/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11290665
retard, can't even spell length

>>11290665
>and the smaller ones are invisible
That's wrong, they're not invisible, humans just can't perceive them.
Long ones aren't invisible either.

lets say you were able to place a mirror in space out at such a distance that the mirror experience cosmological redshift from your perspective. If you were to shoot a laser beam of some wavelength at the mirror then the light reflecting off the mirror would be a longer wavelength than the originating laser because of the relativistic doppler effect.
what wavelength would the light be when it got back to you after bouncing off the mirror? would it be the original wavelength or would it be redshifted?
if its not the original wavelength then how was energy conserved?

>>11290665
>Actually
No, you're wrong and at least uneducated, if not even dumb.

>>11290697

sorrry this is not Science or Math

>>11290708

it's invisible to humans unless you have mutation

>>11290735
>then how was energy conserved?
It wasn't. Noether's theorem.

>>11291486
>maht

>>11290751

Very light things when threw to somewhere don't make a perfect rect line, even when you use a strong force to accelerate it. Take a powder and accelerate it, it wouldn't make a perfect line, it would rather make curves until it reaches its goal.

Try again with something heavy and see an almost perfect line (in case you use a huge force to accelerate), maybe it would make some "wavelenghs" like the light particles that I'm talking about.

Small objects would make its way like short wavelenghs and bigger objects like wider wavelenghs

it's not only about mass but also volume, these things affect the wavelengh, as well as acceleration affects it

wavelength

>>11290735

sorry guy there is no cosmological redshift as you say, this is fake. What happens is that the red light is faster then the ultratiolet light, the reason is why is wavelength is much wider, the consequence is more speed when compared to short wavelenghts, a less direct trajectory. It isn't because of the expansion of space that the light from far stars are red.

In case you shoot a laser to a mirror on such a distance nothing special would happen, except the fact that red light would reach there because it's faster.

Ultraviolet and red light can't have the same speed.

>>11290735
Energy is not conserved. It's converted into space.

Feed me dicks please, I am starving

>>11291640

in mass

an elementary particle in vacuum does not expand and stays how it is

>>11291661

You are not The Owner of Physics

>>11291493
Yep. Energy is only conserved if the universe were invariant under shifts in time. Since it expands, that doesn't hold and energy is not conserved.

>>11291515
Every experiment we've conducted shows that our fundamental particles must be point particles (within well-defined error bars). You're wrong.

The place for a dick is in my ass.

>>11292034
Maps are not territories, anon. Excitations are not dirac deltas in position-space.

>>11292154
You're confusing size with uncertainty about position.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
>quarks are considered to be point-like entities, with zero size. As of 2014, experimental evidence indicates they are no bigger than 10−4 times the size of a proton, i.e. less than 10−19 metres.[82]

>>11292168
You're confuses about what uncertainty means. It doesn't mean the position is a dirac delta and we're just uncertain about the location -- it means the position is not infinitely sharply defined. Even your own quote backs me up -- they're considered to be points. They aren't actually points.

>>11292180
No, you're confusing size with position.

They're saying "considered" because it's not experimentally provable, but the estimate converges to zero with every iteration of size probing experiments. They could also be 1D strings for example.

>>11292188
If a particle's position is spread out over a non-infinitesimal region of space, that particle has a non-zero size. That is what size is. Particles' positions occupy non-infinitesimal regions of space.

>>11291982

an elementary particle of energy wouldn't move in vacuum and would be conserved.

>>11292196
That's where you're wrong. Don't accuse others of being confused about something you don't understand. Position isn't anything close to size. What's spread is not the particle itself. Learn the difference.

>>11292574

The fuck you are saying put your ass on a chair and take my lessons and shut up

As I said before this just how the particle behave when going from a place to another. Infrared light moves like wider waves and ultraviolet shorter waves. That indicates its volume and size.

>>11292963
>>11292964
lol, you're talking out of your ass. It's a shame how school only produces retards who can't even read these days.

>>11292964
>In case you shoot a laser to a mirror on such a distance nothing special would happen, except the fact that red light would reach there because it's faster.
>Ultraviolet and red light can't have the same speed.
take your name off braindead faggot

>>11292970
>22
Do you make all this pixel art? Where does it come from?

>>11292964
This is where you are mistaken, the electric and magnetic components of EM radiation are non-spatial. The amplitude of the wave is not a representation of position of space, but the field strength at that phase. Polarization is a representation of where that field strnegth is pointing, whether rotationally, or linearally. Photons don't move up/down or side to side across a surface. It's the discrete momentum of the field perturbation that travels through space. There's also continuous forms of radiation as with thermal.

Quantum physics kind of fucks with people's interpretation of classical wave theory.

>>11290735
you've asked this question several times, stop being an inbred

>>11291715
shut up fake, I will make you my little dirty slut

>>11296774
Hey Hoaxfag, why the name change?

>>11296672
>Do you make all this pixel art?
nah
>Where does it come from?
google

450 nm

>>11296761
you seem upset

>>11297160
This isn't me lol, also I don't post like this. Also none of this is my theory ;)
Don't make me resort to a secure tripcode mang, were all just trying to have a good time here.

Why is every physics thread on /sci/ a trainwreck?

>>11297530
Because sperg lords, ignore them

>>11297536
I never see any other type of thread except for off topic shit get this bad though. What is it about physics that attracts these people? They're clearly not educated beyond maybe a 100 class

>>11297542
100 lol, they're still in grade school.

>>11297542
Misrepresentation of quantum physics in popsci, publishing "peer" reviewed papers that are gibberish (bognadof/sokal hoax/affair)
The Vatican's quantum research lab publishing fake data to prove god is real.
Religion embracing QM and cherry picking shitty data.
Bad peer review process.
No one authority to disprove the charlatans.
Putting people with aspergers/ savant autism etc in charge of stuff (like the people on /sci/ but with PhDs!)

I don't know what you were expecting lol.