losfomot

Hmmm, so its conceivable that, if a person were to have all their surface electrons stripped from them, said person might appear to spontaneously combust? (just a thought that came to me) Is it possible to create a negative charge without the involvement of electrons (or muons or tauons)?

So, if you remove the electrons from a solid it will fall apart into ionized gases?

Is it possible to strip an object, or material (for example, a strip of aluminum foil) completely free of electrons?

Right, we can't visualize spacetime in 4 dimensions. But why not? I'm looking around and seeing in 4 dimensions right now. Is there anything else in the universe, other than spacetime, that we can't see or visualize in 4 dimensions?

When gravity is explained as the warping of spacetime, it is usually done using a 2-dimensional representative model of spacetime. For some reason, this works beautifully (for example a rubber sheet with a bowling ball on it. Roll a marble past the bowling ball and it follows the curved path of the rubber in a manner uncannily similar to how we see massive objects interact) But reality isn't 2 dimensional, it is 3 or rather 4 - dimensional (including time). So how come gravity isn't explained using a 4 dimensional representative model of spacetime? I have tried to visualize it in my head and it is like a name that is on the tip of your tongue... its almost there but just out of reach. It almost seems as though there is a direction that space is curved that we cannot see. Just like the 2 dimensional rubber sheet (with length and width) is warped by the bowling ball to give it a 3rd dimension (depth), It seems (to me) like our 3 dimensional space is warped by mass to give it a 4th dimension (+time = 5) that we cannot see or even visualize, but only feel the effects of (gravity). Anyway, I may be dead wrong and maybe someone has created a good 3-D(picture) or 4-D (quicktime movie) model of spacetime and I just haven't found it. If anyone knows of such a thing could you point me toward it, thanks.

Actually, Swansont was arguing the definition of centrifugal force (which was the term in discussion). The CENTRIPETAL force definition came later and, in this particular case, was a correct definition (which Swansont agreed on). The point of all the dictionary guffaw was simply to let you know that the dictionary is NOT always right, and should NOT be used as a technical resource (as you used it). It really seems like YOU are trying to create an argument out of nothing.

In case anyone wanted to know what the problem was... I took the whole computer back to the store where I bought the mobo and CPU and explained that I had fried 2 PSUs trying to use the damn thing. First they fried one of their own (I guess they didn't believe me) and then he found the problem (very quickly, I might add) apparantly I had hooked up an extra USB port to the mobo that was old. I hooked it up to the right spot, and the connector fit perfectly, but the newer USB port connectors have power wires in different places and that is what was shorting out the PSU. You would think that if they were going to change the wiring, they would change the entire connector so that something like this wouldn't happen. Anyway, they charged me $25 (Canadian) for a new(?) 400W PSU, threw away the USB port (that I didn't really need anyway, as there are already 2 ports built in to the mobo) and everything is now running great.

I went to the local computer store last night (not where I bought the mobo and CPU) and the guy there showed me how to test my PSU. I went home and tested them both, and they both don't work. Somehow my mobo has fried my PSUs. The guy at the computer store says he has never heard of that happening. PSUs frying mobos, yes... but not the other way around. Anyway, I am definitely going to take this damn thing back.

Well, I tried the new PSU and low and behold, the new motherboard started right up. Ran for 3 or 4 minutes like nothing was wrong and then, just like that, the whole thing just shut down (like with the first PSU). And now it won't turn on again. It's like this new motherboard is frying my power supply units. Now, like the last one, all I get when I turn on the computer is the heatsink fan gives a little jump. (The PSU fan also, I believe). I will try taking the whole thing to the shop on Saturday (if its not snowing), in the meantime, if anyone as any ideas what's happening here....

The closest thing I could find to a power rating in the book that came with the motherboard is the jumper settings which give the choice of +5V or +5VSB. Both of these are listed in the power output of my power supply. The Power Supply Unit (PSU?) has an input of either 115V or 230V. Because I live in Canada, it is 115V. The manual for the mobo doesn't tell me a hell of a lot, only 15 pages of it are in English. A friend dropped off another PSU for me to try out. I will try it tonight when I get home and report back here. Crossing my fingers.

I don't think it has anything to do with the mobo, because my old mobo won't work either. It seems like it must be my power supply, but I took the case off and the fuse looks fine. Also, both mobos do the same thing when I switch the power on... the heat sink fan jumps, like it received power for a tenth of a second. How do I find out the power rating of my 'components'?

I just bought a new motherboard and cpu. The computer store I bought it from installed the cpu into the MB and tested the whole thing before I picked it up. I brought it home and installed the new MB/CPU into my computer. At first it wouldn't power up at all, and it took me a while to figure out that they had installed a (jumper?) for 5+ standby power. I believe tis should have worked anyway, but didn't. When I switched the jumper to 5+ (no standby) the computer powered up, bringing me to a 'Windows did not load' screen. At this point I probably should have booted up with the motherboard cd that came w the MB but I didn't. Instead I booted up with the Windows XP cd and was about to re-install Windows when my computer just suddenly shut off. Nothing I do will turn it back on again. I should mention here that I did notice a burning smell while the computer was running, but I figured it was the thermal grease getting hot for the first time. So that is where I am at right now. I figure that my cpu must have gotten too hot and automatically shut down, but how do I reset it so that I can try again? I unplugged the computer and plugged it aback in, but it still won't turn on. Can anyone help me here? Do you think I am right and the cpu overheated or could it be something else? BTW it's a 2.4 Ghz CELERON cpu and an ASROCK MB Thanks

While reading Isaac Asimov's book "ATOM" I came across this paragraph and it seems difficult to believe, I am wondering if it is a mistake? Here is the paragraph exactly as it is in the book: The positron behaves exactly as Dirac's theory suggested. It quickly undergoes mutual annihilation when it encounters one of the numerous electrons in its immediate environment, producing gamma rays of energy exactly equal to that of the combined mass of the electron and proton. Well, that is actually half the paragraph, but the other half is unrelated to the error. My problem is with the word proton. Was it supposed to say positron? Because it seems like your getting an awful lot of extra energy from nothing if it is really supposed to say proton. Thanks

Are my questions that stupid?

Thanks for all the input. I had thought that gravitons were commonly accepted in the world of quantum theory, which is why I posted the question here. Going by Einstein's mass warping space, I also don't see temperature making a difference. Going a step in the same direction though... we know that lower temperature slows molecular motion, but what about... 1. Subatomic particles? (including Quarks (do they have their own motion?)) 2. Radioactivity? (does the half life of a radioactive material extend at temperatures near absolute zero, is it possible to stabilize a radioactive material at a cold enough temp?) Oh yes, one more thing... I've read (sorry don't have a reference handy I think it was in Wikpedia) that molecular motion only reaches its slowest at absolute zero... it does not stop completely. How sure are we about this, knowing that we will never be able to reach absolute zero and see for ourselves. It seems that if we interpret molecular motion as heat and ALL the heat is removed, then ALL the motion should be ceased. Sorry, I know Im asking a lot in one little post.

Would an object still be able to emit and/or absorb gravitons at absolute zero? Or... Would an object have the same gravitational attraction at 0 degrees Kelvin as it does at 3 degrees Kelvin?

"I see," lied the blind man. So what use is quantum teleportation then? It will never be used to "teleport" objects or humans, and it can't even transmit information faster than what we can already do. And what is with all those articles that predicted that quantum teleporting would lead to Faster than Light communication? Did we just recently figure out that this is not possible? Or were they all spouting BS right from the beginning.

I would love to have Swansont or anyone else knowledgable in this area to comment on my proposed 'setup'. (I hope they do it soon, cause I'm starting to bang my head against the wall) Also, entanglement is the basis for quantum teleportation. your 'quantum teleportation' is something (via entanglement) that is supposed to happen instantly . Instantly is Faster than Light. I am merely proposing a way to take advantage of this effect.

I understand this, I still think it would work. I understand this as well, but the 'atoms floating around in space' would be negligible compared to the atoms floating around in a lab on Earth (where they have succesfully 'teleported' the state of a photon) which is why I pointed out that "It would be far less likely to interact with something there [in space] than travelling even a short distance in a lab" Of course they may have done these entanglement experiments in a vacuum situation, I don't know. I never suggested "control" of the entangled atoms (and actually I was talking about photons) You brought the word 'control' into this discussion and I used in a way that I thought you were using it, but I see now that I was wrong. I only talked about changing the polarization of the photons. Yes, but that would be light speed communication, and the whole point of my 'setup' was to show a way to use entangled photons as a source of 'Faster Than Light' (FTL) communication.

Sorry, I think I know where (some of) the confusion came from... in my 'setup' above, I had originally suggested putting the photon emitter/entangler between the Moon and Earth. It was supposed to be between Mars and the Earth, and I have now corrected it.

First off, the entanglement is supposed to last forever (or at least until interaction). Second, what better place to 'remain in a pure state' than in the vacuum of space? It would be far less likely to interact with something there than travelling even a short distance in a lab. You don't? ... I thought, to be 'controllable' (so to speak) they HAD to be entangled in the first place. How do you 'control' photons that you sent to Mars without entanglement?

Imagine this setup: A photon emitter/entangler positioned between the Earth and Mars (slightly closer to the Earth). This machine splits photons (creates entangled photons) and sends one beam of the pair toward a predetermined position on Earth and its sister beam toward a polarimeter on Mars. Lets say these entangled photons were all linearly polarized. So Mars' polarimeter is receiving a constant stream of linearly polarized photons. We on Earth decide to change the polarization state of select portions of the photon beam aimed at our planet to circularly polarized. To keep things simple, let's say in a morse code pattern. Would someone on Mars, looking at the polarimeter readings IMMEDIATELY know what it is we are communicating to them. Would this not be FTL communication? Or is my whole scheme misinformed.