Hypercube

Would it be possible to harness the energy from a lightning strike? I guess if we could, fossil fuel would become obsolete. Couldn't cosmic rays, aurora, tornado's and hurricanes also theoretically be used as a source of energy?

How is a sphere 2-dimensional? If it was 2-dimensional it wouldhave to be depthless, and hence, couldn't physically exist.

Okay Ben, I will; here is the; relativistic mass formula m = m0 /sqrt(1 - v2/c2) time dilation formula t' = t /sqrt(1 - v2/c2) There are two equation having to due with Relativity, both of which predict the existence of tachyons, because if v is greater than c, you will be taking the square root of a negative number.

I realized something the other day. Almost every three-dimensional shape we know of - cube, cone, cylinder, prisms, etc - can be formed simply by extending their two-dimensional equivalents - square, circle, trapezoid, etc. - into the third dimension; in other words by being given depth. There are several that this doesn't really apply for such as the square based pyramid, but that is a combination of the square and triangular-faced cone. The sphere however is different; because technically it has no two dimensional equivalent, most would say that the circle is the 2d sphere, but in reality the circle is a 2d cylinder, since if you give a circle depth, it becomes a cylinder. It is easy to see why people would consider a sphere to be a 3d circle, but technically it isn't; the sphere might be a shape in of itself.

Yes, but there are some types of microorganisms that do have the ability to break water apart, just slowly. But what if their is some type that could do it rapidly?

Please note that this idea was inspired by the third season of Regenesis. I was researching the idea of Spontaneous Human Combustion the other day; now, I know that not many people take the idea seriously. But Regenesis inspired an idea of how it could be possible. What if there was some kind of incredibly rare micro-organism that could rapidly break down water into hydrogen and oxygen. If in somehow infected a person and started breaking down the water in their body, since hydrogen gas is extremely flammable and pure oxygen would increase the hydrogen's combustibility greatly, the slightest spark or open flame would cause the hydrogen to burn; hence, the body combusts from the inside out. I am not sure whether this explanation of Spontaneous Human Combustion is possible, but I wouldn't mind some opinions on the matter.

Why the hell does everyone think that Tachyons are impossible? If you say that Tachyons kill a theory, then relativity is false, because it also predicts the existence of Tachyons, or at least particles with an imaginary mass.

No, I am not thinking about antimatter Ben; but thanks anyway. Antimatter has to due with electrical charges of particles, not the type of energy they have. Exotic matter is not antimatter, it is generally considered to be matter with negative mass and energy.

That's actually a good question Foofighter. Since exotic matter is normal matter's polar opposite in terms of energy, theoretically the two of them might very well annihilate each other on contact.

Where the heck did you learn that HallsofIvy? In a cube; the top face is perpendicular to the side faces. In one dimension, only points can be perpendicular, in two dimensions; lines are perpendicular, in three dimensions; two dimensional shapes are perpendicular. That would suggest that in four dimensions; three dimensional shapes can be perpendicular, and so on.

I was just wondering; is it physically possible for two cubes to be perpendicular other than in more than three dimensions, or without having to have them bisect each other?

I read a book by Isaac Asimov called "Nemesis" and he had quite an interesting theory regarding the possibility of superluminal speeds. Basically he proposed that the speed of light is actually zero, relative to us. He also said that if this were true, it would mean that mathematically, everything that we know would be moving at a negative speed/velocity, and everything moving faster then light (Tachyons) would have a positive speed/velocity. Before I go any further, let me just say that I am in no way, shape, or form convinced that Asimov is correct about any of this. Now since Tachyons are predicted to travel at speed infinity when no energy is added to them, would that mean that ordinary particles would be moving at speed negative infinity if we consider the speed of light as zero?

What would happen if a positive energy photon and a negative energy photon collided? (not talking about antimatter)

We are using two photons, we all know that they always travel at the speed of light; 180 000 miles/sec. I should have been more clear which type of particle I meant in my first post.

I was just thinking. If a black hole were in a universe that contained as much exotic matter (matter with a negative mass) and negative energy as our universe has in normal matter and energy; wouldn't the black hole technically be a white hole in that universe? Since exotic matter and negative energy are repelled by gravity as opposed to attracted by it, the black hole/white hole would repel everything in that universe just as much as a black hole in our universe attracts matter.

I don't really know what semantics are. And I also know quite well that antimatter does not have negative energy. Also, I only posed the cancellation scenario as a possibility, if you think about it logically; if photons did have some kind of antiparticle (not necessarily related to the electric charge of the particle), why shouldn't the two do what every other "antipair" do: cancel?

Okay guys, maybe I am wrong about the whole entanglement thing, but I think I am right in saying that if two photons emerged from one point, and travelled away from each other in polar opposite directions; my scenario would work. Since photons always travel at the speed of light, it would mean that both photons' momentum and velocity would be identical, logically this would imply that it would be possible to determine both their positions and momentum simply by analysing one of the two properties on the particle's partner.

The uncertainty principle states that it is impossible to know both a particle's velocity and location simultaneously. But I discovered a possible loophole in this principle; quantum entanglement. Suppose there were two particles that came from the same point, each going in the polar opposite direction of its partner. Now, according to the quantum entanglement theory, these two particles would both have identicle velocities. Let's say that their velocities are 179 000 miles/sec. Now, since the uncertainty principle forbids us from accurately measuring both the velocity and position of the individual particles, all we could do is accurately measure one or the other. However; since the two particles are entangled, we don't have to measure both particles properties simultaneously. We could have one computer accurately measuring particle A's velocity, while another is measuring particle B's position. Let's say that we draw an invisible line through the point where the two particles came into existence (which we will call 0), all around the sphere so that the two particles are travelling on the line. Now, since particles A and B are travelling in polar opposite directions, if we measured Particle B's position; for clarity sake we will say that particle B's position on the line is {x,y} = {4000, 0}. Since both particles have the same velocity of 179 000 miles/sec, that would mean that Particle A's position would have to be {x,y} = {-4000, 0} Low and behold, we now know with accuracy both particle's velocity, and position without violating he uncertainty principle. Now I just have to say - since I know that a lot of you are - that I know that this scenario would only be possible in a 100% vacuum environment, otherwise the two particles would be interfered with by other particles. Even so, it still would theoretically work.

The basic difference between negative and positive mass is how it is affected by forces such as gravity. Something with negative mass is predicted to fall upward rather than downward. And also, some people also think hat if someone with positive mass were to push someone with negative mass, the negative mass person would fall towards the positive mass person rather than away.

The point is that everything in the universe consists of at least three dimensions; paper is technically three dimensional, as is a line drawn on the paper, since the lead has depth. Nothing in the known universe is less then three dimensional, I'm not talking mathematically here, I'm talking physically. And if you think about it, how can something consist of only one dimension? If that were true, they would have a dimensional *length* of zero, and that cannot physically happen.

What is it about this thread that you guys don't understand? I am not saying that the anti-photon whatever it might be is darkness, in fact I said the exact opposite; DARKNESS IS NOT LIGHT'S OPPOSITE!!! The photino, if that it the photon's opposite, would cancel out if it came in contact with the photon, destroying them both, leaving darkness.

Does anyone know why a negative times a negative equals a positive? I have never been able to understand the reasoning behind that.

Not like positrons no, but how do we know that the "anti-photon" isn't the same as the regular photon, but has negative energy? In that case, the two would theoretically cancel each other out. My uncle has a degree in physics, and he practically knows everything there is to know about topics like this, and he said that yes, theoretically, the two would cancel out to make darkness.

I guess you could think of it that way, but the main point I tried to make is that dark is not opposite of light.

I was watching a show on the Discovery Channel the other day about particle physics. In that program, they mentioned in passing that photon's do not have a counter-part, that the opposite of light is darkness. After they said that, I realized that that was not true, at least the part where they said that darkness is opposite of light. All darkness is is the absense of light, saying that dark is opposite of light is like saying that 0 is opposite of 1. If we were to represent light with a number 1, then darkness would have to be represented by 0, since darkness occurs when you take light away. Most things in the universe have a counter-part; matter/antimatter, acid/alkalyne, positive/negative, etc. and when opposites come in contact with each other, they cancel each other out to form a neutral substance; matter + antimatter = photons, acid + alkalyne = water, and so on. That being said, darkness can't be opposite of light because it is represented by 0, in other words it is what you would theoretically get if you put light and dark light (for lack of a better word) together, they would then cancel each other out and leave darkness. I am not saying that this is necessarily the case, but I am correct in saying that darkness is not opposite of light.