Some Views About Physics

Some Views About Physics

Often you have a new assumed, an concept, or eureka instant, but it really is not gutsy sufficient to grow into a fair duration short article or essay. So, this is another potpourri of views working with physics and connected, way too excellent not to file, but with not more than enough meat accessible to flesh out. Men and women looking at this will with any luck , be to some degree common with the phrases and jargon made use of. If not, properly that’s why dictionaries exist!

The Why Problem

Can any person reveal exactly why the south pole and the north pole of a magnet entice? Or why and how the north pole of a magnet repels an additional north pole? You know what comes about, but the how and why is further than you to demonstrate. You know an electron and a positron will annihilate on speak to. You know what transpires but not the how and correct nature of why what occurs. You know that the electric powered cost on a proton is equivalent and reverse of that on an electron. Can anybody tell me why? Can any one essentially notify me what electric powered demand essentially is? You know what it does but how does it do it and why does it do it?

The “why” of issues – the “why” question is central in coming to conditions with life, the universe and everything. There is a a great deal deeper “why’ issue in physics which is, for instance, why really should electromagnetism or EM (regardless of what that actually is) opposites appeal to and EM sameness repel? Why is just not it the opposite or why for that issue either scenario? It is the problem that Einstein requested which was whether or not God had any preference in the make a difference when producing the laws, concepts and associations of physics, or, as Hawking place it, “what breathes fire into the equations”.

Explanations are all nicely and fantastic but are unsuccessful to appear to terms with why it has to be this way and not some other way. That’s the “why” that won’t be able to be described or answered.

Think about for instance some designed-up strange qualities with regards to the north pole (NP) and south pole (SP) of a magnet. Why not have NP to NP consequence in nuclear fission and SP to SP consequence in nuclear fusion and SP to NP consequence in superconductivity. Or spot some chemical compounds among NP and NP and get an exothermic reaction amongst the SP and SP you get an endothermic reaction but among SP and NP no chemical response requires put at all.

Place another way, can you consider that if you reset the clock back again to the Huge Bang and start in excess of once more or visualize yet another universe entirely, where NP and NP attracted and ditto SP and SP but SP and NP repelled each other. If not, why not. Or, to set it one more way as for each Einstein’s query, can there be additional than one particular established of physics?


Is Electric powered Cost An Emergent Phenomenon?

Premise: Electric demand is not an emergent phenomenon.

Electric powered cost is seemingly not dependent on and has no connection to velocity, angular momentum, ‘spin’ or mass. So electrical charge is an impartial a little something and so it should exist or be a property in its personal suitable in and of itself. It may well be component of a group of homes, but has its possess independent existence. Electric powered demand may perhaps be essential while I doubt electric powered cost has to exist of requirement. But we could not exist without the need of electrical charge remaining in existence, so might this be an example of structure and high-quality-tuning?

So what exactly is electric powered demand? Just contacting electric powered charge a drive or a field or a whatsit or a thingamabob is not alone all that enlightening.

1 $64,000 question is why is electric powered cost limited to values of additionally or minus 1/3rd, 2/3rds or 3/3rds? This ought to signify that electrical demand comes in units or packets or quanta of 1/3rd and that an electron is (among other points) a composite of three packets of damaging electrical demand. But is a packet of electric powered charge a strong materials bodily entity or is it immaterial and can it actually exist independently of a particle substrate like an electron (muon or tau) or a quark and if so why does it connect itself to these forms of particles (also a positron and of training course anti-quarks) but not to yet another type like a neutrino?

Premise: Electrical cost is an emergent phenomenon.

On the other hand it’s possible electric demand is an emergent assets this kind of that if you have a particle with the mass of an electron (or a positron) and the ‘spin’ of an electron (or a positron) and the angular momentum of an electron (or a positron), a different property will emerge which we call electrical charge.

It appears to be relatively implausible that 3 1/3rd packets of adverse electrical cost would just happen to intersect every other and with a particle with the mass, ‘spin’ and angular momentum of a pseudo-electron to all now appear alongside one another to kind a regular electron. [An electron without any electric charge would have to be a pseudo-electron, not a real electron of course.] That would also indicate that you can have a particle with the mass, ‘spin’ and angular momentum of an electron, a pseudo-electron, without the need of a 3/3rds device of detrimental electrical cost. So once again electric cost will have to be an inherent but emergent house but one particular which will not arise in all types of particles.

Anything is screwy somewhere!


The Conversion of Power to Matter

We are all acquainted with the notion of the development of power from make any difference, specially in nuclear matters like nuclear vitality or in radioactivity/particle decay like the neutron decaying into different bits and parts additionally strength. The supreme variety of strength from subject is make a difference – anti-subject annihilation into pure strength.

The query is, has any individual observed the development of make any difference from vitality? You will find the vacuum power that can create virtual make a difference – anti-issue particles, but these annihilate each and every other back again into pure electricity once more rapid-good. There is Hawking radiation of study course whereby Black Holes reduce mass via radiation vitality that escapes and I guess in concept that ‘radiation’ could be in the sort of particles with actual mass produced by using the vacuum electricity whereby a single virtual particle will get made outside of the function horizon.

I acquire large electrical power particle accelerators smashing alongside one another particles generate ‘new’ particles which may possibly be a direct outcome of the vitality expenditure.

But on a much more down to earth level, in our ordinary day-to-working day existence, do we ever notice make a difference becoming created from energy?

For case in point, if you strike a match, some of the mass represented in the type of the match-head chemical compounds get converted to heat and mild electricity. Do you at any time see light and warmth strength morph into match-head chemical substances? Daylight is essential for photosynthesis but does any of that daylight truly come to be included into and turn into plant make any difference or is it only a type of catalyst? These types of examples – standard examples we all could see.


Gravity at Complete Zero

While the notion of complete zero is theoretically difficult to achieve, if it were attained – in principle – then all motion would cease. Nevertheless, even if that were the scenario, wouldn’t gravity nevertheless be operational and thus even at absolute zero wouldn’t there be movement due to gravitational results? Is this just a further by now founded rationale, apart from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Basic principle, why absolute zero is theoretical only and in no way achievable? I would feel that this must be a rationale on the grounds that there would not feel to be any sizeable marriage involving temperature and gravity. Gravity should be a continuous no matter of the temperature of the objects below mutual gravitational attraction, even if that temperature had been absolute zero. Of study course movement owing to gravity is energy and any power current negates the probability of accomplishing absolute zero. The theoretical concern is, what is the theoretical condition of gravity if just one could obtain a temperature of complete zero?


Regarding Radioactive Decay

Now I realise that there is a large amount of literature on radioactive decay that describes what transpires. On the other hand, I haven’t observed substantially in the way of literature that tells me why matters occurred when they happened. Say you go out and obtain a uranium-238 atom and plunk it down in your lab. Ten seconds later on the atom is nevertheless there and intact eleven seconds post plunking it has gone poof. Why that should really be if there was no change in the atom’s surroundings for the period of that a single 2nd interval is nonetheless to me an anomaly.

Possibly there is a hidden environmental variable* we are not informed of. If there was a alter in the atom’s neighborhood atmosphere say owing to the quantum jitters or a neutrino whacking into the U-238 nucleus, perfectly that is nonetheless a cause, and therefore causality principles.

A further imagined. Assuming there is no causality, let’s say you had a multi-billion atom hunk of some radioactive substance. You also have two random variety generators, a single for how lots of atoms go poof and the other to determine how many models of time that variety of atoms go poof in. Run that right until all those billions of atoms have decayed. Would you conclusion up with a standard fifty percent-lifetime partnership? I personally question it. Even if you just utilized a single random quantity generator that identified the range of unstable nuclei that went poof just about every set device of time I question you’d occur up with graphing a 50 percent-lifestyle curve.

Deficiency of causality reminds me of the late Carl Sagan’s done to demise quotation about how “incredible claims call for extraordinary proof”. Although that observation was possibly directed at the macro planet, I believe it equally adaptable to the micro world too, only I would fall the dual use of “amazing” as something incredible is in the head of the beholder and what’s incredible to you may not be amazing to me and vice versa. To me the abandonment of lead to-and-influence is something which is unquestionably remarkable.

Matters like the conservation legislation and previous-to-future forward-causality (and what other sort of causality is in procedure except there’s time travel from future-to-previous at the quantum amount** – cue in the theme to “The Twilight Zone” listed here), really should not be supplied up for lost besides as a final resort. In point, as I recall, it was an evident violation in the conservation legal guidelines applicable to Beta Decay that led the late Wolfgang Pauli to postulate the existence of the neutrino – confirmed in his life time – and thus restore the proven standing quo.

*Yes, I’m informed that Einstein proposed hidden variables to clarify quantum anomalies and genuine experiments have tended to end result in owning Albert putting out at the plate with respect to hidden variables. There actually is spooky motion at a distance. Even so, I have a concealed variable hidden up my sleeve (that Einstein most likely couldn’t have conceived of in his wildest believed experiment) which regrettably is not authentic to me so I can just take neither credit nor blame for the state of affairs. Stay tuned for the bombshell (or the fizzer) in the days to arrive.

**Which surely has been postulated by the late Richard Feynman and other folks, and is apparently exhibited in the delayed double-slit experiment so I should not be way too hasty in ruling out long run-to-past causality – but it is still causality, even if again-to-entrance. Some thing happens then a thing else occurs in convert.


A Lone Electron Universe

Think about a universe that consists of just a person and only electron. Given that state of affairs, would it be significant to talk about the electron’s electric charge or its gravity?

If “of course”, what’s the cost and gravity acting on or is it just radiating absent? If it can be just radiating away, can it radiate away indefinitely?

If “no”, then are these houses of charge and gravity imaginary, immaterial and illusionary? If so, and if now this imagined-experiment universe now contained just two and only two electrons, then electric charge and gravity would now show up to have this means, but where did they occur from if they were being imaginary in a one particular-electron universe?


Perpetual vs. Perpetual Movement vs. Perpetual Motion Products

Perpetual (infinity everlasting forever everlasting).

Perpetual: There are a lot of points that are perpetual. That magnet sticking to your fridge would presumable adhere for all eternity. The solid nuclear drive holding the quarks in a proton with each other will presumable continue being in position for an infinite amount of time. Presumable the gravity among two objects of mass will keep on being in position perpetually.

Perpetual Motion: You can have perpetual motion. Newton’s Initially Legislation of Motion states that an object in movement will continue to be in motion and not improve its velocity unless of course acted on by an external force (i.e. – friction, or gravity for case in point). So, if you shot a bullet in a perfect (albeit unattainable) vacuum, it would retain on trying to keep on endlessly and ever. Presumably an electron ‘orbiting’ an atom will do so forever and a working day. In a similar way, the vacuum strength a.k.a. quantum foam a.k.a. quantum fluctuations a.k.a. the quantum jitters are a obligatory instance of perpetual electricity considering that no elementary particle (mass or the equal in electrical power) can sit however considering that that would violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Theory. Presumably galaxies will continue on to rotate long following each and every and each individual star in them has long gone extinct.

Perpetual Motion Units: These are not allowed below the legal guidelines, rules and interactions of physics. It all starts with the Initially Regulation of Thermodynamics which essentially states that electrical power can neither be produced nor ruined but only adjusted in variety from one type of electrical power to yet another. Based mostly on that 1st Legislation by itself, the Patent Office environment will toss you out on your ear (or other components of your anatomy) if you post an software for a perpetual motion equipment. Why? You won’t be able to assume one thing for practically nothing – there’s no these types of point as a totally free lunch when it arrives to energy as per that Very first Law. In other terms, it really is for the easy rationale that this sort of a theoretical perpetual motion unit would have to have an strength output higher than the electrical power enter which then in principle could be recycled back into the system to make even more electricity output which could then be made use of as input to produce even better electricity output, etcetera. Even if the energy output were being equivalent to the strength input you would continue to not have an everlasting or perpetual workable machine for the cause that some of the power output would be waste strength that would not be productive – i.e. heat. So, if you enter 1000 units of valuable vitality, and you get out 999 helpful models of output electrical power and 1 unit of non-successful heat, that is not a perpetual motion machine considering the fact that you could only recycle and input 999 units for your primary expenditure of 1000 models – a getting rid of proposition. For case in point, you put 1000 units of chemical vitality into your car’s gasoline tank (gasoline), you don’t get 1000 models of kinetic electricity (motion) in return which by some magic wave of the wand could be converted back again to fuel in the tank. Some of your chemical electricity receives converted into heat electrical power which wafts away without aiding in shifting your auto. It would be great if 1000 models of chemical vitality would ultimately translate into an infinite range of kinetic energy models and thus you never experienced to fill up your tank at the fuel station, but…

Nevertheless it is appealing that you can have something that’s perpetual and one thing that has perpetual motion but not a perpetual movement device!

Black Holes and Antimatter

If an electron meets and greets a positron (an anti-electron), you are going to get 100% conversion of matter into electricity and a big Ka-Growth to boot. Now the premise is, if you have ample electrons in a single place and at one time, you could develop a Black Gap (of electron-stuff). And if you have sufficient positrons in 1 place and at a single time, you could produce a Black Hole (of positron-stuff). In neither situation would the corresponding electric powered prices lengthen beyond the respective Occasion Horizons for the same motive that ‘light’ (of any wavelength / frequency) can’t increase from inside of a Black Hole to the outside the house of a Black Hole (i.e. – over and above the Function Horizon). But now the question is, what happens when the electron-ness Black Hole fulfills and greets the positron-ness Black Hole? Will you get full annihilation into pure electricity, a really major KA-Growth, or will you just conclude up with a larger sized Black Gap?

Related Post