I had heard from several of you that absorbing the theoretical concepts of my theory from the blog was tough slogging, and one of you (thank-you, you know who you are!) suggested posting a paper to the scribd site, which I did.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17016956/The-Paradoxes-of-the-Electron-Point-Source

It’s got a few typos, and the derivation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty section is missing, more specifics and math should undoubtably be added, and a few other things need to be fixed, but this should give you an easier to absorb picture of the theory. Feel free to whale away with comments!!

Personally, I used to hate maths. I always thought it as a waste of time. It just needs so much attention for something so tiny, and without realising it, my grades started droping… YOU ARE OUTLAW PETE. But then again, I had that really amazing physics theory teacher at my final year of school, who made me love physics theory, maths, and ancient greek again (no do not try to use that as your own excuse). So my conclusion became that math is interesting to those who know where to apply it.

I’ve read recently (before two hours) linear algebra, from a game developers’ article, and was really astonished. I mean, w00t, WTF, where the hell that came from??? The article is based on physics theory in games development, and though I’ve not reached such a level yet, quickly became fond of it. I’ve read an XNA tutorial about 2D game development, where they use radians to calculate the rotation of objects, and cos and sin (I’ve really forgotten that ones) for the velocity, but didn’t really paid much attention. I thought I should just copy-paste it. And now, out of the blue, I’ve just realised what vectors are!!!(and scalars too!)

It seems to me, that what someone really needs is a good example, and not something like “solve this” (GO TO HELL). So nip down to http://www.free-ebooks.gr/en/downl_01.php?x=1&y=1&z=3 grab a book, and start gaining knowledge, you humanoid. Best of luck.

Breaking the laws of physics theory isn’t exactly like being caught for say, speeding. You won’t get a physics theory ticket or a summons to appear in physics theory court where the ghosts of Albert Einstein and Werner Heisenberg hit you on the head with their papers after they stop arguing with each other. You don’t get hauled off to physics theory jail with other theoretical lawbreakers where your punishment is to be confined to a quantum cell which fades in and out of the normal fabric of space-time, its wave mechanics function collapse lasting for only an hour a day, and an attempt to quantum tunnel yourself out will extend your sentence by an indeterminate amount of relative time. So what exactly do scientists and science writers mean when they talk about someone breaking the laws of physics theory?

Unlike regular old laws that exist to prevent us from doing things we can do but shouldn’t, the laws of science define everything that’s possible in this universe. They’re their own judge, jury and executioner and they make their decisions in less than a billionth of a second. All your attempts to break them anywhere other than your hypothetical framework will either fail or you’ll be torn into your constituent particles by the immense energies involved and scattered across countless light years. So if you successfully violated a scientific law and lived to tell the tale, it means that you found a mistake in how that law was recorded or got something wrong in one of your formulas and ended up with an utterly impossible solution to a theoretical problem.

But I have to say that a physics theory jail does sound like an interesting idea. It could safely house proponents of the pseudoscientific electric universe concept and the likes of Spike Psarris where they could do less damage to web surfers in search of real science. Maybe its warden could also partner with biologists and create a wing where ardent creationists would be sentenced to an eternity of watching organisms evolve. After all, there’s no worse punishment for a purveyor of woo than having to learn how the world really works…

Scientists will admit to being in wonderment and in awe of nature’s beauty and elegance. From the largest to the smallest phenomena in the universe, order, regularity and symmetry is encountered everywhere we look. All this order is self-evidently lawful and systematic.

Not only does this beauty and elegance reflect mathematical constants—nature’s measurements, proportions, ratios and equations represented in its various structures, complexities and processes are profoundly pleasing to the human mind.

Every discovery made by human experience and exploration brings delight to the mind. Physicists find that the mathematical equations that best describe nature are the most beautiful. Many also believe that the mathematics of differentiation hides a potent and beautiful power of unity.

Why should the structure of the universe be pleasing? And why would this beauty be especially recognizable to the human heart and mind? Why is nature using the same mathematical rules that mathematicians find beautiful to formulate?

Does the mathematical elegance of the universe point to something deeper? Or, put another way, does the joy of beauty point to something deeper? Yes! It tells us that truth presents us with goodness. The intelligence of the world is aimed at affecting the passions of the human heart.

This beauty and goodness is a reflection of God’s Infinite Love!

The next great shake-up in science will take place when it is discovered that LOVE is both primal substance and the key to agency in the world. As the first causal principle in the universe, Love always adapts form and structure to its own disposition. In other words, Love’s beauty is the guiding principle behind the harmony, simplicity, and unity of the laws of the universe. Truth represents the mathematics (laws) by which Love comes forth and finds formal existence.

Existence is relationship (nothing can exist alone). For new things to come into existence previous things must coexist. In fact, nature procures its stability and coherence through “relationship-building.” 

Nature’s ongoing endeavor to self-organize is a physical analog of Love’s essential striving to unite. Love is living creative force. It is the reason why the laws of the universe are so bio-friendly.

The origin of beauty is the marriage of Love (essence) and Truth (form). Beauty has its origins in a non-temporal and non-spatial realm called heaven.

First, I want to wish everyone a happy Canada day!

I also wanted to start compiling links to free online undergraduate lectures and materials.

1) MIT Open Courseware
2) Academic Earth
3) Berkeley Webcasts

If you know of more, please leave a comment and I will add them to the list!

Charges: positive and negative

same charges repel each other while opposite charges oppose.

charge is quantitized.

Charge by conduction, rubbing metal with flur, free electrons would flow from conductor to flur giving it negative charge while metal  possessed excess positive charge.

Charge by induction- conductor:  placing a negative charge rod close to a netural conductor sphere, eletrons would be repelled from the side facing the rod to the opposite side, while connecting the sphere to ground, these free repelled eletrons would flow to the ground and once the sphere is dissconnected from it, a positive charged sphere has been induced with minus electrons.

insulator – same method, although there are no free electrons in an insulator, molecules within would be remodeled.

Given that each molecule is a round structure with centered positive charge coincide with centered negative charge, induction by placing a negative charged rod close to would repel the negative charge within a molecule, the molecule would result with an oval shape having electrons  tilted away from the rod, resulting a more positive charge on the the inductive side and a more negative side on the other. Assume such a phenomenon started from the left, the induced molecule with a negative ‘tip’ on the left side would be offset by the positive ‘tip’ from another molecule on the right. Such a shifting phenomenon would end up with the insulator having a positive charge on the left and negative charge on the right.

Ruprecht Nennstiel, a forensic ballistics expert from Wiesbaden, Germany, has authored a great resource about bullet behavior in flight. Nennstiel’s comprehensive article, How Do Bullets Fly, explains all the forces which affect bullet flight including gravity, wind, gyroscopic effects, aerodynamic drag, and lift. Nennstiel even explains the rather arcane Magnus Force and Coriolis Effect which come into play at long ranges. Nennstiel’s remarkable resource contains many useful illustrations plus new experimental observations of bullets fired from small arms, both at short and at long ranges.

Shadowgraph of .308 Winchester Bullet

A convenient index is provided so you can study each particular force in sequence. Writing with clear, precise prose, Nennstiel explains each key factor that affects external ballistics. For starters, we all know that bullets spin when launched from a rifled barrel. But Nennstiel explains in greater detail how this spinning creates gyroscopic stability:

“The overturning moment MW tends to rotate the bullet about an axis, which goes through the CG (center of gravity) and which is perpendicular to the plane of drag, the plane, formed by the velocity vector ‘v’ and the longitudinal axis of the bullet. In the absence of spin, the yaw angle ‘δ’ would grow and the bullet would tumble.

If the bullet has sufficient spin, saying if it rotates fast enough about its axis of form, the gyroscopic effect takes place: the bullet’s longitudinal axis moves into the direction of the overturning moment, perpendicular to the plane of drag. This axis shift however alters the plane of drag, which then rotates about the velocity vector. This movement is called precession or slow mode oscillation.”

Raise Your Ballistic IQ
Though comprehensible to the average reader with some grounding in basic physics theory, Nennstiel’s work is really the equivalent of a Ph.D thesis in external ballistics. You could easily spend hours reading (and re-reading) all the primary material as well as the detailed FAQ section. But we think it’s worth plowing into How Do Bullets Fly from start to finish. We suggest you bookmark the page for future reference. You can also download the complete article for future reference and offline reading.

CLICK HERE to download “How Do Bullets Fly” complete text. (1.2 MB .zip file)

Photo and diagram © 2005-2009 Ruprecht Nennstiel, All Rights Reserved

Went to see Terminator Salvation yesterday, and along with Transformers 2 thats both of this years big films I wanted to see watched. Wouldn’t mind seeing Ice age 3 in 3D at some point though – Coraline and Monsters vs. Aliens were a laugh in 3D.

T4 was good but not as great as I was hoping. It just seemed to lag a bit for me, there didn’t seem to be much driving force behind the film. It was a surprise to see Arnie (in some form at least) in there though – I’d been told he wasn’t in it at all.  While the visual effects were good, I wasn’t overly stunned by them.

Transformers was enjoyable, given that I went in for the visuals rather than the story. Like the first, fight scenes between transformers could be a bit confusing with alot of grey robots flying about, but it certainly wasn’t short on action or explosions. I’m sure the second film was riding on the success of the first but it didn’t really do anything new, there was just more of it, slightly more polished. With regards to a third film I don’t know if the second has done enough to grant a new one being made.

I’ve been reading Chaos by James Gleick lately and if I get time I’d like to implement a Lorenzian Waterwheel in C++ with OpenGL.

For the physics theory side of things I think the weight of each bucket can be resolved into a force along a tangent to the edge of the wheel at the buckets fixing point. All the buckets’ forces (and weights) can then be summed to plug into f = ma (or a = f/m) . This can then be used with v = u + at where the velocity represents rotational velocity of the wheel. If this is done every frame it might resemble something mildly accurate.

I’m not sure if simplifying it this much will break it (i.e. using the rotational velocity in place of straight line velocity) but at the moment that’s as far as I’ve got thinking about it. I’m sure I’ll have to break out the pen and paper soon enough…

El Premio John Stewart Bell para Investigaciones en los Fundamentos de la Mecánica Cuántica y sus Aplicaciones, concedido por el reciente inaugurado Center for Quantum Information and Quantum Control (el palindrómico CQIQC) ha sido otorgado al Profesor Nicolas Gisin de la Université de Genève, por sus contribuciones recientes (tienen que tener menos de 6 años según las bases del premio) en distribución de claves segura para cifrado (criptografía) cuántica y por sus tests de las desigualdades de Bell que refutan ciertas teorías que asumen que el origen del colapso de la función de onda es gravitatorio. En el jurado del Premio se encontraban los “grandes” de la cuántica: Alain Aspect, Aephraim Steinberg, Gilles Brassard, Richard Hughes, y Peter Zoller (todos amigos personales del premiado, dicho sea de paso).

El último artículo (D. Salart, A. Baas, J.A.W. van Houwelingen, N. Gisin, H. Zbinden, “Space-like Separation in a Bell Test assuming Gravitationally Induced Collapses,” ArXiv, Submitted on 17 Mar 2008) refuta la teoría de Penrose-Diósi (L. Diósi, la propuso en “A universal master equation for the gravitational violation of quantum mechanics,” physics theory Letters A 120: 377-381, 1987, Penrose hizo famosa en su famoso libro “La Nueva Mente del Emperador” y “corrigió” en un artículo posterior la fórmula dividiéndola por un factor de 2) según la cual la duración del colapso de la función de onda depende del campo gravitatorio generado por la masa contenida en el volumen de espacio donde se produce el colapso de la función de onda (la fórmula del tiempo de colapso está en la figura de arriba).

Brevemente, el experimento es como sigue. Entrelazan dos fotones y los envían en direcciones opuestas por dos fibras ópticas hasta sendos detectores separados 18 km. En cada receptor hay dos espejos de oro de 2 mg (miligramos) conectados a unos actuadores piezoeléctricos controlados por un voltaje que pueden mover (ligeramente) los espejos. Si actúan con el voltaje sobre uno de los espejos, el fotón que colapse en el otro espejo “instantáneamente” hará que colapse el primer fotón antes de alcanzar su espejo y se conocerá el resultado “antes de tiempo.” La actuación sobre el voltaje (unos 0,3 V) es muy rápida, de unos 0.1 microsegundos, y provoca un desplazamiento del espejo de 12,6 nm (nanómetros). Según la fórmula de Penrose-Diósi, el tiempo del colapso es 7,1 microsegundos, unas 60 veces mayor que el tiempo de conmutación del voltaje. Como el experimento verifica las desigualdades de Bell y con ellas un colapso “instantáneo” de la función de onda (la luz recorre en 0.1 microsegundos solamente 0,3 km, muy inferior a los 18 km del experimento) la teoría de Penrose-Diósi queda experimentalmente refutada.

Por cierto, hay otras teorías que conectan el colapso de la función de onda con la gravedad y que conducen a tiempos de colapso muy inferiores (incluso del orden del tiempo de Planck con lo que son experimentalmente no refutables). Hay varios físicos españoles trabajando en este tema. Ya hablaremos de su trabajo en otra ocasión. Os confieso que yo me encuentro entre los que creen que gravedad y colapso de la función de onda están relacionados. Si tenéis acceso en papel (no está en la web) os recomiendo el artículo J. L. Rosales, S. Bergia, F. Cannata, José L. Sánchez-Gómez, “El papel de la gravitación en la fundamentación de la Mecánica cuántica: problemas abiertos y perspectivas,” Revista Española de Física, 6: 18-28, 1992 (José Luis Sánchez-Gómez es catedrático de Física de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid).

Whether it’s the first tee at the Masters or the seventh hole at Adventure Landing Miniature Golf at the Jersey Shore, “That Guy” will be there.  It could be a tee shot on a 650 yard hole or a two foot tap in putt, “That Guy” will be there.  It could be the world’s toughest tournament – “Held in Socorro, New Mexico, the tournament consists of exactly one hole, and the target is a 50-foot circle… The tee to that hole is 2,550 feet up the side of a mountain, and nearly three miles from the green.” – “That Guy” will be there.  It may even be one of, if not the, world’s most difficult holes in golf – “The course’s so-called ‘Xtreme 19^th’ hole is a par 3 – a par 3 whose tee is atop a cliff on Hanglip Mountain, more than 1,400 feet above a green carved like the continent of Africa.  You’ve got to take a helicopter to get to the tee box, and from there it’s more than 630 yards to the pin.  Once you tee off, it takes nearly 30 seconds for the ball to hit the ground.” – and “That Guy” will be there.

Regardless of the difficulty of the shot or the hole, “That Guy” will be the one on the golf course yelling “get in the hole!”  It doesn’t matter that there is no plausible way due to the laws of physics theory and thermodynamics that the ball could even conceivably go in the hole.  Most sources found say the chances of hitting a hole in one are approximately 3,000 to 1 for a Tour player, 5,000 to 1 for a “low handicapper,” and somewhere around 12,000 to 1 for an “average player.”  But when you’re “That Guy,” you can’t be bothered by minor details like physics theory and statistical analysis.

Then why does “That Guy” do it?  A rather simple explanation is that he just wants to be “That Guy” and hopefully hear himself on television.  Another more plausible explanation is that after putting on his best argyle socks, tight brightly colored slacks, polo shirt, and golf club manufacturer visor; sitting next to the green in the grandstands in the direct sun for eight hours without moving suffering from the onset of heatstroke; and drinking his fifteenth MGD (the official tournament sponsor), there’s not much “That Guy” can do but yell “Get in the hole!”