Hypersphere

[greg]

For example, some guy played around with permutations of Planck's constant resulting in a mathematical proof that matter had a wavelength which was obviously utter nonsense. Well, unfortunately years later he was proven right when it was proven experimentally that electrons have a wavelength that can be observed and measured.

The electrons were just too scared to be particles anymore... because that man's name... was Chuck Norris.

[lorddunlow]

For example, some guy played around with permutations of Planck's constant resulting in a mathematical proof that matter had a wavelength which was obviously utter nonsense. Well, unfortunately years later he was proven right when it was proven experimentally that electrons have a wavelength that can be observed and measured.

The electrons were just too scared to be particles anymore... because that man's name... was Chuck Norris.

[kjjohanson]

But cosmologists will continue to howl at the moon.

Strictly speaking, cosmologists don't care about the moon... it's too fresh.

Yes, that's why they howl at it. It's blocking their view of older stuff.

Is that why swtor1091 hasn't chimed in on this thread? Cuz he's not interested in the old stuff?

[lorddunlow]

But cosmologists will continue to howl at the moon.

Strictly speaking, cosmologists don't care about the moon... it's too fresh.

Yes, that's why they howl at it. It's blocking their view of older stuff.

Is that why swtor1091 hasn't chimed in on this thread? Cuz he's not interested in the old stuff?

Actually, will he cease to exist after a certain period as a member, as he himself will become "old stuff"?

[Chiclo]

Man, after reading all of the above, I think the latest Harbinger must have affected me more than I thought. I mean, I recognize most of those words as English, yet I have no idea what they mean.

Art

That's okay. Most physicists don't understand it either, but the math works out and that's all they care about.

In their defense, if the math works out, the underlying theory often holds up. For example, some guy played around with permutations of Planck's constant resulting in a mathematical proof that matter had a wavelength which was obviously utter nonsense. Well, unfortunately years later he was proven right when it was proven experimentally that electrons have a wavelength that can be observed and measured.

They've gone wild with math ever since.

Even from its earliest versions, string theory has suggested that quarks are the strings and the protons and neutrons and similar particles are the vibrations within groups of this strings. Electrons and other leptons have more in common with quarks than with hadrons (like protons and neutrons).

[X-O HoboJoe]

Wouldn't a collapsing 4D object project as a torus into 3D space?

[Chiclo]

Wouldn't a collapsing 4D object project as a torus into 3D space?

Are you asking if this theoretical 4-D object and attendant collapse would be represented by the shape of a torus when mapped into 3-D space?

I honestly don't know. All the 4-D representation I have ever done has been with two sets of Cartesian coordinates - where you have one shape in a Cartesian field that maps into another shape in a second Cartesian field.

[X-O HoboJoe]

Wouldn't a collapsing 4D object project as a torus into 3D space?

Are you asking if this theoretical 4-D object and attendant collapse would be represented by the shape of a torus when mapped into 3-D space?

I honestly don't know. All the 4-D representation I have ever done has been with two sets of Cartesian coordinates - where you have one shape in a Cartesian field that maps into another shape in a second Cartesian field.

More of an intuitive "how could I draw that?" impression of expanding spheres overlapping and how it could be perceived.

[lorddunlow]

Wouldn't a collapsing 4D object project as a torus into 3D space?

Are you asking if this theoretical 4-D object and attendant collapse would be represented by the shape of a torus when mapped into 3-D space?

I honestly don't know. All the 4-D representation I have ever done has been with two sets of Cartesian coordinates - where you have one shape in a Cartesian field that maps into another shape in a second Cartesian field.

More of an intuitive "how could I draw that?" impression of expanding spheres overlapping and how it could be perceived.

The same way that a line segment could draw a pyramid. You can't.

[X-O HoboJoe]

Wouldn't a collapsing 4D object project as a torus into 3D space?

Are you asking if this theoretical 4-D object and attendant collapse would be represented by the shape of a torus when mapped into 3-D space?

I honestly don't know. All the 4-D representation I have ever done has been with two sets of Cartesian coordinates - where you have one shape in a Cartesian field that maps into another shape in a second Cartesian field.

More of an intuitive "how could I draw that?" impression of expanding spheres overlapping and how it could be perceived.

The same way that a line segment could draw a pyramid. You can't.

Assuming intelligence (non-Volgons), if a segment can percieve a triangle (smaller segments arranged from longest to a point), couldn't it envision a pyramid? Maybe an animation would better serve to illustrate the object changing with time.

[Baramos]

The difficulty with quantum mechanics is people find it hard to relate to their everyday lives. I mean our space program, which is decidedly primitive on any conceivable scale of the universe, not even ant-like, maybe amoeba-like, has been killed. So it's not like we're ever going to try to collect the data from a probe sent skimming across the rim of a black hole (or whatever the scientific terminology would be) when we don't even give two *SQUEE* about going to Mars.

Thus the study of quantum mechanics seems to enter the realm of existing solely because it is neat to think about.

Also I find it difficult to imagine a 4 dimensional star falling into a black hole in the first place but with some pretty diagrams to look at it will at least be stimulating.

[jmatt]

I mean our space program, which is decidedly primitive on any conceivable scale of the universe, not even ant-like, maybe amoeba-like, has been killed.

I disagree. It's been privatized. SpaceX is literally doing things at one-tenth the cost NASA did them.

Why? Because Musk doesn't run the thing like a porkbarrel project spreading the construction and procurement from sea to shining sea in an effort to appease 435 Congressmen.

My company does IT support for an aluminum cast manufacturer; they have many DoD projects. They make one little part for the Abrams tank, one little part for the Apache helicopter, one little part for a fighter jet, etc.

There's no reason all that procurement can't go to a single bidder with the best quality / cost ratio. But it's done that way because Congressmen won't approve a defense contract without getting some of the work for their district. That is inefficient and wasteful.