Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the Fabric of space made out of?
Trae
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 76 of 284 (190726)
03-09-2005 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Buzsaw
03-08-2005 11:21 PM


Re: Time
Time is the universe's 4th dimension
If the 4th dimension is just a measurement, why isn’t the 3rd just a measurement?
I think this discussion if continued would pull the thread off topic. Mainly I just tossed it out to see if it would give you a different way to think about space. If it doesn’t do that, that’s okay. Maybe someone else will have a comment that will help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Buzsaw, posted 03-08-2005 11:21 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Parasomnium, posted 03-09-2005 7:11 AM Trae has seen this message but not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 77 of 284 (190738)
03-09-2005 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Trae
03-09-2005 5:50 AM


Space? Time? Space-time!
Trae writes:
I think this discussion if continued would pull the thread off topic.
I don’t think that talking about time is off-topic for this thread. After all, ever since Einstein, the concensus in science is that space and time are intimately linked and known together as ‘space-time’. Talking about space without considering time is like taking a dip in a swimmingpool without water.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Trae, posted 03-09-2005 5:50 AM Trae has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 78 of 284 (190743)
03-09-2005 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Buzsaw
03-08-2005 11:21 PM


Re: Time
My warehouse takes up a finite measurable three dimensional spatial area.
it also can only be measured between certain coordinates on the time line axis. before t=a there is no warehouse, and after time t=b there is no warehouse, so the warehouse has a time dimension of {b-a}

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Buzsaw, posted 03-08-2005 11:21 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Buzsaw, posted 03-09-2005 5:43 PM RAZD has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 79 of 284 (190761)
03-09-2005 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by RAZD
03-08-2005 11:10 PM


Re: Sylas's statements.
I think the question is, that if the absorption and emission of light is quantified by the energy levels of the electron orbits, then why is light more broad-band than the absorption bars?
OK. The absorption and emission of light by changing energy levels from atoms and molecules and ions is quantized (not quantified) by the energy levels of the electron orbitals. The vast majority of the light emitted by the Sun is emitted by a plasma (I forget the name of the layer) in which the electrons have all been stripped from the nuclei, and there are no electron orbitals. It's just pure thermal emission. Acceleration of charged particles, like the nuclei and nucleons found in the plasma, produces electromagnetic radiation. The light is, of course, emitted in quanta (otherwise we'd be back at the ultraviolet catastrophe) but the wavelengths are not quantized. IT's very close to the famous "black body' emission curve:
Incandescent bulbs are mostly pure thermal emission, but there's some energy-level stuff going on; that's why "sodium" street lights are distinctly yellow.
The outer layer of the Sun isn't hot enough to be a plasma, or hot enough and dense enough to produce significant thermal radiation on its own. So we see its absorbtion bands in the light coming from deeper in the Sun.
See Black Body Radiation and Applet: Blackbody Spectrum (requires Java).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 03-08-2005 11:10 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 03-10-2005 9:07 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 85 by JustinC, posted 03-11-2005 3:51 AM JonF has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 284 (190814)
03-09-2005 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by RAZD
03-09-2005 7:50 AM


Re: Time
it also can only be measured between certain coordinates on the time line axis. before t=a there is no warehouse, and after time t=b there is no warehouse, so the warehouse has a time dimension of {b-a}
Thanks Razd, for the cool physics 101 lesson. So I could've simply said:
'My spacetime warehouse has a single time dimension and three finite spatial dimensions.'

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 03-09-2005 7:50 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 03-10-2005 9:02 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 284 (190819)
03-09-2005 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Sylas
03-07-2005 1:46 AM


Re: Sylas's good work
I'm sure we'll continue to answer questions and explain issues as best we can; and that we'll continue to point out that even better and more details answers can be found with the hard work of further study and lots of maths.
Please understand that I do much appreciate the answers and work you've gone to to explain the issues. I'm aware that you've certainly gone to a whole lot more work and study on physics over the years than I who am a beginner/novice. Imo, it may be good for you higher physics buffs to have some logical problems brought forth from the street laity since you don't likely have to deal with some of these logic questions in the science arena.
I have definitely learned much from your work and hope we can continue to dialog on the issues that come up. Thanks much!

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Sylas, posted 03-07-2005 1:46 AM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Loudmouth, posted 03-10-2005 5:05 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 284 (190976)
03-10-2005 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Buzsaw
03-09-2005 6:08 PM


Re: Sylas's good work
quote:
Imo, it may be good for you higher physics buffs to have some logical problems brought forth from the street laity since you don't likely have to deal with some of these logic questions in the science arena.
I completely agree with your sentiment, Buzz. However, the layperson often confuses "logic" with "common sense". The two are not the same thing. Space/time, relativity, and a host of other things within physics defy common sense but they are logical. I think this is where you are running into problems, thinking that physics has to make "sense" instead of figuring out if the conclusions are consistent with the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Buzsaw, posted 03-09-2005 6:08 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Buzsaw, posted 03-11-2005 8:17 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 83 of 284 (190998)
03-10-2005 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Buzsaw
03-09-2005 5:43 PM


Re: Time
it's a way of thinking about it. one of the things that comes out of subatomic experiments is that anti-particles behave as if they are moving in the other direction in time compared to a regular particle. you can think of an anti-electron as being an electron going back in time ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Buzsaw, posted 03-09-2005 5:43 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 84 of 284 (190999)
03-10-2005 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by JonF
03-09-2005 10:33 AM


broadband is the only way to go
of course, and thanks. I was trying to clarify the question (the way it struck me) and the issues discussed so far (quantized light energy) with a seeming contradiction (broadband light).

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by JonF, posted 03-09-2005 10:33 AM JonF has not replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 85 of 284 (191025)
03-11-2005 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by JonF
03-09-2005 10:33 AM


Re: Sylas's statements.
Thanks for the explanation. I've been reading a lot about black body radiation, so let me see if I have got this right.
The reason the frequency of light is quantized when emmitted from an atomic orbital is because the orbitals are quantized according to energy, and a release in that quantized energy produces a quantized photon using Planck's equation E=hv.
When you have free moving charges, the black body curve is produced by the quantization of the emission and absorption of light. The free moving charges can produce any photon, but the charge must have enough energy to produce that particular photon. Since temperature is a measurement of the average kinetic energy of the particles, the probability of any deviation in kinetic energy for any one particle is inversely proportional to the deviation. To produce a photon of very high frequency, the electron must have a large kinetic energy and the probability of this is proportional to its deviation from the average kinetic energy. This is why the black body curve drops off at higher frequencies.
So in a dense ball of charged particles, the energy is going to be distributed according to the average kinetic energy, but it will be continuously distributed and hence there will be a continuous spectrum. Inside an atom, there isn't a continuous distribution of energy, it is quantized, and thus the spectrum is quantized.
Does this sound accurate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by JonF, posted 03-09-2005 10:33 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by JonF, posted 03-11-2005 9:32 AM JustinC has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 86 of 284 (191060)
03-11-2005 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by JustinC
03-11-2005 3:51 AM


Re: Sylas's statements.
Yup, that's a pretty good summary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by JustinC, posted 03-11-2005 3:51 AM JustinC has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 284 (191115)
03-11-2005 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Loudmouth
03-10-2005 5:05 PM


Re: Sylas's good work
I think this is where you are running into problems, thinking that physics has to make "sense" instead of figuring out if the conclusions are consistent with the evidence.
Mmm....then nonsense is cool with physics? Seriously, imo, the problem with too little regard for both common sense and logic is that these babys sometimes get thrown out with the bathwater in assessing claimed evidence.
With that in mind, would you consider my Message 63 to Sylas as a logical proposition or a common sense proposition/problem? I'd be interested to see what you and others here would have for a response to Message 63.
Changed "message 63" to "[msg=-63]", which actually takes one less character - try it, you'll like it! --Admin
This message has been edited by Admin, 03-12-2005 13:12 AM

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Loudmouth, posted 03-10-2005 5:05 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by sidelined, posted 03-12-2005 12:10 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 89 by NosyNed, posted 03-12-2005 1:39 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 90 by Percy, posted 03-12-2005 1:40 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 88 of 284 (191135)
03-12-2005 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Buzsaw
03-11-2005 8:17 PM


Re: Sylas's good work
buzsaw
Do you have Real Player installed on your computer? If so, how about checking out this site to get a taste of the problem facing common sense when dealing with world we live in? Page Redirection
Enjoy!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Buzsaw, posted 03-11-2005 8:17 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 89 of 284 (191140)
03-12-2005 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Buzsaw
03-11-2005 8:17 PM


Feynman's lectures.
Mmm....then nonsense is cool with physics? Seriously, imo, the problem with too little regard for both common sense and logic is that these babys sometimes get thrown out with the bathwater in assessing claimed evidence.
I recommend you listen to the first lecture Buz.
At between 20 minutes and 26ish minutes he points out the the professors don't understand this stuff.
He says "You'll have to accept it. ... That is the way it works...If you don't like it go somewhere else -- to another universe where the rules are simpler."
Feynman is talking to you Buz. This, that you call nonsense, is the way the universe IS! You're the one who thinks God made it. Take your issues up with Him; it is all His idea.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-12-2005 01:39 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Buzsaw, posted 03-11-2005 8:17 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Buzsaw, posted 03-12-2005 7:50 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 90 of 284 (191185)
03-12-2005 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Buzsaw
03-11-2005 8:17 PM


Re: Sylas's good work
I concur with Nosy's recommendation to listen to the first lecture from the 20 minute mark to the 26 minute mark. If you listen to nothing else, at least listen to that much, here's the link: http://vegaserver1.hpc.susx.ac.uk:8080/...eynman/feynman1.rm
From your Message 63:
My argument implicates that alleged curvature and expansion of space is being assumed relative to specified bounded areas of it being studied or relative to the area of space, in which things like light, gravity, et al exist.
The better theory is the one that more closely describes what is actually observed. Perhaps someone can think of tests that would differentiate between your model and the one currently accepted within science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Buzsaw, posted 03-11-2005 8:17 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024