Anyone else into Physics?

[wbradley]

Imagine, just a single gram of antimatter could power a starship for light years.

[Bignicky1]

I'm a Civil engineering major and i despise physics

[Rayme]

I love physics. Especially the "double slit" quantum experiment...fascinating.

[WingsofWar]

Originally Posted by ottopilot

I love physics. Especially the "double slit" quantum experiment...fascinating.

that one was pretty good.. teleporting particles, i think i read somewhere how some theorists raged for days because of it.

[FiRStsc10n]

I could listen to Stephen Hawking talk about physics and the universe for days on end.

[HunterGreene]

I love physics, and the two things I have learned from it so far are:

1) The universe is shaped like a Donut...mmmm, donut.

2) Shroedinger's Cat is a zombie.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by wbradley

Imagine, just a single gram of antimatter could power a starship for light years.

Originally Posted by FiRStsc10n

I could listen to Stephen Hawking talk about physics and the universe for days on end.

i cant tell if either of these are serious or not.

[Dimman]

I wish more aftermarket parts manufacturers were into physics, proper engineering, peer-review testing, scientific method and all that jazz.

Rather than the increasingly typical hype and bullshit.

[Luis_GT]

Originally Posted by Bignicky1

I'm a Civil engineering major and i despise physics

Buddy, old pal!

[jkonquer]

Originally Posted by WingsofWar

kinda hard to make perfect sense of it when much of the theory relies on assumptions.

All you gotta know is that at a single point of origin, all matter and energy in "our" universe was compressed into a tiny point and exploded creating an expanding bubble filled with "space".

I mean, I understand the theory. I just don't understand how something was physically there before all this happened.

[wbradley]

I heard when Stephen Hawking was at the U of W a few years ago he spent a lot of evenings in a peeler bar.

[supra2nv]

Originally Posted by wbradley

I heard when Stephen Hawking was at the U of W a few years ago he spent a lot of evenings in a peeler bar.

Feynman figured out a lot of his stuff in strip clubs glad I like ladies like these guys at least lol...

edit: I do not go to strip clubs! lol. But I do like the ladies lol!

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by supra2nv

I personally under the stance that everything is related to everything (Michio talks about this)...QED is specifically what I am into, but also find importance to understand classical physics, thermodynamics, and others. Until Maxwell made his unification for example, magnetism and electricity were under two different schools of thought no? but then we realize they are (as Feynman put it), "different aspects of the same thing." this may sound off topic sorta, but I think Nikola Tesla understood that most things around us is a varying frequency/amplitude of light/information. i.e. radio, florescent, xray, he just knew how to hack nature in my opinion. that's all we do right? we hack nature?

In math, there is a sort of predominant attitude/philosophy that emphasizes abstraction, because the higher up you go, the more you can reduce problems down to a matter of understanding the definition rather than a lot of complicated technical arguments. When a theory has been distilled to something simple and elegant like that math people tend to say "the reason for ___ is ____", even though there are many "reasons" for why it's true. Unification in physics is essentially the analog, attaching a more complex structure to something so that you can describe more with it, and that's why physicists chase a unification theory; Meta-philosophically (lulz) you'd be able to figure everything out if you had something that reasonably describes everything.

We don't hack nature at all, we're just lucky to have a few things like metals and such that allow us to manipulate matter in certain useful ways at our human sized scale.

I think a lot of people misread physics. The theories are descriptions of the phenomena, but that's all they are, and they are often very limited descriptions. For example I think Wolfram or someone once said the universe might behave like a computer and we are projections. How you should read that is as a limited analogy, whereas I've seen it interpreted as positing that the two are being equated.

[supra2nv]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

In math, there is a sort of predominant attitude/philosophy that emphasizes abstraction, because the higher up you go, the more you can reduce problems down to a matter of understanding the definition rather than a lot of complicated technical arguments. When a theory has been distilled to something simple and elegant like that math people tend to say "the reason for ___ is ____", even though there are many "reasons" for why it's true. Unification in physics is essentially the analog, attaching a more complex structure to something so that you can describe more with it, and that's why physicists chase a unification theory; Meta-philosophically (lulz) you'd be able to figure everything out if you had something that reasonably describes everything.

We don't hack nature at all, we're just lucky to have a few things like metals and such that allow us to manipulate matter in certain useful ways at our human sized scale.

I think a lot of people misread physics. The theories are descriptions of the phenomena, but that's all they are, and they are often very limited descriptions. For example I think Wolfram or someone once said the universe might behave like a computer and we are projections. How you should read that is as a limited analogy, whereas I've seen it interpreted as positing that the two are being equated.

thank you for your response.

yes, manipulate nature...I call it, hack lol. as Feynman put it, "it's nature doing the work." when we learn that if you take a magnet over copper wire you get electricity (faraday), that's a discovery, a hack, not an invention in my eyes. unifying it mathematically (Maxwell) makes us able quantify and predict outcomes and "manipulate" or "hack" the nature if we understand the code no? radio, it's simply light, at a frequency, which we need to decode to hear it. but the core of the invention is nature. i.e. heating up a piece of wood, im just creating the conditions for a fire, the rest is automated...once the equation begins it does it until of course...it stops lol

in reference to wolfram, I don't know that name but I want to look this up now. this reminds me of the measurement problem in QED and the collapsing of the wave function no? or am I off?

I keep battling with these concepts among many others: we don't know how gravity works. mass is mostly empty space they say. there appears to be some commonality between light, electricity, magnetism, and gravity (inverse square law). simply speaking there are so many unanswered questions, we literally know nothing as a species...

I'm just digging and trying to make sense of it all lol. Learning the equations as well, figure maybe I can play around with the "algebra" lol

What's your background? interesting commentary.