I am a Scientist.

Welcome to ATS.

I haven't read the whole thread but I do take you at your word with regard to your qualifications. It would be rare for me to encounter a qualified theoretical physicist, so I want to use this opportunity to ask you a question.

I should say as a preface to the question that I do not believe that time is anything more than a mental conception based upon the memory we have of sequences of events which have taken place. I believe that clocks of all types are "self referential", i.e., that they simply count their own cycles and do not in fact make any reference to "time" at all, except as a mental concept.

I don't believe there is "timestuff", for want of a better term, to be measured and if there were "timestuff", I don't believe it would be measured with clocks since they are entirely self referential.

However, having said that, I do acknowledge that "time" is an essential concept. More particularly, relative to my question, I acknowledge that processes in the physical world do proceed at different comparative rates if the circumstances in which these processes are occurring are different.

For example, water on the stove can reach boiling temperature with greater speed if more electrical energy is applied to the heating element under the water. There are numerous other examples of this sort of thing, i.e., variation in the rate at which a physical process takes place with respect to the amount of energy applied to or subtracted from the process.

In these cases, one never infers that "time dilation" has taken place. One always infers that energy either added to or subtracted from a process has either slowed the process down or sped the process up, relative to a benchmark process, such as a clock counting its own cycles.

In the world of theoretical physics, however, "time dilation" is agreed to have been verified in various ways. One of which is by measuring the decay rate of muons "at rest" compared to muons at near light speed.

Forgive the Wikipedia reference, but this comes from an article on time dilation from that site.

en.wikipedia.org...

A comparison of muon lifetimes at different speeds is possible. In the laboratory, slow muons are produced, and in the atmosphere very fast moving muons are introduced by cosmic rays. Taking the muon lifetime at rest as the laboratory value of 2.22 μs, the lifetime of a cosmic ray produced muon traveling at 98% of the speed of light is about five times longer, in agreement with observations.[19] In this experiment the "clock" is the time taken by processes leading to muon decay, and these processes take place in the moving muon at its own "clock rate", which is much slower than the laboratory clock.

In the case of muon decay, the energy of the particle, as expressed by its speed appears to be in inverse proportion to its rate of decay.

Why do theoretical physicists consider this physical process different from any other physical process found to vary according to the energy introduced into the process? What differentiates this process from the boiling water example?

Conversely, why do physicists not cite the boiling water example as an instance of "time dilation"?

Thanks for participating in this forum.

reply to post by Moduli


lovely! hope you get over the flu. I too am what you may call a pseudo-scientist-
only have an m.d.degree as a neuroradiologist.

i love reading the hobbyist physics authors like michio kaku and hawking's mainstream
books, and marvel at a.g.lisi's e8 geometries.

but there is one conspiracy theory i stumbled across here that keeps me up at night:
the decade + old john titor story.

in a nutshell he claimed to be a time traveler, and rattle off some impressive basic
knowledge of tipler cylinders, einstein-rosen bridge wormholes, and how GE built
a gravity distortion (time travel) device in 2032.

by bringing 2 microsingularities close together, injecting electrons as mass to induce
a certain black hole spin, and then to bring their ergospheres close enough together
to induce time travel.

he mentioned the graham-everett-wheeler multiverse hypothesis as fundamental
to time travel, where one can not have a grandfather paradox, nor influence worldlines
very directly as the traveler always wound up on a slightly different world than his own.

what do you think? plausible?
even if steven hawking doesn't believe in "time traveling tourists?"

john titor archive

If you manage to read the thread you will find this guy is a hoax

Originally posted by Q:1984A:1776
No outside energy is introduced in Maxwell's experiment, only a door on a hinge that allows hot particles and cold particles to be separated into two homeostatic environments that should be one homeostatic environment, based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The reason why someone other than Maxwell called it a demon is because there seems to be some other force at work that causes the hot particles to move through the door and the cold particles to stay stationary.

There has to be some kind of energy being introduced to open and close the door, unless it's magic (is it?).
If not, the door would just stay open or closed. It's easy enough to say that there is no energy being introduced, but the fact is that there has to be, or the door wouldn't do anything. If the door just works without energy, wouldn't that be an invalid construct, physics-wise?

Or, once again, I could be talking out my butt...

reply to post by mb2591


thanks!!! we've been duped....again...?!

reply to post by drphilxr


These people all proceed with the same modus operandi: spew word salad with plausible sounding conjunctions of technical and science fiction terms that have no actual meaning. Large numbers of individuals are convinced by this impressive demonstration and so become "followers" of the charlatan. There's not much more to it than that -- oh, except that they tend to always be selling something, even if it is just advertising.

If he had really traveled in time, this would be one of the easiest things to demonstrate to everyone's complete satisfaction. The fact that he does not, proves that he did not.

Originally posted by drphilxr
reply to post by mb2591

 

thanks!!! we've been duped....again...?!

Yes there are many dead give aways that this guy isn't whom he says he is..the most evident is the fact that he was able to answer a question that any string theorist would be able to answer because it was a basic formula used by string theorist the detail are at the bottom a page 20 its a post by CPL something

reply to post by mb2591


I read most of it, but gave up at the moment that the guy went to bed. Can you tell me on which page it was established that he was a hoax?

I saw two tests. One was a bogus equation presented without context by someone who clearly didn't understand what an integral was. Hardly proves the guy was a hoax.

The second was a set of questions from someone's homework assignment on string theory. They should have been easy to answer by anyone familiar with string theory. He demonstrated some level of knowledge, but so clearly toyed with the person who posted it up without attribution.

I didn't form an opinion as to what his level of knowledge was. Bored grad student maybe. Not sure. Could even be an undergrad, though he did seem to have knowledge that would go beyond a standard physics course (I should know, I did one).

There are more sensible and obvious tests that could establish whether he is fair dinkum or not. But I didn't expect to find too many people on here willing and able to administer them.

Dear Moduli.
Thank you for gracing our stupid board with your presence, at least you got a laugh out of it, right? I personally don't believe you are any kind of scientist, but just in case you are...thanks also for perfectly demonstrating the arrogance of scientists (you managed that in virtually every paragraph, well done!)

I know your 'field' is string theory & I'm a thicko, but my questions are still pertinent. Here are a few for you:

How is it that the most tightly regulated scientific field of all is capable of such a monumental clusterf##k as Fukushima? (You can start by explaining the risk assessment performed when tsunami barriers were constructed at the plant, specifically with regard to cost/risk) How 'bright' does a person need to prove themselves to be in order to work in that field? Pretty bright I'm sure.

With regard to CERN LHC; particle physicists seemed pretty cocksure of themselves when they fired up that machine. My question is this: if science was so absolutely sure of the outcome of the proposed experiments... then why spend billions of Euros conducting them? Did they find out that Strangelets & Singularities are safe to mass produce now? Did they get the data they were expecting? If they did... do you think we can we get a refund on the ridiculous grants?

One final question (sorry, I know you're busy solving the World) : How much antimatter do you think we'll be able to amass in one place without it going bang spontaneously? I guess there's only one way to find out.

reply to post by Moduli


welcome to the ATS forums, yes you can laugh at it, it's cool. No one here can change your views or how you do things because that is up to you.

I do have a couple of questions:

1. what are the two rules about quantum physics? This involves no math.

and 2. do you know anything about the free-energy generators?

Great post OP. I'm glad you decided to come out of the shadows with your post and provide us (the ones who aren't crazy that read this site) with enlightenment.

For some reason, your mentioning of string theory has me reading all of your posts in Michio Kaku's voice. You probably know him/work with him, yes?

Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions and I do hope you start to feel better soon, one good way to fight a flu is to boil onoins then simmer on stove for hours the sulfur should make you feel better use skin and all.
Now to my question is I am curious if you have ever heard of Dr. David Lewis Anderson www.andersoninstitute.com...

Alfred Lambremont Webre -- December 31, 2009 A second whistle-blower, this one a physicist, has emerged to confirm the existence of U.S. government development of time travel technology and emphasize the importance of the real-world application of such technology for achieving planetary sustainability. Dr. David Lewis Anderson, director of the Anderson Institute, emerged publicly in a two-hour interview on December 23, 2009 to give an extensive account of his time control research for the U.S. Air Force, which he later continued at his Time Travel Research Institute and other organizations. Dr. Lewis' public revelations regarding time travel follow disclosures made in August and November by Andrew D. Basiago in interviews concerning his experiences in time travel experiments undertaken by DARPA's Project Pegasus in the early 1970s. A Sept. 15, 2009 report derived from the Web Bot predicted that a "planetary whistleblower" would emerge from the current period of U.S. financial collapse. Clif High, the genius behind the Web Bot, determined that the individual was "very likely" Mr. Basiago, a lawyer from Washington State who is leading a truth campaign to establish that the U.S. defense community achieved teleportation in the late 1960s.

Source - Seattle Examiner


I am reading a book Called Transylvania Sunrise and he plays a role in the novel which is quite mind blowing, here is a Radio show I found with Peter Moon the Author of Transylvania Sunrise Dr.David Lewis Anderson is also in the book. Transylvania Sunrise, is not only about an incredible discovery that will change
the way humanity looks at itself and also talks of Holographic HAll of records hidden in the mountains of Romania, it has Bilderberger and MAsonic influence and a very strange individual that tells the story.
A must Listen, if you have the spare time.


Have you heard of his work and is this time travel stuff for real?

I have only managed to read the first 10 or so pages, but I have 2 new questions, I hope they have not been asked. Thanks for answering my prevoius questions btw.

1) what is your opinion of the Particles as Standing Waves theory which tries to do away with the Particle Wave duality theory? I am entirely unconvinced.

And the big question! The killer which will really test your steel! Ready?

Sure your ready?

Sitting down...?

This is hard even for a string theory expert......

2) How long is a piece of string?

reply to post by novastrike81

I don't understand, someone has a differing opinion than you do on a subject completely irrelevant to the OP and he is somehow a disinfo agent because of it? See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya.

The fact that he comes lurking on this board in his spare time to have a chuckle, and the fact that he so arrogantly states what he believes to be facts ,shows me what he is...I dismiss him for those reasons ,as well as the reasons that any scientist would have to actually ignore a lot of evidence to believe the official story of 911.

Yes,,attitude,and blatant blinders on to many other facts pertaining 911 ,shows me this dude is not only arrogant, but most likely a disinfo type.

By the way, you have the right to your opinion...I have reason for mine.

reply to post by XtraTL


Seems like you want to believe whom he says he is.. If you were following this thread all day like a few of us were it would be evident that this person is not a phd and not a string theorist.

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. 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!)

Science is a religion. It is made (fabricated) by the human mind to explain the unexplainable. You will find, like religion, science is heavily flawed, and is not 'fact' at all. You are close minded for steadfastly asserting your 'opinion' is correct, because it is not.

There is so much about the cosmos, the universe, that will never be "correct" in human terms. You need to accept that.

Isn't string theory really just scalar electromagnetics?

Your thoughts would be welcome.

reply to post by EthanT


Jeese, Ethen, you come on here without a pizz poor 'tude and ego when compared to the author of this thread and you seem to know more about physics than this guy/girl. Maybe you should start your own thread about your own theories, only don't call it, "I'm a scientist." Cause as we have learned over these 17 pages, that don't mean you have the answers to everything (coming from a scientist LOL).

Take care, and thanks for your input Ethen, I enjoyed it. And to the OP, I do have to give you props for hangin' on to dear life this long (ya know at least 16 pages) and taking all this criticism and questioning, but hopefully you learned that just because you are a scientist doesn't mean you can come into our forums, make fun of us cause you think we are all nut-jobs here to entertain you. Otherwise, this happens (verbal attack from us smart a$#es)Truth is us ATS-ers come from all walks of life, DJ's, Episcopalians, Alien Abductees, Possible Schizophrenia Patients, Scientists, Doctors, Army vets, Psychologists, Stoners, High-schoolers, High-school drop outs, some of us more than one of these, and the like.

Hopefully you can maybe read more of our threads, and reply to them (in a non-demeaning fashion next time dear God hopefully) and we can get to know you better, and you can bring more and more to the table since most everyone in these forums does bring something to the table, especially given your science background. And who knows maybe YOU will learn something from one of US.

So overall- welcome, seriously and sincerely, and I'm sure we all will invite you to put your two cents in on our future threads, or another of your own, that is if we didn't scare ya off.

Take care, and Peace
Marriah

reply to post by Moduli
I'm curious, can you change a spark plug, grow a tomato, fix a roof? What are you going to do when all those who can't produce much are herded in with the rest of the rubble?

reply to post by Moduli

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

I'm falling all over myself, here, trying to find my trumpet so I can announce your arrival.

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).

Then I guess there should be no question that you are a scientist working for the government who has the top-level security clearance that would be required to have such insight, correct? Unless you're trying to imply that just because someone is a scientist, he knows these things to be fact?

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.

Translation: "I need to come into these forums and use scientific words to make myself feel supreme because the last blast of helium I got is dissipating quickly and I need a fill-up......lest my head won't retain it's over-inflated size and shape."

"If I was a "disinfo agent," wouldn't the government set up fake credintials for me? Then I could say "Here, I'm Bob Awesome who went to the Institute for the Smartest Man in the World" and I could give you the link to ISMW.edu and it would say "yes Bob awesome went here and was the most awesome student ever."

,,,,,, Brilliant!

If this is your approach to "theories," then I can only imagine what kind of "scientific theories" you come up with.

And you thought WE were entertaining!