PlaneShift
Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: Annah on September 26, 2006, 10:40:13 pm
-
The Butterfly Effect 2, the movie, was launched these weeks, and I really had to see it, since the first one sure was very good. Impressive movie, as good as the original. I won't enter in details, I'll let the movie to be a surprize for who didn't see it yet. Though, what I want to talk about, is the main theory from which all starts. The butterfly effect, that is a more common referrence to the "famous" chaos theory.
In meteorology, the idea says that the flapping of a butterfly's wing will create a disturbance that in the chaotic motion of the atmosphere will become amplified eventually to change the large scale atmospheric motion, so that the long term behavior becomes impossible to forecast. The small wings of a butterfly can create a tornado on the other side of the world?
For more information I suggest going here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
Since I started talking about the movie, I wanted to start a discussion about this theory, and its connection with shaping time. If we manage to go back in time, and we'll eventually change our past, how much will it matter for our future? And, in what way?
In the movies, every change would have had catastrophic "replies" in the future...
As a few questions, do you believe it's possible to go back in time? Can we change something, and have a different future? Because, some religions might say it's possible, but whatever we'll change, it won't matter in the present/future, because some things are just made to happen that way. Uhh, true? Destiny? Maybe not.
My own opinion would be, that if we can go back and change something, it will of course alter the future, though, what it matters, is that we can shape our every moment. Destiny? Neah.
I miss the "smart" discussions in here, oh, greetings!
:love:
-
If you go back in time and change something, you would never have gone back in time to change it in the first place, so it's impossible to interact if one did go back in time (in my opinion). Unless you were supposed to go back in time to make the present possible of course. :)
If things are 'meant' to happen, then we have no free will and there's no such thing as 'random'.
-
omg love that movie <3
-
at the moment i'm more of a fan of scorpious's theory of elastic temporal casuality.
basically it states that the closer to the orignal you change the past the closer to the orginal future the future will be. with the changes vanishing to quantum indistinguishablity after a finite period of time.
-
I say nothing is "meant" to happen, and we have the freedrom to choose, action which leads to a certain event. Though, others can say that was exactly what was supposed to happen, 'cause "that's how it was written". It's a vicious circile... Even so, I want to believe in our freedom. And we have it, since we do can shape our every moment.
:innocent:
And Xordan, that depends, if we can keep our memories from this kind of "trips", it will kinda change the whole idea. But, uhm, could we? In theory, it's ilogic to still remind something.
-
This whole theorem of time travelling depends on the authencity of the "Multiple Dimensions" theory. We would have an infinite number of dimensions that said you didn't and another infinite number of dimensions which said you did.
I will be back soon. I just have to go out with the dog, destiny?
-
I love this whole Chaos theory thing.
I have the butterfly effect and i loved that movie, i didn't know the second one came out yet, i'll get it A.S.A.P.
Basically, This is what i've learned from Chaos theory, EVERYTHING you do has an effect on your future, a HUGE effect.
Had your father sneezed 4 minutes before going up stairs to see your mother and start your conception, that sneeze itself might have been one of the causes of your birth.
Consider this, let's say there was a way to stop your father from sneezing, and lets say someone went back in time and did that.
Your father would enter into a new train of thought because he hadn't sneezed, he wouldn't be thinking about sneezing, and he probably would be doing something else, or contiue doing what he was working on.
Now let's say he decides to Join your mother 2 minutes LATER than normal, because there was no sneeze, and let's say because of this 2 minutes later, i now am given different genes because the sperm cell that was supposed to reach that egg never made it, and a new one made it.
Basically, that sneeze is like the butterflies flapping, and the hurricane on the other side of the world is my conception.
Now, it doesn't even have to be a sneeze, it could be a thought, let's say someone outside SCREAMS, really really loud.
You think about it and that thinking leads you to do certain actions.
Let's say now, that someone stopped that other person from screaming, you would enter into a different frame of thought.
My point after all this is basically, very minimal things have very dramatic impacts on your future, so make sure you make the right choices even if they may seem small.
I love chaos theory and i loved the first movie, can't wait to see the second :thumbup:
~~Datruth
-
Well, the only possible moment that we can experience is the now (so much as we know). So, if by some means of science modern or as not yet perceived one is able to go in any direction in time. They will would be in what would be perceived as the present for them even with knowledge of what would be perceived of the future/past (given they are in the what they perceive as the future/past). Are people who have visions of the future {true or not, forsake of argument} in actuality time travelers? Most likely not, but they could be. Although, they may have a very vivid and clear picture of something that may transpire. I think that it does link in to the idea that there are infinite planes/universes/dementions of being, some of which may co-encide with this one. The ability of contuses to transcend in some cases the idea of modern sciences and go to where ever. Some books have been written in the medium of astral travel, past life regression or in what modern science may call para-phycology etc. Only with proof measured with an open scientific mind would draw any real conclusion. For each there own.
So, to say that with a well trained minded one can do such feats? It may be that without proper proof it could be speculated as hoax. Just as science was considered magic or alchemy to many long ago. The development of the brain to exert such genus would mean that we would simply need to use a larger portion of it. So, say this is possible and that we can go to any place in time. First you would have to have the proper knowledge that you are indeed where you where trying to go. The only way we have to measure or judge it by is mathematics as the universe as we perceive it is based in our minds upon it. So then a system that already exists or perhaps a new one not yet made would have to be used so as we know for certain that proper destination would be found.
That said, changing something that has already happened (the past) may only change your perception of the future or only that of others. Where as dependent upon your micro-verse or dependent upon the macro-verse. It may be posable to do both, but no proof has been manifested as we know or do not know.
The best that can be said in all reality, that is unless there is certain proof is that we scientifically philosophies about what can and can not be.
-
I like multiple dimensions. Well, sort of. But the idea is, if you go back in time, you create a new universe in which you went back in time. You can never get back to the original universe and that universe goes on with out you.
As far as traveling back in time in general, the only way to do this at the moment (theoretically), would be to travel faster than the speed of light which may be possible, but only if you want to go into a blackhole. And if you're going into a blackhole, well, I don't think it will really matter. So in short, I think traveling back in time is currently impossible and that it most likely always will be.
-
Well, the only possible moment that we can experience is the now (so much as we know). So, if by some means of science modern or as not yet perceived one is able to go in any direction in time. They will would be in what would be perceived as the present for them even with knowledge of what would be perceived of the future/past (given they are in the what they perceive as the future/past). Are people who have visions of the future {true or not, forsake of argument} in actuality time travelers? Most likely not, but they could be. Although, they may have a very vivid and clear picture of something that may transpire. I think that it does link in to the idea that there are infinite planes/universes/dementions of being, some of which may co-encide with this one. The ability of contuses to transcend in some cases the idea of modern sciences and go to where ever. Some books have been written in the medium of astral travel, past life regression or in what modern science may call para-phycology etc. Only with proof measured with an open scientific mind would draw any real conclusion. For each there own.
So, to say that with a well trained minded one can do such feats? It may be that without proper proof it could be speculated as hoax. Just as science was considered magic or alchemy to many long ago. The development of the brain to exert such genus would mean that we would simply need to use a larger portion of it. So, say this is possible and that we can go to any place in time. First you would have to have the proper knowledge that you are indeed where you where trying to go. The only way we have to measure or judge it by is mathematics as the universe as we perceive it is based in our minds upon it. So then a system that already exists or perhaps a new one not yet made would have to be used so as we know for certain that proper destination would be found.
That said, changing something that has already happened (the past) may only change your perception of the future or only that of others. Where as dependent upon your micro-verse or dependent upon the macro-verse. It may be posable to do both, but no proof has been manifested as we know or do not know.
The best that can be said in all reality, that is unless there is certain proof is that we scientifically philosophies about what can and can not be.
Is that even a proper sentance.... what did you mean? I had no clue what it said, please reiterate.
What i got out of your post was, the person is crazy, he percieves the future, and in turn effects his reality.
Again, this person would be crazy, because in such a world where people can travel in time, they would have to affect the realities of EVERYONE around them, not just them, it's like being an actor in a play, you have to have everyone acting with you then.
u‧ni‧verse /ˈyunəˌvɜrs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[yoo-nuh-vurs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.
About multiple universes....that can't be possible. I mean look at the word Universe, isn't a universe that which encompasses all. If it doesn't encompass everything, it can't be the universe, and therefore you can't have multiple universes.
As far as the time thing, i have no clue if it's possible or not, to travel in time. Your guess is as good as mine, and i haven't researched the topic.
What i do know, is einstiens belief of the speed of light, being the maximum speed in the universe, is currently being re evaluated and i've heard theoretical mathematicians are finding ways to go faster than light.
-
To argue the point would be fruitless. All that was said was mearly just to point out that everything is speculative at best without proof, and even then {as with the recent learnings about the speed of light} that proof of anything may in it's self be proven false over time.
Is not science great that it can evolve in that way? New ways of thinking and doing things are constantly evolving. What may seem like crazy may be the norm in the future. It's what you make of it, and how you gleam any understanding for the self more than anything else.
-
u?ni?verse? /?yun??v?rs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[yoo-nuh-vurs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.
About multiple universes....that can't be possible. I mean look at the word Universe, isn't a universe that which encompasses all. If it doesn't encompass everything, it can't be the universe, and therefore you can't have multiple universes.
My turn:
universe, noun (the universe): all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos
About the same. Doesn't really matter. You can use either definition. So what makes multiple universes possible within these definitions? Well, look at the ends: they mention "the cosmos." Well, in multiple universe theory there are multiple sets of "the cosmos," hence multiple universes. Why aren't the cosmos of these other universes all part of one big overall cosmos? Because you can't move from your universe to a pre-existing universe. Each universe is completely separate and isolated from each other universe. You can theoretically create a universe by traveling back in time (assuming that's possible), but at that point, you lose access to your previous universe. Here's a wiki on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_%28science%29).
EDIT: removed nasty characters
-
It all depends on your definition of tornado.
Personally, I think that the universe has a greater tendency towards mediocrity than towards extremes. Things are only meaningful if we give them meaning, and all of our definitions are entirely relative in nature. This is true also for our understanding of change and consequence. Add in the fact that we cannot conduct tests that compare different timelines, and the question itself becomes rather meaningless.
All in all, the universe will end in "heat death", so what's to discuss?
-
In order to enter a new Universe, a new dimension, a new time all in all, one will have to find a way to breach these barriers.
2 theories about the barriers exist today.
First, they exist in spacetime and every dimension is a 2D slice right next to the other. 3D is an illusion.
Second, large multiuniverses beyond the beginning of our dimension(the original light of big bang, roughly 14 billion years ago).
I'll explain more but i'm rather busy, i'll let you talk it out :/
-
Before we go into asking how to enter Multiverses..... let's answer some questions.
Do we have any evidence of multiple universes?
I currently haven't found any, if you know some, please comment.
If we want to call this science, we need tangilble proof, not fairy tales. 8)
-
I like multiple dimensions. Well, sort of. But the idea is, if you go back in time, you create a new universe in which you went back in time. You can never get back to the original universe and that universe goes on with out you.
Not really, let's keep the idea of just one Universe. You go back in time, it's the same place, and then, you suddenly go back into the "present", of course, with the changes triggered by the actions you have done. It would be the same dimension, though which has new horizons for the future.
We don't need to talk about a multiverse and/or multiple dimensions for this. Of course, adding them would mean a brand new theory, which doesn't attract me too much.
As far as traveling back in time in general, the only way to do this at the moment (theoretically), would be to travel faster than the speed of light which may be possible, but only if you want to go into a blackhole. And if you're going into a blackhole, well, I don't think it will really matter. So in short, I think traveling back in time is currently impossible and that it most likely always will be.
No. Going faster than the speed of light yes, can bend the time, but it still flows. That's what different tests suggested until now at least. Everything more, are just theories.
Though, about the black hole, I must say I totally disagree with you. A black hole is just a star that sadly died, and which has the interesting attribute to absorb even its own light. It's very heavy, so, it has a mass, a body. Rest, it's just SciFi related to them.
-
The chaos theory is valid only for chaotic systems like weather. All the chaotic systems tend to have well defined statistics that don't change. Weather is chaotic, but climate is not.
A butterfly in Tokio can cause a tornado in Texas and if it was possible, you could go back in time and avoid the tornado, but it doesn't change the fact that there are tornados in Texas. You can change a single tornado happening in the future, but it takes much more than a butterfly to change the climate.
-
Before we go into asking how to enter Multiverses..... let's answer some questions.
Do we have any evidence of multiple universes?
I currently haven't found any, if you know some, please comment.
If we want to call this science, we need tangilble proof, not fairy tales. 8)
That's why they're called "theories". They can only be proved through theories(Not theories, the subject "Theory"...). If you're not a magician(magician, what the...what I meant was Mathematician) you won't understand the proof. This is strictly philosophical and we're operating on a hypothetic level. The rule of "everything is possible" applies here.
A thesis, on the other hand, is a theorem based on proof that can be proved in reality, for example surveys.
Bare in mind that neither of the Theory or the Thesis are accurate in the sense that they create perfect answers.
So, no, no proof. Only equations and estimates.
Beware of the Typos.
-
You will find scientific approach to the problem (influencing future by past and present events) by searching the net for "light cone". First link returned by google points to this Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone). Also follow the links given there (this one (http://interconnected.org/home/more/lightcone/) is cool :)).
Basically - every event happening in any place of the universe affects the rest of the universe (somehow), it only depends on how much time passes since the event occurrs.
I say nothing is "meant" to happen, and we have the freedrom to choose, action which leads to a certain event. Though, others can say that was exactly what was supposed to happen, 'cause "that's how it was written". It's a vicious circile... Even so, I want to believe in our freedom. And we have it, since we do can shape our every moment.
You are not entirely right. If I took a knife and cut Your hand, You would not have a choice - you must bleed. Similarily - I just moved my finger a second ago. Maybe it will only cause one foton hit one electron in one of atoms building your body, but it is already determined, that it will affect Your life somehow. You can't stop things, which will be caused by that. You could start counteractions, but those conunteractions would be also caused by my finger ;).
Theoretically it is possible to calculate (predict) what will be caused by every event, but practically it is impossible, I think people will never build any... machine or something capable of doing this. On the other hand - maybe some people possess such abilities (clairvoyants) ?
-
Before we go into asking how to enter Multiverses..... let's answer some questions.
Do we have any evidence of multiple universes?
I currently haven't found any, if you know some, please comment.
If we want to call this science, we need tangilble proof, not fairy tales. 8)
The definition of universe denies the possibility of being able to prove the existence of other universes. It is science, not fairy tales, but it's quasimetaphysical.
That's why they're called "theories". They can only be proved through theories(Not theories, the subject "Theory"...). If you're not a magician(magician, what the...what I meant was Mathematician) you won't understand the proof. This is strictly philosophical and we're operating on a hypothetic level. The rule of "everything is possible" applies here.
A thesis, on the other hand, is a theorem based on proof that can be proved in reality, for example surveys.
Bare in mind that neither of the Theory or the Thesis are accurate in the sense that they create perfect answers.
So, no, no proof. Only equations and estimates.
Beware of the Typos.
1. All hypotheses and theorems are theories.
2. Theories are never proven correct. They are only proven wrong.
-
What i do know, is einstiens belief of the speed of light, being the maximum speed in the universe, is currently being re evaluated and i've heard theoretical mathematicians are finding ways to go faster than light.
The speed of light isn't the maximum, but a speed that can never be reached. I believe his theory says nothing about going faster, just that you can't go at that speed, although relativity breaks down once you pass it and weirdness happens. Also, it's proven* that if you travel faster than light relative to another object that time will reverse and I think your mass becomes imaginary. At light speed time stops and your mass is infinite. So only things with no mass like a photon can travel at light speed. I can give the math for this if anyone wants. To travel back in time, just travel faster than light relative to an object (note that only _you_ will travel back in time. The rest of the universe will age as normal). :)
* Nothing in physics can be proved, only disproved. Only maths can be proved. :) So it really just hasn't been disproved yet.
As for multiple universes... think of them as multiple instances inside the same existence. You can't think about something 'outside' the universe when you get to this level, because the dimensions are totally different, maths might not work and any physics you know probably doesn't apply much. It only exists in math. We don't even know that our current 'laws' of physics are true for our whole universe, only for the small amount we can see.
-
There is no such thing as outside the universe. It's not that there's "nothingness" - it simply isn't there.
Xordan's explanation involving the speed of light wasn't exactly complete. One might ask why it is that light particles never speed up past the speed of light, or why is it that they never slow down. Every particle of light, no matter it's direction, no matter who is observing it, appears to be travelling constantly at speed "c" relative to the observer. Even if I'm moving at half the speed of light relative to you, we could measure the velocity of a particular particle of light and we would both measure it's velocity to be "c" relative to ourselves.
So no, there's something more going on. It gets complicated though.
-
That's why they're called "theories". They can only be proved through theories(Not theories, the subject "Theory"...). If you're not a magician(magician, what the...what I meant was Mathematician) you won't understand the proof. This is strictly philosophical and we're operating on a hypothetic level. The rule of "everything is possible" applies here.
A thesis, on the other hand, is a theorem based on proof that can be proved in reality, for example surveys.
Bare in mind that neither of the Theory or the Thesis are accurate in the sense that they create perfect answers.
So, no, no proof. Only equations and estimates.
Beware of the Typos.
1. All hypotheses and theorems are theories.
2. Theories are never proven correct. They are only proven wrong.
1. Yes, that's true, but you don't have to split it up in black and white.
2. I can't see where I said theories are, or can be proven correct. Mathematicians can defend their theory by presenting valid data that could be made proof. Otherwise it is to one's opinion and logical sense to decide whether it's right.
-
There is no such thing as outside the universe. It's not that there's "nothingness" - it simply isn't there.
Proof please? There's well supported theories which say otherwise.
-
There is no such thing as outside the universe. It's not that there's "nothingness" - it simply isn't there.
Proof please? There's well supported theories which say otherwise.
The proof is axiomic.
-
The proof is axiomic.
???
So only things with no mass like a photon can travel at light speed.
There is no evidence, that photon has no mass. We only can estimate upper limit of it's mass, which currently is (I may have out of date information) around 10-51g.
I can give the math for this if anyone wants.
Your math is worthless if photon has non-zero mass :P. BTW: If You are talking about Lorentz transformation - small change in formula can make a big difference, althoug it is unnoticable until you reach (and exceed) light speed.
The speed of light isn't the maximum, but a speed that can never be reached.
It wasn't proved, that light speed can't be reached. We only haven't source of energy powerfull enough to test it. Light speed would be ureachable, if it was infinite. Light speed is not infinite, it is around 300000 km/s. Why should it be maximum possible speed ? (eh, that question was asked so many times...;)).
-
It wasn't proved, that light speed can't be reached. We only haven't source of energy powerfull enough to test it. Light speed would be ureachable, if it was infinite. Light speed is not infinite, it is around 300000 km/s. Why should it be maximum possible speed ? (eh, that question was asked so many times...;)).
No, because as you approach the speed of light, it takes more and more energy to accelerate. It would take infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light.
-
It would take infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light.
Again - no real proof for this, only formulas... Newton, some time ago, was also sure of some things, he had his formulas... ;).
-
It would take infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light.
Again - no real proof for this, only formulas... Newton, some time ago, was also sure of some things, he had his formulas... ;).
There is real proof for this. Educate yourself.
Newton also had real proof for his formulas. Part of what was revolutionary about Newton's way of thinking was that he placed great emphasis on proof and testing things using the scientific method. Again, I think you need to educate yourself.
-
light is affected by gravity, therefor some say it has mass and can be measured. the way light reacts as it goes through a prism shows that the speed of light is not infinite
-
The proof is axiomic.
No it isn't. Brane theory (a leading theory by the way) says that there's plenty of dimensions 'outside' our universe which lives on a brane of 11D stuff.
I can give the math for this if anyone wants.
Your math is worthless if photon has non-zero mass :P. BTW: If You are talking about Lorentz transformation - small change in formula can make a big difference, althoug it is unnoticable until you reach (and exceed) light speed.
The speed of light isn't the maximum, but a speed that can never be reached.
It wasn't proved, that light speed can't be reached. We only haven't source of energy powerfull enough to test it. Light speed would be ureachable, if it was infinite. Light speed is not infinite, it is around 300000 km/s. Why should it be maximum possible speed ? (eh, that question was asked so many times...;)).
The math doesn't rely on the mass of a photon ;) and the 'proof' is in these formula. As you can see, as your speed increases towards the speed of light, your mass also increases, increasing to infinity as you reach light speed. Which means that you need an infinite amount of energy to reach light speed, and so is impossible. According to these (famous) formula :P
(http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/Phys/Class/relativity/relgifs/relmeqn.gif)
Note that this equation can = E = mc^2 if you multiply both sides by c^2 :)
(http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/Phys/Class/relativity/relgifs/lntheqn.gif)
(http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/Phys/Class/relativity/relgifs/tdileqn.gif)
t - the time measured for a mover by a stationary frame.
to - the time measured for a mover by a mover.
v - the velocity of the mover relative to the stationary observer.
m - the mass of an ojbect as perceived for a mover by a stationary frame.
mo - the mass of an object as percieved by a mover for the mover.
c - the speed of light in a vacuum which is a constant value of 300,000,000 meters/second or 186,000 miles/second. This value is constant as viewed by all observers.
L - the length of an object as viewed for a mover by a stationary frame.
Lo - the length of an object as viewed by a mover for the mover.
I'll correct my previous statement too... time becomes imaginary, not negative when you exceed light speeds. All these formula are part of special relativity. Go argue with Einstein if you disagree.
-
No it isn't. Brane theory (a leading theory by the way) says that there's plenty of dimensions 'outside' our universe which lives on a brane of 11D stuff.
If that's anything like the 11D universe described by string theory, then all of those additional dimensions are a part of this universe. It is not the same as "other dimensions" in the sense of other worlds, other universes, other time lines, etcetera.
-
No it isn't. Brane theory (a leading theory by the way) says that there's plenty of dimensions 'outside' our universe which lives on a brane of 11D stuff.
If that's anything like the 11D universe described by string theory, then all of those additional dimensions are a part of this universe. It is not the same as "other dimensions" in the sense of other worlds, other universes, other time lines, etcetera.
It isn't exactly like string theory, more of a extension.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory_%28simplified%29
In this, the universe sits in 4D on a 11D 'membrane'.
-
I hate explaning physics to people who haven't taken the time to properly educate themselves.
light is affected by gravity, therefor some say it has mass and can be measured. the way light reacts as it goes through a prism shows that the speed of light is not infinite
No. No one is saying that the speed of light is infinite. It takes something like eight minutes for light to reach Earth from the sun for instance. What we ARE saying though is that the speed of light is a constant. The speed of light never changes relative to the observer, and all observers record equal speeds for all particles of light relative to themselves.
In a prism, light does not slow down. What does happen though is something along the lines of drag as a function of wavelength. From particle to particle, light travels at speed c without deviation, but light "stays" at each particle it hits for a certain period of time. So, while it takes more or less time for light to travel a certain distance given what obstacles there may be, the speed of light never changes while it's actually moving.
-
I hate explaning physics to people who haven't taken the time to properly educate themselves.
light is affected by gravity, therefor some say it has mass and can be measured. the way light reacts as it goes through a prism shows that the speed of light is not infinite
No. No one is saying that the speed of light is infinite. It takes something like eight minutes for light to reach Earth from the sun for instance. What we ARE saying though is that the speed of light is a constant. The speed of light never changes relative to the observer, and all observers record equal speeds for all particles of light relative to themselves.
In a prism, light does not slow down. What does happen though is something along the lines of drag as a function of wavelength. From particle to particle, light travels at speed c without deviation, but light "stays" at each particle it hits for a certain period of time. So, while it takes more or less time for light to travel a certain distance given what obstacles there may be, the speed of light never changes while it's actually moving.
Actually, that's not correct. Light doesn't travel at a constant speed. It changes when it passes through a medium.
c = speed of light in a vacuum = maximum speed of light. Feel free to google around to check this. (Just google for 'speed of light in water' or something).
-
Actually, that's not correct. Light doesn't travel at a constant speed. It changes when it passes through a medium.
That's a common misconception.
When light passes through a medium, it is abstractly passing through fields representing particles and space. As a light particle passes through a medium, it 'stays' at each particle it hits for a period of time, then moves on at speed c until it hits something else. While it is 'moving', it always moves at speed c, but the sum of all this is to give the appearance of the photon slowing down.
The thing is, the photon is always moving because it never actually stays. What happens as a photon hits a particle is that the photon stops being a particle and instead becomes part of the sum energy of the particle it hit. It's as if the photon is destroyed and the energy level of the particle it collided with increases. Then the energy level of the particle normalizes and a "new" photon particle is created and sent on its way.
-
No, that's wrong, and a common misconception ;). When light enters a medium its frequency stays constant, but its wavelength changes (decreases). You have to think of light as a wave in this situation, not as a particle.
Plug this into the formula v = fλ and you see a change in speed. This was discovered by Jean Foucault.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index and http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html for two of millions of pages saying so...
-
If you say so. ;)
-
He's actually right zanzibar. Same things go for the sound speed for example. It's affected by the type of environment it passes through. Basic information you learn in high school though.
:innocent:
-
The main issue is, is light a particle or a wavelength? We know wavelengths can travel at the speed of light, mircrowaves have proven that, but what about particles. What is your opinion, zanzibar. What particles are able, except the theoretical photon, to travel at the speed of light?
-
The math doesn't rely on the mass of a photon ;)
But the theory does. And formulas are based on some assumptions, then they are checked empirically. If experiments show, that formula is correct, we assume, that it is correct. But measurements are not 100% accurate, so we can miss many effects at energy levels we are able to produce.
Maybe E = mc2 + <something extremely small> ?
and the 'proof' is in these formula. As you can see, as your speed increases towards the speed of light, your mass also increases, increasing to infinity as you reach light speed. Which means that you need an infinite amount of energy to reach light speed, and so is impossible. According to these (famous) formula :P
(http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/Phys/Class/relativity/relgifs/relmeqn.gif)
I won't trust it, until You show me, how it was created (maybe start with E=mc2 ;) )
Look at the following, not so famous, one:
(http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1630/lorentzmodifiedpn4.jpg)
What will happen now, when a object reaches, and then exceeds the speed of light ?
As a light particle passes through a medium, it 'stays' at each particle it hits for a period of time, then moves on at speed c until it hits something else.
Can You give me a link to a movie showing this, filmed through some kind of microscope ? It is just another theory, which tries to explain changes in speed of light in material medium. Theory, which is probably supported by complicated (and mathematically correct) formulas...
What happens as a photon hits a particle is that the photon stops being a particle and instead becomes part of the sum energy of the particle it hit.
Heh, and what would happen, if photon stopped in pure vacuum ? Would it just... vanished ? If it has no rest mass (no rest energy), it simply does not exist... Right ?
The main issue is, is light a particle or a wavelength?
Both. As are ANY moving particles (for example electrons).
What particles are able, except the theoretical photon, to travel at the speed of light?
... theoretically - none.
Edit: Ah, I forgot about Tachyons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyons) ;)
-
Right, nobody has proved that special relativity is correct so it might be wrong :P
E = mc^2
E = mc ^2 = (mo)c^2 / (rt (1 - v^2 / c^2))
E/c^2 = m = (mo) / (sqrt (1 - v^2 / c^2))
There :P
Probably if I'd have done a degree in particle physics I'd be able to give more accurate stuff, I've never seen that other formula with the extra E on the end. But hey, no human alive can give us an exact explaination of how everything ticks, we've just got to go by what works most of the time for us right now. :)
-
actually only photons can travel at the speed of light. tachyons are created moving faster then the speed of light. it is an odd loophole in the theories. strictly nothing can cross the speed of light. it does not preclude any thing moving faster than c. it was a loophole that worried einstein as he worked on the math.
-
He's actually right zanzibar. Same things go for the sound speed for example. It's affected by the type of environment it passes through. Basic information you learn in high school though.
:innocent:
Try rereading my posts.
If you're too lazy to do that, then just read this:
i) Light takes a longer time to move through a medium than a vacuum.
ii) However, light does not really slow down.
iii) This is because light "stays" at each particle it collides with for a measure of time.
iv) While in motion, light always moves at speed c.
Xordan started to get into wave-particle duality here, but it's not relevant in this case. There's no question that light has the properties of a wave and that these properties determine its behaviour while passing through a medium or from one medium to another. That's beside the point though - it's irrelevant.
The main issue is, is light a particle or a wavelength? We know wavelengths can travel at the speed of light, mircrowaves have proven that, but what about particles. What is your opinion, zanzibar. What particles are able, except the theoretical photon, to travel at the speed of light?
Light is both a particle and a wave at the same time.
Waves can move at the speed of light because a wave is an abstract representation of the movement of energy through a medium. Photons are what communicate certain waves, therefore the wave moves at the speed of light since it is light at play. Other particles that move at the speed of light include the gluon and theoretically the graviton, should a particle be discovered in connection to gravitational fields. We're getting into the difference between leptons and bosons and force carrying particles versus massive particles.
Can You give me a link to a movie showing this, filmed through some kind of microscope?
I doubt you could observe such behaviours using conventional microscopes.
Heh, and what would happen, if photon stopped in pure vacuum ? Would it just... vanished ? If it has no rest mass (no rest energy), it simply does not exist... Right ?
Your comment has the same value as the sentence "Purple monkey dishwasher". Photons exist and have energy. They do not stop in a pure vacuum.
Tachyons may exist if their starting conditions allowed them to have such properties. If something started off existence moving faster than the speed of light, then it would still be moving faster than the speed of light today - and theoretically backwards through time as well.
actually only photons can travel at the speed of light.
No. Any particle that "makes up" a force carrying field travels at the speed of light. Gluons, the graviton.
-
These are awesome posts, and i am really overwhelmed at the moment, because i've never actually been this deep into physics.
Rather than argueing about the speed of light, why not change it to something juicier though :woot:.
I've heard that time can be relative and can be described as a river that flows through our universe. That time isn't entirely constant everywhere.
I've also heard about black holes and how they exhist at the center of every galaxy.
Basically i just wanted everyones input on these subjects and i also had some questions.
When i see a black hole, in my mind, i think of destruction, but now we see them at the center of every galaxy.
What role do you think these black holes play? What stops a black hole from taking in mass, because i've heard of dormant black holes that no longer take in large amounts of mass.
Where do you think a black hole would take you? Basically, you have this huge blob that is sucking in mass because of it's gravity and it's becoming denser and denser. Could it actually take you somewhere or would you be smushes like a glob on top of all the other matter that's in it.
What evidence is out there that black holes even exhist?
Be sure to fix any errors if you see any and answer as many questions as you can.
Don't B.S me though, if you have a good opinion fine, but don't go guessing in the dark lol.
Can't wait to see everyone's answers, sorry if they some seem simple, haven't been in college as long as some of you, and i'm still studying, hopefully we got some Ph.d's in here that can help answer our questions. :thumbup:
~~Datruth
-
I've heard that time can be relative and can be described as a river that flows through our universe. That time isn't entirely constant everywhere.
As your relative speed increases, you start to experience time at a slower rate. Other people observing you see time in your system moving at a slower rate. If you had a twin, and you left the earth moving really really fast, and then you came back to earth really really fast, you would be younger than your twin when you got back and compared notes.
The proof of this is tests done at high altitudes using atomic clocks.
When i see a black hole, in my mind, i think of destruction, but now we see them at the center of every galaxy.
So? A black hole is essentially a super massive star that is so massive that not even light can escape its gravitational field.
What stops a black hole from taking in mass, because i've heard of dormant black holes that no longer take in large amounts of mass.
I haven't heard the term "dormant black hole". I would guess that it refers to a black hole that isn't near anything, so it isn't taking in anything currently.
Where do you think a black hole would take you? Basically, you have this huge blob that is sucking in mass because of it's gravity and it's becoming denser and denser. Could it actually take you somewhere or would you be smushes like a glob on top of all the other matter that's in it.
A black hole isn't understood today to be a blob. It's an incredibly large amount of matter occupying an extremely small volume of space. The diameter of a black hole - not the event horizon, but the black hole itself - may be as small as the plank length. Basically, it's the size of a particle.
Yes. It's that tightly compressed.
What evidence is out there that black holes even exhist?
Photographs, galaxies, gravitational lensing, radiowaves from space, math.
Edit: Check out http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2002/pr-17-02.html , including the video clip reconstructing the observed movement of stars near a black hole.
-
"What evidence is out there that black holes even exhist?"
Photographs, galaxies, gravitational lensing, radiowaves from space, math.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Can you explain that to me?
Photographs?
You basically just named a bunch of things but you didn't explain how they actually proved black holes.
-
Photographs over time show the movement of certain stars is influenced by super-massive invisble objects.
Gravitational lensing is when light bends around black holes on its way to us. The Einstein Cross is a superb example of this. You can find images of it on google images.
The forces involved in pulling a galaxy together demonstrate the existence of super massive bodies. Black holes are really the only likely explanation for so much force to be coming from such a small area.
Radiowave imagery lets us "see" black holes. As black holes swallow matter, they release large amounts of radiowaves that we can observe.
Black holes were predicted using math well in advance of being discovered.
I can make more posts, but really... you should just google it. There's a lot of information out there.
-
Getting back to the original topic of this thread, this idea that a butterfly can "cause" a hurricane to occur later is really a gross oversimplification of pop science. I studied Chaos Theory and worked in a research lab using it for several years back in college, so I do know something about it.
One of the central findings of chaos theory or of studying chaotic systems is that they are impossible to predict accurately over time. A tiny change in initial conditions can result in a large difference in future state out in time as you watch the system evolve. If you run simulations of chaotic systems, you can see this at work. You set up some variables with random values, and simulate 1000 iterations of your system and record the final values. Then you change 1 of those variables by 0.000000001 and re-run the same simulation, and you will end up with totally different resulting values. This means that if you are looking at a real system and measuring its initital state, you cannot predict (accurately) its state after 1000 iterations, because even if you are off by a tiny bit, your prediction has no value.
You would think that the smaller amount you change the initial settings, the smaller the difference in final results is, but it isn't always true. How true that is, and how far out you can stay within a certain error factor, depends on how chaotic the system is.
This doesn't mean a change in initial conditions will make a system do something it cannot do though. Moving a water molecule 1mm might result in a differently shaped snowflake than you would have gotten, but it is still going to be six-sided and "look" like a snowflake. We don't get hurricanes over land. Tidal waves don't start on mountaintops.
In the same way, the butterfly isn't "causing" a hurricane. Instead the author is saying that in trying to predict the weather, if we take into account millions of variables and measure pressure and windspeed every 1cm across the earth to 10 digits of accuracy, and we fail to take into account a single butterfly, eventually our predictions will be off and we will fail to predict that a hurricane is occurring over a certain spot a year from now--or 10 years from now. Timeframe of prediction is crucial. If you only want to predict the weather 5 minutes from now, sticking your head out of the window is enough data points to be right 99.99% of the time. Predicting it 5 years from now will be impossible forever.
We can't predict the shape of a snowflake, or the exact flicker pattern of flames in a bonfire, or the ever-changing shape of clouds in the sky--and yet these always "look" almost the same to us. Almost is the key word here. And since they are "almost" the same, we can "almost" predict how they will act but not quite.
And that is why most people find these things endlessly fascinating to watch, sightsee and take pictures of--capturing 1 individual in a trillion trillion trillion possibilities.
- Vengeance
-
If you only want to predict the weather 5 minutes from now, sticking your head out of the window is enough data points to be right 99.99% of the time. Predicting it 5 years from now will be impossible forever.
- Vengeance
That isn't true and shouldn't be used as a fact.
We know that all things we see today are an ordered system, there are laws that can't be broken and each atom has it's own qualities.
I predict, once we delve into this ordered system some more and understand it better, we will have the ability to predict weather.
This is far off from now, i mean the sun might destroy the earth before we ever figure this out, but i still feel that we are in an ordered system and that with more knowledge we can understand this system better.
That and the effectiveness of our measurements will one day help us predict this seamingly chaotic system.
-
I predict that the sun will rise tommorow. :sorcerer:
-
I predict that the sun will rise tommorow. :sorcerer:
$5 on Paypal, YOUR ON! :sorcerer:
lol :lol:
-
Can You give me a link to a movie showing this, filmed through some kind of microscope?
I doubt you could observe such behaviours using conventional microscopes.
Errm... It was the rhetorical question, Zanzibar. I know that it can't be observed directly. What I want to say is, that you don't know, if photons are stopping at other particles, you only have a theory, which converge with observations of results of passing light thrug a medium and which is well supported by math. What really happens in nano-world (pico- ? femto- ?) - we don't know.
Other particles that move at the speed of light include the gluon and theoretically the graviton
Neither free gluons nor gravitons were observed. They are just theory (nice one) describing interactions between other particles. Until somone will find a trace left by gluon (graviton) you can not say "gluons and gravitons are particles which can travel at lightspeed".
Heh, and what would happen, if photon stopped in pure vacuum ? Would it just... vanished ? If it has no rest mass (no rest energy), it simply does not exist... Right ?
Your comment has the same value as the sentence "Purple monkey dishwasher". Photons exist and have energy. They do not stop in a pure vacuum.
Again - It was not a question, it was a sentence showing, that your statements are of the same value You mention above ;) "Photons exist and have energy", because they are moving, at least according to current theories which assume that they have no rest mass.
Tachyons may exist if their starting conditions allowed them to have such properties. If something started off existence moving faster than the speed of light, then it would still be moving faster than the speed of light today - and theoretically backwards through time as well.
Currently tachions are result of playing with imaginary numbers. IF the theory is right (if they do exist), there is no way we can detect any (they are far away and long time ago ;)). Technically - they don't exists (until we produce and observe one).
You set up some variables with random values, and simulate 1000 iterations of your system and record the final values. Then you change 1 of those variables by 0.000000001 and re-run the same simulation, and you will end up with totally different resulting values.
And if You repeat the same simulation with the same starting conditions, You get what ? The same result or diffrerent result? If the result remains the same - your system is not unpredictable, it follows well defined rules (even if You don't know those rules).
This means that if you are looking at a real system and measuring its initital state, you cannot predict (accurately) its state after 1000 iterations, because even if you are off by a tiny bit, your prediction has no value.
It only means, that you don't know all required variables, you do not take into account all of single objects involved in your model and you don't know the real formula allowing to calculate everything (see ->Unification theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_theory), ->Theory of everything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything) etc...)
I predict that the sun will rise tommorow. :sorcerer:
You are right in the world of cosmology.
In the world of quantum physics You may be wrong :detective:.
In the world of theory You may be wrong.
If the dense cloud covers the sky, so dense, that no device can detect sun through it (your eyes, if you haven't anything else at the moment), You will never know if it raised or not. It could also simultaneously rise and not rise. Read about ->Schrödinger's cat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat) :) (although You probably know about that "experiment", Zanzibar).
And about movie - I haven't seen it yet, and I think I'll wait untl it is broadcasted in TV. There are so many movies covering this topic - have you watched "Back to the Future" ( :thumbup:), or "Time Cop" ? There are more similar productions, I don't remember them atm. I also remember a story I read long time ago, I cant recall the author nor the title. In that story people were traveling back in time to hunt dinosaurs, for fun. Of course, they were doing it in a way which "guaranteed" leaving the future (I mean present) in unchanged state. They used special artificial paths, they always were taking all bullets back to the future etc. One day one of hunters panicked and he left he path. He had only some mud on his shoes, so they though it will be OK. But they did not notice a butterfly sticked to the mud. I think You already guess, that they found quite different world after returning... Just another example of "butterfly effect" ;)
-
Wired_Crawler, I find your statement that "things don't exists until we produce and observe them" to be ludacris. And I know plenty about quantum physics and the uncertainty principle and its various applications, there's no reason to insult me just to make a point. Your own statement isn't even backed up by quantum mechanics: Things exist, even if we aren't directly observing them. They just exist in a different state.
Even on a cloudy day, the sun still rises.
Edit: I'm pretty sure gluons have been observed in experiments using particle accelerators, so there you go.
Edit times two: Chaotic systems are still governed by laws. The point is that the variables are extremely sensitive.
-
Things exist, even if we aren't directly observing them. They just exist in a different state.
Or in multiple states simultaneously.
Also yes, gluons have been observed. We're pretty sure they exist, and are part of our standard model.
-
Or in multiple states simultaneously.
I'm pretty sure that counts as a different state.
-
Wired_Crawler, I find your statement that (...)
*sigh*
OK, OK. I give up. My oratorical skills (especially in non-native language) are not high enough to continue this interesting discussion. Sorry if I wrote something offensive.
And yes, my knowledge may be covered by thin layer of dust, so I find all informations above valuable.
:-X
-
Wired_Crawler, I find your statement that (...)
*sigh*
OK, OK. I give up. My oratorical skills (especially in non-native language) are not high enough to continue this interesting discussion. Sorry if I wrote something offensive.
And yes, my knowledge may be covered by thin layer of dust, so I find all informations above valuable.
:-X
We aren't talking about things which are that new. And it's not your communication skills that are lacking.
-
yea no room for non genious's in this discussion
-
i just stumbled over this thread and think i should clarify some points from a astronomical point of view (i wont quote everything cause i'd had to quote almost all posts in this thread ;)
generally speaking: we do not know anything for sure, nothing is to be taken for granted. take the blackhole theory, it is a beautiful theory and would simplify our view of the universe by many means. unfortunately, recent observations show that the theory might not be much more than a theory - that is wrong. zanzibars definition of the classical black hole was quite right, it's a singularity created by an imploded star (which must have had about 3 sun masses IIRC). btw, a dormant BH is exactly what zanzibar wrote, a blackhole that has consumed all mass that is within its schwarzschild radius (that is, the area of effect to put it simple).
so why should the theory be wrong? because its states that BHs do not have a magnitc field and that does not go along with receint observations of a particular quasar. they show, that that "black hole" has indeed a magnetic field - and because of that, it cant be a BH but must be a "MECO", which stands for "Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects". further trouble comes with that, as MECOs and BHs are mutual exclusive - either we have BHs or MECOs in the universe, the existence of both is not possible. see here for more information:
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn9620&feedId=online-news_rss20 (http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn9620&feedId=online-news_rss20)
that does not mean that we have to overthrow all BH theory and question einstein in general, for the MECO theory is also, only a theory. but it should remind us that nothing is to be taken for certain in our universe.
so lets continue to the speed of light topic. as stated by the theory, nothing with mass can exceed that speed. but that does not mean that C is the fasted speed in the universe. a practical experiment with lasers and xeon gas (IIRC) showed speeds around 300 times C. and there are the quantum physics who observ twin-particles that clearly interact with each other in no-time - literally. if you change a property of one particle, it is immediatly changed on the other without any delay. this passing of information from one particle to the other is considered to be faster-than-light. that does not prove that we could theoretically travel faster than light, because we consist of mass and information does not, but it states that C is not the highest velocity we experience.
and well, there is also a philosophical view to it: what is the speed of a thought? ^^
alright, back to the original topic of this thread: time travel. oh i love timetravel theories, they are so full of paradoxons that it can busy my brain for days when thinking about it. a simple one: if im going back in time and kill my mother before she gave birth to me, what will happen? will i simply vanish? if so, how could i go back in time then? and so on and on... ;) so to me, timetravel is strictly a science-fiction term that lets us dream of "if i only could...". but in a universe that is based on cause and effect (at least in the macro-universe, im aware of the quantum effects where the effect precides the cause) it simply makes no sense. the jar falls first from the table, then it breaks. but timetravell says that a jarr can break before it falls from the table.
"but if we could travel faster than light we could go back in time..," i hear some of you exclaiming. yes, theoretically. period. it is nice to think in theories because no one can prove it wrong (thats why the string-theory is considered the most perfect theory ever made: no one will ever be able to prove it wrong). but we should not forget to apply real-world-experiences to our theories and far more important, that we are only at the very beginning of understanding our existence. nothing is for granted.
-
If you started off existence as going faster than light, then you wouldn't be breaking any laws. But you'd be travelling backwards in time from the moment of creation, so you would never interact with normal matter.
Black holes do emmitt radiation. What happens is that quantum events near the event horizon are affected in such a way that one particle gets sucked in and the other particle flies off into space. Magnetic fields would be a bit more tricky, but that just means out theories are incomplete and not necessarily incorrect.
-
If you started off existence as going faster than light, then you wouldn't be breaking any laws. But you'd be travelling backwards in time from the moment of creation, so you would never interact with normal matter.
that's the description of a tachyon if im not mistaking. again, its a mathematical construct which lacks necessity and physical prove. no one has ever saw a tachyon. the problem with that theory is, there are too many "if"s. just think about what your sentence mean, to "start of existence going faster than light". velocity is not just there, it is the effect of applying (moving)energy into mass. so again we have the typcial cause-effect-dilemma. the tachyon has to exist so energy can be applied to it, but it cannot exist without being faster than light - you see the flaw?
-
Who says that everything started off at rest? That seems like an assumption.
I'm not saying that tachyon particles exist. I'm just giving a description of what they might be like if they did exist. I think that having ifs and iffs is just fine as long as they're used in a way that makes sense.
-
Who says that everything started off at rest? That seems like an assumption.
basic law of thermodynamics? logic? as i said, how can you apply energy to something that doesnt exist? it simply doesnt make sense. however, a lot of things dont make sense and even thermodynamics might be wrong. im certainly not an expert to be able to prove that they are right.
but i am almost certain that there will never be a human that will "come" into existence with a velocity > C. or any velocity at all for that matter, as you "assumed" in the previous post (If YOU started off...) ;)
[EDIT] another example why tachyons are just a mathematical construct that cannot exist in reallife is pythagoras famous theorem a^2+b^2=c^2. if you calculate it back, you can get a positiv or a negativ value, but we only experience triangles with a positiv hypotenuse. the square root for the number "9" nine can be 3, or -3, because of (-3)*(-3) = 9. the same is true for the tachyons. the special relativity theory allows them to be calculated, but in the same way that we cannot have a triangle with a negative side, tachyons can not exist. hope i could clarify my point and didnt cause more confusion cause of the mathematics ;)
-
We already know the laws of thermodynamics to be false though. Logic is just conclusions from postulates - with the right axioms, you can logically deduce anything. And common sense isn't worth a whole lot. And it's not a matter of applying energy to something that doesn't exist, it's a matter of something coming into existence with energy. And I understood your part about triangles perfectly well, I'm not sure why you chose to adopt such a snarky tone.
-
And I understood your part about triangles perfectly well, I'm not sure why you chose to adopt such a snarky tone.
uhm sorry that wasnt meant as an insult or something, nor did i wanted to look uber-smart. i just thought that maybe not all who read my post do know what i am talking about. or do you asume that you're the only one reading it? dont need to answer that ;)
keep cool man, it's just nerd-talk.
-
We already know the laws of thermodynamics to be false though.
ah do we? im sure you can post a link.
Logic is just conclusions from postulates - with the right axioms, you can logically deduce anything.
probably, in theory.
And common sense isn't worth a whole lot.
well i dont know about you but i like to think of myself that i am able to see the interaction of cause and effect. but then, maybe thats the reason why i've not become a billionair already, because my common sense says that i have to work for it - but im sure there is an axiom who tells me that i dont, i'd be happy to share my money with you if you could tell it to me.
sorry, you see my point. science is all about common sense. everything else is mathematical playground.
And it's not a matter of applying energy to something that doesn't exist, it's a matter of something coming into existence with energy.
well that only is the half-truth. to have a particle on a certain velocity, energy must be _applied_ to it in a given direction, so the particle can move in that direction. velocity is not something that stays in place, its the effect we see when a certain amout of energy is applied to something in a certain direction. as with tachyons, its getting even more tricky, for the more energy they get, the "slower" they are (meaning closer to LS). so you need to have a particle that when it comes into existence already had moving energy removed, 'cause otherwise you'd need infinit energy to have it LS. imagine what a nice world we would live in ;)
anyway, i think the triangle example shows what tachyons are. mathematical constructs with _zero_ relevancy for our life. zero. they are only relevant in SRT calculations to show that the theory works both ways.
-
The Butterfly Effect 2? I loved the first one. When's it coming out?
-
We already know the laws of thermodynamics to be false though.
ah do we? im sure you can post a link.
The laws of thermodynamics don't account for quantum events rising from the uncertainty principle. It's laws about energy are not truly laws.
My description of logic is accurate. You can arrive at any conclusion given the right set of postulates.
-
My description of logic is accurate. You can arrive at any conclusion given the right set of postulates.
/me Holds a book in his hands.
I deduce that the book is larger than the sum of it's parts, the pages.
I would like you to logically disproove that.
I'm sorry zanzibar but you are way off this time, without logic, without wisdom, we can understand nothing.
~~Datruth
-
My description of logic is accurate. You can arrive at any conclusion given the right set of postulates.
/me Holds a book in his hands.
I deduce that the book is larger than the sum of it's parts, the pages.
I would like you to logically disproove that.
I'm sorry zanzibar but you are way off this time, without logic, without wisdom, we can understand nothing.
~~Datruth
I'm not off at all. Here is an example of the logical operation deduction:
(P1) If unicorns are blue, then the sky is green.
(P2) Unicorns are blue.
(C) Therefore, the sky is green.
Given the right postulates, you can logically conclude anything. The system is logical, even if the postulates are suspect.
-
How is that logical in any way?
Obviously if you start off with bad givens your operation is always wrong.
-
so lets continue to the speed of light topic. as stated by the theory, nothing with mass can exceed that speed. but that does not mean that C is the fasted speed in the universe. a practical experiment with lasers and xeon gas (IIRC) showed speeds around 300 times C. and there are the quantum physics who observ twin-particles that clearly interact with each other in no-time - literally. if you change a property of one particle, it is immediatly changed on the other without any delay. this passing of information from one particle to the other is considered to be faster-than-light. that does not prove that we could theoretically travel faster than light, because we consist of mass and information does not, but it states that C is not the highest velocity we experience.
That's not correct (I'm a bit slow catching up to this topic xD). Your first point was right, it's been shown that beams can travel faster than light... but there you go wrong a bit. Those beams don't carry any information. Information _can't_ travel faster than light as far as any observations and most known and likely theories suggest (such as special relativity). The beams just carry the 'pathway'. Kind of like saying that a road is being laid at 300C, and the cars would move along it. Twin-particles, or quantum-entangled particles don't pass information faster than light, even though anything that happens to one (like change of spin) happens to the other instantaneously (unless relativity is wrong). Assuming relativity is correct, then they would (again theoretically) be able to pass information via retrocasuality, because relativity sees the time dimension as a block which is static and unchanging, so the future is the same as the past. Basically, this means that measuring one entangled particle could send a wave backwards through time to the moment that the pair were created and change the measurements to be the same for the other. It's quite a nice clean solution, but probably too perfect. :)
-
How is that logical in any way?
Obviously if you start off with bad givens your operation is always wrong.
No, the operation itself is correct. Logic is just arriving at a conclusion from a set of prepositions via a certain set of processes, including deduction.
-
How is that logical in any way?
Obviously if you start off with bad givens your operation is always wrong.
No, the operation itself is correct. Logic is just arriving at a conclusion from a set of prepositions via a certain set of processes, including deduction.
Why wouldn't you show the corralation between the two.
I can say, genius's have nick names that are Zanzibar.
Therefore if my nickname is Zanzibar, i am a genius.
You still have to SHOW a corralation between the two.
Logic itself overrides your Unicorn example because,
A) Unicorns do not exist
B) Most unicorns are shown to be white in fictional stories
C) We have millions of people who attest that the sky is blue
D) There is no corralation between the color of a unicorn and the color of the sky.
~~Datruth
-
Why wouldn't you show the corralation between the two.
I can say, genius's have nick names that are Zanzibar.
Therefore if my nickname is Zanzibar, i am a genius.
No. That's induction, not logic.
Logic itself overrides your Unicorn example because,
A) Unicorns do not exist
B) Most unicorns are shown to be white in fictional stories
C) We have millions of people who attest that the sky is blue
D) There is no corralation between the color of a unicorn and the color of the sky.
~~Datruth
No. The system is still logical, even if the postulates are suspect.
-
Shut up and just enjoy the god damn movie. Discussions like this hurt my head. >.>
-
Why wouldn't you show the corralation between the two.
I can say, genius's have nick names that are Zanzibar.
Therefore if my nickname is Zanzibar, i am a genius.
No. That's induction, not logic.
Main Entry: induction
Part of Speech: noun 2
Definition: inference
Synonyms: conclusion, conjecture, generalization, judgment, logical reasoning, ratiocination, rationalization, reason
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
You say induction, i say logic, same thing, what's the difference?
-
Deduction is the example I gave with the unicorn.
This is induction:
(p1) crow 1 is black
(p2) crow 2 is black
(p3) crow 3 is black
(p4) crow 4 is black
...
(p1,000,000) crow 1,000,000 is black
(c1) Therefore: All crows are black.
-
Datruth,
As usual, you missed the entire point of my post. "Chaotic" is a word used to describe orderly systems which are still unpredictable without actually running the system (or the simulation). There is no f(t) which lets you plug in a value of t and determine the outcome. You must actually let it happen and see what does. Systems which are predictable are known as 'deterministic' or 'classical'. Systems which have no repeatability or order whatsoever are called 'stochastic' or just random. The spectrum in the middle of systems which are not deterministic but also not completely random are what the term "chaotic" was invented for. Snowflakes, clouds, fingerprints, stock market graphs. All look like each other but no two are alike. The pattern of chocolate syrup being stirred into a glass of milk... if it was truly random, and you stirred long enough, do you think you could separate the milk from the chocolate again?
It isn't random. But it is inherently impossible to predict as well.
To the other poster who asked a question of me, if you rerun the same simulation with the same variables, yes you will get the same answer. This is fine and dandy in computer simulations of artificial chaotic systems, but in the "real world" the issue is that you *never* have all the variables, let alone run them exactly the same way twice. This is what "the butterfly effect" really means.
- Vengeance
-
Datruth,
As usual, you missed the entire point of my post. "Chaotic" is a word used to describe orderly systems which are still unpredictable without actually running the system (or the simulation). There is no f(t) which lets you plug in a value of t and determine the outcome. You must actually let it happen and see what does. Systems which are predictable are known as 'deterministic' or 'classical'. Systems which have no repeatability or order whatsoever are called 'stochastic' or just random. The spectrum in the middle of systems which are not deterministic but also not completely random are what the term "chaotic" was invented for. Snowflakes, clouds, fingerprints, stock market graphs. All look like each other but no two are alike. The pattern of chocolate syrup being stirred into a glass of milk... if it was truly random, and you stirred long enough, do you think you could separate the milk from the chocolate again?
It isn't random. But it is inherently impossible to predict as well.
To the other poster who asked a question of me, if you rerun the same simulation with the same variables, yes you will get the same answer. This is fine and dandy in computer simulations of artificial chaotic systems, but in the "real world" the issue is that you *never* have all the variables, let alone run them exactly the same way twice. This is what "the butterfly effect" really means.
- Vengeance
Venge, what did i say that you had a problem with?
Mind quoting it next time!
I'm not a mind reader.
-
the post on page 4 of this thread.. common sense For The Win
-
I'm lost somewhere on the 4th page...
Isn't it better that you make a thread about the definition of logic and light speed, apparently this is all about chaos. Though could be hard because we keep slipping in on the same topic over and over again.
Shouldn't we rename this thread so that it better fits the purpose, a debate on definitive science.
-
I don't see any need to rename the thread.
-
neither to i, the thread perfectly developed from art-fiction to science-fiction ;D
-
Theoretical physics isn't fiction...
-
Theoretical physics isn't fiction...
Well it isn't fact.
Let's call it an educated guess?
Better? :thumbup: :woot: :whistling:
Excessive smileys.
-
I'm not a fan of "fact". Social reality is too subjective, physical reality is based on too much assumption.
-
I'm not a fan of "fact". Social reality is too subjective, physical reality is based on too much assumption.
So you don't trust any human observation?
Is it all about math than?
How do you check answers?
Obviously not logic or observations.
I'm confused, seems like a hard life to live lol.
-
Math is based on assumption. Human observations are value statements prone to bias.
-
....and yet you are a human and assume like a human.
-
Math is based on assumption. Human observations are value statements prone to bias.
No, math can be proved. There is no assumption except in induction, which ends with proof that the assumption is true or false.
-
Like it or not, but we do rely on the little charges in our brain that tells us something is right or not.
If we didn't, we couldn't distinguish truth from fact.
So you are left with 2 choices.
Trust your own intellect.
Or Not.
If you don't, you can't prove anything, because again you are using your brain which is at fault.
I choose to trust my judgement and if it isn't logical, i won't take it into account.
And through such logic and wisdom humans invented math, biology, and physics. :thumbup:
~~Datruth
-
....and yet you are a human and assume like a human.
So? How does that go against what I said?
Like it or not, but we do rely on the little charges in our brain that tells us something is right or not.
If we didn't, we couldn't distinguish truth from fact.
So you are left with 2 choices.
Trust your own intellect.
Or Not.
If you don't, you can't prove anything, because again you are using your brain which is at fault.
I choose to trust my judgement and if it isn't logical, i won't take it into account.
And through such logic and wisdom humans invented math, biology, and physics. :thumbup:
~~Datruth
People used to agree that the world is flat.
Humans will always be biased, imperfect, socially driven creatures.
-
People used to agree that the world is flat.
and it where humans who discovered that it isnt. by watching, not by math. infact i believe it was mathematically expressed that earth has to be in the center of the universe. so, it was the common sense of one particular human who proved otherwise. the world couldnt be flat if ships seem to go "under" the horizon when sailing away from the coast. likewise gallileo proved by _observation_ that not everything was circling around earth, as he saw the moons of jupiter to circle around it.
im glad you posted that statement of yours, for it proves exactly my point that theories seemed to be right because of lack of knowledge and proved to be wrong by simple observations combined with common sense ;)
Humans will always be biased, imperfect, socially driven creatures.
you have quite a pessimistic view of humans - hope you dont forget that yourself is one ;)
-
It's not a pessimistic view of things, and I don't see why you would say "hope you dont forget that yourself is one".
-
well you say, "Humans will always be biased, imperfect, socially driven creatures." - that sounds to me as if this was something bad and should (be) change(d). i mean, what would be a perfect, unbiased, non-socially driven creature to you? define perfect or unbiased for that matter. a borg might fit that describtions but you hopefully agree with me that borgs are far away from being humans. but if i take the opposite of every adjectiv you used for the description of humans, i end up with the description of a borg.
as i said, it "sounds" to me like you want humans to be changed. i believe you are going to tell me know that this is not the case, that humans simply are the way they are and to conterweight our "failures" we should put our faith in science. as an answer to that, let me quote from System of a Down:
Making two possibilities a reality,
Predicting the future of things we all know,
Fighting off the diseased programming
Of centuries, centuries, centuries, centuries.
Science fails to recognize the single most
Potent element of human existence
-
You're being very silly. I never said that humans should become like the borg. All I'm saying is that HUMAN EXISTENCE is inherently subjective.
-
You're being very silly. I never said that humans should become like the borg. All I'm saying is that HUMAN EXISTENCE is inherently subjective.
And yet here you are on the interent, having your words spread to the entire globe, with the power to research any topic at the palms of your fingertips.
We are stupid little creatures arn't we :woot: :thumbup: :whistling:
~~Datruth
-
You're being very silly. I never said that humans should become like the borg. All I'm saying is that HUMAN EXISTENCE is inherently subjective.
And yet here you are on the interent, having your words spread to the entire globe, with the power to research any topic at the palms of your fingertips.
We are stupid little creatures arn't we :woot: :thumbup: :whistling:
~~Datruth
What the heck are you going on about now?
-
The Butterfly Effect 2, the movie, was launched these weeks, and I really had to see it, since the first one sure was very good. Impressive movie, as good as the original. I won't enter in details, I'll let the movie to be a surprize for who didn't see it yet. Though, what I want to talk about, is the main theory from which all starts. The butterfly effect, that is a more common referrence to the "famous" chaos theory.
In meteorology, the idea says that the flapping of a butterfly's wing will create a disturbance that in the chaotic motion of the atmosphere will become amplified eventually to change the large scale atmospheric motion, so that the long term behavior becomes impossible to forecast. The small wings of a butterfly can create a tornado on the other side of the world?
For more information I suggest going here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
Since I started talking about the movie, I wanted to start a discussion about this theory, and its connection with shaping time. If we manage to go back in time, and we'll eventually change our past, how much will it matter for our future? And, in what way?
In the movies, every change would have had catastrophic "replies" in the future...
As a few questions, do you believe it's possible to go back in time? Can we change something, and have a different future? Because, some religions might say it's possible, but whatever we'll change, it won't matter in the present/future, because some things are just made to happen that way. Uhh, true? Destiny? Maybe not.
My own opinion would be, that if we can go back and change something, it will of course alter the future, though, what it matters, is that we can shape our every moment. Destiny? Neah.
I miss the "smart" discussions in here, oh, greetings!
:love:
::|
It wouldn't be probable that a butterfly would cause a tornado on the other side of the world. I say this for a few reasons.
If the resulting event caused by the action of the sourse were proportionate, then the distance and scale of the reaction would have to be proportionate. What I'm trying to say is that the butterfly fluttering it's wings (If not counteracted by an outside force) would have to follow the principles of logical growth. The force would expand at a set rate lets say x2 for the sake of arguement. If you put that with distance and say 1 was the original force of the fluttering and each graduation after that progressed per every inch (hypothetically), than it would be x2 for 2 inches x3 for 3 and so on and so forth. It would then be logical to say that if the distance was far enough there would be an effect great enough to warrent concern, but probably would not be anywhere near us especially if you take geometry into account in which the spherical nature of the earth would be taken into account. Relying on a straight line to be sustained in order to maintain a constant rate of progression, you would surely bypass earth and continue on. Then there is atmosphere, or lack there of to take into consideration. That would probably hinder it greatly if not stop it for sure.
What I'm getting at is that it is pointless to think about such complex thoughts as there are a seemingly infinate number of variables to consider, and you really can't so why bother? :whistling: The fact is, no one knows for sure if it will have any sort of affect. Why trouble yourself about it. Trust me, I think and circles and it isn't fun. :P
Yeah, so there. I hope you all enjoyed my silly ramblings on the validity of that theory. (With mispellings and all :P)
Harena A. :sweatdrop:
-
and it where humans who discovered that it isnt. by watching, not by math.
Actually it was Aristotle who used shadows to calculate that the earth had to be a sphere, ages before Columbus used his theory to go to "India".
infact i believe it was mathematically expressed that earth has to be in the center of the universe.
Copernicus presented his theory of Heliocentrism 500 years ago, though the church later forced him to renounce his theory.
-
Here's an example of what I mean by the human experience being subjective. This is one interactionist theory, "symbolic interactionism". It's one interactionist theory among many.
http://people.uvawise.edu/pww8y/Reviews/IS/ISRev/RevIS03Perspect.html#Outline%20on%20the%20Principles%20of%20Symbolic-Interactionism
-
wow... thats a huge amount of writing to simply say "people effect people" :-X
-
"That's the great thing about argument, if done properly your never wrong. It's not in proving that my view is right but that yours is wrong"-Simi-quote from Thank you for smoking. Kinda feel it sums up most of this thread pretty well.
::Edit:: Although, I am sure some one will argue that I am wrong hee hee.
:lol:
-
infact i believe it was mathematically expressed that earth has to be in the center of the universe.
Copernicus presented his theory of Heliocentrism 500 years ago, though the church later forced him to renounce his theory.
Actually, you can have 2 points of view on this problem... a personal point of view and a universal point of view.
From a personal point of view, everything around you is perceived trough your senses, trough you. In .this case, it is not the earth who is the center of the universe but it is you who are the center of the universe as the only starting analytical point.
In the universal point of view… we are talking about a presumptive infinite amount of space, and in this case, any given point in an infinite system can be considered a center. Of course, there is still the structure point of view, that would make suns center of a solar system, a certain point in space center of a galaxy, etc. But no point in space can be considered as being the absolute center of a infinite universe, so our humble planet can be as good as any.
It is only a mater of reference systems. As dear Einstein said “The same event, observed from 2 different reference systems might occur differently for each observer depending on the reference system they are in. [common known as the baseball ball theory]”
About the topic at hand, time travel is mathematically impossible, or at least, backward time travel would be. We said the world travel… that means movement… that calls for the basic law of movement where T=dD/dS [T= time, D= distance, S= speed]. To have a negative time value we would have to have either a negative speed value or a negative distance value. Of course, there is a theory about the time line, being possible to bend until a certain point intersects another but the estimations for the amount of energy required or the implications of that would be rather impossible at the time being. Another theory would be that about bending the space factor but that is useless in our case since it would not result in a negative space coefficient nor negative speed.
-
wow... thats a huge amount of writing to simply say "people effect people" :-X
In effect, but it's also to say that things we hold as objective absolute truths are in fact malleable, subjective, and the result of compromise.
-
wow... thats a huge amount of writing to simply say "people effect people" :-X
In effect, but it's also to say that things we hold as objective absolute truths are in fact malleable, subjective, and the result of compromise.
Here is an absolute truth i hold, please show me that it's malleable :D :
The Size of the human is small compared to that of Texas.
-
Interactionists don't deny that there are objective physical realities, they just say that our understandings of those physical realities are subjective.
-
I don't think I'll like the second movie though...this plot doesn't seem to fold out like the first one's did. It just seems like he randomly got the power to go back in time, but Evan's was some sort of bloodline trait.
-
I don't think I'll like the second movie though...this plot doesn't seem to fold out like the first one's did. It just seems like he randomly got the power to go back in time, but Evan's was some sort of bloodline trait.
i agree, i just watched it and it does nothing to deserve the name "butterfly effect". the first movie made at least some sense in its own logic and it made one care about the characters, but this one is just badly written. absolutely not worth watching it... :thumbdown: :thumbdown: