SRL Archive - News and General

ITT (In This Thread): We pose questions about physics/chem and discuss the answers and possibilities.

I'll go first: How come light has properties of both a particle and a wave?

A particle on the classical view is a concentration of energy and other properties in space and time, whereas a wave is spread out over a larger region of space and time. The question whether light are streams of particles (corpuscles) or waves is a very old one. This "either - or" formulation was classically natural and alien to the advanced "both - and" even the "neither - nor" solution of today. Early in the nineteenth century experiments were
suggested and made to show that light is a wave motion. A key figure in this endeavour was Thomas Young, one of the most intelligent and clever scientists ever to live, who studied diffraction and interference of light already in 1803 with results that gave strong support to the wave theory of Christian Huygens as opposed to the particle or corpuscular theory of Isaac Newton. Further contributions were made by many other researchers, among them Augustin Jean Fresnel, who showed that light is a transverse wave.
laser


Thomas Young's experiment with two narrow slits inserted between the light source (here a laser) and the detector (here a screen). Waves emerging from one slit are superimposed on waves from the other slit, producing the observed interference pattern with alternate dark and bright lines on the screen.
Copyright © Forskning och Framsteg

Newton's theory of light had seemed suitable to explain the straight-line casting of sharp shadows of objects placed in a light beam. But wave theory was needed to explain interference where the light intensity can be enhanced in some places and diminished in other places behind a screen with a slit or several slits. The wave theory is also able to account for the fact that the edges of a shadow are not quite sharp.

The mathematical theory of electromagnetism by James Clerk Maxwell, set up in 1864, led to the view that light is of electromagnetic nature, propagating as a wave from the source to the receiver. Heinrich Hertz discovered experimentally the existence of electromagnetic waves at radio-frequencies in the 1880s. Maxwell died in 1879 and Hertz died only 37 years old in 1894, two years before Alfred Nobel's death.

At the end of the 19th century, which also is the time when the Nobel Prizes were instituted, the wave nature of light seemed definitely established. Thus the decisive research into the wave nature of light came too early to be considered for Nobel Prizes. However, there is one exception - the case of X-rays.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html

Too many physics exams… Its a particle as it has mass and is affected by gravitational pull. Its a wave because it refracts when passing through different mediums which affect its speed.

How can mass be converted into energy and how much of it can we convert?

EDIT: n3ss3s your too fast.

Will the 5th state of matter ever be TOTALLY reached?

Btw, lemme guess, Hertz got its name from Heinrich Hertz?

Röntgen got its name from the Röntgen named guy?

I believe röntgen = xray in English…

From: gerauchert
Will the 5th state of matter ever be TOTALLY reached?

Yea it already has. 6 states of matter: Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma, Bose-Einstein, some other one.

Bose-Einstein

If you can quickly explain can you tell?

If its gonna be longer one I'd appreciate a pm since otherwise the conversation moves to bosestein…

From: n3ss3s
If you can quickly explain can you tell?

If its gonna be longer one I'd appreciate a pm since otherwise the conversation moves to bosestein…

did zephyr explained you what it is? I also wanne know it:D

-Tsn.

No he didn't…

I'll come up with a good one soon…
My main point is, to in an understanding way, explain the quantum theory.
To others, but mainly to myself. ;)

From: ZephyrsFury
Yea it already has. 6 states of matter: Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma, Bose-Einstein, some other one.

Could you tell more about those three? Sounds interesting, since I have never heard about them. (Well I have heard about plasma in scifi movies :sasmokin: )

Nice copypasta nesses, that explains absolutely nothing that we didnt already learn in year 11 physics :p

This should be in discussions and debates?

Anyways, not to ruin the thread, what happens if you add Bicarb Soda to Vinegar :p

a simple netruelisation reaction

Bose-Einstein is when a substance is super-cooled to near absolute zero (The complete absence of thermal energy) causes the quantum effects to be viewable on a macroscopic scale.

Plasma is when a material is in the state of an energized gas (eg. When lightning strikes, the air the electricity passes through is temporarily a plasma, thus the loud "crack" you hear). It basically means the material sheds some electrons or something.


But heres mine: I have theorized that friction is caused by the jagged edges (where atoms and molecules stick out to form mountains etc.) of an object. So, if I had a surface that was molecularly smooth, would it be frictionless? I understand that having two "perfect" surfaces would create a vacuum (or the closeness of the molecules is causing bonding), but I am talking about one "perfect" surface and one "imperfect" surface touching. NOW, if that surface lost all thermal energy ( 0deg K ) it might be totally frictionless, as the atoms wouldn't be leaping out in the waves causing ridges.


EDIT:

Long live Wikipedia!

From: wiki

Macroscopic is commonly used to describe physical objects that are measurable and observable by the naked eye. When applied to phenomena and abstract objects, it describes existence in the world as we perceive it. Lengths scales generally considered macroscopic roughly fall in the range 1 mm–1 km.

From: The Claw
a simple netruelisation reaction

Is it a neutralisation reaction? Sodium hydrogencarbonate isn't a base.

I thought it would be more of an Acid plus Metal hydrogencarbonate reaction:

NaHCO3 + CH3COOH –> NaCH3COO + CO2 + H2O.

or

HCO3- + H+ –> H2CO3

H2CO3 –> CO2 + H2O

Pros…

Nice copypasta nesses, that explains absolutely nothing that we didnt already learn in year 11 physics

Dude how can I know, Im on the 7th grade -.-

Oh and if anyone is interested I've found some more states of matter:
quark-gluon plasma; Rydberg matter; Bose-Einstein condensates and fermionic condensates; quantum spin Hall state; degenerate matter; strange matter; superfluids and supersolids; and possibly string-net liquids.

Somebody, explain these…

1 : What would happen if you were invisable? Would you be able to see?

2 : What would happen if you could run the speed of light?

im looking for sophisticated answers…

1. I think there would be several ways to be "invisible", invisible for human eye, or like…
2. You couldn't.

Yes, somebody answer SKy, I got interested…

From: The Claw
How come light has properties of both a particle and a wave?

Interesting explanation. I do not remember the name of the scientist who came up with this off the top of my head, but it has been demonstrated that all particles exhibit wave-like properties, thus it is not a trait specific to light. That relationship is that wavelength is inversely proportional to momentum, and as a result mass and velocity. Since photons are "massless" (simplicity's sake please ;)) they behave more wavelike than ordinary matter. This theory was proven in a fluke experiment where interference patterns were observed in diffracted electrons, also very small, off of (I believe) nickel. Therefore, wave-particle duality exists for all matter, however the wavelength for conventional, observable, matter would be so short that it could not be observed with even our most precise detection methods.

You seem to have posed more of a challange than a question :)

You brought up the string theory and relativity, so what is the explanation for time slowing down as you travel at faster velocities? It relates to why the speed of light is a constant regardless of velocity, and also puts forth evidence for time as we know it to be nothing more than a perception and that everything is really just relative motion.

From: n3ss3s
1. I think there would be several ways to be "invisible", invisible for human eye, or like…
2. You couldn't.

Yes, somebody answer SKy, I got interested…

Ok, Explain to me…
How Could you be invisable…. ?
What Would the result of being invisable be….?


Also
The theory is * if * you could… travel speed… and still be in contact what could happen…?

you could be invisible if all the light that is directed at you somehow is able to find away around you and in the end still have the same direction as it would have if you were not there, the downside is, there wont be any light left for you to see, so it would be sorta dark in there;)

and uhm… if you travel at the speed of light your body would explode :stirthepot:

bending light around your body. You would only need the light to go through your pupils, which are black.

How is this SRL Member News? Wrong section maybe?

From: SKy Scripter
Somebody, explain these…

1 : What would happen if you were invisable? Would you be able to see?

2 : What would happen if you could run the speed of light?

im looking for sophisticated answers…

Ill answer you second question:

As a body moves closer and closer to the speed of light, its mass increases. This is because according to E = MC^2, where E is energy, M is mass and C is the speed of light, if C is constant, E must be directly proportional to M. As your energy increases due to your speed, mass must also increase. As your energy approaches infinity (speed of light) your mass must also approach infinity making everything in you body crush itself.

Also, as your velocity increases, time slows. So if you could move at the speed of light or very close to it, time would theoretically stop.

EDIT: Meh I'm bored. There are several ways to become invisible. The first is called camoflage. Although you technically aren't invisible you can blend into your background making you a lot harder to see. Another more interesting way is currently being experimented by the US AirForce (from memory). They are trying use special cameras or something to capture your surroundings then they project that onto a screen in front of you thus make it appear as if there is nothing there.

To make yourself invisible, just get everyone else around you to close their eyes. The real question is how to make yourself permeable by a solid without any effects from the 'puncture'.

From: BenLand100
Interesting explanation. I do not remember the name of the scientist who came up with this off the top of my head, but it has been demonstrated that all particles exhibit wave-like properties, thus it is not a trait specific to light. That relationship is that wavelength is inversely proportional to momentum, and as a result mass and velocity. Since photons are "massless" (simplicity's sake please ;)) they behave more wavelike than ordinary matter. This theory was proven in a fluke experiment where interference patterns were observed in diffracted electrons, also very small, off of (I believe) nickel. Therefore, wave-particle duality exists for all matter, however the wavelength for conventional, observable, matter would be so long that it could not be observed with even our most precise detection methods.

You seem to have posed more of a challange than a question :)

You brought up the string theory and relativity, so what is the explanation for time slowing down as you travel at faster velocities? It relates to why the speed of light is a constant regardless of velocity, and also puts forth evidence for time as we know it to be nothing more than a perception and that everything is really just relative motion.

shit you want me to explain that? ok

its like..as you travel closer to the speed of light, an observer would see you as smaller than you actually are. and you would see the observer smaller than they actually are, too. this is because the size is related to the velocity of you relative to the observer…if you know what i mean. if each person was wearing a watch, the person who is going faster, their watch would be out of sync with the person's who was just sitting there. because, like size of the person, time is also relative to the relative velocity's of the two people..when you travel faster, you're warped into the 4th dimension, time..time dilation and all that.

lol i tried, but its too hard for me to get it into words, i have the feeling for it and understand it but cant get them out right. can you explain it in a more simple way that makes more sense?

For the other question floating around about speed and mass and energy and all that: Just find a way to move without increasing the energy applied to your mass. Energy stays the same, mass stays the same, speed of light stays the same, no one is crushed.

From: IronTeapot
For the other question floating around about speed and mass and energy and all that: Just find a way to move without increasing the energy applied to your mass. Energy stays the same, mass stays the same, speed of light stays the same, no one is crushed.

You need kinetic energy to move.

From: ZephyrsFury
You need kinetic energy to move.

Apply the kinetic energy to everything around you, while applying none to yourself. Therefore you will be moving in relation to everything around you.

Wouldn't moving EVERYTHING around you take more energy than just moving yourself? lolz

From: The Claw
shit you want me to explain that? ok

its like..as you travel closer to the speed of light, an observer would see you as smaller than you actually are. and you would see the observer smaller than they actually are, too. this is because the size is related to the velocity of you relative to the observer…if you know what i mean. if each person was wearing a watch, the person who is going faster, their watch would be out of sync with the person's who was just sitting there. because, like size of the person, time is also relative to the relative velocity's of the two people..when you travel faster, you're warped into the 4th dimension, time..time dilation and all that.

lol i tried, but its too hard for me to get it into words, i have the feeling for it and understand it but cant get them out right. can you explain it in a more simple way that makes more sense?

Ok, fun concept, the sum of your velocity in all dimensions is a constant, the speed of light. You can use any analogy you want to in order to wrap your mind around that. The simple truth is that you are moving through the time dimension when you are not moving through any other dimensions. As you slow in a spatial dimension, your velocity in the time dimension (or another spatial dimension) must increase. For the same reason, as you speed up the velocity in the time dimension must decrease. Thus, our concept of time can be simplified to relative motion in another dimension. You described the effects of difference in velocity, not how velocity affected time ;)

In layman's terms, this is explained almost everywhere in terms of a "light clock" Imagine you have two parallel mirrors one meter apart with a single photon of light bouncing between them. Pretend that this photon is never absorbed and always strikes a perfectly parallel surface. At absolute zero velocity (something impossible to reach since we cannot determine a fixed point in the universe) the light particle travels two meters every cycle of the clock. Now, the speed of light has been proven to be independent of relative velocity (ie, a constant about 3x10^8 m/s), so no matter what velocity the clock moves at, each 'tick' will be the same amount of time apart. Consider this drawing of a light clock in motion:
Lets assume that each tick was 1s on a stationary clock (so the light was moving at 1m/s). The speed of light didn't change, however the distance the light is traveling has increased from 1 to Sqrt[2]. Therefore, time MUST have slowed down relative to a stationary object. Don't be confused, this means that for every second of a stationary clock, a stationary observer would observer the light moving the same speed, but since the clock was in motion, the tick would be farther apart, ie taking more time per tick. For the person moving at 1m/s with the clock, the light would be ticking at 1s still, and the stationary clock would appear to run slow, since it would be in motion relative to him. At a constant velocity it would be impossible to tell who was not moving, however if the 'moving' (since we assume we are god and can tell) clock stops, his clock would be behind the clock of the other clock. Time would have slowed down as he was in motion.

So, light, since its speed is constant regardless of velocity, is assumed to be going as fast as possible, and not moving through time at all. This is theoretically proven by the fact that both of our test subjects would have observed the same speed of light in both clocks. Discuss ;)

@IronTeapot: Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be converted from one for to another. If you apply kinetic energy to everything around you, that kinetic energy must have been converted from something else. That means you would have to have lots of potential energy stored inside you somehow.

From: The Claw
Wouldn't moving EVERYTHING around you take more energy than just moving yourself? lolz

Yes, but the issue isn't the amount of energy that is used to move things, its the amount of energy and yourself. It was mentioned that the faster you move, more energy more mass (e=mc^2 and all that). And that it would be impossible for you to reach the speed of light without 'killing yourself'. So if there were a way to keep your self stationary while all else moved instead, wouldn't it then be possible in relation to yourself for everything else to move close to the speed of light (realitive time wise)

From: ZephyrsFury
@IronTeapot: Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be converted from one for to another. If you apply kinetic energy to everything around you, that kinetic energy must have been converted from something else. That means you would have to have lots of potential energy stored inside you somehow.

There is potentional energy stored in everthing, it just needs a catilyst to release it and transfer it into kenetic energy. A ball sitting on a shelf has the potential energy to fall, it just needs a push, and then the kenetic energy of gravity would kick in. If there was some way to activate all the potential energy in everything but yourself…

From: IronTeapot

There is potentional energy stored in everthing, it just needs a catilyst to release it and transfer it into kenetic energy. A ball sitting on a shelf has the potential energy to fall, it just needs a push, and then the kenetic energy of gravity would kick in. If there was some way to activate all the potential energy in everything but yourself…

Yea but your talking about a huge amount of kinetic energy that can move everything around you at the speed of light. That means you must somehow have an infinite amoutn EP inside you.

From: ZephyrsFury
Yea but your talking about a huge amount of kinetic energy that can move everything around you at the speed of light. That means you must somehow have an infinite amoutn EP inside you.

Whats EP, energy potential? and maybe we do have an infinite amount of energy potential inside ourselves? just like how so much of our brain power is untapped, maybe there are other abilities that we havent yet unlocked or 'remembered'. (if anyone has seen the movie 'Lawnmower man', think back to the guys speech of how its all old knowledge being re-released and not new knowledge being discovered).

[sidetrack] if our brains have an electronic field eminating from them, if more 'power' or energy could be unlocked, whats to say how much that electromagnetic would be or how strong or what it could do? If it could harness energy and take it and move it to and from other sources…. sorry im going way off topic here [/sidetrack]

The point is, it doesnt matter what energy is inside yourself, the whole thing is to keep your energy constant so that your mass doesn't change and you get squished. back to energy potential; you dont need energy potential inyourself, just a way to unlock the potential energy in everything else, like cause a chain reaction that effects all energy but what is stored in you… im loosing myself again here, so ill see what responses come.

Ep (the P is supposed to be subscript) is potential energy. Likewise Ek is kinetic energy.

I don't think you can have an infinite amount of energy inside you. Otherwise your mass would be infinite and thats the whole problem of moving at the speed of light.

Is there even an infinite amount of energy in the world?

From: Santa_Clause
Is there even an infinite amount of energy in the world?

Not in the world. Maybe the universe????

How could there possibly be an infinite amount of energy, unless we're just saying that the sun is an inexhaustible energy source…

I suppose not. But one thing is troubling me about this topic. According to my physics teacher light has a small amount of mass because it is affect by gravity. It bends around large objects and gets sucked into black holes. If it does have mass then how can it travel at the speed of light. Wouldn't its mass be infinity then?

remember it sometimes behaves as a particle^^

From: ZephyrsFury
I suppose not. But one thing is troubling me about this topic. According to my physics teacher light has a small amount of mass because it is affect by gravity. It bends around large objects and gets sucked into black holes. If it does have mass then how can it travel at the speed of light. Wouldn't its mass be infinity then?

You just said small mass…nothing big. Oh by the way, please bare with me here, I'm only in grade 9 and barely know any of this stuff…just using some common knowledge.

Lmao, Im like ?!?!?!??! in here *cough*Smart Arses*cough*

From: Santa_Clause
You just said small mass…nothing big. Oh by the way, please bare with me here, I'm only in grade 9 and barely know any of this stuff…just using some common knowledge.

I'm pretty much using my common sense as well. We haven't gone this indepth yet at school. Yes the mass of light would be extremely small but any mass going at the speed of light, if Einstein's theory is correct, should be infinity. But I don't know, it just something that I though of.

Why's that? E = MC ^2, when C, the speed of light, is larger, then the mass has to be smaller in order to produce the same amount of energy, am I correct or not?

From: Santa_Clause
Why's that? E = MC ^2, when C, the speed of light, is larger, then the mass has to be smaller in order to produce the same amount of energy, am I correct or not?

C is the speed of light in a vacuum and that is always constant. If C is constant, E is proportional to M. When you go faster your energy increases and since E is proportional to M, M also increases.

I was thinking about this one the other day..
The light from the earth, say 10 years ago, is still traveling through the universe right?
Well if we could travel faster than the speed of light and caught up with it, then looked back at the earth we could see in the past?
So if we went far enough we could see dinosaurs, earths creation, ect.

DISCUSS!

From: neG
I was thinking about this one the other day..
The light from the earth, say 10 years ago, is still traveling through the universe right?
Well if we could travel faster than the speed of light and caught up with it, then looked back at the earth we could see in the past?
So if we went far enough we could see dinosaurs, earths creation, ect.

DISCUSS!

Yes I suppose… if you one, could go faster than light and two, be able to survive the trip.

Light has only 'theoretical' (virtual related to momentum) mass, no 'real' mass. Let me introduce you to an equation you've most likely never seen before:

E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2
Which reads as:
Energy squared equals mass squared times the speed of light to the fourth power plus momentum squared times speed of light squared.

E = mc^2 is a simplification for when an object is at rest, ie measuring its internal energy. Therefore, a photon, with a mass of 0 and 'momentum', is alowed to have energy. In this sense, momentum is not what you would think it would be, but momentum in a wave (which can have no mass, but still have momentum). :garfield:

Edit: The mass of a photon can be mathmaticaly defined as 0/Sqrt[0]… So zero.

Ben can I ask where do you learn all this stuff?

Its like, you ain't no around 16, you are Stephen Hawking!

But seriously, slowly, slowly Im starting to believe you're a robot outside bounds of time, you're a miracle lol…

From: n3ss3s
Ben can I ask where do you learn all this stuff?

Its like, you ain't no around 16, you are Stephen Hawking!

But seriously, slowly, slowly Im starting to believe you're a robot outside bounds of time, you're a miracle lol…

I believe he is like… Ben Sapiens :rolleyes:

From: BobboHobbo
Lmao, Im like ?!?!?!??! in here *cough*Smart Arses*cough*

You know this is nothing compared to quantum mechanics, don't you? ;)

Quantum physics brought to my mind Conan O' Brien and Jim Carrey discussing it. :p

rofl

The sound quality isn't the best, but you can get the joke :p

"ASS!" roflmao :p

From: n3ss3s
Ben can I ask where do you learn all this stuff?

Its like, you ain't no around 16, you are Stephen Hawking!

But seriously, slowly, slowly Im starting to believe you're a robot outside bounds of time, you're a miracle lol…

Its true, I'm not 16… My birthday was November 1st and I am now 17 (in this time at least ;))

Edit: I forgot to mention on my last post exactly what momentum was. It is not 'classical momentum' or mass*velocity, rather its wave momentum. It still works for all matter since all matter are waves, but mass*velocity only works at low speeds, and because the item has mass. The equation is p = h/w read as momentum equals plank's constant divided by wavelength (couldn't write a lambda) which is equivlent to E/c read as energy divided by the speed of light. Thats the same way you figure the wavelength matter by the way.

From: Wizzup?
You know this is nothing compared to quantum mechanics, don't you? ;)

Wizzup don't be silly. This topic is way more advanced than anything the science world has ever seen before

From: BenLand100
Ok, fun concept, the sum of your velocity in all dimensions is a constant, the speed of light. You can use any analogy you want to in order to wrap your mind around that. The simple truth is that you are moving through the time dimension when you are not moving through any other dimensions. As you slow in a spatial dimension, your velocity in the time dimension (or another spatial dimension) must increase. For the same reason, as you speed up the velocity in the time dimension must decrease. Thus, our concept of time can be simplified to relative motion in another dimension. You described the effects of difference in velocity, not how velocity affected time ;)

In layman's terms, this is explained almost everywhere in terms of a "light clock" Imagine you have two parallel mirrors one meter apart with a single photon of light bouncing between them. Pretend that this photon is never absorbed and always strikes a perfectly parallel surface. At absolute zero velocity (something impossible to reach since we cannot determine a fixed point in the universe) the light particle travels two meters every cycle of the clock. Now, the speed of light has been proven to be independent of relative velocity (ie, a constant about 3x10^8 m/s), so no matter what velocity the clock moves at, each 'tick' will be the same amount of time apart. Consider this drawing of a light clock in motion:
Lets assume that each tick was 1s on a stationary clock (so the light was moving at 1m/s). The speed of light didn't change, however the distance the light is traveling has increased from 1 to Sqrt[2]. Therefore, time MUST have slowed down relative to a stationary object. Don't be confused, this means that for every second of a stationary clock, a stationary observer would observer the light moving the same speed, but since the clock was in motion, the tick would be farther apart, ie taking more time per tick. For the person moving at 1m/s with the clock, the light would be ticking at 1s still, and the stationary clock would appear to run slow, since it would be in motion relative to him. At a constant velocity it would be impossible to tell who was not moving, however if the 'moving' (since we assume we are god and can tell) clock stops, his clock would be behind the clock of the other clock. Time would have slowed down as he was in motion.

So, light, since its speed is constant regardless of velocity, is assumed to be going as fast as possible, and not moving through time at all. This is theoretically proven by the fact that both of our test subjects would have observed the same speed of light in both clocks. Discuss ;)

So basically, since the sum of the velocity in all dimenstions if the speed of light, if we speed up closer to the speed of light then the velocity in other dimensions must decrease to make up for it? So say the speed of light was 5, and our 3d velocity was 3, the other dimensions would add up to 2?

I was sort of thinking of it like this. Imagine time as a straight line, and us as a dot on the line. Imagine time dilation didnt exist. Lets say we are travelling along that line at I dunno, 1cm/second. In the real world, where we actually are, what would happen if we suddenly increased our speed massively? Without time dilation, we would travel along that line faster. That would mean that we would shoot of into the future sorta thing. By a few seconds, few minutes, days, hours whatever - depending on the velocity. And since everyone would be travelling at different velocities at different times, everyone would age different, would be seeing a different world, and it would all be messed up. People would fall behind each other on the line, or get further in front or whatever. Sticking to the 1cm/s, if someone sped up they might be going at 5cm/s along the line. Or .5.

But WITH time dilation, none of that happens at all. Because as you get faster, time slows down for the person going fast to compensate. So all these people in the world, going at different velociries still, but all going along at the same speed on line, all at the same point, so seeing the same world.

yea?

Wait… So if E = MC^2, and if light has a mass of 0, so: E = 0 * (299,792,458 * 299,792,458) which equals zero. How does light have no energy? (It might be different, but have you seen those light bulbs that have a little spinner in it that gets pushed by the light? <- explain that reaction also)

As for light being a particle and a wave, it is described as such because no one (maybe Ben, IMO) knows exactly why it behaves the way it does.


We know the speed of visible light, but does anyone know the speed of gama, ultraviolet or x -rays?

From: R0b0t1
Wait… So if E = MC^2, and if light has a mass of 0, so: E = 0 * (299,792,458 * 299,792,458) which equals zero. How does light have no energy? (It might be different, but have you seen those light bulbs that have a little spinner in it that gets pushed by the light? <- explain that reaction also)

As for light being a particle and a wave, it is described as such because no one (maybe Ben, IMO) knows exactly why it behaves the way it does.


We know the speed of visible light, but does anyone know the speed of gama, ultraviolet or x -rays?

Alrite, with E = MC^2. That just means the energy of a stationary object at any given time is equal to the objects mass, times the speed of light squared. The units is joules. So if the object was 1kg, E = 1*C^2.

Ben explained why it does that in a post above

Yea we do, I know gamma rays are the speed of light. I dont know the others off the top of my head though

From: The Claw

Yea we do, I know gamma rays are the speed of light. I dont know the others off the top of my head though

All electromagnetic radiation travels at the speed of light. That is radiowaves, microwaves, visible light, infrared, ultraviolet, x-rays and aswell as gamma rays.

From: The Claw
Alrite, with E = MC^2. That just means the energy of a stationary object at any given time is equal to the objects mass, times the speed of light squared. The units is joules. So if the object was 1kg, E = 1*C^2.

Ben explained why it does that in a post above

Yea we do, I know gamma rays are the speed of light. I dont know the others off the top of my head though

E=MC^2 is the simplified form of the equation I partially explained in a previous post (which might have been what you said):
E^2 = (MC^2)^2 + (PC)^2

All light travels at the same speed, frequency and wavelength are all that change.
C = V*W
Speed of light equals frequency times wavelength, for all electromagnetic radiation (photons).

From: The Claw

So basically, since the sum of the velocity in all dimenstions if the speed of light, if we speed up closer to the speed of light then the velocity in other dimensions must decrease to make up for it? So say the speed of light was 5, and our 3d velocity was 3, the other dimensions would add up to 2?

I was sort of thinking of it like this. Imagine time as a straight line, and us as a dot on the line. Imagine time dilation didnt exist. Lets say we are travelling along that line at I dunno, 1cm/second. In the real world, where we actually are, what would happen if we suddenly increased our speed massively? Without time dilation, we would travel along that line faster. That would mean that we would shoot of into the future sorta thing. By a few seconds, few minutes, days, hours whatever - depending on the velocity. And since everyone would be travelling at different velocities at different times, everyone would age different, would be seeing a different world, and it would all be messed up. People would fall behind each other on the line, or get further in front or whatever. Sticking to the 1cm/s, if someone sped up they might be going at 5cm/s along the line. Or .5.

But WITH time dilation, none of that happens at all. Because as you get faster, time slows down for the person going fast to compensate. So all these people in the world, going at different velociries still, but all going along at the same speed on line, all at the same point, so seeing the same world.

yea?

What you are missing is that time is one of the other dimensions (a spatial dimension), therefore if there were only four dimensions (3 spatial one time), and the speed of light was 5m/s, and you moved at 3m/s, you would be moving through time at 2m/s. Yes, meters per second… I can't go into the explanation how velocity in time is even possible, my keyboard would wear out. Imagine listening to someone explain how time is only a perception, and, because we describe motion in terms of our perception of time, moving to time is a value measured in distance per unit of time…

If you move really fast then stop, you are effectively in the future. Without time dilation, you just moved really fast. With time dilation, time moved slower for you, it took you 5 seconds, 1,000 years passed on the outside. You aged 5s in 1000 years, or you could say you moved 1000 years minus 5 seconds into the future. As far as relating us all being at the same point in time, consider this. Put your cellphone on a desk, walk away. You are not at the same place as your cell phone, but it is still there and you still perceive it. Light is immune to time remember, you are effectively seeing it in the past the farther away you go. Same idea with time (spatial dimension remember ;)) You can be at different points of time than everything around you, but it is still in your "light cone" so you still perceive it. Since nothing can travel faster than light and go back in time, there is no way to prove it isn't there, even though it's not 'there', it's in the 'past' For all intensive purposes, nothing you see is at the same point in time you are in, its all further back the farther away you are from it. We see the sun 8 min ago all the time due to its distance. The sun is 8 min ahead of us in time if you want to look at it that way, from this distance no matter what you do, you'll always see the sun 8min into the past. If you ran away from the sun faster than the speed of light, the sun would go backwards. If you move away at the speed of light (brace yourself) the sun stops. relative to you and the sun, TIME has slowed to the point of stopping. However, the thing on the other side of you (opposite the sun) is 'playing back' at maximum speed. You speed up, the sun goes backwards and the other thing goes forward. Remember, motion is relative. All time does not slow down when you speed up, only the things that are going slower than you at that point in time. I'll let that sink in…

Edit: Anyone want to take a stab on how/why gravity (mass) causes time distortion? ;)

Benland, try to explain us the basics of quantum physics instead? :rolleyes:

What is Quantum Physics?

Quantum physics is a branch of science that deals with discrete, indivisible units of energy called quanta as described by the Quantum Theory. There are five main ideas represented in Quantum Theory:

1. Energy is not continuous, but comes in small but discrete units. 1
2. The elementary particles behave both like particles and like waves. 2
3. The movement of these particles is inherently random. 3
4. It is physically impossible to know both the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time. The more precisely one is known, the less precise the measurement of the other is.4
5. The atomic world is nothing like the world we live in. 5

While at a glance this may seem like just another strange theory, it contains many clues as to the fundamental nature of the universe and is more important then even relativity in the grand scheme of things (if any one thing at that level could be said to be more important then anything else). Furthermore, it describes the nature of the universe as being much different then the world we see. As Niels Bohr said, "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." 6

Particle/Wave Duality

Particle/wave duality is perhaps the easiest way to get aquatinted with quantum theory because it shows, in a few simple experiments, how different the atomic world is from our world.

First let's set up a generic situation to avoid repetition. In the center of the experiment is a wall with two slits in it. To the right we have a detector. What exactly the detector is varies from experiment to experiment, but it's purpose stays the same: detect how many of whatever we are sending through the experiment reaches each point. To the left of the wall we have the originating point of whatever it is we are going to send through the experiment. That's the experiment: send something through two slits and see what happens. For simplicity, assume that nothing bounces off of the walls in funny patterns to mess up the experiment.

Generic Experiment Setup

First try the experiment with bullets. Place a gun at the originating point and use a sandbar as the detector. First try covering one slit and see what happens. You get more bullets near the center of the slit and less as you get further away. When you cover the other slit, you see the same thing with respect to the other slit. Now open both slits. You get the sum of the result of opening each slit. 7 The most bullets are found in the middle of the two slits with less being found the further you get from the center.

Bullets Experiment

Well, that was fun. Let's try it on something more interesting: water waves. Place a wave generator at the originating point and detect using a wave detector that measures the height of the waves that pass. Try it with one slit closed. You see a result just like that of the bullets. With the other slit closed the result is the same. Now try it with both slits open. Instead of getting the sum of the results of each slit being open, you see a wavy pattern 8; in the center there is a wave greater then the sum of what appeared there each time only one slit was open. Next to that large wave was a wave much smaller then what appeared there during either of the two single slit runs. Then the pattern repeats; large wave, though not nearly as large as the center one, then small wave. This makes sense; in some places the waves reinforced each other creating a larger wave, in other places they canceled out. In the center there was the most overlap, and therefore the largest wave. In mathematical terms, instead of the resulting intensity being the sum of the squares of the heights of the waves, it is the square of the sum.

Water Experiment

While the result was different from the bullets, there is still nothing unusual about it; everyone has seen this effect when the waves from two stones that are dropped into a lake in different places overlap. The difference between this experiment and the previous one is easily explained by saying that while the bullets each went through only one slit, the waves each went through both slits and were thus able to interfere with themselves.

Now try the experiment with electrons. Recall that electrons are negatively charged particles that make up the outer layers of the atom. Certainly they could only go through one slit at a time, so their pattern should look like that of the bullets, right? Let's find out. (NOTE: to actually perform this exact experiment would take detectors more advanced then any on earth at this time. However, the experiments have been done with neutron beams 9 and the results were the same as those presented here. A slightly different experiment was done to show that electrons would behave the same way 10. For reasons of familiarity, we speak of electrons here instead of neutrons.) Place an electron gun at the originating point and an electron detector in the detector place. First try opening only one slit, then just the other. The results are just like those of the bullets and the waves. Now open both slits. The result is just like the waves!11

Electron Experiment

There must be some explanation. After all, an electron couldn't go through both slits. Instead of a continuous stream of electrons, let's turn the electron gun down so that at any one time only one electron is in the experiment. Now the electrons won't be able to cause trouble since there is no one else to interfere with. The result should now look like the bullets. But it doesn't! 12 It would seem that the electrons do go through both slits.

This is indeed a strange occurrence; we should watch them ourselves to make sure that this is indeed what is happening. So, we put a light behind the wall so that we can see a flash from the slit that the electron went through, or a flash from both slits if it went through both. Try the experiment again. As each electron passes through, there is a flash in only one of the two slits. So they do only go through one slit! But something else has happened too: the result now looks like the result of the bullets experiment!! 13

Electron Experiment with Light

Obviously the light is causing problems. Perhaps if we turned down the intensity of the light, we would be able to see them without disturbing them. When we try this, we notice first that the flashes we see are the same size. Also, some electrons now get by without being detected. 14 This is because light is not continuous but made up of particles called photons. Turning down the intensity only lowers the number of photons given out by the light source.15 The particles that flash in one slit or the other behave like the bullets, while those that go undetected behave like waves16.

Well, we are not about to be outsmarted by an electron, so instead of lowering the intensity of the light, why don't we lower the frequency. The lower the frequency the less the electron will be disturbed, so we can finally see what is actually going on. Lower the frequency slightly and try the experiment again. We see the bullet curve 17. After lowering it for a while, we finally see a curve that looks somewhat like that of the waves! There is one problem, though. Lowering the frequency of light is the same as increasing it's wavelength 18, and by the time the frequency of the light is low enough to detect the wave pattern the wavelength is longer then the distance between the slits so we can no longer see which slit the electron went through 19.

So have the electrons outsmarted us? Perhaps, but they have also taught us one of the most fundamental lessons in quantum physics - an observation is only valid in the context of the experiment in which it was performed 20. If you want to say that something behaves a certain way or even exists, you must give the context of this behavior or existence since in another context it may behave differently or not exist at all. We can't just say that an electron is a particle, since we have already seen proof that this is not always the case. We can only say that when we observe the electron in the two slit experiment it behaves like a particle. To see how it would behave under different conditions, we must perform a different experiment.

The Copenhagen Interpretation

So sometimes a particle acts like a particle and other times it acts like a wave. So which is it? According to Niels Bohr, who worked in Copenhagen when he presented what is now known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, the particle is what you measure it to be. When it looks like a particle, it is a particle. When it looks like a wave, it is a wave. Furthermore, it is meaningless to ascribe any properties or even existence to anything that has not been measured21. Bohr is basically saying that nothing is real unless it is observed.

While there are many other interpretations of quantum physics, all based on the Copenhagen interpretation, the Copenhagen interpretation is by far the most widely used because it provides a "generic" interpretation that does not try to say any more then can be proven. Even so, the Copenhagen interpretation does have a flaw that we will discuss later. Still, since after 70 years no one has been able to come up with an interpretation that works better then the Copenhagen interpretation, that is the one we will use. We will discuss one of the alternatives later.

The Wave Function

In 1926, just weeks after several other physicists had published equations describing quantum physics in terms of matrices, Erwin Schrödinger created quantum equations based on wave mathematics22 , a mathematical system that corresponds to the world we know much more then the matrices. After the initial shock, first Schrödinger himself then others proved that the equations were mathematically equivalent 23. Bohr then invited Schrödinger to Copenhagen where they found that Schrödinger's waves were in fact nothing like real waves. For one thing, each particle that was being described as a wave required three dimensions 24. Even worse, from Schrödinger's point of view, particles still jumped from one quantum state to another; even expressed in terms of waves space was still not continuous. Upon discovering this, Schrödinger remarked to Bohr that "Had I known that we were not going to get rid of this damned quantum jumping, I never would have involved myself in this business." 25

Unfortunately, even today people try to imagine the atomic world as being a bunch of classical waves. As Schrödinger found out, this could not be further from the truth. The atomic world is nothing like our world, no matter how much we try to pretend it is. In many ways, the success of Schrödinger's equations has prevented people from thinking more deeply about the true nature of the atomic world 26.

The Collapse of the Wave Function

So why bring up the wave function at all if it hampers full appreciation of the atomic world? For one thing, the equations are much more familiar to physicists, so Schrödinger's equations are used much more often then the others. Also, it turns out that Bohr liked the idea and used it in his Copenhagen interpretation. Remember our experiment with electrons? Each possible route that the electron could take, called a ghost, could be described by a wave function 27. As we shall see later, the "damned quantum jumping" insures that there are only a finite, though large, number of possible routes. When no one is watching, the electron take every possible route and therefore interferes with itself28. However, when the electron is observed, it is forced to choose one path. Bohr called this the "collapse of the wave function"29. The probability that a certain path will be chosen when the wave function collapses is, essentially, the square of the path's wave function 30.

Bohr reasoned that nature likes to keep it possibilities open, and therefore follows every possible path. Only when observed is nature forced to choose only one path, so only then is just one path taken 31.

The Uncertainty Principle

Wait a minute&#8230; probability??? If we are going to destroy the wave pattern by observing the experiment, then we should at least be able to determine exactly where the electron goes. Newton figured that much out back in the early eighteenth century; just observe the position and momentum of the electron as it leaves the electron gun and we can determine exactly where it goes.

Well, fine. But how exactly are we to determine the position and the momentum of the electron? If we disturb the electrons just in seeing if they are there or not, how are we possibly going to determine both their position and momentum? Still, a clever enough person, say Albert Einstein, should be able to come up with something, right?

Unfortunately not. Einstein did actually spend a good deal of his life trying to do just that and failed 32. Furthermore, it turns out that if it were possible to determine both the position and the momentum at the same time, Quantum Physics would collapse 33. Because of the latter, Werner Heisenberg proposed in 1925 that it is in fact physically impossible to do so. As he stated it in what now is called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, if you determine an object's position with uncertainty x, there must be an uncertainty in momentum, p, such that xp > h/4pi, where h is Planck's constant 34 (which we will discuss shortly). In other words, you can determine either the position or the momentum of an object as accurately as you like, but the act of doing so makes your measurement of the other property that much less. Human beings may someday build a device capable of transporting objects across the galaxy, but no one will ever be able to measure both the momentum and the position of an object at the same time. This applies not only to electrons but also to objects such as tennis balls and toasters, though for these objects the amount of uncertainty is so small compared to there size that it can safely be ignored under most circumstances.

The EPR Experiment

"God does not play dice" was Albert Einstein's reply to the Uncertainty Principle. 35 Thus being his belief, he spent a good deal of his life after 1925 trying to determine both the position and the momentum of a particle. In 1935, Einstein and two other physicists, Podolski and Rosen, presented what is now known as the EPR paper in which they suggested a way to do just that. The idea is this: set up an interaction such that two particles are go off in opposite directions and do not interact with anything else. Wait until they are far apart, then measure the momentum of one and the position of the other. Because of conservation of momentum, you can determine the momentum of the particle not measured, so when you measure it's position you know both it's momentum and position 36. The only way quantum physics could be true is if the particles could communicate faster then the speed of light, which Einstein reasoned would be impossible because of his Theory of Relativity.

In 1982, Alain Aspect, a French physicist, carried out the EPR experiment 37. He found that even if information needed to be communicated faster then light to prevent it, it was not possible to determine both the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time 38. This does not mean that it is possible to send a message faster then light, since viewing either one of the two particles gives no information about the other39. It is only when both are seen that we find that quantum physics has agreed with the experiment. So does this mean relativity is wrong? No, it just means that the particles do not communicate by any means we know about. All we know is that every particle knows what every other particle it has ever interacted with is doing.

The Quantum and Planck's Constant

So what is that h that was so important in the Uncertainty Principle? Well, technically speaking, it's 6.63 X 10-34 joule-seconds 40. It's call Planck's constant after Max Planck who, in 1900, introduced it in the equation E=hv where E is the energy of each quantum of radiation and v is it's frequency41. What this says is that energy is not continuous as everyone had assumed but only comes in certain finite sizes based on Planck's constant.

At first physicists thought that this was just a neat mathematical trick Planck used to explain experimental results that did not agree with classical physics. Then, in 1904, Einstein used this idea to explain certain properties of light–he said that light was in fact a particle with energy E=hv 42. After that the idea that energy isn't continuous was taken as a fact of nature - and with amazing results. There was now a reason why electrons were only found in certain energy levels around the nucleus of an atom 43. Ironically, Einstein gave quantum theory the push it needed to become the valid theory it is today, though he would spend the rest of his lift trying to prove that it was not a true description of nature.

Also, by combining Planck's constant, the constant of gravity, and the speed of light, it is possible to create a quantum of length (about 10-35 meter) and a quantum of time (about 10-43 sec), called, respectively, Planck's length and Planck's time 44. While saying that energy is not continuous might not be too startling to the average person, since what we commonly think of as energy is not all that well defined anyway, it is startling to say that there are quantities of space and time that cannot be broken up into smaller pieces. Yet it is exactly this that gives nature a finite number of routes to take when an electron interferes with itself.

Although it may seem like the idea that energy is quantized is a minor part of quantum physics when compared with ghost electrons and the uncertainty principle, it really is a fundamental statement about nature that caused everything else we've talked about to be discovered. And it is always true. In the strange world of the atom, anything that can be taken for granted is a major step towards an "atomic world view".

Schrödinger's Cat

Remember a while ago I said there was a problem with the Copenhagen interpretation? Well, you now know enough of what quantum physics is to be able to discuss what it isn't, and by far the biggest thing it isn't is complete. Sure, the math seems to be complete, but the theory includes absolutely nothing that would tie the math to any physical reality we could imagine. Furthermore, quantum physics leaves us with a rather large open question: what is reality? The Copenhagen interpretation attempts to solve this problem by saying that reality is what is measured. However, the measuring device itself is then not real until it is measured. The problem, which is known as the measurement problem, is when does the cycle stop?

Remember that when we last left Schrödinger he was muttering about the "damned quantum jumping." He never did get used to quantum physics, but, unlike Einstein, he was able to come up with a very real demonstration of just how incomplete the physical view of our world given by quantum physics really is. Imagine a box in which there is a radioactive source, a Geiger counter (or anything that records the presence of radioactive particles), a bottle of cyanide, and a cat. The detector is turned on for just long enough that there is a fifty-fifty chance that the radioactive material will decay. If the material does decay, the Geiger counter detects the particle and crushes the bottle of cyanide, killing the cat. If the material does not decay, the cat lives. To us outside the box, the time of detection is when the box is open. At that point, the wave function collapses and the cat either dies or lives. However, until the box is opened, the cat is both dead and alive 45.

On one hand, the cat itself could be considered the detector; it's presence is enough to collapse the wave function 46. But in that case, would the presence of a rat be enough? Or an ameba? Where is the line drawn 47? On the other hand, what if you replace the cat with a human (named "Wigner's friend" after Eugene Wigner, the physicist who developed many derivations of the Schrödinger's cat experiment). The human is certainly able to collapse the wave function, yet to us outside the box the measurement is not taken until the box is opened 48. If we try to develop some sort of "quantum relativity" where each individual has his own view of the world, then what is to prevent the world from getting "out of sync" between observers?

While there are many different interpretations that solve the problem of Schrödinger&#8217;s Cat, one of which we will discuss shortly, none of them are satisfactory enough to have convinced a majority of physicists that the consequences of these interpretation s are better then the half dead cat. Furthermore, while these interpretations do prevent a half dead cat, they do not solve the underlying measurement problem. Until a better intrepretation surfaces, we are left with the Copenhagen interpretation and it's half dead cat. We can certainly understand how Schrödinger feels when he says, "I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it."49 Yet the problem doesn't go away; it is just left for the great thinkers of tomorrow.

The Infinity Problem

There is one last problem that we will discuss before moving on to the alternative interpretation. Unlike the others, this problem lies primarily in the mathematics of a certain part of quantum physics called quantum electrodynamics, or QED. This branch of quantum physics explains the electromagnetic interaction in quantum terms. The problem is, when you add the interaction particles and try to solve Schrödinger's wave equation, you get an electron with infinite mass, infinite energy, and infinite charge50. There is no way to get rid of the infinities using valid mathematics, so, the theorists simply divide infinity by infinity and get whatever result the guys in the lab say the mass, energy, and charge should be51. Even fudging the math, the other results of QED are so powerful that most physicists ignore the infinities and use the theory anyway 52. As Paul Dirac, who was one of the physicists who published quantum equations before Schrödinger, said, "Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small - not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!". 53

Many Worlds

One other interpretation, presented first by Hugh Everett III in 1957, is the many worlds or branching universe interpretation54. In this theory, whenever a measurement takes place, the entire universe divides as many times as there are possible outcomes of the measurement. All universes are identical except for the outcome of that measurement 55. Unlike the science fiction view of "parallel universes", it is not possible for any of these worlds to interact with each other 56.

While this creates an unthinkable number of different worlds, it does solve the problem of Schrödinger's cat. Instead of one cat, we now have two; one is dead, the other alive. However, it has still not solved the measurement problem 57! If the universe split every time there was more then one possibility, then we would not see the interference pattern in the electron experiment. So when does it split? No alternative interpretation has yet answered this question in a satisfactory way. And so the search continues&#8230;

Wow…I'm such a nerd :p

EDIT: Actually, it's quite a nice, short explanation. Thanks. Saves me some time simplify'ing others… :)

That's considered short!?

From: Santa_Clause
That's considered short!?

Yes considering they have textbooks upon textbooks of this stuff. :) I'm sure you wanna become a quantum physicist now.

From: Santa_Clause
That's considered short!?

Yes, very short compared to other articles I read… At least it contains no formule's that are larger than 10 pages of Pi digits.

Can Anyone Tell me how to calculate pi…

Like CalculatePi(Digets: Integer): Extended;

CalculatePi(2) = 3.14
CaculatePi(14) = 3.14159265358979

all i know is.. ArcTan(1) * 4 = 3.14159265358979

however, i want to extend it…

you cant really calculate pi, you can only measure it… and arctan is based on pi…

From: SKy Scripter
Can Anyone Tell me how to calculate pi…

Like CalculatePi(Digets: Integer): Extended;

CalculatePi(2) = 3.14
CaculatePi(14) = 3.14159265358979

all i know is.. ArcTan(1) * 4 = 3.14159265358979

however, i want to extend it…

I've told you how to do this before, you must just not believe me :eek: Fine, I'll write out the calculation for the value of Pi… Since you already know (because I told you :p) that ATan[1]*4 = Pi, then I will explain it that way. Used Mathematica to type up these images if you are curious.
Which is very similar to the Inverse Tangent (ATan) function (In fact, it IS ATan[1]*4):
If you are curious about how to calculate that (IE, you don't know calculus), this is some java code I wrote which is only limited by the number of bits in a java double. If there were unlimited bits, it could calculate Pi to unlimited accuracy.

public class Pi {
  
  private static double recintPi(double low, double high, double last, double error) {
    double mid = (low + high) / 2D;
    double a = 4D / (1D + low * low);
    double b = 4D / (1D + mid * mid);
    double c = 4D / (1D + high * high);
    double left = ((a + b) / 2D) * (mid - low);
    double right = ((b + c) / 2D) * (high - mid);
    if (Math.abs(left + right - last) < error) return left + right;
    return recintPi(low, mid, left, error / 2D) + recintPi(mid, high, right, error / 2D);
  }
  
  public static double getValue(double accuracy) {
    return Math.floor(recintPi(0,1,0,accuracy)/accuracy)*accuracy;
  }
  
  public static double getValue() {
    return getValue(0.000000000000001);
  }
  
}

Edit: Didn't I send you the 4 million digits of Pi that I have?

Edit: In case you interested, there is a mathematical identity that is quite interesting:
e^(i*Pi) = -1
So:
Ln[-1]/i = Pi
Also:
e^(i*xi) = Cos[x] + i*Sin[x]
Therefore, since:
Cos[Pi] = -1
And:
Sin[Pi] = 0
Then (duh):
ACos[-1] = Pi

Also helps explain why anything to the power of zero is 1:
e^(i*0) = Cos[0] + i*Sin[0]
Therefore, since:
Cos[0] = 1
And:
Sin[0] = 0
And:
i*0 = 0
Then:
e^0 = 1

anyone want something really interesting?

google "String Theory" of watch the String Theory thing on the PBS website

I wrote a 14 page essay on it last year (7th grade). I aced it becuase my teacher had no idea what i was talking about and got a headache trying to understand (lol)

The first four million digits of pi? Wow… Yur addictd to ma7hz!


I really need to learn calculus to communicate with benland.

From: BenLand100
I've told you how to do this before, you must just not believe me :eek: Fine, I'll write out the calculation for the value of Pi… Since you already know (because I told you :p) that ATan[1]*4 = Pi, then I will explain it that way. Used Mathematica to type up these images if you are curious.
Which is very similar to the Inverse Tangent (ATan) function (In fact, it IS ATan[1]*4):
If you are curious about how to calculate that (IE, you don't know calculus), this is some java code I wrote which is only limited by the number of bits in a java double. If there were unlimited bits, it could calculate Pi to unlimited accuracy.

public class Pi {
  
  private static double recintPi(double low, double high, double last, double error) {
    double mid = (low + high) / 2D;
    double a = 4D / (1D + low * low);
    double b = 4D / (1D + mid * mid);
    double c = 4D / (1D + high * high);
    double left = ((a + b) / 2D) * (mid - low);
    double right = ((b + c) / 2D) * (high - mid);
    if (Math.abs(left + right - last) < error) return left + right;
    return recintPi(low, mid, left, error / 2D) + recintPi(mid, high, right, error / 2D);
  }
  
  public static double getValue(double accuracy) {
    return Math.floor(recintPi(0,1,0,accuracy)/accuracy)*accuracy;
  }
  
  public static double getValue() {
    return getValue(0.000000000000001);
  }
  
}

Edit: Didn't I send you the 4 million digits of Pi that I have?

Edit: In case you interested, there is a mathematical identity that is quite interesting:
e^(i*Pi) = -1
So:
Ln[-1]/i = Pi
Also:
e^(i*xi) = Cos[x] + i*Sin[x]
Therefore, since:
Cos[Pi] = -1
And:
Sin[Pi] = 0
Then (duh):
ACos[-1] = Pi

Also helps explain why anything to the power of zero is 1:
e^(i*0) = Cos[0] + i*Sin[0]
Therefore, since:
Cos[0] = 1
And:
Sin[0] = 0
And:
i*0 = 0
Then:
e^0 = 1

Owi, this is what you was blabering about :p
Thanks, verry Much :)

Oh yeah i have the 4 million XD.

rotfl, pi addicts check this out

http://pi.ytmnd.com/

phi addicts check this

http://phi.ytmnd.com/

From: Macrosoft
rotfl, pi addicts check this out

http://pi.ytmnd.com/

phi addicts check this

http://phi.ytmnd.com/

I've known about those songs for over a year, I don't think they started there however…

The second one is phi (pronounced fi I believe). Whats it a constant for?

phi is the golden ratio. ever heard of that?

their is bunch of places in which it apears in nature

if u need me to ill list 'em out lol

Edit: 400th post!

From: BenLand100

Which is very similar to the Inverse Tangent (ATan) function (In fact, it IS ATan[1]*4):

Oh is it really that simple. Its only a simple integral. I thought it would be something that people need supercomputers to calculate. :)

From: BenLand100
I've told you how to do this before, you must just not believe me :eek: Fine, I'll write out the calculation for the value of Pi… Since you already know (because I told you :p) that ATan[1]*4 = Pi, then I will explain it that way. Used Mathematica to type up these images if you are curious.
Which is very similar to the Inverse Tangent (ATan) function (In fact, it IS ATan[1]*4):
If you are curious about how to calculate that (IE, you don't know calculus), this is some java code I wrote which is only limited by the number of bits in a java double. If there were unlimited bits, it could calculate Pi to unlimited accuracy.

public class Pi {
  
  private static double recintPi(double low, double high, double last, double error) {
    double mid = (low + high) / 2D;
    double a = 4D / (1D + low * low);
    double b = 4D / (1D + mid * mid);
    double c = 4D / (1D + high * high);
    double left = ((a + b) / 2D) * (mid - low);
    double right = ((b + c) / 2D) * (high - mid);
    if (Math.abs(left + right - last) < error) return left + right;
    return recintPi(low, mid, left, error / 2D) + recintPi(mid, high, right, error / 2D);
  }
  
  public static double getValue(double accuracy) {
    return Math.floor(recintPi(0,1,0,accuracy)/accuracy)*accuracy;
  }
  
  public static double getValue() {
    return getValue(0.000000000000001);
  }
  
}

Edit: Didn't I send you the 4 million digits of Pi that I have?

Edit: In case you interested, there is a mathematical identity that is quite interesting:
e^(i*Pi) = -1
So:
Ln[-1]/i = Pi
Also:
e^(i*xi) = Cos[x] + i*Sin[x]
Therefore, since:
Cos[Pi] = -1
And:
Sin[Pi] = 0
Then (duh):
ACos[-1] = Pi

Also helps explain why anything to the power of zero is 1:
e^(i*0) = Cos[0] + i*Sin[0]
Therefore, since:
Cos[0] = 1
And:
Sin[0] = 0
And:
i*0 = 0
Then:
e^0 = 1

To prove any number to the power of 0 = 1:

(X ^ 10) / (X ^ 10) = 1, since you're dividing a number by itself. It's also X ^ 0 since when you divide a pronumeral by a like term, you subtract the powers…

(X ^ 10) / (X ^ 10) = X ^ (10 - 10) = X ^ 0
(X ^ 10) / (X ^ 10) = 1 (Dividing number by itself)

Therefore, X ^ 0 = 1, much simpler than your way…unless I'm missing something.

From: BenLand100
Edit: Anyone want to take a stab on how/why gravity (mass) causes time distortion? ;)

Im sure you do. :p I'm guessing it would be more complex than how it just warps spacetime because of how big and heavy it is

Ohhhh! Ok, I know what the golden ration is.


I'm learning alot here. keep holding useless arguments (Everything is useless on the internet)

From: Santa_Clause
To prove any number to the power of 0 = 1:

(X ^ 10) / (X ^ 10) = 1, since you're dividing a number by itself. It's also X ^ 0 since when you divide a pronumeral by a like term, you subtract the powers…

(X ^ 10) / (X ^ 10) = X ^ (10 - 10) = X ^ 0
(X ^ 10) / (X ^ 10) = 1 (Dividing number by itself)

Therefore, X ^ 0 = 1, much simpler than your way…unless I'm missing something.

Complex numbers, hence the i ;)

From: The Claw
Im sure you do. :p I'm guessing it would be more complex than how it just warps spacetime because of how big and heavy it is

Its not much more complex than that, but the reason and nature of space warping is what I'm getting at. ANYWAY, I just ate 50 packets of sugar, and am bouncing off the walls, so there is NO WAY I'm going to go into it now. :sasmokin:

On how gravity warps time, do you mean time or spacetime? Also, gravity is(?) spacetime.

Though I'd like to give analogies on them, I feel they're inefficient (at least the bowling ball/elastic sheet one) because they call upon gravity to define why gravity warps space-time. The frame dragging analogy (heavy spinning wheel/elastic sheet) seems to be more sufficient, but calls upon friction AND gravity to define why gravity warps space-time.

So equations would be the best. But truthfully, I don't know/don't understand them yet.

Black holes also fulfill the gravity-warping-spacetime theory, as in effect, they are objects of almost infinite mass, and time stops in a black hole.

But if you ask me to clarify that, or explain it, I'd need to do more reading.

EDIT: 50 packets? That's a veritable mountain! Ha.
Back on topic: Benland, that was Euler in that identity proof, right?

From: Here
On how gravity warps time, do you mean time or spacetime? Also, gravity is(?) spacetime.

Though I'd like to give analogies on them, I feel they're inefficient (at least the bowling ball/elastic sheet one) because they call upon gravity to define why gravity warps space-time. The frame dragging analogy (heavy spinning wheel/elastic sheet) seems to be more sufficient, but calls upon friction AND gravity to define why gravity warps space-time.

So equations would be the best. But truthfully, I don't know/don't understand them yet.

Black holes also fulfill the gravity-warping-spacetime theory, as in effect, they are objects of almost infinite mass, and time stops in a black hole.

But if you ask me to clarify that, or explain it, I'd need to do more reading.

EDIT: 50 packets? That's a veritable mountain! Ha.
Back on topic: Benland, that was Euler in that identity proof, right?

Both, Kind of, They are, I hate all of them, Equations are fun, 'Course they do, all matter does, they are not infinitely massive, and not infinitely dense, they have both a set density and mass assuming everything beyond the even horizion is considered black hole, Everything (even most laws of physics) break down in a black hole, the forces are unified in the perfect example of entropy, it just is. YES it was a lot of sugar! And it was. :garfield:

Benland100- Do you learn all this stuff in school?! All were doing in 8th grade science is IPS (Intro. Physical Science)

there is some proof that 1+2+3+4+5…

or more clearly:

repeat
begin
  x:=x+1;
  y:= y+x;
end;
until(false)

is equal to -1/12

Is this true? If it is, im sure u know of it ben :)

Macrosoft, you saying that 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = -1/12? It can be proved…except there's a tiny flaw in that proof, I think it involves dividing a number by 0…

From: Macrosoft
Benland100- Do you learn all this stuff in school?! All were doing in 8th grade science is IPS (Intro. Physical Science)

there is some proof that 1+2+3+4+5…

or more clearly:

ScarScript:By Drunkenoldma [LEFT]repeat begin x:=x+1; y:= y+x; end; until(false) [/LEFT]

is equal to -1/12

Is this true? If it is, im sure u know of it ben :)

Na, I read a lot/teach myself. I'm also good friends with the head of the science department at a local college (Its a private college, not like a local public college, name's Mercer) :p

Also, that proof is not possible… Think about it, if all you do is add positive integers to each other, you get positive integers. Anyway, that summation would not converge, so the answer is infinity. Want to show me the actual proof though? I think you might be over-simplifying it…

kk ill post it when i find it…

If I'm travelling the speed of light, And I hold a mirror infront of myself, Do I see my reflection? - Einstein.

As most of you know, The answer is yes, Light is constant, Unlike sound which can be compressed.
Time slows down for Light so that it can reach you since it cannot be compressed.

Which basically means, Time doesn't affect light since if I was going at the speed of light time would pretty much have to stop completely in order for the light to reach the mirror?
Butttt if Time stopped and light kept going, Would light keep appearing? Think about fire, Would it exist in *No Time*?
No oxygen would exist? It wouldn't need oxygen if it wasn't burning(Paused Time)? Would it do that last bit of light before Time was paused? would I be stuck on that last bit and constantly be coming off? Would everything do 1 last ray of light then be plunged into darkness?

From: BenLand100
Both, Kind of, They are, I hate all of them, Equations are fun, 'Course they do, all matter does, they are not infinitely massive, and not infinitely dense, they have both a set density and mass assuming everything beyond the even horizion is considered black hole, Everything (even most laws of physics) break down in a black hole, the forces are unified in the perfect example of entropy, it just is. YES it was a lot of sugar! And it was. :garfield:

Wtf are you on about dude? Come back tomorrow when you're not so hyped up. smoke a bowl or something, that always helps - cheaper than 50 packets of sugar too ;)

a = b
a^2 = a*b
a^2-b^2 = a*b-b^2
(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)
(a+b) = b
a+a = a
2a = a
2 = 1

Happiness :)

From: Santa_Clause
Happiness :)

2*Infinity = 5*Infinity
2 = 5

its that good enough… lol :P

I like the one on another thread though. Something to do with a rectangle of infinite area. You could use it to work out the value of infinity.

There is no value of infinity.

2 * Infinity isn't equal to 5 * infinity…since infinity isn't a number, and since infinity isn't a number, the 2 infinities in those equations are pretty much different numbers…

You know, I was just learning about this today using Limits…

From: Santa_Clause
There is no value of infinity.

2 * Infinity isn't equal to 5 * infinity…since infinity isn't a number, and since infinity isn't a number, the 2 infinities in those equations are pretty much different numbers…

You know, I was just learning about this today using Limits…

Limits are fun. And yes I know its just something that some guy told me and I thought it was stupid.

From: Santa_Clause

a = b
a^2 = a*b
a^2-b^2 = a*b-b^2
(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)
(a+b) = b
a+a = a
2a = a
2 = 1

Happiness :)

Incorrect, since you said at the start a = b then (a - b) = 0. And we all know you cant divide by 0, which is what you did in line 5

if you were to successfully divide by zero, spacetime would collapse in on itself and the universe would be destroyed, so be careful ;)

From: Santa_Clause
Macrosoft, you saying that 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = -1/12? It can be proved…except there's a tiny flaw in that proof, I think it involves dividing a number by 0…

Must I quote myself Claw :p

I already knew…just having some fun :)

To The Claw: Benland was responding to my post. But that still looks like a lot of sugar to me.

I stand corrected. Black holes are NOT infinitely massive.

And in response to Kevin Wolf, if you mean time independent, then do you mean stopped time or no time?

Rofl claw! :p

I kinda understand these stuff you're talking about, not saying though when I walk out I remember them, but interesting to read indeed…

From: ZephyrsFury
I like the one on another thread though. Something to do with a rectangle of infinite area. You could use it to work out the value of infinity.

That reminded me, you know there are shapes with infinite perimeters but finite areas? Take a koch snowflake for instance. The area is equal to Sqrt[12/25*s^4] where s is the length of one side of the original triangle, however because of the way its built, you have an infinite perimeter.

Infinite as in very small decimal?

Infinite means it's an everlasting number…never stops.

From: BenLand100
Its not much more complex than that, but the reason and nature of space warping is what I'm getting at. ANYWAY, I just ate 50 packets of sugar, and am bouncing off the walls, so there is NO WAY I'm going to go into it now. :sasmokin:

Have you come down yet? I'm waiting for an explanation :p

EDIT: Thought we were talking about something else. Nevermind :)

From: R0b0t1
Infinite as in very small decimal?

No, a huge never ending number.

From: The Claw
Have you come down yet? I'm waiting for an explanation :p

At least take a stab at it, I'll give you a hint, it has to do with stuff falling ;)

I have a questiong. this always buggs me….

We know that light travells at a speed of about 186,000 mi per second. And Einstein sade that do matter in the universe can go faster than the speed of light. Being hypothetical, I tried to imagine what would you see if you managed go to faster than the speed of light?

I am pretty convinced there can be no answere to the question. What do you think?

depending on the angle of the light falling on your eyes and how much faster you travel, you could still pretty much see everything(if your brains are fast enough)

But you would theoretically only see light not going the same direction as you. If you looked forward or backward (in relation to your movement) you would be blind.

From: R0b0t1
But you would theoretically only see light not going the same direction as you. If you looked forward or backward (in relation to your movement) you would be blind.

Speed of light is constant, you'd see everything happening backwards. IE, back in time. But it can't happen anyway, so don't loose sleep over it ;)

Well yes, but its an interesting problem.


But I mean it as this: You cannot add your speed to light, yes? That means that if you were going the exact same speed as the light around you, you would not see that light as it will never reach your eye. But you would see the light that is not traveling with you, eg at a right angle to your movement (or some other angle).

one, not all light goes to the same direction
two, you will never see anything before it happened, the light cant reach you before it was created, you might see it earlier or later then it originally bounced against an object, but you wont see it before it did…

Thats not what I'm saying…

I said you would not see light going the same direction as you, as it would be in a "limbo" as your eye is just behind/in front of it, but they are going the same speed, so it will be as if they are not moving into relation to each other.

But the light has been there before you. As Benland was saying, you'd see the past (going back in time) if you were moving faster. If you were moving at the exact same speed, you'd see the same image forever(?) Unless the source of light only turned on AFTER you accelerated to greater than light you would not see light.

And about the infinite perimeter, finite area thing, it's hard to understand if you don't have the work right before you, so here you go: link

Well, I don't think you would see the same image forever, 'cause the light touching/in your eye would be absorbed by your eye.

Hmm… Lemme go read up on optics. But I don't think the light will be "absorbed"…

From: R0b0t1
Well yes, but its an interesting problem.


But I mean it as this: You cannot add your speed to light, yes? That means that if you were going the exact same speed as the light around you, you would not see that light as it will never reach your eye. But you would see the light that is not traveling with you, eg at a right angle to your movement (or some other angle).

You can never go the same speed as a photon ;) The speed of light is a universal constant for any observer, regardless of their speed. If you went "the speed of light" all the light around you coming towards you from all directions would still be moving the speed of light. If you went faster, same principle. However at the speed of light you cease to move through time, time stops, if you continue past the speed of light (impossible), you begin to go backwards in time (negative velocity in time, ie impossible), but light is still moving at the same speed ;)

Yes Light can be absorbed, read about the photoelectric effect.

From: BenLand100
At least take a stab at it, I'll give you a hint, it has to do with stuff falling ;)

I've got no clue on this one I'm afraid, its something I've never looked into :redface:

well doesnt really matter because at warp 10 you are everywhere and if you dont believe me, ill send my replicaters after you

From: The Claw
I've got no clue on this one I'm afraid, its something I've never looked into :redface:

I'll get to it eventually, I've got stuffs (like hacking into a server to change competition results) to do atm.

From: Killerdou
well doesnt really matter because at warp 10 you are everywhere and if you dont believe me, ill send my replicaters after you

Sadly, I know exactly what you are talking about. Star Trek Voyager where Paris turns into a genetically mutated thing from traveling at warp 10, and an entire season of Stargate SG1 :p

I'm afraid warp 10 isn't real

Why is Ben now addicted to this thread? Good question, eh? Gimme an answer.

And BTW: Why are we nerds while some other people aren't? How do we calculate what is unethical/immoral? Why do I like popcorn better than anyone else?

Not so much chemistry or physics, but I'd like an answer, lol :D

-Knives

From: King of Knives
And BTW: Why are we nerds while some other people aren't?

Be proud of it :)
being a geek/nerd is a good thing,
who was it who said "Be nice to geeks, you will probably end up working for one"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerd_pride_day

To Benlands repeated comments about how we can't go faster than light:

But theoretically, as long as we never ACCELERATED to the speed of light, but STARTED OFF faster than light, that would still be possible no? Just moving "backwards in time". I believe physics allows for that, but it's not practical (at all) nor have we found evidence of these so called "tachyons" yet. But theoretically possible?

Ben thinks everything must be possible to even try to question it.


EDIT: You absorb the electromagnetic energy of the light and it turns to heat. Same as with things set in the sun.

From: Here
To Benlands repeated comments about how we can't go faster than light:

But theoretically, as long as we never ACCELERATED to the speed of light, but STARTED OFF faster than light, that would still be possible no? Just moving "backwards in time". I believe physics allows for that, but it's not practical (at all) nor have we found evidence of these so called "tachyons" yet. But theoretically possible?

Nope, because how do you plan to get to faster than the speed of light without accelerating?

From: The Claw
Nope, because how do you plan to get to faster than the speed of light without accelerating?

Negative mass ;)

From: Here
To Benlands repeated comments about how we can't go faster than light:

But theoretically, as long as we never ACCELERATED to the speed of light, but STARTED OFF faster than light, that would still be possible no? Just moving "backwards in time". I believe physics allows for that, but it's not practical (at all) nor have we found evidence of these so called "tachyons" yet. But theoretically possible?

If you're willing to accept the idea of a negative velocity (going in reverse though the direction of your velocity would be forward) Then you also have to accept the possibility of negative mass (occupying space without having volume). Both of which are completely ridicules, but if thats what makes you happy, go for it ;) If you do accept those two items to be a possibility it would both be possible to accelerate beyond the speed of light (since it would be mathematically the same as decelerating from the speed of light) and your velocity would be bound by [Infinity,Speed of Light]. However, with a negative mass you would always have negative velocity and a faster than light speed and therefore would not be able to move slower than light. As such, it is still impossible to get the best of both worlds. If you are in tune to the string theory, this partially fits with the whole "you can only get so small till you start getting larger" idea which also make it impossible to distinguish what has a negative mass from what has a positive mass and what has a faster than light speed and what has a slower than light speed, which allows you to treat them both as the same thing (-1000 = +1000) therefore making it unreasonable to say you are going faster than light, since its the same as slowing down again…

Food for thought: A particle going backwards in time looks like its going in the opposite direction for us than it registers for itself. Therefore its velocity (relative to us) of +10 would appear as -10 to it and our velocity (relative to it) of -10 would appear as +10 for us. So, congrats on another twin paradox… :rolleyes:

Another more theoretically sound path to take would lie with faster than light velocity and imaginary mass (not negative, just i). I have no analogy for imaginary mass so I won't go there :)

Nice response, very well put. I didn't know that part about string theory though, as I'm not really "up with it". But the part about starting off faster and not being able to decelerate to the speed of light is correct, according to what I read.

i mass, huh? Interesting…

From: Here
Nice response, very well put. I didn't know that part about string theory though, as I'm not really "up with it". But the part about starting off faster and not being able to decelerate to the speed of light is correct, according to what I read.

i mass, huh? Interesting…

What, do you think I'm making this all up? :sasmokin:

Anyway, the i mass comes from this equation:
E = (mc^2) / Sqrt[1-(v^2/c^2)]
Which is how one calculates the total energy of a system when its rest mass and velocity is known. Without the part in the Sqrt[] all you get is the rest energy. Anyway, as you can see, if velocity is greater than the speed of light then the value in the square root will be negative. You know that a negative in a square root is represented in the form Sqrt[-1] = i therefore Sqrt[-(x^2)] = ix. So, in order to keep energy from being a complex number (a number with both an imaginary and real part), we assume that the mass would be imaginary and that i/i would cancel each other out. I do not like that theory since they allow mass to be imaginary so that energy is real, but why can't energy be real/complex if mass can be real/complex? It seems to me that they are arbitrarily saying that energy can't be complex so it must be the mass… Thats where the tachyon theory came from btw.

Oh. Shit?

I never said you were making it up. Neither did my sentence imply it. Maybe I should've been clearer though.

Is this - (Sqrt[1-(v^2/c^2)]) - part of the original equation of E=mc^2?

From: Here
I never said you were making it up. Neither did my sentence imply it. Maybe I should've been clearer though.

Is this - (Sqrt[1-(v^2/c^2)]) - part of the original equation of E=mc^2?

It is the correction factor for motion. The E=mc^2 that you usually see is only for rest mass and rest energy, both have a tendency to change when you move ;)

E=mc^2 isnt even the complete equation XD there is more, but it practically changes nothing so its not put in high school books

How is it possible that, when we do not look at a proton, it act's like a wave, and interfere's with itself, and when we do look it act's like a ordinairy particle?

Why does the interference of 1 single (or more) quantum particle disappear when we look at it?

Simple Setting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

how do you know if an proton acts different if you dont look at it? and thinks dont disappear when you stop looking at them, they start to dance(can you proof me wrong, no you cant, cause you wasnt looking at them)

There is a difference in looking at the actual movement of the particle, and just looking at the end results, where it 'hits' some area.
Plus, not everything that you 'look' at, has to be seen by human eyes. Computers are good at registering.

BTW: This is just a way of how I interpreted some of the quantum theory, it doesn't have to be true.

i just wanted to point out, you cant know what something is or does if you dont observe it(i'm talking about any form of observing, also machines). Like the famous "does a falling tree in the forest make a sound if no one is there to hear it" question.

Kill the paradox!

Hey Ben, what do you think about White Holes (black holes in reverse)?

Edit: In case someone wants to read up on it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_holes, and there is a really good show about it on discovery.

In order to observe a photon you disturb it (change its velocity) and it is either is destroyed or no longer has the same properties it had before. Thats why the interference stops when its observed. Also, the full equation (I mentioned a few posts back) is E^2 = (MC^2)^2+(PC)^2. Furthermore, all matter behaves like a wave, its just that the wave properties are based on mass, since photons have no real mass, they behave fully like waves, but still have the basic properties of matte (as long as they are moving at a constant velocity). Remember, velocity is both direction and magnitude. Photons "decay" (simple word, its more complex) almost instantly, but since they move at the speed of light, they do not move through time at all (time stops at the speed of light, remember), so as long as they keep moving, the continue to exist, when you change them (add mass) or stop them (ie, they run into something, they are hit by something (another photon)) they cease to be matter and "decay" into energy.

Edit: White hole? That just sounds stupid, if its the opposite of a black hole it would instantly expel all energy and would not exist in the first place, unless you are talking about some massive energy source (near infinite)

From: BenLand100
White hole? That just sounds stupid, if its the opposite of a black hole it would instantly expel all energy and would not exist in the first place, unless you are talking about some massive energy source (near infinite)

Dunno, little is known about them, they are still fictional, but so were black holes not to long ago :-P

What are your views on The Game? Do you think it is possible to win.

I lose.

In order to observe a photon you disturb it (change its velocity) and it is either is destroyed or no longer has the same properties it had before. Thats why the interference stops when its observed.

Yea, I came that far… I highly doubt that it is true, though.
I beleive that at the moment our humans brains actually 'see' the photon moving, our brains decide that it is not possible thus changing the way the photon moves. (From wave to particle, thus stopping interference)

'Shaping' reality with the human brains/mind, weird… I think this experiment can give you a general idea?

Schrodinger's Cat

And here is the Double-Slit experiment on wiki.

From: Wizzup?
Yea, I came that far… I highly doubt that it is true, though.
I beleive that at the moment our humans brains actually 'see' the photon moving, our brains decide that it is not possible thus changing the way the photon moves. (From wave to particle, thus stopping interference)

'Shaping' reality with the human brains/mind, weird… I think this experiment can give you a general idea?

Schrodinger's Cat

And here is the Double-Slit experiment on wiki.

Ok, neither of those have to do with the human mind, the idea is that one can assume all states are possible until one is determined. You have to realize that the interference of photons and electrons has been proven experimentally and that machinery, not a person, recorded the data. Under that circumstance you would be claiming that your brain would have influenced past events from the present. Now, i've already shown that all matter behaves like waves, so its not just photons. It's not that light is a wave, its just a particle with no real mass. Any other particle with no real mass would behave the same way as a photon as far as the whole particle-wave thing goes. The cat experiment just means that since you have no way of telling if the cat is dead or alive, you assume it is either all or none. That experiment was designed to confuse people, its really as simple as you don't know anything until you look at it, and observation always changes (or finalizes) the observed. Read about heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the math behind it.

Philosophical ties: You can discover nothing without changing the way it would have been.

From: BenLand100
Ok, neither of those have to do with the human mind, the idea is that one can assume all states are possible until one is determined. You have to realize that the interference of photons and electrons has been proven experimentally and that machinery, not a person, recorded the data. Under that circumstance you would be claiming that your brain would have influenced past events from the present. Now, i've already shown that all matter behaves like waves, so its not just photons. It's not that light is a wave, its just a particle with no real mass. Any other particle with no real mass would behave the same way as a photon as far as the whole particle-wave thing goes. The cat experiment just means that since you have no way of telling if the cat is dead or alive, you assume it is either all or none. That experiment was designed to confuse people, its really as simple as you don't know anything until you look at it, and observation always changes (or finalizes) the observed. Read about heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the math behind it.

Philosophical ties: You can discover nothing without changing the way it would have been.

Again, I may have mis-formulated myself, it's not easy to talk about Quantum Science in English.

I agree with you on most points.
Except for the fact that you say that Light has no real mass.
It does have a mass. Unless you meant with real that the mass is so small that it is not significant?

You have to realize that the interference of photons and electrons has been proven experimentally and that machinery, not a person, recorded the data. Under that circumstance you would be claiming that your brain would have influenced past events from the present.

Exactly. But doesn't our brain then shape* a certain reality, 'our' reality?
* It distorts certain information in our brain, because our brain simply can't 'add' it?
(add, that is what interglot gave as translation for 'bevatten')

From: Wizzup?
Again, I may have mis-formulated myself, it's not easy to talk about Quantum Science in English.

I agree with you on most points.
Except for the fact that you say that Light has no real mass.
It does have a mass. Unless you meant with real that the mass is so small that it is not significant?

Exactly. But doesn't our brain then shape* a certain reality, 'our' reality?
* It distorts certain information in our brain, because our brain simply can't 'add' it?
(add, that is what interglot gave as translation for 'bevatten')

By real mass I mean that the value of m in E=mc^2 is 0. Light has momentum and that is how it has mass, the full equation is: (Where p is 'momentum')
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2

Judging by the context, I would assume bevatten translates more correctly as 'compute' or 'interpret', which are the more figurative meanings of (or more general terms for) adding. If I'm inferring correctly, I think you are saying that what we 'see' is what our brain wants us to see because its easier for our brain to cope with. That might be possible, but because we can explain it with experiments and have solid proof that all matter behaves like waves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie_hypothesis), it is highly unlikely. IE, wave-particle duality is just a property of matter that is generally unnoticed because most matter has a real mass that makes the wave properties hard/impossible to detect.

Edit: Your concept of the brain creating a reality for us does partially fit for a photon. They are not 'particles' as much as they are 'waves' due to the lack of real mass, but rather they are disturbances in the electromagnetic field. It can be said that gravitons are equivalent to photons, but for the gravitational force. Both are force-transmission particles and travel at the speed of light, therefore have no real mass and behave fully like waves. The reason there is no solid proof for gravitons yet is due to the weakness of the gravitational force.

The reason there is no solid proof for gravitons yet is due to the weakness of the gravitational force.

I don't understand the sentence. Are you saying that they exist, and there's just no proof due to the weakness? Because that's how I'm reading your sentence.

They float off into other dimensions almost as soon as they are created..all theoretical of course. they float of so quickly that as of now, we have never seen one, but it is thought they exist. the hadron collider that is being built atm (google it) is hoping to prove the existance of gravitrons, among other things.

From: Here
I don't understand the sentence. Are you saying that they exist, and there's just no proof due to the weakness? Because that's how I'm reading your sentence.

Yea, thats exactly it. The force of gravity is so weak that a single quantum (a graviton) is basically undetectable. It takes [super large unknown number here] gravitons to even affect matter, so it just appears to be a force without force particles.

question time: what makes things have their colour? obviously they reflect the light of that wavelength and absorb all the others, everyone knows that. im wondering what determines which wavelengths of visible light are absorbed and which are reflected? so essentially what makes that pen blue, and what makes that other pen red.

i was talking to my cousin and he said it was the specific levels of energy that are required to make the electrons change shells. like for something to be red, it would have to absorb the energy level that the red part of the spectrum has? and that the energy level is to do with the wavelength among other things. i think thats what he said, i cant really remember as we were both drunk at the time. does it sound right? but he said it was the basic version, as i wouldnt understand the advanced version until i did a course in uni like he did lol.

From: The Claw
i was talking to my cousin and he said it was the specific levels of energy that are required to make the electrons change shells. like for something to be red, it would have to absorb the energy level that the red part of the spectrum has? and that the energy level is to do with the wavelength among other things. i think thats what he said, i cant really remember as we were both drunk at the time. does it sound right? but he said it was the basic version, as i wouldnt understand the advanced version until i did a course in uni like he did lol.

Yea, in order for a photon to be absorbed (by an electron at least) it must fit perfectly into that electrons potential to jump up to a higher energy level. A certain wavelength of light has a specific energy, therefore a photon must be absorbed by an electron that can perfectly use its energy. This goes the same for emitting light, as an electron falls from an energy level, it emits a photon of the wavelength that corresponds to that specific energy difference.

yea figures. anyway, back to the basics.

1. what exactly is gravity? string theory talks about gravitons, but they are yet to be proven. perhaps the large hadron collider will do that but up until then….what do you think would happen if the sun dissapeared? would the planets continue in orbit for the 7 minutes, and then go off course or would they go off course immediately?

2. if nothing is faster than light, how come no light can escape a black hole? isnt that assuming that gravity is faster than light? please dont just say "all modern laws break down in a black hole lol."