Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: mbkennel

It's not exactly like that---it's more like the 'photon' is the elementary building block of the field which can exhibit waves.

So the building blocks of the field; photons; exist, and are connected to one another?

Or in the universe, do 'building blocks exist' called photons, and they are separate particles?

For example, the difference between 100 bricks laying untouching one another in a field;

and a brick wall.

originally posted by: mbkennel


Everything is interlinked---magnetic fields in one reference frame are electric fields in others (that was the main result of Einstein's primary paper on relativity!) and vice versa.

So electricity itself, and magnetism itself, IS LIGHT?

Just; using the force of light between tight knit compounds of materials, which produce the effects we know of as magnetism, and electricity?


Magnets repel and attract because the light created in between them via the motion of the electrons?

I am recognizing keep in mind, that it is not purely light, that the material is equally necessary, I am not forgetting about the matter, that the electrons need to be physically moved in relation to one another for the effects.

Chick or the egg; Does light force electron to move, and does electron force light to move (conjecture, sure, I am prepared to handle it)

originally posted by: mbkennel
Sort of, but we also know that real electrons additionally have intrinsic angular momentum and hence a magnetic moment. Is that 'electrical' only?

Of course. I didn't say it was electrical only, but it is an electron.

a reply to: ImaFungi

You know if you're so interested in this stuff, why don't you dive in and take some math and online physics courses. They're all free today - the best professors, the best lectures - it's all out there. You just have to commit to learn. You ask a lot of questions that deserve inquiry. And that's fine - but you really have to do some work on your own.

Listen to some of these lectures - you can't get any better than this. Just my recommendation - you seem like an intelligent person who wants to "know" - but "knowing" is still hard work for humans (unfortunately)!

www.closertotruth.com... =YT-Annotations

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

theoreticalminimum.com...

I love Sean Carroll - he explains things very well for the layman. But if you want to get into the nitty-gritty of classical physics and QM, you need to do the numbers - you need to know some math. If you want to understand photons, electrons, light - ad infinitum then that's what you have to do. It's a bottomline that's not going away.

a reply to: Phantom423

I asked very exact questions; there are 'real physicists' on this thread.

The last few questions I asked, the two posts above; is a very small amount of information asking about a very important and fundamental concept, the essence of which I have been asking this same question for the past 2 years, but finally now they may finally see why I have been asking it, maybe.

If a smart person on this thread can answer the questions I have asked above, which I know are good questions, and which I know may not be answered in those links you provided, or they might be, but I dont have the time to waste to track down the answer to these few fundamental questions. (a few years ago I watched about 30 or so lectures by Leonard Suskind at Stanford online; I have also watched some lectures by Feynman). I am asking questions a school boy might be afraid or too not caring about truth to ask.

a reply to: ImaFungi

The links were not intended to answer your questions. You missed the point completely. The point is that you should be able to figure it out for yourself. Or at the very least articulate in the language of physics which is mathematics. You pose questions which suggest that you have no foundation in the field.

a reply to: ImaFungi

You're very transparent when you reply to a post with a question like:

"Where is a hilbert space? What is it made of, does it contain the fields in it or around it? Is it pure nothingness? "

A sixth grader would know to at least look it up in Wikipedia.

I'm sorry but I get frustrated with people who don't understand the word W-O-R-K.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: ImaFungi

You're very transparent when you reply to a post with a question like:

"Where is a hilbert space? What is it made of, does it contain the fields in it or around it? Is it pure nothingness? "

A sixth grader would know to at least look it up in Wikipedia.

I'm sorry but I get frustrated with people who don't understand the word W-O-R-K.

I had the right to ask those questions J-E-R-K.

The person who said 'hilbert space' responded with it as an answer to a question of mine.

I questioned his answer, so that he would see that it is a false and meaningless answer.

This is me correcting you.

Attempt to answer the questions contained in my two posts above responding to Mbkennel, or we will wait to see if someone who knows physics on this thread, will answer the questions. This is a thread for discussion, questions and answers about physics. If you cant answer the questions dont, it is ok if you are scared that they are over your head and over your priests head, I am trying to dig as deep as possible.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

So is the unicorns horn in the Guintypoo realm

You did ask for an example of a hypothetical realm where things would be more determinate. That is a Hilbert space.

And Hilbert spaces are at least mathematically consistent, and useful in solving problems. Unlike Guintypoo Spaces.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

So is the unicorns horn in the Guintypoo realm

You did ask for an example of a hypothetical realm where things would be more determinate. That is a Hilbert space.

And Hilbert spaces are at least mathematically consistent, and useful in solving problems. Unlike Guintypoo Spaces.

I asked for an object which would be 'really' (really, as in related to the word 'reality', as in, real, actually, meaningfully, substantially) continuous.

This insinuates the ultimate obvious importance of the the concept and reality of substance, of material; something and nothing.

Hilbert space itself, appears to be an example of 'nothing'.

Nothing; is not an object.

Though, yea, it may be continuous.

But 'it' would not be continuous, because 'it' would not be, because the 'it' that 'it' 'is' 'is' the lack of being.

a reply to: ImaFungi

I think that at 110 pages in and counting, you're going to have to at some point concede the fact that you will not be able to reconcile your personal understanding with reality unless you knuckle down and learn physics from the ground up. Naive reasoning just will not cut it.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: ImaFungi

I think that at 110 pages in and counting, you're going to have to at some point concede the fact that you will not be able to reconcile your personal understanding with reality unless you knuckle down and learn physics from the ground up. Naive reasoning just will not cut it.

Nice waste of a post. I bet it feels good to feel apart of the team on the side you think is winning. Add this *back pat* to the one your post is applying to yourself. You earned it.

a reply to: ImaFungi

It's the hard truth. Disagreeing with experiment because the implications don't align with how you want nature to be won't get you anywhere. You've already stated a number of times that you don't want to knuckle down and learn the hard way because apparently math is jokes/you think it gives you a deeper outsider's perspective but this is nothing but naive wishful thinking.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: ImaFungi

It's the hard truth. Disagreeing with experiment because the implications don't align with how you want nature to be won't get you anywhere. You've already stated a number of times that you don't want to knuckle down and learn the hard way because apparently math is jokes/you think it gives you a deeper outsider's perspective but this is nothing but naive wishful thinking.

When did I 'disagree with experiment'; that is the silliest thing I have ever heard, it is impossible to 'disagree with experiment'. Now disagree with interpretation and significance of exact received data of experiment, that is a scientifically valid point of discussion. But my latest questions on this page have nothing to do with this; so my scientific hypothesis is that you are here, attempting to be a cheerleader for what you perceive to be team cool kids/team logical reasonable rational righteous I do hope your spanking of me is pleasurable for you, because thats all you want and can get out of this exchange, since you certainly have nothing of value to offer.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
When did I 'disagree with experiment'

You make postulates that disagree with experiment like your postulate that a photon expands radially in all directions, or ask questions with premises that disagree with experiment, like the example below.

Of course asking questions is encouraged, which is the whole point of this thread. However when the list of questions and the answers gets as long as a textbook, and covers the same things covered in textbooks, like the now free online Feynman lectures, I do think you reach a point where it's better to read the textbook. Some of the online courses are excellent too like this MIT beginning course in quantum mechanics:

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: ImaFungi
So electricity itself, and magnetism itself, IS LIGHT?

The premise of this question doesn't agree with experiment, and is something covered in basic texts, which explain electricity, magnetism, and electromagnetism. The topic of electricity includes concepts like a static electric field which isn't emitting light. A discharge of static electricity, as happens in a lightning bolt, can create light which we see as lightning, or sometimes you can see a tiny spark between your finger and a doorknob after you shuffle your feet on the carpet in the winter. Prior to the spark or lightning bolt, there's an electric field present, but you can't see it.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
You make postulates that disagree with experiment like your postulate that a photon expands radially in all directions, or ask questions with premises that disagree with experiment, like the example below.

False.

Out of context.

I mentioned something like that, not as me stating it as known truth, but as a tool of questioning, which interacted with what was being discussed at the time, as an attempt for all parties to question their knowledge of what they were saying and thinking, to determine better how light must exist. If I made such a postulate it was in the guise of relating as an open possibility relating to something said; seeking for what was said to be clarified, against this postulate, whereas without the person clarifying, the postulate would have seemed true.

If you will note this post above; you will see questions, which consider the nature of photon; which is not equal to that postulate you have quoted; thus proving your statement and subsequent concern, invalid and uncalled for.

ImaFungi

originally posted by: ImaFungi
The topic of electricity includes concepts like a static electric field which isn't emitting light. A discharge of static electricity, as happens in a lightning bolt, can create light which we see as lightning, or sometimes you can see a tiny spark between your finger and a doorknob after you shuffle your feet on the carpet in the winter. Prior to the spark or lightning bolt, there's an electric field present, but you can't see it.

What is creating the 'electric field'?

Moving electrons?

What is created when electrons move?

Light?

What is light?

Electro magnetism?

I am right?

Yes.

this topic should be renamed to ask me any question about known physics.
hehe

anyway, lay people like me will always ask 'silly' questions. From philosophical point of view, I, for instance, don't need to crunch numbers. Textbook taken to extreme may impair own thinking. So quit suggesting to start studying math part of field mechanics)))) I am only making somewhat educated guess here.

Light cannot be a flow of individual photons (particles) IMHO. Take a star, for example. How do you picture tiny balls of energy emitted in enormous quantities to proceed? They are so densely packed on emission that collisions must occur. They would be flying chaotically in all directions)))) And if it's a binary star system.... gush, we would never be able to find them.

Who can tell to me ignorant dude, what happens to photon after say electron -positron annihilation? Which direction magic photon go?




DO.

originally posted by: darkorange
They are so densely packed on emission that collisions must occur. They would be flying chaotically in all directions))))

They are densely packed, but they are photons, not sardines. Two sardines can't occupy the same space at the same time, but I don't know of any reason why millions or even billions of photons can't be on top of each other, as they leave the star.

Collisions of high energy photons have been theorized but the last I heard such collisions have not yet been observed. Theoretical calculations suggest such collisions would be very rare and would be more likely to happen with gamma ray photons than with say visible light photons.

Who can tell to me ignorant dude, what happens to photon after say electron -positron annihilation? Which direction magic photon go?

If you set up an array of photon detectors around the annihilation event, and a detector detects a photon, doesn't the location of that detector tell you what direction the photon went?

When we aim the Hubble telescope at a distant star and collect a few photons a minute from it, I think the photons it's detecting were traveling in the direction of the Hubble telescope. Sure there were lots of other photons from that star traveling in lots of other directions, but the Hubble can only detect a few from very distant stars.

you said
They are densely packed, but they are photons, not sardines. Two sardines can't occupy the same space at the same time, but I don't know of any reason why millions or even billions of photons can't be on top of each other, as they leave the star.

On the top of each other. Cool. How about photons are waves on emit and these waves overlap normally, like waves do?


You said
If you set up an array of photon detectors around the annihilation event, and a detector detects a photon, doesn't the location of that detector tell you what direction the photon went?

And on every number of collisions same detector catches photon or it might be different detector other try around?


Thanks.

DO.

You can click the quote symbol on top of the reply box to quote me, instead of writing out "you said".

originally posted by: darkorange
On the top of each other. Cool. How about photons are waves on emit and these waves overlap normally, like waves do?

In some ways they are like waves and in some ways they are like particles. Sure you can think of waves overlapping, but if you try to think of them as just waves, your hypothesis will fail. The photons detected at the hubble telescope do not show the type of effect we would observe if photons were just waves. It might detect one photon, then 20 seconds another photon, then 30 seconds later another photon, from a given distant star. This is not wave-like behavior.

And on every number of collisions same detector catches photon or it might be different detector other try around?

I don't understand the question. If you repeat the experiment, the photon from the next experiment can go in the same direction or in a different direction.