questionposter

Well first they have a larger amount of mass or matter to start with, and because they are so huge, they put so much more pressure on the hydrogen that they fuse it at a much faster rate than our sun, which releases more thermal energy causing the star to expend more.

No, virtual particles still follow a lot of the same physics as real particles, so virtual photons should travel at "c". Except how can it just "be there" without anything to create it?

http://en.wikipedia....ugh_Everett_III I remember this guy's son talking about him on the radio one day. His son had also said that the math to describe this theory is pages long, which is probably why no one posted it on the internet. You'd need to have a high degree to see it, know how to use computers, have enough time to care about putting it up on the internet, then finally type it all on the internet.

I don't think it's possible to measure a particle "Immediately" after collapse because that would require light or forces to instantaneously travel to your eyes then instantaneously have the electrical signal sent to your brain. In order to happen you would also have to have the time the information about the particle's position a photon would carry to have happened infinitely close to the moment of a particle's collapse, which if space and time is quantized anyway, that definitely can't happen. If your talking about something like entanglement, then the measurement of one should instantaneously effect the other. Otherwise though, even if you do somehow instantaneously measure it after collapse, I think that the uncertainty principal and a few other equations say that you can't base the next position of a particle that you measure off of another position either. But, I guess it could be wrong, maybe I'm going outside the parameters too much.

My original thinking was that if I travel at 99.99% the speed of light, force carrier particles wouldn't catch up to me at the speed of light, but they would have to because I would need to always be measuring any type of photon, whether they are virtual or not, to travel at "c". I guess that "kind of" makes sense, but then what about the singularity? Isn't the singularity what is generating the gravitational field and causing all this warping of space? Otherwise, how could anything else? To me it seems like in GR space just continue's getting warped in the same type of pattern past the event horizon, and the event horizon just happens to be a line in 4D space that marks where it doesn't flow to an outside observer, but in QM I don't know. Maybe the concentration of gravitons per cubic centimeter becomes so great it causes time dilation or something?

The more time goes on, the more dimensions theories have. You don't need all sciences to describe the universe, it's the other way around.

Yeah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordelia_(moon) Cordelia is a moon that is 20km large and it only has a mass of 4.4*10^16. It's still to the same exponent so the numbers should still all be relatively close.

Observations occur in our minds, therefore our observations cannot themselves be reality. Math is based off those observations: math cannot be reality. Also, how is making programs which themselves can create programs via evolution going? Last time I heard it would take 100 years for a program like that to make a game, but computers are probably faster by now.

Now that I think about it, I don't see how such a small object with so many random forces acting upon it could possibly constantly oscillate or perturb or w/e in a single direction.

I think I once again forgot about the Lawrentz transformation. Even if I am traveling in the opposite direction, if the electrons couldn't catch up to me as fast in the way I'm putting it, that would mean I would be observing them traveling like .00001% the speed of light if I was traveling 99.99999 which would happen with Lawrentz Transformation

Sorry that took so long, kinda forgot about this site. It's still possible I got this wrong like I did with the Newtons, but here it goes 951 Gaspara Discovery Discovered by G. N. Neujmin Discovery date July 30, 1916 Designations Named after Gaspra Alternate name(s) SIGMA 45; A913 YA; 1955 MG1 Minor planet category Main belt (Flora family) Orbital characteristics Epoch 6 March 2006 (JD 2453800.5) Aphelion 2.594 AU (388.102 Gm) Perihelion 1.825 AU (272.985 Gm) Semi-major axis 2.210 AU (330.544 Gm) Eccentricity 0.174 Orbital period 3.28 a (1199.647 d) Average orbital speed 19.88 km/s Mean anomaly 53.057° Inclination 4.102° Longitude of ascending node 253.2lllll18° Argument of perihelion 129.532° Proper orbital elements Physical characteristics Dimensions 18.2×10.5×8.9 km [1] Mean radius 6.1 km[2] Mass 2–3×1016 kg (estimate) Mean density ~2.7 g/cm³ (estimate) [3] Equatorial surface gravity ~0.002 m/s² (estimate) Escape velocity ~0.006 km/s (estimate) Rotation period 0.293 d (7.042 h) [4] Albedo 0.22 [5] Temperature ~181 K max: 281 K (+8°C) Spectral type S Absolute magnitude (H) 11.46 Mean orbital velocity of Jupiter + mean orbital velocity of Mars /2 = Average orbital velocity Orbital period of Gaspara 951: 1199.647 days and to find how many seconds that is: 1199.647*24 because 24 hours, then times 60 because 60 minutes in an hour, then times another 60 because 60 seconds in a minute, and we get about 1.03*10^8 seconds. average velocity to calculate the force For acceleration, (v2-v1)/(t2-t1) (19.88km/s-0km/s)/(1.03*10^8s-0s)= approximately 1.93^-7km/s/s Then we multiply that by the mass to see how much force it carries if left fully intact 2.5*10^16kg * 1.93*10^-7km/s/s = approximately 4.82*10^9N of force. The number of meteoroids in a meteor shower various greatly, but seem to often fall in the realm of 15-50 pieces per hour, although most of the things in a meteor shower are pieces of dust. http://meteorshowers...or_showers.html Using Newtons does not make for a good conversion with dimensional analysis, so I will calculate it's approximate kinetic energy instead. E(sub k) = 1/2mv^2 Kinetic energy = (1/2)(2.5*10^16kg)(19.88m/s)^2=4.94*10^18J 1 joule of kinetic energy approximately equals 1 joule of thermal energy. If all asteroid's energy was converted to thermal energy, it would release approximately 4.94*10^18 joules of thermal energy. 2.5*10^16kg Using the Specific heat of Earth's atmosphere to calculate the temperature change q=McT T = Temperature Change = ??? q = energy in joules = 4.94*10^18J = 4.94*10^15kJ M= mass = 5.3×10^18 http://hypertextbook...LouiseLiu.shtml http://en.wikipedia....osphere_of_Eart c = specific heat = 1.01(kJ/kg K) = (specific heat capacity of "Air") http://www.engineeri...ases-d_159.html Proof: (4.94*10^(15)kJ)=(5.3×10^(18)kg)(1.01(kJ/kg)k)(T) Then I divide the left side by everything on the right side except by T, and dividing is the same as multiplying by 1 over that number (4.94*10^15kJ/1)(1/5.3*10^(18)kg)(1kgK/1.01kJ) = the units cancel out and I am left with a temperature change of .0009228 Kelvin And in case I forgot to multiply something by 1000 like I did with newtons, I will multiply the amount of joules the asteroid has by 1000 to play it safe (4.94*10^18kJ/1)(1/5.3*10^(18)kg)(1kgK/1.01kJ) = the units cancel out and I am left with a temperature change of .9228... Kelvin If my original theory and it's proof is correct, if the asteroid 951 Gaspara which is 6.1km large was heading for Earth and we fragmented it into pieces so small that all of it's kinetic energy would be converted to thermal energy via friction causing the heating and then vaporization of the fragments before they reached the ground, Earth would be saved and there would be a temperature change less than 1 Kelvin. Based on this I think that it is safe to assume an asteroid 10km large would raise Earth's temperature a little over 1 K or a little over 1 hundredth of a K, and an asteroid 20km large would definitely raise Earth's atmosphere's temperature by a little over 2 K or .002 K. I looked about the conversion for Kelvin to Celsius and it appears 1K approximately = -272.15 degrees Celsius.

One is just, if your in the field, your in the field and the reaction keeps instantaneously happening, whereas in QM you need particles which travel distance over time at a finite speed to continuously sustain a static field.

I suppose geometry like length and width and etc is relative, but physics isn't. No matter what scale your on, atoms will always make up bigger objects and never the other way around.

What about quantum weirdness and time symmetry? I'm not saying there's observable evidence or anything at this point, but there's reasons why the whole time travel theory caught on.

I think the main difference is one is a correlation and one is a causation...

That actually doesn't make sense, because if they are waves that can still be described by Schrodinger's equations, how can they be denied superposition? And what about all the statistical data saying otherwise?

How do you know that? I just ran it through my calculator again, same answer. I'm trying to calculate the force an intact asteroid would carry in Newtons and then trying to use that combined with the specific heat of the atmosphere to see how much half of that energy would raise the Earth's temperature. I might have better luck with momentum though, it would make energy conversion easier. Er wait, I just tried dividing the time the asteroid goes around the sun by two for the half orbit, but I still got about 9.6*10^9, same exponent, I don't know why you'd expect it to be *10^13 Well hopefully a moon doesn't crash into us then.

I think you kill pigs, not birds.

The question isn't "would" though...

It was the only fire found which means it could have been chance that some stones and wood happened to get rubbed together the right way or perhaps some magnesium in local magnesium (or maybe phosphorous or potassium compounds?) veins got hit with enough force or various other chemical reactions, and I think the oldest human remains aren't 1 million years old. http://news.discover...ael-101228.html

Actually, it's not completely wrong, I think your just misunderstanding him because he's using classical analogies, but in the quantum world you actually do consider classical electro-magnetic repulsion and the classical workings of electro-magnetic forces in general, although that isn't the exact reason why not more than two electrons can occupy the same quantum state, but it might be part of it since just says "when would cancel out and make each other not exist" doesn't actually tell is "why" that statistical probability occurs the way it does, although I suppose if we ask "why?" to that, then we are asking why math is the way it is, in which case we can't actually answer that. Although I would say that the rest of hist post doesn't seem like real science.

Not only based on empirical evidence would physics have to work without us existing in order for life to form in the first place and evolve to be as we are now, but as far as science can tell, quantum mechanics does not vary with human perception. If you have multiple humans..no, multiple species of living things observing the same atom, they will see the same types of results, and with a particle cannon they would all see the same type of interference pattern, and this is because of relativity and the fact if all of the species share the same frame of reference, or measure the particle under the same condition, the equation to describe the particle will always be the same, and thus the same statistical results will occur for anyone measuring in the same circumstances. Consciousness does not change the equation, the frame of reference does, and the equation determines what statistical pattern you see. There's also the fact that energy is quantized, so that's also another reason for quantum mechanics to in no way vary because of the type of consciousness observing it because the implications if what you seem to be suggesting would violate that physics and we would technically see particles existing at impossible variations of energies and nodal surfaces, since if only a slightly different mind would only slightly differ the equation, then you could technically put in a 2.3 principal quantum number and a .0285648347 spin, even though there can only be half spins or integer spins, which would just cause destructive interference and make the particle not exist, but that doesn't happen. There's even multiple machines, which we don't consider to have consciousness, which can do all of the weird things in quantum mechanics that any human can do, so I wouldn't consider consciousness itself to have a large part in quantum mechanics. Also, how do you know for a fact that no two minds are the same? Also, how do you know for a fact that the consciousness of multiple people cannot "penetrate" each other? The probability fields of all particles approaches infinity, so technically all of our minds are very* very^23 weakly reacting, and this isn't just for minds, but for all particles.

There actually didn't necessarily have to be something before space came about, because if space formed only at the creation of the universe, and the universe contains EVERYTHING, and that event happened a specific amount of time ago, then there couldn't have been anything before that time by the definition of the "universe". This would include God if God exists in any physical way, because in order to physically exist, it must be a part of the universe, which would have to follow that creation logic.

What's the point of dying if you just end up living? For right now, I suppose there isn't actual evidence to support life after death, since the only way we can confirm experience is by what we know to be alive which doesn't include any state of being after which the brain is destroyed, but I guess we can't really prove it either way. Sometimes it kind of seems like there should be something, but that's just an arbitrary feeling.

Maybe you can't go back in time by traveling faster than light, but there's plenty of physics that have implications if you move backwards in time, and theoretically you should be able to, like if I just move backwards on a function where time is the x axis, that's going backwards in time.