Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sato

  1. We know there is a flow of electrons because we can detect a flow of electric charge across a conductor (and others).


    Subatomic particles such as electrons, neutrons, and protons can exist outside of the atomic structure.


    You can visualize an atom as a collection of different flavored quarks, of which different combinations together make protons and neutrons, surrounded by an atmosphere of electrons which are probably closer to the nucleus and less likely farther away but don't particularly stay in any position. Of course, to accurately run such a mental simulation, you'd have to learn the actual mathematical descriptions of these particles by really studying quantum mechanics and particle physics as well as have some damn good visualization abilities.

  2. I originally thought it was referring to solar sails but apparently not. It seems to implement the Casimir effect to propel a spacecraft. This relevant paper is linked to in the article. There is also a commenter on the article who pointed out problems with the invention and cited his own patent which overcomes these problems using the same Casimir effect; here is the link to it.

  3. I think an analog to this would be asking if we could have used Kim Peek to solve all these unsolved mathematical problems like the Goldbach conjecture or Reimann hypothesis. Human intellectual prowess is distinct because of our ability to manage and understand abstractions and our [mathematical] ability to quantitatively understand the world around us and derive abstract ideas and concepts from it; having them, we're able to observe, tinker with, and analyze these abstractions. This, I believe is significantly more important than memory and processing speed, which is encapsulated in my reference to Kim Peek. He retained immediate recall to ~98% of the information he absorbed word-for-word and could read extremely fast (I think ~800 WPM with each eye, as his split them between pages). He could also likely do arithmetic with very large numbers very fast and numerical table look ups. But, he was disabled in terms of comprehension and mathematical ability; I think his tested I.Q. was an 88 if I recall correctly. Computers are not much different than Kim if you're looking at the potential to solve the problems you posed, but I think that A.I. developments will be able to create a simulated ability to work on such problems. I have worked with genetic algorithms and ANN's before (albeit just via a MOOC) and can see how certain things can be managed with them (such as via brute-force), but I am not seeing how others can.




    Strange: There is no way to undo it, but don't worry as it has been pushed back up to a 0.

  4. As far as we understand nothing can travel faster than the speed of light - or even at the speed of light other than light.


    And you can't fly into nothingness because it's not there - and if you could fly into it, it would be something and not nothingness.


    And you can't ignore time dilation. To do so would mean that there's a universal clock marking universal time, which I understand Einstein demonstrated there to be no such thing.


    Posing scenarios about impossible situations I can't see as advancing knowledge.


    Off-topic: I think posing scenarios about impossible situations and studying them does advance knowledge and such studies can extrapolate to more applied topics (not that they're any more interesting than the theoretical). I do see what you're saying though, as there are many particle and astrophysicists who have ideas and end up ignoring established physical constraints to continue to dabble with them. But to say that such research does not contribute to knowledge as you did is inaccurate and refers to much of the important contributions being made in theoretical physics and pure mathematics today.

  5. NY has a pretty good secondary school science education system, such that for all science courses there have a required 25 or so labs to be done. But it is still mainly for scoring well on the final state mandated exam, which is the problem. Especially when one who is doing well in some class could say "omg I hate name of science class." Lots of it is more so fact memorization that understanding; e.g. in my chemistry class the majority of my classmates treated every concept like a fact (in the form of a sentence or bullet point) that must be memorized, such as "electrons have greater energy when they're in a higher shell"; it was just that, and nobody seemed to have the idea of why that was true or any visual model of electrons with more energy (whatever "energy" was taught to be at that point) being able to stay or escape to different positions in the atom.

  6. You should write a more organized and self-contained paper on this, which one who is interested can look through and discuss, rather than scrolling through multiple not-so-organized forum posts. Looks interesting, but it seems more like a wall of text and images at this point which induces apathy (at least in me).

  7. If gravity is a force that interacts with matter via space, and gravitational waves are the measurable transfers of this force, then are all gravitational interactions due to gravitational waves, but most masses give off minute and constant gravitational waves which can't be detected very easily?


    Is that what the inverse-square law of gravitational is then, describing the dissipation of any gravitational wave over a distance?

  8. I don't understand what the fuss is; mathematics (formal or informal) is just logical and quantitative thinking. Mathematics is what you're using when you conduct any sort of thought experiment, especially in physics, and the greater the mathematical ability the greater the capacity to generate larger and more precise thought models and ideas. Of course, in order to express these models and ideas to other people you need a method of communication, that being formal mathematics such as algebra, trigonometry, calculus, linear algebra, etc. Sometimes the ideas are of such complex systems that complicated expressions must be used, otherwise there wouldn't be any way to accurately communicate the ideas, so you can't complain about there being "too much" mathematics in the theories unless you're only looking for a watered down and inaccurate understanding that you can use to fool yourself into thinking you have some sort of understanding of the actual phenomena.

  9. We see using light, bats, dolphins and other animals "see" using sound. Bats routinely catch small insects (mosquitoes) that we have difficulty seeing except in swarms. Why wouldn't sound appears as an image to those animals. Doctors make images of fetus inside women.


    But would this be the case for humans, who do not all exhibit such severe synesthesia?


    I do not think so, in fact I'm quite sure the answer is no, but I'm wondering if it's possible for individuals who have suffer from blindness to inherit some form of induced audio-visual synesthesia after utilizing echolocation for some number of years.

  10. The photon scatters off of the electron. In this case it's not that different from marbles colliding. But since there's a photon, its energy change shows up as a wavelength change, and it depends on the scattering angle.


    If you're not at the level where you can show how the scattering violates conservation of energy or momentum, it's really hard to have any substantive discussion.


    Oh okay, I understand. Thank you for your help!

  • 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.