Firlefanz
Lady of the Land
Registered: 05-2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 6984
|
|
Reply Quote
|
|
Weird Science?
What's the weirdest thing you ever heard in science? Would you ever use it in a story?
|
|
4/6/2008, 8:23 am
|
Link to this post
Email Firlefanz
PM Firlefanz
Blog
|
QS2
Shepherd
Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 2138
|
|
Reply Quote
|
|
Re: Weird Science?
I think Black Holes are one of the weirder things I've ever heard of. At least, how more I hear about that, how odder they seem.
As for using in a story, hmm, well I know they've been used before. 
|
|
4/6/2008, 2:59 pm
|
Link to this post
Email QS2
PM QS2
|
David Meadows
Squire
Registered: 09-2003
Posts: 693
|
|
Reply Quote
|
|
Re: Weird Science?
Quantum Mechanics in general. Even when I think I understand it, I don't understand it. I mean, really, it makes no sense!
If I was writing any kind of high-tech space-opera type story, I think there would probably be an implicit understanding that the technology was backed up by an advanced understanding of QM, even I didn't go into detailed explanations. Quantum computing, zero-point energy, instantaneous action action at a distance, these are all basic pre-requisites for 90% of the SF out there today.
|
|
4/6/2008, 8:21 pm
|
Link to this post
Email David Meadows
PM David Meadows
|
Reythia
Knight of Honor
Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 1883
|
|
Reply Quote
|
|
Re: Weird Science?
I'm with Meadows.
Though really, since you can use QM around black holes (to even more confusing results than normally occurs with either black holes or QM), I'd have to say the combination beats either alone!
---
-- YAR!
|
|
4/7/2008, 4:46 pm
|
Link to this post
Email Reythia
PM Reythia
AIM
MSN
|
hadaad
NaNo Winner
Registered: 08-2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 334
|
|
Reply Quote
|
|
Re: Weird Science?
Bees.
---
Reading: Don Quixote - Miguel de Cervantes
Writing: Resurrection edits
|
|
4/7/2008, 11:03 pm
|
Link to this post
Email hadaad
PM hadaad
ICQ
MSN
|
Firlefanz
Lady of the Land
Registered: 05-2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 6984
|
|
Reply Quote
|
|
Re: Weird Science?
Bees?
How so? 
|
|
4/8/2008, 1:36 pm
|
Link to this post
Email Firlefanz
PM Firlefanz
Blog
|
Reythia
Knight of Honor
Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 1883
|
|
Reply Quote
|
|
Re: Weird Science?
I second that question!
---
-- YAR!
|
|
4/8/2008, 3:52 pm
|
Link to this post
Email Reythia
PM Reythia
AIM
MSN
|
QS2
Shepherd
Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 2138
|
|
Reply Quote
|
|
Re: Weird Science?
Maybe he means antimatter powered, direct quantum entangled bees from the future of a parallel universe? 
|
|
4/8/2008, 6:32 pm
|
Link to this post
Email QS2
PM QS2
|
Reythia
Knight of Honor
Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 1883
|
|
Reply Quote
|
|
Re: Weird Science?
Can they ride skateboards?
Because if anything can be weirder than antimatter powered, direct quantum entangled bees from the future of a parallel universe, it's antimatter powered, direct quantum entangled bees from the future of a parallel universe riding skateboards. 
---
-- YAR!
|
|
4/9/2008, 3:59 pm
|
Link to this post
Email Reythia
PM Reythia
AIM
MSN
|
thepinksuicidallemming
Master
Registered: 12-2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 172
|
|
Reply Quote
|
|
Re: Weird Science?
I can't get my head around Stephen Hawking's assertion that the universe is "finite but unbounded".
If the universe is unbounded what stops something from crossing this non-existent boundary? Either the object will be repelled by the boundary, therefor it must have an outside, and something on the outside to bound it, or perhaps the object will continue on to infinity since there is nothing to bound it.
Seriously; what?
---
Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.
|
|
4/10/2008, 12:07 am
|
Link to this post
Email thepinksuicidallemming
PM thepinksuicidallemming
|
Reythia
Knight of Honor
Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 1883
|
|
Reply Quote
|
|
Re: Weird Science?
*Puts on lecture hat*
Well, Pink, have you ever read about the ball example? To me, at least, that's the most visual analogy I can give to describe a surface that is unbounded and yet finite. If you haven't, here's the analogy:
Pretend you are an ant. Your sole mode of transportation involves putting one little foot in front of the others. Assuming you can't jump very high, that means that you basically travel on a 2-D surface. Now, in real life, that "2-D" surface might appear to us humans as 3-D -- ie: an ant walking up a table leg -- but to you, the ant, it appears flat. You just keep walking.
Now imagine that I put you on a big round beach ball. You start walking your little ant walk. You can go in any direction you want, for as long as you want, and you'll never, ever come to any "edge" of that ball. There will always be "sky" above you and "earth" below, yes, but those aren't part of your walking surface. Since you can keep walking forever and never come to an edge, that means (by definition) that your walking surface is UNBOUNDED. Right?
And yet, the surface area of that beach ball is something that is easy to measure. A = 4/3 *pi * r^2, I believe. In any case, it's not infinite. I could paint the ball within a finite amount of time. Or -- another way to look at it -- you, the ant, could take a marker and color in the whole ball during your travels across it. Or if your feet were covered in paint, there would eventually be little anty footprints everywhere. That means that the amount of space you have to walk on is FINITE. Right?
So there you have it: a finite AND unbounded surface. You, the ant, can walk forever over that ball, but eventually your footsteps are going to lie on top of layers and layers of older footprints, since there's only so much "new" space to walk to.
What does this have to do with "real" space? Well, the example I gave is easy-ish to understand because it's a 2-D example, and the solution (ie: the equation for area) is in 3-D, both of which we humans can comprehend quite well. Of course, real space is (at least) 3-D, which means we need at LEAST a 4-D equation to start comprehending what the answer actually means. Which means... well... that only really clever people (like Hawkings) can wrap their heads around it without assistance. For the rest of us (and I include myself in this), we have to make do with analogies. Imagine now that we humans ARE the "ants", and we're traveling forever around a higher-dimensional "ball". From our perspective, it looks like we're moving in a straight line. But from a different, "God's-eye" perspective, Hawking et al say we're actually moving around a closed surface, like a ball, which has no edges. Fortunately for us, it's a very BIG ball and we have very short lifespans, which means we're unlikely to ever traverse every speck of that universal "ball". Or perhaps Hawkings would have said "unfortunately", since that means it's very difficult to prove (or disprove) his point!
Does that help, Pink?
*removes lecture hat*
---
-- YAR!
|
|
4/10/2008, 4:07 pm
|
Link to this post
Email Reythia
PM Reythia
AIM
MSN
|
thepinksuicidallemming
Master
Registered: 12-2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 172
|
|
Reply Quote
|
|
Re: Weird Science?
quote:
Reythia wrote:
Does that help, Pink?
If by help you mean imploded my frontal lobe, then yes.
But actually yes, as my brain slowly leaks out my left ear, I think it does make some more sense, thankyou.
---
Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.
|
|
4/11/2008, 1:35 am
|
Link to this post
Email thepinksuicidallemming
PM thepinksuicidallemming
|
Reythia
Knight of Honor
Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 1883
|
|
Reply Quote
|
|
Re: Weird Science?
quote:
thepinksuicidallemming wrote:
]If by help you mean imploded my frontal lobe, then yes.
MWAhahahaha! I am victorious!
---
-- YAR!
|
|
4/11/2008, 6:17 pm
|
Link to this post
Email Reythia
PM Reythia
AIM
MSN
|
BaneBlade
Shepherd
Registered: 02-2006
Posts: 573
|
|
Reply Quote
|
|
Re: Weird Science?
quote:
Reythia wrote:
/snip
Well, the example I gave is easy-ish to understand because it's a 2-D example, and the solution (ie: the equation for area) is in 3-D, both of which we humans can comprehend quite well. Of course, real space is (at least) 3-D, which means we need at LEAST a 4-D equation to start comprehending what the answer actually means. Which means... well... that only really clever people (like Hawkings) can wrap their heads around it without assistance.
/snip
For anyone that wants a fun and easy to understand look into some of the simpler implications of multiple dimensions I recommend a rather old book.
Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions by Edwin Abbott.
It was published sometime in the late 1800's.
Last edited by BaneBlade, 4/25/2008, 1:09 pm
---
...waiting patiently for a few submissions to come back.
|
|
4/25/2008, 1:08 pm
|
Link to this post
Email BaneBlade
PM BaneBlade
|
BaneBlade
Shepherd
Registered: 02-2006
Posts: 573
|
|
Reply Quote
|
|
Re: Weird Science?
Oh, and the weirdest things I have heard are any of theTOEs (Theory of Everything). I.E. string theory, M-theory, loop gravity etc. (Anything that tries to resolve quantum theory and general relativity is bound to be mindblowingly hard hard.)
The most bizzare of all has to be the holographic principle, it makes my skull hurt.
---
...waiting patiently for a few submissions to come back.
|
|
4/25/2008, 1:32 pm
|
Link to this post
Email BaneBlade
PM BaneBlade
|
QS2
Shepherd
Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 2138
|
|
Reply Quote
|
|
Re: Weird Science?
The holographic principle?
|
|
4/25/2008, 6:57 pm
|
Link to this post
Email QS2
PM QS2
|
Reythia
Knight of Honor
Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 1883
|
|
Reply Quote
|
|
Re: Weird Science?
quote:
QS2 wrote:
The holographic principle?
I second that question. Fill us in, Bane!
---
-- YAR!
|
|
4/29/2008, 4:59 pm
|
Link to this post
Email Reythia
PM Reythia
AIM
MSN
|
BaneBlade
Shepherd
Registered: 02-2006
Posts: 573
|
|
Reply Quote
|
|
Re: Weird Science?
quote:
Reythia wrote:
quote:
QS2 wrote:
The holographic principle?
I second that question. Fill us in, Bane!
I would if I had a degree in theoretical physics. Unfortunately (perhaps fortunately), I understand only a fraction of it. However every time I think Wikipedia won't have a topic, I'm pleasantly surprised. I give you The Holographic Principle.
---
...waiting patiently for a few submissions to come back.
|
|
4/29/2008, 10:36 pm
|
Link to this post
Email BaneBlade
PM BaneBlade
|
thepinksuicidallemming
Master
Registered: 12-2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 172
|
|
Reply Quote
|
|
Re: Weird Science?
***Reads about The Holographic Principle.***
...
...
What? 
Last edited by thepinksuicidallemming, 4/30/2008, 12:19 am
---
Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.
|
|
4/30/2008, 12:09 am
|
Link to this post
Email thepinksuicidallemming
PM thepinksuicidallemming
|
QS2
Shepherd
Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 2138
|
|
Reply Quote
|
|
Re: Weird Science?
It's an odd piece of information theory I guess, which attempts to describe the universe in terms of information storage. I have no idea why a 3 dimensional objects information can be displayed in just it's surface area though. Certainly isn't a very intuitive conclusion..., what am I saying, it flies in the face of my intuition. 
|
|
4/30/2008, 8:36 am
|
Link to this post
Email QS2
PM QS2
|
Reythia
Knight of Honor
Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 1883
|
|
Reply Quote
|
|
Re: Weird Science?
quote:
QS2 wrote:
It's an odd piece of information theory I guess, which attempts to describe the universe in terms of information storage. I have no idea why a 3 dimensional objects information can be displayed in just it's surface area though. Certainly isn't a very intuitive conclusion..., what am I saying, it flies in the face of my intuition.
I tend to agree. It's counter to what I experience at work, for example. We map gravity onto a surface map of the Earth, which works great for telling you what latitude and longitude a certain gravitational anomaly is at. However, it can't tell you whether that anomaly was on the surface of the Earth (ie: a hydrologic event) or under the Earth (ie: a crustal event). On the face of it, this seems to defy the "holographic principle".
HOWEVER, I'm guessing that there's a good chance that Wikipedia is only giving us a partial explanation of the theory and/or that I'm not understanding the concept very well. So until I meet a physicist who can explain it to me, I'll merely cock an eyebrow at it and move on with life. 
---
-- YAR!
|
|
4/30/2008, 4:20 pm
|
Link to this post
Email Reythia
PM Reythia
AIM
MSN
|
Firlefanz
Lady of the Land
Registered: 05-2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 6984
|
|
Reply Quote
|
|
Re: Weird Science?
Now, what if someone sits *outside* the universe and looks in? What if that someone were either a god or a mage or a meddling busybody?
I can sense a story here.
|
|
4/30/2008, 8:43 pm
|
Link to this post
Email Firlefanz
PM Firlefanz
Blog
|
Reythia
Knight of Honor
Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 1883
|
|
Reply Quote
|
|
Re: Weird Science?
quote:
Firlefanz wrote:
Now, what if someone sits *outside* the universe and looks in? What if that someone were either a god or a mage or a meddling busybody?
Define "outside" in this sense.
The word "universe" is commonly defined as "all the stuff around us" or "everywhere we could potentially go". Or, according to dictionary.com, "everything that exists anywhere" or "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space". The very word "universe" literally means "turned into one" in Latin.
So, if the universe is everything, then how can there be an "outside" to it for a god/mage/busybody to sit in?
This, I think, is the real point of confusion that prompted Pink's prior comment about "bounded but infinite" -- how can something that has an edge also not have an "outside"? How can something have a meaningful "inside", but not a meaningful "outside"? (For the answer, go read my earlier balloon explanation.)
This is definitely one of the weirder parts of modern physics -- and thus, one of the ones where science abuts philosophy and relgion, which can often cause fireworks...
---
-- YAR!
|
|
4/30/2008, 9:52 pm
|
Link to this post
Email Reythia
PM Reythia
AIM
MSN
|
Add a reply
You are not logged in ( login)
|
