Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: Phantom423

I'm thinking, that's because photon as a particle only when 'detected', all other instances photon is a quanta of energy with wave like characteristics.
As it travels it is wave like, when caught (detected/absorbed) it is collapsing to the instance with particle like properties.
According to this logic, photon as a particle won't 'fit' through the slit because it is not a particle yet. If the slit small enough, photon interacts with matter and absorbed (wave contracts to a point like particle).

That's how I see it.

right thinking !

continues EM wave "triggers" some charges in the detector and only some and not all
here you go.. quanta is born

Myth of Gravitational Lensing

you asked me to explain this...

here some from electric universe

BTW. I"m not a EU believer, I see EU as another way to see things.
I am not telling they are right in all they say... so just to be clear on that, EU is an opposite way to look at the observable, I never said it is the truth !

A principle of modern cosmology is that so-called space-time is a physically real entity. In Albert Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, light will follow the so-called curvature of space time. For decades, astronomers have claimed to observe the bending of light passing around massive objects, an effect called gravitational lensing. However, as is so often the case in the space sciences, the line between fact and interpretation is routinely blurred.

so.. the main questions are.. why is there no so called Gravitational Lensing at the hypothetical Black Hole in Milky Way
and why are all the pictures of the so called Gravitational Lensing blue shifted ?

BTW..
X rays do not refract, is there any picture of Gravitational Lensing in X rays ??

X-rays follow the same optical rules as all photons...

Need to actually do some research there matey

originally posted by: greenreflections
You are asking me? I don't know.

Yes I'm asking you because it's your hypothesis. If you have no idea how it can be tested you're just as bad as those people who ignorantly say "I think gravity is just a form of magnetism" but yet can't describe to you any experiment which would support this hypothesis. Such ideas would more accurately be called "brain farts" rather than scientific hypotheses, and I would point out that the topic of this thread is "Ask any question you want about Physics", not "post your brain farts here, especially those which are not scientific and have no evidence to support them". You'll have to make that thread in skunk works if it doesn't already exist.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Also speaking of Radiation Pressure. Nice Avatar Arbi.

Thanks, I was disappointed to learn that the pillars of creation (of which my avatar is one) have likely been destroyed thousands of years ago by the shock wave from a supernova. We are looking into the time machine of the universe to see how they looked before they were destroyed. Earthlings will finally see the destruction in the future, but not in our lifetimes. In the meantime, enjoy the view into nature's time machine while it lasts.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
"Quantised Inertia" seems to be gaining a bit of momentum (geddit) in the NASA EM drive thread so I get the sea wall analogy but never having heard of Unruh or Rindler before- I am struggling to see where the energy differential is coming from (Dirac's sea??)

Before you struggle too hard to understand where Unruh radiation is coming from, are you aware that its existence is controversial? This paper says it doesn't exist, and that the observation of the "Unruh temperature" is a result of the acceleration, not of some true source of radiation.

Is there Unruh radiation?

It is generally accepted that a system undergoing uniform acceleration with respect to zero-temperature vacuum will thermalize at a finite temperature (the so-called Unruh temperature) that is proportional to the acceleration. However, the question of whether or not the system actually radiates is highly controversial. ...We show that this system does not radiate despite the fact that it does in fact thermalize at the Unruh temperature.

originally posted by: KrzYma
BTW. I"m not a EU believer, I see EU as another way to see things.
I am not telling they are right in all they say...

EU proponents don't even agree with each other. There are contradictions of beliefs even within EU, but one common theme is a lack of quantifiable models, and people talking BS without numbers to back up their assertions, something you apparently also like to do since you didn't give me a single example of a galaxy forming an Einstein ring that you think it blue-shifted, when you asked why are they blue-shifted.

so.. the main questions are.. why is there no so called Gravitational Lensing at the hypothetical Black Hole in Milky Way

I read that question before watching the video, and thought "who says there isn't?" and then watched the video to realize the guy attacking the mainstream model of gravitational lenses doesn't even understand the model he's attacking. The question is sort of like asking if you have a piece of lint on a magnifying glass, why does it look about the same size from either size of the magnifying glass? Because it magnifies more distant objects, not objects at the same distance as the lens.

Same thing with the stars orbiting the Milky Way black hole. They aren't more distant objects, so why should they be magnified? Asking why objects at the same distance as the lens aren't magnified is a question that should be asked by somebody trying to learn mainstream theory, not challenge it.

and why are all the pictures of the so called Gravitational Lensing blue shifted ?

OK here's how this works. Pick an example of a gravitationally lensed galaxy you think is blue-shifted, and let's see if I can tell you the red-shift.

OK let's go a step further because the question you asked is poorly constructed to explore the rather ignorant concepts in that video, how do we know that an Einstein ring isn't caused by refraction through a star's atmosphere? One obvious answer is because the Einstein rings shown in the video are of lensing around galaxies, not around stars, so the Einstein rings shown form at a considerable distance from the stars atmospheres.

X rays do not refract, is there any picture of Gravitational Lensing in X rays ??

There are papers about gravitational lensing of X-rays.

X-ray Monitoring of Gravitational Lenses With Chandra

Keep in mind that the sources of strong X-rays are fewer than sources of light, because the X-rays produced in the cores of stars like our sun never make it to the surface. So, I doubt you'll see an Einstein ring of an X-ray source like we see in visible light where there are billions and billions of stars emitting visible light in the galaxies that form Einstein rings.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Jukiodone
"Quantised Inertia" seems to be gaining a bit of momentum (geddit) in the NASA EM drive thread so I get the sea wall analogy but never having heard of Unruh or Rindler before- I am struggling to see where the energy differential is coming from (Dirac's sea??)

Before you struggle too hard to understand where Unruh radiation is coming from, are you aware that its existence is controversial? This paper says it doesn't exist, and that the observation of the "Unruh temperature" is a result of the acceleration, not of some true source of radiation.

Is there Unruh radiation?

It is generally accepted that a system undergoing uniform acceleration with respect to zero-temperature vacuum will thermalize at a finite temperature (the so-called Unruh temperature) that is proportional to the acceleration. However, the question of whether or not the system actually radiates is highly controversial. ...We show that this system does not radiate despite the fact that it does in fact thermalize at the Unruh temperature.

Yeah I was hoping someone might have something to say about the Inertial Modification/Shielding element- the Unruh bit has me struggling to visualise..

I dont get Unruh but I also dont get how a zero temperature vaccum thermalises unless it is made up of discrete Quanta that can undergo phase change either....

Based on the description above it looks to me like the Superfluid Vacuum Theory explanation of Quantised bits of everything operating in some sort of BEC is the most likely candidate as Unruh seems like a temporary fix.

You've ably given your thoughts on SVT /Quantised space before so I'll let you get on with the back log.

Hey physics question for you about sound.

A friend just came back from a tour of the Walt Disney Concert Hall and was very impressed with the acoustics in there. She said that the tour guide said even the color of the interior and especially the seats makes a difference in the way the acoustics resonate or travel or are absorbed. All the seats are multi color on purpose for this reason she said.

How does color effect acoustics. I find the topic interesting.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Hey physics question for you about sound.

A friend just came back from a tour of the Walt Disney Concert Hall and was very impressed with the acoustics in there. She said that the tour guide said even the color of the interior and especially the seats makes a difference in the way the acoustics resonate or travel or are absorbed. All the seats are multi color on purpose for this reason she said.

How does color effect acoustics. I find the topic interesting.

It doesn't. She's having you on.

a reply to: Bedlam

THAT'S WHAT I Fing THOUGHT TOO!!! See that's why I double check with physicists before I get to the "what the hell are you talking about" stage of a conversation.

I asked her you mean like to maintain the best acoustics they try and fill all the seats with bodies so it's more uniform. Figuring an empty seat might screw up the sound waves. She said "That too" but the tour guide said even the colors mattered for the acoustics. I'm thinking that the girl wasn't trying to have one over on me, but that the tour guide honestly believed it was true, and she just believes the tour guide.

As for me. I work right down the street from the concert hall these days and I've never even bothered to go inside it yet.

Personally I want to convert my studio apartment into a bass trap. That outta PO the neighbors.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

The shape, fabric and upholstery of the seats might make SOME difference, but mostly if there's no one in it at the time.

But the color, no.

a reply to: Bedlam

Hey Tom. I was thinking. I ordered that new preamp for my bass as discussed, but what would be awesome down the road is if I just fedex the bass to you with $1000.00 and a note saying "supe her up as you see fit" Then I could play gigs and everybody will be like "wow! that bass sounds amazing, the electronics they are just so....say, are those Bartolinis?" and I'll be all like "naw!!! they're DARPAlinis!" and they'll be like quizical and say "well, who did the electronics suite" And I'll be all mysterious and say "Tom Co" and walk off whistling to my self. Think of how legendary that bass would be. Also, can you make it go to eleven. Thats very important in the bragging rights community of bassists.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I get out of this gig and back home a lot, I do intend to whup out the tube amp breadboard and my magic simulation software, and resume amp design.

I've got some new designs for old sections, the issue will be making sure I can get a reasonable number of tubes of the sort I'd need, they were communications tubes and not audio. But there are tricks you can do with some of the old front end tubes you just can't do with a jelly bean audio unit.

BTW, one of my old Padawans from many years ago is now the Engineering King of a very well known audio company that makes mostly stage equipment. I'd bet you've got some of their kit right now.

eta:

I have some ca-razy ideas about tubes themselves. Just not enough time to sit down and develop them. There ought to be a more stable source of audio tubery than NOS and a small handful of eastern European companies that go in and out of business. Not to mention there hasn't been any new tube design for a bit. The tubes themselves, I mean.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

You can always add souped up output and power transformers to almost any amp. And add in a proper set of matched tubes and there you go!

Check these guys out: Mercury Magnetics for real drool worthy things you can do to an amplifier! These guys are one of those, "one of these days" things I like to wish about!

Oh, and you probably would get more drastic sound changes with people in the seats rather than their color!

a reply to: Bedlam

Say Tom,

Never asked. You're very into music, got an interest in designing amps n everything. You play any instruments?

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Bedlam

Say Tom,

Never asked. You're very into music, got an interest in designing amps n everything. You play any instruments?

At one time I could play a mad alto sax. No stringed instruments, though.

a reply to: Bedlam

Sax is tough. Never could get used to the octave flip or switch thingy on the side of it when I'd try to play my old roommates for fun in college. Berklee days I hated the Eb tuning of the sax and it's tuning when it came to transcriptions and arrangement classes. Almost failed arranging class because of the sax. The whole "whadda ya mean it's not in concert pitch and I have to write the notes differently!"

But then again I had a weird sense of humor I don't think my professor liked in arrangement 2.

The project was to take a song and rearrange it to fit in a different style of music. I took Slayers Raining Blood and In the Halls of the Mountain King changed all the figures to be swung, dropped it by about 20BPM, got a japanese kid who could barely speak english to sing the lyrics in the style of a lounge singer. Teacher was not amused.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Bedlam

Sax is tough. Never could get used to the octave flip or switch thingy on the side of it when I'd try to play my old roommates for fun in college. Berklee days I hated the Eb tuning of the sax and it's tuning when it came to transcriptions and arrangement classes. Almost failed arranging class because of the sax. The whole "whadda ya mean it's not in concert pitch and I have to write the notes differently!"

"Can you transpose on the fly?" was always my favorite question. "On the alto sax, no". I did have a really old silver Conn low pitch concert C sax that one of my brothers absconded with whilst I was away in Germany and sold. That's been a bone of contention for years.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes I'm asking you because it's your hypothesis. If you have no idea how it can be tested you're just as bad as those people who ignorantly say "I think gravity is just a form of magnetism" but yet can't describe

I have never said gravity is form of magnetism, this is silly. I am strongly against that notion.
And I did not have a hypothesis. I am convinced so far that GR and QM can compliment each other but not united.
That 's what I meant by 'correlate'.
I did describe the effect of 'falling' object inside gravity well. And I suggested experiment too.

Gravity will never be described as QM force (quanta). It is different in origin and has nothing to do with quanta (which is quality attached to energy). Energy measured in quanta (does not mean it is existing in it, it is simply can be quantized, isolated and distinguished energy states) while space-time is not, and there is no need for me to device an experiment. Between point A and point B there could be an infinite number of coordinate values.
It is self evident that space-time is not energy.
Look at it this way: GR is the landscape and QM is the car on that scape following its geodesics (there is correlation), and SR describes
how one car passengers view passing cars.

Do I still need to come up with predictions and experiment to prove that?

a reply to: KrzYma

This video is just wrong in so many ways. First we observe gravitational lensing around galaxies. Now unless your going to try to say there is an atmosphere around galaxies which there is no evidence for then this doesn't hold up. Next we have actually determined the mass of blackholes based off something called an Einstein ring. In other words we have shown black holes distort gravity. Now as far as super massive blackholes at the center of ours. See the electric universe is being misleading surprised right? We are unable to observe Sgr A* in the optical spectrum because of the effect of 25 magnitudes of extinction by dust. So what we are observing is radio and infrared energy emanating from gas and dust heated to millions of degrees. The source of the signals isn't behind the black hole and we can't detect stars on the other side of it do to the immense heat aND radio noise. So in other words are view is limited by the only two sources we can use to observe it.

Frankly this doesn't help his case in the least since being deceptive to promote his ides jus diminishes them. If he did this because if a lack of knowledge and not trying to be deceptive then what qualifies him to make these judgements in the first place without an understanding of the observation. I believe he knows why it can't be observed and is directly misleading people for profit. But that's just my opinion.

Here is another question which probably hasn't been asked:

Why does matter fall into a gravity well instead of sitting motionless in it when no force is applied to it?

We know that the spacetime is distorted by matter, but why does matter fall into the distortion?

The presence of the distortion itself is not an adequate explanation for why matter falls into it.

originally posted by: masterp
Here is another question which probably hasn't been asked:

Why does matter fall into a gravity well instead of sitting motionless in it when no force is applied to it?

We know that the spacetime is distorted by matter, but why does matter fall into the distortion?

The presence of the distortion itself is not an adequate explanation for why matter falls into it.

Well, technically it remains motionless locally.

It is important to realize that a motionless object is still moving, in time. What happens in curved spacetime is that this motion in time is distorted and you get spatial components, fall.

You are dealing with 4 dimensional motion, can't treat time separately (like in flat spacetime)