Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
Some scientists claim to have found ripples that might be the effects of universes being created and destroyed but its not been proved 100%

Question ... would those ripples effect time? And would those ripples fold time over? What do you think? What's your well-read opinion?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'm assuming it would take an enormous amount of energy to even open any kind of conduit to another dimension or universe. Given current technology, is it even possible to generate the kind of energy needed to attempt some kind of gate or rift?

PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ask your questions and limit your posts to the topic of physics.....this thread is not about other members......You are responsible for your own posts.

--Off Topic, One Liners and General Back Scratching Posts--

Do not reply to off topic posts....please alert staff to T&C issues:
Terms and Conditions of Use--Please Review

Do not reply to this post.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Higgs Boson comes to mind, off the top of my head, for an example.

That's exactly what I mean. What did they find exactly?

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'm assuming it would take an enormous amount of energy to even open any kind of conduit to another dimension or universe. Given current technology, is it even possible to generate the kind of energy needed to attempt some kind of gate or rift?

Not only do I not know the answer, I don't even know if it's answerable.

I do know that opening a conduit like a wormhole to another part of our universe takes a tremendous amount of energy, but conduits to other universes? If there's an answer to that, I don't know it.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
Some scientists claim to have found ripples that might be the effects of universes being created and destroyed but its not been proved 100%

Question ... would those ripples effect time? And would those ripples fold time over? What do you think? What's your well-read opinion?

Anything that effects the fabric of space-time effects time.

question?.....does a neutron star have mass, if so, what is the force that holds it together?

a reply to: jimmyx

Neutron stars are the densest and tiniest stars known to exist in the universe; although having only the radius of about 10 km (6 mi), they may have a mass of several times that of the Sun.

Neutron stars are very hot and are supported against further collapse by quantum degeneracy pressure due to the phenomenon described by the Pauli exclusion principle.

en.wikipedia.org...

Here's a pretty mundane question about the EM spectrum.

The colors of visible light spectrum are in the order as follows:

Red - Orange - Yellow - Green - Blue - Indigo - Violet

On the other side of red is "infrared", and on the other side of violet is "ultraviolet".

I understand that the color "orange" on the the spectrum is a cross between red and yellow -- i.e., as visible light morphs from red into yellow, it goes through a stage where it looks orange -- more yellow than red, but more red than yellow. Hence, orange is between red and yellow.

Similarly, green is a cross between yellow and blue. As visible light morphs from looking yellow to looking blue, it passes through a state of looking "green", which is sort of yellow and sort of blue. Hence it is between yellow and blue in the spectrum.

Most school children would say that "violet" is a cross between red and blue. However, I think violet can NOT be a cross between red and blue, because red and blue are on opposite opposite ends of the visible light spectrum.

So is it safe to assume that there is no red in the color violet? Because if violet really is a cross between red and blue, where does the red come from if it is on the opposite side of the visible light spectrum?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

You are confusing paint color with colors of lights.

The primary colors or paint are different than the primary colors of light. So if you mix certain colors of paint or pencil crayons you will get different resulting colors than if you mix the same colors of light. Light is additive while paint is subtractive.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Similarly, green is a cross between yellow and blue. As visible light morphs from looking yellow to looking blue, it passes through a state of looking "green", which is sort of yellow and sort of blue. Hence it is between yellow and blue in the spectrum. Most school children would say that "violet" is a cross between red and blue. However, I think violet can NOT be a cross between red and blue, because red and blue are on opposite opposite ends of the visible light spectrum.

As far as I can tell violet is a mix between red and blue, but based on what you just lined out, namely that the mix colors are between the wavelenghts of the primary colors they are based upon, that would not make sense.

Interesting question for sure.

a reply to: PhoenixOD

Isn't the color of paint a certain wavelenght of light hitting your eye bouncing of off the paint's surface?

a reply to: SuperVizorr

I think its more about the material absorbing certain wavelengths. For example yellow paint is not colored yellow, it simply absorbs (almost) every color except yellow, thus yellow is the light wave that enters your eye.

a reply to: PhoenixOD

So you are saying there is no red light in the color "violet".

I'm fine with that, and I understand light is not the same as paint. However, is there blue and yellow light in "green"? Is there red and yellow light in "orange"?

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
So is it safe to assume that there is no red in the color violet? Because if violet really is a cross between red and blue, where does the red come from if it is on the opposite side of the visible light spectrum?

I think the name we've given to one color we perceive between red and blue is magenta, which is an interesting color not in the light spectrum, it has no wavelength associated with it:

Color Theory

According to that violet is actually a cross between magenta and blue.

The way humans perceive color doesn't always reflect the actual colors measured with scientific instruments, so there is somewhat of a disconnect between the physics and human perception, even in people that aren't color blind, and more of course in people that are.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Its a confusing subject even im not 100% sure about it, but as you can see from the chart above if you mix red and blue light you do get magenta.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Like I said, I get that paint hues and light hues are different.

Howver, it just seems intuitive that orange is the mid-way state between red light and yellow light, and green is the mid-way state between yellow light and blue light...

...and intuition would tell me that violet is the mid-way state between blue light and red light -- but it really isn't.

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: SuperVizorr

I think its more about the material absorbing certain wavelengths. For example yellow paint is not colored yellow, it simply absorbs (almost) every color except yellow, thus yellow is the light wave that enters your eye.

So for instance the surface of violet paint only bounces of the wavelenghts that, together, create violet, showing the mix color violet even though it is not a mix of adjacent wavelenghts of light.

Good point.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
If you mean frequency-wise, you're right it isn't, because we can perceive colors for which there is no associated frequency, like magenta.

But perceived color-wise, from the chart I posted, it looks to me like violet is as much between red and blue, as green is between blue and yellow, because note that green is not at the mid-way point of those two colors either.