How to bend spacetime, cause an intersection, and pass through?

[belovelife]

lets take this back a level

say we could make nutronium

and use it on common elements like magnesium and calcium

could it bond the two and unite them in a way to form a more efficient potovotallic, considering if you add the two up it has the same atomic number as germanium, germanium being a photovotallic, it may be in the same family

kind of, and it may have the same properties

being denser at this point may collect more of the photons and convert them into electrons

 

but this is getting off the subject of the matter that i submit is present in the universal dust cloud

itwas just a thought

[Matey]

Oh yeah? Like element 118?

 

I think it is 115 ununpentium.

but there is a very fine line among the high-numbered elements like 114 is so unstable that is gets destroyed in fraction of a second. but some say 115 is stable enough and then 116 is not stable again.(I am not exactly sure about the numbers tho).

 

If what they say is true and that they are trying to make 115 in Germany then I think it is possible to harvest weak force and amplify it.

if it is a hoax then how do these supposed aliens come from light years away?

the rocket way off propulsion is a joke, government has known it for some time now and I am pretty sure they already have the anti grav flying machines.

one was witnessed by a lot of policemen in Illinois (lebonan IL)? and many other towns. truck drivers saw it too but it hovered over a police car causing the car's engine/electrical to shut down completely!

And I do not think this came from humans own ingenuity either.

 

BTW I know it was a govt. IFO bcs I looked up the date and sure enough it was a Wednesday.

[CraigD]

consider this

say you take a neutronium of x densty, combine it with a unstable heavily dense element (heavily dense = atomic number above 100)

the nuetral aspect of the neutronium adds gravity or density to the "molecule"

so as the gravity increases per area squared, the half life of the element increases, due to strengthened pattern of neclei crunched together in a "nest"

allowing for the electron shells to be united and act more like a combined atom as opposed to individual atoms, and sharing all the electrons

You can’t have electrons in neutronium, because the gravitational force in it is so great that protons capture electrons and become neutrons (inverse beta decay). If you add ordinary atomic matter to neutronium, regardless of the ordinary matter’s number of protons (atomic number), the number of the protons in the end product goes to zero, and its number or neutrons increases. In other words, adding ordinary matter to neutronium doesn’t result in a neutronium/ordinary mater mixture, but more neutronium.

 

Neutronium should be tremendously stable, because the end products of any decay (protons, electrons, and neutrinos) won’t have enough kinetic energy to escape its gravitational field, so will either be reversed, or never happen. Which of these – decay and reverse decay, or no decay – actually occur is difficult to for me speculate about, because I lack the ability to approach the question with the necessary formal methods, and empirically, there’s no practical way to detect low levels of neutrino emissions of distant bodies. Neutrinos interact so weakly with other fermions (eg: protons and electrons) that they’re very difficult to detect even strong local sources, such as the Sun.

lets take this back a level

say we could make nutronium

and use it on common elements like magnesium and calcium …

could it bond the two and unite them in a way to form a more efficient potovotallic,

As I’ve discussed in this and previous posts in this thread, the answer to this and similar questions is simply “no”. Degenerate matter can only exist for long durations in very large, very compact objects such as neutron stars. Adding ordinary matter of any kind to such objects produce only EM radiation (photons) and more neutronium.

 

Good and interesting questions, though, regardless of their answers.

 

I think to make sense of such questions and answers in terms of best accepted present-day theory an overview of different kinds of ordinary and degenerate matter is helpful:

• Ordinary matter: Up (u) and down (d) quarks strong interact with one another via qluons with relative strength about [math]10^{38}[/math]. Quarks and electrons electromagnetic interact with electrons via photons with relative strength about [math]10^{36}[/math]. All of these particles gravity interact, perhaps via gravitons, although this particle in not confirmed nor included in rigorous formal physics, with relative strength about [math]10^0[/math].
  Quarks are confined into uud (proton) and udd (neutron) triplets
  
• Neutronium: U and d quarks strong interact with one another as above, and gravity interact, with about the same relative strength
  Quarks are confined into udd triplets only.
  
• Quarkium: U and d quarks strong interact and gravity interact with one another as above.
  Quarks are not confined into triplets. The entire body can be considered a single hadron that is neither a baryon (3 confined quarks, such a proton or neutron) or a meson (2 quarks, mutual antiparticles)
  
• “Strangium”: U, d, and strange (s) quarks (about 30 times the mass of a u or d quarks) strong and gravity interact with one another as above.
  Strangium may only be possible with gravity interaction relative strength is about the same as strong interaction, as it is with neutronium or quarkium, or it may be possible when gravity interaction relative strength is about [math]1/10^{38}[/math] of strong interaction.
  
• ”even more strange-ium”: Like strangium, but with additional, even higher mass quarks: charm © (about 10 time the mass of an s quark); bottom (b) (about 4 times the mass of a c quark); and top (about 40 times the mass of a b quark).
  

The idea of strangium that can exist outside of very strong gravity domains – that is, that strangelets exits - is radical. However, the idea that neutronium, quarkium, and perhaps strangium exists in very compact objects like neutron starts is the mainstream scientific consensus.

[belovelife]

i know we detect nutrinos with heavy water by looking for a red light

i.e. the nurino hiting the extra nuetron off the nucleus of the hydrogen aton in the molecule

also, stranglets is an interesting hypothesis

although i would think we would have many more stars collapsing if wuch things were common,

and i thought that a proton had a triangular formation of quarks and gluons

 

although this was measured by particle accelerators right

i wish i could see the data for the experiment

[belovelife]

i thought nutrinos were measured with heavy water

then we could use that nuclear power plant in space

 

anyway

 

i thought the concept of gluons and quarks was found by a particle accelerator

i would like to see the data

 

do you think we could harness the power of nutrinos if we found something that waved at a resonant frequeny that correlates the the red light that is emmited when a nutrino hits the extra nutron from the nucleas of the hydrogen aton in heavy water?

[CraigD]

i know we detect nutrinos with heavy water by looking for a red light

i.e. the nurino hiting the extra nuetron off the nucleus of the hydrogen aton in the molecule

i thought nutrinos were measured with heavy water

That’s one of many ways neutrinos are detected. The SNO, a famous Canadian detector, used a 12 m diameter sphere of heavy water (water with much more than the usual 1 [ce]^2_1H_2 ^{16}_8O[/ce] per about 6500 [ce]^1_1H_2 ^{16}_8O[/ce], typically nearly 100% [ce]^2_1H_2 ^{16}_8O[/ce]). It detects the very faint blue Cerenkov radiation of the 2 kinds of neutrino-nucleon/electron interactions (charged, carried by a W boson, or neutral, involving a Z boson) via an array of 9600 photomultiplier tubes surrounding the sphere. When it reopens, hopefully in 2009, the SNO (renamed the SNO+) will replace the heavy water with alkylbenzene ([ce]C_{n+6}H_{n+8}[/ce], I think – a chemistry person should check my guess), keeping nearly all of the rest of the old hardware.

 

The Super-Kamiokande, a famous Japanese detector, is similar to the old SNO, but uses super-pure ordinary water rather than heavy water, and is bigger (50,000,000 kg of water vs. SNO’s 1,000,000 kg). It’s first (un-super) version was intended primarily to detect proton decay

 

Like most neutrino detecters, the SNO and the SK are deep underground, in unused sections of mines.

 

Other detectors use fluids like tetrachloroethylene ([ce]C_2Cl_4[/ce], a common commercial cleaning fluid), detecting the charged interactions by measuring the amount of argon gas produced. It’s also possible to detect neutrino interactions simply by measuring the amount of heat produced in a very well insulated, deeply shielded mass of anything, such as steel.

 

Since the weak interaction, the strongest one in which neutrinos participate, can produce many physical reactions, there are many possible approaches to neutrino detector design, many of which have been built. Wikipedia’s “list of neutrino experiments” has lots of links to lots of general and detailed data about neutrino detectors and their experimental results.

i thought nutrinos were measured with heavy water

then we could use that nuclear power plant in space

I don’t think neutrinos can be used as a practical source of power, because they interact so rarely with any sort of engineering material that the power/mass ratio of anything that gets power from the neutrino flux at Earth’s position is about [math]2 \times 10^{-29} \,\mbox{W/kg}[/math]. The Earth, therefore, gets about 100 W of power from neutrinos, vs. the about [math]1.74 \times 10^{17} \,\mbox{W}[/math] it gets from in total from solar radiation.

 

In short, you do much, much better using a photovoltaic panel or similar to get power than anything you could do with neutrinos.

 

As best I can guess, the most useful thing neutrino detectors can be used for in spaceships is early-warning systems for dangerous events like supernovae. Because these events emit greatly increased numbers of neutrinos before they emit photons and massive particles (mostly protons), and neutrinos travel at nearly the speed of light, such a system could give hours to days of warning, which a spacecraft could change its attitude or hide behind a massive body before the more energetic radiation arrived.

 

 

also, stranglets is an interesting hypothesis

although i would think we would have many more stars collapsing if wuch things were common,

Yeah, it’s pretty clear they’re not common. The main scientific question, I think, is if they are in principle possible.

i thought that a proton had a triangular formation of quarks and gluons

although this was measured by particle accelerators right

i wish i could see the data for the experiment

 

i thought the concept of gluons and quarks was found by a particle accelerator

i would like to see the data

This is a pretty big, complicated subject, worthy of its own thread. You (and I too, as my grasp of this stuff has lots of room for improvement) might want to start with reading about [wiki]deep inelastic scattering[/url], the technique used to study the then work onward to actual details of the experiments.

 

Without going into too much detail, the picture:

of a proton as a neat triangle of up and down quarks joined by “tubes” of exchanged gluons is much simpler than what actual experiments show and theory explains. As accelerator’s particles (usually but not always electrons for DES experiments) are given higher speeds, and detectors and analysis software and techniques improved, we get increasingly complicated snapshot views of nucleon interiors in which gluons and quark-antiquark pairs constantly transform into one another. At present, these snapshots are able to image about 200 total quarks and antiquarks in a proton at any instant, were the proton’s u u d triplet is just the net when all antiquarks are paired with their partners and removed from the count. This image:

, from ox.ac.uk’s collection of webpages on the subject, illustrates this at about 1/8th the “resolution” than the best present day experiments can actually “see”.

[belovelife]

now are we sure that the propsed gluons ar actually energy as opposed to the "tracing" effect of matter

what i mean is are we sure that the quarks are not just moving so fast within the proton or nuetron, that as we take a picture we get a trail of the path that is being taken, similar to the macrocomal quasar, or gasses moving around a center point so fast that it creates light,

although of course on a completely different level

 

as the energy goes inbetween states of matter anti matter mabe?

[belovelife]

now say this was a pic off a proton

the constant energy change could create like a push pull effect, drawing energy(pullin electrons), then forming back to energy , push electrons

this could create the modern shell of the atom

because the particles in matter/antimatter state would need energy to satisfy a norm, creating gravity, but as it combines again, it would repulse the energy

thus shells of electrons based on how much push pull was going on

[CraigD]

now are we sure that the propsed gluons ar actually energy as opposed to the "tracing" effect of matter

Particle physicist are very sure that gluons are bosons, not some sort of “trace” of fermions such as quarks. Quarks can’t be leaving traces in some medium, such as the ionization trails in a cloud chamber or the vapor trails in bubble chamber used to detect particles in many experiments, because there’s nothing but vacuum between them in a nucleon (proton or neutron).

what i mean is are we sure that the quarks are not just moving so fast within the electron proton or neutron…

An important standard model datum: protons and neutrons contain quarks. Electrons don’t contain quarks or any other fundamental particles – they are fundamental particles.

… that as we take a picture we get a trail of the path that is being taken, similar to the macrocomal quasar, or gasses moving around a center point so fast that it creates light,

although of course on a completely different level

It’s important to understand that images such as the one in post #40 are not actually photographs, but renderings based on data from many measurements of the position and momentum of electrons accelerated toward and scattered away from protons (deep inelastic scattering). Lacking any ability to interact via the strong interaction carried by gluons, electrons can’t directly detect gluons at all. Electrons can only detect the locations and momenta of quarks and antiquarks via the electromagnetic interaction, which is carried by photons. The gluons represented in images such as the above are inferred from the detected position and momentum of the quarks and antiquarks. (there are a lot of terms in these last few sentences - follow the standard model link for the meanings of them)

as the energy goes inbetween states of matter anti matter mabe?

I’m not sure what you’re asking here, belovelife, but it’s important to note that “energy particles” (more formally, particles with zero invariant mass) such as gluons and photons don’t have antiparticles (or, one sometimes says, are their own antiparticles). There’s not a kind of gauge boson-carried energy that can create an anti-quark or an anti-electron (better known as a positron), and another that can create a quark or an electron. A gluon or photon can only create one or more fermions (quark, electron, etc) and exactly the same number of matching antiparticles, not just one kind of a particle/antiparticle pair.

 

Here’s an analogy: Imagine a field full of people dancing. The only way you are allowed to get information about them is by sending may blindfolded people to the edge of the field, have them toss in an indeterminate number of Frisbees, catch an indeterminate number of Frisbee tossed out to them, and note the speed and direction that the blindfolded person runs away after catching the Frisbees. From just the information about the blindfolded persons entry and exit speed and direction – nothing about Frisbees – you must determine how many people are in the field, and what music they’re dancing to. Also, all the dancers are blindfolded, not allowed to touch, the dance involves lots of big inflatable balls, and that occasionally boy/girl pairs of people, who are always wearing the same of 3 possible t-shirts, climb into or out of a ball, collapsing or re-inflating them, and that everybody is constantly exchanging t-shirts. Fortunately, while none of the dancers is predictable, they’re all statistically identical, and you have a good guess exactly what these statistics are, and that there are exactly 3 more boys than girls.

[belovelife]

what i meant was

you know the concept of matter antimatter

well what if it is more microcosmal than the atom

like the building blocks of the atom mainly the proton

is actually energy constantly fluctuating between energy and

(matter-antimatter)

and always creating a magnetic force and a vacume

giving matter its charicteristics

like having an electron shell and gravity

[belovelife]

or mabe i should say magnetic force both ways push pull

relationship

[belovelife]

i as far as the inner workings of the proton

i truly am a novice

although i hope at least on of the dancers was wearing a tiedye

now as far as the oregon vortex goes, how would you explain it,

and say you take the crab nebula, and the nuetron star in its center

as an example

the images show a pulse like a large explosion, and a jet stream going in one direction from one of the poles right

ok, why is the pulse almost a disc, and why only one stream going perpendicular to the disc

what i'm saying is that space time is being bent similar to a magnet

shrink one direction and expand the other

in the area of expansion there would be no jet stream of matter or particles

in the area of shrinkage all the matter in the most srunk space would form a line due to space shrinking

and beacause of this i think that that is the "oragnizing" facor in all disc form

stellar objects including our solar system

like the sun may have a core with this element in it

and at the beginning all the matter that was around swirled with gravity

but the bend in space time neatly organized this mess into a disc

which at the center of our galaxy there is a black hole

now the black hole could have a strong enough effect of this to oraganized the whole galaxy, basically matching the bend in a north south field

where all the shrink is one direction which would be the particle stream from the balck hole, and all the expand would be in the other direction

 

but really how do you explain the oregon vortex

considering that stuff really hapens?

[belovelife]

oh yea and because of the possible matter-antmatter change in the proton

is why gravity is considered a weak force

because the megnetism is only present when the two particles are

and like a florescent light bulb

it is energy more often than matter

thus gravity being weaker than magnetism

[belovelife]

do you think this is possible?

either of the ideas

[CraigD]

what i meant was

you know the concept of matter antimatter

well what if it is more microcosmal than the atom

like the building blocks of the atom mainly the proton

is actually energy constantly fluctuating between energy and

(matter-antimatter) …

I wouldn’t use the work “microcosmal”, but describing the “building blocks” of protons (and neutrons, which differ from protons only in having a net excess when antiparticle pairs are accounted for of an u, d, and d quark, rather than an u, u, and d) as constantly fluctuating between energy and antimatter is a decent analogy of what best theory and observation suggests really is. It’s often called a “quark gluon sea”, quarks being “energy particles” and quarks and antiquarks being matter.

 

There’s a very important concept, though, underlying why this description is only an analogy, not a true description: in the formalism of particle physics, a gluon doesn’t fluctuate between being a quark/antiquark pair and a gluon, it is at all times both at the same time – what’s called a superposition of states. If, as a deep inelastic scattering experiment, we force an electron near this two-mutually-exclusive-things-at-once entity so that the electron can exchange photons with one or both of the quarks, we “see” its quark properties. When another quark absorbs it to change color charge and momentum, its gluon properties are manifest. Hence, what a proton or neutron is really built of isn’t, in everyday terms, objectively real, but depends on how we’re measuring it.

… and always creating a magnetic force and a vacume

giving matter its charicteristics

like having an electron shell and gravity

the superpositioned/analogously fluctuating nature of qluons and quarks don’t create magnetic force. Magnetic force is due to the exchange of photons (the same particle that, in another role, is responsible for light, radio and all other EM radiation) between particles capable of the electromagnetic interaction, such as quarks and electrons. Gluons are capable of the strong interaction, but not the electromagnetic .

 

Quarks and other particles don’t create a vacuum. Vacuum is just a characteristic applied to a volume of space that has zero particles in it.

 

A simple explanation of the “shell” arrangement of electrons in an atom is that it is due to 3 main phenomena and laws of nature:

• electromagnetic interaction between electrons and quarks, which result in the electrons traveling in other than roughly straight lines;
• the wave nature of electrons, which require that when they travel in circular paths, the length of the path is an integer multiple of their wavelength;
• and the exclusion principle, which prohibits more than 1 electron (or any fermion) traveling in exactly the same path at the same time

i as far as the inner workings of the proton

i truly am a novice

although i hope at least on of the dancers was wearing a tiedye

Color change, the dominant interaction withing protons and neutrons, is, IMHO, way more mind-blowing than any tiedye (and I’ve seen some mind-blowing tiedys). For each of the 3 colors (which are called that just by convention, having nothing to do with ordinary color), there’s an anticolor. Gluons must have both color and anticolor, but neither can be definite, rather must be a superposition of two or three colors and their anticolors. Then it starts getting really weird. :)

oh yea and because of the possible matter-antmatter change in the proton

is why gravity is considered a weak force

because the megnetism is only present when the two particles are

and like a florescent light bulb

it is energy more often than matter

thus gravity being weaker than magnetism

It’s fair to say that a proton or neutron is “more energy than matter”, because the mass of one (about [math]1.66 \times 10^{-27} \,\mbox{kg}[/math]) is much greater than the predicted masses of their 3 “net” constituent quarks (about [math]10^{-29}[/math] to [math]2.7 \times 10^{-29}\,\mbox{kg}[/math]). About 99% of their mass is due to their “gluon virtual quark/antiquark sea”.

 

However, I can think of at least a couple of reasons why gravity can’t be due to quark-gluon interaction:

 

If that were the case, electrons, which don’t have any quarks or gluons in ‘em, wouldn’t gravity interact. Many experiments show, however, that they do.

 

As noted above and in previous posts, the number of nature of gluon-quark/antiquark production and annihilation events depend on the rate and power of electron-(photon)-quark interaction their nucleons undergo. In ordinary matter, this rate can be increased or decreased significantly by such simple means as increasing the pressure of or on a sample. Experiments, however, don’t show any change in mass or unaccounted changes in gravity when such changes occur.

now as far as the oregon vortex goes, how would you explain it, ...

I’d explain it pretty much the way this JREF article does – though being a more polite (though much less capable) guy than James Randi, I’d not call the promotional writing for this tourist attraction “drivel”, but “showmanship”. The strange sights of the Oregon Vortex/Gold Mountain are just simple – though well-executed – optical illusions, not space-time anomalies. They can be explained with a carpenter’s square and a tape measure – though, having never visited the place, I’m not sure if the proprietors/staff allow such measurements or not.

[belovelife]

so how does it work

[CraigD]

so how does it [the Oregon Vortex?] work[?]

The Oregon Vortex property has several installations offering different kinds of illusions, so the “it” in “how does it work?” must be pluralized into “how do they work?”. As best I can tell, the installations offer two main kinds of illusions: height illusions, where objects of similar height, such as people appear to change relative to one another when they stand in different places; and vertical/horizontal illusions, where surfaces that appear vertical or horizontal actually are not.

 

An example of a height illusion is the “back yard”, an apparently rectangular platform where, when viewed from a short distance away, a person standing stage right appears to have their height increased vs. a person standing stage left. This occurs because the stage right position is actually closer to the viewer than the stage left position. The viewer is fooled into believing they are the same distance by the assumption that the platform is a true rectangle, each corner being nearly 90°, when they actually are not. This article, which I also linked to in my previous post, explains this illusion, and reproduces it in miniature.

 

Various vertical/horizontal illusions are said to be installed in the “house of mystery”, in which water from a faucet appears not to fall vertically, and balls on pool table role to one corner pocket. This are accomplished by tilting the floor and interior walls of the entire room. The viewer is again fooled, this time by the assumption that floors and walls are always horizontal and vertical.