Advance math/physics sub thread

[RyanTheRhino]

I feel a lot of members here are very intellectual, especially those who visit this part of the forum...

I would like to see a Pure math/physics sub thread here. It could be to discuses the applications of the great mathematician's theories and a place for Home work help for people still in school. I have browsed many math and physics threads and feel we can have our own branch here.

Vote

 

[Total Head]

i voted no. it just seems to me that until this section itself gets more traffic, having an additional subforum isn't needed. there's a lot of dead threads here already. based on the early poll results i appear to be in the minority, though.

i think there's still a lot of people who don't even realize that this section exists. it's pretty new. someone should start an awareness campaign.

 

[mccumcumber]

I would have loved this when I had to write my math papers. Sub sections are the most organized way to do things. I vote yes. Plus, it would interesting to see if there are any other former math majors lingering around.

Edit: Just noticed your location Ryan, I had myself a little chuckle.

 

[eye exaggerate]

...some different math - hope y'all don't mind, eh?

[video=youtube;Xyy0nRVHnQM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xyy0nRVHnQM&feature=relmfu[/video]

 

[mccumcumber]

That was really cool, thanks for sharing.

Edit: Gavin Harrison sounds familiar... is he from porcupine tree?

 

[eye exaggerate]

That was really cool, thanks for sharing.

Edit: Gavin Harrison sounds familiar... is he from porcupine tree?

...you got it

 

[RyanTheRhino]

i voted no. it just seems to me that until this section itself gets more traffic, having an additional subforum isn't needed. there's a lot of dead threads here already. based on the early poll results i appear to be in the minority, though.

i think there's still a lot of people who don't even realize that this section exists. it's pretty new. someone should start an awareness campaign.

very valid point

 

[Doer]

I have a math question. The equations that show that mass increases as relativistic velocity increases.
The concept of relativistic mass is encapsulated in the expression F = d(mv)/dt, where m is relativistic mass. This says that an impulse F dt causes an infinitesimal increase in a body's relativistic momentum mv.

In algebra, this is.

F = (1 + γ[SUP]2[/SUP] v v[SUP]t[/SUP]) γ m a
and
a = (1 – v v[SUP]t[/SUP]) F
——————
γ m

Therefore, can't these be worked backwards to the Zero point. That is, if the absolute velocity to the big bang is zero, then there is no mass? And can't it then solve for our relative "rest mass" to be the mass imparted by our current absolute velocity. For example, what velocity reduction what have to take place to cut "rest mass" in half?

I can't stop thinking that gravity is not a fundamental force at all, but is a direct effect of absolute velocity.

 

[RyanTheRhino]

Im not familiar with that formula... what are the variables

is It one Einstein's relativity thermos?

o ok i hate the way typed formulas look

F

You wouldn't be able to tell with any certainty that the mass is zero. When velocity is constant , and 0 is constant then there is no acceleration. which means there is no force. Giving us 0=0 which no further information can be derived.

 

[RyanTheRhino]

I looks like if you took the inverse on both side you could get Velocity (v/c) ratio to equal Infinity. That means there would be some force and acceleration so you could find a new equation that describes The mass but it would be very vague."estimated that mass = Infinity*(A scaling factor) >>> Mass = Infinity at that point

I din't actually do the algebra so check if it works out

 

[Doer]

It's a matrix notation where m = rest mass and v = column vector and v[SUP]t
[/SUP]is row vector expressed as fractions of c.

Let 1 be the 3 × 3 identity matrix and set γ = (1 – v[SUP]2[/SUP]) [SUP]–1/2[/SUP]

But, I suspect, as you say, there is not enough data currently to get us beyond, 0=0.

 

[Doer]

IAC, here's 15 of the yet unsolved math problems. I don't have any ideas. I like number 10.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/UnsolvedProblems.html

 

[mindphuk]

I can't stop thinking that gravity is not a fundamental force at all, but is a direct effect of absolute velocity.

According to Einstein, gravity may actually be a fictitious force. It is the result of curvature of spacetime. Like centrifugal force, neither actual exist as a fundamental force but only because of the reference frame in which one is in. Feynman mentioned this possibility, that we might not be in an inertial frame and therefore gravity only appears to be a real force.

 

[Doer]

Yes, matter displaces space-time. Where does it go? Another dimension or is it just moved over and compressed? Are there various densities of space-time? Is it a fluid of some kind? We commonly think of space, even on our desks, as empty and just can be filled without any of the above considerations. On the larger scales, it is displacement with compression wave forms crossing it. On the largest scale space seem to be expanding.

Filling in? Or becoming less dense? We might think today, it's becoming less dense stretching and leads to an ultimate dissociation of matter due to the increasing distance for the atomic forces to act across.

But, Spacetime itself, according Kip Thorne, if twisted densely enough, can simulate matter in a black hole. He says there is no matter left. It's all been converted into the knot of spacetime called Black Hole. So, is the repulsive force we are seeing, called Dark Energy, actually an increase in density of spacetime? That would make matter less dense comparatively, and has "gravity" reducing overall, as well.

We did manage, through a technical triumph, to measure spaceframe drag around Earth. So, how to measure space density? There should be a gradient around the Earth.

Hypothesis: The frame drag also results in measurable space compression.

How to confirm or deny? First we must work the math.

 

[mccumcumber]

I've always thought of spacetime to be a membrane. Really makes sense to me. What is your definition of dimension? I don't see how spacetime would not already be in all (is there 11 of them now?) dimensions. If you place a ball on a membrane then the membrane will twist and contort in certain ways in order to fit the ball. It will move down in the third dimension (z), and out in the second and first dimensions (x,y). All the minute stuff will be taken care of in the 5th-10th dimensions, and 11th dimension will exist for M theory to make sense (Is that still the leading theory out there? I've been studying number theory as of late and I haven't been able to check out anything new in the physics world in about 5 years).

I'm pretty sure as a result of the bang that spacetime is expanding and therefor becoming less dense, could be wrong about this, but isn't the bang supposed to be like similar to a supernova? Interestingly enough, last I heard space might be expanding at a decelerating rate... although there was also arguments that said it was accelerating too quick and that a big rip would go down... bummer.

Also, last I heard the big bang was thought to be a result of two other universes colliding in the multiverse? Anyone here anything about this? Gah... I got to go back to school, it was pretty cool that the astrophysics majors shared a library with the pure math majors... got to learn about all the cool new shit happenin.

 

[Doer]

You wouldn't be able to tell with any certainty that the mass is zero. When velocity is constant , and 0 is constant then there is no acceleration. which means there is no force. Giving us 0=0 which no further information can be derived.

I see the chicken and egg problem here. But, there are only 4 beginning states for mass. Help me, if anyone can think of another.

Infinite - only a portion was used in Big Bang
Zero - created instantly as matter condensed from energy
Set - current Big Bang theory
Variable - related to velocity and/or the extent of spacetime

And if space is membrane, (sounds right,) into what and where does it wiggle? Gravity waves. Waves are in fluids.
The fluid can be compressible or not. Air, water and solids. What is the action mode for gravity waves?

 

[RyanTheRhino]

First off i would like to say this statement has no proof and i am saying it for the interest of thought.


What if space/time was not actually displaced by mass, but is itself a function of mass. If you look at space/time in 1-d it could look like a line. now image through the forces of our universe that it some how got tangled into a knot. Now expand it into 2-d and the knot becomes like a piece of paper crumbled in the center. It is more dense towards center and slowly flattens out the further you go from the knot.

Since speed and acceleration can be thought of as relative measurements why must we assume that we are speeding up with time as our parameter. That is we move x amount of feet for every increment of time. I say we can use distance as our parameter so now we move x amount of time per increment of displacement. If space/time density is actually a function of mass that would mean by something massive we could be travailing in 10 second increments. Image that space/time has folded up so you traveled through more time in less distance. This would appear like you are speeding up. Now go back to when i said the crumpled paper gets flatter the further away from the center of mass. If you where to fly a space ship from the outskirts of the crumpled zone to the center it would appear that you are accelerating faster and faster. This is because the space/time is getting denser and denser as you approach this massive object.

This theory also agrees with the fact that the universe is expanding. Except in this version the universe is finite and the ability to travel through time becomes harder and harder. think of swimming in water. the water is dense enough for you to swim through it with your own power. Now if you think of less dense air you can not swim through it without massive force. EX. a jet turbine. This gets rid of infinity which is frowned upon as a answer.

well with that said you can clearly see how this theory also applies to the standard formula for gravitational force.

G = the constant density of space/time
r = is now the time passed
M1,M2 = actual density scaling factor, that is how knotted each object is

& F = well to be honest im not sure but that is good food for though.

 

[Doer]

So we are in the less dense crumple zones, thinking we are looking back in time, but actually into increasing 3D density? It appears to us we are accelerating away. That means these distances might be much less than we think. And we are looking at incredibly dense, glowing space instead of the microwave back ground? Deep thinking indeed.

Every time I re-read it...In this model is matter then, crumpled space? A frozen artifact of transparent density? A kind of Ice-9 for space itself?

And the 11 dimensions? Part of the original 1d, Gordian Knot?

 

[medikal]

x zy x 32bx -yzxb1

where x is ab3 z is xy3

my gift too you sub light travel

think little monkeys you havnt much time

 

[Doer]

Yes, never enough time to think....even before we post, I guess.