• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Few Science questions

Migrated topic.
C

Cheeto

Rising Star
been watching more science shows lately and have some questions if someone can answer..


on a show i watched....
They said Einstein's theory predicted space/time could be warped, that actual time could be slowed and speed up. They say this was confirmed when GPS satelites where put in orbit, the time ticks faster up there and the satalites time has to constantly be ajusted.

Now, i'm not a fan of time being manipulated at all, i just don't believe it. My thoughts for this is simple, could be wrong but i don't know that. I would say the time has to be ajusted, and seems time speeds up because your moving away from earths electromagnetic feilds, which would have an effect on the electrons flowing through conducting metals, stonger feild slows the electrons down, they are effected. the further away you get, electrons would not have such a pull on them so they speed up, the machine is operating faster, time is always the same......any arguments that could prove this wrong?


One other thing i thought about is the big bang, if you shrunk the universe to a tight ball like they suggest, wouldn't the gravity be so strong that it would actually be a black hole? Are black holes the beginings of universes, floating off, running out of energy to consume and exploding releasing all the matter they contain?

Have we ever observed the death of a black hole, are there any theories on the death of a black hole.

I'm just interested, this is how i learn things, by asking questions and trying to see why they think its that way, and why is my way of thinking wrong?
 
I guess they just have a different deffinition of time to make it work then? I thought time would have nothing to do with light, as it takes time for light to travel, if time is paused, all motion thoughout the universe is at a halt.

I know light speeds up in a vaccum, in deep space light is at its fastest, the speed of light, this is because its not being effected, or slowed down by matter it passes through.

Just like how you can guide electrons with magnitism, earths magnitism pull on the electrons slowing there speed, if electrons are flowing through circut boards in deep space, there is no other magnetic forces to slow it down, or in orbit around our planet, less of a pull so they speed up.


so when there talking about time, there not talking about real time, just the time it takes light to travel, how stupid is that? Do they ever discuss what time really is, as in the time scale that ticks on at the same pace always. If you slow motion of a particle down, thats not slowing time, its slowing motion of the particle, and the particle slows because of friction of passing through matter. Why in the hell do they use the word time to discuss something that isn't time?


Hell, i know you could not observe it, but if there where no particles at all, there would still be a time line, only nothing would happen, but time continuing.
 
Sorry Cheeto, models match experiments better when they assume nothing that ticks at the same pace always. Relativity requires that no privileged vantage point exist, and relativity has done a very, very good job at modeling experimental data.
 
ragabr said:
Sorry Cheeto, models match experiments better when they assume nothing that ticks at the same pace always. Relativity requires that no privileged vantage point exist, and relativity has done a very, very good job at modeling experimental data.
Click to expand...


Well it dosent really tick....its fluid time, always flowing forward...if the time difference can be explaind by well known effects...like magnitism and gravity's effects on particles like electrons....wait...dosen't the theory of relativity break down at the quantom level. Hmmmm, id say thats a hint that while most of it is correct, there are flaws.


Im sure the future will prove me right. But surely there has to be scientists out there that know that electrons can be effected by other forces, so why don't they see that?

Time is different, its not a particle or an object of mass or matter, you can always grab a smaller fraction of it in a measurement, you can't slow down time though, just like the say i hate because to me its ridiculous to say that time travel is real because you can catch up with light in vast space. Thats just the way i see though, no offense to anyone. Are there any scientists out there that tries my angle? I would like to review there work if so...read there theories.
 
The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene is an excellent book - it describes General and Special relativity very well - you should read it. Time is affected by speed and gravity. Time speeds up / slows down relative to other places. You need to read about this, it took Einstein to come up with it, so it's difficult to explain in a paragraph on a forum.

I am not sure about the big bang question - I have wondered that myself. I will try and look it up and post if I find it. It may be to do with "inflation", where the universe expanded many millions of times in size in a fraction of a second.

Technically black holes are not thought to "die" like a star, but Hawking thought that they radiate away their energy over millions of years, so if no new matter was taken in, they would slowly radiate away to nothing. This theory is actually a critcal part of our limits of understanding about physics - check out the thread by benzyme for an example:


It is a good way to discuss things, but I have said it before - read some of the classic laymans physics books - you will get SO much more out of your interest. I have done the same, and while they are heavy going, it is well worth it! :)
 
benzyme said:
what are you talking about? :?

scientists are well aware of other forces and particles...and anti-particles...
and half-life decay, which has nothing to do with electrons, but follows constant rates.
Click to expand...

What i was saying is......if you have a circut board on earth, the gravity and electromagnetic forces earth creates by being a big ball of mass will have an effect on the electrons, magnetic forces pull on electrons, this is well known. This pull would slow down the electrons, as you get this circut board further away from earths forces, there is less pull on the electrons, which allows them to speed up, causing the circut board to operate faster, as the electrons are passing through it faster.

If this is the case, then this does not prove that time slows down or speeds up. Hell, earths forces can even effect photons, so why not electrons? At absolute zero, magnetics can pull on light and bend it. think of it like this, if you lived on a space ship outside of these forces and could maintain your health, do you really think your going to age quicker, or have a board that decays quicker than on earth?


I may get around to reading more on this....but its hard to when you don't agree with what its saying. But, i'll look it up, maybe see if there something i don't understand, but i just don't see actual time line being effected by anything, because its nothing but a flow forward, perhaps its something different, i just don't grasp it yet.
 
You dont agree with it because you dont understand it yet. Read and do some work, then understand it, and maybe then start thinking about ideas that contradict some of the greatest minds ever to walk the earth.

You are wasting your time just creating random theories like this that are not based on understanding.
 
that may have come across as harsh - I dont mean to be, but I can't understand why you appear so interested in this stuff but dont seem to want to learn about it by reading / studying?
 
I will do some reading.....but it already contradicts things i've already learned. Not really that time couldn't be slowed down, but that a satelite in orbit being proof that time goes faster in space. To say that contridicts the explaination of electrons being effected by gravity and electromagnitism. Its not a theory i pulled out my ass or anything, i'm just trying to figure out the contradiction. If time is slowed and speed up then we should be able to prove it, if burn a candle in orbit around earth, giving it oxyegen so it can ofcourse, the same amount thats in the air here, will the candle burn faster than on earth?? I wouldn't think so, but really....will it. If time speeds up it should, if not then no time dosen't speed up.

Benzyme....your way ahead of me on this.....i'm not sure what your even saying. I have a low education, but i'm smart and can learn things, thats why i try to figure these things out. What good is it for me to learn time is slowed and speed up if i don't understand how that get that. Time we use as a measurement, but its something else also...something moving forward that allows us to use time as a measurement. If time didn't flow, nothing would move, like pauseing a video game.

I try to read about this stuff but have to ask people for help because i don't understand most of what im reading. I end up looking for deffinition after deffinition, and then the deffinition turns out to be the same....i keep breaking it down in the big complex puzzle that i feel i would really need school to guide me through....but i don't have that option. Do they happen to have physics for dummies?
 
This isn't the best form of education, but i learn most of the concepts by watching science shows. When i find something i don't agree with, i look for evidence/proof that goes against what they say.....even the greatest minds can over look things....no one is perfect. Lots of great minds is harder to say that....like the entire science community....but even they have debates and disagree with eachother, there are still scientists who think human evolution is incorrect. Scientists can't even agree with eachother, thats why i like to not just here the answer, but what brought them to that conclusion. How did they prove this or that. it may be a lost cause....but i've learned alot this way rather than learning nothing, i have bad ADD also, so reading is very hard unless im very into what im reading. If not, i can read one page three times and still not remember most of what it said. I've come a long way really, in 2008 i didn't know anything about atoms, subatomic particles, even the consevation of energy, entropy.....which i'm not 100% sure what is even though i've read it on wiki many times. i also tried to figure out by reading wiki what makes a magnet be a magnet, it got confusing fast and i was surfing from page to page trying to learn what everything was.

kewl, more my type of learning....thanx for directing me to this tittle, i like to watch...not read(I know its sad).
Watch The Elegant Universe (3 hours)

NOVA | The Elegant Universe | Watch the Program | PBS

Following the broadcast of the NOVA mini-series The Elegant Universe, watch all three episodes here, divided into chapters, available in the QuickTime or RealPlayer plug-ins.
www.pbs.org

I like watching shows as said, i'm going to watch all of this. If anyone can link me to good educational videos like this for example, please do.

----------------------------------------------------------
i think im going to end up with alot of questions after watching this..

1) If space is warped by objects of mass, why would there be a need for a particle to cause gravity...wouldn't the warp of space be the cause? Still don't get how they through the word time in....space/time is warped....to me it looks like its just saying space is warped. but o-well.

2) What particle is responsible for magnetism? ( I know that, or i've read that the photon is the suspect....but you can observe that the magnetic feilds curve back in, they don't just blast out, photons aren't known to do that, they travel straight, can be effected by magnitism and curve them in the right condictions, but not in the condictions magnets work in. Also photons even themselves create magnetic feilds.....whats the particle for the magnetic feild....what is flying out of the magnet and looping back in?

3) What keeps electron orbiting atoms? Couldn't be magnetism could it? dosen't magnetism just pull, not put things in orbit? Is gravity maybe causing the orbit...better yet...i'll just stick to the question and wait for an answer.

4) I uderstand the strong force, but whats with the, to me, contradiction that the weak force is radioactivity? I had already learned that radioactivity was just the lowest end of the energy of photons, the electromagnetic waves. Photon is supose to be the electromagnetic wave(radio waves to gamma rays), how i'm not sure, how does this relate to magnets, they don't need photons do they, i thought you just loop electrons in a coil to get magnetism, so how do they say that photons are electromagnetic waves, but you don't need photons to create electromagnetic feilds?
 
hmmmm, i will have to look all thoughs up to see.

This is fucking confusing.....how does almost everything seem to connect to photons(The electromagnetic wave) yet be different things and different particles that arent photons? Electromagnet(Electrons looping), Radioactive waves(Weak force), yet you have the photon....electromagnetic waves......i guess my main confusion is electrons vrs photons, and how a photon is called an electromagetic wave, but u can't call an electron an electromagnetic wave, but it creates a magnetic/electric feild just like a photon. Im getting lost in my own words even. Maybe i need to find a video breaking this down,.


Im gonna get back to watching this video, probably hold off on the questions till i've watched all 3 hours.
 
benzyme said:
if you really want to get confused, ponder this:
photons exist as both particles and waves
Click to expand...


hehe....i knew that one....i can understand that. This dude on the video just told me that the electromagnetic force is responsible for electricity and light, while the weak force is responsible for radioactive decay.

...When radioactive decay happens....do the particles leak electromagnetic radio waves? is that the connection there?


I'm still puzzled about how the electromagnetic force is supose to account for light and electricity....my current under standing is electricity is electrons, able to pass from atom to atom in conducting metals. But light is the photon....both particle/waves give off electric and magnetic feilds as they travel. electromagnetic waves create electromagnetic feilds, so when you say electromagnetic, how do you know weather an electron is being talked about, or a photon. Whats confusing to me is there both separate particles, i could better understand it if an electron where really just a photon at a diffrent frequency/wavelenght, but its not....its a subatomic particle itself. So does an eletron also have its on long distance of frequencies? I've never heard of it before. When i get done with this program, i'm gonna see if i can maybe find a video or something i can read and understand which discusses electrons, photons, electromagnetism and there relationship.
 
In quantum mechanics particles interact with force and other particles (fermions-mass particles) through bosons (messengers particles) . Photons are a very common type of boson which particles use to interact. In this way fermions never truly interact but exchange information through different bosons (which have different QM properties and thus contain diff information). These bosons can then effect the QM properties of the fermion (momentum, position...)

Some fields of QM require a gravitron type particle to explain the behavior of gravity at the quantum field. Even space (the vacuum) is made up of particles, these can be detected as particles and their antiparticles form but then quickly enter the vacuum again when they collide.

Based on this and other observations physicists have developed quantum field theory which views reality as a field (similar to a force field in some ways). This is a very eastern mystics view that all things are actually part of a larger whole.

Electrons have wave like properties too (See de Broglie's work). As can all matter. Photons are bosons and electrons are fermions these are two fundamentally different particles and obey slightly different QM laws. The electromagnetic spectrum is made up of photons by definition thus it behaves as a boson wave. However photons have particle like properties as well (Einstein). Physicists do not like to say that a photon (or other particle-) can be both a wave and a particle but an object can have properties of both. The differences are said to be complementary. In many ways the properties of waves vs. p[articles are mutually exclusive. See the double slit experiment to get really confused, as it seems that they experimental design (and knowledge of the observer) influences weather a photon acts like a wave (interference pattern) or a particle.

Electricity and magnetism are related and in some ways the same. What one observers perceives as an electric field another could see as a magnetic field (Einstein, Relativity theory). However a rotating electric field creates a magnetic field perpendicular to it. This is true of the electromagnetic spectrum as well. I think you are confusing the behavior of an electron within a magnetic/electric field for the field its self.
 
well, thats giving me a better picture, thanx.

Now i need to understand whats different about an eletric feild, and a magnetic feild...what gives them two different names rather than one....if you can't have one without the other, then its just one thing....electromagnetic feild....but you can talk about each separate, or when they say electric, or magnetic feild.....are they just shortining the word instead of saying electromagnetic feild, both talking about only one feild....not two. Im getting confused in my own question.

basically....whats the difference in a magnetic feild vrs an electric feild?




Or better yet....i guess i start looking it up and see what answers i can get....and if i can't understand..then i'll ask.
 
Back
Top Bottom