-
#20 by Stormbringer on 29 Jul, 2014 18:58
-
You should clarify your understanding.
Neither yours, momeranthe's or my own comments were belligerent. No worries there.
Is trying to discredit an argumentum ab auctoritate source an ad hom? Maybe. Strike that then. You are just left with your original argumentum ab auctoritate.
When one (me) is not an authority then the only recourse one has in arguing is to cite authoritative sources. as it happens i cited kaku but kaku is not the primary source for the information concerned. i am certain he said that because he read it or heard it from primary sources qualified to say that; not that he himself isn't qualified.
anyway to prevent this from going adrift back to an earlier point:
can you imagine what it would mean if the anomalous spectrum reading from Perseus and Andromeda turns out to be from matter with nonstandard nucleons or an electron substitute of some type?
the strength of electronic bonds and nuclear bonds in matter are derived in part from the density and mass of the nucleons and the bond lengths of the electrons. if you had carbon and iron that had smaller nucleons and tighter bonding orbitals then steel made from these exotic atoms would have magnified properties. it would be harder to break the bonds. photons and particles would have a tougher time going through the atoms and empty spaces between atoms. it would have a higher melting point. it would be harder to break, bend, puncture, or cut.
you could have hull materials that could take a beating, shield from radiation better and could reenter the atmosphere unphased or go beyond current limits of crush depth in the ocean or in dense atmospheres like venus.
if there was not a fault in the machine or an error in the signal processing then whatever that was it was not a known element and there is almost no room in the periodic table for unknown normal matter elements. on the face of it it is something other than known forms of matter. -
#21 by IslandPlaya on 29 Jul, 2014 19:08
-
Whoa big guy!You should clarify your understanding.
Neither yours, momeranthe's or my own comments were belligerent. No worries there.
Is trying to discredit an argumentum ab auctoritate source an ad hom? Maybe. Strike that then. You are just left with your original argumentum ab auctoritate.
When one (me) is not an authority then the only recourse one has in arguing is to cite authoritative sources. as it happens i cited kaku but kaku is not the primary source for the information concerned. i am certain he said that because he read it or heard it from primary sources qualified to say that; not that he himself isn't qualified.
anyway to prevent this from going adrift back to an earlier point:
can you imagine what it would mean if the anomalous spectrum reading from Perseus and Andromeda turns out to be from matter with nonstandard nucleons or an electron substitute of some type?
the strength of electronic bonds and nuclear bonds in matter are derived in part from the density and mass of the nucleons and the bond lengths of the electrons. if you had carbon and iron that had smaller nucleons and tighter bonding orbitals then steel made from these exotic atoms would have magnified properties. it would be harder to break the bonds. photons and particles would have a tougher time going through the atoms and empty spaces between atoms. it would have a higher melting point. it would be harder to break, bend, puncture, or cut.
you could have hull materials that could take a beating, shield from radiation better and could reenter the atmosphere unphased or go beyond current limits of crush depth in the ocean or in dense atmospheres like venus.
if there was not a fault in the machine or an error in the signal processing then whatever that was it was not a known element and there is almost no room in the periodic table for unknown normal matter elements. on the face of it it is something other than known forms of matter.
The anomalous spectrum reading from Perseus and Andromeda is easily explained by excitations. -
#22 by RanulfC on 29 Jul, 2014 19:17
-
In a duel of credentials who would win; you or Dr Kaku?
whatever one's opinion of Dr Kaku is; you can bet he did not make that up. you can bet he had primary sources.
As an "aside" but slightly significant note on "appeals to authority" in arguments and discussions and specifically directed at Dr. Kaku; "assuming" he has a "primary source" assumes a huge amount about his argument and how he sources materials in the first place. Dr. Kaku is a "Theoretical Physicist" and as such has a great deal of knowledge of theory and advanced versions thereof. He however is also human and tends to take certain "beliefs" as fact even when presented with evidence contrary to his beliefs. An example would be his stance on and beliefs in the various "dangers" of nuclear power. He often plays his being a "Physicist" as basis for his arguments against Nuclear Power but deliberitly leaves aside the "Theoretical" part so as not to "confuse" people. He actually does this because it quickly becomes obvious that he is in fact a Theoretical Physicist and has almost no experiance working with or in the Nuclear Power field and makes very basic and fundamental mistakes in understanding how nuclear power works beyond knowing the theory behind it. He delibritly attempts to appeal to his own "authority" as being a "Physicist" to appear more knowledgeable than mere "engineers" who actually work in the industry.
The entire cited article is very much of the "if/could" variety where Dr. Kaku makes a great many assumptions to support his suppositons. A major one is the ability to access and make useful work from "negative" energy which is still very much only theory. The article seems a bit dated due to the explination of the "cassmir" effect being evidence of negative energy, (in fact this is evidence of quantum flucuation, the "zero-point" energy effect and is NOT considered "negative" energy) and "anti-mass" negative matter which is today accepted to NOT have negative mass.
I suspect that looking for more updated articles by Dr. Kaku will yeild a different "rationalization" if he even still believes the assumptions made in the ariticle itself.
Randy -
#23 by Stormbringer on 29 Jul, 2014 19:19
-
Whoa big guy!
The anomalous spectrum reading from Perseus and Andromeda is easily explained by excitations.
i could very well be wrong. but it was my understanding that the line appears in a place other than lines occupied by normal matter no matter the degree of ionization which is what i think of when you say excitation. so in the event my understanding is faulty can you elaborate?
i would think that a more likely nullifying explanation would be a loose wire or broken bracket or faulty signal processing algorithms.
the argument against is i think that the Perseus and Andromeda observations were made by different teams with different instruments at physically separate observatories.
i really do crave any news that supports exotic forms of matter but i know there are probably other explanations and am willing to listen to reason. -
#24 by Stormbringer on 29 Jul, 2014 19:29
-
I suspect that looking for more updated articles by Dr. Kaku will yeild a different "rationalization" if he even still believes the assumptions made in the ariticle itself.
Randy
Sorry for the sever clipping of your points about Kaku. it was for brevity. not because they are without merit.
let me say that his political and ideological editorializing annoy me when i run across them. however; that does not mean that i cannot enjoy his books interviews and so forth popularizing science and especially speculative futuristic stuff. i don't want to go on about it because it and people's feelings about him are a side issue.
and i'd rather discuss the topics here than get them closed down over trivial issues. the lifespan of these sorts of threads are short enough as it is. -
#25 by IslandPlaya on 29 Jul, 2014 19:33
-
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/events/2014/sackler/index/talks/Harvard2014_Weiner.pdf
Whoa big guy!
The anomalous spectrum reading from Perseus and Andromeda is easily explained by excitations.
i could very well be wrong. but it was my understanding that the line appears in a place other than lines occupied by normal matter no matter the degree of ionization which is what i think of when you say excitation. so in the event my understanding is faulty can you elaborate?
i would think that a more likely nullifying explanation would be a loose wire or broken bracket or faulty signal processing algorithms.
the argument against is i think that the Perseus and Andromeda observations were made by different teams with different instruments at physically separate observatories.
i really do crave any news that supports exotic forms of matter but i know there are probably other explanations and am willing to listen to reason.
Just go to the end of the doc. The rest of the doc is fine, handwaving stuff... -
#26 by Stormbringer on 29 Jul, 2014 19:48
-
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/events/2014/sackler/index/talks/Harvard2014_Weiner.pdf
Just go to the end of the doc. The rest of the doc is fine, handwaving stuff...
that's interesting. they allow that it could be dark matter but think the more probable explanation is excitations.
it's not conclusive but occams razor would imply that explanation is likely.
well it seems if i want weird matter i have to stick with mirror matter or this until something else pops up
which is fun romp through monopole lore even though it is a science fiction site:
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/48630634d2591
it is fiction but based in peer reviewed papers on the topic of monopoles and atoms made of monopoles. -
#27 by IslandPlaya on 29 Jul, 2014 19:59
-
I have dreams that the Woodward/Mach effect is true and usable. Also I dream that we will have a compact fusion source of power. Together that would be awesome!
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/events/2014/sackler/index/talks/Harvard2014_Weiner.pdf
Just go to the end of the doc. The rest of the doc is fine, handwaving stuff...
that's interesting. they allow that it could be dark matter but think the more probable explanation is excitations.
it's not conclusive but occams razor would imply that explanation is likely.
well it seems if i want weird matter i have to stick with mirror matter or this until something else pops up
which is fun romp through monopole lore even though it is a science fiction site:
http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/48630634d2591
it is fiction but based in peer reviewed papers on the topic of monopoles and atoms made of monopoles.
I'm an optimist.
But lets not get into kookdom and suchlike... Y'know?
-
#28 by Stormbringer on 29 Jul, 2014 20:06
-
I have dreams that the Woodward/Mach effect is true and usable. Also I dream that we will have a compact fusion source of power. Together that would be awesome!
I'm an optimist.
But lets not get into kookdom and suchlike... Y'know?
I don't think Dr Woodward or Dr white or others in a similar class are kooks. there are kooks out there of course but these are not in that class even if they turn out to be wrong. i think both are open to falsification of their pet theories. kooks are not open to their null hypothesis if they even have one.
besides even if they are kooks sometimes a dip into kook land is fun. -
#29 by IslandPlaya on 29 Jul, 2014 20:54
-
I never called Dr Woodward or anyone for that matter kooks!
-
#30 by Stormbringer on 29 Jul, 2014 20:59
-
I never called Dr Woodward or anyone for that matter kooks!
I did not think you had.
-
#31 by Stormbringer on 29 Jul, 2014 23:46
-
speaking of hawking radiation check this out:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Mysterious_black_holes_may_be_exploding_into_white_holes_999.html
-
#32 by Stormbringer on 05 Aug, 2014 06:08
-
say! i have a new question but it's sort of related to stuff i mentioned in this thread about Woodward's take on negative mass... i mean maybe it's related. that's the question.
Woodward mentioned in his video that in QED theory the naked mass of all matter is actually negative (at least in the math) before being renormalized. He further said that it might be possible to separate the renormalization terms and hence possibly the physics such that the negative mass is revealed. which in turn would possibly lead you to easily accessible negative mass or energy needed to do science fictiony stuff.
so anyway I saw this:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Scientists_separate_a_particle_from_its_properties_999.html
and my question is even though the properties separated here are not the renormalization factors he theorized about; does this illuminate in any way the potential to do what he said about separating the QED renormalization or adding a delay line to it or something like that?
-
#33 by Nilof on 05 Aug, 2014 18:19
-
say! i have a new question but it's sort of related to stuff i mentioned in this thread about Woodward's take on negative mass... i mean maybe it's related. that's the question.
Woodward mentioned in his video that in QED theory the naked mass of all matter is actually negative (at least in the math) before being renormalized. He further said that it might be possible to separate the renormalization terms and hence possibly the physics such that the negative mass is revealed. which in turn would possibly lead you to easily accessible negative mass or energy needed to do science fictiony stuff.
so anyway I saw this:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Scientists_separate_a_particle_from_its_properties_999.html
and my question is even though the properties separated here are not the renormalization factors he theorized about; does this illuminate in any way the potential to do what he said about separating the QED renormalization or adding a delay line to it or something like that?
The method linked isn't powerful enough to probe the internal structure of a particle. It is only applicable to large-scale(or equivalently, low energy) quantities. The negative-infinite electron mass is set to cancel an ultraviolet divergence for the single loop term for the electron self energy(the Feynman diagram with an electron and one photon line coming out of the electron and then back into it), so it is inherently a small-scale phenomenon. -
#34 by Stormbringer on 15 Aug, 2014 09:35
-
random silly insomnia driven way to early in the morning question:
Dr White said in his 2013 conference presentation that he thinks he can increase the permitivity of space by collapsing and expanding the negative energy zone around the ring on his theoretical space ship. the permitivity of space... It's kind of like a fundamental constant isn't it?
what other things like this are theoretically possible? can you alter van der wahl's force such that matter becomes intangible or invisible or something freaky like that? what else is theoretically possible in that vein but not widely known or talked about? i never had the slightest clue that altering something like permitivity of space is even possible not even as a theoretical exercise. and believe me if it has to do with FTL, warps, wormholes or stuff like that i am usually all over it.
EDIT: i just thought of something. if the permitivity of space can be altered and space and time are inextricably related does that mean you can mess with the "permitivity of time" as well? -
#35 by ChrisWilson68 on 15 Aug, 2014 09:48
-
random silly insomnia driven way to early in the morning question:
Dr White said in his 2013 conference presentation that he thinks he can increase the permitivity of space by collapsing and expanding the negative energy zone around the ring on his theoretical space ship. the permitivity of space... It's kind of like a fundamental constant isn't it?
what other things like this are theoretically possible? can you alter van der wahl's force such that matter becomes intangible or invisible or something freaky like that? what else is theoretically possible in that vein but not widely known or talked about? i never had the slightest clue that altering something like permitivity of space is even possible not even as a theoretical exercise. and believe me if it has to do with FTL, warps, wormholes or stuff like that i am usually all over it.
EDIT: i just thought of something. if the permitivity of space can be altered and space and time are inextricably related does that mean you can mess with the "permitivity of time" as well?
There's no reason to believe that this is possible. It's only "theoretically possible" in the sense that anything at all is theoretically possible if we discover that there are new laws of physics we don't know about. Everything Sonny White talks about requires new laws of physics, and he has never shown any good evidence any of those new laws of physics exist.
So, changing permitivity is no more or less crazy than anything else White proposes. If you buy into the other wackiness he's selling, you might as well buy into this too.
-
#36 by Stormbringer on 15 Aug, 2014 10:01
-
That seems kind of harsh. Dr white did go through the academic acreditisation process and get both a doctorate and a masters degree and is a physicist and an engineer. He did get hired and retained by NASA. i don't think he did any of that by having delusions or being unreliable or ill suited to his fields and so forth.
-
#37 by ChrisWilson68 on 15 Aug, 2014 10:39
-
That seems kind of harsh. Dr white did go through the academic acreditisation process and get both a doctorate and a masters degree and is a physicist and an engineer. He did get hired and retained by NASA. i don't think he did any of that by having delusions or being unreliable or ill suited to his fields and so forth.
The beauty of science is that we can judge ideas by the ideas themselves and by the experimental evidence for them. We can judge people by their track records of claims. We don't have to give ideas credence just because the letters PhD are tacked up next to the name of the person who espouses them.
-
#38 by Stormbringer on 16 Aug, 2014 09:11
-
There's no reason to believe that this is possible. It's only "theoretically possible" in the sense that anything at all is theoretically possible if we discover that there are new laws of physics we don't know about. Everything Sonny White talks about requires new laws of physics, and he has never shown any good evidence any of those new laws of physics exist.
So, changing permitivity is no more or less crazy than anything else White proposes. If you buy into the other wackiness he's selling, you might as well buy into this too.
it's been long enough since i watched the presentation that i cannot remember the details but i think that maybe he had the theoretical underpinnings of his claim either on the display or by way of preliminary remarks that lead in to that statement. this is not the sort of thing you say to an audience of professionals, peers and critics (other physicists and engineers) if you are just pulling it out of your most distal orifice.
-
#39 by MP99 on 16 Aug, 2014 10:01
-
However, if there was some quirk of black holes that causes the emission of regular particles to be preferred over antimatter particles, that would explain black hole evaporation (it's just matter/antimatter annihilation in the core) and it would go towards explaining the abundance of matter over antimatter in the observable universe.
That'd be neat. Clearly the way to test it is with domesticated black holes.
I believe that this is a misunderstanding of how black holes evaporate.
In normal space, virtual particle pairs are produced due to Heisenberg Uncertainty, but then destroyed very quickly when the universe "realises" and "wants to be paid back".
Near a black hole, one of the virtual particles may disappear inside the event horizon before it gets a chance to recombine and "pay back" the borrowed energy. If the other particle has escape velocity, then the black hole's mass is reduced to "pay back" the borrowed energy, and the other particle becomes a real particle.
Note that it's 50:50 whether the escaping particle is matter or antimatter. A matter particle leaves a net increase of one in the number of particles in the universe. An antimatter particle leaves a temporary increase of one in the number of antiparticles, but will eventually annihilate a particle, leaving the long-term balance as +0 antiparticles, - 1 particles.
The +1 & - 1 of the particles net out to zero, and the energy lost by the black hole ends up in the energy of the gamma ray pair produced when the antimatter annihilates (plus kinetic energy of the particle).
Note, also, that escape energy is incredibly high from the vicinity of the event horizon of a large black hole, and this is why large holes evaporate so slowly. Only a tiny proportion of the "orphaned" particles will have enough energy to escape, with the rest being recaptured for no net energy loss.
As the black hole shrinks, escape velocity gets lower, and a larger proportion can escape to become "real", which explains why the rate of particle emission (the BH's temperature) increases as it shrinks.
Cheers, Martin
