Thanks for the link, I'm sure the answer to my question is in there but I still don't get it.
If its still moving at speed c in its reference frame then how come its not experiencing time? how can it be in motion and yet not experience time when motion requires time.
Where does the photon "live"
What happens to space-time when you remove the time?
Its said that the photon experiences no time, it seems to be generally accepted that a photon is emitted by one atom and then instantly absorbed by another in its reference frame but this seems paradoxical. If it...
If you set a detector to monitor the first slit in your experiment you observe particles.
What happens if you set a second slit with no detector for the particles to go through, will you observe waves or particles in the second slit experiment?
The expansion of space causes a natural boundary.
Any objects separated in space by a distance that the expansion between them exceeds speed c then they become causally disconnected. In short our visible universe is surrounded by a collapsing event horizon beyond which the known laws of...
I'm assuming that when you say heavier its because its getting bigger, if so then you need to read up on is something called "the square cube law" Basically as something in increases in size its volume increases faster than its surface area and because the scaled up model is made of the same...
The evidence seems pretty conclusive that 13.7 billion years ago an event took place we call the big bang but I wouldn't say they have proof that the universe in its entirety is only 13.7 billion years old. Because time and space are interwoven there is a presumption that before the big bang...
One clever way they use to increase the density of information in fibre optics is to simultaneously use multiple wavelengths of light, each wavelength carries different information.
If you take it to its extremes then at some point the information is going to become quantized, in a sense the intuitive world around you seems analogue but as you look closer and closer it transforms into something that is digital. I'm sure that the physical limitations on information will...
This is exactly the method I have used, it works but its very slow and the time taken to calculate the next decimal place increases exponentially. I was hoping there was some clever trick that would solve the problem, I've searched for solutions but haven't found one I can use in VB2010. ( yeah...
@ DrChinese & Maui
I posted this question here.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=629831
Knowing that the entangled state is broken by taking a measurement and that the particles then develop their own individual properties gives me a profoundly different view of quantum...
This is what I believe intuitively yet it still poses the paradox that I'm now kind of "stuck" at the "end" , once its cut no matter where you stand at that length of string its infinite to the left and finite to the right.
I'm going to be pedantic and say there is no half way point o:) but...
Thanks for the confirmation on loss of entanglement after the first measurement, I must say that when seen on TV this seems to be a fact that I have never heard. I've often wondered what was so special about the claims of entanglement and its not until you realize that the property is broken...
Sorry my knowledge of math comes to an abrupt end after + - x / , does that represent 0 divided by infinity?
If it represents 0 to infinity then the interval is infinite (I think)
For the same reason I can't imagine the universe having an edge I can't imagine an infinitely long piece of string having "ends", at least in my mind the moment I imagine the string having ends it has a definite length stops being infinite. I suppose the cut string is like knowing the first few...
Not sure if this is a topology question but here goes.
Imagine an infinitely long piece of string and I cut it in half with a pair of scissors.
Both pieces are still infinitely long but I'm now stood at the ends of infinitely long strings, how can I be at the end of something with infinite length?
This now raises another question, if both particles are measured at exactly the same time and then say a thousandth of a second later the same measurements are repeated will they still be entangled?
Thanks for the explanation, I had no idea that the entangled properties were disentangled after a measurement is taken. I see now why it can be used to determine if private message has been read by somebody else :smile:
I decided to write an arbitrary precision calculator but I'm having problems with division.
It will multiply a thousand digit number by another thousand digit number in about a second but to get a division result to about 250 decimal places is taking around 20 seconds, I cannot figure out how...
Is the wave function a "relative" wave (entanglement)
Alice and Bob build a quantum entanglement experiment with the help of a lab technician.
The experiment runs and a quantum entangled pair is created but unbeknown to Alice & Bob the technician puts his own measuring device in the...
If you traveled a considerable distance (in any direction) and then looked around you would see a different view of the universe and you would also see a different view of the CMB. You appear to be in the centre of the CMB for the same reason it always looks as if your in the centre of the...
Apparently the only thing that affects a quantum entangled particle is the initial observation of one of the pairs, knowing one state of one pair instantly provides information about the state of the other entangled pair no matter where it is in the universe.
Frankly I've never found this to be...
I thought something strange was going to happen but wasn't sure, thanks for the info.
I found this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
But I can't follow most of the math, why are they complicating things by using radius * pi? If I know the circumference I don't need pi. A...
I'm assuming the maximum number of revolutions per second for a disk is defined as speed c divided by the circumference of the disk, eg a disk with a circumference of half a meter is allowed to rotate twice as fast per second as a disk with a circumference of one meter.
C = circumfrence of...
I have no problem with that.
I realize that, Its just the easiest way I could think of to explain that the sum total of all motion of all particles is more the result of effect than cause. (although you now clear things up a few lines down)
Absolutely, the 60's were simple. When they...
Sit down and try to make a computer program "guess" the outcome of rolling a dice "without using any random function" and you will find its impossible. This is why I'm making a such a big deal over the difference between truly random and just unpredictable. It sounds the same and it yields the...
If all the particles were just sat there motionless and then for no apparent reason they started to decay (an effect without a cause) and then all those particles start moving around and bumping into each other the net result is there is more effect in the motion of those particle then the cause...
If you also think that the universe is mathematical then why would you allow aspects of it to be random when there's no such thing as random in maths. you could observe a moving particle but you wouldn't know if it was in motion because another particle hit it (cause) or it was in motion because...
Its like asking what came first the chicken or the egg but replacing the chicken and egg with cause and effect.
I would ask what came first cause or effect and you would answer "effect"
I can accept that 13.7 billion years ago space and time sprang into existence even though it didn't have a place to happen. I can believe that every time the universe needs to make a decision it splits in two. And I can believe in the existence of multiple realities just so long as none of them...
"Random" is a thirteenth century word, it was never brought into human language to be used in science. Randomness cannot be created using mathematics and I don't believe it takes place in nature, all my spidey senses say its impossible.
If a radioactive particle decays and you say it just...
Aaaaaaaaaaaah now I get it, I've never heard that before. Now I understand why the big rip thing won't happen. Everything I've seen on the television describes an accelerating expansion that's exponential with time.
This is the universes way of annoying me for daring to try and look at it...
he he I see where your coming from and the idea for marking the rubber band is interesting but it won't change the overall length, that remains infinite.
Think about this, all of space is infinite in all directions and in front of you is an infinitely long rubber band. What is the volume of the...
I guess it could be some type of ball lightning but the majority of descriptions don't describe what I saw and the length of time it existed seems to be much longer then most descriptions. Almost all the descriptions describe it as a round ball but this wasn't the case, it had no defined shape...
I've listened to loads of cosmologists describe the so called death of the universe and they all describe a point in time when the runaway expansion of space eventually tears atoms apart. Where is the evidence that at some point in the future the accelerated expansion of space is going to slow...
If I had an infinitely long elastic band and I stretched it some more by say 10 feet then by your reckoning its now infinitely long + 10 feet, that's just silly try measure it :) , its still infinitely long.
Half of infinity is infinity, you cannot divide infinity into a measurable unit, nor...
If I have an infinitely long elastic band and I stretch it some more does it get longer? Of course not.
So if space is infinite in size and it expands does it get bigger? obviously not.
Point is infinities are not additive and I think it makes perfect sense to say that space simply expands into...
I'm pretty sure I understand it.
If you mean the distance then yes I know.
I never said it did, saying that it expands into itself isn't the same as saying it expands into "something else"
I didn't say its expanding into anything other than itself, its falling outward.
Its dimensionless, it has no definite size to begin with and therefore its perfectly happy to expand and not get any bigger. I think looking at the properties of an infinite size number and realising you can't...
I thought the energy of space kind of grows over time, because there is more space!
As I understood it the other galaxies will eventually end up at distances where they effectively vanish because space is expanding so fast that signals cannot reach us from them and that gravitationally bound...
Hope this explains better.
If space expands fast enough then virtual particles created by the vacuum are drawn away from each other so fast they cannot annihilate, therefore they become real.
The weak force that binds quarks together gets stronger with distance, if you try to pull two quarks...
If you take it to its extremes and space continues to expand at an accelerated rate, what happens when?
1) space is expanding so fast that virtual particles cannot annihilate.
2) if the space between quarks ends up expanding then the energy needed to pull them apart will spawn new quarks...
As I understand it matter is kind of borrowed at the expense of gravity, so if gravity was negative energy and matter was positive and you add them both together you end up with nothing.
Its to do with the properties of infinity.
Infinity +100 = infinity
You can't make it any bigger by adding to it, its already infinite.
So if the universe is infinite in size and its expanding its still the same size (infinite), basically its just expanding into itself.
I don't mean light decides to turn around and come back all of its own accord. I'm asking if there is a distance where it cannot come back (even if it was reflected by a mirror) because its gone so far out that the return distance is expanding faster than speed c.
I'm just using that as an...