Don't announce anything major without me! :-)

This just in: World of Goo will be 3d, and will be further developed by 3dboy.

whoa!  how did you know?!?!?

[quote author=ron link=topic=151.msg1174#msg1174 date=1215832630]
whoa!  how did you know?!?!?

I just looked at things from a different perspective.

This brings a whole new dimension of meaning to my life.

(I apologise for that atrocious pun)

My grandparents have wifi (with no password, of course) so I'm on!
The first person to know what state Randolph is in receives 1 e-cookie!! Go!

[quote author=Dil999 link=topic=151.msg1177#msg1177 date=1216084927]
The first person to know what state Randolph is in receives 1 e-cookie!! Go!


He is in a state of euphoria?

Massachusetts?

[quote author=Dil999 link=topic=151.msg1177#msg1177 date=1216084927]
My grandparents have wifi (with no password, of course) so I'm on!
The first person to know what state Randolph is in receives 1 e-cookie!! Go!

It's not California, because that would have been too easy. Apart from that, I don't know. You don't leave a lot of personal info on the internet, apparently... I mean, your group did become second in the FIRST-overdrive, and with enough effort I might be able to find your highschool from that, but that's about it...

So yeah, assuming you're not going too far away... Nevada?

My goal was to have you guys using google or something, not stalking me :P
its in new jersey.  Tom wins the e-cookie, because he was closest.

Yay! I'm gonna print and eat it.  ;D

Aaaaaw.... it's chocolate chip as well :(

Now I'm hungry.

The game is already 3D, you are forgetting that time is a dimension.

Ok perhaps that's a bit too geeky for these forums?

...but if you take quantum mechanics into account, the game is 10d...
Anyways, I'm back!  Feel free to announce the release date now (please?).

[quote author=Dil999 link=topic=151.msg1194#msg1194 date=1216711961]
...but if you take quantum mechanics into account, the game is 10d...
Anyways, I'm back!  Feel free to announce the release date now (please?).


Well not quite, the standard model of quantum mechanics doesn't use any fancy extra dimensions.  It is actually string theory and M-theory specifically that look at these extra dimensions for answers...and even then the evidence isn't conclusive yet..just promising.  I'm really looking forward to LHC coming online in the next few months actually, it could shed a whole lot of light on the situation.

...but I'm really getting WAY too geeky now =P

PS - Not an expert by any means, I just spend way to much time reading books, articles, papers, etc..I just finished Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe.  If you're into this sort of thing its a fantastic book, it explains a lot about string and M-theory without delving into complex math formulas.  Of course if you're into formulas my next "project" is this book, it looks it could take me a long while to get through it =/

*checks*
Aye, pictures of my cat.
*goes off topic*

[quote author=Sqrl link=topic=151.msg1190#msg1190 date=1216634828]
The game is already 3D, you are forgetting that time is a dimension.

Ok perhaps that's a bit too geeky for these forums?I've never really seen much use in using time as a dimension. Sure, it has a forward and a backward, but we only go forward (barring some specific weird physics interpretations).
To show my point, try these things:
Build a bridge, with a pillar 10 cm wide every meter.
Now build a bridge under which pillars are set for only one second every 10 seconds.

Spatial and time dimensions are just two wholly different things.

[quote author=Dil999 link=topic=151.msg1194#msg1194 date=1216711961]
...but if you take quantum mechanics into account, the game is 10d...
Anyways, I'm back!  Feel free to announce the release date now (please?).
Naw, if we take quantum mechanics into account, the release date may cross the final release date prediction barrier through quantum tunneling, with a higher chance the shorter the predicted barrier is.
As the increased public pressure for the game, shown as an increased potential energy of traveling through the medium, increases, the game will carry on, but part of the game will reflect, and show up back here as a beta. So, the only thing we have to do, is put a lot of pressure on them some time in the future.

[quote author=Sqrl link=topic=151.msg1198#msg1198 date=1216811754]
[quote author=Dil999 link=topic=151.msg1194#msg1194 date=1216711961]
...but if you take quantum mechanics into account, the game is 10d...
Anyways, I'm back!  Feel free to announce the release date now (please?).


Well not quite, the standard model of quantum mechanics doesn't use any fancy extra dimensions.  It is actually string theory and M-theory specifically that look at these extra dimensions for answers...and even then the evidence isn't conclusive yet..just promising.  I'm really looking forward to LHC coming online in the next few months actually, it could shed a whole lot of light on the situation.Do they actually have a plan with LHC, or is it just like "Let's shoot even higher energy particles at each other, so maybe we'll get even more fundamental particles out of it!
Or is it that it's very sensitive. AFAIK, the only sort of testable hypotheses of string theory, is that gravity is stronger when you're at really short distances. But they don't know what really short is. Could be a millimeter, could be an Angstrom. Whole problem with string theory, really. Sure, it would work, but what does it predict?

What always amused me about quantum mechanics is how quarks always show up in pairs. This is because their binding energy is so large, that when you separate them, you create enough energy to spontaneously make new quarks :)

[quote author=Marius link=topic=151.msg1203#msg1203 date=1217142805]
*checks*
Aye, pictures of my cat.
*goes off topic*

[quote author=Sqrl link=topic=151.msg1190#msg1190 date=1216634828]
The game is already 3D, you are forgetting that time is a dimension.

Ok perhaps that's a bit too geeky for these forums?I've never really seen much use in using time as a dimension. Sure, it has a forward and a backward, but we only go forward (barring some specific weird physics interpretations).
To show my point, try these things:
Build a bridge, with a pillar 10 cm wide every meter.
Now build a bridge under which pillars are set for only one second every 10 seconds.

Spatial and time dimensions are just two wholly different things.

[quote author=Dil999 link=topic=151.msg1194#msg1194 date=1216711961]
...but if you take quantum mechanics into account, the game is 10d...
Anyways, I'm back!  Feel free to announce the release date now (please?).
Naw, if we take quantum mechanics into account, the release date may cross the final release date prediction barrier through quantum tunneling, with a higher chance the shorter the predicted barrier is.
As the increased public pressure for the game, shown as an increased potential energy of traveling through the medium, increases, the game will carry on, but part of the game will reflect, and show up back here as a beta. So, the only thing we have to do, is put a lot of pressure on them some time in the future.

[quote author=Sqrl link=topic=151.msg1198#msg1198 date=1216811754]
[quote author=Dil999 link=topic=151.msg1194#msg1194 date=1216711961]
...but if you take quantum mechanics into account, the game is 10d...
Anyways, I'm back!  Feel free to announce the release date now (please?).


Well not quite, the standard model of quantum mechanics doesn't use any fancy extra dimensions.  It is actually string theory and M-theory specifically that look at these extra dimensions for answers...and even then the evidence isn't conclusive yet..just promising.  I'm really looking forward to LHC coming online in the next few months actually, it could shed a whole lot of light on the situation.Do they actually have a plan with LHC, or is it just like "Let's shoot even higher energy particles at each other, so maybe we'll get even more fundamental particles out of it!
Or is it that it's very sensitive. AFAIK, the only sort of testable hypotheses of string theory, is that gravity is stronger when you're at really short distances. But they don't know what really short is. Could be a millimeter, could be an Angstrom. Whole problem with string theory, really. Sure, it would work, but what does it predict?

What always amused me about quantum mechanics is how quarks always show up in pairs. This is because their binding energy is so large, that when you separate them, you create enough energy to spontaneously make new quarks :)


Ok well there is no good way of explaining it properly and succinctly but essentially it boils down to a simple problem with quantum mechanics that has to do with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.  Essentially what this says is that when you get down to a quantum level and are trying to get information about a particle you can know the velocity OR you can know location but you cannot accurately know both at the same time.  The more you are able to discern one the less you are able to discern the other.  I'm not going to try to explain this (since I don't fully understand it myself).

The way it was explain to me was that by speeding up the particles they can more precisely know where they are located.  This is useful because essentially what they are doing with the LHC is similar to the way that a blind person would touch someone's face to know what they looked like.  Because they cannot simply look at the particles they have to "feel" for them and their only method of "feeling" is essentially throwing stuff at it (stuff being other particles).  And what it boils down to is the idea that the more precisely they know the position of the particles they are throwing the more precisely they can gain information about their target.

Of course in reality they are throwing them ridiculously fast and their version of "feeling" to see what happened is actually a lot more like figuring out what happened in a car crash based on the way the wrecks are situated after the fact. I'd be lying if I said I knew much more than that but hopefully that does clarify a bit....and hopefully I didn't screw up the explanation either lol.

As for string theory itself, one of its problems towards being excepted is actually that there is not a good way to experimentally test it.  Its not that there never will be but that the things it predicts are on extremely small scales (and we do have a solid idea of the scales we should be looking at).  String theory itself is not nearly as prominent as M-theory these days, essentially M-theory is string theory with some slight modifications though.  There were/are 5 superstring theories and what M-theory does is combine them all together into one theory by essentially saying that they are in fact the same theory just looked at in a different form.  The easiest way to imagine that I suppose would be to say that you have 5 oragami figures and while they appear vastly different there are steps you can take to fold and reshape any one figure into any other figure. 

What M-Theory and the string theories do that has gained them quite a bit of attention is accounted for gravity.  Currently the standard model of quantum mechanics does not take into account gravity and this is of course seen as a problem by many scientists.  But not only is it accounted for it is done so by necessity.  The theory itself was created and then through working out the implications of the theory it was discovered that gravity was an unavoidable consequence of this theory.  Whats more it has the nice feature of saying that the standard model isn't really wrong so much as looking at things too broadly.  In the standard model the fundamental particles are viewed as point-particles, but in string/M-theory we look a bit closer. In string theory they are strings (duh lol), while M-theory goes a little further and says they aren't strings but actually branes existing in "n" dimensions referred to as n-branes.

There are several other things that String/M-theory have elegantly explained that had previously confounded scientist but I'm already babbling on a bit and you probably stopped reading already lol.

[quote author=Sqrl link=topic=151.msg1205#msg1205 date=1217232872]Ok well there is no good way of explaining it properly and succinctly but essentially it boils down to a simple problem with quantum mechanics that has to do with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.  Essentially what this says is that when you get down to a quantum level and are trying to get information about a particle you can know the velocity OR you can know location but you cannot accurately know both at the same time.  The more you are able to discern one the less you are able to discern the other.  I'm not going to try to explain this (since I don't fully understand it myself).Yup, I know Heisenberg. It makes for nice physical things like having an energy in the ground state, and Hawking radiation.

[quote author=Sqrl link=topic=151.msg1205#msg1205 date=1217232872]The way it was explain to me was that by speeding up the particles they can more precisely know where they are located.  This is useful because essentially what they are doing with the LHC is similar to the way that a blind person would touch someone's face to know what they looked like.  Because they cannot simply look at the particles they have to "feel" for them and their only method of "feeling" is essentially throwing stuff at it (stuff being other particles).  And what it boils down to is the idea that the more precisely they know the position of the particles they are throwing the more precisely they can gain information about their target.

Of course in reality they are throwing them ridiculously fast and their version of "feeling" to see what happened is actually a lot more like figuring out what happened in a car crash based on the way the wrecks are situated after the fact. I'd be lying if I said I knew much more than that but hopefully that does clarify a bit....and hopefully I didn't screw up the explanation either lol.Seems to make sense. I can't seem to find the actual speeds they're using (Maybe they're not sure :D), but I guess they would differ per experiment. The protons travel with 7 TeV energy though... and take less than 90 microseconds to do a lap. With a circumference of 27 kilometer that would be *calculates* roughly 1 c. Damnit. They're too close to lightspeed to calculate it like this :P

[quote author=Sqrl link=topic=151.msg1205#msg1205 date=1217232872]As for string theory itself, one of its problems towards being excepted is actually that there is not a good way to experimentally test it.  Its not that there never will be but that the things it predicts are on extremely small scales (and we do have a solid idea of the scales we should be looking at).  String theory itself is not nearly as prominent as M-theory these days, essentially M-theory is string theory with some slight modifications though.  There were/are 5 superstring theories and what M-theory does is combine them all together into one theoryAt the cost of having to use another dimension though. William of Ockham is turning in his grave :P

[quote author=Sqrl link=topic=151.msg1205#msg1205 date=1217232872]by essentially saying that they are in fact the same theory just looked at in a different form.  The easiest way to imagine that I suppose would be to say that you have 5 oragami figures and while they appear vastly different there are steps you can take to fold and reshape any one figure into any other figure. 

What M-Theory and the string theories do that has gained them quite a bit of attention is accounted for gravity.  Currently the standard model of quantum mechanics does not take into account gravity and this is of course seen as a problem by many scientists.  But not only is it accounted for it is done so by necessity.  The theory itself was created and then through working out the implications of the theory it was discovered that gravity was an unavoidable consequence of this theory.  Whats more it has the nice feature of saying that the standard model isn't really wrong so much as looking at things too broadly.  In the standard model the fundamental particles are viewed as point-particles, but in string/M-theory we look a bit closer. In string theory they are strings (duh lol), while M-theory goes a little further and says they aren't strings but actually branes existing in "n" dimensions referred to as n-branes.

There are several other things that String/M-theory have elegantly explained that had previously confounded scientist but I'm already babbling on a bit and you probably stopped reading already lol.
Braaaaaneeessss..... Braaaaaaneees... *Wander aimlessly*

[quote author=Marius link=topic=151.msg1210#msg1210 date=1217518126]

[quote author=Sqrl link=topic=151.msg1205#msg1205 date=1217232872]As for string theory itself, one of its problems towards being excepted is actually that there is not a good way to experimentally test it.  Its not that there never will be but that the things it predicts are on extremely small scales (and we do have a solid idea of the scales we should be looking at).  String theory itself is not nearly as prominent as M-theory these days, essentially M-theory is string theory with some slight modifications though.  There were/are 5 superstring theories and what M-theory does is combine them all together into one theoryAt the cost of having to use another dimension though. William of Ockham is turning in his grave :P

[quote author=Sqrl link=topic=151.msg1205#msg1205 date=1217232872]by essentially saying that they are in fact the same theory just looked at in a different form.  The easiest way to imagine that I suppose would be to say that you have 5 oragami figures and while they appear vastly different there are steps you can take to fold and reshape any one figure into any other figure. 

What M-Theory and the string theories do that has gained them quite a bit of attention is accounted for gravity.  Currently the standard model of quantum mechanics does not take into account gravity and this is of course seen as a problem by many scientists.  But not only is it accounted for it is done so by necessity.  The theory itself was created and then through working out the implications of the theory it was discovered that gravity was an unavoidable consequence of this theory.  Whats more it has the nice feature of saying that the standard model isn't really wrong so much as looking at things too broadly.  In the standard model the fundamental particles are viewed as point-particles, but in string/M-theory we look a bit closer. In string theory they are strings (duh lol), while M-theory goes a little further and says they aren't strings but actually branes existing in "n" dimensions referred to as n-branes.

There are several other things that String/M-theory have elegantly explained that had previously confounded scientist but I'm already babbling on a bit and you probably stopped reading already lol.
Braaaaaneeessss..... Braaaaaaneees... *Wander aimlessly*


Aah one of my pet peeves!

Although I don't think either String or M-theory violates Occam's Razor.  Its the "All things being equal" part that saves it.  Things are certainly similar but not quite equal between the new and old theories.  ;)

[quote author=Sqrl link=topic=151.msg1220#msg1220 date=1217661765]Aah one of my pet peeves!

Although I don't think either String or M-theory violates Occam's Razor.  Its the "All things being equal" part that saves it.  Things are certainly similar but not quite equal between the new and old theories.  ;)

Well, it depends. I don't know enough about string/M theory to adequately judge if this is the case, but if the different string theories give the same predictions, saying they are all true doesn't change anything.

I guess they may have different predictions though...

[quote author=Marius link=topic=151.msg1221#msg1221 date=1217662851]
Well, it depends. I don't know enough about string/M theory to adequately judge if this is the case, but if the different string theories give the same predictions, saying they are all true doesn't change anything.

I guess they may have different predictions though...


Hmmm, I'm not sure I follow you 100% so this might not address your point properly but the point I was making was just that these new theories have important differences to the previously accepted theory, and that they add new and significant understanding rather than just being a more complicated view of what we already know (in many ways it is actually less complicated honestly), gravity being a great example. To my knowledge none of these new theories have been proven or even accepted as true, and hopefully I didn't give that impression. Perhaps my optimism for the future of M-theory came off the wrong way?

I certainly agree that we won't need all 5-string theories and M-theory to explain things, as that would definitely be more complicated than necessary.  For now though they are just developing the theories, we certainly haven't reached the end of the road yet. 

To your last point I can say that the 5 different super-string theories are primarily useful in that they allow you to reexamine a mathematical expression in different terms using the unique perspective of a given string theory to continue towards a solution where you might have hit a brick wall otherwise.  I honestly don't feel I have anywhere near a firm enough grasp to attempt a legitimate explanation beyond that, but I do know there is quite a bit of understanding behind the "why" of the multiple perspectives.

[quote author=Sqrl link=topic=151.msg1229#msg1229 date=1217771036]
[quote author=Marius link=topic=151.msg1221#msg1221 date=1217662851]
Well, it depends. I don't know enough about string/M theory to adequately judge if this is the case, but if the different string theories give the same predictions, saying they are all true doesn't change anything.

I guess they may have different predictions though...


Hmmm, I'm not sure I follow you 100% so this might not address your point properly but the point I was making was just that these new theories have important differences to the previously accepted theory, and that they add new and significant understanding rather than just being a more complicated view of what we already know (in many ways it is actually less complicated honestly), gravity being a great example. To my knowledge none of these new theories have been proven or even accepted as true, and hopefully I didn't give that impression. Perhaps my optimism for the future of M-theory came off the wrong way?

I certainly agree that we won't need all 5-string theories and M-theory to explain things, as that would definitely be more complicated than necessary.  For now though they are just developing the theories, we certainly haven't reached the end of the road yet. 

To your last point I can say that the 5 different super-string theories are primarily useful in that they allow you to reexamine a mathematical expression in different terms using the unique perspective of a given string theory to continue towards a solution where you might have hit a brick wall otherwise.  I honestly don't feel I have anywhere near a firm enough grasp to attempt a legitimate explanation beyond that, but I do know there is quite a bit of understanding behind the "why" of the multiple perspectives.
My last post was mainly directed at how you mentioned Occam's razor wasn't applicable to M-theory over string theory. My point was this:
The 5 string theories have, I suppose, a different mechanism to explain physics. For now, they only have one testable prediction though; the strength of gravity at small distances.
Now, let's presume they all predict exactly the same strength at this small distance. If you would now introduce the M-theory, saying "All of these theories are true", it wouldn't change the predictions but it would still cost you an extra dimension.

Now I was going to say that my last post was useless, since the different string theories probably predict different things, but I'm actually not that certain. Because if they would, how could they be unified in the M-theory? I suppose for example the strength of gravity could be different depending on what angle our dimensions make, with, whatever.
Hrm. I'm not making any sense anymore :P

For the record, I certainly don't think Occam's razor applies to the step quantum mechanics -> string theory, as quantum just ignores gravity whatsoever.

After my own coupla weeks off I come back to what? A forum that sounds like my. own.. house...

OK, moving on, from what I can gater quantum is actually utterly unapplicable in macro (IE above subatomic particle) levels, so what the deuce, lets just stick to basic physics and hope the release date doesn't forget when it is. Or what it is. Or either of the two.

Sorry if i'm rambling, my jetlag is talking.

[quote author=Ballisticsfood link=topic=151.msg1236#msg1236 date=1217958457]
After my own coupla weeks off I come back to what? A forum that sounds like my. own.. house...

OK, moving on, from what I can gather quantum is actually utterly unapplicable in macro (IE above subatomic particle) levels, so what the deuce, lets just stick to basic physics and hope the release date doesn't forget when it is. Or what it is. Or either of the two.

Sorry if i'm rambling, my jetlag is talking.While it is true that you won't see any quantum effects with your bare eyes, the scales we use for electronics and storage media near the level where quantum effect become noticeable. So yeah, it's actually necessary to understand quantum mechanics for modern technology to advance.
Besides, we can use it to our advantage. Consider for example quantum computers, which can do parallel calculations thousands of times faster than regular computers. Although quantum computing is still in an experimental phase, I'm sure there are other technologies which use or have to consider quantum effects.

Also, welcome back ;)

[quote author=Ballisticsfood link=topic=151.msg1236#msg1236 date=1217958457]
After my own coupla weeks off I come back to what? A forum that sounds like my. own.. house...

OK, moving on, from what I can gater quantum is actually utterly unapplicable in macro (IE above subatomic particle) levels, so what the deuce, lets just stick to basic physics and hope the release date doesn't forget when it is. Or what it is. Or either of the two.

Sorry if i'm rambling, my jetlag is talking.


I hate to come in on an old discussion but I would like to add to Marius' point by also pointing out that phenomenon such as some black holes (they come in many many "sizes") and particularly the Big Bang also require an understanding of the world of quantum mechanics and how it relates to the non-quantum mechanical world.  In essence those special cases fall into both categories because a black hole can be both massive in terms of their mass but they can also be ridiculously compact in terms of the area that mass actually occupies, the same is (or at least was) true of the big bang. 

The result is that to fully understand these sorts of things you need to understand both the large and the small, and you need to understand how they are related.  Hopefully that makes sense. 

As for how it is useful, Marius covers it very well, and there are also likely to be some unforeseen benefits as well.