video in this thread by Sean Carroll, so you might want to watch that one too. If the idea Sean Carroll likes (the Everett interpretation) is correct, some of the statements in the video and in the article are not correct, since they are biased more toward the textbook interpretation of quantum mechanics, called the Copenhagen interpretation.

The author of the thread you cited doesn't even understand some of the simplest concepts in quantum mechanics so you can disregard his comments. He's made numerous threads about how great faster than light communication is, but he can't seem to accept that only random information is communicated that way and he keeps claiming useful information can be communicated faster than light. This is harder to understand so he's way over his head and makes a lot of ridiculous assertions not even suggested by the research. I don't even try to debate with him much anymore because it's like arguing with a wall that just doesn't get it.

We could dumb it down so far the content is lost this way: "Before, we thought quantum mechanics was weird; now we're sure it's weird."

a reply to: Arbitrageur

What would happen if 100 electrons were placed in an "indestructible, perfect mirror (I supposed I mean something different than mirror; instead of light being unable to pass through the material, I mean, to imagine a material in which electrons cannot in anyway pass through or 'become part of the inner wall'), sphere enclosure" (which had the ability to shrink in area), and the sphere began shrinking in area; what would happen as the spheres inner area approached the collective area of 100 electrons, and what would happen if it continued shrinking in area?

I know the premise may seem and/or be impossible, but theoretically, if it were possible to 'squeeze electrons together, with increasing force', what might happen to them?

a reply to: ImaFungi
That question reminds me a little of what we do to protons in a fusion reactor, we "squeeze" them together so they will fuse. Like charges repel so it takes a lot of squeezing to bring them close enough together to do that which is why most earthly fusion reactors have had less energy output than energy input.

There are of course some parallels with electrons in that like charges repel, so eventually it gets harder to squeeze them together for that reason. But the parallels mostly end there. Electrons don't undergo nuclear fusion when squeezed together, and electrons also exhibit a quantum behavior that can resist compression even more than the electric (Coulomb) repulsion, called Electron degeneracy pressure

Electron degeneracy pressure is a particular manifestation of the more general phenomenon of quantum degeneracy pressure. The Pauli exclusion principle disallows two identical half-integer spin particles (electrons and all other fermions) from simultaneously occupying the same quantum state. The result is an emergent pressure against compression of matter into smaller volumes of space.

When a dying star tries to collapse, this electron degeneracy pressure works against gravity, and the Chandrasekhar limit specifies at what stellar mass one or the other will dominate. A star must have over about 1.4 solar masses for gravity to be stronger than electron degeneracy pressure to allow the star to collapse into a neutron star or black hole.

If the stellar remnant has less than 1.4 solar masses, electron degeneracy pressure is stronger than gravity, preventing further collapse, so it can form a stable white dwarf.

I suppose if you had a strong enough force squeezing 100 electrons together, they could form a micro black hole, but that's a big if, and of course micro black holes are extremely short lived according to theory (none have ever been observed).

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Do positive charges radiate radiation in exactly the same manner as negative charges?

When one says 'magnetic, or electro magnetic field exists' they are alerting attention to 'all the photons that exist'?

When two magnets are brought together by the ends of same pole, i.e. N to N, the reason the magnets repel, is because the electrons that make up the magnet are all motioning in a common manner, which results in the production of photons, in a common manner, which keep the magnets from being able to touch.

Every attempt to express how magnets repel, is an attempt to mask that fact. I admit there may be slightly more too it, such as mini gravity warps may play a role, in the way light and electrons are effected that result in repulsion and attraction.

A prediction I would make, would be that if one were to view an infrared or other appropriate device of observing photon production, they would see increase photon interaction near the poles of the two magnets as they are brought together.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Do positive charges radiate radiation in exactly the same manner as negative charges?

More context is needed to answer that question, like an experimental setup. In plasma the mass difference between protons and electrons causes the less massive electrons to often have a dominant effect because they are more easily accelerated.

When one says 'magnetic, or electro magnetic field exists' they are alerting attention to 'all the photons that exist'?

When two magnets are brought together by the ends of same pole, i.e. N to N, the reason the magnets repel, is because the electrons that make up the magnet are all motioning in a common manner, which results in the production of photons, in a common manner, which keep the magnets from being able to touch.

Every attempt to express how magnets repel, is an attempt to mask that fact.

You left out the word "virtual" in front of "photon" but I see nothing masking a statement thus clarified:

Virtual Particles

The magnetic field between magnetic dipoles. It is caused by the exchange of virtual photons. In symmetric 3-dimensional space this exchange results in the inverse cube law for magnetic force. Since the photon has no mass, the magnetic potential has an infinite range.

However keep in mind that virtual particles are not really particles even though the name might infer that, kind of like a faux diamond is not really a diamond.

A prediction I would make, would be that if one were to view an infrared or other appropriate device of observing photon production, they would see increase photon interaction near the poles of the two magnets as they are brought together.

Making such predictions and then testing them is the basis of modern science, except most modern physicists have read something like the Feynman and more advanced textbooks on physics so they can direct their experimental inquiries toward answering unanswered questions instead of things that are already known. But there's nothing wrong with performing confirmation experiments as part of a learning process...students do it all the time.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The Bell inequalities and tests thereof were not developed until after Einstein's death, as was greater understanding of chaos and decoherence.

In Einstein's time, his position was quite reasonable, and he and co-workers pointed out some deep difficulties with quantum mechanics. Some of Einstein's physical proposals turned out to be experimentally untrue, but he didn't know that. Einstein never rejected the clear experimental successes of quantum mechanics, which he believed to be "correct but incomplete". And on this he was right, in 1935---but the further developments were not along the lines he anticipated.

And the Copenhagen interpretation then assumed to be true turns out to be philosophically mumbo jumbo and unclear, and superior interpretations of QM were subsequently developed.

All of this was sparked by Einstein & others' insight into the existence of the problem.

Think of it this way: it was like Hilbert setting out the 20 most important unsolved problems in math, but one solution turned out, 50 years later, to be different than what Hilbert guessed.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Do positive charges radiate radiation in exactly the same manner as negative charges?

Other than the 'current' running in the opposite direction because of the opposite charge---yes. There has been no experimental evidence ever pointing to any asymmetry in charge.

When two magnets are brought together by the ends of same pole, i.e. N to N, the reason the magnets repel, is because the electrons that make up the magnet are all motioning in a common manner, which results in the production of photons, in a common manner, which keep the magnets from being able to touch.

Well, this is a static magnetic field and thinking in terms of photons is not really that helpful. Remember, photons are what you get when you expand the quantum mechanical fields of the electromagnetic fields into certain kinds of basis functions---the real ones are those that have energy propagating to infinity (carry energy & momentum away), and the virtual ones are the other ones. This has a direct analogy in classical physics---wave solutions that propagate away in the 'far field', and the solutions that disappear exponentially in the far field. The first ones are real photons, the second ones are 'virtual photons', but they are just representations of the underlying electromagnetic interaction. In physics there are multiple ways to represent and calculate phenomena which is the same at its core, but the techniques and language are different and adapted for the different situations.

If you want to scatter x-rays off atoms, then the photon idea is very useful and can make experimentally verifiable calculations. Quasi-static macroscopic magnetic interactions? No, not really, computing with Maxwellian electrodynamics is good enough for almost everything.

In your particular case, the way to think about it is that electrons have an intrinsic interaction with external magnetic fields (as well as being intrinsic creator of fields). When you push opposing poles together in two ferromagnets, the collective electrons pointing in the same direction cannot individually flip around to match the external field (that's what it means to be a ferromagnet)---it's energetically unfavorable, so if they can't flip, then they would like to be farther away---lower energy---and you get a repelilng force.

Every attempt to express how magnets repel, is an attempt to mask that fact. I admit there may be slightly more too it, such as mini gravity warps may play a role, in the way light and electrons are effected that result in repulsion and attraction.

A prediction I would make, would be that if one were to view an infrared or other appropriate device of observing photon production, they would see increase photon interaction near the poles of the two magnets as they are brought together.

That doesn't make much sense or is a useful way to think about it. If you just want to say the EM field gets larger, then that's right.

ques: why is gravity research banned in all the universities, the world over?

originally posted by: mbkennel

In your particular case, the way to think about it is that electrons have an intrinsic interaction with external magnetic fields (as well as being intrinsic creator of fields).

I hypothesize 'external magnetic fields' = 'photons';

You hypothesize (or know) 'external magnetic fields' = ' ___________'

Provide your answer please, and allow me to further question it.

There are charges, and photons. Photons move charges. Charges move photons.

'external magnetic field' is the relationship between all charges and photons at all given space and time;

Now what else do you think there is, that is required to = magnetic field, besides charge and photon? (I ought add, I also think gravity likely plays a role)

originally posted by: Nochzwei
ques: why is gravity research banned in all the universities, the world over?

ans: it isn't

originally posted by: Nochzwei
ques: why is gravity research banned in all the universities, the world over?

To follow Bedlem - it isnt banned at all Nochzwei...

indico.cern.ch...

CAP 2015, had a whole session on gravity... so did 2014, so did 2013, and 2012... you get the picture?

not banned, because you want to think up a conspiracy and say "Ooooh its banned" doesn't mean that it is banned

What is the deal with plasma and magnetized structures? I see on youtube people take plasma arcs from wires and contact them with the neodymium magnetic fields and aside from a cool light show what is the significance of this reaction?

Here is one such video that appears to be a little more interesting toward this end.
www.youtube.com...
thanks

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Nochzwei
ques: why is gravity research banned in all the universities, the world over?

ans: it isn't

Some courses are better than others:

originally posted by: Nochzwei
ques: why is gravity research banned in all the universities, the world over?

Where do you even get these mad ideas from??

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The Bell inequalities and tests thereof were not developed until after Einstein's death, as was greater understanding of chaos and decoherence.

In Einstein's time, his position was quite reasonable, and he and co-workers pointed out some deep difficulties with quantum mechanics. Some of Einstein's physical proposals turned out to be experimentally untrue, but he didn't know that.

Yes of course his ideas were reasonable at the time and had no experimental evidence to contradict them at the time...for the reason you state that the Bell inequalities and tests thereof were not developed until after Einstein's death.

The question is, do you think the latest experiments have put a nail in the coffin of Einstein's line of thought about something like hidden variables, or do you still think we might be missing something which might still allow something like hidden variables to be at work? I know some people aren't as completely sold on Bells inequalties and tests as the professor in the above video. For example this paper questions whether a loophole-free experiment is possible:

Time, Finite Statistics, and Bell's Fifth Position

I discuss three issues connected to Bell's theorem and Bell-CHSH-type experiments: time and the memory loophole, finite statistics (how wide are the error bars Under Local Realism), and the question of whether a loophole-free experiment is feasible, a surprising omission on Bell's list of four positions to hold in the light of his results.

originally posted by: stabstab
What is the deal with plasma and magnetized structures? I see on youtube people take plasma arcs from wires and contact them with the neodymium magnetic fields and aside from a cool light show what is the significance of this reaction?

Here is one such video that appears to be a little more interesting toward this end.
www.youtube.com...
thanks

It's physics in action.
The video you posted is a derivative video, the source is Dave LaPoint. Here's the first video in his series with his comment:

www.youtube.com...

In this video series the currently accepted theories of physics and astrophysics are shaken to the core by a radical new theory of the fundamental forces in all matter.

Quantum mechanics shook classical physics to the core so it's not impossible for something like that to happen, but that was a revolution in mainstream science, and usually when you see a comment like that on a youtube video it's time to put on your hip waders because the BS is going to get very deep. His delusion is a little hard to follow but here's my take:

At 11 minutes in that video, he points out the following building at CERN in Geneva has a dome shape with a hole in the top:


Here's the apparent logic or lack thereof:
1. See dome building (he calls it a "bowl shape")
2. Make apparatus shaped like dome building
3. Apply plasma to "bowl-shaped" apparatus, see bowl shapes
4. All physics is wrong, new theory based on bowl shapes explains everything

The sad part to me is that there is very rich science and engineering involved in the architectural dome structures he's so fascinated with, and he seems completely oblivious to those properties and why domes are used in buildings. Anyway the actual shape of a dipole field could be more accurately represented with a torus than a couple of bowls, though coincidentally you can see two "bowl shapes" in this torus diagram, formed by the field direction arrows, but it's not trying to illustrate any bowls. However, Dave LaPoint might see it as confirmation of his bowl theory, because, bowls:

www.ucalgary.ca...


As that link goes on to explain even that Torus model isn't very accurate for the Earth's magnetic field so follow the link to see how it's distorted by the solar wind.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
ques: why is gravity research banned in all the universities, the world over?

originally posted by: GetHyped
Where do you even get these mad ideas from??

Of course gravity research isn't banned, it's done all the time. The question might have made at least a little sense if it asked why antigravity research was banned. It's not as far as I know, however the wikipedia article on Eugene Podkletnov suggests that antigravity research is not a career-enhancing move:

Eugene Podkletnov

Podkletnov withdrew his second paper after it had been initially accepted.[4][5] The resulting furor over the alleged claims in the withdrawn paper is reported to be the primary reason for his expulsion from his lab and the termination of his employment at the university.[1][2]

This kind of reminds me of the scientist who lost her job over publishing some wildly deviant dating results which disagreed with nearly all other dating results. One of two things happens in these cases:
-there might be a truly anomalous result without error, or
-there is some error in the experiment/observation that the researcher failed to account for.

I see the assumption by the mainstream community in these cases is the latter, and probably with good reason. In the antigravity research Nochzwei cited, we have cited examples in this thread that the latter option is the case. But Podkeltnov can be completely vindicated when he starts flying his antigravity machine around in a public demonstration, if he really has antigravity.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Nochzwei
ques: why is gravity research banned in all the universities, the world over?

Where do you even get these mad ideas from??

Speaking to deans around the world. So maybe you are getting mad ideas.
Name one university anywhere, where gravity research is actively taking place currently.

originally posted by: Jukiodone

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Nochzwei
ques: why is gravity research banned in all the universities, the world over?

ans: it isn't

Some courses are better than others:

Yes but not anymore since ning li went missing

a reply to: Nochzwei

University of Alberta
University of Glasgow

to name two of them... operating in two countries with different research funding agencies.

Nochzwei, ignoring things that don't support your bias is getting rather tiring. Also, deans? name them. Oh yes and by the way, most deans of universities haven't got intimate knowledge of exactly what research is going on at their university... it is mostly a managerial job, unless it is a university which only does one single area of research...

And speaking to them? never met a single dean who I could get an appointment with without having to wait for a long time... Smells a bit funky to me.

Or could it just be your statement should say "There is no research into gravitation occurring at universities which don't perform gravitation research"

originally posted by: Nochzwei

Yes but not anymore since ning li went missing

She didn't go missing, she misappropriated her grant money and vamoosed back home.

Do you think the energetic-al force of the living structure of earth and every species, in its atomical mass could at all, or in any way influence the universe as an opposing/or symbiotic energy force?