What Do You LOVE About America?

[pat]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]tonypluto wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I’d love to answer the question, but I can’t stop staring at Dr.Matt581’s avatar. [/quote]

If you want, check out “Things I can’t prove, but believe” in GAL. About 4 pages back from the current one, we had a very cool conversation about my avatar and I explain what it is.[/quote]

I seen something like this on “Through The Wormhole” last night. It has something to do with the fourth dimension doesn’t it?
The woman was talking about how if you look at the shadow of a three dimensional object its hard to see it as having more than two dimensions. Then said something like all people are like the subjects in Platos cave and are stuck looking at the three dimensional shadow of a four dimensional world.
She then showed a computer generated image of what something with four dimensions might look like and it was just like your avatar.

Am I Close?[/quote]

Kind of. Most of what you see on Through the Wormhole is bullshit from a scientific perspective. It is mostly just philosophy. Like I said in the other thread, the tesseract in my avatar is an example of a euclidian 4th dimensional cubic analog, but a euclidian 4th dimension does not exist. In reality, the 4th dimension is what is called a minkowski continuum and modeling objects for a minkowski continuum is very hard to do, and describing one to someone without the proper knowledge of advanced mathematics and physics concepts is like trying to describe a cube to someone who has been blind their whole lives.
[/quote]

Well it’s rather poor at philosophy if that’s the case. If you’re saying it’s poor at science to, well then, it’s just poor.

[pat]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]tonypluto wrote:
I understand your doctorate is in smurfology, But what do u think about dark matter just being high energy matter existing in the fourth dimension? This is the best explanation I’ve heard so far and would explain why it has such an incredible gravitational pull yet is completely invisible/ undetectable to us.[/quote]

Dark matter is not really a valid area of research in physics, it is mostly just used in science fiction these days. Modern versions of string theory and other modern forms of resolving gravitation with quantum mechanics do not require vast amounts of invisible matter to work and I highly doubt any of its proponents were really all that serious about it.[/quote]

Well, then what’s the more current explanation of gravitational lensing? That was supposed to be the proof of dark matter and oodles of it. Then there is dark energy, which Lawrence Krauss based his something from nothing theory? Of course that was a while ago now, but still.
I would assume if dark matter was tanked so was dark energy?

I didn’t buy the explanation that dark matter was required to explain the structures of galaxies. I am pretty sure a SMBH has enough gravity to hold it together just fine.

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]tonypluto wrote:
I understand your doctorate is in smurfology, But what do u think about dark matter just being high energy matter existing in the fourth dimension? This is the best explanation I’ve heard so far and would explain why it has such an incredible gravitational pull yet is completely invisible/ undetectable to us.[/quote]

Dark matter is not really a valid area of research in physics, it is mostly just used in science fiction these days. Modern versions of string theory and other modern forms of resolving gravitation with quantum mechanics do not require vast amounts of invisible matter to work and I highly doubt any of its proponents were really all that serious about it.[/quote]

Well, then what’s the more current explanation of gravitational lensing? That was supposed to be the proof of dark matter and oodles of it. Then there is dark energy, which Lawrence Krauss based his something from nothing theory? Of course that was a while ago now, but still.
I would assume if dark matter was tanked so was dark energy?

I didn’t buy the explanation that dark matter was required to explain the structures of galaxies. I am pretty sure a SMBH has enough gravity to hold it together just fine.[/quote]

Dark matter was never required to describe a gravitational lens. Chwolson and Einstein were the first to postulate the existence of the phenomenon (Chwolson is credited with it, but it was really a collaboration) and they simply postulated that light travelling close to a sufficiently large gravitational field (on the magnitude of a stellar mass or higher) can, when the right conditions are met, be bent in such a fashion as to create a duplicate image of the object being lensed. In nature, this is usually a quasar being “duplicated” by a galaxy bending the light from the quasar. Google Einstein’s Cross, it is pretty amazing.

EDIT: Dark energy is different then dark matter, there is actual evidence of dark energy but we still do not fully understand the phenomenon and there is a lot of research going on involving dark energy.

[pat]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]tonypluto wrote:
I understand your doctorate is in smurfology, But what do u think about dark matter just being high energy matter existing in the fourth dimension? This is the best explanation I’ve heard so far and would explain why it has such an incredible gravitational pull yet is completely invisible/ undetectable to us.[/quote]

Dark matter is not really a valid area of research in physics, it is mostly just used in science fiction these days. Modern versions of string theory and other modern forms of resolving gravitation with quantum mechanics do not require vast amounts of invisible matter to work and I highly doubt any of its proponents were really all that serious about it.[/quote]

Well, then what’s the more current explanation of gravitational lensing? That was supposed to be the proof of dark matter and oodles of it. Then there is dark energy, which Lawrence Krauss based his something from nothing theory? Of course that was a while ago now, but still.
I would assume if dark matter was tanked so was dark energy?

I didn’t buy the explanation that dark matter was required to explain the structures of galaxies. I am pretty sure a SMBH has enough gravity to hold it together just fine.[/quote]

Dark matter was never required to describe a gravitational lens. Chwolson and Einstein were the first to postulate the existence of the phenomenon (Chwolson is credited with it, but it was really a collaboration) and they simply postulated that light travelling close to a sufficiently large gravitational field (on the magnitude of a stellar mass or higher) can, when the right conditions are met, be bent in such a fashion as to create a duplicate image of the object being lensed. In nature, this is usually a quasar being “duplicated” by a galaxy bending the light from the quasar. Google Einstein’s Cross, it is pretty amazing.

EDIT: Dark energy is different then dark matter, there is actual evidence of dark energy but we still do not fully understand the phenomenon and there is a lot of research going on involving dark energy. [/quote]

Ah, very interesting. You’re damn handy to have around…

[NAUn]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]tonypluto wrote:
I understand your doctorate is in smurfology, But what do u think about dark matter just being high energy matter existing in the fourth dimension? This is the best explanation I’ve heard so far and would explain why it has such an incredible gravitational pull yet is completely invisible/ undetectable to us.[/quote]

Dark matter is not really a valid area of research in physics, it is mostly just used in science fiction these days. Modern versions of string theory and other modern forms of resolving gravitation with quantum mechanics do not require vast amounts of invisible matter to work and I highly doubt any of its proponents were really all that serious about it.[/quote]

Well, then what’s the more current explanation of gravitational lensing? That was supposed to be the proof of dark matter and oodles of it. Then there is dark energy, which Lawrence Krauss based his something from nothing theory? Of course that was a while ago now, but still.
I would assume if dark matter was tanked so was dark energy?

I didn’t buy the explanation that dark matter was required to explain the structures of galaxies. I am pretty sure a SMBH has enough gravity to hold it together just fine.[/quote]

Dark matter was never required to describe a gravitational lens. [/quote]

Gravitational lensing doesn’t require dark matter, but isn’t dark matter proposed to account for the discrepancy between the amount of lensing in certain regions relative to the amount of luminous matter that is believed to exist in those regions?

Surely there are members of the Pitt physics faculty that do not share your dismissal of dark matter?

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]NAUn wrote:

Gravitational lensing doesn’t require dark matter, but isn’t dark matter proposed to account for the discrepancy between the amount of lensing in certain regions relative to the amount of luminous matter that is believed to exist in those regions? [/quote]

There is no discrepancy. The discrepancies you are referring to were found by astronomers using standard Newtonian dynamics equations to calculate the mass of galaxies which are now known to be incorrect. With the evidence that we have for SMBH (and there is much more evidence for SMBH then dark matter, which has zero actual evidence) and other objects that Newton did not know about, and had no way of knowing about, we have had to modify our methods of calculating the mass of galaxies, which was the only real evidence for dark matter, and we have since found no discrepancies.

Surely there are members of the Pitt physics faculty that do not share your dismissal of dark matter?

There may be a handful, but I do not care. Every piece of so-called evidence for dark matter can be shown to have a much more plausible explanation then massive amounts of invisible matter causing gravitational anomalies. The only actual evidence for dark matter was due to a mathematical error caused by using equations and theory derived by a man for use on objects much smaller then a stellar mass and travelling at relatively slow speeds. Anyone who thinks those equations and theory can be used for a galaxy with all that we know today about them needs to retake general and special relativity as well as quantum mechanics.

[pat]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]NAUn wrote:

Gravitational lensing doesn’t require dark matter, but isn’t dark matter proposed to account for the discrepancy between the amount of lensing in certain regions relative to the amount of luminous matter that is believed to exist in those regions? [/quote]

There is no discrepancy. The discrepancies you are referring to were found by astronomers using standard Newtonian dynamics equations to calculate the mass of galaxies which are now known to be incorrect. With the evidence that we have for SMBH (and there is much more evidence for SMBH then dark matter, which has zero actual evidence) and other objects that Newton did not know about, and had no way of knowing about, we have had to modify our methods of calculating the mass of galaxies, which was the only real evidence for dark matter, and we have since found no discrepancies.

Surely there are members of the Pitt physics faculty that do not share your dismissal of dark matter?

There may be a handful, but I do not care. Every piece of so-called evidence for dark matter can be shown to have a much more plausible explanation then massive amounts of invisible matter causing gravitational anomalies. The only actual evidence for dark matter was due to a mathematical error caused by using equations and theory derived by a man for use on objects much smaller then a stellar mass and travelling at relatively slow speeds. Anyone who thinks those equations and theory can be used for a galaxy with all that we know today about them needs to retake general and special relativity as well as quantum mechanics. [/quote]

Do we know the meaning and purpose of dark energy yet? Is there different kinds? Or is it still an all encompassing phrase used to describe unknown energy?

Also, you think you could scare me up a couple of milligrams of antimatter? I wanna play with it.

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]pat wrote:

Do we know the meaning and purpose of dark energy yet? Is there different kinds? Or is it still an all encompassing phrase used to describe unknown energy?

Also, you think you could scare me up a couple of milligrams of antimatter? I wanna play with it.[/quote]

Basically, dark energy is supposedly the cause of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe that has been observed. Beyond that, it is still a very new area of research so not much is known, but is the most promising explanation for that particular phenomenon.

As for antimatter, my current research is centered around antimatter and I do have the capability to create some, but I don’t think you want to play with it unless you want to wind up looking like Papa Jupiter from The Hills Have Eyes

[pat]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Do we know the meaning and purpose of dark energy yet? Is there different kinds? Or is it still an all encompassing phrase used to describe unknown energy?

Also, you think you could scare me up a couple of milligrams of antimatter? I wanna play with it.[/quote]

Basically, dark energy is supposedly the cause of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe that has been observed. Beyond that, it is still a very new area of research so not much is known, but is the most promising explanation for that particular phenomenon.

As for antimatter, my current research is centered around antimatter and I do have the capability to create some, but I don’t think you want to play with it unless you want to wind up looking like Papa Jupiter from The Hills Have Eyes
[/quote]

Are you sayin’ is nukuler?

And now I want to play with more…

[system]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
As for antimatter, my current research is centered around antimatter and I do have the capability to create some, but I don’t think you want to play with it unless you want to wind up looking like Papa Jupiter from The Hills Have Eyes
[/quote]

I’ve got physics question for you regarding anti-matter. Antit-helium, in particular.

Now, my limited understanding of anit-matter comes from Star Trek Voyager, where a big cool reactor mixes matter and anti-matter together while Seven of Nine walks around in an amazing skin-tight outfit — which is why I love America — and it can be rather nasty when you have sufficient amounts of it mixing with matter.

Anyway, I was thinking a great, stable, form of anti-matter would be helium — noble gas, lighter than air, so it would disperse rather well if released somehow.

In particular, I was wonder if, as a noble gas, anti-helium would be reasonably stable around regular matter unless perturbed somehow — e.g., sufficient heat to spin off the anti-electron.

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
As for antimatter, my current research is centered around antimatter and I do have the capability to create some, but I don’t think you want to play with it unless you want to wind up looking like Papa Jupiter from The Hills Have Eyes
[/quote]

I’ve got physics question for you regarding anti-matter. Antit-helium, in particular.

Now, my limited understanding of anit-matter comes from Star Trek Voyager, where a big cool reactor mixes matter and anti-matter together while Seven of Nine walks around in an amazing skin-tight outfit — which is why I love America — and it can be rather nasty when you have sufficient amounts of it mixing with matter.

Anyway, I was thinking a great, stable, form of anti-matter would be helium — noble gas, lighter than air, so it would disperse rather well if released somehow.

In particular, I was wonder if, as a noble gas, anti-helium would be reasonably stable around regular matter unless perturbed somehow — e.g., sufficient heat to spin off the anti-electron.[/quote]

Antimatter is exactly what it sounds like and will never interact in a “stable” manner with matter, they are exact opposites and as such will react together to reach a massless state, releasing an appropriate amount of energy to effect the transition to a massless state. There is no outside catalyst like heat necessary to effect this reaction either, it comes straight from the laws of conservation of mass and energy. This means that an antihelium nucleus will interact with an equivalent amount of regular matter (it does not have to be a helium atom) and the two will cancel each other out and release energy in their transition to a massless state (photons).

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Do we know the meaning and purpose of dark energy yet? Is there different kinds? Or is it still an all encompassing phrase used to describe unknown energy?

Also, you think you could scare me up a couple of milligrams of antimatter? I wanna play with it.[/quote]

Basically, dark energy is supposedly the cause of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe that has been observed. Beyond that, it is still a very new area of research so not much is known, but is the most promising explanation for that particular phenomenon.

As for antimatter, my current research is centered around antimatter and I do have the capability to create some, but I don’t think you want to play with it unless you want to wind up looking like Papa Jupiter from The Hills Have Eyes
[/quote]

Are you sayin’ is nukuler?

And now I want to play with more…[/quote]

It costs between $30 billion and $50 trillion per gram, depending on the type of antimatter you want, so if you have the funds…

[system]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
As for antimatter, my current research is centered around antimatter and I do have the capability to create some, but I don’t think you want to play with it unless you want to wind up looking like Papa Jupiter from The Hills Have Eyes
[/quote]

I’ve got physics question for you regarding anti-matter. Antit-helium, in particular.

Now, my limited understanding of anit-matter comes from Star Trek Voyager, where a big cool reactor mixes matter and anti-matter together while Seven of Nine walks around in an amazing skin-tight outfit — which is why I love America — and it can be rather nasty when you have sufficient amounts of it mixing with matter.

Anyway, I was thinking a great, stable, form of anti-matter would be helium — noble gas, lighter than air, so it would disperse rather well if released somehow.

In particular, I was wonder if, as a noble gas, anti-helium would be reasonably stable around regular matter unless perturbed somehow — e.g., sufficient heat to spin off the anti-electron.[/quote]

Antimatter is exactly what it sounds like and will never interact in a “stable” manner with matter, they are exact opposites and as such will react together to reach a massless state, releasing an appropriate amount of energy to effect the transition to a massless state. There is no outside catalyst like heat necessary to effect this reaction either, it comes straight from the laws of conservation of mass and energy. This means that an antihelium nucleus will interact with an equivalent amount of regular matter (it does not have to be a helium atom) and the two will cancel each other out and release energy in their transition to a massless state (photons).

[/quote]

Hmmmmm… I was hoping the very stable nature of helium/anti-helium atoms would keep the anti-protons and anti-electrons “apart”

[tonypluto]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Do we know the meaning and purpose of dark energy yet? Is there different kinds? Or is it still an all encompassing phrase used to describe unknown energy?

Also, you think you could scare me up a couple of milligrams of antimatter? I wanna play with it.[/quote]

Basically, dark energy is supposedly the cause of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe that has been observed. Beyond that, it is still a very new area of research so not much is known, but is the most promising explanation for that particular phenomenon.

As for antimatter, my current research is centered around antimatter and I do have the capability to create some, but I don’t think you want to play with it unless you want to wind up looking like Papa Jupiter from The Hills Have Eyes
[/quote]

Are you sayin’ is nukuler?

And now I want to play with more…[/quote]

It costs between $30 billion and $50 trillion per gram, depending on the type of antimatter you want, so if you have the funds…[/quote]

Why such an enormous price range from billions to trillions?

I got your PM btw. It’s given me a lot to think about and am thinking about getting a cheap quick certificate in Personal Training before I do anything else. and then when I go back to
College I’ll have a decent part time job to support myself with while I finish my bachelors. I do plan on taking more physics hours tho

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

Hmmmmm… I was hoping the very stable nature of helium/anti-helium atoms would keep the anti-protons and anti-electrons “apart”[/quote]

You are thinking of “stable” as defined by chemistry, which is a totally different discipline. Chemical reactions have very little to do with matter/antimatter reactions.

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]tonypluto wrote:

Why such an enormous price range from billions to trillions?

I got your PM btw. It’s given me a lot to think about and am thinking about getting a cheap quick certificate in Personal Training before I do anything else. and then when I go back to
College I’ll have a decent part time job to support myself with while I finish my bachelors. I do plan on taking more physics hours tho :)[/quote]

It just has to do with the process needed to make certain kinds of antimatter. Some are more involved then others so the cost is higher. Good luck with school.

[pat]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Do we know the meaning and purpose of dark energy yet? Is there different kinds? Or is it still an all encompassing phrase used to describe unknown energy?

Also, you think you could scare me up a couple of milligrams of antimatter? I wanna play with it.[/quote]

Basically, dark energy is supposedly the cause of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe that has been observed. Beyond that, it is still a very new area of research so not much is known, but is the most promising explanation for that particular phenomenon.

As for antimatter, my current research is centered around antimatter and I do have the capability to create some, but I don’t think you want to play with it unless you want to wind up looking like Papa Jupiter from The Hills Have Eyes
[/quote]

Are you sayin’ is nukuler?

And now I want to play with more…[/quote]

It costs between $30 billion and $50 trillion per gram, depending on the type of antimatter you want, so if you have the funds…[/quote]

Well, I just want a couple of milligrams… I figure I could use it to take my house off the electrical grid. Sure we can’t do something under the table?
I want some anti-gold… My wife would love that for Christmas

Seriously, though here one thing I noticed about gravity that nobody seems to mention. Speed.
It’s either the elephant in the room, or it’s a given I guess, but it’s the force of gravity also rooted in how fast something is rotating or moving through space?
It seems to me that the more gravity something has, not only is it a larger or denser mass, but it moves more and more rapidly. Like a neutron star for instance, really dense, moves really really fast, super high gravity. Would it have the same gravity if it stood stock still?

Is there anything known that is not moving at all and yet proven to have gravity?

[squating_bear]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Do we know the meaning and purpose of dark energy yet? Is there different kinds? Or is it still an all encompassing phrase used to describe unknown energy?

Also, you think you could scare me up a couple of milligrams of antimatter? I wanna play with it.[/quote]

Basically, dark energy is supposedly the cause of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe that has been observed. Beyond that, it is still a very new area of research so not much is known, but is the most promising explanation for that particular phenomenon.

As for antimatter, my current research is centered around antimatter and I do have the capability to create some, but I don’t think you want to play with it unless you want to wind up looking like Papa Jupiter from The Hills Have Eyes
[/quote]

Are you sayin’ is nukuler?

And now I want to play with more…[/quote]

It costs between $30 billion and $50 trillion per gram, depending on the type of antimatter you want, so if you have the funds…[/quote]

Well, I just want a couple of milligrams… I figure I could use it to take my house off the electrical grid. Sure we can’t do something under the table?
I want some anti-gold… My wife would love that for Christmas

Seriously, though here one thing I noticed about gravity that nobody seems to mention. Speed.
It’s either the elephant in the room, or it’s a given I guess, but it’s the force of gravity also rooted in how fast something is rotating or moving through space?
It seems to me that the more gravity something has, not only is it a larger or denser mass, but it moves more and more rapidly. Like a neutron star for instance, really dense, moves really really fast, super high gravity. Would it have the same gravity if it stood stock still?

Is there anything known that is not moving at all and yet proven to have gravity? [/quote]
I should probably keep my mouth shut on this (because I could be wrong), but I think I remember learning about this in relativity

As velocity increases, not only does time dilate - but you also get some other weird things.

Length of objects dilate, and mass increases

I don’t even know if we could tell that something is completely not moving at all - I think it would appear to be moving from our frame of reference - so how could we tell?

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]pat wrote:

Well, I just want a couple of milligrams… I figure I could use it to take my house off the electrical grid. Sure we can’t do something under the table?
I want some anti-gold… My wife would love that for Christmas

Seriously, though here one thing I noticed about gravity that nobody seems to mention. Speed.
It’s either the elephant in the room, or it’s a given I guess, but it’s the force of gravity also rooted in how fast something is rotating or moving through space?
It seems to me that the more gravity something has, not only is it a larger or denser mass, but it moves more and more rapidly. Like a neutron star for instance, really dense, moves really really fast, super high gravity. Would it have the same gravity if it stood stock still?

Is there anything known that is not moving at all and yet proven to have gravity? [/quote]

Actually, the smaller an object is the greater it’s potential speed. Electrons, protons, and various types of waves travel at speeds much closer to the speed of light in a vacuum than any quasar or neutron star. Gravity can cause motion, not the other way around. The only thing required to produce a gravitational field is mass. As to your last comment, there has not yet been anything observed that is not moving at all and it is not really possible for all motion to cease. It may happen at an object’s ground state, which is called the Zero Energy Point, which is closely related to the concept of absolute zero from classical thermodynamics.

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

I should probably keep my mouth shut on this (because I could be wrong), but I think I remember learning about this in relativity

As velocity increases, not only does time dilate - but you also get some other weird things.

Length of objects dilate, and mass increases

I don’t even know if we could tell that something is completely not moving at all - I think it would appear to be moving from our frame of reference - so how could we tell?[/quote]

You are right, as an object’s velocity increases, it’s mass also increases. As that velocity approaches the speed of light in a vacuum, it’s mass increases without bound. The most interesting thing about traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum is that the passage of time stops completely and concepts such as distance have no meaning at all. Einstein predicted this, but we have confirmed it experimentally. This means that from the reference point of an object traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum, all travel is instantaneous until it’s speed becomes less then the speed of light in a vacuum.