Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: ImaFungi
True or false; all we have ever 'seen' (or 'touched' too?) are photons?

To paraphrase Richard Feynman, while everybody else was eating, the philosopher who said "but I only see photons" was starving because he only saw the photons from the food. You can hear Feynman's original explanation in this one minute video:

a reply to: Nochzwei

I am intrigued by your adamance, but unaware of exactly what you are so adamant about. (I have glossed over some of the previous pages of arguments, but did not see any expressions of fundamental beliefs or statements that were indicative in expressing the core disagreement in imagining the nature of the universe)

Could you be so kind and helpful as to state, perhaps in numbered/bulleted order starting with the most fundamental and significant beliefs of yours that you believe are disbelieved by others?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So the answer is true; that the only information that has ever entered out heads is photon;

Which led me to the reason I asked that, the paragraph below the question you responded to.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So the answer is true; that the only information that has ever entered out heads is photon;

What about information obtained though hearing, smelling, and tasting?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So the answer is true; that the only information that has ever entered out heads is photon;

What about information obtained though hearing, smelling, and tasting?

Ultimately translated into photons before ultimately 'sensed'?

The stem of this interesting scenario is summarized I think by the statement; We cannot 'see' (seeing, takes place in part due to the eyes, but ultimately 'in the mind') photons; yet, all we see are photons... (I know that might be similar to say, we cannot see an atom, yet all we see are atoms)

I have walked down a street at night, and have experienced due to cars traveling towards me with their headlights on (certainly without staring directly in the headlights), many interesting looking 'light lines'; is this the actual 'seeing of photons'? Or is this seeing the result of a powerful collection of photons, hitting the material of my eye, and causing a registered image (of light lines) in my mind?

I suppose your answer will include something like; as much as we dont know about the fundamental mechanisms of the mind, whatever they are, it must be that its 'resolution of visibility' is not so fine enough to 'see' a single photon, not to mention the concept of a single photon always moving as fast as the fastest thing can move. I think you have mentioned that before, and it is more even to do with the nature of the eye, then the mind perhaps, as you mentioned other animals that can detect fewer. I guess what this comes down to, is the concept of sight or sense or detection alway requires an interaction and translation, so very difficult to know if we know the true physical nature of that which exists. maybe.



(The problem is further highlighted by our inability to comprehend how consciousness exists and functions. )

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Ultimately translated into photons before ultimately 'sensed'?

How do you figure that works?

Here's what your hearing sensors look like; they aren't photon detectors like the eyes:

www.nih.gov...

Auditory hair cells are specialized along the length of the cochlea to respond to specific sound frequencies. Hair bundles are shown in blue.

They detect compression waves in air (or underwater). Sound waves are not photons, though in common internet mythology sound and light waves are often conflated to be more similar than they really are. Yes they both have "frequencies" but the basic structure of the waves is completely different.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

But how is sound ultimately sensed by that which ultimately senses sound? Is the air wave, which interacts with those hairs, not translated into photons? That is to say, it is not true that when you hear a sound, the exactness of what you hear is not the movement of air, but what the movement of air, does to the movement of hair, which does to the movement of other materials, molecules, chemicals, which I presumed ultimately is expressed by photons to the/in the/as the mind?

But anyway this is getting away from what I was saying, that we cannot see a photon, but all we have ever seen are photons; I think that is interesting, and I think it says something about the nature of the mind, that it has to prepare and project and organize photons to be consumable and presentable, to make sense;

I am still of the reasonable belief that no man on earth comprehends, conceives, envisions, how physically a photon truly exists.


Another question I wanted to ask;

When a nucleus is split to release lots of energy; it is literally the nuclear forces themselves which are being released?

And prior to being released, the nuclear forces themselves are in the form of virtual photons or what else?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

But how is sound ultimately sensed by that which ultimately senses sound?

Racall your original statement, it is false:

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So the answer is true; that the only information that has ever entered out heads is photon;

No, photons do not enter our head to cause sound.

Is the air wave, which interacts with those hairs, not translated into photons? That is to say, it is not true that when you hear a sound, the exactness of what you hear is not the movement of air, but what the movement of air, does to the movement of hair, which does to the movement of other materials, molecules, chemicals, which I presumed ultimately is expressed by photons to the/in the/as the mind?

Unless you can specify the specific role you think photons have I think you're getting into some muddled thinking. I'm not saying they aren't involved at all but there are better descriptions of the processes involved, which get into biological processes, not really the topic of this thread.

I am still of the reasonable belief that no man on earth comprehends, conceives, envisions, how physically a photon truly exists.

Is our knowledge perfect? No. Do we know a lot about photons from the experiments we've done? Yes.

When a nucleus is split to release lots of energy; it is literally the nuclear forces themselves which are being released?

Yes.

And prior to being released, the nuclear forces themselves are in the form of virtual photons or what else?

Gluon fields.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

When the sound waves touch the ear hair, is it not the electrons of the sound wave touching the electrons of the ear hair via EM radiation?


Does the local gluon field keep neutrons and protons together or does neutrons and protons keep the local gluon field locally together (locally in the geometric structure, and density, required to lock the neutron and protons in)? Is that like a chicken or the egg question?

When nucleus is split, is the gluon field (surrounding the neutrons and protons, or in between the neutrons and protons or both?) 'pierced' and does that action force that gluon field that was (how is so much gluon field stored and kept in place?) being held in place to propagate outward, or is the neutron-proton configuration itself split, the separation of them of which, causes the gluon field that was somehow contained in configuration, to propagate away?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Nochzwei

I am intrigued by your adamance, but unaware of exactly what you are so adamant about. (I have glossed over some of the previous pages of arguments, but did not see any expressions of fundamental beliefs or statements that were indicative in expressing the core disagreement in imagining the nature of the universe)

Could you be so kind and helpful as to state, perhaps in numbered/bulleted order starting with the most fundamental and significant beliefs of yours that you believe are disbelieved by others?

Not beliefs really, but proven facts.
1. GR is all bunk. Resolve e = mc2
2. Ambient time (universes chronometer) is different from mans chronometer time.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
When the sound waves touch the ear hair, is it not the electrons of the sound wave touching the electrons of the ear hair via EM radiation?

You're talking about virtual photons? Virtual photons are not photons, so if you're measuring EM radiation that's from real photons, not virtual photons, and I'm not aware of any EM radiation being measured where air molecules interact with ear molecules.

Does the local gluon field keep neutrons and protons together or does neutrons and protons keep the local gluon field locally together (locally in the geometric structure, and density, required to lock the neutron and protons in)? Is that like a chicken or the egg question?

When nucleus is split, is the gluon field (surrounding the neutrons and protons, or in between the neutrons and protons or both?) 'pierced' and does that action force that gluon field that was (how is so much gluon field stored and kept in place?) being held in place to propagate outward, or is the neutron-proton configuration itself split, the separation of them of which, causes the gluon field that was somehow contained in configuration, to propagate away?

I hate the term "mass defect" but it's a commonly used term which I can't change, so I'm forced to use it. I'd rather call it something else like "mass discrepancy" as I don't think it's a "defect". "Mass defect" is simply that nucleons like protons and neutrons appear to have a different mass when they are part of a nucleus than they do when their mass is measured as separate particles.

So then the question becomes, how can the mass of protons and neutrons change in this "mass defect"? The quarks only make up maybe 1% of the mass of protons or neutrons. The other 99% of the mass is in gluon fields and kinetic energy of the quarks. When the mass changes in "mass defect" I'm not expecting to see much change in the mass or kinetic energy of the quarks, so I presume the change in mass comes primarily from a change in the gluon field component of mass.

Exactly how these gluon fields work, and nuclear physics in general is very complicated. Unfortunately much of the material I found on the internet is dated to the point of being sort of wrong, but I did find one source which is more up-to-date thus avoiding some of the errors in older sources such as representing flux tubes as triangles when they have more of a "Y"-shape (see the not very realistic figure 2), an article by Matt Strassler with a "more realistic, though still imperfect" diagram in figure 3:

Protons and Neutrons: The Massive Pandemonium in Matter

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Not beliefs really, but proven facts.

The holes in Swiss cheese can't begin to compare with the much larger holes in your "proofs", as already pointed out in much greater detail than your original claims.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Your link to the 1920 Eddington "book" appears to solve the Jabberwockey riddle I posed to Nochzwei.

The 1919 Eddington expedition is one of the most comprehensive experiments available to reconcile both Mathematical and Physics theories dating up to and possibly through the French revolution. There are some important keys found in the write ups (They are all essentially abstracts from different proponents).

w.astro.berkeley.edu...

You did not clarify my "zany" reference to Lobachevsky other than to offer up BBP (which was also done without optics).

. I can well understand the compatriots of Riemann and Christoffel burning Louvain and sinking the Lusitania

I'm not sure whether it was actually Newton or Soldner who predicted the degree to which light would be bent around the gravity well. The 1911 prediction of Einstein agreed with Soldner? Interest UFO on those old plates..

originally posted by: Cauliflower
You did not clarify my "zany" reference to Lobachevsky other than to offer up BBP (which was also done without optics).

So you're still claiming there's no glass lens in Eddington's telescope even after I posted a description where he describes the 13 inch glass objective lens, and shows a picture of the other telescope with a 13 inch glass objective lens which he said was similar to the one he used?

The 1911 prediction of Einstein agreed with Soldner?

Einstein did make some calculations in 1911 but that was was 4 years before he published the full theory of general relativity in 1915 where the similar calculations of deflection were increased by a factor of two. The 1919 expeditions were of course aware of predictions from the theory of general relativity. And yes Soldner made some calculations in 1801 about light bending and he was the first I know of, which is why I said I don't think they knew about light bending in 1772.

originally posted by: [post=20046186]Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Not beliefs really, but proven facts.

The holes in Swiss cheese can't begin to compare with the much larger holes in your "proofs", as already pointed out in much greater detail than your original claims.

There are no holes in my proofs. Yes you did make some flimsy excuses. Prove yourself by replicating the Ark video.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok thanks, heres a cool magnet gif

i.imgur.com...

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Not beliefs really, but proven facts.
1. GR is all bunk. Resolve e = mc2
2. Ambient time (universes chronometer) is different from mans chronometer time.

Ok. So assuming GR is all bunk; do you have a statement you can say that relates to the nature of the universe that is not bunk? What is your knowledge that replaces GR? Do you believe that 'gravity' is a phenomenon that exists?

Einstein should have known '2' I dont know why he wouldnt have. I would have hoped he would have understood that just because we dont know the truth doesnt mean the truth doesnt exist; something which seemed to be present in lots of his other thinking, but is the gist of '2';

Einstein knew that we could not know the ambient time; a measurement or comprehension of such would be impossible and meaningless; well because say the universe started at second 1, and then the entire history of the universe progressed, as a steady occurrence of seconds ticked away; I think the reason we could not know the universes rate of time, is because all our possible ways of measuring time (utilize energy,matter,space, time in some way) occur in the presence of mass, energy, 'gravity wells' (which change the behavior of mass and energy);

So it seemed there was no way to know the perfect unit of time, that was true, clear and discernible and producible and promised to be steady under all conditions (conditions meaning, different rates of movement and rotation, in different rates of gravity well).

But it seems you attempt to escape such thinking by saying; the idea of gravity well is bunk, so a second here is exactly equal to a second anywhere in the universe, and so we can use a second, and thus a minute and hour for that matter, to judge all phenomenon in the universe, as a rule stick to generally consider the universes ambient time.

And besides that, the field of cosmology, is interested in 'beginning of universe', which is more an 'all together universal understanding of time', that you seem to desire to be considered.

If you do not believe in gravity wells, how do you believe the Moon stays near the Earth?

a reply to: ImaFungi
This thread and the ATS science forum in general is for real science, backed by evidence. He has already said this:

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Iv already said can't give a quantitative prediction as of yet.

So he has no model, no quantitative predictions, and no refutation of the thousands of experiments that show time dilation is consistent with relativity, not opposite as he claims. So it's really not a scientific topic and is therefore off-topic here, though if he ever addresses these defects we could re-table the new model and evaluate the quantitative predictions. Lacking those, it's a topic for skunk works so please discuss it there, not here.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok thanks, heres a cool magnet gif

i.imgur.com...

That link didn't play for me, so I fixed it by deleting the stray v at the end:

i.imgur.com...

That is cool.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Not beliefs really, but proven facts.
1. GR is all bunk. Resolve e = mc2
2. Ambient time (universes chronometer) is different from mans chronometer time.

...

Einstein should have known '2' I dont know why he wouldnt have. I would have hoped he would have understood that just because we dont know the truth doesnt mean the truth doesnt exist; something which seemed to be present in lots of his other thinking, but is the gist of '2';

Einstein knew that we could not know the ambient time; a measurement or comprehension of such would be impossible and meaningless; well because say the universe started at second 1, and then the entire history of the universe progressed, as a steady occurrence of seconds ticked away; I think the reason we could not know the universes rate of time, is because all our possible ways of measuring time (utilize energy,matter,space, time in some way) occur in the presence of mass, energy, 'gravity wells' (which change the behavior of mass and energy);

So it seemed there was no way to know the perfect unit of time, that was true, clear and discernible and producible and promised to be steady under all conditions (conditions meaning, different rates of movement and rotation, in different rates of gravity well).

But it seems you attempt to escape such thinking by saying; the idea of gravity well is bunk, so a second here is exactly equal to a second anywhere in the universe, and so we can use a second, and thus a minute and hour for that matter, to judge all phenomenon in the universe, as a rule stick to generally consider the universes ambient time.

...

Quick little point to make here. The measurements of time in the observable world is only positive real numbers.

The universe could not start at the 1 or 2 seconds, but rather the smallest representation of time possible (which can become increasingly small forever). To answer a question like this you have to define the set of numbers which are being used. What you are using looks like the natural numbers (1,2,3,4, ...), but that set is not applicable to reality in that time can be measured as fractions (rational numbers where .99999999 and 1 are the same thing).

So depending on how you define and measure your seconds they actually will not be equal. Further a second is officially defined by atomic clocks and their frequency (or period w/e you like). A faster frequency or more accurate measurement of it will change the value of a second. So you will need to separate the effects of gravity to generate a clock (or time measurement) which is independent of location. Currently clocks are not location independent and so your measurements would be relative to your location rather than a truly independent measurement.

Maybe that helps?

-FBB

a reply to: Arbitrageur

It doesn't make enough sense to evaluate the plausibility. "on demand" by what? What creates this demand? I think black holes form from a concentration of matter, not from expansion of space..

Not sure what your objection is since big bang newly formed matter had to gather around common gravity points that later became galaxies.
Meaning black holes first.

Picture it as matter at the moment of Big Bang has been spreading (flew away), equally getting further apart.
With that said, chances they later form gravity chunks is non existent statistically.



thank you

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Not sure what your objection is.

Since big bang newly formed matter had to gather around common gravity points that later became galaxies.
Meaning black holes first.

This is what you said:

originally posted by: greenreflections
I think that one cannot say space-time has a form. It expands arbitrary. When needed, on demand. When the demand is too much, black hole forms))

That's what didn't make sense. Now you're saying something else, which I have no objection to, but it doesn't help your prior statement make sense to me, to say black holes form from space expanding too much. It would make more sense to say if space expanded too much it might prevent the formation of black holes, not cause them.

Gravity is so much stronger on local scales that form black holes that gravity dominates, when compared to the dark energy force driving the expansion of the universe, which is why things like solar systems and galaxies don't expand by an appreciable amount as a result of the metric expansion of space or dark energy.

BTW, do astronomers have on record black hole birth?

There's this article but it says it could either be a black hole or pulsar, but evidently at the rate we observe supernovae we predict that some of those will end up as black holes. Confirmation of that can be tricky as this article suggests:

Supernova Shines Light On Black Hole Formation

"If our interpretation is correct, and indeed SN1979C ended up as a black hole, then of course it's the first time we are seeing a black hole being born in a normal supernova," Loeb says, speaking at a NASA news conference Monday.