• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Ask a physicist anything. (5)

Status
Not open for further replies.

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟32,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
If I were to sit in a centrifuge then I would feel gravity but to an observer he would not feel anything. Thus Gravity is a force but not in the entire grand scheme of things.

Thus in this argument of whether G is a force or not; I say G has a duality that makes both sides of the argument valid. Such is the world of physics that weird is a mild word when defining this world.

Gravity affects time thus one can conclude that it is a force. On the other hand G plays no role at the quantum level, and there it is not only not a force but it is insignificant in its entirety.

Go figure:confused::confused::confused:
 
Upvote 0

Maxwell511

Contributor
Jun 12, 2005
6,073
260
41
Utah County
✟23,630.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I'm tempted to cite Newton's Laws, but Einstein kinda trumps Newton :p

I'd be tempted to cite Newton too. Newton makes intuitive sense, Einstein not so much. I think there was some point in the 20th century where physicists said ""F" this, we don't need to make intuitive sense we just need to make mathematical sense".

Now we have a set of equations that are open to interpretation of what they mean. Gravity is a force but also not a force etc.

Hmm, I'm not so sure I agree. Acceleration isn't relative. If it accelerates down a potential well, no matter what our inertial frame, we will still see it accelerate the same amount; we see it increase its velocity by 5ms[sup]-1[/sup] after 1s, no matter what we decide its initial velocity is. That was Einstein's whole point: the falling object can decide if it's accelerating or not. We can define where V(r) = 0 lies, but the actual topography of the potential well is the same.

Mathematically it is all consistent, the equations are not dependent on the reference frame, since they are designed that way, however what they mean is a different story. You can if you wish literally interpret an object "falling" to earth not as the object itself "falling" but space "falling" to earth and "dragging" the object with it*. That is not a force, since it is not an object changing its rate of change in position in time, it is space doing some weird stuff.

Non-inertial frames? No no no. Only inertial frames. As I'm sure you know, fictitious forces arise in non-inertial frames, but only the real forces exist in inertial frames. And, if we pick an inertial frame, we see four forces - including gravity.

If the three forces described by the particle theories did not exist, would there be any object in an non-inertial reference frame? Or would everything travel in geodesics?

I think the answer to those questions would be no and yes respectively. Which leads me to think that within our current theories gravity can be said not to be a force. I am not saying that gravity is not a force, I am just saying that valid arguments can be made to say that it is not.

*Take this with a grain of salt. It is not from my own analysis of the theory (which, of course, would be perfect and definitely not crazy :p) it is what I have been told by academics that study GR.
 
Upvote 0

Maxwell511

Contributor
Jun 12, 2005
6,073
260
41
Utah County
✟23,630.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Go figure:confused::confused::confused:

Scientific theories of physics are beautifully weird. It is after all the result of the musings of some random species of ape, on some random planet, orbiting some random star.

If science has a goal for physics it is to create a consistent understanding of the laws of nature. That is a goal and not what the theories do. Dualities exist in the theories not by the fact that nature is that way but because we don't fully understand nature. There really is no duality in whether things are particles or waves or whether gravity is a force but not a force. Nature just is. Our understanding is not yet sufficient to understand some things.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
IIRC photons are said to be massless. Therefore, if E=MC^2 then as M is 0 therrefore E is 0. So if the energy of a photon is 0 then how come things like solar sails are possible?
Because E = mc[sup]2[/sup] is a special case where particle is at rest. The more general equation is: E[sup]2[/sup] = p[sup]2[/sup]c[sup]2[/sup] + m[sup]2[/sup]c[sup]4[/sup]. So, if the particle has zero mass (m = 0), the equation actually becomes E = pc - that is, a massless particles still has energy from its momentum, and a photon always has momentum.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Scientific theories of physics are beautifully weird. It is after all the result of the musings of some random species of ape, on some random planet, orbiting some random star.

If science has a goal for physics it is to create a consistent understanding of the laws of nature. That is a goal and not what the theories do. Dualities exist in the theories not by the fact that nature is that way but because we don't fully understand nature. There really is no duality in whether things are particles or waves or whether gravity is a force but not a force. Nature just is. Our understanding is not yet sufficient to understand some things.
Unless, of course, there really is two fundamental theories of the universe :p Perhaps each overarching 'class' of particles behave according to their own laws, and never the twain shall meet.

I've always wondered what would happen if a particle (or something more exotic) from a completely different universe found its way into our universe - would new physical laws be created there and then to govern interactions?
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I'd be tempted to cite Newton too. Newton makes intuitive sense, Einstein not so much. I think there was some point in the 20th century where physicists said ""F" this, we don't need to make intuitive sense we just need to make mathematical sense".

Now we have a set of equations that are open to interpretation of what they mean. Gravity is a force but also not a force etc.
If they work, they work. I think QM is more open to interpretation than GR - GR seems to say that all interpretations are equally valid (simultaneity, etc), while QM teasingly suggests that one interpretation is right, but refuses to divulge.

Mathematically it is all consistent, the equations are not dependent on the reference frame, since they are designed that way, however what they mean is a different story. You can if you wish literally interpret an object "falling" to earth not as the object itself "falling" but space "falling" to earth and "dragging" the object with it*. That is not a force, since it is not an object changing its rate of change in position in time, it is space doing some weird stuff.
Why doesn't that constitute a force? The Earth and the object are both dragging on space, pulling each towards the other. I.e., there is changes of momenta.

If the three forces described by the particle theories did not exist, would there be any object in an non-inertial reference frame? Or would everything travel in geodesics?

I think the answer to those questions would be no and yes respectively. Which leads me to think that within our current theories gravity can be said not to be a force. I am not saying that gravity is not a force, I am just saying that valid arguments can be made to say that it is not.

*Take this with a grain of salt. It is not from my own analysis of the theory (which, of course, would be perfect and definitely not crazy :p) it is what I have been told by academics that study GR.
My lecturers told me that wave-particle duality was real... until one took me aside and whispered the dark and terrible truth that, in reality, it's particles all the way down! :p
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟32,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
My lecturers told me that wave-particle duality was real... until one took me aside and whispered the dark and terrible truth that, in reality, it's particles all the way down! :p
The further down you go and the smaller you get; then Alice in wonderland should feel straight at home! Such are the realms of the quantum world. Imagine at our level is like living on a supertanker which has super stabilisation systems yet it is riding in a turbulent sea full of storms. Unless you look outside then you will think you are living in a stable and rock solid world.

Make mine a Quantum Beer with plenty of Quantum FOAM please! Burp! :kiss::D:wave::clap:
 
Upvote 0

TheReasoner

Atheist. Former Christian.
Mar 14, 2005
10,294
684
Norway
✟37,162.00
Country
Norway
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The further down you go and the smaller you get; then Alice in wonderland should feel straight at home! Such are the realms of the quantum world. Imagine at our level is like living on a supertanker which has super stabilisation systems yet it is riding in a turbulent sea full of storms. Unless you look outside then you will think you are living in a stable and rock solid world.


I'm still only in my second year of the five year program. Still, down at nanoscale and below things start getting pretty weird, considering our everyday experiences. Consider Brownian motion, quantum tunneling...
It's all cool though!

Make mine a Quantum Beer with plenty of Quantum FOAM please! Burp! :kiss::D:wave::clap:

What was that? I think I just heard Wheeler groaning...
 
Upvote 0

AllOrNothing

Newbie
Jan 27, 2011
55
2
✟22,694.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I am indeed. I obviously can't prove this to you over the Internet, but I'm a physicist regardless

Which still leaves me wondering..

Are you an astrophysicist ?

A quantum physicist ?

A theoretical physicist ?

An experimental physicist ?

A mad physicist ? (always the most interesting)

Or.. are you a meta physicist ?

Like Max..

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force… We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”

Max Planck, Nobel Prize-winning Father of Quantum Theory

Or other...?

Yes.......... I'm over here now...:clap:
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Which still leaves me wondering..

Are you an astrophysicist ?

A quantum physicist ?

A theoretical physicist ?

An experimental physicist ?

A mad physicist ? (always the most interesting)

Or.. are you a meta physicist ?
I'm primarily a theoretical physicist with a penchant for quantum mechanics, though I've been known to dabble in experimental things from time to time. That said, I try not to give too much away online; call me paranoid :p

Like Max..

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force… We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”

Max Planck, Nobel Prize-winning Father of Quantum Theory

Unfortunately, being a genius in one area doesn't make you a genius in all areas. That said, Planck was an atheist, and I'd be surprised if he subscribed to this New Age type of 'quantum mysticism'.

Yes.......... I'm over here now...:clap:
Hallo! :wave::wave::wave:
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟32,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I'm primarily a theoretical physicist with a penchant for quantum mechanics, though I've been known to dabble in experimental things from time to time. That said, I try not to give too much away online; call me paranoid :p


Unfortunately, being a genius in one area doesn't make you a genius in all areas. That said, Planck was an atheist, and I'd be surprised if he subscribed to this New Age type of 'quantum mysticism'.


Hallo! :wave::wave::wave:
What is the element that comprises the mass just before it becomes a singularity in the formation of a black hole?
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
What is the element that comprises the mass just before it becomes a singularity in the formation of a black hole?
The sum total of all the protons that make up that mass. Fourteen hydrogen atoms will become Silicon, etc. Well, unless neutrons decide to become protons for their swan song...
 
Upvote 0

AllOrNothing

Newbie
Jan 27, 2011
55
2
✟22,694.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
[Wiccan_Child;56736701]
I'm primarily a theoretical physicist with a penchant for quantum mechanics, though I've been known to dabble in experimental things from time to time. That said, I try not to give too much away online; call me paranoid [/quote]

Not to worry.. I’m very very secretive………. mums the word…

You are sooooo lucky.. I would love to do theoretical physics.. but I don’t have any kind of school education.. I was in the class for special needs children..

I have mostly done gardening to make a living. But in my spare time I like to read up on stuff.. and I think a lot about what I’ve learned.. and then come up with good ideas…... I enjoy problem solving.

Do you have lots of new ideas and theories.. ?

Have you tried meditation to boost intuition.. ? ……….It works!

“The creation of something new is not accomplished by the intellect but by the play instinct acting from inner necessity. The creative mind plays with the objects it loves.

The debt we owe to the play of imagination is incalculable.”

Carl Jung

[Wiccan_Child;56736701]
Unfortunately, being a genius in one area doesn't make you a genius in all areas. That said, Planck was an atheist, and I'd be surprised if he subscribed to this New Age type of 'quantum mysticism'.[/quote]

This very much depends how you define – atheist

In this respect we must agree to differ.

Doubting Thomas that I am.. I searched.. but...

No results found for "max Planck was an atheist

But I did find this..

Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds.

In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols.

Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

Max thinks the much the same as I do.. symbolic language has nothing to do with the supernatural. This is a wide-spead mis-conception.. and the reason I dropped out of atheism.

Sorry I can’t post any links till I notch up 50 posts.


 
Upvote 0

AllOrNothing

Newbie
Jan 27, 2011
55
2
✟22,694.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
What is the element that comprises the mass just before it becomes a singularity in the formation of a black hole?

Aren't black holes formed from neutron stars collapsing,,?

It's been a long time since I read up on this stuff.

But black holes are fascinating..
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
You are sooooo lucky.. I would love to do theoretical physics.. but I don’t have any kind of school education.. I was in the class for special needs children..
Don't let that put you off! A unique mind is often the key to unlocking new discoveries - Einstein himself is meant to have had no 'central groove' in his brain, which is why he could conceive all the weird things of General Relativity.

I have mostly done gardening to make a living. But in my spare time I like to read up on stuff.. and I think a lot about what I’ve learned.. and then come up with good ideas…... I enjoy problem solving.
Then you and I share an innate curiosity about the world :)

Do you have lots of new ideas and theories.. ?

Have you tried meditation to boost intuition.. ? ……….It works!
I do meditate from time to time, more as a habit from my Pagan days. Nothing like wandering down to my local forest and meditating under my favourite tree in the height of Summer.

This very much depends how you define – atheist
"One who is not a theist".

In this respect we must agree to differ.

Doubting Thomas that I am.. I searched.. but...

No results found for "max Planck was an atheist

But I did find this..

Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds.

In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols.

Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

Max thinks the much the same as I do.. symbolic language has nothing to do with the supernatural. This is a wide-spead mis-conception.. and the reason I dropped out of atheism.

Sorry I can’t post any links till I notch up 50 posts.
I searched for that particular quote, and all I could find were sites about 'scientists who believed in God'. I've seen those sorts of sites before, and they sadly routinely spread lies about the beliefs of these men and women, even when said scientists have explicitly refuted those claims.

A common chestnut is to use Einstein's frequent poetic use of the word 'God', such as "I am convinced [God] does not play dice", etc. However, Einstein himself set the record straight: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

As for Planck, when questioned about whether he had converted to Catholicism (as was being spread among religious circles), he said he did not believe "in a personal God, let alone a Christian God".

But yea. While about 40% of scientists believe in some form of deity, the remaining 60%, as well as the greats (Plank, Einstein, Darwin, Hawking, etc) do not. Sadly, this doesn't stop viscous rumours being spread.

Aren't black holes formed from neutron stars collapsing,,?

It's been a long time since I read up on this stuff.

But black holes are fascinating..
Indeed they are. In general, a black hole is any lump of matter being squeezed so much that it fits inside a particular imaginary sphere (the radius of the sphere being defined solely in terms of how much mass there is). Once that happens, it will become a black hole, as the gravity cannot be countered by the other forces - it continues to squeeze and squeeze and squeeze, creating all sorts of funky phenomena.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chesterton
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I have a serious qustion.

Wht exactly does a physicist even do? sit in a room with other physicists and just come up with new ideas or something?
Either that, or devise ways to apply current ideas. It's one thing to discover microwaves, but quite another to apply them to heating food :p
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟32,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The sum total of all the protons that make up that mass. Fourteen hydrogen atoms will become Silicon, etc. Well, unless neutrons decide to become protons for their swan song...
That I know but an element that is comprised of atoms with God knows how many protons, neutrons, and electrons cannot exist for longer than a few trillionths of a second. It would be extremely unstable and radioactive. So how does it reach singularity if due to its short lifespan releases all its energy:confused: Can you calculate the atoms of such an element?

Do some number crunching for us :prayer: puhleeeezzzzzz
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.