Monday, 9 December 2019

Who is the father of physics?

Physics is a branch of Science that deals with the study of natural phenomena that are prevalent in the nature.
So here we have to find out who is the Father of Physics. We might find this like just like we solve physical problems, by the Method of Deduction.
We also know that this while studying the different fields of Physics itself, we make certain assumptions for better analysis of those fields.
Here also we make certain assumptions for our deductions to work. Let us see what are those:
We see you have asked for the ‘Father of Physics’. So we can assume that Physics is actually a child.
We see, the word is Physcics. It ends with an ‘S’. So we can assume it to be plural. Consequently we may deduce that Physics is not a child but actually children.
Now we try to find out how many children constitute this Physics.
Wikipedia tells us these are the broadly classified topics of Physics. So we may assume these to be the number the children that actually constitute physics. These numbers are above 100. We deduce that there are more than 100 children.
Now we draw some concepts from Biology. Biology is branch of science that deals with the processes and functions of living organisms.
We come to find out the it is not quite possible for a person to be the father of 100 children, based on moral grounds.
So we may conclude that Physics (with its constituent children) has many fathers and not a single one.
Now I’m putting aside this maniacal deduction.
There is no single father of physics. It was developed through the ages, right from the early man who invented the fire and the wheel. So to single out a person from all of the scientists who have devoted their entire lives to the enhancement and development of Physics, would be very very unfair. We should give credit to each and every men and women who have worked hard to create a society with these scientific innovations which we have come to take for granted.
P.S. The deduction was only meant for a humorous understanding of the above mentioned fact and is not to be taken too seriously.


Wednesday, 27 November 2019

Can gravity be infinite? if not why?

Niagra waterfall
The kinetic energy that water gains when it falls (and can therefore be converted into electricity by a hydroelectric plant) comes ultimately from sunlight and not from gravity. As a force, no energy can be extracted from gravity itself. Public Domain Image, source: Christopher S. Baird.

No, gravity can not be used as an infinite energy source. In fact, strictly speaking, gravity itself can not be used as an energy source at all. You are confusing forces with energy, which are very different things. Energy is a property of objects, such as balls, atoms, light beams, or batteries. In contrast, forces describe the interaction between objects. Forces are the way that energy is transferred from one object to another when they interact, but forces are not the energy itself. Gravity is a force, so it just provides one way for objects to exchange and transform energy to different states.
If I lift a bowling ball to the top of a hill and let it go, the ball falls, speeds up, and seems to gain energy. Isn't this a case of gravity giving energy to the bowling ball? No. Again, gravity is just a force, so it just describes how objects interact. The energy that the ball displays as a falling motion came from my muscles when I hefted the bowling ball to the top of the hill, and not from gravity. Gravity just provides a way to temporarily store energy in an object. We call the energy that an object gains when you lift it against a force "potential energy". The energy comes from the lifting agent and not from the force. The force just provides a way to transfer energy from one object (my muscles) to another object (potential energy in the lifted ball). When I let go of the ball, gravity converts the potential energy of the ball to the kinetic energy (motional energy) of the ball. But the ball can never gain more kinetic energy than the total potential energy that I put into it by lifting it.
This concept is true of all forces, and not just gravity. Two magnets attract each other and fly together, speeding up and seeming to gain energy. You may think that the energy has come from the magnetic force. In truth, the energy comes from your hand pulling the two magnets apart against the magnetic force. The magnetic force just provides a way for potential energy to be stored in the magnet (by virtue of you pulling them apart, not just by virtue of them being magnets), and then converted from potential energy to kinetic energy. Any time you push an object to a new location against a force, you are giving it potential energy.
It is true that gravity is "unlimited" in the sense that it never turns off. Earth's gravity will never go away as long as it has mass. But since this is just a force and not an energy, the never-ending nature of gravity cannot be used to extract infinite energy, or any energy at all, for that matter. Think of gravity loosely like a rubber band. Stretch the rubber band and let go and it snaps back into place. You can therefore store potential energy in a rubber band by stretching it, and this potential energy becomes kinetic energy when you let go. But an unstretched rubber band just sitting there won't move at all, and can't create any energy. The energy you see in the rubber band snapping comes from you stretching it and not from the rubber band itself. Neglecting heat losses, the kinetic energy that comes out of the rubber band (how much it snaps) is exactly equal to the potential energy that you put into it using your muscles (how much you stretch it). Lifting an object against gravity is just like stretching the rubber band.
Confusing energy and forces leads to non-sensical ideas such as free energy (perpetual motion) machines. Such machines always fail precisely because forces are not energy, and you can't extract one single bit of energy from a force itself. For instance, a "free energy" machine could consist of a ball that rolls down a hill and hits a paddle, which turns a wheel. The problem with this machine is that the ball has to be returned to the top of the hill for the process to continue, and the amount of energy you have to put into your machine to put the ball back at the top of the hill equals the energy you get out of your machine from the spinning wheel. Actually, the amount of energy you get out of your machines is always less than the energy you put into it because some of the inputted energy is wasted to heat energy through friction. Free energy proponents devise ever cleverer ways to get the ball back to the top of the hill (or the magnets separated again, or the rubber band stretched again, etc.), hoping that just one more extra gear or wheel will somehow magically create energy out of nothing. But they can never get around the fact that forces are not energy and you can never get more energy out of a system than you put in.
What about hydroelectric plants that extract energy from the falling water in rivers? Don't they extract energy from gravity for free? No. The water in the river is no different from the ball that you have to haul up the hill. The water got its energy not from gravity but from some external agent that placed it high up in the mountains against gravity, so it could fall down the river bed. The external agent in this case is sunlight. Sunlight warms the ocean, causing the water to evaporate and float into the sky. The energy contained in the photons of sunlight is converted to the potential energy of the water molecules that are lifted high in the sky. These water molecules then rain down to the ground, form rivers, and flow back down to the ocean, converting their potential energy to kinetic energy, heat, and (in a hydroeletric plant) electricity. Ultimately, therefore, hydroelectric plants extract solar energy from water.


Tuesday, 19 November 2019

When stuck in water, bees create a wave and hydrofoil atop it, study finds

Walking on Caltech's campus, research engineer Chris Roh (MS '13, Ph.D. '17) happened to see a bee stuck in the water of Millikan Pond. Although it was a common-enough sight, it led Roh and his advisor, Mory Gharib (Ph.D. '83), to a discovery about the potentially unique way that bees navigate the interface between water and air.
Roh spied the bee during California's years-long drought, when the pond's fountain was turned off and the  was still. The incident occurred around noon, so the overhead sun cast the shadows of the bee—and, more importantly, the waves churned by the flailing bee's efforts—directly onto the bottom of the pool.
As the bee struggled to make its way to the edge of the pond, Roh noticed that the shadows on the pool's bottom showed the amplitude of the waves generated by the bee's wings, as well as the interference pattern created as the waves from each individual wing crashed into each other.
"I was very excited to see this behavior and so I brought the honeybee back to the lab to take a look at it more closely," Roh says.
Working with Gharib, Caltech's Hans W. Liepmann Professor of Aeronautics and Bioinspired Engineering, Roh recreated the conditions of Millikan Pond. They placed water in a pan, allowed it to become perfectly still, and then put bees, one at a time, in the water. As each bee flapped about in the water, filtered light was aimed directly down onto it, to create shadows on the bottom of the pan. Roh and Gharib studied 33 bees individually for a few minutes at a time, carefully scooping them out after a few minutes to let them recover from their swimming efforts.
A paper describing what they found was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on November 18.
"The motion of the bee's wings creates a wave that its body is able to ride forward," Gharib says. "It hydrofoils, or surfs, toward safety."
Slow-motion video revealed the source of the potentially life-saving asymmetry: rather than just flapping up and down in the water, the bee's wings pronate, or curve downward, when pushing down the water and supinate (curve upward) when pulling back up, out of the water. The pulling motion provides thrust, while the pushing motion is a recovery stroke.
In addition, the wingbeats in water are slower, with a stroke amplitude—the measure of how far their wings travel when they flap—of less than 10 degrees, as opposed to 90-120 degrees when they are flying through the air. Throughout the entire process, the dorsal (or top) side of the wing remains dry while the underside clings to the water. The water that remains attached to the underside of the wing gives the bees the extra force they use to propel themselves forward.
"Water is three orders of magnitude heavier than air, which is why it traps bees. But that weight is what also makes it useful for propulsion," Roh says.
The bees do not seem to be able to generate enough force to free themselves directly from the water, but their  motion can propel them to the edge of a pool or pond, where they can pull themselves onto dry land and fly off. Hydrofoiling is a lot more taxing for the bees than is flying, says Roh, who estimates that the bees could keep up the activity for about 10 minutes, giving them a fixed window to find the edge of the water and escape.
The motion has never been documented in other insects, and may represent a unique adaptation by bees, Roh says.
"On hot days, bee hives require water to cool off," Roh says. "So when the temperature rises, workers are sent out to gather water instead of pollen." The bees will find a water source, swallow some into a special chamber in their bodies, and then fly off. Sometimes, however, they fall in. And if they cannot free themselves, they die.
Roh and Gharib, who work in Caltech's Center for Autonomous Systems and Technologies (CAST), have already started applying their findings to their robotics research, developing a small robot that uses a similar motion to navigate the surface of water. Though labor-intensive, the motion could one day be used to generate robots capable of both flying and swimming.
The study is titled "Honeybees use their wings for water surface locomotion."

Thursday, 1 August 2019

Honour for Kolhapur-born theoretical physicist Atish Dabholkar

Until 2010, he was a professor of theoretical physics at Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai.

Atish Dabholkar to lead Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics

Atish Dabholkar, a theoretical physicist from India, has been appointed as the new director of Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) in Trieste, Italy.

He is currently the head of ICTP’s high energy, cosmology and astroparticle physics section. He joined the centre in 2014 on secondment from Sorbonne Universit√© and the National Center for Scientific Research, where he has been a research director since 2007. Mr. Dabholkar will take up his duties as ICTP director with the rank of Assistant Director General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). He will succeed Fernando Quevedo, who has led the centre since 2009.
“It’s an honour and a great responsibility to be chosen as ICTP’s next director. ICTP is a one-of-a-kind institution with a very high level of research and a unique global mission for international cooperation through science. It was envisioned as an international hub for excellence in science and as an anchor to build scientific capacity and a culture of science around the globe. This vision remains valid today even after five decades, but needs to be implemented keeping in mind changing realities and priorities,” he said in a statement.
Born in 1963, Mr. Dabholkar completed his school education at Gargoti in Kolhapur district. He is a graduate of the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur. He got a Ph.D in theoretical physics from Princeton University, followed by postdoctoral and research positions at Rutgers University, Harvard University, and California Institute of Technology. Until 2010, he was a professor of theoretical physics at Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai, and has been a visiting professor at Stanford University and a visiting scientist at CERN.
Mr. Dabholkar is well-known for his research on string theory and quantum black holes. “Research at these new frontiers is an ongoing quest for a more complete and unified formulation of the laws of nature. The work of our founding director Abdus Salam on electroweak unification was an important milestone in this direction,” he said.
He has received many honours, including Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Award (2006). He is an elected member of the Indian Academy of Science and was awarded the IIM National Leadership Award as a ‘Young Leader in Science’ in 2007 by the President of India. In 2007, he received the Chair of Excellence Award from the National Research Agency (ANR) in France. Founded in 1964 by the late Nobel Laureate, Abdus Salam, ICTP has been a driving force behind global efforts to advance scientific expertise in the developing world. Each year, more than 6,000 scientists from around the world visit ICTP for its academic, training and sabbatical opportunities. It operates under a tripartite agreement between the Italian government, International Atomic Energy Agency, and the UNESCO. It is a UNESCO category 1 institute.

source and credits: thehindu

Saturday, 27 July 2019

Nothing Is Solid & Everything Is Energy – Scientists Explain The World of Quantum Physics

It has been written about before, over and over again, but cannot be emphasized enough. The world of quantum physics is an eerie one, one that sheds light on the truth about our world in ways that challenge the existing framework of accepted knowledge.
What we perceive as our physical material world, is really not physical or material at all, in fact, it is far from it. This has been proven time and time again by multiple Nobel Prize (among many other scientists around the world) winning physicists, one of them being Niels Bohr, a Danish Physicist who made significant contributions to understanding atomic structure and quantum theory.
“If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” – Niels Bohr
 At the turn of the nineteenth century, physicists started to explore the relationship between energy and the structure of matter. In doing so, the belief that a physical, Newtonian material universe that was at the very heart of scientific knowing was dropped, and the realization that matter is nothing but an illusion replaced it. Scientists began to recognize that everything in the Universe is made out of energy.
“Despite the unrivaled empirical success of quantum theory, the very suggestion that it may be literally true as a description of nature is still greeted with cynicism, incomprehension and even anger.” (T. Folger, “Quantum Shmantum”; Discover 22:37-43, 2001)
Quantum physicists discovered that physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature. Therefore, if we really want to observe ourselves and find out what we are, we are really beings of energy and vibration, radiating our own unique energy signature -this is fact and is what quantum physics has shown us time and time again. We are much more than what we perceive ourselves to be, and it’s time we begin to see ourselves in that light. If you observed the composition of an atom with a microscope you would see a small, invisible tornado-like vortex, with a number of infinitely small energy vortices called quarks and photons. These are what make up the structure of the atom. As you focused in closer and closer on the structure of the atom, you would see nothing, you would observe a physical void. The atom has no physical structure, we have no physical structure, physical things really don’t have any physical structure! Atoms are made out of invisible energy, not tangible matter.
“Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual” (1)  – Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University (quote taken from “the mental universe)
It’s quite the conundrum, isn’t it? Our experience tells us that our reality is made up of physical material things, and that our world is an independently existing objective one. The revelation that the universe is not an assembly of physical parts, suggested by Newtonian physics, and instead comes from a holistic entanglement of immaterial energy waves stems from the work of Albert Einstein, Max Planck and Werner Heisenberg, among others. (0)

The Role of Consciousness in Quantum Mechanics

What does it mean that our physical material reality isn’t really physical at all? It could mean a number of things, and concepts such as this cannot be explored if scientists remain within the boundaries of the only perceived world existing, the world we see. As Nikola Tesla supposedly said:
“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” 
Fortunately, many scientists have already taken the leap, and have already questioned the meaning and implications of what we’ve discovered with quantum physics. One of these potential revelations is that “the observer creates the reality.”
A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. (R. C. Henry, “The Mental Universe”; Nature 436:29, 2005)
One great example that illustrates the role of consciousness within the physical material world (which we know not to be so physical) is the double slit experiment. This experiment has been used multiple times to explore the role of consciousness in shaping the nature of physical reality. (2)
A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wave-function. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double-slit as compared to away from it. The study found that factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation, experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention and psychological factors such as openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern.(2)
This is just the beginning. I wrote another article earlier this year that has much more, sourced information with regards to the role of consciousness and our physical material world:

What’s The Significance?

The significance of this information is for us to wake up, and realize that we are all energy, radiating our own unique energy signature. Feelings, thoughts and emotions play a vital role, quantum physics helps us see the significance of how we all feel. If all of us are in a peaceful loving state inside, it will no doubt impact the external world around us, and influence how others feel as well.
“If you want to know the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” – Nikola Tesla.
Studies have shown that positive emotions and operating from a place of peace within oneself can lead to a very different experience for the person emitting those emotions and for those around them. At our subatomic level, does the vibrational frequency change the manifestation of physical reality? If so, in what way? We know that when an atom changes its state, it absorbs or emits electromagnetic frequencies, which are responsible for changing its state.  Do different states of emotion, perception and feelings result in different electromagnetic frequencies? Yes! This has been proven. (3)
HERE is a great video that touches on what I am trying to get across here. We are all connected.
“Space is just a construct that gives the illusion that there are separate objects”  Dr. Quantum (source)