The Science Thread

[kertejud2]

A thread for the discussion on scientific theory, breakthrough or even people. I'm sure it will get interesting regardless.

To kick off the thread, I think the epitaph of perhaps the greatest mind in human history is in order

"Nature and nature's laws lay hid in night
God said 'Let Newton be' and all was light"

[CUG]

Hadron collider, I haven't followed up on it, wasn't there some test runs with it? Anyone know the sauce?

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by CUG
Hadron collider, I haven't followed up on it, wasn't there some test runs with it? Anyone know the sauce?

They had to shut it down and it wont be working again until the summer at the earliest.

There were some successful tests, but it doesn't mean much when they only had a few days worth of operation.

[HyperZell]

Apparently when they say "minor damage" it's all relative (shit, was that a science joke?) and in fact on the LHC it's massive damage that is taking a long time to repair.

[The Cosworth]

http://www.physorg.com/

[CUG]

Originally posted by HyperZell
Apparently when they say "minor damage" it's all relative (shit, was that a science joke?) and in fact on the LHC it's massive damage that is taking a long time to repair. So basically there is still a God and he's fucking with the big bang theory folk.

[Eleanor]

Do radioactive cats have 18 half-lives?

Photons have mass? I didn't even think they were Catholic.

A neutron walks into a bar. "How much for a drink?" To which the bartender responds, "For you, no charge."

Sorry, I had to :(

[TKRIS]

Shut it down during peak energy consumption times. They'll be flipping it back on again soon enough.

Anyone catch "The Theory of Everything" last night on Discovery?
Any thoughts?
I've not yet given a lot of thought to the unification of forces. Most of the reading I've done lately has been geared more towards LQG, as oppose to the more conventional spacetime singularity theory.
Seems like the theory is still in it's infancy, but it presents some unique and elegant explanations and possibilities.
The exciting part of all of this is that we may well be poised on the verge of some major discoveries in the next few years. With the emerging quantum hypothesis, and new methods to actually test them and observe things we'd normally never be able to hope to observe, one can't help but feel we're set for some revolutionary changes in the scientific community.


EDIT: I didn't know we were doing jokes:
Heisenberg was driving his car down the freeway when he as pulled over by a cop.
Cop - "Do you know how fast you were going."
Heisenberg - "No. But I know exactly where I am.


Schrodinger is going to kill your cat.
Maybe.

[hampstor]

For anyone interested in Extrasolar planets - i visit this site occasionally:

http://exoplanet.eu/

Got interested in Astronomy from a UofC class I took 6 yrs ago :D

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by HyperZell
Apparently when they say "minor damage" it's all relative (shit, was that a science joke?) and in fact on the LHC it's massive damage that is taking a long time to repair.

Billions of dollars and it falls victim to a minor electrical problem. You'd think CERN would be able to hire a half-decent electrician.

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by The Cosworth
http://www.physorg.com/
Awesome site man, thanks :thumbsup:

[01RedDX]

.

[Eleanor]

^ Have fun :D :

http://www.stringwiki.org/wiki/String_Theory_Wiki

[Crymson]

I don't think string opens up the posibilites of "extra dimensions" in the sci-fi sense, but rather that in order for it to work, the strings have to exists in, i forget which, something like a 9 or 11 dimensional space, where all but 3 are closed dimensions (you if you walked in ond direction in a closed dimension, you eventually get back to your starting location).

"Elegent Universe" explains the entire thing in easily followed language. Fantastci read if you've ever been interested in string theory/quatum mechanics/relativitey as it explains them all brilliantly.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
but I'm not nearly intellectual enough to grasp it properly.

Not to single you out, but this reminded me of something I've been thinking about for awhile now.
I think this is the biggest problem science faces right now.
The idea that "scientist" or "physicist" means a super-intellectual, high in an ivory tower concocting potions and hypothesizing on things beyond the grasp of mere mortals.

Intellectual curiosity is king. IQ doesn't mean shit if you're not interested in learning something new. I think we really need to fight this idea that "science" is only for the "smart" people, and the rest of us shouldn't even bother because we'll never understand it.

I have virtually no scientific education. Fuck, I have virtually no education period. I went to SAIT, and by "went", I mean I barely went. I think I've got a decent grasp of a lot of scientific theories, for a regular guy, and I didn't learn a single damned one (including evolution) in a classroom. I read book, magazines, websites, listened to podcasts, did research, etc. There's absolutely nothing that says that ordinary schmucks like me can't learn about this shit.

Fuck, MIT has a shitton of opencourse classes available online. I damned near failed 2 grade 12 math classes, and I'm starting to look into MIT courses on linear algebra.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again:
In this day and age where the cumulative knowledge of mankind is literally at your fingertips, there's no excuse to not know about anything you want to know about. No longer is what you know indicative of how much education you have, but of how much intellectual curiosity you possess.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by 01RedDX

I love how the theory opens up the possibility of extra dimensions and parallel universes, but I'm not nearly intellectual enough to grasp it properly.

When it comes to quantum theory or theoretical physics as a whole, I always remember what my first year chem professor told me. "If you don't understand it you're off to a good start. If you think you understand it, you don't."

[Canmorite]

String theory sounds super interesting. Looked into it a bit before, but I'm not up to date on it...


Originally posted by TKRIS

I've said this before, and I'll say it again:
In this day and age where the cumulative knowledge of mankind is literally at your fingertips, there's no excuse to not know about anything you want to know about. No longer is what you know indicative of how much education you have, but of how much intellectual curiosity you possess.

Absolutely agree. You can learn ANYTHING from the net now a days haha.

[01RedDX]

.

[Hakkola]

Anybody who mentions religion in this thread should be banned.

So I was reading the other day that the Universe is about 45 billion light years across, and only ~13 billion light years old. So it expanded faster than the speed of light... Any good info on this?

The Universe is my favourite science show, especially the episode on Parallel universes (3X02), talks about string / M Theory in the episode.

http://www.ninjavideo.net/video/14258

[Canmorite]

Originally posted by Hakkola
Anybody who mentions religion in this thread should be banned.


The creation/evolution science debate is always interesting :rofl:

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Hakkola

So I was reading the other day that the Universe is about 45 billion light years across, and only ~13 billion light years old. So it expanded faster than the speed of light... Any good info on this?


It has something to do with the photons moving through space, but that space is expanding, meaning that the light began its 'journey' 13B years ago, but the space between the object it came from and the Earth would continue increasing meaning that even though the light appears to be 13B light years away, in the time it took to travel the object is now 45B light years away. And as such, the universe itself is much bigger. The observable universe would remain ~14B light years (radius) because even though the object are much farther away now, we can only see them as they were when they first emitted the light.

I know I'm not making much sense, but nothing I've read on the subject makes much sense either.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Canmorite


The creation/evolution science debate is always interesting :rofl:

This is a thread about science, and therefore should remain with it. A creation/evolution thread could be opened, but i would be nice if this could just stay with science.


But on the note of evolution and its history, I recently heard talk about the Richard Owen and T.H. Huxley feud. Huxley was a staunch supporter of Darwin's work and was generally accepted as one of the great natural history minds. Owen was a staunch opposer of Darwin and was generally an asshole (stealing ideas, blacklisting scientists etc.) but unlike Huxley, felt museums should be opened to the public. Common thinking of the time was that only scholars should have access to museums but it was Owen who changed everything. He felt they should be open so people could learn. The idea of setting up displays with little cards providing descriptions seemed offensive to people in Huxley's camp.

So amazingly, it was one of the scientific communities biggest douchebags who helped make science open to the masses. A bit of useless trivia for your next party.

[yue]

Originally posted by kertejud2


This is a thread about science, and therefore should remain with it. A creation/evolution thread could be opened, but i would be nice if this could just stay with science.

is there any specific subject of science that you want to discuss on this thread?

[vadeit]

I :clap: this thread.

As a scientist (chemist) who gets paid to do science and the spouse of a scientist (microbiologist) I think I can offer some insights into the world of "science".

As TKRIS pointed out it does not take a genius to work in a scientific field. A good scientist is someone who is very inquisitive, very patient and very determined. Science is not easy. Discoveries take a lot of time and effort; there will be countless failures for every one success.

Notice I have not mentioned education. I don't think a formal education is required to make a good scientist. It gives you the background knowledge to things and most importantly teaches you how to do the acts of science; research, study, experiments, etc. However, all of those things can be learned by oneself if one is determined.

Unfortunately for science and scientist we attract a lot of elitist douche bags who think they are god's gift to the world and that hurts our reputation with the general population. The other thing that hurts the image of science as I mentioned above, is that it is hard.

TKRIS: take the linear algebra courses. I loved linear, the better half hated it though, kind of a love it or hate it sort of subject I think.

[hampstor]

Originally posted by kertejud2


It has something to do with the photons moving through space, but that space is expanding, meaning that the light began its 'journey' 13B years ago, but the space between the object it came from and the Earth would continue increasing meaning that even though the light appears to be 13B light years away, in the time it took to travel the object is now 45B light years away. And as such, the universe itself is much bigger. The observable universe would remain ~14B light years (radius) because even though the object are much farther away now, we can only see them as they were when they first emitted the light.

I know I'm not making much sense, but nothing I've read on the subject makes much sense either.

I believe it had to do with expansion ... let me try and explain

Imagine 3 points in a straight line equally spaced out labeled A - B - C

You are standing at A, all objects are moving apart at 100km/hour - this is the maximum speed they can move apart.

After 1 hour, you notice that B is now 100km further away from you. To the observer at B, C has moved 100 km away from it. However, since you are standing at A, you see that C has moved 200km away from you in 1 hour - seemingly violating the speed limit.

Replace the 100km/hr with the speed of light, and if you were standing at A, it appears that C is moving away from you at double the speed of light (which it is not). Consequently, the space between A and C has also increased by 2 light hours. Now the expansion of the universe isn't happening at the speed of light of course, but hopefully that explains how the space between 2 objects can appear to increase by faster than the speed of light.

Edit: at least that's how I remember it. haha it's been a while. I think the analogy used in school was the distance between raisons in a loaf of broad while it was being baked.

[95civicgsr]

what the bleep do we know has some interesting views on quantom mechanics and it puts it into pretty good lamens terms.
But every time I try to bring it up in conversation people look at me like im a nut for even considering the possibility that we create our own reality or the string theory with its 11 dimensions... its pretty interesting stuff I think, weither I believe it or not!
If your not educating yourself you might aswell be moving backwards!!!

[lint]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
String theory - anybody want to weigh in, in layman's terms? (If that's even possible lol)

I love how the theory opens up the possibility of extra dimensions and parallel universes, but I'm not nearly intellectual enough to grasp it properly.

Check out this series from Nova:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/

[D'z Nutz]

I'm really into astronomy and I've found the related episodes of Naked Science on National Geographic to be really entertaining. (I haven't caught any of the non-astronomy/space episodes though.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_Science

"Birth of a Solar System":
KJf4Rm_A4CY

ezRP0ez4CpM

d8foaO4t1QA

t2jdVQD0k-Q

D_AmUjE9b_s

[diamondedge]

TKRIS, Linear Algebra...ah. I don't know if the course you're looking at has a component on complex numbers...the one I took 2 years ago did. Complex numbers represent so many things in science and engineering, even the quantum mechanics stuff we're talking about here.

Transmission and propagation of electromagnetic waves anyone?

[msommers]

Originally posted by TKRIS
I've said this before, and I'll say it again:
In this day and age where the cumulative knowledge of mankind is literally at your fingertips, there's no excuse to not know about anything you want to know about. No longer is what you know indicative of how much education you have, but of how much intellectual curiosity you possess.

For me yes. For some kid in Kenya, I don't think so.

EDIT: But to add something useful! These are some of my favorites so far but the whole site is filled with an incredible amount of recent research.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce.html

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/george_smoot_on_the_design_of_the_universe.html

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bill_stone_explores_the_earth_and_space.html

And just for fun:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

[Zero102]

The universe is a hologram
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?full=true&print=true


That one is my favorite recent discovery. Since the LHC has been off it has lost my attention for now. I'm sure when it powers back up this spring all sorts of new and shiny things will be discovered there, but for now all the attention is on gravity wave detectors! :D

[atgilchrist]

I was cruising the TED site a few days ago...very cool!

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by 95civicgsr
what the bleep do we know has some interesting views on quantom mechanics and it puts it into pretty good lamens terms.
But every time I try to bring it up in conversation people look at me like im a nut for even considering the possibility that we create our own reality or the string theory with its 11 dimensions... its pretty interesting stuff I think, weither I believe it or not!
If your not educating yourself you might aswell be moving backwards!!!

That is the biggest pile of bullshit imaginary science I've ever had the extreme displeasure of attempting to watch.
To call it pseudo-scientific would be an insult to homeopathy and acupuncture.

It contains zero science, and the bullshit it tries to pass off as "Quantum Mechanics" is fucking laughable and demonstrates that the producer obviously has absolutely no fucking idea what real Quantum Mechanics is. You may as well read The Secret.

I'm not trying to rag you out too bad here, but I want to make myself perfectly clear: "What the Bleep do we Know" is a retarded movie for stupid, gullible people, made by morons who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, and the only people who find it anything other than hilarious or revolting (depending on your tolerance) are those who've simply taken the movie at it's word and not bothered to look into the actual science behind it's massive misrepresentations.

[01RedDX]

.

[semograd]

the string theory is just a bunch of mathematics that they cant actually prove or disprove yet (or for a long time). If we are going to talk physics we might as well keep it in the realm of physics and not mathematics. Nuclear, Quantum etc..

[95civicgsr]

Originally posted by TKRIS


That is the biggest pile of bullshit imaginary science I've ever had the extreme displeasure of attempting to watch.
To call it pseudo-scientific would be an insult to homeopathy and acupuncture.

It contains zero science, and the bullshit it tries to pass off as "Quantum Mechanics" is fucking laughable and demonstrates that the producer obviously has absolutely no fucking idea what real Quantum Mechanics is. You may as well read The Secret.

I'm not trying to rag you out too bad here, but I want to make myself perfectly clear: "What the Bleep do we Know" is a retarded movie for stupid, gullible people, made by morons who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, and the only people who find it anything other than hilarious or revolting (depending on your tolerance) are those who've simply taken the movie at it's word and not bothered to look into the actual science behind it's massive misrepresentations.

Well I never once said I believed any of it. But its movies like this, bullshit or not which can open up the eyes of blue collared worker like myself. I'm a tradesmen for god's sake how else would I have ever found out about quantom mechanics if I had not watched a mainstream supposidly BS movie? I have since read a many articles and viewed many documentary's which may be more correct but that still doesnt mean I believe any of it. I'm just trying to watch/read/learn as much as possible about a topic I find interesting. But thanks for making me look like a douche.

[lint]

Originally posted by semograd
the string theory is just a bunch of mathematics that they cant actually prove or disprove yet (or for a long time). If we are going to talk physics we might as well keep it in the realm of physics and not mathematics. Nuclear, Quantum etc..

String theory is theoretical physics. By definition a theory cannot be proved or disproved, but accurately describes observations and can predict future behavior. And mathematics cannot be separated from physics. Or do you mean you'd rather the discussion centre around more commonly known/understood physics theories?

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by hampstor

Edit: at least that's how I remember it. haha it's been a while. I think the analogy used in school was the distance between raisons in a loaf of broad while it was being baked.

Yeah, I was given the 'dots on a rubber band being stretched' example. Its a simple enough concept but its surprisingly hard to explain.


On the universe, the idea that there are no sides is also a tough one to grasp. For example if you were able to travel much faster than the speed of light to make it to the 'edge' we would just end up back where we started, but we wouldn't be travelling around like we fly around the Earth. Though the example is always having a person from a 2D universe who has never seen a sphere, and cannot comprehend what a sphere is, coming to Earth and trying to find the edge. It would be similar to us understanding the shape of the multi-dimensional universe if we were to travel "around it."

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by hampstor
snip
I am pretty sure I heard from one of my that the speed of light is a fixed constant, regardless of your coordinate system, therefore ignoring relativity effects.

Example: if you have a plane traveling at 90m/s and it shoots a laser out the front of it, people on the ground would measure the speed of the laser at 2.99E8 m/s rather than the 2.99E8 m/s + 90 m/s you would expect and that the pilot of the plane would see 2.99E8 m/s - 90 m/s.

I could be wrong however, so feel free to correct me if that's the case.

[01RedDX]

.

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
Separate mathematics from physics? Are you serious? :rofl:
No it's true, they're two totally separate ideas that have no similarities or correlations between them.

:rolleyes:

[semograd]

Originally posted by lint


String theory is theoretical physics. By definition a theory cannot be proved or disproved, but accurately describes observations and can predict future behavior. And mathematics cannot be separated from physics. Or do you mean you'd rather the discussion centre around more commonly known/understood physics theories?

Yes I completely agree, but there are paralleling theories that also describe observations and predict future behavior. And yes mathematics is the process in which physics is calculated but that doesn't mean that mathematics is physics. many scientists don't believe in the theory because the concept of string vacua is so general that it can hardly be used to explain anything.

[semograd]

Originally posted by Eleanor

No it's true, they're two totally separate ideas that have no similarities or correlations between them.

:rolleyes:

Math Does not prove physics. Real life experiments do, Physics proves math. Thats why so many theories in physics have been disproved over the years.

Perfect math can be proven wrong once its been applied to the real world. Thats what separates the two:facepalm:

[lint]

Or the theory is so general that it might be able to describe everything.

I still disagree that string theory is a mathematical theory as opposed to a physics theory.

[semograd]

Originally posted by lint
Or the theory is so general that it might be able to describe everything.

I still disagree that string theory is a mathematical theory as opposed to a physics theory.


Well thats just the thing. It is a physics theory that has only been proven by math. Untill its actually tested we will not know if the math was done wrong or not.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by 95civicgsr


Well I never once said I believed any of it. But its movies like this, bullshit or not which can open up the eyes of blue collared worker like myself. I'm a tradesmen for god's sake how else would I have ever found out about quantom mechanics if I had not watched a mainstream supposidly BS movie? I have since read a many articles and viewed many documentary's which may be more correct but that still doesnt mean I believe any of it. I'm just trying to watch/read/learn as much as possible about a topic I find interesting. But thanks for making me look like a douche.

I never said you did. I actually stated that I wasn't trying to rag on you, but make a point about the movie.

The problem with bullshit "science" movies like this is that because of the sensationalized irresponsible claims they make, they usually find a much broader demographic than real science. People love this type of shit, and it gets brought up pretty often as soon as there's a discussion such as this one.
Aside from the massive scientific inaccuracies, these movies target those most susceptible to this type of new-age woo bullshit, and, in doing so, erode any chance that real science has to gain a secure foothold.

An awful lot of the people that will watch "What the Bleep" will come away thinking that that is science. As such, their entire perception of science and reason will be skewed and misinformed. Not only are these movies void of actually scientific theory, but they misrepresent it and leave the viewer with a fictional interpretation that may never be corrected.

Again, not trying to make you look/feel like an asshole. I'm just trying to illustrate how not only are movies/sources like this not scientific, but they're actually quite damaging to real science, especially when people present them as scientific works.

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by semograd
Math Does not prove physics. Real life experiments do, Physics proves math. Thats why so many theories in physics have been disproved over the years.
I never said it does, but you can't separate them.

One cannot exist without the other.

[lint]

Originally posted by semograd
Well thats just the thing. It is a physics theory that has only been proven by math. Untill its actually tested we will not know if the math was done wrong or not.

Isn't that how theories start? Gravitational lensing wasn't observed until some 40 years after it was predicted. Sometimes the conditions have to be right. Other times they need to fix big ass atom smashers

[semograd]

Originally posted by Eleanor

I never said it does, but you can't separate them.

One cannot exist without the other.

Like i said mathematics is the process in which we calculate physics.

Math is physics but math is also a lot of other things.
Physics is not math.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by semograd



Well that's just the thing. It is a physics theory that has only been proven by math. Until its actually tested we will not know if the math was done wrong or not.

And that does not invalidate it as a sound theory.
The fact that we don't know much about it yet doesn't mean we should quit spending time developing it. If we quit researching every new theory that didn't simply pop in in a relatively complete form, making useful and accurate predictions, we'd have precious little understanding of the natural world.

As we develop theories like LQG and string, we can make more and more inferences from them, and by doing so, develop ways to test them. The LHC poses some incredibly interesting possibilities with regards to providing evidence to many of these theoreticals, such as String theory.

It is not wasteful to spend time researching and developing (or, for most here, trying to understand) these concepts. These are not fanciful presentations that will never develop into anything more.


And you use the terms "prove" and "disprove" way to much considering this is a thread about science. Far less than you seem to imagine is actually "proven".

Regardless of your understanding on the subject, or the amount of credence you choose to give it, theoretical physics is real science. Whether or not you choose to be hopeful or skeptical of string theory, Quantum Mechanics, etc is irrelevant with regards to it's scientific validity.

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by semograd
Like i said mathematics is the process in which we calculate physics. Here's what you said:

Originally posted by semograd
If we are going to talk physics we might as well keep it in the realm of physics and not mathematics.
This statement implies that math and physics are found in different "realms" which they aren't. Math and physics are intertwined.

[semograd]

Originally posted by lint


Isn't that how theories start? Gravitational lensing wasn't observed until some 40 years after it was predicted. Sometimes the conditions have to be right. Other times they need to fix big ass atom smashers

Yes but only when its tested do we have something to compare our math to. The actual test may yield something completely different than what our math predicted. And that means our math is wrong.

And our big ass atom smasher is not nearly big enough to test the string theories. but it is interesting to note that if the LHC does in fact prove that the Higgins boson does exist they will put in motion construction of an even bigger atom smasher.


Originally posted by Eleanor


This statement implies that math and physics are found in different "realms" which they aren't. Math and physics are intertwined.

Yes thats what i am implying. the only reason math is intertwined is because that is how we calculate physics. Math is not always right but physics is and thats what we check our math against.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by semograd

Higgins boson

Higgs boson [/nitpick]

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by semograd
Yes but only when its tested do we have something to compare our math to. The actual test may yield something completely different than what our math predicted. And that means our math is wrong.
It doesn't mean our math is wrong, it means the theory behind the math was wrong. It's not like someone forgot to carry the one or said that 2 times 3 is 5.


And our big ass atom smasher is not nearly big enough to test the string theories. but it is interesting to note that if the LHC does in fact prove that the Higgins boson does exist they will put in motion construction of an even bigger atom smasher.
What's a higgins boson?

EDIT: damn, kertejud beat me to it :rofl:

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by semograd
And our big ass atom smasher is not nearly big enough to test the string theories.

This is complete bullshit.
The LHC has a the definite potential to provide very strong evidence for, or against, our current understanding of string theory.

[semograd]

Originally posted by kertejud2


Higgs boson [/nitpick]

There goes my attempt to sound smart.:nut:

[semograd]

Originally posted by TKRIS


This is complete bullshit.
The LHC has a the definite potential to provide very strong evidence for, or against, our current understanding of string theory.

certain evidence. but we will not be able to prove the existence of tachyons or quantum gravity any time soon.


Originally posted by Eleanor

It doesn't mean our math is wrong, it means the theory behind the math was wrong. It's not like someone forgot to carry the one or said that 2 times 3 is 5.


Yes that still means our math was wrong. If the initial mathematical theory is wrong then all the calculations are done wrong from the first step. So it is like saying that someone forgot to carry the 1 .

Im not saying string doesn't/does exist. Im just trying to say that just because it works on paper doesn't mean it works in reality.

[lint]

Originally posted by semograd
Yes but only when its tested do we have something to compare our math to. The actual test may yield something completely different than what our math predicted. And that means our math is wrong.


I don't think anyone is saying that string theory IS the answer to every thing. But as long as what is currently observable fits, then it's a valid theory. If the observed results end up contradicting the theory, then it gets re jigged or scrapped. That's science. To discredit it because it MIGHT be wrong, well... not really much to say about that.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by semograd


There goes my attempt to sound smart.:nut:

Oh I think that train left the station about a page and a half ago... ;)


Originally posted by semograd


certain evidence. but we will not be able to prove the existence of tachyons or quantum gravity any time soon.

What the fuck else is there? Evidence is all we ever have.

Why are you still using the word "prove"?
Almost nothing in this world is proven.


Originally posted by semograd
Im not saying string doesn't/does exist. Im just trying to say that just because it works on paper doesn't mean it works in reality.
And neither is anyone else. The difference is that the other people here seem to understand what makes a solid scientific theory, and you seem to think that it's all just hypothetical musings until you have "proof".

[89coupe]

I'm really excited about all the breakthroughs with Nanotechnology.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by 89coupe
I'm really excited about all the breakthroughs with Nanotechnology.

There was a great article in Sci Am a few months back about nano generators. I'll see if I can dig it up and post it for you. If the tech can be improved upon and shrunk down a bit, it would open up huge doors for parasitic power salvaging for medical monitoring, and countless other uses. Cool shit for sure.

EDIT:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-self-powered-nanotech-works

[semograd]

Originally posted by TKRIS


Oh I think that train left the station about a page and a half ago... ;)

:poosie:


Originally posted by TKRIS
What the fuck else is there? Evidence is all we ever have.

Why are you still using the word "prove"?
Almost nothing in this world is proven.

oh c'mon man. You and I both know that a lot is proven (like god). You also know that im not trying to disprove anything. I think its cool if the string theory actually exists. I would also think its equally cool if we were wrong and another theory exists.

Im just hung up on the fact that certain people think math proves anything. Math is a language.

Im not trying to argue string theory itself. If you have any interesting articles on the subject, by all means send it my way.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by semograd


:poosie:



oh c'mon man. You and I both know that a lot is proven.

No. We have a pretty good understanding of a lot of things, but very, very little in this world is "proven".
Your computer works based on scientific theory, not scientific fact.
You are using the terms interchangeably to poison the well and invalidate any theory that can't be directly observed, despite the fact that observation does not prove a theory.


Originally posted by semograd
You also know that im not trying to disprove anything. I think its cool if the string theory actually exists. I would also think its equally cool if we were wrong and another theory exists.

Im just hung up on the fact that certain people think math proves anything. Math is a language.

You're the only one that's using the term "prove".
No one. Let me repeat. NO ONE is claiming that string theory is a proven scientific fact.

Your poor grasp of the nomenclature is, I suspect, the root of your confusion over this issue.

[semograd]

Originally posted by TKRIS


No. We have a pretty good understanding of a lot of things, but very, very little in this world is "proven".
Your computer works based on scientific theory, not scientific fact.
You are using the terms interchangeably to poison the well and invalidate any theory that can't be directly observed, despite the fact that observation does not prove a theory.



You're the only one that's using the term "prove".
No one. Let me repeat. NO ONE is claiming that string theory is a proven scientific fact.

Your poor grasp of the nomenclature is, I suspect, the root of your confusion over this issue.

No you are confused because you are not even arguing the same point that I am. I know how my computer works because the calculations and theories are backed up by physical evidence.

There is no physical evidence that backs string theory more than others that try to explain the universe on a subatomic level.

To really probe into string theory and find evidence other than Higgs Boson. We need a machine that is 10^14 times more powerful then the LHC. Thus far we have no evidence that would lead us to believe that string theory is the ruling theory. Its just the most popular theory.


"For more than a generation, physicists have been chasing a will-o’-the-wisp called string theory. The beginning of this chase marked the end of what had been three-quarters of a century of progress. Dozens of string-theory conferences have been held, hundreds of new Ph.D.s have been minted, and thousands of papers have been written. Yet, for all this activity, not a single new testable prediction has been made, not a single theoretical puzzle has been solved. In fact, there is no theory so far—just a set of hunches and calculations suggesting that a theory might exist. And, even if it does, this theory will come in such a bewildering number of versions that it will be of no practical use: a Theory of Nothing." -- Jim Holt

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by semograd


No you are confused because you are not even arguing the same point that I am. I know how my computer works because the calculations and theories are backed up by physical evidence.

There are two problems with your logic here:
1.) This does not quantify "proof", yet you continue to use the term, despite this being pointed out to you numerous times. Your grasp of scientific nomenclature is flawed, and it's causing you to make assumptions.
2.) You're putting the cart before the horse. As I said in an earlier post, if you quit researching anything theories that don't immediately take on a relatively complete form, have easily observable evidentiary support, and make accurate predictions, you may as well throw away the vast majority of what we know about the world around us.
Scientific theories need to be fleshed out, evolved, and developed. They do not simply appear from thin air, complete and ready to rock and roll.


Originally posted by semograd
There is no physical evidence that backs string theory more than others that try to explain the universe on a subatomic level.


Physical evidence is not even close to being the only indication of validity. String theory is a much more complete theory, leaving far fewer loose ends than many of the other theories. THAT is why it's regarded as one of the most likely.
Not, as you seem to be implying, because it happens to be the one we drew from a hat...


Originally posted by semograd
To really probe into string theory and find evidence other than Higgs Boson. We need a machine that is 10^14 times more powerful then the LHC. Thus far we have no evidence that would lead us to believe that string theory is the ruling theory. Its just the most popular theory.

More problems with your argument:
1.) "Other than Higgs Boson". Why dismiss this? This would provide strong evidence in support or, or in opposition to, our current theory. If you want to move the goalposts, expect to be called on it. You say we won't be able to find any evidence for a long time, and that the LHC isn't big enough to provide any evidence. Then you amend that to say "well, other that Higgs Boson"...If every time it's pointed out what evidence we can hope to find to support a theory you simply change your position to arbitrarily exclude that evidence from being relevant, then no, we'll never find any evidence.
And we don't know if the earth orbits the sun either...
2.) The LHC is plenty powerful enough to produce the type of supersymmetric particles string theory predicts. We can apply string theory to make prediction about these particles that would provide excellent evidence in support of, or in opposition to, our current theory.

Wait wait, let me guess:
"Well, other than higgs Boson and sparticles, the LHC won't be able to provide us with any evidence to support or refute string theory."

hahaha.

Not only is your nomenclature lacking, it seems to be causing you to project positions on the rest of us that we have no stated in order to manipulate the discussion.Additionally, your insistence that no evidence can be found (despite being corrected), and your repeated use of logical fallacies lead me to believe you have some invested interest in your preconceived conclusions about this, which is the exact opposite of what science is.

Once again, no one here is proposing that string theory is a scientific fact, regardless of how insistently you claim that they are.

EDIT: I know when I need an opinion on extremely complicated theoretical physics, I turn to Southern Baptist Republican Politicians. :rofl:

[01RedDX]

.

[Eleanor]

:rofl: Jim Holt

For those who don't know who he is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Holt

Holt co-sponsored House Bill 2548 in 2001, a bill which would have required public schools to identify evolution as an unproven theory, and which would have prohibited the use of public funds for the promotion of evolution-related information as fact.:banghead:

[semograd]

Originally posted by TKRIS



EDIT: I know when I need an opinion on extremely complicated theoretical physics, I turn to Southern Baptist Republican Politicians. :rofl:

What credentials do you have?

m not even trying to argue any of this. The fact of the matter is that he is right. to a certain extent. A theory is a theory and right now there is no way we can find any sort of evidence to support the specifics of a string theory.


Originally posted by TKRIS


Physical evidence is not even close to being the only indication of validity. String theory is a much more complete theory, leaving far fewer loose ends than many of the other theories. THAT is why it's regarded as one of the most likely.
Not, as you seem to be implying, because it happens to be the one we drew from a hat...


this is definitely not what I am implying. If you think so you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.


Originally posted by TKRIS

Wait wait, let me guess:
"Well, other than higgs Boson and sparticles, the LHC won't be able to provide us with any evidence to support or refute string theory."



Pretty much. The higgs boson is from the standard model theory. Not the string theory.


Originally posted by TKRIS

Scientific theories need to be fleshed out, evolved, and developed. They do not simply appear from thin air, complete and ready to rock and roll.

If you want to move the goalposts, expect to be called on it. You say we won't be able to find any evidence for a long time, and that the LHC isn't big enough to provide any evidence. Then you amend that to say "well, other that Higgs Boson"...

The only person moving the goalposts is you. I made a simple statement to clairify the difference between math and physics (reality) and you are picking every word I wrote down apart.


Originally posted by TKRIS
If every time it's pointed out what evidence we can hope to find to support a theory you simply change your position to arbitrarily exclude that evidence from being relevant, then no, we'll never find any evidence.
And we don't know if the earth orbits the sun either...

In no way did I say or imply this. Im saying that it supports more than one theory and its not fair to specifically say that "oh higgs boson supports string" without saying that it also supports the standard model.



Originally posted by TKRIS
2.) The LHC is plenty powerful enough to produce the type of supersymmetric particles string theory predicts. We can apply string theory to make prediction about these particles that would provide excellent evidence in support of, or in opposition to, our current theory.

Where did you read this? i would like to read about it.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by semograd


What credentials do you have?
Well, he isn't on record as actively trying to hamper science, so he has that over Holt

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by semograd
What credentials do you have?
1.) I don't hold a proven and public anti-science position.
2.) I don't have a vested interest in subverting and dismissing science.
Regardless of the validity of string theory, my world view is not threatened, because it's not based on a preconceived ideology.

Originally posted by semograd
m not even trying to argue any of this. The fact of the matter is that he is right. to a certain extent. A theory is a theory
Yeah, string theory is a theory, which is fucking EXACTLY what everyone in this thread has been telling your dumbass since post fucking 1. Glad you could finally join in.

Originally posted by semograd
and right now there is no way we can find any sort of evidence to support the specifics of a string theory.
Except for all the information we'll be getting over the next year or two from the LHC that you've conveniently either tried to ignore or dismiss.

Want to try to move the goalpost again and make yourself look like more of an idiot?

[lint]

Originally posted by semograd


:poosie:

oh c'mon man. You and I both know that a lot is proven (like god). You also know that im not trying to disprove anything. I think its cool if the string theory actually exists. I would also think its equally cool if we were wrong and another theory exists.

Im just hung up on the fact that certain people think math proves anything. Math is a language.

Im not trying to argue string theory itself. If you have any interesting articles on the subject, by all means send it my way.

Wait...WHAT? You have a problem with string theory because you think it's a bunch of math mumbo jumbo, and you make a statement that God is proven?

[semograd]

Originally posted by TKRIS


There are two problems with your logic here:
1.) This does not quantify "proof", yet you continue to use the term, despite this being pointed out to you numerous times. Your grasp of scientific nomenclature is flawed, and it's causing you to make assumptions.

Then clarify what you would consider proof.


Originally posted by TKRIS
2.) You're putting the cart before the horse. As I said in an earlier post, if you quit researching anything theories that don't immediately take on a relatively complete form, have easily observable evidentiary support, and make accurate predictions, you may as well throw away the vast majority of what we know about the world around us.
Scientific theories need to be fleshed out, evolved, and developed. They do not simply appear from thin air, complete and ready to rock and roll.


No disagreement there. i wasn't even arguing that.

[semograd]

Originally posted by lint


Wait...WHAT? You have a problem with string theory because you think it's a bunch of math mumbo jumbo, and you make a statement that God is proven?

it was a joke. should have put one of these after :poosie:, and I dont have a problem with string theory.

[lint]

Originally posted by semograd


Then clarify what you would consider proof.



You know that relativity (general and special) are still theories, right? Validated by observation, but not proven.

[semograd]

Originally posted by TKRIS

1.) I don't hold a proven and public anti-science position.
2.) I don't have a vested interest in subverting and dismissing science.
Regardless of the validity of string theory, my world view is not threatened, because it's not based on a preconceived ideology.


Either do I


Originally posted by TKRIS
Yeah, string theory is a theory, which is fucking EXACTLY what everyone in this thread has been telling your dumbass since post fucking 1. Glad you could finally join in.


You clearly didn't read my first posts properly. I never said I didn't believe in it. I wasn't even arguing any sort of string theory specifics. I stated why string theory wasn't the be all end all (yet), why some scientists disagree and why math shouldn't be worshiped the way it is.

Post one:

Originally posted by semograd
the string theory is just a bunch of mathematics that they cant actually prove or disprove yet (or for a long time). If we are going to talk physics we might as well keep it in the realm of physics and not mathematics. Nuclear, Quantum etc..

oh wow, no need for anyone to tell me its a theory. its basically the first thing I said.


Originally posted by semograd


Yes I completely agree, but there are paralleling theories that also describe observations and predict future behavior. And yes mathematics is the process in which physics is calculated but that doesn't mean that mathematics is physics. many scientists don't believe in the theory because the concept of string vacua is so general that it can hardly be used to explain anything.


Originally posted by semograd


Math Does not prove physics. Real life experiments do, Physics proves math. Thats why so many theories in physics have been disproved over the years.

Perfect math can be proven wrong once its been applied to the real world. Thats what separates the two:facepalm:


Originally posted by TKRIS
Except for all the information we'll be getting over the next year or two from the LHC that you've conveniently either tried to ignore or dismiss.

Want to try to move the goalpost again and make yourself look like more of an idiot?

STANDARD MODEL, SUPERSYMMETRY. that's the LHC's main goal. Not string. String comes after (Super/very large hadron collider). The standard model is a theory in itself.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by semograd
this is definitely not what I am implying. If you think so you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.


Bullshit. Don't hide behind ignorance of hyperbole and address the content, not the dressing.
The fact that we don't have definitive evidence to support any of the various models doesn't put them on equal footing.
String theory is the most widely subscribed to theory because it's the most plausible and most encompassing, not because it won it's High School homecoming queen award and dated the quarterback.



Originally posted by semograd
Pretty much. The higgs boson is from the standard model theory. Not the string theory.
Is your understanding of science really that poor?
If I have a theory that says that if you hold a ball in your hand, then release it, it will fall up, and then you try this, and the ball falls down, don't you think that says something about my theory?

Originally posted by semograd
The only person moving the goalposts is you. I made a simple statement to clairify the difference between math and physics (reality) and you are picking every word I wrote down apart.
No. You initially claimed that string theory isn't real physics. We've shown why you're wrong.
Then you claim the LHC can't tell us anything about string theory. Then it's explained that yes, in fact it can and likely will give us very good evidence either for or against.
Then you arbitrarily dismiss one of these very viable methods, while pretending that evidence against doesn't constitute evidence (which is completely unscientific).


Keep going. Pretty soon you'll be trying to convince us how if Wiley E. Coyote hadn't have read that book on gravity, he wouldn't have fallen off the cliff...

Originally posted by semograd
In no way did I say or imply this. Im saying that it supports more than one theory and its not fair to specifically say that "oh higgs boson supports string" without saying that it also supports the standard model.
And again you have no idea what you're talking about. String theory makes certain predictions and required assumptions on how W Bosons will react. If these assumptions are proven incorrect, the basis upon which the majority of the theory is built will be shown flawed. Once more time for the kids that had to wear helmets to school: Evidence against is still evidence.


Originally posted by semograd
Where did you read this? i would like to read about it.
Does your google only find quotes from batshit crazy anti-science fundamentalist christians?

http://dvice.com/archives/2008/09/top_10_ways_the.php

[semograd]

Originally posted by TKRIS

Bullshit. Don't hide behind ignorance of hyperbole and address the content, not the dressing.
The fact that we don't have definitive evidence to support any of the various models doesn't put them on equal footing.
String theory is the most widely subscribed to theory because it's the most plausible and most encompassing, not because it won it's High School homecoming queen award and dated the quarterback.

YA, Im bullshitting you. I told you Im not implying anything but you dont believe me... okay how am I supposed to get anything across to you if your going to put every word i say through your TKRIS filter before you give it some thought.

http://www.nouvelordremondial.cc/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/its-a-conspiracy.jpg



Originally posted by TKRIS
Is your understanding of science really that poor?
If I have a theory that says that if you hold a ball in your hand, then release it, it will fall up, and then you try this, and the ball falls down, don't you think that says something about my theory?


What does this have to do with standard model? are you implying that its false? News flash thats why LHC was built.

HERE:
http://www.lhc.ac.uk/about-the-lhc/what-will-the-lhc-do.html
http://www.lhc.ac.uk/the-big-questions.html
Sounds a lot like the standard model to me.


Originally posted by TKRIS
No. You initially claimed that string theory isn't real physics. We've shown why you're wrong.

Its not, its theoretical. and the only thing you showed me is that you are good at arguing. SHOW ME THAT ITS REAL PHYSICS. because if you can do that you will win the nobel fucking prize.


Originally posted by TKRIS
Then you claim the LHC can't tell us anything about string theory.

Again, LHC is not powerful enough to probe into Quantum gravity. OR ANY OF THE STRING THEORYS SPECIFICS. VLHC will be but thats a couple decades from now.


Originally posted by TKRIS
Then it's explained that yes, in fact it can and likely will give us very good evidence either for or against.

There was no explination for this.


Originally posted by TKRIS
Then you arbitrarily dismiss one of these very viable methods, while pretending that evidence against doesn't constitute evidence (which is completely unscientific).

didnt happen



Originally posted by TKRIS
Keep going. Pretty soon you'll be trying to convince us how if Wiley E. Coyote hadn't have read that book on gravity, he wouldn't have fallen off the cliff...

He wouldnt have, thats the joke...


Originally posted by TKRIS
And again you have no idea what you're talking about. String theory makes certain predictions and required assumptions on how W Bosons will react.

I know that, I also know that if bosons are found it does not necessarily tell us that string works either.


Originally posted by TKRIS
If these assumptions are proven incorrect, the basis upon which the majority of the theory is built will be shown flawed. Once more time for the kids that had to wear helmets to school: Evidence against is still evidence.

No argument there. There never was.


Originally posted by TKRIS
Does your google only find quotes from batshit crazy anti-science fundamentalist christians?

I hope not.

[Eleanor]

semograd, I think you may need to revisit how you put your seatbelt on because it's clearly cutting off the circulation to your brain.

:rofl:

[semograd]

Originally posted by Eleanor
semograd, I think you may need to revisit how you put your seatbelt on because it's clearly cutting off the circulation to your brain.

:rofl:

Only TKRIS gets to insult me!

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by semograd
Only TKRIS gets to insult me!
By the looks of it, I just did.

As did 01RedDX, lint, Antonito, ZorroAMG..............

I could go on.

[semograd]

Originally posted by Eleanor

By the looks of it, I just did.

As did 01RedDX, lint, Antonito, ZorroAMG..............

I could go on.

so what now your trying to gang fuck me just because i stated why math needs to be observed in the real world before it can be recognized as correct? Well it does.

Or should i start singing that beyond rap song from that thread the other day?

[01RedDX]

.

[Antonito]

They're picking on me :cry: :cry:

[hampstor]

guys guys... this argument will not be settled here as there are people who are significantly more knowledgable on this topic than us still arguing over it. :drama:

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by semograd
so what now your trying to gang fuck me just because i stated why math needs to be observed in the real world before it can be recognized as correct? Well it does.No, I merely pointed out the number of people who were insulting you which opposes your statement that TKRIS was the only one who could insult you. And we're ripping on you for saying that physics and math are separate, which they aren't.

Or should i start singing that beyond rap song from that thread the other day? altitude's or w/e?

[semograd]

Originally posted by Eleanor
And we're ripping on you for saying that physics and math are separate, which they aren't.


GRR!!:whipped: math is simply the language we use to interpret physics. Im not going to say it again.


Originally posted by hampstor
guys guys... this argument will not be settled here as there are people who are significantly more knowledgable on this topic than us still arguing over it. :drama:

True.

TKRIS can you send me some more good links?

Oh and whats the difference between the string/superstring theory?

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by semograd


YA, Im bullshitting you. I told you Im not implying anything but you dont believe me... okay how am I supposed to get anything across to you if your going to put every word i say through your TKRIS filter before you give it some thought.
This is what you wrote:

Originally posted by semograd

There is no physical evidence that backs string theory more than others that try to explain the universe on a subatomic level.

Physical evidence is only part of the picture, and at this stage in the game, only a small part. As such, your comparison of string theory to any of the others based on their shared lack of physical evidence is completely irrelevant.

Originally posted by semograd
What does this have to do with standard model? are you implying that its false? News flash thats why LHC was built.
I'm not sure how you can possibly be this obtuse, but I'm not going to keep explaining the same shit to you over and over again. I've already done this. Fuck, you even quoted the answer to your own fucking question below...


Originally posted by semograd
NO I didnt, and the only thing you showed me is that you are good at arguing. SHOW ME THAT ITS REAL PHYSICS. because if you can do that you will win the nobel fucking prize.

String is a scientific theory, we've established this.
String deals with things in the natural world. Forces, mass, motion. You know...Physics.
I'm really not sure how you're unable to understand this.
It almost seems like you think that in order for something to be "Physics", you have to be able to physically hold it in your hand.
You do realize that the theory of evolution is still biology, even though it's not a living thing right?

Once again, physical evidence is only part of the picture. String is a scientific theory that deals with physics. Would you like me to draw you a picture with my daughter's crayons? ;)


Originally posted by semograd
Again, LHC is not powerful enough to probe into Quantum gravity. OR ANY OF THE STRING THEORYS SPECIFICS. VLHC will be but thats a couple decades from now.


Originally posted by semograd
There was no explination for this.

One more time, since you're apparently still missing this (although I have no idea how):
String theory makes certain predictions. It predicts we'll observe certain particles. It predicts how those particles will act. It makes all sorts of predictions on what we should see, when we should see it, what it should look like, and how it should act.
If the predictions it makes are observed, then that's good evidence in support. If the predictions it makes are not observed, then that's good evidence against.

Your extremely simplistic view of supersymmetry, standard model, LQG, and string theory are confusing you. These theories are all intertwined.
Example: If we discover additionally dimensions, then LQG needs to be discarded or modified.
If W Bosons violate the predictions of string theory, then string will need to be discarded or modified.
If we can't find anything indicating any other dimensions exist, then that's evidence in support of LQG. You startign to see a pattern here?
No matter what we observe, it will tell us something.



Originally posted by semograd
didnt happen

Really?


Originally posted by semograd
To really probe into string theory and find evidence other than Higgs Boson

:nut:



Originally posted by semograd
I know that, I also know that if bosons are found it does not necessarily tell us that string works either.
That one flew right over your head too eh?
Because I'm such a nice, generous, patient guy, I've explained this to you, yet again, above.

Your welcome. It's not all good news for you though, I'm afraid.
But hey, I'm sure you and Toma and Legless Marine will all get along well together...

[Eleanor]

^ How could you forget ZenOps? :rofl:


Originally posted by semograd
GRR!!:whipped: math is simply the language we use to interpret physics. Im not going to say it again.
Wouldn't that put them in the same realm? ;)

Just admit that your comment to separate physics and mathematics was stupid, and I'll stop bugging you :poosie:

[semograd]

I really could argue you some more (and im tempted to). But I agree with Hampstor. So lets just agree to disagree and move on (im pretty sure this argument is a result of misinterpretation and misacommunication to one another anyhow).

Even though you think im a maniac I do enjoy talking about string. Did you check my last post?

lets talk not argue. :D

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by Eleanor
^ How could you forget ZenOps? :rofl:

That guy is way too entertaining to be wasted on my ignore list...



Originally posted by Eleanor
Wouldn't that put them in the same realm? ;)

Just admit that your comment to separate physics and mathematics was stupid, and I'll stop bugging you :poosie:

He's too emotionally and intellectually invested at this point.

[semograd]

Originally posted by Eleanor

Just admit that your comment to separate physics and mathematics was stupid, and I'll stop bugging you :poosie:

Nope. As I said before. physics is math but math is not necessarily physics. Thats what I was taught by my physics professor.

[lint]

if physics was math, it would be called mathematics. There's a reason why it's called physics

[hampstor]

Originally posted by semograd


Nope. As I said before. physics is math but math is not necessarily physics. Thats what I was taught by my physics professor.

This is my view on it: I consider Mathematics a language, and Physics as one application of that language.

Physics is not a subset of Mathematics as you are implying, though Physics relies heavily on Mathematics to prove many things.

However as i said earlier, many people much more knowledgable on these topics still argue it :)

[Hakkola]

Discovery Channel - 100 Greatest Discoveries: Physics

http://www.ninjavideo.net/video/18361

[bashir26]

Originally posted by Eleanor

I am pretty sure I heard from one of my that the speed of light is a fixed constant, regardless of your coordinate system, therefore ignoring relativity effects.

Example: if you have a plane traveling at 90m/s and it shoots a laser out the front of it, people on the ground would measure the speed of the laser at 2.99E8 m/s rather than the 2.99E8 m/s + 90 m/s you would expect and that the pilot of the plane would see 2.99E8 m/s - 90 m/s.

I could be wrong however, so feel free to correct me if that's the case.

No matter how fast you are moving the speed of light is constant.


Originally posted by Hakkola
So I was reading the other day that the Universe is about 45 billion light years across, and only ~13 billion light years old. So it expanded faster than the speed of light... Any good info on this?



Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial has a calculator which allows you to compute many quantities, including distance, for different models of the universe and for galaxies at different "redshifts" from us (the redshift is an experimentally easy-to-determine property of the galaxy's light that tells us how much the universe has stretched between the time the light was emitted and the time it was received). Using the best observationally-determined values for the universe's rate of expansion, acceleration and other parameters (which are the default inputs for the calculator), I found that if you use a value of around 1.4 for z (the redshift), you get the required distance of 4,200 megaparsecs. Therefore, any galaxy with a redshift greater than 1.4 is currently moving away from us faster than the speed of light.

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by bashir26


No matter how fast you are moving the speed of light is constant.



Yes, but I don't like the comment "the speed of light is a fixed constant" as it can be slowed down.

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html

[A790]

Originally posted by Hakkola


Yes, but I don't like the comment "the speed of light is a fixed constant" as it can be slowed down.

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html
That's incredible!

[bashir26]

Originally posted by Hakkola


Yes, but I don't like the comment "the speed of light is a fixed constant" as it can be slowed down.

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html

Yes I know the speed of light can be slowed down, but that wasn't his question. He was asking if the speed of light can be speed up. The answer is no.

[A790]

Originally posted by bashir26


Yes I know the speed of light can be slowed down, but that wasn't his question. He was asking if the speed of light can be speed up. The answer is no.
Well, that we know of anyway.

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by bashir26


Yes I know the speed of light can be slowed down, but that wasn't his question. He was asking if the speed of light can be speed up. The answer is no.

I meant to direct that towards what Eleanor said he was told, not that what you said was wrong.

The redshift stuff is interesting, thanks.