Just found this - incredible stuff!

[Gordon]

The problem is that it is inconceivable to think of nothing without invoking something.

Inconceivable in a certain logical reference frame perhaps? Without wanting to get into sematics, ontology, epistemology and all that - is there a difference between "no" thing [ie no possibility at all of "any" thing] and "the absence of" thing [ie a possibility unfulfilled]?

Having actually seen one [whatever that might mean] I can conceive of an apple without seeing one at this time and thereby the converse of its absence or existence where I can't see it? However I can conceive a world in which there are no such things as apples.

[amateur51]

Having actually seen one [whatever that might mean] I can conceive of an apple without seeing one at this time and thereby the converse of its absence or existence where I can't see it? However I can conceive a world in which there are no such things as apples.

Has that shaken your core values, Gordon?



I'll get my coat

[Thropplenoggin]

Isn't the problem with the Multiverse, as Michio Kaku explains it, is that it would be impossible for us to ever prove the existence of the other universes. Cosmologists like the idea as it removes the problem of fine-tuning for human life and thereby the need for a fine-tuner (deity). However, since it is impossible to prove, doesn't the Multiverse just become, oh, what's that thing again that Kierkegaard wrote about. Oh, yeah. A "leap of faith"

[Gordon]

Has that shaken your core values, Gordon?

No, but thinking about all that stuff gives me the pip! Already had coat on for hasty exit.

[french frank]

Just to signal the moving of this post to the new forum.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

ah there we are as elusive as teh Higgs ....another phase

...the end is nigh .... or not as the whatsits maybe ..

[Gordon]

ah there we are as elusive as teh Higgs ....another phase

...the end is nigh .... or not as the whatsits maybe ..

Just another Higgsup is space then!?

[amateur51]

Just another Higgsup is space then!?

The only response I can come up with is ... blimey!

[johnb]

The great physicist Richard Feynman, who can justly be called a genius, brilliantly explains relativity & derives & explores the great equation in a slim paperback 'Six Not So Easy Pieces' - transcripts of lectures given at Caltech. The companion 'Six Easy Pieces' is also brilliant. Eminently readable, intellectually dazzling. Everyone should have them!

Duly ordered.

(I have fond memories of reading Feymann's brilliant "Lectures on Physics" over four decades ago. Since then I have forgotten almost all the physics and maths I once knew.)

[Flosshilde]

The man says -

even if a bubble were to pop up somewhere in the Universe, odds are it will be very far from us. So, even if traveling at the speed of light, it will take billions of years to get to us.

... Even if the Universe is slated to decay into a new phase, it will take a very very long time.

But how does he know that a bubble hasn't already popped up, billions of years ago?

I think he's being rather casual about it. Maybe we should start panicking now, rather than wait for a few billion years.


OH - hang on a minute. If a bubble pops, be it up, down or sideways, surely we don't need to worry about it? Stop panicking everyone!

[amateur51]

The man says -

[I]even if a bubble were to pop up somewhere in the Universe, odds are it will be very far from us. So, even if traveling at the speed of light, it will take billions of years to get to us.

... Even if the Universe is slated to decay into a new phase, it will take a very very long time.[/I

But how does he know that a bubble hasn't already popped up, billions of years ago?

I think he's being rather casual about it. Maybe we should start panicking now, rather than wait for a few billion years.


OH - hang on a minute. If a bubble pops, be it up, down or sideways, surely we don't need to worry about it? Stop panicking everyone!

Hey Flossie! - chill!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z935jE8TdTg

[Gordon]

Duly ordered.

(I have fond memories of reading Feymann's brilliant "Lectures on Physics" over four decades ago. Since then I have forgotten almost all the physics and maths I once knew.)

Try "The meaning of it all" and "Surely you are joking Mr Feynmann?" too. The man who could mend radios by just thinking about it.

[johnb]

Try "The meaning of it all" and "Surely you are joking Mr Feynmann?" too. The man who could mend radios by just thinking about it.

I have "Surely you are joking Mr Feynmann?". He was truly remarkable, both as a physicist and as a communicator. (Brian Cox eat your heart out.)

Perhaps I should take up the bongo drums.

[Gordon]

I have "Surely you are joking Mr Feynmann?". He was truly remarkable, both as a physicist and as a communicator. (Brian Cox eat your heart out.)

Perhaps I should take up the bongo drums.

Not sure about the drums!! but Cox was of course a "Rock Star" placed in the constellation of celebrity Feymann was a true scientific phenomenon and unique personality with no frills, that boyish enthusiasm to the end. A force of nature in himself. Who else could have done what he did in the at shuttle disaster inquiry?

I'm afraid that Prof Cox [who, I am sure is very nice person and I mean no criticism] is not in that league and is in danger of putting celebrity before science. Tricky I know so I'd rather he tried than not, so good on him. I suspect that the producers of his programmes have too much say.

[clive heath]

This is a good summary, but I take issue with some technical points in the first section.
An electron, indeed, any particle, cannot be HOT. All it can be is fast or slow or whatever. A group of particles will be HOTTER than another group if the average energy ( usually but not exclusively Kinetic, i.e. by virtue of motion) is greater than the other group. Didn't we discuss Maxwell's Demon a while back?
It is also not true that to remove an electron from an atom high temperatures are involved. The photo-electric effect happens at room temperature and is in action is everybody's digital camera. A photon of light, carrying a quantum of energy ( i.e. one of the smallest possible amounts of energy of any kind), is absorbed by one electron that happens to be near the surface of a metal and can escape especially if encouraged by a nearby positive charge, the electrons charge being negative.

E=mc² (Ha! thanks Ted) not only adorns the cover of "Atomic Mr. Basie" but relects the fact that when you put extra energy (E) into a moving object to speed it up, at first ALL the energy is converted to extra Kinetic Energy (½mv². m mass, v velocity) you cannot speed up any massive ( i.e. it has mass, however small) particle beyond the speed of light. So where does the extra energy go? The answer is that it is converted, not into speed, but into extra mass at a rate given by Extra Energy (E) =½( extra mass)(velocity of light)². At low energies since the velocity of light is a very high value the extra mass is negligable and Newtonian Physics applies.