Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Arbitrageur

By that token would supercooling something to absolute zero or somewhere near that reduce its mass also?

In the case of black holes it's the opposite that happens, the colder they are the more mass they gain from absorbing CMB radiation, the hotter they are the more mass they lose because Hawking radiation is greater than the CMB radiation absorbed.

For an ordinary object, the effect of temperature on mass is probably too small to measure without ultraprecise equipment.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So my zero Kelvin weight loss plan is a no go?
Also would absolute zero cause Atoms to collapse in on themselves?

originally posted by: dashen
So my zero Kelvin weight loss plan is a no go?

Agreed, you'll have better luck using a treadmill.

Also would absolute zero cause Atoms to collapse in on themselves?

I don't think so. I think they would just go to their lowest possible energy state, which is not zero energy. Strange things do happen near absolute zero though, like superconductivity.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

isn't the treadmill really just a basic linear accelerator?
And accelerating an object with mass towards the speed of light will increase its mass.
And that won't work at all, as far as the diet is concerned.

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Arbitrageur
And accelerating an object with mass towards the speed of light will increase its mass.

I know Richard Feynman and other physics teachers said that's what happens, but Einstein said mass doesn't increase. What those physics teachers have done I think is abused Einstein's equation E=mc², because it's not the right equation for objects with momentum as my thread explains where I give the correct equation for that and it's not exactly E=mc² like you may have been taught. There is also supposed to be a momentum term, and THAT is what increases as you accelerate toward the speed of light, not your mass.:

Is E=mc² right or wrong?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

But back to the high-energy photon collisions.
how can it be that a photon which is chargeless can create a particle that has charge.
Is the process by which one converts to the other understood?
because seemingly it appears that mass charge and energy is really just a form of lights that was converted through extreme conditions

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Arbitrageur

But back to the high-energy photon collisions.
how can it be that a photon which is chargeless can create a particle that has charge.

Technically, a photon can't create A particle with charge. Only pairs of charged particles where the net charge is zero can result from a photon with no charge, so charge is conserved.

Is the process by which one converts to the other understood?
because seemingly it appears that mass charge and energy is really just a form of lights that was converted through extreme conditions

I think it's understood in the sense that gravity is understood, meaning we have developed a "rulebook" from observations and we can say that it appears certain rules must be followed in conversions, like charge conservation for example. But when Newton said he understood how gravity worked without understanding why (and that's still true to some extent), I think that also applies to the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics. We understand the rules but we don't understand why we have these rules and not some other rules, nor why the particles have these masses and not some other masses. So some things are understood very well (the rules) and others aren't understood at all (Why these rules?) . Why are the masses of the electron and positron so much smaller than the masses of the proton and anti-proton, and why is the ratio of those masses what it is? We don't know.

Why is it spelled Physics instead of Fisics?

originally posted by: Punisher75
Why is it spelled Physics instead of Fisics?

It should probably be spelled Fizzics in this thread:

Do bubbles in a pint of Guinness go up or down?
Hmmm reading the OP I see it IS spelled Fizzics, by one source at least.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
For me personally a conceptual problem is that relativity implies time would continue to pass normally to an observer falling into a black hole even after they pass the event horizon (let's assume supermassive black hole at this point so no need to discuss spaghettification near the event horizon). So how do you correlate this with the passage of time outside the event horizon? You can't. I have no problem conceiving how an observer on earth sees time slowing down near the event horizon outside it, but what about inside the event horizon? Is it true that there's no correlation between time inside the event horizon and the time of an external observer?

Talking about time in all these situations is very tricky and requires great definitions, of especially the clock, and how it is known such material of clock can be effected by all understandings of the nature of reality.

The big reason there is thought to possibly be any change to the functioning of clocks (which generally means the regularity of movement of materials) is because it is thought 2 circumstances effect the regularity of systematic movement of materials, the potential increases and decreases of the speed of the system, and the potential alteration of the direction of the system.

If that is true, and crossing an event horizon unavoidably alters a systems speed and direction, then it would be true its system of time would be at least some what altered.

I do not know why Einstein would have agreed time is altered in relation to closeness to center of mass of earth, but not in relation to closeness to center of mass of 'black hole'.



About Penrose, I thought you would consider him a woo scientist, having theories about quantum consciousness, and external consciousness, and having a ted talk banned, and all.

originally posted by: dashen

But back to the high-energy photon collisions.

Photons colliding with photons? I thought that couldnt happen.

And Arb, answers that its not technically the creation of charge (because an anti charge is created too) but if an electron does appear, can that electron not be taken away from the positron, and is that electron not like an electron like all other electrons are electrons, and so is it not true that a true charge was created where prior there was not?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
so is it not true that a true charge was created where prior there was not?

No it's not true that "a charge" was created because "a charge" is singular. What was created was a pair of charged particles with opposite signs. A photon can't create a single electron or positron because that would violate conservation of charge, while creating an electron positron pair is ok because it does conserve charge.

That's why it's called "Pair Production", not "electron production".

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

That's why it's called "Pair Production", not "electron production".

But is an electron produced?

Can the pair be separated?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I now see again that it is hopeless speaking to you about these things, I should just wait to speak to the best theoretical physicists in the world. Thanks for distracting me, helping me learn, and ultimately compelling me to stop wasting my time here.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Hmmmm I suggest that you form your questions to the best theoretical physicists in the world in more than huge incoherent rambles and thought experiments... and into actual thought processes and questions.

I say this... because well, I know a few really good theoretical physicists

ImaFungi, you spoke of irony, so let me tell you what I find Ironic here... You display far more intellectual Elitism than the worse socially awkward Physicist I know, and In general, 99% of the Scientists you are likely to meet are not at all Elitist, and love to be asked questions and discuss ideas.

Now, while my posts might have become sarcastic as of late, Arb, and myself as well as many others here are discussing subjects in a manner you will find the experts you will wait for, will speak. You are failing to respect the fact that many of these theories require more than just a few forum posts or a few pages of a website to explain in detail. It is why lecture courses in Physics are months long, typically requiring multiple subjects to be studied to complement each other.

What you will find in the real physics world is kind people trying to help you, until, much like we have, you have reached a point where no matter what logic we use or how much we explain theory and observation you stubbornly refuse to consider our ideas as even ideas. ImaFungi, as i am sure you have heard a few times, I myself have a PhD in Experimental particle physics, I did Physics and Astronomy at Uni, I cannot speak for the others who have tried to help you here. but... what I can say is that people here have done a Stirling job of trying to figure out what you are asking and to try and help you...

So... which theoretical physicists are you going to approach? Any names?

a reply to: ImaFungi

No, because of the law of charge conservation. The net charge they can create must be 0. But yes the electron positron pair is a +&- with a net charge of 0.
Yoi gorta balance those equations mate

a reply to: dashen

You said; high energy photon collision can produce electron positron pair;

(what are the high energy photons colliding with, first of all?)

If you say; an electron and positron are creating;

Either that is a true statement or a false statement.

If it is true; Then the truth of it, appears to include, the truth of an electron being created.

this appears to have been the essence of your question; how can charge-less particles, create charge particle at all... I get the + and - = 0 trick.

But, if a real + is created, and a real - is created...

Then a really charge-less particle, really created a charged particle.

Either a real electron was created, or it was not. Either your statement was true, and my questions are justified, or you lied.

a reply to: ErosA433

There is reality. There is theory about reality.

Reality is true. Theory is desired to be true.

There are problems with certain theories.

All I care about is problems with certain theories.

I only care about bettering theories with problems, and I believe I can do that.

I have been impressed with the passion and intelligence I have seen from Nima Arkani-Hamed, and the CN Yang institute is physically the closest physics institution to me, so thats potentially an option for when the time comes; Some great passionate and open minded physicists will desire to speak with me when the time comes, I just got very impatient, and the topic is a tremendous passion and interest for me, and it is nice to interact with people to get me thinking, I have continuously progressed my comprehension from speaking on this thread; reading what is said to be known, and seeing what is wrong about what is said to be known.

You tried to disrespect me but you are a nothing, you are dedicating your life to an experiment that will not work. Maybe I am wrong in saying so but I dont think so, I bet if you knew for certain the experiment wouldnt work you wouldnt feel a thing, you wouldnt care at all and you wouldnt stop, because you are proud of your phd and you are proud that you have a job.

a reply to: ImaFungi

A mommye photon and a daddy photon Love each other very much and they slam into each other really really hard An electron positronpair Is created.
Each one is a real life particle with a charge.
Their combined net charge is 0 as not to disturb the law of charge conservation.
Each one interacts with reality as thye should.
So in fact yes chargeless particle collision creates two charged but opposite particles
. Which leads into my proposal that all reality is really just light bent and twisted into certain forms.
If you can build fundamental particles of nature from smashing photons into each other really really hard, Then that may be the holy grail of understanding reality at large.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Also an Ironic reply

As a scientist i do care a hell of a lot about theories that have problems, and, most theories do have problems. I'm not disrespecting you at all by saying that it is a good thing to understand the theories at a high level before you try and pick them apart.

Thats all we have ever said. You do seem to skip from place to place not really discussing theory, but as you did in this post, state what is true and what is false. Im not really proud, I have no inflated ego, but i do have a logical mind, and the understanding of some of the weirder depths of particle physics and general physics...

You appear take offence at the very idea that you are wrong... this is not science... Scientists who are shown to be wrong, actually first say "Ooooh, that is quite interesting" and not... Oh... you are xxxx (insert pseudo-insult here)

My issue with many of your thought experiments can be summarised like so

"Say x happens, then that means that y, and since y is true then z occurs and proves a... a proves b and thus c is true..."

And all we say is "Yeah but... x doesn't happen in reality... and your analysis of the rest is questionable also"

We do answer questions the best we can, and try when requested to break them down as best we can... the degenerate matter one being one such example... and even in my posts you will see me questioning concepts along the way... based upon logical trains of thought