Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SamBridge

  1. Something I was thinking about since I read "A wrinkle in time", when one of the main characters said she had to give up the form she loved most, which was a "star", but how could she love being that form unless she was conscious while in that form? Which got be thinking, analyzing a star I'm wondering if it's in any way possible they could be alive. They have seeming cycles of birth, life and death, they grow, shed off outer layers, change their form, they have an abundance of natural materials and have plenty of energy which they make themselves like plants in a self sustaining process, they respond to stimuli in a way such as that they have complex magnetic fields and plasma which changes its shape upon contact with different materials (though usually at small levels), it has organization through distinguishable layers and convection of plasma, as well as specific magnetic field lines, it seems to fit all the criteria for being a living thing.
  2. Yeah I did the same thing myself, there are similar shapes. Though there is no direct equation to relate all of matter and energy with each other, the process you are describing I think can be modeled as "fractal mathematics". But regardless with the current scientific definition of life, the universe itself isn't a living thing.
  3. Regardless of whatever you say about it I still have a crystal clear idea of what it looks like, the universe is theoretically infinite in size, we can view the universe. You can view a chain that is infinitely long you can't just view an infinite number of components of it simultaneously. This is where your logic regarding the physical representation of something breaks down. "Beauty" isn't a mathematical number we can count to on a number line, like "infinity" it's more of a concept, but we can still see something beautiful. But if you have no idea what they look like then you can't say what they don't look like. You have no evidence that a physical quantity of "i" couldn't be similar to the square root of 1. There's logical justification to support that it could, because the square root of 1 is 1, the square root of negative 1 is something also to do with 1, which is why the coefficient in an imaginary number retains the mathematical properties of it's real coefficient, such as the square root of negative 4 being equal to 2i. The square root of 100 is 10* the square root of 1, just like the square root of -100 is 10*i. And then 10 is still the square root of 100 times i^4. There's no "right or wrong" way to "go" at this point, this is more like philosophy, I'm not trying to look smart like you I'm trying to figure out what "i" really is and its physical representation in reality, how mathematics fits into reality is something that's been debated for hundreds of years.. If you're not going to do that you don't have a reason to respond to my posts in this topic. I am well versed in the knowledge of the mathematics of imaginary and real numbers, but what reality is and numbers actually mean to it is something different, and that's because math uses axioms, it is not reality itself. I'm pretty sure it can't be proven that i=1, or that it equals any real number we are familiar with, that's why it's philosophy how it physically fits into the real world which we like to think of as comprised of real numbers, like real numbers of atoms bonded at fixed angles moving at real speeds, ect. Which reminds me: can this be split off into the philosophy section? (Also just an off topic sidenote: I'm a senior member when I only have 35 posts? wtf? I've only been here like less than a week.)
  4. I've been tying to come up with an explanation for the Pauli exclusion principal as well, but so far all I can come up with is essentially just like what you come up with, which is just mathematics that describe what's already happening with it, not why it happens in the first place. We know spin has to be conserved, we know the net spin in a pair system has to equal 0, but what's stopping an electron from having .52352 spin? I can't come up with a cause, but perhaps that's because it wasn't a causation in the first place. If an electron had those weird integer properties, it wouldn't be able to sustain it's own existence, so the only explanation I can come up with is that when the universe was created in whatever fashion, only the probabilities that could sustain existence continued to exist, and because of the properties of numbers and number theory, the only things that could be sustained would have spin integers = to half spins or whole integer spins. In other words, the pauli exclusion principal exists because no other system could possibly exist to sustain the existence of particles, it's just the result of infinite possibilities and only 1 working.
  5. Nope there's no standards of proof, proof is proof, proof is not proof-1 or proof+1. You have different levels of scientific investigation and confirmation, it goes concept->hypothesis->experiment->theory->more experiments->proven right->scientific law, or proven false->more experimenting or garbage, but if its proven then it's proven, and if its disproved then its disproved. If its results are predictable with a set of equations that fit into the rest of physics it's proven, if it doesn't always fit the results we see in reality, then it's disproved or remodeled to try and account for those differences.
  6. But in a circular motion the direction is always changing, so the relative length contraction at any point is along a different relative angle at an instantaneous moment so you would get different results. Sometimes it would be contracting towards you, sometimes away from you, and all the places in between.
  7. You can say the same about "infinity" but you still have an idea of what it looks like, infinity isn't an actual number you can count to but if I had infinite apples it would be a never ending chain that would stretch as far as I can see, I still know what it looks like. The square root of 1 is 1, so I would only have to imagine that "i" has some kind of similar inherent property like that, after all, the square root of negative 4 is i times the square root of 4 which is 2i, but the positive square root of 4 is just 2, there's some kind of hidden reflexive property of i that's similar to taking the square root of 1, I'm starting to think "i" apples would look in some way like 1 apple. Sure there's axioms of math, but there's still proof that 1+1=2, there has to be something about the proof that i^2=-1 that shows what it really is, and I think it's a property that makes it similar in some way to 1.
  8. There's different parts of the brain responsible for different things as well as how much damage a bullet does. There is a part in the back of the brain, the lower back, that I think controls heart function, if it gets severed a person will die, but if a bullet pierces too much and cleanly travels through the brain, hitting things like the cortexes for cognitive thought and memory which occupy a large part of the upper region of the brain won't do much, i mean it will, it will cause brain damage that will take 10-30 years to heal, but it won't kill anyone. But I guess if the bullet folds enough to transfer it's energy it will just tear up too much of the tissue and kill someone anyway no matter what angle you hit someone from.
  9. Photons always travel at "c", it's called the lorentz transformation. The distance between objects is relative, as an object accelerates near the speed of light, it's relative measurement between increments of distancem easurement from the frame of reference of a near c object of distance becomes smaller. I still haven't quite figured out how to change it, but essentially time and distance change as something changes its position more and more at the rate of light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation It also has to do with time slowing down as something approaches the speed of light. But as for the frame's of reference actually being photons, there is no frame of reference of a photon.
  10. Bu your argument is "a god CAN make humans experience the universe better than it is", there's no proof that god is actually doing that in the first place. Even if you corrected that and the argument was more refined, I could only see that you'd only be proving a benevolent god doesn't exist, not that any god doesn't exist.
  11. What's being modeled seems to make sense for multiple interpretations, but I'm not sure which one it is. It seems like the image in the parent graph represents how the mass increases as you increase in position, which is almost right, it's that mass increases as you "accelerate" your position because you run into a greater rate of higg's bosons as you approach the speed of light which increases the relative mass, but it also seems to describe orbitals around a nucleus. As position from the nucleus increases, the energy is greater and therefore the relative mass is also greater, and it seems to fit the quantized nature of the energy states that asymtote to y=0 probability, but that's kind of a weird interpretation, because that would mean a particle's mass exists wherever its probability exists according to that image, which means every particle has some mass in every possible location in the universe.
  12. There is a limit to physical brain capacity, and scientists already predict that, but that's not going to stop people from testing, the only thing that will happen if the IQ and technology stays constant is new things will be discovered but they will take a longer and longer amount of time to discover as the answers become more complex.
  13. But that doesn't make sense either, gravity doesn't cause the fabric of space to accelerate at all anyway, it only changes it's shape, so it would have to be a process that deals with higher dimensions.
  14. An electron absorbs a photon and stays at a higher energy level. Isn't the photon "destroyed" in the process? An anti matter virtual particle pair spontaneously appears. Isn't matter and energy being created and then also destroyed?
  15. The problem isn't that it's on a Cartesian plane because I am completely familiar with not only a complex plane but also quaternian numbers in 3-D mechanics, what the problem is, is that it isn't a number you can count to. You can count to 1, the square root of one, 0, negative one, negative two, ect, but not the square roots of negative numbers. I'm completely familiar with complex and imaginary numbers that's not at all what I'm asking about what I'm asking about is more fundamental like "what causes distance?". What I'm asking about is what the value "i" really is beyond simple analysis and why it has specific properties, there's a whole section of mathematics devoted to investigating why numbers work the way they work and it's called number theory, but unfortunately I can't find what I'm looking for. What I want to know is, what would it look like if I was holding "i" apples?
  16. "In the ZWM study of 1991 Mandel et al get coherence between the signal photons of two distinct downconversion sources. This is shown with an interference collection between the two possible sources of signal photons (even though they are entangled with the idler). This is achievable because the two downconversions are pumped by a common source which is beamsplit, and because the idler from one downconversion crystal is transmitted through the other downconversion crystal and superimposed with the second idler (made indistinguishable). Thus the name of his paper "Induced coherence without induced emission". Is it possible to get coherence between two distinct sources of signals (without the transmission and superimposing of the two idlers) if you simply add the two idlers at a beamsplitter to make them indistinguishable (which negates the which-path information)? You would have to look for interference between the two signals in the same way as you would look for interference between any two separate indistinguishable sources of photons (Hull 1949, Pfleegor & Mandel 1967). You can "postselect" the observations that are in phase or you can look for temporal interference between two detectors. Note this is dis-similar to the DCQE. A more thorough explaination of this thought experiment is at http://modifiedzwm.webs.com/" I don't quite understand what your saying, but I think the answer is both yes and no depending on the interpretation. When you run a photon through a beam splitter, it's probability distribution gets divided up based on the angle. You can make it so that light goes 50% in one direction and 50% in another, but once a single photon is measured it will go into an Eigenstate and it's wave function will collapse only to a single point, so still only 1 detector would detect one photon at a time, 2 detectors will not measure the same single photon even if the probability is distributed 50/50. It's like flipping a coin. If you and your friend are gathered around a coin you flip in the air, you call heads he calls tails, you only get one or the other. So, if you split the beam, then rejoin it again, it doesn't matter, a photon will still go into an Eigenstate and only be measured once, and there is no way to predict exactly which one will measure it or to trace the exact trajectory if it was in a probabilistic wave form prior to measurement.
  17. There's no "standards of proof". You either get the same number on both sides of the equation or you don't, meaning it's illogical. If you have some equation that says "mass=", before you even get a number your units better be in the same units as mass. Can two particles always make "mass=y+z-v+r...=Xkg" true?
  18. No I've defanitely been introduced to it and I know it's important, especially for 3D modeling when you need to use quaternian numbers for shapes and vectors like in video games. I guess another thing I use to find confusing is how the square root of i contained i. I can't remember what it is, its something lke (2^(1/2)i+i)(2^(1/2)), but then I started thinking about i like the number "1", I mean the square root of 1 is itself, its 1, so the square root of -1 should be some kind of identity of something like "1" but I guess in a different form, and you can model "4" as being a composite of four ones, so I kind of like to think of "i" as some kind of base number identity that can composite many others like the number "1" can, but I still don't understand it's physical meaning. X^2+1 never actually crosses the x axis so how does it do it at some "i" coordinate?
  19. Wait, f(x)=y? That would mean the derivative is always 3/4. Unless you mean f'(x) or f''(x) is 3/4x-1/4, there shouldnt be a curve.
  20. Yeah mathematicians don't need visuals, but the math still needs to have real meaning, otherwise why did they do all that research to find it? Spin is defined as "clockwise" or "counterclockwise", and in those scenarios I've seen that a wave travels upwards or downwards, it's like harmonic motion. Waves can be modeled from a unit circle, so just imagine spin as going up from 2pi or down from 2pi, and that makes sense because in the conservation of spin an electrons have half integer spin, and pi/2 + 3pi/2 = 2pi otherwise known as "0". It's spin in that its mathematically similar to a dot spinning around a unit circle.
  21. So a change in space will propagate as a wave but after that change as a static gravitational field, is it an analogous oscillation? And isn't there evidence to support that rotation can "drag" space? Wouldn't that create a wave of change in the fabric of space? I think you would say "no" because of what I just explained, that after the change the inner area is just a static field, but the acceleration of a sphere such as Earth is measured to drag the fabric of space in the direction of rotation with it to a degree.
  22. Maniulation of a Higg's field requires research on it, which requires that Higg's Bosons be proven to exist in the first place. We don't know exactly what causes Higg's Bosons to couple with w/e component of particles, so we really can't say. If it's proven to exist I'm sure that would be one of the first things to research because space travel in the solar system would be a lot more efficient if you could just take and give the property of mass at will to allow something to travel at the speed of light.
  23. I'm pretty sure spin just has something to do with the direction of oscillation. So a particle doesn't have to physical spin it just have to "wave" in a certain forwards or backwards manner.
  24. Essentially the answer is "no" in our observable universe, because "nothing" would mean there isn't even distance, so there is some "thing" that is causing the aspect of distance between objects that allows us to measure things to determine there is distance and not nothingness.
  25. With the production of highly capable computers we definitely will, we can simulate things that are incalculable by humans in a single lifetime, I'm actually using computers right now to research a way to shield Earth from meteors and gamma-ray bursts.
  • 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.