master_q

As with the official boards, starbase12, & trekonline I would also like to post my Star Trek & Physics Weekly here also.

At the moment ST & Physics Weekly is directly on math. It is looking at logarithmic equations. If you don’ know how to work with them, then I would suggest (because this week’s edition is another build up of understand what they are) is to go to the official boards to look thorough them.

Don’t worry my editions are not always math. It is just that this topic for Star Trek & Physics Weekly is math.

Edition 43: Exponential Growth & Decay

Edition 44: The # e

Edition 45: Intro To Logarithmic Functions

Edition 46: More Logarithmic Equations

Edition 47: Properties Of Logarithms

Quick Intro to logs . . .

Lets say you wanted to solve for an equation like 2^x = 4

For this one you can easily arrive to the solution, but using some kind of logic how can you solve it?

It actually comes down to logs

The first thing that I put in edition 45 was how to convert from an exponential to a logarithmic (and back & forth)

2^x=4

log base 2 of 4 = x

The first one is an exponential and the second one is a logarithmic.

To get the second it says log “base” 2 . . . so the base is in fact the bass of the “x” exponent. “of 4” is what it =’s.

When you think about simple algebra in general you are always told to get x by it self and that is what we are in fact doing here (just with different notation).

Solving “log base 2 of 4 = x”

To solve this without putting it in your calculator you have to use some logic.

You have to ask yourself “what power of 2 will give me 4” and then you can simply and easily arrive to 2 because 2^2 = 2*2 = 4

Let’s say that we want to convert log base 9 of 3 = x to exponential.

So it would be 9^x = 3

Common Log: log base 10

Natural Log: log base e

(e is about 2.718)

*********************************************************

I’ll post this week’s edition and the future editions for this topic under this.

I hope that you give the math a try and try to solve them (& reply). And don’t worry the next topic will not be on math and so might be easier to look at.

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

STIV DVD behind the scenes talk about realistic ways to time travel!?

(I have not had the chance to buy it. I’m buying DS9 now and that’s about $100 so I’m not going to make myself also buy the directors editions and this time)

Well of course you have to define what time is before you can get into paradoxes. And time we can define in what relativity tells us.

I think the one big thing is to think of it is in the subatomic world. In the sense that because of probability and things to that nature as how they would define a “repeat” as you “rewind the tape”. What I mean is you have to think about how you define the subatomic world. You can be very radical and believe it completely runs on probability (of course there would be ratios with smaller ones & larger ones). You might believe in parallel universes (and again tying in the “probability factor”) like David Deutsch. Then again you might believe that it acts completely statically (which does not have to mean linearly or anything to that nature). Well there are a lot of ways you can interpret “the world of the quantum”. A phrase that is really true is that “if you have not banged your head against the wall trying to understand the world of the quantum, then you never understood it in the first place”.

Well now you probably are asking to yourself “what’s the point?”. One question you can derive out of this is if somehow you went back in time (with out make any interferences) would the subatomic world act exactly like it did before? To some people it might seem like an easy answer, but when you throw in the ideas about quantum mechanics then your ground of trying to answer the question has to be a bit shaky. Pretend yesterday you went to a quantum slot machine. You turned the handle and then the quantum world “danced” (sorry that I’m throwing in a lot of terms or analogies people use to describe the subatomic world). As the quantum world “danced” it ended up with a certain results. (Like the direction they are moving, speed, . . .). Now let’s say you went back in time and did the same thing. Would the quantum world “dace” the same?

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

First of all we are always time traveling in way and we are right now. It might be microscopic, but it happens according to special and general relativity.

One theory about creating a “time machine” is using a wormhole.

So first you would have to find a wormhole or you could make one but let’s just stick with finding one. (To do this you would need to be a very advance society that can basically do anything without violating physics) After you found/made one you need to manipulate it. You can manipulate your white hole that you shoot it out into space at the speed of light. Then let it come back. Because time went slower for that mouth the two mouths would be in a different time. (Remember Special reality) After that you need to open it and get in fast. This is because a wormhole only stays open for a fraction of a second. To open it and hold it open it would take enormous power, but it is possible. One way is to have exotic matter (negative energy) and that will open its positive energy.

If you read this you are probably saying that this is ‘unrealistic and I agree. But there are mini worm holes out there (at least we believe that there are). So if we could use exotic matter, then we might be able to expand on them and open them for the right amount of time, . . .

But remember you cannot go back before the time machine was invented. Relativity prevents this.

The one theory that I have stated about using a (mini)wormhole might not work because once the whitehole comes back the wormhole would destroy it self because of quantum gravity. (Quantum gravity is an area of physics that is trying to connect general relativity to quantum mechanics or the large to the small scale which when completed will be a major break through in physcis, cosmology, . . . ) This is because of the energy build ups and the pressure. While this process happens eventually everything would cross cancel each other. And no wormhole would exist.

Quantum gravity which does not seem to be that known (when I talk about it one the official board it does not seem that many know of it), but it is more likely that you heard about string theory or something to that nature. String theory is one idea to fill in the large and unknown gap that quantum gravity gives us. {But that’s another story}.

Grandfather Paradox Example:

NOW = You are alive and well. You go back in time (you = old)

PAST = You kill your self (young) from the past. Young dies, old vanishes

NOW = After this event has occurred you don’t exist. (or you died in the past)

WHY? You have to view time as a flow and not just frame by frame after an event has occurred it goes through the time line. So you never existed to go back in time.

The younger one of your self has to grow up to go back in time. (that’s the key thing). The young one needs to grow up to the NOW time to do this. So as a result of going back in time and killing your self you will not exist, but be dead in the THEN time. Then how could you of gone back?!

There are theories that say this is not true because you would be creating a new time line and that goes into different quantum realities ('the probability factor' . . . ) . . . (and so on)

Billiard-ball paradox:

There are two ways to explain it one of which is using the actual game (pool) and the other just the concept it self.

Imagine yourself playing pool and the pockets are your ‘time machine’ (or wormhole if you like). Once you shoot the ball in the pocket it goes back in time. When you do this we have a certain numerical mechanics of it (the angle, speed, direction, . . . . . {/vector}). Then once it goes in the pocket it comes out and at the same time the ball that was going to go back in time in the first place moves forth. When this is happening we have the same ball where one is moving out and one is moving in. Then we have them hit each other and cross cancel.

The counters to this are that through some math we find other vectors that don't cross cancel. (But there are problems with that idea too . . . .)

It really is all up to speculation in areas like this.

It is an interesting topic and a one of value to the scientific community to answer. For myself I’m kind of torn in the middle, but I am more leaning towards ‘no’ - you can’t go back in time with a time machine. The laws of physics could crumble below your feet. LOL

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com