foofighter

I know there is a big difference between anti-matter and the hypothetical exotic matter. we might not know enough yet to tell, but regardless, i was wondering if exotic matter, strange as it may behave, would be dangerous to interact with normal matter the way antimatter is very dangerous to interact with matter?

yea although it is beyond us - it did strike me as easier to accomplish than AI lol

is it realistic to expect biologists to study evolution eventually through massive simulations, to learn how complex structures such as (insert creationist claim here) could have come about through Natural selection? i'm talking about a simulator that would have all the detail of the real world - from organism down to atom, along with all their interactions, in entire virtual ecosystems of hundreds of individuals in turn belonging to hundreds of virtual species, all interacting. how far away are we from that level of simulation in terms of our computing power. is that level of detail in a simulation ever attainable? if it is, it could IMHO finally put to rest the claim of "irreducible complexity" in a way that might satisfy more people, though not everyone. because to be honest, that is one thing that baffles me, the complexity of life. although i'm not a creationist, i am at the same time not entirely satisfied with Dawkins' explanations. which brings me to another point - Does anyone know of anybody who does a better job explaining than him?

the hypothetical exotic matter that has been proposed as a means to construct wormholes is said to possess "negative mass". How would a 3-D mind that is so used to positive mass digest such a concept in a tangible way? Does it mean it has "normal" mass (i.e. has volume and consists of particles), only wat makes it unique is different properties concerning the way such mass interacts with the rest of the universe? Or does negative mass mean something even more radical: namely while positive mass has substance, and zero mass is nothing, negative mass is basically less than zero, or in other words, the universe sucked in on itself at point XYZ where the negative mass material lies? somebody throw me a bone here

1)Zoo hypothesis maybe i'm just being optimistic, but oh well

mind/machine interfaces sound cool - i just wouldn't want a circuit to blow - that would require cutting open ur head every time, wouldn't it?

here's a hypothetical question. lets say that all the problems of FTL travel could be circumvented - except for causality. the question is - wats the big deal? its just an illusion. imagine watching a magician - and viewer A is getting all upset because he is violating reality. "Calm down," says viewer B. its just a trick of the eye. we really know it isn't magic. similarly - why are we so upset if spacecraft X appears to arrive at the destination before leaving, or some similar causality issue with FTL travel (assuming all other factors of FTL are a non issue)? we know in our heads its just an optical illusion created by light's fixed speed, so as long as we keep that in mind, the effects, although superficially confusing, shouldn't ultimately fool us. maybe i'm missing a key piece of the puzzle, does anyone have ideas?

thanks for the info

martin - i am male lol. and i don't mind relearning calculus as the first step if that would give me a better way to comprehend things before i tackle physics. its not like i have a deadline to learn these things so if i am able to commit the time to learn calc do u suggest doing so before approaching physics - or should i jump into physics and calc simultaneously? i'm still in college doing elem ed, btw - i haven't graduated yet.

yea thats what i meant - thanks guys

now that i have been assured that it is not truly infinitely dense, my question dissolves. weird how i read that misconception everywhere, including "a briefer history of time."

elementary education - that is my college major. i am 21, but have little real knowledge of physics. obviously star trek isn't real - i know that. i was just wondering if high energy forces as far as we know can damage space time in anyway. this led to the quesiton that if we ever do invent warp drive, wat would the implications be? wat should i do to learn more about physics? do you suggest learning calculus before touching physics? wat would be the proper approach? thanks

isn't that one of the shortcomings of relativity, what makes it an incomplete theory, that there exists singularities? because in nature, even the start of the big bang, assuming that the universe is finite in space and material, the density and pressure had to be finite (although VERY high), by common sense at least this would seem to have to be, even though GR's equations might point otherwise. how much more so black holes, which form from stars of finite matter and don't encompass the entire universe.

so from this i take that as unrealistic as warp drive is, the spacetime damage from warp drive would be equal if not more improbable? (on star trek there is some times spatial damage from WD)

when we talk about a black hole as being infinitely dense, is that not a figure of speech for "very very dense more than any other object we know of yet?" if it was really TRULY infinitely dense, would not the event horizon match the outer boundaries of the universe?

according to relativity, objects warp space time with their gravity, some like black holes to an immense degree. as they travel through space, they are moving from one point to another, thus new and different spacetime is distorted, while the original spacetime they occupied is left without any more gravitational force acting on it from that object. is there spacetime damage in regions subjected to immense gravity that we can observe, and if so, does it heal itself after the object has passed into new spacetime and moved away from the original point?

at least we can breathe knowing its possible tho. lol

is there anything that we know of today in the laws of nature which would rule out one day inventing star trek replicator technology, assuming the technical hurdles could be overcome? basically on the show these devices reassemble local atoms of any kind into say a piece of chicken, water, or clothing, to name just a few examples. it involves basically rearranging somehow protons neutrons and electrons of various local substances into the atoms and molecules in the thing u are trying to replicate.

why would a PhD limit an engineers job possibilities?

thx dude

is perpetual motion ruled out by modern physics theories, like FTL travel is generally speaking, or might there be a way for Pmotion?

so is the research of a PhD candidate very narrow in scope compared with the breadth studied during undergrad years, or are there also tons of gigantic textbooks loaded with broad material that u read during ur PhD course of study?

so what did they do exactly?

i was just wondering, besides lab experience, working with professors, an original research project as well as the right to publish and teach and the respect of the academic community, wat does one learn through acquiring a PhD in terms of subject mastery that a self-motivated bright layman with the right textbooks can't teach himself from the ground-up, all the way to the most advanced concepts? is there any advantage a PhD holder has that is purely knowledge-of-subject-material-based, besides all the other things that one with a PhD would have that i already listed, or can a bright and motivated layman equal him in this one aspect, namely, cold knowledge of subject material? thanks

thanks that helped clarify things. so the what is taken care. now the question is why, what about the nature of photons causes them to have no mass when still, whereas when they are moving they have mass. what happens when they stop? do they stop existing? if they don't stop existing, then how can we observe them if they have no rest mass/energy? i know we can because they recently stopped light dead in its tracks by cooling it down. thx