/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10535639]

The following statements are unsolvable in modern physics:

1. Why doesnt Moon fall to the Earth?

2. Why does photon have spin?

3. Why O2 (dioxygen) is stable?

4. What is the magnetic force?

5. Why mirrors reflect light?

If you are satisfied with the almost correct answers, they are:

1. Moon experiences gravity towards Earth and kinetic energy perpendicularly away from Earth simultaneously.

2. Uncharged photon moves differently in magnetic field because of its spin.

3. Oxygen is in triplet state.

4. Moving charges experience length contraction.

5. Atom absorbs photon then radiates it back in some direction.

[Anonymous No.10535643]

>>10535639
So they are unprovable but these are the strongest theories?

[Anonymous No.10535701]

>>10535639
Why do you think these are unsolvable? Orbits aren't exactly on the cutting edge.

[Anonymous No.10535720]

>>10535639
Kek, your pic made me chuckle. Way to represent a polar vector on a Cartesian plane.
See gif related for a better explanation

[Anonymous No.10535727]

>>10535639
You are probably trolling, but I'll bite.

#1 : The Moon doesn't fall to Earth because it is in orbit of Earth. Your picture shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the forces involved in orbiting. Take a look at my picture, which is more accurate (in the same style as yours).

Read this to understand orbits, particularly that "Understand Orbits" section

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit

Or for more on the exact case you're interested in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon

Have you even tried Googling your questions? My guess is not. Few are going to take the time of day to explain all this to you. Try to seek out answers for yourself first.

[Anonymous No.10535730]

>>10535639
I'm going to tackle the only one that I know a significant amount about.

>unsolvable in modern physics
>Why doesnt Moon fall to the Earth?
>Moon experiences gravity towards Earth and kinetic energy perpendicularly away from Earth simultaneously.

Orbits are not "unsolvable" according to modern physics, in fact you have described why they have been solved. The balancing between the gravitational and centrifugal forces is what allows for an orbit to exist. Both forces are well understood in modern physics.

[Anonymous No.10535785]

>>10535639
#5 is wrongly worded me thinks. Of course the atom absorbs the photon (but really absorbs the light wave and it's perpendicularly in step magnetic wave) gets energy, electrons bounce to higher valence levels, atom gets unstable, electrons give off energy to come back down that's how new photon is ejected.
Silver has the best this-for-that properties and is why they use that in modern mirrors. Things like polished bronze and obsidian reflect, but don't quite give back exactly what they got hence the new shade of color.
I suppose the stranger question is, why do flat smooth surfaces actually bounce back at congruent angles? How does the atom spit back in the same direction and not just any random direction like a rough diffracting surface does?

[Anonymous No.10535787]

>>10535720
Ellipticity is not relevant.

>>10535720
>>10535727
Explain why in your picture the green arrow changes direction. At no point did we agree to such rule.

[Anonymous No.10535822]

>>10535787
>Explain why in your picture the green arrow changes direction.
The green arrow in both pictures represent the tangential velocity. The arrow pointing inward (the purple arrow pointing to the center in >>10535720 and the blue arrow in >>10535727) represent an centripetal force which is causing the green arrow (the velocity vector) to change direction. Think of a ball on a string, you holding the string at one end, and spinning the ball around. The ball will be moving in a circle, the ball will have a tangential velocity to that circle, but the direction of that velocity will change because of the centripetal force from the string. The ball is analogous to the moon and the string is analogous to the Earth's gravity.

>At no point did we agree to such rule.
There was no change, nor addition of such rule. Your original post had a misunderstanding of curvilinear motion.

[Anonymous No.10535861]

>>10535787
Are you deliberately forgetting the force vectors? Or are you just failing high school physics and taking it out on us?
Cause all you have graphed is momentum, which you make disappear instead of renewed as it changes direction. It's still in motion and still has momentum just in a different direction with each radial tick.
(Also go fuck yourself, the elliptic orbit doesnt act any different)

Or godamnit it's b8. Fuck you OP

[Anonymous No.10535878]

>>10535861
>>10535822
he is right, though. you are not explaining where does the tangential acceleration to cahnge the velocity vector comes from.

[Anonymous No.10535880]

>>10535878
>you are not explaining where does the tangential acceleration to cahnge the velocity vector comes from.
>>10535822 explains it.

[Anonymous No.10535882]

>>10535822
Green arrow represents kinetic energy (its magnitude and direction) of the Moon, not it's tangential velocity.

Purple arrow represents gravitation, not centripetal force.

Blue arrow represents nothing. You have drawn it based on some secondary, undecided proposition.

Ball on a string is not relevant as there is no string between the Earth and the Moon, so whatever can be deduced from such a system doesn't necessarily apply.

However, I can still answer to you why the ball changes direction. The ball changes direction because the pull of the rope gets stronger VERY quickly when the ball tries to move away from it. This creates an outer wall from which the ball continuously bounces back inside.

[Anonymous No.10535888]

>>10535880
ok thanks.But why does the moon not fall to earth? There is friction there slowing the velocity.

[Anonymous No.10535894]

>>10535639
Mirrors reflect light the same way anything reflects light. There are certain wavelengths absorbed and other ones reflected. That depends on the absorption spectrum of the material. The mirror is designed to reflect visible light.

[Anonymous No.10535897]

>>10535639
Do not feed.

[Anonymous No.10535899]

>>10535894
he was talking in a atomic evel, brainlet

[Anonymous No.10535903]

>>10535888
>But why does the moon not fall to earth? There is friction there slowing the velocity.
Friction from what? There is no friction in space. While objects orbiting close to a planet with an atmosphere will experience a deceleration due to the atmosphere (like the ISS), the effect is nonexistent if the orbit is significantly far away from the atmosphere (like the distance from the Earth to the Moon).

[Anonymous No.10535905]

>>10535639
2. The motion of a photon is unaffected by external magnetic fields. The real reason it has a spin of 1 lies in representation theory. However, we can see that photons must have spin because of this: Maxwell's equations tell us that light must be capable of carrying angular momentum. Each photon in circularly polarized light has its spin in the same direction.

3. Dioxygen is (normally) in a triplet state, but to see why this is stable requires looking at the energies of the molecular orbitals of dioxygen. The two outermost electrons turn out to be more stable unpaired than paired.

4. Magnetic force is not due to length contraction of moving charges. This is simply an explanation of how the components of electromagnetic fields (the electric and magnetic field components) transform into each other in differently moving reference frames. It doesn't explain why the magnetic force exists in the first place. Magnetic fields exist as part of the mathematical structure of the electromagnetic field, as laid out by Maxwell's equations. Magnetic fields are produced by the current of moving charges, and by electric fields changing over time. Deeper investigation of physics reveals that the electromagnetic field is part of deeper mathematical structures. Physics can't meaningfully answer "why" these structures exist, only how they arise from deeper structures.

[Anonymous No.10535906]

>>10535639
The moon is falling towards earth, it's just going to take a while. Or it could fly away from us, but the sun will probably take us out first when it goes red giant.

[Anonymous No.10535909]

>>10535905
5. Light reflection is not due to absorption and reemission. If this were true, the light would be randomly scattered in all directions. In semiclassical theory, a light wave incident on a mirror oscillates electrons in the mirror. This simultaneously absorbs the energy of the incoming wave and produces another wave, as a combination of waves produced by each oscillating electron. The end result of this is a reflected wave. The answer for individual photons turns out to be very similar, as each photon consists of a wave spread out in space. The photon, in a mathematical sense, probabilistically interacts with many different electrons and the sum total of all these interactions produces a probability wave that probabilistically results in either reflection or absorption by the mirror. This is why a small portion of the photons incident on a mirror get absorbed while the others are reflected.

[Anonymous No.10535949]

>>10535785

>of course the atom absorbs the photon
Atom doesn't absorb anything, it's either the electron or proton (atom is just a word). There are two options what can happen, if we want to conserve linear and angular momentum:

(1) The photon and the electron/proton vanishes, and a new particle with spin 3/2 will be produced, with the linear momentum of the components summed.

(2) The photon vanishes, and the electron/photon acquires the linear momentum of the photon AND some angular momentum from the spin that vanished.

Show me the spin 3/2 particle, or show me that the trajectory of the proton/electron changes when absorbing a photon.

[Anonymous No.10535973]

>>10535949
The photon is never absorbed. See the post above yours. Also see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiHN0ZWE5bk
This describes refraction in glass, but reflection is due to a similar mechanism.

[Anonymous No.10535985]

>>10535905

>the two outermost electrons turn out to be more stable unpaired than paired

Why the state with more order has lower energy than the state with more disorder? If we want to maintain the second law of thermodynamics, then the addition of two protons into singly bonded N2 with two negative charges would increase the disorder of the state. Show that with a particle accelerator.

>>10535905

>motion of the photon is unaffected by the external magnetic fields

Magnetic fields were generated by length contractions. Are you saying photon is unaffected by the curvature of space?

[Anonymous No.10536010]

>>10535985
>Why the state with more order has lower energy than the state with more disorder?
You have a very great misunderstanding of the nature of entropy. It's understandable, as it's a tricky concept to get. To put it briefly, entropy has almost nothing to do with order and disorder as we commonly understand them. Instead, it's to do with the distribution of energy among particles in an ensemble of many, many particles, and how this energy is constantly exchanged and moved around at equilibrium. Entropy doesn't apply whatsoever to the stability of energy levels of an individual molecule.
>Magnetic fields were generated by length contractions. Are you saying photon is unaffected by the curvature of space?
Magnetic fields are not related to curvature of space, and are not generated by length contractions. Read the reply to 4.

[Anonymous No.10536192]

>>10535905
>Physics can't meaningfully answer "why" these structures exist
Oh, sorry, I thought you physicucks were out here finding "god particles" and dark matter and shit. Guess you really are just glorified pocket calculators.

[Anonymous No.10536194]

>>10536010
Ah, you are talking about your own model? Not interested in that.

Also, a general advice. If you use the sentence "X is not created by Y", just tell what Y is created by then. Now I pointlessly have to ask that what do you think creates a magnetic field then (spin is barely acceptable answer).

[Anonymous No.10536323]

>>10535639
6. Why spics do always write questions like this?

[Anonymous No.10536855]

>>10535906
It's (very) slowly moving away as the earth bleeds angular momentum due to tidal forces.

[Anonymous No.10536880]

>>10536194
Maybe if you took your head out of your asshole for a second you would see I already answered that.
>Magnetic fields are produced by the current of moving charges, and by electric fields changing over time.

[Anonymous No.10537032]

>>10535639
Sadly, your computer also works thanks to modern physics.