Ask a physicist anything. (2)

[Wiccan_Child]

Define matter. While I would give you electrons and quarks as being matter. I would not give you a photon as being a fundamental quantum of matter.

What is the difference between electrons and quarks, and photons?

A mathematical construct.

Denoting?

 

[Maxwell511]

What is the difference between electrons and quarks, and photons?

Is that a serious question? If it is I would not know where to begin.

I would think since electrons "absorb" photons to go to higher energy states and photons don't "absorb" electrons to change their frequency that there is a big difference.

I think your question is ill-defined, Reframe it.

Denoting?

Our interpretation of reality of course.

 

[RealityCheck]

The difference between energy and matter? Matter occupies a certain amount of finite space. As such, it is subject to the laws of special and general relativity, as it is bound to the properties of space/time. Energy... is not.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is that a serious question? If it is I would not know where to begin.

I would think since electrons "absorb" photons to go to higher energy states and photons don't "absorb" electrons to change their frequency that there is a big difference.

I think your question is ill-defined, Reframe it.

I don't see how. Assuming we agree on what the words 'electron', 'quark', and 'photon' refer to, I don't see how my question can be any more well-defined: what is the difference between electrons and quarks, and photons? That electrons can absorb photons doesn't mean one is matter and one isn't; it's simply a physical reaction where one particle is annihilated. An electron and an anti-electron annihilate, creating photons: by your logic, leptons therefore aren't matter, while photons are matter.

Our interpretation of reality of course.

Which is?

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

A speed trap is set up with 2 pressure activated strips placed 110 m apart. A car is speeding along at 33 m/sec, while the speed limit is 21 m/sec. At the instant the car activates the first strip, the driver begins slowing down. What minimum acceleration is needed in order that the avg speed is within the limit by the time the car crosses the 2nd marker?

I was arguing with someone whether they meant by "average speed within the limit" by that the speed actually be 21m/s or that it be literally an average. That being if at 33m/s they are 12m/s over the speed limit, then to average they should be 12m/s under the speed limit.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

A speed trap is set up with 2 pressure activated strips placed 110 m apart. A car is speeding along at 33 m/sec, while the speed limit is 21 m/sec. At the instant the car activates the first strip, the driver begins slowing down. What minimum acceleration is needed in order that the avg speed is within the limit by the time the car crosses the 2nd marker?

I was arguing with someone whether they meant by "average speed within the limit" by that the speed actually be 21m/s or that it be literally an average. That being if at 33m/s they are 12m/s over the speed limit, then to average they should be 12m/s under the speed limit.

The trap would work by measuring how long it took to go from one sensor to the other, and would thence calculate your average speed. If this calculated speed is higher than the limit, it charges you (since you were over the limit for at least some of the journey). If this speed is under the limit, it doesn't (since, though you may have been over the limit for some of the journey, there is no guarantee).

I won't go through the calculations just now, because it's beddy-bye time over here, but your deceleration needs to be ~4.5818 m s[sup]-2[/sup] (or exactly 4 32/55). With this deceleration, you will traverse the 100 m in ~5.238 s, and the trap will record your velocity as 21 m s[sup]-1[/sup], and you will be at the speed limit.

So it doesn't really matter what your final speed is, so long as you took less than 5.238 seconds to traverse the 110 metres. For what it's worth, your final velocity, if you wanted the sensor to record as being exactly on the speed limit, would be exactly 9 m s[sup]-1[/sup].
And that is indeed 12 m s[sup]1[/sup] under the speed limit

 

[AV1611VET]

The trap would work by measuring how long it took to go from one sensor to the other, and would thence calculate your average speed. If this calculated speed is higher than the limit, it charges you (since you were over the limit for at least some of the journey). If this speed is under the limit, it doesn't (since, though you may have been over the limit for some of the journey, there is no guarantee).

I won't go through the calculations just now, because it's beddy-bye time over here, but your deceleration needs to be ~4.5818 m [sup]-2[/sup] (or exactly 4 32/55). With this deceleration, you will traverse the 100 m in ~5.238 s, and the trap will record your velocity as 21 m s[sup]-1[/sup], and you will be at the speed limit.

So it doesn't really matter what your final speed is, so long as you took less than 5.238 seconds to traverse the 100 metres. For what it's worth, your final velocity (if you wanted the sensor to record as being exactly on the speed limit) would be exactly 9 m s[sup]-1[/sup].

Did you do all that in your head?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Did you do all that in your head?

I won't lie... yes, yes I did

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

That's what I thought, and he later digressed I was right, that 9m/s should be the final velocity and then calculated the acceleration to fit it.

 

[sk8Joyful]

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Did you do all that in your head?
​

I won't lie... yes, yes I did

ok,
well seeing as heads are limited, how about some real challenges:

1. for what beneficial uses (name as many as you like), did you choose your most recent multiverse TWFG 'time-warp' experience?
&
2. For instance, what impressed you most? about how God lived His mortal sojourn amongst us
&
3. Aware... the world is experienced, as a person only believes, & not as it really... is
for instance (unlike Greek-influence got some believing), glass is a solid, not really. What experience have you changed from your own past?
&
4. How have you transformed your own energy, in such a way as to create the life you might want to really live.

Answering more than one related question, should be quite easy for you, the physicist, eh?
.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

ok,
well seeing as heads are limited, how about some real challenges:

1. for what beneficial uses (name as many as you like), did you choose your most recent multiverse TWFG 'time-warp' experience?

To see when the Sun would go nova, so we know when to leave Earth by! Arguably, that's the most important goal for the long-term survival of the human species.

2. For instance, what impressed you most? about how God lived His mortal sojourn amongst us

Hmm, nothing comes to mind. I'm more impressed with stories of Noah and Moses; enduring the extinction of your species, parting the Red Sea, they make for very good movies.

3. Aware... the world is experienced, as a person only believes, & not as it really... is
for instance (unlike Greek-influence got some believing), glass is a solid, not really. What experience have you changed from your own past?

Many things. My beliefs on causality, morality, the nature and behaviour of the smallest fundaments of matter and the largest constructs of space, our purpose on this Earth, etc, have all changed.

4. How have you transformed your own energy, in such a way as to create the life you might want to really live.

I'm already living the life I want to live, and there wasn't really a time when I wasn't.

 

[Cabal]

&
3. Aware... the world is experienced, as a person only believes, & not as it really... is
for instance (unlike Greek-influence got some believing), glass is a solid, not really.

Now there's a callback. Think one of the first topics on this thread was about whether glass was a solid or a liquid or not.

Btw, it's a (amorphous) solid, and this is not really a matter of belief

Glass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AV1611VET]

Think one of the first topics on this thread was about whether glass was a solid or a liquid or not.

4

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Now there's a callback. Think one of the first topics on this thread was about whether glass was a solid or a liquid or not.

Btw, it's a (amorphous) solid, and this is not really a matter of belief

Glass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, it is, because you either believe it or you don't . Though "I can't believe it's not butter!" still isn't butter...

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

Now there's a callback. Think one of the first topics on this thread was about whether glass was a solid or a liquid or not.

Btw, it's a (amorphous) solid, and this is not really a matter of belief

Glass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia lies. It is in fact a supercooled liquid. Glass has flow to it. The stain glass windows in the old orthodox churches in Europe are much thicker at the bottom, and thinner at top. Over time with gravity the glass does flow down.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Wikipedia lies. It is in fact a supercooled liquid. Glass has flow to it.

Actually, it is a solid . It displays all the properties of a solid, and none of a liquid.

The stain glass windows in the old orthodox churches in Europe are much thicker at the bottom, and thinner at top. Over time with gravity the glass does flow down.

That's an urban legend: while old windows can be seen with a thicker bottom, that's simply an aesthetic style. As Wikipedia succinctly explains:


"The observation that old windows are often thicker at the bottom than at the top is often offered as supporting evidence for the view that glass flows over a matter of centuries. It is then assumed that the glass was once uniform, but has flowed to its new shape, which is a property of liquid. In actuality, the reason for this is that when panes of glass were commonly made by glassblowers, the technique used was to spin molten glass so as to create a round, mostly flat and even plate (the crown glass process, described above). This plate was then cut to fit a window. The pieces were not, however, absolutely flat; the edges of the disk became thicker as the glass spun. When actually installed in a window frame, the glass would be placed thicker side down both for the sake of stability and to prevent water accumulating in the lead cames at the bottom of the window. Occasionally such glass has been found thinner side down or thicker on either side of the window's edge, as would be caused by carelessness at the time of installation."


In other words, old glass appears thicker on the bottom because that's simply how they made glass in those days. It doesn't result from the glass flowing over the centuries. A rather elegant disproof of this is the fact that even older glass (e.g., ancient Egyptian and Greek) doesn't show the distinct 'thicker on the bottom' appearance of medieval glass.

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

Actually, it is a solid . It displays all the properties of a solid, and none of a liquid.


That's an urban legend: while old windows can be seen with a thicker bottom, that's simply an aesthetic style. As Wikipedia succinctly explains:


"The observation that old windows are often thicker at the bottom than at the top is often offered as supporting evidence for the view that glass flows over a matter of centuries. It is then assumed that the glass was once uniform, but has flowed to its new shape, which is a property of liquid. In actuality, the reason for this is that when panes of glass were commonly made by glassblowers, the technique used was to spin molten glass so as to create a round, mostly flat and even plate (the crown glass process, described above). This plate was then cut to fit a window. The pieces were not, however, absolutely flat; the edges of the disk became thicker as the glass spun. When actually installed in a window frame, the glass would be placed thicker side down both for the sake of stability and to prevent water accumulating in the lead cames at the bottom of the window. Occasionally such glass has been found thinner side down or thicker on either side of the window's edge, as would be caused by carelessness at the time of installation."


In other words, old glass appears thicker on the bottom because that's simply how they made glass in those days. It doesn't result from the glass flowing over the centuries. A rather elegant disproof of this is the fact that even older glass (e.g., ancient Egyptian and Greek) doesn't show the distinct 'thicker on the bottom' appearance of medieval glass.

It is indeed a super-cooled liquid, because that is also how it is made. SiO2 is liquified and then rapidly cooled before the molecules can order themselves. It displays the order arranged when glass cracks.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It is indeed a super-cooled liquid, because that is also how it is made. SiO2 is liquified and then rapidly cooled before the molecules can order themselves.

While there's no long-term order, there's no restructuring either. Thus it's a solid, but an amorphous one. Though it's a supercooled liquid at one point in its life, true glass isn't. It isn't a liquid any more than a quartz crystal is. Indeed the only difference between the two is that glass doesn't have a regular lattice structure, and that has no bearing on whether it's a liquid or not.

 

[sk8Joyful]

Actually, it is a solid . It displays all the properties of a solid, and none of a liquid.

A rather elegant disproof of this is the fact that even older glass (e.g., ancient Egyptian and Greek) doesn't show the distinct 'thicker on the bottom' appearance of medieval glass.

The 'Newtonian imagination' has long populated the universe mostly with that nice solid stuff called matter (solids, liquids, & gases), which was made of little hard balls called atoms, as chunks of matter which happened to interact via (forces, or fields of them, such as gravitation, or electricity).

This may burst your belief-bubbles, but glass -like supposed 'liquids' or 'solids'- is foundationally nothing more than "force-fields" , or to be more technically accurate, multiverses exist as ripples in universal fields of force, that carry energy like about 24 different kinds. These force fields provide the structure of space in which matter and other particles such as photons travel in relation to. All matter is made up of magnetic resonant field patterns, of varying strength and frequencies. All electromagnetic fields are force fields, carrying energy and capable of producing an action at a distance. And yes, that describes all matter. -
too
(This explains, how some more-aware Eastern people, are able to move their hand thru glass to retrieve a flower from the (perceived 'other') side, without the pane in pieces, or their hand & flower harmed.

And why I asked you the questions, as I did. - Given this new understanding, you may want to review...

Good day!
----------------
Edited to add:
For anyone, whose 'mind-reality' does not allow for such, do NOT try that; as what you expect will happen, does.
That's the nature of the mind.

 

[RealityCheck]

The 'Newtonian imagination' has long populated the universe mostly with that nice solid stuff called matter (solids, liquids, & gases), which was made of little hard balls called atoms, as chunks of matter which happened to interact via (forces, or fields of them, such as gravitation, or electricity).

This may burst your belief-bubbles, but glass -like supposed 'liquids' or 'solids'- is foundationally nothing more than "force-fields" , or to be more technically accurate, multiverses exist as ripples in universal fields of force, that carry energy like about 24 different kinds. These force fields provide the structure of space in which matter and other particles such as photons travel in relation to. All matter is made up of magnetic resonant field patterns, of varying strength and frequencies. All electromagnetic fields are force fields, carrying energy and capable of producing an action at a distance. And yes, that describes all matter. -
too
(This explains, how more-aware people like some in the East, are able to move their hand thru glass to retrieve a flower from the (perceived 'other') side, without it being harmed, & without harming the person, and without the glass 'shattering'.)

And why I asked you the questions, as I did. - Given this new understanding, you may want to review...

Good day!

Entire quote - citations seriously needed.