PDA

View Full Version : Well, here goes my physics teaching certificate out the window!



cjolley
5th June 2000, 10:55
Ain't life grand! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/06/04/stifgnusa01007.html

chuck

Paddy
5th June 2000, 11:17
Forgive my ignorance, but isn't the speed of light slower in water. And as the velocity of light 'C' is measured in a vacuum, it should be possible to exceed the speed of light without exceeding the value of C?

or shouldn't it?

cjolley
5th June 2000, 11:33
C is the speed in a vacuum.
In water light travel at less than C.
C as a maximum is a pragmatic result. (until now http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif)
The equations imply that it would take infinite energy to accelerate any object with mass up to C.
It's not that an object could not go faster than C, just that there isn't enough energy in the universe to push the object hard enough.
chuck

Paddy
5th June 2000, 12:51
A bit like my trusty old P2 then?

Brian R.
5th June 2000, 13:36
I would bet my last dollar the experiment is in error. The results are undoubtably misinterpreted.

Paddy
5th June 2000, 14:17
If you can provide me with a bankers draft, then i'll take that bet!

Helevitia
5th June 2000, 15:08
Very interesting and awesome article. I'd bet with you Brian, just let me know how you want to do it http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif The reason I feel there is no flaw is the article talks about another company with a similar breakthrough. Plus, when Einstein formulated the theory or relativity, they didn't really know about sub-atomic particles back then and sub-atomic particles appear to defy the laws of physics.(I should also make a note that I know nothing about any of this stuff except for what I read, so if my answer is amusing to you, you'll know why http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif )

Dave

[This message has been edited by Helevitia (edited 06 June 2000).]

Gurm
5th June 2000, 21:40
Brian,

I have long held that the current view of the nature of the universe, as held by most physicists, isn't worth a load of dingo's kidneys.

In fact, it's almost certainly mostly erroneous.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

cjolley
5th June 2000, 21:58
The current state of particle physics reminds me of what Chemistry was like just before the invention of the periodic table.
Lots of experimental evidence, but no unifying theory that would simplify things.
Good theorys always make things simpler.
The next couple of years could be very interesting. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif
chuck

Jammrock
6th June 2000, 06:18
HAHAHAHA...I love scientific talk. It makes me feel edjumakateded.


I have long held that the current view of the nature of the universe, as held by most physicists, isn't worth a load of dingo's kidneys.

In fact, it's almost certainly mostly erroneous.

Agreed! I love it when people pass off theory as scientific fact since they heard it in school. Always gives me a good laugh.

I think I know why aliens always visit Earth. They come here for scientific comedy. I can just imagine them saying, "were we really this stupid 4000 years ago?" Or maybe that's just me...

Jammrock

------------------
Athlon 650, Biostar board, 128 MB PC133 (Crucial), G400 32 MB DH, SB Live! w/ Digital I/O, 10/100 NIC, lots of case fans, etc...

Jorden
6th June 2000, 07:50
Patrick: "I would bet my last dollar the experiment is in error.", means you'll only get ONE dollar. Just read it scientifically and you'll understand http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

And for the rest: A theory is just a theory until someone finds a practical way of using the theory, therefor rendering the theory to practicality. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Btw, would the breaking-index of water (or any fluid) slow down the speed of light?

Jord.

Brian R.
6th June 2000, 12:09
My argument against believing such a report would be the incredible amount of evidence supporting the value of C. Experiments (or two) going against such a huge body of knowledge have happened. Look at the Cold Fusion fiasco around 1988. Another example is polywater some years before that. These incredible results have to stand the test of time. No way will I buy into something like this for years. Even reputable scientists have been sucked in until validating experiments have not been successful. I don't mean the same experiment or one like it repeated, I'm talking about an independent validation using a different approach.

Sorry for being a doubting Thomas.

[This message has been edited by Brian R. (edited 06 June 2000).]

Nuno
6th June 2000, 12:47
"The most likely application for this is not in time travel but in speeding up the way signals move through computer circuits," he said.

It should be nice having windows loaded even before I press the power button http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Himself
6th June 2000, 15:25
Nah, all that would mean is a few seconds less delay. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

dZeus
6th June 2000, 17:09
"It should be nice having windows loaded even before I press the power button"

should that be:

It would NOT be nice having windows crashed even before I press the power button

Duty
6th June 2000, 17:58
dZeus - but windows already does that http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif.


Jeff

Duty
6th June 2000, 18:00
I am a smart monkey... egnore last post...

Smart Monkey Jeff

Nuno
7th June 2000, 00:36
dZeus: Win2k, please http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif It doesn´t crash! (well, kinda)

But maybe MS would have to release a time/space disruption patch in windows update... http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif

bacon
7th June 2000, 11:57
The use of scientific method to emphatically prove the mechanism of time and space, or for that matter anything else, is a false assumption. Science works by proving theories experimentally until a new theory comes along and that is then proved. Only this way can a coherent picture of our reality be built up. So apparently ever theory is wrong till someone unequivocally,most certainly without a shadow of doubt in their mind, able to sleep at night with the satisfaction of a job well done says nothing else can ever be proved.
By which time we will speak to each other telepathically, forget what TV and computers are forget Einstein, Bohr and Plank, genenetically engineer millions of real life Jar Jar Binks so we can all kill it over and over again until we are thoroughly satisfied George Lucas has got the message......doh forgot what I am talking about blah blah blah.

'I denied the world exsisted and died in the cold vaccumm of space'

Or would it be hot? http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

bacon
7th June 2000, 12:01
Oh by the way never trust scientific interest articals in newspapers, they are often written by no mark journalists who lack the education or intelligence to comprehend the actual methodology or conclusions produced by a high energy physic experiment. Unless of course it was reported in THE SUNDAY SPORT.

Gurm
8th June 2000, 05:57
There are certain things that we CAN prove. The Heisenberg (sp?) uncertainty principle, for example, can be PROVEN. How so, you ask? By observing the Einstein-Plank plasma solid (or is it the Einstein-Bohr plasma solid? *shrug*)

Basically, Heisenberg says that we can know a particle's speed, or its location, but never both. If we know the speed, we can only make generalizations based on a probability curve of where the particle could be.

So, Einstein and Whichever Other Dude (tm) proposed that if we could somehow guarantee the speed of a particle or two... then if Heisenberg was correct then something would have to happen to prevent us from finding out where the particle was.

Their theory was that the particle would then simultaneously be EVERYWHERE. Or at least everywhere inside of its probability curve.

Now, how can we guarantee a particle's speed? Cool it to absolute zero. As it approaches absolute zero, it will get slower and slower. When it reaches that temperature, it will just stop.

But when it gets really close, it will be traveling slow enough that its speed can be accurately measured.

So a couple years back they finally had the technology to do the experiment. And what happened was FASCINATING. For a split-second as the particle approached absolute zero, it coalesced into a jello-like blob called a "plasma solid", the size of its primary probability curve!

This solid promptly collapsed, since as it got a fraction of a degree colder the particle just stopped.

But that PROVES the Heisenberg principle, or at least a specific case of it.

However, there are lots of things that we CAN'T prove. We can't see inside an atom, so we can't PROVE that it's built how we think it's built. We're pretty sure that we're more accurate now than we were before, but...

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

SCompRacer
9th June 2000, 06:45
I have a friend that worked at Fermilab building targets. He brought me some sub-atomic particles home for pets, but I can't find them anymore. Can anyone tell me where they might hide? I looked by all the magnets already.


[This message has been edited by SCompRacer (edited 09 June 2000).]

Paddy
9th June 2000, 16:50
Dont mock the Sunday Sport!

Everybody reads that for the intellectual stimulation!

agallag
12th June 2000, 16:44
Didn't anyone tell you. You're supposed to keep your sub-atomic particles in the fridge. Sure, the SPCSP (society for the prevention of cruelty to sub-atomic particles) will get on your back about the confined space, but it's better then having them run out into traffic and getting hit by a bus... sorry for your loss by the way.

--
Andrew

merchant2112
13th June 2000, 03:22
BEER GOOD!

SCIENCE BAD!

SCompRacer
13th June 2000, 16:33
Thanks agallag for that info. But I keep the beer and cheese in the fridge. Won't it change their properties if they consume alcohol?