My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > Science Forums > Physics

Physics Physics Forum


Thanks Tree6Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
April 1st, 2016, 07:04 AM   #1
Member
 
Joined: Mar 2016
From: US

Posts: 30
Thanks: 1

Discrepancies in particles physics versus quantum physics

Hello,

When a Tesla coil is interacting with the air,
"The high electric field causes the air around the high voltage terminal to ionize and conduct electricity...(Wikipedia - Tesla coil).

What is the possibility of making up discrepancies in particle physics by studying the particles in an environment that conducts electricity(air), and then an environment that does not (vacuum), and then averaging the two calculations?

Or, maybe mapping the known universe into "zones" that conduct electricity, like around a planet, and "zones" that do not, like a set area of space far away enough from the nearest star.

Then maybe we can run molecular experiments on earth, and find a stronger link between molecular physics and quantum physics, by comparing molecular findings in a vacuum to zones of space that are like a vacuum, and comparing molecular findings in air sealed tube to areas of space that do conduct electricity.

Maybe
1. Some of the universal laws or constants can be applied to either study with more success.
2. Some of the universal laws equations can be applied to the average of the two molecular studies with more success.
3. And maybe some laws or constants equations can be applied to both molecular studies, and then the findings of the average of both studies, all equally as well. Those might then be considered the true universal laws.

Last edited by GreenBeast; April 1st, 2016 at 07:51 AM.
GreenBeast is offline  
 
April 1st, 2016, 08:42 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: England

Posts: 695
Thanks: 198

The vacuum inside a thermionic tube conducts electricity.

Don't reply until April2.
Thanks from GreenBeast
studiot is offline  
April 1st, 2016, 09:15 AM   #3
Member
 
Joined: Mar 2016
From: US

Posts: 30
Thanks: 1

Studiot Thank you.

I was able to confirm that also:
"The inside of the Large Hadron Collider is colder than outer space.
In order to conduct electricity without resistance, the Large Hadron Collider’s electromagnets are cooled down to cryogenic temperatures. The LHC is the largest cryogenic system in the world, and it operates at a frosty minus 456.3 degrees Fahrenheit. It is one of the coldest places on Earth, and it’s even a few degrees colder than outer space, which tends to rest at about minus 454.9 degrees Fahrenheit."
(Ten things you might not know about particle accelerators | symmetry magazine)

So I guess I will abandon that theory.

Although, in a way that does not make sense since electricity can be conducted through room temperature air, for example using the Tesla?

If cryogenic temperatures offer the least resistance to electricity, maybe that helps to explain why scientists thought the universe was expanding. If the outer limits of the universe are very cold, maybe electricity riding a weak electro magnetic wave from the big bang is preceding UV rays, gamma rays, x rays or radio waves "out" of the visible universe. Maybe that is what the Hubble is detecting on the fringes.

Last edited by GreenBeast; April 1st, 2016 at 09:23 AM.
GreenBeast is offline  
April 1st, 2016, 10:35 AM   #4
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,031
Thanks: 2342

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
I'd be awfully surprised to find that Hubble receives signals from radiation travelling away from it.
v8archie is offline  
April 1st, 2016, 12:54 PM   #5
Math Team
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 1,658
Thanks: 651

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
What exactly are the discrepancies in particles physics versus quantum physics?? Particle physics is based on QM!

-Dan

Addendum: "electricity riding a weak electro magnetic wave" Could you explain this phrase?
topsquark is offline  
April 1st, 2016, 02:39 PM   #6
Member
 
Joined: Mar 2016
From: US

Posts: 30
Thanks: 1

Hello,

I guess the discrepancies, and I am a novice researcher so bear with me, are based on extreme heat for one. The big bang was an unknown temperature, and could have caused changes to any of the laws of the universe, however as things have cooled down in the universe over time, maybe galaxies and clusters are once again beginning to obey the laws of the universe.

If we go back to this same article:
"In 2012, Brookhaven National Laboratory’s Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider achieved a Guinness World Record for producing the world’s hottest manmade temperature, a blazing 7.2 trillion degrees Fahrenheit. But the Long Island-based lab did more than heat things up. It created a small amount of quark-gluon plasma, a state of matter thought to have dominated the universe’s earliest moments. This plasma is so hot that it causes elementary particles called quarks, which generally exist in nature only bound to other quarks, to break apart from one another."
(Ten things you might not know about particle accelerators | symmetry magazine)

So things happen at those extreme heat levels like the quarks breaking apart from one another that do not usually happen given the laws of either the quantum physics or the molecular physics.

Also, the big bang in and of itself of course defies a lot of explanations at the molecular and quantum level. We can only speculate and different speculations leave a lot of discrepancies between them. The big bang was scientifically true at the ultimate quantum level to me, something like a supernova (all of the matter in the universe, and most or all of the energy exploding out from a central point), however I think we all hope as scientists that it was also scientifically true at the molecular level, such as those quarks breaking apart. If that is true then, then there is a discrepancy between the big bang time and some time after it, and the rest of the time until now, in how things have settled down after they cooled. Because in this time period quarks stay together. In that time period they broke apart (which came about after the hydrogen at the center of the universe ignited but did not have enough power to explode out from the gravitational pull, and I am guessing then fused with carbon to form Nitrogen, which immediately did have enough power to explode out from the center of the universe, and that explosion reached that critical level of at least of 7.2 Trillion degrees Fahrenheit, where the quarks are breaking apart). Since that time the universe has just been cooling off, and maybe apart from isolated discrepancies in parts of galactic systems over 7.2 Trillion degrees, or the LHC at over 7.2 Trillion degrees, there are no discrepancies.

From wikipedia (Nitrogen):
"Nitrogen is a common element in the universe, and is estimated to be approximately the seventh most abundant chemical element by mass in the universe, the Milky Way, and the Solar System. In these places it was originally created by fusion processes from carbon and hydrogen in supernovas."

In answer to defining electricity riding a weak electromagnetic wave, I maybe the answer then is that these unbound quarks are riding the electromagnetic wave (edit: maybe the electro magnetic waves from the big bang are approaching the speed of light, explaining fringes of these universe appearing light colored) out, not electricity like an electron.

From wikipedia -(pion):
"In particle physics, a pion (or a pi meson, denoted with the Greek letter pi: π) is any of three subatomic particles: π0, π+, and π−. Each pion consists of a quark and an antiquark and is therefore a meson."

From (Ten things you might not know about particle accelerators | symmetry magazine)
"For example, particles called pi mesons are normally short-lived; they disintegrate after mere millionths of a second. But when they [pi mesons] are accelerated to nearly the speed of light, their lifetimes expand dramatically."

So, if the unbound quark behaves similar to the pi meson, then I guess theoretically if they were travelling "stuck" to an electromagnetic wave, traveling out from the big bang, and not encountering to much resistance (because the electromagnetic wave with quarks stuck to it, is behaving like electricity in a LHC) in the cryo-like temperatures of deep space, then wherever in the map of the universe that is returning electro-static when being measured (I am not sure with what instrument, I think it was Hubble), then it must have passed through "warmer" space, and slowed down or even stopped. The waves going through colder space maybe continued on and do not give off electro-static measurements. This could give us a map of the temperature of the universe at least.

Also, I found this map which is pretty neat, it may help explain something here about gravitational waves maybe being like a spring, so when quasars/black hole mergers create gravitational waves into themselves, it equals potential energy, that is released as kinetic energy if the quasar is included in a galaxy that novas, and the kinetic energy takes many forms, one of them being electro magnetic waves approaching the speed of light:
(The Most Amazing Map You'll See Today (No Matter What Day It Is) - Out There)

Last edited by GreenBeast; April 1st, 2016 at 02:58 PM.
GreenBeast is offline  
April 1st, 2016, 05:26 PM   #7
Math Team
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 1,658
Thanks: 651

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Nothing of what you said points out a problem between particle physics and QM.

This "riding along" business...I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Nothing is going to "ride along" an electromagnetic wave (light) in the sense that a particle is going to be attached to the light wave and move with it.


The era after the BB had a lot of things going on. And I don't mean just particle dynamics. There were a couple of "thawing" processes..similar to ice melting into water. These processes released a tremendous amount of energy which, supposedly, is where the energy from inflation comes from. (I'm not entirely sure that last statement is correct.)

Quark systems are bound states (mesons and baryons) that have a huge binding energy. When you try to separate them you end up adding more energy to the system than it takes to make a new quark-antiquark pair. The result is two new particles where the old one was and you still haven't pulled out that single quark. This does not violate any known rules of particle physics or QM.

That's it for now.

-Dan
topsquark is offline  
April 1st, 2016, 08:57 PM   #8
Member
 
Joined: Mar 2016
From: US

Posts: 30
Thanks: 1

Hello,

Maybe after the big bang, sound was traveling out approaching the speed of light, from the center of the universe.

Maybe an event like the big bang can carry, at light speed with no resistance, and bear with me, a photon which is classified as a massless particle, all the way to the edges of the observable universe.

The universe just looks like it is expanding, as these photons being pushed out caught in the peaks and troughs of a sound wave that is still traveling at the speed of light all this time later, would prove the inflation theory wrong.

There would already have been a universe all around, it probably was made of helium and ionized elements like nitrogen and hydrogen.
Read: (https://www.spacetelescope.org/scien...n_of_universe/)

Maybe the photons (which have an infinite lifetime) explain the observable universe, and when the photons being pushed by the wave ran into a hot helium pocket (not ionized) in the universe right after the big bang, the hot gas pushed back and the milky way was born.

Areas of the universe with cold helium let the sound waves with the photons pass through without resistance.

The photon may have the ability to mimick the sound wave through its own wave dynamics tendency (read photon in Wikipedia).

What if traveling at the speed of light with no resistance from ionized elements through the areas with cold helium, and being so far away by now from the center of the universe, that the instruments that are set to detect radiation are misreading those areas of the visible universe as "dark energy".

They are set to find radioactive light rays coming into the observable universe, from outside of the observable area, and instead are just getting an error of no light rays entering even though to the eye it is not pitch black in that area compared to other parts of the sky.

Last edited by GreenBeast; April 1st, 2016 at 09:07 PM.
GreenBeast is offline  
April 2nd, 2016, 06:39 AM   #9
Math Team
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 1,658
Thanks: 651

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenBeast View Post
Hello,

Maybe after the big bang, sound was traveling out approaching the speed of light, from the center of the universe.

Maybe an event like the big bang can carry, at light speed with no resistance, and bear with me, a photon which is classified as a massless particle, all the way to the edges of the observable universe.

The universe just looks like it is expanding, as these photons being pushed out caught in the peaks and troughs of a sound wave that is still traveling at the speed of light all this time later, would prove the inflation theory wrong.

There would already have been a universe all around, it probably was made of helium and ionized elements like nitrogen and hydrogen.
Read: (https://www.spacetelescope.org/scien...n_of_universe/)

Maybe the photons (which have an infinite lifetime) explain the observable universe, and when the photons being pushed by the wave ran into a hot helium pocket (not ionized) in the universe right after the big bang, the hot gas pushed back and the milky way was born.

Areas of the universe with cold helium let the sound waves with the photons pass through without resistance.

The photon may have the ability to mimick the sound wave through its own wave dynamics tendency (read photon in Wikipedia).

What if traveling at the speed of light with no resistance from ionized elements through the areas with cold helium, and being so far away by now from the center of the universe, that the instruments that are set to detect radiation are misreading those areas of the visible universe as "dark energy".

They are set to find radioactive light rays coming into the observable universe, from outside of the observable area, and instead are just getting an error of no light rays entering even though to the eye it is not pitch black in that area compared to other parts of the sky.
You are enthusiastic but unfortunately wrong on a number of comments.

A sound wave can only exist in a dense universe. There were indeed sound waves in the early universe, and perhaps to some small degree today, but they have no significant effect on the universe as a whole.

Light is not going to be "caught" by a sound wave. Light can scatter off the sound waves but not travel with it. The speed of light is always going to be greater than the speed of sound in a given material. (This is not to say that particles cannot travel faster than the speed of light in a material. See Cherenkov radiation.)

As to the origin of the galaxies you are trying to use the effect of a process that expands a gas cloud. Expansion cannot make an object more dense. Galaxies are likely due to small density pockets in the early universe that pulled gas into them by gravity.

Your comment about dark energy shows some imagination but the radiation pressure from light is not a large effect. Dark energy seems to have the greatest effect on empty space rather than where matter is dense. Radiation pressure from light cannot cause this.

-Dan
Thanks from GreenBeast
topsquark is offline  
April 2nd, 2016, 10:31 AM   #10
Member
 
Joined: Mar 2016
From: US

Posts: 30
Thanks: 1

Hello,

Thank you everyone for your comments. I think that most of them are valid and I have thought about them. I read your links and it got me thinking more about getting back to what we know for sure.

I have a great video here:
(https://youtu.be/tSO8evHlafA)

From the Hubble site videos section:
(HubbleSite - Videos)

To bring the conversation back around to the question of particle physics versus quantum mechanics, I guess I would like to rephrase it in terms of the big bang.

If the photons came out of the big bang and affected the cosmic background radiation, in the early years of the universe, and photons are part of the study of molecular physics, and that interaction may have essentially started the galaxies forming, which is part of the study of quantum mechanics, then maybe not all of particle physics is based on quantum mechanics if the particle existed first.

Same video, directly from the hubble website, however you can click this link and it will load at the end, where the narrator lets us know the Hubble is at the end limits of being able to measure anything from the early universe to help prove what happened then: (https://youtu.be/tSO8evHlafA?t=469)

She is essentially saying we will soon learn how particle physics influenced quantum mechanics.

I guess there is not a discrepancy so I answered my own question, feel free to close the thread.

Only the James Webb telescope may be able to answer some of our future questions now with definitive measurements.

Last edited by GreenBeast; April 2nd, 2016 at 10:36 AM.
GreenBeast is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > Science Forums > Physics

Tags
discrepancies, particles, physics, quantum, versus



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
physics help please.. PlzzHelp Algebra 7 December 17th, 2012 12:26 PM
physics Ghulam hussain Physics 2 December 29th, 2010 05:36 AM
help! physics.. duckfan1 Physics 1 November 17th, 2010 08:24 PM
PhD in physics fibonaccilover New Users 7 July 19th, 2009 07:37 PM
Craftmanship versus theorical physics MyNameIsVu Physics 0 June 21st, 2009 07:24 PM





Copyright © 2017 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.