Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: Hyperboles

As an approximation you can look at the work the light has to do to reach that height.

You will get a change of frequency df(h) = f*g*h/c^2

df(30000ft) = 0.0001Hz

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: Hyperboles

As an approximation you can look at the work the light has to do to reach that height.

You will get a change of frequency df(h) = f*g*h/c^2

df(30000ft) = 0.0001Hz

If that equation is correct, we won't be receiving any light from stars and such

originally posted by: Hyperboles

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: Hyperboles

As an approximation you can look at the work the light has to do to reach that height.

You will get a change of frequency df(h) = f*g*h/c^2

df(30000ft) = 0.0001Hz

If that equation is correct, we won't be receiving any light from stars and such

I don't think you understand the equation.

a reply to: Hyperboles
He said it was an approximation. This is the equation from the wiki article on the Pound-Rebka experiment:

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The rules seem to work pretty well.

Who cares why?

Knowing more about it could come in handy if you wanted to make an anti-gravity machine, a real one, not the machine posted by someone here where he turns on a heater inside the box and he calls the warping of the box panel from thermal expansion "anti-gravity". I don't think Ning Li and Eugene Podkletnov convinced many scientists they were onto something either, though they did get more attention than the guy with the warping box.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Knowing more about it could come in handy if you wanted to make an anti-gravity machine

Perhaps. Or perhaps just learning more subtle rules would suffice.

As to why...maybe someday we'll learn why gravity is a property of mass. Maybe someday we'll learn why inertia is a property of mass. It would be fun to turn either one on and off at will.

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: Hyperboles

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: Hyperboles

As an approximation you can look at the work the light has to do to reach that height.

You will get a change of frequency df(h) = f*g*h/c^2

df(30000ft) = 0.0001Hz

If that equation is correct, we won't be receiving any light from stars and such

I don't think you understand the equation.

Oh really? brilliant

Has anyone verified the moebius and pound rebka equation experimentally?
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Hyperboles
The equation from the Pound-Rebka Wikipedia page comes from Einstein's general relativity theory.
Robert Pound and Glen Rebka are the names of two researchers who performed the experimental test of this aspect of general relativity 1959.

originally posted by: Phage
As to why...maybe someday we'll learn why gravity is a property of mass. Maybe someday we'll learn why inertia is a property of mass. It would be fun to turn either one on and off at will.

If not turn them off completely, maybe reduce them by some amount. When the media called Podkeltnov's research "anti-gravity" he tried to clarify he never claimed to be able to turn gravity off, only to reduce its effects, though there is considerable uncertainty he was able to achieve even that if his experiment had some experimental error that was not accounted for adequately or at all.

For now it seems science fiction writers are the ones who get to have all the fun manipulating those things, unless Podkletnov can be believed.

So that equation, works for only one direction?
Besides I don't trust the pound rebka jokers. They have interpreted their results, to suit GR
Natural sunlight is fast enough oscillation to test out time flow at various altitudes. they could have taken spectrographs at the 2 altitudes
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Hyperboles
General relativity theory allows predictions to be made in either direction. That equation works in one direction but there's no such limitation in general relativity. You could derive a separate equation if you want but I suspect if you aim electromagnetic radiation away from the earth the frequency change of similar parameters will be similar except it will be redshifted instead of blueshifted.

Natural sunlight is fast enough oscillation to test out time flow at various altitudes. they could have taken spectrographs at the 2 altitudes

The frequency of visible light was not high enough to carry out the experiment using the 1959 technology, so they could not have achieved the results they did using sunlight at the two altitudes they used back in 1959. Pound/Rebka used much higher frequency EM radiation, in a variant of Mössbauer spectroscopy.

That wasn't the only experiment. Five years later Pound performed another experiment with another researcher he claimed was at the plus or minus 1% level instead of plus or minus 10% in the 1959 experiment, and in 1980 another experiment was performed using a hydrogen maser frequency standard launched upward in a spacecraft, which claimed still greater accuracy.

If you want to try another experiment using your idea, nobody is stopping you, but it wouldn't have been possible using 1959 technology. I haven't assessed whether technology today has the capability to do what you suggest, but even if it does, if the accuracy is below the capability of the hydrogen maser experiment, you'd probably have a hard time getting funding to perform a less accurate experiment.

How very convienent for GR to have a uni directional equation. All equations in real physics have to work for any direction. It leads me to believe GR is junk science dogma that persists for God alone knows what reason.
For the 2 spectrographs I suggest, the 2 altitudes could be enhanced to sky is the limit. Maybe nasa should get cracking on it, instead of spending money on gravity probes.
And yes the spectrograph at the higher altitude will be blue shifted, guaranteed. I can wager any amount of money on it.
a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Hyperboles
How very convienent for GR to have a uni directional equation.

So, from "General relativity theory allows predictions to be made in either direction. That equation works in one direction but there's no such limitation in general relativity.", you conclude that GR has a unidirectional equation? As someone else already mentioned, it appears you are having difficulty understanding the answers provided.

No im not having any difficulty whatsoever in understanding the answers or any extension of them
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I asked a question on another thread.

Arbitraguer replied. But, felt like i was causing drift and, asked me to move it if i wanted to carry on. Basically.

Below are the pasted replies to catch up.

Is QE a relationship between particles?

Or.

Is it a relationship between charges from "particles"?



originally posted by: blackcrowe
Is QE a relationship between particles?

Or.

Is it a relationship between charges from "particles"?
Photons can have quantum entanglement but they have never been measured to have any charge so it's generally presumed they don't, or if they do, it's too small to measure.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks Arbitrageur.

My idea being.

A photon (particle) is what we think of as a particle when charges are at their closest point.

Upon propagation of the photon. The charges that make the photon spread out as waveform.

This way. In the interference pattern. (On a graph chart). A neg charge from one photon can be shared with a pos charge from another photon at any distance. Their connection being made by points central to their distance apart. And plotted as a parabola from that central point to become a connecting wave.

The connection would be instant at any scale. As long as it can be implied that the connection can be made.

a reply to: blackcrowe
I think you're creating some thread drift here, so this is my last response in this thread on this tangent, though you can make your own thread proposing your ideas, or ask more in the ask any question thread if you want.

We think we understand electromagnetism better than we understand entanglement. Electromagnetism, which relates to the movement of charges, propagates at the speed of light, not instantaneously. We don't know the exact speed of entanglement correlations, if they even have a speed. Under the Copenhagen interpretation the entanglement correlation speed would be at least 10,000 times faster than the speed of light, while under the Everett interpretation there is not really any speed to entanglement correlations; the correlation is just that, a correlation and not the result of any kind of superluminal "communication" between particles. Of course nobody knows which interpretation is correct, and there are other possible interpretations too.

And here we are.

I'm really not sure that i would try to correlate a speed of entanglement.

Although. The charges would be propagating at the speed of light.

The connection between 2 charges borrowed from 2 photons at any distance. Would be instant over that distance. I would say.

I don't know where i would agree with any interpretation or theory.

This is what i think i can see when trying to explain interference patterns on a graph.

I do like the multiverse theory. But, not as in "the many worlds theory".

I have no bias. Only what i think i am observing.

I cannot seem to understand how 2 photons at a distance could be entangled.

I will give a very simplified example.

I will rename the photons as everyday objects.

Photon 1 is a human.

Photon 2 is a cake.

They're in a kitchen.

There is no interaction/entanglement. Only close position to each other.

Human eats cake. I don't think is interaction/entanglement.

But. We're meant to be adding distance too.

There will be a distance where the human cannot see the cake. And won't know where or even if it exists at all.

Until i consider that the human (particle 1) is actually charges, And same of the cake (particle 2).

I can share a neg charge from 1. And a pos charge from the other. And if a connection is possible at that position and moment.

I now have no problem with that.

a reply to: blackcrowe
It's ok to say "I don't know". We don't have to fill that gap with a hypothesis that doesn't seem self-consistent. We would like to understand entanglement better, but I just don't see that charge hypothesis bearing any fruit for the reasons mentioned.

It's like theoretical physicist Nima Arkani Hamed says, most of the theoretical physics ideas he can think of can immediately be proven wrong because they contradict known observations and experiments. I don't see how this entanglement from charges idea doesn't fall into that basket given the mismatch between EM radiation speeds related to charges, and entanglement correlation speeds.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks.

It was worth a try.

imo anything above c ought to be instantaneous in our universe. there are no warp speeds as in science fiction
a reply to: blackcrowe

a reply to: Hyperboles

Thanks Hyperboles.

I don't do sci-fi.

So. No warp drive from me.

Unfortunately. I have no quals in science.

Therefore. You cannot rely on anything i ask or propose here.

Even though my proposals are based on a plotted graph. Which anyone could do.

Even that could be misinterpreted. By me.

So. I have to come here and ask the ones with the quals to judge what i ask.

Just as an opinion though.

The instant action of entanglement. Is instant over the distance of that entanglement.

With 2 photons which are to become entangled. A lot of the entanglement area/structure/capability is already in place. From the actions of the 2 photons.

At the point at which the entanglement can occur. Doesn't have to be a great distance to connect the photons. But, makes the overall distance/area of entanglement instant. It has nothing to do with the speed of light. Just an instant area/distance connection.

You would probably be better commenting to those qualified to give you an answer.

Ques

Do any moons in our solar system have retrograde or polar orbits around their planets?

a reply to: Hyperboles

Yes. Jupiter.

There are 79 known moons of Jupiter.[1][2][3] This gives Jupiter the largest number of moons with reasonably stable orbits of any planet in the Solar System.[4] The most massive of the moons are the four Galilean moons, which were independently discovered in 1610 by Galileo Galilei and Simon Marius and were the first objects found to orbit a body that was neither Earth nor the Sun. From the end of the 19th century, dozens of much smaller Jovian moons have been discovered and have received the names of lovers or daughters of the Roman god Jupiter or his Greek equivalent Zeus. The Galilean moons are by far the largest and most massive objects to orbit Jupiter, with the remaining 75 known moons and the rings together comprising just 0.003% of the total orbiting mass.


The orbit and motion of the Galilean moons around Jupiter, as captured by JunoCam aboard the Juno spacecraft.
Of Jupiter's moons, eight are regular satellites with prograde and nearly circular orbits that are not greatly inclined with respect to Jupiter's equatorial plane. The Galilean satellites are nearly spherical in shape due to their planetary mass, and so would be considered at least dwarf planets if they were in direct orbit around the Sun. The other four regular satellites are much smaller and closer to Jupiter; these serve as sources of the dust that makes up Jupiter's rings. The remainder of Jupiter's moons are irregular satellites whose prograde and retrograde orbits are much farther from Jupiter and have high inclinations and eccentricities. These moons were probably captured by Jupiter from solar orbits. Twenty-seven of the irregular satellites have not yet been officially named.

From wiki en.wikipedia.org...