Starship Asterisk*

kannan krishnaswamy wrote:In the space any heavenly body is living inside the “Gravitational field” of another body. Planets, stars, galaxies all these bodies are bathing in a pool of gravity. The entire Universe is filled with this force without a gap. So all events that are happening inside this pool can be understood only if we can understand the true nature of this force. Out side our atmosphere, we often encounter aberrations in our existing cosmological theories :?: :!: . I believe we‘ve gone wrong somewhere in understanding this force.

Then I'll ask again, how have we gone wrong? In what way does our current understanding of gravity fail us? It appears to me that GR does a spectacularly good job of explaining what we observe.

Good morning Chris! Now its morning in this side of the Globe!
The revolutionary thoughts of Great Newton and Einstein have made us people to think and discuss about this part of science. Great Newton saw this force as “linear” whereas Einstein saw it as “curved. There are two ways to solve a problem. One is to solve it by “parts”. The other is to solve it as a “Whole”. The concept and the understanding can be complete only when we solve it as a ‘whole’. I think GR explains the Universe in ‘parts’ rather than as a ‘whole’. A complete picture of the model is required to understand the roots. For example let me take this case . “Earth is orbiting around the Sun. This motion is said to be the result of the interactions of the gravitational forces of these two bodies. Both ‘linear’ and ‘curved’ theories explain this motion in their own way but they fail to explain why the axis of the Earth remains unaltered during it’s course around the Sun.” I think if our understanding about this force is satisfactory then many unexplained areas like the one I've quoted, should not have occurred to us. These lackings drive me to think that we have deviated from the correct approach some where.
Thank you Chris.
Kannan krishnaswamy.

kannan krishnaswamy wrote: I think its time to reexamine those theories . I think Mark tries to question the basic concepts . Am I right Mark?!!

I am afraid I have to say Yes to that.

I Think Time is the key. That opens some of the doors. Einstein said " Time is a physical thing" And I take that quite literately. But I also see that Time is Moved (forward/Backwards) By large objects Or Speed. It is what we can all See. I can also see that Gravity Changes The direction of Light. A Photon with hardly any Or No Mass. If we have to adjust a Clock When we move away from our speck of dust planet Earth, A pin prick of distance, Then you can Bet a 4 million solar mass object is going to have a greater effect on Time. So what say of an 18 billion solar mass When we look at the Stars, We could say We are looking back in time, But we are not, we are seeing a photon that left that star all those years ago. When we look at a Black Hole, We say we cant see any light, because Gravity is to strong for light to escape. Are you totally sure that is the case

I can not see the future, I can not see the past. But I know they exist. I believe, If it was not for Gravities effect on (Or interaction with) Time, The whole universe would of been over in in one instant. Now wrap all that up together with space Time, and it should answer a lot of questions.

tc

How about if there are (2)- kinds of time? One that is set and one that is variable. The one that is set would be from the begining, to the end. The one that is variable would be the things that take place in between the set begining and the set end, that involves all the things that are going on that take different amounts of time to accomplish. Do you think that's a plausible explanation?

This is a scientific forum. We talk about science, and the way science works. Scientists don't arbitrarily re-examine theories and concepts, but do so when existing theory and observation appear in conflict (usually because of new, better observations).

So I'll ask again, to anybody here advocating a new questioning of the basic concepts: what is wrong with the existing theory? Where do you see it failing? And I mean that scientifically; a theory does not fail if it produces a conclusion contrary to your intuition. It fails if it cannot explain and predict actual observation.

So unless you can provide a concrete example of the failure of GR to explain something we observe in terms of time or gravity, you can expect a call for new concepts to fall on deaf ears.

Quote:

The Geometric interpretation of General Relativity asserts that mass warps space and space steers mass, but it fails to explain how mass causes the warping of space in the first place.

General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics conflict with each other, although theorists in each field assume the other is fundamentally correct and that some way will be found to reconcile them.

http://www.hcwarren.com/ Dated 2010

You want me to find more ? Should I Need to ?

tc

The Code wrote:The Geometric interpretation of General Relativity asserts that mass warps space and space steers mass, but it fails to explain how mass causes the warping of space in the first place.

That is not a failure of the theory, however. GR does explain our observations, and no observation has cropped up that conflicts with GR. Nothing in the desire to know "how" mass warps space argues for a new approach to understanding gravity.

General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics conflict with each other, although theorists in each field assume the other is fundamentally correct and that some way will be found to reconcile them.

No, they don't conflict. Theorists would like to see a single theory which ties the two together, but the absence of such a theory in no way suggests that there is anything wrong with either GR or QM.

Chris Peterson wrote:GR does explain our observations, and no observation has cropped up that conflicts with GR. Nothing in the desire to know "how" mass warps space argues for a new approach to understanding gravity.

If you do not understand (HOW), at the local level, How can you tally for deviance ? For mostly any encounter ? And where is "Time" in all this ? Why ? Because "Time" is prevalent ? And we all know how GR talks about "Time".

tc

The Code wrote:If you do not understand (HOW), at the local level, How can you tally for deviance ? For mostly any encounter ? And where is "Time" in all this ? Why ? Because "Time" is prevalent ? And we all know how GR talks about "Time".

I have no clue what "tally for deviance" means.

"How" may not always be an answerable question, and in many cases knowing "how" is completely unnecessary to still have a solid, scientific theory.

Chris Peterson wrote:

The Code wrote:If you do not understand (HOW), at the local level, How can you tally for deviance ? For mostly any encounter ? And where is "Time" in all this ? Why ? Because "Time" is prevalent ? And we all know how GR talks about "Time".

I have no clue what "tally for deviance" means.

"How" may not always be an answerable question, and in many cases knowing "how" is completely unnecessary to still have a solid, scientific theory.

"Tally for deviance" = account for discrepancy = English + Wikipedia should give you my translation from English to American.



Not knowing "HOW" Is a dead end. And is why folk have spent billions on the LHC.

tc

The Code wrote:tally for deviance" = account for discrepancy = English + Wikipedia should give you my translation from English to American.

Sorry, I still don't know what you are trying to say.The concept makes no sense to me in your context.

Not knowing "HOW" Is a dead end. And is why folk have spent billions on the LHC.

I disagree with both assertions.

Chris Peterson wrote:

The Code wrote:tally for deviance" = account for discrepancy = English + Wikipedia should give you my translation from English to American.

Sorry, I still don't know what you are trying to say.The concept makes no sense to me in your context.

Not knowing "HOW" Is a dead end. And is why folk have spent billions on the LHC.

I disagree with both assertions.

Good. You got a big surprise coming, wish i had.

tc

Chris Peterson wrote:

swainy (tc) wrote:So if Gravity has been answered, You would think they would stop looking for it. And the elusive particle That gives Matter its Mass.

The graviton is not the particle that gives matter its mass. Mass is an intrinsic property. The graviton is not needed to explain gravity, either. So what is the graviton? It is a hypothetical particle proposed to be the carrier of the gravity field in a quantum analysis of gravity. Why are they looking for gravitons? Because it would help tie GR and QM together. But nobody knows if the two actually can be tied together.

This may be a good time to present one of my "thought experiments". Let's say some being lived on an electron and wanted to travel to another electron orbiting the same atomic nucleus or to the atomic nucleus itself. What would be the possible range of velocities and times to accomplish this mission? Assume a simple helium atom with 2 protons, 2 neutrons, and 2 electrons.

Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA
01/26/2011

dougettinger wrote:This may be a good time to present one of my "thought experiments". Let's say some being lived on an electron and wanted to travel to another electron orbiting the same atomic nucleus or to the atomic nucleus itself. What would be the possible range of velocities and times to accomplish this mission? Assume a simple helium atom with 2 protons, 2 neutrons, and 2 electrons.

Very close, but no cigar. In fact, do you know how close to the truth you managed to get ? In fact, life was at some point simple particles, or even less.

Gravity, time, are more elusive. But i can not help thinking, to come from so small, To evolve to who we are today, we must have already worked it all out ?
Have a good think about it !

tc

The speed of an electron in a vacuum is 0.99999999995 c. I am not sure that this is the orbital velocity of an electron around an atomic nucleus. Does anyone know a computed typical, approximate orbital velocity for an electron ?

Everybody in this forum is participating in "top shelf" collective consciousness. Do not be scared.

Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA

dougettinger wrote:The speed of an electron in a vacuum is 0.99999999995 c. I am not sure that this is the orbital velocity of an electron around an atomic nucleus. Does anyone know a computed typical, approximate orbital velocity for an electron ?

Electrons aren't really objects in the sense that planets are objects, and their orbits are not orbits in the planetary sense. Rather an electron inhabits an "orbital" which is best thought of as the zone in which an electron can potentially be found. Hence the idea of speed is not, I think, relevant.

Rob

dougettinger wrote:The speed of an electron in a vacuum is 0.99999999995 c.

No, it isn't. An electron can be stationary- it isn't a massless particle. So an electron can exist at any velocity 0 <= v < c.

I am not sure that this is the orbital velocity of an electron around an atomic nucleus.

Electrons don't orbit the atomic nucleus. You are perhaps thinking of the Bohr model of the atom, where electrons actually orbit the nucleus. While this can be a useful model for explaining a few simple quantum concepts, it isn't physically accurate. An analysis of the Bohr model does yield electron velocities (as it must, since orbits are determined by the balance of electrostatic and centripetal forces). Those calculated velocities are useful for describing some observations, but they don't describe actual electron velocities in real atoms.

Ok, Chris, if electrons don't "orbit" around the nucleus, Just what do they do??

beyond wrote:Ok, Chris, if electrons don't "orbit" around the nucleus, Just what do they do??

Well, it's a little hard to describe. Physically, you might say they sort of hover in little clouds, positioned according to quantum parameters. But even that isn't quite right, because at the atomic scale electrons aren't behaving strictly as particles. Their actual positions can't be defined, but are described by probability functions. These functions, which are called orbitals (not to be confused with orbits!) describe the energy and likely positions of the electrons.

I think that it is much easier to visualize atoms if you discard the image of orbiting electrons. After all, atoms stick together to form molecules, and that generally involves the atoms sharing electrons- a concept that makes little sense if the atoms have orbiting electrons, but is pretty obvious if you imagine overlapping electron "clouds".

Hmm...it looks like electrons have their own strange behavior, a little like photons, but greatly different.
So in the case of electricity, is it a single electron that leaves It's space around the nucleus to cause current flow if there's a 'clump' of them, or would it just be the outermost electron, or perhaps the nucleus just sheds all It's electrons when an electromotive force is applied??

beyond wrote:Hmm...it looks like electrons have their own strange behavior, a little like photons, but greatly different.

Not so different, in some respects.

So in the case of electricity, is it a single electron that leaves It's space around the nucleus to cause current flow if there's a 'clump' of them, or would it just be the outermost electron, or perhaps the nucleus just sheds all It's electrons when an electromotive force is applied??

"Electricity" usually refers to the motion of charge, which does not necessarily mean electrons. In an electrolyte, ions carry charge. In some semiconductors, virtual positive charges called holes (really, the absence of electrons) carry charge. But for the more typical case of "ordinary" electric current in metal conductors, it is the valence electrons of the conductive material that are physically moving and which are carrying charge. Usually that means you are looking at a single electron leaving the outer shell of an atom and moving to another atom. There is a sort of wave phenomenon involved: even though the current itself moves in the conductor at a substantial fraction of the speed of light (around 75% perhaps), the individual electrons drift along much, much slower than this- centimeters per second if I recall correctly.

Thanks Chris. I used to do electrical work many-many years ago, so i tend to think along those lines unlike a scientist that takes a broader view.
If i remember correctly, at 110 volts, an electron moves (1)-inch per day, through the typical copper wire used in houses. That's a BIG distance for such a small particle!
Do you think that maybe the electron's electrical field jumps from electron to electron, faster than the electons themselves are moving? That the electrical field is actually using the electrons as a 'highway' to travel over when an electomotive force is applied?

beyond wrote:Do you think that maybe the electron's electrical field jumps from electron to electron, faster than the electons themselves are moving? That the electrical field is actually using the electrons as a 'highway' to travel over when an electomotive force is applied?

Yes, something like that, although it isn't quite accurate to say the field is moving. Imagine a whole string of magnets, aligned so they repel each other. If you push the one on one end slowly towards the other end, the whole string will move- that is, the one on the far end will move very soon after you start the first one moving, even though it could take a very long time for the actual first magnet to go the entire distance. Force can be transmitted very quickly, even if the carriers are barely moving at all.

Chris Peterson wrote:

dougettinger wrote:The speed of an electron in a vacuum is 0.99999999995 c.

No, it isn't. An electron can be stationary- it isn't a massless particle. So an electron can exist at any velocity 0 <= v < c.

I am not sure that this is the orbital velocity of an electron around an atomic nucleus.

Electrons don't orbit the atomic nucleus. You are perhaps thinking of the Bohr model of the atom, where electrons actually orbit the nucleus. While this can be a useful model for explaining a few simple quantum concepts, it isn't physically accurate. An analysis of the Bohr model does yield electron velocities (as it must, since orbits are determined by the balance of electrostatic and centripetal forces). Those calculated velocities are useful for describing some observations, but they don't describe actual electron velocities in real atoms.

Indeed, an electron is a particle with some mass as is proven by collisions witnessed in a bubble chamber. So what is a typical velocity of an electron traveling in an orbital cloud around an atomic nucleus based on the Bohr model using a balance of electrostatic and centripetal forces ? I always thought the orbital cloud represented the uncertainty of locating the electrons' positions; It would be comparable to looking at the solar system from a far distant external position and trying to locate accurately the position of a planet with all its perturbations, elliptical precessions, possible collisions/ejections, inclination changes, etc. over large periods of time ( because in the time period that a person tries to observe an electron it has more than likely orbited the nucleus millions or billions of times).


Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA 01/31/11

dougettinger wrote:Indeed, an electron is a particle with some mass as is proven by collisions witnessed in a bubble chamber.

By that test, every particle has a mass. The mass of the electron was measured by suspending tiny particles in an electric field, offsetting gravity.

So what is a typical velocity of an electron traveling in an orbital cloud around an atomic nucleus based on the Bohr model using a balance of electrostatic and centripetal forces ?

There is no electron cloud in the Bohr model. In that model the electron's position and velocity are deterministic.

I always thought the orbital cloud represented the uncertainty of locating the electrons' positions; It would be comparable to looking at the solar system from a far distant external position and trying to locate accurately the position of a planet with all its perturbations, elliptical precessions, possible collisions/ejections, inclination changes, etc. over large periods of time ( because in the time period that a person tries to observe an electron it has more than likely orbited the nucleus millions or billions of times).

The cloud describes a physical region where the electrons are likely to exist. At the quantum level, the electrons have no fixed, describable position. The orbital is a function that describes the probability of an electron being in a particular region. Unlike the Solar System, the regions described by orbitals are not orbits. That is, electrons do not travel in circular or elliptical paths around the atomic nucleus, and they do not have any velocity in a meaningful physical sense.

The Wikipedia article about the Bohr model provides the necessary formula to calculate the velocity of electrons in orbit. But keep in mind that the model is non-physical, so these velocities don't represent what actual electrons are doing in an actual atom.