General / Off-Topic Just a laugh. Anyone want to understand why you can't understand the Universe?

[Winterwalker]

It's relatively easy. As you approach C, your mass approaches infinity. You just need to go in reverse really, really fast for the opposite effect.

[video=youtube;Vxn7LZAzqhY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxn7LZAzqhY[/video]

I'm not all that clear on what the + - o, V and < in the diagram, represent.

It does look dimensionless but there are quite few examples of dimensionless quantities (Euler, elasticity, pH or Mach number, list) so I'm not sure where it gets us, really really, without a clearer idea of what the diagram is trying to represent?

 

[Gypsy12]

Alright then.

Ive done the first bit. The second bit describes the Universe we are in. + for everything positive, 0 for Spacetime and - for everything negative.
Next bit is the fade out. After all, our Universe wont be around for ever. + and - for decay of possibility and finally V for the resolution of the Paradox. Full circle if you will.

 

[moorison]

Now I have enough information to read the code. If anything, this discussion provides an example of why sometimes a few more words are required to convey an idea, especially regarding these concepts that extend our own limited experiences. But words are not as exact as they need to be either. I think the usual definition of paradoxes include the lack of a definitive answer.

There are a few ideas regarding the end of the universe, it having an end is not the only one. But as said before, time can be a tricky thing if we reach states that unfortunately don't support life as we know it. This would also be an example of an unsatisfying answer.
We could argue that it ends at that moment life is not possible anymore, even if it might continue for an eternity following the fundamental laws as we understand them.

 

[Gypsy12]

Just out of curiosity. How badly did I do in this conversation. I will at some stage have to write a book. And guys... It does not look good. Did I get any points across? Is it all waffle to you?

 

[Gypsy12]

Btw. I screwed up last night. Being tipsy and all. It should read < + -, - 0 +, + - v... In a funny kinda way you can use both. They are interchangeable. Anyhow...For clarity's sake, after the first run, the Universe is then isolated. The middle represents OUR universe, and the end, time. The last line indicates ultimate expansion and the decay of entropy to the stage, where again entropy or possibility is not possible. And we return to the original problem. The paradox has been resolved, but for how long?

 

[Gypsy12]

Can anyone help with Writing? I could really do with getting this "Out there" I just don't know how to explain it. It would be great.

EDIT: Presentation wise. So many people come to instant decisions. Maybe it's my fault.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

We can’t make T.O.E.’s because we’re not F.E.E.T.

 

[RexKraemer]

I think it should be explained better.
First, what problem are you trying to solve, which question to answer? In which realm are you thinking?
Second, what are the assumptions, what do we have to take as a base for the theory?
And third, the theory, the model.

Do not start with the solution.

 

[SMcA]

Sarcasm...Of course you can...

Irony not sarcasm. I believe.

 

[Gully Foyle]

Sarcasm...Of course you can...


But it takes some doing. It might be interesting for the Dev's to take a look at this as well. Would anyone like a peek at why we cant make a T.O.E? There is a lot of psychological honesty to be done here. But, sure, I can build you a Universe. And! I shall prove it! Draw a tic tac toe diagram. So you have 9 squares. Top Left: Draw this in order: < + - Next line: -0+ Next line: +-V. Study it carefully. Our universe lies in the middle line. Running from left to right. That diagram you just drew is the answer to everything. It's why we have to unlearn our mental processes.

Just stop now, and think about yourself. You have a job interview. The very last thing you will want to think about is "Maybe". You have a job as a stock analyst. Your boss questions you - Yes or No? God no, that is the last thing you want to do. In this world we are programmed to respond as a mathematical person. You will tally the options and give the best result. And it is always going to be either positive or negative. But this is very interesting. If you look at it, its always going to be a one sided argument. You yourself are only ever a part of the system, and can only ever agree. As a human, looking at it, you are forced to make a consequential, and important for the firm you deal with...answer. Which in turn will always be a one sided positive. For you side. In other words, would you agree that we aim to please?

Naturally...It's what we do. Because we are a society. But here is the problem with our heads. The Universe does not care. It has 3 options: Fact, Fact and Fact.
Going to bed now.

Google Brane Theory.

11 universes hanging like blankets that bounce into each other at the quantum level.

What the high hootin' is a TOE?

 

[Gypsy12]

TOE is a theory of everything. We used to think we could cram everything we knew into one smooth as operating vehicle. Then quantum came along. And it utterly ruined us. We had no more idea after this point how to weld the hypothesis together. Im goin to bed now. xxx

 

[znôrt]

Sarcasm...Of course you can...

you might have something here.
it could be an indigestion.

 

[SMcA]

TOE is a theory of everything. We used to think we could cram everything we knew into one smooth as operating vehicle. Then quantum came along. And it utterly ruined us. We had no more idea after this point how to weld the hypothesis together. Im goin to bed now. xxx

Sweet dreams.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Last time I told someone they have a problem with their head, I got an infraction

Me too

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Brings to mind talk about energy states of vacuum & harnessing energy from that.

To extract energy there must be an energy gradiant, the energy of the vacuum is literally the lowest energy state available so you ain't getting any energy from it.

[video=youtube;Rh898Yr5YZ8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh898Yr5YZ8[/video]

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Cold cold fusion.

Why not start with hot hot fusion which actually works?

 

[Manticore]

This:

Hate to be all boring but I don't think we've hope of ever putting physics "all" together. Period, actually.

Great models of course, there are tons that work on a level we can use them but on the deeper level, of fully describing the Nature of the Universe? Imo it's an impossible problem because we can never (ever) step outside our Universe to get a datum (lack of Universe) to compare what's inside, to it. As such any scale you choose is always going to be arbitrary and I reckon we should really ask our best Cern Physicists to answer that one, before they use as much power as somewhere like Oslo does in a year, for a microsecond's fun again.

Brilliant replay.

Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future.-Niels Bohr

It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature.-Niels Bohr

If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet.-Niels Bohr

 

[Winterwalker]

Why not start with hot hot fusion which actually works?

Not hugely convinced about viability though as the process uses Tritium (fuel!) which isn't even a naturally occurring substance (plus I can do the same trick with petrol). There's apparently only about 25kgs usable on the planet and it's produced by fission reactors at a rate of less than 1kg per year worldwide if you care to collect it. It's highly radioactive and 99% is expected to be wasted during fusion, spreading it throughout the 'exhaust' systems and making it very difficult to reclaim, let alone clean. Carry on trying to achieve productive fusion I guess but it smacks a bit of all the eggs in one fairly iffy basket to me, when so called free energy devices get nil dollars in research funding. https://thebulletin.org/2018/02/iter-is-a-showcase-for-the-drawbacks-of-fusion-energy/

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Not hugely convinced about viability though as the process uses Tritium (fuel!) which isn't even a naturally occurring substance (plus I can do the same trick with petrol).

Next time you hear about a plant that fuses petrol, PM me. Burning a chemical is much less powerful than a nuclear reaction and that's why something like Uranium 235 has much higher energy densities plus it involves completely different processes.

There's apparently only about 25kgs usable on the planet and it's produced by fission reactors at a rate of less than 1kg per year worldwide if you care to collect it.

The "steady-state global inventory" is 2.65 Kg and up to 1996 the US had a 75 Kg stockpile although considering the 12.5 yr half life of tritium, there should be 22.14 Kg left assuming no tritium production and consumption of the stockpile since then.

Regarding the last part of this sentence, tritium is mostly created, one of the common ways is through the following reactions:

Li[SUB]6[/SUB] + n = He[SUB]4[/SUB] + H[SUB]3[/SUB]

He[SUB]3[/SUB] + n = p + H[SUB]3[/SUB]

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/2014101...s/downloads/2012/05/Tritium_1996_Zerriffi.pdf

It's highly radioactive and 99% is expected to be wasted during fusion, spreading it throughout the 'exhaust' systems and making it very difficult to reclaim, let alone clean.

It is highly radioactive but the radiation it emits is low energy beta rays (electrons) so it will not penetrate anything, for example, it penetrates 6 mm of air, 0.006 mm of water and "No 3H betas pass through the dead layer of skin". Also, it's half life within the body is 10-12 days plus it "is easily flushed from the body". At last, it has a short half life so it's not a long term hazard.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/2013052...u/content-forms/3anuclidedatasafetysheets.pdf

Regarding the 99% waste percentage, I have not found a single source that agrees with you but OFC that's your responsability to cite. In any case, the produced tritium may be chemically transformed into heavy water for easier storage and if it escapes in a gaseous state, it'll simply float to the top of the atmosphere and then probably be expelled of the atmosphere entierly.

(The rest is pending while I read some more)

 

[Winterwalker]

Next time you hear about a plant that fuses petrol, PM me.

Yes, I was being facetious but my point is more that if you have to put energy in - to prepare a fuel that's more likey to fuse - then that energy should be factored into your energy costs to work out your gain? In fact every pump, start up joule and infrastructure also counts, if it's necessary for fusion plant ops.

Good post (better than mine) what do you make of Neutron Radiation? My understanding (something I heard once) is that this is a problem for long term fusion as excessive neutron radiation - byproduct of fusion - degrades reactor materials, for example weakening in the Tokomak walls.

[up]