PDA

View Full Version : How to detect DC EM waves with wavelengh larger than 10 exp +10 meters?



dapifo
2012-Jul-04, 08:26 PM
How we could detect and register DC EM waves with wavelengh larger than 10 exp +10 meters?

Is it theoretically and practically possible?

If yes, how we can do it?

John Mendenhall
2012-Jul-04, 10:29 PM
Try rephrasing your question. DC, by definition, has no wavelength. Radios exist, however, that operate below 30 hertz.

Uh-oh. Here come the black suit guys again.

Regards, John M.

dapifo
2012-Jul-04, 10:51 PM
Well, as you know DC EM waves reffers to waves with very long wavelengh... and 10 exp + 10 meters I think that is very long.

But never mind, ... to be or not to be DC... it is possible to detect and register EM waves of wavelengh larger than 10 exp +10 meters?

If it is possible...How we could do it?

dapifo
2012-Jul-04, 10:58 PM
Escus me, but DC reffers to very large EM waves...and I understand tha 10 exp +10 meters i really very large....

But doesnīt matter, do you know if it is possible to detect EM waves with waveslengh larger than 10 exp +10 meters?

If yes, please how we could do it?

John Mendenhall
2012-Jul-05, 12:09 AM
Escus me, but DC reffers to very large EM waves...and I understand tha 10 exp +10 meters i really very large....

But doesnīt matter, do you know if it is possible to detect EM waves with waveslengh larger than 10 exp +10 meters?

If yes, please how we could do it?

Are you saying 10^10 meters? 10,000,000,000? If so, I would say no.

And your language must be exact. DC refers commonly to 'direct current'. It does not refer to 'long wavelength'. DC has no wavelength, by definition.

swampyankee
2012-Jul-05, 12:22 AM
DC, by definition, refers to current with a frequency of 0 Hz. A wavelength of 10^10 m would be a frequency of 30 mHz, which is very low. One would probably detect it with something like a multimeter attached to a strip chart recorder.

John Mendenhall
2012-Jul-05, 03:05 AM
DC, by definition, refers to current with a frequency of 0 Hz. A wavelength of 10^10 m would be a frequency of 30 mHz, which is very low. One would probably detect it with something like a multimeter attached to a strip chart recorder.

And DC would have an infinite wavelength. Just checking to see if anyone was awake. Not sure about your frequency claim. It's off to Wiki.

Regards, John M.

cjameshuff
2012-Jul-05, 03:28 AM
As others said, there's no such thing as a "DC EM wave". The terminology is wrong on multiple levels...the use of "DC" for 0 Hz can be excused as common although technically incorrect terminology, but a static field is not a propagating wave, and if there's a wavelength, it's not 0 Hz and not a static field.

But anyway, you're talking about an EM wave with a period of 5.6 minutes. It's not DC, but as far as measurements are concerned it may as well be...you're not reasonably going to construct a tuned circuit for such a low frequency, you're probably going to log measurements of electrical and magnetic fields that are basically static on the timescale of the individual measurements, and look for evidence of waves. You just need instruments that can detect the fields, and very good isolation from any sort of interference, which may involve going into interstellar space.

tusenfem
2012-Jul-05, 07:19 AM
In space physics, my profession, 30 mHz waves is nothing special acutally. This is just a 30 second wave, which is, e.g. the frequency of magnetic field line resonances in the Earth's magnetosphere. If you measure long enough, i.e. at least 3 wave periods as a rule of thumb, you can find that frequency in a power spectrum.

dapifo
2012-Jul-05, 02:02 PM
So I can resume:

EM waves of 10 exp +10 meters (equivalent to 30 mHz or 30 second EM wave with a period of 5.6 minutes) are not scecial actually and could be detected, mesured and registred with an multimeter attached to a strip chart recorder with a very good isolation from any sort of interference (which may involve going into interstellar space).

Is It OK?

And which will be the larger wave we could detect, messure and register in this way?

cjameshuff
2012-Jul-05, 02:47 PM
So I can resume:

EM waves of 10 exp +10 meters (equivalent to 30 mHz or 30 second EM wave with a period of 5.6 minutes) are not scecial actually and could be detected, mesured and registred with an multimeter attached to a strip chart recorder with a very good isolation from any sort of interference (which may involve going into interstellar space).

I was off by a decimal point, the period is 33 seconds, not 5.6 minutes. "30 second EM wave with a period of 5.6 minutes" is meaningless.



And which will be the larger wave we could detect, messure and register in this way?

There is no hard limit.

profloater
2012-Jul-05, 02:51 PM
I think I did this by accident watching for some stray fields when I was calibrating an electron beam welder with a long throw but then we called it "drift". We never did find what caused the drift!

dapifo
2012-Jul-05, 03:44 PM
OK..Thanks

Then we could detect, mesure and register any large/long (DC) EM wave (larger/longer than 10 exp +10 meters, equivalent to 30 mHz) with an multimeter attached to a strip chart recorder with a very good isolation from any sort of interference (which may involve going into interstellar space.

So, if we could detect, mesure and register a EM wave larger/longer than 10 exp +25 meters of wavelengh, it will mean that this wave has ben issued out of Our Known Universe, and it is coming from outside ... isnīt it?

chornedsnorkack
2012-Jul-05, 05:27 PM
So, if we could detect, mesure and register a EM wave larger/longer than 10 exp +25 meters of wavelengh, it will mean that this wave has ben issued out of Our Known Universe, and it is coming from outside ... isnīt it?

No - that would merely mean a period of 1 milliard years. Wavelength being a full cycle.

Since the Universe between event horizons on both sides is 27,5 milliard lightyears across, a pure dipole anisotropy of universe means wavelengths over 55 milliard lightyears, right?

There are known relic radiation fluctuations - pure dipole anisotropy is of course impossible to detect because it is eliminated with Doppler shift of Milky Way, but what is the magnitude of pure quadrupole anisotropy of Universe?

What type of pattern in anisotropy of Universe would you expect from a stationary electrostatic field? From a stationary magnetostatic field? From a wave with wavelength exceeding the double diametre of Universe propagating at light speed across Universe?

dapifo
2012-Jul-05, 07:00 PM
Well, it is clear that we cannot wait 1 milliard years for a full ctcle !!!

We have to be able to detect and mesure only a little part of the whole cycle (!!??)

Which could be the larger EM wave we could detect and mesure nowadays...with the existing instruments (radio telescopes of magnetic fields?)..
10 exp + 10 meters (30 mHz).....10 exp +20 meters (3 picoHz)?

profloater
2012-Jul-05, 07:12 PM
the phrase flogging a dead horse comes to mind; what is the idea behind this enquiry? An antenna linked to an amplifier and a trace can run for years but what is the point?

dapifo
2012-Jul-05, 09:23 PM
the phrase flogging a dead horse comes to mind; what is the idea behind this enquiry? An antenna linked to an amplifier and a trace can run for years but what is the point?

If we could detect, mesure and register an EM wave larger than 10 exp +(20-25) meters, it will mean that this wave have been issued out of Our Knouw Universe (diameter aprox. 10 exp +26 meters).

This could be an evidence of other Universes out of our one.

cjameshuff
2012-Jul-05, 09:59 PM
If we could detect, mesure and register an EM wave larger than 10 exp +(20-25) meters, it will mean that this wave have been issued out of Our Knouw Universe (diameter aprox. 10 exp +26 meters).

This could be an evidence of other Universes out of our one.

No, it wouldn't. Wavelength doesn't say anything about the distance of the source.

dapifo
2012-Jul-05, 10:30 PM
No, it wouldn't. Wavelength doesn't say anything about the distance of the source.

I have understud that Wavelengh give (an idea) of the dimension/size of the issuer body....a wave of 10 exp +20 meters have been isssued by a body of similar dimension/size... doesnīt it?

dapifo
2012-Jul-05, 10:55 PM
So a wave of 10 exp + 50 meters wavelengh could be generated inside Our Known Universe????

Which caracteristic of EM waves could be usefull to realize it comes from out of Our Universe ?

cjameshuff
2012-Jul-05, 11:49 PM
I have understud that Wavelengh give (an idea) of the dimension/size of the issuer body....a wave of 10 exp +20 meters have been isssued by a body of similar dimension/size... doesnīt it?

No. For example, 27 MHz is a common frequency for walky talkies, remote controls, etc. 27 MHz means a wavelength of 10.5 m...rather larger than your typical garage door opener. And the sun radiates most strongly in the range of hundreds of nanometers. Generally, electromagnetic radiation is most effectively emitted from or absorbed by conductive structures on the scale of the wavelength, but the presence of radiation at a wavelength doesn't indicate a structure of that size.



So a wave of 10 exp + 50 meters wavelengh could be generated inside Our Known Universe????

There hasn't been time for a full period at such a wavelength, and given the expansion of the universe over such a period it might be rather meaningless to consider it to be a wave, but there are no hard limits preventing it from existing or being produced.



Which caracteristic of EM waves could be usefull to realize it comes from out of Our Universe ?

Nothing known to science.

dapifo
2012-Jul-06, 12:17 AM
That is new for me... and it is contrary to what I understand (??).

My idea was to evidence that could be other things (entities, universes,...) out of the limits of our known universe (between 10 exp 10-35 and 10 exp +26 meters).

I though that one way to do it was detecting EM waves smaller and larger than this lengh, that will mean that has been emited by issuers of this dimensions...

If this belief is not correct then it crumbles my idea...(???)

dapifo
2012-Jul-06, 12:41 AM
My idea was to evidence the following proposal for the Whole/Global Universe:

If we could define the Global Universe like the Whole/Total Universe. (infinite or finite). and we consider Our Universe like that Universe that we know (from 10 exp -35 to 10 exp +27 meters), I propose the idea that we can divide the Global Universe in various (infinite) power of 10 levels or spectra (see attached file). Like a RAINBOW or MATRYOSHKA DOLLS.

17227

These levels/spectra could be posives or negatives, and we can supose that aprox. every googol (10 exp 100) could be a very different Universe with its own science laws, waves, entities and possible living beings.

The shape and appearance of Our and Global Universe is only a "virtual" or "apparent" Univers that we sape and model taking into account the different stimuli that we recive by our senses.

In every level or spectra ther will be different stimuli (waves) and we will need different senses and receptors. Althogh the EM waves could exist in different levels...but with differents wavelengh and amplitude.....smaller in levels of negetive potntials and larger in levels of positive potential.

If we want to detect these stimuli, we have to try to recive and capture these stimuli (waves,...)...if they arrive to Our Universe.

profloater
2012-Jul-06, 09:52 AM
well one objection to your hypothesis is that any sudden (square wave) event contains by fourier analysis all the frequencies. I do not think (but I am often wrong) that a long wavelength uniquely means a similar sized source. Using sound as a metaphor, a small loudspeaker can deliver sound waves longer than its diameter.

cjameshuff
2012-Jul-06, 03:16 PM
well one objection to your hypothesis is that any sudden (square wave) event contains by fourier analysis all the frequencies.

A flaw with this argument is that there aren't perfect square waves in the real world.



I do not think (but I am often wrong) that a long wavelength uniquely means a similar sized source. Using sound as a metaphor, a small loudspeaker can deliver sound waves longer than its diameter.

No need for metaphors or analogies. An RF remote control a few cm long can emit 27 MHz 11 m wavelength radiation (sorry, the 10.5 m I mentioned above was for something else) to be picked up by a receiver also a few cm long, positioned a fraction of a wavelength away. The famous 21 cm hydrogen line is 21.1 cm wavelength radiation emitted by individual neutral hydrogen atoms.

More fundamentally: there is no limit to how slowly a field produced by something in our universe can change. A particularly slow changing field is not evidence of origin outside the universe.

The basic idea has other problems. There is nothing separating the different scales, why call them different universes?

ShinAce
2012-Jul-06, 09:10 PM
any sudden (square wave) event contains by fourier analysis all the frequencies.

A second flaw with this is that a square wave contains the fundamental frequency plus multiples of its odd harmonics. So a 10 Hz square wave contains, in Hz: 10, 30, 50, 70... Correct me if I'm wrong, but containing all of the frequencies is white noise, aka, the waterfall sound.

I agree 100% with what James just said: "More fundamentally: there is no limit to how slowly a field produced by something in our universe can change. A particularly slow changing field is not evidence of origin outside the universe." My bold.

dapifo
2012-Jul-06, 10:08 PM
"The basic idea has other problems. There is nothing separating the different scales, why call them different universes?"

OK...I agree, it is only a way to say that if Our Universe (it that we know) has a range of aprox 10 exp +65 (10 exp -35 to 10 exp +27) ... we can imagine that for every observer of any scale could be an Universe like Our in this range (or at least every 10 exp 100 = gugool), but is obvius that the laws and entities (wave type, ...) will change gradually like the colors in an Rainbow (!!!)

One Universe could be the red spectrum, other the yellow one,...and otrer one the orange spectrum....could be infinites levels...depending were it is the observator.

You can read the following doccument to understand better my proposal 17236

It is very simple ... with very easy words (escuse my poor English), but I think that can give a more wide view of the Global/Whole Universe, helping to understand better it.

"there is no limit to how slowly a field produced by something in our universe can change. A particularly slow changing field is not evidence of origin outside the universe."

In Our Universe scale we have specific waves that only could exist here (sound waves, sea waves, gravity (?), ...) , but others waves could be in different scales, and posible in all scales (EM waves?).

That is why I suposed that EM waves that are very smaller (< 10 exp -35 meters) or very larger (> 10 exp + 25 meters) have to be emited by sources/issues of similar dimensions or scales (?).

I am sure that if this proposal is correct.... sure that would be EM waves (?) with very different wavelength :

- Larger (10 exp + 100 meters) crossing Our Universe without beeing detected now.
- Smaller (10 exp -100 meters) ...although this ones possibe in very small/little space, because they seams to be very high energetic (?)

I donīt know if these EM waves that we cannot detect, could have any relation with "Dark Energy" (??)

Moreover, that, in other scales, would be other kind of waves specific to every different scales... that we cannot imagine now.

Do you think that this propossal make any sense?...or it goes against any current physics theory or law (state of the art patterns)?.

If yes (that it could have any chance), how we could evidence this proposal?.... EM waves could not be a way?

swampyankee
2012-Jul-07, 01:57 AM
I have understud that Wavelengh give (an idea) of the dimension/size of the issuer body....a wave of 10 exp +20 meters have been isssued by a body of similar dimension/size... doesnīt it?

The generator at your local power station generates power at 50 Hz or 60 Hz (depending on which country you're in). These have wavelengths of 5000 km (60 Hz) to 6000 km (50 Hz), which is probably a trifle larger than the generators. If you were to take a magnet (ordinary bar magnet) and wave it up and down at a frequency of 1 Hz, you'd generate an electromagnetic wave with a length of 300,000 km.

dapifo
2012-Jul-08, 12:14 AM
It is strange that a EM with a length of 300,000 km could be generated by an small generator....but need an receiving antenna of similar dimension to its lengh (??)

dapifo
2012-Jul-08, 07:00 PM
Well .... someone will give me his opinion (scientific) about the attached document?.

http://www.bautforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17236&d=1341610075

• Makes sense in it?
• Has some points inconsistent with the current state of the art of physics?
• EM waves may have long lengths that are going through our universe?
• EM waves can be less than 10 exp -35? • We could detect some of these waves or other unknown?

Shaula
2012-Jul-08, 07:09 PM
One obvious question. If the laws of physics are totally different why would you expect to see EM radiation from these other universes?

It read like a series of assertions and analogies. There was nothing scientific in the document to be judged according to scientific opinion.

cjameshuff
2012-Jul-08, 09:01 PM
It is strange that a EM with a length of 300,000 km could be generated by an small generator....but need an receiving antenna of similar dimension to its lengh (??)

Why do you say this? It isn't true, and you've been given several counterexamples already. 27 MHz remote controls don't have 11 m antennas. 50/60 Hz interference is a common problem for electronics in spite of the lack of attached 5000-6000 km long antennas. A resonant antenna will be far more sensitive than a random wire, but is not an absolute requirement, and is in fact often impractical due to the need to work with large wavelengths or a wide range of wavelengths.

Once again, there is no limit to how slowly a field can change. The sun's magnetic field switches polarity every 11 years, for a wavelength of 22 light years. Longer period oscillations would produce radiation at even longer wavelengths. And that's without accounting for cosmological expansion...we could in principle start to receive a wavefront of such length that we will never see it complete a full cycle, the tail end of the wave train receding from us faster than light. A similar effect is seen with black holes, with emissions from an object approaching infinite redshift as seen by an outside observer as that object approaches the event horizon. Wavelength is not evidence of origin outside our universe. That's it, your question's been answered, end of story. As for your idea of different universes at different scales, you have no evidence and no reason to expect such a thing, and no mechanism for separating them from each other to such a degree that you can consider them separate universes. Phenomena at extremely small or large scales are just that.

Your PDF is riddled with errors, some of which have been corrected in this thread already..."DC EM waves", for example. Your paragraphs about turning the Hubble around are just bizarre. You mention that the universe lacks a center and borders, and in the same paragraph suggest pointing the Hubble away from the center to look at the borders. There is nothing particularly special about the direction the first deep field image was taken in, any other direction not obstructed by nearby objects (like nearby stars or bulk of the Milky Way itself) will show a very similar set of galaxies...you can't point a telescope away from the big bang, there is no such direction. And in fact, Hubble already did another deep field observation in roughly the opposite direction, Hubble Deep Field South. As expected, it looks very similar to the first deep field image.

dapifo
2012-Jul-08, 11:48 PM
OK, the contetns of the PDF is only a new way of reasoning about the knowledge we know now (state of the art).

There is nothing new with evidences.... that is what I would like to know how to do... If it is possible with our technology (?).

The only new is to show another way of seeing the Global Universe (and Our Universe) extrapolated from what we know so far:

- Our known universe is only a band or level of the Global Universe.
- Throughout the years this band has been increasing thanks to advances in science and technology.
- When I talk about different universes at different scales, I mean different Open Systems, and without borders. Where the laws (and waves) may be specific to certain ranges or spectra, although some may cover different spectra ... or all (?).
- This is the case of EM waves that could (?) exist in all possible wavelengths ... assertion that seems very feasible for large dimensions, ... but for waves less than 10 exp -35 seems more difficult (?).

If these concepts do not contradict current scientific theories too much, I think it offers a much simpler view of the Universe Global .... (?)

If for scientific you understand evidences...then you are right, there are nothing new.... but new ideas could be also scientifics if they have logic and looks reasonables within the current State of the Art (?).

Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple and generally can be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone. Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Good, if simple, is twice good.

dapifo
2012-Jul-09, 12:18 AM
As you can see I am not an specialist in these fields (theoretical physics and telecommunication). I am more generalist (Industrial Engineer). That is why I am asking here some doubts, and I ask for your help and knowledge to clarify my concepts.

Wavelength is not evidence of origin outside our universe....OK thanks, that concept is very important !!!

But do you think it is possible that exist EM wavetengh smaller than 10 exp -35 ? ... And if yes, could be they evidence of origin outside our universe...coming from a smaler scale?

Your paragraphs about turning the Hubble around are just bizarre.

I am sorry, yes I know...it is only an allegory. Just I was tryng to symbolize a siple (but wrong) way of detecting signals or stimuli (waves) from outside of Our Universe (possibly my poor English leaves it unclear and confuse).

Just two last questions:

- Do you think that the basic ideas of the doccument have any sense?... and that they could describe an wider Universe View?

- Do you can imagine or glimpse some possibe test to evidence its contents?... for both large and small scales?

cjameshuff
2012-Jul-09, 01:55 AM
If these concepts do not contradict current scientific theories too much, I think it offers a much simpler view of the Universe Global .... (?)

How? What does it simplify? What does it help explain? It seems to be nothing but additional, unnecessary complexity that describes things in confusing or outright misleading terms. It was a fun read in "He Who Shrank" by Henry Hasse, but I don't see the connection with reality.



But do you think it is possible that exist EM wavetengh smaller than 10 exp -35 ? ... And if yes, could be they evidence of origin outside our universe...coming from a smaler scale?

If they exist within our universe, they are due to a phenomenon within our universe, regardless of how big or small they are. And it may be possible for photons with planck length wavelengths to exist, but they would just form black holes whenever they interact with anything. Judging from the fact that subatomic particles have exhibited no particular tendency to spontaneously convert into microscopic black holes, my guess is that such photons are not flying around in any notable quantity.

dapifo
2012-Jul-09, 10:53 PM
How? What does it simplify? What does it help explain?

Well...I think that it is very different to conceive the Universe... as an singular event... started by a Big-Bang...growing isotropically ...as a closed system... and in the end composed of indivisible strings... that with its vibrations cofigure all the paticles of this Universe.

That... to see Our Universe as one more of the billions that would be in the upper scale...which in turn forms part of another order of magnitude greater scale... and that they are open systems with interchance of energy and matter...and in the end composed of infinite entities without end.

To conceive concepts of our physical universe, which may only be valid in part of it (matter, gravitational , weak and strong fields, ...). and anothers who will be valid on several scales (EM field, ...), can help to expand horizons of a theory of everything.

I think it would be ingenuous to believe that the limits of the universe we know today is the last and absolute limits of the universe. This would mean that we already know almost everything (!?) ... And I do not believe we've begun to understand.

Shaula
2012-Jul-10, 05:26 AM
Do you think that the basic ideas of the doccument have any sense?... and that they could describe an wider Universe View?
No. There are simpler and more plausible speculations about the 'wider universe'. Since you put forwards no models, nothing other than some guesswork and fairly wild speculation there really is nothing, scientifically, to address here.


Do you can imagine or glimpse some possibe test to evidence its contents?... for both large and small scales?
No because your caveat "the laws of physics may be different" makes your idea non-falsifiable. Anything and everything can be evidence for your idea and nothing can disprove it because the laws of physics could be different in such a way as to make any observation work.


Well...I think that it is very different to conceive the Universe... as an singular event... started by a Big-Bang...growing isotropically ...as a closed system... and in the end composed of indivisible strings... that with its vibrations cofigure all the paticles of this Universe.
Current theory does not think the universe started with an actual bang. That is because current theory breaks down before the possible singularity. It also says nothing about the universe being all there is, it does not say it is closed. String theory is one of many speculations about what is the deeper theory beneath current models.

dapifo
2012-Jul-10, 09:05 PM
Current theory does not think the universe started with an actual bang. That is because current theory breaks down before the possible singularity.

What do you mean?

Well it is obvious that any body likes my proposal about teh 3D RAINBOW ...

When I say that different laws COULD govern in different ranges.... it is something real:

- Strong Field only govern in very small scales (aprox. 10 exp -18 to 10 exp -14)

- Weak Field only govern in small scales (aprox. 10 exp -14 to 10 exp -10)

- Gravity Field only govern in large scales (aprox. 10 exp -10 to 10 exp +30)

Shaula
2012-Jul-10, 11:40 PM
What do you mean?
Exactly what I said. Current theories break down at around a Plank time after the point at which all the lines of the graph converge. Essentially we have no idea how physics behaves at this point so we cannot use our models to make predictions. So we do not know if an actual transition from a singularity occurred. What the model says is that the observable universe expanded from a hot dense state that existed a finite time ago. It says little about things outside our observable universe, little about what happened around the nominal t=0 point.


When I say that different laws COULD govern in different ranges.... it is something real:
Nope. Forces have ranges, the have potentials. Gravity still has an effect at small scales - it is just dwarfed by other forces. The Strong force has an effect at large scales, it is just dwarfed by other forces. And you leave out EM forces which operate over all the scales you gave. Different laws do not apply.

dapifo
2012-Jul-11, 08:44 PM
Ok...do you really believe that the "Global (Whole) Universe" would have an start time?...and messured?

If not...then the Universe we know is not the "Global (Whole) Universe" ... it is only "Our Universe"


And OK...I agree that different forces fields (strong, weak, gravity,...) doesnīt desapear absolutly out of some ranges, but yes they follow an Gaussian function (possible asymmetric).

And I donīt leave out EM forces which operate over all the scales I gave... just for it !!!....and it can follow also Gaussian function but with sigma => infinite !!!

dapifo
2012-Jul-12, 06:42 PM
no news....bad news ????

tusenfem
2012-Jul-13, 06:03 AM
no news....bad news ????

No not really, it is basically that we don't understand what you want to know, what do you mean with the forces following a "gaussian funcition" (possibly asymmetric)? etc.
Do you mean the strength, the range etc.
if it is asymmetric, would it still be a gaussian?

Shaula
2012-Jul-14, 08:01 AM
Ok...do you really believe that the "Global (Whole) Universe" would have an start time?...and messured?
I believe current models do not give us insight into that.


And OK...I agree that different forces fields (strong, weak, gravity,...) doesnīt desapear absolutly out of some ranges, but yes they follow an Gaussian function (possible asymmetric).
No they don't. They follow inverse square laws or more complex Yukawa potentials.


And I donīt leave out EM forces which operate over all the scales I gave... just for it !!!....and it can follow also Gaussian function but with sigma => infinite !!!
The form of the EM field is the same as gravity with different sources of 'charge'. So your idea breaks down immediately. The reason gravity is weak at small scales is the fact that it has a low coupling constant. The reason it dominates at large scales is the lack of any neutralisation by opposite charges.

dapifo
2012-Jul-15, 09:30 PM
Yukawa potentials...are only valid for strong forces (and weak?).

I donīt know about coupling constant, but what I read doesnīt explain what I mean...they are another things !!!

I think that you doesnīt understand what I am trying to explain about scales...

Strong and weak forces doesnīt have any influence at large scales (10 exp +10 meters) ...or at least it is very few... because these forces are caused very small sources (quarks, protons,...)...and they have a very small range although they are very strong..

While the gravitational force (possibly generated in the Higgs boson), it has a longer range but it is weaker and works by accumulation.

Shaula
2012-Jul-15, 11:55 PM
I think that you doesnīt understand what I am trying to explain about scales...
Think you may find I do.


Yukawa potentials...are only valid for strong forces (and weak?).
Which is why if you read what I said... I mentioned the 1/r potential (which leads to the inverse square force laws)


Strong and weak forces doesnīt have any influence at large scales (10 exp +10 meters) ...or at least it is very few... because these forces are caused very small sources (quarks, protons,...)...and they have a very small range although they are very strong..
It has nothing to do with the size of the source. Each individual particle in the Moon contributes to its gravitational field so all the sources are pretty much the same size anyway. The Strong force has a short range due to the form of its potential. The EM and gravitational forces are so different due to a combination of coupling constants and charge neutralisation.


While the gravitational force (possibly generated in the Higgs boson), it has a longer range but it is weaker and works by accumulation.
Gravity does not have an inherently longer range than the EM force at all. It has a longer range than the weak mainly due to differences in the masses of its vector bosons. It has a longer range than the strong thanks to the different potentials. Your comment about the Higgs is wrong too. Gravity is a force. The bosons associated with the field (hypothetical, they have not ben observed) are gravitons. They have to be because you need a spin 2 vector boson to couple to the field (because it couples to stress-energy tensor, not a scalar factor like charge). The Higgs boson is related to the electroweak symmetry breaking and is the boson associated with the broken symmetry of the underlying electroweak field. It is why W/Z bosons have mass and photons do not. It is not 'the source of gravity'

dapifo
2012-Jul-17, 11:32 PM
Could you imagine what will happen (if it will exist) in a scale of 10 exp+100 meters?...which forces, fields, matters, waves,... will exist? ...the same than in Our Universe?

And in a scale of 10 exp+1000 meters?

cjameshuff
2012-Jul-17, 11:49 PM
Could you imagine what will happen (if it will exist) in a scale of 10 exp+100 meters?...which forces, fields, matters, waves,... will exist? ...the same than in Our Universe?

It is our universe.



And in a scale of 10 exp+1000 meters?

Why would it be any different?

You haven't yet given any reason to think that it is useful to consider events at a particularly large or small scale to be different "universes". You're not going to sidestep the need to address this issue by adding zeros to an exponent.

Shaula
2012-Jul-18, 12:43 AM
Could you imagine what will happen (if it will exist) in a scale of 10 exp+100 meters?...which forces, fields, matters, waves,... will exist? ...the same than in Our Universe?

And in a scale of 10 exp+1000 meters?
I don't need to imagine. I have a grounding in theories which tell me what we expect to happen and what evidence we would see if things were radically different. We see none of that evidence so there is reason to believe that the same basic laws apply at all scales.

dapifo
2012-Jul-18, 03:46 PM
You haven't yet given any reason to think that it is useful to consider events at a particularly large or small scale to be different "universes".

I'm surprised you did not see you do not see the value and interest to it.
The mere fact assume (accept) that there are these other scales and means to broaden the spectrum of the current concept of the universe.
Where we are no more than an observer who is in a particular band.
And where the scalar spectra move away (towards the large and small) of this band.
The fact that physical laws and fields may be somewhat different although based on the same principles, does not seem so strange.

We see none of that evidence so there is reason to believe that the same basic laws apply at all scales.

When I mean that fields and laws could be different, I donīt mean that they will be absolutly independent (!!).

But is clear now that the laws and fields are some different at scale of atoms (quantum physics) than at scale of galaxies, although they are dependent and are related by common roles.

ShinAce
2012-Jul-18, 05:18 PM
[B]The fact that physical laws and fields may be somewhat different although based on the same principles, does not seem so strange.


The foundation of physics goes like this: "The laws of physics are the same everywhere, everytime." This is what is accepted before a law is formulated. Not the other way around. This is what guided Einstein to formulate special relativity. Different laws seemed to behave differently, and he tried hard to make them universal, and succeeded.

Strange
2012-Jul-18, 05:31 PM
I'm surprised you did not see you do not see the value and interest to it.

Just because you think it interesting doesn't make it valuable.


The mere fact assume (accept) that there are these other scales and means to broaden the spectrum of the current concept of the universe.

But, as noted, there is no reason (i.e. evidence) to accept this. No one is just going to accept it because you think it is a good idea.

dapifo
2012-Jul-18, 09:05 PM
Strange...time no hear from you!!!!..... you are wellcome !!!!...what is the Order of Kilopi?

I donīt try that any body accept any thing....I just whant to discuss it in an educate and reasonable way... like untill now we are doing here....with intelligent and open people.

"The laws of physics are the same everywhere, everytime."

Possibly you had to say: should be...and I agree....there might be a global and single universal law... but in different scales it might work in different ways... like now do strong and weak forces vs gravity field... That sure they will be in the future unified under one law...but they hasnīt now...and they act in a different way at different scales...possible due to "coupling effect" (!!?).

dapifo
2012-Jul-18, 09:55 PM
Usually scientifics that do the laws of physics try to explain what happen in reality....using mathematics functions that approach to the observation of the real facts.

Some times this models could forsee also real facts... black holes, Higgs boson,...

But current physics laws are so good like they was the Aristoteles laws (F=m.v), before Newton change them (F=m.a), and Einstein inproved both (E=m.c^2).

My oppinion is that these laws are very good within Our Scale of Universe, but for larger sacales (and smaller??)...they could change and need other laws that encompass the previous ones.

Grashtel
2012-Jul-19, 01:27 PM
Strange...time no hear from you!!!!..... you are wellcome !!!!...what is the Order of Kilopi?
Its a status awarded to people who have made a certain number of posts on this forum (well BAUT pre-merger, I don't think anyone from CQX had enough anyway though), exactly what this number of posts is is a closely guarded secret but there is said to be a clue in the name itself and the number of the asteroid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3142_Kilopi) with the same name.

Strange
2012-Jul-19, 01:35 PM
Strange ...
"The laws of physics are the same everywhere, everytime."

Possibly you had to say...

I never said that.

tusenfem
2012-Jul-19, 03:32 PM
Strange...time no hear from you!!!!..... you are wellcome !!!!...what is the Order of Kilopi?

I donīt try that any body accept any thing....I just whant to discuss it in an educate and reasonable way... like untill now we are doing here....with intelligent and open people.

"The laws of physics are the same everywhere, everytime."

Possibly you had to say: should be...and I agree....there might be a global and single universal law... but in different scales it might work in different ways... like now do strong and weak forces vs gravity field... That sure they will be in the future unified under one law...but they hasnīt now...and they act in a different way at different scales...possible due to "coupling effect" (!!?).


dapifo please do NOT put words in people's mouth. Actually it was ShinAce who used this sentence.
And in order to keep the discussion understandable use the reply with quote button when you reply to comments.
Just picking out sentences as you have been doing and bolding them is not the way to go, as you use bold all the time for things you say yourself.

dapifo
2012-Jul-19, 07:18 PM
ShinAce (Established Member) did....and it was a reply to him...http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/136051-How-to-detect-DC-EM-waves-with-wavelengh-larger-than-10-exp-10-meters?p=2045297#post2045297

I still donīt know to do multi-Quotes to different people (!!?)...too complex for me !!!

dapifo
2012-Jul-19, 07:25 PM
dapifo please do NOT put words in people's mouth. Actually it was ShinAce who used this sentence.
And in order to keep the discussion understandable use the reply with quote button when you reply to comments.
Just picking out sentences as you have been doing and bolding them is not the way to go, as you use bold all the time for things you say yourself.


I donīt know how to do multy-quote of different people in one reply (???)...how I can do it?

I only know to reply one person every time....deleting the parts I donīt need....if necessary

ShinAce
2012-Jul-19, 07:30 PM
ShinAce (Established Member) did....and it was a reply to him...

If your reply is maybe someday, somehow, unicorns will unify physics, that's fine. It's not a reply that's going to affect any working physicist, though.

Strange
2012-Jul-19, 07:53 PM
I still donīt know to do multi-Quotes to different people (!!?)...too complex for me !!!

There is a little ["+] button at the bottom right of each post. Tick that for each of the posts you want to include in a reply.

tusenfem
2012-Jul-19, 07:55 PM
thanks for the tip, strange

dapifo
2012-Jul-19, 08:28 PM
Remember......

17313

....no comment...!!!

dapifo
2012-Jul-19, 08:33 PM
OK...and after push + of several post....what more?

Strange
2012-Jul-19, 08:44 PM
Remember......

....no comment...!!!

There is no controversy. Are you suggesting we should teach "random stuff made up by some guy on the Internet" alongside proper science?

dapifo
2012-Jul-19, 09:02 PM
There is a little ["+] button at the bottom right of each post. Tick that for each of the posts you want to include in a reply.

OK...I did !!!


thanks for the tip, strange

OK !!!


There is no controversy. Are you suggesting we should teach "random stuff made up by some guy on the Internet" alongside proper science?

No..only the possibility of discussing...and trying to look for the "pros & cons"

With some answers I have the same feelinglike we're arguing that the limits of the earth pours the water of the seas.

Sometimes, to see beyond, we must move away as possible. And not everybody has this capacity for abstraction, without moving from where he is.

dapifo
2012-Jul-20, 02:35 PM
It is You haven't yet given any reason to think that it is useful to consider events at a particularly large or small scale to be different "universes".

Yes I did...but you didnīt refute them:

- The mere fact assume (accept) that there are these other scales it means to broaden the spectrum of the current concept of the universe.
- There we are no more than an observer who is in a particular band/level/range.
- The scalar spectra move away (towards the large and small) of this central band/level/range.
- The fact that physical laws and fields may be somewhat different although based on the same principles, does not seem so strange.
- To see Our Universe as one more of the billions that would be in the upper scale...which in turn forms part of another order of magnitude greater scale... and that they are open systems with interchance of energy and matter...and in the end composed of infinite entities without end.

To conceive these concepts of our physical universe, can help to expand horizons of a theory of everything.

I think it would be ingenuous to believe that the limits of the universe we know today is the last and absolute limits of the universe. This would mean that we already know almost everything (!?) ... And I do not believe we've begun to understand.


I have a grounding in theories which tell me what we expect to happen and what evidence we would see if things were radically different. We see none of that evidence so there is reason to believe that the same basic laws apply at all scales.

I have not the slightest interest to challenge the existing physical laws, but extend their influence within and conceive that they can be part of a much larger universe.

As you accept..100 year ago we didnīt know about strong and weak fields !!!....would you have said the same thing then?....was the other two forces (gravity and EM) enough for you then?

If you are able to insight a wider framework... then it will be easyer to forsee news things (fields, waves,...)

Look following picture:

17317

Strange
2012-Jul-20, 02:56 PM
- The mere fact assume (accept) that there are these other scales it means to broaden the spectrum of the current concept of the universe.

But there is no reason (i.e. evidence) to "assume (accept)" this idea.


- There we are no more than an observer who is in a particular band/level/range.

We can look at all and any "band/level/range", limited only by technology. You have provided no evidence to the contrary beyond "what if".


- The scalar spectra move away (towards the large and small) of this central band/level/range.

I have no idea what that means. (But I bet there is no evidence for it.)


- The fact that physical laws and fields may be somewhat different although based on the same principles, does not seem so strange.

It may not seem strange (to you) but there is no evidence for it.


- To see Our Universe as one more of the billions that would be in the upper scale...which in turn forms part of another order of magnitude greater scale... and that they are open systems with interchance of energy and matter...and in the end composed of infinite entities without end.

Well, there are lots of hypotheses and speculation about multiverses of various kinds. But there is no evidence for any of them. And by definition there cannot be.


To conceive these concepts of our physical universe, can help to expand horizons of a theory of everything.

Not if the concepts have no meaning (and no evidence).


This would mean that we already know almost everything (!?)

No it wouldn't. There is a vast amount still to understand. We don't need to make stuff up, there are enough real problems to solve (based on evidence).


As you accept..100 year ago we didnīt know about strong and weak fields

Because we didn't have the required evidence. (Do you begin to see a pattern here?)


Look following picture:

Look up pareidolia: https://www.google.com/search?q=pareidolia&tbm=isch

Something looking like something else is not evidence (especially when those two things are already well understood).

Shaula
2012-Jul-20, 04:07 PM
The fact that physical laws and fields may be somewhat different although based on the same principles, does not seem so strange.
I have repeatedly refuted this idea. I have given you explanations, where it would affect current models and an idea of the limitations imposed on any new physics by observation. You have just chosen to ignore them. Or do the classic unscientific "Well maybe the laws are such that they avoid that problem" - which is impossible and pointless to argue against.

tusenfem
2012-Jul-20, 05:04 PM
Yes I did...but you didnīt refute them:

- The mere fact assume (accept) that there are these other scales it means to broaden the spectrum of the current concept of the universe.
- There we are no more than an observer who is in a particular band/level/range.
- The scalar spectra move away (towards the large and small) of this central band/level/range.
- The fact that physical laws and fields may be somewhat different although based on the same principles, does not seem so strange.
- To see Our Universe as one more of the billions that would be in the upper scale...which in turn forms part of another order of magnitude greater scale... and that they are open systems with interchance of energy and matter...and in the end composed of infinite entities without end.

To conceive these concepts of our physical universe, can help to expand horizons of a theory of everything.

I think it would be ingenuous to believe that the limits of the universe we know today is the last and absolute limits of the universe. This would mean that we already know almost everything (!?) ... And I do not believe we've begun to understand.



Okay, it is clear you are not here to ask questions but to promote your ideas about scales, which are clearly ATM. This thread is closed here, if you think you can defend your ideas then take it to the ATM section.
Thread closed.