well duh, of course our knowledge of physics changes

Quote :

"particle - A body whose spatial extent and internal motion and structure, if any, are irrelevant in a specific problem. (dictionary.com)"

The internal structure of a particle is irrelevant.

Quote :

"locked into all of the same attributes as each other; they are literally indistinguishable, in the same location and with the same attributes"

But this says the internal structure, made of attributes, IS relevant.

Its not MY definition they're using wrong.

5/14/2005 11:21:35 PM

IT seems though the Rb doesn't exhibit this behavior until it reaches the special circumstances of the experiment. Until it collapses into the BEC, then it behaves just like a particle, and you can call it as such.

5/14/2005 11:27:18 PM

again;

1.) physics has proven cool gasses can occupy the same location. thus the definition of a particle must change, changing the definition to exclude this behavior would negate the purpose of physics. physics changes, should we have changed the meaning of the word flat when we found out the earth was round?

should we have?

2. "1 a : a minute quantity or fragment b : a relatively small or the smallest discrete portion or amount of something" you forgot to include this definition, m-w. this clearly proves a gas has particles.


just so you know, if you actually try to tell anyone a gas doesnt contain particles, youll be laughed at



^yes, you must cool it for the particle to collapse into a BEC

[Edited on May 14, 2005 at 11:28 PM. Reason : 0]

5/14/2005 11:28:07 PM

moron, newton and the other dead people didnt see relative time. You can only measure relative-time at high speeds or long distances. But time is still relative EVERYWHERE that time exists. I dont care that you dont notice Rb's weird behaviors except in weird conditions. Rb, and everything else, is weird right now.

Josh

Quote :

"thus the definition of a particle must change, changing the definition to exclude this behavior would negate the purpose of physics."

Make up your mind. Must it change or not?

Quote :

"physics changes, should we have changed the meaning of the word flat when we found out the earth was round?"

Obviously you think we should have changed the word flat when we found the earth was flat (isnt that confusing).

5/14/2005 11:34:27 PM

What happens to the Rb when it is warmed up?

Do the particles take on any particular state?

5/14/2005 11:34:28 PM

entangled obviously

5/14/2005 11:36:12 PM

ok

the definition of a noun (particle) shouldnt be changed, BUT our theory of undestanding how it behaves SHOULD change

ddo you understand?


^^ yea, you can heat it up into a plasm. plasm contrains particles, its kind like a fluid state. most matter does this at very high temps




[Edited on May 14, 2005 at 11:42 PM. Reason : -0gkgh]

5/14/2005 11:39:24 PM

i already answered that

Quote :

"well duh, of course our knowledge of physics changes"

5/14/2005 11:41:22 PM

a particle (noun) can be defined as something that exists in two different physical locations, but a particle is still a particle if we find part of the definition is wrong

sometimes we are wrong. a particle has a lot of definitions. one, its turns out, was wrong




again; the earth's definition was once:

1a; a giant flat rock

we had to make small modification


do you see that?

[Edited on May 14, 2005 at 11:44 PM. Reason : 0]

5/14/2005 11:43:29 PM

earth contains mostly the same rocks it did thousands of years ago

the word particle was created when nobody knew atoms existed

5/14/2005 11:53:18 PM

fuck this shit

theres more interesting parts of physics to talk about

Quote :

"Atoms in a BEC are locked into all of the same attributes as each other; they are literally indistinguishable, in the same location and with the same attributes."

during that, do 2 "particles" ever merge to become 1 particle?

They are mostly the same, right? If they were exactly the same, any force you could put on 1 must put the same force on the other, producing the same changes and motion, and they could never again be separated. Therefore, they must have some small differences.

5/15/2005 12:01:49 AM

^^^actually, we knew from the days of artistotle and socrates (this was way before the english word 'particle' came along) that matter most likely exist in a tiny indivisable pieces, like atoms. he talked about this a lot.

from m-w

Quote :

"from Latin atomus, from Greek atomos, from atomos indivisible"

*atoms came before the word particle (which is latin)

Quote :

"They are mostly the same, right? If they were exactly the same, any force you could put on 1 must put the same force on the other, producing the same changes and motion, and they could never again be separated. Therefore, they must have some small differences."

i dont know what that means

Quote :

"during that, do 2 "particles" ever merge to become 1 particle? "

NO!

their energy levels all become degenerate. this isnt fusion becuase when you heat it up they will come apart and act like they did before

essentialy, the occupation of energy levels describes ALL physical properties of an atom. now, in the condenstate, they all become equal, and therefor the same, and it turns out, nature has no problem with two completely idential objects existing at the same time in the same location. think about it... if two things are the same, THE EXACT SAME, why couldnt they be in the same place? how can you tell the difference between two identical objects created to exist which have the exact same location, mass, ect? you couldnt. its not quite a merging. its not quite an overlay. its close. but the fact is, there really isnt a good single word or analogy to describe what the BEC is like.

an object cannot exert a force on itself right? therefor an object in the exact same location in space-time cannot exert a force on another identical object no more than it can exert a force on itself.

they DO NOT 'hit' eachother

its hard to grasp if you dont know a little themo, MO theory, quantum & pchem

-

[Edited on May 15, 2005 at 3:26 AM. Reason : -]

5/15/2005 3:01:03 AM

Josh:

Quote :

"^^^actually, we knew from the days of artistotle and socrates (this was way before the english word 'particle' came along) that matter most likely exist in a tiny indivisable pieces, like atoms. he talked about this a lot."

Yes, but it was theory and no atom-measurements back then.

Its not surprising they thought that. There are only 2 choices: there is a smallest unit of mass, OR mass can be infinitely divided to be smaller. Humans evolved to understand finite things better than infinite (if any infinite things exist). Most things we see are divided discretely; a table is discretely different from air. Now, we suspect more that there is a smallest particle, and we've found smaller particles than they knew about then, but there could still be something smaller.

Quote :

"JOSH: Atoms in a BEC are locked into all of the same attributes as each other; they are literally indistinguishable, in the same location and with the same attributes." INSANEMAN: They are mostly the same, right? If they were exactly the same, any force you could put on 1 must put the same force on the other, producing the same changes and motion, and they could never again be separated. Therefore, they must have some small differences." JOSH: i dont know what that means "

Theoretically, if 2 quarks had the exact same position, density, spin, size, entanglements with other quarks, and everything else... if they were exactly the same, like in that experiment, then for every possible event, each event would affect both quarks the exact same way, therefore they must always be exactly the same forever after that. That is perfect accuracy and wont happen, but I suspect that idea is related to why they stick together in the first place.

One thing that confuses me... why do they have the SAME properties instead of OPPOSITE? I guess its not that weird. Magnetism attracts opposites and gravity (if it exists) attracts similar things (positive mass). Which one does entanglement do, opposite or same spin? Why do some work on opposites and some on similar? Is the proportion of opp to sim half and half (hard to interpret that question i know)?

Quote :

"INSANEMAN: during that, do 2 "particles" ever merge to become 1 particle? JOSH: NO! their energy levels all become degenerate. this isnt fusion becuase when you heat it up they will come apart and act like they did before"

Fusion would be opposites joining, ok. Then there is some other force holding them. Is that force connected to gravity?

How do you know they never join in a way unlike "fusion"? Do they resist? Do they trade smaller particles between them? Prove they dont.

Quote :

"essentialy, the occupation of energy levels describes ALL physical properties of an atom."

If the properties are equal, then the same future should result, but that does not happen because of weird connections between quarks. Entangled parts of the atom are different than if those same parts were not entangled. Also, which quarks they are entangled with is a difference. For all we know, a particle might be entangled to trillions of others, but we only notice the entanglements we build.

Quote :

"now, in the condenstate, they all become equal, and therefor the same, and it turns out, nature has no problem with two completely idential objects existing at the same time in the same location. think about it... if two things are the same, THE EXACT SAME, why couldnt they be in the same place? how can you tell the difference between two identical objects created to exist which have the exact same location, mass, ect? you couldnt. its not quite a merging. its not quite an overlay. its close. but the fact is, there really isnt a good single word or analogy to describe what the BEC is like."

I dont need an analogy because the idea is simple, but some math would help.

Using only variables found in our own language, like x instead of phi-theta-wave-function etc, can you describe the 4+ dimensional shape of these overlapping almost-equal things? I know its not cartesian space, so it might help if you define the distance between each 2 particles individually in a way not consistent with flat space. In other words, describe the GEODESIC paths through the center of these "waves", without any new symbols or math higher than calculus. Any space in "parallel universes" (if you're using that theory) should be describable as a single shape this way.

[Edited on May 15, 2005 at 4:52 AM. Reason : ]

5/15/2005 4:32:34 AM

Quote :

"Which one does entanglement do, opposite or same spin? Why do some work on opposites and some on similar? Is the proportion of opp to sim half and half (hard to interpret that question i know)?"

I am not that good with entanglement, i just know the just of it.

Quote :

"How do you know they never join in a way unlike "fusion"? Do they resist? Do they trade smaller particles between them? Prove they dont."

sure, no problem. the experiment was monitered for radiation, none was observed. if fusion occured, there would have been dangerous radiation.

Quote :

"If the properties are equal, then the same future should result,"

no, when the temperature is changed, you alter the conditions, and reverse the process, each particle could be symetricaly reppeled from the center. when the particles are heated, they will revert to their normal boltzmans distrubutions. meaning, they will follow a probability function, and disperse themselves over a ton of new accessible states (caused by heat.

now, each particle has essentialy had roll of the die. a die that goes from 1 to a bazillion, and that is why they differentiate themselves. god rolls dice. quite often actually.

Quote :

"Using only variables found in our own language, like x instead of phi-theta-wave-function etc, can you describe the 4+ dimensional shape of these overlapping almost-equal things?"

yes that is the question. a laser was used to test the density, and i believe there was confirmation of a super dense particle. wavefunctions dont really apply here since there werent any electrons in the BEC. so... i think the answer to you question is ... you can think of cartesian space. its like, combining two objects into the same space only doubling the density. of course the difference is, when you squish things you are removing empty space, one the atom level, .... well...again...turns out you can push to objects together if they are indistinguishable in every way

5/15/2005 3:52:41 PM

Quote :

"now, each particle has essentialy had roll of the die. a die that goes from 1 to a bazillion, and that is why they differentiate themselves. god rolls dice. quite often actually."

Knowing the exact wind speed and initial rotation and speed of the dice and properties of the table it lands on, the side it lands on can be predicted 99.9% accurate. Maybe 100%... deterministic things can appear random easily. See any "pseudorandom number generator".

Quote :

""How do you know they never join in a way unlike "fusion"? Do they resist? Do they trade smaller particles between them? Prove they dont." sure, no problem. the experiment was monitered for radiation, none was observed. if fusion occured, there would have been dangerous radiation."

Thats not what I meant. I was asking about something that would APPEAR to violate conservation of mass-energy from our limited 3d view. Hard to explain though. Nevermind.

Quote :

"yes that is the question. a laser was used to test the density, and i believe there was confirmation of a super dense particle."

same volume, and how much more mass?

Quote :

"wavefunctions dont really apply here since there werent any electrons in the BEC. so... i think the answer to you question is ... you can think of cartesian space. its like, combining two objects into the same space only doubling the density."

No. I'll keep thinking in curved space. They'll never figure this shit out if they're using cartesian space still.

Quote :

"turns out you can push to objects together if they are indistinguishable in every way"

thats not surprising


Do they have any real data on these theorized parallel universes, or is it just a bunch of stupid speculation? It seems to me that if spacetime were curved around on itsself in microscopic dimensions, that 100 different particles we see in different places could be exactly the same particle. Not entanglement. Thats between different particles. But it is suspicious that entanglement temporarily acts like it is the same particle.

5/16/2005 11:58:20 AM

aliens believe in weird physics

5/16/2005 1:18:04 PM

bttt

7/29/2005 3:08:50 PM

when something falls to the ground, that's 'coz God wants it to

this gravity crap is only one step away from atheism

8/2/2005 7:25:14 PM

a little inferance never hurt anyone.

8/2/2005 10:52:00 PM

Quote :

"Knowing the exact wind speed and initial rotation and speed of the dice and properties of the table it lands on, the side it lands on can be predicted 99.9% accurate. Maybe 100%... deterministic things can appear random easily. See any "pseudorandom number generator"."

no....god doesnt actually physically roll dice. quantum mechanics states that the universe is NOT deterministic, meaning, the spin of a particle cannot be actually be know until observed. there is no air velocity of whatever, god has a perfect randomization machine, and you cant predict whats gonna happen. thats just how it works on the quantum level.

Quote :

"same volume, and how much more mass?"

i dont think they know exactly how much

Quote :

"Do they have any real data on these theorized parallel universes, or is it just a bunch of stupid speculation? "

speculation. but yes...entaglment is the cutting edge, and competing theories are quite numerous. i like to stay main stream or else shit can get really hairy.

Quote :

"In our experiments we start with sodium atoms effusing from an oven at a temperature of 600 K (a velocity of 800 m s-1) and a density of about 1014 cm-3. Over a distance of 0.5 m the atoms are first slowed with a laser beam to a speed of around 30 m s-1. This is slow enough for around 1010 atoms to be captured in a magneto-optical trap. Some tricks with laser cooling and trapping reduce the temperature of the gas to about 100 µK, which is cold enough for the atoms to be trapped with magnetic fields. Evaporation then cools the gas to about 2 µK - the temperature at which a condensate forms - in roughly 20 s. Coincidentally, the density of atoms at condensation is about 1014 cm-3, similar to that in the atomic beam oven. Thus the cooling sequence lowers the temperature by 8 to 9 orders of magnitude. During evaporative cooling we typically lose a factor of 1000 atoms and form condensates with 107 atoms. In the cloverleaf trap the condensates can be up to 0.3 mm long. Condensation has thus provided us with macroscopic quantum objects. "

[Edited on August 2, 2005 at 11:06 PM. Reason : -]

8/2/2005 10:56:56 PM

It doesnt matter how random it looks. Theres always a chance its deterministic, but Humans are too stupid to figure out the equations. It could later be proven deterministic, but can never be proven random.

Quote :

"0.3 mm long. Condensation has thus provided us with macroscopic quantum objects."

So why dont we have a time phone yet, that can talk to 5 seconds ago?

8/31/2005 10:36:23 PM

I have never been to space to see with my own eyes how gravity forms planets and such. I've always thought with more mass the stronger the pull. The larger astriod pulls in smaller astroids towards it. Such as in the belt between mars and jupiter. Thats how astroids accumalate mass. The reason why these astroids haven't formed their own planet is due to the gravity of Jupiter and Mars pulling the astroids this way and that. Thats my juvenille approach to gravity. Your thoughts.

8/31/2005 10:59:32 PM

F = G m1 m2 / r^2

thats all you need

8/31/2005 11:03:18 PM

^ if space were flat

8/31/2005 11:04:15 PM

space is flat

8/31/2005 11:07:44 PM

F = G m1 m2 / r^2

So, Force equals Gravity times mass one, times mass two, divided by radius squared.... oh what the hell, explain this to me

8/31/2005 11:08:03 PM

r in that equation refers to the distance between the two bodies

8/31/2005 11:10:57 PM

how is space flat, do you mean if I were to create the universe using wire frame models it would still be flat since from my perspective it would still be 2d?

8/31/2005 11:11:18 PM

i was just trolling

8/31/2005 11:13:30 PM

blarg

[Edited on August 31, 2005 at 11:14 PM. Reason : 3]

8/31/2005 11:13:36 PM

I remember why I never got into physics. Its boring as hell.

8/31/2005 11:16:35 PM

Hell isnt boring. If it were ever found, I'm sure it would become an object of great interest, shown on the news everyday for weeks.

9/20/2005 1:59:55 AM

physics is cool

9/20/2005 9:27:38 AM