Would Time Dilation slow down Cognition (ala Twins Paradox)?

[fritzd]

---

saludo ko nmo bai! maka "relate" sad ko anang RISK. i know a very popular physicist who is only slightly above average. i think its also creativity that matters. but tanaw nko nmo bai gifted ka or even more! i see a similarity sa ako na meet mga tao. this is not to discourage you and i think you are aware ky sa mga excerpts ni Feynman nga gamay nlng mahabilin sa higher years sa iyang class after 3rd or 4th year. pro not sure kng undergrad or grad. but i believe in you bai. i know you can go the "next level" or even more! just keep it up!

kuyawa na anang subjecta bai uy i compara sa pilipinas. hi tech na kau! blessed ka bai hop ull be one of those Filipino inventors nga maka make ug impact sa world. bcn maka himo ka ug super drug nga mo datu ang mga drug lords ha. hahahaha. idol gyud kuning mga tawhana bisan dli lng gud maka daug ug nobel prize. basta maka contribute sa science daku na kau ko ug respetar. nindot lagi kaug maka meet in person bisan usa lng nila. kaw daghan nakag na meet bai una c Prof. Gross. payter kau na bai.

Bahin anang, maygamay ang students after years. (undergrad na sya, kay if makasulod naka ug grad skul then they think you are worthy of completing it.) Tinuod gyud na.... same thing sa amo batch.


I know a couple of brilliant filipino physicists who are world class physicsts pero dili lang gyud ilhado.. hehe Buotan baya kau si Dr. Gross, very accommodating. I don't know if iyang wife kay physicist pud but his wife was talking about string theory with another friend when I met them. haha

unsa na level nmo sa p-link? bcn level 3 na. mo try pko basa sa DFT ug sa p-link. cgurado mo spark nasad sa infinity ni ako mind if i may use your term. hahaha.

part physicist ug part artista ni c Prof. Greene bcn sa laing worlds ky full tym artista or nano physicist. just a point, c Prof. Greene ky polymath pro c Prof Witten maoy naka revolutionize sa string theory. hmmmm. hehehe.

Gamay raman akong na-answer tawn sa p-link.. hehe! dili man kau ko tig-answer not unless naay question nga wala gyuy ning answer.. Daghan naman capable mu-answer. haha.. wala koy lingaw, akong gisearch ang mga publication ni Brian Greene sa Physics Review Letters. mao ni iyang latest 2009 publication. hehe

Bouncing and cyclic string gas cosmologies

ako pud gisulayan 'time dilation' lang.. mao ni ang pinaka most relevant paper.. hehehe

Improved Test of Time Dilation in Special Relativity

[vanschen]

Bahin anang, maygamay ang students after years. (undergrad na sya, kay if makasulod naka ug grad skul then they think you are worthy of completing it.) Tinuod gyud na.... same thing sa amo batch.


I know a couple of brilliant filipino physicists who are world class physicsts pero dili lang gyud ilhado.. hehe Buotan baya kau si Dr. Gross, very accommodating. I don't know if iyang wife kay physicist pud but his wife was talking about string theory with another friend when I met them. haha



Gamay raman akong na-answer tawn sa p-link.. hehe! dili man kau ko tig-answer not unless naay question nga wala gyuy ning answer.. Daghan naman capable mu-answer. haha.. wala koy lingaw, akong gisearch ang mga publication ni Brian Greene sa Physics Review Letters. mao ni iyang latest 2009 publication. hehe

Bouncing and cyclic string gas cosmologies

ako pud gisulayan 'time dilation' lang.. mao ni ang pinaka most relevant paper.. hehehe

Improved Test of Time Dilation in Special Relativity

grabe na gyud diay na nga level ng mga sikat! wish i could also meet even one popular physicist!

tnx sa links!

unsa imo thoughts on quantum consciousness. bgo rko tanaw sa you tube nga you dnt need a Phd or something to be "conversant" bwt it.

[fritzd]

grabe na gyud diay na nga level ng mga sikat! wish i could also meet even one popular physicist!

tnx sa links!

unsa imo thoughts on quantum consciousness. bgo rko tanaw sa you tube nga you dnt need a Phd or something to be "conversant" bwt it.

hmm.. I don't really know. Wala kau kko kabaw ana... Unlike string theory, quantum consciousness is really an strong research field in the scientific community. And many of the scientists don't recognize it yet. No comment lang ko ani.. It's a bit to vague pa as of now. And I more of a practical scientist and explaining consciousness with QM is something I'm not sure if I want to deal with. hehehe. QM has its limits it.

[vanschen]

hmm.. I don't really know. Wala kau kko kabaw ana... Unlike string theory, quantum consciousness is really an strong research field in the scientific community. And many of the scientists don't recognize it yet. No comment lang ko ani.. It's a bit to vague pa as of now. And I more of a practical scientist and explaining consciousness with QM is something I'm not sure if I want to deal with. hehehe. QM has its limits it.

hehe.

what do you mean by the limits of QM?

[fritzd]

hehe.

what do you mean by the limits of QM?

QM was formulated because there was a need to explain unaccounted behavior in recent experimental data (early 1900's). It started from Einstein's photoelectric effect, bohr's explaination of the quantum level of the hydrogen atom then eventually to Schrodinger, Heisenberg, etc... They formulated a theory which is still based on Classical theory but at a more mathematical conceptualization. Many things were explain and many things were also predicted like antimatter, single electron transistors, etc.. I asked one of my profs about Q C as you asked me. He said he is not really interested in quantum mechanics being taken into interdisciplinary fields too literally. What he meant was that quantum mechanics has been has been applied successfully in many fields but still scientific fields like biology, chemistry, electronics, etc.. But it doesn't make any sense to apply quantum mechanics to areas were there are no observables or quantities that you can measure and experiments data that you can replicated. In a way, what started as philosophy that turned into physics and going back to philosophy. Quantum Mechanics has its limitations in a way that it only applies to our physical universe and not our thoughts. But then again, I could be wrong. We could all be wrong. haha Anyway, that' all I know. hehe

[personalmgt]

Nice read in this thread. Could probably even solve my troubles on slow-motion with FPS games

[vanschen]

QM was formulated because there was a need to explain unaccounted behavior in recent experimental data (early 1900's). It started from Einstein's photoelectric effect, bohr's explaination of the quantum level of the hydrogen atom then eventually to Schrodinger, Heisenberg, etc... They formulated a theory which is still based on Classical theory but at a more mathematical conceptualization. Many things were explain and many things were also predicted like antimatter, single electron transistors, etc.. I asked one of my profs about Q C as you asked me. He said he is not really interested in quantum mechanics being taken into interdisciplinary fields too literally. What he meant was that quantum mechanics has been has been applied successfully in many fields but still scientific fields like biology, chemistry, electronics, etc.. But it doesn't make any sense to apply quantum mechanics to areas were there are no observables or quantities that you can measure and experiments data that you can replicated. In a way, what started as philosophy that turned into physics and going back to philosophy. Quantum Mechanics has its limitations in a way that it only applies to our physical universe and not our thoughts. But then again, I could be wrong. We could all be wrong. haha Anyway, that' all I know. hehe

ok. physicists will always be physicists.

i knw wla sa area of study/research ang string theory but do you think nga extra dimensions = dark matter? we know dark energy.

[fritzd]

ok. physicists will always be physicists.

i knw wla sa area of study/research ang string theory but do you think nga extra dimensions = dark matter? we know dark energy.

This is just my opinion but it may be possible. The universe appears to us depending on how we perceive it, 3 (spatial) + 1 (temporal) dimensions. That is why we can't find strong proof for dark matter or energy. Like fished in a pond.. hehehe! Anyway, murag padulong nata string theory ani.. tiwason lang nato didto sa appropriate thread. hehehe

[vanschen]

This is just my opinion but it may be possible. The universe appears to us depending on how we perceive it, 3 (spatial) + 1 (temporal) dimensions. That is why we can't find strong proof for dark matter or energy. Like fished in a pond.. hehehe! Anyway, murag padulong nata string theory ani.. tiwason lang nato didto sa appropriate thread. hehehe

hehe. krn pko ka realize sa imo pangutana bwt refereence or link. wla ko idea ngano tong dli ma click. hibung sad ko.

[insect111]

May I remind those who keep saying "towards the speed of light" or "from the speed of light". You can achieve 99.9% the speed of light, but you can never reach "the speed of light". I am just stating this, because the casual iStorya reader might mistake that one can attain the speed of light (impossible).

-RODION

OT:

how about relative velocities? let's say two objects travel toward each other at the same speed of 100km/h. the velocity of one object will be 200km/h relative to the other object, right? what if these same objects would travel at 75% of the speed of light? what will be the relative velocity of the first object with respect to the other?