# Ask a physicist!



## Kilgore Trout

Big Tex:

Who or what inspired you in your career as a physicist? 

What was your biggest motivation, what kept you enthusiastic, wanting to enter this field?


----------



## Anonynony

Who came up with the name for gluons? Seriously, was a joke or something? I guess it's a pretty straight forward name though...


----------



## bigtex1989

Kilgore Trout said:


> Big Tex:
> 
> Who or what inspired you in your career as a physicist?
> 
> What was your biggest motivation, what kept you enthusiastic, wanting to enter this field?


This is a great question that required a lot of thought on my part. When I was a little kid, my mom tells me I was already quite the scientist. I would mix concoctions of random household items (including chemicals sometimes XD) and test their freezing and melting points and record them in a little journal I had. She tells me all the time she'd open up the freezer and just see a bunch of random crap in there. Of course I don't really remember this. She was convinced I would grow up to be a chemist though lol. I have always been curious about things though, and that is the important part.

Then I lost my curiosity for a little bit, until I found the works of Richard Feynman. I read biographies, his lectures, pretty much everything I could get a hold of about him and he has been my greatest inspiration in physics. He just seems like the most "human" scientist and one I could really related to (even before I knew about typology and found out we are both ENTP 7w6 lol). He is my biggest scientific influence.

As for what keeps me motivated, everything! The thought of what's over the next ridge of understanding. The desire to know, to understand. Not knowing things is probably the most exciting part. I take great pleasure in finding things out, solving problems, etc. Physics allows for a person to do those things all at once. I choose physics because it allows for the broadest subject matter base. Since physics is the foundation for all other sciences, I figured I'd go straight to the source!


----------



## bigtex1989

FigureSkater said:


> Who came up with the name for gluons? Seriously, was a joke or something? I guess it's a pretty straight forward name though...


I think it was a guy named Murray Gell-Mann.

I imagine it was a joke. The story of how he came up with the name "quark" is actually pretty funny I think XD

He didn't know how he was going to spell "quark" until he was reading a book and saw the nonsense word in a poem lol


----------



## Adrift

Imagine a single helium atom in space at absolute zero. Would the 2 electrons keep moving forever or would they eventually run out of energy? If they keep moving forever, where is the energy coming from and if they run out of energy, what happens? Do they escape the orbitals or do they crash into the nucleus?


----------



## bigtex1989

Adrift said:


> Imagine a single helium atom in space at absolute zero. Would the 2 electrons keep moving forever or would they eventually run out of energy? If they keep moving forever, where is the energy coming from and if they run out of energy, what happens? Do they escape the orbitals or do they crash into the nucleus?


So we have to investigate this with some quantum mechanics. So let me start by saying, absolute zero is impossible to achieve. We could talk about Bose-Einstein condensates, but I don't think that is the nature of this theoretical question.

So when we talk about electrons, the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle applies. At exactly zero Kelvin, the kinetic energy of the electron (and the momentum) must be zero. This happens to be completely defined. That means that the position of the electron must be completely undefined. So where will it be? No clue. If I had to guess, it would stay in the correct orbitals (especially for helium) because that is the lowest energy level possible.


----------



## MatsNorway

Ramesh Raskar: Imaging at a trillion frames per second | Video on TED.com

but since the light is moving slowly past us that means it moves slowly towards us. That means that we are actually watching something that has allready happened. Kinda like watching the stars. it happended a long time ago.


----------



## bigtex1989

MatsNorway said:


> Ramesh Raskar: Imaging at a trillion frames per second | Video on TED.com
> 
> but since the light is moving slowly past us that means it moves slowly towards us. That means that we are actually watching something that has allready happened. Kinda like watching the stars. it happended a long time ago.


How that camera works is as follows. They send a packet of photons and take an instantaneous picture of it. Then they fire an identical photon bullet (or as close as possible) and take a picture of that one at a time that is slightly "greater" in the process. Greater is not the term to use here but I couldn't think of a better one. They do this however many times it takes and then weave together a video that is more or less like a flip book. The light isn't moving slowly towards or away from us. Something has already happened only in the same vein as when you watch a movie they filmed it previously. Watch at about 5:30 into the video and he explains it. The computer creates a composite image with a brilliantly designed algorithm; no manipulation of light is going on here. Definitely fascinating, groundbreaking and something to look out for in the future.


----------



## MatsNorway

what it? Do they send photons onto the light?


----------



## MatsNorway

Another one related to the helium question above. 

If helium got less energy why is hydrogen lighter?

I was going there because vacuum would be the "lightest" "state"


----------



## Ovi

bigtex1989 said:


> So when we talk about electrons, the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle applies. At exactly zero Kelvin, the kinetic energy of the electron (and the momentum) must be zero.


Wait, at absolute zero, wouldn't the electron be in its ground state? Its kinetic energy would be non-zero. Its energy is also known as the zero-point energy.


----------



## Ovi

MatsNorway said:


> Another one related to the helium question above.
> 
> If helium got less energy why is hydrogen lighter?
> 
> I was going there because vacuum would be the "lightest" "state"


The kinetic energy of an atom at room temperature is nothing compared to the energy equivalent of its rest mass.


----------



## DeductiveReasoner

What happens when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object?


----------



## Calliver

Okay, this might sound a bit weird but I was just mainly looking for some advice. I'm sixteen, and I'm currently enrolled in a dual college/high school. I'm planning on becoming a Theoretical Physicist, and I was just wondering what courses, outside resources, etc. I should take. 

Also, is it bad that I don't know many of the mathematical equations behind things? I usually only end up finding ideas, and written things online. I've never found things explaining from the basics of Physics. If you could suggest anything, I would be extremely happy. 

I have to ask though, what do you see as the best way to time travel? Wormholes, black holes, faster than the speed of light, etc.?


----------



## Cheeseumpuffs

Darklings said:


> Okay, this might sound a bit weird but I was just mainly looking for some advice. I'm sixteen, and I'm currently enrolled in a dual college/high school. I'm planning on becoming a Theoretical Physicist, and I was just wondering what courses, outside resources, etc. I should take.
> 
> Also, is it bad that I don't know many of the mathematical equations behind things? I usually only end up finding ideas, and written things online. I've never found things explaining from the basics of Physics. If you could suggest anything, I would be extremely happy.


I've only watched through the first of these lectures but it seems like a good place to start for learning physics. Good luck.

http://oyc.yale.edu/physics/phys-200/lecture-1


----------



## Ovi

Darklings said:


> Okay, this might sound a bit weird but I was just mainly looking for some advice. I'm sixteen, and I'm currently enrolled in a dual college/high school. I'm planning on becoming a Theoretical Physicist, and I was just wondering what courses, outside resources, etc. I should take.
> 
> Also, is it bad that I don't know many of the mathematical equations behind things? I usually only end up finding ideas, and written things online. I've never found things explaining from the basics of Physics. If you could suggest anything, I would be extremely happy.


Mathematics is VERY important. Don't ignore it. You won't go far without an understanding of the math behind it all. Some physics books that I highly recommend: Berkeley Physics Course, The Feynman Lectures on Physics and Max Born's Atomic Physics.


----------



## Calliver

Ovi said:


> Mathematics is VERY important. Don't ignore it. You won't go far without an understanding of the math behind it all. Some physics books that I highly recommend: Berkeley Physics Course, The Feynman Lectures on Physics and Max Born's Atomic Physics.


Oh, I never planned on not learning the mathematics. I'm already enrolled in a few Physics classes for the fall here at the college. I was just saying I haven't seen many ONLINE, about it. But, thank you for the book suggestions! I'll check them out and see which ones I like! Thanks for all the advice guys.


----------



## Ovi

Darklings said:


> Oh, I never planned on not learning the mathematics. I'm already enrolled in a few Physics classes for the fall here at the college. I was just saying I haven't seen many ONLINE, about it. But, thank you for the book suggestions! I'll check them out and see which ones I like! Thanks for all the advice guys.


You can find pdfs for those books quite easily.


----------



## bigtex1989

MatsNorway said:


> what it? Do they send photons onto the light?


I'm not getting the question here. Sorry.


----------



## bigtex1989

MatsNorway said:


> Another one related to the helium question above.
> 
> If helium got less energy why is hydrogen lighter?
> 
> I was going there because vacuum would be the "lightest" "state"


Hydrogen is "lighter" for no other reason than it has less mass.


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34

bigtex1989 said:


> This might mean a spawn of a whole new universe (possibly through a big bang of sorts because *entropy just sky rocketed*)... I'm not sure how much the universe would care if you traveled through a wormhole and ended up "back in time" (which to the universe would really mean *"a state of lower entropy"*)


Did entropy sky rocket or go to a lower state? I assume the latter. I understand that the big bang was caused by the universe being in a state of low entropy and expanding to state of higher entropy, but I don't understand how something similar would happen with time travel backwards, or precisely how a parallel universe would be created. Mass would have to be conserved when the new universe was created too. How would that work? Could the original universe in the future seize to exist to account for this? Or could particles in the new universe could be thought of as the same particles as in other time branches of the same universe, existing in multiple places at once?



bigtex1989 said:


> About Hawking, if you get me the article or paper, I could probably tell you. At this point, I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about.


full article: STEPHEN HAWKING: How to build a time machine | Mail Online


Hawking said:


> In the end, I think a wormhole like this one can't exist. And the reason for that is feedback. If you've ever been to a rock gig, you'll probably recognise this screeching noise. It's feedback. What causes it is simple. Sound enters the microphone. It's transmitted along the wires, made louder by the amplifier, and comes out at the speakers. But if too much of the sound from the speakers goes back into the mic it goes around and around in a loop getting louder each time. If no one stops it, feedback can destroy the sound system.
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing will happen with a wormhole, only with radiation instead of sound. As soon as the wormhole expands, natural radiation will enter it, and end up in a loop. The feedback will become so strong it destroys the wormhole. So although tiny wormholes do exist, and it may be possible to inflate one some day, it won't last long enough to be of use as a time machine. That's the real reason no one could come back in time to my party.


Wouldn't most of the radiation be moving away from the wormhole, so that the amount that reenters and loops back decreases exponentially?

Thought this part was interesting too.
[quote="Hawking]Through the wormhole, the scientist can see himself as he was one minute ago. But what if our scientist uses the wormhole to shoot his earlier self? He's now dead. So who fired the shot? It's a paradox. It just doesn't make sense. It's the sort of situation that gives cosmologists nightmares. [/quote]


----------



## MegaTuxRacer

What's the deal with mobeus loops? They never end!


----------



## bigtex1989

> Did entropy sky rocket or go to a lower state? I assume the latter. I understand that the big bang was caused by the universe being in a state of low entropy and expanding to state of higher entropy, but I don't understand how something similar would happen with time travel backwards, or precisely how a parallel universe would be created. Mass would have to be conserved when the new universe was created too. How would that work? Could the original universe in the future seize to exist to account for this? Or could particles in the new universe could be thought of as the same particles as in other time branches of the same universe, existing in multiple places at once?
> 
> 
> full article: STEPHEN HAWKING: How to build a time machine | Mail Online
> 
> Wouldn't most of the radiation be moving away from the wormhole, so that the amount that reenters and loops back decreases exponentially?
> 
> Thought this part was interesting too.


I will be answering this stuff with a video soon. I don't think I can type it out sufficiently and to my liking XD


----------



## bigtex1989

MegaTuxRacer said:


> What's the deal with mobeus loops? They never end!


As far as it never ending, lots of stuff never end! A circle never ends, nor does a line, and countless other things!

That being said, one sided things are very fascinating. Mobius loops are cool, but Klein bottles are even cooler! You make those by weaving Mobius loops together (it is more complicated but oh well) and they have REALLY cool properties. Non-orientable, non-invertible! SUPER COOL. If you have any specific questions, I could answer them, otherwise I could talk about Mobius loops for awhile. The inside is the outside.


----------



## Flatlander

bigtex1989 said:


> As far as it never ending, lots of stuff never end! A circle never ends, nor does a line, and countless other things!
> 
> That being said, one sided things are very fascinating. Mobius loops are cool, but Klein bottles are even cooler! You make those by weaving Mobius loops together (it is more complicated but oh well) and they have REALLY cool properties. Non-orientable, non-invertible! SUPER COOL. If you have any specific questions, I could answer them, otherwise I could talk about Mobius loops for awhile. The inside is the outside.


What is a Klein bottle?


----------



## bigtex1989

Probably said:


> What is a Klein bottle?


The best way to describe a Klein bottle is to say it is a 3D Mobius loop. It is a figure which the inside is the outside, so it has zero volume. UNLESS we are going to talk about Klein bottle wine bottles. In 4 dimensions, it has zero volume, but in 3, IT HAS VOLUME!!!!

(A Klein bottle also has a lot of other cool properties that would make sense to a topologist but for this type of discussion, wouldn't mean much)


----------



## MegaTuxRacer

bigtex1989 said:


> As far as it never ending, lots of stuff never end! A circle never ends, nor does a line, and countless other things!
> 
> That being said, one sided things are very fascinating. Mobius loops are cool, but Klein bottles are even cooler! You make those by weaving Mobius loops together (it is more complicated but oh well) and they have REALLY cool properties. Non-orientable, non-invertible! SUPER COOL. If you have any specific questions, I could answer them, otherwise I could talk about Mobius loops for awhile. The inside is the outside.


I actually have a klein bottle hat.


----------



## Death Persuades

Why am I not a zombie yet?


----------



## Hunny Bunny

josue0098 said:


> Why am I not a zombie yet?



Because it's impossible for a Troll to turn zombie.


----------



## Death Persuades

Hunny Bunny said:


> Because it's impossible for a Troll to turn zombie.


Edited for obvious reasons.


----------



## FiNe SiTe

This has probably been asked already but how does a force field work (in theory)?
Has it got to do with the electron?


----------



## bigtex1989

FiNe SiTe said:


> This has probably been asked already but how does a force field work (in theory)?
> Has it got to do with the electron?


A force field in science fiction would probably have something to do with a dense sheet of electrons held together by some sort of charged plates. There are LOTS of ways to make one (including magnetic fields) but electron sheets are probably the easiest conceptually (although hardest practically)


----------



## enmity

What does "Gaussian" mean exactly in Physics? I've seen it so many times yet I still don't know what it means.


----------



## bigtex1989

enmity said:


> What does "Gaussian" mean exactly in Physics? I've seen it so many times yet I still don't know what it means.


It means that whatever you are talking about can be approximated by a Gaussian Distribution (or bell curve). For example, laser intensity can sometimes be approximated by a Gaussian distribution (and when it can, the laser is said to have a Gaussian profile). At the point of source, the laser is the brightest (has most intensity), and the further you get from the middle, the lower the intensity gets.


----------



## enmity

bigtex1989 said:


> It means that whatever you are talking about can be approximated by a Gaussian Distribution (or bell curve). For example, laser intensity can sometimes be approximated by a Gaussian distribution (and when it can, the laser is said to have a Gaussian profile). At the point of source, the laser is the brightest (has most intensity), and the further you get from the middle, the lower the intensity gets.


OK, so how the Gaussian distribution relate to the Gaussian surface? It looks like all it is trying to do is simplify solving the surface integral by exploiting symmetry. Why is it called Gaussian surface?


----------



## bigtex1989

enmity said:


> OK, so how the Gaussian distribution relate to the Gaussian surface? It looks like all it is trying to do is simplify solving the surface integral by exploiting symmetry. Why is it called Gaussian surface?


I can't believe I forgot about Gaussian surfaces lol. This is one of the exceptions. A Gaussian surface doesn't use Gaussian distributions at all XD. You are correct in saying that a Gaussian surface is just used to simply surface integrals by exploiting symmetry; that is the entire point! It is called a Gaussian surface because it is named after Carl Gauss, the man who came up with the idea of a Gaussian surface.


----------



## 22575

bigtex1989 said:


> I can't believe I forgot about Gaussian surfaces lol. This is one of the exceptions. A Gaussian surface doesn't use Gaussian distributions at all XD. You are correct in saying that a Gaussian surface is just used to simply surface integrals by exploiting symmetry; that is the entire point! It is called a Gaussian surface because it is named after Carl Gauss, the man who came up with the idea of a Gaussian surface.


I believe this to be appropriate:


----------



## Vtile

Why light goes through clear class, but not a steel plate in the same thickness.?
Why ampere is made so hard to determinate?
How can santas reindeers fly?


----------



## bigtex1989

Vtile said:


> Why light goes through clear class, but not a steel plate in the same thickness.?


Simple answer is glass is a liquid, steel is a solid. What this means is, in glass, the structure of the atoms is not in a well defined lattice with a nice sea of electrons like what you would find in a solid. The effect is, when light hits a steel plate, the light reflects off these "loose" electrons, but in glass, there is no such mechanism to do this. It should also be noted that glass does not absorb light in the visible spectrum, but does absorb waves in the infrared and ultraviolet spectrum.



Vtile said:


> Why ampere is made so hard to determinate?


I didn't think an ampere WAS hard to determine XD. The formal definition of one ampere is nothing more than 6.241x10^18 electrons passing a point in a second. A better conceptual definition is "charge per second". As far as practically determining current, there are tools to do so. As far as circuit analysis goes, I think you'll find some people are really good at it, others not so much. Circuit analysis is not my forte. I got through electronics and never looked back lol.



Vtile said:


> How can santas reindeers fly?


On the lost and forgotten hopes and dreams of broken parents and spoiled children! That is easy and uninteresting. What IS an interesting question is how can they fly so fast? Even with time zone considerations, several times the speed of light travel is necessary. I guess there are lots of really spoiled kids and lots of really broken parents.


----------



## Tristan427

Is a natural aptitude for mathematics necessary for a doctorate in theoretical physics? What if the person was bad in math classes in a public school setting? Not for lack of understanding, but lack of the necessary attention to understand? I'm most likely going to be in the computer field, out of interest and I enjoy it, but college is still some time away and I am keeping my options open. However, even people with natural mathematical ability struggle in physics, so I doubt I'd have the patience to deal with the mathematical equations.


----------



## bigtex1989

@0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34

Here is your video. I said a few imprecise things but the ideas are sound as far as I can tell.


----------



## Hunny Bunny

bigtex is hot.


----------



## wuliheron

Bigtex can you explain what a squeezed vacuum state is?


----------



## Stelmaria

While we're at it, I'd like to know what a Hilbert space is? 

Now I'm not asking for a definition, I don't want a Wikipedia-esqe answer, like "it has xyz properties that are useful/necessary for theoretical physics". But rather, I want to know what makes it unique/special. I've read the definition before, even come across spaces once or twice, but I still don't "get it".


----------



## Wulfyn

Good questions.


----------



## luemb

Michael Nihil said:


> Not sure if you're into the cosmology side of things or not but I'll ask anyway. - If one _could_ travel into a black hole, what would one find? I have heard that it is physically possible for there to be a wormhole that leads to another dimension inside one; is this actually possible or is it just conjecture?
> 
> Thanks


I'm going to follow the BigTex method and answer without looking at any other resources. 

Travelling *into* a black hole would certainly be a cool adventure. Not only is space broken at the edge of the singularity, so is time. As you approach, your path that appeared to start out heading straight for the black hole would be bent by the curvature of space-time and you would find yourself on a spiral inwards toward the black hole along with all the other matter on the black hole's accretion disk. Here, the gravity of the black hole pulls your particles apart, at the same time as the time line that you are on stretches longer and longer. If you had a clock, it would appear to run the same time to you, but to an outside observer it would be heading towards becoming infinitely slow. When you (or whatever is left of your now-plasmatized) particles reach the actual edge of the event horizon time on your watch according to the outside observer would be infinitely long, or, in other words, time for you has stopped. 

As to what's inside a black hole, I think it's just a mass of particles that are packed densly enough that their collective gravity is strong enough that the escape velocity necessary to leave the mass is required to be faster than the speed of light. It seems simple enough, it's only the complication of space-time and the speed of light being the fastest thing possible that makes black holes such magical-sounding places.


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34

Michael Nihil said:


> Not sure if you're into the cosmology side of things or not but I'll ask anyway. - If one _could_ travel into a black hole, what would one find? I have heard that it is physically possible for there to be a wormhole that leads to another dimension inside one; is this actually possible or is it just conjecture?
> 
> Thanks


I don't think that anyone actually knows. It could be as Luemb says. Or, the black hole could spit you (your particles) out through a black hole of equal mass:
-somewhere in this universe.
-in another universe, through another black hole via Hawking radiation
-in another universe through a white hole (meaning your particles would be part of that universe's big bang. All particles that entered the black hole would emerge at once)
-back in time. (actually Hawking says that closed time-like loops are impossible, which would include this type of time travel, though I'm not sure if he has actually proved this).

Now, if you traveled through a Kerr-black hole (a rotating star that collapsed into a "singularity ring" instead of a single point singularity) or simulated this effect with multiple black holes orbiting a center, you may be able to pass through the center and exit the black hole without being broken down into particles. Now, we haven't actually discovered any Kerr-black holes.


----------



## darude11

All right, after some time I again return, with really crazy question... How much energy could be in whole universe? I accept estimations, approximiations, without that it would be madness. Try to use E=mc^2 (or expanded version E^2=(mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2

And if it is too complicated, then you can tell...


----------



## Stelmaria

darude11 said:


> How much energy could be in whole universe?


42. I'm still deriving the units though. :wink:


----------



## darude11

Would ordinary people (if not, would sciencists) see difference in everyday universe, if it was made of half the everything it is made (half molecules, half atoms, half energy etc.), if it was halved and from one half let's say something supernatural would create exact copy of original universe?


----------



## FiNe SiTe

bigtex1989 said:


> @_0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34_
> 
> Here is your video. I said a few imprecise things but the ideas are sound as far as I can tell.


 I give you 100/10 for that answer because you mentioned Full Metal Alchemist as a part of your explanation. xD


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34

darude11 said:


> All right, after some time I again return, with really crazy question... How much energy could be in whole universe? I accept estimations, approximiations, without that it would be madness. Try to use E=mc^2 (or expanded version E^2=(mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
> 
> And if it is too complicated, then you can tell...


Zero. 

At least, that's how much energy the matter/energy and their anti-particles in this universe should equal.

Of course, this idea, while it does fit into how we understand the universe, contradicts our observations, being that there is vastly more matter observable than anti-matter. There are a few explanations for why this would be that I've seen. Short kaons can produce a small amount of matter over antimatter, though I'm not sure that it would actually be enough to account for the amount of matter in this universe.

Matter cannot be created an destroyed. But, creating the universe does not have to follow the same physics that exist in this universe since they are created within this universe... but it still has to follow the logic that things should prefer not to exist rather than exist. It makes sense intuitively that 0 would be the default state. There are quantum fluctuations of matter and anti-matter that the article below mentions. I like to think of this effect as 0 = -1 +1. So, the universe (or multiverse) _as a whole_ actually does not exist. How this would translate into an entire universe... well I could guess, but I haven't gathered enough info; it would just be speculation.

Here is an article: What's the Total Energy In the Universe? | LifesLittleMysteries.com

Or if you want a less theoretical answer that isn't zero: Big Bang Energy


----------



## darude11

> Zero.
> 
> At least, that's how much energy the matter/energy and their anti-particles in this universe should equal.
> 
> Of course, this idea, while it does fit into how we understand the universe, contradicts our observations, being that there is vastly more matter observable than anti-matter. There are a few explanations for why this would be that I've seen. Short kaons can produce a small amount of matter over antimatter, though I'm not sure that it would actually be enough to account for the amount of matter in this universe.
> 
> Matter cannot be created an destroyed. But, creating the universe does not have to follow the same physics that exist in this universe since they are created within this universe... but it still has to follow the logic that things should prefer not to exist rather than exist. It makes sense intuitively that 0 would be the default state. There are quantum fluctuations of matter and anti-matter that the article below mentions. I like to think of this effect as 0 = -1 +1. So, the universe (or multiverse) _as a whole_ actually does not exist. How this would translate into an entire universe... well I could guess, but I haven't gathered enough info; it would just be speculation.
> 
> Here is an article: What's the Total Energy In the Universe? | LifesLittleMysteries.com
> 
> Or if you want a less theoretical answer that isn't zero: Big Bang Energy


Thanks! I needed it for my kinda sci-fi thing ^^


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34

If other universes exist do you think it would be possible to travel to them (you could avoid casual problems associated with time-travel, though I think there would be problems associated with the physics of the universes being different.)

How does consciousness work?


----------



## bigtex1989

wuliheron said:


> Bigtex can you explain what a squeezed vacuum state is?


I'll assume you know a bit about QM from some of your other questions. With that, let's begin.

So a squeezed vacuum state is a type of squeezed coherent state. A squeezed coherent state is any state that the uncertainty principle is at a minimum (like the ground state). There are lots of statistical equations to go along with this, but I find them unimportant for an understanding. Now we can get to squeezed vacuum state specifically.

A squeezed vacuum state is a coherent state where everything is uniform (hence the term vacuum, there is nothing in a vacuum to effect the wave packet) so that means all phase angles are the same (so might as well be zero), no electric field interference (or rather a CONSTANT electric field interference so might as well be zero) and some other cool stuff like the Wigner Function also being at a minimum. So in QFT, using a vacuum state results in a minimum I believe. Don't quote me on that though XD


----------



## bigtex1989

Snow Leopard said:


> While we're at it, I'd like to know what a Hilbert space is?
> 
> Now I'm not asking for a definition, I don't want a Wikipedia-esqe answer, like "it has xyz properties that are useful/necessary for theoretical physics". But rather, I want to know what makes it unique/special. I've read the definition before, even come across spaces once or twice, but I still don't "get it".


So there isn't much that makes Hilbert spaces unique/special :/. Everyone tries to make Hilbert spaces complicated, but it is simply this. Think of any vector space. Since this is only a basic vector space, we can only add (and subtract) vectors and scale vectors (not necessarily with real numbers though). Any vector space that also allows for an inner product of the vector and itself to be defined as the magnitude squared of that vector is now considered a Hilbert space.

That is the BASIC way to think about it. Hilbert spaces have a few more subtle nuances that are important for mathematical deconstruction, but not overly important practically. Also, infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces turn out to be way more useful XD


----------



## bigtex1989

darude11 said:


> Would ordinary people (if not, would sciencists) see difference in everyday universe, if it was made of half the everything it is made (half molecules, half atoms, half energy etc.), if it was halved and from one half let's say something supernatural would create exact copy of original universe?


So that answer is a theoretical yes. With have the atoms, half the mass, half energy (although half of zero is zero XD), gravitational potential would probably be vastly different meaning stars would have trouble forming, which means larger atoms couldn't be synthesized, which means no carbon, which means no life!

I guess that means ordinary humans wouldn't notice a change XD


----------



## bigtex1989

darude11 said:


> All right, after some time I again return, with really crazy question... How much energy could be in whole universe? I accept estimations, approximiations, without that it would be madness. Try to use E=mc^2 (or expanded version E^2=(mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
> 
> And if it is too complicated, then you can tell...


The sum of all energy in the universe is most likely zero


----------



## bigtex1989

> If other universes exist do you think it would be possible to travel to them (you could avoid casual problems associated with time-travel, though I think there would be problems associated with the physics of the universes being different.)


Absolutely, I think the main concern will be amassing enough energy to do so. I like to think of it like a neighborhood with a bunch of houses. Each house is a universe. To get from your house to your neighbor's you'd have to open your door (but there is no door so you have to bust down the wall), walk down the road, and THEN break down his wall (because doors don't exist for some reason). That takes a lot of effort! Especially if you are an ant. It isn't a perfect analogy (because it implies an end to the universe and some other things) but I don't think it works out too terribly.



> How does consciousness work?


That is a fantastic question. If anyone knew, I think AI would be feasible lol. To think is one thing, to know you're thinking is a much bigger thing.


----------



## Stelmaria

bigtex1989 said:


> That is the BASIC way to think about it. Hilbert spaces have a few more subtle nuances that are important for mathematical deconstruction, but not overly important practically. Also, infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces turn out to be way more useful XD


Those are the bits that I don't quite understand...


----------



## bigtex1989

Guph said:


> Could somebody please shed some light on the difference between self-similarity and scale invariance? (I'm trying to understand fractals).
> 
> Thanks!


So unfortunately, I don't really know much about the differences between the two. I know a little about scale invariance in a physical sense (like Maxwell's equations when they are more of less static) and what that means for solving problems but I don't think I can really help without making this a LOT more complicated, which means I don't fully understand it. Self-similarity is pretty trippy as well...I'll think about it and see if I come to any great answers for you. Otherwise, sorry I couldn't be more helpful. Fractals are not my strong suit XD


----------



## bigtex1989

bobcurious said:


> I was reading Voodoo Science by Robert L. Park recently. Have you ever read his work and/or do you agree with any of his ideas?
> 
> If I understand it correctly, when describing the reason Hydrogen cars don't work Park said that it takes more energy to create Hydrogen fuel than energy created by the fuel. Is this true, or am I completely off the mark with this whole thing? Also, is Hydrogen a feasible alternative to traditional fossil fuel sources or is it all just crap?


I have no read his work and am unfamiliar with his ideas so I'll have to say "this answer is pending. As it stands, there is a 50% chance I agree with his views XD"

As for Hydrogen not producing more energy than is needed to create water, that is true of ALL fuel. That is why there is no perpetual motion machine. That is why we are going to have an energy crisis (if this doesn't already count) soon. That is why the sun will eventually die. Fossil fuel burning is grossly inefficient. The problem is, it is REALLY easy to do so that is our "preferred" method. 

That being said, Hydrogen (and even electric cars....as long as the electric cars aren't powered by electricity made from burning fossil fuels) is feasible but not yet viable because there is no push to develop the technology. Lots of conspiracy theorists would say the oil companies are purposefully suppressing such research. While I don't necessarily agree, there is an alarming lack of research into non-gasoline/oil/coal based fuel. I would venture to say that at this point in time we could replace ALL fossil fuel power plants with a combination of wind, solar and hydro power and make up the difference (if there is such a deficit) with 1 or 2 nuclear fission plants.


----------



## bigtex1989

Azure Bass said:


> So I'm looking for a way to measure the length between the medial and lateral epicondyles of the humerus while the shoulder and elbow are bent at 90 degrees. It's for the heath carter method of somatotyping. Do you know of any accurate way to measure this by hand?


My best advice is to draw a picture and send it. We might be able to use some geometry to get a good approximation.


----------



## bigtex1989

Sanskrit said:


> What are your credentials?


Credentials:

A few sheets of paper saying I'm super smart
A curious mind
Patience
Knowledge
Lots of books
Imagination
I get paid money to do physics
Time

I'm slowly running out of the last one though so who knows? That being said, by all means check any or all of my answers and if they are not correct, I will issue an apology. I have already made such a mistake about cold plasma. It happens sometimes.


----------



## bigtex1989

Volcarona said:


> What an awesome thread. I wish I paid more attention in Physics back in high school.
> 
> Alright, here's one. I'm assuming it's a pretty basic question but I'm curious.
> 
> How exactly is electromagnetic radiation produced in nuclear fusion? As in, when the Sun's energy is produced by nuclear fusion, and gives off electromagnetic radiation?


So it is important to know what electromagnetic radiation is. EMR isn't like what you see in the movies a lot of the time. It is easiest to think of EMR as an EM wave. EMR is what is emitted and absorbed by charged particles. Now that we have that, lets look at the process of fusion. 

Two light (weight wise ) particles start traveling REALLY fast; so fast in fact that they overcome the Coulombic barrier by (this is a simplified version what quantum tunneling is with "incorrect" verbiage to boot as with quantum tunneling the barrier is not "overcome") but long story short, they smash into each other. Let's look at a macro level of this.

Two cars go really fast and slam into each other. What happens? Sound escapes, heat escapes, energy when into deforming the cars, friction of tires, probably some other stuff too. Conservation of energy applies here just like it does with our fusion case. So the escaped energy goes SOMEWHERE. In the cars' case, it went into those things above. In the molecular case, it escapes in the form of EMR.

How it gets formed is more or less like this. Energy gets absorbed into a charged particle. Now it is excited. Like a person, an atom can't stay excited forever (at least not without pissing off other atoms ) so the energy gets emitted at some point when it goes back to the ground state (or the state it prefers to be in) and it gets emitted in the form of EMR.


----------



## bigtex1989

Yadids said:


> Mr. Physicist, I want to become a physicist. How do I get there and how long will it take me to get there? What are the procedures and stuff? Physics gives me pleasure you see.


That entirely depends on what kind of physicist you want to be. For example, to become a tenured college professor would take 2-4 years to get a B.S. in physics and another 4-6 to get a PhD and then quite a few more to get tenure, and that's if you can play the game flawlessly.

Outside the realm of academia, there is still lots to do in physics that might not even require a PhD, although to be any sort of team/research/technical lead, it may as well be required. Either a PhD or TONS of experience. 

There are two MAIN types of physicists, theoretical and experimental and I'll outline what it takes to get there in general. Note that part of being in physics (or math) is about telling tradition to screw off and doing things your own way and getting better results.

Theoretical:
Take as much math as you can. It might not be a bad idea to get your undergrad degree in math with a minor in physics and then go for the PhD in physics. There are tons of math methods classes to take and they are all really important. Programming is almost a must. A few courses above intro level will probably be fine. You need to be familiar with code and how to write it but not necessarily how compilers work etc. Make sure you take math modelling classes since you'll be doing that a lot.

Experimental:
Take as many lab courses as you can and don't neglect any sort of internship that comes up. You can't spell experimental without exp, so you'll need tons of it. Familiarize yourself with lab equipment by volunteering in any sort of physics lab your school has. While as an undergrad you won't be able to do a lot of the cool stuff, that experience will be invaluable. You'll still need programming and lots more electronics classes, pure mathematics classes won't be as important (although still quite so).

As sort of an outline of what to expect:
Undergrad is about taking all classes to see what you like and what you want to specialize in. The only thing you may want to consider is whether you want to be experimental or theoretical. You'll be given the option to take electives which is a good chance to be exposed to lots of different fields. I personally suggest (although many would disagree so it's entirely up to you) to shy away from taking any 2nd year courses that aren't required (like E&M 2 for example) and instead getting exposed to another branch. 

Grad degree is all about classes and research and by the nature of what research you choose to do, you will choose what your "expertise" will be in. Talk to lots of professors and see what they are doing even if it is something you don't think you'd like. Maybe you could add a piece to the research puzzle by doing something you do like (i.e. theoretical modelling for his experimental research).

Also note, this is all just my opinion. I'm sure there are 1000s that would disagree with every word.


----------



## Sanskrit

bigtex1989 said:


> Credentials:
> 
> A few sheets of paper saying I'm super smart
> A curious mind
> Patience
> Knowledge
> Lots of books
> Imagination
> I get paid money to do physics
> Time
> 
> I'm slowly running out of the last one though so who knows? That being said, by all means check any or all of my answers and if they are not correct, I will issue an apology. I have already made such a mistake about cold plasma. It happens sometimes.


I take your word of course, just a question among others. Curious mind is the best credential of the lot however.

So, what do you think about quantum teleportation? I find the concept interesting. I also wonder, perhaps matter in its most rudimentary form of energy packets actually does not have actual spatial limitations in relative spacetime and can locate anywhere at the given time vacate any space in physical form (maybe that potential nature of matter is what explains dark matter?), but our understanding of the matter and its current location and composition is based on out limited view of the time as creatures that function and exist also in that dimension and have our current composition functional and sapient only in its current composition in the current causal continuum, a* little* akin to Hume's theory of Causation.


----------



## myjazz

Since EMP , Electromagnetic pulse, was discovered by nuclear explosion accidentally. What could be some possible accidental discovers found by a massively bigger explosion? And no not as big as a star.


----------



## Bluelamp

bigtex1989 said:


> So unfortunately, I don't really know much about the differences between the two. I know a little about scale invariance in a physical sense (like Maxwell's equations when they are more of less static) and what that means for solving problems but I don't think I can really help without making this a LOT more complicated, which means I don't fully understand it. Self-similarity is pretty trippy as well...I'll think about it and see if I come to any great answers for you. Otherwise, sorry I couldn't be more helpful. Fractals are not my strong suit XD


Scale invariance is very precise, a dilation, part of the conformal group. I've seen it used as the Higgs VEV (Vacuum Expectation Value). Self-similarity I had to look up and it mentioned monoid which makes me think groupoid which makes me think it's not precisely working on everything but kind of like if the Higgs VEV was only working on the solar system or if something only worked during a superposition but failed at decoherence (not sure I am being overly precise here). I know someone who uses conformal transformations for fractals and he does talk about groupoids too.


----------



## pepsivanilla93

I posted this in the INTP random thoughts thread, but I was wondering: Are there any similarities in that the mechanics of the universe and the mechanics of an atom have in common? I was pondering whether one could explain the other. I know nothing of physics by the way, I took chemistry in high school. Thanks!


----------



## L'Empereur

bigtex1989 said:


> Due to request, I have decided to make an "ask a physicist" thread. Pretty much just ask whatever you want and I'll give you some sort of answer XD


Is it possible to make liquid diamond?


----------



## killerB

Ok, I kinda get the Higgs Boson(God Particle) but still it eludes my complete grasp, could you explain it a bit better? Sorry if it was addressed already. If I understand it correctly, it is like a yo-yo that collects particles, but is so small it fits between everything.


----------



## HarpFluffy

Particle Physics Questions:

Is it true that there could be as many as nine dimensions? And if so, why doesn't matter from those dimensions interact?

How can an electron behave as a wave and a particle at the same time?

Can a neutron split into a proton and an electron?

When static electricity is created, how can so many atoms and molecules lose or gain electrons without changing into other kinds of atoms or molecules?

Why are there so many more particles in particle physics than in chemistry? Don't chemists care about neutrinos?

In what sense are mini black holes created when smashing protons together at the Large Hadron Collider?


----------



## bigtex1989

Sanskrit said:


> I take your word of course, just a question among others. Curious mind is the best credential of the lot however.


I agree!



Sanskrit said:


> So, what do you think about quantum teleportation? I find the concept interesting. I also wonder, perhaps matter in its most rudimentary form of energy packets actually does not have actual spatial limitations in relative spacetime and can locate anywhere at the given time vacate any space in physical form (maybe that potential nature of matter is what explains dark matter?), but our understanding of the matter and its current location and composition is based on out limited view of the time as creatures that function and exist also in that dimension and have our current composition functional and sapient only in its current composition in the current causal continuum, a* little* akin to Hume's theory of Causation.


I think quantum teleportation is fantastically interesting and useful. A side note before I continue, quantum teleportation has been done up to about 90 miles I think. We live in truly exciting times!

As it turns out, energy packets still have some spatial limitations that aren't imposed by us and our inferior measuring devices, although that certainly doesn't help. For example, the same energy packet can not occupy two distinct locations in space at the same time. What I think you might be asking is about superdimensional stuff and luckily that doesn't much matter. Even if energy existed in 137 dimensions, it would STILL have restrictions in our 3-dimensional view.


----------



## bigtex1989

myjazz said:


> Since EMP , Electromagnetic pulse, was discovered by nuclear explosion accidentally. What could be some possible accidental discovers found by a massively bigger explosion? And no not as big as a star.


If I knew that answer, I'd be a lot more rich and famous than I am now


----------



## bigtex1989

pepsivanilla93 said:


> I posted this in the INTP random thoughts thread, but I was wondering: Are there any similarities in that the mechanics of the universe and the mechanics of an atom have in common? I was pondering whether one could explain the other. I know nothing of physics by the way, I took chemistry in high school. Thanks!


Well for one, the same laws apply. Since the same laws apply, there are quite a few similarities. For example (and this one has stuck with me for a long time), if you solve the Schrodinger Equation for a single proton and electron and compare the result to the earth and sun, you'd get something STRIKINGLY similar. That makes a lot of sense for many reasons but the main one is from the very nature of quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics was designed to approach classical mechanics as numbers got sufficiently large. Also you can think about it like this. Quantum mechanics is statistical in nature. From statistics we know that as the number of samples increases, the average converges and remains stable since outliers carry less weight.


----------



## bigtex1989

L'Empereur said:


> Is it possible to make liquid diamond?


Of course it is possible, although probably not feasible XD


----------



## bigtex1989

killerB said:


> Ok, I kinda get the Higgs Boson(God Particle) but still it eludes my complete grasp, could you explain it a bit better? Sorry if it was addressed already. If I understand it correctly, it is like a yo-yo that collects particles, but is so small it fits between everything.


To explain this, we need to take a step back. There four fundamental "forces of nature". They are the strong force (that holds nuclei together), the weak force (what causes decay in atoms), gravity (gravity), and electromagnetic force (electricity and magnetism). Two of these forces make enough sense to be unconcerned about and they are the strong force and gravity. What has always eluded scientists is what causes the electroweak force to break up into electromagnetism and the weak force.

When solving equations about the above problem, it turned out that including something called gauge invariance (which is really important since it includes lots of important symmetries) screwed everything up. Some really smart people thought about it and came to the conclusion that if a field existed in all of the universe, everything was saved! This field would be what particles interact with to gain mass. While not ENTIRELY accurate, we can look at an analogy.

Here on earth you have a certain weight, but on the moon its different. That means that to acquire weight, you have to interact with something. For weight, it is gravity. Now the very simplified version of the Higgs field is very similar. A particle interacts with this Higgs field and gains mass based on how much it interacts.

Now what about this Higgs boson (and no scientist calls it the god particle  )? Well fields just don't spontaneously happen. This boson is theorized to be responsible for creating the Higgs field which is what is important. Detecting it is just a HUGE pain because it decays almost instantly. There is still much to be learned about the Higgs boson!


----------



## bigtex1989

HarpFluffy said:


> Particle Physics Questions:
> 
> Is it true that there could be as many as nine dimensions? And if so, why doesn't matter from those dimensions interact?


It is quite true. In fact, quite awhile ago I read a paper that suggested it is most probable that there are 9 dimensions but that only 3 rapidly expanded creating our 3d world. If I could remember the name or find the paper, I'll give it to you. As to the other question, it is! But just a 3d cross section. I strongly suggest watching Carl Sagan's "Flatland" special because he explains it much better than I ever could. If you can't find it or are too lazy, I could try and explain it through text XD



HarpFluffy said:


> How can an electron behave as a wave and a particle at the same time?


It doesn't. Sometimes it acts like a particle, sometimes a wave. The reason for this is more or less a probability wave. When you observe a particle, the wave function collapses to a single value (or particle), otherwise it is a wave. The real answer is a bit more complex and requires a lot of math lol.



HarpFluffy said:


> Can a neutron split into a proton and an electron?


No it can't. Although it meets the charge requirement, a neutron has 2 down and 1 up quarks while a proton has 2 up and a down (an electron has none). The material just isn't there. Also, mass restrictions should be addressed. Neutrons and protons weigh ALMOST the same (but not exactly) and electrons weigh practically nothing, but there is still some discrepancy I think.



HarpFluffy said:


> When static electricity is created, how can so many atoms and molecules lose or gain electrons without changing into other kinds of atoms or molecules?


What "makes" an atom is the number of protons rather than the number of electrons. It is referred to as the atomic number so regardless of the number of electrons, 17 protons makes chlorine. Varying electrons makes ions. Coincidentally, number of neutrons doesn't matter either. Varying neutron numbers makes isotopes. 



HarpFluffy said:


> Why are there so many more particles in particle physics than in chemistry? Don't chemists care about neutrinos?


You'd have to ask a chemist, but I do know they care about neutrinos. I think you'll find that chemistry is the study of atoms so they don't care much about quarks and the like but I wouldn't quote me on that. You'd be better off asking a chemist XD



HarpFluffy said:


> In what sense are mini black holes created when smashing protons together at the Large Hadron Collider?


In no sense are black holes created when smashing 2 protons together lol. Running things into each other isn't how you make a black hole XD


----------



## BlueSeven

How on earth do I get past Maths at a high level so that I can study physics at a good university?


----------



## bigtex1989

BlueSeven said:


> How on earth do I get past Maths at a high level so that I can study physics at a good university?


I'm guessing from the nature of the question, you are in high school and the math at a high level is Calculus? I do have some general tips with Calculus.

1. Relate it to physical things as quickly as possible to build intuition. Calculus didn't make sense for me until multi-variable calculus. By that time, I had worked with the concepts enough that adding multiple dimensions made it more intuitive rather than less. Up until then, I was an average math student at best. After that, I took Differential Equations and Partial Differential Equations and it was such a breeze! I would suggest trying to derive some formulas you already know but in different ways. My favorite was always the area and volume of a circle and sphere. Surface area and circumference are pretty good too.

2. Do lots of problems. Do extra problems. Do every problem you have time for. I didn't and I suffered for it until it all just clicked.

3. Don't be afraid to ask for help. Beating your head against the wall on a problem will do more harm than good. Ask for some direction from someone but after you've exhausted your perspectives.

4. When starting out, don't get frustrated with rote memorization. This was also one of my problems. High level math is rarely intuitive when first starting out and only becomes so as you get to higher levels.

My advice with math in general (regardless of subject) is to find out how certain mathematical concepts relate to physical constructs. Once you can think about math in physical terms, it almost becomes trivial. Developing THAT intuition is the hard part.


----------



## BlueSeven

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! 
I am however not in the USA, so the maths I do is in fact Mechanics, but still. I am forever grateful.


----------



## Dauntless

L'Empereur said:


> Is it possible to make liquid diamond?


This is a question I've wondered about previously, thank you ~


----------



## toffee

What have you physicists done/sacrificed/prayed to the Math God to have him bestow his blessings upon you? Us over in the bio camp have been trying to crack this code forever.

-Biological Anthropologist.


----------



## Psychosmurf

toffee said:


> What have you physicists done/sacrificed/prayed to the Math God to have him bestow his blessings upon you? Us over in the bio camp have been trying to crack this code forever.
> 
> -Biological Anthropologist.


Probably by actually trying to understand the meaning of the Ancient Scriptures rather than seeing them as magic formulas which you plug numbers into.


----------



## Zeit

For someone considering going into engineering after getting a BA in social sciences, what advice would you give?


----------



## JSS8b9

You need to have a knack for mathematics and most universities use the preliminary math and physics classes to weed out the weak. Your sophomore year is often designed for this purpose and will feel like your hardest semesters. Your sophomore year will more than likely include: Calculus III, Diff EQ, Statics, Dynamics, Thermodynamics, Fluid Dynamics, and possibly some basic programming classes. Engineering gets progressively harder, but your junior and senior year you get to take electives that are more related to the field you are most interested in. This makes it more enjoyable (or bearable). 

Engineering students having a non-existent social life is not just a stereotype. For those who do have one have poor grades and have little chance in getting a job at the best firms/companies. If you make it then you will have money and more than likely live a successful and meaningful life. Financially, engineers are at the top 1% of the world population.

I'm uncertain a liberal arts major can transition to engineering very smoothly. Prove me wrong and good luck!


----------



## Adrift

Here's a question inspired by the series finale of ST:TNG:

Does the concept of anti-time exist in theoretical physics? I was pondering explanations for psychic phenomenon and anti-time particles would explain how some people can tune into future events. If objects emit particles that travel back in time, images from the future may be perceived by some people in the present.


----------



## pepsivanilla93

Is space absolute or abstract according to modern physics? Is quantum leap directly related to entanglement? And if so, would quantum leap just be teleportation of information so as to say that when an electron leaps, it merely replicates itself in another orbital?


----------



## bigtex1989

toffee said:


> What have you physicists done/sacrificed/prayed to the Math God to have him bestow his blessings upon you? Us over in the bio camp have been trying to crack this code forever.
> 
> -Biological Anthropologist.


I started with a one year old lamb without blemish, then decided to just study a little bit of mathematics. The main thing I did was try to develop physical analogies to all purely mathematical constructs, and trust me, there are plenty! Instead of logarithms, think of population growth. Instead of derivatives, think of...population growth again XD Thinking about math in terms of a physical reality (from which mathematics was derived regardless of how crazy it is) really allows for some understanding.


----------



## bigtex1989

Zeit said:


> For someone considering going into engineering after getting a BA in social sciences, what advice would you give?


My advice is don't neglect mathematics. A lot of engineers I know try and take the bare minimum of math classes to get by. Mathematics is the language of science and technology and knowing it is imperative. There are lots of engineering positions to be had! I look forward to seeing you in STEM.


----------



## bigtex1989

Adrift said:


> Here's a question inspired by the series finale of ST:TNG:
> 
> Does the concept of anti-time exist in theoretical physics? I was pondering explanations for psychic phenomenon and anti-time particles would explain how some people can tune into future events. If objects emit particles that travel back in time, images from the future may be perceived by some people in the present.


Not really. In fact, time barely exists. The universe has a hard time with time XD. The main reason why time flows as it does is entropy. Since all things are headed for disorder, actions tend to flow one way. Causality is the time of the universe; entropy forces it to be so. 

Psychic events can be summarized as such. They are a crock! I was a psychic for a bit in college and I can tell you, there is no such thing, at least none that I have seen. You get a person who is intelligent and knows people and he/she can predict nearly anything. Read the Foundation series by Isaac Asimov and you'll get a better idea of that fact. With enough data, anything is possible. Trust me when I say that people give off way more data than intended.


----------



## bigtex1989

pepsivanilla93 said:


> Is space absolute or abstract according to modern physics? Is quantum leap directly related to entanglement? And if so, would quantum leap just be teleportation of information so as to say that when an electron leaps, it merely replicates itself in another orbital?


Space is neither absolute nor abstract as I see it. In modern physics, space doesn't even exist, it is a four dimensional animal called "space-time" which does some messed up stuff. For a full discussion on space-time, ask another question XD

As for quantum leap, if you're talking about the show, then no. That's not how it works in the show lol. What happens is he assumes consciousness of another person to right some wrong. It has no scientific basis XD

Since I don't think that is what you're talking about, are you referring to quantum teleportation as "quantum [leaping]"? If so, I can talk about that a bit.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy

Ugh thank goodness for this thread; 

Ok, here's my question (bare with me I'm a chemist with a physical chemist/(physics minor) bent, so my knowledge of QM is not as sharp). I am trying to iron out the kinks in understaning the relationship between the different 4 core physics concepts (Mechanics/Quantum/Relativity and the estranged String Theory..well it's estranged to me now) 

*What I do understand (I think/please correct if nessecary):

1)* Classical Mechanics needed to be reconciled with Maxwell equations because of Maxwell's posit that light cannot exceed a certain speed (c); yet in classical mechanics the additive nature of velocities made it possible for things to go faster than c(i.e. moving reference frame traveling at c and a ball is thrown at c, yeilding 2c). To reconcile, Einstein suggested that time and space are not fixed, but vary in respect to reference frames and hence time dialation and length contraction. Now everything was dandy.

Until...
2) QM posits that classical limits are quantized and both a particle and a wave compose matter. However, I did notice that in my preliminary QM course that we ever covered effects of these particles (namely photons) under gravitation. Yet I wondered, since E= mc^2, that these particles would become massive accordingly and thus would be subject to gravitation. I thought these effects could largely be ignored and never questioned because the E's were so small that gravitational effects within a system of photons would most likely be near negligible? However, what if they gravitated towards a massive object (black hole/sun--one of my favorite songs ), I would suppose the effects of gravitation could not be ignored. Is this the where the need for reconciliation arises? And since we can't be certain of the momentum or position at the same time, we can't kinematically determine the effects on these particles? Is this why string theory was posited? How do alternate dimensions come in to play? Is it to address uncertainties? Are strings seeking to remedy this by envisioning massless particles?

Thankx very interested :crazy:


----------



## pepsivanilla93

bigtex1989 said:


> Space is neither absolute nor abstract as I see it. In modern physics, space doesn't even exist, it is a four dimensional animal called "space-time" which does some messed up stuff. For a full discussion on space-time, ask another question XD
> 
> As for quantum leap, if you're talking about the show, then no. That's not how it works in the show lol. What happens is he assumes consciousness of another person to right some wrong. It has no scientific basis XD
> 
> Since I don't think that is what you're talking about, are you referring to quantum teleportation as "quantum [leaping]"? If so, I can talk about that a bit.


Thank you much for your response. I'm reading _The Fabric of the Cosmos _by Brian Greene and I'm very fascinated in quantum and theoretical physics. Being an INTP it may be a good field for me 

I see what you're saying about space time and how it is used as a field of reference. I am however talking about quantum teleportation. I assumed it was called quantum leap as in when an electron jumps to another orbital without ever occupying the intermediary space. I then pondered whether entanglement was the root of this phenomena and would be excited to hear your conclusion on this.


----------



## Villainous

Do you believe in a creator, universal intelligence, or anything of the sort?


----------



## Zeit

bigtex1989 said:


> My advice is don't neglect mathematics. A lot of engineers I know try and take the bare minimum of math classes to get by. Mathematics is the language of science and technology and knowing it is imperative. There are lots of engineering positions to be had! I look forward to seeing you in STEM.



Yeah. The interesting thing for me is that I'm beginning to enjoy math more and more. For some reason I got turned off from math in high school and ended up taking basic courses. When I took Calc 1 for the first time I felt it was also 'boring'. but now that I have seen more applications of it, and taken calc 2 and some other math adventuring, I really like it.

A desire to 'master math' has been lit, because it is an interesting and much more objective language than those that have been 'human- made'. If I explored earlier or someone showed me the connection between math and philosophy, I would have gotten more into it earlier. Finding out about Carl Sagan, who maybe also has similar views to me on other things, has been a help, too. 


Thanks for the input!


----------



## Wulfyn

What's the largest object that can exist in a superposition if you exclude extreme laboratory conditions (like cooling something to a ground state and then adding one quantum of energy)?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Devalight

I am fascinated by fractals ever since I saw a film on them by Arthur C. Clarke. Where do these patterns come from and what is their significance?

Why does it look like an insect- a roach or something?


----------



## bigtex1989

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Ugh thank goodness for this thread;
> 
> Ok, here's my question (bare with me I'm a chemist with a physical chemist/(physics minor) bent, so my knowledge of QM is not as sharp). I am trying to iron out the kinks in understaning the relationship between the different 4 core physics concepts (Mechanics/Quantum/Relativity and the estranged String Theory..well it's estranged to me now)
> 
> *What I do understand (I think/please correct if nessecary):
> 
> 1)* Classical Mechanics needed to be reconciled with Maxwell equations because of Maxwell's posit that light cannot exceed a certain speed (c); yet in classical mechanics the additive nature of velocities made it possible for things to go faster than c(i.e. moving reference frame traveling at c and a ball is thrown at c, yeilding 2c). To reconcile, Einstein suggested that time and space are not fixed, but vary in respect to reference frames and hence time dialation and length contraction. Now everything was dandy.


So not exactly. Firstly, it is possible to make some faster than light measurements if you're clever. But that is neither here nor there. That is more or less correct so I'll just move on to the questions XD



FlightsOfFancy said:


> Until...
> 2) QM posits that classical limits are quantized and both a particle and a wave compose matter. However, I did notice that in my preliminary QM course that we ever covered effects of these particles (namely photons) under gravitation. Yet I wondered, since E= mc^2, that these particles would become massive accordingly and thus would be subject to gravitation. I thought these effects could largely be ignored and never questioned because the E's were so small that gravitational effects within a system of photons would most likely be near negligible? However, what if they gravitated towards a massive object (black hole/sun--one of my favorite songs ), I would suppose the effects of gravitation could not be ignored. Is this the where the need for reconciliation arises? And since we can't be certain of the momentum or position at the same time, we can't kinematically determine the effects on these particles? Is this why string theory was posited? How do alternate dimensions come in to play? Is it to address uncertainties? Are strings seeking to remedy this by envisioning massless particles?
> 
> Thankx very interested :crazy:


So the first question here was answered some time ago in this thread but since I can't bother myself to find it, I'll just summarize.
1. E=mc^2 is referred to as mass-energy equivalence but the story is a bit more complicated than that. I can't just turn into pure energy and fly away. If it was TRULY equivalent, I could.
2. This is evidenced by EM waves having no mass but lots of energy.
3. As far as things have been observed, gravitational fields (even those of suns) have no effect on light. A blackhole is a different only because it differs in how it affects space (super dense things tend to rip space rather than bend it XD) but that can be a discussion for another day. 99.999999999999% of the time it is too small to not be ignored. There are very specific measurements that rely on such things, but I don't work with any of them lol.

I'm not sure what really needs reconciliation at this point. Gravity bends space which affects light regardless of mass. In that way, gravity affects everything. We can determine the effects experimentally, but you are correct in saying it is a challenge theoretically.

String theory was posited (as far as I know) to unify all the forces of nature as opposed to a weight problem. Alternate dimensions come in for no other reason than the math works out best that way. In nearly any other number but 11 (12 also works), the universe becomes chaotically unstable. For a discussion on that, you'd probably need to talk to someone a lot smarter than me XD


----------



## bigtex1989

drmiller100 said:


> I have a different context.
> Do you believe Einstein was a "scientist"? Was the theory of general relativity part of "science?"


Absolutely to both. Let's expore Einstein quickly.

So even if I answered "no" to the general relativity not being a part of science, Einstein did so much more. In fact, he won his Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect rather than anything to do with relativity. He was a scientist that made a hypothesis and tested it as best as he was able. This means that in his day, his relativity equations weren't rigorously tested (or as rigorously tested as now) but he still did so. In fact, special relativity was shown to be a good fit for data only a few years later (I think) and general relativity was shown to be a good data fit some time after that (gravitational lensing and a few other things I believe). Because general relativity provided a hypothesis to be tested, it is a part of science.

A huge distinction here; science deals with verifiable and repeatable evidence as I said. So science is making a guess, predict what should happen if your guess is true, collect data to test that guess, collect more data to show it wasn't a fluke, collect more data, repeat collecting data for a long time, have other people collect data,etc., interpret that data. So even wrong guesses are a part of science. 

Now we have a bit of a problem. Theoretical physicists (of which Einstein was) rarely do their own experiments, so are they "scientists"? Yes and no. In the strictest sense, no; a scientist is one who completes the scientific method. But you must have a looser definition in this day in age since science is much harder in every field. A scientist is then a person who completes at least one stage of the scientific method in a scenario when the other steps are also completed.

So yes, Einstein is then a scientist. So are all theoretical physicists today. Since his theory of general relativity contained at least one testable hypothesis (that could be shown to be wrong) as well as predictions of effects that could be seen if it was correct, it is also part of science.


----------



## drmiller100

Interesting.
To me, there is a fascinating perspective which intrudes upon this discussion.

I would GUESS you are INTJ, who is very comfortable with Te and Ni. Te likes to measure things, categorize things, so you like to have definitions. And as such, Einstein is "yes and no" a scientist, and by your definition, he did not COMPLETE the scientific method. 
As a side note, "completing" is NOT part of the scientific method, but rather the USAGE OF the scientific method is the requirement. And, no one doubts Einstein's ability or USAGE of the scientific method in everything he did.

So, back to the original point. You value measurement and proof. 

I value ability to create new paradigms which explain all the old explanations, and also explains the anomalies. Eintein took some things which did not work in Newtonian physics and explained them with a new system. His new system ALSO explained all the old Newtonian stuff.
Therefore, his new explanation was better than the old one. 

The cool thing about this is he found NEW problems which did not work in Newtonian physics, and he demonstrated them. He PREDICTED problems. He PREDICTED.

That is genius to me, and I value that so much more than the person who can run the experiments. 

But we are different, and we complement each other, and we respect each other, and we can learn from each other.


----------



## bigtex1989

Sarin said:


> To keep on goïng with the popular "What if" questions... I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts about this:
> 
> What if 2 heavy objects, one composed of matter.. the other composed out of anti-matter, would merge into one object beyond the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkov-limit?
> 
> E.g. 2 neutronstars, consisting out of 3 solarmasses each.... one made of neutrons, the other made of anti-neutrons, would merge.
> 
> On one hand, you would expect a reaction between matter and anti-matter wich would result in a cosmic explosion.
> But on the other hand, enough mass would be concentrated into a single point to make the object collapse into a black hole, from which nothing can escape.
> 
> What would eventually happen??


That really depends. I hate to describe this problem as sort of an order of operations thing, but each neutron star is above the limit of becoming a black hole so I think both would become a black hole before merger. That being said, if you started off below the limit and continually added mass to where the edges of the stars touched at EXACTLY the same moment they hit the black hole limit, I think you'd find a small amount annihilation before black hole formation which would result in a black hole with mass less than the minimum required.


----------



## Surreal Snake

Does an asshole fit into the Universe differently?


----------



## bigtex1989

luemb said:


> I actually have a question, it's something that has bugged me for years. What is the meaning of taking a dot product?
> 
> Also, if you've got anything to say that's interesting about Bra-Ket notation on quantum physics, I'm trying to get this all figured out so I'd be happy to hear anything.


That depends on what vectors you take the dot product of XD. In words, the dot product means "how parallel are two vectors?" and we can play around with those words a little bit and say "how much of one vector is in the direction of another?"

Whenever we decompose a vector into components, we dot the vector with the unit vector in the direction we want. We get a "projection" of the vector along a direction. If I have a force vector at 60 degrees relative to the x axis and I want the x component, I would just do Fcos(60) = F dot (xhat)

As for braket notation, besides it being imperative I'm not sure what you want me to say, so I'll say everything 

It is important to get some mathematical constructs rocking before we get into what it is. It is associative (which is really nice) but not generally commutative (which isn't).

<A|B> = A(1)*B(1) + A(2)*B(2) + ...... + A*B 
and as n -> inf obviously you'd get an integral over a summation.

As we can see, there is a special case for commutativity, when A is strictly real! That will be convenient a long way down the road for a few proofs. Anyway, that is enough talking about the bra and ket together. The real draw of this nothing is that bra and ket are meaningful in and of themselves.

|> is often used to describe states that things can be in (usually in the form c|psi> where c is the probability of state psi)
<| is often used for operators acting on whatever is in the ket afterwards (or putting things in those states)

This is by no means exhaustive and there are a few exceptions to the above statements but that should get you started. For a physical interpretation of the bra-ket, I recommend lots of examples lol. A lot of quantum mechanics is not intuitive until you do so many problems that you get familiar with it.


----------



## bigtex1989

Surreal Snake said:


> Does an asshole fit into the Universe differently?


Only if it doesn't spew shit everywhere.


----------



## bigtex1989

drmiller100 said:


> Interesting.
> To me, there is a fascinating perspective which intrudes upon this discussion.
> 
> I would GUESS you are INTJ, who is very comfortable with Te and Ni. Te likes to measure things, categorize things, so you like to have definitions. And as such, Einstein is "yes and no" a scientist, and by your definition, he did not COMPLETE the scientific method.
> As a side note, "completing" is NOT part of the scientific method, but rather the USAGE OF the scientific method is the requirement. And, no one doubts Einstein's ability or USAGE of the scientific method in everything he did.
> 
> So, back to the original point. You value measurement and proof.
> 
> I value ability to create new paradigms which explain all the old explanations, and also explains the anomalies. Eintein took some things which did not work in Newtonian physics and explained them with a new system. His new system ALSO explained all the old Newtonian stuff.
> Therefore, his new explanation was better than the old one.
> 
> The cool thing about this is he found NEW problems which did not work in Newtonian physics, and he demonstrated them. He PREDICTED problems. He PREDICTED.
> 
> That is genius to me, and I value that so much more than the person who can run the experiments.
> 
> But we are different, and we complement each other, and we respect each other, and we can learn from each other.


Perhaps I'm an INTJ although I think many would disagree XD. To me, completing is the important part. If one only makes hypothesis after hypothesis and never tests any of them (making a hypothesis is technically usage) then one becomes a futurist. If you only analyze data, you are a data analyst, etc. So just usage of pieces is not enough. Moreover, there are professions that use the scientific method that are not scientists. Any time you solve a problem you most likely use the scientific method to an extent, so is everyone a scientist? Most would say no, which is why I had to put a more stringent definition on what it means to be a scientist. 

I, like science, value measurement and proof. You can tell me anything you want and I'll consider it but won't adopt it without some proof.

Creating new paradigms is very important. It has been said that science moves like stairs. You hit a plateau and it takes a revolution to move. That being said, you can't undervalue all the work before hand. It also takes measurement and proof for a revolution to gain momentum. You mention yourself that his theory explained all the old and the new well enough. To me, that means it's a good idea! I could explain the tides with a teacup rather than the moon. Doesn't mean it is a good idea. 

Before you go off and value the idea people, just remember that it was because someone had the brains to test it that it has become pivotal. I would venture to say they are both equally important. An idea with no outlet is as useless as an outlet with no idea.


----------



## drmiller100

For What Its Worth, I'd love to work on a project or 7 with you. 

It would be fun to make something useful together.
thanks for the great discussion,
d


----------



## Orchidion

How small must a planet be, so that a person standing on it, would perceive it as crooked?


----------



## FlightsOfFancy

bigtex1989 said:


> Perhaps I'm an INTJ although I think many would disagree XD. To me, completing is the important part. If one only makes hypothesis after hypothesis and never tests any of them (making a hypothesis is technically usage) then one becomes a futurist. If you only analyze data, you are a data analyst, etc. So just usage of pieces is not enough. Moreover, there are professions that use the scientific method that are not scientists. Any time you solve a problem you most likely use the scientific method to an extent, so is everyone a scientist? Most would say no, which is why I had to put a more stringent definition on what it means to be a scientist.
> 
> I, like science, value measurement and proof. You can tell me anything you want and I'll consider it but won't adopt it without some proof.
> 
> Creating new paradigms is very important. It has been said that science moves like stairs. You hit a plateau and it takes a revolution to move. That being said, you can't undervalue all the work before hand. It also takes measurement and proof for a revolution to gain momentum. You mention yourself that his theory explained all the old and the new well enough. To me, that means it's a good idea! I could explain the tides with a teacup rather than the moon. Doesn't mean it is a good idea.
> 
> Before you go off and value the idea people, just remember that it was because someone had the brains to test it that it has become pivotal. I would venture to say they are both equally important. An idea with no outlet is as useless as an outlet with no idea.


Please don't be an INTJ; it says ENTP E7 in your profile. I want more Richard Feynman (ENTP E7) goofy bongo-drums physicist than the generic Neils Bohr(Bore IMO). 

Anyway, do you believe that everything reduces to physics? Do you think it will be possible in the future for physicists to describe the lot of biological phenomena in much the same fashion that physicists overtook the lot of chemistry with quantum mechanic (well this is arguable as the computing power needed for approximating complex molecules is tremendous)?


----------



## bigtex1989

Orchidion said:


> How small must a planet be, so that a person standing on it, would perceive it as crooked?


Lots of answers answer this question. One could be "infinitely large if the planet could bend light all the way around". Another could be "depends on how tall you are!" Another could be "infinitely small so that you could see it all at once....and even then!" That being said, if you could balance on a ball, you can tell you're on a ball, so there must be some limit. I'm going to guess that it has to do with how much of the planet you can see at once, i.e. how far away is the horizon. (For a little reference, the earth is such that the curvature is 8000 to 1 "forward" to "down")

So how far is the horizon? the distance (d) is the sqrt of your height(h) squared + 2*your height*radius of planet(r)

or rearranging for r, r = (d^2 - h^2)/2h

to get this result, draw a picture. It is nearly trivial to get this relationship with a picture.

Now we run into a problem. Your line of sight will always be tangent to the circle. So could you ever "deduce a curve" by sight? Again, if h>>>>r we can see that the most you could ever see of the sphere at once is 180 degrees or half the circle (90 degrees forward and 90 degrees back) which you could easily deduce to be a sphere. Now this boils down to a question of human perception. I'm going to make another guess and say you only need 30 degrees (or 1/12 of the sphere) to be able to deduce a sphere. If that is the case, then the above equation turns into a right triangle with a 15 degree angle:

d = rtan(15 degrees) using substitution,
r = ((rtan15)^2 - h^2)/2h

after rearranging, r^2(tan15)^2 -2rh - h^2 = 0
a quadratic equation, so using the quadratic formula, you get (if you use the right trig identity)

r = (h + hsec15)/((tan15)^2)

I use + and not minus because it makes more sense to me to do that.

I think that is the maximum radius of the planet required to notice a curve. If you decide to use some other guess than 30 total degrees, just replace the 15 with something else that makes sense.

My height is 5'11 or 71 inches. For me, the planet radius would need to be

(71+71sec15)/((tan15)^2) = about 168 ft.

any larger and I wouldn't be able to tell it was curved!


----------



## bigtex1989

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Please don't be an INTJ; it says ENTP E7 in your profile. I want more Richard Feynman (ENTP E7) goofy bongo-drums physicist than the generic Neils Bohr(Bore IMO).
> 
> Anyway, do you believe that everything reduces to physics? Do you think it will be possible in the future for physicists to describe the lot of biological phenomena in much the same fashion that physicists overtook the lot of chemistry with quantum mechanic (well this is arguable as the computing power needed for approximating complex molecules is tremendous)?


Short answer is yes. Long answer is no. I think that with physics we will be able to calculate biological trends (much like Psychohistory for any sci-fi nerds) but quantum mechanics fails for the individual particle. Unfortunately (or I guess fortunately for biologists) most of biology must happen on an individual level before it can be seen in the greater population. That being said, I think we will one day be able to get probability curves for biological processes much like quantum mechanics but fail to really map out where biological processes take place, in the individual.

To the general question, yes I think everything reduces to physics. In fact, I think you could (with enough computing power and exact starting conditions) could map out the entire history and future of the universe to some extent (including all things within) with only "a few" fundamental physics laws. Chaos, which biological creatures love to cause, would mean you might have to simulate it several times to get the right one, but it is possible.


----------



## drmiller100

that would be a pretty big computer. 

can you make a computer big enough to understand the workings of itself? Would the computer be really big, or really small?


----------



## FlightsOfFancy

bigtex1989 said:


> Lots of answers answer this question. One could be "infinitely large if the planet could bend light all the way around". Another could be "depends on how tall you are!" Another could be "infinitely small so that you could see it all at once....and even then!" That being said, if you could balance on a ball, you can tell you're on a ball, so there must be some limit. I'm going to guess that it has to do with how much of the planet you can see at once, i.e. how far away is the horizon. (For a little reference, the earth is such that the curvature is 8000 to 1 "forward" to "down")
> 
> So how far is the horizon? *the distance (d) is the sqrt of your height(h) squared + 2*your height*radius of planet(r)*
> 
> or rearranging for r, r = (d^2 - h^2)/2h
> 
> to get this result, draw a picture. It is nearly trivial to get this relationship with a picture.
> 
> Now we run into a problem. Your line of sight will always be tangent to the circle. So could you ever "deduce a curve" by sight? Again, if h>>>>r we can see that the most you could ever see of the sphere at once is 180 degrees or half the circle (90 degrees forward and 90 degrees back) which you could easily deduce to be a sphere. Now this boils down to a question of human perception. I'm going to make another guess and say you only need 30 degrees (or 1/12 of the sphere) to be able to deduce a sphere. If that is the case, then the above equation turns into a right triangle with a 15 degree angle:
> 
> d = rtan(15 degrees) using substitution,
> r = ((rtan15)^2 - h^2)/2h
> 
> after rearranging, r^2(tan15)^2 -2rh - h^2 = 0
> a quadratic equation, so using the quadratic formula, you get (if you use the right trig identity)
> 
> r = (h + hsec15)/((tan15)^2)
> 
> I use + and not minus because it makes more sense to me to do that.
> 
> I think that is the maximum radius of the planet required to notice a curve. If you decide to use some other guess than 30 total degrees, just replace the 15 with something else that makes sense.
> 
> My height is 5'11 or 71 inches. For me, the planet radius would need to be
> 
> (71+71sec15)/((tan15)^2) = about 168 ft.
> 
> any larger and I wouldn't be able to tell it was curved!


sorry part lunesta'ed part not thinking.

Did you use pythagoream throem for this?

assuming d is the length of the side; h is the opposite, and thw 2*height*radius of the planet kind of lost me.



bigtex1989 said:


> Short answer is yes. Long answer is no. I think that with physics we will be able to calculate biological trends (much like Psychohistory for any sci-fi nerds) but quantum mechanics fails for the individual particle. Unfortunately (or I guess fortunately for biologists) most of biology must happen on an individual level before it can be seen in the greater population. That being said, I think we will one day be able to get probability curves for biological processes much like quantum mechanics but fail to really map out where biological processes take place, in the individual.
> 
> To the general question, yes I think everything reduces to physics. In fact, I think you could (with enough computing power and exact starting conditions) could map out the entire history and future of the universe to some extent (including all things within) with only "a few" fundamental physics laws. Chaos, which biological creatures love to cause, would mean you might have to simulate it several times to get the right one, but it is possible.


I suppose it falls into the real of computations as well. If we could create machines to handle NP-complete problems, we could to it in theory. But I suppose it isn't practical as of yet.

What kind of physicist are planning on being? What was your undergrad in? What was your GPA if u dont mine me asking? What made you want to be a physisict? Are you in grad school?


----------



## bigtex1989

drmiller100 said:


> that would be a pretty big computer.
> 
> can you make a computer big enough to understand the workings of itself? Would the computer be really big, or really small?


I would venture to say it would need to be infinitely small until some computing revolution happens. The bigger it got, the more computing power you'd need, which would in turn increase the complexity of the machine.


----------



## bigtex1989

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Did you use pythagoream throem for this?


Yes I did. The triangle is as follows:

One leg is the radius of the planet, the other leg is the distance to the horizon, the hypotenuse is the radius of the planet plus your height. 



FlightsOfFancy said:


> What kind of physicist are planning on being? What was your undergrad in? What was your GPA if u dont mine me asking? What made you want to be a physisict? Are you in grad school?


I am a theoretical generalist. Basically, I solve problems. Someone comes in and needs some modelling done, or an optimized equation or what have you, and I figure it out.

My undergrad was a B.S. in physics with a minor in mathematics.

Physics GPA was 3.8, math GPA was 4.0, graduating GPA was less than that XD

This question was asked a bit before but it is somewhere in the annuals of this thread

I was in grad school. I did most of the course work but the dissertation loomed in the distance and I didn't want to commit to that. I dropped out soon after.


----------



## Adrift

Can we explain gravity and magnetism as an effect of a fold in space? I'm imagining a heavy lead sphere embedded in bread dough. The sphere would slowly fall into the dough and "pull" any other objects that are embedded in the dough nearby. This would explain why gravity has a long range effect.

Similarly, with magnetism, what if magnetism is just minute foldings in space resulting from objects embedded in it that are spinning a certain way? A negative ion spins in one direction resulting in space-folds that move in one direction, while positive ions result in space-folds in the other direction. Might this explain why similar charges repel and like charges attract?

I know that space is described as massless, but might there be something missing in our understanding of what space is?


----------



## MindSlinger

bigtex1989 said:


> Light travels at light speed all the time, so it is possible XD
> 
> But to the point, light speed as we know it is not really possible. General relativity shows us that as we move faster, we get heavier and smaller. At the point where we hit the speed of light, we would be infinitely dense, meaning that we would need an infinite amount of energy to just keep moving, so we MUST decelerate before we hit the speed of light.
> 
> That should by no means convince you that we will never travel faster than the speed of light. I imagine there are lots of ways to "cheat". For example, we could create a warp drive that scrunches up space in front of a vessel, and elongates it behind, making travel instantaneous. That is how it works in Star Trek anyway lol.
> 
> Worm holes are another POSSIBILITY and don't let anyone tell you it is anything other than a possibility. No one knows what a worm hole is!


What do you say about the experiment Lene Hau, did with the Bose Einstein fluid? She claims to have slowed light down to something like 38 miles per hour? 
If that is real, then would it be possible to design a craft (with light sails) that could "jump into" a wave of slowed light, then let the light speed up in a controlled manner? Light itself would be the fuel.


----------



## Surreal Snake

I thought a Physicist had a PHD?Am I mistaken?


----------



## The Frozen One

What do you think about Erik Verlinde's thoughts on gravity?






I know this is a 2 year old video, but I haven't had a chance to ask a physicist what they think about the idea and it's potential merits.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

drmiller100 said:


> Then you know the rules better than I, and understand Heisenberg's limitations.
> 
> 'twas a joke back at your joke.......


i was going to pull out the "it's free, no CHARGE" joke, but no. You ruined it. Ass.


----------



## TyDavis

Ok since I do not even know where to begin on physics is there any books you recommend personally for starting physics?


----------



## drmiller100

So, being the Ne dom I am, what is the context? What do you want to learn, and why? What is your interest?


----------



## TyDavis

drmiller100 said:


> So, being the Ne dom I am, what is the context? What do you want to learn, and why? What is your interest?


Well I guess start with basic physics, learn about the different branches of physics, then expand my knowledge from there.


----------



## drmiller100

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> i was going to pull out the "it's free, no CHARGE" joke, but no. You ruined it. Ass.


Oh. 

I have not heard that one involving a donkey. Schroedinger had a cat. Python had a swallow.


----------



## bigtex1989

BeardedAgam said:


> What do you think of Hawking radiation? Do you think it will be proven to exist, if so why? and if not, why?


Hawking radiation is a natural extension of a lot of things we already know. Basically it is saying that black holes behave as other things do. Until I see evidence to the contrary, Hawking radiation is a good hypothesis.

Eventually, I think Hawking radiation will be shown to exist. Two major obstacles await those who try and find it. 
1. Astronomical time scales
2. The small magnitude of change

That being said, observations as late as 2010 (although unverified) show Hawking radiation to be extraordinarily plausible, but those results could be quite suspect. Why I think it will be shown is thanks to the large hadron collider and the ability to create micro black holes with it. Once we see the mechanism by which these micro black holes dissipate, we will know what to look for. Very exciting time!


----------



## bigtex1989

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> So a neutron walks into a bar...


no. That is all.


----------



## bigtex1989

TyDavis said:


> Ok since I do not even know where to begin on physics is there any books you recommend personally for starting physics?


There are a few. 

1. The Feynman Lectures by Richard Feynman (obviously XD). I've mentioned them before and will do so again. They cover all topics.
2. The Flying Circus of Physics by Jearl Walker. A fantastic beginner book with little math.

If you know lots of math already, any introductory physics textbook would do well. Anything by Griffiths is fantastic (although slightly more advanced)


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

bigtex1989 said:


> no. That is all.


Opinion on The Big Bang Theory? (the television show)


----------



## bigtex1989

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Opinion on The Big Bang Theory? (the television show)


I despise that show. It centers around 2 guys who live together and hate each other, 2 other guys that get "laughs" by being awkward and having gay moments with each other, and 3 girls. One is "hot" and stupid, the other is vastly underemployed and the last is so awkward she makes everyone cringe.

The worst part is, people think that show is indicative of scientists. It is not. I know quite a few scientists and NONE are like that. Most scientists have very good people skills, at least now-a-days. They have to to get money for projects so they can stay scientists.

They try to force nerd humor where it doesn't need to be. It is poorly written, not funny, and without the laugh track, just sad. Don't get me wrong, every show, no matter how bad, has a diamond in the rough, but you have to go through a lot of rough.

A guy on 4chan once described The Big Bang Theory as "black face for nerds" and I think that is a perfect description.


----------



## drmiller100

I love the show.
It shows an INTJ who never gets laid, a somewhat weak ENTP type person who is actually in touch with his feelings and bangs the hot chick. 
Is it real? Of course not. Watch a cop show and ask a cop if it depicts cops. 
But it is funny if you can laugh at the characters which is laughing at ourselves.


----------



## Death Persuades

If nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, how is the universe expanding faster than the speed of light? 

This is a serious question... Unless space can travel faster than light, but everywhere I read says nothing can.


----------



## bigtex1989

ISFjosue0098 said:


> If nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, how is the universe expanding faster than the speed of light?
> 
> This is a serious question... Unless space can travel faster than light, but everywhere I read says nothing can.


The short answer is, it isn't...but it also is! The expansion of the universe is based solely on distance away from the observer, or us in this case. It is important to note that the Hubble constant (the constant related to the expansion of the universe) is not a speed. It is a speed per distance! For example, a galaxy 3.26 million light years away seems to be moving away at approximately 72km/sec (still much less than the speed of light) while a galaxy at 6.52 million light years seems to be moving away at 144km/sec (also less than the speed of light).

That being said, the edges of the universe are seen to be moving faster than the speed of light. This is also fine and not as troublesome as you might think. Space is just "nothingness" anyway so if you wanted to be clever you could say "space traveling faster than light IS nothing traveling faster than light" XD

What is the implication of space "traveling" (because it isn't REALLY traveling anywhere) faster than light? There are parts of the universe we will NEVER be able to observe with out current techniques.


----------



## Death Persuades

bigtex1989 said:


> The short answer is, it isn't...but it also is! The expansion of the universe is based solely on distance away from the observer, or us in this case. It is important to note that the Hubble constant (the constant related to the expansion of the universe) is not a speed. It is a speed per distance! For example, a galaxy 3.26 million light years away seems to be moving away at approximately 72km/sec (still much less than the speed of light) while a galaxy at 6.52 million light years seems to be moving away at 144km/sec (also less than the speed of light).
> 
> That being said, the edges of the universe are seen to be moving faster than the speed of light. This is also fine and not as troublesome as you might think. Space is just "nothingness" anyway so if you wanted to be clever you could say "space traveling faster than light IS nothing traveling faster than light" XD
> 
> What is the implication of space "traveling" (because it isn't REALLY traveling anywhere) faster than light? There are parts of the universe we will NEVER be able to observe with out current techniques.


Well, if space is nothing, then what is outside of space?


----------



## bigtex1989

ISFjosue0098 said:


> Well, if space is nothing, then what is outside of space?


Many theories exist as to what exists outside of space-time. Some people say God. Others say hyperspace. Others say nothing. Turns out it doesn't much matter what is outside of space for now. That is because as far as we know, nothing outside of space-time interacts with the things inside.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy

Ok so like a good NT, I had to look up how this little space heater I am using worked because it warmed the whole room without a fan. I;m a noob and haven't heard of infared heaters. Anyway, I noticed a bit ago that my eyes/head hurt a bit when I have it on. I'm not sure if I'm being a hypochondriac or it it's possible the infared waves are bothering my head/eyes. 

Also, I try to refrain but I like computing in the dark or near-dark. Is there any way to mitigate the damage to my eyes? Like can I use a blacklight ?Ty


----------



## bigtex1989

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Ok so like a good NT, I had to look up how this little space heater I am using worked because it warmed the whole room without a fan. I;m a noob and haven't heard of infared heaters. Anyway, I noticed a bit ago that my eyes/head hurt a bit when I have it on. I'm not sure if I'm being a hypochondriac or it it's possible the infared waves are bothering my head/eyes.
> 
> Also, I try to refrain but I like computing in the dark or near-dark. Is there any way to mitigate the damage to my eyes? Like can I use a blacklight ?Ty


It is quite possible that your infrared heater is bothering your eyes, although it is unlikely. Infrared waves are just like any other EM wave except for a few things. At near visible (but still infrared), the lenses in your eyes do in fact focus the light a little bit as expected. Since you can't see it, you don't get that natural reaction to squint, look away, or close your eyes. This means you are more likely to damage your corneas and all that. Also note that you can still feel the heat from these waves so you will blink and squint and what have you.

That is just to scare you a bit. The final answer is not really. That heater isn't putting out enough energy to do much unless you looked directly at it without blinking for several minutes. 

As for computing in the dark, I didn't know that was a strain. There is an old wives tale about reading in the dark. That really doesn't effect your eyes either.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy

bigtex1989 said:


> It is quite possible that your infrared heater is bothering your eyes, although it is unlikely. Infrared waves are just like any other EM wave except for a few things. At near visible (but still infrared), the lenses in your eyes do in fact focus the light a little bit as expected. Since you can't see it, you don't get that natural reaction to squint, look away, or close your eyes. This means you are more likely to damage your corneas and all that. Also note that you can still feel the heat from these waves so you will blink and squint and what have you.
> 
> *That is just to scare you a bit. The final answer is not really. That heater isn't putting out enough energy to do much unless you looked directly at it without blinking for several minutes. *
> 
> As for computing in the dark, I didn't know that was a strain. There is an old wives tale about reading in the dark. That really doesn't effect your eyes either.












ty. On a serious note, I am not sure if computing in the dark hurts your eyes. One possible explanation is that the eye focuses too keenly on the constant changing hues/colors of the screen, whereas a good light will keep them from having to adjust as much because all colors/frequencies are being transmitted 
#guessingBioPhysicsNoRealClue


----------



## Echoes

*If you had the ability to travel say 100 years back in time, wouldn't you need to also teleport billions of km to be at the same point relative to earth in the past as you were to earth in the future? Unless time travel implies traveling back through time as space moved... We're also probably not moving at the same velocity we were moving at even a second ago, nor are we moving in the same direction, so I guess that could also be an issue with time travel as well, unless you'd like to end up being wall decoration :shocked:*


----------



## bigtex1989

Fade said:


> *If you had the ability to travel say 100 years back in time, wouldn't you need to also teleport billions of km to be at the same point relative to earth in the past as you were to earth in the future? Unless time travel implies traveling back through time as space moved... We're also probably not moving at the same velocity we were moving at even a second ago, nor are we moving in the same direction, so I guess that could also be an issue with time travel as well, unless you'd like to end up being wall decoration :shocked:*


You have pointed out just ONE of the many problems with time travel as people "envision" it. You would need to move through space. You would need to account for the earth being a different distance from the sun, etc. Some of this can be mitigated depending on what "method" of time travel you subscribe to. For example, if you just blink out of this time and blink into the desired time, you wouldn't need to worry about this much as you could just ensure you'd be at the right place.

If it is more like "The Time Machine", again you wouldn't need to worry as you'd be on earth the whole time. If you use a spaceship -> wormhole obviously it wouldn't matter.

Honestly, where you end up is the least of the problems with backwards time travel, although it might be your primary concern with the time travel you're doing now


----------



## azdahak

Takadox said:


> @_azdahak_
> 
> 5 is so funny
> 
> on 6 I think we will actually move to implants at first, but I truly think that we will work on programming and building organic computing and the sort. I know a lot of guys who are already working towards such a thing, plus organic computing is so much more efficient than our current system.Organic computing takes up less space, creates less heat, takes less energy and is still faster. it is also more easily combined with us, in large scale at least.
> 
> I think that civilizations will eventually move towards some kind of crazy organic structure rather than non-biological because of these things. Organics are pretty much AI's as well in a sense, just the most bottom up version ever, and given billions of years to work. Maybe with quantum computing we would leave such a stage and move on to something even weirder. Then we will all probably be some kind of virtual thing or another.
> 
> on 8 yeah mostly for now. EMP shielding will also get easier and easier to make, hopefully. Though I do believe the biological revolution is coming, then probably a quantum one, and who knows after that. Its interesting to think about though



Indeed. If the universe is teaming with life, and there is some sort of pan-galactic civilization, it's certainly not like Star Trek.

Given how far we've advanced in computer technology, compared to space flight, one could postulate that AI in some form is more immediately plausible than practical interstellar travel.

But, if you can engineer a life form that doesn't require a biosphere to survive, and for whom the concept of time is practically unlimited because they are effectively immortal, then a 1000 year journey to the next star system is suddenly very plausible. If superluminal communication becomes possible (via some sort of quantum entanglement phenomenon) then there could be a vast communication network of a virtual society all about us. 

Consider that the Milky Way is about 100,000 light years in diameter. If an AI civilization developed, they could more than likely spread out across the whole galaxy in 1 - 10 million years.

So it seems reasonable to posit, that either 

1. such a pan-galactic civilization already exists

2. no other life form in the galaxy has yet to reach that stage of development or lacks the drive to explore

3. AI on that level is impossible.


----------



## Barcelonic

in blue.... 



azdahak said:


> I'll usurp bigtex again because some of these aren't directly physics questions and besides it's fun
> 
> Thats OK lol
> 
> Why does it have to exist at all?
> 
> Lol it doesn't _have to_. So allow me to just rephrase the question - what is mountain copper and how is it different than regular copper? Apparently mountain copper is reddish-brown and is found in the Azores among other places. I just don't get the need for a distinction - isn't copper _usually_ mined from mountains?
> 
> Theoretically, there is a second 'isle of stability' in the periodic table. (Island of stability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
> 
> I thought they don't really count as they are isotopes? They are highlighted on my periodic table and although i don't know what it means couldn't synthetic elements also be put on there as such isotopes?
> This really isn't my area lol
> 
> You can get them sub-$1000 now. They're still mostly toys, IMO, but an important and emerging technology, for instance in human organ fabrication. Eventually, I think, we will have a 'box' in our house that can make many of the objects we desire.
> 
> Wow thats cheaper than i would have guessed - what about the materials? There should be a measumement unit like 'cost per spanner' (cps) lol.
> 
> I really just meant that the economic impact of such a machine being in every home could potentially be disastrous. If they are just toys at the moment then all it takes for it to become an enemy of our economic system is cheaper materials - then it wouldn't be a toy any more - so it's not really in the interest of businessmen to sell it to us at a cheap price because all other sectors of retail would slowly begin to shut down.
> 
> 
> Personally, I think any sufficiently technological species must eventually free itself from the limitations of its biological origin.
> 
> Are you sure you'd be saying that if humans in space was nver an issue though? It is all too easy for us to get swept up in human arrogance and think that 'oh, it's not a wall we've hit - it's a bridge!' lol
> 
> It isn't as if physicists have given up on interstellar manned missions entirely but they are working on different theoretical ways of space travel entriely.
> 
> So I wouldn't rule it out despite its astounding likelihood to fail
> 
> 
> All those barren rocks and inhospitable worlds may actually be teaming with highly advanced civilizations organized at a nanaoscopic scale. The whole planet, in effect, could be a computer supporting an AI civilization.
> 
> Indeed I totally agree. We could all be living in the Matrix too lol
> 
> But c'mon - the moon lol - it's basically the doormat of our planet.
> 
> People came from all over America for the opening of the first bridge to cross the Mississisppi (built by Carnegie i think), yet they wouldn't be anywhere near as blown away as the houseguests of J P Morgan when he first lit up his home with hundreds of electric lights.
> 
> 
> 
> Your first birthday. (Atomic Tune-Up: How the Body Rejuvenates Itself : NPR)
> 
> Thanks - it says 98% so do you think there is perhaps at least one atom which would survive the entire lifespan of a human by sheer chance & 'the numbers game'?
> 
> 
> Yes. Digital forms are easily machine copyable, moreover the same information can be represented in many different forms. For instance, a PDF file can be stored digitally on a magnetic disk, an optical disk, held in flash memory, or even printed out on paper. There are many new forms of data storage being developed as well -- quantum based, spintronic based, holographic based, atomic scale memory, etc.
> 
> Good to know people are on the case! How about biological agents? Could we try encoding data into the genetic code of a synthetic organism which is designed to be ultra-resistant to heat, moisture and various other things? Can you see this as a future possibility?
> 
> 
> 
> However, if there's no solid evidence to propose such an idea, then it has no more validity than anything else I can make up, like postulating that aliens built the pyramids, or that the Egyptians had access to secret Atlantean technology.
> 
> I would hate to see into your head and peek at the preconceived version of me in there lol.
> 
> Personally, i like to think that were we reversed I would have asked you what you'd heard about it before saying that; it almost implies I'm making things up, because you clearly aren't interested in whatever it was that prompted me to ask the question.
> 
> If you ask I may try to find the source for that, but in future when confronted with a question like this you answer simply - 'pseudo-science'!
> 
> It makes me feel ashamed to be part of the the same species as questioner is..lol
> 
> Ha, indeed!


Azdahak-- what are your credentials? I only ask because you've replied twice now and i asked this question to the physicist too. I just wanna know your area and such is all - thanks


----------



## azdahak

Barcelonic said:


> Azdahak-- what are your credentials? I only ask because you've replied twice now and i asked this question to the physicist too. I just wanna know your area and such is all - thanks


Eh. No preconceptions like you think. Im an ENTP not a judgy judgy  

I expounded on the difference between a scientific proposal, and a proposal that's amenable to scientific discourse (aliens built the pyramids) but nevertheless unwarranted by the evidence and by parsimony.

Credentials? A few thousand books worth of voracious reading  then the crap I picked up along the way:

ba biology, minor in archaeology, then aborted phd in neurobiology, then ms in math, then phd in math.

Research focus on pseudodifferential operators, anomalous diffusion, mathematical neurobiology, kinetic models and gas dynamics.


----------



## HouseOfFlux

Fucking magnets, how do they work?

I am of course kidding, but I couldn't resist.


----------



## azdahak

HouseOfFlux said:


> Fucking magnets, how do they work?
> 
> I am of course kidding, but I couldn't resist.



I'll let the master tell you why your question is stupid. :laughing:


----------



## HouseOfFlux

azdahak said:


> Indeed. If the universe is teaming with life, and there is some sort of pan-galactic civilization, it's certainly not like Star Trek.
> 
> Given how far we've advanced in computer technology, compared to space flight, one could postulate that AI in some form is more immediately plausible than practical interstellar travel.
> 
> But, if you can engineer a life form that doesn't require a biosphere to survive, and for whom the concept of time is practically unlimited because they are effectively immortal, then a 1000 year journey to the next star system is suddenly very plausible. If superluminal communication becomes possible (via some sort of quantum entanglement phenomenon) then there could be a vast communication network of a virtual society all about us.
> 
> Consider that the Milky Way is about 100,000 light years in diameter. If an AI civilization developed, they could more than likely spread out across the whole galaxy in 1 - 10 million years.
> 
> So it seems reasonable to posit, that either
> 
> 1. such a pan-galactic civilization already exists
> 
> 2. no other life form in the galaxy has yet to reach that stage of development or lacks the drive to explore
> 
> 3. AI on that level is impossible.


Perhaps such a civilisation is in a kind of relative infancy - as if there really is an AI civilisation capable of such technological splendour, 
then indeed, why haven't they contacted us/attempted to make contact yet? Of course there are various assumptions we can take from this - they really don't have the know how yet, they are not motivated to. In essence, it's already been said


----------



## azdahak

Maybe we should spin off a new thread…but I'll reply here out of sheer laziness ;0




HouseOfFlux said:


> then indeed, why haven't they contacted us/attempted to make contact yet?



I think perhaps for the same reason we don't try to contact ants. 

My point is I don't see how there can be any sort of gradualism in technology beyond our current level to technology. Soon the exponential curve gets so sharp, that you lose all sense of the increasing slope.

For instance, in Star Trek all the races have approximately equal technology, therefore they're always at stalemate, a necessary plot device so you can have actual dramatic stories. 

I think any truly superior technological force would be overwhelming. If a battlecruiser parked in Earth orbit right now, there is nothing we could do except surrender or watch as they annihilated us. 

I think a culture that developed even the most rudimentary type of human-level AI, would start to develop at a frightening pace technologically.

Imagine if in 40 years you could call up 1000 human-level AIs to work on any engineering problem you like. 

1000 expert engineers -- without the politics, personalities, or issues of 1000 humans. 

I think they would solve in months, problems that would take us decades, just through the sheer efficiency of perfect cooperation.

-----

But I think the prospect is a bit scarier…I'll play the futurist.


Right now I look at the cell phone as a primitive cybernetic device. Calling it a phone is a huge misnomer. 

It's a communication device, a data bank like wikipedia (and a memory extension -- address book, calendar), and a mental task sub-processor (like an app that reminds you to get the milk), and a source for external computation (wolfram alpha, etc).

In effect, a cell phone is an extension of your brain in a much more intimate way than any technology before it.

These computers will just become faster and better integrated. Touch screens won't be around in 10 years. Google Glass type technology will start to replace them. 

Imagine a 2.0 version of Glass where you just look at a calculus equation and Wolfram Alpha gives you the answer, or some Chinese text is translated into English, or you look at a friend, and you're reminded that his birthday is tomorrow. We -already- do all this stuff with our cellphones. It's just going to become faster, better, and more integrated.

Within 50 years or so I think we'll have some kind of neural interface that lets us visualize data and control technology mentally. 

In effect, when you want to know some fact, you'll just 'remember' it from Wikipedia 5.0. When you want to do a computation, you'll just imagine what you need and Wolfram Epsilon will compute it instantly. The separation between your own memory and Wikipedia will be…blurred.

I can't see how this -can't- happen, because all the basic technology is already here. 

So then the question is this…what will humanity be like when your brain is extended by computer power to encompass all of human knowledge and have vast computational power at the whim of your thought? There will be an efflorescense of human creativity in all endeavors…provided we survive such a species changing event.


----------



## HouseOfFlux

"I can't see how this -can't- happen, because all the basic technology is already here."

I think this is the main point to be honest and you're right. And it's completely natural to feel a little unnerved by it all.

Even as a child I used to have nightmares about "hostile technology" - especially to do with computer viruses that knew my name and that threw up sudden and frightening images and characters on the screen that knew I was there looking at them and responded in kind. Nowadays the notion of such a thing doesn't seem too far fetched, and to be honest it creeps me out a little.

More to the point, there is doubtless no way of telling for sure how such a game changer would ultimately affect humans. What do we strive for when there is nothing left to know? I know, we're getting a bit philosophical here. One question in particular I would like to put to you is this - given that viruses are an almost commonplace danger where computational systems are concerned, what is the likelihood of this type of technology having the chance to wreak havoc on minds so intertwined with computational power?


----------



## azdahak

HouseOfFlux said:


> "I can't see how this -can't- happen, because all the basic technology is already here."
> 
> I think this is the main point to be honest and you're right. And it's completely natural to feel a little unnerved by it all.
> 
> Even as a child I used to have nightmares about "hostile technology" - especially to do with computer viruses that knew my name and that threw up sudden and frightening images and characters on the screen that knew I was there looking at them and responded in kind. Nowadays the notion of such a thing doesn't seem too far fetched, and to be honest it creeps me out a little.
> 
> More to the point, there is doubtless no way of telling for sure how such a game changer would ultimately affect humans. What do we strive for when there is nothing left to know? I know, we're getting a bit philosophical here. One question in particular I would like to put to you is this - given that viruses are an almost commonplace danger where computational systems are concerned, what is the likelihood of this type of technology having the chance to wreak havoc on minds so intertwined with computational power?



Let's just say, I don't think Microsoft will be at the forefront of this technology.

But you bring up a good point. What happens when virtual reality -is- reality? Then a computer virus will be a disease.

But with all this technology being integral to a future-human's nature, I think we will perhaps have computers that are more self-correcting and less capable of being compromised. In essence, I think very soon actually, computers will be getting more active immune systems that go beyond code-scanning anti-virus program. 

This would be an interesting technology to develop actually (it's so obvious to me, I'll assume someone is doing it). A program that runs in the background and monitors and analyses processes for atypical behavior…a "self diagnostic" program. 

I know there are packet sniffers and such things like that can monitor TCP traffic for unusual signals…like getting pinged 10,000 in a row, but I mean something that's more integral. 


Most viruses exists because computer and software architecture is mostly a nightmare hodgepodge of legacy fabrication technology and code from the 70's. 

I think sometime soon, we'll get a new thought-out modern chip architecture that will demand a new software architecture. But right now, there still too much low-hanging fruit to be plucked off of old lithography techniques. Intel is about ready to start 14nm fab production and I know they're researching 5nm production -- insane.


----------



## For4everYoung

What are the forces involved on a dice thrown into the air until it "stops" on one of it's sides?


----------



## wuliheron

For4everYoung said:


> What are the forces involved on a dice thrown into the air until it "stops" on one of it's sides?


Kinetic energy, friction, and random quantum fluctuations along with the four basic forces of nature, that is, gravity, electro-magnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.


----------



## WickerDeer

What is the big difference between the concept of perpetual motion and inertia? Also--I'm an English major, so I don't do really high math.


----------



## wuliheron

meltedsorbet said:


> What is the big difference between the concept of perpetual motion and inertia? Also--I'm an English major, so I don't do really high math.


Mathematics do not decide the definitions of terms and it isn't a mathematical question. 

Inertia is the tendency of an object to resist changes in its motion or lack there of and to keep moving in a straight line unless acted upon an outside force.

Perpetual motion is the idea a machine can be built that somehow defies the known laws of motion. For example, a frictionless machine that keeps spinning forever without a friction or gravity interfering. Note that even if you throw something into intergalactic space it's motion will be influenced by the occasional dust particle, blast of energy, or whatever.


----------



## Orchidion

meltedsorbet said:


> What is the big difference between the concept of perpetual motion and inertia? Also--I'm an English major, so I don't do really high math.


I assume you refer to the perpetuum mobile. 

A body, when no forces are exerted on him, remains in his current state of motion. When he moves in space, he will continue moving (assuming no planet/body/etc is nearby). This is the law of inertia. It is compatible with the law of conservation of energy.

A perpetuum mobile is a device that does not stop moving. A perpetuum mobile produces work without a source of energy attached to it. This contravenes the first law of thermodynamics. This law is a special case of the general law of conservation of energy. Let´s take a look at the equation (it does not require higher mathematics in this form)

dU = dQ+dW

U is the internal energy of the system, in this case the machine that is ought to produce work. W is the work the machine performs. Q is the heat (flow of thermal energy) the system receives/radiates. 

When no energy in form of heat enters the system, the equation is reduced to

dU = dW

This means the energy conserved in the system (the machine) is transformed into work. At a point the machine would be incapable of maintaining the motion. It would only work if it had infinte energy (not possible) or if it could produce energy out of nothing. This contravenes the energy-conservation law.

A perpetual motion machine of the second kind transforms thermal energy (heat) into work with 100% efficiency. This is impossible according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which, in one formulation states, that every heat engine has a efficiency below 100%. This is due to the fact that natural processes are exclusively irreversible processes. 

A irreversible process is characterised through (among others) one specific properties: friction takes place (work→heat).

Thus 100% efficiency is impossible.


----------



## xEmilyx

do physicists like potatoes? lol


----------



## wuliheron

Orchidion said:


> I assume you refer to the perpetuum mobile.


Oooooh, tell us about the pendulum mobile. I never heard of that!


----------



## Orchidion

wuliheron said:


> Oooooh, tell us about the pendulum mobile. I never heard of that!


You need a pendulum. Let it oscillate forever.

End of story


----------



## wuliheron

Orchidion said:


> You need a pendulum. Let it oscillate forever.
> 
> End of story


Forever has an ending?


----------



## Toru Okada

What's your opinion of Michio Kaku?


----------



## wuliheron

Wallmaster said:


> What's your opinion of Michio Kaku?


He's a cool dude and an amazing author. His book "Hyperspace" has the most concise explanation of modern physics I've ever come across. However, he's a romantic in my opinion and string theory is worthless crap that hasn't produced anything useful in half a century. It's the void poking fun at physicists love of beauty in their models. Every time they come up with a new beautiful model it turns out to be part of an even more beautiful one or indicate an astronomical number of different beautiful theories they can choose from and the only thing the theory has ever produced are more compelling mathematics to draw in new suckers.


----------



## I am me

I'm planning on taking physics as my elective in the upcoming year. Any tips?


----------



## wuliheron

If it's just an elective then enjoy and try to have fun.


----------



## WickerDeer

wuliheron said:


> He's a cool dude and an amazing author. His book "Hyperspace" has the most concise explanation of modern physics I've ever come across. However, he's a romantic in my opinion and string theory is worthless crap that hasn't produced anything useful in half a century. It's the void poking fun at physicists love of beauty in their models. Every time they come up with a new beautiful model it turns out to be part of an even more beautiful one or indicate an astronomical number of different beautiful theories they can choose from and the only thing the theory has ever produced are more compelling mathematics to draw in new suckers.


That's great to hear! I'm really enjoying Hyperspace. That's actually why I asked about inertia--because I was talking with someone about imagining the world in 4D.


----------



## wuliheron

meltedsorbet said:


> That's great to hear! I'm really enjoying Hyperspace. That's actually why I asked about inertia--because I was talking with someone about imagining the world in 4D.


Yeah, I may think holographic theories are so much cheese whiz, but they sure are fun and a little junk food is good for the soul. In this case, it helps encourage people to read the chapters on accepted physics and learn how physicists think.


----------



## WickerDeer

wuliheron said:


> Yeah, I may think holographic theories are so much cheese whiz, but they sure are fun and a little junk food is good for the soul. In this case, it helps encourage people to read the chapters on accepted physics and learn how physicists think.


Well IDk about holographic theories, but I like how it makes me consider how limited human perception is and to pay more attention to the perceptions I am limited to. I also appreciate having a book that can talk about "accepted" physics in a way that is easier to relate with. The narrator has a strong voice and a lot of the analogies are related to human experience, and I find that I learn better when I can relate information to myself and other people especially since I don't have a background in physics, nor do I work in a scientific field or around any scientists. So I have to appreciate Kaku a lot for his consideration for his audience.

Also, the chapter about how the fourth dimension was very popular in fiction and popular speculation for a while makes me wonder if Jung was considering it when he was conceptualizing intuition, since he suggests that intuition has to do with time and is somewhat mysterious. I might make a thread about it if I decide to go back and look at the chronology of Jung's beliefs and popular sentiment about the fourth dimension. 

Anyway, I love Physics and am glad that physicists have done so much to bring it to light and develop the theories. I think most people wonder about how the universe works--even though not all of us devote our lives to that study.


----------



## wuliheron

Yeah, Michio is really cool like I said and a really terrific writer with serious poetry in his soul. Especially for a science writer. A lot of people really demand cheese whiz and if he gives it to them and sprinkles in a little accepted physics that's a amazing feat if you ask me. According to the National Science Foundation one in five Americans still believes the sun revolves around the earth and denial is not the name of a river in Egypt, but people really don't listen and someone has to sneak in a little reality into all their head trips.


----------



## WickerDeer

wuliheron said:


> Yeah, Michio is really cool like I said and a really terrific writer with serious poetry in his soul. Especially for a science writer. A lot of people really demand cheese whiz and if he gives it to them and sprinkles in a little accepted physics that's a amazing feat if you ask me. According to the National Science Foundation one in five Americans still believes the sun revolves around the earth and denial is not the name of a river in Egypt, but people really don't listen and someone has to sneak in a little reality into all their head trips.


I can't really comment on cheese whiz; though honestly, I do find it kind of tasty in the rare occasions that it's offered to me...but it is sad that a lot of people aren't aware of information (or interested in it). 

I've made life choices that have excluded me from studying physics (or made the possibility way harder), and I do fulfill a function in society because of my education and experience. But I appreciate it when scientists come out of their comfort zones to talk to people who aren't versed in the jargon or the mathematical foundation (and who are not geniuses) required for understanding or calculating higher physics, who are interested for whatever reason.

Also, I'm certain that there are a lot of people who aren't directly interested in Physics (or a lot of other disciplines, for that matter--like art or music theory), who still appreciate the indirect influence that it has on civilization. LOL--but then, I actually prefer some of the less dramatic contributions of physics like books by Kaku (rather than atom bombs) .


----------



## psych9000

lol i read that wrong i thought you said psychic


----------

