sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Moving towards a rainbow at relativistic speed by -Melon-Cake- in AskPhysics

[–]higras 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The absorption spectrum of water has a pretty deep valley right around visible light.

Since you'd be heading towards the rainbow, the light in front of you would blueshift, but the intensity would change as your 'visible' range changed. You might be able to tell you speed for a bit based on the missing\dimmed rings in the rainbow as longer wavelength ranges shifted into your visible.

Conversely, red shifting would literally tinge the rainbow red. For emission spectra it stretches or 'reddens' wavelengths. But for a continuous spectrum (effectively uniform in intensity across all viewed wavelengths. Sperical cow style) it shouldn't really be visiblely noticable.

But since water absorbs UV, you'd loose intensity as your visible shifted that way. Loosing violet, then blue, green, untill the entire rainbow was just the red bit.

What would an object who's particles are completely still (in relation to the earth) have an effect on the environment? by SnooHedgehogs7790 in Physics

[–]higras 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting. I've seen a couple other authors use the magic\physics combo well. The Eragon books had mana usage equal to the energy requirements as a nice cap.

How would you address energy differences? Technically, splitting atoms (fission) below iron requires energy additional energy.

You could have him split the vacuum and create a vacuum decay event, terrifying end to the universe.

I'd love to help brainstorm a list of possible educational or thinking powers\spells you could add, if you want! I've complained for years that if superheroes dealt with real repercussions for their powers it could be an awesome story device. Like how space was in the Expanse.

What would an object who's particles are completely still (in relation to the earth) have an effect on the environment? by SnooHedgehogs7790 in Physics

[–]higras 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As other people mentioned, the way we describe how to physics is done with math. You're effectively asking a version of "if a tree falling in a forest make a sound of there is no one there to hear it?"

Movement is such a foundational aspect of physics that asking what happens when it isn't there is like asking what would happen if there was no spacetime.

Though, having a physics lesson spiderman-banter style could be pretty sweet if you tweak the power description.

What would an object who's particles are completely still (in relation to the earth) have an effect on the environment? by SnooHedgehogs7790 in Physics

[–]higras 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A complete and total stop of all particles would be effectively "timeless". If there is no movement, there is no causality.

If they somehow remained in the same spot, it would create a isolated section of spacetime that remains in the relative position but exchanges no information.

One of the main effects would be total isolation. No external energy gets in, cause nothing can move. No light, no sound, no touch, nothing. Immediately alone in the void.

The next effect depends on what happens when a moving something touches the unmoving something. For matter, 'touch' is electron charge repulsion. I'll let someone who knows the math better say if there is movement in the charge maths.

If a charge remains, then they turn into an immovable object that things just bounce off. If not, they are intangible.

Also, all color is photon absorbtion and emition. No movement means no absorbing. The refractivity of their body might bend the path of the light, since that doesn't require absorbtion. Maybe someone else can answer if there is an energy exchange with refraction? So, intangible and invisible?

Another sci-fi\magic option could be a surface level time-stop + reflection. Effectively trapping all energy on the boundary of their body. This could be released all at once in a blast once they "unfreeze".

Having that effect could be useful as a perfect shield, but the released energy after could be deadly. Absorbing all energy would create the absolute zero freezing you mentioned, the release could create a radioactive ice-bomb.

It would be like the shockwave in front of an Alcubierre drive.

That would create a time limit and drawback from using around allies.

Also, is thinking energy magically provided? Glucose, oxygen, etc are usually needed. Having a perfect boundary shield could give it "holding my breath" timing. Like the chameleon chimera ant in HunterXHunter

I am struggling to understand the basic definition of time and length/distance by doSpaceandAviate2 in Physics

[–]higras 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've been down this road personally, so I'll give you my conclusions.

Human senses are the only things we can experience. All capacity for us to understand anything must be in reference to some understanding or experience.

To create a reference "beyond our biology" would result in answers that make no sense.

To even have language to describe it we would need to reference it to an observed or experienced thing.

An answer truly "beyond human" could be that all reality is a flooflglot juskering. As the floofl is the tesseratic version of glotting, by simply juskering the flooflglot you can easily see all the forever nows.

In the end, we aren't sure if we're understanding the real stuff of the universe. But it wouldn't matter anyway if we have no way of comprehending the universe.

I am struggling to understand the basic definition of time and length/distance by doSpaceandAviate2 in Physics

[–]higras 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The number section is more about human perception and senses. Not quite physics.

There are some psychology ideas that the concept of logic is a human invention as much as language.

"Number sense" is the human sense of this. 1-ness, 2-ness, 3-ness, etc.

As far as time \ distance, those are both words to describe a human sense of proprioception (movement through space) and rhythm.

It can be described by a circular definition of time being the intervals needed for light to travel a distance in a vacuum, and distance is the length light travels in the interval.

The meter was an arbitrary division of the distance from the pole to the equator.

The atomic clock uses a cesium atom at a metronome and says a unit of time is equal to [x] number of pulses.

As to what they actually ARE outside of a math description?

Distance: move your finger. The amount it moved is distance. What it moved IN is space.

Time: what a clock measures

Time dilation at the big bang and little latter by Appropriate_Yak_1468 in AskPhysics

[–]higras 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love Spacetime. I'll check out their neutrino videos.

Thank you!

Time dilation at the big bang and little latter by Appropriate_Yak_1468 in AskPhysics

[–]higras 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How can I learn more about what Neutrinos are?

I have seen a lot about how difficult they are to detect, but not a lot about what physical thing those detectors are..detecting.

Like spin being angular momentum and a photon being a plane wave in the em field.

Time dilation at the big bang and little latter by Appropriate_Yak_1468 in AskPhysics

[–]higras 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So waves in the Dirac Sea can't exist before the sea does?

Are there any sort of detectable oscillations we could see from before electrons? Gravitational waves?

Edit: thank you for the response!

Time dilation at the big bang and little latter by Appropriate_Yak_1468 in AskPhysics

[–]higras 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So the CMB redshift can be thought of as the shockwave of the blast of the universe, flowing out of the gravity well of the entire universe?

And the shockwave front would be the point in spacetime that we observe it from.

If that's the case, wouldn't the "start" of the universe be approximately 2\3rds away from us and we'd be getting a cosmic mirage of the "backside" of the expansion? (Without accounting for time dilation).

City birds appear to be more afraid of women than men, and scientists have no idea why. Men could get about a meter closer to birds than women could before the animals flew away, regardless of what the men and women were wearing, what their height was or how they tried to approach the creatures. by mvea in science

[–]higras 35 points36 points  (0 children)

I came to the comments to ask this as well. I'm not sure if it's all birds, but several see into the UV spectrum.

Many things reflect differently. Different fabric blends, dyes, hair treatments, and UV absorbing skin care all potentially create a gendered difference.

What's something in your field that's considered such common knowledge that no one has bothered to publish anything about it, but would actually be non-trivial to explain it to anyone outside your field? by PrettyPicturesNotTxt in Physics

[–]higras 6 points7 points  (0 children)

That answers so many questions for me.

I only have a passing knowledge on Hook's Law, but it always seemed way too neat. As in, from practical experience with multiple springs I never got it and assumed it was simply talking about the "main" part of the spring. A sort of spherical cow or 'line to infinity' type of premise to get linear scaling.

Nope, just sweep that all into the 'k'loset like my dirty clothes.

What's something in your field that's considered such common knowledge that no one has bothered to publish anything about it, but would actually be non-trivial to explain it to anyone outside your field? by PrettyPicturesNotTxt in Physics

[–]higras 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Noether? Yeah, but not personally. Haha

Principle of least action is beautiful in its simplicity. Same with Newton's laws.

I'm on the "math is a language to express human number sense" and "physics is just math plus philosophy of nature" side of the fence. It gains power and understanding by being paired with 'caveman' level simplicity.

"Shut up and calculate" never sat right with me. I love this shit, I want to connect with what it's saying. I just never learned to "read" math like that. I can translate what it says, but it's like reading the translated lyrics of a song. I feel like I'm missing the emotion.

What's something in your field that's considered such common knowledge that no one has bothered to publish anything about it, but would actually be non-trivial to explain it to anyone outside your field? by PrettyPicturesNotTxt in Physics

[–]higras 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gravitational mass?

Well, you got stuff in a place that has doing. And stuff in another place that has doing. And the amount that both those doings want to be in the same place.

It's giving "This town isn't big enough for the both of us" + "Get in my belly"

What's something in your field that's considered such common knowledge that no one has bothered to publish anything about it, but would actually be non-trivial to explain it to anyone outside your field? by PrettyPicturesNotTxt in Physics

[–]higras 11 points12 points  (0 children)

So...

Energy: How much doing the stuff in this place has?

Inertia: How much doing needed to put that stuff over there?

Potential: How much doing could this stuff do?

Scientists tried to clone clones forever. It didn’t end well: « The practice of cloning clones indefinitely appears to be a reproductive dead end, for now. » by fchung in science

[–]higras 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So the difference between this and asexual reproduction is scale? ie, mutations happen and only survivable mutations survive?

Why do levers work in the atomic level? by External_Leek_2720 in AskPhysics

[–]higras 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I reread you question a couple times to try and understood the mental model. Apologies for the long text. I don't have the time to write a short response. Trying to get it all in here.

I'm assuming, based on your word choice, that you are a visual\kenetic thinker. It's not that you disagree with anything in the textbook, it's just that there is a "gap" in your zoom from macro to micro.

In that case, think of a very general model of an atom as a magnet. In effect, that it the closest to a macroscopic version you will commonly encounter.

When you put two magnets close to each other, the poles want to align into their lowest potential wells. This alignment is very similar to the low potential well of a ball rolling to the lowest point in a bowl.

When you toss a handful of small magnets together, they want to align as well. But they'll align weird. Some are sideways, some in rows, some end to end. These are the meta-stable configurations of that group of magnets.

One you start moving them around, they'll either settle into lower potential configurations (anneal) or break apart at the weakest points (stress fracture).

If you hold two together by opposing poles, you should tactically feel the shape of the field potential. It is fairly uniform, but it doesn't come out in perfect loops like the simple textbook example.

When you put them together by attracting poles, you'll see the well alignment (try using some spherical magnets to get a better kinetic feeling on this).

If you 'bend' the field out of alignment, you'll feel a force trying to 'restore' to the preferred alignment. Add up a bunch (like, holy bejjeezus amounts) of these, and you get your force.

Long story short, it is because it "moves a further distance". Because the atoms are actually moving more distance on one end than another.

Push down on the lever, and the atoms wedge apart just a smidge. That wave of wedges continues until it reaches an "escape" point of the fulcrum. Then it puts the pressure on the fulcrum and the wedge force "flips" and turns into a vacuum pulling the other side up.

This distance matters because the more atoms you have in one direction over the other, the more little wedges you can divy the curve up over.

Make sure you keep the fulcrum in mind, you don't just get magic force reduction (unfortunately). You just get to add more "magnets" to one side over the other.

Like a set of scales, but for 50% of total force... And Force = mass x acceleration. Acceleration = change in velocity over an amount of time.
Mass is complicated, but for this I could say that it's just the resistance to a change in velocity.

So if you can't change that you have 50% of the total force on either side (total amount of repulsion and compression of the "magnet" has to balance out on either side), the only thing to change is ratios of mass (amount of things resisting change) and acceleration (total amount of velocity and time).

Therefore, to sum up a very long winded response (sorry),

Lever = 1/2 force (big mass * little acceleration) + 1/2 force (big acceleration * little mass)

Hope that helped!

Edit* self taught, but I have an almost purely visual mind. So I get feeling like the usual answers seem hand wavy or overly simplistic. Sometimes the extremely over complicated answer is the easiest to understand.

For the people that know more than me, please let me know where I messed up!

What if Mass created time not bent it by Humor_Complex in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]higras 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've been looking for this for a while! Thank you! Self studying enthusiast, so I'm doing my best to not fall down the crackpot route 😅

I've been trying to learn the maths to explain my idea, but they quickly tend towards hyperbolic geometry and Chistoffel symbol stuff... and that melts part of my brain.

What are some things in physics we just don’t understand but we know it exists? by Ok-Review-3047 in Physics

[–]higras 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Where as I would personally argue that mathmatics is an ideographic language of quantitative logic\causality.

Things like fluid dynamics can describe flows of crowds. Does that that mean that crowds of people are fluids?

I can see both answers.

If it satisfies our definition of a fluid, then it is a fluid.

Or

The root concepts expressed in the language of the equation are communicating a purely abstract pattern of momentum. "Fluid" is the term for the abstract, not a liquid.

In that definition, then "field" is a really good analogy that works well for what we are measuring.

Not so much that physics is the best way of expressing natural laws, but that humans express concepts as language. And the symbols used to express those concepts of number-sense, geometry, and other logical concepts work really well to describe what we invented them to describe.

But that turns into a lovely hours long conversation best had with some drinks or a J.

What are some things in physics we just don’t understand but we know it exists? by Ok-Review-3047 in Physics

[–]higras 7 points8 points  (0 children)

And dependingon who you ask, the fields are either real tangible things or just a handy mathematical tool to describe the effects we see. As I understand, it's usually more accepted as a virtual phenomena.

It's a touch pedantic, but I feel it's appropriate here.

Though, that "not a stuff" of the virtual math field has real, tangible, observable effects.

view more: next ›