• Discussion of Quantum Physics.
    159 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Yahnich;25247274]Has anything of string theory actually been proven yet? You know, making it actually earn its theory part.[/QUOTE] There wasn't any experiment yet which could ascend String Hypothesis to the status of a theory. At least to my knowledge.
Yeah pretty sure it's near untestable isn't it? at least at the current moment in time.
[QUOTE=bravehat;25247897]Yeah pretty sure it's near untestable isn't it? at least at the current moment in time.[/QUOTE] We can't really produce the energy yet to test things on the scale we'd need to. It's got a very elegant mathematical framework though.
All the elegance in the world is worthless if we can't prove it though :frown:
[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] Again, string theory includes and explains quantum physics. It's not an alternative. String theory is an attempt at a more general extension of it. Also, who gives a flying fuck what the public thinks? Truth isn't subject to public perception. [editline]02:21PM[/editline] [QUOTE=bravehat;25248299]All the elegance in the world is worthless if we can't prove it though :frown:[/QUOTE] Better than a shitty theory that can't stand up mathematically.
Well yeah but if it's a theory then the chances are it will stand up mathematically :v:
Well technically it's not but...
Well my general point is, it could explain everything perfectly well and be the most mind blowingly near perfect mathematical model of our universe ever, but if we cannot prove it or observe evidence for it then there's sadly no point in paying attention to it until there is evidence to support it.
[QUOTE=bravehat;25247897]Yeah pretty sure it's near untestable isn't it? at least at the current moment in time.[/QUOTE] If we can prove extra dimensions to be real (hence the video with Brian Green explaining how to), this is a good indication for String Hypothesis being not being a waste of time. Some might also see this as a proof for it.
I wouldn't call it proof of string theory. Kaluza-Klein theory requires higher dimensions, doesn't it? Or at least 1 higher.
[QUOTE=aVoN;25248976]If we can prove extra dimensions to be real (hence the video with Brian Green explaining how to), this is a good indication for String Hypothesis being not being a waste of time. Some might also see this as a proof for it.[/QUOTE] Yeah but how do we go about proving the existence of higher dimensions?
[QUOTE=Yahnich;25250564]I heard magnetic monopoles were pretty solid proof and that they're searching for them somewhere in the poles.[/QUOTE] Magnetic monopoles haven been proven last year in a solid-state body, but as quasi-particles. [editline]08:44PM[/editline] [QUOTE=bravehat;25252139]Yeah but how do we go about proving the existence of higher dimensions?[/QUOTE] By indirect experiments mostly. In the video posted here recently, Brian Green explained how the LHC could help. In a particle/anti-particle collision, the energy could be sufficient to create e.g. a particle which is not only bound to our known 3 dimensions (e.g. a graviton). Gravity is the weakest force we know and one explanation is, it is actually stronger but "escapes" to other dimensions so the effect of gravity gets "diluted". So if we see particles moving out of our known 3 dimensions, we will measure less energy later as there is supposed to be. Note: This is only a very very very short outline of the idea. It's actually much more complicated. Not only the energy should be conserved but also other quantities like lepton-,hadron-number, angular momentum etc etc etc. Taking all this into account, we can find out (using the Standard Model of particle physics) what happened in a collision and then see if a particle, which was supposed to be there, wasn't there and might have escaped to other dimensions.
The universe is but a membrane of a cell in another universe. Also, I want to harvest black holes for a source of infinite power and a medium for creating other universes.
[QUOTE=mr.killa;25274882]The universe is but a membrane of a cell in another universe. Also, [B]I want to harvest black holes for a source of infinite power[/B] and a medium for creating other universes.[/QUOTE] Sure, we'll be able to do that in a few years man, shit'll be so awesome flying up to a black hole, putting our energy scoops and then flying off to the energy depots. [img]http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/714/trollchair.png[/img]
[QUOTE=mr.killa;25274882]The universe is but a membrane of a cell in another universe. Also, [B]I want to harvest black holes for a source of infinite power[/B] and a medium for creating other universes.[/QUOTE] I don't know two shits about quantum physics, but I'm going to have to guess that this is a pretty impossible idea.
[QUOTE=mr.killa;25274882]The universe is but a membrane of a cell in another universe. Also, I want to harvest black holes for a source of infinite power and a medium for creating other universes.[/QUOTE] Yeah, soon as we figure out how to get away from the inescapable gravity. It's called a singularity for a reason...
[QUOTE=I Broke The Sun!;25275000]I don't know two shits about quantum physics, but I'm going to have to guess that this is a pretty impossible idea.[/QUOTE] Improbable, but not impossible, think of a black hole like a universe inside a universe. It is an infinity, that means one particle of it would have enough power to supply the world forever an infinite times over. All you would need is a really powerful magnet to keep its gravity at bay and a light powerful enough to melt space itself.
[QUOTE=mr.killa;25275519]Improbable, but not impossible, think of a black hole like a universe inside a universe. It is an infinity, that means one particle of it would have enough power to supply the world forever an infinite times over. All you would need is a really powerful magnet to keep its gravity at bay and a light powerful enough to melt space itself.[/QUOTE] [img]http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/989/1264234429057.png[/img] I'm not sure, but I think he is being serious, or I just got trolled.
[QUOTE=mr.killa;25275519]Improbable, but not impossible, think of a black hole like a universe inside a universe. It is an infinity, that means one particle of it would have enough power to supply the world forever an infinite times over. All you would need is a really powerful magnet to keep its gravity at bay and a light powerful enough to melt space itself.[/QUOTE] What does the light have to do with it. And I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think magnets can repel gravity.
-snip- [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Spam." - Seiteki))[/highlight]
Hopefully the LHC discovers and proves the higgs particle is real, if we could control that it would accelerate technology at an insane rate.
[QUOTE=Block;25193909] The hypothesis about tachyons is that they travel faster than the speed of light and thus backwards in time. They have an imaginary mass. [/QUOTE] That doesn't make any sense. Just because something can travel faster than the speed of light, doesn't mean it travels back in time, it moves faster then light not time. It would just move super fucking fast? Time doesnt have a defined movement speed? I'm not arguing my case im just really interested in learning this.
Another one of these threads, OP kill yourself.
To anyone who says quantum physics is bullshit I submit to you one challenge: Explain the discrete nature of emission spectra! BAM! Science'd. One thing that bugs me is: how the fuck do hybrid orbitals work in quantum mechanics?! We learned about them a few weeks ago in uni and I wasn't satisfied with the description because up until that point we were working on the understanding that electrons can only be in fixed energy levels and there ISN'T any 'between' for them to reside in. Yet... the entire idea of a hybrid orbital relies on there being these 'in between quantum levels'.
[QUOTE=Foo King;25184716]But what if the variables used to determine the size of a centimeter was also changed? And I was meaning a bug measured to our scale.[/QUOTE] No, because we -- the humans -- created the meter to equal a certain amount of quanta (we just don't know how much, which is why we write m instead of an actual numerical coefficient).
If you are a 3 miles long giant, is the same lenght of a metre still same to you, when with one step you can move 10 mails forward no sweat?
[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] I wouldn't say all quantum physics is theoretical, we can demonstrate some aspects of it, e.g, the fact that light travels in discrete bundles of energy (photons) can be demonstrated by the photoelectric effect.
[QUOTE=bravehat;25275581][img_thumb]http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/989/1264234429057.png[/img_thumb] I'm not sure, but I think he is being serious, or I just got trolled.[/QUOTE] I once saw a guy who thought we couldn't of landed on the moon because the moon is, "one of those white dwarfs where a piece the size of a pinhead weighs a ton."
[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, [b]any physicist who hears the words "String Theory" chuckles either on the inside or right in someone's face.[/b] [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] Sheldon Lee Cooper, B.S., M.S., M.A., Ph.D., Sc.D. Does not agree with you.
Guys, I'm going to charge up this gold leaf and then shine a light source onto it to see if it will discharge. Ok it didn't work, apart from ultraviolet rays, wtf is this shit my classical physics cannot explain this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.