• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Ask a physicist anything.

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Wiccan_Child, Oct 18, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. pgp_protector

    pgp_protector Noted strange person

    +15,603
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Question

    1) If I'm correct Radio waves, Microwaves, Visible Light, X Rays, Gamma rays are all part of the EM Spectrum
    2) The only thing that is different is The Frequency Correct ?

    If So, And given that Light is carried by Photons, is the entire EM Spectrum carried by Photons ?
    If Not, where do Photons start & stop being carriers for the EM Spectrum?
     
  2. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    Nope, you're bang on, it's photons all the way. Because they move at a constant speed, they are defined by only one parameter. So, if you know its energy, you can work out its momentum, wavelength, frequency, etc. Typically, we talk about a photon's wavelength, rather than anything else.

    So, yeah, the EM spectrum is made up of photons of different wavelength. Visible red light is about 700nm, while radio waves are a metre to a whole mile long.

    Wikipedia has a fancy .svg image of the spectrum, along with objects that are about the size of one wavelength (e.g., humans are about a radiowave tall), and the temperature an object needs to be at to give off that wavelength of light (a very simplistic model, mind you).
     
  3. SimplyNothing

    SimplyNothing Guest

    +0
    See I knew this, but the reason I continued to wonder regardless is because even these particles that pop into and out of existence are comprised mostly of empty space.

    The empty space between an atom's nucleus and it's 'electron cloud' comprises more of the atom than the nucleus or electron itself (proportionally.)

    An atom is 99.999% empty space.

    That's so cool.
     
  4. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,017
    Christian
    About half the papers on Arxiv. Most of them rely on hypothetical properties of hypothetical SUSY particles.

    It's there, but what makes it "dark"? Our technology is simply primate. So what? We can't even count stars in a distant galaxy, we "estimate" them. Evidently galaxies are at least twice as bright as we first thought and contain four times as many stars as we once thought.

    Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference

    SpaceInfo News &#8212 There are more stars than previously thought

    We simply blew our mass estimation techniques and it's only "dark" to us because our technology is so limited. There's no evidence any of that missing mass is related to SUSY theory.

    Anything and everything is "possible". Empirical physics is about what is physically demonstrated to exist. What consumer product runs on DE, inflation, 'expanding space', or SUSY theory?

    Primitive in terms of distance, not "whom". While our technologies are "better than" they've been in the past, we can't even actually count individual stars in a distant galaxy, let alone see planets.

    You can't even cite a single lab experiment where 'dark energy' or inflation moved a single atom. If you can't cause a couple of atoms to expand, what makes you think it's going to make a whole universe go "bang"? You're theory is flawed IMO because it was never empirically verified and it is based up on three forms of metaphysics, most of which cannot ever be tested. Something like 72% of the universe is made of of "dark energy" according to Lambda-CDM theory but not one astronomer on Earth can tell us where it comes from.

    I don't actually dismiss the "data', just the interpretation of that data. It's certainly possible the universe is expanding and accelerating, but there is no possibility that "faerie energy" had anything to do with either of these observations. A label and two bit math formula is not an empirical substitute for a real test with real control mechanisms. If DE can't cause two atoms to expand in a lab, I have no confidence it's going to accelerate a whole universe of atoms.

    Hmm? There are no experiments with actual control mechanisms that demonstrate the existence of inflation, de or dm.

    OK.

    Ok.

    Ok.

    Every single mass estimation technique related to counting stars and such in a galaxy are littered with "assumptions" that hare since been shown to be false. Read the two articles I just cited.

    FYI, all I know about you is what you've listed for yourself here. There's conflict between your material. It's not my fault. :)

    Please define exactly what you are using as a standard for providing evidence of "dark energy", "inflation" and "dark matter" and I'll be happy to provide you with plenty of evidence of God.

    No evidence lead us to "dark energy" or "inflation". Inflation is something Guth created in his personal imagination. It fails the "Dark flow" test too.

    Not all. I recognize my "Christian faith" as an act of faith on my part. I don't try to teach it in school as "science". I don't stuff metaphysics down your child's throat in school. The only hypocrisy is claiming that an act of faith in dark energy and inflation and dark matter is a form of "science' and claiming there is no evidence of God.

    IMO, God is the universe. There is plenty of evidence that the universe exists. Whether or not you will accept the evidence of God is up to you of course, but there is certainly evidence of God's existence to be found in nature, starting with the effect God has on human beings past present and future.
     
  5. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    Actually, these virtual particles are (to our knowledge) point-like. They aren't comprised of anything, but then again, neither do they take up any volume.

    That's not entirely accurate. Quantum mechanically, an atoms constituent particles are all probability clouds that exist over all space. These clouds only have any real substance where we humans designate the 'atom' to be. That is, an electron could be (almost) anywhere in an atom, but it's vanishingly improbable that it's outside.

    So to say it's mostly empty space presupposes that there is a clear idea of what 'empty space' means in these peculiar circumstances.

    Then again, there is an obvious nucleus, and electrons are in shells (of sorts). So maybe...
     
  6. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,421
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    You have a two-slice toaster that toasts one side of bread at a time.

    Duration: 30 seconds.

    What's the shortest amount of time one would need to toast three slices of bread on both sides?

    And how is it done?
     
  7. SimplyNothing

    SimplyNothing Guest

    +0
    I'm familiar with this. This line of thinking leads to the phenomena of tunneling (proven true by the sun actually. :D )
     
  8. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    What's a two-slice toaster? :scratch:

    It makes the Sun about 100 times hotter, so it's pretty damn useful ^_^.
     
  9. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,421
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    [​IMG]
     
  10. LifeToTheFullest!

    LifeToTheFullest! Well-Known Member

    +139
    Agnostic
    120 seconds

    2 sides x 30s = 30s
    2 sides x 30s = 30s
    1 side x 60 s = 60s

    Total = 120s
     
  11. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,421
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    2 sides + 2 sides + 1 side = 5 sides.

    You have 6 sides to toast.
     
  12. LifeToTheFullest!

    LifeToTheFullest! Well-Known Member

    +139
    Agnostic
    Yes, I should have typed "slice" instead of "side" for the last 60s. ^_^
     
  13. 3sigma

    3sigma Well-Known Member

    +66
    Atheist
    90 seconds.

    Step 1: Toast one side of two slices – two sides done – 30 seconds.
    Step 2: Turn one slice over and replace the other with the third slice – four sides done – 60 seconds.
    Step 3: Turn the third slice over and replace the first slice with the second slice, untoasted side exposed to the element – six sides done – 90 seconds.
     
  14. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,421
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    :thumbsup:
     
  15. LifeToTheFullest!

    LifeToTheFullest! Well-Known Member

    +139
    Agnostic
    Nicely done. :thumbsup:
     
  16. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    Nonetheless, there is hardly a consensus that dark matter is exotic.

    No one knows.

    Science advances, as always. The same astronomers you decry are the ones providing new evidence. Like I said, if this new evidence invalidates the dark matter hypothesis, then so be it.

    So you keep saying, but it is presumptuous to preclude any use our modern techniques can bring us. We simply do not know what future humans will discover. They could discover that dark matter doesn't exist, or they could discover that it absolutely does exist.

    SUSY is a theory, it attempts to explain the evidence.

    Since when is that a hallmark of truth?

    Without an objective standard your assessment is purely subjective and, thus, irrelevant.

    Correct. Your point?

    The evidence.

    I accept that, in your opinion, it is unsupported by the evidence, but I disagree with that assessment.

    Nor does the theory of evolution tell us where the universal common ancestor came from. It infers its existence from the evidence, but it's another theory entirely that explains its origin.

     
  17. catzrfluffy

    catzrfluffy i come bearing .gifs

    +522
    Christian
    Private
    When the frequency of the spectrum of light changes, does it ever get so stretched out one end so that it becomes a flat line, or so squashed together the other end that it bacomes a solid block? If so, what would happen?
    [​IMG]
     
  18. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    No, it can't become absolutely flat, since that requires it to be stretched by an infinite amount. It's mathematically odd, and physically impossible. If it could happen, I guess you'd have either photons with no energy, or photons with an infinite amount of energy. Spooky.
     
  19. Cabal

    Cabal Well-Known Member

    +452
    Atheist
    Engaged
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    Well, frequency is directly related to energy. For it to go to increasingly higher frequencies would require an increasingly higher energy source.

    Conversely, for the lower frequency photons you'd be hard pressed to have them be able to interact with anything to a degree that you could really tell what they're doing.
     
  20. catzrfluffy

    catzrfluffy i come bearing .gifs

    +522
    Christian
    Private
    What is beyond gamma rays?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...