Technically, there's nothing you need complex numbers for...you can transform any calculation using complex numbers into one using vectors or just scalar reals. There's a reason they are used, though...it's a vastly more convenient framework to work in for many things. In particular, practically anything dealing with waves or other time-variant systems...filters, signal analysis, compression, controls, etc. In radio transmitter and receiver design, just matching the impedance of the antenna involves complex numbers. Complex numbers are so pervasive in electronics engineering that the field has its own symbol for the imaginary unit...it's called j instead of i to prevent confusion with electrical current.Darth Cloaked Guy wrote:Wait, seriously Mjolnir? You need non-real (imaginary, complex, take your pick on terminology) numbers to design a radio? I admit I am only in college, but still... that can't be right. :|
CERN claims FTL neutrinos
Moderator: Outsider Moderators
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:00 am
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
NUMBERS don't exist in nature. You can't pull a 3 out of anywhere, you can't mine for 7s, and there is no elementary particle for a 2. Numbers are abstract concepts used by the human mind to understand and describe the environment around it. Imaginary numbers are a convenience for denoting a specific kinds of concepts, which the others have clearly demonstrated has utility for describing many natural processes. It's worth noting that nature also does not correspond to "common sense"... it's significantly stranger. If a feature of the natural world is best described with an imaginary number, so be it... crazier things have happened and will continue to happen.TrashMan wrote: Half the math uses immaginary numbers - which don't exist in nature - to get their results.
Also, you don't get to pick and choose what math you accept. Mathematical theorums and concepts are the only things in the entire universe that are either true or untrue, and they are always PROVABLY so. They arise from the basic axioms, so you can only reject them if you're willing to reject the principles of logic as well.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
there was a nice little movie with that funny hawking guy...i think, math is all around us in nature, and it comes back again and again...shapes of leaves, shells formation of sand dunes in wind, waves, and so on ad nauseam.
have fun.
have fun.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
IIRC, those're called patterns and math is used to describe and understand them as how nature works. Basically, math is the translation of the language in which the universe operates, but they are not the same, one is just a crude simulacrum of the other.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 983
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 pm
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
I think there are many mathematicians who would argue that nature is just a crude simulacrum of math.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
I reject your reality and substitute my own.starstriker1 wrote:NUMBERS don't exist in nature. You can't pull a 3 out of anywhere, you can't mine for 7s, and there is no elementary particle for a 2. Numbers are abstract concepts used by the human mind to understand and describe the environment around it. Imaginary numbers are a convenience for denoting a specific kinds of concepts, which the others have clearly demonstrated has utility for describing many natural processes. It's worth noting that nature also does not correspond to "common sense"... it's significantly stranger. If a feature of the natural world is best described with an imaginary number, so be it... crazier things have happened and will continue to happen.TrashMan wrote: Half the math uses immaginary numbers - which don't exist in nature - to get their results.
Also, you don't get to pick and choose what math you accept. Mathematical theorums and concepts are the only things in the entire universe that are either true or untrue, and they are always PROVABLY so. They arise from the basic axioms, so you can only reject them if you're willing to reject the principles of logic as well.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
Not really. Since most mathematicians know that they use "ideal" models for their representation as there's variables they often can't aproach but are there.fredgiblet wrote:I think there are many mathematicians who would argue that nature is just a crude simulacrum of math.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
So...
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2685
Apparently, they may have failed to account for the relativistic motion of the satellites.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2685
Apparently, they may have failed to account for the relativistic motion of the satellites.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
Alright, someone remind me: how many years did CERN go over the results before releasing their paper?
My thoughts on http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2685 :
Relevant : Does the movement of sender/receiver due to Earth's motion make this point relevant even regardless of any satellite involvement? (a.k.a. did they take motion-based distance dilation as seen from the emitter/receiver into account?)
Typo : That's "photon", not "foton", use a spell-checker Ronald.
My thoughts on http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2685 :
Relevant : Does the movement of sender/receiver due to Earth's motion make this point relevant even regardless of any satellite involvement? (a.k.a. did they take motion-based distance dilation as seen from the emitter/receiver into account?)
Typo : That's "photon", not "foton", use a spell-checker Ronald.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
to be honest I think their own respective movement was the first thing they considered.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
From what I've read, this is based on a misunderstanding of the experiment. The neutrinos were timed with clocks on the ground, synchronized to each other by using the GPS clocks as a common reference. Any error due to the location of the GPS satellites in Earth's gravity well and their relative motion would be essentially identical from both ends of the experiment, only the difference in the error between the two locations would be relevant to synchronization.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
So it's still weird? Got it.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
We have a new standard of cool in summing up a scientific paper:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1110/1110.2832.pdf
Money Quote: "Probably not."
Two words, where others jabber for pages and pages. Thumbs up.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1110/1110.2832.pdf
Money Quote: "Probably not."
Two words, where others jabber for pages and pages. Thumbs up.
sapere aude.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
This is proof of CERN being bent on world;domination! Beware of green jello, srsly.
No it is not. Subluminal = win.This is the only way ... interstellar travel...
-
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 12:09 am
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
Apparently Neutrinos are still traveling faster than the speed of light in the latest version of the experiment, though there are still some sources of error to rule out I think.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
Brief summary: same basic experiment with a minor tweak, narrower pulses of neutrinos to help exclude any effects of the pulse shape and make sure they're measuring the times accurately. If the effect was a result of a bias in the pulse shape, they should have at least seen a change in the apparent speed.Wintermute wrote:Apparently Neutrinos are still traveling faster than the speed of light in the latest version of the experiment, though there are still some sources of error to rule out I think.
If they hadn't just shut down Tevatron due to it being "obsolete", we could replicate the experiment there with completely different equipment...there was talk about doing some extra equipment calibration checks and using already-collected data, but I don't know if that ever got anywhere.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
OT: Still cannot believe that. Is this creationist sabotage?Mjolnir wrote:If they hadn't just shut down Tevatron due to it being "obsolete",
sapere aude.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
Probably not, more likely budget sabotage. The space program is supposedly really popular here in America, but you wouldn't guess that by the money that gets spent on it.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 983
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 pm
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
I think part of that is that people here don't know how little gets spent on it.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
hi hi
There's lots of people out there that don't understand much of anything about money on large scale projects. I hear people cry and wail about someone wasting a million dollars on some project. I wonder, are they still living in the 50s? There's this thing called inflation that I'm not sure some people even understand.
There's lots of people out there that don't understand much of anything about money on large scale projects. I hear people cry and wail about someone wasting a million dollars on some project. I wonder, are they still living in the 50s? There's this thing called inflation that I'm not sure some people even understand.