Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Cascaded micro-ring resonators. Say what???

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 26, 2006 7:55:32 PM

Ok, I know I'm getting old and have various diseases that affect the brain, but this Nanophotonics Article has thrown me for a loop.

I can wrap my head around the optical buffer thingy since it's just making light go around in circles until it's ready to go out and do its optic thing. What gets me is this:

The optical buffer device based on this simple concept can briefly store 10 bits of optical information within an area of 0.03 mm2. That is equivalent to about ten percent of the storage density of a floppy disk.

Is that supposed to be good or bad? Am I reading this right in saying that the buffer has 10% the storage density of a floppy per mm2? Or is it saying that 10% of the storage density of a floppy, or 144KB can be stored on 0.03 mm2?

Either somebody has to start editing this copy or I'm gonna need English subtitles. :lol: 
December 26, 2006 8:46:25 PM

Quote:
Ok, I know I'm getting old and have various diseases that affect the brain, but this Nanophotonics Article has thrown me for a loop.

I can wrap my head around the optical buffer thingy since it's just making light go around in circles until it's ready to go out and do its optic thing. What gets me is this:

The optical buffer device based on this simple concept can briefly store 10 bits of optical information within an area of 0.03 mm2. That is equivalent to about ten percent of the storage density of a floppy disk.

Is that supposed to be good or bad? Am I reading this right in saying that the buffer has 10% the storage density of a floppy per mm2? Or is it saying that 10% of the storage density of a floppy, or 144KB can be stored on 0.03 mm2?

Either somebody has to start editing this copy or I'm gonna need English subtitles. :lol: 

That's it, however, still don't see the advancement in 10% density of a 15+ years' ago device :roll:
December 26, 2006 9:38:29 PM

From what I get out of the article, the device holds 10 bits. Just over one byte of data, that's all.
Related resources
December 27, 2006 3:42:12 AM

Guys, I just heard about this really slow component, it's called the 4004 and it's made by this tiny start-up called Intel. They call it a Central Processing Unit. I doubt that there is much of a future for this device, because it isn't very good right now. Right?

Seriously, though, all joking aside, the people writing the article aren't saying that we should drop everything and buy fancy light slowing down devices, just that the technology will one day exist, and this is the nth step down the road.
December 27, 2006 4:06:09 AM

Sounds like that integrated circuit hard drive that someone has out and was reviewed on Tom's. Could be very useful someday, but its time has not yet come.
December 27, 2006 4:09:41 AM

Y'know, that's what I thought when I first read it, but then figured that I could probably store 10 bits on 0.03mm2 with a fine-tip pen and a lupe! Again sounding like a dolt, this "light-slowing" tech is basically a fancy way of getting the same result as hypothetically wrapping a fiberoptic cable around a very tiny hub. If you have a cable that's 186 miles long, then you can count on the delay being 1/1000th of a second, etc.
December 27, 2006 4:15:30 AM

Unless they shrink this one technology down that can cause light to stop moving. I like this because it means that me, the slowpoke, has actually moved faster then the speed of light.

Anyway, back to having a point. There's another technology along the same lines that can drop the speed of light down to either 148 miles per hour, or 1,480 miles per hour. Can't remember which, but if it were integrated, it could help IBM's idea along. Then again, it'd probably be so costly that no one would use it.
December 27, 2006 4:33:24 AM

Quote:
Unless they shrink this one technology down that can cause light to stop moving. I like this because it means that me, the slowpoke, has actually moved faster then the speed of light.

Anyway, back to having a point. There's another technology along the same lines that can drop the speed of light down to either 148 miles per hour, or 1,480 miles per hour. Can't remember which, but if it were integrated, it could help IBM's idea along. Then again, it'd probably be so costly that no one would use it.


OK, lemme get this straight. I can set up some sort of cable along the side of the road, run light down it at 148 mph, ride a Suzuki Hayabusa beside the cable and be synch'ed with the light beam?

I've always wanted to realize Einstein's thought experiment! :D 
December 27, 2006 5:12:48 AM

One day your dream may come true. For it to happen in the next year, you'd have to be a multi-billionaire. Go hit up the Treasury Department, I'm sure they've got some spare change sitting around.
December 27, 2006 5:19:21 AM

Quote:
One day your dream may come true. For it to happen in the next year, you'd have to be a multi-billionaire. Go hit up the Treasury Department, I'm sure they've got some spare change sitting around.


Ssshh!!! Don't give DaSickNinja any more ideas!!! :lol: 

Lightslowing does have some really interesting possibilities, but at this point in my belated physics education, I'm still trying to get someone anyone (and I've asked univ profs) to explain to me just what the hell electricity is! The question that no one seems to be equipped to answer is:

You generate electricity through, say, a hydro turbine. That strips off electrons and sends them down the cable, blah blah blah. Strips electrons off what? I know atoms, but don't you run out of electrons if you run the turbine long enough?

I'm far more likely to believe the hypothesis that there is only one electron in the universe and since it operates outside of spacetime, it's the one that does everything!
December 27, 2006 5:31:01 AM

That reminds me of what I thought string theory was. When I first heard it I thought that everything was connected together by one really long string, and that's how reality existed. Now I know it a little bit better, and all I get from it is an explaination for gravity. I think the string theory idea for gravity better then Einstien's.

As for electricity, all I really know is that it moves closer to the speed of sound then it does to the speed of light.
December 27, 2006 6:10:28 AM

Quote:
That reminds me of what I thought string theory was. When I first heard it I thought that everything was connected together by one really long string, and that's how reality existed. Now I know it a little bit better, and all I get from it is an explaination for gravity. I think the string theory idea for gravity better then Einstien's.


Don't get me wrong, the math is wonderfully elegant in string theory, but I'm sure that I can come up with some elegant equations to prove that black holes contain squid ink and those can't ever be proven by any type of legitimate scientific experiment. So what good are they? (See my sig...)

Quote:
As for electricity, all I really know is that it moves closer to the speed of sound then it does to the speed of light.


Damn! And I thought I was too busy checking out boobies during high school physics class! :lol: 
December 27, 2006 6:14:14 AM

Ah, the wonders of quantum physics, and how little I'll ever know of it. I'm a 10th grade drop-out who's one step above a burger flipper. I make pizzas. Where's your excuse for not knowing the speed of electricity. :twisted:

But on a more serious note, I found out that piece of information while surfing around one day. Dumb luck having found it is all.
December 27, 2006 6:18:21 AM

Quote:
Where's your excuse for not knowing the speed of electricity.


My excuse is that the chick sitting next to me in the tenth grade had a rack the size of the Hindenburg and a cleavage that I could dive into and get lost.

:lol: 

I have no problem with the speed of electricity which is c, (299,792,458 m/s, thanks, Google) but my problem is with the definition of electricity. No matter who I ask, they seem to sidestep the question. I don't think that anyone really knows. Maybe there was one guy who did, but his name was Nikola Tesla and he's dead.
December 27, 2006 6:26:35 AM

That's a good excuse then.

I thought electricity was free flowing electrons that moved from atom to atom until changed into another energy form or absorbed.
December 27, 2006 6:43:37 AM

Quote:
That's a good excuse then.

I thought electricity was free flowing electrons that moved from atom to atom until changed into another energy form or absorbed.


Ok, but that's my point. Here you have Hoover Dam. It's using gravitational differential to turn a biga$$ wheel and generates electricity. From what? How long until the atoms in the whatever use up all their electrons and stop working? This is what makes no sense to me.
December 27, 2006 7:02:32 AM

Quote:
Guys, I just heard about this really slow component, it's called the 4004 and it's made by this tiny start-up called Intel. They call it a Central Processing Unit. I doubt that there is much of a future for this device, because it isn't very good right now. Right?

Seriously, though, all joking aside, the people writing the article aren't saying that we should drop everything and buy fancy light slowing down devices, just that the technology will one day exist, and this is the nth step down the road.

Te only difference is that there was nothing before the 4004, while now we go and compare it to the X6800, and there's still way ahead of it. It's not that I don't believe it might have a future; Maybe I am just too stupid to understand the importance of this advancement, but at least, they could have kept it for themselves till they got to 100% the density of a floppy at least.
December 27, 2006 8:24:38 AM

Heres my two cents:
The measurement of Electrickery (yes I spelt it right) is actually measuring the holes (these effectively move slower than electrons!) left by the movement of electrons as electrons have a -ve charge move from - to + so in effect on an ac circuit the elecrons move backwards and forwards so you wont run out!! of em your just moving them about
and thats energy is what we harness.
Also the Idea of being able slowing light down is a good thing as then you dont need to convert to electrickery and back so that the Computer or whatever dont need extra circuits (keeping the Speed and running cool) to for short term storage, I personally dont care if it's currently the same density of 1/10th per mm2 of a floppy its how you use it think of it as sort of way to be able to syncronise your data without the need of conversions to different energy forms :D 
December 27, 2006 8:49:51 AM

Quote:
Heres my two cents:
The measurement of Electrickery (yes I spelt it right) is actually measuring the holes (these effectively move slower than electrons!) left by the movement of electrons as electrons have a -ve charge move from - to + so in effect on an ac circuit the elecrons move backwards and forwards so you wont run out!! of em your just moving them about
and thats energy is what we harness.
Also the Idea of being able slowing light down is a good thing as then you dont need to convert to electrickery and back so that the Computer or whatever dont need extra circuits (keeping the Speed and running cool) to for short term storage, I personally dont care if it's currently the same density of 1/10th per mm2 of a floppy its how you use it think of it as sort of way to be able to syncronise your data without the need of conversions to different energy forms :D 


Yes, I'm aware of AC Electrickery but what does the spinning turbine at Hoover Dam have anything to do with moving the electrons back and forth? What is making them move? - charge to + charge and back again, so why do I need a multibillion dollar dam or nuclear power plant to just reverse charges on an existing charged EM device?

The biggest problem I have with photonic circuitry is, would it work outside in the daytime, or would the sunshine blank it out? :lol: 
December 27, 2006 10:00:21 AM

Serious?
December 27, 2006 10:20:28 AM

Quote:
I have no problem with the speed of electricity which is c, (299,792,458 m/s, thanks, Google) but my problem is with the definition of electricity. No matter who I ask, they seem to sidestep the question.


From what I understand from wikipedia, electricity is the name given to a phenomenon, or to many phenomena regarding the flow of electrons. Basically I sum up as electricity being the name given to the chapter 5 of unit 3 of the science textbook when I was in grade 4, since they couldn't give it another name. (In engineering course, the chapters have individual names such as DC circuits, alternators etc.)

How can electricity travel at the speed of light? Wouldn't it convert to electricity (E=m x c x c, sorry I can't put the square here). Okay maybe I'm confusing it. electrons do not travel that fast, but their effect, the energy, is so fast. Maybe it is a domino effect. Just like the dominoes, the first domino does't travel as much 2-inch but it easily displaces the last one, which may be 500 feet apart. Or like the individual parts of a chain.

The other question may be answer like: You've learnt the metallic bond in high school chemistry. All metals, if elemental (means not as part of a compound, a pure sample of that metal) exist as monoatomic. They are held together by a metallic bond, which physically exists by an extraordinary concentration of (free) electrons at the surface of the object (the metallic object that is, regardless of the shape). They keep going in whatever direction, just circling like the (bound) electrons circle in the orbitals.
Free electrons will be jumping here to there multiple times any given period of time. But the net displacement (resultant) will be zero. Since work = force x displacement, work done by them is also zero. When you establish a circuit, you consume energy (by an engine, or hydropower etc.) to make the electrons drift in your desired direction (you've then got a net displacement). Force is basically the potential, or voltage as you can say it. (I know some people will disagree as voltage is actually work as suggested by maths formula, but people who have done 10th grade so badly can do with this one too). That is why you also call the potential as potential difference. E.g: you put a voltmeter across a bulb (all basic theory is strictly DC), and it registers 12v, so it means the difference of POTENTIAL is 12v. Before entering the bulb, it was something. Leaving the bulb the current holds 'something' less 12 volts the potential.
(That is why some experienced elders always suggest you insulate/be wary of the neutral wire too in AC installations, it may have some potential too. It doesn't usually happen, but in case of some surge etc. its possible that 240v is fed to your appliances, and the neutral is at 20v, so your instruments are still registering 220v, but the neutral wire has some potential too. That's it is called potential difference NOT absolute potential. However I'd love it if somebody can give a practical example if they've observed the above thingee. Or maybe its only theoritical?)

Current is the amount of charge flowing. Larger potential means higher drift velocity of electrons, and from E=IR eqn., greater amount of current too, from the same wire (same wire means same R).

Quote:
How long until the atoms in the whatever use up all their electrons and stop working?


That's why you always COMPLETE the circuit. Just because ONE electron has gone, you need to another to replace it. Else you'll run out of electrons. (Sidenote: If you know how costly ionization is, it may easily cost $1 000 000 for a one kW of power.)

Any Qs keep the thread alive, I'll be back after 12 hours. Still dialup. :( 
December 27, 2006 11:08:40 AM

Quote:
Yes, I'm aware of AC Electrickery but what does the spinning turbine at Hoover Dam have anything to do with moving the electrons back and forth? What is making them move? - charge to + charge and back again, so why do I need a multibillion dollar dam or nuclear power plant to just reverse charges on an existing charged EM device?

Magentism makes em move (moving a wire in a magnetic field)
and You need hoover dam/ Nuclear Powerplant cos you need To move a lot of wires in a high magnetic field
and Yes photonic devices will work outside in daylight cos they will probably be in a Box :D 
December 27, 2006 11:52:05 AM

Seeing as it's you Captain, I'll explain it thusly:

Imagine you've got a big tank of lesbians (nice ones... big ol' titties and long legs and all that kind of stuff) and they're coming (he said coming!) out of the tank, forming a long line (say... a few hundred feet long) and then going back in the other side of the tank. However... There's a little gap in the line of a few feet or so. The lesbian at the "back" side of this gap really wants to get her hands on that other lesbian just out of reach in front... There is a really strong attraction there... So she leaps across this gap, and grapples with various firm body parts of the other lesbian. By this action, the "gap" has moved backwards, which inherantly means that the lesbian moved forwards. Now repeat this with the next lesbian in line. And so on... all the way around... continuously... Now replace the lesbians with electrons (At last! I've finally written a sentence that no-one in the history of humankind has written before!) But... erm... keep the gaps as gaps.

Not sure it actually explains anything, but it's a damn entertaining thought! Tanks of lesbians indeed! :D 
December 27, 2006 12:31:43 PM

@jaydeejohn:

Yeah, dead serious. Maybe not so much about the photonics in the sunshine as I'm sure that the circuit would be manufactured in a sealed box like an old 35mm film camera. Except in the old days if you opened your camera back in the sun you'd lose a couple of photos of your Aunt Betty. With photonics if you open the box, you lose your doctoral thesis and worse of all, your pr0n collection!

@aaargh:

Magnetism I know. My last gf was a My Little Pony freak and some of those rotten little plastic equine b***hes come with magnetic feet which are absolutely wonderful when placed on an HD. But when I stick My Little Pony on my fridge the stupid horsey stays there for a few billion years. Don't need no damn dam to recharge their idiotic little hooves!

@rupert:

I'd written several paragraphs exploring the depths of EM phenomena in reply to you but then went to re-read them and couldn't even figure them out myself so I hit DEL. The bottom line is this:

I'm not quite as stupid as I'm making myself out to be about electricity. I know all of the standard AC, DC, current flow etc. stuff. My question is more in the domain of quantum mechanics than anything else. I've known lots of people that can parrot the definitions of electrons existing as a standing wave, but I'm asking about the very nature of the beast.

E=mc2 is not really an EM equation. It is an equation of total mass annhilation, including neutrons, protons, etc. in the presence of antimatter which, although Scotty seemed to have a good supply of, I haven't seen on Ebay lately. (The only thing I've seen that caused total annihlation was Britney's crotchless photo which made my libido disappear for a week.)

Electricity at its most basic is conventionally defined as the flow of ionized particles in either direction within a circuit. Therefore, the question is at the particle (or wave, whatever) level:

Here is Hoover Dam.

Here is a cable that runs to my house.

Here is my gf's plugin vibrator.

When I flick the switch (after I've flicked hers for a while) electricity "flows" through the vibrator which makes the thingy buzz and she gets her rocks off so I can finally go to sleep.

So far so good. But what the friggin' hell happened exactly?

Water flowed down the sluice tube of the Dam. It ran through a turbine. It turned the turbine. The turbine turned within a biga$$ coil. It generated electricity, went down the cable, into the vibrator and the Big O was achieved once again, thank you. Goodnight.

Yeah, but what the friggin' hell happened exactly?

If electricity is the actual flow of matter (as the official definition goes, not energy but matter!) something left the Nevada desert and travelled to my house and got my gf off. My question is just what the hell this something is and where it starts and where it goes!

I have no problem with the effect of one domino thingy on one end transmitting its energy through a wire and knocking just one domino thingy down on the other side. That's how it works within a copper wire that's not how it works in non-metals. There are + and - particles interacting, colliding and creating all sorts of havoc within electric flow which we oversimplify as "current".

If my gf pi$$es me off, I might put her in the bathtub, cut the wire to vibrator and stick it in her ear. Now, this wire which is connected to my wallplug all of a sudden begins a "flow" of actual matter through my (ex)gf. This matter is a - charge dragging an atom along for the ride or a + charge dragging an atom along. So matter is actually moving through her body and it has the desired effect of frying her. I can use that same current flow to run the vibrator, light a bulb or zap her dead and get me a younger, blonder model. That's why electricity's so handy.

Now, since matter cannot be created or destroyed it would follow that the "energy" which precipitates the rather sudden displacement of various ionized particles within my poor gf had to come from somewhere and end up somewhere. So... where? Is Hoover Dam actually spraying matter through my copper wire? Yes, I know about copper wire "conducting the electron sea" but an electron still has mass which means that something material is going through that wire and into my gf! What is it?

What about the energy that holds up My Little Pony on the fridge? Gravity is pulling on the Pony each second for billions of years. Yet the EM charge is holding the Pony onto the fridge. That charge is unchanged from the day I put the Pony on the fridge until the day the universe ends. That is exertion of force. That force has to come from somewhere! It's not good enough to say that + and - attract and that's why the Pony doesn't fall off. Something is exerting a force and it is violating the 1st law of thermodynamics.

It is also not enough to brush the whole debate off and state that EM works like gravity and it keeps lasting as long, as nobody has a clue how gravity works either. I'm more likely to believe that I'd be better off castrated than believe in gravity particles. Let's see. We're 15 billion light years from the Big Bang, and that means that an actual particle travelled 15 billion light years to my desk and is now exerting an attractive force to my mouse? Whachubeensmokindude?

Don't even get me into the question about how we're 15 billion light years from the centre of a 15 billion light year radius system which means that we should be at the edge but there are lots of galaxies that are past us. Even if we're to believe that we travelled at the speed of light for 15 billion years to get here (unlikely) did the galaxies that passed us travel faster than light? No, the universe expanded. At faster that c? Isn't c the speed limit?

Therefore, the question I'm posing sits at the crux of the interaction between the physical and quantum worlds. And if anyone can truly answer it, I would be eternally grateful, since nobody else has ever been able to so far!

@Plankmeister:

Thanks for finally putting it in terms that are relevant to me. Lesbians I can understand!!! I've spent many a day in noble voyeuristic pursuits and have learned to appreciate their significant positive attributes. I can tell by your enthusiastic description that you too seem to have benefited from scientific research and observation of lip smackin' good lesby action.

Yes, I definitely will give you credit for a metaphor that may be unique in human history. However, it does make a lot of sense as it positively defines the concept of electrical flow through a copper wire. But my question is where is the mother of all these lesbians? Who fed them lesbylunch and gave them the energy to go grope each other? Even the most rabidly nympho lesbians sooner or later get tired and need to sleep. When do we run out of lesbians or when do they just get worn out and old and saggy and toothless and wrinkly?

I'll tell ya, Planky. MIT should make all first year EE students read this thread! :lol: 
December 27, 2006 1:30:32 PM

Quote:
If electricity is the actual flow of matter (as the official definition goes, not energy but matter!) something left the Nevada desert and travelled to my house and got my gf off.


ROFL
December 27, 2006 2:13:29 PM

Quote:
@aaargh:

Magnetism I know. My last gf was a My Little Pony freak and some of those rotten little plastic equine b***hes come with magnetic feet which are absolutely wonderful when placed on an HD. But when I stick My Little Pony on my fridge the stupid horsey stays there for a few billion years. Don't need no damn dam to recharge their idiotic little hooves!


Are you sure it will last a few billion years?? Magnatism is classed as a strong force for example a small magnet will pick up a paper clip from a table and the earth with all its mass +the table will not stop it gravity is a weak force. but there is nothing to say that it will remain magnetic for ever, a lot of natural magnets are that way because the "iron" in the centre of the earth is moving and generating a magnetic field (ie its dissipating energy)
from hoover dam to your house nothing more occured than energy transformation, and sorry its exactly how it works in non metals as well its just that the crystaline structure of the material affects the electorns/hole passage, and the reason you (EX) gf gets it in the bath is a hangover from the original electricity networks they tie one wire (ok its a big one to earth) so that the current will flow from the live to earth completing the circuit if there was no earth connection at the powerstation you would have to shove one wire in her ear and the neutral or -ve in earth to complete the circuit
You may say that matter cannot be destroyed i beg to differ (the H bomb) E=MxCxC tells you it can, a large amount of energy is required to make a small amount of mass, what you cant do is destroy the energy you can only change its form. but you can destroy matter to make a large amount of energy, if you take a look at the night sky you will see that the Big bang Was REALLY REALLY big
C is only the limit within our 3D universe paired quatum particals can on occasion break that barrier as they are not tied to our space time universe and there are theories out there that say the speed of light has changed since the big bang
So in conclusion those ponys will fall off eventually it might take until the molten core of the earth freezes but they will fall off
but as there is a lot of energy within our universe it may take some time
String theory is starting to be replaced with brane theory (they have a lot in common)(as in membrane) and this allows our universe to get gravity from another one you just need a way to port it through (enter mass as the gateway to our universe and the reason why its weak (because its not sourced from our "hubble" universe but another one)
December 27, 2006 2:14:59 PM

Life just wouldnt be the same...tanks for those good ol lesbians
December 27, 2006 2:48:14 PM

Among all this electricity talk, i thought i would add in something that i believe is what confuses people a lot about the speed of electricity and all that broo-ha-ha.

Electricity is naturally colorless, or if it has color its on the electron level which is on the atomic level, I never really got into chemistry so someone will have to edu-ma-cate us on that one. But onward, Electricity gains its color by the abundance of a local gas in the vicinity when the electrons do there transfer thing, this phenomenon is known as Electric Wind, I can't remember what gases translate into which colors, but Blue and Purple are the most common, and one of them is Nitrogen, because as we've all seen lightning, and Nitrogen is makes up most of our atmosphere. Because people see Electricity in its colored state, people automatically associate it with light, and this where I think people get its speed confused.

Oh well, theres my two cents, from a former Electrical Engineering student to you wonderful lads, and lasses
December 27, 2006 3:02:17 PM

Quote:

Are you sure it will last a few billion years?? Magnatism is classed as a strong force for example a small magnet will pick up a paper clip from a table and the earth with all its mass +the table will not stop it gravity is a weak force. but there is nothing to say that it will remain magnetic for ever, a lot of natural magnets are that way because the "iron" in the centre of the earth is moving and generating a magnetic field (ie its dissipating energy)
from hoover dam to your house nothing more occured than energy transformation, and sorry its exactly how it works in non metals as well its just that the crystaline structure of the material affects the electorns/hole passage, and the reason you (EX) gf gets it in the bath is a hangover from the original electricity networks they tie one wire (ok its a big one to earth) so that the current will flow from the live to earth completing the circuit if there was no earth connection at the powerstation you would have to shove one wire in her ear and the neutral or -ve in earth to complete the circuit
You may say that matter cannot be destroyed i beg to differ (the H bomb) E=MxCxC tells you it can, a large amount of energy is required to make a small amount of mass, what you cant do is destroy the energy you can only change its form. but you can destroy matter to make a large amount of energy, if you take a look at the night sky you will see that the Big bang Was REALLY REALLY big
C is only the limit within our 3D universe paired quatum particals can on occasion break that barrier as they are not tied to our space time universe and there are theories out there that say the speed of light has changed since the big bang
So in conclusion those ponys will fall off eventually it might take until the molten core of the earth freezes but they will fall off
but as there is a lot of energy within our universe it may take some time
String theory is starting to be replaced with brane theory (they have a lot in common)(as in membrane) and this allows our universe to get gravity from another one you just need a way to port it through (enter mass as the gateway to our universe and the reason why its weak (because its not sourced from our "hubble" universe but another one)


"Matter can not be created nor destroyed" thats one of the first laws of physics and chemistry. In the atom bomb the matter does get destroyed it transforms, into energy, the explosion, the explosion transforms into energy required to burn fire (fire is a sketchy form of matter in its own right), which the burned energy is then transformed into smoke or nuclear radiation, which then is eventually dissolved into the atomsphere which is then can be a million other things.... not once is anything destroyed or created, it just changes form and purpose

I probably got that hierarchy messed up somehow, once again a chemistry buff want to correct me, its been 6yrs since i seen any chemistry.
December 27, 2006 3:15:53 PM

sorry to state the obvious but:
IN the beginning (the big bang)there was NO matter only energy (e=MxCxC) its energy that cannot be destroyed matter has been created from energy and not the otherway round.
December 27, 2006 3:35:08 PM

the law you just said is the Law of Thermodynamics or the Law of Conservation of Energy, what i stated was the Law of Conservation of Mass.

Which is why the Big Bang theory is one of the least common accepted theories of how everything began. When trying to make a point have more to support your argument then just one of the many theories that make your point valid and is easily argued against.
December 28, 2006 8:54:28 AM

@jaydeejohn:

Damn straight. If it wasn't for lesbians, I'd have to spend my evenings watching Charlie's Angels reruns.

@crazypyro:

The Big Bang Theory definitely has staying power. It's been around for a helluva long time and although it seems that every few months there's some new fundamental attack on it, it just keeps plugging along. Not to say it's definitive, but I'm much more inclined to believe that than the apparent newfangled and deluded trend to imagining that 90%+ of the universe is dark matter/energy that nobody can perceive. Sounds a bit string-theorish to me. What the hell is it with 21st century physics? Has it fallen so in lust with math that no matter what idiotic conclusion a misbegotten equation can be fudged to come up with ends up being gospel? Sheer nonsense to me.

@aaargh:

While we're on the subject of sheer nonsense, brane theory was obviously concocted with a severe lack of "brane"power. So let's see... everytime an atom in a cell in my toe exchanges one electron instead of another it creates a whole new universe, with an exact copy of my toe but with the electron going north instead of south. And there are currently 10 to the 500th power complete universes and more forming every nanosecond. When I was going to UCLA I didn't see the physics nerds spending a lot of time in the frat houses getting drunk out of their gourds as they were always holed up in the dorms with their books while the rest of us were organizing gangbangs, but it seems that something must have changed between then and now. How drunk do you have to be to come up with something so patently idiotic?

I definitely should have used the term matter/energy in my "cannot be created..." phrase. But the bottom line is that no matter how much lunatic math we use, I believe we can all agree that the sum total of matter/energy in this universe is perfectly constant and nothing can be done to add or subtract from it. All we can do is change its state.

As for the ponies falling off the fridge, it will most likely be a few billion years until that energy dissapates, so as far as I'm concerned there still has to be "something" to account for that amount of exertion of energy over that period of time which is not contained within the EM, Strong or Weak forces.

I still can't believe that many decades after the first experiments have irrevocably proven absolute determinism in QM that we are all still arguing over these incomprehensible loopholes. The problem is clear. It is TIME. Eliminate that, accept determinism at the micro and macro levels and all your anomalies vaporize along with your 11 dimensions, your 10 to the 500th universes and the rest of this looneybin crackhead physics.

You can hand me my Nobel prize please. Actually, you can keep the damn prize, just hand me that big fat cheque! :lol: 
December 28, 2006 9:20:11 AM

I remember reading once about the "open universe" theory, where it just keeps on expanding forever. The final result will be that all the stars will burn up, explode, reform etc (rinse and repeat) until there is no fuel left for them to burn, and the universe contains only cold superheavy dead stars and black-holes of enormous size, with a sprinkling of dust and gas here and there. Throughout the aeons, the stars ablate away, more and more of the material being sucked into black holes. Anything that doesn't end up in a black hole eventually vanishes anyway, as the theory goes that subatomic particles have a half-life too.

So, the final state of affairs in the "open universe" would be probably inumerable blackholes drifting ever onwards through the true vacuum of space.

But it's still weird to think, that even then, there'll still be the same total sum of energy available in the universe, it's just all locked up as potential in the black holes.

I need to go and lie down in a dark room now. OMG. Just think... That means that all the atoms in my body will enter a black-hole one day... I'm only used to a specific body part entering black holes...
December 28, 2006 10:45:06 AM

The latest measurements of the past couple of years seem to be pointing towards the open universe that will expand forever until there's nothing left. Of course, the cockeyed physicists are extrapolating a dark energy and matter that is pushing the universe apart, when it's obvious that it's just an energy state distribution happening. What happens when you open a bottle of compressed gas? So why is the universe any different? It's expanding from a point of "universe" outwards into "non-universe" space. Seems simple to me, but just try and convince one of those ivory tower types.

The types of black holes you are referring to would be rather non-Hawkingian, as my experience with them has been that matter enters and exits and enters and exits and enters and exits and enters and exits and enters and exits and enters and exits and enters and exits and enters and exits and enters and exits and enters and exits and enters and exits and... :twisted:
December 28, 2006 11:09:07 AM

True... so I guess in the end, even the black holes will evaporate, and the half-life of the very last particle in existance will elapse and "pop!"... The universe will be nothing but a big ol' lump of potential energy.

Hmmm. So if at that point, the universe is only a potential of energy, then all scale has no meaning, as there's nothing to measure it with. So... effectively, this potential could be the seed of another big bang... Boom! All that potential energy spontaneously converting to mass... Maybe that's what happens... Hmmm. Interesting....
December 28, 2006 11:14:56 AM

Quote:
True... so I guess in the end, even the black holes will evaporate, and the half-life of the very last particle in existance will elapse and "pop!"... The universe will be nothing but a big ol' lump of potential energy.

Hmmm. So if at that point, the universe is only a potential of energy, then all scale has no meaning, as there's nothing to measure it with. So... effectively, this potential could be the seed of another big bang... Boom! All that potential energy spontaneously converting to mass... Maybe that's what happens... Hmmm. Interesting....


You're a bit late with that concept, Planky, as George Gamow published that in 1948. But it always seemed to make a whole lot of sense to me. Open universe then maximum entropy then black hole consolidation then last bit of matter energy goes in then kaboom and the whole damn thing starts all over again. The fascinating point is that since matter/energy totality in that final black hole is exactly what it was at "the beginning" the resultant explosion will create another universe which (Heisenberg be damned) absolutely identical to this one. That means that 60 billion years from now, I'm gonna have to go through the same two nasty divorces all over again. and 60 billion years after that and after that and after that. Now that sucks! :lol: 
December 28, 2006 11:27:43 AM

Quote:
You're a bit late with that concept, Planky, as George Gamow published that in 1948.


Ah well... Great minds think alike! :D 

Quote:
But it always seemed to make a whole lot of sense to me. Open universe then maximum entropy then black hole consolidation then last bit of matter energy goes in then kaboom and the whole damn thing starts all over again. The fascinating point is that since matter/energy totality in that final black hole is exactly what it was at "the beginning" the resultant explosion will create another universe which (Heisenberg be damned) absolutely identical to this one. That means that 60 billion years from now, I'm gonna have to go through the same two nasty divorces all over again. and 60 billion years after that and after that and after that. Now that sucks! :lol: 


OMG. That means that I'm also gonna be stuck in this train-wreck of a relationship... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
December 28, 2006 11:53:39 AM

My question is this:D oes radiant and photonic energies just dissappear?Without movement we have no energy,with it we do.Absolute zero nothing moving no energy emitted. Movement creates friction, dissapation etc, thus creating energy.(to the captain:yeah if shes that cold therell be NO friction) but in the end, no matter what form that matter takes,how small, changed,fissioned, fused etc, its still there.Guess the real question is,after all that energy has been converted, its really who has to sleep in the wet spot...
December 28, 2006 12:47:08 PM

Absolute Zero is an ideal condition that has never been achieved before, they've came close, damn close, like 260-270Kelvin, but not quite. Asking about radiant and photonic energy is a real broad spectrum of answers and questions. I say who cares about this stuff now, do as much research as you can and let the future generations worry about it. :wink:

P.S. i dated a bi-sexual before, only word of advice make sure she has hot open minded friends, not ones that look like 10yr old ghetto thug boys
December 28, 2006 1:01:13 PM

Yeah, it sounds like peering into a electron microscope(or pulling down said ghetto thugs pants) hmmm what have we here?
December 28, 2006 1:02:36 PM

???????

String Theory, Electric Lesbians. Black Holes, My Little Pony and Quantum Mechanics. It must be Christmas, right?

OK

Electricity - go read up on BAND THEORY, learn.

My Little Pony - She stays there forever. Work done = Force (gravity) x Distance Moved (Zero!!) therefore no work is done on the Little Pony. Just imagine if you nailed the little bitch on insted and ask yourself - what really is the difference?

Coloured Electricity - the colours you see are from electrons moving between valence / non valence shells within the ionised gases, not really from electricity, think Flame Tests back in O level/GCSE chemistry (or xxxxxxx School Chemistry if you are not British). However you can see electrons giving off colour - take some Liquid Ammonia (careful - very cold) and some sodium metal (just umm, carefull?) and drop the Sodium into the Ammonia. The Sodium dissolves into Na+ and an electron. The electron is solvated by partial charges on the Ammonia and is trapped within this solvation shell (like an electron-in-a-box for the Physicists amongst us (ps - Physicists suck - go do Chemistry) and moves in a standing wave that can abosrb and emit light at a characteristic wavelength (a rather nice Blue, if I remember correctly).

Merry Christmas / Happy New Year

Stuart
December 28, 2006 1:55:30 PM

Quote:
Absolute Zero is an ideal condition that has never been achieved before, they've came close, damn close, like 260-270Kelvin, but not quite.


<nitpick>

They've got a LOT closer than that... I found this from Googling:

"Silver nuclei have been cooled to 280 pK at the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland (a "picokelvin" is 10^-12 K)."

That's significantly cooler than "260-270" Kelvin...

</nitpick> :) 
December 28, 2006 2:03:06 PM

Quote:
IN the beginning (the big bang)there was NO matter only energy (e=MxCxC)


In fact Stephen Hawking in his A brief history of time notes that there was so much mass concentrated per unit volume that the density was infinity. Since he mentions mass it means it was matter? Anyhow 'so much mass' can be elaborated by his example of black hole. He assumes black holes are a localized sample of the big crunch (the universe started with a big bang, it will end at the big crunch), with multiple million million million (he used it three times) tons of matter concentrated in a single cu. inch.

CaptRobertApril has had a nice answer to me on page 1. I wish I now had the time to write a looong reply, but guess will have to wait till next morning. Right now I have John Grisham's The Brethren to finish while mumma is screaming for me to come eat dinner.

Why aren't all threads cool like this one? Or perhaps I'm the only one hyper?
December 28, 2006 2:54:22 PM

Quote:

In fact Stephen Hawking in his A brief history of time notes that there was so much mass concentrated per unit volume that the density was infinity. Since he mentions mass it means it was matter? Anyhow 'so much mass' can be elaborated by his example of black hole. He assumes black holes are a localized sample of the big crunch (the universe started with a big bang, it will end at the big crunch), with multiple million million million (he used it three times) tons of matter concentrated in a single cu. inch.


Always wondered how they come up with those figures... I mean, knowing a little of the theory behind black holes, I understand they're heavy, but how do you weigh one? A set of really big scales? lol... That I'd like to see.
December 28, 2006 3:04:24 PM

When I was little I had this idea for the perfect weapon... A mirrored hollow glass sphere! With a difference... The mirror is on the INSIDE! So once a photon entered, it wouldn't leave. So, very quickly, this thing would get very heavy as it absorbed all light falling on it. Then you could use it as ammo in a slingshot and as the thing travelled through the air it would put on a few kilos, hitting the target (Shane Mullen, who used to pick on me all the time, the bast!) with crushing force before smashing, the momentum of which would slash your foe to pieces! WOW! What a theory... Left unattended you could start your own black hole! WOW!

However, then I grew up and realised it would never work as photons aren't so heavy after all. It was a nice idea, anyway :p 
December 28, 2006 3:08:34 PM

Quote:
Where's your excuse for not knowing the speed of electricity.


My excuse is that the chick sitting next to me in the tenth grade had a rack the size of the Hindenburg and a cleavage that I could dive into and get lost.

:lol: 

I have no problem with the speed of electricity which is c, (299,792,458 m/s, thanks, Google) but my problem is with the definition of electricity. No matter who I ask, they seem to sidestep the question. I don't think that anyone really knows. Maybe there was one guy who did, but his name was Nikola Tesla and he's dead.

you are quite right. No ones seems to know exactly what electricity is or even what "direction" it moves. But you get the same run-arounds when you ask what gravity is. It really is not as simple as saying, "here on the left the atoms are "electron" deficient and here on the right side they are electron saturated, so connect the two and with the energy of the migration of electrons from the saturated to the defficient side I will harness to light this bulb.
December 28, 2006 3:24:06 PM

Quote:
you are quite right. No ones seems to know exactly what electricity is or even what "direction" it moves.


I have a Masters Degree in Chemistry and am currently researching a PhD.
No ones(sic) seems to know exactly what electricity is ??? I do, so do millions of others. Education guys, thats the trick! Stop writing stuff like this, go to the Wikipedia and read, move onto your local library, maybe a few nightclasses (the Open University is very good) then you can be in a position to question what you are told and not have to rely on others for your understanding of what is and what is not.
We cannot banish all the shadows, or know all the answers but at least education gives you a candle to light the way.
December 28, 2006 3:28:52 PM

Pull the other one! :wink:
December 28, 2006 3:29:20 PM

..... and 299,792,458 ms-1 is not the speed of electricity it's the speed of light

and Nikola Tesla may have understood electricity, but he was abolutely nuts too

and I'm way too drunk

and...
December 28, 2006 3:48:38 PM

Quote:


You're a bit late with that concept, Planky, as George Gamow published that in 1948. But it always seemed to make a whole lot of sense to me. Open universe then maximum entropy then black hole consolidation then last bit of matter energy goes in then kaboom and the whole damn thing starts all over again. The fascinating point is that since matter/energy totality in that final black hole is exactly what it was at "the beginning" the resultant explosion will create another universe which (Heisenberg be damned) absolutely identical to this one. That means that 60 billion years from now, I'm gonna have to go through the same two nasty divorces all over again. and 60 billion years after that and after that and after that. Now that sucks! :lol: 


Isaac Asimov put it best in his short story "The Last Question":

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~mlindsey/asimov/question.htm
!