Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: GetHyped

No, you're not bowing out.

You're demonstrating avoidance.

It's understandable.

Cognitive dissonance is very painful.

But all of humanity is in this together, and we must put our heads together to overcome the hand we've been dealt.

Nothing is more important than understanding true science and technology. It's the universe we live in.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
We now know that view was wrong and it's the space that's expanding rather than galaxies moving through space

If; Space = Nothing.

Nothing = Cannot expand.

Space = Cannot expand.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Anyway, I initially came back when I saw you and Kryzma talking about Gravity and Dark Matter.

There are many points in this post which contain many of my thoughts on Gravity and Dark Matter.

ImaFungi

I hope someone with intelligence and patience can question some of the ideas in that post, so we can have an interesting and constructive discussion.

Also I finally think I realized why EM radiation/photon is considered discrete, or at least I realized the conceptual meaning of the contrast between what continuous would mean and what wave packet means. (I still however, do not fully comprehend how the wave packet self functions through space, particularly the length of the wave packet, the essence of its substance, and the nature of its most frontal tip (if a photon/wave packet has length (as a wave must) there must be a 'hard start and finish' of the substance of wave, which means the wave must have a front and back tip or end, which is conceptually interesting to think about how that must exist and how that might play a role in the nature of nature; also brings to mind potential differences of how a single wave packet interacts with any substance of nature, in relation to the angle of impact and the degrees of freedom that are possible for the tip and subsequent wave to impact a substance)), (also interesting to think about is how objects might interact with wave packets, when colliding with them perpendicularly)

I started this post by saying I finally think I conceptually comprehend the big hoopla in regards to the whole continuous vs discrete, wave, wave packet, particle, stuff... and now I am again not even sure;

But I think a key might be at least related to something I just mentioned above and that is 'the frontal tip' of the wave.

Where and when and how does the existence of a photon/wave packet begin.

Is the idea of continuous, the idea that the physical energy that is a single photon, is physical energy that has continuously existed forever? Or that it has continuously existed as a single photon forever?

Is/was the idea of continuousness, that a (all) single photon(s) is 14 billion light years long?

And discreteness or wave packetness, is the idea that photons have relatively (compared to 14 billion light years) small defined lengths.

That a photon is more like a worm that wiggles from apple to apple, than a string that stretches from the sun to the earth that is vibrating?

And where they are seen as particles, is if these little waves are so tiny, compared to an object, that they can only effect the parts of the object discretely, meaning it is entirely negligible the potential for the waveness, the length and fact that throughout the length there is difference (troughs and crests and the potential differences a similar wave could theoretically have interacting with an object, due to the angles and directions of contact, due to the fact of differences along the length of the wave, differences which are troughs and crests and the continual substance that links and makes the two) to have a novel impact on the object; so a wave of such size is just considered as a minimally detailed, limited range of potentialed, object.

The thought experiment I was originally going to attempt to say as my comprehension potentially of the meaning of the difference of continuous and discrete;

Imagine you had a piece of paper 100 ft by 100 ft.

You start at one end with a pencil, and at random intervals while walking random angles, you draw circles with the pencil, until there are like 100 circles all randomly over the paper and you reach the other end.

Then you go back to the beginning.

Was the original idea of continuous EM radiation, like if you started at this beginning with a piece of string, and you stapled the string to the starting point, and you retraced your path going to every circle and stapling the string there, and the string eventually reaches the end, and the string is continuously vibrating and representing a single photon that really exists?

While discrete would be, cutting a single piece of string, and walking the path to each circle, while vibrating the string, and this would represent a single photon traveling over space and time?

originally posted by: GetHyped
Are there any credible academic sources for suppression of science?

You just cited the number one propaganda outlet online and then turned around and asked for credible academic sources...

Now THAT is rich.

The odds of getting sources for the suppression of science FROM science itself is just as likely as getting sources for the suppression of Scientology from Ron Hubbard or Tom Cruise.

One never understands propaganda by STUDYING propaganda.

The cult of scientific fundamentalism is just as dangerous as any other cult out there if not more so.

The aversion to alternative sources (ie. YouTube) is exactly how cults teach their followers as well.

Can't have them finding out whats really hiding behind OZ's curtain now can we...

The High Priests perform their statistical rituals and the cultists genuflect reverently before their idol, Science. And it's all very impressive until the truth is discovered... spectator.org...

"...the Illuminati eventually controlled the science departments in all colleges and institutions of higher learning. The plan was to stifle scientific knowledge and then twist what was left to fit the science they wanted the people to believe.

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

How do you know if you have fallen prey to the cult of 'Scientism'? Answer this question: Can you differentiate between the collective human understanding of 'how' things work in our material world, and the 'why' of how they came to be that way. (or even why it does what it does at all.) Those are two very different questions, that scientists, (who frequenty are very bad philosophers,) often get mixed up. Never forget that 'science' can be as abused for the sake of religious or anti-religious preconceptions as equally as the Bible can be, on both sides of a debate.

This becomes readily obvious when you investigate the unquestioned assumption that most Atheist-leaning scientists tenaciously hold on to as their 'modus operandi'. One way to state this foundational belief is: "Only statements that are verifiable through a scientific method can be held as truth, or objectively knowable."

Now anyone, who has taken a moment to study Epistemology, [the study of how rational thought might determine truth,] should immediately notice the logical fallacy of the above statement. And hopefully those with some common sense might spot it also.

Combating the cult of "Scientism."

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Also I finally think I realized why EM radiation/photon is considered discrete, or at least I realized the conceptual meaning of the contrast between what continuous would mean and what wave packet means. (I still however, do not fully comprehend how the wave packet self functions through space, particularly the length of the wave packet, the essence of its substance, and the nature of its most frontal tip (if a photon/wave packet has length (as a wave must) there must be a 'hard start and finish' of the substance of wave, which means the wave must have a front and back tip or end, which is conceptually interesting to think about how that must exist and how that might play a role in the nature of nature; also brings to mind potential differences of how a single wave packet interacts with any substance of nature, in relation to the angle of impact and the degrees of freedom that are possible for the tip and subsequent wave to impact a substance)), (also interesting to think about is how objects might interact with wave packets, when colliding with them perpendicularly)

I started this post by saying I finally think I conceptually comprehend the big hoopla in regards to the whole continuous vs discrete, wave, wave packet, particle, stuff... and now I am again not even sure;

But I think a key might be at least related to something I just mentioned above and that is 'the frontal tip' of the wave.

Where and when and how does the existence of a photon/wave packet begin.

Is the idea of continuous, the idea that the physical energy that is a single photon, is physical energy that has continuously existed forever? Or that it has continuously existed as a single photon forever?

Is/was the idea of continuousness, that a (all) single photon(s) is 14 billion light years long?

And discreteness or wave packetness, is the idea that photons have relatively (compared to 14 billion light years) small defined lengths.

That a photon is more like a worm that wiggles from apple to apple, than a string that stretches from the sun to the earth that is vibrating?

And where they are seen as particles, is if these little waves are so tiny, compared to an object, that they can only effect the parts of the object discretely, meaning it is entirely negligible the potential for the waveness, the length and fact that throughout the length there is difference (troughs and crests and the potential differences a similar wave could theoretically have interacting with an object, due to the angles and directions of contact, due to the fact of differences along the length of the wave, differences which are troughs and crests and the continual substance that links and makes the two) to have a novel impact on the object; so a wave of such size is just considered as a minimally detailed, limited range of potentialed, object.

The thought experiment I was originally going to attempt to say as my comprehension potentially of the meaning of the difference of continuous and discrete;

Imagine you had a piece of paper 100 ft by 100 ft.

You start at one end with a pencil, and at random intervals while walking random angles, you draw circles with the pencil, until there are like 100 circles all randomly over the paper and you reach the other end.

Then you go back to the beginning.

Was the original idea of continuous EM radiation, like if you started at this beginning with a piece of string, and you stapled the string to the starting point, and you retraced your path going to every circle and stapling the string there, and the string eventually reaches the end, and the string is continuously vibrating and representing a single photon that really exists?

While discrete would be, cutting a single piece of string, and walking the path to each circle, while vibrating the string, and this would represent a single photon traveling over space and time?

you are very well outspoken. Wave packet you describe is not only on 2d plane but on 3d. So the 'packet' is round) Hey, its a ball of energy called photon.
It has not only front and back of it, it should have left and right boundaries and up and down, like a ball. LOL) I personally don't buy it. Photon IMO is not a particle but an event. Event of emission or absorption. It is a minimal bit of energy that can be emitted or absorbed.

Not sure how else to present it in my mind.

cheers))

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: GetHyped

No, you're not bowing out.

You're demonstrating avoidance.

It's not avoidance to decline to hijack and derail a thread. It's both polite and it's also following the ATS terms and conditions.

You have a different topic to discuss, so create a thread for your topic.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: dragonridr

That's fine if there is no such thing as secrecy.

But there is.

I agree there's secrecy. There are thousands of patents which are not available to the general public, so they are secret, there's no denying that.

However let's put this in perspective of the context of this thread, "Ask any question you want about physics".

In general, fundamental physics is not secret.

The secrets are kept in the area of applied physics or engineering. How can I say this without being a member of a black project and violating confidentiality? I can't say for certain what is involved in current black projects, however it seems reasonable to me to look at black projects from the past which have been declassified. They always had secret technology (which you can call engineering or applied physics) but I'm not aware of any secret fundamental physics.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
If; Space = Nothing.

Nothing = Cannot expand.

Space = Cannot expand.

Here's how Michio Kaku put it: There are two kinds of nothing:

1. Absolute nothing, meaning no space, no time, no vacuum
2. The vacuum, which is the absence of almost all matter, which has space (dimensions), time, and maybe an occasional atom or molecule here and there.

The first kind can't get bigger as it has no dimensions to increase. The second kind can get bigger. The space between you and a wall can increase from 1 meter to 2 meters. It's not absolute nothing, because it has dimensions (such as 1 or 2 meters in the above example).

originally posted by: ImaFungi
You start at one end with a pencil, and at random intervals while walking random angles, you draw circles with the pencil, until there are like 100 circles all randomly over the paper and you reach the other end....this would represent a single photon traveling over space and time?

It seems much simpler than that to me. With atoms you can only chop matter into smaller and smaller pieces up to the point you have an individual atom. That's the smallest piece of matter with those properties you can have. You can't chop it up any more and retain the properties.

A photon is the energy equivalent of that. It's the smallest packet of energy of a given frequency you can have and you can't make it any smaller, and any amounts of energy you measure at that frequency will be in multiples of that.

I don't follow your line of thought at all with drawing circles on paper.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
The aversion to alternative sources (ie. YouTube) is exactly how cults teach their followers as well.

Youtube seems to contain equal amounts of good stuff and garbage. Watch all the youtube videos you want, but your goal should be to develop your critical thinking skills to the point that you can determine which are accurate and which are not.

This Critical thinking video explains how people can sort out the wheat from the chaff on youtube or other sources, though it takes a lot of skill to actually do it, so people need some fundamental education level in addition to the skills in this video:

For some time now I have been musing about the fluidity of space and time and my question is this;

Can time and space be considered to actually be moving fluidly, perhaps expanding outwardly, or outwardly then inwardly, due to gravitational forces, or to the big bang shock wave forces?

originally posted by: InTheLight
For some time now I have been musing about the fluidity of space and time and my question is this;

Can time and space be considered to actually be moving fluidly, perhaps expanding outwardly, or outwardly then inwardly, due to gravitational forces?

"Fluidly" probably means something different to a layperson than to an engineer or physicist. Did you have a specific example of what you mean?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: InTheLight
For some time now I have been musing about the fluidity of space and time and my question is this;

Can time and space be considered to actually be moving fluidly, perhaps expanding outwardly, or outwardly then inwardly, due to gravitational forces?

"Fluidly" probably means something different to a layperson than to an engineer or physicist. Did you have a specific example of what you mean?

As I stated, I was musing that all forces would combine into a fluid motion state perhaps following what physics/forces we know that happen in a shock wave (space vacuum)...do we know?

originally posted by: InTheLight
As I stated, I was musing that all forces would combine into a fluid motion state perhaps following what physics/forces we know that happen in a shock wave (space vacuum)...do we?

We've never been able to come up with a robust unified field theory to combine all forces. We have the general relativity theory of gravity, and we have the standard model which explains the other three forces and at low energies we can force all four together, but at high energies they don't want to combine due to some problems with our models we haven't been able to solve yet.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: InTheLight
As I stated, I was musing that all forces would combine into a fluid motion state perhaps following what physics/forces we know that happen in a shock wave (space vacuum)...do we?

We've never been able to come up with a robust unified field theory to combine all forces. We have the general relativity theory of gravity, and we have the standard model which explains the other three forces and at low energies we can force all four together, but at high energies they don't want to combine due to some problems with our models we haven't been able to solve yet.

Uh...huh.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Here's how Michio Kaku put it: There are two kinds of nothing:

1. Absolute nothing, meaning no space, no time, no vacuum

2. The vacuum, which is the absence of almost all matter, which has space (dimensions), time, and maybe an occasional atom or molecule here and there.

The first kind can't get bigger as it has no dimensions to increase. The second kind can get bigger. The space between you and a wall can increase from 1 meter to 2 meters. It's not absolute nothing, because it has dimensions (such as 1 or 2 meters in the above example).

This is such an important display of words, due to the semantic and conceptual inconsistencies. Please bear with me while I attempt to express why;

We are using words, to talk about 'things' that exist (or at least we think exist).

This is why we must make the distinction between some thing, and no thing. There is only 1 type of nothing. Everything that is not nothing, is something.

Now, the first intriguing concept.

When something exists (any something), an apple for example; does the apple exist, in, nothing?

Is it not reasonably true, that the amount of nothing is infinite? This is so hard to explain. When an apple moves around, is it not taking up 'real' distance. Underneath everything, every atom of an apple, the atoms occupy area. An atom is a relative size, size means area, ultimately there must be 'area of nothing' that can even allow area of something, to be something, in the nothing.

Ok. You say; vacuum. And then you list some things. I will take this to mean, that you are suggesting, vacuum, is not a fundamental singular thing, but a collection of things.

You say, the vacuum has space (dimensions). I must ask; what is space?

Dimensions are not a quality of space. Dimensions are qualities of things. The concept of dimensions to me is bewildering, because 3d/4d may seem like the eternal standard. up/down, left/right, front/back. How can a single object have more dimensions than those 3? It seems entirely meaningless and absurd.

So an area of nothing. I do not know what we can say fundamentally about an area of nothings dimensions. I do not know why one could think they could say something about an area of spaces dimensions, if space is nothing. Dimensions do not exist as things, unto themselves. Dimensions are only qualities, attributes, of things.

Same for time. Time is not a thing. Space does not have time. Time is only, the fact that objects move.

Then you say, the second kind, vacuum, can get bigger.

What is getting bigger about it? Space is nothing? Or no? If space is nothing, that cannot get bigger. I already said time is not a thing, so that cannot get bigger (objects can move faster or slower).

So we are left with an occasional atom or molecule. An occasional atom or molecule as the only attribute to what vacuum is?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Please bear with me

Sorry I can't bear with you. You're being silly.

You say, the vacuum has space (dimensions). I must ask; what is space?

You're in your space suit outside a space ship. You're first 1 meter from the space ship, then you're two meters from the space ship. Space is that dimension which we can measure between you and the space ship. You can put a tape measure across that one meter or two meters of vacuum and measure the one or two meters.

Dimensions are not a quality of space.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Space: a limited extent in one, two, or three dimensions : distance, area, volume

I won't respond to this silly dictionary rejection any further. Make up your own words and definitions if you want but you're not going to be able to communicate effectively with others using such an approach so your made up words which mean something other than what's defined in the dictionary are not on-topic here.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

It seems much simpler than that to me. With atoms you can only chop matter into smaller and smaller pieces up to the point you have an individual atom. That's the smallest piece of matter with those properties you can have. You can't chop it up any more and retain the properties.

A photon is the energy equivalent of that. It's the smallest packet of energy of a given frequency you can have and you can't make it any smaller, and any amounts of energy you measure at that frequency will be in multiples of that.

I don't follow your line of thought at all with drawing circles on paper.

The sooner 'photon' is stopped being called 'energy' the better. 'photon' is matter. Energy is an attribute of matter. Such as motion. A rock not moving, has less energy than a rock moving. 'moving' is not a thing. A rock is a thing. Moving, is an attribute of a thing. Energy is an attribute of a thing. A photon is not 'pure moving'. A photon is a thing, that has energy, because it is a thing that moves. Yes the tricky part comes into play when suggesting, it is a thing that not only cannot not move, but automatically moves the fastest possible rate of motion at all times.

The reason I brought up photons and that scenario, is because I thought I finally comprehended the whole battle between; continuous vs. discrete.

So can you tell me; What was the main reason or reasons that physicists initially thought EM radiation might be continuous, what did they mean by continuous?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

You're in your space suit outside a space ship. You're first 1 meter from the space ship, then you're two meters from the space ship. Space is that dimension which we can measure between you and the space ship. You can put a tape measure across that one meter or two meters of vacuum and measure the one or two meters.

But you could do that in nothing as well. If two apples and a tape measure were all that existed, surrounded by nothing, the apples could still be a meter and 2 meters away from one another.

'dimensions' exist regardless. The fact that there are more than 1 object that exists, is the fact of dimensions.

I won't respond to this silly dictionary rejection any further. Make up your own words and definitions if you want but you're not going to be able to communicate effectively with others using such an approach so your made up words which mean something other than what's defined in the dictionary are not on-topic here.

Something. Nothing.

Is space, something or nothing?

a reply to: ImaFungi

Let me but in real quick...

and first off, I 100% agree with your logic about "nothing", and I think you understand it well...

but I want to know what you think of the other side - the side of "something" - so let me pose this question to you:

If everything physical is made of "something", what is "something" made of? And how would you address its infinity? (If everything is made of turtles, what are turtles made of? Is it turtles all the way down [into and throughout infinity]?)

I think the logical outcome is that, although everything is made of "something", everything physical is not made of something physical. (As per intuition would lead you to.)

And yes, it is similar to the liars paradox, barber's paradox, russell's paradox (the paradox of set theory), or godel's incompleteness theorem -- the question leads to trying to define the set of all sets or an axiom of infinity (what is physicality).

Thoughts?

Edit: and take your time, I know it is an egg scrambler.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
The sooner 'photon' is stopped being called 'energy' the better. 'photon' is matter.

This is more dictionary abuse which I detest but I won't claim as loudly about this since the distinction between matter and energy is blurred in modern physics. Photons are still clearly energy, but the blurring is more on the definition of mass where it turns out that most mass is really energy as explained here from 4:50-5:50:

Your Mass is NOT From the Higgs Boson

So can you tell me; What was the main reason or reasons that physicists initially thought EM radiation might be continuous, what did they mean by continuous?

This gives some of the key points:

www.studyphysics.ca...

originally posted by: [post=19789915]ImaFungi




ImaFungi

Im afraid you are way too gobbledygooky in that post there mate to generate any discussion

a reply to: Nochzwei

You have to be patient and understand sentence by sentence and line by line and how they relate. It is difficult to understand, but it is semantically and intelligibly sensible. Read line by line, and quote the first line that you do not understand and I will explain it to you, and then we will continue doing this. At least give me that chance with the first line, to prove to you that what I wrote is meaningful and sensical.