Ask a physicist anything. (5)

[Wiccan_Child]

Er, no, that was a "leap of faith".

I disagree. A 'leap of faith' involves concluding

Alfven's "bang" never involved a 'singularity',

I daresay it didn't, and Newton's gravity didn't involve warping spacetime, and Darwin's evolution didn't involve epigenetics, etc. What's your point?

and your whole claim about age is directly related to an *INTERPRETATION* about redshift and a belief you hold that it is somehow related to 'expanding space'.

Irregular grammar aside, that's more or less right. Again, what's your point?

In other words, this is your belief, not mine.

Naturally. What else did you expect?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I have a question for you, OP. Hopefully this hasn't been asked prior, as I haven't been able to read the entire array of threads. Disregard if this has been asked thus far.

I was watching (purely for entertainment purposes) a film documentary on Netflix last night about alleged physical evidence that the earth and its human inhabitants are being visited by extraterrestrials.

In this film, they showed clips of a small, triangular metallic object being removed from a man's jaw area - a man who claims to have been "abducted" by aliens. The object was sent to a couple of different universities for metallurgical testing and results from each experiment were roughly the same - extraterrestrial origin. One study even reported that it was a small fragment of an extremely rare meteorite, of which only very few samples have ever been recovered worldwide. That particular conclusion was reported before it was disclosed that the fragment had been removed from human tissues. I did find this sort of interesting.

Interesting. Do you have the name of the man? I'd like to do a Google search myself

Personally, I highly doubt we are "alone" in this universe, given the probabilites of alien lifeforms, but I am extremely skeptical that such alien life has been visiting Earth, much less performing "experiments" on humans. So my question, is what do you think about "aliens" or extraterrestrials and the claim that we are being "visited", and more specifically "adbucted" for experimental purposes?

Short answer: no. Long answer: noooooomaybe. There's almost certainly alien life somewhere, and very probably intelligent, highly advanced life. But the same 'big universe' idea that makes that so likely also makes it so unlikely that they've ever visited us, let alone performed macabre experiments.

But the 'maybe' part is this: if they're so advanced, who are we to say they must travel at lightspeed? Who's to say there really isn't a galactic empire that monitors life-bearing worlds, for utterly unfathomable reasons?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Should I be seriously spooked about those upcoming solar flare thingies of unhappiness that will be hitting somewhere between 2012 and 2013?

I'm not much too fond of the thought on losing global electrical power and being without a functioning blow dryer for my hair.

There's not going to be much drama. Electronics are much better protected nowadays, with all sorts of redundancies.

I hope

 

[Wiccan_Child]

[sign]

[/sign]​

[sign]

[/sign]​

 

[selfinflikted]

Interesting. Do you have the name of the man? I'd like to do a Google search myself

Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of the man, and I'm not altogether sure they even revealed that information in the film. In fact, I'm not entirely sure of the veracity of the film. I've not done any research on it, I was just bored on my off-day and there was nothing better on, so I watched it.

But, the name of the film is "Close Encounters Proof of Alien Contact". Even the cover art looks like the "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" film - kinda cheesy. heh

 

[Steffenfield]

Any takers on this?

FBI wants public to help break murdered man's code

 

[Steffenfield]

There's not going to be much drama. Electronics are much better protected nowadays, with all sorts of redundancies.

I hope

This happened today.

YouTube - Near and Farside Eruptions: April 8th, 2011.

So you're saying that the one CME #2 or whatever it's called, if that was pointed directly at Earth, we all wouldn't be goosed?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This happened today.

So you're saying that the one CME #2 or whatever it's called, if that was pointed directly at Earth, we all wouldn't be goosed?

Nope. The Sun and Earth have been around for 4.5 billion years, orbiting and spinning, all while solar eruptions have been happening, so it's quite likely that we've been hit at some point. So what happens when we're hit?

YouTube - Aurora Borealis

Shiny shiny!

 

[selfinflikted]

I have another question for you, WiccanChild.

Do you feel that the current benefits of nuclear-generated power outweigh the potential risks involved? I ask in light of the current situation in Japan, and other disasters in the past such as Chernobyl.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I have another question for you, WiccanChild.

Do you feel that the current benefits of nuclear-generated power outweigh the potential risks involved? I ask in light of the current situation in Japan, and other disasters in the past such as Chernobyl.

The two most severe incidents involving nuclear power plants are Chernobyl and Fukushima, and they both occurred under extraordinary circumstances - in the former, all safeties and redundancies were systematically shut off, and in the latter, a massive earthquake and tsunami overwhelmed said safeties and redundancies.

So despite the risks, they're so phenomenally unlikely that I personally think nuclear power is well worth it. And with the advent on nuclear fusion, we'll have power generated more efficiently and virtually no risk. Nuclear is a dirty word in politics, but it has my support

 

[selfinflikted]

The two most severe incidents involving nuclear power plants are Chernobyl and Fukushima, and they both occurred under extraordinary circumstances - in the former, all safeties and redundancies were systematically shut off, and in the latter, a massive earthquake and tsunami overwhelmed said safeties and redundancies.

So despite the risks, they're so phenomenally unlikely that I personally think nuclear power is well worth it. And with the advent on nuclear fusion, we'll have power generated more efficiently and virtually no risk. Nuclear is a dirty word in politics, but it has my support

I have done only some cursory research, but from what I've read it sounds like energy produced through fusion is still quite a ways away? And I agree that the circumstances are extraordinary, but sometimes extraordinary things happen, and you end up with major catastrophies. While accidents like what happened at Chernobyl can be completely avoided (I've watched several documentaries on it), I'm afraid situations like what is happening in Japan now with the Fukushima plant, while they are rare, are almost certain to happen.

THAT said, I do tend to agree with your conclusions that the benefits far outweight the risks involved. But tell me - The storage of nuclear waste seems to still be a pretty big dilemma, but I've often wondered why they just don't rocket all that spent fuel into the sun?...or deep space... or something. Why does it have to be stored on earth?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I have done only some cursory research, but from what I've read it sounds like energy produced through fusion is still quite a ways away? And I agree that the circumstances are extraordinary, but sometimes extraordinary things happen, and you end up with major catastrophies. While accidents like what happened at Chernobyl can be completely avoided (I've watched several documentaries on it), I'm afraid situations like what is happening in Japan now with the Fukushima plant, while they are rare, are almost certain to happen.

True, but I don't think that's reason enough to cease nuclear power plants.

THAT said, I do tend to agree with your conclusions that the benefits far outweight the risks involved. But tell me - The storage of nuclear waste seems to still be a pretty big dilemma, but I've often wondered why they just don't rocket all that spent fuel into the sun?...or deep space... or something. Why does it have to be stored on earth?

Sheer cost effectiveness. The Earth is massive, and it's far easier to plan long-term storage in deep vaults than to create expensive rockets. Rockets are also far more dangerous - all it takes is one failed ejection and the entire atmosphere is caked in deadly radiation.

 

[chris4243]

I have done only some cursory research, but from what I've read it sounds like energy produced through fusion is still quite a ways away?

Actually, we recently achieved a breakeven fusion reaction, sort of, however that does not include the production of the reactor, so it still has some ways to go. Perhaps the first economically effective use for fusion would be on a spacecraft where it could form part of the propulsion system.

And I agree that the circumstances are extraordinary, but sometimes extraordinary things happen, and you end up with major catastrophies. While accidents like what happened at Chernobyl can be completely avoided (I've watched several documentaries on it), I'm afraid situations like what is happening in Japan now with the Fukushima plant, while they are rare, are almost certain to happen.

At least it's not as bad as chemical plants nor coal power plants. But you can count on anything with the word "nuclear" making the news if anyone is afraid of something.

THAT said, I do tend to agree with your conclusions that the benefits far outweight the risks involved. But tell me - The storage of nuclear waste seems to still be a pretty big dilemma, but I've often wondered why they just don't rocket all that spent fuel into the sun?...or deep space... or something. Why does it have to be stored on earth?

It's not an engineering problem but a political problem. And I'm pretty sure it would be safer to just throw it underground than to try to use a rocket. We can also permanently get rid of nuclear waste by careful use of plate tectonics. However nuclear waste is also fairly valuable so I doubt any permanently inaccessible solutions will be used.

 

[mzungu]

Actually, we recently achieved a breakeven fusion reaction, sort of, however that does not include the production of the reactor, so it still has some ways to go. Perhaps the first economically effective use for fusion would be on a spacecraft where it could form part of the propulsion system.

We all seem to be forgetting something about electrical energy; It produces heat and unless we can come up with room temperature superconductors then the Earth will have a big problem with thermal pollution. Big cities even create their own microclimate due to their heat output.

We need electrical energy but we better come up with a solution to the heat problem!

 

[selfinflikted]

True, but I don't think that's reason enough to cease nuclear power plants.

Nope, I don't think so either.

Sheer cost effectiveness. The Earth is massive, and it's far easier to plan long-term storage in deep vaults than to create expensive rockets. Rockets are also far more dangerous - all it takes is one failed ejection and the entire atmosphere is caked in deadly radiation.

That's true, and I've considered that. But, once you consider all that could go wrong with storage issues here on earth, I reckon the risks are comparable. But I suppose you're probably right.

 

[mzungu]

Nope, I don't think so either.




That's true, and I've considered that. But, once you consider all that could go wrong with storage issues here on earth, I reckon the risks are comparable. But I suppose you're probably right.

I remember the Soviets had a way of controlled nuclear detonation deep underground whereby after the hollow chamber created by the blast cooled and the molten walls were glass and impervious to leakage. They did this so as to create storage chambers for their nuclear waste. Pretty neat eh

 

[mzungu]

Must watch one of the best BBC documentaries: http://www.christianforums.com/t7551774/

 

[Seamus Riley]

you touched on the double slit experiment previously:

It behaves like a wave because, when it goes through two slits, it interferes with itself, creating the interference pattern. But it behaves like a particle when it can only go through one slit, because it can no longer interfere with itself.
In essence, the act of measuring the photon changes how it behaves, and restricting its behaviour makes it act more like a particle than a wave. It doesn't change from a particle to a wave, or vice versa, it just changes its behaviour such that we might identify it as one or the other.

My personal opinion is that it's all particles, and sometimes particles are so queer that they look like waves.

not being a physicist (why i'm here), i cannot do all the complicated math to really follow this experiment much deeper than how its presented by the "what the bleep" demonstration. initially, my skepticism had a lot to do with the comparison of electrons to marbles. "shut up and bow down to the cartoon professor," i was told. ok, so next time i'll watch it with different people. but my questions are is it fair to consider an integral part of matter (an electron) matter when it is isolated from its other parts? shouldn't we expect it to act differently when we've decomposed it from its natural state? are we able to know if a particle beam is a pure beam of these electrons or have we tampered with the experiment in this way? do physicists really believe the mere act of observing changes the results this drastically or is there a theory being developed about this? yes, i understand the mere act of observation will affect all experiments, but the implications of this particular experiment's changes under observation are pretty spooky, no?

thanks, i love your thread, btw.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

you touched on the double slit experiment previously:



not being a physicist (why i'm here), i cannot do all the complicated math to really follow this experiment much deeper than how its presented by the "what the bleep" demonstration. initially, my skepticism had a lot to do with the comparison of electrons to marbles. "shut up and bow down to the cartoon professor," i was told.

"What the bleep" is notoriously... bad Steer clear if you don't want a steaming load of New Age quantum mysticism.

ok, so next time i'll watch it with different people. but my questions are is it fair to consider an integral part of matter (an electron) matter when it is isolated from its other parts? shouldn't we expect it to act differently when we've decomposed it from its natural state?

Sure, but it's ultimately the same particle. Being bound to an atom doesn't imbue it with new properties. Being point particles, they don't have any internal structure that can be altered by being in or out of an atom. And if they're not point particles, they're internal structure is so small that it won't affect the physics anyway.

are we able to know if a particle beam is a pure beam of these electrons or have we tampered with the experiment in this way?

Because there are certain things a beam of electrons would do. We can fire it into a bubble chamber and see the chracteristic trail of electrons as they uniformly spiral in the same direction. We could fire it onto a metal plate and measure the potential difference. We can lots of things to test that the beam of electrons is, indeed, a beam of electrons.

do physicists really believe the mere act of observing changes the results this drastically or is there a theory being developed about this? yes, i understand the mere act of observation will affect all experiments, but the implications of this particular experiment's changes under observation are pretty spooky, no?

'Observation' is a tricky word, especially in quantum mechanics. It doesn't mean that a human mind has comprehended the data, it means that the system is being interfered with. Electrons, being quantum particles, can exist in a superposition of all the states they could possibly be in (i.e., if they could be at A or at B, they'll exist as an average of the two, (A+B)/SQRT(2) - it's a square root for crazy reasons).

But when you force the electrons to go through one right-hand slit (say), the quantum state that corresponds to them going through the left-hand slit is no longer a possibility. Thus, the electrons now only exist as a superposition of one state: the state wherein they go through the right-hand slit.

And since they're only going through a single slit, they can't interfere with themselves, so they act like regular particles. So the 'observer effect' corresponds to us forcing electrons to go through one slit or the other, restricting the electrons of their ability to be in a superposition of many states, and thus stripping them of any weird quantum self-interference.

thanks, i love your thread, btw.

Thank you! I do too

 

[TerranceL]

"What the bleep" is notoriously... bad Steer clear if you don't want a steaming load of New Age quantum mysticism.

I rented "What the bleep" the second I saw it at blockbuster, I was happy to rent what looked like a decent science documentary.

My pleasure soon turned into amusement at the way they try to turn quantum physics into a mystical thing.

Then I was a bit horrified wondering how many people were going to be watching this and believing it.