View Full Version : quantum mechanics

Silvercord

05-02-2003, 10:43 PM

some dude on a TFC server told me that originally the universe started with 12 dimensions, but that only 3 significantly expanded, and that is why quantum mechanics often deals with things on the small level because these dimensions didn't expand with the rest of the universe. I'm talking about phenomena such as electron tunneling (where an electron appears on both sides of a barrier in a transistor).

Does this ring a bell to anyone? I haven't found it stated in exactly this same way (I'm reading http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/#4 right now)

Hmm.

Someone on a TFC server told you this? ;)

Jeremy G

05-02-2003, 11:17 PM

And thusly already know its foolishness. You pathetic humans are so tunnel visioned you fail to completely view everything before LEAPING to some insane conclusion.

I'd love to elaborate for you the pitfalls of you ignorant theories on quantem mechanics--unfortunatly the human race is unready for this knowledge and would be unsafe for you.

adrianxw

05-03-2003, 02:27 AM

One of the, now slightly older theories behind the big bang started with a quatum fluctuation in an 11 dimensional Higgs field. More recently, a number of problems with that theory were found to disappear if there were 12 instead of 11 dimensions.

If your interested in pre big-bang theories, check out Membrane Theory. It is a little difficult to visualise at first, but is very elegent once you grasp the idea.

Clyde

05-03-2003, 04:07 AM

some dude on a TFC server told me that originally the universe started with 12 dimensions, but that only 3 significantly expanded, and that is why quantum mechanics often deals with things on the small level because these dimensions didn't expand with the rest of the universe. I'm talking about phenomena such as electron tunneling (where an electron appears on both sides of a barrier in a transistor).

The multiple dimensional nature of the universe was found to be extremely helpfull in solving problems in string theory, (of which the membrane theory mentioned by Adrian is an extension)

But i'm pretty sure that tunneling has nothing to do with the added dimensions.

Silvercord

05-03-2003, 02:54 PM

well perhaps it was a poor example. I just wanted to know the validity of what he was saying.

EDIT:

I've already studied and mastered quantem science

Reelly? You speeled quantum rong so i dout that u reely studdied it for all that long

ygfperson

05-03-2003, 02:57 PM

I don't know anything about electron tunneling, but I do know that string theory permits the other dimentions to be rolled up into very tiny strings.

Maverik

05-03-2003, 09:10 PM

Oww. my head hurts

Jeremy G

05-03-2003, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by Silvercord

well perhaps it was a poor example. I just wanted to know the validity of what he was saying.

EDIT:

Reelly? You speeled quantum rong so i dout that u reely studdied it for all that long

You think your so smart with your witty sarcasm, too bad for yourself you again made another unfounded leap to conclusion.

What you fail to realize that the secret society of super intelligence society dubbed the study quanTEM--as it is the temporal theory of unrelativity that disproved it. Of course which in it self is too complex to explain to the likes of you!

HA-HAH! my wit and sarcasm wins again! :P

Silvercord

05-04-2003, 03:10 PM

goten you still haven't answered my question (the point of this thread): was what the dude on the tfc server said correct? quantem isn't even a word. Oh well others have answered the question. I generally dont pay any attention to fat people but I make exceptions for you goten you should be proud of that.

anyway I've always wondered about multidimensional (3+) analysis. I mean on one hand it can supposedly explain a lot of phenomena (sp?) that classical physics can't, but at the same time how can you even test to prove that higher dimensions actually exist? If you can't prove that these dimensions exist then everything is just theory, or the theories that explain unexplainable phenomena could be taken to stand as evidence. I dunno.

Jeremy G

05-05-2003, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by Silvercord

quantem isnt even a word.

I've already explained the tem ending and why it is done so in my sarcastic universe of which my goof ball answers have been originating for this thread. I dont usually bother spending this much time explaining sarcasm to gay people, but i've made the exception for you.

I'd like to interject a serious thought on scientific theory--especialy in the case of infinity. I think that any real world application cannot be restricted by theoretical ideas. In the case of infinity--it doesnt seem to in practical application exist. Suposedly between 0 and 1 there are an infinite amount of decimals, and between 0 and 0.1 there are an infinite amount of decimals, infact there is an infinite amount of infinite decimals between any number. Trying to apply that to the real world just doesnt work. Take for example a mold for a plastic figurine. If there were really an infinity between 0 parts and 1 whole--you could never fill up the mold as it would take an infinite ammount of substance.

It would be argued that infinity can be put to practical demonstration by simply counting, and the fact you can always count to one number greater. I refuse this application as I say the number system ends when you stop counting--and therefore quite finite.

So i surmise that any feat that limited by the theory of infinity (accelerating to the speed of light for instance) is indeed not restricted in practical application.

Clyde

05-05-2003, 04:47 AM

"If there were really an infinity between 0 parts and 1 whole--you could never fill up the mold as it would take an infinite ammount of substance."

That doesn't work, it assumes each part has a fixed volume, if you have an infinite number of parts each part consists will have an infinitely small volume.

Further more take the example of fractals, a fractal consists of an infinite long line bound in a fixed area, you might think that this is impossible but its not, true fractals don't exist but many objects in the world are very much like fractals; snowflakes being the most famouns example.

"So i surmise that any feat that limited by the theory of infinity (accelerating to the speed of light for instance) is indeed not restricted in practical application."

...... i'm afraid your wrong.

IF you could reach the speed of light, THEN you would have an infinite mass, but you can't have an infinite mass which is the whole point. The closer you get, the larger your mass becomes the more eneergy you have to put in to accelerate, eventually you run out of energy.

Infinites do not (as far as i'm aware) exist in real life but it doesn't matter, however often a large excess can be approximated well by considering it to be an infinite amount.

adrianxw

05-05-2003, 05:45 AM

>>> Infinites do not (as far as i'm aware) exist in real life but it doesn't matter,

Would not the multiverse in which the membranes of M theory float around need to be infinite?

Clyde

05-05-2003, 05:55 AM

"Would not the multiverse in which the membranes of M theory float around need to be infinite?"

That's a very good point, i was thinking about phenomena within our universe, my grasp of membrane theory is little more than a overview gleaned from Hawking's book and a few other articles (and that was quiet a while ago) so i'm afraid i can't answer your question, but its quite possible that when positing explanations greater than our universe (like M theory) we have scenarios where infinities do literally exist.

salvelinus

05-05-2003, 08:53 AM

For infinities in this universe, how about the singularity in a black hole?

Clyde

05-05-2003, 12:47 PM

Another good point, you could make a good case for the mass in a black hole being a point and hence infinite density existing, there are alot of problems with black holes because we know so little of what goes on inside them. So you might well be right, but i could argue that the mass is not a point it is merely forever shrinking, hence has a fixed volume at any point in time and hence a finite density...

I don't know why but i'm wary of infinites, it may well be just because i don't like the idea in exactly the same way i didn't like the idea of quantum mechanics when i was first introduced to it, its just doesn't feel right somehow, of course i may be well off, and black-holes and maybe many more phenomena show examples of infinite values.

Silvercord

05-05-2003, 01:17 PM

I dont usually bother spending this much time explaining sarcasm to gay people, but i've made the exception for you.

Oooo! touche! touche!

Another good point, you could make a good case for the mass in a black hole being a point and hence infinite density existing, there are alot of problems with black holes because we know so little of what goes on inside them. So you might well be right, but i could argue that the mass is not a point it is merely forever shrinking, hence has a fixed volume at any point in time and hence a finite density...

Most scientists actually think black holes do not condense infinitely, but can actually only condense to a certain point. Once the black hole has reached that point not even light can escape it, but the black hole is viewed as not being able to condense any further. It's like trying to represent a point with only five decimal places in computer programming. Technically a point is represented by an infinite number of decimal places (or a 0 dimensional vector, if you move at all then you're not at the same point) but once you've hit 5 decimal places then it's reached the smallest point possible, and none of the changes passed the 5th decimal place count. A black hole that has a gravitational pull strong enough to capture light is the hypothecial 5th decimal place. Even if it 'really' gets any smaller scientists view it as being the point represented with 5 decimal places accuracy ( or however many decimal places are represented by our universe).

This is what i'm reading off of a site. Umm. Yeah.

Clyde

05-06-2003, 07:39 AM

Most scientists actually think black holes do not condense infinitely, but can actually only condense to a certain point. Once the black hole has reached that point not even light can escape it, but the black hole is viewed as not being able to condense any further. It's like trying to represent a point with only five decimal places in computer programming. Technically a point is represented by an infinite number of decimal places (or a 0 dimensional vector, if you move at all then you're not at the same point) but once you've hit 5 decimal places then it's reached the smallest point possible, and none of the changes passed the 5th decimal place count. A black hole that has a gravitational pull strong enough to capture light is the hypothecial 5th decimal place. Even if it 'really' gets any smaller scientists view it as being the point represented with 5 decimal places accuracy ( or however many decimal places are represented by our universe).

Didn't know that, i was under the impression that the repulsive forces were insuffiencient to prevent all matter collapsing in on itself.

Still, learn something new each day.

salvelinus

05-06-2003, 11:01 AM

Well, other sites say a singularity is where matter is crushed to infinite density. Here's (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/black_holes.html) a NASA site, for example. (Thanks to Google "black hole singularity infinite")

Silvercord

05-06-2003, 07:38 PM

That's a cool site, I book marked it, actually, and am reading it right now. You're right it does say zero volume and infinite density. Maybe what I read was trying to say the same thing somehow? I dunno. I understand that any photons emitted by the black hole are sucked back into itself (well, in an orbit actually) but what about passing photons? I mean does it just create an area of space in which no photons can pass? (hence the name black hole because it grabs all of the passing photons?)

I was thinking about having a neutron star as one of the weapons for a computer game in fifth grade, that it releases them from an 'anti gravity' capsule that contains it and sucks up whatever bad guys are in the vicinity (of course the neutron star is only big enough to suck on 1 bad guy:) )

Anyway, in the age of spiritual machines, he hypothesizes (sp?) that this universe may be infinitely expanding and collapsing withing another universe that is also infinitely expanding and collapsing and so on and so forth. Is that what is meant by the term multiverse ?

salvelinus

05-07-2003, 06:29 AM

Here's (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=1&articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000) a link to an article in Scientific American discussing parallel a/o multi universes.

Black holes, at least small ones, can shrink and vanish from loss of matter due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, according to Hawkins.

Silvercord

05-07-2003, 03:15 PM

Ohh, so each level of a multiverse is really the distance light has travelled (and hence the farthest out into space we can see) but it is actually all the same space?

EDIT:

Black holes, at least small ones, can shrink and vanish from loss of matter due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, according to Hawkins.

That doesn't make sense. so you are saying it becomes so small that photons can move the black hole? But I thought black holes carried photons into their orbit.

salvelinus

05-08-2003, 07:27 AM

That would be one level of a "multi-verse". I think the article has 4 possible levels.

As for vanishing black holes, Hawkins' book would explain it better.

Here's (http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11357.html) a link to a similar idea, and here. (http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~dmw/ast102/Lectures/Lect_20b.pdf) (around page 20, 21 or so).

Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.