stupid physics questions

Inane baanter or words of wisdom - you decide...
Post Reply
User avatar
gilesgoat
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 27259
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:54 am 0
Location: Monfalcone, Italy
Contact:

Re: stupid physics questions

Post by gilesgoat »

zip accident wrote:
Orava wrote:
Dio wrote:There's been no point that photons have (seriously*) been thought to have rest mass. So either you're misremembering the question (one possibility is that you were being asked to use E=mc2 to calculate the energy-mass equivalence of the photon) or Jack Black was filling in for your physics teacher that week.

* there was a brief period when it was considered as an outside crazy possibility but even the people working on those theories would have said it was pretty unlikely.

e=mc2 rings a bell but does it still give an energy-equivalent of mass to a photon? My physics teacher was a legend, taking pupils on a table to demonstrate gravity by spinning them around.
It is a strange one. The rest mass of a photon is zero, but the speed of light is effectively infinity (in terms of the energy needed to reach that speed), so zero multiplied by infinity is definitely less that infinity, and a photon is never at rest, so a photon in motion may have a tiny mass, because it has energy. It doesn't make sense whichever way you look at it.
What is this ?

"Physics and Math read from cereal boxes in the morning before one gets even awake ???!!"

Zero times anything is zero by definition, the speed of light is DEFINITELY NOT "infinity" but it's the maximum speed anything can have ( altought I heard the explanation I cannot remember why ) and you are confusing the fact that "nothing with rest mass non zero can be accelerated to obtain light speed because turns out that would require infinite energy" - but you get get close to various fractions of speed of light ) .

Speed of light can be measured in various ways, even with experiments on Earth without the need of using stars or such and it's a finite, big but not even that huge number.

Gets better .. "anything moving at light speed does not experience time" a photon we see now, or 100 years before or 100 years after for itself "it's the same moment" also because of that I heard you could say that "a photon is simultaneously in every place of its path at the same time" in fact "there's no time" for the photon.

Also if I recall the amount of energy a photon carries it's a well defined number given by E = hV where H is "the Planck constant" V is the frequency/speed can't remember exactly so again "it's NOT infinite".

To be honest I DO NOT KNOW FULLY what "mass" is .. every time I read turns out "it's a completely different definition" .. it's NOT "weight" and it's not even "amount of matter" it's more like "how X gets affected by gravity" or sort of, even that "does not make much sense".

The latest I heard is that "all the mass of an atom seems to be in the gluons", if you weight protons, electrons, neutron, quarks .. you don't get even close to its mass, they are much lighter than all the rest.

So it would appear that "almost all the mass" is caused by this "force" that keeps the atoms togheter.

Now don't ask my where the mass of the electron comes from then, because if I read correctly the electron is "a fundamental particle" so it's not made of quarks/gluons.

The more you go deeper the less anything seems to make sense, to get to things like superstrings theory where "everything is a vibration of superstrings" that we "percive" as we see it now but it's all strings vibrating in 4 dimensions "at the atomic scale" but quite certainly have 16 .. 17 or even 36 "extra dimensions" at scales we can't see .. ( but would make all the forumulae correct ).#

So "the universe at a certain scale has 36 dimensions" if that is true ..

I am lost ...
Giles the billy goat
"Baa"
User avatar
Orava
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 12698
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 12:13 am 0
Location: The West Country

Re: stupid physics questions

Post by Orava »

Atoms are largely made of empty space, an electron on an atom, if it were the size of tennis ball would be a couple of miles out.
Holier than thou
User avatar
tufty
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 12524
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:52 pm 0
Location: French Alps

Re: stupid physics questions

Post by tufty »

Q : Can we crash a spaceship into an asteroid and change its path?
A : Yes.
"massive retard™", "full of shit™", "tiny bitch™", "retarted™", "a bit of a one trick pony™", "petty™", "simple minded idealistic twat™", "miserable humourless fucker™"
User avatar
gilesgoat
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 27259
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:54 am 0
Location: Monfalcone, Italy
Contact:

Re: stupid physics questions

Post by gilesgoat »

I *INSIST* THERE IS "SOMETHING" HERE !!

So again "the mystery of the non-stick pans and grease/oils" ..

You cook an egg with some butter on a non-stick pan, NOTHING SPECIAL here, just butter an an egg.

THEN, when you are done you try to wash it ...

I use always and only "Fairy" for washing everything .. I tried cold water, mild water, hot water, more fairy, less fairy .. it's ALWAYS a pain to remove and it APPEARS like "the detergent is someway binding to the fat but the fat still binds to the non-stick pan" even after rinsing with quite some water.

It's like the fat has "more affinity" for the non-stick coating than anything else.

Anyone ever noted ?
Giles the billy goat
"Baa"
User avatar
Orava
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 12698
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 12:13 am 0
Location: The West Country

Re: stupid physics questions

Post by Orava »

The answer to your cooking questions is, as always, watch Alex do it.



Simples.

Also woks, if it is not some major cooking, just wipe clean with some paper towel, def not put in dishwasher or you need to re-season your wok.
Holier than thou
User avatar
Little stoned kiwi
Baaaaaa!
Baaaaaa!
Posts: 4597
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 6:05 am 0
Location: Christchurch

Re: stupid physics questions

Post by Little stoned kiwi »

I tend to rince pans out and don't fuss about trying to restore them to as new. Especially with non stick as you don't want to be scrubbing it; just wipe of any solids before they dry out and fuse to the pan.
If they think you're crude, go technical; if they think you're technical, go crude. I'm a very technical boy.
User avatar
gilesgoat
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 27259
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:54 am 0
Location: Monfalcone, Italy
Contact:

Re: stupid physics questions

Post by gilesgoat »

That still "doesn't answer my question" I BELIEVE there's some chemical reaction in act that prevents proper cleaning !
Giles the billy goat
"Baa"
User avatar
Little stoned kiwi
Baaaaaa!
Baaaaaa!
Posts: 4597
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 6:05 am 0
Location: Christchurch

Re: stupid physics questions

Post by Little stoned kiwi »

With Teflon? Not likely.
If they think you're crude, go technical; if they think you're technical, go crude. I'm a very technical boy.
User avatar
Orava
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 12698
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 12:13 am 0
Location: The West Country

Re: stupid physics questions

Post by Orava »

Teflon is highly poisonous, known to kill parrots.

I stick* to my wok and French cast iron pans, thanks.

*hopefully non-stick, ha-ha I made a joke.
Holier than thou
User avatar
Whiteball
Baaaaa!
Baaaaa!
Posts: 1811
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:39 pm 0
Location: At the computer

Re: stupid physics questions

Post by Whiteball »

Orava wrote:Teflon is highly poisonous, known to kill parrots.

I stick* to my wok and French cast iron pans, thanks.

*hopefully non-stick, ha-ha I made a joke.
Is that the old or new Teflon? The old stuff had perfluorooctanoic acid which had health concerns but that isn't used anymore.

Any made after 2013 should be safe now as all the supposed harmful stuff isn't allowed to be used. The only concern I believe left is if they are heated over 300c as then the polymers start to break down and the resultant fumes can be possibly detrimental to health if inhaled.
User avatar
Little stoned kiwi
Baaaaaa!
Baaaaaa!
Posts: 4597
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 6:05 am 0
Location: Christchurch

Re: stupid physics questions

Post by Little stoned kiwi »

It's in everything, everywhere, all of the time. Surface water, ground water, soil, vegetation, the bloodstream of almost every living thing including yourself.
If they think you're crude, go technical; if they think you're technical, go crude. I'm a very technical boy.
User avatar
Absolute_Zero
Baaaaaa!
Baaaaaa!
Posts: 3564
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 4:11 pm 0
Location: Hilbert Hotel, Heisenberg.

Re: stupid physics questions

Post by Absolute_Zero »

gravy wrote:
Absolute_Zero wrote:In a Jan-2017 discussion of issues related to gravity; me, motivated by a distaste for dark matter and energy.
Absolute_Zero wrote:For a few years now I've followed an alternative that performs within the error bars of the observational data, without adjustable parameterisation. Just the visible matter, the co-moving diameter of the cosmos and the speed of light.

I haven't run it up the flag pole as-yet for its reliance on the hypothetical Unruh Effect... but I'm hopeful, not least since it fixes several other anomalies besides the galaxy rotation issue [and the aforementioned new cluster observations]. Not to mention [oops] a candidate theory of operation for the EmDrive, if real.

Still, as ever, if wishes were fishes...
@Gravy, since you previously asked, and...
since DARPA has recently granted $1.3 million and a few years to prove it, and...
since a decent science/space-science YouTuber has made a stab at it with visuals...

This is Quantised Inertia (QI). Or alternatively, Modified inertia by a Hubble-scale Casimir effect (MiHsC).

Cheers, that fascinating
https://www.universetoday.com/160516/th ... -to-space/
User avatar
Orava
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 12698
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 12:13 am 0
Location: The West Country

Re: stupid physics questions

Post by Orava »

So according to the String Theory we might be living inside a black hole.

https://bigthink.com/articles/we-may-be ... lack-hole/
Physicists agree that 13-15 billion years ago our universe was created by a Big Bang. But where did that Big Bang come from? A new theory posited by a group of physicists presents the possibility that our universe is nestled inside a black hole. We may have a mother universe that is one of many universes, and black holes may be the passageways between them...
Holier than thou
User avatar
KlaxonCow
Baaaaaaa!
Baaaaaaa!
Posts: 8446
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 3:46 am 0
Location: A large grassy field.

Re: stupid physics questions

Post by KlaxonCow »

That's an old idea, mind you.

The idea that a black hole pinches off a bubble of spacetime.


There's a common way of visualising gravity warping spacetime by placing weighted objects on an elastic sheet:



So, "the Sun" is a big ball in the middle bending the sheet and then if you roll marbles - planets - sideways in a straight line, they'll fall towards the big ball in the middle, as the sheet is distorted.


And then you've got the idea that the bigger the mass, the more it distorts "the sheet", which is spacetime:

Image

...and the black hole is such a major distortion that, you know, once you go "over the edge" here, you ain't ever climbing back out. Because we've got that "speed limit" of the speed of light and even that's just not enough momentum to swing your way back out of a hole that deep.


But there's the idea that maybe it opens back out again:

Image

And you have a "white hole" on the other side, The opposite number to a black hole, where stuff is coming out of it, not going into it.

And where, with a black hole, you have an "event horizon" where, once you cross, you cannot ever get back out - as you'd need to exceed the speed of light to do so - the white hole's "event horizon" is the opposite number, where you can't go faster than light to ever get inside the white hole.


So - pardon my crude drawing - it could look something like this in the overall big picture:

Image

A black hole in the wider multiverse pinches off a "bubble" of spacetime. The Big Bang is then the "white hole" on the other side, where it all seemingly came from, when you're inside the pinched-off "bubble" that is our universe. And this can even explain the expansion of the universe, as it's just more being pinched off from the multiverse and so the "bubble" inside is getting bigger.

I guess the physical way you'd visualise this is that you get a waterproof stretched sheet, and then start filling it with water. Now, if we did that with a stretched sheet, the mouth would just get bigger.

So imagine we get a ring, underneath the sheet and we push the sheet through the ring, then we start filling it up with water. The ring would now be stopping the mouth getting bigger. But, as we add more water, the bulge underneath - our pinched off "bubble universe" - would be getting bigger. Like filling up a water balloon.

So, you've got an elastic sheet. That's spacetime. Then you put a ball on that sheet, which bends it, and that's "the Sun" warping spacetime. But then you put in a really heavy weight, and that's a "black hole", which is distorting spacetime extremely drastically (indeed, so much so, that if you really were doing this with an elastic sheet, it's too much weight and the elastic sheet would be stretched too far and break).

Now, to make our visualisation work better, we go underneath and we put a ring under the sheet. Because if we really did put a stupidly heavy weight on the elastic sheet, the "mouth" would just get bigger and it wouldn't look like "the pit" we see in the second diagram.

So, actually, to simulate the "black hole", we're going to get a ring and then put the heavy weight through the ring. But the ring will stop the mouth getting bigger. And then it would actually look a bit more like that diagram, with a really deep "pit", with steep walls (and the near-vertical steepness of those walls can be seen as the "event horizon" of the black hole - the sides are just too steep that nothing, not even light, can get enough speed to climb back out of this "pit").

Then, to complete our visualisation, we get a hose and start filling it up with water. Because of the ring we installed, the "mouth" of our black hole won't get bigger, but the bulge underneath - our pinched-off "bubble universe" - will start filling up, like a water balloon. Getting bigger and bigger. And that's, in this model, the expansion of the universe.

And so, looking at my crude little diagram, you can see that we're inside the black hole. The universe is a black hole. It's the pinched-off "bulge" - we pinched it off with that ring and then putting the heavy weight of more and more water through the "mouth". And as more water (energy) falls into the hole from the "multiverse" side, the "universe" bulge underneath gets bigger, which is the universe expanding.

And, yes, in this model, it's perfectly possible that the black holes we see in our universe are doing the same thing. Pinching off a bubble, on the bubble itself. Something like this:

Image

And, yeah, there's a "turtles all the way down" in that. I've labelled it "the multiverse" but is the universe from which our universe is "pinched off", actually itself pinched off from an even bigger universe? And are black holes in our universe pinching off other universes "below" us?

How far up does this go? How far down does this go? Is it just turtles all the way in both directions?

Or is there actually a limit to it - a "mother" universe at the top, and there's only so many times you can "pinch off" because there's some property that actually differs from universe-to-universe, and with every "pinch off" there's something that's actually running out (energy? available spacetime?) that stops it going on forever. If there is such a property, then different "levels" of universe would actually be, in some way, physically different.

As I say, this is an old idea. It's kind of - as the "plastic sheet" explanation I've given shows - a somewhat intuitive way to look at things. Almost a natural extension of General Relativity, once you pull out the "plastic sheet" analogy. You can just "pinch off" a bit of the plastic sheet. And then what's logically to stop you from pinching off another smaller bulge from that?


But the grand problem - why this idea went out of fashion - is that you'll notice that in my diagram, I'm not fulling pinching it off. I'm not putting a singularity in there. But, ah, if there really is a genuine singularity there, then how do you physically get past it.

To bring back the diagram from above, you'll notice that they're drawn it with a point - the singularity - in the middle:

Image

And that's the big downer for this idea. If it really is all being pinched off to a mathematical singularity, then nothing passes. The "mouth" closes up completely. There is no way for anything to pass through to some "pinched off" universe on "the other side". Indeed, if there is a mathematical singularity at the bottom of our pit then, simply, there is no "other side".


But, ah, this is based on Einstein's geometric interpretation. Which doesn't include quantum mechanics. In Einstein's maths, distances can go all the way down to zero. But, in quantum theory, the concept of "distance" stops applying / making sense below the Planck length. So, if that's how it actually works, then you can't actually have a genuine mathematical singularity.

So maybe quantum mechanics / string theory can actually let things "pass through a singularity" - because, ah, it's not really a singularity in the mathematical sense. There's a Planck length "ring", under the plastic sheet of spacetime, stopping the "mouth" closing up completely. It's tiny - Planck length in size - so nothing is passing through intact to convey any useful information. But if there's that tiny "pin prick" of a hole in the sheet, stuff could pass through and start filling up "the water balloon" on the other side.

I'm not a physicist. And I have no idea what's actually correct. But it's a cool theory.


(p.s. In my personal "head canon", that's how the TARDIS works.

The inside of the TARDIS is its own pinched off "bubble universe". That's how it's bigger on the inside than the outside. Because, on the outside, all you're seeing is the "mouth". When the TARDIS travels through time and space, it's just moving this "mouth" to connect to the universe in different places. That the TARDIS is basically a "spacetime manipulator". It can pinch off spacetime to create a bubble universe for itself. It can move the "mouth" of the bubble universe to attach it to anywhere in wider spacetime. It can re-arrange its own internal spacetime - and move rooms around.

This is also how the TARDIS is basically invulnerable. Because you literally cannot get from the outside to the inside - or vice versa - except through the door (which is really the mouth of a wormhole, but the TARDIS can manipulate its shape into looking like anything it likes. Which is also how it can disguise itself to look like anything. It's not really a physical object - it's a distortion of spacetime that's made to look and behave as if it's a physical object to fool you.

It all fits. Well, except for that fucking RTD episode when "the Titanic" broke through the fucking side of the TARDIS wall. That would be impossible by the "pinched off universe" idea. Oh dear, I'm going to start getting "nerd angry" at RTD again, when he takes over, aren't I? Never mind, it's vastly better than Chris fucking Chibnall. All is forgiven, RTD. Even breaking my TARDIS head canon.)
"Words ought to be a little wild - for they are assaults of thought on the unthinking."
- John Maynard Keynes
User avatar
Dio
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 18887
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 1:08 pm 0
Location: Newcastle UK

Re: stupid physics questions

Post by Dio »

String theory's all unproven (and not terribly likely to be, I suspect).
Post Reply