Ask a physicist anything. (8)

[Maxwell511]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Ask a physicist anything. (7)"

 

[NGC 6712]

If this is true, why is not space in our own world (and our own bodies) expanding?

This is actually a very interesting question that hasn't really been looked at much.

The standard answer has been that universal scales are analysed using the FRW solution to the Einstein field equations of GR - and this necessitates it only applies on the very largest of scales.

Now the solar system - or I should say the solution for a single spherical star (forgetting about rotation/electric charge) is the Schwarzchild solution.

But in reality the universe is a patchwork of these things all added together for which there is no mathematical solution either in practice or even theory.

Now I know some people have investigated modifications to the regime applicable to Solar system scales and get numbers like the radius of the Earth's orbit would have changed by one part in 10^24 over the Earth's lifetime. This effect is dwarfed by other effects let alone being impossible to measure anyway.

For atoms the situation is even more miniscule. Just like we don't take account of gravity when doing calculations in atomic physics the effects of a universal expansion on an atom are utterly utterly negligible and immeasurable.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Over seven thousand posts.

Question: which is more realistic, or more worthy of the moniker 'hard science' - Star Wars or Star Trek?

 

[sandwiches]

Over seven thousand posts.

Question: which is more realistic, or more worthy of the moniker 'hard science' - Star Wars or Star Trek?

Star Trek. Duh! ;P

 

[razeontherock]

OK, I had a post get looked over. That always happens when I finally manage to spit out my thoughts

I had re-raised the issue of spatial expansion, and that gravity limits it:

"So of course it makes sense that as everything was moving away from everything else due to the sheer force of the big bang, that there would come a time when the distances are so great that gravity could be overcome. Is that distance currently defined as inter-galactic? (Meaning that expansion doesn't occur in galaxies?)

Is the expansion of space itself considered a natural phenomenon, as in the energy to cause it is constant?"

 

[David Jerome]

What are the practical applications of quantum physics? How can this be used?

 

[razeontherock]

Apparently the word "quantum" can be inserted into practically any sentence, and occaisionally be really humorous.

 

[DennisTate]

What are the practical applications of quantum physics? How can this be used?

In his book Transformed By The Light Dr. Melvin Morse referred to a study conducted on people who had attempted suicide in the past.

One group was simply given NDE accounts to read.

Zero people from this group attempted suicide again during the course of this study so I believe that if theoretical physics was used to make some sense out the near death experience accounts those modern eye witness testimonies could play a powerful role in decreasing depression and suicide among our young people!

 

[DennisTate]

OK, I had a post get looked over. That always happens when I finally manage to spit out my thoughts

I had re-raised the issue of spatial expansion, and that gravity limits it:

"So of course it makes sense that as everything was moving away from everything else due to the sheer force of the big bang, that there would come a time when the distances are so great that gravity could be overcome. Is that distance currently defined as inter-galactic? (Meaning that expansion doesn't occur in galaxies?)

Is the expansion of space itself considered a natural phenomenon, as in the energy to cause it is constant?"

I read a near death experience account recently where the author stated that he got the impression that the Holy Spirit of Christian thought or the Shekina Glory of Jewish teachings could be identified with God the Mother?!?!

This would make a lot of sense and I suppose would have application to expand evolutionary thought backward much previous to the most recent Big Bang event that occurred merely 13.72 or so years ago?!


Wave Theory and Gender: Why Sex

"Pulling and gravitation, which resemble basic feminine traits, are the dominant properties of the magnetic loop. Consequently, magnetic loops have a capacity for storing energy and act to maintain the structural integrity of the entire wave formation. The electronic/energetic loop consists of expanding properties that disperse energetic matter that “disappears” into space. This is synonymous with masculine characteristics." (Dr. Chaim Tejman)

I don't suppose there would be anybody here willing to get started on a project to prepare a textbook on variations of Theistic Evolutionary Theory that might even be used in schools within a decade or less?


Dogmatic Atheists Lack Mathematical Aptitude.

 

[Doveaman]

This thread just wouldn't die.

 

[Doveaman]

Question: which is more realistic, or more worthy of the moniker 'hard science' - Star Wars or Star Trek?

Star Wars.

It represents the wars between scientists about whose star formation theory is correct and whose isn't.

 

[Nabobalis]

This thread just wouldn't die.

Why would you want this thread to die?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

OK, I had a post get looked over. That always happens when I finally manage to spit out my thoughts

I had re-raised the issue of spatial expansion, and that gravity limits it:

"So of course it makes sense that as everything was moving away from everything else due to the sheer force of the big bang, that there would come a time when the distances are so great that gravity could be overcome. Is that distance currently defined as inter-galactic? (Meaning that expansion doesn't occur in galaxies?)

Is the expansion of space itself considered a natural phenomenon, as in the energy to cause it is constant?"

We don't know, it's a weird issue. There's some evidence the expansion is accelerating, but there's insufficient evidence to tell one way or the other, let alone what it means for the ultimate fate of the universe.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What are the practical applications of quantum physics? How can this be used?

Quantum Levitation - YouTube

Hovercars: now made of ice!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This thread just wouldn't die.

If you want a thread to die, then don't post in it. Simple.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Over seven thousand posts.

Question: which is more realistic, or more worthy of the moniker 'hard science' - Star Wars or Star Trek?

Easily Star Trek!

Star Wars is hopelessly unrealistic and doesn't even try, really, to be based on reality. Examples:
-Luke randomly crash-lands on Dagobah and finds Yoda by accident
-Hyperspace is called "lightspeed" but they zip from planet to planet in day trips
-Planets have a universal climate; Tatooine is a desert planet, Hoth is a snow planet, etc
-Most aliens are humanoid (a pitfall of Trek too, though)
-Humans? In a galaxy far, far away?

 

[Elendur]

I have a question that's quite important to me.

What are the definitions for objective evidence and subjective evidence?

(I've just recently found out about the distinction and haven't found proper definitions yet)

Thanks in advance

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I have a question that's quite important to me.

What are the definitions for objective evidence and subjective evidence?

(I've just recently found out about the distinction and haven't found proper definitions yet)

Thanks in advance

As far as I understand it, objective evidence is something you have (such as a fossil) that can convince others, while subjective evidence is something you have (such as a religious experience) that can't convince others.

 

[Elendur]

As far as I understand it, objective evidence is something you have (such as a fossil) that can convince others, while subjective evidence is something you have (such as a religious experience) that can't convince others.

That's kind of those informal definitions I've come across as well, but I've seen some include that subjective evidence can be forged as well.

It's hard to search the web for this, haven't really found a great source yet.

 

[Naraoia]

This thread just wouldn't die.

I believe the correct emoticon is .

As far as I understand it, objective evidence is something you have (such as a fossil) that can convince others, while subjective evidence is something you have (such as a religious experience) that can't convince others.

It's not so much about convincing others (heck, some people are way too easy/hard to convince...) but being able to independently verify an observation. The availability of objective evidence doesn't depend on the observer being you.