I am a Scientist.

page: 1
83
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
I am a scientist. Specifically, I'm a theoretical physicist who specializes in high energy particle and string theory.

I'm not here to tell you about the amazing top-secret alien technology I know about (I don't know any), about how science is kept from you by "TPTB" (which is apparently a more formal version of "them") or anyone else (it isn't), or about how the government's technology is years/decades/centuries/millennia beyond normal technology (it's not).

Why do I read these boards? Simply: they're hilarious. There are so many astounding misunderstandings of such basic things... I semi-regularly read several of the sub forums just to see how the newest poster has strung together some technobabbly words to make some ridiculous claim. It's fascinating. I also know of several colleagues of mine who occasionally do the same, and we trade ridiculous stories of things we've read.

So why am I here? You've provided me with so much entertainment, I thought I'd return the favor. (Also, I have the flu and working is making me dizzy, and I've got nothing else to do at the moment!) So, feel free to, in this thread, ask me any physics questions you want and I will answer them to the best of my (flu-ish, sleep-deprived) ability!

Considering that one of the other new posts in this forum--a guy who worked in the media as evidently a technical or support person of some kind--has been quickly ridiculed as being one of "them" / a "disinfo agent" / a hoax / whatever, all because he doesn't scream that his bosses are all aliens, or Illuminati, or whatever, I don't expect too many of you to take what I say seriously. But, for those of you who'd like to actually learn actual science from an expert, I'm happy to give some time to answering your questions!

Let me tell you specifically what I do.

I work primarily on string theory, a theory that combines general relativity with quantum field theory (which is quantum mechanics plus special relativity). The purpose of this theory is to "unify" all interactions into a single description, in a way which provides additional, testable, constraints on the low-energy limit of the theory (in other words, one that provides explanations of things seen at low energies, such as particle masses, strengths of interactions, etc). We want to do this because, in addition to describing all forces at once, it provides additional mathematical constraints that relate things together that weren't known to be related before.

String theory is definitely correct. It's not a "speculative" or "controversial" theory. The details of why we definitely know it's right are too complicated to discuss here (there's a reason you have to go to school for ten years to be a theoretical physicist!) but basically this is known by mathematical consistency (the same way you can know 1,000,000 + 1,000,000 = 2,000,000 without having to get a million things, count them, get a million more things, count them, then put them together in a pile, and count how many things you have! You can just say this is the logical result of 1+1=2 and the rules of arithmetic). There are no other theories that does what string theory can do.

What I personally do (string theory is a big field, and lots of people do different things) is to try to understand what the basic structure of the theory looks like, and to try to understand how this constrains the allowable low-energy theories. In other words, how we get the Standard Model out of strings, what additional things this tells us, etc.

I'm happy to answer any questions, in this thread, that people have about physics, until I get annoyed with too many people accusing me of being a "disinfo agent," a troll, "closed-minded," etc. I will not, however, provide any personal information or any information of any kind that can identify myself or my colleagues or my university affiliation (I don't want my friends and coworkers getting harassing e-mails / letters / visits, believe it or not, they get a lot already, they don't need more!)




posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 



Hi Moduli, and welcome to the Introductions Forum, a place to say hello to the ATS community. For now you can reply to any thread in any member forum you wish, as well as send & receive (PM's) Private Messages to Staff only for now. Once you have achieved 20 posts, you will then be able to start your own threads and additionally send & receive messages to and from fellow ATS members.

Some handy links, links and more links.

Index of Important ATS Related Threads

Start Here - ATS Freshmans Forum

Hey new members!! Come here if you need advice

Starting a New Thread ?... Look Here First

Terms & Conditions Of Use (Please read)

Rules for Avatars and Mini-Profile Background images

Signature Guidelines




Take your time and enjoy. If you have any questions just ask.


Sauron,
Super-Moderator.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


Hi Moduli,

I have a question. It is my understanding that even string theory isn't able to properly fit in gravity. If this is right, then how can you state with certainty that string theory is correct?

If this is not right, then I wonder what string theory states is the origin of gravity.

thankx



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
how does the work at the CERN particle accelerator apply to the proving or disproving of string theory.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by j-man
reply to post by Moduli
 


Hi Moduli,

I have a question. It is my understanding that even string theory isn't able to properly fit in gravity. If this is right, then how can you state with certainty that string theory is correct?

If this is not right, then I wonder what string theory states is the origin of gravity.

thankx


String theory does in fact include gravity. From the string point of view, gravity is mediated by the interchange of closed strings. From the field theory (like general relativity) point of view, it is mediated by a tensor field which corresponds (vaguely) to the closed string that has been "averaged" out to a point (imagine looking at a loop of string so far away it looks like a point).



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 

Welcome ,and thank you for taking the time to share what you know.

One question I have is how you can be so sure there are not advance technologies that you may not be aware of.

The military seems to have high level secrets, that are kept from some high security levels within the military. It stands to reason that science is used in some of these operations, and not any average joe scientist would know about it.

What makes you so sure that there not advanced technologies you are being kept in the dark about, but other scientists may know of.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Moduli
I am a scientist. Specifically, I'm a theoretical physicist who specializes in high energy particle and string theory.

I'm not here to tell you about the amazing top-secret alien technology I know about (I don't know any), about how science is kept from you by "TPTB" (which is apparently a more formal version of "them") or anyone else (it isn't), or about how the government's technology is years/decades/centuries/millennia beyond normal technology (it's not).

Why do I read these boards? Simply: they're hilarious.


So, basically you're just here to mock us?

Don't you know every guy on the Internet is 6'2", 180 lbs, and has cut washboard abs as well as a PhD and a Mensa membership?

You're obviously a disinformation agent of TPTB.

If you really want to prove your bonafides, tell us how the engine on the captured Roswell saucer works and why free energy technology is being suppressed.

Sheesh, I'll bet you even believe Muslim terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaDreamer2
how does the work at the CERN particle accelerator apply to the proving or disproving of string theory.


There is an energy scale at which string effects become "obvious" that we can call the "string scale." If it is the case that the string scale is close to the scale at which the LHC operates, then there will be "obviously stringy" effects that will be directly seen. These effects can be things such as microscopic black holes (they can't normally form at energies this low), extra particles with particular properties that correspond to "excited states" of strings, or other "characteristic phenomena." However, it's not likely that the string scale is this low.

The LHC will also see (or not see, but very likely see as there are non-string-theory reasons to expect this) a special kind of symmetry called "supersymmetry" that relates particles to other particles. For complicated reasons, this symmetry is "broken" (not realized) and the way in which it is broken is determined by the more basic theory in which it is not broken (string theory). The LHC will be able to detect "how this brokenness happens" which will tell us something about string theory.

Also, the LHC is going to detect the Higgs boson (or bosons) (which we know must exist in some form or another) and tell us the details about what the Higgs part of the Standard Model looks like. It turns out, string theory can make distinctive predictions about what this can look like, too, and measuring its details should tell us something about which forms of string theory to look at.

Additionally, it may be the case that extra unexpected particles will be seen. These particles would have to be described by a more fundamental theory, such as string theory, and detecting certain kinds of new particles would strongly support string theory.

So no matter what the LHC tells us, we will learn something about string theory. Although how much we learn depends on what specifically we see.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 

So how long have you worked for the government as a disinfo agent?


I kid.


Welcome to the boards. Enjoy the site. I don't know enough physics to actually ask you a question.
Although I'd pay big bucks for a working light sabre.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


Hey there Moduli ... welcome to ATS however long you decide to stay and study us like lab rats for before we grow tiresome to your huge brain / ego


Being one of the feeble-minded morons who wanders the ATS boards I only have two fluffy, superficial questions for you at this point;

#1 Do you know Brian Cox ... and if you do can you get me his autograph ? (can't beat a sexy scientist who's humble into the bargain)


#2 (Personal Question) - How tall are you ? (because if I didn't know better I'd say you're a prime candidate for someone with a chronic case of LBMS)


Only joking in a welcome to the madhouse kind of way (maybe) ... just seems a strange way to introduce yourself for the first time by basically calling everyone here eejits ... can't make up my mind if that's because you believe you are superior to us mere mortals(and of course aliens) ... or if you suffer from low self-esteem and feel that attack is the best form of defence.

Either way don't be shy ... say what you really think (hilarious)


Woody



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by gabby2011
reply to post by Moduli
 

Welcome ,and thank you for taking the time to share what you know.

One question I have is how you can be so sure there are not advance technologies that you may not be aware of.

The military seems to have high level secrets, that are kept from some high security levels within the military. It stands to reason that science is used in some of these operations, and not any average joe scientist would know about it.

What makes you so sure that there not advanced technologies you are being kept in the dark about, but other scientists may know of.


The same way I am sure there is no super-advanced arithmetic that the government is keeping from us! Simply, I know enough arithmetic to know what that would mean that that it is not a sensible claim to make.

Although they may, and surely do, have many interesting advanced technologies, they are not much above the normal level of technology everyone else has. And, it turns out, that for various political (as in, the administrative, red-tape kind of political) and economic reasons, the private sector is usually considerably ahead of government in terms of engineering.


Originally posted by wasco2

Originally posted by Moduli
I am a scientist. Specifically, I'm a theoretical physicist who specializes in high energy particle and string theory.

I'm not here to tell you about the amazing top-secret alien technology I know about (I don't know any), about how science is kept from you by "TPTB" (which is apparently a more formal version of "them") or anyone else (it isn't), or about how the government's technology is years/decades/centuries/millennia beyond normal technology (it's not).

Why do I read these boards? Simply: they're hilarious.


So, basically you're just here to mock us?



Only some of you.



You're obviously a disinformation agent of TPTB.


I wish, it probably pays much better than academia.



If you really want to prove your bonafides, tell us how the engine on the captured Roswell saucer works and why free energy technology is being suppressed.

Sheesh, I'll bet you even believe Muslim terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.


To answer these questions: It doesn't exist, and I do.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Welcome aboard! You clearly understand what you're getting yourself into, so, good luck!



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwytch
reply to post by Moduli
 


Hey there Moduli ... welcome to ATS however long you decide to stay and study us like lab rats for before we grow tiresome to your huge brain / ego


Being one of the feeble-minded morons who wanders the ATS boards I only have two fluffy, superficial questions for you at this point;

#1 Do you know Brian Cox ... and if you do can you get me his autograph ? (can't beat a sexy scientist who's humble into the bargain)


#2 (Personal Question) - How tall are you ? (because if I didn't know better I'd say you're a prime candidate for someone with a chronic case of LBMS)


Only joking in a welcome to the madhouse kind of way (maybe) ... just seems a strange way to introduce yourself for the first time by basically calling everyone here eejits ... can't make up my mind if that's because you believe you are superior to us mere mortals(and of course aliens) ... or if you suffer from low self-esteem and feel that attack is the best form of defence.

Either way don't be shy ... say what you really think (hilarious)


Woody


These aren't physics questions, but I'll answer them anyway.

I do not personally know him. But I'm sure he has contact information somewhere specifically for people who want autographs. These kinds of requests aren't uncommon.

I am almost exactly 6' tall.

I introduce myself this way because 1) it amuses me, 2) it tends to drive away many of the most harassing / craziest people before they get a chance to respond. Also, it's true, and it's an important thing to be able to tell the difference between reasonable things and things that are totally nuts. But if no one ever tells you, it's much harder to realize you believe things that are crazy!



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
I'd like your explanation/analysis on the double-slit experiment, please. Thanks



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


I guess I haven't been going to school long enough to understand what you are saying... But thanks for the effort anyway.

One more thing though, the fact that quantum physics works doesn't make it exclusively right. (example: "How do people get upstairs?" "The stairs offcourse!" "Oh right, I see it so this must be true!" But then someone finds the elevator..)

Intuitively it doesn't feel natural for the Universe to be so complicated. Quantum physics and string theory fundamentaly come down to chance, right?
So is it possible for nature, however complex from our point of view, could in fact have an underlying pattern of consistency? (Fractal)...

I might be the most delusional guy, so don't laugh to hard.

And get well soon!



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by wasco2
 




Don't you know every guy on the Internet is 6'2", 180 lbs


So they're all short, light weights??




posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Welcome - wish I knew enough to ask a question. Oh well - I am still fascinated to hear the answers.

Hope you hang for a while - till your brain explodes at least
- - from banging it against the wall.

Sadly there are always a few wormed apples that try to ruin it for the rest of us - - but I'm an orange - so I don't care



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





new topics

top topics



 
83
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join