Physics: heat vs light. Errant "law"?

[ubunterooster]

There are considered to be two laws of science that disagree. One is that the speed of light is the universal speed limit, the other is that there is there is no limit to how heat.

We know that heat is created by the movement of electrons and the faster they move the hotter they get. So, is there a point at which the electrons can move no faster (thus disproving the "law" that they can can always get hotter) or can they get hotter forever (thus disproving that the speed of light is a absolute limit)?

Let the debating begin!

[ubunterooster]

BTW, this is not a schoolwork question.

[Pogeymanz]

Let me start by saying that any thermodynamic "law" is usually empirical in nature and thus not a true law.

In this case, there is no debate. When a material vibrates enough (gets hot) it breaks down. First from solid to liquid, then to gas then to plasma, then the nucleons break into elementary particles, etc. Since the speed of light cap is a real law, those particles will only be able to approach the speed of light and thus approach some "terminal temperature."

And I've never even heard that heat law and I've taken thermal physics and its quantum partner, statistical mechanics. Sounds like garbage to me.

EDIT: FYI. The speed of light cap comes from Maxwell's Equations. Einstein realized that Maxwell's equations implied that the speed at which an electromagnetic wave propagates must be the same in any reference frame. This has also been experimentally verified by testing mass/time dilation. Ask anyone at the LHC if they think that particles can go faster than light...

[lotharmat]

If any of that were the case you'd probably need that dude with the crowbar to sort out the resultant mess!!

<soothing voice>
Welcome to Black Mesa........
</soothing voice>

[swoll1980]

Isn't the Universal speed limit theoretical? I'm not sure about some of these "laws" they come up with. They are proven wrong all the time. As Einstein was proposing this law, he was telling us all that the Universe was static. That has since been disproved.

[ubunterooster]

@Pogeymanz: I know that MOLECULES have a llmit, hence I used electrons as the object.

Do you perchance know what the absolute terminal temperature is?

PS: Is it legal to club a professor with his errant book?

[ssam]

you can keep adding heat/energy to a particle (heat is more to do with disordered energy though) and its kinetic energy will increase.

room temperature ~20C corresponds to about 0.025eV
http://www34.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=boltzmann+constant+*+20C

an election in a CRT TV/monitor has about 10keV
http://www34.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10keV+%2F+boltzmann+constant
-> 10^8 kelvin

you can then use the relativist kinetic energy equation to find the speed. but as you add more energy the speed never gets bigger than the speed of light.

also note that when a single particle is moving its not really right to talk about it having a temperature. when a bunch of particles are moving (like a bunch in the LHC) the temperature is relative motion of the particles against each other, not the overall average motion.

--
have a read up on nuclear fusion. there they have a hot gas so it really is a temperature. its temperature is often measured in eV and kelvin.

[Doctor Mike]

BTW, this is not a schoolwork question.OK, the first question is; can all information be reduced to a particle state? Can the thought I just expressed be reduced to an arrangement of physical particles in my brain? If that is the case how does information between paired particles appear to travel faster than the speed of light? (like 0 time)

In the beginning (BIG BANG), the universe underwent a rapid expansion. That is to say mass traveled faster than the speed of light.

So, it would be fair to say that the speed of light is not always consistent in all frames of reference.

Electrons can exist in more than one place at the same time.

Our understanding of the universe is represented in mathematical constructs, which, over time have always proven to have some errors.

Thus, infinite speed could mean infinite heat (BOOM) (BIG BANG) ouch... end of line...

[Duncan J Murray]

As the speed of light is approached, the energy required (as does the mass) approaches infinity, so that shouldn't affect those two ideas. But then time also stops and the object becomes infinitely small.

Also, not sure that speed of light is a limit - the equations still work at higher speeds, just that time is reversed!

(I haven't done physics in 8 years so take all of above with a big pinch of salt).

Duncan.

[Paqman]

I'm not sure about some of these "laws" they come up with. They are proven wrong all the time.

Hardly "all the time". Generally it only happens when there's a major paradigm shift, such as the move from the Newtonian view of the universe as a big wind-up clock to the modern relativistic/quantum view.

What we call "laws" are just aids to understanding really. They're dependent on the model that we've constructed to try and understand our world. Sometimes discovering new things means a model no longer applies in some situations, and sometimes it has to be thrown out completely.

Chucking out a "law" of physics is a good thing. It means we've discovered a more sophisticated model.

[Doctor Mike]

As the speed of light is approached, the energy required (as does the mass) approaches infinity, so that shouldn't affect those two ideas. But then time also stops and the object becomes infinitely small.

Also, not sure that speed of light is a limit - the equations still work at higher speeds, just that time is reversed!

(I haven't done physics in 8 years so take all of above with a big pinch of salt).

Duncan.My comment are a little tongue-in-cheek. I use to drive a friend of mine crazy with my out-of-the-box physics philosophy.

[doas777]

speed of light is only constant in a true vacuum.
you can stop a photon in a high density sodium gas environment if you do it just so...
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/27mar_stoplight.htm

[swoll1980]

Hardly "all the time". Generally it only happens when there's a major paradigm shift, such as the move from the Newtonian view of the universe as a big wind-up clock to the modern relativistic/quantum view.

What we call "laws" are just aids to understanding really. They're dependent on the model that we've constructed to try and understand our world. Sometimes discovering new things means a model no longer applies in some situations, and sometimes it has to be thrown out completely.

Chucking out a "law" of physics is a good thing. It means we've discovered a more sophisticated model.

They are nothing more than educated guesses. It all comes down to the human ego. It's alot harder to say "I don't know" then it is to pretend you know what you're talking about. If you listen to proponents of these laws, they have no doubts. If you say something that doesn't adhere to theirs "laws" they will call you ignorant, and dismiss you. Their law couldn't possibly be wrong. Until it is proven wrong, then the cycle repeats.

[swoll1980]

speed of light is only constant in a true vacuum.
you can stop a photon in a high density sodium gas environment if you do it just so...
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/27mar_stoplight.htm

Diamonds do a pretty good job of it as well.

[Doctor Mike]

They are nothing more than educated guesses. It all comes down to the human ego. It's alot harder to say "I don't know" then it is to pretend you know what you're talking about. If you listen to proponents of these laws, they have no doubts. If you say something that doesn't adhere to theirs "laws" they will call you ignorant, and dismiss you. Their law couldn't possibly be wrong. Until it is proven wrong, then the cycle repeats.In all fairness some things do remain constant so seeing it as an immutable law is not a large leap. Unfortunately some people build their lives work and careers around such concepts and are almost incapable of accepting that they may be wrong.

Science is just as political as any governmental philosophy.

[Neezer]

Diamonds do a pretty good job of it as well.

I'd love to hear this explanation. How does a diamond stop light...I would say that they do no such thing, and in fact, wouldn't be sparkly if they stopped photons alltogether.

[ssam]

Isn't the Universal speed limit theoretical? I'm not sure about some of these "laws" they come up with. They are proven wrong all the time.

don't get hung up on words like 'law' or 'theory'. it can add lots of confusion (eg "evolution/gravity/whatever is just a theory")

if you take the example of Newtons mechanics, and Einstein "proving" them wrong. if you take Newton's and Einstein's equation for something (eg the relation between speed and kinetic energy), then you get the same answer for cases where speeds are low. they deviate as you approach the speed of light.

you can consider Newton mechanics as an approximation for low speeds. its not wrong, its just not general enough.

[Doctor Mike]

I'd love to hear this explanation. How does a diamond stop light...I would say that they do no such thing, and in fact, wouldn't be sparkly if they stopped photons alltogether. They might not stop light, but could, Theoretically, be used to create an infinite loop. Light pump. Primitive laser. Probably Boom...

[ubunterooster]

I was still following but have to go for now. I'll check back later to see what else has been said.

[zekopeko]

They are nothing more than educated guesses. It all comes down to the human ego. It's alot harder to say "I don't know" then it is to pretend you know what you're talking about. If you listen to proponents of these laws, they have no doubts.

I guess you really need to look at how scientific method works. Peer reviewed studies etc.


If you say something that doesn't adhere to theirs "laws" they will call you ignorant, and dismiss you. Their law couldn't possibly be wrong.

They will call you ignorant when you have no proof to back your assertions.


Until it is proven wrong, then the cycle repeats.

That is the whole point of science.

I think you are biased since apparently some aspects of science clash with your world view. At least that is the vibe I get from reading your answers here.

[psusi]

It's asymptotic. As an object approaches the speed of light, the kinetic energy it contains approaches infinity. Thus you can keep accelerating/getting hotter forever and never reach the speed of light.

[swoll1980]

I'd love to hear this explanation. How does a diamond stop light...I would say that they do no such thing, and in fact, wouldn't be sparkly if they stopped photons alltogether.

Not stop. They have made super diamonds that are so dense they can slow light to a crawl, w/o out changing the beam at all.

[swoll1980]

I think you are biased since apparently some aspects of science clash with your world view. At least that is the vibe I get from reading your answers here.

My view is; I don't know. I'm open to suggestions, but for people to say this is the way it is, just doesn't seem right to me. I view religion in the same way. I don't think mankind will ever know the answers to anything. Will will be speculating for all eternity. The way we look back on previous speculations, and say they were wrong. 2000 years from now someone will be saying the same things about us.

[Pogeymanz]

In all fairness some things do remain constant so seeing it as an immutable law is not a large leap. Unfortunately some people build their lives work and careers around such concepts and are almost incapable of accepting that they may be wrong.

Science is just as political as any governmental philosophy.

I hate to sound like a jerk, but how many nay-sayers here are actually scientists? Real science is not political. Now, getting funding is political of course, but the actual results and theories are not.

And Einstein believed a lot of silly things, but the stuff that he actually derived is what became physics theory, not his belief in the static universe or disbelief of quantum mechanics.

Physics is not a bunch of guys standing around in powdered wigs making decrees and it's really upsetting to me that this is what people think.

Physics theories are RARELY "disproven." The closest thing is like what ssam said: Some are proven to not be general enough, such as Newton's mechanics and the wave nature of light, etc.

[Paqman]

They are nothing more than educated guesses.

New ideas in physics have to be rigorously proven mathematically, and eventually proven by experiment before they'll gain any traction. Guess work doesn't cut it with maths nerds.

[Doctor Mike]

In all fairness to swoll1980 there is a lot of attitude exuded from some people with very high levels of specific knowledge. And, even though the word ignorant simply means a lack of knowledge in a specific area, if used without care, can be just as insulting as a slap in the face. The smartest people I know have always been able to explain to me the error of my assumptions without me getting a black eye.

Science is very political and world view is part of that politic.

[swoll1980]

Physics theories are RARELY "disproven."

I'm not talking about physics in general, although it still applies. All science, and throughout time, not just in the last 100 years. Throughout history scientist have been speculating, and have been proven wrong over, and over again. Nothing ever gets proven as true, only probable.

[Paqman]

Throughout history scientist have been speculating, and have been proven wrong over, and over again.

The whole point of the scientific method is that it puts very tight limits on the amount of speculation going on. If you have a problem with speculation, you should be cheering for science.

There's definitely a place in discovery for leaps of imagination. But you've got to do the hard yards and find the proof to go with it.


Nothing ever gets proven as true, only probable.

That's the way it should be. Anything else is hubris.

[zekopeko]

I'm not talking about physics in general, although it still applies. All science, and throughout time, not just in the last 100 years. Throughout history scientist have been speculating, and have been proven wrong over, and over again. Nothing ever gets proven as true, only probable.

Welcome to life. There are no certainties in this universe so get used to that. At least with possibilities the universe can always be a fun place to explore.

[Doctor Mike]

I hate to sound like a jerk, but how many nay-sayers here are actually scientists? Real science is not political. Now, getting funding is political of course, but the actual results and theories are not.

And Einstein believed a lot of silly things, but the stuff that he actually derived is what became physics theory, not his belief in the static universe or disbelief of quantum mechanics.

Physics is not a bunch of guys standing around in powdered wigs making decrees and it's really upsetting to me that this is what people think.

Physics theories are RARELY "disproven." The closest thing is like what ssam said: Some are proven to not be general enough, such as Newton's mechanics and the wave nature of light, etc.Sorry, but the review process, defending a thesis, challenging long held beliefs are are political (even though they should not be). It is only non-political in theory (and in the best efforts of some). See origins of string theory.

[swoll1980]

New ideas in physics have to be rigorously proven mathematically, and eventually proven by experiment before they'll gain any traction. Guess work doesn't cut it with maths nerds.

But the math doesn't work. That's why things like "dark matter" and "gravitons" now exist. There is no proof what, so ever that these things exist other than; "Well the math doesn't work, so these are the reasons why" They never consider the fact that the math might be wrong.

[Doctor Mike]

Physics is not a bunch of guys standing around in powdered wigs making decrees and it's really upsetting to me that this is what people think.

I don't think many people here really think that science is nothing but a good-old-boys club, but any scientist who fails to consider the political aspects of research and review process will fade into obscurity... which is the same as a veto.

[Paqman]

But the math doesn't work. That's why things like "dark matter" and "gravitons" now exist. There is no proof what, so ever that these things exist other than; "Well the math doesn't work, so these are the reasons why" They never consider the fact that the math might be wrong.

That's the cutting edge of discovery. If you expect certainties in that neck of the woods, you're going to be disappointed.

Personally, my gut agrees sort of with you on things like dark matter. To me the number of extra weird bits we're having to shoehorn into our model ring alarm bells (see: ether). But I think scientists are aware of this. They've been quite candid about the possibility that the LHC could produce results which would blow the standard model out of the water. That would be really interesting.

[Doctor Mike]

That's the cutting edge of discovery. If you expect certainties in that neck of the woods, you're going to be disappointed.

Personally, my gut agrees sort of with you on things like dark matter. To me the number of extra weird bits we're having to shoehorn into our model ring alarm bells (see: ether). But I think scientists are aware of this. They've been quite candid about the possibility that the LHC could produce results which would blow the standard model out of the water. That would be really interesting.Yes, hope LHC continues to function long enough to get some of those awesome answers. Well as long as nobody starts feeding little black holes. Boom again (LOL).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1051070/Landmark-experiment-unlock-secrets-Big-Bang-cause-end-world-say-scientists-court-bid-halt-it.html

[Paqman]

Well as long as nobody starts feeding little black holes. Boom again (LOL).

Ain't gonna happen. Cosmic rays are doing worse than the LHC in the atmosphere all the time, and any mini black holes created are supposed to boil off due to Hawking Radiation.

[swoll1980]

That's the cutting edge of discovery. If you expect certainties in that neck of the woods, you're going to be disappointed.

Personally, my gut agrees sort of with you on things like dark matter. To me the number of extra weird bits we're having to shoehorn into our model ring alarm bells (see: ether). But I think scientists are aware of this. They've been quite candid about the possibility that the LHC could produce results which would blow the standard model out of the water. That would be really interesting.

If it were put into any other context it would be laughable.

Scientist: 2+2=5
Skeptic: Well when I do the math I get 4
Scientist: Well you failed to work the moronatrons that are hiding in the seems of the space time continuum into the equation. If you consider this, you will see that my math is correct.

[Paqman]

If it were put into any other context it would be laughable.

Scientist: 2+2=5
Skeptic: Well when I do the math I get 4
Scientist: Well you failed to work the moronatrons that are hiding in the seems of the space time continuum into the equation. If you consider this, you will see that my math is correct.

So basically your opinion is that they're just making all this stuff up?

[ssam]

But the math doesn't work. That's why things like "dark matter" and "gravitons" now exist. There is no proof what, so ever that these things exist other than; "Well the math doesn't work, so these are the reasons why" They never consider the fact that the math might be wrong.

of course physicists consider that their maths or theories might be wrong. they why the test them with experiments.

take newton mechanics. calculate how fast something should fall, or how fast a pendulum should swing. then measure it. you get pretty close (once you have taken in to account friction and air resistance).

however in a few cases where there are high speeds or strong gravity, the answers are not right. eg the orbit of mercury or binary pulsars. when you try again with Einsteins equations then you get the right answer. the is evidence.

in the past hundred years of observation the equations have held up. particle accelerators measure things at huge speeds. we have lots of astronomical data.

there are a few places we know are out of scope for them, inside black holes, and at the scale of atoms. these will probably needs a more general theory which is being worked on.

there are also a few anomalys, eg dark matter. this is also being worked on.

the current accepted theories aren't perfect, but they match measurements, and let you predict things.

----update
i feel like this http://xkcd.com/386/

[Sporkman]

If it were put into any other context it would be laughable.

Scientist: 2+2=5
Skeptic: Well when I do the math I get 4
Scientist: Well you failed to work the moronatrons that are hiding in the seems of the space time continuum into the equation. If you consider this, you will see that my math is correct.

I'm skeptical of your skepticism. I call BS. Please provide proof that a scientist has asserted such an incorrect arithmetic result.

[swoll1980]

So basically your opinion is that they're just making all this stuff up?

Things like dark matter, and gravitons are completely made up to make the math work. Yes this is what I'm saying.

[Doctor Mike]

Ain't gonna happen. Cosmic rays are doing worse than the LHC in the atmosphere all the time, and any mini black holes created are supposed to boil off due to Hawking Radiation.Yes I know, even if you fed them they would likely expire (become unstable), but a small to medium sized expolsion is not out of the question.

On a more serious note: little black holes don't really concern me. The very small possibility of super-luminal expansion gives me a little concern. But if the unlikely happens another universe will be created from a string (LOL) (FODL twice).

Hey I'm not knocking string theory.

[koenn]

If it were put into any other context it would be laughable.

Scientist: 2+2=5
Skeptic: Well when I do the math I get 4
Scientist: Well you failed to work the moronatrons that are hiding in the seems of the space time continuum into the equation. If you consider this, you will see that my math is correct.

nope; that's not how it works.

It's more something like

scientist : ok, on the one hand, i see "2+2". On the other I see "5". I know 2+2 doesn't equal 5, so there's something I don't know yet. Let's figure out what that is (and in the mean time, let's call that missing thing 'twaoing" so i can refer to it in 1 word without all of this explanation).

swoll :you're just making things up as you go.

[Paqman]

Things like dark matter, and gravitons are completely made up to make the math work. Yes this is what I'm saying.

They're also still in the "maybe" category, and work is ongoing to prove or disprove them. Nobody is saying they're definitely real.

[CptPicard]

But the math doesn't work. That's why things like "dark matter" and "gravitons" now exist. There is no proof what, so ever that these things exist other than; "Well the math doesn't work, so these are the reasons why" They never consider the fact that the math might be wrong.

I honestly don't understand your apparent denial of the one and only mechanism that has, over and over again, managed to actually produce us so much (all?) of the actual, working knowledge we possess today. The extreme epistemological position that knowledge is impossible is unfortunately very appealing to certain fringe groups who try hard to chip away at the foundations of rational thought.

If you observe the development of our view of, say, cosmology and physics, you'll see that although there have been a couple of major shifts in our view of the world -- say, the Copernican revolution, Newtonian mechanics and the theory or relativity, they all just serve the reaffirm the scientific process: when you've got a better theory it explains both new stuff and the old stuff, probably in different terms... however, the old stuff rarely completely stops working because "you've changed your mind". The old theory, especially if it was reasonably constructed, is quite often some kind of corner-case "view" on the new theory... such is Newtonian mechanics at the low-speed limit of Relativity. (At this point it needs to be remembered though that the foundational assumptions about reference frames between the two are irreconcilable).

What I am trying to get at here is that just because the scientific method certainly assumes that theories need to be disproven and better ones formulated, it does not mean that the process itself is unproductive in the sense that it wouldn't add to our understanding.

To get to your quote above, that's the interesting nature of theoretical physics -- it seems like nature behaves in a way that can be described with mathematics, even so that we can be predictive of nature only based on theoretical models. If the math doesn't work, you add something like a "graviton" to your math to make it work. Then you hit the lab and check out if you can actually find this graviton. If it is not there, you need a better idea. Stuff has been predicted well enough using mathematical models already that speculating using them is perfectly justified -- you can, for example, derive contradictions purely in theory, so that you will know, even without the lab trip, what surely will not work.

The possibility that the "math might be wrong" is always, constantly there -- pretending that physicists don't understand this sounds just plain wrong. Read some Feynman :)

[Doctor Mike]

They're also still in the "maybe" category, and work is ongoing to prove or disprove them. Nobody is saying they're definitely real.And, that proof is near at hand.

[swoll1980]

nope; that's not how it works.

It's more something like

scientist : ok, on the one hand, i see "2+2". On the other I see "5". I know 2+2 doesn't equal 5, so there's something I don't know yet. Let's figure out what that is (and in the mean time, let's call that missing thing 'twaoing" so i can refer to it in 1 word without all of this explanation).

swoll :you're just making things up as you go.


They're also still in the "maybe" category, and work is ongoing to prove or disprove them. Nobody is saying they're definitely real.

No, that's what the problem is. There are plenty of people saying this stuff is real. There are several matter of fact articles floating around about this. And TV shows on the Science Channel, and Discovery channel have interviews with scientist who also present these things as a matter of fact.

[swoll1980]

I honestly don't understand your apparent denial of the one and only mechanism that has, over and over again, managed to actually produce us so much (all?) of the actual, working knowledge we possess today. The extreme epistemological position that knowledge is impossible is unfortunately very appealing to certain fringe groups who try hard to chip away at the foundations of rational thought.

If you observe the development of our view of, say, cosmology and physics, you'll see that although there have been a couple of major shifts in our view of the world -- say, the Copernican revolution, Newtonian mechanics and the theory or relativity, they all just serve the reaffirm the scientific process: when you've got a better theory it explains both new stuff and the old stuff, probably in different terms... however, the old stuff rarely completely stops working because "you've changed your mind". The old theory, especially if it was reasonably constructed, is quite often some kind of corner-case "view" on the new theory... such is Newtonian mechanics at the low-speed limit of Relativity. (At this point it needs to be remembered though that the foundational assumptions about reference frames between the two are irreconcilable).

What I am trying to get at here is that just because the scientific method certainly assumes that theories need to be disproven and better ones formulated, it does not mean that the process itself is unproductive in the sense that it wouldn't add to our understanding.

To get to your quote above, that's the interesting nature of theoretical physics -- it seems like nature behaves in a way that can be described with mathematics, even so that we can be predictive of nature only based on theoretical models. If the math doesn't work, you add something like a "graviton" to your math to make it work. Then you hit the lab and check out if you can actually find this graviton. If it is not there, you need a better idea. Stuff has been predicted well enough using mathematical models already that speculating using them is perfectly justified -- you can, for example, derive contradictions purely in theory, so that you will know, even without the lab trip, what surely will not work.

The possibility that the "math might be wrong" is always, constantly there -- pretending that physicists don't understand this sounds just plain wrong. Read some Feynman :)

All kinds of great things come from this research. I'm not saying that it doesn't. I just don't like the religious like aspect of it. Where this has to be the way it is.

[Paqman]

No, that's what the problem is. There are plenty of people saying this stuff is real. There are several matter of fact articles floating around about this. And TV shows on the Science Channel, and Discovery channel have interviews with scientist who also present these things as a matter of fact.

You need to do your homework. Nobody has proved the existence of dark matter or unlocked the secrets of gravity. There would definitely be a Nobel Prize in it for anyone that did.

Your argument has also got weaker and weaker as you've gone on. From criticising laws of physics and the scientific method in general, you've been reduced to picking holes in the credibility of unproven theories, which is kind of tautological.

[Doctor Mike]

I honestly don't understand your apparent denial of the one and only mechanism that has, over and over again, managed to actually produce us so much (all?) of the actual, working knowledge we possess today. I don't think it's denial, but a world view with (Just World Phenomenon - we must all believe in a world we feel safe in or we won't just know the bus could run us over at any time, we will jump under the tires). I have misgivings about the practice of science, but have faith in the best (Empirical) method we have to date. This too will change. I mean "empirical method" (I think it may well have to change in light of what we are coming to understand about small particle physics).

[CptPicard]

I just don't like the religious like aspect of it. Where this has to be the way it is.

Care to give any real example? Things rarely just have to be the way they are because some authoritarian scientist "says so"... that would be, uh, religion-like ;)

[Directive 4]

umm, dark matter was proven to exist in 2006.


heres the link


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2006ApJ...648L.109C&link_type=EJOURNAL&db_key=AST&high=4ba7bca75813400

[swoll1980]

You need to do your homework. Nobody has proved the existence of dark matter or unlocked the secrets of gravity.

That's what I'm saying. What are we arguing about here? Yet if you watch the science channel. The scientist being interviewed are introducing things as a matter of fact. "We know the dark matter is there, we just don't know what it is yet" The words "We know" make it seem like "They know"

[Chronon]

speed of light is only constant in a true vacuum.
you can stop a photon in a high density sodium gas environment if you do it just so...
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/27mar_stoplight.htm

It's not accurate to call it a photon unless it's occupying a non-interacting medium, however. Otherwise you need to start talking about quasi-particles rather than light.

[koenn]

No, that's what the problem is. There are plenty of people saying this stuff is real. There are several matter of fact articles floating around about this. And TV shows on the Science Channel, and Discovery channel have interviews with scientist who also present these things as a matter of fact.
Read some books, or science magazines
Articles in the popular press and TV shows aim too much for sensation and entertainment value.

[CptPicard]

"We know the dark matter is there, we just don't know what it is yet" The words "We know" make it seem like "They know"

Yes, they know there is something there that is producing a certain effect which is equivalent to there being mass/energy that is for example producing observable gravitational effects. If you look at a gravitational lens that is bending light more than your observable matter would suggest, then your conclusion is that general relativity tells you how much more stuff there should be in that area of space to produce that outcome.

Hence, you know something is there (and even the amount of mass/energy that is being unexplained), but you may not exactly know what it is.

[Doctor Mike]

I really really really really really hope this does not degrade too science vs religion.

1. both have devoted followers
2. both require faith (most religions don't require unquestioned faith, see doubting Tomas)
3. can't we all just get along (we can)
4. I have more than one friend who are scientists who recognize the religious connotations of their beliefs (they like others believe their faith to be the greater one)
5. this was about physics................

[swoll1980]

nope; that's not how it works.

It's more something like

scientist : ok, on the one hand, i see "2+2". On the other I see "5". I know 2+2 doesn't equal 5, so there's something I don't know yet. Let's figure out what that is (and in the mean time, let's call that missing thing 'twaoing" so i can refer to it in 1 word without all of this explanation).

swoll :you're just making things up as you go.

The 2+2 thing was deliberately put out of context. I made that clear by saying before hand "If you put it in a different context it would be comical". The fact that you took this seriously makes me think you are going out of your way to discredit me, and not my argument.

[ubunterooster]

Scientist: 2+2=5
Skeptic: Well when I do the math I get 4
I knew it!


Personally, my gut agrees sort of with you on things like dark matter. To me the number of extra weird bits we're having to shoehorn into our model ring alarm bells (see: ether). They've been quite candid about the possibility that the LHC could produce results which would blow the standard model out of the water.
I've played some nasty headgames on others based on whether or not ether exsists...

They're also still in the "maybe" category, and work is ongoing to prove or disprove them. Nobody is saying they're definitely real.
like twoaism?


So far we know we don't know, so we have to make stuff up to fill the gap between 2+2 and 5 to make it "work". Oh, the falibility of the knowlege of mankind

[Directive 4]

That's what I'm saying. What are we arguing about here? Yet if you watch the science channel. The scientist being interviewed are introducing things as a matter of fact. "We know the dark matter is there, we just don't know what it is yet" The words "We know" make it seem like "They know"


yes, we do know that dark matter is there, we also know how much of the universe it makes up ( around 30%)


evidence comes from primordial nucleosynthesis, galaxy rotation curves, motions of galaxy clusters, the very existence of galaxys themselves

[KiwiNZ]

No, that's what the problem is. There are plenty of people saying this stuff is real. There are several matter of fact articles floating around about this. And TV shows on the Science Channel, and Discovery channel have interviews with scientist who also present these things as a matter of fact.

They are entertainment channels.Nothing more, along with the History and Nat Geographic.

There is a product in your pantry you can use to take what they say with , ........ a grain of salt.

As a ridiculous example the 2012 postulations they have been flooding the bandwidth with of late. They have been presented as fact. I wonder what they will air 2013 ?

[Doctor Mike]

Science (if not a true religion) has followers as devote as any religion. I am one, but a pain in the rear to the monotheistic.

[swoll1980]

Yes, they know there is something there that is producing a certain effect which is equivalent to there being mass/energy that is for example producing observable gravitational effects. If you look at a gravitational lens that is bending light more than your observable matter would suggest, then your conclusion is that general relativity tells you how much more stuff there should be in that area of space to produce that outcome.

Hence, you know something is there (and even the amount of mass/energy that is being unexplained), but you may not exactly know what it is.

What they know is; their current math isn't working. What they speculate is; it is caused by dark matter. It could just as easily be that the math is wrong.

[ubunterooster]

not saying dark matter (and antimatter) and black holes are inexsistent; just saying they are guesses to fill holes, regardless of whether or not they are true....they likely are somewhat true......

[Doctor Mike]

They are entertainment channels.Nothing more, along with the History and Nat Geographic.

There is a product in your pantry you can use to take what they say with , ........ a grain of salt.

As a ridiculous example the 2012 postulations they have been flooding the bandwidth with of late. They have been presented as fact. I wonder what they will air 2013 ?Ah, 2012 has religious connotations for some. To them it's very real. Wonder if the LHC big tests will get delayed to some time in 2012. Sorry the devil always has an advocate, even if he doesn't exist.

[swoll1980]

They are entertainment channels.Nothing more, along with the History and Nat Geographic.

There is a product in your pantry you can use to take what they say with , ........ a grain of salt.

As a ridiculous example the 2012 postulations they have been flooding the bandwidth with of late. They have been presented as fact. I wonder what they will air 2013 ?

They are entertainment channels, but the scientist they interview are not actors. They are real people, telling us how they really feel.

[koenn]

The 2+2 thing was deliberately put out of context. I made that clear by saying before hand "If you put it in a different context it would be comical". The fact that you took this seriously makes me think you are going out of your way to discredit me, and not my argument.

I was going out of my way to explain to you how these 'theories" and "make the math work" works, and I elaborated on your own example because I thought that would help to make it clear.

Meanwhile, I happend to find this in wikipedia - it's really just a long-winded version of my post.


Dark matter is a conjectured form of matter that is undetectable [...] but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter and background radiation.

Its existence has been hypothesized to account for recently discovered discrepancies between measurements of the mass of the universe by gravitational methods, and measurements based on visible objects (galaxies, gas, dust). [...]

Dark matter was postulated by Fritz Zwicky in 1934, to account for evidence of "missing mass" in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter (emphasis added)



But since this seems you offend you, I will go out of my way no more.

[KiwiNZ]

Ah, 2012 has religious connotations for some. To them it's very real.

I have made myself a Teeshirt on the front has

2012

Woe the end is nigh they say

On the back it says.....


ITS 2013

I bet they feel silly now

Not very creative I know but I was having some fun with my printer. I digress from topic , sorry guys

[KiwiNZ]

They are entertainment channels, but the scientist they interview are not actors. They are real people, telling us how they really feel.

Very edited to fit what the producers want and preordained

[Doctor Mike]

They are entertainment channels, but the scientist they interview are not actors. They are real people, telling us how they really feel.No they are scientist who's comments are edited for sound bites. Television lies, because it's legal to do so. Did you ever meet the Blair Witch?

[lisati]

I really really really really really hope this does not degrade too science vs religion.

1. both have devoted followers
2. both require faith (most religions don't require unquestioned faith, see doubting Tomas)
3. can't we all just get along (we can)
4. I have more than one friend who are scientists who recognize the religious connotations of their beliefs (they like others believe their faith to be the greater one)
5. this was about physics................

This ^^^

I was going to jump in earlier with a comment about how scientific "law" and "theory", where if the current "working hypothesis" was found to be inadequate or plain incorrect when exposed to the light of new evidence, it should be discarded or reworked. It seems that some of the contributors to this thread have already done so, and more eloquently.

I haven't read the whole thread yet, so please forgive me if I've missed something.

I wish to suggest that another name for "blind faith" is "stupidity" - faith that isn't open to being corrected is plain dumb.

[Directive 4]

I was going out of my way to explain to you how these 'theories" and "make the math work" works, and I elaborated on your own example because I thought that would help to make it clear.

Meanwhile, I happend to find this in wikipedia - it's really just a long-winded version of my post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter (emphasis added)



But since this seems you offend you, I will go out of my way no more.


don't want to bust your bubble, but wikipedia is not the same as a peer reviewed journel.

oh, and the maths does work,

[ubunterooster]

@lisati: this thread was started because of a refusal to have blind faith in a book that I suspected of errancy. Faith should give sight, not steal it.

[Chronon]

ubunterooster: So, is your plan to select someone's response in an online forum and place faith in that if it's to your liking?

[Doctor Mike]

This ^^^

I was going to jump in earlier with a comment about how scientific "law" and "theory", where if the current "working hypothesis" was found to be inadequate or plain incorrect when exposed to the light of new evidence, it should be discarded or reworked. It seems that some of the contributors to this thread have already done so, and more eloquently.

I haven't read the whole thread yet, so please forgive me if I've missed something.

I wish to suggest that another name for "blind faith" is "stupidity" - faith that isn't open to being corrected is plain dumb.Amen, but our passion interferes with our brains sometimes and misunderstanding must follow. Would like this to return to physics though (even if a little silly). I'm as much at fault by drawing comparisons, but I think theirs room for more than one point of view.

[ssam]

What they know is; their current math isn't working. What they speculate is; it is caused by dark matter. It could just as easily be that the math is wrong.

its a possibility. people have investigated it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics

so once you have to competing theories, MOND vs dark matter, you use them to make predictions, and see which fit the data best. so far dark matter looks like the best fit.

have a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune . basically someone did the maths for uranus's orbit, and it did not match observation. he worked out that if newtons equations were right there must be force from another planet.

some physicists may be get very excited about their work, and a documentary producer may be selective with quotes and clips. but experiments will settle the arguments.

PS: if you don't want to trust wikipedia, please consult your local library

[niko7865]

If it were put into any other context it would be laughable.

Scientist: 2+2=5
Skeptic: Well when I do the math I get 4
Scientist: Well you failed to work the moronatrons that are hiding in the seems of the space time continuum into the equation. If you consider this, you will see that my math is correct.

This is an amazingly incorrect example. Something more accurate would be this.

Scientist: 2+1=4
Skeptic: Well when I do the math I get 3
Scientist: Of course, so do we, unfortunately these are all observed values, so we'll through in an extra +1 and call it dark matter until we figure out what the hell is going on.

[swoll1980]

Very edited to fit what the producers want and preordained

It's not just television either. As I also said, there are severe articles floating around, by scientist, that do the same thing. In this thread I introduce the mere possibility that everything we know about physics could be wrong, and look at the response I got. This just furthers my arguments about the matter of factness of the scientific community.

[CptPicard]

What they know is; their current math isn't working. What they speculate is; it is caused by dark matter. It could just as easily be that the math is wrong.

But that's the deal you know -- the math actually works remarkably well. General Relativity is the best cosmological explanation ever so far -- the model of "gravity as spacetime curvature" has been tested a lot, and it works to great accuracy. This is exactly why, when we are getting observations that do not add up with observed mass-energy, we feel confident enough to say that this is due to as of yet unobserved mass-energy. It's the same as if I weigh a box here on Earth that ends up being heavier than expected -- it is more likely I assume there's more stuff in the box, than throw out gravitation as first thing!

And you know, if you're questioning this way of developing the mathematical models physicists use, you're again questioning the scientific method itself... it really has worked quite well until now; and if it turns out that GR's equations really are "wrong" and/or derivable from some deeper first principles, then the scientific community will certainly accept this, after the new theory convinces them enough...


not saying dark matter (and antimatter) and black holes are inexsistent;

Dark matter exists in the sense that it plugs into equations nicely as extra mass-energy. Antimatter definitely exists; black holes, almost certainly.

[koenn]

don't want to bust your bubble, but wikipedia is not the same as a peer reviewed journel.

I know. But I can't cut/paste to quote from real books and I didn't want to go out of my way ...

sigh.

[swoll1980]

its a possibility. people have investigated it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics

so once you have to competing theories, MOND vs dark matter, you use them to make predictions, and see which fit the data best. so far dark matter looks like the best fit.

have a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune . basically someone did the maths for uranus's orbit, and it did not match observation. he worked out that if newtons equations were right there must be force from another planet.

some physicists may be get very excited about their work, and a documentary producer may be selective with quotes and clips. but experiments will settle the arguments.

PS: if you don't want to trust wikipedia, please consult your local library

The way it works is; the scientific community gets split into 2 pieces. Both argue as if there is no way they could be wrong, and spend their whole lives trying to disprove the other theory. When this happens, since nothing can ever be proven true, they win by default, until someone comes along and disproves their theory. At least this is the way I see it. I could be wrong though.

[Directive 4]

I know. But I can't cut/paste to quote from real books and I didn't want to go out of my way ...

sigh.

:D


you might find the nasa ads site intresting.

http://adswww.harvard.edu/


oh and on a side note.

MOND is pretty much considered dead.

[Chronon]

It's not just television either. As I also said, there are severe articles floating around, by scientist, that do the same thing. In this thread I introduce the mere possibility that everything we know about physics could be wrong, and look at the response I got. This just furthers my arguments about the matter of factness of the scientific community.

It appears to me, though, that you are fighting a straw man argument. Almost every scientist I know accepts that nature and our descriptions of it are totally distinct. A former professor of mine used to say, "Nature doesn't care about physics. Only humans care about physics."

Science constructs models, it does not deal with truth! Thus, your suggestion that "everything we know about physics could be wrong" doesn't quite get at the fact that everything that we know about physics is almost certainly wrong. Science doesn't care about that. It cares about building useful descriptions of the universe to help us think about things. Newtonian mechanics isn't "true" in any tangible way but it's still very useful in well-described circumstances.

[CptPicard]

The way it works is; the scientific community gets split into 2 pieces. Both argue as if there is no way they could be wrong, and spend their whole lives trying to disprove the other theory.

It very rarely works that way -- it's not a shouting match. Scientists should share an understanding and adherence to the scientific process, and even when they are working on two alternative models, they are essentially happy to be conclusively proven wrong should that happen, simply because that advances the state of the art. They will be able to recognize this because they agree on a common set of principles regarding reasoning, evidence, so on. Disproving theories is just as valuable as accumulating evidence for some other theory, which over time will become more and more accepted as the current "most correct" explanation.


When this happens, since nothing can every be proven true, they win by default, until someone comes along and disproves their theory.

This is what Creationists do. They appeal to "there is not enough evidence for evolution" no matter what, and then expect to win by default because "nothing can ever be proven correct"...

[ssam]

The way it works is; the scientific community gets split into 2 pieces. Both argue as if there is no way they could be wrong, and spend their whole lives trying to disprove the other theory. When this happens, since nothing can every be proven true, they win by default, until someone comes along and disproves their theory. At least this is the way I see it. I could be wrong though.

sort of, but maybe less dramatic.

some people become very attached their ideas, but people can accept that they were wrong. lots of scientist have disliked their discoveries. or found things unexpected.

no theory is really respected until it predicts something that no other theory can predict.

most of physics is uncontroversial. people have been measuring the speed of light for a long time, and there was a progression of more accurate values. same with other measurements. (though can be interesting if 2 things were though to be equal, but a more accurate measurement shows a difference).

anyway, our ever better understanding of things is why we have such fancy technology. think how much goes on to make a computer work, our theories on electricity must be pretty good.

[Chronon]

The way it works is; the scientific community gets split into 2 pieces. Both argue as if there is no way they could be wrong, and spend their whole lives trying to disprove the other theory. When this happens, since nothing can ever be proven true, they win by default, until someone comes along and disproves their theory. At least this is the way I see it. I could be wrong though.

Try attending a science conference some time. This isn't the way scientists talk to each other.

[Chronon]

anyway, our ever better understanding of things is why we have such fancy technology. think how much goes on to make a computer work, our theories on electricity must be pretty good.

Not to mention quantum mechanics!

[swoll1980]

This is what Creationists do. They appeal to "there is not enough evidence for evolution" no matter what, and then expect to win by default because "nothing can ever be proven correct"...

Creationists are a whole other entity. Don't get me started with them. They take everything I dislike about the politics of science, and magnify it by a 1000.

[swoll1980]

sort of, but maybe less dramatic.

some people become very attached their ideas, but people can accept that they were wrong. lots of scientist have disliked their discoveries. or found things unexpected.

no theory is really respected until it predicts something that no other theory can predict.

most of physics is uncontroversial. people have been measuring the speed of light for a long time, and there was a progression of more accurate values. same with other measurements. (though can be interesting if 2 things were though to be equal, but a more accurate measurement shows a difference).

anyway, our ever better understanding of things is why we have such fancy technology. think how much goes on to make a computer work, our theories on electricity must be pretty good.

String theory is a good example. Proponents of this can see no other way. Skeptics think they are out of their minds.

[Doctor Mike]

Ah, what happened to the question that was proposed.

[CptPicard]

Creationists are a whole other entity.

I wouldn't say so -- they adopt very specific lines of attack against the scientific method in order to subvert the ability to formulate any kind of a scientific, rational argument; and as such they are very much in line, in terms of their "logic", with a lot of other anti-scientific factions...


String theory is a good example. Proponents of this can see no other way. Skeptics think they are out of their minds.

I'm pretty sure string theorists would be interested in hearing alternative ways of seeing things, but admittedly it's such a complex, deep field that its practitioners are necessarily quite dedicated. Critics are concerned about, in particular, testability and lack of predictions.

[Directive 4]

String theory is a good example. Proponents of this can see no other way. Skeptics think they are out of their minds.


string theory, thats the 90's man


it's all about m theory,

course string theory is just a surface in m theory.

[Chronon]

String theory is a good example. Proponents of this can see no other way. Skeptics think they are out of their minds.

String theory isn't falsifiable per se. In a sense it's a theory with a large number of free variables. A lot of scientists simply don't see it as a useful physical theory for this reason.

I still don't find it useful to frame it in terms of truth versus falsehood.

[KiwiNZ]

Remember what is now known as correct is only correct based on the evidence at hand interpreted by the current knowledge.

[Paqman]

U
What they know is; their current math isn't working. What they speculate is; it is caused by dark matter. It could just as easily be that the math is wrong.

It could well be, but what evidence do you have? I'd hate to think you were speculating!

[Chronon]

Hardly "all the time". Generally it only happens when there's a major paradigm shift, such as the move from the Newtonian view of the universe as a big wind-up clock to the modern relativistic/quantum view.

What we call "laws" are just aids to understanding really. They're dependent on the model that we've constructed to try and understand our world. Sometimes discovering new things means a model no longer applies in some situations, and sometimes it has to be thrown out completely.

Chucking out a "law" of physics is a good thing. It means we've discovered a more sophisticated model.

Hmm.. I understand a law to be merely an empirical relationship. It does not explain anything, it just codifies a relationship we observe when we measure two or more quantities (e.g. Newton's second law of motion).

[Doctor Mike]

string theory, thats the 90's man


it's all about m theory,

course string theory is just a surface in m theory.Where did m (constructs leading too) theory originate? What led in that direction? Was and is string theory dismissed? My point was that an idea needs political weight to go anywhere. Idealism should be embraced. Empiricism will be challenged by current developments. Science will not be the same.

M theory was joke until the largest brain on the planet brought them together. (no pun intended).

What kills me is the need for people to knock about. Kill the heretic.. Try the subject of the post...

[swoll1980]

U

It could well be, but what evidence do you have? I'd hate to think you were speculating!

My position is "I don't know" The great part about my position is that I am never wrong, and I don't need any evidence.

[ubunterooster]

@picard and swoll: You do realize that there may be 6-day literall creationists here. Like myself.

[Directive 4]

string theory's got 10 dimensions

which makes it a surface in 11 dimension m theory,

all this stuff comes about in a effort to avoid having infinties in equations.



it's a bit like 5 min abs, was great untill 4 min abs came about,



man those 4 min abs people are really killing us, that's crazy, to be this ripped you need at least 5 min per month.

http://www.sutree.com/upload/thumbnails/37778.gif

here's me after only 3mins per year, i'm launching next month, sign up now

[Pogeymanz]

Scientist: 2+2=5
Skeptic: Well when I do the math I get 4
Scientist: Well you failed to work the moronatrons that are hiding in the seems of the space time continuum into the equation. If you consider this, you will see that my math is correct.

With respect to dark matter, it works more like this:

DarkMatterResearcher: We agree that our current theory of gravity explains motion on Earth, the orbit of stars and planets and is consistent with Einstein's theory of general relativity, which has been experimentally verified to a bajillion decimal places, right?

AnyOtherScientist: Why, yes. Yes, we do.

DarkMatterResearcher: Well, our universe is not expanding quick enough according to our predictions based on that model. Which is more likely: That the theory is totally wrong, or that there is more mass than we have measured?

AnyOtherScientist: Well, let's look for the more mass answer first, because that seems most likely to be fruitful.

Or by your analogy:

Scientist1: 2+2=5 -> We have a problem.
Scientist2: 2+2 should equal 4. We all know that.
Scientist1: Well, maybe one of our 2's is not actually a 2.
Scientist2: Let's name the extra +1 the Swollaton.

[swoll1980]

@picard and swoll: You do realize that there may be 6-day literall creationists here. Like myself.

I'm sure there are alot of string theory proponents, and skeptics here as well. Is science not an appropriate discussion now. I didn't realize your scientific beliefs were that touchy of a subject.

[Doctor Mike]

@picard and swoll: You do realize that there may be 6-day literall creationists here. Like myself.And my point at the moment is cool. Science can't deny any theory. It can only question the potential answers. And current physics has opened the door for many interpretations. Like as not it won't give us all the answers. Science is questions. Answers are only new questions in disguise.

[ubunterooster]

@swoll: Not saying don't talk about it, just saying be aware of what you say. Others of different beliefs are here. Continue....

[swoll1980]

And my point at the moment is cool. Science can't deny any theory. It can only question the potential answers. And current physics has opened the door for many interpretations. Like as not it won't give us all the answers. Science is questions. Answers are only new questions in disguise.

Things can be disproved pretty easily. Creationism was proven wrong in a court of law, not just in the scientific community. Saying that people didn't evolve from apes is the scientific equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, and saying la la la la la la over and over again.

[CptPicard]

My position is "I don't know" The great part about my position is that I am never wrong, and I don't need any evidence.

You will fail to actually make any positive claims, and provide support for them, in that case too. In the scientific endeavour, ability to formulate a plausible hypothesis and test it is the only way forward -- you seem to dislike the hypothesis step.


@picard and swoll: You do realize that there may be 6-day literall creationists here. Like myself.

Sure -- this discussion is great exactly for a 6-day literal creationist, such as yourself. I would suggest you consider carefully what I said about the Creationist tactic regarding the nature of "scientific proof" -- it's very typical of them, and also very wrong. Maybe you will be able to be critical of it later on, maybe not.


Science can't deny any theory.

Yes it can. In a strict Popperian sense, falsifying a theory is exactly what science can do.

[Directive 4]

oh dear, this doesn't look good, back to the start,


a close look at laws concerning heat and light show no problems at all

[swoll1980]

@swoll: Not saying don't talk about it, just saying be aware of what you say. Others of different beliefs are here. Continue....

Isn't science there to be scrutinized. The problem I have with alot of science is the fact that people seem to be offended if you don't hold their theory of choice to be true, or untrue.

[CptPicard]

The problem I have with alot of science is the fact that people seem to be offended if you don't hold their theory of choice to be true, or untrue.

I am offended by this theory of yours of how these "people" supposedly react... :D science is not about "advocacy". Of course, one can get annoyed by some anti-scientific circles' obtuse illogical mindset, which can be very frustrating...

[swoll1980]

You will fail to actually make any positive claims, and provide support for them, in that case too. In the scientific endeavour, ability to formulate a plausible hypothesis and test it is the only way forward -- you seem to dislike the hypothesis step.



Sure -- this discussion is great exactly for a 6-day literal creationist, such as yourself. I would suggest you consider carefully what I said about the Creationist tactic regarding the nature of "scientific proof" -- it's very typical of them, and also very wrong. Maybe you will be able to be critical of it later on, maybe not.



Yes it can. In a strict Popperian sense, falsifying a theory is exactly what science can do.

All I'm saying is keep an open mind. If you have an open mind then I'm not addressing you. Far to many people take these things for granted. I have no problem with the scientific process. Only with the zealotry that seems to be a big part of the scientific community.

[KiwiNZ]

Things can be disproved pretty easily. Creationism was proven wrong in a court of law, not just in the scientific community. Saying that people didn't evolve from apes is the scientific equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, and saying la la la la la la over and over again.

Court of law proves nothing scientific

eg Galileo , Darwin .

It echos current public opinion and political pressure. If its a Jury it is especially so , if its Magistrate their skill is law .

[CptPicard]

Only with the zealotry that seems to be a big part of the scientific community.

I do not understand where you get this impression from. The actual scientists I know (esp. the professors I was taught by) where the most thoughtful, measured, reflective people I know. They know a flawed argument when they see one, it's their job.

[KiwiNZ]

All I'm saying is keep an open mind. If you have an open mind then I'm not addressing you. Far to many people take these things for granted. I have no problem with the scientific process. Only with the zealotry that seems to be a big part of the scientific community.

Don't confuse passion with Zealotry.

[ubunterooster]

@swoll's "lalala": Yes, and where are ANY of the half-apes, or quarter-apes, or 3/4 apes, or 1% apes today? There's been a decreasing number of missing links because many have been proven fakes. "2+2=19,999,673,584"? When there is more in exceptions than in evidences maybe you should be not trying to get to 19,999,673,584, but maybe 4 IS correct.

[Directive 4]

humans are 96% banana

big bana anna's

[swoll1980]

I do not understand where you get this impression from. The actual scientists I know (esp. the professors I was taught by) where the most thoughtful, measured, reflective people I know. They know a flawed argument when they see one, it's their job.

I get the impression from Television, and news articles. I have already said I could be wrong about this. If you're a scientist, and you don't act like this, then I'm not talking about you. It was said that this stuff on tv, and news articles could be taken out of context by the publisher. If this is the case why do the scientist keep agreeing to these interviews, knowing they will be mis quoted, or edited to make it sound like they are saying things they are not? These things are also taught all through grade school. I can pick up a 6th grade text book, and it will never give you a clue that what they are trying to teach you could actually be wrong.

[CptPicard]

@swoll's "lalala": Yes, and where are ANY of the half-apes, or quarter-apes, or 3/4 apes, or 1% apes today?

Extinct, of course. There are only so many ecological niches. The human evolutionary tree is pretty well known from good fossil evidence.

Read up on some Dawkins, something like "The Greatest Show on Earth", for example... he is a good Creationism-debunker.

[swoll1980]

@swoll's "lalala": Yes, and where are ANY of the half-apes, or quarter-apes, or 3/4 apes, or 1% apes today? There's been a decreasing number of missing links because many have been proven fakes. "2+2=19,999,673,584"? When there is more in exceptions than in evidences maybe you should be not trying to get to 19,999,673,584, but maybe 4 IS correct.

Ever hear of Lucy?

[KiwiNZ]

I get the impression from Television, and news articles. I have already said I could be wrong about this. If you're a scientist, and you don't act like this, then I'm not talking about you. It was said that this stuff on tv, and news articles could be taken out of context by the publisher. If this is the case why do the scientist keep agreeing to these interviews, knowing they will be mis quoted, or edited to make it sound like they are saying things they are not?

Again Television = Grain of salt.

I have been interviewed for TV . One example, Eighty minutes interview equalled around 8 minutes air time.

They edit for entertainment value only.

[Doctor Mike]

Yes it can. In a strict Popperian sense, falsifying a theory is exactly what science can do.No it can offer evidence that a conclusion is wrong. Truth can' t be found in a closed system, even though science tries to be (beter than any I've seen) an open inquest, it does not claim to have the one and only truth.

Many theory has fallen in disrepute only to be reborn in the light of new evidence (string leading to supperstring). So I support evidence, but don't believe my judgment (or that of others) infallible.

[koenn]

... These things are also taught all through grade school. I can pick up a 6th grade text book, and it will never give you a clue that what they are trying to teach you could actually be wrong.
I guess that depends on what school you go to, and how good a teacher you get. I remember my physics teacher in secondary school doing a great job not just teaching physics, but also explaining "how science works".

Sounds like you're mazking blanket statements about science and scientists, solely based on some limited personal and anecdotical experience.

[Doctor Mike]

Again Television = Grain of salt.

I have been interviewed for TV . One example, Eighty minutes interview equalled around 8 minutes air time.

They edit for entertainment value only.If you are a person pursuing what might be your only real contribution to your field of study you can be seduced into thinking these people will promote what you are sure to be true. The real agenda is sound bites. I've been behind the camera and in front of it and can tell you that your own passion for truth can be used to seduce you into giving an interview you should not give.

[Tom.Gee]

All this talk of Science and Learning and improving upon what was once "known". There was a time when it was "known" that the earth was flat. Here's how it looked from space...

http://www.gee.tzo.com:88/se/ArtWork/FlatEarth.jpg

[ubunterooster]

Court of law proves nothing scientific
eg Galileo , Darwin .
It echos current public opinion and political pressure. If it's a Jury it is especially so, if its Magistrate their skill is law .


Ever hear of Lucy?
"today" meaning alive. It seems that there is nothing evolving today. (Does not evolution lead towards racism?)

This leads back to the beginning: what makes life alive. You can soon do 3d printing of organs and stick a body together, but the parts do not equal the whole (it will not be alive) of the person it printed from.

The LHC aims to answer these questions by exstreme speed. WHAT we will find is unknown, so little about science is actually known...

[Doctor Mike]

All this talk of Science and Learning and improving upon what was once "known". There was a time when it was "known" that the earth was flat. Here's how it looked from space...

http://www.gee.tzo.com:88/se/ArtWork/FlatEarth.jpgThe universe might be flat, not just the earth, but we don't no for sure yet.

[Doctor Mike]

"today" meaning alive. It seems that there is nothing evolving today. (Does not evolution lead towards racism?)

This leads back to the beginning: what makes life alive. You can soon do 3d printing of organs and stick a body together, but the parts do not equal the whole (it will not be alive) of the person it printed from.

The LHC aims to answer these questions by exstreme speed. WHAT we will find is unknown, so little about science is actually known...Let's all ask ourselves, would we be here it we were not asking question.

The human animal makes more mistakes than any other, thus, it is the creature to gain the most from learning. A Human will try anything once (even twice). It's great to be human, brave, but foolhardy. Where's my hockey stick. I love hockey, but I'm dangerous on the ice.

[koenn]

"today" meaning alive. It seems that there is nothing evolving today. (Does not evolution lead towards racism?).
evolution happens over generations, so it'll take time.
I'm not a biologist but iirc, peper moths and cuckoos are often quoted as examples

WHat does evolution have to do with racism ?



This leads back to the beginning: what makes life alive. .
Unless you can get a consensus on what defines "life" and "alive", this question is meaningless

[Doctor Mike]

evolution happens over generations, so it'll take time.
I'm not a biologist but iirc, peper moths and cuckoos are often quoted as examples

WHat does evolution have to do with racism ?


Unless you can get a consensus on what defines "life" and "alive", this question is meaninglessEvolution is not the cream rising to the top. Sh** happens and if it's beneficial it's traits will continue in the animal population in question. Those same traits can prove to be destructive at another date.

[koenn]

Evolution is not the cream rising to the top.
Did you hear me say that ?

[Doctor Mike]

Did you hear me say that ?Sorry, guilty as charged.. reading too fast.

[Chronon]

I can pick up a 6th grade text book, and it will never give you a clue that what they are trying to teach you could actually be wrong.
You never thought to read between the lines? There is a whole history of old theories that once worked for people but have been discarded in favor of better (more successful) models. It should be unbelievable to anyone that the current models just happen to be perfect, when every single predecessor has been flawed.

Science only consists of falsifiable models and the data they seek to explain. Anything proposed in science must have the possibility of being shown to be false (i.e. inconsistent with some reproducible data).

I do think that some sort of philosophy of science would be a good subject to touch on in high school. It should, in particular, go through the whole transition from natural philosophy into natural science as well as movements away from realism.

[CptPicard]

No it can offer evidence that a conclusion is wrong. Truth can' t be found in a closed system, ... it does not claim to have the one and only truth.

I can have a theory that if I drop this sandwich I have here it will fall upwards on Saturdays. I can easily falsify this theory next Saturday. On the other hand, the downwards fall will, after repetition, accumulate evidence that the theory is probably very reliable.

IMO if one is going to talk about "truth", especially about the natural world, it has to be in terms of a supposed objective rational reality we can agree upon. Science is the only known reliable method to obtain "truthful" (repeatably correct) information of this reality. Other kinds of "truths" are not IMO very meaningful, as we can all just agree to give each other the right to our own subjective insanities inside our heads...


So I support evidence, but don't believe my judgment (or that of others) infallible.

I'm not saying anything about infallibility of judgement...


"today" meaning alive. It seems that there is nothing evolving today.

The process works just fine all the time. Over geological timescales generally when it comes to speciation, but surprisingly rapidly in other contexts.



(Does not evolution lead towards racism?)

No. It doesn't lead to any other moral problems either, as it does not impose or prescribe value judgements; it's humans who do that, and the scientific validity of a theory is not dependent on "desirable consequences" anyway.



This leads back to the beginning: what makes life alive. You can soon do 3d printing of organs and stick a body together, but the parts do not equal the whole (it will not be alive) of the person it printed from.

Are you sure? This is actually quite an interesting problem in cognitive science and artificial intelligence. If physical materialism is correct, certainly that copy would be alive.



The LHC aims to answer these questions by exstreme speed.

No, it doesn't. It's a particle accelerator that is used to study fundamental physics. Any relevance to these questions will be about as indirect as the relevance of fundamental physics to any other field.

[Chronon]

"today" meaning alive. It seems that there is nothing evolving today.
Actually, micro-organisms show evolution on short time scales. Nylon has only been around since the 20th century, yet there now exists a strain of bacteria that has evolved to digest byproducts associated with its (nylon's) manufacture.



The LHC aims to answer these questions by exstreme speed. WHAT we will find is unknown, so little about science is actually known...

I agree. We can't ever "know" anything at all. We can only think certain things or assume them. We can use ideas to make predictions about what we will observe in the future and then see whether we were correct or not. Nobody actually knows anything or can get at any real essence of things. We can only observe properties of things and try to account for how these properties appear to change.

However, we only learn by trying new things and seeing if our ideas were valid (i.e. did they help us properly predict our observations). If they weren't then we change the ideas and see if we can do a better job. I don't think anything is wrong with that.

[Chronon]

IMO if one is going to talk about "truth", especially about the natural world, it has to be in terms of a supposed objective rational reality we can agree upon. Science is the only known reliable method to obtain "truthful" (repeatably correct) information of this reality. Other kinds of "truths" are not IMO very meaningful, as we can all just agree to give each other the right to our own subjective insanities inside our heads...


Let's not. I propose that we strike that word from scientific discussion altogether. I do not need to suppose an external, objective reality in order to carry out scientific inquiry. I do not need to impose any philosophical notions of truth on the outcomes of experiment nor on the models I use to explain them. I find it a distraction best left for the philosophers to argue about.

I would rather just talk about good data than use truth as a shorthand/jargon for data that can be reproduced with small variance.

[Doctor Mike]

I can have a theory that if I drop this sandwich I have here it will fall upwards on Saturdays. I can easily falsify this theory next Saturday. On the other hand, the downwards fall will, after repetition, accumulate evidence that the theory is probably very reliable.

Yes, but science has to include the possibility that on one of those Saturdays the sandwich will fall up. Do you think the mixing of the same two elements will always produce the same reaction? If you do, you'd be wrong. Can a sandwich fall upward on a Saturday... Yes given an unlikely set of circumstance. Science is not about absolutes. If it were it would completely useless. Science is about finding what has not been found, which will result in a number of false positives along the way. If someones opinion of what is, or is not good science, bothers you the best treatment is silence. Meaning it should not bother you.

[Chronon]

Yes, but science has to include the possibility that on one of those Saturdays the sandwich will fall up. Do you think the mixing of the same two elements will always produce the same reaction? If you do, you'd be wrong. Can a sandwich fall upward on a Saturday... Yes given an unlikely set of circumstance. Science is not about absolutes. If it were it would completely useless. Science is about finding what has not been found, which will result in a number of false positives along the way. If someones opinion of what is, or is not good science, bothers you the best treatment is silence.

It doesn't need to include this, because according to all research the probability of this occurring is infinitesimal. However, science should not say that this can't happen.

[CptPicard]

I find it a distraction best left for the philosophers to argue about.

Well, while I understand your position -- production of science works just fine as you describe -- but philosophy of science is still an interesting, important matter to argue about. Scientists want to understand what they're doing, after all.

I do admittedly have slight Platonist tendencies... I find it interesting and odd that the universe should "make sense" up to the point of being actually predictable from some mathematical models. But my issue with reality shouldn't be seen too platonically... what I am saying is that the entire effort of science is futile if we do not assume a shared, consistent reality that "makes sense". If this was not the case, we could just assume we're all on acid and whatever results you're getting yourself, have no bearing to the reality inside the head of the next guy.


Can a sandwich fall upward on a Saturday... Yes given an unlikely set of circumstance. Science is not about absolutes.

If I assert that, as general principle, sandwiches fall up on Saturdays at my desk, and demonstrate that next Saturday this does not happen, the theory is simply flat out wrong. There may be a reason why under extremely rare circumstances they might actually do this, but the theory of up-falling sandwiches is blown out of the water anyway.


If someones opinion of what is, or is not good science, bothers you the best treatment is silence.

No, it's not. The best treatment is countering his version of the scientific process so that we can achieve a better shared understanding of the foundations of how to actually produce information we can agree on.

[Doctor Mike]

Well, while I understand your position -- production of science works just fine as you describe -- but philosophy of science is still an interesting, important matter to argue about. Scientists want to understand what they're doing, after all.

I do admittedly have slight Platonist tendencies... I find it interesting and odd that the universe should "make sense" up to the point of being actually predictable from some mathematical models. But my issue with reality shouldn't be seen too platonically... what I am saying is that the entire effort of science is futile if we do not assume a shared, consistent reality that "makes sense". If this was not the case, we could just assume we're all on acid and whatever results you're getting yourself, have no bearing to the reality inside the head of the next guy.We accept the weight of evidence and wait for the other shoe to fall. If were lucky it won't happen in our lifetimes.

[Chronon]

Well, while I understand your position -- production of science works just fine as you describe -- but philosophy of science is still an interesting, important matter to argue about. Scientists want to understand what they're doing, after all.

I do admittedly have slight Platonist tendencies... I find it interesting and odd that the universe should "make sense" up to the point of being actually predictable from some mathematical models. But my issue with reality shouldn't be seen too platonically... what I am saying is that the entire effort of science is futile if we do not assume a shared, consistent reality that "makes sense". If this was not the case, we could just assume we're all on acid and whatever results you're getting yourself, have no bearing to the reality inside the head of the next guy.

The problem being that any "true" model (if it exists at all) does not belong to science and does not seem to be reachable by the current program of removing falsifiable models as needed. Furthermore, Goedel's work with incompleteness calls into question the viability of any unified (complete and logically consistent) model.

The idea of an external objective reality helps to explain a lot of our observations. However, the quantum world calls this into question since reproducible data cannot be had. Determinism also helps us think about a great many problems but we can't actually demonstrate that it exists. Determinism is a property of our models, not necessarily of nature itself.

[ubunterooster]

pepper moths and cuckoos are often quoted as examples
Yes, but both genes are there, they go back and forth in generations.

WHat does evolution have to do with racism ?
One of the old evolutionary opinions was that men with a black skin color were less evolved as they were visibly more like other primates.


Are you sure? This is actually quite an interesting problem in cognitive science and artificial intelligence. If physical materialism is correct, certainly that copy would be alive. You assume that the parts together is what makes it alive?

No, it doesn't. It's a particle accelerator that is used to study fundamental physics. Any relevance to these questions will be about as indirect as the relevance of fundamental physics to any other field. Does "The Search for the GOD Particle" ring a bell?

[Xbehave]

One of the old evolutionary opinions was that men with a black skin color were less evolved as they were visibly more like other primates.
This was latter shown to be bull.


You assume that the parts together is what makes it alive?
You assume there is such a state as being alive


Does "The Search for the GOD Particle" ring a bell?
Not really, I thought they were looking to test the hypothesis that the higgs boson can be created at energies lower than X Tev and of the "GOD" bs is just media spin (no pun intended)

re original question:
If it hasn't been made clear over the last 8hrs, relativity beats statistical thermodynamics, so the conventional assumptions of stat therm do not apply and there is an interesting field called "relativistic thermodynamics"

[Doctor Mike]

Yes, but both genes are there, they go back and forth in generations.
One of the old evolutionary opinions was that men with a black skin color were less evolved as they were visibly more like other primates.
You assume that the parts together is what makes it alive?
Does "The Search for the GOD Particle" ring a bell?Shame I thought this was going to be more fun. It's not

[CptPicard]

The problem being that any "true" model (if it exists at all) does not belong to science and does not seem to be reachable by the current program of removing falsifiable models as needed.

Hey, that's a very good one. Never thought of that not actually being falsifiable. But does "ultimate reality" need to be? :p



Furthermore, Goedel's work with incompleteness calls into question the viability of any unified (complete and logically consistent) model.

Not sure if the limitations of a mathematical-logical axiomatic system need to apply to a description of the universe using, say, mathematical terms... I wonder if you actually need to mathematically derive "all clauses" of the universe theory... interesting question anyway.

(EDIT: Yes, perhaps a theory of everything should be able to describe natural numbers and derive the universe... hmmm :) )



The idea of an external objective reality helps to explain a lot of our observations.... Determinism also helps us think about a great many problems but we can't actually demonstrate that it exists.

What I'm trying to push here is that it is the assumption of that external reality that has nice sensible things like cause and effect is the thing that actually allows us to meaningfully reason and "know" things so that we can agree that we know them. If the universe were nonsensical, it would not only be pretty tough to reason about it within one's own head, let alone have any kind of an interface to other minds so we could have any sort of an agreed upon theory of anything...

And oh yeah, regarding QM... you may not get deterministic outcomes, but the laws are, again, supposedly valid "for all observers".



One of the old evolutionary opinions was that men with a black skin color were less evolved as they were visibly more like other primates.


Just because some idiots make up stuff loosely based on a scientific theory, does not make the theory any less valid because of unfortunate consequences.



You assume that the parts together is what makes it alive?

Yes, if physical materialism is correct, for example cognition is an emergent property of the physical stuff going on in the brain. So why would it not be?



Does "The Search for the GOD Particle" ring a bell?

I hope you don't seriously believe they're looking for God at the LHC... calling the Higgs Boson the "God" particle is just an unfortunate turn of phrase that has entered the popular consciousness... it has got that name simply because it's such an important and interesting hypothetical piece of the Standard Model, not because it has anything to do with theology...

[ubunterooster]

@xbehave: I agree completely with that last post esp referring to a state of being alive.


Also thanks for the summary to the original Q.

@Dr.mike: no insult was intended and much of your input towards physics was helpful.

I have a deep hatred of primates (it's the only nontoxic animal I'd refuse to eat) so call it genetic but I could never accept any monkey, ape or gorrila as my mom.

[ubunterooster]

amusing how a question on heat and speed quickly heats up....

[CptPicard]

I have a deep hatred of primates (it's the only nontoxic animal I'd refuse to eat) so call it genetic but I could never accept any monkey, ape or gorrila as my mom.

They're actually more like your very distant cousins... :)

[robertcoulson]

Well...If light is so fast, tell me this...If you are on a rocket ship and reach the speed of light and turn on a flashlight...Will it work...???
Robert

[CptPicard]

You can't reach the speed of light (while having mass). Just get very close.

But, yes, it will work and the beam will proceed forward, looking at it in your reference frame, at c. However, say, you're approaching Earth at very close to c, and do the same thing... the flashlight's beam approaches Earth, looking at it from Earth... at c.

[Directive 4]

I have a deep hatred of primates.


sorry, this is just to good

[ubunterooster]

What about light traveling towards a black hole? The gravity IS pulling it...

[Directive 4]

blueshift

[lisati]

There is much we don't know.....

[ubunterooster]

@diretive4: Um, the word "other" was understood. Which begs the question of what happens if a ship (perhaps carrying a primate) just at the speed of light turns toward a black hole. Does the speed increase?

[CptPicard]

Note... I am not a theoretical physicist... ;)


What about light traveling towards a black hole? The gravity IS pulling it...

Gravity isn't really "pulling" anything, it's just curvature of the space. The speed of light in vacuum is always the same, but the curvature of spacetime will cause it to take a different track (as seen by an external observer).

Interestingly, while the speed of light won't change, this timespace curvature stuff will have an effect on the wavelength (exactly because speed remains the same)...


Which begs the question of what happens if a ship (perhaps carrying a primate) just at the speed of light turns toward a black hole. Does the speed increase?

"Just under" the speed of light. Yes, the speed increases, a little bit. But because the mass of the ship goes to infinity as its speed approaches the speed of light, you can only increase the speed in smaller and smaller amounts...

[ubunterooster]

So the pent-up mass would:
1, make you keep going for longer?
or
2, Atomic bomb?

[CptPicard]

No, there is no pent-up mass that does anything in particular. Stuff just gets more massive the faster it goes.

[Chronon]

Hey, that's a very good one. Never thought of that not actually being falsifiable. But does "ultimate reality" need to be? :p
Reality itself cannot be falsified, but any model that we find through the current algorithm of science (construction and testing of falsifiable models) cannot have this property. I think that the trajectory of science is asymptotic to some ideal theory that describes everything (but whose existence we can't ever verify).



Not sure if the limitations of a mathematical-logical axiomatic system need to apply to a description of the universe using, say, mathematical terms... I wonder if you actually need to mathematically derive "all clauses" of the universe theory... interesting question anyway.

(EDIT: Yes, perhaps a theory of everything should be able to describe natural numbers and derive the universe... hmmm :) )
Part of the argument is that construction of a new axiomatic system is hard. You can capture some of the system you're trying to model but when features appear that you can't capture you have to make the meta-mathematical step and construct a whole new axiomatic system, flesh out its logical consequences and see if you actually got anywhere. In principle this process never terminates.

I also find some of Stephen Wolfram's ideas interesting; the notion that everything flows from the iteration of simple rules. However, this doesn't really help to provide us with predictive models, so this doesn't quite permit falsifiability in the way most scientists would like either.



What I'm trying to push here is that it is the assumption of that external reality that has nice sensible things like cause and effect is the thing that actually allows us to meaningfully reason and "know" things so that we can agree that we know them. If the universe were nonsensical, it would not only be pretty tough to reason about it within one's own head, let alone have any kind of an interface to other minds so we could have any sort of an agreed upon theory of anything...

Yes. It does help us make a great deal of sense of the world. I find it very useful for navigating life. I just don't like to assert it as a basic/fundamental property of the universe.



And oh yeah, regarding QM... you may not get deterministic outcomes, but the laws are, again, supposedly valid "for all observers".

Sure, but without consistent outcomes to measurement you don't have a complete set of "elements of reality" to construct a model from. So, realism gets called into question. I.e. it becomes problematic to claim that microscopic objects actually have specific properties independent of measurement. It seems that the appearance of local realism is an emergent property of macroscopic systems rather than a fundamental property.

[ubunterooster]

what happens to that mass as it slows down? [My entire schooling experience for the past 8 yrs has been done myself, so I don't really have a teacher, just books. Hence some oblivious areas]

[Directive 4]

depends what frame of reference

in it's frame, nothing changes,

everything is relative

[Chronon]

what happens to that mass as it slows down? [My entire schooling experience for the past 8 yrs has been done myself, so I don't really have a teacher, just books. Hence some oblivious areas]

What do you mean? E^2 = (p*c)^2 + (m*c^2)^2, where E, p, m, and c correspond to energy, momentum, rest mass, and the speed of light, respectively. As momentum goes to zero, the energy approaches E = m*c^2. The E in that equation is the relativistic energy of a particle. People used to refer to relativistic mass which is the relativistic energy divided by c^2, but this concept is considered old-fashioned these days.

Directive 4: That was a very nice and concise answer.

[robertcoulson]

Cptpicard...Still don't think the flashlight would work...Laws say NOTHING goes faster than the speed of light...If you are correct the beam coming out of the flashlight would be going twice the speed of light...???
Robert

[Chronon]

Cptpicard...Still don't think the flashlight would work...Laws say NOTHING goes faster than the speed of light...If you are correct the beam coming out of the flashlight would be going twice the speed of light...???
Robert

No. Light does not increase in speed just because the source is moving. If I am moving toward you at 99% of the speed of light you will still measure the light as traveling at c, not at 1.99*c. As someone pointed out earlier, you will see a relativistic Doppler shift instead.

[robertcoulson]

Then, what would happen if you came at me at the speed of light...?? (Not being mean, just good old fashion arguing.)
Robert

[KiwiNZ]

Then, what would happen if you came at me at the speed of light...?? (Not being mean, just good old fashion arguing.)
Robert


one can't come at you at the speed of light

[CptPicard]

Cptpicard...Still don't think the flashlight would work...Laws say NOTHING goes faster than the speed of light...If you are correct the beam coming out of the flashlight would be going twice the speed of light...???
Robert

Because the "law" says that "in every reference frame, the speed of light in a vacuum is c", the flashlight's light will travel at the speed of light. Period. :) The whole point is that in special relativity, at relativistic speeds, velocity vectors do not add the usual way.

[robertcoulson]

Ok...I am not as smart as a lot of people, but that does sound correct...My apoligies
Robert

[CptPicard]

Ok...I am not as smart as a lot of people, but that does sound correct...My apoligies


No worries, it's counter-intuitive to the best of them -- it's actually everyday intuition that one needs to suppress with advanced physics ;)

[robertcoulson]

Say what...???....I think you just accepted my apoligy...??????????????????
Robert

[Chronon]

He was saying that there's nothing to apologize about. Modern physics requires thinking about things in ways that ordinary life does not train us to do.

[CptPicard]

Umm. Nobody needs to apologize for anything. It's not an "obvious" thing by any measure; it used to twist my brain quite a bit when I first grappled with the idea :)

The fun thing with special relativity is that it's probably the last thing in Physics that a mathematically able amateur is able to deal with. GR and QM allow just for some sort of intuitive understanding for a lowly CS guy such as myself :(

[ubunterooster]

so picard, I understand the light reaching you from the flashlight would be much more intense?

[So I guess there's no way for you to say "Wesley, warp 6" lol]

[CptPicard]

That's an interesting question... blueshifted photons would be more energetic... does that sort of relativistic motion actually add to the power of the beam?

[ubunterooster]

I had 4hrs sleep last night and I'm beggining to get a splitting headache, so I'll check in on the morrow. G'night all.

[Chronon]

Well, the motional state of the source depends on the reference frame of the observer: The energy of the individual photons depends on relative velocity between source and observer.

[swoll1980]

What I don't get is the way the expansion of the space its self interacts with the light. Is it relative to the light too, or does the expansion of the space ad to the amount of space the light had to travel before it got here?

[Chronon]

In relativity, the expansion of space refers to a change in the definition of length in spacetime. Everything occupying spacetime stretches. Light that propagates for long enough through spacetime that is stretching will get stretched too. You can also think of this as a correction to the Doppler shift. As space expands, the reference frames of a given source and detector will increasingly have different relative velocities.

For a source and detector initially at rest with respect to each other, I believe that the Doppler shift (as a change in wavelength) between the reference frame defined by the emission of the light and that defined by the absorption of the light by the detector will have the same magnitude as the change in the length scale of spacetime during the same period of time.

[swoll1980]

Why don't we get stretched?

[Chronon]

Why don't we get stretched?

In this model we do, but the amount of stretching over the length scale of the Earth is negligible during our lifetimes. Also, everything on our length scale is being stretched by the same amount over the same time interval so we don't/couldn't notice it. Light that travels to us for billions of years has time to stretch out with respect to light emitted by sources of the same type in our local region of spacetime.

[swoll1980]

I see. Thanks.

[ubunterooster]

in other words we do stretch, but not in relation to our bed beneath us

[Chronon]

Right. This, in accordance with ideas in cosmology/astrophysics (e.g. the observation of Hubble expansion). I guess I should clarify that it isn't a requirement of either special or general relativity, though it's perfectly permitted.

[Doctor Mike]

@xbehave:
@Dr.mike: no insult was intended and much of your input towards physics was helpful.


No insult taken, I was just disappointed that a really good question about physics was being pushed aside. Any investigation that questions the basic tenants of a science using evidence provided by that science is good for the respective field of study.

[ubunterooster]

:-)

[Doctor Mike]

:-)You know it's a good discussion when you (not only) return to it the next day, but read all the posts you missed.

I really wonder what the LHC experiments will produce and whether we will be able to truely observe them from our reference point in space-time. If there's a time effect it may have to be inferred from the absence of an observation. Assuming any effect is localized enough to provide distinction.

Any one know when the big test will take place. I would love to here about any results as soon as possible.

[Paqman]

Any one know when the big test will take place. I would love to here about any results as soon as possible.

The LHC is shutting down for maintenance and mods in a few months. They'll be firing it up to full power after testing resumes in 2013

[ubunterooster]

Do we resurect this thread then? LOL, not likely.

[Doctor Mike]

The LHC is shutting down for maintenance and mods in a few months. They'll be firing it up to full power after testing resumes in 2013Darn that kills a lot of potential jokes about LHC and 2012, but wait... the test in 2013 produces an unexpected time effect causing the destruction of the earth in 2012. Ya I know it's too (Star Trek - temporal causality). If anyone has any personal convictions about 2012 this is not meant as a joke about you - it is my expression of an almost lack of fear about 2012 and the LHC. Yes, "almost", I could always be wrong. Prepare calculations for time warp Mr. Spock...

[Doctor Mike]

BS edit