Question about gravity

[Ziggurat]

Could the electron in that makes the ion charged be considered as the current flow in the battery instead of the entire ion?

No. Electron flow is in the opposite direction of conventional current (which was defined as the direction the current would be flowing if it were positive). Positive ion current flows the same direction as conventional current.

Is the electron transferring from ion to ion or is the entire ion moving as current flow?

The entire ion is flowing.

There is no way around dealing with the existence of both positive and negative charges in electromagnetism.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Could the electron in that makes the ion charged be considered as the current flow in the battery instead of the entire ion? Is the electron transferring from ion to ion or is the entire ion moving as current flow?

What I meant to say was could the lack of an electron in the positive ion be considered the "deficiency of electrons" part of the circuit

 

[Ziggurat]

What I meant to say was could the lack of an electron in the positive ion be considered the "deficiency of electrons" part of the circuit

Not if you look close enough (Hall effect works on conducting fluids too). And "deficiency of electrons" is a hand-waving approach anyways: is a vaccuum deficient in electrons?

 

[robinson]

Yes.

 

[69dodge]

A vacuum is positively charged?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Are those interesting?

I spend quite a lot of my time traveling to conferences, so going to one for fun isn't terribly appealing, but you never know...

They are the best damned conferences in this or any other universe. You must attend TAM6 or your genitals will shrivel and your head will explode!

Can you tell I like TAM? Seriously though, it is a blast, and you won't regret attending.

Cheers - Mattus

 

[MattusMaximus]

Electromagnetism, it is as easy to understand as gravity.

Actually, I find electromagnetism (the classical version at least) much easier to understand than gravity. Hell, classical E&M was unified decades before Einstein even came up with general relativity - and we're still working out the implications of GR.

 

[MattusMaximus]

A vacuum is positively charged?

I'm not sure about that, but we do now know that vacuum states do contain a considerable amount of energy. For more info on this, read up on something called the Casimir effect...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Cheers - Mattus

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes.

Not according to Maxwell's equations.

 

[The Man]

is a vaccuum deficient in electrons?

Yes.

Technically a vacuum is no more deficient or abundant in electrons than it is in positrons. That deficiency or abundance of those virtual particle pairs depends only on the spatial and temporal scale being considered. So it remains uncharged either deficiently or abundantly.

For more info on this, read up on something called the Casimir effect...

It may be easier to consider the Casimir effect more in the wave aspects of wave particle duality then the particle aspects one might normally consider thinking about virtual pairs. Due to the limited distance between the uncharged plates only certain standing waves can be accommodated. Although these shorter standing waves have a higher energy then longer wavelengths both the shorter and longer waves exist on the outside of the plates. The force pushing the plates together is from the difference between the short high energy waves that can fit between the plates and the combination of the same short high energy waves outside of the plates plus the longer less energetic standing waves that can not fit between the plates. This is why the Casinir effect only has a force of about one atmosphere or 14.7 pounds per square inch at a separation distance of .0000003937 inches.

 

[Southwind17]

From the number of people who keep popping into the physics threads, I think I'd like to meet a number of you at TAM6. What say we have a "physics geeks" get-together at TAM6?

Whose with me?

Cheers - Mattus

I'm there. Oh ... if you sort out my air fare, that is!

 

[tableplay]

... Superconducting Super Collider would have been finished by now, except that it got cancelled over a decade ago and never got very close to completion. ...

The nice thing is that at least the Large Hadron Collider will soon be put to work (this coming May). I believe one of the goals of this new collider is to detect the Higgs boson.

Cheers, tp

 

[Tumbleweed]

Okay, here's a great concept I came across in a string theory class
Put an Existence Switch on the sun and flip it off. It takes several minutes for it to go dark on Earth, right?
BUT- does the Earth immediately spin out of orbit or does it wait until things get dark
In other words, light has no acceleration , but it does have velocity.
How about gravity. If it is instantaneous throughout the universe, then it is more like an ether than a flow

 

[slyjoe]

So light can't be accelerated? That's news.

 

[Fredrik]

Put an Existence Switch on the sun and flip it off. It takes several minutes for it to go dark on Earth, right?
BUT- does the Earth immediately spin out of orbit or does it wait until things get dark
In other words, light has no acceleration , but it does have velocity.
How about gravity. If it is instantaneous throughout the universe, then it is more like an ether than a flow

This question was answered earlier in this thread.

So light can't be accelerated? That's news.

It was a hundred years ago.

 

[sol invictus]

Okay, here's a great concept I came across in a string theory class
Put an Existence Switch on the sun and flip it off. It takes several minutes for it to go dark on Earth, right?
BUT- does the Earth immediately spin out of orbit or does it wait until things get dark
In other words, light has no acceleration , but it does have velocity.
How about gravity. If it is instantaneous throughout the universe, then it is more like an ether than a flow

You took a string theory class and you don't know the answer to that question? I find those two statements a little hard to reconcile....

 

[Tumbleweed]

You took a string theory class and you don't know the answer to that question? I find those two statements a little hard to reconcile....

Oh I know the answer: The Earth would indeed immediately spin out of orbit
As to the String Theory class, it was actually one of the Great Courses programs that I borrowed from a friend in exchange for one I had, so I only saw most of the lessons once. A good background in sub atomic particles ( that I don't have) would have been very helpful, but I grasped the basic concepts they were getting at: that various and sundry types of vibrating and spinning strings make up the four fundamental forces of nature, and that one may be tranformed into another by, basically plucking the strings. Photons are considered electromagnetism's string, gravitons, gravity's, and I forget the ones for the weak and strong nuclear forces. Boson?
And they all presumably have counterparts in the antimatter world
And the biggest caveat is that none of it can be proven because these strings are so tiny they cannot be detected via electromagnetic means
Did I grasp much for a beginner? Hey, at least I didn't lose any money!
True most of the detailed study to prove and define the characteristics of those particles went over my head (16 of them were there, with the Higgs giving matter its mass? Something like that.)

 

[Jimbo07]

Oh I know the answer: The Earth would indeed immediately spin out of orbit

Is this correct? I thought gravitic "information" also travelled no faster than c.

I know no cosmology...

 

[sol invictus]

Oh I know the answer: The Earth would indeed immediately spin out of orbit

That's incorrect.

As to the String Theory class, it was actually one of the Great Courses programs that I borrowed from a friend in exchange for one I had, so I only saw most of the lessons once. A good background in sub atomic particles ( that I don't have) would have been very helpful, but I grasped the basic concepts they were getting at: that various and sundry types of vibrating and spinning strings make up the four fundamental forces of nature, and that one may be tranformed into another by, basically plucking the strings. Photons are considered electromagnetism's string, gravitons, gravity's, and I forget the ones for the weak and strong nuclear forces. Boson?
And they all presumably have counterparts in the antimatter world
And the biggest caveat is that none of it can be proven because these strings are so tiny they cannot be detected via electromagnetic means
Did I grasp much for a beginner? Hey, at least I didn't lose any money!
True most of the detailed study to prove and define the characteristics of those particles went over my head (16 of them were there, with the Higgs giving matter its mass? Something like that.)

OK, that explains a lot. Out of curiosity, who was the professor?

I thought gravitic "information" also travelled no faster than c.

That's right.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Is this correct? I thought gravitic "information" also travelled no faster than c.

I know no cosmology...

The thing is that if any information travels faster than C then people in different reference frames will see the earth spinning off into space before the sun vanishes and would be correct.

So things propagating at C is the one thing every reference frame can agree on.