Room-temperature superconductivity?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

kcdodd
Posts: 722
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:36 am
Location: Austin, TX

Post by kcdodd »

I have argued with you about what you are saying about binding energy and QM and EM etc before and have no desire to do it again.

However, when you call something "rest mass", it simply makes no sense to say it changes depending on the reference frame, whether it be 5m/s or 299,792,457m/s. It is only defined in one reference frame; the rest frame. Choosing another reference frame doesn't change what it is in the rest frame. It is always the same in the rest frame no matter what. Call it something else if you want but what you are saying is just self-contradictory.
Carter

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

kcdodd wrote:I have argued with you about what you are saying about binding energy and QM and EM etc before and have no desire to do it again.

However, when you call something "rest mass", it simply makes no sense to say it changes depending on the reference frame, whether it be 5m/s or 299,792,457m/s. It is only defined in one reference frame; the rest frame. Choosing another reference frame doesn't change what it is in the rest frame.
Thank you for posting this. I did not claim that it changes in its rest frame but within a reference frame relative to which it is moving. Just like a clock's time-rate does not change within its own inertial reference frame but just within the reference frame relative to which it is moving.
It is always the same in the rest frame no matter what. Call it something else if you want but what you are saying is just self-contradictory.
Do agree that rest mass is energy? The fact is that the energy of an object is different when measured within different reference frames. For example kinetic-energy is totally determined by which reference frame you are using. Even momentum does not really exist since any object with momentum p is really a stationary object within its own reference frame. Zeno already noticed these peculiarities of motion more than 3000 yeras ago. So since kinetic energy can change and we can write that the total energy of any body within any reference frame is E=m*c^2, it clearly means that mass is changing from one inertial refrence frame to another. But let us decide to disagree. As I have already stated more than a week ago, I have far more important issues to attend to than to post on any forum.

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Post by happyjack27 »

i believe what john is trying to say is that "rest mass" is a notion for classical physics and/or relativity physics. but in quantum electrodynamics, there is no such thing as a particle "at rest", there is a whole multidimensional spectrum of possible positions and inertias the particle can have at every instance, and in order to correctly predict the particle's path and interactions, one must KEEP it in this form; one must keep it mathematical described as a probability ensemble (or manifold, rather) of position-inertia vectors. also there is more and more evidence that particles really are just mathematical conveniences and in truth reality is the interference of these non-localizable quantum waves.

so now not only can you never be said to be "at rest", but where is your inertial reference frame? at best u can only describe it as a probability ensemble of inertial reference frames. now an interesting question: does it see itself? that is, do the different parts of the ensemble for "a single particle" see each other, and if so, do they see each other through the lens of SR and GR? if so, how does that effect their evolution? (presumably through SR, and i presume that is the modern treatment, but GR has yet to be unified -- in this case we do not know what "rest mass" means, if anything, in the quantum description, with regard to "gravity")

in any case now something even so certain as "rest mass" becomes a mere mathematical convenience for describing the motion of slow ("slow" as in a first-order finite measure below the speed of light) moving things that are far away ("far" as in above the planck length), or at least how they _appear_ to interact over a long period of time ("long" as in a few picoseconds) and/or over many million counts (e.g. from a photodetector). eliminate even one of those restrictions and you can no longer ascertain any "rest mass". so it seems from these considerations that "rest mass" may itself be only a statistical phenomena that only appears to be certain and fixed due to the law of large numbers. we certainly have no way to rule that out.

kcdodd
Posts: 722
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:36 am
Location: Austin, TX

Post by kcdodd »

As far as I know rest mass is pretty well defined in quantum mechanics, as can be seen in the Klein-Gordon or Dirac equation. I mean, even though you might say there is no single velocity/momentum, the solution should be able to be expanded in terms such that each basis conserves the lorentz invariant. IE the rest mass is well defined for the complete solution since it is defined for the individual ones.
Carter

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Post by happyjack27 »

kcdodd wrote:As far as I know rest mass is pretty well defined in quantum mechanics, as can be seen in the Klein-Gordon or Dirac equation. I mean, even though you might say there is no single velocity/momentum, the solution should be able to be expanded in terms such that each basis conserves the lorentz invariant. IE the rest mass is well defined for the complete solution since it is defined for the individual ones.
you are correct. my point is merely that although this is our best model and we have found no contradictions to it, we must bear in mind that, like everything in science, it is a tentative ones, and we should not take its conclusions beyond that justified by experiments and deductions that can be safely drawn from them. this means, among other things, recognizing the limitations of our understanding of the behavior of "mass" at a fine space-time-energy scale, esp. in regard to gravity.

303
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:18 am

Post by 303 »

bump, enjoying this thread

ill put my cards on the table, im no scientist and dont understand any of the maths posted , im just curious about fascinating world of physics

As a layman, it seems to me that no one has explained convincingly why time SLOWS down the FASTER one travels.

surely the only difference between the two twins is that one has travelled a lot further in distance than the other?

i'm kinda with johan on this one, though im not entirely sure what to make of him since he seems knowledgeable, but everything he says apparently flies in the face of a hundred years of physics. I do know what he means by 'paranormal physics', the whole wave-particle duality and uncertainty principle does seems like nonsense. Hard to believe the universe works in probabilities, more like we dont understand it properly to determine, for example, the position of an electron.

anyway much food for thought on this site, thanks for the stimulation

kcdodd
Posts: 722
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:36 am
Location: Austin, TX

Post by kcdodd »

Here is another thought experiment, linked to my earlier one about accelerating spaceships and the physicality of length contraction.

Imagine a long skinny spaceship with clocks attached to the hull in regular intervals down the side. The spaceship is initially at rest with respect to an observer frame O, and all the clocks along the hull are Einstein synchronized to the observer reference clock. Here I will try to draw it with text:

Code: Select all

=>----------------------------------->
=>---(@)---(@)---(@)---(@)------------->
=>----------------------------------->
Where the (@) are the clocks.

Now, as the ship accelerates, each tick of the observer clock is dt, and so each tick of all the space ships clocks should be dt' = dt/gamma in the observer frame. All quantities as observed in the O frame. So that the total time read on the reference clock is t, and the total time read on the ship's clocks should be t' = Integral[dt/gamma] (gamma is a function of t because of the acceleration), again as observed in the O frame. t' does not depend on which clock one is looking at, and so all the clocks still appear to be synchronized in the O frame no matter how fast the ship goes! However, this presents a very serious paradox and I will explain why.

Now you might say there is no problem yet because the ship is accelerating and lorentz transformation is invalid there. But now suppose the ship stops accelerating after time T. The above still holds where the clocks on the ship should still read t' = Integral[dt/gamma] in the O frame. The problem is that if they are still synchronized in the O frame, they cannot be in the ship's frame, even after it stops accelerating! Assuming that it is still moving relative to the O frame. That is, they all read different time's in the ships frame. So what's going on? I'll let everyone think about it for a while.
Carter

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Post by happyjack27 »

303 wrote: ....
Hard to believe the universe works in probabilities, more like we dont understand it properly to determine, for example, the position of an electron.

on the contrary, hard to believe the world works in certainties! and if "we" "dont understand it properly to determine, for example, the position of an electron.", and we are MADE UP OF electrons, does that not then imply, that the electrons WE ARE MADE UP OF "dont understand it properly to determine, for example, the position of an electron."? I know this is at risk of the ecological fallacy here. but in any case, to say the electrons do understand and we don't would imply a LOSS of information when you go up in scale. when, in fact, mathematically there is neccessarily a gain of information, (though some of the information is redundant, so the whole is less than the sum of the parts).

and this goes now to information, which is the more concise and poignant point: everything we know, and everything things know about each other, is "information", and information is quantified as ability to predict the LIKELIHOOD of outcomes. it is proportional to the log of the PROBABILITY.

that is, it is not only unsurprisingly, but logically neccessary that the world works in terms of probability, as all interactions take place by the communication of information; by transmissions of signals describing probabilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantities_of_information

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Post by happyjack27 »

303 wrote: As a layman, it seems to me that no one has explained convincingly why time SLOWS down the FASTER one travels.
"why" maybe the wrong question here. it's too subjective/fluffy. "what", "how", "when", those would be better questions.

electromagnetism is by far the strongest force. the weak force and strong force decay with distance way too fast to have any measurable effect outside, the first electron orbital of an atom, if that. gravity is incredibly weak, and to the best of our understanding, it's effects can be accurately modeled simply by applying a curvature to the space in which the electromagnetic force acts. so that brings us back to the electromagnetic force. and we can say plainly now that for all events we can practically measure in a remotely direct way, we do so through the electromagnetic force, so that, now, is everything.

experiments with light in water showed that light travels at the same speed relative to any measuring instrument, regardless of the relative velocities of those measuring instruments.

light is simply an electromagnetic wave, so this experiment really shows how electromagnetic fields work.

regardless of how fast / slow you're moving, an observer will only see the fluctuations of the electromagnetic field in their reference frame. what they "see" is described by the famous "lorentz transform". this now gives us our modern theory of electromagnetics, (post-maxwell's equations) which is essentially: electromagnetics s just a consequence of special relativity.*


so say in its own reference frame an observer x has applied a constanct force fe to accellerate, against his mass which he knows to be m. then he knows by newton's laws of motion and some elementary calculus that he is traveling as a rate something like v = v_i + (f/m)*t^2/2. however, an observer y in a different inertial reference frame only "sees" him traveling at speed x. one can rectify this apparent paradox by simply saying that their clocks are running at different speeds. for their measurements to match up, observer y would have to say that observer x's clock is going slower than his.

at the same time observer x sees of observer y the mirror image of what y sees of x, so he in turn thinks that observer x's clock is slow! clearly they can't both be right! or can they?

*however, it was still left to be discovered why electrons didn't just smash into protons, thus perfectly neutralizing every point in the universe. and that is where quantum physics begins.... (point being, were it not for the heisenburg uncertainty principle, we wouldn't have electricity, or atoms, for that matter (no pun intended))

303
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:18 am

Post by 303 »

tx for your interesting reply

*however, it was still left to be discovered why electrons didn't just smash into protons, thus perfectly neutralizing every point in the universe. and that is where quantum physics begins.... (point being, were it not for the heisenburg uncertainty principle, we wouldn't have electricity, or atoms, for that matter (no pun intended))

maybe one electron got lost, or lasted in the soup just long enough to do something different

lack of symmetry doesnt strike me as a major issue given the scale of whatever the hell was going on , how does the early expansion of the universe exceed light speed?

what i mean is, an electron doesnt just 'probably' travel to a 'probability distribution zone' does it? , some mechanism or system must govern it .. forces like magnetism etc unless it really does , thats what you are telling me?

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

You are thinking that an Electron is a physical entity.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Post by happyjack27 »

if you think it's position and velocity are neccessarily certain, then, tell me where it is and how fast it's going to infinite precision. just let me know when you're done typing, so i can tell you you missed infinity digits, and forgot to specify the exact time you were refering to, and which reference from you were measuring from. oh, and how i tell "your" electron from all the "other" "electrons", which have absolutely no distinguishing features.

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Post by happyjack27 »

303 wrote:tx for your interesting reply

*however, it was still left to be discovered why electrons didn't just smash into protons, thus perfectly neutralizing every point in the universe. and that is where quantum physics begins.... (point being, were it not for the heisenburg uncertainty principle, we wouldn't have electricity, or atoms, for that matter (no pun intended))

maybe one electron got lost, or lasted in the soup just long enough to do something different

lack of symmetry doesnt strike me as a major issue given the scale of whatever the hell was going on , how does the early expansion of the universe exceed light speed?
i wasn't talking about "symmetry", i was talking about basic mechanics. protons and electrons attract w/an 1/r^2 force, right? have you ever played with those little stainless steel ball magnets? try rolling one by another one, and see what happens. that's what should happen to electrons and protons according to classical physics. SNAP! neutral. every time. in a nanosecond. only w/electrons and protons there's absolutely zero friction, and there's no opposing force. so why doesn't it happen? more to the point, why does it ALWAYS NOT happen when classical physics tells us it ALWAYS SHOULD?
what i mean is, an electron doesnt just 'probably' travel to a 'probability distribution zone' does it? , some mechanism or system must govern it .. forces like magnetism etc unless it really does , thats what you are telling me?
well, the double slit experiment creates an interference pattern EVEN WHEN YOU FIRE JUST ONE PHOTON AT A TIME, if that's what you're asking. it really does follow the schrodinger equation, which is actually a wave equation, not a particle motion equation, and the shrodinger equation has an infinite number of simultaneous orthogonal solutions. when you measure a quantity in a real experiment (usually one measures the "energy level"), you will get one of those solutions, with probability specified by the equation. but when a particle interacts with it, it interacts with the whole infinite orthogonal basis. where this not the case, metal wouldn't be such an excellent conductor, among numerous other physical realities that we take for granted.

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Post by happyjack27 »

a very simple, yet very famous example of a solution to the shrodinger equation is the behavior of a point charge in free space about an electric potential going like 1/r^2.

this gives an infinite number of solutions, which, when you put in the right values for energy and mass and what not, turn out to exactly match the orbitals of a hydrogen atom. (as you may have guessed, the point charge is electron, and the electric potential is the proton.)

the infinite solutions are the infinite number of orbitals. obviously, the first orbital is much more likely than the others. but this should at least clarify what is meant by "infinite set" of solutions.

now if you have an atom w/many orbitals occupied, while you may not know anything exactly about anything, you can mathematically divide the "degrees of freedom", so to speak, into a smaller number of variables, through a process called "orthogonal decomposition". these "degrees of freedom" are the orthogonal solutions to the shrodinger equation - which, for this particular problem, happen to be what are known as the "electron orbitals". point being they're not really "orbitals", per say, as regions that contain independant bits of information about the atom's "state". or, more general, the quantum-mechanical system's "state".

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

happyjack27 wrote:
303 wrote:tx for your interesting reply

*however, it was still left to be discovered why electrons didn't just smash into protons, thus perfectly neutralizing every point in the universe. and that is where quantum physics begins...
... more to the point, why does it ALWAYS NOT happen when classical physics tells us it ALWAYS SHOULD?
i'm not sure that's quite true - just a case of (subatomic) 'temporal separation' during the inflationary period after BB - say according to momentum. ensures that nucleons start to form first. yes?

Post Reply