physics

[raul]

it actaully has a goal, unlike math: to explain reality. Matter, energy, time, space, what are those things? Those are the only 4 things in existence, according to physics. Math is just pure thought, some mathematicians, including my self will tell you that nothing is real, a statement which clearly shows that math and beatles do have at least one thing in common. They'll, as will I, tell you that neither matter, energy, time, or space exist. So, what's this thread for then? I dont care if they exist, im still interested in physics.

First of all, Newton's 3 axioms are wrong, as is his entire work in physics, as shown later by Einstein: nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, and only light (more or less) can travel at the speed of light, which is finite: around 300 000 km/s. All charachteristics of reality change, if the speed changes. Greater the speed, greater the mass, time changes. As we approach the speed of light, mass approaches infinity, time approaches nothing.

Second of all mass bends space. In fact it changes the geometry of space.

Third of all Einsteins magna opus isnt his, its Bernhard Riemann's idea, who was a German mathematician, one of the greatest ever.

fourth of all einstein was also wrong at everything.

fifth of all, the only area of physics which might lead us to the real truth is quantuum physics, actually quantuum mechanics and quantuum electrodynamics.

sixth of all, einstein was extremely opposed to quantuum physics, saying "God doesnt play dice" (everything in quantuum physics is coincidental, its an anti-science, defies common sence, all logic, when Max Planck created it many "classical" physicists actullly lost their minds, not being able to deal with the insanity and irrationality of it. In the end einstein lost his mind, too, beaten by Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac, who created a consistant mathematical system for quantuum mechanics, by which he defeated einsteins attempt to acheave the goal i mentioned in the beginning, by proving that if quantuum mechanics is true, einstein's attempt "unified field theory " is false.

Finally 7th of all, quantuum physics is a psychedelic science, when you do it, its like you take LSD and do physics that isnt quantuum.

[jesgear]

I was just gonna say that :cross2:

[raul]

then you must be traveling near the speed of light, cause "just" is about the time.

Even though its a spamm, itll be short, and i HAVET to say it-i cant enter the chat room! and i wanna talk to you people!!! And I dont dare send anyone a pm, itd be imposing.....


back to topic
Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac is the greatest physicist ever, he basically DESTROYED Einstein, mind you, Einstein, so go figure HIS iq!

[Georgie Girl]

All science is applied math. :smile2:

[BadLittleKid]

All science is applied math. :smile2:

Not sure. I think all science is just asking a question and discovering an answer.

If it was just maths we couldn't explain anything.

That there must be a question and answer method is important if you were a captain in a ship with 1,000 passengers in a storm - you need to have adequate amount of information to steer the ship clear.

[Georgie Girl]

Not sure. I think all science is just asking a question and discovering an answer.

If it was just maths we couldn't explain anything.

That there must be a question and answer method is important if you were a captain in a ship with 1,000 passengers in a storm - you need to have adequate amount of information to steer the ship clear.
That would be a practical application of math. :devious:

[BadLittleKid]

That would be a practical application of math. :devious:

Too difficult. :angel4:

[beatlebangs1964]

Chaos Theory - intense!

[raul]

this is from the book physics 1 vucic ivanovic

its from classical dynamics

lets observe the next case. let an observer who is situated on the axes of the rotation of a room tells a ball an initial speed and let it roll...alll night long hahaha....and let it roll on the floor. the ball has been let off the axes of rotation and hasn't recieved any circular motion, only the initial speed in the radial line. the forces of friction are to be neglected, the ball later while rolling wont recieve any acceleration. for an observer outside the room the motion of the ball will be straightforward (motion on the straight line) with the constant speed v, for an observer in the room this motion will be a curved one, meaning accelerated.

ill continue later

[chaitanya]

Galileo Galilei said : tha math is the tongue with God written the universe...

[BadLittleKid]

Galileo Galilei said : tha math is the tongue with God written the universe...

And Stephen Hawkin said that once/if he meets God he'll be able to talk with him mathematically. Imagine.

[raul]

All science is applied math. :smile2:

i just checked out that youre ok with me, so..
im not gonna torture you with "math is a science, and its not applied math!hehee", cause you might reply "math is IN IT SELF applied math :devious: "
so, whats applied math? Math in OTHER sciences. so, yeah gtha!
but enough of the battle of sexes (now that ive won:smoking2: )
philosophy is a science. is it applied math? No. Philosophy is wider than logic, therefore wider than math, that is pre-hilbertian math. Its gonna get REALLY complicated now. b4 david hilbert-jesus christ of math-math was just common sense, plain and simple. But he questionned EVERYTHING, even logic, common sense it self, philosophy, any math, EVERYTHING. He created philosophy of math, and a SCHISME between mathematicians resulted.

hilbert's program

Although in the works in which he formulates his program, he, here and there, continues to say that in math the truth is the same as the consistency, it looks that this thesis doesnt have any meaning any longer, now one has to understand it in the context of others more complicated points of view, and they can be stated without the thesis.

to better understand the place of the hilbert program in the philodsophies of math, ill give a classification of them, based onthe crituria of theory of significense

if on the question if math statements relate to something, does something respond to them as to language objects, which, in return, they describe, we answer NO, we get STRICT formalisme. it has been consistently point of view of curry (not the sauce) one of the creators of combinatorial logic. more often we have the situation where a certain point of view only approaches to certain extent to strict formalisme. I wont get into other philosophies of math, id rather live. suffice to say hilbert was a strict formalist, according to his ideas. His line of thinking-now known as his 2nd problem, (and not that its not solved, its not KNOWN if its solved!) was-prove that axioms of arithmetics arent contradictory, ie starting from them its impossible, in a finite number of logical steps, to obtain results which contradict each other. He was on a way to establish it-to prove that math EXISTS, but in 1938 godel proved his 2 famous a nd crucial incompleteness theorems-a theory is consistent if and only if its inconsistent! hhahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa how bout that for logic? he DESTROYED math. But it depends on which philosophy of math you support- only if you support platonisme, which 99% of mathematicians do, and i dont, it holds. so, it consideres consistency of math theories. one of the basic disciplines of mathematical logic, proof theory, was developed directly from the effort to solve this problem. So, where do we go now? where do we go?

[raul]

Galileo Galilei said : tha math is the tongue with God written the universe...

one other thing he said-eppur si muove, when reppressed into submission by church if earth revolves around the sun. he claimed it does, church has recognised it only a few years ago!!!hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaa
whats the most ridiculous is that it doesnt matter- BOTH earth revolves around the sun (if you take the sun as point of departure) and sun revolves around the earth, if you take earth as point of departure. if you dont believe me, look through the window(although thats rotation and revolution)

he was forced to LIE (hahahha) that earth doesnt revolve, but what he said in the end was"but, it revolves afterall"hahaaaaaaa

[raul]

this is from the book physics 1 vucic ivanovic

its from classical dynamics

lets observe the next case. let an observer who is situated on the axes of the rotation of a room tells a ball an initial speed and let it roll...alll night long hahaha....and let it roll on the floor. the ball has been let off the axes of rotation and hasn't recieved any circular motion, only the initial speed in the radial line. the forces of friction are to be neglected, the ball later while rolling wont recieve any acceleration. for an observer outside the room the motion of the ball will be straightforward (motion on the straight line) with the constant speed v, for an observer in the room this motion will be a curved one, meaning accelerated.

ill continue later

The ball will turn off the line in which the observer gave it its initial speed. The turning off of the ball will be opposite to the direction of the rotation. The observer in the room will then conclude that a force orthogonal to the line of the initial speed acts on the ball and that it turnd it off this line in which by inertion it should move. This kind of force is called the Coriolis' force. The quantity of this force is given by the expression F(C) = 2mωv(r), where v(r) is the relative speed of the body to the system which rotates.

The Coriolis' force can be shown also in the case of the motion of an insect radially along the disc which rotates.

The expression F(c) = 2mωv(r) can be obtained in the following manner: Let the body be situated in the point B during motion by the speed v(r) in a radial line on a disc which rotates by the speed v(r) = rω, where r is the distance from the axis (which is not bold as love) of the rotation O. In a certain period of time Δt let the body (not bode miller) in the radial line cross the path
BC = v(r) Δt .

Let in that same time period the point B of the disc describe the arc BB(1). If v(t) would be constant, then after the time period of Δt the body would arrive at the point C(2). However, v(t) increases because of the increasing distance r and the body arrives at the point C(1). Since C(1)B(1) = CB =
= v(r) Δt, the consequence is C(1)C(2) ≈ v(r) Δt Δφ, where Δφ is the angle which the disc describes in the time Δt. So, the body is moving along the radius by a certain acceleration a.

I'll continue later.

[Serena]

math is simply just a tool to explain certain aspects with more accuracy. i am not sure i'd say all science is math, some scientific questions can simply be answered through cause and effect. depending on what you want to find out, math may apply.

[raul]

This is from the book Atomska i nuklearna fizika by Ivanović and Vučić.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

The energy of the relation of the nuclei towards their size shows that the nucleus contains relatively large energy, called nuclear energy. Releasing that energy has become one of the central problems of nuclear technics and physics. From the formula for the mass of nuclei it's possible to discover the quantitive side of the problem, as well.

Nuclear fission

In the year 1939, after long and hard researches of a great number of scientists, it has been definitively established (Hahn and Strassmann) that the nuclei of Uranium can be split into two pieces, by bombarding it with neutrons. It has been established that the 2 pieces are elements somewhere in the middle of the Periodical system of elements. This phenomenon is called nuclear fission or fission of the atomic nucleus. The 2 pieces as the products of fission aren't of equal mass. Usually their masses relate around 2 : 3. There are no 2 specific elements as constant and only products (pieces) of fission. Hencefore, the dynamical law is nonexistant here, using which one could predict without uncertainty which elements will appear as products of fission.

The energy of the nuclear reactions known before the discovery of fission is relatively small, - its value was 22 MeV at the most.

There's also the fission of nuclei with 3 or more pieces, but the number of those fissions is incomparesably smaller than of those with 2 pieces.

So, when the atomic nucleus emmits an α-particle or a foundamental particle, such process isn't called fission. Fission is the splitting of the atomic nucleus in 2 (or more) "heavy" pieces.

The first experiments of fission of the atomic nucleus were done by bombarding the nucleus of uranium. The main 2 uranium's isotopes are U(238) and U(235).

I'll continue later.

[raul]

U(238) represents 99.27% of the natural uranium, and U(235) around 0.72%.

Uranium can be splitted by neutrons of high and of low energy.

This cathegorisation is in respect to kinetical energies of neutron. Fast neutrons have high energies, whereas slow neutrons of low energy have a speed which correspond to termical movement of molecules, hence the name termical neutrons. For the nucleus of U(239), fast neutrons are needed of the energy of over 1 MeV. One can cause fissions of the isotopes U(233), U(235) and P(239) by thermical neutrons. Out of these isotopes in nature one finds only U(235). The nuclei of this isotope can be splitted both by thermical (slow) and fast neutrons, but it's far more efficient if it's done by thermical ones. The effective intersection of fission (for such a reaction) is reciprocaly proportional to the speed of the neutron, which means it's proportional to the time of keeping the neutrons close to the neclei. Of course, this is a rough illustration of this process, which is essentially complicated.
Except by neutrons, fission can appear by electrisized particles, as well.

I'll continue later.

[raul]

The ball will turn off the line in which the observer gave it its initial speed. The turning off of the ball will be opposite to the direction of the rotation. The observer in the room will then conclude that a force orthogonal to the line of the initial speed acts on the ball and that it turnd it off this line in which by inertion it should move. This kind of force is called the Coriolis' force. The quantity of this force is given by the expression F(C) = 2mωv(r), where v(r) is the relative speed of the body to the system which rotates.

The Coriolis' force can be shown also in the case of the motion of an insect radially along the disc which rotates.

The expression F(c) = 2mωv(r) can be obtained in the following manner: Let the body be situated in the point B during motion by the speed v(r) in a radial line on a disc which rotates by the speed v(r) = rω, where r is the distance from the axis (which is not bold as love) of the rotation O. In a certain period of time Δt let the body (not bode miller) in the radial line crosses the path
BC = v(r) Δt .

Let in that same time period the point B of the disc describe the arc BB(1). If v(t) would be constant, then after the time period of Δt the body would arrive at the point C(2). However, v(t) increases because of the increasing distance r and the body arrives at the point C(1). Since C(1)B(1) = CB =
= v(r) Δt, the consequence is C(1)C(2) ≈ v(r) Δt Δφ, where Δφ is the angle which the disc describes in the time Δt. So, the body is moving along the radius by a certain acceleration a.

I'll continue later.

Because of that acceleration the body crosses the path Δs = C(1)C(2). So, Δs = v(r) ΔtΔφ. Since Δφ = ωΔt,

Δs = v(r) ω (Δt)^2.

From the general relation for accelerated movement

Δs = 1/2 a (Δt)^2

one gets by simplifying

1/2 a(Δt)^2 =v(r)ω (Δt)^2,

or a = 2ωv(r).

[raul]

this is from the classic and reference physics textbook of the university in berkeley. quantum physics, berkeley physics course-volume 4 by wichmann

chapter 1

introduction

reach of quantum physics

1. In this part of the textbook we will explore the physics of the atom, nuclei, and elementary particles. During this course we will encounter new principles of nature-quantum phenomena. The volume is thereby called quantum physics. Modern, generally accepted mathematical theory of quantum phenomena is called quantum mechanics.
"quantum physics" isnt to be considered as something relating to the macroscopical world. The whole of physics is, in fact, quantum and its laws, as we understand them today, are the most general laws of nature.

2. In past volumes we studied physical phenomena of the macroscopic world. Natural laws which we encountered there refer to classical physics. Generally we can say that classical physics deals with phenomena in which the microstrusture of matter doesnt play an important role. However, in this volume we will study elementary particles, so we must try to establish the laws which guide the behavior of these particles. It's natural that we focus our attantion to the physical cases in which these laws will appear as clearly as possible, which means we will study examples of interactions of only a few particles. Most of the physics in this volume could be therefore called "microphysics": it's about "small" systems with a small number of particles.
However, if we know the foundamental laws which guide elementary particles, we can also, at least in principle, predict the behaviour of macroscopic physical systems, which are substituted of a very large number of elementary particles. This means that the laws of classical physics arent included in the laws of microphysics, in that sense quantum mechanics appears as a foundation for understanding both microcosmos and macrocosmos.

3. By implying the laws of classical physics on the macrospopic systems, we are trying to describe only the global features of the behaviour of the system. In that way, for example, we observe the movement of the "solid body" as a whole, but we don't try to discuss on movements of the elementary particles out of which it is composed. That's the basic characteristic of all classical theories: by applying them to the macroscopical systems, we neglect small details of such systems and we don't try to comprehend all aspects of the physical situation. In that sense the laws of classical physics are only an approximation of the true natural laws. We need to consider them as a boundary case of the more powerful and comprehensive laws of quantum physics.

Classical theories are, in other words, phenomenological theories. Such a theory attempts at describing experimental data in an epitomized way in a restricted area of physics. One doesn't expect from phenomenological theories to explain all phenomena in physics, but a good phenomenological theory

[raul]

Because of that acceleration the body crosses the path Δs = C(1)C(2). So, Δs = v(r) ΔtΔφ. Since Δφ = ωΔt,

Δs = v(r) ω (Δt)^2.

From the general relation for accelerated movement

Δs = 1/2 a (Δt)^2

one gets by simplifying

1/2 a(Δt)^2 =v(r)ω (Δt)^2,

or a = 2ωv(r).

This acceleration is orthogonal to the speed v(r).The acceleration a(c) equal to this one, but of the opposite direction is called Coriolis' acceleration. The force opposite to the force which causes this acceleration of the body of the mass m is called Coriolis' force. As it can be seen, it's value is

F(c) = 2mωv(r). ............(1)