physics, the science of everything's Journal
[Most Recent Entries]
[Calendar View]
[Friends]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
physics, the science of everything's LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
| Monday, July 13th, 2009 | 10:23 pm
[redslime]
 |
this is funny on science blog
from science blog
THE MEMORY OF WATER, therefore all elements July 10, 2009 To understand the view, water has memory. You need to examine it's basic parts. Water has two hydrogen to one oxygen atom. It is the mass of these atom which is important due to the effect it causes. The approach to this effect can be best explain, by think about the model connected to Black Holes. However you must forget the view, matter is reduced to a vertex point known as Singularity. In a Black Hole in this dimension there is just a two dimension disc. The edge of the disc can be explain as a Event Horizon. Hence matter leaves this dimension, and is pushed into another dimension though the disc. As it touches the other side, the matter is stored locally to the Black Hole. The matter is all energy in this domain but with mass. I have heard the view dark energy and dark matter, dark because we can not see it. Now atoms have mass and each element has a defined vibration caused by it's mass. The mass of a element results in a sub microscopic Black Hole. However the two dimension disc in this case is moving loci, due to the effect from the electrons. The dimensions connected to atoms is thought energy. Each element has it's own though energy field. All thoughts and processes connected to the atom is attached forever. This is the memory of elements, and therefore the memory in water. The system of water in nature. There is a set model for this. The primary element for all spices is the hydrogen atom. Secondary is the other hydrogen which is the storage. And the oxygen atom is spices security. Every human in nature spirit is attached to the first hydrogen. Your higher self is the other hydrogen. The oxygen atom is the gate to all thought within the human spices security. All thoughts we have are connected as a system of memory. The way I found this information was being connected to the two models. Our three dimensional space, and the other the dimension of thought. I arrived at this by moving on light, but in the reversed direction, the gate to the thought dimension energy. Please comment. Ian Lightryder | | Wednesday, June 24th, 2009 | 4:44 pm
[vertigo_boy]
 |
electric vector potential?
One consequence of Gauss's law is that in empty space the electric field has zero divergence. Poincare's lemma in R3 then guarantees we can find a vector field C so that curl C = E. One always hears about the magnetic vector potential, of course, because curl B is always zero; there is no magnetic "charge." But does this field C -- an electric vector potential -- ever show up in any interesting physics? (Caveat: I'm a pure math student. I have no physical intuition!) | | Thursday, June 18th, 2009 | 3:32 pm
[redslime]
|
| | Wednesday, June 17th, 2009 | 5:51 pm
[derralf]
 |
When I asked my friend whether it is going to rain every day during the next month he said somewhat fatalistically "It's called rainy season not cloudy season, go figure." And that I did when I was riding home on my bicycle. So I came to think of an old question which is nice to ponder and had some relevance to my situation : Suppose it is raining vertically, i.e. without wind and at a constant rate. As it so happens you don't have an umbrella but need to cross a certain distance in the open. The question is, do you get wetter if you run or if you walk the distance? | | Tuesday, June 16th, 2009 | 4:40 pm
[trekkiebeth]
 |
Used Textbook?
I'm interested in learning about physics. I'm currently reading "Physics of the Impossible" and I really like it, but I don't have any sort of education in physics. I want to buy a (very) inexpensive used textbook that can teach me the basics. But there are so many out there, and I don't know what to look for. For example, should I make sure that the one I get was written really recently? Could someone possibly recommend a used textbook that would meet my needs? | 3:20 pm
[bob_the_normal]
 |
"Information Representation Form"
Hello all, I thought this might be the most relevant community (maybe aside from philosophy?) to ask this. I am interested in finding out more about an idea I had a long while ago and never really thought much more of, since it's somewhat just an obvious observation. The idea is something I like to refer to as the 'information representation problem,' and it goes something like this: If the "rules" of physics were well-defined and known (that is, if we know how to perform the computations), then for any system of a certain complexity, only a system of equal or greater complexity can be used to perform computational predictions of the simulated system. The gist of that is, if you had the ability to describe a single particle absolutely in terms of the laws of physics (e.g. represented mathematically), then the system that describes that particle must either BE the particle (the "simulation" is the real thing), or it is more complicated (e.g. the magnetic bits in computer memory represent the particle and all the information about its state of existence, which ends up taking a much larger space - lots of particles as opposed to just one). So, it is impossible, even if we had a complete and full understanding of physics (and if the probabilities in QM could somehow be turned into knowns), to simulate the history or future of the universe. Or, similarly, it is impossible to fully predict the result of a local event without using a larger space to simulate the event. (Or, put yet another way - the most efficient way to simulate an event is simply to have that even happen. I don't know how clear I've made it, but my question is whether anyone has read anything related to this topic and could recommend some reading that explores these types of theoretical limitations more thoroughly? It's just a pet interest, but I'd like to see the idea explored more logically or mathematically. Thanks in advance! Later. | | Wednesday, June 10th, 2009 | 7:17 am
[koppenhaver]
 |
Tight Turns
 Roger, born and raised in West Virginia, was my neighbor back when I lived on the east side of town. A quiet guy sort of, but once you got him talking he was worth listening to. In the mid 90’s, he and his family invited mine to take a trip to the middle of West Virginia. Roger still owned some land there and we all agreed that visiting the property would make for a nice way to spend a summer day. We drove separately since his family was staying afterward, but before we left he gave me some driving advice. Roger knew that most drivers instinctively brake going into tight turns, of which there would be many on this trip. However, he suggested that I accelerate instead. “It’ll help keep you in your lane.” he said. The brake pedal is our security. If we’re ever uncertain while driving, tapping the brake and slowing down seems to make every situation more manageable. It's our safety blanket. But damn if Roger wasn’t right. It had a carnival-like feel, but accelerating into a turn did in fact keep me in my lane, and it also gave me a rush. I'm sure some physicist could provide a complicated explanation of the phenomenon with words like torque, tangential vectors, friction, and centrifugal force. To this day though, Roger’s simple advice remains fresh in my mind. Though I don’t regularly drive the winding roads of West Virginia, I do occasionally drive tight turns in my travels. And when I do, tapping the accelerator not only keeps me in my lane and gives me a rush, it also brings back memories of my trip with Roger and his family. Interesting, how a simple bit of advice 15 years ago has such a lasting impact. | | Tuesday, June 9th, 2009 | 6:12 pm
[bluegodjanus]
 |
Understanding spin
There's a bit of particle spin that I'm having trouble figuring out. Fermions (that is, spin 1/2 particles) must be rotated 720 degrees before returning to an identical state. I don't see how this makes sense. What's the explanation for this phenomenon? Current Music: Rammstein - Engel | | Sunday, June 7th, 2009 | 10:33 pm
[nearuncertainty]
 |
Building a laser
Alright, so I have gotten through the grunt work when it comes to college physics classes (aka finished the intro courses). I am hoping to work on some application over the summer. To that extent I would like to build my own laser. I am just starting the project and am looking for impute. Has anyone built a laser before? What is the easiest to build? What is the cheapest? Any advice or links I should start with? I am thinking of using a version of a nitrogen laser, the nitrogen air laser. From what I understand no gas housing is required, so I think it will make the project easier. Also it seems the materials are easier to come by and cheeper as well. But, like I said, any impute would be appreciated. | | Thursday, June 4th, 2009 | 8:29 pm
[ihatepeoplealot]
 |
Time
I like to think of the concept "time". I'm in Physics II now, which means I have no formal understanding of relativity. When I think of time it's usually as a lay person, but I'd like to start refining my understanding of what time means in a physical sense. Could anyone recommend good resources (preferable online) that discuss what time "is"? Thank you. *Edit* Let me go into a bit more detail of what/why I'm asking, and hopefully it can help give you direction in helping give me direction. I have my own personal "philosophical" notion of what time "is". I would agree with a view that thinks time is only useful for making calculations about things, and not that it is interesting in and of itself. Because I don't think there is "time" without the things by which we measure it. However I keep seeing Michio Kaku giving interviews where he suggests that humans will be able to time travel one day. But I do this little thought experiment where I think of the particles in a human, and where they were at some other time. For instance: the food I'm eating right now. All the particles in this food were not in me before I ate it, yet if I, now having eaten the food, travel to a time before eating the food, well, all of a sudden those particles are both in my stomach from the future, and in the food outside my stomach in the current present, which is my past. Does that make sense to anyone? | | Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009 | 11:24 am
[moosehead_beer]
 |
Principle of Least Action
I was talking with someone about the principle of least action and I was wondering if anyone here knows some good ways to motivate it. I'm not sure that my somewhat intuitive understanding is correct, here: Let's say you take an arbitrary particle and subject it to a conservative force like gravity. As the particle travels, this force does work which causes the kinetic and potential energies to swap back and forth; different applications of force at different times (i.e. different amounts of work) will determine how much and when these energies change, and also determine the overall path that the particle traces out. So it seems that their difference, L = T - U, is something we should look at. It'll have a certain value one minute; the next, after work has been done, it'll be different. The principle of least action says that nature is lazy, that it doesn't want to do work, right? So, we're interested in how L changes from one second to the next: actually, we want to say that it changes as little as possible over the course of the entire trajectory. So we look at its variation and integrate that to 0, and go on to derive Euler-Lagrange. Something about this explanation feels wrong, though. Rather than starting with the action (an integral) and stating that this is a minimum, I'm starting with the Lagrangian and stating that it changes minimally overall, so that I integrate its variation over time. It leads to the same thing, but physically, it feels wrong. How else to explain it, though? This also leads me to wonder: exactly what is an action? The Lagrangian makes a fair amount of physical sense to me, but I'm not so sure I understand what an action represents. Maybe this is my real problem. Or maybe I'm just completely confused. | 12:17 am
[heart_over_head]
 |
How to Prepare for Physics?
What physics book would you recommend for someone who has never taken high school physics before?
I'm thinking of taking the first Engineering Physics class in the Engineering Physics series at my college in the fall, and the prereq. says "high school physics and Calculus I." I've taken up to Multivariable Calculus, so I can grasp math, but I'm just worried about the conceptual part of physics. I've never been exposed to physics in my life.
How would you recommend preparing for this class? What's a good book/text to read?
Thanks a lot.
*edit* One of the physics professors told me that I should take the first class of the algebra based physics series over the summer before taking the first Engineering Physics in the fall. Do you think I should do that instead of reviewing the conceptual part of physics on my own? The course description of that class is this: "first in a three-course survey of physics for allied health, building construction, biology, forestry, architecture, and other programs. Topics include units, kinematics, vectors, dynamics, work and energy, momentum, rotational motion, and harmonic motion. Laboratory work is integral to the course. Prereq. is trigonometry."
But this other professor said that taking PHYS 104 (Discoveries in Physics) would be helpful, too, and he would help me grasp the conceptual parts of physics as a side thing (just for me, not for the class).
The Discoveries in Physics course says this: "Introduces physical reasoning and basic concepts in physics. Hand-on activities demonstrate fundamental concepts in geometric optics, electricity, and motion. Designed for students with little or no previous physics. Appropriate for general students including those preparing for PHYS 114 [Algebra based Physics that I told you about before] and K-12 teachers. Not sufficient preparation for PHYS 121 [Engineering Physics]."
What option sounds best?
| | Tuesday, May 26th, 2009 | 4:41 pm
[cjwade]
 |
Rube Goldberg Project
</lj-embed> And for those who have about an 1/2 hour to kill, watch this really, really long Rube Goldberg (set in an abandoned factory in Germany). </lj-embed> Current Mood:  contentCurrent Music: Japanese Haiku | | Saturday, May 23rd, 2009 | 11:22 am
[deltatwo]
 |
Show me how...please
Can someone please show me how to work this problem? How many minutes are required for a radio signal to travel from Earth to a space station on Mars if the planet Mars is 7.83x10^7km from Earth? In minutes. Do I first take this distance 7.83x10^7/3.00x10^8 then convert to minutes? I appreciate any guidance. Thanks. Michelle | | Thursday, May 21st, 2009 | 11:07 am
[fabulousme]
 |
perplexed
1. Milankovich Cycles 2. The Universe is expanding. Reconcile. In other words, shouldn't Milankovich cycles also then be enlarging or changing as the Universe expands? Isn't it then incorrect to say that _____ takes ____ years to complete? I'm finding much of the online information on MCs to be piss-poor. | | Wednesday, May 20th, 2009 | 8:44 am
[crackerman]
 |
| | Monday, May 18th, 2009 | 2:48 am
[nibot_lab]
 |
particle spin and wave polarization
I've often heard that electromagnetic waves have two polarizations "because" the photon has spin 1, and, likewise, that we expect the graviton to have spin 2 because of particular properties of gravitational waves. What is the actual relationship between wave polarization and particle spin? | | Monday, May 11th, 2009 | 1:02 pm
[bluegodjanus]
 |
Looking for meaning
My mother-in-law acquired a pin somewhere with an equation on it, and asked me to find out what it means. Since we unfortunately don't have a good equation search engine yet (at least that I could find), I thought I would turn to some more knowledgeable physicists. The equation is: v e=R 0√2g/(R 0+h) | 11:43 am
[physics85]
 |
| | Sunday, May 3rd, 2009 | 2:27 pm
[saturn92103]
 |
Can someone kindly answer a very novice question about the speed of light? The speed of light in a vacuum is constant and independent of relative velocity. I understand that, from relative velocities, anyone measuring the speed of light in a vacuum will get the same answer: 299,792,458 m/s. I don't entirely understand the practical application of that. If I'm traveling at 100,000,000 m/s and I shoot a laser, will a stationary observer still calculate the speed of the laser light at 299,792,458 m/s (just as I will)? If so, what happens if that stationary observer shoots off their own laser at the exact moment the light from my laser passes? Will the two light beams travel at the same velocity - c? Thanks in advance. |
[ << Previous 20 ]
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
physics