[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 211 KB, 1010x1039, 1639AC30-5BE4-4C94-AFEF-6C591234292B.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11516428 No.11516428 [Reply] [Original]

/sci ... is this true or woo?

There is a principle in physics that states that any event that is not prohibited by the laws of physics should happen! What, then, happens to the pendulum? All the points on it behave the same way; therefore, all of it must for a tiny fraction of a second move at infinite velocity. Can a physical object move faster than the velocity of light?

Let us approach this from a different angle. We have heard about Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty. This principle states that in trying to measure two parameters of a particle—for instance, its momentum and its position—we find that the more accurately we can measure its momentum, the less we can know about its position, and vice versa. (Momentum simply means: mass x velocity.)

If we want to measure either the momentum or the position of a particle, we can measure precisely only one of these quantities. If we know the exact momentum of a particle, then its position is completely indefinite or unknowable, and vice versa. This is an example of those strange ways in which particles of atomic size or smaller behave.

>> No.11516436

Cont:

We know that at rest, when the pendulum is changing direction, its velocity is zero. But the momentum, at low speeds at least, is equal to velocity multiplied by mass. However, if we multiply any quantity by a zero, we get zero. Thus, we have now established that the momentum of the pendulum at that point is zero, that is, we know its value very precisely: It’s zero. But we have said before that if we know precisely the momentum of a particle, then its position becomes diffuse and completely indefinite. That is, the pendulum can be just about any place, even at the end of the universe. Yes, but it has very little time to get there because this whole event occurs in zero time. So there we go again. The pendulum has to disappear in all directions at infinite velocity. It will have to expand very rapidly into space, like a balloon, and then collapse just as rapidly.

- Having done this, it comes back, picks up speed, and goes about its usual good-natured business as if nothing had happened. None of us would suspect the leisurely pendulum of doing such a wild thing when no one is looking! But then again, one cannot rely on appearances.

>> No.11516438

>>11516428
Read a book on mechanics.

>> No.11516443

>>11516428
You mean zero velocity? Brainlet.

>> No.11516451

Yes, but the infinite velocity has to be paid back (In the same way the energy in the creation of two virtual particles), but the infinite energy from the infinite velocity creates a black hole on the other side of the universe

>> No.11516470

>>11516428
Did you even look at the scale of the measurements required for this to be relevant? The product of the standard deviations of momentum and position need to be greater than or equal to h-bar divided by two. That’s absurdly tiny, and you won’t ever be measuring the position or velocity of a pendulum anywhere near that degree of uncertainty.

>> No.11516494

>>11516470
It’s from Itzhak Bentov‘s book. A scientist/thinker cut from a different ilk than most no-imagination, no-balls, careerist, two-bit, cunts working today.
Itzhak "Ben" Bentov was a Czechoslovakia-born Israeli American scientist, inventor, mystic and author. His many inventions, including the steerable cardiac catheter, helped pioneer the biomedical engineering industry.

>> No.11516499

Logically this just means that the Universe is not structured on infinitesimals.

>> No.11516555
File: 210 KB, 640x640, 1575939879272.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11516555

No, they dont.

>> No.11516561

>>11516428
>any event that is not prohibited by the laws of physics should happen
What a dumb fuck fucking statement. Why didn’t I fuck Kim kardashian in her prime then?

>> No.11516569
File: 66 KB, 600x1147, wtf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11516569

>>11516428

>> No.11516578

>A finite non-zero mass with finite energy,
>spontaneously gains an effectively infinite amount of energy,
>then loses it.

>> No.11516843
File: 581 KB, 1009x1130, 463A3797-15BF-465C-B41E-E73BF27E856A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11516843

In every second infinity

>> No.11518218
File: 65 KB, 440x292, 1B721009-DB04-4612-97B7-6E3625EE997D.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11518218

>>11516428
Why stop at pendulum's? Surely this 'principle' can be applied to anything that changes direction...
Don't make the error of saying a pendulum changes direction instantly.
Right now I'm swinging my foot. So how does it feel to have my foot up your ass?

>> No.11518420

>>11518218
>>11516555
>>11516561
>>11516443
>>11516438
midwits exposing themselves here, nothing new under the sun... for you fragile shells

>> No.11518469
File: 1.36 MB, 1440x810, 1560728344589.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11518469

>>11518420
You're either really high or really arrogant
Or both

>> No.11518524

>>11516428
>>11516436
So I'm actually a brainlet, so maybe someone could help me understand this statement.

Is the preposition implying that at the moment where the pendulum reaches the peak of it's arc it has no velocity and then suddenly gains velocity in the opposite direction of it's previous velocity vector? Or however you want to term it.

So at that point the argument is that if you look at it for an infinitesimally small amount of time at which it's motion start then it's moving at an infinite velocity?

Am I getting the argument right?

>> No.11519269

>>11518524
>Am I getting the argument right?
No.

I don't know if you are dumb or a schizo, but look. Imagine something has infinite velocity. You look at it at position x=0 and time t=0 and then again some time instant t=dt (finite)after that. Where is it in the next time instant? X=?

>> No.11519706

>>11519269
>I don't know if you are dumb or a schizo
Nah, I'm just dumb.

>You look at it at position x=0 and time t=0 and then again some time instant t=dt (finite)after that. Where is it in the next time instant? X=?
It's at a specified location, yea. I generally think that's the intuitive answer, but I'm trying to understand the premise that OP is setting up and how that equals infinite velocity.

Does it have something to do with there being a potential minimum unit of time? Like, hypothetically assuming that there could be a minimum unit of time while assuming that position and velocity can be considered "measurable" between those units of time, couldn't there be a point where an object is moving "between" those time units and as such would possess infinite velocity right at the moment of change in direction before time increments?

Though come to think of it, wouldn't that just make the velocity undefined anyway, and not necessarily infinite? Since it would mean that X>0 while T=0 and X/0=[Undefined]...

Again, humor me, I'm just stupid and trying to understand what is probably just a shitpost thread.

>> No.11519714

>>11516428
Wtf? No. Why would it be?

>> No.11519765
File: 38 KB, 678x525, 1521320264293.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11519765

>>11516428
>>11516436
Yeah, this is correct.

>> No.11519771

>>11516561
Because you're a quantum incel

>> No.11519792

>>11516436
We are not certain when exactly the pendulum is at rest, due to HUP.

>> No.11519930

>>11519269
That's true, but how the fuck does it apply to pendulums? They experience 0 velocity at the apex of their arc

>> No.11519953

>>11519269
Oh yeah and how the fuck do you manage to observe it at x=0 and t=0 you stupid cunt

I'd like to see you time the exact instant when the momentum is zero as your brain collapses like the infinitesimal quantum particle it is because of the sheer stupidity of your retarded thread

>> No.11519955

>>11519930
The idea is that since we know exactly what the velocity is (0) we must have no idea what the position is because of Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

>> No.11519974

>>11519955
Not no idea

But an uncertain idea of it

But since the masses here are very big, the uncertainty is ridiculously low

Good luck finding instruments that can go beyond that uncertainty

>> No.11519978

>>11519974
/thread

>> No.11520012

>>11516428
>There is a principle in physics that states that any event that is not prohibited by the laws of physics should happen!
No, you can use a simple diagonalization argument to disprove that.

>> No.11520833

>>11516428
take the derivative you schizo, it's clearly not infinity.

>> No.11521323 [DELETED] 

>>11521314
No it doesn't. They have the same priority, and that means you have to go from left to right.

8 / 2 * (2 + 2)
8 / 2 * 4
4 * 4
16

>> No.11521324

are you fucking serious

>> No.11521860

>>11519955
But that's a totally separate argument.
Infinite velocity means they can be everywhere.
0 velocity means they can be everywhere.
Which are you going with?

>> No.11521895

*COOF*

>> No.11521913

>>11516436
Between the moment it is rising and falling the pendulum effectively enters a state of quantum superposition, or rather its particles do in very short succession. A particular particle in question no longer possesses any tangible details that might be familiar to us in science, a specific location (relative to a theoretical fully stationary observer), time, mass, kinetic/potential energy and so on and so on, rather the object can only be defined by where it is absent and as it cannot be fully absent everywhere all the time it must be modelled as a probability density of "where" it is most likely to exist, "where" being in quotes of course since it is a placeholder for the various attributes both known and unknown to science, it is an oversimplification for explanation purposes. This is not a full solution, just a model. The size of the problem now facing us is effectively quadrupled, as explained by Donald Rumsfeld.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiPe1OiKQuk

According to the philosophy of science, Donald Rumsfeld's popularization of the concept makes him the appropriate prime observer, a single point of reference enabling us to make relative comparisons with every entity in the universe. Of course if someone else was made aware of the concept before Donald Rumsfeld the teacher or author of some book becomes their prime observer, but for the most part it is DR.

>> No.11521934

>>11516428
The larger an object is, the smaller the quantum scale of its behavior as a whole. A visible pendulum might as well be the entire earth in terms of quantum theory.

Quantum is not an add-on to the Newtonian physics of movement so you can't say "it's everywhere" or "it's moving at infinite velocity" as if "everywhere" and "velocity" mean what you're used to them meaning.

>> No.11521946

CLAIM: the entire universe is moving faster than the speed of light to ensure the flow of time continues

>> No.11521955

>>11521946
I want the coof

>> No.11522042

>>11521946
Moving in relation to what?

>> No.11522206

>>11522042
other universes obviously

>> No.11522244 [DELETED] 

>>11522225
Sweet, looks like my phone was clear. I'll check in periodically to track it.
Also any healthy Anon want to reply to this post if I'm still clean? And don't reply to any other infected users. That way we can track whether we're contagious before symptoms

>> No.11522245

>>11522206
>>11521946
Source ?

>> No.11522459

>>11522245
"universal speed limit" is just to stop the universe from slowing down and time stopping

>> No.11523814

nop

>> No.11523984

>>11519706
Eh, sorry I thought you were op. It's definitely not infinite, since then X would be infinite too. That is not possible for pendulums.

>>11519930
How does them having 0 velocity at some point make my point invalid?

>>11519953
t is obviously arbitrary fucking retard. And I'm not OP you piece of shit. You measure it somehow, then start the timer. I can't believe people as dumb as you are on forums related to science.

>> No.11525262

Is this whole thread just based on the premise of "I don't understand how acceleration works"?

>> No.11525869

Is this whole thread just based
>>11525262
YES

>> No.11525895

>>11516436
>the entire universe dissapears when my back is turned

>> No.11527382

>>11525895
kek. Yeah, this.

>> No.11527913

>>11518420
Read a book on mechanics.

>> No.11529129
File: 361 KB, 540x405, 05741215688b0bf13ab3c1985e4b7f70d743d61d.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11529129

>>11525869

>> No.11529176

If it were, at any time, accelerating infinitely or had infinite velocity, then it would, in that time, have travelled infinitely far which is not demonstrable by any experiment. These are the kinds of problems you encounter when you deal in infinitesimals unquestioningly.

>> No.11530747

>>11516494
> t. Itzhak

>> No.11530842

>>11516428
>>11516436
Yeah, this is bullcrap from beginning to end.

I heartily would accept the pre-transistor standard of living if it meant that no QM would've been invented and these kinds of cranks wouldn't have the "spooky uncertainty principle" as an element in their convoluted conjectures.

>> No.11531037

>>11530842
it's ok for you to fear the unknown, but to start calling intellects far more advanced than yours cranks and convoluted is the tell-tale sign of bitch-ass-ness that permeates careerist scientismists of today that are the stagnation enablers