Iwonderaboutthings

This is not due to the commutative rules of real algebra. It is true that no such real number x exits that is a solution to x^{2}+1 =0.

 

I am not at all clear what your confusion is.

 

We extend the real numbers by including i, which we can think of as just formally handling the solution to my equation above*. You can treat i as if it were a real number in the algebra, in particular we have the equality ai = ia for all real numbers a. In short using i allows you to handle the square root of negative numbers, something you cannot do using just real numbers.

 

 

* I think this attitude undersells the complex numbers, but it is probably the best way to think about them when first introduced.

I see, so I assume that the commutative rules of real algebra more apply to the real values of the imaginaries?? " or something like that."

I just want to make sure before investing time in this area of math, I keep hearing i units, are a waste of time, don't provide solutions of any, and yet QM uses them..

There seems to be " on the internet" so much information that denotes so many areas in science, its hard to believe anything anymore...

Any suggestions???

I am not sure what you are asking here. The complex number are commutative so there is not issue with the orderings, just like the real numbers. More than this, you can treat i as formal unknown just as if it were a real number. You can then apply i^2 =-1 and derived expressions right at the end,

Ok now I am very confused, I thought that the commutative laws such as in algebra???

did not allow a solution to x^2 = -1?

What confuses me about imaginary numbers is that it does " seem like a pointless method of calculations for applied "physics"

But I have seen and read over and over again how so many find i units incredible.. Its best to ask around,,,

It's really not clear what you are trying to say. What is "the 12i deal"? You have +12i and -12i in your term, so they add up to 0i=0. For many cases you can treat the "i" just as any regular variable (e.g. (4i)^2 = 4^2*i^2, just as (4x)^2 = 4^2*x^2). Except that you know more about it than about other variables (e.g. that 4^2 * i^2 = 16 * (-1) = -16).

 

There's little point in learning about complex numbers ahead of time hoping to get an edge in understanding QM. But complex numbers are really simple, so there is nothing wrong with learning about them for fun. A fun use of complex numbers is in fractals like the Mandelbrot Set. Completely useless, but fun to program and play around with. That's where I first encountered complex numbers.

The 12i deal?

Sorry I should have placed this:

The Square Root of 12 = 3.46410161514

The reason I am thinking this is because they say i is basically the " root " of the absolute value of a number,

So when I see for example:

A number such as 12i, or 46i or xi, I am thinking just " get the square root of the absolute value of that number..

Now in terms of all applied Methods for complex numbers usage, you really recommend that I just use these for fun??

I am wondering if this is why QM appears to be counter-intuitive??

Maybe its just the math involved??

Wave Function and Imaginary numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function

 

I gather that's x^2 not x2. Work towards the roots and you will see where the i comes from.

 

The roots of a quadratic equation in the form of a*x^2 + b*x^1 + c*x^0 = 0 equal (-b +/- SQRT(b^2 -4*a*c))/2a.

 

With a = 1, b = -6 and c = 25 the roots are (6 +/- SQRT(36-100))/2 = (6 +/- SQRT(-1)*SQRT(64))/2 = 3 +/- 4*SQRT(-1) = 3 +/- 4i

Also, the roots of a quadratic equation in this form are the point(s) where the plot of the quadratic function crosses the x axis i.e. where y = 0.

Yes that is x^2

But one question, what is this that you are using --> +/-

In your example here, where did the 100 come from??

it looks like 10^2/2 = 1/2 = .5

(6 +/- SQRT(36-100))/2 = (6 +/- SQRT(-1)*SQRT(64))/2 = 3 +/- 4*SQRT(-1) = 3 +/- 4i

This area is really " where" I tend to focus the most" it looks like a " base 10 limit"

If this is the case, " their is something missing" a unit of measure I would say...

I don't mean to get deep, but a " black hole perhaps is missing??

For example it is known that in two "phase cycles" one of them always lags behinds the other, and appears to be unavoidable.

http://www.mathworks.com/help/signal/ug/cross-correlation-of-phase-lagged-sine-wave.html

You say:

Also, the roots of a quadratic equation in this form are the point(s) where the plot of the quadratic function crosses the x axis i.e. where y = 0.

Seriously " What is the point of this graph??

To me it looks like a Kepler orbit of some kind, coupled with Minowski Space Time..

Also, why is -3 so common in these types of graphs?

Now it looks like 10^3 as a time plot period for frequencies, in where 10^3 decays " exponentially" with the distance of x dependent on y..

But due to imaginary units I am obscured on my ability to explain this correctly..

In this graph 3 and -4 clearly look like a maximum on a crest peak, but upside down...

Does this " curve " have any other numbers attached to them in the form of the number line?

Such as conjugate numbers?

Matrix?

Binary?

I find it hard to think, that only 3 and -4 " 2 numbers " can explain if anything " anything about science."

Unless those " 2 numbers " are really the exponents of x

I assume this is where Summation comes in>>>?

Any good model needs to be able to make predictions, if it can't then its useless as a model. One thing to keep in mind when studying different models. Oft times a different model is merely a different mathematical way of describing the same process. Both models can be correct and make the same predictions. They simply have different metrics to describe the same thing. Though sometimes conflicts do occur.

 

For example you can describe the universe according to the FLRW metric, Einstein field equations or LQC. For the majority of cosmology those three work equally in all situations. The FLRW metric and Einstien field equations are in 100% agreement with each other, however LQC handles the singularity problem differently (bounce). Otherwise they essentially describe the remainder of the universe in the same manner.

 

However then you also have models that try to define an influence differently, good example would be replacing dark matter with modifying Newtons gravity. MOND. Or replacing dark energy with spin and torsion, Poplowskiis, universe inside a black hole, These types of models inherently run into conflicts with LCDM. However other than replacing one or two influences they use the same metrics. Ie FLRW and Einstein field equations.

 

Now take this a step further. say you wish to represent the FLRW metric specifically on a computer and use it to simulate the universe? If you tried to run the formulas directly to a computer you will quickly run into problems on a particle to particle basis. The types of calculations would bog down the processing power and th simulations would take forever to run.

To deal with that mathematicians and programmers developed whats called N-body simulations. N-body simulations take a metric and finds another mathematical metric that is easier on the processing done via a computer.

I'll use a simple example. A computer is primarily a binary machine. so if I wish to do the calculation 4*2. I have three options. I can directly multiply, I can add 4 two time, or I can do a bit shift right in binary. the bit shift is a faster process. Now N-body is more complex than this. However the codes finds ways to say describe gravity interactions not by the regular GR formulas, but mathematical formulas with the same relations, but done with processing power in mind.

 

Here is a pdf showing some of the N-body code for gravity. note also the use of Matrices and tree codes, this is essentially a visualization of memory stack operations.

 

http://www.cs.hut.fi/~ctl/NBody.pdf

 

Now how does this apply to the quantum information theory? Well simply put if you can relate the metrics used in cosmology or more specifically in the quantum information theory, QM directly to Boolean algebra, You've just found another way to directly define the universe and quantum processes in terms of Binary directly. So in many ways its similar to N-body simulations except for QM applications.

 

Hope this helps. Oh time in a metric system can often be defined differently, the universe doesn't care how we define it. If it allows the mathematics to work and still fit observation data, then its simply a mathematical methodology. Unless it offers a different understanding to observational data

Hey question here:

About computers calculations:

Could these calculations be done with a set of constants that can handle "exponentiation" therefore alleviate all the redundant processes time ?

I hear much about processing power " issues" of the CPU, I have also read that a computer does not understand ratios which is why we adapted the rounding off to the nearest ten coupled with stack over flow and other precession base issues in the logic and registry of the CPU?? was that right??

They say quantum computers are not possible??? Not sure if this is the case, I think a simple algo rhythm with constants that do the exponentiation IE, the distances from manifold to manifold redundant calculations of multiples instances of code/ instruction/ and etc.

Even beyond that, it could be a possibility to calculate billions of poly gons, triangulation, tessellation and may " just a thought here" allow video game creation with high " poly counts" versus low res models with " tiny texture maps and normal maps to " fake" high definition in the 3d game pipe line..

Or am I thinking way ahead of myself??

Thanks for the PDF...

 

Its based on the quantum information theory. Though poorly done I might add. There is some validity on the quantum information theory, however this article isn't showing the complete picture. I'm still reading this to understand it better myself. I figure the best place to start is either a textbook or a dissertation I chose the latter

 

http://cds.cern.ch/record/476522/files/0011036.pdf

 

there is one line in this dissertation that struck a cord

 

The theory of quantum computation is an attempt to capture the essential elements of a theory of

quantum information processing in a single unifed theory. I say \attempt" because it is not yet clear

that the theory of quantum computation provides a complete account of the information processing

capabilities afforded by quantum mechanics.

right now I would just consider it as a QM alternative in development, the other thing that article mentions is its dependancy upon loop quantum gravity/cosmology. LQC is a strong model but no more or less than LCDM. LQC avoids the information loss of a singularity by having a bounce. In other words once the singularity reaches a planck length it bounces and starts expanding.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.0893

 

Planck stars

http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.6562

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4598 "Introduction to Loop Quantum Cosmology by Abhay Ashtekar

 

The model is gaining weight so make your own judgements

 

 

 

Hey thanks for the response and the links, I need to say that it is interesting stuff, one thing I do find interesting is how physical formulas are able to predict " out comes" per say, meaning that the laws of nature can be predicted by a formula and yet the prediction appears to follow the evolution of time as a frequency rather energy.

The whole thing is cloudy to me as to which is really which...

Ant Sinclair, on 08 Apr 2014 - 01:43 AM, said:

 

If billions are gigas then this looks like F4!

The attached gif is Plancks' CMB Spectrum.

 

Your Post;

 

What do you know about:

 

 

frequencies and period cycles?

 

 

 

 

 

can you show a "simple" numerical example?

 

 

 

 

 

Why is this pertinent to my thread?

 

 

 

 

Iwonderaboutthings

 

Atom

 

Senior Members220 posts

 

Posted 17 April 2014 - 09:17 AM

 

Ant Sinclair, on 13 Apr 2014 - 3:18 PM, said:

 

Quarks, Gluons and the tables attached.

 

 

Your Post;

 

can you show a "simple" numerical example?

 

A numerical example of ?

I think you are " over looking the simple concepts here"

"Forces" are a phenomena, you cannot expect to understand " Cosmology" with a complex model of which you posted without having a solid generalization on "AT-LEAST"

Trigonometry.

Calculus,

Derivatives

And imaginary units...

Why?

Because they help you derive a unit of measure that can be tested " with those constants" ...

But I Still have no idea, what your model describes, what it means or what you are doing.

I searched this------------->CMB Spectrum, Is this Cosmology???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

I keep asking you to describe in detail what you are trying to express, line per line in your model using --->sentences..

To me your model "looks" of mixture:

Minkowski Space time and Special Relativity in one sense, but then you talk about CMB Spectrum which from what I see relates to Cosmology???

It would help here, if you would add more detail to what you are talking about...

F4, what is an F4???

Type the entire word, but F4 may just be a term I am not familiar with other than the button on my lap top.

For those who don't see it, see attachment.

If you don't understand String Theory, then how do you expect to understand your models, what they can achieve and how science can benifit from your knowledge?

It looks like theoretical mathematics???

At least to me, your model is very and extremely complex...

I would recommend you to describe every number with a " written description" of what " it means."

Do this line by line, step by step with everything on your photos..

It looks like you will need to re-write them " over again to."

This will give others a clue in how to formulate a response and grasp the mental visualization of what you are trying to describe through your work here..

I have found that science becomes easier when you apply " visualization and concept examples" to your theories and or questions about your work especially dealing with other scientist of whom may describe something different but still under the guidelines of the physical laws of nature .

Do you understand???

Remember, mathematics and modeling physical phenomena is based solely on a generalization of the idea.

It is a generalization of physical phenomena...

Remember when I asked if you could give a simple numerical example????

I asked twice already...

Sometimes it best to be simple, versus extreme..

 

Perhaps maybe because of electromagnetic induction.. ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction

 

Flowing electrons create magnetic field surrounding wire.

If wire is entwining iron, it's becoming electromagnet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnet

 

Direction of flow of electrons is defining where will be N and S (simplifying for you).

 

XIX century ampermeter was simply magnet and electromagnet with attached arrow.

Once we pass current through electromagnet wire, electromagnet is attracting or repelling from magnet, and arrow is showing on scale how much current we had.

Scale had both positive and negative range (so could show direction of flow).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanometer

,,,Hymm I see, I got the link thanks for the info..

 

It's not correlated with G. G is associated with gravity. Electromagnetism is a separate phenomenon.

 

 

A force is a push or pull. It's a vector, so multiple forces can cancel each other out or add together, depending on how they're combined. A net force causes an acceleration according to F=ma

Understood, but if Electromagnetism is a separate phenomenon. why do they refer to this as Electromagnetism,

I think really its the grammar in the books and the online information, because it does seem to be totally separated...

"What causes this limits of resolution??"

 

The size of the waves and the rest of the equipment

 

"Distance and Time???"

Not really (and especially, not time. The resolution will be the same tomorrow as it was today).

 

"What is this force??"

typically, the van der waals force between the tip of the microscope and the object being examined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force

"Is it still g = 9.8 m/s ?"

No, for a start g is not a force- it's an acceleration and also the 9.8 m/s should be 9.8 m/s/s

The value 9.8 m/s/s applies to gravitational acceleration at, or near, the surface of the earth, but it's not anything special in the grand scheme of things.

 

"What about red shifts???"

Mercifully, these have essentially nothing to do with anything Newton would have spotted.

 

"On another note, but closely related: Angular Size, why divide by 12???"

This thread is muddled enough without throwing that into the mix.

Perhaps you should start another thread about it.

"What causes this limits of resolution??"

 

The size of the waves and the rest of the equipment

 

"Distance and Time???"

Not really (and especially, not time. The resolution will be the same tomorrow as it was today).

 

"What is this force??"

typically, the van der waals force between the tip of the microscope and the object being examined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force

"Is it still g = 9.8 m/s ?"

No, for a start g is not a force- it's an acceleration and also the 9.8 m/s should be 9.8 m/s/s

The value 9.8 m/s/s applies to gravitational acceleration at, or near, the surface of the earth, but it's not anything special in the grand scheme of things.

 

"What about red shifts???"

Mercifully, these have essentially nothing to do with anything Newton would have spotted.

 

"On another note, but closely related: Angular Size, why divide by 12???"

This thread is muddled enough without throwing that into the mix.

Perhaps you should start another thread about it.

Hym, it seems that I have really miss- understood what g was, I always thought it to be the actual--->force..

F= ma, I think its the algebraic expression that has me " twisted" with words and insight here...

However, can you say that as per the link: ""the attractive and repulsive forces""

That this force , JUST THE WORD ' force with no interaction' , is found at the atomic level???

Pardon the weird question, but I have no idea what force is,,, yes I understand about interaction with matter, what I don't get is the reasoning for force in the first place...

Do we really need it??? maybe its not even there??

What proof besides what we have today, prove something that is not seen??

It is very hard to understand science dealing with something invisible its like trying to catch a ghost...

 

Because the mass distribution is roughly constant and r doesn't change much. (In reality, small changes in g will occur, because the numbers aren't constant.) That's what the equation is telling you: for a given mass and distance, you will get a certain value for g. Investigating further, we see that m and r are large compared to differences we might normally experience, and small changes in them will have only small changes in the answer.

If you change your radius or the amount of mass involved, g is no longer relevant.

Is this what causes, weight phenomena??

I look at this as angular momentum, but could be wrong..

However, if this is the case, then g seems to have a relation to time...

 

I'm not sure how to interpret this question. The word "not" appears quite conspicuously in that post, so newton did not know of these things that were discovered more recently.

 

"in our current time" is something I just can't parse.

 

 

 

No, you aren't. Gravity is pointing down. The drag force is pointing up.

 

 

No. There was no model for the atom is Newton's day, much less the idea of an electron.

 

Closer, yes, but still far away from the limit of resolution of an electron microscope. Atomic force microscopes can get down to the atomic level. There are no microscopes that can image below that. One source of information is from the results of scattering experiments.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)

The drag points up and g points down on earth, understood.

Since outer space is basically an empty vacuum, how can electro magnetism travel through it and yet still be correlated with G, the Constant of Proportionality?

[latex]g=\frac{GM_{Earth}}{r^{2}} =(6.6742\textup{x}10^{-11})\frac{5.9736\textup{x}10^{24}}{(6.37101\textup{x}10^{6})^{2}}=9.822\textup{m}/\textup{s}^{2} [/latex]

 

The equation for determining force due to gravity is:

 

[latex]F=\frac{Gm_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}} [/latex]

 

So as long as you are on Earth's surface you can use:

 

[latex]F=gm [/latex]

 

If you change your radius or the amount of mass involved, g is no longer relevant.

Earth is very very huge and yet still we experiment weight phenomena on the surface of earth, not earth as a whole??

why?????

This formula describes a huge planet, and yet that same value can be found on the surface of earth..

why?????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerometer

Yes I know it deals with acceleration, but it registers 1 g and deduces motion from there...

Why??

Newton did not know about electrons, they were first properly hypothesized in 1838 and then discovered by J. J. Thomson in 1897. I am sure that newton knew some properties of electricity and magnetism, but he could not have known about electrons or quantum mechanics.

 

Newton's work in several areas are science and today we know how they fit into the modern picture as certain limits.

So centuries ago Issac knew this in our current time?

The terminal velocity of a falling object is the velocity of the object when the sum of the drag force (F_d) and buoyancy equals the downward force of gravity (F_G) acting on the object. Since the net force on the object is zero, the object has zero acceleration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity

certain limits?

Ok I can understand that through IE: exponentially decay, singularities, periodic waves, degrees, minutes seconds, especially frequencies and periods, other sources of physical phenomena, red shifts, e^x, x^n+1 " summations " the list goes on and on, not to mention the weight phenomena on the surface of earth, let alone having other values on other planets, from terminal velocities to Special Relativity, limits appear to be everywhere.

You say certain limits, but it was these limits he understood through his work centuries ago, I assume also with no microscope?

and yet g and G in general seems to be more and more left in the dark, IE not really talked about anymore why bother...

Maybe he simply " derived those limits?" he did invent calculus..

Yes I am aware that Newton's Equation are still used today, but they seem to clash with "electrical limits" discrete ones too,

IE limits that deal with say, seconds, ie frequencies and etc light refraction. And yet g points up and down simultaneously on earth ?

I am reading that Wiki Page Correctly???

Doesn't the electron have mass? I assume Issac Newton must have known about it, due to these limits we mention, I see it all the time in math and science, and yet " I see " distance is always relative to distance, its never seconds relative to seconds...

If he never seen the electron, the pure geometry has the upper hand and everything we've known in the whole of science..

Newtonian mechanics deal with forces on macroscopic objects, thus it has very little, if anything, to do with electrons.

Doesn't an electron microscope bring the subatomic world closer to the human eye sight???

So, you say that gravity has not connection within the atom??

The series with the secant numbers is a Taylor series.

That, in turn relies on differentiation to produce it. Newton had only just come across the subject of calculus.

The Taylor series was only invented/ discovered in 1715.

but Newton died in 1727 and the work he did on physics was rather earlier.

 

So, the OP is asking if Newton considered electrons (which he would never have heard of) in terms of calculus (that hadn't been invented).

 

My guess is that he didn't.

Unless there's evidence of Sir Isaac time travelling, I think that should be the end of this thread.

it took me a while to figure that one out " " It makes sense!

Question:

Taylor Series, Sin Functions, Fourier Series , Wave Function etc, they seem to use the same " thing" and that is a curve that goes in both directions sin and cos...

It gets very very frustrating, and annoying on making proper judgement as to which is which let alone to a constant limits...should be a cosmic limit!

Am I the only one rethinking about sine and cosines?

Do you really mean electron?

Not photon?

 

Newton hypothesized that light is corpuscular (particle).

And it was rather logical assumption, than discovered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpuscular_theory_of_light

I assumed something like this was the case and the mention of it now brings it back to me, I remembered reading this some years ago...

But I am thinking more on the electron side, because of the original Bore Models perspective

But then on the behalf of the solar system, Einstein found that light and gravity behave differently...

So maybe now this link complicates things

I Googled this entire title but really no luck at all...

I assume no he did not?

But if this is the case, then how on earth was he able to conclude so much about what we know today as " science."

Perhaps it was all geometrically understood in his time?

And maybe its those geometrical gaps of Euclidean Space that make our understanding of QM and Physics Clash??

Sin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonometric_functions

Under: Series definitions Regarding : Tangent

When this series for the secant function is expressed in a form in which the denominators are the corresponding factorials, the numerators, called the "secant numbers", have a combinatorial interpretation: they enumerate alternating permutations of finite sets of even cardinality.

 

No, it's an absolute number for our unit system, but you could compare it to other planets. G is a constant, and M and r are determined by the planet. A different celestial body would have its own surface gravity determined by its mass and radius.

Is it true that in the space shuttle, 9.8 m/s is still the affect of acceleration ??

I don't remember the link, but they stated as per special relativity, that if you are inside a closed system " per say" that g = 9.8 m/s still holds true in empty space as it still would on the earth's surface if and only if you are inside this " system" IE space ship, rocket space suit even I assume...

In the case of the space suite, would a naked human body in outer space " Their Skin" be applicable as a system on itself??

Since I am here, if a placed a rock in my hand and held it still, " here on earth" is g still constant with no acceleration??

Meaning that so long I don't move my hand while holding the rock " but feeling its weight" does g still register as 9.8 m/s ?

Does 9.8 m/s also apply at the atomic scale as well.

Meaning that do residual forces, strong and weak " within the atom" also register 9.8 m/s

From what I am gathering gravity seems to be very complex and I am rethinking many things over from what I had understood years ago...

 

The value of gravitational acceleration varies with the mass of the planet and the distance from the center (a= GM/r^2). So the location of the surface determines the value of g

So then earth would need to be calculated relative to another planet?

To confirm the validity of Hooke's law, maybe, and learn some experimental and analysis techniques, perhaps? The basic reason you do a school lab?

 

 

It's not a priori obvious that the restoring force should behave in such a linear fashion.

 

 

g is not a force, it's an acceleration, and as such has units of acceleration, not speed.

 

In the setup, there are two forces on the mass: that of the spring, and that of gravity. When the mass is at rest there is no net force on it, so one knows that the force from the spring and that from gravity must cancel, i.e. they have an equal magnitude.

 

mg = kx

 

Since m, g, and x are known, that allows you to determine the spring constant k, and by doing multiple measurements, confirm that it is indeed a constant.

 

 

YOUR 100% CORRECT AND THANKS!

I was wondering if this was the case, but rather be told by professionals, now things are much clearer..

states it here too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force

Since such a force is perceived as a weight, any g-force can be described as a "weight per unit mass"

Many online resources refer to g as 9.8 m/s on the earth's surface so it was a tid but confusion, I should have remember this from some time back...

SO THEN??????????

What is the earth's surface then in relation to this g force of acceleration??

Un-stretched means with no extra masses attached.

 

 

No, there's not just one. There's a table of nine different values! There's one graph, so there's one regression analysis.

 

 

 

Distance as mass? What?

 

3.43x10^-5 = 0.0000343

 

It's a distance, and essentially zero.

 

 

There is no time associated with the analysis. The regression constant of 0.999 means the straight line is a very good fit to the data.

 

Hooke's law is that F=-kx. There's a restoring force proportional to the amount of stretch. No time, no frequency, no electricity at all in this experiment.

No time, no frequency, no electricity at all in this experiment.

Then what was the point of this experiment and Hook's Law??

Everyone makes such a big deal about how famous he became after this law..

I assume the restoring force would be g 9.8 m/s on the earth's surface then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoring_force

What does g on the earth's havto do do with this "No time, no frequency, no electricity at all in this experiment"

Does this mean earth's g force on the surface of earth is null = 0????

I heard it said before that earth " appears to be stationary" in lectures dealing with Holographic Universes

And String Theory.

When I said distance as mass, I really should have said radians since this would be the case of distance being = 0..

But never quite figured out its multi-purpose uses...

Much wave phenomena uses radians to describe a wave disturbance, I figured the mass on the spring " and spring in general" system had something to do with waves phenomena since the experiment is basically =0

Like I said I am finding " now " the very basics becoming quite difficult to understand.

[unwarranted pedantry]

 

it's Hooke with an E -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hooke

 

[/unwarranted pedantry]

pedantry "excessive concern with minor details and rules"

https://www.google.com/search?q=pedantry&oq=pedantry&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.727j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

727 runs out of gas in mid air because of unit error

Fuel loading was miscalculated due to a misunderstanding of the recently adopted metric system which replaced the imperial system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

""Feynman avoids exposing the reader to the mathematics of complex numbers by using a simple but accurate representation of them as arrows on a piece of paper or screen""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

NASA's metric confusion caused Mars orbiter loss - CNN.com

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric/

I think you get the point

No, it's because a mass on a spring is not the same thing as the oscillation of an electric or magnetic field. There's no reason to invoke relativity or the Planck length. There are no "electromagnetic properties" or quantum mechanical effects that have any relevance to the problem being discussed. It's a mass on a spring. Masses on springs existed and were being analyzed long before people knew of relativity or quantum mechanics.

 

You're reading way too much into the problem. The point of the example is to understand how to solve a problem with an oscillator. That allows you to apply the concept to other systems, since there are several phenomena that oscillate.

 

Studying the basics is very important.

On another mass and spring example there is a regression performed:

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-0/Motion-of-a-Mass-on-a-Spring

They use Hook's Law:

BUT! in this example on a spring hanging " with no mass connected to it"

It states: The spring hangs in a relaxed, un-stretched position.

Does the force of gravity 9.8 m/s get deduced????

Does 9.8 m/s have no effect on the spring in this un-stretched position?

The experiment is how much force would certain distances become if you " pulled" on this spring at random.

Here are the values of this regression analysis:

This is only one of them:

60 seconds is a minute, by definition.

 

0.6 seconds is less than 1 second.

 

But 0.6 seconds is not mentioned in the link, AFAICT. All mentions of 0.6 refer to the displacement of 0.6 m

 

Other than both being periodic phenomena, the mass on a spring has nothing to do with electromagnetic oscillations

The mass on the spring has nothing to do with electromagnetic oscillations??

Is this because of special relativity and the phenomena of space time, light photons and other quantum mechanical effects?

You see this is what I feel confuses many scientist both undergrads and professionals...

Our concept of what is what seems to be very very miss-understood or just not explained correctly, what is it then, is this physics? science? What is the point of the mass and spring example then?

I was under the presumption that it describes periodic motion as is the popular case...

I think really their is a whole new branch of science out there that maybe we are not told about perhaps??

At my level, the basics seem not to make sense anymore with the new current information on science, this is weird..

I think I am going to go back and examine every inch of the basics for now on..

I think the issue is that QM deals in probabilities, and people are searching for some underlying truth of the matter to understand why that is. There are also those that think that the probabilities can't be right, so there must be some hidden classical truth that's being obscured.

 

Specifically to the main question of the OP, there are situations where you don't know what state the system is in when it's not being observed. This leads to the question of whether something exists when it's not being watched, though IMO the steps that lead from the former to the latter are often tenuous.

Could it be that the system is time itself? " waves" multiples of time looped in a system as one big standing wave that represents 1 for an entire system shared by many observers?

Light Cones Describe this with some of these copy and pasted words under "Mathematical construction"

----->And I would really urge to read this area..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

In special relativity, a light cone (or null cone) is the surface describing the temporal evolution of a flash of light in Minkowski spacetime. This can be visualized in 3-space if the two horizontal axes are chosen to be spatial dimensions, while the vertical axis is time.

The light cone is constructed as follows.

Given an event , the light cone classifies all events in space+time into 5 distinct categories:

• Events on the future light cone
• Events on the past light cone
• Events inside the future light cone
• All other events are in the (absolute) elsewhere and are those that cannot affect.

The above classifications hold true in any frame of reference; that is, an event judged to be in the light cone by one observer, will also be judged to be in the same light cone by all other observers, no matter their frame of reference. This is why the concept is so powerful.

Now coming back to my words and reply:

Photon Energy

Magnetic Waves

Particle Waves

Double Slit

Space Time Curvature

These all use some type of partial deferential calculations, they use trigonometry, they use pi ratio, Cartesian space.

Does " ordinary science" use these too? From what I know "yes" I just want to make sure here.

I really am utterly confused and somehow even discouraged as to what is really what in deciding the correct way to calculate something.. I feel twisted!

For examples, aren't waves more " analog than digital."

Meaning that waves from what I understand are analog, but QM is more digital " granular" multiples "discrete."

But waves do appear to describe some type of hidden energy that travels invisibly through matter..

To add, atomic orbitals and chemistry rely on the h constant's understanding...

Coupled with both Physics and QM, I don't see how it is even possible to be able to calculate anything in space in any region of time... I Don't see how it is possible how distance and time are related, they simply are inversion to each like a frequency and a period in time and in that location, but what is the location at in empty space, whom knows at this point...

 

 

Think you hit the nail on the head there. Certainly spins my mind out - doesn't imply anything mystical going on though.

One thing that mesmerizes me is this:

If you look at how the inverse square law works, imagine a cube that is being in-larged in all directions, imagine that the cube is thus divided into equal sections and that these section connect to vertices..

While the cube is being stretched out proportionally, the vertices remain still...

If you take the " invisible" in -larged cubed and connect all the vertices they resemble a tesseract cube:

The interesting part is this:

Notice how the 8 corners of this cube's vertices point in angles?

I have always pondered on this:

Is that a secant line???

I have studied QM for about 2 years now " on the extreme technical side", and am now realizing that many consider QM, as some type of virtual hyper reality in where consciousness " can change " things" for example:

Does consciousness really collapse the wave function?

Or can simple positive thoughts promote good health, a stress free life and make you just simply feel good?

Or maybe QM is just that mind boggling to understand??????

QM seems to describe a digital realm of subjects that almost seems to never end!

Terminologies after terminologies just lead to more and more questions not answers.

But, doesn't QM deal with:

atomic orbitals that answer physical questions?

black body radiation?

discrete amounts of quantized energy?

the energy of a photon??

Somewhere in all this I got lost "really"

It seems that we live in 2 separate worlds that at the physical level and QM level seems to clash, but somehow " both" still depend on each other for answers....

In one sense physics has the upper hand, but in the other sense QM has the the upper hand...

I know there are scientist out there that may understand this push and pull of both disciplines...

I highly doubt that QM is 100% authentic science in not dealing with some type of mystical realm because QM is known to be just that--->mysterious...

Perhaps this is a reason for it to be counter intuitive?? Not liked??? To Question Reality then??

Thinking about this though, If QM did not exist, how would it affect physics??

Quarks, Gluons and the tables attached.

can you show a "simple" numerical example?