Signal will not bounce back to the Earth as reflected signals follow a R^4 law. Outgoing signals follow a R^2 law, so Megawatt ERP signals like TV carrier signals, can be detected at 10s of LY.
Modern telecommunications signals are much more efficient and as they get more efficient, look more and more like white noise
Modern telecommunications signals are much more efficient and as they get more efficient, look more and more like white noise
The center of the universe,
The last section on a flat universe is interesting..
ie what is a flat universe>>>infinate
History of the Center of the Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Regards
M. Gregg
The last section on a flat universe is interesting..
ie what is a flat universe>>>infinate
History of the Center of the Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Regards
M. Gregg
We are going to be contacted by an alien race soon and the first decoded message from received (probably at Arecibo) will be "Uh, Breaker one-nine...".
After meaningful communication has been established with this alien race they will promptly try to get us to change our long distance service by offering substantial savings over our current carrier!
After meaningful communication has been established with this alien race they will promptly try to get us to change our long distance service by offering substantial savings over our current carrier!
Oh yeah, and when they visit in person watch out because they will immediately try to get us to play an interstellar version of three card monty!
The Russian doll....
Just for fun..
Just a thought..Looking at the 3 or 4 dimensional universe...if its finite then the Russian doll comes to mind..whats outside that...assuming that was true .... if everything is energy then is the amount of energy infinite taking into account the Russian doll ?
Time can be infinite it has a past..present..future (assuming no other variable exists)(String theory other dimensions)
Then the question, is energy just an effect of something else that is /can be infinite?
Entanglement comes to mind...
Regards
M. Gregg
Just for fun..
Just a thought..Looking at the 3 or 4 dimensional universe...if its finite then the Russian doll comes to mind..whats outside that...assuming that was true .... if everything is energy then is the amount of energy infinite taking into account the Russian doll ?
Time can be infinite it has a past..present..future (assuming no other variable exists)(String theory other dimensions)
Then the question, is energy just an effect of something else that is /can be infinite?
Entanglement comes to mind...
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
Time is as long as we make it, for us. It's direction is an interesting question. Watching the aerial squabbling of goldfinches in my garden, I think their time must go faster.
The future isn't part of time until it gets there. Extension, or space, is similarly relative. Neither is infinite unless we compare it with the infinitessimally short.
If we took the whole universe as our unit of measurement, then it would be constant and we would be getting smaller but time would be the same.
It's worth remembering that actually we measure everything relative to ourselves, from our point of view. Copernicus' maths was right but his conclusion was wrong. We are at the centre of the universe, for us.
I've been grappling with the idea that the development of language is one and the same thing as the development of knowledge. There's no point in departing from the mainstream unless you have it in your grasp, because the consensus reflected in language is what knowledge is. Outside is babble. Once we know everything, there'll be nothing to talk about.
It seems odd that new knowledge always turns out to be useful. Unlike the boxes of stuff in my attic.
The future isn't part of time until it gets there. Extension, or space, is similarly relative. Neither is infinite unless we compare it with the infinitessimally short.
If we took the whole universe as our unit of measurement, then it would be constant and we would be getting smaller but time would be the same.
It's worth remembering that actually we measure everything relative to ourselves, from our point of view. Copernicus' maths was right but his conclusion was wrong. We are at the centre of the universe, for us.
I've been grappling with the idea that the development of language is one and the same thing as the development of knowledge. There's no point in departing from the mainstream unless you have it in your grasp, because the consensus reflected in language is what knowledge is. Outside is babble. Once we know everything, there'll be nothing to talk about.
It seems odd that new knowledge always turns out to be useful. Unlike the boxes of stuff in my attic.
Its interesting,
Gravity?s effect on time confirmed - physicsworld.com
The older you get the faster time seems to go..and as you say time is dependent on how its perceived..ie there was no time before the big bang..that's assuming its not seen as a super nova type event by someone outside the universe...
Just for interest..
http://www.futuretg.com/FTHumanEvolutionCourse/FTFreeLearningKits/03-PH-Physics,%20Chemistry%20and%20Free%20Energy/040-PH04-UN02-03-Quantum%20Mechanics/J.%20S.%20Bell%20-%20Speakable%20And%20Unspeakable%20In%20Quantum%20Mechanics.pdf
Regards
M. Gregg
Gravity?s effect on time confirmed - physicsworld.com
The older you get the faster time seems to go..and as you say time is dependent on how its perceived..ie there was no time before the big bang..that's assuming its not seen as a super nova type event by someone outside the universe...
Just for interest..
http://www.futuretg.com/FTHumanEvolutionCourse/FTFreeLearningKits/03-PH-Physics,%20Chemistry%20and%20Free%20Energy/040-PH04-UN02-03-Quantum%20Mechanics/J.%20S.%20Bell%20-%20Speakable%20And%20Unspeakable%20In%20Quantum%20Mechanics.pdf
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
To someone "outside" this universe our Big Bang didn't happen in an observable sense. This universe didn't exist before the Big Bang...no space-time or matter so nowhere in space or time for an observer to watch from, no substance for an observer to be built from. Our space-time and all matter in our universe unfolded from the Big Bang singularity and conditions suitable for an observer to participate took a looooong time to develop. Similarly thinking of this universe as either having finite extent with empty space "outside" it or as having infinite extent misses the implications of relativity. It makes more sense to consider space-time and matter as co-dependent than independent. Our space-time is curved back on itself by the matter in our universe, so there isn't an outside that in any sense exists or is reachable for observers in this universe. There may well be other dimensions beside our four of space-time where things are happening and other universes are unfolding, but we aren't there!
Preservation of information,
Black hole information paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Matter=energy
A particle has mass and waves don't..
Quote..
In the formulation of the De Broglie–Bohm theory, there is only a wave function for the entire universe (which always evolves by the Schrödinger equation).
De Broglie?Bohm theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Regards
M. Gregg
Black hole information paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Matter=energy
A particle has mass and waves don't..
Quote..
In the formulation of the De Broglie–Bohm theory, there is only a wave function for the entire universe (which always evolves by the Schrödinger equation).
De Broglie?Bohm theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Regards
M. Gregg
I'm not quite sure how to play the game in this thread. Is the idea that we each link to a physics article which we don't understand, then confirm that by making some comments on it? Someone else then takes their turn to play.
If so, how much lack of understanding is needed for someone to play? Would it be OK if I linked to articles I would have understood 35 years ago (if Wikipedia had existed then) or does my historic knowledge of physics render such a link outside the rules of the game?
PS how is the winner determined? Or the end of the game?
If so, how much lack of understanding is needed for someone to play? Would it be OK if I linked to articles I would have understood 35 years ago (if Wikipedia had existed then) or does my historic knowledge of physics render such a link outside the rules of the game?
PS how is the winner determined? Or the end of the game?
In a game like this, the winners are the spectators.
As a side note, I gave my physician (who is trying to relearn modern physics and had many questions for me) a copy of Feynman Lectures Vol 3. His comment after a week- "This stuff is pathologically crazy." I think the pun was intended.
Is the Fermi paradox a superposition question<<ie is the cat dead or alive?
The rules of the game...to try and understand..
Regards
M. Gregg
Start with some basic physics books. Once you've worked your way through the Feynman Lectures or the MIT sequence (mechanics, E&M, modern physics), stuff like this can start making some sense and you won't need to throw around poorly-understood buzzwords in the vain hope that somehow the light will come on.
Stupid question,
Is the magnetic force between two magnets an example of entanglement?
Feynman in his lectures said it was not known what caused it..except that it exists and its real..I assume he did not think so or he would have made reference to it. Although he did refer to spin alignment..
Regards
M. Gregg
Is the magnetic force between two magnets an example of entanglement?
Feynman in his lectures said it was not known what caused it..except that it exists and its real..I assume he did not think so or he would have made reference to it. Although he did refer to spin alignment..
Regards
M. Gregg
No, it's magnetic force.
Seriously, buzzwords aren't going to teach you anything. If you can't solve particle in a box or harmonic oscillator, the advanced stuff is just gibberish.
Learn some basic E&M. MIT is running a superb online course for it under EdX.
Seriously, buzzwords aren't going to teach you anything. If you can't solve particle in a box or harmonic oscillator, the advanced stuff is just gibberish.
Learn some basic E&M. MIT is running a superb online course for it under EdX.
As to questions of "why?" which are metaphysical, not physical, this may help:
Lucky Louie: Why? - YouTube
Lucky Louie: Why? - YouTube
Yes, people who don't even know that they don't know what spin is are not going to make much progress in thinking 'deep' thoughts about the origin of the universe or why space is flat (when they don't know what 'flat' means because they have never encountered non-Euclidean geometry). Like trying to explain what a transcendental number is to a six-year-old who is still trying to grasp what an integer is.
When Feynman says he doesn't know what spin is, he is expressing quite a deep level of ignorance! That is, the level is deep (not the ignorance) - his ignorance contained far more understanding than most people's knowledge.
Should I start another thread in which I put links to, say, music theory (or organic chemistry or . . .) which I don't understand.
When Feynman says he doesn't know what spin is, he is expressing quite a deep level of ignorance! That is, the level is deep (not the ignorance) - his ignorance contained far more understanding than most people's knowledge.
Should I start another thread in which I put links to, say, music theory (or organic chemistry or . . .) which I don't understand.
Last edited:
NB,
Feynman did not say he didn't know what spin is..he said he did not know what magnetic force is..but he did say it was linked to spin alignment in the particles.. a direct quote..
What causes (what the force is) Magnetic force was unknown at that time unless there is some discovery since. He said to say its magnetic force is a get out..its a name for something which is unknown. Like gravity is unknown.
Regards
M. Gregg
Feynman did not say he didn't know what spin is..he said he did not know what magnetic force is..but he did say it was linked to spin alignment in the particles.. a direct quote..
What causes (what the force is) Magnetic force was unknown at that time unless there is some discovery since. He said to say its magnetic force is a get out..its a name for something which is unknown. Like gravity is unknown.
Regards
M. Gregg
- Status
- Not open for further replies.