Quantum Computer!!!
This topic is locked from further discussion.
According to the article that you posted, I'm going to have to encase my super computer in a a freezer if I want the ultimate gaming machine.:DroulettethedogLol, you would have to have one hell of a freezer to get it right above absolute zero
Actually, black holes are "giant black pits of doom." Their gravity is so great, not even light can escape. The fact that super massive black holes spew a fiery discharge when they consume mass means that there isn't really an infinitely increasing gravitational pull towards a singularity in the center, as early theories suggested, but their basic understanding of them was correct. Their mass in fact does create so much gravity, that anything that comes close enough to them is doomed to be added to "the pit of doom."-GeordiLaForge-
wait we are still talking about black holes like in space and stuff right?
From my understanding, for it to be a true quantum computer, it would have to tap into the processing power of it's clones in parallel universes. But since there aren't really an infinite number of parallel universes, as the ridiculous world of Quantum Physics claims, there will never be a true Quantum Computer.-GeordiLaForge-
Err...no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computers
Read there.
Also, you don't have the education/knowledge to refute the multiverse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_%28science%29
OMG!!! I know this seems disruptive... BUT HOLY $*&^!!! Sushimaster
The Canadians FTW with the quantum computer. :P
[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"]From my understanding, for it to be a true quantum computer, it would have to tap into the processing power of it's clones in parallel universes. But since there aren't really an infinite number of parallel universes, as the ridiculous world of Quantum Physics claims, there will never be a true Quantum Computer.TheLiberal
Err...no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computers
Read there.
Also, you don't have the education/knowledge to refute the multiverse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_%28science%29
Still it sounded pretty freaking awesome, if you replace the words quantum physics with galaxy quest then anythings possible!
[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"]From my understanding, for it to be a true quantum computer, it would have to tap into the processing power of it's clones in parallel universes. But since there aren't really an infinite number of parallel universes, as the ridiculous world of Quantum Physics claims, there will never be a true Quantum Computer.TheLiberal
Err...no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computers
Read there.
Also, you don't have the education/knowledge to refute the multiverse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_%28science%29
I agree with The Liberal, you know nothing about Quantum Physics to make your point valid.
[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"]From my understanding, for it to be a true quantum computer, it would have to tap into the processing power of it's clones in parallel universes. But since there aren't really an infinite number of parallel universes, as the ridiculous world of Quantum Physics claims, there will never be a true Quantum Computer.TheLiberal
Err...no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computers
Read there.
Also, you don't have the education/knowledge to refute the multiverse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_%28science%29
1) Read what you yourself posted. There is a paradox of a there being more states than there are atoms in the universe, with each state containing unimaginably complex numbers. How could you store data that is bigger than all of the atoms in the universe combined? I guess mathematical representations could be used in place of the actual values, but I still don't see this happening. Or maybe there can be a an algorithm that limits the size of these values enormously. But as I said before, I would love for some genius to prove me wrong. My knowledge on the subject is limited to an article that I read in Discover magazine when I was a child. 2) Common Sense will tell you that there aren't an infinite number of parallel universes where anything that can happen does happen. Do you even know why this is supposed to be true? It's supposed to explain why atoms react differently with one another each time they come in contact. It's really quite obvious why this happens. I'm surprised no one else is smart enough to figure it out. There are positively and negatively charged particles in atoms spinning at unimaginable speeds. Atoms are gonna react to one another differently each time because each charged particle is in a different spot each time the atoms come in contact. It's like moving balls of spinning magnets close to one another. Of course their movements are going to be chaotic, and it's not because there are parallel universes!
[QUOTE="TheLiberal"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"]From my understanding, for it to be a true quantum computer, it would have to tap into the processing power of it's clones in parallel universes. But since there aren't really an infinite number of parallel universes, as the ridiculous world of Quantum Physics claims, there will never be a true Quantum Computer.conradgeneral
Err...no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computers
Read there.
Also, you don't have the education/knowledge to refute the multiverse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_%28science%29
I agree with The Liberal, you know nothing about Quantum Physics to make your point valid.
Read part 2 of my post above this one... the infinite number of parallel universe explanation is the most ridiculous statement since, "The world is flat!!!"When it comes to physics of any kind, "common sense" is the last thing you want to be using. Most people have two conflicting, yet compatible mindsets when it comes to reality; one set is based on life experience, while the other is based on "this is what my teacher told me." For instance, common sense tells us that when we swing a bucket full of water around fast enough, centrifugal force keeps the water from falling out. However, physics itself proves that there is no such thing as centrifugal force. So until you have a definitive way of proving or disproving any physical phenomena, quantum or otherwise, "common sense" won't cut it. After all, common sense is what told us the world was flat in the first place.Frags-o-PlentyDid you even read what came after that??? Read this.. please...
It's supposed to explain why atoms react differently with one another each time they come in contact. It's really quite obvious why this happens. I'm surprised no one else is smart enough to figure it out. There are positively and negatively charged particles in atoms spinning at unimaginable speeds. Atoms are gonna react to one another differently each time because each charged particle is in a different spot each time the atoms come in contact. It's like moving balls of spinning magnets close to one another. Of course their movements are going to be chaotic, and it's not because there are parallel universes!-GeordiLaForge-
[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"]From my understanding, for it to be a true quantum computer, it would have to tap into the processing power of it's clones in parallel universes. But since there aren't really an infinite number of parallel universes, as the ridiculous world of Quantum Physics claims, there will never be a true Quantum Computer.TheLiberal
Err...no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computers
Read there.
Also, you don't have the education/knowledge to refute the multiverse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_%28science%29
But I do have the education/knowledge to refute the multiverse! And so officially, I DO!
[QUOTE="Frags-o-Plenty"]When it comes to physics of any kind, "common sense" is the last thing you want to be using. Most people have two conflicting, yet compatible mindsets when it comes to reality; one set is based on life experience, while the other is based on "this is what my teacher told me." For instance, common sense tells us that when we swing a bucket full of water around fast enough, centrifugal force keeps the water from falling out. However, physics itself proves that there is no such thing as centrifugal force. So until you have a definitive way of proving or disproving any physical phenomena, quantum or otherwise, "common sense" won't cut it. After all, common sense is what told us the world was flat in the first place.-GeordiLaForge-Did you even read what came after that??? Read this.. please...
It's supposed to explain why atoms react differently with one another each time they come in contact. It's really quite obvious why this happens. I'm surprised no one else is smart enough to figure it out. There are positively and negatively charged particles in atoms spinning at unimaginable speeds. Atoms are gonna react to one another differently each time because each charged particle is in a different spot each time the atoms come in contact. It's like moving balls of spinning magnets close to one another. Of course their movements are going to be chaotic, and it's not because there are parallel universes!-GeordiLaForge-You do know that atomic and subatomic particles do not actually "spin." Spin is just a word for how they appear and interact. They are not like the Earth, that spins on it's axis
Actually, black holes are "giant black pits of doom." Their gravity is so great, not even light can escape. The fact that super massive black holes spew a fiery discharge when they consume mass means that there isn't really an infinitely increasing gravitational pull towards a singularity in the center, as early theories suggested, but their basic understanding of them was correct. Their mass in fact does create so much gravity, that anything that comes close enough to them is doomed to be added to "the pit of doom."-GeordiLaForge-Actually, many things do not get "trapped" or sucked into black holes. If they did, we would all be screwed. Often times a particle will get sucked into the black hole, but it's anti particle will not...or vise versa
Science throws around terms that excite fantasy in the minds of those who don't understand it fully. Remember when black holes were described as giant black pits of doom? Well, it turns out they are just super massive bodies in space, similar to stars and what not. Except instead of being a giant burning ball of light they are just giant burning balls of dark. Stars burn blue, why not dark blue, or perhaps... Ultraviolet??? Perhaps they found a loop hole or something. Maybe, rather than having access to actual parallel universes, they have simulated the idea. SushimasterBlack holes are not black. They are the opposite. The reason you can see them is because of the warping light around them and the fact that they EMIT xrays.
When it comes to physics of any kind, "common sense" is the last thing you want to be using. Most people have two conflicting, yet compatible mindsets when it comes to reality; one set is based on life experience, while the other is based on "this is what my teacher told me." For instance, common sense tells us that when we swing a bucket full of water around fast enough, centrifugal force keeps the water from falling out. However, physics itself proves that there is no such thing as centrifugal force. So until you have a definitive way of proving or disproving any physical phenomena, quantum or otherwise, "common sense" won't cut it. After all, common sense is what told us the world was flat in the first place.Frags-o-Plenty
Correct, you lose Giordilaford or whatever.
[QUOTE="conradgeneral"][QUOTE="TheLiberal"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"]From my understanding, for it to be a true quantum computer, it would have to tap into the processing power of it's clones in parallel universes. But since there aren't really an infinite number of parallel universes, as the ridiculous world of Quantum Physics claims, there will never be a true Quantum Computer.-GeordiLaForge-
Err...no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computers
Read there.
Also, you don't have the education/knowledge to refute the multiverse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_%28science%29
I agree with The Liberal, you know nothing about Quantum Physics to make your point valid.
Read part 2 of my post above this one... the infinite number of parallel universe explanation is the most ridiculous statement since, "The world is flat!!!"Actually, before the discovery that the world is round what you call "common sense" was that the world was indeed, flat.
People at that time thought "if the ground in which I set my foot is always flat, then the entire world as we know it must be flat".
You can NEVER put in your argument something that always changes through time, like "common sense". Maybe someday today's society will be treated just like the medieval society, who believed the world was flat, but in terms of lack of knowledge in Quantum Physics.
Oh, and before you realise it, you don't know everything, so you can't state that there aren't many dimensions in which we can draw processing power from, because you truly don't know.
[QUOTE="Frags-o-Plenty"]When it comes to physics of any kind, "common sense" is the last thing you want to be using. Most people have two conflicting, yet compatible mindsets when it comes to reality; one set is based on life experience, while the other is based on "this is what my teacher told me." For instance, common sense tells us that when we swing a bucket full of water around fast enough, centrifugal force keeps the water from falling out. However, physics itself proves that there is no such thing as centrifugal force. So until you have a definitive way of proving or disproving any physical phenomena, quantum or otherwise, "common sense" won't cut it. After all, common sense is what told us the world was flat in the first place.conradgeneral
Correct, you lose Giordilaford or whatever.
You can believe what you want to believe. But do you realize how ridiculous the theory is? It states that atoms react differently each time they come into contact because every thing that can happen does happen in one of the infinite numbers of parallel universes. It's never been proven, because it can't be proven. It's the most absurd Quantum Physics theory that I've ever heard of... I'll never believe it....[QUOTE="conradgeneral"][QUOTE="Frags-o-Plenty"]When it comes to physics of any kind, "common sense" is the last thing you want to be using. Most people have two conflicting, yet compatible mindsets when it comes to reality; one set is based on life experience, while the other is based on "this is what my teacher told me." For instance, common sense tells us that when we swing a bucket full of water around fast enough, centrifugal force keeps the water from falling out. However, physics itself proves that there is no such thing as centrifugal force. So until you have a definitive way of proving or disproving any physical phenomena, quantum or otherwise, "common sense" won't cut it. After all, common sense is what told us the world was flat in the first place.-GeordiLaForge-
Correct, you lose Giordilaford or whatever.
You can believe what you want to believe. But do you realize how ridiculous the theory is? It states that atoms react differently each time they come into contact because every thing that can happen does happen in one of the infinite numbers of parallel universes. It's never been proven, because it can't be proven. It's the most absurd Quantum Physics theory that I've ever heard of... I'll never believe it....Back in Medieval times society also thought about the world being round as what you think of the Quantum Computers, a ridiculous theory "impossible" to prove.
Know this: Humanity has a lot to learn, especially in terms of Science.
[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="conradgeneral"][QUOTE="TheLiberal"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"]From my understanding, for it to be a true quantum computer, it would have to tap into the processing power of it's clones in parallel universes. But since there aren't really an infinite number of parallel universes, as the ridiculous world of Quantum Physics claims, there will never be a true Quantum Computer.conradgeneral
Err...no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computers
Read there.
Also, you don't have the education/knowledge to refute the multiverse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_%28science%29
I agree with The Liberal, you know nothing about Quantum Physics to make your point valid.
Read part 2 of my post above this one... the infinite number of parallel universe explanation is the most ridiculous statement since, "The world is flat!!!"Actually, before the discovery that the world is round what you call "common sense" was that the world was indeed, flat.
People at that time thought "if the ground in which I set my foot is always flat, then the entire world as we know it must be flat".
You can NEVER put in your argument something that always changes through time, like "common sense". Maybe someday today's society will be treated just like the medieval society, who believed the world was flat, but in terms of lack of knowledge in Quantum Physics.
Oh, and before you realise it, you don't know everything, so you can't state that there aren't many dimensions in which we can draw processing power from, because you truly don't know.
Okay, so I guess that there are also 1000 little demons flying around a person's head throwing invisible spears into it each time they get an unexplainable migraine. But they're invisible, which is why you don't see them. And you can't prove that it's not true, so it must be true. Do you see how absurd this is? It's equally as absurd as the multiple unprovable theories that people have presented as explanations for things they don't understand in quantum physics...[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="conradgeneral"][QUOTE="Frags-o-Plenty"]When it comes to physics of any kind, "common sense" is the last thing you want to be using. Most people have two conflicting, yet compatible mindsets when it comes to reality; one set is based on life experience, while the other is based on "this is what my teacher told me." For instance, common sense tells us that when we swing a bucket full of water around fast enough, centrifugal force keeps the water from falling out. However, physics itself proves that there is no such thing as centrifugal force. So until you have a definitive way of proving or disproving any physical phenomena, quantum or otherwise, "common sense" won't cut it. After all, common sense is what told us the world was flat in the first place.conradgeneral
Correct, you lose Giordilaford or whatever.
You can believe what you want to believe. But do you realize how ridiculous the theory is? It states that atoms react differently each time they come into contact because every thing that can happen does happen in one of the infinite numbers of parallel universes. It's never been proven, because it can't be proven. It's the most absurd Quantum Physics theory that I've ever heard of... I'll never believe it....Back in Medieval times society also thought about the world being round as what you think of the Quantum Computers, a ridiculous theory "impossible" to prove.
Know this: Humanity has a lot to learn, especially in terms of Science.
I merely stated the only presented method of overcoming the paradox presented when producing a quantum computer is bs. There aren't an infinite number of parallel universes. But in just a few minutes, I myself came up with a couple other methods that could be used to overcome this obstacle. I said that mathematical representations could be used in place of the actual values. Or maybe that there could be an algorithm that limits the size of these values enormously. I never said it's not possible. I did say that the multiverse theory is absolutely absurd though. And it is...In Science, you NEVER prove that something is the truth. There is no "TRUTH" in Science. A Theory is a Rule, and for something to become a rule in Scientific world you must test your theory to exhaustion to try to find an Exception.
If you try to prove that little demons are around a migraine person, Scientists will try to come up with exceptions and THAT is what is lacking in the "theory" (it is called theory, but not really a theory, yet) of Quantum Computers, exceptions.
Mathematically it parallel universes exist and interact with each other.
But you can't prove that 1000 little demons don't cause unexplainable migraines. Just like you can't prove that there are an infinite number of parallel universes. Do you understand where I'm going with this? You can't blindly accept such ridiculous statements as truth just because other people do. Jumping on the bandwagon when it comes to something this absurd would be intellectually blinding...In Science, you NEVER prove that something is the truth. There is no "TRUTH" in Science. A Theory is a Rule, and for something to become a rule in Scientific world you must test your theory to exhaustion to try to find an Exception.
If you try to prove that little demons are around a migraine person, Scientists will try to come up with exceptions and THAT is what is lacking in the "theory" (it is called theory, but not really a theory, yet) of Quantum Computers, exceptions.
Mathematically it parallel universes exist and interact with each other.
conradgeneral
[QUOTE="conradgeneral"]But you can't prove that 1000 little demons don't cause unexplainable migraines. Just like you can't prove that there are an infinite number of parallel universes. Do you understand where I'm going with this? You can't blindly accept such ridiculous statements as truth just because other people do. Jumping on the bandwagon when it comes to something this absurd would be intellectually blinding...In Science, you NEVER prove that something is the truth. There is no "TRUTH" in Science. A Theory is a Rule, and for something to become a rule in Scientific world you must test your theory to exhaustion to try to find an Exception.
If you try to prove that little demons are around a migraine person, Scientists will try to come up with exceptions and THAT is what is lacking in the "theory" (it is called theory, but not really a theory, yet) of Quantum Computers, exceptions.
Mathematically it parallel universes exist and interact with each other.
-GeordiLaForge-
Oh you thought that I... oh, no. I don't believe in the existence of various universes, even less the Idea of drawing processing power from these... I was just defending that, in science, you can never hang on to your beliefs like it is a truth or a lie, just because in Science everything is is motion. Things that once were true are no longer and things that were considered truth are getting even more "true".
I believe that the Super Computers leap in humanity will be in two steps: First the Laser processor that transmits data through laser so it stays a lot cooler and therefore can be brought to higher speed levels (IBM has a processor on the making clocked at 500-1000 GHz speed). Second the shrinking of components, were components will get smaller and smaller until everybody can have Millions or Billions of processors in your computer case...
That's what I believe, I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression...
You all need to stop talking about quantum mechanics as if you understand it or have even taken a course on it. A person like me, who has both taken courses on it and is a physicist looks at your comments and laughs at your obtuse views. Many of the things do not make sense, but are true and can be viewed through experimentation. Physicists use theory and complex math to predict things, they then use experimentation to see if the real world fits the observations. That is how physics works. seabiscuit8686I know, I'm no physicist. Hell, I've never taken one physics course. My physics knowledge is based on Discover magazine and various physics webpages. But the multiverse variables could easily be replaced by "little invisible demon" variables, and it would work just the same. In fact, those variables could be labeled as any number of ridiculous things, and it would still work. Especially since the multiverse variables always have different values. That's all that I was getting at. IMO, the multiverse explanation is absurd.
[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="conradgeneral"]But you can't prove that 1000 little demons don't cause unexplainable migraines. Just like you can't prove that there are an infinite number of parallel universes. Do you understand where I'm going with this? You can't blindly accept such ridiculous statements as truth just because other people do. Jumping on the bandwagon when it comes to something this absurd would be intellectually blinding...In Science, you NEVER prove that something is the truth. There is no "TRUTH" in Science. A Theory is a Rule, and for something to become a rule in Scientific world you must test your theory to exhaustion to try to find an Exception.
If you try to prove that little demons are around a migraine person, Scientists will try to come up with exceptions and THAT is what is lacking in the "theory" (it is called theory, but not really a theory, yet) of Quantum Computers, exceptions.
Mathematically it parallel universes exist and interact with each other.
conradgeneral
Oh you thought that I... oh, no. I don't believe in the existence of various universes, even less the Idea of drawing processing power from these... I was just defending that, in science, you can never hang on to your beliefs like it is a truth or a lie, just because in Science everything is is motion. Things that once were true are no longer and things that were considered truth are getting even more "true".
I believe that the Super Computers leap in humanity will be in two steps: First the Laser processor that transmits data through laser so it stays a lot cooler and therefore can be brought to higher speed levels (IBM has a processor on the making clocked at 500-1000 GHz speed). Second the shrinking of components, were components will get smaller and smaller until everybody can have Millions or Billions of processors in your computer case...
That's what I believe, I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression...
lol, my mistake. In that case, I agree. :PYou all need to stop talking about quantum mechanics as if you understand it or have even taken a course on it. A person like me, who has both taken courses on it and is a physicist looks at your comments and laughs at your obtuse views. Many of the things do not make sense, but are true and can be viewed through experimentation. Physicists use theory and complex math to predict things, they then use experimentation to see if the real world fits the observations. That is how physics works. seabiscuit8686
That's what I was trying to say but I think I got stuck in translation to fully express what I mean... You see, English is my second lenguage.
I am a formed mathematician, you see, but am not acustommed expressing myself in English when it comes to Mathematics and Physics.
Oh, and Seabiscuit, since you are a Physic, tell me if the little I know about Quantum Computers is right or wrong. Here's what I know:
In a regular computer a bit (or byte, not sure what) can be either 0 or 1, but in Quantum Computation the bits can be both 0 and 1, extending the computation capacities to the infinite.
Before this thread I didn't even know if Quantum Computer could draw energy from parallel universes or not, could you explain that to me in a few words?
I'm no physicist, but I'll try and explain. You're understanding is indeed correct. But there is a paradox of there being more states then there are atoms in the universe, with each state containing extremely complex numbers. This happens as the number of qubits reaches about 300 or so, but even lower numbers would be quite impossible. Now this would obviously be impossible, as there is no way to calculate, nevertheless store such states. The only solution that I have seen presented is by using parallel universes to do so. I'm not saying that there aren't other solutions though. I had a couple of quick ideas, but I really don't know nearly enough about the subject to make further assumptions.Oh, and Seabiscuit, since you are a Physic, tell me if the little I know about Quantum Computers is right or wrong. Here's what I know:
In a regular computer a bit (or byte, not sure what) can be either 0 or 1, but in Quantum Computation the bits can be both 0 and 1, extending the computation capacities to the infinite.
Before this thread I didn't even know if Quantum Computer could draw energy from parallel universes or not, could you explain that to me in a few words?
conradgeneral
You would have a positron then. It is a known and observed type of beta decay. Just an FYI.
It means that we cannot deal with subatomic particles like we do particles of large mass. We must use probability. One of the strange parts of quantum. Anyways, it fits experimentation so it is used. So what does this have to do with computing? Well subatomic particles act really weird. They don't take just one path, they take multiple paths to the same destination. Say for example a particle leaves a place with a heading that is horizontal. You would expect it to go horizontally for the entirety of its trip. Instead, it goes BOTH horizontally and vertically instantaneously and takes both paths. One particle takes more than one path. Schrodinger made an interesting analogy called Schrodingers cat (he was the originator of the matter wave equation, the foundation of quantum mechanics). So if you have a poison in a box with a cat in the box too and holding the poison in place is a particle that will decay or not decay with a 50% probability, then there is a 50% probability that the cat will die. Right? Correct. There is a 50% chance the cat is dead, 50% chance that the cat is alive. You then open the lid, the cat is sadly, dead. What percent probability says the cat is dead now? 100%. Somewhere between the events there was a breakdown in probability where the 50% and 50% chose one path. But it was not until it was OBSERVED. Quantum theory said the cat existed in both cases, dead and alive, until it was observed and then the quantum system broke down into one path. This goes for particles. The particle that has departed horizontally will take every probable path. Insane idea. Welcome to quantum. So computing comes down to basically detecting where it is when. It can be in somewhere around 2^500 positions...meaning huge amounts of 1s and 0s Hard to explain, even harder to understandseabiscuit8686
Good Lord, you were better explaining the Cat of Schrodingers than my physics teacher in High School! Thank you, I now have more understanding of Quantum. It is always better to learn something :wink: .
Now where does the theory of drawing power from other universes come from?
[QUOTE="Sushimaster"]Science throws around terms that excite fantasy in the minds of those who don't understand it fully. Remember when black holes were described as giant black pits of doom? Well, it turns out they are just super massive bodies in space, similar to stars and what not. Except instead of being a giant burning ball of light they are just giant burning balls of dark. Stars burn blue, why not dark blue, or perhaps... Ultraviolet??? Perhaps they found a loop hole or something. Maybe, rather than having access to actual parallel universes, they have simulated the idea. seabiscuit8686Black holes are not black. They are the opposite. The reason you can see them is because of the warping light around them and the fact that they EMIT xrays.
No, the accretion disc releases xrays, not the black hole.
Sounds like you really DON'T have the education to refute anything, after all. :roll:
[QUOTE="seabiscuit8686"][QUOTE="Sushimaster"]Science throws around terms that excite fantasy in the minds of those who don't understand it fully. Remember when black holes were described as giant black pits of doom? Well, it turns out they are just super massive bodies in space, similar to stars and what not. Except instead of being a giant burning ball of light they are just giant burning balls of dark. Stars burn blue, why not dark blue, or perhaps... Ultraviolet??? Perhaps they found a loop hole or something. Maybe, rather than having access to actual parallel universes, they have simulated the idea. TheLiberalBlack holes are not black. They are the opposite. The reason you can see them is because of the warping light around them and the fact that they EMIT xrays.
No, the accretion disc releases xrays, not the black hole.
Sounds like you really DON'T have the education to refute anything, after all. :roll:
Lol! Looks like someone thinks he's intelligent because he can read a Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking...I guess I'll take your insult as a compliment though. And unless you can intelligently add to the discussion you should go away.
[QUOTE="TheLiberal"][QUOTE="seabiscuit8686"][QUOTE="Sushimaster"]Science throws around terms that excite fantasy in the minds of those who don't understand it fully. Remember when black holes were described as giant black pits of doom? Well, it turns out they are just super massive bodies in space, similar to stars and what not. Except instead of being a giant burning ball of light they are just giant burning balls of dark. Stars burn blue, why not dark blue, or perhaps... Ultraviolet??? Perhaps they found a loop hole or something. Maybe, rather than having access to actual parallel universes, they have simulated the idea. seabiscuit8686Black holes are not black. They are the opposite. The reason you can see them is because of the warping light around them and the fact that they EMIT xrays.
No, the accretion disc releases xrays, not the black hole.
Sounds like you really DON'T have the education to refute anything, after all. :roll:
Lol! Looks like someone thinks he's intelligent because he can read a Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking...I guess I'll take your insult as a compliment though. And unless you can intelligently add to the discussion you should go away.
How sad; you're trying to insult me. :roll: :roll:
I was intelligently adding to the conversation by trying to get you to stop speaking as if you know what you're talking about. It is you that needs to go away. How about I let you in on a little bit of information, I don't have to think that I am smart, as I was tested many times in elementary through secondary school. I know I am.
As for black holes not being black, what exactly do you see if there is no matter falling into a black hole? You see a little distortion of light due to the gravitational lensing and nothing else. Other than that slight distortion, you'll only see something if there is matter falling into the black hole forming a quasar.
I guess that mathematical representations could be used instead of the actual value to overcome the paradox of a there being more states than there are atoms in the universe (with each state containing unimaginably complex numbers), but they would still be MUCH too large to store. I just don't see it happening... ever... But don't get me wrong. I would love for some genius to prove me wrong. Besides, my knowledge on the subject is limited to an article that I read in Discover magazine when I was a child.-GeordiLaForge-
im clearly not as smart as you guys (im 15)
but i do partially agree with 'geordelaforge's point on how it is impossible to digitally store a representation of every atom/state in the universe
if each state has "unimaginably complex numbers" and each atom has a state..
to store a record of every single combination would take up an unheard-of amount storage capacity.
furthermore, for a computer to actually handle numbers with over..say.. 100 digits.
and do calculations ect..
would presumably require a hell of a lot of computational power.
and from what i understand (not very much lol) computational power of that calibre isnt gunna be available for a LONG time
however considering the size of the difference in power between the processors of today and the processors of 50 years ago.. in my opinion processors in the far future could very well be capable of calculating 'very large and complex numbers'
so i wouldnt go so far as to say its impossible.
thats what my little brain has to say anyway :
doesnt sound all smart and intelligent as you guys do lol :(
[QUOTE="seabiscuit8686"][QUOTE="TheLiberal"][QUOTE="seabiscuit8686"][QUOTE="Sushimaster"]Science throws around terms that excite fantasy in the minds of those who don't understand it fully. Remember when black holes were described as giant black pits of doom? Well, it turns out they are just super massive bodies in space, similar to stars and what not. Except instead of being a giant burning ball of light they are just giant burning balls of dark. Stars burn blue, why not dark blue, or perhaps... Ultraviolet??? Perhaps they found a loop hole or something. Maybe, rather than having access to actual parallel universes, they have simulated the idea. TheLiberalBlack holes are not black. They are the opposite. The reason you can see them is because of the warping light around them and the fact that they EMIT xrays.
No, the accretion disc releases xrays, not the black hole.
Sounds like you really DON'T have the education to refute anything, after all. :roll:
Lol! Looks like someone thinks he's intelligent because he can read a Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking...I guess I'll take your insult as a compliment though. And unless you can intelligently add to the discussion you should go away.
How sad; you're trying to insult me. :roll: :roll:
I was intelligently adding to the conversation by trying to get you to stop speaking as if you know what you're talking about. It is you that needs to go away. How about I let you in on a little bit of information, I don't have to think that I am smart, as I was tested many times in elementary through secondary school. I know I am.
As for black holes not being black, what exactly do you see if there is no matter falling into a black hole? You see a little distortion of light due to the gravitational lensing and nothing else. Other than that slight distortion, you'll only see something if there is matter falling into the black hole forming a quasar.
I would like you two to discuss the Idea of Black Holes mainly because I only know the basic about them: After a sun implodes itself it can explode into a supernova or become a very small point in space with so much gravity that it can suck even light rays, is it correct, BTW?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment