Science books!

[Glodson, MIA Mod]

Now, I'm not going to recommend any of these for the book of the month club, but here's a few books I would highly recommend to anyone about physics. There's A Brief History of Time and The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory. Both are great and fun books.

But it might be asking alot for people who don't have experience with this stuff to finish them in a month.

[TheThirdLie, Houdini Mod]

What is this? This is book talk! It should be in the book chat folder that doesn't exist yet.

[Glodson, MIA Mod]

Well, I figured it went well in anything goes.

And I really don't want to make these recommendations. It takes me a month to read them, and I know what they are talking about.

[Justin]

I own ABHoT but haven't gotten around to it. Very much looking forward to it though

[Glodson, MIA Mod]

Justin wrote: "I own ABHoT but haven't gotten around to it. Very much looking forward to it though"

It is very well written. And quite good. If you can, there's an illustrated version that has rather helpful visual aids.

It was those two books that helped me decide to focus in on physics and math.

[Glodson, MIA Mod]

This is a paper, for anyone so inclined, on how gravity might not be a fundamental force, but rather an emergent entropic force.

[Andra]

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p6...

[Glodson, MIA Mod]

You know, I was reading this, and preparing things to refute this essay.

And that was time well spent... since I should have just read the thing from start to finish instead of looking at it piecemeal.

Cause if I read this "The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is communist."

I saw that and I laughed at myself for missing the point.

[Andra]

@Glodson glad you enjoyed it! I like sharing things that make me smile. Plus you seemed very serious about this subject so I wanted to lighten it up a bit!

[Keith]

I have a copy of A Brief History of Time, but I can't read it. Every time I try, I hear it in my head in Hawking's computer voice and it drives me crazy :|

[Glodson, MIA Mod]

@Andra: It was funny because at first I thought it was in earnest. I've read stuff like that before. And I've read things that are apparently jokes if you read enough. And that one caught me off guard.

@Keith: Try reading The Elegant Universe. It has much of the same information, but no threat of Hawking talking to you.

[Apollo]

I might check out the elegant universe. The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Nextis pretty good and I loved Physics for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlinesit's light on the science aspect but very interesting.

[Glodson, MIA Mod]

I think I would like to read the The Trouble with Physics. I figure that is the best kind of science book, one that challenges a theory. Which is what I think since should be.

And it would be fun to see what his points against it are.

[Glodson, MIA Mod]

This picture is going to help highlight a small piece on the EPR Paradox, which some of you might have run into while reading Science Fiction. I know, sometimes, it is given as a possible venue for the existence of Faster-than-Light (FTL) Communication. Since I'm bored, I'm going to try to explain what the Paradox is and how it has been resolved. And any implications that might mean.

Before I do that, I'm going to go through and explain a few things up front. Just a few concepts that will be needed for this to make sense. And we'll start of with the idea of locality.

Locality, for the sake of this topic, can be thought of as simply as objects being very near to each other. According to Special Relativity, the fastest any information can be transmitted is the speed of light. So, if we were to plot out Distance(in a plane) and Time (on a third axis perpendicular to the plane), we could make a cone out of the maximum distance one could reach in a given time interval both in the past, or future from a point. Another visual may help clarify this.



So, what can be considered local can increase with time. Now, in the realm of Quantum Mechanics, there is a property known as Quantum Entanglement. But before that, let's mention the Uncertainty Principal. This is key to our discussion here as well.

Most people know of the Uncertainty Principal. Often it is explained by saying that you cannot know the position and the velocity of a particle at the same time. That's not entirely true. It is the position and the momentum, but that's not important. The problem is that the explanation for this is often "if you measure something, you use a device to measure it, like a laser. The laser sends out a photon that strikes the particle. It either hits it too hard, which gives a greater measurement for the position, or it hits more gently which perseveres the momentum, but leaves the position in doubt."

This gives the idea, but it isn't true as it gives the impression that this is a consequence of measurement error. It is not. The particle doesn't have either really. No matter what you do, how you try to measure it, there's always some doubt. The universe works on a probabilistic manner on the smallest of scales. That's ingrained into the math. This is a feature of all interpretations, as far as I know, of quantum mechanics. It is only with a complex interaction of many particles do objects on a macroscopic scale have both position and momentum defined at the same time.

Now, quantum entanglement is even a bit odder. Some particles have a strange connection. One will have, say, a spin in one direction, and the other will have a spin in the opposite direction. And they don't exist until we measure them. But, by measuring one entangled particle, we'll know instantly what the other was.

Now, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen used this in their paper that introduced the EPR paradox. These men had a major problem with quantum mechanics. They didn't feel that it was a complete theory. The problem is that the entanglement either implies there are hidden variables, or there's a "spooky action at a distance going on."

Here's how it works: suppose we have a set up like in our first picture. Two entangled particles going in opposite directions. Now lets say they go very far, and we the spin on one. We know the other has the opposite spin without measuring it. So, it either always had this spin, and it is just a hidden variable not accounted for by quantum mechanics, or it knew its partner was measured and instantly took up the correct spin. Which would violate the ultimate speed limit of the speed of light for transmitting information.

This paradox was meant to show that elements of the theory were ridiculous. However, John Bell figured out that there would be a way to test this. He showed that there is a limit on how accurate any test of this would be based on any hidden variable formulation. And quantum mechanics would exceed this limit. And this was confirmed in 1980 by Alan Aspect, who showed the inequality here greatly favored quantum mechanics.

And even the speed of this transmission as been measured. It, as far as I know, is about 10,000 times greater than the speed of light. Yet, this cannot be used for FTL communication. Basically, you would have to know what the other person did on the other side, and because of the random aspect of quantum mechanics, transmitting what you want may be impossible as well. So, in order to know what the transmission was supposed to be, you would have to still call your friend on the other side in another way, like with a radio signal.

But this entanglement does have use, mostly in the field of quantum computers and quantum cryptology. If someone messes with the transmission early, you'll know by looking at their twins. But these are both fields barely into their infancy.

The ironic thing about the EPR paradox is that while it was meant to weaken, and shake the pillars of Quantum Mechanics(and the Copenhagen Interpretation in particular), it lead to a major discovery that only solidified it.

[Keith]

$20 says I am the only person here who understands that lol

[TheThirdLie, Houdini Mod]

$20 says you're the only person that actually read it. >_>

[Keith]

Well, I really only skimmed it, as I already know about the EPR Paradox

[Glodson, MIA Mod]

I don't know, I think we've got some clever people here...

But you might be the only one that read it.

[Apollo]

I understood it but I only got through the first paragraph and got interrupted...now I don't feel like reading it.


























gimmie my $20

[Apollo]

Okay read it. Still understand it.


I think I get $40 now.

[Nora aka Diva, The Diva Mod]

Jamie wrote: "$20 says you're the only person that actually read it. >_>"

I read it.

[Glodson, MIA Mod]

If people are actually reading, and liking, stuff like that, I'll post others as I write them.

Cause I like to do that just to do it, but I don't want to clog things up with the long discussions either.

[Katt_goddess]

I read it. :P Ingested it.

And this thread has caused me to start the formulation of another thread though I doubt I'll have any sort of large and indepth OP like this one. :D

[Glodson, MIA Mod]

Well, I am thinking about doing more for this thread... just random science things whenever I get bored.

And do the thread. It'll be fun.

[Lildreamelf]

Did you mention A Brief History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson? I mean its about science... okay maybe its more about the history of science, but its SO INTERESTING!

[Glodson, MIA Mod]

I've mentioned it a few times, honey.

And it is really, really good. I loved how he took the science and added in the people behind it. Which made it so fascinating.

Many of the people behind the great strides were so eccentric.

I think I've got it on the Club's shelf for Random Recommendations.

[Lildreamelf]

i only have so much time, it was just easier to ask you. i'm off now. i've really got to get some crap done.

[Glodson, MIA Mod]

I know. Don't worry, I'm on top of it.

Get your work done, and, on a side note: you did contribute some great stuff today.