Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About danielj

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
  1. Hello all, I'm Dan and am just somebody with an interest in general science. I've a 'Pop science' level of understanding you might say. I occasionally pop over to your Forum and read through some interesting threads, the level of knowledge usually quickly surpasses my own, but each time I gain a little more myself. So, my question. I often like to have a little ponder on one very specific topic and try and follow some train of thought to some sort of a conclusion. Sometimes I think I have a good conclusion, sometimes not. Gaps (chasms) in my knowledge prevent me from finding the answer to the question, "Light does not accelerate or decelerate, what fundamental effect does this have on the laws of physics", or alternatively; "What effect on the laws of physics would there be if light had to accelerate and decelerate?" I've no doubt the answers are very simple, but I can't get very far with it myself. Help please? And go easy! Thanks all Dan
  2. thank you. I find it very difficult to get my head around randomness. Effect with no cause? I understand that for progress to be made, it can be neccessary to accept these things and move on regardless. Perhaps it is a feature of the human brain that I find randomness unsatisfactory. Are there any theories that attempt to explain the random nature of atomic behaviour? dan
  3. thank you. i will read up on wave function. Dan
  4. hi all. I am reading John Gribbins popular science book 'In search of Schrodingers cat' at the moment and would be interested in your opinions or explanations of the following questions What are the origins of the probabilities that form a fundamental part of Quantum Theory. there is no explanation in the book, so far. It seems taken as a given that the probabilities just 'are'. For instance, when an electron or other packet of energy is emitted from the atom, the suggestion is that there is no way to confidently predict the moment precisely. I am aware of the concept of half lives. Could it be said that the probabilities exist because the events that cause the atom to emit a packet of energy are not predictable or detectable using current scientific instruments? do we have to use probabilities for this reason? Could the emmission of particles be caused entirely by the environment in which it resides? for instance, our solar system Could the probabilities be different in another part of the cosmos where the environmental conditions are different? my knowledge of QF is very basic and I am aware that these questions may be a bit simplistic teach me please thank you Dan
  5. hello everyone, my name is Daniel. I am interested in all of the sciences and love to learn new things about the universe. I have a very basic knowledge of science, mostly gained through popular science books, of which I have read many. The first popular science book I read was Cosmos,by Carl Sagan. This is what got me interested in science and the universe. I have been reading posts for some time with interest. As my basic knowledge has improved I find that there are more questions than answers, and I hope to put some of those questions to like minded people. hi Dan
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.