Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: CptTrips on February 03, 2011, 04:44:08 PM
-
OK. I’m probably going to make myself look like an idiot here but it’s something that’s been bothering me, literally for years. There seems to be some pretty sharp knives in the drawer here so maybe you can help.
I’m currently listening to :
“The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos” (Brian Greene)
On my Audible books. Its pretty interesting. I recommend it.
In one section, he goes over the whole story about how Einstein was perplexed by the question of exactly HOW two objects, with no direct connection to, or contact with each could transmit a gravitational force between each other. These objects might be in a complete vacuum with no matter between them at all. What is the EXACT mechanism by which the force is mechanically transmitted???
The standard answer was “well,uhh, it’s the gravitational field”. But what does that MEAN? You might as well be saying “magical spirits.” What is the EXACT mechanism by which the influence is transmitted. “Where are the invisible ropes” by which one object pulls on another, he asked. Even Newton recognized it was an unanswered question at the time he was formulating the laws describing the results. That led Einstein to develop the theory of curved space/time. It wasn’t so much that a magical force was being applied to an object, as the object moving thru curved space/time just looked like a force was being applied. Great story. All makes sense. Bowling ball sagging a trampoline, roll on an cueball…follows the curve..yadda yadda. Got it. :aok
Then the very next chapter he go into this whole section on magnetism and how objects are influenced by “magnetic fields”. And that touched off a thing that’s been bothering me a long time. Why is “magnetic field” any more a satisfactory answer than “gravitational field”??? What is the exact mechanism by which magnetic force is transmitted between objects that might be separated by complete vacuum??? Where are the invisible ropes? It BEGS the question, but he never even notes the parallel or I missed it. Why doesn’t it beg the same question?
I’ve asked a lot of people, a lot smarter than me: “Yeah, but HOW does it transmit the force? By what mechanism?“ The standard answer was “well uh, it’s the magnetic field”. But what does that MEAN? You might as well be saying “magical spirits.” What is the EXACT mechanism by which the influence is mechanically transmitted. That usually leads to “Well, it’s those lines of force.”
:furious
Sigh. I’m either too dumb to ask the questions clearly or too dumb to understand the answer. :mad:
Is there an electro-magnetic-space/time plane of existence that is intersecting the mass-space/time plane that can be curved by magnetic potential instead of mass? Would some kind of space curvature explain this invisible magnetic force the way it does gravitational force?
In a lot of ways magnetic fields are a lot freakier that gravitational fields. Gravitational fields are continuous. Magnetic fields are discontinuous, broken into the shells, or lines if you bisect them with a plane. I can create magnetic fields at will with electricity. Can you do that with gravity? When I generate a magnetic field, am I warping electro-magnetic-space/time?
Yeah, I’ve always been fascinated my magnets and magnetism since I was a kid.
If you can explain it too me I’d be grateful. But talk REAL slow and use small words. :D
Regards,
Wab
-
Magnetic fields can repel as well as attract.
Where is my anti-gravity drive?
-
Magnetic fields can repel as well as attract.
Where is my anti-gravity drive?
Same with gravity I believe. I think he said there was repulsive gravity.
Wab
-
You're not alone. I've felt the same way since I started studying science, and I've come to the conclusion that most scientists come up with theories & math to 'explain it', effectively confusing everyone else. Asking questions like yours puts them on the spot, which is always fun.
Kind of like having someone explain time.
I even heard someone come up with a formula that says it's possible for a body to randomly teleport instantaneously to Jupiter.
Yeah i see that happening.
-
Congratulations to you, though. You have taken the step most people - even very, very smart people - never take. You're asking "HOW do we know that?" and "what is behind what you just said?" In my humble opinion, those are the kinds of questions that mark the beginning of true intellect.
In my somewhat limited experience, smart people function as if they were very highly trained technicians rather than real thinkers. They may have lots of knowledge in their field...but many folks just plod along well worn ruts. I'm a physician, and I've noticed that even my colleagues who know their fields remarkably well don't necessarily THINK about the data they've mastered, and the limitations of the studies on which they base their knowledge. And once they get outside their fields - well, a more cynical doctor than I calls physicians "highly trained technicians, but cultural barbarians."
That's a big part of why science in general advances by paradigm shifts rather than by accretion of knowledge - prior generations of scientists can't bring themselves to accept new ways of thinking, so the entire paradigm shift takes a generation (so the old guys can die off!) That concept comes from a book you'd probably enjoy, Thomas Kuhns' "The structure of scientific revolutions."
In my experience, the more one really knows and understands about knowledge, the more humble one becomes.
-
curved spacetime and 'the dip' in its fabric is what einstein describes with math but he did not figure out (or anyone yet) just what causes gravity in the first place.
The people messing with M theory were even throwing equations that gravity is a 12th dimension that intersects with our own via mass... and stated something that I found rather interesting:
It takes the mass of the entire planet earth to pull 1 unit of mass 'down' to the ground... yet the weakest magnet, the size of a penny will defeat gravity by pushing it up from the ground. Why is gravity so weak compared to a magnetic field?
-
It takes the mass of the entire planet earth to pull 1 unit of mass 'down' to the ground... yet the weakest magnet, the size of a penny will defeat gravity by pushing it up from the ground. Why is gravity so weak compared to a magnetic field?
Well.... don't you think that if you were going to compare the strength of these forces, you'd compare their values at equal distances from their cores? Isn't the force of gravity stronger the closer to the center of the mass you get?
<edit> that's if you're comparing the strength of the tiny magnet to the gravity of the earth.
If you're comparing the strength of the tiny magnet to the gravity of the tiny magnet, then one would conclude that magnetism is a stronger force than gravity.
-
Maybe a blind worm is asking himself "where is the heat coming from?" he can't see the Sun, feels the effect only. Same with us, we have only the skin and 7 holes with in our heads to analyze the space around us, which i believe is way more than we can understand ,even with all the devices invented over past centuries.
-
If you can explain it too me I’d be grateful. But talk REAL slow and use small words. :D
Gimme a coupla days.
Well.... don't you think that if you were going to compare the strength of these forces, you'd compare their values at equal distances from their cores? Isn't the force of gravity stronger the closer to the center of the mass you get?
<edit> that's if you're comparing the strength of the tiny magnet to the gravity of the earth.
If you're comparing the strength of the tiny magnet to the gravity of the tiny magnet, then one would conclude that magnetism is a stronger force than gravity.
I think the apples to apples comparison he means is that for a single object of a certain mass, it takes a planet-size gravity field to attract it with a certain force, certain force which a penny-sized magnet can overcome with its "penny-sized" magnetic field.
Actual apples to apples between Earth and the magnet would require Earth to be downsized (not down-massed) to magnet's size. Otherwise the analogy breaks down (as you go towards center of Earth thru imaginary tunnel, gravity decreases due to mass being more and more around you instead of below you).
Cutting thru all the interpretation red tape, to the actual intended question - I don't remember the answer, but I remember learning it a while back. So I'll go relearn it, and if someone doesn't beat me to it I'll explain it.
-
I’ve asked a lot of people, a lot smarter than me: “Yeah, but HOW does it transmit the force? By what mechanism?“ The standard answer was “well uh, it’s the magnetic field”. But what does that MEAN? You might as well be saying “magical spirits.” What is the EXACT mechanism by which the influence is mechanically transmitted. That usually leads to “Well, it’s those lines of force.”
:furious
Yeah - we're in the same boat here - I've also thought about it for years, and never heard an answer. Science doesn't really know.
Curved spacetime describes the behavior of large scale objects extremely precise, but not how it actually works.
(Currently, scientist are not able to measure gravity on distances smaller than about 1/10 mm, so we can't observe if or how gravitational behaviour changes on small scale objects. If the behaviour changes, scientists believe that's a good indicator of extra (tiny) dimensions...)
I think particle physicists today would speculate something like:
there is no such thing as a complete vacuum. On a very small scale, space itself, is a random mess of small jitters and fluctuations (of something) - but on average it equals out, so it seems to be a vacuum. Put two bodies in this space, and they exchange some massless messenger particles called gravitons. Gravitons bounces between the bodies, and somehow this exchange makes the bodies move closer. The bigger mass affect more gravitons so it pulls the most. This cloud of gravitons, we observe as a field.
Not really an answer, eh?
One day I was babbling about spacetime and gravity to my 12y/o daughter (hey, she asked! :)) - and told her how it bothered me not really knowing what gravity is. She thought about it for a moment and then said, that if 'they' figure it out after I'm dead - she would write the answer on my tombstone.
That eases the pain a bit.
-
Start here.
http://www.geofex.com/Article_Folders/How_It_Works/hiw.htm
-
Start here.
http://www.geofex.com/Article_Folders/How_It_Works/hiw.htm
Basic electricity doesn't say anything about why gravity and electromagnetism works.
-
OK, I'll give it a shot:
"Forces" as we perceive them is something that causes acceleration. However, modern physics describe a force as something that changes momentum. The difference sound semantic and it is in classical physics, but not in relativity and quantum theories. Now comes the continuity, or the potential fields - Vacuum is not nothing. It is very much a something in physics: the space is filled with various "potential fields" that fluctuate. They actually what makes space and local variations is what we feel as forces.
Imagine potential fields as sheets of fabric that you can send waves through. The waves can travel in different directions across the sheet, but the sheet is there even if there are no waves on it. This could be your electric field for example. A charged particle will feel a force of the sheet around its location is not flat. A moving charge cases this sheet to wiggle and other particles will feel these wiggles as forces.
Gravity is described in slightly different terms, but also as a field. The puzzling thing about gravity is that mass have two jobs in physics: there is the kinematic mass which connects acceleration and force in classical physics (famous f=ma, and equivalent meaning in quantum physics between energy and momentum) and the "charge" of the gravitation force (in classic terms). Einstein's general relativity merges the two: there is actually no gravitation force in Einsteins theory. It describes mass (actually all energy) as the cause of bends in space itself. It gets quite complicated at this point, but the shape of space is curved by the presence of concentrated mass/energy and this curvature is translated into acceleration (hence, the classical force). There is still some dichotomy between this description of mass and the kinematic mass of quantum field theory, that describe it more in terms of a potential field (a scalar field where the fluctuations in it are called the Higgs particle, now being hunted in the CERN accelerator).
Magnetism is quite an amusing force, as it does not stand on its own. In classical physics (Maxwell's equations) it is an odd force that depends on speed instead of position and works in a perpendicular direction to the movement - this is more typical to "imaginary" forces in physics that arise due to changes in the frame of reference. Such an example is the Coriolis force in a rotating system that depends on the speed and operates perpendicular to the movement (it happens because the frame of reference is not at rest, but accelerating).
What Einstein showed in his "special relativity" is that the magnetic force can be described as a distorted electric field in a moving frame of reference (moving with respect to the frame in which there is only static electric field). This comes about if one assumes that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference and immediately explained all 4 Maxwell equations as a simple static charge electric field being transformed into moving frame of reference. This is why it is normally referred to as the "electro-magnetic" force. Learning this is really one of the highlights of my undergrad physics studies, one of those moments that leaves you mouth opened, even before you get to the analytical and quantum mechanics stuff.
I hope I did not confuse you more...
-
fields are only confusing if you keep hanging onto the idea of forces acting in a direct, connected way between objects. its a similar leap from considering 2 masses connected with a spring to 2 masses "connected" by gravity. they are different paradigms, you have to step back and look at each on its own merit, rather than trying to understand one from inside the other. reading Kuhn will help understand the whole paradigm thing, and that makes it much easier to skip from one paradigm to another.
another key thing to get used to is the idea that theories only give you answers to the questions you are asking - they are a bunch of tools in a toolbox, and you pull out the best tool for the job. they dont necessarily reveal the nature of reality, they just give you models to predict results. the only thing a theory "explains" is the theory itself.
quantum mechanics is the ultimate example of this - they are the most accurate theories science has (ie. predict experimental results to a degree of accuracy that no other theories do), but provide no explanation whatsoever of the nature of reality. there are several competing and incompatible interpretations of the theories, but it doesnt matter which interpretation you believe, you still use the same maths and you still get the same results.
-
Basic electricity doesn't say anything about why gravity and electromagnetism works.
It is a building block.
Without a basic knowledge of electromagnetism, which is covered in the text, jumping into the "why" and "how" of electromagnetic energy's interaction with it's surroundings is like jumping into the deep end with concrete shoes.
I think bozon needs to expound on his last paragraph a bit more. There's some interesting stuff being discussed here.
Can the Aces High research lab figure it all out? I say we apply for a grant. You guys do the heavy thinking and I'll sweep the floors. Equal pay though. :neener:
-
I have to agree with Simaril, the first step is realizing you don't know why, and asking the question.
Part of the problem is that we have no "tools" for experimenting with gravity.
All we have is the bottom of this gravity well, and a few very short duration hops up out of it. (space shuttle, etc)
Another thing to keep in mind, is that these forces are not monolithic, they do not stand alone.
There is a complex relationship between magnetic forces, electric forces and gravity.
Example, you can use electricity to create a magnetic field. You can use a magnetic field to create electricity.
What we don't know is how to use either to create gravity.
Just as electricity in the wild (lighting for an example) is different that electricity tamed and controlled.
So will gravity tamed and controlled be different than Gravity in the wild.
The problem being that we do not yet have the tools to create and control it.
So how do we make the tools to make the tools to make the tools, when we don't know what tools we need?
-
Example, you can use electricity to create a magnetic field. You can use a magnetic field to create electricity.
What we don't know is how to use either to create gravity.
Well, we do know how to create gravity. The only thing that makes gravity is energy. It can be in the form of mass (E=mc^2) which is a large amount of energy in a small volume and it can be the energy stored in an electro-magnetic field, does not really matter. Light (which is an electro-magnetic phenomenon) has no mass, but has gravity. However, we are no where near the capability of concentrating the energy of an electro-magnetic field to that of solid matter on the macro level (i.e. more than the mass-energy of a single elementary particle).
-
Didn't read this whole thread so not sure if this was mentioned yet, but another unusual thing about magnetic feilds & gravitational fields is their 2 of the 4 fundamental interactions of nature, yet magnetism is much stronger then gravity, you can see this by taking a small magnet and picking an object up, thus defeating gravity, but no one knows why magnetism is so much stronger then gravity, they should be the same strength, the only theory I've heard to explain it is that gravity is being deluded by extra dimensions, so we only feel part of it.
-
In one section, he goes over the whole story about how Einstein was perplexed by the question of exactly HOW two objects, with no direct connection to, or contact with each could transmit a gravitational force between each other. These objects might be in a complete vacuum with no matter between them at all.
Later research in quantum physics has shown that a vacuum is anything but empty of matter as it's perceived by us. The objects do have a connection.
-
I find this conversation quite intriguing. There are some things that I can barely comprehend,
but I'm really liking this. I have nothing to add to your scientific/philosophical thoughts that
would make any sense or have any data to back up such things. Maybe I'll write them down
and start a thread some other time.
Please, do continue :aok
-
"The only thing that makes gravity is energy."
Correction, the only thing that we "know" makes gravity is energy.
"Light (which is an electro-magnetic phenomenon) has no mass, but has gravity."
Does light have gravity? Light can be effected by gravity, example black holes are black because it sucks in all the light. Lets nothing escape the event horizon.
But if light had gravity itself you'd be able to counteract or "turn off" gravity with a strong light source.
Or double it, increase it by reversing the direction of the light. Thus a mirror on and strong sunlight should cause a local gravity distortion. I don't believe it does.
We really did not understand Electronics and Magnetism until we had the capability to create, and store electricity. Once we were able to do that in a fairly short period of time we had electromagnets, those gave us electric motors etc. People figured out crude meters, leading to better tools, etc.
How do we build a device to create, store gravity? And with so much gravity all around us, how do we test things? How do we build the test equipment capable of measuring minor gravity fluctuations? How do we put gravity in a bottle, or battery to be released when we choose?
When I was still in school back in the 60's we took a field trip to see the big mainframe computer recently installed in the local college. Ran off punch cards I believe. Everyone got the chance to play tic tac toe with it.
(most lost, I fought it to a draw twice, then won the 3rd, tech's were going, "i thought it wasn't supposed to lose?)
Now I'm sitting at a PC that has so much more computing power available to be used per second that its not even funny. Where will that lead us?
Well, we do know how to create gravity. The only thing that makes gravity is energy. It can be in the form of mass (E=mc^2) which is a large amount of energy in a small volume and it can be the energy stored in an electro-magnetic field, does not really matter. Light (which is an electro-magnetic phenomenon) has no mass, but has gravity. However, we are no where near the capability of concentrating the energy of an electro-magnetic field to that of solid matter on the macro level (i.e. more than the mass-energy of a single elementary particle).
-
The answers to these questions are waiting in the quantum field of extremely tiny things hidden inside protons and neutrons and electrons. Basically, the quarks, muons, strings and others infintely small critters that control the big universe in ways we have yet to discover.
These discoveries will only happen when technology is created to discover them and when someone is looking at them at the right time.
-
The answers to these questions are waiting in the quantum field of extremely tiny things hidden inside protons and neutrons and electrons. Basically, the quarks, muons, strings and others infintely small critters that control the big universe in ways we have yet to discover.
These discoveries will only happen when technology is created to discover them and when someone is looking at them at the right time.
Well hopefully some of these things will be discovered by the LHC(Large Hadron Collider).
-
I'm not sure that collider's are going to teach us much other than what pieces matter can be broken into.
-
OK. I’m probably going to make myself look like an idiot here but it’s something that’s been bothering me, literally for years. There seems to be some pretty sharp knives in the drawer here so maybe you can help.
I’m currently listening to :
“The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos” (Brian Greene)
On my Audible books. Its pretty interesting. I recommend it.
In one section, he goes over the whole story about how Einstein was perplexed by the question of exactly HOW two objects, with no direct connection to, or contact with each could transmit a gravitational force between each other. These objects might be in a complete vacuum with no matter between them at all. What is the EXACT mechanism by which the force is mechanically transmitted???
The standard answer was “well,uhh, it’s the gravitational field”. But what does that MEAN? You might as well be saying “magical spirits.” What is the EXACT mechanism by which the influence is transmitted. “Where are the invisible ropes” by which one object pulls on another, he asked. Even Newton recognized it was an unanswered question at the time he was formulating the laws describing the results. That led Einstein to develop the theory of curved space/time. It wasn’t so much that a magical force was being applied to an object, as the object moving thru curved space/time just looked like a force was being applied. Great story. All makes sense. Bowling ball sagging a trampoline, roll on an cueball…follows the curve..yadda yadda. Got it. :aok
Then the very next chapter he go into this whole section on magnetism and how objects are influenced by “magnetic fields”. And that touched off a thing that’s been bothering me a long time. Why is “magnetic field” any more a satisfactory answer than “gravitational field”??? What is the exact mechanism by which magnetic force is transmitted between objects that might be separated by complete vacuum??? Where are the invisible ropes? It BEGS the question, but he never even notes the parallel or I missed it. Why doesn’t it beg the same question?
I’ve asked a lot of people, a lot smarter than me: “Yeah, but HOW does it transmit the force? By what mechanism?“ The standard answer was “well uh, it’s the magnetic field”. But what does that MEAN? You might as well be saying “magical spirits.” What is the EXACT mechanism by which the influence is mechanically transmitted. That usually leads to “Well, it’s those lines of force.”
:furious
Sigh. I’m either too dumb to ask the questions clearly or too dumb to understand the answer. :mad:
Is there an electro-magnetic-space/time plane of existence that is intersecting the mass-space/time plane that can be curved by magnetic potential instead of mass? Would some kind of space curvature explain this invisible magnetic force the way it does gravitational force?
In a lot of ways magnetic fields are a lot freakier that gravitational fields. Gravitational fields are continuous. Magnetic fields are discontinuous, broken into the shells, or lines if you bisect them with a plane. I can create magnetic fields at will with electricity. Can you do that with gravity? When I generate a magnetic field, am I warping electro-magnetic-space/time?
Yeah, I’ve always been fascinated my magnets and magnetism since I was a kid.
If you can explain it too me I’d be grateful. But talk REAL slow and use small words. :D
Regards,
Wab
Just so understand where you are coming from. Newton and Einstein could not explain it and you think the guys in O'Club will? :uhoh
-
Just so understand where you are coming from. Newton and Einstein could not explain it and you think the guys in O'Club will? :uhoh
Are you familiar with the term "Idiot Savant"?
:cool:,
Wab
-
When I was still in school back in the 60's we took a field trip to see the big mainframe computer recently installed in the local college. Ran off punch cards I believe. Everyone got the chance to play tic tac toe with it.
(most lost, I fought it to a draw twice, then won the 3rd, tech's were going, "i thought it wasn't supposed to lose?)
:rofl :rofl For real? tic tac toe is a game where the guy going first cannot lose and the guy going second can always tie the game. Are you sure you remember correctly? :lol Must have been an epic fight
-
Are you familiar with the term "Idiot Savant"?
:cool:,
Wab
Nice. However, I think only the first part of that applies in this forum :old:
-
"The only thing that makes gravity is energy."
Correction, the only thing that we "know" makes gravity is energy.
"Light (which is an electro-magnetic phenomenon) has no mass, but has gravity."
Does light have gravity? Light can be effected by gravity, example black holes are black because it sucks in all the light. Lets nothing escape the event horizon.
But if light had gravity itself you'd be able to counteract or "turn off" gravity with a strong light source.
Or double it, increase it by reversing the direction of the light. Thus a mirror on and strong sunlight should cause a local gravity distortion. I don't believe it does.
Light produce gravity just as normal mass does. However, nowhere that I know of in the current universe the energy density in the form of electro-magnetic energy is high enough to be worth considering in terms of gravity. The total fraction of energy in the universe which is in the form of photons is much less than 1% and practically unconstrained by measurements (only upper limit). In the early universe, radiation dominated the energy density and was important.
The only thing that we know that makes gravity is energy because this is what general relativity tells us. Energy mass and gravity (space curvature) are different faces of the same phenomenon. Then astrophysics encountered issues with this description on the cosmological scale - hence dark matter and dark energy were added to the models. Currently they are just place-holders and you may claim that these are not matter and energy but something else that affects gravity. There are plenty of theories that try to explain this dark stuff in other ways: from extra dimensions (that must be warped) to including acceleration as a parameter in gravity.
-
I'm not sure that collider's are going to teach us much other than what pieces matter can be broken into.
are you serious? ;)
in short (very short)
its all about how all started, how particles formed and matter build up, after the we call it "Big Bang"
Colliders create new massive particles, one day we maybe found out how/why elementary particles
getting different masses at their Birthday. One (1) of the things they try to find is the Higgs boson.
It is a hypothetical massive elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics,
that explains how most of the known elementary particles become massive.
-
are you serious? ;)
in short (very short)
its all about how all started, how particles formed and matter build up, after the we call it "Big Bang"
Colliders create new massive particles, one day we maybe found out how/why elementary particles
getting different masses at their Birthday. One (1) of the things they try to find is the Higgs boson.
It is a hypothetical massive elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics,
that explains how most of the known elementary particles become massive.
Dude, DO NOT argue with the man that kicked a mainframes arse in tic tac toe in an epic fight :old:
-
Here's the thing that might make it easier to comprehend, from a much simpler perspective.
Scientists start out with a known fact. For example, things are pulled together with a force that is related to the distance between the objects. Also, electrical currents and objects with aligned metallic particles are "magnetic", and the resulting forces line up in a characteristic pattern.
They take these facts, and start dreaming up reasons WHY. They make theories.
The critical thing here is that while coming up with these theories, they must also have a way to TEST them. And that is why the wave theories are presented as how things like gravity work. They postulated that gravity forces act like waves, and then they came up with actual tests to see if during the test, the real world behaves the same as their theory predicts. Of the millions of theories people have come up with over many many centuries, the theories in the OP have "passed" the most tests. Some theories remain strange, yet they pass tests that support more than one theory. The best example is the wave/particle/uncertainty theories of light. You can measure the impacts of light photons on a surface, indicating that photons are particles. But if you shoot photos at 2 apertures, you get interference patterns on the other side indicating that those photons are acting like waves. Even more confusing, if you shoot a single photon at 2 apertures, you STILL get an interference pattern even though the photon could have only gone through one of the two apertures, indicating that at some level of physical size, the universe won't show it's hand regarding random events. This last one is part of the goofy world of quantum physics.
The point is that we STILL may not know exactly how that stuff works, and why. But we've come up with tests to see if our theories match what really happens. And when it comes to making practical applications out of theoretical physics, that's often good enough until the applications rely on exact theoretical perfection that the application doesn't work anymore, indicating that the original theory is either wrong or incomplete. At that point the theorists try to plug the holes in the theory or come up with a new one (as in Einstein explaining things that can't be explained with Newtonian physics, and Quantum theory explaining areas that can't be explained with anything that came before).
So don't get wrapped up in the conceptual details unless you actually work in those fields, because they are really just theories that have not yet been dis-proven by experiment. At some point, things like wave/particle duality of light and quantum effects will probably be integrated into a single theory. We're just not there yet.
-
Well hopefully some of these things will be discovered by the LHC(Large Hadron Collider).
If it doesn't blow up the universe first...
:noid
-
Here's the thing that might make it easier to comprehend, from a much simpler perspective.
Scientists start out with a known fact. For example, things are pulled together with a force that is related to the distance between the objects. Also, electrical currents and objects with aligned metallic particles are "magnetic", and the resulting forces line up in a characteristic pattern.
They take these facts, and start dreaming up reasons WHY. They make theories...
thats the only way we can learn...
Richard Phillips Feynman (physicist) explained this in this video very nice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1dgrvlWML4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1dgrvlWML4)
look for more very interesting stuff from him, its worth.
-
They just don't know yet.
There are a lot of unproven theories out there. I think it is a little bit funny they act like some of them are fact just because they have passed every test so far. One example in quantum physics is the one and two slit test, basically you fire photons at a slit and observe what happens. Theoreticaly they should land on the other side in a random mess, however they don't they are very organized. So one theory is that they take every possible path at the same time.
Well come on how could a theory like this be refuted, there is no way not to test it, so to speak. It is circular reasoning. Science presupposes logic and reason but it rarely gets used.
Also are the tests they come up with up to the standard of quantum physics? How can they be? They don't know how they work. Most of it is just not observable yet.
The best we can say is that they are useful lies to get use to the next step.
-
basically you fire photons at a slit and observe what happens. Theoreticaly they should land on the other side in a random mess, however they don't they are very organized. So one theory is that they take every possible path at the same time.
(Two slits shows exact wave pattern - one slit shows exact particle pattern - not random)
As far as I know, you even can't say for sure how the photons should act - as we really don't know what a photon exactly is. Is it a particle? a wave? both (whatever that is)? or someting else?
They just don't know yet.
Exactly
-
(Two slits shows exact wave pattern - one slit shows exact particle pattern - not random)
As far as I know, you even can't say for sure how the photons should act - as we really don't know what a photon exactly is. Is it a particle? a wave? both (whatever that is)? or someting else?
Light and all quantum particles propagate (travel) as waves, period. Light and all quantum particles interact as particles, period.
Both in the case of a single slit and two slits, the photon travel as a wave through them. If you fire enough of them you will find the dispersion pattern of a wave - even through only one slit you can tell the difference between a (classical) wave and a particle propagation. There is no randomization involved in this part. Only when it comes to interaction, the photon "hitting" something, then randomization kicks in: You can fire a photon at an atom in the exact same way over and over again, sometimes it will kick an electron in the atom to a higher level and sometimes just pass through and continue as a wave till it interacts with something else instead.
The problem in this particle-wave duality is our imagination, not the mathematical description. We tend to visualize things as objects in our macro world, but there are things that simply do not have a household object equivalent. A quantum particle is one. Spin is another - try to imagine an object that can only be spinning around axis up or down. Even if you rotate it, or look at it from another angle, it still will look like up/down. And finally, when you rotate it around itself 360 degrees it becomes inverted and you need to turn it 720 degrees to return to the state from which you started.
There are a lot of unproven theories out there. I think it is a little bit funny they act like some of them are fact just because they have passed every test so far.
By that standard we do not know anything at all. Nothing is proven in science, if you use the math/philosophy criterion for "proof". When you insist on absolute truths, you start from "I think therefore I am" and basically end there. This is the reason that science parted from philosophy more than 100 years ago. While philosophers argue about meaning and absolute truths in texts that nobody else but them read, science got us to the moon and created the internet with easy pr0n access for all, based on unproved theories.
-
The problem in this particle-wave duality is our imagination, not the mathematical description. We tend to visualize things as objects in our macro world, but there are things that simply do not have a household object equivalent. A quantum particle is one. Spin is another - try to imagine an object that can only be spinning around axis up or down. Even if you rotate it, or look at it from another angle, it still will look like up/down. And finally, when you rotate it around itself 360 degrees it becomes inverted and you need to turn it 720 degrees to return to the state from which you started.
In my head, it gets even worse with entangled particles. As I understand it (and I'm no expert by any means) - they are fired in opposite directions from the same source, and when they are ligth years apart, you can do something to one particle, and the same thing will happen to the other - instantly?
Even though scientist are good at describing such observations with great precision - I look forward to the day (if it ever will come), when someone can explain to me, whats really going on.
-
They just don't know yet.
blah blah blah
The best we can say is that they are useful lies to get use to the next step.
shouldnt that be we dont know yet?
and useful lies?
I smell some kind of anti-science agenda here, maybe you should decare your interests.
-
This is the reason that science parted from philosophy more than 100 years ago. While philosophers argue about meaning and absolute truths in texts that nobody else but them read, science got us to the moon and created the internet with easy pr0n access for all, based on unproved theories.
Please explain what exactly about the internet or going to the moon is based on unproven theories? Some things we understand and some things we don't and make assumptions. No need to lump everything together. What does quantum physics have to do with going to the moon or the internet?
-
Quantum mechanics was essential for both. Just a theory.
-
Quantum mechanics was essential for both. Just a theory.
OK, it is easy to just type something like that. Can you explain how quantum mechanics was involved with the moon landing? Go ahaead, I am getting my boots on :neener:
-
By that standard we do not know anything at all. Nothing is proven in science, if you use the math/philosophy criterion for "proof". When you insist on absolute truths, you start from "I think therefore I am" and basically end there. This is the reason that science parted from philosophy more than 100 years ago. While philosophers argue about meaning and absolute truths in texts that nobody else but them read, science got us to the moon and created the internet with easy pr0n access for all, based on unproved theories.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4104/5433674171_f064564b14_z.jpg)
-
Can you explain how quantum mechanics was involved with the moon landing?
they used lots of semiconductors. development of semiconductors depended on a throrough understanding of the behaviour of electrons, specifically the Pauli principle - one of the theories of quantum mechanics.
-
they used lots of semiconductors. development of semiconductors depended on a throrough understanding of the behaviour of electrons, specifically the Pauli principle - one of the theories of quantum mechanics.
:rofl ok, even if we want to stretch it that far, semiconductors were not a theory. No one got in a space ship based on a theory hoping they were right :lol But that is just stretching it a bit,no?
-
not a stretch at all. no quantum theory, no semiconductors. no semiconductors, no computers. well not the kind that we could launch to the moon.
No one got in a space ship based on a theory hoping they were right
yes thats exactly what they did, and exactly how science works. science tells you that you have a very good chance of something working, not that it will work. 99.9% recurring is the best that science has to offer. if you want to be 100% sure about something, you have to make it up yourself. and make sure it doesnt interface with reality at all.
-
Didn't read this whole thread so not sure if this was mentioned yet, but another unusual thing about magnetic feilds & gravitational fields is their 2 of the 4 fundamental interactions of nature, yet magnetism is much stronger then gravity, you can see this by taking a small magnet and picking an object up, thus defeating gravity, but no one knows why magnetism is so much stronger then gravity, they should be the same strength, the only theory I've heard to explain it is that gravity is being deluded by extra dimensions, so we only feel part of it.
What scale are you using to know magnetism is stronger than gravity?
-
shouldnt that be we dont know yet?
and useful lies?
I smell some kind of anti-science agenda here, maybe you should decare your interests.
:neener:
Your great at taking things out of context.
No just anti stupid science
-
If light doesn't have mass, then how can it be affected by black holes?
-
Let me frame it better for you.
Not close to probable.
Lol is your statement true or just probable.
You use deductive logic to make your point, true or false claim, about probability. Nice
Is that a philosophical fact or are you using scientific probability?
You keep missing the point, I understand that if you use inductive logic to give a scientific claim it can only be a probability. If that statement is true I had to use deductive logic. You can't separate logic from science. You tried to reframe what I said by labeling it philosophy. Nice attempt. :bhead
We are in violent agreement. I called them useful lies. You called them unproven theories. They are conditional beliefs until proven wrong, because they are the most probable. :salute
You said nothing is proven in science. I ask is that a philosophical statement? Or is that a scientific claim of 100 % probability? How do you know it's a true statement? Oh wait only you get to use nothing is proven in a philosophical way. Show me how you know that scientifically, and not philosophically?
Logic does precede science you can't make a truth or probability claim without it. You can't use the scientific method without it. Science can't part from truth claims because that's what we are looking for. Even if we can only express them as probabilities.
-
(Two slits shows exact wave pattern - one slit shows exact particle pattern - not random)
As far as I know, you even can't say for sure how the photons should act - as we really don't know what a photon exactly is. Is it a particle? a wave? both (whatever that is)? or someting else?
Exactly
Just to make sure we are in agreement. Didn't I say the exact same thing you did? The slit test prove non randomness of photons.
Because the best theories out there said they should be random, the slit test " proves " otherwise doesn't it?
So the next theory right now is they take every possible path at once.
I just think it's " not probable " based on the philosophy of the question. I would like to see a test like the slit test done on that theory before some scientists call it probable. :aok
-
Logic does precede science you can't make a truth or probability claim without it. You can't use the scientific method without it. Science can't part from truth claims because that's what we are looking for. Even if we can only express them as probabilities.
Logic and math have absolute truth and this is the only kind of truth they have. But they are not science - they are (perhaps greatest) human invention and a tool for science, but the only requirement they need to fulfill is self consistency. It is just a game played out in our minds. Their application to the real world is where the foggy truth creeps in.
A scientist creates a mathematical description of physics, lets say Newton's mechanics. The math and logic in his theory are perfect, self consistent and absolute truths within the mathematical imaginary world of the model. However, the model itself is not accurate and fuzzy. "F=ma" is postulated based on experiment results - noisy experiment results and limited in the range of parameter values they test. Newton had no way to do the experiments at near light speeds, or he would have found "F" does not equal "ma" by his definitions of force mass and acceleration.
In math and logic one is free to set up his own fundamental laws and axioms. As long as they are self consistent, they cannot be wrong because you made them up. In science the fundamental laws and even the very basic terms we use (particle, wave for example) are not well defined or are based on limited empirical observations. On top of that, for practical reasons, science abuses math and apply many simplifications and approximations to the mathematical models, thus often even the math itself is not absolute truth in science. The trick is the control of this deviation from the absolute truth, which is the obsession with quantifying "uncertainty" that scientists have.
This is why, putting it in a logical expression format: (math & logic) /= science.