In a previous post, Hardie complained that ...

quote:

---

When am I ever going to get serious intellectual discussion here?

Why don't we discuss Literature, say the inaccessibility of "Ulyssess" by James Joyce

Or Philosophy such as does freedom really exist as in "Existentialism" from Satre's perspective

Or where does Quantum Mechanics begin and end?

Was there a Big Bang? What was there before the Big Bang?

---

So I thought we would start with Quantum Mechanics.
For Instance

These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn.

Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the reference frame of a stationary observer.

You are that observer, sitting on the barn roof. You see the pole coming towards you, and it has contracted to a bit less than 40m. So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The runner emerges from the far door unscathed.

But consider the problem from the point of view of the runner. She will regard the pole as stationary, and the barn as approaching at high speed. In this reference frame, the pole is still 80m long, and the barn is less than 20 meters long. Surely the runner is in trouble if the doors close while she is inside. The pole is sure to get caught.

Well does the pole get caught in the door or doesn't it? You can't have it both ways. This is the "Barn-pole paradox."

If you were to apply this to say "The Windsurfing paradox", is it possible that from the perspective of the viewer, it is possible for someone to perform a double loop forward between two fairly large sets and yet no one other than the performer of the loops was actually able to see them because they were the only person "inside the barn" as such?


HARDIE - any theories????

I would suggest that most of the QM theorists are dropping something manufactured in a foiled out kitchen, rather than LSD which is notoriously hard to find these days.

However, without theories we would never move forward in our ways of thinking.

moving on from the double loop paradox, I was also considering whether "Does Antimatter fall up or down"?
This concerns me greatly as it may assist me in actually getting my gut enhanced weight airborne whilst whistling over the top of some chop.

If you believe that General Relativity is the exact true theory of gravity, then there is only one possible conclusion - by the equivalence principle, antiparticles must fall down with the same acceleration as normal matter.

On the other hand: there are other models of gravity which are not ruled out by direct experiment which are distinct from GR in that antiparticles can fall down at different rates than normal matter, or even fall up, due to additional forces which couple to the mass of the particle in ways which are different than GR.

do you have anything to add to this that may assist???

I knew you couldn't remain serious for to long.
two posts in fact.


Have a good weekend, I'm off to study up on Existentialism ........NOT

Leski,
I would avoid Quantum's garage
they may fix your car, but will you ever be sure????????

Perhaps...

My consciousness of existing fed into my underlying anxiety and awareness of death causing me to realise that life is too short and I need to grasp an understanding of these concepts before I fade into the eternal ether

OK, read through your thesis and unfortunately can't really find anything wrong with it.
Yes he was a bit of a dumb .... but he was european after all just funnin

Now, explain if you can the workings of the infinite probability drive.

Can't say I've ever managed more than a casual glance at the cover as I passed by a bookshop (usually on the far side of the mall in case the over zealous bookwork (my wife) drags me in there) I always thought it was something to do with Greek mythology.

However, I did feel (from my glance at the cover) that this tale of an advertising salesman in Dublin was a remarkable conflation of mythology, symbolism, philosophy, social realism, and humanity. The hero's relationships with his wife and surrogate son reflect the simple decency of the common man.

I felt that the common reader would be reluctant to face Joyce's great panorama. It seemed to be laden with obscure references and destined to be dogged by an ever-growing body of secondary literature. I also feel that the book's reputation as a "difficult" work has placed a barrier between the book and its potential audience. This is a shame, because as far as I could see Joyce was writing for a general readership, and his novel offers a remarkable experience even for the reader with no prior familiarity to his world.

my brain now officially hurts

have fun with Elmo.

did you hear the tale of a chick who got a job at the "Tickle Me Elmo" factory.

she got fired for sowing red furry balls on to him when all she was supposed to do was give him two test tickles.

quote:

---

Originally posted by decrepit

quote:

---

Originally posted by grumplestiltskin


Now, explain if you can the workings of the infinite probability drive.

---

Wasn't that the infinite improbability drive????

The more improbable it is, the easier it is to make happen, that's why you can get whenever/whereever you want to be,very fast.

---

No true intellectuals allowed, get off this topic Decrep, you'll steal my thunder!

Was tempted to go out this arvy, but couldn't be bothered, on the promise of what's to come.

Here's a bit of theory.

Is it possible to move faster than the speed of light even if we had the technology? Can any thing move faster than the speed of light? Can any sub atomic particle (electrons, protons and protons) move faster than light. Well I can say I thing most of them are possible. Every where in the vacuum of space there is evidence of the fact that sub atomic particles can move faster than the speed of light, if astronauts in orbit around the planet had speed guns to find how fast the particles from stars which had exploded millions of years ago which are now bombarding the outer parts of earth’s atmosphere everyday, they would undoubtedly find many particle moving several times faster than light.

Ok! A million years in a distant galaxy a star the size of our sun or large and the supply of hydrogen on the sun runs out. And more complex nuclear reactions starts to take place and it start to become unstable, and explode spectacularly with tremendous force and energy scattering the large amount of matter (atoms, ions and molecules), which made it in every direction into the vacuum of space. Assuming that when the large star exploded it generated enough energy and force to launch its constituencies (atoms an molecule making it up), out in to space at the speed of light. If these atoms and molecules continued to move at light speed for several thousand years and suddenly and randomly the atoms started to decay or disintegrate radioactively. Isn’t it possible that the decaying atoms or elements, which are still moving at light speed, could launch some or most of its radioactive particles at the speed of light in different directions? The very fast moving atoms when decaying could start to produce, emit or release fast moving (close to the speed of light) beta, alpha particles and rays, gamma rays, loose fast moving electrons, protons and neutrons and photons, and launching some of these particles and rays in a straight line directly along or in front the path it is traveling. In other words imaging a super sonic air force fighter jet in space at its maximum speed of 4 time the speed of sound moving in a straight line and this plane fires one of the bomb from its pay load directly in front of it and the bomb is propelled by a rocket which can get it up to speeds of 2 time the speed of sound when launched from rest. Now with the bomb having the ability to move 2 times the speed of sound and the plane is already moving at 4 times the speed of sound, the bombs actual speed when launched from the plane which is at maximum speed will be a whapping total of six times the speed of sound (2 plus 4). Now back to the decaying atoms moving at light speed, the super sonic fighter jet would represent the decaying atoms and the fired bomb would represent the radioactive particles and rays. The decaying atoms are already moving at light speed or faster so when the radioactive particle and rays are released from them at light speed the total or actual speed of these particles and rays would be about 2 times the speed or higher. Now say some of these particles (neutrons, protons, and alpha and beta particles), which are move at 2 times the speed of light, were heading directly towards the earth. These sub atomic particles would collide with or crash directly into the atoms in the outer parts of earth’s atmosphere. These extremely moving particles could then overwhelm the atoms, which they had crashed into, causing these atoms in the outer atmosphere to start to decay or disintegrate radioactively releasing large amounts of energy in the form of beta, alpha particles and rays, gamma rays, loose fast moving electrons, protons and neutrons and photons back out into space in the form of blue jets and on the lower atmosphere they would release energy in the form of large energy releasing chain reactions consisting of the decaying of certain atom. Now these chain reactions of decaying atoms in the upper atmosphere could then produce large amounts of energy, enough to supply the electrically charged storm clouds in the lower atmosphere causing the electrically charged clouds to release extremely large amounts of energy close to surface of the earth in the form of lightning bolts (electrical discharges from clouds). Now these chain reactions of decaying atoms and the end product a bolt of lightning produces large amounts of energy close amounts produced by nuclear bombs.

Now to answer the question if humans will ever reach the speed of light, well that is still up for debate.

With the Speed of light I think the author Steven Donaldson summed it up nicely.

Basically it goes something like this:

If things accelerated like in Star trek we would end up as a verticle puddle on the closest bulkhead behind us.

So in application to this what you need to first calculate is how much of a run up would the person need to get to light speed with out dissolving themselves.

How would they trigger the door opening mechanism? radio signal wouldn't work as you are already traveling faster than the signal, Infra red such as your TV remote wouldn't work as at best it's traveling at the same speed as you. Throwing something at a bidg shiney red button wouldn't work as you couldn't see the big shiney red button, plus you would catch up with the object you have thrown anyway.

Realistically you wouldn't need to open the door any way. you should just cut up the pole into easily managable bits bung it in the back of the ute and drive around the back of the shed. Just because a shed has dorrs on it dosn't meen you actually have to use them.

Now I've got a more serious issue to solve which is far more important.

The boss has got the "List" out again and procrastination can only work so long, Ah well I'll figure that one out tomorow

The one minor problem with all these theories, IMO, is that we are assuming that space is an absolute vacuum.

Is this actually true?

Aren't we held in the gravitational pull of the sun? doesn't that mean that the particles, atoms, electrons etc in and around our vicinity are also affected by that same gravitational pull??? in order for there to be gravity we can't therefore be in an absolute vacuum.

also, with the plane travelling at 4 times the speed of sound, and then launching a projectile possible of 2 times the speed of sound, isn't it going to be subject to the resistance of the atmoshphere (no matter how small) that surrounds it therefore slowing it gradually back to it maximum velocity of 2 times?

Just questions, I unfortunately dont have the luxury of a university degree that may have helped to answer these questions.

was thinking again about the plane and bomb

if you are travelling at 4x and then fire something off at 2x isnt actually travelling at 4(to the power of)2 or 4x4x4????
sh1t I should have paid attention at high skweel

quote:

---

Originally posted by grumplestiltskin

was thinking again about the plane and bomb

if you are travelling at 4x and then fire something off at 2x isnt actually travelling at 4(to the power of)2 or 4x4x4????
sh1t I should have paid attention at high skweel

---

It will start at 4x without a fixed piont on the plane for it to use it's 2x thurst against but will decellerate back to 2x.

Nowe if it was full time four wheel drive ite would work far better with low range

quote:

---

Originally posted by poor relative stiltskin

I really liked harry potter.
I'm starting to read the new one..

---

Artimus Fowl is pretty cool as well

This will take some thinking about, cause the strange thing about light, it always arives and leaves at the same speed, not matter how fast you are going (or coming). So no apparent wind, and no loss of power as you accelerate downwind, hmmm interesting -----------