I am a Scientist.

reply to post by Moduli


Dear Moduli

Ok I will bit on this for now.

A while ago now I watched a documentary or two that said there where about 13 different String Theories, made by other Boffins but all where mathematically correct?

This lead to membrane theory?

reply to post by Moduli


"I am a Scientist".

Your non-topical headline comes off as instantly confrontational and not very professional.
Not a good start.

From:

"I am a Guy".

Hi Moduli, welcome to the site etc etc. This whole thread is exhausting to read, but it's nice that you're actually taking time to answer questions to the best of your ability. However, i don't see why you choose to answer questions based on belief, such as "is the soul real" because in all reality, someone who believes they have a soul will never believe it when you say "there is no soul!!". Anyways, you make some good points, and some ask good questions, and some are just outright rude, similar to yourself who charges into the forum insulting people and telling them about how your group of superior scientists laugh at them. Well, thanks for answering questions and thanks for being a condescending jerk.

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)

Evolution as a 'fact'... That depends on which theory of Evolution you are talking about.

Its the real Dr Rush Cheers for all the info

I am a ATS Member and i am no Fool.


Theory :

Originally the word theory is a technical term from Ancient Greek. It is derived from theoria, θεωρία, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.[1] Theory is especially often contrasted to "practice" (Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) an Aristotelian concept which is used in a broad way to refer to any thing done for the sake of any action, in contrast with theory, which is not. "Theoria" is also a word still used in theological contexts.

A classical example of the distinction between theoretical and practical uses the discipline of medicine: Medical theory and theorizing involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked.[2]

While theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and empirical phenomena which are not easily observable, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science. A common distinction made in science is between theories and hypotheses, with the former being considered as satisfactorily tested or proven and the latter used to denote conjectures or proposed descriptions or models which have not yet been tested or proven to the same standard.

Fact:
The word fact can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality. In science, it means a provable concept.


Plain english, String Theory is not "provable concept" so therfore you introduction is vain and your teaching is vain.

a stupid post with no depth nor interest whatsoever moved from introduction to science and technologies (why not religion ? it is a clear the op is at best a believer & has nothing more to offer) with 60+ flags...

but that's offtopic I guess so please clear my interrogations about ats policies here www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh boy. I can't actually believe I missed this....your career is what I hope to aspire to.

I'm a bit curious about the Calabi Yau manifold and flop transitions? Could you briefly outline that for me if possible? Also, you know how the number of holes a Calabi Yau has indicates the amount of elementary families there are so it should have 3 holes (unless there are more families that are unknown of)....the question I've got here is why?

Thanks in advance!

reply to post by MAC269


Thirteen?

M Theory is 5 'string' theories I thought?
What documentary was that though MAC? I hope I didn't miss it!

I am not a scientist

Thank goodness, as it allows me to THINK.

Your opening post telling how You and fellow SCIENTISTS laugh at many post upon here, reminded me of the Smash advert where aliens were laughing at humans who still peeled potatoes.
www.youtube.com...
Your ego appears to have totally consumed You, and You now believe , as any BELIEVER does that what you are spouting is the one truth.
Science is the new religion, and all religions are control structures to keep the sheeple in bounderies.
I pity You.
Gravitor

Greetings and welcome. I am relatively new to this site myself. Admittedly, I am a laymen in all respects regarding the topic at hand. I have little knowledge of science writ large, let alone theoretical physics. That being said, I have 5 questions for you. If you do not respond due to lack of immediate relevancy, I will understand. As a longtime seeker, your insight as an instructed individual in the physical sciences is deeply appreciated. Thank you.

1) Do you consider positivism to be a proven case?

2) As far as I know, there are two possibilities regarding origins:

Evolution accounts for the current diversity of life, not for the origin of life. Perhaps science (prebiotic chemistry?) will one day explain the self-assembly of elementary particles, atoms, molecules, and cell organelles...even so, I have questions regarding matter itself i.e. where did the raw material for matter come from? In my limited understanding there seem to be two options:

First, matter itself is eternal. This could mean (again, in my cursory understanding of the "matter" at hand) that either the universe itself is eternal in nature or the singularity which caused the big bang is eternal in nature. I'm still not sure what the distinction would be except for the fact that all laws of physics apparently break down in a singularity.

Second is of course that there was a cause which gave rise to the universe. Whether that be some disembodied telic entity that made a few basic replicators from which all life sprang or some sort of theistic creator is inconsequential.


Basically, did everything come from nothing? Or did something always exist that gave rise to everything exists? Please know I simply wish to understand (in laymen terms) what someone who has a grasp on this subject thinks.

I suppose this gives rise to my third question which is:

3) Can there be an infinite number of finite things? In other words, can any finite thing be infinite? OR, can properties of infinity/eternity be applied to the universe/matter?

4) Empiricism itself relies on the mind as a given in consciousness. Is the mind itself a proven case?

5) What is your top unanswered question regarding reality as you know it?

Hope you are feeling better...yet feeling simultaneously inclined to answer our forthcoming questions. Cheers.

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

"E=mc²"

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)

This is just silly. Notation is not consistent all over the world. For example in one of my books the symbol F for force is replaced by zeta. Study from a russian book vs and american book and you will see the notation may differ. You have to explain what the symbols and the notation means, because not everyone uses the same notation.

reply to post by CLPrime

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.

Thanks.

That's what theoretical physicists call a slam dunk I believe.

reply to post by Deaf Alien


Also... Why start a thread by talking down to others implying most here make a mess out of themselves? Science as a collaborative and public enterprise needs to welcome everybody and try to make people understand rather than scare people away by: "this is probably to advanced for your little mind"

There are no fossils of transitional life forms. Organisms have never been found to cross the boundaries between species.And please don't use the "Mutations are the primary way that new genetic material is introduced for evolution". Greater than 99% of mutations are available defects. No mutant has been observed that has become a different species.

I think the title should've been

"I am a Scientist.... LOL"

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!)

As a scientist you would know the work of Maurice Cotterell regardind sun spots, solar cycles and gravity. Any thoughts?

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.

Seeing as you said earlier that the universe has been proven NOT to be infinite, how can their then be infinite things to know.

Secondly, i was wondering, is it possible that with the continued growth of the universe does new ways in how things may work (such as a certain particles do not come into existence at a certain point of the universes chemical reaction so to speak). Say you are in a position closer to the source of the 'big bang' is there things there that are likley to be different in the way they act because of their life span being longer or shorter? Are their reactions that take place that need more time before being available that we may not have been around long enough to see? Its really quite a tricky question to ask given the little knowledge i have to explain with great detail.

Further to that, if it is possible, does our position in the universe then limit our ability to understand what may happen in other areas of it?

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!

First of all I would like to point out to you as well as to the other people here that although you may be accomplished in the sense that yes you did go a University and probably still live in one that you do not in fact have a 'proof' for the string theory and nor does anyone else for that matter. That is also why it is called a theory.

I do think there is a place for Science in this world today however there is some Science which will never be solved and trying to figure out how the world was made is a waste of a perfectly good life. Violin strings can create the most beautiful sounds, but it can not be measured. How could it be measured? As it rings through the hall? Through ones ears? The dreams that could come of it? No it can not!

We have but a short time on this earth and I think we should make the most of it rather then waste our beautiful minds on subjects such as this. IMHO of course!

It seems like your making some awfully big leaps in terms of equating the epistemological status of your string theory with that of mathematics. The great thing about mathematics is its certainty, but also its great limitation is in translating mathematics to beliefs about the ontology of any physical world. There is no way, for starters, of being certain that a physical world even exists outside our own minds; it could all be a dream that presents a phenomenology that happens to be consistent with the string theory.

But even if we take as a given the existence of physical world outside our minds, the epistemology of its ontology is still going to be dependent on a myriad of other theories such as how any given instrument is supposed to work as it supposedly is presenting us with empirical evidence for any given belief. Science will always be vulnerable to fallibilities that mathematics is not. String theory is a scientific belief, therefore it is fallible. In fact any belief that is not falsifiable by empirical evidence is not considered a scientific belief. A scientific belief is considered to be well corroborated if it has survived repeated attempts at falsification. But a scientific belief is never considered proven because there is no way of knowing with certainty that some a posteriori evidence may come along to falsify that belief, even if that belief is in the veracity of the string theory.

I suspect you may contend that string theory is equatable to mathematics. I don't believe that is true but even if we take as a given that it is, you are still writing in common language on this thread making bold statements about a myriad of subject matters that could never be perfectly translated into mathematics. Unless you are using pure mathematical terms, you can never have any mathematical certainty that even another person reading your statement has the same meaning in their head as you have in yours and intended to refer to in the statement. From what I've read you've never attempted to even clarify at all even in a common language sense, what is being referred to by posters questions, let alone ask for a clarification in mathematical terms. For instance how do you know what is meant by a questioner when asking about advanced technology being hidden by the military. What is meant by 'advanced'? I'm sure some technology is being hidden by the military that many would call advanced but the meaning of the term 'advanced' is vague at best. And yet you still make your bold proclamations!