Quoted: Nothing but 4D space/time itself. From that, you will have virtual particals precipitating out of nothing, time will continue to progress, gravity "waves" from any given mass in the rest of the Universe, ect... So no, you cannot ever have a "perfect" nothing anywhere. Even if it is only a single qbit of quantum fluctuation, you will have something there.

Uh oh, here comes da bomb.

See, what lies at the periphery of our universe is nothing. Our universe is still unfurling in all 4 dimensions, and at the boundary layer and past that there exists.....nothing at all. No virtual particles to make a Casimir effect, not photons, no anything. Nothing exists at the boundary and beyond. No gravity, no phone, no train, no motorcar, not a single physical luxury.....

Tag.

When I want to explode someone's head, I start explaining the various hypotheses, such as the one that explains that matter interference patterns are a result of the overlapping realities of multiple (possibly infinite) universes.

The mysteries and explanations are the primary reason why I chose to study physics.

I think this is the whole video from which the quantum physics skit was extracted.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-539383790954785832&q=What+the+Bleep

Broadband only...56k death.

EDIT:  Uh oh, I'm 8 minutes in and it's starting to sound more new-age than new-science.

Quoted: When I want to explode someone's head, I start explaining the various hypotheses, such as the one that explains that matter interference patterns are a result of the overlapping realities of multiple (possibly infinite) universes.

Deep down, knowing that there exists at least one me somewhere where the world is overrun with zombie hordes makes me sleep better at night.

Quoted: Try reading The Elegant Universe by AndrewBrian Greene. It goes over this, and is in fairly comprehendable lay terminology.

Quoted: Quoted: I wonder if any of these so-called "genius" types have ever thought that their interferance pattern collapsing is a natural form of entanglement. You are creating a "quantum" dataset in the detector that mimicksthe state of the wavicle (wave/particle. http://www.cosmiclight.com/ofquasarsandquanta/wavicles.htm). You're putting the cart before the horse.  Observations like this are what brought about the idea of harnessing entanglement.

...no fucking duh....

Quoted: He's a lot smarter than I am, but my understanding is that the universe seems to defy the accepted models and physicists are more interested in explaining away than understanding.

The vast majority of physicists are interested in understanding, and especially in testing existing theories to determine whether they stand up to experiment and observation.

We know that our current models are not complete and fully accurate models of reality.  We may never have a fully accurate model, if such a thing is possible at all.  Science is the process of improving the model, not necessarily an end product.

Jim

sometimes I really wish I had more math

It's never too late! I just finished a complete refresher series from College Algebra to Calculus and Statistics...and I am not young. Check out your local Junior College...

One thing is certain in that video. That was the waterfront fountain in downtown Portland at the end of the video...

Quoted: One of my favorite physics laws is "Matter tends to exist." How pathetic. Caveman comprehension dressed up in pretentious speech.

   
I don't recall seeing that "law" in any of my textbooks, nor was it mentioned in lecture.

Where did you find that "law" of physics?

Quoted: Quoted: Once upon a time I wanted to major in physics and get my PhD in this stuff because I found the basics fascinating. Then I started to read more about it, and started having trouble sleeping at night. Zero plus zero is zero. 0+0=0. Zero plus an infinite number of zeros is still zero. If you slice the subatomic pie down all the way eventually you get these little vibrating strings or energy. If you interrupt them, they disappear. They are made of nothing at all. Everything, down deep, is made up of nothing at all. In mathematics, (0+0+0)xN=0, but in the real world, if you cram enough nothing together, you get a universe. One of my favorite physics laws is "Matter tends to exist." How pathetic. Caveman comprehension dressed up in pretentious speech.

Or, perhaps the subatomic particles revert to a form of matter that is simply too fine to be observed by our current methods.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I dont agree with your concept of nothing. I dont have time to lecture you either on why. I suggest that you study up on some: Richard Feynman CAL state lectures(audiobooks) Roger Penrose - The road to reality Stephen Hawking - Nature of Space and Time or The Universe In A Nutshell Good luck I have read Feynman and Hawking, Dyson and a few others. Where you have no matter or energy, you have nothing. Nothing but 4D space/time itself. From that, you will have virtual particals precipitating out of nothing, time will continue to progress, gravity "waves" from any given mass in the rest of the Universe, ect... So no, you cannot ever have a "perfect" nothing anywhere. Even if it is only a single qbit of quantum fluctuation, you will have something there. quantum foam?

...makes me roam....

I just wanted to thank you for posting this.  I've taken a few classes in this (physics, history of science, psych, etc) and am sending it to friends and profs in the field;  they are gunna like this imo.  It wasnt over my head, but more importantly for everyone is that it makes you think.

And to the comment about God stuff in it, from my interpretation of it they do not dismiss God, rather give a different spin and perspective on what God is...what an observer is....the roots of religion.

I highly recommend this video whether you agree, disagree, or even don't understand what they are saying.

Quoted: Quoted: quantum foam? ...makes me roam....

Quandon Phone?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: quantum foam? ...makes me roam.... Quandon Phone?

Now I feel like getting together with a few Arfcomers, gearing up, and conquering some ancient french castle.

Quoted: The poor electrons get nervous when they're watched.  Leave 'em alone, dammit!

I remember being told that the four percent do what they want "because they can".

Quoted: is it Hiezenburgs (sp?) uncertainty prinicple at work, with respect to the observation of the event changes the outcome?

Well... Some people have trouble with Hiezenburg...

My light-cone has too dim a bulb to fully grasp quantum physics, but I love reading about it, nonetheless.

Great stuff!

Heisenberg IS my hero.

Human brains aren't really prepared for subatomic physics. We grow up watching billiard balls bounce off each other, or throwing baseballs, and can often intuitively grasp Newtonian physics.  But none of us have direct experience with the strong force or wave functions.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: <snip> My uncle got a PhD in plasma physics.  He soon left the field and went back to medical school in part due frustration with the establishment's unwillingness to accept that their models may be flawed. He's a lot smarter than I am, but my understanding is that the universe seems to defy the accepted models and physicists are more interested in explaining away than understanding.  Other scientists are starting to believe that our understanding of the universe is fundamentally flawed and the gravitational model is misleading.  One group in particular is following the idea that electricity is at the root of everything. Another thing my uncle told me is that Einstein himself stated that his Theory of Relativity assumes that the universe is electrically neutral and if that isn't the case, the whole deal may be invalidated.  These physicists and cosmologists are starting to think that the universe is actually highly charged. Anyway, this stuff is way over my head.  Check out Thunderbolts.info.  There is some interesting stuff there.  Especially poke around and find the part about the Great Chicago Fire.  Very interesting indeed! The important part is that I recently found out that Carl Sagan personally disliked my uncle because he wouldn't fall in line with the party doctrine.  That in itself raises my uncle to near-godlike status to me!   sorry about your uncle.  Not all minds can grasp quanta.

Yeah.  That's exactly what I'm talking about.  

FWIW, this is what he wrote me recently:

Dear (BlammO),          Take a look at some of Richard Feynmann’s books on physics.  He was well known for his ability to explain physics in simple terms.  He is an establishment physicist-or was.  He is now worm meat.  He will give you some understanding of basic physics and of cosmology.  Also, Carl Sagan wrote some things on cosmology and comets that will give you a conventional view of cosmology and planetary science.  Sagan had personal animosity for me and some of my friends because we held different views of the data.  This quest will be most interesting for you.  I have already explained to you the dilemma in which gravitational cosmologists find themselves.  They have been so successful at gathering data out of the cosmos with the Hubble and the probes that they have no theory with which to describe their results.  Watch Thunderbolts and the NASA websites in the weeks to come.  There will be lots of new data on Mars coming out since they were successful in orbiting the newest probe.

[Edited to fix the quote]

This thread makes my brain hurt

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: quantum foam? ...makes me roam.... Quandon Phone? Now I feel like getting together with a few Arfcomers, gearing up, and conquering some ancient french castle.

Be careful with the grenades

tag

tag,maybe after i drink some more i can grasp this concept.

Bookmarked the long movie for later viewing.

Anyone besides me remember the Futurama episode where they go to a horse race?

Speaker: "And the winner is ... Number 3, in a quantum finish."
Farnsworth:<tearing up ticket> "No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!"

tagged for when I get home

Quoted: tag. I love this stuff. I don't understsnd it, but I love it.

Wave Particle Duality.
Quantum Mechanics is nothing more than a Theory on how Matter and Energy interact with one another in the microscopic realm

In Quantum Mechanics all particles have a wavelength associated with them called the deBroglie Wavelength. which is given by h/p where h is Plancks Constant and p is the momentum (mass*velocity) of the particle.

Because of this: particles are "Fuzzy" and have the ability to create interference patterns when moving through 2 slits, they also have the ability to "tunnel" through a potential barrier (sort of like a ghost going through a wall). When a particle is in the process of tunneling, it ceases to exist.

If it tunnels through a pontential barrier (such as an electrostatic field) it will have less energy once it reaches the other side due to the law of conservation of energy.

A more interesting phenomena is Quantum Entanglement which allows for Quantum Teleportation.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I dont agree with your concept of nothing. I dont have time to lecture you either on why. I suggest that you study up on some: Richard Feynman CAL state lectures(audiobooks) Roger Penrose - The road to reality Stephen Hawking - Nature of Space and Time or The Universe In A Nutshell Good luck I have read Feynman and Hawking, Dyson and a few others. Where you have no matter or energy, you have nothing. Nothing but 4D space/time itself. From that, you will have virtual particals precipitating out of nothing, time will continue to progress, gravity "waves" from any given mass in the rest of the Universe, ect... So no, you cannot ever have a "perfect" nothing anywhere. Even if it is only a single qbit of quantum fluctuation, you will have something there. quantum foam?

That would be at the Planck Length, where Spacetime breaks down.

Quoted: Quoted: tag. I love this stuff. I don't understsnd it, but I love it. A more interesting phenomena is Quantum Entanglement which allows for Quantum Teleportation.

Wow! This is great stuff!

Quoted: sometimes I really wish I had more math

Calculus, Linear Algebra, Ordinary Differential Equations, Partial Differential Equations and some Fourier Analysis, Freshman and Sophmore Physics, an upper division course in Classical Mechanics and a 2 quarter upper division course in Electrodynamics and you are ready for your first upper division Quantum Mechanics Course.

Learn some Calculus on Manifolds, Abstract Algebra, Calculus of Variations, and advanced linear algebra and you will more or less have the math background for a Graduate course in Non-relativistic Quantum Mechanics.

A little further will get you to QED and then on to QCD.

Take a little Differential Geometry, some Differential Topology, some Cohomology and Homotopy along with General Relativity and then you are ready to start wading your way through String Theory or you can jump off the deep end of Quantum Gravity.

Once start banging your head against your textbooks, the years will fly by and before you know it you will be there.

Quoted: Human brains aren't really prepared for subatomic physics. We grow up watching billiard balls bounce off each other, or throwing baseballs, and can often intuitively grasp Newtonian physics.  But none of us have direct experience with the strong force or wave functions.

Bingo.

Our minds have a strong tendency to try to compare things we don't understand to things we do understand.  At first, we though electrons must be like waves.  Then, we thought that electrons must be like little balls.  Then, we found they behave like both.  The Schrodinger Wave Equation is simply a way to mathematically state that we really don't know what an electron is or why it behaves as it does.  It is a "wave-function" that collapses when observed.  It only predicts "what" happens but not "why".  Why does the observer effect the observed?  

The issue is that western philosophy has taught us that there is a distinction between observer and the observed.  Perhaps western philosophy is entirely wrong.  Perhaps schools of thought, all the way back to Plato and Aristotle, are fundamentally flawed.  All of our mathematics and physics find their ultimate origin back in the schools of the Greek Philosophers.  Perhaps this vast edifice is fundamentally flawed.  It has great predictive value at the macroscopic level and in some cases, at the quantum level, but there are things that our current physics cannot explain, even though it can predict.  

Quoted: Quoted: sometimes I really wish I had more math Calculus, Linear Algebra, Ordinary Differential Equations, Partial Differential Equations and some Fourier Analysis, Freshman and Sophmore Physics, an upper division course in Classical Mechanics and a 2 quarter upper division course in Electrodynamics and you are ready for your first upper division Quantum Mechanics Course. Learn some Calculus on Manifolds, Abstract Algebra, Calculus of Variations, and advanced linear algebra and you will more or less have the math background for a Graduate course in Non-relativistic Quantum Mechanics. A little further will get you to QED and then on to QCD. Take a little Differential Geometry, some Differential Topology, some Cohomology and Homotopy along with General Relativity and then you are ready to start wading your way through String Theory or you can jump off the deep end of Quantum Gravity. Once start banging your head against your textbooks, the years will fly by and before you know it you will be there.

You know, you are right in what it takes to understand modern quantum physics, but for some reason, I believe the ultimate answers that we find will be very easy to understand, without that sophisticated mathematical background.

Quoted: ...Take a little ... Homotopy...

wow, those california schools keep getting weirder and weirder.
(<----- goes to look up "homo-"topy)

Quoted: Quoted: Human brains aren't really prepared for subatomic physics. We grow up watching billiard balls bounce off each other, or throwing baseballs, and can often intuitively grasp Newtonian physics.  But none of us have direct experience with the strong force or wave functions. Bingo. Our minds have a strong tendency to try to compare things we don't understand to things we do understand.  At first, we though electrons must be like waves.  Then, we thought that electrons must be like little balls.  Then, we found they behave like both.  The Schrodinger Wave Equation is simply a way to mathematically state that we really don't know what an electron is or why it behaves as it does.  It is a "wave-function" that collapses when observed.  It only predicts "what" happens but not "why".  Why does the observer effect the observed?   The issue is that western philosophy has taught us that there is a distinction between observer and the observed.  Perhaps western philosophy is entirely wrong.  Perhaps schools of thought, all the way back to Plato and Aristotle, are fundamentally flawed.  All of our mathematics and physics find their ultimate origin back in the schools of the Greek Philosophers.  Perhaps this vast edifice is fundamentally flawed.  It has great predictive value at the macroscopic level and in some cases, at the quantum level, but there are things that our current physics cannot explain, even though it can predict.

Schrodinger Equation: nothing more than a funny looking Heat Equation.

There is much in the world that is counter intuitive, to delve into the "whys" of quantum Mechanics will take you into several schools of thought (or interpretations) of quantum mechanics.
The Copenhagen (or standard) Model as described above, the Many Worlds Model, and the Hidden Variables Model. Along with some variations the these main interpretations.

I tried to make an interference pattern generator by making 2 pieces of cardboard cutouts.  One with 1 slit and the other with 2 slits.   I then shone (shined??) a flashlight through the slits and I did not see an interference pattern.   I saw 2 slits of light.

Where's I go wrong???

Quoted: The poor electrons get nervous when they're watched.  Leave 'em alone, dammit!

I am in with this theory!

Quoted: I tried to make an interference pattern generator by making 2 pieces of cardboard cutouts.  One with 1 slit and the other with 2 slits.   I then shone (shined??) a flashlight through the slits and I did not see an interference pattern.   I saw 2 slits of light. Where's I go wrong???

Slits might be too big.

slits are about 1/4" or slightly larger in size.

maybe smaller huh???

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: sometimes I really wish I had more math Calculus, Linear Algebra, Ordinary Differential Equations, Partial Differential Equations and some Fourier Analysis, Freshman and Sophmore Physics, an upper division course in Classical Mechanics and a 2 quarter upper division course in Electrodynamics and you are ready for your first upper division Quantum Mechanics Course. Learn some Calculus on Manifolds, Abstract Algebra, Calculus of Variations, and advanced linear algebra and you will more or less have the math background for a Graduate course in Non-relativistic Quantum Mechanics. A little further will get you to QED and then on to QCD. Take a little Differential Geometry, some Differential Topology, some Cohomology and Homotopy along with General Relativity and then you are ready to start wading your way through String Theory or you can jump off the deep end of Quantum Gravity. Once start banging your head against your textbooks, the years will fly by and before you know it you will be there. You know, you are right in what it takes to understand modern quantum physics, but for some reason, I believe the ultimate answers that we find will be very easy to understand, without that sophisticated mathematical background.

Maybe...the funny thing is that often times a new field of Mathematics is invented from which new physical theory is built around which results in a simpler viewpoint.

Where would we be without the notion of imaginary numbers?

Or for that matter, the decimal numbering system..can you imagine how hard it would be just to do simple accounting or engineering calculations using Roman Numerals?

The invention of Differential Geometry by George Riemann (and some others..) provided the mathematical framework that was later used by Einstein for his Theory of General Relativity.

Today, Cohomology and Homotopy are being used in String Theory.

Quoted: slits are about 1/4" or slightly larger in size. maybe smaller huh???

I don't think you can get interference patterns when you have a mixture of different wavelengths.  You need a laser.

Tag

Quoted: Quoted: The poor electrons get nervous when they're watched.  Leave 'em alone, dammit! I am in with this theory!

Yes...by taking a measurement of the state of a system you are in effect disturbing it.

Take a Empty Box, put a single electron in it, you may have perfect knowledge of the Electrons Momentum, but bounce a photon of light off of it to see where it is, and while you gain knowledge of its position, you lose your knowledge of its momentum: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Human brains aren't really prepared for subatomic physics. We grow up watching billiard balls bounce off each other, or throwing baseballs, and can often intuitively grasp Newtonian physics.  But none of us have direct experience with the strong force or wave functions. Bingo. Our minds have a strong tendency to try to compare things we don't understand to things we do understand.  At first, we though electrons must be like waves.  Then, we thought that electrons must be like little balls.  Then, we found they behave like both.  The Schrodinger Wave Equation is simply a way to mathematically state that we really don't know what an electron is or why it behaves as it does.  It is a "wave-function" that collapses when observed.  It only predicts "what" happens but not "why".  Why does the observer effect the observed?   The issue is that western philosophy has taught us that there is a distinction between observer and the observed.  Perhaps western philosophy is entirely wrong.  Perhaps schools of thought, all the way back to Plato and Aristotle, are fundamentally flawed.  All of our mathematics and physics find their ultimate origin back in the schools of the Greek Philosophers.  Perhaps this vast edifice is fundamentally flawed.  It has great predictive value at the macroscopic level and in some cases, at the quantum level, but there are things that our current physics cannot explain, even though it can predict.   Schrodinger Equation: nothing more than a funny looking Heat Equation. There is much in the world that is counter intuitive, to delve into the "whys" of quantum Mechanics will take you into several schools of thought (or interpretations) of quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen (or standard) Model as described above, the Many Worlds Model, and the Hidden Variables Model. Along with some variations the these main interpretations.

Did you read that recent article on CNN, where physicists, using a number of telescopes, determined that the universe expanded from the size of a marble to 14 billion light-years in diameter in less that a trillionth of a second?  Clearly, the objects appeared to move faster than light -- until you take into account that space itself expanded at that rate, thus preserviing Einstein's principle.  The phenomenon is known as inflation.That kind of discovery makes you think about the reality of God, imho.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/03/16/cosmic.inflation.ap/index.html

The big bang's 'smoking gun'
Scientists say 'inflation' led to massive expansion

(AP) -- By the faint cosmic glow of the oldest known light, physicists say they have found evidence that the universe grew to astounding proportions in less than the blink of an eye.

In that trillionth of a second after the big bang, the universe expanded from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space through a process known as inflation. At the same time, the seeds were planted for the formation of stars, galaxies, planets and every other object in the universe.

"It's giving us our first clues about how inflation took place," said Michael Turner, assistant director for mathematics and physical sciences at the National Science Foundation. "This is absolutely amazing."

Researchers found this long-sought "smoking gun" evidence by looking at the cosmic microwave background, the oldest light in the universe. The light was produced when the universe was about 300,000 years old -- a long time ago, but still hundreds of millennia after inflation had done its work.

Even so, the pattern of light in the cosmic microwave background offers clues about what came before it, just as a fossil tells a paleontologist about long-extinct life. Of special interest to physicists are subtle brightness variations that give images of the microwave background a lumpy appearance.

Physicists presented new measurements of those variations during a news conference Thursday at Princeton University. The measurements were made by a spaceborne instrument called the Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe, or WMAP, launched by NASA in 2001.

"It amazes me that we can say anything at all about what transpired in the first trillionth of a second of the universe," said Charles Bennett, a Johns Hopkins University physicist who presented the research along with Lyman Page and David Spergel, both of Princeton.

Earlier studies of WMAP data have determined that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, give or take a few hundred thousand years. They have also measured variations in the cosmic microwave background so huge that they stretch across the entire sky. Those earlier observations are strong indicators of inflation, but no smoking gun, said Turner, who was not involved in the research. They represent tiny inhomogeneities -- dense spots in the superhot primordial soup that was the universe in the first stages of inflation -- blown up to hundreds of light-years in size by the subsequent expansion of the universe.

The new analysis was able to characterize variations in the microwave background over smaller patches of sky -- only billions of light-years across compared to hundreds of billions. Due to some weird aspects of quantum physics, those smaller lumps popped into existence during the middle and end of the inflationary process as tiny subatomic particles.

Then they would have expanded with the space they occupied to become of today's stars and galaxies. Slightly denser than their surroundings, they would have pulled additional material in by gravity, building up into the massive galaxies and superclusters observable today.

"Galaxies are nothing but quantum mechanics writ large across the sky," said Brian Greene, a Columbia University physicist.

The measurements are scheduled to be published in a future issue of the Astrophysical Journal.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Quoted: Quoted: ...Take a little ... Homotopy... wow, those california schools keep getting weirder and weirder. (<----- goes to look up "homo-"topy)

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that a course in Algebraic Topology and a course in Homology (different from Homotopy) might be a good idea..

Speaking of which...did you know that to a Topologist: a Donut and Coffee Cup are indistinguishable from one another?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ...Take a little ... Homotopy... wow, those california schools keep getting weirder and weirder. (<----- goes to look up "homo-"topy) Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that a course in Algebraic Topology and a course in Homology (different from Homotopy) might be a good idea..

Tensor Calculus -- I saw a man use it to pick up the ladies -- for real, when it college.   Some ladies go for the smart men.

Quoted: Speaking of which...did you know that to a Topologist: a Donut and Coffee Cup are indistinguishable from one another?

Only if it has a  handle that joins the cup at the top and the bottom, forming a hole.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The poor electrons get nervous when they're watched.  Leave 'em alone, dammit! I am in with this theory! Yes...by taking a measurement of the state of a system you are in effect disturbing it. Take a Empty Box, put a single electron in it, you may have perfect knowledge of the Electrons Momentum, but bounce a photon of light off of it to see where it is, and while you gain knowledge of its position, you lose your knowledge of its momentum: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Good example.

I like Hawking's description of the Uncertainty Principle in "A Brief History..."

Zoom in on a tiny particle, and you have an accurate description of its location.  However, you lose the ability to determine the velocity of the particle.  Zoom far away from it, and you gain knowledge of its velocity, but lose knowledge of its position.

I tried to explain it to an 8th grader by comparing it to watching an F-16 through binoculars.