A big part is exercise. How often do you try to calculate sums larger than 10 by head? Now, how often have you done that as a kid?
As a kid, I didnโt need practice. I was just really fast.
And how do you know that? Because you did it often. Thereโs no way in hell a teacher will accept โno Iโm just so smart that I donโt need practiceโ as excuse for why you didnโt do your homework. Also, I feel like you did not do complex calculations often before your 16th year.
Yeah thatโs called depression my dude. Either that, or a heavy lack of sleep. (Which can come from depression.)
Yeah donโt take the word of a smartass remark based purely on 1 line of text explaining that youโre having cognitive dissonance as the word of a psychologist. But what I do know, is that it ainโt healthy.
Sorry if I sounded offensive.
You realize I was talking about myself right?
Wait a minute, what?
I just misunderstood you, sorry.
anyone ever think about complex numbers in the context of special relativity? iโve heard imaginary numbers and tachyons are a sign of an unstable theory, but if they actually existed, yk. there are very few resources on special relativity and complex numbers, so if anyone is a physics major or can point me in the direction of a cool video essay on how particles with a mass of i would work or something, thatโd be great.
Others may post stuff about what they hear on the internet here, but Iโll just use it to relay my thought processes:
So, lets start with time dilation, the basic idea is that as you speed up, your time slows down, right? Some physicists say this would allow time travel if you went beyond the speed of light, but, in reality, it will just make the time of the traveler go backwards, this does not mean they will go all the way back to being a child, but, instead simply act in a way so that if nothing effects it from the outside (assuming it stops going faster than light) than all particles will eventually reach the same points and be traveling at the same speed as before the FTL jump. If you have any arguments against this let me know.
Next, particle physics. So, quarks, are weird. They have the habit of popping in and out of existence, in fact, in a proton or neutron, the number of quarks only averages at 3, meaning there can be 2, 4, 5, 6, etc, but, and your probably thinking this, wouldnโt that chance what type of particle that proton is? Yes actually, and it would account for atomic decay, why it only happens in larger atoms, and why it only deems to decay in 1 direction. The basic mechanism of this is that a neutron in an atom will switch to a proton, which will eject another proton out of the atom, causing atomic decay. Another thing quarks random appearance and disappearance could explain is why stuff keeps randomly appearing in most true vacuums, since the idea is, when 2 quarks get to close, they spawn 1 or 2 more, making protons or neutrons, which then catch electrons which also apparently spawn in the void and pop in and out of existence and act differently when observed. But yea, please let me know your thoughts on my idea in a reply to this post.
Some time ago I was talking to a friend and I asked him about something I saw in a meme and we kind of ended up destroying the wormhole theory with thermodynamics. Yes.
So, another idea I had a few days ago, but, what if black holes have a limit to how much they can hold, and by that, I mean, what if when a black hole gains enough mass it just, well, explodes, essentially recreating the big bang, Itโs a dense wave of particles going at or near the speed of light destroying everything in itโs path, meaning that no information can be sent out, because the wall is moving at the speed of light, and no information can get in, because it would be scrambled as it tried to enter the wall, according to this idea the universe has always existed, just as reoccurring events, where eventually a black hole reaches itโs upper limit, and the reset button is pressed. Leave your thoughts on this bellow.
Any math backing that up? Or hinting at it?
Just thoughts, Iโm not that good at making up equations, just spouting ideas based off of what I know, but donโt discredit me because of it, I mean, Steven Hawking didnโt use any equations in his original theories, Iโm just applying what I know or hear or see to what could be.
Steven Hawking did use equations, that was pretty much his jobโฆ
The only reason that they arenโt shown to the great public is because itโs extremely complex algebra.
I was talking about in his original theories, from when he could walk and somewhat talk, not the later ones, the exact equations were added afterward.
Two issues: From what I know larger black holes are more stable. Black holes do explode under Hawkingโs math, but when theyโre small, not large. Idk maybe youโre theorizing about an unrelated cause of explosion but Iโve never heard of that cause so Iโd assume youโd need some more evidence or something
Second: the big bang wasnโt a gravitational singularity exploding per se, in fact we really donโt know, as our reverse-predictions donโt end with an explotion or clear event, the big bang is just the point we canโt see before, all the CMBH is from the big bang and not before. Under things like string theory and, I dunno are there even any other grand unified theories (jkjk I know there are Iโm just too lazy to remember any)? Well, those have mathematically predictable things but I donโt think those are gravitational singularities.
So anyways idk maybe. Iโm not smart enough to tell.
Any fans of sci-fi classics here
Does Speaker for the dead count? I donโt like Heinlein but starship troopers is good.