What is the question? (Sorry too much noise so I am not clear what is your question?)vayu tuvan wrote:AmberG ji: please answer my question - onlee.
Physics Discussion Thread
Re: Physics Thread.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 542
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Physics Thread.
Hitachi electron microscope
Came across this while catching up...can't imagine what their counterintuitive conclusion was:
Came across this while catching up...can't imagine what their counterintuitive conclusion was:
Whenever electrons are observed, they are always detected as individual particles. When accumulated, however, interference fringes are formed. Please recall that at any one instant there was at most one electron in the microscope. We have reached a conclusion which is far from what our common sense tells us.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 3788
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Physics Thread.
If you figure out the mystery behind double slit experiment, you have a Nobel prize waiting for you.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 542
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Physics Thread.
I believe those researchers already figured it out going by their last sentence.LokeshC wrote:If you figure out the mystery behind double slit experiment, you have a Nobel prize waiting for you.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 3788
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Physics Thread.
I think they are describing the mystery, which is that you get interference pattern even if you send one electon at a time. It interferes with itself.
Re: Physics Thread.
Noob question: how do they release one electron only?LokeshC wrote:I think they are describing the mystery, which is that you get interference pattern even if you send one electon at a time. It interferes with itself.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 542
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Physics Thread.
But that sounds like the wave-particle duality conundrum which has been around for a while, though that was about photons.LokeshC wrote: I think they are describing the mystery, which is that you get interference pattern even if you send one electon at a time. It interferes with itself.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 14045
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Physics Thread.
Mostly due to all those kard-karod photon/electron collisions in the the "4000 year" claim based on the Journal of Wikipedia onlee.Amber G. wrote:What is the question? (Sorry too much noise so I am not clear what is your question?)vayu tuvan wrote:AmberG ji: please answer my question - onlee.
1) What is the photon/particle interaction time?
2) Why should there be any interaction time, given that particle size <<<<< wavelength and so it is at best Rayleigh scattering, no change in frequency? AFAIK, a photon is not a micro-particle, it is a Heisenbergically uncertain packet of energy that is sweeping all over a given region of space.
That's also the "explanation" for why an electron also appears as a fringe: if you have the necessary time resolution, I expect that one may "observe" the trace of the electron will appear quite clearly at any instant, like an insect buzzing all over a given region. Of course, what r u going 2 use 2 observe that, is a different question. Another $10B experimental setup with Templates, (wo)manned by burger-munching grad students in Bavaria.
To help out with this 4000-year pakistan pit that the Physicists have dug for themselves, let me suggest that it has **NOTHING** to do with particle interactions, that is all so much nonsense from that Pissicks expert on Wikipedia. The 4000 years is consistent with the balance between gravity and light speed.
Theory-e-UlanBator On The Effect of Lahori Traffic on Light Attempting to Escape a Pakistan
Think about it. The current IkPatthari Fallacy (IPF) in its linearized form (Lorentz transform) suggests that gravity can pull light back, and in fact stop it at the g-level of the Event Horizon. Also, that a Sun-sized star could turn into a BH, maybe once Jupiter and Saturn and Uranus have been gulped down. So inside the Sun's core, the g-level must be already pretty high. So light will be considerably decelerated by gravity (don't ask me how, the yaks are working furiously on this in the stables of Ulan Bator on this deep question). But it is similar to what happens as you sit in seat 13F on an airplane as it takes off. First the engine noise is just loud, then it gets VERY loud as the plane accelerates to Mach 0.5 or so and the sound pattern changes, then it dies out quite a lot as Mach reaches 0.8 and the pattern sweeps mostly backwards.
This is the most likely explanation for the "4000 years". The net speed of light is very low near the center, then becomes higher as it comes more out. Most probably, DoPatthar ul Ulan Bator will publish a paper shortly on The Helical Trajectory of a Photon Leaving the Core of a Star.
The light may be moving tangentially at 300000000000 millimeters a second, but near the core, it is mostly around in a circle with only a tiny radial component. So I expect that INSIDE a Black Hole, it is incredibly bright, because all the trapped light is going round in circles.
P.S. Pls send NoBill Price to Ulan Batori, PO Box1313666, Gujranwala PO, Bakistan onlee.
Re: Physics Thread.
More wiki-science - radiative transport in the sun:1) What is the photon/particle interaction time?
2) Why should there be any interaction time, given that particle size <<<<< wavelength and so it is at best Rayleigh scattering, no change in frequency?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_zone
The nuclear fusion reactions in the sun :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2 ... n_reaction
Note that the electron rest mass is around 0.5 MeV, so these gamma rays are not not much longer in wavelength than the particle size; also see Compton scattering:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 14045
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Physics Thread.
Hmm! Those links are a gold mine, though for completely different reasons, THANKS! This "4000 years" sounds like a diluted version of the Carl-Saganesque "171,000 years".
Question I have is still whether one can get fairly swift warning of uber-cataclysms cooking at the core of the Sun. Of course I don't know what I would do with that warning, except maybe I don't have to worry about crawling on my hands and knees and mopping the floor of the crawl space clean. Or writing proposals beyond (well, the time when that reaches Earth).
Question I have is still whether one can get fairly swift warning of uber-cataclysms cooking at the core of the Sun. Of course I don't know what I would do with that warning, except maybe I don't have to worry about crawling on my hands and knees and mopping the floor of the crawl space clean. Or writing proposals beyond (well, the time when that reaches Earth).
Inverse Compton scattering is important in astrophysics. In X-ray astronomy, the accretion disc surrounding a black hole is presumed to produce a thermal spectrum. The lower energy photons produced from this spectrum are scattered to higher energies by relativistic electrons in the surrounding corona. This is surmised to cause the power law component in the X-ray spectra (0.2-10 keV) of accreting black holes.[clarification needed]{U can say that again}
Last edited by UlanBatori on 21 Feb 2016 19:29, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Physics Thread.
A nice presentation on the structure of the Sun:
http://solar.physics.montana.edu/ypop/S ... cture.html
http://solar.physics.montana.edu/ypop/S ... cture.html
Re: Physics Thread.
Quoting some part of the conversation to keep the context
Physicists have long settled that particle vs wave property of light..
Don't tell it our brf Einsteins who are writing long posts after posts -- analyzing this duality (is it a wave? is it a particle?) .. or more absurd still, if this is the "same" or a "different" photon --poor souls -- they have no clue about any quantum phenomena yet think throwing insults at traditional scientists or wiki will somehow make them look smart)..
What I found rich was confusion between "pathan" and "photon" . and seemingly real confusion by the term "drunken walk" problem - as if it has anything to do with a drunk.
(Seriously - this 'drunken walk' problem is one of 3 major works (other two are relativity, and PE effect) of Einstein which could have won him a nobel. PE effect is the one which won him a Nobel)
Meanwhile the point why it takes a long time for a photon to travel from center of the sun to it;s surface.. what is the actual observable significance is lost.
Sorry that's all the time I have right now..
TSJ, Lokesh, and others..there isn't really any difference between " a gamma ray" or a "photon"...TSJones wrote:Amber G. wrote: . . Do you know how long does it take for a photon from the center of our own sun to reach us on the earth..?
The answer is about 4000 years!
(it takes about 4000 years for it to reach from the center to the surface of the sun, and about 8 minutes afterwards. Graviton (irrespective of where it started) will reach in about 8 minutes.
go back and read LokescH message above. It is not photons that travel from the core tp the surface, but gamma rays.
wiki says thusly:
<snip>
.
Physicists have long settled that particle vs wave property of light..
Don't tell it our brf Einsteins who are writing long posts after posts -- analyzing this duality (is it a wave? is it a particle?) .. or more absurd still, if this is the "same" or a "different" photon --poor souls -- they have no clue about any quantum phenomena yet think throwing insults at traditional scientists or wiki will somehow make them look smart)..
What I found rich was confusion between "pathan" and "photon" . and seemingly real confusion by the term "drunken walk" problem - as if it has anything to do with a drunk.
(Seriously - this 'drunken walk' problem is one of 3 major works (other two are relativity, and PE effect) of Einstein which could have won him a nobel. PE effect is the one which won him a Nobel)
Meanwhile the point why it takes a long time for a photon to travel from center of the sun to it;s surface.. what is the actual observable significance is lost.
Sorry that's all the time I have right now..
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 14045
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Physics Thread.
So, repeating the simple question for the 4th time: In your Wikipedia post on the drunken walk, what is the interaction time per interaction, to explain the calculation shown there? Just saying "photon interacts with 2.635734562 x 10^27 electrons, says nothing on why the speed changes from 3E-8 m/s. Interaction with one good mirror would have turned that photon right back into the face of the Sun's core, so transit time would be infinity.
If interaction time is zero then you have no explanation other than a lot of gratuitous pompous attempted insults - typically I see those coming from clueless politicians who are cornered and their hollowness exposed (like the one I cannot talk about), not from physicists. If it is non-zero, then let's hear what it is. On the other hand, if the Wikipedia analogy is garbage, then let's hear that.
From what I see, it sounds like the effect of an interaction is actually an energy loss (plausible) that then emits a new photon of different energy (lower frequency, longer wavelength). But how much per interaction? That will let us estimate whether the 4000 years or 171,000 years is closer.
If you have no clue, it's OK to say so.. I have no axe to grind here. Thanks!
But if the interactions with particles slow light down and shift it to lower frequency, then isn't the "red shift" observed in galaxies due to interaction with particles on the way, and nothing to do with Doppler shift? Or is there independent frequency measurement to say that it IS Doppler shift? Can you tell the difference? If you can't then the whole Hubble fallacy of expanding Universe comes crashing down.
Can we please have a more coherent answer than
If interaction time is zero then you have no explanation other than a lot of gratuitous pompous attempted insults - typically I see those coming from clueless politicians who are cornered and their hollowness exposed (like the one I cannot talk about), not from physicists. If it is non-zero, then let's hear what it is. On the other hand, if the Wikipedia analogy is garbage, then let's hear that.
From what I see, it sounds like the effect of an interaction is actually an energy loss (plausible) that then emits a new photon of different energy (lower frequency, longer wavelength). But how much per interaction? That will let us estimate whether the 4000 years or 171,000 years is closer.
If you have no clue, it's OK to say so.. I have no axe to grind here. Thanks!
But if the interactions with particles slow light down and shift it to lower frequency, then isn't the "red shift" observed in galaxies due to interaction with particles on the way, and nothing to do with Doppler shift? Or is there independent frequency measurement to say that it IS Doppler shift? Can you tell the difference? If you can't then the whole Hubble fallacy of expanding Universe comes crashing down.
Can we please have a more coherent answer than
?? See "politicians" above..Oooo! I am stunned by the ignorance of these posts
Re: Physics Thread.
The photon's random walk through the Sun's core is worked out as a homework problem with solution here:UlanBatori wrote:So, repeating the simple question for the 4th time: In your Wikipedia post on the drunken walk, what is the interaction time per interaction, to explain the calculation shown there? Just saying "photon interacts with 2.635734562 x 10^27 electrons, says nothing on why the speed changes from 3E-8 m/s. Interaction with one good mirror would have turned that photon right back into the face of the Sun's core, so transit time would be infinity.
http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~townsend/res ... -10-28.pdf
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 3788
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Physics Thread.
The key here is the word "SCATTERING", its absorbed and reflected off in a random direction, which usually makes a large part of the energy directed inward. This keeps going on and on until it reaches the surface.
BTW: AmberG, I am aware that photons range from gamma rays to low freq radio.
BTW: AmberG, I am aware that photons range from gamma rays to low freq radio.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 14045
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Physics Thread.
Thx. I will wait for the Physicists to answer the question and explain to me the key assumption that changes the crow-fly distance to something so huge. And why that model is anywhere near relevant for photo (light) propagation. Sounds more relevant to gilli-danda or marbles.A_Gupta wrote:The photon's random walk through the Sun's core is worked out as a homework problem with solution here:
http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~townsend/res ... -10-28.pdf
Re: Physics Thread.
Yours truly was a physicist. The Sun's interior is a dense plasma - i.e., a soup of charged particles that interacts readily with photons. As the homework solution points out initially, the mean free path of the photon in that environment is of the order of 10^-5 meters. Which means it propagates on the average that distance, before suffering a collision and shooting off in another random direction. It is essentially diffusing through the medium, like sugar in your unstirred coffee.
Hope that helps.
Hope that helps.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 3788
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Physics Thread.
UlanBatori wrote:
The light may be moving tangentially at 300000000000 millimeters a second, but near the core, it is mostly around in a circle with only a tiny radial component. So I expect that INSIDE a Black Hole, it is incredibly bright, because all the trapped light is going round in circles.
P.S. Pls send NoBill Price to Ulan Batori, PO Box1313666, Gujranwala PO, Bakistan onlee.
I am not sure what to make for the rest of your post save the bolded part above, because that phenomenon is true (in case of a stationary non-feeding blackhole):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_sphere
However, that mechanism is not the one that is going on in the sun, because the center of the sun is much less dense, i.e. it does not bend the field around it enough to make the phemomena you mention to be the reason for the "4000" year thing.
I think you should look into statistical thermodynamics and how things "thermalize", I am sure you use that in hypersonic flying yak designs.
Everything "thermalizes" , i.e. reach a state of thermodynamic equillibrium with its environment following the laws of thermodynamics. And that includes such intense things such as the photons from CMB, here is a discussion:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/t ... ns.746609/
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 14045
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Physics Thread.
Sigh! Brings back nightmares of reading for the Yaqualifying exam. This random bouncing of photons just seems like a wrong explanation to me, though I have no sense of the density in the Sun's interior. 100 g/cc still does not sound like a truly dense enough medium to inhibit most of the light passing through. About 6 times that of uranium, and when uranium is really hot, I bet it looks somewhat translucent. The fact seems to be that the inner gamma rays zap the matter around them (get absorbed) and then those radiate.
Pls read the book where some terrist (imaginary of course) detonated a fusion precursor (gamma ray generator) in the stadium at Denver - excellent description of how the gamma rays vaporized everyone around the bum, and then those vapors glowed and radiated lower frequencies. So all this talk of the same gamma ray photon wandering drunk through the core of a fusion reaction is all so much imagination.
In gas dynamics laser lore, there is a thing called "small signal gain". it is the net between the absorption, spontaneous emission and the stimulated emission as a beam bounces off walls (total internal reflection) and traverses the same medium gazillions of times. I guess inside the Sun's core, the medium is far denser, so the absorption and spontaneous emission >> stimulated emission, and the photons cannot last very long. So think of the gamma ray photon as someone carrying Rs. 100,000 in currency notes trying to get through Central Park in NY. Not much will be left by the time s(he) escapes, if ever.
Pls read the book where some terrist (imaginary of course) detonated a fusion precursor (gamma ray generator) in the stadium at Denver - excellent description of how the gamma rays vaporized everyone around the bum, and then those vapors glowed and radiated lower frequencies. So all this talk of the same gamma ray photon wandering drunk through the core of a fusion reaction is all so much imagination.
In gas dynamics laser lore, there is a thing called "small signal gain". it is the net between the absorption, spontaneous emission and the stimulated emission as a beam bounces off walls (total internal reflection) and traverses the same medium gazillions of times. I guess inside the Sun's core, the medium is far denser, so the absorption and spontaneous emission >> stimulated emission, and the photons cannot last very long. So think of the gamma ray photon as someone carrying Rs. 100,000 in currency notes trying to get through Central Park in NY. Not much will be left by the time s(he) escapes, if ever.
-
- BRFite -Trainee
- Posts: 65
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Physics Thread.
Dr. Signs on NPR says
" BH appear to be B because there is more light surrounding it, so it is lost in light"
TIFWEW
Also during my adolescent times my Guru through the holy book Modern Physics by DS Mathur
Said
In small packet
"Good absorbers are good radiators"
And said BB are good radiators
Looks like
For BH R = T = 0
Therefore anything discovered about it gets AA+ rating for a (BB )
Also small pooch
What happens to Van dear Waals equation in BH
Doe it hold
T must absolute zero
Volume will be zero
Only P will be infinite?
If there is no matter then how can P be perceived?
Chal better stick to strength of Materials rather than weakness of theory
" BH appear to be B because there is more light surrounding it, so it is lost in light"
TIFWEW
Also during my adolescent times my Guru through the holy book Modern Physics by DS Mathur
Said
In small packet
"Good absorbers are good radiators"
And said BB are good radiators
Looks like
For BH R = T = 0
Therefore anything discovered about it gets AA+ rating for a (BB )
Also small pooch
What happens to Van dear Waals equation in BH
Doe it hold
T must absolute zero
Volume will be zero
Only P will be infinite?
If there is no matter then how can P be perceived?
Chal better stick to strength of Materials rather than weakness of theory
Re: Physics Thread.
I am not sure I should be posting this here plus I might be interfering but unexplained noises heard by Apollo 10 crew have been declassified
https://www.rt.com/usa/333184-apollo-na ... lassified/
Hope it is not a spoof.
https://www.rt.com/usa/333184-apollo-na ... lassified/
Hope it is not a spoof.
Re: Physics Thread.
Equations for stellar interior:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_s ... _structure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_s ... _structure
Re: Physics Thread.
I think calculating pressure for black hole is not possible because according to Einstein gravity is a quality of Space-time. And the rest of the entities are called matter. So, I think there are no forces inside Black hole in Einstein system to calculate pressure.Palmer wrote:Dr. Signs on NPR says
" BH appear to be B because there is more light surrounding it, so it is lost in light"
TIFWEW
Also during my adolescent times my Guru through the holy book Modern Physics by DS Mathur
Said
In small packet
"Good absorbers are good radiators"
And said BB are good radiators
Looks like
For BH R = T = 0
Therefore anything discovered about it gets AA+ rating for a (BB )
Also small pooch
What happens to Van dear Waals equation in BH
Doe it hold
T must absolute zero
Volume will be zero
Only P will be infinite?
If there is no matter then how can P be perceived?
Chal better stick to strength of Materials rather than weakness of theory
Now, the interesting part is this: black hole is formed when the pressure inside a star increases to the extent where the star collapses under its own gravity. So, pressure should be infinite because that pressure is being caused by infinite gravity. If the pressure is infinite, then the forces acting inside the black hole would also be infinite. Normally, all scientists treat gravity as a force when they actually have to calculate something. So, Hawking also superposes Newton's system into Einstein's system and starts treating Gravity as a force. But, the interesting part is that according to Hawking, some radiation also escapes the Black hole even though nothing is supposed to escape. So, according to Hawking, forces are not infinite even though Black Hole is supposed to have formed because of infinite pressure(where star collapsed under its own gravity). That results in the theory Sphaghettification. If the forces are not infinite, then the gravity is not infinite. If the gravity is not infinite, then space-time is not infinite. That means no black hole. So, in short, Hawking is just changing the very definitions of Black Hole 180 deg. They keep contradicting themselves and then invent new theories to cover up their contradictions and nobody is supposed to point it out. If anyone points it out, they launch into a name-calling tirade.
Space-time = infinite(or undefined)
gravity = infinite(or undefined).
mass = finite.
volume = zero.
forces = infinite (or tidal forces according to Hawking) (or zero because gravity is not a force in Einstein system).
pressure = infinite because black hole was formed due to that (or zero because the gravity is not a force in Einstein system).
Temperature = directly proportional to pressure. So temperature is either zero or infinite depending on the pressure.
Just looking at the ridiculous figures, one can say that this is a silly theory. An object with zero volume but infinite gravity and finite mass. Infinite gravity means that it would attract everything and everything would already be inside black hole. And even then its not possible because a black hole has zero volume.
Re: Physics Thread.
Why a conspiracy theory? It is a valid question. The first time round - the paper was about to be published and then stopped by revealing that it was a deliberately inserted false signal. Why let everyone do the extra work? What was the social reasoning? VT's explanation makes sense.Amber G. wrote:Original signal was detected in September, and right away the preliminary calculations told them to take deeper look at data.... It took them months of checking and rechecking to reach the confidence level they reached. Meanwhile there were few more events detected .. good enough (less than 2-3% chance that it was false positive) but it was not broadcasted. ... but why let facts get in the way of conspiracy theories..vayu tuvan wrote: I think the papers were already written and ready to go the moment they detect the signal. All they had to do was to plug in the signal strengths and other stats data and write up the conclusion(s) and off the papers go to Science/Nature/PRL etc.
The question was not about the current paper (or its physics).
Re: Physics Thread.
Four linked first order DEs can be solved quite easily, no? Numerically I mean. But there seems to be lot of assumptions and simplifications while arriving at those equations. Have they simplified far too much (to channel Einstein)?A_Gupta wrote:Equations for stellar interior:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_s ... _structure
Re: Physics Thread.
AmberG: Here ( http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 7#p1982517 ) is the question I posed which yayavar posed again. Thanks.
Re: Physics Thread.
johneeG: Your argument does not stand. You are assuming that the domain is continuous. It is not once it falls below a certain distance scale. For example spin is quantized.
Re: Physics Thread.
This is important so please read.
Folks - I started putting my perspective in this thread specially because of an explicit request from Ramana. I am a physicist, know what I talk about, and quite well known, and respected, to explain complex stuff in laymen's language.
In this respect I put an extremely educational post (viewtopic.php?p=1982381#p1982381 - please do read it again, it is a nice post) trying to explain, the "delay" between gamma ray flash and GW. The noise created by Ulanbator's (and a few of his admirers') in deluge of absurd posts (which, of course is their choice), made it hard to carry out any sensible discussion. Old habits die hard, so I still post, but I wonder if brf now is a place to carry out any technical discussion.
UB Professor ji, I thought even Gujranwala Institute of Technology has some integrity so I find it a little odd, if not dishonest, when you insinuate that "AmberG is claiming that interaction time for photo/proton or photon/electron is long". I said no such thing. It is fun to read all your (and your admirers) "scholarly" posts but please stop misquoting me. Also please let me know which "wikipedia" article I cited which you are referencing below" - I hope you just did not make that up.
- My original reference to photon(s) in center of a star like Sun was not wiki. Yet wiki is not too bad.(In an MIT study of physics related stuff, they found Wiki was more accurate than most of the other news papers -even some of the best scientific papers). But still one needs to follow what is written in our ancient books:
- Amber G has not said anything about photon/proton interaction. ( Neither I mentioned drunken pathans) I simply said what I said (please do read the original post, it is very clear).
- As to destructive power of GW (you and your admirers post about 27000 on Ritcher scale, and superman's planet breaking apart due to tidal force is still there) I am sure YOU do not care or understand, but for everyone elsewho can follow basic math may. (Read my posts again.For most of us, there is a difference between 10000000000000000 and 0.00000000001 even if some do not have a clue to care about it. /sigh/
*****
UB,
If you REALLY wanted to understand or discuss what is the significance of " 4000 years delays due to photon", you could have asked it in a way that I think you are interested in learning, and I would have been happy to discuss it.. after all who knows, we may share the same alma mater, you having advantage of being 10 years or so younger... it might just be conceivable that you may be sitting in one of my ( or somebody like me) physics lectures for Engineers...
Folks - I started putting my perspective in this thread specially because of an explicit request from Ramana. I am a physicist, know what I talk about, and quite well known, and respected, to explain complex stuff in laymen's language.
In this respect I put an extremely educational post (viewtopic.php?p=1982381#p1982381 - please do read it again, it is a nice post) trying to explain, the "delay" between gamma ray flash and GW. The noise created by Ulanbator's (and a few of his admirers') in deluge of absurd posts (which, of course is their choice), made it hard to carry out any sensible discussion. Old habits die hard, so I still post, but I wonder if brf now is a place to carry out any technical discussion.
UB Professor ji, I thought even Gujranwala Institute of Technology has some integrity so I find it a little odd, if not dishonest, when you insinuate that "AmberG is claiming that interaction time for photo/proton or photon/electron is long". I said no such thing. It is fun to read all your (and your admirers) "scholarly" posts but please stop misquoting me. Also please let me know which "wikipedia" article I cited which you are referencing below" - I hope you just did not make that up.
Some points, (with bolded text) all with due respectUlanBatori wrote:
So where is the basis for claiming that A PHOTON takes 4000 years to travel from the Sun's center to the surface, please? Read it on Wikipedia? { No I did not read (or write) that Wiki article before I posted the post in brf}
AmberG is claiming that interaction time for photo/proton or photon/electron is long, { I did not}
And I don't understand why photon/electron interaction should take any time at all.
If interaction time is not long (and I don't see it mentioned at all in that Wikipedia example that AmberG cited) {can you please explicitly point out WHICH wiki example I am citing} then the transit time is **NOT** increased. Rajdhani express zips past 1,000 stations without slowing down. Station Master may wave green flag, but thats about it. Either way, the 4000 years is .... a bit like one of dem templates?
As for the utter lack of destructive power in a GW, bleaaah! Who cares then, hain? Half the fun is watching the buildings fall, as they say...
- My original reference to photon(s) in center of a star like Sun was not wiki. Yet wiki is not too bad.(In an MIT study of physics related stuff, they found Wiki was more accurate than most of the other news papers -even some of the best scientific papers). But still one needs to follow what is written in our ancient books:
(Rough translation: Wiki knowledge is as useful to a person without common sense as a mirror to a blind )यस्यनास्ति स्वयं प्रज्ञा, विकी ज्ञान तस्य करोति किम?
लोचनाभ्याम् विहीनस्य, दर्पणम् तस्य करोति किम?
- Amber G has not said anything about photon/proton interaction. ( Neither I mentioned drunken pathans) I simply said what I said (please do read the original post, it is very clear).
- As to destructive power of GW (you and your admirers post about 27000 on Ritcher scale, and superman's planet breaking apart due to tidal force is still there) I am sure YOU do not care or understand, but for everyone elsewho can follow basic math may. (Read my posts again.For most of us, there is a difference between 10000000000000000 and 0.00000000001 even if some do not have a clue to care about it. /sigh/
*****
UB,
If you REALLY wanted to understand or discuss what is the significance of " 4000 years delays due to photon", you could have asked it in a way that I think you are interested in learning, and I would have been happy to discuss it.. after all who knows, we may share the same alma mater, you having advantage of being 10 years or so younger... it might just be conceivable that you may be sitting in one of my ( or somebody like me) physics lectures for Engineers...
Last edited by Amber G. on 23 Feb 2016 00:58, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Physics Thread.
I think it was obvious, I was adding to your post, not contradicting your post I am sure you would agree that it is a relief to learn that there are still a few people in brf who have courage to say:vayu tuvan wrote:AmberG: Here ( http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 7#p1982517 ) is the question I posed which yayavar posed again. Thanks.
I don't believe in earth being flat or moon having a giant rabbit
Re: Physics Thread.
A_Gupta, TSJ, LokeshC et al -A_Gupta wrote:Yours truly was a physicist. The Sun's interior is a dense plasma - i.e., a soup of charged particles that interacts readily with photons. As the homework solution points out initially, the mean free path of the photon in that environment is of the order of 10^-5 meters. Which means it propagates on the average that distance, before suffering a collision and shooting off in another random direction. It is essentially diffusing through the medium, like sugar in your unstirred coffee.
.
Nice analogy by A_Gupta..I have used similar examples to make students excited about physics I have seen even physicists who might not have heard it before become surprised till they do the calculation).
The molecular velocity in water (at ordinary temp) is very high.. so much so that if you drop a bottle of Rooh-af-za in New York and then catch a flight to Mumbai, there will, in theory, be some Rooh-af-za molecules will reach Mumbai before you do. Yes molecular velocities are that high.. but it takes much longer to "diffuse"..(At present there is NO experimental method sensitive enough to detect those one or two Rooh-af-za molecules. It will take MUCH longer time, even if those Roof-af-za had radio-active tracers, to detect them experimentally)
The photons in Sun are not molecules of Rooh-a-za but the model (random walk) used gives fairy sensible result (which can be measured). Retaionship is very much like diffusion speed and molecular velocity.
BTW, lot of this work, (Theory of Brownian Motion) could have won Nobel for Einstein. (As said before, he won for PE effect and not for Relativity or Brownian Motion)
****
Anyway the reason I introduced this example was just to explain the "time delay" of "photos" coming from (interior of) stars. Of course "random walk" etc are just "models" to solve a problem. Very similar to "Nuclear Shell Structure" (1963 Nobel) which explains structure of a nucleus. Or "Liquid drop Model" for nucleus. These model are just models - Atomic nuclei do not really have "shells" or made out of "liquid" but still these models are useful as they explain nuclear spectra.
My point there, was: (Explained in Layman's language):
- To study what happens on Sun's surface (solar flares, etc) we can observe photons (visible light or x-ray etc) but there is a time delay... so it takes us (on average) about 8 minutes before the information gets here. So the sun (surface) we see, is what it was 8 minutes ago.
- We also study interior of Sun (what kind of nuclear reactions take place inside etc). This information comes from studying photons (gamma rays etc -- it does not matter what we call) originated from interior of the Sun. (This is how we know, our sun is fusion reactor etc).
But at present, what we know is how Sun was some few hundred/thousands of years ago.
Now if some how, we can hear gravitons, (that is measure GW) the time delay will shorten to about 8 minutes even for interior of Sun.
This is the critical point in understanding. Not drunken pathans, or Bakistani bums or Rajadhani express.
Hope this helps.
Re: Physics Thread.
VT A small anecdote - Recently I was talking to a relative of CV Raman and we happened to talk about Kameshwar Wali's biography of Chandrasekhar. This is when I was told of this, and it was mentioned that NO book or article has mentioned this anecdote of CV Raman. CVR was extremely good in judging potential of young students.vayu tuvan wrote:Four linked first order DEs can be solved quite easily, no? Numerically I mean. But there seems to be lot of assumptions and simplifications while arriving at those equations. Have they simplified far too much (to channel Einstein)?A_Gupta wrote:Equations for stellar interior:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_s ... _structure
A very young student showed his work to CVR (work about stellar structure but using very simple calculation involving Compton scattering to predict some important stuff). CVR was impressed and said"
"This person is genius, and going to be a great physicist"
The boy was his nephew and did turn out to be a great physicist. (1983 Nobel - Chandra). All his work about Stellar structure has been confirmed by experiments.
(The person who told me, (himself a very bright physicist) heard the story first hand from some one who was present when that conversation took place, was interviewed for Wali's book but the story did not make into Wali's book)
Re: Physics Thread.
FWIW, IMO it is a spoof but I guess many (at least in brf ) will fall for it.deejay wrote:I am not sure I should be posting this here plus I might be interfering but unexplained noises heard by Apollo 10 crew have been declassified
https://www.rt.com/usa/333184-apollo-na ... lassified/
Hope it is not a spoof.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 14045
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Physics Thread.
NOW v r coming to grips with the central issue. If there is a huge event inside the Sun (otherwise why would there be measurable Gee-Dubyas even in theory?) then WILL it take 1,71,000 years for the info to reach the surface and cause massive flares/sunspots etc? Wouldn't the info propagate as a shock wave? I am too far gone after long travels across the Mongolian Steppe, to try finding my calculator to try figuring out the shock speed, but I am guessing it should be AT LEAST Mach 5 by earth standards, which is about 1.5km/s. The radius of the Sun is 696,000km? so let's say 750,000 to divide easily with my groggy brain, gives 500,000 seconds. That's around 100 hours. When that gets to the surface, even if all the gamma rays are wandering around drunk around the Dancing Dumbbells, the info has reached the surface, and a swift 8-minute flight to zap Pakistan (and everyone else - this is the Mother of All VBIEDs).Now if some how, we can hear gravitons, (that is measure GW) the time delay will shorten to about 8 minutes even for interior of Sun. This is the critical point in understanding. Not drunken pathans, or Bakistani bums or Rajadhani express.
4000 years later, the remaining Chief Scientist of the Termites, the ruling species on Earth, will sagely shake her antennae and say:
So I have to ask again about the claim that Gee-Dubya holds the key to such crucial applications. Maybe something else, but certainly not this.AHA! I told you so! It was a Gravitational Event! Look at those broken Interferometer arms swinging in the 800-degree breeze!
Re: Physics Thread.
Folks stop the BENIS/Pingrej language.
I see no need for it.
So one more will lock this thread up.
Sorry for headmaster tone.
I see no need for it.
So one more will lock this thread up.
Sorry for headmaster tone.
Re: Physics Thread.
The four DEs in Wikipedia are certainly a first order apprroximation, if you search around there is a vast amount of research going on.vayu tuvan wrote:Four linked first order DEs can be solved quite easily, no? Numerically I mean. But there seems to be lot of assumptions and simplifications while arriving at those equations. Have they simplified far too much (to channel Einstein)?A_Gupta wrote:Equations for stellar interior:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_s ... _structure
Re: Physics Thread.
1. Solar neutrinos produced in fusion reactions should also be detectable with only the speed-of-light delay, as they also mostly sail through matter.UlanBatori wrote:NOW v r coming to grips with the central issue. If there is a huge event inside the Sun (otherwise why would there be measurable Gee-Dubyas even in theory?) then WILL it take 1,71,000 years for the info to reach the surface and cause massive flares/sunspots etc? Wouldn't the info propagate as a shock wave? I am too far gone after long travels across the Mongolian Steppe, to try finding my calculator to try figuring out the shock speed, but I am guessing it should be AT LEAST Mach 5 by earth standards, which is about 1.5km/s. The radius of the Sun is 696,000km? so let's say 750,000 to divide easily with my groggy brain, gives 500,000 seconds. That's around 100 hours. When that gets to the surface, even if all the gamma rays are wandering around drunk around the Dancing Dumbbells, the info has reached the surface, and a swift 8-minute flight to zap Pakistan (and everyone else - this is the Mother of All VBIEDs).Now if some how, we can hear gravitons, (that is measure GW) the time delay will shorten to about 8 minutes even for interior of Sun. This is the critical point in understanding. Not drunken pathans, or Bakistani bums or Rajadhani express.
4000 years later, the remaining Chief Scientist of the Termites, the ruling species on Earth, will sagely shake her antennae and say:
So I have to ask again about the claim that Gee-Dubya holds the key to such crucial applications. Maybe something else, but certainly not this.AHA! I told you so! It was a Gravitational Event! Look at those broken Interferometer arms swinging in the 800-degree breeze!
2. You are absolutely right that a large event in the core of the Sun will produce shock waves, etc., that will propagate much, much faster than diffusion. Diffusion is what is happening in a state of almost thermal equilibrium. A large event, almost by definition, is a huge deviation from equilibrium.
3. You are also right that it is very unlikely that gravitational waves will tell us anything about the interior of the Sun. But remember that tidal locking we talked about with regard to the moon? That is complicated because the moon and earth are made up of a variety of rocks, and iron cores and so on. But imagine two neutron stars in a tight orbit around each other. They are, we think, made up of homogenous neutronium; and we can detect gravitational waves from this orbiting pair. The poorly knowns are the equation of state of neutronium and tidal dissipation in neutronium; and maybe gravitational waves by giving us another handle on their orbits will enable us to deduce properties of neutronium; or discover internal structure of neutron stars, or something.
Re: Physics Thread.
we receive info about stars from seismic waves created inside the star that makes them vibrate which is seen by the Kepler space scope which detects the vibration from the star's light.
what creates the seismic waves is the pounding of erupting material rising up and falling back down onto the star as well as the plasma moving about inside the star..
also double star systems work on each other as well and gives us a lot of seismic info.
this possibility of seismic info was was first suggested by a Danish astronomer after the vibrations were observed by the Kepler scope in its search for planets.....
what creates the seismic waves is the pounding of erupting material rising up and falling back down onto the star as well as the plasma moving about inside the star..
also double star systems work on each other as well and gives us a lot of seismic info.
this possibility of seismic info was was first suggested by a Danish astronomer after the vibrations were observed by the Kepler scope in its search for planets.....
Re: Physics Thread.
Good points..but just to add..
(Neutrinos are not massless like photon's and gravity effects them too .. but that is besides the point)
Special for brf jingo's - India is seriously interested in for both INO and LIGO.
Hope this helps.
Yes, neutrinos travel near the speed of light, not exactly but there is more..I am not sure they will be too useful to cary the information about fusion reactions... Solar neutrino's (or neutrino's in general) are quite hard (VERY hard) to detect any way, and to learn anything from that (to know precise nuclear reaction(s) as one can study from gamma rays)is still harder. In fact, there was big discrepancy and confusion about even the predicted and measured flux of solar neutrinos. I will not go in details here but one can read more about it about this as 2015 Nobel Prize was related some explaining this (why no/few tau neutrinos were observed at Super-Kamiokande) -- For details see McDonald's work . I have mentioned this news in physics dhaga as that work (investigating neutrino oscillation) also got 2016 Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics ($3 million - more money than a Nobel) (see for more detail mine or Bade's post viewtopic.php?p=1965935#p1965935A_Gupta wrote: 1. Solar neutrinos produced in fusion reactions should also be detectable with only the speed-of-light delay, as they also mostly sail through matter.
(Neutrinos are not massless like photon's and gravity effects them too .. but that is besides the point)
Special for brf jingo's - India is seriously interested in for both INO and LIGO.
Again, not quite..most, if not all of our knowledge about nuclear reactions inside the Sun comes from those "photons". The significant point here is, 4000 years, in sun's life (>4 000,000,000 years), is something like a heartbeat. The delay in Sun's case really does not matter as precise nature of nuclear reaction is not changing that rapidly. I don't know what is a "large event" -- which can magically appear -- but some one exploding a suicide vest inside is not really likely2. You are absolutely right that a large event in the core of the Sun will produce shock waves, etc., that will propagate much, much faster than diffusion. Diffusion is what is happening in a state of almost thermal equilibrium. A large event, almost by definition, is a huge deviation from equilibrium.
Actually this will another avenue to learn more and MOST likely tell us more about interior of stars.. specially neutron stars, black holes etc where EM radiation is just one side of the story.3. You are also right that it is very unlikely that gravitational waves will tell us anything about the interior of the Sun.
Hope this helps.
Last edited by Amber G. on 23 Feb 2016 07:50, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Physics Thread.
John J. Bahcall about Solar neutrinos:
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/Papers/Popu ... /paper.pdf
2. A moderately slowly moving low mass blackhole zipping through the Sun might be a large event. But barring stuff like that, nothing is going to produce a quadrupole mass moment large enough and moving violently enough to produce detectable gravitational waves.
3. "Actually this will another avenue to learn more and MOST likely tell us more about interior of stars.. specially neutron stars, black holes etc. "
Forgive me, I distinguish between the Sun on the one hand and neutron stars and black holes on the other; and non-binary stars from which you're not going to get detectable gravitational waves on the one hand and binary stars from which you might get gravitational waves on the other.
I also now see why people get irritated with our resident recognized and respected physicist. Nothing that I wrote was wrong, but was pedantically "corrected" anyway. Bye-bye from this thread!
PS: some fun stuff:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.08813
Order-of-magnitude physics of neutron stars
http://astrobites.org/2015/01/30/the-su ... iron-fist/
and an overview of the Standard Sun Model: http://www.ap.stmarys.ca/~guenther/evol ... s_ssm.html
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/Papers/Popu ... /paper.pdf
More is known about the Sun than about any other star and the calculations of neutrino emission from the solar interior can be done with relatively high precision. Solar neutrino experiments test in a direct and rigorous way the theories of nuclear energy generation in stellar interiors and of stellar evolution. These tests are independent of many of the uncertainties that complicate the comparison of the theory with observations of stellar surfaces. For example, convection and turbulence are important near stellar surfaces but unimportant in the solar interior. Hence, the solar neutrino discrepancy puzzled (and worried) astronomers who want to use neutrino observations to understand better how the Sun and other stars shine. Prior to June 2001 (see discussion of SNO experiment below), the solar neutrino problem seemed to most (but not all)
physicists to indicate that astronomers did not understand the details of the solar nuclear fusion reactions that produce neutrinos.
Popular article from 2010: Neutrinos are a practical tool for astronomy (beyond the abstract, behind a paywall): http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... rino-eyes/The SNO and Super-Kamiokande measurements together established two
extraordinarily important conclusions. 1) Physics not included in the standard model of particle physics occurs. Neutrinos change their type. 2) The neutrino measurements confirm the theoretical model of how the Sun shines. The measured flux of neutrinos from 8B {Boron 8} beta-decay, which depends approximately on the 25th power of the central temperature of the Sun, is in good agreement with the theoretical calculations. In short, the solar neutrino experiments showed that the standard model of particle physics is incomplete and the standard solar model is vindicated
2. A moderately slowly moving low mass blackhole zipping through the Sun might be a large event. But barring stuff like that, nothing is going to produce a quadrupole mass moment large enough and moving violently enough to produce detectable gravitational waves.
3. "Actually this will another avenue to learn more and MOST likely tell us more about interior of stars.. specially neutron stars, black holes etc. "
Forgive me, I distinguish between the Sun on the one hand and neutron stars and black holes on the other; and non-binary stars from which you're not going to get detectable gravitational waves on the one hand and binary stars from which you might get gravitational waves on the other.
I also now see why people get irritated with our resident recognized and respected physicist. Nothing that I wrote was wrong, but was pedantically "corrected" anyway. Bye-bye from this thread!
PS: some fun stuff:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.08813
Order-of-magnitude physics of neutron stars
PPS: Here is something very relevant to our previous discussion of the opacity of the sun's interior:We use basic physics and simple mathematics accessible to advanced undergraduate students to estimate the main properties of neutron stars. We set the stage and introduce relevant concepts by discussing the properties of "everyday" matter on Earth, degenerate Fermi gases, white dwarfs, and scaling relations of stellar properties with polytropic equations of state. Then, we discuss various physical ingredients relevant for neutron stars and how they can be combined in order to obtain a couple of different simple estimates of their maximum mass, beyond which they would collapse, turning into black holes. Finally, we use the basic structural parameters of neutron stars to briefly discuss their rotational and electromagnetic properties.
http://astrobites.org/2015/01/30/the-su ... iron-fist/
and an overview of the Standard Sun Model: http://www.ap.stmarys.ca/~guenther/evol ... s_ssm.html