Home » Posts tagged 'idea'
Tag Archives: idea
Let me start by saying I am NOT a physicist. That much should be painfully clear soon enough. Please bear with me as I am not certain I have the language and in depth knowledge to explain myself adequately.
A few years ago I began experiencing parallels between the world of human behavior and physics. At the time it seemed simple enough. That is until I started teaching myself physics. But at its core it seemed to make sense, the rules of life recycle themselves in different forms. Out of simple ideas comes complexity. Newton’s laws, thermodynamics… pascals principle, snells law, red and blue shift, wave particle duality and on and on… all seem to have their parallels in human behavior and on the surface seem to follow the same mathematical equations. Then I ran into the most famous of physics equations E=MC^2. It makes sense in human behavior. The energy (work) we can get out of an individual is relative to that individuals’ mass. The more matter we attach to the individual, knowledge, life experience etc (therefore increasing their mass) the more we can get out of them in the form of energy… but then the problem of the speed of light squared. The only known constant (light speed) is a problem in human behavior. At least to this point I know of no known behavioral constant.
I juggled the idea of it being a relative constant. Constant for the individual but relative as it would differ for everyone. The speed of cognition, or thought speed, would remain the same in potential throughout life of a given individual. Or that it was just a theoretical potential that humanity had yet to obtain. I even juggled the idea of it being a collective ability, but all of these options cause problems with the original equation. This has forced me to contemplate the nature of light and left me with questions I simply lack the understanding of physics to answer.
Is the speed of light truly constant or is it only constant as it relates to the big picture? As in: our perception of time as it relates to all time that has ever existed would appear as a single point in time. The older we get the more time seems to “fly by” if we as humans could continue to live for 13 billion years would the perception of an hour become so perceptively small that we wouldn’t even know it has passed? Is it therefore possible we can only understand and therefore measure the speed of light at a specific point in time, even if we try to come back and remeasure and compare the speed of light now with the speed of light fifty years from now the difference between the two would be imperceptivity small as a result of the displacement in time as it relates to the whole of time?
If the four dimensionality of time/space is linked shouldn’t time expand as space expands? And vice versa… if the speed of light is to remain constant as measured under such conditions isn’t light actually slowing down/speeding up over time as it relates to the whole of existing time/space? It’s a distance displacement problem…. If points A and B are actually farther apart but light travels the same distance in the same time the “speed” may seem constant but time has actually expanded to give the light more “time” to cover that distance. The speed of light would therefore be constant as a relation to perception and not as it relates to physical principles. Like the fact that the perception of time changes as we get older even though the actual measure of time remains the same.
How can light exist forever? At the speed of light we theoretically freeze time for that photon but that would also require an infinite amount of energy to obtain and maintain. So even a subatomic particle with a lifespan of a nanosecond would appear to exist for all eternity but in actuality would still only exist for a nanosecond. Because quite simply…it can’t have infinite energy and if it can I don’t understand how. Thermodynamics: no system is a perfect system and will experience energy loss, Newton: equal and opposite reaction, if something begins it has to end to balance the equation.
Is it therefore possible that light is born of the fourth dimension… we experience it in the dimensionality of space as long as it loses its energy to the three dimensions. A photon folds and pushes its way through space/time The initial energy of the photon is high and generates bigger leading waves which resist the photon holding it from passing the “speed of light” as the energy dissipates/photon begins to die those folds restricts the photon less allowing it to maintain the speed of light. We experience light because of its “ripples” in three-dimensions light dissipates as the waves of space become less folded in front of the photon. But this would mean the photon eventually loses enough energy that it can no longer be perceived in the third dimension…. So what happens to it?? Imagine : A man running through a corn field has to exert the energy to push the stalks aside but over time if the corn stalks are slowly spaced out even as he loses energy he can maintain his pace, because there is less impeding his path. Our perception of light would be like being in a helicopter looking down on the field. In the begging the field is densely packed with cornstalks and they slowly spread out until there is none. We only know the man is there while he is running through the corn because he pushes the stalks aside and we see that movement but once there are no stalks or he lacks the energy to continue running we no longer have a way of measuring his presence.
That brings me for some reason to a theory of Dark matter. Why? Well what happens to photons that no longer move with enough force to be visible. Like that guy running from a cornfield into an empty field. How would we know he is still there? If it was an infinite number of guys all stopping in that empty field we would know they are there by the depression their weight leaves in the field. Or more accurately by the stones in the field rolling towards a depression we cant actually see. The thought: An infinite number of “massless” (or perceived mass less) subatomic particles would still have infinite mass. Infinite mass would supply more then enough gravitational pull even spread out over infinite distance to cause the continued and speeding expansion of space as more and more visible photons “die” contributing its “dark masslessness”. Any dark matter existing within the universe would act as force… a moving invisible mass existing only on the 4th dimension pushing upon any objects in its way. But because energy propagated internally expanding outward in all dimensions would compound on the outside as those energy’s converge.
I hope you followed those questions. I don’t know what these ideas would do to theoretical physics but it would allow for the relativity of cognitive speed between individuals and reopen the door to “what the hell is dark matter in relation to human behavior” but that’s something different all together.
Second law of thermodynamics is not violated.
If you can illustrate your idea and doubt, we may be able to discuss in more detail.
I have got an assignment from school about making an energy transformation model and I have no idea what to do!
Can you help me? (Posted by Maddy on 28 Aug 2011)
(Expecting suggestions from visitors and members)
There are many simple models for energy transformation. One of the themes for this years Science Exhibitions suggested by NCERT is “Energy Conservation”.
Any generator is a device for energy transformation.
You can think of any device which can convert energy from one form to another.
Well, nobody knows it exactly. Physics and other sciences can explain How things go or went, not Why. Althought there is a theory, called the M theory or the 11 dimensions theory, that gives a kind of answer to this: the M theory says that the matter is made of little strings that vibrating give to the matter his properties. To ensure all the properties 10 dimensions are necessary: the classical 4 (3 for the space + time) and 6 circumvented dimensions. Well the 10 dimensions theory was not able to explain some phenomenons, as the divergences between relativity and quantum mechanics. in 1995 a phycisist found that assuming the existence of an 11th giant dimension, all was explained. think about this dimension as a giant room where there are sheets hanging from the ceiling. well these sheets are parallel realities. Our universe is in one of these “sheets”. In this frame we have the creation of a universe (a big bang) every time a sheet touches another sheet.
I’ve just described you the frontier of the theoretical physics.
– Daniele G. M / Ancona, Italy
Visitors can respond to the idea given by Daniele
Jameel Leers Posted “I’m a carpenter with a bit of an interest in physics. Today while eating lunch on a building site i realised something that i need confirming or de-bunking. Here it is: I believe an Atomic Bomb wouldn’t work in space. Here’s why: Take 90 kgs of tnt, when it detonates it is self-oxidising and instantly sublimes into rapidly expanding gases. The TNT also releases energy in the form of heat, light, sound and more importantly, kinetic energy in gases given as Ek = 1/2 MV^2. An atomic bomb only realeases heat and light. All the expanding gas, the kinetic energy, is provided by heating the atmosphere. The atmposphere around the A-blast is super heated expands, providing the destructive energy. This is why an atomic bomb blast appears to ‘suck back’. Because the bomb doesn’t make its own gas, and gas that it displaces by expansion cools and returns to ground zero. In the vacuum of space however, the atom bomb will produce only heat and light. The heat will instantly vaporise the supercritical elements and turn to gas, and they will expand, but it will only be the same explosive force as a conventional explosive of the same weight. eg 100kg’s of U-235 will produce 100kg of expanding gas. Just as 100kg’s of TNT will produce 100kg’s of gas. So thats what i think. A-bomb won’t really work in space. It is still a nuclear chain reaction. Not a ‘bomb’ though… What do you think?”
We are starting a series of quizzes to enable the students to practice for online quizzes.
Take the sample quiz below for getting an idea on how the quizzes will be coming. If you like it, let us know. Post your reactions as comment to this post. Based on the popularity, we will be adding more such quizzes of different duration and themes.
The Sample Quiz below is of just five questions.
You will get your score and can revise the answers at the end of the quiz.
Sample Science Quiz
Who encouraged Newton to write his ideas for principia?
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
Leonardo da Vinci