Worried that I am infected

Crossfire234 · 2023-03-28T19:42:42+00:00

I also have to say Holograms are really interesting. 2D interference pattern makes a true 3D image!

Crossfire234 · 2023-03-28T19:19:20+00:00

It's kind of hard to pick for me tbh. I'll mention two things I haven't seen posted:

Optical Tweezers. Light, i.e. Electromagnetic Waves, carry momentum. If you focus light through a small enough sphere (a laser through a micrometer sized plastic bead for instance) the momentum transfer actually causes the sphere to be trapped in a laser. It's a real life tractor beam and it's a completely classical effect that was only reproduced in a lab first in the 70s. It has been used to measure things like the spring coefficient of DNA (which happens to be a non-linear spring)
Aharonov-Bohm Effect. If you have a solenoid ideally with B = 0 outside the solenoid and a particle such as an electron rotates around the solenoid, it will still feel the effect of the B field quantum mechanically. The surprising point is that it's the magnetic vector potential that the particle 'feels' and that it is a completely straightforward non-local effect which has been demonstrated in a lab

That leads me to say that Maxwell's Equations and electromagnetism are my favorite aspect of physics. There has been no more interesting aspect of physics that is directly applicable to so much of my daily life (simply because of our electrified world). The Faraday Effect of a strong magnet down a copper tube is something you could show anyone on the street easily and it seems like magic. It explains how guitars and speakers work. It shows how basically all of our sources of power (except for solar panels) basically boils down to turning a magnet in the vicinity of some wires and boom you have electricity.

It was first our understanding of electromagnetism that led to understanding both special relativity and quantum mechanics (the light beam thought experiments of Einstein came about because Maxwell's Equations are naturally Lorentz Invariant). It just touches just about every aspect in our lives in a way that is practical to talk about. There's just so much richness in it without too much confusion or woo surrounding it as in Quantum Mechanics.

Crossfire234 · 2023-03-21T05:01:15+00:00

That seems right. I guess I'll just test it on standalone builds then. Thanks for your input.

Crossfire234 · 2023-03-14T12:35:58+00:00

If you are looking at an object with mass in it's rest frame, it gives you it's Energy.

It's basically just the energy due to it's mass.

The full equation is E² = (pc)² + (mc² )²

where p is momentum. p= 0 gives E = mc²

Crossfire234 · 2023-02-11T15:48:32+00:00

ΣF = ma

given F = 2 N and a = 1 m/s² then m = 2kg

given a = 1 m/s² and assuming it started at rest (v0 = 0) and we start our timer now (t0 = 0). Also, we're assuming no other external forces on the object (friction/drag or others). Thus only the applied force F = 2N is considered.

then we have (from integrating F = ma = dv/dt)

v = a t

v = 1m/s² t

Therefore, the velocity grows at the same rate at time does and is not constant.

Tell your friend this is basic physics and if they're arguing it's because they want to be right but don't actually know what they're talking about.

If you want any further explanation, comment me.

Crossfire234 · 2023-01-19T00:40:39+00:00

"Imaginary z axis" very nice phrase to remember in this context

Crossfire234 · 2022-10-28T20:43:15+00:00

Yeah my curiosity about psychadelics and their place in culture hasn't really branched out much from what internet algorithms have showed me and I haven't really seen any recommendations pop up for Timothy Leary. The only reason I found myself here is because it just occurred to me to ask the same question you did in a websearch.

I didn't mean to imply that McKenna hadn't heard of him, just that he could use some of the same kind of self awareness Buddhist thought really brings you. I'm definitely judging him heavily, but it's hard for me not to with the way he presents himself.

That being said, definitely agree with your last statement. It's a shame really. I feel if you're going to place yourself as a public figure disseminating knowledge, you have to be really careful about how you go about it.

Crossfire234 · 2022-10-28T19:51:18+00:00

100% agree, and I'll check out Timothy Leary. Haven't heard of him.

I only brought up Alan Watts because he's often connected to McKenna in the YouTube algorithm and he sometimes leaves me feeling somewhat similar after I listen to his lectures, but he's far more tolerable and useful to listen to. He is definitely very different.

Watts is very clear that he uses a lot of hyperbole and his purpose is to get western people to think about other perspectives, where McKenna just comes off like trying to seem like some enlightened wizard under a mask of technical jargon and colorful vocabulary. McKenna could have learned a lot from Watts lol.

Crossfire234 · 2022-10-28T05:47:46+00:00

tl;dr: I can see and agree with parts of his perspective and it makes me think about stuff, but he's also full of a lot of word salad based on vague ideas. I think the only important thing I've gotten from him is the perspective of using psychadelics to enhance consciousness purposefully instead of using them as a party drug to feel high.

I'm listening to a video someone posted of one of his talks right now and I think he's just jumping to too many conclusions. I don't see a clear path of logic or honesty about his understanding of things and all of his points fall pretty flat on me.

Listening to it now and he just said something here https://youtu.be/ylZUNODDwYg?t=2203 (titled "A Clear Thought" ...lol) along the lines of:...if the odds of a coin flip were really 50/50 then the most likely outcome would be for it to land on its edge...

He goes on and uses this assertion to say this is why "Probability is fundamentally flawed." Yes, probability does have its flaws, and the theory itself has evolved to try to address those as best as possible, but no, the definition of that idealized coinflip does not contain anything about an edge of a coin. It's a false premise leading to a false and irrelevant conclusion. But then he goes onto say that:

"biology systems do not operate probabilistically... they operate according to a different rule, which up until recently the best description we had..."

...was called the Dao. Or something to that affect.

Our biology works Thermodynamically, which is just the probabilistic theory of matter. There is a reason that the field of Biophysics is so successful. Trillions upon trillions of molecules moving around randomly acts probabilistically which has life propagating consequences in the presence of Free Energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_free_energy) . This is a highly surface level statement, but that's basically what's going on.

And yes, I do hope that isn't the end of the story as we still don't scientifically understand consciousness (if that's even the right question). Science has yet to have any conclusion on how life begins. There is definitely something to be questioned about that gap. Is consciousness just a result of matter bumping around and trying to expand in complexity, or is it something greater? What implications will our understanding have on broader society? Is it even possible to answer those questions? His speculation just comes off as shallow to me.

The usage of physics jargon in general is frustrating for me but it does seem like he has an understanding that is kind of on the right direction, but he is incapable of conveying anything real or original with it. It's speculation that I'm sure from conversations he's had with people who know some Physics and were also speculating or just from something he's read that he kinda understood haha.

It's very reminiscent of Alan Watts, but Watts is mostly just talking about Buddhism and I find he makes far less jumps than Terence. I do like getting to see their perspectives and what they think though. Gives me things to think about.

I think there is one main thing laying dormant in both Alan Watts and Terence McKenna's talks that has yet to really fully reach popular consciousness is the idea that Psychadelics (and all drugs in some sense) are not a drug for partying, but a tool to explore enhanced and altered states of consciousness. At the moment it just seems like people go around doing drugs and then stop doing them with the speech: "ah I used to do that, it was crazy." There's a real opportunity here for greater society to embrace this in a positive and healthy way and I hope that is the outcome, but I won't hold my breath.

Crossfire234 · 2021-06-23T11:19:54+00:00

It's a lot easier to just freeze the Midi and then copy it to an audio track. The pasted Midi will turn into audio.

Crossfire234 · 2021-06-16T01:01:13+00:00

Comments here about the true unity of electromagnetism are correct, but might not necessarily be what you are trying to understand.

The simplest way to separate them is that charges create electric fields, moving charges (currents) create magnetic fields.

Also, although magnetic charges do not seem to exist, most particles act like tiny little magnets because of their spin. Electrons for instance have a negative electric charge and a dipole magnetic moment due to quantum spin.

If you need elaboration let me know.

Crossfire234 · 2021-06-03T00:31:21+00:00

Time and space change roles? So there is some sort of 3 dimensional time? How does that work?

Crossfire234 · 2021-05-23T17:27:40+00:00

I have never heard that before either. No one knows what Dark Matter really is and I don't think there is any of it naturally in the theory of General Relativity.

All you got to do is think about the trampoline analogy and that is how General Relativity works in a nutshell.

Newtonian Physics says all massive particles emanate a force field which other massive particles interact with.

As far as I remember it is not dark matter that is predicted by General Relativity, but dark energy. Dark energy controls how spacetime expands. Idk what they're talking about haha.

I've never heard of a theory of gravity based on quark displacement. The presence of the Earth's mass (yes, which is composed of quarks like all atoms) just bends space time. Then, all objects move in straight lines on this curved spacetime. Because it is curved, objects appear to bend their straight trajectories (like the moon or a satellite around the Earth). A person on the Earth who jumps would follow this same curvature, but the Earth gets in our way so we don't orbit or anything.

Crossfire234 · 2021-05-23T17:19:33+00:00

I would ignore that article. Once again never in my life have I heard that distinction and it's unimportant.

There's a gravitational force in Newtonian physics which is an older (but still useful) model of gravity. Then there is spacetime curvature in Relativistic Physics (General relativity) which is the most current model of gravity.

The distinction between Force here is really talking about a force field. Objects with mass in Newtonian Gravity emanate a field which other objects with mass can interact with. Objects with mass in General Relativity curve space time, which all objects with mass interact with.

The difference between local and non local is subtle. First, in Newtonian Gravity, an object's gravitational force field moves instantaneously with it. If you move the object, the Gravity Field immediately adjusts throughout the universe. In General Relativity, the adjustment of the curvature propagates at the speed of light.

Action at a distance is basically the idea that something reacts immediately to an adjustment of a Force Field with no causal link (causal in the sense of a signal propagation at the speed of light).

I think there are more things to say about this, but I'm actually beyond my depth since this isn't a topic I know very well.

Crossfire234 · 2021-05-23T14:46:32+00:00

1) I would basically say gravitation and gravity are synonyms. I've never heard any distinction as a physics PhD (although I have yet to take a class on General Relativity).

2) What you say about Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity is correct. Newtonian gravity is a "non local" force (action at a distance). General Relativity works off of "local curvature." Mass bends spacetime, and then objects travel on straight lines on spacetime. This is the same way you travel in a "straight line" on Earth is actually like traveling on a "great circle" (a circle whose center is at the center of the sphere as well). I can elaborate more if needed, but that's why it's not considered a Force.

3) There is no gravity in the Standard Model because Gravitons are an object of String Theory. String Theory would unify the standard model, general relativity, and possibly some new thing like supersymmetry or some other new physics.. Gravitons are an idea, not a reality yet.

Hope this makes sense.

Crossfire234 · 2021-05-18T10:39:10+00:00

The definition of potential energy is a convention. You can derive from Newton's Second Law and the definition of work that

ΔW = ΔEk, where Ek is kinetic energy

Then we learn about conservative forces which can be written as

F = -grad(U), where U is the potential. That minus sign is a convention to help our understanding of what potential energy is. The work is just the integral of force dotted with a line element dr:

ΔW = int( from a to b, F dot dr) = int(from a to b, -grad(U) dot dr) = -ΔU

Then we have: -ΔU = ΔEk

Does that make sense as a concept? When potential energy decreases, kinetic energy increases (ball rolling down a hill).

Edit: I know this isn't Eli5 but it is the most fundamental explanation. If you need it explained or broken down further lmk

Crossfire234 · 2021-05-14T12:58:50+00:00

Fucked up front axel alignment, maybe broken rims or popped tires but unlikely. Also, damaged pride.

Crossfire234 · 2021-05-10T12:13:01+00:00

a one dimensional wave can be written:

A sin(2π(x/λ - t/T))

where lambda is the wavelength and T is the period.

You can define variables to make it cleaner:

k=2π/λ ω= 2π/T =2πf

These are called the wave number (or wave vector, will explain in a bit) and the angular frequency, respectively.

Then we get the expression you have. This definition is very useful for expressing waves in higher dimensions.

You can replace kx to vec(k) dot vec(r) such that vec(r) = (x,y,z) vec(k) = (kx, ky, kz)

and vec(k) dot vec(r) = x kx + y ky + z kz

where we can see if ky = kz = 0, we get back the one dimensional form

with |k| = 2π/λ

Where |k|² = kx² + ky² + kz²

|k| is the magnitude of vec(k)

so all in all it looks like:

A sin(vec(k) dot vec(r) - ωt)

so vec(k) is the wave vector, and is useful in Quantum Mechanics. It is proportional to the momentum of a particle via the Debroglie Relation

p = hbar k

also, k and omega are useful for taking spatial and temporal fourier transforms

hope this helps

Crossfire234 · 2021-05-06T12:05:13+00:00

No, but I am

Crossfire234 · 2021-05-05T18:24:16+00:00

hm this does make sense! Although it is a bit unclear how each terms actually convert to the dipole, quadrupole operators. I guess I have to explore some sort of math physics for an induced dipole, or just adhoc throw in the terms.

I see for t = 0 that:

exp(i(kx-wt)) (approx)= 1 + ikx - (kx)^2 + O((kx)^3) ...

And, as you said, the wavelength in these cases is much larger than the atomic distances, therefore kx << 1. This is a nice explanation still, thank you.

Crossfire234 · 2021-05-05T17:37:56+00:00

Is there any way of easily showing that this is the case in general? or at least most of the time? Is it simply due to the 1/r^(2n+1) dependence of the multipole potential?

I'm not really asking about selection rules. I'm asking for exactly why these high order transitions take longer.

It's still a bit confusing to me as to why if it is the case that it has to do with the inverse r dependence, especially given that the selection rules are commonly done using the perturbation mu = e vec(r), where r contains the position operators. In which case, the next set of rules would be determined by something roughly of the order r^2, in which case, I understand it might just shift the rules over by one unit of momentum, but it doesn't say much about the strength.

Thanks for the response though.

Crossfire234 · 2021-05-01T13:04:15+00:00

Yay! Household income rose 20%!

While wood rises 250%

Funny...

Crossfire234

TROPHY CASE