| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4
Comments:
<0> hm. It does
<1> :)
<1> one thing i havent learned from physics yet is why do i keep running out of pepsi so darn fast
<0> it's the little-known pepsi half-life
<1> either they are really good
<1> or they are cannibals
<0> I have the same problem with coffee
<1> anyways, goodnight InitHello, i am going to bed zzz-.-
<0> pleasant dreams. I'm going to ponder more efficient ways to add CO2 to my beer
<1> i just worked out that light's waveform
<1> amplitude depletes by all but one in
<1> 1.4192614434228 $+ x10^26 portions of its former,
<1> per second
<1> :/
<1> sry
<1> clipboard errro
<1> I worked out that light's waveform amplitude depletes by all but one in 1.4192614434228x10^26 portions of its former, per second.
<2> is there a Dover book that is an introduction to mechanics from a physics view?
<1> all you know is garbage
<1> physics is almost never correct
<1> :/
<1> physics is just a broken model
<1> if you want real answers go plaqy with your kids and ask them about the meaning of life etc
<1> once you are an old man, physics was a waste of time if you are a philosopher
<1> you come to realize things like what does it matter, when i am dead can neither care nor neither care
<3> uhh.... I am making this little game involving a physics engine... and i forgot my formulas... and I can't find them on the web... what is the formula to find out the time taken for a straight line journey, if you know the constant acceleration and distance? I have 'worked out': time=sqrt(distance/acceleration) but it doesn't seems to be quite right... any help?
<4> Appleide: time=sqrt(distance/acceleration) is good if you start at position zero with zero velocity at time zero
<3> alright, thanks!
<5> I have a wildly theoretical/hypothetical particle physics question
<4> praedor: try :)
<5> Would it be possible that in some atom smashers the energy of the collision would be enough to create a new universe?
<5> Say at the RHIC. Said universe would presumably disappear instantaneously into its own "location"
<5> and would be inaccessible to the experimenters...but would such an event be in any way detectable?
<4> praedor: the quantity "energy necessary to create a new universe" is undefined :)
<4> but in principle you can create a min iature black hole
<5> Sure J_B...I was just reading an article on the RHIC
<5> Discussing the creation of free quarks and gluons as per the earliest nanoseconds of our universe
<5> It got me wondering...IF...
<5> IF, as a "side effect" of a collision a baby universe was created, what might be the signature of such an event?
<5> It is never actually looked for, of course, but if you wanted to look could you?
<4> define "baby universe" (I know I'm boring but the problem with your question is that is ill stated)
<5> OK, I'll try (I'm a biologist, not a physicist)
<5> What i mean is analogous to the idea of there being a foam of universes/big bangs creating new universes within a larger multiverse just from the background vacuum.
<4> anyway the total energy you would have at you disposition to create an ipotetic new universe is the energy of the two particle colliding that is less than the energy I'm containing at the present moment
<4> so I think it's unlikely to build a new universe with such a small amount of energy
<5> OK
<4> but, I repeat, you may create small (very small) black holes
<5> If our universe itself originated from an infintesimal point of unimaginable energy, would it not itself have to have originated from a very small "black hole"?
<5> Or are we talking apples and oranges?
<4> let's say oranges and lemons :)
<4> a small black hole contains a limited amount of energy (m***). In the singularity at the beginning of the big bang it was already contained all the energy present in the actual whole universe
<4> (at the best of our knowledge energy do conserve)
<5> My thought/question derives from occ***ional articles in the popsci press about colliders/particle accelerators and from the book by Greg Benford "Cosm"
<4> never read that book
<5> For "Cosm" the premise required that the "baby universe" created in particle accelerators had to have a physical form that was observable by scientists
<5> It was accidental, of course, and the spheres created were made out of space-time itself.
<5> In this situation, it was obviously easy to see what you had done. In reality IF such happened...
<5> I wondered what the signature might be since you wouldn't create anything actually visable or directly subject to study.
<4> a sphere made of space-time sounds like techobabble to me but here I admit I'm not an expert in quantum gravitation
<5> Am i explaining my question well enough?
<5> As I say, it is extremely hypothetical
<4> praedor: well, in principle if you create a new universe you "steal" energy from ous so you should see energy not conserving
<5> Ah, energy out not adding up to energy in
<4> so you could "see" a new universe measuring how much energy it is stealing from our
<6> I have cosmological question about a similar issue!
<6> There's a redshift of photons according to the expansion of the universe, right?
<6> Which means the photons are losing energy. Where's the energy going to?
<4> Pthag: energy is not invariant under a change of frame of reference
<4> so photons do not lose energy
<6> I think I see, then
<4> Pthag: what is conserved changing frame of reference is not energy but four-momentum
<4> bye
<7> re
<8> anyone here not in the math channel and good with geometry?
<9> hi all
<10> bye #physics !
<9> any one help me what is the physical meaning for coupling constant?
<9> what is the strong force and weak force?
<9> please any one help
<9> why anyone don t want help me?
<11> maybe people arent around at the moment?
<11> waiting 4 minutes isnt long
<9> ok
<9> why do you hear?
<9> any one here?
<9> what is wrong?
<9> where is all?
<9> hi all
<12> heh
<11> i love the remove command
<11> stops autorejoin too
<12> nice
<9> hi any one
<13> lo
<13> :P
<9> any one know what is physical meaning for coupling constant?
<9> for any main forces?
<9> what is wrong?
<13> it is used in advanced physics
<9> this very bad room
<13> "a coupling constant, usually denoted g, is a number that determines the strength of an interaction."
<9> how?
<9> are you from math channel?
<13> yes
<9> ok
<9> are you name "khalid"?
<13> no
<9> ok
<9> are you follow your explanation?
Return to
#physics
or
Go to some related
logs:
kubuntu hp 930c
#debian
nemesis128
w3rdn4
3crshpw196 debian
#php
sysrescdd
#linux
fspot fc4
#css
|
|