is it possible to......

[ducatilover]

i was just wondering, is it possible to bring an object or just a single atomic particle to absolute zero? [-273.149c if my 5th form memory serves me right] and if so wont the object or atomic particle be completely stationary? or motionless?:mellow: [i got bored on the trip to wellington to see the surgeon yesterday] so if anyone here could explain it to me....

and i really want to learn about anti-matter, i'm assuming the only way to store anti-matter would be in an electro-magnetic feild...otherwise it will be in contact with matter and umm yeah we would cease to exist depending on the amount of anti matter ofcourse:wacko:

[In The Breeze]

:blank: way beyond me

[MisterD]

If I can remember back to my degree, then the answer is no. Absolute zero is a calculated minimum extrapolated off the bottom of the graph. I think the lowest that has been acheived in the lab is about -250 celcius.

As for anti-matter, I don't think anything larger than a subatomic particle has ever been created. I know the theory and that it is supposedly what powers the USS Enterprise and all I can say is that it's no wonder Scotty always looked worried.

[ducatilover]

If I can remember back to my degree, then the answer is no. Absolute zero is a calculated minimum extrapolated off the bottom of the graph. I think the lowest that has been acheived in the lab is about -250 celcius.

As for anti-matter, I don't think anything larger than a subatomic particle has ever been created. I know the theory and that it is supposedly what powers the USS Enterprise and all I can say is that it's no wonder Scotty always looked worried.
thanks. ohwell :pinch:

[enigma51]

In theory yes (Comon sense dicatates this) but according to einstein it will not exist anymore. You see a electron nature is to move around a proton there for causing the "vibration" (if i can recall correctly been a few years) and proton cant realy "live" without a electron (radio active stuff etc) so in practice it will not be possible to stop matter from "vibrating" if you want to know more about these things go to the libary and take out books around physics but not any physics look for atomic physics books

[enigma51]

einstein also said that if you vibrate everthing at the same "sequence" you can break up matter and place it anywhere in the universe!

[ducatilover]

In theory yes (Comon sense dicatates this) but according to einstein it will not exist anymore. You see a electron nature is to move around a proton there for causing the "vibration" (if i can recall correctly been a few years) and proton cant realy "live" without a electron (radio active stuff etc) so in practice it will not be possible to stop matter from "vibrating" if you want to know more about these things go to the libary and take out books around physics but not any physics look for atomic physics books
this was what i was thinking... i was going to do a degree in physics in uni but ummm i kinda didnt manage :weep: i left school:spudwhat:

[Ixion]

Yes, to absolute zero, if you had infinite energy to do it with. If you mean by "antimatter", matter with the particles signs reversed (eg negitron instead of proton), then this has been done fleetingly at the sub atomic level. In theory it's possible, but given that even empty sapce is full of sub atomic partices, and antimatter is unlikely to last long. But, in theory ......... Could make a REALLY BIG bang !:eek: :buggerd: :woohoo: :innocent: :niceone: :eek5:

[enigma51]

There is some real smart asses on this site

[MisterD]

Introduction to Nuclear Physics Krane 1988.

Unfortunately my copy is in my Dad's loft in the UK.

After getting left behind by the English language thread the other day, I'm happy to be on firmer ground here!

[ducatilover]

Yes, to absolute zero, if you had infinite energy to do it with. If you mean by "antimatter", matter with the particles signs reversed (eg negitron instead of proton), then this has been done fleetingly at the sub atomic level. In theory it's possible, but given that even empty sapce is full of sub atomic partices, and antimatter is unlikely to last long. But, in theory ......... Could make a REALLY BIG bang !:eek: :buggerd: :woohoo: :innocent: :niceone: :eek5:
hmmmm infinate energy? but if you were using that energy it wouldnt be possible would it cos doesnt it mean there is zero energy at absolute zero? and doesnt it take energy for particles to bond so it would have to be a single particle on its own? argh :scratch:

[k14]

Introduction to Nuclear Physics Krane 1988.

Unfortunately my copy is in my Dad's loft in the UK.

After getting left behind by the English language thread the other day, I'm happy to be on firmer ground here!
I think he should be more looking for a quantum physics book as opposed to nuclear.

I believe they have got to within a few tenths of a degree of absolute zero (could be wrong though), but as said before, it requires infinite energy to get to absolute zero so cannot practically be achieved, only theoretically.

[ducatilover]

I think he should be more looking for a quantum physics book as opposed to nuclear.

I believe they have got to within a few tenths of a degree of absolute zero (could be wrong though), but as said before, it requires infinite energy to get to absolute zero so cannot practically be achieved, only theoretically.thats excatly what my brother told me. i'm really interested in anti-matter though, how is it umm created?:mellow:

[k14]

thats excatly what my brother told me. i'm really interested in anti-matter though, how is it umm created?:mellow:
You don't "create" it as such, its just there, like electrons are there too. Antimatter is just the atomic opposite of the normal partical. For instance, the electrons anti-particle (positron) is the same as the electron in all ways (mass etc) except for charge and spin, they are the exact opposite.

I don't totally understand the concept myself. Go to www.wikipedia.com and look there, I'm sure it will explain it pretty well.

[MisterD]

I think he should be more looking for a quantum physics book as opposed to nuclear.

I believe they have got to within a few tenths of a degree of absolute zero (could be wrong though), but as said before, it requires infinite energy to get to absolute zero so cannot practically be achieved, only theoretically.

Quantum mechanics is definitely in the "Advanced" section, I'd recommend working through the basic concepts of nuclear physics before tackling the hard stuff. I've got my QM text book on the shelf at home though....

The problem you have is that electrons owe a lot of their properties to the fact that they are in motion. The theory follows that for tachyons (speed of light particles, not going into the wave/particle duality thing here) it takes a infinite amount of energy to slow them down, whereas baryons (and therefore any object) takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate them to light speed.

Just looked at wisegeek and they agree with my hazy memory at -250.

[ducatilover]

so if an opposite particle meets another then it will cause a reaction, eg bounce off?

[MisterD]

thats excatly what my brother told me. i'm really interested in anti-matter though, how is it umm created?:mellow:

I think it's one of those things they do with the nuclear accelerators where they whiz particles into each other at a significant fraction of light speed and look at what the resulting nuclear train-wreck creates.

Me, I like Quarks, anything who's properties are strangeness, colour and charm just has to be cool:doobey:

[enigma51]

reactions are caused when you play around with the protons etc not when you simple move to towards each other (they will bounce in that case which is a reaction but not what i think you are thinking about) remember particles is like stones (actualy stones are a bunch of particals) and the rule says that evey action has reaction physics 1 0 1 so if two particals meet it will have a "reaction" but it will depend on how they meet to what the out come is.

[enigma51]

Nuclear reaction is when you split the the protons and the protons will automatically try and balance it out protons = + electrons = - that is was causes the energy.

[enigma51]

Now fusion is the the exact opposit its when you combine the thingy's together to create something new!

[MisterD]

so if an opposite particle meets another then it will cause a reaction, eg bounce off?

The whole interest in antimatter is that when it meets matter the two annihilate each other and produce lots of energy. Antimatter is reckoned to be created and destroyed all the time inside stars.

[enigma51]

But dont take my word for it I slept through most of my physics classes!

[MisterD]

Nuclear reaction is when you split the the protons and the protons will automatically try and balance it out protons = + electrons = - that is was causes the energy.

I feel like I'm going to turn into the Hitcher of Physics here.

Nuclear fission and fusion are both nuclear reactions. Fission being the splitting of a large nucleus (cluster of neutrons and protons) into (usually) a smaller nucleus with the emission of radiation (alpha / beta / gamma)

Fusion is going the other way, and, as in the sun converting hydrogen into helium and then progressively heavier elements. So, getting all space-cadet on you every single atom in your body was once inside a star.

[ducatilover]

The whole interest in antimatter is that when it meets matter the two annihilate each other and produce lots of energy. Antimatter is reckoned to be created and destroyed all the time inside stars.
hmmm interesting is that how we get big arsed chunks of rock floating around?
so then how is anti-matter formed or created?:spudwhat:

[Indiana_Jones]

i was just wondering, is it possible to bring an object or just a single atomic particle to absolute zero? [-273.149c if my 5th form memory serves me right] and if so wont the object or atomic particle be completely stationary? or motionless?:mellow: [i got bored on the trip to wellington to see the surgeon yesterday] so if anyone here could explain it to me....

and i really want to learn about anti-matter, i'm assuming the only way to store anti-matter would be in an electro-magnetic feild...otherwise it will be in contact with matter and umm yeah we would cease to exist depending on the amount of anti matter ofcourse:wacko:

Can I buy drugs from you?......

-Indy

[ducatilover]

Can I buy drugs from you?......

-Indy
maybe......

i want to pant some weed i n a guys shed up the road then dob the fucker in:yawn: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Korea]

It's not difficult to construct an Infinite Improbability Drive. To quote Adams, "The principle of generating small amounts of finite improbability by simply hooking the logic circuits of a Bambleweeny 57 Sub-Meson Brain to an atomic vector plotter suspended in a strong Brownian Motion producer (say a nice hot cup of tea)" has long been known. The actual procedure was discovered by a lab student reasoning as follows while he was sweeping up the lab at night:

"If, he thought to himself, such a machine is a virtual impossibility, then it must logically be a finite improbability. So all I have to do in order to make one is to work out exactly how improbable it is, feed that figure into the finite improbability generator, give it a fresh cup of really hot tea . . ." and *poof* the infinite improbability drive was constructed out of thin air...

[Indiana_Jones]

Albert Einstein: And what is it you want to patent, Herr Smith?
Mr. Smith: I call it "Smith's Theory of Relativity."
Albert Einstein: Hey, look at this. *pointing at the paper*
Mr. Smith: What?
*Einstein bashes Smith's head with the sliding door, takes the paper's and flees*

-Indy

[MisterD]

To quote Adams, "The principle of generating...."


To quote Pratchett, "Physicists have calculated that the odds of such a thing existing are a million to one against, but Wizards have calculated that million to one chances crop up nine times out of ten."

(or something close to that anyway)

[Ixion]

The cool thing about quantum physics is that it postulates that entire universes can just pop into existence from nowhere. Or , strictly, if I remember correctly, out of 6 (or 20 ?) dimensional space. The REALLY cool thing is that, the former being so, by corollary, existing universes (like ours) can pop OUT of existence just like *that*. I find this a very reassuring concept.

[Wolf]

The cool thing about quantum physics is that it postulates that entire universes can just pop into existence from nowhere. Or , strictly, if I remember correctly, out of 6 (or 20 ?) dimensional space. The REALLY cool thing is that, the former being so, by corollary, existing universes (like ours) can pop OUT of existence just like *that*. I find this a very reassuring concept.
Yep, it helps me sleep at night.


And the knowledge that the abusive client may cease to exist at any moment, owing to the sudden non-existence of the entire universe, makes putting up with the bugger that much easier...

[steved]

i was just wondering, is it possible to bring an object or just a single atomic particle to absolute zero? [-273.149c if my 5th form memory serves me right] and if so wont the object or atomic particle be completely stationary? or motionless?:mellow: [i got bored on the trip to wellington to see the surgeon yesterday] so if anyone here could explain it to me....

and i really want to learn about anti-matter, i'm assuming the only way to store anti-matter would be in an electro-magnetic feild...otherwise it will be in contact with matter and umm yeah we would cease to exist depending on the amount of anti matter ofcourse:wacko:Achieving absolute zero is theoretically impossible in practice. The no motion thing is not 'quite' correct. From wikipedia; "One would like to define it as the temperature at which all motion ceases, but even at absolute zero some motion remains due to the requirements of quantum mechanics. Alternate definitions are that absolute zero is the temperature at which no further energy can be extracted from a physical body."

[TwoSeven]

umm. In order to reduce something to absolute zero you would have to remove all its energy. Since any form of energy would produce some form of radiation.

The explosion of antimatter is called antimatter annihilation. Fermilab and Cern currently produce anti-protons. I think for CERN its anti-hydrogen at 1 kelvin.

Penn state are trying to work on producing antimatter space engines using proton annihilation. Thats seems interesting.

[ducatilover]

Achieving absolute zero is theoretically impossible in practice. The no motion thing is not 'quite' correct. From wikipedia; "One would like to define it as the temperature at which all motion ceases, but even at absolute zero some motion remains due to the requirements of quantum mechanics. Alternate definitions are that absolute zero is the temperature at which no further energy can be extracted from a physical body."
i get it.:mellow: thanks!:apint: have a drink mate:drinkup: :spudwave:

that makes sense :rolleyes:

[ducatilover]

Penn state are trying to work on producing antimatter space engines using proton annihilation. Thats seems interesting.
thats a risky idea...:eek5: :yes:

[TwoSeven]

thats a risky idea...:eek5: :yes:

A new bugger add perhaps :)

[TwoSeven]

thats a risky idea...:eek5: :yes:

A new bugger add perhaps :)

[Jantar]

There is new state of matter that has been discovered called Bose-Einstein condensate. It forms at only a few billionths of a degree above absolute zero, and one of the leading universities that is studying these extreme cold temperatures is, of course, Otago. There is some information on the research at http://www.physics.otago.ac.nz/research/uca/resources/becbasics.html

The Bose-Einstein condensation was first achieved on June 5 1995 at the university of Colorado in USA where a temperature of 170 billionths of a degree above absolute zero was achieved. Otago physicists have managed to get even colder.

Did someone say it was cold in Otago? :cold:

[myvice]

Nothing is impossible.

Often wonder why the quest for absolute zero, and what they hope to achieve.
Where they just sitting around till someone said “Hey, lets freeze the fuck out of something” and it grew from there?
Powered on by the dream to have the biggest ice-cream headache ever?
I like the unified field theory tho, so I’m no better.

[ducatilover]

if nothing is impossible then its possible that nothing is possible therefore contradicting itself!:doobey: :bleh:

[Ixion]

No it's not, and no it's not and no it doesn't

[ducatilover]

that sounds logical. or are you talking about that random impossible/possible thingy i just said?:weird:

[Cookie]

You are deeper than I once thought ducatilover :rofl:

[ducatilover]

i just posted this in loptihgad. :no: and i did write it

Quote:
"nothing is impossible."


takeing that quote lets think about it.....
so does that mean if nothing is impossible, then it means that it is possible that nothing is possible? because then its a dead end. but if nothing is possible how can it also be possible? is nothing some warped theory that is "probable but we cannot discuss the likely hood of these circumstances" material? but how can we have a name for nothing? as theoretically it doesnt exist but then again it does exist by the fact it has been named. then we come to think how is it possible to name the absence of being [or matter]? because therefore nothing exists merely by the fact of the discovery of its non-existance. but how can nothing exist? it isnt matter and has no mass, cannot be seen, heard, touched, or smelt. even the "sixth sense" cannot find nothing but it can find the absence of something. but alas the absence of something is not nothing as there may be another something in its place. but if nothing is impossible it means that all matter is surrrounded by nothing and all small gaps are full of nothing. but how do you fill something with nothing? simply you remove all existance or matter in side of this something. but to do that creates a vacum sucking the sides or walls of this something towards its exit for matter. thus leaving a flat something with a lack of nothing. but... according to the nothing is impossible theory this piece or literature does not exist, therefore classifying it as nothing. but how could you read nothing? you cant but yet you may still be reading this document. there was another contradiction as its impossible to read nonexistance. but it is possible according to the quote.... so the famous quote
Quote:
"to be or not to be?"

can now be answered with the quote
Quote:
"nothing is impossible",

just be and not be at the same time as nothing exists as i have already theorised by the fact of its non existance.

[Ixion]

I think it was better when KB posts stuck to lace doilies and flower arranging.

[ducatilover]

my mum has some tiger-lillies. should we talk about her award wining global artichoke?:laugh:

[myvice]

So we have discovered that there is no nothing...
And how cold is this lack of nothing that we have?

[Ixion]

We have also demonstrated the existence of globe artichokes - is that not something?

[APPLE]

i was just wondering, is it possible to bring an object or just a single atomic particle to absolute zero? [-273.149c if my 5th form memory serves me right] and if so wont the object or atomic particle be completely stationary? or motionless?:mellow: [i got bored on the trip to wellington to see the surgeon yesterday] so if anyone here could explain it to me....

and i really want to learn about anti-matter, i'm assuming the only way to store anti-matter would be in an electro-magnetic feild...otherwise it will be in contact with matter and umm yeah we would cease to exist depending on the amount of anti matter ofcourse:wacko:
Dat shit is 2 heavy 4 me man?

[steved]

Nothing is impossible.

Often wonder why the quest for absolute zero, and what they hope to achieve.
Where they just sitting around till someone said “Hey, lets freeze the fuck out of something” and it grew from there?
Powered on by the dream to have the biggest ice-cream headache ever?
I like the unified field theory tho, so I’m no better.Also, from the glory that is wikipedia;

"At very low temperatures in the vicinity of absolute zero, matter exhibits many unusual properties including superconductivity, superfluidity, and Bose-Einstein condensation. In order to study such phenomena, scientists have worked to obtain ever lower temperatures."

Superconductivity is of obvious commercial interest.

IMO, true science doesn't have a specific goal. Scientists write 'dream goals' in grants to get the money but usually it's about just trying to discover something new. Who would have thought a highly coherent stream of mono-chromatic photons would be so damn useful (lasers)?

[Wolf]

Also, from the glory that is wikipedia;

"At very low temperatures in the vicinity of absolute zero, matter exhibits many unusual properties including superconductivity, superfluidity, and Bose-Einstein condensation. In order to study such phenomena, scientists have worked to obtain ever lower temperatures."

Superconductivity is of obvious commercial interest.
In order to be of any real commercial use, superconductivity needs to occur at "room temperature" or thereabouts. A lot of work is being done on researching superconductivity at room temperature.

[myvice]

We have also demonstrated the existence of globe artichokes - is that not something?
Yes that is indeed something, as it is not nothing.
Would a super conductor work at absolute zero?
If it is at true absolute zero then there should be no electron movement.
So pure science is for the quest of knowledge, the same as pure art?
Is the quest for absolute zero just a marking ploy by a certain vodka company?

[bigbadwolf]

FYI, the coldest temperature ever recorded is 450 picoKelvin, which is 0.000000000045 degrees above absolute zero. At temperatures such as this, a group of atoms behave as one superatom, and magnetic fields can be used to separate the atoms and cool them further (this is the Bose-Einstein concentrate some people have mentioned). This experiment was achieved by a team of scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in the States. The results were published in Science magazine on September 12, 2003. They used something called a "gravito-magnetic" trap, which somehow holds atoms more lightly than a pure magnetic field, and in theory, even lower temperatures should be possible using the same technique. Most of this stuff is so far over my head that it could shit on me from up there and it would be 3 weeks before my hair suddenly feels all sticky...

[ducatilover]

So we have discovered that there is no nothing...
And how cold is this lack of nothing that we have?
fucken cold cos i have the fire going:clap:

[Pixie]

The cool thing about quantum physics is that it postulates that entire universes can just pop into existence from nowhere. Or , strictly, if I remember correctly, out of 6 (or 20 ?) dimensional space. The REALLY cool thing is that, the former being so, by corollary, existing universes (like ours) can pop OUT of existence just like *that*. I find this a very reassuring concept.
11 space.
The 4 dimensions we are familiar with plus 7 more dimensions that are folded in on themselves on a sub atomic scale.

Physicists are trying to find out what happened to all the anti-matter,since the most functional models of the universe predict that an equal amount of anti-matter and matter was created at the beginning.

all energy production from nuclear reactions (fusion or fission) is due to some of the mass of the nucleus being converted to photons (E=MC2)

String theory predicts that all particles are formed by vibrating "strings",the nature of the vibration determining the type of particle.At the moment astrophysicists are looking for super strings millions of lightyears long,by the gravity lens effect they will have on the view of stars as seen from the earth,when the string passes in front of the star.

Brane theory is a development of string theory (or vice versa) which describes our universe as a membrane of 4 dimensions in 11 dimensional space (or multiverse).A super string is thought to be created when two membranes (universes) accidentally intersect like one sheet of paper passing through another.

[steved]

In order to be of any real commercial use, superconductivity needs to occur at "room temperature" or thereabouts. A lot of work is being done on researching superconductivity at room temperature.Yeah, although when superconductors broke the liquid nitrogen barrier (77 K), they began to have some limited appeal in the commerical world. especially motors. Still, they are selling on 'cool' factor a bit. Put the world nano- in there and double the price. You are right though that if they ever manage to produce a ductile wire that exhibits superconductivity at temperatures greater than 298 K, the material will have a profound affect on the world.

[steved]

just be and not be at the same time as nothing exists as i have already theorised by the fact of its non existance.Ever heard of Schrodinger's Cat? I think you'll like the concepts around this idea. Also, try some John Gribbin books. Pretty well written pop-science.

[Pixie]

Ever heard of Schrodinger's Cat? I think you'll like the concepts around this idea. Also, try some John Gribbin books. Pretty well written pop-science.
I used to feed Schrodinger's cat when he was on holiday.
Then someone shot it and I think it ended up in a combination chow mein

[k14]

I used to feed Schrodinger's cat when he was on holiday.
Then someone shot it and I think it ended up in a combination chow mein
Yeah wondered what ever happend to that cat... You seen maxwells demon lately? Seems to have dissapeared into thin air.

[Wolf]

I used to feed Schrodinger's cat when he was on holiday.
Then someone shot it and I think it ended up in a combination chow mein
Good-o, that's at least more humane than what bloody Schrodinger used to do to the poor moggy!

Fuckin' radioactive isotopes indeed!

[ducatilover]

there are some pretty intelligent motherfuckers on this site:Punk:

i was trying to explain my theory of "nothing is impossible" to the missus but she got confused. she got confused with alot of physics stuff i was trying to explain to her, and she completed all her physics exams with merit and excellence:rofl: bloody woman:grouphug:

[bigbadwolf]

The 4 dimensions we are familiar with plus 7 more dimensions that are folded in on themselves on a sub atomic scale.

It is very hard to comprehend more dimensions than the ones we are familiar with: width, depth, length and time. Here is an explanation that makes it easier to understand:

Imagine, if you will, a 2 dimensional universe. Everything is measured in length and width, but there is no depth whatsoever. In this 2 dimensional universe, a sphere (that is, a 3 dimensional circular object) passes through it, like a tennis ball passing through a piece of paper. In our universe, we would see the whole sphere passing through, but in the 2 dimensional universe, the people that lived there would see a 2 dimensional circle that gets bigger and bigger as the largest part of the sphere approaches, then smaller and smaller until it has passed through completely.

What this shows us is that, theoretically, objects with 5 or more dimensions could be passing through our universe all the time, but since we can only comprehend 4 dimensions, we would not actually realise what we were seeing.

[ducatilover]

so has there been any discovey of these other dimensions and what do we know about them? this is ineresting:hitcher:

[Wolf]

Imagine, if you will, a 2 dimensional universe. Everything is measured in length and width, but there is no depth whatsoever. ...the people that lived there would see a 2 dimensional circle that gets bigger and bigger as the largest part of the sphere approaches, then smaller and smaller until it has passed through completely.
and it would appear to take no time at all to do so as they lack that dimension as well...

[ducatilover]

and it would appear to take no time at all to do so as they lack that dimension as well...
but then how could it pass through, wouldnt it take time for it to grow and shrink?

[Wolf]

but then how could it pass through, wouldnt it take time for it to grow and shrink?
it would pass through but the occupants of that plane (literally since it's 2-dimensional) would not be able to perceive the time it took (or whether the flat-chicken or flat-egg came first or that there could be a "first" and "last" :devil2: )

[ducatilover]

it would pass through but the occupants of that plane (literally since it's 2-dimensional) would not be able to perceive the time it took (or whether the flat-chicken or flat-egg came first or that there could be a "first" and "last" :devil2: )
so you mean it could seem to have taken ages but also instantly at the same um time?

[steved]

so you mean it could seem to have taken ages but also instantly at the same um time?Warp Factor 9 Scotty!

She cannae handle it cap'um!

[*sic]

nope, absolute zero can never be reached, it can be approached, but you'll never get there there'll always been quantum fluctuations which give an object some finite non-zero temperature

[steved]

Good-o, that's at least more humane than what bloody Schrodinger used to do to the poor moggy!

Fuckin' radioactive isotopes indeed!Yeah, but Schrodinger's cat was neither alive nor dead (or both simultaneously). Surely a better fate than sticking to the end of a chopstick?

[ducatilover]

nope, absolute zero can never be reached, it can be approached, but you'll never get there there'll always been quantum fluctuations which give an object some finite non-zero temperature
alright now thats how its supposed to be explained thanks:Punk:

[Wolf]

so you mean it could seem to have taken ages but also instantly at the same um time?
Maybe. Possibly it would seem to have always been whatever size it currently is (talk about "short term memory" problems...)

[ducatilover]

Maybe. Possibly it would seem to have always been whatever size it currently is (talk about "short term memory" problems...)
so what about our 4d world is there any possibility we would discover any more dimensions?

[Wolf]

so what about our 4d world is there any possibility we would discover any more dimensions?
Probably have to make do with postulating their existence based on the four-dimensional intersections between their n-dimensional nature and our 4-dimensional universe.

The comments about the time dimension I made illustrate a major problem:

Whilst we can easily comprehend something having three of our 4 dimensions (say, length, width and time (as it has to exist for some period)) and how a four dimensional figure would act passing through it as per my big bad "cousin's" suggestion - a point then a circle at first growing then shrinking over time until it becomes a point and vanishes - but it is difficult to comprehend what it would be like without that intangible dimension of "time".

No "before", no "after" no "duration" no sequence of events etc.

Now reverse that. Those other dimensions that are imperceptable to us: could we be able to conceive of them - we have nothing to measure them against, no frames of reference because we cannot look outside of our 4 dimensions to see them. We may see a four dimensional object and its behaviour may not appear abnormal because we cannot see it's behaviour in the 5th and 6th dimensions. To us it may be obeying all known physical laws for standard four dimensional objects but lack the ability to see what is happpening in the other dimensions.

The only way we could know that an object has more than 4 dimensions is if its movements in the "higher" dimensions somehow affect its behaviour in the 4 we perceive - and what sort of behaviour changes should we expect, if any?

[ducatilover]

i see what you mean. but then its possible that many things existing in our universe are of more than 4 dimensions but seeing as we are unable to comprehend this we dont notice? perhaps this is how all this supernaturaul/pehenomena type stuff occurs

[Wolf]

i see what you mean. but then its possible that many things existing in our universe are of more than 4 dimensions but seeing as we are unable to comprehend this we dont notice? perhaps this is how all this supernaturaul/pehenomena type stuff occurs
Welcome to the exciting worlds of Neopagandom and Technopaganism :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Ixion]

so what about our 4d world is there any possibility we would discover any more dimensions?
Well, scientists have "discovered" more dimensions mathematically, and perhaps in sub-nuclear physics experiments.

[Maha]

Went to ( what i thought was) an english exam, turned out it was a maths exam but once i was in they wouldnt let me out. The 1st question was ' Calculate the compound interest of a parabolic triangle and divide it by the time it takes two men to mow a field of three acres' didnt see the answer jumping out at me so i wrote an essay on what i did in the holidays. Got 36% which suprised me cos in i wrote the same essay in the english exam and got 28%...:clap: the topic of anti matter and little wee tiny things came a year later but i had left by then to get a job to get some money to by a bike :ride:

[Ixion]

and it would appear to take no time at all to do so as they lack that dimension as well...
This is an important point: Since there is no time dimension, each "iteration" of the "circle" would appear at the same time. So it would not be a circle that got bigger and smaller- it would be just a TWO dimensional "filled in" circle that was always there (and always had been - remember no time goes both ways). So the flat landers would not be able to percieve it all.

Interesting that we always think "two dimensions - length and breadth" - In fact what is really meant is three dimensions - time, length, breadth. Two would be time and lengthg - our Stringlanders.

[Wolf]

Interesting that we always think "two dimensions - length and breadth" - In fact what is really meant is three dimensions - time, length, breadth. Two would be time and lengthg - our Stringlanders.
Time always has to be one of the dimensions in order for us to comprehend and for it to have "existence" in any way that we perceive it.

I wonder if it is even possible for an object or a set of dimensions - ours or antone else's - to not have the time dimension.

[Ixion]

Time always has to be one of the dimensions in order for us to comprehend and for it to have "existence" in any way that we perceive it.

I wonder if it is even possible for an object or a set of dimensions - ours or antone else's - to not have the time dimension.


I think so , remember time is really "lapsed time" - so a "everything frozen in a perpetual now" would be timeless .

[bigbadwolf]

I wonder if it is even possible for an object or a set of dimensions - ours or antone else's - to not have the time dimension

There's always the possibility of a dimension that is completely different from time, yet gives a similar effect? I guess we'll never know...


Welcome to the exciting world of Technopaganism

Oh, you mean the belief that magic can affect technological processes as well as natural processes? I don't know about you but saying that certain things happen because of magic would make life a hell of a lot easier to understand!!! :killingme :killingme :killingme

[ducatilover]

now im getting kinda confused.
i dont belive in all those god thingys but prefer to believe in joe satriani as my god. and maybe rossi would be a demigod. but this science shit is fucken awesome as it is reality or theorised reality:yes:

[Wolf]

I think so , remember time is really "lapsed time" - so a "everything frozen in a perpetual now" would be timeless .
In which nothing could happen - to move requires you to cover a physical distance in an elapsed time - time is one of the defining components of acceleration/deceleration and velocity. Events need "time" in which to happen and time for cause to follow effect.

A frozen "now" would have no "past" in which things happened and no "future" filled with change - a constant eternal sameness - not even atomic- or quantum-level movement or state changes could occur, for in order for change to occur there has to have been a past in which things were different. Alternatively, everything would have to simultaneously exist everywhere in that "universe" as all possible past, present and future iterations of all movement (right down to sub-atomic level and quantum states) co-exists - that filled in circle again but everywhere all at once.

2 Points: two objects cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time and if everything did somehow simultaneously occupy everywhere, again movement would be impossible even at subatomic level (nowhere to move to, already there anyway) and quantum states could not change as the quanta are already simultaneously all states - nothing happens, no change, back to square one.

Time - or some other dimension with similar properties (thanks, bigbadwolf) - needs to exist or be perceived in order to literally "get things moving".

[Wolf]

There's always the possibility of a dimension that is completely different from time, yet gives a similar effect? I guess we'll never know...
And if it has the same effect, we might as well call it "time" and if it has interesting features that our time dimension hasn't got we can put really cool prefixes on it like "meta" or "hyper" (if a "poorer relation" we could go for "quasi" or "pseudo").

As they say in multiverse 307: "Meta-time flies when you're having g'blurgit!"


Oh, you mean the belief that magic can affect technological processes as well as natural processes? I don't know about you but saying that certain things happen because of magic would make life a hell of a lot easier to understand!!! :killingme :killingme :killingme

Well, when it comes down to it, "solid" matter isn't and it is well known that energy fields can and do affect other energy fields so "mind" (a measurable energy) affecting "matter" (basically just different flavours of energy holding each other together) is quite conceivable.

My (albeit sketchy) grasp of quantum theory, subatomic "particles", chaos theory and such lead me to believe that even if there were no gods and/or goddesses, a sufficiently practised human could affect the world around him/her with the power of the mind and/or manipulating other forms of energy (light and sound being two easily-controlled energy sources to work with) - the practitioner wouldn't even need to understand the "science" to make it work, any more than early alchemists needed to know the complex chemical reactions in refining phosphorus - experimentation and taking note of what works would be sufficient. Who is to say that a tribe of Native Americans dancing around a fire and chanting can't cause it to rain when theoretically a butterfly flapping it's wings in London could set off a chain of events that causes a hurricane in Florida - but whereas the butterfly is random, the tribe is focussed; minds working together to poke and prod the relevant particles, sound vibrations in tried and tested patterns...

Who knows.