Ask a physicist anything. (5)

Wiccan_Child · Feb 18, 2011

Naraoia said:
That's so going in my signature

ETA: OK, it's not. Stupid character limit

mzungu said:

PS: grats on being post #500, mzungu! Have an honorary cookie

AllOrNothing · Feb 18, 2011

Gracchus said:
You do know, don't you, that complex vectors with "real" and "imaginary" components have been used by scientists for many decades?

Yes.. but what has this to do with my question.. ?

Your point is…?

Gracchus said:
Of course the terms "real" and "imaginary" are used in a special sense in mathematics, just as the term "rational number" means numbers that can be reduced to a ratio of integers. It does not mean that a number that is not "rational" is a creationist number.

What is a creationist number..?

Gracchus said:
If you are really interested, you might want to check out, "quaternions" and "Clifford algebras". It is really fascinating stuff!

Could you explain it so a layman could understand it.. ?

I don't know much about math.. I can’t get my head round it.. I had no schooling to speak of.. and I had a terrible math teacher..

I'm a visual thinker.. which is why I have to ask whether the universe could be seen as having an imaginary dimension.. I find this idea very interesting.. along with Einstein’s view on imaginary energy.

My question is... what is real.. and what is imaginary.. our perceptions.. or the information that has come to us after many thousands.. millions.. or even billions of years..?

For example.. I can imagine the fall of the Roman empire.. but I can't perceive it.. because my sensory perceptions limit me to the NOW.. while ancient history is in the past. Even yesterday is just a memory.. it no longer exists… if you get my drift.

Is REAL.. my immediate perception of the stars in the sky.. that occurs in side my brain .. or is REAL the stars far away in space and time.. which may or may not exist..?

And why do I keep getting a double posting of utube vids.. when I have only paste the link once..?

I'm new to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_VSRH5_KJ4

Supreme · Feb 18, 2011

Wiccan_Child said:
PS: grats on being post #500, mzungu! Have an honorary cookie

That's not a cookie.

Wiccan_Child · Feb 18, 2011

Supreme said:
That's not a cookie.

Indeed - it's an honorary cookie .

mzungu · Feb 18, 2011

AllOrNothing said:
And why do I keep getting a double posting of utube vids.. when I have only paste the link once..?

I'm new to this.

It must be Duality It must be Duality

mzungu · Feb 18, 2011

Wiccan_Child said:
PS: grats on being post #500, mzungu! Have an honorary cookie

Maxwell511 · Feb 18, 2011

Naraoia said:
Maybe I'm just a really bad reader, but all I got from that book is that no one even knows what string theory is :o Perhaps it's the translator's fault.

Its not the translator's fault. That is currently the position in physics.

If you want to read a really good book that gives a general overview of physics I would recommend Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality". It is an incredibly difficult read (in the sense that it talks about the mathematics and reasoning behind physical theories*) however it is well worth it IMO.

*It is not really a pop-science book.

Maxwell511 · Feb 18, 2011

Wiccan_Child said:
I'm not sure I follow. Godel's incompleteness theorems referred to first order logical languages being unable to completely and consistently symbolise basic arithmetic - this doesn't mean the universe at large doesn't operate according laws and rules than can be described by a single grand unified theory, and I really don't see what it has to do with reductionism

Reality dies not operate according to laws and rules, we just perceive it as such. Reality just is. A scientific hypothesis is a map of reality it is not reality. We formulate the actions of reality into logical understandings. Which was I think Godel's point.

Godel's theorem basically says that a some statements cannot be proved or disproved from a set of axioms. If those axioms are consistent. Therefore what Godel suggest (if we apply his reasoning to science) is that if we are to understand reality in its entirely we may need to make inconsistent theories*.

Why can't we, in principle, derive biological theories from their biochemical, chemical, or even physical underpinnings?

That's not the important question. The question is can we, in principle, derive biological theories from their biochemical, chemical, or even physical underpinnings?

I am not saying that it is not possible in this specific case however it is possible that some "actions" of reality cannot be explained by a strict reductionist approach. They may be computationally derivable but not analytically derivable.

Err... no. The inconsistency between GR and QM means that either one, the other, or both, are false.Physicists, myself included, tend to err on the side of QM; unforuntately for Einstein, GR is not as good as QM.

The inconsistency between GR and QM does not mean one is false.

A thing containing things that behave according to mathematically describable laws.

This is a terrible definition. My cup of coffee consists of a thing (the cup) that contains a thing (coffee) that behave according to mathematically describable laws. Does Starbucks have multiple universes within its premises?

*His position was actually more extreme in the sense that he thought attempts to find a "Grand Unified Theory" were fundamentally "misguided".

pgp_protector · Feb 18, 2011

Q: How do I set the Capture Resolution via C# & Directshow-2005 Library of a Intensity Pro Card for an existing Filter?

1611AV · Feb 18, 2011

Nice thread W.C.

Nostromo · Feb 18, 2011

I'd laugh so hard if he came back in 5 minutes and posted the code.

pgp_protector · Feb 18, 2011

Nostromo said:
I'd laugh so hard if he came back in 5 minutes and posted the code.

I'd love it, I can get my camera to connect to the VMR9 but because the Card is in the default resolution, and not 1080i @ 59.94 All I get is a black screen

Nostromo · Feb 18, 2011

Have you tried hitting it?

Nabobalis · Feb 18, 2011

Nostromo said:
Have you tried hitting it?

Turning it off and on again?

pgp_protector · Feb 18, 2011

2 days of trying to figure this out

Code:

            IAMStreamConfig streamConfig = (IAMStreamConfig)VideoOutPin;
            AMMediaType searchmedia;
            AMMediaType CorectvidFormat = new AMMediaType();
            IntPtr ptr;
           
            int piCount, piSize;
            hr = streamConfig.GetNumberOfCapabilities(out piCount, out piSize);
            ptr = Marshal.AllocCoTaskMem(piSize);
            for (int i = 0; i < piCount; i++)
            {
                hr = streamConfig.GetStreamCaps(i, out searchmedia, ptr);
                VideoInfoHeader v = new VideoInfoHeader();
                Marshal.PtrToStructure(searchmedia.formatPtr, v);
                if (i == 6)
                {
                    CorectvidFormat = searchmedia;
                }
            }
            hr = streamConfig.SetFormat(CorectvidFormat);

Not purty (yet) but it works.

mzungu · Feb 19, 2011

Maxwell511 said:
The inconsistency between GR and QM does not mean one is false.

Indeed it does not! However in all probability perhaps a common denominator is missing that will make sense of the inconsistencies.

Jump of the 5th floor and you die. Drop an ant 10 km and it will float to the ground. The height correlation is irrelevant in this case. So this inconsistency between the large and the very small, is missing something, that if applied to both will have the same result. By creating a vacuum we are removing a common factor. Something is missing that under equal circumstances will not result in an inconsistency between the large and small.

Since reality (the existence of mass and all the forces) are based on a foundation of chaos where even time breaks down then we can conclude that at present we are unable to comprehend how chaos gives rise to order. Look at a picture then look at it under a microscope and you will see what I mean.

Supreme · Feb 19, 2011

Wiccan_Child said:
Indeed - it's an honorary cookie .

It's a biscuit, dood!

Naraoia · Feb 19, 2011

Maxwell511 said:
Its not the translator's fault. That is currently the position in physics.

If you want to read a really good book that gives a general overview of physics I would recommend Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality". It is an incredibly difficult read (in the sense that it talks about the mathematics and reasoning behind physical theories*) however it is well worth it IMO.

*It is not really a pop-science book.

Weeeell... there are two problems with that. First, I'm pretty sure I lack most of the mathematical background needed to understand something like that. Second, even if I do have the background, I'm a little equation-blind. I.e. I find it quite difficult to figure out written mathematics. I get - and really enjoy - maths if I have a teacher, but give me a maths textbook, and my brain just doesn't process the formulae.

Wiccan_Child · Feb 19, 2011

Supreme said:
It's a biscuit, dood!

And an honorary cookie. It's like a celebrity getting an honorary degree - it's not a real degree, they're not really alumni, but they have a special ceremonial moniker.

It's an honorary cookie, not a real cookie.

HarryCovert · Feb 19, 2011

Question: Could Hans-Quido Mutke have actually been the first to break the sound barrier on April 9, 1945, in his Me 262?

Ask a physicist anything. (5)

Contributor

Newbie

British

Contributor

INVICTUS

INVICTUS

Contributor

Contributor

Noted strange person

REPENT YE, AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL.

Brian Blessed can take a hike

Noted strange person

Brian Blessed can take a hike

Nabobalis

Guest

Noted strange person

INVICTUS

British

Apprentice Biologist

Contributor

Somewhere a queen is weeping

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency