AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
Quick question about FTL. If two objects traveling at 60% the speed of light are headed away from each other, wouldn't they be FTL relative to each other? Does physics allow this, and if not, what stops it from happening?
Quick question about FTL. If two objects traveling at 60% the speed of light are headed away from each other, wouldn't they be FTL relative to each other? Does physics allow this, and if not, what stops it from happening?
Relativistic velocities don't add in the way we usually think. In this case, each ship would observe the other traveling at 1.2c/1.36, or .88c.
To be clear, I'm not concerned with whether or not FTL particles exist. Rather, I'm wondering how we could possibly observe them. I'm having a hard time making sense of the idea that a particle traveling backwards through time could even interact with our universe at all.
@DanHibiki That would be incredible, and a hell of a thing to see. Sure would create causality problems if we could summon these beasties at will!
Why do you think a particle traveling faster than light would move backwards in time?
Because an observable FTL particle could be used to violate causality, where an event happens before the event that caused it. That is, from the event's observer's point of view, it must have traveled into the past to do that.
This is a good explanation of how you can violate causality with FTL signals: http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html
My only problem with this page, is their Figure 1 really should have had Event Q at the same coordinates as it is in Figure 2 so it would illustrate better how a Lorentz Transformation can change Event Q from being in Event P's relative future, to being in Event P's relative past. That is, if you take Figure 1 and 2's Event P's coordinates (space, time) as (0,0) with up being positive numbers and right being positive numbers, they should have placed Event Q at (-2,+0.5) in Figure 1. That matches Event Q's blue coordinates in Figure 2. Then you could easily see in Figure 2 that Event Q's blue coordinates in Event P's white reference frame have changed from (-2,+0.5) to (-1.9,-0.25) with the Lorentz Transformation, the time coordinate going from +0.5 to -0.25 illustrates that Event Q has moved from Event P's relative future into Event P's relative past.
As Sander mentioned, FTL particles either allow causality violation which would be rather problematic, or they are non-observable / non-interacting which would make their existance moot.
There is no Lorentz transformation that will cause a particle to move FTL.
True, that's why tachyons, if they existed, must already be moving FTL.
The page uses the special case of instantaneous transmission because a finite FTL speed makes the whole framework of special relativity gibberish. Not just causality-violating, but mathematically incoherent.
Pretty much. Relativity, FTL, or causality, pick 2.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
To be clear, I'm not concerned with whether or not FTL particles exist. Rather, I'm wondering how we could possibly observe them. I'm having a hard time making sense of the idea that a particle traveling backwards through time could even interact with our universe at all.
@DanHibiki That would be incredible, and a hell of a thing to see. Sure would create causality problems if we could summon these beasties at will!
Why do you think a particle traveling faster than light would move backwards in time?
Because an observable FTL particle could be used to violate causality, where an event happens before the event that caused it. That is, from the event's observer's point of view, it must have traveled into the past to do that.
This is a good explanation of how you can violate causality with FTL signals: http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html
My only problem with this page, is their Figure 1 really should have had Event Q at the same coordinates as it is in Figure 2 so it would illustrate better how a Lorentz Transformation can change Event Q from being in Event P's relative future, to being in Event P's relative past. That is, if you take Figure 1 and 2's Event P's coordinates (space, time) as (0,0) with up being positive numbers and right being positive numbers, they should have placed Event Q at (-2,+0.5) in Figure 1. That matches Event Q's blue coordinates in Figure 2. Then you could easily see in Figure 2 that Event Q's blue coordinates in Event P's white reference frame have changed from (-2,+0.5) to (-1.9,-0.25) with the Lorentz Transformation, the time coordinate going from +0.5 to -0.25 illustrates that Event Q has moved from Event P's relative future into Event P's relative past.
As Sander mentioned, FTL particles either allow causality violation which would be rather problematic, or they are non-observable / non-interacting which would make their existance moot.
I just wanted to point out that "never read the comments" apparently applies to discussions of modern physics.
Whole lotta "I know nothing about science, but here is why you're completely wrong" going on in there.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
To be clear, I'm not concerned with whether or not FTL particles exist. Rather, I'm wondering how we could possibly observe them. I'm having a hard time making sense of the idea that a particle traveling backwards through time could even interact with our universe at all.
@DanHibiki That would be incredible, and a hell of a thing to see. Sure would create causality problems if we could summon these beasties at will!
Why do you think a particle traveling faster than light would move backwards in time?
Because an observable FTL particle could be used to violate causality, where an event happens before the event that caused it. That is, from the event's observer's point of view, it must have traveled into the past to do that.
This is a good explanation of how you can violate causality with FTL signals: http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html
My only problem with this page, is their Figure 1 really should have had Event Q at the same coordinates as it is in Figure 2 so it would illustrate better how a Lorentz Transformation can change Event Q from being in Event P's relative future, to being in Event P's relative past. That is, if you take Figure 1 and 2's Event P's coordinates (space, time) as (0,0) with up being positive numbers and right being positive numbers, they should have placed Event Q at (-2,+0.5) in Figure 1. That matches Event Q's blue coordinates in Figure 2. Then you could easily see in Figure 2 that Event Q's blue coordinates in Event P's white reference frame have changed from (-2,+0.5) to (-1.9,-0.25) with the Lorentz Transformation, the time coordinate going from +0.5 to -0.25 illustrates that Event Q has moved from Event P's relative future into Event P's relative past.
As Sander mentioned, FTL particles either allow causality violation which would be rather problematic, or they are non-observable / non-interacting which would make their existance moot.
There is no Lorentz transformation that will cause a particle to move FTL.
True, that's why tachyons, if they existed, must already be moving FTL.
The page uses the special case of instantaneous transmission because a finite FTL speed makes the whole framework of special relativity gibberish. Not just causality-violating, but mathematically incoherent.
Pretty much. Relativity, FTL, or causality, pick 2.
Tachyons, if they existed, would invalidate special relativity because they imply the existence of reference frames that cannot be related to ours by Lorentz transformations. In that case we could draw no conclusions at all from special relativity about the broader significance of these particles. Perhaps GR offers solutions, but unless we have some cosmologists here none of us are equipped to discuss that.
Well, we can discuss it, just with the caveat that our understanding is limited and so our findings should probably not be used as part of the lit review of any prospective research papers.
If being an expert in a field was a prerequisite for discussing something science related, this thread would cease to exist faster than Schroedinger's cat after a collapsed wave function.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Well, we can discuss it, just with the caveat that our understanding is limited and so our findings should probably not be used as part of the lit review of any prospective research papers.
If being an expert in a field was a prerequisite for discussing something science related, this thread would cease to exist faster than Schroedinger's cat after a collapsed wave function.
Quick question about FTL. If two objects traveling at 60% the speed of light are headed away from each other, wouldn't they be FTL relative to each other? Does physics allow this, and if not, what stops it from happening?
Relativistic velocities don't add in the way we usually think. In this case, each ship would observe the other traveling at 1.2c/1.36, or .88c.
This shit is melting my brain and yet I find it fucking fascinating. I wish I had gotten into physics when I was very young.
Quick question about FTL. If two objects traveling at 60% the speed of light are headed away from each other, wouldn't they be FTL relative to each other? Does physics allow this, and if not, what stops it from happening?
Relativistic velocities don't add in the way we usually think. In this case, each ship would observe the other traveling at 1.2c/1.36, or .88c.
This shit is melting my brain and yet I find it fucking fascinating. I wish I had gotten into physics when I was very young.
You can get a pretty decent layman's understanding of modern physics by reading a few pop science books and wandering around Wikipedia.
A Brief History of Time is required reading, and Knocking On Heaven's Door will give you a good basic grasp of what particle physics looks like these days. You can walk into either of those cold.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Relativity has strange results but the ideas at it's core aren't mind blowing.
You can get to Special Relativity if you start with Newtonian physics and add 2 extra statements:
1) The laws of physics are the same in every non accelerating reference frame
2) c is the highest possible speed in any such reference frame.
Now obviously this hangs on the concept of 'reference frame' which is basically the simplest answer to the question 'moving relative to what '
when you say It's going 100km/h
On earth you are tempted to take the earth as a reference frame, but the earth is in the solar system in the galaxy in the local group drifting from the Big Bang. A lot of movement, and Einsteins answer is basically "it doesn't matter, choose one, the math works anyway"
Before this, physicists were struggling with the aether, a background "one true" reference frame.
Now he immediately showed some of the strange consequences and those turned out to actually be there.
General Relativity is at it's core nothing more than that mass bends space so that straight paths become orbits. The math is trickier though.
Quantum Mechanics in contrast forces you to throw out a lot of common sense and start over in a world full of abstract concepts, where particles behave statistically instead of determinallistic, where there is an inherent limit on knowledge, where "wavefunctions" can collapse and seemingly cause instant events over distance, where particles can be superimposed, where something is a particle or a wave depending how you look at it......
It sometimes feels like it's not something you really understand but more come to terms with.
It's perhaps why the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, which can be summarised as "If the model works, it doesnt matter what the philosophical consequences are" is attractive to many physicists.
Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
+6
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Quantum Mechanics is the only field of study where a scientist can get excited about there being absolutely nothing at the end of an experiment.
The relativity stuff can really pretty much be described by a handful of equations, that get derived back to about 2 new ones plus Newtonian physics.
QM and particle physics and all the fiddely wee scale physics? Like, it's not really consistent you need a few new maths, and abstraction of maths (like Feynman diagrams and the like), and its not just tacking new terms onto old formulas.
You get like: oh, well we have to conservation energy, and cromographic binding energies don't decrease with distance, so when these two quarks split, they will [convert the energy into mass/pull new quarks out of the nothing and bind to them] . LOL Jets, strong force
Also relativity gives you magnetism, so trivially that it's just damn surprising. Magnets exist pretty much just because of the Lorentz contraction of the distance between two charged entities so that their acceleration is preserved when observed between different reference frames.
Also relativity gives you magnetism, so trivially that it's just damn surprising. Magnets exist pretty much just because of the Lorentz contraction of the distance between two charged entities so that their acceleration is preserved when observed between different reference frames.
It is an amazing thing.
But, but, flux lines....
Do you have a link? Or wiki compatible term for this? How hard is it to mesh with rotating bodies? Does it yield electromagnetic results for things like motor/generators/transformers?
Also relativity gives you magnetism, so trivially that it's just damn surprising. Magnets exist pretty much just because of the Lorentz contraction of the distance between two charged entities so that their acceleration is preserved when observed between different reference frames.
It is an amazing thing.
But, but, flux lines....
Do you have a link? Or wiki compatible term for this? How hard is it to mesh with rotating bodies? Does it yield electromagnetic results for things like motor/generators/transformers?
It's hard to extend to everything, but you can show that if you held two point charges in free space, and moved past them at some rate, then the apparent force between them would be increased in your frame of reference (due to Lorentz contraction making their distance smaller). Since this would mean they'd then start accelerating at different rates in different frames of reference, magnetism basically pops into existence and just so happens to perfectly equalize the force-disparity between the two frames so that the objects behave correctly between all of them.
So you see electric force + magnetic force, whereas in the frame of the stationary charges they only see an electric force.
Hence why electromagnets require moving charges to produce a magnetic field.
Sometimes I think scientists need to work on their naming. This sounds like they're genetically engineering secretive primates who are resistant to being beaten with garden hoses.
Sometimes I think scientists need to work on their naming. This sounds like they're genetically engineering secretive primates who are resistant to being beaten with garden hoses.
Both this interpretation AND the actual experiment are pretty cool.
Quantum Mechanics is the only field of study where a scientist can get excited about there being absolutely nothing at the end of an experiment.
Time-Energy Uncertainty sure is fun stuff.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Quantum Mechanics is the only field of study where a scientist can get excited about there being absolutely nothing at the end of an experiment.
Well, only if the experiment moves the scientist into a higher energy state.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+8
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
What is this, some kind of quantum trickery? How can @Elvenshae awesome a post and then agree to booing that same post? This does not jive with my new-goosian forum knowledge
My jokes may or may not be hilarious until you look at them.
Then they are confirmed as not.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
What is this, some kind of quantum trickery? How can @Elvenshae awesome a post and then agree to booing that same post? This does not jive with my new-goosian forum knowledge
This is the kind of chaos encountered with limited reaction button choices.
What is this, some kind of quantum trickery? How can @Elvenshae awesome a post and then agree to booing that same post? This does not jive with my new-goosian forum knowledge
So if I put Schrödinger in the box. Does he count as an observer, or is it still not know because it is a closed system.
Doesn't matter what's in the box. The internal state of the box is unknown until the outside observer looks at it. Or put it this way, the cat was already an "observer" inside the box.
SiliconStew on
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
So if I put Schrödinger in the box. Does he count as an observer, or is it still not know because it is a closed system.
The correct answer is "Copenhagen".
Which I think is Danish for "shut up."
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+1
Options
ChimeraMonster girl with a snek tail and five eyesBad puns, that's how eye roll. Registered Userregular
So I posted this a while ago in SE++ but thought you guys and gals might like it too. This is a pretty exciting computer model of a mammoth EF-5 tornado that took place on May 24th, 2011 in Oklahoma. The real-world tornado off of which this simulation is based had winds of more than 200 MPH as it tore a 63-mile path through the towns of Calumet, El Reno, Piedmont, and western Guthrie, all west and north of Oklahoma City. Nine people died and nearly 200 people were injured when the storm hit. The tornado was so powerful that it scoured grass from the earth, debarked trees, tossed a 20,000-pound oil tanker more than a mile, and scrubbed buildings clean off of their foundations.
(Note: You will here the letters RFD used a lot. He is referring to the Rear Flank Downdraft when he does so.)
It should be noted that this is a "highly idealized" simulation which was initialized with the May 24, 2011 background environment that was sampled from a RUC sounding near the real storm. When you do simulations like this you never know what result you will get - the majority of the time you don't get a tornado, or get a weak one (just like the real atmosphere). Even when you build an environment supportive of a violent you rarely can get a simulation to come together like this, so this is why this particular storm was picked since there was such a heavy data set available of the environment the storm was in, and the storm itself. When put into the simulation the computers did a marvelous job recreating this horrific storm. To see the actual tornado, look at the video below.
This tornado was largely rain wrapped a large portion of its life due to the proximity of it to the storms to the south. It skirted the northwest edge of the OKC metro and actually killed a few ammature storm spotters who were unable to identify what they were looking at as the tornado came at them. In fact, a large portion of its life it was larger than in the video above and actually got up to a half of a mile wide. This combined with the heavy rain and the low storm bases allowed the tornado to appear as just a dark wall of cloud and rain and not a traditional tornado. These extreme wedge tornadoes are very hard to identify by the untrained and inexperienced eye and so the spotters should have exercised their escape route well before the storm arrived had they taken into account their lack of experience and the radio reports coming in on the Skywarn frequency.
Below you can see a map of the tornadoes from that day, the simulated tornado would be labeled as B2 on this map of the actual tornadoes from that event. Tornado B3, which is labeled very close to the path of B2 is hard to make out, it's path was just a few yards long and ingested by B2. In the third image you can see the tornado was easily able to clean the foundations buildings of anything present on them. This was a small family home that even saw the tile, carpet, and hardwood stripped away. All that was left was some parts of the plumbing and the now clean fondation.
Several other violent tornadoes, including an "EF-4+" tornado, occurred on this day. While the Piedmont EF-5 was a tragedy, the storm that spawned it did prevent a larger disaster from happening. It's collapse at the end of the of the EF-5's life caused an outflow boundary to rapidly propagate to the south, undercutting and killing the two mesocyclones in the pair of supercells to its south. Both had violent tornadoes (including the borderline EF-4/5 Chickasha Tornado) that were in the process of moving into much more densely populated parts of the OKC metro. These tornadoes are labeled as C2 and D2 on the map. Had C2 not began to weaken and die as it moved into the metro, it could have easily dealt EF-5 damage to a large swath of the metro and would have come close to downtown OKC.
Another tornado of interest that day was the first violent tornado. This is known as the Canton Lake Tornado and is seen as A1 on the map. This tornado was actually the very first one to touch down and spent a large portion of its life over Canton Lake. The tornado was simply massive and likely was much stronger than the damage rating it was given. It was rated as an EF-3 but this is largely due to the fact it occurred over a largely rural area when on land. The tornado was so strong that it was able to displace a large amount of water when moving over the lake and as it exited back onto the land the tornado left in its wake a damaging tsunami. This is the first time this has ever been recorded as happening with a tornado. Little video exists of this but you can see the waves at the end of the video below. While unimpressive looking in the footage, the part of the lake seen is very deep as it is at the edge of the dam. This is also a ways from the tornado which was two miles upstream from them when it left the body of water. The waves did very notable damage to docks, boats, and lakeside properties on some portions of the lake's shore. I have also included a map below of the tornado's path.
DON'T FORGET, STARTING TONIGHT RICH THOMPSON OF THE SPC WILL BE DOING A CLASS ON THE SCIENCE BEHIND TORNADO FORECASTING. INFO ON THIS AND HOW TO ATTEND ONLINE FOR FREE IS POSTED IN THE SPOILER BELOW!
Hey there nerds, geeks, and closet weather weenies! Want to learn what truly goes into my forecasts I use to chase tornadoes? Well mow is your chance to learn from one of the field of meteorology's leading experts, Rich Thompson! Rich is the lead forecaster for NOAA's Storm Prediction Center which is the organization that issues tornado and severe t-storm watches for the United States. They also do much more than that, but the watches they issue are the primary products they issue that most members of the public will be failure with.
This will be a very in depth crash course and in the end will afford even a novice weather enthusiasts a sound understanding of how to forecast for tornadoes and offer materials and knowledge that one would normally have to pay a decent amount to receive in a collage course. This isn't just some spotter training or a tv weatherman workshop but a very rare opportunity to get a real leas on from one of the most vetted and best in the business of severe weather forecasting! Who better to learn from than NOAA's/The National Weather Service/SPC's number one forecaster of severe weather?
Rich is hosting a weekly forecasting class and workshop starting this coming tuesday night. Even if you are a beginner I highly recommend sitting in on the live webcasts if you are even the least bit curious. If you are in the Norman, OK or OKC area you can go to the National Water Center on the OU Campus and attend the sessions live!
Below you will find more info on each session as well as the time and date for each weekly class. If you plan on watching or attending please let me know by messaging me or replying to this post in this thread.
We are extremely pleased to announce that we have partnered with the Storm Prediction Center's Lead Forecaster Rich Thompson to offer a unique series of workshops detailing the meteorology of tornado forecasting! If you want to hear from a longstanding professional about the process of making the forecasts for severe weather, this is for you. Anyone is welcome to attend these free workshops, either in person or online; see the attached flier for more details!
Here's the current schedule:
February 3rd – Sounding analysis and synoptic meteorology (lifted parcels, Q-G theory, etc.)
February 10th – Severe storm ingredients (low-level moisture and lapse rates)
February 17th – Severe storm ingredients (vertical shear and lift)
March 3rd – Supercell and tornado conceptual models (plus composite parameters)
March 10th – Tornado patterns (synoptic and mesoscale)
March 24th – Convective mode forecasting (squall lines vs. discrete cells)
April 7th – Tornado parameter climatology (spatial and temporal distributions of CAPE and shear)
April 14th – Numerical models and statistical techniques (convective schemes and post processing)
So if I put Schrödinger in the box. Does he count as an observer, or is it still not know because it is a closed system.
Okay, let's set a thing straight here. The Schroedinger's Box thought experiment was not designed to be taken seriously, it was his way of saying "this doesn't make any sense, therefore quantum mechanics is bullshit".
Since then, we have only disproven the second half of that statement.
@Chimera That's an amazing post. My brother-in-law was a news videographer in OKC during that time, I'm not sure if he got storm shots, but he did win at least one emmy for his work on stories of the aftermath.
Living in Nebraska, I've seen my share of tornadoes and random weather events that people try to explain as "wind shears" or whatever else is the buzzword of the day. That simulation shows some things I've seen go by my house but without the debris and fear that really clouds what you are seeing at the time. You can see in that first video how those guys in the car basically can't comprehend what is happening right in front of them. The video is so much more clear than what you see in real life.
That simulation though. Wow!
+1
Options
ChimeraMonster girl with a snek tail and five eyesBad puns, that's how eye roll. Registered Userregular
@Chimera That's an amazing post. My brother-in-law was a news videographer in OKC during that time, I'm not sure if he got storm shots, but he did win at least one emmy for his work on stories of the aftermath.
Living in Nebraska, I've seen my share of tornadoes and random weather events that people try to explain as "wind shears" or whatever else is the buzzword of the day. That simulation shows some things I've seen go by my house but without the debris and fear that really clouds what you are seeing at the time. You can see in that first video how those guys in the car basically can't comprehend what is happening right in front of them. The video is so much more clear than what you see in real life.
That simulation though. Wow!
It's not so much that they can't comprehend what they are seeing as it is one of the two is very new to chasing. The driver is a much more experienced chaser which is why he is handing the situation more calmly as he has a better grasp on the path of the tornado and it's position to him.
Other than then parts that show the simulated cloud and rain at the begining, most of what you see in that video is invisible in real life which is the point of the simulation. Thingo like bouyance, vorticity, temperature, and pressure differences are not physical features you can see. What you can see is condensation, precipitation, and debris which can give clues to the placement of some features in the simulator, but not most. It is also important to note that the tornado in the video and simulation is a very, very rare occurrence in nature. The vast majority of tornadoes that occur are significantly weaker. This tornado had wind speeds that are the equivalent of the outer fringes of a nuclear blast. The inflow winds where they were sitting were likely near hurricane force.
The simulation does a good job of showing rain wrapping around and obscuring the tornado but does not feature precipitation seeding from the southern storm's which made this tornado especially hard to see. Many other tornadoes that day were highly visible. There are plenty of times in real life that tornadoes happen with little to no precip or debris obscuring them.
Also be highly suspect of the use of those buzzwords ad many are use about as accurately by the layman as they are in Twister.
What part of Nebraska do you live in? I may have seen some of the same tornadoes as you.
0
Options
ChimeraMonster girl with a snek tail and five eyesBad puns, that's how eye roll. Registered Userregular
Here is a good example of one of those visible tornadoes....
@Chimera That's an amazing post. My brother-in-law was a news videographer in OKC during that time, I'm not sure if he got storm shots, but he did win at least one emmy for his work on stories of the aftermath.
Living in Nebraska, I've seen my share of tornadoes and random weather events that people try to explain as "wind shears" or whatever else is the buzzword of the day. That simulation shows some things I've seen go by my house but without the debris and fear that really clouds what you are seeing at the time. You can see in that first video how those guys in the car basically can't comprehend what is happening right in front of them. The video is so much more clear than what you see in real life.
That simulation though. Wow!
It's not so much that they can't comprehend what they are seeing as it is one of the two is very new to chasing. The driver is a much more experienced chaser which is why he is handing the situation more calmly as he has a better grasp on the path of the tornado and it's position to him.
Other than then parts that show the simulated cloud and rain at the begining, most of what you see in that video is invisible in real life which is the point of the simulation. Thingo like bouyance, vorticity, temperature, and pressure differences are not physical features you can see. What you can see is condensation, precipitation, and debris which can give clues to the placement of some features in the simulator, but not most. It is also important to note that the tornado in the video and simulation is a very, very rare occurrence in nature. The vast majority of tornadoes that occur are significantly weaker. This tornado had wind speeds that are the equivalent of the outer fringes of a nuclear blast. The inflow winds where they were sitting were likely near hurricane force.
The simulation does a good job of showing rain wrapping around and obscuring the tornado but does not feature precipitation seeding from the southern storm's which made this tornado especially hard to see. Many other tornadoes that day were highly visible. There are plenty of times in real life that tornadoes happen with little to no precip or debris obscuring them.
Also be highly suspect of the use of those buzzwords ad many are use about as accurately by the layman as they are in Twister.
What part of Nebraska do you live in? I may have seen some of the same tornadoes as you.
I'm in Sidney these days, went to high school in Scottsbluff area. For us around here, we can usually just hang out in the country and see a new storm every couple weeks in the summer. Though last year was unusually quiet for Sidney, a few miles west in Kimball got pummelled repeatedly last summer. The year before I was in my back yard with my dogs before a storm hit. In fact, the storm decided to hit right at that time, I saw the funnel form not 1/2 mile away from my house and by the time I'd retrieved my dogs to escape inside the tornado had tore the roof off an apartment building that is seriously 2 blocks from my house. While in our designated shelter spot in my house I could hear the neighborhood's lawn furniture slamming into our house. Our lawn furniture ended up across the street wedged under a fence. It all lasted probably 2 minutes but felt like 45.
My younger days are littered with storm stories, including one where I saw twin tornado funnels twisting around each other along the highway. That was the storm that put baseball sized hail stones in the back seat of my car I was driving. A bit scary for a novice 16 year old driver just trying to get back from an away football game.
I understand the appeal of storm chasing, but having lived in the path of many storms, I prefer to stay put and let them come to me. I'm glad there are others willing to do the work of science in this case!
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited February 2015
@Chimera
I don't know if it was the 2011 Moore or the 1999 Moore F5, but I do know one of them was powerful enough that it was peeling the roads off the ground. I want to say it was the 1999 one.
Excellent video! I'm just south of OKC so I miss all the action that city gets, but to say OK has a lot of crazy ass weather is an understatement.
jungleroomx on
0
Options
ChimeraMonster girl with a snek tail and five eyesBad puns, that's how eye roll. Registered Userregular
@Chimera
I don't know if it was the 2011 Moore or the 1999 Moore F5, but I do know one of them was powerful enough that it was peeling the roads off the ground. I want to say it was the 1999 one.
Excellent video! I'm just south of OKC so I miss all the action that city gets, but to say OK has a lot of crazy ass weather is an understatement.
There are several notable cases of this happening to asphalt roads. I don't know of any stories first hand but I would assume it was most likely the 1999 F5 as it was the strongest of all the F5/EF5 tornadoes to hit the OKC metro.
The most notable case of a road being scoured away was the Jerel, TX F5 which was so slow moving that it sand blasted everything it hit out of existance.
Here is that tornado:
First you wI'll see the rains of the road, which looks like a dirt road in the pic. This road did have a blacktop of asphalt on it before the tornado.
Now we will examine the remains of a neighborhood that was hit. You will see there isn't even debris left, the slow moving tornado having completely sand blasted everything to nothing. Even the grass was taken leaving just mud and slabs.
This tornado was one 21 tornadoes from this single storm which also produce a violent F4 later in its life.
27 people died I Jerral and in some cases entire families were lost. The sad thing about the tornado is that it was moving so slow you could have out run it on foot. Ninety-nine percent of the time you should never try to out run a tornado as you usually can't, but this was one of the rare 1% of times that even someone who doesn't understand how to escape one by evacation could have.
Meteorologically this still is one of, I'd not the weirdest tornado of all time. This day stors were moving the opposite direction ones normally do for this region of the world. There was also very little wind shear. What allowed for such a violent tornado family on this day was the extreme instability paired with a single supercell riding along a stalled outflow boundary. The instability allowed the storm to form and the outflow boundary allowed the storm to rotate in lieu of strong windshear. The lack of windshear also allowed the storm to stay coupled to the boundary and move in an unusual direction instead of steering it to the east or north east. The amount of instability was so extreme that updraft speeds easily became sufficient enough to support an F5 tornado.
Posts
Relativistic velocities don't add in the way we usually think. In this case, each ship would observe the other traveling at 1.2c/1.36, or .88c.
Pretty much. Relativity, FTL, or causality, pick 2.
I just wanted to point out that "never read the comments" apparently applies to discussions of modern physics.
Whole lotta "I know nothing about science, but here is why you're completely wrong" going on in there.
Tachyons, if they existed, would invalidate special relativity because they imply the existence of reference frames that cannot be related to ours by Lorentz transformations. In that case we could draw no conclusions at all from special relativity about the broader significance of these particles. Perhaps GR offers solutions, but unless we have some cosmologists here none of us are equipped to discuss that.
If being an expert in a field was a prerequisite for discussing something science related, this thread would cease to exist faster than Schroedinger's cat after a collapsed wave function.
That depends, are we talking about cloud chambers? I hear those are very scientific.
:?:
But the cat is alive, I just checked.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
This shit is melting my brain and yet I find it fucking fascinating. I wish I had gotten into physics when I was very young.
It's not too late, yo.
A Brief History of Time is required reading, and Knocking On Heaven's Door will give you a good basic grasp of what particle physics looks like these days. You can walk into either of those cold.
You can get to Special Relativity if you start with Newtonian physics and add 2 extra statements:
1) The laws of physics are the same in every non accelerating reference frame
2) c is the highest possible speed in any such reference frame.
Now obviously this hangs on the concept of 'reference frame' which is basically the simplest answer to the question 'moving relative to what '
when you say It's going 100km/h
On earth you are tempted to take the earth as a reference frame, but the earth is in the solar system in the galaxy in the local group drifting from the Big Bang. A lot of movement, and Einsteins answer is basically "it doesn't matter, choose one, the math works anyway"
Before this, physicists were struggling with the aether, a background "one true" reference frame.
Now he immediately showed some of the strange consequences and those turned out to actually be there.
General Relativity is at it's core nothing more than that mass bends space so that straight paths become orbits. The math is trickier though.
Quantum Mechanics in contrast forces you to throw out a lot of common sense and start over in a world full of abstract concepts, where particles behave statistically instead of determinallistic, where there is an inherent limit on knowledge, where "wavefunctions" can collapse and seemingly cause instant events over distance, where particles can be superimposed, where something is a particle or a wave depending how you look at it......
It sometimes feels like it's not something you really understand but more come to terms with.
It's perhaps why the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, which can be summarised as "If the model works, it doesnt matter what the philosophical consequences are" is attractive to many physicists.
QM and particle physics and all the fiddely wee scale physics? Like, it's not really consistent you need a few new maths, and abstraction of maths (like Feynman diagrams and the like), and its not just tacking new terms onto old formulas.
You get like: oh, well we have to conservation energy, and cromographic binding energies don't decrease with distance, so when these two quarks split, they will [convert the energy into mass/pull new quarks out of the nothing and bind to them] . LOL Jets, strong force
It is an amazing thing.
But, but, flux lines....
Do you have a link? Or wiki compatible term for this? How hard is it to mesh with rotating bodies? Does it yield electromagnetic results for things like motor/generators/transformers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_electromagnetism
It's hard to extend to everything, but you can show that if you held two point charges in free space, and moved past them at some rate, then the apparent force between them would be increased in your frame of reference (due to Lorentz contraction making their distance smaller). Since this would mean they'd then start accelerating at different rates in different frames of reference, magnetism basically pops into existence and just so happens to perfectly equalize the force-disparity between the two frames so that the objects behave correctly between all of them.
So you see electric force + magnetic force, whereas in the frame of the stationary charges they only see an electric force.
Hence why electromagnets require moving charges to produce a magnetic field.
Sometimes I think scientists need to work on their naming. This sounds like they're genetically engineering secretive primates who are resistant to being beaten with garden hoses.
They've already done a good material science youtube series about those Cloud physics.
Time-Energy Uncertainty sure is fun stuff.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Well, only if the experiment moves the scientist into a higher energy state.
boo
Then they are confirmed as not.
This is the kind of chaos encountered with limited reaction button choices.
#teambro?
It was a great terrible joke.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Doesn't matter what's in the box. The internal state of the box is unknown until the outside observer looks at it. Or put it this way, the cat was already an "observer" inside the box.
The correct answer is "Copenhagen".
Which I think is Danish for "shut up."
(Note: You will here the letters RFD used a lot. He is referring to the Rear Flank Downdraft when he does so.)
It should be noted that this is a "highly idealized" simulation which was initialized with the May 24, 2011 background environment that was sampled from a RUC sounding near the real storm. When you do simulations like this you never know what result you will get - the majority of the time you don't get a tornado, or get a weak one (just like the real atmosphere). Even when you build an environment supportive of a violent you rarely can get a simulation to come together like this, so this is why this particular storm was picked since there was such a heavy data set available of the environment the storm was in, and the storm itself. When put into the simulation the computers did a marvelous job recreating this horrific storm. To see the actual tornado, look at the video below.
This tornado was largely rain wrapped a large portion of its life due to the proximity of it to the storms to the south. It skirted the northwest edge of the OKC metro and actually killed a few ammature storm spotters who were unable to identify what they were looking at as the tornado came at them. In fact, a large portion of its life it was larger than in the video above and actually got up to a half of a mile wide. This combined with the heavy rain and the low storm bases allowed the tornado to appear as just a dark wall of cloud and rain and not a traditional tornado. These extreme wedge tornadoes are very hard to identify by the untrained and inexperienced eye and so the spotters should have exercised their escape route well before the storm arrived had they taken into account their lack of experience and the radio reports coming in on the Skywarn frequency.
Below you can see a map of the tornadoes from that day, the simulated tornado would be labeled as B2 on this map of the actual tornadoes from that event. Tornado B3, which is labeled very close to the path of B2 is hard to make out, it's path was just a few yards long and ingested by B2. In the third image you can see the tornado was easily able to clean the foundations buildings of anything present on them. This was a small family home that even saw the tile, carpet, and hardwood stripped away. All that was left was some parts of the plumbing and the now clean fondation.
Several other violent tornadoes, including an "EF-4+" tornado, occurred on this day. While the Piedmont EF-5 was a tragedy, the storm that spawned it did prevent a larger disaster from happening. It's collapse at the end of the of the EF-5's life caused an outflow boundary to rapidly propagate to the south, undercutting and killing the two mesocyclones in the pair of supercells to its south. Both had violent tornadoes (including the borderline EF-4/5 Chickasha Tornado) that were in the process of moving into much more densely populated parts of the OKC metro. These tornadoes are labeled as C2 and D2 on the map. Had C2 not began to weaken and die as it moved into the metro, it could have easily dealt EF-5 damage to a large swath of the metro and would have come close to downtown OKC.
Another tornado of interest that day was the first violent tornado. This is known as the Canton Lake Tornado and is seen as A1 on the map. This tornado was actually the very first one to touch down and spent a large portion of its life over Canton Lake. The tornado was simply massive and likely was much stronger than the damage rating it was given. It was rated as an EF-3 but this is largely due to the fact it occurred over a largely rural area when on land. The tornado was so strong that it was able to displace a large amount of water when moving over the lake and as it exited back onto the land the tornado left in its wake a damaging tsunami. This is the first time this has ever been recorded as happening with a tornado. Little video exists of this but you can see the waves at the end of the video below. While unimpressive looking in the footage, the part of the lake seen is very deep as it is at the edge of the dam. This is also a ways from the tornado which was two miles upstream from them when it left the body of water. The waves did very notable damage to docks, boats, and lakeside properties on some portions of the lake's shore. I have also included a map below of the tornado's path.
DON'T FORGET, STARTING TONIGHT RICH THOMPSON OF THE SPC WILL BE DOING A CLASS ON THE SCIENCE BEHIND TORNADO FORECASTING. INFO ON THIS AND HOW TO ATTEND ONLINE FOR FREE IS POSTED IN THE SPOILER BELOW!
This will be a very in depth crash course and in the end will afford even a novice weather enthusiasts a sound understanding of how to forecast for tornadoes and offer materials and knowledge that one would normally have to pay a decent amount to receive in a collage course. This isn't just some spotter training or a tv weatherman workshop but a very rare opportunity to get a real leas on from one of the most vetted and best in the business of severe weather forecasting! Who better to learn from than NOAA's/The National Weather Service/SPC's number one forecaster of severe weather?
Rich is hosting a weekly forecasting class and workshop starting this coming tuesday night. Even if you are a beginner I highly recommend sitting in on the live webcasts if you are even the least bit curious. If you are in the Norman, OK or OKC area you can go to the National Water Center on the OU Campus and attend the sessions live!
Below you will find more info on each session as well as the time and date for each weekly class. If you plan on watching or attending please let me know by messaging me or replying to this post in this thread.
Okay, let's set a thing straight here. The Schroedinger's Box thought experiment was not designed to be taken seriously, it was his way of saying "this doesn't make any sense, therefore quantum mechanics is bullshit".
Since then, we have only disproven the second half of that statement.
Living in Nebraska, I've seen my share of tornadoes and random weather events that people try to explain as "wind shears" or whatever else is the buzzword of the day. That simulation shows some things I've seen go by my house but without the debris and fear that really clouds what you are seeing at the time. You can see in that first video how those guys in the car basically can't comprehend what is happening right in front of them. The video is so much more clear than what you see in real life.
That simulation though. Wow!
It's not so much that they can't comprehend what they are seeing as it is one of the two is very new to chasing. The driver is a much more experienced chaser which is why he is handing the situation more calmly as he has a better grasp on the path of the tornado and it's position to him.
Other than then parts that show the simulated cloud and rain at the begining, most of what you see in that video is invisible in real life which is the point of the simulation. Thingo like bouyance, vorticity, temperature, and pressure differences are not physical features you can see. What you can see is condensation, precipitation, and debris which can give clues to the placement of some features in the simulator, but not most. It is also important to note that the tornado in the video and simulation is a very, very rare occurrence in nature. The vast majority of tornadoes that occur are significantly weaker. This tornado had wind speeds that are the equivalent of the outer fringes of a nuclear blast. The inflow winds where they were sitting were likely near hurricane force.
The simulation does a good job of showing rain wrapping around and obscuring the tornado but does not feature precipitation seeding from the southern storm's which made this tornado especially hard to see. Many other tornadoes that day were highly visible. There are plenty of times in real life that tornadoes happen with little to no precip or debris obscuring them.
Also be highly suspect of the use of those buzzwords ad many are use about as accurately by the layman as they are in Twister.
What part of Nebraska do you live in? I may have seen some of the same tornadoes as you.
And here is one from another day.....
I'm in Sidney these days, went to high school in Scottsbluff area. For us around here, we can usually just hang out in the country and see a new storm every couple weeks in the summer. Though last year was unusually quiet for Sidney, a few miles west in Kimball got pummelled repeatedly last summer. The year before I was in my back yard with my dogs before a storm hit. In fact, the storm decided to hit right at that time, I saw the funnel form not 1/2 mile away from my house and by the time I'd retrieved my dogs to escape inside the tornado had tore the roof off an apartment building that is seriously 2 blocks from my house. While in our designated shelter spot in my house I could hear the neighborhood's lawn furniture slamming into our house. Our lawn furniture ended up across the street wedged under a fence. It all lasted probably 2 minutes but felt like 45.
My younger days are littered with storm stories, including one where I saw twin tornado funnels twisting around each other along the highway. That was the storm that put baseball sized hail stones in the back seat of my car I was driving. A bit scary for a novice 16 year old driver just trying to get back from an away football game.
I understand the appeal of storm chasing, but having lived in the path of many storms, I prefer to stay put and let them come to me. I'm glad there are others willing to do the work of science in this case!
I don't know if it was the 2011 Moore or the 1999 Moore F5, but I do know one of them was powerful enough that it was peeling the roads off the ground. I want to say it was the 1999 one.
Excellent video! I'm just south of OKC so I miss all the action that city gets, but to say OK has a lot of crazy ass weather is an understatement.
What you saw was likely the individual suction vortocies of a single tornado! Multi vortex tornadoes are certainly a sight to behold.
I assume what you saw was something like one of these:
There are several notable cases of this happening to asphalt roads. I don't know of any stories first hand but I would assume it was most likely the 1999 F5 as it was the strongest of all the F5/EF5 tornadoes to hit the OKC metro.
The most notable case of a road being scoured away was the Jerel, TX F5 which was so slow moving that it sand blasted everything it hit out of existance.
Here is that tornado:
First you wI'll see the rains of the road, which looks like a dirt road in the pic. This road did have a blacktop of asphalt on it before the tornado.
Now we will examine the remains of a neighborhood that was hit. You will see there isn't even debris left, the slow moving tornado having completely sand blasted everything to nothing. Even the grass was taken leaving just mud and slabs.
And now you can see the tornado:
This tornado was one 21 tornadoes from this single storm which also produce a violent F4 later in its life.
27 people died I Jerral and in some cases entire families were lost. The sad thing about the tornado is that it was moving so slow you could have out run it on foot. Ninety-nine percent of the time you should never try to out run a tornado as you usually can't, but this was one of the rare 1% of times that even someone who doesn't understand how to escape one by evacation could have.
Meteorologically this still is one of, I'd not the weirdest tornado of all time. This day stors were moving the opposite direction ones normally do for this region of the world. There was also very little wind shear. What allowed for such a violent tornado family on this day was the extreme instability paired with a single supercell riding along a stalled outflow boundary. The instability allowed the storm to form and the outflow boundary allowed the storm to rotate in lieu of strong windshear. The lack of windshear also allowed the storm to stay coupled to the boundary and move in an unusual direction instead of steering it to the east or north east. The amount of instability was so extreme that updraft speeds easily became sufficient enough to support an F5 tornado.