It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I am a Scientist.

page: 8
83
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Demoncreeper

I also want to ask, since your opening post, have you found more legitimate members than you once thought? or are you still on the wavelength that the members are still mostly "technobabbly outrageous claims" makers?

Cheers for your replies and time, whatever the case may be.


I am getting exactly what I expected
.


Originally posted by EthanT
Can you name one prediction String Theory makes that has anywhere near the precision on your variable X up there?


Well, all theories make predictions to an infinite number of digits generically, but the point was not that string theory made predictions like that, but that it is the logical consequence of theories that do. In other words, string theory makes all the predictions of the Standard Model and of GR, so every experiment ever done supports it.

The issue is not making those predictions, but on understanding the space of so-called "UV-completions" of those theories and deciding which of them is the correct UV completion of the Standard Model + GR.



Also, if you really are in High-Enery physics and String Theory, these following ten questions should be a total breeze to answer, especially since I have less physics education than that and can think these up off the top of my head.


Great, it'll be like a qual, but stupider!



(1) Fill in the blanks. Wick's Theorem tells us how to go from _______ ordered products to _____ ordered products.

To be a contrarian, I will answer this without filling in blanks. Wick's theorem tells us how to correctly order normally ordered products. This is needed to remove apparently dangerous, but actually harmless, divergences caused by evaluating products of operators at the same point. No one since the 1960s cares about this thanks to Feynman.



(2) What is amputation in QFT and why do it?


Oddly enough, it amputates those fancy diagrams that allow you to not have to go through the Horror of canonical quantization.



(3) What do bremsstrahlung diagrams due for infrared divergences?


They, uhh, well, describe it? I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Normal people IR regulate things and don't ask stupid questions that don't make IR sense, so they don't have to worry about them!



(4) Is energy conserved globally in General Relativity? How does this specifically relate to Killing Vectors


No, and it's totally awesome that it's not! There are no global timelike Killing vectors in generic spaces in GR.

As a bonus answer, Killing is the name of a physicist, and it's totally awesome. It's extra awesome when you realize what Killing stuff does in math and why it could easily have been named "killing" stuff if there were no physicist named Killing
.



(5) Name some different ways of obtaining Christoffel Symbols? (Computer methods don't count here)


Well normal people use a textbook or review article that has them listed, or a notebook that someone once scrawled the hopefully-correct answer in. You can do it from the metric tensor if you want though (and should on the homework set, of course!). Well, assuming it's metric compatible anyway, if it's not you're in for some more annoying fun. If you want to be fancy, you can calculate two entirely different connections whose difference magically gives you the one you want to calculate.



(6) In bosonic String Theory, what are the ramifications of satisfying the conditions of Lorentz Invariance?


26 delicious dimensions



(7) What is a D-Brane and how does it relate to gravity?


D stands for "choose the boundary conditions you though were wrong until the '90s" and it's a soliton and it can be a flat black hole if it makes you happy.



(8) Complete the list of ten dimensional supersymmetric string theories:
Type IIA, _____, _______, .......


Even wikipedia knows this... I refuse to answer on the grounds this is the easiest question.



(9) What does M-Theory do for this list?


Combines it into one spidery diagram.



(10) How are the branes in M-Theory different than D-branes?


They're Mmmm D-licious! And all elevendimensionally.

Did I pass?




posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 



Withsuch strength you bring your educated assessment to us at ATS, You know for a fact we are crazies, so you and your geek-squad decide to play with our minds whilst entertaining your boxy lifes. I do not, no wait, I know you won't last long here. Lol, you scientist of the string theory...lol



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
good fer you!



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by j-man
 

Isn't it string theory? The very name tells us it is not proven, sorry but from my humble point of view your credentials as a scientist are very much in question. That however is not such such a bad thing, considering the garbage that often gets put out as science.
Welcome to the forum.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Demoncreeper
 


What other threads do people post in? Ones about UFOs? The NWO? 2012? People don't care about proof in those topics.
But, this guy has invoked the scientists here... that's a whole different group. And, you'll notice, even some of them aren't asking for proof.
But I am...


ETA: which I see has been answered below.
edit on 26-6-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)


People cry for proof in every single thread in all those that you mention, at some point. Then they post their GED info (googled education), youtube videos, etc. The proof is being asked for. But it is NEVER delivered 100 % for them.. What difference does it make here? Do you think people come to ATS for the absolute truth? Haha.

edit on 26-6-2011 by Demoncreeper because: hi.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tayesin

Originally posted by kurifuri
reply to post by j-man
 


Souls don't exist because there is no mechanism in the body that holds one. It has not been detected by anybody at all ever in the history of forever. Get over it.

If it exist, it can be detected. People claim to see ghost and feel Jesus but when brought to the test, they fail every single time.


No mechanism in the body to hold one? The thinking is too small. The soul does not reside within the body, so to look for a place it would be within the body is ridiculous.

I'm suppose to have a semi lengthy reply, however I only need this..(
).

People who see ghosts fail every single time? Perhaps if that was so the tests are too limited? I work with the dead and the living as part of my life's work.. don't charge for it either. Not only do they exist they can touch the physical in order to provide proof of their existence.. which is what we have them do to their living friends and relatives.

So many people truly Believe they know better because they are highly educated, but in reality they have closed themselves off to anything outside of their chosen set of Belief based Limitations.


edit on 26-6-2011 by Tayesin because: dyslexia



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Welcome to ATS! I know enough about physics myself to know that all laws are suspended when I'm attempting to assemble something relatively simple.


Have fun and don't pay any attention to the "TPTB nuts". Those of us in the TLC, Bilderberg group, and Illuminati don't.


/TOA



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Oh look its the guy who knows them all...bohoooo....lets treat him rudely and drive him out of here....



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Can string theory explain what happens to the energy of living organisms after death?
Can string theory prove infinite multiverse?
Can string theory tells us how many dimension there are?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I don't believe you.


Lying



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Some people don't get it..His presenting that is based on THEORY , so how he will swim on FACT TO PROVEN?
edit on 26-6-2011 by LulzCode6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


What are your thoughts on time? Is it an illusion? Could time be thought of as photograph frames that occure at the Planck Scale and at Planck time.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Demoncreeper
Do you think people come to ATS for the absolute truth? Haha.


Some do, but many also come here to try and validate their preconceptions of truth..not sure what the ratio is though between truthseekers and validationseekers.

Some may be a mix...
I seek truth in regards to spiritual and politicial matters, however I seek validation in extraterrestrials



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
1) When theories refer to elementary particles as being, ultimately, ripples or wave forms in a medium, or in some cases a membrane, what exactly is being referred to? Is it a misconception to call it a membrane or a medium as if it's a literal field or substance of some kind (i.e. is the word membrane just a convenient conceptual way to try to describe complicated mathematics to the average layperson,) or is there really such a thing as a membrane or medium that would continue to exist even independent of our universe? Or do we simply not know yet?


They really shouldn't be thought of as "disturbances" in anything. They're just there, hanging out. If you think of them as a "disturbance" they have to be thought of as a disturbance of the thing that makes them up, and it's hard to understand what this means without using any math.



2) When people talk about the holographic principle, I have a similar question. How literal is this, or is it - again - a convenient simplified conceptualization? If the theory turned out to be proved one day, would it literally mean that all of the information in our physical universe is "encoded" on the boundary of our spacetime, and that three dimensional space is something of an illusion?


Well, "illusion" isn't the right word to use. The holographic principle just means that the complete description of physics happens to have an alternative description in a lower-dimensional space. But that's okay, it just means the "easy" description to use had some significant redundancies in it.

That's a little surprising, because the easy description was supposed to be designed so that doesn't happen, and it turns out it is only the very small and very large distance behavior that this comes from, which is also surprising.


Originally posted by subject x
I've a question. Well, maybe two.

Firstly, are you more precise at work than when you say:

Originally posted by Moduli
I am almost exactly 6' tall.



Nope.



Second, are you familiar with Tom Bearden and his views on scalar weaponry, and what's your take on the subject?

I think he a fruitloop, but I've been wrong before, and I'm sure I will be often in the future.


While "scalar" is a real word, all of this stuff is nonsense.



Oh, as long as I'm here, do you know of any way one could cause an earthquake using a HF radio array? a la HAARP?


There is no physical mechanism I am aware of that an earthquake could be purposely caused by *any* means that does not involve ridiculously insane large amounts of energy.


Originally posted by Bhadhidar
Are you familiar with the theory put forth by Peter Lynd regarding the "indivisability of Time? Mr. Lynd posits, in his consideration of the Zeno Paradox, that what we call Time cannot be segmented into discrete units (days, hours seconds, pico-seconds, etc.), since, if I understand his theory correctly, to do so would leave "gaps" between those discrete units in which Time would not exist, and therefore, the next "unit" would never come to pass.


I haven't heard this specific person's idea before, but I have heard these kinds of ideas before, and they're nonsense. Zeno's paradox was understood with the development of calculus in the 1700s, so it's not a problem anyone cares about any more. There is nothing wrong with having time be continuous and infinitely divisible, just as the number line is.

In fact, it turns out that this divisibility is very important because physical laws (particularly conservation laws) would be very sensitive to any funniness in this kind of thing, and would definitely be noticed. And indeed the usual understanding of them requires that time behave just like the number line does.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Look at all these silly people who think they know science. It makes me smile to know that i am more educated then pretty much all of you. In fact, here is a smile
.

"I can haz science plz."

Lot's of people make the mistake of arguing against people who are smarter than them. The OP has owned you all, and yet you continue.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Is a string a wave, a particle (or both)? Are there a fixed number or ratio of open to closed strings? Is there a transition point from closed to open (or vice-verse)? What is a m-brane?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by kurifuri
 


Oh yea.. Let's see some of that then.. All I have seen is you riding the op's tip



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by kurifuri
Look at all these silly people who think they know science. It makes me smile to know that i am more educated then pretty much all of you. In fact, here is a smile
.

"I can haz science plz."

Lot's of people make the mistake of arguing against people who are smarter than them. The OP has owned you all, and yet you continue.


The OP has failed to answer basic equasions presented by a couple people whom actually are academics in the field..
He also states personal beliefs with no evidence as fact.

The ops has owned little more than dishonesty from what I see.



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join