welcome to the fest 

View previous topic :: View next topic 
Author 
Message 
Michael
Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 10648

Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:32 am Post subject: 


bun bun wrote:  i love studying physics (and some math). it gives me a warm fuzzy.
highlights:
> the doubleslit experiment (a.k.a. WTF? it can tell when we look at it?!?!)
> shroedinger's cat (a.k.a. WTF? something can occupy both sides of a boolean state?!?!?)
> fractals (a.k.a. WTF? you can fit an infinite line into a finite area?!??! or an infinite area into a finite volume?!?!? a.k.a. WTF? an infinite value of a "lower" dimension can fit into a finite value of a "higher" one?!?!?! a.k.a. see next)
> string theory (a.k.a. WTF????) 
fractals > Wiki
Which is why mr Mandelbrot felt traditional geometry was completly out of touch with the real world 

Back to top 


Germ
Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 32 Location: Case Western Reserve University


Back to top 


WheelsOfConfusion
Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 12072 Location: Unknown Kaddath

Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:04 am Post subject: Re: thats what the bleep stands for rite?? 


Sam wrote:  I'm glad that "What the hoary everfucking shit do we know" was called correctly as a bullshit movie. 
I wanted to be the one to do it, though.
Elegant Universe isn't about Quantum so much as it is about String "theory," which as I'm sure most people know is not even a testable hypothesis at this point and may not be for a long time.
For a while now "Quantum" Whatevers have been treated by honest authors and snakeoil hucksters alike as a sort of magical bag into which you can fit any sort of plot device, and out of which you can yank any sort of crank mysticism; rather like "gamma rays" that used to make people superhuman and green instead of giving them masses of terminal cancers.
The problem is that the popular treatment of Quantum Whatsits generally hasn't changed in this regard. The truth is that despite all its counterintuitive and mindboggling claims and implications, QT is solidly scientific and has certain boundaries and limits (though more of the probability sort than the strictly possible sort). 

Back to top 


Michael
Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 10648

Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:34 am Post subject: 


wiki wrote:  Vibrations were further reduced by building the apparatus on top of a huge block of marble, which was then floated in a pool of mercury 
That alone, was worth it 

Back to top 


Darqcyde
Joined: 11 Jul 2006 Posts: 10261 Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:58 pm Post subject: Re: thats what the bleep stands for rite?? 


WheelsOfConfusion wrote:  Sam wrote:  I'm glad that "What the hoary everfucking shit do we know" was called correctly as a bullshit movie. 
I wanted to be the one to do it, though.
Elegant Universe isn't about Quantum so much as it is about String "theory," which as I'm sure most people know is not even a testable hypothesis at this point and may not be for a long time.
For a while now "Quantum" Whatevers have been treated by honest authors and snakeoil hucksters alike as a sort of magical bag into which you can fit any sort of plot device, and out of which you can yank any sort of crank mysticism; rather like "gamma rays" that used to make people superhuman and green instead of giving them masses of terminal cancers.
The problem is that the popular treatment of Quantum Whatsits generally hasn't changed in this regard. The truth is that despite all its counterintuitive and mindboggling claims and implications, QT is solidly scientific and has certain boundaries and limits (though more of the probability sort than the strictly possible sort). 
What was that article you posted on the old forum about granular space? _________________ ...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://12ozlb.blogspot.com Now in book form: http://amzn.to/14E6OFy 

Back to top 


timmccloud
Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 633 Location: Marshall, Wisconsin

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 1:45 am Post subject: 


Huh, I could have sworn I posted a copy of this over here from the "news of the Oh My GoD you have got to be kidding me" thread in the casual chat forum.
Anyway, if you are going to talk about quantum physics, you should know your dimensions....
timmccloud wrote:  ...here is something to bend your brain into twisty bits:
"Want to break your brain? Click on this site, and then click 'imagining the ten dimensions'. If any physicists out there want to call bunk on this, feel free..."
Thanks to Aaron Williams of Nodwick.com for pointing this out. It's awesome. I think I'll post it on the physics thread too.... 
_________________ Wow. Tatsuya is god. Or the dragon... 

Back to top 


WheelsOfConfusion
Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 12072 Location: Unknown Kaddath

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 2:11 am Post subject: Re: thats what the bleep stands for rite?? 


Darqcyde wrote:  What was that article you posted on the old forum about granular space? 
I thought Torque posted it?
I remember posting one in which a simulation using granular space only produced a "universe" like our own when cause and effect were assumed from the getgo.
Anyway, I don't remember the link to the specific article. 

Back to top 


bun bun Guest

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:23 am Post subject: 


Michael wrote:  bun bun wrote:  i love studying physics (and some math). it gives me a warm fuzzy.
highlights:
> the doubleslit experiment (a.k.a. WTF? it can tell when we look at it?!?!)
> shroedinger's cat (a.k.a. WTF? something can occupy both sides of a boolean state?!?!?)
> fractals (a.k.a. WTF? you can fit an infinite line into a finite area?!??! or an infinite area into a finite volume?!?!? a.k.a. WTF? an infinite value of a "lower" dimension can fit into a finite value of a "higher" one?!?!?! a.k.a. see next)
> string theory (a.k.a. WTF????) 
fractals > Wiki
Which is why mr Mandelbrot felt traditional geometry was completly out of touch with the real world 
hold up, there, sparky.
i was too lazy to read the entire wiki article, but are you disagreeing with me?!?!?!
cause if so, ima show you summat, boyo.
1. take your magical imaginary paper, and a magical pen that draws perfectly 1 dimensional lines, and draw an equilateral triangle on the paper.
2. draw equilateral triangles, exactly 1/3 the size of the original, that are sitting exactly in the middle of each of the sides of the original.
3. you will now have an object with, if you count only the lines at the perimeter, 12 equal sides, a star of david.
4. Now repeat step two.
5. Again.
6. And on into infinity.
7. You will be able to draw a square around the triangle with a finite area, even though the object inside has in infinite perimeter.
8. the object you have just drawn (sans square, duh) can be replicated by a fractal equation, and is thus a fractal pattern.
this effect can also be achieved with what is known in math circles as "the sponge" where you remove volume from a cube in roughly the same manner, and end up with an object of infinite area inside a finite volume.
plus, you're living in the proof that an infinite amount of a lesser demension can (mathematically, at least, although not according to the laws of physics, because none of these occur within the laws of physics, only within the laws of fractal maths) fit into a higher one.
time is the fourth dimension. would you ever say that, mathematically, a certain amount of time can only contain up to a specific limit of area? that's a non sequitur, right? well, yeah. it is. as is "a specific amount of volume can only contain a certain amount of area."
BOOYAH! 

Back to top 


Sojobo
Joined: 12 Jul 2006 Posts: 2433

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:30 am Post subject: 


bun bun wrote:  6. And on into infinity. 
This step cannot be completed. Your pen will run out of ink.
and I can't tell why you think he was disagreeing with you. 

Back to top 


bun bun Guest

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:34 am Post subject: 


Sojobo wrote:  bun bun wrote:  6. And on into infinity. 
This step cannot be completed. Your pen will run out of ink.
and I can't tell why you think he was disagreeing with you. 
Number one:
bun bun wrote:  magical pen 
bun bun wrote:  none of these occur within the laws of physics, only within the laws of fractal maths 
Number two:
because he only picked up on that one aspect of what i said, and directed me to wikipedia....? 

Back to top 


Sojobo
Joined: 12 Jul 2006 Posts: 2433

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:43 am Post subject: 


bun bun wrote:  magical pen 
You described only its powers of drawing lines of magical thickness! Surely you're not implying I should've assumed it had other magical powers that you didn't tell me about... at least not until your archnemesis is just about to defeat you, and your immeasurable will to survive and passion for saving the universe unlocks those new powers! 

Back to top 


bun bun Guest

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:50 am Post subject: 


Sojobo wrote:  bun bun wrote:  magical pen 
You described only its powers of drawing lines of magical thickness! Surely you're not implying I should've assumed it had other magical powers that you didn't tell me about... at least not until your archnemesis is just about to defeat you, and your immeasurable will to survive and passion for saving the universe unlocks those new powers! 
GAH!
OCD, much?
i wuv u anyway. 

Back to top 


Michael
Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 10648

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:38 am Post subject: 


bun bun wrote:  hold up, there, sparky.
i was too lazy to read the entire wiki article, but are you disagreeing with me?!?!?! 
Uhhhh... no
Your only statement was that you liked fractals. How the hell am I supposed to disagree with that? Nope I was simply going yeah hey cool fractals! you know what else is cool 'bout fractals?
Originally the post was meant to feature examples of the differences between euclidean geometry and 'the real world' i.e. straight lines with a clearly defined length versus curved lines of a fractalish persuasion whose length depends highly on the way you measure them. And then I was going to direct you towards Mandelbrot and his comments on euclidean geometry and his proposed switch to a fractalbased approach. But then "I decided I couldn't be arsed" and you got a wiki link instead 

Back to top 


bun bun Guest

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:43 am Post subject: 


Michael wrote:  bun bun wrote:  hold up, there, sparky.
i was too lazy to read the entire wiki article, but are you disagreeing with me?!?!?! 
Uhhhh... no
Your only statement was that you liked fractals. How the hell am I supposed to disagree with that? Nope I was simply going yeah hey cool fractals! you know what else is cool 'bout fractals?
Originally the post was meant to feature examples of the differences between euclidean geometry and 'the real world' i.e. straight lines with a clearly defined length versus curved lines of a fractalish persuasion whose length depends highly on the way you measure them. And then I was going to direct you towards Mandelbrot and his comments on euclidean geometry and his proposed switch to a fractalbased approach. But then "I decided I couldn't be arsed" and you got a wiki link instead 
Okie Dokie! Sorry I took it th' wrong way... still, cool thought experiment, huh...? 

Back to top 


Usagi Miyamoto
Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 2219 Location: wish you were here

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:06 am Post subject: 


forest," _________________ The reward for a good life is a good life.
Last edited by Usagi Miyamoto on Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:49 pm; edited 1 time in total 

Back to top 




You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
