Large Hardon Collider

[BerenTebogo]

I'll respond to your inane stubborness later. I've got to go continue to study wiki at the international internet school of not-citing-my-sources.

[Neosutra]

You're telling me what my expertise is and what someone is qualified to comment on, based on their education. Then stating that I've become stagnant in my degree/area of expertise and am unqualified to comment on said area against someone like you (no degree, no work in this field, wiki's his research)..

Is that actually happening?

I'm not bandwagoning anything Sath. In fact, I dont really have a a problem with you.

You however, need to take a step back before you rage on your keyboard some more about how the Lambda model is an accepted theory.

Here, I'll break it down for you like I do for my physics students (people like you):

I've already stated that the Lambd models is the accepted theory (and I already stated I accept it). It is silly to assume it is incorrect based on the current model.

-However-, it is also silly to think our current knowledge of expansion (based on many theories we havent nailed down yet) doesnt beg to question validity and offer some very interesting questions on the dynamics of "universal laws".

You're basically vehemently agreeing with me, but REALLY getting upset at how I'm saying it. (I assume you also agree there are areas of the Lambda model we take as assumptions).

As for your final question:

My thesis was in computational neuroscience, however my grad work focused on electrodynamics in various MEMS applications. I've worked at 2 of the national labs, and I've taught undergrad physics. I cant really talk about my current work.

But I would also like to remind you: Physicist dont get to just "get their degree and lose touch with new science" as you've suggested. If you're going to work in the field, you will be spending half your time updating yourself on current research, 25% of your time looking for funding, and the remaining time actually doing new work (or killing grad students). Saying someone "got their degree half a decade ago so they arent intouch with current breakthroughs" is silly.

[laxninja]

Should look up a book called "The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics" which gives a comprehensive dissection of the modern philosophy of science and its application to physics. Obviously we all know how you look and interpret the facts in reality (dictated by philosophy) will yield different results (Schrodingers Cat). Think this book would help from what I have read. Plus, this is a great book for both people who are grads in the field and people who aren't.

Studied philosophy of science, took a stanford course on an introduction to QM online (heh), and long lurker in QM with a freind studying particle physics at University of Michagan. Dont have the same experience as Grad school but this is a fun hobby :D

[Max™]

I'll respond to your inane stubborness later. I've got to go continue to study wiki at the international internet school of not-citing-my-sources.

Hang on, I haven't seen you in class, have you been skipping to smoke pot in the parking lot?


Incidentally, anyone remember where the wiki thing came from? I know during the big "bitch at max for saying woozie messed up" thread it came up several times with the implication being that I just quote stuff from wiki without saying where it came from.

If I post a quote from a wiki page (or any site), it is with a link, intended for curious laymen who want an easier introduction to something, so they can go poke around as they see fit.

If I post something which looks like a quote, but is outside of quote tags, it's probably due to my manner of vomiting up data I've accumulated as it best fits the subject at hand.

If it was in a quote without a link, it was most likely a simple mistake, if it appeared to be quoted from some source which wasn't given, it is just the way I recall data.


I do like to check up on certain articles on wiki, particularly the math pages, and those related to recent astronomical discoveries, but I must point out again that I began my physics studies long before there were even web browsers, much less a wikipedia.

The wiki is more like a huge collection of sci-am articles, than a reference book.

[Tristam]

This:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/466321a.html

Seems relevant.

[Neosutra]

I liked this part the most:


The ΛCDM is the most complete, predictive and successful cosmological model ever devised, capable of accounting for an enormous number of astronomical observations. At present, there are no observations discrepant with the ΛCDM model.

But the success of ΛCDM comes at a price. In the model, only about 5% of the total mass–energy of the Universe is observed and understood, and 95% of the Universe is dark. The dark side includes 25% of the total mass–energy in the form of dark matter binding together galaxies and other large-scale structures, and 70% in the form of dark energy driving galaxies apart in an accelerating cosmic expansion.

Cosmologists usually refer to dark matter and dark energy as cosmic mysteries. Bianchi and Rovelli4 argue that dark energy can be explained by invoking a new constant of nature, a cosmological constant. They assert that this is a simple, acceptable, non-mysterious explanation for dark energy. I disagree. In my opinion, a cosmological constant qualifies as a mystery in the non-theological sense of the word8: “Something not understood or beyond understanding.”

Einstein's cosmological constant Λ is the simplest explanation for dark energy: it adequately fits the data, and there is no reason to exclude it. But the magnitude of Λ necessary to explain the observations places it far “beyond [our] understanding”.

"It's the best theory we have, as long as 95% of the universe is unexplained."

[Tristam]

My favorite part was the bit about epicycles.

And “for every complicated physical phenomenon there is a simple, wrong explanation”

Science fights are fun.

[Tristam]

off topic, but is anyone here into reading biographies/autobiographies about scientists? I'm getting into them and I'm always looking for reccomendations. I have Darwin's "auto", which is freaking adorable, and Feynman's "Surely...", Newton's "Last Sorceror" (kinda "meh" imo), and I just picked up Curie's bio by her daughter.

I would like to read something about Jefferson or Franklin, especially Jefferson, but I would be more interested in something that focuses on how he approached science and philosophy.

[Neosutra]

Feynman was always my favorite.

[BerenTebogo]

I've had an incredibly long night and I have no further desire to fight, but I will end on the point that if you take the necessary time to stay 100% current with both your field of employment and research, the field you got your phd in, and every major subfield of Physics, all while teaching and participating in grant-funded research, I can only assume that the research you cannot talk about is discovering time travel with Michio Kaku.

That's all. Nothing more for tonight.

Re: Biographies

No, I don't read them. I barely have the time to read the books that are stockpiling on my list. I'm thinking of looking into audiobooks but I don't know how the availability is for books that aren't masturbatory aids for 45 year old women or pseudo-intellectual masturbatory aids for the resident art history major with a minor in philosophy who thinks that Dan Brown is really just being persecuted by the evil omnipresent powers that be.

This:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/466321a.html

Seems relevant.

There is almost nothing you do that I don't like.

[Tristam]

I just thought it was both impressive and funny that you two were having an argument which was very similar to something that I casually read over in the latest edition of Nature, and that there were pro/con arguments. And I mean that as a compliment to both of you.

[Neosutra]

Speaking of Time Travel. Did anyone catch the interview by Hawking about time travel a while back? I read it while in Afghanistan and laughed a bit, but he did a nice calculation about a ship going a steady acceleration and the time it would take for them to reach .99999ish of the speed of light (like 70 years). But the cool thing about it is: As they approach 'c', time is slowing down for them, so in that 70 years, they could actually travel to the end of our known universe (though it would be hundreds of thousands of years on earth or more). Was a pretty cool article.

[Eliseos]

Nitpicking, but time will slow down around them, everything in the spaceship will experience normal time (I know that's what you meant, just clarifying for others). But yeah, every time I read about time dilation I can't get over how cool that is. Just like every time I see the speed of light being derived from Maxwell's equations.

[Neosutra]

Nitpicking, but time will slow down around them, everything in the spaceship will experience normal time (I know that's what you meant, just clarifying for others). But yeah, every time I read about time dilation I can't get over how cool that is. Just like every time I see the speed of light being derived from Maxwell's equations.

Ya I meant time would slow down for them relative to the rest of the universe (they would experience that 70 years as 70 years, it would just be hundreds of thousands of years (or more) on earth.

And yes, the first time I derived c from Maxwell's equations was like the first time I saw the face of god (metaphorically speaking). It was one of the few times I sat back in just awe of the universe and it's elegant complexity.

[Max™]

That's part of a neat story by Stephen Baxter, Ring.

A generation-ark ship is sent on a 1000 year flight at relativistic velocities with one end of a wormhole on board, intending to carry that end 5 million years into the future to produce a time bridge.

[Neosutra]

That's part of a neat story by Stephen Baxter, Ring.

A generation-ark ship is sent on a 1000 year flight at relativistic velocities with one end of a wormhole on board, intending to carry that end 5 million years into the future to produce a time bridge.

Maybe I dont get how that would work..

If the one end of the wormhole was at earth. The other end was on the ship traveling for 1000 years at relativistic speeds (5million earth years). When the ship stopped after 1000 years, it would be nearly 5 million light years away from earth. Thus it wouldnt be a bridge into the future, as 5 million years would have passed on both ends. It would just be a bridge to really far away.

Unless you meant someone would enter the wormhole let's say 1 million years into the future (like only 100 years would have passed on the ship), then stayed on the ship for a few years, then went BACK through the wormhole to earth, where another hundred thousand years had passed. Ya I guess that would work.. If you could carry one end of a wormhole in a ship and the other stay stationary (and if wormholes even exist Q.Q).

[Eliseos]

The only existing, stable wormholes should be connected to the Gamma quadrant.

[Max™]

Maybe I dont get how that would work..

If the one end of the wormhole was at earth. The other end was on the ship traveling for 1000 years at relativistic speeds (5million earth years). When the ship stopped after 1000 years, it would be nearly 5 million light years away from earth. Thus it wouldnt be a bridge into the future, as 5 million years would have passed on both ends. It would just be a bridge to really far away.

Unless you meant someone would enter the wormhole let's say 1 million years into the future (like only 100 years would have passed on the ship), then stayed on the ship for a few years, then went BACK through the wormhole to earth, where another hundred thousand years had passed. Ya I guess that would work.. If you could carry one end of a wormhole in a ship and the other stay stationary (and if wormholes even exist Q.Q).

By the time 1000 years passed at the end left on Earth, the other end would be located 5 million years in the future.

Naturally the story was assuming that exotic matter (with negative energy density) could be produced, then used to thread the throats of wormholes.

Pretty neat story idea, I thought.

[Mizango]

Make it happen.

[Neosutra]

By the time 1000 years passed at the end left on Earth, the other end would be located 5 million years in the future.

Naturally the story was assuming that exotic matter (with negative energy density) could be produced, then used to thread the throats of wormholes.

Pretty neat story idea, I thought.

You have it backwards.

1000 years on the ship would net you 5 million years in the future for the rest of the universe.

In 1000 earth years, they would only see it as traveling almost 1000 light years (which would only be a few days/months depending on their velocity on the ship).

edit:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/1/8...73c2a4fdb8.png

Let's say the ship is going .9999c.

DeltaT' = DeltaT/sqrt(1-(.9999c)^2/c^2))

DeltaT' = DeltaT/sqrt(1-.9998c^2/c2) = DeltaT/sqrt(.0002) = DeltaT/0.014142

So if 1000 years had passed on earth (DeltaT'), then DeltaT (time on ship) would be:

1000 = DeltaT/0.014142 = 14.1 years.

Remember time goes slower on the ship relative to the rest of the universe, not faster. Else everyone would die on the ship of infinite old age before every reaching near speed of light.