Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 210 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
welcome to the newly developing glaciation period.
by paul
10/24/19 03:23 PM
Potatoes on Mars
by paul
10/24/19 02:55 PM
Fishing , baiting the hook.
by paul
10/24/19 02:43 PM
F=mv ... mv=F
by paul
10/24/19 02:37 PM
Do we have a moderator?
by paul
10/23/19 12:30 AM
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
10/23/19 12:22 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 13
Page 3 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#44950 - 08/23/12 05:10 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
>>> THE ENERGY LEFT THE ATOM IT WENT INTO THE PHOTON <<<.


then why does this character say that the atom absorbed the photon?

this link will transport you to the moment that
this character says that the atom absorbs the photon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drnq_6ffTbo&feature=player_detailpage#t=216s





_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
.
#44951 - 08/23/12 05:18 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

If the universe is all there is, how would you know it was rotating? Everything in the universe remains static relative to everything else.


Thats the point of the bucket argument

YOU WOULDN'T AND IT DOESN'T MATTER ALL OBSERVERS AGREE ON OBSERVED MOTION.

Edward March correctly worked it out in the argument with Newton.

You would have to be the person standing outside the bucket or universe to have a totally different view of motion.

You can take this down to a simple example:

You go to a cannon and fire it in a normal 45 degree tragectory shot on a flat field. I selected this because it was the first physics applet I found.

http://www.splung.com/content/sid/2/page/projectiles

Simple stuff we can develop nice formula and its easy to understand the physics makes perfect sense doesn't it.

There is a problem this only makes sense to someone ON EARTH.

Consider now what you see from a stationary point in space

What I would see is the ball leave earths surface describe this weird spiral as the earth both rotated around its axis and moved around the sun and the sun moved around the galaxy etc etc.

You get the problem my space view of the motion is COMPLETELY different to the earth view of the motion and the earth formulas won't work for me in space.

Back in the 16th century it was probably heresy to suggest you could leave earth and it was rotating etc so they used a bucket for the argument.

So now if the universe is rotating as per the bucket argument

=> If we are outside the universe we will have observations which are very different to those inside the universe.

Ergo: Our physics won't hold outside the universe you would need to do some convoluted mathematics.

=> From inside the universe all observations would be consistant with all observers but you would have an underlying centrifugal force. In other words nothing in our physics would change except the appearance of a weird constant force.

Now the force would have to be in 3D so imagine a ball rolling because if it was on a directional axis like the earth spins you would easily notice it because the universe would bulge in the same way the earth does at the equator.

Yes they have looked and no it doesn't seem to exist so the only possibility left is a rolling spinning ball.

Last publication on that idea I can find was last year and well its underwhelming
http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0815

I assume you understand what he is doing trying to make a rotating centrifugal force = dark energy

Edit: BTW just found Alexey has a website if you are interested in the idea Bill S (http://www.janaganamana.net/getArticles.aspx?jgmsearch=Alexey+V.+Klimenko)


Edited by Orac (08/23/12 06:16 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#44952 - 08/23/12 05:40 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
>>> THE ENERGY LEFT THE ATOM IT WENT INTO THE PHOTON <<<.


then why does this character say that the atom absorbed the kinetic energy of the photon?


Ok this is a QM thing and is reasonably complex I will try the layman simple explaination from wiki because I am not sure I can translate correctly in english down to this level.

Laser cooling is a form of Doppler cooling

Wiki link => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_cooling

Quote:

Doppler cooling involves light whose frequency is tuned slightly below an electronic transition in an atom. Because the light is detuned to the "red" (i.e. at lower frequency) of the transition, the atoms will absorb more photons if they move towards the light source, due to the Doppler effect. Thus if one applies light from two opposite directions, the atoms will always absorb more photons from the laser beam pointing opposite to their direction of motion. In each absorption event, the atom loses a momentum equal to the momentum of the photon. If the atom, which is now in the excited state, emits a photon spontaneously, it will be kicked by the same amount of momentum but in a random direction. The result of the absorption and emission process is a reduced speed of the atom, provided its initial speed is larger than the recoil velocity from scattering a single photon. If the absorption and emission are repeated many times, the mean velocity, and therefore the kinetic energy of the atom will be reduced. Since the temperature of an ensemble of atoms is a measure of the random internal kinetic energy, this is equivalent to cooling the atoms.

The Doppler cooling limit is the minimum temperature achievable with Doppler cooling.


So answering your question the character correctly says the atom absorbs the photon which is the red slightly lower energy photon.

Go along a little bit more and he will talk about the emission of a photon which is how the atom loses energy because the emitted photon because of QM laws has to be a slightly higher energy so the atom makes up this small deficit by giving up heat vibration energy and quantum vibration energy.

So the whole process requires absorbtion of a slightly lower energy photon and then the emission of a slightly higher energy photon thereby taking energy away from the atom.

You will also note there is a limit to this cooling even under QM laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_cooling_limit)

The photon emission creates a vibration itself which in our big macro world we would call a recoil (like a gun) so again even using this we can't actually get to absolute zero just down very close to it.


Edited by Orac (08/23/12 06:18 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#44953 - 08/23/12 07:58 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: socratus]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Quote:
So there is only one movement of an infinite universe possible and that is to rotate about a perfect centre point.
If the universe is all there is, how would you know it was rotating? Everything in the universe remains static relative to everything else.
Paul, Bill S and Orac, or anyone who cares to respond: Can I assume that those interested in this topic know something of the science of, the laws and the maths of physics. Sure I would love to know the how of many the sciences, but my interests and my will lead me to focus on the meaning and art factors. However, I will mix religion and the sciences by META-tating that we will have moral, ethical and loving scientists. Just maybe there are a few here:
http://www.ordainedscientists.org/

Because of an interest in maths, I studied basic physics in high school and first year university(1944-1947). But I have always had an interest in the story of physics, including the people and why they got involved--what I like to call the pneumatological(spiritual) factor.
=====================
HISTORY OF PHYSICS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos
http://physics.illinois.edu/history/timelines/1940s.asp
http://physics.illinois.edu/people/Memorials/loomis.asp
================
Bill, you ask
Quote:
If the universe is all there is, how would you know it was rotating?
Is this a 'how' question? Or is it a 'why', spiritual or pneumatological one? Sounds, to me, like it is the latter.


Edited by Revlgking (08/23/12 08:06 PM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#44956 - 08/23/12 08:23 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Revlgking]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Rev, let's try asking and answering the question in both of those forms.

1. If the universe is all there is, how would you know it was rotating?
You wouldn't.

2. If the universe is all there is, why would you know it was rotating?
Since you couldn't know, he question seems to have no relevance.

Perhaps we could say: "Why would you not know". Then the answer would be: "because you would perceive everything as being stationary relative to everything else".

Could be you had something different in mine, though.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#44960 - 08/24/12 02:08 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
Go along a little bit more and he will talk about the emission of a photon which is how the atom loses energy


the guy in the video never said anything like that.

what you posted did mention something about a random event.

Quote:
In each absorption event, the atom loses a momentum equal to the momentum of the photon. If the atom, which is now in the excited state, emits a photon spontaneously, it will be kicked by the same amount of momentum but in a random direction. The result of the absorption and emission process is a reduced speed of the atom




Quote:
In each absorption event, the atom loses a momentum equal to the momentum of the photon.


each and if , tells me that the if might by chance slow the atom but the each always slows the atom.

every absorption causes the atom to slow in the intended direction.

if there is a spontaneous chance occurrence of a photon emission it will kick the atom in a random direction.

so , I was right.

so basically its saying that there are 2 separate processes.

1) absorption , without emission.
and
2) absorbtion , with emission.

but in each of the 2 processes the absorption slows the atom
due to the photons kinetic energy being absorbed by the atom.

I didnt need anything but a solid grasp on physics in our discussion , I dont think that QM belongs in this realm.

after the kinetic energy has gone and nothing could be predicted using classical physics then QM would be needed to
predict what the base energies would do in certain situations
but a firm grasp on classical physics is needed even as you peer deeper and deeper into the void.











_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#44961 - 08/24/12 02:44 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Revlgking]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Is this a 'how' question? Or is it a 'why', spiritual or pneumatological one? Sounds, to me, like it is the latter.


I am surprised it took you so long to join the discussion Rev :-)

The rotation question came up because for some reason an infinite universe is important to Paul and Socratus.

One of the intersting things about a physically infinite universe it precludes and contains many problems which logically you can show to be factually wrong.

For Socratus and Paul I have posed your same question a number of occasions because an infinite universe seems overly important and disagreement with them causes distress.

Bill S says the same answer science and I give if the universe is moving and rotating how would you know and why would you care and it changes nothing to your observation. You do many things involving physics every day on a spinning earth every day without worrying about the rotation its only interactions with things that are not spinning with earth that the movement becomes important.

Hence the logical answer to Paul was if the movement of the universe is important there must be something outside the universe and therefore the universe can not be infinite.

I commented on this in another thread Rev none of this stuff in science causes you any belief stress because you seperate the universe into a physical and a spiritual universe overlaid and coexisting.

I discussed this in another thread with you when I read the book of genesis and I assumed this was like a fable you were meant to interpret it in that way and I ran into problems with some fundementalist friends who for them it is a literal translation and the word of god.

I am trying to work out if it is one of those issues with Socratus and Paul.

My other alternatives are it is important to them in their mind that science not understand the universe. Again we have discussed this you have no problem with that because you seperate spirituality from the physical world you get that even if I knew everything about the universe it won't answer the question of why are we here. The only answer science can give is we are here because of probability and chance and for many that is not a very satisfying answer at a spiritual level.

The final choice is they are confused and misunderstand science which I can help with and why I persist.

You and I have discusssed it a few times Rev I don't think science and religion are at war I don't even think they are discussing the same problem. To me religion seems to be about why we are here, our morality while we are here and the importance of our life none of which science can answer.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#44962 - 08/24/12 02:56 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
The final choice is they are confused and misunderstand science which I can help with and why I persist.


then why are you found to be wrong?

sometimes being helped is really not being helped.

we must try to choose carefully who we get help from.

I dont consider myself as being confused as you claim
so to me you are the one who is confused.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#44963 - 08/24/12 04:08 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul

the guy in the video never said anything like that.


The guy is the video is trying to dumb this down as I said it gets a bit complex QM stuff.

So okay the guy in the video is your absolute reference you accept so lets use that.

Goto 2min in the video he compares the laser to a sound waves of an ambulance and discusses the frequency change ... that is called a doppler shift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect)

Now at 2.30 he now talks about something about atoms that is different from "him" meaning normal macro objects and he desribes it as "atoms can only hear at 1 frequency".

What he is avoiding is getting into quantum mechanics the atoms only "hear at one frequency" BECAUSE OF QUANTUM MECHANICS.

It's called atomic absorbtion and the energy levels are pure QM (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod5.html)

He is specifically avoiding discussing why the atoms only "hear at 1 frequency" beacuse he doesn't wish to have to try and explain QM to average layman.

If you don't accept this please give me your explaination of why atoms only hear at 1 frequency?????

Next the guy in the video talks about moving towards and away from the laser and then starts the funny bit for me.

At 3.45 he talks about them absorbing a photon if they match the frequency and 3.48 he talks about them going to an excited state and you get a slight "baff" which slows you down :-)

At 4.08 if you keep the same frequency it now goes straight thru the atom ...... Okay so now you are transparent :-)

So at 4.14 we start changing the frequency down .. :-)

HANG ON A MINUTE HE TOLD ME 3.45 that atoms only absorb a specific frequency and second a go I was absorbing that frequency and now I have to absorb a lower frequency.

Do you see the problem he is trying to dance around because he doesn't want to discuss QM.

And the guy at 4.31 discusses you need not only "light not just at 671 nanaometers but 671.0005". What he is trying to say is you need to be able to lower the frequency of the laser as you cool.

Then the guy talks about being "baffed" by a photon and then you reach a lower movement then you lower the frequency and you get slowed by each "baff".

Whats funny is they avoid discussing why the lower frequency "baffs" you less ... surely that crossed your mind if you are taking a purely classical view Paul.

To be hit with less power in the classic world Paul you swing with less energy so shouldn't they be just turning the laser power down ... that had to cross your mind Paul.

It's also interesting they never go back to the excited atom they mentioned that at the beginning and he had the atom absorbing the photon then he brings in the concept that you are being "baffed" by each photon which slows you.

He never goes back to what happens to the absorb photon and so you have an atom which apparently can be excited and excited and excited and excited. He describes the atom as needing tens of thousands of photon collisions so I guess the atom is 10 000 fold excited a hugely funny thing for a scientist but I guess that means nothing to you.

To me this a major problem with this explaination he doesn't deal with the emission of a photon to get down for the excited state so it can again absorb ... it' weird.

I think I understand why because you then have to explain two photons and it's hard to avoid QM energy level discussion.

I can see now why you think that absorbing photons slows you down and you get a hugely excited atom :-)

All I can say to you Paul is that is not a great explaination and surely you can see the problems I have highlighted.


Quote:

so , I was right.

so basically its saying that there are 2 separate processes.

1) absorption , without emission.
and
2) absorbtion , with emission.

but in each of the 2 processes the absorption slows the atom
due to the photons kinetic energy being absorbed by the atom.


Unfortunately there are two problems with that and I can see how it came about from that explaination

1.) You can not just keep absorbing photons and getting more and more excited it's not a bottomless pit.

2.) It also induces a problem that you have it that excited states = slower atom because to get it excited you absorbed photons and thats slows the atom ... thats what you think isn't it.

That is a problem because it's actually the other way around
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_state

=>In quantum mechanics an excited state of a system (such as an atom, molecule or nucleus) is any quantum state of the system that has a higher energy than the ground state (that is, more energy than the absolute minimum). The temperature of a group of particles is indicative of the level of excitation.

See the problem with explaination an excited atom is hotter than a ground state atom.

That confusion comes about because they have not dealt with the re-emission



Quote:

I didnt need anything but a solid grasp on physics in our discussion , I dont think that QM belongs in this realm.


As I have shown you there was QM throughout his explaination he just didn't call it QM and you blindly accepeted it such that atoms can only "hear 1 frequency" and weirdly that 1 frequency changes with temeprature no explaination needed.

Sure no QM necessary if you blindly accept weird facts.


Edited by Orac (08/24/12 04:41 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#44964 - 08/24/12 04:20 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Revlgking]
socratus Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/20/08
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Quote:
So there is only one movement of an infinite universe possible and that is to rotate about a perfect centre point.
If the universe is all there is, how would you know it was rotating? Everything in the universe remains static relative to everything else.
Paul, Bill S and Orac, or anyone who cares to respond: Can I assume that those interested in this topic know something of the science of, the laws and the maths of physics. Sure I would love to know the how of many the sciences, but my interests and my will lead me to focus on the meaning and art factors. However, I will mix religion and the sciences by META-tating that we will have moral, ethical and loving scientists. Just maybe there are a few here:
http://www.ordainedscientists.org/

Because of an interest in maths, I studied basic physics in high school and first year university(1944-1947). But I have always had an interest in the story of physics, including the people and why they got involved--what I like to call the pneumatological(spiritual) factor.
=====================
HISTORY OF PHYSICS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos
http://physics.illinois.edu/history/timelines/1940s.asp
http://physics.illinois.edu/people/Memorials/loomis.asp
================
Bill, you ask
Quote:
If the universe is all there is, how would you know it was rotating?
Is this a 'how' question? Or is it a 'why', spiritual or pneumatological one? Sounds, to me, like it is the latter.

When you understand what flat universe is,
then you will understand the rotation problem.
=.

Top
#44965 - 08/24/12 05:27 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: socratus]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Okay Paul I am going to have a go at fixing up the explaination of the vidoe guy without changing the motion bit which is all you seem to care about.

HERE GOES LETS SEE IF THIS WORKS FOR YOU

Ok so the atom absorbs the photon and goes to the excited state and gets it's little "baff" to slow it down.

The excited atom hears at a different and higher frequency than the normal atom and so it no longer interacts with the laser and has the lower kinetic movement.

The excited atom will eventually drop down from the excited state and will emit a photon.

This emission can be in any random direction and also has a "baff" but if the "baff" makes the movement worse the process simply occurs over and over until we are lucky enough by chance to get an absorbtion and emission "baff" the sum of which results in a slowing of the atom or molecule.

**** THE END ****

I think that at least fixes the short comings of his explaination in which we have the atom not just getting more and more excited and absorbing more and more photons that the explaination lead you into.

It also at least deals with how the atom or molecule goes transparent to the laser which is consistant.

FACTUALLY YOU ARE ACCEPTING

1.) Atoms/Molecules can only absorb and emit photons at specific frequencies you just have to accept that not going to explain how or why.

2.) An excited atom/molecule absorbs a higher frequency than a stable or normal state atom or molecule again no explaination

3.) The absorption/emmission process will happen over and over again until by chance you get an absorbtion/emission "baffs" that reduce the temperature of the molecule. This is because we have setup a basic filter by pincering the molecules carefully in 3D.


Are you happy with all that because I think it fixs up the very large flaws in his explaination without compromising the motion you care about.


Edited by Orac (08/24/12 05:30 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#44967 - 08/24/12 05:40 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: socratus]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: socratus

When you understand what flat universe is,
then you will understand the rotation problem.


The answer you were already given multiple times none of this is an issue for science for some reason which you won't explain ... it is to you.

So we don't understand the flat universe according to you. Our answer is we understand it as much as we need to and beyond that who cares.

I don't completely understand Rev's understanding of spirituality or religion either doesn't make him wrong just we differ on opinion.

Do you have an opinion Socratus?
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#44968 - 08/24/12 05:59 AM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul

then why are you found to be wrong?


Science is very very specific about the conservation of energy.

It's not even within my power to be wrong on this issue science is not a democracy you don't get to vote on it.

I may not explain it correctly like your guy in the video but even an error by me would not make you right.

I have discussed this before when Einstein published his famous paper on relativity it was abhored by science.

There was a similar revolt over Darwins evolution theory.

Both exist today as science fact because they have never been proved to be wrong.

Science requires you to consider all the facts and work through all possible explainations and select the one that fits all known facts.

In your explaination from the guy in the video you accept weird random facts as absolute facts such that atoms absorb specfic frequecies no explaination of why or how. At that level alone your explaination FAILS at science.

You do get that your entire theory, sorry proof relies on some weird facts from a guy on a youtube video ... No QM needed :-)

On the other side I have been happily walking you thru the proof of each and every fact and you may ask questions and check any of them until your satisfied.

Man I really have to get on youtube.


Edited by Orac (08/24/12 06:34 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#44971 - 08/24/12 12:55 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: socratus]
socratus Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/20/08
Posts: 415
1
The WMAP satellite showed that the universe as a whole is flat.
2
Kaku wrote :
‘ If it continued for billions or trillions of years,
the universe will inevitably reach a big freeze.’

I think that the universe as a whole is flat – infinite flat
( because gravity fields are only local fields ) and totally cold
( because one infinite flat parameter must have another infinite
constant ( not relative) parameter: T=0K.) (!)
3
I agree with Helmholtz that the laws of
thermodynamics could be applied to the universe as a whole.

And therefore I say:
There isn’t thermodynamics without the ‘ Ideal gas’.
There isn’t thermodynamics of cosmos without the ‘ Ideal gas’.
All formulas, equations and laws of ‘ an Ideal Gas’
is possible to use to the Infinire Vacuum T=0K.
=========…

Top
#44973 - 08/24/12 01:36 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: socratus]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
And that means something to you Socratus?

My english is bad but that is meaningless quotes and your words clipped together in mindless mumbo jumbo that sorry I can't decipher.



Edited by Orac (08/24/12 01:37 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#44980 - 08/24/12 04:44 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
It's not your English that's the problem here, Orac.

Let's hope it means more to Socratus than it does to either of us. smile
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#44981 - 08/24/12 04:49 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Bill S.]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Rev, let's try asking and answering the question in both of those forms.
Bill, as I understand your questions they have more to do with philosophy than science or art :
Quote:
1. If the universe is all there is, how would you know it was rotating?
2. If the universe is all there is, why would you know it was rotating?
3. Why would you not know?
Then you comment:
Quote:
"Then the answer would be: "because you would perceive everything as being stationary relative to everything else". Could be you had something different in mind, though.
If I am moved by the Spirit (the Pneuma)--Genesis 1:2, "The power of God (ELOHIM--the powers) was moving over the water (symbol of chaos)."--I should, and WILL, comment on your questions in my thread on WILLpower.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#44984 - 08/24/12 06:26 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
At 3.45 he talks about them absorbing a photon if they match the frequency and 3.48 he talks about them going to an excited state and you get a slight "baff" which slows you down :-)

At 4.08 if you keep the same frequency it now goes straight thru the atom ...... Okay so now you are transparent :-)

So at 4.14 we start changing the frequency down .. :-)

HANG ON A MINUTE HE TOLD ME 3.45 that atoms only absorb a specific frequency and second a go I was absorbing that frequency and now I have to absorb a lower frequency.


you do realize that the atom slows dont you?
so wouldn't the atom's frequency also slow...

and that is the reason that he must lower the frequency of the laser...

and that is the reason the photon will pass through the atom
if he does not lower the frequency...

or did you expect that the atom somehow magically maintains the same exact frequency
after the photon is absorbed and the atom is slowed.

have you questioned your logic about that?


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#44985 - 08/24/12 06:37 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
Science is very very specific about the conservation of energy.


I wasn't talking about science orac , I was talking about you.

you orac , why are you found to be wrong.

not science.

science is a good teacher in itself , it has some tiny problems but those problems are mostly the way that people interpret science themselves.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#44986 - 08/24/12 06:44 PM Re: Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade. [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
FACTUALLY YOU ARE ACCEPTING


I really hate it when people tell me what I accept

if I agree with something you say , I will let you know.

how's that?

allow me to pass this by you.

when the laser is set at a certain frequency and a photon
strikes a atom with that certain frequency , the atom becomes excited
( because of the momentum gained from the photon )
and the atom slows
( because of the momentum gained from the photon )
if that same atom is again struck by the laser at the same frequency the atom will not absorb a photon.
( because of the momentum gained from the photon )

the mass of a system increases for each photon absorbed
the energy of a system decreases for each photon emitted

the increase in mass and decrease in energy is proportional
to the mass and energy of the photon.

so in the laser cooling these are the results

so for each absorption the following occurs

1) momentum transfer.( the kinetic energy of the photon )
2) the atom slows due to the momentum transfer.
2) the atom gains the mass of the photon.
3) the atom slows due to its increase in mass.
4) the atom cools due to its lower frequency.

there are ( 2 ) items in the above list that slow the atom
in the desired direction.

when a atom emits a photon the following happens

1) the atom looses the energy of the photon.
2) there is a recoil in a random direction , but not in the desired direction.

there are ( 0 ) items in the above list that slow the atom
in the desired direction.

absorption Wins !!!


BTW: random direction is not the desired direction.


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
Page 3 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.