http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java ... index.html
(requires Java)
This is excellent!!
-John
Cosmic view of the universe, in 40 jumps
-
John Cooper
- Moderator
- Posts: 1182
- Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Planet Z
- Contact:
Well, I don't, I don't really think that the end can be assessed...uh as of itself as being the end because what does the end feel like, it's like saying when you try to extrapolate the end of the universe you say the...if the universe is indeed infinite then how what does that mean? How far is is t...is all the way and then if it stops what's stoppin' it and what's behind what's stoppin' it, so what's the end, you know, is my...question to you....
Derek St. Hubbins - Spinal Tap
Derek St. Hubbins - Spinal Tap
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 1104
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: paname
-
Counterparts
- Posts: 1963
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Bath, England
Royston, did you read 'Chaos and Fractals' by Peitgen ea. ? and did it already change your mind 
The visualization has a problem in the sub-microscopic area: since an image is painted by effects of light there's no more image when light isn't applicable anymore.
Think of it as the bit resolution isn't sufficient.
All those pictures are imaginations how it might look if the capabilities of our visual system could be extended infinetely - they are not real. Some, like the atom models even include interpolation over time.
While this helps in some way to improve understanding of a complex matter, it also carries the danger of restricting people to certain views of the universe - in all scales.
cheers, Tom
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2003-11-02 09:23 ]</font>
The visualization has a problem in the sub-microscopic area: since an image is painted by effects of light there's no more image when light isn't applicable anymore.
Think of it as the bit resolution isn't sufficient.
All those pictures are imaginations how it might look if the capabilities of our visual system could be extended infinetely - they are not real. Some, like the atom models even include interpolation over time.
While this helps in some way to improve understanding of a complex matter, it also carries the danger of restricting people to certain views of the universe - in all scales.
cheers, Tom
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2003-11-02 09:23 ]</font>
Yes, very intriguing...
We can never say where the atoms or electrons are exactly, the bowls at 10^-9 meters are only representations of an area where were probability to find it is like 90%. so it isn't even said that the atom is inside the bowl, we only know it's usually in there.
Like we see our solar system at 10^14 meters, its represented by circles since it's just impossible to view the planets etc from that scale. We need another 10^6 zoom before we can see Earth.
The models we use to represent atoms are only representative for the goal they were made, they're simplified versions to explain the theory that comes with. It's a bit like quoting: lines of text only make sense in the right context, in another context they can be totally irrelevant. But in fact, the theory goes much further and is much deeper than the quote, one line of text pulled out of its context.
I sure do believe it is possible, such infinite fractals, but it is impossible to check on such low or large levels. Interesting, this would also make time a very subjective concept, given the speeds at which things happen at different scales.
Just some side thoughts...
We can never say where the atoms or electrons are exactly, the bowls at 10^-9 meters are only representations of an area where were probability to find it is like 90%. so it isn't even said that the atom is inside the bowl, we only know it's usually in there.
Like we see our solar system at 10^14 meters, its represented by circles since it's just impossible to view the planets etc from that scale. We need another 10^6 zoom before we can see Earth.
The models we use to represent atoms are only representative for the goal they were made, they're simplified versions to explain the theory that comes with. It's a bit like quoting: lines of text only make sense in the right context, in another context they can be totally irrelevant. But in fact, the theory goes much further and is much deeper than the quote, one line of text pulled out of its context.
I sure do believe it is possible, such infinite fractals, but it is impossible to check on such low or large levels. Interesting, this would also make time a very subjective concept, given the speeds at which things happen at different scales.
Just some side thoughts...
-
Counterparts
- Posts: 1963
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Bath, England
Nah; I'm simply certifiable.astroman wrote:
Royston, did you read 'Chaos and Fractals' by Peitgen ea. ?
Mind, mind...(?) Oops, I chucked that over the side as ballast to gain some altitude.and did it already change your mind
Exactly. What were those crazy fools thinking!?The visualization has a problem in the sub-microscopic area: since an image is painted by effects of light there's no more image when light isn't applicable anymore.
Think of it as the bit resolution isn't sufficient.
All those pictures are imaginations how it might look if the capabilities of our visual system could be extended infinetely - they are not real. Some, like the atom models even include interpolation over time.
While this helps in some way to improve understanding of a complex matter, it also carries the danger of restricting people to certain views of the universe - in all scales.
cheers, Tom
It's just not been my week...mototbike nicked last Tuesday, lost wallet w/ cash, cards and driving licence on Friday
Stop Press: Just as I was typing this, I got a phone call - my bike's been recovered! £105 charge from the Police for the privilege, lots of damage...drat!
It never rains...
Royston
yeah, keeping my fingers crossed that you're now through that period of bad luck, but better be careful for a couple of days if it's really over
My quote about the book you never read was related to a kind of warning somewhere in it's 1k pages 
...that it might seriously influence someones understanding of the world - not necessarily in a pleasant way...
But while browsing the pages to find it back I found a nice chapter about some stuff possibly applicable to digital signal processing. Well, I need a second and probably third attempt to make some sense of it
cheers, Tom
My quote about the book you never read
was related to a kind of warning somewhere in it's 1k pages ...that it might seriously influence someones understanding of the world - not necessarily in a pleasant way...But while browsing the pages to find it back I found a nice chapter about some stuff possibly applicable to digital signal processing. Well, I need a second and probably third attempt to make some sense of it
cheers, Tom
-
Counterparts
- Posts: 1963
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Bath, England
Drinking gives you bad luck?garyb wrote:
no more drinking......
Thanks. I think the major damage will occur in the wallet area. £250 excess on my insurance, I'll lose my no claims bonus and my premium will undoubtably increase. Getting the train to work every day isn't cheap either! Drat and double drat. I will have to postpone my plans to upgrade my Creamware system...glad you got your bike back,hope the damage is not so bad.....
Royston