Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/21/2006 9:36:51 AM EDT
I was listening to the radio, and Dr. Michiu Kaku, respected physicist in the area of string theory, was discussing a new theory of space travel physicists are exploring. Apparently, just as you can boil water, you can boil a region of space by raising it to the Planck temperature. Pockets form in the region and destabilize space, and you can walk through it into another universe, similar to way the Star Gate technology works. It does not involve wormholes or anything like that. The only limitation is that we do not currently possess the technology to heat anything to that temperature.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:01:10 AM EDT
Wouldn't a region of space that hot be non traversable any way? IE Hot enough that anything approaching would be vaporized or converted to plasma?

Not that we're going to be trying this anytime soon....
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:03:02 AM EDT
So... exactly how close would the flare need to be to the gasoline and tannerite to blow me into another universe?
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:04:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RealFastV6:
So... exactly how close would the flare need to be to the gasoline and tannerite to blow me into another universe?


Hold my beer and watch this!
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:05:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2006 11:05:53 AM EDT by Loaded_For_Bear]

Hold my beer and watch this!


Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:09:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
I was listening to the radio, and Dr. Michiu Kaku, respected physicist in the area of string theory, was discussing a new theory of space travel physicists are exploring. Apparently, just as you can boil water, you can boil a region of space by raising it to the Planck temperature. Pockets form in the region and destabilize space, and you can walk through it into another universe, similar to way the Star Gate technology works. It does not involve wormholes or anything like that. The only limitation is that we do not currently possess the technology to heat anything to that temperature.



I'd also argue that the other potential snag here is that many physicists seem to feel that string theory may be nothing but mumbo-jumbo nonsense. Until string theory actually generates testable hypotheses, it really is nothing but a mathematically sophisticated fairy tale.

Don't get me wrong - it MAY be true, but until there is some kind of evidence (no matter how thin) that string theory may actually be a legitimate theory, I remain completely skeptical about any of its "predictions"

Maybe I'm just overly cynical
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:13:18 AM EDT
It's all a dream anyways.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:15:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By michaelj1978:
It's all a dream anyways.


That's what they said about manned, powered flight.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:18:38 AM EDT
The temperature required to introduce the whole in space is 10 with 43 zeroes Kelvin (Planck's temperature). Right now, we are a class 0 civilization. In a hundred years, if we survive, we may be a class 1 (Planetary - capable of manipulating the weather, volcanoes, etc). In 1000 years, if we survive, we may be a class 2 (Solar system - able to manipulate solar flares, etc). Kaku says we'd have to be a class 3 civilization to generate those temperatures. We may be one of those in 10,000-100,000 years.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:24:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
The temperature required to introduce the whole in space is 10 with 43 zeroes Kelvin (Planck's temperature). Right now, we are a class 0 civilization. In a hundred years, if we survive, we may be a class 1 (Planetary - capable of manipulating the weather, volcanoes, etc). In 1000 years, if we survive, we may be a class 2 (Solar system - able to manipulate solar flares, etc). Kaku says we'd have to be a class 3 civilization to generate those temperatures. We may be one of those in 10,000-100,000 years.


Yay useless information!!!

I wish I could get paid to sit around and come up with theories about what will happen in 100,000 years.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:26:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cypher214:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
The temperature required to introduce the whole in space is 10 with 43 zeroes Kelvin (Planck's temperature). Right now, we are a class 0 civilization. In a hundred years, if we survive, we may be a class 1 (Planetary - capable of manipulating the weather, volcanoes, etc). In 1000 years, if we survive, we may be a class 2 (Solar system - able to manipulate solar flares, etc). Kaku says we'd have to be a class 3 civilization to generate those temperatures. We may be one of those in 10,000-100,000 years.


Yay useless information!!!

I wish I could get paid to sit around and come up with theories about what will happen in 100,000 years.


Maybe useless to a construction worker, but not to an 80K/year physicist.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:27:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
I was listening to the radio, and Dr. Michiu Kaku, respected physicist in the area of string theory, was discussing a new theory of space travel physicists are exploring. Apparently, just as you can boil water, you can boil a region of space by raising it to the Planck temperature. Pockets form in the region and destabilize space, and you can walk through it into another universe, similar to way the Star Gate technology works. It does not involve wormholes or anything like that. The only limitation is that we do not currently possess the technology to heat anything to that temperature.



I'd also argue that the other potential snag here is that many physicists seem to feel that string theory may be nothing but mumbo-jumbo nonsense. Until string theory actually generates testable hypotheses, it really is nothing but a mathematically sophisticated fairy tale.

Don't get me wrong - it MAY be true, but until there is some kind of evidence (no matter how thin) that string theory may actually be a legitimate theory, I remain completely skeptical about any of its "predictions"

Maybe I'm just overly cynical


In my book, string theory is about as scientifically valid as an episode of Star Trek: TNG. It sounds nice and has lots of fancy terms, but when it comes to actual science, it tends to be downright insulting of people's intelligence.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:27:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2006 11:28:10 AM EDT by Top_prop]
Useless information....

I say amen to that!
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:34:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
I was listening to the radio, and Dr. Michiu Kaku, respected physicist in the area of string theory, was discussing a new theory of space travel physicists are exploring. Apparently, just as you can boil water, you can boil a region of space by raising it to the Planck temperature. Pockets form in the region and destabilize space, and you can walk through it into another universe, similar to way the Star Gate technology works. It does not involve wormholes or anything like that. The only limitation is that we do not currently possess the technology to heat anything to that temperature.



I'd also argue that the other potential snag here is that many physicists seem to feel that string theory may be nothing but mumbo-jumbo nonsense. Until string theory actually generates testable hypotheses, it really is nothing but a mathematically sophisticated fairy tale.

Don't get me wrong - it MAY be true, but until there is some kind of evidence (no matter how thin) that string theory may actually be a legitimate theory, I remain completely skeptical about any of its "predictions"

Maybe I'm just overly cynical


In my book, string theory is about as scientifically valid as an episode of Star Trek: TNG. It sounds nice and has lots of fancy terms, but when it comes to actual science, it tends to be downright insulting of people's intelligence.


We'll see. Some of our brightest physicists at Harvard and MIT tend to believe their's something to it, but you might know more than they do or something.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:39:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2006 11:51:23 AM EDT by jkstexas2001]

Originally Posted By Top_prop:
Useless information....

I say amen to that!


Most of Da Vinci's designs, such as the flying machine and the tank, were useless at the time, yet many of our current vehicles (like the helicopter) were based on his drawings. Sikorsky said it was Da Vinci who inspired him to invent the helicopter. Of course, in the late 1800's, when H G Wells wrote of a trip to the moon, that too was useless information, but it inspired folks who like Von Braun to build the rockets that took us there in 1969. The level of scientific literacy and interest sure has gone downhill in the country in the past 50 years. One day, we are going to end up unable to read and write.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:44:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2006 11:44:52 AM EDT by brouhaha]
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:45:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

Originally Posted By Top_prop:
Useless information....

I say amen to that!


Most of Da Vinci's designs, such as the flying machine and the tank, were useless at the time, yet many of our current vehicles (like the helicopter) were based on his drawings. Sikorsky said it was Da Vinci who inspired him to invent the helicopter. Of course, in the late 1800's, when H G Wells wrote of a trip to the moon, that to was useless information, but it inspired folks who like Von Braun to build the rockets that took us there in 1969. The level of scientific literacy and interest sure has gone downhill in the country in the past 50 years. One day, we are going to end up unable to read and right.


I wonder if that was an intentional typo?
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:50:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By echo6:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

Originally Posted By Top_prop:
Useless information....

I say amen to that!


Most of Da Vinci's designs, such as the flying machine and the tank, were useless at the time, yet many of our current vehicles (like the helicopter) were based on his drawings. Sikorsky said it was Da Vinci who inspired him to invent the helicopter. Of course, in the late 1800's, when H G Wells wrote of a trip to the moon, that to was useless information, but it inspired folks who like Von Braun to build the rockets that took us there in 1969. The level of scientific literacy and interest sure has gone downhill in the country in the past 50 years. One day, we are going to end up unable to read and right.


I wonder if that was an intentional typo?


You got me there. I was in a hurry.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:52:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2006 11:53:34 AM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

We'll see. Some of our brightest physicists at Harvard and MIT tend to believe their's something to it, but you might know more than they do or something.


I'm not an expert of any kind on high-energy physics, but it seems pretty clear to me that "string theory" doesn't actually meet the technical defnition of THEORY. If it not testable or falsifiable, it is NOT a theory, merely an interesting story (much like Creationism). If there are new developments in string theory that have actually produced testable hypotheses, then that is very exciting - but I haven't heard about it.

The fact that a bunch of tenured professors want to play with it, or a bunch of young turks (or mathematics professors) can get research grants for it doesn't change the definition of what a theory is or isn't. On the flip side, I totally acknowledge that maybe this new proto-theory (which I guess is a kinder word than "story" or "fairy tale") is in the early stages of develpoment, and may still generate testable hypotheses, and become an ACTUAL theory.


I'm absolutely not saying that string theory is definitely bullshit - for all I know it may be 100% accurate, and is just extremely difficult to test or generate actual falsifiable hypotheses.

I'm just saying that until it actually meets the definition of "theory" I'm not really impressed with non-testable predictions.

Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:54:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Top_prop:
Useless information...

Why is that?

Is science useless unless it puts more fizz in beer?
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 12:07:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By Top_prop:
Useless information...

Why is that?

Is science useless unless it puts more fizz in beer?



Splitting the beer atom?








CJ

Link Posted: 8/21/2006 12:11:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
The temperature required to introduce the whole in space is 10 with 43 zeroes Kelvin (Planck's temperature). Right now, we are a class 0 civilization. In a hundred years, if we survive, we may be a class 1 (Planetary - capable of manipulating the weather, volcanoes, etc). In 1000 years, if we survive, we may be a class 2 (Solar system - able to manipulate solar flares, etc). Kaku says we'd have to be a class 3 civilization to generate those temperatures. We may be one of those in 10,000-100,000 years.


I was always taught we were a Class M planet...
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 12:24:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2006 12:33:57 PM EDT by tripledouble]

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
The temperature required to introduce the whole in space is 10 with 43 zeroes Kelvin (Planck's temperature). Right now, we are a class 0 civilization. In a hundred years, if we survive, we may be a class 1 (Planetary - capable of manipulating the weather, volcanoes, etc). In 1000 years, if we survive, we may be a class 2 (Solar system - able to manipulate solar flares, etc). Kaku says we'd have to be a class 3 civilization to generate those temperatures. We may be one of those in 10,000-100,000 years.


This guy has nothing else better to do than speculate about stuff 10 to 100 thousand years from now. I can do that.

In the year 10000, a polar bear will drive a car into Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch and find a videotape of Elizabeth Taylor and Michael Jackson riding a rickshaw pulled by Emmanuel Lewis.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 12:27:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
The temperature required to introduce the whole in space is 10 with 43 zeroes Kelvin (Planck's temperature). Right now, we are a class 0 civilization. In a hundred years, if we survive, we may be a class 1 (Planetary - capable of manipulating the weather, volcanoes, etc). In 1000 years, if we survive, we may be a class 2 (Solar system - able to manipulate solar flares, etc). Kaku says we'd have to be a class 3 civilization to generate those temperatures. We may be one of those in 10,000-100,000 years.


After being married to my wife, I am patient enough to wait
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 12:32:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

Originally Posted By Cypher214:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
The temperature required to introduce the whole in space is 10 with 43 zeroes Kelvin (Planck's temperature). Right now, we are a class 0 civilization. In a hundred years, if we survive, we may be a class 1 (Planetary - capable of manipulating the weather, volcanoes, etc). In 1000 years, if we survive, we may be a class 2 (Solar system - able to manipulate solar flares, etc). Kaku says we'd have to be a class 3 civilization to generate those temperatures. We may be one of those in 10,000-100,000 years.


Yay useless information!!!

I wish I could get paid to sit around and come up with theories about what will happen in 100,000 years.


Maybe useless to a construction worker, but not to an 80K/year physicist.


Being a physicist involves sitting around and making up shit about what's going to happen in 100,000 years? Sweet. Why go to school, in 100,000 years when they find out you're wrong you'll be dead so you can't get fired.


Link Posted: 8/21/2006 12:32:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
I was listening to the radio, and Dr. Michiu Kaku, respected physicist in the area of string theory, was discussing a new theory of space travel physicists are exploring. Apparently, just as you can boil water, you can boil a region of space by raising it to the Planck temperature. Pockets form in the region and destabilize space, and you can walk through it into another universe, similar to way the Star Gate technology works. It does not involve wormholes or anything like that. The only limitation is that we do not currently possess the technology to heat anything to that temperature.



I'd also argue that the other potential snag here is that many physicists seem to feel that string theory may be nothing but mumbo-jumbo nonsense. Until string theory actually generates testable hypotheses, it really is nothing but a mathematically sophisticated fairy tale.

Don't get me wrong - it MAY be true, but until there is some kind of evidence (no matter how thin) that string theory may actually be a legitimate theory, I remain completely skeptical about any of its "predictions"

Maybe I'm just overly cynical


In my book, string theory is about as scientifically valid as an episode of Star Trek: TNG. It sounds nice and has lots of fancy terms, but when it comes to actual science, it tends to be downright insulting of people's intelligence.


We'll see. Some of our brightest physicists at Harvard and MIT tend to believe their's something to it, but you might know more than they do or something.


A lot of otherwise intelligent people think Star Trek's technology is feasible and realistic, when in fact it shits all over science, engineering, and anyone who ever worked in the QC department of an electronics company.

Just because you have a degree, a fancy job, and can do math that would make most people's heads explode doesn't mean you're necessarily a genius. I've known quite a few people who were pretty amazing with complex calculations and such, but were otherwise total dumbasses.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 12:36:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By My-Name-Is-John:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
The temperature required to introduce the whole in space is 10 with 43 zeroes Kelvin (Planck's temperature). Right now, we are a class 0 civilization. In a hundred years, if we survive, we may be a class 1 (Planetary - capable of manipulating the weather, volcanoes, etc). In 1000 years, if we survive, we may be a class 2 (Solar system - able to manipulate solar flares, etc). Kaku says we'd have to be a class 3 civilization to generate those temperatures. We may be one of those in 10,000-100,000 years.


I was always taught we were a Class M planet...


Class M planet, but Type 0 civilization.

First hit on google turned up this www.ibiblio.org/astrobiology/index.php?page=concepts04 page which gives a run down of the civilization types. They're just kind of a benchmark system of where we are and where we may be able to go as a civilization.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 12:37:44 PM EDT
So... Every time some some redneck tells his buddy to hold his beer and blows himself up with some dynamite he doesn't really die, he just gets blown into another dimension???
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 12:39:27 PM EDT
Planck's temperature is readily acheivable by microwaving aluminum foil.

The problem is getting a cord long enough to reach space...

Link Posted: 8/21/2006 12:39:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cypher214:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
The temperature required to introduce the whole in space is 10 with 43 zeroes Kelvin (Planck's temperature). Right now, we are a class 0 civilization. In a hundred years, if we survive, we may be a class 1 (Planetary - capable of manipulating the weather, volcanoes, etc). In 1000 years, if we survive, we may be a class 2 (Solar system - able to manipulate solar flares, etc). Kaku says we'd have to be a class 3 civilization to generate those temperatures. We may be one of those in 10,000-100,000 years.
Yay useless information!!!

I wish I could get paid to sit around and come up with theories about what will happen in 100,000 years.

Link Posted: 8/21/2006 12:47:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

We'll see. Some of our brightest physicists at Harvard and MIT tend to believe their's something to it, but you might know more than they do or something.


I'm not an expert of any kind on high-energy physics, but it seems pretty clear to me that "string theory" doesn't actually meet the technical defnition of THEORY. If it not testable or falsifiable, it is NOT a theory, merely an interesting story (much like Creationism). If there are new developments in string theory that have actually produced testable hypotheses, then that is very exciting - but I haven't heard about it.

The fact that a bunch of tenured professors want to play with it, or a bunch of young turks (or mathematics professors) can get research grants for it doesn't change the definition of what a theory is or isn't. On the flip side, I totally acknowledge that maybe this new proto-theory (which I guess is a kinder word than "story" or "fairy tale") is in the early stages of develpoment, and may still generate testable hypotheses, and become an ACTUAL theory.


I'm absolutely not saying that string theory is definitely bullshit - for all I know it may be 100% accurate, and is just extremely difficult to test or generate actual falsifiable hypotheses.

I'm just saying that until it actually meets the definition of "theory" I'm not really impressed with non-testable predictions.



The theory it is attempting to replace is a "kluge" to borrow from computer technology, that requires adjustments before it produces the correct results. String Theorists are driven to believe that nature is simple and understandable at its deepest levels, and that a set of equations that unifies the four forces should be able to fit on a single piece of paper.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 12:49:39 PM EDT
How can you heat up space? Space is nothingness, and can therefore have no heat or temperature.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 12:49:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
I was listening to the radio, and Dr. Michiu Kaku, respected physicist in the area of string theory, was discussing a new theory of space travel physicists are exploring. Apparently, just as you can boil water, you can boil a region of space by raising it to the Planck temperature. Pockets form in the region and destabilize space, and you can walk through it into another universe, similar to way the Star Gate technology works. It does not involve wormholes or anything like that. The only limitation is that we do not currently possess the technology to heat anything to that temperature.



I'd also argue that the other potential snag here is that many physicists seem to feel that string theory may be nothing but mumbo-jumbo nonsense. Until string theory actually generates testable hypotheses, it really is nothing but a mathematically sophisticated fairy tale.

Don't get me wrong - it MAY be true, but until there is some kind of evidence (no matter how thin) that string theory may actually be a legitimate theory, I remain completely skeptical about any of its "predictions"

Maybe I'm just overly cynical


In my book, string theory is about as scientifically valid as an episode of Star Trek: TNG. It sounds nice and has lots of fancy terms, but when it comes to actual science, it tends to be downright insulting of people's intelligence.


We'll see. Some of our brightest physicists at Harvard and MIT tend to believe their's something to it, but you might know more than they do or something.


A lot of otherwise intelligent people think Star Trek's technology is feasible and realistic, when in fact it shits all over science, engineering, and anyone who ever worked in the QC department of an electronics company.

Just because you have a degree, a fancy job, and can do math that would make most people's heads explode doesn't mean you're necessarily a genius. I've known quite a few people who were pretty amazing with complex calculations and such, but were otherwise total dumbasses.


You mean like Einstein, who couldn't tie his shoes and had a closet full of identical suits so he wouldn't waste mental energy by having to choose which one to wear?
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 12:52:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
The temperature required to introduce the whole in space is 10 with 43 zeroes Kelvin (Planck's temperature). Right now, we are a class 0 civilization. In a hundred years, if we survive, we may be a class 1 (Planetary - capable of manipulating the weather, volcanoes, etc). In 1000 years, if we survive, we may be a class 2 (Solar system - able to manipulate solar flares, etc). Kaku says we'd have to be a class 3 civilization to generate those temperatures. We may be one of those in 10,000-100,000 years.


Yes, N. Kardashev's classification of civilizations based on the amount of energy available to them. I remember the complete and utter awe I first felt when I was first introduced to it and our place on it. High falutin' stuff for ARFCOM.

I've been wading thru The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology by Ray Kurzweil and it presents a compelling case that the current rate of technological change may result in a "Singularity" within our lifetimes. I have not finished half of the book yet, but his arguments and logic are difficult to refute ( at least I haven't found any significant flaws in his chain of reasoning).

For those of you wondering, the technological singularity isn't the creation of a blackhole on Earth but is instead more of a techno-social event where it becomes impossible to predict what will happen next due to intelligence amplification ( Artificial Intelligence, hybrid machine/biological intelligences, enhancement via bioengineering, and the list goes on ). Popular science fiction is currently enjoying (enduring) a flood of Singularity themed offerings, each attempting to predict the unpredictable.

If Kurzweil has it right, the rate of technological change is increasing such that the amount of time it will take to become a Class I, II or III civilization cannot be predicted with any certainy. I would suggest "sooner" rather than "later"

As an aside, Carl Sagan proposed an extension to the Kardashev classification, using the amount of information contained/available to the civilization as the test. Personally, I suspect that it is possible to argue that available energy/information content are may be synonymous ( although I don't think I could do so convicingly yet).

It would be interesting to do the math to determine how much mass could be accelerated by that much energy. So here is some half-educaeted handwaving and just solve for equivalent rest energy in mass:

E=MC^2 -> E/C^2 = M

If we accept 3x10^8 as an approximation of the speed of light C:

10^43 = M * (3x10^8)^2 -> 10^43/ (3x10^8)^2 = M -> 10^43 / 9*10^16 = M

So approximately 10^43/10^17 gives an approximation of 10^26 kilograms? My dimensional analysis is probably broke but the point stands, you can move alot mass with the amount of energy in question. I contend that it may be easier to just accelerate your thinking apparatus and scale back your clock speed for the trip in order to reach another universe that is if you subscribe the multiverse theory which defines a "universe" by it's light cone. You just have to wait long enough for the light cones of two universi to intersect ( in a sense you could say the universi merge ) to visit the neighbors!

I believe I have now reached full-on ramble.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 12:56:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

We'll see. Some of our brightest physicists at Harvard and MIT tend to believe their's something to it, but you might know more than they do or something.


I'm not an expert of any kind on high-energy physics, but it seems pretty clear to me that "string theory" doesn't actually meet the technical defnition of THEORY. If it not testable or falsifiable, it is NOT a theory, merely an interesting story (much like Creationism). If there are new developments in string theory that have actually produced testable hypotheses, then that is very exciting - but I haven't heard about it.

The fact that a bunch of tenured professors want to play with it, or a bunch of young turks (or mathematics professors) can get research grants for it doesn't change the definition of what a theory is or isn't. On the flip side, I totally acknowledge that maybe this new proto-theory (which I guess is a kinder word than "story" or "fairy tale") is in the early stages of develpoment, and may still generate testable hypotheses, and become an ACTUAL theory.


I'm absolutely not saying that string theory is definitely bullshit - for all I know it may be 100% accurate, and is just extremely difficult to test or generate actual falsifiable hypotheses.

I'm just saying that until it actually meets the definition of "theory" I'm not really impressed with non-testable predictions.



The theory it is attempting to replace is a "kluge" to borrow from computer technology, that requires adjustments before it produces the correct results. String Theorists are driven to believe that nature is simple and understandable at its deepest levels, and that a set of equations that unifies the four forces should be able to fit on a single piece of paper.


Yes, yes... We all saw the 3 part series on Nova. Short on information, and long on repetitive special effects.

There are currently "theories" of science that can't be readily tested and falsifiable. As DK pointed out, String theory is one of these. I think that perhaps at the most fundamental level of the universe, actual falsifiability may be impossible.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 12:56:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:
How can you heat up space? Space is nothingness, and can therefore have no heat or temperature.


Are you sure that nothing exists in a vaccuum?
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 1:11:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Erik_O:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
The temperature required to introduce the whole in space is 10 with 43 zeroes Kelvin (Planck's temperature). Right now, we are a class 0 civilization. In a hundred years, if we survive, we may be a class 1 (Planetary - capable of manipulating the weather, volcanoes, etc). In 1000 years, if we survive, we may be a class 2 (Solar system - able to manipulate solar flares, etc). Kaku says we'd have to be a class 3 civilization to generate those temperatures. We may be one of those in 10,000-100,000 years.


Yes, N. Kardashev's classification of civilizations based on the amount of energy available to them. I remember the complete and utter awe I first felt when I was first introduced to it and our place on it. High falutin' stuff for ARFCOM.

I've been wading thru The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology by Ray Kurzweil and it presents a compelling case that the current rate of technological change may result in a "Singularity" within our lifetimes. I have not finished half of the book yet, but his arguments and logic are difficult to refute ( at least I haven't found any significant flaws in his chain of reasoning).

For those of you wondering, the technological singularity isn't the creation of a blackhole on Earth but is instead more of a techno-social event where it becomes impossible to predict what will happen next due to intelligence amplification ( Artificial Intelligence, hybrid machine/biological intelligences, enhancement via bioengineering, and the list goes on ). Popular science fiction is currently enjoying (enduring) a flood of Singularity themed offerings, each attempting to predict the unpredictable.

If Kurzweil has it right, the rate of technological change is increasing such that the amount of time it will take to become a Class I, II or III civilization cannot be predicted with any certainy. I would suggest "sooner" rather than "later"

As an aside, Carl Sagan proposed an extension to the Kardashev classification, using the amount of information contained/available to the civilization as the test. Personally, I suspect that it is possible to argue that available energy/information content are may be synonymous ( although I don't think I could do so convicingly yet).

It would be interesting to do the math to determine how much mass could be accelerated by that much energy. So here is some half-educaeted handwaving and just solve for equivalent rest energy in mass:

E=MC^2 -> E/C^2 = M

If we accept 3x10^8 as an approximation of the speed of light C:

10^43 = M * (3x10^8)^2 -> 10^43/ (3x10^8)^2 = M -> 10^43 / 9*10^16 = M

So approximately 10^43/10^17 gives an approximation of 10^26 kilograms? My dimensional analysis is probably broke but the point stands, you can move alot mass with the amount of energy in question. I contend that it may be easier to just accelerate your thinking apparatus and scale back your clock speed for the trip in order to reach another universe that is if you subscribe the multiverse theory which defines a "universe" by it's light cone. You just have to wait long enough for the light cones of two universi to intersect ( in a sense you could say the universi merge ) to visit the neighbors!

I believe I have now reached full-on ramble.


The Kradesh stuff is interesting and I think for the most part realistic. We are a 0 on that scale, but then again we don't know any civilization any higher so its sort of pointless. As for kurtzweil, yes its interesting, however much like all these guys that claim massive social change is in the wings through science, they have failed to read any history books IMO. Furtheremore they are IMO (as a bio-scientist) just hyping all this stuff up, cyberpunk and implants are for the most part just as far off 20 years ago as they are today. All the uber-cool science stuff like fusion and cybernetics are prepetually just 20 more years away. What nobody notices is the much more common stuff that gets adopted and used for purposes never envsioned (read what they guys that thought up the internet would do, as opposed to what it is today for a good example of that) Or advanced prothetics for people with damaged limbs vs gee-cool cybernetics.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 1:13:18 PM EDT
Good luck getting Congress to fund it or the EPA to approve it.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 1:13:46 PM EDT
I'm not saying string theory is right or wrong. It may be a mathmatical coicidence, total bs, or a fundamental principle in how our universe operates. Until it can be proven it could be ANY one of those things.

Here is my thought on very abstract theorys. There is a limit on how far we can go in understanding the universe. The universe is extremely complex, just when we think we have something figured out we discover something new which raises even more questions. We will eventually get to a level where we CANNOT progress any further. I have no idea if we are even remotely close to this limit, or if we have thousands of years or discovery before we stop progressing towards the "truth". But for my $.02, we can ever know it all.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 1:19:01 PM EDT
rooms full of people thinking up shit, and THIS is all you got?



Link Posted: 8/21/2006 1:51:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

We'll see. Some of our brightest physicists at Harvard and MIT tend to believe their's something to it, but you might know more than they do or something.


I'm not an expert of any kind on high-energy physics, but it seems pretty clear to me that "string theory" doesn't actually meet the technical defnition of THEORY. If it not testable or falsifiable, it is NOT a theory, merely an interesting story (much like Creationism). If there are new developments in string theory that have actually produced testable hypotheses, then that is very exciting - but I haven't heard about it.

The fact that a bunch of tenured professors want to play with it, or a bunch of young turks (or mathematics professors) can get research grants for it doesn't change the definition of what a theory is or isn't. On the flip side, I totally acknowledge that maybe this new proto-theory (which I guess is a kinder word than "story" or "fairy tale") is in the early stages of develpoment, and may still generate testable hypotheses, and become an ACTUAL theory.


I'm absolutely not saying that string theory is definitely bullshit - for all I know it may be 100% accurate, and is just extremely difficult to test or generate actual falsifiable hypotheses.

I'm just saying that until it actually meets the definition of "theory" I'm not really impressed with non-testable predictions.



The theory it is attempting to replace is a "kluge" to borrow from computer technology, that requires adjustments before it produces the correct results. String Theorists are driven to believe that nature is simple and understandable at its deepest levels, and that a set of equations that unifies the four forces should be able to fit on a single piece of paper.



I don't mean to sound flip, but the EXACT same argument could be made for Creationism (which also doesn't meet the definition of a theory, and which also has a very simple and understandable explanation, and which also essentially purports to replace a "kludge" theory).
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 2:46:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2006 3:03:32 PM EDT by chrism101]
Sorry guys this is legit, and I have already demonstrated it in a operational environment using Tannerite and a Rabbit.



It proved successful except for one aspect. The very tail of the rabbit did not make it through in the short time it was open and was not passed through the hole into the next dimension.



It was however found some 60 yds away on the wall of the barn.


The rest of the rabbit entered the other dimension and has not tried to contact us since(probably pissed about losing his tail)




Video of this Ground Breaking Experiment can be seenHERE


Warning: Not Easter Bunny Firendly

Link Posted: 8/21/2006 2:53:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2006 2:56:15 PM EDT by jkstexas2001]

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

We'll see. Some of our brightest physicists at Harvard and MIT tend to believe their's something to it, but you might know more than they do or something.


I'm not an expert of any kind on high-energy physics, but it seems pretty clear to me that "string theory" doesn't actually meet the technical defnition of THEORY. If it not testable or falsifiable, it is NOT a theory, merely an interesting story (much like Creationism). If there are new developments in string theory that have actually produced testable hypotheses, then that is very exciting - but I haven't heard about it.

The fact that a bunch of tenured professors want to play with it, or a bunch of young turks (or mathematics professors) can get research grants for it doesn't change the definition of what a theory is or isn't. On the flip side, I totally acknowledge that maybe this new proto-theory (which I guess is a kinder word than "story" or "fairy tale") is in the early stages of develpoment, and may still generate testable hypotheses, and become an ACTUAL theory.


I'm absolutely not saying that string theory is definitely bullshit - for all I know it may be 100% accurate, and is just extremely difficult to test or generate actual falsifiable hypotheses.

I'm just saying that until it actually meets the definition of "theory" I'm not really impressed with non-testable predictions.



The theory it is attempting to replace is a "kluge" to borrow from computer technology, that requires adjustments before it produces the correct results. String Theorists are driven to believe that nature is simple and understandable at its deepest levels, and that a set of equations that unifies the four forces should be able to fit on a single piece of paper.



I don't mean to sound flip, but the EXACT same argument could be made for Creationism (which also doesn't meet the definition of a theory, and which also has a very simple and understandable explanation, and which also essentially purports to replace a "kludge" theory).


It is what drove Einstein. Rather than trying to explain observations in terms of ether, discard ether, using Lorentz-Fitgerald equations to explain differences in length, mass, and time as you approach the speed of light. What could be simpler than E=MC^2. It is the same thing that drives the number theorists. Euler discovered a very elegant equation, roughly the size of E=MC^2, that unites the famous values e, i, and pi for example. You can rewrite Maxwell's laws of electromagnetics in string theory notation with a single, simple, elegant equation. The current popular theory, while predicting the result of particle collisions, requires "corrections" before it is accurate, and still does not adequately explain why gravity is so weak when compared to the strong force, the weak force, and electromagnetism. String Theory actually explains why gravity is so weak when compared to the other forces. This drive for simplicity is behind many of the greatest discoveries in physics. It is like watching ten mediocre students, when given an engineering puzzle using gears and ropes to move something, spend hours with some ultra elaborate hodge podge that barely works, and some genius walks into the class room and figures out how to do the same thing with three gears and a pulley.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 2:57:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By chrism101:
Sorry guys this is legit, and I have already demonstrated it in a operational environment using Tannerite and a Rabbit.

i7.tinypic.com/25854yd.jpg

It proved successful except for one aspect. The very tail of the rabbit did not make it through in the short time it was open and was not passed through the hole into the next dimension.

i8.tinypic.com/2585bpz.jpg

It was however found some 60 yds away on the wall of the barn.


The rest of the rabbit entered the other dimension and has not tried to contact us since(probably pissed about losing his tail)

i8.tinypic.com/2585nph.jpg


Video of this Ground Breaking Experiment can be seen Here...(link will be active in 10 minutes; slow uploads)



Whoever did this is mentally disturbed. If they used a cat, I'd understand it better.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 2:59:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
I'm not an expert of any kind on high-energy physics, but it seems pretty clear to me that "string theory" doesn't actually meet the technical definition of THEORY.


Absolute rubbish.
I think it was about two years ago I IM'd you some falsifiable aspects...? Remember?

If we had the SSC in Waxahachie we would already know. CERN will find the answer in the next decade. String Theory can be tested, it just takes a bit more power than we have right now.

Since Witten's M-Theory brought all the nutcases together it has been a real contender.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 3:00:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2006 3:01:49 PM EDT by chrism101]

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

Originally Posted By chrism101:
Sorry guys this is legit, and I have already demonstrated it in a operational environment using Tannerite and a Rabbit.

i7.tinypic.com/25854yd.jpg

It proved successful except for one aspect. The very tail of the rabbit did not make it through in the short time it was open and was not passed through the hole into the next dimension.

i8.tinypic.com/2585bpz.jpg

It was however found some 60 yds away on the wall of the barn.


The rest of the rabbit entered the other dimension and has not tried to contact us since(probably pissed about losing his tail)

i8.tinypic.com/2585nph.jpg


Video of this Ground Breaking Experiment can be seen Here...(link will be active in 10 minutes; slow uploads)



Whoever did this is mentally disturbed. If they used a cat, I'd understand it better.


CAN You Say ROAD KILL...

Neither Tom Cruise or the Bunny Rabbit were harmed in the filming of this video.

Link Posted: 8/21/2006 3:02:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
The temperature required to introduce the whole in space is 10 with 43 zeroes Kelvin (Planck's temperature). Right now, we are a class 0 civilization. In a hundred years, if we survive, we may be a class 1 (Planetary - capable of manipulating the weather, volcanoes, etc). In 1000 years, if we survive, we may be a class 2 (Solar system - able to manipulate solar flares, etc). Kaku says we'd have to be a class 3 civilization to generate those temperatures. We may be one of those in 10,000-100,000 years.


You're right; some of us need to get past the basics.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 3:05:15 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 3:06:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ngog_Nrythrng:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
I'm not an expert of any kind on high-energy physics, but it seems pretty clear to me that "string theory" doesn't actually meet the technical definition of THEORY.


Absolute rubbish.
I think it was about two years ago I IM'd you some falsifiable aspects...? Remember?

If we had the SSC in Waxahachie we would already know. CERN will find the answer in the next decade. String Theory can be tested, it just takes a bit more power than we have right now.

Since Witten's M-Theory brought all the nutcases together it has been a real contender.



Actually, I completely DON'T remember, and have to plead the defense of my piss-poor memory

The most recent I hear on it was hearing an interview with the guy who wrote the "elegant universe" and some other string theory guy on a radio program just last week, and the impression I got was the string theory guys were essentially admitting that it hadn't really been tested in any real way yet.


Seriously - sorry if I forgot stuff we talked about.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 3:07:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:
How can you heat up space? Space is nothingness, and can therefore have no heat or temperature.


+1.

Space is mostly a vacuum with matter scattered about. So not a whole lot of anything to heat up.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 3:09:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Torf:

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:
How can you heat up space? Space is nothingness, and can therefore have no heat or temperature.


Are you sure that nothing exists in a vaccuum?



In what most of us think of as "the vacuum of space" there is all kinds of stuff. Not just simple protons (even in intergalactic space) but time, "space", various waves, and a plethora of intersecting dimensions.



In a real vacuum, where space, time, etc do not exist, it is more correct to say that everything exists, ie in such a perfect non-environment you can get vacuum fluctuations. These tend to be (keep in mind this is all theory...) very short lived phenomemon but can be of any complexity, as the energy sum is always zero. One theory is that our universe is such a vacuum fluctuation, and to understand this you need to look at gravity as 'negative' energy. Imagine a flock of penguins appearing in their own universe, singing a song, and then vanishing. It was this kind of nutty (but mathematically correct) theorization that helped Douglas Adams come up with the 'infinite improbability' drive in his "Hitchhiker's Guide" series.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top