|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 10:46 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 3:21 pm
 |
|
|
|
AstronomyGirl Endrael But remember that the speed of light is also relative, though yeh, I agree. It should be interesting to see if string theory gains more traction and is able to predict and explain this light-faster-than-light phenomena. I think that would be a big step in both legitimising string theory and opening up a lot of lines for further research. Indeed. Or not even string theory. Maybe string theory is all wrong and we'll come up with some new crazy theory. lol Now that would be cool. That's what I'm kinda looking forward to happening. 3nodding
mrgreen That would indeed be cool, but from what I've read about string theory so far (Brian Greene's books are still at the top of the list for that, imo), it's the best of the bunch as far as the attempts to reconcile Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics. As with any theory, it's likely to be replaced as our understanding of the universe deepens. Hell, people used to think the heavens were seven crystal spheres eek
AstronomyGirl lol it's reminds me of what my physics prof told us on the first day of class. "Everything you've learned so far is wrong. And what I'm going to teach you this year will one day also be proven wrong." xd Ah well. that's physics for you.
rofl So very true. Though not necessarily wrong, unless it's blatantly out of synch with the reality of things, like the crystal spheres belief, or everything being made up of only earth, air, fire, and water.
Of course, every theory is really quite dependant on the observational capabilities of the time. Until people started pointing semi-decent telescopes at the sky, thinking the cosmos was nested spheres made sense, and likewise for the four elements idea, since that couldn't properly be debunked until we could look at things on a very small scale.
Hell, even zero-point physics wasn't solidly called into question until the advent of quantum mechanics, and until recently, no effective replacement for it had been made. Although in retrospect, one would think the illogic of having infinite reducability would in itself be quite absurd enough to spark a search for a better explanation. After all, if one gets infinity as an answer to an equation, that's taken to mean something about the equation is wrong. |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 1:01 pm
|
|
|
 |
Now if you want a real mind trip, this is definitely a must read. Having a good familiarity with mysticism also helps.
The Overlap of Physics and Consciousness
"If conceived as a series of ever-wider experiential contexts, nested one within the other like a set of Chinese boxes, consciousness can be thought of as wrapping back around on itself in such a way that the outermost 'context' is indistinguishable from the innermost 'content' - a structure for which we coined the term 'liminocentric'. As attention expands its focus to include more and more of the margin or 'fringe' of consciousness, awareness becomes increasingly diffuse and undifferentiated. This is identical to what happens when, moving in the opposite direction, the scope of attention is progressively concentrated toward an innermost limit or 'center', which must ultimately be recognized as 'empty' - ie, also undifferentiated, or 'without object'. The same mental state, which occurs at both extremes, is a highly significant state in meditation practice, repeatedly singled out for special consideration by mystics in various traditions.
As it turns out, string theory may conceive of the structure of physical reality in a remarkably similar way."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 8:29 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: mrgreen That would indeed be cool, but from what I've read about string theory so far (Brian Greene's books are still at the top of the list for that, imo), it's the best of the bunch as far as the attempts to reconcile Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics. As with any theory, it's likely to be replaced as our understanding of the universe deepens. Hell, people used to think the heavens were seven crystal spheres eek
ooo I have one of Brian Greene's book... haven't had a chance to read it yet though... sweatdrop I've been meaning to get to it.
lol yea string theory is the most plausable theory right now, but there is always a chance for something else.
Quote: rofl So very true. Though not necessarily wrong, unless it's blatantly out of synch with the reality of things, like the crystal spheres belief, or everything being made up of only earth, air, fire, and water.
lol yea, I don't think he really meant what he learned was ALL wrong, but it is still rather funny for a prof to tell you first thing on the frist day of class. blaugh |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 3:48 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 4:58 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 6:12 pm
|
|
|
|
Endrael AstronomyGirl ooo I have one of Brian Greene's book... haven't had a chance to read it yet though... sweatdrop I've been meaning to get to it. lol yea string theory is the most plausable theory right now, but there is always a chance for something else. His first book ( The Elegant Universe) is much more a head trip than his second ( The Fabric of the Cosmos, which I've only managed to read half of, because it doesn't hold my attention like the first sweatdrop ). Both are very well written and understandable, and I definitely recommend getting around to reading them wink
lol yea I definatly plan to read it... eventually. xp blaugh I think I have The Fabic of the Cosmos... though I can't remember forsure. I haven't looked at my book shelf if a while. sweatdrop |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 6:16 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 6:18 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 11:12 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 11:05 am
|
|
|
|
Endrael AstronomyGirl hum... very interesting. I hope more people are able to do more research in this. I'd love to see if making a person invisable would be possible. 3nodding And just imagine how happy all the Star Trek fans will be when this news permeates the social strata rofl "I told you cloaking devices are possible!" But on the other hand, I also read an analyses of the feasibility of a cloaking device, like an invisibility cloak. The main problem would be the heat it would put off, assuming there's electronics running the whole thing. So even if the object were invisible while the device was on, all you'd have to do is pull out a pair of thermal goggles and shazam, you've found your invisible whatever. And if the object's moving? Not going to happen with current technology, and likely won't be realistically feasible for at least another 10-20 years.
Yea I was thinking about the other radiation given off. It seems like it would only be able to make the object invisible in a small range of wavelenghts at at time, so like you said you may be invisible in visible light, but still visible in IR, which we percieve as heat.
Oh, I didn't see that part about not working if something is moving. Yea, I guess that would be tricky to do.
Well, whatever breakthoughts they make with this it will be interesting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 7:20 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:33 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:16 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
