![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 21 of 21. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2002, at 13:09:11
[Posted by kid_A on August 7, 2002, at 11:09:27
In reply to http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020725/msgs/7067.html]
>
> > Did you know that bundling and strain on three-dimensionally connected elipses can sort of look like superstrings and may be the source of pre-energy? The elipses may relieve some the extra dimension postulated by superstring and m-brane theories.
>
> I've never heard of m-branes (p-branes yes, m-branes no) You should post your theory to sci.physics.relativity and see how it flies with the regulars there... I don't follow superstring theory though because I dont know how much relevance it has (it drifts in and out of favour it seems!)
>
> I'm most interested in early universe inflationary theories and I've read a hell of a lot on that... I'm a bit of a physics buff but far too ignorant to understand the math!
>
> But seriouslly, if you are really interested, sci.physics.relativity can be quite interesting... (sci.physics.partile isn't bad either if you're into the whole quantum physics thing, (i also dabbled in that as well), lots of smart people who can answer questions there, just remember to read the FAQ of S.P.Relativity)...
>
> Contact me in email I'll give you all the links you need...
>
> then again, if you're just bullsh#ting... forget all I've said!!!
>
> ps. our dearest dreamer has a jones for the physics too... godblessher...!!
Posted by kid_A on August 7, 2002, at 13:40:44
In reply to Re: Cam « kid_A, posted by Dr. Bob on August 7, 2002, at 13:09:11
All the models discussed here start from the assumption that the usual rules of physics, including special relativity (SR) apply in any small region of the universe. This seems to be a pretty good approximation at least for our small region. Special relativity is important here because it tells us that we need to describe the universe in terms of 4-dimensional space-time. The geometric structure of the simplest space-times, those that are both homogeneous and isotropic, is described by the Robertson-Walker metric. The time evolutions of these space-times is given by a single scale parameter R which changes with time according to the Friedman equation.The models described here were first studied by Alexandr Friedman in 1922 and 1924, and independently by Georges Lemaître in 1927. It was not until 1935 that A. G. Walker and H. P. Robertson independently proved that what we now call the Robertson-Walker metric is the only metric consistent with a homogeneous isotropic universe. Universes of this type are therefore variously known as Friedman universes, Friedman-Lemaître universes, Friedman-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universes or Friedman-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) universes.
Posted by .tabi.T.ha. on August 7, 2002, at 15:01:23
In reply to hello Redirect, thank you! the FRW equasion, posted by kid_A on August 7, 2002, at 13:40:44
Posted by Cam W. on August 8, 2002, at 18:05:11
In reply to hello Redirect, thank you! the FRW equasion, posted by kid_A on August 7, 2002, at 13:40:44
I believe that four dimensional space is more easily described using fifth dimensional calculations, but I really don't understand that much (I just like to think I do).
M-branes are part of one of the superstring theories describing two-dimensional space, where p-branes are describe one-dimensional
http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic7.html
Posted by IsoM on August 8, 2002, at 21:17:45
In reply to Hmmm.... » kid_A, posted by Cam W. on August 8, 2002, at 18:05:11
Thanks for a great site, Cam. It's got everything I need - basics & the harder stuff. Mind you, the tough stuff gets beyond me but it's nice to have it all together in one site. One of the guys that works at the software company my son does, was teaching quantum physics at UBC before he joined the company. I've met him & had a chance to pop off questions to him. It's nice to have someone to discuss something like this with who can simplify it enough for me.
Did you know that there's been an announcement that a quantum computer could be developed that would hold more than one value at the same time? I thought it was a joke initiailly (only theory still), but it's not. It's now possible to do so.
http://www.nature.com/nsu/020617/020617-3.htmlGot to go dig up an older Scientific America I have that had an interesting article on gravity & some new theories, in order to bounce some questions back at you too, if you don't mind.
Posted by kid_A on August 9, 2002, at 12:33:51
In reply to Re: Hmmm.... » Cam W., posted by IsoM on August 8, 2002, at 21:17:45
> Did you know that there's been an announcement that a quantum computer could be developed that would hold more than one value at the same time?
quantum computing has been in the works for a little while... right now i think they are emulating 4 bit processors (in software) no hardware quantum computers have been built...
the idea is the quantum computer is that instead of binary computers which work by existing in either of two STATES at the same time, quantum computer logic uses multiple states simultaeneously... this results in problem solving which is MUCH MUCH faster than regualar comuting because quantum computers can try different tests simultaneously...
...now if they could just make a low fat fudge cake that didn't let you down in the flavour department. (frowny face)
Posted by IsoM on August 9, 2002, at 14:17:42
In reply to Re: quantum computing... » IsoM, posted by kid_A on August 9, 2002, at 12:33:51
I knew it had been in the works, theory stage anyway, for a while but I honestly thought it impossible to actually make - existing in more than one state at a time? You know, like Schrödinger's cat - there but not there.
Joke: I do not know what is wrong with Heisenberg. He seems so sure of himself lately.
Joke 2: Every Friday afternoon, a mathematician goes down to the bar, sits in the second-to-last seat, turns to the last seat, which is empty, and asks a girl who isn't there if he can buy her a drink.
The bartender, who is used to weird university types, always shrugs but keeps quiet. But when Valentine's Day arrives, and the mathematician makes a particularly heart-wrenching plea into empty space, curiosity gets the better of the bartender, and he says, "I apologize for my stupid questions, but surely you know there is NEVER a woman sitting in that last stool. Why do you persist in asking out empty space?"
The mathematician replies, "Well, according to quantum physics, empty space is never truly empty. Virtual particles come into existance and vanish all the time. You never know when the proper wave function will collapse and a girl might suddenly appear there."
The bartender raises his eyebrows. "Really Interesting. But couldn't you just ask one of the girls who comes here every Friday if you could buy HER a drink? Never know... she might say yes."
The mathematician laughs. "Yeah, right -- how likely is THAT to happen?"
Posted by kid_A on August 9, 2002, at 15:35:16
In reply to Re: quantum computing... » kid_A, posted by IsoM on August 9, 2002, at 14:17:42
> I knew it had been in the works, theory stage anyway, for a while but I honestly thought it impossible to actually make - existing in more than one state at a time? You know, like Schrödinger's cat - there but not there.Don't quote me on this but virtual particles -can- exist in two states at once, which results in black body radiation, or Hawking radiation from the particle falling into the black hole leaving its anti-particle... Also, as far as I remember, quantum computers opperate on the basis of Quarks, point like particles that have no sub particles and gluons, the strong nuclear force that binds the nucleus in an atom together... gluons are asosciated w/ a color (its sometimes called the color force) and these interactions of gluons between quarks cause the quarks to change states rapidly...
check out: http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/
and catch my glaring mistakes! (its been a while since i've been up on my physics...)
> The mathematician replies, "Well, according to quantum physics, empty space is never truly empty. Virtual particles come into existance and vanish all the time. You never know when the proper wave function will collapse and a girl might suddenly appear there."
joke = the funny, but actually its true... due to the heisenberg uncertainty principle, someone once said that it's not IMPOSSIBLE for a refridgerator to sudenly materialise in the middle of space... how possible... but you know how wacky physics is!
Posted by IsoM on August 9, 2002, at 16:55:51
In reply to Re: quantum computing... » IsoM, posted by kid_A on August 9, 2002, at 15:35:16
Thanks for the link - some more reading to do & less work done around here. But I don't mind. Didn't know that about black body radiation in relation to . I learned about it in astronomy so will learn more about it. Ah, my head's so full & none of it helps me make a living. Damn!
I'll have to go to my college physics text (the new one from the late 90s, not the old, old one) & do some extra reading. Back in the late 60s I had started off to university with the idea of becoming an astrophysicist - really. But I got sidetracked thanks to recreational drugs & dropped it all. While I kept up to date with many of the sciences, physics fell behind.
The advances in science since the 60s are phenomenol. When I was in grade 12, quasars had just been discovered. I was the first girl in my school to take physics through high school. (Pitiful, huh?) Now, girls in physics are common place. Most of the boys looked at me with disdain initially till I got top marks.
Thanks to my ADD, I have too much trouble switching over from the math & physics to other subjects easily. Life sciences doesn't have the same effect with me so they became my forte & physics slipped. Trying to brush up the last few years is difficult - I'll never get the math going again that's needed. But I can read about developments & am interested in that.
The thing about a fridge materialising in space is true in theory but in reality, there's always adjustments. It's like fractals around us in nature. In theory, the complexity remains no matter how small it becomes, but in realisty, there's a point where it stops.
I'm intrigued with aligning the real world with theory. Same thing with blood flow through blood vessels. Our circulatory system works using the miminmal energy needed by the heart to pump blood throughout our body. Poiseuille's Law explains it mathematically. But we don't find blood vessels so sharply defined & branching off with perfect angles, but it works great! I don't pretend to know enough math but still enjoy reading about it & trying to learn more. One of the drawbacks of being ADD - so many interesting things to learn & do but not enough time or resources for it all.
http://grad.math.arizona.edu/~walton/biomath/bloodflow.htm
Posted by Cam W. on August 9, 2002, at 20:00:42
In reply to Re: quantum computing... » kid_A, posted by IsoM on August 9, 2002, at 14:17:42
If I'm not mistaken, I think that the quantum computer has become viable because they are proving that Schrodinger was wrong. The cat had to be there (and if it were in 2 places it would be very messy, I guess). I believe I read that in a fairly recent New Scientist (the unparenthesied part that is). - Cam
Posted by Cam W. on August 9, 2002, at 20:12:53
In reply to Re: Hmmm.... » Cam W., posted by IsoM on August 8, 2002, at 21:17:45
No problem, bounce away; but like I say, I am only a dabbler in this stuff. I have all of the Scientific Americans back to 1991 (like I'm ever going to read them again).
I find that New Scientist is a better read than Scientific American; perhaps my Canadian roots like that wry British humor. NS is a weekly mag; I have Chapters save me copies weekly. This is kind of embarassing, but Chapters has given me my own box and saves several magazines for me, and the cashiers know me by name (SA, NS, Free Inquiry, Skeptical Inquirer, Skeptic, Fortean Times, Archeology, American Archeology, History, Maxim, and Stuff). Geez, I read too much. If you ever need something out of a back copy of any of these (like Carmen Electra's bra size from Stuff) I have them cluttering my office (gives it that lived in look).
Posted by IsoM on August 9, 2002, at 21:39:49
In reply to Re: Hmmm.... » IsoM, posted by Cam W. on August 9, 2002, at 20:12:53
I agree totally - much better than Scientific American! I used to get mine from an older, sweet lady who saved them for me after her son finished with them. I've got to go dig up her phone number again - I miss reading them. It's bloody expensive to buy a subscription to it. Feedback is the best part of the week - my required light reading. I love that wry, dry, impeccable British sense of humour. No one can match that! I tried reading Nature a few times but it's too dry & technical, & many of the articles didn't interest me as much. I love my sciences but I still wish to enjoy the experience of good writing too.
Wish I could get some of the other mags you get too, especially history related ones. I gave up saving my older mags after I moved a few times. I gave them to someone I knew would appreciate them & they could lug them about when they moved, if they wanted to.
(Can't you tell I'm a fellow Canuck with how I spell? I figured it was obvious. Listen, hear how I say z (zed)?)
Posted by kid_A on August 9, 2002, at 22:11:36
In reply to Re: New Scientist mag » Cam W., posted by IsoM on August 9, 2002, at 21:39:49
>I tried reading Nature a few times but it's too dry & technical, & many of the articles didn't interest me as much. I love my sciences but I still wish to enjoy the experience of good writing too.
Nature I've heard good things about, a lot of important papers published there... But havent read it... Physical Review good too, but they charge for looking at their papers...
I like my lit. with a good mixture of pop. sci with not too much simplification to confuse the theory... Thats the problem w/ someone like Steven Hawkings... He is NOT a very good pop sci writer... I mean, as far as a lot of the physics people I've come across, they feel that he does more harm than good as far as confusing people... He simplifies too much...
Oh, yes, and if you are wondering why he's never gotten a nobel prize for physics its because all of his theorems are theoretical and not able to be tested w/ experiment... thats the stipulation for a nobel prize...
Posted by IsoM on August 10, 2002, at 14:48:14
In reply to Re: New Scientist mag, posted by kid_A on August 9, 2002, at 22:11:36
Can't put my finger on it but something about him leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I think he's overblown - you know - 'look what he's overcome to achieve so much' stuff. I trust my intuitions. They form for a very good reason & if I dig enough, I can name them. Guess I like my geniuses to be more obscure or less popular.
Posted by .tabitha. on August 10, 2002, at 16:51:08
In reply to Re: Hawking » kid_A, posted by IsoM on August 10, 2002, at 14:48:14
My favorite is "The Mighty Steven Hawking"
Posted by kid_A on August 11, 2002, at 8:31:28
In reply to Re: Hawking » kid_A, posted by IsoM on August 10, 2002, at 14:48:14
>Guess I like my geniuses to be more obscure or less popular.
Personally I'm fond of Alan Guth! He has my first name and makes more sense then Andre Linde...
I don't go by my first name but thats something entirely non related....
> http://www.homestarrunner.com/fluffypuff2.html <-- teh funney...
Posted by beardedLady on August 11, 2002, at 14:03:13
In reply to Re: Hawking » IsoM, posted by kid_A on August 11, 2002, at 8:31:28
Posted by kid_A on August 11, 2002, at 18:44:57
In reply to funny. (nm) » kid_A, posted by beardedLady on August 11, 2002, at 14:03:13
Posted by kid_A on August 11, 2002, at 19:07:58
In reply to Link? Isom gets the credit on that one.... (nm) » beardedLady, posted by kid_A on August 11, 2002, at 18:44:57
Posted by Cam W. on August 11, 2002, at 20:27:12
In reply to Re: Hawking » kid_A, posted by IsoM on August 10, 2002, at 14:48:14
IsoM - Could the thing about Hawkings be that he divorced his first wife to marry his nurse? Wasn't it enough just to bathe the hunk and wipe his bum?
Posted by Cam W. on August 11, 2002, at 20:45:15
In reply to Re: Steven Hawking Rap., posted by .tabitha. on August 10, 2002, at 16:51:08
Now that is hilarious!
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.