Re: Light has no electric charge or magnetic poles
- From: "Androcles" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:52:43 +0100
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:4t12o5-u4p.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
<Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:32:42 +0100
<yxirk.53728$2X3.52657@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:hkk0o5-82h.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxIn sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
<Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:15:06 +0100
<pEfrk.59925$Ft5.52980@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:ur60o5-ble.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In sci.physics.relativity, The TimeLord
<math-n-physics-not@xxxxxxx>
wrote
on Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:05:14 -0500
<N8KdnYdv98I3jjDVnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
Am Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:30:23 -0700 schrieb The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
vj7vn5-u49.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
In sci.physics.relativity, The TimeLord <math-n-physics-not@xxxxxxx>
wrote
on Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:30:41 -0500
<N8KdnYVv98LcWDHVnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
Am Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:51:12 -0700 schrieb The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
gvnsn5-nvi.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in sci.physics.relativity:
In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) <HW@>
wrote
on Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:56:52 GMT
<epjma4psos5gomikv9refscpnhuljk9nlq@xxxxxxx>:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Y <yanarchi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
no but can't a photon can become an electron and a positron ? They
do
tend to move off in seperate directions.
I've never heard of anything but a gamma 'photon' turning into an
electron and a positron. IR or RF certainly doesn't do it.
The minimum energy required is about 1.022 MeV (the sum of the
particle masses, basically), though it is unclear to me whether one
photon is required at that energy, or two photons at half that
energy
(0.511 MeV each) coming together in a very specific fashion.
It's two photons at 511 keV. The 511 keV emission line (soft X-rays)
has been observed around black holes and in some cases as part of
Gamma
Ray Bursts (GRBs) and is considered an indicator of matter-antimatter
interactions.
Interesting...though I do wonder how one can get two 511 keV photons
to
collide in precisely the right place with the nucleus of an atom (I'm
assuming that's what's needed for pair creation).
Oooooooohhhhh - What I meant was that the 511 keV emission line comes
from electron-positron collision resulting in two photons. If there
were
a photon-photon interaction to produce an electron-positron pair, then
the 511 keV line would be an absorbtion line. As far as I know, that
has
never been observed; only the emission line has been observed.
Hm...now I'm totally confused. :-)
However, a quick Google did cough up
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v38/i2/p651_1
which suggests that throwing a 10-20 MeV photon near a
uranium nucleus will do the trick.
That is quite interesting.
If we suppose we have an absorber of radiation such as this:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080221.html
and given that the cloud is far larger than the nearby stars, then
we have a mechanism by which matter is created from energy,
yielding a continuous creation universe of infinite extent.
Until the nearby energy peters out. Nice try, though. ;-)
The energy source is the entire universe and is conserved.
Fine. This isn't too far off the mark, except for the
mottled background radiation of about 2.5 to 3 Kelvin.
How long has the Universe existed?
Nobody knows, but logic would suggest forever. It has existed
for at least as long as it will continue to exist.
The only thing we can be certain of is that it does, although
pathetic human intuition wants to say "In the beginning" and
"forever and ever, Amen".
Can this steady-state
equilibrium compensate for stellar explosions?
That's the whole point. As each star loses mass to radiation
we have an eventual ending of the Universe.
The two models, steady state (SS) and big bang (BB) are in
conflict. One is at least realistic, the other stretches credulity
and creates more questions than it answers.
Neither model is dead, but this picture clearly claims SS.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031026.html
"Newborn stars are forming in the Eagle Nebula. This image, taken with the Hubble Space Telescope in 1995, shows evaporating gaseous globules (EGGs) emerging from pillars of molecular hydrogen gas and dust. The giant pillars are light years in length and are so dense that interior gas contracts gravitationally to form stars."
Stars blow
up after consuming their hydrogen and helium, if they're
big enough; we know that from observation. We can estimate
the abundance of elements if they're glowing using a
spectroscope.
That's looking at the leaves on the tree and not seeing the forest.
As each leaf falls it decomposes, the nutrients enter the ground
and are taken up by the roots to become new leaves again.
In a SS universe I form the hypothesis that radiation is absorbed
by the clouds, is SOMEHOW converted to matter (the big question
is how) and new stars are formed.
The steady state Universe has to -- somehow -- create an
equivalent amount of hydrogen and helium to compensate.
Otherwise it's not steady state.
It's not the total amount of matter that's important here,
but the total amount of matter + radiation.
How big is the Universe?
Infinite. All we see of it is one tree in the forest, the leaves of
that tree are too far apart to jump from one to another, let alone
get to another branch. We are not even ants crawling over the
leaves, we are bacteria in the gut of the ant. We have no way
of seeing the forest.
What is its general shape?
It has no shape, the forest goes on forever.
Is there a boundary? If so, what happens at the boundary?
It has no boundary. What would beyond it except more nothing
or another forest?
The simplest solution is to have the Universe be the
surface of a hypersphere; go far enough and one eventually
returns to one's starting point. No boundary needed there.
Nature doesn't care about simple solutions. There is no highest
number, I can always add one to any number you propose, travel
an inch further than any distance to propose, go one more mile
beyond any boundary you propose.
When you attempt to discuss finite hyperspheres you are still
discussing one tree in the forest and attempting to do so
using mathematical ideas for which there is no physical evidence.
As physicists (as opposed to religious zealots) we want to
discover the details of the mechanism of the universe, such as
how matter becomes radiant energy (it does, H-bombs work,
but how?) and whether that process is reversible, not speculate
on Big Bangs, beginnings and endings.
The universe we see is one tree in the forest. The galaxies
are branches on that tree and the stars are leaves on the branches.
All we can hope for is to understand our leaf.
.
- References:
- Re: Light has no electric charge or magnetic poles
- From: The Ghost In The Machine
- Re: Light has no electric charge or magnetic poles
- From: The Ghost In The Machine
- Re: Light has no electric charge or magnetic poles
- From: The Ghost In The Machine
- Re: Light has no electric charge or magnetic poles
- Prev by Date: Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
- Next by Date: Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
- Previous by thread: Re: Light has no electric charge or magnetic poles
- Next by thread: <> Beautiful Music based on Scientific Theories <>
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
