| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5
Comments:
<0> good night/noapte buna
<1> http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/4499/152hj7.jpg
<1> anyone know how to do this problem?
<2> Bonjour, of utmost importance, is there any scientists in this channel?
<3> professional scientists?
<2> Yes.
<3> Probably not.
<2> Yeah, I thought so, was worth a try though, TY.
<4> all these people and no professional scientists?
<3> Professional scientists are hard to come by..
<3> on irc
<4> i know of a couple
<4> and later this year i will kinda be one
<3> In what capacity?
<4> i will be doing a placement year as part of my degree
<3> Specifically what degree? :#
<4> MSci physics with industrial experience
<3> Given our current location I'll accept that as a scientist hehe
<5> what's a good cl***ical mechanics book?
<6> the one titled "Physics"
<7> oh
<7> i was wondering
<7> can we use cl***ical mechanics to describe the electrons on their levels ?
<6> you can, but that dosn't mean it will be an accurate discription
<6> or a realistic one
<3> yeah I wouldn't recommend even bothering
<6> nothing wrong with doing that
<6> its a good exercise
<6> pluss you can see why its not a good description
<6> anubiss: do an atom first
<3> JabberWalkie: there are better substitutes
<3> but yeah why not I guess
<3> oh actually now that I think about it
<3> that is good if you want to build into the more advanced views of an atom etc
<3> ok scratch my original claim
<3> my cl***ical mechanics book agrees with you iirc
<6> no no, you will see that if you have the electron orbiting the atom that it must emmit E&M waves....
<6> and oscilating charge will do that, according to E&M
<3> 'no no'?
<6> its like extra no
<6> or no with attitude
<6> not a double no
<3> I know what it means, I'm questioning why you used it.
<6> well i started typing that when you said there were better substuites
<3> oh I see, okay
<6> then you backtracked and i was to lazy to change it
<3> lol XD
<6> what is a good place to post pics online?
<8> image shack.
<6> ahh ok
<8> photobucket
<6> check it out http://img409.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picut4.jpg thats me doing a fourier transfrom with a lens :)
<7> Jabberwalkie: what do you mean do an atom first
<7> smashing two together ?
<3> go to a bar and find one
<7> whats the limit of cl***ical mechanics ?
<8> Do a fourier transform with a lens = a prism?
<6> anubiss: i mean model an atom with cl***ical mechanics
<7> how do i do that
<6> synx: no just a lense
<3> anubiss: orbits using couloumb force
<7> what equations do i need ?
<3> F = k Q q / r^2
<6> well there are actually 2 lenses and a grating
<7> im i cant model an atom with that formula
<7> i have only 1 m***
<3> anubiss what exactly do you want to do?
<7> well he suggested me to try
<8> grating ~ prism
<6> no not really, its not a diffraction grating
<6> the wires are quite visable
<6> when you project it you end up with an image of the grating
<6> anyways....the math is insane....when i understand it better ill try to explain it..
<7> has anyone came up with a theory 'competing' with quantum mechanicss in 100 years ?
<3> what do you mean by 'competing'?
<7> alternative
<7> that describes nature in a better way
<3> the best example I can think of
<7> but maybe less popular because the math is uglier
<3> is superstring theory
<7> or not elegant....
<8> By competing, usually it means a tautology: explaining all the same stuff (consistently) without any known logical error.
<8> Yeah string theory is kinda competing with QM, though it's more a superset of QM.
<7> i see so competing isnt right, cause quantum describes something that only it describes...ok
<7> but i read the string theory has proven nothing yet
<3> anubiss: true I believe
<8> Nothing has proven anything yet.
<7> ...
<7> i mean string theory hasnt prove things that was hmmmm hypothesises
<7> ugly word, watch out!
<8> string theory, aka one of the various M-brane theories quite neatly sums the universe up. It's unverifiable, which is the problem most people have.
<7> and thats it ?
<8> "***UMING" fundamental units of existence have harmonic vibration, instead of being point m***es, then... well everything falls into place. But how do you measure stuff that small?
<7> string theory is the competitor but did nothing
<7> btw, when was relativity discovered relative to QM ?
<8> Well Einstein worked on both...
<8> Quantum Mechanics isn't really a theory, more a set of observations, so it can't really be disproven...
<8> Ooh, I know something that competes with QM!
<7> alcool ?
<8> http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
<8> "But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage."
<7> ok
<7> its a corrolary of string theory those noodles
<7> ....
<7> so it was a bad question, i apologize
<8> No, it's a valid question. Nobody has the answer though.
<8> It's my opinion that physics has been backing itself into a corner ever since Newton.
<3> I don't see how
<8> Well, what have we discovered that contradicts Newton's theories?
<7> you know
<7> ...
<7> my muffler was hanging this summer
<7> i took a metal string and wrap it then soldered it, my muffler isnt hanging anymore
<8> in mid-air? =)
<7> something like that :)
<7> ..
<7> it hasnt broken since..
<8> Still sounds pretty Newtonian to me.
<7> yes but, see the point here
<7> it works
<9> now your muffler is lying in 6 inches of irragation water in a cornfield ditch?
<7> if someone would come up with an easier idea then newton's im sure it will be accepted if its valid! same goes with the more recent stuff
<8> Easier? Or you mean more true?
<8> The thing is there's nothing left to discover about our laws after Newton besides electricity and such. The internal combustion engine for instance. Then after electricity, all we had left was a very tiny set of phenomenon such as gravitational lensing and the speed of light.
<8> Then after relativity, the only thing in the universe we can't fully explain is largely confined to particle accelerators and distant stellar events.
<8> And finally, with QM in place, we can spend 10 years just trying to get a smaller transistor, without anything left to do but plug at it, and not explain anything.
<7> seem pretty depressing said like that
<8> Yeah sorry, I'm pretty depressed usually.
<7> how old are you
<7> nvm
<10> There are of course many other sorts of theories and mathematical models that we use,
<3> [22:26] <8> Well, what have we discovered that contradicts Newton's theories? <-- we need to have discovered something that contradicts his theories in order for physics to not be backing itself into a corner?
<10> but they all follow the basic tediousness of plug-and-chug
<7> plug and chug ?
<7> i dont understand
<7> chaning parameters ?
<10> Yeah, basically, modelling specific situations in the formulas and equations already given, it's the depressing situation that synx described ;)
<8> microacg: That's pretty much what I concluded. What else can we do?
<3> we have made a lot of progress by applying those laws
<10> And what is the measure of progress?
<10> relative to what ?
<7> please cheer me up i want to study physics
<10> hahahaha
<8> anubiss: Go west, young man!
<3> someone trying to deny that we made scientific progress since newton has a rather radical view
<7> what do you mean
<9> read physics today
<9> or science new weekly
<9> new things are being discovered constantly.
<7> <8> anubiss: Go west, young man! <------ ?????
<10> I am just pointing out that the availability of publications is not necessarily "progress", since we haven't defined what progress is - the ability to use our own thoughts? The ability to do, what?
Return to
#physics
or
Go to some related
logs:
ubuntu automatrix
#python
was heißt super-key compiz
k3b burn mdf
tx2300 sata conflict
broadcom netxtreme 57xx debian
noteedit libpng error: Read Error
tinyfugue background bot
importing Mysql 4.x dump in 5.x error
#php
|
|
