this could be a fun thought... its a big "WHAT IF!" kinda thing...

What if time and space were really looped in a sphere of a loop and that the famous 4 dimensional example of a bowling ball on a mattress and the indention it creates is true... but its really part of a wall of a much larger ball the size of the universe. that would make infinity an illusion cuz you would be encompassed completely. you wouldnt know you already passed the point you were already on... you get the idea

Yes, the illusion of infinity can be created by a finite 4D hyperspace

Did you understand that, John? :eek:

Sure he understood. It's just a very visual metaphor for your basic 4-dimensional hypersphere - the kind which sticks in the layman's memory.

ya know, nothing sounds basic about a 4d hypersphere...

could my ignorance be excused and could i ask for a little... clarification?

Sure he understood. It's just a very visual metaphor for your basic 4-dimensional hypersphere - the kind which sticks in the layman's memory.
I just didn't understand the way he said it. I see it in a different way. I see like a ballon that expands. The three dimensions are on the surface of the ballon, while the fourth dimension (time) is the radius of the balloon...

But wouldn't that mean that the shape of the universe is a sphere? :confused:

a sphere is an interesting shape for the universe... but what would be on the otherside of it?

a sphere is an interesting shape for the universe... but what would be on the otherside of it?
You mean... outside it?
Nothing... I guess... :D :p
...
Here we go again... :D

yeah, outside, same thing really... unless of course... we are on the outside... somehow... :S hehe

is there any easy way of telling me what a hypersphere is?



edit: and yeah, if there's a limit... doesn't it have to be made of something? and if there is a limit... what is beyond the limit? Nothing? But isn't there "nothing" withing the universe?

What exactally is encompassed in this word "universe"?

:confused: :eek: :bugeye:

What begins ends, what ends begins......

the exception confirms the rule.

I just didn't understand the way he said it. I see it in a different way. I see like a ballon that expands. The three dimensions are on the surface of the ballon, while the fourth dimension (time) is the radius of the balloon...

But wouldn't that mean that the shape of the universe is a sphere? :confused:

The 4th dimension - the radius - would probably be a 4th SPATIAL dimension, at right angles to all the familiar 3. (Time can be considered a very different type of dimension, or just an abstraction based on the sequence of cause & effect). Therefore our whole spacetime continuum is simply the expanding surface of this 4-dimensional sphere: finite in volume, but with no definite edge or centre that we can reach.

(Hypersphere: shape in 4 dimensions analagous to a sphere).

And the question of what lies beyond is unanswerable, as long as our observations and travels are limited to 3 dimensions. People have speculated about other, neighbouring hyperspheres, perhaps continually budding off one another; if this larger universe (multiverse?) is inaccessible to observation, it can never be treated scientifically.

Yeah there are multiverse theories out there but in my opinion it is always better to keep things simple in science and so we should be just saying that there's nothing outside it. We're going to have to say there's nothing outside a multiverse anyway (unless it's infinite but I hate that word :D )

What if we go beyond the speed of light? Wouldn't we be able to break the barrier of our universe? Because if we go above the speed of light, we will start travelling backwards in time and at some point reach the big bang. Then, if we can go beyond the big bang, we can get into the multiverse (if there is one). Problem is... how can we possibly go beyond the speed of light and pass through the big bang? Maybe we could send a robot? :D

Anyhow... also, if we go beyond the speed of light we will be able to go into a black hole and then come back. But again, what would be the effects of the black hole on us? Another robot? :D

Anyways...
Btw, I'm just assuming that the "tycho" particle (or whatever you call it) exists (the one that goes beyond the speed of light). ;)

Oh! And btw... nothing is impossible if we have enough energy (fusion, for example). The real problem is how could we survive in harsh environments... ;)

doesn't fission produce more energy? Since fission needs it... :confused:

I was under the impression that at least on earth, fission wasn't very rewarding.

doesn't fission produce more energy? Since fission needs it... :confused:
Fusion produces way more power then fission. You need a huge amount of energy to bind two prtons together. But once they are together, they release an incredible amount of energy, defined by this forumla-->E=mc². Since c² is a very big number, we only need a little bit of "m" for the "E" to be very big ;)

Fusion is what happens inside the sun. The sun outpours an energy of about 3X10²⁹ watts... if I remeber well. This is a lot of lightbulbs... :D


I was under the impression that at least on earth, fission wasn't very rewarding.
Yes, it isn't.

thanks

you'd never guess it, but i take Phy higher :o

you'd never guess it, but i take Phy higher :o
What is that? It is not a drug, is it? :D

physics.... :P

it is a drug. A drug for curious minds.

My last report said:

If I could answer all the questions Margarida asks... I'd be a famous scientist.

physics.... :P

it is a drug. A drug for curious minds.

:m: Sticking with the drug metaphor: you seem interested in astronomy. An old professor of mine once called it "the icing... on the bitter pill of physics."

@your earlier statement that fission isn't very rewarding on Earth: fission is what runs our nuclear power plants, and atom bombs. It's fusion that's less rewarding, here on Earth - no-one has yet achieved controlled fusion on a sufficient scale to produce more energy than is needed to sustain the reaction. It's like having to use flamethrowers to keep a camp stove burning.

right, you put the energy into separating and then what you get doesn't compensate.
Sorry, :blushes: I mix the two up.

Yeah, I'm really interested in astronomy, and whether it's apperent or not, I love quantum and nuclear physics too (and optics, but not with the same burning curiosity). On the other hand, I hate mechanics.

Sticking with the drug metaphor: you seem interested in astronomy. An old professor of mine once called it "the icing... on the bitter pill of physics."
Yes, indeed... :D


@your earlier statement that fission isn't very rewarding on Earth: fission is what runs our nuclear power plants, and atom bombs.
Very rewarding... :rolleyes:
I'm just teasing ya :D


It's fusion that's less rewarding, here on Earth - no-one has yet achieved controlled fusion on a sufficient scale to produce more energy than is needed to sustain the reaction. It's like having to use flamethrowers to keep a camp stove burning.
Huuuh.... I thought a little drop of water would be sufficient to keep a fusion power plant running for a pretty long time! Like... a drop ofwater wouldbe sufficient to power up the entire US for like a year!

right, you put the energy into separating and then what you get doesn't compensate.
Sorry, :o I mix the two up.
Yes you mix. You were thinking about fusion and you described fission :D


Yeah, I'm really interested in astronomy, and whether it's apperent or not, I love quantum and nuclear physics too (and optics, but not with the same burning curiosity). On the other hand, I hate mechanics.
Just like me.... :D Although, actually... I don't like optics very much...

lol, ok.

fusion = fusão, yeah? like... you fuse things together.

I know what the words mean, but then I forget what applies to which :blushes:

I see... :D

R.I.P this thread

Long time ago... The "answer" came in the first page... :p

true, true

tiny quesion... ?

say

n + U -> Sr + Xe + Neutrons (3) + energy

would that energy include sound? Or just heat and whatnot?

Photon + kinetic energy change in particles?

????????????

I'm guessing the energy released is in the form of a photon, and the kinetic energy of the product particles.

Yes the energy could include (what u call) sound if there was air in the generator. They are not perfectly quiet :D

n + U -> Sr + Xe + Neutrons (3) + energy

??????????????????????????????? :confused:

And you have difficulty understanding a 4D Hypershere!?!? :D :D

She's only quoting high school chemistry; I didn't do GCSE or A-Level physics, so I'm not sure if the concept of higher physical dimensions would be touched upon.

I've never done that in Chemistry, I think...

The higher physical dimensions would only matter when Quantum Physics come into play. Chemistry and Quantum Physics are very close related, but I don't think they teach any of that in High School... :D :D

I wonder if any high school science teachers would have Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" as a recommended text? That's where I first read about tesserects and hyperspheres, at around the age of 9.

I wonder if any high school science teachers would have Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" as a recommended text? That's where I first read about tesserects and hyperspheres, at around the age of 9.
You are crazy. :p
Go and play while you are still alive! ;)

The first "interesting" book that I've read was about Plato and Socrates. I was 12 years old. :)

Hey...! You were born two days after me! :)
And some years before, of course... :D :D

Then you are 20 just this month, TruthSeeker. Feeling over the hill yet?
Yes, I am crazy.
Those of us who spend so much time online as to amass 4100 posts much be even more crazy. Maybe YOU ought to play outdoors more often?

She's only quoting high school chemistry; I didn't do GCSE or A-Level physics, so I'm not sure if the concept of higher physical dimensions would be touched upon.


Actually, wise guy... that's physics...
I'm not quoting... It's just a basic formula.

n + U -> Sr + Xe + Neutrons (3) + energy


neutron + Uranion -> Strontium + Xenon + Neutrons (3 for the sake of giving a number) + energy... ooh... big deal :P

and thanks everyone else.

It's easier that 4D Hyperspace... since I don't know what the 4th D is... (did time go out the window?)

Then you are 20 just this month, TruthSeeker. Feeling over the hill yet?
Kinda. I've had such a stressing life that my blood pressure is a little bit high. 180/90, I think. Not much higher, but it used to be perfect... :o

Yes, I am crazy.
I always get along with crazy people... :D


Those of us who spend so much time online as to amass 4100 posts much be even more crazy. Maybe YOU ought to play outdoors more often?
Yeah I know... I moving out soon, with a friend. She is around my age, so we will probably do some outdoor stuff together.
This week, I'm planning to go hiking with some friends and waterskying with other, another day. That will be cool... :cool:

Actually, wise guy... that's physics...
I'm not quoting... It's just a basic formula.

It's easier that 4D Hyperspace... since I don't know what the 4th D is... (did time go out the window?)

:( Sorry, mi'lady: it's just that I did that sort of equation - and the principles of radioactive decay - as part of A-Level Chemistry. I mean, chemistry is a branch of physics, and biology a branch of chemistry.

The 4th dimension, in this case, would be a spatial dimension which we can't perceive. At right angles to all the familiar 3, just as they are at right angles to each other.

Time is a fundamentally differnt kind of dimension than the spatial ones (I know I'm stating the obvious), and some would not call it a dimension at all.