The Scientific Curiosity Thread!

Known_Unknown

Devil's Advocate
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
2,626
Likes
1,670
Nope he'll revolve because he is not free from other forces no matter how far he is from other bodies. So he'll slowly revolve in a spiral towards the Sun.
Also, suppose he did get very far away from the Earth's gravitational field. How did he do that? He must have an escape velocity. So he is in motion initially, which means he is not at rest, which means he won't go straight into the Sun.
Suppose we picked him up and dropped him at a half-way point between Earth and Mars. You're right that he's not completely free of all forces, but for all intents and purposes, the gravitational pull of other planets could be assumed to be negligible. The strongest gravitational force acting on him then would be the Sun, probably 99% of the total sum of all G forces. Now this force acts inward straight towards the Sun!

Even if we assume that all the other G forces are not negligible, for them to be significant, they must contribute to keeping this astronaut in a specific linear path away from the Sun, which can then be exactly counteracted by the Sun's gravity, resulting in an elliptical orbit. That seems rather farfetched considering the variables involved!
 

Razor

STABLE GENIUS
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
7,701
Likes
9,099
Country flag
Suppose we picked him up and dropped him at a half-way point between Earth and Mars. You're right that he's not completely free of all forces, but for all intents and purposes, the gravitational pull of other planets could be assumed to be negligible. The strongest gravitational force acting on him then would be the Sun, probably 99% of the total sum of all G forces. Now this force acts inward straight towards the Sun!

Even if we assume that all the other G forces are not negligible, for them to be significant, they must contribute to keeping this astronaut in a specific linear path away from the Sun, which can then be exactly counteracted by the Sun's gravity, resulting in an elliptical orbit. That seems rather farfetched considering the variables involved!
:hmm: I think you re right. :)
 

Known_Unknown

Devil's Advocate
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
2,626
Likes
1,670
^^I think the reason we see the solar system the way it is today is probably the result of the end of a long process. In the beginning, there must have been planets and solid bodies flying off in all directions under the influence of each other's gravity as well as their initial momentum gained during their formation. During billions of years, these "rogue" planetary bodies were probably swallowed by the Sun, others may have ended up as moons of Jupiter and Saturn, and yet others probably got ejected from the solar system. At least one more broke up into millions of little bits of rock in an orbit between Mars and Jupiter, which we call the asteroid belt.

What was left over was a system of 9 planets with stable orbits, possibly out of 100's of initial planetoids. These 9 planets are all in the same plane more or less, and all had a similar type of initial motion, which, when counteracted with the Sun's gravity, kept them in orbit. :)
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
If I remember right, it's centrifugal force.

Consider a ball attached to a string being whirled around by your hand. At a particular point of time, if I were to cut the string with my katana, the ball would fly away, taking a tangential path. The reason why the ball moves away in a tangential path is because, of inertia. The direction of the ball is being changed at every instant by the force applied by your hand (via string). So I believe, the centrifugal force is basically the inertia that tries to keep the ball moving in the direction it was moving in, at the previous instant.

With respect to the planets, I suppose the gravitational pull of the Sun tries to pull the planets (and other bodies) toward itself, in a spiral path (which creates a centrifugal force), and supposedly these forces balance each other out, giving us a near elliptical orbit.

Edit: I think, this is a great idea. I propose this be made a 'Sticky'.
Scientific awareness and quenching of curiosity is always a good thing. :)
Johannes Kepler: The Laws of Planetary Motion
 

Known_Unknown

Devil's Advocate
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
2,626
Likes
1,670
Another question, this time related to quantum mechanics: If all matter is made of electrons, and electrons can be present in multiple places at the same time, then why do humans, which are also made of electrons and protons, not have the ability to be present in multiple places at the same time? :notsure:
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Another question, this time related to quantum mechanics: If all matter is made of electrons, and electrons can be present in multiple places at the same time, then why do humans, which are also made of electrons and protons, not have the ability to be present in multiple places at the same time? :notsure:
It is a question of scale, is it not?
 

Known_Unknown

Devil's Advocate
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
2,626
Likes
1,670
It is a question of scale, is it not?
The properties of matter cannot be changed by scale alone. 1 molecule of Iron will have the same hardness, melting point, spectral properties etc as 1 billion or 1 trillion molecules of Iron.

In addition, this ability to be present in multiple places is not limited to electrons, but also observed in much larger molecules made of tens of atoms each containing tens of electrons.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
The properties of matter cannot be changed by scale alone. 1 molecule of Iron will have the same hardness, melting point, spectral properties etc as 1 billion or 1 trillion molecules of Iron.

In addition, this ability to be present in multiple places is not limited to electrons, but also observed in much larger molecules made of tens of atoms each containing tens of electrons.
Then I would have to say it is a question of scale and of extent of complexity of structure, from elemental particles to molecules to cells, tissues, organs and so forth..
 

Razor

STABLE GENIUS
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
7,701
Likes
9,099
Country flag
Another question, this time related to quantum mechanics: If all matter is made of electrons, and electrons can be present in multiple places at the same time, then why do humans, which are also made of electrons and protons, not have the ability to be present in multiple places at the same time? :notsure:
Does it have something to do with the uncertainty principle ? :notsure:
 
Last edited:

Known_Unknown

Devil's Advocate
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
2,626
Likes
1,670
Does it have something to do with the uncertainty principle ?
The Uncertainty Principle is fantastic. :D I never completely understood it when I studied physics....it leads to mind-boggling conclusions like for example that an electron under observation is everywhere at the same time, yet nowhere in particular. It only exists at a single point once we "look" at it. So our act of observation is what makes the electron "exist". :rofl:
 

Razor

STABLE GENIUS
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
7,701
Likes
9,099
Country flag
The Uncertainty Principle is fantastic. :D I never completely understood it when I studied physics....it leads to mind-boggling conclusions like for example that an electron under observation is everywhere at the same time, yet nowhere in particular. It only exists at a single point once we "look" at it. So our act of observation is what makes the electron "exist". :rofl:
Yup. I admire that principle too. It prevents achievement of perfection in measurement and observation. It's the universe's way of telling sapient lifeforms, "Bitch please".

I believe the "electrons at multiple locations" phenomenon you refer to, has something to do with a double slit experiment. And if I remember right, when the electron is observed, it appears to pass through one slit, if not observed , it passes through both slits. Though I'm not sure why.
Maybe @Dovah knows something.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dovah

Untermensch
Senior Member
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
5,614
Likes
6,793
Country flag
Yeah, that experiment was a mind----, it's implications are immense. If the act of observation can change the nature of electron/energy then extending that logic, wouldn't this apply to the physical reality too? And if our reality dependent on the observer(us), isn't empiricism moot and isn't this what the Eastern schools of philosophy have been saying all along, one with everything and shit.......

Aslo read, Quantum Entanglement.

Quantum entanglement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People who have played Mass Effect 2 would be aware of how it works......
 

Dovah

Untermensch
Senior Member
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
5,614
Likes
6,793
Country flag
And if I remember right, when the electron is observed, it appears to pass through one slit, if not observed , it passes through both slits. Though I'm not sure why.
Dude, no one knows. Scientific mystery still.
 

opesys

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
279
Likes
138
The Uncertainty Principle is fantastic. :D I never completely understood it when I studied physics....it leads to mind-boggling conclusions like for example that an electron under observation is everywhere at the same time, yet nowhere in particular. It only exists at a single point once we "look" at it. So our act of observation is what makes the electron "exist". :rofl:
I think this is not what the uncertainty principle is... This is wave mechanics which was first imagined by Erwin Schrodinger. The uncertainty principle says it is not possible to measure both the position and the velocity of a particle at the same time...explanation is something this-In order to see a particle you will have shine light on it and if you shine light on it, it will gain energy and move away from that position...
 

opesys

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
279
Likes
138
Another question, this time related to quantum mechanics: If all matter is made of electrons, and electrons can be present in multiple places at the same time, then why do humans, which are also made of electrons and protons, not have the ability to be present in multiple places at the same time? :notsure:
It is a question of scale, is it not?

This is an interesting experiment and the physicist asks the same exact question in the end..

Quantum Breakthrough Stuns World - Quantum Mechanical effect on Macro scale object - YouTube
 
Last edited:

spikey360

Crusader
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
3,525
Likes
6,582
Country flag
Another question, this time related to quantum mechanics: If all matter is made of electrons, and electrons can be present in multiple places at the same time, then why do humans, which are also made of electrons and protons, not have the ability to be present in multiple places at the same time? :notsure:
That's a wrong notion you've got there. Electrons cannot be present in multiple places at the same time. It has one position at one point in time. But HUP states that such a position cannot be determined with absolute precision because it is not possible to determine both position and velocity with absolute certainty for an electron. Visualise this. Say you have two kinds of balls, tennis balls(photons) and footballs(electrons). Suppose you have to measure the position and velocity of a football using a tennis ball. How'd you go about it? One way to go about is, to throw the tennis ball in your hand with a known velocity towards the football, that way, when it comes back, you again measure the tennis ball's velocity and time it took to come back. Thereby you are able to calculate the position and velocity of the football too. Right?
But here's the catch.
By the time you've caught the tennis ball, the football has already moved from its previous position.
Why?
Because the tennis ball imparted some of its energy to the football and changed its inertia. So, the football isn't present at many places, it's just present in someplace you're not sure/certain of. Thus, the uncertainty.
Similarly when a photon strikes an electron, the photon imparts some energy to it and the electron assumes a new position. Thus, there is an uncertainty in the position of the electron by the time you've detected the photon. The uncertainty is a function of the energy in the photon.
This, in brief is HUP; Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

As for quantum phenomenon not being observable in macro scale, the answer is very clear. The results of classical mechanics and quantum mechanics are congruent on the macro scale. Meaning, when a large number of quantum units are involved, the whole system behaves in a manner similar to classical dynamics. hence, humans cannot be present in multiple places at the same time.

The Uncertainty Principle is fantastic. :D I never completely understood it when I studied physics....it leads to mind-boggling conclusions like for example that an electron under observation is everywhere at the same time, yet nowhere in particular. It only exists at a single point once we "look" at it. So our act of observation is what makes the electron "exist". :rofl:
No, precisely speaking, the act of observation does not make the electron 'exist' per se. We are just uncertain how it exists. Through observation, it has been found that electrons are able to behave both like waves and like matter. Therefore, without observation, we cannot say with certainty in what form an electron is at a definite point in time.

Yup. I admire that principle too. It prevents achievement of perfection in measurement and observation. It's the universe's way of telling sapient lifeforms, "Bitch please".

I believe the "electrons at multiple locations" phenomenon you refer to, has something to do with a double slit experiment. And if I remember right, when the electron is observed, it appears to pass through one slit, if not observed , it passes through both slits. Though I'm not sure why.
Maybe @Dovah knows something.
The double slit experiment only shows that the light has the property of wave nature. Young's double slit experiment has not much to do with electrons. But yes, you can look up the Davisson and Germer experiment, that one deals with electrons.
No, the electron does not pass through one or both slits. It simply means that electrons act both as waves and as matter. When the electrons are detected, the matter properties are exhibited. When it passes through the slits, the wave properties.

Source: High-school Physics. Resnick, Haliday and Walker: Fundamentals of Physics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dovah

Untermensch
Senior Member
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
5,614
Likes
6,793
Country flag
No, precisely speaking, the act of observation does not make the electron 'exist' per se. We are just uncertain how it exists. Through observation, it has been found that electrons are able to behave both like waves and like matter. Therefore, without observation, we cannot say with certainty in what form an electron is at a definite point in time.
The double slit experiment only shows that the light has the property of wave nature. Young's double slit experiment has not much to do with electrons.
The slit experiment was yet again carried out in 1961 with electrons. The results were this, when the electrons were shot through the slit one at a time they interfered with themselves to produce the interference spectrum implying that the electron passed through both the slits, that is behaved like waves.However, when camera(observer) was placed near the slits the electrons started behaving as particles and a pattern corresponding to particles was obtained. Thus the act of observation altered the behaviour of the electron and forced it to choose which slit to pass through.
 

spikey360

Crusader
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
3,525
Likes
6,582
Country flag
The slit experiment was yet again carried out in 1961 with electrons. The results were this, when the electrons were shot through the slit one at a time they interfered with themselves to produce the interference spectrum implying that the electron passed through both the slits, that is behaved like waves.However, when camera(observer) was placed near the slits the electrons started behaving as particles and a pattern corresponding to particles was obtained. Thus the act of observation altered the behaviour of the electron and forced it to choose which slit to pass through.
Yeah, the Davisson and Germer experiment in 1961, wasn't it?
Yes, absolutely, the act of observation altered the behaviour of the electron and it collapsed to one of the many states.

Talking about collapsing into states, anyone interested in discussing Schrodinger's Cat?
Can a cat be alive and dead at the same time? Thoughts, anyone?
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Another question, this time related to quantum mechanics: If all matter is made of electrons, and electrons can be present in multiple places at the same time, then why do humans, which are also made of electrons and protons, not have the ability to be present in multiple places at the same time? :notsure:
I think there is a similar hypothesis that there is a probability, however small, that because of the nature of sub-atomic particles, a human could walk through a wall if the timing were right.:confused:
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top