420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Schrodinger's Cat by Floyd Heywood. R. - Thu, 30 Oct 2014 01:19:03 EST ID:zxyit23m No.54578 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1414646343503.jpg -(747347B / 729.83KB, 848x848) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 747347
So, I think it's possible that the cat is both both dead and alive. I think this is explained quite easily by the addition of time--it really doesn't matter. The experiment shows that the cat can exist in both it's living and dead states simultaneously because in one case, one outcome is possible, and in another, the same is true for the other. To an observer, therefore, the cat would both be dead, alive, and any combination or twist thereof. I see no problem with this. It's fascinating really, and illustrates pretty clearly that reality is a function of what can, and cannot happen. Things do, or do not. They also try, because we can imagine them trying. It's all quite beautiful and elegant really.
8 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Tadashi Nakajima - Sun, 02 Nov 2014 02:37:44 EST ID:Im3GVW// No.54611 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Look up Bell's inequalities.
Bruon Rossi - Sun, 02 Nov 2014 07:21:06 EST ID:8GfIvi3S No.54612 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1414930866236.jpg -(124493B / 121.58KB, 794x559) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
The relational interpretation of QM is based on the idea that systems don't hold any state, it's the relationships between systems that determine the observed state. It's an elegant concept that does for state what Einstein's relativity did for space and time.
Stephen Hawking - Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:48:39 EST ID:/lSzVChU No.54721 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This is a joke or OP is 10 years old
Ejnar Hertzprung - Sun, 23 Nov 2014 14:51:29 EST ID:ksAXy5yQ No.54726 Ignore Report Quick Reply
To an observer, they would observe the cat being alive for a short period of time until the geiger counter beeped and triggered a mechanism to kill the cat.

Real cats are made of too many particles to have such literal duality, and the definition of "alive" is just an assortment of many many different chemical interactions happening on the macro-scale.

The Schroedinger's Cat of the experiment is supposed to be representative of a single particle's quantum state, not an actual living cat.
Anders Angstrom - Sun, 30 Nov 2014 23:12:22 EST ID:dRwOcIBL No.54740 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1417407142005.jpg -(973138B / 950.33KB, 2322x4128) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I will preface an delusionally simple and effectively null hypothesis with a fact. This fact is that I am an idiot. Now that I have that out of the way I would like to propose an idea that's bounced in my head a couple times. It is in no way based in fact nor entirely complete logic. I just want to say something with no judgement so that I may allow the idea to be considered by intelligent individuals or at the very least a few stoners on the net.

Through the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the hypercondensed universe at the beginning of time could have been both stable and unstable. Out of that uncertainty one of two realities spurred this one into existence.

Thanks for being the only ones to hear this crackpot hypothesis.

When a wise man points at the moon, the imbecile examines his finger. by Sammy Delorian - Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:32:18 EST ID:dc3WfPuZ No.54703 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1416421938641.jpg -(59045B / 57.66KB, 640x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 59045
Matt Taylor lands a module on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, some 300 million miles from Earth.

Some imbecile monkeys bully him because of his shirt.

Over the last few days, we have learned that mankind can chase down a comet speeding through space at 34,000 mph, but resisting the outrage machine, kicked into high gear over a trifle, is completely beyond its powers.

who the fuck let these ape-women bully this man who set a great new step in space-discovery?!

Stupid, shit-flinging femtards!
8 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Fritz Zwicky - Thu, 20 Nov 2014 22:36:21 EST ID:Zbe0PVOU No.54714 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Feminism aside, I agree about the shirt thing. It's quite immature. Scientists used to wear suits and tuxedos. This dude is making a joke out of the profession by wearing crap like that.
Shmusb - Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:22:36 EST ID:jhPGxi/3 No.54717 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1416583356719.png -(361311B / 352.84KB, 599x332) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
yes, the Shirt looks like crap.
No denying that.
But FOR HIM it had personal value (his women made it and he wore it while coordinating some pretty amazing stuff! I mean: more than just amazing!).

So, who are we (or some not involved !) to judge?
Why the attention-whores and harpies feel the need to blow this up out of proportions?

Are we letting Celebrity-"News" or Cosmopolitan now dictate a dresscode?
Tadashi Nakajima - Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:29:11 EST ID:n1ifNqo9 No.54718 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Scientists used to wear suits and tuxedos. This dude is making a joke out of the profession by wearing crap like that.

I think pandering to business-culture would be a bigger joke. I mean how sad would it be if you spend decades letting your boss tell you how to dress, until you finally get to the top of your field and realise that you still have to let the audience (who honestly don't care if you live or die) tell you how to dress?
Robert Dicke - Fri, 21 Nov 2014 13:00:52 EST ID:yZpPrhjN No.54719 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1416592852921.gif -(232796B / 227.34KB, 612x3671) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>In my opinion the first two tweets had a point, but then everything got blown way out of proportion and now some crazies on both sides of the argument are just doing what they do best.

It's simple: Society is utterly insane.
Robert Dicke - Fri, 21 Nov 2014 13:48:08 EST ID:yZpPrhjN No.54720 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>When a wise man points at the moon, the imbecile examines his finger.
If you update that it'll be:
  • When the modernist techno-futurist points at the comet, the postmodern structuralist examine the glove.

(Also, I really really should be focusing on my work instead of web surf.)

Philae by Karl von Weizsacker - Wed, 12 Nov 2014 14:53:13 EST ID:d7Dhf0QA No.54657 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1415821993637.jpg -(1625638B / 1.55MB, 2000x1126) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1625638
I can't believe there's no thread about Philae or Rosetta!
So, we harpooned a comet today. It took 10 years, but finally Rosetta arrived.
18 posts and 8 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Bernard Burke - Sun, 16 Nov 2014 09:32:59 EST ID:sky71Ye7 No.54694 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yep. When there's single asteroids out there with more iron than humanity has ever produced, it doesn't take a genius to realize how lucrative and important such missions as Rosetta can turn out to be in the long run.
Friedrich von Struve - Sun, 16 Nov 2014 12:59:16 EST ID:XJHlYsmW No.54695 Ignore Report Quick Reply

This user has been ignored.
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Mon, 17 Nov 2014 03:06:55 EST ID:Ar8ZIqLY No.54698 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1416211615197.png -(69744B / 68.11KB, 162x214) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>When there's single asteroids out there with more iron than humanity has ever produced...

Wow. That's just kinda...bonkers, if you think about it.
Henry Russell - Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:49:11 EST ID:sky71Ye7 No.54700 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yea, even more bonkers are dead carbon stars that are essentially giant diamonds.
Otto Struve - Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:46:14 EST ID:XjUlyhdF No.54713 Ignore Report Quick Reply
you don't understand, this is the only way to go. UP! we will run out here and we will need to look outward from the earth to find it. Yes we have plenty right know, but the future society will not. Plan early and you will be ready for the future.

Who needs a fancy-assed space elevator anyway? by Heinrich Olbers - Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:02:26 EST ID:VFweXWOA No.54411 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1410980546262.jpg -(9573B / 9.35KB, 236x200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 9573
Not that I know anything about anything, but I had a few ideas to make getting into space easier, maybe, but probably not. The space elevator has a shitload of engineering challenges to surmount before it's workable. Materials challenges, construction challenges, hell even environmental challenges. Let's think outside the box.

Idea 1: We build a huge, elliptical track around the Earth that at it's nearest point passes within 75,000 feet of the highest peak (something like 100,000 feet above sea level). You take a plane to the track, load onto a spacecraft and away you go to the other end of the ellipse where you're more like 1 million feet from Earth.

Idea 2: Place a solar orbiting space station 100,000 feet outside of Earth's orbit (75,000 plus 25,000). Have the station travel just fast enough to avoid getting caught by Earth's gravity, and about once a year (or maybe not) the Earth and the station make a close pass during which cargo and passengers can be transferred from planes to the station. Rockets can then be launched from the station.

I'm sure these ideas are both bad. Very bad. The both pose engineering challenges that dwarf those of the space elevator. The important thing though is that we're thinking outside the box. What kind of bright ideas have you got?
20 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
John Wheeler - Sun, 09 Nov 2014 23:03:16 EST ID:Y4Cx7lpS No.54646 Ignore Report Quick Reply
now, I'm just kinda spit balling here, instead of a space elevator, what if we space..... escalator.

eh? ehhhhhhh??

ok, well I tried.
Joseph Lockyer - Wed, 12 Nov 2014 12:38:21 EST ID:Vw7qtBK2 No.54656 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1415813901259.jpg -(11846B / 11.57KB, 381x657) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
space elevator
Karl von Weizsacker - Mon, 17 Nov 2014 19:35:09 EST ID:u/gNUxAU No.54701 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Passengers, yeah, but fuck the passengers, bring them up there in space shuttles or something AFTER you've already chucked the materials up there with lethal velocity. Seriously. Build a sturdy ass series of spherical units, fire them all up there, and then send a couple guys up to link them together. You'd have something four times the size of the international space station and you won't have had to bring it up with the dudes.
Johan Galle - Tue, 18 Nov 2014 23:31:02 EST ID:Zbe0PVOU No.54702 Ignore Report Quick Reply
That's not a bad idea. Maybe like a massive rail gun. I think it's way more feasible than a space elevator, as neat as that might have sounded.
Riccardo Giacconi - Thu, 20 Nov 2014 12:11:53 EST ID:d7Dhf0QA No.54711 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Indeed. That reminds me of this guy:
It sounded like he had a pretty solid plan for the future, but then nothing was heard from quicklaunch again and the website has been taken offline now.

How long have we been studying the sun? by NTNchamp2 - Mon, 03 Nov 2014 20:57:29 EST ID:Qv9FnpiM No.54627 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1415066249161.jpg -(1983393B / 1.89MB, 2592x1936) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1983393

>The biggest sunspot to grace the face of the sun in more than two decades just rotated out of Earth's view, but it was responsible for kicking up some truly amazing solar activity this week.

>The sunspot (called Active Region 12192 or AR 2192) shot off four powerful flares in four days recently, with many more smaller flares sprinkled in as well. The sunspot region was about the size of the planet Jupiter and is the largest solar flare observed in 24 years.

>AR 2192 was actually one of the biggest observed sunspots of all time, ranking 33rd largest of 32,908 active regions since 1874, according to NASA scientists C. Alex Young and Dean Pesnell. But how does a sunspot grow this big?

/SAGAN/ How long have we really been studying the cycles of the sun? How likely is it that some magnetic vortex that has been twisting into knots for the last several centuries will just let loose and shoot plasma or radioactivity into the rest of the solar system? haven't we really only collected data on the sun for like the last 100 years? 150 years tops? Isn't that just a blip in the life cylce of our star?

There are lots of anomalies in the sun's activity. I read somewhere that the sun's magnetic field is not acting according to projections, and in the last 25 years, that the sun's surface temperature has been much hotter than projected.
Joseph-Louis Lagrange - Tue, 04 Nov 2014 03:15:50 EST ID:Im3GVW// No.54629 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The sun has been observed regularly for 400 years. Sunspots come and go in months not years. The suns surface temperature is very constant.
Roger Penrose - Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:52:16 EST ID:2I5anCd1 No.54669 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Actually, the observation of sunspots goes back farther than most other modern astronomical data, predating telescopes. Thorough day to day records are probably only to be had for the last 100 years or so, but many interested astronomers in the last few centuries kept sketches of sunspot activity periodically.
Alan Guth - Thu, 13 Nov 2014 14:12:23 EST ID:C2T6C64T No.54671 Ignore Report Quick Reply
weve been studying it since we began. it makes a pretty obvious thing to wonder about. weve been studying it scientifically since science began. with telescopes when telescopes began. not much else can lay the same claim to our attention historically. basically weve been keeping an eye on it so its unlikely to do something now that we havent seen in recorded history (with the tools available to us at those times) or from what weve seen in the geological record.
obviously the mayans didnt understand solar flares but if part of mexico had been zapped to a crisp in recent time im pretty sure wed have both historical mentions and physical proof.

Multiverse discussion by Wilhelm Beer - Sat, 08 Nov 2014 10:42:47 EST ID:Kc+YGl6y No.54635 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1415461367586.jpg -(333714B / 325.89KB, 1920x1378) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 333714
So is the concept of a multiverse basically saying that anything past our observable universe if another universe? Is there a stretch in space which is officially not out universe? Or is there a no mans land sort of thing. I know we don't know this but I'm just wondering if anybody can give me some insight into the matter.
Heinrich Olbers - Sat, 08 Nov 2014 12:29:59 EST ID:BF8zYeiD No.54637 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It depends on what multiverse theory you're talking about. There's a really great 15 minute video from NOVA about four of the major schools of thought:

Joseph von Fraunhofer - Sat, 08 Nov 2014 15:10:24 EST ID:KCC23SOp No.54640 Ignore Report Quick Reply
In your example, no, there is no strip of non-universal stuff. Our observalable universe is limited by the distance light could have traveled in the time the Universe has existed; but that means that diffrent points in space have diffrent observable universes. Take a map, a cup, and a pencil, place the cup over the map with LA at its center, now do the same for San Fransisco; you might have some overlay, and you also have some areas that don't overlap, and areas like Russia that probably aren't in either circle (unless you have really big cups or a really small map) still exist. Talking about observable universes as separate is mostly an observation of the fact that we cannot hope to travel outside this boundary because of the laws of physics (or our current understanding of them) rather than an observation that those areas of space we cannot reach are fundamentally different.

In other multiverse theories there may or may not be areas that are not part of any universe. There is a theory that the greater-universe is a big homogenous rink of energy and that our universe (what we usually call the Universe) is a random fluctuation in this field and there are other fluctuations (other universes) elsewhere in field; in that case, those homogenous regions without fluctuations would not be a part of what we usually like to think of as a universe.
Daniel Kirkwood - Sun, 09 Nov 2014 09:30:08 EST ID:Kc+YGl6y No.54644 Ignore Report Quick Reply
That makes a lot of sense, thanks for clearing it up dude. I used to be really interested in this aspect of existence but over the past year I've lost interest, I'm trying to get back in to it now.
Walter Adams - Mon, 24 Nov 2014 03:16:19 EST ID:ksAXy5yQ No.54731 Ignore Report Quick Reply
That's called a level 1 multiverse.
Everything beyond our Hubble Volume is technically another universe.
A Hubble Volume is everything contained within the boundaries of the CMB.

And then there's the level 2 multiverse which has more to do with Probability and is highly theoretical.
Every Plank Frame (smallest possible unit of time) we jump between possible states across the 5th dimension as we travel along the 4th dimension. The other level 2 universes are probabilities that did not happen. Maybe. Like I said, HIGHLY theoretical.

Cosmic Natural Selection by Otto Struve - Fri, 31 Oct 2014 19:42:14 EST ID:R5I9/CMC No.54597 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1414798934060.jpg -(53318B / 52.07KB, 358x901) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 53318
Cosmic Natural Selection from wikipedia:

The theory surmises that a collapsing black hole causes the emergence of a new universe on the "other side", whose fundamental constant parameters (masses of elementary particles, Planck constant, elementary charge, and so forth) may differ slightly from those of the universe where the black hole collapsed. Each universe thus gives rise to as many new universes as it has black holes. The theory contains the evolutionary ideas of "reproduction" and "mutation" of universes, and so is formally analogous to models of population biology.

Do you think this is possible?
10 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Henry Russell - Fri, 07 Nov 2014 20:23:03 EST ID:6nQZulbH No.54634 Ignore Report Quick Reply
if something has two sides, it has the other side, thats all Im saying.
event horizon prevents any direct observation of the inside of a black hole, so "the other side of this two sided thing called black hole" is the most precise definition available to us.
I'm not saying there are universes there, just disagreeing with the statement that black holes dont have two sides, or that both of those sides are equally understood or cognizable. there is plenty of room for speculation here, those are after all one of the most mysterious and inaccessible objects in the universe. trying to silence it with "its just a gravity well" wont cut it.
Heinrich Olbers - Sat, 08 Nov 2014 12:53:04 EST ID:BF8zYeiD No.54638 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Then the "other side" is a super dense region of space made up of the leftovers from a supernova + whatever other material that has fallen into the black hole since it was created, that is so compact and massive that even light isn't able to escape it.

Yeah, some funny frame of reference things probably happen if you were to fall into a black hole, and someone were observing you fall in. But there is no reason to ascribe mystical properties to them, like OP was suggesting. Occam's Razor, you know?
Joseph von Fraunhofer - Sat, 08 Nov 2014 14:38:30 EST ID:KCC23SOp No.54639 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You realize semantics are not gospel, right? There are no physical sides to an event horizon because an event horizon is not a physical thing; if you were falling into a black hole you probably wouldn't even observe the event horizom. The event horizon is no more a physical feature than the Goldilocks zone... You can talk about it, but it doesn't really do anything in and of itself, it's just a descriptive label.
Isaac Newton - Sat, 08 Nov 2014 16:43:34 EST ID:hBIT57MN No.54641 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> an event horizon is not a physical thing
indeed, the size of it is relative to your velocity to or from the black hole.
Henry Russell - Sat, 08 Nov 2014 18:08:23 EST ID:6nQZulbH No.54642 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1415488103245.jpg -(51558B / 50.35KB, 450x300) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>Occam's Razor, you know?
Im not Canadian, I use Gillette

Space Race V2? by Mike Brown - Mon, 26 May 2014 18:47:57 EST ID:+aDq/RZj No.53857 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1401144477469.jpg -(190826B / 186.35KB, 600x800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 190826
So um, how likely does it seem that we will get another space race between nations/private corps?

Possible Contenders:
The Ghost of USSR *Ahem* "Russia"
UK (If Skylon manifests.)
India (Unlikely)
Japan (Unlikely)

Discuss this shiznt.
19 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Edward Pickering - Sun, 02 Nov 2014 16:18:05 EST ID:yZpPrhjN No.54615 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Only big countries had signed the agreement, and less than half of the countries in the world.

Why would smaller countries like Taiwan, Mozambique, Guatemala, Papal/Vatican State, etc. bother with it?
Thomas Henderson - Mon, 03 Nov 2014 03:16:55 EST ID:Im3GVW// No.54623 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Because those countries don't have space programs or weapons of mass destruction. If the issue ever arose they would be pushed into it.
Joseph Taylor Jr. - Mon, 03 Nov 2014 16:49:03 EST ID:yZpPrhjN No.54624 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It would be an interesting day if some small but tech-advanced country ever build a mass driver to launch stuff back from a lunar mine, and the big countries accuse it of building a kinetic weapon and threaten to invade. Plenty of small countries would push back against the blatant attempt of neo-imperialism.
Joseph Taylor Jr. - Mon, 03 Nov 2014 16:51:41 EST ID:yZpPrhjN No.54625 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Even building microwave power plant on earth with an orbital solar collector could be accused of building some mega death ray weapon.
Giovanni Cassini - Mon, 03 Nov 2014 20:16:34 EST ID:yZpPrhjN No.54626 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>our launch vehicles themselves ARE weapons.
>when you strap a bomb to it, they call it an "intercontinental ballistic missile"
>when you strap a telescope or communications satellite to it, it becomes a "space launch vehicle".

No need to strap a bomb, when you could just carry a tungsten rod and just drop it down the gravity well.

When we're dealing with space tech, the energy involved means everything can be dual-use as weapon.

Lockheed Martin Fusion Reactor by Karl Jansky - Wed, 15 Oct 2014 22:52:12 EST ID:TxgbykPa No.54512 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1413427932138.jpg -(35331B / 34.50KB, 580x386) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 35331
C-Could it be happening?

Is this how we power the world? is this how we get into space?

14 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Johann Bode - Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:43:54 EST ID:Im3GVW// No.54596 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Maybe the physicists involved are unimaginative or unwilling
So they proceeded to waste their entire careers grovelling for funding for a worse solution? If you have a solution that dosen't take billions of dollars you will find seed money. Tokamaks have momentum now because people invested their time in them.
Bussards Polywell is a great example because it was funded despite being a gamble, it has not paid off. Look at general fusion, look at z-pinches, look at farnsworth type experiments. They got money, proof no one is scared of loosing their grant.

>LM acknowledging it makes it seem viable
So back to square one. Why let him say anything? A Ted talk is not going to bring in any serious money that LM can't match.
Edwin Salpeter - Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:40:05 EST ID:XJHlYsmW No.54598 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>If you have a solution that dosen't take billions of dollars you will find seed money.

The Polywell scientists made that claim. They still had trouble finding investors. The way you put it, you'd think there would be private investors all over the place trying to get a piece of the pie, but that's not what happened.

>it has not paid off.

We don't know that. The whole project suddenly went quiet when the Navy took over...
Viktor Ambartsumian - Sat, 01 Nov 2014 12:56:53 EST ID:Im3GVW// No.54608 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>They still had trouble finding investors.
So did ITER. So did NIF. So did C-Mod and that's being axed. Nobody get's guaranteed funding. The point is they got funding, so have several other small projects.

>The whole project suddenly went quiet when the Navy took over.
They are only contracted by the navy, information is still coming out.

Fred Whipple - Sun, 02 Nov 2014 08:40:38 EST ID:YHjXylC8 No.54613 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Neither the NIF or ITER are expected to produce power themselves. If someone demonstrates a fusion device that produces more power than it consumes, and doesn't destroy cities, they'd have billions easily.
Edward Pickering - Sun, 02 Nov 2014 16:33:14 EST ID:yZpPrhjN No.54616 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's the chicken and egg problem, to demonstrate a working prototype, you would need funding to put model into physical world.

Before a working prototype exist, it's been hard for the those approving funding to judge the energy-in and energy-out estimates in the models.

Voar by Vera Rubiin - Sun, 02 Nov 2014 02:23:59 EST ID:iBWKcx1L No.54610 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1414913039598.png -(100361B / 98.01KB, 1112x718) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 100361
Newtonian physics/ orbital dynamics game that /b/ is playing the hell out of right now.

I'm currently Ethyl Meatplow.

Holographic Universe by Bernard Burke - Tue, 03 Jun 2014 20:51:13 EST ID:VdooM9pB No.53926 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1401843073584.gif -(504329B / 492.51KB, 500x344) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 504329
For years now I've been researching tons about what reality is, about what this universe actually is, and made up of.

Could somebody plainly explain what the holographic universe theory is really about?
Bonus points if you can explain string theory too.
23 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Allan Sandage - Tue, 07 Oct 2014 12:35:18 EST ID:dLyvZIZT No.54486 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1412699718852.jpg -(106889B / 104.38KB, 376x639) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Joseph Lockyer - Wed, 08 Oct 2014 00:18:42 EST ID:Zbe0PVOU No.54487 Ignore Report Quick Reply
you get an 'E' for effort.
Riccardo Giacconi - Wed, 08 Oct 2014 00:46:43 EST ID:DgOfYnAl No.54488 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I don't wish to incur the wrath of the more knowledgable, but the way I have conceptualized any "holographic universe" theories is that their distinctness from string theory is mostly derived from new age spiritual implications made by the authors and that it attempts to explain things in a similar way. but from a perspective relying more on home-spun analogies than on the process academics tend to use.

Basically, I think describing the universe as a hologram of a lower dimension, or as a reflection of a higher dimension is functionally identical to the average person. Whether you describe it as super-string shadows or as holograms depends on who you read. This isn't to say they are perfectly equivalent. I believe string-theory has been subject to far more scrutiny and is thus more useful for informing research.
Caroline Herschel - Sat, 01 Nov 2014 07:18:35 EST ID:FWszKHrA No.54604 Ignore Report Quick Reply
guys guys 2d simply refers to the fact that the information of 3d space is projected much more accurately on a 2d plane rather than the 3d space itself. Like the "film" to project a movie is a much more accurate description of the movie than the actual movie which has depth. the screen or the film dont.

The problem with this is that in 2d, the configuration or code of the 3d space is completely scrambled so we can't make it out what it would look like in a 3d space.
Caroline Herschel - Sat, 01 Nov 2014 07:20:42 EST ID:FWszKHrA No.54605 Ignore Report Quick Reply
they figured this out by looking at blackholes, refuting the assumption that information is destroyed in blackholes or some shit

whats the differance between a stalgmite and a stalgtight? by Stephen Hawking - Thu, 30 Oct 2014 01:28:20 EST ID:80zkh6LS No.54581 Locked Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1414646900471.jpg -(40752B / 39.80KB, 580x324) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 40752
I live in a cave ;) a dirty cave ;)
Thread has been locked
Thread was locked by: Therm0ptic
Reason: This has nothing to do with space or astronomy.
Edwin Salpeter - Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:54:56 EST ID:jGLzk50k No.54586 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You mean you live in a cave FROM SPAAAAAACE
Otherwise, i don't get what this has to do with space & astronomy
Johann Encke - Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:22:07 EST ID:YHjXylC8 No.54587 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It doesn't just report it.
Last night, someone spammed /b/ with threads exactly like this copied from the bowels of reddet.
Edwin Hubble - Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:12:55 EST ID:xgcZtys2 No.54589 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Go back to 4 c h a n
Irwin Shapiro - Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:37:44 EST ID:bganXL3+ No.54593 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You realize theres a /b/ here right

Maybe its you who need to leave

<<Last Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.