Science, it definitely still works bitches. - The Bear and Badger

djchump

cockbeard wrote:

I read about this EM engine and I think this So if producing the x/gamma/microwave -ray photons doesn't voilate the third law then neither does the engine.

If you've got an electric motor running on it, it's probably more efficient to just gear it to the wheels.

AJ

cockbeard

Or even just turn the fan around

[Deleted User]

I was thinking an army of hamsters in wheels but that I realised that would be a stupid idea because zero g.

[Deleted User]

acemuzzy wrote:

2+2=4 is a definition.
Energy is a definition. But it's not (as I understand it) defined as "the thing that is conserved".
I get that it's conservation is a pretty key underlying of fuckloads of stuff (perhaps even all of modern physics as we understand it), but that is still a non-analogus flavour of thing which could, just could, be wrong. Not saying it is, but equating any disagreeing stance with "saying 2+2=5" is getting boring and you've only do everything other twice.

Or let me guess I'm wrong but you won't elucidate why.

Been a bit busy and not been on forum for a couple of days.

Well it is defined as a thing that is conserved, and that's the only definition it really has. You could say it makes things do stuff, but that's not really an explanation and nor does it need to be. It's just number. Could it be wrong? Well anything could be wrong, but if it's wrong then all science as it currently stands is wrong. All of it. But to say "it could be wrong" so casually dismisses an awful lot and perhaps doesn't belong in the science thread, because you're essentially saying all of science could be bollocks, and then you're free to believe anything. Also, I'm a grumpy fuck.

Blue Swirl

djchump wrote:

cockbeard wrote:

I read about this EM engine and I think this. So if producing the x/gamma/microwave -ray photons doesn't voilate the third law then neither does the engine.

If you've got an electric motor running on it, it's probably more efficient to just gear it to the wheels.

It'll move, but to the right of the image, because the sail won't catch 100% of the wind.

cockbeard

But that's what is happening in the EM engine isn't it? The fan is a lightbulb, the sail is the conical shell, and a magnetic field is used to focus the photons in the direction that they are wanted. So in essence there is a thrust, but with a strong enough magnetic field the photon will change ish through 180 degrees so both opposite forces point the same way

Blue Swirl

cockbeard wrote:

But that's what is happening in the EM engine isn't it?

Short answer: no. Long answer: maybe yes (very maybe) but probably still no, as AFAIK no one's quite sure what's happening in the EM drive, should it stand up to extended testing and actually prove to be workable.

For example.

The NASA scientists who conducted the engine test contend that the results may go beyond known scientific phenomena: "Test results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma."

acemuzzy

SpaceGazelle wrote:

acemuzzy wrote:

2+2=4 is a definition. Energy is a definition. But it's not (as I understand it) defined as "the thing that is conserved". I get that it's conservation is a pretty key underlying of fuckloads of stuff (perhaps even all of modern physics as we understand it), but that is still a non-analogus flavour of thing which could, just could, be wrong. Not saying it is, but equating any disagreeing stance with "saying 2+2=5" is getting boring and you've only do everything other twice. Or let me guess I'm wrong but you won't elucidate why.

Been a bit busy and not been on forum for a couple of days. Well it is defined as a thing that is conserved, and that's the only definition it really has. You could say it makes things do stuff, but that's not really an explanation and nor does it need to be. It's just number. Could it be wrong? Well anything could be wrong, but if it's wrong then all science as it currently stands is wrong. All of it. But to say "it could be wrong" so casually dismisses an awful lot and perhaps doesn't belong in the science thread, because you're essentially saying all of science could be bollocks, and then you're free to believe anything. Also, I'm a grumpy fuck.

Thanks. I now feel a bit bad for my sarcastic last sentence.

I guess that's now how I view energy being defined, but I'm happy to be wrong. I wasn't particularly meaning the philosophical point, more than a mathematical axiom is different to a physical law. But if you're saying it's a physical axiom, then I'm not really sure what to think.

[Deleted User]

Energy was the thing that started me thinking that the Universe was literally built out of maths. This mysterious thing that could only be described by a number- what the fuck was it? Maybe the number doesn't describe it but IS it? Why complicate matters? Can a number exist as a tangible, actual thing?

Energy tallying is a powerful tool for a particle physicist. You look at a high speed accelerator collision and if the before and after energies don't add up the missing bit is a new particle, and you've got an idea what it might be like based on it's energy (the missing bit). You then try and find the thing (capture it) and job done. You give it a name and get a Nobel prize for your efforts. What really is it though? It's a list of numbers. Mass if it has any, spin, charge, blah blah. Those numbers tell you how it's going to behave based on physical laws. But of course it turns out physical rules are actually equations and that's all they are, when looked at properly. Then you've got to find out the Universal Constants (more numbers) to put an equals sign into those equations and that's basically physics. Just equations and numbers, and the energy conservation law. Sort of - conservation of momentum is probably the most important concept in physics but needless to say that's just a number too. Can worlds exist just using maths? Videogames do. Well, you need hardware, but that's just particles, or more accurately just more numbers.

QM is just complex numbers. All those arrows that cancel - they're complex numbers. The most successful thing in all of physics is founded on i.

Current cosmology assumes the energy of the Universe is zero, and the negative gravitational energy if all the mass balances out the positive energy of the mass causing the gravitational field, and it adds up to precisely zero. Then you can have an infinite amount of Universes popping into existence because they sum to zero.

Zero and i are apparently made up mathematical concepts and arguably the most abstract - "invented" tools that exist to aid calculations, yet you can build universes and their laws with them. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

djchump

Strikes me as convenient, as most stipulations are, else they wouldn't be used.

cockbeard

I might be way off the beaten path here, but if the numbers really worked we wouldn't need to invent dark matter would we?

AJ

I've doubted that numbers work since I found out there are imaginary ones.

[Deleted User]

I see what you're saying chump, and science has a long history of trying to fit explanations into what is currently known, but maths is eyebrow-raisingly convenient.

Physics is reductive because nature seems to be, and you can't simplfy further than an equation can you? Do quantum fields exist in any form other than a mathematical one? Well if they do that adds an unnecessary layer, another complication, and you could go looking for it but I don't rate your chances, and when you can't reduce any further you're just left with maths. Are we going to find an even simpler layer beneath maths? Is it possible to reduce below it with a different language? Maybers. But you can build virtual worlds out of maths without one.

[Deleted User]

cockbeard wrote:

I might be way off the beaten path here, but if the numbers really worked we wouldn't need to invent dark matter would we?

This is a good point. When the numbers don't work you have a new discovery, but only in the same vein as new particle discoveries I mentioned earlier. The fact that it's 95% of all matter in the Universe is no biggie, it's possible to invent all that extra stuff overnight to make the numbers add up. Then you've just got to capture some of it and see what's what.

[Deleted User]

Nobody mention horses and carts.

Yossarian

Do they also defy the known laws of physics?

djchump

SpaceGazelle wrote:

I see what you're saying chump, and science has a long history of trying to fit explanations into what is currently known, but maths is eyebrow-raisingly convenient. Physics is reductive because nature seems to be, and you can't simplfy further than an equation can you? Do quantum fields exist in any form other than a mathematical one? Well if they do that adds an unnecessary layer, another complication, and you could go looking for it but I don't rate your chances, and when you can't reduce any further you're just left with maths. Are we going to find an even simpler layer beneath maths? Is it possible to reduce below it with a different language? Maybers. But you can build virtual worlds out of maths without one.

I dunno about the complicated physics and maths and whatnot, I see it mostly as the distinction between a representation/description and the thing itself.

cockbeard

But that's the thing isn't it. If dark matter is 95% of the universe, then why didn't someone decide we have something else wrong

I'm unsure if your reply is sarcastic is all, just seems that if I was only 5% right I'd wonder about starting again. After all the numbers we have seem to break down at the very birth of the universe, and at very small levels (which is kinda the same thing I think) why shouldn't it break down at very old or very big things. Our rules describe our small frame of reference really well

[Deleted User]

djchump wrote:

I see it mostly as the distinction between a representation/description and the thing itself.

You're not reducing enough, and that's bad science. Cut out the middleman and you've got only maths.

cockbeard

SpaceGazelle wrote:

djchump wrote:

I see it mostly as the distinction between a representation/description and the thing itself.

You're not reducing enough, and that's bad science. Cut out the middleman and you've got only maths.

Hahaha, and that's why I've always loved Maths, no ambiguity, although at very advanced stages I'm told that ambiguity appears which has always put me off exploring them

[Deleted User]

cockbeard wrote:

But that's the thing isn't it. If dark matter is 95% of the universe, then why didn't someone decide we have something else wrong I'm unsure if your reply is sarcastic is all, just seems that if I was only 5% right I'd wonder about starting again. After all the numbers we have seem to break down at the very birth of the universe, and at very small levels (which is kinda the same thing I think) why shouldn't it break down at very old or very big things. Our rules describe our small frame of reference really well

It wasn't sarcastic, but you're confusing the numbers slightly. Because 95% of the matter is currently missing doesn't mean 95% of the science is wrong. There's just a fuckton of matter that doesn't shine so you can't see it, although it does interact gravitationally. We might just be talking about a single particle here, a bit like a neutrino.

Yossarian

SpaceGazelle wrote:

djchump wrote:

I see it mostly as the distinction between a representation/description and the thing itself.

You're not reducing enough, and that's bad science. Cut out the middleman and you've got only maths.

This makes zero sense to me.

cockbeard

It doesn't just not shine, it doesn't reflect, doesn't absorb, in fact it seems to be completely invisible to the every EM wavelength we've thrown at it. The only reason we "know" it's there is because the numbers say it is. At least that's my (far from complete) understanding

That isn't me saying the numbers are wrong, I like numbers, just that if 95% of my pint was missing I'd wonder if someone had dropped a bollock somewhere. I mean, we consider c to be a constant yet we can clearly slow down c under certain circumstances (bose-eisenstein condensates and the like). Is it possible that our calculations of gravity or mass are also inaccurate. Call me a dumbass but if at the start there was Hydrogen which cooled into Helium etc etc all the way down the periodic table, then is it possible that there are even heavier elements lower down the table, so the older areas of the universe may be far far denser than we thought possible

caveat: I don't know if it's possible, it's simply my usual train of thought stream of consciousness shit

djchump

Yossarian wrote:

SpaceGazelle wrote:

djchump wrote:

I see it mostly as the distinction between a representation/description and the thing itself.

You're not reducing enough, and that's bad science. Cut out the middleman and you've got only maths.

This makes zero sense to me.

Me neither. It's akin to saying "cut out the middleman and Picasso's line figure is actually The Bull".

/shrug

[Deleted User]

I went to uni to study physics. Every day was another day of learning that this 'fact' was an assumption which could only be verified by relying on other assumptions masquerading as facts, which were themselves reliant on today's fact. A house of cards, but designed by MC Escher, so it's only supported by itself.

I switched to English. People say that's a big switch, but it's not really. Both involved studying works of fiction...

Lord_Griff

Blue Swirl

If anyone taught you that something in science is "fact", they're doing their job wrong. Hence "theory", which unlike its common usage of "rough idea", actually means "as close as a fact as it's possible to get with our puny human brains and pathetic science". Nothing is ever certain, but somethings are as close as dammit you need some pretty stonking evidence to rescind it.

So, yes, Munchausen's trilemma and such, but good luck disproving the mathematic axioms. It may be a house of cards, but it's got a concrete base.

As for "is reality maths?", I think that's the basis behind the "the universe is just a hologram" hypothesis.

AJ

Surely it's the other way 'round: maths is reality.

Blue Swirl

Potato, tomato.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories