Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: ImaFungi
You asked if our relative motion might be affecting speed of light measurements.

If we make measurements in the direction we're moving at over 100,000 kph, and also make measurements 90 degrees to that in another direction, then if our >100,000 kph motion is affecting our measurements significantly, shouldn't we see some kind of difference?

If you're now asking about something different, I'm not sure what. Propose an experiment to detect what you're talking about. Then we can see if the experiment has been done.

If it's not measurable by any experiment then it can't make much difference, can it?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: ImaFungi
You asked if our relative motion might be affecting speed of light measurements.

If we make measurements in the direction we're moving at over 100,000 kph, and also make measurements 90 degrees to that in another direction, then if our >100,000 kph motion is affecting our measurements significantly, shouldn't we see some kind of difference?

If you're now asking about something different, I'm not sure what. Propose an experiment to detect what you're talking about. Then we can see if the experiment has been done.

If it's not measurable by any experiment then it can't make much difference, can it?

Before I propose an experiment, let me try to just express the theoretical reason I would be desire to propose an experiment, or am bringing this up at all;

One or both of the theories of relativity express that there is no way to determine if a body is truly motionless, it would have to be motionless compared to some abstract ideal test particle; so lets in theory imagine that there was a truly motionless body that existed in the universe; if that detected light it would detect lights frequency, velocity etc. as being x;

Every time we measure light, we measure light at x plus/or times our movement;

We never know if we measure light without adding out own movements to it via the detector we use to measure.

So is the speed of light quantity we have and use, the speed of light according to its interactions with our movement, hardware, software theory;

Or when we think we have the speed of light quantity, that is it truly a description of the rate at which light moves, in relation to some abstract, ideal, point?

For the meaning of lights speed to be constant, to mean anything, it would mean in relation to abstract nothingness; because once we introduce the reality of the situation; which is the inescapable vantage point of our multiple motions, some of which may not be understood or thought of; how can we know we are measuring the true constant of light, and not the true constant of light in relation to our movements and modes of detection?

Another way to ask, or possibility a different interesting related question all together;

Imagining if the earth, solar system, galaxy, moved at different velocities, plugging that into the model to see how perception of light might change;

originally posted by: ImaFungi
how can we know we are measuring the true constant of light, and not the true constant of light in relation to our movements and modes of detection?

Relativity says it's always relative. So far all experiments have been consistent with that.

Another way to ask, or possibility a different interesting related question all together;

Imagining if the earth, solar system, galaxy, moved at different velocities, plugging that into the model to see how perception of light might change;

They do move at different velocities, and relativity predicts what will happen for an observer in each reference frame, which is that all of them will measure light traveling at the speed of light no matter how much their reference frames are moving with respect to each other.

Feynman never said this which is what simple logic might suggest. Nature doesn't work this way. The fact that his car is moving doesn't change the speed of light:

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: greenreflections


Don't even try to figure it out he's very confused even about spin which he seems to be linking to angular momentum as well. For example this whole thing falls apart because direction of spin can be changed but elementary particles cannot be made to spin faster or slower. Direction means nothing its the energy that it has that's imoortant .

Ok. Then how you would envision 'charge' ?

Spin as far as I can tell has nothing to do with GR.
GR is a framework build logically to formalise the base for everything else to become happened.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: joelr

Easiest way to explain fieldsome is they are properties of objects. You can detect them with sensors or for that matter your eyes since we can see EM radiation. Fields are not stuff they exist in mathematics as know properties of particles. We could get into why these particles have these properties by discussing things like Higgs boson. But trying to figure out what fields are is useless since it's nothing more than energy at a particular point in space at a particular time. Fields will fluctuate with velocity even temprature. What causes this energy.

Here is an example of a field most people wouldn't consider we have a wind current. I can map out speed and direction of the wind at different altitudes and positions on the earth. This is a field in its simplest form. Mapping temprature in a room again a field I can pick points in the room and show how the further I get from the fireplace the less heat there is. Point is temprature is a thing when mapped in a field it it's a physical description of a property of thermal dynamics.

Fields exist to describe interactions in detail we could have called them anything but what they tell is is the amount of energy between two objects and what will happen as a result of that.

I think a better description is that fields are more fundamental structures and particles are just quanta of energy located in each field.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: joelr

Easiest way to explain fieldsome is they are properties of objects. You can detect them with sensors or for that matter your eyes since we can see EM radiation. Fields are not stuff they exist in mathematics as know properties of particles. We could get into why these particles have these properties by discussing things like Higgs boson. But trying to figure out what fields are is useless since it's nothing more than energy at a particular point in space at a particular time. Fields will fluctuate with velocity even temprature. What causes this energy.

Here is an example of a field most people wouldn't consider we have a wind current. I can map out speed and direction of the wind at different altitudes and positions on the earth. This is a field in its simplest form. Mapping temprature in a room again a field I can pick points in the room and show how the further I get from the fireplace the less heat there is. Point is temprature is a thing when mapped in a field it it's a physical description of a property of thermal dynamics.

Fields exist to describe interactions in detail we could have called them anything but what they tell is is the amount of energy between two objects and what will happen as a result of that.

In those examples 'fields' are describing something that really exists; if humans disappeared tomorrow, we would presume wind would still exist; Air particles exist, they move. If the same thing can be said for EM field;

The biggest thing that needs to be cleared up about EM field, is when people at whim make it pure abstraction by saying "EM field exists at all points in space".... Does it really.......

How about; There are only a finite quantity of photons that exist in reality right now, and right now, and right now, and always...

And in the spaces where there are 0 photons? Is there something, EM?

In realities EM?

In mans EM field map, they can say; yeah I wrote a map and drew these lines so the lines exist everywhere in the universe so the EM exists every where in the universe, and I will draw some points on the lines, those are photons we detected;

Obviously we do not know where every photon is currently, or how much space is covered with them; but the space that its not covered with them... what is meant that there exists EM field there? Real something there? Related to photon? Photon is EM field? So you say Photons exist where photons do not exist?

Oh I see why you are confused. Originally the electromagnetic field was a classical field, back in Maxwells' days.
It's still called that sometimes today. But when quantum mechanics started they had to quantize the field so it became a quantum field theory. Later this concept was applied to all particles. So really it's not a classical field with photons all over the place, it's a quantum field that IS everywhere but photons only exist where and when the field has energy.

originally posted by: greenreflections
Ok. Then how you would envision 'charge' ?

You can't see see charge, but you can see the effects. If that doesn't help you envision charge, I don't know what will.

For a deeper understanding of behavior of charge, we use math, but for now I accept that charge is fundamental, meaning we don't have a deeper understanding of its origin, and I certainly don't make stuff up trying to explain the origin with nothing to support it like "KrzYma theory", and by the way that's not a "theory" if there's no evidence to support it. Scientific theories are supported by evidence. If there's no evidence to support a scientific idea, it's a scientific hypothesis.

Unfortunately, hypotheses by non-scientists usually aren't very scientific as the non-scientist is often unaware of scientific evidence already gathered that proves the hypothesis false, which as dragonridr pointed out seems to be the case with the KryZma theory hypothesis.

Another general property of non-scientific hypotheses is that they usually seem to be lacking in math or quantitative predictions, a property we observe for both the KryZma theory hypothesis and also for "Electric Universe" stuff.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Imagining if the earth, solar system, galaxy, moved at different velocities, plugging that into the model to see how perception of light might change

Different observers in different frames don't measure different speeds for light, but they do see different wavelengths (or colors, for visible light).

We see light from the Andromeda Galaxy as "blue-shifted" from our reference frame, but we don't see light from our sun as "blue-shifted". An observer in the Andromeda galaxy would see the colors from our sun (specifically "spectral lines") shifted compared to what we observe, because of from their perspective in Andromeda, we are the ones in motion relative to them. But neither observer would measure a different speed of light in a vacuum.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

"Imagining if the earth, solar system, galaxy, moved at different velocities, plugging that into the model to see how perception of light might change" - me

They do move at different velocities, and relativity predicts what will happen for an observer in each reference frame, which is that all of them will measure light traveling at the speed of light no matter how much their reference frames are moving with respect to each other.

What I meant by, imagine if the earth (trials), solar system (trials), galaxy (trials) moved at different velocities (in trials) is attempt to check theory against simulations like plug earths velocity as twice what we believe it is in one trial, half what we believe it is in another trial; if Earth was traveling half as fast how different might our perceptions be and measurements of light? If Earth was traveling twice as fast how different might they be?

originally posted by: joelr


So really it's not a classical field with photons all over the place, it's a quantum field that IS everywhere but photons only exist where and when the field has energy.

Is a real quantum field everywhere in reality, or just in theory?

If so, what does that mean, what does it mean that there really exists a quantum field everywhere?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Different observers in different frames don't measure different speeds for light, but they do see different wavelengths (or colors, for visible light).

This gets into my question about the meaning of a single photon having a frequency, the meaning of photon frequency, wavelength at all;

There is really a quanta of crest and trough? And they always wiggle at the same velocity, but the distance between their crests can be comparatively different? But whenever 'the tip is born' the tip will always arrive at the same speed?

This gets into my continual point, where does this wiggly material exist before it is propagated; and why must it wiggle;

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Can the E field be separated from the H field?

If it cannot, how can it be said there are separate things, E field and H field?

Why, theoretically, hypothetically, can the E field not be made to oscillate slower?

Here is a static E field, not oscillating so frequency is zero, and it's separate from H-field:

What are the minimum requirements for the E field to exist, energetic electrons are being introduced to energetic electrons, which "pass it on"...E field is the pass it on...what is doing the passing.... through the body, and the hair likely lines up, and this electricity effects the atoms, and groupings of atoms, because atoms settle in certain stable configurations in stable environments, and when a relatively direct source of energy, power, force is introduced then interesting things happen, like a new stable configuration related to how all surrounding particles are moving in relation to all surrounding particles;

But what is the E field, what is it made of, what is the particle that the E field is made of? Or is it made of a wave?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You're mixing up virtual photons which aren't independently measured with real photons which are independently measured.

No I don't, and you are just incapable of understanding what I am saying or ignoring what I'm saying on purpose

simple said and the easiest way to explain an photon is this

Under the photon theory of light, a photon is a discrete bundle (or quantum) of electromagnetic energy. Photons are always in motion and, in a vacuum, have a constant speed of light to all observers, at the vacuum speed of light (more commonly just called the speed of light) of c = 2.998 x 108 m/s.

electromagnetic energy is the real thing, photon is just a name for it.
electromagnetic energy exists in real universe, photon exist in vocabulary only !

Of course you could call EM different name, but EM is the real thing.
Photon is a short name for what EM is doing.

So you can say photon exists but just because EM exists.
On the other hand EM exists even if it is not producing a condition you call photon which is actually a wave and that's why an photon is also called a wave package.

And so you understand what an electromagnetic wave is: it is the rotation of the direction in electric and magnetic field.

(*yes I uploaded these under the category 'funny'*)

The most general musing of the potential for different gravity medium ("space-time") geometry



(Is this what every planck length (less if you must) space looks like and is that not material (according to my definition of material; that which exists, that which has physical consequence, that which is not absolute nothing, that which can have effect and can be effected)


Close up


the numbers are just mock general numbers to express a wondering point; could it be that two quanta collide and lose real material, and it is real material shed from real physical bodies which propagates away from the collision?


Key, (p proton, n neutron, g gravity medium, e electron


density of gravity medium, how light and gravity is effected by mass, attempting to begin to even think about how much material quanta exists at the very fine levels and scales and how many details there might be, how much movement and vibration and force and subtle geometry and levels and layers etc.






there are some subtleties


upper left thinking about different densities of gravity material, how fine grain it might be, how binded, how it might be effected by particles colliding bottom left. Thinking about 2 component relation as a single object on right, E and H, though of course yes, I know I take everything bedlam says with a sea of salt.


I could have put these in a better order but this was closer to a hassle enough; these are some of my macro questions; since people say technically a multiverse is possible, I have thought that because the total quantity of that which exists must at all times be finite, eventually there must be a spatial end to the totality of physical reality, and you can say there could be multi verses in multi verses in multi verses, but eventually theres the largest russian doll, and outside of that, must be pure nothing, so here I am thinking, what might occur in relation to the material gravity medium, which appears to take up all density of space, same with EM maybe, there must be an edge eventually, does the material leak out? Is it just all decompressing, releasing out? Or many more possibilities?


left, do gravity particles pour into the galaxy, right, are they displaced out, perhaps that question is the question of geometry and curvature at least particular
tinypic.com...



my attempts at understanding magnets are still incomplete, this is generally the standard outline, I suppose i should draw the standard 'field lines' and draw and arrow point to them asking 'real stuff?', just pretend I did that;



(time to play everyones favorite game) only so many physically conceivable ways at least beginning simply and fundamentally (geometrically, mechanically) a photon can be (and of course I know I am missing some-many (but certainly no where near infinite...though I guess photons can be snowflake like; but with something so fundamental being the smallest force surrounded by all others how much room for physical variety could there be)


















More magnet wondering


keeping the thought present that there might and probably is differences between density of gravity medium inside galaxies and outside, how that might effect one another; on the right is a galaxy, but the principle may be trueish for all matter, as all matter interacts with the gravity medium, I should have done a gradient shading of black starting just around the left side of the galaxy going outward, to depict the 'displacement of gravity material; bunching, which is something i guess like a compression wave, which is what appears to be something like the mechanism that makes gravity function:


to express an interesting function of gravity, that may be responsible for orbit, or most of our understanding of the concept of gravity, is that once the mass displaces the current local gravity medium the mass is always traveling into/amidst, as it continually travels it is displacing the medium, but does the medium have so much pressure, and this might be a tightly closed universe question, that where a 'tear' is it at some rate and with some force is closed?


left is how the same volume with the same quantity of gravity medium quanta, in relation to different massed masses amidst, results in different density, displacement, of gravity medium; The right is wondering the different possibilities as far as gravity medium passing through material


curve of gravity effects path of light ... this one I am willing to admit, yes I am willing to admit certainly all of this, the reality of physics is much more complex and complicated then this; even if there is anything resembling this general rawly expressed concept, it is possible the way in which that gravity medium exists, and the way in which light exists, is intertwined much more neatly than depicted





trying to depict the probable cascading effect of any micro action with singificant material in volume, and how all mass relates to gravity, and all charge intwined with EM, the cause and effect, the push and pull, domino effects,


magnets

originally posted by: ImaFungi

A question related;

Photon detector (z) stationary for 20 minutes outside (to test it works) detects x photons.

Photon detector (z) stationary for 20 minutes in what is called 'vacuum' detects 0 photons, (is that theoretically possible for experiment and thought experiment?)

Run experiment 20 times, 0 each time in vacuum.

true in REAL vacuum !

Now; Same set up, except this time the detector (z) in the vacuum begins to move (detector face forward; at various velocities, but the line of questioning is interested in an absolute distinction, the potential for variances in the result of that distinction in relation to velocity of movement, is a further topic down the road); will the detector (z) still detect 0 photons?

should detect nothing, because REAL vacuum means the absence of anything, even EM !

There are also detectors (a,b,c) surrounding this volume/vacuum/space;

Will they detect photons, when the detector moves, what are the possible reasons why they might?

If the EH...EM field truly exists, and it is when an electron is accelerated, that the electron interacts with this real EM field that truly existed, in relation to the electron which accelerates in relation to it, resulting in that point of the EM field to oscillate, (in accordance to the manner in which the electron accelerated in relation to it, frequency, wave length, energy, quantity of quanta);

When the detect itself, moves forward, in the vacuum; would its forward movement be accelerated disturbance with the EM field that exist in front of it, causing photons?

And/Or would photons be caused from the mechanisms of movement required to force the detector forward; would any photons detected be result from the material moving in relation to the material of the detector apparatus, and not due to the detector face, acceleratedly running into a pre existent EM field

depends how a b c detectors are build, but for sake of argument, they can detect any change in EM.
NO they will not in this experiment, because your source, the moving detector is in REAL vacuum where nothing exists even EM.

I hope you see, there is no such thing as REAL vacuum without anything in it.
The detector itself is made up of charged particles.

back to my theory...
any charge particle is everywhere, it is infinite. It's charge value is different in different locations if compared with other charges..
*now I'm really simplifying, I never explained the concept of space separation here*
Between two charges there is no nothing that separates them. They always "touch" each other independent of separation in space. The thing that differ is the "strength" of this "touch"

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: ImaFungi

The electric and magnetic field are components of the same thing, the electromagnetic field. You can change the amount of electric and magnetic field you see by changing your frame of reference. The values that don't depend on the frame of reference (invariants) are B^2 - E^2 and B * E.

The electromagnetic field is physical in the sense that it has a physical effect on physical objects (matter).

Given that a field is observed by its effect on matter, you could argue that there are no fields, but just matter interacting with matter. This makes the field is a mathematical concept describing the interaction. Which is a valid point of view imho. Not sure how useful it is though.

EM field is actually a combination of several "fields", components of EM as whole "force carrier", sure.
And they differ in interactions, between E x B and B x E a little...

a reply to: ImaFungi

Components of the same thing; Why are two words needed,

because they different dimensions, two separates, only combined creating EM.
but there must be a third one as well

originally posted by: ImaFungi
This gets into my question about the meaning of a single photon having a frequency, the meaning of photon frequency, wavelength at all;

The frequency of a photon multiplied by Planck's constant is the photon energy, so let's use the energy for out analogy since it's directly related to frequency.

Example 1: Your car is parked and you have a really clean windshield, and the bug flying at human walking speed doesn't see the glass and bounces off of it. How much energy does the bug have? We could calculate it but let's just say not enough to make a "splat" on your windshield, the bug just bounces off the glass and keeps going but it didn't have a lot of energy.

Example 2: The same bug is flying at the same human walking speed (for the sake of this example it doesn't matter much which direction), but this time instead of your car being parked, you're driving at 65 mph and the bug makes a big "splat" on your windshield.

How much energy did the bug have in example 2 and how does that compare to the energy in example 1? It depends on where the observer is located. If the observer is located on the sidewalk, there is no difference in the bug's energy, it was flying at human walking speed both times.

If the observer is located in the car, in example 1 they see the bug has low energy in example 1 but the bug has a very high energy in example 2 which makes a big splat.

So how much energy does the bug really have? There's no single universal answer to that question which applies to all reference frames, but you can answer it for one reference frame and translate it into any other reference frame. So do you understand why the bug doesn't have a set amount of energy independent of the observer? If not, there's no point in discussing photons. If so, then it's very similar with photons.

Just like with the bug, an observer on the sidewalk will see a photon with one energy level and thus frequency, while an observer driving their car 65mph toward the photon will see the same type of photon has a higher energy and thus higher frequency.

So in order to state the frequency (or energy) of the photon, it's necessary to say what observer is observing it. Different observers like the sidewalk observer and the car driving observer can observe different values and neither one is more correct than the other.

As a practical matter it's probably hard to detect the blue shift of a 65mph difference, and the cosmic redshifts we often talk about can dwarf such small velocities.

There is really a quanta of crest and trough? And they always wiggle at the same velocity, but the distance between their crests can be comparatively different? But whenever 'the tip is born' the tip will always arrive at the same speed?

This gets into my continual point, where does this wiggly material exist before it is propagated; and why must it wiggle;

How many times has Bedlam told you it doesn't wiggle yet it hasn't sunk in yet and why do you still think it wiggles? The wiggly lines are graphical representations of field strengths, but the photon doesn't wiggle like that. Let me ask you a question, look at this graph of a property associated with women and tell me why women wiggle once a month.



The answer you should give me is I'm an idiot for thinking that wiggly lines on that graph means women are wiggling. Then you should explain it's just a graph showing how a property associated with women varies over time. That's why you see wiggly lines on EM field graphs, it's just a property varying over time, it doesn't mean the photons are wiggling like that any more than this graph means women wiggle each time their estrogen levels cycle.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
But what is the E field, what is it made of, what is the particle that the E field is made of? Or is it made of a wave?

Electric charge is fundamental. If you have a static electric charge you have a static e-field, like the girl with the hair standing up. Experiments don't tell me "what the E-field is made of" and I don't know, but I know how it behaves. When you put your hand on the Van de Graaff generator like that girl, you end up with lots of net electric charges, so what the photo shows is lots of those charges adding up and affecting each other...the like charges repel so the girl's hair stands up.

originally posted by: KrzYma
No I don't, and you are just incapable of understanding what I am saying or ignoring what I'm saying on purpose

Well you don't make it easy to understand what you mean, when you say "repeal" which is what happened when the laws against drinking during prohibition were "repealed" and people could drink alcohol legally again, but I tried to understand what you meant, and I thought you must mean "repel" when you said this:

Physicist can't explain why two electrons repeal so they call "the force" an photon interaction.

So if you really meant repeal I have no idea what that even means, but if you meant "repel", then you clearly forgot to say "virtual photon" when you simply said "photon interaction" and if you don't even understand your error in this, any objection you have to my understanding of what you said is irrelevant. Physicists use virtual photons to model why two electrons repel, not real photons.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

thanks for your reply. By 'envision' I did not mean to 'see' it. You could have said: 'science does not know it yet and I personally have no desire even to speculate about it'.



What do you think of string theory? Is it something worthwhile? I am curious because I think a grid structured (string array) has to be present.
This would make a meaningful use of energy flux to create tiny circles of energy where wave harmonics allow loop on itself, I think.

Don't get it. Why so many confusing definitions of 'field'? Is it constituted of individual particles that together form wave pattern or is definition of 'particle' messed up?


cheers)

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: Arbitrageur

thanks for your reply. By 'envision' I did not mean to 'see' it. You could have said: 'science does not know it yet and I personally have no desire even to speculate about it'.

Envision means to create a mental picture of something. A picture is something one can "see" even if it's "seeing" it in your mind.

You can create mental pictures of the effects of charge, like inverse square law, or the hair standing up example, but I don't know of a good way to envision charge, though now I'm not sure if you really meant "envision" or not. There's always Bedlam's molecular model kit with the wooden balls painted black representing electrons, and you could envision those as having negative charge while the balls painted red for protons you could envision as having positive charge, but that does little for me to envision charge itself, only how charges are distributed in an atom.

What do you think of string theory? Is it something worthwhile?

I think it's a misnomer, because it doesn't have enough evidence to meet the definition of a scientific theory, therefore it should be called "string hypothesis".

Peter Woit has a blog called "not even wrong" which discusses string theory, and the name of the blog points to one of the problems with it so far, which is that if you can't even test it, you can't even say if it's right or wrong. Here are some of the points he gleaned from talks at last year's "strings 2015" agenda:

strings 2015 comments

In The theory that may have been stringing scientists along for years Robert Matthews starts with

" Over the next few days, the southern Indian city of Bangalore will be playing host to an exclusive group of people.

No amount of money can buy you membership and it doesn’t matter how well connected you are. But rumour has it that it helps if you have a brain the size of a planet."

but soon moves on to

" There’s just one problem: there’s not a shred of evidence to support it. And that is now leading to awkward questions about just what all these very smart people have been doing with their time and funding."

His blog is full of material like that.

There was a string theorist (or someone claiming to be one) posting here a few years ago who said there would be evidence in 5 years. It's not quite 5 years since he said that, but I doubt seriously to see any solid evidence 2 years from now, but it would be great if there was. The problem is I don't see many prospects for it because it's difficult to test and this illustrates one of the problems in that regard:

Finally, there’s an accurate discussion of the relation of string theory to the search for superpartners in Run 2 at the LHC

"The real fun and games will start if the particles are not found. That is because, even after all these years, string theory is not tied down very tightly.

As a result, theorists can tweak their equations to explain away the failure.

Such flexibility is a classic symptom of pseudo-science, and it is what particularly irks physicists about string theory – along with the arrogance of some of its practitioners, who insist it is the only way to complete Einstein’s quest."

So what he's saying is that the experiment can't actually "falsify" string theory because "theorists can tweak their equations to explain away the failure".

This leads us to ask "what is science?" and according to the definition decided by the US supreme court, science must be falsifiable. So if string theory is not falsifiable, it doesn't meet the Supreme Court's definition of science.

I suppose for people who like making up stuff without having to prove any of it, there's no better scheme going. If you are such a person then maybe string theory is for you but you're a little late as the party might be ending. I get the impression that the scientists who believe real science is falsifiable, like Peter Woit, are finding it more and more difficult to hold back stronger and stronger criticism of string "theory" the longer it continues to have "not a shred of evidence to support it" according to the above.

Having said all that negative stuff, there could be something right about it, but if they don't start coming up with some evidence and preferably more than a"shred" of it, there will probably be consequences, such as reduced funding of string theory research.

reply to: Arbitrageur

The theory that may have been stringing scientists along for years Robert Matthews starts with

" Over the next few days, the southern Indian city of Bangalore will be playing host to an exclusive group of people.

No amount of money can buy you membership and it doesn’t matter how well connected you are. But rumour has it that it helps if you have a brain the size of a planet."

but soon moves on to

" There’s just one problem: there’s not a shred of evidence to support it. And that is now leading to awkward questions about just what all these very smart people have been doing with their time and funding."
His blog is full of material like that.

What a wuss opinion of Matthews. True mediocre who just shallow brained to grasp an idea. He wants evidence))) lol..