Breakthrough In Quantum Control Of Light [Archive]

Speederlander

05-31-2009, 08:14 AM

Breakthrough In Quantum Control Of Light

ScienceDaily (May 31, 2009) — Researchers at UC Santa Barbara have recently demonstrated a breakthrough in the quantum control of photons, the energy quanta of light. This is a significant result in quantum computation, and could eventually have implications in banking, drug design, and other applications.

In a paper published in the journal Nature, UCSB physics researchers Max Hofheinz, John Martinis, and Andrew Cleland document how they used a superconducting electronic circuit known as a Josephson phase qubit to prepare highly unusual quantum states using microwave-frequency photons. The breakthrough is the result of four years of work in the laboratories of Cleland and Martinis.

The project is funded by the federal agency called the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity, or IARPA. The government is particularly interested in quantum computing because of the way banking and other important communications are currently encrypted. Using large numbers, with hundreds of digits, encryption codes are changed daily and would take years of traditional computing to break. Quantum computing could potentially break those codes quickly, destroying current encryption schemes.

In the experiments, the photons were stored in a microwave cavity, a "light trap" in which the light bounces back and forth as if between two mirrors. In earlier work, these researchers showed they could create and store photons, one at a time, with up to 15 photons stored at one time in the light trap. The research shows that they can create states in which the light trap simultaneously has different numbers of photons stored in it. For example, it can simultaneously have zero, three, and six photons at the same time. Measuring the quantum state by counting how many photons are stored forces the trap to "decide" how many there are; but prior to counting, the light trap exists in a quantum superposition, with all three outcomes possible.

Explaining the paradoxical simultaneity of quantum states, Cleland said that it's like having your cake and eating it –– at the same time.

"These superposition states are a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics, but this is the first time they have been controllably created with light," Cleland said. Martinis added, "This experiment can be thought of as a quantum digital-to-analog converter." As digital-to-analog converters are key components in classical communication devices (for example, producing the sound waveforms in cell phones), this experiment might enable more advanced communication protocols for the transmission of quantum information.

First author Hofheinz designed and performed the measurements. He is a postdoctoral researcher from Germany who has been working at UCSB for the last two years on this project. The devices used to perform the experiment were made by Haohua Wang, a postdoctoral researcher from China, who is second author on the Nature publication.

The scientists said their research is leading to the construction of a quantum computer, which will have applications in information encryption and in solving or simulating problems that are not amenable to solution using standard computers.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090529093155.htm

saaya

05-31-2009, 08:22 AM

Explaining the paradoxical simultaneity of quantum states, Cleland said that it's like having your cake and eating it –– at the same time.
thats the worst explanation for a quantum paradox ive ever heard :P

whats really new there though? trapping photons is new? i thought i heard of that before...
and they work on this cause... they want to crack banks security encyrptions? 0_o :lol:

Blauhung

05-31-2009, 03:25 PM

Yes horrible metaphor with the cake, but of course... the cake is a lie.

anywho, the new part here is the fact that they can trap them in such a way that maintains the superposition states. What would be awesome is if they could now somehow create entangled pairs of traps that exist in the same or predictably different states when measured.

iddqd

05-31-2009, 05:40 PM

the cake is a lie
get out

saaya

05-31-2009, 10:15 PM

get out
hahah :lol:

blauhung, ok so the news is that the electrons can be trapped and maintain all of their characteristics? but i thought when they meassured it, it was either 0 3 or 6 electrons in the trap, which depends on random factors or how they meassure...

its so funny how our advanced science is still entirely clueless when it comes to quantum mechanics, and all research about it is pretty much poking here and there and just observing wth happens :lol:

Smartidiot89

05-31-2009, 10:42 PM

get out
and there is no spoon

gillll

05-31-2009, 11:24 PM

we have 0 and 1 and nothing in between ha ?!?!?!?

bitter,sweet,hot... and all flavours are also within your statement ?

sorry but B#### we're not thinking in terms of 1 and 0 .

and because you don't have a clue doesn't mean noone hasn't.
and our thinking is one of the most advanced processes there are .
we don't have full knowledge on this and not on quantum physics but time will reveal everything.
it's our universe & mind to explore....

gillll

06-01-2009, 12:13 AM

nop you can't indeed know a book from the first chapter.

you need to read it all but in order to do that start from the 1st chapter.

the science try to discover the how.
a philosophican needs the answer to the why.

don't mix the two.
if you don't have answers to the why don't blame science.
which is like the reader and yes today with dark matter and dark energy,
which seems to be the most of mass of the universe science discover that the book is much larger then thought.
it doesn't says that you need to abondon science for not aswering the why.

gillll

06-01-2009, 12:56 AM

hehe :) you're on the way but won't pass to the better place which all combines.
and i think you like conspiracies ? :D

math which is the language gives the foundations. now they try to reflect it on the "real" problems.
science is indeed stuck in many ways today. but that is because our limit of knowledge and ironically power computing.
but remember that the answer should be simple and elegant and that's why it is so hard to find answers..
don't get "technical" with the word dark. it's due lack of a better work like in M theory.
time is on our side and the progress doesn't stop. curiosity drives us.
we the plain people will just have to wait for scientists to find the answer to the main conflict of quantum and relativity. ;)

Wrench

06-01-2009, 01:27 AM

But science keeps looking for a fundamental particle that doesn't exists. I call that wrong. And by searching for the fundamental particle they totally ignore the fundamental principle. That I also call wrong. Currently science is far more interested at finding it's grounds and proving it's current model, and almost no one cares about the alternative and possibly real solutions. Science wants to make it's version of the truth stick, instead of discovering the actual truth. If we look in retrospect what science does is offering a model and by all means trying to support every aspect they can, it is effort put into making us think so, and what they should have done is put all those efforts into the weakest points of their model. If they can break a model it means it's not the real deal. Science never does that, science doesn't care for he actual truth, but for THEIR version of it. They offer us a model and all they do is solidify it with whatever means they can and at the same time they are steering the focus away from the weak points that could prove the model of science false. I don't know if thats an intentional diversion from whats logically right or it is plain stupidity, but I see this, not only in science, but in every aspect of our lives. The universe isn't challenging us as much as we think, most of the challenges for humanity come if the form of problems we create ourselves and waste lives, time and resources trying to solve them IN VAIN - because we don't fight the cause of a problem but it's consequences, leaving the source of the problem free to create more and more. Almost like there is something leading people astray from their path. What I see is a generally wrong way of doing almost everything and the solutions are obvious. Somehow most of the people fail to understand me unfortunately. What I did for the last few years is investing time in improving, probably totally changing my own concepts of everything and that seems to have separated me from most of the people. And just to make sure I don't get misunderstood again, I don't imply I am smarter, it is just a totally different model of thinking. It has made life for me rather simple and gave me a clear understanding of everything I witness. And IMO thats a good thing. This transition seems to be something happening to a lot of people recently, so I can only hope the number of people who challenge their conception will continue to rise :)

There is nothing dark about dark matter and dark energy, whats dark is our concept of them :) Dark stuff is dark because it it's energy signature is negative, it is not emitting anything but absorbs, that why we cannot see or measure it. But we know vacuum has tremendous energy level, perhaps as much as the whole universe combined. And it is a key component to all thats in existence. And that KEY component, according to OUR SCIENCE is NOTHING. Vacuum is the total absence of anything in our model. And that NOTHING happens to be 98% of everything :) You see now, how wrong science is :)

You sound like a creationist.

I don't think there is anything wrong with our science. Its our nature thats wrong. I think scientists have it right. They don't prove things right they try to prove things wrong.

Its human nature to want to prove things right. Greed, selfishness, and other human attributes that always fugle up the implementation of science.

madcho

06-01-2009, 03:10 AM

i'm one Loe side.

Science of today is wrong. They try to fix something wrong, They can't & they won't do it. There is no fundamental particle. There is always more & more smaller. The problem with quantum science, is that we don't know anything or almost anything for moment. Make a PC with it, is only a dream, a beautyfull dream, but only a dream. Maybe a day, but sure not in the 10 next years. The actual problem they have i think, is the gravity law they writed. It doesn't work in quantum, because the law is false.

& this is right to say the cake is lie/joke

gillll

06-01-2009, 03:28 AM

DeltZ

06-01-2009, 03:41 AM

I'm afraid your initial premise is incorrect. There's no lack of understanding on anyone's part. Purely that you believe your opinion is the decider between right and wrong.

The entire point of science is that opinion can no longer be the bias onto what is definitively right or wrong.

On that basis I don't even need to read the rest of your argument...as you said, you can't build on something which is fundamentally wrong.

The only thing wrong is your initial premise. Unlike you, science doesn't claim to be correct. All it has is theories and the acceptance of those theories is controlled by how well it can predict an outcome. Whether it is jerry rigged or not is of no consequence.

Go try understand abstract maths then tell me that humans are retarded computers. You appear to be comparing everyone else with yourself. There is no other relative comparison. You think you're opinion is perfect thus everything else is basic. But until you can remotely grasp even the fundamentals of mathematically describing the universe the way we do at the moment. You can't say anything of the sort you have. May as well preach religion to the room of those that care.

Mathematics itself can be extended, limits are pretty much a philosphical argument in mathematics. True definitions of zero, infinity take extremely rigorous maths, and don't think for a second the numberline is the only dimension of numbers usable.

Essentially your problem is also that you believe you see on a continuous level not just 0 and 1. The truth is however, that you've generalised literally every faculty of knowledge into true and false. So infact you are a hyprocrite. However, you don't know this, because you only see science, knowledge and mankind from your one dimensional plane of ignorance. The truth is, it is you who doesn't understand the human mind, knowledge etc. But at the same time you believe the universe is bigger than us, more complex/too simple for us to understand and that we must just accept there are things we cannot grasp and understand. But that's not an original thought that thought is the reason why scientists exist, you're just way behind times from a philosophical stand point.

madcho

06-01-2009, 03:51 AM

how can you say that science is wrong whereas your computers the Internet and technology were created due to their reasearch and development,
yea forgot that most of science is r&d in fields unexplored.
this isn't a question of right or wrong ... it's grey and we're cruising half blinded till we find a better path that will shed brighter light on reality.

infinity small doesn't work like normal size, like computers, weapons, ...

The normal laws doesn't work for that. The normal laws can't be true because of that. It's not because they work for something, that's universal laws.

The actual laws work for normal size because the error on this size is so small, even that you can't notice it. But on photon & others, ...

maybe for a range, you'll need in future to include space & time to get a value usable, we don't know today, but something miss.

Sciences laws are false because the actual unknow doesn't work for it. Don't try to fix them with, get a other law for this size, & keep actual laws for the "real world". This is not the right path.

We should go to "What's going wrong with the actual model ?, what's is missing ?" :up:

gillll

06-01-2009, 04:02 AM

hmmm...... you had described a problem and saying science doesn't deal with it ?
the problem is that you dislike what it found so far and you want answers for something today.

relativity and quantum physics were the 2 theories that rules the world and today we know they don't like each other.
science had tried to find an answer to settle the conflict. or call it the big theory of the universe.
strings theories and the latest M theory which combine some strings theories are the one that might hold the answer.
but the prob is that we have reached today and yes today we're stuck.
math should be developed to explain those theories and computing power not mentioning that all the world also wait for the lhc.
and again that's today.... we're speaking on the present.
patience is good friend of a scientist

gillll

06-01-2009, 04:12 AM

you're talking about a different issue... please don't go there because that's a thread of itself ;)

evolution and what are we and where do we came from are philosophic questions and not a science ones.
science only describes the processes.

look @ what DeltZ said
The entire point of science is that opinion can no longer be the bias onto what is definitively right or wrong.
science is a tool that's all.

gillll

06-01-2009, 04:25 AM

faith has nothing to do with it.

faith is pure philosophy.
you again mix science and philosophy.
the way science describes the how won't lead you to the answer on the why.
i am a very faithful man but i know the limits of both science and philosophy.

gillll

06-01-2009, 04:38 AM

wrong !

the unified theory should explain the how, not the why.
and indeed you like conspiracies ;)

Motiv

06-01-2009, 04:38 AM

Darwin claims we are just evolved primates, but what we have as humans is nowhere to be found into the animal kingdom. It doesn't take a lot of research to understand that Darwin had nothing more than a theory, filled with holes and inconsistency. While there were a few people that clearly said "Darwin is wrong" what the science high life did is invest a tremendous amount of effort to support his theory. It also doesn't take a lot of research to discover the truth about Darwin and his father and his son as well. Eugenics and racism are all over the Darwin family - thats pretty sad IMO. I don't say Darwin is wrong about evolution - infact he is right about 99% of the stuff. But there is ONE species his theory simply don't apply, and that species is the HUMAN.

Erm, come again?

The theory of Evolution is the best fir at the moment. To say it works for everything other than Humans makes you sound. How do I put this politely, A little religious.

Evolution is backed up with facts, study and a lot of research. To say otherwise is folly.

twilyth

06-01-2009, 04:53 AM

gillll

06-01-2009, 05:00 AM

The fact that many people act as if science is their religion doesn't make science a religion.

and the religious people also think that we all look @ science like a religion.
science!=religion!=faith.

DeltZ

06-01-2009, 05:21 AM

Maybe I don't get the argument, but if the issue is the fact that there is no ultimate answer to basic questions, then . . . ok, so what?

Science isn't designed to give ultimate answers. It just so happens that sometimes, when you get a little piece of the puzzle, some other pieces fall into place. But sometimes they don't and it just seems to add even more pieces.

Science is designed to create a system of empirical knowledge. Anything empirical, by definition, cannot be 100% certain. We have maybe 5000 years of recorded history saying the sun will rise tomorrow, but even that isn't certain.

The only systems which provide certainty are those that are self validating. That would include deductive systems and religion. In both cases, you are asked to agree to a certain set of assumptions which you are not allowed to question. In return, you are given 100% certainty for whatever conclusions you can deduce.

The fact that many people act as if science is their religion doesn't make science a religion.

truesay. But LOE, i don't think you are integrating this key idea behind science into your counter argument. As it stands both of us believe each other don't understand an area but understand both. Which puts both of us wrong, as if neither side of the argument can be understood, the argument is defunct because there is no method of communicating it. The only difference is that you are telling us something is wrong and for that we have to believe you. While I'm make no such claim about the truth.

As for human evolution. The difference (to me) is simple. Darwin's theory of evolution we agree is empirically mostly correct, especially with say, other animals. However, evolution itself can be segmented. The difference between humans and animals is that we began technological evolution.

Evolution of man began the same as any other evolution. As time passes by our physical evolution becomes almost redundant. Technological evolution is our equivalent. All it takes is one tool, one idea, one thought to change our history and future and evolution. That all begins with a small chance. It isn't particularly difficult to imagine us being the only ones on earth to have evolved in this way. After that first step it is an exponential increase. Technological evolution > physical evolution. The part that interests me most is considering the next stage of evolution. At some point we reach a technological mastery, the final stage of evolution takes place at a physical form once more.

And science is not blind, scientists are encouraged to try to disprove all that is taught, to question the very foundation of what they learn. That is the essence of science itself. Yet you attack it as though it is the opposite. How can i argue with you when there is a difference of definition. Either you agree with me, or you don't. Most of which I say is neutral in comparison to what you say. Until neutrality is reached this discussion goes no where.

As for being able to understand your divine thought. If there's anything I have, it is perception. Much in the same way you doubt that I'd understand. I severely doubt I wouldn't.

DeltZ

06-01-2009, 05:59 AM

Maybe there is some explanation from the idea that improvement is not an exactly proportional relationship to intelligence.
Technology allows those who would be less fit to survive under normal circumstances thrive and reproduce. And it's not just technology. For there is another aspect of evolution besides physical and technological. Evolution of society is equally important I'll try and make a few listed points onto some conditions which may/may not occur as a result of deficiencies in either area of evolution:

1: Not enough physical evolution - everyone who is clever doesn't survive long enough to make technological advantage possible

2: Not enough technological evolution - physical evolution takes a very long time. Growth is slow society is made predictable and stagnant due to simplicities in survival of the fittest.

3. Society lags technology - wars, misuse of technology etc. The internet has pushed us towards globalisation. The international barriers are less well defined as they were in the past. Both people and organisation, beliefs and ideas operate with much less restriction. Genocide would remove the less intelligent but would be counter productive in actual evolution of society and moral solidarity. Thus perfect society cannot be forced, it can only improve as an average over time but it does have highs and lows.

Year 2009, society lags technology, we can destroy ourselves at the push of buttons, and nearly do so. The most dangerous point in our human evolution.
Year XXXXX society and technology are equally developed and physical evolution lags both having been dormant for thousands of years.

I speculate that evolution is circular :) My personal ideas entail combinations of all areas of human characteristic. My perception has no problem combining elements of faith, quantum mechanics, science, evolution and spiritualism all into a coherant idea :) Sure it's far fetched and I'll admit it is a best case scenario with regards to the ultimate progression of the human race.

Zaskar

06-01-2009, 06:12 AM

DeltZ:And here is the dis-consistency - the Cro Magnon human has a much bigger brain than we do, so why that step back? It's not something evolution will do.

The Tandy was a much bigger computer then a current netbook, was it faster? Why would you assume that the efficiency per square inch of brain matter is a static amount across all species and in all stages of development.

DeltZ

06-01-2009, 06:21 AM

Well we sort of agree then?

Society lags technology.

As for the monkeys and dinosaurs. There is such thing as probability and luck. Also, random thought, even if a dinosaur DID think...omg..TOOLS, i don't think it would have the dexterity to tie a rock to a stick. It's physical evolution did not go hand in hand with with an evolutionary path based on intelligence

Zaskar

06-01-2009, 06:22 AM

Zaskar - the brain doesn't have a manufacturing process. Our brains are as detailed as those of the Cro Magnols, they simply had more "shaders" than we do. You cannot compare chips size with brain size, as the major thing affecting chip size is manufacturing process, and the major thing affecting brain size is neuron count.

I don't buy that at all, that would mean if you engineered a rat to grow to the size of a 2 story building, then it would be much smarter due to the larger brain.

Muscle is the same way, bigger doesn't equate directly to better, there is efficiency in how its made and designed. Applying a bigger = better theory to science is absurd.

And I hope your not some sort of Religious nut because that is the main reason we have conflicts not technology.

twilyth

06-01-2009, 06:32 AM

I'm pretty sure that dolphin brains are bigger - in terms of absolute size. The thing that makes human brains difference is cortical area. We have more and deeper convolutions in our cerebral cortex than any other animal and it is the cortex where most, if not all, higher level functions reside.

Zaskar

06-01-2009, 06:38 AM

Like it or not our self indulgent and egotistical traits are our main driving force for new innovation. Doing things out of the goodness of your heart is not a trait that would of made any sense to have developed naturally.

twilyth

06-01-2009, 06:43 AM

They can also see magnet field lines - at least that is a popular theory. I don't know about the telepathy part though. I'd want to see if he could beat a 3-card monty dealer first.

DeltZ

06-01-2009, 06:48 AM

For the last time - NO. Society lacks thinking capacity. We have amazing technology today, and most of the stuff we do with it is stupid. Period

dude FAIL

my saying society lags technology is wholly consistent with your "We have amazing technology today, and most of the stuff we do with it is stupid."

You do realise all the things you talk about corrupt leaders and stuff is SOCIETY related. LAGS MEANS BEHIND. SOCIETY IS LESS DEVELOPED THAN TECHNOLOGY. SOCIETY = THOUGHT/ ETHICS, BEHAVIOUR.

To make the technology we have required INTELLIGENCE. Being retarded with it is a shortfall of our moral and ethical standards.

If we're so retarded you should go try teaching monkeys quantum mechanics using sign language and friggin bananas. Alternatively you could go teach a 5 year old pythagoras. Go figure. You also don't seem to realise that evolution is an ongoing process. You make it seem like we should be already there if we were so clever when it is CLEAR to SCIENCE that we still have hundreds if not THOUSANDS of years left of technological development.
People study HISTORY because they see the mistakes made of old in SOCIETY. We are still PROGRESSING. CONTENTMENT, is not about PROGRESSION. I'm sure seagulls are having a EPIC time being content with themselves and are just going to FLY OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE TO ANOTHER PLANET when the time comes to move.

You are nothing more than a cynic :/ You have given absolutely NO insight, NO solutions, NO compromises and next to no actual reasoning.

Dammit I just sunk a few levels :shakes:

prava

06-01-2009, 06:51 AM

Before I stay on topic, LOE, I hope you write more small paragraphs (like you are doing in your last posts) instead of that big one you did in the beginning. Trying to discuss such things in a language you don't totally control is hard...lets not make things harder for those of us that don't speak english as a native english, you think?

So, on topic:

LOE, there is something your arguments lack, IMO. I totally understand your point of view, for sure. What you are not taking into account are the followings:
a) Science is based in fairy tales.
b) Science doesn't care about the result of the investments.
c) Theories are accepted unless proven wrong.

Now, lets fully explain all of them as they deserve.
a) It may sound hilarious, but it is not. Science is an art on itself, its pure creation.
Theories don't "show up", you just don't close your eyes and you see clearly what happens with the atom. Deffinitely, not. Science is looking for things that can be calculated, nothing else. Lets put the stupid example of the apple falling into Newtons head :stick::stick: (IMO the most blatant example of history) Newton didn't have an inspirational insight: he just have a stupid theory but he was able to back it up. It is true what he said? Deffinitely it is not, yet is a lot simpler that the modern theories and, as such, it's used in all earth-about engineers.
My point is: it doesn't matter how stupid your tale is as long as it works.
Now, lets talk about entropy: c'mon, it's principle its the one and only: disorder. As a concept, as a fairy tale, its brilliant. As a mind concept, as a reality, is pure crap. Is it real? Does it exist? Is that our only principle, our only path? Our destiny? If you believe so, yes. Besides, its maths explain pretty much anything you throw at them so yes, its a perfectly valid model.
And that is the point. If you say that the sun is indeed dark and you find a good fairy tale to explain it (like our eyes are fooling us, whatever) and you back it up, then you will have a theory. Doesn't matter how absurd it is.

b) Science, unlike business, doesn't care about wether you take profit of it or not. Yea, sure, companies behind those science experiments make profit, but science on itself is not a worth-investments: scientifics will take the glory for what they found but engineers will make the money.

c) That is why science will never say that god doesn't exist. There is no way to back up that god doesn't exist, so they quit that path long ago. Besides, its useless.
The way science goes is always dismissing old theories in favor of the new ones that have many holes on them. You don't say "that is wrong" if you don't have anything to put into that place.

The truth, as a hole, will never be reached because there is no such scientifical truth. It just doesn't exist because we are not objective beings: we are related to our emotions and thus we will never be able to see that truth (many will see it, many will not. As there will not be a conclusion, it will not be a fact) just because maybe I see it but you don't. Science is all about experimenting: the good thing about it is that stuff can be replied if the conditions are the same. Nothing is taken for granted, that's all. The best part is that science knows that tey aren't looking for the truth, but for a model CLOSER to that truth. You see, we will never reach it but we will get closer to it (or we will be fooled to believe it, whatever. This is like a big matrix indeed).

Now, lets talk about your skeptical insight: it is true that the mass media controls us (I haven't watched tv for years. I mean, of course I look at some soccer matches because they entertain me but other than that...), but just because we allow it. As more stupid we are, as less rational we become, we are easier to be told and dont complain in response. That is how it works, its always been like this and it will always be: control. But you can't apply that to Science, not because its a "holy mother" on itself, but because people that care about science are just a really really small % in the whole community. That small community doesn't change the end result, so they focus on the mass-media.
That said, you can't ask everything nor you can doubt about everything. What makes us different is when we do stop asking questions, thats all. You think your mind is different than ours just because you think your questions went in a different path than ours do or just because you think that we quitted questioning sometime ago. I'll tell you, I question myself and everything that surrouds me everyday, but that doesn't make you happier at all, which is the point of existance. I also know that many of the big stuff that happened in the history (recent and not that recent) is a huge fake (not gonna give more details as that topic is not related to this one and is political, which would mean dead for this topic). So what? Knowing more than most doesn't give you anything, doesn't make you better, doesn't make you happier. You can't fight against the flow, not because it's not right, but because its USELESS. It is better to stand on your side.
In the end, I've accepted myself and try not to confrount other people. Not because I'm afraid of showing my thoughts (that are different that 99% of the people) but because I won't change their thoughts and they won't change mines. I think that I've got the right statement, so do they. Nobody is superior than others because although you think that your sight is greater than mine, we are stuck in the same earth, we've got a total lack in this aspect, we are blinded by our own ourselves. We are part of the same system, wether you like it or not. The only difference is that we accept/deny different stimules we are given but in the essence, we are just the same.

PS: about medicine, my parents never truly believed in the "western" medicine, so I've never been into it. I believe that your body is related to your mind and, as such, a healthy mind will make a healthy body (and its totally truth, you just need to know how to get there. Pure eastern stuff). It may seem a huuuge contradiction if you take in mind that I've got a huge devotion to Science (not the nowadays theories, NO, the meaning of science, the ability to change your mind as your are walking the path, the ability of destroying everything you thought it was real and accept the new ones), but just because we can't find reasonable and logical explanaitons for stuff we actually "perceive" it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist: its just well above our knowledge. This is like religions: I don't believe in them, because they try to understand something that is a loooooooooooooooooooooooot further than we think. I don't believe in god as our model, the example in which we were created, but as some kind of "judge", something we can't and will never be able to explain because its just above us. We have been always watching our steps while walking and it will never change...

Huh, I hope I haven't miss-written many things (though I've checked it twice). I'll tell you, this conversations in your native language are hard and effor-needed stuff but, in a foreign language..jezzz.

XS_Rich

06-01-2009, 06:52 AM

I happen to be familiar with awful lot of theories, a lot of science, both common and experimental, and I happen to have my own theory, that unlike the M theory is as simple as pie and is capable of explaining anything. It is not based on fundamental building block but a fundamental building array of fractal vectors that shape everything and connects everything. For me it all makes sense, even if that statement sounds :banana::banana::banana::banana:y it is what I experience.

You have your own theory of everything? Well done you.

I don't think I'll waste my time with the rest of this thread...

Speederlander

06-01-2009, 06:54 AM

Einstein knew a lot more than he shared, and it is wrong to think anyone is able to fully understand his relative theory. All solutions to it came from normalizing all that we cannot understand. And removing the most important part of a equation in order to solve it IS NEVER a good idea if you really care about the outcome and not only about your place in some history book. But thats what science does all the time. He had a great advantage of a brilliant mind and the disadvantage of being a mathematician. It's what handicapped him at some point. He tried to express what he thought with mathematics, and thats like telling someone about a song instead of playing it to him. His equations are right but cannot be solved.
It's relativity, not relative theory, and you're just babbling new age nonsense. Science has a nearly perfect track record explaining the world around us. No other approach, compared to the scientific method, can claim anywhere near the same success. So, say whatever you like, you can't overcome the weight of history and the weight of the sheer volume of discovery attached to science. Crap on it all you want I guess, but in doing so you just look kind of funny. If you actually had something to say, maybe it would make posting this comment worth it, but you don't, so I think I wasted precious moments of life. :(

prava

06-01-2009, 07:01 AM

Guys, you are actually doing what he is claiming: agreeing with what has been done so far instead of giving logical arguments to back you up. In this aspect he is clearly winning: he is the one backing his theory.

You also don't seem to realise that evolution is an ongoing process.

You are totally wrong. Evolution stopped since we (and not nature/gaia, whatever you call it) decided who and how we are going to live. The evolution theory existed when random genetic mutations could have gone through by proving that they were useful. In this world, although there are those mutations, wether they are good or bad they are allowed to exist, it doesn't matter. The stronger doesn't survive more than that weak: we all do. This is good as a "social" thing but bad as a species stuff because we are stuck.

DeltZ

06-01-2009, 07:05 AM

Guys, you are actually doing what he is claiming: agreeing with what has been done so far instead of giving logical arguments to back you up. In this aspect he is clearly winning: he is the one backing his theory.

You are totally wrong. Evolution stopped since we (and not nature/gaia, whatever you call it) decided who and how we are going to live. The evolution theory existed when random genetic mutations could have gone through by proving that they were useful. In this world, although there are those mutations, wether they are good or bad they are allowed to exist, it doesn't matter. The stronger doesn't survive more than that weak: we all do. This is good as a "social" thing but bad as a species stuff because we are stuck.

erm, mate, no. If I said darwins theory of evolution then fine. But I didn't. I've clearly self defined evolution to NOT just a subset of genetic mutation. Unless you want me to come up with different terms so you don't confuse yourself because you didn't read up properly.

DeltZ

06-01-2009, 07:07 AM

Guys, you are actually doing what he is claiming: agreeing with what has been done so far instead of giving logical arguments to back you up. In this aspect he is clearly winning: he is the one backing his theory.

And we are not doing what he is claiming, we ALL understand that science isn't a truth. I also challenge you to sum up his "theory" and "backing up" in a short paragraph.

Then I can rip it to shreds.:clap:

prava

06-01-2009, 07:32 AM

LOE, I'm sure you will know about Platos Myth of the cave. You can't left the battle when everything starts, If you want to change the world, you are the first one that has to stand and fight it. You can't just throw the first stone and then hide when everybody counter-acts. This is human nature, people lost their rationality long ago, so you shall do your best...or ignore it.

That was the lack I was talking about. IMO, there are three steps:
a) Accepting the world as it is being totally ignorant. you are happy, though.
b) You start seeing what the world is in fact, you become an idealist and seek perfection.
c) You realise that its not worth the fight because it won't make any difference nor will make your life easier.

I'm on the c) step. Why fight when there is no point? I do my it my way but let others do theirs. As long as we don't interfere each other, I'm fine. Yea, It sucks that I've got money because others doesn't, that we've got cheap computers because other countries inhabitants are nearly sleaves. It sucks, I agree. But, humans are selfish, and so I am. Humanity is different than nature because we are the most unfair species in the earth, we cheat on all the others and, what is worst, even on our own. We don't seek the "species" perfection, but the individual one. This is our nature, we can't change it. I would say that if you want to save the world, lets start a WWIII and nuke each other...otherwise, nor earht or us stand a chance to survive for long.

DeltZ

06-01-2009, 07:42 AM

Dude, all he did was throw a stone with a message tied to it. Except when we look, it's a blank sheet of paper.

Repeat this several times by each time the paper says something I ALREADY KNOW.

Then he tells us we don't understand and are ignorant.

Unlike him, english is my NATIVE language. So seriously why is I read his posts and see no ACTUAL argument, no ACTUAL point. I myself am not binded to any religion. As for science I except that it isn't truth.

Yet he accuses us of all blindly following science and being ignorant.

I don't usually get frustrated like this but as I said. "This is human nature, people lost their rationality long ago, so you shall do your best...or ignore it."
So much rationality so that we can't pick out friggin topic sentences and bullet point his OH SO SIMPLE ideas? Yes... clearly I'm the one who has lost all logical process and rationality. All he has is some sentiment about how bad everything is. This of course gets its fans who think..omg you're so right.

But they all say that without really thinking. Difference between me and them is fine. I also think, yes, you're absolutely correct, this world is full of corruption and all that other rhetoric you spew but what IS your point? What IS his argument, there is NOTHING which counters anything I have said. And everything which he has I guess I'll just have to put down to him not reading my english properly since it's not native.

Speederlander

06-01-2009, 07:50 AM

Guys, you are actually doing what he is claiming: agreeing with what has been done so far instead of giving logical arguments to back you up. In this aspect he is clearly winning: he is the one backing his theory.

What theory? Are you kidding? What backing has he provided? It's not enough to say "everyone is wrong" and cast stones. All he's posted is anti-science screeds saying science is basically a farce. I'm sorry, but he hasn't backed up jack. :shrug:

Zaskar

06-01-2009, 07:56 AM

What theory? Are you kidding? What backing has he provided? It's not enough to say "everyone is wrong" and cast stones. All he's posted is anti-science screeds saying science is basically a farce. I'm sorry, but he hasn't backed up jack. :shrug:

He sounds like one of those newage guys preaching about the power of light and crystals.

twilyth

06-01-2009, 07:58 AM

He sounds like one of those newage guys preaching about the power of light and crystals.

Wait! Are you saying that the Reiki master CAN'T read my aura? GTFO!!! :rofl:

Speederlander

06-01-2009, 07:59 AM

He sounds like one of those newage guys preaching about the power of light and crystals.

Pretty much.

tylerw13

06-01-2009, 08:03 AM

i didnt understand any of what was even in that article i think i need to fire my college!!

DeltZ

06-01-2009, 08:11 AM

LOE truely all i want:

1: Put forth your ideas/theories. Number them if you can.

2: Give reasons for why what you say is true.

3: Make a conclusion.

Write as short and simply as you can. I will then reply with what I agree with and what I don't. I will also say if I think that any of your reasoning is invalid, not because your facts are wrong but because there is a logical discontinuity between your theory and your reasoning.

prava

06-01-2009, 08:17 AM

Mmm crappy connetion posted when it wasnt supposed to...

twilyth

06-01-2009, 08:18 AM

DeltZ - there is no honor in what you're trying to do, implying I am some form of an anti science wacko - I am PRO science, the main reason I have for wanting for things to improve is because it will allow for much more rapid technology - it's mostly the new knowledge and concepts that will result from a switch of the primary objective from "profit" to "progress". If you really think there is no point of my words and I saved you the facts - PM me with all the things you want me to prove you with solid facts, and if facts have a chance of changing your mind, I will dedicate all the time it takes to dig and send all the stuff to you. But please don't imply I am something I am not, because it's disgusting and pathetic. I am not in search of fans, I don't need that in my life, I have everything just where I want it in MY life, but for some reason apart from an individual I also feel like a human being, and for the same reason I cannot be truly happy in a world that has such obvious, stupid and easy to solve, self inflicted problems. What I do right now is not for me, it's for you and for everyone else. I really hope you can understand this at least. Feel free to continue ridiculing virtues ;) I don't really mind

I think you need to get to know more scientists. Like anyone else, they tend to believe the things they were taught in school. Later on, when they are post docs and researchers, they work on the basis of one theory or another. After a while, they become invested in a particular theory and tend not to see data that would call that theory into question.

This is a well documented phenomenon and everyone in the scientific community is aware of it. That doesn't mean they are necessarily immune, but they are at least aware. You should pick up a copy of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (http://des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html) The link is to an outline of the book. It's technically a philosophy book, but it deals directly with some of the perceived inconsistencies you have mentioned.

Speederlander

06-01-2009, 08:21 AM

I've spent more than 1 year studying M-theory and I find it extremely over-complicated, to a point it becomes useless. M-theory is complex enough to require a vast investment of time only to be able to imagine and have a very basic idea of whats out there. That contradicts with what you just said - that the solution is always simple and elegant. I happen to be familiar with awful lot of theories, a lot of science, both common and experimental, and I happen to have my own theory, that unlike the M theory is as simple as pie and is capable of explaining anything. It is not based on fundamental building block but a fundamental building array of fractal vectors that shape everything and connects everything. For me it all makes sense, even if that statement sounds :banana::banana::banana::banana:y it is what I experience.

Ok, put your money where your mouth is. First, what is your mathematics background? A "year spent studying M-theory" means a year studying some of the most difficult mathematics yet known. I assume you have great depth in algebraic topology, algebraic number theory, differential topology and all the rest required to say you spent a year studying M-theory with any honesty, yes?

Second, detail your alternative explanation. Link us to your scholarly papers. Link us to the scholarly papers of other people.

Enough new-age stuff, provide some detail that doesn't sound like my old college roommate on shrooms.

Zaskar

06-01-2009, 08:26 AM

also feel like a human being, and for the same reason I cannot be truly happy in a world that has such obvious, stupid and easy to solve, self inflicted problems.

Now you sound like a hippy. Always preaching about how easy things are to change or "fix" but you just list how it should be with no means or ideas on how to get there. Its like preaching peace and not saying how to accomplish it, aside from not fighting. No one would of made fun of the hippies as much if they sat down and outlined viable paths to end fighting. Their plan was essentially peace through happy thoughts and magic.

You need to study up on mob mentalities and how they work, you cant just change things in a different direction with them, you waste resources even talking about it. If your not thinking of actual ways to accomplish your vision through methods that have a shot of success then your just blowing hot air.

Speederlander

06-01-2009, 08:55 AM

Speederlander, Dude, what you want me to do is more than a 1000 page book. As I already said, it is over 2 TB of facts, there is simply no way I summarize that much information INCLUDING the facts and call it SHORT. It is really a lot of information, enough to give you a headache. I also can't put myself into explaining my whole theory to 1 person, you will have to wait for a book or a documentary. If there is something perticylar from the stuff I say that you need a proof of, I will be more than happy to supply you with the information.

LOE, Dude, I want to know your background behind the claim that you "spent a year studying M-theory". Most papers on M-theory and related topics (i.e. string theory) are wall-to-wall with the hardest math I've ever seen. So, you must have extensive mathematical background to be able to honestly say you studied this topic for a year.

On a different note it's interesting that you won't be supplying any of your "theory" because it's just too big and hard to summarize. ;)

Zaskar

06-01-2009, 08:59 AM

Zaskar - I am not a hippy and thats really how I feel, I realize it sounds strange myself but thats just the way it is, I also think I know the way to set things right, but you and others like you won't listen, so what do we do?

Thats not how the world works, you cant give solutions on how to fix things that would only work if you were the king of the entire planet. Those are just ideals without any chance of happening, nothing will ever change that.

Use some of that energy to think of ways to accomplish what you want that don't involve just having everyone on the planet do things differently, that's like a disaster planner suggesting to change the direction of an incoming storm to avoid a crisis. Cant be done, don't even bother talking about it.

TheKarmakazi

06-01-2009, 09:00 AM

The cro magnon analogy mentioned above sparked an idea in me, so I just wanted to throw something out there....

This analogy of our cro magnon ancestors is posed as if they were exactly alike to us. Their thinking, communication, desires (EVERYthing basically) was probably different from us. How do we know that their larger brain wasnt more advanced than ours in a radically different way. For instance we can logically and mathematically explain things; humans enjoy categorization, labeling, discovering, debating, creating etc. But cro magnon man possibly didnt even have any vocalized language, and he was inherently much more connected to nature. So who is to say that without conceptualizing everything as a word or idea, they perceived the world differently. Without words/speech our brain would be totally different things, and develop and evolve in totally different ways. Not that they were "more" intelligent than us because of a bigger brain, but just intelligent/specialized in a different way.

What im saying is nothing can be proven or disproven about basically any topic brought up in here. What one person believes is just that a belief. Even if you previously accepted/defended the belief you now dispute, it doesnt mean your prior way of thinking is objectively wrong (especially for other people). To others that idea may be absolutely correct, which makes it "reality" or truth to them. Just because you moved past an idea onto one you consider more advanced or correct, doesnt mean its is actually correct or "reality" for everyone. It is only that for you! We all have to determine for ourselves what reality is.

"Reality" as we like to call it is a completely subjective thing.... i.e. An event happens and 3 people witness it. They all observe and remember different things the others may not. They can then describe this event 3 different ways (which may even conflict with each other). But none of those views is objectively "wrong." What we miss when trying to define the ultimate system or relationship between different systems is this... We or our instruments/measurements (and how we interpret those instruments) interject an additional layer on what is truly happening in a quantum or molecular sense. This layer could confuse things further, or enable extrapolation further discovery or theory (I mean it can hinder or help or both).

I would also say that spiritual (mental) reality and quantum (physical) reality can co-exist and contradict each other simultaneously while still both being true. So it is best to keep the arguments toward one side or the other. The physical can be measured/observed and recorded, the mental is boundless and ethereal... so why would a "unified" definition apply to both? Sorry if Im off topic or rambling. :D:D

XS_Rich

06-01-2009, 09:10 AM

Speederlander, Dude, what you want me to do is more than a 1000 page book. As I already said, it is over 2 TB of facts, there is simply no way I summarize that much information INCLUDING the facts and call it SHORT. It is really a lot of information, enough to give you a headache. I also can't put myself into explaining my whole theory to 1 person, you will have to wait for a book or a documentary. If there is something perticylar from the stuff I say that you need a proof of, I will be more than happy to supply you with the information.

snip

Way to totally dodge the question and further cement my opinion that you haven't got a clue.

Special relativity can be summed up in a few key sentences and equations, likewise general relativity.

Bullsh*t on the other hand, tends to need page after page of explanation and hand waving...

What's your mathematical background and how does this qualify you to understand M-Theory?

XS_Rich

06-01-2009, 09:13 AM

Mathematics is based on certainty and the universe is uncertain.

Ah, that will be why they don't teach probability in math courses.....

Oh no hang on, they do.

Speederlander

06-01-2009, 09:20 AM

Speederlander - you obviously haven't read my posts and the very basic idea I started ON TOPIC, man cannot express the universe with math. And if you think mathematics behind the M-theory, or the unified string theory if you prefer is complex, try to gain some comprehension of the 7 dimensions that are upper of the four (3 in space + time) we can experience. Mathematics is based on certainty and the universe is uncertain. It is like trying to paint a song. Whatever the actual means of expressing the universe might be, one thing is sure - it ain't mathematics, as mathematics simply DOES NOT apply outside of our range of understanding, that is currently quite limited.

M-theory is all about math, a topic of which you aparently have very little knowledge. Next time, don't make grandiose claims like you "studied M-theory for a year" when you clearly did not.

It is like trying to paint a song.
http://xtremespeakfreely.com/forum/images/smilies/RoorRip.gif

This was a funny thread. :up:

Speederlander

06-01-2009, 09:22 AM

...you will have to wait for a book or a documentary.
Taken in context, this should be nominated for the funniest thing said in this entire thread.

XS_Rich

06-01-2009, 09:29 AM

My background is biology and genetics, the rest of the stuff I've studied by free will. Now whats next? You're gonna ask me to scan my diplomas? Mathematics has never been my strong point however, but the problem of explaing the universe does not lie in math

So then the M-theory should be the biggest bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: of all?

The topic is not about me proving myself to you. Don't try to steer it into that direction. I am not a genius, nor a noble scientist :) I have given you a proof of both science being wrong and government being wrong in 1 post, and I don't see anyone commenting on this, instead just a bunch of people trying to convince me I am stupid. I don't have to prove to anyone, so please stop acting as if I have to. Also arent you gonna prove something about yourselves, you seem to be criticizing what you obviously don't understand, so I wonder where did you get the competence for that? Is it some new science you learned at school?

Speederlander - you make a pretty bad impression, honestly. Pretty low of you ;)

Christ you're stupid:

If bullsh*t needs lots of pages, then does that necessarily imply that something occupying lots of pages is bullsh*t? No. It's simple lesson 1 logic.

Secondly, you haven't 'proven' anything. You've picked crappy examples and shown that human errors occur. That doesn't prove anything.

As you're so insistent that math can't explain the world, can you suggest how your magnificent magical theory will explain orbital motion, two slit interference patterns and the strong nuclear force without recourse to math... hmmm?

PS I can't play Rachmaninov, but I can hear when the performer gets a note wrong. Likewise, I'm not submitting my own TOE, but I can tell when someone's spouting pseudo-scientific teen-angst b*ll*x.

PPS My background IS in mathematics. Note that no-one asked you to prove your credentials, just to explain your background.

Speederlander

06-01-2009, 09:32 AM

My background is biology and genetics, the rest of the stuff I've studied by free will. Now whats next? You're gonna ask me to scan my diplomas? Mathematics has never been my strong point however, but the problem of explaing the universe does not lie in math

I'm pinning you on your claim. You said you studied M-theory for a year. That requires background in algebraic topology, differential geometry and a host more. It's obvious you don't remotely have any sort of knowledge in these areas and yet you not only claim to have studied (for a year!) a topic requiring them, but without any knowledge of these subjects, you dismiss them as somehow insufficient to be the underpinning of pretty much the whole of modern physics.

XS_Rich

06-01-2009, 09:39 AM

Errors? This happens all the time, no such thing as "learning form mistakes"
Now you find excuses for what science and government do to billions people just to contradict me? Man, I really wonder what's your inspiration.

This is fun.

Are you really as stupid as you make out to be, or is this some kind of expert trolling?

What does the implementation of technology in medicine have to do with the validity of mathematics as a tool in scientific modelling?

If I drop a brick on my foot and it hurts, does that somehow invalidate mathematical models of gravitation?

If I use greek methods of geometric construction to make a knife to hurt someone, does that mean the greeks were wrong and that they should have tried to sort geometry out with songs and painting?

gillll

06-01-2009, 09:40 AM

1+ waiting for the book :D

LEO mathematics is the language that can express anything...
and the limits of math are the limits of man itself.
M theory physicians are pure math ppl.
since it's quite hard to imagine a 11 dimensions super universe only math can allow us describe the universe and it's like describing a computer with the old languages like ancient Egyptian, with the discovery and development of new areas in math the picture of the universe is more accurate then ever.
and if may i add also larger :D

and above or beyond your call is god....
which obviously rules the 11 dimensions math and therefor can see all across all times and all universes.
we are like the foam in his bath...literally foam ;)

Speederlander

06-01-2009, 09:40 AM

This is fun.

Are you really as stupid as you make out to be, or is this some kind of expert trolling?

What does the implementation of technology in medicine have to do with the validity of mathematics as a tool in scientific modelling?

If I drop a brick on my foot and it hurts, does that somehow invalidate mathematical models of gravitation?

If I use greek methods of geometric construction to make a knife to hurt someone, does that mean the greeks were wrong and that they should have tried to sort geometry out with songs and painting?

I would just stop. He's trolling for attention.

XS_Rich

06-01-2009, 09:42 AM

I really don't understand what you are trying to prove. The thread is not on the M-theory, so I don't really think it matters that I've read everything about it. My initial idea is science cannot understand quantum mechanics. I don't need to prove A FACT nor I need to prove myself to you :) I also stated the reason quantum mechanics is a mystery to science - because of a generally wrong approach. It is that our reality currently is, and I really don't see any possible way for you to prove me wrong on this subject.

Also moderators should note the personal offense in my direction and the name calling.

I'm calling you an idiot as a statement of fact. Prove me wrong.

You can start by answering any one of the countless outstanding questions on your 'theory' that you keep dodging.

gillll

06-01-2009, 09:44 AM

yea LEO ...

poeple keep it on the right level of talking....
some acts like science is indeed a religion which isn't as mention before.

XS_Rich

06-01-2009, 09:46 AM

I agree, physical reality is just the foam energy waves create when intersecting while streaming from the opposite charged poles of a singularity that is in the center of everything in existence. it is in my work, and will be in the book.

:rofl:

... and with that, I'm out.

Speederlander

06-01-2009, 09:50 AM

gillll

06-01-2009, 09:54 AM

:rofl:

leo you'll just have to prove it...
go for it if you think it is. (that stand above reality and all)
but you won't be able to express it in math you'll waist your time.

TheKarmakazi

06-01-2009, 09:55 AM

deleted - my images wont work

Speederlander

06-01-2009, 10:06 AM

Speederlander - I still claim there is no way you can prove me wrong on science having inefficient approach to uncertainty and infinity

So your reply is a small dot smoking a joint? Aren't you gonna go a little more technical, lets see your level of expertise
Ok, my last reply to you.

You have "created" a faith-based pseudo-philsophy centered around science being "wrong" and math not being able to "explain the universe". You have provided no specifics (and you refuse to do so), you claim your "book" will be released someday with all the details, then you ask people to disprove your meandering philosophical musings. The problems with your request summarizes why no one with any rational capacity can take you seriously. I would recommend you take a few months and study logic, both from a philosophical perspective and from a mathematical perspective but I'm sure you'll either dismiss it as an antiquated relic of mathematics or claim you already have studied it in great depth as with your silly claim about studying M-theory for a year. So I won't. Either way, this has been akin to arguing with a jehovah's witness.

gillll

06-01-2009, 10:13 AM

a fact is a think that you need to prove. this way or the other .
you can't say it's a fact that there is something unknown . DUH! there always will be and it's our to discover !
facts based on proven things this is how it work .

and since you has started with low philosophy like in a book for a buck alcohol tobacco and grass are one of nature good drugs.
legal or illegal is matter of time.. be fore 200 years everything was legal...not mentioning since cradle of humanity.

leo now you made this conversation going down....and for the formality i am not you nor will ever will.

Quadwing

06-01-2009, 10:14 AM

Convo here may have gone a bit off topic, but sure is a good read.

ahmad

06-01-2009, 11:06 AM

LEO mathematics is the language that can express anything...

Untrue.

Math cannot describe the rotation of all the planets in our solar system. Why? Every planet in our solar system rotates counterclockwise, except a few which rotate clockwise. So we have the big bang theory, and everything goes off spinning.. and a few spin in their own way?

Sure there are many theories to describe this, none can be or have been proven. Maybe further down the road, someone will come up with an expression or formula that would describe how such an explosion with billions of variables, may cause a planet or a body to rotate in such a fashion..

This is one of many examples where math cannot express absolutely everything.

and the limits of math are the limits of man itself

Untrue as well.

You ever heard of unsolvable problems? Problems or hypothesis that have no solution, ie lack mathematical expression.

One such problem that exists is the halting problem in computation theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

Not so easy to generalize like you have done there, except maybe at the simplest of levels.

Back to original discussion..

to me science is term used very broadly, and sometimes incorrectly.

Science is:

exploring and understanding known phenomena

Science is:

discovering new phenomena

Science is:

exploring new ways of making our lives easier given what we have through research

Science is NOT:

people sitting around trying to come up with meaningless theories to disprove facts and knowledge.

That's just plain stupid and a waste of time. One such example? Origin of life (or living organisms).

That's my opinion and I am entitled to that.

ahmad

06-01-2009, 11:32 AM

ahmad - the big bang theory is outdated even according to traditional science, it successors are the many string theories, which later combined into the M-theory

Big bang - "cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe" - wikipedia

String theory - aka superstring - (and later followed up by M-theory) - "attempt to explain all of the particles and fundamental forces of nature in one theory by modelling them as vibrations of tiny supersymmetric strings. It is considered one of the most promising candidate theories of quantum"

Big bang is a model of the universe, superstring is trying to explain things at the quantum level. Completely unrelated...

twilyth

06-01-2009, 11:36 AM

If you're talking about "universal" constants have different values in different parts of the universe, that's already being considered. For example MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) posits something similar.

I hope you didn't really think you were the first person to think of this.

As for your critiques, I have no idea what you're saying. Not because it's too complex, but because whatever point you're trying to make is getting lost. For example, approximations are NEVER used if they would push the result beyond a predetermined margin of error. Calculus for example is nothing but approximations - what is the value of y as x approaches infinity or x approaches zero. But we use calculus for the most demanding applications conceivable.

Maybe you are thinking of Godel's theorems. If so, you have misinterpreted their import.

twilyth

06-01-2009, 12:08 PM

Approximations are never used? What was the speed of light again? And where from did we get that number from? And where is this perfect vacuum? Mathematics cannot work with infinity, is that so hard to understand. You simply cannot solve an equation that has all it's components as infinities. Yeah it is very easy when we say 2 apples plus 2 apples equals 4 apples. But even if you pick the most perfectly equal looking apples, in an universal model you simply cannot say "those are 2 apples" because that would mean the apples are identical, and in reality the have probably a few hundred trillion atoms difference, something current science somehow ignores. 2 is a concept of our minds, a rough approximation of an universal value with an offset, ranging in vast numbers, the very same thing that simply rejects mathematics beyond our comprehension. mathematics language is as universal as the language of the deaf when you step outside of the familiar concepts and enter the actual universe.
Obviously you have never studied calculus or any other type of advanced math, otherwise you would understand my comments. There is nothing I can say if you don't understand because you will simply reject it as being inconsistent with your own ideas. And I did not say that approximations aren't used. I said that entire systems of mathmatics, like calculus, is based on approximations. I said they were never used if they would push the result of a calculation beyond a certain level of precision. Do you even understand what that means?

The comment about the apples is just ludicrous. Can we can we count the atoms in an apple with precision. Honestly I don't know, but if we can't, so what? It seems that "so what" is going to be my response to all your lofty concepts.

gillll

06-01-2009, 12:20 PM

given :

Mathematics cannot work with infinity, is that so hard to understand

therefore

Obviously you have never studied calculus or any other type of advanced math

hence

1+ end of conversation.
back to topic.

i think we will see quantum based computers :D the calculation power should be unimaginable.

Zaskar

06-01-2009, 12:28 PM

Well I might not be a brilliant mathematician, but I have a pretty strong logic and also my ideas apply to everything, so excuse me for not speaking my mind in mathematics. If I did, I wouldn't make any sense, because speaking about the universe in mathematics is gibberish.

Everything can be proven or worked out mathematically. Just because we cant now, doesn't mean we should start thinking stupid thoughts like its impossible to do, that's how all crazy wrong ideas in the past have came to be.

The only correct answer for something we don't know yet is that we don't know yet, not that it is unexplainable. You don't need to be a mathematician to create theories, but you don't disregard mathematics to fit your theories. Once you do that your theories become worthless just like astrology.

If you cant see that then feel free to live in your crazy world of unexplainable magic, I only hope your book doesn't drag anyone else into it with you.

twilyth

06-01-2009, 12:31 PM

LOE - I'm glad you think that you're making sense, because you seem to be a community of one on that point. Of course I'm sure you couldn't care less. Anyway, I'm outta here too. I hope you find someone else to play with.

DeltZ

06-01-2009, 12:35 PM

Man this topic has deteriorated.

LOE, do you believe that the basis for all physics theory is incorrect? I mean, we're talking about not being able to count the atoms in an apple. However, I have been taught (not necessarily believe note) about thing such as :

Wave particle duality, schrodinger's wave function equations, heisenberg's uncertainty principle, chaos theory, quantum teleportation. All of which are, at least experimentally quite close.

All those are enough to say why you can't count how many atoms are in an apple. Does your theory take into the indeterminate nature of the universe? Or do you believe that everything is determinate? i.e. everything has cause and effect?

Quantum physics is sometimes known as the physics of probability. Do you think there is any probability based within the universe?

Zaskar

06-01-2009, 12:36 PM

Oh, so now it is magic :D people come up with the most absurd things
I am outta here, have a nice evening

If the conclusion is that its unexplainable then that makes it magic. In other words its absurd nonsense.

prava

06-01-2009, 02:19 PM

Quantum physics is sometimes known as the physics of probability. Do you think there is any probability based within the universe?

With the famous phrase by Einstein (if im not mistaken) "God does not play dice".

IMO its a bit "sad" to use chance in order to know what is going to happen :down::down: Not saying the theory is good or bad, I just don't like it. I love the concepto of disorder but not quantum physics at all...

[XC] riptide

06-01-2009, 02:48 PM

Mathematics has never been my strong point

Your understanding of M-Theory in this case is Zero. I'd also hazard a guess that since genetics does involve a rudimentary.. and indeed sometimes a decent knowledge of statistics and Probability theory, you would find some difficulty with Genetics as a whole.

Untrue.

Math cannot describe the rotation of all the planets in our solar system. Why? Every planet in our solar system rotates counterclockwise, except a few which rotate clockwise. So we have the big bang theory, and everything goes off spinning.. and a few spin in their own way?

I'm not sure I get what you are saying. The rotation of the planets can be described using angular momentum. But are you saying that we can't take things from the big bang and then extrapolate them accurately to our solar system? Thats true. Hell we have difficulty extrapolating the Big Bang to the current dispersion of Galaxy clusters... never mind our solar system. ;)

DeltZ

06-01-2009, 03:36 PM

With the famous phrase by Einstein (if im not mistaken) "God does not play dice".

IMO its a bit "sad" to use chance in order to know what is going to happen :down::down: Not saying the theory is good or bad, I just don't like it. I love the concepto of disorder but not quantum physics at all...

yes, that is a very valid concern and it definitely gave quantum physics a somewhat troubled birth (much like many other theories I guess). And of course it still maintains quite some opposition because of this.
For sure it is not a particularly pretty theory. As an electrical and electronic engineering student, much of our course tries to simplify/ignore as much quantum mechanics as we can, as it makes life just so much more difficult as of today we can approximate quite well with some modifications to the theories we have. However this is quickly becoming more difficult to do.

As electronic engineering develops, it is less and less able to discard quantum mechanical principles. Thus within a decade or so it will no longer be electrical and electronic engineering. Instead, it will be electrical, electronic and quantum engineering...but we'll wait for the physicists to pioneer that theory a bit more first :)

And this is one of the strengths of quantum mechanics/physics. Although it isn't very pretty and it is very difficult maths etc. It's success in application and prediction is absolutely astounding.

For this reason, many scientists accept it fully as a working theory but at the same time may not believe it to be a true theory. The Higgs Boson at LHC would be a massive win for quantum theory as it was predicted from it.

(NOT RELATING TO RELIGIOUS GOD)As for God not playing dice, consider an idea that a God is not a single minded entity but instead, the unity and sentience of the universe itself, sentience which comes from everything within it. Quantum theory suggests that probability wave functions collapse having been observed. Maybe this suggests human sentience is very closely interlinked with the nature of the universe. So maybe the religious folk got some ideas right, just from the wrong source and that is that God is everywhere, within everyone and everything...they just didn't realise that it was us who were Gods ;)

ahmad

06-01-2009, 05:15 PM

riptide;3822738']But are you saying that we can't take things from the big bang and then extrapolate them accurately to our solar system? Thats true. Hell we have difficulty extrapolating the Big Bang to the current dispersion of Galaxy clusters... never mind our solar system. ;)

Along similar lines almost :)

they just didn't realise that it was us who were Gods

Urmm.. no. if you want to carry on this discussion elsewhere, let me know.

Sn@ke:~

06-01-2009, 05:32 PM

I think it is beyond human to find the answer.

It take something concrete to create something else. <-- that is our understanding of things.

A wholes range of universe was create out of nothing concrete. (big bang) <-- this is why most human as a religion belief, there most be one whole mighty that did it.

But now Scientist come out with a theory of a big whole of nothing (black hole) sucking everything(matter) in it to make it even more empty<--- Duh

This is why I say it is beyond our understanding and will probably remain

Bradan

06-01-2009, 10:04 PM

DeltZ

06-02-2009, 02:47 AM

Urmm.. no. if you want to carry on this discussion elsewhere, let me know.
Nope. I was just throwing a fairy tale into the works.

What we have accomplished in the last 200 years is more conflict that history had in 2000 years, a society build from 50% people living in poverty so that 2% can be "the elite"

This is indeed sad, but at least the average living standard has raised over 2000 years. But it is true, mankind is still infant in its development. Society hasn't developed much but that will take time. But remember you and I are just as bad if everyone was you or I, we'd still make the same terrible mistakes all the time.

I never claimed science is totally wrong, we are talking about universal scales, and thats where science is wrong. Science also did a lot of good things, like putting electricity to use. But if you spend the time to trace scientific progress for about everything you will observe data, that shows behind every invention there is much more bad stuff than good. Because what technology did is a society of NOBODIES in total control by the few somebodies. You know, it is much easier to take care of your cattle if you automate your facilities, and unfortunately thats where science steps in. Man has only to calculate all the nuclear warhead capacity that is currently active to realize what science did was put chains around human kind. If a person fails to see this - he is blind.

You know how how the earth began? It began as a volcanic inhabitable place. Destruction is often a necessary part of creation. Yes science has a lot of strings attached. But this isn't a perfect world. I don't expect for everything to go my way without sacrifice. We're not in some idealist world where a simple idea can make everyone hold hands and walk in the same direction. Sure, lets all spread everything equally around the world, lets automate everything, lets get rid of money cause then everyone can do each other favours instead. Everyone is now content...oh wait, now there's nearly no reason to develop technology. If everyone's happy and content why waste all your time and effort in massive organised groups to make things which arn't necessary...... even if this occurred, in the best case scenario technology would slow down to a factor of pointless as there was no catalyst for change.

And this time... the truly last time I speak of mathematics. It is a creation of man and applies to his range of perception. Math cannot apply to universal scale, because it's design is radically different that the design of the universe. 98% of the universe is unknown to us, and we are gonna express that in math? Wake up, Alice... science refuses to abandon its model even as it sees it falling apart, and instead of working another model they solidify the weak one, not with facts, but with imaginative things that don't exist at all.

I don't understand what you want us to do? I have a pen and a piece of paper. I can't write maths, clearly language isn't enough to describe anything. Do I splatter ink on the page and then tell the person next to me that there is no spoon and that he needs to open his mind and the answer of the universe is there? Or are you telling us that it is impossible. I don't see how science can possibly progress without being able to quantify using maths. Want us to guess how to calibrate the next 22nm process at Intel?

And if indeed science and mathematics are so holly, powerful and universal, how come they FAIL to understand and give answers on that subject? You can argue as much as you want, and pretend things, but that won't change the fact science and mathematics are as far from understanding quantum properties as it gets. So if there is anything failing in this thread, it is your mathematical point

What failed? That's like starting a race and saying you failed before anyone even crosses the finish line. Completely premature. Now, I want to quote a few bits of yours and you can read through them. Tell me if it sounds remotely convincing to turn away from the standard model of science:

"I never claimed science is totally wrong, we are talking about universal scales, and thats where science is wrong."
"And if indeed science and mathematics are so holly, powerful and universal, how come they FAIL to understand and give answers on that subject? You can argue as much as you want, and pretend things, but that won't change the fact science and mathematics are as far from understanding quantum properties as it gets."

And you wonder why you don't understand us? and why we don't understand you? Your ideas are VERY infant, your mind can't seem to handle you're trying to say. You've got so far off the rails that you've lost sight of the small things which are right infront of you. This is the danger of thinking universal all the time. Everything becomes useless and pointless in comparison.
Maybe you can take comfort in parallel universe theory. Infinite number of parallel universes where every variation in time has will and does occur. In some universe you actually got a point across to us, congratulations :shocked:

prava

06-03-2009, 12:42 PM

Breaking atoms apart results in giant supernovas in the next "dimension" and all those sub atomic particles science INVENTS are not relevant, as what infact is happening is science taking something of tremendous size and studding it at a sub atomic level

The wrong approach again. It also doesn't take a genius to see the connection between wave functions of the atomic orbitals and galaxy construction and realize what we see in atomic scale is the engine of everything out there. And there is that universal pattern - electrons revolve around the nuclei of the atom, planets revolve around the sun, the solar system revolves around the super massive black hole in the center of the milky way.

Science can't explain gravity and invents the graviton, a fictional thing thats supposed to be responsible for gravity. BUT THATS NOT seeking the TRUTH, that is making stuff out IN ORDER TO MAKE THEIR THEORY STICK. Same thing goes to all sub atomic particles, that will go smaller and smaller into infinity, and the same thing goes for the 98% of the known universe - dark matter and energy. Those are fictional as well, just so that the poor theory of science can stick to being true mathematically.

As I said, science can discover a billion subatomic particles and will still lack the answers, because what they work for is proving their theory, not discovering the truth. The truth is one direction, and their theory another one, and yes, science does walks into the wrong direction.

You are mixing things one time and another. Nothing is taken for granted, everything is questionable. If you've got a truth, everything has to stick to it and it will never be questionable. So, you are clearly talking about a religion: god and his message are "the truth", the one that will never be doubted of. This is science. Everything is taken for granted until there are holes in it.

There is no "truth" as this is not based in faith: I create a theory and then is proven.Trial and error. If those trials work, then its a valid theory. That is how it works. Like I said before, Science is based on a fairy tale because YOU HAVE TO INVENT A MODEL. That is how it works.
It's super easy to see how gravitation work (because you feel it and you see it), how the acceleration is constant in the surface of the earth and so make a model that allow us to know for certain what will happen if a particle X is placed in a Y spot: there is no guessing, we know it. How the hell the :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing acceleration is constant? Had I knew it, I would have a noble price...you can think about the mass bending time and space and thinking that everything around it is just travelling in a straight line, whatever, we don't know it...we will someday, I belive, and that answer may gives us all the others.
Ok, now lets talk about electric current. I've never seen it, do you? How do we try to use it if we can't see it? We can feel it without thinking of it (thus there is no faith involved), everybody can. So, how the hell do we CREATE a physical model in order to KNOW WITHOUT GUESSING what is going to happen? Well, we CREATE a few particles here and there that fits our model. Yes, we create them to fit our model, that is how we do stuff. What do you wanna do instead? There is nothing else.
"Absolute" is something we all know before start that will never be reached because accepting that is accepting that there is a point we will never able to discuss, it will be taken for granted the way it is or it wont. No, we don't work that way. The problem we have is that we don't know what is outside, because we can't think of those things we've never seen nor experienced. Imagine this example: you are in a closed box that travels at a constant speed. You would NEVER know wether you were in constant movement or stuck, because there are no differences. As such, wathever you think and create will be correct if applied inside that box, but may be not outside because you lack information. The truth is relative: inside your box, it would be truth, but not outside because you don't even know if it exists. A truth has to be universal, both inside and outside...

The problem is that you theory is GUESSING, THINKING, but you aren't demonstrating anything. How do we know that (according to you) there is another galaxy embebed in each particle? That what we see here in the earth it's just a replica of the whole universe? It's a nice theory, I agree, but you can't back it up. As a religion, It would be nice, but not as science. You are talking that inside each box there are a ton of smaller boxes, and so on. So what? We haven't seen any supernova into my brain-cells as far as I know, we can't prove your model. Maybe it will happen the same as with Einstein: there was no way to check many of his models at his time, but now we have, and they were correct...but as of now, you can't back what you are saying. Its your theory. but don't try to sell it to us as the "truth" because there is no such thing to start with.

In our world, it works the same way. How the hell do you want to think about the connections between different parts of the universe without knowing even how the parts you can find in the earth are connected? We need to know how our stuff works and then look at the stars. Einsteins theories are so :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing twisted that I don't think a dozen of people understands them the way Einstein did. They have the power to abstract themselves, to imagine them outside of the box, because they are a genius (well, Einstein was, those that now understand him are just replicating his model, which is a ton different that creating one). Thats all. From time to time, we wll have those genius that will see the picture in a different way that we do and will go one step further...in the case of Einstein, he doubted of the model we were using, but he created a new one AND BACKED UP. He just didn't say the "gravitation didn't exist", that "matter bends space and time" and that we don't even know what the hell is that matter stuff...no, he created a model. A model that is the one to follow unless somebody creates a new one that explains the situation better. Is this model truth? No, its not, but its practical, and that is what we want. We are still in the closed box, don't forget...