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 Now
0 members (), 118 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 9 of 10 1 2 7 8 9 10
paul #54949 12/11/15 08:57 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Perhaps I missed something. Where in the Video did it say that the atom returned to its former frequency between hits?


There never was nothing.
.
Bill S. #54950 12/11/15 11:04 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
that may not have been in the video I don't remember , but
that is the way that absorption and emission normally occurs.

I was just pointing that out because the atom in the video
was not following the normal standard procedure explained
by science books ( before the fantasy took hold ).

I'm not sure how the QM fantasy faries explain it to their congregation today because orac doesn't seem to have
heard of it happening that way.

I would suggest that this part of science may have been
excluded so that one or more of the fantasies could emerge
as the method of choice because they couldn't get this to
fit in the scheme of things.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Bill S. #54951 12/11/15 11:18 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
ok, I just watched it again and at 03:48 into the video
there is a part where he is explaining how the photon is absorbed and the atom goes to a excited state.

ok , I finished it and it didn't talk about the atom going to
ground state or stabilizing , it used to be easier to find
a video or a web page that explained absorption and emission
of a photon by an atom but since history is also written by the victor ( the BS QM congregation ) even in science it seems , I cant really find it.

the QM faith must have been planning the proposed

(gravity = energy and momentum) BS for some time now.

an observation that shows that the atoms shrink in size
due to cooling is like in
the cooling of steel atoms for instance during sub zero temperatures in the winter causes the steel to become brittle and easier to break , because the electrons in the atoms have moved slightly inwards towards the center and the molecular bond is weakened.

couldn't find anything about this on Wikipedia either
molecular bond gets redirected to the covalent bond page
where they talk about QM crap.

but youtube has it in a video.



to me the spooky part is that the web sites and the videos
don't talk about why the molecular bond becomes weak they only say that it becomes weak.

obviously theres something else in there that the QM church
doesn't want its believers / followers / worshipers to be aware of.

I wonder what that could be?












3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Orac #54952 12/12/15 01:55 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
QM is neither from a science level QM does not explain anything it simply creates a framework that predicts answers nothing more nothing less.


so QM is a prediction service that predicts?
does it predict a single answer or a huge range of answers?
a single answer is an answer.
a huge range of answers is a guess.

Quote:

Science's only roll is to be useful and predict results. In that regard QM is 100% and has never yet been shown to give a wrong answer.


so obviously QM has never answered with a single answer
and has only guessed with a huge range of answers.
like throwing a ball and guessing where it will land.

Quote:

Unfortunately for all that it doesn't explain why things behave like they do.


you would think that QM never being wrong in its guesses
would have built up a base of data that would have the
capabilities of explaining why things behave like they do.

which tells me that they are wrong more than they are
right ... ie

if the range is from 1 to 1000 and 555 is the result
then QM was right 1 time and wrong 999 times.

Quote:

On the other scale we have Classical physics which gives countless wrong answers which is why we don't use it as it isn't terrible useful beyond stuff layman may encounter.


non laymen use classical physics to build the equipment
that QM uses to do things such as the einstein boseman condensate , without classical physics quantum physics
could do nothing except guess and never would know if 1
of the answers in the predicted range of answers is the
result.

and if quantum physics isn't fake then why does it use
fake math?

since it does nothing except predict results using
math then the use of fake math in QM proves that quantum
physics is fake and its results are faked by association.

claiming a close proximity to a observed result
as a answer is the same thing that occurs in classic
mechanics without using fake math.

when you say "Classical physics which gives countless wrong answers" I simply think about the horde of wrong answers
in the range of answers in QM.

Im going to predict that if I throw a ball into the air
the ball will land somewhere on the earth.

my predictions so far are 100% correct!

I know this because I observed everything in the cosmos
moving away from the ball as I threw it ... and I observed the ball as it lost its gravity due to its motionless in my reference frame as it appeared to stop in midair for a
moment in time before the ball gained its gravity back
and accelerated faster because its momentum was increasing
as the cosmos moved back toward the ball due to its increasing momentum and kinetic energy or its gravity.

so that explains why a falling object accelerates while
the cosmos is falling towards it.

brilliant!




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #54953 12/12/15 06:15 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
ROFL I think I will just ignore the crackpot religious nutter rant ... QM ate baby jesus and I hate it smile

In such long posts you would think you could get one fact right so that it didn't come across quite as stupid.

Like the dinoaurs on the arc, Paul that is so wrong it isn't worth responding too smile

Last edited by Orac; 12/12/15 07:22 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Bill S. #54954 12/12/15 07:02 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Now you are talking about introducing extra energy. In the gravity creates gravity situation, where does that come from?

If you don't introduce energy nothing happens anywhere in the universe. You are a bit like the QM joke waiting for the girl to appear on your barstool smile

So lets do this again at a layman level, a flat empty section of vacuum of space is exactly that flat and empty. Virtual particles may briefly pop in and out of existence but on the whole the section remains flat and empty.

We can describe gravity as particles responding to the presence of spacetime curvature, or we can describe them as resulting from the exchange of virtual gravitons. It doesn't matter how we do it we need to introduce Energy into the section of spacetime to curve it and make them appear.

So lets slowly introduce some energy some way (say put some small energy there say an electron) enough energy to create a single graviton. Nothing exciting happens the graviton is our force carrier and the only thing it can exert a force on is thing that has our energy and so it gives mass to that thing.

The problem comes when we introduce a bit more energy and we get a second graviton. Now both our gravitons react with with whatever energy source we introduced but they will now also see each other as each graviton carries energy they react on each other. Nothing unusual there you would know it from electrons repels an electrons, protons repelling protons etc. The naive prediction would be that the two gravitons should therefore clump together creating even higher energy density at a specific point and given enough gravitons the whole thing could go into runaway with just the interaction of the gravitons creating more gravitons.

It's a horrible simplification but it will do for now. Pick the story up from there and explain your problem?


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #54955 12/12/15 06:13 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
If you don't introduce energy nothing happens anywhere in the universe.


what about a star?

does a star require energy to be introduced before things
happen inside the star?

does any atom require energy to be introduced before things
happen inside the atom?

if the entire universe consisted of nothing more than a
single atom that atom would constantly be in motion.

Quote:
QM joke waiting for the girl to appear on your barstool


that comment sums up the entirety of QM in my opinion.

time passes .......

Quote:
So lets slowly introduce some energy some way (say put some small energy there say an electron) enough energy to create a single graviton. Nothing exciting happens the graviton is our force carrier and the only thing it can exert a force on is thing that has our energy and so it gives mass to that thing.


so a single electron stumbles in the scene , and creates
a graviton , then the graviton gives mass to the thing.


1) a single electron carries either a negative or a positive
charge.

2) does a graviton carry a charge?

3) does the graviton get its charge from the single electron
if the graviton gets its charge from the single electron?

4) does the graviton carry the same charge that the
electron carries if the graviton carries a charge?

5) does the thing carry a charge?

6) when the graviton gives the thing mass what form of mass
does the graviton give the thing.
a) virtual mass
b) mass

7) where does the graviton get the mass that it gives to the thing?

8) if gravity = energy and momentum then why are you giving
mass to the thing?

9) if mass no longer has a function in QM and is replaced
by energy and momentum why do you even mention mass at all?

10) I wonder if there is a good video to watch on youtube
or Netflix or the cartoon channel that can help me to
understand QM , one that I cant find a reason to stop
watching it in the first few minutes if I can first
get past the title.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Orac #54956 12/13/15 01:53 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
So lets do this again at a layman level, a flat empty section of vacuum of space is exactly that flat and empty. Virtual particles may briefly pop in and out of existence but on the whole the section remains flat and empty.


OK so far.

Quote:
We can describe gravity as particles responding to the presence of spacetime curvature,


As we started with a flat empty section of vacuum of space, would I be right in thinking that the curvature you have introduced is caused by the particles which subsequently respond to the curvature?

Quote:
or we can describe them as resulting from the exchange of virtual gravitons.


If we regard the particles as resulting from the exchange of virtual gravitons, wouldn’t the gravitational “field” have to be in the flat empty section of vacuum of space first? How do you square that with the idea that gravity is the curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of particles?


There never was nothing.
paul #54957 12/13/15 04:02 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Paul as you are asking semi-intelligent questions I will respond

Originally Posted By: paul
1) a single electron carries either a negative or a positive charge.

An electron only ever carries negative charge there is an antimatter equivalent of an electron called a positron that carries positive charge. A layman would most run across those if they were ill an in hospital with a Positron emission tomography scanner or PET scanner for short. In normal matter the positive charged particle is called a proton.

Even in that basic statement there are lots of problems for your Paul science such as the existence of antimatter, why different particles for each charge smile

Originally Posted By: paul
2) does a graviton carry a charge?

It depends on what you mean by charge. In the strict electrical sense, no as charge is a very specific term of an electric field. However sometimes layman don't mean it explicitly in an electrical field and in that sense it is a form of charge. I prefer the word "statistic" for layman because it doesn't tend to lead layman into confusion as they have no precise understanding of statistic. So an electron carries an electrical statistic and a graviton would carry a gravitational statistic.

Originally Posted By: paul
3) does the graviton get its charge from the single electron if the graviton gets its charge from the single electron?

No Paul gravitons have no real relationship to electrons they are related in only that they are particles in physics. So for layman apples and oranges have the same relationship they are both fruit.

Originally Posted By: paul
4) does the graviton carry the same charge that the electron carries if the graviton carries a charge?

Repeat of above question an no they aren't directly related

Originally Posted By: paul
5) does the thing carry a charge?

Repeat of question again

Quote:
6) when the graviton gives the thing mass what form of mass does the graviton give the thing.

The gravitron doesn't really physically give a "physical thing" it provides a force that you measure as mass. Lets see a layman would see a magnet do the same thing providing a force without actually transferring anything.

The mass is provided by the force, talking about virtual mass or real mass makes no sense. I think you were thinking something solid and physical was exchanged it isn't.

Quote:
7) where does the graviton get the mass that it gives to the thing?

It doesn't its simply a force between and object and a patch of space so in that respect not really different to the old school classical version of gravity.

Quote:
8) if gravity = energy and momentum then why are you giving mass to the thing?

Anything with energy in a section of space creates gravity. The addition of momentum is done because there are things that only move at the speed of light but have a property that loosely translates as mass. That addition has nothing to do with GR/QM it was classical physics that added that trying to cover a bit more ground. Again here we don't really use those terms scientifically we use them only in trying to simply this stuff down for layman.

Quote:
9) if mass no longer has a function in QM and is replaced by energy and momentum why do you even mention mass at all?

Again you got that statement completely wrong. So correcting it, mass is created in space anywhere that energy exists in both GR and QM. It is not optional but demanded under both frameworks..

I will ignore the last stupidity but to say it is a bit rich from a guy who can fit billions of animals and dinosaurs on a boat ... now that was a good movie smile

Last edited by Orac; 12/13/15 04:04 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Bill S. #54958 12/13/15 04:15 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
As we started with a flat empty section of vacuum of space, would I be right in thinking that the curvature you have introduced is caused by the particles which subsequently respond to the curvature?

Yep you covered both options and we don't know which way it is. If we jump to your last question, we can add or even if it occurs at all.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
If we regard the particles as resulting from the exchange of virtual gravitons, wouldn’t the gravitational “field” have to be in the flat empty section of vacuum of space first?

Correct and that is in line with QFT and the other fields. So here we have assumed a fully QM gravitational solution.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
How do you square that with the idea that gravity is the curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of particles?

The extreme versions of quantum gravity and GR don't work together, they are competing descriptions of gravity. The quantum version mathematics returns the same answers as GR in the normal regions, they diverge widely in the macro and micro extremes without resolution on which is correct.

Last edited by Orac; 12/13/15 04:18 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #54963 12/13/15 08:17 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Again, can we take one question/one answer at a time?

If we start with our flat, empty space and disregard virtual particles and anything from outside, unless/until we need it; is there a gravitational field?

My inclination is to say "no", but there is no point in following this line if I'm wrong.


There never was nothing.
paul #54966 12/13/15 11:41 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Paul, you say you think GR is a fake. Orac gives you good responses to your statements, but I wanted to respond to your overall idea. I'm not going to get into a discussion of this, I am just going to give this one response. I will give an example of GR that I think is awfully hard to shrug off.

Nuclear weapons!

The development of nuclear weapons was based purely on QM. The people who designed the bombs we used on Japan were chosen for their back ground in QM. Now if QM is fake, then nuclear weapons are fake, and the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fakes. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed so I don't see how anybody can claim that QM is fake.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill S. #54967 12/14/15 01:40 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
My inclination is to say "no", but there is no point in following this line if I'm wrong.

There is no right or wrong answer as we don't know.

If you assume a fully QFT solution there must be a field there which is not "turned on" for the want of better words. However it is still a big question whether gravity is a quantum field.

So depending what answer you chose it changes what logically that answer dictates must be there.

Bill G, I totally agree there is no viable alternative however I expect a predictable result. Paul will make childish claims like that it somehow paid someone to say that while ignoring the blatant fact there is no actual science organization that controls science that could ever profit or even care. It's one of those spontaneous conspiracies that millions of people decided to fool the world over the same thing for no obvious reason smile

We don't need to convert people and I don't really care what he thinks, it isn't going to change science. I only have issues with Paul when he makes up lies and fabrications claiming that science says something it doesn't. He does it continually with things he doesn't like such as evolution and QM.

Last edited by Orac; 12/14/15 07:33 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #54968 12/14/15 02:54 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Paul
Originally Posted By: Bill S
Perhaps I missed something. Where in the Video did it say that the atom returned to its former frequency between hits?
that may not have been in the video I don't remember , but
that is the way that absorption and emission normally occurs.


True; but it does say that the frequency of the laser has to be adjusted after each impact, which would not be necessary if the atom reverted spontaneously to its former state.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #54969 12/14/15 03:57 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
When he gets past all that, for a real laugh let him try and come up with a way the latest cooling trick works (AKA the quantum refrigerator).

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/mar/12/quantum-refrigerator-is-efficient-and-reusable

I am dying to hear him explain how it works without quantum tunneling .. should be epic like dinosaurs and Noah smile

Oh keep an eye out this week Dark Matter still a no show at improved sensitivity and the big rumour that CMS and ATLAS have a new bump (http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/an-atlas-charged-higgs-boson-excess.html). Jester dropped a hint (http://resonaances.blogspot.com.au/) => So far these searches have provoked little public interest, but that may change soon.

Last edited by Orac; 12/14/15 04:09 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Bill S. #54970 12/14/15 04:11 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
bill s

I wasnt saying that the atom in the experiment was returning
to its former ground state.

I was saying how a atom would normally return to its ground
state.

and the frequency of the laser must be adjusted to a lower frequency because the atoms frequency has lowered because
it has slowed / cooled.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Orac #54971 12/14/15 04:16 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
There is no right or wrong answer as we don't know.


Great. Now we have two possible tracks to follow, but first we have to be absolutely sure we are not talking about “nothing”. We have space and time and the laws of physics. Right?

A. Just flat spacetime; no fields.

B. Flat spacetime + unknown fields. You said the fields would be turned off; this must mean there is no Higgs field, because that is always turned on. Is that going to cause a problem if we introduce an electron?


There never was nothing.
Bill #54972 12/14/15 05:21 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I would like to see where you found that information
I checked the manhattan project wiki page and the word
quantum doesn't seem to be on the page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

I also clicked on the origins link in the page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project#Origins

I then preceded to check the individual pages of each of
the people underlined below who are credited with the discovery of nuclear fission.

Quote:
The discovery of nuclear fission by German chemists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann in 1938, and its theoretical explanation by Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch, made the development of an atomic bomb a theoretical possibility.


and none of the above listed people seem to have used quantum anything in the discovery of nuclear fission or making the development of a nuclear bomb a theoretical possibility
because the word quantum is also not on any of their wiki pages which tells me that they did not use quantum anything
in their work or experiments.

x otto hann
x fritz strassman
x lise meitner
x otto frisch

perhaps yourself or orac can place a link that tells just
how some type of quantum something was actually used in
the making of the atom bomb.

but the most important link would be a link that states that

Quote:
The development of nuclear weapons was based purely on QM.


from what I have already read the "purely based" part
seems to be out of place or misrepresented.

where did you read this at?

I did find this on the otto Frisch wiki page however that
clearly describes how fission was first found in an experiment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Robert_Frisch#Overview

Quote:
During the Christmas holiday in 1938 he visited his aunt Lise Meitner in Kungälv. While there she received the news that Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann in Berlin had discovered that the collision of a neutron with a uranium nucleus produced the element barium as one of its byproducts. Hahn, in a letter to Meitner, called this new reaction a "bursting" of the uranium nucleus. Frisch and Meitner hypothesized that the uranium nucleus had split in two, explained the process, estimated the energy released, and Frisch coined the term fission to describe it


the above really sounds like this experiment was the base of
any future results of nuclear experiments that split atoms , or cause nuclear fission , and would be the experiment and
the physics that nuclear weapons were purely based on.







3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #54973 12/14/15 06:27 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Paul
...Frisch coined the term fission to describe it


Would I be right in inferring that it is not your intention to suggest that fission did not occur before the term was coined?


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #54974 12/15/15 03:27 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
B. Flat spacetime + unknown fields. You said the fields would be turned off; this must mean there is no Higgs field, because that is always turned on. Is that going to cause a problem if we introduce an electron?

LOL no the Higgs is always on in any patch of spacetime it's the one field with a constant value always as you know. So I am not sure how we got back to this "nothing" thing. There isn't a section of spacetime with a "nothing" concept, you want that go outside the universe.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Page 9 of 10 1 2 7 8 9 10

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

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

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5