PDA

View Full Version : Question on Physics



Mario F.
02-03-2008, 05:33 AM
For the physicists out there, help me with the following.

I'm curious as to whether speed affects matter at the molecular level. Theoretically, assuming a vacuum environment, if an object moves at the speed of light, how will its atoms behave? Normally?

CornedBee
02-03-2008, 05:44 AM
Concerning the internal interactions, the atoms will behave normally, because their reference point is each other, so they might as well not move at all.

I don't know how the interactions with the outside world change. That's where my knowledge gives out.

Mario F.
02-03-2008, 05:54 AM
Concerning the internal interactions, the atoms will behave normally, because their reference point is each other, so they might as well not move at all.

As I suspected. Thanks CornedBee


I don't know how the interactions with the outside world change. That's where my knowledge gives out.

This is probably the bit that interests most for what I'm doing right now. But I'm unsure as to what exactly you mean. You mean the possibility of the object losing atoms even in the absence of attrition?

JaWiB
02-03-2008, 02:18 PM
According to Einstein, it isn't possible for an object with mass to move at the speed of light.

twomers
02-03-2008, 02:44 PM
>> Concerning the internal interactions, the atoms will behave normally,
I disagree. Towards any extremity things behave ... funny. Very high frequencies, very low temperatures, very high temperatures, very high pressures, just to name a few. Very high speeds is bound not to be an exception -- nature copied and pasted a lot of characteristics.

As things get faster I believe Einstein conjectured* that they move slower in time and get heavier. I agree with JaWiB, but I do not pretend to know much about this kind of stuff.

* I think he proved this, in fact, but I cannot fully remember.

oogabooga
02-03-2008, 04:17 PM
I agree with CornedBee.

The idea of special relativity is that you have to take certain distortions into account when you measure objects going at high speeds relative to you. The distortions occur because of the finite nature of the speed of light and the non-absolute nature of space-time. Importantly, the objects do not change at all; just the measurements change. Einstein's (special) relativity is a straightforward working-out of this idea.

twomers is right that extreme conditions will always produce some crazy effects, but the conditions must be "absolute", such as being near a high-gravity source. Gravity and acceleration are absolute. The general(ized) theory of relativity deals with them.

Mario F.
02-03-2008, 05:16 PM
ok. We seem to be establishing that if an object could theoretically move at the speed of light in vacuum, it probably wouldn't experience any kind of molecular changes.

Imagine now a perfect sphere. By perfect I mean no joints and a smooth surface. And by smooth I mean smooth to the extreme. Lets move this object at the speed of light and introduce some sort of attrition... air molecules for instance. Would this object invariably be destroyed?

Understand I'm only after a plausible answer. No hard facts really. I'm writting a fiction based on the works of H.P. Lovecraft (one of my favorite writers after poe). At some point two of the characters are meant to be discussing this issue. The setting is the late 19 century. And while these are two bright individuals, their knowledge on these issues is only scant and populated with myth.

twomers
02-03-2008, 05:27 PM
>> We seem to be establishing that if an object could theoretically move at the speed of light in vacuum, it probably wouldn't experience any kind of molecular changes.
An fine deduction for a pack of hobby programmers, huh? ;)

oogabooga
02-03-2008, 05:44 PM
I'm writting a fiction based on the works of H.P. Lovecraft (one of my favorite writers after poe). At some point two of the characters are meant to be discussing this issue. The setting is the late 19 century. And while these are two bright individuals, their knowledge on these issues is only scant and populated with myth.
Cool, a story! They should mention (perhaps argue about) the "luminiferous aether". The idea is how can light (considered a wave at that time) travel without a medium? The medium was called the aether. Beginning the disproof of aether's existence was the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887), so that's probably after (or perhaps during) your storyline.

You're emphasizing the perfect smoothness of the sphere. That is already a problem. What is it made of? How could it be "perfectly smooth" if it consists of atoms/molecules? At some level, it must be bumpy. Certainly it is bumpy at the level of air molecules, which will therefore not just slide around it but smash it to pieces. Also your use of the word "attrition" presupposes the sphere is being affected. If it is capable of being attrited, and realistically it must be, then it will be destroyed.

But since it's a story, perhaps this sphere is something not seen before, an alien technology made of a super-thin shell of neutron star material. That way it wouldn't have molecules or even atoms, but it would still be bumpy at some level, but perhaps at a level below that of the size of air-molecules. That might help. I don't know if it's "possible", though.

Also remember that if the object has any mass at all, it should be going *less* than c, though perhaps near it.

CornedBee
02-04-2008, 05:16 AM
I don't know if it's "possible", though.
Kind of. Neutron stars are solid spheres of neutrons packed as tightly as possible. You couldn't make a hollow sphere out of neutrons, because their own gravity would cause them to collapse into a smaller sphere - unless you have something strange in the middle that keeps them in position. Definitely sounds like alien technology. Since neutrons are not affected by electromagnetic forces, and the weak nuclear force is too, well, weak to counter gravity at this level, it would have to be either anti-gravity or a repelling form of the strong nuclear force.

Mario F.
02-04-2008, 05:28 AM
No. The two gentleman are only theorizing on the effects of speed on matter. In the end one of them wants to convince the other things ages, wither or are otherwise altered in a negative way because they are in a constant motion, or being affected by the motion of other things. The other wants to convince him that's nonsense.

I'm only extrapolating into current knowledge so that I can have a foothold from which to build this conversation. The dialog serves as a parody to science sometimes being made, not of careful examination and experimentation, but instead of argumentation.


Also remember that if the object has any mass at all, it should be going *less* than c, though perhaps near it.

Yes. This was brought up before. For the purpose of my task, this is irrelevant. However, let me say something about it... just because this is after all the General Discussions forum.

Some FTL theories exist that try to contradict this. At least, to say that objects and information can move at speeds higher than the speed of light under special circumstances. While Einstein's theory of Special Relativity has been observed countless times since its inception, the fact also is that it can't contradict some of these FTL theories either.

Necessarily they are only conjectures, some better supported than others. However, our understanding of the universe has taken many turns, sometimes dramatically. Establishment works against science. So I prefer to remember at all times SR is still a theory, despite increasing evidence that supports it.

The wording thus is "according to SR, if the object has any mass at all, it should be going *less* than c"

Mario F.
02-04-2008, 05:42 AM
You're emphasizing the perfect smoothness of the sphere. That is already a problem.

Ah. I didn't say perfect. Yes. The sphere is only smooth at a scale higher than that of molecules. In fact, this can be done today... maybe not a sphere, but metallic plates have been constructed.


If it is capable of being attrited, and realistically it must be, then it will be destroyed.

This is important. I agree it should be too. After all, it is more or less what happens at the atomic level in today's particle accelerators. I'd imagine molecules bumping at the speed of light would counter the nuclear forces and fundamentally alter their structure.

Neo1
02-04-2008, 07:03 AM
Ah. I didn't say perfect. Yes. The sphere is only smooth at a scale higher than that of molecules. In fact, this can be done today... maybe not a sphere, but metallic plates have been constructed.

The most perfect sphere ever created was not metallic plates, but fused quartz.

oogabooga
02-04-2008, 07:53 PM
While Einstein's theory of Special Relativity has been observed countless times since its inception, the fact also is that it can't contradict some of these FTL theories either.Can you give an internet site for some (or one) of these conjectures?

Mario F.
02-04-2008, 08:13 PM
Well, you can google for FTL or go to the wiki and build your way up from there.

As for books, I'd probably recommend introductory books to quantum physics and necessarily any writings by the authors of these theories. I seem to remember the first time I've read about FTL with some lengthy discussion was on a book from either Brian Greene or Stephen Hawking.

BobMcGee123
02-05-2008, 10:56 PM
Out of all of the replies I've read I agree with twomers the most, so I'm going to quote his comment:



As things get faster I believe Einstein conjectured* that they move slower in time and get heavier. I agree with JaWiB, but I do not pretend to know much about this kind of stuff.

* I think he proved this, in fact, but I cannot fully remember.


It's true that as objects "move faster" they "move slower in time." That is why the speed of light with respect to *any* frame of reference is a constant. Two objects moving relative to each other, say 500 million miles *per hour,* will both measure the speed of photons emitted from an independent light source as traveling 670 miles *per hour.* It's the *per hour* part of the equation that changes.

Also, it's not that the object actually 'gets heavier' per se, it's that as you tend towards any extreme (as you mentioned) it takes more and more energy to get the same desired effect. For example, as you bring the temperature of a system closer and closer to 0K, it requires increasing amounts of work to extract heat from the system boundaries (therefore it seems as if the system has acquired an 'increased resistance to heat extraction').

aeghion-flux theory, pronounced 'aeon-flux' like the movie/show, tries to connect relativistic effects with the transfer of mass into energy. The theory basically states that if mass 'warps the fabric of spacetime,' then the energy 'synthesized' from that same mass may also create relativistic effects. A subset of the theory explains how a separate mass introduced to a changing aeghion-flux field can "gain the essential characteristics ... necessary to commence propagation at the speed of light."

A few notes on the theory:
- Note the use of the word 'propagation.' If you read on further through the material you realize that what's *really* happening is that the 'mass' is basically being turned into electromagnetic waves...photons! Somewhat of a killjoy.
- The theory claims that this is the only process (in the universe) which is both 'real' and reversible (in the 'thermodynamics' sense of the word).
- The mathematical representation used to show the 'spacetime' distortion is the outer product between two quaternions (before and after the mass transfer into energy).
- The process only operates under a 'changing' aeighon-flux (I guess similar to how only a changing magnetic flux can induce a current)
- The Hiroshima bombing of 1945 is said to have induced a 'spacetime deflection' of .00001 (the units and interpretation of this number are basically impossible to understand), and that 1*10^-4billion grams of matter could be made to travel at the speed of light (but, again, because the mass is really being turned into electro magnetic waves).

brewbuck
02-05-2008, 11:04 PM
For the physicists out there, help me with the following.

I'm curious as to whether speed affects matter at the molecular level. Theoretically, assuming a vacuum environment, if an object moves at the speed of light, how will its atoms behave? Normally?

No atom can move at the speed of light, so this question has no natural answer.

Does physics change when things move? No, it does not. This is one of the most central and fundamental principles of modern physics.

brewbuck
02-05-2008, 11:13 PM
You're emphasizing the perfect smoothness of the sphere. That is already a problem. What is it made of? How could it be "perfectly smooth" if it consists of atoms/molecules? At some level, it must be bumpy.

Oh yeah? Ponder this one: The value pi (you know, 3.14159...) was first defined as "the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter." In modern times, we know that pi has an infinite number of digits, is irrational, and can be (at least in principle) computed exactly up to any precision you want.

But the universe itself, you know, that place where things like "circles" exist, can not actually CONTAIN an ideal circle -- the very ideal which led to the idea of pi in the first place! So my question to you is, do all the digits of pi actually matter? At some point you reach a resolution where the physical matter of the universe cannot represent the ratio exactly. And yet the precise value of this constant can be found using simple, beautiful mathematics.

So you have something finite and approximate which was the inspiration for a precise, mathematical concept, which in turn because so precise as to render the original model obsolete.

The universe is full of such weirdness.

Mario F.
02-06-2008, 08:48 AM
thanks for the input folks

BobMcGee123
02-06-2008, 10:49 AM
Does physics change when things move? No, it does not. This is one of the most central and fundamental principles of modern physics.


I guess this depends on what you are talking about, because this statement just really isn't true. One example, on a more macroscopic scale: there are two completely different sets of equations to model gas flow: compressible and incompressible. Incompressible fluid flow is genereally taught starting with Bernoulli's equations of a system at steady state. However, when the fluid flow increases to a sufficient velocity the assumption of incompressibility is not true, and Bernoulli's equations do not work.

You will tend to see Bernoulli's equations used for pumping water/oil through pipes at relatively low pressures. You will tend to see compressible fluid flow studied for the design of turbo machines (turbo fans, turbo jets, ram jets, etc) and other fluid dynamics applications.

brewbuck
02-07-2008, 12:28 AM
I guess this depends on what you are talking about, because this statement just really isn't true. One example, on a more macroscopic scale: there are two completely different sets of equations to model gas flow: compressible and incompressible. Incompressible fluid flow is genereally taught starting with Bernoulli's equations of a system at steady state. However, when the fluid flow increases to a sufficient velocity the assumption of incompressibility is not true, and Bernoulli's equations do not work.

This has to do with interactions between objects. I'm talking about basic relativity. It is logically impossible for the laws of physics to vary with velocity, because velocity is always relative and this would imply that the laws of physics, and therefore reality itself, change when you move. You don't need math to prove that, just common sense.

vart
02-07-2008, 12:32 AM
You don't need math to prove that, just common sense.
And what common sense has to do with physics?

During a long-long times common sense stated that Sun is going around the Earth...

brewbuck
02-07-2008, 12:38 AM
And what common sense has to do with physics?

During a long-long times common sense stated that Sun is going around the Earth...

It's basic physical common sense. In order to do physics, we have to first assume that the universe is consistent. Without that, there is no point. So, assuming a consistent universe, it is clear that the laws of physics cannot vary based on relative velocity, otherwise a different event would happen for different observers, and this violates the principle that the universe is a single reality.

The whole farce of the sun orbiting the earth was based on perfectly legitimate observations. We simply discovered further evidence that proved that it wasn't true. That's an example of new facts changing our outlook. The idea of relativity is deeper than a fact. If it's not true, then we are in an incomprehensible nightmare.

Maybe relativity isn't true. But unless it is, all studies of physics are pointless. I choose to believe that it's true.

Mario F.
02-07-2008, 04:59 AM
It's basic physical common sense. In order to do physics, we have to first assume that the universe is consistent. Without that, there is no point. So, assuming a consistent universe, it is clear that the laws of physics cannot vary based on relative velocity

I believe this is Classical Physics and a part of the reason that lead Einstein to his fruitless search for the Unified Theory. Evidence however has shown that, as already pointed out, under certain conditions laws of physics seem to change indeed. Take for instance Black Holes, or in more general terms, extreme gravity conditions.

The only thing I never agreed with classical physics was exactly its tendency to adopt formal rules about the universe. Laws are the same everywhere, speed of light is a constant, etc... It has been observed already, for instance, that under special circumstances the speed of light does indeed vary. At the very least a scientific mind should be tempted to accept other possibilities.

Quantum physics, for instance proved that light itself sometimes behaves like a wave and sometimes like a particle. In fact, the whole scientific branch spew from the fact it was observed that at very large or very small scales rules seem to change. It's only natural to assume (and it was observed already) they may also change at very high or low speeds, very high or low masses, etc...

This is not to say I don't agree with the general principle that only light can travel at light's speed. But that because there isn't evidence - so far! - pointing to the contrary. But certainly one can theorize about the possibility and the effects, and math can help.

vart
02-07-2008, 12:53 PM
It's basic physical common sense.
As I said CS could be wrong - physics could build a model that is agains CS, Find a way to make experiment thats result could be predicted in this model and is different from the result predicted by the old model build on the CS and then execute the experiment to prove that the new model is "closer" to reality than the old one



In order to do physics, we have to first assume that the universe is consistent.
So Enstein was working in some other area then?


So, assuming a consistent universe, it is clear that the laws of physics cannot vary based on relative velocity, otherwise a different event would happen for different observers, and this violates the principle that the universe is a single reality.
Consistency could be in the fact that the universal physic laws depend on the velocity in some predictable way ;)

Different observers observe different events. (Event occurance is dependent on the presence of observer). It IS the law of our Univers. Don't you know it?


The whole farce of the sun orbiting the earth was based on perfectly legitimate observations. We simply discovered further evidence that proved that it wasn't true. That's an example of new facts changing our outlook. The idea of relativity is deeper than a fact. If it's not true, then we are in an incomprehensible nightmare.
Here I missed your point. I was under impression you tried to prove something opposite to the conclusion you made. :)

indigo0086
02-07-2008, 03:48 PM
What if they were going really fast in a microwave?

Sang-drax
02-07-2008, 10:07 PM
- The Hiroshima bombing of 1945 is said to have induced a 'spacetime deflection' of .00001 (the units and interpretation of this number are basically impossible to understand), and that 1*10^-4billion grams of matter could be made to travel at the speed of light (but, again, because the mass is really being turned into electro magnetic waves).What are you talking about? Mass can not travel at the speed of light.


I guess this depends on what you are talking about, because this statement just really isn't true. One example, on a more macroscopic scale: there are two completely different sets of equations to model gas flow: compressible and incompressible. Incompressible fluid flow is genereally taught starting with Bernoulli's equations of a system at steady state. However, when the fluid flow increases to a sufficient velocity the assumption of incompressibility is not true, and Bernoulli's equations do not work.I don't see how this is relevant at all.

BobMcGee123
02-07-2008, 10:14 PM
What are you talking about? Mass can not travel at the speed of light.


See above. The theory basically states that when mass is introduced to a changing aeghion flux field in space-time it gains the characteristics necessary to travel at the speed of light (e-m waves). When the flux is no longer changing it acquires pure mass properties. From an 'outside observer' it has the same effect as mass traveling *at* light speed. The aeghion flux field has to do with energy behaving much like a mass which warps spacetime, creating relativistic effects. The theory also states that if this process was *not* reversible then conservation of mass and energy in a closed/isolated system would no longer hold.

That process is also theorized to be the only process (in the universe) which is both real and reversible (in the thermodynamics sense).

It's one of those things that are counter-intuitive, but makes sense upon careful examination. For example, photons, while mass-less, do carry momentum, as exhibited by the photo-electric effect. This is *sort of* along the same line thinking.

The problem is that it is difficult to actually prove that mass cannot travel at the speed of light, and there's also no clear single, absolute definition, of what mass really is (outside of the classical Newtonian physics...there are theories, e.g. that of the Higgs field).



I don't see how this is relevant at all.


He'd said that physics doesn't change with velocity. I just gave an example where that isn't true. But, re-reading his posts I see what he meant.

Sang-drax
02-08-2008, 10:25 AM
See above. The theory basically states that when mass is introduced to a changing aeghion flux field in space-time it gains the characteristics necessary to travel at the speed of light (e-m waves).Could you provide a reference? When I Google "aeghion flux", there is only one result -- this thread. This sounds like Star Trek to me.

brewbuck
02-08-2008, 10:39 AM
So Enstein was working in some other area then?

I have no clue what you are trying to argue. Einstein's huge insight was that physics does not depend on relative velocity. Among a lot of other things, the observed speed of light does not depend on relative velocity.


Consistency could be in the fact that the universal physic laws depend on the velocity in some predictable way ;)

What we observe depends on velocity. What actually happens does not.


Different observers observe different events. (Event occurance is dependent on the presence of observer). It IS the law of our Univers. Don't you know it?

No, I can't say that I am familiar with this principle of different observers witnessing different events. They might witness different evidence. The event is the same. There is no way to set up a car crash so that for one observer, you survive, and for another, you die. That doesn't mean the crash looks the same for both of them, but it is a single event with a perfectly well defined reality that does not depend on the velocity of the observers.

brewbuck
02-08-2008, 10:44 AM
I believe this is Classical Physics and a part of the reason that lead Einstein to his fruitless search for the Unified Theory. Evidence however has shown that, as already pointed out, under certain conditions laws of physics seem to change indeed. Take for instance Black Holes, or in more general terms, extreme gravity conditions.

I guess you're all missing my point. Physics doesn't change because the observer is moving. Obviously velocity is real and has something to do with physical interactions.

The original question was, would a packet of matter behave different when moving through space than when at rest. The answer is still "no" because the question is flawed in the first place. You cannot say that a packet of matter "moves" without giving a frame of reference. Therefore, if I travel the same speed as the packet, to me it is not moving, while a different observer might say that it is moving. The point is, the physics within the packet does not change.


Quantum physics, for instance proved that light itself sometimes behaves like a wave and sometimes like a particle.

Not really. Quantum physics shows that the behavior of small particles can be extremely accurately predicted by using some wave based equations. This does not say anything at all about what the particle really is. The units of quantum wave "oscillation" are "imaginary inverse square root meters." This is not even a physically meaningful unit. Any quantum mechanics instructor would berate you for attempting to assign physical meaning or reality to the wave function.

EDIT: Light is a slightly different case, because it oscillates within physically measurable fields. Feynman, creator of modern quantum electrodynamics, fervently believed that photons are particles, they are never waves, and he imagined wave phenomenon as being explained by little tiny "clock hands" travelling with photons as they follow an infinite number of tiny paths through space time, and integrating over all paths simultaneously to predict the path of the photon. If you can get your head around that. He hated the idea that light was a wave.

The question is still open. Personally I think the answer is irrelevant, since the equations work.

Mario F.
02-08-2008, 01:23 PM
I guess you're all missing my point. Physics doesn't change because the observer is moving. Obviously velocity is real and has something to do with physical interactions.

Yes. I did understand your point. My point however was, simply put, let us not forget Einstein's theory of Special Relativity is exactly that; a theory. So we should keep an open mind when the request is to speculate.


Not really. Quantum physics shows that the behavior of small particles can be extremely accurately predicted by using some wave based equations. This does not say anything at all about what the particle really is.

As I didn't. I used the word behave. Not that light is a wave, but that light sometimes behaves like a wave, others like a particle.


Any quantum mechanics instructor would berate you for attempting to assign physical meaning or reality to the wave function.

No. He would understand my point, even if he had a lot to add to it. He would read what I wrote, "behave'.


If you can get your head around that. He hated the idea that light was a wave.

Which is totally irrelevant. The fact that light sometimes behaves like a wave and others like a particle has been debated (http://www.howstuffworks.com/light1.htm) by prominent scientists and is taken seriously.

BobMcGee123
02-08-2008, 01:41 PM
This sounds like Star Trek to me.


And the rest of this particular conversation doesn't? :)




Einstein's huge insight was that physics does not depend on relative velocity. Among a lot of other things, the observed speed of light does not depend on relative velocity.


We know that two frames of reference, moving relative to each other, experience time differently. This is the story of the man that flew near the speed of light for 30 years, came back to earth only to find a completely different planet. I wonder if, then, that also means that chemical reactions take place at different rates (which would imply that the little packets of matter are, in fact, influenced greatly by the relativistic effects).

EDIT:


The fact that light sometimes behaves like a wave and others like a particle has been debated by prominent scientists and is taken seriously.


This is actually the starting point of aeghion flux theory. A photon is able to exhibit the properties of a particle because it has energy. The energy is stored 'within' a photon by oscillating electric and magnetic fields. Remember, a changing magnetic flux induces a current, and vice-versa. When this energy is given up, it is able to change the momentum in 'mass,' although the photon does not have measurable 'mass' in and of itself (this is the photo-electric effect).

Remember, e=mc^2

Sang-drax
02-08-2008, 02:43 PM
And the rest of this particular conversation doesn't?
No it doesn't, actually. Special relativity is nothing new to me.

I haven't heard of aeghion flux before, though. Google hasn't either (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=%22aeghion+flux%22&btnG=Search). What you're saying doesn't make much sense.

BobMcGee123
02-08-2008, 07:50 PM
No it doesn't, actually. Special relativity is nothing new to me.


Well I can help you understand the theory, what part of it don't you understand? I realize that very new topics can be difficult to consider/comprehend. I haven't said that it is the absolute truth, I've just re-iterated the theory. In all honesty, I've probably done a poor job of explaining it, at least not as good as the thesis article I read. But when you think of the following premise you can see how it starts to come together:
- Mass warps the 'fabric' of spacetime
- e=mc^2
- Energy therefore may be possible to 'warp the fabric of spacetime.'
- The process of sustained transfer of mass into energy may have an effect (the theory tries to use the pre-existing physical laws to determine what these 'effects' may be, as I've tried explaining above). I would not have spent so much time writing out the theory but there's not a lot of other appropriate places to talk about it :)

I think that when you start to think of it in this manner it will begin to make sense.



I haven't heard of aeghion flux before, though. Google hasn't either.

What languages do you speak?

Mario F.
02-08-2008, 08:21 PM
Special Relativity is pretty much common knowledge these days. I mean, the general concepts. I don't think anyone here needs a refreshing course.

The initial question however stands and, while I did get a few answers, I wouldn't mind discussing this issue further. However, let's put aside once and for all the current assumptions and allows us to speculate. It was speculation in fact that produced much of the initial work on the Special Relativity theory.

I agree with an earlier answer that an object, moving at the speed of light, would retain its integrity in absolute vacuum. That is, the speed wouldn't affect it at a molecular level.

However I then introduced the existence of some form of attrition. For instance, oxygen molecules. I'll now go into more detail.

Let us assume 2 molecules per cm3. I have a perfect iron sphere with a 1 cm diameter. Perfect in the sense it's smooth to a molecular level and has no joints. I throw this sphere at the speed of light through this "semi-vacuum" (allow me the imperfection) of 2 oxygen molecules per cm3.

The distance is non-important. My question is, traveling at this speed, how would the oxygen molecules interact with the sphere when it bumped into them? Would the sphere be eventually withered away? Or would the electromagnetic force be strong enough to keep the sphere structure intact? What about at a lower speed?

robwhit
02-09-2008, 12:25 AM
Most likely you'd become an alchemist.

The O particles would probably fuse with the iron and some would break off, forming various elements.

At least that's what happens in particle accelerators at quite slower speeds.

twomers
02-09-2008, 06:19 AM
>> You don't need math to prove that, just common sense.
Maybe Bob doesn't need to prove that... but physicists need to prove everything! And while at a top level looking down we may believe that we have a simple top-level view of how things work... nature has a tendency to be more subtle than predictable. Especially, as I said before, in the extremities of forces and sizes.

Sang-drax
02-09-2008, 03:58 PM
The distance is non-important. My question is, traveling at this speed, how would the oxygen molecules interact with the sphere when it bumped into them? Would the sphere be eventually withered away? Or would the electromagnetic force be strong enough to keep the sphere structure intact? What about at a lower speed?If it's moving fast enough, the sphere will be disintegrated at the first collision with an oxygen molecule. There is no upper bound to the kinetic energy the sphere can obtain.

It cannot move at the speed of light, but arbitrarily close.


Well I can help you understand the theory, what part of it don't you understand?You can begin by providing a link or another reference to this aeghion flux theory you speak of.

Energy therefore may be possible to 'warp the fabric of spacetime.'Not 'may'. It does warp spacetime.

Mario F.
02-09-2008, 04:04 PM
That's very interesting.

Traveling through space at speeds near that of light may then be an impossibility, unless some form of shield could be developed. It's not only a matter of the engine.

brewbuck
02-11-2008, 11:11 AM
Yes. I did understand your point. My point however was, simply put, let us not forget Einstein's theory of Special Relativity is exactly that; a theory. So we should keep an open mind when the request is to speculate.

Relativity isn't a little side concept in physics, it's the center of everything. If it's wrong, everything we know is wrong. I guess that could be the case, but I don't see the point in worrying about it.

If you really want to speculate, then the answer to the original question would be, "Nobody has any clue." But that's not interesting I think. All I can answer is what our present knowledge is.

esbo
02-16-2008, 01:31 PM
And what common sense has to do with physics?

During a long-long times common sense stated that Sun is going around the Earth...

As indeed it is.

As the Earth is at the centre of the Observable Universe, and hence the Universe, the Sun
indeed revolves around the Earth, as does everything else, hence the bible was correct and
always has been.

Mind you to this day there are still people, including scientists who think the Earth revolves
around the Sun!! How weird is that!!

It is just one of those cases of people with a little bit of knowledge thinking they know it all.

Happens all the time.

whiteflags
02-16-2008, 07:26 PM
>> As the Earth is at the centre of the Observable Universe

A space can only have a center if it has a finite area, such as a crop circle, or the roof of a building, or even the planet. We have not and perhaps never will find the edge of the Universe, meaning its' area is beyond human computation at this point. It would be illogical to claim you know the center of the Universe objectively. You could easily make a center of the Universe through some reference point that you establish, say, the Earth, but that is hardly the objective center; the Earth and our star system are on the far edge of our galaxy, the Milky Way, which may not be the center of everything at all. The galaxy's rotation also distorts our position in the Universe. It's a reasonable thing to assert since the Earth is our home, but people shouldn't be toting it like it is the truth of the matter.

Rashakil Fol
02-17-2008, 11:48 AM
>> As the Earth is at the centre of the Observable Universe

A space can only have a center if it has a finite area, such as a crop circle, or the roof of a building, or even the planet. We have not and perhaps never will find the edge of the Universe, meaning its' area is beyond human computation at this point. It would be illogical to claim you know the center of the Universe objectively. You could easily make a center of the Universe through some reference point that you establish, say, the Earth, but that is hardly the objective center; the Earth and our star system are on the far edge of our galaxy, the Milky Way, which may not be the center of everything at all. The galaxy's rotation also distorts our position in the Universe. It's a reasonable thing to assert since the Earth is our home, but people shouldn't be toting it like it is the truth of the matter.

You need to take a sarcasm pill.


A space can only have a center if it has a finite area

Or you could go by center of mass. Or some other measurement of center. And um, we are in fact at the center of the observable universe; it looks uniform to us in all directions.

Sang-drax
02-17-2008, 12:13 PM
*The observable universe is defined as the space that can be observed from earth.
*We are able to see equally far in every direction
=> Earth is in the center of the observable universe.

Mario F.
02-17-2008, 01:41 PM
Nit-picking. None of you are wrong. But that doesn't contradict citizen's argument. On the contrary, it reinforces it.

I could say, in the same line of though - and be completely correct - that I am at the center of the observable universe. Not earth or any of you.

Citizen was instead contradicting the homocentrism expressed in the bible and by most religions, by observing that the center of any observable space is always relative to the point of observation and is fixed in time.

Also,

We are able to see equally far in every direction
This may not be the case at all if you live near - and are under the effect of - certain phenomena that heavily distorts space-time fabric like black or white holes. Your perception of the observable universe may differ depending on which direction you are looking.

BobMcGee123
02-17-2008, 02:28 PM
You can begin by providing a link or another reference to this aeghion flux theory you speak of.


I already tried to address this issue for you:





I haven't heard of aeghion flux before, though. Google hasn't either.



What languages do you speak?

....


Not 'may'. It does warp spacetime.


That is the same line of thinking introduced at the start of the theory (although I don't really understand that comment as it doesn't seem to contradict, much less enhance anything). But, anyway, seeing as how we are on the same page with at least something, the theory hypothesizes that the 'flux' "through" spacetime of the conversion of mass into energy gives massive quantities the characteristics necessary to propagate at the speed of light. From an outside observer, it 'looks' like a 'piece' of mass is traveling 'at' the speed of light. What is *really* going on is that the massive particle acquires e-m wave properties, propagates, and as soon as the 'flux' of mass into energy ceases, it is no longer possible to maintain this state and the massive particle obtains pure mass properties once again. So, you see, what's really going on is that 'mass' is being synthesized into an equivalent energy with e-m wave properties. This is possible because the electric and magnetic flux of a photon has energy stored inside of these perpendicular fields, and according to e=mc^2 also contains momentum and exhibits mass characteristics, as demonstrated by the photo electric effect. Because you can calculate the amount of energy stored within a photon, you can also calculate the equivalent momentum change when it interacts with other massive objects.

The theory also goes on to prove that this process is the only process (in the universe) which is both real and isentropic (constant entropy process). If this were not the case then the conservation of mass and energy principles would no longer hold.

The example given in the theory is the effects that the nuclear bomb detonations on hiroshima and nagasaki had, and how far matter could be propagated through space during the flux effects from the sudden release of energy. It is interesting to note that these had ridiculously minute effects.

Sang-drax
02-17-2008, 07:29 PM
I already tried to address this issue for you: Oh, I speak english, swedish and some german.