|
|
Posted on 01/21/2005 8:45:03 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
As it turns out, the only object which can have exerted a non-negligible force on the Andromeda galaxy is the Milky Way galaxy, and the direction of the force is towards us. I can state without doubt or qualification that the Andromeda galaxy is moving towards us at this instant.
Michio Kaku Bump!
> My website's thesis is that the advancement of science needs a Creator
Uh, sure. Oddly enough, the advancement of science often enough is driven by non-Christians.
What you seem to be doing isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's sort of like advertising, isn't it? And isn't advertising something one usually pays for?
Best regards...
Are you calling yourself a "little invisible demon"? ;^)
I understand the the way it is from even high school physics, and the geometry is indeed basic, but to me it still seems fundamentally odd that a force (gravitational or electromagnetic attraction) in a 3D space has a 2D mathematical solution.
Nice diagram, by the way !
I meant books.
But you knew that.
Nice diagram, by the way !
Yes, it is, indeed.
As for your further question about the inverse-square law, I don't know enough physics to answer it. But I googled around a bit and found the following explanation by a physicist who calls himself jeff. To find his post, scroll just about half-way down the page and look for the heading
jeff - Photons as the electric field. Question.
jeff's explanation applies to the electromagnetic interaction, but I surmise that there's a similar Lagrangian density for the gravitational interaction (maybe Physicist can help us out on that?). And I should add (as if it weren't obvious) that I'm unable to vouch for the complete accuracy of jeff's response. So it's caveat emptor, as usual.
Anyway, I've edited jeff's explanation in a few places because FR's HTML parser choked on some of the needed HTML tags—my edits are inside the square brackets:
Inverse square laws are a consequence of the structure of tree amplitudes for the exchange of bosons that result from the fact that the lagrangian densities involve two powers of the spacetime derivative. In momentum space, the relevant part of the energy E of interaction between electrically charged particles at x1 and x2 following from these amplitudes is
E = [a constant multiple of the integral of a Lagrangian density over 3-space] = – (1 / (4pir))e – mr
where r [is defined to be] |x1 – x2| [which is the distance between x1 and x2]. Setting the mass m equal to zero for the photon in the case of the electromagnetic interaction and computing [the partial derivative of E with respect to r] yields the familiar inverse square law of coulomb for the electromagnetic force.
If you've had a little calculus, you might recall that the (ordinary) derivative of – (1 / r) with respect to r is 1 / r2, the reciprocal of the square of r, i.e., an inverse square.
You asked a question that isn't completely trivial to answer. And, while it's true that the question has only really been answered for those who fully understand the physics which lies behind jeff's answer, which leaves me out, your question was still a good one.
I meant books.But you knew that.
Yeah, I knew that. But I knew you'd know I knew that... (grin)
I presume you were banned because you use FR to get hits on your website?
There is no evidence. Private opinions don't count.
Well, on a large scale, yes, the distant galaxies are receding from us. But on a smaller scale, galaxies form clusters, bound by their mutual gravitation. Some are even colliding. Our galaxy is part of something I've seen called the "local group." I don't think the local group is flying apart.
That's right, after a few billion more years, 150 billion or so, all the galaxies will have departed beyond the horizon, except the 36 in the local group. We in the 36 will get to watch each other red out due to age and then fade to black leaving nothing but a smile.
Ahhh yas... the old inverse square law... I know it well yas...
I heard part of the broadcast too, parallel universes and alternate histories have always fascinated me, but until we get the ability to make a "sliding device" that is about the size of my grandfather's 1953 Philco "All American 5 tube" portable radio (about a foot wide, 8 inches high, 5 or 6 inches thick, flashing red LED digits (although I like to have my model use 1960's era "Nixie Tubes" for a display, I love the retro look) and powered by 4 D batteries, it would all be academic. B-) This stuff fascinates me to no end even if it is in theory.
|
|
My college physics professor told us that "Nothing is Fundamental" and then explained that we will always be finding ever smaller components to the universe and matter. So far he has been right and I think he will continue be correct.
My college physics professor told us that "Nothing is Fundamental" and then explained that we will always be finding ever smaller components to the universe and matter. So far he has been right and I think he will continue be correct.
How long ago were you in college? That 'nothing is fundamental' has the ring of S-matrix theory about it. S-matrix theory began in the 1940's and had mostly run its course by the 1970's.
Here's a characterization of S-matrix theory that is based on the still-popular Fritjof Capra book, The Tao of Physics, first published in 1975 (note the phrase that I've red-fonted):
S-matrix theory (S = scatter) describes the world of subatomic particles as a dynamic network of “events” (hadrons) and emphasizes change and transformation rather than fundamental structures or entities. Under the S-matrix theory (which is not accepted by all physicists), being holistic and dynamic, particles are seen as interrelated energy patterns in an ongoing universal process - as correlations, or interconnections between various parts of an inseparable cosmic web. There are no distinct entities and no Newtonian building blocks; there is only a flow of energy showing certain well-defined patterns. (This ties in with Eastern thought (Buddhist) where all things are seen as dynamic, impermanent and illusory).
The hadron bootstrap hypothesis - a philosophy of nature and theory of particles deriving from S-matrix concepts (Geoffrey Chew). This hypothesis rejects Newton's universe constructed from a set of basic entities with certain fundamental properties, which had been created by God and thus were not amenable to further analysis. In Chew's concept, the universe is seen as a dynamic web of interrelated events. None of the web properties are fundamental - they rather flow from the properties of the other parts, and the overall consistency of their mutual interrelations determines the structure of the entire web. It also abandons fundamental laws, equations and principles (derived from the belief in a divine lawgiver). Physicists are coming to see that all their theories of natural phenomena ("laws") are creations of the human mind; properties of our conceptual map of reality rather than reality itself, and that scientific theories and models are approximations of the true nature of things. All theories and laws are mutable, destined to be replaced by more accurate laws when the theories are improved. Step by step, as theories improve and increase in accuracy, we will 'bootstrap' toward (but maybe never reach) the ideal answers. The hypothesis, in that it does not rest on or within a framework, is considered unscientific (it leads beyond science).
Late 1960-ish/early 1970-ish thinking, most definitely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
