Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: stormbringer1701

I think you are missing my point which is focused on fundamentalities.

The fundamentality being; the only reason there exists such reality and concept of 'magnetism/electromagnetism' is because the supposed electromagnetic medium/field.

It is not! particles in and of themselves which create the phenomenon known as magnetism.

It is particle; And; the material medium which surrounds particle.

Duh!

If you disagree; you are saying;

A marble like object exists, such that through space of nothingness, it can without any object leaving its body, not reach out, but reach out (action at a distance) and bring another object towards it.

We dont like such silliness for gravity, and we dont like it for magnetism.

Thus; field theory.

There exists a material medium, which the particles interact with; which the way in which the particles interact with the medium, has the ability to interact with particles at a distance (as while I am in a pool of water I can interact with a tennis ball at a distance from my body without touching the tennis ball, Only, by virtue of their being a material medium which unites us both).

So;

Considering the nature of any possibly theorized monopole;

One must consider the effects of the particle, on the medium/field which surrounds it.

The reason dipole is natural;

Is because an object rotating in a material medium, effects the medium differently when looking down on the object from above, as when looking up at the object from below.

If you had a basketball in a pool of water that was rotating;

The vortex in the water would be swirling opposite directions, in accordance to the basketballs N and S pole.

How would any theorized monopole;

Being, some shape object, existing as attached to the medium/field which is responsible for EM;

Avoid disturbing the field which surrounds it, on its top and its bottom?

The reason electron is naturally dipole, is because it is an object attached to a material medium;

And, when the electron as an object rotates, or maybe even to be safe lets say, vibrates or jolts back and forth, the reaction this causes to the medium it is attached to, is a reaction that viewed from different angles surrounding the electron object, the medium will be vibrating/moving in a different way.

The medium moving near the N pole of a magnet, is moving differently than the medium near the S pole of the magnet, because in the magnet, the electrons are all orientated in the same way, thus their collective same movements, result in the opposite movements of the medium, in the opposing directions.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
I have an easy one, but one that I could use a clearer understanding of.

What's the Compton Wavelength all about? What does it measure?

It's the wavelength of the photon which corresponds to the rest-mass-energy of the particle. If you took an electron and annihilated with a positron, then you'd make a couple of gamma rays of 511 keV which might in SPECTRE's lair.

Does it's wavelength change according to the particle involved? How does it correspond with other contingencies in the atom or whatever?

It's just a definition. But it tends to set a relevant space scale for certain particle interactions.

It comes out of Compton scattering of photons against electrons, one of the simplest experimental phenomenon, along with photoelectric effect, which shows apparently clearly quantum mechanical properties of light: photons carry momentum and energy. Essentially if you treat photons against electrons as if they were each mechanical particles under special relativity (one moving at c and the other not), you get the experimentally confirmed result. Maxwellian electrodynamics can't explain it directly.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: stormbringer1701

I think you are missing my point which is focused on fundamentalities.

The fundamentality being; the only reason there exists such reality and concept of 'magnetism/electromagnetism' is because the supposed electromagnetic medium/field.

It is not! particles in and of themselves which create the phenomenon known as magnetism.

It is particle; And; the material medium which surrounds particle.

Duh!

If you disagree; you are saying;

A marble like object exists, such that through space of nothingness, it can without any object leaving its body, not reach out, but reach out (action at a distance) and bring another object towards it.

We dont like such silliness for gravity, and we dont like it for magnetism.

Thus; field theory.

There exists a material medium, which the particles interact with; which the way in which the particles interact with the medium, has the ability to interact with particles at a distance (as while I am in a pool of water I can interact with a tennis ball at a distance from my body without touching the tennis ball, Only, by virtue of their being a material medium which unites us both).

So;

Considering the nature of any possibly theorized monopole;

One must consider the effects of the particle, on the medium/field which surrounds it.

The reason dipole is natural;

Is because an object rotating in a material medium, effects the medium differently when looking down on the object from above, as when looking up at the object from below.

If you had a basketball in a pool of water that was rotating;

The vortex in the water would be swirling opposite directions, in accordance to the basketballs N and S pole.

How would any theorized monopole;

Being, some shape object, existing as attached to the medium/field which is responsible for EM;

Avoid disturbing the field which surrounds it, on its top and its bottom?

The reason electron is naturally dipole, is because it is an object attached to a material medium;

And, when the electron as an object rotates, or maybe even to be safe lets say, vibrates or jolts back and forth, the reaction this causes to the medium it is attached to, is a reaction that viewed from different angles surrounding the electron object, the medium will be vibrating/moving in a different way.

The medium moving near the N pole of a magnet, is moving differently than the medium near the S pole of the magnet, because in the magnet, the electrons are all orientated in the same way, thus their collective same movements, result in the opposite movements of the medium, in the opposing directions.

No, if one disagrees with your statement, they are saying that you are indeed a master of perseverance. And that you still insist on using linguistic reasoning to describe fundamental physics, which is still as flawed a method now as it was 20 pages ago. Insisting that disagreement with your 'linguistic translations of science' (my term, not quoting you or anyone else) is agreement with an equally flawed description of physics doesn't help either you or them. You are obviously a very visual and tactile person. Your ideas clearly demonstrate this, as does your repeated assertions that fields MUST be a physical 'something' or 'substance'. And being that your cognitive processes are strongly oriented toward vision and touch, it is perfectly understandable. And there is nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, wrong or abnormal in having your perception attuned along these lines. But, I would point out that insisting that reality must function with tensors and matrices that are somehow tangible (at least conceptually) to these senses is limiting either your ability or your willingness to understand the multitude of accurate and viable answers and observations you have been given thus far. I am not saying this to be disrespectful, rude or argumentative. But I truly think that much more can be accomplished if you were a bit more willing to consider ideas (many of which have substantially more evidence backing them than some you keep insisting on) that don't necessarily fit in your preferred frame of cognition.

Ok, I have a couple more questions.
Monopoles. I am familiar with the theoretical definition of them, but why would they allow such advances in materials science and energy production? I'm afraid I am totally unfamiliar with the possible practical applications of them.

Also, what is the purpose of the charged surface along the leading edges of the B-2 Spirit's wings? Is it a plasma sheath application to reduce drag? Or what other possible functions could it serve? Or, and this is obviously not the case but it would be entertaining to discuss, is it to broil any birds that strike the wings so the pilots can have a snack when they land? Lol

a reply to: pfishy

Magnetic dipoles have field strength that falls as the square of the distance. The field of a monopole is linear.

a reply to: Bedlam

Oh, well I can see how that could lead to substantially stronger materials.
Thanks again, Bedlam.

originally posted by: pfishy
Ok, I have a couple more questions.
Monopoles. I am familiar with the theoretical definition of them, but why would they allow such advances in materials science and energy production? I'm afraid I am totally unfamiliar with the possible practical applications of them.

Also, what is the purpose of the charged surface along the leading edges of the B-2 Spirit's wings? Is it a plasma sheath application to reduce drag? Or what other possible functions could it serve? Or, and this is obviously not the case but it would be entertaining to discuss, is it to broil any birds that strike the wings so the pilots can have a snack when they land? Lol

They give the radar obsolete coating a magnetic charge. Basically helps in the absorbtion of radar waves. Stealth doesn't really hide the airplane so much as captures the radar and converts it to heat.the energy is used to vibrate particles instead of reflecting them. this vibrations produces heat which can be disapear ed through the airframe.

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: pfishy

Magnetic dipoles have field strength that falls as the square of the distance. The field of a monopole is linear.

it's also due to the fact they are tiny some theorized species are 2000 times tinier than protons. Because they are tiny so is the length that their nuclear and electronic bonds must span. The shorter the bonding length the stronger the bond. We are talking something that potentially could hold itself together even if submerged in the surface layers of a neutron star.

We are talking of something that if you made a "nanite" (really it would be a "pikite") out of could have the proper scaling to "hand" assemble or disassemble molecules. and have room left over for supercomputer class onboard electronics.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: pfishy

Magnetic dipoles have field strength that falls as the square of the distance. The field of a monopole is linear.

it's also due to the fact they are tiny some theorized species are 2000 times tinier than protons. Because they are tiny so is the length that their nuclear and electronic bonds must span. The shorter the bonding length the stronger the bond. We are talking something that potentially could hold itself together even if submerged in the surface layers of a neutron star.

We are talking of something that if you made a "nanite" (really it would be a "pikite") out of could have the proper scaling to "hand" assemble or disassemble molecules. and have room left over for supercomputer class onboard electronics.

Wow. I really should read up on them. I keep meaning to, but then I see something shiny and it all goes to h*ll.
I had no idea they could exist at that size scale. I can definitely understand why they'd make a killer roofing pruduct. Or battle armor/doomsday vault.

originally posted by: pfishy

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: pfishy

Magnetic dipoles have field strength that falls as the square of the distance. The field of a monopole is linear.

it's also due to the fact they are tiny some theorized species are 2000 times tinier than protons. Because they are tiny so is the length that their nuclear and electronic bonds must span. The shorter the bonding length the stronger the bond. We are talking something that potentially could hold itself together even if submerged in the surface layers of a neutron star.

We are talking of something that if you made a "nanite" (really it would be a "pikite") out of could have the proper scaling to "hand" assemble or disassemble molecules. and have room left over for supercomputer class onboard electronics.

Wow. I really should read up on them. I keep meaning to, but then I see something shiny and it all goes to h*ll.
I had no idea they could exist at that size scale. I can definitely understand why they'd make a killer roofing pruduct. Or battle armor/doomsday vault.

I am gonna suggest a science fiction game site. Though it is science fiction they try to only use peer reviewed science to the greatest extent possible when discussing the science aspects of their shared world. Thier stuff on monopoles is particularly well cited with at least 6 reference papers.

www.orionsarm.com...

www.orionsarm.com...

Since force is energy per unit distance, the force needed to break a magchemical bond is larger than that needed to break an electronic chemical bond by a factor of the energy scaling (300 GeV / 13.7 eV) divided by the length scaling, or 7 million trillion (7E18). The strength of a material is usually defined as the force per unit area required to make the material fail. Since each magchemical bond can withstand 7E18 times greater force, and there are (300 million)2 times more bonds per unit area, the strength of magmatter is about 8E35 times greater than that of its normal matter equivalent.

Magnetic Monopoles

Magnetic monopoles are elementary particles that carry units of magnetic charge. Monopoles are their own antiparticles: a North monopole will mutually annihilate a South monopole. Related to monopoles are dyons, which carry electric charge in addition to magnetic charge. First theorized by the pre-Information Age physicist P.A.M. Dirac, the existence of a single monopole with 68.5n*e charge (n=1,2,3,...) served to fix the value of e, the fundamental unit of electric charge, in the Universe. Monopoles have a direct connection to the topology of the cosmos. Unlike instantons, monopoles are inherently stable.

First, the Dirac string of the classical Dirac monopole is connected to topological properties of fermions (spin 1/2 particles). In particular, a fermion connected to its background by strings is entangled by a 360 degree rotation, but unentangled by a 720 degree rotation*. Next, once the Higgs boson and symmetry breaking mechanisms in classical cosmology were discovered, monopoles were found to be a 0-dimensional, or point defect in the scalar Higgs field -- the so-called "hedgehog potential". (See references below for details.) Finally, massless monopoles arise naturally in non-Abelian string theories and SU(2) supersymmetric theories.

Due to their topological nature, monopoles are naturally produced in great numbers at the beginning of the Universe via the Kibble mechanism.** Because of their unique properties, as will be seen later, monopole production rate must be constrained significantly by other factors, such as inflation of the Universe.
Properties

Monopoles are easily accelerated by strong magnetic fields. Dyons are possible (electrically and magnetically charged monopoles), but "colored" dyons (SU(3) color charge from the strong nuclear force) are not. Massive monopoles weigh up to 10E16 GeV, equivalent to an amoeba.

At strong nuclear force energy scales (e.g. fusion), the monopole core restores the symmetry of the unified gauge group, which catalyzes nucleon decay proportional to the area of the core. This is a very small number, 10E-56 cm2, and would normally be negligible; however, the s-wave (angular quantum number l=0, e.g. spherical orbital) of a fermion interacts with the monopole core to produce "s-wave sucking". S-wave sucking magnifies the ground state orbital size of the monopole, producing a cross section of unity: for example, using an SU(5) theory*** two first-order, approximate reactions are:

Monopole + neutron ---> Monopole + negative pion + positron
Monopole + proton ---> Monopole + neutral pion + positron
Natural occurrence

Phase transitions in the early universe produce topological defects corresponding to "false vacuum states" that differ from the natural vacuum expectation value of the universe. Once energy levels drop to a level below the symmetry breaking scale, these defects "freeze" in as permanent features. The defect rate is correlated with the particle horizon; this Kibble mechanism results in a constant ratio of monopoles to entropy:

n/s ~ 10^2(T/m)^3

where n = number of monopoles, s = entropy, T = phase transition temperature, m is Planck mass, and the particle horizon is assumed to be t^-1 where t is the time when the Universe was at temperature T.

For T=1014GeV, monopole mass = 1016GeV, n/s ~ 10-13.

This large ratio would produce a closed Universe ~ 1011 more massive than the currently observed one, if not for inflation.

Relic monopoles will be accelerated by galactic and intergalactic magnetic fields. The Milky Way's galactic field, for example, is 3E-6 Gauss, with a coherence length of about 300 parsecs. This will accelerate a relic monopole to a velocity of:

v~3E-3 c (10E16GeV/m)^(1/2)

where c = speed of light and m is the monopole mass in GeV

The ability of monopoles to catalyze energy release sets limits upon the primordial monopole flux, F. For example, only 10E28 monopoles in the center of the sun are required to produce the entire solar luminosity of 4E33 ergs/second.

Planets, stars, and neutron stars theoretically accumulate monopoles as follows:

A main sequence star of .6 to 30 solar masses captures monopoles of m < 10E18 GeV with velocities < 10E-3c with good efficiency. During its lifetime, a main sequence star will accumulate 10E40 * F monopoles.

Neutron stars collect monopoles most efficiently; monopoles of mass < 10E20 GeV and v < 10E-3c are captured with unit efficiency; 10E37*F monopoles in 10E10 years.

Jupiter planets stop monopoles less massive than 10E16GeV and v

a reply to: Arbitrageur

If a bowling ball is dropped from a skyscraper;

Is it gravitons that push and/or pull down the bowling ball, according to theory?

a reply to: pfishy

There can only ever be;

That which is exactly nothing

And that which is exactly not nothing

In other words;

There can only ever be;

Something

And; Nothing

And only something is something

Nothing only 'exists' in the fact that it is absence of existence.

Nothing only exists in the fact that;

There is a difference between two particles of something which exist 1 inch apart

And two particles of something which exist 1 mile apart

Therefore the fact that 'not something' exists between them

Is a relevant fact

But nothing cannot itself do anything to something

Because it is nothing

Nothing cannot do anything

Nothing is nothing

If you have details and qualities of nothing

You do not have details and qualities of nothing

unless those details and qualities are only distances of nothing

and nothing more.

I am right.

Math is language.

Reality is language.

Reality is physical logic/reason.

Besides, minds, which transcend pure determinism of physical reality,

by utilizing systems of symbolic simulation.

Reality can only escape determinism, by creating systems which transcend determinism, which requires grouping groups of materials as symbols, and then computing those symbols, to create results, which are not determined strictly by the nature of the physical materials reacting to their existence amongst an environment. Thus the nature of the mind.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The quantum measurement problem...

What's the problem?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: pfishy

There can only ever be;

That which is exactly nothing

And that which is exactly not nothing

In other words;

There can only ever be;

Something

And; Nothing

And only something is something

Nothing only 'exists' in the fact that it is absence of existence.

Nothing only exists in the fact that;

There is a difference between two particles of something which exist 1 inch apart

And two particles of something which exist 1 mile apart

Therefore the fact that 'not something' exists between them

Is a relevant fact

But nothing cannot itself do anything to something

Because it is nothing

Nothing cannot do anything

Nothing is nothing

If you have details and qualities of nothing

You do not have details and qualities of nothing

unless those details and qualities are only distances of nothing

and nothing more.

I am right.

Math is language.

Reality is language.

Reality is physical logic/reason.

Besides, minds, which transcend pure determinism of physical reality,

by utilizing systems of symbolic simulation.

Reality can only escape determinism, by creating systems which transcend determinism, which requires grouping groups of materials as symbols, and then computing those symbols, to create results, which are not determined strictly by the nature of the physical materials reacting to their existence amongst an environment. Thus the nature of the mind.

I have never seen that long of a post that literally said nothing. Just because you can not see it taste it or feel it doesn't mean it's not there. And the flip side when something isn't there wanting to believe there is doesn't change the facts.

a reply to: Involutionist
Did you watch the video in the opening post, by physicist Sean Carroll? He talks a little about how the different interpretations of quantum mechanics have different problems.

In his preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics, the measurement problem present in the other interpretations of QM is solved, but he can't say if his preferred interpretation is correct, because so far no experiments clearly show which interpretation is correct.

So, the nature of the measurement problem depends the interpretation of quantum mechanics being considered.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you for responding.

So, the nature of the measurement problem depends the interpretation of quantum mechanics being considered.

...which in turn depends on the mind observing it all?

a reply to: dragonridr

You are confused.

If something exists, but you can not see it taste it or feel it;

I AGREE, it is something, and exists.

Something is something.

Something is what exists.

When have I ever said otherwise.

You are a fool.

originally posted by: Involutionist
...which in turn depends on the mind observing it all?

You either didn't watch the video, or you weren't paying attention, since he specifically says that is not how it works, and he encourages people to avoid that bogus line of thinking.

a reply to: ImaFungi
So, you walk into a payday loan center with nothing.
You ask them to loan you $500.
They ask you to sign a note promising to repay the $500 plus interest.

Then they give you a copy of the note saying you're $500 in debt, and $500 in cash.

Do you still have nothing?

One view might say yes, another view might say no, just as someone looking at the universe might say the energy in the universe seems to add up to nothing, but before summing the parts they look like something.

So until you define your terminology more clearly, your rants about "nothing" mean nothing.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

False!

Absolutely nothing, is absolutely nothing, it can never turn into something, something can never become it.

FACT! TRUTH! ETERNAL TRUTH! Non sense, falsity, incorrection, wrong, is denying this.

Something.

That which is not nothing.

Is what exists.

Something cannot be created or destroyed.

Something has always existed and always will.

Something moves.

Something moving, is time.

Yay! Truth is fun! Truth is good!

Your analogy is so contrived its ridiculous, because you are starting in such complex situations utilizing items and symbols and transcendent artifacts and concepts. I am making statements about absolutes, about the totality of totality, about all the substance/material energy that exists in the largest most total regard of reality. I am speaking about the most fundamental absolute truths. Your analogy uses concepts of existing in time as complex systems of material, which have knowledge of how to use number systems in relation to perceptions of future times, and abstractions such as negatives.

I do hope you attempt to answer my bowling ball graviton question.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Your analogy is so contrived its ridiculous, because you are starting in such complex situations utilizing items and symbols and transcendent artifacts and concepts. I am making statements about absolutes, about the totality of totality, about all the substance/material energy that exists in the largest most total regard of reality. I am speaking about the most fundamental absolute truths. Your analogy uses concepts of existing in time as complex systems of material, which have knowledge of how to use number systems in relation to perceptions of future times, and abstractions such as negatives.

You're saying my analogy doesn't work because getting a loan is more complex than how the universe works? I thought the universe was more complex, and of course no analogy is ever a perfect representation of reality. That doesn't mean analogies are all bad just because they're imperfect; they can still be useful, but yes none are completely correct, and for that matter even our more correct models are still not 100% correct because they themselves are just models and not reality. They can make 100% accurate predictions over a wide range of variables, like general relativity does, but they still seem to be imperfect (like General Relativity's breakdown to infinite density of a black hole).

I do hope you attempt to answer my bowling ball graviton question.

I'm afraid I don't know much about gravitons, except for a few simple things, like we don't know if they exist or not, but if they do, they are probably massless.