• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Any one else here obsessed with physics?

@Ronald Zeeman Thanks for putting my attention to this thread. I know much less regarding quantum than earlier models (which I suppose everyone can say...) I just have a basic idea right now given much less exposure. Cannot even put it well into words, what I do and don't understand. I'm sure you understand, quantum is like that.

Anyway, curious which quantum interpretation you prefer? I'm certainly a many-worlds proponent (I know there are several many-world theories, still figuring it out), which is a lot more limited than the masses can imagine. Still infinite, but not "in another universe I made this decision differently". That could be the "result" of something that happens, but it is not the trigger.
 
I do know vaguely enough to know that Schrodinger's infamous analogy did not take entanglement with the environment and scientist into account.
 
Quantum mechanics is just describing the universe using statistics. Which is what causing all the confusion? points cannot exist other than as a smear? once you get away from absolute length everything starts making sense, I'm not a proponent of multiple universes, Two both sides of the Mobus strip. which is actually one.
 
Ronald Zeeman said:
Quantum mechanics is just describing the universe using statistics. Which is what causing all the confusion? points cannot exist other than as a smear? once you get away from absolute length everything starts making sense, I'm not a proponent of multiple universes, Two both sides of the Mobus strip. which is actually one.
Click to expand...
Ok, I'm seeing where you are with this. Relative length is almost obvious, as length is only defined by its measurement, and thus must be compared with another length. Which is impossible to measure all the way down to the limits of the bottom.
.
So a pretty big question to help me understand. You mentioned the Big Bang as if it were an actual event. Where dimensionlessness becomes dimensionful. (yes I make up words). But I posit, if length has no real meaning, then neither does the lack of dimension. If there truly are any limits, I believe it possible that once L approaches 0 (or, a big crunch is approached) the dominant means of measuring can be reversed. Call it ... not going all the way around the mobius strip, but shortcutting across the width of it ... going to the other side of the same side.
.
And if that is the case, then once L approaches infinitesimal the measurements swap and it looks like L is increasing to infinity.
.
Anyway, I will have many more questions :)
 
Oh, and I want to mention as well, I do understand that L is derivable from other variables. But if L is truly relative and unknowable in the absolute, so are the other variables.
 
Yes it gets interesting a Mobus strip only has one side think as one side as containing matter, time goes forward, other side contains matter time goes backward. Both concurrently

Are you familiar with complex analysis? Imaginary number? lots of interesting math including zero.
 
Ronald Zeeman said:
Yes it gets interesting a Mobus strip only has one side think as one side as containing matter, time goes forward, other side contains matter time goes backward. Both concurrently

Are you familiar with complex analysis? Imaginary number? lots of interesting math including zero.
Click to expand...
This is sort of where I was going with the "Swapping Measurements" idea.

I understand imaginary axes and a bit of the math, I've worked with quaternions on a computer project, for transformations. Created a few functions to convert to and from Euler and radial measurements. I'm not very versed in it though, basically mechanics with some decent understanding. I know that zero math is fascinating, but have not looked at that much at all.
 
Keep in mind I have an different mid I can see all this stuff in my mind's eye. causing a lot of issues black holes outside is really the inside. Works in four dimensions. The extra dimensions makes everything work. See Klein and kluza. This is what got them off track with string theory.
 
I'm the same way, I don't exactly "visualize" it but it is non-language... some sort of sensing. I dabble a lot. I have looked at infinitesimal math. But it all pretty much gets filed under "cool stuff that I'll look up when I need it more". So some of those files will be opened soon :)

Since I can "visualize" it well, I'm not so stuck on the math, hence the dabbling.
 
I refuse to get into some physics of the "if you hit anything hard enough it will break" school. I used to enjoy applied physics working on cyclotron and reactor based radiopharmaceuticals. I have a couple of patents on targets and their processing,and designed processes, including design of an Iodine-123 production process from 70 mev protons on an Iodine-127 target. Here is a pic of the target.

20230530_185928.webp
 
Ronald Zeeman said:
Keep in mind I have an different mid I can see all this stuff in my mind's eye. causing a lot of issues black holes outside is really the inside. Works in four dimensions. The extra dimensions makes everything work. See Klein and kluza. This is what got them off track with string theory.
Click to expand...
skimming an article from Texas A&M on using Kaluza-Klein reduction, which uses Fourier transformations. Good stuff.
 
AdamG said:
I'm the same way, I don't exactly "visualize" it but it is non-language... some sort of sensing. I dabble a lot. I have looked at infinitesimal math. But it all pretty much gets filed under "cool stuff that I'll look up when I need it more". So some of those files will be opened soon :)

Since I can "visualize" it well, I'm not so stuck on the math, hence the dabbling.
Click to expand...
We may have the same ability to sort of visualize. apparently 1 out of 52 000 people have this ability what gave Tesla his edge. may be even Einstein. education brains and genius separates us from them.
 
ha, when I first learned relativity, I figured it was a really good idea and easy enough to visualize (except for c, I still don't really understand it other than being a math error N/0). When I found out that I was crazy for saying that I could "see" time, I stopped discussing it and learned a bit of math. :-/
 
IF you really want to have fun put together my version of the Drake equation

IQ*education*ability to visualize*personality type*ASpie. Proportions of each. you get in rarified territory quick.
 
As each is a refinement of the term prior. I like it. And yeah, sometimes I do feel like an extraterrestrial lifeform.
 
I knew I was different when I could visualize the special theory of relativity either in grade four or five. could not understand why other could not see what was so obvious.
AdamG said:
As each is a refinement of the term prior. I like it. And yeah, sometimes I do feel like an extraterrestrial lifeform.
Click to expand...
AdamG said:
As each is a refinement of the term prior. I like it. And yeah, sometimes I do feel like an extraterrestrial lifeform.
Click to expand...
just basic statistics multiply each term to get overall probability.
 
I also remember being in grade five and the teacher drew a curve and wanted us to work out the area. to me it was obvious make a number of squares count them make them smaller and count them again keep repeating little did I know I was visualizing integral calculus.
 
I was in 4th or 5th grade, and wasn't paying attention. When the teacher had me write some sort of simple arithmetic method she taught us, I had no idea. Wasn't paying attention. So I made one up on the spot. She studied it for a few minutes, and said, "well it works, never seen that before, but it is wrong. Pay attention next time."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Top Bottom