Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

WTF Chemistry/Physics - LIGHT

rated by 0 users
This post has 42 Replies | 4 Followers

Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem Posted: Sun, Dec 30 2012 11:08 AM

What is the boiling/freezing point of light?

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sun, Dec 30 2012 11:14 AM
Do photons even have states of matter? I dont think so.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40358307/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/new-kind-light-created-physics-breakthrough/

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Sun, Dec 30 2012 11:48 AM

So many theories, physics is definitely expanind my mind right now. College for my BS will be fun.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sun, Dec 30 2012 12:01 PM
Figure out how to measure the temperature state of a photon. Then you can tell what the boiling point is
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 228
Points 3,640
Blargg replied on Sun, Dec 30 2012 2:14 PM

Aren't photons always moving at c? Thus, if you could even say that they had a temperature, it would never change.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 452
Points 7,620

Boiling and freezing points don't make sense in the context of light. Photons are massless.

http://thephoenixsaga.com/
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sun, Dec 30 2012 4:10 PM
Then you two can explain how they made a bose-einstein condensate from light if it doesnt freeze
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Sun, Dec 30 2012 4:41 PM

The mystery of particle-wave duality is the root here. That's still a very weird aticle.

Basically matter is light that confines itself to a single unit of space. Light corkscrews as it travels, fluxtuating along a linear path. You can say that matter is light that has had its frequency increase so tight that it's actually bent back on itself and turned from a corkscrewing pattern into an in-place fluctuation pattern.

Personally I think there's some cosmic maximum unit of energy that can exist in a finite amount of space, and if this limit is reached the energy grabs on to a piece of space and becomes matter. That's the only explanation for why light bounces off other light when they are turned into matter, because spacetime won't allow any more energy in that unit of space.

Well, it's not the only possible explanation, but it's the one I like right now. It could also be possible that something about the interaction between space and energy that results in matter could be resisting the approach of other matter.

I like the phrase that matter is energy that takes up space, it's rather literal.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sun, Dec 30 2012 5:22 PM
So electrons are quanta that barely have their foot through the door on the side of having mass, so they tend to rest, or orbit if you will, and the photons are all the way through the door, so they move at top speed wherever they are and vibrate besides.

I like watching pictures of gold atoms through electron microvideo on youtube

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,551
Points 46,635
AJ replied on Sun, Dec 30 2012 6:57 PM
Light isn't what something IS; it's what something DOES. "It" cannot boil or freeze.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 452
Points 7,620

My point simply is that it's not an exact analog to "boiling" and "freezing" at the macroscopic level. The matter is simply at a minimal quantum level of energy.

http://thephoenixsaga.com/
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Sun, Dec 30 2012 9:27 PM

Malachi:
So electrons are quanta that barely have their foot through the door on the side of having mass, so they tend to rest, or orbit if you will, and the photons are all the way through the door, so they move at top speed wherever they are and vibrate besides.

Nah, electrons and the rest are still made up of quarks. Those are the real elementary particles. I'm no expert, naturally, but look into quarks.

One thing you have to realize is that all matter is already moving at light-speed. Because matter is made up of light, and all light must be moving at the speed of light at all times. The difference with matter is that light is moving at the speed of light--or I like to say fluctuating--within a confined space.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 836
Points 15,370
abskebabs replied on Sun, Dec 30 2012 9:59 PM

Nah, electrons and the rest are still made up of quarks.

Incorrect. As far as is currently known electrons are fundamental particles and have not been found to have a structure, and certainly not the strong interaction at the nuceli level among quarks.

 

Can you qalify your assertion that mass IS vibrating light? There are certainly interesting mass-energy equivalences that have been revealed and play a vital role in modern physics and the speed of light as a constant plays an important role in these identities but it's not clear to me how you can assert from that mass is "vibrating light" necessarily.

"When the King is far the people are happy."  Chinese proverb

For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:

"Where there are problems there is life."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Dec 31 2012 3:43 AM
 
 

abskebabs:

Nah, electrons and the rest are still made up of quarks.

Incorrect. As far as is currently known electrons are fundamental particles and have not been found to have a structure, and certainly not the strong interaction at the nuceli level among quarks.

Right, right, no quarks in eletrons. But in neutrons and protons, yes.

abskebabs:
Can you qalify your assertion that mass IS vibrating light? There are certainly interesting mass-energy equivalences that have been revealed and play a vital role in modern physics and the speed of light as a constant plays an important role in these identities but it's not clear to me how you can assert from that mass is "vibrating light" necessarily.

I've had this idea for a long time. We know matter is made of energy, energy must always be moving at the speed of light, clearly it's doing this in place as matter. All quite basic so far.

Since light is moving at the speed of light, the question is, what happens to that light when you add a motion vector. If I begin moving at 5 mph in a direction, the light i'm composed of cannot gain 5 mph of speed, it must remain at the SoL.

So inertia is light grinding against the speed of light whenever your speed changes. When you gain speed, light must change its frequency ever so slightly to incorporate the new (relativistic) energy it's picked up, and when you slow down it must again grind to lose energy, moving to a lower frequency.

As for mass, I simply take the nature of light as unchanging even in the form of matter. Light becomes matter by being so energetic within a unit of space that it warps space and wraps around a piece of space in a stable configuration. What that config is I would have no idea. Ostensibly there's a enough to form all the quarks and the electron (tho many of these aren't stable at all).

Clearly, being light, it must still move at the speed of light, and the existing frequency of light still continuation to fluctuate, it just now fluctuates in place, perhaps fluctuating around a rotating center. Somehow spacetime is caught up in this stable unit like a knot in space.

This explains also how it's possible for antimatter to instantly 'undo' analogous matter, for the antimatter is like a key to matter's lock. It's is an inverse arrangement of spacetime, which when brought together with regular matter restores normal space--it unravels the spacetime knot--and causes instant release of the energy that had been captured in place.

If I'm right that matter is a piece of energy warping space creating some stable configuation, then it is this warping of space that creates mass, the illusion of solidness, and does so by virtue of there being some critical energy density at which spacetime will warp sufficiently to create matter. I have no idea what this amount of energy should be, unless it's equivalent to the amount of energy released / 2 when matter and antimatter come together by unit. But that still wouldn't tell you what energy density you'd need. Still, we create matter from energy in the lab all the time via colliders, so it's not all that mysterious I suppose.

Something about the way highly concentrated light warps spacetime to create matter pinches spacetime in such a way that it refuses to allow more energy into its diameter. The same effect that causes high-density energy to form into matter is the same one that creates the feeling of solidness, what I'd call a maximum-energy density in space-time. It may also be that this pinching is responsible for producing gravity.

So there's my own uninformed, probably wrong theory of how it all works ;) Enjoy. If there was something right and true in there, being all mainly speculation by a novice who is only interested in such things, I'd be amazed. Caveat emptor :P

But it makes sense to me.

Which is quite a dangerous rubric when talking about the deeper issues of physics >_>

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 836
Points 15,370
abskebabs replied on Mon, Dec 31 2012 10:58 AM

Ok I think I see where you're coming from. There are still some statements that are problematic that I think mgiht be worth taking note of. For instance:

energy must always be moving at the speed of light

If this means what I think it means, then it lies as a corollary o the very statement you've made whose veracity actually needs to be established; that energy is light. Nevertheless it does seem an interesting hypothesis. I will also note it's been quite a while since I've been doing any serious physics, so I don't think I would any longer vouch my own "expertise" too much.

 

Your remark about photon creation from positron electron annhilation got me thinking if the same might apply to neutrino anti neutrino annhilations, and lo behold Wikipedia leads me here to a non-mainstream theory oddly putting forward exactly the opposite hypothesis!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_theory_of_light

I also gently wanted to add the following statement did make me giggle a little inside :P :

The same effect that causes high-density energy to form into matter is the same one that creates the feeling of solidness

The feeling of "solidness" in fact has nothing to do with mass or gravity but electrostatic forces and resistances between electrons at the atomic level. So if I punch you in the face no matter how hard I try I'll never touch your neutrons! :D

If however you were talking about the energy created from these electrostatic collisions emitted in the form of photons of varying frequencies, well perhaps I've pwned myself...

P.S. As I'm sure everyone has realised, none of us are speaking the right language or using the right procedure to discuss these questions with even a remote degree of seriousness or competency. Perhaps we might stop embarassing ourselves...

"When the King is far the people are happy."  Chinese proverb

For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:

"Where there are problems there is life."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Dec 31 2012 2:39 PM

Haha, yes, sure :)

Interesting points :)

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 452
Points 7,620

Energy does not have to move at the speed of light. That doesn't really make sense. Energy is the ability to do work. It is not a "thing." Don't forget about gravitational, chemical, etc. potential energies.

http://thephoenixsaga.com/
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Dec 31 2012 6:52 PM

Light, as a fluctuation of spacetime, does have to move at the speed of light. And matter is made of light.

Other kinds of energy like gravity-potential, chemical, are different matters to be sure.

Gravity, too, moves at the speed of light, being a property of space-time. At least that's what we believe right now, kinda hard to measure that.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Mon, Dec 31 2012 7:09 PM
Theres evidence that wold suggest that gravity moves much faster than light, see Paul LaViolette.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Dec 31 2012 8:33 PM

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gravity/overview.php

They compared the position of J0842+1835 on September 8, 2002, with its average position on the off-Jupiter days. Plugging this into Kopeikin's formula for the gravitational field of the moving Jupiter gave them the answer they were looking for. Kopeikin and Fomalont became the first two people to quantitatively measure the speed of gravity, one of the fundamental constants of nature. They found that gravity does move at the same speed as light. Their actual figure was 1.06 times the speed of light, but there was an error of plus or minus 0.21. The results were then announced at the 2002 American Astronomical Society annual meeting in Seattle, Washington.

The speed of light is the max speed for all physical interaction.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Mon, Dec 31 2012 9:05 PM
Gravity wave and Coulomb wave speed and gravity wave force (2003): At the time of this prediction, most physicists and astronomers believed that gravity waves and Coulomb waves should always travel at the speed of light.  They also concurred that the force exerted by such waves should scale in proportion to the field gradient.

             Prediction No. 11 (2003): Subquantum kinetics predicts that an electron shock discharge should produce coinciding electric and gravity potential waves that travel faster than the speed of light and that the speed of these superluminal waves at any given point in time should depend on the electric potential gradient of the discharge (LaViolette, Subquantum Kinetics, p. 130).  This is predicted to be due to the movement of the ether wind created by the shocks, the velocity of the pulses being increased by the additional forward velocity of the ether wind reference frame relative to which they propagate. Furthermore subquantum kinetics also predicts that the gravitational force exerted by such shock waves should increase as the pulse's electric potential gradient increases.             

Verification (2005 - 2006): LaViolette worked with research scientist Guy Obolensky to test this prediction with respect to the speed of electric potential waves.  Earlier Obolensky had reported that he had measured the speed of electric shock fronts (Coulomb waves) propagating away from a Dome antenna and found that they traveled at a superluminal speed.  Based on prediction 12, LaViolette theorized that since the shock front expanded radially outward from its emitting dome antenna, its electric field gradient should decrease inversely with increasing distance from the dome and that the superluminal speed of these shocks should correspondingly decrease inversely with distance from the dome.  This prediction was confirmed.  They made measurements of the time of flight of the shock pulse to six locations of progressively greater distance from the dome and found that the excess velocity of the shock (v - c) declined inversely with distance just as had been predicted.  This experiment is summarized in chapter 6 of the book Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion by Paul LaViolette.  It should be mentioned that Tesla also reported that the speed of his pulses began at a near infinite speed at the dome of his antenna and progressively declined toward c as they traveled further away.

Verification (2008): The prediction with respect to the force exerted by the gravity potential component of such waves was verified qualitatively.  Paul LaViolette contacted Dr. Eugene Podkletnov and inquired about the performance of his gravity impulse beam generator.  Previously Drs. Podkletnov and Modanese had reported in a published paper that the impulse beam was able to deflect a test mass up to 14 centimeters when 2 million volts were discharged through the generator's superconducting cathode disc (Podkletnov and Modanese, 2002). Podkletnov had subsequently told LaViolette that the beam was able to punch 4 inch holes through concrete blocks when 10 million volt pulses were discharged through the disk. In January 2008, LaViolette asked Podkletnov if his team used a different electric pulse generator to produce the gravity pulses that punched holes through concrete blocks as compared with the ones that produced the 14 centimeter pendulum deflections and whether the former used a different Marx capacitor bank that was able to create a pulse with a steeper gradient.  Dr. Podkletnov concurred that was indeed the case, the concrete smashing pulses were created with an electric discharge that had a much more rapid voltage rise-time.

Verification (2008): The prediction with respect to the superluminal speed of gravity potential component of such waves was verified qualitatively.  Previously, Dr. Podkletnov had told LaViolette that he and Dr. Modanese had measured the speed of the pulses to be between 63 and 64 times the speed of light.  In January of 2008, LaViolette asked Podkletnov whether the concrete smashing pulses produced by the steeper electric field gradients traveled much faster than the pendulum deflecting pulses. Podkletnov concurred and said that they had determined that these stronger pulses traveled at least several thousand times the speed of light.

http://www.etheric.com/LaViolette/Predict2.html

I try not to be dogmatic about empirical propositions.

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Tue, Jan 1 2013 12:46 AM
 
 

 

 

My problem is that LaViolette is connected to some fringe junk :\

In Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, physicist Paul LaViolette reveals the secret history of antigravity experimentation--from Nikola Tesla and T. Townsend Brown to the B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber. He discloses the existence of advanced gravity-control technologies, under secret military development for decades, that could revolutionize air travel and energy production. Included among the secret projects he reveals is the research of Project Skyvault to develop an aerospace propulsion system using intense beams of microwave energy similar to that used by the strange crafts seen flying over Area 51.
  Using subquantum kinetics--the science behind antigravity technology--LaViolette reviews numerous field-propulsion devices and technologies that have thrust-to-power ratios thousands of times greater than that of a jet engine and whose effects are not explained by conventional physics and relativity theory. He then presents controversial evidence about the NASA cover-up in adopting these advanced technologies. He also details ongoing Russian research to duplicate John Searl's self-propelled levitating disc and shows how the results of the Podkletnov gravity beam experiment could be harnessed to produce an interstellar spacecraft.

Let him produce duplicateable results. Let him demonstrate a working device. Absent that he's just selling hype. Literally. He's selling a book about antigravity fringe science.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Tue, Jan 1 2013 11:23 AM
Have you read Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion? Labeling it "fringe" and dismissing it isnt what I consider good science. There are some duplicatable electrogravitic and overunity devices out there. Verifying them does have the unfortunate consequence of making one "fringe".
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Tue, Jan 1 2013 4:28 PM

Malachi:
Have you read Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion? Labeling it "fringe" and dismissing it isnt what I consider good science. There are some duplicatable electrogravitic and overunity devices out there. Verifying them does have the unfortunate consequence of making one "fringe".

Nah. The supposedly electrogravitic effects are just devices that use ion-produced wind to produce thrust--being passed off as something else. And no overunity device (meaning perpetual motion machine) has -ever- been shown to exist, that would be news of the century.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Tue, Jan 1 2013 4:42 PM
The supposedly electrogravitic effects are just devices that use ion-produced wind to produce thrust--being passed off as something else.
it might interest you to know that Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion addresses the topic of ion wind.
And no overunity device (meaning perpetual motion machine) has -ever- been shown to exist, that would be news of the century.
Yes everyone knows that anything important makes the news. Life without government, that would be the news of the century. Someone who managed to publicize an overunity machine without being shut down by the energy oligopsony would be the news of the century.

its funny, because this belief that entropy is a one-way street is something of an axiom of faith among those who consider themselves educated. Youre not even allowed to talk about violating it without being dismissed outright. Overunity (meaning machines that produce more than they consume) is an observable fact of nature but to talk about somehow harnessing it is blasphemy.

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 452
Points 7,620

Anenome:

Light, as a fluctuation of spacetime, does have to move at the speed of light. And matter is made of light.

Other kinds of energy like gravity-potential, chemical, are different matters to be sure.

Gravity, too, moves at the speed of light, being a property of space-time. At least that's what we believe right now, kinda hard to measure that.

 

The photon moves at speed c in a vacuum.

http://thephoenixsaga.com/
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 452
Points 7,620

Malachi:
The supposedly electrogravitic effects are just devices that use ion-produced wind to produce thrust--being passed off as something else.
it might interest you to know that Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion addresses the topic of ion wind.
And no overunity device (meaning perpetual motion machine) has -ever- been shown to exist, that would be news of the century.
Yes everyone knows that anything important makes the news. Life without government, that would be the news of the century. Someone who managed to publicize an overunity machine without being shut down by the energy oligopsony would be the news of the century.

its funny, because this belief that entropy is a one-way street is something of an axiom of faith among those who consider themselves educated. Youre not even allowed to talk about violating it without being dismissed outright. Overunity (meaning machines that produce more than they consume) is an observable fact of nature but to talk about somehow harnessing it is blasphemy.

 

Are you really talking about violation of the conservation laws and the second law of thermodynamics?

http://thephoenixsaga.com/
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Tue, Jan 1 2013 5:43 PM
No I am actually not, I am talking about recovering energy along similar lines to how energy is lost through entropy. This cold be thermal energy in the local environment, zero point energy, or some of many other sources of energy.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Tue, Jan 1 2013 6:40 PM
 
 

Malachi:
The supposedly electrogravitic effects are just devices that use ion-produced wind to produce thrust--being passed off as something else.
it might interest you to know that Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion addresses the topic of ion wind.

And if he says anything other than that they create ion wind he's blowing smoke.

Malachi:
And no overunity device (meaning perpetual motion machine) has -ever- been shown to exist, that would be news of the century.
Yes everyone knows that anything important makes the news.

Wouldn't matter if it made the news or not, because if such a device did exist, there would be a precipitous and suspicious oversupply of energy. Meaning the inventor could very quickly make billions of dollar by starting an energy company and building ad infinitum. He'd be king of the universe in no time, a power source with no inputs? Make Bill Gates's fortune look like a sneeze in comparison.

The fact that this hasn't been done is large inductive evidence that it's not possible, besides all the other laws of physics it would violate. Extraordinary claim .:. proof.

Malachi:
Life without government, that would be the news of the century. Someone who managed to publicize an overunity machine without being shut down by the energy oligopsony would be the news of the century.

How did Ford get cars off the ground without the horse industry shutting him down.

Malachi:
its funny, because this belief that entropy is a one-way street is something of an axiom of faith among those who consider themselves educated. Youre not even allowed to talk about violating it without being dismissed outright. Overunity (meaning machines that produce more than they consume) is an observable fact of nature but to talk about somehow harnessing it is blasphemy.

Talk about it all you want, but demonstrate something one of these days.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Tue, Jan 1 2013 6:41 PM
 
 

shackleford:

The photon moves at speed c in a vacuum.

c may be different in each medium, but that doesn't change anything.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Tue, Jan 1 2013 7:12 PM
And if he says anything other than that they create ion wind he's blowing smoke.
Its great that youre willing to dismiss a book you havent read because it contradicts your worldview.
Wouldn't matter if it made the news or not, because if such a device did exist, there would be a precipitous and suspicious oversupply of energy.
which wouldnt come to the attention of anyone, particularly not the u.s. Department of energy.
Meaning the inventor could very quickly make billions of dollar by starting an energy company and building ad infinitum.
assuming the energy industry was unregulated. Nay, the very act of starting a company is regulated. Its very easy to talk about starting a company and building and infinite number of devices and making billions but the reality is a bit different.
The fact that this hasn't been done is large inductive evidence that it's not possible, besides all the other laws of physics it would violate. Extraordinary claim .:. proof.
Thats not very good evidence, as for thousands of years it could have been applied to commercial airflight.
How did Ford get cars off the ground without the horse industry shutting him down.
we there was plenty of inductive evidence against him for several centuries but look now, they didnt even take a bailout.
Talk about it all you want, but demonstrate something one of these days.
You mean like Eugene Podkletnov?
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 836
Points 15,370

You mean like Eugene Podkletnov?

Cool story: Quirino Majorana who did the original gravity shielding experiments was the uncle of the genius theoretical physicist Ettiore Marjorana (one of Enrico Fermi's "Via Panismera" boys) and corresponded with him.

Marjorana disappeared mysteriosuly in March 1938 and his fate remains unexplained. Did he know too much? Did he already know neutrinos were fermions that were their own antiparticles? The Italian government seems tohave strongly suspected he surfaced in Buenos Aires in 1955! :P

Does this have anything to do with his work on neutrino masses as well as investigating his uncle's hyppothesis?... According to Wikipedia:

Majorana did prescient theoretical work on neutrino masses, a currently active subject of research. He also worked on an idea that mass may exert a small shielding effect on gravitational waves, which did not gain much traction.

Incidentally failure to predict neutrino mass is one of the well known flaws of the Standard Model.

"When the King is far the people are happy."  Chinese proverb

For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:

"Where there are problems there is life."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 445
Points 7,120
thelion replied on Tue, Jan 1 2013 8:01 PM

Um, conservation of energy is not an experimental fact. It's a necessary law of nature, because every system eventually reduces to cause = effect. That is, whole effect is never greater than whole cause.

Even Leibniz's famous example, a match in the gunpower-room is not the whole cause, but the potential energy of the gunpower must be considered, and then, the explosion is no more energetic than the energy already in the room.

That is precisely how Leibniz's dynamics presented conservation of energy, and Mayer "confirmed" it when he said the same thing (including E = M C ^ 2) and found the mechanical equivalent of heat, which nobody earlier knew what it was.

It just means that you cannot get more than you started with, no matter what system you have.

In other words, if mathematics is true about the real workd, then nothing produce more energy than it started with when a closed system. One cannot do more work than work in the system.

Gravity is not energy, although gravitional waves do tranmit energy. It is curvature of space-time. Inertia is most vaguely this:

Take a tube. Then bend it. Take a straight wire (a geodesic with mass or energy) and push it into the tube. It will encounter resistence and force is required to bend it. The curvature tensor changes the energy relations of the system in it, and gravitational waves move energy around from one system into another.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 452
Points 7,620

Anenome:

 
 

shackleford:

The photon moves at speed c in a vacuum.

c may be different in each medium, but that doesn't change anything.

 
 

I was merely correcting your original statement. It's too general. That's why I said a photon moves at speed c in a vacuum.

We know matter is made of energy, energy must always be moving at the speed of light, clearly it's doing this in place as matter. All quite basic so far.

http://thephoenixsaga.com/
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 468
Points 8,085
Wibee replied on Tue, Jan 1 2013 8:46 PM

Blackholes can bend/ suck in light.  Therefore, light has mass or the black hole is affect light in other ways.  

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 452
Points 7,620

Wibee:

Blackholes can bend/ suck in light.  Therefore, light has mass or the black hole is affect light in other ways.  

 

Special relativity shows that the photon is massless.

http://thephoenixsaga.com/
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 445
Points 7,120
thelion replied on Tue, Jan 1 2013 10:12 PM

Black holes, by their mass, curve space-time, changing the curvature tensor. As does any massive object, although how that happens is still studied.

Light is not sucked in. Black holes do not themselves apply any force on light waves. Newtonian law of graviational attractive force between two points as function of mass and distance. Light has no mass in fact, and black holes cannot interact with it according to Newtonian gravity. Because light converges to black holes does not imply that light has mass. Rather Newtonian gravity is not strictly true, but merely an approximation.

In reality, because of different curvature, which is a set of coefficients, as function of location in space, by which the components of all vectors as they would appear in flat space-time are multiplied, respectively, geodesics converge, resulting in light cones not being able to converge anywhere in the future except the black hole once light waves approach near enough to it to a place in space-time where curvature is sufficiently great.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Wed, Jan 2 2013 4:08 PM
thelion:

Um, conservation of energy is not an experimental fact. It's a necessary law of nature, because every system eventually reduces to cause = effect. That is, whole effect is never greater than whole cause.

Even Leibniz's famous example, a match in the gunpower-room is not the whole cause, but the potential energy of the gunpower must be considered, and then, the explosion is no more energetic than the energy already in the room.

That is precisely how Leibniz's dynamics presented conservation of energy, and Mayer "confirmed" it when he said the same thing (including E = M C ^ 2) and found the mechanical equivalent of heat, which nobody earlier knew what it was.

It just means that you cannot get more than you started with, no matter what system you have.

[....]
I see that this is a reply to me. I hope that I didnt somehow mislead you into thinking that I reject conservation of energy, because I dont. Otherwise I dont see a reason to reply.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 452
Points 7,620

Malachi:
thelion:

Um, conservation of energy is not an experimental fact. It's a necessary law of nature, because every system eventually reduces to cause = effect. That is, whole effect is never greater than whole cause.

Even Leibniz's famous example, a match in the gunpower-room is not the whole cause, but the potential energy of the gunpower must be considered, and then, the explosion is no more energetic than the energy already in the room.

That is precisely how Leibniz's dynamics presented conservation of energy, and Mayer "confirmed" it when he said the same thing (including E = M C ^ 2) and found the mechanical equivalent of heat, which nobody earlier knew what it was.

It just means that you cannot get more than you started with, no matter what system you have.

[....]

I see that this is a reply to me. I hope that I didnt somehow mislead you into thinking that I reject conservation of energy, because I dont. Otherwise I dont see a reason to reply.

 

It's probably directed towards Wibee. If photons have mass, then it would require infinte energy to acclerate them to speed c.

http://thephoenixsaga.com/
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Wed, Jan 2 2013 6:06 PM
I c.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Page 1 of 2 (43 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS