Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-27-2017 8:37 AM
452 online now:
frako, jar, JonF, PaulK, Stile, Tangle (6 members, 446 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 801,998 Year: 6,604/21,208 Month: 2,365/2,634 Week: 28/525 Day: 3/25 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Author Topic:   What Properties Might Light of Millennia Past Have that Today's Doesn't?
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1318 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 121 of 170 (675156)
10-07-2012 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by NoNukes
10-07-2012 2:40 AM


Re: Gibberish
Well, there is little point in pointing out what everybody and his dog agrees on anyway. The point is though that time is a strictly local measurement of distance which escapes the attention of those who persist in the belief that there could be some universal arrow of time. If that holds then the universal arrow of time is physically impossible in principle just like the whole idea of time zero and big bang creation.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by NoNukes, posted 10-07-2012 2:40 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-09-2012 2:14 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9325
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 122 of 170 (675174)
10-07-2012 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by zaius137
10-07-2012 12:03 AM


Re: The constants do change.
It depends on which constants are affected and to what degree. That would be the difference between the decay of uranium for instance verses that of say heavy water.

Heavy water is not radioactive. Deuterium is stable as is Oxygen 16. What comparison are you trying to make between water and uranium? After all, it would be extremely difficult for hydrogen to emit an alpha particle.

Actually, the Sun’s formation itself is still not workable physics, regardless of the fundamental constants. Therefore, I deem the claim it would stop functioning as a mute.

You deem? Someone takes themselves very seriously.

Regardless of your opinion as to how the sun formed, is there some doubt in your mind regarding whether the sun's energy is produced from fusion of hydrogen? Because the question of whether fusion would work NOW has essentially nothing to do with how the sun formed.

About accelerated decay rates, here is an article suggesting two possible constants that might have changed.

What would be of interest, and I believe we can find an existing on topic thread to discuss the subject in, would be the ramifications of changing those constants and whether or not the consequences would be observable and thus ruled out by evidence already at hand. Unless one of the consequences is properties of light...


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by zaius137, posted 10-07-2012 12:03 AM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by zaius137, posted 10-07-2012 1:34 PM NoNukes has responded

    
zaius137
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 123 of 170 (675176)
10-07-2012 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by NoNukes
10-07-2012 12:12 PM


Re: The constants do change.
NoNukes are good Nukes… hard to claim these days my friend.

As your conversation has gone with another participant, you offer little in the way of scientific comment.

Heavy water is not radioactive. Deuterium is stable as is Oxygen 16. What comparison are you trying to make between water and uranium? After all, it would be extremely difficult for hydrogen to emit an alpha particle.

I guess to say that Tritium releases beta particles and can combine to form a heavy water means little to you. The point was contrasting beta decay with some of the decays unstable Uranium isotopes produce.

What would be of interest, and I believe we can find an existing on topic thread to discuss the subject in, would be the ramifications of changing those constants and whether or not the consequences would be observable and thus ruled out by evidence already at hand. Unless one of the consequences is properties of light...

My questions and reply was directed at (Son). He brought up the circumstances, I did not but I definitely wish to find out what his meaning is. As for another meaningless conversation I will pass.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by NoNukes, posted 10-07-2012 12:12 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by NoNukes, posted 10-07-2012 1:58 PM zaius137 has not yet responded
 Message 125 by Percy, posted 10-07-2012 2:10 PM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9325
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 124 of 170 (675177)
10-07-2012 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by zaius137
10-07-2012 1:34 PM


Re: The constants do change.
removed

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : pointless


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by zaius137, posted 10-07-2012 1:34 PM zaius137 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15491
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 125 of 170 (675178)
10-07-2012 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by zaius137
10-07-2012 1:34 PM


Re: The constants do change.
Hi Zaius,

I'm having a hard time following you. The conversation has gone like this:

ZaiusIt depends on which constants are affected and to what degree. That would be the difference between the decay of uranium for instance verses that of say heavy water.
NoNukesHeavy water is not radioactive. Deuterium is stable as is Oxygen 16. What comparison are you trying to make between water and uranium? After all, it would be extremely difficult for hydrogen to emit an alpha particle.
ZaiusI guess to say that Tritium releases beta particles and can combine to form a heavy water means little to you. The point was contrasting beta decay with some of the decays unstable Uranium isotopes produce.

You appear to be claiming that your comparison of the decay of uranium (which does decay) versus the decay of heavy water (which doesn't decay) was actually an argument about the formation of heavy water through the decay of tritium. What does one have to do with the other, and why do you think the beta decay of tritium into helium has anything to do with the formation of heavy water? And how does all this tie into changing constants?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by zaius137, posted 10-07-2012 1:34 PM zaius137 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by NoNukes, posted 10-07-2012 2:28 PM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9325
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 126 of 170 (675181)
10-07-2012 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Percy
10-07-2012 2:10 PM


Re: The constants do change.
You appear to be claiming that your comparison of the decay of uranium (which does decay) versus the decay of heavy water (which doesn't decay) was actually an argument about the formation of heavy water through the decay of tritium.

I think he is saying instead that tritium can form (a form of heavy) heavy water via combining with oxygen. The real question is why he didn't address his original comment to tritium and forget about the decay of heavy water.

In any event, pursuing this part of the discussion leads nowhere. A discussion of the involvement of the weak force in the decay alpha decay and beta decay is readily available via a net search, and zaius137 isn't the least bit interested in discussing the paper he cited anyway.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Percy, posted 10-07-2012 2:10 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Percy, posted 10-07-2012 4:19 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15491
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 127 of 170 (675184)
10-07-2012 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by NoNukes
10-07-2012 2:28 PM


Re: The constants do change.
NoNukes writes:

I think he is saying instead that tritium can form (a form of heavy) heavy water via combining with oxygen.

Yeah, I think you've hit upon the correct interpretation, in which case he's got his terminology confused. According to the Wikipedia article on Tritiated Water, "It [tritium oxide] should not be confused with heavy water, which is deuterium oxide."

Zaius, what was the point you were trying to make?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by NoNukes, posted 10-07-2012 2:28 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by NoNukes, posted 10-07-2012 8:51 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9325
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 128 of 170 (675185)
10-07-2012 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Percy
10-07-2012 4:19 PM


Re: The constants do change.
quote:
It [tritium oxide] should not be confused with heavy water, which is deuterium oxide

Exactly. Heavy water means deuterium oxide. Sometimes tritiated water is called "Super Heavy Water". In any event, it is only the isotope of hydrogen that decays, so I'm not sure what prompted the error. Because zaius focused on the water molecule rather than isotope of hydrogen, I honestly had no clue where he was going with his comment.

But again, the only reason any of this stuff is related to the topic is because of zaius belief that Son Goku was in error regarding the role of the weak force in alpha decay. I'm perfectly happy to leave that to SG who seems to have infinitely more patience with condescension than do I.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Percy, posted 10-07-2012 4:19 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
zaius137
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 129 of 170 (675191)
10-07-2012 11:28 PM


An argument must remain respectful.
Absolutely no condescension intended. I have the highest respect for SG….
  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1059
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


(3)
Message 130 of 170 (675202)
10-08-2012 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by zaius137
10-07-2012 12:03 AM


Re: The constants do change.
When you say effective electron charge, what do you mean? Are you referring to the hypothesis of variance of electron fundamental charge?

There are a few ways to define the electric charge of the electron. One of them is the renormalised charge (a better name would be the Coloumb charge). This is basically where you take the electric charge to be the value of the probability that an electron's momentum isn't altered when it interacts with a photon. Although this seems quite abstract it's actually the definition of electric charge that mathematically agrees with one's intuitive idea of charge, i.e. if you define charge this way then charge behaves like you would expect from classical mechanics.

The only subtlety is that this probability changes with energy. For large energies it's larger. So the electric charge changes with energy. We call this a "running of the coupling". The strong force coupling is the opposite, it decreases with energy, a fact known as asymptotic freedom. This because at high energy the strong force charge asymptotically approaches zero. When the charge charge is almost zero, particles don't really interact, hence "freedom".

A citation for my statement would be Weinberg "The Quantum Theory of Fields" Vol. II Chapter 18 or Peskin and Schroeder "An Introduction to Quantum field theory" Chapter 12.

Here is an image on experimental results from different collisions on the strong force coupling:

The vertical axis is the value of the strong force coupling, the horizontal axis is Energy measured in GeV.

I believe alpha radiation also has to do with the strong nuclear force.

Alpha radiation is an odd one, in the sense that it doesn't really have anything to do with any of the forces. A nucleus that is unstable to alpha decays can be considered as "Alpha Particle + the rest". The strong force (or rather the pion force, an artifact of the true strong force) erects an potential energy barrier that prevents the alpha particle from escaping classically. However quantum mechanically the probability field of the alpha particle can just spread to the other side of the barrier and hence when something measures the alpha particle it has a chance to just appear on the other side.

There are still Weak Force contributions to this potential barrier, but they're very small. However in order to speed up the radioactive decay from carbon dating, you need to alter the weak force constants. You have to increase them so much for carbon dating that you'll effect alpha decay by altering this potential. You would also make neutrons very unstable.

When is the Weinberg angle considered a fundamental constant? It may be affected by other fundamental constants but it is not fundamental, as I know it.

It's a fundamental parameter. See for example this page:
http://www.rug.nl/...rimp/researchDescription/TRIX/radiumIon

It depends on which constants are affected and to what degree. That would be the difference between the decay of uranium for instance verses that of say heavy water.

In the Standard Model, the decay used in Carbon dating involves the electroweak constants much more than the electromagnetic couplings or strong force couplings. The electromagnetic and strong force couplings contribute so little to it, that if you wanted to use them to change carbon decay rates you'd have to alter them enough change:
(i) The chemical properties of all elements.
(ii) The nuclear stability of several elements.

For instance the square of alpha, the electromagnetic constant, contributes (via virtual electron bubbles) to the energy levels of several atoms. Change alpha enough and glow in the dark stickers stop functioning, the aurora borealis disappear and several other chemical changes (kerosene can no longer burn), that would make the past completely different to the present in an extremely obvious way that we don't see any evidence for.

The only hope for speeding up carbon decay is via the Weak Force, but even though this can effect carbon decay without to much chemical effects, the nuclear effects are far reaching. Stars would shut down.

Actually, the Sun’s formation itself is still not workable physics, regardless of the fundamental constants.

There are small questions over how the area of the nebula which produced the sun collapsed, i.e. how many supernovae instigated it. However we know how the cloud collapsed, numerical simulations of our collapse model match the current orbits of the solar system, including the outer eccentric orbits.

Therefore, I deem the claim it would stop functioning as a mute.

Why? How the gas cloud which formed the Sun collapsed, has nothing to do with the process of nuclear fusion in the Sun itself. Nuclear fusion within giant hydrogen/helium spheres doesn't depend on how the spheres formed. If the Weak Force is altered enough to prevent Nuclear fusion, then Nuclear fusion cannot happen regardless of where the Sun came from.

In other words first describe how it started to work then you can make claims on if it will not work.

Two things:

(i) You don't need to know where something came from in order to know if it will continue to function if changes are made. If I found a ladder, I've no idea where it came from, but I know it's not going to survive or be functioning after I blow it up. Similarly regardless of how the Sun formed, if you alter the constants such that Nuclear Fusion is impossible inside spheres like the Sun (or much less efficient), then that's it, no Nuclear Fusion.

(ii) We do know how it formed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by zaius137, posted 10-07-2012 12:03 AM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by zaius137, posted 10-10-2012 1:11 AM Son Goku has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15476
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 131 of 170 (675224)
10-09-2012 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-07-2012 3:24 AM


Re: Gibberish
Well, there is little point in pointing out what everybody and his dog agrees on anyway. The point is though that time is a strictly local measurement of distance which escapes the attention of those who persist in the belief that there could be some universal arrow of time. If that holds then the universal arrow of time is physically impossible in principle just like the whole idea of time zero and big bang creation.

Is there a reason why this particularly applies to "time zero" and to the event known as the big bang rather than, for example, last Wednesday and the event known as me eating a hotdog?

If so, could you explain why the former is "physically impossible in principle" and the latter is not, since both refer to particular events happening at particular times?

If not, then apparently you can only deny that the big bang occurred at "time zero" in the same sense that you can deny that I ate a hotdog last Wednesday, i.e. in a really stupid sense which is contrary to fact.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-07-2012 3:24 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-09-2012 4:48 AM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 141 by onifre, posted 10-09-2012 3:01 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1318 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 132 of 170 (675225)
10-09-2012 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Dr Adequate
10-09-2012 2:14 AM


Re: Gibberish
Because cosmologically a particular time is a relative notion meaning a particular distance from a place to place while universally any location is as good as any other which implies that the cosmetologists might as well study your last Wednesday instead of projecting it 13.7 billion light years away from here.
Your post is lame, Inadequate. What facts you are blabbering about? Let's face it, you go round being snide and deriding theists for their silly notions but your own beliefs when examined are the same absurdity squared, cubed and squared again, Inadequate.

Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-09-2012 2:14 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-09-2012 5:12 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded
 Message 134 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-09-2012 5:34 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded
 Message 135 by Percy, posted 10-09-2012 9:24 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15476
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 133 of 170 (675226)
10-09-2012 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-09-2012 4:48 AM


Re: Gibberish
Because cosmologically a particular time is a relative notion meaning a particular distance from a place to place while universally any location is as good as any other which implies that the cosmetologists might as well study your last Wednesday instead of projecting it 13.7 billion light years away from here.
Your post is lame, Inadequate. What facts you are blabbering about? Let's face it, you go round being snide and deriding theists for their silly notions but your own beliefs when examined are the same absurdity squared, cubed and squared again, Inadequate.

So, you are unable to answer my question.

Y'know, you could have communicated your inability to answer my question equally well by not posting anything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-09-2012 4:48 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15476
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 134 of 170 (675227)
10-09-2012 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-09-2012 4:48 AM


YES or NO
In an attempt to stop you from posting endless incomprehensible bullshit, I shall put this in the form of a yes-or-no question.

According to your ideas about time, it seems that it is "physically impossible in principle" to correctly assert that a big bang happened approximately thirteen billion years ago.

According to your ideas, is it also "physically impossible in principle" to correctly assert that I ate a hotdog last Wednesday?

This is a YES-or-NO question, and I would like you to answer it as such. I would be willing to wager a small sum that you won't, 'cos you're such a bullshitter, but it is after all a YES-or-NO question, so if you are still clinging to a shred of intellectual honesty, you will answer it YES or NO.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-09-2012 4:48 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15491
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 135 of 170 (675235)
10-09-2012 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-09-2012 4:48 AM


Re: Gibberish
I think what Dr Adequate is trying to say, and what the rest of us are interested in, and what I'm sure the moderators (being one of them) would like you focus on, is the evidence that convinced you. Your ability to incorporate words like "lame", "blabber", "snide", "silly" and "absurd" into sentences and paragraphs isn't really helpful.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-09-2012 4:48 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-09-2012 10:17 AM Percy has responded

    
Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017