Dubstepforum.com

and i really don't like this quantum physics idea of probability

gravious wrote:As with most of these theories, they are mostly a case of guessing at reality and seeing what results match, rather than the classical science of observing reality and finding a descriptive relationship... Which makes things pretty hard to believe without proof! But then the same goes for most unproven quantum theories (many of which, including most string theories, are taken almost as if true by many scientists).

Bahhh

nothing is true if it doesnt agree with (and predict) results of experiment.

dubway wrote: nothing is true if it doesnt agree with (and predict) results of experiment.

Good lets get the ball rolling.

The whole purpose of 'real science', as opposed to the use of scientifically grounded predictions in technology, is to prove the assumptions your experiment is based on are incorrect forcing you to come up with new theories, truth is fleeting. Eventually what doesn't agree with your current experiment will be what you believe to be true.

Parson wrote:
i'm thinking basically if you accept string theory and brane theory it accounts for the randomness, because both state that there are spacial dimensions beyond what we perceive. basically the electrons are moving in and out of spacial dimensions we don't know exist, and they appear to be doing random shit. einstein was never into the idea of randomness and neither am i.

erm... not quite.....but almost:) I'm keeping this as little technical jargon as possible.... i havent read all the way through this thread cos I'm at work - so excuse me if i duplicate something else!!!

einstein always believed that four great forces should unify....(GUTs and TOEs etc etc ergo big bang etc) fundamentally it is very difficult to unify quantum mechanics and gravity.....

string theory manages to go a certain way towards doing this (well in fact it does but is on such an abstract level that you can pretty much make it work for anything).
It is not the electrons themselves moving in and out of spacial dimensions.... different string/brane theories essenitially explain a lot of beyond the standard model particle physics phenomena by considering behaviour of strings in extra curled up dimensions over and above the 3 spatial and one time dimension we live in.... the phenomena in our world are communicated to our spatial dimensions from these curled up dimensions via carrier particles (not electrons) according to the relevant model you are investigating.... these carrier particles communicate/interact with the fundamental particles (such as electrons) in our spatial dimensions...

at the moment it is practically impossible to test string theory directly on account of this.... we can however test models "dervied" from string theory - such as supersymmetry etc.... if you're interested - thats what the dr in my name spent four years of my life doing:) My point of view is that it's all very well having beautiful maths - but it doesnt mean jack it if doesnt agree with the real world.....! Always made for lively debates;) So the main focus of my research was on the meeting point between theory and experiment - so-called "phenomenology".... Interestingly, the experiments i focused on where those looking to place a value on the electric dipole moments of fundamental particles (electron, neutron etc). Supersymmetry actually predicts values for these much greater than is being proven experimentally.... suggesting supersymmetry may in fact be incorrect, way before CERN can establish it. So now we have theorists modifying supersymmetric theories to accomodate experiment and it's getting pretty tough....

However, just because supersymmetry may be wrong, doesnt mean string theory is. It just means the way we are translating string theory to our physical world is incorrect..... (dont get me wrong - supersymmetry is still seen as a very valid theory at the mo.... it's just losing room for manouvre)...


If any of this is a bit confusing - poke me and i'll clarify! always a bit tricky knocking out an explanation in 10mins on a forum to a wide audience......

a really nice overview and intro to the whole concept is
"The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene... otherwise if you dont mind it being a bit more technical, I've written a high level paper on how such areas can be tested, check out http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0201/0201045v1.pdf (i think thats the free version!)

actually - i just had another look at that paper and realise it's probly a bit too technical... will get a diff link up at another time when i got the time... nice to see these sort of thoughts flowing around tho:D

basically all science is a collection of pretty good theories that satisfy our observations of the world at that point in time. Then experiments get senstiive enough to disprove them and we need to look for a new theory....

unfortunately, to all of those who dont like quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the most rigorously tested theory (to the highest sensitivity) that exists to date....

i like these guys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology

saying that gravity is weak cuz it exists on a curve that extends into those spacial dimensions we dont perceive

Michio Kaku wrote: "The mind of god.... is music"

thats all I have to offer to this thread. I read alot about quantum physics, and the more I read, the more confusing it seems to get.

I think we'll know when the universe wants us to know

the universe told me once but it was hard to bring back

aah yes...


fleeting moments of clarity from the edge of the universe

it was like hours but then when i came back it went away

i was like in a trance with my eyes open but i was gone

then i snapped out of it and blubbered out "WHA HAPPEN. WHERE AM I"

"its ok dude you just flipped out. everything's fine."

Parson wrote:basically i like the idea of extra dimensions

do not like the idea of infinite universes

What do you mean by like / not like here? I'm not sure the laws of science are things that vary based on our personal preferences...

thats whats going on though

its all theoretical

one time...

all the answers of the universe were handed to me by the infinite pool of wisdom.

I even knew when and how I would die

when I returned, I knew it was all inside me but inaccessable

fleeting moments of infinite wisdom


I think I am going to learn how to remote view

found a much better link to summarise...

nothing exists untill i percieve it.*






















*while high

Emcee Child wrote:nothing exists untill i percieve it.*






















*while high

N2O FTW



(not the drum and bass label either)

http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~kovar/hall.html

the cleverist minds on earth are still grappling and arguing about this theory and that theory.
maybe the one unified theory will always evade us.

our conscienceness will have to evolve to a higher state.
speaking of conscienceness, how does science explain it?
i mean... is it another form of reality? because it does exist!

Flush aka Seven Gun wrote:the cleverist minds on earth are still grappling and arguing about this theory and that theory.
maybe the one unified theory will always evade us.

Or maybe it won't.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.j ... urf114.xml

No extra dimensions necessary, er apparently.

masstronaut wrote:

Flush aka Seven Gun wrote:the cleverist minds on earth are still grappling and arguing about this theory and that theory.
maybe the one unified theory will always evade us.

Or maybe it won't.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.j ... urf114.xml

No extra dimensions necessary, er apparently.

actually there are lots of extra dimensions predicted:
"E8 encapsulates the symmetries of a geometric object that is 57-dimensional and is itself is 248-dimensional. Lisi says "I think our universe is this beautiful shape.""


I LOVE IT!