Quantum Entanglement

[TeaLeaf]

I shall try to return to the fray later tonight - I have been a wee bit busy......

TL.

[smilodon]

Originally 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.

[Gh0st Face Killah]

Go here 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. 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.

[Phog]

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 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.

[A Twig]

Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance".

Gotta love the beeb's choice of quote  

[Stryker]

OMG seems we have some brain pans here, though having been to the last LAN I'd of never guessed it  

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

[Stryker]

Just found this burried deep in my link  :blink:

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.

[Anonymous]

//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

[smilodon]

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.

[Thulsa Doom]

... 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)?

[A Twig]

For fun?  :blink:

[target]

Originally posted by A Twig@Nov 3 2004, 02:18 PM
For fun?

[post=68525]Quoted post[/post]

[/b]

I thought everyone knew the answer.......... it's 42    :whistle:

[TeaLeaf]

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'  

Told you I read into things like this......  

TL.

[A Twig]

:frusty:

[Anonymous]

Originally 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