Sunday, December 03, 2006

 

just an experiment

http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/6961627

Friday, November 10, 2006

 

No post

havn't had any time - too much confusion with school. i swear, we get so many tests!

Saturday, October 21, 2006

 

Yet another correction to post 'Pill Universe'

Well, i was reading 'in search of schrodinger's cat' by john gribbing when it told me all about heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
whoa
turned out that i got it wrong for the most part. what i said was partially true, and partially not true. it has to do with the wavefunction of the particle, which is hard to explain and harder to digest. i'm still trying to right now.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

 

CORRECTION TO POST 'The 'Pill' Universe'

I realize now that something that i said in an earlier post is just plain and simple wrong.

Now usually I'd go looking into one of my favorite things, quantum physics for the answer, which I would then turn into Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Now, normally this might work for it would say that the forces couldn't be uniform, for the probability of force X being in force Y would only be Z%. However, there is a problem with this.


What i should have said that instead of force X being in force Y would only be Z% is this:

The probablility of Particle X being in Place Y would only be Z% and this would change how it interacts with the other particles, since the force that it emits/acts upon would change based on where it is.


Basically what that means is that if particle1 was at point A instead of point B, then it would change how it affects particle2 through whatever force you would want.

I AM SORRY FOR THIS MISTAKE. PLEASE USE THIS EXPLINATION INSTEAD OF THE
probability of force ... Z%
SENTANCE.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

 

Planet's Formation Theory Found To Be True - How Did They Know?

Boy, that sure sounded like a news report. However, this isn't.

I was just reading this article here that told me that they have for the first time that they have discovered a star that is orbited by both a dust ring and a planet together. This has never been found before appariently. Well, how exactly did they find it?

The article says that they found it through a process known as radial-velocity method as mentioned in the article. But what exactly is that?

The Radial-Velocity method is just another way to determine what is present, but you cannot see, from how it affects what you can see. Like Charlie says in an episode of Numb3rs, "Imagine having a bowl full of water, and its covered with pepper. If you were to put soap in it, the pepper would move. But if you were to use clear soap, the pepper would still move but you couldn't see it. However, from the reaction of the pepper, we could tell what was done, namley putting the soap in", more or less.

What the astronomers did was they took alot of observations made by the Hubble Space Telescope, and observed how the star 'wobbled' so to speak every so often. By determining how much the wobble is, they could deduce the amount of the gravitational pull exerted by the un-seeable planet and deduce its mass and how far away it is. By seeing how it wobbles many times during the year, they could determine to ever increasing accuracy the aformentioned objects as well as the orbit of the planet. The reason for having so many observations, namley i think it was just about 3000 of them, was to increase the accuracy of the experiment and to determine the exact effects of the planet's gravitational pull, since it might vary over the course of the year.

But then how did they find the dust cloud? I must say that i do not know for certain. I think that it might have to do with the elements inside of the dust cloud absorbing the light that is emited from the star. According to thermodynamics, the light would be released again at a later time, however perhaps it would be at a different wavelength. I'm not too sure about that, since i know that astronomers can deduce what is in between a star and earth by the type of light that reaches us, the rest having been absorbed by helium or whatnot. So, the part that i'm really not sure about is the thermodynamics part. If someone could tell me, i would be happy to listen!

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

 

The 'Pill' Universe

Well, i was reading a blog entry by my friend, the Science Onlooker
when i thought a thought (weird ...). How is it that in the beginning, the forces that were propelled by the big bang were irregular and non-uniform? (almost the same thing ... but a slight difference).

Since the entire universe had started from a speck, then it would seem odd that the forces inside that speck weren't uniform. This would suggest that it wasn't a real spec to begin with, one that was uniform and spherical by itself, so I would think.

Now usually I'd go looking into one of my favorite things, quantum physics for the answer, which I would then turn into Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Now, normally this might work for it would say that the forces couldn't be uniform, for the probability of force X being in force Y would only be Z%. However, there is a problem with this.

Quantum Mechanics, or QM deals with very very very very small stuff. General Relativity, or GR, deals with very big stuff. Normally we can ignore one of them when dealing with problems, however in this case we can't.

At the beginning of the universe, there universe was extreamly small, however it contained enormous quantities of matter and energy. The small part would deal with QM, but the enormous quantitiess would deal with GR, so both would be called into effect.

However, QM and GR are mutually incompatible. If you try and work them out together, i've been told that you get a whole bunch of gibberish. So, appariently we won't know the answer to this pill problem until we finish what should be the solution to combinding QM and GR, which should be string theory. Hurry up you String Theorists! I've got questions, and i'm waiting for some answers!

Please point out anything that I have wrong - I am always eager to learn, and I know for a fact that there are alot of things that I don't know. And there are probably stuff that I am ignorant of that may solve any question or conflict or statement that I have/make. So please pardon me for that and point out my mistake.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?