Large Hardon Collider

[Woozie]

No, GR and QM are not just fine. We just ignore those issues when we can (in anything that's not a black hole). And using Einstein's equations (or QM) when we're talking about a black hole really is mathematical masturbation, as Kaylia said. We have no real way to analyze these situations and we're certain that QM and GR are not legitimate tools to use. The only reason we even use them when it comes to black holes is because they're the only tools we have and occasionally they can give us some useful pieces of information.

Trying to use QM and GR on black holes is like trying to learn about a plane crash by examining the scratches and marks on the black box. All the information we need is inside the black box, and there's only so much we can do by looking at it's surface. We can't say anything for sure until we learn how to actually read the black box instead of examining its surface.

[Max™]

As I've pointed out before, much to your chagrin, you're mistaken about GR again.

Whatever we wind up replacing these theories with must correspond to them at some level, and we wouldn't even be discussing black holes at all if they weren't a result derived from GR. Exact solutions aren't just masturbation, otherwise you may as well toss out the EFE's entirely, when you find an exact solution like this, that is a sign that you should keep investigating. Black holes were suggested by certain solutions, we investigated and found them, yet now you say we should ignore a solution because you've misinterpreted the breakdown at the singularity for a complete failure at any point beyond an event horizon?

No, there is no sudden edge beyond which the equations suddenly change, so if they work outside an event horizon, they obviously work just inside one as well.

The singularity IS a sudden edge where shit changes, these solutions aren't about the singularity though, that's a different beast entirely.

[Mizango]

As I've pointed out before, much to your chagrin, you're mistaken about GR again.

Whatever we wind up replacing these theories with must correspond to them at some level, and we wouldn't even be discussing black holes at all if they weren't a result derived from GR. Exact solutions aren't just masturbation, otherwise you may as well toss out the EFE's entirely, when you find an exact solution like this, that is a sign that you should keep investigating. Black holes were suggested by certain solutions, we investigated and found them, yet now you say we should ignore a solution because you've misinterpreted the breakdown at the singularity for a complete failure at any point beyond an event horizon?

No, there is no sudden edge beyond which the equations suddenly change, so if they work outside an event horizon, they obviously work just inside one as well.

The singularity IS a sudden edge where shit changes, these solutions aren't about the singularity though, that's a different beast entirely.

I don't understand this, perhaps its the way it is worded? Maybe im just tired.

[Mizango]

Been one of those days.

[Max™]

The equations which work outside of a black hole, naturally work just on the inside of the hole, the geometry doesn't change drastically enough to warrant tossing everything out.

The singularity is a dramatic change which fucks everything up, true, but this particular exact solution I am talking about is a mapping between the interior of an event horizon and the exterior of a universe through a wormhole connection.

An exact solution is a big deal, implying that it is just mathematical masturbation does a pretty great injustice to all of the other exact solutions, especially when you have actual cases of mathturbation like stringy models.

While it is true that GR and QM don't play well together, it is not true to say that they are broken, or imply that they need to be tossed out. These are some of the most accurately confirmed theories in science, they can't just be wrong, they simply aren't the entire picture.

In order to show they were wrong, you would need to replicate everything they do, in a better manner, with finer experimental confirmation, while explaining why the QM and GR models are wrong. That pretty much ain't gonna happen, even GR reduces to Newtonian mechanics in the weak field.

[Cruzizzle]

All the information we need is inside the black box, and there's only so much we can do by looking at it's surface. We can't say anything for sure until we learn how to actually read the black box instead of examining its surface.

I like this analogy.

But...if the black box is a black hole, and the plane it's in is our universe. Where is the plane flying?

[Restrat]

Any advice when looking for science jobs in general? My school's career office is no help, and craigslist only seems to have pharmaceutical sales positions under science.
I am finishing up my master next year and won't be taking to many classes and would like to have something else on my resume for PhD program / money

[Woozie]

lol at asking that in a thread that's half physicists...as if we know anything about jobs or will ever have one. Maybe the engineers or Shiro can give you tips though.

Edit:

From a math humor site:

My friend Brad recently gots his Master's Degree in physics from the MIT. Unfortunately, he's having some trouble finding a job (it's tough to get a physics job these days). He's already spent two months looking for a job. He's running low on rent money so he decided to work in the Central Square McDonald's on weekends and look for a job during the week.

After Brad handed in an employment application, the manager told that he wasn't qualified. "Not qualified!?! I've got a Master's degree in Physics from MIT!" he said. The McDonald's manager replied, "I'm sorry, but all of our physicists have PhDs."

http://varatek.com/scott/math_jokes.html

[Tristam]

Any advice when looking for science jobs in general? My school's career office is no help, and craigslist only seems to have pharmaceutical sales positions under science.
I am finishing up my master next year and won't be taking to many classes and would like to have something else on my resume for PhD program / money

I wouldn't anticipate much hiring in the near future, science budgets are getting absolutely whacked if the current version of the budget goes through. Basically the current version of the bill would put in place spending cuts that would make alot of labs over budget already. Meaning they would close up shop, and even industry relies on national labs to some degree. Current republican proposals are ideological rather than meaningful, e.g. the DOE would be gashed and NOAA would no longer have money to collect climate data, even though funding that dept and the climate data projects are not consequential in the least in terms of defecit reduction. I would suggest you go to ScienceCareers or NatureJobs as a start, but remember you'll be competing against literally hundreds if not thousands (not joking about the thousands part) of applicants for a good job. Those sites might give you an idea of who is hiring, if you can filter out all the postdoc positions. Try to get in touch with someone working at a place you're interested in. Cold call them if you have to and ask for an "informational interview", look for alumni contacts from your undergrad institution, whore yourself out on Linkedin, go to a conference, whatever it takes.

By the way, have you all written letters to your representatives yet? Please do. If you can use official letterhead, please do. If you can write well and thoughtfully and make it personal, please do. Please don't send it by snail mail, it will never get there after all the security shit it needs to go through. If you can scan letterhead and e-mail it, that's by far the best. If you think it doesn't matter, it does, getting "hammered" as explained by one former congressional staffer on a discussion panel involved 50 letters. The students and early career scientists are the ones who are going to get royally fucked by this. If patriotism floats your boat, financing science is a fantastic long-term investment. The NIH currently sends something like 80% of its trainees to industry. Will the current bill pass as is? Probably not, but you need to remind D.C. from time to time why science is important, because your congressmen and senators likely don't have any sort of appreciation for it.

In any case, the bill is up to the senate right now, it should go back to the house, so certainly write your congressmen/woman or senator or whatever you have time for.

[Woozie]

Oh yeah, forgot about Tristam. I'm so jealous of all you people in majors that actually have decent jobs. The math department keeps trying to get me to switch from physics and theoretical math to applied math because they want me to actually be able to get a job someday D:

Not to mention the economics and engineering professors who have tried to recruit me over the past few years. My economics professor was freakin' ballin'. The money he made from being a professor was only an insignificant portion of his overall income. He even offered me a job at one point when he saw how mathematical I was, but I couldn't work for him at the time for various other reasons.

[Ferion]

In defense of the economics professor trying to recruit you, theoretical economics has some pretty interesting math behind it. In my probability class we're learning about Brownian Motion and so far the only contexts we've looked at were economics related, so there are some relations.

[Tristam]

I think there are jobs out there, but you need to be very willing to think outside the box. You learn alot more than you think you do getting a Ph.D or masters in science. In most every program I can think of, you need to do some sort of public speaking, you need to think analytically and quantitatively, and you learn how to multitask and juggle projects independently and with the rest of your lab. You learn how to write in a way that compresses two years worth of data into 5 pages, yet you can expand upon it in a 100-300 page thesis. These are all good skills to have. I helped organize meetings and symposia on campus just because it helped me invite speakers I wanted to hear and meet, but I have since found that doing that sort of stuff looks great on CVs and resumes.

One of my buddies in physics was terrified of the job search until he started really trying hard and getting out there and meeting people in small tech startups at conferences, they all told him "you know more than you think you do."

edit: and there are decent teaching positions out there for Ph.D's, the money isn't great, in fact a high school teacher will probably make more in their lifetime, but job satisfaction is very high from what I've heard.

[Max™]

Q: What's the difference between a pizza and a theoretical physicist?

A: A pizza can feed a family of four.

[Restrat]

I'm in a biology master's program atm D;

[Tristam]

I'm in a biology master's program atm D;

Same strategy, just don't apply for senior scientist positions. Do you work with animal models? Put another way, have you ever seen a mouse? Jackson Labs or Charles River is almost always hiring, except they're on supply side unless they contract you out and of course funding is shitty right now for many of their customers. A masters actually does superb in companies like that. And if you get an MBA while employed with them, fuck all else, you're solid. You can do technology transfer, marketing, really anything in industry.

[Kaylia]

String theory is falling apart, GR and QM are just fine, correspondence principle, remember?

No, the equations break down at the singularity, they're just fine on the other side of an event horizon, which is where this particular solution suggests a connection between the outside of a universe and the interior of a black hole.

Yes, both theories explain classical mechanics results accurately, but we can't connect both "world" with a single continuous equation. You can't have a differents model for differents "part of the universe" and say that it's consistant....hell..you're breaking relativity postulate.

The equations break down at the singularity, but their validity don't go beyond what we can test. You can obviously extrapolate for experimental purpose, but considering the absurd amounts of unexplained issues we have in cosmology, modelizing something that is far beyond the available experimental data with a theory that can't explain more pressing problem is kinda stupid.

In my opinion, talking about another universe when you can't tell what dark matter and dark energy, or how relativity behave on a microscopic level, is pushing your luck.

[Max™]

http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.c...ur_opinion.jpg

[Restrat]

I have only done work with humans and microbes so far (genetic analysis for humans and a ton for microbiology). Since I'll still be in grad school I need to find something in the area too which stinks (Washington, DC).

[Shiroikage]

I really hope a few of you will enjoy this as much as I did:

[Tristam]

That was excellent, and so true, science would be so much easier if editors only asked for two reviewers.