Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: mbkennel

How do you know that's not what a phaser IS?

So, how do we know that we are interpreting the redshift properly to say the expansion of the universe is indeed accelerating? Is it possible that the energy packets we are observing as photons are losing energy over cosmic distances and therefore appear to be a redshift that isn't actually due to accelerated movement?

a reply to: pfishy

this is what paul la viollette is proffessing

a reply to: pfishy
One point of clarification: We already proposed that the universe was expanding prior to 1998 when we found out the expansion was accelerating, so in that historical sense we did not think the expansion needed to be accelerating to match observations prior to 1998, at which time we thought the expansion was probably slowing down because of gravity. The accelerating expansion model was based on new data published in 1998.

The hypothesis that photons lose energy is called the "tired light hypothesis", and it is certainly a valid hypothesis which has been considered and rejected for not matching observation in several ways. One reason for discounting that hypothesis is that distant objects don't normally appear "blurry" which would be a side effect of the photons losing energy from interactions instead of expansion, and there are other reasons such as the observed time dilation of more distant type 1a supernovae, the Tolman surface brightness test, and the CMB. I usually try to answer most questions myself here, but in this case the following link explains these so well that I suggest reading this link:

Errors in Tired Light Cosmology
If you have any questions about anything on that link feel free to ask, and I or someone else here will try to explain further.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: pfishy

this is what paul la viollette is proffessing

Yes, and like most electric universe proponents I've not seen him come up with good explanations for any of the cited reasons for rejecting the tired light hypothesis.

If the initial EM radiation that decoupled from the first matter is what we now see as the CMB, and is still in the microwave portion of the spectrum, are there any other spectrum we can observe that tell us anything about the initial universe? In longer wavelengths than the CMB. For instance, if some of the initial EM radiation was in low microwave frequencies 13.8B years ago, is there a CELFB (Cosmic Extremely Low Frequency Background) that we could possibly observe? Theoretically, as I understand it, there is no lower limit to EM frequencies or amplitudes. Just a limit to what we can detect due to size constraints of antennae. There could be wavelengths of galactic scale that we could never properly receive or interpret because we could not capture enough of the waveform to even realize what we were looking at, not to mention the incredible amount of time it would take to actually receive any information that could be interpreted.
OR, am I missing something essential about the possible lower end of the spectrum?

a reply to: pfishy
Just plug 2.725 degrees K into Planck's Law for absolute temperature, and you'll get a decent representation of the frequency distribution for the CMB after correcting for things like the dipole anisotropy due to Earth's motion relative to the CMB.

Yes, longer antennas are needed to measure longer wavelengths which does impose some practical limits on measurements. But you can still calculate the expected spectral distribution across all wavelengths including the longer ones from Planck's law, even if the longer wavelengths are hard to measure.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well, can there be any objects, or clusters of them (star clusters, galaxies, etc.) emitting extremely large wavelength EMR? Like, with a 1LY frequency, for instance. Not residual from the initial ionization event, but being emitted now?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I never said they were over unity, thats the atypical assumption. The ol energy in electron form... when I'm speaking of wave form production and propagation that has nothing to do with the silly circuit boards the transistor is attached to although in that right it has revolutionized the entire field of electronics but its the wave form that is it's true sweet spot yet to really be tapped.

I don't speak of known theories and regurgitate them as fact like another poster constantly loves to do.

I speak of possibilities of technology in new ways being an inventor and having an engineering background, reverse engineering is one of my favorite things.

Over unity is over course possible but that requires quantum mechanical engineering to exploit the casimir effect.

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well, can there be any objects, or clusters of them (star clusters, galaxies, etc.) emitting extremely large wavelength EMR? Like, with a 1LY frequency, for instance. Not residual from the initial ionization event, but being emitted now?

I assume you mean 1LY wavelength which isn't a frequency. That would correspond to a frequency of about .00000003 Hz, and the lowest frequencies I've seen discussed are the Schumann resonances from about 7Hz to 60 Hz.

I haven't given much thought to possible present sources of EM radiation with wavelengths that long, so my answer is I don't know. I do know that cosmic observations surprise us sometimes, as with the highest energy cosmic rays which we are finding difficult to explain. Had we not measured them I don't think we would have predicted them. I don't know how we would measure 1LY wavelength EM radiation though.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I never said they were over unity, thats the atypical assumption.

Here's what you said:

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
I personally love the transitor because it breaks a so called scientific law by putting out more energy than it harnesses...

That sure sounds like over-unity to me.

I don't speak of known theories and regurgitate them as fact like another poster constantly loves to do.

The fact is many people are using transistor technology to do things like communicate on internet forums such as this and both the theories and the technologies seem to work extremely well. However I completely agree with George Box, who is often credited with the paraphrased statement "All models are wrong, some are useful".

As an example, researchers have found an exception to the second law of thermodynamics, but it's not very useful, so the second law and other models remain useful as long as you use them over their range of applicability. Even now that we know Newtonian physics is technically wrong, it remains useful over a certain range of applicability where it is effectively right and this is the type of thing Box meant.

I speak of possibilities of technology in new ways being an inventor and having an engineering background, reverse engineering is one of my favorite things.

I find in many cases the "new ways" people use to speak of things fall under "dictionary abuse". Certainly new technologies are possible but your saying you "love the transitor because it breaks a so called scientific law by putting out more energy than it harnesses" isn't a statement about a new technology, the transistor has been around a long time and that completely misrepresents the technology.

Over unity is over course possible but that requires quantum mechanical engineering to exploit the casimir effect.

Yes things are only impossible until they're possible, but even Bernard Haisch who holds the patent on a device somewhat along those likes says he's not sure it will work, and it might not, but if someone will give him millions to fund his research, he'll look into it. I'm not sure how far he got with that, but here's a 5 year old video where he discusses that. I think he says everybody else proposing vacuum energy extraction except him is a crackpot, or something along those lines, which may be true as I don't recall anybody else discussing the topic as coherently as him.

Indirect Extraction of Zero-Point Energy from the Quantum Vacuum: PATENT 7,379,286


I don't think it will work but I would never try to discourage him from his research if he thinks it will.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

extraction of zero point energy is entirely possible, but is wrought with hidden dangers of creating a singularity
which may not be able to be contained.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You say these things yet shine on another poster that parrots all known concepts as 100% fact, constantly regurgitating and adding nothing new...

So forgive me for seeing some patronizing going on...

Sure there are assumptions and of course people make many logical leaps because of the dogmas of terminology, so it is what it is... I realize that there are a ton of people not versed to such terminologies that also read along on these things, so I leave all the dogmatic terms out and try to post in manner that does not fly over anyones head in understanding using specialized terms.

But if we want to split hairs on a law being broken... how much energy do you think it takes to perpetuate a wave form for an infinite amount of time as an unknown vs. just bumping it for an instant with a small amount of current... what about a 5 second speech spoken over a microphone traversing through the entire universe? Same amount of energy... of course not, thats what I am speaking of.

The transistor can inverse square rather easily what else is based on the inverse square other than Einsteins general and special relativity, using the photon and a Planck?

We can use the transistor theorem of operation to inverse square particles and packet them over wave forms which is exactly what they do anyway in a resonance with their quantum entanglement... but we currently just harness one side of it.

So hey I'd rather feed ideas so that they can take flight to those that have a use for such things, than vomit the same crap already standard from any search engine back into peoples mouths, for whatever reasoning I'd rather not get into because it's a personal issue but not mine, yet having to deal with such nonsense on time like it's a monthly menstrual cycle it gets a tad bit trite and pathetic.

I suppose that was a bit of a vent but, forums are for sharing ideas and information... if it was for slapping the already known and in use then this would be a history forum and no sense even having a discussion about any possibility of use for tech whatsoever, such parroted thought spewed ad nauseam adds zero, it makes for no discussion, no innovation, no creativity, and requires no thought just a search engine.

It gets old rather quick.

I've enjoyed discussing a lot of such with members that visit this thread... I know the intent is to educate, but between such asking... we all know it has become a theoretical, and hypothetical discussion between such questions.

I have yet to ask a single one, and likely never will.

I would however like to leave this link for imafungi because I think he'd enjoy it because it's right up his alley of contemplations and theoretical thought experiments.... and I am sure others may enjoy it as well.
en.wikipedia.org...

I likely wont be back for awhile to this thread because egoism is an emotional affair belonging to the psychology/philosophy threads seeing it here hasn't made it very welcoming in scientific discussions unless theres a theorem of harnessing insecurity for useful work other than trying to make oneself feel on a different dimensional plane no matter how delusional or illusionary that may be.

Sorry to make you into a third wheel, and I appreciate the additions you've added to clarify what we were discussing for those unaware of it.

Good luck everyone in their scientific pondering and endeavors of work... may all of it be innovative.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes, sorry, wavelength. I was tired. Brain went a bit softer than normal.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: boomstick88
a reply to: Arbitrageur
So speed of light or any speed from that point only relevent to something that we are compering to. Argument still valid, that we very well could be travelling with the speed of light, constantly? But according to the relativity only light/photons can travel with that speed?
Thanks

An observer outside our "Hubble Sphere" (where recessional velocities exceed the speed of light) but within our observable universe would calculate that the Earth is receding from them faster than the speed of light. But we're taught that going faster than light is impossible, right? That refers to traveling through space locally, but an event outside the Hubble sphere is not local so faster than light outside the Hubble Sphere is not a violation of relativity. But yes photons can travel at the speed of light locally, and nothing travels faster than light locally. Non-local events are another matter not subject to the same rules.

I support your answer Arbi,

That's how I wrap it around my head...As space-time expands, more 'aged' light we would get, meaning red shift values would suggest faster then light expansion velocity sooner or later. And as of right now current observations give us just that.
That's due to source of light moved because between us on Earth and the source of light new space was created making new room for matter to fill in.

If you draw a line on a piece of paper then bend that paper, your line, if you follow it again, would take longer by clock than when you clock yourself before bending piece of paper.
Same goes to red shift. New celectial objects move in between you and light source you are studying. Light from the source has to take longer 'up' and 'down' path aging (red shifting) on its way.

Side note while I'm at it:

'Red shift' to be correctly determined must account for the fact that new space-time volume is born and must be filled (occupied to fill in the void) with matter that bends (ages) light. The more matter gets in between, the longer the path for the light. Even if expansion stops, new celestial bodies that get in between your detector and researched source of light, red shift phenomenon will still occur suggesting expansion when there is none.


there)

When we look at 'red shifted' light, we look at the artifact. Just like looking at fossil. Looking at fossil does not mean we are looking into the past.
Red light is just that. It is an artifact. Studying an artifact does not mean you are looking into the past as often presented.

question that I have

New space is created. What is driving the expansion? Where new source of creation is coming from? There must be a feed that injects into our universe. Dark energy...yes.

What drives universe apart?

My thought, what if new space-time as being created, is being destroyed behind?

If we live in a flow of 'now' and our universe is a wave. It is 3D donut. There we have conservation of energy solution and solution as from where extra energy comes from. From no where. Our universe is a pulse making its way through nothingness. 3D donut has topology that in certain conditions display what seems near objects appear far.

Pulse circumference grows showing red shifting objects position to the 'left' of Earth and to the 'right', accelerate faster even when they are locally motionless.

a reply to: greenreflections

www.kicc.cam.ac.uk...

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
So hey I'd rather feed ideas so that they can take flight to those that have a use for such things, than vomit the same crap already standard from any search engine back into peoples mouths

Yes this sounds appealing to those who don't know physics, out with the old dogma and in with the fresh new innovative ideas. The problem is, people who do know physics have realized it doesn't work that way. I've been listening to some lectures and talks by Nima Arkani-Hamed, the physicist ImaFungi wanted to collaborate with because he tries to be an out of the box thinker as a theoretical physicist, but he does a good job of explaining how the box is not something that can be easily ignored as your glib statement about fresh ideas would have us think. Some of his lectures are so technical I'm challenged to keep up but this is one of the least technical talks I've heard him give in an interview format, and I think you should reflect on what he says in relation to the challenges with coming up with new ideas in theoretical physics:

In conversation with Nima Arkani-Hamed


In the question and answer session at 41:50, someone asks "how does your job work? (What does a theoretical physicist do?)"

Nima explains how it might seem like it would be easy to just dream up new stuff like the Higgs then wait around 50 years for the experiment to be conducted which proves 99% of the ideas wrong and how the 1% like the Higgs is right, but then he explains why it doesn't work that way and this is the part that you and lots of other non-physicists don't seem to get:

44:30 "things don't work that way...we don't know the answers to all the questions, in fact we have very profound mysteries. But what we already know about the way the world works is so constraining that it's almost impossible ... to have a new idea which doesn't destroy everything that came before it. Even without a single new experiment, just agreement with all the old experiments, is enough to kill almost every idea that you might have....

It's almost impossible to solve these problems, precisely because we know so much already that anything you do is bound to screw everything up. So if you manage to find one idea that's not obviously wrong, it's a big accomplishment. Now that's not to say that it's right. But not obviously being wrong is already a huge accomplishment in this field. That's the job of a theoretical physicist."

49:40 We always have to be wary about what precisely the words are supposed to mean.

So be innovative, but also realize that if you're doing so in theoretical physics it's hard to do so in a way that is not immediately known to be wrong because of disagreement with known, already performed experiments. That's a challenge that non-physicists tend to underestimate when they "throw out the dogma" and come up with new ideas.

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes, sorry, wavelength. I was tired. Brain went a bit softer than normal.

It can happen to any of us. I've been known to inadvertently interchange words like neutrino with neutron or proton with positron if I'm really tired, though I've never been confused about the distinctions even when tired, it's just a brain fart that can spit out the wrong word...usually I catch myself.

originally posted by: greenreflections
When we look at 'red shifted' light, we look at the artifact. Just like looking at fossil. Looking at fossil does not mean we are looking into the past.
Red light is just that. It is an artifact. Studying an artifact does not mean you are looking into the past as often presented.

When we see light we are looking into the past whether it's red-shifted, blue-shifted, or not shifted, so the red-shift is irrelevant to the question of whether light is showing us past events.

The image in my avatar is a view of the past object, one of the "pillars of creation", which we think no longer exists today because a nearby supernova shock wave is likely to have obliterated these pillars. It will take a while for the destruction which we think has already happened to show up in our telescopes so it seems absurd for you to say we're not looking not the past, because in a very real sense we are when the light source is distant. If the light source is nearby on Earth then it's from such an infinitesimally short time in the past that it's fine to consider it the present in many situations, but that doesn't apply to astronomical observations.

originally posted by: greenreflections
question that I have

New space is created. What is driving the expansion?

Dark energy is only part of the puzzle because before 1998 we already thought new space was being created as the universe expanded, even without dark energy. The idea then was the expansion was something left over from the big bang. Then in 1998 when new data showed the expansion was accelerating, dark energy was proposed to explain the acceleration, which may just be vacuum energy, which is not well understood.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well, when theres a question vomit away... when there's not? Let the fun ensue that's all I was saying, because indeed many people are well versed and enjoy the bouncing around the ol brain to areas that may be that flash of light in the dark, whether that brain storm gives others a stroke other than one of genius is not my concern.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Again, I'm getting articles I read a while back confused. I could have sworn the "pillars of creation" were thought to be already disrupted, but by stellar ignition so within the pillars themselves. Anyhow, I just pickedup a copy of "Black Holes and Time Warps", by Kip Thorne. Very much looking forward to digging into that this weekend. And since I have no direct line to Mr. Thorne, I am sure I will be back here probing one of my favorite repositories of intellect in the near future.

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Again, I'm getting articles I read a while back confused. I could have sworn the "pillars of creation" were thought to be already disrupted, but by stellar ignition so within the pillars themselves.

That too occurs but it's a slower more gradual process, not as sudden a disruption as a supernova shock wave:

The “Pillars of Creation” Have Been, Are Being, and Will Be Destroyed

the Pillars may be gone already, and not just because of young, ungrateful stars. Around 6,000 years ago, a blast wave from a nearby supernova likely crashed into them, grinding them down and washing them away in concert with the young stars.

But we won’t be able to watch them dim and disappear until the year 3015 (give or take).

You see, the Pillars live 7,000 light-years away from Earth. The light we see from them — the light that Hubble Space Telescope scientists used to make the new image — departed from the nebula in the year 4985 B.C.E., traveled at the speed of light toward us, and arrived here 7,000 years later. We thus see the nebula as it looked 7,000 years ago.

And 7,000 years ago, the Pillars were fine. But images taken by the Spitzer Space Telescope, and released in 2007, appear to show their imminent demise. Almost off-screen, a wavefront from a supernova explosion is stopped in still-frame, screaming along a path straight toward the Pillars.