-
Posts
25528 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
133
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Strange
-
Mathematics - the language of a deterministic Universe?
Strange replied to quanta'namo nay!'s topic in Mathematics
I thought I had answered that. We have models of deterministic systems (that may or may not be predictable - i.e. may or may not be chaotic) and we have models of probabilistic systems. It is, of course, possible. But there is absolutely no reason to think it is likely and a lot of evidence to suggest that it is so. That is true but has nothing to do with determinism. You are being ridiculous again. IF it is shown that f(x) = g(x) THEN: a) It doesn't matter what f() and (g) are; and b) it will always be true. -
Because that is what our current best theories tell us.
-
No one is trying to offend you. But if you really don't understand the units that can be used to measure mass, then you do need to learn some basic physics. Of course changing the units of measurement doesn't change the underlying physics. No one thinks it does. I don't know why you think that electromagnetic phenomena are considered to be more important than gravity. Many of the big unanswered questions are related to general relativity (i.e. gravity).
-
The 'e' notation is just a shorthand for the 10^ notation (e for exponent). I think it originated in programming languages (and old IO devices) as a way of displaying scientific notation in a readable and printable way. So, 6.7e-11 = 6.7x10-11 Apparently there are all sorts of other variants: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation#E_notation
-
If i was smarter, id probably have a name here!
Strange replied to nobodyshome's topic in Speculations
No. -
If i was smarter, id probably have a name here!
Strange replied to nobodyshome's topic in Speculations
A photon or electron is not "seen" or detected with light. They are detected when they hit a detector; this could be a phosphor screen or a photodetector or similar. You can't see photons with light; they are light. Photons don't have mass. Electrons do. They both behave the same in the double slit experiment. As do even larger objects. An electron always has mass. And if you use electrons in a double slit experiment, you don't need any light or photons. So what you might be thinking of is "pilot wave theory"; which suggests there is a real wave which determines which way the particle will go. As far as I know, there is now way of testing this, so it seems to be just another interpretation (way of explaining) of the theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/1999/oct/15/wave-particle-duality-seen-in-carbon-60-molecules https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/physicists-smash-record-for-wave-particle-duality-462c39db8e7b -
If i was smarter, id probably have a name here!
Strange replied to nobodyshome's topic in Speculations
I don't know where the "adding light" is supposed to happen. The thing is, the photon (1) either splatters on the screen with the slits (and stops there) OR it goes through the slits and hits the screen/detector at the back. (1) Or electron. Or whatever - you can do this with anything - even whole molecules. What does your explanation add that the current (very detailed and accurate) theory doesn't have? -
So you want source but you won't understand them? Wrong way round. What evidence do you have that it has any basis. Think of it this way: the police come and put you in prison for a crime. You say, "but I didn't do it". They just shrug and say, "we will let you out if you can prove it". In real life, the police have to provide enough evidence that you commited the crime before you can be sent to prison. It is not up to anyone to prove that all the random websites that you find are wrong; it is up to those people to provide evidence that they are right. Until they do then you, and everyone else, should treat them with scpeticism. You have already been given links to material that shows how little basis there is for their claims (e.g. post #20).
-
Just trying to keep you on your toes...
-
If i was smarter, id probably have a name here!
Strange replied to nobodyshome's topic in Speculations
A photon is light, so I'm not sure what "light, another energy is added" means. And photons have no mass. I couldn't really follow your description here. Are you suggesting putting a detector at the slits as well as at the screen? If so, that has been done in various ways. The only way of detecting a photon is to absorb it so if you try and detect the photon at the slit you won't get any photons hitting the screen. There are indirect ways of detecting which slit a photon went through (using entangled pairs). If you do this, then there is no interference pattern formed. (As expected from theory.) What exactly are you predicting would be different from the existing experiments when you detect the photon at the slits? -
Because it doesn't interact via the electromagnetic force and so there is nothing to make it "stick together" in the way normal matter does. As such it only forms loose structures on very large scales - as expected of something that only interacts gravitationally.
-
Ah, but that was per cubic metre vs cubic centimetre. In other words the ISM is about 100,000 times denser. Interestingly, even the IGM is many times denser than the average density of the universe.
-
No. The whole point about dark matter is that it behaves gravitationally exactly the same as normal matter.
-
If you start with the fact that anything to the power 1 is itself we can see that: 10^1 = 10. Now, if we go down we get: 10^0 = 1 10^-1 = 0.1 (which makes sense as 10^1 = 10 and 10^-1 = 1/10 = 0.1) 10^-2 = 0.01 (which makes sense as 10^2 = 100 and 10^-12 = 1/100 = 0.01) 10^-3 = 0.001 (ditto) ... 10^-11 = 0.00000000001 (hope I counted those right, or you will be horribly confused!)
-
European Plank Space Telescope Detects First Massive Stars
Strange replied to Mike Smith Cosmos's topic in Science News
Thanks for spotting this. More here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21866464 -
It is supposed to be a lot less dense. Let me find a source for the numbers ....
-
This has nothing to do with mass-energy equivalence (well, only indirectly). You can measure mass (of anything) in kg, pounds, eV/c2 (often abbreviated to eV) or any other appropriate unit. For example, I weigh about 3x1037 eV/c2 (and I am not a photon). Really, when you are this lacking in basic knowledge it makes it very hard to explain even quite simple concepts. You really need to make an effort to learn the basics before casting doubt on things that you don't yet understand.
-
BBC radio series "The Sound of Space" http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b050bwpp
-
Then you should have no problems providing references to the "proof" that: 1. moving far enough from Earth you will cause time to go by much faster around you but not affect you as much 2. it would be possible to travel to a different time (perhaps you need to define what you mean by a "different time") 3. the format of space-time or even time itself would be much too dense to travel THROUGH I am getting the impression that you might be very young and imaginative. If so, you should probably tell us; then people might cut you a bit more slack...
-
Why would a number line consist of "arrows pointing in all possible directions"? A number line is, by definition, a line. Infinity cannot fit on a number line because it is not a number. As you haven't explained how any finite number has a "shape" I don't think that is the reason. Why?
-
Space is not completely empty. The intergalactic medium if thought the be about 10 atoms per cubic metre. The interstellar medium is about 1 atom per cm3. This is mainly hydrogen. Then there are photons, neutrinos, and other particles flying around.
-
Somehow, I doubt the OP will accept that...