Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: Arbitrageur

you think mathematical equations is the answer to 'The Question'

...mathematical models which can make predictions and be tested.

here a very easy mathematical correct model and prediction and experiment you may try to do
3 - 5 = -2 + 2 = 0

put 3 people into an empty room
0 + 3

let 5 people go out of the room
3 - 5

QM prediction... probability is.. there is -2 people in the room

is correct, right ??

NO ??
why NOT ?
you need to put 2 people into the room so the room is empty, right ??

this is the way QM makes statements ...like Schrodinger's cat is alive and dead at the same time
and call it ... superposition

no... superposition is a word meaning WE DON'T KNOW
and quantum transition or however you call it, is just a word for.. LOOK, THIS HAPPENED, WE HAD NO IDEA WHAT EXACTLY WILL HAPPEN, THE ODDS WERE 50/50 ( or whatever configuration, I need to be careful as you snap on any detail I say ) , BUT THIS IS THE OUTCOME NOW AND THIS IS PROOF FOR QUANTUM THEORY MUST BE RIGHT as we calculated it.

same with negative kinetic energy... what??
if kinetic energy is the energy that can convert to work, how can work be less than that work that has been done ?
if you need energy to accelerate a charge, the charge itself can not have negative energy to do the work either another charge can.
energy can not be created or destroyed, first principle. if energy is existing, it is above 0 !
there is no negative and never will be, except in QM equations of course.. therefore nonsense!
energy anyway is just a word and not something you can separate from mater interaction and collect as pure energy.

E=mc2 - has a concept on the left side, and a measurement mathematically altered on the right side

what is kinetic energy ??
it is not a physical something you can take and collect, same as time.
it is a word meaning something we can work with but nothing else.
nothing HAS a kinetic energy collected and stored anywhere inside the body.
is it at most some 2 body configuration and nothing subsistent.

but sure.. QM has all kinds of creation and annihilation in it, ...but calling it 'virtual' does not mean they exist physically.
It means they are on paper in the equations like the 2 missing people in the room.

Their results are consistent with the theory of relativity, and yes the theory says things like time and space are relative. But when NIST makes a clock run at a different rate, they are manipulating the time experienced by that clock.

moving clocks tick slower... this is Einstein. Sure they do, I agree 100%
but not because time gets manipulated, the clocks count different... and I told you why, I think
Time does not exist as a physical something..
what NIST clocks measure/count is surely correct, counting is relatively easy thing to do
and where they put they clocks and counter different, is the clock that count different not time being changed.
Time is just a word...
if you ask about chemical reactions, sure the speed of the reactions change too, due to the different environment they are in, same as the clocks change counting, but there is no external time field something that is somehow connects to space.
Spacetieme is a humbug !

cheers !

a reply to: ErosA433

If Quantum mechanics is non-sense... then... please explain semi-conductors, please explain lasers, please explain how a tunnelling electron microscope works.... please explain how the sun produces energy.

- the Sun is powered by electron injection from the Birkeland currents in the Universe.

- lasers work because electric field is an additive field so you can inject more E into E-wave and make it stronger and stronger, the pump in lasers just do that. adding more and more electric field into the wave.

- semi-conductors work by manipulating the electric and magnetic configuration of the material such as silicon, germanium, gallium arsenide, and elements near the so-called "metalloid staircase" on the periodic table.

- tunneling is that thing that needs to be taken more carefully, as it is a name produced by QM

let me first introduce you to the construct how this is made by giving you an example...

God created the Universe therefore God must exist because the Universe exists... this is the statement made.
any attempt to say NO ends up in an argument, if God did not created the Universe who else ?
God is left out of the equation in the arguing making God permanent, leaving you with just one choice...
if Universe exists, only God can have created it.

same with QM.
first they say there can be no electric flow if the energy is not sufficient ...due to they calculations in QM
then they say ...but it happens.. in tunneling...
then they give it a name, quantum tunneling...
then they say QM is right because it happens
nonsense !

first... energy quantization is like saying you can have one meter just in chunks.
just 1mm chunks and nothing less, and if you find something less than 1mm, it is a quantum "new name something invented".

TIP: check how quantization was invented !

I think I need to talk about electron orbitals as this is the most known thing, the shells and so...

electrons do not need to stay in an onion like structure.
and I think we already know they can be all over the place in atoms, but again QM made something up to it and is calling it distribution probability.
electrons don't have to be in shells, but they do because resonance and standing waves in E field creates those shapes.
so.. if electrons do leave the geometric shape or change they position and the whole E shape, it is not because of some chunks something quantum humbug, but because of the geometrical shape change in itself initialized by an incoming EM field.

if an electron change the shell ( leaves the shape ) it does it with 2 conditions..
new shape has more curvature in all and it was pushed by electric field.
it comes back "into shape" because it will have less curvature at all.
ever way.. than EM wave is created, and this wave can be bigger dimensional than an electron itself at it's creation.
so the displacement in E can be as big as the whole shape of the atom and not just the size of the displacement of the electron or as big as any combination of the local electric field shape in the system. or the system "swallows" the incoming wave and what not...

QM was modeling an hydrogen shape with they 2 dimensional equations, and got nonsense like negative energy and what not... but fail in more complicated systems with 2 and more electrons... maybe there are some attempts I don't follow it anymore...
there was some pictures though...

so... tunneling electron microscope works... because E field is not quantised and there don't need to be any "tunnelig" effect
it works because the tip of the sensor is made of atoms and the probe is made of atoms covered with a an conducting metal.. one electric shape interacts with another electric shape and electric flow can exists between them due to the resonance between them.
Don't forget, there is electric field induced to support the interaction !

cheers !

My question about physics is...

How have physical forces been proven to exist as actual forces, and how have supposed forces been proven NOT to exist?

Every force we have found to exist, as an actual force which exists, which has proven to be an actual physical force, shares in one specific feature that shows, and proves, they are actual forces, without exception...

Do you know what this one, very important feature is, which distinguishes the actual forces, then?

It's not a hard question to answer, btw.


Here's a clue - physical forces are simply energy, directed in various ways, and forms.

Using that, we've proven if an actual force exists, and have also proven that there is no force at all....

a reply to: turbonium1

The thread is Ask anything you want about physics with the emphasis on questions and answers... not Ask a leading question about physics because i want to be smart/cleaver and go "HA!"

a reply to: Arbitrageur
How does the first law of thermodynamics,...
The first law, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system.
...fare in the face of a black hole swallowing all around it?

Is that a law breaker?
Or do we just assume the energy still exists...
But in a pretend place?

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: turbonium1

The thread is Ask anything you want about physics with the emphasis on questions and answers... not Ask a leading question about physics because i want to be smart/cleaver and go "HA!"

The question is still valid. Anyone can reply to it, if they wish. So feel free to reply, as well.


Physics has nothing to hide, it's all there, for us to see, and to discuss.... no?

originally posted by: prevenge

a reply to: Arbitrageur
How does the first law of thermodynamics,...
The first law, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system.

How are you defining the "isolated system"? Where are you drawing the boundaries of the system that you're isolating?

...fare in the face of a black hole swallowing all around it?

In some respects that *can* be true.

In the case of quasars for example, we think black holes were swallowing things around them (material in an accretion disk for example), and in the process releasing energy which has thousands of times the luminosity of the entire Milky Way galaxy so that energy can be observed relatively "brightly" from vast distances, billions of light years away.

So again I repeat, what exactly is the isolated system, if here on Earth we observe energy from quasars billions of light years away?

But I also think there's a general misunderstanding about black holes swallowing all around them. If for example you could replace the sun with a black hole of equal mass, it wouldn't swallow the planets orbiting it any more than the sun does. And if you take the black hole at the center of the Milky Way, it doesn't seem to swallow much at all, though there was an increase in luminosity recently which is unusual, it's been pretty quiet for the last few decades.

Is that a law breaker?
Or do we just assume the energy still exists...
But in a pretend place?

In the example I gave of a quasar, I'm not sure where to place the borders of the system to consider it an isolated system considering we are seeing radiation from the quasars billions of light years away.

So on the one hand it's not clear to me why you suspect any energy is being lost or any laws are being broken.

On the other hand as I've said many times before, George Box was right that "All models are wrong, some are useful".

I'm not sure how useful the first law of thermodynamics is for black holes, not only because I'm not sure exactly how to isolate the system, (when we can see energy from quasars so far away), but also because in order for me to consider something to be useful, a model has to not only exist mathematically but be falsifiable in observations. We have made some very interesting observations of objects in orbit around the black hole at the center of the Milky way, but other than the recent increased luminosity event I mentioned, I'm not aware of our capabilities in being able to test or potentially falsify any thermodynamic models. One obstacle is that we can only make observations in limited ranges of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, which don't include visible light due to the density of dust which blocks the light, so it's hard to experimentally/observationally confirm what's going on there. For example, I don't think we are completely sure exactly what caused the recent luminosity increase, since it's so hard to make observations there, though we have some ideas.

Also keep in mind that the first iteration of the first law of thermodynamics is not the one we still use. The so called "laws" which date back over a century precede our more modern understanding of the universe based on non-classical theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics. I tried to read a paper about black hole thermodynamics but without seeing attempts to confirm or falsify it experimentally, I don't know how useful it is.

So implied in the George Box quote: "All models are wrong, some are useful", is of course the idea that some models are not useful. A model is not particularly useful to me personally until it can be either falsified or tested to be consistent with observation. So I don't know if the paper will be any more useful to you than it was to me, but it is a complicated topic that is being considered.

Thermodynamics of horizons: de Sitter black holes and reentrant phase transitions

If I understand the paper correctly, it examines the thermodynamics of black holes which more or less can be considered isolated systems. So it might apply, for example, to the black hole of the Milky Way when it's relatively non-luminous, which is usually the case. But if you are talking about lots of material falling into the black hole, it's not an isolated system anymore, is it? So to analyze a system which is not isolated, you would need to use a model that does not apply to isolated systems, right?

a reply to: turbonium1
One woman said that the force holding up the Earth was a turtle, and what held up that turtle was another turtle underneath it, so it was turtles all the way down, but this hasn't been experimentally confirmed. I do have an artist's conception of the hypothesis though:

a reply to: KrzYma

I'm having trouble understanding your maths.

How do you explain

1- and 1+ is 2 of 0

I'm all for considering negative numbers and positive numbers.

But.Surely -1 +1 = 0. Or even just - + = 0. Or -cat +cat = 0.

As long as the neg and pos are the same value apart from the symbol. They will = 0.

In my model (Which has been pointed out is not very understandable). And i need to rewrite it to make more sense.

The photon is represented as -1 0 +1. It is written that way to show it is a wave propagating. Where 0 is a Lagrangian Point. The -1 and +1 are the value of whatever the number represents.

The number represents something. I call it a charge. But that would mean the photon has mass. Which it doesn't. As the maths confirm.

The result doesn't always have to = 0 though.

In a coin toss. The tails could be the neg. Heads the pos. O is the position between both choices.

-tails 0 +heads.

Consideration has to be given to the start position. One face will be facing up as the coin is ready to be tossed. And this is the start position. If heads is facing up. You start from heads.

As the coin is tossed. And the variables have been considered. And you know that the coin will spin x times per second for x seconds.

It can be worked out. By counting the tails and heads as explained above. Eg spins 3 spins/sec for 3 seconds = 9 spins.

Your start position was heads. count to 9 as 1 (tails), 2 (heads) etc.

Answer tails.

If the coin was to land on edge. Answer would be 0.

If you was to spin the coin on it's edge (on a table eg). The start position would be 0. And counting would depend on spin direction too.

So, i think neg and pos should be considered.

Although i didn't understand your maths. I don't know if my reply to you will be understood either.

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur
moving clocks tick slower... this is Einstein. Sure they do, I agree 100%
but not because time gets manipulated, the clocks count different... and I told you why, I think
Time does not exist as a physical something..
what NIST clocks measure/count is surely correct, counting is relatively easy thing to do

and where they put they clocks and counter different, is the clock that count different not time being changed.
Time is just a word...
if you ask about chemical reactions, sure the speed of the reactions change too, due to the different environment they are in, same as the clocks change counting, but there is no external time field something that is somehow connects to space.
Spacetieme is a humbug !

cheers !

This statement is false and has been proven to be incorrect by many many experiments. To make a statement that "Clocks count differently" is true... in a manner of speaking, but two identical atomic clocks, tick at the same rates to an extraordinary accuracy. You can then watch how they tick and move them around. how the clocks ticking changes appears to totally be an effect of the gravitational field present in the vicinity of each clock, and it works in accordance to relativity. What you are describing in terms of electric fields and environment doesn't at all make sense. We know electric fields around the Earth vary day to day... do we see the same variance in atomic clocks?

No we don't what we see is those clocks counting in accordance to GR.

You can choose ignorance if you like... thats your own lookout.

originally posted by: KrzYma
- the Sun is powered by electron injection from the Birkeland currents in the Universe.
Show me a mechanism by which Birkeland currents can produce Neutrino flux

- lasers work because electric field is an additive field so you can inject more E into E-wave and make it stronger and stronger, the pump in lasers just do that. adding more and more electric field into the wave.

Lasers work by stimulated emission, by the promotion of electrons into higher energy levels and their jump to the ground state producing an electron. Lasers produce photons which are singular entities and are coherent. What is the mechanism in your model by which lasers produce very narrow band wavelength emission if it is all 'just fields' Sure you said, intensity is a function of field gradient... so what about wavelength.

- semi-conductors work by manipulating the electric and magnetic configuration of the material such as silicon, germanium, gallium arsenide, and elements near the so-called "metalloid staircase" on the periodic table.

Status as a semi-conductoring material is a property of a material, it does not require external electric fields or magnetic fields to be one. In terms of the electric and magnetic configurations, this is word salad that means very little. What exactly is being manipulated? QM explains it very well, the foundation of modern computing relies on it. The construction of ultra sensitive photo-sensors used in medical imaging depends on it... (oh yeah and in those devices, application of huge magnetic fields has zero affect on how they perform)

- tunneling is that thing that needs to be taken more carefully, as it is a name produced by QM

let me first introduce you to the construct how this is made by giving you an example...

God created the Universe therefore God must exist because the Universe exists... this is the statement made.
any attempt to say NO ends up in an argument, if God did not created the Universe who else ?

Snipped the rest as before, your argument goes off the rails, discussion of two totally non equivilent things does nothing for your discussion. Your point is "Someone invented it, I dont understand it, so i reject it" basically.
Hell, someone invented electric fields you know... before their discovery... humans didn't understand it at all.

Your argument there is extremely flawed, long winded, wandering and rather pointless. There are many examples by which tunnelling can be shown to happen in the QM sense. Again you can choose to ignoring with some weird rant, but thats your choice. Also your discussion of electron orbitals, writing away quantisation as resonance is pretty funny... i read that and think...

Wow, he knows it works, but wants to just keep that bit because it helps marry his ideas to observation, when the fundamentals of what his models is, is unexplainable, un-calculable and largely non-sensical though still wants to keep atomic quantization.

Also, yes you should look up the atomic model a bit... much has been done, and many predictions from QM treatment have been measured.

a reply to: blackcrowe

when I say -1 plus +1 equals 0 of 2 means
negative charge plus positive charge equals null charge with electric density 2, as there is 1 charge negative in density of the field and 1 charge positive in the density of field, makes two charges in the field.
the "direction" of the charge is defined by definition we make and is the slope of the field, minus in one direction, plus in the opposite direction.

in your coin example, tails is one direction, heads the other direction BUT !! and this is important, the coin itself is the field.
so the math can not just take into account heads or tails, as this is "just" the property of choice, or the result, the coin itself is the basis for the whole calculation, no coin no tails no heads..
and yes, if the field has no direction, the coin is on its edge and has both, heads and tails at the same time.

a reply to: ErosA433

... but two identical atomic clocks, tick at the same rates to an extraordinary accuracy.

this is what you don't understand... the clock, whatever it is, is counting, atomic clock "run at same speed" IF, and only if they are in the same environment, same gravity, same speed..
if you move one, they are not counting at the same rate.
The principle of operation of an atomic clock is based on atomic physics; it measures the electromagnetic signal that electrons in atoms emit when they change energy levels. ( shape change of the atom )
electromagnetic signal depends on the local gravity force and the speed in the Universe.

My statement is not false and has not been proven incorrect, it has been proven to be correct and right, because if you change the environment of one of the clocks, it counts differently. Time is just a concept coming from counting and does not exist as an physical entity

You can choose ignorance if you like... thats your own lookout.

talking from experience ??

Sure you said, intensity is a function of field gradient... so what about wavelength

what about resonance and coherent movement ?
the pump synchronizes with the main wave, is electric and magnetic fields interacting, why should they not ?
Coherence is the... saying it in QM words, the lowest energy.. no f..

Coherence with the field is the best and only way to move with the field, the field is doing the work, if the field is even more homogeneous, what lasers are, it's quit easy for the pump's atoms to move with the field, and the injected E field is added to the main wave.
More slope, same wavelength

discussion of two totally non equivilent things does nothing for your discussion.

quite the opposite... it opens the mind and gives you new point of view


look at the Rayleigh–Jeans catastrophe, the black body radiation.
it is a catastrophe indeed...
people though, if there is more temperature the frequency is higher.
According to the math it should, because they linked temperature to emission frequency.
But those are two different things.

what is temperature ?? the Brownian motion, right ??
what is radiation frequency ?? the emission of EM by change in atomic shape ( see post above )
they are not linked at all.. they both have a relation to the motion of the atoms in the body, but one does not "produce"" the other
temperature, like time is just a concept. Temperature does nothing by it's own, temperature is an measurement, compression of readings on the scale, not a physical thing.
The movement of atoms in mater is the real cause for the expansion of liquids and the reading on the temperature scale, and also for the EM radiation, but those are not really dependent on each other.
You don't need to quantize anything if you understand the difference I'm saying.

Also, yes you should look up the atomic model a bit... much has been done, and many predictions from QM treatment have been measured.

measured how ?? you mean calculated with QM models, right ??
come on...


BTW : please stop calling me ignorant and what else..
I've been though classic mechanics, quantum theory, sting nonsense and other humbug.
YOU are the ignorant one, sticking to MS persuasion, ignoring any other way of thinking

cheers !!

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: turbonium1
One woman said that the force holding up the Earth was a turtle, and what held up that turtle was another turtle underneath it, so it was turtles all the way down, but this hasn't been experimentally confirmed. I do have an artist's conception of the hypothesis though:

Do you want to address the question I asked, if possible? This has nothing to do with it, but I'm sure you know that, right?

originally posted by: turbonium1
how have supposed forces been proven NOT to exist?

Your question was so cryptic it's hard to figure out if you're asking or telling so I answered the part I understood which is this part:

originally posted by: turbonium1
... how have supposed forces been proven NOT to exist?

The supposed force was the turtle holding up the Earth (and the other turtles holding up that turtle).

From "A Brief History of Time"

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

To prove that force doesn't exist (actually one way...there are many ways to prove it), in the late 1960s and early 1970s some astronauts took photos of the Earth from the moon, and the photos showed no turtles holding up the Earth. This famous "Blue Marble" image was taken by Apollo 17 crew in 1972, and there are no turtles in sight, so the "turtle force hypothesis" is thus falsified, and I assumed you probably already know about this image, since I think it's been shown to you before.



It doesn't look like a "flat plate" either, but I don't know what that woman said if she ever she saw this photograph. She probably asked how they managed to get through the glass dome holding in all the air to take the photo, so I don't think any amount of evidence would convince her, and probably not you either from what I've seen of your posting history here.

a reply to: KrzYma

Thanks KrzYma.

when I say -1 plus +1 equals 0 of 2 means negative charge plus positive charge equals null charge with electric density 2, as there is 1 charge negative in density of the field and 1 charge positive in the density of field, makes two charges in the field. the "direction" of the charge is defined by definition we make and is the slope of the field, minus in one direction, plus in the opposite direction.

Now i understand what you mean.

This is my opinion.

It's actually 3 not 2. The zero is a point too. (- + would be of 2. And would be the underlying fabric and "other matters" of the Universe).

So these 3 points/parts represent 1 thing. Identified by the zero which is a coin in my coin toss example. But could also be a photon/cat/train etc.

Just for fun. Watch the first part of The Double Slit exp. And change the single particle into the 3 points mentioned above. 3 representing 1. And it's the -1 and +1 make it through the slits. which i find easier to understand than one single particle splitting into two.

In my reply with the coin toss eg. I also added a last minute coin spin eg. It was a last minute thought. Unfortunately. I hadn't thought about it. And it is wrong. By the time i realised. It was too late to edit out. Please ignore that part. Sorry.

in your coin example, tails is one direction, heads the other direction BUT !! and this is important, the coin itself is the field.

Tails is -1 which is left. Heads is +1 which is right. The toss of the coin (zero) is forwards.

and yes, if the field has no direction, the coin is on its edge and has both, heads and tails at the same time.

Yes. and is a coin.

What good is physics when anything is possible?

Every law of physics can be broken, in theory. Why take physics as gospel until these theories are proven or disproven?

Why do you exist physics? You're amazing and all but, you're like an oracle at delphi.

Prove your #.

Actual forces have been understood and proven to exist through resistance, against opposing forces.

A magnet is a great example of an actual force we know exists with opposing forces.

If you see a piece of metal resting on top of something else, you cannot tell if the object below the metal is a magnet, or is not a magnet, simply by looking at it. When you pull the metal off the object, and feel resistance, you know it is a magnet. If you feel no resistance, how could you prove it IS a magnet? Not by pointing to the metal on top of it, and claiming it is held there by the object below it, right?

That's how 'gravity' works... or does not work, I mean.

Simply because objects are on Earth, it is assumed the objects must be 'held' to Earth by something. Like the metal 'held' by something below it is, simply because it is seen on top of something.

That's not how we prove anything else, so why would 'gravity' be any different?

originally posted by: Admitted
What good is physics when anything is possible?

Every law of physics can be broken, in theory. Why take physics as gospel until these theories are proven or disproven?

Why do you exist physics? You're amazing and all but, you're like an oracle at delphi.

Prove your #.

No laws of physics have ever been 'broken'. All theories have never altered these laws, despite endless attempts to do so.

It's a good thing, to know that, is it not?

a reply to: turbonium1

a magical, unproven, non-existent force, called 'gravity'.

LMAO. To paraphrase Tim Minchin:

It gives one hope that you feel that way about gravity. And you might just float the fck away.