• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: axe battler

Astronomy/Cosmology/Astrophysics thread - Even though there are no gods I still pray

Had a great night for it. It was a blessing as soon as it had got started as it made the rest of the sky appear for us. Got to test out the new nebulae filter tonight and it was very impressive <3

Venus, Mars and Jupiter are running in a close diagonal line for the next wee while. Some great views of Venus tonight :)
 
Great tip Don. Out of curiosity, is that with the naked eye or through a telescope. The latter I do not possess , the former I do thankfully.

I think for both our sake, A proper telescope should be part of "new flat" purchases Sham and I should be thinking about. Would say it would be a great pressie idea but you can't give someone a present when you use it just as much if not more than the person it was meant for.

Hope tonight is as clear as the last three nights. I'd really like a good look at Venus tonight.
 
They're all naked eye objects, they rise in the east around 4am. Venus rises before the others and will be easy to spot because it's the brightest thing in the sky (except for the moon). If you have a pair of 40mm binoculars or better you'll still be able to see the phases of Venus. Mars and Jupiter are dimmer but easily seen with the naked eye, even in an Urban area :)
 
Only clouds here in regards to the moon last night :\
 
No. I am wondering if Shambles or anyone is self taught on physics as I am attempting to do so now and could use some pointers.

I assume you mean quantum or particle physics. I suppose it depends what you're doing it for and to what level - if you actually want to 'do' physics this usually involves some quite tasty maths, whereas if you just want to 'understand' it for yourself you can do it without much maths, just thinking. I'm in the latter camp mostly - i've learned most of what i know from pop-physics books and youtubes like shambles - reading slightly variable explanations of the same stuff over time eventually some of it sticks in some way (though don't ask me to calculate anything).

If you're anything like me (lazy druggie), i'd recommend some of the classic hippy-physics books if you haven't already: Dancing Wu Li Masters i read recently and is good as a grounding in the ideas behind basic quantum physics with a cute/hippy format (a bit outdated but still relevant); Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra is also good (though maybe didn't date as well - his later book Web of Life is excellent but spreads out into biology/complex systems/chaos theory).

For slightly less cosmic (i like cosmic), i found some of John Gribbin's pop-science books good (eg in search of schrodinger's cat - some good books about astrophysics too). I'm sure there's many other books since i was reading this stuff too (and that i've forgotten) - If you're not actively learning the maths it's about narrative skill as much as anything, so pick stuff you're going to enjoy reading/watching. Jim Al-Khalili's recent Quantum Physics series on BBC4 is also worth watching if you didn't.

For a harder grind: Roger Penrose's Emperor's New Mind is a bit more chunky and does go into some maths (though you can skip it); covers quantum physics and tries to link it to consciousness (covering Godel's incompleteness theorem on the way); David Desutsch's Fabric of Reality is good and covers it from the Many Worlds angle.

If i'm patronising you with this 'pop-science' let me know and i'll dregde up some of the 'proper' physics textbooks i threw against my brain when i was younger (and had dexies), though i learned more from the pop physics tbh.

...

BHM: Quantum physics is science fiction? Maybe in some arcance epistemiological sense, but otherwise, are you saying that particles follow simple newtonian physics and noone's noticed? A quantum physicist will be the first to admit that there may be better explanations for the data, but until someone comes up with one it's still the best we've got.
 
Not patronizing at all. That is how I have been doing it so far. Ive read Michio Kaku, Brian Greene and others I cant remember and have watched tons of videos online going back as far as Feynman's lectures in the early 60's. But you reach a point where you need to learn the math(s) to really understand both the workings and consequences of physics. That is where I am. I am trying to re-learn calculus and learn vectors. I have some good online and offline sources but any others you remember would be great.

I actually am more interested in cosmology but you cannot escape QM anywhere so I want to get a better understanding on it.
 
If you need refresher on vector calculus I'd say "Div, Grad, Curl, and All That" by Schey is as good as it gets. Make sure your linear algebra is solid too (I like Lang's "Linear Algebra").

Then dig into the great classical PDEs: the various continuity equations, Maxwell's equations, and build up an intuitive/qualitative appreciation for them. First two volumes of Feynman are pretty helpful for that http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

Calculus of variations is essential for much of mechanics (principle of least action, Hamiltonian/Lagrangian formulation), plus you will want to have picked up some probability theory by this point as well (not sure of good intro lvl refs here).
 
quantum mechanics

science fiction

one in the same though arent they, really
The irony being that the computer on which you typed this probably depends for its very operation on quantum phenomena -- i.e., it would not work if quantum mechanics was not true.

(Thermionic valves can be explained purely in Newtonian terms; but since there are about twice as many "valves" in a modern PC as the Mullard works in Blackburn ever made over its entire lifetime, including rejects, it's a fairly safe bet that your computer is semiconductor-based.)
 
& bein a proud capitalist, i hail my overlords invention

you, the filthy suburbsocialist, reliant on freemkt tech
irony
 
shhhoosh shhooosh there boy. I think it's nap time. Sleepy sleepy me thinky.
 
yes, irony

not empirical so its not science. nice story tho

You know, this really reminds me of the birth of general relativity theory :)

Solid as science can be, but it wasn't 'science' until someone took a simple photo. Which is why we shouldn't discredit everything just because there isn't empirical evidence yet. Could be the means to obtain such evidence haven't been invented yet either.
 
you do a good enough job discrediting yourselves
manyworlds for example sounds like the 1st draft of an autistic toddler

and im sorry, call me a heretic, but imo even newtonian model is severely lacking. any idiot can see electromagnetism..

a force for the most part MILLIONS of times stronger than gravity - has a signigican say in the observable universe

if you deny this & partake in some 'bagsy x a million' fantasy science to find dark matter/energy

well, youre an idiot
 
Last edited by a moderator:
and im sorry, call me a heretic, but imo even newtonian model is severely lacking. any idiot can see electromagnetism..

They can see it but can't recognise what it is until it is understood, or a theory emerges. Are you trying to say that the world was populated purely by idiots for millennia or that, if only you'd be born a few hundred years sooner, it would be you we credit for the discovery of electromagnetism?

Even an idiot can see an arsehole.
 
BHM: Ahhh- so you're an 'electric universe' bod is it? Sort of goes along with the chemtrails i suppose (not being snobbish: i've entertained both ideas here and there (i quite like a read of nexus)) - give us some links to some science on it that isn't laughable? EDIT: when you're unbanned. Bit rich to sniff at QM if you do belive it though...

Kittycat: obviously go with what what lurching said as he knows what he's talking about (rather than talks a good game ;)) - i still haven't found me books anyway (they might have been sold for gunj). (I think i will too - thanks lurching; i could do with refreshing my maths to help with my max stuff)
 
BHM you're a heretic.


Also, where can I see this electromagnetism about the place?

He must mean books. The type he would have single-handedly written through clairvoyance (he prefers this notion to QM :p).

Sorry, don't mean to have a go at someone on a temp ban, but I'm more than sure I'll get something back when he returns.
 
Also, where can I see this electromagnetism about the place?

Depends whether you consider light visible or not, I suppose. I do believe that it is technically invisible but don't recall the details. Oh, there's lightning too. Only really counts as "all over the place" if you're looking back at Earth from orbit though admittedly.
 
Quantum mechanics isn't even really all that counter-intuitive:
  • Matter is made up of really tiny particles, which jiggle about a lot. The probability of a particle being in a particular place in the universe is greatest nearest the nominal epicentre of its jiggling about. You can't account precisely for all of the particles in a system; the harder you concentrate on where any one is, the less mind you are paying to all the rest.
  • The more particles in a system, the less the effect of all the quantum jiggling about. At any one time, there is a finite probability that some of the particles that make up a chair will be somewhere other than under your bottom; but the probability of there being enough particles out-of-place for the chair not to be able to support your weight is minuscule.
  • Waves need to exist as whole numbers of complete cycles, each consisting of a crest and a trough. The mean excursion over a sufficiently long time is nil. Now, since each full cycle of a wave is carrying a known amount of energy, and kinetic energy = .5 * m * v ** 2, we can consider one cycle of a wave -- the smallest amount you can have -- as being equivalent to a particle with a known mass, travelling at the speed of the wave.
 
Top