Showing posts with label Physics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Physics. Show all posts

Friday, November 18, 2011

Faster Than The Speed Of Light?



Alan Boyle's Cosmic Log has more.
An unnamed source on the OPERA team told ScienceInsider that the controversy over the faster-than-light findings was exhausting. "Everyone should be convinced that the result is real, and they are not," the source was quoted as saying.

Other researchers, including physicists with the MINOS experiment at Fermilab, are working up independent analyses of neutrino runs to assess the OPERA team's findings. The initial outside assessments are expected to become available within six months or so, but end-to-end replications of the experiment could take significantly longer.
Yep. This finding (if it holds) will overturn a century of physics. Physics the modern world is built on. The Global Positioning System (GPS) is probably the most widely used bit of equipment that tests the speed of light and Relativity millions of times a day (At the link is a fascinating explanation of GPS and Relativity). It works. So for these results to be different than expected (faster than the speed of light) would indeed bring a revolution in our understanding of the universe. Right now? Too early to tell.

H/T The Boys and Girls at Talk Polywell

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Friday, June 17, 2011

The World Of Experimental Physics



Suggested in a private message by EricF of Talk Polywell. I was amused when he talked about the lab guys (about 50 seconds in) and said what they were doing was hard to understand and after all he was only a theory guy. There is more video (about 10 minutes) if you want to go a little deeper.

Thursday, May 05, 2011

The Problem With Physics

A very nice essay on the fundamental problems in physics. Like the fact that it doesn't all fit together. We have islands of knowledge with vast chasms between them. On these islands we can solve the most intricate problems. Between the islands we know practically nothing.

Physics is the most fundamental of the natural sciences; it explains Nature at its deepest level; the edifice it strives to construct is all-encompassing, free of internal contradictions, conceptually compelling and—above all—beautiful. The range of phenomena physics has explained is more than impressive; it underlies the whole of modern civilization. Nevertheless, as a physicist travels along his (in this case) career, the hairline cracks in the edifice become more apparent, as does the dirt swept under the rug, the fudges and the wholesale swindles, with the disconcerting result that the totality occasionally appears more like Bruegel’s Tower of Babel as dreamt by a modern slumlord, a ramshackle structure of compartmentalized models soldered together into a skewed heap of explanations as the whole jury-rigged monstrosity tumbles skyward.

Of course many grand issues remain unresolved at the frontiers of physics: What is the origin of inertia? Are there extra dimensions? Can a Theory of Everything exist? But even at the undergraduate level, far back from the front lines, deep holes exist; yet the subject is presented as one of completeness while the holes—let us say abysses—are planked over in order to camouflage the danger. It seems to me that such an approach is both intellectually dishonest and fails to stimulate the habits of inquiry and skepticism that science is meant to engender.

In the first week or two of any freshman physics course, students are exposed to the force of friction. They learn that friction impedes the motion of objects and that it is caused by the microscope interaction of the two surfaces sliding past one another. It all seems quite plausible, even obvious, yet regardless of any high falutin’ modeling, with molecular mountain ranges resisting each other’s passage or running-shoe soles binding to tracks, friction produces heat and hence an increase in entropy. It thus distinguishes past from future. The increase in entropy—the second law of thermodynamics—is the only law of Nature that makes this fundamental distinction. Newton’s laws, those of electrodynamics, relativity … all are reversible: None care whether the universal clock runs forward or backward. If Newton’s laws are at the bottom of everything, then one should be able to derive the second law of thermodynamics from Newtonian mechanics, but this has never been satisfactorily accomplished and the incompatibility of the irreversible second law with the other fundamental theories remains perhaps the greatest paradox in all physics. It is blatantly dropped into the first days of a freshman course and the textbook authors bat not an eyelash.
Well it is not quite as bad as all that. We have a perfectly good explanation. Statistics. But statistics is not deterministic. It only tells you the most likely answer and the range of answers possible (in a "reasonable" amount of time).

And of course there is the measurement problem. We only know things to be "true" to the level we can measure them. Because with greater precision new things often show up. And there may be things we will never know because they are so far down in the noise. Not to mention quantum uncertainty. Which brings up a whole host of question in and of itself.

Read the whole thing.

Sunday, August 08, 2010

Skip The Numbahs

Consequently he who wishes to attain to human perfection, must therefore first study Logic, next the various branches of Mathematics in their proper order, then Physics, and lastly Metaphysics. - Maimonides
It seems the trend these days is to skip all the hard stuff like logic, math, and physics (including chemistry) and go straight for the metaphysics. It leaves out all that tiresome stuff subject to experiment and proof and goes straight for the ineffable. Which no one can possibly eff. Very convenient.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Friday, July 30, 2010

The Inertia Question

I have started a new blog called The Inertia Question. So what is it all about? That tired feeling you have in the morning before your sixth cup of coffee? No.

I explain what it is all about in my first post which I reprint here in its entirety:

============

This blog is dedicated to getting research done and reporting the results on the questions posed in Chapter 28 of Book 2 of The Feynman Lectures on Physics.

The title of that Chapter is Electromagnetic Mass. And what do you know? There is a wiki page called Electromagnetic Mass.

Those questions are over 100 years old. They are still open. I'd like to close them as best as we can. If the theories of some physicists are correct it should be possible to develop a reaction force without expending mass (rockets). That would make high speed space travel very economical. If enough force could be generated we might even be able to lift off from earth without rockets. Now wouldn't that be nice?

And suppose several different experiments are tried and results are obtained and the results are null? We will have learned something very important and may thus have to revise our conception of the universe or at least fine tune it.

I am soliciting Researchers, Research Proposals, Papers, Funding reports, Funding sources, Parts Donations, "Industry" Gossip (No ad homs - save those for the comments. I have certain minimal standards to uphold, although particularly vile comments will be deleted if I find them. My judgment on the matter is final. So if you post a really nasty comment that you particularly enjoy. Save a copy.), Schematics (use the Tiny CAD software if you want to share the data), etc.

Besides my research goals what are my monetary goals? My guess is that each experiment would cost on the order of $300,000 per year for parts, labor, lab space, etc. I think about 5 experiments with different designs would answer the general question. Then we have an engineering review if the outcome is positive and come up with a road map for further development.

I'd like to further say that I want to see any patents obtained from this research to be available for a reasonable licensing fee. Radio really took off when RCA was formed as a patent combine. Remember the first rule of business: Don't Scare Off The Customers.

And one final thing - if you know of any useful pdfs please leave a url in the comments or send me an e-mail. I want to add resources like that to the sidebar.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Monday, July 12, 2010

The Quantum Mechanic

If you are interested in quantum physics as I am I think you will find this paper very interesting: Modern Physics is Rotting [pdf]. You can also follow the discussion and read some words by the author at Talk Polywell.

You can also read more sections of Prof. Johan F. Prins's forthcoming book at Cathodixx.

Here are the opening paragraphs of the pdf linked above. He then goes on in this piece to give a simplified explanation of his theory with simple math.

Physics is considered to be the purest of all natural sciences. Scientists practising physics are supposedly those “special” people who search for knowledge with an “open mind”. New ideas and concepts are supposedly welcomed and objectively considered and tested. Since my own training is in physics and materials science, I also believed that this behaviour must reign supreme in science. I have applied these rules diligently while building my own career.

It thus came as a traumatic shock to discover when already approaching retirement that the real bigots in the world are to be found within the physics community, and more specifically amongst our modern-day theoretical physicists who have lost the plot many years ago when Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) convinced them during the 1920’s that it is impossible to “visualise” what happens on the atomic scale.
His complete book is due out later this year and I will do a post on it when it is available.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Cosmology For Beginners



Lawrence Krauss relays what we know about physics and cosmology these days. He heaps a lot of scorn on religion because they get cosmology wrong. I think that attitude is misplaced. The value of religion is not cosmology but human interaction.

The question that starts around 57:30 is very interesting. As is the answer.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

A New Theory Of Electrodynamics


I have just sent this out to a group of physicists and scientists to see if it has any merit.

Here is the cover letter I sent:
George Miley of U Illinois, Champaign is involved.

I am passing this on after a cursory review. It was published yesterday. Please give it 5 minutes before you give up. The speed of light bit in the beginning was off putting for me. But it gets explained better later. The equations at first glance are compelling. They are better covered in the second 5 minutes. I'm going to review it more carefully with multiple stops to get a better feel. This is rapid fire and not typical lecture speed.

I'm more at home with engineering but I am at least conversant with all the material presented. I have also introduced the video to Lubos Motl to see what he thinks.
It will be interesting if anything comes of it.

Here are some of the documents in the video:

Evidence of Cold Fusion?

Impulse Gravity Generator?

Gravitomagnetic Field of a Rotating Superconductor
and of a Rotating Superfluid [pdf]


Researchers now able to stop, restart light

The Control of the Natural Forces by Frank Znidarsic [pdf]

BBC News - Boeing tries to defy gravity

Quantum Chemistry - McQuarrie

http://www.cravenslab.org

Tapping the Zero Point Energy

H/T jlumartinez at Talk Polywell

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Where Does The Oil Come From?

There is some relatively new sciece out about the origins of oil and natural gas.

ScienceDaily (Sep. 12, 2009) — Researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm have managed to prove that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated. The findings are revolutionary since this means, on the one hand, that it will be much easier to find these sources of energy and, on the other hand, that they can be found all over the globe.

“Using our research we can even say where oil could be found in Sweden,” says Vladimir Kutcherov, a professor at the Division of Energy Technology at KTH.

Together with two research colleagues, Vladimir Kutcherov has simulated the process involving pressure and heat that occurs naturally in the inner layers of the earth, the process that generates hydrocarbon, the primary component in oil and natural gas.

According to Vladimir Kutcherov, the findings are a clear indication that the oil supply is not about to end, which researchers and experts in the field have long feared.

He adds that there is no way that fossil oil, with the help of gravity or other forces, could have seeped down to a depth of 10.5 kilometers in the state of Texas, for example, which is rich in oil deposits. As Vladimir Kutcherov sees it, this is further proof, alongside his own research findings, of the genesis of these energy sources – that they can be created in other ways than via fossils.
Well isn't that interesting. So called fossil fuels may not be from fossils after all.

That would tend to confirm the work of Thomas Gold and Freeman Dyson:

The Deep Hot Biosphere : The Myth of Fossil Fuels

What other findings do we have that might add further confirmation? There is some other work done in Sweden.
When Gold proposed this theory in the early 1980s, few scientists took him seriously. However, he did persuade the Swedish State Power Board to drill into a slab of granite fractured by an ancient meteor impact. Since oil is supposed to be found only in sedimentary rocks, it was a good test of Gold's theory. If gas is coming up from deep in the Earth, it might be expected to accumulate beneath the dense granite cap, and migrate slowly up through any fissures, perhaps turning into oil or tar. In the event, the prospectors did strike oil - about 12 tons of it. This was not enough to make the well commercially successful, but it did confirm that Gold was on to something.

It was not the Swedish oil that proved the most significant discovery though. Mixed in with the sludge at the bottom of the well, at a depth of over 6 km, was a large quantity of magnetite - a reduced form of iron oxide often associated with bacterial activity. After further investigation, Gold announced to the world that life exists not only on the surface of our planet but, in microbial form, deep inside the crust too.
Ah but that is not all.

There seem to be more than a few oil wells in the world that refuse to run dry.
Mystery in the Gulf

In 1973 oil was discovered in the Gulf of Mexico approximately 80 miles south of Louisiana known as Eugene Island 330. Producing 15,000 barrels per day, it was thought the well had seen better days when in 1989 its output dropped to 4,000 barrels per day. In 1990 the production of the well increased to about 13,000 barrels daily and has held steady. Although its output has slightly dropped it still refuses to run dry.

Want a Refill - Is That Possible?

Scientist working at the site discovered two important changes in the oil properties. Its age was was more recent than in previous years and its temperature was hotter. Using 3-D seismic technology scientist found a deep fault at the bottom of the well. What they saw startled, intrigued, and forced them to rethink the origins of oil. What they clearly saw was a deep fault gushing oil and refilling the well. There was no debate about it.

Mystery in the Mideast and Elsewhere

It's been said that the Mideast oil was a finite resource and could last 40 or 50 years at best. Yet over the past 25 years, reserves have more than doubled. With no new wells geologist have been hard pressed to explain why and it appears there is no end in sight. These fields have been methodically exploited since the first gusher was discovered. Today, OPEC is pumping over 30 million barrels of oil per day.

Cook Island in the Gulf of Mexico and oil fields in Uzbekistan are other examples of wells that refuse to dry out. Many wells around the world are refilling.
Peak oil? I dunno. Maybe not.

And then there is the biology of the Gulf of Mexico. We hear a lot about killer oil spills. But what if oil is life? Here is an article about all the oil seeping out of the gulf of Mexico.
The discovery of abundant life where scientists expected a deserted seafloor also suggested that the seeps are a long-duration phenomenon. Indeed, the clams are thought to be about 100 years old, and the tube worms may live as long as 600 years, or more, Kennicutt said.

The surprises kept pouring in as the researchers explored further and in more detail using research submarines. In some areas, the methane-metabolizing organisms even build up structures that resemble coral reefs.

It has long been known by geologists and oil industry workers that seeps exist. In Southern California, for example, there are seeps near Santa Barbara, at a geologic feature called Coal Oil Point. And, Roberts said, it´s clear that "the Gulf of Mexico leaks like a sieve. You can´t take a submarine dive without running into an oil or gas seep. And on a calm day, you can´t take a boat ride without seeing gigantic oil slicks" on the sea surface.

Roberts added that natural seepage in places like the Gulf of Mexico "far exceeds anything that gets spilled" by oil tankers and other sources.

"The results of this have been a big surprise for me," said Whelan. "I never would have expected that the gas is moving up so quickly and what a huge effect it has on the whole system."

Although the oil industry hasn´t shown great enthusiasm for the idea -- arguing that the upward migration is too slow and too uncommon to do much good -- the search for new oil and gas supplies already has been affected, Whelan and Kennicutt said. Now, companies scan the sea surface for signs of oil slicks that might point to new deposits.
Well what do you know. Look for an oil slick, find oil.

If you do some searching around on your favorite search engine you can find lots more of this stuff. Which made me think of the Firesign Theater Album: Everything You Know Is Wrong.

Peak oil? Probably more like peak hysteria. Well it used to sell newspapers. Today? Not so much.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Saturday, September 05, 2009

Feynman Videos

I was Googling "feynman lectures video" and came across this series on quantum electrodynamics. Very light on the math. Very heavy on the concepts. In the delightful Feynman way. I especially recommend the first lecture (about 78 minutes) where Feynman discusses the theory of light, the philosophy of physics, and Mayan Codexes.

And as I always do when discussing Feynman I suggest a read of his Physics Lectures:

The Feynman Lectures on Physics (3 volume set)

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Sunday, August 02, 2009

Feynman Physics Lectures Video

Eric F via e-mail alerted me to the fact that Microsoft has made the Feynman lectures on physics freely available. You can watch them here.

And as a very helpful adjunct may I suggest the book version:

The Feynman Lectures on Physics

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Saturday, June 06, 2009

Newton's Cradle


Newton's Cradle


Newton's Cradleis a great desk piece for the executive or an educational toy (energy, inertia, momentum) for kids. Or both.

If you want to read up on Newton and learn a little physics this book would be a good place to start:
Introducing Newton

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Thursday, October 02, 2008

Physics Gets A Bad Rap

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

A Certain Reality

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."--Albert Einstein

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein

Saturday, July 12, 2008

I Was Wrong

In a recent post Help - I Need Somebody I asked for some help in explaining my ideas about a physics problem. It turns out I had a misconception. The short answer is that a particle that traverses an electric field and winds up at the same potential it started at will have the same energy it started with. 93143 was right all along. It took until Friday (from my post on Tuesday) for him to explain it well enough so that I got it. The above explanation should save him (and myself and others) a lot of time in the future.

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Help - I Need Somebody

Could some one please explain to commenter 93143 in this thread why he has misunderstood physics re: particle accelerators/decelerators. I have lost my patience.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Fun With Physics

Commenter Keegan at talk.polywell found this really neat site with a bunch of Java applets that show how the natural world works - electrostatic fields, magnetic fields, etc. Plus some good math and engineering applets. All with very nice graphics.

Sunday, December 09, 2007

Richard P. Feynman

Cargo Cult Science

There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in "cargo cult science"... It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards... For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it... Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. * Caltech commencement address (1974)

Lectures on Physics

We can't define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers… one saying to the other: "you don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says: "what do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by know?" o Volume I, 8-2

Engineers

In fact, the science of thermodynamics began with an analysis, by the great engineer Sadi Carnot, of the problem of how to build the best and most efficient engine, and this constitutes one of the few famous cases in which engineering has contributed to fundamental physical theory. Another example that comes to mind is the more recent analysis of information theory by Claude Shannon. These two analyses, incidentally, turn out to be closely related.

From: Wiki Quotes

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Engineering

Being an engineer is interesting. I'm stuck between the orderliness of principles and the disorder of the universe. However, even the disorder has a sort of orderliness so you can actually design based on the kind and amount of expected disorder.

Just simple stuff. You expect ocean temperature and salinity will be within a certain range. Order in the disorder. Ideals. Reality.

Matching ideals to reality and doing something useful in the process.

We can't measure anything (exactly). We cant know anything (for sure). And out of all this uncertainty we supply a want or a need at an acceptable price.

Inspired by the comment thread at The Reference Frame where Lubos is discussing entropy, the second law of thermodynamics, the arrow of time, collapsing the wave function, and the fact that so many physicists do not understand physics. He names names.

Sunday, November 25, 2007

A Convenient Fiction

There is a serious misunderstanding about the state of science today. People look at all this shiny new hardware and imagine some unified state of knowledge behind it all. We have no such thing. What we actually have are islands of good enough knowledge.

There is not some great monolithic body of knowledge that can be described in a few equations understood by physics geeks and people with advanced math degrees.

Let me illustrate the problem with a recent personal anecdote. I was designing a gas valve for a fusion test reactor and commenter Brent pointed out that I had not taken into consideration something called the Knudsen Number. It was true. I had never even heard of it. The short version is: if gas pressures are low enough and the holes are small enough, you design the valve with one set of equations. If the holes are big and the pressure high you use another set of equations. In the middle? It is why engineers get paid the big bucks.

So the point of all that is that we don't have a unified knowledge set about gas flow through holes. We know a lot about aspects of this. We have islands of good knowledge and places where all is fuzziness or worse darkness.

Which brings me to a comment I made at Lubos Motl's Reference Frame, where Lubos is doing a very interesting exposition on the philosophy of science.

There is a lot of interesting work going on in the plasma physics area.

There are a lot of previously hidden self organizing principles being either discovered, re-discovered, or given new emphasis. Not just in quasi-static plasmas but dynamic ones as well.

We are starting to look at not just the frequencies of particles, but also the frequencies of assemblages of particles under the influence of various fields.

The tokamak guys are really struggling with this. They want a nice flat Maxwellian plasma and the plasma is not co-operating. It turns out that a true or even-quasi Maxwellian plasma may be impossible.

I think if we start looking at the facts, the idea of a Maxwellian plasma is a total fiction. The slightest deviation from Maxwellian distribution causes forces to build up and currents to flow.

So what we really need to make all this work is to delve into the self organizing principles of plasma and look at it from the point of view that a Maxwellian plasma is a convenient fiction for a certain class of problems.

 
close