Home
Poems and other stuff
Monitor
Links
Contact
|
|
Home Poems and other stuff Monitor Links Contact |
The Train |
Posted on : 23:47, 14/05/01
Posted by : the riddler
puzzle
can anyone answer this one corretly,
a train is travelling at 80 miles per hour on a staight track, the guard at the back of the train has a gun and shoots at the train driver at the front who is leaning out of his window.
but the bullet from the gun also travels at 80 mile per hour.
will the bullet ever reach the driver, and you must give the reason for your answer.
Posted on : 23:51, 14/05/01
Posted by : Drog
Re: puzzle
Hi,
First thing first........Is the guard a good shot?
If not, then it will never reach the driver!
Drog
Posted on : 23:59, 14/05/01
Posted by : Drog
Re: puzzle
Velocity -
If the train travels at 80mph and a passenger walks up the aisle at 5mph. He/She are actually travelling at 85mph.
Therefore, the bullets velocity is 160mph.
ps.
Why did he want to shoot the Driver?
lol
Drog - Nite!
Posted on : 18:12, 15/05/01
Posted by : the riddler
Re: puzzle
sorry, thats wrong.
Posted on : 23:26, 15/05/01
Posted by : Diarmuid
Re: Come on people...
NO.
From your supposition that the bullet travels at same
speed as train, the bullet will never theoretically get any
further forward than the barrel of the gun it was shot
from! It would leave the gun and be left in the spot in
space at which it was fired. Let�s hope the guard moves
out of the way?!!!
Besides if it were to travel the length of the train ?!!! well,
lets imagine anyway, with the speed of the train and the
turbulence, the course of the bullet through the air will
be slowed, but that is pure speculation, because as I
say, it will never get anywhere further than the spot it
was shot from....
Correct I hope!
Next question please!! lol
Cheers
Diarmuid :)
Posted on : 00:32, 16/05/01
Posted by : Dorney
Re: Come on people...
I think it does shoot him. It can�t be as Dia postulates. If I was on a train, and I walked down the train at one mph and the train was travelling at 80mph, if we agree with the previous supposition, I would fly out of the back of the train. (i.e: If a bullett travelling forwards at 80mph on an 80mph train stays where it is, anything travelling at a lesser speed than 80mph on the same train would be travelling backwards) If I am walking at 1mph, my total speed would be 81mph (or something close, I can�t be bothered with the maths) in respect to the outside, but 1mph in repsect to myself. Therefore a bullett travelling relative to iself at 80mph, is travelling at 160 odd in relation to the outside. And seeing as the interior of the train is not moving outside, it hits its target.
Posted on : 09:26, 16/05/01
Posted by : Diarmuid
Not sure I agree Dorney!
Hi Dorney
I can�t figure how to say what I mean without suitable
physics knowledge. I�m trying again...and it counters
Dorneys answer I�m afraid :
As far as I am aware, an object moving through space
moves relative to the space it is in - so yes inside a
train a bullet would, if unimpeded, reach the driver
(ignoring drag etc). This is because the bullet is
travelling inside the air space of the object that is itself
moving. If the driver was stood still at the front of a
stationery train and the guard shot him from the rear,
the driver would be shot. Now put the two men into a
moving train and do the same thing and the same rule
applies. The driver would be shot - if the bullet was shot
down the inside of the train.
But fire the bullet �outside� the train, as riddler�s riddle
says, and you can compare it with two 80mph cars
racing each other. Neither will overtake the other.
So to correct my first posted answer, if a bullet travelled
at 80mph and the train did also with the gun on that
train travelling at 80mph also, then the bullet could
never leave the gun - theoretically, as its speed was
equal to the gun�s own speed travelling on the 80mph
train. Using my analogy, the bullet is one car, the gun &
the train (linked together) are another. One will not pass
the other. So the bullet could never reach the driver.
The fact of the matter in the real world is that bullets
travel somewhat faster than 80mph, so the driver could
have been shot ignoring all we said if the train was not
too long. But that is another question, not a riddle, but a
bloody advanced maths question and I�m not interested
in that one!
I�m sure I am right, but ready for egg on my face...
Cheers
Diarmuid :)
Posted on : 09:37, 16/05/01
Posted by : Diarmuid
But then I could be wrong!
put me out of my misery riddler - without a bullet!
Cheers
Diarmuid :)
Posted on : 10:14, 16/05/01
Posted by : Diarmuid
aaarrrreeeeeuuuwwww!
Keeping running this one through my head,
and I see Dorney�s explanation and cant argue with it,
but then ....
A wheel falling off a car at 80mph leaves at the speed of
80 mph forward velocity, yet does not speed ahead of
the car if the car could keep moving forward at 80.
A hand waved forward at 1mph out of an 80mph car
moves forward in distance at the total equivalent of
81mph, but the hand is still attached to the car, so it�s
progress is aided by the car, unlike the wheel which
has left the car...
But then a bullet in a gun - not yet fired - on a train
travelling at 80mph ? Well, the bullet is travelling with
the gun and both are travelling with the train. Each are
travelling at 80mph, linked together.
I start to have trouble at the point the bullet leaves the
gun!, because to say it catches the driver up supposes
that the bullet will have to move at 160mph? However,
the bullet�s forward velocity is in addition to the
gun+train�s forward velocity, so maybe it does hit the
driver?
Oh I wish I�d done physics at school now!
Put me out of my misery!
cheers
Diarmuid :)
Posted on : 10:09, 16/05/01
Posted by : Drog
The riddler answer.........!
Hi,
DiarMuid and Dorney....I was reading your posts and enjoyed your discussions and arguments (in the right sense of the word) on the 80mph bullet theory.
Made me laugh!
I also attempted to answer the question but was replied to with a simple "No, your wrong" - frustrating...so, I reposted the riddlers original question, in the hope of uncovering the answer, but alas, the riddler seems to have vanished.
After reading both your postings, I came to the answer.
Forget about Physics and velocities etc. Its quite simple...
The guard, who shot at the train driver from the back of the train (still dont know why he tried to shoot him?) was indeed not on the train at the time of the attempted assasination...Its a play on words!. He was at the back of the train, not on the train!......Hence..The bullet never reaches the driver.. (lucky driver)!.......
Now come on Riddler..Post!
Drog....
Posted on : 10:18, 16/05/01
Posted by : Diarmuid
Oh no Drog, dont make it worse!
Oh crickey Drog,
now you�ve introduced another element!
I cant take this any more!
I am going to have to do some work to get over it.
Catch up later.
Cheers
Diarmuid :)
Posted on : 14:50, 16/05/01
Posted by : Drog
Re: Oh no Drog, dont make it worse!
Lol..DiarMuid...!
I hope the elusive Riddler gets back on this one...!
I think Im starting to lose my marbles! lol (reference to the above posting to Rose!)
Now...Im going to delve into the meaning of the name Diarmuid...!
Will get back to you....lol
Cheers......for now......Drog.......
Posted on : 18:13, 16/05/01
Posted by : Dorney
Re: The riddler answer.........!
Can�t see that it�s a play on words. The guard at the back of the train shoots at the driver. No, sounds like he�s on the train to me. If he isn�t on the train, as Diarmuid postulates, he�s right, the bullett doesn�t reach him. But if it is a play on words, it�s not a very good one.
But, I�ve just noticed this. The driver gets shot regardless of whether the - actually this is so correct, I will post it at the top.
Posted on : 18:15, 16/05/01
Posted by : Dorney
The 80mph answer. For real. Fact. Trust me.
Down below we argue about whether the guard is on the train or not. I�ve just realised that this doesn�t matter. The driver will get shot regardless. The track is perfectly straight. As a result the bullett will follow constantly. If we assume that the train stops - and it has to for fuel at the very least - the bullett will catch the driver up and kill him.
Still don�t think it�s a play on words though.
Posted on : 18:37, 16/05/01
Posted by : Drog
Re: The 80mph answer. For real. Fact. Trust me.
Right Dorney...(No, not the answer!)..
I would agree, now, that the guard was on the train at the time of the assault.....so....
Heres my answer...�theriddler� said that the driver never got shot, and at first I said he must have, so in fact he lived through the fracas!.....
I think that the straight track must come into play at this point.
The track could therefore be straight but on a parabolic plain!!
If the guard shot at the driver who was leaning out of the window, then the bullet would miss him if the track curved at the right degree!!
Any thoughts. Sounds plausible to me..
Where is the riddler anyway!
Cheers
Drog
Posted on : 19:11, 16/05/01
Posted by : rose
Re: The 80mph answer. For real. Fact. Trust me.
train on straight track
80mph
guard in rear of train shoots gun at driver
driver leaning out window...guard must lean out to the side of the train same as the engineer...and fires gun. bullet goes 80mph plus the origional speed of the train which was 80. so the bullet is traveling 160mph and the engineer is shot.
my question is the "driver" the same as the engineer or not. just sounded funny since i have never heard the person who controls the train called anything but engineer.
if so...he is shot and at 160mph bullet. that is according to law of physics
Posted on : 19:42, 16/05/01
Posted by : the riddler
80mph
hi everybody, sorry im late but im on that off peak evenings and weekends thingy.
the answer is simple (has none of you read einstien�s theory)
the train can be thought of as being stationary and the rest of the world as moving bakwards at 80mph (einstien�s theory of relativity), so the guard shoots his gun at the back, it travels at 80mph relative to the train, and because he is a good shot the driver gets it in the head.
ps if you liked this one ill try to think of another for you.byee.
the riddler
-0^0-
Posted on : 19:47, 16/05/01
Posted by : diarmuid
Re: 80mph
DOH!
I hear Einstein was a swell chappy, but I dont know about his laws of any kind. Sorry. So I take your response and hang my head in a cloud of very fuzzy logic.
Go on riddler, embarress me again with another one!!
What say you Dorney , Drog and everyone?!!
Cheers
Diarmuid :)
Posted on : 19:53, 16/05/01
Posted by : the riddler
Re: 80mph
glad to have baffled you Diamuid lol
Posted on : 21:06, 16/05/01
Posted by : Dorney
Re: 80mph
So got it right, sort of.
Posted on : 00:02, 17/05/01
Posted by : geaze
Riddler
i�m not sure about your answer from your "train" one fits... so i just say that Einstien�s theory only applies 2 matter approacng the speed of light & light itself so that maybe if a laser beem was fired (on the train at 80 mph)it wouldn�t actually be able to hit the driver if firing at the speed of light- which i think they do??.....
...because nothing can go faster than the speed of light so the laser wouldn�t work properly...at all..;D
are there any Trekkies out there who�d like to comment?
Posted on : 00:10, 17/05/01
Posted by : the riddler
Re: Riddler
Einstiens theory applies at any speed, but its just not noticeable at small speeds.
Posted on : 00:18, 17/05/01
Posted by : the riddler
Re: Riddler
if the train was travelling at close to the speed of light relative to the track and the guard shot a laser at the driver which traveled at close to the speed of light the laser would still hit the driver.
Posted on : 00:23, 17/05/01
Posted by : geaze
Re: Riddler
i�d check that one m8- i think he�d exspire of old age before that �d happen!!?
Posted on : 07:48, 17/05/01
Posted by : trekie
Re: Riddler
I think the riddler may be right about the laser. I seem to remember reading something about light being a constant, so that even if you were able to go at the speed of light and shone a torch, say in the forward direction, then that torch light beam would travel away from you at the speed of light.
I mean, if astonomers look far enough they can see galaxies moving away from us at about 3/4 of the speed of light. but the light from these galaxies still reach the telescope at the speed of light, but the light is shifted to the red end of the spectrum.
hope this helps.
trekie
Posted on : 10:40, 17/05/01
Posted by : judger
Re: Riddler
You�re both right, and both wrong. I�m a little uncertain too, but we�ll leave Heisenburg out of it and concentrate on Einstein for the moment.
Light is a constant speed, but that�s relative to anyone and everyone. If you�re travelling in your space-car close to the speed of light, and switch your headlights on, the light would seem to go ahead of you at the speed of light. However, to a bystander it would appear to go at the speed of light relative to them.
To the observer, the light would very slowly inch ahead of you. You, however, are experiencing time dilation effects from the speed, so in your slower state the light appears to go ahead much faster.
So, the gaurd zaps the train driver with his laser, but by the time the train stops all his family have died off too.
Judger.
P.S. I�ve absolutely no idea what you can see in the rear view mirror. The view�s probably blocked by some Trekkie who can�t sit still in the back anyway.
Posted on : 10:32, 17/05/01
Posted by : Thee Orist
Re: Riddler
... and if it was a Virgin Trains service it still wouldn�t
arrive on time :) (Alledgedly)
OK here�s one while we�re on the subject of light speed
trains.
Imagine a train with a single lightbulb halfway down a
carriage. The train is travelling at light speed, and there
is a person at each end of the carriage, facing each other.
The light turns on, and both people notice the light go on
at the same time.
BUT! to an observer on a platform (standing well behind the
yellow line, I hope!) The light hits the person standing at
the back of the train first!
Yeah, thats not a riddle, but it IS science, freaky huh?
oooooEEEEEooo!
Posted on : 10:54, 17/05/01
Posted by : Drog
Train - 80mph......geaze, trekkie etc...
Everyone....
Its been proven that the speed of light can actually be broken and Einsteins theory is being eroded ie. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Enter Hawkins and Professor Wang.
I will come on later with some startling facts..
Till then,
Live long and prosper......
ps..Rose...I got thrown out of the Interview (not physically!)
Posted on : 18:20, 17/05/01
Posted by : the riddler
Re: Train - 80mph......geaze, trekkie etc...
What about tachyon particles then ?
regards
the riddler
Posted on : 18:38, 17/05/01
Posted by : the riddler
Re: Train - 80mph......geaze, trekkie etc...
Tachyon particles were found to travel faster than light.
Posted on : 19:03, 17/05/01
Posted by : Drog
Re: Train - 80mph......geaze, trekkie etc...
Hi,
Yes, particles can travel faster than light (even Tachyons -lol).
Dr Wang, an American physicist recently took the scientific world by storm with his particle accelerator experiment.
He fired, not at that train driver I may add, a particle through his device, which came out the other side before it entered!..........Twilight Zone?.......
The recordings which were made, has thrown the Scientific world into confussion.
Representatives from around the globe are congregating to assess the experiments.
This was reported in an Article from the �The Times�, a scientific journal (forget the name of it!) and EPE (Everyday Practicle Electronics).
If it is of Interest to you, riddler, Diarmuid or indeed anyone else for that matter!,I�ll suss out the article and post the whereabouts on the board!
I found it intiguing....A bit heavy, but intriguing!
Cheers,
Drog
Posted on : 19:20, 17/05/01
Posted by : the riddler
Re: Drog
sounds very interesting Drog.
please post the info if you will.
regards
the riddler
Posted on : 22:32, 17/05/01
Posted by : Drog and Prof. Wang!
To theriddler...Interesting stuff!
Let me know what you think.....!
Upheavals in Physics:
The Speed of Light Exceeded:
Some scientists now claim they have broken the ultimate speed barrier: the speed of light. Particle physicists at the NEC Research Institute at Princeton apparently have indicated that light pulses can be accelerated to up to 300 times their normal velocity of 186,282 miles per second.
In work carried out by Dr. Lijun Wang, a pulse of light was transmitted towards a chamber filled with specially treated cesium gas. Before the pulse had fully entered the chamber, it had gone right through it and traveled an additional 60 feet across the laboratory. In effect it appeared to exist in two places at once, a phenomenon that Dr. Wang explains by saying it traveled 300 times faster than the normal velocity of light.
(Exact details of the findings remain confidential because they have been submitted to the international scientific journal, Nature, for review prior to possible publication.)
The implications would appear to be staggering. It could shatter Einstein�s Theory of Relativity, since it depends in part on the speed of light being a constant and unbreachable. Needless to say, this research is destined to cause continuing controversy among physicists. (Barry Setterfield�s controversial suggestions that the speed of light is not a constant have been highlighted in our journal for many years.)
One interpretation of the Princeton experiment suggests that light arrived at its destination almost before it has started its journey: In effect, it appeared to be leaping forward in time. One of the possibilities is that if light could travel forward in time, it could carry information. This would breach one of the basic principles in physics-causality, which says that a cause must come before an effect.
In Italy, another group of physicists has also succeeded in breaking the light speed barrier. In a recently published paper, physicists at the Italian National Research Council described how they propagated microwaves at 25% above normal light speed. The group also speculates that it could prove possible to transmit information faster than light.
Dr. Guenter Nimtz, of Cologne University, recently gave a paper to a conference in Edinburgh describing how information can be sent faster than light. He believes, however, that this will not breach the principle of causality because the time taken to interpret the signal would fritter away all the savings. "The most likely application for this is not in time travel but in speeding up the way signals move through computer circuits," he said.
Dr. Raymond Chiao, professor of physics at the University of California at Berkeley, who is familiar with Wang�s work, said he was impressed by the findings. Separate experiments carried out by Chiao indicate simultaneous multiple localities. He has shown that in certain circumstances photons-the particles which constitute light-could apparently jump between two points separated by a barrier in what appears to be zero time. The process, known as "tunneling," has been used to make some of the most sensitive electron microscopes.
The implications of Wang�s experiments will, of course, arouse fierce debate. Many will question whether his work can be interpreted as proving that light can exceed its normal speed-suggesting that another mechanism may be at work.
Wang emphasizes that his experiments are relevant only to light and may not apply to other physical entities. But some scientists are beginning to accept that man may eventually exploit some of these characteristics for interstellar space travel.
The Nature of Reality
Wang�s experiment is the latest and among the potentially most important evidences that the physical world may not operate according to the presently accepted conventions. In the new world that modern science is beginning to perceive, subatomic particles can apparently exist in two places at the same time-making no distinction between space and time.
The problem, according to Einstein�s Special Theory of Relativity, is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Any instantaneous communication implied by the view of quantum physics would be tantamount to breaking the time barrier and would open the door to all kinds of unacceptable paradoxes.
Einstein and his colleagues were convinced that no "reasonable definition" of reality would permit such faster-than-light interconnections to exist. (Their argument is now known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, or EPR paradox for short.)
Rather than believing that some kind of faster-than-light communication was taking place, Niels Bohr offered another explanation: If subatomic particles do not exist until they are observed, then one could no longer think of them as independent "things."
Thus, Einstein was basing his argument on an error when he viewed twin particles as separate. They were part of an indivisible system, and it was meaningless to think of them otherwise. In time, most physicists sided with Bohr and became content that his interpretation was correct.
The Cosmos as a Hyper- Hologram?
There seems to be evidence accumulating to suggest that our world and everything in it are only ghostly images, projections from a higher level of reality so beyond our own that the real reality is literally beyond both space and time. The main architect of this astonishing idea includes one of the world�s most eminent thinkers: University of London physicist David Bohm, a prot�g� of Einstein�s and one of the world�s most respected quantum physicists.
Bohm�s work in plasma physics in the 1950s was considered a landmark. Earlier at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, he noticed that in plasmas (gases composed of high density electrons and positive ions) the particles stopped behaving like individuals and started behaving as if they were part of a larger and interconnected whole. Moving to Princeton University in 1947, there too he continued his work in the behavior of oceans of particles, noting their highly organized overall effects and their behaving as if they knew what each of the untold trillions of individual particles were doing.
Bohm�s sense of the importance of interconnectedness, as well as years of dissatisfaction with the inability of standard theories to explain all of the phenomena encountered in quantum physics, left him searching. While at Princeton, Bohm and Einstein developed a supportive relationship and shared their mutual restlessness regarding the strange implications of current quantum theory.
One of the implications of Bohm�s view has to do with the nature of location. Bohm�s interpretation of quantum physics indicated that at the sub-quantum level location ceased to exist. All points in space become equal to all other points in space, and it was meaningless to speak of anything as being separate from anything else. Physicists call this property "non-locality."
The Bell Inequality
Bohm�s ideas left most physicists unpersuaded, but they did stir the interest of a few. One of these was John Stewart Bell, a theoretical physicist at CERN, the center for atomic research at Geneva, Switzerland. Like Bohm, Bell had become discontented with the quantum theory and felt there had to be some alternative.
When Bell encountered Bohm�s ideas, he wondered if there was some way of experimentally verifying non-locality. Freed up by a sabbatical in 1964, he developed an elegant mathematical approach which revealed how such a two-particle experiment could be performed - the now famed Bell Inequality.
The only problem was that it required a level of technological precision that was not yet available. To be certain that particles - such as those in the EPR paradox - were not using some normal means of communication, the basic operations of the experiment had to be performed in such an infinitesimally brief instant that there wouldn�t be enough time for a ray of light to transit the distance separating the two particles. Light travels at about a foot in a nanosecond (thousand-millionth of a second). This meant that the instruments used in the experiment had to perform all the necessary operations within a few nanoseconds.
As technology improved it was finally possible to actually perform the two-particle experiment outlined by Bell. In 1982, a landmark experiment performed by a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect, Jean Dalibard, and G�rard Roger at the Institute of Theoretical and Applied Optics, in Paris, succeeded.
They produced a series of twin photons by heating calcium atoms with lasers, allowed each photon to travel in opposite directions through 6.5 meters of pipe and pass through special filters that directed them toward one of two possible polarization analyzers.
It took each filter 10 nanoseconds to switch between one analyzer or the other, about 30 nanoseconds less than it took light to travel the entire 13 meters separating each set of photons. In this way Aspect and his colleagues were able to rule out any possibility of the photons communicating by any known physical process.
The experiment was a success. Just as quantum theory predicted, each photon was still able to correlate its angle of polarization with that of its twin. This meant that either Einstein�s ban against faster-than-light communications was being violated, or the two photons were non-locally connected.
This experiment demonstrated that the web of subatomic particles which comprise our physical universe-the very fabric of "reality" itself-may possess what appears to be a "holographic" property.
Posted on : 22:40, 17/05/01
Posted by : Kazwak
Re: To theriddler...Interesting stuff!
Wooooaaaahhhhhh!!!!
Lots of words.... bright lights... no!!! Should have taken your advice Drog.
Will read it when it�s not dancing on my screen.
Kazxxx
Posted on : 22:47, 17/05/01
Posted by : meg
Re: To theriddler...Interesting stuff!
well my eyes/head are/were perfectly alright, not sure about now tho;)
this was very interesting btw, especially the Bohm bit.
ok need light relief now, off to watch an iron age doc.
Posted on : 22:58, 17/05/01
Posted by : Drog
Re: To theriddler...Interesting stuff!
I agree with you Meg about Bohm.
Glad you stuck with it!
I relinquish my T-shirt..
A bit heavy for this time of night!
Enjoy your show. I might check it out myself!
Cheers,
Drog (the ex-Prof.)
Posted on : 23:55, 17/05/01
Posted by : the riddler
Re: To theriddler...Interesting stuff!
WOW ! thats heavy stuff Drog.
that bit about:-
"There seems to be evidence accumulating to suggest that our world and everything in it are only ghostly images, projections from a higher level of reality so beyond our own that the real reality is literally beyond both space and time".
This sounds similar to the �life after death proponents� who believe that you enter the real reality when you die and that this life we are �living� now is lust some sort of a dream state. makes you think dunnit.
regards
the riddler
Posted on : 23:46, 17/05/01
Posted by : Diarmuid
Re: To theriddler...Interesting stuff!
Holy Sh*t !
Posted on : 23:58, 17/05/01
Posted by : the riddler
Re: To theriddler...Interesting stuff!
I was going to say that at first Diamuid lol
regards
the riddler
Posted on : 00:02, 18/05/01
Posted by : -0^0-
Re: To theriddler...Interesting stuff!
Hold on a sec i�ll have to clean my specs after reading that.
-0^@-