Let's have a thread about theoretical physics. Ask and answer.

File: 2.13 MB, 1249x1920, tumblr_m4q7iok6WV1rtbcayo1_1280.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Bogoliubov Thu Aug 8 12:04:12 2013 No.5955101 [Reply] [Original]

Let's have a thread about theoretical physics.
Ask and answer.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:08:13 2013 No.5955106 >>5955101 Are there any non-trivial mixing of external and internal symmetries except for SUSY? Or is SUSY the most general way to get around the Coleman–Mandula theorem.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:08:13 2013 No.5955107 How did matter come into existence?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:10:42 2013 No.5955113 Can 2D objects exist in reality?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:11:12 2013 No.5955114 >>5955107 First define what you mean by matter, is the quark gluon plasma matter or do you mean protons and neutrons?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:11:43 2013 No.5955115 Is Neil deGrasse Tyson the smartest physicist of all times?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:13:12 2013 No.5955117 How is the cat dead and alive AT THE SAME TIME? It makes no fucking sense. Quantum mechanics is fucking with logic. Pls explain.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:16:13 2013 No.5955122 >>5955113 only as concepts, not materially

Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:17:12 2013 No.5955124 [DELETED]

>>5955101

Why do people keep saying things like

>2013
>still believes in string theory

when did this shit die, and what did it get replaced by? What's the new leading contender?

Speaking of things I've saw on popsci shows when I was a kid, how the fuck are claims like "the universe is a hologram!" or "there are multiple universes!" mathematically sound. Like how does the math spit that answer out?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:17:12 2013 No.5955125 >>5955117 It is in a superposition of both states.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:19:43 2013 No.5955128 If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:20:43 2013 No.5955129 >>5955124 Whatever it is, it is not physics.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:21:12 2013 No.5955132 How many multiverses are there?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:21:12 2013 No.5955133 >>5955128 You are assuming that it expands, even so, some theories suggest that it expand indefinitely, which means no end, so no "into"

Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:21:43 2013 No.5955134

>>5955124
people are getting bored with strings since it takes so long, most people have a very short attention span. physicist are losing a little hope for ST becasue it has so many solutions that some think you should moddle any universe or system with it, meaning its more of a mathematical framework and not a physical description of reality (and the tests at the LHC contradicted ST).

the leading contended is loop quantum gravity.

>there are multiple universes!
no math for this

>the universe is a hologram!
when you look at the math of a black hole you see that the information of the content are stored on the surface of the black hole, this cazn also be used to model the universe which will then mean that the content is encoded into the 2D surface of the universe.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:22:42 2013 No.5955135 >>5955132 How many Michio Kaku do you need to string your physics?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:23:13 2013 No.5955136 >>5955128 It's a so called metric expansion, not an ordinary expansion of an object immersed into a bigger ambient space. Look some Riemannian Geometry.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:24:44 2013 No.5955138 How important is consciousness in the quantum mechanical measurement process?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:26:13 2013 No.5955143 From a physical point of view (not a mathematical one) ... does 0.999... = 1 ?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:26:43 2013 No.5955144 >>5955124 >What's the new leading contender? String theory is still in the lead, there are other contenders like fruity quantum loops and non-mysoginistic geometry.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:27:43 2013 No.5955146 Is the universe fine tuned? Who did it?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:28:42 2013 No.5955147 Can you prove the universe existst? What is the nature of existence?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:29:42 2013 No.5955148 I love you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:31:42 2013 No.5955150 Can we throw a camera into a black hole and film what's inside?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:31:42 2013 No.5955151 >>5955144 >non-mysoginistic geometry wat

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:32:13 2013 No.5955152 >>5955115 first of all you cant predict if there is anybody going to be smarter than him, second - its relative whether somebody finds him intelligent or not

Bogoliubov Thu Aug 8 12:33:12 2013 No.5955154
File: 884 KB, 2543x1585, I_still_do.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5955106
I certainly don't know much more about it than the wikipedia article can say.
We do you ask, do you have some ideas? What are you studying right now?

>>5955117
>It makes no fucking sense.
One major problem here, and this goes a bit beyond QM, is that you somehow feel you have good reason to require that the logic which you use in your everyday life must somehow be carried over to all other fields. If your searching for a fundamental theory, one which is sharper than Newtonian mechanics and classical logic, then you must not go back and try to view and justify everything from the classical perspective. Whatever you choose to be the deeper model, don't be surprised if it behaves differently than the more rough theory, and don't judge it.
tl;dr: Saying "QM doesn't make sense" only makes sense with respect to a logic. Consistency is the only requirement one should keep a special eye on, and even that is not necessary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic

>>5955124
There is no replacement, strings are still haunting high energy physics :D
>how the fuck are claims like "the universe is a hologram!" or "there are multiple universes!" mathematically sound.
If you put it in mathematical terms, then why shouldn't they be not sound? The one relates to the holography principle (two field theories being related, one living in a volume, the other on its boundary), the other (if you mean the Everett interpretation of QM) is just "counting possibilities".

>>5955128
You got the wrong idea of the notion of "expanding" in this context, I'm sure google will dive the answer if you care.

>>5955138
I don't think the core of that question depends on the world being quantum or not... - anyway, the non-douchbag answer would be: it doesn't.

>>5955143
From a physical point of view (not a linguistic one), is the sentence "*running* is a verb" true?

>>5955146
Enrico Fermi.

>>5955148
Thanks.

Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:33:12 2013 No.5955155

>>5955143
We don't know whether space and time are continuous or discrete, so from a physical point of view 0.999... may not be defined (if space or time are discrete all numbers representing physical quantities would have a finite amount of decimals). If space and time are continuous then yes sure, infinitesimals would exist in reality in the same sense than they exist in maths, and some quantity equal to 0.999... would be defined and equal to 1, for the same reason than 0.999... = 1 in mathematics

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:37:13 2013 No.5955158 >>5955128 yo momma

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:38:42 2013 No.5955160 >>5955154 >We do you ask, do you have some ideas? What are you studying right now? no, I did some SUSY (just enough to continue with a string theory textbook) and was just wondering.

Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:39:12 2013 No.5955166

I've read that the Unruh effect is probably responsible for hawking radiation. And the explanation was something like that from a large distance the space near the black hole wouldn't be seen as an (almost) vacuum anymore but as lots of radiation. This doesn't seem to need an accelerating reference frame though since as far as I know hawking radiation doesn't need one. But the Unruh effect does need it, so what is the missing link?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:39:14 2013 No.5955167 >>5955155 >if space or time are discrete all numbers representing physical quantities would have a finite amount of decimals) Discrete does not mean finite.

Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:39:43 2013 No.5955168 [DELETED]

>>5955134
>when you look at the math of a black hole you see that the information of the content are stored on the surface of the black hole, this cazn also be used to model the universe which will then mean that the content is encoded into the 2D surface of the universe.

what the fuck, where do I read more?

a semi-rigorous source, if that's such a thing in theoretical physics. not totally popsci, but I can't understand full out scientific journals on this subject yet. something in the middle

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:40:43 2013 No.5955170 >>5955154 >anyway, the non-douchbag answer would be: it doesn't. We already know it does. Are you trolling or ignorant?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:42:14 2013 No.5955175 Does existence imply physical? Can something non-physical exist?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:43:14 2013 No.5955178 >>5955175 Everything abstract. does the number 1 exist?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:43:14 2013 No.5955179 >>5955175 that's more semantics and philosophy than science

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:43:14 2013 No.5955180 What is the minimum IQ requirement for theoretical physics?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:44:12 2013 No.5955182 >>5955167 >Discrete does not mean finite. Discrete does mean you can't have infinitely small quantities

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:45:42 2013 No.5955183 >>5955182 This is wrong. Have you ever opened a math textbook?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:46:12 2013 No.5955186 >>5955179 Philosophy is a science and existence is a matter of physics.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:46:42 2013 No.5955184 >>5955180 theoretical physicists don't use IQ to bar people, are you retarded? they use a unit called Tysons, you have to be at least .5 Tysons to consider being a theoretical physicist.

Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:47:12 2013 No.5955189

Light being quantized means it can only take certain energy values. Does this mean frequency is discrete? Because even though the planck constant might be fixed I could multiply it with a frequency that I choose to get every energy level I want, if frequency is continuous.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:47:42 2013 No.5955191 >>5955154 So why does wave function collapse only occure with a conscious observer?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:48:42 2013 No.5955193 If gravity is true, shouldn't people be orbiting mountains?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:49:42 2013 No.5955196 >>5955168 I dont know of anything except wikipedia for sub-journal level, sorry.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:50:42 2013 No.5955197 Physically speaking, is free will even possible? I mean most of the universe was proven to be deterministic and the probabilities of quantum mechanics only act on very small scale.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:51:13 2013 No.5955202 >>5955199 it's not matter, so none of those

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:51:43 2013 No.5955199 Is light a solid, liquid, or gas?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:52:12 2013 No.5955205 >>5955202 >particles >not matter 0/10 Do you even e=mc2?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:52:43 2013 No.5955204 Does anyone have any good books on the mathematics and/or physics required to survive in the modern world of theoretical physics? >Inb4 Landau.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:53:12 2013 No.5955206 Question not only to the OP but to all the theoretical physicians lurking ITT Have any of you come up with your own solutions to schrodinger's cat?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:54:13 2013 No.5955208 Do you like The Big Bang Theory? I like it very much. Who is your favorite character? Mine is Sheldon. BAZINGA

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:54:43 2013 No.5955207 >>5955183 Give me a physical quantity that would have an infinite amount of decimals in a universe with discrete space and time. Oops you can't, autist much?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:55:12 2013 No.5955211 >>5955207 Do you even know what the word "discrete" means? Do you realize that the rationals are discrete as a subset of the reals?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:55:12 2013 No.5955212 >>5955197 >and the probabilities of quantum mechanics only act on very small scale. You're gonna have to prove that statement son. How do you know these probabilities don't have an influence on the macroscopic scale on the long run?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:55:43 2013 No.5955209 >>5955199 its a gas of bosons, and at low temp it becomes a Bose–Einstein condensate

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:56:12 2013 No.5955213 >>5955211 Just leave

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:56:44 2013 No.5955214 >>5955212 I think it was confirmed by neuroscientists who confirmed that there cannot be free will. Thus quantum interaction cannot even have effects on the level of biological cells.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:57:43 2013 No.5955217 >>5955213 Why? Because I had to correct you?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:58:13 2013 No.5955218 >>5955214 >I think it was confirmed by neuroscientists who confirmed that there cannot be free will source needed

Bogoliubov Thu Aug 8 12:58:13 2013 No.5955219
File: 108 KB, 430x573, folk_art_princess_cute_redhead_girl_blue_green_pink_5109345f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5955160
kk, I haven't got around studying these things, since I'm away from university for two years now, and regarding field theory I'm more interested in statistical physics now. But I remember seeing your question being asked here:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44256/alternatives-to-supersymmetry-and-coleman-mandule-theorem

>>5955166
I don't think I'm of much help here - I also don't know your background, I can at best try to motivate the Unruh effect - when I hear the two words, I think of the same principle, but only because I've never actually learned about black hole thermodynamics.

>>5955189
you're right, it's not apriori fixed or quantized. In the theory, discrete energy values pop up whenever you consider some bound system. Specifically, closed loops like when you go around in a circle are finite for fixed radius and so bound. This is e.g. why the solutions of the energy contributions from angular-like momenta (spin etc.) are given by some fixed numbers.
Because of interactions, you have light of all frequencies. Just consider black bodies.

>>5955204
what is the audience? if you speak of undergrad level, then i guess no single book will suffice. I don't really know any (englisch) book series I'd agree on totally. But I haven't read Laudau, it's probably nice.

>Is light a solid, liquid, or gas?
light = water

>>5955208
the chick. her looks I mean.

>>5955209
light condensate, nice.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:58:43 2013 No.5955221 >>5955213 >>>/b/

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:59:13 2013 No.5955222 >>5955209 the first BEC of photons was observed very recently for the first time. the experiments took place at room temp. cold photon BEC hasn't happened afaik

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 12:59:42 2013 No.5955223 >>5955218 Look up the Libet experiment. He scientifically disproved free will. You should also read some Dennett and Harris.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:01:13 2013 No.5955226 >>5955217 Because you are too dumb to realize what we are even talking about. I asked you a question, if you have to reply with other questions that completely miss the point you might as well just leave

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:02:43 2013 No.5955228 >>5955223 Nah, the experiment proved no such thing. All it proves is that the consciousness is not the seat of free will.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:03:13 2013 No.5955230 >>5955226 Your question was retarded and only demonstrated your lack of understanding. Do you still not understand the word "discrete"?

Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:03:43 2013 No.5955232 [DELETED]

What are the current barriers to having super conductivity at room temperature? What properties do molecules that are superconductive at low temperatures (but relative to other molecules, the temperature would be considered warm) have that make them exhibit this kind of behavior.

And what are the implications of finding a room temperature, superconductive material

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:03:43 2013 No.5955233 >>5955223 >He scientifically disproved free will. Over the top interpretations of important scientific experiments are not scientific.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:04:14 2013 No.5955234 >>5955228 >consciousness >free will >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:05:13 2013 No.5955236 >>5955233 The experiment demonstrated that all decisions are predetermined by reactions in the brain. Free will is physically impossible.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:06:12 2013 No.5955238 >>5955230 You're still not answering the question, you're not willing to contribute anything meaningful to the conversation nor to this board, so once again just leave.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:06:42 2013 No.5955239 How does Tesla's free energy device work?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:08:14 2013 No.5955243 >>5955238 Your question makes no sense because it relies on wrong assumptions. Hint: "Discrete" is not the same as "finite". Are you even in university yet? I hope you know this board is 18+.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:08:14 2013 No.5955244 >>5955219 >what is the audience? Well I'm going to be starting third year physics in September, a series of books would also be good. I just want some reference point.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:08:14 2013 No.5955245 >>5955222 o right, photons dont have a chemical potential thus the temperature dependency is different.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:08:43 2013 No.5955241 >>5955238 Third party. How about you both define discrete in a response to this post and source it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:08:43 2013 No.5955242 >>5955234 Son, the experiment was directly about consciousness. I didn't bring it up. Why don't you take a trip to >>>/buttpain/.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:09:42 2013 No.5955246 >>5955242 How can an experiment test something which has no testable or observable effects?

Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:09:43 2013 No.5955248

>>5955236
No it didn't.

Obviously, to any materialist, it is ASSUMED that all decisions are predetermined by reactions in the brain. (That materialism implies no free will is also very arguable.)

The experiment just demonstrated that conscious awareness of (rather arbitrary) decisions comes after those decisions are made.

I suspect you are pretty young with your pop-sci interpretations.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:11:13 2013 No.5955249 >>5955248 The decision making process in the brain is deterministic. Tell me where the free will should intervene. I bet you are a dualist from /x/ who believes in magical non-physical interaction like voodoo.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:11:13 2013 No.5955250 >>5955245 So you just made shit up and posted it? Nice scientific attitude to facts.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:11:43 2013 No.5955251 >>5955246 What are you talking about? It specifically tested the observable effects of consciousness. is there some reason you're deliberately misreading the world to project dualism into it?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:12:43 2013 No.5955252 >>5955246 'Thing'... Reification.. Shame on you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:13:12 2013 No.5955256 >>5955228 >consciousness OH GOD U DUN IT NAO

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:13:43 2013 No.5955257 >>5955251 He tested observable effects of something that isn't well defined and probably can't be?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:15:13 2013 No.5955258 File: 26 KB, 851x268, discrete.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5955243 G T F O

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:15:43 2013 No.5955259 >>5955249 >Straw man No, I absolutely don't believe in free will (if you actually read posts you'd have gleaned that). However this experiment did not demonstrate free will doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:16:12 2013 No.5955260 >>5955257 the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought STOP REIFYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:16:12 2013 No.5955261

>>5955257
Most things aren't well defined. If you're holding out for rigorous definitions then you can't really do anything beyond abstract physics. You lose a surprising amount of chemsitry, most all of biology, certainly all of psychology.

Things don't have definitions etched into the world, sorry, it would be easier if they did, but just not how life works.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:16:43 2013 No.5955263 >>5955205 hahahhaa dude youre SMOOTH

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:17:13 2013 No.5955265 >>5955249 No one will disagree with you. However you are arguing free will doesn't exist from materialist determinism. Which is valid. You are not using the results of this experiment to argue.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:17:13 2013 No.5955266 >>5955261 Don't waste your time, you just met our resident bot.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:19:13 2013 No.5955269 >>5955258 >implying QM isn't the only real math out there

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:19:43 2013 No.5955270 >>5955250 No, i applied the definition to a system and then forgot that one of the values goes to 0, changing the form of the function. it has nothing to do with scientific facts.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:20:14 2013 No.5955272 >>5955252 I said "something", not "thing".

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:21:12 2013 No.5955276 >>5955260 >awareness, volition these are dubious terms. you are moving the problem of the definition of consciousness elsewhere. Look at the indented quote here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Defining_consciousness

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:21:12 2013 No.5955277 >>5955258 you do know countable =! finite you retard. things can be infinity and still be countable.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:21:43 2013 No.5955274 File: 42 KB, 500x415, full retard meme.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5955258 Are you seriously saying the rationals are not countable? Seriously, kid, are you failing your high school math class right now?

Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:22:13 2013 No.5955280 [DELETED]

>>5955259
>However this experiment did not demonstrate free will doesn't exist.
The experiment showed that all decisions are made deterministically in the brain. Tell me how this doesn't disprove free will, you /x/tard.

>>5955260
How can this be tested? What are its observable or measurable effects?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:24:13 2013 No.5955284 >>5955261 >Most things aren't well defined. This is a science board. Of course scientific terms have to be wel defined. Do you even scientific method? Something without observable effects cannot exist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:24:13 2013 No.5955285 >>5955270 Now you're lying to cover up. True science. Tell me more about the chemical potential of photons you obviously got from google. No don't, just go to >>>/b/

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:24:43 2013 No.5955286 >>5955274 Who gives a shit about your rationals, you've been missing the point all along. Who said rationals are discrete? You were being an ass but now you're about to make a fool out of yourself

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:25:13 2013 No.5955287 >>5955284 Please stop. You had your little show, he learned his lesson. You can stop it now.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:26:13 2013 No.5955291 File: 82 KB, 750x600, full_retard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5955286 >Who said rationals are discrete? You did. By your own definition they are discrete because they are countable. How old are you?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:30:12 2013 No.5955298 >>5955285 >look how smart I am, i know things other people must have used google for I think redit will be welcome your egotistical shitposting more.

Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:30:43 2013 No.5955295

>>5955291
>By your own definition they are discrete because they are countable
Which does not imply that a physical quantity in a universe with discrete space and time can be described by any rational. You have been missing the point all along, it's long overdue but you can still stop now

Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:31:42 2013 No.5955299

>>5955280
>all decisions are made deterministically in the brain
nope, it just showed a particular "decision" about a random movement began in the brain before the subject was aware of it.

(You do realise there is a difference between a result and an interpretation?)

>decisions are made deterministically in the brain
Of course they are. Where else would they be made, and how? But this isn't demonstrated by the experiment.

Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:32:43 2013 No.5955303 [DELETED]

>>5955295
That post of yours was unnecessary. There is really no need for you to show all of us that logic is another subject you failed hard. We got your message. Abstract reasoning is not your strong suit. Would you please stop derailing our theoretical physics thread now?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:32:43 2013 No.5955304 >>5955298 so i'm right? lol

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:33:43 2013 No.5955307 >>5955304 wat. if that is what you got from that post, then there is obviously now arguing with you since you don't understand English.

Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:34:13 2013 No.5955309 [DELETED]

>>5955299
>about a random movement
There is no randomness on any scale higher than quantum.

>You do realise there is a difference between a result and an interpretation?
In this experiment they are the same.

>Of course they are
Then why are you defending free will, dualism and magic?

>But this isn't demonstrated by the experiment.
Do you even know what experiment we're talking about? Please educate yourself.

Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:38:13 2013 No.5955312

Maybe not totally related, but recommend me, please, some literature on aetherodynamics. Can I really do anything in the field, iyo? I would like to make some contribution, but I really doubt, that I'm a genius and can basically resurrect the theory with couple of colleges.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:39:42 2013 No.5955313 >>5955312 You want to revive the ether theory?

Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:44:13 2013 No.5955324

>>5955309
>Then why are you defending free will, dualism and magic?

I never had, I've said free will is nonsense repeatedly. Obviously you can't read. And don't understand how someone could attack an experiment that, though supporting his position, is inadequate.

>There is no randomness on any scale higher than quantum.
True, but obvious pedantry.

Tell me how you get "all decisions" from the one particular decision in this experiment.

>In this experiment they are the same.

(facepalm) There are many different interpretations. Libet's and Dennet's are different, for instance, and both are different to yours.

I suspect you are trolling now.

Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:44:42 2013 No.5955325

>>5955303
Funny guy. You are everything wrong about this board. You troll, derail the thread with posts void of any substance and of any will to contribute to anything, you just want to make yourself feel good by proving other people wrong, and even when you are wrong yourself you convince yourself you are right just so you can feel better and forget about your real life insecurities for a little moment.

You never answered the question you piece of shit, it was a question about physics, you're disregarding the whole of physics to only look at the mathematical side. Of course a discrete universe (as in discrete space/time) can be infinite, so you can have infinite quantities, but there would be no meaningful physical quantity equal to 0.999... in such a universe. That's the point you have been missing all along, but because you wanted to prove the world so hard that you are the smartest you never realized it. Enjoy being a pretentious little shithead, you won't ever contribute anything with that attitude.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:45:42 2013 No.5955326 >>5955313 Well, it can't be, that there is absolutely no one working on it currently, right? Besides, there is at least this Russian guy Atsyukovsky, who contributed a lot last half of century.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:46:12 2013 No.5955331 >>5955324 >I suspect you are trolling now. he's an obvious pop-sci underagedb&, not a troll

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:47:12 2013 No.5955332 >>5955326 >Well, it can't be, that there is absolutely no one working on it currently, right? Why would anyone dedicate his career to a dead theory?

Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:48:12 2013 No.5955336 [DELETED]

File: 28 KB, 300x300, willy-wonka-meme.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5955325
>but there would be no meaningful physical quantity equal to 0.999... in such a universe.

The number 1 doesn't exist in a discrete universe? Tell me more about how you failed your math class.

Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:49:43 2013 No.5955338

>>5955326
You could take the aether theory, strip it of everything that doesn't fit observations (as in almost everything), and try to make something with the remaining elements, but then it really wouldn't have anything to do with aether in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:50:42 2013 No.5955344 >>5955336 You really are even dumber than I thought. 0.999... isn't defined in a discrete universe, so you can take your 0.999... = 1 up your ass

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:50:42 2013 No.5955345 >>5955326 >there is absolutely no one working on it currently, right? Right, because aether hypothesis was found to be superfluous.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:52:13 2013 No.5955350 >>5955332 Because it's true? No? >>5955338 But I read, that observations were just lacking methodology, right ones showed predicted results.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:56:42 2013 No.5955357 File: 60 KB, 600x600, youre-fucking-retarded.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5955344 >0.999... isn't defined in a discrete universe 0.999... is a rational number. By your own definition the rationals as a countable set are discrete.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 13:59:12 2013 No.5955364 >>5955357 So because the rationals are discrete then physical quantities in a discrete universe are described by rationals? Logic fail much? Please keep going

>>	dat /sci/ Bogoliubov Thu Aug 8 14:31:44 2013 No.5955426 File: 86 KB, 590x590, Lady_Retro_preview.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw my thread is highjacked by >free will >1 vs. 0.9999

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 14:38:43 2013 No.5955444 >>5955426 It was inevitable from the start, every thread on /sci/ eventually becomes like this one. It was inevitable.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 14:57:43 2013 No.5955508 >>5955444 >implying there is no free will

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 15:46:12 2013 No.5955644 >>5955155 12:33 >>5955167 12:39 ... blabla bloublibloublou, I'm smarter than you glabablibleblou you moron urf durf 12yo lawlawl retard ... >>5955357 13:56 >>5955364 13:59 Do you guys have...you know, a "life" ? >>5955508 Well done, you got us.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 15:52:15 2013 No.5955658 Is there such thing as five-dimensional space in real life?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 15:54:12 2013 No.5955662 >>5955658 According to the multiverse theory there is infinite number of n-dimensional universes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 15:54:43 2013 No.5955661 >>5955644 >Do you guys have...you know, a "life" ? If you are asking whether I live then yes, if you are asking whether I have a social life then no

biofag Thu Aug 8 16:00:54 2013 No.5955673

if you travel extremely fast (not light speed)
And shoot a gamma ray with the shortest possible wavelength directly ahead of you what happens?

You can't blue shift any further and you cant create new photons, the extra energy needs to go somewhere, will you slow down?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 16:02:12 2013 No.5955676 >>5955673 >shortest possible wavelength no

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 16:12:35 2013 No.5955709 >>5955644 >12:39 Not in my time zone, americlap.

Anonymous Thu Aug 8 16:37:36 2013 No.5955780

>>5955709
not him, but does it make a difference ?
He was pointing your 1h30 pointless discussion.

I mean, for general comprehesion, we use 4chan hour.
Guys from LA and NY have a 3h jetlag for instance...

My question :
When I learned the "Maxwell's Equations", I was wondering what was the meaning of "vacuum".
I mean, what is the "status" of EM waves we compute, then.

I know it's maybe a stupid question, so I dealt with it (doesn't change anything to solve problems), but can somedy make the semantic meaning more clear, please

>inb4 philo-shit, just "simple" scientific assumptions if possible.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 16:40:36 2013 No.5955790 >>5955780 >I was wondering what was the meaning of "vacuum". It's a vacuum. So, no atoms, not even air. >I mean, what is the "status" of EM waves we compute, then. They don't matter, they don't interact.

Anonymous Thu Aug 8 16:49:36 2013 No.5955807

>>5955790
uhm, sorry but that's not clear at alll for me...

vacuum = nothing, OK

but waves are a "propagation" (at least of information), aren't they ?

How is it possible that they have no "real" support (like atoms or anything). Is it pure information ? Or just a model to describe what's happening, without further explanation.

I have the same mindblowing feeling when I do logical stuff.
(sthg that's is definitely out of my "true" comprehension)
But again, that's just to satisfy myself, that's not a big deal when you just take classes (at my level).

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 16:54:36 2013 No.5955819 >>5955676 thats actually a very good question, but things like the planck length are probably beyond you, judging by your response.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 16:55:35 2013 No.5955822 >>5955807 You can see photon as particle, or waves. In both case it doesn't matter because while that is true that having light makes it not a void, EM waves are linear. As in they don't interact with each other.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 17:09:07 2013 No.5955867 >>5955819 >planck anything the shibboleth of the pop-sci freshman

Anonymous Thu Aug 8 17:12:36 2013 No.5955871

>>5955673
there is no theoretical limit imposed on photon energy, although having a wavelength that approaches the planck length would

A) require more energy than exists in the universe,

B) result in an extremely high probability of spontaneous particle creation and thus drastically shorten the lifetime of the particle and

C) involve massive quantum uncertainties which themselves would make the continued existance of this photon impossible.

The answer to your question is B). Even tho there is no upper limit, creating obscenely high energy photons and increasing their energy do to relativistic effects would result in spontaneous particle creation, transforming the energy into, for example, electron-positron pairs.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 17:18:07 2013 No.5955885 >>5955867 >hanging out on /sci and talking shit without actually answering anything the secret knowledge of the twat: impossible to access, empty and devoid of use anyhow.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 17:19:06 2013 No.5955888 >>5955885 someone's mad

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 17:21:06 2013 No.5955894 >>5955888 someone is twelve and should go back to /b/.. take your stupid fucking memes with you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 17:24:35 2013 No.5955903 ITT: people who don't know about timeless physics, many-worlds, and entropic gravity shiggy

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 17:27:05 2013 No.5955910 >>5955894 >tears

>>	biofag Thu Aug 8 17:42:07 2013 No.5955949 >>5955871 awesome thanks, anon

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 8 17:57:35 2013 No.5956016 Lagrangian Mechanics are fun, and Hamilton was a bro, That's about as far I know theoretical physics.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 9 07:58:38 2013 No.5957319 File: 343 KB, 1360x768, 1375713925308.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] When do we finally solve turbulence? And what about magnetic turbulence?

Anonymous Fri Aug 9 09:19:16 2013 No.5957468 [DELETED]

>>5957319
You mean we still don't have powerful enough mathapparatus to solve basic aero-hydrodynamic problems? Modern physics sucks, man. Or, do be exact, mathematicians suck. Physicists come up with problems faster, than mathgeeks come up with new stuff. Why is there so little smart people?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 9 17:38:04 2013 No.5958382 Are there still any prognoses about yet undiscovered element. particles? Aside from a particle beginning with "G".

Anonymous Fri Aug 9 17:58:03 2013 No.5958411

Trying to build a program of self study here. Accepting all opinions from all walks of life.

What do you think is the best textbook for the following subjects:

Mechanics
Thermodynamics
Special relativity
Gen R
QM
Logic/set theory
Mathematical methods/ modelization
Discrete maths

I already have the classical opinions and such but I'd like /sci/'s opinion. The sticky has a nice list but I'm looking for explained opinions.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 9 18:14:04 2013 No.5958436 > I already have the classical opinions What's that?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 9 18:23:34 2013 No.5958447 >>5958436 I've been recommended the AP French textbooks, "Discrete Mathematics: Elementary and Beyond", The Rosen, "Classic Set Theory" Goldrei,

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 9 18:30:04 2013 No.5958452 >>5958411 http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~abhishek/chicphys.htm http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~abhishek/chicmath.htm Here you go mate

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 9 20:22:03 2013 No.5958596 File: 1017 KB, 1273x1648, cheatshieeet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5958452 You Sir, are my African-american distinguished fellow citizen.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 08:29:25 2013 No.5959351 >>5955903 >people don't know or care about pseudoscience Makes sense.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:34:26 2013 No.5959573 What is absolutely the hardest field? SSSQG vs. LQG?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:17:27 2013 No.5959785 Bump

Bogoliubov Sat Aug 10 14:23:03 2013 No.5960032
File: 138 KB, 1000x1034, il_fullxfull.424819119_d7qk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5959573
>What is absolutely the hardest field?
>SSSQG vs. LQG?

I don't think this is a particularly sensible question. The interpretation of it for which is makes the most sense is "hard = viewest people could, with their current education, enter it". Okay.
My point is that a field should be considered hard if it's difficlut to make better achievements than other scientists doing the same - but then cutting edge fields like neurobiology or whatever, where there is extreme tought competition. Any field is hard if there are other clever people working in it with which you have to compete.
Coming back to the first interepretation - LQC is of course hard in the sense that it's likely that you will not find anything interesting of achieve something working on it. But that's certainly not your fault, it's the theories that "don't work."

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:40:34 2013 No.5960067

>>5960032
> a field should be considered hard if it's difficlut to make better achievements than other scientists doing the same
> there are other clever people working in it with which you have to compete
Do you even science? It's not about competition, it's about making progress. How does referencing other people matters? You don't happen to be from philfac by any chance?

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:38:02 2013 No.5960168

>>5960067
I don't really understand the case you make or how you interpreted what I said.
Are you speaking in the idealistic sense, saying science is about the progress of the field as such?
If someone speaks about how hard a field of science is like the question above, then I would interpret hard to include the difficulty to reach the top of the community and to become an acknowledged human among at least the other scientists.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:50:32 2013 No.5960204

>>5960168
I just meant how smart and erudite you need to be in order to make notable progress, not just fuck around once hired. You don't need a reference point to estimate your effectiveness. Except for some statistics maybe, like how frequently problem of a given level is solved or how frequently something that important is created.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:08:02 2013 No.5960240

What exactly is mass? What are the theoretical limitations off mass? Is mass generated by the higgs field or vice versa? Can it ever theoretically be negative? How does it affect the curvature of spacetime? Would a quantised version of F=ma even use mass as we see it classically, or would there be some more general equation used that gives an equivalent value for m?

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:15:04 2013 No.5960257

>>5960240
Property of matter. What do you mean? It's generated by the higgs field, it itself generates gravity field. Yes. In a reverse fashion respectively. Second Newton's Law uses another kind of charge, than gravity charge - it just so happened, that both are called mass and both with the limit of our technology are found to be equal. It hasn't been proven that they are the one and the same.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:19:04 2013 No.5960266 File: 143 KB, 1600x1200, 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'm Michio Kaku and wat is this?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:27:32 2013 No.5960277 >>5960266 go away shill

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math