SkillClash
Banned
any physics heads here, on why these two, pretty much the main 2 cornerstone, of modern physics cant get along
so why can't Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics get along
- Thread starter SkillClash
- Start date
SkillClash
Banned
damm yall stupid as fukk
Vandelay
Life is absurd. Lean into it.
Expound on the inconsistencies.
FluffyCorleone
Banned
Can you even explain what those two things are?
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,063
- Reputation
- 8,154
- Daps
- 122,280
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Quantum mechanics postulates that things happen when you're actually observing them, otherwise, different things happen. Nothing is constant.
Theory of Relativity postulates that things happen regardless of observation. Constants exist.
That's about as far as I've managed to 'dumb-it-down' for myself......
Theory of Relativity postulates that things happen regardless of observation. Constants exist.
That's about as far as I've managed to 'dumb-it-down' for myself......
Off topic but does anyone happen to have a link to The Feynman Lectures on Physics: The Complete Audio Collection that consists of about 111 lectures? It's floating out there but I can't find a working link at the moment. I have the books and audio of a compilation of the best parts from the audio but I'd really like to have the whole thing on mp3. It's a huge file I know but I really need that shyt in my life asap.
General relativity deals mostly with gravity and is very accurate when it comes to explaining how things work on a large scale, where large masses/volumes/amounts of matter are concerned (planet sizes and up). It's very accurate when it comes to describing how gravity works on a large scale, since the other basic forces usually cancel each other out on a large scale.
Quantum mechanics is very accurate when it comes to explaining things on an extremely small scale (atoms and smaller). It's very accurate when it comes to determining how the other three basic forces (electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force) work on small scale, and gravity can be ignored since the effects of gravity aren't significant when you're studying atoms.
Most of the time it's fine to pick one theory and work with it depending on what you're studying, there are situations where both would be relevant, for example when you have an extremely large amount of mass compressed into an extremely small amount of space (ie. a black hole). What happens is that, when you try to use general relativity to describe something like a black hole, the math ends up giving you values that are infinite. For example a black hole is said to have infinite density, which is usually taken as a sign that the theory has broken down. Likewise, if you try to use quantum theory to describe gravity (for example, if electromagnetism is mediated by electrons, then gravity should be mediated by gravitons) you again end up getting infinite values. That's basically a sign that the theory is incomplete.
You shouldn't really have two different sets of rules to describe the universe just based on how big the thing you're studying is right? That's why they're looking for a theory that can describe things on both scales. If somebody ever finds that (and figures out how gravity works on quantum level) then science might have more to say about what happens in a black hole or what conditions were like at the big bang. That's my understanding of it.
Quantum mechanics is very accurate when it comes to explaining things on an extremely small scale (atoms and smaller). It's very accurate when it comes to determining how the other three basic forces (electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force) work on small scale, and gravity can be ignored since the effects of gravity aren't significant when you're studying atoms.
Most of the time it's fine to pick one theory and work with it depending on what you're studying, there are situations where both would be relevant, for example when you have an extremely large amount of mass compressed into an extremely small amount of space (ie. a black hole). What happens is that, when you try to use general relativity to describe something like a black hole, the math ends up giving you values that are infinite. For example a black hole is said to have infinite density, which is usually taken as a sign that the theory has broken down. Likewise, if you try to use quantum theory to describe gravity (for example, if electromagnetism is mediated by electrons, then gravity should be mediated by gravitons) you again end up getting infinite values. That's basically a sign that the theory is incomplete.
You shouldn't really have two different sets of rules to describe the universe just based on how big the thing you're studying is right? That's why they're looking for a theory that can describe things on both scales. If somebody ever finds that (and figures out how gravity works on quantum level) then science might have more to say about what happens in a black hole or what conditions were like at the big bang. That's my understanding of it.
Berniewood Hogan
IT'S BERNIE SANDERS WITH A STEEL CHAIR!
OBSERVING THINGS THAT ARE SMALLER THAN THE WAVELENGTH OF VISIBLE LIGHT NECESSITATES ALTERING THEIR TRAJECTORIES, BROTHER!
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,063
- Reputation
- 8,154
- Daps
- 122,280
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Hollywood Hogan said:
As we found out in the 'Double-Slit Experiment'. Now, we wait to see if Susskind was right, or Hawking.
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,063
- Reputation
- 8,154
- Daps
- 122,280
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
inndaskKy said:Off topic but does anyone happen to have a link to The Feynman Lectures on Physics: The Complete Audio Collection that consists of about 111 lectures? It's floating out there but I can't find a working link at the moment. I have the books and audio of a compilation of the best parts from the audio but I'd really like to have the whole thing on mp3. It's a huge file I know but I really need that shyt in my life asap.
You use torrents?
You use torrents?
Yeah, but I only found one and it´s not working.
Edit: allegedly
SkillClash
Banned
thanks man
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,063
- Reputation
- 8,154
- Daps
- 122,280
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
inndaskKy said:
The full series was posted on Usenet about 8 years ago, but this one looks promising.......
http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/3279186/
The Feynman collection.
Contains:
- All 3 Volumes of The Feynman Lectures on Physics in PDF format.
- The first 4 volumes of the audiobook version of The Feynman Lectures
on Physics (6 cassette tapes each)
- The audio book version of "What do you care what other people Think"
- Horizon's "The pleasure of Finding Things Out"
About 60 seeders according to my app, 3.2 Gb D/L
The Feynman collection.
Contains:
- All 3 Volumes of The Feynman Lectures on Physics in PDF format.
- The first 4 volumes of the audiobook version of The Feynman Lectures
on Physics (6 cassette tapes each)
- The audio book version of "What do you care what other people Think"
- Horizon's "The pleasure of Finding Things Out"
About 60 seeders according to my app, 3.2 Gb D/L
Dope thread, this is the most fundamental issue with current physics/technological advancements IMHO, and I think it has just has much to do with geopolitics, populace control and international finance, being that true applications of Einstein's theories would turn this world upside down in one day. First off I'd like comments on my post, if anybody feels it's wrong/incorrect, please comment, let's build knowledge brehs 
With that said, first let's break it down as basic as possible with a few points:
1) Einstien's two part theory of relativity is a THEORY.
a)General relativity/Equivalence principle- states of acceleration motion = being at rest in a gravitational field. The big change between this and classical mechanics is that classical mechanics always has a "0" point. Meaning that you START to move with a certain impetus, meaning a certain applied inertial force. What Einstein basically said is that being at rest in a gravitational field does not mean you are still, or in other words, objects are ALWAYS moving. So essectially in in mechanical physics you are capturing an object from when its motion is 0 to when its motion is more than 0. Where as in the theory of relativity you aren't capturing anything, you are simply observing it over a period of time, of which that period of time differs according to who or how it is being observed. So meaning that all those Train A moving at 0 and Train B moving at 100 physics questions are basically erroneous relativistic physics, because you aren't taking into account the time-laps from which it's being observed. To a Newtonian physicist this is some sh*t because Newtonian physics work 99.9% of the time on earth, F=ma on the macro and micro scale on planet earth.
b) Special relativity- laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another, and the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the light source. To keep it simple the most important result of this is the now famous/infamous "E=mc^2", which basically means that mass = energy. Meaning that all entities with mass are actually entines with energy. Thus the inspiration for comics like the Fantastic Four character Silver Surfer or the X-man Cyclops. So basically you and I are balls of energy. So basically two things, 1) nothing is faster than light, since light is the free-est from of energy, and 2) basically mass and energy are proportional. So because mass and energy are proportional relative to speed, a small thing moving really is the same a big thing moving really slow, thus the origins of the atom bomb, particle acceleratios, nuclear fusion, etc. You can create huge amounts of energy moving small particles fast enough. The saddest thing about this theory is that it was developed in the early 1900s, here we are in 2014 still using fossil fuels to power our vehicles
Quantum Mechanics, while technically being a theory, is not in reality not. Your computer would not function without a clear understanding of quantum mechanics, electron spin direction, orbits, superpositions, etc. Personally I hate calling something a theory just because there is no mathematical redaction proving a formula that works 99.9% of the time, but math is harsh like that, there is no judge tougher than math in my opinion.
2) Einstein's theory is an assumption on basically why certain properties/physical laws go haywire in certain situations, it isn't a constructive theory. Meaning that meanwhile we use theory of relativity to account for certain issues with things like satellites sending signals back to the earth, we haven't created new technologies solely based on the theories/formulas of general relativity.
3) More than anything, Einstein's theories have to do with the time-space continuum. In mechanical physics, time is considered a physical constant, meaning that 1 second is 1 second, anywhere, anytime. In general physics velocity, acceleration, and force are the variables, meaning that you can contract/expand velocity, acceleration, and force with different vectors, what Einstein is saying is that you can affect TIME with different vectors, and that's what essentially is the trippy part. Thus the whole time travel generation etc. Basically, in essence, you can affect TIME with different vectors so to speak, meaning with the righ velocity/acceleration/force, etc, TIME changes.
The common example is holding your hand to the fire. To the observer 1 second is still a second, but to the person with their hand on fire 1 second feels like a million years.
In short, at least to me, the most fundamental part of Einstein's theory is that time is an object (if that's the correct word) that can be manipulated just like force. Meaning that with the right innovations we can make time move slower/faster, thus affecting/warping the physics within that "time-space". So basically, the next step to putting Einstein's theory to practical use is to manipulate time, and we all know the respective powers that be ain't gon' let Joe Schmo be allowed to start rolling the clock back whenever he feels like it
Let's build on this thread brehs, perhaps there's some developments in relativistic physics since I got out of school, and pleas dap, rep OP, and five star this sh*t 
With that said, first let's break it down as basic as possible with a few points:1) Einstien's two part theory of relativity is a THEORY.
a)General relativity/Equivalence principle- states of acceleration motion = being at rest in a gravitational field. The big change between this and classical mechanics is that classical mechanics always has a "0" point. Meaning that you START to move with a certain impetus, meaning a certain applied inertial force. What Einstein basically said is that being at rest in a gravitational field does not mean you are still, or in other words, objects are ALWAYS moving. So essectially in in mechanical physics you are capturing an object from when its motion is 0 to when its motion is more than 0. Where as in the theory of relativity you aren't capturing anything, you are simply observing it over a period of time, of which that period of time differs according to who or how it is being observed. So meaning that all those Train A moving at 0 and Train B moving at 100 physics questions are basically erroneous relativistic physics, because you aren't taking into account the time-laps from which it's being observed. To a Newtonian physicist this is some
sh*t because Newtonian physics work 99.9% of the time on earth, F=ma on the macro and micro scale on planet earth.b) Special relativity- laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another, and the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the light source. To keep it simple the most important result of this is the now famous/infamous "E=mc^2", which basically means that mass = energy. Meaning that all entities with mass are actually entines with energy. Thus the inspiration for comics like the Fantastic Four character Silver Surfer or the X-man Cyclops. So basically you and I are balls of energy. So basically two things, 1) nothing is faster than light, since light is the free-est from of energy, and 2) basically mass and energy are proportional. So because mass and energy are proportional relative to speed, a small thing moving really is the same a big thing moving really slow, thus the origins of the atom bomb, particle acceleratios, nuclear fusion, etc. You can create huge amounts of energy moving small particles fast enough. The saddest thing about this theory is that it was developed in the early 1900s, here we are in 2014 still using fossil fuels to power our vehicles
Quantum Mechanics, while technically being a theory, is not in reality not. Your computer would not function without a clear understanding of quantum mechanics, electron spin direction, orbits, superpositions, etc. Personally I hate calling something a theory just because there is no mathematical redaction proving a formula that works 99.9% of the time, but math is harsh like that, there is no judge tougher than math in my opinion.
2) Einstein's theory is an assumption on basically why certain properties/physical laws go haywire in certain situations, it isn't a constructive theory. Meaning that meanwhile we use theory of relativity to account for certain issues with things like satellites sending signals back to the earth, we haven't created new technologies solely based on the theories/formulas of general relativity.
3) More than anything, Einstein's theories have to do with the time-space continuum. In mechanical physics, time is considered a physical constant, meaning that 1 second is 1 second, anywhere, anytime. In general physics velocity, acceleration, and force are the variables, meaning that you can contract/expand velocity, acceleration, and force with different vectors, what Einstein is saying is that you can affect TIME with different vectors, and that's what essentially is the trippy part. Thus the whole time travel generation etc. Basically, in essence, you can affect TIME with different vectors so to speak, meaning with the righ velocity/acceleration/force, etc, TIME changes.
The common example is holding your hand to the fire. To the observer 1 second is still a second, but to the person with their hand on fire 1 second feels like a million years.In short, at least to me, the most fundamental part of Einstein's theory is that time is an object (if that's the correct word) that can be manipulated just like force. Meaning that with the right innovations we can make time move slower/faster, thus affecting/warping the physics within that "time-space". So basically, the next step to putting Einstein's theory to practical use is to manipulate time, and we all know the respective powers that be ain't gon' let Joe Schmo be allowed to start rolling the clock back whenever he feels like it
Let's build on this thread brehs, perhaps there's some developments in relativistic physics since I got out of school, and pleas dap, rep OP, and five star this sh*t 