These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

I'm a Particle Astrophysicist, ask me anything
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Taedrin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2012-02-05 06:06:04 UTC
Arcosian wrote:
It's like trying to explain how gravity works. We know how it behaves but not what causes it or how it's information can be transmitted faster than light. We don't even know for sure what gives matter mass. All we have are theories but with the LHC up and running maybe we will have some answers in the near future.


Gravity doesn't convey information faster than light. IIRC, this was one of the fundamental breakthroughs in Einstein's theory of relativity. He proposed that if the sun were to simply disappear, the planets would continue to orbit the sun as if the sun were still there until the last of the sun's light reached us. Or in other words, gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light, not instantaneously.

And we do have theories about how gravity works. According to relativity gravity is the curvature of spacetime, caused by the existence of mass at the center of the gravitational field. The problem is that we can not (yet) reconcile the differences between gravity in relativity and in quantum physics.
W1rlW1nd
WirlWind
#62 - 2012-02-05 10:02:02 UTC  |  Edited by: W1rlW1nd
btw- thank you everyone who pitched in to answer the water bottle in space, very informative!

here's another one:

introduction:
In the somewhat horrible ending for the Aliens4 movie [but at least not the travesty that aliens3 was:(], a genetically engineered monster with bones stronger than steel, hide at least as strong as cured leather armor, massing probably 1000lbs of very dense animal muscle, gets IMPOSSIBLY sucked through a one inch hole out the side of the space craft into space by the effects of vacuum on the other side alone. [ok, the hole in movie might have been two inches, but certainly not much larger than that, lets use 1 inch for this argument].

I facepalmed in the theater, since in the most 'optimistic' hollywood twist of the laws of physics and air pressure that hole would be safely sealed shut the moment a bone like a shoulder blade covered the hole. . . but frankly I don't believe a pressure dfference of just 1 --> ONE <-- atmosphere can possibly create that much suction through a small hole to even cut through meat, certainly not hard animal muscle tissue.

In comparison,
-
In deep ocean, pressure difference builds up quickly 1 atmosphere every 30 feet in water, way off the scale compared to outer space. At the bottom of the ocean lets say a modest 5 miles down, water pressure would be creating about 804 atmospheres difference compared to the 1 in outer space.
-
so if you were on the outside of a one inch hole at the bottom of the ocean, pressed against a pipe with 1 atmosphere inside it, I imagine you ?might? be pulverised and crushed throught the hole at almost 800 atmospheres. but not at 1 atmosphere in the space version.


Question:
If a one inch hole appeared in the side of my spacecraft while in space, [and the hole was stable, it stays at that size], would I be able to cover it with my hands and successfully stop the leak of air to the outside? Sure it would not be pleasant. . ., but is one atmosphere difference to near-vacuum enough to rip the meat and muscle through a one inch diameter hole? The majority of my hand would have a contact seal with the wall of the ship especially under pressure, so the shortest distance for air to get to the hole might be through the back of my hand, but I would bet human muscle tissue can resist 1 atm?? also I would have my free hand cupped over the back of the first hand just to make sure. Is that enough to stop up the hole?

a) would part of my hands flash freeze, further helping to plug the hole? [like a super bad case of frostbite]

b) would the blood in my palm boil into vacuum, but still be able to plug the hole?

c) worst case scenario, if there was enough pressure to pulverize my hand, would the thick bones of my forearm certainly plug the gap?

d) none of the above, is there something I am not considering about the effect of 1 -> zero atmosphere through a small opening?
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#63 - 2012-02-05 16:26:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Arcosian wrote:
Then there really isn't an answer since electromagnetism is one of the fundamental forces of nature and can't really be explained by a physical object or process...yet.

It's like trying to explain how gravity works. We know how it behaves but not what causes it or how it's information can be transmitted faster than light. We don't even know for sure what gives matter mass.


Yep that is the answer i was looking for. Thank you Smile
Also, we can add inertia to this list. Why does matter even have it?


All we do is see the after effects of things that we do not understand, and then claim to know a vast sum of the universe's secrets. If we can't even adequately describe the force that made an apple fall on isaac newton's head, only the after effect of said force, they we have not evolved much at all in our understanding. All we have done is discovered more "after effects" throughout the passage of time. We are good at that yes, but we still can't explain the most basic questions of "what is this" and "why is it present"


But ofc, we will "Soon" (TM)

I guess we shall see... but alternatively, maybe somewhere out there is an elephant headed deity drinking a bottle of vodka, who can explain the whole thing after he finally sobers up. We just have not discovered him yet. Big smile He shall say "it exists because I want it to", whatever would we do with ourselves then?

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#64 - 2012-02-05 16:37:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
P.S.

Did you say gravity transmits information faster then light? Can you provide a corroborating link please?

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Taedrin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#65 - 2012-02-05 19:49:53 UTC
W1rlW1nd wrote:

Question:
If a one inch hole appeared in the side of my spacecraft while in space, [and the hole was stable, it stays at that size], would I be able to cover it with my hands and successfully stop the leak of air to the outside? Sure it would not be pleasant. . ., but is one atmosphere difference to near-vacuum enough to rip the meat and muscle through a one inch diameter hole? The majority of my hand would have a contact seal with the wall of the ship especially under pressure, so the shortest distance for air to get to the hole might be through the back of my hand, but I would bet human muscle tissue can resist 1 atm?? also I would have my free hand cupped over the back of the first hand just to make sure. Is that enough to stop up the hole?

a) would part of my hands flash freeze, further helping to plug the hole? [like a super bad case of frostbite]

b) would the blood in my palm boil into vacuum, but still be able to plug the hole?

c) worst case scenario, if there was enough pressure to pulverize my hand, would the thick bones of my forearm certainly plug the gap?

d) none of the above, is there something I am not considering about the effect of 1 -> zero atmosphere through a small opening?


This has actually happened before:
Quote:

On the subject of partial-body vacuum exposure, the results are not quite as serious. In 1960, during a high-altitude balloon parachute-jump, a partial-body vacuum exposure incident occurred when Joe Kittinger, Jr. lost pressurization in his right glove during an ascent to 103,000 ft (19.5 miles) in an unpressurized balloon gondola, Despite the depressurization, he continued the mission, and although the hand became painful and useless, after he returned to the ground, his hand returned to normal. Kittinger wrote in National Geographic (November 1960):
"At 43,000 feet I find out [what can go wrong]. My right hand does not feel normal. I examine the pressure glove; its air bladder is not inflating. The prospect of exposing the hand to the near-vacuum of peak altitude causes me some concern. From my previous experiences, I know that the hand will swell, lose most of its circulation, and cause extreme pain.... I decide to continue the ascent, without notifying ground control of my difficulty."
at 103,000 feet, he writes:
"Circulation has almost stopped in my unpressurized right hand, which feels stiff and painful."
But at the landing:
"**** looks at the swollen hand with concern. Three hours later the swelling will have disappeared with no ill effect."
The decompression incident on Kittinger's balloon jump is discussed further in Shayler's Disasters and Accidents in Manned Spaceflight:
[When Kittinger reached his peak altitude] "his right hand was twice the normal size... He tried to release some of his equipment prior to landing, but was not able to as his right hand was still in great pain. He hit the ground 13 min. 45 sec. after leaving Excelsior. Three hours after landing his swollen hand and his circulation were back to normal."


The thing is that the human skin IS strong enough to withstand a 1 atm pressure differential. It will not rupture, but it will swell instead. Your internal body fluids will have enough pressure from the skin to avoid boiling. However, external body fluids such as tears or saliva will boil. Also, your lungs will violently decompress, possibly causing severe damage.
Tsadkiel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#66 - 2012-02-05 19:53:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Tsadkiel
holy crap, lots more questions! sorry guys, i don't check as often as i should =D it's a lazy Sunday so i'm sitting at home watching Dr. Who and i figured i would check out the forums!

so, short ones first!
Quote:

P.S.

Did you say gravity transmits information faster then light? Can you provide a corroborating link please?


nope! never said that. and if i did somehow say that, it was a typo heheh. gravity interacts at c. if our sun were to just vanish, we wouldn't feel it for around 8 minutes.

Quote:
If a vacuum is nothing, how can a charge be conveyed through it and impart force onto a second charged particle?


contrary to what has been posted we actually know the answer to this question very well! this is mostly thanks to a man named Richard Feynman, who was one of the primary developers of a theory called Quantum ElectroDynamics or QED (quite easily done!). that said, there are a lot of interesting things tied up in this little question.

firstly, the question implies that charges need some kind of medium to transmit their force through. this is similar very old and somewhat enchanting idea called theory of the Ether. in the 19th century it was widely agreed that light was a wave (mostly as a result of interference experiments), but then the question became "if light is a wave, what is waving? what is the medium through which the wave is transmitted"?. This was the birth of the Ether theory which stated that there was an ever present, invisible medium of the universe called Ether, and it held the light. this was ultimately proven false, again though interference experiments. then, along comes James Clark Maxwell with a paper on electrodynamics that directly linked light to electromagnetism, and proved that light COULD travel through a vacuum.

several decades later QED is made and it shows how light directly couples to electrons. it turns out that light as we know it is a Gauge Boson. Gauge bosons are particles which transmit forces to other particles. we suspect that there is at least one gauge boson for each of the four fundamental forces, but we haven't found one for gravity yet ( the W and Z for the weak force, the Photon for the electromagnetic force, and the Gluon for the strong force. the gravity boson is called the Graviton and it hasn't been found).

so, now that that is out of the way, the answer to your question is that the electric force is conveyed through light, and light requires no medium to travel! whew! (light transmitted between two particles that is never directly measured is referred to as Virtual Light

as a point of interest, the electric force from a point charge falls off as the inverse square of the distance. following QED this force is transmitted by virtual light being emitted from the point charge. the intensity of light as a function of distance from the source goes as the inverse of the surface area of a sphere with that radius, which is the inverse square of the distance :3
Tsadkiel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#67 - 2012-02-05 21:14:24 UTC
Taedrin wrote:
I took a physics 101 class last year, and my professor was unable to answer my questions.

Distant Observer A is watching Object C fall into Black hole B. According to my (very limited) schooling in physics, Distant Observer A sees Object C slow down as at approaches Black hole B's event horizon due to time dilation. In fact, the time dilation is so strong that Distant Observer A will never observe Object C cross the event horizon.

1) Does Distant Observer A ever observe an increase in Black Hole B's mass?
2) Consider a super massive star in the process of collapsing into a black hole. At the very instant that a black hole forms, will a distant observer ever observe the black hole absorb the rest of the star, or grow at all for that matter?
4) Let's say that object C is an infalling observer. Will object C observe the rest of the universe's time outside of the black hole accelerate asymptotically? Will object C observe the end of the universe in its entirety in the instant that it crosses the event horizon of the black hole?
5) Let's say that we also have an object D following directly behind object C. Will object D observe object C cross the event horizon before itself? Or will object D observe object C crossing the event horizon at the exact same moment that object D crosses the event horizon?


oh i do so love black holes. i haven't had an advanced General Relativity class yet so i am not sure on the specifics of a lot of this but here we go!

1) yes! black holes increase in mass as they absorb matter. they can also evaporate :3

2) it depends on the collapse but because the collapse is not instantaneous, yes, it would be observed regardless. if it's particularly violent, a portion of the star may escape the pull of the black hole. if it's particularly calm, it may not.

3) from what i have learned, yes, the infalling observer would observe time accelerate in the rest of the universe. the INTERESTING bit is at the event horizon itself, which is AT the asymptote. here there is no "time" as we know it and the observer would be able to see all the light in the universe that is, was, or ever will be. unpleasant...

4) i am really not sure about this... sorry! the light from objects at or near the event horizon becomes redshifted until the object is no longer observable BUT redshifting is dependent on the relative curvature of the universe between the two objects in question so ... yea, it's a bit confusing. the following object CAN'T see past the event horizon for causality reasons so i imagine it would appear to approach the after image of the preceding object... again, not sure.
Taedrin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2012-02-05 22:12:24 UTC
Tsadkiel wrote:
Taedrin wrote:
I took a physics 101 class last year, and my professor was unable to answer my questions.

Distant Observer A is watching Object C fall into Black hole B. According to my (very limited) schooling in physics, Distant Observer A sees Object C slow down as at approaches Black hole B's event horizon due to time dilation. In fact, the time dilation is so strong that Distant Observer A will never observe Object C cross the event horizon.

1) Does Distant Observer A ever observe an increase in Black Hole B's mass?
2) Consider a super massive star in the process of collapsing into a black hole. At the very instant that a black hole forms, will a distant observer ever observe the black hole absorb the rest of the star, or grow at all for that matter?
4) Let's say that object C is an infalling observer. Will object C observe the rest of the universe's time outside of the black hole accelerate asymptotically? Will object C observe the end of the universe in its entirety in the instant that it crosses the event horizon of the black hole?
5) Let's say that we also have an object D following directly behind object C. Will object D observe object C cross the event horizon before itself? Or will object D observe object C crossing the event horizon at the exact same moment that object D crosses the event horizon?


oh i do so love black holes. i haven't had an advanced General Relativity class yet so i am not sure on the specifics of a lot of this but here we go!

1) yes! black holes increase in mass as they absorb matter. they can also evaporate :3

2) it depends on the collapse but because the collapse is not instantaneous, yes, it would be observed regardless. if it's particularly violent, a portion of the star may escape the pull of the black hole. if it's particularly calm, it may not.

3) from what i have learned, yes, the infalling observer would observe time accelerate in the rest of the universe. the INTERESTING bit is at the event horizon itself, which is AT the asymptote. here there is no "time" as we know it and the observer would be able to see all the light in the universe that is, was, or ever will be. unpleasant...

4) i am really not sure about this... sorry! the light from objects at or near the event horizon becomes redshifted until the object is no longer observable BUT redshifting is dependent on the relative curvature of the universe between the two objects in question so ... yea, it's a bit confusing. the following object CAN'T see past the event horizon for causality reasons so i imagine it would appear to approach the after image of the preceding object... again, not sure.


Alright, if those are your answers, then I have MOAR questions.

I am confused by what appears to be an inconsistency in your answers. In answer #3 you say that the infalling observer observes time in the rest of the universe accelerating asymptotically. This means as the infalling observer can observe an arbitrary amount of time pass in the rest of the universe as s/he/it approaches the event horizon.

But here's the clincher: blackholes evaporate in a very long, but finite amount of time. Sooner or later the rest of the universe will observe the black hole evaporate, yet the infalling observer will be able to observe an infinite amount of time pass in the rest of the universe, yet still end up crossing the event horizon - even though the rest of the universe would claim that the black hole evaporated a long time ago! Wouldn't this be a causality violation? Shouldn't the universe and the infalling observer agree when the observer crosses the event horizon relative to the universe?
Tsadkiel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2012-02-05 23:04:17 UTC
Taedrin wrote:
Tsadkiel wrote:
Taedrin wrote:
I took a physics 101 class last year, and my professor was unable to answer my questions.

Distant Observer A is watching Object C fall into Black hole B. According to my (very limited) schooling in physics, Distant Observer A sees Object C slow down as at approaches Black hole B's event horizon due to time dilation. In fact, the time dilation is so strong that Distant Observer A will never observe Object C cross the event horizon.

1) Does Distant Observer A ever observe an increase in Black Hole B's mass?
2) Consider a super massive star in the process of collapsing into a black hole. At the very instant that a black hole forms, will a distant observer ever observe the black hole absorb the rest of the star, or grow at all for that matter?
4) Let's say that object C is an infalling observer. Will object C observe the rest of the universe's time outside of the black hole accelerate asymptotically? Will object C observe the end of the universe in its entirety in the instant that it crosses the event horizon of the black hole?
5) Let's say that we also have an object D following directly behind object C. Will object D observe object C cross the event horizon before itself? Or will object D observe object C crossing the event horizon at the exact same moment that object D crosses the event horizon?


oh i do so love black holes. i haven't had an advanced General Relativity class yet so i am not sure on the specifics of a lot of this but here we go!

1) yes! black holes increase in mass as they absorb matter. they can also evaporate :3

2) it depends on the collapse but because the collapse is not instantaneous, yes, it would be observed regardless. if it's particularly violent, a portion of the star may escape the pull of the black hole. if it's particularly calm, it may not.

3) from what i have learned, yes, the infalling observer would observe time accelerate in the rest of the universe. the INTERESTING bit is at the event horizon itself, which is AT the asymptote. here there is no "time" as we know it and the observer would be able to see all the light in the universe that is, was, or ever will be. unpleasant...

4) i am really not sure about this... sorry! the light from objects at or near the event horizon becomes redshifted until the object is no longer observable BUT redshifting is dependent on the relative curvature of the universe between the two objects in question so ... yea, it's a bit confusing. the following object CAN'T see past the event horizon for causality reasons so i imagine it would appear to approach the after image of the preceding object... again, not sure.


Alright, if those are your answers, then I have MOAR questions.

I am confused by what appears to be an inconsistency in your answers. In answer #3 you say that the infalling observer observes time in the rest of the universe accelerating asymptotically. This means as the infalling observer can observe an arbitrary amount of time pass in the rest of the universe as s/he/it approaches the event horizon.

But here's the clincher: blackholes evaporate in a very long, but finite amount of time. Sooner or later the rest of the universe will observe the black hole evaporate, yet the infalling observer will be able to observe an infinite amount of time pass in the rest of the universe, yet still end up crossing the event horizon - even though the rest of the universe would claim that the black hole evaporated a long time ago! Wouldn't this be a causality violation? Shouldn't the universe and the infalling observer agree when the observer crosses the event horizon relative to the universe?


AH! yes, you got me there. my answer to 3 is wrong and this is my mistake. there is a subtlety here i forgot. the asymptote ISN'T on the event horizon, but time as we know it still ends there. the reason for this is because past the event horizon you can only ever fall towards the singularity. you can't escape ( you might be able to orbit but as i said, i really don't know). this implies that spacial dimensions are different past that point and therefore, so is time. there are very specific implications that the properties of light force on causality, and because light behaves differently, time will too... as i said, i haven't had a GR course and this is the core of black hole physics. sorry!
Borascus
#70 - 2012-02-06 00:51:18 UTC
1. What happened to relativistic mass?


2. Why is Time Travel (either direction) still debatable when simultaneous equations and emanations of energy dictate that everything is co-processing, but without dependancy?


Also, if the answer to two was released at Christmas would it be the equivalent of CERN announcing that the LHC cannot make micro-blackholes?
Arcosian
Arcosian Heavy Industries Corp Holding
#71 - 2012-02-06 00:54:50 UTC
Taedrin wrote:
Arcosian wrote:
It's like trying to explain how gravity works. We know how it behaves but not what causes it or how it's information can be transmitted faster than light. We don't even know for sure what gives matter mass. All we have are theories but with the LHC up and running maybe we will have some answers in the near future.


Gravity doesn't convey information faster than light. IIRC, this was one of the fundamental breakthroughs in Einstein's theory of relativity. He proposed that if the sun were to simply disappear, the planets would continue to orbit the sun as if the sun were still there until the last of the sun's light reached us. Or in other words, gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light, not instantaneously.

And we do have theories about how gravity works. According to relativity gravity is the curvature of spacetime, caused by the existence of mass at the center of the gravitational field. The problem is that we can not (yet) reconcile the differences between gravity in relativity and in quantum physics.

You are correct and I don't know why I wrote gravity was transmitted faster than light and as such I have corrected my post. I learned it wasn't a FTL force way back before I was even a freshman in college so I guess I shouldn't be writing intellectual posts after 12am anymore. Ugh
Arcosian
Arcosian Heavy Industries Corp Holding
#72 - 2012-02-06 00:57:05 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
P.S.

Did you say gravity transmits information faster then light? Can you provide a corroborating link please?

That was a mistake and I have corrected my original post. Writing intellectual posts after 12am is something I'm going to try and avoid now.
Tsadkiel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#73 - 2012-02-06 01:59:19 UTC
Borascus wrote:
1. What happened to relativistic mass?


2. Why is Time Travel (either direction) still debatable when simultaneous equations and emanations of energy dictate that everything is co-processing, but without dependancy?


Also, if the answer to two was released at Christmas would it be the equivalent of CERN announcing that the LHC cannot make micro-blackholes?




it's still there, it just isn't the accepted convention. relativistic velocities imply relativistic energy, and energy curves space-time (have have evidence for this. a compressed spring is literally heavier than an uncompressed spring).

not sure about what you are talking about in 2 though. time travel is debatable because the laws of physics seem to have no preference as to the direction of the flow of time ( write an equation in t and it works just as well with -t. this is called temporal symmetry), yet the universe DOES, which seems to disagree with the current laws. so there are people in both camps.
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#74 - 2012-02-06 02:17:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Tsadkiel wrote:
Thx for reply


I respect your field of expertise a great deal, but are you talking about virtual particles that have never actually been observed,or are you talking about something that has been observed? Just curious for my own personal reasons (no troll intended). Because if it has, I have some reading to do. Shocked


But if it hasn't, then there are allot of "theoretical questions" off of the top of my head that I would just love to ask you Big smile So please do tell.

Quote:

Such borrowed photons are called “virtual” photons to distinguish them from real photons, which constitute electromagnetic radiation and can, in principle, exist forever. This concept of virtual particles in processes that fulfill the conditions of the uncertainty principle applies to the exchange of other gauge bosons as well.


I found some light reading already, but it is already talking about "Virtual Photons"so I gather it is still as theoretical as the Ether theory?


Edit:

If memory serves, there were two distinct theories presented to answer questions like "how is charged conveyed through nothing" Theory 1. was the Ether theory (suggesting that space-time is more then nothing) and the second was what I like to call the "Cannon Ball theory" suggesting that enough tiny particles hurling themselves through nothing could convey said charges through their random interactions with matter in space.


As far as I know, both theories are highly theoretical and have a great deal of theory and conjecture involved in them. With the "Cannon Ball Theory" the most obvious question is what mechanism is causing their interactions upon impact? Do they absorb and re-emit? If so how? Do they interact through some other means? If so how? Do they just bounce off of matter like a tennis ball? If so... how?

It is not a new theory, it is a theory that has been around for a long while (if memory serves) even though the name of it may have changed. It also requires a significant amount of "faith" for lack of a better word, since it cannot possibly be observed. We just have to take people's word for it. The theory also fails to tie up some loose ends.


Am I mistaken?
If so please educate me. I would love to learn something new.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Tsadkiel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#75 - 2012-02-06 02:51:24 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Tsadkiel wrote:
Thx for reply


I respect your field of expertise a great deal, but are you talking about virtual particles that have never actually been observed,or are you talking about something that has been observed? Just curious for my own personal reasons (no troll intended). Because if it has, I have some reading to do. Shocked


But if it hasn't, then there are allot of "theoretical questions" off of the top of my head that I would just love to ask you Big smile So please do tell.

Quote:

Such borrowed photons are called “virtual” photons to distinguish them from real photons, which constitute electromagnetic radiation and can, in principle, exist forever. This concept of virtual particles in processes that fulfill the conditions of the uncertainty principle applies to the exchange of other gauge bosons as well.


I found some light reading already, but it is already talking about "Virtual Photons"so I gather it is still as theoretical as the Ether theory?


virtual particles are virtual because they CANNOT be observed. particle exchange models have provided us with very specific and unique properties for the universe which we have observed. they also allow us to make very VERY precise predictions on things like atomic hyperfine structure and the Lamb Shift in hydrogen. how precise? 1E-8 or ten parts per billion! this is like measuring the distance from the moon to the earth to within a few feet! (we can do better with the moon but this is just an example).

and, again, a THEORY is not a HYPOTHESIS. yes, this is a theory. so is gravity and evolution :p
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#76 - 2012-02-06 02:58:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
It is the "cannon ball" idea though correct?


The idea that enough tiny "conveyors of charge" flying through the "nothing" can cause electrons to repel each other, and be attracted to a positive charge?

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#77 - 2012-02-06 03:05:08 UTC
Question:


The last time I read about Dark Matter, it seemed like the new speculation is suggesting that it is composed of a new something that formed alongside normal matter. As in, it is not composed of the ordinary stuff that we contribute to the rest of the universe. Is this true?

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Tsadkiel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#78 - 2012-02-06 03:06:33 UTC
Eternum Praetorian

yes, there are questions that particle exchange models. but that's science. it is an iterative process.

Quote:
As far as I know, both theories are highly theoretical and have a great deal of theory and conjecture involved in them. With the "Cannon Ball Theory" the most obvious question is what mechanism is causing their interactions upon impact? Do they absorb and re-emit? If so how? Do they interact through some other means? If so how? Do they just bounce off of matter like a tennis ball? If so... how?


your cannon ball theory is a primitive particle exchange model. your questions here are very VERY good! the long and short of it is that the exchange particles literally transform into others in the same way that energy from a collision at CERN might condense into muons or whatever. for forces, it's an absorption process. classical electrodynamics completely allows for the transfer of momentum via light, and you can prove it completely without QM.

Quote:
It also requires a significant amount of "faith" for lack of a better word, since it cannot possibly be observed.


if a theory does not provide measurable predictions, then it is not a valid theory. we call this Falsifiability. faith has nothing to do with it. if your theory requires faith, it's a crap theory. you can have assumptions! you can have conjectures! you can have approximations! but faith is not testable.
Tsadkiel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2012-02-06 03:13:23 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Question:


The last time I read about Dark Matter, it seemed like the new speculation is suggesting that it is composed of a new something that formed alongside normal matter. As in, it is not composed of the ordinary stuff that we contribute to the rest of the universe. Is this true?



from my understanding, kinda yes? current evidence suggests that dark matter is nonbaryonic and does not interact electromagnetically (hence the dark bit). this excludes pretty much all known matter except perhaps neutrinos. alas, neutrinos do not have anywhere near enough mass to produce the effects we see astronomically. the "dark matter particles" are colloquially referred to as WIMPs or Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. there is currently no evidence (to my knowledge) that shows the existence of WIMPs (that is to say, we haven't found any yet). my senior research thesis was a search for WIMPs =D
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#80 - 2012-02-06 03:18:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Well thx for that, food for thought at least Big smile


I will be doing my best to find as much regarding this theory as possible. The idea of spontaneous particle changes makes my mind go haywire with irritating questions, but I will spare you for now. Mwhahah!!!




One way or the other, I have this sense that one day we will discover that space-time is in fact a something and it is fundamentally tied to all observable forces in existence. Even if particles do undergo metamorphoses as stated, the root of those changes must lie in space-time and other energy states which comprise dimension. At least, that his my unique uninformed opinion on the subject Big smile I will leave you alone now, unless you are glutton for punishment.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]