It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by kurifuri
reply to post by Laokin
At certain point things become fact while still holding a theory title. Evolution is a fact. It is also a theory. A theory that describes Evolution.
At some point things stop being up for debate and start becoming unequivocal truths.
'I can reject it because its only a theory' is not really a train of thought one should get into.edit on 26-6-2011 by kurifuri because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Laokin
Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by SaturnFX
Ya I'm gonna have to go with the OP on that one. Some of the defined variables don't even show up in the equation. It seems like Deny Ignorance was replaced with Perpetuate Stupidity a while ago.
The equation that was posted should be very well understood... since it's a core concept of string theory.
I'll give you an example
Is an equation. By looking at it, we define E as Energy, M as Mass, and C as the speed of light.
How do we know this, because it is common knowledge known amongst physicists studying the theory of relativity.
The same exact scenario. If he studied string theory, he should have been VERY familiar with that equation... as the premise states.
(I'm not familiar with it... however, that isn't to say that this isn't true.... but the OP failed my challenge as well, so he has no credibility here, and one must assume he is incorrect and showing inferior knowledge of the subject. However, he does still have oppertunity to solve that equation and redeem himself... I assume CLP will post the results when he believes he's given the OP enough oppertunity to solve it.)edit on 26-6-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)
Unfortunately, no...not that I know of. However, if you go to Sections 5.1 and 5.3 of THIS PDF TEXTBOOK, you'll see a very complicated description of what I explained.
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!)
Originally posted by solargeddon
If so, when do we hit the ceiling of logic ?
replied to by Moduli
I don't know what this would mean. We can always figure out new things, and there's an infinite amount of stuff to know, and there may or may not be an infinite amount of interesting things to know.
Originally posted by Moduli
Originally posted by nilly
I'd like your explanation/analysis on the double-slit experiment, please. Thanks
There's really very little going on here. It's no different than water waves moving through two slits and making an interference pattern on a wall (you can do this in the bathtub!). The only difference is that the waves are probability waves instead of physical water waves. That's okay, though, there's nothing strange about that.
It's a little funny that when you "measure" it you don't see the interference, but it turns out that nothing funny is actually going on. What really has happened is something like "now the waves have gotten really narrow" and, for example, a really narrow water wave has no trouble passing through a single wide slit!
The only place something interesting happens is in the "measurement." It turns out--unlike what you read on these forums (and many other places!)--that this is just a convenient abstraction and doesn't mean anything special. It's just an arbitrary distinction between "before" and "after" that turns out is useful to make mathematically.
What is really going on is that interactions between particles "in the system" (arbitrary distinction) effect "the environment" (arbitrary distinction) in a way that causes the wave to become skinny ("localized").
So the wave-like-ness is just the fact that probability distributions can be broad (pass through both slits at once) and the particle-like-ness is the fact that the probability distribution can be narrow (fits through just one slit).
Nothing special at all!