Some Thoughts About Physics

Sometimes there are new thoughts, ideas, or Eureka moments, but that is not enough to expand into a reasonably long article or essay. So here's another idea of ​​potpourri that deals with physics and relevance, too good to record, but not enough meat to serve meat. I hope that the reader is familiar with the terminology and terminology used. If not, that's why a dictionary exists!

Why question

Can anyone explain exactly why the South and North poles of the magnet attract? Or why does the magnet's North Pole repel another Arctic? You know what happens, but how you explain why is beyond you. Electrons and positrons disappear when they come into contact. I know what happens, but I don't know the exact nature of what happens. Proton charge is known to be equal to and opposite to electron charge. Who can tell me why? Can anyone really tell me what the charge is actually? You know what it does, but how do you do it and why do you do it?

The "reason"-"reason" question of things is important to harmonize with life, the universe, everything. There is a deeper “physics question”. For example, why is opposition to electromagnetism or EM [whatever it really is] attracted and repels the identity of EM? Why is it the opposite? In creating the laws, principles, and relationships of physics, Einstein asked if God had made a choice on the issue, or, as Hawking said, “what will fire.” equation".

All the explanations are going smoothly, but I can't explain why this method should be used instead of other methods. That is the reason why neither explanation nor answer is possible.

For example, consider some strange properties about the North Pole [NP] and South Pole [SP] of a magnet. Why does NP to NP cause fission, SP to SP cause fusion, and SP to NP cause superconductivity? Alternatively, place some chemicals between NP and NP to cause an exothermic reaction. An endothermic reaction occurs between SP and SP, but no chemical reaction occurs between SP and NP.

In other words, can you imagine resetting the clock to the Big Bang and starting over, or imagining another universe where NP and NP attracted SP and SP and SP and NP repelled each other? If not, why? Or, according to Einstein's question, in other words, can there be more than one physical set?

oooooOOOOOooooo

Is charge a sudden phenomenon?

Assumption: Charge is not a new phenomenon.

At first glance, the charge is independent of speed, angular momentum, and spin, and has nothing to do with it. Or mass. Therefore, since the charge is independent, it must exist or be a property in itself. It may be part of the property team but has its own independent presence. The charge may be basic, but it must be present. But is this an example of design and tweaking because it couldn't exist without charge?

So what exactly is the charge? Just calling a charge a force, a field, whatsit, a thingamabob is not itself enlightening.

One of the $ 64,000 questions is why is the charge limited to positive or negative 1/3, 2/3 or 3/3 values? This should mean that the charge arrives in units or packets or 1/3 quantity, and that the electron is a composite of three packets of [especially] negative charges. But is a packet of charge a physical entity of a solid material, or is it not important, can it actually exist independently of a particle substrate such as an electron [muon or tau] or quark? Isn't it another type like neutrino [positron and of course anti-quark]?

Assumption: Charge is a new phenomenon.

On the other hand, charge is a property that appears when you have an electron [or positron] mass and a “spin” particle. Another property of electron [or positron] and electron [or positron] angular momentum is called charge.

It seems quite unbelievable that a third packet of negative charges happens to cross each other and spin with a massive particle. Pseudoelectron angular momentum and everything together now form a traditional electron. [Uncharged electrons must, of course, be pseudo-electrons, not real electrons.] It also means that you can have particles with mass. Pseudoangular momentum of electrons without 3/3 units of negative charge. Thus, the charge must be a unique but emerging property, but it does not occur for all types of particles.

Something is wrong!

oooooOOOOOooooo

Conversion of energy into matter

We are all particularly familiar with the concept of creating energy from matter. In particular, nuclear materials such as nuclear energy, or radioactivity / particle decay where neutrons decay into various pieces and energies. The ultimate form of energy from matter is matter-antimatter extinction to pure energy.

The question is, has anyone observed the production of matter from energy? There are vacuum energy-antimatter particles that can create virtual materials, but these disappear with each other and quickly return to smart, pure energy. Of course, there is Hawking radiation, which causes the black hole to lose mass via radiant energy, and in theory "radiation" is inferred. May be in the form of particles with actual mass created by vacuum energy.

Collect high energy particle accelerators to crush the particles and create a new & # 39 ;. Particles that can be a direct result of energy consumption.

But on a more realistic level, in our daily presence, do we observe that substances are made from energy?

For example, when you hit a match, part of the mass represented by the chemicals in the matchhead is converted into heat and light energy. Have you ever seen the light and heat energy turn into a matchhead chemical? Sunlight is necessary for photosynthesis, but is any of that sunlight actually taken up into plant material to become plant material, or is it a kind of catalyst? These kinds of examples-ordinary examples that we all can see.

oooooOOOOOooooo

Absolute zero gravity

Achieving the concept of absolute zero is theoretically impossible, but if it is achieved—theoretically—all movement stops. But even so, gravity isn't working yet, so is there any movement under the influence of gravity even at absolute zero? Is this just another reason already established apart from Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty? I think this is the reason why there seems to be no significant relationship between temperature and gravity. Gravity must be constant regardless of the temperature of the object that receives the gravitational attraction, even if its temperature is absolutely zero. Of course, the movement by gravity is energy, and the existence of energy denies the possibility of achieving absolute zero. The theoretical question is, if a temperature of absolute zero can be achieved, what is the theoretical state of gravity?

oooooOOOOOooooo

About radioactive decay

Now I recognize that there is a lot of literature on radioactive decay that explains what happens. But I haven't seen much literary ways of telling why things happen when things happen. Suppose you go out, buy 238 atoms of uranium, and soak it in the laboratory. After 10 seconds, the atom is still there and it remains. 11 seconds after sinking, it disappeared. Why would it happen if there was no change in the Atom environment during that 1 second period?

There is probably a hidden environment variable * we are not aware of it. If there is a change in the local environment of the atom, it is said that quantum jitter or neutrinos have collided with the U-238 nucleus, which is the cause and therefore causality.

Another idea. Suppose there were billions of atomic masses of radioactive material, assuming no causality. There are also two random number generators. One determines the number of atoms that become poufs, and the other determines the unit of time that the number of atoms becomes poufs. Run until all these billions of atoms have decayed. Do you have a traditional half-life relationship? I personally doubt it. Even if you use only one random number generator that determines the number of unstable nuclei that are deceived every certain time unit, you can't graph a half-life curve.

The lack of causality is reminiscent of Karl Sagan's death quote, "Anomalous claims require anomalous evidence." That observation is probably aimed at the macro world, but I think it can be adapted to the micro world as well, but something special comes to mind in the minds of the viewer and the special person, It's just not to be a special thing for me. For me, abandoning causality is certainly extraordinary.

Preservation method and positive causal relationship from the past to the future [and what other causal relationship is functioning unless there is time travel from the future to the past at the quantum level **-The theme cue "Twilight Zone ”Is here], and should not be given as lost except as a last resort. In fact, as you recall, it was a clear violation of the conservation method applied to the beta decay, and the late Wolfgang Pauli assumed the existence of neutrinos and restored his established and established status quo.

* Yes, I know that Einstein proposed a hidden variable to explain the quantum anomaly, and in real experiments Albert knows that Albert tends to attack the plate with respect to the hidden variable. There is really creepy behavior in the distance. But I have a hidden variable hidden in the sleeve [Einstein probably wouldn't have been thought of in his wildest thinking experiment], which unfortunately isn't original to me, so of the scenario Neither trust nor responsibility. Please look forward to future bombs [or fizzers].

** This is certainly postulated by the late Richard Feynman et al. And is clearly exhibited in the delayed double slit experiment, so don't rush too quickly to eliminate the causal relationship from the future to the past-but It's still causal, even from the front to the back. After something happens, something else happens in turn.

oooooOOOOOooooo

Lonely electronic universe

Imagine a universe consisting of just one electron. Given that scenario, is it meaningful to talk about the charge of an electron or its gravity?

If yes, what does charge and gravity work on, or just radiates? If you just radiate, can you radiate indefinitely?

If no, are these charge and gravity properties imaginary, non-material, illusion? If so, and now, if this thought experiment universe contains only two and two electrons, charge and gravity will now seem to have meaning, but imagined in a one-electron universe Where did the above come from?

oooooOOOOOooooo

Permanent versus permanent motion device

Eternal [infinite, eternal, eternal, eternal].

Persistent: There are many things that are persistent. The magnet that sticks to your refrigerator will last forever. The strong nuclear forces that hold quarks together with protons are thought to remain in place for an infinite amount of time. Perhaps gravity between two mass objects is maintained permanently.

Permanent exercise: You can do permanent exercise. Newton's first law of motion stipulates that moving objects will continue to move and do not change speed unless they are affected by external forces [ie, friction, gravity, etc.]. So if you shoot a bullet with a perfect [unreachable] vacuum, it will continue forever. Perhaps electrons are orbiting Atom will do so all day long. Similarly, vacuum energy, quantum bubbles, or quantum fluctuations, or quantum jitter violates Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, so that elementary particles [mass or energy equivalents] do not come to rest. This is a mandatory example. Perhaps the galaxy will continue to rotate after all the stars in it are extinct.

Permanent motion devices: These are not allowed under the laws of physics, principles, and relationships. Starting from the first law of thermodynamics, basically energy cannot be created or destroyed, it only changes from one energy to another. Based on that first law alone, the JPO will throw you into your ear [or other part of your anatomy] when you submit an application for a permanent motion machine. why? You can't expect anything for anything-there's nothing like a free lunch when it comes to energy according to that first law. In other words, such a theoretical permanent motion device is for the simple reason that it must have an energy output that is greater than the energy input, and in theory it can be reused in the device for more energy output. Can then be used as input to create even greater energy output and so on. Even if the energy output is equal to the energy input, there is no permanent or permanent viable device because part of the energy output is wasted energy. It's not productive-ie heat. So if you enter 1000 units of useful energy and get 999 units of useful output energy and 1 unit of non-productive heat, it was not a permanent motion device because it could only be recycled and input 999 units 1000 units spending-loss proposition. For example, 1000 units of chemical energy is put into the gasoline tank [gasoline] of a car, but 1000 units of kinetic energy [movement] cannot be obtained. It was converted to fuel in the tank. Part of the chemical energy is converted into thermal energy and drifts without helping the car move. 1000 units of chemical energy will eventually be converted to an infinite number of kinetic energy units, and you don't have to fill up the tank at the gas station ...

Still, it is interesting to be able to use something that is persistent and that has persistent motion but is not a permanent motion machine!

Black holes and antimatter

When an electron meets a positron [anti-electron] and greets, the substance is converted to energy 100% and a large Ka-Boom is activated. The premise is that if there are enough electrons in one place, a black hole [of electronic material] can be created at once. And if there are enough positrons at one place, you can create a black hole [of positron material]. In either case, for the same reason as “light”, the corresponding charge spreads beyond the respective event horizon. It cannot extend from inside the black hole [of any wavelength / frequency] to outside the black hole [ie beyond the event horizon]. But now the problem is what happens when a black hole like an electron meets a black hole like a positron. Do you get a complete annihilation to pure energy, a really big KA-BOOM, or just a big black hole?