Recent content by very_curious

Okay mathfeel, that helps, thanks. But quarks have never been observed, right? So if it's possible that protons and neutrons just 'get created' when something hits a nucleus/nucleon, then it's also possible that quarks don't actually exist. Which would change the theory somewhat.

I guess - in cases where there is more than one possible explanation, to be sure that the current theory is the most accurate description of what happened To use the photon/light bulb example, there are two possibilities 1. The photon that hits your eye is the same photon that left the...

Yes, I am asking that - trying to establish a subtle point. Technically, we can't prove that the light you observe came from your ceiling fan, can we? The photon that hits your eye might have come from an air molecule somewhere along the way. Similarly, with protons from particle...

Hi there, Happy to offer more clarity. One reason for the framing was to keep the post succinct. Another way to frame the question is "if we observe a photon, can we prove where it originated from i.e. where it was created?" So I guess 1,2,3 could each be rephrased as two questions: a...

True or false? 1. It is not possible to prove the point of origin of a photon 2. It is not possible to prove the point of origin of a free electron 3. It is not possible to prove that protons or neutrons exist inside a nucleus Can someone please confirm?

Thanks everyone, But something about this still bugs me. Why does redshifted light mean the universe is expanding? Is it because the wavelength of the light has become longer? And if so, what has this got to do with expansion? Please explain in short, clear sentences so I can...

Understood. Sorry, I should have been clearer. I'm not claiming that the galaxies' relativistic mass is the source of their gravity, and hence the source of the redshift. The source of gravity is the mass within the galaxy. Wouldn't this have an effect on the light that the galaxy emits...

Hi everyone, Thanks for the initial thoughts, although it doesn't quite answer my question. If I'm hearing this right, the short answer is that "we don't know"? Vanadium, I don't buy your answer, as we're talking about the interpretation of an effect rather than the effect itself...

Hi, I'm trying to get my head around theories of the universe, and am wondering if Hubbles Law has been mis-understood. I know that light from far away galaxies has been redshifted i.e. has lost energy. But I'm not convinced that this means those galaxies are moving away from us...

Hi, Is there a link between how fast a planet rotates, and the strength of its magnetic field? Or is there any recent work on this? I know that neutron stars rotate very fast and have v strong magnetic fields, and the same with Jupiter Okay, so that's not much to go on, but... is...

Okay thanks - that's useful! So some of the light is absorbed by the electrons in the polariser, which move back and forth along the molecule chains (which are all parallel to each other). For clarity though - why do the electons only absorb the light which has its electric field...

I wasn't sure which forum this came under, so... I've read the basic idea of polarised lenses: light rays have an 'orientation', and when a light beam passes through a polariser only certain orientations get through. 1. But what happens to the rest of the light i.e. those rays that don't...

Can you be more specific? What in your view, precisely, does the double-slit experiment confirm? Please do a bullet-point list of properties of the electron so we can go through them in turn and check that the double-slit experiment results don't clash with any. Cheers,

Hi, I'd really like this thread to keep going - there's the potential for some very specific, well-thought-out debate - so I've got something to add. I also doubt the QM explanation for the double-slit/diffraction experiments. Well, that's not quite true - I don't agree with the pop...

I partly see your point - if we try to simplify one part of physics we might complicate another. But that's conjecture until we actually try it :) The question is: where can we find new insight? Here are the assumptions again, slightly re-written: Assumption 1: Atomic nuclei are single...