Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2014 - 09:11pm PT
|
Regarding causality - we've observed time to have a forward bias, but, to my knowledge, we don't really know why entropy increases in a closed system, although we do observe it empirically. The conservation laws work just as well forward or backward, to my knowledge.
Then there's the probabilistic outcome issue. What 'causes' any given outcome there?
Or maybe that's just my issue.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2014 - 09:49pm PT
|
you have to allow for the fact that you can reverse the process too...
That's hard to imagine in the Chemistry and Biological world
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2014 - 10:27pm PT
|
Very good descriptive post Tvash!
Everything with mass energy and motion energy is attracted to everything else with mass energy and motion energy. Note that
'just mass' isn't mentioned here. Classical Newtonian gravitation employs mass, because the mass energy of large, slow moving objects like planets dwarfs the motion energy of same to the point that it is negligible.
It's weird that things with different amounts of mass fall to earth at the same speed.
Your use of "just mass" confuses me. "Resting mass" has a certain amount of energy, maybe just to hold it's form? Like the plate on my table, sitting there it has a resting mass. Then when you pick it up and throw it across the room, it aquires a "motion energy", right?
Now with ur description i can, in my minds eye visualize it running through fields..
Cool!
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2014 - 11:15pm PT
|
bags of imprisoned or “confined” quarks, antiquarks and gluons.
Also among these "things" there must be water in that "bag"! Seems much like the "bag" containing our brain, or our liver,etc. Or the "bag" containing the Oak tree. And even the bag containing the Planet. Each one of these "Things"(can i say Forms?) in a "bag" are incapsulated by a membrane(?), or atmosphere(?), providing for a separate reality.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2014 - 11:23pm PT
|
the fields are particles...
and the particles are fields...
you can write them either way.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 07:46am PT
|
Words give a smeary picture of our understanding of physics. Mathematics is a necessary partner in the description.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 08:28am PT
|
See what i mean?
Eds observation is included in any intro to quantum physics class. By all means, tease out some melodrama as required.
Step one in absorbing new ideas: It really isnt all about you.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 10:15am PT
|
melodrama?
think about your ocean "fields" by which you mean waves, I believe. What are those "waves" made of?
when you are paddling out past the break, you go up a wave and then down the back of that wave... there is a subtle circular motion, but the wave itself leaves all the bits of water just where they were before it passed through.
same thing with an alternating current electrical line, those electrons in the copper are just moving back and forth... not ever going anywhere...
those are waves in some field, and we do know that we can use those waves to extract energy, at least surfers know how to do it in the ocean, and most of use are unknowing users of the later case.
it is ironic that one of the most mathematical contrivances of modern physics, field theory, was created by Michael Faraday to alleviate the need for mathematics.... Faraday did not push the theoretical envelope in math...
instead, he had a wonderfully visual representation of the electro-magnetic forces, originating from the interaction of a charge and a field. His visualizations, which propelled his own researches, were later picked up by Maxwell, and these physical ideas, originating with Faraday, became the first successful field theory, electrodynamics.
electrodynamics extends the Faraday electrostatic representation, if you wiggle the charge fast enough a new phenomena is predicted.. it is a wave, and electromagnetic wave, and that wave has a velocity magnitude equal to the speed of light. Very suggestive...
Hertz went onto show that Maxwell's electromagnetic wave was, in fact, light... a wonderful confirmation of the theory and an explanation of light's origin on a very fundamental level.
The idea of fields provides the connection that Newton famously avoided, hypothesis non fingo, to speculate on how is the gravitational force conveyed.
We view that conveyance now as the gravitational field.
Gravity being a field theory, has a dynamical aspect that has yet to be directly observed... if you "shake" a mass in the right way you should get gravity waves. This is the essential verification of a classical field theory.
And the universe being a big place, there must be someplace where that shaking is going on... but so far we haven't been able to detect it, not for want of trying over 40 years though.
There is excellent indirect evidence that gravity radiates... but we don't have the "smoking gun" experimental evidence. And until we do, we are open to surprise...
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 10:22am PT
|
That melodrama comment was meant for DMT, ED. I can see how that could have gotten garbled.
I do understand the dynamics of (water) waves from sailing and kayaking, and I stumbled through a semester of quantum physics, rather painfully.
Does any given point in space in the Higgs field have non-zero energy, or is it non-zero something else? Or is the Higgs field non-zero value an average over the entire field - with most of it having a non-zero value?
I'm reading about virtual particles. I'm getting that fundamental particles can be disturbances in more than one field (the electron in the electron and electromagnetic fields, for example), and those resultant disturbances can create disturbances in still more fields they interact with.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 11:19am PT
|
Tvash: Step one in absorbing new ideas: It really isn't all about you.
It sort of is.
:-)
I like Ed's surfing metaphor. Right now I'm in a condo in Poipu, Kaua'i, watching surfers catching waves. I don't mean to push that metaphor too far, but it seems to me that surfing energy shows up in all respects in life.
Aloha.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 11:37am PT
|
So get out there and surf, already. What the heck are you doing on a keyboard?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 01:14pm PT
|
Vector field in the complex plane - a very simple example having little to no application to physics other than perhaps fluid dynamics. It arises from a periodic continued fraction.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2014 - 10:36pm PT
|
the fields are particles...
and the particles are fields...
Huuuh? Particle=matter, Field=energy?
The Field is observable by the Particles. But that doesn't mean the particles ARE the field.
Did you mean the field is/are the map?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2014 - 10:45pm PT
|
in quantum mechanics energy is quantized
the quanta of the electromagnetic field are photons, they are particles
for the strong interaction as described by the standard model, the quantum chromodynamic fields are the gluons
for the weak interaction, which is also described as a field, they are the W and the Z bosons
eventually for the gravitational field it will be the graviton
the Higgs field that fills all of space, the recently discovered Higgs boson
all of these fields are describable as particles...
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2014 - 11:35pm PT
|
Thank God for patience.
i'm trying to comprehend all that.
i envisioned fields as being waves.
eventually for the gravitational field it will be the graviton
So where would gravitons originate from? And where do they go after the apple hits the ground?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2014 - 09:45am PT
|
fields are created by source which also annihilate them
the source of the gravitation field is any sort of energy... mass is a sort of energy, but so is the momentum
in General Relativity we talk about the "Energy-momentum stress tensor" as the "source" of the gravitational field....
the complications with gravity is that the graviton can interact with other gravitons, gravitational energy has to be included in the "stress tensor."
While this is also the case for quantumchromodynamics (QCD, in the Standard Model) the field theories have different features, features that allow for the possible solution of QCD, but keep gravity from becoming a fully quantum theory (we can't "tame the infinities").
the correct statement of Energy is a statement of invariance....
m₀˛c⁴ = E˛ - p˛c˛
where we call m₀ the "rest mass" (we call it that because when the momentum, p=0, the energy is the energy the object has "at rest"). The minus sign has to do with the nature of space and time... (we say that space-time has a "Minkowski metric").
The relativistic invariant says that the "length" of the vector, (E, p₁, p₂, p₃) stays the same independent of the "intertial reference frame." (p˛ = p₁˛+p₂˛+p₃˛; the subscripts 1,2,3 indicate the three spatial dimension directions).
|
|
Psilocyborg
climber
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2014 - 09:47am PT
|
science is only as good as the latest laws and theories which can be turned on its head at any time.
All the while you exist in your mind unchanged.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2014 - 03:33pm PT
|
all of these fields are describable as particles... (Ed)
Ed, when I play with vector fields in the plane on my computer each point hypothetically has associated with it both magnitude and direction, although I graph only a few such points. Is this what you mean? Are the particles that compose the physical fields like these points on a plane, or are you talking about something more sophisticated and more abstract? Certainly in mathematical analysis "points" and "vectors" can easily have abstract existences that one cannot envision in two or three dimensions.
As Werner would say I have "poor fund" of knowledge of physics!
;>)
Edit: OK, here is a good discussion:
Particles & Fields
A particle could be an excited state of an underlying field.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 14, 2014 - 05:50pm PT
|
the fields are particles...
and the particles are fields...
you can write them either way.
This reminds me of a basic Zen truth: Emptiness is form and form is emptiness. The question is: Why do we need two names for the "same" things (or non-things).
JL
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2014 - 06:03pm PT
|
Because they have personality and you are fixed only the impersonal feature ......
Simultaneous oneness and difference
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!