Ask a Spiritual Physicist

<Drum Role plays>

<Suspensful silence>

The question . . .

"What is the difference between a fruit and a vegitable?"

<The crowd russels in anticipation>

<Transmission goes silent>

. . . We await with bated breath . . .
 
radarmark said:
<fanfare of trumpets>
<abated breath>

I don't know, (!)
who cares (?)
and
what does it have to do with physics?

<stifing silence>
<endtrans>
Click to expand...

<chagrin and agogged remiss enmass>

Well then, all I can say is, without further todo:

"Let's get back to our regularly schedule program of Theoretical Physics".

And now a word from our sponsors . . .
 
Hazzah!

A fruit is actually the sweet, ripened ovary or ovaries of a seed-bearing plant. A vegetable, in contrast, is an herbaceous plant cultivated for an edible part (seeds, roots, stems, leaves, bulbs, tubers, or nonsweet fruits). So, to be really nitpicky, a fruit could be a vegetable, but a vegetable could not be a fruit.​
The Nutriquest team offers a similar answer, adding that most fruits are sweet because they contain a simple sugar called fructose, while most vegetables are less sweet because they have much less fructose. The sweetness of fruit encourages animals to eat it and thereby spread the seeds. The site also presents an interesting list of fruits that are often thought to be vegetables:
  • tomatoes
  • cucumbers
  • squashes and zucchini
  • avocados
  • green, red, and yellow peppers
  • peapods
  • pumpkins
***********************
Now that leaves us with the only remaining question on this topic:
"What does it have to do with physics?"

Now this may require some research (while I check on the price of rice in China and the cost of Monsanto Non-replicating seed in India).
 
And now, "The Submarine Paradox"

Imagine a submarine that’s exactly the same density as water (combining the mass densities of air and people and electronics and hull over their volumes yields about 1 kg/l) while at rest so it neither floats up nor sinks. No problem there, submarines use this principle all the time for a stationary hover.
Imagine it moving along a repeating loop in the ocean, say from the north pole south in the Pacific, skirting the Cape of Good Hope, going north in the Atlantic, and returning to the orientation (south) it had when it started at the north pole. There is some kind of magic slick-um on the outside and magic power-plant on the inside so it can go at very nearly the speed of light.
As it gets near the speed of light, it gets shorter along its length and therefore must become denser (from the perspective of someone at rest in reference to the water the submarine is speeding through). However the Skip on the sub sees the water rush past (again at nearly the speed of light) and therefore must become denser.
Of course, the magic slick-um of the outside keeps any thermal effects from coming into play. And a magic Skipper control keeps any lift from occurring (via a tachyon driven drive plane control loop that instantly and infinitesimally adjusts for additional sources of lift except for buoyancy).
The stationary observer would predict the sub sinking since the mass density of the sub has increased (as its length contracts). The Skip would predict the sub float up as the water around it gets denser (as the individual molecules contract). THE PARADOX: Who is correct? Either the Skip or the stationary observer must be mistaken.
Neutral buoyancy is a function of gravity. The only gravity at play (okay, just 999,999,999 billionths or so) is that of the earth. The effect of gravity is due to a curvature in the spacetime metric. That curvature (for the sub) increases as its mass increases (remember, time slows, length contracts, and mass increases in proportion to the velocity as a function of the speed of light). So the sub sinks down. The interesting thing is that the stationary observer sees this as due to the increase in the density of the sub; however, the Skip (who happens to have his everyday handy-dandy gravitometer) sees it as due to an increase in the force of gravity.
Yale’s John Wettlaufer, who studies the thermodynamics of crystallizing materials, derived a similar equation that describes the buoyancy of forces along interfaces between solids, liquids, and gasses under different types of fields. This hints of some-thing more profound, an as-yet not understood deeper principle.
Pax et amore omnia vincunt!
 
A] Have you seen any references to the "Golden Ration [1:6 ~1:61803399]" as seen in Vitruvius man by Leonardo Devinci?

b] Air-Borne Dust:
Is there a novelty interest in exposing air-borne dust for display purposes only?

What conditions must exist so as to view all the floating dust in a room?

Can a special Light fixture [maybe used in combination with an air spray colorant?] be made to especially highlight all the air-borne dust in a room?

What are the smallest lifeforms & what is the quantity of these lifeforms in the floating dust in a room?

c] What are the rule-of-thumb-Parameters to position one's own POV so as to view to a rainbow?
 
Allelyah said:
QUOTE: What are the smallest lifeforms & what is the quantity of these lifeforms in the floating dust in a room?

The smallest life form is called pure negative energy and it exists like little pieces of paper. The essence of it is hydrogen if you can understand hydrogen with "no cover" or no "clothing on it." This is the life that is used to create change at an experience that is not provided an orientation. Hydrogen with no cover is salt with no cover and when this life is laid whole an an area that can be called "Always" it is the providing "serum" that life understands a conduction from pertaining to their interests. While it exist moving about like buck shot back and forth during periods of duality, it is always in force at the area that is God at the place of Always.
Click to expand...

See all my comments to your comments. I read well and only see your comments as strings of words. Some questions:
1) what is negative energy?
2) how can hydrogen have a cover or clothing? It is an element and without the electron, merely a proton.
3) how can hydrogen or a proton be life? (hint: not the same as living)
4) what would an experience be if it changed? (hint: not the same experience)
5) what would an experience be without orientation? (hint: usually in time and space)
6) how can hydrogen be salt in other than a figurative way?
7) the entire sentence from "when to interests" does not appear to be standard English, can you elaborate?
8) what it "it" in "it exists"?
9) what is a "period od duality"?
10) what is "it" that is "in force"?
11) if there is something which is G!d Always, how can this be an area? (hint: an area implies two dimensions)

Pax et amore vincunt omnia!
 
bhaktajan said:
A] Have you seen any references to the "Golden Ration [1:6 ~1:61803399]" as seen in Vitruvius man by Leonardo Devinci?
Click to expand...

Well first and foremost it is a ratio "pleasing to the eye" to human beings across all kinds of cutures and histories (not just Western from Plato to Picasso). Second of all it is a kind new replacement or search strategy used in some esoteric financial (and other risk) applications; however, this use is based on the number defined in the first use.

Why is it pleasing? THe mathematical key seems to be that it "fits" so very many forms from sunflowers to nautali to galaxies. Like pi and e, it is manifested a lot in nature.

b] Air-Borne Dust:
Is there a novelty interest in exposing air-borne dust for display purposes only? [/QUOTE]

Depends, it makes an iteresting first-year physics "proof" that atoms exist (see Einstein's Explanation of Brownian Motion, where the big blue dot is the dust particle and the red dots molecules in the air).

What conditions must exist so as to view all the floating dust in a room? [/QUOTE]

Well, (1) dust, (2) a dark background (like the wall of an unlit room), and (3) a light source. Try closing your curtains and blinds (or putting tin foil over windows or going into closet) with a pinch of graphite (buy as a spray can lubricant or wear down a pencil, this is the lead). Turn on a penlight (torch) and blow the dust into the air. You will see it

Can a special Light fixture [maybe used in combination with an air spray colorant?] be made to especially highlight all the air-borne dust in a room? [/QUOTE]

An "Ott-light" helps. It's spectral output is very close to the suns. Flourescent bulbs tend to mitigate the effect. should not need colorant. Take a pitch from your vaccum bag next time you empty it.

What are the smallest lifeforms & what is the quantity of these lifeforms in the floating dust in a room? [/QUOTE]

Phew, depends on what you mean by living. Usually we mean carbon-based things that take in nutrients, excrete, and procreate. By that definition probably dust mites. They are about the size of eyelash mites. Pull out an eyelash, look at root. There should be about a thousand on the base (you will not see them). So there could be thousands of dust mites per cubic centimeter (cc). Now some people think pollen and viruses are "alive", for them it is millions per cc (way too small to be seen, prions, a kind of virus, are the smallest, I think).

c] What are the rule-of-thumb-Parameters to position one's own POV so as to view to a rainbow?[/QUOTE]

Depends on where you are. What you have to be (remember this is realtive) is 42 degrees from the source of light (ususally the sun). So in a sprinkle or mist (with sunlight still, this is why places like the US Southwest or Turkey are go good) stand with your back to the sun and look off at about half-way to you shoulder. It is there or it is not. We see them at a distance under this same criteria, the sun is 42 degrees from the arc of the raind bow. If you want trippy, go under a high waterfall and look up at noon... in the right position (that is if sunlight is showing on the mist) you can see a 360 degree rainbow! I have done that in Yosemite when I was a kid and in the Hawaiian islands. Too Cool.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!
 
Did not comprehend any of this! How does it relate to my post about your reply (use quote button--if you want to reply point-by point cut and paste the quote and unquote logos in []).

Pax et amore vincunt omnia!
 
I shan't be back for awhile. Please keep this thread open for at least a little while.

I have loved the feedback and interactions. However, I am really afraid it is really hard for an old dog to learn new tricks. I love all of you (with two exceptions, sorry, it is my nature to testify to the truth). I will probably be back.

Panta Rhei! (Everything Flows!)
 
HEYYYY REDARRRRRRRR!!!

A parting Recommendation, for your viewing consideration:


Supernova is a British comedy television programme produced by Hartswood Films and jointly commissioned by the BBC in the UK and UKTV in Australia. It follows Dr Paul Hamilton (Rob Brydon), a Welsh astronomer, who leaves a dull academic post and unloved girlfriend for a new job at the Royal Australian Observatory, deep in the Australian outback. The comedy centres around his difficulties adjusting to life in the outback and his eccentric fellow astronomers. The first series was released in the UK and Australia in October 2005 and consisted of six 30-minute episodes. The second series began airing on 3 August 2006 in the UK.
The exterior scenes were shot at Broken Hill in New South Wales, Australia. The observatory itself is a CGI creation, according to the DVD commentary, and only a partial doorway was constructed on site for filming purposes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_(TV_series)
 
And now, the Ehrenfest Paradox

The Ehrenfest paradox concerns the rotation of a "rigid" disc in the theory of relativity.

In its original formulation as presented by Paul Ehrenfest 1909 an ideally rigid cylinder rotates about its axis of symmetry (a cylinder was used to circumvent the possibility of a disc "dishing" out of its plane of rotation and trivially satisfying C<2πR; in discussions since 1909, a rotating disc is substituted it is assumed that distortion is excluded). The radius R as seen in the laboratory frame is always perpendicular to its motion and should therefore be equal to its value R0 when stationary. However, the circumference (2πR) should appear Lorentz-contracted to a smaller value than at rest, by the usual factor γ.

For Ehrenfest the apparent paradox was that rigid measuring rods would have to separate from one another due to Lorentz contraction, concluding a rotated Born rigid disk should shatter. Thus Ehrenfest argued by reductio ad absurdum that Born rigidity is not generally compatible with special relativity.

Einstein noted that according to special relativity an object cannot be spun up from a non-rotating state while maintaining Born rigidity, but once it has achieved a constant nonzero angular velocity it does maintain Born rigidity without violating special relativity, and a disk riding observer will measure a circumference:

The paradox has been deepened further by later reasoning that since measuring rods aligned along the periphery and moving with it should appear contracted, more would fit around the circumference, which would thus measure greater than 2πR. This leads to the contradiction that R=R0 and R<R0 and π=C0/2R0, where C0 is the circumference, while simultaneously π > π0.

The Ehrenfest paradox may be the most basic phenomenon in relativity that has a long history marked by controversy and which still gets different interpretations published in peer-reviewed journals (over 200 alledged solutions can be found):confused:

A contemporary result points out that the paradox disappears when (in accordance with general theory of relativity) each piece of the rotating disk is treated separately, as living in his own local non-inertial frame (H. Nikolić, “Relativistic contraction and related effects in noninertial frames,” Phys. Rev. A 61, 032109, 2000; see http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9904/9904078v2.pdf). The following explanation draws on that math.;)

EXPLANATION: The key is remembering two things, first, the speed of light is constant and, second, that π does not vary. As the disk spins up the inertial observer would see the portion of the disk spinning towards her blue shift and that spinning away red shift. However, since the acceleration and velocity are circular (always changing in direction in respect to the observer) the point of closest approach and furthest approach would not shift at all. That is because the motion is perpendicular to the observer’s point-of-view. Further, the blue and red shift would vary from zero at those points to a maximum at the observed peripheral points (where the velocity would be parallel to the observer’s line-of-sight) as a function of the sine of the angle between the line-of-sight and the (constantly changing) velocity.

Let us say the velocity is increased to 43.589% the speed of light, γ is then equal to .9. So at the peripheral edge accelerating away from the observer the blue shift is 10% while on the opposite side of the disc the red shift is likewise 10%. Now the radius along the line-of sight (assume it started at 1 meter) is still 1 meter (because the direction of the velocity is perpendicular to the line-of-sight, the radius remains unchanged. However, in the perpendicular direction, the apparent radius has shrunk to .9293 meters (remember the contraction is a function of sine).

Therefore from the plane of the disk’s orientation the disk appears to become an ovoid foreshortened along the transverse axis as a function of both angular velocity and the sine of the angle. However, from directly above or below the disk (and along the axis perpendicular to it), the disk remains a disk of 1 meter radius (in this case all of the velocity is perpendicular to the observer).

For an observer on the disc, the situation is a little different. The relative velocity of the opposite point is .872 the speed of light, so is foreshortened to 1.5101 meters distant and the two peripheral points are unaffected. However, the disk is no longer a disk, it looks (to the observer on the disk) as a kind of tri-corner hat. The distance to the vertical axis is still one meter, the distance to each of the two peripheral points is 1.41 meters (same as when the disk was motionless). The “back side” goes from 1.41 to 1.5101 meters along a curved line and the two “front sides” go from 1.41 meters to zero along similarly curved paths.

The inertial frame-of reference is similarly “seen” as “changed” in an Escher-like manner.:cool:

NOW I WANT YOU ALL TO KNOW THIS IS AN ORIGINAL SOLUTION WHICH I MUST CHECK VERSUS THE EQUATIONS OF OTHER SOLUTIONS. I think it works and if it does will let you know when I finish and publish a paper on it.:D

Panta Rhei!
Everything Flows!
 
Okay, ya'll--

Here is the thing. There are two related (in that they both address centripetal force) classic paradoxes: Ehrefest's and Mach's. I think a good approach to each is the neo-Whiteheadian approach I took in the previous post on Ehrenfest's.

So what I plan to do is approach Mach's paradox (see "Mach's priniciple" or "origin of inertia") in a very classic approach using Whiteheadian-flavored geometry. Then I will produce a mathematical assessment of my solution of the Ehrefest paradox and explain it in terms of "Whiteheadian relativity".

I will be limiting comments and replies during this time. But, of course, will answer any questions on the threads I started and will reply to any PMs.

Panta Rhei!
(Everything Flows!)
 
Can we talk about, "ANTROPIC SCALE"?

Ever since Copernicus, scientists have continually adjusted their view of human nature, moving it further and further from its ancient position at the center of Creation. But in recent years, a startling new concept has evolved that places it more firmly than ever in a special position. Known as the Anthropic Cosmological Principle, this collection of ideas holds that the existence of intelligent observers determines the fundamental structure of the Universe. In its most radical version, the Anthropic Principle asserts that "intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and once it comes into existence, it will never die out."
This wide-ranging and detailed book explores the many ramifications of the Anthropic Cosmological Principle, covering the whole spectrum of human inquiry from Aristotle to Z bosons. Bringing a unique combination of skills and knowledge to the subject, John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler--two of the world's leading cosmologists--cover the definition and nature of life, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, and the interpretation of the quantum theory in relation to the existence of observers. The book will be of vital interest to philosophers, theologians, mathematicians, scientists, and historians, as well as to anyone concerned with the connection between the vastness of the universe of stars and galaxies and the existence of life within it on a small planet out in the suburbs of the Milky Way.

http://www.amazon.com/Anthropic-Cosmological-Principle-Oxford-Paperbacks/dp/0192821474/ref=sid_dp_dp/188-5496359-4618533

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

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

In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is the philosophical argument that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it.

Some proponents of the argument reason that it explains why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe that the fact is unremarkable that the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to allow life.

The principle was formulated as a response to a series of observations that the laws of nature and parameters of the Universe take on values that are consistent with conditions for life as we know it rather than a set of values that would not be consistent with life as observed on Earth.

The anthropic principle states that this phenomenon is a necessity because living observers wouldn't be able to exist, and hence, observe the Universe, were these laws and constants not constituted in this way.

Carter defined two forms of the Anthropic Principle, a "weak" one which referred only to anthropic selection of privileged spacetime locations in the universe, and a more controversial "strong" form which addressed the values of the fundamental constants of physics.

The anthropic idea that fundamental parameters are selected from a multitude of different possibilities (each actual in some universe or other) contrasts with the traditional hope of physicists for a theory of everything having no free parameters: as Einstein said,

"What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world."

Quite recently, proponents of the leading candidate for a "theory of everything", string theory, proclaimed "the end of the anthropic principle"[30] since there would be no free parameters to select.

Ironically, string theory now seems to offer no hope of predicting fundamental parameters, and now some who advocate it invoke the anthropic principle as well.

The modern form of a design argument is put forth by Intelligent design. Proponents of intelligent design often cite the fine-tuning observations that (in part) preceded the formulation of the anthropic principle by Carter as a proof of an intelligent designer.

Opponents of intelligent design are not limited to those who hypothesize that other universes exist; they may also argue, anti-anthropically, that the universe is less fine-tuned than often claimed, or that accepting fine tuning as a brute fact is less astonishing than the idea of an intelligent creator.

Furthermore, even accepting fine tuning, Sober (2005)[31] and Ikeda and Jefferys,[32][33] argue that the Anthropic Principle as conventionally stated actually undermines intelligent design; see fine-tuned universe.

*****************************************
The scale of the cosmos defines Humans as approx 2 meters high ---the mean point between the largest scale of the universe and the samllest measurements known; reference this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(length)
*****************************************
Perspective: Universal Scale - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCwVoOKxj1k

***********************
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_units
 
Yep, under great discussion and debate. For a valuable insights see Micha? Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia a Catholic priest-physicist-cosmologist-mathematician-theologian-philosopher. You should go to the trouble of dredging up his papers on Anthropic Principle. His cosmological credentials are somewhat better (being an active member of the academic arXiv.org publication syndicate) than anyone mentioned on the wiki article.

All the rage, now. I prefer the Whiteheadian cosmology and philosophy (and remember this is not really a scientific debate as much as a meta-physical one) of the philosophy of organism. One possible (pretty well accepted) explanation is that the consciousness demanded exists in all matter-energy (as prehension or potentia). That is why process (another word for organism) philosophers are pretty much panentheists (the divine is existent in the physical world as well as some world beyond).

A matter close to my heart.
 
radarmark said:
Let me put another thread out there (the first one ain't going so good).

I am a trained nuclear physicist. Am also a keen follower of philosophy (in fact Process Philosophy led me to Western Spiritualism). Am also a liberal Quaker (we think we really are the most conservative and those Evangelical or Unitatrian Quakers are the latecomers).

So... toss your physics quandries to me. If I cannot answer them, I will suggest written or web material. Depending on how complex they are, this may take some time (I still work full-time).

For instance: "what is the status of a unified field theory? from perplexed"

I take it by "unified field theory" you mean the unification of quantum and relativity theory. They are still not aligned. The two roads most physicists see some hope for are string theory and quantum gravity. ST is quite elegant and very abstract and any experimental proof (or proof via explanation of the universe) seems far off. QG seems easier to test, but the test is yet to be determined. The big hurdle (and the reason for the research) is "very early times" close to the singularity of the big bang. That is why singularities of all kinds are being researched.

I stand available to provide references (from no-math-needed to grad texts or papers) if you want them!

Pax et amor vincunt omnia. radarmark

Let me know what you think.:confused:
Click to expand...


All right Radarmark, what is the problem with Quantum Mechanics that it does not go with the theory of Relativity? I still wonder why Einstein could never agree with it. I mean, Quatum Mechanics. It seems to me that it did not make sense to him.
Ben
 
Einstein believed in a Block Universe (there is no such thing as a flow of time, all times co-exist here and now), in absolute locality (ther can be no action at a distance, there must be some kind of matter/energy exchange to explain a force), and absolute determinism (if one knows everything there is at time A, everything at time B is determined).

Quantum contradicts all three (at least to the majority of quantum physicists). We have events linked in time (see "retrocausality"), and nonlocal (see "EPR Paradox" and "Bell's Theorum"), and indeterminate (not because we lack information, but because we cannot know, see "uncertainty principle").

Einstein could not and would not wrap his head around these ideas. I believe because they did not fit into his rather conventional world view of creation as a product of a personal creator G!d. That concept of G!d just is invalid according to quantum. "Yes, Albert, G!d does play dice with the universe".

See, not even G!d/dress can know beforehand what a quantum measurement will be. Like us, H! cannot determine beforehand because the event is not causally determined--something happens, but exactly what is not predictable. Also, two particles can be so intertwined (say they are products of the same event going in opposite directions, see "Aspect Experiment") that a million years later, two million light years apart (a light year is a measure of distance) an experiment on one will instantaneously determine the characteristics of the other. Since all particles were at one time so closely intertwined they occupied the same space (this is the Big Bang), there is the possibility of unknown quantum events in our world due to another intelligence making a simple quantum measurement.

The only way around all of this is what is called "Many Worlds Theory" or "Multiverses", which a lot of physicists write about, but very few actually believe (based on questionnaires handed out at quantum physics meetings). For me, those interpretations are just too wierd, too big. I can work out the numbers, but it amount to there being a google or so universes and a googleplex (look them up) of quantum events happening each instant.

He rejected quantum because it did not fit in with his world-view. Quantum is the most verified and tested of all theories (there are many many more tests of the quantum than relativity). That is why his Theory of Everything just could not work. If a TOE is possible the likely unification path is via either quantum loop gravity or some form of string theory. Since the latter may never be provable or disprovable (the tests require energies equivalent to the output of the sun for a year or so, or some such huge amount or a collider the size of the Milky Way), I bet on qlg.

Enough to begin the conversation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top