welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Quantum Physics, anyone?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Michael



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10690

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bun bun wrote:
i love studying physics (and some math). it gives me a warm fuzzy.

highlights:
-> the double-slit 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
View user's profile Send private message
Germ



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

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've always liked the Michelson-Morley experiment. Though I may be biased.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12208
Location: Unknown Kaddath

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

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. Crying or Very sad
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 mind-boggling 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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Michael



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10690

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Germ wrote:
I've always liked the Michelson-Morley experiment. Though I may be biased.


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
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10423
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

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

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. Crying or Very sad
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 mind-boggling 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://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
timmccloud



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

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 1:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12208
Location: Unknown Kaddath

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

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 get-go.
Anyway, I don't remember the link to the specific article.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bun bun
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael wrote:
bun bun wrote:
i love studying physics (and some math). it gives me a warm fuzzy.

highlights:
-> the double-slit 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: 2443

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bun bun
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Smile

Number one:

Rolling Eyes

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: 2443

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 arch-nemesis 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
View user's profile Send private message
bun bun
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 arch-nemesis 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: 10690

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 fractal-ish 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 fractal-based approach. But then "I decided I couldn't be arsed" and you got a wiki link instead
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bun bun
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 fractal-ish 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 fractal-based 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: 2225
Location: wish you were here

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 3 of 8

 
Jump to:  
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