Not sure if anyone fancies this one, (apart from the Git™) but does anyone know anyhting about this?
Realms of fantasy but real, crazy sheeeet....
Please don't post crap, I'm generally interested..
I know nothing but here is some info (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/)
and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement) is a more concise explanation
Ahh now this I do know about. To be honest it's odd, because as soon as I started replying I thought 'Nah everyon is going to think this is a wind up', but in reality I've been facinated by the general subject of quantum physics for years. I don't study it on a scientific level but follow the arguements and theories closely.
My interest piqued when I left college and discovered a few very well written books aimed at the layman that covered Quantum Theory. But it was A brief History of Time that really hooked me on the subject.
You'll find masses on the web. Welcome to the World of Weird.
(Broken PC at the moment so I'm only checking the forums on my occassional visits to the office)
From what I've read (not much) recent experiments have shown that the correlation between the seperated particles(?) isn't affected as much as originally thought by external forces.
So essentially breaking up the photons for example, although you send one set in one direction, you can predict or use the information contained to recreate the originals.....
Go on Star Trek transporters....or even better, beam me a Mars Bar over here.
Crazy sheeeeet, something seperated by relatively huge distances still maintains a relationship with the other half...crazy god stuff.
QuoteOriginally posted by Benny@Aug 17 2004, 11:34 AM
crazy god stuff.
That is the essence of quantum mechanics. Hawking himself could not have put it better.
As an aside I ought to admit to having been reading into this whole area and other geeky type topics such as chaos theory, factals and other maths & physics theories since the tender age of 13 - at which age I got a book out from the local library about sub-atomic particles. I've been hooked ever since........
TL.
Wow, who'd have thought we had a few UberGeeks in our midst. Maybe we could find a quiet corner at the LAN and discuss the esoteric wonders of Quantum Mechanics?
Ok maybe not.
QuoteOriginally posted by smilodon@Aug 17 2004, 12:38 PM
Ok maybe not.
Motion carried. Although I ought to point out that I am not carrying anyone's motion, no matter how much money they offer.
One of my regular entertainments is watching my cousins and remoter issue grow up and get to a stage where they know enough maths to be confounded by the alegebraic proof that 1 = 2 :lmfao:
For the non-mathematical the 'trick' occurs in the last line of the proof as if a = b then (a² - ab) = 0 and you cannot divide by 0 to get the given answer.
TL.
QuoteProof that 2 = 1
let a = b
Multiply both sides by a
a² = ab
Add (a² - 2ab) to both sides
a² + a² - 2ab = ab + a² - 2ab
Factor the left, and collect like terms on the right
2(a² - ab) = a² - ab
Divide both sides by (a² - ab)
2 = 1
QED.
This proof can also be used as a proof by contradiction that a can never be equal to b.
QuoteOriginally posted by TeaLeaf@Aug 17 2004, 12:45 PM
Proof that 2 = 1
let a = b
Multiply both sides by a
a² = ab
Add (a² - 2ab) to both sides
a² + a² - 2ab = ab + a² - 2ab
Factor the left, and collect like terms on the right
2(a² - ab) = a² - ab
Divide both sides by (a² - ab)
2 = 1
QED.
If you assume a=b,
then
Add (a² - 2ab) to both sides
a² + a² - 2ab = ab + a² - 2absurely equals 0 on both sides not matter what value a is.
Not sure what the above proves.
...maybe I'm a bit thick :D
QuoteOriginally posted by Thulsa Doom@Aug 17 2004, 01:24 PM
If you assume a=b,
then
Add (a² - 2ab) to both sides
a² + a² - 2ab = ab + a² - 2ab
surely equals 0 on both sides not matter what value a is.
Not sure what the above proves.
...maybe I'm a bit thick :D
That's the whole point.
Mathematically adding zero makes no odds, it is an allowable calculation even though it makes no difference.
As kids learn algebra they pick up that youy can to anything you like to an equation, so long as you do the same to both sides - so they assume that adding (a² - 2ab) to both sides is an allowable operation (which it is).
What they do not tend to do is calculate and register the fact that (a² - 2ab) = 0.
Where the proof falls mathematically is that you cannot divide by zero and that's the last line of the proof.
So no, you're not being thick, you're just thinking about it more than your average 12-13 year old does ;)
Which is why it is only ever amusing to show it to your cousins etc as they start to learn algebra. I have had several on the go for weeks trying to figure out how it works :lol:
TL.
QuoteOriginally posted by Benny@Aug 17 2004, 09:19 AM
..... I'm generally interested..
Got bored then ;)
Nope, not at all, (have you read the posts above?)
QuoteOriginally posted by TeaLeaf@Aug 17 2004, 01:43 PM
So no, you're not being thick, you're just thinking about it more than your average 12-13 year old does ;)
glad I'm smarter than a thicko 12-13 year old :lol:
QuoteOriginally posted by Benny@Aug 19 2004, 09:15 AM
Nope, not at all, (have you read the posts above?)
Yep but no discussion developed, other than TL and his divide by zero conundrum
A story related to the subject in today's BBC Online (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3576594.stm).
I try Smilo, I try, I was hoping someone with a lot more knowledge than me would go off on one.
Questions about what the relational force are the bits I can't get my head round. Oh and here's my starter....http://www.focusmag.co.uk/currentIssue.asp
I shall try to return to the fray later tonight - I have been a wee bit busy......
TL.
QuoteOriginally posted by Benny@Aug 19 2004, 01:10 PM
Questions about what the relational force are the bits I can't get my head round.
As in causality? The idea that for one system to affect another there must be some phsical connection between them or some form of information must be passed between them? Otherwise one system can somehow instantly communicate with the other. Cause and effect.
The trouble is the subject is at the bleeding edge of physics. No one really understands exactly what is going on or if Quantum Entanglement actually exists. Experiments so far only use a part of the complete theory and there could be a number of explainations for the effect that don't rely on action at a distance.
Go here (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/pvl/) and scroll down till you come to The essential quatum physics book. Its published on the web. It might be a bit heavy going.
Find the links to books on this site (http://www.polkinghorne.org/). The Quantum World is a very good one that explains quatum mechanics in laymans terms and I'd recommend it as a good starting point. He was a physist who became a priest so ther are also some interesting books that would relate to the discussion on religion that happened in another thread.
HTH I can point you in the direction of other stuff too if you want.
I have the books if you want to borrow them Benny.
lol, i took a quote from that article and started an argument with my Physics teacher. Considering he is ub3r ub3r ub3r clever, he won. But it was still fun to waste a weeks lessons :D I did kinda lose track after the first couple of words and get abit bored so i cant pick up on any good points he made about it. I try to be interested in stuff like that but i find other sections of science much more entertaining.
Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance".
Gotta love the beeb's choice of quote :D
OMG seems we have some brain pans here, though having been to the last LAN I'd of never guessed it :D
I've been doing some reading into the human mind and have found myself going off on a tangent reading about the origins of conciousness. These are a little long winded but a bloody good read. Quantum mechanics comes into it in places as its thought that the physical mind (the brain) is simply a conduit to another reality, a reality where conciousness lives.
Go google "Integrated Theory of Intelligence".
Also this is a good place to start. It can be a little long winded, however the rewards of understanding the text are that of some pretty "out there" thinking.
http://home.infionline.net/~jforberg/index.html (http://home.infionline.net/~jforberg/index.html)
Just found this burried deep in my link :blink:
http://www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/abhotswh.html (http://www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/abhotswh.html)
A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME - Stephen W. Hawking
READ IT, don't skim over it. Its a superb read making references to dozens of theories that you can google for. Found a few more I'll be looking into in there.
//reminiscing_in_a_sad_fashion_mode ON
I'm one of those sad people who think that the mathematical descriptions is far more elegant than the written descriptions. I did an Honours Degree in Astrophysics at University of Edinburgh back in the 80's (that's 1980's before anyone comments) and the bits I loved most was working through the mathematical theorems that people had created to describe the various effects. Although the middle workings could be horrendously complex the real beaty in an elegant theory is how it simplifies to a neat function (which is why E=mc2 is seen as such an astonishing and beautiful conclusion)
//reminiscing_in_a_sad_fashion_mode OFF
I never got to grips with the mathematics (O'level was my limit) but I love learning about the theoretical arguements. Books like A Brief History of Time and Fermat's Last Theorem were fantastic reads, even though neither of them had a great deal of mathematics included. However there was enough to illustrate to us duffers, that for those lucky/brainy enough to understand, there is such a thing as beautiful mathematics.
Quote... at 10 percent of the speed of light an object's mass is only 0.5 percent more than normal, while at 90 percent of the speed of light it would be more than twice its normal mass. As an object approaches the speed of light, its mass rises ever more quickly, so it takes more and more energy to speed it up further. It can in fact never reach the speed of light, because by then its mass would have become infinite, and by the equivalence of mass and energy, it would have taken an infinite amount of energy to get it there. For this reason, any normal object is forever confined by relativity to move at speeds slower than the speed of light. Only light, or other waves that have no intrinsic mass, can move at the speed of light. 21
why does an object's mass increase the faster it gets (ie approaches speed of light)?
For fun? :blink:
QuoteOriginally posted by A Twig@Nov 3 2004, 02:18 PM
For fun?
[post=68525]Quoted post[/post]
I thought everyone knew the answer.......... it's 42 8) :whistle:
Read up on Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity ;)
E = mc^2
Rearrrange it to:
c^2 = E/m
Put very very simplistically this formula tells us that mass and energy are interchangeable. As the speed of light is constant then it follows that:
- when we are using more energy (E) to accelerate a body towards the speed of light then the body's mass (m) must be greater.
If the mass did not change then the speed of light would change!
Also, remember that if you were 'running' alongside the body being accelerated towards the speed if light then you woudl not notice any increase in mass. The increase in mass is ony noticeable by an observer watching the body accelerate by. In other words, it's relative. ;)
I know it is not quite that straight forward, but I thought this was the simplest way I could think of to condense my years of reading the highly acclaimed 'Idiot's Guide to Special Relativity' :P
Told you I read into things like this...... :rolleyes:
TL.
:frusty:
QuoteOriginally posted by Thulsa Doom@Nov 3 2004, 02:49 PM
why does an object's mass increase the faster it gets (ie approaches speed of light)?
A function used in special realtivity is the greek lower case letter G or gamma and is usually referred to as the "Lorentz Factor". The Lorentz Factor is used to calculate how distance, time or mass vary with speed.
gamma = 1/(Square root of (1 - v^2/c^2))
or in english gamma equals 1 divided by the square root of (1 minus v-squared over c-squared) where v is your speed and c is the speed of light.
For length, time or mass the value at speed v is a function of gamma multiplied by the value at rest (for mass this is where the phrase Rest mass comes from if you have heard people refer to that).
e.g m(v) = gamma x m(0)
You can see that if we put v =0 in the Lorentz Factor equation then gamma = 1 so has no effect at zero (or low) speeds.
If v = 0.1c (10%) then gamma = 1/(sqrt(1-0.01) = 1.005
m at speed v is gamma times the rest mass so mass increases by 0.5% if v = 0.1c
Does mass really increase with speed? Who can say. The "model" we use to explain the effects that are observed uses the fact that mass, length or time varies with speed. This accurately explains the effects (and mass going to infinity as speed goes towards c explains why you cannot travel at the speed of light) but does not necessarily explain what really happens - it is a model to explain observations.
Note above that I said you cannot travel at the speed of light and didn't say cannot travel FASTER than the speed of light. That is because the theory does allow travel at speeds beyond the speed of light (in fact once you are beyond it you need energy to slow down and not to speed up) but you cannot travel AT the speed of light because that requires infinite energy. If you try playing with the Lorentz Factor Equation you will see that putting v greater than 1 (above the speed of light) leads you to calculating the square root of negative numbers which does give valid but strange answers for gamma :)
PS - I've finished, it's safe to wake up now :)
erm, what?
Does this mean that at next years F1 GPs, we'll see drivers turning into blimps?
My simplistic brain told me that forces acting against the object increase the force required to speed it up.
Think I'll stick with IT.
/name drop on
I've had supper with Steven Hawkins and know his son very well.
/name drop off