A question for the physicists.

[Karl]

So an electron is axiomatic in a physical sense ?

[blackstar212]

Let's start with the most fundamental concept of energy: to transform - its the only way conservation of energy happens.

 

Classifications of resonances and their behaviors helps us say something about how they all fit together...

 

And smashing them together has shown us that new things pop out, you may or may not have some of the same particle-resonances you started with - and it all obeys some set of rules.  Often, you smash A into B and it produces C and D.

 

This points to there being some base "substance" of which everything is comprised of, that can transform itself into the various resonances - but follows rules in doing so.  Hierarchies are established and ways in which transmutations happen are noted.

 

A "particle" is a dynamic equilibrium that has the ability to interact and change its resonance.  For protons & neutrons, its a set of resonances, for something like an electron (think leptons) they appear to be irreducible resonances.

 

We've got rules like conservation of electric charge, conservation of lepton number, conservation of baryon number...all from figuring out this mess of data.

 

But does any of it point at a base "substance"- to the extent that it does, it points at something which is able to assume virtually any particle-form, given the right "interaction."

 

As to what precisely this "base energy" is...ya got me there   We just know it follows rules, and our rule book, extensive as it is thus far, is still incomplete.

It just seems to follow a way not sure what that is though....

[Brian]

So an electron is axiomatic in a physical sense ?

Nope. It might be a fuzzy probabilistic "lump" of energy with no "substance" or it might be a photon stuck in a half-wavelength loop or it might be a four-dimensional holographic representation of a higher-order reality or... ???

[Karl]

Nope. It might be a fuzzy probabilistic "lump" of energy with no "substance" or it might be a photon stuck in a half-wavelength loop or it might be a four-dimensional holographic representation of a higher-order reality or... ???

That's cleared that one up then. ;-)

[joeblast]

hehe...I only said it appeared to be an irreducible lepton resonance   (i.e., the smallest configuration of resonance that still meets the definition of a lepton)

[Brian]

The edges of awareness are blurry.

[Karl]

hehe...I only said it appeared to be an irreducible lepton resonance   (i.e., the smallest configuration of resonance that still meets the definition of a lepton)

All I heard was " uggy leghhth np l blp sche"

[joeblast]

sorry, I dont speak norfolk

[Brian]

So what happened to this being a "keep it simple" "help me understand gravity" sort of thread that is maybe about exploring the field phenomenon?

 

<shrug>

[Marblehead]

All I know for sure is that every time I jump up I'm always pulled back down.

 

(Sounds like one of my ex-wifes.)

[thelerner]

Things fall towards the center of gravity well.  For us on earth that's the center of the earth.  Drill a hole down and an apples fall accelerating towards that center.  As it it goes past it'll decelerate, going quite far but not back to the top, til it reverses.  Springing down and up, less each time til it stands vibrating in the center of earth where it'll be eaten by the mole people, who love apples and fig newtons. 

 

I tackled gravity problems in high school, writing out games for my Apple II computer.  Gravity was a formula, throw in Objects, give them mass, maybe some velocity and with Newtons formula in place, things reacted automatically very earth like.  It was fascinating.  Newtons mathematical formula allowed me to recreate a sense of reality graphically.  The nonsense geometry highschool suddenly was practically in describing the relationship between two points.  Programming brought math to life for me. 

 

 

This site is well written and includes a little math http://www.livescience.com/50312-how-long-to-fall-through-earth.html

"I guess you can imagine it like a waterslide that takes about 40 minutes to fall through that takes you to speeds over 8 kilometers per second (17,895 mph)," said physicist Alexander Klotz at McGill University in Montreal. "Halfway through the ride, gravity would switch directions and you'd go from right-side up to upside down. You'd have to grab onto the other end or else you'd fall back down the way you came. If the waterslide was made of glass, it would be like zooming through a sea of lava."

Edited August 26, 2016 by thelerner

[Karl]

Things fall towards the center of gravity well.  For us on earth that's the center of the earth.  Drill a hole down and an apples fall accelerating towards that center.  As it it goes past it'll decelerate, going quite far but not back to the top, til it reverses.  Springing down and up, less each time til it stands vibrating in the center of earth where it'll be eaten by the mole people, who love apples and fig newtons. 

 

I tackled gravity problems in high school, writing out games for my Apple II computer.  Gravity was a formula, throw in Objects, give them mass, maybe some velocity and with Newtons formula in place, things reacted automatically very earth like.  It was fascinating.  Newtons mathematical formula allowed me to recreate a sense of reality graphically.  The nonsense geometry highschool suddenly was practically in describing the relationship between two points.  Programming brought math to life for me. 

 

 

This site is well written and includes a little math http://www.livescience.com/50312-how-long-to-fall-through-earth.html

"I guess you can imagine it like a waterslide that takes about 40 minutes to fall through that takes you to speeds over 8 kilometers per second (17,895 mph)," said physicist Alexander Klotz at McGill University in Montreal. "Halfway through the ride, gravity would switch directions and you'd go from right-side up to upside down. You'd have to grab onto the other end or else you'd fall back down the way you came. If the waterslide was made of glass, it would be like zooming through a sea of lava."

I so want a go on that ride. Presumably that's in a perfect vacuum. Which makes me wonder about the black hole, as presumably it's full of gas of some type which must slow the fall of anything solid ?

[joeblast]

 yes,  air resistance would limit you to a little over 220mph or so

 

 

 black hole....gas?   gas "can" fall into a black hole, but there aint no gas inside of one.  relativistic speeds and the concept of gas  dont really mix, the gas by the time it is nearing the event horizon is plasma, too high energy for the electrons to remain captured by their respective nuclei.  

 

so in a sense, the center is something beyond a solid - solids at least still have atomic structure.  what's inside a black hole would be more along the lines of something like a "quark-gluon soup" of preposterous density - if indeed there's a distinction between quarks & gluons at such a state

[小梦想]

.

Edited August 10, 2018 by 小梦想

[Brian]

Considering there is alot of science going on in here, hopefully someone can answer the following question for me.

 

Why is a black hole considered a hole. I can't figure out why a mass that becomes so densely compacted that it's gravity is so strong that light can't escape it, turning into a hole.

 

Isn't it just a very solidly compacted mass, instead of a hole? And going into it is crashing into a wall instead falling through a hole? Maybe I am missing something.

 

Serious question btw

Only because it is a very "deep" gravity well, sort of like a hole in space from which nothing escapes, from which nothing light is emitted -- appearing as a black spot against the star field. We now understand them to be far more exotic than that simplistic early model but the name is a good one so it stuck.

[Brian]

Considering there is alot of science going on in here, hopefully someone can answer the following question for me.

 

Why is a black hole considered a hole. I can't figure out why a mass that becomes so densely compacted that it's gravity is so strong that light can't escape it, turning into a hole.

 

Isn't it just a very solidly compacted mass, instead of a hole? And going into it is crashing into a wall instead falling through a hole? Maybe I am missing something.

 

Serious question btw

Relativistic effects start to become significant as you approach the event, BTW, so that time slows down. It would take forever to reach the center.

[joeblast]

Considering there is alot of science going on in here, hopefully someone can answer the following question for me.

 

Why is a black hole considered a hole. I can't figure out why a mass that becomes so densely compacted that it's gravity is so strong that light can't escape it, turning into a hole.

 

Isn't it just a very solidly compacted mass, instead of a hole? And going into it is crashing into a wall instead falling through a hole? Maybe I am missing something. 

 

Serious question btw

This is all about the spacetime speed limit, and what happens toward the edges.  Any massive object has an escape velocity.  I remember back in physics class we calculated the gravitational attraction between our football coach and his refrigerator - it was really tiny - we determined a decent run would be plenty enough to get away from him

 

the escape velocity, at the sun, is about 617 m/s, whereas earth's is only 11.2 m/s - so you get an idea of how small the sun actually is when comparing 617 to 300,000.  black holes can be defined as simply an object dense enough that the escape velocity equals or surpasses the speed of light (but surpassing, you'd be inside the event horizon.)  In a sense, it'd be like the ball on the trampoline pressing down so hard that the "ripping through the trampoline" becomes a sort of isolated bubble in spacetime that will slowly sublimate away over eons - the "spacetime dent" stays instead of ripping through and going "beneath the trampoline."

 

a "hole" is generally a 2d concept like a hole in a piece of paper -  but a hole in 4 spacetime dimensions necessarily has some different properties about it.  it is both crashing into a wall and falling through a hole at the same time - and in the act of crashing through the hole, time becomes distorted due to gravitational effects - so you're also crashing into the timeclock at the same time as hitting the wall and falling through the hole .

Edited August 27, 2016 by joeblast

[joeblast]

heh....so I watched Einstein's biggest blunder on netflix.  I think part of Magueijo's problem has been in his verbiage of how these things are presented - starting right off with talking about time varying c without first setting up a context for it - half the folks just shut him off right then and there. 

 

I think it jives with what I've said for quite a while - spacetime itself has a coefficient of friction - its own (mu) µ value.  which means that if you get your energy over that coefficient of friction, then the tire breaks loose and voila, c isnt the same - when you're past that coefficient of friction, that is.

 

the changes in the spectral lines of the deep quasars that they mentioned could perhaps reflect that - essentially, once the coefficient of friction has been broken, you have to drop beneath it to some extent before friction reestablishes itself.     

 

so they're basically saying that everywhere we observe, is all beneath µ in terms of spacetime energy density.  energies higher than that basically correspond to "the inflation period" of the big bang.

 

the great voids give support to the idea that lambda ("cosmological constant" i.e. einstein's biggest blunder*) is necessary.  and that spacetime is itself also a vibrating potential of sorts, which would explain why there's the notion of dark energy but we havent been able to really explain its function - in their theory, lambda is the manifestation of what dark energy is, from what I gather.  it would also explain why "no matter how big the bang," there is always some odd mechanism that sorts it all out right?  lol, thank you µ CoF, an inherent property of spacetime is exactly what would do such a thing.

 

with their interpretation of lambda being what it is, it also winds up having a decent explanation for the flatness problem - it pushes everything away until there is a pocket of such great void that quantum fluctuations will eventually be sufficient to perturb the void and spontaneously create another "big bang."  a spark of yang arising from the deepest yin. 

 

I had a beer last night, and stared at the bubbles percolating   (yeah, just one )

 

 

*I contend that einstein's greatest blunder was snubbing quantum mechanics

[zerostao]

the time varying thing

time is personal, i think a taoist view could agree with that

and for a scientists view being the same, that time is personal,

kip thorne of caltech says the same thing

i thought about starting a time travelling thread here in off topic

is time travel fair play on this thread? or start another

[Marblehead]

We are already off topic in the Off Topic sub-forum.  Why not here?

 

Just don't be going back to the time of the dinosaurs - you wouldn't be coming back to the present.

[zerostao]

We are already off topic in the Off Topic sub-forum.  Why not here?

 

Just don't be going back to the time of the dinosaurs - you wouldn't be coming back to the present.

you are the steward of off topic? i'd like to hear what karl thinks--

he may think time travel is socialism, idk.

 

where is the time boundary line of the point of no return?

or you are suggesting my bagua is no defense to dinosaurs? 

am i able to travel to the past and the future?

or just one or the other?

if i travel to the past can i effect changes in destiny?

or just observe?

 

is time travel a valid natural philosophy topic?

i think it is

did aristotle consider time travel?

i hope sagan makes an appearance 

Edited August 28, 2016 by zerostao

[Marblehead]

where is the time boundary line of the point of no return?

am i able to travel to the past and the future?

or just one or the other?

The best I can get from the theoretical physicists that I watch on TV is that we cannot go back in time but it is possible to go into the future if you run fast enough.

[Karl]

the time varying thing

time is personal, i think a taoist view could agree with that

and for a scientists view being the same, that time is personal,

kip thorne of caltech says the same thing

i thought about starting a time travelling thread here in off topic

is time travel fair play on this thread? or start another

Y'know, free speech and all that ;-) let it evolve. I have had enough out it thanks to Brian and Joe. So, knock yourself out.

[Karl]

you are the steward of off topic? i'd like to hear what karl thinks--

he may think time travel is socialism, idk.

 

where is the time boundary line of the point of no return?

or you are suggesting my bagua is no defense to dinosaurs? 

am i able to travel to the past and the future?

or just one or the other?

if i travel to the past can i effect changes in destiny?

or just observe?

 

is time travel a valid natural philosophy topic?

i think it is

did aristotle consider time travel?

i hope sagan makes an appearance

 

Time travel in the sense we usually mean it is impossible, but there are possibilities of recreating some events and places. We do so already, but more powerful computers might one day allow us to glimpse the past in a completely realistic way.

[Marblehead]

Time travel in the sense we usually mean it is impossible, but there are possibilities of recreating some events and places. We do so already, but more powerful computers might one day allow us to glimpse the past in a completely realistic way.

But that would be different from actually being in the physical of a past event.  Recreating it would still be done and experienced in the present.