Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
physics question
- Thread starter juiceddreadlocks
- Start date
U
UA_Iron
Guest
samoth said:
thats only theoretical
lets get some more practicality in this discussion.
relative to your point of view. sheesh dude, live in the here.samoth said:goddammit, pwned again
BrothaBill said:FUCK YOU JUICED MULLET!
A CONVERSATION WITH MYSELF ON PHYSICS JUST TO ANNOY YOU
OK, lets see M theory, postulates that all matter and energy is composed of excruciatingly minute filaments called strings and membranous entities called branes. If such objects exist, then every point in our apparently four-dimensional universe is a tiny volume with six or seven extra dimensions.
Ehh... depends on reference frame.. points and volumes are different... I'm not sure how they define the "limit", or if they are even close to it. There comes a point where a point cannot be a volume, yet many classify volumes as points for simplifications in the mathematics.
Those volumes are so small, the theory holds, that 10 trillion trillion of them could fit into the space occupied by a single atom. Unfortunately, that tininess would make these dimensions undetectable with current methods.
They would never be detectable, much like we could never detect some theorized particles with current model accelerators, as they would take the energy equivalant of a Dyson Sphere.
a few years aago theorists came up somesort ofa bold proposal. Perhaps some of those extra dimensions weren't so tightly confined. Given that no experimental evidence precluded the possibility, an extra dimension might be even as relatively huge as a millimeter in radius, or roughly the size of a poppy seed, right
well in this new hypothesis not theoryof so-called large extra dimensions resides a possible solution to a long-standing puzzle: Why is gravity so much weaker than the other forces? it was in the hypothesis that raises the crazy possibility of wee black holes like right here around us or near . It's all a matter of how minutely scientists examine gravity.
Bringing black hole theory into it... black holes radiate. We can detect that radiation.
electromagnetism and the weak and strong forces are comparable in strength to each other, they are as much more powerful than gravity as a mountain is larger than one of those fantastically teeny extra dimensions of string theory.
It's a matter of defining "strength". There's a variable -- I forget what it is -- that is different for each force, and can compare relative strengths. But relatively speaking in different relative terms, gravity is considered the strongest force -- but also the weakest. LOL. EM, strong, and weak nuclear forces are worthless at an inch apart -- not strong. But gravity, though not strong in general, is not worthless at an inch -- it's strong. Meh. You get the idea.
so to bridge that gap say that not only are there large extra dimensions but that gravity is the only force that permeates all the dimensions. Consequently, gravity is not really so weak," that we feel it so weakly because gravity actually lives in many dimensions. . . . Gravity is diluted by this enormous extra space that we don't feel.
Conversely, at length scales not much smaller than the poppy-seed-span of the proposed, relatively large extra dimensions, gravity would operate at a strength comparable to those of the other forces,
In other words, gravity would become a real brute within those very confined boundaries of the extra dimensions. That enormously amplified strength—normally hidden to our four-dimensional view—could scrunch matter and energy into minuscule black holes.
I think the larger-sized thing wouldn't hold, for 1) a mm diameter would radiate or otherwise give evidence of it's existance, 2) in terms of particle physics, something so monsterous as a mm diameter would never, never, NEVER be able to be detected by the HUGEST, most biggest largest giganticest accelerators in the whole universe, lol. That's almost at energy levels within the first second of the big bang, and even the highest Dyson-classification of sentient beings couldn't generate the energy needed to create that kind of stuff in a lab.
IT's interesting, though, I've never ehard that one. Unfortunetly, anything on this subject getting down to our level is really obfuscated and lacking it's true fundamentals.
That's why it's hard to discuss the subject at this level, because we don't have the knowledge or ability to express or argue the fundamentals of the theories, as they are so far hidden beneath the masses of mathematics comprehendable by only the best of the best. The theory you just stated could have substantial truths to it, but they couldn't express them in laymens terms, so it gets lost in the translation. Likewise, I can only argue what I know on the level it's been presented to me -- not in it's comprehensive entirety.
Yeah, I hear ya on that, cant even come near proving any of that stuff.
Really a lot of that stuff that I talk about I am very weak to describe or to actually really recall. When I was in the string(or so I thought at the time) realm with the entities they told me alot of stuff and it had no basis with current research and experimental limits.
Just that meeting with these entities they told me secrets of the universe not as theories but as truths. This is how it works point of teaching the information with a whole lot confidence LOL. I mean I never really discussed or studied this stuff except for some classes in Univ. so I am somewhat limited in what current theory or limitations would prevent the understanding of it.
All I know really is what these "aliens" told me, although this case it was aliens, they were the strings and branes, they sentient, super intelligent creatures, yet very curious as to how I made it into their realm and seem to try and comfort and teach me everything. It all made sense at the time. Everything was just implanted into my head. Trillions of thoughts, I was learning at an exponential rate. Sadly, those thoughts didnt last long at all. And I can only remember this as general concepts with virtually all of the important details missing.
It wasnt so much as the knowledge gift that they were giving but also the experience. Like I said they were of the most beautiful color of green and they would stretch and there was this sound of them stretching and moving that Ive never heard before.
Well, of course this could all be a hallucination, but it seemed realer than realer as my cognitive function remained intact and I was taught things that I had never ever heard or studied before. WHich sorta is freaky that you can come up with new hypothesis just out of the air like what happened. Hell I forgot all of the important details just left with some peace as to that I learned the secrets of the universe.
Its been a long time since Ive gone to plateau sigma to have those experiences and who knows if Ill go back or even could go back. Perhaps thats it, my one shot to learn it all. LOL
I swear though, I was given fantastical ideas and explanations and if it was my brain creating this knowledge then, I guess Im pretty darn smart especially since its so far removed from my expertise.
Weird isnt JuicedMullet you piece of shit!!!
mountain muscle
New member
samoth said:
Sorry brother must whore more K blah blah.
B
BrothaBill
Guest
samoth said:
OK, lets see M theory, postulates that all matter and energy is composed of excruciatingly minute filaments called strings and membranous entities called branes. If such objects exist, then every point in our apparently four-dimensional universe is a tiny volume with six or seven extra dimensions.
Ehh... depends on reference frame.. points and volumes are different... I'm not sure how they define the "limit", or if they are even close to it. There comes a point where a point cannot be a volume, yet many classify volumes as points for simplifications in the mathematics.
It may sound like science fiction, but the notion that we are living in a universe with extra, unseen dimensions has a long history in theoretical physics. Nearly 90 years ago, the Finnish physicist Gunnar Nordstrom introduced the idear of a fifth dimension as a way to better understand the then-new concept of four-dimensional space-time. A decade later, Swedish physicist Oskar Klein,,who drew on ideas from mathematician Theodor Kaluza of Germant..used the concept to unite the forces of electromagnetism and gravity within a single theory
The quest to unify the two forces became more complicated later in the century when scientists discovered two additional ones..the weak force, as you know governs the radioactive decay of atoms, and the strong force, which welds protons and neutrons into atomic nuclei.
Again as you know scientific interest in extra dimensions has surged as physicists developed what's now known as string theory. The M theory, postulates that all matter and energy is composed of excruciatingly minute filaments called strings and membranous entities called branes that I met and are a such highe power you cant imagine. For you, if such objects exist, then every point in our apparently four-dimensional universe is a tiny volume with six or seven extra dimensions
Those volumes are so small, the theory holds, that 10 trillion trillion of them could fit into the space occupied by a single atom. Unfortunately, that tininess would make these dimensions undetectable with current methods.
They would never be detectable, much like we could never detect some theorized particles with current model accelerators, as they would take the energy equivalant of a Dyson Sphere.
a few years aago theorists came up somesort ofa bold proposal. Perhaps some of those extra dimensions weren't so tightly confined. Given that no experimental evidence precluded the possibility, an extra dimension might be even as relatively huge as a millimeter in radius, or roughly the size of a poppy seed, right
well in this new hypothesis not theory of so-called large extra dimensions resides a possible solution to a long-standing puzzle: Why is gravity so much weaker than the other forces? it was in the hypothesis that raises the crazy possibility of wee black holes like right here around us or near . It's all a matter of how minutely scientists examine gravity.
Bringing black hole theory into it... black holes radiate. We can detect that radiation.
Think of a black hole. No one has ever observed one directly, but chances are that you envision some gargantuan jet-black entity that's far, far away and insatiably consuming any matter or light that comes near it. Now think of the possibitliy of extremely tiny, lightweight versions of these exotic objects could be forming right over our heads when ultra-high-energy particles, cosmic rays, from space strike atoms or molecules in the atmosphere. The newly created black holes would then quickly decay, harmlessly raining subatomic particles down onto our planet and ourselves.
If it turns out to be true, it should or might lol, really MIGHT be possible to mass-produce black holes in particle colliders.
Which would be revolutionary in that because the discovery of tiny, local black holes would confirm one the mostly out there ideas and hyposthesises that we live in a universe with detectable dimensions beyond the three of space and one of time to which we're accustomed err…youre and virtually everyone else is accustomed to, not me
I know its crazy but they should start initially by searching for the distinctive particle showers that any miniature black holes in the atmosphere would trigger.
If that don’t work, they should try and use that huge new supercollider that they are building and start working I think I read in 2007, don’t rembember where though err wait, google lol, Switzerland, actually is that operational now? it’s the Hadron Collider in Geneva.
electromagnetism and the weak and strong forces are comparable in strength to each other, they are as much more powerful than gravity as a mountain is larger than one of those fantastically teeny extra dimensions of string theory.
It's a matter of defining "strength". There's a variable -- I forget what it is -- that is different for each force, and can compare relative strengths. But relatively speaking in different relative terms, gravity is considered the strongest force -- but also the weakest. LOL. EM, strong, and weak nuclear forces are worthless at an inch apart -- not strong. But gravity, though not strong in general, is not worthless at an inch -- it's strong. Meh. You get the idea.
so to bridge that gap say that not only are there large extra dimensions but that gravity is the only force that permeates all the dimensions. Consequently, gravity is not really so weak," that we feel it so weakly because gravity actually lives in many dimensions. . . . Gravity is diluted by this enormous extra space that we don't feel.
Conversely, at length scales not much smaller than the poppy-seed-span of the proposed, relatively large extra dimensions, gravity would operate at a strength comparable to those of the other forces,
In other words, gravity would become a real brute within those very confined boundaries of the extra dimensions. That enormously amplified strength..normally hidden to our four-dimensional view..could scrunch matter and energy into minuscule black holes.
I think the larger-sized thing wouldn't hold, for 1) a mm diameter would radiate or otherwise give evidence of it's existance, 2) in terms of particle physics, something so monsterous as a mm diameter would never, never, NEVER be able to be detected by the HUGEST, most biggest largest giganticest accelerators in the whole universe, lol. That's almost at energy levels within the first second of the big bang, and even the highest Dyson-classification of sentient beings couldn't generate the energy needed to create that kind of stuff in a lab.
Well, the prob you are thinking is that the existence of large extra dimensions doesn't jibe with certain findings in experimental physics and cosmology but there are various tricks and dodges you can try to explain that stuff I admit its but it's really difficult as Im sure you’ll tell me lol for instance, experimenters have found no evidence that protons can spontaneously decay. Yet the theory of large extra dimensions implies that such disintegrations would have been detected already, a disagreement because extra dimensions allow particles to interact with each other in novel ways, proton decay is definitely not an issue Although the large-extra-dimensions hypothesis may not provide an exact fit to everything known in physics, it does about as well as other theories on the cutting edge of particle physics, you cant arge you with that
A rule of thumb in particle physics, energies correspond to sizes...the smaller the dimension to be probed by smashing particles together the higher are the accelerator energies required. But the mathematics of the large-extra-dimensions hypothesis doesn't dictate exactly what size the surplus dimensions must be. So, if lets say you chose a size that loosely corresponds to a collision energy—roughly, a trillion electron volts..that particle colliders are just beginning to reach.
Without that choice comes the tantalizing possibility that only a small increase in sensitivity of certain experiments, or a modest boost in the energy level of others, might unveil a startlingly different realm of physics from the one we now know. The possibilities are endless. Were going to be seeing all sorts of stuff including the frequency aliens.
If black holes are in fact produced in future colliders, that would mean they also have been relentlessly zipping in and out of existence in the atmosphere for billions of years.
Most would be wowed by creating black holes in a collider But the possibility that cosmic-ray detectors might beat the Large Hadron Collider to the punchm, cosmic rays would produce a few atmospheric black holes somewhere in Earth's atmosphere every minute, that's enough for a vast, new cosmic-ray detector called the (google)Pierre Auger Observatory, which is now under construction in Argentina, to detect tens of black holes each year. Also I think that existing neutrino observatories also could serve as atmospheric black hole detectors.
So really is there that much evidence that cosmic black holes exist, I know that there has been much speculation and most believe it but, they can only infer the objects' existence from such evidence as motions of nearby stars and gas and the presence of jets of matter or radiation. there looms the possibility,that gravitational ripples in the fabric of space-time itself caused by enormous astronomical black holes may be recorded in the next few years by gravity-wave detectors. I was told that by the frequency aliens as I was shown the future, or rather one possible future as I told you before of infinite realities based on each possibility, infinity begets infinity, but that’s a whole other discussion as you know of the limit of that. And I shown what infinity meant. It was very scary what it was and it was truly frightening as I thought Id never get out of it.
IT's interesting, though, I've never ehard that one. Unfortunetly, anything on this subject getting down to our level is really obfuscated and lacking it's true fundamentals.
That's why it's hard to discuss the subject at this level, because we don't have the knowledge or ability to express or argue the fundamentals of the theories, as they are so far hidden beneath the masses of mathematics comprehendable by only the best of the best. The theory you just stated could have substantial truths to it, but they couldn't express them in laymens terms, so it gets lost in the translation. Likewise, I can only argue what I know on the level it's been presented to me -- not in it's comprehensive entirety.
Microscopic black holes would betray their presence in a different way. Despite the reputations of black holes for not letting even light escape (hence their blackness), a quirk of quantum mechanics as you know causes them to emit so-called Hawking radiation, which makes them evaporate, scientists say. What's more, this radiation intensifies as an evaporating black hole shrinks.
While a typical astronomical black hole would give off little illumination and only slowly evaporate, a microscopic black hole about 1,000 times the mass of a proton would appear and then blast apart in just 10–27 seconds—that's one-billionth of one-billionth of one
Last edited:
hamstershaver
New member
when i see a plumper my penis defies gravity and rises, thats all the physics i know
B
BrothaBill
Guest
The question was raised: "If a man alone in the woods speaks, and his
wife cannot hear him, is he still wrong?"
I have considered this question in light of the principles of Modern
Physics and offer my thesis.
In the year 1900 Max Planck discovered that the energy of light is
quantified. In 1905 Albert Einstein used Planck's Constant to write the
theory of the Photoelectric Effect, that light behaves as a particle
when it comes to energy transfer. Louis de Broglie proposed that
particles can have a wave nature and this fact was later verified.
These discoveries led Neils Bohr to propose a radical theory of the
atom, which was partially successful in explaining the emission spectra
of the hydrogen atom. Neils Bohr was compelled to introduce the
Principle of "Complementarity," that light is both a particle and a
wave.
The modern theories were extended when Max Born showed that the
distribution of energy was a function of probability. Further, Warner
Heisenberg wrote the Principle of Uncertainty, which says that it is
impossible to determine the exact location of an electron and the vector
direction of its momentum at the same time.
This was followed with the master stroke penned by Erwin Schrodinger.
Using the "Psi function" of Quantum Mechanics, Schrodinger could map the
"wave field" of any particle, thus giving us a theoretical explanation
for the structure of an atom and the entire periodic table of the
elements.
The Quantum mechanics predicts that a wave of a single frequency would
stretch out to infinite proportions, the superposition of a narrow range
of frequencies produces a standing wave function which can be localized
to a much more precise location. Thus the electron and its position
within an atom becomes a cloud of probability.
From this I infer that there are such states as being right and being
wrong, within certain parameters of uncertainty. Applying the Psi
function, the more vague the statement of the man the greater the
probability of him being correct. The narrower and more specific his
utterance the greater the likelihood of his being wrong.
Also, the Principle of Complementarity assures us that if a man alone in
the woods speaks, and his wife can not hear him, he is BOTH right and
wrong until he comes out of the woods.
In the analogy of Schrodinger's Cat, the cat in the box is both dead and
alive until someone opens the lid. The act of observing the phenomenon
determines the outcome.
Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that it doesn't matter what the man
says only his wife can determine whether or not he is correct.
wife cannot hear him, is he still wrong?"
I have considered this question in light of the principles of Modern
Physics and offer my thesis.
In the year 1900 Max Planck discovered that the energy of light is
quantified. In 1905 Albert Einstein used Planck's Constant to write the
theory of the Photoelectric Effect, that light behaves as a particle
when it comes to energy transfer. Louis de Broglie proposed that
particles can have a wave nature and this fact was later verified.
These discoveries led Neils Bohr to propose a radical theory of the
atom, which was partially successful in explaining the emission spectra
of the hydrogen atom. Neils Bohr was compelled to introduce the
Principle of "Complementarity," that light is both a particle and a
wave.
The modern theories were extended when Max Born showed that the
distribution of energy was a function of probability. Further, Warner
Heisenberg wrote the Principle of Uncertainty, which says that it is
impossible to determine the exact location of an electron and the vector
direction of its momentum at the same time.
This was followed with the master stroke penned by Erwin Schrodinger.
Using the "Psi function" of Quantum Mechanics, Schrodinger could map the
"wave field" of any particle, thus giving us a theoretical explanation
for the structure of an atom and the entire periodic table of the
elements.
The Quantum mechanics predicts that a wave of a single frequency would
stretch out to infinite proportions, the superposition of a narrow range
of frequencies produces a standing wave function which can be localized
to a much more precise location. Thus the electron and its position
within an atom becomes a cloud of probability.
From this I infer that there are such states as being right and being
wrong, within certain parameters of uncertainty. Applying the Psi
function, the more vague the statement of the man the greater the
probability of him being correct. The narrower and more specific his
utterance the greater the likelihood of his being wrong.
Also, the Principle of Complementarity assures us that if a man alone in
the woods speaks, and his wife can not hear him, he is BOTH right and
wrong until he comes out of the woods.
In the analogy of Schrodinger's Cat, the cat in the box is both dead and
alive until someone opens the lid. The act of observing the phenomenon
determines the outcome.
Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that it doesn't matter what the man
says only his wife can determine whether or not he is correct.
Similar threads
