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; Originally Posted by Mario F. I believe this is Classical Physics and a part of the reason that lead Einstein ...

  1. #31
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    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.
    I guess you're all missing my point. Physics doesn't change because the observer is moving. Obviously velocity is real and has something to do with physical interactions.

    The original question was, would a packet of matter behave different when moving through space than when at rest. The answer is still "no" because the question is flawed in the first place. You cannot say that a packet of matter "moves" without giving a frame of reference. Therefore, if I travel the same speed as the packet, to me it is not moving, while a different observer might say that it is moving. The point is, the physics within the packet does not change.

    Quantum physics, for instance proved that light itself sometimes behaves like a wave and sometimes like a particle.
    Not really. Quantum physics shows that the behavior of small particles can be extremely accurately predicted by using some wave based equations. This does not say anything at all about what the particle really is. The units of quantum wave "oscillation" are "imaginary inverse square root meters." This is not even a physically meaningful unit. Any quantum mechanics instructor would berate you for attempting to assign physical meaning or reality to the wave function.

    EDIT: Light is a slightly different case, because it oscillates within physically measurable fields. Feynman, creator of modern quantum electrodynamics, fervently believed that photons are particles, they are never waves, and he imagined wave phenomenon as being explained by little tiny "clock hands" travelling with photons as they follow an infinite number of tiny paths through space time, and integrating over all paths simultaneously to predict the path of the photon. If you can get your head around that. He hated the idea that light was a wave.

    The question is still open. Personally I think the answer is irrelevant, since the equations work.
    Last edited by brewbuck; 02-08-2008 at 10:54 AM.

  2. #32
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,579
    Quote Originally Posted by brewbuck View Post
    I guess you're all missing my point. Physics doesn't change because the observer is moving. Obviously velocity is real and has something to do with physical interactions.
    Yes. I did understand your point. My point however was, simply put, let us not forget Einstein's theory of Special Relativity is exactly that; a theory. So we should keep an open mind when the request is to speculate.

    Not really. Quantum physics shows that the behavior of small particles can be extremely accurately predicted by using some wave based equations. This does not say anything at all about what the particle really is.
    As I didn't. I used the word behave. Not that light is a wave, but that light sometimes behaves like a wave, others like a particle.

    Any quantum mechanics instructor would berate you for attempting to assign physical meaning or reality to the wave function.
    No. He would understand my point, even if he had a lot to add to it. He would read what I wrote, "behave'.

    If you can get your head around that. He hated the idea that light was a wave.
    Which is totally irrelevant. The fact that light sometimes behaves like a wave and others like a particle has been debated by prominent scientists and is taken seriously.
    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.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,041
    This sounds like Star Trek to me.
    And the rest of this particular conversation doesn't?


    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.
    We know that two frames of reference, moving relative to each other, experience time differently. This is the story of the man that flew near the speed of light for 30 years, came back to earth only to find a completely different planet. I wonder if, then, that also means that chemical reactions take place at different rates (which would imply that the little packets of matter are, in fact, influenced greatly by the relativistic effects).

    EDIT:
    The fact that light sometimes behaves like a wave and others like a particle has been debated by prominent scientists and is taken seriously.
    This is actually the starting point of aeghion flux theory. A photon is able to exhibit the properties of a particle because it has energy. The energy is stored 'within' a photon by oscillating electric and magnetic fields. Remember, a changing magnetic flux induces a current, and vice-versa. When this energy is given up, it is able to change the momentum in 'mass,' although the photon does not have measurable 'mass' in and of itself (this is the photo-electric effect).

    Remember, e=mc^2
    Last edited by BobMcGee123; 02-08-2008 at 01:48 PM.
    I'm not immature, I'm refined in the opposite direction.

  4. #34
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    Quote Originally Posted by BobMcGee123 View Post
    And the rest of this particular conversation doesn't?
    No it doesn't, actually. Special relativity is nothing new to me.

    I haven't heard of aeghion flux before, though. Google hasn't either. What you're saying doesn't make much sense.
    Last edited by Sang-drax; 02-08-2008 at 02:50 PM.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,041
    No it doesn't, actually. Special relativity is nothing new to me.
    Well I can help you understand the theory, what part of it don't you understand? I realize that very new topics can be difficult to consider/comprehend. I haven't said that it is the absolute truth, I've just re-iterated the theory. In all honesty, I've probably done a poor job of explaining it, at least not as good as the thesis article I read. But when you think of the following premise you can see how it starts to come together:
    - Mass warps the 'fabric' of spacetime
    - e=mc^2
    - Energy therefore may be possible to 'warp the fabric of spacetime.'
    - The process of sustained transfer of mass into energy may have an effect (the theory tries to use the pre-existing physical laws to determine what these 'effects' may be, as I've tried explaining above). I would not have spent so much time writing out the theory but there's not a lot of other appropriate places to talk about it

    I think that when you start to think of it in this manner it will begin to make sense.

    I haven't heard of aeghion flux before, though. Google hasn't either.
    What languages do you speak?
    Last edited by BobMcGee123; 02-08-2008 at 07:57 PM.
    I'm not immature, I'm refined in the opposite direction.

  6. #36
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,579
    Special Relativity is pretty much common knowledge these days. I mean, the general concepts. I don't think anyone here needs a refreshing course.

    The initial question however stands and, while I did get a few answers, I wouldn't mind discussing this issue further. However, let's put aside once and for all the current assumptions and allows us to speculate. It was speculation in fact that produced much of the initial work on the Special Relativity theory.

    I agree with an earlier answer that an object, moving at the speed of light, would retain its integrity in absolute vacuum. That is, the speed wouldn't affect it at a molecular level.

    However I then introduced the existence of some form of attrition. For instance, oxygen molecules. I'll now go into more detail.

    Let us assume 2 molecules per cm3. I have a perfect iron sphere with a 1 cm diameter. Perfect in the sense it's smooth to a molecular level and has no joints. I throw this sphere at the speed of light through this "semi-vacuum" (allow me the imperfection) of 2 oxygen molecules per cm3.

    The distance is non-important. My question is, traveling at this speed, how would the oxygen molecules interact with the sphere when it bumped into them? Would the sphere be eventually withered away? Or would the electromagnetic force be strong enough to keep the sphere structure intact? What about at a lower speed?
    Last edited by Mario F.; 02-08-2008 at 08:24 PM.
    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.

  7. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,129
    Most likely you'd become an alchemist.

    The O particles would probably fuse with the iron and some would break off, forming various elements.

    At least that's what happens in particle accelerators at quite slower speeds.

  8. #38
    The superhaterodyne twomers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    2,262
    >> You don't need math to prove that, just common sense.
    Maybe Bob doesn't need to prove that... but physicists need to prove everything! And while at a top level looking down we may believe that we have a simple top-level view of how things work... nature has a tendency to be more subtle than predictable. Especially, as I said before, in the extremities of forces and sizes.

  9. #39
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    The distance is non-important. My question is, traveling at this speed, how would the oxygen molecules interact with the sphere when it bumped into them? Would the sphere be eventually withered away? Or would the electromagnetic force be strong enough to keep the sphere structure intact? What about at a lower speed?
    If it's moving fast enough, the sphere will be disintegrated at the first collision with an oxygen molecule. There is no upper bound to the kinetic energy the sphere can obtain.

    It cannot move at the speed of light, but arbitrarily close.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob
    Well I can help you understand the theory, what part of it don't you understand?
    You can begin by providing a link or another reference to this aeghion flux theory you speak of.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob
    Energy therefore may be possible to 'warp the fabric of spacetime.'
    Not 'may'. It does warp spacetime.
    Last edited by Sang-drax; 02-09-2008 at 04:01 PM.

  10. #40
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,579
    That's very interesting.

    Traveling through space at speeds near that of light may then be an impossibility, unless some form of shield could be developed. It's not only a matter of the engine.
    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.

  11. #41
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Yes. I did understand your point. My point however was, simply put, let us not forget Einstein's theory of Special Relativity is exactly that; a theory. So we should keep an open mind when the request is to speculate.
    Relativity isn't a little side concept in physics, it's the center of everything. If it's wrong, everything we know is wrong. I guess that could be the case, but I don't see the point in worrying about it.

    If you really want to speculate, then the answer to the original question would be, "Nobody has any clue." But that's not interesting I think. All I can answer is what our present knowledge is.

  12. #42
    Fountain of knowledge.
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    794
    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...
    As indeed it is.

    As the Earth is at the centre of the Observable Universe, and hence the Universe, the Sun
    indeed revolves around the Earth, as does everything else, hence the bible was correct and
    always has been.

    Mind you to this day there are still people, including scientists who think the Earth revolves
    around the Sun!! How weird is that!!

    It is just one of those cases of people with a little bit of knowledge thinking they know it all.

    Happens all the time.
    Last edited by esbo; 02-16-2008 at 05:32 PM.

  13. #43
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,762
    >> As the Earth is at the centre of the Observable Universe

    A space can only have a center if it has a finite area, such as a crop circle, or the roof of a building, or even the planet. We have not and perhaps never will find the edge of the Universe, meaning its' area is beyond human computation at this point. It would be illogical to claim you know the center of the Universe objectively. You could easily make a center of the Universe through some reference point that you establish, say, the Earth, but that is hardly the objective center; the Earth and our star system are on the far edge of our galaxy, the Milky Way, which may not be the center of everything at all. The galaxy's rotation also distorts our position in the Universe. It's a reasonable thing to assert since the Earth is our home, but people shouldn't be toting it like it is the truth of the matter.

  14. #44
    aoeuhtns
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by citizen View Post
    >> As the Earth is at the centre of the Observable Universe

    A space can only have a center if it has a finite area, such as a crop circle, or the roof of a building, or even the planet. We have not and perhaps never will find the edge of the Universe, meaning its' area is beyond human computation at this point. It would be illogical to claim you know the center of the Universe objectively. You could easily make a center of the Universe through some reference point that you establish, say, the Earth, but that is hardly the objective center; the Earth and our star system are on the far edge of our galaxy, the Milky Way, which may not be the center of everything at all. The galaxy's rotation also distorts our position in the Universe. It's a reasonable thing to assert since the Earth is our home, but people shouldn't be toting it like it is the truth of the matter.
    You need to take a sarcasm pill.

    Quote Originally Posted by citizen
    A space can only have a center if it has a finite area
    Or you could go by center of mass. Or some other measurement of center. And um, we are in fact at the center of the observable universe; it looks uniform to us in all directions.
    Last edited by Rashakil Fol; 02-17-2008 at 11:51 AM.
    There are 10 types of people in this world, those who cringed when reading the beginning of this sentence and those who salivated to how superior they are for understanding something as simple as binary.

  15. #45
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    *The observable universe is defined as the space that can be observed from earth.
    *We are able to see equally far in every direction
    => Earth is in the center of the observable universe.
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

Page 3 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, 01:14 PM
  2. Question...
    By TechWins in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-28-2003, 10:47 PM
  3. Physics question
    By Panopticon in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-10-2003, 12:06 AM
  4. opengl DC question
    By SAMSAM in forum Game Programming
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-26-2003, 09:22 PM
  5. February 1, 2019...
    By Cheeze-It in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 98
    Last Post: 08-03-2002, 08:24 AM

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