Quantumphysics

[Dram]

I hope to find proof that quantumphysics is wrong, and we can lieve with a more deterministic approach as Einstein also hoped for. But first I have to learn the math.

 

LOL. Quantum mechanics will soon (I'm talking ~20 yrs mind lol) be applied to things such as computers - in which case they predict that a stellar calculation that would normally take several years to calculate would take a few milliseconds to calculate.

 

Though I doubt we'll (us publicos) be able to use it anytime soon....I'll probably be 60.

[Maximius]

sparhawk: ...the math.

 

Edited April 23, 2006 by Maximius

[sparhawk]

What?

[Maximius]

What?

 

 

I was just expressing my terror at the thought of the mathematics you were describing. Im allergic to mathematics, I break out into red bumps if I touch an algebra textbook...

[sparhawk]

I consider math at something nice, even though I'm not that good at it. I have to work quite hard to understand it. Still there is beauty in it, and if you would look really close, you might see it.

[OrbWeaver]

I have the same problem, relatively simple maths I can understand and appreciate the beauty to some extent, but once it passes a certain level I just can't handle it anymore.

 

I think you need a certain sort of "abstract" mind to understand really advanced mathematics, whereas I am more practically minded and can only understand what I can visualise.

[Maximius]

I consider math at something nice, even though I'm not that good at it. I have to work quite hard to understand it. Still there is beauty in it, and if you would look really close, you might see it.

 

I know what you mean, when its explained to me or in an obvious applied situation its lovely to see the relationships. It took me a long time to get to even that point, I was the victim of terrible mathematics teachers in my early elementary years ( I still remember their names, Mrs. Gable and Mr. Musto, I hope they are screaming in Hell right now...) and I had an obvious lack of ability from the get-go anyway. When I started my undergraduate schooling I had to take a refresher course in math, Fun With Numbers or something. I broke out into a literal sweat on the first day of class. The instructor gave me a C because even though I actually failed the course he said that 1. I had tried as hard as I could and 2. he had never met anyone with such an obvious lack of mathematical ability. It was an act of mercy for which I'm eternally grateful.

 

 

I have the same problem, relatively simple maths I can understand and appreciate the beauty to some extent, but once it passes a certain level I just can't handle it anymore.

 

I think you need a certain sort of "abstract" mind to understand really advanced mathematics, whereas I am more practically minded and can only understand what I can visualise.

 

I've always been a "word man" as my stepfather, a "numbers man", described it. I consider myself an intuitive thinker above all else. I can sail to the stars in a ship constructed of words but numbers make my brain stop cold. I'm proud of the fact that I have torn not one but two elementary school math books in half out of sheer rage and frustration.

[sparhawk]

I have the same problem, relatively simple maths I can understand and appreciate the beauty to some extent, but once it passes a certain level I just can't handle it anymore.

 

The funny thing is that I have a collegue at work, who even learned physics properly, and understood the theory of relativity, which is much more then I can say, and he always claims that I would be good at it.

[sparhawk]

The instructor gave me a C because even though I actually failed the course he said that 1. I had tried as hard as I could and 2. he had never met anyone with such an obvious lack of mathematical ability. It was an act of mercy for which I'm eternally grateful.

 

That's nice of him, because not all teachers are like that. Strange thing is, that, when I was younger and learned my first steps in programming by experimenting and thinking how to apply it, I always thought, that this is so easy to understand and logical, that anybody must understand it, if you explaint it properly to him. Same for math. I always thought that some things are so obvious because they are logically connected with each other, that you simply can't fail to make the connection. And when I met people who didn't see this even though it was so obvious, I really got frustrated and angry at them, because I thought they just don't want to see it. It took me quite a long time, until I realized that some poeple just don't get it, no matter how hard and compulsive you explain some logical connection.

 

Edit: Actually this very day I had such a discussion with my wife. I'm colourblind. And there was a certain combination of colours, which I said I liked. She said that this looks totally ugly. I accepted this but I still maintained that I think it attractive, when she started to EXPLAIN to me why this could not be so. I tried to tell her several times, that this is totally subjective. If I like something like that, there is no amount of arguing that can change it, because it is subjective by definition. She got pissed off then and said I just don't want to listen to her. Of course I was pissed off to then, but now that I wrote this posting, I just remember this and I suddenly saw the parallel of it.

[Maximius]

spar:

... until I realized that some poeple just don't get it, no matter how hard and compulsive you explain some logical connection.

 

That describes me exactly. In undergrad, I took a course in the Philosophy of Science. I did well until the day the prof put a pretty simple mathematical explanation on the board. I was stymied, stunned, speechless. He kept saying "X" and I kept saying "What the fuck?" He explained it twelve different ways but it would not sink into my skull.

 

My arch nemesis in the class (and in the Philo department) took this as an opportunity to get some digs in, trying to cast doubts on my mental faculties because I could not handle this problem. I paid him back with dividends though, every time he opened his mouth in class from then on I disabled his arguments like I was kicking canes from underneath old ladies. I think I told him once that I was going to beat him to death with his own words and I nearly did.

 

spar:

Edit: Actually this very day I had such a discussion with my wife. I'm colourblind...

 

Me too, partially anyway. I cannot differentiate red/green shades past a certain degree. When I was in the Army, a sergeant came to me apologetically and said something like "son, you'll never be in the infantry or combat arms with vision like that." I pissed him off when I said "Thank God!"

 

I let my fiancee buy my clothes for me. Before I met her, it was combat boots, tie dies, leather jackets with rips and chains, khaki shorts with resin stains on the lap, beer stained t-shirts. Now thanks to her incredible talent for thrift shopping and her keen eye for fashion I dress like a million bucks for about 250$ a year. When she tells me she raised me up from the hilljack pothead goofball style I used to sport, she ain't kidding.

[sparhawk]

LOL! I can understand that. I don't care that much for cloths myself. I want them to be clean and not ragged, and that's about it. I don't care much if my shirt is a bit outdated or not, because I wear it if it is comfortable. This can enrage my wife because she says I should take care of my clothing. It's not as if I don't appreciate a suit and a tie when the occasion requires it, but somehow I always find myself spending my money on computers or books and other stuff and when I think of buying some clothes, it's already spent. Not that I think about buying cloths to often. As long as it functionaly works there is no need to buy new one.

As I always say. When I go to my office I get paid for my expertise in computer programming and not because of my beauty.

I guess we are just a bunch of nerds here.

[Maximius]

LOL! I can understand that. I don't care that much for cloths myself. I want them to be clean and not ragged, and that's about it. I don't care much if my shirt is a bit outdated or not, because I wear it if it is comfortable. This can enrage my wife because she says I should take care of my clothing. It's not as if I don't appreciate a suit and a tie when the occasion requires it, but somehow I always find myself spending my money on computers or books and other stuff and when I think of buying some clothes, it's already spent. Not that I think about buying cloths to often. As long as it functionaly works there is no need to buy new one.

As I always say. When I go to my office I get paid for my expertise in computer programming and not because of my beauty.

I guess we are just a bunch of nerds here.

 

Yes she has prettified me but the Nerd still busts out in public. I never cared about shit like clothes and stuff. I bragged about never ever ironing anything ever. I would hang shirts inside the shower and run it on boiling hot for an hour to get out the wrinkles. I kept the same tie for like 12 years and wore it with any button up shirt I happened to own at the time color be dammned. I had a pair of leather and cork sandals that I wore until the heels were competely eaten away. Then I wore them for another year as bedroom slippers. Those days are gone, now I cannot leave the house without at least a cursory inspection. She had a ceremony two years ago where she took my final and favorite tie-die shirt, a yellow, red, and orange horror, and cut it to pieces in front of me with scissors.

[Dram]

Yes she has prettified me but the Nerd still busts out in public. I never cared about shit like clothes and stuff. I bragged about never ever ironing anything ever. I would hang shirts inside the shower and run it on boiling hot for an hour to get out the wrinkles. I kept the same tie for like 12 years and wore it with any button up shirt I happened to own at the time color be dammned. I had a pair of leather and cork sandals that I wore until the heels were competely eaten away. Then I wore them for another year as bedroom slippers. Those days are gone, now I cannot leave the house without at least a cursory inspection. She had a ceremony two years ago where she took my final and favorite tie-die shirt, a yellow, red, and orange horror, and cut it to pieces in front of me with scissors.

LOL, I've still got plenty of time before I get married or whatever hehe...

[Unstoppable]

Can you point me to the article? I'm pretty sure you are confusing the terms here. This experiment is done with light rays. Scientists were able to create devices where a single phtono was emited at a time, and this experiment shows that even then the interference effect takes places. This can be observed with electrons as well, but not with atoms. At least I have never read anywhere that you can do this interference test also on the level of an atom. If you reread that article, it would be intersting to see wether they are talking about photons (which I assume) which are NOT atoms.

Having mutations is nothing spectacular. Since there are quite a lot of bacterias, it would also not surprising if multiple bacterias have the same mutation and even at the same time. I was merely wondering about the statemten that two bacterias have the same mutation at the same time and they are seperated across the world. I'm not wondering about the fact itself, only about how they verified that claim.

 

I noticed your link to late as your quoting was a bit strange. I don't read that "simultanouos" in that article as "exactly the same time". From the context it seems more to me that it is meant that they happen around the same time. Anyway. Depending on the circumstances there might be only a limited number of how that particular resitance could be built, so it would not be surprising to see the same resistance evolving if exposed to the same threat.

 

When you guys are close to finishing the time machine and nano-tech augmentations let me know. I'd like to be a modern day JC Denton and travel back in time.

 

I believe this is possible cuz I believe in the theories of what Einstein talked about dealing with wormholes and what not. Not trying to make fun of you guys. Just emphasizing that at least I know some what what the hell you guys are talking about.

 

It's fun when you go out there and realize what physics do. How colors work, how the universe works. Most people walking down the street have no clue.

Edited April 25, 2006 by Unstoppable

[OrbWeaver]

I would hang shirts inside the shower and run it on boiling hot for an hour to get out the wrinkles.

 

Somewhere, an environmentalist just shot himself.

[sparhawk]

When you guys are close to finishing the time machine and nano-tech augmentations let me know. I'd like to be a modern day JC Denton and travel back in time.

 

 

I believe this is possible cuz I believe in the theories of what Einstein talked about dealing with wormholes and what not. Not trying to make fun of you guys. Just emphasizing that at least I know some what what the hell you guys are talking about.

 

Wormholes might be a convenient way to defeat the limit of the speed of light. I don't think though, that it would allow travelling back in time. I'm not convinced that this is possible. For a good introduction on how time works and how it relates to physics you can find in "Brian Greene, The fabric of the cosmos"

[Dram]

well according to the theory of special relativity you can travel forward in time but not backward

 

i also heard wormholes are possible, something about spaces in or near atoms that were detected but not explained. dont remember details.

[sparhawk]

well according to the theory of special relativity you can travel forward in time but not backward

 

That movement forward in time is pretty trivial. I already realized this possibillity when I first read about the theory which was when I was about 15.

 

The faster you travel, the slower time goes by. This effect is known as the Twin Paradoxon. So going forward in times would mean to accelerate up to a good speed and then come back. While there are technical problems with the implementation of that, it should be achievable. Of course "good speed" depends on how far you want to go, because the farther you want to go in time, the faster you have to go.

 

i also heard wormholes are possible, something about spaces in or near atoms that were detected but not explained. dont remember details.

 

AFAIK wormholes are a theoretical possibillity. But the nature of time is still pretty unknown, so this is mostly speculation. You can find as many scientist supporting one view as you can find for the opposite ideas.

[Dram]

You had such a good point you posted it twice! or it's a twin paradox

 

But anyways, with the effect of time travel to be noticeable, you'd have to be travelling at -high- speeds, over 60% the speed of light. That is of course an abstract value, as it is an exponential curve realistically.

 

But it begs the question...is it possible to have 2 Sparhawks? It'd be useful for sure, as one could go to work while the other codes for TDM all day

[Dram]

That movement forward in time is pretty trivial. I already realized this possibillity when I first read about the theory which was when I was about 15.

 

Which is how old I was when I learnt it in physics lol

[sparhawk]

But it begs the question...is it possible to have 2 Sparhawks? It'd be useful for sure, as one could go to work while the other codes for TDM all day

 

In that case I want to be the one that is staying at home to support my wife and works on TDM.

 

But that would open a strange question.

 

Suppose I would be time travelling back in the past, so I exist now two times. And then I get an arrangement that one of us is going to work, and the other one is staying at home. Most certainly we would get into a fight, because both of us would want to saty at home. Strange, eh?

 

Of course, if I could really get back in the past, I would just tell me the next lottery numbers when there is a huge jackpot, and then go away.

[sparhawk]

Which is how old I was when I learnt it in physics lol

 

Could have also been earlier, but I don't remember exactly. I know that I still went to school, and I read an article in PM, which is a pseudo scientific magazine. They mix with esotreic stuff as well. The article was quite interesting, but when I started to think about it, I realized that this magazine doesn't offer much in terms of answers, so I turned to other, scientific american, sources. It's still popular science, but on a higher level then PM.

[OrbWeaver]

I read one theory that although reverse time travel might be possible, it would have to be such that you could only travel back in time by entering a different universe, and by doing so you would preclude the possibility of ever returning to your own universe.

 

This removes the problem paradox involved in, for example, killing your own parents (or even stranger, impregnating your own mother and fathering yourself).

[sparhawk]

I'm not that fond of the multiverse idea to allow time travelling. I can accept that multiple universes exist, but I don't think that they are neccessarily similar to ours. I think that different universes might have different parameters, and I would expect to find live there, but it certainly would not be the same life we have here. Similar to, if mankind destroys itself, some time there will evolve a new species that might also have a higher intelligence, but there would never be humans again. Similarily I would not expect to find humans or even better, your mother, there.

[Vadrosaul]

Not really to do with quantum physics, but I thought you guys would like to see what I've been conversing with my brother, who is a physicist, on complexities of travelling to Mars with current or forseeable tech:

 

This is a simplified trajectory analysis of travel between Earth and Mars. In order to keep things simple, I have ignored the orbital mechanics aspects of the solar system. So, for instance, I am ignoring the gravitational pull of the sun, initial velocity conditions due to the traveler’s initial start in the Earth’s reference system, any velocity needed to match Mar’s velocity upon arrival, any drag and/or resistance due to solar wind, light pressure from the Sun, or changes in inertia due to the ejection of propellant. Some of these issues may be important. I could in fact attempt to perform the gravitational field part of the analysis, and the answer would be somewhat different than the one I’m about to yield, but I think the analysis I am performing will get the point across, and the analysis is far less difficult to execute. The analysis I am going to perform is basically straight-line motion, between Earth and Mars.

 

So, let’s start by summarizing the only assumptions needed for this analysis:

 

The distance to Mars from Earth is 100 million km, per Wikipedia

D1 = 100 ∙ 109 m

D1/2 = 50 ∙ 109 m

The desired time to get to Mars is 45 days, per PhysOrg

t1 = 3.888 ∙ 106 s

t1/2 = 1.944 ∙ 106 s

We are going to engage in constant acceleration motion, with a direction of acceleration reversal halfway there, and no initial velocity.

This means that for the first half of the trip, our rocket is firing in the direction of Earth, to speed us up, and in the second half of the trip it is firing towards Mars, to slow us back down.

 

Now, let’s derive the equation of motion for this system.

 

By definition:

1. a = (d2x / dt2)

 

So, integrating to solve for x:

2. x = x(0) + v(0)t + 0.5at2 (valid for constant acceleration)

Now, assuming that we have no initial velocity, as we stated, and that the start position is labelled as zero, then we can solve for the acceleration:

3. a = 2x/t2

 

So, let’s make some substitutions, and solve for the acceleration:

• x = D1/2

• t = t1/2

 

a = (2)(50∙109) / (1.944∙106)2 = 0.0265

 

So, we’ve got an acceleration of 0.0265 m/s2. If you compare that against the standard surface-of-Earth gravitational acceleration g, which is 9.81 m/s2, then you might say that the acceleration of the spacecraft would be 0.0270 g.

 

So, with this low level of acceleration, the travelers in our spacecraft would not really notice too much the acceleration level at all.

 

 

As an afterthought, the moment at which the spacecraft velocity is highest is going to be the moment of turn-around. What is that velocity? Well, using the same type of analysis as above, it can be shown that the maximum velocity is given by vmax = a∙ t1/2, which can be solved to be 51440 m/s, which is roughly 185185 km/hr.