/sci/ - Science & Math

what are you asking exactly?

implying QED is correct, it explains what may be happeneing here but so does my new theory, infinitesimal gnomes push the plates together.

it's called gravity. things tend to move towards eachother

>>1171446
where does the energy come from to move the plates? it violates all thermodynamical laws.

exactly what about quantum electrodynamics?

Uh, OP, we've known about that effect for a while.
In fact, QED has substantial amounts of evidence. Welcome to the twentieth century?

>>1171451
Yes, but what do the infinitesimal gnomes eat?
Until we solve THAT problem Gnome Theory is fucked.

>>1171456
gravity is a constant acceleration and is at right angles to the centre of gravity, if the plates move together but are parallel with the direction of acceleration gravity still does not explain the uniform decrease in seperation as it would move the bottom more than the top as in if its paralell to the vector of attraction then it goes from | | to \ / shaped.

>>1171473
i know QED has a strong foundation but how does it get arround the fact it violates laws of thermodynamics?
i understand the actual ideas as much as most postgrads but the "foam" exists only giving an average of 0 energy then when work is done the average isnt 0 whats going on?

>>1171484
They eat luminiferous aether. I hear it's delicious.

>>1171419
>violate the laws of energy

faggot assumes "laws" of energy are a first prinicples of physics. What are you in high school? LMAO, your a fukcing idiot.

Conservation of evergy and even thermodynamics, arent actually "laws", they arent always followed. They are derived from more advanced physics, and only work in certain cases. Looks like you need to read up little guy, lol.

>>1171419

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

>>1171520
give me a single case where enrgyu is created or destroyed... Faggot.

>>1171507
Oh, please. There's no way aether has enough nutrition to feed all the gnomes.

>>1171506
>>1171506
QED > thermodynamics

thermodynamics is only an "approximation" for certain physics systems. Thermodynamics can be derived from QED for these "certain" cases.


"Doctor this looks like a pretty bad case of engineering (faggotry)"

>>1171520
engineer (faggot) detected.

>>1171536
Uh... quantum theory?
Energy is created and destroyed all the time in particle-antiparticle pairs. Also, there is no such thing as truly empty space. Everywhere has a certain, constantly fluctuating, degree of energy, even interstellar voids.

ITT: Kids discover quantum theory for the first time

>>1171553
Uh gravity would like a word
There's still no quantum explanation for gravity

>>1171559
lrn2science, virtual particles are virtual, no creation no destruction.

>>1171553
no you cannot derive Thermodynamics from QED seeing as QED in one of the first proofing experiments violate thermodynamics.

>>1171552
It could have; they are infinitesimal after all. They also like to eat Higgs bosons, but they're hard to come by. Whenever they find one, it is immediately contained and a great feast is prepared. During these feasts, the laws of physics don't apply as rigidly as usual, because the gnomes are all distracted.

>>1171536
>>1171548

Actually no, Im a physicist, not a faggot (engineer). And apparently a much better one then you. I will take your insults as ignorance and nothing more.

You need to read up on Nothers theorm and symmetery arguments, if you really want to learn this shit.

If the hamiltionan is depended on time, then conservation of energy is not valid, you do know this right? Refer to Classical Mechnics by Goldstien for more info.

Nothing in thermodyamics is first principle, and is derived from certain cases of Solid state physics, which it self can be derived from certain cases of QED.

Read up little guys

>>1171576

>In physics, a virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space
>exists

>>1171536
Any system with a Hamiltion that is a function of time. I mean this is basic Physics. What are you fucking in middle school?

>>1171595
Oh my goodness... Is that why the LHC isn't finding the Higgs? They're all being eaten by gnomes!
We need to warn CERN to de-gnome their equipment!

>>1171584
Well, its derived from SS which can be derived from QED. Your logic is off, your statement has nothing to do with the point you want to make. You need to take a logic class.

>>1171596
Do you get paid to tell people how smart you are, or do you actually contribute once in a while?

>>1171596 implying QED is correct. classical physics had alot of evidence supporting it and it worked well and gave accurate results. newtons gravity worked well. look what happened to those. anyway it also violates newtons laws of motion, one plate moves what is moving the other way?

>>1171628
Both
(paid very very well too!)

hey Physics Guy...do you have an ultra small penis...because you are such an aggressive prick...I just wondered.

>>1171584
QED disproved thermodynamics IN CERTAIN CASES. QED is a more complete theory; it's not like thermodynamics doesn't apply in every way that Newton could have tested it, but rather that it doesn't hold true at quantum scales. You can derive thermodynamics from quantum theory.

>>1171621 but due to Infitesimal gnome field and symetry theories degnoming is impossible because empty space is filled with potential infitesimal gnomes, new ones birth from hawking radiation on the schwartshield radius of black holes.

>>1171653
Your gnomes in gnome theory sound just like particles, but with little hands and feet and funny hats.
I like your theory better.

>>1171653
Fucking infinitesimal gnome fields - how do they work??

>>1171634
OP here
thankyou for an explanation not dictated from Wikepedia or arrogant assholery, seriousley the guy posting einstien pics could probably give us the exact chemical make up of his farts from nose because he spends so much time sniffing them, he posts einstien pics thusly has a small member and no female contact ever. i asked a question and instead of receiving an answer i got some butthurt faggot posting einstien and spouting science that doesnt answer my question.

>>1171635
Well, your mom thought it was big enough.

Actually I'm just bored, and being "agressive" and watching everyones response amuses me.
I guess this would be "trolling", if I was speaking bullshit. But you cant "troll" if you are telling the truth? can you? Am I a troll?

>>1171671
so he DOES have non-Einstein pics...

Anyway anymore legit physics questions while im here? Are yall just gonna talk about Gnomes for a while?

>>1171662
>>1171660
>>1171653
am i smelling a new meme for /sci/?
btw the infinitesimal gnomes apply to super symetry and M theory too but in M theory they are just stick men. the infinitesimal gnomes stack together in groups of 3 wearing different coloured jackets and create larger gnome forms, although the gnomes may be made of amorphous jelly like substance or energy because they can also be fourrier waves.

>>1171690
Will there ever be a unified theory, O Physics Guy?

>>1171695
Guess that answered my question

>>1171695
Not a meme, just an easier way to explain particle physics to children.

>Okay, kids. Imagine that, in the vacuum of space, magical gnomes are spontaneously popping into existence and beating up their worst enemies, the anti-gnomes. That's what virtual particles are like.

>>1171419

If the OP is still here, I see someone already pointed you to the wiki article on the Casimir effect:

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

In it you can find a derivation of the energy between the plates. I don't know if you'll understand the derivation, but that's not important; what's important is that the next step is to calculate the force between the plates based on the work done on the plates and conservation of energy. So conservation of energy is not being violated here. There is an oddity in the fact that the energy density between the plates is negative, but that doesn't violate any laws.

>>1171596
Why the hell did you have to turn this into an argument about conservation of energy? The Lagrangian for this particular scenario is time translation invariant, and so energy is conserved. Your rant on conservation of energy not being a fundamental postulate of the theory, but a derived one, while true, has absolutely nothing to do with answering the OP's question.

>>1171690
zero point energy generates pressure shown by the casimir effect, could this then be the illusive dark matter and also as you seem to know what your talking about and given you stop being such a smarm what interpretation do you prefer, do you abhor string theory like most and what do you say to the measurement problem, also i turned my - into a fourier wave and now it wont go back look ~, its a real pain.

>>1171690
Can we ever use the Casimir effect to power starships?

>>1171714
OP here, im not the one arguing about the energy, the smarmasaur obviousley knows his science and i accepted him first off, i am doing A2 physics and mathematics so i can interpret those equations but i didnt realy look, thanks for the heads up i will go back and check it out if i have some probelms i will shout out. although i was the one that started the gnomes regretably.

>>1171717
>dark matter
>matter
i meant Energy.

>>1171714
>>1171714
>>1171714
>>1171714
OP here, did i mention i love you? you bust the nuts of academic trolls and appropriatley answer the question asked.

>>1171699
>>1171699
A complete TOE (thoery of everything), unifying all 4 fundemental forces? No, probably not, we are actuallly pretty far from it.

The current "plan" is as follows:

We "think" we have figured out a way to unify EM + Weak = Electroweak, but that still actually is dependent on the Higgs.
If we find the Higgs we have only unified 2/4. After that we need to "find" other werid partciles, so we get "supersymmetry" which will explain the unification with the additional strong force, 3/4. After that we need quantum gravity to get 4/4, the higgs should help with this alitte too hopefully.

Thats the plan at least, but its just a "plan". It probably will change, and alot of our understaning is probably still flawed.
I'm pretty sure physics will never be "complete" (thats my best guess).

>>1171735
unlikely. it generates such a small force and it diminishes at distance, although xero point energy isnt out of the question but i would expect a ramjet or ion engine be moe likley, although we could just have the infinitesimal gnomes pull the starship, the speed ofthe ship is the sum of the speed of each gnome, seeing as each point in space has infinite possible gnomes then lightspeed can be acheived seeing as the gnomes even if they can only reach 1mph is the sum of their speeds so infinity speed is reached, although the gnomes will need to eat so we have to stop off near a neutron star or black hole so they can eat some cosmic rays or gamma ray bursts.

>>1171779
arent we fairley sure that weak and strong were and can become the same forces at high enough energies and temperature, i read that somewhere, in maybe Bhot or elegant universe i am not sure. ( i have no real learning i am just interested amature who reads books and internets.) and are you not forgetting the neutralino witch may either prove supersymetry or string theory witch then jumps us forwards but Quantum Gravity is the bitch, i myself like the string theory explanation given in an elegant universe where the string for the graviton is tied or something, its 4 am and i cannot remember it at this moment.

How long would it take to evolve into a deity?

>>1171818
No, we're not fairly sure, but it's a plausible conjecture. First I should explain that the Higgs doesn't actually unify the EM and weak forces; rather, it causes the mixing of two more fundamental fields (isospin and hypercharge) to create the EM and weak fields, which are linear combinations of the former. Anyway, several decades ago, it was observed that the isospin, hypercharge, and strong coupling constants all have the same value when you extrapolate their values to a very high energy scale, which would have to happen for unification. And there were theories constructed that could unify them, although these theories are not without their problems. But then more precise measurements revealed that the coupling constants don't quite meet. And then it was discovered that they would meet if low-energy supersymmetry is true, which is a reasonable idea for other reasons, but which hasn't been discovered yet.

>>1171818
>we fairley sure that weak and strong were and can become the same forces at high enough energies and temperature

No (its just a hypothesis), and its actually the "electroweak" that should become the same as the "strong".

This idea, "one force becomes another" at a certain temp, is actually a pillar in our current "hypothesis". The same can be said for the EM and weak, they should become the same at some temp.

Yeah, There are tons of other particles, I didnt mention, proboabaly over a hundred actaully. These "thoerized" particles come from particular theories, so they will help valide the corresponding theory.

String thoery still isnt consider physics (in general), it not taught in too many places, nor is it part of any standard physic training. While it is mathematically "beautiful" it still has no "validation" whatsoever. Until it predicts somthing, and that somthing is "found" it will just be a math.

Sorry, I dont read pop-physics or watch pop-physics (most physicist dont), so I cannot comment on the accuracy or content of those shows. Yeah, I read alittle about the tied string, its nice, but again, really just a wild guess (its not even a hypothesis). The tied loop idea as well as "string thoery", has as much science in it as religion. Its just a wild GEUSS....lol

>>1171908
I agree...lol, but you may be getting too technical. These are little kids, I try and dumb down. For all intensive purposes the term "unification" is good enough for the common man, even if it is actually a "basis change".

>>1171922
i think i read it in brief history of time, anywho i mentioned the neutralino because it is one that we stand to discover with the LHC at the Tev it is pumping out because it like the higgs is low enough energy to discover with this accelerator. the neutralino according to Pamela Gay could help find experimantal evidence of string throy, i myself appreciate its mathematical beauty but hate the fact it cant be proved, i myself also try to avoid interpretations of QM because metaphysics gets messy and also when using an intepretation to do anything other than understand the math people get things wrong and iterpret things wrong, for instance my understanding of electromag was floored due to the copenhagen interpretation acording to my phys prof, although i do like how it makes the exclusion principle and such easier to understand, i like the standard model but and i love the elegance of relativity but they dont gel and it makes me sadface. a GUT or TOE would be nice but in this lifetime i dont see it happening. i am uneducated in this cause im only 16 but i read brief history when i was 14 lol geek lol and wondered if you could point me to any good books on QM or astrophys that doesnt just handle ideas and interpretation but the math too.

>>1171957
OP here, i undderstood him. i am young yes but ready to learn and hate being condecended to as it just stops me being inclined to go learn the stuff i didnt understand, im from britain too so its like 5am here and im holding up with my understanding fairly well.
>>1171922

>>1171985
Any textbook on the subjects you want to learn should do. Look at what textbooks they use in university classes if you want to find good ones. I read the Feynman Lectures when I was about your age. If you're having trouble finding books with mathematical details, it might mean you need to look in a university library rather than the internet or your local library.

>>1171985
I would suggest you learn classical physics first, you kinda need it to understand alot of things in QM.

Real classical physics isnt just that Newtonian shit, but like Largangian and Hamiltonian formalism. From there the "transition" to real QM is easy. I don't know anyone who knows QM without knowing classical Mech. I used "Marion and Thorton" for undergrad, its pretty simple. You may be able to follow it. "Goldstein" is also a good book, but it may be too advanced.

There tons of physics "ideas" in classical mech, that you need to really understand physics.

Good luck!

Sure is overcompensating narcissists in here.

>>1172216

Narcissists are the superior master race.

>>1172241
We really are, there's no doubt about it.