Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
Actually, someone showed me that the other day, It is very interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Oct 11 at 20:30 UTC
|
|
|
SRAW
Rocket Man
2007 Nov 6 • 2525
601 ₧
|
How does the stuff even move through each other??
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Oct 12 at 07:33 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
Eh, you kind of have to assume that the sphere's material can pass through itself. No singularities though!
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Oct 12 at 07:43 UTC
|
|
|
|
It can move through itself because it is a mathematical object, not a physical one.
Or it is made of awesome little nanobots.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Oct 12 at 23:14 UTC
|
|
|
|
a black hole is sead to suck things up.
hawking brought up the discussion of "where does it go"
sense matter can not get destroyed or created, only converted.
your opinion?
I drink to forget but I always remember.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Oct 21 at 00:37 UTC
|
|
|
Rockbomb
Dog fucker (but in a good way now)
2009 Nov 14 • 2045
|
the_cloud_system said: a black hole is sead to suck things up.
hawking brought up the discussion of "where does it go"
sense matter can not get destroyed or created, only converted.
your opinion?
What do you mean "where does it go"?
I thought a black hole was just a huge ammount of mass in a relatively small space. Due to the mass the black hole has large amounts of gravitational pull, and when it 'sucks' stuff in the object is compacted and added to the black hole.
That was my understandings anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Oct 21 at 01:19 UTC
|
|
|
|
so it is to condense to make another big bang?
I drink to forget but I always remember.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Oct 21 at 01:39 UTC
|
|
|
SRAW
Rocket Man
2007 Nov 6 • 2525
601 ₧
|
Big bang is not really an explosion, but stuff from teh sup0r atom expanding creating space (liek wtf)
The dudes who made the big bang theory really suck, since they don't even explain what was before it.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Oct 21 at 06:39 UTC
|
|
|
SRAW
Rocket Man
2007 Nov 6 • 2525
601 ₧
|
and black hole is just what rockbomb said, it's shitloads of mass in a small area, so there is a strong gravitation pull and not even light can escape it (which means light must have mass!)
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Oct 21 at 06:40 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
Light's massless, actually, but is affected by gravity. Einstein thought of it as... it's like travelling in a straight line, but in four dimensions, which are curved. Bit complicated.
The thing that Hawking was talking about was the discovery that black holes radiate energy, therefore lose mass over time. Currently there appears to be information loss which Quantum Theory doesn't like.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Oct 21 at 22:24 UTC
|
|
|
|
Didn't he say that the black holes were sucking up information?
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Oct 21 at 23:19 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
Down Rodeo said: there appears to be information loss which Quantum Theory doesn't like
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Oct 21 at 23:24 UTC
|
|
|
Rockbomb
Dog fucker (but in a good way now)
2009 Nov 14 • 2045
|
I love how Sprinkles just jumped in and rephrased the post directly before him in attempts to fit in to the conversation 
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Oct 21 at 23:29 UTC
|
|
|
|
Rockbomb said: I love how Sprinkles just jumped in and rephrased the post directly before him in attempts to fit in to the conversation I don't like this new kid. Douche bag.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Oct 22 at 00:09 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
The idea is that in QT information is conserved but black holes appear to nom the information, which isn't cool. There's a mistake somewhere - either in QT or our idea of black holes. Pretty exciting times eh?
Still thinking of something interesting to say... I'm staying away from Thermodynamics, it's BORING. I'd do some quantum but I figure either you know the stuff OR it's far too advanced because that's what I was doing for 7 hours today.
EDIT: typo.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Oct 22 at 01:37 UTC
— Ed. 2013 May 8 at 00:47 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
Time for more physics.
Let's say you have a miniature "gun" that fires electrons toward a screen. The gun creates a sort of 'spread' of particles, perhaps best thought of as a Bell Curve, if you guys know what that is. If you don't, it's easy enough to find out, and simple to understand.
So anyway, we're firing them at this screen, and we have this pattern. Then we do something clever: we put a barrier in front of this screen, leaving two small holes in it. What happens now?
If you're thinking "two piles, half the size of the first", you're wrong. Welcome to Quantum Mechanics. I'll make this a bit more clear later.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Oct 26 at 23:56 UTC
— Ed. 2010 Oct 26 at 23:57 UTC
|
|
|
|
I think you need more description or a diagram or something.
Are we to assume the electrons are fired from the gun, have some chance of either hitting the barrier or passing through one of the two holes, and then hitting the screen?
Also, if I know what you're getting at, shouldn't you be talking about a single electron, or a single electron at a time?
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Oct 27 at 01:01 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
superjer said: I think you need more description or a diagram or something.
Yes, I do.
superjer said: Are we to assume the electrons are fired from the gun, have some chance of either hitting the barrier or passing through one of the two holes, and then hitting the screen?
Yeah, diagrams would really help here. But yes.
superjer said: Also, if I know what you're getting at, shouldn't you be talking about a single electron, or a single electron at a time?
Don't worry, we'll get there. Though you probably do know.
DIAGRAMS:
As Supers mentioned, there are lots of things you can do with this experiment. So, first of all we don't have the barrier, fire lots of electrons, and we end up with a pile of electrons that peaks in the middle. Then, we fire the electrons one at a time, ending up with the same distribution. We set it to fire lots again, and put the barrier in the way. There is a different pattern. What is it?
If we change the gun so that it fires the electrons such that only one is passing through the slit at a time, what happens?
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Oct 27 at 11:01 UTC
|
|
|
|
Damn it, while trying to get what Quantum mechanics was about I accidentally found this:
Would it look something like the second picture?
...and that's the bottom line because Mate de Vita said so.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Oct 29 at 20:50 UTC
— Ed. 2010 Oct 29 at 20:51 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
Yeah, that's correct :)
What happens if we reduce the "firing rate" such that only one electron is travelling through the slits at a time?
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Oct 29 at 23:56 UTC
|
|
|
|
That's a cool picture Mata Va Data. I'd read about this before but hadn't actually seen it.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Oct 30 at 01:19 UTC
|
|
|
|
Well the double-slit pattern looks like an interference pattern from the swarm of electrons going through both slits. So with just one electron, I wouldn't expect all the interference.
I wouldn't expect it...
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Oct 30 at 01:20 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
No, you wouldn't. However, the pattern is still there! Which is part of the mental problems of QM.
However, we are sneaky physicists. We set a detector covering one hole - imagine a detector exactly covering the hole in the image above, between the mask and the screen. What happens now?
(By the way, all the stuff we're talking about so far is experimental. We're not looking at the maths because it's a bit tricky, we'd have to look at a version of the Schrodinger Wave Equation and the wavefunction.)
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Oct 30 at 10:26 UTC
|
|
|
|
What kind of a detector? Does it stop the electrons or can they move through it?
...and that's the bottom line because Mate de Vita said so.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Oct 31 at 17:11 UTC
|
|
|
Down Rodeo
Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse
2007 Oct 19 • 5486
57,583 ₧
|
It doesn't stop them, no. Just records their passing.
|
|
|
|
|
≡
|
2010 Oct 31 at 21:49 UTC
|
|
|
|
