[QUOTE=ThePuska;25207390]Which has been my point all the time. Please read your original post again and see if there's any conflict between its claims and this one.
A fifth dimension doesn't allow arbitrary hopping around in time. Changing your position in the temporal dimension requires movement in the temporal dimension, it's that simple.
[editline]01:22AM[/editline]
[B]If that's teleporting, then I could go into a pitch black room and re-emerge from it the next day and claim that I'm a visitor from the past![/B]
You aren't moving to another time, you're just waiting for time to pass as it normally does. Except you're doing it out of sight.[/QUOTE]
Holy shit man I think you're on to something! Send this man to MIT :v:
So.. the fundamental forces... how do they work? :psylon:
[B]Is[/B] the Force carrier-model proven and accepted among physicists?
It doesn't really answer anything, does it? I mean, we [I]still[/I] don't know exactly how these forces work.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;25201776]We normally think of light as particles, but if you shine it trough 2 slits with a very small distance from each other. Then pattern such as Johnny's shows up.[/QUOTE]
Double-Slit experiment is purely classical. Classical physics describes light as waves.
But QM has show it has wave and particle character.
[QUOTE=aVoN;25222617]Double-Slit experiment is purely classical. Classical physics describes light as waves.
But QM has show it has wave and particle character.[/QUOTE]
That's true, wrong from my side. The quantum thing was when shooting some other particle one by one or something I think.
[QUOTE=ThePuska;25201800]It's usually done with monochromatic light but i suppose it might result in some kind of rainbow patterns with white light[/QUOTE]
The light must be coherent (fixed phase relation) in order to see interference patterns. But it mustn't be monochromatic. You can also do white-light interference experiments with e.g. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinuum"]supercontinuum[/URL] radiation, since there the phase is also fixed. The fringes should be split up by their color later.
[editline]02:35PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;25205190]No it's
1: x
2: y
3: z
4: time
5-11: Extra spatial dimensions
[editline]04:57PM[/editline]
It's best to just think of it as 10 spatial dimensions and a temporal dimension. Having the 4th dimension be time, and going back to spatial with all the others is kind of confusing.[/QUOTE]
It makes no difference if you attach extra dimensions or mix them totally up. It's just a convention on how to describe everything mathematically. I'd personally prefer all spatial dimensions before the time dimensions since this makes the calculations easier later.
[editline]02:51PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=taipan;25205296]Is there mathimatical proof that time is actually a different "form"of dimension as opposed to the 1 to 3.
Maybe we just percieve it as diferrent.
If it it 10+1 is the correct way to display it indeed.[/QUOTE]
Here is a short story:
[list]
[*]In the 1800's, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations"]Maxwell's Equations[/URL] arose. Those describe electromagnetism and therefore light.
[*]Later on it has been found out that in order to keep Maxwell's Equations invariant under coordinate transformations (which is necessary), we need the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation"]Lorentz Transformation[/URL].
[*]The concept of the Lorentz Transformation has been later used by Albert Einstein for Special Relativity. Here, space and time have been identified as being inseparable, and that directly follows from the Lorentz Transformation.
[*]One final mark of Special Relativity is the Metrik of spacetime [img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?\eta[/img]. Here you see for the first time that the time-component of the metrik has the opposite sign as for the spatial components. Since this metrik is e.g. used for multiplying two vectors [img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?\eta_{\mu\nu} x_\mu x^\nu = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2[/img], you see that for the square of the time component, we need an opposite sign. This can be interpreted as the the time-dimension is similar to the spatial dimension but multiplied by the imaginary unit i ([img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?i^2 = -1[/img])
[/list]
TL;DR: The time dimension behaves like a spatial dimension but multiplied by the imaginary unit i ([img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?i^2 = -1[/img]).
[editline]02:54PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;25212395]So.. the fundamental forces... how do they work? :psylon:
[B]Is[/B] the Force carrier-model proven and accepted among physicists?
It doesn't really answer anything, does it? I mean, we [I]still[/I] don't know exactly how these forces work.[/QUOTE]
The standard model of particle physics is a well proven theory. It made predictions to force-carrier particles which later have been found, like the W or Z bosons.
Also: The Photon (Light) is the force-particle of electromagnetism.
[QUOTE=aVoN;25222677]The standard model of particle physics is a well proven theory. It made predictions to force-carrier particles which later have been found, like the W or Z bosons.
Also: The Photon (Light) is the force-particle of electromagnetism.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but, doesn't that just push the problem further one step? It's just typical physicist talk for saying "I don't know".
[QUOTE=aVoN;25222617]Double-Slit experiment is purely classical. Classical physics describes light as waves.[/QUOTE]
Classical physics also describes it as both.
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;25224398]Yeah, but, doesn't that just push the problem further one step? It's just typical physicist talk for saying "I don't know".[/QUOTE]
What do you mean by this?
Anyway, there is no absolute truth. We can just describe phenonemons with a theory. Here, it's the Standard Model. It made predictions and those predicted particles and effects have been observed. So in from my point of view, it's a good theory. Of course, there can be a more fundamental one. It's like with Newton's "laws" which are included in General Relativity as example.
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;25224398]Classical physics also describes it as both.[/QUOTE]
No. Classical Physics = All physics which is not QM. In classical physics, light is a wave only, described by Maxwell's Equation. There is no quantisation (=particle) at all. The particle interpretation of light all came with QM (Einstein's Research to the photoelectrical effect, using Planck's idea of Quanta).
When I read these threads I wish I was smarter.
[QUOTE=VeniVidiVici74;25191432]Quantum physicsists are people who make poor choices, but are also extremely intellegent.[/QUOTE]
intellegent
I realized the other week that you can name a point the number of separate coordinates directly corresponds to the number of dimensions you're talking about.
Example:
2D plane: (x-24,y-35)
3D volume: (x-45, y-18, z-74)
4D space: (x-12, y-26, z-17, w-88)
...And so forth.
Also, if you can name any point in the universe using a coordinate system like that, then you should be able to name any point in space and [i]time[/i] too, with the 4th coordinate as time.
Like: (x-0, y-155, z-478, w-1984)
Edit: I think this is less quantum physics and more of what Einstein described.
Also, when I found out acceleration = gravity, my mind = blown.
I like how people arte discussing "quantum physics"and yet don't even know about the uv-catastrophe or einstein coefficients or operators and basically all the stuff that is the soul and tool of quantum physics
[QUOTE=ThePuska;25201800]It's usually done with monochromatic light but i suppose it might result in some kind of rainbow patterns with white light[/QUOTE]
Yeah it produces tons of tiny little spectra because each colour of light diffracts at a different angle to each other.
[QUOTE=ElectricSquid;25231114]Also, when I found out acceleration = gravity, my mind = blown.[/QUOTE]
my mind was blown when I realized that we can't feel gravitational acceleration because of the equivalence principle: free fall is inertial motion
[editline]12:39AM[/editline]
I had thought about it earlier, and when I was like 10 or so I asked a teacher that, if we orbit the Sun, why can't we feel it. She couldn't say
[QUOTE=ElectricSquid;25231114]
Also, when I found out acceleration = gravity, my mind = blown.[/QUOTE]
How do you mean "acceleration = gravity" ?
[QUOTE=Swebonny;25231918]How do you mean "acceleration = gravity" ?[/QUOTE]
All acceleration can be described in terms of an appropriate gravitational field.
I honestly have no idea what Quantum Physics is, but I use it as a big word to confuse my dumb friends.
I have a question, is gravitomagnetism basically a way to generate gravity, in a way? Could one, with sufficient power and sufficiently advanced technology, make a gravitomagnetic coil to produce a sort of "gravity gradient" for a spacecraft to accelerate constantly?
It's for sci-fi shit and I need to get the science right, otherwise the plot has to change.
I'm going to throw this out there even if it's already been said in this thread (but I doubt it because not everyone here is interested in that sort of thing).
If you think String Theory has any merit, you also like Hentai games and fapping to child pornography (Vice versa, however, this is not true.). String theory was created as a "fuck you" to Quantum Physics and essentially no one has any fucking idea how it works (except the crackheads that created it).
Also, anyone who rates this post ANYTHING will receive a "present" from me in the form of a strange shambling monster in their basement/crawl space/any dark area in your house. And you won't even know that it's there until it's much, much too late.
/biggest-rant-in-this-thread
A man of science has arrived
[QUOTE={ABK}AbbySciuto;25235137]no one has any fucking idea how it works [/QUOTE]
:laugh:
[QUOTE={ABK}AbbySciuto;25235137]I'm going to throw this out there even if it's already been said in this thread (but I doubt it because not everyone here is interested in that sort of thing).
If you think String Theory has any merit, you also like Hentai games and fapping to child pornography (Vice versa, however, this is not true.). String theory was created as a "fuck you" to Quantum Physics and essentially no one has any fucking idea how it works (except the crackheads that created it).
Also, anyone who rates this post ANYTHING will receive a "present" from me in the form of a strange shambling monster in their basement/crawl space/any dark area in your house. And you won't even know that it's there until it's much, much too late.
/biggest-rant-in-this-thread[/QUOTE]
Excuse me do you have absolutely any knowledge of string theory whatsoever or can we assume you're talking out your ass
Also string theory INCORPORATES quantum physics fyi.
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;25186466]Here's another mindfuck:
We humans live and act in 4 spacetime dimensions. That's 3 spacial dimensions [B]([/B]forward/back [B]|[/B] left/right [B]|[/B] up/down[B])[/B] and 1 temporal dimension [B]([/B]forward/back[B])[/B]. Now, if string theory is correct, we should expect more dimensions. Something like 10 spacial dimensions, and 3 temporal dimensions. If the fact that there are more spacial dimensions than our three normal ones is very hard to grasp, then even more mindblowing are the time dimensions. I mean... that means that you can hypothetically travel forward and back in time, but also sideways, and up and down! Travel up and down in time? Good luck imagining that.[/QUOTE]
I thought that String Theory only worked in 10 or 26 spatial and one temporal, due to the symmetries not working in other amounts.
[img]http://www.daviddarling.info/images/tesseract.jpg[/img]
The reason you can't imagine it is because our brains can't wrap around the idea of 4 mutually-perpendicular lines.
Hypercube/Tesseract/etc
It's the 3D shadow of a 4D 'cube'.
And don't forget this equation:
1
------
sqrt(1-(v^2)/(c^2))
It calculates all kinds of things. Guess what they are.
And of course, what is a physics lesson without Carl?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0[/media]
[QUOTE={ABK}AbbySciuto;25235137]I'm going to throw this out there even if it's already been said in this thread (but I doubt it because not everyone here is interested in that sort of thing).
If you think String Theory has any merit, you also like Hentai games and fapping to child pornography (Vice versa, however, this is not true.). String theory was created as a "fuck you" to Quantum Physics and essentially no one has any fucking idea how it works (except the crackheads that created it).
Also, anyone who rates this post ANYTHING will receive a "present" from me in the form of a strange shambling monster in their basement/crawl space/any dark area in your house. And you won't even know that it's there until it's much, much too late.
/biggest-rant-in-this-thread[/QUOTE]
Take a look at this : [url]http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/brian_greene_on_string_theory.html[/url]
And what's with the odd monster threats?
[QUOTE=Block;25240542]Take a look at this : [url]http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/brian_greene_on_string_theory.html[/url]
And what's with the odd monster threats?[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, it was late last night and I was tired of people in my physics class bringing String theory up (My prof and 92% of the class was irritated by these 2 kids.). I'm a physicist, you see, and even though string theory has good points that were indeed incorporated into quantum physics, any physicist who hears the words "String Theory" chuckles either on the inside or right in someone's face.
[editline]07:17AM[/editline]
And it's a good thing no one's rated my rant yet...you don't want to know about the monsters...they're getting restless. :ohdear:
Everyone check your beds tonight, although you won't see them until they cross the "branes" to get you. :v:
[QUOTE={ABK}AbbySciuto;25242883]any physicist who hears the words "String Theory" chuckles either on the inside or right in someone's face.
[/QUOTE]
Second year physics student here. No chuckles. I think it's kinda arrogant to laugh at something just because you don't understand it / it's weird / it's not done yet.
[QUOTE={ABK}AbbySciuto;25242883]I'm sorry, it was late last night and I was tired of people in my physics class bringing String theory up (My prof and 92% of the class was irritated by these 2 kids.). I'm a physicist, you see, and even though string theory has good points that were indeed incorporated into quantum physics, any physicist who hears the words "String Theory" chuckles either on the inside or right in someone's face.
[editline]07:17AM[/editline]
And it's a good thing no one's rated my rant yet...you don't want to know about the monsters...they're getting restless. :ohdear:
Everyone check your beds tonight, although you won't see them until they cross the "branes" to get you. :v:[/QUOTE]
Grove City College '14
Electrical Engineering
I don't think that qualifies as being a physicist.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;25243888]Grove City College '14
Electrical Engineering
I don't think that qualifies as being a physicist.[/QUOTE]
Fuck you and you're facebook stalking (:v:)...I'm INTERESTED in physics and I'm required to take a full course of study in Physics.
The core of both Physics majors and EE majors is the same for the first 2 years, then it differentiates. Also my Dad is a physicist, so I learn a lot on the side as well.
I dunno...that's my opinion. You don't have to like it, and I have my own reasons for thinking that string theory is bullcrap. When I look at string theory I see something that COULD have been accepted by the major community had they not made it so unbelievable to the public. The same could be said for quantum physics, although quantum physics makes slightly more sense to me than string theory. I think they just messed up the entire explanation to the point where everyone (including myself) laughs at the absurd nature of string theory and goes to something more based in math and probability, namely quantum physics, even though both are equally valid in a scientific sense.
tl;dr Opinions are like bellybuttons; everyone has one, and no one else wants to see yours.
Science doesn't care about your opinions it cares about demonstrable knowledge.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;25222673]That's true, wrong from my side. The quantum thing was when shooting some other particle one by one or something I think.[/QUOTE]
It's the photoelectric effect that proves light travels as quanta.
[editline]05:59PM[/editline]
[QUOTE={ABK}AbbySciuto;25244545]Fuck you and you're facebook stalking (:v:)...I'm INTERESTED in physics and I'm required to take a full course of study in Physics.
The core of both Physics majors and EE majors is the same for the first 2 years, then it differentiates. Also my Dad is a physicist, so I learn a lot on the side as well.
I dunno...that's my opinion. You don't have to like it, and I have my own reasons for thinking that string theory is bullcrap. When I look at string theory I see something that COULD have been accepted by the major community had they not made it so unbelievable to the public. The same could be said for quantum physics, although quantum physics makes slightly more sense to me than string theory. I think they just messed up the entire explanation to the point where everyone (including myself) laughs at the absurd nature of string theory and goes to something more based in math and probability, namely quantum physics, even though both are equally valid in a scientific sense.
tl;dr Opinions are like bellybuttons; everyone has one, and no one else wants to see yours.[/QUOTE]
What the fuck does it matter if the public agrees with it?
The public has a general agreement that we were all created by some omnipotent being, that doesn't mean they are fucking right.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;25185982]Quantum Physics is theoretical, so this debate won't have any concrete evidence and it won't go anywhere. Especially since none of these kids ever took Physics
I'm in a higher level physics class myself so I could do it but like I'm sure HL Physics kids are almost nonexistent here[/QUOTE]
Gravity was once theoretical, wasn't it? Then that guy dressed in frills was hit in the head with an apple.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.