the "impossibilities" of science.
- Thread starter fulano
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Surely that's not too hard. All you have to do is find a way of stopping DNA from becoming damaged when it replicates and you're there.aussiesniper said:
1. Depends what you mean by 'live'. If, as we probably will, we someday get an artificial mind working, it may be possible to artifially copy yourself so that your mind ccould live on long after your body has died. (Although, if you mean literally 'forever' you would have to invent a time machine first).aussiesniper said:
2. This is essential for the above point, and, contrary to your explanations, there are many people working on this problem right now, though mainly from the 'other side'... trying to make robots learn like humans.
3.Why should we invent a cure for the human cold when the body already does it so well? It at least proves that it's possible, even if we don't have the means to do it in the lab just yet.
4.This is reliant on knowing how the mind works, and I'm sure would not long be coming after that was understood.
5. This will probably be understood as part of 'how the mind works' and as such will be an extension of that.
6. Teleportation... hmmm... this depends on whether quantum entanglement actually works. The best theoretical development I've heard of is that if you had sets of entangled particles, one could scan your body using one set, and send it to the other set (faster than the speed of light!). A clone would then be made of you at the other end. Of course, your original body would then be vapourised...
Sweet Jeebuz! Ok, I guess now I'm gonna issue my own...Rabid Toilet said:
MEGAMAN X type WARNING: Actual Phycics educated(happens to be what I do everyday, actually) rant ahoy!
I'm sorry that my explanation just annoys you. Really, I am, because as it happens to be what I do. Physics has proven certain aspects of things to be absolutely true WITHIN their frame of reference. The models that we have are not perfect, but they are close enough to be considered TRUE enough to reality(100%). They work so FREAKISHLY well, that is just really RIDICULOUS, to be honest. The so-called laws of physics as you refer to them are there because they have withstood the historical onslaught of second guesses that we scientists are oh, so fond of doing, and work up to the scope that they are useful with a maniacal rate of actual correct prediction and explanation that it's insane.
One thing is to keep your mind open, and another is to keep it so open that your brain will fall off.
And, I'm also really sorry, but There is not gonna be information that will disprove E=mc^2 in this universe and the way it is now, and the way it behaves, unless we actually confront ourselves with some kind of freakishly weird cosmic occurrences that are nowhere to be seen or gestating in what our view into the past of the universe gives us(Because, yes, whenever we look up into the sky, we get events that happened millions of years ago, not actual ones).
Within our frames of reference we have proved things to be true beyond any doubt, and as an example, I will give you the "theory" of relativity:
If you take relativity, and and take space as flat, and those pesky non-inertial coefficients are thrown out the window, you get Newton's laws, AS IS. Without reverse engineering, without correcting anything in there trying to force a result. You get Newton, because Newton's predictions happen to be ENCOMPASSED into a bigger, better theory.
Science is built on foundations of previous ones. Just because you find something better doesn't mean you discard the old ones because they are not true, they are just absorbed into a better set of work.
Also, the thing about "my particles",which happen to be fermions, being unable to occupy the the same quantum state holds water in EVERY situation that has EVER been observed and WILL EVER BE observed, unless an universal constant changes, or whatnot. Or we stumble upon one of those proverbial freakishly weird cosmic occurrences.
We don't know EVERYTHING, but we do know SOMETHING, and that something is enough to make certain informed claims. That's just the way the universe is made. Within the frame of the theories we can explain pretty much anything.
What you say about the black hole just baffles me to no end. There is nothing within the claims of science that will EVER be able to move faster than light, not even photons that have no mass. If something with matter, or energy, EVER, ANYWHERE, managed to move at the speed of light in the vacuum, rest assured that the whole universe as we know it would be toast. Nothing in the annals of science can do that. And so far, we've pretty much found out every element there is in the universe. Not every particle yet, but rest assured that if there is one, it ain't moving faster than "C".
There was a theoretical construct, though, that some guy came up with called "The Tachyon". And there is no hard experimental eidence for or against the existence of those things. If there are somewhere roaming somewhere around the universe, they can't transmit info; or they don't exist because they condensed at the beginning of the universe anyway.
Hawking's radiation happens to be one thing that goes out of a black hole, and then again, it's never been proven. But to be honest, I'm looking forward to that being done one day. But it's still within theoretical predictions. And then again, whatever it emits, is not really "escaping" the gravity pull per-se.
And finally, you are wrong in the matter that" no matter how small a chance, it will always exist" - That's a fantasy. The universe is not perfect, and chances are that it's broken, anyway. Zero chances are perfectly natural, and actually, they are the norm. Just as the fact that nothing with mass will ever go faster than "C", and that you can't escape a black hole's after the event horizon 'cuz it will always eat you.
The more we learn, the more cant's and wont's we end up learning, and that's a fact. Wether you don't like it because it does not conform to your standards is another thing.
Take this as humble counsel: Get your facts straight. You are not the first one that goes to science class believing that evrything is "probable". The universe is a system, and a pretty nasty one.
**HAPPY SCIENCE FACT:
By the way, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN may just create a microscopic black hole that might, might, might just evaporate and kill us all. The bright side would be that Hawking's radiation is indeed true...because it killed us!
Or then again, nothing will happen...
(8))
What you do is annoy people with explanations? Some of your sentences make me laugh.unabomberman said:
Here's another.. "Take this as humble counsel: Get your facts straight." Come on, that's comedy gold right there. Do you know what it means to be humble?
Look, the guy above you really wasn't incorrect. And your comments are incredibly far-fetched. I don't "do" physics like you put it so "humbly", but I "do" logic. This one seems to escape the realm of logic:
"And so far, we've pretty much found out every element there is in the universe."
First of all, "pretty much" found them? You don't sound like a physicist, no offense (neither do I). How can you "pretty much" find them all? That's a definite oxy-moron.
But also, that's f'ing crazy. We've been to 1/1000000000000th of the universe so far. The element Roentgenium was just confirmed in August, 2007. One year ago! Element 122 still has yet to even be proven. How you can say we've found every element in the entire universe is beyond my limits of logic, apparently.
"There is not gonna be information that will disprove E=mc^2 in this universe and the way it is now, and the way it behaves, unless we actually confront ourselves with some kind of freakishly weird cosmic occurrences that are nowhere to be seen or gestating in what our view into the past of the universe gives us"
So... then it is possible we will disprove it, however unlikely? Did you just admit that?
Maybe the person you were replying to and your definition of the word "theory" is somehow different?
I don't know. It seems like you have this belief in absolutes. Which to me is akin to believing in some hokey religion. Neither absolutes or hokey religions change very much and thus aren't very adaptable. Doesn't science need to be adaptable?
PS - Also, about your "happy science fact".. it's not a fact. It's wrong. I recall hearing this wives tale a few years ago and decided to do a quick google search. Whether you agree or not, you can hardly call that a "fact". More like hype. Lots of things "might might might" happen.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060919_black_holes.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080627175348.htm
PPS - I don't mean to sound rude or anything.. but it's the way your whole post came off. "I DO physics so listen to me, me, me." I felt like you needed to come down off your horse, I guess. Or, maybe my coffee just kicked in. Who knows.
I've got to side with Rabid Toilet on this. How can you say nothing can ever move faster than light when the vast majority of the universe's energy is composed of dark matter and dark energy, about which we literally know nothing? We have excellent mathematical descriptions of them, true - because they are nothing more than placeholders that make our equations work. As we learn more, we simply adjust our definitions and mathematical representations of dark matter and dark energy to reflect the requirements of our new equations. It's been only a blink of time since we discovered that the universe's acceleration is not decreasing as was commonly accepted as proven scientific fact, but is in fact increasing. This completely destroyed our concept of dark matter and dark energy, and cosmologists and theoretical physicists are still re-writing theories and mathematical equations to make them match observed reality.unabomberman said:
For all we know, dark matter and dark energy may be racing around at speeds above "C" as we speak, since we have no way to directly measure either. This is made more important by the fact that we can only observe a tiny portion of the universe. We assume that our part of it is representative of the whole, but that is an assumption. Certainly Newton's laws or General Relativity won't be thrown out - we already know neither is completely right, but both are well tested and will certainly give correct results within known limitations since the additional terms and conditions to be found will certainly be safely ignorable within commonly encountered conditions - but when it comes to cosmology and theoretical physics we are no more than highly educated witch doctors with very expensive toys.
I could also point out that although you claim to do physics (or physics education, it wasn't quite clear to me) every day, you misspelled it. Before you climb aboard the high horse, it's best to check the cinch.
As for my own prediction, I don't think science will ever master time travel, because I don't think time is a proper dimension so much as a useful mathematical construct.
Ouch, just ouch.runtheplacered said:
What I do is annoy people with explanations? Some of my sentences make you laugh?
Ok, first of all. You don't really elaborate on the fact. As annoying(and laughable, it seems) as I am, at least I offer a basis for my opinion, while you just offer opinion not fueled by facts.
Yes, I do know what humble means. There was absolutely squat intention-wise on what I said. Somehow, one wouldn't be able to detect snide over the internets and yet you do based on what I just told him/her? I can't help if that is how you perceive my comment.
I'm sorry if I come as an arse, but the guy above me wasn't correct. My intention was to write my response post in the same tone I perceived his/her to be, and if I came off as an arse, then, I do apologize if you are offended, but that was kind of the point.
If you "do" logic doesn't matter, because the universe is not "logical", at least not to whatever high standards happen to be considered by you. If you "do" human logic then you don't do nature.
By "pretty much having found" every element there is in the universe you are right. I spoke in an oxymoron, but note that I also did it deliberately in figurative speech, as in "well, kind of...NO," see, am I not saying no? (your post has sentences in the same vein, and is clear enough)What I meant is that the universe as we perceive it is guaranteed to be like that, everywhere. There is no way that the laws of physics will change based on localization, and even the chemical elements will be the same. I'm not being absolutistic,that's what's being observed right now in here and out there. You can't change that. In every direction that we look we see the same. Even the same elements, and how they evolved through the light spectra of faraway stars. Sorry but that's it. The universe may seem filled with infinite wonder if you keep your head buried in the sand.
If I believe in CERTAIN absolutes is because they have been shown to be there and been measured, in their very particular cases. I'can't do anything more if you don't like it, or if they look like a hokey religion to you. You seem to understand science needs to change and adapt but yet seem oblivious as of how it goes about it.
About my science fact, being "wrong", that was tongue in cheek, my un-friend. You didn't read the last part did you? But just so it sticks: strictly speaking, might doesn't mean won't. It's just very, very, ad-infinitum improbable in that case, but not outright impossible.
My whole "I DO PHYSICS, LISTEN TO ME!!" is not less off putting than his "WARNING: Big physics nerd rant ahoy!".
Somehow around there you also happened to miss the MEGAMAN X allusion too. I just happened to repeat it more; yet, you didn't really mention him because you happen to agree with him. If it happens to be what I do, and I point it out, it's in order to get MORE explanations, b/c maybe that way people will extend themselves and, not the other way around, and shut up.
If I don't talk like the standards of a physicist you have in your head, then at least explain me how I should go about my bussiness, anyway. It may even be helpful.
I try to be open minded, and I try to argument, and I try to listen; maybe I don't do it very well but at least I'm willing to learn. If I cling to a BONE is because that BONE has been shown to be the case through some very hard evidence and I have reazoned it
(Look, you even agreed with the guy who doesn't buy Pauli's exclusion principle).
Maybe I DO need to come off of a horse, as you feel I do; and maybe you are right, but just not this one.
I'll take your word for it and not take what you said as an offense, even if I do annoy you and make you laugh. I'll just accept the fact that I have to be literal and that my snide-radar may not work over the internet as well as it does IRL.
I'm, again, sorry if I seem to bore people with long winded explanations.
The ball's in your court.
To Werepossum:
I'm sorry(I seem to be sorry a lot these days), and you are right, It's spelled Physics. I made a spelling mystake. My bad.
Now, to the point: Dark matter is not what you say it is. The theoretical construct of dark matter is not some fancy magic carpet that might move faster than "C", but rather that they is something "weird" that doesn't interact with anything that we can measure so far. Trust me, I didn't just completely destroy our concept of dark matter. Dark matter and energy doesn't even go against our understandings of "speed".
OUR observable universe is not really as you seem to be using it. We're not even set on what exactly that term explicitly entails.
And yes, I do physics. Right now I'm in the process of ,finally,getting on with my thesis; if my assistant teacher and I can sit down one of these days and talk about a specific topic to latch on to. I did do some calculations he set me out to do, so as to see how I did and if I understood the methodology correctly, and it involved a hidrogen atom inside a spherical potential barrier and lots of headaches. Nothing pretty about it.
I'm not changing the world, really, all I'm doing these days is modeling ONE atom's wavefunctions and energies using mathematica 5.0. Quantum stuff. So, if you want to, feel free to blast me.
I don't mean to blast you, just to point out a common affliction, science as G-d. I suspect from your attitude and writings that you are a grad student or perhaps (Heaven forbid!) a young high school science teacher, both of whom in my experience tend to be much more certain of science's infallibility than, say, a devout Catholic's belief in the Pope's infallibility. To particulars, you seem to be saying that science has not set a precise definition of the universe, yet you also argue strongly that we know some pretty powerful absolutes about it. Just as blind men may describe an elephant as completely different creatures depending on where they touch it, our understanding of the universe is completely dependent on our tiny part of it.unabomberman said:
As to dark matter, it is entirely a "magic carpet". Cosmologists observe the universe's behavior - again, the tiny, tiny portion of it we can observe - and find our equations don't work. It's not very useful in advancing science to just say "Hmm, our equations don't work." So cosmologists and theoretical physicists start looking for terms that would make the equations work. If there was matter that did not directly interact with light but did interact with gravity (thereby indirectly bending light), our familiar equations would more or less work. Thus dark matter was born. Essentially, we can't detect it or measure it, but we know it's there because otherwise what we know would be wrong. It is defined by our requirements of it, and its exact properties change with our requirements of it - you don't get much more "magic carpet" than that. Dark energy is similarly a creation of mathematics, but an even more obvious one. (After all, we at least know baryonic dark matter exists.) Both are useful concepts until we can make better (and different) measurements and may turn out to be spot-on, but both may also turn out to be radically, completely wrong. It's equally possible that our theories of gravity are massively, completely - we really don't understand gravity in the slightest, we've just gotten good at understanding it's affects at a given scale - or even that there is a new, fifth fundamental force we don't yet understand.
As I said, we're witch doctors; we observe that the trees move, we understand that touching something makes it move, so we theorize that spirits are touching the trees. Since we are theorizing dark matter and dark energy to fit our preconceived notions, we have no idea what properties or behavior either will end up possessing, assuming they actually exist. (Again, beyond the relatively tiny percentage of missing mass known to be baryonic.) Some of what we now know will of course survive - GR and Newtonian mechanics, at the least - but a great deal will undoubtedly be proved false and in later years be considered as silly as the ethereal theory. (By the way, has anyone else noticed that the ethereal theory has made a great though largely unheralded comeback in the form of string and loop theory, foamy space, zero-point energy, and other such constructs seeking to fit observed phenomena into accepted equations?)
Here are a few links in case anyone is up for more reading.
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/dm.html
http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/21/dark-matter-exists/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
To unabomberman:
I apologize for the way my little rant sounded. Based on your previous posts, I was under the impression that you weren't well-informed in the ways of physics. Clearly, based on the rants you countered with, I was mistaken.
I also must not have been clear enough when I was talking about the laws of physics. When I was presenting Newton's laws and E=mc^2, I meant that, while they work in every situation we observe and have tested, there could be circumstances that we cannot test and aren't aware of, under which those laws may not work. In which case, those laws would either be modified, or we would invent new ones to deal with the discrepency.
However, while I do appreciate the time you took to reply, pieces of your rant seem to help my point. When you talk about how the models we have are close enough to reality to be considered true, and when you say that we don't know EVERYTHING, but we do know SOMETHING, and that something is enough to make certain informed claims, that all seems to point towards the fact that we are not aware of every single thing that is, or ever will be, in our universe.
Now, I'm no physicist, but every time I hear of the laws of physics and how they may be broken, I hear of stastics that are so ridiculously low, that it is impossible for it to happen. Doesn't the fact that there is a chance, no matter how small that it may be, prove that it is not 100% guaranteed that those laws will always work?
With all my ranting, it may seem that I believe that the laws of physics don't work. I find it more than likely that we will never find any circumstances or conditions that will prove the laws we have false. I do, however, believe that there is a chance, which is all I'm trying to point out.
Edit: I was thinking of pointing out dark matter, but werepossum explained my point far better than I could have.
I apologize for the way my little rant sounded. Based on your previous posts, I was under the impression that you weren't well-informed in the ways of physics. Clearly, based on the rants you countered with, I was mistaken.
I also must not have been clear enough when I was talking about the laws of physics. When I was presenting Newton's laws and E=mc^2, I meant that, while they work in every situation we observe and have tested, there could be circumstances that we cannot test and aren't aware of, under which those laws may not work. In which case, those laws would either be modified, or we would invent new ones to deal with the discrepency.
However, while I do appreciate the time you took to reply, pieces of your rant seem to help my point. When you talk about how the models we have are close enough to reality to be considered true, and when you say that we don't know EVERYTHING, but we do know SOMETHING, and that something is enough to make certain informed claims, that all seems to point towards the fact that we are not aware of every single thing that is, or ever will be, in our universe.
Now, I'm no physicist, but every time I hear of the laws of physics and how they may be broken, I hear of stastics that are so ridiculously low, that it is impossible for it to happen. Doesn't the fact that there is a chance, no matter how small that it may be, prove that it is not 100% guaranteed that those laws will always work?
With all my ranting, it may seem that I believe that the laws of physics don't work. I find it more than likely that we will never find any circumstances or conditions that will prove the laws we have false. I do, however, believe that there is a chance, which is all I'm trying to point out.
Edit: I was thinking of pointing out dark matter, but werepossum explained my point far better than I could have.
To Werepossum:
First, I didn't mean you specifically blasting me. But rather, in figurative sense. If you know the science I'm working on, you know I'm not doing anything out of the ordinary with my one Hidrogen atom. Yet, I
stand by my oppinion. So, "feel free to blast me" wasn't really intended as it was possibly understood.
I'm fallible after all, and probably worded it wrong. And yes, I'm a grad student. But what would be wrong with me teaching physics enough to go "Heaven Forbif"? It's not a matter of science being infallible, but
rather that within it's scope, it happens not to be, and within it's scope we can make strong aseverations.
It's not a matter of "belief" in particulars but rather the certainty that I can, and you can, put it to the test if we feel like it.
If I come to you as a blind man describing an elephant as a completely different creature doesn't quite cut it because a bland man can in fact recognize an elephant with enough touching. Yet, I get your point, and yes, there are absolutes in the universe, even if we can't say precisely what the universe IS. It may sound illogical to you, but science is not logical I'm afraid; there's a reason people refer to these things as "hard sciences". The universe behaves in weird , uncertain, and unexpected ways, and that's what I'm saying. Just saying Pauli's exclusion principle is right to a point where we can "see" is like saying matter has VOLUME as far as we can "see", and that we can't phase our limbs through solid objects ala Kitty Pride, as far as we can "see". Acknowledging there are absolutes is not being hard assed but rather noting that the universe in which we exist has a set of properties that are particular to it and are unmovable as far as we are now in it's evolution.
Our universe HAS fixed properties whether we like it or not, and they work in very specific ways. There's a cause that jumbles matter together and such.
As for dark matter, right now people see it as a kind of cosmological constant that might be accelerating the universe to a potential Big Rip, or maybe not. Some want to look at it in string-theory, and some want to look at it in quantum-gravity. But all within the established framework, and not as stuff beyond the scope of modern science and whatnot. And certainly not as stuff that may move faster than "C". I'm sorry, but even
those links you put in there don't give credence to your arguments about dark matter being some kind of "magic carpet". None of the links you provide give credence to how you are interpreting it either. One of them
seems more like an oppinion piece than anything.
This will sound even more far-fetched to you, but if you are right, and there is some kind of weird cosmic event looming and something with MASS is faster than "C", or that should break our "ill" perceived notions of the observable reality; then it's not from THIS universe, and possibly from another weird thing with different laws as to what "reality" would be. THAT is more plausible even in the context of your argument,
after all, our universe should exist in some kind of medium as far as we are concerned, right? If you insist in making that argument that is where it really takes you, not to finding something in THIS one universe.
String theory, loop theory, foamy space, and zero-point energy have absolutely nil to do with "aether", or however you spell it.
We can discuss this more in depth if you feel like it, but on PM, 'cause we are getting off topic.
First, I didn't mean you specifically blasting me. But rather, in figurative sense. If you know the science I'm working on, you know I'm not doing anything out of the ordinary with my one Hidrogen atom. Yet, I
stand by my oppinion. So, "feel free to blast me" wasn't really intended as it was possibly understood.
I'm fallible after all, and probably worded it wrong. And yes, I'm a grad student. But what would be wrong with me teaching physics enough to go "Heaven Forbif"? It's not a matter of science being infallible, but
rather that within it's scope, it happens not to be, and within it's scope we can make strong aseverations.
It's not a matter of "belief" in particulars but rather the certainty that I can, and you can, put it to the test if we feel like it.
If I come to you as a blind man describing an elephant as a completely different creature doesn't quite cut it because a bland man can in fact recognize an elephant with enough touching. Yet, I get your point, and yes, there are absolutes in the universe, even if we can't say precisely what the universe IS. It may sound illogical to you, but science is not logical I'm afraid; there's a reason people refer to these things as "hard sciences". The universe behaves in weird , uncertain, and unexpected ways, and that's what I'm saying. Just saying Pauli's exclusion principle is right to a point where we can "see" is like saying matter has VOLUME as far as we can "see", and that we can't phase our limbs through solid objects ala Kitty Pride, as far as we can "see". Acknowledging there are absolutes is not being hard assed but rather noting that the universe in which we exist has a set of properties that are particular to it and are unmovable as far as we are now in it's evolution.
Our universe HAS fixed properties whether we like it or not, and they work in very specific ways. There's a cause that jumbles matter together and such.
As for dark matter, right now people see it as a kind of cosmological constant that might be accelerating the universe to a potential Big Rip, or maybe not. Some want to look at it in string-theory, and some want to look at it in quantum-gravity. But all within the established framework, and not as stuff beyond the scope of modern science and whatnot. And certainly not as stuff that may move faster than "C". I'm sorry, but even
those links you put in there don't give credence to your arguments about dark matter being some kind of "magic carpet". None of the links you provide give credence to how you are interpreting it either. One of them
seems more like an oppinion piece than anything.
This will sound even more far-fetched to you, but if you are right, and there is some kind of weird cosmic event looming and something with MASS is faster than "C", or that should break our "ill" perceived notions of the observable reality; then it's not from THIS universe, and possibly from another weird thing with different laws as to what "reality" would be. THAT is more plausible even in the context of your argument,
after all, our universe should exist in some kind of medium as far as we are concerned, right? If you insist in making that argument that is where it really takes you, not to finding something in THIS one universe.
String theory, loop theory, foamy space, and zero-point energy have absolutely nil to do with "aether", or however you spell it.
We can discuss this more in depth if you feel like it, but on PM, 'cause we are getting off topic.
Whoa, whoa there cowboy:unabomberman said:
And,wikipedia said:
Can't multiply by zero!Newton's second law said:
Photons have mass EXACTLY at the speed of light. If they go faster, or slower they...disappear? Disintegrate? In some way they don't exist as photons.
My point originally was simply that when you get into cosmology, little is certain. Just in this century our whole understanding of the universe was stood on its head when we discovered that the acceleration of the universe is actually increasing. More specifically, the universal speed limit violates our basic understanding of physics at a very deep level. When we are moving toward an object traveling at the speed of light, the measured speed should be C+X. It's not, and we really don't understand why. I think there's a very good chance that if something is moving at greater than the speed of light, we currently have no way of detecting it. I don't expect to find anything moving faster than the speed of light, but I didn't think Rabid Toilet deserved to be jumped on for his comments. Cosmology is truly in its infancy; if a theory relies on matter and energy that do not behave as other matter and energy in order to be valid, why does the idea that other matter and energy might be found that violate other laws (such as the universal speed limit) draw such a strong reaction from you?unabomberman said:
My comments about dark matter and dark energy were not meant to indicate that either has any exotic or magical properties other than morphing into whatever properties we need for them to have to make our equations work. The links furnished were for general information, not to push any particular theory of their nature. At this point theoretical physicists know our understanding of the universe is radically wrong and are trying to develop new theories which work better, which is basic science except in this case direct measurement is impossible, direct observation is difficult and very expensive, and experimental verification is extremely difficult, very expensive, and necessarily indirect. Dark matter and dark energy are concepts proposed simply because they make the existing equations work; they are place holders of a sort, but also a place to start looking. Model how much dark matter is required to make the equations work, then start looking for it. That's how science works - make a theory, then test it. We will eventually either discover the extent and type of dark matter, or we will discover enough evidence to discard the theory and move on to other theories.
I don't disagree with either concept; I'm just pointing out that both are functions of mathematics, not experimentation. And I'm sorry, but string theory fits into no "established framework". If string theory turns out to be correct as a description of the universe (as opposed to a useful mathematical model), then most of what we know about physics above Newton's laws is fundamentally wrong. None of the four fundamental forces as we currently model them can survive string theory; that's kind of the point of having a single unifying theory. Many theoretical physicists don't even consider string theory to be real science.
Ether theory was at heart an attempt to explain gravity; how can something affect another object without being in contact with it? A century and more later we're still trying to explain gravity. Ether was dropped in favor of particle theory (i.e. bosons), but let's be honest; we still don't understand crap about gravity. Not to mention, deforming the space-time continuum isn't that far from ether theory. String theory, loop theory, foamy space, and zero-point energy have all been proposed to tie everything together into one theory that makes sense and explain phenomena not successfully explained by prevalent theories; thus in that sense these theories have everything to do with the ethereal theory as they are later theories attempting to serve the same purpose, just now they're driven by things like entanglement.
And my comment wasn't personal; it's just that the attitude that science is infallible and not to be questioned really gets my goat. With that, apologies for taking your thread off topic and I'll drop off.
Mass times Velocity equals momentum is valid in classical mechanics only.
Photons HAVE momentum, but they do not have mass (as far as we have measured)
Their momentum is related to Frequency; higher frequency photons have more momentum.
Light cannot go faster or slower than the speed of light. If it experiences an acceleration or deceleration, then it may still gain or lose energy, which increases or decreases the frequency, respectively.
Dark Matter is so far theoretical. It would have to have properties similar to, if not exactly the same as, normal matter if it exists. It would not be capable of going faster than the speed of light.
An actual 'law' of physics cannot be broken and doesn't depend on probabilities (it CAN be replaced with a more refined law). However, much of Quantum Mechanics and Thermodynamics rely on probabilities and statistical representations. This may be where the confusion comes in. The physics around temperature, energy transfers, mixing, and many other macroscopic phenomena are very complex such that fundamental laws are no longer useful, thus we have laws based on observation rather than fundamental theory. These 'laws' are not ironclad; they always have exceptions. These exceptions can be very low probability however; to the point were 'it will never happen.'
Due to the uncertainty principle (wiki is your friend if you don't understand it), which IS a fundamental part of physics, by the way, you cannot know 'everything' about a particle at a given time. This principle is often extended to more macroscopic phenomena through hand-waving arguments, etc. The principle states this (to simplify it): You cannot know both the position of a particle and its momentum to infinite precision. You can know them both to within certain limits of error
Oh, and yes, you can multiply by zero... you get zero. It's dividing by zero that gives an undefined result.
Photons HAVE momentum, but they do not have mass (as far as we have measured)
Their momentum is related to Frequency; higher frequency photons have more momentum.
Light cannot go faster or slower than the speed of light. If it experiences an acceleration or deceleration, then it may still gain or lose energy, which increases or decreases the frequency, respectively.
Dark Matter is so far theoretical. It would have to have properties similar to, if not exactly the same as, normal matter if it exists. It would not be capable of going faster than the speed of light.
An actual 'law' of physics cannot be broken and doesn't depend on probabilities (it CAN be replaced with a more refined law). However, much of Quantum Mechanics and Thermodynamics rely on probabilities and statistical representations. This may be where the confusion comes in. The physics around temperature, energy transfers, mixing, and many other macroscopic phenomena are very complex such that fundamental laws are no longer useful, thus we have laws based on observation rather than fundamental theory. These 'laws' are not ironclad; they always have exceptions. These exceptions can be very low probability however; to the point were 'it will never happen.'
Due to the uncertainty principle (wiki is your friend if you don't understand it), which IS a fundamental part of physics, by the way, you cannot know 'everything' about a particle at a given time. This principle is often extended to more macroscopic phenomena through hand-waving arguments, etc. The principle states this (to simplify it): You cannot know both the position of a particle and its momentum to infinite precision. You can know them both to within certain limits of error
Oh, and yes, you can multiply by zero... you get zero. It's dividing by zero that gives an undefined result.
The idea is that light has no mass, and that it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate something with any mass to light speed, as it would theoretically have be infinitely massive. The problem is getting anything that fast in the first place, not slowing it down.the monopoly guy said:
Okay, so how do we know Pi is an irrational number. People seem fairly certain on that point, but there is no way to prove that it's irrational. The opposite, however, can be proven. So you're definitely making a better bet saying that it is rational, since there is a chance, however small, that you might win.
I'm gonna start by admitting that while I'm pretty sure Werepossum, Rabid Toilet, and I don't quite recall
who else (apologies 'bout that) are pretty much mistaken on a good number of things, my constant jumping
around isn't really helping as much as I intend to. I notice they use terms like dark matter, observable
universe, string theory, and stuff faster than "C" in EXTREMELY liberal ways (even more liberal than actual
physicists do), so I apparentle get testy (yes, I do re-read my past posts to draw conclusions) and in turn bloat and ALSO drag my own topic off-topic;
and write long diatribes trying to argument, and exemplify based in things that to me are are like, well, perfectly natural, but in second
thought, they are not so much, and took me quite a while to wrap my head around.
So, here's a few basic examples of those concepts that I see reflected here that I had problems with:
*What?! There's stuff that just CAN'T be done because that's how the universe is made? That sounds like a
joke!
*Nothing with mass can exceed "C"? Are you nuts?! That's illogical, what if there's stuff we can't see?
There must be something somewhere that we just haven't measured. Why can't I just keep going faster and
faster 'till I beat that limit?
*Dark matter? That sure sounds exotic! Nobody seems to know what it really is so it may well be anything!
*etc.
I do acknowledge those things draw a strong reaction from me, and I also acknowledge that my responses may
seem bloated and long winded, but really, there ARE answers to those questions, and they are apparently much better worded
than mine. Also, sciences are not discarded, not even in string theory-which can reproduce the results of most physics
but is just not testable right now because we lack the means. String theory is perfectly compatible with every science we
have. If we took string theory as true, it wouldn't rewrite and remove our current sciences at all.
Scientists don't work under the assumption that their current framework
may be wrong and will be discarded when something better comes along. That's a gross, gross understatement
of what they do.
To be honest, I'm talking to you Werepossum, I read your posts, and there are good questions in
there, and some valid points that I could certainly address much, much better than I'm doing now, but you are also way, way off
base with the aether, dark matter, and string theory stuff and how it comes to be, etc. And yes, we understand a great deal about gravity, just not
at extremely small scales yet, but if we do, it won't be something that will break all theories.
I'm really trying to word this in a way that does not come off as patronizing so I hope you don't take offense in this.
Also, understand that I'm what you'd call a grad student. I'm not infallible at all. And I'm far from an expert in those
fields, but I've been around people older than me, more versed than me, and then, there are always books I can check and
reason if they say something I don't quite get or sounds fishy.
So, to close this mini-rant-apology, I do not know everything there is to know about everything; but I am well informed
in at least some things, and have attended lectures, spoken to people, gone to congresses(which seemed more like binges, really),etc.
If you don't dig what I say that's fine. Maybe I'm dumb and have to work in my wording, but there's always physics books and math books
that you can go to.
So, that's the last I'll say in this "physics RULZ FTW!!" and let the topic, hopefuly, get back on track.
AGAIN, sorry if anyone got offended.
who else (apologies 'bout that) are pretty much mistaken on a good number of things, my constant jumping
around isn't really helping as much as I intend to. I notice they use terms like dark matter, observable
universe, string theory, and stuff faster than "C" in EXTREMELY liberal ways (even more liberal than actual
physicists do), so I apparentle get testy (yes, I do re-read my past posts to draw conclusions) and in turn bloat and ALSO drag my own topic off-topic;
and write long diatribes trying to argument, and exemplify based in things that to me are are like, well, perfectly natural, but in second
thought, they are not so much, and took me quite a while to wrap my head around.
So, here's a few basic examples of those concepts that I see reflected here that I had problems with:
*What?! There's stuff that just CAN'T be done because that's how the universe is made? That sounds like a
joke!
*Nothing with mass can exceed "C"? Are you nuts?! That's illogical, what if there's stuff we can't see?
There must be something somewhere that we just haven't measured. Why can't I just keep going faster and
faster 'till I beat that limit?
*Dark matter? That sure sounds exotic! Nobody seems to know what it really is so it may well be anything!
*etc.
I do acknowledge those things draw a strong reaction from me, and I also acknowledge that my responses may
seem bloated and long winded, but really, there ARE answers to those questions, and they are apparently much better worded
than mine. Also, sciences are not discarded, not even in string theory-which can reproduce the results of most physics
but is just not testable right now because we lack the means. String theory is perfectly compatible with every science we
have. If we took string theory as true, it wouldn't rewrite and remove our current sciences at all.
Scientists don't work under the assumption that their current framework
may be wrong and will be discarded when something better comes along. That's a gross, gross understatement
of what they do.
To be honest, I'm talking to you Werepossum, I read your posts, and there are good questions in
there, and some valid points that I could certainly address much, much better than I'm doing now, but you are also way, way off
base with the aether, dark matter, and string theory stuff and how it comes to be, etc. And yes, we understand a great deal about gravity, just not
at extremely small scales yet, but if we do, it won't be something that will break all theories.
I'm really trying to word this in a way that does not come off as patronizing so I hope you don't take offense in this.
Also, understand that I'm what you'd call a grad student. I'm not infallible at all. And I'm far from an expert in those
fields, but I've been around people older than me, more versed than me, and then, there are always books I can check and
reason if they say something I don't quite get or sounds fishy.
So, to close this mini-rant-apology, I do not know everything there is to know about everything; but I am well informed
in at least some things, and have attended lectures, spoken to people, gone to congresses(which seemed more like binges, really),etc.
If you don't dig what I say that's fine. Maybe I'm dumb and have to work in my wording, but there's always physics books and math books
that you can go to.
So, that's the last I'll say in this "physics RULZ FTW!!" and let the topic, hopefuly, get back on track.
AGAIN, sorry if anyone got offended.