Ben_Phys618

Hmmm......so maybe it becomes like the relativity equations, but in this instance, the closer you get to 0 k the more your research costs tend to infinity....We just need now to find a absolute zero analogy for tachyons (they are the inverse of normal particles, they go further away from the asymptotic value if they speed up, but can never drop below speed of light). So if we can find a way to create a particle already with a temp. below 0 k, then the research costs will drop exponetially the more we cool it into -k values....hmmmm

well, weight is a measure of the force acting on a mass in a gravitational field, and is equal to mass x gravitational acceleration, or in your case, 1 kg. x 9.8 m/s2. = 9.8 newtons If you are only concerned with his apparent weight relative to the lift, and therefore why he appears to rise off the floor of the lift, then replace gravitational acceleration with just acceleration, which in relation to the lift was 2.2 m/s2 upwards, therefore his weight is -2.2 newtons

You said that Hiroshima was a formal war, implying that terrorist activities arn't a formal war. How is that? The US Government made it one. They called it the War on Terrorism. Hmmm...there's an interesting concept. The terrorists are simply defending themselves from an american attack. Of course I knwo thats not the case, they were commiting terrorist acts before the 'war' was declared, but its still an interesting concept. The ends never really justify the means, because if the means are wrong, you never completely accomplish your end. Example, Bush attacked Iraq because he believed that it was "America's responsibilty to bring peace to bring peace to the world." http://www.dedanaan.com/silent_lucidity/archives/000382.php And in attempting this, he sows the seed of hatred towards the US in the minds of many Iraqis, which ultimately will find a means to be expressed, and I'll make the hypothesis that it won't be in the form of peaceful demonstrations.

So my question still stands (I think, if it has been answered, I didn't understand the asnwer) couldn't we measure the momentum of one of the particles, measure the position of the other, since they mirror each other, and break the uncertainity priciple? (as long as the methods with which we measure them with aren't violent). Or have I got it wrong and its just the spin and orientation that is mirrored? Can entangled particles have differing momentums?

Actually I think I should amend that answer. Its been too long since doing those nice small problems, that I'd forgotten the naunces of them. The man still accelerates upward at 2.2 m/s2 (if your frame of reference is the lift) but he feels no force from it. The lift would fall out from under his feet, and he woyuld begin falling, but only at 9.8 m/s2 (which means he wil eventually hit his head on the ceiling of the lift - that would be amusing, somebody should perform this as an experiment lol) so the only force he feels is F = mg => F = 1 x 9.8 => F = 9.8 Newtons vertically downwards. And no, I don't think gravity is always an external force. It depends what you consider as your system. If you take your system as being simply a man (100kg) standing on the Earth, with the Earth as your frame of reference. The two forces acting are gravity downwards, balanced by the normal reaction force from the earth. The system is at rest. If the man jumps at an initial velocity of 10 ms-1, his momentum will be 1000 sN upwards, and the earth moves downwards at a velocity of (1000/[mass of earth]) which is a very small number, but it stil moves. Momentum is conserved, whichb means for that system, Gravity is acting as an internal force, doesn't it?

The only way to travel in time is to instantaneously be at c. accelerating to c is what is impossible, but we can travel faster than it. acceleration is change in speed divided by time taken for the change to occur. If that time can be made 0, and our acceleration infinite, then we can reach these speeds. However, it seems to be our fate that anything we do has a duration, so this would be impossible in practice. Light travels at c, because the photons are created travelling at c. The proposed tachyon travels faster than c, becasue when it is created it is already faster than c. Putting the value for v > c for a tachyon into the equations for relativity gives a value for t < 0. (ie negative) This should mean that tachyons travel back in time as soon as they are created, which is possibly why we have never detected one. Perhaps the primitive humans of the past are being bombarded with tachyons created in our High Energy Particle Phsyics experiments? Who knows? Maybe if we could build a ship out of tachyons, with a recording device on it (also made from tachyons) we could use it to venture inot the past.

Principle of Entropy: The total amount of energy present in the universe always tends towards a state of least usefulness. Every form of energy that we use ends up as heat energy or sound energy, neither of which are very useful. Electrical energy powers lights, which generate heat, chemical energy from burning wood generates heat. Eventually, every form of energy seems to be converted to heat or sound. So once all the energy runs out, our universe will be dead, but a little hotter. Although some cosmologists theorize quite intuitively that on the universal scale this extra heat will allow new stars to form, which will start the whole entropy process from scratch again. But, my point (if i have one) is that a perpetual motion machine defies this principle. Even if it is 99% efficient in running off its own produced power, it would in some way generate and radiate heat, or sound. And even it was kept in a completely Isothermic environment, so that no heat release was permitted, it would take a large amount of energy to regulate this environment: much more than would be obtained from the supposed machine.

Well, its been a while since I looked over my Psych textbook, so I did that last night. You're right on half of it. Genetics doesn't have as much to do with it as I thought. But, the development thing is right. Sure, you can study up, apply yourself, and increase your general knowledge and speed, and this will increase your Intelligence ,but it will not increase your IQ Thats the point I was trying to make. IQ does not asess one's intelligence with any great validity. I'm sure you can become more intelligent as you get older, but you will find it very hard to raise your IQ score significantly as you get older. Also, if you repeatedly do problem solving excersies and get better at them, you will have increased your ability at that kind of problem, but that has just made it crystalline. You now have the general knowledge of how to solve such problems. There is an innate ability in most of us (that I found out now does mostly depend on how we are raised) that allows us to solve new problems. Even if you got very skilled at solving the problems you practised, if you didn't have a very high fluid intelligence, when you came up against a new problem you had never seen before, it would take you longer to work out how to solve it.

To that you should be replying with a smug tone, "Actually its called Intelligence Quota." What the IQ test attempts to measure is your crystalline intelligence, (aquired knowledge) fluid intelligence, (problem solving abilities) and the speed with which you can use these intelligences, and compare it to everybody else thats taken the test. The scores range from 0 to 200 on a Normal Distribution Curve, with 100 as the mean value and a standard deviation of 15. So to score a result over 115 would mean you scored better than 68% of all people who took the test, over 130, better than 98% etc etc. While it is true you can increase your IQ by increasing your general knowledge and speed at answering the questions, this only affects it slightly. The majority of the score is based around fluid intelligence, which is influenced a fair bit by our genes. The rest of this fluid intelligence ability is formed in a early developmental stages, and lots of mental stimulation at this time can greatly increase a child's potential IQ. However, after about the age of 6 or 7, this ability is usually at the maximum it will ever be.

This is a psychology debate. Nature vs Nurture, as its usually dubbed. What affects the way we behave? Is it our Genes, or is it the environment we are brought up in. The answer: Both. For a long time people believed it was one or the other, but studies show that both have an influence on our behaviour. The extent to which each has depends on the behaviour in question. Intelligence is a good example. The closeness of IQ scores of monozygotic twins separated at birth and raised in differing environments has a higher correlation than that of siblings raised in the same house, even when encouraged to read from an early age (Something which has been shown to increase IQ scores). However, other things, such as concept of pro-social behavioural concepts is more related to the environment in which we develop

Is that meant to be a lift falling with acceleration of 12 ms/s2? coz that is decidedly more dimensionally accurate. Gravity acts downwards with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s2. Your lift is accelerating in the same direction at 12m/s2, so the man accelerates upward at 2.2m/s2, and if he has mass of 1kg, the net force he feels is 2.2 newtons vertically upwards

One thing that doesn't seem to have been touched (though maybe it has and i didn't see it for all the big scary words) is that if these two particles are in some way mirroring each other, and they can transport the properties of on particle to another, then couldn't you measure these two particles to break the uncertainty principle? Tis says that we cannot know both a particles position and movement, right? If we measure one we have no idea of the other. However, if you measure the position of particle A, and the momentum of particle B, since they are 'entangled,' wouldn't this allow us to overcome uncertainty? (There's probably a flaw there somewhere, but it was worth a try)

Still, its not a law derived from direct observation. I mean, we haven't observed that we CANNOT reach absolute zero. Sure, the heisenberg uncertainty principle, and the pauli exclusino principle SUGGESTS that it is impossible, but we simply may not have a requierd theory yet. Perhaps a theory will be proposed tha does for quatum mechanics what relativity did for Newtonian physics. I mean, before it was experimentally verified, people said einstein was wrong in saying that time would appear to slow down for an observer moving near the speed of light, that his equations musty be somehow wrong.

Well, it was minkowski's concept of space-time that said what we call the present depends on our position and motion relative to the 4 axes, which leads to interesting paradoxes. He came up with this by modifying the galilean concept of space-time under his assumption of inseparable 4-d coordinates. Einstein used this minkowskian space-time, but separated x,y,z from t. This seems to be the most comatible combination of the two concepts.