BigDMcGee 3,355 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I'm not sure what that means. I feel like it's very vague.Then go read LLY's explanation, it's much more specific. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 That's not right, from LLY's explaination...because 1-2, 2-4, 3-6 etc. Because both are sequential, there will always be one number that lines up with the next..but if you do, say, the group of real numbers between 0 and 1, and the group of integers, which would be the starting point to line them up? .01? .001? .0000000001? That's how I understood what he was saying, maybe I'm wrong.Yes, this is correct. If there is a direct mapping between the two sets, so that given a number in the first you can find any number in the second, the infinities are the same size.With real numbers vs integers, it doesn't work, because for any two real numbers, there is always another in between them that you would need to map to, but that gives you two more.... so your map can never be big enough using just integers. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Not that this has any bearing on the bijection thing, but isn't there already an infinity between each integer? Link to post Share on other sites
Yoda 1 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Not that this has any bearing on the bijection thing, but isn't there already an infinity between each integer?True story. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 True story.I knew it! Link to post Share on other sites
Yoda 1 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I knew it!The next couple questions in this thread are all yours...maybe you can take it over when LLY retires. Link to post Share on other sites
JOhnWaters 0 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 watch these documentaries. they are well made, enjoyable, and offer reliable information from real scientists. they are all on youtube for free, the 'visions of the future' series. 3 docs in 6 part segments covering everything from biotech to AI. also Michio Kaku is awesome, except that hes a bogus string theory mystic.biotech:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya4_wQCi2MY Link to post Share on other sites
Yoda 1 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 This is way over my head - anyone know how to do this?"find the IRR (Internal Rates of Return) for a $100K investment and returns $2.75MM 8 years from now"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 This is way over my head - anyone know how to do this?"find the IRR (Internal Rates of Return) for a $100K investment and returns $2.75MM 8 years from now"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return This might help:www.berniemadoffinvestments.org Link to post Share on other sites
Yoda 1 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 This might help:www.berniemadoffinvestments.orgunlimited returns! w00t! Count me in! Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,758 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 LLY,WTH!?brv.Hubble. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Looks like two fish kissing to me. Link to post Share on other sites
Mercury69 3 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 This thread makes my ballsack go all tingly. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Looks like two fish kissing to me.Right..two carbon based things just happen to meet in the vastness of space...right! Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,758 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Unless you get invited to testamony night in heaven.Man that would really suck for most of us.Sure Daniel, let's here about the lion's den one more time.Ohhh Joan of Arc wants to share....again.Great, here's half the people in ancient rome who were burned alive for their faith.Hey Balloon guy..snicker..let's here about how vbnautalis and LLY made you feel stupid...hahahahaha...rough life.....LOSER!I am not looking forward to it I can tell you.This might be my most favorite post ever. (from BG... haha... what an idiot)Looks like two fish kissing to me.This answer was much less helpful that one might think. Link to post Share on other sites
checkymcfold 0 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 dear LLY,i just read over the last couple pages, and i has a question.furthering the relative size of infinities question, is there any way of quantifying the cardinalities of various infinite sets? for instance, you said that convention holds the cardinality of the set of natural numbers to be 1. can i assume that the cardinality of the set of integers is 2, then? what about real numbers? irrational numbers? etc.?and just to make sure that i'm understanding this correctly so far...if i have a set of natural numbers {1,2,3,....}and a set of square numbers {1,4,9,....}these both have a cardinality of 1, correct? Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 dear LLY,i just read over the last couple pages, and i has a question.furthering the relative size of infinities question, is there any way of quantifying the cardinalities of various infinite sets? for instance, you said that convention holds the cardinality of the set of natural numbers to be 1. can i assume that the cardinality of the set of integers is 2, then? what about real numbers? irrational numbers? etc.?and just to make sure that i'm understanding this correctly so far...if i have a set of natural numbers {1,2,3,....}and a set of square numbers {1,4,9,....}these both have a cardinality of 1, correct?You can only compare the size of an infinite set to the size of another infinite set. Anything that is the same size as the integers, we say has cardinality 1. The square of the integers also has cardinality 1. The cardinality of the integers is the same as the cardinality of the natural numbers. It seems as if there should be twice as many, but really, there are the same number. We can make the following isomorphism:1 <-> 12 <-> -13 <-> 24<-> -25 <-> 36 <-> -3etcIt is clear that we will be able to match up all numbers this way. Give me a number on the left side and I can tell you what the number on the right side is, and visa versa. Link to post Share on other sites
checkymcfold 0 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 You can only compare the size of an infinite set to the size of another infinite set. Anything that is the same size as the integers, we say has cardinality 1. The square of the integers also has cardinality 1. The cardinality of the integers is the same as the cardinality of the natural numbers. It seems as if there should be twice as many, but really, there are the same number. We can make the following isomorphism:1 <-> 12 <-> -13 <-> 24<-> -25 <-> 36 <-> -3etcIt is clear that we will be able to match up all numbers this way. Give me a number on the left side and I can tell you what the number on the right side is, and visa versa.gotcha, ty. can you give an example of a set of numbers with a non-1 cardinality? would this only mean anything with respect to a comparison with a cardinality 1 infinite set? Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,355 Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 So I was reading the Sept. Scientific American at the gym yesterday, and there was an article about the origin of the universe, and I have some questions...1) What's Dark energy?2) they said that the universe is not only expanding, but accelerating as it expands, because of this dark energy.3) There were for basic theory's to the nature of the universe, prebang 1) a sort of uniform matter soup 2) A weird sort of quantum state 3) that the universe is one of many universes, each with their own big bangs, and their own laws of physics and spacial dimensionss, independent of each other and unreachable between them 4) A cycle of expansion and contraction, that has bangs then crunches, cycling through time like hindu's wet dream.Which of these do you think is most likely? Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 1) What's Dark energy?About 10 years ago, scientists did measurements on the velocities of galaxies and noticed not only that they're moving away from us, but that they're moving away at an accelerating rate. In order for this to happen, there must be some force that is pushing far away galexies apart. We don't know what this mechanism is. When physicists don't know how something works, they just come up with a cool but mysterious name for it. The name for this mysterious thing is "Dark Energy." Dark energy just means that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, and we don't understand why.2) they said that the universe is not only expanding, but accelerating as it expands, because of this dark energy.Right. The universe could certainly expand at a constant rate without the need for dark energy. Imagine I'm in space and I toss a baseball. The ball will just start moving away from me at a constant speed. It would be weird if the ball started moving away from me faster and faster. For that to happen, something would have to be pulling it.3) There were for basic theory's to the nature of the universe, prebang 1) a sort of uniform matter soup 2) A weird sort of quantum state 3) that the universe is one of many universes, each with their own big bangs, and their own laws of physics and spacial dimensionss, independent of each other and unreachable between them 4) A cycle of expansion and contraction, that has bangs then crunches, cycling through time like hindu's wet dream.It's turtles all the way down. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,758 Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Dark energy just means that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, and we don't understand why.If you ever want to know, just hit me up with a PM or whatever, and I can explain it to you. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Right. The universe could certainly expand at a constant rate without the need for dark energy. Imagine I'm in space and I toss a baseball. The ball will just start moving away from me at a constant speed. It would be weird if the ball started moving away from me faster and faster. For that to happen, something would have to be pulling it.Or pushing it.Think about that. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 So, is the Large Hadron Collider sabotaging itself from the future, or what? There was another problem today involving a piece of bread dropped by a bird. Really. By DENNIS OVERBYEPublished: October 12, 2009More than a year after an explosion of sparks, soot and frigid helium shut it down, the world’s biggest and most expensive physics experiment, known as the Large Hadron Collider, is poised to start up again. In December, if all goes well, protons will start smashing together in an underground racetrack outside Geneva in a search for forces and particles that reigned during the first trillionth of a second of the Big Bang.Then it will be time to test one of the most bizarre and revolutionary theories in science. I’m not talking about extra dimensions of space-time, dark matter or even black holes that eat the Earth. No, I’m talking about the notion that the troubled collider is being sabotaged by its own future. A pair of otherwise distinguished physicists have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson, which physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.Holger Bech Nielsen, of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, Japan, put this idea forward in a series of papers with titles like “Test of Effect From Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal” and “Search for Future Influence From LHC,” posted on the physics Web site arXiv.org in the last year and a half.According to the so-called Standard Model that rules almost all physics, the Higgs is responsible for imbuing other elementary particles with mass.“It must be our prediction that all Higgs producing machines shall have bad luck,” Dr. Nielsen said in an e-mail message. In an unpublished essay, Dr. Nielson said of the theory, “Well, one could even almost say that we have a model for God.” It is their guess, he went on, “that He rather hates Higgs particles, and attempts to avoid them.”This malign influence from the future, they argue, could explain why the United States Superconducting Supercollider, also designed to find the Higgs, was canceled in 1993 after billions of dollars had already been spent, an event so unlikely that Dr. Nielsen calls it an “anti-miracle.”You might think that the appearance of this theory is further proof that people have had ample time — perhaps too much time — to think about what will come out of the collider, which has been 15 years and $9 billion in the making.The collider was built by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, to accelerate protons to energies of seven trillion electron volts around an 18-mile underground racetrack and then crash them together into primordial fireballs.For the record, as of the middle of September, CERN engineers hope to begin to collide protons at the so-called injection energy of 450 billion electron volts in December and then ramp up the energy until the protons have 3.5 trillion electron volts of energy apiece and then, after a short Christmas break, real physics can begin.Maybe.Dr. Nielsen and Dr. Ninomiya started laying out their case for doom in the spring of 2008. It was later that fall, of course, after the CERN collider was turned on, that a connection between two magnets vaporized, shutting down the collider for more than a year.Dr. Nielsen called that “a funny thing that could make us to believe in the theory of ours.”He agreed that skepticism would be in order. After all, most big science projects, including the Hubble Space Telescope, have gone through a period of seeming jinxed. At CERN, the beat goes on: Last weekend the French police arrested a particle physicist who works on one of the collider experiments, on suspicion of conspiracy with a North African wing of Al Qaeda.Dr. Nielsen and Dr. Ninomiya have proposed a kind of test: that CERN engage in a game of chance, a “card-drawing” exercise using perhaps a random-number generator, in order to discern bad luck from the future. If the outcome was sufficiently unlikely, say drawing the one spade in a deck with 100 million hearts, the machine would either not run at all, or only at low energies unlikely to find the Higgs.Sure, it’s crazy, and CERN should not and is not about to mortgage its investment to a coin toss. The theory was greeted on some blogs with comparisons to Harry Potter. But craziness has a fine history in a physics that talks routinely about cats being dead and alive at the same time and about anti-gravity puffing out the universe.As Niels Bohr, Dr. Nielsen’s late countryman and one of the founders of quantum theory, once told a colleague: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.”Dr. Nielsen is well-qualified in this tradition. He is known in physics as one of the founders of string theory and a deep and original thinker, “one of those extremely smart people that is willing to chase crazy ideas pretty far,” in the words of Sean Carroll, a Caltech physicist and author of a coming book about time, “From Eternity to Here.”Another of Dr. Nielsen’s projects is an effort to show how the universe as we know it, with all its apparent regularity, could arise from pure randomness, a subject he calls “random dynamics.”Dr. Nielsen admits that he and Dr. Ninomiya’s new theory smacks of time travel, a longtime interest, which has become a respectable research subject in recent years. While it is a paradox to go back in time and kill your grandfather, physicists agree there is no paradox if you go back in time and save him from being hit by a bus. In the case of the Higgs and the collider, it is as if something is going back in time to keep the universe from being hit by a bus. Although just why the Higgs would be a catastrophe is not clear. If we knew, presumably, we wouldn’t be trying to make one.We always assume that the past influences the future. But that is not necessarily true in the physics of Newton or Einstein. According to physicists, all you really need to know, mathematically, to describe what happens to an apple or the 100 billion galaxies of the universe over all time are the laws that describe how things change and a statement of where things start. The latter are the so-called boundary conditions — the apple five feet over your head, or the Big Bang.The equations work just as well, Dr. Nielsen and others point out, if the boundary conditions specify a condition in the future (the apple on your head) instead of in the past, as long as the fundamental laws of physics are reversible, which most physicists believe they are.“For those of us who believe in physics,” Einstein once wrote to a friend, “this separation between past, present and future is only an illusion.”In Kurt Vonnegut’s novel “Sirens of Titan,” all of human history turns out to be reduced to delivering a piece of metal roughly the size and shape of a beer-can opener to an alien marooned on Saturn’s moon so he can repair his spaceship and go home.Whether the collider has such a noble or humble fate — or any fate at all — remains to be seen. As a Red Sox fan my entire adult life, I feel I know something about jinxes. It's turtles all the way down.Have I told you lately that I loved you? Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/31collider.html?hpThe first 3.5 on 3.5 TeV Collisions occurred at CERN last night, making it once again the most energetic particle accelerator in the world. Though we've had minor collisions before, these are the first in a long run of high energy collisions with which we will be able to do exciting new physics. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/31collider.html?hpThe first 3.5 on 3.5 TeV Collisions occurred at CERN last night, making it once again the most energetic particle accelerator in the world. Though we've had minor collisions before, these are the first in a long run of high energy collisions with which we will be able to do exciting new physics.Can you give us a short outline, in layman's terms (as much as possible), of what kind of exiting new physics you'll be able to do?Edit: Er, please? I'd like to be able to speak about it somewhat intelligently if it ever comes up around real* people.*not online Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now