Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 21:38:00 -
[1] - Quote
greetings!
I am currently working on my PhD in Particle Astrophysics and recent events have shown me that i need way, WAY more experience explaining sciencey type stuff to people. SO, i figure, where better to practice then on the forums of a Sci-Fi game =D
ask away! |
Amaroq Dricaldari
Total Annihilation. Pandorum Invictus
62
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 21:39:00 -
[2] - Quote
Why can't one change the past and correct their mistakes? This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Drop-Me-Own-Stocks Darius
Total Annihilation. Pandorum Invictus
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 21:39:00 -
[3] - Quote
What is the thaumic equivalent to string theory? Who would like to buy a melon?Madame, would you like to buy a--...oh. I see you've already got some.Who would like to buy a melon? |
Kiroma Halandri
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 21:40:00 -
[4] - Quote
How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if wood chucks could chuck would? |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 21:41:00 -
[5] - Quote
There are a number of possibilities but the most likely is simple causality. if you went to the past to correct your mistakes then in the future, you wouldn't have any mistakes to go back and correct, so you wouldn't go back to correct them, but then you WOULD have mistakes etc... *goes cross eyed* |
Amaroq Dricaldari
Total Annihilation. Pandorum Invictus
62
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 21:41:00 -
[6] - Quote
Kiroma Halandri wrote:How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if wood chucks could chuck would? Why do you have to be such an ass all of the time? This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 21:43:00 -
[7] - Quote
if by thaumic you mean thaumaturgic, then who cares?! you have MAGIC!! |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 21:45:00 -
[8] - Quote
Kiroma Halandri wrote:How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if wood chucks could chuck would?
that depends on the chucking rate, which we would have to measure. we then multiply by the average lifetime of said woodchuck to get the answer...
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 21:48:00 -
[9] - Quote
but seriously though, no one's curious? ; ; i needs the practice!
|
Amaroq Dricaldari
Total Annihilation. Pandorum Invictus
62
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 21:55:00 -
[10] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:if by thaumic you mean thaumaturgic, then who cares?! you have MAGIC!! So THAT is where the word 'magic' comes from. Drop the 'thau' and the 'tur'...
Tsadkiel wrote:but seriously though, no one's curious? ; ; i needs the practice!
I am curious, but I really wish I could go back in time and fix all of my mistakes on these forums. Unfortunately, I can't. I can only move in three of the many dimensions that make up this universe. I have absolutely no idea how those Hypercube Factories do it.
But yeah, I think we need some more serious posters. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
|
Jiska Ensa
Unour Heavy Industries
52
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 22:05:00 -
[11] - Quote
Explain in simple terms so my idiot brain can handle it, how the Big Bang (expansion, inflation, zero-point energy, whatever) occurs in the "infinite universe" model... |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 22:10:00 -
[12] - Quote
dimensions are always fun to talk about :3 extra spacial dimensions add some really interesting consequences to the world.
consider this.
imagine you are holding a rectangular block (like a lego brick or something). the brick has three spacial dimensions: Length, Width, and Depth. if we shine a light over the brick we get a shadow, which is a two dimensional projection of our three dimensional brick. if we change the orientation of the brick with respect to the light, the area of the shadow changes, but it is still just a projection of the SAME OBJECT.
now, suppose we have an object that has many MANY spacial dimensions and we try to observe it. what we will see is a three dimensional projection of that object. if we were to move around that object, its volume may change, but it is still just a projection of the SAME OBJECT.
what does this mean? the TARDIS may not be mathematically impossible, and if we ever get the ability to build objects in multiple spacial dimensions, then we can make things that are bigger on the inside than they are on the outside.
NEAT! |
Lutz Major
Austriae Est Imperare Orbi Universo
290
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 22:17:00 -
[13] - Quote
What's your thesis about? |
Amaroq Dricaldari
Total Annihilation. Pandorum Invictus
62
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 22:23:00 -
[14] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:dimensions are always fun to talk about :3 extra spacial dimensions add some really interesting consequences to the world.
consider this.
imagine you are holding a rectangular block (like a lego brick or something). the brick has three spacial dimensions: Length, Width, and Depth. if we shine a light over the brick we get a shadow, which is a two dimensional projection of our three dimensional brick. if we change the orientation of the brick with respect to the light, the area of the shadow changes, but it is still just a projection of the SAME OBJECT.
now, suppose we have an object that has many MANY spacial dimensions and we try to observe it. what we will see is a three dimensional projection of that object. if we were to move around that object, its volume may change, but it is still just a projection of the SAME OBJECT.
what does this mean? the TARDIS may not be mathematically impossible, and if we ever get the ability to build objects in multiple spacial dimensions, then we can make things that are bigger on the inside than they are on the outside.
NEAT! I know all of that already. That is how the Cargo Containers in EVE work.
But thanks for attempting to enlighten me. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 22:33:00 -
[15] - Quote
Jiska Ensa wrote:Explain in simple terms so my idiot brain can handle it, how the Big Bang (expansion, inflation, zero-point energy, whatever) occurs in the "infinite universe" model...
this one is a doosy but it is a good one. before i say anything i think it is important to point out that there is a limit to our knowledge of the early universe and the questions like "why did the big bang happen" and "what happened before the big bang" are the holy grails of modern cosmology. to be frank, we don't know yet. there are several ideas out there but few if any are even testable yet.
that said, let's begin! there is a lot to put here so i will probably post and edit in chunks.
1) In The Beginning... (1E-43 to ~ 1E-37 seconds after the big bang) *to be added* 2) INFLATION! (1E-37 to ~ 1E-33 seconds after the big bang) *to be added* 3) The Middle (1E-33 seconds to ~ 3 minutes after the big bang) *to be added* 4) Nucleosynthesis (3 to ~ 20 minutes after the big bang) *to be added* 5) Foggyness (20 minutes to ~ 380,000 years after the big bang 6) The CMB! (around 380,000 years); 7) And all the rest (380,000 years to present) |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 22:33:00 -
[16] - Quote
*reserved* |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 22:35:00 -
[17] - Quote
Lutz Major wrote:What's your thesis about?
i'm hunting for Gamma Ray Bursts using HAWC!
BAM!
|
Amaroq Dricaldari
Total Annihilation. Pandorum Invictus
62
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 23:50:00 -
[18] - Quote
Gamma Ray Bursts?!
WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 23:58:00 -
[19] - Quote
well, yes, but probably not from GRBs. their distance and energy suggests that they are primarily an early universe phenomena. if one were to kill us it would have to happen in our universe and just happen to be pointing at us (GRBs emit radiation in two beams pointing in opposite directions) |
W1rlW1nd
The Scope Gallente Federation
35
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 23:59:00 -
[20] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Kiroma Halandri wrote:How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if wood chucks could chuck would? that depends on the chucking rate, which we would have to measure. we then multiply by the average lifetime of said woodchuck to get the answer...
The real answer to this is of course self relevant:
A. A wood chuck could chuck as much wood as a wood chuck could chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood. |
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 00:00:00 -
[21] - Quote
W1rlW1nd wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:Kiroma Halandri wrote:How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if wood chucks could chuck would? that depends on the chucking rate, which we would have to measure. we then multiply by the average lifetime of said woodchuck to get the answer... The real answer to this is of course self relevant: A. A wood chuck could chuck as much wood as a wood chuck could chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood.
mind = blown
XD
|
W1rlW1nd
The Scope Gallente Federation
35
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 00:04:00 -
[22] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:well, yes, but probably not from GRBs. their distance and energy suggests that they are an early universe phenomena
One of those puppies is aimed directly at the earth tho' [or very very close along the axis]. When I saw images of the star+ring thing in a documentary it sent chills down my spine lol.
Isn't a 'near miss' by a Gamma ray burst pretty devastating as well?
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 00:07:00 -
[23] - Quote
a near miss would be a hit, so, yes? heheheh, but yea, even if you are off axis, the radiation intensity is still pretty large. on average, when they go off, GRBs become the most luminous objects in the sky (though not in the visual spectrum) |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 00:10:00 -
[24] - Quote
as a point of interest, let's have some fun with units! :3 if we assume that the typical GRB has a fluence of 1e-6 erg/cm2 and if it comes from a cosmological source (d = 5 Gpc) and if we assume its energy is emitted isotropiclly (it isn't but roll with it anyway), then we get a source energy, E = 4*pi*fluence*d^2, of around 2e51 ergs, or 4.5e37 Chipotle Burritos heheheh (for a ~2000 calorie burrito) |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
445
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 00:10:00 -
[25] - Quote
At what distance from the Sun would you be able to cook egg on the hull of a spaceship? I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 00:13:00 -
[26] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:At what distance from the Sun would you be able to cook egg on the hull of a spaceship?
this is a good one and i will need to look up some numbers to calculate it but i CAN do it :3 probably will reply tomorrowish |
W1rlW1nd
The Scope Gallente Federation
35
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 00:14:00 -
[27] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:At what distance from the Sun would you be able to cook egg on the hull of a spaceship?
a better question might be, "at what distance would you NOT be able to cook an egg" assuming the surface is facing the sun.
You can already cook an egg on sun exposed surfaces on the earth, and that is through miles of atmosphere.
|
Sidus Isaacs
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
86
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 00:15:00 -
[28] - Quote
What is your take on the fate of the universe? Cold dead expansion as it seems to be heading towards now, or something different? |
Amaroq Dricaldari
Total Annihilation. Pandorum Invictus
62
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 00:18:00 -
[29] - Quote
Did you know that my bedroom is now irradiated with Alpha Particles?
It all happened when my Smoke Detector broke.
You see, Smoke Detectors work by shooting Alpha Particles around inside themselves (they contain Americium 241), and that allows the air within them to conduct electricity. Thus, when Smoke enters the Smoke Detector, it blocks the Alpha Particles, thus breaking the circuit, thus causing the alarm to go off.
My smoke detector went off for no reason what so ever a few months ago, and now it is hanging from the cieling by its cable. And thus, there are now enough Alpha Particles in my room to conduct the Static Electricity between two halves of a bandaid package, but nowhere near enough to kill me.
But I do hope that it isn't enough to give me cancer either. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 00:19:00 -
[30] - Quote
current evidence points towards a heat death :( as the universe continues to expand it will continue to cool towards absolute zero. this fate was surprisingly determined by recent limits placed on the mass of the neutrino! the neutrino density in the universe is actually fairly large! if its mass would have been greater than or equal to 2.2 eV, the neutrino energy density would have been large enough to counter the universes expansion and it would have been cyclical.
alas, we know think it is probably <2.2 eV |
|
Amaroq Dricaldari
Total Annihilation. Pandorum Invictus
62
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 00:21:00 -
[31] - Quote
If the Universe is going to end, then why are we sitting here worrying about it? There isn't anything we can do about it anyway. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
445
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 00:22:00 -
[32] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Alpheias wrote:At what distance from the Sun would you be able to cook egg on the hull of a spaceship? this is a good one and i will need to look up some numbers to calculate it but i CAN do it :3 probably will reply tomorrowish
Calculate for hard and soft boiled.
And explain it in a non-mathematical way. I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 00:23:00 -
[33] - Quote
Amaroq Dricaldari wrote:Did you know that my bedroom is now irradiated with Alpha Particles?
It all happened when my Smoke Detector broke.
You see, Smoke Detectors work by shooting Alpha Particles around inside themselves (they contain Americium 241), and that allows the air within them to conduct electricity. Thus, when Smoke enters the Smoke Detector, it blocks the Alpha Particles, thus breaking the circuit, thus causing the alarm to go off.
My smoke detector went off for no reason what so ever a few months ago, and now it is hanging from the cieling by its cable. And thus, there are now enough Alpha Particles in my room to conduct the Static Electricity between two halves of a bandaid package, but nowhere near enough to kill me.
But I do hope that it isn't enough to give me cancer either.
alpha particles are just helium nuclei. they are not very penetrating because of this. as long as you don't ingest anything radiating alpha particles, you will probably be fine |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 00:24:00 -
[34] - Quote
Amaroq Dricaldari wrote:If the Universe is going to end, then why are we sitting here worrying about it? There isn't anything we can do about it anyway.
everyone you have ever known or loved will die eventually. entropy demands it. given that case, why do anything? :p |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 00:24:00 -
[35] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:Alpheias wrote:At what distance from the Sun would you be able to cook egg on the hull of a spaceship? this is a good one and i will need to look up some numbers to calculate it but i CAN do it :3 probably will reply tomorrowish Calculate for hard and soft boiled. And explain it in a non-mathematical way.
how long do you want it to cook for though. |
SpaceSquirrels
260
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 00:26:00 -
[36] - Quote
What do you believe people should know that don't. |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
445
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 00:26:00 -
[37] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:
in how much time do you want to fry your egg? you can do it at as little as 50C if you want to wait 20 minutes heheh
I won't make it easy for you so I'll say, it shall be so edible that you wouldn't know the difference between one that has been cooked on Earth or in space. I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
Amaroq Dricaldari
Total Annihilation. Pandorum Invictus
62
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 00:30:00 -
[38] - Quote
You should make a wish.
Also, you look like a Vulcan, OP. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 00:37:00 -
[39] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:
in how much time do you want to fry your egg? you can do it at as little as 50C if you want to wait 20 minutes heheh
I won't make it easy for you so I'll say, it shall be so edible that you wouldn't know the difference between one that has been cooked on Earth or in space.
between 3 to 5 minutes then :3
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 00:39:00 -
[40] - Quote
SpaceSquirrels wrote:What do you believe people should know that don't.
the basics of the Philosophy of Science. what is science? what is a scientific theory? what constitutes a logical statement? what counts as empirical evidence? etc... this would cut out a lot of the asshattery in the world i think, especially here in the states... which makes me so... SO sad by the way...
|
|
W1rlW1nd
The Scope Gallente Federation
35
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 00:49:00 -
[41] - Quote
Something I've often wondered about maybe you can answer:
Introduction: Water will instantly boil if exposed to a near vacuum at room temperature [I confirmed this with a vacuum chamber] since low air pressure reduces the boiling point of water. BUT outer space is generally considered to be freezing cold unless exposed to direct sunlight at an orbit distance lets say like Earth orbit.
Question: So in a near-'complete' vacuum of space, what would happen if I opened a plastic bottle of water while floating extra-vehicular in a space suit-- [assuming the water in the bottle was kept heated to room temperture till the moment I unscrewed the top].
a) would the water instantly boil, then as the whole system loses thermal energy it would freeze solid?
b) would the water flash freeze due to the relatively small volume and quick loss of heat?
c) would both happen in a matter of speaking? Flash freezing but simultaneously sublimating directly into steam?
d) if I was holding the bottle in direct sunlight and not in shadow [which is how I imagine I would be holding it to watch what would happen], would the solar thermal energy alone keep the water from freezing at all?
e) none of the above... perhaps it explodes and blows my hand off? :O which would leave me very perturbed. . . but relieved that at least that It was all captured for YouTube in glorious fail-experiment HD.
|
Kiroma Halandri
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 05:28:00 -
[42] - Quote
I have another question to ask
Why are these forums full of so many ******** trolls, and what can I do to get them all banned? And why is that one dude so always wanting to quit? *snip* |
Umega
Solis Mensa
95
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 09:22:00 -
[43] - Quote
Why do people believe that Zero and Infinite exist?
You don't plug a number into an equation unless you have some faith in that number's honesty.
Zero is nothing, therefor it can not even be a number. There is not a number (I don't count a kicked over 8 symbol as a 'number') for Infinite either.
Yet these are used by numorous fields of science and mathematics as suitable numbers that they must have faith in. Is this not contradicting and creating false faith in an outcome?
Everywhere is something.. supposed endless accelerated expansion of universe on the macro, and micro scale. Deeper you go inward, you guys start creating dimensions.. which is pretty much creating a house in a house in a house in a house.. oh look! yet another new particle that might exist..
Infinite. Yet why and how is something that is Infinite.. expanding?
Better yet, toss a Zero into the mix.. and Infinite vanishes completely. Only Zero remains.
Where the hell does Zero come from anyway.. if everytwhere/thing is something, even if it is mere quantum fluxies.
I don't want dictionary definitions of the words.. that is absolutely irrelevent without proof of them actually being Real aspects of physical laws. I get if I ate an apple, I have zero apples.. but the energy of the apple still exists and all that entropy crap.. I get that. So how does one actually prove Zero exists?
How does one prove infinite exists when claim of an Expanding Universe? Simply chuck extra dimensions into the mix that go on endlessly? Puke. I'd punch my wall at the frustration of this.. tiny.. problem our math has created, but I know that I might break bones, living in a limited 4d world and all. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
225
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 12:31:00 -
[44] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Lutz Major wrote:What's your thesis about? i'm hunting for Gamma Ray Bursts using HAWC! BAM!
Cool stuff. |
Scha'ampi
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 14:20:00 -
[45] - Quote
Q: Why is the Higgs-Boson (considering it exists) required to give mass to other fundamental particles (e.g. electrons)? |
Arcosian
Alien Ship Builders Caedite Eos
13
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 21:39:00 -
[46] - Quote
W1rlW1nd wrote: Something I've often wondered about maybe you can answer:
Introduction: Water will instantly boil if exposed to a near vacuum at room temperature [I confirmed this with a vacuum chamber] since low air pressure reduces the boiling point of water. BUT outer space is generally considered to be freezing cold unless exposed to direct sunlight at an orbit distance lets say like Earth orbit.
Question: So in a near-'complete' vacuum of space, what would happen if I opened a plastic bottle of water while floating extra-vehicular in a space suit-- [assuming the water in the bottle was kept heated to room temperture till the moment I unscrewed the top].
a) would the water instantly boil, then as the whole system loses thermal energy it would freeze solid?
b) would the water flash freeze due to the relatively small volume and quick loss of heat?
c) would both happen in a matter of speaking? Flash freezing but simultaneously sublimating directly into steam?
d) if I was holding the bottle in direct sunlight and not in shadow [which is how I imagine I would be holding it to watch what would happen], would the solar thermal energy alone keep the water from freezing at all?
e) none of the above... perhaps it explodes and blows my hand off? :O which would leave me very perturbed. . . but relieved that at least that It was all captured for YouTube in glorious fail-experiment HD.
Contrary to the hollywood scenes of people instantly freezing to death when exposed to the vacuum of space you wouldn't actually die instantly. You could actually live for about 90 seconds. It won't be a happy 90 seconds as your blood would start to boil, your nose, mouth, and eyes would freeze as the moisture instantly evaporates, you would get a major instant sunburn and you would quickly lose consciousness but your whole body won't freeze instantly.
Your body not freezing instantly is due not to your body generating its own heat but due to the fact that space has very low density so there is no heat transfer by conduction/convection but only by radiation. Space is actually very hot but due to the low heat transfer it's temperature is cold. This is why spacecraft have such extremes in surface temperature between areas exposed to sunlight and shadow.
As for the water bottle (assuming instant cap removal): The water would instantly start to boil since the pressure difference (assuming standard atmospheric pressure inside the bottle) is much greater than the "zero" pressure of space. This rapid boiling would cause the liquid to lose a lot of heat very quickly through evaporation. Since the mass flow out of the water bottle would most likely be supersonic (assuming as I'm too lazy to do calculations on a Saturday) the mass flow rate would reach a maximum, choking the flow. I don't know how long this would take but it could result in (a) all the liquid evaporates into gas and the bottle is left empty or (b) some of the liquid is frozen in the bottle which will remain until exposed to sunlight where it will sublimate.
A closed water bottle might remain in the liquid state(assuming it's exposed to sunlight) as the water and plastic bottle would absorb some solar energy. I would have to look up the blackbody absorption values for water and the plastic but again too lazy for a Saturday. I don't think the bottle would explode in your hand as it shouldn't absorb enough energy to cause a significant portion to evaporate (increasing the pressure) and rupture the bottle but removing the cap in either situation would cause it become a mini rocket engine and probably send you spinning out of control.
If it was left in shadow it would take a few minutes to freeze solid.
|
Arcosian
Alien Ship Builders Caedite Eos
13
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 21:49:00 -
[47] - Quote
Amaroq Dricaldari wrote:Did you know that my bedroom is now irradiated with Alpha Particles?
It all happened when my Smoke Detector broke.
You see, Smoke Detectors work by shooting Alpha Particles around inside themselves (they contain Americium 241), and that allows the air within them to conduct electricity. Thus, when Smoke enters the Smoke Detector, it blocks the Alpha Particles, thus breaking the circuit, thus causing the alarm to go off.
My smoke detector went off for no reason what so ever a few months ago, and now it is hanging from the cieling by its cable. And thus, there are now enough Alpha Particles in my room to conduct the Static Electricity between two halves of a bandaid package, but nowhere near enough to kill me.
But I do hope that it isn't enough to give me cancer either. Considering Alpha particles can be stopped by a sheet of paper I think you are fine but you might want to open a window or something
|
Eternum Praetorian
Black Ops Trade Group
490
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 23:13:00 -
[48] - Quote
W1rlW1nd wrote: Something I've often wondered about maybe you can answer:
Variables might include 1. the volume of water being expelled 2. the size of the orifice it is being expelled through and 3. the duration of the explosive decompression. Since a bottle of water is very low volume, i would surmise that an instantaneous explosive decompression would create both fizz and a fine mist as it exited, resulting in either an empty water bottle or an exploding water bottle. Ice crystals would be a likely outcome, but do to the low volume and instantaneous decompression there should not be a frozen block inside of the water bottle.
My best guess. Lets see what Mr Astrophysics has to say Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI. Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
Eternum Praetorian
Black Ops Trade Group
490
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 23:15:00 -
[49] - Quote
My Question:
If a vacuum is nothing, how can a charge be conveyed through it and impart force onto a second charged particle? Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI. Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
2bhammered
Perkone Caldari State
30
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 23:27:00 -
[50] - Quote
One thing I have learned by explaining things to other people in the field I studied was that it also increases your understanding, if you can explain to someone who is ignorant or simply does not know, it makes you understand it better as well. It is a great tool for learning that many people overlook and it also helps you to remember things better especially in the longrun. |
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 00:52:00 -
[51] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:At what distance from the Sun would you be able to cook egg on the hull of a spaceship?
wow! lots of good questions! sorry for the late responses, today was busy and i just got back in. anyway, onwards to eggs!
information on eggs taken from here!
suppose our egg has a specific heat capacity of 3.1 J g^-1 K^-1
suppose our egg has a mass of 71g (it's a Jumbo egg and we are hungry!)
suppose we want to eat it at a nice temperature of 125 C or 398 K and the egg starts chilled at 4 C or 277 K
the energy required to fry our egg is now just m*c*(Tf - Ti) or 23,632 J
and suppose we want to do this in 4 minutes or 240 seconds
so our egg requires about 111 J/s or Watts of power.
now, there are a lot of variables in the whole "hull of a spaceship" bit, so lets suppose our egg is just floating in space, and that it doesn't have an albedo and fully absorbs all forms of electromagnetic radiation (tall order i know, but hey, i don't have a lot to work with here). to calculate the distance from the sun our egg needs to be to fry in 4 minutes, we need to calculate the absolute intensity, which is...
I = P/(4*pi*R^2)
where P is the absolute power emitted by the sun and R is the distance we want to calculate.
I is the power radiated per square meter. neglecting all the other interesting bits, our egg with then absorb energy based on its crossectional area with respect to the sun. if we multiply I by the area of our egg, that will give us the power absorbed by the egg, or 111 J/s. just holding up my hands i would say that the average fried egg has a radius of about 3" or .0762m. if we assume it's circular this gives us an area of .0182m^2. now it's easy!
Pegg = Isun*Aegg = (Psun * Aegg)/(4*pi*R^2)
solving for R^2 we get
R = sqrt( (Psun*Aegg)/(Pegg*4*pi) )
which comes to R = 7.22 x 10^10 m, or in more meaningful units, .4845 AU. an AU is an Astronomical Unit and is defined as the distance from the sun to the earth. to put this in perspective, this is a bit past Mercury (.39 AU) and well before Venus (.72 AU)
hope this helps with your future egg frying plans ;) |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 00:58:00 -
[52] - Quote
Arcosian wrote:W1rlW1nd wrote: Something I've often wondered about maybe you can answer:
Introduction: Water will instantly boil if exposed to a near vacuum at room temperature [I confirmed this with a vacuum chamber] since low air pressure reduces the boiling point of water. BUT outer space is generally considered to be freezing cold unless exposed to direct sunlight at an orbit distance lets say like Earth orbit.
Question: So in a near-'complete' vacuum of space, what would happen if I opened a plastic bottle of water while floating extra-vehicular in a space suit-- [assuming the water in the bottle was kept heated to room temperture till the moment I unscrewed the top].
a) would the water instantly boil, then as the whole system loses thermal energy it would freeze solid?
b) would the water flash freeze due to the relatively small volume and quick loss of heat?
c) would both happen in a matter of speaking? Flash freezing but simultaneously sublimating directly into steam?
d) if I was holding the bottle in direct sunlight and not in shadow [which is how I imagine I would be holding it to watch what would happen], would the solar thermal energy alone keep the water from freezing at all?
e) none of the above... perhaps it explodes and blows my hand off? :O which would leave me very perturbed. . . but relieved that at least that It was all captured for YouTube in glorious fail-experiment HD.
Contrary to the hollywood scenes of people instantly freezing to death when exposed to the vacuum of space you wouldn't actually die instantly. You could actually live for about 90 seconds. It won't be a happy 90 seconds as your blood would start to boil, your nose, mouth, and eyes would freeze as the moisture instantly evaporates, you would get a major instant sunburn and you would quickly lose consciousness but your whole body won't freeze instantly. Your body not freezing instantly is due not to your body generating its own heat but due to the fact that space has very low density so there is no heat transfer by conduction/convection but only by radiation. Space is actually very hot but due to the low heat transfer it's temperature is cold. This is why spacecraft have such extremes in surface temperature between areas exposed to sunlight and shadow. As for the water bottle (assuming instant cap removal): The water would instantly start to boil since the pressure difference (assuming standard atmospheric pressure inside the bottle) is much greater than the "zero" pressure of space. This rapid boiling would cause the liquid to lose a lot of heat very quickly through evaporation. Since the mass flow out of the water bottle would most likely be supersonic (assuming as I'm too lazy to do calculations on a Saturday) the mass flow rate would reach a maximum, choking the flow. I don't know how long this would take but it could result in (a) all the liquid evaporates into gas and the bottle is left empty or (b) some of the liquid is frozen in the bottle which will remain until exposed to sunlight where it will sublimate. A closed water bottle might remain in the liquid state(assuming it's exposed to sunlight) as the water and plastic bottle would absorb some solar energy. I would have to look up the blackbody absorption values for water and the plastic but again too lazy for a Saturday. I don't think the bottle would explode in your hand as it shouldn't absorb enough energy to cause a significant portion to evaporate (increasing the pressure) and rupture the bottle but removing the cap in either situation would cause it become a mini rocket engine and probably send you spinning out of control. If it was left in shadow it would take a few minutes to freeze solid.
this pretty much covers everything just glancing over it and all and without doing calculations |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 01:16:00 -
[53] - Quote
Scha'ampi wrote:Q: Why is the Higgs-Boson (considering it exists) required to give mass to other fundamental particles (e.g. electrons)?
this is something i am still trying to understand myself.
a key thing to point out though is that physics RARELY explains "why". a scientific theory is simply a collection of evidence that does two things: describe WHAT is happening, and HOW it happens. there are superficial "whys" like "why does the moon go around the earth? gravity!", but if you ask why enough the answer will eventually be "we don't know yet".
the other thing to point out is that the Higgs field is NOT required to give mass to other particles. there are several theories that do the same thing, it is just that the Higgs mechanism is currently the most widely accepted and so it's one of the first to be tested (these other models are colloquially referred to as "Higgsless models" if that gives you an idea as to the communities confidence in the Higgs).
so answering the actual question though, i can really only talk math here :(, basically, if you do the calculations to figure out the various properties of a particle, you will end up with a term that corresponds to a boson field that is directly coupled to the mass of the particle (ie, if the field is zero, the mass is zero).
hope this helps! |
Taedrin
Kushan Industrial
331
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 02:23:00 -
[54] - Quote
I took a physics 101 class last year, and my professor was unable to answer my questions.
Distant Observer A is watching Object C fall into Black hole B. According to my (very limited) schooling in physics, Distant Observer A sees Object C slow down as at approaches Black hole B's event horizon due to time dilation. In fact, the time dilation is so strong that Distant Observer A will never observe Object C cross the event horizon.
1) Does Distant Observer A ever observe an increase in Black Hole B's mass? 2) Consider a super massive star in the process of collapsing into a black hole. At the very instant that a black hole forms, will a distant observer ever observe the black hole absorb the rest of the star, or grow at all for that matter? 4) Let's say that object C is an infalling observer. Will object C observe the rest of the universe's time outside of the black hole accelerate asymptotically? Will object C observe the end of the universe in its entirety in the instant that it crosses the event horizon of the black hole? 5) Let's say that we also have an object D following directly behind object C. Will object D observe object C cross the event horizon before itself? Or will object D observe object C crossing the event horizon at the exact same moment that object D crosses the event horizon? |
Eternum Praetorian
Black Ops Trade Group
491
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 02:31:00 -
[55] - Quote
I forgot about This
Water rockets in order to visualize explosive decompression in space. Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI. Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
Eternum Praetorian
Black Ops Trade Group
491
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 03:12:00 -
[56] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:My Question:
If a vacuum is nothing, how can a charge be conveyed through it and impart force onto a second charged particle?
Re-post. Come on, I know you can do it Astrophysicists and mathematicians can explain everything. Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI. Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
Arcosian
Alien Ship Builders Caedite Eos
13
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 04:02:00 -
[57] - Quote
Taedrin wrote:I took a physics 101 class last year, and my professor was unable to answer my questions.
Distant Observer A is watching Object C fall into Black hole B. According to my (very limited) schooling in physics, Distant Observer A sees Object C slow down as at approaches Black hole B's event horizon due to time dilation. In fact, the time dilation is so strong that Distant Observer A will never observe Object C cross the event horizon.
1) Does Distant Observer A ever observe an increase in Black Hole B's mass? 2) Consider a super massive star in the process of collapsing into a black hole. At the very instant that a black hole forms, will a distant observer ever observe the black hole absorb the rest of the star, or grow at all for that matter? 4) Let's say that object C is an infalling observer. Will object C observe the rest of the universe's time outside of the black hole accelerate asymptotically? Will object C observe the end of the universe in its entirety in the instant that it crosses the event horizon of the black hole? 5) Let's say that we also have an object D following directly behind object C. Will object D observe object C cross the event horizon before itself? Or will object D observe object C crossing the event horizon at the exact same moment that object D crosses the event horizon?
From what I understand the observer will only see the image of the object being slowed down and eventually stop. The object itself will travel on to the event horizon and be reduced to gamma rays and atoms. The observer would see an increase in mass as the gravitational field of the black hole will get stronger but unless the object is something like a star the increase will be very very small and probably not even noticeable.
As for the observer watching a star collapse into a black hole they probably wouldn't see much as the whole process takes place in less than a millisecond. The observer would just see the remains of the star (outer layers that didn't get absorbed) fly off into space and in the center would be a black sphere. Once the layers get far enough away the only way to tell if there is a black hole is by the gravity field it gives off, the distortion of the star light behind it, or if it's consuming other stuff the accretion disk/gamma ray jets.
For the observer falling into the black hole they wouldn't get far enough into the gravity field to observe much. They would be torn in half as their feet accelerate more rapidly than their torso/head. They would be reduced to atoms long before they reached the event horizon. If they were able to survive crossing the event horizon it is theorized all the light and matter the black hole has absorbed would be visible swirling around on the inside or the matter would be spit out a "white hole" somewhere else. But there has been no proof of white holes other than mathematics suggesting the possibility of them existing. Really, we can only guess at what would happen as we can't get any data past the event horizon. Who knows maybe there is a magical land full of flying ponies on the other side.
As for the time acceleration part if the observer could stay just on the outside edge of the event horizon they would witness the universe proceed at and accelerated rate but they would still experience the same time frame i.e 1 sec near the black hole=1sec to them but 1sec to them=? seconds on the outside world. This is a theoretical means of time travel but the fuel needed to accelerate your spacecraft to the velocity needed to maintain orbit would be astronomical.
I don't think they would see the end of the universe as they cross the event horizon as that would also mean the destruction of the blackhole and mean there wouldn't have been an event horizon in the first place and everything on the other side would exist after the universe was destroyed(ended). To me that would cause a paradigm but I'm not entirely sure about that one so I might be wrong. Time travel is hard to wrap your head around and paraphrasing Capt. Janeway from the U.S.S Voyager (star trek) take on time travel "**** the temporal prime directive."
For two objects heading for the event horizon it wouldn't matter as the first object would show the same signs as it appeared to the observer watching from a distance. Think of the event horizon as an opaque POS shield. You will see the object "slow" down but never cross the shield but once the object crosses the shield it's gone forever but it's image will remain. |
Hans Zwaardhandler
Borealis Mining Concern IMPERIAL LEGI0N
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 04:35:00 -
[58] - Quote
Two questions, if you don't mind.
1. Expansion of the universe is thought to continue at a sharp rise rapidly, till it disappears off of graphs, due to dark energy. Now, apparently dark energy comprises (if I recall correctly) 85-90% of the universe's content. Because dark energy is shoving so much stuff apart from each other, what will eventually happen, and in how many years does science estimate this? At the same time, how is "dark" energy measured to be in such high amounts when normal matter makes up so little?
2. On the subject of Gamma Ray Bursts; what would happen if a star like VY Canis Major happened to eventually implode? It is billions of times the mass of our sun, possibly trillions, and stars that are only tens of millions larger than our son go GRB all the time... what happens when that one goes off? |
Arcosian
Alien Ship Builders Caedite Eos
13
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 04:41:00 -
[59] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:My Question:
If a vacuum is nothing, how can a charge be conveyed through it and impart force onto a second charged particle? Re-post. Come on, I know you can do it Astrophysicists and mathematicians can explain everything. Well it has to do with electromagnetism. There are various parts to it but what you are asking about basically has to do with a changing electric field inducing a magnetic field and vise-versa. These fields don't require a medium to interact with charged particles (think of magnets) but can still exert a force. This is the same process used in electric motors, electro magnets, electric generators, etc
Electromagnetism also is the reason why I can type this post as the atoms in my fingers are repelling the atoms in the keys on my computer. Yep, you never actually touch anything. All you feel is the electrical resistance (force) of the atoms in your skin repelling the atoms of anything else. This is due to the charged sub atomic particles, mostly electrons, repelling other electrons.
I hope I gave you the answer you were looking for but if you were wanting something like "this physical thing is the reason." Then there really isn't an answer since electromagnetism is one of the fundamental forces of nature and can't really be explained by a physical object or process...yet.
It's like trying to explain how gravity works. We know how it behaves but not what causes it or how it's information can be transmitted faster than light. We don't even know for sure what gives matter mass. All we have are theories but with the LHC up and running maybe we will have some answers in the near future. |
Arcosian
Alien Ship Builders Caedite Eos
13
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 04:55:00 -
[60] - Quote
Well Hans I got a reply but I'm going to give the OP a chance to answer some. It's his thread after all and I'm sorry for hijacking it somewhat but when I see a question about science I just love to start answering them. This is one of my favorite threads now. |
|
Taedrin
Kushan Industrial
331
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 06:06:00 -
[61] - Quote
Arcosian wrote:It's like trying to explain how gravity works. We know how it behaves but not what causes it or how it's information can be transmitted faster than light. We don't even know for sure what gives matter mass. All we have are theories but with the LHC up and running maybe we will have some answers in the near future.
Gravity doesn't convey information faster than light. IIRC, this was one of the fundamental breakthroughs in Einstein's theory of relativity. He proposed that if the sun were to simply disappear, the planets would continue to orbit the sun as if the sun were still there until the last of the sun's light reached us. Or in other words, gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light, not instantaneously.
And we do have theories about how gravity works. According to relativity gravity is the curvature of spacetime, caused by the existence of mass at the center of the gravitational field. The problem is that we can not (yet) reconcile the differences between gravity in relativity and in quantum physics. |
W1rlW1nd
The Scope Gallente Federation
35
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 10:02:00 -
[62] - Quote
btw- thank you everyone who pitched in to answer the water bottle in space, very informative!
here's another one:
introduction: In the somewhat horrible ending for the Aliens4 movie [but at least not the travesty that aliens3 was:(], a genetically engineered monster with bones stronger than steel, hide at least as strong as cured leather armor, massing probably 1000lbs of very dense animal muscle, gets IMPOSSIBLY sucked through a one inch hole out the side of the space craft into space by the effects of vacuum on the other side alone. [ok, the hole in movie might have been two inches, but certainly not much larger than that, lets use 1 inch for this argument].
I facepalmed in the theater, since in the most 'optimistic' hollywood twist of the laws of physics and air pressure that hole would be safely sealed shut the moment a bone like a shoulder blade covered the hole. . . but frankly I don't believe a pressure dfference of just 1 --> ONE <-- atmosphere can possibly create that much suction through a small hole to even cut through meat, certainly not hard animal muscle tissue.
In comparison, - In deep ocean, pressure difference builds up quickly 1 atmosphere every 30 feet in water, way off the scale compared to outer space. At the bottom of the ocean lets say a modest 5 miles down, water pressure would be creating about 804 atmospheres difference compared to the 1 in outer space. - so if you were on the outside of a one inch hole at the bottom of the ocean, pressed against a pipe with 1 atmosphere inside it, I imagine you ?might? be pulverised and crushed throught the hole at almost 800 atmospheres. but not at 1 atmosphere in the space version.
Question: If a one inch hole appeared in the side of my spacecraft while in space, [and the hole was stable, it stays at that size], would I be able to cover it with my hands and successfully stop the leak of air to the outside? Sure it would not be pleasant. . ., but is one atmosphere difference to near-vacuum enough to rip the meat and muscle through a one inch diameter hole? The majority of my hand would have a contact seal with the wall of the ship especially under pressure, so the shortest distance for air to get to the hole might be through the back of my hand, but I would bet human muscle tissue can resist 1 atm?? also I would have my free hand cupped over the back of the first hand just to make sure. Is that enough to stop up the hole?
a) would part of my hands flash freeze, further helping to plug the hole? [like a super bad case of frostbite]
b) would the blood in my palm boil into vacuum, but still be able to plug the hole?
c) worst case scenario, if there was enough pressure to pulverize my hand, would the thick bones of my forearm certainly plug the gap?
d) none of the above, is there something I am not considering about the effect of 1 -> zero atmosphere through a small opening? |
Eternum Praetorian
Black Ops Trade Group
495
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 16:26:00 -
[63] - Quote
Arcosian wrote:Then there really isn't an answer since electromagnetism is one of the fundamental forces of nature and can't really be explained by a physical object or process...yet.
It's like trying to explain how gravity works. We know how it behaves but not what causes it or how it's information can be transmitted faster than light. We don't even know for sure what gives matter mass.
Yep that is the answer i was looking for. Thank you Also, we can add inertia to this list. Why does matter even have it?
All we do is see the after effects of things that we do not understand, and then claim to know a vast sum of the universe's secrets. If we can't even adequately describe the force that made an apple fall on isaac newton's head, only the after effect of said force, they we have not evolved much at all in our understanding. All we have done is discovered more "after effects" throughout the passage of time. We are good at that yes, but we still can't explain the most basic questions of "what is this" and "why is it present"
But ofc, we will "Soon" (TM)
I guess we shall see... but alternatively, maybe somewhere out there is an elephant headed deity drinking a bottle of vodka, who can explain the whole thing after he finally sobers up. We just have not discovered him yet. He shall say "it exists because I want it to", whatever would we do with ourselves then? Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI. Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
Eternum Praetorian
Black Ops Trade Group
495
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 16:37:00 -
[64] - Quote
P.S.
Did you say gravity transmits information faster then light? Can you provide a corroborating link please? Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI. Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
Taedrin
Kushan Industrial
331
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 19:49:00 -
[65] - Quote
W1rlW1nd wrote: Question: If a one inch hole appeared in the side of my spacecraft while in space, [and the hole was stable, it stays at that size], would I be able to cover it with my hands and successfully stop the leak of air to the outside? Sure it would not be pleasant. . ., but is one atmosphere difference to near-vacuum enough to rip the meat and muscle through a one inch diameter hole? The majority of my hand would have a contact seal with the wall of the ship especially under pressure, so the shortest distance for air to get to the hole might be through the back of my hand, but I would bet human muscle tissue can resist 1 atm?? also I would have my free hand cupped over the back of the first hand just to make sure. Is that enough to stop up the hole?
a) would part of my hands flash freeze, further helping to plug the hole? [like a super bad case of frostbite]
b) would the blood in my palm boil into vacuum, but still be able to plug the hole?
c) worst case scenario, if there was enough pressure to pulverize my hand, would the thick bones of my forearm certainly plug the gap?
d) none of the above, is there something I am not considering about the effect of 1 -> zero atmosphere through a small opening?
This has actually happened before:
Quote: On the subject of partial-body vacuum exposure, the results are not quite as serious. In 1960, during a high-altitude balloon parachute-jump, a partial-body vacuum exposure incident occurred when Joe Kittinger, Jr. lost pressurization in his right glove during an ascent to 103,000 ft (19.5 miles) in an unpressurized balloon gondola, Despite the depressurization, he continued the mission, and although the hand became painful and useless, after he returned to the ground, his hand returned to normal. Kittinger wrote in National Geographic (November 1960): "At 43,000 feet I find out [what can go wrong]. My right hand does not feel normal. I examine the pressure glove; its air bladder is not inflating. The prospect of exposing the hand to the near-vacuum of peak altitude causes me some concern. From my previous experiences, I know that the hand will swell, lose most of its circulation, and cause extreme pain.... I decide to continue the ascent, without notifying ground control of my difficulty." at 103,000 feet, he writes: "Circulation has almost stopped in my unpressurized right hand, which feels stiff and painful." But at the landing: "**** looks at the swollen hand with concern. Three hours later the swelling will have disappeared with no ill effect." The decompression incident on Kittinger's balloon jump is discussed further in Shayler's Disasters and Accidents in Manned Spaceflight: [When Kittinger reached his peak altitude] "his right hand was twice the normal size... He tried to release some of his equipment prior to landing, but was not able to as his right hand was still in great pain. He hit the ground 13 min. 45 sec. after leaving Excelsior. Three hours after landing his swollen hand and his circulation were back to normal."
The thing is that the human skin IS strong enough to withstand a 1 atm pressure differential. It will not rupture, but it will swell instead. Your internal body fluids will have enough pressure from the skin to avoid boiling. However, external body fluids such as tears or saliva will boil. Also, your lungs will violently decompress, possibly causing severe damage. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 19:53:00 -
[66] - Quote
holy crap, lots more questions! sorry guys, i don't check as often as i should =D it's a lazy Sunday so i'm sitting at home watching Dr. Who and i figured i would check out the forums!
so, short ones first!
Quote: P.S.
Did you say gravity transmits information faster then light? Can you provide a corroborating link please?
nope! never said that. and if i did somehow say that, it was a typo heheh. gravity interacts at c. if our sun were to just vanish, we wouldn't feel it for around 8 minutes.
Quote:If a vacuum is nothing, how can a charge be conveyed through it and impart force onto a second charged particle?
contrary to what has been posted we actually know the answer to this question very well! this is mostly thanks to a man named Richard Feynman, who was one of the primary developers of a theory called Quantum ElectroDynamics or QED (quite easily done!). that said, there are a lot of interesting things tied up in this little question.
firstly, the question implies that charges need some kind of medium to transmit their force through. this is similar very old and somewhat enchanting idea called theory of the Ether. in the 19th century it was widely agreed that light was a wave (mostly as a result of interference experiments), but then the question became "if light is a wave, what is waving? what is the medium through which the wave is transmitted"?. This was the birth of the Ether theory which stated that there was an ever present, invisible medium of the universe called Ether, and it held the light. this was ultimately proven false, again though interference experiments. then, along comes James Clark Maxwell with a paper on electrodynamics that directly linked light to electromagnetism, and proved that light COULD travel through a vacuum.
several decades later QED is made and it shows how light directly couples to electrons. it turns out that light as we know it is a Gauge Boson. Gauge bosons are particles which transmit forces to other particles. we suspect that there is at least one gauge boson for each of the four fundamental forces, but we haven't found one for gravity yet ( the W and Z for the weak force, the Photon for the electromagnetic force, and the Gluon for the strong force. the gravity boson is called the Graviton and it hasn't been found).
so, now that that is out of the way, the answer to your question is that the electric force is conveyed through light, and light requires no medium to travel! whew!
*more to come! i will edit this post as i go* |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 21:14:00 -
[67] - Quote
Taedrin wrote:I took a physics 101 class last year, and my professor was unable to answer my questions.
Distant Observer A is watching Object C fall into Black hole B. According to my (very limited) schooling in physics, Distant Observer A sees Object C slow down as at approaches Black hole B's event horizon due to time dilation. In fact, the time dilation is so strong that Distant Observer A will never observe Object C cross the event horizon.
1) Does Distant Observer A ever observe an increase in Black Hole B's mass? 2) Consider a super massive star in the process of collapsing into a black hole. At the very instant that a black hole forms, will a distant observer ever observe the black hole absorb the rest of the star, or grow at all for that matter? 4) Let's say that object C is an infalling observer. Will object C observe the rest of the universe's time outside of the black hole accelerate asymptotically? Will object C observe the end of the universe in its entirety in the instant that it crosses the event horizon of the black hole? 5) Let's say that we also have an object D following directly behind object C. Will object D observe object C cross the event horizon before itself? Or will object D observe object C crossing the event horizon at the exact same moment that object D crosses the event horizon?
oh i do so love black holes. i haven't had an advanced General Relativity class yet so i am not sure on the specifics of a lot of this but here we go!
1) yes! black holes increase in mass as they absorb matter. they can also evaporate :3
2) it depends on the collapse but because the collapse is not instantaneous, yes, it would be observed regardless. if it's particularly violent, a portion of the star may escape the pull of the black hole. if it's particularly calm, it may not.
3) from what i have learned, yes, the infalling observer would observe time accelerate in the rest of the universe. the INTERESTING bit is at the event horizon itself, which is AT the asymptote. here there is no "time" as we know it and the observer would be able to see all the light in the universe that is, was, or ever will be. unpleasant...
4) i am really not sure about this... sorry! the light from objects at or near the event horizon becomes redshifted until the object is no longer observable BUT redshifting is dependent on the relative curvature of the universe between the two objects in question so ... yea, it's a bit confusing. the following object CAN'T see past the event horizon for causality reasons so i imagine it would appear to approach the after image of the preceding object... again, not sure. |
Taedrin
Kushan Industrial
331
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 22:12:00 -
[68] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Taedrin wrote:I took a physics 101 class last year, and my professor was unable to answer my questions.
Distant Observer A is watching Object C fall into Black hole B. According to my (very limited) schooling in physics, Distant Observer A sees Object C slow down as at approaches Black hole B's event horizon due to time dilation. In fact, the time dilation is so strong that Distant Observer A will never observe Object C cross the event horizon.
1) Does Distant Observer A ever observe an increase in Black Hole B's mass? 2) Consider a super massive star in the process of collapsing into a black hole. At the very instant that a black hole forms, will a distant observer ever observe the black hole absorb the rest of the star, or grow at all for that matter? 4) Let's say that object C is an infalling observer. Will object C observe the rest of the universe's time outside of the black hole accelerate asymptotically? Will object C observe the end of the universe in its entirety in the instant that it crosses the event horizon of the black hole? 5) Let's say that we also have an object D following directly behind object C. Will object D observe object C cross the event horizon before itself? Or will object D observe object C crossing the event horizon at the exact same moment that object D crosses the event horizon? oh i do so love black holes. i haven't had an advanced General Relativity class yet so i am not sure on the specifics of a lot of this but here we go! 1) yes! black holes increase in mass as they absorb matter. they can also evaporate :3 2) it depends on the collapse but because the collapse is not instantaneous, yes, it would be observed regardless. if it's particularly violent, a portion of the star may escape the pull of the black hole. if it's particularly calm, it may not. 3) from what i have learned, yes, the infalling observer would observe time accelerate in the rest of the universe. the INTERESTING bit is at the event horizon itself, which is AT the asymptote. here there is no "time" as we know it and the observer would be able to see all the light in the universe that is, was, or ever will be. unpleasant... 4) i am really not sure about this... sorry! the light from objects at or near the event horizon becomes redshifted until the object is no longer observable BUT redshifting is dependent on the relative curvature of the universe between the two objects in question so ... yea, it's a bit confusing. the following object CAN'T see past the event horizon for causality reasons so i imagine it would appear to approach the after image of the preceding object... again, not sure.
Alright, if those are your answers, then I have MOAR questions.
I am confused by what appears to be an inconsistency in your answers. In answer #3 you say that the infalling observer observes time in the rest of the universe accelerating asymptotically. This means as the infalling observer can observe an arbitrary amount of time pass in the rest of the universe as s/he/it approaches the event horizon.
But here's the clincher: blackholes evaporate in a very long, but finite amount of time. Sooner or later the rest of the universe will observe the black hole evaporate, yet the infalling observer will be able to observe an infinite amount of time pass in the rest of the universe, yet still end up crossing the event horizon - even though the rest of the universe would claim that the black hole evaporated a long time ago! Wouldn't this be a causality violation? Shouldn't the universe and the infalling observer agree when the observer crosses the event horizon relative to the universe? |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 23:04:00 -
[69] - Quote
Taedrin wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:Taedrin wrote:I took a physics 101 class last year, and my professor was unable to answer my questions.
Distant Observer A is watching Object C fall into Black hole B. According to my (very limited) schooling in physics, Distant Observer A sees Object C slow down as at approaches Black hole B's event horizon due to time dilation. In fact, the time dilation is so strong that Distant Observer A will never observe Object C cross the event horizon.
1) Does Distant Observer A ever observe an increase in Black Hole B's mass? 2) Consider a super massive star in the process of collapsing into a black hole. At the very instant that a black hole forms, will a distant observer ever observe the black hole absorb the rest of the star, or grow at all for that matter? 4) Let's say that object C is an infalling observer. Will object C observe the rest of the universe's time outside of the black hole accelerate asymptotically? Will object C observe the end of the universe in its entirety in the instant that it crosses the event horizon of the black hole? 5) Let's say that we also have an object D following directly behind object C. Will object D observe object C cross the event horizon before itself? Or will object D observe object C crossing the event horizon at the exact same moment that object D crosses the event horizon? oh i do so love black holes. i haven't had an advanced General Relativity class yet so i am not sure on the specifics of a lot of this but here we go! 1) yes! black holes increase in mass as they absorb matter. they can also evaporate :3 2) it depends on the collapse but because the collapse is not instantaneous, yes, it would be observed regardless. if it's particularly violent, a portion of the star may escape the pull of the black hole. if it's particularly calm, it may not. 3) from what i have learned, yes, the infalling observer would observe time accelerate in the rest of the universe. the INTERESTING bit is at the event horizon itself, which is AT the asymptote. here there is no "time" as we know it and the observer would be able to see all the light in the universe that is, was, or ever will be. unpleasant... 4) i am really not sure about this... sorry! the light from objects at or near the event horizon becomes redshifted until the object is no longer observable BUT redshifting is dependent on the relative curvature of the universe between the two objects in question so ... yea, it's a bit confusing. the following object CAN'T see past the event horizon for causality reasons so i imagine it would appear to approach the after image of the preceding object... again, not sure. Alright, if those are your answers, then I have MOAR questions. I am confused by what appears to be an inconsistency in your answers. In answer #3 you say that the infalling observer observes time in the rest of the universe accelerating asymptotically. This means as the infalling observer can observe an arbitrary amount of time pass in the rest of the universe as s/he/it approaches the event horizon. But here's the clincher: blackholes evaporate in a very long, but finite amount of time. Sooner or later the rest of the universe will observe the black hole evaporate, yet the infalling observer will be able to observe an infinite amount of time pass in the rest of the universe, yet still end up crossing the event horizon - even though the rest of the universe would claim that the black hole evaporated a long time ago! Wouldn't this be a causality violation? Shouldn't the universe and the infalling observer agree when the observer crosses the event horizon relative to the universe?
AH! yes, you got me there. my answer to 3 is wrong and this is my mistake. there is a subtlety here i forgot. the asymptote ISN'T on the event horizon, but time as we know it still ends there. the reason for this is because past the event horizon you can only ever fall towards the singularity. you can't escape ( you might be able to orbit but as i said, i really don't know). this implies that spacial dimensions are different past that point and therefore, so is time. there are very specific implications that the properties of light force on causality, and because light behaves differently, time will too... as i said, i haven't had a GR course and this is the core of black hole physics. sorry! |
Borascus
Hole Diggers
28
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 00:51:00 -
[70] - Quote
1. What happened to relativistic mass?
2. Why is Time Travel (either direction) still debatable when simultaneous equations and emanations of energy dictate that everything is co-processing, but without dependancy?
Also, if the answer to two was released at Christmas would it be the equivalent of CERN announcing that the LHC cannot make micro-blackholes?
|
|
Arcosian
Alien Ship Builders Caedite Eos
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 00:54:00 -
[71] - Quote
Taedrin wrote:Arcosian wrote:It's like trying to explain how gravity works. We know how it behaves but not what causes it or how it's information can be transmitted faster than light. We don't even know for sure what gives matter mass. All we have are theories but with the LHC up and running maybe we will have some answers in the near future. Gravity doesn't convey information faster than light. IIRC, this was one of the fundamental breakthroughs in Einstein's theory of relativity. He proposed that if the sun were to simply disappear, the planets would continue to orbit the sun as if the sun were still there until the last of the sun's light reached us. Or in other words, gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light, not instantaneously. And we do have theories about how gravity works. According to relativity gravity is the curvature of spacetime, caused by the existence of mass at the center of the gravitational field. The problem is that we can not (yet) reconcile the differences between gravity in relativity and in quantum physics. You are correct and I don't know why I wrote gravity was transmitted faster than light and as such I have corrected my post. I learned it wasn't a FTL force way back before I was even a freshman in college so I guess I shouldn't be writing intellectual posts after 12am anymore. |
Arcosian
Alien Ship Builders Caedite Eos
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 00:57:00 -
[72] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:P.S.
Did you say gravity transmits information faster then light? Can you provide a corroborating link please? That was a mistake and I have corrected my original post. Writing intellectual posts after 12am is something I'm going to try and avoid now.
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 01:59:00 -
[73] - Quote
Borascus wrote:1. What happened to relativistic mass?
2. Why is Time Travel (either direction) still debatable when simultaneous equations and emanations of energy dictate that everything is co-processing, but without dependancy?
Also, if the answer to two was released at Christmas would it be the equivalent of CERN announcing that the LHC cannot make micro-blackholes?
it's still there, it just isn't the accepted convention. relativistic velocities imply relativistic energy, and energy curves space-time (have have evidence for this. a compressed spring is literally heavier than an uncompressed spring).
not sure about what you are talking about in 2 though. time travel is debatable because the laws of physics seem to have no preference as to the direction of the flow of time ( write an equation in t and it works just as well with -t. this is called temporal symmetry), yet the universe DOES, which seems to disagree with the current laws. so there are people in both camps. |
Eternum Praetorian
Black Ops Trade Group
500
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 02:17:00 -
[74] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Thx for reply
I respect your field of expertise a great deal, but are you talking about virtual particles that have never actually been observed,or are you talking about something that has been observed? Just curious for my own personal reasons (no troll intended). Because if it has, I have some reading to do.
But if it hasn't, then there are allot of "theoretical questions" off of the top of my head that I would just love to ask you So please do tell. Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI. Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 02:51:00 -
[75] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:Thx for reply I respect your field of expertise a great deal, but are you talking about virtual particles that have never actually been observed,or are you talking about something that has been observed? Just curious for my own personal reasons (no troll intended). Because if it has, I have some reading to do. But if it hasn't, then there are allot of "theoretical questions" off of the top of my head that I would just love to ask you So please do tell. Quote: Such borrowed photons are called GÇ£virtualGÇ¥ photons to distinguish them from real photons, which constitute electromagnetic radiation and can, in principle, exist forever. This concept of virtual particles in processes that fulfill the conditions of the uncertainty principle applies to the exchange of other gauge bosons as well.
I found some light reading already, but it is already talking about "Virtual Photons"so I gather it is still as theoretical as the Ether theory?
virtual particles are virtual because they CANNOT be observed. particle exchange models have provided us with very specific and unique properties for the universe which we have observed. they also allow us to make very VERY precise predictions on things like atomic hyperfine structure and the Lamb Shift in hydrogen. how precise? 1E-8 or ten parts per billion! this is like measuring the distance from the moon to the earth to within a few feet! (we can do better with the moon but this is just an example).
and, again, a THEORY is not a HYPOTHESIS. yes, this is a theory. so is gravity and evolution :p |
Eternum Praetorian
Black Ops Trade Group
500
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 02:58:00 -
[76] - Quote
It is the "cannon ball" idea though correct?
The idea that enough tiny "conveyors of charge" flying through the "nothing" can cause electrons to repel each other, and be attracted to a positive charge? Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI. Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
Eternum Praetorian
Black Ops Trade Group
500
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 03:05:00 -
[77] - Quote
Question:
The last time I read about Dark Matter, it seemed like the new speculation is suggesting that it is composed of a new something that formed alongside normal matter. As in, it is not composed of the ordinary stuff that we contribute to the rest of the universe. Is this true? Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI. Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 03:06:00 -
[78] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian
yes, there are questions that particle exchange models. but that's science. it is an iterative process.
Quote:As far as I know, both theories are highly theoretical and have a great deal of theory and conjecture involved in them. With the "Cannon Ball Theory" the most obvious question is what mechanism is causing their interactions upon impact? Do they absorb and re-emit? If so how? Do they interact through some other means? If so how? Do they just bounce off of matter like a tennis ball? If so... how?
your cannon ball theory is a primitive particle exchange model. your questions here are very VERY good! the long and short of it is that the exchange particles literally transform into others in the same way that energy from a collision at CERN might condense into muons or whatever. for forces, it's an absorption process. classical electrodynamics completely allows for the transfer of momentum via light, and you can prove it completely without QM.
Quote:It also requires a significant amount of "faith" for lack of a better word, since it cannot possibly be observed.
if a theory does not provide measurable predictions, then it is not a valid theory. we call this Falsifiability. faith has nothing to do with it. if your theory requires faith, it's a crap theory. you can have assumptions! you can have conjectures! you can have approximations! but faith is not testable. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 03:13:00 -
[79] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Question:
The last time I read about Dark Matter, it seemed like the new speculation is suggesting that it is composed of a new something that formed alongside normal matter. As in, it is not composed of the ordinary stuff that we contribute to the rest of the universe. Is this true?
from my understanding, kinda yes? current evidence suggests that dark matter is nonbaryonic and does not interact electromagnetically (hence the dark bit). this excludes pretty much all known matter except perhaps neutrinos. alas, neutrinos do not have anywhere near enough mass to produce the effects we see astronomically. the "dark matter particles" are colloquially referred to as WIMPs or Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. there is currently no evidence (to my knowledge) that shows the existence of WIMPs (that is to say, we haven't found any yet). my senior research thesis was a search for WIMPs =D |
Eternum Praetorian
Black Ops Trade Group
500
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 03:18:00 -
[80] - Quote
Well thx for that, food for thought at least
I will be doing my best to find as much regarding this theory as possible. The idea of spontaneous particle changes makes my mind go haywire with irritating questions, but I will spare you for now. Mwhahah!!!
One way or the other, I have this sense that one day we will discover that space-time is in fact a something and it is fundamentally tied to all observable forces in existence. Even if particles do undergo metamorphoses as stated, the root of those changes must lie in space-time and other energy states which comprise dimension. At least, that his my unique uninformed opinion on the subject I will leave you alone now, unless you are glutton for punishment. Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI. Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
|
Blade N'Mare
Hard Rock University Stealth Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 04:49:00 -
[81] - Quote
Amazing thread!
Here's a question for you.
Eve ships all seem to be jet powered (not sure what they run off, as they dont need refulling). Remembering that I am a plumber by trade and not any sort of science guru, I would assume that the ships move in accordance with one of Newtons laws "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction". Now, in a car in real life, the wind resistance and rolling resistance rises at a greater rate then your speed increase, which means every vehicle will have a top speed. But a space ship has no wind or rolling resistance so theoretically, to my little mind at least, should be able to accelerate for as long as its fuel last.
Is this right, and if so, can some one please explain why my ruppy tops out at 370m/s? |
Eternum Praetorian
Black Ops Trade Group
501
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 12:23:00 -
[82] - Quote
It is generally accepted that EVE takes place in a parallel universe composed of mineral oil, in place of a vacuum. Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI. Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
Borascus
Hole Diggers
28
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 16:06:00 -
[83] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Borascus wrote:1. What happened to relativistic mass?
2. Why is Time Travel (either direction) still debatable when simultaneous equations and emanations of energy dictate that everything is co-processing, but without dependancy?
Also, if the answer to two was released at Christmas would it be the equivalent of CERN announcing that the LHC cannot make micro-blackholes?
it's still there, it just isn't the accepted convention. relativistic velocities imply relativistic energy, and energy curves space-time (have have evidence for this. a compressed spring is literally heavier than an uncompressed spring). not sure about what you are talking about in 2 though. time travel is debatable because the laws of physics seem to have no preference as to the direction of the flow of time ( write an equation in t and it works just as well with -t. this is called temporal symmetry), yet the universe DOES, which seems to disagree with the current laws. so there are people in both camps.
Thank You! |
Telegram Sam
The Drones Club
230
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 16:13:00 -
[84] - Quote
Amaroq Dricaldari wrote:If the Universe is going to end, then why are we sitting here worrying about it? There isn't anything we can do about it anyway. What? Of course there's something we can do about it! |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
33
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 17:44:00 -
[85] - Quote
Quote:What? Of course there's something we can do about it!
lol religion lol of course if we can prove there are other universes maybe we can just migrate heheh
Quote:It is generally accepted that EVE takes place in a parallel universe composed of mineral oil, in place of a vacuum.
HA! yes indeedydoody! I know a lot of you will really not like me saying this but i really REALLY want to work with CCP at some point in my career. imagine what this game would be with realistic space physics! imagine being able to literally flip-a-***** in your rifter, end over end, and charge at your enemy upside down. imagine a living galaxy, where the planets are not just stationary and there is true strategic benefits to capturing a system at different times in the year because the gates move! directionally dependent targeting effects as a result of solar winds!
there is so much physics that could be added to the game. SO so much!
on the up side though, CCP DID include red and blue shifting :3 ever notice how when you are in warp space ahead of you is tinted red and space behind you is tinted blue? that's a "real" effect! |
Valei Khurelem
270
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 18:38:00 -
[86] - Quote
Can you fire projectiles in space without oxygen? I.e. an artillery cannon or sniper rifle, standard conventional weapons?
"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP." -á - CCP Ytterbium |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
33
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 19:09:00 -
[87] - Quote
Valei Khurelem wrote:Can you fire projectiles in space without oxygen? I.e. an artillery cannon or sniper rifle, standard conventional weapons?
this depends entirely on the nature of the shell. the firing mechanism in most guns is entirely mechanical, while the reloading mechanism is usually done by harnessing the back pressure created from the combustion of the round. it's not unlikely though that a spaceship would have a reloading mechanism similar to that of, say, a battleship, where the rounds are reloaded through completely mechanical processes.
this means that the only issue we need to tackle is the combustible component of the round itself. if the round was designed SPECIFICALLY to fire in a vacuum it's completely feasible that the charge was designed to combust with some other, more energetic gas, and that the charge and gas are sealed behind the bullet against the vacuum.
an even better idea would probably be to just use gas pressurized charges. screw gun powder, we're in space! we can shoot bullets with compressed air! the net force applied to the bullet will be dependent on the difference in pressure between the charge and the environment. since we are in a vacuum we can get this difference to be VERY large :3
maybe minmatar guns are just giant airsoft pistols lol |
Hans Zwaardhandler
Borealis Mining Concern IMPERIAL LEGI0N
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 21:16:00 -
[88] - Quote
Arcosian wrote:Well Hans I got a reply but I'm going to give the OP a chance to answer some. It's his thread after all and I'm sorry for hijacking it somewhat but when I see a question about science I just love to start answering them. This is one of my favorite threads now.
Feel free to do so if you wish, I'm just very interested in an answer to my questions. |
Dunbar Hulan
The Flaming Sideburn's Art of War Alliance
68
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 21:34:00 -
[89] - Quote
As much as I have tried, I cannot believe that we came from a speck of dust that suddenly exploded into what is known as the Universe. How can that explain Renoir, Yeats, Dickens, Picasso, Monet, Aristotle , Puccini. I could go on and on. -áThe Sideburns- Always Outnumbered- Never Outgunned. Manchester United - Paul Scholes= Genius |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 21:47:00 -
[90] - Quote
Hans Zwaardhandler wrote:Two questions, if you don't mind.
1. Expansion of the universe is thought to continue at a sharp rise rapidly, till it disappears off of graphs, due to dark energy. Now, apparently dark energy comprises (if I recall correctly) 85-90% of the universe's content. Because dark energy is shoving so much stuff apart from each other, what will eventually happen, and in how many years does science estimate this? At the same time, how is "dark" energy measured to be in such high amounts when normal matter makes up so little?
2. On the subject of Gamma Ray Bursts; what would happen if a star like VY Canis Major happened to eventually implode? It is billions of times the mass of our sun, possibly trillions, and stars that are only tens of millions larger than our son go GRB all the time... what happens when that one goes off?
wow! how did i miss this one!? good questions :3
1) there are a set of equations in cosmology (the physics of the origins of the universe) called the Friedmann Equations which are literally the equations of motion for the universe. they describe the rate of expansion of space-time. the parameters of this equations are ones we can observe through astronomy and depend largely on the motion of distant bodies, which all appear to be accelerating away from us. we conclude that there is then some energy fueling this acceleration and we call this energy Dark Energy.
ok so, now that we have some background, how will the universe end? well, we had originally thought that it would be cyclical; that eventually gravity would dominate over the motion of the universe and it would collapse on itself starting a new big bang. alas, this is NOT the case. our current measurements show an accelerating universe with no signs of stopping. as the distances between bodies become smaller and smaller, the "temperature of the universe" will drop towards absolute zero, leaving everyone very cold and lonely... and dead. this theory of the end of the universe is referred to as the Heat Death.
some theories point to a more terrifying event that occurs much after this point: The Big Rip. as the energy density of space time continues to grow, forcing expansion, eventually it will be so great that it will overpower the fundamental forces that keep atoms together. at this point, matter as we know it will literally evaporate into nothing and the universe will be a cold, lonely, dead, and empty place.
the behavior of dark energy and it's quantity is a calculated value, not observed, from trailing density terms in the Friedmann Equations (usually denoted by capital Omega)
2) Hypernovae are a suspected product of such immensely large stars and are thought to be the engines of long gamma-ray bursts. i tried to include this as a link but it failed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypernova |
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 21:50:00 -
[91] - Quote
Dunbar Hulan wrote:As much as I have tried, I cannot believe that we came from a speck of dust that suddenly exploded into what is known as the Universe. How can that explain Renoir, Yeats, Dickens, Picasso, Monet, Aristotle , Puccini. I could go on and on.
there's nothing to "believe", we have evidence. PHYSICAL evidence. not a book or a notion or an idea or a philosophy. we have a picture, a photograph, a measurement, and a theory. whether or not you can come to terms with the reality of your own existence is no problem of mine. |
Dunbar Hulan
The Flaming Sideburn's Art of War Alliance
69
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 21:56:00 -
[92] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Dunbar Hulan wrote:As much as I have tried, I cannot believe that we came from a speck of dust that suddenly exploded into what is known as the Universe. How can that explain Renoir, Yeats, Dickens, Picasso, Monet, Aristotle , Puccini. I could go on and on. there's nothing to "believe", we have evidence. PHYSICAL evidence. not a book or a notion or an idea or a philosophy. we have a PICTURE. whether or not you can come to terms with the reality of your own existence is no problem of mine.
You might have the "How", the mechanics of it, but you don't have the "Why". That I believe, is the true answer to one's own existence.
Still doesn't explain the development of creative geniuses, people who shaped the world through the creation of their words, writing, music, philosophy. -áThe Sideburns- Always Outnumbered- Never Outgunned. Manchester United - Paul Scholes= Genius |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 22:00:00 -
[93] - Quote
as i stated earlier in this thread, science doesn't really answer "why" in a non-superficial sense. and we're ok with that because, guess what, we're working on it heheh
as for creative geniuses, i can't see any other way they COULD have come to be |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
819
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 22:38:00 -
[94] - Quote
I recently read Stephen Baxter's Ring and a major theme in the book was dark matter's role in stellar evolution and equilibrium. The specifics of the plot dealt with dark matter life forms and was pure science fiction, but I'm wondering how much of the background information concerning dark matter and its role inside stars was legitimate theory, and how much of it has survived the 17 years since publication. It was something I'd never run across in all my recreational studies.
Also, a bit of speculation since there's a relevant thread for me to muse in. As a college dropout I have little hope of ever wrapping my head around the math of the Big Bang, but I do grasp the theory of it and the concept that the laws of physics basically changed as the universe expanded and "decompressed". I've often wondered if those same physical laws are quite as universal as scientists believe to be (or at least, give the impression that they believe as much), or if there are places in the universe where the constants vary due to a completely different cosmic evolution.
If other universes might have evolved with different constants, as has been suggested many times, then what about the possibility that we live in a "chimera" (to borrow a term from biology) universe? That would certainly wreak havoc on our cosmic observations if we couldn't rely on basics like gravity and light to always behave the same. |
Amaroq Dricaldari
67
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 22:41:00 -
[95] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Valei Khurelem wrote:Can you fire projectiles in space without oxygen? I.e. an artillery cannon or sniper rifle, standard conventional weapons? this depends entirely on the nature of the shell. the firing mechanism in most guns is entirely mechanical, while the reloading mechanism is usually done by harnessing the back pressure created from the combustion of the round. it's not unlikely though that a spaceship would have a reloading mechanism similar to that of, say, a battleship, where the rounds are reloaded through completely mechanical processes. this means that the only issue we need to tackle is the combustible component of the round itself. if the round was designed SPECIFICALLY to fire in a vacuum it's completely feasible that the charge was designed to combust with some other, more energetic gas, and that the charge and gas are sealed behind the bullet against the vacuum. an even better idea would probably be to just use gas pressurized charges. screw gun powder, we're in space! we can shoot bullets with compressed air! the net force applied to the bullet will be dependent on the difference in pressure between the charge and the environment. since we are in a vacuum we can get this difference to be VERY large :3 maybe minmatar guns are just giant airsoft pistols lol Actually, you can fire a gun in space wish Gun Powder alone. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Amaroq Dricaldari
67
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 22:43:00 -
[96] - Quote
Blade N'Mare wrote:Amazing thread!
Here's a question for you.
Eve ships all seem to be jet powered (not sure what they run off, as they dont need refulling). Remembering that I am a plumber by trade and not any sort of science guru, I would assume that the ships move in accordance with one of Newtons laws "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction". Now, in a car in real life, the wind resistance and rolling resistance rises at a greater rate then your speed increase, which means every vehicle will have a top speed. But a space ship has no wind or rolling resistance so theoretically, to my little mind at least, should be able to accelerate for as long as its fuel last.
Is this right, and if so, can some one please explain why my ruppy tops out at 370m/s? The Warp Reactor creates a field that simulates Wind Resistance. Turning it off would cause the ship to explode due to a Critical Existance Failure. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Hans Zwaardhandler
Borealis Mining Concern IMPERIAL LEGI0N
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 22:45:00 -
[97] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:[quote=Hans Zwaardhandler]snip
Ah, thank you for answering that question, Tasdkiel.
I was also wondering, there was also a hypothesis from a book about the universe that I read saying that the expansion rate of the universe that could stay even. Meaning that the universe would expand... but at the same time not, because gravity would rein it back in. What would happen if that hypothesis was correct?
And on the subject of Heat Death... I'm guessing that such an event will be the case so many years in the future we will run out of zeroes to measure that number. How long would Heat Death, the Big Rip, and the collapse of the universe into another Big Bang take?
Thank you for answering in advance. |
Eternum Praetorian
Black Ops Trade Group
501
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 23:01:00 -
[98] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Dunbar Hulan wrote:As much as I have tried, I cannot believe that we came from a speck of dust that suddenly exploded into what is known as the Universe. How can that explain Renoir, Yeats, Dickens, Picasso, Monet, Aristotle , Puccini. I could go on and on. there's nothing to "believe", we have evidence. PHYSICAL evidence. not a book or a notion or an idea or a philosophy. we have a picture, a photograph, a measurement, and a theory. whether or not you can come to terms with the reality of your own existence is no problem of mine.
Before you said "evolution" and "Gravity" are in the end only theories. Just saying LOL.
This part reminds me of the latest computer model for the sun. It was deemed 98% accurate by some of the best minds in the world, and it predicted some of the most powerful solar storms in history, that should be occurring, oh... right about now. People were making a huge fuss over this, comparing it to 2012 prophecies and world ending solar storms knocking out power grids. Real "end of our civilization" kind of stuff.
Guess what happened...
We are currently in one of the weakest solar cycles in the past 100 years. so much for 98% accuracy. Oops? Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI. Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 23:22:00 -
[99] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:I recently read Stephen Baxter's Ring and a major theme in the book was dark matter's role in stellar evolution and equilibrium. The specifics of the plot dealt with dark matter life forms and was pure science fiction, but I'm wondering how much of the background information concerning dark matter and its role inside stars was legitimate theory, and how much of it has survived the 17 years since publication. It was something I'd never run across in all my recreational studies.
Also, a bit of speculation since there's a relevant thread for me to muse in. As a college dropout I have little hope of ever wrapping my head around the math of the Big Bang, but I do grasp the theory of it and the concept that the laws of physics basically changed as the universe expanded and "decompressed". I've often wondered if those same physical laws are quite as universal as scientists believe to be (or at least, give the impression that they believe as much), or if there are places in the universe where the constants vary due to a completely different cosmic evolution.
If other universes might have evolved with different constants, as has been suggested many times, then what about the possibility that we live in a "chimera" (to borrow a term from biology) universe? That would certainly wreak havoc on our cosmic observations if we couldn't rely on basics like gravity and light to always behave the same.
another good question!
on the topic of dark matter in stars, i honestly don't know. if there is i haven't heard anything about it. we know very little about the properties of dark matter and we know a great deal about stellar evolution, so i would doubt that such a theory, if it exists, would bring much new physics to the table.
as for the rest: we have very rigorous mathematics and evidence that supports the universality of physical laws. now, i'm not saying that the physical nature of the universe hasn't changed with time: it has! but these changes fall within the current laws. furthermore, the changes occurred everywhere in the universe simultaneously, so it is unlikely for there to be pocket universes or chimera regions with different laws.
the core of the evidence for this comes from Noether's Theorem, which states that (in summary) "where there is symmetry, there is an associated conserved quantity". the current laws of physics all point towards the fact that space-time is both homogeneous and isotropic. this means the universe doesn't care "where/when" you are (homogeneous) nor does it care which way you are going (isotropic). some examples: you do an experiment at point A and then you repeat it at point B (where everything is the same except for the location) and you get the same results. this means the result is symmetric under translation and this results in, from the mathematics, conservation of momentum. temporal symmetry is the same thing but with time and results in conservation of energy. (as a side note: in quantum mechanics, all wavefunctions carry a complex phase value, which has no effect on the outcome of calculations. i have been told that this corresponds to conservation of charge but i haven't proven it to myself yet).
we have made very precise measurements of conservation of momentum and energy and they allow us to make very accurate predictions, so we conclude that, yes, the universe in indeed homogeneous and isotropic. |
Eternum Praetorian
Black Ops Trade Group
501
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 03:38:00 -
[100] - Quote
Is there a such thing as "Cosmic Gamma Ray Background radiation" similar to the microwave background radiation? Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI. Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
|
Myxx
Atropos Group
494
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 03:51:00 -
[101] - Quote
explain, in normal terms, how your field relates to every day life and why caring about it should be interesting for me to ask you further questions.
also, extra props for you if your explaination lacks mathematical equations or references to pop culture icons, like the Tardis you referenced on the first page. |
Eternum Praetorian
Black Ops Trade Group
501
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 12:58:00 -
[102] - Quote
When wavelengths are red shifted do to universal expansion (as in the cosmic background radiation) is there a corresponding drop in magnitude do to the laws of conservation of energy?
Wavelengths get longer and thus the emission becomes less intense? Or does it remain at the same intensity? Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI. Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 17:30:00 -
[103] - Quote
just got into the lab and there's lots to cover :3
firstly...
Quote:Before you said "evolution" and "Gravity" are in the end only theories. Just saying LOL.
This part reminds me of the latest computer model for the sun. It was deemed 98% accurate by some of the best minds in the world, and it predicted some of the most powerful solar storms in history, that should be occurring, oh... right about now. People were making a huge fuss over this, comparing it to 2012 prophecies and world ending solar storms knocking out power grids. Real "end of our civilization" kind of stuff.
Guess what happened...
We are currently in one of the weakest solar cycles in the past 100 years. so much for 98% accuracy. Oops? Ultimately, we live in an age where the new religion is the theoretical sciences, but as Tsadkeil had said prior, it is all just "theoretical" in the end. There are multitudes of unknowns that have remained unknown since the dawn of science. Although we are assured that science will figure it out "soon", the reality of it is that we are not all the much closer to answering those most basic questions now then we were 100's of years ago. The more we learn, the more unknowns we seem to find.
earlier in the thread i was asked about what topic i would like more people to know about, and i said the Philosophy of Science. this is a perfect example of why... i'm going to rant a bit here. flame on...
for, what i think is the second time in this thread, a THEORY is NOT a HYPOTHESIS ! the definition of a scientific theory is very VERY specific. the long and short of it is that a theory is simply a collection of evidence and principles that describe two things: WHAT is happening and HOW it is happening. theories are born from hypothesis. only once a hypothesis is verified does it become a scientific theory.
Gravity and Evolution are theories, and politicians and the layman like to use this to try and say "well, it's only a theory so that means we don't know if it's true". to be blunt, this is complete bullshit. we KNOW that Gravity and Evolution are true. why? because they are THEORIES. we have VERIFIED the associated HYPOTHESIS. the principles in the theory of gravity allow us to make PREDICTIONS. they allow us to put satellites in orbit and land people on the moon! the principles in the theory of evolution allow us to make PREDICTIONS. they allowed us to understand the appearance and disappearance of species in the fossil record and gave us an understanding about the genetic relation between present species before the concept of the gene as we know it even existed!
arguments like the one you presented make me unbearably mad because it says to me that you have succumb to unreason...
the entire rest of your post is equally as ridiculous as your first sentence...
Quote:This part reminds me of the latest computer model for the sun. It was deemed 98% accurate by some of the best minds in the world, and it predicted some of the most powerful solar storms in history, that should be occurring, oh... right about now. People were making a huge fuss over this, comparing it to 2012 prophecies and world ending solar storms knocking out power grids. Real "end of our civilization" kind of stuff.
what the what?!? what is the name of this model? i've never heard of its like. if this were true it would mean that we could predict the solar dynamo with a far greater accuracy than what we can achieve predicting the weather!! and the weather happens on EARTH of all places!! wow! who are these minds you speak of? they are the best in the world you say?! that's amazing! and hey, it looks like it's done a bang up job too! why, just the most recent solar storm was one of the most potent we have seen in the past seven years...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9035758/Solar-flares-Earth-hit-by-biggest-space-storm-in-almost-seven-years.html
and that's just the one!
i'm not even listing the numerous others that occurred in 2011! unless of course you meant 2012, in which case i think it's a bit to early to say...
Quote:We are currently in one of the weakest solar cycles in the past 100 years. so much for 98% accuracy. Oops?
oh wait, you aren't saying that? and you're throwing around a term like solar cycle like you know what it means? i mean, a solar cycle period of approximately 11 years and we have known this for almost two centuries! are you saying that the ones who made the model DIDN'T take this into account?! oh, here's a thought! maybe they did and there model was just off by a tiny bit. we would need more data to prove this though because if it cycles on 11 years, one year of data might not be enough to make a valid prediction... man, it's a good thing one data point makes a line or you would look like quite the fool!
Quote:Ultimately, we live in an age where the new religion is the theoretical sciences, but as Tsadkeil had said prior, it is all just "theoretical" in the end. There are multitudes of unknowns that have remained unknown since the dawn of science. Although we are assured that science will figure it out "soon", the reality of it is that we are not all the much closer to answering those most basic questions now then we were 100's of years ago. The more we learn, the more unknowns we seem to find.
religion/faith is the literal opposite of science. I can't stress that enough. oh, and i never said anything of the sort you are implying. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 17:40:00 -
[104] - Quote
Quote:When wavelengths are red shifted do to universal expansion (as in the cosmic background radiation) is there a corresponding drop in magnitude do to the laws of conservation of energy?
Wavelengths get longer and thus the emission becomes less intense? Or does it remain at the same intensity?
good questions! energy is not a frame invariant quantity. that is to say, the energy of a moving particle changes depending on your motion relative to it. from our perspective yes, it looks like there is an issue with conservation of energy, but from the frame in which the photon was emitted, everything works our just fine.
your second question is correct as far as i understand it! intensity is another quantity that varies with frame of reference. it depends on the flux of energy being emitted from the source and energy is not frame invariant. there are also interesting consequences that pop up with length contraction and so your distance to the source also depends on your frame of reference. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 17:52:00 -
[105] - Quote
Quote:explain, in normal terms, how your field relates to every day life and why caring about it should be interesting for me to ask you further questions.
also, extra props for you if your explaination lacks mathematical equations or references to pop culture icons, like the Tardis you referenced on the first page.
oooooo always a tricky one. i get this a lot. broadly speaking there are two different mentalities for doing research.
Altruistic research: which is the pursuit of knowledge simply for its gain
and
Philanthropic research: which is the pursuit of knowledge towards some perceived benefit to humanity
(these are not hard, defined terms that everyone knows. they are just what one of my professors told me and well, he was a bit crazy)
my research falls into the former category, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't care! the immediate benefits of altruistic research cannot be seen because the technology to wield it doesn't exist yet. take the discovery of radiation or the electron. neither of these was done with the intention of having an immediate benefit to humanity, but no one can deny that it has done so! the television! X-rays! transistors! Lasers! the list goes on and on.
my research focuses on the mechanics of very distant, very intense celestial bodies and the radiation they emit. while an understanding of this is unlikely to yield anything that will influence your day to day life, it does help us understand the nature of our universe (things like fusion, and gravity, and the fermi-boosting method) which could yield technology in the future. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
823
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 17:52:00 -
[106] - Quote
Concerning the long ranty BB-code error post about the scientific meaning of theory and how the public misuse the term (reply to it to read it, people)...
My wife is a science teacher in Texas. She teaches about evolution, and every year there's at least one student who wants to get confrontational about it and spouts "it's just a theory and blah blah blah". This is a version of a speech I wrote for her to give her classes years ago to head this stuff off:
Evolution is a theory. A theory in science must have been tested and found to be accurate before it can be called a theory. For something to be a theory it has to accurately predict things we can observe. The theory of gravity lets us predict the motion of the moon, the planets, the stars, even distant galaxies. Yet we're learning new things about gravity all the time, and the theory gets revised as we learn new things.
Evolution is the same thing. It's a model that takes all the observations we've made to date and builds a system that explains those observations and makes predictions on future observations. It is science's best explanation for what has been observed so far.
New observations can certainly change the evolutionary model. If you want to dispute it, I suggest you become a biologist and devote your life to challenging the theory by searching for evidence of its error. If you aren't willing to go to that length, please don't try to argue about it here in this classroom. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 17:54:00 -
[107] - Quote
Quote:Is there a such thing as "Cosmic Gamma Ray Background radiation" similar to the microwave background radiation?
not that i know of. the term Gamma Ray carries two meanings in physics. first and foremost it is the technical term for light. in some contexts it can also mean light of very high energy. i doubt that there is a second radiation field like the CMB that we just haven't observed yet simply because of how the CMB came to be (see one of my earliest posts). |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 17:56:00 -
[108] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Concerning the long ranty BB-code error post about the scientific meaning of theory and how the public misuse the term (reply to it to read it, people)...
My wife is a science teacher in Texas. She teaches about evolution, and every year there's at least one student who wants to get confrontational about it and spouts "it's just a theory and blah blah blah". This is a version of a speech I wrote for her to give her classes years ago to head this stuff off:
Evolution is a theory. A theory in science must have been tested and found to be accurate before it can be called a theory. For something to be a theory it has to accurately predict things we can observe. The theory of gravity lets us predict the motion of the moon, the planets, the stars, even distant galaxies. Yet we're learning new things about gravity all the time, and the theory gets revised as we learn new things.
Evolution is the same thing. It's a model that takes all the observations we've made to date and builds a system that explains those observations and makes predictions on future observations. It is science's best explanation for what has been observed so far.
New observations can certainly change the evolutionary model. If you want to dispute it, I suggest you become a biologist and devote your life to challenging the theory by searching for evidence of its error. If you aren't willing to go to that length, please don't try to argue about it here in this classroom.
love it :3
<3
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
824
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 18:05:00 -
[109] - Quote
Also, she tends to refer to it as the MODEL of evolution instead of theory, based on the idea that it is a model of biological history based on the fragments of it we can observe via fossil records. This shuts of the "it's only a theory" argument quite well. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 18:27:00 -
[110] - Quote
oh! that's a great idea! i'll have to remember that for the future =D |
|
Eternum Praetorian
Black Ops Trade Group
501
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 19:27:00 -
[111] - Quote
http:// wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/30/scientists-issue-unprecedented-forecast-of-next-sunspot-cycle/
Quote:BOULDERGÇöThe next sunspot cycle will be 30-50% stronger than the last one and begin as much as a year late, according to a breakthrough forecast using a computer model of solar dynamics developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)....
The scientists have confidence in the forecast because, in a series of test runs, the newly developed model simulated the strength of the past eight solar cycles with more than 98% accuracy.....
And Then This http:// wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/09/the-smallest-sunspot-cycle-in-two-hundred-years/
Quote:Current prediction for the next sunspot cycle maximum gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 62 in July of 2013. We are currently over two years into Cycle 24. The predicted size would make this the smallest sunspot cycle in nearly 200 years.
I guess I read wrong, this link says that it turned out to be the smallest sunspot cycle in 200 years instead of one. Did I read something wrong? Or... did the 98% accurate forecast drop the ball like saying the Titanic was unsinkable? Because that is how it is reading to me.
I mean.. I didn't make this up. I was at work and read it in either national geographic or Atlantic magazine. I don't remember which one. Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI. Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
AlleyKat
The Unwanted.
189
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 19:39:00 -
[112] - Quote
Q: What is your favorite mathematical symbol? GÇ£You go into combat, and itGÇÖs NOT going to be WagnerGǪindustrial techno or really hard drum and bassGÇ¥
Reynir Hardarson, founding member of CCP Games, 2002. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 19:50:00 -
[113] - Quote
right, so...
the first article you posted is referencing an NCAR release that occurred in 2006. the model has almost certainly changed since then. the other thing to note here is that the model's accuracy is quoted using past data. that is, they fed solar cycle data from the past several cycles into the model and compared the outcomes to get an accuracy estimate. the article makes no statement on how accurate the model will be at predicting future cycles. finally, we are three years into cycle 24 and the scientists who developed the model released new predictions given the current data, which is that we are in the weakest solar cycle in 200 years.
there was no ball dropped here. there was no "oops" that supports your previous "it's just a theory" arguments. the model was incorrect and it will be fixed. this is the nature of science. if you do science and you never make mistakes or incorrect predictions then you are doing it wrong.
here's the actual NASA article about the current cycle. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 19:51:00 -
[114] - Quote
AlleyKat wrote:Q: What is your favorite mathematical symbol?
the Aleph is very fun to wright and is used to denote different types of infinity.
|
Eternum Praetorian
Black Ops Trade Group
501
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 20:56:00 -
[115] - Quote
I just parroted an article in Atlantic/National Geographic magazine and then did my best to supply links as best possible. Since i trust their journalists integrity I also trust what was said in the article, despite my inability to find the appropriate links. Regardless, I do like this thread and do not want to deviate it, so I will tread lightly. But I think you deserve a counter rant, and so here it goes.
My Counter Rant
Once, scientists observed only what they saw around them (things like gravity) and then attempted to explain it with mathematics. They did so to great effect. These days however, you get people standing in front of a chalkboard/computer screen talking about things like string theory, a holographic universe, Branes, virtual particles, parallel universes and parallel dimensions (some are needed just to make their math work, like in string theory and super string theory). All are things that have never been observed, and theoretically cannot be observed. All of which are fantastic stretches of the imagination in themselves, every bit as "out there" as most of the mythological/religious notions that I have ever read.
Then, they publish their work for the masses to see. Most of whom could not read the mathematical "text" of their proposed evidence, any more then the illiterate masses of the medieval era could read a Latin bible. People of today, like the people of olden times, simply accept the word of those in authority when they tell them that "this is this way, and the evidence is here". Whether the facts are true or not is irrelevant because, the behavioral pattern is identical.
It is my strongly held opinion, that when people start to use math and theory to explain things that have never been observed, and then use it as part of a "grand explanation" that is assumed to superseded all other grand explanations that have preceded it, you are starting to tread on very thin ice.
So yes, technically science, specifically cutting edge theoretical science IS the new religion. Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI. Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
829
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 21:17:00 -
[116] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Quote:Ultimately, we live in an age where the new religion is the theoretical sciences, but as Tsadkeil had said prior, it is all just "theoretical" in the end. There are multitudes of unknowns that have remained unknown since the dawn of science. Although we are assured that science will figure it out "soon", the reality of it is that we are not all the much closer to answering those most basic questions now then we were 100's of years ago. The more we learn, the more unknowns we seem to find. religion/faith is the literal opposite of science. I can't stress that enough. oh, and i never said anything of the sort you are implying.
We seem to have a culture built around false dichotomies. Just look at politics: today's politicians use the word "moderate" as if it's an insult. If you don't pick one of their two sides, you're just indecisive and unfit to govern. That comes down to the so-called conflict between religion and science: far too many people have this notion that it's necessary to fully reject one if you're going to practice the other.
I've observed a troubling trend among scientists over the past few decades that I think goes along with this. Note that I'm not applying this statement to all or even "most" scientists, but that it's enough of them to be of concern to me. At some point scientists fell into this same trap of "us versus them" and started believing their science to be infallible. It's simple pride, really: they reject anything that demonstrates them to be wrong. This scientific dogma leads to self-assured scientists spouting off hypotheses as fact and theories as law. They forget that their field of study is fluid. When scientists reject new information solely because it conflicts with what they already "know", they've lost sight of the spirit of science.
I've long said that science and God don't mix. That's not to say that one must be an atheist to practice science; rather, you have to set God aside in order to pursue scientific inquiry. If "God did it" is ever an acceptable answer, you're not doing science. On the other hand science has no way to test for God, so any definitive statement on the existence of God is beyond the capacity of science.
TL;DR: Scientists need to be careful not to be dogmatic about their science, and religion and science can coexist best by not being applied at the same time. I see no point in throwing out one for the sake of the other. |
Eternum Praetorian
Black Ops Trade Group
501
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 21:20:00 -
[117] - Quote
Damn, well said FloppieTheBanjoClown. You get a great big Brutor Kiss and a free like! Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI. Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 21:22:00 -
[118] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:I just parroted an article in Atlantic/National Geographic magazine and then did my best to supply links as best possible. Regardless, I do like this thread and do not want to deviate it, so I will tread lightly. But I think you deserve a counter rant, and so here it goes.
My Counter Rant
Once, scientists observed only what they saw around them (things like gravity) and then attempted to explain it with mathematics. These days however, you get people standing in front of a chalkboard/computer screen talking about things like string theory, a holographic universe, Branes, parallel universes and eleven dimensions just to make their equations work. All things that have never been observed, and theoretically cannot be observed. All of which are fantastic stretches of the imagination in themselves, every bit as "out there" as most of the mythological/religious notions that I have ever read.
Then they publish their work for the masses to see. Most of whom could not read the mathematical "text" of their proposed evidence, any more then the illiterate masses of the medieval era could read a Latin bible. People of today, like the people of olden times, simply accept the word of those in authority when they tell them that "this is this way, and the evidence is here". Whether the facts are true or not is irrelevant because, the behavioral pattern is identical.
It is my strongly held opinion, that when people start to use math and theory to explain things that have never been observed, and then use it as part of a "grand explanation" that is supposed to superseded all other grand explanations that have preceded it, you are starting to tread on thin ice.
So yes, technically science, specifically cutting edge theoretical science IS the new religion.
there are many scientists, myself included, who do not agree with string theory, branes, and eleven dimension, BECAUSE they cannot be tested. whether or not the universe is holographic is currently being tested at fermilab (and a holographic universe is not what you probably think it is). if it cannot be observed or tested it doesn't belong in a scientific theory. i have stated this. theories are born from hypothesis that have been verified.
so who are the ones who push these ideas as theories and fact? who are the ones who claim all scientists believe these things without evidence? people like you!
people who can't or won't learn to read the science that we publish.
people who read sensationalist articles in pop websites and take them to be true or accepted without ever attempting to find out for themselves.
people who think that it's the fault of the scientific community that they don't understand or can't wrap their minds around current scientific theories.
people who think you need to be good at math to do science, yet use the age old cop out that "i just don't get math" to avoid learning it in the first place.
people who sell themselves short before they even try!
no one in the scientific community expects everyone to accept their results, and to be honest, they don't need to! why? because we produce results and technology! look at GPS! this single piece of tech is born directly from General Relativity. it can not function without the complex mathematical backing that allows us to predict how much slower or faster time flows based on the local gravitational field!
as for modern science being a religion, this cannot be more false. by definition alone, science changes its views based on the evidence while religion is the denial of evidence so that belief and faith can be preserved. i can't see how you link the two...
we don't want you to just blindly accept what we tell you. we want you to LEARN! |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 21:24:00 -
[119] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:Quote:Ultimately, we live in an age where the new religion is the theoretical sciences, but as Tsadkeil had said prior, it is all just "theoretical" in the end. There are multitudes of unknowns that have remained unknown since the dawn of science. Although we are assured that science will figure it out "soon", the reality of it is that we are not all the much closer to answering those most basic questions now then we were 100's of years ago. The more we learn, the more unknowns we seem to find. religion/faith is the literal opposite of science. I can't stress that enough. oh, and i never said anything of the sort you are implying. We seem to have a culture built around false dichotomies. Just look at politics: today's politicians use the word "moderate" as if it's an insult. If you don't pick one of their two sides, you're just indecisive and unfit to govern. That comes down to the so-called conflict between religion and science: far too many people have this notion that it's necessary to fully reject one if you're going to practice the other. I've observed a troubling trend among scientists over the past few decades that I think goes along with this. Note that I'm not applying this statement to all or even "most" scientists, but that it's enough of them to be of concern to me. At some point scientists fell into this same trap of "us versus them" and started believing their science to be infallible. It's simple pride, really: they reject anything that demonstrates them to be wrong. This scientific dogma leads to self-assured scientists spouting off hypotheses as fact and theories as law. They forget that their field of study is fluid. When scientists reject new information solely because it conflicts with what they already "know", they've lost sight of the spirit of science. I've long said that science and God don't mix. That's not to say that one must be an atheist to practice science; rather, you have to set God aside in order to pursue scientific inquiry. If "God did it" is ever an acceptable answer, you're not doing science. On the other hand science has no way to test for God, so any definitive statement on the existence of God is beyond the capacity of science. TL;DR: Scientists need to be careful not to be dogmatic about their science, and religion and science can coexist best by not being applied at the same time. I see no point in throwing out one for the sake of the other.
i agree with this statement 100% |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
829
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 21:25:00 -
[120] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:It is my strongly held opinion, that when people start to use math and theory to explain things that have never been observed, and then use it as part of a "grand explanation" that is assumed to superseded all other grand explanations that have preceded it, you are starting to tread on very thin ice.
I do think it's important to remember that things like the Big Bang models and other such constructs obviously can't be repeated in any meaningful way. They do predict things that we can test, but in the end there is a level of "take all the data we have and fill in the blanks with something that makes it consistent." To put it rather bluntly (and make it sound far more trivial than it truly is), a lot of theoretical physics amounts to "this is our best guess until we get more data".
edit: You're also right about the faith in science by the populace. Mass media dilutes scientific findings to 30-second sound bytes, which people either summarily reject because an oversimplified statement conflicts with their worldview, or blindly accept it because SCIENCE. The problem, though, is a complete lack of critical thinking by an alarmingly large segment of the population. |
|
Eternum Praetorian
Black Ops Trade Group
501
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 21:33:00 -
[121] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:so who are the ones who push these ideas as theories and fact? people like you!
Uhh.... OK? LOL
It is my fault, and I should just accept that all of what I stated is entirely the fault of people like myself who think that
Quote:It is my strongly held opinion, that when people start to use math and theory to explain things that have never been observed, and then use it as part of a "grand explanation" that is supposed to superseded all other grand explanations that have preceded it, you are starting to tread on thin ice.
Makes sense. Not sure what to make of that TBH, I am a little dumbfounded atm. Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI. Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
Alpheias
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
447
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 21:34:00 -
[122] - Quote
Tsadkiel, since I am feeling mean and I want you to suffer, I want you to spend ten hours on Graham's number. I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
447
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 21:35:00 -
[123] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Not sure what to make of that TBH, I am a little dumbfounded atm.
Aren't you always? I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 21:36:00 -
[124] - Quote
Quote:To put it rather bluntly (and make it sound far more trivial than it truly is), a lot of theoretical physics amounts to "this is our best guess until we get more data".
it's more like "these are the only explanations that fit the current data"
as for the big bang, well, we can recreate mini big bangs in particle accelerators and the models we have for the actual big bang allow us to predict the behavior of these laboratory big bangs. |
Eternum Praetorian
Black Ops Trade Group
501
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 21:37:00 -
[125] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Not sure what to make of that TBH, I am a little dumbfounded atm.
Aren't you always?
Are you still mad because I made fun of your signature? Awww, It's ok... it really does look cool!
AND... Since I can't seem to help myself!
Tsadkiel wrote: no one in the scientific community expects everyone to accept their results, and to be honest, they don't need to! why? because we produce results and technology!
* Eternum looks down to his memory stick, which is based on quantum tunneling and asks "How does quantum tunneling work?" * Hears crickets. * Realizes that science can produce results and design functioning technology without ever understanding the cause. Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI. Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 21:42:00 -
[126] - Quote
Quote:It is my fault, and I should just accept that all of what I stated is entirely the fault of people like myself who think that Quote:It is my strongly held opinion, that when people start to use math and theory to explain things that have never been observed, and then use it as part of a "grand explanation" that is supposed to superseded all other grand explanations that have preceded it, you are starting to tread on thin ice.
if this is what you really think is going on then yes. no one is stopping you from learning the necessary material but you. |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
447
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 21:42:00 -
[127] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Alpheias wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Not sure what to make of that TBH, I am a little dumbfounded atm.
Aren't you always? Are you still mad because I made fun of your signature? Awww, It's ok... it really does look cool!
No, feel free to make fun of my signature any time you want, you can have that.
Since we make fun of you all the time. I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
Eternum Praetorian
Black Ops Trade Group
501
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 21:45:00 -
[128] - Quote
Tsadkiel, I thank you for your replies to my questions and truly respect your field. But I don't think that you are reading what I am typing. I surmise that you probably exalt the pursite of science in such a way that anyone who questions it ends up royally pissing you off.
That is not atypical behavior by any means, it is in actuality, fairly commonplace. So for the sake of the continuation of this thread, I shall now digress.
Good luck in your pursuits. Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI. Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 21:47:00 -
[129] - Quote
Quote:AND... Since I can't seem to help myself!
Tsadkiel wrote:
no one in the scientific community expects everyone to accept their results, and to be honest, they don't need to! why? because we produce results and technology!
* Eternum looks down to his memory stick, which is based on quantum tunneling and asks "How does quantum tunneling work?" * Hears crickets. * Realizes that science can produce results and design functioning technology without ever understanding the cause.
excuse me, but this is third time i will be posting this. scientific theories explain WHAT is happening and HOW it happens. we know EXACTLY HOW quantum tunneling works. you are looking at the evidence right now apparently! you have things like a memory stick! hell, i've been doing quantum tunneling calculations in my classes for over 4 years now!
WHY quantum tunneling exists. WHY electrons behave as both a particle and a wave are a different story. to my knowledge we don't know yet! |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 21:52:00 -
[130] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:Tsadkiel, since I am feeling mean and I want you to suffer, I want you to spend ten hours on Graham's number.
i've never heard of this but now that i am reading about it i'm curious :3 more to come tomorrow. it sounds like something related to the Ackermann function, which i only know because of XKCD heheh |
|
Eternum Praetorian
Black Ops Trade Group
501
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 21:52:00 -
[131] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote: WHY electrons behave as both a particle and a wave are a different story. to my knowledge we don't know yet!
Yes that is what I said. We appear to be in agreement.
Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI. Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 22:00:00 -
[132] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Tsadkiel wrote: WHY electrons behave as both a particle and a wave are a different story. to my knowledge we don't know yet! Yes that is what I said. We appear to be in agreement. Quote:* Realizes that science can produce results and design functioning technology without ever understanding the cause.
no, we aren't. we really really aren't and i've tried to explain why. you took my entire response and reduced it to a single, out of context quote... shouldn't you be off "digressing"?
|
Fiori 161
New Eden Haven Prime
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 22:36:00 -
[133] - Quote
Can you please explain the relevance of E=MC (squared)?
I mean... I don't understand exactly why the speed of light is relevant to the energy delivered in a nuclear reaction. This has always bugged me, can you clear this up for me? |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
829
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 22:39:00 -
[134] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:it's more like "these are the only explanations that fit the current data"
as for the big bang, well, we can recreate mini big bangs in particle accelerators and the models we have for the actual big bang allow us to predict the behavior of these laboratory big bangs.
I think we can agree that "only" is a bit of a stretch. It's a "best fit" model...but that's a big part of science. It's just important to understand that such theories rarely last more than a decade before some discovery turns them on end and forces quite a bit of recalculation. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
829
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 22:42:00 -
[135] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:i've never heard of this but now that i am reading about it i'm curious :3 more to come tomorrow. it sounds like something related to the Ackermann function, which i only know because of XKCD heheh Ahh, XKCD...that thing which unites all the disparate clans of Geekdom into one cohesive whole. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 23:02:00 -
[136] - Quote
Fiori 161 wrote:Can you please explain the relevance of E=MC (squared)? I mean... I don't understand exactly why the speed of light is relevant to the energy delivered in a nuclear reaction. This has always bugged me, can you clear this up for me?
sure can! this equation comes from Special Relativity (not to be confused with General Relativity) and appears when you start trying to describe mechanics in reference frames moving at relativistic velocities (velocities approaching the speed of light). when you try to do this a factor known as Gamma appears...
Gamma = 1/sqrt(1-V^2/c^2)
where V is the velocity of the frame. for V < c, Gamma > 1. for V -> c, Gamma -> infinity, and for V > c, Gamma is imaginary (which is a whole other topic).
Gamma tells us how space and time change relative to your velocity. these effects are known as Lorentz contraction and time dilation . once we derive how space and time change in relativistic frames, we can derive how velocities will change (suppose you see a ship pass near the speed of light and a person on the ship tosses a ball around, what do you see. in this case, V is the velocity of the ship. the velocity of the ball is the quantity we needed to derive). once we have velocity we can derive momentum and energy!
when we derive the total energy of an object in the context of special relativity we get a trailing term of gamma*m*c^2. notice that when the velocity is zero this term will remain as just m*c^2! so this energy is around even when an object is at rest (the reason we never noticed this before is because energy is always conserved and this term would appear on both sides of any conservation equation we would usually encounter) and so we call it the Rest Energy. the most common interpretation of this is that this is the energy required for the object to exist as matter.
in an explosive nuclear reaction, the constituent particles that make of the fuel collide with each other at relativistic velocities and can be partially (sometimes completely) converted into energy. the amount of energy yielded in these collisions is proportional the m*c^2 for the particles in question. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 23:05:00 -
[137] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:it's more like "these are the only explanations that fit the current data"
as for the big bang, well, we can recreate mini big bangs in particle accelerators and the models we have for the actual big bang allow us to predict the behavior of these laboratory big bangs. I think we can agree that "only" is a bit of a stretch. It's a "best fit" model...but that's a big part of science. It's just important to understand that such theories rarely last more than a decade before some discovery turns them on end and forces quite a bit of recalculation.
TRUE! only is a bit extremist of me. so long as we agree that "best guess" doesn't really do it justice XD
also, yes, love XKCD. have you read any of the Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comics?
|
Fiori 161
New Eden Haven Prime
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 23:16:00 -
[138] - Quote
Here are a few others.
1. I read somewhere that although our sun is a "very average main sequence star" recent observations seem to indicate that it's output is somewhat more regular then others like it. Any truth to this?
2. After the big bang, why was only hydrogen formed? I always figured that it would make sense if heavier elements were created do to the great energies and pressures involved. It was far more powerful then a super nova, so why did it not also create heavy elements like super nova do?
3. Cosmic background radiation, why is it only in microwave frequencies, and more importantly, what was it's original frequency before it was red shifted?
4. Has anyone detected wavelengths shorter then gamma waves involved in say... splitting protons into quarks as oppose to just splitting atoms?
Thx! |
Telegram Sam
The Drones Club
230
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 02:34:00 -
[139] - Quote
Questions: 1) How much antimatter would it take to explode the Milky Way Galaxy? 2) How much would it take to explode just a tiny, tiny corner of it? Say, Wall Street, for example. 3) Is there a way to make an antimatter containment field, say a very tiny one, that is also soluble in water. Or maybe soluble in digestive system acids. And said container could be hidden in, say, an Altoid mint. Is that possible? 4) Where can I get some antimatter? |
Amaroq Dricaldari
69
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 06:28:00 -
[140] - Quote
The answer to the ultimate question is actually its own question: Why Not? THAT is what we should try to figure out the answer to, not "Why". This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
835
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 15:17:00 -
[141] - Quote
Telegram Sam wrote:Questions: 1) How much antimatter would it take to explode the Milky Way Galaxy? 2) How much would it take to explode just a tiny, tiny corner of it? Say, Wall Street, for example. 3) Is there a way to make an antimatter containment field, say a very tiny one, that is also soluble in water. Or maybe soluble in digestive system acids. And said container could be hidden in, say, an Altoid mint. Is that possible? 4) Where can I get some antimatter? Someone give this man some antimatter. This will end hilariously. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 17:40:00 -
[142] - Quote
Fiori 161 wrote:Here are a few others.
1. I read somewhere that although our sun is a "very average main sequence star" recent observations seem to indicate that it's output is somewhat more regular then others like it. Any truth to this?
2. After the big bang, why was only hydrogen formed? I always figured that it would make sense if heavier elements were created do to the great energies and pressures involved. It was far more powerful then a super nova, so why did it not also create heavy elements like super nova do?
3. Cosmic background radiation, why is it only in microwave frequencies, and more importantly, what was it's original frequency before it was red shifted?
4. Has anyone detected wavelengths shorter then gamma waves involved in say... splitting protons into quarks as oppose to just splitting atoms?
Thx!
good ones! yay!
1) so, some background for those who may not be familiar with it. the Main Sequence is a long, continuous band that is formed when you make a plot of a stars color vs how bright the star is (spectral class VS absolute intensity or luminosity) for many many stars. the "average" stars we have observed live somewhere on this band and during the course of their life, travel along it to other parts of the diagram.
now, the short answer to your question is i don't know. if it is, i haven't heard of it, but that doesn't mean it isn't the case. because the plot is only one of color vs intensity, the time behavior of a stars emissions is not taken into account. if we were to quantify and measure the regularity of stars on the main sequence we would probably see something like a normal distribution or bell curve. it may very well be that the sun is on the "more regular" side of this curve. i will do some reading and try to get back to you when i find anything.
2) i made a post about the big bang earlier in the thread if you haven't read it yet =D basically, the key thing to remember is that we start with just energy, and as the universe expands this energy condenses into elementary particles like quarks and leptons. now, the leptons are the electron, the muon, and the tau, but only the electron is stable, so eventually the muons and taus should decay away.
as for quarks, we have observed that they only form particles in specific numbers: 2 quarks, 3 quarks, and we think 5 quarks. (there are other higher groupings but we haven't seen 5 yet). two quark particles are called Mesons and all mesons i know of have a very short lifetime (the pi+- meson, one of the most common mesons, has a lifetime on the order of 1E-8 seconds). 5 quark particles are simply called Pentaquarks (literally, 5 quarks). we have yet to observe a pentaquark in any of our experiments and the conclusion is that they are either can't form for some reason, or have an incredibly short lifetime. so this leaves 3 quark particles, which are called Baryons. of all the baryons, the proton and the neutron are the most stable. the neutron has a lifetime of about 885.7 seconds when it isn't in the nucleus of an atom or clustered with other neutrons, so they would decay. the most stable baryon we know of is the proton. IF it has a lifetime, we haven't observed its decay yet. current calculations put the lifetime of the proton beyond the current age of the universe.
so what does this leave? protons, electrons, and very few neutrons; 1 proton + 1 electron = 1 hydrogen! (there's probably some stray helium in there too from the old neutrons, but i don't think there would be very much. i haven't made any calculations).
3) the frequency of the Cosmic Microwave Background has to do with the the temperature of the universe at the time it was formed. when an object is heated, it emits a continuous radiation spectrum (so the amount to radiation you measure as a function of wavelength forms a smooth curve). this kind of radiation is called Black Body radiation and it has very specific characteristics that allow us to link the radiation we see to the temperature of the object that emitted it. the cosmic microwave background corresponds to a black body temperature of 2.7K +- .00057K (yes, we can make the measurement that precisely) and the peak of its frequency distribution lies in the microwave range (hence the name). if we take our current measurements for the expansion of the universe and project backwards, this corresponds to a temperature of 3000K ! (water boils at a temperature of 373K).
4) Gamma radiation is what we call any radiation beyond X-rays. the gamma ray spectrum starts at a wavelength around 1E-12 meters. so yes, we have seen some pretty intense stuff coming from subatomic collisions, but we just call them gamma rays heheh. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 17:56:00 -
[143] - Quote
Quote:Questions: 1) How much antimatter would it take to explode the Milky Way Galaxy? 2) How much would it take to explode just a tiny, tiny corner of it? Say, Wall Street, for example. 3) Is there a way to make an antimatter containment field, say a very tiny one, that is also soluble in water. Or maybe soluble in digestive system acids. And said container could be hidden in, say, an Altoid mint. Is that possible? 4) Where can I get some antimatter?
1) oh man, i have no idea. if you wanted to Annihilate the milky way (convert it into pure energy) you would need 1:1 matter to antimatter
2) well, a single gram of antimatter would release 9E13 joules of energy (1E-3 * 9E16) which corresponds to an explosive yield of 21.4 kilotons (21,000 tons of TNT). the bomb that destroyed Nagasaki had an estimated explosive yield between 20 and 22 kilotons. will this do?
3) not at the moment. the issue with making an antimatter container is that, if you make if of matter, the antimatter annihilates and you esplode. if you make it out of antimatter, well, then you can't touch it or you will esplode. the current method for antimatter containment is acceleration rings, where streams of atoms of antimatter are suspended electromagnetically and kept moving around a large ring (with diameters usually measured in units like the mile or the kilometer).
4) Geneva Switzerland. they make it there one nucleon at a time. good luck lol |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
837
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 18:58:00 -
[144] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Quote:1) How much antimatter would it take to explode the Milky Way Galaxy? 1) oh man, i have no idea. if you wanted to Annihilate the milky way (convert it into pure energy) you would need 1:1 matter to antimatter You mean you can't calculate the necessary explosive force to rip apart an entire galaxy? No one is going to take you seriously if you can't do something simple and pop science-y like that!
I wonder if it would make more sense to use it all at the middle of the galaxy and watch the blast spread out over millenia until the galaxy is obliterate, or throw some in each star and see what happens. i'm betting the latter, even if it would be far less spectacular.
Random semi-related thought question: What happens if we throw antimatter into a black hole? (I'm pretty sure I know the answer)
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 20:05:00 -
[145] - Quote
Quote:Random semi-related thought question: What happens if we throw antimatter into a black hole? (I'm pretty sure I know the answer)
this is actually the basis for the emission of Hawking radiation and the evaporation of black holes. current theories suggest that the black hole would be reduced in mass by the mass of the antimatter added to it. because the conversion is into energy, another good question would be what happens to the total energy and entropy of the black hole. we briefly touched on entropy calculations for black holes in thermodynamics and it's actually pretty interesting! the long story short of it is that the entropy of a black hole is directly related to its surface area. changes is mass will cause changes in surface area, and also changes in things like temperatrue, angular momentum, charge, and a whole mess of other quantities. this means we can pull all of this information about the black hole just by measuring its surface area.
now, HOW to go about measuring the surface area of a black hole... well... that's a whole different problem lol |
Amaroq Dricaldari
69
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 23:39:00 -
[146] - Quote
People have made 4D games (like 4D snake, which is like snake except in a Hypercube and you move along 4 axis of movement).
Do you think it would be more effecient for the Tranquility server to simply move objects really fast when in warp, or to actually move them in the 4th Dimension? This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
449
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 08:14:00 -
[147] - Quote
So, has Graham's number given you headache yet? I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
Arcathra
Technodyne Ltd.
146
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 09:39:00 -
[148] - Quote
Great thread, really enjoyed it so far .
Tsadkiel, can you tell us something about neutron stars? How do they form and what are they special properties compared to normal stars? Also heard something about quark stars, what's up with that? |
Kehro Urgus
Ab Obice Saevior
121
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 11:36:00 -
[149] - Quote
Referring to one of the OP's earlier posts about the fate of the universe where heat death occurs. Assuming over time large parts of the universe cool to absolute zero creating a Bose-Einstein Condensate on a large scale, what could be the result? Scientists who have created such matter in a lab with just a handful of atoms have reported strange things; matter acting as a single entity or in soome cases imploding (Bosenova). Might this point to a cyclical nature of the universe, like a really cold Big Crunch? |
Larry Wickes
Time Bandits.
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 12:09:00 -
[150] - Quote
I guess I'm a noob when it comes to science.... Though, I've read almost every post up to now and first started when it was at page 3. Then every time I read a page, there was another, I actually went to bed an hour later last night reading all these posts, lol.
If space is a vacuum, how exactly does heat travel from the sun to earth and keep us warm? Is it as simple as traveling with the light? As you mentioned earlier light can travel through a vacuum.
Also, given unlimited resources (Money, man power etc) and our current technology, exactly how fast of a ship could we potentially build at this moment in time? |
|
Kehro Urgus
Ab Obice Saevior
121
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 12:20:00 -
[151] - Quote
This one I can answer: heat (radiant)is infrared radiation just below the spectrum of visible light. As with all electromagnetic emissions it requires no medium to propagate through space. |
Lyrka Bloodberry
Spybeaver
69
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 15:13:00 -
[152] - Quote
Can you explain what an air shower is? And what is cherenkov light?
What are the major differences between the HAWC detector and imaging atmospheric cherenkov teleskopes like MAGIC or HESS? What are the respective aims of the experiments?
What do you do to seperate the gamma ray signal from the hadronic background? Spybeaver |
Kehro Urgus
Ab Obice Saevior
121
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 15:31:00 -
[153] - Quote
Cerenkov radiation (light) is where particles exceed the local light speed, ie. fast neutrons in heavy water. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 16:50:00 -
[154] - Quote
heya guys, today is super busy and i have a meeting in about 5 minutes and then after i'll be at the bladder factory (i go to CSU and we make the bladders that hold the water for the tanks used in HAWC. these are GREAT questions (especially the ones about HAWC ;) ) and i promise i WILL answer them but it may not be until later. |
Amaroq Dricaldari
Malicious Mission Murderers
70
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 22:53:00 -
[155] - Quote
Remember to answer my question about wether it would be more CPU Effecient for CCP to have the ships simply go extremely fast when warping or to just make the game world 4- or 5-dimensional. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
35
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 02:22:00 -
[156] - Quote
Amaroq Dricaldari wrote: Remember to answer my question about wether it would be more CPU Effecient for CCP to have the ships simply go extremely fast when warping or to just make the game world 4- or 5-dimensional.
if CCP wanted to we could just teleport from point A to B, no dimensions required... it's a computer simulation. we can make it do whatever we want. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
35
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 03:20:00 -
[157] - Quote
Quote:Can you explain what an air shower is? And what is cherenkov light?
What are the major differences between the HAWC detector and imaging atmospheric cherenkov teleskopes like MAGIC or HESS? What are the respective aims of the experiments?
What do you do to seperate the gamma ray signal from the hadronic background?
1) an Air Shower (also called an Extensive Air Shower or EAS for short) is the cascade of particles formed when an energetic cosmic ray interacts with our atmosphere.
imagine you are playing a game of pool and it's your turn to break. the que ball is the primary cosmic ray. this is the radiation that first interacts with the atmosphere. if it didn't interact with anything on the way it also tells us something about the source that emitted it (objects that could be millions of light years away). the racked balls represent an atmospheric molecule of some kind (like N2). when the cue ball interacts with the racked balls they scatter and we call these secondary particles (it's important to not here that we aren't actually shattering the nitrogen molecule so much as we are converting it and its energy into other products). these propagate through the atmosphere and interact with other molecules, creating more particles. this goes on and on creating the cascade. here are some simulations of EAS.
http://astro.uchicago.edu/cosmus/projects/aires/
Quote:Cerenkov radiation (light) is where particles exceed the local light speed, ie. fast neutrons in heavy water.
your answer is very close! Cerenkov radiation is created when a charged particle exceeds the speed of light in the local medium. the speed of light is different depending on the medium through which the light is traveling. this is why light refracts in water; the speed limit is 33% slower there. now, matter cannot exceed the speed of light in a vacuum but it CAN exceed it in a medium. when this happens with a charged particle, a "kink" forms in its electric field, which is the Cerenkov radiation. the properties of this radiation can be directly linked to the particles velocity. this effect is not unlike a Sonic Boom.
2) MAGIC and HESS both examine the the fluorescent and Cerenkov light created by Extensive Air Showers as they propagate though the atmosphere. HAWC specifically examines the particles formed by the shower when they reach the ground. all three experiments are designed to examine different regions and compositions of the cosmic ray spectrum. HAWC is designed to examine gamma rays with an energy measured in terraelectronvolts (TeV).
3) i actually worked on this for a long while. i developed an algorithm that produced artificial neural networks through evolutionary methods for the soul purpose of classifying the composition of the primary cosmic ray (gamma ray or hadron). it works great (and i can use the algorithm to do pretty much anything i choose now) but it only meets the efficiency of our current methods. right now we separate gamma rays from hadrons by examining the distribution of of particles when the shower reaches the ground. hadron primary showers tend to create far spreading muons and we can identify them by that characteristic. |
Amaroq Dricaldari
Malicious Mission Murderers
73
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 03:35:00 -
[158] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Amaroq Dricaldari wrote: Remember to answer my question about wether it would be more CPU Effecient for CCP to have the ships simply go extremely fast when warping or to just make the game world 4- or 5-dimensional.
if CCP wanted to we could just teleport from point A to B, no dimensions required... it's a computer simulation. we can make it do whatever we want. Yeah, but you can be stopped mid-warp by Interdiction Bubbles, so it isn't as easy as just teleporting the ship and making it look like you're actually moving. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
35
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 03:36:00 -
[159] - Quote
Amaroq Dricaldari wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:Amaroq Dricaldari wrote: Remember to answer my question about wether it would be more CPU Effecient for CCP to have the ships simply go extremely fast when warping or to just make the game world 4- or 5-dimensional.
if CCP wanted to we could just teleport from point A to B, no dimensions required... it's a computer simulation. we can make it do whatever we want. Yeah, but you can be stopped mid-warp by Interdiction Bubbles, so it isn't as easy as just teleporting the ship and making it look like you're actually moving.
yes?
|
Amaroq Dricaldari
Malicious Mission Murderers
73
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 03:41:00 -
[160] - Quote
Nevermind. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
35
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 03:51:00 -
[161] - Quote
Larry Wickes wrote:I guess I'm a noob when it comes to science.... Though, I've read almost every post up to now and first started when it was at page 3. Then every time I read a page, there was another, I actually went to bed an hour later last night reading all these posts, lol.
If space is a vacuum, how exactly does heat travel from the sun to earth and keep us warm? Is it as simple as traveling with the light? As you mentioned earlier light can travel through a vacuum.
Also, given unlimited resources (Money, man power etc) and our current technology, exactly how fast of a ship could we potentially build at this moment in time?
it is exactly that simple :3 heat IS light. infrared to be exact. heat is exchanged through three methods. Convection, the movement of energetic matter from one place to another. Conduction, the movement of heat through a solid body. And finally Radiation, the exchange of heat through interaction with light. the sun heats the earth through the last method, radiation.
as for the ship, i'm really not sure. the other post sounds reasonable but i haven't read anything about it. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
35
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 04:07:00 -
[162] - Quote
Kehro Urgus wrote:Referring to one of the OP's earlier posts about the fate of the universe where heat death occurs. Assuming over time large parts of the universe cool to absolute zero creating a Bose-Einstein Condensate on a large scale, what could be the result? Scientists who have created such matter in a lab with just a handful of atoms have reported strange things; matter acting as a single entity or in soome cases imploding (Bosenova). Might this point to a cyclical nature of the universe, like a really cold Big Crunch?
the conditions for forming a Bose-Einstein condensate are very specific. not just any matter can do it. it needs to be exceptionally neutral matter, and i don't just mean charge. other qualities like nuclear magnetic moment, atomic dipole moment, atomic magnetic moment and many others must be very small or even non existent for the atoms to form a stable condensate. the first condensate ever formed used Rubidium-87, an isotope with an abundance of approximately 1/4. it was chosen specifically for its scattering properties, which makes the isotope ever so slightly repulsive when near absolute zero. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
35
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 05:31:00 -
[163] - Quote
Arcathra wrote:Great thread, really enjoyed it so far . Tsadkiel, can you tell us something about neutron stars? How do they form and what are they special properties compared to normal stars? Also heard something about quark stars, what's up with that?
there are two primary forces at work within a star: the force of gravity, pulling inwards, and the outward pressure created the fusion reaction occurring at the stars core. when a massive star runs out of fuel (when it has converted a large portion of its mass into iron) the fusion forces die, gravity takes over, and the star collapses. this is called core collapse. depending on the mass of the star in question, a number of things can happen. if the star is particularly massive, but NOT massive enough to form a black hole, it will probably form a neutron star: a star formed almost entirely of neutrons.
the atoms that from the star get squeezed together as the core collapses. eventually the pressure is so great, it forces all electrons outwards, to the surface of the star (like oil sitting on top of water). as the collapse continues the nuclei of the atoms are squeezed into contact with each other. protons are around .1% lighter than neutrons, so they also float towards the surface as the collapse continues. eventually, something very strange happens: a new and intriguing outward pressure begins to form. this is called Degeneracy Pressure.
neutrons are Fermions and obey something called the Pauli exclusion principle, which states that no two fermions can occupy the same quantum state. the neutrons in our star are now so close that they are trying to occupy the same state, but they can't! the exclusion principle prevents it! this stops the collapse. most of matter that floated towards the surface gets expelled away from the star and what remains is one of the most unusual objects in all the universe: a sphere only a few kilometers wide with the mass of a couple suns or so.
neutron stars have a variety of interesting properties; the most fascinating of these, in my opinion, is that you can see more of the stars surface that what is facing you. this is due to the bending of light from the intense gravity near its surface. neutron stars are also incredibly hot and carry absurd amounts of energy due to the degeneracy pressure. because of conservation of angular momentum, they also have incredible angular velocities; some rotating several hundred times per second!! this tends to squish the star into a semi flattened sphere, bulging at the equator. we see the same effect here on earth, though to a lesser extreme (the earths equatorial diameter is, on average, several kilometers larger than its polar diameter).
neutrons, while charge neutral, are composed of non neutral quarks, which gives them a magnetic moment (no electric moment has ever been measured for the neutron). these moments fully align in the neutron star, and because of its high angular velocity the star can accelerate charged matter near its magnetic poles. this accelerated matter emits radio and x-ray radiation and because the star itself is rotating, these emissions seem to pulse. neutron stars with these characteristics are called Pulsars for this exact reason.
quark stars are the hypothetical core of very dense neutron stars. if the masses are large enough, current theories suggest that the core of the star stops behaving as individual neutrons and starts behaving like a single, n-quark hadron: a fundamental particle several meters across. i know next to nothing about these, sorry :( |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
35
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 05:36:00 -
[164] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:So, has Graham's number given you headache yet?
ye gods yes! Graham's number is the largest, finite number ever used in a mathematical proof (which i am still trying to wrap my head around... i'm terrible at abstraction). it has so many digits that if you were to somehow be able to store a single digit of Graham's number in plank volume, you would not be able to contain all of the digits within the universe... (a plank length is the length traveled by a photon in one plank second. a plank volume would just be this cubed).
sorry i can't give you more on this, i really am bad at abstract mathematics.
also, tomorrow is another day a the bladder factory, so keep the questions coming and i will try to answer them tomorrow night. |
Amaroq Dricaldari
Malicious Mission Murderers
73
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 06:27:00 -
[165] - Quote
No, no, no, no, no. Go sign up for the airforce, asked to be assigned to that mountain complex, take the elevator, and go as low as you could possibly go. There, you can use your knowledge of astrophysics for something greater than great.
Nah, I'm just kidding. This isn't Stargate. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
450
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 11:37:00 -
[166] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Alpheias wrote:So, has Graham's number given you headache yet? ye gods yes! Graham's number is the largest, finite number ever used in a mathematical proof (which i am still trying to wrap my head around... i'm terrible at abstraction). it has so many digits that if you were to somehow be able to store a single digit of Graham's number in plank volume, you would not be able to contain all of the digits within the universe... (a plank length is the length traveled by a photon in one plank second. a plank volume would just be this cubed). sorry i can't give you more on this, i really am bad at abstract mathematics. also, tomorrow is another day a the bladder factory, so keep the questions coming and i will try to answer them tomorrow night.
Oh, I wasn't expecting anything from you. I just wanted you to suffer. I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
Borascus
Hole Diggers
29
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 23:06:00 -
[167] - Quote
Have you seen any research or are you able to comment on whether or not the bond enthalpies of a collapsing neutron star raise exponentially?
Also: Is there any artcile or topic that you can refer to in relation to a collapsing neutron star placing more dense material within a finite space than could commonly occur elsewhere? i.e. during core collapse does more matter occupy space than would normally be achievable and does this contribute to the formation of a singularity / black hole?
|
Amaroq Dricaldari
Malicious Mission Murderers
73
|
Posted - 2012.02.11 02:48:00 -
[168] - Quote
Are the Replicators from Stargate scientifically possible to build with any level of technology? This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Hans Zwaardhandler
Borealis Mining Concern IMPERIAL LEGI0N
9
|
Posted - 2012.02.11 05:58:00 -
[169] - Quote
Fermi's paradox... what is your take on that sir? |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
39
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 19:26:00 -
[170] - Quote
Amaroq Dricaldari wrote:No, no, no, no, no. Go sign up for the airforce, asked to be assigned to that mountain complex, take the elevator, and go as low as you could possibly go. There, you can use your knowledge of astrophysics for something greater than great.
Nah, I'm just kidding. This isn't Stargate.
oh man how i wish it were
lots of good questions again. this week is super crazy though. we are redeploying our prototype tank for HAWC so i have a lot on my plate at the moment. i will try to answer as best as i can. |
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
39
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 19:34:00 -
[171] - Quote
Borascus wrote:Have you seen any research or are you able to comment on whether or not the bond enthalpies of a collapsing neutron star raise exponentially?
no, i haven't / cannot. bond enthalpies are usually associated with molecules though right? most molecules can't "live" in a neutron star (or any really. it's allllllll ions)
Borascus wrote: Also: Is there any artcile or topic that you can refer to in relation to a collapsing neutron star placing more dense material within a finite space than could commonly occur elsewhere? i.e. during core collapse does more matter occupy space than would normally be achievable and does this contribute to the formation of a singularity / black hole?
again, don't know, but i also am not quite sure what you are asking here. neutron star matter is the densest matter we know of. the matter densities of a neutron star are far greater than what can be "normally" achieved. also, to my knowledge, neutron stars don't collapse on their own (they DO suffer from starquakes though). a star either has enough mass to form a black hole or it doesn't.
hope this helps! |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
39
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 19:41:00 -
[172] - Quote
Amaroq Dricaldari wrote:Are the Replicators from Stargate scientifically possible to build with any level of technology?
self replicating machinery is one of the holy grails of modern robotics. there have been several attempts at this in the past and the link is one i have heard the most about. as for the replicators themselves, there are strict limits that our current understanding of thermodynamics places on the minimum size of mechanical devices. as you make something smaller and smaller the heat of the thing plays a larger and larger role in its operation. heat is just a measure of "vibration" in an object and when something gets small enough, these vibrations can literally tear it apart. that said, who knows! there may very well be compounds out there that are exceptionally heat resistant and this may allow us to produce such nanoscale devices. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
39
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 20:46:00 -
[173] - Quote
Hans Zwaardhandler wrote:Fermi's paradox... what is your take on that sir?
another good one. i spoke on this when i was teaching astronomy labs a few years back. for those who may not be familiar, Fermi's Paradox asks...
given the size and age of the universe, why haven't we observed any signs of other intelligent life?
if we go about this logically, there are only two primary possibilities (and lots of secondary ones. either...
A) few other civilizations exist (or possibly no others at all)
or
B) they DO exist, and for one reason or another, leave no evidence.
so lets cover secondary arguments for A. the conclusions here can be somewhat depressing so i recommend listening to this to facilitate the mood.
it is possible that humanity is the FIRST civilization in the universe, and it is even possible that humanity may very well be the ONLY civilization. the latter argument comes from calculations relating to the multiverse hypothesis, which predicts that young universe outnumber old universes by absurd amounts, and so universes with civilizations will likely only have one each. another possibility is that it is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself or others... which would imply that there have been other civilizations in the universe which ended up killing each other off before we were able to listen. it is also possible that the universe is simply too hostile a place for multiple civilizations to exist; that natural events destroys intelligent life frequently enough that there are rarely multiple civilizations...
ok so, onwards to B (much less depressing). here we can probably neglect alien artifacts, as we have yet to explore even our own solar system enough to even know whether or not any exist here. this leaves communication only, which means that we are either unable to communicate for physical, technological, or personal reasons.
on the physical side of things, there may very well be consequences within special and general relativity that prevent EM communication over vast distances. the question of simultaneity definitely comes to mind here (whether or not two events are simultaneous is a common question in relativity). even more practically, it's possible that we simply have not been listening long enough. this is especially attractive if we assume that many civilizations are popping up around the same time, which would imply that the universe has only "recently" gotten to the point where long term civilizations can survive. if we go back even a few hundred thousand years, modern humanity as we know it doesn't even exist, and this is less than the merest hiccup in time on a cosmological scale. the radio has only been around for 120 years or so, and the galaxy is 100,000 to 120,000 light years across and 1,000 light years thick! in that regard our feeble cries have only just left the neighborhood.
on the technological side, it is possible that there is another, more efficient mode of communication that we have yet to discover. assuming this is true, it is possible most civilizations switch to this other method fast enough that the length of time that they are transmitting in radio waves is much much smaller than the age of the civilization. it is also possible that other life is simply too alien for us to identify their attempts at communication. it is even possible that these other civilizations are not technological at all!
the "personal" possibilities are by far the most unsettling in my opinion. they are also the most unlikely. it is possible that these civilizations do indeed exist, and they even communicate with each other, but for some reason not with US; that they are here unseen in the universe. voyager has only just recently started to leave our solar system, and is our FIRST physical probe to do so. for all we know we could be living in some giant dyne sphere of alien design, and all we have measured is just simulation. we could be a zoo of some kind or they could be harvesting energy from the sun. other life could have some kind of "prime directive" that prevents them form interacting with lesser species. their communications could be encrypted for this reason and we cannot detect them.
i personally think it's a matter of technology. that they are simply using a different, currently unknown method to communicate with each other. |
Lord Wamphyri
Starside Lost
111
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 22:10:00 -
[174] - Quote
Okay I have one..
Lets say you have two astronauts suspended in space 1 light second apart at either end of a long pole. (and for the sake of simplicity lets assume they are able to see each other unaided).
Astronaut A shoves his end of the pole towards Astronaut B.
Would Astronaut B feel the pole poke him before he saw Astronaut A push it?
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
39
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 23:06:00 -
[175] - Quote
Lord Wamphyri wrote:Okay I have one..
Lets say you have two astronauts suspended in space 1 light second apart at either end of a long pole. (and for the sake of simplicity lets assume they are able to see each other unaided).
Astronaut A shoves his end of the pole towards Astronaut B.
Would Astronaut B feel the pole poke him before he saw Astronaut A push it?
nope! at best the astronaut would see it and feel it happen at the same time. more than likely astronaut would feel it much MUCH later, and this will be true for any real pole made of atoms. but why is this?
the root of this question is really "what makes solids, solid?" what keeps you from falling through your chair or your hands from passing through your keyboard? you might say that this is because no two particles of matter can occupy the same location in space at the same time, but you would be wrong (i mean, the statement is correct, but it is not the reason)! atoms are very empty things. in fact, the vast majority of matter as we know it is empty space!
the dimensions of an atom are measured in a unit called the Angstrom, which is defined as 1E-10 meters. the dimensions of a nucleus are measured in units called a femtometer, which is 1E-15 meters! this is a five orders of magnitude difference! what does this mean? well, this means that if the nucleus of your atom was about a centimeter across, the electrons would be orbiting around a kilometer away!
so if atoms are primarily empty, what keeps them from passing through each other? the FORCE! the electromagnetic force to be exact :3 the electrons in your hand are quite literally repelling the electrons in your keyboard, and it is THIS that prevents the two from passing through each other. the electromagnetic force is one of the strongest fundamental forces in the universe. contrary to intuition, gravity is actually the weakest (by several orders of magnitude), even though it holds our solar system and even our galaxy together!
so now that we are all experts in the fundamental properties of all atomic matter, why doesn't the astronaut feel the poke before he sees it? the force exerted by astronaut A travels along the pole, from atom to atom electromagnetically to astronaut B. earlier in the thread i made a post about how "action at a distance" forces are mediated by particles. as it turns out, the force mediator particle for the electromagnetic force is light (the photon)! so when an atom at one part of the pole moves, it takes at least d/c seconds for an atom adjacent to it to even KNOW about it (where d is the distance in meters and c is the speed of light in a vacuum)! different solids have different properties, like compression or tensile strengths, and this would also affect the time (specifically increase the time) it would take for astronaut B to feel the poke. |
Amaroq Dricaldari
Malicious Mission Murderers
80
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 06:27:00 -
[176] - Quote
Can you please give us a short answer to that Astronaut Question? You gave me a headache, and I still don't know the answer.
Also, I saw you say "Prime Directive" in an earlier post. You have been watching too much Star Trek. Speaking of ST, when do you think we will develop the technology for subspace communication? This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
mUfFiN fAcToRy
960
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 06:33:00 -
[177] - Quote
I like to have sex with girls with their consent. This gets harder the more I talk about astronauts poking at each other with very long poles. |
Lord Wamphyri
Starside Lost
111
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 15:04:00 -
[178] - Quote
But it's Valentines day.. astronauts need love too! |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
40
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 16:55:00 -
[179] - Quote
Surfin's PlunderBunny wrote:I like to have sex with girls with their consent. This gets harder the more I talk about astronauts poking at each other with very long poles.
see, i like to have sex with men with their consent, so there is no issue here ;) |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
40
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 17:04:00 -
[180] - Quote
Amaroq Dricaldari wrote:Can you please give us a short answer to that Astronaut Question? You gave me a headache, and I still don't know the answer.
Also, I saw you say "Prime Directive" in an earlier post. You have been watching too much Star Trek. Speaking of ST, when do you think we will develop the technology for subspace communication?
imagine the pole as being a very tight spring. when astronaut A pushes on the pole the spring compresses partially, and the compression travels along the spring to astronaut B at a speed less than the speed of light, so astronaut B sees the push before he feels it.
as for "subspace", it's possible. if parallel universes exist, then these universes may have completely different physical laws. if this is the case, the speed of light there may be much greater than the speed of light here! so we send a message through this alternate reality to a point where it will cross back into our universe and BAM, FTL communication...
of course, there are serious consequences to this, mainly breaking causality as we currently know it. |
|
Valei Khurelem
316
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 17:20:00 -
[181] - Quote
Quote: an even better idea would probably be to just use gas pressurized charges. screw gun powder, we're in space! we can shoot bullets with compressed air! the net force applied to the bullet will be dependent on the difference in pressure between the charge and the environment. since we are in a vacuum we can get this difference to be VERY large :3
Thanks for answering this question! I forgot I had posted this :) very interesting.
I happen to know that there guns that can fire out of water or sand because their weapons fire using gas and won't overheat if it's dumped in sand or water.
Edit: Balls can't find the video, it should be up on future weapons somewhere, it's a Heckler and Koch assault rifle.
"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP." -á - CCP Ytterbium |
Evei Shard
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
59
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 21:30:00 -
[182] - Quote
A copper wire is just a copper wire. It has many uses, but in many cases throughout the past, copper wire has been used as a conduit for electricity.
Are the universe and matter separate? Or are the two similar to the above example, where the Universe is merely the conduit, and matter is the thing which it channels? Profit favors the prepared |
Karak Terrel
As Far As The eYe can see Chained Reactions
65
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 23:37:00 -
[183] - Quote
An esoteric quantum mechanics question for you:
Let's say a resting particle decays in say electron and a positron and they fly along the x axis. As i understand it they share the same wave function.
Because the particle was at rest and the momentum has to be conserved the moment I measure the momentum on the positron, the momentum of the electron has to be same just in the opposite direction. Like those entangled spins i guess.
If you measure the momentum on the positron would this still effect measurement of the position on the electron because of the uncertainty principle? Would it even be possible for the observer of the electron to tell that his measurements are no longer accurate? |
Amaroq Dricaldari
Malicious Mission Murderers
80
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 00:01:00 -
[184] - Quote
The problem with Theoretical Physics is that I don't see any practical applications for it in everyday life. What applications could Theoretical Physics have in the near future that would turn it into an "Applied Science"? This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
41
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 17:14:00 -
[185] - Quote
Evei Shard wrote:A copper wire is just a copper wire. It has many uses, but in many cases throughout the past, copper wire has been used as a conduit for electricity.
Are the universe and matter separate? Or are the two similar to the above example, where the Universe is merely the conduit, and matter is the thing which it channels?
tricky question. one of the more precise physical theories is Quantum Field Theory (QFT or Quite ******* True!) which states that fundamental particles can be thought of as the quantization of a specific "field". the photon and electron are quantizations of the elctromagnetic field, for example. a field in this context is, mathematically, an object with infinite degrees of freedom (it can vary in any way it likes). a good way to think of quantum fields is to envision an infinite sheet (or more realistically, a fluid) that can flutter and wave. certain types of waves that travel along the sheet are the "particle quantizations" of that field. the interactions of the waves also describes the interactions of the particles (photons and electrons are like ripples on the field).
from this context, the universe itself (space-time) could be thought of as a field, and all the other fields that we have identified may simply be different perspectives on this one. in physics, a field which unifies the four fundamental forces of the universe is called a grand unified field. the description of such a field that is mathematically consistent with our observations is called a Grand Unified Theory or a Theory Of Everything (GUTs and TOEs for short). this is the holy grail of ALL physics. many attempts have been made in the past but they are either untestable with our current level of technology, or have been disproven. it could be that space-time is just another part of this field that needs to be unified. honestly, i don't know.
so, to finally answer your question, the universe could very well be both! it could be both matter AND the thing that contains matter. the universe could be this unified field, and matter would then be ripples on the field. we are and interact with the ripples which exist within the field itself. |
Syme
Umbra Scientia Muneris Shadow Directive
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 18:23:00 -
[186] - Quote
Kuhn or Popper
which was right?
I didn't quite get this book but it did teach me that people who use the word Paradigm mostly don't know what they are talking about |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
41
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 18:50:00 -
[187] - Quote
Karak Terrel wrote:An esoteric quantum mechanics question for you:
Let's say a resting particle decays in say electron and a positron and they fly along the x axis. As i understand it they share the same wave function.
Because the particle was at rest and the momentum has to be conserved the moment I measure the momentum on the positron, the momentum of the electron has to be same just in the opposite direction. Like those entangled spins i guess.
If you measure the momentum on the positron would this still effect measurement of the position on the electron because of the uncertainty principle? Would it even be possible for the observer of the electron to tell that his measurements are no longer accurate?
so there is a slight caveat here. if you KNOW that the primary particle was at rest and its decay resulted in a positron and an electron then you have already measured BOTH of their momenta. why is this? it is because momentum is not a frame invariant quantity. the momentum of a particle depends on your velocity relative to that particle. spin, on the other hand, IS frame invariant. the spin of the electron is always +- 1/2 no matter how fast you move. so in order to claim that the original particle was at rest, you must be moving in such a way that it is at rest in YOUR FRAME, which already requires you to know its velocity, and therefore momentum.
by claiming this, we have already affected the uncertainty in the position of all the particles in question. because we cannot measure a particles momentum and position simultaneously, if we followed our initial measurement of momentum, with one of position, we now have an uncertainty in momentum! you may think that this violates conservation of momentum, but the key here is that one measurement follows the other. there is a space in time in which the particle is unobserved and this affects the following measurement (there is, in fact, an energy-time uncertainty principle as well. furthermore, you can create an "uncertainty principle" for any two observable quantities that share a certain property).
hope this helps!
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
41
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 18:57:00 -
[188] - Quote
Amaroq Dricaldari wrote:The problem with Theoretical Physics is that I don't see any practical applications for it in everyday life. What applications could Theoretical Physics have in the near future that would turn it into an "Applied Science"?
theoretical physics will always be like this. it will never ALL be an applied science because it is the precursor to applied science. PARTS of it may become so but never the whole field. truth be told much of theoretical physics DOESN'T have a direct application to every day life today, but it may very well have one tomorrow. take General Relativity for example. the fundamental principles for this field were first introduced in 1905 by Albert Einstein. at the time there was no practical application as far as every day life was concerned. but then we invented satellites, and soon after, the principles in general relativity allowed us to create a working GPS system! much of theoretical physics cannot yet be used because the technology we need to wield these principles simply doesn't exist yet =D
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
41
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 19:23:00 -
[189] - Quote
Syme wrote:Kuhn or Popperwhich was right? I didn't quite get this book but it did teach me that people who use the word Paradigm mostly don't know what they are talking about
both men have excellent points of views on the nature of science, but i consider myself to be a sophisticated falsifiacationist, so i would lean towards Kuhn. the ability for a theory to be proven false is CENTRAL to the very definition of what a scientific theory is.
and yes, people who use the word paradigm without understanding what it means makes me cringe too |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
393
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 04:20:00 -
[190] - Quote
With the Big Bang and the expansion, do you think Light or waves is a big part to the expansion of it? I keep imagining the first sun forming and the light given off and how light keeps traveling, it would reach the edge of the universe, but then keep going expanding it. That or any wave or maybe asteroid could expand the galaxy, but I just like to imagine light doing it.
Also I almost don't like time dilation since there is no "save" attached. As in if you are in a falling house, you get a few seconds, but the house still lands and you die when it does. Wondering if you have any thoughts.
Also the theory I like, that is like time dilation is the speeds a human can overcome to stand up or walk in. (overcome velocity or acceleration) Like I like to think if there was a ship that could go the speed of light, a human would be dragged by it, not fly it. Or if a human was in a falling house, the human could overcome the acceleration of the fall and stand up. But the house would still land and the human die.
Third observation I have is on Fusion. Lots of scientist like to say its cold fusion or gravity fusion. I mostly see it as a way to balance things, then once things are balanced the world makes sense and you can operate it. Like if its so cold, and you think about it being that cold things might get clearer for you to see. Or like setting a measuring standard first. So the gravity of the sun standardizes things so fusion can happen. The gravity there is so massive it brings balance then, then fusion can happen. Wonder what your opinion is. Signature removed, CCP Phantom |
|
Solinuas
Viziam Amarr Empire
56
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 09:55:00 -
[191] - Quote
How did you manage to keep the trolling so low in this thread :P |
Borascus
Hole Diggers
29
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 13:50:00 -
[192] - Quote
I personally think that Tsadkiel has satisfied the criteria for starting this thread.
However, I'm also glad it keeps going.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3169
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 14:53:00 -
[193] - Quote
Can you sub-entangle particles from a batch of material entangeled to itself?
Can you entangle a batch of materials instead of just a pair of atoms?
Would those sub entagled batch still be able to influence the entire batch?
Is there a way to prevent what the sub entangled batch influence from effecting another sub entangled particle.
|
Mirajane Cromwell
47
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 15:45:00 -
[194] - Quote
1. First Eve related question: FTL communications page describes how this tech was discovered in Eve's fiction. Would it be plausible to use something like this in real life as a communication network?
2. If the universe rotates around itself, would we be able to measure this rotation speed?
3. If a black hole is donut shaped, what happens if you travel through the donut hole?
4. We've mapped the universe to the past with telescopes but if we could see the whole universe at one moment, how the map would differ from the observed images? Would all those old galaxies far far away be just black holes now?
5. How close to Jupiter can human possibly go without dying? How about Saturn? I read long time ago something about Jupiter being quite lethal to humans even at the orbital distances and thus making manned space travel there impossible but the article didn't mention how close people actually could go safely. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
43
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 00:43:00 -
[195] - Quote
rodyas wrote:With the Big Bang and the expansion, do you think Light or waves is a big part to the expansion of it? I keep imagining the first sun forming and the light given off and how light keeps traveling, it would reach the edge of the universe, but then keep going expanding it. That or any wave or maybe asteroid could expand the galaxy, but I just like to imagine light doing it.
Also I almost don't like time dilation since there is no "save" attached. As in if you are in a falling house, you get a few seconds, but the house still lands and you die when it does. Wondering if you have any thoughts.
Also the theory I like, that is like time dilation is the speeds a human can overcome to stand up or walk in. (overcome velocity or acceleration) Like I like to think if there was a ship that could go the speed of light, a human would be dragged by it, not fly it. Or if a human was in a falling house, the human could overcome the acceleration of the fall and stand up. But the house would still land and the human die.
Third observation I have is on Fusion. Lots of scientist like to say its cold fusion or gravity fusion. I mostly see it as a way to balance things, then once things are balanced the world makes sense and you can operate it. Like if its so cold, and you think about it being that cold things might get clearer for you to see. Or like setting a measuring standard first. So the gravity of the sun standardizes things so fusion can happen. The gravity there is so massive it brings balance then, then fusion can happen. Wonder what your opinion is.
there are a lot of thoughts here so i will do my best to address them, please let me know if i miss anything.
the expansion of the universe appears to be driven by energies that are independent of the matter it contains. light and matter don't "push" the edges of the universe. our current measurements on the expansion of the universe shows that, not only was it at one time expanding faster than the speed of light, but in 1998 it was discovered to be accelerating.
there are a couple key points that concern the expansion of the universe that i would like to touch on. hopefully this will give a better idea of what is going on! imagine a square grid (like a chess board) and that on three adjacent intersections of the grid there are galaxies A, B and C. now, suppose you had a device that could give you the precise distance between any two grid points as a digital readout and you place two of these devices on the grid; one between galaxies A and B and the second between galaxies B and C. here, the grid represents-space time, so let's pretend that it behaves (and expands) the exact same way!
the two devices will always read the same value for the distance between the grid points because the grid points are defined relative to each other, but that value will increase with time. space time is literally scaling up (similar to what you would see as you zoom into a photograph). the galaxies remain on the grid points, but the unit of measure for the distance between the points is increasing!
now, consider the velocity of B relative to A. this would be the rate at which the readout of your digital ruler between A and B changes per second. lets say its 1m/s. because the two readouts always give the same value, the relative velocity between B and C is also 1m/s. they key point here is that the relative velocity between A and C will be the sum of the two, or 2m/s! from a person living in galaxy A, it would appear that galaxy C is moving away twice as fast as the closer galaxy B!
in this case, we would then say the the universe is expanding at 1m/s/grid-space (read as one meter per second per grid space). by plotting the velocity of distant objects relative to the distance of that object, we get a line, and the slope of this line tells us the rate of expansion of the universe. this slope is called Hubbles Constant, and our current measurements place it at around 70 km/s/Mpc or seventy kilometers per second per megaparsec. a parsec is about three light years and a megaparsec is a million parsecs (so this is around 70 km/s per three million light years!).
as for the next three paragraphs... i am not entirely sure about what you are saying here :( what do you mean by "save"? as for the second bit, i have never heard of this... the force acting on an object is determined by that objects acceleration and visaversa. if a ship is moving at a constant velocity of .99c, a person riding in that ship would feel no force and could walk around as if they were on the ground at "rest" (assuming there's gravity and such).
as for the third bit, again, i don't follow what you are trying to say, sorry! are you asking why does fusion exist? or the nature of fusion in general? sorry again, but can you clarify what you are trying to say? |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
43
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 00:49:00 -
[196] - Quote
Solinuas wrote:How did you manage to keep the trolling so low in this thread :P
with great charisma and skill.
or luck.... one of the two.
also,
Quote:I personally think that Tsadkiel has satisfied the criteria for starting this thread.
However, I'm also glad it keeps going.
thanks! i've been having a great time posting here :3 |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
43
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 01:24:00 -
[197] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Can you sub-entangle particles from a batch of material entangeled to itself?
Can you entangle a batch of materials instead of just a pair of atoms?
Would those sub entagled batch still be able to influence the entire batch?
Is there a way to prevent what the sub entangled batch influence from effecting another sub entangled particle.
for those who may not be familiar, quantum entanglement is one of the more weirder consequences of our quantum mechanical universe. when two particles are entangled, it means that the observation of one particle affects the observation of the other instantly, regardless of the distance between them! a common analogy that describes the effect goes something like this...
once upon a time, a brilliant physicist created a device that could entangle coins. the physicist used the device to entangle two coins and, without observing either of them, places each in their own box and passes one to each of his graduate students. the physicist then instructed his students to go to opposite sides of the planet, open their boxes, record whether the coin is on heads or tails, and report back. the graduate students did so, without what would be considered legal pay or any real compensation. their travels were both arduous and turbulent, and the boxes which hold the coins bounce around a considerable amount. both students heard their coin rattling around inside its box and lamented at what was now probably a ruined experiment. they reached their respective positions on opposite sides of the planet, opened their boxes at a pre-agreed upon time, and recorded the result of the coin in their notebooks.
they then returned to the physicists who, delighted with the accomplishment of his students, rewarded them by giving each of them another coin and instructed them to do it again. and again. and again..... after many MANY repetition, the physicist finally had them compare the results of their notebooks and they found that every single time, without fail, when one coin was heads, the other was tails.
spooky yes?
so, when i first read your question i thought to myself, surely not! most entanglement experiments are highly sensitive to things like temperature and so are usually done using single atoms. but then i did some searching just to be sure and i found this. aparently, a group of scientists in the UK have successfully entangled two diamonds, and observed the effects of this entanglement over several centimeters! this is a HUGE DEAL. so now, at this point, i would have to say that the answer to your questions is a resounding "probably"! assuming i understood them correctly... |
Selinate
655
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 04:59:00 -
[198] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Amaroq Dricaldari wrote:Are the Replicators from Stargate scientifically possible to build with any level of technology? self replicating machinery is one of the holy grails of modern robotics. there have been several attempts at this in the past and the link is one i have heard the most about. as for the replicators themselves, there are strict limits that our current understanding of thermodynamics places on the minimum size of mechanical devices. as you make something smaller and smaller the heat of the thing plays a larger and larger role in its operation. heat is just a measure of "vibration" in an object and when something gets small enough, these vibrations can literally tear it apart. that said, who knows! there may very well be compounds out there that are exceptionally heat resistant and this may allow us to produce such nanoscale devices.
...No it's not.
"Vibration" in an object isn't even a truly correct explanation of temperature. But to use this explanation to describe heat?
....*suspicious* |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
43
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 05:05:00 -
[199] - Quote
Mirajane Cromwell wrote:1. First Eve related question: FTL communications page describes how this tech was discovered in Eve's fiction. Would it be plausible to use something like this in real life as a communication network? 2. If the universe rotates around itself, would we be able to measure this rotation speed? 3. If a black hole is donut shaped, what happens if you travel through the donut hole? 4. We've mapped the universe to the past with telescopes but if we could see the whole universe at one moment, how the map would differ from the observed images? Would all those old galaxies far far away be just black holes now? 5. How close to Jupiter can human possibly go without dying? How about Saturn? I read long time ago something about Jupiter being quite lethal to humans even at the orbital distances and thus making manned space travel there impossible but the article didn't mention how close people actually could go safely.
1) for a partial answer to this refer to my previous response. the FTL page is trying to describe a communication system based on quantum entanglement (and it does a very VERY poor and inaccurate job of it. i am in the process of fixing it). based on our current understanding of quantum mechanics, such a system is not possible. this is primarily because we cannot yet control what state a single particle will occupy without breaking its entanglement. because of this, the observed stated appear in a random order, and from this alone, we cannot know if the result is our first observing the particle, or one created from the observation of its entangled partner.
2) that depends on how this rotation is defined. if we assume that the matter of the universe is in the same rotating frame as space-time, and if we assume that classical mechanics still hold at this level (which we really can't) then we should observe an unexplainable force accelerating matter in the universe away from the "center of rotation", if we can even define such a thing for the universe (the universe has no center as far as our measurements go). the rate of rotation would be proportional to the acceleration we observe. if space-time were in a different rotating frame than matter then, well, i'm not sure if we could measure the rotation rate. i'm not even sure what a rotating space time would imply or what other consequences it would raise... sorry!
3) wormholes cannot form rings because gravitational fields are central and conservative. such a ring black hole would collapse back into a spherical singularity.
4) it would look similar to what the universe looks like locally! remember, even though what we see when we look in the sky is an image of the past, the matter there is just as old as the matter here =D
5) i can actually calculate this and i will do so monday when i get back to the lab and have time to kill between my simulations. there is a limit to the number of g's (multiples of earth gravity) the average human can withstand. i can derive a function for the gravitational acceleration as a function of distance from a planet and simply solve for the the distance that corresponds to the human limit. should be fun! also, there is a very good XKCD infographic that shows the relative depth of gravitational wells in our solar system. be sure to check it out! |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
43
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 05:29:00 -
[200] - Quote
Selinate wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:Amaroq Dricaldari wrote:Are the Replicators from Stargate scientifically possible to build with any level of technology? self replicating machinery is one of the holy grails of modern robotics. there have been several attempts at this in the past and the link is one i have heard the most about. as for the replicators themselves, there are strict limits that our current understanding of thermodynamics places on the minimum size of mechanical devices. as you make something smaller and smaller the heat of the thing plays a larger and larger role in its operation. heat is just a measure of "vibration" in an object and when something gets small enough, these vibrations can literally tear it apart. that said, who knows! there may very well be compounds out there that are exceptionally heat resistant and this may allow us to produce such nanoscale devices. ...No it's not. "Vibration" in an object isn't even a truly correct explanation of temperature. But to use this explanation to describe heat? ....*suspicious*
ah! yes. you are correct. i have misused a term here. i did mean temperature, thank you. i will edit my post to correct it.
temperature is proportional to a systems mean kinetic energy. in solids, which have restricted degrees of freedom, this manifests as molecular vibration. this is the vibration i am referring to in my post. at small scales, these vibrations can destroy complex structures and is one of the primary obstacles to overcome in the development of nano scale technologies. |
|
Sturmwolke
135
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 08:11:00 -
[201] - Quote
Got one, http://www.rexresearch.com/maxwell.htm Your comments on this? |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
415
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 21:52:00 -
[202] - Quote
[quote=Tsadkiel][quote=rodyas]
as for the next three paragraphs... i am not entirely sure about what you are saying here :( what do you mean by "save"? as for the second bit, i have never heard of this... the force acting on an object is determined by that objects acceleration and visaversa. if a ship is moving at a constant velocity of .99c, a person riding in that ship would feel no force and could walk around as if they were on the ground at "rest" (assuming there's gravity and such).
quote]
I think this is the only one I can describe well. Yeah at lower speeds like you describe I see that. But here in my country we are experimenting and trying to build high speed rails. So the idea is how fast can something can go and its still safe in a sense. Like pilots have to wear those suits ( in jet craft) at high speeds and that might be how fast a human can go really.
So it kind of goes with safety testing. How fast should high speed rails go with how well humans can deal with speeds. Like if a human could go the speed of light on a rocket. He would be more like a suitcase or luggage really then a pilot or anything else. But at lower speeds the human stays human. Can walk around and jump and buy products. I kind of equate time dilation to when the speed goes so fast its hard for a human or so to deal with the speed. Like they cant pilot it anymore and then in sense are just luggage being dragged by the craft.
Thanks for answering the post as well. It was cool to see how the galaxy expands. disorientating |
Arcosian
Alien Ship Builders Caedite Eos
16
|
Posted - 2012.02.19 03:13:00 -
[203] - Quote
rodyas wrote: I think this is the only one I can describe well. Yeah at lower speeds like you describe I see that. But here in my country we are experimenting and trying to build high speed rails. So the idea is how fast can something can go and its still safe in a sense. Like pilots have to wear those suits ( in jet craft) at high speeds and that might be how fast a human can go really.
So it kind of goes with safety testing. How fast should high speed rails go with how well humans can deal with speeds. Like if a human could go the speed of light on a rocket. He would be more like a suitcase or luggage really then a pilot or anything else. But at lower speeds the human stays human. Can walk around and jump and buy products. I kind of equate time dilation to when the speed goes so fast its hard for a human or so to deal with the speed. Like they cant pilot it anymore and then in sense are just luggage being dragged by the craft.
Speed and acceleration are two different things. Speed is how fast something is moving like 50 miles/hr, 100m/s etc. Acceleration is a measure of how fast something is changing speed. What you are thinking of is acceleration not speed.
Think of a drag racer(race car). It goes from rest (0 acceleration, 0 speed to something like 300 miles/hr in a few seconds. Now acceleration is related to the force experienced by the driver from Newton's law: Force=mass*acceleration. So with a race car the driver would feel a great force acting on them due to the car's velocity changing rapidly. But once they stop accelerating (their velocity is no longer changing) they won't feel a force acting on them despite having a speed of 100+mph. This is the same thing in space. When a rocket launches the astronauts feel a large force due to the rocket accelerating very quickly but once they reach orbital velocity and the engines are shut off they are still travelling very fast but are weightless. So a rocket could be moving at 99% the speed of light and you wouldn't feel any different if the engines were shut off and the rocket was "coasting."
The max acceleration (for simplicity I'll call this G-force) a human can experience differs. Fighter pilots can handle 6-7G (6*9.81m/s^2 aka 6 times the force of gravity) pretty easily with their G-suits and training and they can handle 10G for short periods of time. Without G suits and training most people would really struggle to stay conscious with 3G. At 20G your aorta will tear out of your heart and your will die in seconds. This is assuming the acceleration force is acting down while you are standing or sitting. If you are laying on your back you can handle a bit more G. So for your train example you could have one going 1000mph as long as you aren't accelerating it too quickly. People wouldn't like to pass out or die each time they get on the train.
As for your thoughts on time dilation you are thinking more like EVE's time dilation where time slows down and not relativity time dilation. With actual time dilation you wouldn't get "extra" time to save your life in your "falling house" idea. The way time dilation works is this. For the person moving at .99c they would experience 1 second just like you are now. For the observer standing still they would experience 1 second just like you are now. But the .99c person's 1 second would last "longer" than the 1 second for the observer but each person wouldn't feel any different. This is like that "twin paradox" thought experiment where one twin gets on a spaceship moving .99c and the other twin stays on earth. When the spaceship returns to earth the twin on earth is much older if not dead and the other is only slightly older. Time travel is a hard concept to grasp. |
Amaroq Dricaldari
Malicious Mission Murderers
81
|
Posted - 2012.02.19 03:39:00 -
[204] - Quote
Unscheduled Offworld Activation
Do you think it actually would be possible to create a stable artificial wormhole like they do in Stargate? And do you think the atmosphere would leak through? Also, can you please give me a possible explanation as to why you can't see what is on the other side? This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
315
|
Posted - 2012.02.19 04:39:00 -
[205] - Quote
Is dark matter just a catch all for "we don't really know so this is our place holder name" like luminiferous aether once was? |
Amaroq Dricaldari
Malicious Mission Murderers
81
|
Posted - 2012.02.19 06:27:00 -
[206] - Quote
I think Dark Matter is some kind of impossible compound consisting of Matter and Anti-Matter, and the only reason it doesn't cancel itself out is because of pure energy keeping the atoms and anti-atoms together. It wouldn't absorb, reflect, or emit any form of radiation, and it wouldn't create sound or anti-sound.
Darkness isn't the opposite of light. It is the absence of light. It is Anti-Light that is the opposite of light, sort of like how Anti-Matter is the opposite of matter.
Silence isn't the opposite of sound, but the absence of it. Like with Anti-Light being the opposite of light, Anti-Sound is the opposite of sound. The two would cancel eachother out.
Matter absorbs and reflects Light, and Anti-Matter absorbs and reflects Anti-Light. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
426
|
Posted - 2012.02.19 13:46:00 -
[207] - Quote
Well with my post, I am going with people are not superman. I agree with your science, but to do live your science. That is mostly what I am going with. Like you say yo u can go any speed, and humans are superman so its no big deal. I usually dont see it that way really. My questions are bit wierd since I am not doing just pure science and humans can handle any science theory real well. Mostly going with science, plus how people are right now handling the science really.
Best way I can describe it is stephen hawking. He was chasing the unifying theory and thought it could be reached. But now he sees the way things are and how humans are and has given up on that chase, and thinks we are far from it. He now just looks at different branches and tries to learn about them. Like try to see the individual better, more then the big picture always or something. disorientating |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
426
|
Posted - 2012.02.19 14:21:00 -
[208] - Quote
Arcosian wrote:[quote=rodyas]
.
As for your thoughts on time dilation you are thinking more like EVE's time dilation where time slows down and not relativity time dilation. With actual time dilation you wouldn't get "extra" time to save your life in your "falling house" idea. The way time dilation works is this. For the person moving at .99c they would experience 1 second just like you are now. For the observer standing still they would experience 1 second just like you are now. But the .99c person's 1 second would last "longer" than the 1 second for the observer but each person wouldn't feel any different. This is like that "twin paradox" thought experiment where one twin gets on a spaceship moving .99c and the other twin stays on earth. When the spaceship returns to earth the twin on earth is much older if not dead and the other is only slightly older. Time travel is a hard concept to grasp.
Yeah I do think of time dilation in EVE's sense, cause what I learned of it, EVE's works the same way.
To clarify, I think time use or the definition of time is wierd and we havn't set the definition yet for it in this thread. Mass is usually agreed as a resource not magical. Distance is agreed to be a resource, but not magical. Distance is agreed to be a resource but not magical. For some reason when I read about time though, it is magical as well as a resource.
Everything but time is a resource, but not magical. Time = magical and resource.
To me time is a variable like distance or mass or velocity. Though like most others that slips into magical, and I view time as havign magical properties, like time travel. It is easy to slip between these things and not really know it or so.
So time dilation as time = resource (like distance or so) its works like in newton mechanics then. When a variable in newton mechanics is stressed out it adapts or changes. So with time dilation, time is the variable that is being stressed out and changes to handle that stress. Time dilation.
The reason I said time dilation has no save is this: It slows things down and not have lag, which is nice, but the fights and movements take longer. A player logs onto EVE with only having 2 hours to play the game, but with time dilation the player needs 4 hours to play the game, but he only has 2. So you see time dilation does not save the player. The player would have to recieve 2 more hours of game play with having time dilation then he would be saved.
I do support time dilation on EVE even with that happening in a way. Since there were many abuses caused by lag. One fleet warp in, another fleet warp in, and only one fleet could shoot and the other fleet would be ******. With time dilation that doesnt happen anymore. So time dilation can make things fairer for the players, but with it taking longer, and players dont have any way to increase the amount of time they have to log in and play. disorientating |
Arcosian
Alien Ship Builders Caedite Eos
16
|
Posted - 2012.02.19 16:24:00 -
[209] - Quote
rodyas I'm sorry man but you have a very different way of thinking and I'm having a hard time deciphering your post. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
426
|
Posted - 2012.02.19 18:42:00 -
[210] - Quote
Its no problem really, just go on posting with the thread, as if I never posted. :) disorientating |
|
Tribunia
Ducks of Death
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.19 21:40:00 -
[211] - Quote
Will we ever be able to utilize the twin paradox to make instantaneous communication possible over any distance?
IE modify and read the spin of entagled particales. |
Obax Bannon
Fidelis Technologies
53
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 11:09:00 -
[212] - Quote
Is Hell Exothermic or Endothermic?
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
43
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 15:23:00 -
[213] - Quote
there is a lot to read here and i have never heard of this particular contribution by Maxwell, so i will have to get back to you. i will edit this post with a response.
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
43
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 17:46:00 -
[214] - Quote
Amaroq Dricaldari wrote:Unscheduled Offworld Activation
Do you think it actually would be possible to create a stable artificial wormhole like they do in Stargate? And do you think the atmosphere would leak through? Also, can you please give me a possible explanation as to why you can't see what is on the other side?
the wormhole physics in stargate SG-1 is **** poor. check this out for a simulation of a "true" wormhole. what do i mean by true? a wormhole exists as a solution to Einsteins field equations. if you calculate the solution you also implicitly calculate the path light would travel through that space. the result is what you see in the video.
as a point of interest these simulations are what CCP used to model the wormholes in EVE, as is detailed in one of their old apocrypha dev blogs. well done CCP :3
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
43
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 19:35:00 -
[215] - Quote
Tribunia wrote:Will we ever be able to utilize the twin paradox to make instantaneous communication possible over any distance?
IE modify and read the spin of entagled particales.
the twin paradox was proposed as an argument against special relativity, and has nothing to do with quantum entanglement. it was accepted once we had empirical evidence for time dilation.
from what i have read, there is a bit of confusion with time dilation here, so here is the gist of it. my answer to your question about entangled particles is in a previous post (on FTL communication in EVE).
time dilation arises directly from special relativity, which has two fundamental, core principles. the first is that there is no absolute or preferred reference frame in the universe, and the second is that the speed of light is the same across all reference frames. it is this second point from which all of the interesting effects arise. consider two observers, one on a train riding past another standing by the tracks. on the train there are two mirrors, one on the floor and one on the ceiling. the observers both watch a photon bounce from the floor to the ceiling and back again as the train passes. if the train has a height of h, then the person on the train sees the photon travel a distance of 2h. HOWEVER, the person outside the train sees the photon travel along two sides of a triangle of height h (the photon has both a vertical and horizontal velocity). upon comparing notes, both observers agree that the speed of the photon was c! but speed is defined as the change in distance over a difference in time. in order for light to be constant across reference frames, then distance and/or time must change in order to "compensate". because the universe doesn't seem to distinguish between space and time as far as physical law goes, BOTH change in order to keep the speed of light constant. the distance contracts along the velocity vector and time dilates. time passes slower for the person on the train. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
43
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 20:25:00 -
[216] - Quote
Obax Bannon wrote:Is Hell Exothermic or Endothermic?
old joke is old ;) |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
43
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 20:34:00 -
[217] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Is dark matter just a catch all for "we don't really know so this is our place holder name" like luminiferous aether once was?
nope! we actually have astronomical evidence for dark matter, even through we have never observed a dark matter particle interaction. we can look at the night sky and observe the movement of matter we can see, and from this movement we can create maps of the gravitational fields at play. these gravitational fields point towards quantities of matter that we cannot currently observe acting on the stars around it.
the best example for this is the rotational velocity of stars in our galaxy. for stars very distant from the galactic center, we observe velocities much higher than what are predicted by newtonian gravitation or general relativity. many theories were created and tested, including the modification of newtons laws, but the presence of unseen matter fit the observations best and BAM! enter dark matter. from what we have seen we can also estimate the properties of such matter. for example, most dark matter is probably non baryonic and cannot interact electromagnetically. because of this, we have named all possible dark matter candidates WIMPS, short for Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
43
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 21:11:00 -
[218] - Quote
oh gods, i just read the lore on FTL travel (not just communication) and stargates. it's SO BAD. i'm almost in tears because of how completely uninformed it is ; ;
MUST FIX
MUST FIX
MUST FIX
*begins typing furiously*
|
Selinate
661
|
Posted - 2012.02.21 03:04:00 -
[219] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Selinate wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:Amaroq Dricaldari wrote:Are the Replicators from Stargate scientifically possible to build with any level of technology? self replicating machinery is one of the holy grails of modern robotics. there have been several attempts at this in the past and the link is one i have heard the most about. as for the replicators themselves, there are strict limits that our current understanding of thermodynamics places on the minimum size of mechanical devices. as you make something smaller and smaller the heat of the thing plays a larger and larger role in its operation. heat is just a measure of "vibration" in an object and when something gets small enough, these vibrations can literally tear it apart. that said, who knows! there may very well be compounds out there that are exceptionally heat resistant and this may allow us to produce such nanoscale devices. ...No it's not. "Vibration" in an object isn't even a truly correct explanation of temperature. But to use this explanation to describe heat? ....*suspicious* ah! yes. you are correct. i have misused a term here. i did mean temperature, thank you. i will edit my post to correct it. temperature is proportional to a systems mean kinetic energy. in solids, which have restricted degrees of freedom, this manifests as molecular vibration. this is the vibration i am referring to in my post. at small scales, these vibrations can destroy complex structures and is one of the primary obstacles to overcome in the development of nano scale technologies.
I cringe every time temperature is described as vibrations though, since when things get down to the atomic level, the describing their kinetic energy as simply vibrations is just a bit simplified.... |
tikktokk tokkzikk
Glorious Revolution The 99 Percent
24
|
Posted - 2012.02.21 04:11:00 -
[220] - Quote
Are all the eve weapons possible? Such as explosive missiles? |
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
43
|
Posted - 2012.02.21 14:44:00 -
[221] - Quote
Selinate wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:Selinate wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:Amaroq Dricaldari wrote:Are the Replicators from Stargate scientifically possible to build with any level of technology? self replicating machinery is one of the holy grails of modern robotics. there have been several attempts at this in the past and the link is one i have heard the most about. as for the replicators themselves, there are strict limits that our current understanding of thermodynamics places on the minimum size of mechanical devices. as you make something smaller and smaller the heat of the thing plays a larger and larger role in its operation. heat is just a measure of "vibration" in an object and when something gets small enough, these vibrations can literally tear it apart. that said, who knows! there may very well be compounds out there that are exceptionally heat resistant and this may allow us to produce such nanoscale devices. ...No it's not. "Vibration" in an object isn't even a truly correct explanation of temperature. But to use this explanation to describe heat? ....*suspicious* ah! yes. you are correct. i have misused a term here. i did mean temperature, thank you. i will edit my post to correct it. temperature is proportional to a systems mean kinetic energy. in solids, which have restricted degrees of freedom, this manifests as molecular vibration. this is the vibration i am referring to in my post. at small scales, these vibrations can destroy complex structures and is one of the primary obstacles to overcome in the development of nano scale technologies. I cringe every time temperature is described as vibrations though, since when things get down to the atomic level, the describing their kinetic energy as simply vibrations is just a bit simplified....
very true as well, but as i stated in my original post, i am trying to get better at explaining science to people, especially those who may not have a background in it. i thought that molecular vibration was the best way to convey the idea of temperature causing thermal noise and why it is an issue when trying to create nanoscale technologies.
if you have a better description of it for the general reader i would really like to hear it! and no, i'm not trying to be an ass or anything. i am honestly interested =D |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
223
|
Posted - 2012.02.21 15:56:00 -
[222] - Quote
Great thread. Who said science is not entertaining?
I would like to hear your opinion on the: Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly. Was Einstein wrong? What are the possible implications? E=MC^2?
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html
Tsadkiel wrote:both men have excellent points of views on the nature of science, but i consider myself to be a sophisticated falsifiacationist, so i would lean towards Kuhn. the ability for a theory to be proven false is CENTRAL to the very definition of what a scientific theory is.
Actually, it was Popper who put forward the idea of falsification as a solution to the problem of induction and being able to find support for most theories even if they were wrong. Kuhn was the one discussing "normal science", anomalies and paradigms.
Tsadkiel wrote: we KNOW that Gravity and Evolution are true. why? because they are THEORIES. we have VERIFIED the associated HYPOTHESIS.
The nature of Poppers falsification paradigm is that nothing can be proven to be true (only corroborated) but a good theory can be proven wrong. Who knows, some day someone might put forward a new theory that better explain gravity. I believe it happened to Newton once.
Tsadkiel wrote:Quote:To put it rather bluntly (and make it sound far more trivial than it truly is), a lot of theoretical physics amounts to "this is our best guess until we get more data". it's more like "these are the only explanations that fit the current data".
With "current data" do you mean all the data collected by everyone or are you sometimes excluding data that you can't explain? And by "only explanations" do you mean that a better explanation cannot surface tomorrow unless there is new data?
And finally, what do you think of this paper using Bayes theorem to "prove" (not really) that most published research findings are false. (not related to physics though)
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
435
|
Posted - 2012.02.21 22:28:00 -
[223] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:
very true as well, but as i stated in my original post, i am trying to get better at explaining science to people, especially those who may not have a background in it. i thought that molecular vibration was the best way to convey the idea of temperature causing thermal noise and why it is an issue when trying to create nanoscale technologies.
if you have a better description of it for the general reader i would really like to hear it! and no, i'm not trying to be an ass or anything. i am honestly interested =D
Yeah this is kind of interesting. The way I see it is that temperature(heat) is a big barrier to nanotech. Also we are surrounded by temperature, so I see why that is brought up first over the atomic level.
So if we did take away temperature being a barrier, and then free to focus on the kinetic energy at the atomic level. Would like to hear more on that, I dont know much about that. disorientating |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 02:02:00 -
[224] - Quote
a couple of things here. even if we confirm the existence of FTL neutrinos, einstein wasn't "wrong". we may need to modify special and general relativity, but those theories have made some of the most precise and useful predictions in the history of science. to call such theories wrong is too broad and general a statement i think, especially when the natural course of science is self examination and correction.
that said, there has yet to be a repeat of the OPERA experiment to confirm their results. we have dissuading evidence in the form of high energy neutrinos created from supernovae (which arrive after the light of the novae), but these neutrinos are created in and travel through environments different to those in the aforementioned experiment. the effect may be a specific result of neutrinos traveling through dense matter, or perhaps from them passing through some random bit of extra dimensional space. long story short, there is not enough evidence yet to say either way.
if it WERE found to be correct, this would be the starting discovery for all things FTL (communicaiton, travel, etc...)
Quote: Actually, it was Popper who put forward the idea of falsification as a solution to the problem of induction and being able to find support for most theories even if they were wrong. Kuhn was the one discussing "normal science", anomalies and paradigms.
i always get them confused, and my grades in my philosophy of science class show it.
Quote:Tsadkiel wrote: we KNOW that Gravity and Evolution are true. why? because they are THEORIES. we have VERIFIED the associated HYPOTHESIS.
The nature of Poppers falsification paradigm is that nothing can be proven to be true (only corroborated) but a good theory can be proven wrong. Who knows, some day someone might put forward a new theory that better explain gravity. I believe it happened to Newton once.
i think it is important to keep in mind the context of the discussion you are quoting. long story short, i get PISSED when people use "it's just a theory" to try and disprove evolution and the like, so i got ahead of myself here. a better statement would be, we KNOW that Gravity and Evolution are NOT FALSE. we know that they are not false because they allow us to make accurate predictions. this is not the same as saying that they are true because it allows for the possibility of future modification of the theory.
Quote: With "current data" do you mean all the data collected by everyone or are you sometimes excluding data that you can't explain? And by "only explanations" do you mean that a better explanation cannot surface tomorrow unless there is new data?
by data i mean repeatable data, observations, and experiments. the key thing here is the repeatable bit. data can be excluded under very specific conditions that you must define before you start the experiment in question. these definitions are used to determine whether or not a datum can be considered an outlier and excluded. all physical measurements are reported with an uncertainty based on this definition, and we even have statistical methods allow us to calculate our confidence in a specific theory when applied to make predictions in a given experiment. that is to say, when a theory is experimentally tested, it is usually reported as "we have shown that the theory agrees with the results with a confidence level of 98%" or whatever was deemed acceptable by the investigators. even with lower confidence levels, as long as everything is reported, it is still valid science.
as for your second question, no, i don't think so. data is data. as long as the methods of its collection is properly reported and accounted for, a new theory can use it. whether or not the new theory is useful or valid is another question.
as for your last question this will take some time to read, but it is VERY interesting
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 03:58:00 -
[225] - Quote
tikktokk tokkzikk wrote:Are all the eve weapons possible? Such as explosive missiles?
i don't see any immediate physical principles that would prevent them. most of the weapons in EVE currently exist. a notable exception are hybrid weapons. now, Rail guns exist and are actually currently being tested by the US military, but hybrid weapons in the game are described as firing spheres of super heated plasma. this would be difficult to achieve, but, again, i can't think of anything that would prevent it. i actually tried to build my own rail gun when i was a sophmore. i was able to show that i could significantly cut the power requirements of the device by making the projectile roll along the rails, instead of slide. what i didn't take into account was that the rolling would create point contacts on the rails (spherical bullet on cylindrical rails)... so i made a very good arc welder lol |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 17:40:00 -
[226] - Quote
ok so, after reading what i could find on the site i think this is probably (practically certainly) bunk...
the author is one Thomas E. Bearden. he links his paper "proving" his ideas on the website, but the paper in question not only offers no real logical basis for its claims, but also no evidence. furthermore, the claims fly directly in the face all the evidence that has been accumulated to the contrary... the vast majority of the paper is him quote mining other papers to support his idea, a logical fallacy known as a "plead to authority". all interviews i can find with the man show him outright refusing to explain counter examples put forth by other people (the existence of polarization being the most glaring and obvious counter to his ideas). his "free energy" machine appears to be nothing more than a transformer with a permanent magnet core and some actuated coils tacked on... i could go on and on and on with this...
to be blunt, this guy appears to be the EM equivalent of the time-cube guy: "I'm right! You're wrong! And anyone who disagrees is a part of the conspiracy!"
|
tikktokk tokkzikk
Glorious Revolution The 99 Percent
25
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 18:21:00 -
[227] - Quote
And what about the fire that comes from the hull when you get into structure? Is that also possible? |
Professor Alphane
Alphane Research Co-operative
294
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 18:40:00 -
[228] - Quote
How is gravity measured, I've seen pictures (heat maps) of variance in Earths gravity field, but don't really understand a couple of things. How do we 'perceive' gravity and is there any explanations for these discrepencies?
Also the sun is made mostly of hydrogen apparently, atomically one of the lightest things, they explain this as 'it's under great pressure' , how many more hydrogen atoms fit into the same space in the sun when compared to hydrgoen at atmospheric pressure.
/edit haven't taken in the whole threadnaught yet so sorry if this has been asked before
YOU MUST THINK FIRST.... |
Sturmwolke
136
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:11:00 -
[229] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote: ok so, after reading what i could find on the site i think this is probably (practically certainly) bunk...
Perhaps. Generally, imo, his writings are a little bit too detailed from the average folks that are into the "fringe" free energy research. The average scientists are usually quick to dismiss something un-conventional, basing their proofs from the conventional theories - ignoring empirical results (usually as random chance). You can go around in circles not finding anything when the fundamental flaws are the conventional equations trying to explain the un-conventional.
I was piqued by the FTL neutrinos announcement and claims of a debunk from the folks at Imaging Cosmic and Rare Underground Signals (ICARUS) - basing it on the energy level of the neutrinos (CohenGÇôGlashow effect - a sort of Bremsstrahlung loss for neutrinos). Problem with that is no one actually knows what happens to neutrinos at speed >= c. Think about it, when you apply Newton's theories to relativity, it won't fit ... however, it's still valid for lesser systems. Essentially, the ICARUS's debunk, imo was only a confirmation there was no bremsstrahlung loss for superluminal neutrinos detected ... and that's about it.
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
439
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:36:00 -
[230] - Quote
tikktokk tokkzikk wrote:And what about the fire that comes from the hull when you get into structure? Is that also possible?
The ships have crews onboard, which means they need oxygen to breathe, which means at hull O2 would release and fires would start. Or if after that an explosion. Some oxygen in a pod as well so explosion could happen there. disorientating |
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 22:17:00 -
[231] - Quote
on the topic of FTL neutrinos, this just in!
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html
turns out one of the computers had a bad fiber optic connection. it is likely this is the cause, as it would modify the times used to calculate the time of flight of the beam. |
Professor Alphane
Alphane Research Co-operative
294
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 14:47:00 -
[232] - Quote
If your still answering questions could you take a look at post #229.
If not looks like a fun thread will check it all out when I get the chance
YOU MUST THINK FIRST.... |
JinSanJong
Retribution.
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 15:07:00 -
[233] - Quote
Ok herees a few to chew on m8
1) Big Bang Theory - What a load of old rubbish? Right? - I mean really...All of a sudden there was on bang and wow the universe was created..Please.... Its worse than saying god made the world in 6 days.. If the universe was suddenly created, then what was it created INTO.. surely there was a universe in the first place...(i know its mental)
2) Why do scientists insist on saying - "Hmm we not sure there is life anywhere else" - Surely they cant be so dumb or arrogant t believe we are the only life in the universe! There are BILLIONS of stars just in our galaxy, all with potential planets. Then there are millions of galaxies. I mean we cant even get the nearest planet! never mind nearest star..
3) Do you think that neutrinos really can go faster than light, or was that a messed up test (all 15000 of them) they are now saying there could of been sme GPU glitch! Hmmm im not so sure..
4) Why do we take theories so literal, when they are only theories... |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 15:38:00 -
[234] - Quote
tikktokk tokkzikk wrote:And what about the fire that comes from the hull when you get into structure? Is that also possible?
I can't see why not. the actual fire part of a fire is a low temperature plasma. so if the fire is inside the ship and there is a hull breach, the plasma, smoke, and other debris can be vented into space.
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 15:57:00 -
[235] - Quote
Professor Alphane wrote:How is gravity measured, I've seen pictures (heat maps) of variance in Earths gravity field, but don't really understand a couple of things. How do we 'perceive' gravity and is there any explanations for these discrepencies?
Also the sun is made mostly of hydrogen apparently, atomically one of the lightest things, they explain this as 'it's under great pressure' , how many more hydrogen atoms fit into the same space in the sun when compared to hydrgoen at atmospheric pressure.
/edit haven't taken in the whole threadnaught yet so sorry if this has been asked before
most of those heat maps are result of direct measurements of the local gravitational acceleration, g. this is usually done with something called a Gravimeter. they are basically very high precision accelerometers. there are a number of effects that need to be taken into account when measuring gravity. relative altitude is one factor, because the force due to gravity decreases as 1/r^2, where r is the distance between the masses of interest. because of this we see that the acceleration due to gravity on top of mount Everest is ever so slightly smaller than that measured in death valley. another factor to account for is the fact that the earth rotates, and so every object on the earth carries an angular and linear acceleration. because of this we measure a change in gravitational acceleration as we move from either pole towards the equator. this effect on the acceleration is similar to the changing acceleration on a roller coaster as it goes through a loop. there are other effects as well, but these are the two big ones we can calculate. once these are accounted for, the resulting map is a direct measure of the specific gravity (density) of the material underneath the meter. this allows us to use gravitational measurements to "scan" the earth for resources like oil or rare minerals and elements.
as for your question about the sun, i don't know off the top of my head. i would have to calculate it, but the difference would be A LOT. the important thing to understand is that the "pressure" you are referring to is caused by gravity pulling the mass of the sun towards the center. hydrogen is the lightest of the elements, so to get a large enough pressure at the center to initiate fusion you need a great deal of it. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 16:01:00 -
[236] - Quote
Sturmwolke wrote:Tsadkiel wrote: ok so, after reading what i could find on the site i think this is probably (practically certainly) bunk...
Perhaps. Generally, imo, his writings are a little bit too detailed from the average folks that are into the "fringe" free energy research. The average scientists are usually quick to dismiss something un-conventional, basing their proofs from the conventional theories - ignoring empirical results (usually as random chance). You can go around in circles not finding anything when the fundamental flaws are the conventional equations trying to explain the un-conventional. I was piqued by the FTL neutrinos announcement and claims of a debunk from the folks at Imaging Cosmic and Rare Underground Signals (ICARUS) - basing it on the energy level of the neutrinos (CohenGÇôGlashow effect - a sort of Bremsstrahlung loss for neutrinos). Problem with that is no one actually knows what happens to neutrinos at speed >= c. Think about it, when you apply Newton's theories to relativity, it won't fit ... however, it's still valid for lesser systems. Essentially, the ICARUS's debunk, imo was only a confirmation there was no bremsstrahlung loss for superluminal neutrinos detected ... and that's about it.
but he provides no empirical evidence... and he claimed he needed at least $11 million to start manufacturing his device, WITHOUT a working prototype (he claims it was destroyed shortly after he tested it)
as for the neutrinos, newtons laws have nothing to do with the predictions made by ICARUS. the just found dissuading evidence and put forward a hypothesis that may explain the effect. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 16:26:00 -
[237] - Quote
JinSanJong wrote:Ok herees a few to chew on m8
1) Big Bang Theory - What a load of old rubbish? Right? - I mean really...All of a sudden there was on bang and wow the universe was created..Please.... Its worse than saying god made the world in 6 days.. If the universe was suddenly created, then what was it created INTO.. surely there was a universe in the first place...(i know its mental)
2) Why do scientists insist on saying - "Hmm we not sure there is life anywhere else" - Surely they cant be so dumb or arrogant t believe we are the only life in the universe! There are BILLIONS of stars just in our galaxy, all with potential planets. Then there are millions of galaxies. I mean we cant even get the nearest planet! never mind nearest star..
3) Do you think that neutrinos really can go faster than light, or was that a messed up test (all 15000 of them) they are now saying there could of been sme GPU glitch! Hmmm im not so sure..
4) Why do we take theories so literal, when they are only theories...
wow, obvious troll is obvious :p
1) oh man, yep! you totally caught us! we've NEVER even THOUGHT about anything like that before! well done!
2) it's actually a massive international conspiracy. you see, all scientists secretly serve the all mighty Zod, lord of the two dimensional slaughtering rat people! we keep ET on the down low so we can prepare you for the cheese and pestilence filled invasion to come!
3) i think neutrinos are secretly your mom.
4) FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU *explodes* |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
446
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 19:12:00 -
[238] - Quote
Sorry, but that invading troll bit me and now have a fever in my blood.
Does physics explain why minorities are easier to teach physics to? Even Stephen Hawking is looking for a black Albert Einstein.
Also wondering, what profession you are looking at going into once the Ph.d is over with? Suppose with you handling trolls well, maybe a teaching one perhaps.
Edit: Also what is a Particle Astrophysicist? Don't think I have heard of those put together before. Keep thinking of particles in space and how they operate or function.
Like you would handle the particle accelerator in space or something, rather then one on earth. disorientating |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 20:25:00 -
[239] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Sorry, but that invading troll bit me and now have a fever in my blood.
Does physics explain why minorities are easier to teach physics to? Even Stephen Hawking is looking for a black Albert Einstein.
Also wondering, what profession you are looking at going into once the Ph.d is over with? Suppose with you handling trolls well, maybe a teaching one perhaps.
Edit: Also what is a Particle Astrophysicist? Don't think I have heard of those put together before. Keep thinking of particles in space and how they operate or function.
Like you would handle the particle accelerator in space or something, rather then one on earth.
i don't know if the whole physics-and-minorities thing is true (i haven't heard anything about it before) but if it is, i would have to attribute it to work ethic. i would say it is downright common for minorities to encounter hostility and adversity in society while growing up. this could be a motivation to work towards whatever it is that person wants to do, to "prove" themselves.
as a gay guy i definitely felt this in high school. it sucked. i hated pretty much everyone there. i've always had a love for science and especially physics, and i used that as an outlet. i worked my ass of to get to where i am today, and the fact that i didn't feel like i fit in anywhere helped push me. i wanted to be better than them.
on a side note: when i tell people what i do i usually get things like "wow! you must be really smart!" or "hey! you must be great at math!". this is bullshit. i'm terrible at math and i am TURBO stupid sometimes (if you knew the number of times i have almost been hit by a car...). but i love what i do and i work hard to be good at it. if anyone here is thinking about getting into the sciences, don't sell yourself short. if you want to do it, do the work!. don't make excuses. do what you love, love what you do, and work at it! you will be fine! =D
as for what i want to do, i have thought a great deal about setting off on the path to professorship because i do enjoy teaching. i've been teaching labs/recitation and tutoring for about 6-7 years now. it's a good time! but i also have been thinking a lot about industrial R&D or software design. i love programming (i do it for fun all the time) and most corporations have much better funding than most universities. also, most industrial R&D would require me to learn new science and i really REALLY enjoy that.
as for your last bit: a particle astrophysicist is someone who does both particle physics and astrophysics (and specifically use the former to help with the latter and visa versa). so i examine particle interactions like the ones produced at CERN, but instead of producing the particles myself, i use natural sources like supernovae, gamma ray bursts, and active galactic nuclei. some of these sources produce particles with energies far FAR beyond anything we can make on earth, and so this gives me an opportunity to study particle interactions i may never otherwise see. the nature of the particles i observe also gives me information about the source that produced them, so i get to examine the physics there as well! |
Sturmwolke
137
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 21:45:00 -
[240] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:as for the neutrinos, newtons laws have nothing to do with the predictions made by ICARUS. the just found dissuading evidence and put forward a hypothesis that may explain the effect.
The meaning is asssociative. Context matters, pay attention.
P.S Come to think of it, on second thought, I have this nagging suspicion that you didn't actually get what's being implied with the Newton's Law vs Relativity comparison. What the heck are they teaching in school nowadays? |
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
446
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 21:45:00 -
[241] - Quote
Well when I learned about Newton in calculus classes, I learned he died a virgin apperently. Its always funny having those fun side stories in physics and stuff.
Yeah I had an asain roommate, should have seen that stronger work ethic coming. He always got angry at me for not having one.
Yeah can see you going to the corporations, with how active you are at using physics.
Sorry gay puns coming in. Was thinking of you studying huge amounts of energy in space. Seems like if you could harness that amount of energy you could legalize gay marriage and stuff like that. I suppose though we don't need another scientist doing it just for a personal cuase but oh well.
Also what will develop tools better for you to use? Univeristy or a corporation? Seems tool intensive phsycis. disorientating |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 21:59:00 -
[242] - Quote
Sturmwolke wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:as for the neutrinos, newtons laws have nothing to do with the predictions made by ICARUS. the just found dissuading evidence and put forward a hypothesis that may explain the effect. The meaning is asssociative. Context matters, pay attention.
sorry, that was not what i got from your post. we can predict the effects newtons laws will carry at relativistic velocities just as the ICARUS team can predict (based on the current models) how neutrinos would behave at FTL speeds. you are correct in that this prediction would be the basis of a hypothesis, not a theory, because it is currently untestable. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
446
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 22:05:00 -
[243] - Quote
Sturmwolke wrote:Tsadkiel wrote: ok so, after reading what i could find on the site i think this is probably (practically certainly) bunk...
Perhaps. Generally, imo, his writings are a little bit too detailed from the average folks that are into the "fringe" free energy research. The average scientists are usually quick to dismiss something un-conventional, basing their proofs from the conventional theories - ignoring empirical results (usually as random chance). You can go around in circles not finding anything when the fundamental flaws are the conventional equations trying to explain the un-conventional. I was piqued by the FTL neutrinos announcement and claims of a debunk from the folks at Imaging Cosmic and Rare Underground Signals (ICARUS) - basing it on the energy level of the neutrinos (CohenGÇôGlashow effect - a sort of Bremsstrahlung loss for neutrinos). Problem with that is no one actually knows what happens to neutrinos at speed >= c. Think about it, when you apply Newton's theories to relativity, it won't fit ... however, it's still valid for lesser systems. Essentially, the ICARUS's debunk, imo was only a confirmation there was no bremsstrahlung loss for superluminal neutrinos detected ... and that's about it.
Do you think you can go over superluminal nuetrinos for me, its a bit confusing. As well as Bremsstrahnlung loss for neutrinos. I think me trying to say that aloud is the best I can do with that. I might play with some newton applied to relativity in a way. I was hoping to aks what schools of thinking the OP uses to help grasp new topics or understandings. I usually use newton and relativeity to help understand new things. I saw the OP use chaos theory or planks uncertaintity principle as well, but that is harder for me to use, but it did seem he used it the right way from what I understand of it.
I usually like to watch people who use planks or chaos theory, since they are so hard for me to use. disorientating |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 22:11:00 -
[244] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Well when I learned about Newton in calculus classes, I learned he died a virgin apperently. Its always funny having those fun side stories in physics and stuff.
Yeah I had an asain roommate, should have seen that stronger work ethic coming. He always got angry at me for not having one.
Yeah can see you going to the corporations, with how active you are at using physics.
Sorry gay puns coming in. Was thinking of you studying huge amounts of energy in space. Seems like if you could harness that amount of energy you could legalize gay marriage and stuff like that. I suppose though we don't need another scientist doing it just for a personal cuase but oh well.
Also what will develop tools better for you to use? Univeristy or a corporation? Seems tool intensive phsycis.
the tools bit is a good question. there are serious ethical concerns when talking about the mixing of financial backing and scientific progress. you might think that a corporation would have more problems with inaccurate results, but you would be wrong in the context of physics. poor results lead to poor products, so corporations have a great deal of interest in providing and even developing the most precise tools and practices available. the down side is that they own your results. it's proprietary, which might unnerve some. the university setting however allows for a great deal more creativity, though, at the cost of less financial security. both settings could very easily develop the best tools. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
446
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 22:45:00 -
[245] - Quote
Yeah I saw corporations as trying to make the sciences more real. And univerisities kind of playing with ideas more. I think someone earlier asked about science theories and how real they are or useful. University is propably not bad, but its hard for me to be in the relaxed state or so. Except for Stephen Hawking, as the chair person of the college, I imagine he is more active then most professors I suppose.
I was actually studying for chemical engineering years ago, sadly never passed it though. The jobs led to oil and other boring things mostly. So wasn't too inspired by the corporations so much. But I loved the concepts and math and science, so thought teaching would be cool. I heard most engineers became managers there anyhow. Kind of shows the potential of science then, if they all become managers or so.
Supose there aren't any military branches for you to go into. Would be fun to bomb Iran with supernovas and stuff that comes from them, but not sure if bombing is on the table or not. disorientating |
Professor Alphane
Alphane Research Co-operative
295
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 22:57:00 -
[246] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Professor Alphane wrote:How is gravity measured, I've seen pictures (heat maps) of variance in Earths gravity field, but don't really understand a couple of things. How do we 'perceive' gravity and is there any explanations for these discrepencies?
Also the sun is made mostly of hydrogen apparently, atomically one of the lightest things, they explain this as 'it's under great pressure' , how many more hydrogen atoms fit into the same space in the sun when compared to hydrgoen at atmospheric pressure.
/edit haven't taken in the whole threadnaught yet so sorry if this has been asked before most of those heat maps are result of direct measurements of the local gravitational acceleration, g. this is usually done with something called a Gravimeter. they are basically very high precision accelerometers. there are a number of effects that need to be taken into account when measuring gravity. relative altitude is one factor, because the force due to gravity decreases as 1/r^2, where r is the distance between the masses of interest. because of this we see that the acceleration due to gravity on top of mount Everest is ever so slightly smaller than that measured in death valley. another factor to account for is the fact that the earth rotates, and so every object on the earth carries an angular and linear acceleration. because of this we measure a change in gravitational acceleration as we move from either pole towards the equator. this effect on the acceleration is similar to the changing acceleration on a roller coaster as it goes through a loop. there are other effects as well, but these are the two big ones we can calculate. once these are accounted for, the resulting map is a direct measure of the specific gravity (density) of the material underneath the meter. this allows us to use gravitational measurements to "scan" the earth for resources like oil or rare minerals and elements. as for your question about the sun, i don't know off the top of my head. i would have to calculate it, but the difference would be A LOT. the important thing to understand is that the "pressure" you are referring to is caused by gravity pulling the mass of the sun towards the center. hydrogen is the lightest of the elements, so to get a large enough pressure at the center to initiate fusion you need a great deal of it.
Cheers for the answer, could you recomend further reading regarding my quaestons if I find time to look into it further?
You have a very immpresive knowledge of your subject (though I still haven't tackled the whole threadnaught yet) Kudos to you
Your a Scholar and a Gentleman Sir
YOU MUST THINK FIRST.... |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 23:08:00 -
[247] - Quote
thank you very much for the compliment ^^ i appreciate the feedback.
you can find more information about the sun at the National Atmospheric Research Center's High Altitude Observatory, HAO. one of my best friends is working on her PhD there. she is studying the solar dynamo (the process by which the sun generates a magnetic field).
the specific branch of physics that examines star formation and stellar life cycles is called Stellar Astrophysics. a lot of the material that will be used in books on that topic will have a fair amount of nuclear physics and fluid dynamics (maybe a touch of quantum mechanics). if you want to tackle some introductory stellar astrophysics you will want to google the terms Nuclear Binding Energy, Fusion, Fission, Duterium, and Tritium. that should get you started with places to look for more info =D hope this helps!
|
JinSanJong
Retribution.
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 23:09:00 -
[248] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:JinSanJong wrote:Ok herees a few to chew on m8
1) Big Bang Theory - What a load of old rubbish? Right? - I mean really...All of a sudden there was on bang and wow the universe was created..Please.... Its worse than saying god made the world in 6 days.. If the universe was suddenly created, then what was it created INTO.. surely there was a universe in the first place...(i know its mental)
2) Why do scientists insist on saying - "Hmm we not sure there is life anywhere else" - Surely they cant be so dumb or arrogant t believe we are the only life in the universe! There are BILLIONS of stars just in our galaxy, all with potential planets. Then there are millions of galaxies. I mean we cant even get the nearest planet! never mind nearest star..
3) Do you think that neutrinos really can go faster than light, or was that a messed up test (all 15000 of them) they are now saying there could of been sme GPU glitch! Hmmm im not so sure..
4) Why do we take theories so literal, when they are only theories... wow, obvious troll is obvious :p 1) oh man, yep! you totally caught us! we've NEVER even THOUGHT about anything like that before! well done! 2) it's actually a massive international conspiracy. you see, all scientists secretly serve the all mighty Zod, lord of the two dimensional slaughtering rat people! we keep ET on the down low so we can prepare you for the cheese and pestilence filled invasion to come! 3) i think neutrinos are secretly your mom. 4) FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU *explodes*
wow holy **** dude, this wasnt a troll at all. I was hoping you could offer some real debate on this, and the first 2 is actually something i am really interested in... Jeez. Perhaps you need to take meds...i was actually impressed with your knowledge, shame you just let yourself down...perhaps now answer a new question
like why do all the idiots like yourself come to play eve.. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
446
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 23:32:00 -
[249] - Quote
Well for #2, we havn't had foreign life arrive here, or make themselves known to us. Also we have telescopes and Hubble scope. We dont see any life out there. We have radio and other instruments and there are no foreign waves out there life would create.
That kind of leads us to say there is no life out there. But recently planets that could sustain life have been found. Also what by life you mean aliens or just plants out there. Maybe in the life sustainable places trees could be there maybe, but or very primitive people. Just havn't seen or heard any so it seems there are none out there so far.
Just make a forum and invite inter-gallactic people to it. See if anyone shows up, and you will know the answer to it, I suppose. disorientating |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
446
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 23:36:00 -
[250] - Quote
JinSanJong wrote:
like why do all the idiots like yourself come to play eve..
Because the Devs invite us to. More Idiots help grease the wheels for them. disorientating |
|
Amaroq Dricaldari
Malicious Mission Murderers
86
|
Posted - 2012.02.25 12:09:00 -
[251] - Quote
What would happen if there was an X-Files episode about Moulder and Scully finding a TV with X-Files playing on it? This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Korah Arnelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.27 06:39:00 -
[252] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:greetings!
I am currently working on my PhD in Particle Astrophysics and recent events have shown me that i need way, WAY more experience explaining sciencey type stuff to people. SO, i figure, where better to practice then on the forums of a Sci-Fi game =D
ask away!
How often does the rivalry between theoretical (mathematical) and experimental physicists come up in your work? I know at least from folks like Peter Woit, there's always been a bit of a rift between the two 'schools.' |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.27 21:24:00 -
[253] - Quote
Korah Arnelle wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:greetings!
I am currently working on my PhD in Particle Astrophysics and recent events have shown me that i need way, WAY more experience explaining sciencey type stuff to people. SO, i figure, where better to practice then on the forums of a Sci-Fi game =D
ask away! How often does the rivalry between theoretical (mathematical) and experimental physicists come up in your work? I know at least from folks like Peter Woit, there's always been a bit of a rift between the two 'schools.'
it certainly pops up, with quips and pokes in the cafeteria or over coffee and the like, but i've never (not yet at least) encountered a situation where this actually impeded work. some of the most successful and note worthy experiments in the history of physics have been collaborative efforts between both theoretical and experimental physicists. i tend to do a little bit of everything as far as theory and experiment goes on HAWC. so, on the one hand, i am developing new tools discriminate between gamma rays and hadrons and i am also teaching myself general relativity so i can better understand the current GRB engine models. on the other hand i'm working on getting our temperature probes running as well as a method to calibrate the PMTs in situ. some days i spend all my time on a computer or at the white board, and others i'm out at the site with a shovel heheh. |
SirSpectre
Harbingers Of Destruction
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 02:00:00 -
[254] - Quote
I've always been wondering and have never gotten a clear answer on this:
What constrains the speed of light? I mean why does light travel 300,000km (ish) in one second rather than 1,000,000,000,000km in 1 second, or infinity km in 1 second? |
0oO0oOoOo0o
Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 12:55:00 -
[255] - Quote
How would telekinesis work from a particle scientist's point of view ? |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 18:13:00 -
[256] - Quote
SirSpectre wrote:I've always been wondering and have never gotten a clear answer on this:
What constrains the speed of light? I mean why does light travel 300,000km (ish) in one second rather than 1,000,000,000,000km in 1 second, or infinity km in 1 second?
the speed of light comes directly from CLASSICAL electrodynamics, which might be somewhat surprising given it's importance in relativity. maxwell's equations, which describe the behavior of electric and magnetic fields, yield a solution to something called the wave equation. the wave equation is a general, mathematical description to all wave phenomena, and the properties of any wave it describes can be determined by examining the behavior of this one equation (the velocity is one of these properties). the solutions produced by maxwell's equations describe a self propagating wave and the derived velocity from the wave equation is the inverse square root of the product of the permeability and permittivity of free space.
the permeability and permittivity of free space are usually denoted as mu_0 and epsilon_0 (greek letter lowercase mu, with a subscript 0, read as "mew" naught and epsilon naught). these are two very important constants in electrodynamics because they describe, in very loose terms, how much magnetic and electric potential energy you can pack into a vacuum (mu for magnetic, and epsilon for electric). they have the values of...
epsilon_0 = 8.85... E-12 F/m (Farads per meter, or in SI m^-3 kg^-1 s^4 A^2 where A is amps)
mu_0 = 1.25... E-6 H/m (Henrys per meter, or in SI m kg s^-2 A^-2. as an interesting side note this is exactly 4*pi E-7. this comes from how we have defined our units.)
and sure enough...
epsilon_0 * mu_0 = 8.85E-12 * 1.25E-6 = 1.10625E-17
1/sqrt(epsilon_0*mu_0) = 1/sqrt(1.10625E-17) = 300,658,411 m/s
we have made very precise measurements of both of these constants, and the more precise values we use, the closer and closer the calculation approaches c.
from this we can see that the speed of light being constant in all frames is a direct manifestation of it being defined based on the properties of the medium through which it is traveling (be it vacuum or matter), and these properties are completely independent of the velocity of the observer! |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
484
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 18:57:00 -
[257] - Quote
Of all the methods of inter-stellar travel in scifi, which one(s) do you personally feel is the most theoretically sound and why?
Explain in layman's terms. I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 20:26:00 -
[258] - Quote
0oO0oOoOo0o wrote:How would telekinesis work from a particle scientist's point of view ?
telekinesis would be something we refer to as a force demonstrating "action at a distance", like magnetic repulsion or attraction. in truth, all forces demonstrate, at a fundamental level, action at a distance. in the language of particle physics (the standard model) we would say that the momentum imparted on the object is transmitted by a "force carrier" particle (a photon, gluon, w or z boson, or a graviton). so, if you were telekinetic, and if you follow the standard model, you are transmitting and receiving virtual radiation to and from the object you are moving in the form of these particles.
imagine you and a friend are standing on a very smooth ice rink. you take out a baseball and toss it to your friend, who catches it. when you throw the ball, you also start sliding away from your friend. this is conservation of momentum. when your friend catches it, they start sliding away as well for the same reason. assuming we can think of the ice rink as frictionless, the more you toss the ball back and forth, the faster and faster you will slide apart. you're accelerating in small, discreet quantities every time you catch or throw the ball.
the fundamental mathematics of the "force carrier" particles are the same, but they also allow for attractive effects (that there is some way the ball could be thrown such that you both slide closer to each other). |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 20:40:00 -
[259] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:Of all the methods of inter-stellar travel in scifi, which one(s) do you personally feel is the most theoretically sound and why?
Explain in layman's terms.
not eve online's, that's for sure. last time i read the lore it was talking about generating "negative friction"... i stopped there and cried.
i would say the method that is currently most theoretically sound is wormhole travel, because only it has a sound foundation in current theory (even though we have yet to observe one). another possibility might be the idea of "hyper/sub" space; a way of creating a pocket of space-time with different physical constraints which may allow for FTL travel.
for both of these we start with a piece of paper :3
suppose you are an ant living on this piece of paper, and you want to get from one side to the other. the obvious path would be to simply cross the paper in a straight line. but this takes time and is rather boring in general... so lets suppose that you are an ant who is wise in the ways of space and time, and you find a way to manipulate the paper you travel upon.
the quickest way now would be to simply curl the paper, so that the edge you are on coincides with the edge you want to get to! now you can simply walk from one edge to another and uncurl the paper! this would be like traveling through a wormhole.
another possibility would be to walk across, but crinkle the paper ahead of you, and stretch it out behind you as you go. walking over the crinkled paper allows you to cross a greater distance in the same time as walking over the uncrinkled paper. this constant stretching and bunching of the paper as you move would be like traveling through a pocket of space where the measurement of distance is different.
there are probably many MANY other ways, but these are the two i am most familiar with =D |
So Sensational
Ventures
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 23:43:00 -
[260] - Quote
Do you believe in God and if not what do you think your science and your theory of evolution will do for you when you burn for all eternity in the pits of hell? |
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 06:12:00 -
[261] - Quote
So Sensational wrote:Do you believe in God and if not what do you think your science and your theory of evolution will do for you when you burn for all eternity in the pits of hell?
again, obvious troll is obvious, but as i have yet to answer these questions (unlike the previous troll) i will oblige you.
I do not believe in god, which is not the same as saying "i believe there is no god". it means i have yet to be provided with sufficient evidence to convince me. i consider myself to be an anti-theist, which means that i am personally against the unfounded belief in any kind of deity (and especially any deity wrapped in religion and doctrine). i personally find such baseless belief to be abhorrent to what it means for us to be human: free willed free thinkers.
when i die, IF there is an afterlife and IF it follows your rules (as opposed to anyone else's) and IF i go to hell for just being who i am, then i will gladly become the right hand of the devil and work to utterly destroy the likes of you and your god. science and evolution (really?...) will have nothing to do with it.
as a final note. i would like for this thread to stay on topic and not be locked for turning into a religious flame war. as such, this is the last and only post of this nature i will respond to. i request that everyone who wishes to continue the threads original discussion do the same. |
So Sensational
Ventures
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 13:33:00 -
[262] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:So Sensational wrote:Do you believe in God and if not what do you think your science and your theory of evolution will do for you when you burn for all eternity in the pits of hell? again, obvious troll is obvious, but as i have yet to answer these questions (unlike the previous troll) i will oblige you. I do not believe in god, which is not the same as saying "i believe there is no god". it means i have yet to be provided with sufficient evidence to convince me. i consider myself to be an anti-theist, which means that i am personally against the unfounded belief in any kind of deity (and especially any deity wrapped in religion and doctrine). i personally find such baseless belief to be abhorrent to what it means for us to be human: free willed free thinkers. when i die, IF there is an afterlife and IF it follows your rules (as opposed to anyone else's) and IF i go to hell for just being who i am, then i will gladly become the right hand of the devil and work to utterly destroy the likes of you and your god. science and evolution (really?...) will have nothing to do with it. as a final note. i would like for this thread to stay on topic and not be locked for turning into a religious flame war. as such, this is the last and only post of this nature i will respond to. i request that everyone who wishes to continue the threads original discussion do the same. I was hoping for some science on how you'd build a flame resistant suit or something similar, disappoint.
p.s. I like your thread. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 14:37:00 -
[263] - Quote
So Sensational wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:So Sensational wrote:Do you believe in God and if not what do you think your science and your theory of evolution will do for you when you burn for all eternity in the pits of hell? again, obvious troll is obvious, but as i have yet to answer these questions (unlike the previous troll) i will oblige you. I do not believe in god, which is not the same as saying "i believe there is no god". it means i have yet to be provided with sufficient evidence to convince me. i consider myself to be an anti-theist, which means that i am personally against the unfounded belief in any kind of deity (and especially any deity wrapped in religion and doctrine). i personally find such baseless belief to be abhorrent to what it means for us to be human: free willed free thinkers. when i die, IF there is an afterlife and IF it follows your rules (as opposed to anyone else's) and IF i go to hell for just being who i am, then i will gladly become the right hand of the devil and work to utterly destroy the likes of you and your god. science and evolution (really?...) will have nothing to do with it. as a final note. i would like for this thread to stay on topic and not be locked for turning into a religious flame war. as such, this is the last and only post of this nature i will respond to. i request that everyone who wishes to continue the threads original discussion do the same. I was hoping for some science on how you'd build a flame resistant suit or something similar, disappoint. p.s. I like your thread.
D'oH! the internet really REALLY needs a sarcasm font XD sorry about that. i totally took your post seriously . i dunno though, flame retardant suit? it would probably have to be weaved from human souls and use the still beating hearts of the damned as a power supply. i wonder what the heat capacity of a human soul is.... hmmmmmmmm =D |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
484
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 19:52:00 -
[264] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:
D'oH! the internet really REALLY needs a sarcasm font XD sorry about that. i totally took your post seriously . i dunno though, flame retardant suit? it would probably have to be weaved from human souls and use the still beating hearts of the damned as a power supply. i wonder what the heat capacity of a human soul is.... hmmmmmmmm =D
If you believe in something as nonsensical as souls, I am disappoint.
But to answer your question, when you have solved the mathematical question of eternity, you will also figured out the heat capacity of the human soul as you supposedly spend in a eternity down there. I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
457
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 20:48:00 -
[265] - Quote
Well with evolution, it would only take time for humans or souls to adapt to hell and rise above it. It only took Jesus 3 days to evolve enough to leave hell. Satan just stays there cause he likes it, he has evolved enough to leave a long time ago, but is staying for sentimental reasons. disorientating |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 22:31:00 -
[266] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:
D'oH! the internet really REALLY needs a sarcasm font XD sorry about that. i totally took your post seriously . i dunno though, flame retardant suit? it would probably have to be weaved from human souls and use the still beating hearts of the damned as a power supply. i wonder what the heat capacity of a human soul is.... hmmmmmmmm =D
If you believe in something as nonsensical as souls, I am disappoint. But to answer your question, when you have solved the mathematical question of eternity, you will also figured out the heat capacity of the human soul as you supposedly spend in a eternity down there.
i thought i applied sarcasm pretty thick there XD
on the topic of souls though (i don't believe in souls) this raises interesting some questions. all of our observations seem to indicate the the communication of information is directly linked with energy exchange (which is partly why most physicists are ok with entanglement effects occurring at FTL speeds). the encoding of information in space also appears to be a process with interesting entropic consequences. a lot of these points would be answered with a physical application of information theory, but to my knowledge this has not yet been done.
|
Amaroq Dricaldari
Malicious Mission Murderers
91
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 00:01:00 -
[267] - Quote
I have a VERY complex theory about the universe. I actually based it on TRON, to be honest. The Universe is an ultra-powerful Quantum Computer, combining Digital and Analogue, Electromechanical and Chemical, Spintronics, all of that good stuff. And the theory of universe expansion can best be described as multiple computers beign mass-manufactuered and connecting to a giant network, not unlike our internet.
Wormholes and Subspace and all of that stuff would be the circuit boards and wires and the internet and the like, where as normal space would be the Chemical-Computer part, and matter would just be data traveling through it. You know how suppossedly get5s destroyed in Black Holes? That's easy, the data is getting trapped in something similiar to a Windows Recycle Bin, and thus getting Deleted. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Selinate
672
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 04:21:00 -
[268] - Quote
Explain to me the reason for resonance peaks for neutron cross sections with relation to neutron energy with different elements. I want maths. I'll definitely understand it, but I have a hard time finding this kind of information in my books or anywhere on the web. |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
484
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 07:46:00 -
[269] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Alpheias wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:
D'oH! the internet really REALLY needs a sarcasm font XD sorry about that. i totally took your post seriously . i dunno though, flame retardant suit? it would probably have to be weaved from human souls and use the still beating hearts of the damned as a power supply. i wonder what the heat capacity of a human soul is.... hmmmmmmmm =D
If you believe in something as nonsensical as souls, I am disappoint. But to answer your question, when you have solved the mathematical question of eternity, you will also figured out the heat capacity of the human soul as you supposedly spend in a eternity down there. i thought i applied sarcasm pretty thick there XD on the topic of souls though (i don't believe in souls) this raises interesting some questions. all of our observations seem to indicate the the communication of information is directly linked with energy exchange (which is partly why most physicists are ok with entanglement effects occurring at FTL speeds). the encoding of information in space also appears to be a process with interesting entropic consequences. a lot of these points would be answered with a physical application of information theory, but to my knowledge this has not yet been done.
I didn't go for sarcasm. I went with bait AND HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES? I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
460
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 08:15:00 -
[270] - Quote
^ Matt Damon will be in hell, That is a very good line to use. disorientating |
|
Pr1ncess Alia
Perkone Caldari State
140
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 09:15:00 -
[271] - Quote
Ok, I have a question. er, questions.
(not reading all these pages so sorry if its been asked)
I'm on a doomed vessel traveling into a black hole. OR I'm on a planet that is about to be pulled into a black hole. OR pretty much anything where i fly screaming and cursing into a black hole.....
How is this going to work out for me? Of course I'm about to die, but do I actually feel myself getting ripped apart? Does time slow down and it takes an eternity for me to die the most painful possible death? how long could the perception of my death be? do i just get squished pretty fast before the real crazy stuff starts? Does physics just break down and my brain isn't capable of functioning to a degree that I'd be cognizant ?
separate points of order
could we all be falling into a black hole right now and not even know it? could the entire universe actually exist inside of a black hole? what is a black hole outside of a super-dense mass that 'dents' space/time? why is it a singularity can seem like such a simple concept but be so impossibly complex? can they really be gateways to other places, dimensions, realities or hell with an eye-less Sam Neill?
some people were telling me the entire universe is actually 2 dimensional, we just happen to experience a 3d projected effect of it. what the hell is that all about? does this have anything to do with black holes?
thank you in advance for your answers, these are important and pressing questions that we all should be more informed on. Especially considering our most assured and imminent horrible screaming apocalypse death at the hands of a rogue black hole. |
Amaroq Dricaldari
Malicious Mission Murderers
92
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 01:10:00 -
[272] - Quote
What is it with you and Blackholes?
I want you to name and describe every part of a Blackhole, and to do so in order of center-to-edge. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3353
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 04:17:00 -
[273] - Quote
Hmm how far can a weaponized laser go in space? Something to burn though heat dissipating ceramics.
And for sake of battle envrionment within influence of sol system.
|
0oO0oOoOo0o
Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 07:13:00 -
[274] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:0oO0oOoOo0o wrote:How would telekinesis work from a particle scientist's point of view ? telekinesis would be something we refer to as a force demonstrating "action at a distance", like magnetic repulsion or attraction. in truth, all forces demonstrate, at a fundamental level, action at a distance. in the language of particle physics (the standard model) we would say that the momentum imparted on the object is transmitted by a "force carrier" particle (a photon, gluon, w or z boson, or a graviton). so, if you were telekinetic, and if you follow the standard model, you are transmitting and receiving virtual radiation to and from the object you are moving in the form of these particles. imagine you and a friend are standing on a very smooth ice rink. you take out a baseball and toss it to your friend, who catches it. when you throw the ball, you also start sliding away from your friend. this is conservation of momentum. when your friend catches it, they start sliding away as well for the same reason. assuming we can think of the ice rink as frictionless, the more you toss the ball back and forth, the faster and faster you will slide apart. you're accelerating in small, discreet quantities every time you catch or throw the ball. the fundamental mathematics of the "force carrier" particles are the same, but they also allow for attractive effects (that there is some way the ball could be thrown such that you both slide closer to each other).
sounds interesting, thanks |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 16:29:00 -
[275] - Quote
holy crap! i look away for a day an i get all these sweet questions! i'll start working on answers now. i haven't forgotten =D |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 17:45:00 -
[276] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Hmm how far can a weaponized laser go in space? Something to burn though heat dissipating ceramics.
And for sake of battle envrionment within influence of sol system.
And for constraint a crewed spaceship the size of a eve battlecruiser ( or star treck ship but meh)
and would this said laser with same power output but closer focus be any more powerful (ie causes things to explode instead of cutting) if the target was astronomically much closer?
there is a lot of speculation that goes into a question like this, but i think first it is important to clarify that a laser in a vacuum could travel "indefinitely" if it never interacts with matter. the real question would be how far can a laser travel before it has spread out so much that it is no longer useful. your average laser pointer spreads out quite a bit even over every day distances (i tried this with my laser pointer in the main hallway of the engineering building here (several hundred feet) and it spread out to a circle an inch or so across). this limit is in part determined by the material being fired upon; specifically the power required to ablate (vaporize) it. because of the nature of radiation, the closer the target is to the source the more damage will be done, unlike projectile weaponry
many lasers used in the physical sciences are Class IV, which means that they can cause serious damage to skin and its scattered light can even blind those who look at it. i used a Class IV Nd/YAG (neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet) laser to produce catalyst coated substrates when i was doing research on carbon nanotubes my sophmore year. the safety manual (which i was quizzed on before i was even allowed near the thing) had first hand accounts from people who got hit in the eye with this class of laser. it ablated the retina and boiled the vitreous fluid of their eyes within a single pulse, causing the eyeball to explode outwards just form the pressure built up by the newly formed gas...
the Central Laser Facility in the UK is working on a laser that can achieve pulsed energy densities strong enough create particles of matter in a similar fashion as the LHC (this is done by literally tearing apart the local space-time, but it's not as bad as it sounds). when it is complete it will be the most powerful laser in the world. their current focus is on laser initiated fusion, known as Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF). one of the forerunners in laser-induced ICF was the OMEGA project at the Laboratory for Laser Energetics in Brighton New York (I had an uncle who worked there once), but this was eventually overshadowed by the National Ignition Facility (NIF) in California. to my knowledge, the NIF is the current record holder for worlds most powerful laser boasting a power output of ~500 Terrawatts (the laser dumps four million Joules of energy on the fusion target in a time span of only a few billionths of a second). the laser being built at the Central Laser Facility will exceed the NIF by orders of magnitude.
i guess the short answer to your question is that i don't know without more information, but LASERS ARE COOL!! =D |
Amaroq Dricaldari
Malicious Mission Murderers
92
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 19:04:00 -
[277] - Quote
If you are tearing the fabric of the universe, then you would destroy the universe. Haven't you seen any episode of StarGate Atlantis where they try to create Zero Point Energy? This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3354
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 19:16:00 -
[278] - Quote
Bleh trying to argue against a trekkie who proclaims some pertty stupdendous stupid ranges for lasers which you are right a laser in vacuume would should be indefinite. Good luck finding that in space though more and more evidence says that space is pertty much crammed with stuff (as far as the universe is concerned and its quite dense with radiation gravitaitonal influence particles and mass.
Best place to start looking I say is beyond the edge of the universe next best spots that giant gap between galaxies.
I am more inclinded to belive the missile ranges over the 'phaser' ranges. The devices in question dont seem large enough or the ship produces enough power to procure such redicioulous distances. Swimming though the internet to of various bloggers the best conclusion they came up with is that to get a similar distance star trek uses would require an 8km long ship and thats without a turret system.
But thats science fiction meeting science somethings got to give.
None the less thank you for the reads
here is one for you, not space based but a weaponized laser none the less http://www.onr.navy.mil/Media-Center/Fact-Sheets/Free-Electron-Laser.aspx
another special bonus the built for production railgun here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uV1SbEuzFU&feature=youtu.be looks a hell lot more deployable than previous iterations.
|
EnslaverOfMinmatar
BRAPELILLE MACRO BOT MINERS
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 05:30:00 -
[279] - Quote
What acceleration are we subjected to while sitting in the chair? Are the following factors relevant? Earth gravity, rotation of Earth around the sun, solar system rotation or movement around the center/whatever of our galaxy..... add things that you think are relevant too. Every EVE player must read this http://www.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=29-01-07 or uninstall and DIAF |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
492
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 05:46:00 -
[280] - Quote
I want to disintegrate people with a flashy death ray gun. How do I go about doing that?
Because I don't really feel like waiting for a nuclear holocaust, survive inside a vault, wait even longer and one day when I am out wandering about in the wasteland, stumble over a crashed UFO where one of the dead aliens has a flashy death ray gun.... I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
|
Professor Alphane
Alphane Research Co-operative
298
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 13:25:00 -
[281] - Quote
If your still being good enough to answer people serious queries (while I would be interested in particle weapons theoraetically )
My question goes something like this
Theres no such thing as the perpetual motion machine right?
Every effect has an equal and opposite consquence, nothing is frictionless etc.
How then do so many atoms display exactly the properties we refer to and say are impossible
ie, a continous system of motion that neither gains nor loses anergy and perputuates idefinatly?
Stumped me last night when I thought about it anyway
YOU MUST THINK FIRST.... |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 21:41:00 -
[282] - Quote
Professor Alphane wrote:If your still being good enough to answer people serious queries (while I would be interested in particle weapons theoraetically ) My question goes something like this Theres no such thing as the perpetual motion machine right? Every effect has an equal and opposite consquence, nothing is frictionless etc. How then do so many atoms display exactly the properties we refer to and say are impossible ie, a continous system of motion that neither gains nor loses anergy and perputuates idefinatly? Stumped me last night when I thought about it anyway
Thermodynamics was specifically developed to explain complex systems of many MANY particles. a perpetual motion device would be a macroscopic, closed, isolated system, that exists in a non stationary energy state and never decays to a lower energy state when left to its own devices. but consider a hydorgen atom. the lowest energy state of a hydrogen atom still has an "orbiting" electron because lower energy states are quantum mechanically disallowed. that hydrogen atom would be in a stationary state.
its like a slinky on the a flight of stairs. it is the natural tendency for the slinky to move down the stairs, but once it hits the bottom, it has no where to go, so it stops.
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 22:22:00 -
[283] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:I want to disintegrate people with a flashy death ray gun. How do I go about doing that?
Because I don't really feel like waiting for a nuclear holocaust, survive inside a vault, wait even longer and one day when I am out wandering about in the wasteland, stumble over a crashed UFO where one of the dead aliens has a flashy death ray gun....
loved that game :3
there is an energy in molecules known as the bonding energy, which is related to the energy required to disassemble a molecule back into its constituent atoms. the bonding energies of many simple diatomic molecules (so H2 or N2 or HCl or whatever) are measured on the order of hundreds of kiloJoules per mol! this is an insane amount of energy from the standpoint of the process that occur in your every day life (assuming you aren't usually on fire). but we aren't made of simple diatomic molecules. we are made of very VERY complex molecular structures, each consisting of hundreds if not thousands of individual atoms, and they likewise have much MUCH higher bonding energies.
even after cremation the body leaves literally piles of amorphous carbon and calcium structures behind... but lets assume that ash is good enough for you i found an estimate on the energy required to get the human body to this state (ignoring a lot the other factors like water and gass content. just an average heat capacity) and to "first order" it is about 1000 BTU/lb, or 1.055 MegaJoules/lb. (a million joules per pound of person vaporized). assuming you are vaporizing soldiers or something and not children we can assume that they are around 200 lbs so the total energy requirement comes to around 211 million joules. so, now, lets say your raygun is like a phaser or something and it needs to dump all this energy in around .5 seconds or so. this means that your ray gun has a power requirement in excess of 422 million Watts, which is enough power that you can start counting the number of homes it would be able to supply per day XD
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 22:29:00 -
[284] - Quote
EnslaverOfMinmatar wrote:What acceleration are we subjected to while sitting in the chair? Are the following factors relevant? Earth gravity, rotation of Earth around the sun, solar system rotation or movement around the center/whatever of our galaxy..... add things that you think are relevant too.
so, this depends entirely on your frame of reference. if you were to calculate your net acceleration with respect to the room you are sitting in it would be 0, because you are at rest. after that it depends on the frame in which you are calculating it. with respect to the moon? the sun? the galactic center? the local group? net force and acceleration are not frame invariant quantities. |
Professor Alphane
Alphane Research Co-operative
299
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 22:31:00 -
[285] - Quote
Cool think it's quantum mechanics I'm interested in thanks, I may look into it sometime.
Don't know if it's been asked before but why are planets all on a plane while in orbit around the sun?
YOU MUST THINK FIRST.... |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 23:27:00 -
[286] - Quote
Selinate wrote:Explain to me the reason for resonance peaks for neutron cross sections with relation to neutron energy with different elements. I want maths. I'll definitely understand it, but I have a hard time finding this kind of information in my books or anywhere on the web.
i can explain it but i am not going to go through the derivation of something like particle cross sections on the forum because i can't draw feynman diagrams here and the forum does not support Latex, so the math would be ugly as hell. if you have the quantum mechanics background, Introduction to Elementary Particles by Griffiths is a good start. i use my copy all the time.
for those of you who may be unfamiliar with the question, here is a brief overview. suppose you take two neutrons, smash them together with some energy E, and examine things like how frequently the neutrons collide, or the quantity and type of particles that are produced after the collision. what you will see in general is that the harder you try to smash them together, the more likely it is that the neutrons will interact. HOWEVER, at certain energies you will see a spike! a rapid increase in the rate at which the neutrons actually collide! this is called a Resonance effect the question is why does this happen?
smashing subatomic particles is not like smashing rocks together. the particles produced in the collision are not "parts" of the initial particles. they are bits of matter that have condensed out of the energy released in the collision (they are technically quantizations of their respective fields), and this occurs in a similar fashion to making change. if you want to make $6 in change the "easiest" (and therefore most likely) way is with a $5 and a $1, and not 24 quarters. similarly, if you have enough energy to produce a pion after the collision, then you are more likely to get that pion and not a whole bunch of electrons and positrons instead.
when we write down the math that describes the state of the particles at the point where we might see them collide, what we are doing is writing down a sum of the probabilities of all the possible outcomes of that collision (all the possible ways we can make change). what we see when we do this is that the particles like to condense in a way that converts as much of the collision energy into rest mass as possible. this occurs as a direct result of kinematics; specifically conservation of momentum. it is much "harder" to arrange 100 electrons and 100 positrons in a state that conserves momentum with respect to the collision than it would be to arrange a pi+ and a pi-. this is simply because there are more bodies to account for and because it is unlikely any one electron would carry the majority of the momentum, while the pi+- result can easily distribute the momentum evenly. as a result, the resonance peaks land on energy ranges that match up with the rest energy of other allowable particles from this collision
so as we start increasing the energy of the collision, we get to energy ranges where a collision would produce many MANY particles per unit energy, and so the possible states are kinematically restrictive and therefore unlikely. in these ranges, the collision probability is almost completely dependent on the dimensions of the colliding particles. we also get to energy ranges where the collision would produce fewer, more massive particles per unit energy, and so the possible states are more likely.
or at least that's how i think of it... hope this helps! |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 23:35:00 -
[287] - Quote
Professor Alphane wrote:Cool think it's quantum mechanics I'm interested in thanks, I may look into it sometime.
Don't know if it's been asked before but why are planets all on a plane while in orbit around the sun?
conservation of angular momentum! the initial planetary nebula that formed our solar system had some net rotational velocity. as the cloud condensed into the planets its angular velocity increases because the average radius of the cloud was decreasing. this causes it to flatten out (think "spinning ball of pizza dough").
this also is part of why pluto is no longer considered a true planet of the sol system. the fact that its orbital plane is so skew with respect to the rest of the planets indicates that it was a rogue object captured by the suns gravitational field, and not part of the initial nebula. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 00:05:00 -
[288] - Quote
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:Ok, I have a question. er, questions.
(not reading all these pages so sorry if its been asked)
I'm on a doomed vessel traveling into a black hole. OR I'm on a planet that is about to be pulled into a black hole. OR pretty much anything where i fly screaming and cursing into a black hole.....
How is this going to work out for me? Of course I'm about to die, but do I actually feel myself getting ripped apart? Does time slow down and it takes an eternity for me to die the most painful possible death? how long could the perception of my death be? do i just get squished pretty fast before the real crazy stuff starts? Does physics just break down and my brain isn't capable of functioning to a degree that I'd be cognizant ?
separate points of order
could we all be falling into a black hole right now and not even know it? could the entire universe actually exist inside of a black hole? what is a black hole outside of a super-dense mass that 'dents' space/time? why is it a singularity can seem like such a simple concept but be so impossibly complex? can they really be gateways to other places, dimensions, realities or hell with an eye-less Sam Neill?
some people were telling me the entire universe is actually 2 dimensional, we just happen to experience a 3d projected effect of it. what the hell is that all about? does this have anything to do with black holes?
thank you in advance for your answers, these are important and pressing questions that we all should be more informed on. Especially considering our most assured and imminent horrible screaming apocalypse death at the hands of a rogue black hole.
oh man, i love Sam Neil and that movie :3 Event Horizon was great! i'm totally watching it as soon as i get home now heheheh.
ok so first paragraph appears to be all about Death by black holes :3 the technical term for this is Spaghettification. and no, i'm not making this up! the gravitational force acting on an object is directly related to the distance between the two bodies in question and their masses. this means that there is a very slight difference between the force of gravity acting on the hair on your head compared to that acting on your toes. we don't usually notice this because on earth that difference is astronomically small. but near a black hole is another story... here, the difference in the gravitational forces acting on different parts of your body is significant, and this difference increases more and more as you approach the hole.
if you are falling in feet first, eventually the force difference between your head and your toes will be enough to break the molecular bonds holding your midsection together, and you will snap in half. your torso and your legs will continue to fall and the force differences will continue to increase, eventually snapping you in half at the knees and chest. as you continue to fall this process continues on and on, until you are just a single stream of atoms, then a single stream of subatomic particles, and then just energy. the time it takes for this to occur again, depends on your reference frame, but an observer outside the horizon would never actually see you cross it.
as for whether or not our entire universe could exist within a black hole, some theories certainly allow this! this idea actually relates to your next set of questions concerning the dimensionality of the universe. because of the way space and time are compressed past the event horizon, you loose a dimension of what we would perceive as time once you cross it because past that point, the only way you can go is down towards and around the singularity. we could all be falling towards a singularity, but we cannot perceive it because its position relative to our own is along a dimension we no longer have access to because of the compression of space-time.
it may actually be that we live in a highly curled and knotted, 1D universe, which would imply that the position and time of every event would have a unique position along this knotted universe. it's a similar idea to drawing a picture without ever picking up your pencil. the end result is a two dimensional image, but it is composed of a single twisted 1D line, so you can uniquely specify any point in the image by giving how far along the line you must travel from the start. because of how the picture is drawn there are only certain locations you could exist within it (specifically, wherever the line is), which directly implies a quantization of space. indeed we do see this in the lab and on the chalk board because of the existence of the Plank Length (which i detailed earlier in the thread), so the hypothesis is compelling in my opinion. |
Brujo Loco
Brujeria Teologica
329
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 01:03:00 -
[289] - Quote
Summarize scientifically Human Stupidity Inner Sayings of BrujoLoco: http://eve-files.com/sig/brujoloco |
Gibbo3771
AQUILA INC 0ccupational Hazzard
48
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 11:22:00 -
[290] - Quote
Its all lies, god created the earth and the people.
Adam and eve was real.
Deal with it, we have enough proof Everytime you dont like my comments/posts the terrorists win and your a disgrace to your country. |
|
Souvera Corvus
SPORADIC MOVEMENT
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 11:34:00 -
[291] - Quote
Gibbo3771 wrote:Its all lies, god created the earth and the people.
Adam and eve was real.
Deal with it, we have enough proof
Are you running for the Presidency on a Republican ticket?
Mr Santorum, come on down.
(Thought you'd be Caldari)
|
Natasi01
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 16:46:00 -
[292] - Quote
What is dark matter? |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 16:57:00 -
[293] - Quote
Natasi01 wrote:What is dark matter?
a good question! i discuss this somewhat in post #218 of this thread. the long story short is that when we measure the motion of galactic and extra galactic objects, our current theories of gravitation fail to accurately predict it. however, if we add additional matter that we have not yet observed, it works "perfectly". there have been many attempts to produce mathematically consistent models that predict this motion without dark matter, but they have, in general, failed. our observations have allowed us to make various constraints on the properties of dark matter, and even produce maps of where it should be in the universe. with this information we have been able to create experiments, like DRIFT, which should be able to detect a dark matter interaction, though no definite evidence of such an interaction has yet to found.
|
Natasi01
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:24:00 -
[294] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Natasi01 wrote:What is dark matter? a good question!
huh, okey. thank you. Are there any theories of it's actual content? Last year I remember there where a lot in the news about CERN and their accelerator..and it had something to do with dark matter, what was that all about?
|
Jeyson Vicious
The Scope Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 06:07:00 -
[295] - Quote
Ive always wondered: when it comes to space propulsion and carrying fuel - why couldnt you make an engine out of a big spring? It could be coiled and then released sending the ship forward. Then electrical power and hydraulics could wind it back up and spring it again.
It seems like you could do it over and over, easily using potential energy to go faster and faster. Or maybe I don't get the real math / concept of how a spring works. (I don't... :) |
Jeyson Vicious
The Scope Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 06:17:00 -
[296] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Natasi01 wrote:What is dark matter? a good question! i discuss this somewhat in post #218 of this thread. the long story short is that when we measure the motion of galactic and extra galactic objects, our current theories of gravitation fail to accurately predict it. however, if we add additional matter that we have not yet observed, it works "perfectly". there have been many attempts to produce mathematically consistent models that predict this motion without dark matter, but they have, in general, failed. our observations have allowed us to make various constraints on the properties of dark matter, and even produce maps of where it should be in the universe. with this information we have been able to create experiments, like DRIFT, which should be able to detect a dark matter interaction, though no definite evidence of such an interaction has yet to found.
I've always wondered why they don't just think there is a lot matter we don't see. Dim stars, planets, black holes.
Speaking of black holes - do you think it's strange that they aren't anchored in space (meaning if they are at the center of galaxies, and galaxies move)? I was wikipediaing them and saw that they think there may be a thing called an ergosphere which is like a buldge in the direction of rotation. Seems strange that things that defy physics would do normal things like that. Just interesting. |
Pr1ncess Alia
Perkone Caldari State
140
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 08:34:00 -
[297] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Pr1ncess Alia wrote:Ok, I have a question. er, questions.
(not reading all these pages so sorry if its been asked)
I'm on a doomed vessel traveling into a black hole. OR I'm on a planet that is about to be pulled into a black hole. OR pretty much anything where i fly screaming and cursing into a black hole.....
How is this going to work out for me? Of course I'm about to die, but do I actually feel myself getting ripped apart? Does time slow down and it takes an eternity for me to die the most painful possible death? how long could the perception of my death be? do i just get squished pretty fast before the real crazy stuff starts? Does physics just break down and my brain isn't capable of functioning to a degree that I'd be cognizant ?
separate points of order
could we all be falling into a black hole right now and not even know it? could the entire universe actually exist inside of a black hole? what is a black hole outside of a super-dense mass that 'dents' space/time? why is it a singularity can seem like such a simple concept but be so impossibly complex? can they really be gateways to other places, dimensions, realities or hell with an eye-less Sam Neill?
some people were telling me the entire universe is actually 2 dimensional, we just happen to experience a 3d projected effect of it. what the hell is that all about? does this have anything to do with black holes?
thank you in advance for your answers, these are important and pressing questions that we all should be more informed on. Especially considering our most assured and imminent horrible screaming apocalypse death at the hands of a rogue black hole. oh man, i love Sam Neil and that movie :3 Event Horizon was great! i'm totally watching it as soon as i get home now heheheh. ok so first paragraph appears to be all about Death by black holes :3 the technical term for this is Spaghettification. and no, i'm not making this up! the gravitational force acting on an object is directly related to the distance between the two bodies in question and their masses. this means that there is a very slight difference between the force of gravity acting on the hair on your head compared to that acting on your toes. we don't usually notice this because on earth that difference is astronomically small. but near a black hole is another story... here, the difference in the gravitational forces acting on different parts of your body is significant, and this difference increases more and more as you approach the hole. if you are falling in feet first, eventually the force difference between your head and your toes will be enough to break the molecular bonds holding your midsection together, and you will snap in half. your torso and your legs will continue to fall and the force differences will continue to increase, eventually snapping you in half at the knees and chest. as you continue to fall this process continues on and on, until you are just a single stream of atoms, then a single stream of subatomic particles, and then just energy. the time it takes for this to occur again, depends on your reference frame, but an observer outside the horizon would never actually see you cross it. as for whether or not our entire universe could exist within a black hole, some theories certainly allow this! this idea actually relates to your next set of questions concerning the dimensionality of the universe. because of the way space and time are compressed past the event horizon, you loose a dimension of what we would perceive as time once you cross it because past that point, the only way you can go is down towards and around the singularity. we could all be falling towards a singularity, but we cannot perceive it because its position relative to our own is along a dimension we no longer have access to because of the compression of space-time. it may actually be that we live in a highly curled and knotted, 1D universe, which would imply that the position and time of every event would have a unique position along this knotted universe. it's a similar idea to drawing a picture without ever picking up your pencil. the end result is a two dimensional image, but it is composed of a single twisted 1D line, so you can uniquely specify any point in the image by giving how far along the line you must travel from the start. because of how the picture is drawn there are only certain locations you could exist within it (specifically, wherever the line is), which directly implies a quantization of space. indeed we do see this in the lab and on the chalk board because of the existence of the Plank Length (which i detailed earlier in the thread), so the hypothesis is compelling in my opinion.
wow, good answers. except you missed the most important one.
so, am I going to be feeling this? or will i be all 'quantum entangled silly-string theories' upstairs and have no ability to perceive the tidal forces ripping me apart at the knees, chest, and probably other unmentionable areas? |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 17:10:00 -
[298] - Quote
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:Pr1ncess Alia wrote:Ok, I have a question. er, questions.
(not reading all these pages so sorry if its been asked)
I'm on a doomed vessel traveling into a black hole. OR I'm on a planet that is about to be pulled into a black hole. OR pretty much anything where i fly screaming and cursing into a black hole.....
How is this going to work out for me? Of course I'm about to die, but do I actually feel myself getting ripped apart? Does time slow down and it takes an eternity for me to die the most painful possible death? how long could the perception of my death be? do i just get squished pretty fast before the real crazy stuff starts? Does physics just break down and my brain isn't capable of functioning to a degree that I'd be cognizant ?
separate points of order
could we all be falling into a black hole right now and not even know it? could the entire universe actually exist inside of a black hole? what is a black hole outside of a super-dense mass that 'dents' space/time? why is it a singularity can seem like such a simple concept but be so impossibly complex? can they really be gateways to other places, dimensions, realities or hell with an eye-less Sam Neill?
some people were telling me the entire universe is actually 2 dimensional, we just happen to experience a 3d projected effect of it. what the hell is that all about? does this have anything to do with black holes?
thank you in advance for your answers, these are important and pressing questions that we all should be more informed on. Especially considering our most assured and imminent horrible screaming apocalypse death at the hands of a rogue black hole. oh man, i love Sam Neil and that movie :3 Event Horizon was great! i'm totally watching it as soon as i get home now heheheh. ok so first paragraph appears to be all about Death by black holes :3 the technical term for this is Spaghettification. and no, i'm not making this up! the gravitational force acting on an object is directly related to the distance between the two bodies in question and their masses. this means that there is a very slight difference between the force of gravity acting on the hair on your head compared to that acting on your toes. we don't usually notice this because on earth that difference is astronomically small. but near a black hole is another story... here, the difference in the gravitational forces acting on different parts of your body is significant, and this difference increases more and more as you approach the hole. if you are falling in feet first, eventually the force difference between your head and your toes will be enough to break the molecular bonds holding your midsection together, and you will snap in half. your torso and your legs will continue to fall and the force differences will continue to increase, eventually snapping you in half at the knees and chest. as you continue to fall this process continues on and on, until you are just a single stream of atoms, then a single stream of subatomic particles, and then just energy. the time it takes for this to occur again, depends on your reference frame, but an observer outside the horizon would never actually see you cross it. as for whether or not our entire universe could exist within a black hole, some theories certainly allow this! this idea actually relates to your next set of questions concerning the dimensionality of the universe. because of the way space and time are compressed past the event horizon, you loose a dimension of what we would perceive as time once you cross it because past that point, the only way you can go is down towards and around the singularity. we could all be falling towards a singularity, but we cannot perceive it because its position relative to our own is along a dimension we no longer have access to because of the compression of space-time. it may actually be that we live in a highly curled and knotted, 1D universe, which would imply that the position and time of every event would have a unique position along this knotted universe. it's a similar idea to drawing a picture without ever picking up your pencil. the end result is a two dimensional image, but it is composed of a single twisted 1D line, so you can uniquely specify any point in the image by giving how far along the line you must travel from the start. because of how the picture is drawn there are only certain locations you could exist within it (specifically, wherever the line is), which directly implies a quantization of space. indeed we do see this in the lab and on the chalk board because of the existence of the Plank Length (which i detailed earlier in the thread), so the hypothesis is compelling in my opinion. wow, good answers. except you missed the most important one. so, am I going to be feeling this? or will i be all 'quantum entangled silly-string theories' upstairs and have no ability to perceive the tidal forces ripping me apart at the knees, chest, and probably other unmentionable areas?
well, that depends on a couple things. specifically your position and your orientation when this starts to occur. if you are outside the event horizon, yes, you will feel it. if you are past the event horizon you would only feel it if you were falling in head first. you wouldn't feel it past the event horizon if you fall in feet first |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 17:12:00 -
[299] - Quote
Natasi01 wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:Natasi01 wrote:What is dark matter? a good question! huh, okey. thank you. Are there any theories of it's actual content? Last year I remember there where a lot in the news about CERN and their accelerator..and it had something to do with dark matter, what was that all about?
yes an no. we have theoretical constraints on the properties of dark matter, but it isn't anything we have ever encountered before. it is literally a new form a matter.
CERN makes many, MANY announcements. do you have a link to the article you are specifically interested? if so, i would be happy to comment on it =D |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 17:17:00 -
[300] - Quote
Jeyson Vicious wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:Natasi01 wrote:What is dark matter? a good question! i discuss this somewhat in post #218 of this thread. the long story short is that when we measure the motion of galactic and extra galactic objects, our current theories of gravitation fail to accurately predict it. however, if we add additional matter that we have not yet observed, it works "perfectly". there have been many attempts to produce mathematically consistent models that predict this motion without dark matter, but they have, in general, failed. our observations have allowed us to make various constraints on the properties of dark matter, and even produce maps of where it should be in the universe. with this information we have been able to create experiments, like DRIFT, which should be able to detect a dark matter interaction, though no definite evidence of such an interaction has yet to found. I've always wondered why they don't just think there is a lot matter we don't see. Dim stars, planets, black holes. Speaking of black holes - do you think it's strange that they aren't anchored in space (meaning if they are at the center of galaxies, and galaxies move)? I was wikipediaing them and saw that they think there may be a thing called an ergosphere which is like a buldge in the direction of rotation. Seems strange that things that defy physics would do normal things like that. Just interesting.
black holes do not violate any laws of physics, so it's perfectly reasonable for them to have spacial qualities like the ergosphere. they are just "super dense" masses. all of their properties follow directly from general relativity =D
|
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 17:39:00 -
[301] - Quote
Jeyson Vicious wrote:Ive always wondered: when it comes to space propulsion and carrying fuel - why couldnt you make an engine out of a big spring? It could be coiled and then released sending the ship forward. Then electrical power and hydraulics could wind it back up and spring it again.
It seems like you could do it over and over, easily using potential energy to go faster and faster. Or maybe I don't get the real math / concept of how a spring works. (I don't... :)
this reminds me of some of my favorite "rage" comics, called troll science/physics, which detail all kinds of free energy or perpetual motion machines. they can all be explained away with a proper examination of internal and external forces, thermodynamics, and/or newtons laws!
your question is most easily addressed with newtons third law.
newtons third law tells us that forces acting between bodies always come in action-reaction pairs, which are always equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. that is, if your coiled spring exerts a force on the ship, then the ship must also be exerting a force on the spring! if the spring were free to be launched out the back of the ship then you are golden; each object would be propelled by an acceleration from the action-reaction forces applied on each. however, if the spring were attached to the ship, the total force acting on the ship would encompass both the force of spring-on-ship AND ship-on-spring. both of these must be equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, and so they cancel each other out.
these types of forces are classified as internal forces. another example of an internal forces are the bonding forces at play in a solid, like a wooden block sitting on a table. these molecules are constantly in motion, if not on the molecular then on the atomic level, yet their motion does not propel the block in any way. this effect is identical to your spring on a ship scenario, except there are may billion springs heheh.
|
Natasi01
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 18:14:00 -
[302] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:
CERN makes many, MANY announcements. do you have a link to the article you are specifically interested in? if so, i would be happy to comment on it =D
I can't find a link about it, but if iir they were trying to "create" dark matter? and there were comments made that if that was possible it would most probably destroy earth. |
Karl Planck
147
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 18:23:00 -
[303] - Quote
In less than a few posts if possible, what is the underlying differences between the fusion reaction that sustains a star and fusion reaction being attempted in laser induced fusion experiments?
Furthermore, what are the physical limitations that are currently restricting sustained fusion reaction in a controlled environment?
hmmm, had another but its slippin my mind, maybe later. If you don't like it, you should go and ride your Emo high-horse all the way back to WoW.
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
479
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 01:19:00 -
[304] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Jeyson Vicious wrote:Ive always wondered: when it comes to space propulsion and carrying fuel - why couldnt you make an engine out of a big spring? It could be coiled and then released sending the ship forward. Then electrical power and hydraulics could wind it back up and spring it again.
It seems like you could do it over and over, easily using potential energy to go faster and faster. Or maybe I don't get the real math / concept of how a spring works. (I don't... :) this reminds me of some of my favorite "rage" comics, called troll science/physics, which detail all kinds of free energy or perpetual motion machines. they can all be explained away with a proper examination of internal and external forces, thermodynamics, and/or newtons laws! your question is most easily addressed with newtons third law. newtons third law tells us that forces acting between bodies always come in action-reaction pairs, which are always equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. that is, if your coiled spring exerts a force on the ship, then the ship must also be exerting a force on the spring! if the spring were free to be launched out the back of the ship then you are golden; each object would be propelled by an acceleration from the action-reaction forces applied on each. however, if the spring were attached to the ship, the total force acting on the ship would encompass both the force of spring-on-ship AND ship-on-spring. both of these must be equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, and so they cancel each other out. these types of forces are classified as internal forces. another example of an internal forces are the bonding forces at play in a solid, like a wooden block sitting on a table. these molecules are constantly in motion, if not on the molecular then on the atomic level, yet their motion does not propel the block in any way. this effect is identical to your spring on a ship scenario, except there are may billion springs heheh.
I liked the post. I think the only "spaceship" that works like this is the pogo stick. For those who had no childhood. Only has enough energy to go places that your body has though.
Tsadkiel, do you think newton's 3rd law is the inspiration of EVE ships needing, +1 warp strenght to enter warp? Like the +1 shows there is at least one external force on you and your just not an internal force, so you can enter warp and escape. disorientating |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 16:27:00 -
[305] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:Jeyson Vicious wrote:Ive always wondered: when it comes to space propulsion and carrying fuel - why couldnt you make an engine out of a big spring? It could be coiled and then released sending the ship forward. Then electrical power and hydraulics could wind it back up and spring it again.
It seems like you could do it over and over, easily using potential energy to go faster and faster. Or maybe I don't get the real math / concept of how a spring works. (I don't... :) this reminds me of some of my favorite "rage" comics, called troll science/physics, which detail all kinds of free energy or perpetual motion machines. they can all be explained away with a proper examination of internal and external forces, thermodynamics, and/or newtons laws! your question is most easily addressed with newtons third law. newtons third law tells us that forces acting between bodies always come in action-reaction pairs, which are always equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. that is, if your coiled spring exerts a force on the ship, then the ship must also be exerting a force on the spring! if the spring were free to be launched out the back of the ship then you are golden; each object would be propelled by an acceleration from the action-reaction forces applied on each. however, if the spring were attached to the ship, the total force acting on the ship would encompass both the force of spring-on-ship AND ship-on-spring. both of these must be equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, and so they cancel each other out. these types of forces are classified as internal forces. another example of an internal forces are the bonding forces at play in a solid, like a wooden block sitting on a table. these molecules are constantly in motion, if not on the molecular then on the atomic level, yet their motion does not propel the block in any way. this effect is identical to your spring on a ship scenario, except there are may billion springs heheh. I liked the post. I think the only "spaceship" that works like this is the pogo stick. For those who had no childhood. Only has enough energy to go places that your body has though. Tsadkiel, do you think newton's 3rd law is the inspiration of EVE ships needing, +1 warp strenght to enter warp? Like the +1 shows there is at least one external force on you and your just not an internal force, so you can enter warp and escape.
i think warp strength was a purely mechanical addition to the game. it probably didn't arise from anything other than the need to prevent people from going into warp.
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 18:04:00 -
[306] - Quote
Karl Planck wrote:In less than a few posts if possible, what is the underlying differences between the fusion reaction that sustains a star and fusion reaction being attempted in laser induced fusion experiments?
Furthermore, what are the physical limitations that are currently restricting sustained fusion reaction in a controlled environment?
hmmm, had another but its slippin my mind, maybe later.
the primary differences between the two are the time span in which they occur, and the type of force used to achieve ignition. stellar fusion is a result of Gravitational Confinement, which is to say that gravity is the force that "squeezes" atoms together close enough to fuse (close enough that the attractive nuclear force overcomes the repelling electric force between the protons of the nuclei). Laser initiated fusion is usually of the form known as Inertial Confinement, which is to say that forces that result from motion is what "squeeze" the atoms. Laser based inertial confinement is done by focusing an intense pulse of coherent light evenly over a fuel pellet composed of a catalyst shell encasing a high pressure mixture of deuterium and tritium. the light pulse vaporizes the shell of the pellet, which expands in all directions, including inwards. this increases the pressure of the fuel to the point where it begins to fuse and release energy. inertial confinement has also been achieved using Z-pinch devises and high yield explosives. gravitational confinement is stable over the course of millions of years because gravity is such a week force, and so requires a great deal of fuel to initiate ignition. inertial confinement is stable over the course of only nanoseconds.
stable, long term fusion reactions on earth are primarily achieved through Magnetic Confinement, which initiates fusion by squeezing plasma using strong magnetic fields. the most common device for accomplishing this is known as a TOKAMAK device (the acronym is in Russian), which does the squeezing with incredibly strong toroidal (circular) magnetic fields. this is not an easy task and is similar to trying to squeeze jello with rubber bands... but we can do it! there have been several TOKAMAK devices over the years and none of them have been able to produce more electrical power than what they consume. the primary restriction that causes this is simply a matter of technological efficiency, and the specifics of the structure of the toroidal field. the soon-to-be state of the art of TOKAMAK based magnetic confinement is currently being built in the south of France and it is called ITER. their predictions indicate that their design may be the first to produce useful electrical power (by a few percent).
|
Ganjjabeard
Good Vs. Neutral Stop Exploding You Cowards
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 17:59:00 -
[307] - Quote
what is the likely hood that the universe is actually a "multiverse" with many universes existing in other dimensions and planes and are all interconnected by countless "tubes" of wormholes that one can use to travel between said universes?
also, please explain how humans can instaport from one location to another (ie, particles breaking down, being transported to a new location, then being rebuilt again) <--- is the person in this process destroyed and recreated entirely into a copy? or is it the same exact entity of particles reconstructed somewhere else? |
Sumiragi
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 18:01:00 -
[308] - Quote
So the other night I needed to grab my keys from my bedroom. It was dark so I switched on the light to find them. Leaving the room, I flipped the switch and left. My question to you is, when I flipped the switch off where did the light go? |
Ganjjabeard
Good Vs. Neutral Stop Exploding You Cowards
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 21:00:00 -
[309] - Quote
Sumiragi wrote:So the other night I needed to grab my keys from my bedroom. It was dark so I switched on the light to find them. Leaving the room, I flipped the switch and left. My question to you is, when I flipped the switch off where did the light go?
its impossible to know where the light went, the only thing that is known for sure is that the light is not present anymore. |
Amaroq Dricaldari
Malicious Mission Murderers
103
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 05:49:00 -
[310] - Quote
Dark Matter is a Quantum Supoer Position between Matter and Anti-Matter. End of Dark-Matter related discussions. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 16:46:00 -
[311] - Quote
Amaroq Dricaldari wrote:Dark Matter is a Quantum Super Position between Matter and Anti-Matter. End of Dark-Matter related discussions.
there is no basis or evidence for this conclusion... of any kind... |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 16:53:00 -
[312] - Quote
Sumiragi wrote:So the other night I needed to grab my keys from my bedroom. It was dark so I switched on the light to find them. Leaving the room, I flipped the switch and left. My question to you is, when I flipped the switch off where did the light go?
so, you turn on your light, and billions of trillions of photons go screaming away from your light bulb! they bounce off the walls of your room and the objects it contains. as long as the light is on, photons continue to be emitted. a very small percentage of them are absorbed by your eye which you then perceive as sight. the rest bounce around until they are either absorbed by local materials (walls and objects, but also gasses!), or they escape from your room, home, planet, etc... this all happens in less than a blink. as a rule of thumb, light travels at about a foot per nanosecond in a vacuum, so unless your room is astronomically large (in a very literal sense), you will not be able to see any of this with your naked eyes. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 16:55:00 -
[313] - Quote
Ganjjabeard wrote:Sumiragi wrote:So the other night I needed to grab my keys from my bedroom. It was dark so I switched on the light to find them. Leaving the room, I flipped the switch and left. My question to you is, when I flipped the switch off where did the light go? its impossible to know where the light went, the only thing that is known for sure is that the light is not present anymore.
this isn't true at all. we can detect light very easily and, with the appropriate equipment, very precisely. the core of my thesis revolves around "figuring out where the light went" heheheh. |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises Unprovoked Aggression
260
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 17:01:00 -
[314] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:greetings!
I am currently working on my PhD in Particle Astrophysics and recent events have shown me that i need way, WAY more experience explaining sciencey type stuff to people. SO, i figure, where better to practice then on the forums of a Sci-Fi game =D
ask away!
And you're playing eveonline. This is why you still havent found Higgs Boson. Slacker. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 17:11:00 -
[315] - Quote
Ganjjabeard wrote:what is the likely hood that the universe is actually a "multiverse" with many universes existing in other dimensions and planes and are all interconnected by countless "tubes" of wormholes that one can use to travel between said universes?
also, please explain how humans can instaport from one location to another (ie, particles breaking down, being transported to a new location, then being rebuilt again) <--- is the person in this process destroyed and recreated entirely into a copy? or is it the same exact entity of particles reconstructed somewhere else?
so focusing on the multiverse bit (making no statement about your "tubes" heheh), i cannot comment on the likelihood of this because there is no direct experimental evidence to support or deny it. the multiverse hypothesis is just that, hypothetical. it does not constitute a true scientific theory because it makes no claims which can be tested with our current knowledge and technology. this does not mean it should be disregarded! we may very well have the scientific understanding necessary to test the multiverse hypothesis one day.
as for transportation, i refer to my favorite fantasy fizicist, Sheldon Cooper. in short, if teleportation were ever possible, it would have some rather spooky consequences (and for some, unsettling) concerning the nature of consciousness. based on our current understanding of quantum mechanics however, this technology is impossible. It would require the measurement of the quantum state of every particle of the object to be measured and the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics tells us that to do so would change the state of the thing we are measuring...
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 17:12:00 -
[316] - Quote
Terminal Insanity wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:greetings!
I am currently working on my PhD in Particle Astrophysics and recent events have shown me that i need way, WAY more experience explaining sciencey type stuff to people. SO, i figure, where better to practice then on the forums of a Sci-Fi game =D
ask away! And you're playing eveonline. This is why you still havent found Higgs Boson. Slacker.
XD it helps keep me from going completely insane heheheh
|
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises Unprovoked Aggression
260
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 17:20:00 -
[317] - Quote
My question is this: in this (real not eve) universe, Everything is theoretically predictable. There is the 'conservation of information' rule and theres the fact one molecule hits another at a certain direction/speed and we can predict what will happen, right?
So if this is just one big giant billiard table, what gives us free will?
From the moment the universe began its existence, these bits and pieces have been bouncing off each other in predictable ways, and wouldn't the same apply to all the bits and pieces that make our bodies and brain? Couldn't i argue that everything we say and do is theoretically predictable?
I'm typing these words and thinking this because a few atoms billions of years ago collided in such a way that caused a giant chain reaction all the way up to this?
Or should we just take "free will" as a fact? Wouldn't that seriously break the current accepted theory of the way the universe functions? Since my thoughts are all made up of electrical signals that should be acting in a predictable way, but arnt? |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 18:20:00 -
[318] - Quote
Terminal Insanity wrote:My question is this: in this (real not eve) universe, Everything is theoretically predictable. There is the 'conservation of information' rule and theres the fact one molecule hits another at a certain direction/speed and we can predict what will happen, right?
So if this is just one big giant billiard table, what gives us free will?
From the moment the universe began its existence, these bits and pieces have been bouncing off each other in predictable ways, and wouldn't the same apply to all the bits and pieces that make our bodies and brain? Couldn't i argue that everything we say and do is theoretically predictable?
I'm typing these words and thinking this because a few atoms billions of years ago collided in such a way that caused a giant chain reaction all the way up to this?
Or should we just take "free will" as a fact? Wouldn't that seriously break the current accepted theory of the way the universe functions? Since my thoughts are all made up of electrical signals that should be acting in a predictable way, but arnt?
a very interesting philosophical question, but it all hinges on on statement.
Quote:Everything is theoretically predictable
this is not true, so far as we understand it. in physics we would say that the universe is non-deterministic, which is a fancy way to say that it is impossible to know the position and momentum of every particle in the universe simultaneously. we have experimental evidence to support this claim in measurements of the consequences to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
now, locally and specifically, yes, science can make very precise predictions (planetary orbits for example). but these measurements always carry some measure of uncertainty; that some object will be at some location at some time to within +- some number of meters or seconds. but even at the most precise level, quantum mechanics outright forbids perfect certainty in measurements of position and velocity. because of this the very core of quantum mechanics is statistical. when we calculate the "position of a particle" what we are calculating is something called an Expectation Value, which is thought of as an average of the results of completely independent and isolated measurements of identical experiments (a million grad students make identical measurements of position on a million identical experiments simultaneously. the expectation value for the position of a particle would be the average of these measurements.)
the statistical, non-deterministic nature of the universe can be directly seen by examining the decay rates of radioactive isotopes. given a single atom of U-238 it is impossible to predict with perfect certainty precisely when it will decay, because even if we could measure the exact position and momentum of every nucleon and electron in that atom at the same time, to do so would fundamentally change its state, and our measurements would no longer be valid. but we CAN produce predictions that tell us the likelihood that it will decay within some amount of time, and if you give me a very large sample of U-238 i can tell you about how many years it will be until some quantity of it decays. |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises Unprovoked Aggression
262
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 20:10:00 -
[319] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote: this is not true, so far as we understand it. in physics we would say that the universe is non-deterministic, which is a fancy way to say that it is impossible to know the position and momentum of every particle in the universe simultaneously. we have experimental evidence to support this claim in measurements of the consequences to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
now, locally and specifically, yes, science can make very precise predictions (planetary orbits for example). but these measurements always carry some measure of uncertainty; that some object will be at some location at some time to within +- some number of meters or seconds. but even at the most precise level, quantum mechanics outright forbids perfect certainty in measurements of position and velocity. because of this the very core of quantum mechanics is statistical. when we calculate the "position of a particle" what we are calculating is something called an Expectation Value, which is thought of as an average of the results of completely independent and isolated measurements of identical experiments (a million grad students make identical measurements of position on a million identical experiments simultaneously. the expectation value for the position of a particle would be the average of these measurements.)
the statistical, non-deterministic nature of the universe can be directly seen by examining the decay rates of radioactive isotopes. given a single atom of U-238 it is impossible to predict with perfect certainty precisely when it will decay, because even if we could measure the exact position and momentum of every nucleon and electron in that atom at the same time, to do so would fundamentally change its state, and our measurements would no longer be valid. but we CAN produce predictions that tell us the likelihood that it will decay within some amount of time, and if you give me a very large sample of U-238 i can tell you about how many years it will be until some quantity of it decays.
I think this just speaks to our lack of ability to accurately measure/observe things without changing them. I find it hard to believe everything is only 'statistically' there. It might be IMPOSSIBLE for us to ever know the exact position/momentum of every particle... but there is still some fundamental reason these particles are where they are, and even if we'll never know... there IS a cause/effect reason for it, isnt there?
This would be more of a thought experiment then a real science experiment i guess
But lets assume we aren't measuring or observing anything at all. All of these particles are still bumping into each other in a Cause/Effect system... even if we cant currently measure, observe, or understand why or how they do it. There must be some reason a particle appears in one location rather then the other.
If we could look at the universe through the eyes of a God and freely observe without changing anything, wouldn't we see a predictable chain of events, all springing from that initial 'Big Bang'? Wouldn't the initial conditions of that event basically 'set up' the entire chain of cause/effect events from that moment all the way forward through time?
(I think the new popular theory is string theory branes bumping into eachother? =P)
I believe that science as it is requires Causality. And Free Will directly conflicts with Causality. I don't think the two can co-exist.
BTW i'm not religious at all, i consider myself agnostic. This is just something thats been puzzling me for years. I obviously have no scientific training, but i get lost on wikipedia from time to time =P |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 20:56:00 -
[320] - Quote
Terminal Insanity wrote:Tsadkiel wrote: this is not true, so far as we understand it. in physics we would say that the universe is non-deterministic, which is a fancy way to say that it is impossible to know the position and momentum of every particle in the universe simultaneously. we have experimental evidence to support this claim in measurements of the consequences to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
now, locally and specifically, yes, science can make very precise predictions (planetary orbits for example). but these measurements always carry some measure of uncertainty; that some object will be at some location at some time to within +- some number of meters or seconds. but even at the most precise level, quantum mechanics outright forbids perfect certainty in measurements of position and velocity. because of this the very core of quantum mechanics is statistical. when we calculate the "position of a particle" what we are calculating is something called an Expectation Value, which is thought of as an average of the results of completely independent and isolated measurements of identical experiments (a million grad students make identical measurements of position on a million identical experiments simultaneously. the expectation value for the position of a particle would be the average of these measurements.)
the statistical, non-deterministic nature of the universe can be directly seen by examining the decay rates of radioactive isotopes. given a single atom of U-238 it is impossible to predict with perfect certainty precisely when it will decay, because even if we could measure the exact position and momentum of every nucleon and electron in that atom at the same time, to do so would fundamentally change its state, and our measurements would no longer be valid. but we CAN produce predictions that tell us the likelihood that it will decay within some amount of time, and if you give me a very large sample of U-238 i can tell you about how many years it will be until some quantity of it decays.
I think this just speaks to our lack of ability to accurately measure/observe things without changing them. I find it hard to believe everything is only 'statistically' there. It might be IMPOSSIBLE for us to ever know the exact position/momentum of every particle... but there is still some fundamental reason these particles are where they are, and even if we'll never know... there IS a cause/effect reason for it, isnt there? This would be more of a thought experiment then a real science experiment i guess But lets assume we aren't measuring or observing anything at all. All of these particles are still bumping into each other in a Cause/Effect system... even if we cant currently measure, observe, or understand why or how they do it. There must be some reason a particle appears in one location rather then the other. If we could look at the universe through the eyes of a God and freely observe without changing anything, wouldn't we see a predictable chain of events, all springing from that initial 'Big Bang'? Wouldn't the initial conditions of that event basically 'set up' the entire chain of cause/effect events from that moment all the way forward through time? (I think the new popular theory is string theory branes bumping into eachother? =P) I believe that science as it is requires Causality. And Free Will directly conflicts with Causality. I don't think the two can co-exist. BTW i'm not religious at all, i consider myself agnostic. This is just something thats been puzzling me for years. I obviously have no scientific training, but i get lost on wikipedia from time to time =P
the Heisenberg uncertainty principle has absolutely nothing to do with the state of our technological ability to make measurements. it is a result of the fundamental nature of matter in our universe. you can have as much trouble as you like trying to "believe" in the quantum statistical nature of the universe, but the evidence is there for all to see.
now, yes, our universe appears to be bound by the law of causality, but you must understand that there is a distinct difference between observing the consequences to this a priori and a postiriori. yes, we exist the way we do today because of the interactions of particles throughout the lifetime of the universe, and yes, the way we will exist in the future will depend on how said particles interact now. but what i am trying to tell you is that, based on our current knowledge, it is fundamentally impossible to predict these interactions before they happen with absolute certainty at a quantum mechanical level. the farther ahead in time we try to predict the outcome of a series of events, the less certain we become of the results. to our knowledge it is impossible to completely determine the future state of the universe with perfect precision based on its current and past states.
as for your statement about "looking at the universe through the eyes of god" i cannot possibly make a meaningful, scientific comment. by the mere statement that such an observational frame exists you have already assumed your conclusion, that the universe is deterministic, and therefore concluded your assumption... |
|
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises Unprovoked Aggression
264
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 23:36:00 -
[321] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote: the Heisenberg uncertainty principle has absolutely nothing to do with the state of our technological ability to make measurements. it is a result of the fundamental nature of matter in our universe. you can have as much trouble as you like trying to "believe" in the quantum statistical nature of the universe, but the evidence is there for all to see.
How do we know its not our technology? Even if its impossible to build the technology (because what its built of is the same stuff we're trying to measure?)
What makes us so certain of this uncertainty? =p
Reading about Einstein's Slit experiment...
Quote:Bohr's response was that the wall is quantum mechanical as well, and that to measure the recoil to accuracy the momentum of the wall must be known to this accuracy before the particle passes through. This introduces an uncertainty in the position of the wall and therefore the position of the slit equal to , and if the wall's momentum is known precisely enough to measure the recoil, the slit's position is uncertain enough to disallow a position measurement. And Einstein's Box...
Quote:Bohr spent a day considering this setup, but eventually realized that if the energy of the box is precisely known, the time at which the shutter opens is uncertain.
It seems to me Bohr is still assuming his theory is correct and applying it to the wall+slit or the Shutter+Box+Timer used to measure it. But how can we apply his theory to the experiment like that when we haven't even proved it yet?
Now im sure there's something I, or wikipedia is missing. I'm just not sure =P
If this is indeed a fundamental fact of nature, i guess that does leave some room for the possibility of free will |
Sumiragi
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 01:09:00 -
[322] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Sumiragi wrote:So the other night I needed to grab my keys from my bedroom. It was dark so I switched on the light to find them. Leaving the room, I flipped the switch and left. My question to you is, when I flipped the switch off where did the light go? so, you turn on your light, and billions of trillions of photons go screaming away from your light bulb! they bounce off the walls of your room and the objects it contains. as long as the light is on, photons continue to be emitted. a very small percentage of them are absorbed by your eye which you then perceive as sight. the rest bounce around until they are either absorbed by local materials (walls and objects, but also gasses!), or they escape from your room, home, planet, etc... this all happens in less than a blink. as a rule of thumb, light travels at about a foot per nanosecond in a vacuum, so unless your room is astronomically large (in a very literal sense), you will not be able to see any of this with your naked eyes.
A very genuine Thank you...I've actually had this thought for many years and no-one has been able to give me an answer, let alone an answer I can actually follow and understand.
Sir, I take my hat off to you. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 02:19:00 -
[323] - Quote
Terminal Insanity wrote:Tsadkiel wrote: the Heisenberg uncertainty principle has absolutely nothing to do with the state of our technological ability to make measurements. it is a result of the fundamental nature of matter in our universe. you can have as much trouble as you like trying to "believe" in the quantum statistical nature of the universe, but the evidence is there for all to see.
How do we know its not our technology? Even if its impossible to build the technology (because what its built of is the same stuff we're trying to measure?) The Uncertainty principal to me says that because we measure its momentum, we're changing its position. And if we measure its position, we change its momentum. But what if we could measure these without effecting it. Wouldn't that eliminate the Uncertainty principal? Or at least blame it on the inability of technology to properly measure the particle? What makes us so certain of this uncertainty? =p Reading about Einstein's Slit experiment... Quote:Bohr's response was that the wall is quantum mechanical as well, and that to measure the recoil to accuracy the momentum of the wall must be known to this accuracy before the particle passes through. This introduces an uncertainty in the position of the wall and therefore the position of the slit equal to , and if the wall's momentum is known precisely enough to measure the recoil, the slit's position is uncertain enough to disallow a position measurement. And Einstein's Box... Quote:Bohr spent a day considering this setup, but eventually realized that if the energy of the box is precisely known, the time at which the shutter opens is uncertain. It seems to me Bohr is still assuming his theory is correct and applying it to the wall+slit or the Shutter+Box+Timer used to measure it. But how can we apply his theory to the experiment like that when we haven't even proved it yet? Now im sure there's something I, or wikipedia is missing. I'm just not sure =P If this is indeed a fundamental fact of nature, i guess that does leave some room for the possibility of free will
the Uncertainty Principle arises directly from the mathematics of quantum mechanics. it was predicted mathematically and then its effects were measured experimentally. in fact, you can derive an uncertainty relation for two, non commuting quantum mechanical operators. just as there is a position-momentum uncertainty relation, there is an energy-time uncertainty relation, and an uncertainty relation between two orthogonal angular momenta. nothing in the mathematics makes any assumption as to the devices or methods used to do the measuring.
the other thing is that you seem to be mixing two separate principles of quantum mechanics. the act of changing a system by measuring it is called the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. the inability to simultaneously measure a particles position and momentum to perfect certainty is the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. i may have lent to some of this confusion earlier by using the Copenhagen interpretation in my discussion of the quantum statistical nature of the universe. these are two different things. the uncertainty in Heisenberg's principle is not a result of the Copenhagen interpretation.
the two experiments that you are referencing are thought experiments proposed by Einstein (who was fervently against quantum mechanics). such thought experiments are used in science to attack the weaknesses of a theory or hypothesis, and the idea is that if the theory or hypothesis can defend such arguments in a non ad-hoc manner, then it does so. these are tools used to refine scientific reasoning. |
Khellendrose
Eastmarch Enterprise's
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 11:22:00 -
[324] - Quote
Define and give examples in no less than 50 words of Xenophobic Expansionism |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 15:36:00 -
[325] - Quote
Khellendrose wrote:Define and give examples in no less than 50 words of Xenophobic Expansionism
i have no real understanding of what that is... the words themselves explain it a bit i think. xeno, "alien?" phobic "fear" expansionism... so maybe it's a country that expands its boarders out of fear of its neighbors? i'm really quite terrible at history so i can't think of any examples off the top of my head. sorry!
|
Elirel
Alpha.Tech
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 16:05:00 -
[326] - Quote
Khellendrose wrote:Define and give examples in no less than 50 words of Xenophobic Expansionism
USA |
Professor Alphane
Alphane Research Co-operative
300
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 18:22:00 -
[327] - Quote
Now this is based on something I saw on QI and may or may not be true.
Speed of light can be slowed by passing the beam through other materials (bromine or bromide sounds familiar).
Given this and given we do not really know the 'consitancy' of space, how do we know what the universe really looks like , AFAIK all our assumptions are based on the speed of light being constant ?
A.
YOU MUST THINK FIRST.... |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 19:58:00 -
[328] - Quote
Professor Alphane wrote:Now this is based on something I saw on QI and may or may not be true.
Speed of light can be slowed by passing the beam through other materials (bromine or bromide sounds familiar).
Given this and given we do not really know the 'consitancy' of space, how do we know what the universe really looks like , AFAIK all our assumptions are based on the speed of light being constant ?
A.
this question actually gave me pause. i was going to try and quote empirical evidence for the geometry of the universe that did not rely on our current cosmological models, and therefore the speed of light, but i couldn't (at least not off the top of my head)! if we ever gain the ability to travel astronomical distances easily, the measurement of spacial geometry becomes trivial. simply travel vast distances and make three turns. if you are able to return to your initial location by making only 90 degree turns, then the universe is "closed" (spherical. like drawing a large triangle over the surface of the earth). if you can return to your initial position and the angle of the turns add up to less than 180 degrees, then the universe is "open" (saddle shaped, like trying to draw a triangle inside of a large bowl). if you return to your initial position and the angles of your turn add up to exactly 180 degrees, then the universe is "flat" (like drawing a triangle on a piece of paper).
on another note, the speed of light is different in all mediums when compared to a vacuum =D in water it is approximately 33% slower, and we can get this directly from the refractive index, n. the refractive index is defined as the ratio between the speed of light in a vacuum, c, and the speed of light in a material, V. we can measure n from a simple geometric examination of how light bends in a given material, and yes, this is somewhat of a simplification (there are wavelength effects as well) but the point is
matter slows light down.
the universality of c can be seen directly from classical electrodynamics. i think i wrote about this in an earlier post, which was to answer a similar question.
hope this helps!
T. |
God's Apples
Space Boats 'N Hoes
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 02:50:00 -
[329] - Quote
Elirel wrote:Khellendrose wrote:Define and give examples in no less than 50 words of Xenophobic Expansionism USA
Beat me to it. |
T'san Manaan
Murientor Tribe
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 16:41:00 -
[330] - Quote
Didn't read everything as it was making my head hurt so if this was covered sorry. I got excited to read the OP as I have a question that has been bothering me for a while.
If the universe is constantly expanding what is it expanding into and why can't we see what it is expanding into? |
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 20:16:00 -
[331] - Quote
T'san Manaan wrote:Didn't read everything as it was making my head hurt so if this was covered sorry. I got excited to read the OP as I have a question that has been bothering me for a while.
If the universe is constantly expanding what is it expanding into and why can't we see what it is expanding into?
no worries =D i write about this on post #196 on page 10 of this thread. the long and short of it is that the term "expanding" is somewhat misleading. it's more like the universes "unit of measure for distance" is increasing. this IS a good question though. when i took my first cosmology class it gave me no end of headaches heheh. |
Kehro Urgus
168
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 23:56:00 -
[332] - Quote
This is more about geophysics but I was very bored one day reading Wikipedia and stumbled across one article where it stated gravity is slightly stronger when moving east to west (or vice-versa... I can't remember) and it never offered an explanation why. I can't remember the subject of the article. I vaguely remember looking up the Coriolis effect.
I thought it was very strange and I couldn't really figure out why this is true. Only thing I can think of is if one is travelling west the earth's surface rises underfoot ever so slightly due to earth's curvature and rotation but I have my doubts whether it's a valid explanation. I hear voices and they don't like you very much! |
Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
74
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 01:22:00 -
[333] - Quote
There is a theory that at the moment a large part of the Universe ( I think it was around 75-60%) consists out of Dark Matter.
This might be a reason as of why our Universal expansion rate keeps increasing instead of the expected decreasing rate which would resolve in the Big Implosion.
However if Dark Matter is the reason the Universe might be keeping on expanding at an increasing rate might this also not hold true on micro level at an linear rate?
Also if Dark Mattr is one of the main reasons the Universe is on an increasing expansion rate, then why doesn't the expansion rate drop anyways since this would involve more Dark Matter comming into existense to keep the expansion rate increasing. How and why does Dark Matter seem to increase
A: Universal expansion rate B: Why don't we see a decline in the expansion velocity anyways or does Dark Matter create more Dark matter? Is there a theory about that? C: If Dark Matter is really around 75-80% of the known Universe, wouldn't that also open up the theory that this matter is also present in solid forms on a very microscopic level. If so what effects would those have.
Appologies for my poor english.
|
Professor Alphane
Alphane Research Co-operative
301
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 13:25:00 -
[334] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Professor Alphane wrote:Now this is based on something I saw on QI and may or may not be true.
Speed of light can be slowed by passing the beam through other materials (bromine or bromide sounds familiar).
Given this and given we do not really know the 'consitancy' of space, how do we know what the universe really looks like , AFAIK all our assumptions are based on the speed of light being constant ?
A. this question actually gave me pause. i was going to try and quote empirical evidence for the geometry of the universe that did not rely on our current cosmological models, and therefore the speed of light, but i couldn't (at least not off the top of my head)! if we ever gain the ability to travel astronomical distances easily, the measurement of spacial geometry becomes trivial. simply travel vast distances and make three turns. if you are able to return to your initial location by making only 90 degree turns, then the universe is "closed" (spherical. like drawing a large triangle over the surface of the earth). if you can return to your initial position and the angle of the turns add up to less than 180 degrees, then the universe is "open" (saddle shaped, like trying to draw a triangle inside of a large bowl). if you return to your initial position and the angles of your turn add up to exactly 180 degrees, then the universe is "flat" (like drawing a triangle on a piece of paper). on another note, the speed of light is different in all mediums when compared to a vacuum =D in water it is approximately 33% slower, and we can get this directly from the refractive index, n. the refractive index is defined as the ratio between the speed of light in a vacuum, c, and the speed of light in a material, V. we can measure n from a simple geometric examination of how light bends in a given material, and yes, this is somewhat of a simplification (there are wavelength effects as well) but the point is matter slows light down.the universality of c can be seen directly from classical electrodynamics. i think i wrote about this in an earlier post, which was to answer a similar question. hope this helps! T.
Wow I think I might of actually stumped you with that one. How about we try this little twist on the theory
If matter slows light
taken to it's nth degree matter STOPS light.
Given thats is the edge of the universe as you see it merely the edge of the 'visible' univerese given the length of a beam of light is not infinite.
Beyond the 'edge' you see nothing as no (photon) light reaches you from that space.
This might also explain the fact people seem to believe there is more mass in the univerese than there should be (hence the dark matter theory) .
It's possible that because gravity is an interaction beween 2 objects and not an energy packet you would still see the gravitational effect upon bodies you can see from bodies you cannot because of photonic decay (for want of a better phrase)
What do you reckon?
YOU MUST THINK FIRST.... |
Professor Alphane
Alphane Research Co-operative
301
|
Posted - 2012.03.17 10:17:00 -
[335] - Quote
Sorry perhaps I went to far , I hope I haven't offeded you.
It was just a logic game to me but I later realised this does sort of challenge some of the fundamentals in a totally unporavable way , these fundametals are most likely 'proved' in maths ( a form that is beyond my comprehesion currently) and far beyond my rather childish 'If X , why Y?' post.
Thanks for your time and effort in this thread though it has been frankly fascinating.
A.
YOU MUST THINK FIRST.... |
Amaroq Dricaldari
Malicious Mission Murderers
105
|
Posted - 2012.03.18 11:16:00 -
[336] - Quote
Schrodinger's Cat. Need we say more? This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.19 15:50:00 -
[337] - Quote
Professor Alphane wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:Professor Alphane wrote:Now this is based on something I saw on QI and may or may not be true.
Speed of light can be slowed by passing the beam through other materials (bromine or bromide sounds familiar).
Given this and given we do not really know the 'consitancy' of space, how do we know what the universe really looks like , AFAIK all our assumptions are based on the speed of light being constant ?
A. this question actually gave me pause. i was going to try and quote empirical evidence for the geometry of the universe that did not rely on our current cosmological models, and therefore the speed of light, but i couldn't (at least not off the top of my head)! if we ever gain the ability to travel astronomical distances easily, the measurement of spacial geometry becomes trivial. simply travel vast distances and make three turns. if you are able to return to your initial location by making only 90 degree turns, then the universe is "closed" (spherical. like drawing a large triangle over the surface of the earth). if you can return to your initial position and the angle of the turns add up to less than 180 degrees, then the universe is "open" (saddle shaped, like trying to draw a triangle inside of a large bowl). if you return to your initial position and the angles of your turn add up to exactly 180 degrees, then the universe is "flat" (like drawing a triangle on a piece of paper). on another note, the speed of light is different in all mediums when compared to a vacuum =D in water it is approximately 33% slower, and we can get this directly from the refractive index, n. the refractive index is defined as the ratio between the speed of light in a vacuum, c, and the speed of light in a material, V. we can measure n from a simple geometric examination of how light bends in a given material, and yes, this is somewhat of a simplification (there are wavelength effects as well) but the point is matter slows light down.the universality of c can be seen directly from classical electrodynamics. i think i wrote about this in an earlier post, which was to answer a similar question. hope this helps! T. Wow I think I might of actually stumped you with that one. How about we try this little twist on the theory If matter slows light taken to it's nth degree matter STOPS light. Given thats is the edge of the universe as you see it merely the edge of the 'visible' univerese given the length of a beam of light is not infinite. Beyond the 'edge' you see nothing as no (photon) light reaches you from that space. This might also explain the fact people seem to believe there is more mass in the univerese than there should be (hence the dark matter theory) . It's possible that because gravity is an interaction beween 2 objects and not an energy packet you would still see the gravitational effect upon bodies you can see from bodies you cannot because of photonic decay (for want of a better phrase) What do you reckon?
no no! you didn't offend me at all! i just got side tracked, that's all. i'm not entirely sure i understand your question though... the idea of stopped light is somewhat nonsensical. light exists as a self propagating wave-particle, it MUST have a velocity. stopped light would just be a static electromagnetic field. stopped light in matter would then simply be a configuration of charges and currents that holds the energy carried by the initial photon.
as for dark matter being the result of matter out beyond our field of view (this is the "surface" of the cosmic microwave background), i can certainly say this isn't the case. we can directly observe the changed trajectories of objects in the universe in the presence of dark matter, and the effect is definitely local (circular and elliptical orbits, not hyperbolic). |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.19 15:56:00 -
[338] - Quote
Killer Gandry wrote:There is a theory that at the moment a large part of the Universe ( I think it was around 75-60%) consists out of Dark Matter.
This might be a reason as of why our Universal expansion rate keeps increasing instead of the expected decreasing rate which would resolve in the Big Implosion.
However if Dark Matter is the reason the Universe might be keeping on expanding at an increasing rate might this also not hold true on micro level at an linear rate?
Also if Dark Mattr is one of the main reasons the Universe is on an increasing expansion rate, then why doesn't the expansion rate drop anyways since this would involve more Dark Matter comming into existense to keep the expansion rate increasing. How and why does Dark Matter seem to increase
A: Universal expansion rate B: Why don't we see a decline in the expansion velocity anyways or does Dark Matter create more Dark matter? Is there a theory about that? C: If Dark Matter is really around 75-80% of the known Universe, wouldn't that also open up the theory that this matter is also present in solid forms on a very microscopic level. If so what effects would those have.
Appologies for my poor english.
no worries about your english, it's fine =D again, i wrote about the expansion of the universe on post #196 on page 10 of this thread. the rate of expansion of the universe has the same value on all scales. the reason why we don't "experience" it is because that rate carries an inverse factor of distance measured in megaparsecs! the energy that fuels this expansion is tentatively called Dark Energy and questions like "where do dark matter and dark energy come from?" are some of the biggest questions in modern cosmology. i am sorry to say that i cannot give any concrete answer to this because the scientific community is still trying to figure it out =D |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.19 16:19:00 -
[339] - Quote
Kehro Urgus wrote:This is more about geophysics but I was very bored one day reading Wikipedia and stumbled across one article where it stated gravity is slightly stronger when moving east to west (or vice-versa... I can't remember) and it never offered an explanation why. I can't remember the subject of the article. I vaguely remember looking up the Coriolis effect.
I thought it was very strange and I couldn't really figure out why this is true. Only thing I can think of is if one is travelling west the earth's surface rises underfoot ever so slightly due to earth's curvature and rotation but I have my doubts whether it's a valid explanation.
an excellent question! what we experience on the surface of the earth as gravitational acceleration is actually the combined effect of multiple accelerations, the two greatest contributors of which are pure gravitational acceleration and centripetal acceleration. the total acceleration towards the center of the earth that an object feels is often referred to as the apparent or effective gravity. if you move with or against the rotation of the earth (east-west or west-east) you change your angular velocity and therefore your centripetal acceleration. this then also affects the effective gravity you experience. this change would only occur while you are moving. |
Professor Alphane
Alphane Research Co-operative
301
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 04:21:00 -
[340] - Quote
RE: Stopped light - the fact matter can slow light to me implies something can interact with the beam and slow it, over a possibly infinite space surely this decelaration must = total , ie loss of momentum.. so yes basically what I am suggesting is that this beam will deteriote into your blob of random EM eventually.
You say that light has some property to self perpatuate, that sort of goes against my thoughts that nothing is truely infinite other than 'change' .
YOU MUST THINK FIRST.... |
|
Professor Alphane
Alphane Research Co-operative
301
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 04:26:00 -
[341] - Quote
You also may be able to explain this to me ..
I once saw a 'gimmik' item on a website that was a small ball that somehow became heavier with somesort of spinning item inside . Never saw one and only vaguley remeber the details but it did sort of imply to me it is possible to increase the gravity of an item somehow.
Is that true.. if so how and are there more than one method?
YOU MUST THINK FIRST.... |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
57
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 15:40:00 -
[342] - Quote
Professor Alphane wrote:RE: Stopped light - the fact matter can slow light to me implies something can interact with the beam and slow it, over a possibly infinite space surely this decelaration must = total , ie loss of momentum.. so yes basically what I am suggesting is that this beam will deteriote into your blob of random EM eventually.
You say that light has some property to self perpatuate, that sort of goes against my thoughts that nothing is truely infinite other than 'change' .
i've said it before and i'll say it again, you can be as uncomfortable with the scientific results all you want, but that wont change the nature of the universe.
yes, light is self propagating. this comes directly from Maxwell's equations when applying them as a solution to the wave equation. a changing E field can induce a changing B field which can induce a changing E field etc...
the other thing to note that the slowing down of light i am referring to in my previous post is a change in its velocity when it enters a medium, not the continual deceleration of light. we have no evidence to support the latter. light traveling at c enters a medium where the speed of light is 1 m/s, the light will start traveling at 1 m/s and keep traveling at 1 m/s until it is absorbed or it leaves the medium.
as for the spinning toy thing, i've never heard of this. now, it IS true that that space-time curves in the presence of energy densities (and mass carries a great deal of it, hence Newtonian gravitation). we have indeed proved this in the lab and it implies that a compressed spring is ever so slightly "heavier" than an uncompressed spring, but to see this at a macroscopic level, and in a toy non the less, makes me suspicious. do you have a link to this thing? i would love to read about it! =D |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1127
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 17:23:00 -
[343] - Quote
I remember reading 10+ years ago that someone built a spinning device that uses the fact that capacitors become slightly heavier when they take a charge. The idea was to charge the capacitor at the top of the loop and discharge it at the bottom, adding a tiny bit of inertia "lifting" the device and making it lighter. The sensationalist press reporting it called it "antigravity". It was a neat trick that could only reduce the weight by a fraction of a percent. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Professor Alphane
Alphane Research Co-operative
301
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 22:03:00 -
[344] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Professor Alphane wrote:RE: Stopped light - the fact matter can slow light to me implies something can interact with the beam and slow it, over a possibly infinite space surely this decelaration must = total , ie loss of momentum.. so yes basically what I am suggesting is that this beam will deteriote into your blob of random EM eventually.
You say that light has some property to self perpatuate, that sort of goes against my thoughts that nothing is truely infinite other than 'change' . i've said it before and i'll say it again, you can be as uncomfortable with the scientific results all you want, but that wont change the nature of the universe. yes, light is self propagating. this comes directly from Maxwell's equations when applying them as a solution to the wave equation. a changing E field can induce a changing B field which can induce a changing E field etc... the other thing to note that the slowing down of light i am referring to in my previous post is a change in its velocity when it enters a medium, not the continual deceleration of light. we have no evidence to support the latter. light traveling at c enters a medium where the speed of light is 1 m/s, the light will start traveling at 1 m/s and keep traveling at 1 m/s until it is absorbed or it leaves the medium. as for the spinning toy thing, i've never heard of this. now, it IS true that that space-time curves in the presence of energy densities (and mass carries a great deal of it, hence Newtonian gravitation). we have indeed proved this in the lab and it implies that a compressed spring is ever so slightly "heavier" than an uncompressed spring, but to see this at a macroscopic level, and in a toy non the less, makes me suspicious. do you have a link to this thing? i would love to read about it! =D
I'll need to do some searching to find the link to that toy, I saw one at christmas when I was shopping for my son but can't remeber what it called itself.
Still your description of light is hard to reconcile to my mind what you now describe is a perfect resonating 'pertual motion' entity that while being influenced in velocity by enviroment doesn't lose it's perfectly phased and balanced wave unto the infinite. You are implying it is constant in everything but velocity but then it was earlier though it was of constant velocity.
Science is only the abiltiy to see what can be seen, but forever there is more that could be seen
YOU MUST THINK FIRST.... |
Tarn Kugisa
Space Mongolian Pinked
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 05:18:00 -
[345] - Quote
How possible is FTL Travel? If it isn't why isn't it?
Though I believe that anything is possible through Science, because our understanding of the Universe is all Theory Real Caldari Hull Tank (And Win doing so) Support https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=16580 |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
497
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 09:49:00 -
[346] - Quote
Tarn Kugisa wrote:How possible is FTL Travel? If it isn't why isn't it?
Though I believe that anything is possible through Science, because our understanding of the Universe is all Theory
I hope Tsadkiel won't mind me trying and I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong. But what I remember from school, the reason you'll never achieve FTL is because of mass. The larger the object is, the more energy you'll need.
I think you'll reach like 99.9% of traveling at the speed of light but you are looking (I think) at infinite mass and infinite energy for that one procent. I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
Professor Alphane
Alphane Research Co-operative
301
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 13:37:00 -
[347] - Quote
Thanks again for this thread , most enjoyable on EVE gate EVA so far
I hope your not offended if I seem to be stubbonly holding on to my small minded lttle view but truely that is probably a fair assement. 'Small minded'
I more than appreciate you taking your time and effort to teach me somehting I'm very interested in, but unfortunatly I don't have the knowledge of the fundamentals nor the mathmatical ablity to fully understand your answers, while I generally know what your on about and I can compare that to what I think I know, your full meaning escapes me.
I'm not being obtuse and stubborn of my views (well hopefully) I really don't understand the technicalities or full implications of what you say and it would take me some time to fully study the subject to understand even half of what you have said in this thread.
But if you would be good enough to indulge me once again
Oribital deteration- Is the earth destined to die in a fiery death by orbiting closer and closer the sun?
YOU MUST THINK FIRST.... |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
497
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 14:06:00 -
[348] - Quote
Professor Alphane wrote:
Oribital deteration- Is the earth destined to die in a fiery death by orbiting closer and closer the sun?
Anyone's guess at this point. But not really a concern of ours since it is about, oh, four billion years into the future. I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
So Sensational
Ventures
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 14:34:00 -
[349] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:Professor Alphane wrote:
Oribital deteration- Is the earth destined to die in a fiery death by orbiting closer and closer the sun?
Anyone's guess at this point. But not really a concern of ours since it is about, oh, four billion years into the future. Not to mention that in theory 4 billion years of technological evolution is also likely something that would allow us to stop it from happening, seeing as how we're already considering how to do this with asteroids headed our way. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
58
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 15:33:00 -
[350] - Quote
i am sorry for the sparse replies, i have a lot on my plate at the moment. a few days ago i found evidence that completely invalidates the research i've been doing for the past six months... XP so i've been going over my work with a fine toothed comb... such is science...
oh, and Professor Alphane, again, you haven't offended me at all! i tend to be somewhat blunt and terse at times so so it may come across like that, but i assure you it's nothing.
i will try to answer your questions as soon as i get more time, but again, busy busy busy. keep them coming and i will do what i can! thank you all for contributing to this thread. i for one have really enjoyed the experience so far! |
|
Whitehound
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 13:55:00 -
[351] - Quote
Why look at something that is far away, unreachable and happened in the past?
Why the need to find and to explain gravity when it is all around us?
Why make a difference between time and gravity? |
The Lobsters
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 03:48:00 -
[352] - Quote
Two part question
1. Gyroscopes, and the forces contained/created by them. Why do they prefer to stay in a certain alignment. I've never had a decent answer on that one and I've asked a few scientists chums.
2. Fusion reactors. No longer a scientific problem. Now an engineering problem, we should see them soon enough.
Aren't they going to be big-assed gyroscopes powered by big-assed magnets? Are there going to be any secondary space/time effects when we start to produce forces of that scale?
You thread's mega btw! |
Selinate
682
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:02:00 -
[353] - Quote
The Lobsters wrote:Two part question
2. Fusion reactors. No longer a scientific problem. Now an engineering problem, we should see them soon enough.
Aren't they going to be big-assed gyroscopes powered by big-assed magnets? Are there going to be any secondary space/time effects when we start to produce forces of that scale?
You thread's mega btw!
It's still a scientific problem, but it's also an engineering problem. The two can overlap sometimes.
But no, they aren't going to be gyroscopes. I cringe at using the general word "magnets" when describing it also, but some designs include large electromagnets. The reason that I cringe at using the word magnet is that the plasma inside a fusion reactor produces it's own magnetic field also.
The big problem with these is that none of them run continuously, they all pulse over and over again to produce fusion. These pulses use a LOT of energy. Hint, this is also why I scoffed at people in a thread a long, long time ago who suggested a space craft that runs off fusion of deuterium in free space. The energy required to acquire that hydrogen and fuse it? BHAHAHAHAHA.
I got sidetracked, any who it gets more complicated than that. Different fuel types produce different types of particles which also carries it's own issues, or creates a better method of energy production (some fuels produce charged particles at high energy, which is nice charged particles produce electric energy very efficiently). However, some of these fuel types are almost non-existent naturally on earth, and while they can be produced, no one has really made the effort yet (probably due to funding problems and over-regulation by the government).
The other method is kinetic confinement, and I don't know much about that other than it uses huge lasers to compress deuterium into a very small space until it begins to undergo fusion.
One note you should consider is most advancements in nuclear reactors/technology (fusion included) is almost always hampered by over regulation of the government. There are designs floating around right now which still have yet to be accepted by the NRC, and these all just use UO2. When you start using new fuel types, it's incredibly expensive and time consuming.
So, in short, no, fusion reactors aren't coming any time soon and probably won't until people realize "OMG WTF WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF FOSSIL FUELS" or "OMG WTF THE WORLD IS ON FIRE FROM GLOBAL WARMING". |
The Lobsters
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 04:21:00 -
[354] - Quote
Wow, thanks for a prompt reply. And yes, the 'magnet' description is crass.
A friend of mine returned from CERN last year with the news that the scientific team working on the fusion reactor had been reduced. Certain breakthroughs had been made and their main problem now was finding a way to build the next big self sustaining machine.
So he said anyway. They could have just sacked him and told him they'd 'cracked it, thanks for the help mate' just to get rid of him
I guess my real pondering was, with these forces of a whole new magnitude, it's gotta be bending space |
Professor Alphane
Alphane Research Co-operative
308
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 13:01:00 -
[355] - Quote
When I saw a proggrame about that sort of experiment the (biggest) laser (array in the world) wasn't used for commpresion , the 'pellet' was in a massive pressure chamber, the laser was the 'Ignition' device.
YOU MUST THINK FIRST.... |
Whitehound
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:46:00 -
[356] - Quote
Selinate wrote:... I cringe at using the general word "magnets" when describing it also, but some designs include large electromagnets. The reason that I cringe at using the word magnet is that the plasma inside a fusion reactor produces it's own magnetic field also. ... It is pretty pointless to use magnets on anything that does not somehow have a magnetic field, you know?
I cringe at your fake cringing! |
Selinate
684
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:24:00 -
[357] - Quote
Professor Alphane wrote:When I saw a proggrame about that sort of experiment the (biggest) laser (array in the world) wasn't used for commpresion , the 'pellet' was in a massive pressure chamber, the laser was the 'Ignition' device.
Ignition is achieved by compression of the fuel pellet down to a certain volume, at which point it begins to fuse. |
Selinate
684
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:27:00 -
[358] - Quote
The Lobsters wrote:Wow, thanks for a prompt reply. And yes, the 'magnet' description is crass. A friend of mine returned from CERN last year with the news that the scientific team working on the fusion reactor had been reduced. Certain breakthroughs had been made and their main problem now was finding a way to build the next big self sustaining machine. So he said anyway. They could have just sacked him and told him they'd 'cracked it, thanks for the help mate' just to get rid of him I guess my real pondering was, with these forces of a whole new magnitude, it's gotta be bending space
CERN? I didn't think they were doing any fusion-related research up there, I thought it was mainly theoretical nuclear/particle physics. Self-sustaining is also what I'm referring to as far as the fact that these reactors must currently pulse in order to achieve fusion, they need to run continuously, i.e. self-sustaining.
But yeah, that sounds about right, cutting the research funds for fusion. TBH, As far as I know, one of the few real bastions of fusion research is the nuclear engineering department at MIT. Most other people will just go "meh" at it.
As far as bending space, I don't know. That's a theoretical physicist's field, not mine. I'm sure they might argue that there are some theories that argue that all magnetic fields in itself is some form of bending a dimension of space, but it's just not something I'm familiar with. |
Selinate
684
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:30:00 -
[359] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Selinate wrote:... I cringe at using the general word "magnets" when describing it also, but some designs include large electromagnets. The reason that I cringe at using the word magnet is that the plasma inside a fusion reactor produces it's own magnetic field also. ... It is pretty pointless to use magnets on anything that does not somehow have a magnetic field, you know? I cringe at your fake cringing!
You see, this is one of the biggest misconceptions about magnetic fields.
A magnetic field does not attract. It does not repel. That is an electric field. All particles have an electric field. However, a particle only needs charge to respond to a magnetic field, in itself if a particle is still, it has no magnetic field.
A magnetic field simply causes charged particles to go round in a circle. However, moving electric fields also cause a magnetic field, but no, it's not pointless to use magnets on something that does not have a magnetic field. This is a misconception. It's pointless to use a magnetic field on a particle without charge (like a neutron) though, or a charged particle that isn't moving.. |
Whitehound
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:46:00 -
[360] - Quote
Selinate wrote:You see, this is one of the biggest misconceptions about magnetic fields.
A magnetic field does not attract. It does not repel. That is an electric field. All particles have an electric field. However, a particle only needs charge to respond to a magnetic field, in itself if a particle is still, it has no magnetic field.
A magnetic field simply causes charged particles to go round in a circle. However, moving electric fields also cause a magnetic field, but no, it's not pointless to use magnets on something that does not have a magnetic field. This is a misconception. You mean this is your biggest misconception about magnetic fields. It is pretty pointless to use magnets on anything that does not somehow have a magnetic field. |
|
Selinate
684
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:52:00 -
[361] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Selinate wrote:You see, this is one of the biggest misconceptions about magnetic fields.
A magnetic field does not attract. It does not repel. That is an electric field. All particles have an electric field. However, a particle only needs charge to respond to a magnetic field, in itself if a particle is still, it has no magnetic field.
A magnetic field simply causes charged particles to go round in a circle. However, moving electric fields also cause a magnetic field, but no, it's not pointless to use magnets on something that does not have a magnetic field. This is a misconception. You mean this is your biggest misconception about magnetic fields. It is pretty pointless to use magnets on anything that does not somehow have a magnetic field.
0/10. Try trolling someone else, anyone with a degree knows you're an idiot now. |
Whitehound
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 17:06:00 -
[362] - Quote
Selinate wrote:0/10. Try trolling someone else, anyone with a degree knows you're an idiot now. Do not get mad just because you miss the point. It is not even your thread. Your comments are cute, but not really helpful. That you like to split hair for no other reason than to think out loud while you are still learning is of no interest to anyone.
Ask yourself, what is the point of using something if it does not interact with what you are trying to manipulate?
So cringe all you want. You are a fake. |
Selinate
685
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 17:14:00 -
[363] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Selinate wrote:0/10. Try trolling someone else, anyone with a degree knows you're an idiot now. Do not get mad just because you miss the point. It is not even your thread. Your comments are cute, but not really helpful. That you like to split hair for no other reason than to think out loud while you are still learning is of no interest to anyone. Ask yourself, what is the point of using something if it does not interact with what you are trying to manipulate? So cringe all you want. You are a fake.
Didn't I just tell you to troll someone else? Are you really that needy for attention? |
Whitehound
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 17:37:00 -
[364] - Quote
Selinate wrote:Didn't I just tell you to troll someone else? Are you really that needy for attention? You would not know what attention is if I gave some to you, noob. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
58
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 19:16:00 -
[365] - Quote
oh my, such frustration! such tension! how entertaining =D
let's start at the end and work our way backwards, shall we?
first, these two statements...
Quote:A magnetic field does not attract. It does not repel. That is an electric field. All particles have an electric field
and
Quote:It is pretty pointless to use magnets on anything that does not somehow have a magnetic field, you know?
... are incorrect (the first being completely incorrect and the second being incorrect in the context the discussion concerning magnetic confinement fusion).
the force acting on a charged particle of charge q and velocity V in the presence of a magnetic field B is precisely F = qV X B where all bold face characters are vectors. there is actually much more going on in this equation, and there are other ways it can be expressed, but this is generally the most familiar to people. the value of F can be either positive or negative, and so the charged particle can experience both attractive and repulsive forces with respect to the source of the magnetic field. this confusion may be from the close relationship between electric and magnetic fields.
consider a charged particle traveling in a straight line that suddenly enters a region of space with a local magnetic field of B. when it enters this region it experiences a force proportional to its velocity and it begins to move along a curved trajectory. now, lets say we didn't know that this field was a magnetic field. knowing the mass, charge, and velocity of the particle we could still conclude that there IS a magnetic field present because of how the charge accelerates. HOWEVER, what if we decided to move with the charge, matching its initial velocity of V? from our perspective the charge now has a velocity of 0. when we enter the region of space with the field, we will see the charge begin to accelerate! because we see that the charge had a velocity of 0 from our perspective, we can measure the acceleration and conclude that it is under the effect of an ELECTRIC field!
from these two conclusions we can see that both electric and magnetic fields are related by relativity transformations (be it special or Galilean). the electric and magnetic force were the first two fundamental forces to be unified mathematically, forming the electromagnetic force.
your statement that all particles have an electric field is, presently, incorrect by simple counter example: the neutrino, which has no charge or electromagnetic moment of any kind. it is a fully neutral lepton. i included the qualifier "presently" because if the Higgs field exists, and can be successfully coupled to the EM field, then this may no longer be the case, though current evidence in so far as we can measure it, suggests otherwise.
the second statement should also be answered by the above discussion, linking the electric field, magnetic field, and v together. whether or not a system has a magnetic field is a matter of reference frame.
|
Whitehound
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 19:44:00 -
[366] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:... and the second being incorrect in the context the discussion concerning magnetic confinement fusion).
the second statement should also be answered by the above discussion, linking the electric field, magnetic field, and v together. whether or not a system has a magnetic field is a matter of reference frame. As much as I like what you are trying to do with this thread are you being wrong. My comment was not given to you, but to Selinate and as such should not be interpreted by you. You are being too proud of yourself.
I have given three questions above, which you can answer. (Comment #352) |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
58
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 19:48:00 -
[367] - Quote
ooooook, there are some fairly important corrections to this statement that i feel i need to make... i mean no offense by this
Quote:The big problem with these is that none of them run continuously, they all pulse over and over again to produce fusion. These pulses use a LOT of energy. Hint, this is also why I scoffed at people in a thread a long, long time ago who suggested a space craft that runs off fusion of deuterium in free space. The energy required to acquire that hydrogen and fuse it? BHAHAHAHAHA.
i go over the details of different fusion processes (known as confinement methods) in post #307 of page 16 of this thread. Magnetic Confinement fusion using a TOKAMAK device is the current most promising method for using fusion as a source of energy. the ITER project, which is currently under construction, should, even within engineering uncertainties, produce a few percent more electrical power than it takes to run. this method is STABLE is is designed around maintaining a long term state of equilibrium within the confined plasma. the pulse reactions you are referring to are most likely Inertial Confinement, which is often used to study heavier or short lived fusion processes.
the method of fueling a ship using interstellar deuterium was first proposed in 1960 and is known as a Bussard Ramjet. the device that catches the local deuterium ions (and other fussable material) is known as a Ram Scoop, and is simply a set of two "loops" of magnetic field extending out in front of the ship. as the ship moves through the interstellar gas, the relative velocity causes the ions of the gas to accelerate along the field line into the ship. this can be done very cheaply in space if we can create super conducting materials that remain so at interstellar temperatures. the magnets can then simply be "charged" with current, which they will then hold until quenched. the feasibility of such a device is primarily reduced by the estimated deuterium densities of interstellar space, and not the technology itself. it had a great deal of support among the scientific community when it was first proposed, and was even mentioned by Carl Sagan in Cosmos. even it if cannot fuel a starship entirely on its own, the idea has merit just from an efficiency standpoint. do not cast it aside so casually.
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
58
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 20:08:00 -
[368] - Quote
The Lobsters wrote:Two part question
1. Gyroscopes, and the forces contained/created by them. Why do they prefer to stay in a certain alignment. I've never had a decent answer on that one and I've asked a few scientists chums.
2. Fusion reactors. No longer a scientific problem. Now an engineering problem, we should see them soon enough.
Aren't they going to be big-assed gyroscopes powered by big-assed magnets? Are there going to be any secondary space/time effects when we start to produce forces of that scale?
You thread's mega btw!
so, the fusion stuff has been answered. now for gyroscopes!
all of the unique properties of the gyroscope comes from the principle of Conservation of Angular Momentum! just as linear momentum is conserved in the collision of vehicles and billiard balls, so to is angular momentum conserved in the spinning of bicycle wheels and gyroscopes.
consider a rotating disk. its angular momentum is a vector perpendicular to this disk. if you tilt the plane of this disk you must also tilt this vector, changing the disks angular momentum. in order to do this, you must do work on the disk, which requires the application of a force. the gyroscope "wants" to stay in it's initial position because it needs to conserve its total angular momentum. it cannot do this perfectly though, because there are usually other forces acting on the gyro, including gravity and friction.
this is a hard concept to explain properly without a thorough understanding of mechanics, so if i come up with anything better, i will edit this post.
|
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
58
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 20:45:00 -
[369] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Why look at something that is far away, unreachable and happened in the past?
Why the need to find and to explain gravity when it is all around us?
Why make a difference between time and gravity?
1) a common question that i get asked a lot, which basically boils down to "what's the point?". there are many answers to this question, the most important of which is that knowledge about the past helps us predict the future. the physics we gleam from the universe by examining very distant, very old objects is still relevant because the current evidence suggests that the physical laws of the universe do not change with time. this is known as Temporal Symmetry, and i comment on this earlier in the thread. such new physics also inevitably leads to new technology though a better understanding of the universe itself.
2) to understand something like gravity is to harness and use it. without a proper understanding of gravity we wouldn't have cellphones, GPS, the Hubble Telescope, or any understanding or knowledge of the existence of Legrange points. also, because it's cool.
3) i do not understand this question. time is a dimension of the universe, while gravity is an effect on and within it. to ask "why make a difference between time and gravity?" is akin to asking "why make a difference between length and acceleration?". the only answer i can give you is "because they are different..." :p |
Selinate
687
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 20:48:00 -
[370] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:ooooook, there are some fairly important corrections to this statement that i feel i need to make... i mean no offense by this Quote:The big problem with these is that none of them run continuously, they all pulse over and over again to produce fusion. These pulses use a LOT of energy. Hint, this is also why I scoffed at people in a thread a long, long time ago who suggested a space craft that runs off fusion of deuterium in free space. The energy required to acquire that hydrogen and fuse it? BHAHAHAHAHA. i go over the details of different fusion processes (known as confinement methods) in post #307 of page 16 of this thread. Magnetic Confinement fusion using a TOKAMAK device is the current most promising method for using fusion as a source of energy. the ITER project, which is currently under construction, should, even within engineering uncertainties, produce a few percent more electrical power than it takes to run. this method is STABLE is is designed around maintaining a long term state of equilibrium within the confined plasma. the pulse reactions you are referring to are most likely Inertial Confinement, which is often used to study heavier or short lived fusion processes. the method of fueling a ship using interstellar deuterium was first proposed in 1960 and is known as a Bussard Ramjet. the device that catches the local deuterium ions (and other fussable material) is known as a Ram Scoop, and is simply a set of two "loops" of magnetic field extending out in front of the ship. as the ship moves through the interstellar gas, the relative velocity causes the ions of the gas to accelerate along the field line into the ship. this can be done very cheaply in space if we can create super conducting materials that remain so at interstellar temperatures. the magnets can then simply be "charged" with current, which they will then hold until quenched. the feasibility of such a device is primarily reduced by the estimated deuterium densities of interstellar space, and not the technology itself. it had a great deal of support among the scientific community when it was first proposed, and was even mentioned by Carl Sagan in Cosmos. even it if cannot fuel a starship entirely on its own, the idea has merit just from an efficiency standpoint. do not cast it aside so casually.
TOKAMAK is not the most promising really. I'm not sure where you're getting that. Anywhere from the Japanese design to a dense plasma focus all have their own promise, but even the TOKAMAK at MIT doesn't run continuously and still needs to be pulsed instead of ran continuously. I wasn't talking about inertial confinement either.
|
|
Selinate
687
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 20:57:00 -
[371] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:oh my, such frustration! such tension! how entertaining =D let's start at the end and work our way backwards, shall we? first, these two statements... Quote:A magnetic field does not attract. It does not repel. That is an electric field. All particles have an electric field and Quote:It is pretty pointless to use magnets on anything that does not somehow have a magnetic field, you know? ... are incorrect (the first being completely incorrect and the second being incorrect in the context the discussion concerning magnetic confinement fusion). the force acting on a charged particle of charge q and velocity V in the presence of a magnetic field B is precisely F = q V X B where all bold face characters are vectors. there is actually much more going on in this equation, and there are other ways it can be expressed, but this is generally the most familiar to people. the value of F can be either positive or negative, and so the charged particle can experience both attractive and repulsive forces with respect to the source of the magnetic field. this confusion may be from the close relationship between electric and magnetic fields. consider a charged particle traveling in a straight line that suddenly enters a region of space with a local magnetic field of B. when it enters this region it experiences a force proportional to its velocity and it begins to move along a curved trajectory. now, lets say we didn't know that this field was a magnetic field. knowing the mass, charge, and velocity of the particle we could still conclude that there IS a magnetic field present because of how the charge accelerates. HOWEVER, what if we decided to move with the charge, matching its initial velocity of V? from our perspective the charge now has a velocity of 0. when we enter the region of space with the field, we will see the charge begin to accelerate! because we see that the charge had a velocity of 0 from our perspective, we can measure the acceleration and conclude that it is under the effect of an ELECTRIC field!
How are charged particles repelled by a magnetic field? With a magnetic field in itself this is impossible. It does not "repel", if the magnetic field is weakened the charged particle simply moves further away but not by a force that repels it, nor does it really attract it directly towards the magnetic field line. This is suspicious. If you want to do what you mentioned in the second paragraph, fine, but the basic definition of a magnetic field is as you already said, which again, doesn't really attract or repel. In fact, a magnetic field on it's own does zero net work. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
58
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:01:00 -
[372] - Quote
Selinate wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:ooooook, there are some fairly important corrections to this statement that i feel i need to make... i mean no offense by this Quote:The big problem with these is that none of them run continuously, they all pulse over and over again to produce fusion. These pulses use a LOT of energy. Hint, this is also why I scoffed at people in a thread a long, long time ago who suggested a space craft that runs off fusion of deuterium in free space. The energy required to acquire that hydrogen and fuse it? BHAHAHAHAHA. i go over the details of different fusion processes (known as confinement methods) in post #307 of page 16 of this thread. Magnetic Confinement fusion using a TOKAMAK device is the current most promising method for using fusion as a source of energy. the ITER project, which is currently under construction, should, even within engineering uncertainties, produce a few percent more electrical power than it takes to run. this method is STABLE is is designed around maintaining a long term state of equilibrium within the confined plasma. the pulse reactions you are referring to are most likely Inertial Confinement, which is often used to study heavier or short lived fusion processes. the method of fueling a ship using interstellar deuterium was first proposed in 1960 and is known as a Bussard Ramjet. the device that catches the local deuterium ions (and other fussable material) is known as a Ram Scoop, and is simply a set of two "loops" of magnetic field extending out in front of the ship. as the ship moves through the interstellar gas, the relative velocity causes the ions of the gas to accelerate along the field line into the ship. this can be done very cheaply in space if we can create super conducting materials that remain so at interstellar temperatures. the magnets can then simply be "charged" with current, which they will then hold until quenched. the feasibility of such a device is primarily reduced by the estimated deuterium densities of interstellar space, and not the technology itself. it had a great deal of support among the scientific community when it was first proposed, and was even mentioned by Carl Sagan in Cosmos. even it if cannot fuel a starship entirely on its own, the idea has merit just from an efficiency standpoint. do not cast it aside so casually. TOKAMAK is not the most promising really. I'm not sure where you're getting that. Anywhere from the Japanese design to a dense plasma focus all have their own promise, but even the TOKAMAK at MIT doesn't run continuously and still needs to be pulsed instead of ran continuously. I wasn't talking about inertial confinement either.
from my perspective it is the most promising because it will be the first method to be implemented which may output more electrical power than it takes to run. the TOKAMAK design revolves around creating a stable fusion reaction, and ITER will have a fusion cycle lasting approximately 480 seconds or approximately 8 minutes. this in an eternity from the perspective of the physics occurring in the reactor itself, and so it is STABLE. the pulsing is not occurring as a physical requirement of the fusion process. it is instead the simple result of the devices high output and power consumption. no where did i sate that ITER would run continuously. i apologize for the confusion. |
Selinate
687
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:06:00 -
[373] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Selinate wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:ooooook, there are some fairly important corrections to this statement that i feel i need to make... i mean no offense by this Quote:The big problem with these is that none of them run continuously, they all pulse over and over again to produce fusion. These pulses use a LOT of energy. Hint, this is also why I scoffed at people in a thread a long, long time ago who suggested a space craft that runs off fusion of deuterium in free space. The energy required to acquire that hydrogen and fuse it? BHAHAHAHAHA. i go over the details of different fusion processes (known as confinement methods) in post #307 of page 16 of this thread. Magnetic Confinement fusion using a TOKAMAK device is the current most promising method for using fusion as a source of energy. the ITER project, which is currently under construction, should, even within engineering uncertainties, produce a few percent more electrical power than it takes to run. this method is STABLE is is designed around maintaining a long term state of equilibrium within the confined plasma. the pulse reactions you are referring to are most likely Inertial Confinement, which is often used to study heavier or short lived fusion processes. the method of fueling a ship using interstellar deuterium was first proposed in 1960 and is known as a Bussard Ramjet. the device that catches the local deuterium ions (and other fussable material) is known as a Ram Scoop, and is simply a set of two "loops" of magnetic field extending out in front of the ship. as the ship moves through the interstellar gas, the relative velocity causes the ions of the gas to accelerate along the field line into the ship. this can be done very cheaply in space if we can create super conducting materials that remain so at interstellar temperatures. the magnets can then simply be "charged" with current, which they will then hold until quenched. the feasibility of such a device is primarily reduced by the estimated deuterium densities of interstellar space, and not the technology itself. it had a great deal of support among the scientific community when it was first proposed, and was even mentioned by Carl Sagan in Cosmos. even it if cannot fuel a starship entirely on its own, the idea has merit just from an efficiency standpoint. do not cast it aside so casually. TOKAMAK is not the most promising really. I'm not sure where you're getting that. Anywhere from the Japanese design to a dense plasma focus all have their own promise, but even the TOKAMAK at MIT doesn't run continuously and still needs to be pulsed instead of ran continuously. I wasn't talking about inertial confinement either. from my perspective it is the most promising because it will be the first method to be implemented which may output more electrical power than it takes to run. the TOKAMAK design revolves around creating a stable fusion reaction, and ITER will have a fusion cycle lasting approximately 480 seconds or approximately 8 minutes. this in an eternity from the perspective of the physics occurring in the reactor itself, and so it is STABLE. the pulsing is not occurring as a physical requirement of the fusion process. it is instead the simple result of the devices high output and power consumption. no where did i sate that ITER would run continuously. i apologize for the confusion.
This is exactly what I meant about pulsing though, though I'm not sure what you mean by "fusion cycle". Though the TOKAMAK might have been the first to be implemented, there are many other designs out there that use a magnetic confinement method which are just as promising.
Also, I have a hard time considering that stable from a power producing point of view. From what I remember, the main method that was considered in producing power from a fusion reactor was essentially just replacing the fission reactor with a fusion reactor in a common PWR. Having a reactor that increases and decreases in power in cycles like that? That's a terrible design, when you think of the long list of problems that would create in terms of managing the power output so that it has a constant frequency, even down to thermal stresses over the life of the system, ergo in order for it to really be considered stable for power, it needs to run continuously without stopping. |
Caldari Citizen20090217
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:07:00 -
[374] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote: the force acting on a charged particle of charge q and velocity V in the presence of a magnetic field B is precisely F = qV X B where all bold face characters are vectors. there is actually much more going on in this equation, and there are other ways it can be expressed, but this is generally the most familiar to people. the value of F can be either positive or negative, and so the charged particle can experience both attractive and repulsive forces with respect to the source of the magnetic field. this confusion may be from the close relationship between electric and magnetic fields.
consider a charged particle traveling in a straight line that suddenly enters a region of space with a local magnetic field of B. when it enters this region it experiences a force proportional to its velocity and it begins to move along a curved trajectory. now, lets say we didn't know that this field was a magnetic field. knowing the mass, charge, and velocity of the particle we could still conclude that there IS a magnetic field present because of how the charge accelerates. HOWEVER, what if we decided to move with the charge, matching its initial velocity of V? from our perspective the charge now has a velocity of 0. when we enter the region of space with the field, we will see the charge begin to accelerate! because we see that the charge had a velocity of 0 from our perspective, we can measure the acceleration and conclude that it is under the effect of an ELECTRIC field!
You said "when it enters this region it experiences a force proportional to its velocity ", implying that if it were possible to induce charge in objects moving in a magnetic field, then the objects could be deflected.
Many years ago I daydreamed a terribad idea for a deflector shield based on inducing charge in an incoming projectile, and using a magnetic field (or pulse maybe) in order to deflect it. I didn't have the physics knowledge or engineering skills to follow it up, so it got abandoned. How viable is this as a concept, and is it in any way practical with current technology? |
Whitehound
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 22:13:00 -
[375] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:3) i do not understand this question. Some of the first clocks humans invented were sun clocks, hour glasses and pendulums. Before then we did not talk about time and we did not measure it. At best did we look at the sun itself and its position to get a sense of time. Hour glasses and pendulums are devices that require gravity in order to work. Sun clocks use Earth's rotation and thus were independent from gravity, but if we were to improve the measurement would we possibly have to include the gravitation of the Sun and planets. The point however is that at the beginning of human time measurement were we not independent from gravity as we believe to be today.
Today we use atomic clocks for time measurement and we see time as another dimension. We also know from the theory of relativity and that time slows down in strong gravitational fields. But we cannot move freely along this dimension. We only imagine moving back and forth in time just as we imagine travelling faster than light, but we know that both is not possible. It leads to the question if time actually is another dimension and how it is independent from other dimensions.
Hence the question, why do we make a difference between time and gravitation? |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
58
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 02:33:00 -
[376] - Quote
Whitehound, you have misquoted me. i said...
Quote:3) i do not understand this question. time is a dimension of the universe, while gravity is an effect on and within it. to ask "why make a difference between time and gravity?" is akin to asking "why make a difference between length and acceleration?". the only answer i can give you is "because they are different..." :p
which i think answers your original question exactly. time and gravity are different things entirely. gravitational effects can indeed dilate time, just as an objects velocity and or acceleration affects the distance it has traveled.
your statement concerning time as non independent dimension is actually a question currently being worked on at fermilab. it is basically the question of time being an illusion of motion or visa versa. if you like i can try and comment on this, though i know little about the current experiments. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
58
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 02:40:00 -
[377] - Quote
Caldari Citizen20090217 wrote:Tsadkiel wrote: the force acting on a charged particle of charge q and velocity V in the presence of a magnetic field B is precisely F = qV X B where all bold face characters are vectors. there is actually much more going on in this equation, and there are other ways it can be expressed, but this is generally the most familiar to people. the value of F can be either positive or negative, and so the charged particle can experience both attractive and repulsive forces with respect to the source of the magnetic field. this confusion may be from the close relationship between electric and magnetic fields.
consider a charged particle traveling in a straight line that suddenly enters a region of space with a local magnetic field of B. when it enters this region it experiences a force proportional to its velocity and it begins to move along a curved trajectory. now, lets say we didn't know that this field was a magnetic field. knowing the mass, charge, and velocity of the particle we could still conclude that there IS a magnetic field present because of how the charge accelerates. HOWEVER, what if we decided to move with the charge, matching its initial velocity of V? from our perspective the charge now has a velocity of 0. when we enter the region of space with the field, we will see the charge begin to accelerate! because we see that the charge had a velocity of 0 from our perspective, we can measure the acceleration and conclude that it is under the effect of an ELECTRIC field!
You said "when it enters this region it experiences a force proportional to its velocity ", implying that if it were possible to induce charge in objects moving in a magnetic field, then the objects could be deflected. Many years ago I daydreamed a terribad idea for a deflector shield based on inducing charge in an incoming projectile, and using a magnetic field (or pulse maybe) in order to deflect it. I didn't have the physics knowledge or engineering skills to follow it up, so it got abandoned. How viable is this as a concept, and is it in any way practical with current technology?
inducing a charge in an object is certainly possible, but it would require you to physically move the charge from the source to the object. we can create coherent ion beams, so assuming the projectile can hold the charge, then, perhaps? the result would be soft scattering; the projectile would not immediately change direction as if it hit a wall, but rather, it would slowly change its trajectory along a smooth continuous path... in order to create effective shielding it would require massive MASSIVE field strengths. the exact values would depend on the momentum of the projectile and how much it needs to be scattered. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
58
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 03:18:00 -
[378] - Quote
Selinate
Quote:TOKAMAK is not the most promising really. I'm not sure where you're getting that. Anywhere from the Japanese design to a dense plasma focus all have their own promise, but even the TOKAMAK at MIT doesn't run continuously and still needs to be pulsed instead of ran continuously. I wasn't talking about inertial confinement either
Also, the ITER was supposed to be finished what, 5 years ago? A decade ago? I lost track, but the point is it's one of those never-ending projects that keeps on losing it's funding over political squabbles and such and hence ends up being postponed
Also, I'd like some examples of super conducting materials that don't require to be set at extremely low temperatures, or a plasma which takes a lot of energy to sustain.
ITER was first conceived in 1985. it took 15 years for the project to reach an acceptable design point. the majority of the funding was secured in 2005, final agreements signed in 2006, and the organization legally came into existence in 2007. from 2008 to 2011 the focus of the project was on the construction of the site. the reactor itself is not scheduled to begin construction until 2015 and the first ignition of ITER is to take place in 2019. i have no idea where you got your information... the full timeline can be found on their official site here.
as for the super conductor and plasma bits concerning the Ram Scoop, i was being speculative. the current goal of superconducting material science is to get to room temperature super conductors. i don't see the creation of materials that are superconducting in the temperatures of space as not being that great a leap. my statements on the Ram Scoop we meant to point out that it is not entirely unfeasible and that the idea shouldn't be quickly dismissed.
Quote: This is exactly what I meant about pulsing though, though I'm not sure what you mean by "fusion cycle". Though the TOKAMAK might have been the first to be implemented, there are many other designs out there that use a magnetic confinement method which are just as promising.
Also, I have a hard time considering that stable from a power producing point of view. From what I remember, the main method that was considered in producing power from a fusion reactor was essentially just replacing the fission reactor with a fusion reactor in a common PWR. Having a reactor that increases and decreases in power in cycles like that? That's a terrible design, when you think of the long list of problems that would create in terms of managing the power output so that it has a constant frequency, even down to thermal stresses over the life of the system, ergo in order for it to really be considered stable for power, it needs to run continuously without stopping.
i concede that a statement such as "most promising" is not quantitative, so i suppose we will just have to disagree here. it is completely feasible to generate continuous power from a pulsed system. for example, one could use the energy produced by a single fusion cycle (one of your pulses) to heat water. after enough pulses the water could boil, and the steam used to turn turbines in much the same way as a fission reactor functions. the creation of the coupling between ITER and the actual power grid of France will occur a while after its construction is complete. the immediate goal of ITER is to provide a platform for future fusion based research.
Quote:How are charged particles repelled by a magnetic field? With a magnetic field in itself this is impossible. It does not "repel", if the magnetic field is weakened the charged particle simply moves further away but not by a force that repels it, nor does it really attract it directly towards the magnetic field line. This is suspicious. If you want to do what you mentioned in the second paragraph, fine, but the basic definition of a magnetic field is as you already said, which again, doesn't really attract or repel. In fact, a magnetic field on it's own does zero net work.
i already wrote about this. there is an explicit magnetic force. as i have shown, the force induced can be either attractive or repulsive. i never once said anything about work. magnetic fields do no work because the forces they induce are always perpendicular to the displacement of the object. "no work" is not the same as "no force". |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
58
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 03:30:00 -
[379] - Quote
Tarn Kugisa wrote:How possible is FTL Travel? If it isn't why isn't it?
Though I believe that anything is possible through Science, because our understanding of the Universe is all Theory
i comment on possible FTL travel methods in post #260 on page 13. our current understanding of physical principles do not disallow FTL travel, merely the acceleration of a mass past the speed of light. Einstein is often misquoted about this. the energy required to move an object with mass at a specified velocity increases asymptotically towards infinity as you approach c. but there are ways around this through tricks wormholes and spacial compression and the like. check out the post! details are there |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
58
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 03:40:00 -
[380] - Quote
Professor Alphane wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:Professor Alphane wrote:RE: Stopped light - the fact matter can slow light to me implies something can interact with the beam and slow it, over a possibly infinite space surely this decelaration must = total , ie loss of momentum.. so yes basically what I am suggesting is that this beam will deteriote into your blob of random EM eventually.
You say that light has some property to self perpatuate, that sort of goes against my thoughts that nothing is truely infinite other than 'change' . i've said it before and i'll say it again, you can be as uncomfortable with the scientific results all you want, but that wont change the nature of the universe. yes, light is self propagating. this comes directly from Maxwell's equations when applying them as a solution to the wave equation. a changing E field can induce a changing B field which can induce a changing E field etc... the other thing to note that the slowing down of light i am referring to in my previous post is a change in its velocity when it enters a medium, not the continual deceleration of light. we have no evidence to support the latter. light traveling at c enters a medium where the speed of light is 1 m/s, the light will start traveling at 1 m/s and keep traveling at 1 m/s until it is absorbed or it leaves the medium. as for the spinning toy thing, i've never heard of this. now, it IS true that that space-time curves in the presence of energy densities (and mass carries a great deal of it, hence Newtonian gravitation). we have indeed proved this in the lab and it implies that a compressed spring is ever so slightly "heavier" than an uncompressed spring, but to see this at a macroscopic level, and in a toy non the less, makes me suspicious. do you have a link to this thing? i would love to read about it! =D I'll need to do some searching to find the link to that toy, I saw one at christmas when I was shopping for my son but can't remeber what it called itself. Still your description of light is hard to reconcile to my mind what you now describe is a perfect resonating 'pertual motion' entity that while being influenced in velocity by enviroment doesn't lose it's perfectly phased and balanced wave unto the infinite. You are implying it is constant in everything but velocity but then it was earlier though it was of constant velocity. Science is only the abiltiy to see what can be seen, but forever there is more that could be seen
Yes.
light changes only through interaction. there are materials with dispersion relations that affect the phase and frequency of light as it passes through them. but the light only "stops" when it is absorbed. |
|
Selinate
689
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 03:44:00 -
[381] - Quote
I had some big long post about all the things you mentioned, but it didn't post correctly, and I'm not going to try to write it all out again...
Basically you're wrong about the ITER, I got my information from a more reliable source, a leading professor in the field of Plasma physics. The original date for completion was supposed to be about 2007, I think, but it got delayed by funding issues and such. That chart? Yeah, that's updated. It's not indicative of the original plan at all.
Also, no where on that page does it mention power production from the ITER to the power grid. In fact, it mentions a heat rejection system which just dumps the energy. My point about the power production of such a system is still VERY much valid with the problems it induces, and no, that is not a feasible power producing system for the very reasons I mentioned.
The longest part was about magnetic fields, but I don't want to type it all out again at all. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
58
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 03:53:00 -
[382] - Quote
Selinate wrote:I had some big long post about all the things you mentioned, but it didn't post correctly, and I'm not going to try to write it all out again...
no worries man. thanks for the excellent discussion though =D if you have anything else you would like to talk about i will do my best to contribute! |
Selinate
689
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 04:03:00 -
[383] - Quote
Since you are a particle astrophysicist, I will now ask you a question that they never bothered to teach me.
Why does a neutron cross section have peaks and dips, while a cross section for something like a scattering reaction between two hydrogen atoms is essentially smooth?
Any detailed information is appreciated, as it actually helps me a lot. |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
58
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 04:27:00 -
[384] - Quote
Selinate wrote:Since you are a particle astrophysicist, I will now ask you a question that they never bothered to teach me.
Why does a neutron cross section have peaks and dips, while a cross section for something like a scattering reaction between two hydrogen atoms is essentially smooth?
Any detailed information is appreciated, as it actually helps me a lot.
the specifics of the neutron cross section depends heavily on the target composition, but the long and short of it is that the spikiness is due to the absorption of the neutron within the target nucleus. there are only specific energies that a thermal neutron can carry in order to be absorbed and these are dependent, again, on the target element (predominantly the number of nucleons and the dimensions of the nucleus). this is why the absorption characteristic is spiky and not asymptotic or single peaked. scattering for hydrogen atoms, consisting of only charged particles, exhibit smooth cross sections because they are dominated by "soft" scattering as a result of their mutual repulsion.
hope this helps!
|
Whitehound
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 07:58:00 -
[385] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:your statement concerning time as non independent dimension is actually a question currently being worked on at fermilab. it is basically the question of time being an illusion of motion or visa versa. if you like i can try and comment on this, though i know little about the current experiments. How can I misquote you? You said it yourself... It is indeed an interesting question. The idea of independent dimensions comes from mathematics and therefore is not automatically true for our real world. If you find the time to look into it and can give some simple answers then I would appreciate it.
And thank you for your answers so far. I am glad that you did not answer my questions by just saying "Because we can." - a common answer to many questions, but not very inspiring and some physicist give it, because they think it is a cool answer. I rather hear a physicist say that he or she does not know, really. It is your job to find out after all. |
Caldari Citizen20090217
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:19:00 -
[386] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:inducing a charge in an object is certainly possible, but it would require you to physically move the charge from the source to the object. we can create coherent ion beams, so assuming the projectile can hold the charge, then, perhaps? the result would be soft scattering; the projectile would not immediately change direction as if it hit a wall, but rather, it would slowly change its trajectory along a smooth continuous path... in order to create effective shielding it would require massive MASSIVE field strengths. the exact values would depend on the momentum of the projectile and how much it needs to be scattered.
I'd be grateful if you could point me in the direction of some equations etc. that cover this? The relation between field strength, charge, mass + velocity of the particle and the resultant deflection just so I can plug values in and see how fail my concept was? |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
59
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 04:44:00 -
[387] - Quote
Selinate
i had an epiphany today! i think i understand what you were trying to say about magnetic fields, and why i completely missed your point.
magnetic fields indeed do not induce forces radially towards or away from the field source on charged particles. instead they twist and turn charged particles with a velocity. from this perspective, yes, you are correct, magnetic fields "do not attract/repel" charged particles. they do not attract/repel charged particles in the same fashion as electric fields. i completely missed what you were trying to saybecause as soon as you stated that "magnetic fields do not attract" i immediately thought of counter examples.
i read
[quote]A magnetic field does not attract. It does not repel. That is an electric field. ... a particle only needs charge to respond to a magnetic field, in itself if a particle is still, it has no magnetic field.[/quote
this is what i thought of
it is possible to mathematically simulate magnetic monopoles. this is covered extensively in one of the text books i own, Classical Electrodynamics. it is basically done by examining the magnetic field near the end of a very long, very tightly wound solenoid. here the magnetic field is approximately radial, and will attract and repel other "magnetic monopoles" in the exact same way as electric charges.
i also came up with the classic example of two parallel current carrying wires. in this case the two wires create magnetic fields and they are either attracted or repelled by each other based on the relative direction of current flow. in this case, the forces acting on the charges that compose the currents in the wires are towards or away from each other. this shows how charges with velocity can exert forces on each other along lines connecting the two. this colinear force is created explicitly by the magnetic field induced by the moving charges
i think we are actually in complete agreement and i just misunderstood you. sorry! |
Tsadkiel
Ushakaron Exiled Collective
59
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 05:03:00 -
[388] - Quote
Caldari Citizen20090217 wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:inducing a charge in an object is certainly possible, but it would require you to physically move the charge from the source to the object. we can create coherent ion beams, so assuming the projectile can hold the charge, then, perhaps? the result would be soft scattering; the projectile would not immediately change direction as if it hit a wall, but rather, it would slowly change its trajectory along a smooth continuous path... in order to create effective shielding it would require massive MASSIVE field strengths. the exact values would depend on the momentum of the projectile and how much it needs to be scattered. I'd be grateful if you could point me in the direction of some equations etc. that cover this? The relation between field strength, charge, mass + velocity of the particle and the resultant deflection just so I can plug values in and see how fail my concept was?
it isn't just a plug and chug kind of problem :/ your idea isn't "fail" it just probably isn't feasible based on what we currently know.
a good first order method would be to calculate, for a given field E, how far a charge of Q with kinetic energy T would travel before coming to a complete halt. this will involve integrating the electric field over the distance from the firing point to some distance R away from the field source (assuming the field is radial). this result is related to the electrostatic potential. set this equal to the kinetic energy per unit charge of the projectile and just solve for R. this will be the distance away from the field source the projectile will stop. then you can just fiddle with the parameters to get the behavior you are interested in and VOILA! you have just completed your first mathematical model =D
you will need this and this as well as an understanding of rudimentary calculus.
good luck! |
Pr1ncess Alia
Perkone Caldari State
145
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 05:31:00 -
[389] - Quote
These are very basic, (edit, and possibly filled with logical fallacies, especially that 2nd one) so let's pretend I'm not asking them.
My beer would like to ask the following questions:
-Does the impossibility of perpetual motion negate the possibility of an eternal universe?
-How can we reconcile the impossibility of perpetual motion with the knowledge that in a closed system, gross matter/energy always remains constant (never truly created or destroyed)
I like to think the universe pops, expands, contracts and pops again over and over and each time it happens I get a little higher top score on Ms. Pacman.
I just want to make sure science isn't going to rain on my theory. Thank you in advance. |
Selinate
696
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 19:04:00 -
[390] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Selinate i had an epiphany today! i think i understand what you were trying to say about magnetic fields, and why i completely missed your point. magnetic fields indeed do not induce forces radially towards or away from the field source on charged particles. instead they twist and turn charged particles with a velocity. from this perspective, yes, you are correct, magnetic fields "do not attract/repel" charged particles. they do not attract/repel charged particles in the same fashion as electric fields. i completely missed what you were trying to saybecause as soon as you stated that "magnetic fields do not attract" i immediately thought of counter examples. i read Quote:A magnetic field does not attract. It does not repel. That is an electric field. ... a particle only needs charge to respond to a magnetic field, in itself if a particle is still, it has no magnetic field. this is what i thought of it is possible to mathematically simulate magnetic monopoles. this is covered extensively in one of the text books i own, Classical Electrodynamics. it is basically done by examining the magnetic field near the end of a very long, very tightly wound solenoid. here the magnetic field is approximately radial, and will attract and repel other "magnetic monopoles" in the exact same way as electric charges. i also came up with the classic example of two parallel current carrying wires. in this case the two wires create magnetic fields and they are either attracted or repelled by each other based on the relative direction of current flow. in this case, the forces acting on the charges that compose the currents in the wires are towards or away from each other. this shows how charges with velocity can exert forces on each other along lines connecting the two. this colinear force is created explicitly by the magnetic field induced by the moving charges i think we are actually in complete agreement and i just misunderstood you. sorry!
Yes, this is exactly the point that I was trying to convey, and I'm glad that's cleared up.
This is interesting that you speak of this solenoid. Is this realistic, or is it a property of when it approaches infinitely thin and infinitely long? This sort of information is more towards the electrodynamics of circuits and such, if I'm not mistaken, and that's something I'm more or less not really familiar with at all.
I also remember the case of two current carrying wires held in a parallel formation attracting or repelling each other. Honestly, it's been about 3 or 4 years since I went over that piece of information though, along with the rest of the classical electrodynamics that doesn't have to do with plasmas, and that set of physics is just based off of mostly the Maxwell equations and gaussian distributions. |
|
Selinate
696
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 19:11:00 -
[391] - Quote
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:These are very basic, (edit, and possibly filled with logical fallacies, especially that 2nd one) so let's pretend I'm not asking them.
My beer would like to ask the following questions:
-Does the impossibility of perpetual motion negate the possibility of an eternal universe?
-How can we reconcile the impossibility of perpetual motion with the knowledge that in a closed system, gross matter/energy always remains constant (never truly created or destroyed)
I like to think the universe pops, expands, contracts and pops again over and over and each time it happens I get a little higher top score on Ms. Pacman.
I just want to make sure science isn't going to rain on my theory. Thank you in advance.
Perpetual motion itself isn't impossible. In fact, it's pretty much given in one of Newton's laws that perpetual motion is the norm unless something else acts upon it (unless there's some more modern physics that negate this that I'm unaware of). Perpetual motion devices are usually some sort of machine that is said to be able to "work" perpetually, I guess you could say. It's actually one of the laws of thermodynamics that negate this, though I can't remember which exactly, though I think it has to with entropy not being conserved overall and, in fact, always increases with every action you perform, where entropy really is a quantity that describes the inability to capture all energy within any given system for a certain task (this is the best way I can describe it, one of my professors literally called the explanation of entropy describing chaos as "horse ****").... |
Whitehound
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 19:42:00 -
[392] - Quote
Selinate wrote:Perpetual motion itself isn't impossible. It is impossible. If you cannot prove that it exists, then the logical consequence is that you have proven the opposite.
Do not say that it exists only to have a point and then take it back again. That is horse ****. |
Selinate
696
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 20:05:00 -
[393] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Selinate wrote:Perpetual motion itself isn't impossible. It is impossible. If you cannot prove that it exists, then the logical consequence is that you have proven the opposite. Do not say that it exists only to have a point and then take it back again. That is horse ****.
Go ahead. Keep trolling. Show your lack of understanding. |
Whitehound
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 20:39:00 -
[394] - Quote
Selinate wrote:Whitehound wrote:Selinate wrote:Perpetual motion itself isn't impossible. It is impossible. If you cannot prove that it exists, then the logical consequence is that you have proven the opposite. Do not say that it exists only to have a point and then take it back again. That is horse ****. Go ahead. Keep trolling. Show your lack of understanding. Help me to understand you. Do you have proof of its existence? |
Selinate
696
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 20:56:00 -
[395] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Selinate wrote:Whitehound wrote:Selinate wrote:Perpetual motion itself isn't impossible. It is impossible. If you cannot prove that it exists, then the logical consequence is that you have proven the opposite. Do not say that it exists only to have a point and then take it back again. That is horse ****. Go ahead. Keep trolling. Show your lack of understanding. Help me to understand you. Do you have proof of its existence?
of perpetual motion? It's newton's first or second law, for christ's sake. An object that is in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an external force.
Your entire original reply to my post is completely off the mark also as it manages to misunderstand everything I said in the post. |
Whitehound
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 21:57:00 -
[396] - Quote
Selinate wrote:of perpetual motion? It's newton's first or second law, for christ's sake. An object that is in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an external force. No, it is not a proof of its existence. Only because things can have a motion is it not a proof for a perpetual motion. It is an assumption we make and because we cannot prove its existence does it not exist. All that exists is motion itself. |
Selinate
697
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 22:21:00 -
[397] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Selinate wrote:of perpetual motion? It's newton's first or second law, for christ's sake. An object that is in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an external force. No, it is not a proof of its existence. Only because things can have a motion is it not a proof for a perpetual motion. It is an assumption we make and because we cannot prove its existence does it not exist. All that exists is motion itself.
I tell you what, you can argue that all you want (even though its logical fallacies are so strong, anybody with a brain could point them out), and I'll just not respond to you again. |
Whitehound
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 22:42:00 -
[398] - Quote
Selinate wrote:I tell you what, you can argue that all you want (even though its logical fallacies are so strong, anybody with a brain could point them out), and I'll just not respond to you again. All you are telling me is that you have no proof and that you do not know when it is time to shut up. |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
543
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 22:50:00 -
[399] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Selinate wrote:I tell you what, you can argue that all you want (even though its logical fallacies are so strong, anybody with a brain could point them out), and I'll just not respond to you again. All you are telling me is that you have no proof and that you do not know when it is time to shut up.
I think Selinate just told you to come up with proof that perpetual motion does not exist, that the theory is wrong rather than dribble a little and splutter out that perpetual motion is wrong. I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
Whitehound
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 23:01:00 -
[400] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:I think Selinate just told you to come up with proof that perpetual motion does not exist, that the theory is wrong rather than dribble a little and splutter out that perpetual motion is wrong. No.
Edit:
To put some life into this discussion think about the following... For all we currently know about the universe is it expanding and it does so at an accelerating rate. If we apply Newton's Law to it then there must be a force, which is driving all apart.
We do not know what this force is, how we can interact with it or what is causing it. All we know is that it exists. As a consequence of its existence can we not have perpetual motion. |
|
Meklon
Minmatar United Freedom Front
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 07:28:00 -
[401] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Alpheias wrote:I think Selinate just told you to come up with proof that perpetual motion does not exist, that the theory is wrong rather than dribble a little and splutter out that perpetual motion is wrong. No. Edit: To put some life into this discussion think about the following... For all we currently know about the universe is it expanding and it does so at an accelerating rate. If we apply Newton's Law to it then there must be a force, which is driving all apart. We do not know what this force is, how we can interact with it or what is causing it. All we know is that it exists. As a consequence of its existence can we not have perpetual motion.
That is, of course, working on the principal that our understanding of physics is a universal constant. |
Whitehound
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 09:04:00 -
[402] - Quote
Meklon wrote:That is, of course, working on the principal that our understanding of physics is a universal constant. No. Our understanding of physics has changed and improved a lot over the past and as such is certainly not a constant. Physics only describes nature, it does not tell it what to do. Newton was simply one of the first great describers of nature. He was rather absolute in his descriptions. Newton assumed that time is a constant. Einstein then changed it and described nature in a more relative way. He allowed for time to change. However, both assumed that the universe is always present and in the same state. Schroedinger with his cat then changed it again and allowed for nature to be whatever it wants to be until we look at it.
These were never radical changes, because everything still had to make sense in the world we are living in. Some found the ideas provoking and they started calling them radical and what not, but they really are just small changes, which have improved our understanding of nature. |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
60
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 16:18:00 -
[403] - Quote
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:These are very basic, (edit, and possibly filled with logical fallacies, especially that 2nd one) so let's pretend I'm not asking them.
My beer would like to ask the following questions:
-Does the impossibility of perpetual motion negate the possibility of an eternal universe?
-How can we reconcile the impossibility of perpetual motion with the knowledge that in a closed system, gross matter/energy always remains constant (never truly created or destroyed)
I like to think the universe pops, expands, contracts and pops again over and over and each time it happens I get a little higher top score on Ms. Pacman.
I just want to make sure science isn't going to rain on my theory. Thank you in advance.
sorry for the super late response! as was stated earlier, perpetual motion DOES exist. photons are a great example of this and will just keep going and going as long as all of their interactions preserve the energy of the system (so a photon gas in a perfectly insulated reflective box). perpetual motion MACHINES (devices which provide "free" energy through perpetual motion) however, are disallowed by the second law of thermodynamics. this is because such a device is considered to be an OPEN system, which means it is allowed to interact with its environment (be it through the exchange of energy, information, matter, etc...). so the big question is "is the universe open or closed"? which when you get right down to it is a matter of definition. given this, i think the answer to your first question is no.
and i suppose that the above answers your second question heheh.
and it's nice that you like to think that ^^ |
Whitehound
20
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 16:35:00 -
[404] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:sorry for the super late response! as was stated earlier, perpetual motion DOES exist. photons are a great example of this and will just keep going and going as long as all of their interactions preserve the energy of the system (so a photon gas in a perfectly insulated reflective box). No, you have no proof of it. It is only an assumption made in theory, but to have practical proof of it would mean that you can follow the motion through all eternity. How are you going to do this? |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
60
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 17:05:00 -
[405] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:sorry for the super late response! as was stated earlier, perpetual motion DOES exist. photons are a great example of this and will just keep going and going as long as all of their interactions preserve the energy of the system (so a photon gas in a perfectly insulated reflective box). No, you have no proof of it. It is only an assumption made in theory, but to have practical proof of it would mean that you can follow the motion through all eternity. How are you going to do this?
indeed, i cannot claim that perpetual motion exists as i cannot claim to have evidence that spans eternity :P but it isn't an assumption.
i can only state that it is not disallowed by current scientific theories, and all evidence we have observed supports such theories (the cosmic microwave background being the "oldest" light in the universe). i can also say that there is EVIDENCE that shows that the statement "perpetual motion doesn't exist" is outright FALSE (if light was not perpetually self propagating, the universe would have a dispersion relation, and we have evidence that shows this isn't the case). this means that at best i can only claim that the statement "Perpetual motion exists" is NOT FALSE.
i have edited my previous statement in light of this. hopefully this will help you understand what i was trying to say ^^ |
Whitehound
20
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 17:15:00 -
[406] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:i have edited my previous statement in light of this. hopefully this will help you understand what i was trying to say ^^ This is much better. Thanks. |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
61
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:08:00 -
[407] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:i have edited my previous statement in light of this. hopefully this will help you understand what i was trying to say ^^ This is much better. Thanks. I would only call it a motion, and just motion, when things are moving. Only when one needs to be more specific as to how to describe a motion should one use an adjective. A good example would be to call it a continues motion when it appears to be moving continuously and does not get interrupted (the Planck's Constant may not allow this though or it needs to be ignored). When it accelerates can you call it an accelerating motion, or just acceleration. A perpetual motion can turn out to be a tautology, like a "dead corpse" or a "round ball". And just like people then think of the possibility of "living corpses" might it not be impossible to have perpetual and non-perpetual motion. What exactly would a physicist then be trying to say with this? We already know that the universe had a starting point and that all motion must therefore originate from it. How does this fit the idea of a perpetual motion?
well, perpetual is actually defined as unENDING or unCHANGING. perpetual motion can have a beginning, but not an end. also the term perpetual is not associate with motion. i could call something a perpetual rock and that just means it's ALWAYS a rock no matter what. |
Whitehound
20
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:28:00 -
[408] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:well, perpetual is actually defined as unENDING or unCHANGING. perpetual motion can have a beginning, but not an end. also the term perpetual is not associate with motion. i could call something a perpetual rock and that just means it's ALWAYS a rock no matter what. Why can perpetual motion have a beginning but not an ending? Would it not be better to say that perpetual motion has no beginning and no ending, and only semi-perpetual motion does?
See? You get into a bit of trouble now. |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
61
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:43:00 -
[409] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:well, perpetual is actually defined as unENDING or unCHANGING. perpetual motion can have a beginning, but not an end. also the term perpetual is not associate with motion. i could call something a perpetual rock and that just means it's ALWAYS a rock no matter what. Why can perpetual motion have a beginning but not an ending? Would it not be better to say that perpetual motion has no beginning and no ending, and only semi-perpetual motion does? See? You get into a bit of trouble now.
because that's how the word perpetual is defined? i don't understand what the problem is here. we have defined perpetual motion as unending or unchanging motion because that's what the word perpetual means... |
Whitehound
20
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 20:13:00 -
[410] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:because that's how the word perpetual is defined? i don't understand what the problem is here. we have defined perpetual motion as unending or unchanging motion because that's what the word perpetual means... The problem is that you have no definition. Something that is unchanging may have no beginning and no ending, but simply exists, but something that is unending may only not have an ending.
As soon as your description of a motion includes how it will end will it always raise the question of how it came into existence. It is easy to accept an idea like something having no beginning and no ending, and we understand it as an abstract. It is easy to accept an idea of something having a beginning as well as an ending. This is however not the case of something having an ending but no beginning and something having a beginning but no ending, and therefore we reject it. Your physics, or your "description of nature as a science" if you will, turns into dreams and nightmares for our human comprehension and it is not what we want. You will not be able to explain nature by saying that something simply "popped" into existence or that it disappeared without leaving a trace of where it went. People will reject physics like this and instead continue looking for better answers. |
|
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
64
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 17:06:00 -
[411] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:because that's how the word perpetual is defined? i don't understand what the problem is here. we have defined perpetual motion as unending or unchanging motion because that's what the word perpetual means... The problem is that you have no definition. Something that is unchanging may have no beginning and no ending, but simply exists, but something that is unending may only not have an ending. As soon as your description of a motion includes how it will end will it always raise the question of how it came into existence. It is easy to accept an idea like something having no beginning and no ending, and we understand it as an abstract. It is easy to accept an idea of something having a beginning as well as an ending. This is however not the case of something having an ending but no beginning and something having a beginning but no ending, and therefore we reject it. Your physics, or your "description of nature as a science" if you will, turns into dreams and nightmares for our human comprehension and it is not what we want. You will not be able to explain nature by saying that something simply "popped" into existence or that it disappeared without leaving a trace of where it went. People will reject physics like this and instead continue looking for better answers.
i just TOLD you the definition. what i told you is the definition of perpetual motion. motion that continues unending / unchanging. that is what the word perpetual means.
you are going way WAY off topic here. you have also started referring to yourself as we... |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
590
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 18:07:00 -
[412] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Whitehound wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:because that's how the word perpetual is defined? i don't understand what the problem is here. we have defined perpetual motion as unending or unchanging motion because that's what the word perpetual means... The problem is that you have no definition. Something that is unchanging may have no beginning and no ending, but simply exists, but something that is unending may only not have an ending. As soon as your description of a motion includes how it will end will it always raise the question of how it came into existence. It is easy to accept an idea like something having no beginning and no ending, and we understand it as an abstract. It is easy to accept an idea of something having a beginning as well as an ending. This is however not the case of something having an ending but no beginning and something having a beginning but no ending, and therefore we reject it. Your physics, or your "description of nature as a science" if you will, turns into dreams and nightmares for our human comprehension and it is not what we want. You will not be able to explain nature by saying that something simply "popped" into existence or that it disappeared without leaving a trace of where it went. People will reject physics like this and instead continue looking for better answers. i just TOLD you the definition. what i told you is the definition of perpetual motion. motion that continues unending / unchanging. that is what the word perpetual means. you are going way WAY off topic here. you have also started referring to yourself as we...
Tsadkiel, Whitehound has been lurking on the forums for years now and he is the top poster of ad absurdum. I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
64
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 18:09:00 -
[413] - Quote
ooooohhhhhhh ok, it all makes sense now ^^ |
Whitehound
22
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 09:11:00 -
[414] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:i just TOLD you the definition. what i told you is the definition of perpetual motion. motion that continues unending / unchanging. that is what the word perpetual means.
you are going way WAY off topic here. you have also started referring to yourself as we... Again, no. You have no definition when you use two words to describe it. Which is it, is it unending or is it unchanging? If you cannot give a clear answer then stop.
I also use the word "we" because I know that I am not alone. If you cannot keep onto your own topic then, again, stop.
Why do you think we look to the stars? You may only do it for money, but there are scientists who posses a passion for what they do. You may only not have this passion yet. |
Whitehound
22
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 09:15:00 -
[415] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:Tsadkiel, Whitehound has been lurking on the forums for years now and he is the top poster of ad absurdum. And you are holding people's hands for how long? |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
592
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 12:10:00 -
[416] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Alpheias wrote:Tsadkiel, Whitehound has been lurking on the forums for years now and he is the top poster of ad absurdum. And you are holding people's hands for how long? In any case, I am still talking about motion and physics. I cannot imagine why Tsadkiel would step out of the discussion just because my questions aim at his use of words. His answers can only be as good as the words he uses to give them.
I can't really be arsed to ask you to elaborate on that. Because it doesn't make sense.
There is also a fine line between asking a person questions and pestering a person, especially when you have been told the definition of the term a few times already. Are you really that incapable of connecting the dots on your own? I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
Whitehound
22
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 12:24:00 -
[417] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:Are you really that incapable of connecting the dots on your own? We have a topic and as far as I know am I not it. Get your hatred off somewhere else, please. No one is pestering anyone. OP has chosen to come here and answer all physics related questions. Try to respect it or leave. |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
68
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 18:10:00 -
[418] - Quote
does anyone have anymore physics questions? |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
592
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 18:14:00 -
[419] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:does anyone have anymore physics questions?
Describe the effects on our solar system should a black hole get within two light years and at what distance would people get sucked into space from the surface of Earth? I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
Whitehound
26
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 10:03:00 -
[420] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:Describe the effects on our solar system should a black hole get within two light years and at what distance would people get sucked into space from the surface of Earth? You want him to write an essay for you? Whatever... I still would like to know how perpetual motion is possible.
When I have two balls on a billiard table, one is standing still and the other is rolling towards it, then we have one ball that is in motion. When the rolling ball hits the other is its energy transferred onto the second ball and it starts rolling. The second ball will continue rolling until the friction of the table slows it down and brings it to a halt. The friction itself is caused by the many little fibres of the billiard table's cloth, which turns the motion into heat. The heat then spreads out and disperses into the environment. Heat itself is a motion of the molecules... We speak of motion and energy transfer, but we do not call it a perpetual motion, nor do we describe the chain of events as a perpetual motion when it keeps going on and on.
So how can a photon trapped inside a device have a perpetual motion? It will interact with its environment and even when it appears to be continuously in motion is the assumption of a perpetual motion pretty far fetched. We are not able to describe the photon's exact location due to the Uncertainty Principle. At best can we give a probability of its location and to talk here of a motion of a particle, and one that behaves like a wave, too, is already brave.
So, no, for all we know is there no such thing as a perpetual motion. You first need to proof it and you will not be able to. The idea itself is an abstract and we use it for when we do not know all the events and to keep searching for more answers. To describe particle physics with the Law's of Newton and to assume perpetual motion would exist in particles makes me think that Tsadkiel is not more than a middle school physics teacher who wants to be a particle astrophysicist. |
|
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
68
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 16:37:00 -
[421] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:does anyone have anymore physics questions? Describe the effects on our solar system should a black hole get within two light years and at what distance would people get sucked into space from the surface of Earth?
this depends on the mass of the black hole, though two light years is quite a distance, so it would have to be exceptionally massive. i need a bit more to go on to properly answer this.
i wrote a bit about "death by black holes" on post #289 of page 15 on this thread if you are interested ^^ |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1282
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 16:54:00 -
[422] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:Describe the effects on our solar system should a black hole get within two light years and at what distance would people get sucked into space from the surface of Earth? I'm pretty sure people would never "get sucked into space from the surface of Earth." By the time the pull of the black hole was sufficient to pull us off the surface, it would have destroyed the planet. There would be no Earth from which to pull us...for that matter, there would be no "us" at that point. Just a lot of rocks with little blobs of carbon and ice mixed in. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released
592
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 17:21:00 -
[423] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Alpheias wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:does anyone have anymore physics questions? Describe the effects on our solar system should a black hole get within two light years and at what distance would people get sucked into space from the surface of Earth? this depends on the mass of the black hole, though two light years is quite a distance, so it would have to be exceptionally massive. i need a bit more to go on to properly answer this. i wrote a bit about "death by black holes" on post #289 of page 15 on this thread if you are interested ^^
How about the OJ287 Quasar?
The inspiration for my question actually comes from a cartoon where the supervillian uses gravity to consume.
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Alpheias wrote:Describe the effects on our solar system should a black hole get within two light years and at what distance would people get sucked into space from the surface of Earth? I'm pretty sure people would never "get sucked into space from the surface of Earth." By the time the pull of the black hole was sufficient to pull us off the surface, it would have destroyed the planet. There would be no Earth from which to pull us...for that matter, there would be no "us" at that point. Just a lot of rocks with little blobs of carbon and ice mixed in.
Which is a very plausible scenario of what would happen, still let us entertain the "sci-fi" aspect of it. I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1282
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 18:33:00 -
[424] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Alpheias wrote:Describe the effects on our solar system should a black hole get within two light years and at what distance would people get sucked into space from the surface of Earth? I'm pretty sure people would never "get sucked into space from the surface of Earth." By the time the pull of the black hole was sufficient to pull us off the surface, it would have destroyed the planet. There would be no Earth from which to pull us...for that matter, there would be no "us" at that point. Just a lot of rocks with little blobs of carbon and ice mixed in. Which is a very plausible scenario of what would happen, still let us entertain the "sci-fi" aspect of it. Warning: I'm no science major. If I get any of this wrong, I expect to be promptly corrected by someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
It sounds like what would be necessary is a Lagrangian Point right at the surface of the Earth. If I'm not completely screwing this math up, you'd need a black hole with something like 1x10^40 times the mass of the Sun to do that from two lightyears away. That's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 suns.
It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3699
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 18:51:00 -
[425] - Quote
What would happen when one half of a quantum entangled particles gets sucked into a black hole?
Would the pair simply unlink or would something catastrophic happen to both as one particle gets destroyed by a massive force.
|
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 15:44:00 -
[426] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:What would happen when one half of a quantum entangled particles gets sucked into a black hole?
Would the pair simply unlink or would something catastrophic happen to both as one particle gets destroyed by a massive force.
nothing, actually. because you can no longer observe the second entangled particle, you can no longer tell that the one that escaped was ever entangled at all.
it sounds like your question may have been inspired by something called Hawking Radiation, which is a mode through which a black hole can evaporate. it is caused by the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs forming near the horizon of the black hole. half of the pair falls in, and the other half travels away from the black hole. |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 15:53:00 -
[427] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Alpheias wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Alpheias wrote:Describe the effects on our solar system should a black hole get within two light years and at what distance would people get sucked into space from the surface of Earth? I'm pretty sure people would never "get sucked into space from the surface of Earth." By the time the pull of the black hole was sufficient to pull us off the surface, it would have destroyed the planet. There would be no Earth from which to pull us...for that matter, there would be no "us" at that point. Just a lot of rocks with little blobs of carbon and ice mixed in. Which is a very plausible scenario of what would happen, still let us entertain the "sci-fi" aspect of it. Warning: I'm no science major. If I get any of this wrong, I expect to be promptly corrected by someone who actually knows what they're talking about. It sounds like what would be necessary is a Lagrangian Point right at the surface of the Earth. If I'm not completely screwing this math up, you'd need a black hole with something like 1x10^40 times the mass of the Sun to do that from two lightyears away. That's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 suns.
Lagrange / Lagrangian points are actually the points where a small object can be placed and remain stationary with respect to two orbiting bodies. for any two body orbiting system you can define 5 such points by calculating the effective potential of the system (so, gravitational potential + orbital effects). wherever this potential is "flat" you have a Lagrange point (so imagine a hilly landscape of some kind. the Lagrange points would be any points in this landscape where you can place a ball and it will not roll). |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 16:02:00 -
[428] - Quote
Alpheias wrote:
How about the OJ287 Quasar?
Quasars are highly energetic active galactic nuclei, which essentially means that the accretion disk of the black hole IS a galaxy. I looked up OJ 278 and based on observed orbits this quasar has an estimated mass of around 18 billion suns... if this thing were anywhere in our solar system we, and the rest of the galaxy, would literally be torn apart XD |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released
595
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 16:19:00 -
[429] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Alpheias wrote:
How about the OJ287 Quasar?
Quasars are highly energetic active galactic nuclei, which essentially means that the accretion disk of the black hole IS a galaxy. I looked up OJ 278 and based on observed orbits this quasar has an estimated mass of around 18 billion suns... if this thing were anywhere in our solar system we, and the rest of the galaxy, would literally be torn apart XD
You said, and I quote:
Tsadkiel wrote:this depends on the mass of the black hole, though two light years is quite a distance, so it would have to be exceptionally massive. i need a bit more to go on to properly answer this.
I figured I should toss in a real monster! I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1288
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 16:42:00 -
[430] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Lagrange / Lagrangian points are actually the points where a small object can be placed and remain stationary with respect to two orbiting bodies. for any two body orbiting system you can define 5 such points by calculating the effective potential of the system (so, gravitational potential + orbital effects). wherever this potential is "flat" you have a Lagrange point (so imagine a hilly landscape of some kind. the Lagrange points would be any points in this landscape where you can place a ball and it will not roll). For the sake of not getting too into the details which I can only claim to marginally understand myself, I skipped over a lot of technical babble. I was speaking specifically of the L1 point, the one directly between the two bodies. It also represents the point at which you would move from one body's gravity well into another's, does it not? For example, on one side of the L1 point you would experience a slight pull toward the black hole, while on the other you would be pulled toward Earth?
Assuming I'm understanding *that* part properly, it follows that a Lagrange point existing on the surface of the earth would result in what would essentially be a zone of such low gravity that it would take very little force to overcome it. In such a zone, even the slightest disturbance should result in us drifting away from the surface.
For the black hole to actually directly pull things off the surface of the planet, it would have to be pulling the planet as well, and that goes back to the "death by black hole" post mentioned earlier.
Of course this all a "frictionless vacuum" discussion as there are so many other ways we're breaking the laws of physics for this scenario. And again, I could be completely missing something, as my understanding of L-points doesn't cover how they would behave on the surface of a planet. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
|
Jhagiti Tyran
Muppet Ninja's Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
244
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 18:28:00 -
[431] - Quote
If a technology could be developed that changed the mass of an object (like the mass field tech in Mass Effect) how would the momentum and inertia of a moving object be affected if its mass where changed? |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 20:45:00 -
[432] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:Lagrange / Lagrangian points are actually the points where a small object can be placed and remain stationary with respect to two orbiting bodies. for any two body orbiting system you can define 5 such points by calculating the effective potential of the system (so, gravitational potential + orbital effects). wherever this potential is "flat" you have a Lagrange point (so imagine a hilly landscape of some kind. the Lagrange points would be any points in this landscape where you can place a ball and it will not roll). For the sake of not getting too into the details which I can only claim to marginally understand myself, I skipped over a lot of technical babble. I was speaking specifically of the L1 point, the one directly between the two bodies. It also represents the point at which you would move from one body's gravity well into another's, does it not? For example, on one side of the L1 point you would experience a slight pull toward the black hole, while on the other you would be pulled toward Earth? Assuming I'm understanding *that* part properly, it follows that a Lagrange point existing on the surface of the earth would result in what would essentially be a zone of such low gravity that it would take very little force to overcome it. In such a zone, even the slightest disturbance should result in us drifting away from the surface. For the black hole to actually directly pull things off the surface of the planet, it would have to be pulling the planet as well, and that goes back to the "death by black hole" post mentioned earlier. Of course this all a "frictionless vacuum" discussion as there are so many other ways we're breaking the laws of physics for this scenario. And again, I could be completely missing something, as my understanding of L-points doesn't cover how they would behave on the surface of a planet.
no, what i am trying to say here is that the location of Legrange points depend on the location of the orbiting bodies. if our two body system consists of the earth and our black hole, you will never have a Legrange point on the surface of either. also, the Legrange points are not locations of zero acceleration. objects at Legrange points are simply stationary with respect to one of the bodies. objects at L-points still orbit as normal. if we calculate the effective potential for say, the sun and a black hole, and place the earth at L1 with respect to the hole, it simply orbits the sun with the exact same angular velocity as the black hole. |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 20:47:00 -
[433] - Quote
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:If a technology could be developed that changed the mass of an object (like the mass field tech in Mass Effect) how would the momentum and inertia of a moving object be affected if its mass where changed?
assuming conservation laws still hold, if we were somehow able to dial down the mass of a moving object, its velocity would need to increase in order for its momentum to remain constant. if we increase the mass, the velocity would need to decrease. the objects inertia would change directly with the mass (more mass more inertia. less mass less inertia). |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1292
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 21:13:00 -
[434] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:no, what i am trying to say here is that the location of Legrange points depend on the location of the orbiting bodies. if our two body system consists of the earth and our black hole, you will never have a Legrange point on the surface of either. also, the Legrange points are not locations of zero acceleration. objects at Legrange points are simply stationary with respect to one of the bodies. objects at L-points still orbit as normal. if we calculate the effective potential for say, the sun and a black hole, and place the earth at L1 with respect to the hole, it simply orbits the sun with the exact same angular velocity as the black hole. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the difference between casual scientific interest and a real science education :)
I'm curious now exactly what WOULD be required to lift people off the earth from 2 LY away. You know, in an environment where the Earth was immune to the tidal forces and other nastiness that come with a gravity well capable of sucking relatively massive objects off its surface. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 21:42:00 -
[435] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:no, what i am trying to say here is that the location of Legrange points depend on the location of the orbiting bodies. if our two body system consists of the earth and our black hole, you will never have a Legrange point on the surface of either. also, the Legrange points are not locations of zero acceleration. objects at Legrange points are simply stationary with respect to one of the bodies. objects at L-points still orbit as normal. if we calculate the effective potential for say, the sun and a black hole, and place the earth at L1 with respect to the hole, it simply orbits the sun with the exact same angular velocity as the black hole. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the difference between casual scientific interest and a real science education :) I'm curious now exactly what WOULD be required to lift people off the earth from 2 LY away. You know, in an environment where the Earth was immune to the tidal forces and other nastiness that come with a gravity well capable of sucking relatively massive objects off its surface.
so, with so much interest in this i just had to do a rough calculation =D
to start "sucking" people off the surface of the earth from 2 LY away, we simply need to calculate the mass required such that the net force acting on that object is 0
Fnet = Fearth - Fhole = 0
where Fearth is the weight of the object and Fhole (heheheh) is the force exerted on the object by the "black hole"
so Fearth = Fhole
mg = G*M*m / r^2
where
G is the universal Gravitation Constant = 6.67E-11 (m^3 kg^-1 s^-2) m and M are the mass of the object and the hole respectively and r is the distance to the hole in meters.
the little m's cancel out and we get
g = G*M / r^2
now we can rearrange the equation based on our unknowns. in this case, we know r, but not the mass of the object doing the sucking (pfff)
so we just solve for M
M = g*r^2 / G
for your example this comes to about 2.9E13 solar masses!! just for some perspective, the aforementioned quasar, OJ 287, is only around 1.8E10 solar masses! so it wouldn't tear the galaxy apart per say, so much as just ruin everyones day by scrambling the orbits of stars along its trajectory.
we can calculate the distance the quasar needs to be to start sucking people off the earth by just rearranging our equation to solve for r.
r = sqrt(M*G/g)
and we get and r of only .05 light years~! less then a tenth of a single light year, which was really not what i expected at all from doing this calculation! you learn something new every day =D
again though, this is very rough. i didn't put much thought here and there are a lot of other effects to take into account. what you should take away from this though is that the "sucking distance" of a black hole is independant of the mass of the object being sucked. ye gods this post is rife with innuendos! |
Jeyson Vicious
The Scope Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 02:36:00 -
[436] - Quote
I spent a good few hours the other weekend Googling how strong the power of freezing water is (I once heard it was an unstoppable force!). Did you ever see anything cool or amazing in school or a lab in that regard?
I tried to break a plastic water bottle in the freezer. It bloated quite a bit, but didn't bust. |
Mathis Athins
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 05:25:00 -
[437] - Quote
This one has always irked me: Why is the speed of light the fastest anything in the universe can travel? I just can't wrap my head around the idea that there is a limit to the maximum velocity of any and all objects and that it happens to be the specific speed that light travels. |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 15:18:00 -
[438] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:... what you should take away from this though is that the "sucking distance" of a black hole is independant of the mass of the object being sucked. ye gods this post is rife with innuendos! I have no idea what you are trying to say, but I think you are wrong.
Two objects with an equal mass and an equal density will always posses a Lagrange point (L1) in between them regardless of their distance to each other.
Two objects with different masses can have no L1 point, because the gravitational force is a square function and not a linear function. The point shifts quickly towards the object with the lesser mass and can then "fall" into the object if the difference in mass is large enough. This is especially true when the objects not only posses a difference in mass, but have different densities, too, because the L1 point will fall into it sooner the more bloated it is.
Quote:...Fearth = Fhole
mg = G*M*m / r^2 ...
the little m's cancel out and we get... You have cancelled out the mass of Earth and the blackhole, knowing they are different!
Maybe you wanted to say that gravity always sucks? |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 15:46:00 -
[439] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:... what you should take away from this though is that the "sucking distance" of a black hole is independant of the mass of the object being sucked. ye gods this post is rife with innuendos! I have no idea what you are trying to say, but I think you are wrong. Two objects with an equal mass and an equal density will always posses a Lagrange point (L1) in between them regardless of their distance to each other. Two objects with different masses can have no L1 point, because the gravitational force is a square function and not a linear function. The point shifts quickly towards the object with the lesser mass and can then "fall" into the object if the difference in mass is large enough. This is especially true when the objects not only posses a difference in mass, but have different densities, too, because the L1 point will fall into it sooner the more bloated it is. Quote:...Fearth = Fhole
mg = G*M*m / r^2 ...
the little m's cancel out and we get... You have cancelled out the mass of Earth and the blackhole, knowing they are different! Maybe you wanted to say that gravity always sucks and never blows?
little m is the mass of the object. the force of gravity acting on you at the surface of the earth is m*g, where m is your mass...
because they cancel out, the position and mass of the black hole required to negate earths gravity is independent of the mass of the object experiencing the effect.
and, AGAIN, this calculation has nothing to do with Legrange points... your second statement concerning objects of unequal mass not possessing an L1 point is just flat out wrong by counter example. the earth-sun system possesses an L1 point. we've BEEN there (with probes)... |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 15:54:00 -
[440] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:and, AGAIN, this calculation has nothing to do with Legrange points... your second statement concerning objects of unequal mass not possessing an L1 point is just flat out wrong by counter example. the earth-sun system possesses an L1 point. we've BEEN there (with probes)... Yes, it does. The Lagrange point is where the gravitational force turns around. And yes, Sun and Earth do posses an L1 point.
I wrote they (two objects of different mass) can have no L1 point. Not they never can have one. Are you really this bad at reading?!
I am starting to think that you are no more than a kid who tries to be clever by using Google and pretends to be a scientist in the off-topic section of a game forum. |
|
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 16:00:00 -
[441] - Quote
Mathis Athins wrote:This one has always irked me: Why is the speed of light the fastest anything in the universe can travel? I just can't wrap my head around the idea that there is a limit to the maximum velocity of any and all objects and that it happens to be the specific speed that light travels.
well, the speed of light has the unique property of being a property only of the medium in which the light travels (i posted about this earlier in the thread. still looking for it). this means that no matter how fast you go, if you are in a vacuum, light will move at a speed INDEPENDENT of your velocity. this is very unlike what you expect from common sense. if you move at 1 m/s, and throw a ball ahead of you at 2 m/s, YOU see the ball move at 2 m/s and a stationary observer sees it move at 3 m/s. but if you do this with light (say you move and turn on a flashlight), and if you are in a vacuum, you and a stationary observer will both AGREE that the light is moving at c, because its velocity only depends on the properties of the medium.
this is why the speed of light in a vacuum is a speed "limit". no matter how fast you go in a vacuum, light will always ALWAYS be faster.
|
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 16:22:00 -
[442] - Quote
Jeyson Vicious wrote:I spent a good few hours the other weekend Googling how strong the power of freezing water is (I once heard it was an unstoppable force!). Did you ever see anything cool or amazing in school or a lab in that regard?
I tried to break a plastic water bottle in the freezer. It bloated quite a bit, but didn't bust.
yes actually! water has many interesting properties and the two most important for the effects i think you are referring to is the fact that it is an incompressible fluid and that it expands when it freezes. a good example of the former is something that some friends of mine and i did as undergrads. we decided to try and shatter a Nalgene bottle! after several attempts, all of which failed, we eventually succeeded by filling the bottle completely with water (as little air inside as possible) and dropping off an eleven story building XD the bottle deformed when it hit the ground, but the water inside was incompressible, so its volume stayed approximately constant. the resulting pressure differential shattered the bottle :3 freezing water is a major erosive force on the earth because it expands (a property observed in only a select few materials)! again, because the fluid is incompressible we might have been able to break the bottle filled with water by freezing it as well!
there may be a number of reasons why your experiment failed. the most likely may be the presence of air in the bottle. unlike water, air is extremely compressible and if it is present in the bottle, then it will simply compress as the water freezes. the second reason may be the type of bottle used. many plastic bottles are designed with their ductility in mind, and your bottle may have simply stretched under the expanding force of the water.
hope this helps! |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 16:34:00 -
[443] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:well, the speed of light has the unique property of being a property [b][u][i] ... Boring!
We only do not know if it is possible to travel faster than light. We only know it is impossible with our current understanding.
To travel faster than light means that we need a propulsion system that pushes us forward faster than the speed of light. Because we do not know of anything being faster than light and having a mass to push away from will we never be able to travel faster than light with the help of conventional propulsion systems.
It is like saying that we cannot have engines with more than 1000HP when we do not know how to build an engine with more than 1000HP.
It does not mean that there is an upper limit to speed. We only do not know how to make it happen. If we could bend space - or warp it - then we could travel faster by using only a propulsion system that is slower than light. This is the idea behind warp drives.
Stargates are another fictional transport system, which avoids the speed of light limit. It is based on the idea that we travel by transporting the information of us rather than our physical representation, meaning, your body. For this to become possible do we however need to find a way to transport information faster than light. |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 16:41:00 -
[444] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:yes actually! water has many interesting properties and the two most important for the effects i think you are referring to is the fact that it is an incompressible fluid and that it expands when it freezes. a good example of the former is something that some friends of mine and i did as undergrads. we decided to try and shatter a Nalgene bottle! after several attempts, all of which failed, we eventually succeeded by filling the bottle completely with water (as little air inside as possible) and dropping off an eleven story building XD the bottle deformed when it hit the ground, but the water inside was incompressible, so its volume stayed approximately constant. the resulting pressure differential shattered the bottle :3 freezing water is a major erosive force on the earth because it expands (a property observed in only a select few materials)! again, because the fluid is incompressible we might have been able to break the bottle filled with water by freezing it as well!
there may be a number of reasons why your experiment failed. the most likely may be the presence of air in the bottle. unlike water, air is extremely compressible and if it is present in the bottle, then it will simply compress as the water freezes. the second reason may be the type of bottle used. many plastic bottles are designed with their ductility in mind, and your bottle may have simply stretched under the expanding force of the water.
hope this helps! Boring!
In my 5th or 6th grade did we fill a cast iron ball with water and sealed it with a thick screw. When we froze the cast iron ball did the freezing water burst it.
Nalgene bottles, really?!? |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 17:04:00 -
[445] - Quote
so now you aren't even trying to hide the fact that you're trolling -_- great. |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 17:10:00 -
[446] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:so now you aren't even trying to hide the fact that you're trolling -_- great. I am not the one who seeks recognition in an off-topic forum for being a particle astrophysicists. |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 17:12:00 -
[447] - Quote
the goal of this thread was to get better at writing and talking about physics for people who don't necessarily have the background. i'm really bad at it and i mentioned this goal right in my first post :( i'm not trying to get recognition for anything... this is supposed to be an exercise... |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 17:14:00 -
[448] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:the goal of this thread was to get better at writing and talking about physics for people who don't necessarily have the background. i'm really bad at it and i mentioned this goal right in my first post :( i'm not trying to get recognition for anything... this is supposed to be an exercise... I know, but you are also bad at accepting a lesson or two. Maybe try not to carve in too quickly? |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 18:34:00 -
[449] - Quote
in any case, a call for more questions! =D |
Mister LEM0NS
SWARTA Mostly Clueless
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 23:03:00 -
[450] - Quote
I believe I heard this one from the science channel. The belief is that faster than light travel is possible and our assumptions are that it would literally be easier to move space itself rather than the vehicle.
So how would untold ammounts of ships (all fitted for 'warp' travel) effect the universe if theyre all sporadicly tugging everything in all directions at basicly the same time? Sounds like kids fighting over a blanket, only you know, there isnt a winner... |
|
Bane Necran
267
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 23:16:00 -
[451] - Quote
Have you done any research into the electrical model of the universe, and if so, what do you think about it? |
Nylith Empyreal
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
86
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 23:18:00 -
[452] - Quote
Alright, I have one, though I suspect this to be more of a mathematics thing. But hopefully you can answer or perhaps someone else.. Why is the imaginary number system in relation to i = square root of -1 versus i = - , I've been trying to wrap my head around this, I understand the system as it is. But a philosophical and real life application seems to be out of my understanding. Isn't a negative number in itself imaginary, and simply a owe'd / wanted existing number of something. Like 5 - 8 doesn't work unless you add (-) to the equation which we can simply say is multiplied by a -1, meaning the answer -3 is actually (-1)(3) as it gives an ethereal answer to something that simply doesn't exist.
To delve further the negative sign itself is a symbol of imagination as there isn't -6 cars irl, it's simply a lack of or a want of 6 cars. To go further. To solve say square root -25 we change it to square root 25 x (-1) and get to 5 x square root -1 which we define as 5i, but couldn't it be that square root -1 is the same as square root 1 x -1 and continue on perpetually? To which case the only thing that makes it true is a single -1 or perhaps an opposite 1 x -1, as 1 x 1 = 1, -1 x -1 = 1, and 1 x -1 = -1, why isn't there say 1 x -1 = 1? or like x^2 = -25 (5^2i) it would be such that it's simply the same as -(5^2) thus the i is unneeded as the negative itself is imaginary?
I guess I'm trying to figure out the fault in my logic and would like a better explanation of this system as it as itself seems to be a different take of an already existing system in which it's purpose has no real application versus a negative as a representation of an imaginary number? Sorry if this is completely on a different title
But in regards to something like divide by 0, which isn't it simply the interaction of a (I forget the term) whole(?) number with 'nothing'? if you add nothing all you have is the same thing that you started with or minus nothing same thing. However when we multiply by nothing the whole number no longer exists, why? and why is it out of bounds to say division by nothing is nothing, generally multiplication and division are inverse to one another correct? If multiplication is # by sets of this # and division is # into segments of this #. What is the true need and limitation of dividing by 0
I hope this doesn't sound too confusing, I'm trying to wrap my head of the purpose of these two systems, as I'm going to call it , as zero interacts with numbers in a rather bizzare fashion that seems completely made up in a way the negatives / imaginary numbers work? If it is, I would try to best reformat as i can, but truly I'm failing to see their functions or motions to be complicated or merit of existence.
-á |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 04:07:00 -
[453] - Quote
Nylith Empyreal wrote:I hope this doesn't sound too confusing, I'm trying to wrap my head of the purpose of these two systems, as I'm going to call it , as zero interacts with numbers in a rather bizzare fashion that seems completely made up in a way the negatives / imaginary numbers work? If it is, I would try to best reformat as i can, but truly I'm failing to see their functions or motions to be complicated or merit of existence. I cannot give you a good answer. Complex numbers exist to describe two-dimensional problems and you should not try to understand them in a one- and n-dimensional context.
Assume for a minute you had a one problem like a > b. You can transform this problem with a strictly monotonic function and everything is still in order. If a > b is true so would a^2 > b^2 and as long as a and b are positive. If you use an alternating function like the sine or cosine function instead then it would transform your problem into an alternating problem where at one point a > b and at another a < b. It is likely not what you would want, but create a new problem when things begin to alternate.
Complex numbers can be used to describe alternating problems. While a real number multiplied with 1 stays the same will a complex number begin to rotate when multiplied with i. So instead of having to describe a problem with sine and cosine functions can one reduce the math into a simpler notation. Adding two complex numbers together then is the same as adding two 2-dimensonal vectors together. Multiplying two complex numbers with one another is the same as adding the angles and multiplying the lengths of two 2-dimensional vectors.
Philosophically are complex numbers not more than a tool. There is not more beauty in math with complex numbers than there already is in math with real numbers. Complex numbers are merely being the prettier ones and if all the real numbers were ponies then complex numbers would be like trick ponies that can wiggle their tail like a propeller, but you would not go ZOMG, trick ponies!! on them, especially after you have seen other ponies before. |
Nylith Empyreal
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 14:11:00 -
[454] - Quote
Fair enough, thanks, it'll probably expand further down the line as I take more advanced classes and then hopefully I'll gain a better understanding of it.
Thanks again. if anyone else has more light to shed I would love more explanations.
-á |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 16:08:00 -
[455] - Quote
Nylith Empyreal wrote:I see, so it's just a function that gives us the answers to multiple dimensions on multiple coordinates on a plane that would otherwise be untrue in regards to the real number system, but said system cant acocunt for it even though it is 'there' am I reading that right? Thanks again. if anyone else has more light to shed I would love more explanations. Yes. It was placed there intentionally to work like a doorstop for the human brain. Mostly it is engineers and physicists who use them. Their brains would have come undone otherwise if they had to use only trigonometric functions and were not allowed to imagine things. And I cannot blame them. Complex numbers do make a few things easier. I.e. in electrical engineering, where electricity is generated by rotating electromagnetic fields and as a result does the electricity alternate. Complex numbers let you specify electrical currents with their amplitude and their phase shift and one can continue to use the existing formulas for discrete currents and does not have to work with the trigonometric functions all the time. Work is still defined as W=V*A for example. |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 19:39:00 -
[456] - Quote
Nylith Empyreal wrote:Alright, I have one, though I suspect this to be more of a mathematics thing. But hopefully you can answer or perhaps someone else.. Why is the imaginary number system in relation to i = square root of -1 versus i = - , I've been trying to wrap my head around this, I understand the system as it is. But a philosophical and real life application seems to be out of my understanding. Isn't a negative number in itself imaginary, and simply a owe'd / wanted existing number of something. Like 5 - 8 doesn't work unless you add (-) to the equation which we can simply say is multiplied by a -1, meaning the answer -3 is actually (-1)(3) as it gives an ethereal answer to something that simply doesn't exist. To delve further the negative sign itself is a symbol of imagination as there isn't -6 cars irl, it's simply a lack of or a want of 6 cars. To go further. To solve say square root -25 we change it to square root 25 x (-1) and get to 5 x square root -1 which we define as 5i, but couldn't it be that square root -1 is the same as square root 1 x -1 and continue on perpetually? To which case the only thing that makes it true is a single -1 or perhaps an opposite 1 x -1, as 1 x 1 = 1, -1 x -1 = 1, and 1 x -1 = -1, why isn't there say 1 x -1 = 1? or like x^2 = -25 (5^2i) it would be such that it's simply the same as -(5^2) thus the i is unneeded as the negative itself is imaginary? Wouldn't it be basically mean that whenever a number interacts with a negative number it always become a negative, and whenever an negative interacts with a negative it turns into an opposite. Thus the equation x^2 = -25 is wrong x^2 = 25 and x can be either - or + and the equation -25 = x^2 is written -25 = -(x^2) with aboslutely no need for (i) as the negative is imaginary. It's like saying 5 = 8 because 5(i) = 8 I can make up something up too I guess I'm trying to figure out the fault in my logic and would like a better explanation of this system as it as itself seems to be a different take of an already existing system in which it's purpose has no real application versus a negative as a representation of an imaginary number? Sorry if this is completely on a different title But in regards to something like divide by 0, which isn't it simply the interaction of a (I forget the term) whole(?) number with 'nothing'? if you add nothing all you have is the same thing that you started with or minus nothing same thing. However when we multiply by nothing the whole number no longer exists, why? and why is it out of bounds to say division by nothing is nothing, generally multiplication and division are inverse to one another correct? If multiplication is # by sets of this # and division is # into segments of this #. What is the true need and limitation of dividing by 0 I hope this doesn't sound too confusing, I'm trying to wrap my head of the purpose of these two systems, as I'm going to call it , as zero interacts with numbers in a rather bizzare fashion that seems completely made up in a way the negatives / imaginary numbers work? If it is, I would try to best reformat as i can, but truly I'm failing to see their functions or motions to be complicated or merit of existence.
right, so there are a couple of things here, but the major point i want to make here is that mathematics is simply an extension of logic. The Conclusion Follows The Premise. and while this aspect of mathematics is absolutely fundamental to our universe, the nomenclature is not. we have DEFINED imaginary numbers to be a specific thing. they are no more or less imaginary than the characters "3" or "i". what they represent is what's important, not what they are called. in fact they are usually referred to by those who work with them as Complex numbers, and there is a whole field devoted to studying their properties called Complex Analysis.
the numbers that we are most familiar with are Natural Numbers. these are only the positive integers. we have 6 apples, or 1 troll, or 20 rifters etc... Complex numbers are entirely separate from these. they do not manifest directly in nature in the same way as -6 cars are no where to be found, but just as we may use -6 cars to say "you owe me 6 cars" we can use complex numbers to make mathematical statements that might otherwise be impossible with only naturals.
Complex numbers are commonly used in the description of oscillations, as anyone who as done AC circuit analysis can attest.
you are absolutely welcome to make up whatever you choose! the important thing is that you follow your initial premise to its logical conclusions. dividing by zero is just not allowed in "usual" algebra because it lets you do crazy things like proving 1=2 and such. you could, if you wanted to, create a mathematical system where division by zero is well defined, but this wont be algebra as most of us know it. there are many types of algebra with many definitions that people "just made up" in order to help them describe specific mathematical situations. for example, one of these most famous "other" algebras is Grassman or Exterior algebra, which basically defines multiplication as being anti commutative, that a*b = -b*a. while this is not immediately useful in, say, making change, it is exceptionally useful in the description of the Cross Product and Outer Product on arbitrary vector spaces, or calculating commutation relations in quantum mechanics.
it all depends on what you want to do with the math i suppose. i'm really REALLY bad at abstract mathematics so i hope this response helped at least a little...
|
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 19:43:00 -
[457] - Quote
Bane Necran wrote:Have you done any research into the electrical model of the universe, and if so, what do you think about it?
very very little when i was an undergraduate. the model is needlessly complex and completely fails to adequately describe things like universal gravitation or stellar evolution and the structure of HR diagrams :( |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 19:46:00 -
[458] - Quote
Mister LEM0NS wrote:I believe I heard this one from the science channel. The belief is that faster than light travel is possible and our assumptions are that it would literally be easier to move space itself rather than the vehicle.
So how would untold ammounts of ships (all fitted for 'warp' travel) effect the universe if theyre all sporadicly tugging everything in all directions at basicly the same time? Sounds like kids fighting over a blanket, only you know, there isnt a winner...
i comment on possible FTL travel methods in post #260 on page 13 =D recent calculations on the methods which involve the distortion of space-time ahead of and behind the ship DO indicate that the effects could be locally devastating! |
Pr1ncess Alia
Perkone Caldari State
162
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 04:12:00 -
[459] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Jeyson Vicious wrote:I spent a good few hours the other weekend Googling how strong the power of freezing water is (I once heard it was an unstoppable force!). Did you ever see anything cool or amazing in school or a lab in that regard?
I tried to break a plastic water bottle in the freezer. It bloated quite a bit, but didn't bust. yes actually! water has many interesting properties and the two most important for the effects i think you are referring to is the fact that it is an incompressible fluid and that it expands when it freezes. a good example of the former is something that some friends of mine and i did as undergrads. we decided to try and shatter a Nalgene bottle! after several attempts, all of which failed, we eventually succeeded by filling the bottle completely with water (as little air inside as possible) and dropping off an eleven story building XD the bottle deformed when it hit the ground, but the water inside was incompressible, so its volume stayed approximately constant. the resulting pressure differential shattered the bottle :3 freezing water is a major erosive force on the earth because it expands (a property observed in only a select few materials)! again, because the fluid is incompressible we might have been able to break the bottle filled with water by freezing it as well! there may be a number of reasons why your experiment failed. the most likely may be the presence of air in the bottle. unlike water, air is extremely compressible and if it is present in the bottle, then it will simply compress as the water freezes. the second reason may be the type of bottle used. many plastic bottles are designed with their ductility in mind, and your bottle may have simply stretched under the expanding force of the water. hope this helps!
What if I have a container strong enough to resist the force of the water attempting to expand?
Would the pressure itself keep the water from freezing (pressure does create heat) or can I achieve a container of super-cooled but not actually frozen water? |
Korah Arnelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 16:29:00 -
[460] - Quote
What's your take on Peter Woit's skepticism regarding M-Theory? |
|
Hans Win
DECIMA LEGIO Yulai Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 19:44:00 -
[461] - Quote
How much incandescent light bulbs 60W each, can i power-on for 60 minutes, using only the entire energy of 1 hydrogen atom ? |
Whitehound
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 22:05:00 -
[462] - Quote
What is a good physics book to read that does not try to explain nature with just lots of formulas, because I have no interest in applying them, but instead a good amount of the English language?
(I am always open to a good book suggestion.) |
loco coco
7
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 00:20:00 -
[463] - Quote
Not sure if you're still answering questions, but could you explain why the ion engines of today are so far from what is shown in EVE, and how they could possibly be revamped (due to the only active ones being built 40 or 50 years ago) to make them get close to the effectiveness they have in-game? |
Bane Necran
301
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 02:23:00 -
[464] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:[quote=Bane Necran]Have you done any research into the electrical model of the universe, and if so, what do you think about it?[/quote
very very little when i was an undergraduate. the model is needlessly complex and completely fails to adequately describe things like universal gravitation or stellar evolution and the structure of HR diagrams :(
I think you should look into it a little more. It's generally known to explain things more simply and with less contradictions than the standard model.
The main thing is that gravity isn't everywhere in the universe, but electric fields are. And as you should know, electricity is the only thing which produces electric fields. If gravity truly was the dominant force, it would make sense it would be pervasive throughout the universe instead, wouldn't it?
Also, did they tell you the Graviton has yet to be found? Meaning how gravity actually works is still just a theory with no hard evidence. So even the standard model has not yet fully explained or proven universal gravitation. If you wanted to, you could just dream up particles we cannot find to make any theory work, and this seems to be the dangerous game modern physics is playing. We're not going to find the Higgs Boson, and that's because it also doesn't exist, but everyone is afraid of that revelation because of what it means for everything we've built on assuming existence.
And i have no idea what HR diagrams are, unless you mean H.R Giger , but i may get back to you on that. |
Elyssa MacLeod
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
69
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 03:11:00 -
[465] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:greetings!
I am currently working on my PhD in Particle Astrophysics and recent events have shown me that i need way, WAY more experience explaining sciencey type stuff to people. SO, i figure, where better to practice then on the forums of a Sci-Fi game =D
ask away!
Ill have to bookmark this and find the question I had that noone gave me a good explanation of the last time I asked it GM Homonoia: Suicide ganks are a valid and viable tactic in EVE.
Where is your God now carebear? |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
71
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 20:25:00 -
[466] - Quote
Bane Necran wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:[quote=Bane Necran]Have you done any research into the electrical model of the universe, and if so, what do you think about it?[/quote
very very little when i was an undergraduate. the model is needlessly complex and completely fails to adequately describe things like universal gravitation or stellar evolution and the structure of HR diagrams :( I think you should look into it a little more. It's generally known to explain things more simply and with less contradictions than the standard model. The main thing is that gravity isn't everywhere in the universe, but electric fields are. And as you should know, electricity is the only thing which produces electric fields. If gravity truly was the dominant force, it would make sense it would be pervasive throughout the universe instead, wouldn't it? Also, did they tell you the Graviton has yet to be found? Meaning how gravity actually works is still just a theory with no hard evidence. So even the standard model has not yet fully explained or proven universal gravitation. If you wanted to, you could just dream up particles we cannot find to make any theory work, and this seems to be the dangerous game modern physics is playing. We're not going to find the Higgs Boson, and that's because it also doesn't exist, but everyone is afraid of that revelation because of what it means for everything we've built on assuming existence. And i have no idea what HR diagrams are, unless you mean H.R Giger , but i may get back to you on that.
an HR diagram is a HertzsprungGÇôRussell diagram, and it shows that there are distinct relationships between a stars age, stellar type, color, and luminosity. the electrical model of the universe doesn't account for these relationships. as before, i have made numerous statements on what it means for something to be a theory so i wont get into that again, suffice it to say that theory = evidence. yes, the graviton has yet to be discovered, but general relativity and newtonian gravitation to a supremely excellent job at predicting the nature of the universe.
but who knows. it's been a while, so maybe i'll look at your model again. |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
71
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 20:34:00 -
[467] - Quote
loco coco wrote:Not sure if you're still answering questions, but could you explain why the ion engines of today are so far from what is shown in EVE, and how they could possibly be revamped (due to the only active ones being built 40 or 50 years ago) to make them get close to the effectiveness they have in-game?
well, there was a discussion on EVE physics earlier in the thread. it is very unrealistic in that our ships behave as if they are traveling through some viscous fluid instead of a vacuum.
ion drives work by creating very stable, controlled plasmas, and then accelerating and focusing the ions of that plasma away from the source using intense electromagnetic fields. the change in momentum of the ions must be equal to the change in momentum of the drive. however, single ions are extremely light and so the change in momentum is fairly small. because of this, ion drives are either used for precise corrections, or for very long term accelerations (ion drives can use certain solid metal alloys as a fuel, and so can last much longer in a "controlled burn" then its chemical combustive counterparts). to make ion drives more like thrusters, you would need to accelerate the ions to much higher velocities, which would either require very large diameter ring accelerators or very long linear ones.
hope this helps!
|
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
71
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 20:35:00 -
[468] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:What is a good physics book to read that does not try to explain nature with just lots of formulas, because I have no interest in applying them, but instead a good amount of the English language?
(I am always open to a good book suggestion.)
a brief history of time by stephen hawking is a personal favorite of mine
|
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
71
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 20:44:00 -
[469] - Quote
Hans Win wrote:How much incandescent light bulbs 60W each, can i power-on for 60 minutes, using only the entire energy of 1 hydrogen atom ?
the mass of a single hydrogen atom is approximately 1.67E-27 kg. if we were to convert it entirely to energy we would get...
E = mc^2 = 1.67E-27 * 9E16 = 15.3E-11 Joules.
so you can power zero 60W light bulbs for an hour... (a single bulb, lit for one hour, would require 216 kJ of energy, or 1.4E15 Hydrogen atoms) |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
71
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 20:49:00 -
[470] - Quote
Korah Arnelle wrote:What's your take on Peter Woit's skepticism regarding M-Theory?
i am not familiar with peter woit's opinions on M-theory, but from my perspective, M-Theory, Brane-Theory, and all derivatives of string theory are NOT THEORIES. they are HYPOTHESIS'. string theory is not falsifiable. there are no predictions made by string "theory" that we can currently (or possibly, ever) measure in order to prove the hypothesis not false.
in short, such mathematical constructs do nothing more than what the current standard model does, and frankly, the standard model is more simple.
that said, when / if we DO get sufficient evidence for string / M theory i will gladly withdraw this statement and turn on a dime =D |
|
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
71
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 20:52:00 -
[471] - Quote
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:Jeyson Vicious wrote:I spent a good few hours the other weekend Googling how strong the power of freezing water is (I once heard it was an unstoppable force!). Did you ever see anything cool or amazing in school or a lab in that regard?
I tried to break a plastic water bottle in the freezer. It bloated quite a bit, but didn't bust. yes actually! water has many interesting properties and the two most important for the effects i think you are referring to is the fact that it is an incompressible fluid and that it expands when it freezes. a good example of the former is something that some friends of mine and i did as undergrads. we decided to try and shatter a Nalgene bottle! after several attempts, all of which failed, we eventually succeeded by filling the bottle completely with water (as little air inside as possible) and dropping off an eleven story building XD the bottle deformed when it hit the ground, but the water inside was incompressible, so its volume stayed approximately constant. the resulting pressure differential shattered the bottle :3 freezing water is a major erosive force on the earth because it expands (a property observed in only a select few materials)! again, because the fluid is incompressible we might have been able to break the bottle filled with water by freezing it as well! there may be a number of reasons why your experiment failed. the most likely may be the presence of air in the bottle. unlike water, air is extremely compressible and if it is present in the bottle, then it will simply compress as the water freezes. the second reason may be the type of bottle used. many plastic bottles are designed with their ductility in mind, and your bottle may have simply stretched under the expanding force of the water. hope this helps! What if I have a container strong enough to resist the force of the water attempting to expand? Would the pressure itself keep the water from freezing (pressure does create heat) or can I achieve a container of super-cooled but not actually frozen water?
something like that yes, either the temperature or pressure. at that point it would depend on the dimensions of the container in order to determine the dominating effect. super cooling may in fact occur, but at some point it is simply going to freeze and be a solid under extremely high pressure. it's sort of the immovable object / unstoppable force problem. |
Whitehound
103
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 21:21:00 -
[472] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Whitehound wrote:What is a good physics book to read that does not try to explain nature with just lots of formulas, because I have no interest in applying them, but instead a good amount of the English language?
(I am always open to a good book suggestion.) a brief history of time by stephen hawking is a personal favorite of mine I already read it. It was a great read. Any other perhaps? |
Bane Necran
303
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 21:36:00 -
[473] - Quote
http://io9.com/5901578/one-of-the-most-terrifyingly-incomprehensible-theories-in-physicsexplained
Opinions on that?
It just so happens to use magnetic waves/fields as a way to unify the different fields of physics, but i assure you that is merely a coincidence. I'm terrible at math, and tend to work more with concepts, so i'd be interested in hearing your opinion. |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
72
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 14:33:00 -
[474] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Tsadkiel wrote:Whitehound wrote:What is a good physics book to read that does not try to explain nature with just lots of formulas, because I have no interest in applying them, but instead a good amount of the English language?
(I am always open to a good book suggestion.) a brief history of time by stephen hawking is a personal favorite of mine I already read it. It was a great read. Any other perhaps?
Brian Greene's Elegant Universe is pretty good but he pushes string theory a lot.
also, anything by / about Richard Feynman is pure gold
|
Whitehound
117
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 14:54:00 -
[475] - Quote
Tsadkiel wrote:Brian Greene's Elegant Universe is pretty good but he pushes string theory a lot.
also, anything by / about Richard Feynman is pure gold Many thanks. |
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
622
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 16:50:00 -
[476] - Quote
Question:What do you think about this?
Because it is very relevant to the core foundations of all physics.
|
Agamemnon Illearth
Lone Wolf Oni
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 13:40:00 -
[477] - Quote
I would like to have your perspective on reality itself.
Not the big bang and the subsequent universe we see around us, but rather why.
Why is there hard matter beneath my feet? Why 'any' matter or even energy? Why not an eternal nothingness. It is a question that bothers me more than any other yet I know there will never be any answer to it. I follow with great interest what a laman can in regards to science however I feel that even if all of this universe' puzzles have been solved I would still be left wondering why there even was puzzles to solve.
I would be interested in hearing what you think. Working so close with the minutia of the universe must create more questions for you. |
OldMan Gana
The Suicide Kings Test Alliance Please Ignore
51
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 15:55:00 -
[478] - Quote
Will Manchester United win the Premiership ?
" I spent most of my money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best-á |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
73
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 20:24:00 -
[479] - Quote
OldMan Gana wrote:Will Manchester United win the Premiership ?
*shakes and checks his 8-ball*
yes!
because of SCIENCE! *lightning bolts* |
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
73
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 21:13:00 -
[480] - Quote
Agamemnon Illearth wrote:I would like to have your perspective on reality itself.
Not the big bang and the subsequent universe we see around us, but rather why.
Why is there hard matter beneath my feet? Why 'any' matter or even energy? Why not an eternal nothingness. It is a question that bothers me more than any other yet I know there will never be any answer to it. I follow with great interest what a laman can in regards to science however I feel that even if all of this universe' puzzles have been solved I would still be left wondering why there even was puzzles to solve.
I would be interested in hearing what you think. Working so close with the minutia of the universe must create more questions for you.
your question is essentially
"why are we here?"
to which i can only give one honest answer: I don't know.
again, science makes no claim to know "why" anything beyond the superficial (why do the planets orbit the sun? gravity.). again, and again, scientific theories only describe two things: what is happening and how it happens.
of course, the snarky quantum mechanical answer to why there is matter and energy, and why there isn't eternal nothingness, is because if that were so, then we wouldn't be here to observe it :3 |
|
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
73
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 21:34:00 -
[481] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
i don't really follow what you are trying to ask here, but perhaps this will shed some light on things.
if you had a single, TRUE random number generator that generated an infinitely long string of random numbers, you would be able to find ANY specific string of your choosing.
take the example to a more simple case.
suppose you roll a die an infinite number of times. what is the probability of getting a single 6? or three sixes in a row? or a thousand sixes in a row? or how about exactly 1526 consecutive sixes sandwiched between two ones?
the answer in all cases is 1
this is because the number of tries is going towards infinity!
so, yea, if you had a real, perfect random number generator, and you ran it for an infinite period of time, you would eventually have it output not only EVE online, but all releases and possible versions of EVE online, past, present, and future!
|
Tsadkiel
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
73
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 21:52:00 -
[482] - Quote
Bane Necran wrote:http://io9.com/5901578/one-of-the-most-terrifyingly-incomprehensible-theories-in-physicsexplained
Opinions on that?
It just so happens to use magnetic waves/fields as a way to unify the different fields of physics, but i assure you that is merely a coincidence. I'm terrible at math, and tend to work more with concepts, so i'd be interested in hearing your opinion.
i've never heard of this and i'm reading about it now. this... may take a while lol
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: [one page] |