Ask any question you want about Physics

In what way does a Na+ ion's in solution properties change during photon excitation?

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: greenreflections


alright. I personally have an issue with that statement.

I look forward to reading the expression of your issue.

Right. Time and space are same thing. Not only volume (space) and time (change, human perception) me thinks.

I always thought Einstein showed that space geometry changes time ''flow"' (space-time stretching or compressing, naturally) .
Space uniform geometry (flat) when altered/curved affects time flow change visible to another frame that is outside of stretched (altered/curved) volume area .


As to why and how google will give you better answers than I could possibly offer.

That would suck if it was not true))) I already started to build my humble cosmology model based on that). Now people talking of gravitons))) Silly.

originally posted by: greenreflections
Right. Time and space are same thing. ...

As to why and how google will give you better answers than I could possibly offer.

My search revealed that time has units of seconds and space has units of meters cubed. If they are the same, how do I convert seconds to meters cubed or vice-versa?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: greenreflections
Right. Time and space are same thing. ...

As to why and how google will give you better answers than I could possibly offer.

My search revealed that time has units of seconds and space has units of meters cubed. If they are the same, how do I convert seconds to meters cubed or vice-versa?

That is not real question. The answer tho is that they are fundamentally correlated. That is what most important.



Most basic indirect correlation example would be 'speed' derived involving distance (volume) and time.

originally posted by: greenreflections
Right. Time and space are same thing.

originally posted by: greenreflections
The answer tho is that they are fundamentally correlated. That is what most important.

The age and height of a child growing up are highly correlated. But saying these characteristics are correlated is a completely different claim than saying they are the same thing, isn't it? For example once the child reaches maturity, aging continues but height stops increasing, so age and height can't be the same thing. Or instead of height, you could talk about the amount of "space" the person takes up, like what volume of water they displace in a bathtub.

Most basic indirect correlation example would be 'speed' derived involving distance (volume) and time.

If an observer at rest in the CMB frame is observing an object at rest in the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) reference frame, how much space does one second of time correlate to and what is the mathematical relationship?

originally posted by: dashen
In what way does a Na+ ion's in solution properties change during photon excitation?

I imagine that depends on the energy of the photon. The sodium atom has already more or less donated its sole electron in the outer shell to Chlorine in a salty solution, so it's not likely to get more ionized except by high energy photons. I don't know if it will answer your question but this article talks about some ionizing radiation effects and also discusses NaCl solution:

How radiation affects cells

a reply to: Arbitrageur


You can say; in nature, that substance which is symbolized by + is different than that substance which is symbolized by -

And I can very reasonably say; what is it that is fundamentally different about them?

There is something (everything about it) that makes + = +

There is something that makes - = -


There is difference between apple and orange, you can describe the differences, the differences are physical characteristics of the physical extension of object apple and object orange;

What are the physical characteristics of + and - , themselves, that are a part of the theory as to why there is difference between the two objects.

You can say the difference is detected via the phenomenon of attraction and repulsion, but would you not agree there must be a physical reason/s (physics, physics, physics) as to physically why an object results in those phenomenon?

It cannot be magic. Unless the universe is fake.

If the universe is real; there must be a real physical way that + fundamentally is, and a real physical way that - fundamentally is, and it must only be the physical way of that which surrounds + and -, and the physical way of that which + and - exactly physically is, which result in the phenomenon of phenomena.

Is there a theory, as to what is physically different about + and - ?

+ or - always gotta be positive

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Is there a theory, as to what is physically different about + and - ?

Same question, same answer. "fundamental" means if there is a deeper explanation, we don't know it yet.

Many of your questions seem intended to show the limited understanding of science, so when the answer is the phenomenon is at the limits of our knowledge, why don't you delight in that answer? It seems to be the answer you're looking for most of the time anyway, "we don't know" what's physically different. Obviously we do know the difference in the observed behaviors.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You consistently think your failure to understand a model is a problem with the model, as in the above example. It is not. While of course some models have some problems you rarely seem to understand what they are, so stop assuming the problem is with the model and start assuming you don't understand it well enough yet and you might make some progress. Then when you understand the model well enough, you can figure out what the REAL problems are with the model!

it's not that simple...
it is not that repeating something all the time makes it true. What is happening here with you and all the others who just shut off the critical thinking and continue parroting some ideas is... following rituals. slavishly!
It's human nature to do that, I understand.

here a video that explains rituals..


you are the human, I think like the chimps... if you understand what I mean

now listen to the "father" of quarks


I know he thinks he is right, other wise he wouldn't do what he did...
but what do believe all the followers ? do they think or just grasp an idea to "make the discovery"

this is all just too "forced" for me, I need to THINK myself and come to my conclusion
all the subatomic particles are so "virtual", that I think they just ripples from the interaction.

lets make gedanken experiment.
What are people made of ?
we take lets say 500 million humans, put them on a field, and shut parts of human body or whole corpus on them, to see that they are made of.
cool... we have results, some parts are flying around and we can detect them.
We must design detectors that can distinguish between all that parts that are flying around so we do,
an leg detector, an arm detector... wait, there is this look like headbelly something...

I think you get my point

sure this is stupid, but think about it !

Scaling and the Proton Model

...Making two extreme assumptions about the ratio - W-7/ WI, Kendall extracted values of W2 from the 6” cross section data,

assumption 1 and 2

what did Feynman ?

In his model, Feynman did not advocate any specific quantum numbers for the partons; they could have whatever charges, spins and other properties were consistent with the MIT-SLAC data.

but...

Based on these ideas, other physicists soon formulated more specific parton models in which the partons were interpreted as quarks or as bare, pointlike nucleons and mesons.

sure... Faynman said so it MUST BE !!

NOW..

After radiative corrections had been applied,

unfortunately...

In some cases, radiative corrections can be calculated not only for electrodynamic processes but also for processes caused by other interactions. For processes due to the strong interaction, however, radiative corrections usually cannot be rigorously calculated because of the lack of a complete theory of strong interactions. When radiative corrections for electrodynamic quantities are calculated with an accuracy above the third order, an important contribution is made by the virtual production of hadrons, or strongly interacting particles, and by the effects of the weak interaction. The calculation of these effects is hindered by the lack of a consistent theory of the weak interaction and by the insufficiency of experimental data on the processes of hadron production through the electromagnetic interaction.

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying, this whole idea of particle physics is like a snowball system.
People slavish to ideas do things and get results, no doubt about this... but.. it it the truth or is it just a result of previous wish ideas and all that follows... ?

I would concentrate on making experiments more simple instead of what happens now.
There is no need for "more energy" rather than isolating "fundamental particles" ad do experiments on them.

you said, remove all iron from the Earth to prove the Moon is not hold by the magnetic field.
I see the sarcasm in that, no worries...
Instead of removing it from Earth, remove it from the Moon
Less in count and more cheap

get a laser trap to hold a proton, burst it with an electron gun (we can shoot electrons one by one) and see what happens !

simple said

give me 50 millions and I do an experiment... but I know you will NOT!
the outcome may be not wished !!

a reply to: ImaFungi

+ or - is by definition
like the word left or the word right
no physical entity in that

the "left" or "right" is not made of something real, just consent in language

the mistake taken is the fact that + added to - is considered to be 0... nothing, but it's not true !!!

it is more like left and right will give you forward, not standstill !!!

it's because math is timeless, and if time is added to the equation... well, they don't know really how to use it

originally posted by: KrzYma
I think you get my point

sure this is stupid, but think about it !

You're not the first person to struggle with the idea that the quantum world doesn't behave like the classical world that all of our senses and intelligence evolved to understand. So of course I understand the desire of you and some others, even some scientists in the early days of quantum mechanics, to hang on to a view of the world that may be in some sense genetically programmed.

However experiment after experiment has shown that the quantum world really does behave differently, and the fact that it's an alien world to some extent because it's largely beyond our direct senses is understandably a challenge to cope with. Most people who study science seriously review the experiments that led to our current understanding and accept the experimental results.

Other people post youtube videos of raindrops and proclaim denial.

Freedom of thought and speech allows you to post your youtube videos of raindrops, so if that makes you happy, go for it.

By the way I find it interesting that the video you posted about quarks isn't about just one person's views, he also talks about the Nobel prize being awarded for additional research confirming the existence of quarks, so it seems an odd video to post in support of your denial of quarks.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

the Nobel prize does not make it true, Obama has one... if you understand !@

just tell me.. is +1 added to -1 really 0 ?

BTW to struggle with some idea one have to accept it and I don't..

a reply to: KrzYma

+ and - charge; me attempting to wonder the fundamental micro difference, is expressed in the macro phenomenon of two bar magnets, repulsing and attracting. Since it is believed such action, repulsion and attraction, is ultimately due because of the fundamental micro fact of + and -.


There must be a physical reason as to why, 2 separate objects, would attract or repulse.

If the universe is Gods computer, we can imagine a code being made "whenever fundamental particle + is x distance from fundamental particle -, allow attraction"

If the universe is real, we can imagine there must be physical reasons about the body of object, which forces fundamental particle + to attract to fundamental particle - at x distance.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

so it seems an odd video to post in support of your denial of quarks.

odd ? no.. I'm not fighting with anyone to push my points of view denying anything else like most of the scientist do.
I'm seeking the truth, whatever it ts...

that those Nobel prize individuals get them for parroting and how it works, I have explained... slavishly to the existing rituals

a reply to: ImaFungi

There must be a physical reason as to why, 2 separate objects, would attract or repulse.

yeah...
what is "physical reason"?
physical... is what we see and measure, can touch or see

back than...
Around 600 BC Greeks found that by rubbing an 'electron' (a hard Fossilised resin that today is known as Amber) against a fur cloth, it would attract particles of straw.
Dr William Gilbert investigated the reactions of amber and magnets and first recorded the word 'Electric' in a report on the theory of magnetism.
In 1752 Franklin proved that lightning and the spark from amber were one and the same thing. The story of this famous milestone is a familiar one, in which Franklin fastened an iron spike to a silken kite, which he flew during a thunderstorm, while holding the end of the kite string by an iron key. When lightening flashed, a tiny spark jumped from the key to his wrist.
In 1786, Luigi Galvani, an Italian professor of medicine, found that when the leg of a dead frog was touched by a metal knife, the leg twitched violently. Galvani thought that the muscles of the frog must contain electricity. By 1792 another Italian scientist, Alessandro Volta, disagreed: he realised that the main factors in Galvani's discovery were the two different metals - the steel knife and the tin plate - apon which the frog was lying. Volta showed that when moisture comes between two different metals, electricity is created. This led him to invent the first electric battery, the voltaic pile, which he made from thin sheets of copper and zinc separated by moist pasteboard.
In this way, a new kind of electricity was discovered, electricity that flowed steadily like a current of water instead of discharging itself in a single spark or shock. Volta showed that electricity could be made to travel from one place to another by wire, thereby making an important contribution to the science of electricity. The unit of electrical potential, the Volt, is named after Volta.
The credit for generating electric current on a practical scale goes to the famous English scientist, Michael Faraday. Faraday was greatly interested in the invention of the electromagnet, but his brilliant mind took earlier experiments still further. If electricity could produce magnetism, why couldn't magnetism produce electricity.
In 1831, Faraday found the solution. Electricity could be produced through magnetism by motion. He discovered that when a magnet was moved inside a coil of copper wire, a tiny electric current flows through the wire.

that's the history...


the fact is, nobody knows why this happens, all they do is saying HOW it happens.

I don't think any of the scientist today even bother about WHY
they say it is so... so you have to follow this thinking pattern

I think, the misconception lies in our 3D existence. There is no way for us to really understand the lower dimension.
People THINK point as 1D and line as 2D is so easy... no, it's not !!

For us a point (1D or -) is at a point... somewhere but at a arbitrary position in 3D
how does it look for the 1D point or - or + ? where is it ?
I say.. everywhere!

2D. a line or separation...
well, this is distance, magnitude, difference in position.
between 2 points the - and +
what direction is it pointing ?
a line does not know in 2D !!
the only information is the distance, magnitude, separation between - and +
but what distance ??
there is NO real one distance if there is not a third point (observer), so the other two can compare to.
...between A and B is the distance equal to A and C = 1 and between B and C = 0.5 or whatever...

now, why A or - is attracted to B or + ? or why B + is repelled by C + ?

I'm working on words to describe it...

you say the experiments must be made simpler... do you know exactly how simple the detectors are at the LHC?

1 word

Very

They have not changed in technology for many years. The development has simply been the move to higher resolution and larger size. Size is required to adequately measure the energy.

So since you are the expert in particle physics and detector technology KrzYma, explain how energy is measured in a typical particle physics experiment... at the GeV/TeV scale.

Fundamentally i think you don't quite understand how well the model works. Radiative corrections are often an issue simply because of computation and the random nature of the corrections. It is all to do with how a particle interacts with the fields it is in, which can, in some cases cause interactions that might not otherwise be correct. Example is producing an off-shell particle.

Anyway, what you fail to actually understand is that the theory is more complicated than a single side of paper. Yes yes we can all be smart and write down the standard model lagrangian and say "simple" but the meaning is deeper than that. A good model or theory is able to predict events that occur in nature in a wide variety of circumstances. This is exactly what the standard model does. It wasn't produced by some cult of science, all of us bowing down to Feynman or other nobel prize winners. Your point regarding Obama is just... dumb... outright showing the wit and intelligence of a brick if you were actually trying to be serious. Obama has a nobel peace prize. not a nobel prize in physics. The two are quite different... To even compare the two and say "Oh well this person has one too" is just... as i said... DUMB, its like saying "Well I wrote a story on paper once, im obviously the same as Tolkien.

The standard model of particle physics is being tested on a daily basis by hundreds of labs around the world, so far... it is looking very very good.

So you say it is outright completely wrong? Well... it is a rather extraordinary claim... so back up that claim with some extraordinary mathematics which make coherent sense and explain exactly the whole of what is in this article...

iopscience.iop.org...

And then you can start making outlandish statements to the lack of intelligence of the physics community.

You like to think that the physics community is arrogant and ignorant and parrots a mantra... but let me tell you... if i could prove it wrong, id love it, because it would be an absolutely breakthrough, there are people who have spent the last 50 years trying to prove it wrong (each development made to the model that is) and nothing was ever found so far to replace it... so... its all waves right! done


Ripples... please, like i said, please explain how energy and momentum is measured in the ATLAS detector, and how your idea of 'ripples' makes any sense at all... (which it doesn't by the way... and doesn't to anyone who has ever even understood anything about detector systems...) As to your statement regarding physicists not being bothered to think about 'Why' anymore... you clearly have never spoken to a single physicist.

a reply to: ErosA433

Obviously Eros, if you look at the radius of the large track and the radius of the small track, you will find that their ratios are approx 90% of the ratio of the Earth to the Moon.

This causes a freq-beat which also resonates with the fundamental frequency of the temporal lobe leading to fabulous geometries when modelled with the lysergic-modulus set.

I thought everyone knew this?

-FBB

Interesting and cool







7:19

originally posted by: ErosA433
do you know exactly how simple the detectors are at the LHC?

1 word

Very

I decided to look into those detectors myself, and the physics of them seems very simple. The engineering seems very complicated to get something like 85 million data points from 85 million "pixels" in the detector, but that's largely just because 85 million is a lot to deal with, it's not that any one is complicated. It seems hardening the electronics to withstand the radiation levels is also an engineering challenge.

Ripples... please, like i said, please explain how energy and momentum is measured in the ATLAS detector, and how your idea of 'ripples' makes any sense at all... (which it doesn't by the way... and doesn't to anyone who has ever even understood anything about detector systems...)

I'd like to hear that explanation myself and the raindrops video has the wrong kind of "ripples". On the other hand, the different kind of "ripples" in a field in quantum field theory which Sean Carrol discusses at 25m10s in this video are part of the mainstream science model:

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Interesting and cool

It's feast or famine with your posts I suppose, sometimes we get an 8000 word unedited stream of consciousness manifesto, and other times we get three words. The edited posts are better than stream of consciousness, but you can go a little too far to the point where I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

In any case here's my hypothesis about some great scientific minds with "out of the box" thinking: They often come up with more than one "out of the box" idea, and while some may turn out to be right, others may turn out to be wrong. This is why Feynman makes his little "jab" in his "key to science" video that the "name of the person" who came up with the idea isn't the key to science, it's whether the idea is consistent with experiment or observation.

In this perspective, we have made observations and experiments to test Dirac's large number hypothesis which proposed that the gravitational constant isn't really a constant. Dirac even mentions in that very old recording that he expects measurements to be made within a few years of sufficient accuracy to test his idea, and of course it has been tested as discussed here.

Your Feynman time index is apparently some reference to the benefits of outside the box thinking, but you have to put that in the context that Dirac, Feynman, Einstein and other outside the box thinkers that made advances at least knew where the box was. Unfortunately if you don't know where the box is as they did, your attempts to think outside it seem rather futile, which is why numerous contributors here have tried to encourage you to study physics seriously. One main reason for that is so you can learn where the "box" is, which is a prerequisite for being able to think outside it.