Physics in the News – Dark Matter

From the BBC news item reference  :http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14811580

Short abstract

“Many candidates for what dark matter actually is have been proposed, but most explanations have been refuted by experiments.

What seems to align best with both theory and experiment so far is a class of particles that tend not to interact with the matter we know: weakly interacting massive particles, or Wimps.

Though dark matter is imagined to be everywhere, permeating the Universe and clumping around galaxies, it is estimated that some Wimps may pass through our entire Galaxy without interacting with any normal matter.

Dark materials

Cresst is just one laboratory dedicated to catching the flighty particles in deep underground detectors.

It uses 33 lumps of a crystal called calcium tungstate. When a Wimp smashes into an atomic nucleus within the crystals, the experiment is designed to see evidence both of a phonon and a photon – the sound and the light of the interaction.”

—————————–

[Note: A ‘Wimp’ in the English language is a derogatory name for people who are thought to be totally useless or feeble.]

Imagine a pinball machine complete with flashing lights, beeps etcetera. When you fire the steel ball up the channel the path of the ball becomes very erratic and can travel anywhere on the playing surface, triggering various lights and beeps. Sometimes it passes right through without hitting anything ‘important’ and you get no score. Sometimes it hits a pad that accelerates it off again in a different direction. Sometimes it hits springs that also changes the direction of the ball but without accelerating it.

Now consider the original game which only had the ball and steel pins. It also had an erratic path to travel and you can hear when the ball hits a pin. If all the pins were different sizes you would hear different notes when the ball hit them.

Now consider the experiment at Cresst. This is similar to a pinball machine,but unfortunately you cannot see the ball or the obstructions. Unfortunately you also don’t know what the ball actually is, because that is what the experiment is trying to determine. So they wait until an unknown object passes into a crystal containing millions of atoms. They occasionally see a flash and hear a noise. They don’t actually know that it ‘smashes into an atomic nucleus’.

They then claim that this might indicate that the unknown object is a ‘Wimp’.

Note that all the particles they are attempting to find (including the Wimp) are purely hypothetical (really we should say mythical).

“The Cresst team says that in their experiments between 2009 and 2011, they have seen 67 such events that cannot be explained by other means.”

This phrase “cannot be explained by other means is used all the time by physicists.

What they are really saying is that “As we (the most intelligent people in the universe) have arrived at this hypothesis, then no other explanation is possible”

Every subject on physics on my web site has had the original physics interpretation labelled ‘cannot be explained by other means.’

I have explained every one by ‘other means’.

In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is matter that neither emits nor scatters light or other electromagnetic radiation, and so cannot be directly detected via optical or radio astronomy. Its existence is inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter and gravitational lensing of background radiation, and was originally hypothesized to account for discrepancies between calculations of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the entire universe made through dynamical and general relativistic means, and calculations based on the mass of the visible “luminous” matter these objects contain: stars and the gas and dust of the interstellar and intergalactic medium. Many experiments to detect dark matter through non-gravitational means are underway.

According to observations of structures larger than solar systems, as well as Big Bang cosmology interpreted under the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric, dark matter accounts for 23% of the mass-energy density of the observable universe. In comparison, ordinary matter accounts for only 4.6% of the mass-energy density of the observable universe, with the remainder being attributable to dark energy. From these figures, dark matter constitutes 83%, (23/(23+4.6)), of the matter in the universe, whereas ordinary matter makes up only 17%.

Dark matter was postulated by Fritz Zwicky in 1934 to account for evidence of “missing mass” in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters. Subsequently, other observations have indicated the presence of dark matter in the universe; these observations include the rotational speeds of galaxies, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet Cluster, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies.

Dark matter plays a central role in state-of-the-art modelling of structure formation and galaxy evolution, and has measurable effects on the anisotropies observed in the cosmic microwave background. All these lines of evidence suggest that galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and the universe as a whole contain far more matter than that which interacts with electromagnetic radiation. The largest part of dark matter, which does not interact with electromagnetic radiation, is not only “dark” but also, by definition, utterly transparent.

As important as dark matter is believed to be in the cosmos, direct evidence of its existence and a concrete understanding of its nature have remained elusive.

Though the theory of dark matter remains the most widely accepted [amongst physicists] theory to explain the anomalies in observed galactic rotation, some alternative theoretical approaches have been developed which broadly fall into the categories of modified gravitational laws, and quantum gravitational laws.

There are no anomalies, its just that, not understanding mechanics, they are unable to logically apply the basic principles of mechanics to any observed phenomena.

———————————

The existence of dark energy, in whatever form, is needed to reconcile the measured geometry of space with the total amount of matter in the universe. Measurements of cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies, most recently by the WMAP spacecraft, indicate that the universe is close to flat. For the shape of the universe to be flat, the mass/energy density of the universe must be equal to a certain critical density.

Really we are back to the mentality of the flat Earth hypothesis. There is no way that cosmic radiation of any type can prove that the universe is flat. The universe is universal, (that is why its called ‘the universe‘). Anything outside the physicists ‘flat’ universe is still part of the universe. If you travel in any direction from Earth you will come to the end of the physicists ‘universe’ or you won’t. If you do then what is beyond it? This stupidity lies behind the ridiculous ‘Bending Space’ arguments from the physicists, in which they argue, (without logic) that space is curved and therefore folds back on itself. They are just unable to accept the concept of a universe.

There is no ‘measured geometry of space’, it is impossible (even for engineers). Even using the accepted hypothesis that light has a constant speed, (which is incorrect) it is impossible to determine the distance of a moving object outside of our galaxy using optical methods. It is obvious that no other methods are available to us, therefore there is no method of doing it.

Dark Matter was a hypothesis 77 years ago. It still is, and will always be an hypothesis.

Consider this extract, proudly proclaiming the great strides in physics.

“Firstly, the abandonment of the ideal of a mechanical explanation of everything has eliminated a great deal of idle hypotheses. The properties of the fundamental entities of physics are now stated in the form of mathematical equations, instead of being ‘explained’ by a hypothetical mechanism.” From ” The Philosophy of Physical Science”, by Sir Arthur Eddington. This is the ‘Eddington’ usually quoted by physicists when they are asked awkward questions.

It is clear from the above passage that not only do physicists not understand mechanics, part of their catechism is that mechanics should actively be ignored in favour of mathematics.

——————

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” Albert Einstein.

—————

“Scientists investigate that which already is; Engineers create that which has never been.” Albert Einstein.

Physicists do neither.

Einstein is treated as the ‘God’ of physicists, Eddington was always treated as the ‘High Priest’ of physicists.

Brian Williams

Author

What is an Engineer?

First of all and most important he/she must be interested in how things work. This is called CURIOSITY. Unfortunately, curiosity is also very dangerous and many budding engineers have died because of it. Therefore AWARENESS is also an important ingredient in an engineer’s personality. Awareness usually comes from EXPERIENCE, and is a type of controlled fear. This  fear may be similar to that causing me to be  aware after being belted for pulling my dad’s alarm clock to pieces when I was quite young. This didn’t stop me from pulling alarm clocks apart, but I always used ones that were ‘dead’.

My first experience of electric shock was when I was about  8 years old. Luckily, it was only about 40 volts but was about 60 amps. I was badly shaken and had a few burns but it  was a valuable learning aid that has probably saved my life since.  Note:  Fear may save you from electrocution. I had a friend in the scouts who used to check whether a light socket was live by wetting his finger and sticking it in the socket. NOT A SENSIBLE THING TO DO. It works with some people, the others are dead.  Later in life I found that if  I was stressed  my body increased its electrical resistance, which would reduce the chance of a fatal accident. Fearless or unaware people tend not to be stressed and therefore are more likely to be killed by electric shock. However, don’t chance it. I have carried out ‘live’ connections on 240 volt supplies, but only with suitable safety precautions,  and, I can assure you, a very high stress level.  ( I used to have rubber gum boots,  a 25mm x 2 Metre x 1 Metre rubber mat, and  insulated tools and gloves).

Another valuable ingredient is to learn from other peoples experiences as well as  your own. (Never say “It can’t happen to me. It can.)

Learn to find the interest in any particular job. I have had numerous ‘boring’ jobs over the years. If you can find the interest in a boring job, it makes the job easier, and allows you to do it better. Also, lack of interest destroys awareness, and can therefore kill you.

( I was once working on a financial audit for a North Sea Oil platform, a very boring job. I spotted a name with initials that seemed familiar. I decided to  watch out for duplicate names and found quite a few who had been working for different companies at the same times. One had even been employed by six different companies during the same period and had claimed full wages from all companies plus six sets of expenses. He was quietly fired, because of the clients embarassment.)

Always remember that if you are the senior engineer in any situation, you carry the responsibility for safety. You should therefore always be aware of the overall safety situation.

The Engineer.

This is a job description. This is the engineer in overall charge on any job. He should be fully knowledgeable of all aspects of a job including all the different trades involved. He may have many specialist senior engineers under him such as civil, mechanical, electrical, structural, marine, electronic, chemical etcetera. He must know enough to be able to verify that all trades have carried out work to a satisfactory standard from foundations to electronics and all trades between. He must also be conversant with contract law, finances and quantity surveying, because cost over-runs will normally be blamed on him.

He must also be handle labour relations problems, (generally by ensuring that there are none), and must be pleasant but firm with contractors management, and in many cases, his own management.

He cannot claim that ” he was told that it was OK”. it is his responsibility.

Engineer is a profession. It is probably the only profession in which, if you make a mistake, other members of the profession will tell you so, and in less than a gentlemanly way. Therefore sort out mistakes quickly or admit that you have made a mistake quickly. The engineer generally has no back-up to rely on, he is on his own.

Bearing all this in mind, it is not surprising that he is often referred to as “that Bloody Engineer”.

Engineering Trades.

Speciality Engineer. Must be able to design, supervise construction  and commission plant and equipment within their speciality.

Design Engineer. Normally refers to office based senior designers.

Draughtsman. The primary starting point for engineers, starts at detailing drawings, then detailing designs then design.

Machinist. Operating machines such as lathes, milling machines, grinders etcetera during manufacture of equipment.

Welder. All types of hand welding requirements. Does not normally include jig welded jobs.

Fitter. Assembly of products, normally on site. Normally prefixed by particular trade, such as pipe-fitter.

Mechanic. Assembly of machinery and equipment. Normally includes disassembly, fault finding and repair.

Rigger. Normally involved in the movement and setting up of very heavy objects.

Electrician. Carrying out installation of electrical equipment and cabling.

Structural & Civil. Covers many trades such as steel erectors, concrete, roadworks, drainage, sewage, paving, roofing, brickwork, cladding, insulating etcetera.

NOTE; There is much multi-discipline among trades. A fitter could also be a welder, rigger and machinist or any combination. This depends on the skill level of individuals. In the mills there was a a job title ‘Millwright’. this was the equivalent of engineer because he was in charge of all mill engineering functions, from civil to electrical. (Textile machinery is the most complex machinery ever invented.)

NOTE:  There are many people who claim to be engineers, but unless they can show the knowledge, skill and experience of design in their subject they are not qualified to be engineers.

Brian Williams – Author

The Design of Space Craft.

This post was  triggered by the following BBC report.

What should spaceships look like?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14291992.

Science fiction (SF) has always fascinated me since I was a child. It is the type of fiction that opens the mind of the reader to concepts that are far outside the mundane realities of everyday life. Many of the SF writers also have an impressive grasp of psychology that could make other main-stream writers envious.  Note that there is a considerable difference between SF and Science fantasy in that SF writers tend to remain within the realms of scientific possibilities whilst science fantasy writers tend to wander into the areas of the ridiculous.

Science fiction illustrators nearly always produce artwork that is total fantasy in having no scientific basis. This is particularly obvious in their portrayal of spacecraft. The designs are generally totally unworkable as spacecraft and are mainly just strange shapes full of odd bits stuck on to make them look more ‘scientific’.

The design of the “Starship Enterprise”, the most famous spaceship design ever produced, would be be totally useless for space flight outside the influence of a gravity source.  Note; I am not a ‘Trekie’ so I am expecting lots of repudiations of my comment.

Why is this?

It is the same reason that bullets, war-shells, guided missiles etcetera all have symmetrical shapes. This allows balance in the forces acting.

Even the spin on bullets is there to there to counterbalance any imperfections in manufacturing that would cause them to deviate from their planned trajectory.

Aircraft have all sorts of imbalanced forces operating on them such as tail fins, landing gear, wing tanks, outboard weapons systems, etcetera that all affect the flight of the aircraft. However gravity exerts a major force that means that providing the imbalances are equal on both sides of the vertical plane, they do not upset the handling too much whilst travelling horizontally.

In space flight outside gravitational force, even slight imbalances become more serious. During acceleration the power must be applied through the centre of mass and in the direction that you want to travel. Any slight variation in the centre of mass will cause the spacecraft to rotate. If it rotates by I degree in the first second of a 10 second ‘burn’ it will rotate by 10 degrees (Approximately) during the 10 second burn.

To prevent this from happening a compensating force will be required. which wastes fuel.

How would the pilot know exactly where the centre of mass is? Generally he wouldn’t know, he would only have a calculated location. If a pilot put out his hand to operate a control, this would change to centre of mass of the spacecraft. If you had people walking about this would cause the centre of mass to continually change.

Let us now consider the starship Enterprise. Let us assume that it has lots of computer equipment to handle variations in the centre of mass and everyone on board is tagged to allow the computer to be aware of their locations.

The shape of the enterprise is quite pleasing and is not embellished with too much external junk. It could fly in Earth’s atmosphere or under a gravitational force. However, the position of it’s drives means that it would be impossible for the force to act through the centre of mass. It would need a large amount of energy to correct the imbalanced forces attempting to spin the spacecraft.

Another major problem with shapes of spacecraft designs is that they are not streamlined. If space was a total vacuum then the shape would not matter if the driving force operated through the centre of mass. However, space is not a vacuum and therefore there is something there to cause resistance. Due to the non-streamlined nature of most designs this resistance of the various ‘stuck on’ appendages would cause deviations in the path of the spacecraft.

Author

Brian Williams

Facts and Fallacies about Modern Physics – 2

1. Einstein did not invent the atom bomb. See Einstein and the Bomb.
2. Physicists have not discovered dozens of sub-atomic particles. In fact they haven’t even discovered one. Even the electron is only at the ‘theory’ stage, but there is reasonable circumstantial evidence for its existence. See How Physicists “Find” their Particles.
3. The speed of light is not a constant. See Physics or Fantasy – Section 1. Michelson – Morley made some basic errors in their maths (simple trigonometry).  Einstein and the physics establishment accepted the maths without checking them, and arrived at the constant speed of light mythology.
4. There is no such thing as the ‘wavelength of light’. Waves can be ‘created’ in streams of light just as they can be ‘created’ in streams of water, but you would look silly if you started talking about the ‘wavelength’ of water. ‘Waves’ in light are created by the apparatus itself. In fact all waves in anything you consider are either ‘created’, i.e. something other than the material or fluid itself actually causes the waves, or are ‘generated’ as in Radio and television waves. or just like alternating power supplies. If you hold a stick in a flowing stream of water, waves are ‘created’ around the stick. The ripples (Waves) in the sand are ‘created’ by the rush of water up the beach and have nothing to do with the waves in the water itself. The sand ‘waves’ in deserts are created by the wind and do not indicate that wind or sand are part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Physicists just do not understand the nature of waves because it is mechanics.
5. Blue light does not have more energy than other colours, in fact it has the lowest energy level. See the posts on colour.
6. No-one has ever seen an electron. No-one has ever seen an atom. However, we see by the quantity and speed of electrons entering our eyes. Yes, I do mean electrons, not Photons, there is no requirement for the hypothetical photon particle to explain vision.

I will add more as I think of them.

Oldest Living Creature?

Amoeba, Memory and Intelligence.

Strictly for amusement.

The oldest living creature on the planet must be one of the amoeba or one of the similar type of creatures that recreate themselves by  binary fission, i.e.  each creature divides into two new identical ones.  I nominate this creature on the basis that it is clearly a creature, being capable of planned movement with an obvious purpose in mind, (I’ve known many a drunken human who couldn’t claim that much.)

I have no idea how long they have been around, but it is obvious that each ‘individual’  must be the ‘same individual’ as the original one. Therefore each one must be millions of years old.

You would think that having been alive all that time they would be super intelligent, but you could also argue that as each one only gets half a brain from each binary fission, then they must be getting less intelligent as time goes on. (This is not a valid argument because the human brain is really only a single cell organism in its early stages.)

Do they have a brain? I suspect that they do because all deliberate movements in other creatures are controlled by the brain. There are many living things that move, such as plants but in general their movements are controlled by external stimuli such as the Sun or rainfall.(Possibly the drunk operates under the same external stimuli, such as the smell of alcohol.)

Many biologists consider that the amoeba doesn’t have a brain, but it really depends on what are the functions needed to qualify for the definition of a brain.

I think the definition that it can control its movements must be one of the main definitions of a brain.

Reproduction is not a requirement, as even crystals reproduce themselves.

Possibly memory is the main requirement, because memory is another survival trait.  It allows a creature to recognize dangers from previous situations. If the amoeba can modify its behaviour in response to danger, then this means that it probably has at least a rudimentary memory.

We are coming to an obvious crucial point which is the very small brain (nucleus) capacity. Memory requires storage space, just like your computer. The small brain indicates that it has a very limited amount of memory storage, and will therefore only be able to remember a few things.

So, is ‘intelligence’ dependant on the number of memory cells? Is a computer with 1 gigabyte of memory more intelligent than one having only one megabyte?

Obviously not, because memory use in a computer is controlled by the CPU (Central processing unit), and in a similar way, biological memory requires control from the biological CPU. Memory storage is completely none intelligent. A book does not have intelligence even though it may be packed with useful information. ( Of course, this means that the same argument could be applied to the human brain. Is a vast amount of knowledge the same as intelligence?)

A problem here is the word itself. Intelligence is derived from Intellect which comes from the French word Intellectus, meaning to choose between. This infers the ability to make decisions, (assuming intelligent decisions) therefore knowledge itself is not necessarily indicative of intelligence.

The amoeba, therefore, may still qualify as an intelligent creature. It is evident that the amoeba has sufficient intelligence and memory to survive for millions of years in its environment. Does it actually need to be more intelligent or have more memory? A more important question is ‘Is the accumulation of knowledge in itself intelligent?’

In many ways I find some sympathy with the amoeba. We both are uninterested in the names of the members of pop groups or the lives of long dead kings and queens.  We both cannot  find interest in every game played by the New York Yankees. Why swot up on history if no-one ever learns by it. Why waste memory on useless information storage. It would be useful if we could clear out  all useless information in our memories as you can on a computer.

The human brain is rather strange in that it seems to able to store a vast amount of knowledge that appears to be almost unlimited. This cannot be actually  true even though scientist consider that only a small proportion of the brain is used. Recent research has been carried out on London taxi drivers who have to “Have the Knowledge” [ Note: London taxi drivers have to take a test on their knowledge of the London area before they can operate a taxi . This knowledge can take  up to 4 years to learn. This includes the best and fastest routes between any two points in London, a very complex problem.

The research found that areas of the brain of London taxi drivers increased in size during the accumulation of  “The Knowledge”. Therefore the brain itself cannot have that much spare capacity.

Maybe the amoeba will still be around when humanity is extinct, in which case the question would be “Who was the more intelligent, the amoeba or the extinct humans”.

In binary fission can we be in any doubt that both the biological CPU and the memory take part in the fission process? This means that both halves of the original would have the same memories and the same ‘skills’.

Although normally stated to be a single cell creature this is not strictly correct. It actually consists of thousands of cells.

Author; Brian Williams

How Physicists “Find” Their Particles!

This really started  with ‘Brownian Motion’ and Einstein’s interpretation of  it. Over the years the equipment has got more sophisticated and costly.

Note: No-one as ever seen or isolated any of the physicist’s particles, or even presented a sensible explanation of them. The cloud Chamber, the Bubble chamber and the Hadron Collider only show tracks that may be particles, atoms or molecules. there is no actual evidence of what the tracks really are.

Simplified, they fire something into a liquid or gas and see what happens. (Please understand that they don’t actually know what it is that they are firing.)

They then take photographs of what happens. The photographs require 100s of thousand of photons to produce each one. (Please understand that they do not know what a photon is. They think that it is something between a particle and a wavy line.)

The photograph below is typical of the those taken. DON’T PANIC IF IT CONFUSES YOU, ALL WILL BE SIMPLIFIED IF YOU HAVE UNDERSTOOD MY POSTS ON ‘UNDERSTANDING MECHANICS’.

This photograph is claimed to show the mutual annihilation of an Anti-proton and a Proton, and the creation of charged Pions. Again, don’t panic, because the names are meaningless.

Below is a simplified version of the above.

The Red line shows the path of an imaginary ant-Proton. This strikes a ‘supposed’ proton at 2. The Blue lines are claimed to be the tracks of positive Pions and the green lines are claimed to be the tracks of negative Pions. The heavy line at 3 is claimed to be a positive pion that finally strikes some unknown object and bounces off to become a positive Muon. (The actual statement from the physicists is that comes to rest and decays into a Muon.) Why would it change direction on becoming a Muon?

At the right hand side of the Proton? there is a negative Pion that appears to split into two negative Pions.

It may have occurred to you that all the positive Pions travel anticlockwise and the negative Pions travel clockwise. If we had a photograph taken from directly opposite the camera taking the above picture would physicists mark the above positive Pions as negative Pions, etcetera.

Now let us look at other options. Let us consider that the Proton at 2 is actually an atom. Now Pions, Muons, and all the other mythical particles are all deemed to be parts of atoms. Therefore the atom is quite massive relative to the particles.

Now if atoms are partly composed of all these other particles, then on being struck by a high speed particle, these other particles are quite likely to be dislodged or sent flying in all directions. If dislodged particles have some degree of spin, then they will travel a curved path, either clockwise or anti-clockwise, depending on the direction of spin, just like a tennis or cricket ball.

What if the tracks were caused by electrons not mythical Pions? Well, this would go against the physicists hypotheses, because they claim that hydrogen only has one electron. However, that is just an hypothesis, for there is no proof to back it up, My own hypotheses indicate that it is not true.

However, electrons could certainly fit the above photographic ‘evidence’.

Another problem with the above is relating to the energy of the particles. Line 3 is stated to be of ‘relatively low energy as gauged by the small radius of curvature of its trajectory’. The curvature is caused by the amount of spin on the particular particle. The total energy of a speeding particle is a combination of its forward speed and its rotation.

Spirals on the photograph.

In the top right hand side of the photograph there is a spiral track as shown below.

The physicists claim that these sort of tracks are caused by electrons.

I am very doubtful of this claim. A tight track such as this would indicate an unbalanced force in operation. The spiral paths are far more likely to caused by a spinning molecule. If it was a spinning electron it would have to have a very high spin rate and would not suddenly stop as shown. The type of camera used could also affect the results. Also the length of exposure of the film. As previous notes, they have really no idea what it is that they are ‘apparently’ seeing.

———–————

———————–

The photograph used in this post is quite a famous one in physics circles and is claimed as proof of many aspects of ‘particle’ physics. It is one out of millions of photographs taken in an attempt to justify the physicists hypotheses. 99.999% of the other photos do not justify the hypotheses! Its like taking a million photos in a shopping mall and finding one that shows only men, and then claiming that this proves that only men go to shopping malls. Anything can be claimed when searching through millions of photographs of purely random interactions between particles.

Matter and anti-matter particles.

Physicists constant discussions and publications relating to anti-matter particles is based on on photographic ‘evidence’ in the same way as the above photograph. If a particle is fired into the gas (or liquid) and appears (on the photograph) to suddenly disappear, there are many possible reasons for this. It could have slowed down and then stopped.  It could have hit an atom and bounced off either away from or towards, the camera. It could be in orbit around an atom

—————-

Note: The Hadron Collider is just a very, very expensive version of this experiment.

———–

“Tevatron teams clash over new physics.”

All the above comments also apply to the Tevatron accelerator in the USA, currently in the news. I suspect that they are struggling to find a magic particle to enable them to keep the unit open. (It is due to close shortly.)

A LOT MORE TO COME ON THIS TOPIC.

Author;Brian Williams

Einstein and the Atom Bomb.

Einstein, E = mc² and the Atom Bomb.

In 1937, Einstein was told by Leo Slizard (better known for his Science Fiction  writing ) that based on his (Einstein,s) E = mc² , an atom bomb was probably being made by Germany (Which it was trying to do). At this time, Slizard was already trying to work out some means to produce an Atom Bomb. Slizard convinced Einstein to back him, and Slizard drafted a letter to President Roosevelt which Einstein signed. That was the extent of Einstein’s involvement with the Atom Bomb.

Let us consider E = mc² ,

i.e. Energy = Mass x (The Velocity of Light)²

This is based on the standard formula in mechanics, E = mv² or Energy = Mass x Velocity² , modified because of Einstein’s interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Einstein argued that for anything travelling at the speed of light, any variation in energy must mean a variation in the mass, based on the argument that the speed of light was a constant value.

In fact, neither formulae have any relevance to the Atom Bomb. The actual Atom Bomb is based on well known classical mechanical principles.

A match head is a source of energy, a gallon of petrol is a source of energy, a piece of coal is a source of energy and uranium is a source of energy. The ignition of any of these items is an atomic reaction. An atomic reaction involves only the complete atom, a nuclear reaction affects the nucleus itself, a far more serious situation. Even our sun is unlikely to involve nuclear reactions, it is far too small to contain the really dangerous atoms required for nuclear reactions to take place.

The danger could arise from material arriving from outer space that does contain the really dangerous atoms that could be accidentally included in an atomic explosion

None of them (so far) have produced nuclear reactions, thank God, otherwise we would not be here.

I have just to-day read an article on the web about Einstein. http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/einstein.htm. Although blatantly anti-Semitic, (I did’nt even know he was Jewish) it argues that all Einstein’s work was plagerized from more deserving (none Jewish) physicists. In that case I feel that they were even more incompetant than Einstein.

Author, Brian Williams

Running my web-site – General Notes

I get a  lot of general comments and questions relating to this web site.

1.The basic Web operating system is WordPress. 2.9.2. Note I have been trying to upgrade to the latest version for over 18 months, without success

2.The basic theme is a Gear 1.2.1. modified (By my son) to my requirements.

3.My first web site I did myself, but I cannot remember what system I used.  I was very simple, free, and had reasonable instructions.

Generally I find WordPress rather difficult to use, mainly due to a lack of any clear instructions. I may produce a post setting out the basic operations.

Note; 20th June 2014. I have now managed to upgrade WordPress and am just getting used to the improvements.

Formatting of text and graphics can sometimes be a nightmare.

I have been trying to get comments to display as latest comment first.

I cannot find an explanation of why the editing page sometimes defaults to html mode, making updates extremely difficult to do, especially formatting.

I would like to delete some statistic categories which I am not interested in and return the ‘Spy’  category which was very useful but disappeared one day about 18 months ago along with 18 months of data.

Note, it is no use  asking me why your computer does not show the posts correctly, or will not print properly. I am not an expert on computer operating systems.  My posts show correctly on hundreds of computer systems and on most browsers. Even if you  gave me all your computer and operating system information, I would still not be able to help.The web site was checked using my my three computers, an Apple Power Mac 8600/200 running Apple OS 7.5, OS 8, OS 8.6 and OS 9.1, Plus a PC running Windows 2000 and a PC running Linux Ubuntu.

These are problems with your system. It is no use trying to view this web site on a mobile phone, it is designed to be viewed on a proper computer screen.

I use the Windows PC for running Autocad plus WordPerfect. I use the Apple for producing colour graphics from drawings produced on Autocad plus any publishing requirements. The Linux computer is mainly used as a back-up plus running off copies of Sudoku puzzles (its saved me more than the computer cost, I usually print them 8 to a page). Its a free operating system, fairly comprehensive and has some interesting features.

I DO NOT DO ADVERTISING. Allowing advertising on my website would destroy its integrity and effectiveness. (It would also drastically reduce its loading speed.)

Copying my posts.

No one is authorised to copy my posts. I will not authorise them  because unless I could validate the integrity of the copyist I would have no means of  controlling their usage in promoting scam sites, pornography etcetera.

Partial copying is legally allowed for use in critical reviews, but must include my site information and a written review by the copyist.

Brian

Physics in the News – Two Slit Interferometer.

From BBC News – 3 June 2011

Quantum mechanics rule ‘bent’ in classic experiment

By Jason Palmer Science and technology reporter, BBC News

Researchers have bent one of the most basic rules of quantum mechanics, a counterintuitive branch of physics that deals with atomic-scale interactions.

Its “complementarity” rule asserts that it is impossible to observe light behaving as both a wave and a particle, though it is strictly both.

In an experiment reported in Science, researchers have now done exactly that.

They say the feat “pulls back the veil” on quantum reality in a way that was thought to be prohibited by theory.

Quantum mechanics has spawned and continues to fuel spirited debates about the nature of what we can see and measure, and what nature keeps hidden – debates that often straddle the divide between the physical and the philosophical.

For instance, a well-known rule called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle maintains that for some pairs of measurements, high precision in one necessarily reduces the precision that can be achieved in the other. [ This is not so. Brian]

One embodiment of this idea lies in a “two-slit interferometer”, in which light can pass through one of two slits and is viewed on a screen.

Let a number of the units of light called photons through the slits, and an interference pattern develops, like waves overlapping in a pond. However, keeping a close eye on which photons went through which slits – what may be termed a “strong measurement” – destroys the pattern. Etcetera, etcetera.

———————————————-

More waffle from the physics establishment. This experimental information is covered in my book Physics or Fantasy – Section 1 – Light and Relativity.

The experimental results obtained show that light functions strictly in accordance with normal fluid mechanics, and have nothing to do with quantum mechanics.  Just as in my experiments on colour, the main items of equipment in these experiments are the slits themselves. The significance of the ‘mechanics’ of the slits is totally ignored by the physicists, mainly due to their creed that mechanics cannot have anything to do with physics.

Light is the ultimate  fluid.  People do not think of light as a fluid,  yet it functions like a fluid. The main difficulty is that light is so fluid it that it travels a lot faster than liquids or gases.  The main definition of a fluid is it takes the form of any shape that contains it.

The speed at  which a fluid conforms to the shape of the  containing vessel determines  its fluidity. Treacle, Oil, Water, Dry Sand,  Oxygen, Hydrogen etcetera are all fluids. However, they all take  different amounts of time to fill any containment of them. They are also subject to to gravity and internal frictional forces. Light is  only very, very little affected by gravity, and is only affected by external friction, again, only in a very small way. The slit experiments demonstrate the effects of friction on light.

However, do not expect to put light into a bottle, put a stopper in and use it later. Once light is stopped, its energy is dissipated. The particles (Or if you are a physicist, wavy lines) are still there but have lost their energy. The particles have to have a certain speed to be detected by the eye as ‘light’. Below this speed they cannot trigger the eye/brain receptors.

The experiments are explained in simple language.

See also

How Physicists “Find” their Particles

The Full Mathematics of the Michelson – Morley Experiment

Understanding Mathematics

Understanding mechanics is nothing to do with mathematics, it is the reality of what is actually happening and why it is happening?

OR

This post is really nothing to do with mechanics because mechanics is about reality?

In fact I will attempt to explain the roll of mathematics in relation to reality.

There is a series of pet food advertisements on British television, in which the animals (cats or dogs) state  that “you should read the instructions yourself because I cannot read”. However, earlier adverts had a situation in which the animals had to say that they could not count, but these adverts were quickly dropped. I would imagine that the company received thousands of letters pointing out that animals can count.  This was my immediate reaction on first seeing the advert. Sad really, that the company knew so little about animals.

Natural arithmetic is addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Many animals have the inborn ability to carry out simple examples of these arithmetical functions.

Arithmetic

Addition and subtraction.

Addition and subtraction are fairly simple for animals, they check their young every few minutes and know exactly how many they should have (addition) and how many are missing (subtraction).   Our last dog, Mandy, when receiving ‘treats’ , would stay still until we had scattered the correct number of them, and then collect them together. If we did not throw the correct number she would nudge our legs to tell us that we had got it wrong. If we threw one more when we were two short she would nudge our legs again to tell us that we had still got it wrong.

Multiplication and division.

Division is ‘fractions’ . Obviously animals don’t calculate fractions that give an answer of less than one because there is no necessity for it in their lives. However, in some respects they can calculate fractions. Offer a dog the choice between a full shin-bone and half a shin-bone and it will select the full shin-bone. Which is the greater; one shin-bone or one shin-bone divided by two? [Which is the greater; 1 or 1/2 ?].

Now let us consider a far more difficult question. If we cut the shin-bone into three equal lengths A, B and C, which one would the dog select? The dog must work out which is the greater,  A, B or C. [Which is the greater 1/3, 1/3 or 1/3?]

We know from experience that the dog will not select B, it will select A or C. It is obvious that the human arithmetical notation is of no use to us in this case, but the dog would be able to make the correct selection. Does this mean that the dog is more intelligent than we are? No, it just means that the dog has more information than can be supplied by the human arithmetical notations. The dog works it out by logic.

Mathematics is a man-made tool which can be very useful. It is not a science. Like any tool it will do certain things very well.  and like any tool, if incorrectly used, can create disasters.

Although claimed by the physicists to be their specialised subject, (it should be, most physicists rely on a Mathematics Degree to get a job.), most of them only have knowledge of a small number of  the 1,000,s of formulae in everyday use. Most of the worlds formula were created by engineers. {Odd really, Einstein is famous for one equation that he got a Nobel prize for, (even though it was wrong), whereas I have created about 25-30 new equations over the years, all which have proved to be right. I once produced a new formula for working out escalation costs on Oil platforms. This caused great consternation to the oil companies and they spent many months attempting to discredit it. Obviously they failed because they had to pay in accordance with my new formula. This was quite a complex formula. On another occasion, determining  the cost of hiring ships, boats and rigs and their staff and operatives operating in the North Sea was quite a complex problem which even the suppliers had difficulty with.

In this instance I produced a simple formula that produced more accurate figures and only took about 30 minutes to  work out the total payments due each month. Obviously I do not hate mathematics, I just hate the misuse of mathematics, especially by physicists.

“Firstly, the abandonment of the ideal of a mechanical explanation of everything has eliminated a great deal of idle hypotheses. The properties of the fundamental entities of physics are now stated in the form of mathematical equations, instead of being ‘explained’ by a hypothetical mechanism.” From ” The Philosophy of Physical Science”, by Sir Arthur Eddington. This is the ‘Eddington’ usually quoted by physicists when they are asked awkward questions.

Let us consider the first sentence. Modern physics is now almost entirely composed of ‘idle hypotheses’. Quarks, time dilation, rubber sheet universes, black holes, time travel, nuclear fusion, Hadrons, and now the God particle, are just a few of the ‘idle hypotheses’ that occupy the minds of the physicists.

Logic and Measurement.

Although the word ‘logic’ is commonly used when referring to mathematics, logic actually refers to reasoning whereas mathematics is simply a set of rules designed to make things simpler. (Yes I know, if you don’t like mathematics, then the last thing you would agree with is that it makes things simpler, but it does make things easier if you do like mathematics.)

Anyone who has suffered from bureaucracy will probably agree that rules are not always logical. The same problem exists with mathematics.

Let us say that we have 7 Leopards and 10 camels. Now torque is measured in pounds feet and is obtained (mathematically) by multiplying pounds and feet. We should be able to multiply leopards and camels to arrive at 70 cameleopards. (yes there is such a thing, its also called a giraffe).

Obviously we know from common sense and reasoning that this is a silly idea.

We can however multiply leopards and camels to arrive at 70 animals, but this is no more logical. This is because you cannot multiply real objects by real objects.

You can add camels and leopards to get a total of animals.

A lot more to come on this but not yet.

Author; Brian Williams