|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,235
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,235 |
Quote:
As I understand it, Einsteins theory breaks down in the sub atomic world of Quantum Mechanics. Someone here smarter than me can verify that or not. Maybe this experiment can be a small step towards a unified theory of everything. Isn't that the Holy Grail of Physics?
Einstein rejected quantum mechanics. In my opinion the unified theory of everything doesn't exist. It is inherently based under the assumption that the universe is itself finite. The fact that EVERY single working theory we have had in EVERY field of science has been rewritten or amended makes me think the universe should be treated as if it were infinite. While I admit this may not be the case in actuality...The universe relative to us and our cosmic reference frame would seem to be rather insignificant. So to think that we could have figured EVERYTHING out from our little speck of sand (relative to the known universe) seems rather arrogant in my own humble opinion. Everyone wants to think that they all have it figured out in their own head. Physicists are no different.
Cleveland Browns, Space Browns ![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/iVP5Po2.png)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
In the next paragraph:
Quote:
The neutrinos from SN1987A traveled so far that had they been moving that much faster than light, they would’ve arrived here almost four years before the light did. However, we saw the light from the supernova at roughly the same time as the neutrinos (actually the light did get here later, but it takes a little while for the explosion to eat its way out of the star’s core to its surface, and that delay completely accounts for the lag seen).
As it would be, Super-Kamiokande wasn't completed until April 1983 - so we probably wouldn't have seen the neutrino burst
More importantly though, we did see the neutrino burst almost simultaneous with the photon signals from SN1987A, you shouldn't have seen any burst at that time if the neutrinos are moving faster than light.
~Lyuokdea
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 09/23/11 03:33 PM.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
I don't see why it has to be an either/or scenario. Easiest explanation is two "types" of neutrinos. Fast movers and 'normal'.... or perhaps during the collisions/explosions, there are billions of secondary collisions that further accelerate some neutrinos while the rest remain "normal"?
In the CERN experiment, any idea if they saw ALL of their neutrinos exhibit that speed, or just some? My bet is on Some.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
Einstein rejected quantum mechanics. In my opinion the unified theory of everything doesn't exist. It is inherently based under the assumption that the universe is itself finite. The fact that EVERY single working theory we have had in EVERY field of science has been rewritten or amended makes me think the universe should be treated as if it were infinite. While I admit this may not be the case in actuality...The universe relative to us and our cosmic reference frame would seem to be rather insignificant. So to think that we could have figured EVERYTHING out from our little speck of sand (relative to the known universe) seems rather arrogant in my own humble opinion. Everyone wants to think that they all have it figured out in their own head. Physicists are no different.
1.) Einstein didn't really reject quantum mechanics, he just thought that a hidden variable was responsible which could prevent action a distance (i.e. He thought the theory was incomplete, see EPR paradox). This was disproven by Bell in 1964 (see Bell's Theorem). One of the things that could collapse with the faster-than light neutrinos however, is the applicability of Bell's Theorem (since it only concerns itself with local hidden variable theories).
2.) Current models certainly allow (you might say demand) an infinite universe (or even a multiverse). The observable universe (within our light-cone), however, is finite and isotropic. This is confirmed by analysis of the WMAP data etc.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
I don't see why it has to be an either/or scenario. Easiest explanation is two "types" of neutrinos. Fast movers and 'normal'.... or perhaps during the collisions/explosions, there are billions of secondary collisions that further accelerate some neutrinos while the rest remain "normal"?
In the CERN experiment, any idea if they saw ALL of their neutrinos exhibit that speed, or just some? My bet is on Some.
I think that was one of the hypotheses of the Bad Astronomer, that it's probably not all neutrinos since there were neutrino measurements corresponding with the supernova.
I still think the most reasonable explanation is distance measurement error.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
I don't see why it has to be an either/or scenario. Easiest explanation is two "types" of neutrinos. Fast movers and 'normal'.... or perhaps during the collisions/explosions, there are billions of secondary collisions that further accelerate some neutrinos while the rest remain "normal"?
In the CERN experiment, any idea if they saw ALL of their neutrinos exhibit that speed, or just some? My bet is on Some.
We batted a similar idea around yesterday in the office - the problem seems to be that the neutrino cross-section (which is well known, and would apply to both the fast moving and slow moving neutrinos) is so small that secondary interactions inside the SN would only affect a very small portion of neutrinos.
This means that the flux of neutrinos that you saw 4 years beforehand would have to be millions times as large as the neutrino flux coincident with the SN. And that implies that the neutrino energy of the SN was millions of times as powerful as the SN itself (violating conservation of energy).
I don't see any easy way around that.
A more reasonable explanation is that it's a matter effect (neutrinos moving through matter go faster than the speed of light). I think you would still expect bimodality here, because the expected number of interactions is < 1. But it would lead to a time offset that is in the range of nanoseconds for both SN1987A and CERN - which would have been indetectable for 1987A.
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 09/23/11 04:17 PM.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,007
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,007 |
They named it a Skrine neutron 
Joe Thomas #73
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
Quote:
Scientists agree if the results are confirmed, that it would force a fundamental rethink of the laws of nature.
Just like scientists of the day had to "rethink" if the world was really flat or the sun revolved around the earth or if global warming is man made.
Science is great, but now one of the building blocks might be flawed....imagine that!
LOL
E=mc2 is settled science. Do not blaspheme science.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 830
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 830 |
Quote:
how do you even calibrate this measurement? 
This would not be the first time that they made this "discovery". At least one other time they claimed this and it turned out their math was bad.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
web page New test finds neutrinos still faster than light
LONDON (Reuters) - A new experiment appears to provide further evidence that Einstein may have been wrong when he said nothing could go faster than the speed of light, a theory that underpins modern thinking on how the universe works.
The new evidence, challenging a dogma of science that has held since Albert Einstein laid out his theory of relativity in 1905, appeared to confirm a startling finding that sub-atomic particles called neutrinos could travel fractions of a second faster.
The new experiment at the Gran Sasso laboratory, using a neutrino beam from CERN in Switzerland, 720 km (450 miles) away, was held to check findings in September by a team of scientists which were greeted with some skepticism.
Scientists at the Italian Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN) said in a statement on Friday that their new tests aimed to exclude one potential systematic effect that may have affected the original measurement.
"A measurement so delicate and carrying a profound implication on physics requires an extraordinary level of scrutiny," said Fernando Ferroni, president of the INFN.
"The positive outcome of the test makes us more confident in the result, although a final word can only be said by analogous measurements performed elsewhere in the world."
An international team of scientists shocked the scientific world with the original findings in September.
That first finding was recorded when 15,000 neutrino beams were pumped over three years from CERN to Gran Sasso, an underground Italian laboratory near Rome.
Physicists on the experiment, called OPERA after the initials of its formal scientific title, said they had checked and rechecked over many months anything that could have produced a misreading before announcing what they had found.
If confirmed, scientists say the findings may show that Einstein -- seen as the father of modern physics -- was wrong when he set out in his theory of special relativity that the speed of light is a "cosmic constant" and nothing can go faster.
This would force a major rethink of theories about how the cosmos works and even mean it would be possible, in theory, to send information into the past.
EAT MY SHORTS?
Jim Al-Khalili, a physics professor at Britain's Surrey University whose reaction to the first "faster-than-light" results was that he would eat his shorts if they turned out to be true, said on Friday he remained unconvinced.
"I am not yet ready to get out my knife and fork," he said. "Ideally, the experiment would have to be done somewhere else entirely to try to verify the controversial result that these tiny particles really are going faster than light."
The Italian scientists, whose second set of results were published in online science journal ArXiv at http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897v2,
said one potential source of error in the first results was that the pulses of neutrinos sent by CERN were relatively long at around 10 microseconds each, so measuring their exact arrival time at Gran Sasso could have had relatively large errors.
To account for this, the beams sent by CERN in this latest experiment were around three nanoseconds shorter, with large gaps of 524 nanoseconds between them, meaning the scientists at Gran Sasso would time their arrival more accurately.
"In this way, compared to the previous measurement, the neutrinos bunches are narrower and more spaced from each other," the scientists said. "This permits to make a more accurate measure of their velocity at the price of a much lower beam intensity."
Jacques Martino, director of the French National Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics, who worked on the second experiment, said while this test was not a full confirmation, it did remove some of the potential errors that may have occurred in the first one. "The search is not over," he said
Christos Touramanis, who heads a neutrino research team at Britain's Liverpool University and is involved in scrutinizing the OPERA result as part of CERN's scientific committee, agreed the new test with short beam bunches had excluded one possible source of systematic errors, but said "a number of other possible effects" still needed to be checked.
"Ultimately, full independent confirmation will be required before accepting this result as accurate," he said in an emailed comment.
(Editing by Richard Balmforth)
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,690
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,690 |
Good read.
The more we learn, the more we find out our foundation is faulty.....big surprise considering the earth was flat for maybe a thousand years or so.
How long did the sun revolve around the earth??
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
How long did the sun revolve around the earth??
A Long time, and the Earth was flat until about 500 years ago.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,367 |
So was Dolly Partons chest 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
The next think you know, we'll be creating wormholes and traveling to Alpha Centauri in minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
I like reading stuff like this it interests me greatly but some things just leave me scratching my head like the send messages into the past.
They say that what we see in outerspace the farther away the farther into the past that is however if you get on rocket ship travel at the speed of light and come back you will be in the future. (time will have moved forward on earth at normal speed but the rocket man will move at a slow rate) So why doesnt that work with light as well?
The light has left xx spot but our time is releative to us however the lights time isnt? So light that left said spot should actually be much younger then?
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
I like reading stuff like this it interests me greatly but some things just leave me scratching my head like the send messages into the past.
They say that what we see in outerspace the farther away the farther into the past that is however if you get on rocket ship travel at the speed of light and come back you will be in the future. (time will have moved forward on earth at normal speed but the rocket man will move at a slow rate) So why doesnt that work with light as well?
The light has left xx spot but our time is releative to us however the lights time isnt? So light that left said spot should actually be much younger then?
You're describing the twin paradox. Imagine you have two twins, and one of them leaves earth on a rocket and travels near the speed of light and then turns around and comes back. In both reference frames the twin would say "my twin is moving very fast, and when I see the clock he has attached to them, it's running slower than mine, so when they get back they will be younger than me" - this is a paradox because they can't both be younger.
The trick is that this is only true for inertial (constant velocity) reference frames - and the brother that leaves on the rocket can't be in one (he has to slow down in order to come back). So it is the traveling twin which is younger than the one that stays at rest.
In the neutrino example here - they are only traveling one way, so there is no acceleration to worry about. Also, what we are measuring is not the time it takes for the neutrino to travel in it's own reference frame - we are measuring the time it takes for the neutrino to travel in the lab's reference frame. Basically we find that they get there a little faster than we would expect a beam of light to (of course the light would be stopped by the tons of rock in between the beam and the detector too).
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,690
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,690 |
Cool stuff you guys are talking about...fun to think about for a while anyway.
As I said before, I have less faith in Physics and what we think we know then do you.
My feeling is we keep running in to dead ends because the foundation blocks are all screwed up. We get them half right but then run in to a wall because like a Rubrics Cube, there is only 1 way to solve the puzzle.
We can get some things close, but as it goes on it leads us down the wrong path.
Possibly it can't be solved? At least my us in our 3 dimensional world.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Cool stuff you guys are talking about...fun to think about for a while anyway.
As I said before, I have less faith in Physics and what we think we know then do you.
My feeling is we keep running in to dead ends because the foundation blocks are all screwed up. We get them half right but then run in to a wall because like a Rubrics Cube, there is only 1 way to solve the puzzle.
We can get some things close, but as it goes on it leads us down the wrong path.
Possibly it can't be solved? At least my us in our 3 dimensional world.
I think you're partially right in these respects, but only partially.
It isn't that we've come to dead-ends, but it's more like a book. We've only begun to learn how to read and we've read a few chapters of an enormous book. We are only beginning to see the plot and then something new comes in and throws our whole understanding of what's going on on it's head. Now, we have to begin thinking in a completely different way. It'll all make sense when the book is finished (hopefully it's not one of those that leave you saying, 'Huh? WTF!'), but until then we just keep trying to read through it.
For joviality, at what point will we create a black hole that doesn't evaporate but sucks in the whole planet and begins to feed on our solar system?
Back to being serious for a moment, how does this effect things like the superstring theory, which relies upon the belief that the speed of light is the fastest that anything can travel?
Last edited by anarchy2day; 11/19/11 09:22 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,690
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,690 |
Maybe so, one misstep will lead to the next. You end up with theories being the basis of everything else.
Now we are learning that Einstein may have been wrong.
What if Newton was wrong? Thales??
Like I said, possibly some things can't be understood living in our 3D world. We try to make things work in the only way we can.
Not to bring religion in to the mix, but maybe it is just best to believe and not worry about trying to prove something we can't understand.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Maybe so, one misstep will lead to the next. You end up with theories being the basis of everything else.
Now we are learning that Einstein may have been wrong.
This is true, we aren't sure yet. However, the theories may be wrong, but the established laws aren't.
Quote:
What if Newton was wrong? Thales??
Newton wasn't wrong. Neither is Thales. We know that Newton's laws are applicable. We do know that Thales was correct.
What we didn't know, but should have known was that Einstein very well could have been wrong. Einstein believed that exploding a 'hydrogen bomb' would consume the earth. He was wrong then.
Quote:
Like I said, possibly some things can't be understood living in our 3D world. We try to make things work in the only way we can.
Well, we do live in a 4D world. We can conceptualize time and how it relates to the 3D spatial dimensions.
Quote:
Not to bring religion in to the mix, but maybe it is just best to believe and not worry about trying to prove something we can't understand.
I don't think it's best to just believe and not worry about things we cannot understand. Doing that will limit our ability to grow and achieve greater things. For example, will space travel be in humanity's future? If so, our conventional notions aren't going to get us there. To travel by our technological means as we know them today would take us nearly 20,000 years just to reach the closest stars (even without known inhabitable planets). In theoretical terms, we could reach them in about a century using theoretical technology. It would mean having 'colonists' spend a lifetime aboard ship and to reproduce off-spring for at least 2 generations to be able to get to those nearest stars (even without a known habitable planet).
We might, at some point, undertake such an endeavor, but we'll have to seriously improve our technology if we're going to get out into space in a serious way.
Think of this. We've been to the moon 6 times, in all of human history. All of them in a flurry (July 1969 - December 1972) and haven't been back since.
We have landed vehicles on Mars, but haven't yet dared to send humans there. Why haven't we? It's not for a lack of technology.
I suspect that the first humans that settle a planet surrounding another star other than our own sun will be in a millenia or more into the future and that the mentioning of names like Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin will be little more than footnotes.
I'm hopeful that we will even send a person to Mars in my lifetime, but that's not even a foregone conclusion.
There is so much that we don't know, not because we're on the wrong track, but that we have to stop and rethink some of what we thought we knew.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
One thing that my brother in law and myself used to discuss is that we try to base everything into base 10 system (because thats how we think having 5 digets on each hand), however it doesnt fit correctly to how things work in the universe.
We try to fit round things into square boxes. They fit but that is only because the container is bigger then needed and not because its an exact match, when you reverse the process it doesnt work hence why we have a long long way to go.
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,690
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,690 |
That's a good way to put it.....kind of what I said about us living in a 3D world..it's what we know and how we process things.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
One thing that my brother in law and myself used to discuss is that we try to base everything into base 10 system (because thats how we think having 5 digets on each hand), however it doesnt fit correctly to how things work in the universe.
We try to fit round things into square boxes. They fit but that is only because the container is bigger then needed and not because its an exact match, when you reverse the process it doesnt work hence why we have a long long way to go.
?
Math (and Physics) are the same regardless of the base of your number system.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
Maybe so, one misstep will lead to the next. You end up with theories being the basis of everything else.
Now we are learning that Einstein may have been wrong.
What if Newton was wrong? Thales??
Wrong isn't really the correct word - even if this result were to hold (and it's a huge if) - they are still very very good approximations of the way the world works in almost every circumstance.
Quote:
Not to bring religion in to the mix, but maybe it is just best to believe and not worry about trying to prove something we can't understand.
If we had that opinion 200 years ago we wouldn't have most of the amazing technology we have today (computers, motors, electric lights, etc.) Why be so nihilistic about what we could accomplish, and give up without even trying?
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 11/19/11 06:52 PM.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
I wont argue that because I am neither a physic's or math major.
What I mean by that is when you look at things like time of a day stretched out to a year or PI they dont fit into a base 10 ten system (hense we force a base 12 system for time for example but try to force that back into a sub-set of 10 system by using 60 seconds and 60 minutes). Once that doesnt add up we make it 12 and 24. That doesnt add up so we get 365 days but that doesnt add up so we add a day every 4 years and so on and so forth.
In math I have to assume that no matter the system it still is based on whole numbers and use 1 as a whole which then goes to the number of the system and cycles again.
Im not sure if I can explain what Im trying to say. We need to add nano seconds and PI is infinite hence we can never truely figure out an answer using whole numbers and those the base 10 system we are accustom to..
Again not sure about this but can 10 to the 5th power actaully exist in say an 8 based number system with out being to an different power which is forcing it to be (or into) a 10 based system? Because 8 the top number to the 5th power wouldnt be the same?, and hence you would have totally different equations?
Im probably not expaining what Im trying to say correctly but hopefuly you kinda get an idea?
Heres another that math can expain that I just cant wrap my mind around in the twin paradox. If we head in a space ship to the nearest star at 4 light years away (rounding for easy of understandment) at close to the speed of light the time on earth that passes for a round trip will be just over 10 years however the trip for the travels will be 5 years.
How can at traveling slower then speed of light take less time, just over 5 years, then the total actual distance of the trip?
Yes I understand time will move slower relitive to us here but for the traveler time should remain constant to them and thus take them the 10 years as well relitive to them not 5?
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Let me take a crack at this - I apologize if I delve into jargon by the end, because i'm not sure there's a good classical analog for the last point. Quote:
I wont argue that because I am neither a physic's or math major.
What I mean by that is when you look at things like time of a day stretched out to a year or PI they dont fit into a base 10 ten system (hense we force a base 12 system for time for example but try to force that back into a sub-set of 10 system by using 60 seconds and 60 minutes). Once that doesnt add up we make it 12 and 24. That doesnt add up so we get 365 days but that doesnt add up so we add a day every 4 years and so on and so forth.
Well, there are two different concepts here, and I think you're trying to stuff them together.
The natural ratios between things like "the time for the Earth to revolve around the sun (year)" and "the time for the Earth to rotate around it's axis (day)". This ratio is always ~365.24/1 regardless of how you define an hour, a minute, a second, etc. This ratio is different for every planet of course, but is the same regardless of what base your number system is in (in base 8 for instance, it would be something like 555/1, but that ratio means the same thing).
Then there is the somewhat arbitrarily defined value of seconds (humans just made that up) - and we did it kind of awkwardly by first dividing a day in 24 hours (why 24? i have no clue), then 60 minutes/hour then 60 seconds/minute etc. These are all arbitrary decisions. We could just as easily (and much more reasonably) decide that there are 10 ohio-hours in a day, and 100 ohio-minutes in an ohio-hour, and 100 ohio-seconds in an ohio-minute, then we would have a new unit called an ohio-second, that is equal to 0.864 normal seconds.
We could even define a second with something that doesn't correlate to a day at all (make there be 129437929 seconds in a day) - of course, this would get confusing, so we try to avoid it.
Quote:
In math I have to assume that no matter the system it still is based on whole numbers and use 1 as a whole which then goes to the number of the system and cycles again.
Im not sure if I can explain what Im trying to say. We need to add nano seconds and PI is infinite hence we can never truely figure out an answer using whole numbers and those the base 10 system we are accustom to..
There's no reason that whole numbers are particularly more interesting than fractions/decimals (even transcendental numbers like PI). In fact almost all the numbers (from a measure theory perspective) are irrational (cannot be expressed as a fraction). So in that case no number system can completely describe the number -- for something like physics though, it really becomes a question of "how precise do we care to be?". We can do really interesting physics with fairly inaccurate numbers (in every orbital calculation for the Apollo program they said PI = 3.14, and we still got to the Moon correctly).
Quote:
Again not sure about this but can 10 to the 5th power actaully exist in say an 8 based number system with out being to an different power which is forcing it to be (or into) a 10 based system? Because 8 the top number to the 5th power wouldnt be the same?, and hence you would have totally different equations?
In base 8, 10^5 = 303240. There's nothing different about these numbers (I guess 303240 doesn't look quite as pretty as 100000, but numbers aren't any more important just because they have a bunch of zeros).
Remember, computers work entirely in binary (base 2) and only convert to base10 at the end to make things more useful for the operator. There's no problem with doing a bunch of math on the computer, and then converting between bases at the end.
Quote:
Heres another that math can expain that I just cant wrap my mind around in the twin paradox. If we head in a space ship to the nearest star at 4 light years away (rounding for easy of understandment) at close to the speed of light the time on earth that passes for a round trip will be just over 10 years however the trip for the travels will be 5 years.
How can at traveling slower then speed of light take less time, just over 5 years, then the total actual distance of the trip?
Yes I understand time will move slower relitive to us here but for the traveler time should remain constant to them and thus take them the 10 years as well relitive to them not 5?
Ok, it's tricky, let's see if I can explain it clearly. There are two different relativistic effects at work, which one is most useful depends on your reference frame for this problem:
Let's revise the problem a bit to make it easier. Let's say a star is 10 light years away, and the astronaut goes close to the speed of light and gets there in 5 years (he would be traveling something like 0.87 times light speed).
1.) Time dilation - When something is moving really fast compared to you (imagine that you are the guy sitting on Earth, and you are watching the astronaut with a big telescope as he flies). If you could see a clock through the window of the spacecraft you would think it was ticking much slower than it should (in our 5 years to travel instead of 10 example the clock would be ticking at half the normal speed). So if you watched his clock the whole time you would see that his clock only showed that 5 years past instead of the 10 years you read on your clock).
2.) Length Contraction - You would also see something that looked kind of odd. The spaceship would look like it was less long than you remember when you were looking at it on earth. It would be just as wide, but in the direction it is moving, it would have looked like it shrank. This is another important effect in relativity.
Now if we are thinking about the view from the astronauts point of view, the opposite effect becomes important when we think about how long the trip takes. The spaceship feels like it is not moving, and instead the Earth is rushing away from him, and this planet is moving towards him. But the same "length contraction is happening" neither of the planets look like sphere's anymore - they look more like cylinders that are skinny in the direction that they are moving. Not only that, but the distance between the two planets seems to have shrunk by a factor of 2. Now he knows what speed the star is moving at him at (0.86 light speed) but when he calculates the distance from him to the planet it is much shorter, so it makes sense that he should get there in only 5 years.
It gets a bit trickier when the astronaut decides to come back, because he has to decelerate in the process of turning around, which makes his reference frame non-inertial, i gave a description of that above.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
thanks for the reply It kinda makes sense to me but in the end the time the traveler spent should be = to the distance traveled?
The only reason I ask this for theory sake is if the time for the traveler is only 5 years to get there and back that basiclly cuts in half the time it takes to travel not even superseeding the speed of light which is what (star track reference here) warp speed would be in effect?
If the actual event of stopping causes the dylation(sp?) of time can we use that to actually say get to mars and back faster? Not from our prespective here on earth but as actual travelers?
The time to travel to and from are shorter then the actual distance would indicate? Which earlier I asked about is the light coming from stars straight at us actually younger then we think it is? So instead of seeing billions of years into the past we are perhaps only seeing 1/2 that?
On the first part in an 8 based system how could 10^5 exist with out there being a 9 or 10?
8^5 would be 32768 I think and 8^6 would be 262144?
The reason I ask is because I keep thinking people convert every system into a 10 based system. Im probably not understanding so forgive me and I know you dont want to conduct a mathmatics 101 lesson here. :-)
Please dont shoot me for asking stupid questions and thanks for taking the time to expain what for you must be elementry stuff if you feel like taking the time and effort.
Finally one thing you said speaks to what I think im trying to expain the computer works on a 2 based system (on and off/0 or 1. We work off whole numbers (squares) and all integers and decimals are based off whole numbers which create our base 10 system.
Perhaps if we understood things on a prime number level besides 1 we could figure this out? Not saying that people have not mulled this over for thousands of years but I just think our brains are hard wired to only see whole numbers and make them fit but as you pointed out we go the moon and back using the math we do use.
Again thanks for taking the time I love learning new stuff and not often do people want to talk about stuff like this, let alone have the abillity to expain it.
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
I have 1 completely stupid question now you said the earth revolves around sun 365.24/1. Has anyone ever tried to figure out if this is because we are moving faster in relation to the sun?
Ie the sun move's through the Milky Way and space at speed X, we rotate the Sun thus must be moving at a relatively faster speed then slower speed rotating around it thus maybe creating the differnce of the .24 in each year?
Possibly we are not in an ellicptical orbit even, it just appears that way relative to which side of the forward moving sun we at our perspective appear on?
Then again perhaps I should put down the beers and stop trying to understand stuff I probably never will.
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
thanks for the reply It kinda makes sense to me but in the end the time the traveler spent should be = to the distance traveled?
Yes - but the trick of the "length contraction" step is that the distance traveled is not constant, it depends on how on fast you are going compared to the objects in question.
Quote:
If the actual event of stopping causes the dylation(sp?) of time can we use that to actually say get to mars and back faster? Not from our prespective here on earth but as actual travelers?
Yes as actual travelers, no from our perspective on earth. With a suitably powerful engine (not anything we could conceive of making today) - you could say, go 0.999 the speed of light, and you could travel to another galaxy in a few minutes, then you could slow down and come back.
But when you get back to Earth, a couple billion years would have passed, and everybody you knew would be dead (the sun would have eaten the planet etc.) So it's possible that we could someday colonize other worlds/galaxies by speeding up spacecraft and sending them out across the universe, but there's no real point in making a return trip - once they leave, they are never coming back.
Quote:
Which earlier I asked about is the light coming from stars straight at us actually younger then we think it is? So instead of seeing billions of years into the past we are perhaps only seeing 1/2 that?
Yes - but for a slightly different reason (not so much relativity, as just light traveling at some constant speed) - the farther away a star is, the longer the light took to travel here (now we only care about our reference frame), so what we are seeing is the star as it looked when it emitted that light (some time ago). So looking farther away is the same as looking back in the past.
Quote:
On the first part in an 8 based system how could 10^5 exist with out there being a 9 or 10?
8^5 would be 32768 I think and 8^6 would be 262144?
Well, the base just tells you when you roll over from the ones place to the tens place etc.
So for instance if we are counting in both units we would have
base10 = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ....
base08 = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 24 ....
Each number on the top is the same as the number on the bottom (I added some extra 0's so it aligns correctly in text). So 10^5= 100000, and that is some number on the bottom row too, it's just not necessarily a number with a lot of 0's in it.
Gotta head out for now, will get to the last question later.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
see this is something I think im probably confusing and great converstion BTW.
In my mind a base 8 system compared to a base 10 system which again in my mind you are forcing a base 8 into a base 10
first base 10 2nd base 8 your way 3rd the way I see it using letters.
Base 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Base 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 24
Base8m a b c d e f g h aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah aaa aab aac aad
Nawkt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
See? Im not going off a base 10 system to create my base 8 system?
Perhaps again Im missunderstanding something? The converstion isnt going directly back to 10 Ive added a line to show the numbers as we know them as the last line perhaps that will help.
See we dont go from 7 to 10 we go from 8 to 8+1 we dont go from 17 to 20 we go from 16 to 16+1 Extrapulating forward adding in the 3 per cycle your still in a base 10 system but the way I see it at the frist digit of the 3rd cycle we are at 24 +1 which is 25 in our numbers instead of 31.
We are no longer using a base 10 system and fitting all other bases to that system.
Yes you could say Im using fractions and decimals of the whole number which still wouldnt give me irrational numbers or transcendental numbers but how can we get closer to understanding them if we dont at least look at them outside of the relevance of the 10 base system?
Given that 3.14 is pie and given that we may have an effect on earth (our relative time compared to the suns actual time) divided down could the 365.24 be scewed and its actually 3.14? or 314/1 which then we must assume 1 is wrong?.
Ok blabbering now forgive me.
Last edited by NickBrownsFan; 11/20/11 12:22 AM.
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
see this is something I think im probably confusing and great converstion BTW.
In my mind a base 8 system compared to a base 10 system which again in my mind you are forcing a base 8 into a base 10
first base 10 2nd base 8 your way 3rd the way I see it using letters.
Base 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Base 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 24
Base8m a b c d e f g h aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah aaa aab aac aad
Your system makes some sense, there are a few issues since it doesn't have a 0 value, it is base 9 (abcdefgh) and also I would normally put something like ba bb bc after ah instead of aaa.
a b c d e f g a0 aa ab ac ad ae af ag b0 ba bb bc bd .....
Now there's no numbers similar to base 10, but i could write it the same way by replacing every a with a 1, every b with a 2 etc. (and you'd get back to what I wrote originally). This is all just notation though, all of our systems meant basically the same thing.
For instance base 16 is usually written as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f 20 21 ....
where a b c d e f fill in for the numbers we are missing.
Nawkt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Quote:
See we dont go from 7 to 10 we go from 8 to 8+1 we dont go from 17 to 20 we go from 16 to 16+1
Ah, now i'm seeing where the confusion is from -- 20 in base 8 not equal to 20 in base 10 (even though they are written the same way). In base 10, 20 means (2 * 10 + 0 * 1)
In base 8: 20 means (2 * 8 + 0 * 1)
So 20 in base 8 = 16 in base 10, even though they are written the same way. You always have to specify the base when you write down a number, we just traditionally assume 10.
Quote:
Given that 3.14 is pie and given that we may have an effect on earth (our relative time compared to the suns actual time) divided down could the 365.24 be scewed and its actually 3.14? or 314/1 which then we must assume 1 is wrong?.
The effect of gravity on what we would consider a "year" on earth, vs. on the sun is much smaller, like a few milliseconds, and not days.
There's no real reason for the ratio between "year" and "day" to be anything specific, so long as the planets are not tidally locked (which isn't something we're considering here).
Here are the "number of days per year" for different planets in the solar system ("day" being defined not as an Earth day, but whatever time it takes for that planet to rotate):
Mercury 0.5
Venus 1.92
Earth 365.24
Mars 668
Jupiter 10475
Saturn 24491
Uranus 42718
Neptune 89666
Now this is interesting, there's a pretty established trend (many more days per year as you go farther out) - that's explainable, but a little bit outside of what we're talking about here. The point is that it's not some simple relation like PI in between them.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
Im going to have to digest this further but i think i get what you are pointing toward and helping me understand. Im sure I will have more questions, but once again thanks for taking the time to answer.
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,690
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,690 |
Ok, now you guys are sounding dorky.  Like I say, If everybody had like minds, we would never learn, so I am glad guys like you try to figure these things out. Just don't get too carried away. Do guys like you still use plastic pocket protectors??  Luke....it isn't about not wanting to make progress...I am glad we have. I just think we sometimes try to prove things, or disprove things that go way past our ability to comprehend.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,111
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,111 |
You and Nick are making my head hurt. I think i'm just gonna stick with math that makes sense to me: I had 12 beers, drank 7, therefore I have 5 left. 
Crowded elevators smell different to short people...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
You and Nick are making my head hurt.
I think i'm just gonna stick with math that makes sense to me: I had 12 beers, drank 7, therefore I have 5 left.
Well if you counted in base 12 then you have 7 left - so maybe this stuff is useful
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... CERN claims faster-than-light
particle measured
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Heldawg/rgiii2.jpg)
