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: 9
83
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Astonishing theory, Professor.
edit on 26-6-2011 by Lysergic because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by mb2591
 


Really? How do i ride his "tip"?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Can string theory explain what happens to the energy of living organisms after death?


There's no change in energy between before and after death. Just a change in organization.



Can string theory prove infinite multiverse?


I don't know what this is supposed to mean. String theory allows for multiple universes but it is not known to require them.



Can string theory tells us how many dimension there are?


Yes, it does. Although it turns out the answer to this question is not simple to understand. But, basically, 4 big ones, several small ones
.


Originally posted by AGentMJ12
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.


Well "illusion" isn't really a well-defined term so I can't really answer that. Time is just a list of when things happened, just like space is just a list of places things happened at!


Originally posted by jets04
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?


Uhh, well, it's a string
. Although averaged out collections of strings look like quantum fields, which can look like waves or particles.

There are not a fixed number of strings. In fact, the "number" of strings is not even a well-defined idea. There's just a "stuff" that's "stringy." You can think of it as being made up of some indefinite number of strings. But this isn't strange, there aren't for example, a definite number of photons emitted from a lightbulb either.

Closed and open strings can transition into each other and to themselves. Different types of strings, and different states of specific strings can describe different things. So changing from one type to another is thought of just like a normal interaction between different particles (e.g., a photon can turn into an electron and positron pair in some cases).

Branes are things that open strings end on, specifying their boundary conditions (how the endpoints are allowed to move) among other things.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by kurifuri
 


I think your post are pretty self explanatory



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Personally:

I think this thread is a social experiment. Perhaps some first year sociology student is writing a paper about how basic scientific understandings can fool a mass of people on the internet. Might be more about how bad science can be let out through simple claims and accepted by a large number of people simply by using some minor understandings and intellectual spin to cover up any holes...maybe a "mind into cult building" or some such.

point being, this seems less like a scientific discussion, and more like a sociological experiment. Cheers to people like Laokin and CLPrime for showing up and quickly dismissing this chap.

Pity though, the premise was flawed, but he is clearly a skeptic..we could use more intelligent skeptics here, but not at the expense of disinformation and posing



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:05 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.


Lots of people will make the mistake of not doing research and supporting the wrong person... all the while they are living in dillusion that they are indeed correct. In actuality, they are operating on near braindead levels of intelligence and will always think they are right about everything.

People with low intelligence always try to prove how smart they are by declaring how much smarter they are.

People with high intelligence don't have to prove they are smart... all they have to do is let the other people demonstrate they aren't. You and the OP have done exactly this.

See yourself on now, won't you?

(If you didn't see my challenge to the OP, go back... because he said there was no answer... but the answer is actually over a page long. I provided the answer.)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by Moduli


Originally posted by CLPrime
So, here's the question (it may seem difficult to most here, but, I assure you, it should be no sweat for a String Theorist)...

What does the following equation (evaluated under the given conditions) describe:



Looks like nonsense to me. It's just a bunch of random letters integrated with some random substitutions of things that aren't even in the above equation being made.

Unless you want me to say what it "describes" in a more vacuous sense: it's an integral of some variables over tau, which is apparently a parameter of some kind, where some substitutions of things that aren't said are apparently made at some point that's not stated.

In fact, it looks like the kind of equation that shows up when a crackpot cobbles together some physicsy-looking stuff and claims it's their revolutionary new theory.

So, unless you're hiding some context where these symbols are defined to mean something useful, I'm going to go with "it doesn't mean anything."


As deeply entrenched in String Theory as you claim to be, you should know what every variable in that equation describes, and you should be familiar with what the equation, itself, is describing - and, no, not in a vacuous sense, but in a definite sense.

At the very least, you should be able to tell me what the equation is solving for (what the 'S' is). The "vacuous" description you gave is something any 1st-year calculus student is capable of.


So, my curiousity is peaked anyhow
What is the answers (clearly the ops cannot answer it.)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mb2591
 


Soooo.... you have no answer.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I have a question for the questioner lol. What makes you so sure that merely observing the results can change them in any way shape or form. How can you check what it's doing without observing? Sounds like a bit of a conundrum to me.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Good luck on your endeavor here with this thread.
I'm glad we here at ATS amuse you...



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
My library has ~80% science books and 20% fictional. I feed the fantasy with fiction, and reality with science.
I think it is healthy, but it is just me.

I know so many others where the opposite of this be true. I say, what would the word be like if they were in the majority?

Or perhaps they are! and if so, how has it effected our technological growth?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


Thanks for the reply.

The reason I always ask this is because TV shows that try to stylize particle physics and quantum mechanics in particular, often describe particles as being "perturbations of a medium" (or in shows attempting to address string theory and the like, "a membrane.") That gives the, possibly incorrect, impression that there is something to be perturbed, which always leads me to ask "what is that?" But if I understand correctly, what you're saying is that what's being perturbed is a field consisting of the very particles we're talking about and their interactions, not some sort of magical "medium" that when perturbed somehow conjures them up out of nothing... right?

I guess what I'm ultimately getting at is: if there was no matter or energy whatsoever in the universe, what would the universe be like? Would the space it occupies still be there? Would that space have a boundary? And if not, then does that mean that space as we know it is indivisible from the matter and energy occupying it? i.e. can you have empty three dimensional space without any three dimensional matter or energy? And if you can, then what is that space "made of" if it somehow has dimensionality?

I hope that made sense. You have to understand I'm just a layperson (with borderline dyscalculia to boot) trying to express what is a deep curiosity about the universe and its nature to someone who has the luxury of knowing a lot more about it than I do so as I said please bear with me lol. I’m not here to test you. Just to learn if possible. I believe one of the roles of science is to try to communicate its findings to the rest of the Earth's population in a way it can digest.

Thanks.

And, just an edit to add: since I don't do well with mathematics, it is at least conceivable to me that some people's claims that you're just yanking our chain could be true. So before anyone accuses me of riding your tip like someone else was just told (???) if it ever does turn out that you're yanking our chain, I want to say here and now: I'm willing to risk that for the chance to learn something if you're legit. No shame in being misled if that turns out to be the case in my opinion, especially when there's a chance to learn something potentially. So for now, I'm going to trust you and try to learn something.
edit on 6/26/2011 by AceWombat04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


He cant answer because its not a full equation. Look at it closely and you can tell its just part of one.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DuceizBack
This dumb ass says that string theory is correct, but even Michio Kaku who works on it says it hasen't been figured out.

I hate liars like you, I hope someone hits you in the neck with a sledge hammer.

They've been working on string theory and trying to figure it all out for decades.

Go die


Lol best post of the thread well this and the one that prove he doesn't know as much as he claims.. Oh wait # there's a couple of those..



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Cheers to people like Laokin and CLPrime for showing up and quickly dismissing this chap.


Well, as Laokin just stated, the answer to his problem was posted by him. You guys can't really judge yet if my problem is legitimate, as I haven't posted the solution... mainly because the solution is something that needs to be arrived at, rather than posted outright. I assure you, though, if the OP fails to satisfactorily answer my question, I will post the solution.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

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


Gordon Freeman..... Is that really you?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
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. I mean, come on! D is clearly defined in the variable table and yet does not show up in the equation.
edit on 26/6/2011 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by kurifuri
 


It is a full equation, with enough information given to extrapolate the equation that led to it... and that extrapolated equation is one of the most basic equations in String Theory. Without it, you can't do much else in the field.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Personally:

I think this thread is a social experiment. Perhaps some first year sociology student is writing a paper about how basic scientific understandings can fool a mass of people on the internet. Might be more about how bad science can be let out through simple claims and accepted by a large number of people simply by using some minor understandings and intellectual spin to cover up any holes...maybe a "mind into cult building" or some such.

point being, this seems less like a scientific discussion, and more like a sociological experiment. Cheers to people like Laokin and CLPrime for showing up and quickly dismissing this chap.

Pity though, the premise was flawed, but he is clearly a skeptic..we could use more intelligent skeptics here, but not at the expense of disinformation and posing


I'm just glad people are reading the entire thread. Props to everybody who is actually reading it.

And yes, that is a very interesting observation. It does appear like it could very well be a social experiment. They are very cheap and easy to run, aren't they?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I have a question for the questioner lol. What makes you so sure that merely observing the results can change them in any way shape or form. How can you check what it's doing without observing? Sounds like a bit of a conundrum to me.


The experiment goes as followed

non-observed creates wave patterns
observed creates matter patterns
the observation process was to "shoot" photons at the electrons to "see' what was happening...the conclusion after repeated tests was that the photons were collapsing the wave field and in turn creating particle behavior.
It seems the most reasonable hypothesis...however, I imagine one of our resident (actual) scientists could clarify far greater than I could...I am slightly above the "what the bleep do we know" level...which I acknowledge is about as sophisticated as cat in the hat material in quantum physics understanding.



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join