Question on Physics

This is a discussion on Question on Physics within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Out of all of the replies I've read I agree with twomers the most, so I'm going to quote his ...

  1. #16

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,041
    Out of all of the replies I've read I agree with twomers the most, so I'm going to quote his comment:

    As things get faster I believe Einstein conjectured* that they move slower in time and get heavier. I agree with JaWiB, but I do not pretend to know much about this kind of stuff.

    * I think he proved this, in fact, but I cannot fully remember.
    It's true that as objects "move faster" they "move slower in time." That is why the speed of light with respect to *any* frame of reference is a constant. Two objects moving relative to each other, say 500 million miles *per hour,* will both measure the speed of photons emitted from an independent light source as traveling 670 miles *per hour.* It's the *per hour* part of the equation that changes.

    Also, it's not that the object actually 'gets heavier' per se, it's that as you tend towards any extreme (as you mentioned) it takes more and more energy to get the same desired effect. For example, as you bring the temperature of a system closer and closer to 0K, it requires increasing amounts of work to extract heat from the system boundaries (therefore it seems as if the system has acquired an 'increased resistance to heat extraction').

    aeghion-flux theory, pronounced 'aeon-flux' like the movie/show, tries to connect relativistic effects with the transfer of mass into energy. The theory basically states that if mass 'warps the fabric of spacetime,' then the energy 'synthesized' from that same mass may also create relativistic effects. A subset of the theory explains how a separate mass introduced to a changing aeghion-flux field can "gain the essential characteristics ... necessary to commence propagation at the speed of light."

    A few notes on the theory:
    - Note the use of the word 'propagation.' If you read on further through the material you realize that what's *really* happening is that the 'mass' is basically being turned into electromagnetic waves...photons! Somewhat of a killjoy.
    - The theory claims that this is the only process (in the universe) which is both 'real' and reversible (in the 'thermodynamics' sense of the word).
    - The mathematical representation used to show the 'spacetime' distortion is the outer product between two quaternions (before and after the mass transfer into energy).
    - The process only operates under a 'changing' aeighon-flux (I guess similar to how only a changing magnetic flux can induce a current)
    - The Hiroshima bombing of 1945 is said to have induced a 'spacetime deflection' of .00001 (the units and interpretation of this number are basically impossible to understand), and that 1*10^-4billion grams of matter could be made to travel at the speed of light (but, again, because the mass is really being turned into electro magnetic waves).
    Last edited by BobMcGee123; 02-05-2008 at 09:59 PM.
    I'm not immature, I'm refined in the opposite direction.

  2. #17
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    For the physicists out there, help me with the following.

    I'm curious as to whether speed affects matter at the molecular level. Theoretically, assuming a vacuum environment, if an object moves at the speed of light, how will its atoms behave? Normally?
    No atom can move at the speed of light, so this question has no natural answer.

    Does physics change when things move? No, it does not. This is one of the most central and fundamental principles of modern physics.

  3. #18
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,230
    Quote Originally Posted by oogabooga View Post
    You're emphasizing the perfect smoothness of the sphere. That is already a problem. What is it made of? How could it be "perfectly smooth" if it consists of atoms/molecules? At some level, it must be bumpy.
    Oh yeah? Ponder this one: The value pi (you know, 3.14159...) was first defined as "the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter." In modern times, we know that pi has an infinite number of digits, is irrational, and can be (at least in principle) computed exactly up to any precision you want.

    But the universe itself, you know, that place where things like "circles" exist, can not actually CONTAIN an ideal circle -- the very ideal which led to the idea of pi in the first place! So my question to you is, do all the digits of pi actually matter? At some point you reach a resolution where the physical matter of the universe cannot represent the ratio exactly. And yet the precise value of this constant can be found using simple, beautiful mathematics.

    So you have something finite and approximate which was the inspiration for a precise, mathematical concept, which in turn because so precise as to render the original model obsolete.

    The universe is full of such weirdness.

  4. #19
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,403
    thanks for the input folks
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  5. #20

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,041
    Does physics change when things move? No, it does not. This is one of the most central and fundamental principles of modern physics.
    I guess this depends on what you are talking about, because this statement just really isn't true. One example, on a more macroscopic scale: there are two completely different sets of equations to model gas flow: compressible and incompressible. Incompressible fluid flow is genereally taught starting with Bernoulli's equations of a system at steady state. However, when the fluid flow increases to a sufficient velocity the assumption of incompressibility is not true, and Bernoulli's equations do not work.

    You will tend to see Bernoulli's equations used for pumping water/oil through pipes at relatively low pressures. You will tend to see compressible fluid flow studied for the design of turbo machines (turbo fans, turbo jets, ram jets, etc) and other fluid dynamics applications.
    I'm not immature, I'm refined in the opposite direction.

  6. #21
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,230
    Quote Originally Posted by BobMcGee123 View Post
    I guess this depends on what you are talking about, because this statement just really isn't true. One example, on a more macroscopic scale: there are two completely different sets of equations to model gas flow: compressible and incompressible. Incompressible fluid flow is genereally taught starting with Bernoulli's equations of a system at steady state. However, when the fluid flow increases to a sufficient velocity the assumption of incompressibility is not true, and Bernoulli's equations do not work.
    This has to do with interactions between objects. I'm talking about basic relativity. It is logically impossible for the laws of physics to vary with velocity, because velocity is always relative and this would imply that the laws of physics, and therefore reality itself, change when you move. You don't need math to prove that, just common sense.

  7. #22
    CSharpener vart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Rishon LeZion, Israel
    Posts
    6,450
    Quote Originally Posted by brewbuck View Post
    You don't need math to prove that, just common sense.
    And what common sense has to do with physics?

    During a long-long times common sense stated that Sun is going around the Earth...
    The first 90% of a project takes 90% of the time,
    the last 10% takes the other 90% of the time.

  8. #23
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,230
    Quote Originally Posted by vart View Post
    And what common sense has to do with physics?

    During a long-long times common sense stated that Sun is going around the Earth...
    It's basic physical common sense. In order to do physics, we have to first assume that the universe is consistent. Without that, there is no point. So, assuming a consistent universe, it is clear that the laws of physics cannot vary based on relative velocity, otherwise a different event would happen for different observers, and this violates the principle that the universe is a single reality.

    The whole farce of the sun orbiting the earth was based on perfectly legitimate observations. We simply discovered further evidence that proved that it wasn't true. That's an example of new facts changing our outlook. The idea of relativity is deeper than a fact. If it's not true, then we are in an incomprehensible nightmare.

    Maybe relativity isn't true. But unless it is, all studies of physics are pointless. I choose to believe that it's true.

  9. #24
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,403
    Quote Originally Posted by brewbuck View Post
    It's basic physical common sense. In order to do physics, we have to first assume that the universe is consistent. Without that, there is no point. So, assuming a consistent universe, it is clear that the laws of physics cannot vary based on relative velocity
    I believe this is Classical Physics and a part of the reason that lead Einstein to his fruitless search for the Unified Theory. Evidence however has shown that, as already pointed out, under certain conditions laws of physics seem to change indeed. Take for instance Black Holes, or in more general terms, extreme gravity conditions.

    The only thing I never agreed with classical physics was exactly its tendency to adopt formal rules about the universe. Laws are the same everywhere, speed of light is a constant, etc... It has been observed already, for instance, that under special circumstances the speed of light does indeed vary. At the very least a scientific mind should be tempted to accept other possibilities.

    Quantum physics, for instance proved that light itself sometimes behaves like a wave and sometimes like a particle. In fact, the whole scientific branch spew from the fact it was observed that at very large or very small scales rules seem to change. It's only natural to assume (and it was observed already) they may also change at very high or low speeds, very high or low masses, etc...

    This is not to say I don't agree with the general principle that only light can travel at light's speed. But that because there isn't evidence - so far! - pointing to the contrary. But certainly one can theorize about the possibility and the effects, and math can help.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  10. #25
    CSharpener vart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Rishon LeZion, Israel
    Posts
    6,450
    Quote Originally Posted by brewbuck View Post
    It's basic physical common sense.
    As I said CS could be wrong - physics could build a model that is agains CS, Find a way to make experiment thats result could be predicted in this model and is different from the result predicted by the old model build on the CS and then execute the experiment to prove that the new model is "closer" to reality than the old one


    Quote Originally Posted by brewbuck View Post
    In order to do physics, we have to first assume that the universe is consistent.
    So Enstein was working in some other area then?

    Quote Originally Posted by brewbuck View Post
    So, assuming a consistent universe, it is clear that the laws of physics cannot vary based on relative velocity, otherwise a different event would happen for different observers, and this violates the principle that the universe is a single reality.
    Consistency could be in the fact that the universal physic laws depend on the velocity in some predictable way

    Different observers observe different events. (Event occurance is dependent on the presence of observer). It IS the law of our Univers. Don't you know it?

    Quote Originally Posted by brewbuck View Post
    The whole farce of the sun orbiting the earth was based on perfectly legitimate observations. We simply discovered further evidence that proved that it wasn't true. That's an example of new facts changing our outlook. The idea of relativity is deeper than a fact. If it's not true, then we are in an incomprehensible nightmare.
    Here I missed your point. I was under impression you tried to prove something opposite to the conclusion you made.
    The first 90% of a project takes 90% of the time,
    the last 10% takes the other 90% of the time.

  11. #26
    Ethernal Noob
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,901
    What if they were going really fast in a microwave?

  12. #27
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    Quote Originally Posted by BobMcGee123 View Post
    - The Hiroshima bombing of 1945 is said to have induced a 'spacetime deflection' of .00001 (the units and interpretation of this number are basically impossible to understand), and that 1*10^-4billion grams of matter could be made to travel at the speed of light (but, again, because the mass is really being turned into electro magnetic waves).
    What are you talking about? Mass can not travel at the speed of light.

    Quote Originally Posted by BobMcGee123 View Post
    I guess this depends on what you are talking about, because this statement just really isn't true. One example, on a more macroscopic scale: there are two completely different sets of equations to model gas flow: compressible and incompressible. Incompressible fluid flow is genereally taught starting with Bernoulli's equations of a system at steady state. However, when the fluid flow increases to a sufficient velocity the assumption of incompressibility is not true, and Bernoulli's equations do not work.
    I don't see how this is relevant at all.
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

  13. #28

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,041
    What are you talking about? Mass can not travel at the speed of light.
    See above. The theory basically states that when mass is introduced to a changing aeghion flux field in space-time it gains the characteristics necessary to travel at the speed of light (e-m waves). When the flux is no longer changing it acquires pure mass properties. From an 'outside observer' it has the same effect as mass traveling *at* light speed. The aeghion flux field has to do with energy behaving much like a mass which warps spacetime, creating relativistic effects. The theory also states that if this process was *not* reversible then conservation of mass and energy in a closed/isolated system would no longer hold.

    That process is also theorized to be the only process (in the universe) which is both real and reversible (in the thermodynamics sense).

    It's one of those things that are counter-intuitive, but makes sense upon careful examination. For example, photons, while mass-less, do carry momentum, as exhibited by the photo-electric effect. This is *sort of* along the same line thinking.

    The problem is that it is difficult to actually prove that mass cannot travel at the speed of light, and there's also no clear single, absolute definition, of what mass really is (outside of the classical Newtonian physics...there are theories, e.g. that of the Higgs field).

    I don't see how this is relevant at all.
    He'd said that physics doesn't change with velocity. I just gave an example where that isn't true. But, re-reading his posts I see what he meant.
    Last edited by BobMcGee123; 02-07-2008 at 09:24 PM.
    I'm not immature, I'm refined in the opposite direction.

  14. #29
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    Quote Originally Posted by BobMcGee123 View Post
    See above. The theory basically states that when mass is introduced to a changing aeghion flux field in space-time it gains the characteristics necessary to travel at the speed of light (e-m waves).
    Could you provide a reference? When I Google "aeghion flux", there is only one result -- this thread. This sounds like Star Trek to me.
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

  15. #30
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,230
    Quote Originally Posted by vart View Post
    So Enstein was working in some other area then?
    I have no clue what you are trying to argue. Einstein's huge insight was that physics does not depend on relative velocity. Among a lot of other things, the observed speed of light does not depend on relative velocity.

    Consistency could be in the fact that the universal physic laws depend on the velocity in some predictable way
    What we observe depends on velocity. What actually happens does not.

    Different observers observe different events. (Event occurance is dependent on the presence of observer). It IS the law of our Univers. Don't you know it?
    No, I can't say that I am familiar with this principle of different observers witnessing different events. They might witness different evidence. The event is the same. There is no way to set up a car crash so that for one observer, you survive, and for another, you die. That doesn't mean the crash looks the same for both of them, but it is a single event with a perfectly well defined reality that does not depend on the velocity of the observers.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. another do while question
    By kbpsu in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-23-2009, 12:14 PM
  2. Question...
    By TechWins in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-28-2003, 09:47 PM
  3. Physics question
    By Panopticon in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-09-2003, 11:06 PM
  4. opengl DC question
    By SAMSAM in forum Game Programming
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-26-2003, 08:22 PM
  5. February 1, 2019...
    By Cheeze-It in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 98
    Last Post: 08-03-2002, 07:24 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21