It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Exposing the Myths of Settled Science

page: 25
14
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   

dragonridr
Ok look at it this way we have a box which contains a vacuum and it starts at 1 cm we check it virtual particles pop in and out. Now 2 things these particles will create a wave 1cm wide and they will randomly appear in our box. Now lets shrink it down 100 percent our wavelength becomes smaller but something else also the same amount of virtual particles still pop in and out. As we keep looking at smaller and smaller area we see more virtual particles which shortens there wavelength and increases there number by volume. this keeps going until we reach a limit or at least what we expect to be the limit. And that limit is 10-33 cm at that point our energy level is so great and are volume so small it actually creates a mini black hole. As i said before this was the fear of what was goinf to happen at CERN remember that. Because to look at these smaller and smaller boxes we need to use more and more energy.
Is this line of thinking what leads to the Vacuum catastrophe? If so, good theories aren't usually called "catastrophe". Instead this is referred to as a naive application of quantum mechanics, and as we've seen, or should I say not seen, there was no mini black hole observed at CERN.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Arbitrageur

dragonridr
Ok look at it this way we have a box which contains a vacuum and it starts at 1 cm we check it virtual particles pop in and out. Now 2 things these particles will create a wave 1cm wide and they will randomly appear in our box. Now lets shrink it down 100 percent our wavelength becomes smaller but something else also the same amount of virtual particles still pop in and out. As we keep looking at smaller and smaller area we see more virtual particles which shortens there wavelength and increases there number by volume. this keeps going until we reach a limit or at least what we expect to be the limit. And that limit is 10-33 cm at that point our energy level is so great and are volume so small it actually creates a mini black hole. As i said before this was the fear of what was goinf to happen at CERN remember that. Because to look at these smaller and smaller boxes we need to use more and more energy.
Is this line of thinking what leads to the Vacuum catastrophe? If so, good theories aren't usually called "catastrophe". Instead this is referred to as a naive application of quantum mechanics, and as we've seen, or should I say not seen, there was no mini black hole observed at CERN.


Very true as i argued before Cern will not create a black hole however the same reason we see energy increases led them to the wrong conclusion. What it tells us once again theirs something hidden from us below 10-33 we know theres something under the planck scale.Also tells us time and space itself is quantizied.But i dont think were ready to take them there until other aspects are understood do you?



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 01:14 AM
link   

dragonridr
What it tells us once again theirs something hidden from us below 10-33 we know theres something under the planck scale.Also tells us time and space itself is quantizied.But i dont think were ready to take them there until other aspects are understood do you?
Moduli seems pretty convinced that space is NOT quantized...personally I have to say I don't know if it is or not, but clearly there is a gap in our understanding, and if I knew how to fill the gap, I'd probably get a Nobel prize, but I don't.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Arbitrageur

dragonridr
What it tells us once again theirs something hidden from us below 10-33 we know theres something under the planck scale.Also tells us time and space itself is quantizied.But i dont think were ready to take them there until other aspects are understood do you?
Moduli seems pretty convinced that space is NOT quantized...personally I have to say I don't know if it is or not, but clearly there is a gap in our understanding, and if I knew how to fill the gap, I'd probably get a Nobel prize, but I don't.


Well to tell you the truth im not fond of the idea myself. Im having a hard time buying into string theory. Im having a hard time believing the universe is nothing more then open and closed strings. Then theres m theory this is just well a patch saying well this must be hiding under reality with no clue how it would even develop in the first place. If we find a way to see beyond 10-33 we may get an answer someday. Problem isthat may be an absolute barrier we cant see beyond.If so we will all ways just have theories about what happens in a macro universe and we will have to look else where for a theory of everything.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


I think you are wrong about understanding time.

And why must there be something below 10^33? Is it not possible the universe has a smallest size objects, the smallest quanta of energy, and then everything else is built up from interaction between multiples of these? Or is the vacuum and fields really so different from energy quanta that was able to create matter like quarks and electrons? Is the tiniest most fundamental fields a connection of near infinite tiny particles? And is it accurate to call them the tiny field if they exist the entire size of the universe, or its that their nature is tiny, how can an object exist in 3 dimensions and be tiny but undetectable easily, if it literally exists at every point in space? Does that mean the fields are compressed beyond imagine so there is literally a extremely solid substance at every point? If there is all that energy in the vacuum field, how much vacuum exists in your brain, between cells and atoms, and in atoms, and between quarks, does that vacuum energy affect matter, does it interact with matter, does it allow matter to do and be what matter is and does?
edit on 13-11-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr
 


I think you are wrong about understanding time.

And why must there be something below 10^33? Is it not possible the universe has a smallest size objects, the smallest quanta of energy, and then everything else is built up from interaction between multiples of these? Or is the vacuum and fields really so different from energy quanta that was able to create matter like quarks and electrons? Is the tiniest most fundamental fields a connection of near infinite tiny particles? And is it accurate to call them the tiny field if they exist the entire size of the universe, or its that their nature is tiny, how can an object exist in 3 dimensions and be tiny but undetectable easily, if it literally exists at every point in space? Does that mean the fields are compressed beyond imagine so there is literally a extremely solid substance at every point? If there is all that energy in the vacuum field, how much vacuum exists in your brain, between cells and atoms, and in atoms, and between quarks, does that vacuum energy affect matter, does it interact with matter, does it allow matter to do and be what matter is and does?
edit on 13-11-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


Lets restart first lets discuss fields and what they are i have a feeling your thinking of them like classical physics which looked at them as a continuous flowing smoothly changing entities. So a field isnt just a number or point in space in a math equation it has a physical reality. A physist by the name of John archibald Wheeler put it best when asked about a field he said it occupies space it contains energy and its presence eliminates a true vacuum. As a side note he also believed that if there was no observer in the universe the universe would not exist. He believed that as an observer we create the past long story but i read his books and well i can see at least what he means. Any way back to the subject so fields in effect create a condition in space. In QM fields are distributions of particles the denser they are the stronger the interaction we call these virtual particles. Now virtual particles dont stay in existance for long because they violate the conservation of energy rule remember the video i showed you about what a violation is and how we know it occurred.They exist because of energy fluctuations from Heisenbergs uncertainty principle. This is why virtual particles exist for extremely short times but its long enough to interact with matter. Now as i said these virtual particles create what is known as gauge bosons or more accurately its what they are.

So heres were it gets tricky these virtual bosons dont exist but if given enough energy to satisfy the conservation of energy law they are in every respect a boson.And as a boson will interact with matter like an electric charge for example provides the energy for a magnetic field to occur making these bosons real instead of virtual. We remove the electric charge the value goes to zero and we have virtual particles again.

Now we explained part of one type of field lets look at the Higgs field its different unlike magnetic field the higgs field all ways has a value even without something to generate it due to energy fluctuations.Or another way to think of it is these virtual particles poping in and out raises the energy above 0 same as adding an electric charge does in our other field. So this means unlike our virtual bosons the higgs boson is there all the time everywhere in the universe. This is why this one particle was called the god particle without it reality itself cannot exist.So the Higgs boson creates drag on particles well not all particles photons for example do not interact. But this friction or drag if you will is dependent on the rest mass of a particle. Quick video so you can see it all ways helps.




So in short are fields everywhere yes they are. Do they contain mass yes they do as long as conditions are met. What are they particles nothing more nothing less. Is there something smaller that makes up these fields well not that we are aware of yet just a couple of theories. And i cant think of anything else you might ask so ill end it here.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Ok cool, I didnt mean just em fields. Someone earlier replied that it is thought there are 58 fundamental fields, including Em, gravity, higgs, and all the quarks and electrons and particles. I was wondering about those. For the case of EM fields, they dont interact with each other in space do they?


Almost zero in any practical situation especially below hard gammas---any effect is modulated through pair creation of e+/e- virtual particles. Experimentally the linearity has been verified (i.e. no interaction) to many significant figures .


Can sound waves interact with one another?


Yes, there's an effect in real gases from localized temperature changes among other effects. The higher the amplitude the more important the nonlinearity. Westervelt's equation.

mesoscopic.mines.edu...

www.amazon.com...



Does the higgs field interact with the EM field and gravity field and quark field?


No---which is why photons are massless; presumably yes but we don't know how; I'll leave that one to the real particle physicists to answer.


If there is an entire quark field, but quarks are only in certain places throughout the universe, I was wondering what is the essence of the fieldness, what is the quark field where there are no quarks, quark juice?


That's the meaning of the vacuum state. The unusual thing about quantum field theory is that the vacuum state (lowest energy physically) is not the same thing as mathematical zero.

Before quantum mechanics it was an unexamined axiom of all physics that the lowest energy possible was nothing which was represented by the mathematical field value (or particle count) of zero.



edit on 13-11-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-11-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-11-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   

mbkennel

That's the meaning of the vacuum state. The unusual thing about quantum field theory is that the vacuum state (lowest energy physically) is not the same thing as mathematical zero.



So you say the EM field, quark fields, gravity field, higgs field exist everywhere in space; you say where there are no quarks there is vacuum state, and so in this vacuum state there are a bunch of mixed fields but they dont all react? The non zero vacuum state is an energetic entity unto itself, as in separate in nature and essence from all other fields? Did all fields originally come from the same field, if so how did one kind, create so many fundamentally different kinds, that occupy the same spaces and all of space?

If you were the creator of a universe yet you had to start with identical initial conditions present before the creation of this universe, but you had the power to omit and adjust certain things. What would you have to do to ensure certain fields would not exist, what would you have to do to make sure only one type of field was created? I am trying to understand what occurred to allow separate fundamental entities to come into existence and to occupy the same space/s yet have such different properties some of which do not interact with others or even itself, and I am wondering if at the base they all, it all, all of it, is derived from the same one fundamental stuffness, as is perhaps insinuated with talk like matter and anti matter can be annihilated into pure energy, and vacuum fluctuations can create matter, and matter can transform into other matter. But can matter particles be turned into gravity particles, or photons, or can photons be turned into vacuum state, or can higgs particles be turned into quarks? Is it all interchangeable, or is there only some levels on which fields are interchangeable, what are the barriers which prevent it all from being interchangeable if any?

I have a feeling the answer is energy right... And would a good analogy be like trying to turn (i dont know chemistry well) an apple into...another object that requires the same atoms as an apple yet is fundamentally different object. It is theoretically possible, it is just much energy and events went into arranging the components of the apple as they are, that it would require much energy and intricate skill and detail, to break all the atomic bonds, and reconfigure them into a new object. Is this like with the fundamental scales smaller then atomic level? There are objects, fields that took a lot of energy and specific events in and of time to create, and so they are separate objects the fields, and because of circumstances they remain tightly knit as stable objects/fields and it is difficult to pierce the depths of the tininess at which their fabric is connected?

This is the area where I get extremely confused... and why I ask how are fields connected, how is there object, field, 58 of them at every point of your body right now, and all around you, how is there something that exists 3d and everywhere, yet is small...this means it literally is like a ethereal grid that goes through your body and the air, and atoms are massive compared to this, like there is a super compressed and packed substance and matter is like uncompressed bubbles in that substance... so like the em field exists everywhere, so I am in a room with a light bulb, and I flip the switch and the light goes on, because the electrons in that light are vibrating and not only directly rippling the em field that exists 'under?/in/between' all atoms, but also causes a chain reaction in electron rippling, or no, because energy conservation it is only a scattering of light, but anyway it is the em field, not the atoms of electrons that allow me to see the walls and stuff in this room. (if we were in a walless area in space, and someone very far to the side of you shown a bright flashlight perpendicular to your direction of sight, and you couldnt see the flashlight out of the corner of your eye or anything, would you see the light against the background of space streaking across your vision, or because it is not scattered into your eye you wouldnt see it I guess, though the field would be rippling...anyway) I guess im wondering how does a neutrally electric body interact with this all pervasive electric field, when the light is off in the room how does the electric field exist, according to the entire electric charge nature of every atom and electron in the room I suppose, so with the lights off, if I begin to dance and prance around the room, the em field is being twisted and warped around, if I just spin in circles is it just getting all twisted up?



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


lets start with your first question did all fields come from the same field? No fields were created when symmetry's were broken. What your question really asks is what was before the fields well were trying to answer that. Here ill let everyones favorite physicist explain the higgs and where it will lead us.



Now you asked can about fields yes we could technically change anything from one form to another it requires energy but keep in mind the amounts of energy we would be talking about. Making all most impossible to do. And your right once we try to look below the planck scale the energy required to do so is more then every power plant on the earth so for now we dont know whats the true building block of the universe. Hopefully will find a different way to figure this out.But your right everything breaks down to energy and the states this energy goes through trying to find its lowest energy state.

As far as the part you said you were confused on looks like you understand more then you thought. Lets look at light we have something called a photon. What is a photon its mass less the only way we know its there is its interaction with the electro magnetic field. Now as i think you know this is actually 2 fields not just one so as this energy passes through this field we see the effects like light or radio waves. Now we know there are 2 fields because yes we can use a bar magnet only effecting the magnetic field for example. Im not sure what you meant by electrons in light because there isnt any. Electrons can emit light however this is thermodynamics really. So you may need to explain this last part better because you kinda lost me.



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Arbitrageur
Moduli seems pretty convinced that space is NOT quantized...personally I have to say I don't know if it is or not, but clearly there is a gap in our understanding, and if I knew how to fill the gap, I'd probably get a Nobel prize, but I don't.


Observation collapses the wave function, implies that space is quantized.
Further implication, is that space itself is a wave of sorts propagating, from
the big bang



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Angelic Resurrection
Observation collapses the wave function, implies that space is quantized.
How does it imply that? Seems Non sequitur to me.
edit on 15-11-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Angelic Resurrection

Arbitrageur
Moduli seems pretty convinced that space is NOT quantized...personally I have to say I don't know if it is or not, but clearly there is a gap in our understanding, and if I knew how to fill the gap, I'd probably get a Nobel prize, but I don't.


Observation collapses the wave function, implies that space is quantized.
Further implication, is that space itself is a wave of sorts propagating, from
the big bang


well i never heard of a theory space is a propagating wave expanding out from the big bang. However just off the top of my head i would think that would have some very big flaws. Like it wouldnt explain how space continues to expand for one. Since we are talking heavy about quantum physics i was sent this by a student a couple of months ago figure ill post it.




posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


You wouldn't have vacuum fluctuations is space was not a wave
Space is expanding to keep pace with em radiation, which was
also an after result of the big bang



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Angelic Resurrection
Space is expanding to keep pace with em radiation
Space is expanding faster than EM radiation, not to keep pace with it:

Metric expansion of space

While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, it places no theoretical constraint on changes to the scale of space itself. It is thus possible for two objects to be stationary or moving at speeds below that of light, and yet to become separated in space by more than the distance light could have travelled, which can suggest the objects travelled faster than light. For example there are stars which may be expanding away from us (or each other) faster than the speed of light, and this is true for any object that is more than approximately 4.5 gigaparsecs away from us. We can still see such objects because the universe in the past was expanding more slowly than it is today, so the ancient light being received from these objects is still able to reach us, though if the expansion continues unabated there will come a time that we will never see the light from such objects being produced today (on a so-called "space-like slice of spacetime") because space itself is expanding between Earth and the source faster than their light can reach us.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   

dragonridr
Since we are talking heavy about quantum physics i was sent this by a student a couple of months ago figure ill post it.
He worked a lot harder for his 99 cents than most other artists, but I don't think I'd want the mp3. The video better because he typed out the words, or else I wouldn't have understood some of them.
edit on 15-11-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


That is not an established fact, its only one of the
explanations for Doppler shift



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 

There are few proven facts in science, but alternate explanations have been examined and ruled out based on observation. So yes we can't totally prove that explanation is true, but we can prove the alternate explanations are false. Some people still want to seem to cling to the alternate explanations but the evidence from observation is against them.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

No I do not subscribe to alternative explanation either. Lol , like tired light
But imo similar Doppler shift should be apparent in CMBR as well.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

No I do not subscribe to alternative explanation either. Lol , like tired light
But imo similar Doppler shift should be apparent in CMBR as well.


Ok i think your confused first CMBR is shifted and they actually take that into account. Lets start with saying CMBR averages about 2.73 kelvin. Now this is thrown off when we look towards leos constellation. Well theres a shift when we look at leo reason is our solar system is heading in that direction at 370 kilometers per second relative to CMB, and the earth is orbiting at a speed of about 30 km/s. Now how do we know this well we can use CMBR to figure it out and when we display the information we can account for shifts in the spectrum and show what it looks like if we were standing still.Thats one of the reasons we know there is a doppler shift occurring we didnt just make it up.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   

dragonridr

As far as the part you said you were confused on looks like you understand more then you thought. Lets look at light we have something called a photon. What is a photon its mass less the only way we know its there is its interaction with the electro magnetic field. Now as i think you know this is actually 2 fields not just one so as this energy passes through this field we see the effects like light or radio waves. Now we know there are 2 fields because yes we can use a bar magnet only effecting the magnetic field for example. Im not sure what you meant by electrons in light because there isnt any. Electrons can emit light however this is thermodynamics really. So you may need to explain this last part better because you kinda lost me.


Before this quoted paragraph you said theoretically and technically fields are interchangeable and they all come from the same singular stuff to begin with, is that right? So im wondering what caused 58 separate fields to be created from 1, and how once 58 fields were created, and they all exist overlapping and in the same space, how do they remain connected, stable, fields? Since the universe is so dynamic why has not an entire field just diminished or an entire new field sprouted up?

You say the Em field is 2 separate fields, why are they so intimately connected, in what way are they so connected, that every time one is created the other one is also, etc. ?

The thing I was talking about electrons in light and stuff, I was wondering how the EM field exists, if we could see exactly what is there and existence in terms of how fields exist in space, what would we see, and how would the field react to our movements such as spinning, is the field like ropes connecting all electrons to all others, or is the field like water so it would be like particles? Though its interesting because water has its particles bonded and a whirlpool affect it looks like the particles are pretty bonded as a singular field like fabric, yet if you are in water and splash your hands some you can not see individual atoms but easily break the bonds of large chunks of molecules, so im wondering how does the em field exist, when you spin around in circles are you like breaking the bonds the field had with your electrons while stationary (I mean the field exists straight through you right, inside and inbetween every electron, and filling up the totality of planck lengths and heights and widths?)?




top topics



 
14
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join