Announcement

Az · February 12, 2003, 19:51

I was once really high and thought I had Einstein's theory figured out. It made sense at the time.

**Odin** · February 12, 2003, 20:17

According to Superstring Theory, the basic particles are vibrations of the superstring, so fundamental particles have no size. The size of a proton, for example, is simply the smallest sphere that all 3 quarks in a proton fit in; the distance between the quarks is determined by the strong nuclear force. The electron is a fundamental particle, so it has no size, only a wave function that shows where one is most likely found.

**sabrewolf** · February 12, 2003, 20:22

NeOmega,
no, sorry... the E = mc^2 doesn't come from the electrons spinning (btw not the same as 'spin' mentioned by me and explained by Kramerman) around in the electron clouds.

this formula works for all matter without kinetic energy. this E is actually E 0 (the zero should be subscript, but HTML isn't allowed in this forum

) and is called 'rest energy'.

i never heard of pinkies. anti-gluons are probably the oposite of gluons which are sub-nucleus components. (atoms consist of the core (nucleUS) and electrons; the nucleUS consists of nucleONs (protons and neutrons) and nucleons are made up of quarks and gluons. these gluons 'stick' the quarks together.
but to be honest: this layer of physics is just waaaaay to complex for me to imagine.
it get's even more complicated when trying to understand these theories for solving the unified field theory (string theory with 11 dimensions wrapped up in each other and so on

).

**sabrewolf** · February 12, 2003, 20:30

speaking of understanding science while being high. it's not even so wrong. i had a great discussion with my two best friends while drinking 2 bottles of white vodka. we understood everything, but speaking got more and more difficult

but some other alcohol and science experiment turned out successful:
i was in a pub with the same friends as mentioned before (both bright) and we were discussing what attracts chicks. conclusion: looks, money and intelligence.
now, we're not bad looking, but neither were we the prettiest guys in the pub. money... well, the damn warmongering let our stock market value sink to a sad level.
that left us with the brains. so two of us went to the chalk board (meant for darts

) and did just a simple mathematical derivation... and guess what: success!

... they were really cute

ok, sorry for going off topic. just wanted to say that science pays

**KrazyHorse** · February 12, 2003, 21:17

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

If the hydrogen hadn't started burning, what would be the fuel for this fire?

Note "average energy"

If I have an explosive mix of gases, then even if the temperature is below the ignition point you will eventually get an explosion.

**KrazyHorse** · February 12, 2003, 21:26

Originally posted by sabrewolf

not really.

just recently they used a prototype of a QC to calculate the primes of 15. simple for the beginning, but i proves that it's possible. but i reckon it will take at least 20 years for useful applications of QC

quanti for computing can be used in 2 ways:
- quantum memory: subatomar quantum particles have different so called "spins": spin 1, spin 2 and spin 1/2. the wierd thing is that for one kind of spin, the particles spins twice to reach the same state as before. source: "a brief history of time" by stephen hawkins. note: i can't remember the exact details. i read this iirc 8 years ago...
- quantum computing: nearly infinite parallism: see mrmitchell's post

Big steaming pile of crap. The basic thory of storing and processing information via quantum numbers is fine. But the benefits are massively and consistently overstated.

**KrazyHorse** · February 12, 2003, 21:28

Originally posted by Kramerman

i think he meant elecric current loss due t resistance.

this is correct (im just finished reading the book like a week ago

). things of 1 spin, must rotate 360 degrees to be in the same orientation (think of this like a one headed arrow. to be able to be superimposed onitself, it must rotate completely once). things of 2 spin must rotate 180 degrees (this would be like a semetrical double headed aarow, it only has to rotate half a roation to be able to be superimposed on itself). things of 1/2 spin, like electrons, must make 2 complete rotations

... this makes no sense to me...

It gets even weirder when you realise that when you make the measurement in a particular direction of the spin of a spin1/2 particle you can never get 0, only + or - 1/2

**NeOmega** · February 12, 2003, 23:20

ok... so, um if I had a space ship going the speed of light, and it had white tail lights travelling away from the spaceship at the speed of light, what would be building up at the point where I started? A big ball of light?

**KrazyHorse** · February 12, 2003, 23:22

No spaceship can travel at the speed of light.

**NeOmega** · February 12, 2003, 23:41

yeah, and wouldn't white tail lights not really be tail lights too?

Bah I just read light always travels at a speed on it's own.......

**Urban Ranger** · February 12, 2003, 23:47

Originally posted by Frogger
Note "average energy"

If I have an explosive mix of gases, then even if the temperature is below the ignition point you will eventually get an explosion.

Yes, but if the average energy wasn't high enough, there couldn't be a fire because the reaction wouldn't be sustainable.

**Urban Ranger** · February 12, 2003, 23:49

Originally posted by sabrewolf
this formula works for all matter without kinetic energy. this E is actually E 0 (the zero should be subscript, but HTML isn't allowed in this forum

) and is called 'rest energy'.

HTML does work.

E₀

Even nested: E_0₀

**KrazyHorse** · February 12, 2003, 23:54

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Yes, but if the average energy wasn't high enough, there couldn't be a fire because the reaction wouldn't be sustainable.

But it would be as long as the reaction released enough energy to heat up the surrounding nuclei to the point where they could undergo the reaction. Which doesn't require the average energy be as high as the activation energy.

Would you like a stat mech class?

**sabrewolf** · February 13, 2003, 03:16

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
HTML does work.

E₀

Even nested: E_0₀

cool, thought it was deactivated. but maybe the only in the non-OT-forums

**sabrewolf** · February 13, 2003, 03:35

Originally posted by NeOmega
ok... so, um if I had a space ship going the speed of light, and it had white tail lights travelling away from the spaceship at the speed of light, what would be building up at the point where I started? A big ball of light?

in case of the sound waves this is right. if a plane is travelling at the speed of sound straight towards you, you won't hear it coming. and then, all of a suthen those soundwaves will hit you with a very loud bang.
in the aircraft is flying faster than sound, you'll actually have the feeling it's flying backwards

however, the speed of light is something totally different. it's the same from every point of view. this is totally wierd and very difficult to explain for me.

but let me bring a famous example:
3 people in a train driving close to the speed of light. 1 in the middle, 1 on each end. the middle guy suddenly flashes with a lantern. now in common sense the light travelling in the same direction of the train will take longer to get to the end (because the train is moving "away") than the light going in the oposite direction.
but this is proved wrong by the theory of relativity. the speed of light is the same for every relative position. the flash seen from the ends will be the same length and arrive at the same time, no matter which end.

damn, i can't explain it here, sorry...

but anyway. time does "change" while going faster and faster. the nearer to the speed of light, the slower your time looks like from outside. (note: this has been experimentaly proven to be true!). Dt' = Dt * SQR(1-(v²)/c(v²))

oh... got to go now. if someone cares to explain it in better words, please have a go

edit: corrected tags

Announcement

Future/near Future technologies

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment