I am a Scientist.

What do you think of the TV Show "Through The Worm Hole" on the Science Channel? --- time travel, and much more they discuss?

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by kykweer

 

if the higgs boson is found, we can make things mass-less, and you can have a hover-bike.

the applications are practically endless. no more weight restrictions.

Yes, but the process would still be very limited, rare and costly. Ineffective in mass production as every atom in the vehicle would have to be broken down and reassembled as in "beam me up scotty" which is theoretically possible in the next 150 years. (Though don't take my word for it, for I know basically nothing about the field.


Anyway OP mentioned before that no practical use would be found ATM, but maybe one day in the future

I haven't posted much lately, so ban away. This guy is a joke. He's here to mock folks who, unlike himself, are capable of seeing things science hasn't been able to explain yet. But, much like yourself, I come here to read posts like THIS. They don't make me laugh, though. They just make me very sad. Why? Because we aren't evolving. We aren't changing. We aren't ever going to get off of this rock or understand the things that really matter - at least not until we somehow curbe the madness of the few who think they have answers to things they couldn't possibly understand...all while discounting and ignoring the things they don't have answers for.

On second thought, I am laughing at you. I love seeing intelligent people who are clueless. It keeps you honest.

i wanna know how consciousness works from your point of view.. and i wanna know if there is room for the big bang theory steven hawkings came up with in the string theory?

reply to post by Erno86


I disagree i was watching a program about galaxy's colliding into one another and they believe in one of these galaxy's there is what appears to be antimatter passing through the two galaxy's and the antimatter seams to have little if any interaction with normal matter leading scientist to question what the real nature of anti matter is and a new theory is that there may be alot of dark matter within galaxy's and its only when the two collided and the anti matter separated that scientist got to have a real look at what is possibly antimatter i will see if i can find a link it as on sky 3 nights ago.
If i've learnt anything when it comes to space and all its secrets is that we [humans]can only guess at how the universe works and as we look further and further into space and observe new things that don't fit the theory's we hold true it starts a whole new learning curve and new theory's are brought forth and so on and so forth.
its so easy to fall into a "i know everything about everything" trap and this stunts our growth as we cannot conceive that we maybe wrong and as we all should know it only through being wrong that we learn.

reply to post by Moduli


I find it fascinating that you, a man employed as a theoretical physicist who studies special relativity, would criticize ANY post on this site. If I'm not mistaken didn't your predecessors introduce us to Schrodinger's cat among other ridiculous and useless theories? And of course who can forget the work of Oppenheimer and his band of idiots?
Everything you folks are doing is theory and it puts the rest of us in danger, one need look no further than Fukishima to see proof of that. Now the search is on for the elusive "God particle" using the collider, a device designed by men who can't change the oil in the car they drove to the lab.
Scientists and surgeons, two of the most over rated professions in the world, and to paraphrase Napoleon, will have even more lives to answer for in the next world than Generals.

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
I got a hardcore science question: where did stuff come from, originally?

Bet you can't answer that, Smartypants.

It came from George Carlin's bedside cabinet. Duh...

reply to post by kykweer

Ehhh the fact that a higgs bosson has to exist doesn't make sense to me..
Why would you need a particle to go inside a particle to give it mass..

reply to post by Moduli


A lot of people have made the statement that Newton's laws have been proven to be wrong, yet I'm 100% sure 9 out of 10 people are merely speaking out of their ass in order to "fit in" and have no idea what they are talking about.

If true, how has Newton's theories been proven wrong? (I know its not wrong)

Originally posted by CLPrime
The first function above is the substitution of that Lagrangian into the action equation (which I didn't give, but it should be known to even the most novice String Theorist: S = [int]L dt) specifically for any spin-1/2 particle (fermions).

These functions also need to be known by String Theorists in order to solve for equations of motion, which are essential and describe how a system reacts to external forces.

The equation I initially posted, oh so long ago, involved the substitution of variables (which were given) to simplify, as well the condition that the integral was only for a given theta value (which was given as 0, so that part didn't even need to be taken into consideration - though, ironically, this is the part that the OP chose to focus on).

So, in the simplest terms, the answer is: the function describes the action, with respect to time, of any and all fermions.

Sorry, not 'potato'

Those of us with a weak math background kind of have to take your word for this. Can you post a link that would help make it clear to us that this really is the sort of answer a string theorist would have given to your question?

Hmmm... Science questions...

Here's one for ya:

Given that there's no such thing as a universal clock, what does that say about the speed of light (in a vacuum) being a constant?

Relativity experiments have shown that nearly ideal clocks (atomic clocks) run at different speeds when traveling at different speeds and hypothetically they also differentiate under different gravity fields. But (from what I understand) the speed of light experiment supposedly yields the same result in each case when run under the conditions that differing clocks are put into. Given that speed is distance over time, and with the time provided in that measurement being relative, wouldn't that make the speed of light itself relativistic rather than a universal constant? And do you think that may provide any interesting insight or loopholes regarding known phenomena?

Or am I missing out on something by being a layman when reading about this stuff?

reply to post by Trublbrwing


EXACTLY. A scientist in the field of guessing and assumptions, no less. At least Ufologists maintain that there are still aliens flying through the skies. I'd ask you a question about all your many years in your field...but there's little point...because in a week, it will all be different. Of course, in a week, you'll also still be pretending to know something all us simpletons don't. Maybe you're more consistent than I gave you credit for.

I have a question that is very interesting to me, and hopefully you could answer it.

You say that you don't believe in God, however, Albert Einstein said that he was an very spiritual person, and he was also arguably the most important pioneer of quantum physics.

In your opinion, does quantum physics, as well as string theory, allow for the presence of some sort of 'greater mystery' of the universe? Or was Albert Einstein being very spiritual and his ability to completely reorganize our understanding of the universe completely separate entities?

Kind of a loaded question... but, if you were disappointed that your thread wasn't controversial enough, here's your chance!

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by CLPrime
It is, in fact, an action. Let me, using the given variable substitutions, revert to its original equation:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4fe29a9f0213.jpg[/atsimg]

Plus, I'll give you this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9e127a092de9.jpg[/atsimg]

That should help.

It's hilarious that you think that's what that was supposed to mean. theta=0 was my favorite part. Second only to the random insertion of integral dtheta. But really all of it was pretty hilarious.

Hm. As a String Theorist, I would've assumed your ability to extrapolate and apply would be better than this.
Do you even know what the second function is?

Since the OP seems to have run away, I will give the solution to what I asked... just so people know that it was a reasonable request to ask of a String Theorist.

The second function above is the first-order Lagrangian describing the energy dynamics of a massless, spinless particle. This is the basis for all superstring derivations - when String Theorists mathematically predict the dynamic (energetic) qualities of a string corresponding to any given particle, this is the base equation that allows such a prediction. It would be impossible for any String Theorist to make any contribution to the theory whatsoever if he didn't know this basic function.

The first function above is the substitution of that Lagrangian into the action equation (which I didn't give, but it should be known to even the most novice String Theorist: S = [int]L dt) specifically for any spin-1/2 particle (fermions).

These functions also need to be known by String Theorists in order to solve for equations of motion, which are essential and describe how a system reacts to external forces.

The equation I initially posted, oh so long ago, involved the substitution of variables (which were given) to simplify, as well the condition that the integral was only for a given theta value (which was given as 0, so that part didn't even need to be taken into consideration - though, ironically, this is the part that the OP chose to focus on).

So, in the simplest terms, the answer is: the function describes the action, with respect to time, of any and all fermions.

Sorry, not 'potato'

Tl;dr of this entire thread the op is not who he/she says they are.

reply to post by Moduli


I'll play! I'd like your take a handful questions that don't have satisfying answers... I'm taking a shotgun approach here, so feel free to comment on whatever aspect you care to while ignoring what doesn't interest you. It would be a project to address everything here and I'm not expecting that.

What the heck is the ontological status of the mathematical or otherwise informational descriptions/representations of systems and processes? Consider, for example, the wavefunction. Lundeen et al. profess to have measured the wavefunction of a single photon directly (Direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction, Nature, Vol. 474) and describe the results of their measurements as an explicit definition of the wavefunction, in contrast to the useful theoretical abstraction that constitutes the wavefunction in common use.

So, in what sense does the wavefunction exist? Is the definition of the wavefunction its mathematical representation? Or is a better definition, "the thing that the mathematical description describes?" It would be hard to argue that the wavefunction was not "discovered." Clearly it has been in operation since the begining of time, and we as humans just found out about it. If we discovered it, where did we find it? It doesn't seem to take up any space, although it refers to an area in space. If it doesn't take up space, how is it so deeply embedded in reality? "Where" is it when its not in a physicists head?

I guess that's my real question, how is math - or what mathematical expressions "refer to" - embedded in reality? Is reality just structured information, or are there "things" that the information is somehow associated with? Are mathematical relationships purely emergent properties necessitated by specific individual properties or values? If there are essential properties of specific entities and our descriptions are just summations of those properties, are there really extant entities that "have" the properties, or are there only bundles of properties?

Reality doesn't "look" like anything objectively, so how do you conceptualize it? Is it just information in some ethereal form until an observer manifests a "representation" of the information? What's the difference between an observation and any other type of causal interaction? Why, when information is represented in the right way in a brain, is there an experiential component? There is something that "it is like" to see the color red, yet no description of the physics behind that neurological process suggest an experiential component. Why is it okay that physics doesn't account for consciousness/experience/awareness, which seem so strongly to be categorically different from all other representations of information?

reply to post by mb2591


Ehhh I don't know, my original question was about the application of discoveries made at the LHC and its usefulness in improving our lives.

Gravity to the universe is like mortar to houses. And atoms doesn't consist of protons and neutrons only. So who are we to say it doesn't have "at least" two components.

My only worry is that even though this knowledge is fascinating and helps us understand the universe, I can't help but think its a crusade to prove something that has no benefit the us on earth and its resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

I'd rather have a highly intelligent theoretical physicist work on water treatment, desalination and waste and improve the efficiency in taking care of these things than expensive experiments out of a james bond movie.

Originally posted by FanarFanar

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
I got a hardcore science question: where did stuff come from, originally?

Bet you can't answer that, Smartypants.

It came from George Carlin's bedside cabinet. Duh...

Science has never claimed with 100% proof of anything, it is just observations, and BB theory is just a theory and it evolves and changes as people learn.

Religion on the other hand does not evolve at all, and the book is still the same, for the most part.

If you can give god the ability to exist before the universe, then why can't you give the universe itself/other universes the possibility to exist before our universe?

reply to post by Tearman


Well...the problem is, there's a divide in String Theory. First, you have the most simple generalities, which you will find on any public-aimed website or other basic overview of String Theory. And, second, you have String Theory itself, which is a mess of convoluted mathematics. And never the twain shall meet.
The first never talks about the second, and the second tries to forget the first, for fear of reverting back to that simplicity.
So, to give you any site that will prove that what I have said is legitimate isn't going to happen...as much as even I wish it could. I do prefer to prove my claims, but, in this instance, the question was aimed at someone who said he was a dedicated String Theorist. Anything I asked him had to be something he couldn't just Google. Consequently, it's not something anyone else can just Google.

By the way, since I'm more of a word guy, myself...

The "theoretical" part of THEORETICAL Physicist states pretty plainly that nothing you study or pontifcate about is scientific fact. So, in what way are you a scientist? You're a closed-minded philosopher at best...a snake oil salesman at worst.

I thoroughly love the fact that you come on a website laughing at people who try to understand things, when your entire field, career, and passion is based on guess work and unproven "fact." But, maybe some of us are still fooled. Please, continue...

reply to post by kurifuri


You god guys always take the easy answer --duh god did it -- You prove that!