TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Quantom physics


Posted by SoulSupply on Aug-04-2003 21:52:

Quantom physics

yes, it may seem boring, but having read michaels crichtons book timeline, ive been fairly interested in the whole thing. wots everyones own opinions on it?


Posted by Orbax on Aug-04-2003 23:11:

you spelled quantum wrong. Not the best way to get an intellectual topic started :P


Posted by Photo_bot_2k1 on Aug-04-2003 23:41:

quote:
Originally posted by Orbax
you spelled quantum wrong. Not the best way to get an intellectual topic started :P


i was just gonna say that


Posted by eye_03 on Aug-04-2003 23:42:

yeah, i read that when i was like 14. good book..


Posted by u4ea:[soulstar] on Aug-05-2003 01:28:

I believe QP is outdated. Quantum Mechanics is the updated version. String theory and M-string theory expands into dimensions and god knows what.

Stephen Hawkings' latest book will explain the current physics.


Posted by NomadaNare on Aug-05-2003 01:39:

cool topic but i dont know much about it. Anyone mind explaining?


Posted by Orbax on Aug-05-2003 02:11:

light is merely the effect of the vibrations of the strings in the 5th dimension.

any other questions?


Posted by udham on Aug-05-2003 02:37:

quote:
Originally posted by Orbax
light is merely the effect of the vibrations of the strings in the 5th dimension.

any other questions?




Posted by NomadaNare on Aug-05-2003 04:35:

thought it had something to do with strings and stuff. And supposedly when one vibrates or moves, all places of the string vibrate at the exact same time right?They were trying to find some way of duplicating it to induce time travel right? I also heard it has something to do with a flip universe to everything and that in order to travel through time, u would have to cross this "barrier" into the flip universe which you would approach while going very close tot he speed of light. Ever heard of that one?


Posted by Cobalt on Aug-05-2003 05:19:

Quantum mechanics are fairly well understood these days. There are classes on the subject at most technical schools (I'm not taking mine until the spring semester). The basic idea is that every interaction of particles with eachother (quarks, electrons, etc) is simply the manifestation of an intermediate particle. This, understandably, leads to many, many different kinds of particles, because there's one for every kind of subatomic interaction. But it's not just hypothetical. Most of the categorized (and predicted) particles have been physically detected in particle accelerators and a variety of other (often costly) experimental setups. We know that the subatomic world works the odd way quantum mechanics describes it to. There's also the fuzzy quality of "probablity" associated with particles in the quantum world (Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle for starters), meaning that there's never really a particle at a discrete point, only a field of probablity where the particle might be. It's extremely counterintuitive to think this way, in terms of mere probabilities instead of certainties, which is why quantum is nearly impossible to completely wrap your head around. Probability fields also matche up with a wave description of particles (that particles are just wave packets of probablity, not really discrete things). It's, well, really complicated. I can hardly get it, and I suspect a full-blown class will help my comprehension a lot.

As for String Theory, dude, I'm a physics major and I can barely understand the basics of the stuff. You can't really get a grasp of it until some serious graduate studies. The basic idea is that all different particles (electrons, quarks, muons, etc) are just vibrations of the same little loops, or "superstrings," much the same way that different vibrations of a musical string produce different notes (frequencies). But beyond simple analogies like that it gets waaaaaay out of my league.

There are tons of books written by physicists who boil down complicated physics concepts into simple explanations, but you can only go so far without mathematical accompaniment.


Posted by TOR on Aug-05-2003 09:31:

quote:
Originally posted by Cobalt
As for String Theory, dude, I'm a physics major and I can barely understand the basics of the stuff. You can't really get a grasp of it until some serious graduate studies. The basic idea is that all different particles (electrons, quarks, muons, etc) are just vibrations of the same little loops, or "superstrings," much the same way that different vibrations of a musical string produce different notes (frequencies). But beyond simple analogies like that it gets waaaaaay out of my league.


i see what you mean.. i once saw a bbc documentary on string theory and i wanted to get more into it, but it was very hard to understand.. perhaps i should purchase that stephen hawkings book indeed!


Posted by afastest on Aug-05-2003 10:27:

yes, the book is easy reading.


Posted by dj adagnitio on Aug-05-2003 19:32:

If you want a very good, but not excruciatingly technical book explaining, although the basics read A Brief history of time by Stephen Hawking.


Posted by physe on Aug-06-2003 03:56:

It's one thing to read these 'Ultimate Universe' type books and another to actually understand the theory behind it.

I'm taking Engineering Physics at my University (I'm in Canada remember) and we basically eat the honours physics students for breakfast there and I was interested in string theory and such before I took my first quantum course and actually did the math behind it. For those who want a good picture of the difficulty just be aware that the easiest examples require all of the mathematical skills a third year undergrad would have. The course was hell. Three or four problems would take the better part of the weekend to do. By the time I finished the course I had been completely turned off of quantum mechanics and string theory. Even though I've never taken a formal string theory course I would assume that it would be much more difficult than even quantum mechanics and wouldn't be suprised if it were only offered as a graduate course.

That's the best way I can describe it. I must say, Cobalt, you've got a pretty good idea of what's going on. Good luck in your quantum class. Hopefully you'll still have interest in it after it's over. I just hope your comfortable with your integrals of e^(x^2) because they're used quite often. Another thing that we used extensively in the second half of the course was the matrix operators when we dealt with spin and angular momentum. If you cover those topics, you will get very comfortable with the matrix operators. Anyways, good luck.


Posted by the-un-named on Aug-06-2003 06:33:

Why is it that almost everyone gets all of their knowledge of quantum physics/mechanics from those novels... I would just get an old textbook for some real reliable information.


Posted by Turbonium on Aug-06-2003 08:28:

Bottom line people: none of these theories make any bloody sense.


Posted by Yan on Aug-06-2003 08:32:

quote:
Originally posted by Turbonium
Bottom line people: none of these theories make any bloody sense.


Correct. It's been stated, by many scientists during the present, that the laws that we base our lives around are all bull poopy.



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.