Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The OFFICIAL IntenseMuscle Physics Q&A Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by TommyKav View Post
    i took look around about creating a wormhole. there is a few half cocked ideas but no real solid theory or evidence that points towards one being able to be created where nature didnt do it. one idea involved increasing the rotational velocity of a large star and another doing the same with an entire solar system but again nothing more than a load of crap if you ask me.
    I guess now I know what I have to do for my dissertation
    Ph.D., Theoretical Physics '16
    kind of a douche

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by marlon View Post
      Thanks for taking the time answering my question Dino-bird. You do an incredible job dumbing it down for the regular people lol.

      If time moves more slowly for a moving object, does that mean theoretically if I moved at the right speed in space for long enough, I can come back 50 years from now and not have aged say more than a day?
      I hammered out a quick PDF of how fast you need to go for you to age 1 day and someone stationary to age 1 day. I attached it below.
      Attached Files
      Ph.D., Theoretical Physics '16
      kind of a douche

      Comment


      • #48
        archaeopteryx lithographica,

        What do you know about superconductivity? I was asked by one of my professors if I'd be interested in doing research with her in superconductivity.
        Because I'm eager to do research and too stupid to realize when I'm in over my head, I lied and said I was very interested in it. lol

        I've checked out some of her publications and everything has been high temperature type-II superconductor stuff. Seems she's into vortex dynamics in high temp superconductors (who isn't right...).

        I've been reading up on superconductors as much as possible, but if you have any quick info....that would be very helpful.
        Because I have some weird fixation with finding a way to derive every formula from Newton's second law, I was excited to see I could derive one of the London equations from that. If she meets with me to talk more about it, my plan is to wait for that to come up and say "Oh yes, but of course....the London equations....you can derive this one from F=ma like this..." I figure that will buy me a minute or two, during which time I'm hoping a fire will start and we'll have to cut the meeting short before she asks any questions of substance. lol
        www.troponinnutrition.com
        Smarter nutrition for harder athletes

        www.protegenutrition.com

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by marlon View Post
          Time travel... what are the possibilities? best theories?
          The Alcubierre metric!
          http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/2...28bd9c3300.png
          www.troponinnutrition.com
          Smarter nutrition for harder athletes

          www.protegenutrition.com

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by TommyKav View Post
            The only problem is that string theory has holes in it big enough to drive a Mack truck through. It also currently has zero basis in reality and is best described as a mathematical exercise.

            That being said, some of the things it says are very promising. I think string theory has the potential to give us some remarkable insights into the universe, but I seriously doubt that it represents reality.
            i agree and disagree with this one. String theory doesnt really work until you add an 11th physical dimension to the calculations then alot of the holes disappear. the 5 sets of equations all balance into one coherent theory with this addition. However, M theory is not complete as of yet. labeling it m theory or hell anything you want to call it is unimportant. i believe once it is complete and we have the ability to test the theory we will have a good understanding of the universe. a complete one? no, but a good basis on which to build. it would be arrogant and dangerous to assume at our level of development that we have the ability to fully understand the universe. this could take millenia.[/QUOTE]


            Test the theory how?
            In terms of experimental evidence of "strings" or branes? Unless we get a particle accelerator the length of the universe, we're going to have trouble with that. lol
            If by testing you mean the ability to predict and describe events, then all it ever really needs to be is a mathematical model.
            www.troponinnutrition.com
            Smarter nutrition for harder athletes

            www.protegenutrition.com

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Archaeopteryx lithographica View Post
              My point was that even with 11 dimensions, string theory still doesn't work. It's not even a theory. I like this wonderful quote from Jim Holt from The New Yorker magazine: "Yet, for all this activity, not a single new testable prediction has been made, not a single theoretical puzzle has been solved. In fact, there is no theory so far—just a set of hunches and calculations suggesting that a theory might exist." I take issue with anyone referring to string theory as "coherent." Quantum field theory is incoherent enough; string theory is WAY the hell out there.

              haha....I remember seeing a quote somewhere where someone said "the strongest evidence that "string theory" is on the right track is that Ed Witten believes in it." lol
              www.troponinnutrition.com
              Smarter nutrition for harder athletes

              www.protegenutrition.com

              Comment


              • #52
                HOLY FUCKING MOSES

                stop posting so I can respond

                k thx
                Ph.D., Theoretical Physics '16
                kind of a douche

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by troponin View Post
                  archaeopteryx lithographica,

                  What do you know about superconductivity? I was asked by one of my professors if I'd be interested in doing research with her in superconductivity.
                  Because I'm eager to do research and too stupid to realize when I'm in over my head, I lied and said I was very interested in it. lol

                  I've checked out some of her publications and everything has been high temperature type-II superconductor stuff. Seems she's into vortex dynamics in high temp superconductors (who isn't right...).

                  I've been reading up on superconductors as much as possible, but if you have any quick info....that would be very helpful.
                  Because I have some weird fixation with finding a way to derive every formula from Newton's second law, I was excited to see I could derive one of the London equations from that. If she meets with me to talk more about it, my plan is to wait for that to come up and say "Oh yes, but of course....the London equations....you can derive this one from F=ma like this..." I figure that will buy me a minute or two, during which time I'm hoping a fire will start and we'll have to cut the meeting short before she asks any questions of substance. lol
                  Not much; it's outside my sphere of interest. Condensed matter stuff never held my attention very well. I dare say you know more about it now than I do. I would hazard a guess that as the temperature approaches absolute zero, many of the the atoms and molecules in the substance begin to approach their minimum energy states. Maybe this allows their electric and magnetic fields to align more easily due to less disruptions in the amalgamation of their fields. Or maybe it allows for their wavefunctions to start coalescing somehow, who knows. Frankly I find condensed matter physics too inelegant and haphazard for my tastes. I am quite the physics snob.

                  How the fuck did you get the London equation from Newton's 2nd? You do realize that Newton's 2nd equation is just the classical approximation to much more complicated laws of energy and motion, nyet? Give up on Newtonian crap and start putting your energy into Lagrangians and Hamiltonians. You will SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO need that shit when it comes time for quantum field theory. Ugh.

                  Originally posted by troponin View Post
                  Oh holy Christ don't mention that or Tommy will start up again

                  Originally posted by troponin View Post
                  Test the theory how?
                  In terms of experimental evidence of "strings" or branes? Unless we get a particle accelerator the length of the universe, we're going to have trouble with that. lol
                  If by testing you mean the ability to predict and describe events, then all it ever really needs to be is a mathematical model.
                  Actually I have seen a fair number of potential ways that string theory might be experimentally detectable, or at least some results/implications of it. Granted none of them DIRECTLY detect a string, but they would test for some of the theoretical predictions of it. For example, detection of supersymmetric particles at the LHC would be a very strong indicator that string theory has something to it. I just think people get carried away that string theory is THE UNIFICATION THEORY AND SOLVES EVERYTHING!!!!11one

                  Originally posted by troponin View Post
                  haha....I remember seeing a quote somewhere where someone said "the strongest evidence that "string theory" is on the right track is that Ed Witten believes in it." lol
                  That's not a bad reason if you ask me. He might not be the best lecturer (if you've ever heard him talk you'll know what I mean) but the guys a goddamned genius when it comes to mathematical physics. The accuracy of his intuition about the universe has yet to be displayed, though.

                  Also I'm gonna need you to fly down to Tennessee for a few months and train me.
                  Ph.D., Theoretical Physics '16
                  kind of a douche

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    I like reading all this physicsy stuff but I have been waiting for a chance to use this picture. I think DinoBird will approve.
                    Attached Files
                    2008 DC Journal
                    Use the code ECH436 at the checkout www.TrueProtein.com and save

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by kroxic View Post
                      I like reading all this physicsy stuff but I have been waiting for a chance to use this picture. I think DinoBird will approve.
                      Duly noted.
                      Ph.D., Theoretical Physics '16
                      kind of a douche

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by troponin View Post

                        The Alcubierre metric exploits a property of space so create the end result of FTL traven. However, relativistic velocities are not achieved locally and relativistic time dialation is negated. due to its reliance on massive amounts of negative mass energy it seems at this point with our current understanding of the universe impossible to achieve. there has been work done with this equation to eliminate the necessity for the negative mass energy and to a degree this work has been quite successful. it should be noted that the new theories however use an idea closer to quantumn tunneling to create the same warping of space.
                        "Your not gonna find a bang maid cause theres no such thing."
                        "I already did...your mom....good bye.".

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Archaeopteryx lithographica View Post

                          How the fuck did you get the London equation from Newton's 2nd? You do realize that Newton's 2nd equation is just the classical approximation to much more complicated laws of energy and motion, nyet? Give up on Newtonian crap and start putting your energy into Lagrangians and Hamiltonians. You will SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO need that shit when it comes time for quantum field theory. Ugh.

                          Lagrangian....I get that from F=ma too.
                          Use conservation of energy to get the principle of least action. You can prove that particles "know" to follow the path of least action if and only if F=ma holds.
                          Then, take F= -gradV = dp/dt
                          And, since the conjugate momenta is p=dL/dq* (the * is supposed to be above the q for time derivative)
                          Then F=dp/dt =d/dt(dL/dq*) = dL/dq
                          I don't think that's exactly anything novel...I think they teach it from that derivation, but I still like to think of the relation when solving the motion of a system.

                          I just like finding links back to F=dp/dt...don't know why, it just feels like I understand it when I can trace it back to that....even if it's a false derivation. lol

                          For Londons equations,
                          E=d/dt(⋀J) (⋀=m/ne²)

                          Then, compute the response to a uniform electric field of a perfect normal conductor (ie: a free-electron gas with mean free path l=∞)
                          Then, d(mv)/dt=eE (e is electron charge)
                          Since J=nev, you get F=d/dt(mne²v/ne²)
                          All the superfluous junk cancels out leaving F=dp/dt

                          Kind of a forced derivation...lol But, kind of neat.

                          I actually learned Lagrangian dynamics before I learned all of Newtonian mechanics. Once I saw how "cool" the Euler-lagrange equations looked, I had to learn them.
                          Even today, if I have a massless, frictionless pulley (lol) and am supposed to use "Newton" to solve, I have to solve the equations of motion with the Lagrangian and then go back and figure out the forces to give me the same answer. lol
                          Last edited by troponin; 10-08-2009, 08:58 PM.
                          www.troponinnutrition.com
                          Smarter nutrition for harder athletes

                          www.protegenutrition.com

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Archaeopteryx lithographica View Post
                            Not much; it's outside my sphere of interest. Condensed matter stuff never held my attention very well. I dare say you know more about it now than I do. I would hazard a guess that as the temperature approaches absolute zero, many of the the atoms and molecules in the substance begin to approach their minimum energy states. Maybe this allows their electric and magnetic fields to align more easily due to less disruptions in the amalgamation of their fields. Or maybe it allows for their wavefunctions to start coalescing somehow, who knows. Frankly I find condensed matter physics too inelegant and haphazard for my tastes. I am quite the physics snob.
                            For the record....I couldn't agree more. I've even told my wife that if for some reason a top school made me an amazing offer for grad school....in solid state (or CMP for that matter), and NO other schools offered me anything, I would just not go to grad school. lol

                            I'd prefer to stay as theoretical as possible. But I'll be applying to programs soon and need some undergraduate research on my application....so I'll take anything that comes along. I just transfered to Western Michigan University and will only be there about a year, so I won't have much time to get to know professors and get research.

                            At this point, I'm not even sure I don't want to do mathematics. I want to do mathematical physics, but I'm right on the boarder between math and physics.....there are some Math departments with theoretical physics groups that look great....and there are some Physics departments with mathematical physics programs that look great.

                            If I had to pic a field, I suppose I'd like to do something in the cosmology/relativity/never get funding field. lol

                            I'll come to Tennessee to train you if you'll help me with GR...serious.
                            www.troponinnutrition.com
                            Smarter nutrition for harder athletes

                            www.protegenutrition.com

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Thanks for that PDF Dino-bird. I really liked seeing you work through that equation.

                              And now the Trop and Dino interaction is mind boggling.
                              Save 5% at TRUEPROTEIN with discount code "MPP883"

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                aclubierre's metric fixed to lower negative mass energy...its about half way down the page......
                                http://www.geocities.com/zcphysicsms/chap13.htm

                                also...
                                http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...ht/FTL.html#11
                                Last edited by TommyKav; 10-09-2009, 12:00 AM. Reason: forgot the one wiht quantum tunneling.
                                "Your not gonna find a bang maid cause theres no such thing."
                                "I already did...your mom....good bye.".

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X