In some cases you have a new thought, an thought, or eureka minute, but it can be not gutsy adequate to broaden into a reasonable size write-up or essay. So, here’s another potpourri of thoughts dealing with physics and relevant, also fantastic not to record, but with not plenty of meat obtainable to flesh out. Folks examining this will with any luck , be relatively common with the terms and jargon made use of. If not, perfectly which is why dictionaries exist!
The Why Query
Can any individual explain precisely why the south pole and the north pole of a magnet appeal to? Or why and how the north pole of a magnet repels a different north pole? You know what happens, but the how and why is past you to explain. You know an electron and a positron will annihilate on make contact with. You know what comes about but not the how and actual nature of why what transpires. You know that the electric charge on a proton is equivalent and reverse of that on an electron. Can any individual tell me why? Can anyone basically explain to me what electric cost truly is? You know what it does but how does it do it and why does it do it?
The “why” of points – the “why” question is central in coming to conditions with lifestyle, the universe and all the things. There is a substantially deeper “why’ dilemma in physics which is, for illustration, why should really electromagnetism or EM (what ever that actually is) opposites entice and EM sameness repel? Why isn’t really it the opposite or why for that subject either circumstance? It can be the issue that Einstein asked which was regardless of whether or not God had any option in the make any difference when building the legislation, ideas and interactions of physics, or, as Hawking place it, “what breathes fireplace into the equations”.
Explanations are all effectively and great but fall short to arrive to conditions with why it has to be this way and not some other way. That’s the “why” that won’t be able to be stated or answered.
Consider for case in point some designed-up weird attributes regarding the north pole (NP) and south pole (SP) of a magnet. Why not have NP to NP end result in nuclear fission and SP to SP end result in nuclear fusion and SP to NP consequence in superconductivity. Or position some chemical substances in between NP and NP and get an exothermic response between the SP and SP you get an endothermic reaction but in between SP and NP no chemical response takes place at all.
Place one more way, can you picture that if you reset the clock back again to the Big Bang and begin above all over again or picture one more universe totally, in which NP and NP captivated and ditto SP and SP but SP and NP repelled each and every other. If not, why not. Or, to put it a further way as for each Einstein’s query, can there be a lot more than one set of physics?
Is Electric powered Cost An Emergent Phenomenon?
Premise: Electric powered cost is not an emergent phenomenon.
Electric cost is seemingly not dependent on and has no marriage to velocity, angular momentum, ‘spin’ or mass. Therefore electric demand is an unbiased anything and so it should exist or be a home in its have suitable in and of itself. It could possibly be section of a group of homes, but has its very own independent existence. Electrical cost may possibly be essential though I question electrical demand has to exist of necessity. However we couldn’t exist with out electric charge remaining in existence, so could possibly this be an case in point of design and style and fine-tuning?
So what particularly is electric demand? Just calling electric powered demand a pressure or a area or a whatsit or a thingamabob just isn’t alone all that enlightening.
Just one $64,000 concern is why is electric powered charge restricted to values of additionally or minus 1/3rd, 2/3rds or 3/3rds? This need to indicate that electrical cost arrives in models or packets or quanta of 1/3rd and that an electron is (among other issues) a composite of three packets of destructive electric powered cost. But is a packet of electric powered demand a stable material bodily entity or is it immaterial and can it definitely exist independently of a particle substrate like an electron (muon or tau) or a quark and if so why does it connect alone to these types of particles (also a positron and of program anti-quarks) but not to an additional sort like a neutrino?
Premise: Electrical cost is an emergent phenomenon.
On the other hand maybe electric demand is an emergent property such that if you have a particle with the mass of an electron (or a positron) and the ‘spin’ of an electron (or a positron) and the angular momentum of an electron (or a positron), a further property will arise which we simply call electric powered charge.
It appears to be rather implausible that a few 1/3rd packets of damaging electrical demand would just transpire to intersect just about every other and with a particle with the mass, ‘spin’ and angular momentum of a pseudo-electron to all now appear collectively to form a standard electron. [An electron without any electric charge would have to be a pseudo-electron, not a real electron of course.] That would also indicate that you can have a particle with the mass, ‘spin’ and angular momentum of an electron, a pseudo-electron, with no a 3/3rds device of negative electric powered cost. So once more electrical charge need to be an inherent but emergent home but just one which does not come up in all varieties of particles.
A little something is screwy someplace!
The Conversion of Vitality to Subject
We’re all acquainted with the concept of the generation of vitality from make any difference, in particular in nuclear issues like nuclear power or in radioactivity/particle decay like the neutron decaying into different bits and pieces additionally vitality. The greatest variety of vitality from issue is make a difference – anti-issue annihilation into pure power.
The problem is, has any individual observed the development of make any difference from vitality? There’s the vacuum strength that can create virtual subject – anti-matter particles, but these annihilate just about every other back again into pure energy once again swift-good. You will find Hawking radiation of system whereby Black Holes lose mass by way of radiation electrical power that escapes and I guess in concept that ‘radiation’ could be in the sort of particles with actual mass created by means of the vacuum vitality whereby a single virtual particle receives developed exterior of the function horizon.
I get high power particle accelerators smashing collectively particles produce ‘new’ particles which may be a immediate outcome of the strength expenditure.
But on a extra down to earth level, in our ordinary working day-to-day existence, do we at any time notice make a difference getting established from energy?
For case in point, if you strike a match, some of the mass represented in the type of the match-head substances get transformed to heat and mild strength. Do you ever see light-weight and heat electrical power morph into match-head substances? Sunlight is needed for photosynthesis but does any of that daylight essentially become incorporated into and become plant make a difference or is it only a type of catalyst? These varieties of examples – regular illustrations we all could see.
Gravity at Complete Zero
Though the principle of absolute zero is theoretically not possible to realize, if it have been attained – in idea – then all movement would stop. On the other hand, even if that had been the scenario, would not gravity still be operational and therefore even at absolute zero would not there be motion because of to gravitational consequences? Is this just yet another currently founded explanation, aside from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Theory, why absolute zero is theoretical only and hardly ever achievable? I would believe that this really should be a explanation on the grounds that there will not look to be any sizeable connection between temperature and gravity. Gravity must be a frequent no matter of the temperature of the objects under mutual gravitational attraction, even if that temperature had been complete zero. Of training course movement thanks to gravity is electricity and any power existing negates the possibility of acquiring absolute zero. The theoretical concern is, what is the theoretical state of gravity if just one could achieve a temperature of absolute zero?
Pertaining to Radioactive Decay
Now I realise that there is a whole lot of literature on radioactive decay that describes what transpires. Even so, I have not observed considerably in the way of literature that tells me why matters happened when they happened. Say you go out and buy a uranium-238 atom and plunk it down in your lab. 10 seconds later on the atom is still there and intact eleven seconds post plunking it has gone poof. Why that ought to be if there was no change in the atom’s ecosystem for the period of that just one second interval is however to me an anomaly.
Possibly there is a hidden environmental variable* we are not informed of. If there was a modify in the atom’s nearby surroundings say thanks to the quantum jitters or a neutrino whacking into the U-238 nucleus, nicely which is even now a cause, and as a result causality regulations.
A different imagined. Assuming there is no causality, let us say you experienced a multi-billion atom hunk of some radioactive compound. You also have two random range generators, one for how several atoms go poof and the other to identify how numerous units of time that range of atoms go poof in. Operate that until all these billions of atoms have decayed. Would you conclusion up with a traditional half-existence marriage? I individually doubt it. Even if you just applied a person random range generator that decided the range of unstable nuclei that went poof each mounted unit of time I doubt you’d appear up with graphing a 50 %-lifestyle curve.
Absence of causality reminds me of the late Carl Sagan’s finished to demise estimate about how “remarkable claims demand remarkable proof”. Although that observation was possibly directed at the macro planet, I consider it similarly adaptable to the micro world as well, only I would drop the twin use of “remarkable” as one thing extraordinary is in the thoughts of the beholder and what is actually remarkable to you may possibly not be amazing to me and vice versa. To me the abandonment of trigger-and-effect is one thing which is undoubtedly extraordinary.
Points like the conservation legislation and previous-to-potential ahead-causality (and what other kind of causality is in procedure except if there is time journey from long run-to-earlier at the quantum amount** – cue in the theme to “The Twilight Zone” in this article), really should not be provided up for dropped apart from as a very last resort. In truth, as I remember, it was an evident violation in the conservation legal guidelines relevant to Beta Decay that led the late Wolfgang Pauli to postulate the existence of the neutrino – confirmed in his life time – and therefore restore the recognized status quo.
*Yes, I’m aware that Einstein proposed concealed variables to explain quantum anomalies and real experiments have tended to end result in obtaining Albert placing out at the plate with respect to concealed variables. There definitely is spooky motion at a distance. Nonetheless, I have a concealed variable hidden up my sleeve (that Einstein probably couldn’t have conceived of in his wildest believed experiment) which regretably is not primary to me so I can choose neither credit history nor blame for the state of affairs. Remain tuned for the bombshell (or the fizzer) in the times to occur.
**Which surely has been postulated by the late Richard Feynman and other people, and is evidently exhibited in the delayed double-slit experiment so I shouldn’t be far too hasty in ruling out future-to-previous causality – but it is really still causality, even if back-to-front. Something transpires then anything else occurs in convert.
A Lone Electron Universe
Visualize a universe that is composed of just 1 and only electron. Supplied that state of affairs, would it be meaningful to communicate about the electron’s electrical charge or its gravity?
If “indeed”, what is actually the charge and gravity performing on or is it just radiating absent? If it is just radiating away, can it radiate absent indefinitely?
If “no”, then are these qualities of cost and gravity imaginary, immaterial and illusionary? If so, and if now this imagined-experiment universe now contained just two and only two electrons, then electrical charge and gravity would now show up to have that means, but where by did they arrive from if they ended up imaginary in a just one-electron universe?
Perpetual vs. Perpetual Movement vs. Perpetual Motion Devices
Perpetual (infinity eternal eternally everlasting).
Perpetual: There are loads of matters that are perpetual. That magnet sticking to your fridge would presumable stick for all eternity. The potent nuclear force keeping the quarks in a proton with each other will presumable continue being in area for an infinite sum of time. Presumable the gravity amongst two objects of mass will remain in location perpetually.
Perpetual Movement: You can have perpetual movement. Newton’s 1st Legislation of Movement states that an item in movement will continue being in movement and not modify its velocity until acted on by an external power (i.e. – friction, or gravity for case in point). So, if you shot a bullet in a excellent (albeit unattainable) vacuum, it would continue to keep on holding on eternally and ever. Presumably an electron ‘orbiting’ an atom will do so without end and a day. In a related way, the vacuum electrical power a.k.a. quantum foam a.k.a. quantum fluctuations a.k.a. the quantum jitters are a obligatory example of perpetual vitality considering that no elementary particle (mass or the equivalent in electrical power) can sit even now given that that would violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Presumably galaxies will continue to rotate prolonged right after each and every single star in them has absent extinct.
Perpetual Motion Units: These are not authorized below the guidelines, rules and relationships of physics. It all commences with the Initial Legislation of Thermodynamics which in essence states that electricity can neither be produced nor destroyed but only improved in kind from one particular form of energy to one more. Based on that Very first Regulation by itself, the Patent Business will toss you out on your ear (or other parts of your anatomy) if you submit an application for a perpetual movement machine. Why? You cannot expect one thing for almost nothing – you can find no these thing as a absolutely free lunch when it comes to power as per that First Legislation. In other words, it’s for the basic purpose that these kinds of a theoretical perpetual movement device would have to have an power output increased than the power input which then in concept could be recycled back again into the product to produce even additional energy output which could then be utilised as enter to develop even larger power output, and many others. Even if the electrical power output were equivalent to the power enter you would still not have an everlasting or perpetual workable machine for the motive that some of the electricity output would be waste vitality that wouldn’t be productive – i.e. warmth. So, if you input 1000 models of practical electricity, and you get out 999 valuable models of output power and 1 unit of non-productive warmth, that’s not a perpetual motion device because you could only recycle and input 999 models for your first expenditure of 1000 units – a dropping proposition. For example, you place 1000 models of chemical electricity into your car’s gasoline tank (gasoline), you will not get 1000 models of kinetic strength (motion) in return which by some magic wave of the wand could be converted back to gas in the tank. Some of your chemical strength gets transformed into warmth energy which wafts away with no aiding in relocating your automobile. It would be good if 1000 models of chemical electricity would finally translate into an infinite amount of kinetic energy models and hence you in no way had to fill up your tank at the gasoline station, but…
However it is exciting that you can have anything which is perpetual and some thing that has perpetual movement but not a perpetual movement machine!
Black Holes and Antimatter
If an electron meets and greets a positron (an anti-electron), you can get 100% conversion of make any difference into vitality and a huge Ka-Growth to boot. Now the premise is, if you have adequate electrons in a person area and at just one time, you could make a Black Gap (of electron-things). And if you have adequate positrons in a single area and at a person time, you could create a Black Hole (of positron-stuff). In neither case would the corresponding electric fees extend over and above the respective Function Horizons for the exact same motive that ‘light’ (of any wavelength / frequency) won’t be able to extend from within a Black Hole to the outdoors of a Black Hole (i.e. – further than the Event Horizon). But now the concern is, what occurs when the electron-ness Black Hole meets and greets the positron-ness Black Gap? Will you get complete annihilation into pure electricity, a actually huge KA-Increase, or will you just finish up with a larger sized Black Hole?