Post by Progenitor A on Feb 2, 2011 8:56:49 GMT 1
From STA on 1 Feb 2011
When discussing a direct quote from Einsteins work 'General Theory Of Relativity'!
He was WRONG!
To question is fine
To not give a fig is supremely idiotic
AND SOME MORE IDIOCIES
The scientific solecisms listed here will astonish anyone with any knowledge of science, engineering or technology. I have listed them because of the extreme arrogance and invariant rudeness of the author (who clims to be a physicist) in dismissing anyone that disagrees with her
Here she is talking about Shannon’s entropy law that simply sums entropy as follows: if we have two events then
Entropy = -(Probability of event 1 x Log Probability of event 1) + (Probability of event 2 x Log Probability of event 2)….
(And so on for more than 2 events)
Note how this simple definition is totally lost in the gobbledygook below
Also note this strange symbol E = \sum_{i} which is simply copied from Wikki without any understanding that it is a mis-posting of the symbol for Sigma (summed for all values of i) with Wikki using a font that is not recognised by the internet
Strictly speaking, the Shannon entropy of a source that produces random symbols (say i) with probability pi is given by the expectation value of -log p. So, if event i happens N times pi times (on average), then event i contributes an amount pi times -log pi to the expectation value. Summing over i (all possible symbols), gives the result:
E = \sum_{i} - pi log pi
Here she is attempting to explain the concept of entropy to someone (Abacus). Not the convoluted ‘question and answer’ sessions and the quite spurious application of a code based upon the answers.
In fact there are obviously 4 choices, therefore we need just 2 bits (22) to send the information, a fact that totally avoids her befudlement
This befuddlement is quite typical of this poster.
The basic idea is fairly straightforward. Suppose you and the receiver have agreed a codebook beforehand. What you want to send is one of some agreed set of messages. Suppose the possible messages MEAN:
tea, coffee, orange juice, cereal, or nothing.
It's your breakfast order! The point is, you want to send an order everyday, but you usually pick tea only 1/8 of the time, orange juice 3/8 of the time, cereal 1/4, and nothing 1/4.
Suppose I now ask what you want, but only using yes/no questions.
If the questions were:
do you want tea?
do you want coffee?
cereal?
That's 3 questions. If the answer to the first is yes, I don't have to ask any more -- I can just send 1 for yes. So tea is encoded as just 1.
Now here is a typical piece of total befuddlement that illustrates, from the extreme gobbledegook that the writer does not have a clue
What you mean by 'illusion' is rather difficult here, and prone to being hi-jacked by the usual woo-woo merchants...........
But as I understand it, the problems of black hole thermodynamics (we are used now to black holes having a temperature, but they also possess other thermodynamic properties like entropy -- you can also write this stuff in terms of information theory, which leads you to, in effect, where did all the information about the EXACT objects that formed the black hole go to, since the horizon seems pretty featureless?) and writing things down in terms of information theory,. lead to several; interesting relations. In particular, it seems as if the information content of a region depends on the AREA of the surface enclosing it, not the volume.
We are used to physics that sees the arena for stuff as being three dimensional -- and the number of degrees of freedom for stuff happening in a volume then depends on the volume! Yet the information results suggest area not volume.
Where do the information results come from? From trying to write down not a complete quantum theory of spacetime (we don't know how to do that yet), but certain reasonable-sounding estimates of the maximum number of degrees of freedom you can shove into a given volume.
Basically, if we have quantum gravity, then we expect that there is a meaning to 'smallest possible volume' in which you can have a quantum oscillator -- continuous spacetime replaced by a discrete grid, if you like, where the Planck length gives an idea of the size of the grid. For these quantum oscillators, you have an energy limit below (you can't have wavelengths larger than the volume you have chosen), and bounded from above by the Planck energy, the maximum energy you can shove into a fundamental volume. Which givesa finite number of states for the whole volume, hence a limit on how much information you can pack in.
Except that way of counting goes a bit wrong, because many of the higher-energy states would actually collpase into black holes, which would then take the information you were trying to store, and taking it outside this universe! Hence restricting to storage-system states that wouldn't collapse to black holes under their own gravity, we get a much SMALLER number of states, which happens to go as the area of the surface, rather than the volume.
Hence (bit hand-wavey here), the suggestion that the underlying theory (which encompasses quantum gravity and all that), will fundamentally be a theory of stuff on surfaces, not in volumes.
Except just because this is possible mathematically doesn't quite express what we mean by saying the world is really of lower dimensionality, that our perception of 3 of space and 1 of time is somehow an 'illusion' (as if we had faulty perception), rather than there just being fewer degrees of freedom than we might have thought.
I'm just rather sceptical about such ontological claims and how they get used (like the use of the word illusion).
More? She must be joking! But she is not!
Okay, we have the SHORT version of the holographic principle.
Physicists define the amount of information that could potentially be stored in a region. In simple terms, it's like asking how much you could store on your PC. So, if I had a system where each element could only have two states (0 or 1), then I could calculate the amount of information that could be stored if I had N such elements.
In the real world, the systems are a bit more complicated, but the principles are the same.
When they do this computation, including the possible effects of gravity (so, quantum gravity probably means that space should be treated as discrete, rather than continuous, and the associated scale is the Planck length. Gravity also places a limit on how much energy you can have in a given volume without it collapsing into a black hole through its own a gravity).
When you do that rough calculation, to try and place an upper bound on the information possible, you get a result that depends on the surface area, rather than the volume.
Which suggests that the correct fundamental theory should be a theory based on the surfaces surrounding a volume, rather than our current theories which describe states within the volume as the fundamental things of the universe.
Which is as simple as I can make it.
So, it's not really (as I understand it), that information about our universe is stored at its edge, but instead that the fundamental theory that describes our universe is a theory based on a surface (rather than a volume as we used to think), and that that fundamental theory can then be transformed mathematically to a theory on what we see as 3d space, but with the limited degrees of freedom that the upper limit on information content seems to be telling us.
But the transformation from surface to volume is, as far as I see, just maths. It doesn't mean that there is some magic interaction going on in our universe between the inside where we are, and the surface outside where the information lives. Nor is it the case that 3d is 'an illusion'.
It's actually a common situation in theoretical physics, where there are often various ways of writing down the same physics.
The use of the word hologram is because you can encode on a glass sheet (2D) information that gives the appearance of a 3D scene when you view it. Hence it seems as if the 3d information has been encoded in 2d.
You can compute that this is possible, but that doesn't, in the ordinary hologram case, say which is REAL -- and I really viewing this scene in 3d, or is it a 2d hologram?
Same for the holographic universe, it seems to me -- just because mathematically the fundamental theory may have to be written in terms of information on surfaces, doesn't necessarily mean that the surface is real and the 3d volume we see is 'the illusion'. Just means that the fundamnetal theory is a bit different from what we thought. But you can see how the 3d is an illusion, we are actually part of some cosmic hologram, appeals to the woo-woo element, just as the quantum theory, isn't it weird, appeals to them as well.
In physics terms, it's actually trying to investigate what quantum gravity might be and how quantum gravity interacts with the other quantum theories we have. We know there that we have to have a quantum theory of gravity (it is fundamentally inconsistent otherwise, a universe with quantum theories for some interactions,but classical gravity can be shown to make no sense -- it's not just fashion!), just that writing it down has proved rather hard. So, in effect, the holographic principle may be an indication why -- we were writing theories down as they applied to volumes, and we should have been writing down theories oin surfaces!
The hope seems to be that a successful quantum gravity theory will answer various problems -- like what about those nasty infinities with black holes, what about where did the bang in the big bang come from, and what about collapse of the wavefunction, is it real or what (Penrose thinks quantum gravity mediates the collapse).
So we know it is important, and frankly, I think theorists get a bit annoyed because it has taken us longer than we hoped!
More befuddlement through gobbledetgook -does nayone know what one earth she is talking about? She certainly does not!!
Nope, this is just totally wrong!
You are confusing the amount of information (which is a measure of the amount of content), and the actual content, and the format of that content.
Now I think you are probably confused by the link between information and entropy. Entropy (via the secone law) is associated with change, in that it tells us about the direction of change (entropy increases). Similarly (which was the whole point about black holes), quantum evolution says no information is LOST. But information content can be totally static, and is defined as such.
Note the total ignorance expressed here, where she thinks that there is no link between analogue bandwidth and digital transmission over a channel. She goes even further and dismisses the link as nonsense!
Astonisihing!
Still more nonsense, and those who can't distinguish between digital information, and analog bandwidth nonsense!
Here we have light NOT being accelerate by gravity even though that acceleration has been measured and Einstein said it would be!
And here is an entirely stupid ‘explanation’ of calculus to a person who expressed interest, followed by abuse of te person for asking further questions
Distance travelled, speed and acceleration IS a specific example.........
Let's take simplest case, constant acceleration, as when an object falls or rises freely under gravity.
Then we have acceleration is a constant (call it a).
When we integrate this to find the speed as a function of time (acceleration being the rate of change of speed with time), we get the usual formula v = u + at,
where v is the speed at time t, and a is the constant acceleration. Notice that we have had to add another constant (u), which is the speed at the time t=0.
If we integrate again, to get the distance travelled, then we get the other usual formula:
s = ut + (1/2)at^2
where we have set distance s to be zero at t=0 (hence in this case, no extra constant comes in).
If we start from the formula for s and differentiate, we recover the previous two formulae (v=u+at, and acceleration =a).
An easy way to think of this is suppose we draw a graph of the position of our object (just one dimension for the moment!) in terms of height on the y-axis as a function of time on the x-axis. DIfferentiating with respect to time is the slope of this graph (the speed), and differentiating again (the slope of the graph of the slope against time!) is acceleration.
But graphically we can also go the other way. If we have a graph of the speed as a function of time, then the distance travelled between any two times is the AREA under the speed against time graph between those two times.
We hence see that the calculus is just a handy way of doing what we can imagine doing for ANY graph -- finding the slope of the graph (differential calculus), or finding the area under any portion of the graph (the intgeral calculus). All that the fiddly algebra of it all says is -- if this is the formula for the graph, this is how to find the slope, and this is how to find the area.
When it comes to simple graphs, that is about the simplest question you can ask -- slopes and areas. The whole of the calculus (almost) in a simple picture.
Additions to this just have more variables -- for example, rather than a simple graph, we have a landscape, a function that is like a surface, where we have position in x and y, and value of the function in the z direction. Differentiation is then how to find the slope of the surface (think of being on a hill, the slope depends on the direction you look in), whereas integral calculus is area under a cross-section of the hill (imagine cutting through a hill with a straight knife, and thinking of the area of the face you have exposed), or the volume under some section of the hill.
The usefulness should be apparent. For example, if you wanted to build a house on that hill, you'd want to first make a terrace to put it on, and you'd need to know how much earth and rock that would mean digging out. And if you did dig it out, and pile it up at the bottom of the garden, you'd want to know how big the spoil-heap would be, and whether or not it would obscure your view! Capability Brown probably didn't use the calculus though.................
You see, you haven't even defined exactly how acceleration is expressed
I assumed that people of a general level of intelligence (snip)
More bile. You have been warned, speaker.
And her she is contradicting herself, firstly affirming that Gravitational Potential is NOT a measure of gravitational field strength even though her earlier posts assert the contrary that it is a measure of gravitational filed strength
This self-contradiction is a quite common aspect of this poster
It's not, stop talking even more nonsense, you lost that one as well..........
Well well!
Here you are on this topic earlier:
Just try thinking for a moment. I'm not disagreeing for one moment with the totally obvious statement that force field and potential field are just different descriptions of the same thing, or that by making various measurements of one, you can derive the other.
And even earlier...
Actually, no one on here (the sensible people at any rate) has said that these are anything other than equivalent mathematical descriptions of the SAME physical field.
You seem to be totally unaware of your foolish contradictions![/quote]
And here she is accusing ds/dt as being a kindergarten definition of velocity although I have never seen any other definition! Have you?
Sorry, if you keep using a kindergarten definition of velocity, then you'll keep getting daft answers (since most kindergartens aren't up to doing relativity).
;DKindergarten eh?
I wonder what 'grown up' definition of velocity you work with?
Oddly my fellow playground playmate 'ubble, uses the same definition of velocity as do I - he gives the rate of expansion of the universe as about 60 km/sec per million-light-years. Note that eh? 60km/sec per.....! ;D
And here, c, the speed of light has no meaning!
Nov 30, 2010, 7:16pm, speakertoanimals wrote:
Asking what the speed of light 'really is' totally misses the point, because relativity says that such a thing (the speed of light?) has no meaning
Nov 30, 2010, 7:16pm, speakertoanimals wrote:
Just as all observers agree that when they measure the speed of light, it comes out the same.
And here she is dismissing standard physical definitions of velocity, frequency and wavelength as nonsense. Note the utter absurdity of her befuddlement that the distance s in wavelength is somehow different from s the distance a wave travels!
Absolutely astonishing! In fact these standards physical terms are not only nonsense but also bollocks!
Here for your education are some simple sums
Velocity = ds/dt
Frequency = d(phi)/dt
Wavelength,Lambda = s per Herz
c = Lamda x f
From these simple equations it is seen that the frequency does not vary with velocity
Speakingtoanimals wrote
More nonsense, in that you are mistakenly trying to equate a velocity defined in terms of ds/dt, with a different distance, which is wavelength. Your wavelength is s per hertz is really rather odd, as is frequency is d(phi)/dt, since you've not bothered to define phi...................
In short, your usual bollocks!
And notice the utter claptrap that follows from the simple statements that frequency does not vary with velocity and that lamda does vary with velocity!
Speakingtoanimals wrote
Well, that isn't derivable from your nonsensical set of equations! The fact that frequency doesn't vary with velocity, in the sense of what happens as light crosses a boundary between two different media, can't be seen from your nonsense, but from the boundary conditions of the problem -- basically, what happens on side has to keep in step with what happens on the other (ie same temporal variation, which is frequency). So, from v = f lambda, if f constant and v varies (refractive index), so must lambda.
Here the ladycontradicts herself once more. She finds nothing intwllectualy insupportable in holding two contradictory positions at the same time (or sequentially)
......... information CAN also be transmitted with no change --
Information doesn't require change. transmission of it DOES,
She should really make up her mind before arguing don't you think? although I suppose that holding two contradictory views at once does assist in argument!
Not bad putting forward two mutually contradictory views within 1 hour!
And here we have a classical example of imcomrehensible gibberish
We first need to look at what happens when an em wave encounters a material (like glass). Let's take a metal for starters.
The em wave, being oscillating electric and megnetic fields, tugs on the charges in the material -- these may be the conduction electrons floating about in metals, or they may be the charges within molecules etc. The em wave causes the charges to move, and then, being moving charges, these re-radiate, in the classical approximation. The net effect is hence the incident wave plus the effect of the waves radiated by all the moving charges in the medium.
When we are looking at refraction, and the speed of waves changing in materials, we look at the refractive index, which takes all those complicated interactions above, and packages up the net result as a change in speed of the wave, and a change in angle. But the same physical property also gives an idea of how much light is reflected.
So, you take the difference in refractive indices, divide by the sum, and square it to get an estimate of the amount reflected when falling perpendicularly on the surface.
So the case where we can treat light as classical waves (which takes the whole complicated structure of a material and replaces it with refractive index) is relatively straightforward.
In quantum terms, we have two things to consider -- how the exact structure of the material translates into particular properties when subjected to incident radiation at a given frequency, and what happens at the photon level when a single photon hits the glass.
And below we have a beautifully idiotic piece of mathematical induction that seeks to 'prove' tha frequency does not vary as a function of velocity!
v = f times wavelength
then simply tells you that
if v varies,
f must remain constant,
so wavelength changes
if v changes.
And here we have a marvellous example of her total inability to apply logic to the simplest of questions 'wouldn't necessarily mean' indeed!
It would mean precisely the opposite.
But this is a good example of STA ignoring the obviously simple and going for the esoteric and abstruse in the hope of sounding educated and , as here, getting it hopelessly wrong
But wouldn't necessarily mean gravity was reversed if the universe contracted after expanding -- and cosmological models with a positive curvature do just that -- expand, then contract.
This piece of gobbledegookreally requires no comment
10 march 2011
As for the radioactive nucleus, if I observed a year ago that it hasn't decayed, that means that if I go and observe it now, there will be a greater probability that the superposition which restablished itself after the last observation now collapses to give it as decayed, compared to if I had observed it as not decayed just a second ago. But this is accounted for by the normal superposition principle in quantum theory, and is just the half-life law in another form.
So, if I know it hadn't decayed a year ago, the probability that it has decayed after I've waited another year to look again is going to give a greater probability of observing decay if I look now, because it had a whole year in which to possibly decay.
This entry below is not concerned with science, but to me illustrates a sad idiocy at work
Now, what would you think, if every time you typed 'lies' it was changed to 'insight'? Would you think this...
Just means someone, rather than being able to defeat my posts using reasoned argument, seems to prefer mangling what I type in order to obscure what I'm saying. Just tells me they can't win, so would prefer trying to gag me instead.......................
How fucking predictable (or the act of someone with a very limited vocabulary who doesn't realise the legtimate uses of that particular word)......or would you think simply that the sysem rejects the word 'lies'.
Here is an example of blind application of Wiki to ellipses leading to a totally false conclusion; another illustration of her innumeracy.
21 March
If we traverse a circle at constant speed, we do indeed get a sinusoid as the x or y component of the motion.
If we do the same for an ellipse, the first point is WHAT speed is constant? If we use the parametric equation for an ellipse, we get:
x = acos theta, y = b sin theta
So if angular speed is constant, theta = omega t, we still get a sinusoid.
If we project onto some direction other than the major and minor axes (x and y axes in this case), then we just get a combination of cos theta and sin theta, which is STILL just a sinusoid, albeit with the phase shifted.
So what remains? We could try and traverse an ellipse at constant linear speed (which isn't what planets do BTW), but which will probably involve some messy maths with elliptic integrals............
Well, I am a bit sad posting the one below, as STA was persuaded by logic to change her mind on disorder-to-order entropy in closed thermodynamic systems. We were actually getting somewhere. Unfortunately she then held that that was her postion all along! This is quite typical of he self-contradictory approach to science and makes her impossible to deal with on a any basis
Well, well, look at what our resident physicist has just said!!
Except noone ever said that you couldn't create some order in a closed system, .......
Anyone spot the self-contradictions below?
No prizes offered!
;D ;D
NOT closed systems, else you are saying the second law is wrong!
This is NONSENSE. The point about the second law and the thermodynamuic arrow of time is that ity talks about the entropy OF A CLOSED SYSTEM. London isn't.
Because the second law ONLY applies to a closed system,
....we only see order increasing in non-closed systems, ...
Except that is precisely what the second law of thermodynamics does say. That creating order (decreasing entropy) cannot happen in a closed system.
Only if you are willing to throw the second law of thermodynamics out the window!
Whcih seems to be saying that it is self-evident that the second law of thermodyanmics is NOT true.
Or simpler explanation, NM hasn't a clue when it comes to entropy....
Below we have a schoolgirl howler about energy transfer, excusable perhaps because we all make mistakes, misuse language, confuse 'insulating' with 'warming up', but then schoolgirls do not claim to be physicists do they? I wouldn't really mind but this unconsidered foolish 'science' is used to 'repuduiate' a quite straightforward statement of the 2nd Law - not just repudiate but absolute rubbish!
And why is that attack mounted? Because the article criticses AGW concepts
Total crap! You CAN make something warmer by reducing its heat loss ....This Joseph Postma is talking utter bollocks! He can't even do BASIC heat transfer, ...... it is total and utter garbage. ..... utter nonsense!... it is utter nonsense..........................
When discussing a direct quote from Einsteins work 'General Theory Of Relativity'!
He was WRONG!
To question is fine
To not give a fig is supremely idiotic
AND SOME MORE IDIOCIES
The scientific solecisms listed here will astonish anyone with any knowledge of science, engineering or technology. I have listed them because of the extreme arrogance and invariant rudeness of the author (who clims to be a physicist) in dismissing anyone that disagrees with her
Here she is talking about Shannon’s entropy law that simply sums entropy as follows: if we have two events then
Entropy = -(Probability of event 1 x Log Probability of event 1) + (Probability of event 2 x Log Probability of event 2)….
(And so on for more than 2 events)
Note how this simple definition is totally lost in the gobbledygook below
Also note this strange symbol E = \sum_{i} which is simply copied from Wikki without any understanding that it is a mis-posting of the symbol for Sigma (summed for all values of i) with Wikki using a font that is not recognised by the internet
Strictly speaking, the Shannon entropy of a source that produces random symbols (say i) with probability pi is given by the expectation value of -log p. So, if event i happens N times pi times (on average), then event i contributes an amount pi times -log pi to the expectation value. Summing over i (all possible symbols), gives the result:
E = \sum_{i} - pi log pi
Here she is attempting to explain the concept of entropy to someone (Abacus). Not the convoluted ‘question and answer’ sessions and the quite spurious application of a code based upon the answers.
In fact there are obviously 4 choices, therefore we need just 2 bits (22) to send the information, a fact that totally avoids her befudlement
This befuddlement is quite typical of this poster.
tea, coffee, orange juice, cereal, or nothing.
It's your breakfast order! The point is, you want to send an order everyday, but you usually pick tea only 1/8 of the time, orange juice 3/8 of the time, cereal 1/4, and nothing 1/4.
Suppose I now ask what you want, but only using yes/no questions.
If the questions were:
do you want tea?
do you want coffee?
cereal?
That's 3 questions. If the answer to the first is yes, I don't have to ask any more -- I can just send 1 for yes. So tea is encoded as just 1.
Now here is a typical piece of total befuddlement that illustrates, from the extreme gobbledegook that the writer does not have a clue
But as I understand it, the problems of black hole thermodynamics (we are used now to black holes having a temperature, but they also possess other thermodynamic properties like entropy -- you can also write this stuff in terms of information theory, which leads you to, in effect, where did all the information about the EXACT objects that formed the black hole go to, since the horizon seems pretty featureless?) and writing things down in terms of information theory,. lead to several; interesting relations. In particular, it seems as if the information content of a region depends on the AREA of the surface enclosing it, not the volume.
We are used to physics that sees the arena for stuff as being three dimensional -- and the number of degrees of freedom for stuff happening in a volume then depends on the volume! Yet the information results suggest area not volume.
Where do the information results come from? From trying to write down not a complete quantum theory of spacetime (we don't know how to do that yet), but certain reasonable-sounding estimates of the maximum number of degrees of freedom you can shove into a given volume.
Basically, if we have quantum gravity, then we expect that there is a meaning to 'smallest possible volume' in which you can have a quantum oscillator -- continuous spacetime replaced by a discrete grid, if you like, where the Planck length gives an idea of the size of the grid. For these quantum oscillators, you have an energy limit below (you can't have wavelengths larger than the volume you have chosen), and bounded from above by the Planck energy, the maximum energy you can shove into a fundamental volume. Which givesa finite number of states for the whole volume, hence a limit on how much information you can pack in.
Except that way of counting goes a bit wrong, because many of the higher-energy states would actually collpase into black holes, which would then take the information you were trying to store, and taking it outside this universe! Hence restricting to storage-system states that wouldn't collapse to black holes under their own gravity, we get a much SMALLER number of states, which happens to go as the area of the surface, rather than the volume.
Hence (bit hand-wavey here), the suggestion that the underlying theory (which encompasses quantum gravity and all that), will fundamentally be a theory of stuff on surfaces, not in volumes.
Except just because this is possible mathematically doesn't quite express what we mean by saying the world is really of lower dimensionality, that our perception of 3 of space and 1 of time is somehow an 'illusion' (as if we had faulty perception), rather than there just being fewer degrees of freedom than we might have thought.
I'm just rather sceptical about such ontological claims and how they get used (like the use of the word illusion).
More? She must be joking! But she is not!
Physicists define the amount of information that could potentially be stored in a region. In simple terms, it's like asking how much you could store on your PC. So, if I had a system where each element could only have two states (0 or 1), then I could calculate the amount of information that could be stored if I had N such elements.
In the real world, the systems are a bit more complicated, but the principles are the same.
When they do this computation, including the possible effects of gravity (so, quantum gravity probably means that space should be treated as discrete, rather than continuous, and the associated scale is the Planck length. Gravity also places a limit on how much energy you can have in a given volume without it collapsing into a black hole through its own a gravity).
When you do that rough calculation, to try and place an upper bound on the information possible, you get a result that depends on the surface area, rather than the volume.
Which suggests that the correct fundamental theory should be a theory based on the surfaces surrounding a volume, rather than our current theories which describe states within the volume as the fundamental things of the universe.
Which is as simple as I can make it.
So, it's not really (as I understand it), that information about our universe is stored at its edge, but instead that the fundamental theory that describes our universe is a theory based on a surface (rather than a volume as we used to think), and that that fundamental theory can then be transformed mathematically to a theory on what we see as 3d space, but with the limited degrees of freedom that the upper limit on information content seems to be telling us.
But the transformation from surface to volume is, as far as I see, just maths. It doesn't mean that there is some magic interaction going on in our universe between the inside where we are, and the surface outside where the information lives. Nor is it the case that 3d is 'an illusion'.
It's actually a common situation in theoretical physics, where there are often various ways of writing down the same physics.
The use of the word hologram is because you can encode on a glass sheet (2D) information that gives the appearance of a 3D scene when you view it. Hence it seems as if the 3d information has been encoded in 2d.
You can compute that this is possible, but that doesn't, in the ordinary hologram case, say which is REAL -- and I really viewing this scene in 3d, or is it a 2d hologram?
Same for the holographic universe, it seems to me -- just because mathematically the fundamental theory may have to be written in terms of information on surfaces, doesn't necessarily mean that the surface is real and the 3d volume we see is 'the illusion'. Just means that the fundamnetal theory is a bit different from what we thought. But you can see how the 3d is an illusion, we are actually part of some cosmic hologram, appeals to the woo-woo element, just as the quantum theory, isn't it weird, appeals to them as well.
In physics terms, it's actually trying to investigate what quantum gravity might be and how quantum gravity interacts with the other quantum theories we have. We know there that we have to have a quantum theory of gravity (it is fundamentally inconsistent otherwise, a universe with quantum theories for some interactions,but classical gravity can be shown to make no sense -- it's not just fashion!), just that writing it down has proved rather hard. So, in effect, the holographic principle may be an indication why -- we were writing theories down as they applied to volumes, and we should have been writing down theories oin surfaces!
The hope seems to be that a successful quantum gravity theory will answer various problems -- like what about those nasty infinities with black holes, what about where did the bang in the big bang come from, and what about collapse of the wavefunction, is it real or what (Penrose thinks quantum gravity mediates the collapse).
So we know it is important, and frankly, I think theorists get a bit annoyed because it has taken us longer than we hoped!
More befuddlement through gobbledetgook -does nayone know what one earth she is talking about? She certainly does not!!
Nope, this is just totally wrong!
You are confusing the amount of information (which is a measure of the amount of content), and the actual content, and the format of that content.
Now I think you are probably confused by the link between information and entropy. Entropy (via the secone law) is associated with change, in that it tells us about the direction of change (entropy increases). Similarly (which was the whole point about black holes), quantum evolution says no information is LOST. But information content can be totally static, and is defined as such.
Note the total ignorance expressed here, where she thinks that there is no link between analogue bandwidth and digital transmission over a channel. She goes even further and dismisses the link as nonsense!
Astonisihing!
Because then , my dear, the communication system is more efficient (that is what Shannon was seeking - how to send information in the smallest possible bandwidth) and because nothing is sent when the encoding is 00000000 then more than one telephone conversation can be sent on one transmission line.
Still more nonsense, and those who can't distinguish between digital information, and analog bandwidth nonsense!
Here we have light NOT being accelerate by gravity even though that acceleration has been measured and Einstein said it would be!
And here is an entirely stupid ‘explanation’ of calculus to a person who expressed interest, followed by abuse of te person for asking further questions
Can someone please provide a basic example or two of calculus? I know there are two types, namely, integration and differentiation but what are these?
Could you perhaps give a specific example?
Could you perhaps give a specific example?
Distance travelled, speed and acceleration IS a specific example.........
Let's take simplest case, constant acceleration, as when an object falls or rises freely under gravity.
Then we have acceleration is a constant (call it a).
When we integrate this to find the speed as a function of time (acceleration being the rate of change of speed with time), we get the usual formula v = u + at,
where v is the speed at time t, and a is the constant acceleration. Notice that we have had to add another constant (u), which is the speed at the time t=0.
If we integrate again, to get the distance travelled, then we get the other usual formula:
s = ut + (1/2)at^2
where we have set distance s to be zero at t=0 (hence in this case, no extra constant comes in).
If we start from the formula for s and differentiate, we recover the previous two formulae (v=u+at, and acceleration =a).
An easy way to think of this is suppose we draw a graph of the position of our object (just one dimension for the moment!) in terms of height on the y-axis as a function of time on the x-axis. DIfferentiating with respect to time is the slope of this graph (the speed), and differentiating again (the slope of the graph of the slope against time!) is acceleration.
But graphically we can also go the other way. If we have a graph of the speed as a function of time, then the distance travelled between any two times is the AREA under the speed against time graph between those two times.
We hence see that the calculus is just a handy way of doing what we can imagine doing for ANY graph -- finding the slope of the graph (differential calculus), or finding the area under any portion of the graph (the intgeral calculus). All that the fiddly algebra of it all says is -- if this is the formula for the graph, this is how to find the slope, and this is how to find the area.
When it comes to simple graphs, that is about the simplest question you can ask -- slopes and areas. The whole of the calculus (almost) in a simple picture.
Additions to this just have more variables -- for example, rather than a simple graph, we have a landscape, a function that is like a surface, where we have position in x and y, and value of the function in the z direction. Differentiation is then how to find the slope of the surface (think of being on a hill, the slope depends on the direction you look in), whereas integral calculus is area under a cross-section of the hill (imagine cutting through a hill with a straight knife, and thinking of the area of the face you have exposed), or the volume under some section of the hill.
The usefulness should be apparent. For example, if you wanted to build a house on that hill, you'd want to first make a terrace to put it on, and you'd need to know how much earth and rock that would mean digging out. And if you did dig it out, and pile it up at the bottom of the garden, you'd want to know how big the spoil-heap would be, and whether or not it would obscure your view! Capability Brown probably didn't use the calculus though.................
You see, you haven't even defined exactly how acceleration is expressed
I assumed that people of a general level of intelligence (snip)
More bile. You have been warned, speaker.
And her she is contradicting herself, firstly affirming that Gravitational Potential is NOT a measure of gravitational field strength even though her earlier posts assert the contrary that it is a measure of gravitational filed strength
This self-contradiction is a quite common aspect of this poster
…….person who maintained that Gravitational Potential is not a measure of gravitational field strength
It's not, stop talking even more nonsense, you lost that one as well..........
Well well!
Here you are on this topic earlier:
The gravitational force field can be derived from measurements of the gravitational potential field strength.
Just try thinking for a moment. I'm not disagreeing for one moment with the totally obvious statement that force field and potential field are just different descriptions of the same thing, or that by making various measurements of one, you can derive the other.
And even earlier...
the foolishness that just cannot see that gravitational potential is a field with just as much validity as a gravitational force field,
Actually, no one on here (the sensible people at any rate) has said that these are anything other than equivalent mathematical descriptions of the SAME physical field.
You seem to be totally unaware of your foolish contradictions![/quote]
And here she is accusing ds/dt as being a kindergarten definition of velocity although I have never seen any other definition! Have you?
;DKindergarten eh?
I wonder what 'grown up' definition of velocity you work with?
Oddly my fellow playground playmate 'ubble, uses the same definition of velocity as do I - he gives the rate of expansion of the universe as about 60 km/sec per million-light-years. Note that eh? 60km/sec per.....! ;D
And here, c, the speed of light has no meaning!
Nov 30, 2010, 7:16pm, speakertoanimals wrote:
Asking what the speed of light 'really is' totally misses the point, because relativity says that such a thing (the speed of light?) has no meaning
So relativity is telling us that c=3x 108 has no meaning?
Hahaha!
Hahaha!
Nov 30, 2010, 7:16pm, speakertoanimals wrote:
Just as all observers agree that when they measure the speed of light, it comes out the same.
But that speed of light has no meaning (see your quote above). How can something physical that has no meaning always be the same?
And here she is dismissing standard physical definitions of velocity, frequency and wavelength as nonsense. Note the utter absurdity of her befuddlement that the distance s in wavelength is somehow different from s the distance a wave travels!
Absolutely astonishing! In fact these standards physical terms are not only nonsense but also bollocks!
Here for your education are some simple sums
Velocity = ds/dt
Frequency = d(phi)/dt
Wavelength,Lambda = s per Herz
c = Lamda x f
From these simple equations it is seen that the frequency does not vary with velocity
Speakingtoanimals wrote
More nonsense, in that you are mistakenly trying to equate a velocity defined in terms of ds/dt, with a different distance, which is wavelength. Your wavelength is s per hertz is really rather odd, as is frequency is d(phi)/dt, since you've not bothered to define phi...................
In short, your usual bollocks!
And notice the utter claptrap that follows from the simple statements that frequency does not vary with velocity and that lamda does vary with velocity!
From these simple equations it is seen that the frequency does not vary with velocity
It also seen that Lamda does vary with velocity
It also seen that Lamda does vary with velocity
Speakingtoanimals wrote
Well, that isn't derivable from your nonsensical set of equations! The fact that frequency doesn't vary with velocity, in the sense of what happens as light crosses a boundary between two different media, can't be seen from your nonsense, but from the boundary conditions of the problem -- basically, what happens on side has to keep in step with what happens on the other (ie same temporal variation, which is frequency). So, from v = f lambda, if f constant and v varies (refractive index), so must lambda.
Here the ladycontradicts herself once more. She finds nothing intwllectualy insupportable in holding two contradictory positions at the same time (or sequentially)
......... information CAN also be transmitted with no change --
Information doesn't require change. transmission of it DOES,
She should really make up her mind before arguing don't you think? although I suppose that holding two contradictory views at once does assist in argument!
Not bad putting forward two mutually contradictory views within 1 hour!
And here we have a classical example of imcomrehensible gibberish
Question: Why are some of the photons from the TV picture reflected by the window whilst some pass through it to the outside? Is the intensity of the image less when looked at through the glass due to the photons that have been reflected (I assume so)? Does the amount of light coming in (eg daylight vs night) have any effect on the amount of light from the TV that is reflected by the glass?
P
P
We first need to look at what happens when an em wave encounters a material (like glass). Let's take a metal for starters.
The em wave, being oscillating electric and megnetic fields, tugs on the charges in the material -- these may be the conduction electrons floating about in metals, or they may be the charges within molecules etc. The em wave causes the charges to move, and then, being moving charges, these re-radiate, in the classical approximation. The net effect is hence the incident wave plus the effect of the waves radiated by all the moving charges in the medium.
When we are looking at refraction, and the speed of waves changing in materials, we look at the refractive index, which takes all those complicated interactions above, and packages up the net result as a change in speed of the wave, and a change in angle. But the same physical property also gives an idea of how much light is reflected.
So, you take the difference in refractive indices, divide by the sum, and square it to get an estimate of the amount reflected when falling perpendicularly on the surface.
So the case where we can treat light as classical waves (which takes the whole complicated structure of a material and replaces it with refractive index) is relatively straightforward.
In quantum terms, we have two things to consider -- how the exact structure of the material translates into particular properties when subjected to incident radiation at a given frequency, and what happens at the photon level when a single photon hits the glass.
And below we have a beautifully idiotic piece of mathematical induction that seeks to 'prove' tha frequency does not vary as a function of velocity!
v = f times wavelength
then simply tells you that
if v varies,
f must remain constant,
so wavelength changes
if v changes.
And here we have a marvellous example of her total inability to apply logic to the simplest of questions 'wouldn't necessarily mean' indeed!
It would mean precisely the opposite.
But this is a good example of STA ignoring the obviously simple and going for the esoteric and abstruse in the hope of sounding educated and , as here, getting it hopelessly wrong
9 March 2011 If the big crunch happened then there would have to be some kind of reversall of events.
But wouldn't necessarily mean gravity was reversed if the universe contracted after expanding -- and cosmological models with a positive curvature do just that -- expand, then contract.
This piece of gobbledegookreally requires no comment
10 march 2011
As for the radioactive nucleus, if I observed a year ago that it hasn't decayed, that means that if I go and observe it now, there will be a greater probability that the superposition which restablished itself after the last observation now collapses to give it as decayed, compared to if I had observed it as not decayed just a second ago. But this is accounted for by the normal superposition principle in quantum theory, and is just the half-life law in another form.
So, if I know it hadn't decayed a year ago, the probability that it has decayed after I've waited another year to look again is going to give a greater probability of observing decay if I look now, because it had a whole year in which to possibly decay.
This entry below is not concerned with science, but to me illustrates a sad idiocy at work
Now, what would you think, if every time you typed 'lies' it was changed to 'insight'? Would you think this...
How fucking predictable (or the act of someone with a very limited vocabulary who doesn't realise the legtimate uses of that particular word).
Here is an example of blind application of Wiki to ellipses leading to a totally false conclusion; another illustration of her innumeracy.
21 March
Are you suggesting that a waveform cannot be generated by traversing the perimeter of an ellipse and tracing the instantaneous value against the angle made wrt the x axis, in exactly the same way as a sinusoid is generated using a circle?
If we traverse a circle at constant speed, we do indeed get a sinusoid as the x or y component of the motion.
If we do the same for an ellipse, the first point is WHAT speed is constant? If we use the parametric equation for an ellipse, we get:
x = acos theta, y = b sin theta
So if angular speed is constant, theta = omega t, we still get a sinusoid.
If we project onto some direction other than the major and minor axes (x and y axes in this case), then we just get a combination of cos theta and sin theta, which is STILL just a sinusoid, albeit with the phase shifted.
So what remains? We could try and traverse an ellipse at constant linear speed (which isn't what planets do BTW), but which will probably involve some messy maths with elliptic integrals............
Well, I am a bit sad posting the one below, as STA was persuaded by logic to change her mind on disorder-to-order entropy in closed thermodynamic systems. We were actually getting somewhere. Unfortunately she then held that that was her postion all along! This is quite typical of he self-contradictory approach to science and makes her impossible to deal with on a any basis
Anyone spot the self-contradictions below?
No prizes offered!
;D ;D
(Naymissus)....that disorder-to order does occur in closed and open systems
NOT closed systems, else you are saying the second law is wrong!
(Naymissus)....However this trend toward increasing entropy is not absolute and we can also have order arising out of disorder as time progresses - e.g. London.
Unfortunately Professor Cox's definition of order arising from disorder defining the direction of time means we have time reversal locally (although the general trend toward disorder continues.)
....
Unfortunately Professor Cox's definition of order arising from disorder defining the direction of time means we have time reversal locally (although the general trend toward disorder continues.)
....
This is NONSENSE. The point about the second law and the thermodynamuic arrow of time is that ity talks about the entropy OF A CLOSED SYSTEM. London isn't.
Because the second law ONLY applies to a closed system,
Except that is precisely what the second law of thermodynamics does say. That creating order (decreasing entropy) cannot happen in a closed system.
(Naymissus)They evidently are not. In a closed system we always have thermodynamic disorder increasing, but we can have structures of increasing complexity and organisation.
Only if you are willing to throw the second law of thermodynamics out the window!
(Naymissus)....It is nonsense to say that it applies to only closed thermodynamic systems.
Whcih seems to be saying that it is self-evident that the second law of thermodyanmics is NOT true.
Or simpler explanation, NM hasn't a clue when it comes to entropy....
Below we have a schoolgirl howler about energy transfer, excusable perhaps because we all make mistakes, misuse language, confuse 'insulating' with 'warming up', but then schoolgirls do not claim to be physicists do they? I wouldn't really mind but this unconsidered foolish 'science' is used to 'repuduiate' a quite straightforward statement of the 2nd Law - not just repudiate but absolute rubbish!
And why is that attack mounted? Because the article criticses AGW concepts
You cannot make something warmer by introducing to it something colder, or even the same temperature! You can only make something warmer, with something that is warmer! This reality is called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and is so central and fundamental to modern physics it cannot be expressed strongly enough.
