Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Its harder then rocket science-Physics


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#16    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 November 2012 - 11:30 PM

View Postthe L, on 10 November 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

As that some infinities are larger then others because they are not. I can provide more info.
Please do. I am fairly convinced that some infinities are larger than others; as I see there are at least two levels of infinity: the ``countably infinite''and the ``uncountably infinite''.

View Postthe L, on 10 November 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

To continue -1.What do you say about Milgrom idea?
It is ok. My personal favourite is conformal gravity (because quantum field theory is also conformal, so presumably if we ever succeed in adding gravity to quantum field theory the result will be conformal as well).

But I don't know that many technical details on the subject.

View Postthe L, on 10 November 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

3-That video doesnt explain it how is that possible. Its only explined that we could live in one dimension so curved that we could see it as 3D unless its prooven othervise. But how is possible to have same dots in two stated objects is ...mysterious. Isnt?
Well what is a ``dot''? If a dot has a finite size the no, there isn't necessarily the same number of dots on the edge of a square as in the interior of that square.

But if you are referring to ``dots'' as infinitesimal points, then there are an infinite number of points on a line of any finite length, and the number of points is uncountable. So if all uncountable infinities are the same... for every point you can find inside the square, can't you find a point on the line as well?

View Postthe L, on 10 November 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

5-So its called ultrahyperbolic dimension. Its just wrote is unpredictable not unstable. We would live in realy chaotic universe right?
Yes. The argument is that we would never be able to exist. No type of "ordinary" matter would be able to form, etc.

For example, 4 space + 1 time dimensions is an easier Universe to contemplate. In this Universe stable orbits do not exist - there could be no solar systems!

In a Universe with 3 space + 2 time dimensions that you mention, how would things age? Would "cause" have to precede "effect" in both time directions?

This is what they mean when they say "unpredictable". Our Universe is chaotic, but chaos is not unpredictable - it is only unpredictable without perfect information. I think the "unpredictable" Universes described in that chart mean even if you knew everything about a system you could not predict what would happen because there are too many degrees of freedom - but I could be wrong.

View Postthe L, on 10 November 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

6-Can you give analogy for wave function collapse so even I could understand it? I found it interesting so next time I spoke to some smart physicist and when he tells me that world is determinized I could atlast tell him what I allways felt in my heart but not been able to express it. And now I even have evidnece for such.
I will do my best...

Picture a piece of graph paper; something with a regular square grid. Label the squares going up and down the page as ``momentum'', and the squares going across the page as ``position''. Now each square on the graph paper can be identified by two numbers (say ``position 3, momentum 5'' or ``position 1, momentum 13'')

Now in classical physics an object - like an electron - would be a push pin. You can stick the push pin into any square you want.

In quantum physics that same electron would be a popsicle stick. The stick lies flat on the graph paper, and you can rotate it any direction you want. Importantly, the stick takes up more than one square.

If we want to ``measure the position'' of the popsicle stick, the stick is rotated so it is vertical on the graph paper; it only occupies one column of squares - so it has only one position. If the stick didn't start out vertical, by measuring (i.e. rotating) we have ``collapsed the wavefunction''. Before rotation the stick occupied several columns; and therefore had the possibility of being in several positions. After measuring there is only one position.

Importantly, note that by ``measuring the position'' of the popsicle stick, and by rotating it so it is vertical, the stick now occupies the maximum number of rows - it is now spread out across the maximum number of momenta. Ever time we ``collapse the wavefunction'' in regards to one aspect, we ``spread the wavefunction'' in regards to another aspect. Once the wavefunction is ``collapsed'', we can keep measuring the position again and again; we will always get the same result.

Now if we try to ``measure the momentum'' of the popsicle stick we will be rotating it so it is horizontal and occupying only one of the rows that it was spread out across before. Now we have again ``collapsed the wavefunction'' (in the momentum, or vertical axis, rather than the position, or horizontal axis, we previously did), and we know the momentum of the electron. But again, notice that now the popsicle stick stretches across the maximum number of columns; so we have many possible positions.

When you collapse a wavefunction, you put the electron in one out of several possible states (and the particular state it ends up in is random) - for one particular aspect (like position). The penalty for doing this is that the electron now occupies many possible states in the other, complementary, aspect (like momentum). Once a wavefunction has "collapsed" in one aspect it will stay like that until something else comes along and mucks with it.

This is basically a simple example of the Uncertainty Principle.

Some people believe that this is just a mathematical ``trick''; that objects are really ``push pins'', not ``popsicle sticks'', and that wavefunction collapse only appears to happen because we don't have all the details.

I believe that the wavefunction is real, and that the collapse actually happens.

View Postthe L, on 10 November 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

7.Do you believe we will be ever able to time travel? And when I ask you that, same with teleport? ...In fact to continue...do you believe that man will be able to effect with his mind EM field one day same as is able to effect his body with mind. There are many interesting abilities that people describe. And some we tested. Yoga improves health. We can feel when someone stare at us even we dont see him, people can be like magnets...to nam few I could do it for hour.
I do not believe we will ever be able to travel back in time. (Obviously we always travel forward in time.)

I do not believe we will ever be able to teleport people in any practical setting, because I do not believe we could ever reconstruct something as complicated as a person without being at absolute zero in a complete vacuum (which would obviously kill the person).

I am sure that strong EM fields affect our minds, but the trick is using EM to do something specific. I think it is quite possible, but will take a lot of study (especially since every person is different) to do anything reliably.

View Postthe L, on 10 November 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

11. Then why Jupiter doesnt blink and appear here then there? And why then electrons doesnt orbit around nucleous?
The possible complexity of a wavefunction depends on whether or not it can be reduced. We believe (based on particle physics experiments) that electrons are irreducible; that is they are fundamental particles.

In an atom, even a complex atom like, say, lead, there are a fairly small number of fundamental particles interacting in a very small region of space (i.e. Lead-204 has 82 electrons and 612 quarks all crammed within a volume of 2.25 x 10-29 m3.

Importantly, the lead atom itself almost never ``blinks'' or ``appears here or there''. The total cluster of 694 fundamental particles behaves rather like a ball. The individual electrons certainly exhibit a lot of quantum behaviour, but that is because they are fundamental particles - there is no way a single particle can ``disentangle'' from itself.

For a lead atom to ``blink'' or ``appear here or there'', all 694 fundamental particles would have to behave as one coherent and entangled entity. This can happen, but rarely does.

Jupiter, on the other hand, has a ridiculously large number of fundamental particles (probably over 1050) and, importantly, has an internal temperature of on the order of 1000 degrees or more. Temperature is an indication of the randomness of the composite particles (a single lead atom has a temperature close to absolute zero), and randomness is the exact opposite of coherent entanglement.

For Jupiter to ``blink'' all of these particles would have to behave as one coherent and entangled entity. It can happen, but the odds are astronomical - the odds of it happening once in ten billion years are close to zero. (And this is just for Jupiter to act as a single entanglement. Even if that does happen there is no guarantee it will ``move here and there'' by more than a nanometre. The odds of Jupiter becoming entangled and also manifesting that entanglement in a manner detectable from Earth are even more remote.)

Quantum weirdness has recently been shown for some large-ish molecules in perfect laboratory conditions (see here).

View Postthe L, on 10 November 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

Do you believe in multiverse?
Not really. I have never heard a good argument for a Multiverse that didn't seem like an attempt of explaining the mysteries of nature by claiming that ``something different is happening somewhere else''.

View Postthe L, on 10 November 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

Is there any argument against Big bounces theory? Maybe universe is breading.
I am not aware of any significant arguments against or for this theory.

View Postthe L, on 10 November 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

What do you think is best mystery in physics? Or few.
Personally? Why gravitational mass is the same as inertial mass, and why the masses of fundamental particles do not seem to follow any simple distributions.
(Although I am sure there are those working in physics who might consider this to not be that mysterious.)

View Postthe L, on 10 November 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

This is more like history. Name me yours top physicits in the history based on their contribution to science.
Man, I don't know. I think I would put Newton at the top of the list.

Einstein, Schrodinger, Planck, Heisenberg, Pauli, Dirac, Fermi, Feynman, and Bohr all belong on that list as well.

I like Bardeen, Slater, Born, Bohm, and Jarzynski because it seems like they are neglected sometimes.

Meissner, Maxwell, Faraday, Tesla (for his experimental work, he was pretty bad at theory), Lorentz, Gauss, Leibnitz, Schwarzschild, Eddington, Wheeler, Kohn, Sham, Thomas, Hartree, Fock...

I am not sure I can rank these folks though.


#17    Cybele

Cybele

    Married to the Void

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined:26 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • Prick your finger it is done
    The moon has now eclipsed the sun
    The angel has spread its wings
    The time has come for bitter things

Posted 10 November 2012 - 11:55 PM

17) I'm not a physicist, but I posted a video a while back about Inflationary Theory and the Big Bang. The Big Bang is the logical reversal of the observation that the universe is expanding and cooling. The singularity is the boundary of what the theory itself can tell us when reversing our current observations about the universe, but this does not necessarily mean that it was the beginning of time, the universe, or anything and everything. If we want to describe pre-big bang conditions, we need another theory to do so. The video I posted was called "Inflationary Cosmology on Trial" and can be found on youtube.

My sig: "Cryptorchid", Marilyn Manson

#18    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 November 2012 - 12:18 PM

Hi Sepul.

Sorry for late response. To tell you the truht I was busy and to respond on your post I often have to think about it a lot so often it took some time.
All infinities are same. That idea isnt mine. Its called Infinity problem and it was proposed by 9 century Thabit Arab Muslim scholar.

We start counting counting numbers 1,2,3,4,5....And in those counting numbers we have even numbers as another "line". 2,4,6...
So no matter how long did we count counting numbers 1,2,3,1000,1001.... when we pull even numbers from counting numbers we have half as many.
Galileo thought on Thabit problem was -its best to not thing at that problem at all.
Now lets just look even numbers...2,4,6...And lets start counting even numbers...2 is 1st even number,4 is 2nd even number and so on...
we get 2-1, 4-2, 8-3 ....They arent half as many. They go throw open door with holding hands.
Problem is ...that even numbers belong to counting numbers they left all odds and how can be exactly as many?


...
I read that low f.EM waves can effect our minds too.
....
Why would gravitational mass be different then inertial mass?
...
Thats interesting list of physicists. No Rutherford?  Tesla was genious, I think he doesnt get credits as he should be. Its shame he didnt get Nobel.

Edited by the L, 14 November 2012 - 12:19 PM.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#19    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 November 2012 - 08:59 PM

View Postthe L, on 14 November 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

Hi Sepul.

Sorry for late response. To tell you the truht I was busy and to respond on your post I often have to think about it a lot so often it took some time.
All infinities are same. That idea isnt mine. Its called Infinity problem and it was proposed by 9 century Thabit Arab Muslim scholar.

We start counting counting numbers 1,2,3,4,5....And in those counting numbers we have even numbers as another "line". 2,4,6...
So no matter how long did we count counting numbers 1,2,3,1000,1001.... when we pull even numbers from counting numbers we have half as many.
Galileo thought on Thabit problem was -its best to not thing at that problem at all.
Now lets just look even numbers...2,4,6...And lets start counting even numbers...2 is 1st even number,4 is 2nd even number and so on...
we get 2-1, 4-2, 8-3 ....They arent half as many. They go throw open door with holding hands.
Problem is ...that even numbers belong to counting numbers they left all odds and how can be exactly as many?
I agree with that... but all sets of integers are countable, even infinite sets. Even rational numbers (fractions p/q where both p and q are integers) are countable.

The real numbers are not countable. You can not devise a scheme where an arbitrary real number is indexed to a known integer.

View Postthe L, on 14 November 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

Why would gravitational mass be different then inertial mass?
Why wouldn't it? Electrical mass (i.e. ``charge'') is different than inertial mass. Of all the fundamental forces, gravity is the only one where the thing coupling to the force is the same as the resistance of the object to movement.

In other words, an object with a charge q and mass m in an electrical field E experiences a force of F = Eq; and has an acceleration a of F = ma = Eq so a = Eq/m.
An object with a mass m in a gravitational field G experiences a force of F = Gm; and has an acceleration a of F = ma = Gm so a = Gm/m = G.

View Postthe L, on 14 November 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

Thats interesting list of physicists. No Rutherford?  Tesla was genious, I think he doesnt get credits as he should be. Its shame he didnt get Nobel.
I would call Rutherford a chemist, but I guess he belongs on the list too. That is the problem with lists, I always forget things.


#20    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 November 2012 - 09:48 AM

Thank you Sepul on your contribution. If you ever need my help about some topic II can be helpfull I will be glad that I can help.(History,Criminology,Psychology,Philosophy...)

And thanks goes for other in this thread too.

Edited by the L, 15 November 2012 - 09:49 AM.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users