Science questions not worth a thread I: I'm a moron!

Status
Not open for further replies.
If we, against all sense, did manage to create a spaceship that could travel at the speed of light and planned to send it toward a planet 50 light years away - How large ship would that be? How many people would we send? Would we send several ships at once to the same planet? If they listened to radio from earth - what would they hear?

That's very hypothetical.

If we did create a spaceship that can travel at c, assuming our laws of physics still hold, the ship will be massless. So if the technology is advanced enough, you can just beam people and things and use the information to regenerate it on the other side. Need a dedicated facility though.

Assuming that we just got special relativity wrong (it depends on *how wrong*, more on this later), it depends on how much energy it takes to actually get it to c to determine what size to make the ship, as well as what other technologies we have available.

If it takes a lot of energy (probably will), it will probably be a small ship to minimize the mass. It is more difficult to build and design a large ship than a small one, simply because of the scaling of mass/strength/size ratios. Not to mention the material strengths of the things involved.

The advantages of a larger ship will be that it can have more shielding against interstellar dust and particles, to avoid damage in general, assuming we don't have stuff like star wars shielding.


Now for the trip, if special relativity is utter garbage (ie, using Newtonian Physics), the trip will take a bit more than 50 years (give time to accelerate to c safely), setting some size for the ship required to hold a self-sustaining ecosystem. How large it needs to be is up for debate, and again determined by how efficient we are at recycling materials and readily available power supplies.



If special relativity is wrong in a weird way, such that you can somehow go faster than light with positive mass, but everything else works the same way, you can't do it without making your ship and everyone and everything in it out of dark matter (matter that only interacts with gravity and possibly the weak force; I'm not well versed enough in weak and strong interactions to judge this one well) to stop the microwave background radiation from being blue-shifted to infinite energies due to the motion of the ship at c and photo-disintegrating the atoms of the ship.

If you had shielding to deal against that somehow, it will still take a significant amount of time (a few years) such that the acceleration process is non-lethal. This allows you to make a far smaller ship, but still one larger than the ones we have now.

If we also have technology to deal with acceleration processes, we can just ignore it and make the ship however large of stuff it needs to carry, plus the engine and stuff. It will take zero time in your reference frame to get from Earth to 50 light years away because of time dilation causing you to stop in time. How you control where to drop back to normal space is another question, as your computers can't tell where to stop if every single point in your trajectory is associated with the same time to stop. Easily avoided by going slightly slower than light speed, though kinda defeats the point of a light speed ship.

For several ships at once, depends on materials science to see how easy it is to build a large vessel, and if we have constraints such as ecosystems, power, recycling, etc.


Ok, and now for the radio question. Assuming the signals are non-beamed, the signal strength will drop off as 1/r^2 as you get further and further from Earth. Depending on how strong we send out the signals (I don't know how strong, and how weak of signals we can detect, and how they compare to background sources), they might not even be able to pick up radio from Earth because it is too weak, and not beamed. If it is specifically beamed to them, or if they are strong enough to be detected from where they are, they will receive signals from the day they left Earth, assuming they traveled there at c instantly. They traveled at the same speed as the radio waves, so that they will be receiving the same ones that traveled with them as they arrive (in zero time in their frame, remember). Looking back at Earth, they will see it the day they left Earth also, with the same reasoning. However, if they were to turn around and travel to Earth, they will see 100 years pass by, as it took 50 years for them to get to Earth on Earth's reference frame, and another 50 years to get back. For them, they will pass through the light waves emitted from the 100 years all compacted together, with Earth apparently rapidly aging 100 years.
 
Does the velocity last forever or untill we reach some gravity?

Yes. The important principle here is conservation of momentum. In classical mechanics momentum is defined as mass times speed. So if your mass stays constant and your speed changes, the momentum also changes. Because of the conservation law, this change has to be accompanied by a change with exactly the same value but the opposite direction so that the sum is zero.

So if you push me, we will acquire the same momentum but in opposite directions. If you then want to change your speed you would need another object that picks up momentum in the opposite direction (I would be of no help as I would drift away). So in totally empty space you would keep your speed forever. But in space you will interact with something sooner or later (be it gravitational or electromagnetic interaction or you just hit it) so at that point your speed will change.

There is a way you can change your speed without interacting with other object and that is the emission of matter. The matter that flies away from you picks up momentum and you get momentum in the opposite direction. So if your space suit allowed you to release your farts into space, you would be able to push yourself a little bit in one direction. And that is how rockets (and every other space travel method) work: You constantly emit some mass in the opposite direction you want to go, thus propelling you forward.
 
I found this statement on a web page about a time in Earth's history:
There was a period when the entire planet was a warm, moist planet covered with jungles - even Antarctica.
Is there any truth to that? If so, when exactly did that take place?
 
Keep in mind that with plate tectonics, Antarctica once straddled the equator. So depending on what the author meant, that might not be such a fantastic claim.

However, near its current location, Antarctica had forests well after the dinosaurs died off (which is to say, forests were growing past 70 south at one point). Once the continent was completely glaciated though, forests would have been driven extinct.

An interesting thought to me is how trees would survive the complete lack of sun for many months.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm5giPd5Uro&feature=fvsr

This video shows how the landmasses appeared at different times in the earth's history. It goes fast at first, but don't worry it slows down the second time around.

70 degrees south is no different, sunlight-wise, than 70 degrees north. So I figured I could easily find some info on the northernmost tree species, and in my google hunting came across this:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/photos-Dalton-Hwy-page2.htm

If you scroll down a ways you'll find a little tourist stop at the 'norhernmost spruce tree' in Alaska. It's at mile 235 (as measured traveling north from Fairbanks). The Arctic Circle is crossed at mile 115. So this tree is 120 miles north of the Arctic Circle. And you can see many other trees in the photos leading up to 'the northernmost spruce'.

I'd bet that there are even more northerly trees in Siberia and Norway, but I'm not going to research it.
 
It's one thing to have a tree there, quite another to have a forest.
 
Keep in mind that with plate tectonics, Antarctica once straddled the equator. So depending on what the author meant, that might not be such a fantastic claim.

However, near its current location, Antarctica had forests well after the dinosaurs died off (which is to say, forests were growing past 70 south at one point). Once the continent was completely glaciated though, forests would have been driven extinct.

An interesting thought to me is how trees would survive the complete lack of sun for many months.
Millions of years of evolution, with no sapient resource-hog species to get in the way. ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm5giPd5Uro&feature=fvsr

This video shows how the landmasses appeared at different times in the earth's history. It goes fast at first, but don't worry it slows down the second time around.

70 degrees south is no different, sunlight-wise, than 70 degrees north. So I figured I could easily find some info on the northernmost tree species, and in my google hunting came across this:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/photos-Dalton-Hwy-page2.htm

If you scroll down a ways you'll find a little tourist stop at the 'norhernmost spruce tree' in Alaska. It's at mile 235 (as measured traveling north from Fairbanks). The Arctic Circle is crossed at mile 115. So this tree is 120 miles north of the Arctic Circle. And you can see many other trees in the photos leading up to 'the northernmost spruce'.

I'd bet that there are even more northerly trees in Siberia and Norway, but I'm not going to research it.
It's one thing to have a tree there, quite another to have a forest.
Rather fascinating indeed. What gets my curiousity is the claim of tropical jungles this far from the equator. :crazyeye:

I'm certainly wondering if that claim has any merit, and if it does, I'm wondering what point in Earth's geological/biological history actually had this take place. :)
 
What's a good way to describe an apparent magnitude of -24.78 in layman's terms?

Using this calculator, I figured that one way to describe it is looking at a 150 watt incandescent light bulb from a distance of 9.09 inches.

What's a better way to describe an apparent magnitude of -24.78?
 
Not a question: I just wanted to point out that the American Chemical Society is giving free access to a publication on the chemistry of water, this month. Lots of interesting articles that might be useful.
The Linky
 
What's a good way to describe an apparent magnitude of -24.78 in layman's terms?

Using this calculator, I figured that one way to describe it is looking at a 150 watt incandescent light bulb from a distance of 9.09 inches.

What's a better way to describe an apparent magnitude of -24.78?

About as bright as the sun is from the asteroid belt.
 
About as bright as the sun is from the asteroid belt.
And how exactly is a layman supposed to know how bright that is?

No one's ever been beyond our own moon, and one might send out a probe with a cell phone that has a color camera to the asteroid belt, but technology is easily tweaked, and the pics taken by that cellphone can easily be photoshopped, so it seems to me that a layman, unless he's a layman of an advanced interplanetary empire, probably wouldn't know the difference in brightness of the sun between here and the asteroid belt, until he saw it with his naked eyes, which certainly ain't happening any time soon.

EDIT: The reason I'm being anal (be quiet. :lol: ) about this, is because I'm writing a short story, and I want a way to describe it so that it can enable the reader to easily visualize in his head what it would look like if he looked at it with his own eyes.
 
How about, about as bright as the sun is if you are wearing sunglasses?
 
Millions of years of evolution, with no sapient resource-hog species to get in the way. ;)


Rather fascinating indeed. What gets my curiousity is the claim of tropical jungles this far from the equator. :crazyeye:

I'm certainly wondering if that claim has any merit, and if it does, I'm wondering what point in Earth's geological/biological history actually had this take place. :)

During the middle part of the Cretaceous, there was a CO2 excursion to over 10 times the current level... and possibly as high as 25 times. That would certainly create a Hothouse environment (temperatures around 22 degrees C in the high latitudes), as well as boosting plant growth directly.
 
Double-post:

I got a question...

Einstein re-defined our view of gravity. Instead of looking at it as a force... the infamous "action-at-a-distance"... General Relativity looks at gravity as a manifestation of geometry, although in a higher-dimensional space.

Question: Are the other three forces being similarly re-defined as geometry? Electro-magnetism, Strong-Nuclear and Weak-Nuclear forces... are they also just geometry wearing a fancy hat?
 
Double-post:

I got a question...

Einstein re-defined our view of gravity. Instead of looking at it as a force... the infamous "action-at-a-distance"... General Relativity looks at gravity as a manifestation of geometry, although in a higher-dimensional space.

Question: Are the other three forces being similarly re-defined as geometry? Electro-magnetism, Strong-Nuclear and Weak-Nuclear forces... are they also just geometry wearing a fancy hat?

As an undergraduate in Physics: Not that I know of. They have been described mostly as virtual particle exchange (photon for E&M, Gluon for Strong, W+/W- and Z0 for weak) in Quantum Field Theory and is relatively well explored (same with gravity, but with gravitons and mostly theoretical since the graviton hasn't been observed)

IIRC, they tried that with E&M soon after Einstein (before Strong and Weak forces), and then they got the precursor to String Theory (required 5 dimensions or something as well). Then QFT came about, and explained it better, so they dropped the concept with that.

The Strong force sounds difficult to describe geometrically though, as it gets stronger with distance, rather than weaker. Then the force between quarks gets so strong, that it becomes energetically favorable to just break the bond by creating particle/antiparticle pairs, and thus you get pions (bound by the strong force themselves) out of it.
 
The Strong force sounds difficult to describe geometrically though, as it gets stronger with distance, rather than weaker. Then the force between quarks gets so strong, that it becomes energetically favorable to just break the bond by creating particle/antiparticle pairs, and thus you get pions (bound by the strong force themselves) out of it.

The geometrical picture of quark confinement is a spring connecting the two particles. It's like E&M in 1-Dimension:

Laplaces equation: V''(x) = C => V(x) = C x^2

A potential that goes like x^2 is Hooke's law, so E&M leads to confinement in 1-D.

The real problem with visualizing the strong force is that it's so complicated. E&M is described by a scalar potential V and a vector potential A. The strong force is described by 8 vector potentials, the gluon fields. Also the gluons themselves are colored, which would be like photons having charge.

There's a lot of geometry going on in the standard model, the equations describing the strong and electroweak come from geometric principles about "local gauge symmetries", but you're right that there is no way to visualize the strong and electroweak force like we can with classical E&M.
 
Another question:

What is the current thinking among physicists and cosmologists regarding "the cosmological mystery"?

I'll explain that term, in case some different term is used for it nowadays:

The universe has a number of fundamental constants: the speed of light, the mass ratio between the proton and electron, the relative strengths of the four forces (eg: the fine structure constant), Planck's constant, and so on. If some of these constants were even 10% larger or smaller, the universe would be a very different place... suns might explode as soon as they condensed, or might not provide fusion energy for the billions of years necessary for intelligent life to evolve.

Nearly all of these fundamental constants have dimensions. For example, the speed of light is measured in units of distance divided by units of time (eg: 299,792,458 m/sec). For that reason, no special meaning attaches to the number 299,792,458... because some rubbery creature on the fourth planet of Sigma Draconis might measure the speed of light in tentacle-lengths-per-breathing-sac-inflation (instead of in m/sec) and would get an entirely different number. The value would still be the same (ie: it would still represent the same fundamental constant velocity) but the number used to denote it would be different.

BUT...

... it is possible to take several of these fundamental universal constants and construct an equation (in fact, several different equations) in which all of the dimensions of measurement cancel out, leaving a pure, dimensionless number. An example of this is the fine structure coupling constant... the ratio of electrical force to weak force. Since you are dividing units of force by units of force, all of the units of measurement cancel out and you are left with a pure number, whose magnitude does not depend in any way on whether you measure speeds in m/sec or in tentacle-lengths-per-breathing-sac-inflation... that rubbery creature on the fourth planet of Sigma Draconis would get exactly the same number (not just the same value, but the same number) for the fine structure constant as we do here on Earth.

... I'm slowly getting to the point, please bear with me...

Now... if you take the set of fundamental physical constants and start juggling them around to cancel out all of the units of measurement, there are a small number of fairly straightforward ways to do it (as well as a larger number not-so-straightforward ways). It turns out that the group of (let's say) six pure, dimensionless numbers that you can derive from this mathematical exercise have values varying from just-about-zero up to 10^78 or so. That's quite a large spread of possible values... eighty-odd magnitudes. If the numbers were just derived at random, you would expect them to be scattered at random throughout that very large span of numbers.

Now my point: they aren't.

Three of the resulting pure numbers are just about zero. Another two of them are just about 10^39. And the sixth one is just about 10^78... the product of the fourth and fifth numbers.

... but the six pure numbers are derived in entirely different ways, from different groupings of fundamental constants! Given a "field" or span of eighty-odd orders of magnitude, what are the odds that the six numbers would lock into such an exact pattern? Is something mysterious going on, "under the hood" of Physics? Or is it just an outrageous coincidence?

My question, then: has any work been done on this "problem" in the past thirty years or so... or is it not considered to be a valid field of research?
 
Blue Emu said:
Three of the resulting pure numbers are just about zero. Another two of them are just about 10^39. And the sixth one is just about 10^78... the product of the fourth and fifth numbers.

... but the six pure numbers are derived in entirely different ways, from different groupings of fundamental constants! Given a "field" or span of eighty-odd orders of magnitude, what are the odds that the six numbers would lock into such an exact pattern? Is something mysterious going on, "under the hood" of Physics? Or is it just an outrageous coincidence?

My question, then: has any work been done on this "problem" in the past thirty years or so... or is it not considered to be a valid field of research?

Not anything close to a mathematician here, but I'd like to interject a follow-up question:

These values are expressed in a base10 system. How would they turn out it other bases? Is it worth looking at them in natural log? For that matter, would rubbery creatures be likely to discover natural logs or are they a uniquely human construct?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom