Fridays eclipse - top tips for viewing:

[F.U.B.A.R.]

Ah, In that case you've probably got a better idea than I have then. But it is generally accepted that light is created by matter, as photons are emitted when electrons 'fall' into lower energy levels around the atomic nucleus. Also, it is thought that the universe was dark after the 'big bang' until the particles of matter condensed into atoms and started reacting, producing radiation as a by product. As for how matter was originally created, who knows? That's the one unknown that the church is still hanging onto as evidence of a creator.

 

[steewith2ees]

the simpleist explanatory metaphor i was given are that matter can be converted to energy and back again, and that the exchange rate is the speed of light squared. Were talking big values for E

 

[F.U.B.A.R.]

Well ultimately energy and matter are the same. Matter can be thought of as organised energy. However, due to entropy, it's more common for matter to sublime into energy than it is for energy to coalesce into matter - the one example I can think of are quantum fluctuations where particles can seemingly 'pop' into existence from nowhere, presumably where there is a suitable energy gradient, though again due to entropy these particles are normally very short lived. 'Free' energy such as electromagnetic radiation is almost always a product of matter as it basically relies upon chemical reactions to release it from matter. Sure, we can use energy to 'create' matter, but all we are really doing is manipulating existing matter. The one analogy I find extremely useful as a model is waves in water. The waves can be thought of as energy. Remember school physics wave tank experiments where you get waves from two different sources which interact to produce standing waves which are stationary for a short time? Well I picture particles as these standing waves. On a cosmological scale, these particles are only fleeting and will eventually disperse through entropy. However, on our timescale the particles last long enough to create atoms, molecules, macromolecules and life; but will always eventually disperse into free energy. That's my take on the matter anyway, but I'll leave it there as I'm gradually getting more pissed and losing my train of thought....

 

[curious_24]

I loved the wave analogy! You make some interesting, yet easily digestible points about matter and entropy.

Ever thought of a career as a science teacher?

 

[F.U.B.A.R.]

Thank you But I could never be a teacher - I couldn't handle the kids

Btw, that standing wave model is only the product of my stoned musings, but I believe it to be a useful analogy for energy and matter in the same way that water conduits are a useful analogy for electrical circuits.

 

[felix]

Well, I've just joined an astronomy forum, so that makes me the resident expert astronomer on Bluelight. Any questions, just let me know and I'll get back to you in a couple of days. %)

I speak for the forum, im actually really into astronomy, cosmology and theorectical physics so im looking foward to some good threads felix

I hereby rescind my drunken comment from last night, haha.

 

[lurching]

always enjoyed this bit of Feynman on imagination/visualization http://feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_20.html#Ch20-S3 Ch20-S3 "Scientific Imagination" and also the little bit on EM waves in the section before that
(yeah that's the entire Feynman Lectures vol 1-3 online there, dig in)

 

[pinkpapaver]

I'm not a hundred percent sure on my theory and wouldn't know how to test it but the universe is one big place with a lot going on yet all things are one. School science has gotten pretty rubbish and it gets on my nerves. I'd like to work on a good curriculum for science.

 

[F.U.B.A.R.]

Well if there's one thing I learnt in my degree, it's that nothing in science is 100% sure. A theory is only an hypothesis that has been tested experimentally to an acceptable level of confidence through statistical analysis of the results. I see where you're coming from though as I believe that matter is borne of energy - just not light.

@ Lurching: nice one, cheers for the link. I've had a glance and I'll read through when I get chance. Unfortunately there's too much maths in it for me - that's why I could never be a physicist..

 

[Eveleivibe]

^^^^agreed. They called it the cycle when I was doing my degree because nothing is definite.

Evey

 

[warriorOnTheEdge]

^^^^agreed. They called it the cycle when I was doing my degree because nothing is definite.

Evey

We will all die

 

[BecomingJulie]

I do have a degree in physics, even if it is a third.

Don't feel too bad about it! A third is still slightly better than what I got .....

 

[F.U.B.A.R.]

We will all die

Arf!! Short & to the point

 

[BecomingJulie]

This is what happened on the roof of Montoya Mansions on the morning of 20 March 2015:

X axis is time of day, Y axis is total power generated by 8 panel system (2000 W maximum -- all you can get on a Victorian 2U2D terrace), green line = actual reading from inverter, red line = averaged value using quick and dirty infinite-impulse filtering algorithm.

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

So, roughly, around the time of the eclipse you didn't generate much electricity from your solar panels.

No shit Sherlock.

Pretty diagram I guess.

 

[felix]

It's the technology that's interesting (to some), Grumplestiltskin.

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

You don't need technology to state the bleedin' obvious. However pretty the colours. It's just showing off.

 

[F.U.B.A.R.]

Hahaha! Actually, I think Julie's post was just a polite way of saying "get back on bleedin' topic!"

 

[Vurtual]

Thank you But I could never be a teacher - I couldn't handle the kids

Btw, that standing wave model is only the product of my stoned musings, but I believe it to be a useful analogy for energy and matter in the same way that water conduits are a useful analogy for electrical circuits.

(to stay off topic a bit longer...) I seem to remember (probably wrongly) that a standing wave is how schrodinger was trying to understand matter (or is it de broigle) - i think it worked for the electon but it was abandoned as a literal wave as the theories were refined and it became accepted that you could just have a wave of probability. This is hazily recalled and probably wrong - this (quickly harvested) link may explore it better.

I was fascinated when i found out that the atomic orbitals' shapes are the same as spherical harmonics from acoustics - so in other words, the different orbitals/energy levels are like harmonies or resonances with each other (similar to planetary orbits). I still have trouble visualising exactly how all those shells and orbitals fit together.

 

[F.U.B.A.R.]

You mean some cunt beat me to it? Bah!