Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: Erno86

What do you believe is the most probable method?

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
a reply to: Erno86

What do you believe is the most probable method?

Black Hole Starship propulsion.

You can search my recent posts...or just google: Black Hole Starships

Would Kirlian photography on a corpse yield a positive for 'aura/life force', or whatever they think it shows?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation
Yes if recently deceased the image would be about the same just after death as just before death, but coins have even more aura than a fresh corpse would, since they have higher conductivity.

Kirlian Photography


If the corpse isn't fresh, like 5400-year-old Ginger at the British Museum, someone with red hair who was buried and dried out in Egypt's dry sand, if there's any "aura" at all it would be greatly diminished because moisture content of the body is a critical part of the body's conductivity and without moisture the body isn't very conductive. The conductivity of the object plays a significant role in Kirlian photography.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

If the corpse isn't fresh, like Ginger at the British Museum, someone with red hair

Gingers are soulless, so no aura there.

I know KP has been pretty well debunked, but I figured if a cold corpse (I didn't include that in the question, my bad) has an 'aura', that should be some more irrefutable evidence KP is a crock.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If the corpse isn't fresh, like Ginger at the British Museum, someone with red hair

Gingers are soulless, so no aura there.

I know KP has been pretty well debunked, but I figured if a cold corpse (I didn't include that in the question, my bad) has an 'aura', that should be some more irrefutable evidence KP is a crock.

It's all salts and moisture for KP. If things are dry, you don't get an "aura".

The "half a leaf" picture is the result of not cleaning the plates between shots. You see the 'whole leaf' because the plate still has contamination in the shape of the whole leaf.

a reply to: Erno86

Sounds like warp drive to me.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
can anyone explain what Schrodinger meant by zitterbewegung.

What I know about it isn't much. It has something in common with gravitons: neither has ever been observed. So just as we aren't absolutely certain that gravitons exist, we aren't absolutely certain zitterbewegung exists either. In fact this scientist says it may not exist for ordinary matter, which he calls "spin 1/2 particles":

The Dirac equation without zitterbewegung

This paper presents a relativistic symmetrical interpretation of the Dirac equation in 1+1 dimensions which predicts no zitterbewegung for a free spin-1/2 particle.

So I'm not sure if it even exists, but if it does, I guess it would be kind of like if Bedlam's hand was shaking when he was holding his painted black balls representing electrons, attached to the wooden sticks in his atomic model kit. But you'll probably find a much better description in that paper, which doesn't use any painted wooden balls.

is there theoretically a way that you could reduce the space between subatomic particles locally in a stable permanent way?

a reply to: dashen
Our sun has a lot of mass but after it runs out of fuel even the tremendous gravitational forces in the dead sun won't be enough to overcome electron degeneracy pressure which keeps atoms from collapsing. It takes about 1.4 times the mass of our sun to overcome this, which is called the Chandrasekhar limit, so from 1.4 solar mass to maybe a little over 2 solar masses, stars that run out of fuel can becomes a neutron star, where the atoms collapse (the vast space between the nucleus and electrons disappears, so you could say the subatomic particles are much closer in neutron stars.

If the mass of the star is even greater, probably 3 solar masses or higher, when the star dies the gravity is even stronger and can collapse past the neutron star into a black hole and nobody is really sure of the form of the mass in a black hole but relativity suggests it becomes infinitely small and infinitely dense, which probably isn't what really happens, so we need a better theory to predict exactly what's inside a black hole.

a reply to: Bedlam

That's gross. But by the way thanks for response !

originally posted by: dashen
is there theoretically a way that you could reduce the space between subatomic particles locally in a stable permanent way?

Alter the value of Planck's constant.

a reply to: Bedlam

you know a guy selling planck length modulators?

a reply to: dashen

You could have asked Pyotor Leonovich Shapirov before his unfortunate accident.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
can anyone explain what Schrodinger meant by zitterbewegung.

I remember a somewhat sketchy interpretation (most probably totally non-mainstream )

The electron is a massless particle (no rest mass) going in circles at speed of light (ring current). It does so due to self-interaction with its own magnetic field created by the circular motion. This motion is the zitterbewegung.

...

vibratory movement
a reply to: BASSPLYR

originally posted by: moebius
The electron is a massless particle (no rest mass) going in circles at speed of light (ring current). It does so due to self-interaction with its own magnetic field created by the circular motion. This motion is the zitterbewegung.

I measured the charge to mass ratio of the electron when I was in high school and I definitely remember getting a finite value. So the electron does have a rest mass.

A particle accelerator can make electrons travel near the speed of light but they don't travel in circles around the nucleii, like the models many of us have seen illustrated. That orbiting model was actually the Bohr model which was sort of mainstream perhaps back in 1913, but we now know that if the electron was really orbiting it would emit Bremsstrahlung radiation which we detect when we place electrons in circular motion, and that's not detected from electrons orbiting atoms. So it's a century old model that we now know to be wrong.

Also I don't think what you said is what Schrodinger meant by zitterbewegung, it had to do with the fact there are both positive and negative solutions to the Dirac equation and the possibility that oscillation between them could result in sort of "trembling motion" which seems to have absolutely nothing to do with what you said.

Also there's more than one way to interpret the Dirac equation and some interpretations result in this trembling motion while others don't. Experiments have yet to show which interpretation is correct.

a reply to: Nochzwei
zitter = "trembling", so "trembling motion" would be a more literal interpretation

Had a friend ask me this early today . Thought it worth a mention here.

Q. If you put a glass of water in a fridge with nothing in it and waited a year. Would any of the water evaporate?

originally posted by: coomba98
Had a friend ask me this early today . Thought it worth a mention here.

Q. If you put a glass of water in a fridge with nothing in it and waited a year. Would any of the water evaporate?

Sure. A lot more will if the refrigerator is running, as it will keep the humidity low.

originally posted by: coomba98
Had a friend ask me this early today . Thought it worth a mention here.

Q. If you put a glass of water in a fridge with nothing in it and waited a year. Would any of the water evaporate?

Yes even ice shrinks in a freezer its called sublimation. Though in a freezer if it has no where to go it will just refreeze usually on the walls.