Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Naked Scientists)   Very smart people talking about very complicated subjects. I feel smarter, yet infinitely stupider for having visited   (thenakedscientists.com) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

5912 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 18 Jul 2009 at 9:54 AM (11 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



46 Comments     (+0 »)
 
2009-07-18 9:18:02 AM  
What I took away from that:

1. Size matters.
2. The universe has a black hole in the middle. So the Earth sucks, but the universe sucks worst of all.
3. There is a horizon problem because the universe is as boring as it can possibly be.
4. The most exciting time ever was the Big Bang and, like usual, I missed it.

/Actually it was all kind of interesting.
 
2009-07-18 9:20:30 AM  
submitter: I feel smarter, yet infinitely stupider

Everything is different, but the same...

... things are more moderner than before...

... bigger, and yet smaller...

... it's computers...

SAN DIMAS HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL RULES!
 
2009-07-18 10:09:40 AM  
Ohh. I like science. I'm bookmarking this website.
 
2009-07-18 10:17:03 AM  
I got to the part where someone said astrophysicists get away with saying the universe expands into nothing.

It is true though. When you are dealing only with what you can see then it is not worth dealing with something that you can not see. It is like asking what is north of the north pole.
 
2009-07-18 10:21:56 AM  
People that know faulty science trying to sound smart by smothering lies with Buzzword Syrup™!

Good for them, I suppose. Better than spending a rainy Saturday Morning on Fark.Com
 
2009-07-18 10:42:38 AM  
These are probably the same bastards that invented Miracle Whip.
 
2009-07-18 10:43:51 AM  

The_Time_Master: People that know faulty science trying to sound smart by smothering lies with Buzzword Syrup™!

Good for them, I suppose. Better than spending a rainy Saturday Morning on Fark.Com


I rather spend the morning on Fark.

It's not that I don't like to read science stuff (I do that for a living) but if I'm going to read a crapload of conjecture and assumptions, I might as well hit the Fark Politics tab and get some entertainment out of it.
 
2009-07-18 10:44:53 AM  
You are very muddled with your thinking. Like many people who come to this discussion you have grasped one or two important features from the popular literature and then embroidered it with a lot of emotive and colourful ideas of your own without strippping the real science to its bare bones and understanding it as fully as possible before trying to build things up.

[...]

I have in general no dispute with the interpretations and models of any of the generally accepted scientific theories. My main concern is that most of them are pushing the limits of what can ever be measurable by experiment (for example the LHC)or modelled by theory (for example the vast number of alternative string theories) I therefore feel from my experience that the time has come to look at the problems of basic physics and cosmology in a new way. There are several other good workers in this field notably Roger Pernrose from the mathematics end and Lee Smolin from the cosmological end who I consider are well worth reading, but in general my ideas are my own and not dependant on other people. I just look to other workers to help illuminate my thinking.

Let me state first that I am a retired professional scientist and innovator with a good record of success in this field for commercial purposes, who took early retirement with the intention of pursuing my studies further.


"...and hanging out on Internet forums where I can air my superiority over a bunch of enthusiastic but gullible and misguided science fans."

I'm not sure which is worse, ignorance or pomposity, but when the two meet each other, the product brings me little enjoyment.
 
2009-07-18 10:47:43 AM  
But what is science?
 
2009-07-18 10:48:54 AM  
scifitv.com.auView Full Size

/confused by your small-mindedness.
 
2009-07-18 11:00:50 AM  
That thread is what happens when philosophers collide with physicists.
 
2009-07-18 11:06:25 AM  

ActionJoe: I got to the part where someone said astrophysicists get away with saying the universe expands into nothing.

It is true though. When you are dealing only with what you can see then it is not worth dealing with something that you can not see. It is like asking what is north of the north pole.


As near as I can tell Astrophysicts' are content to say, "We cannot know that right now." It is the cosmology folks who are clamoring for an answer or solution, because if it is "nothing" then how can "something" fill it? There is no space to be filled to begin with. It is not a vast open void, it is nothingness, so how can the something of our existence expand into what doesn't exist?

I don't know, and I don't presume that the answer will be found in my life time, as that question is very big, and will require far more than our current understanding allows.

Theories like String and Super String are interesting and they are fun thought experiments to ponder on, but right now we simply do not have enough data to make them any more than just conceptual models, though my understanding of higher math is limited, some farker with more mathematical understanding might be able to explain why one theory is superior. Personally, Super String theory makes about as much sense as any other cosmology, and if I had to pick one, that would most likely be it, but my understanding of it is surface at best. That never stopped any fundies from preachin though.

Interesting stuff, good link, and I am going to bookmark that site!
 
2009-07-18 11:07:03 AM  
Here's what I got out of that: The Universe is Big. Really big. It may seem like a long way to the corner chemist, but compared to the Universe, that's peanuts.
 
2009-07-18 11:07:23 AM  
That thread reads like it was written by a bunch of armchair Farkers. Go here for discussion by actual physicists.
 
2009-07-18 11:11:38 AM  
I like the infinite # of universes theory with the black holes being the gateways, drawing energy from one and throwing it into another.
 
2009-07-18 11:18:15 AM  
My favorite quote:


"The universe being even bigger than you thought wouldn't make much of a difference if it was already smooth when it was small."

Duuuuh!
 
2009-07-18 11:54:39 AM  
images2.wikia.nocookie.netView Full Size


A place for very smart people to talk about very complicated subjects?
 
2009-07-18 1:14:40 PM  
Yay for fringe science. Here's how it works! Pay close attention!

1. Someone comes up with nice theory that makes accurate predictions.
2. Hundred years later, someone declares that theory from step 1 doesn't give us insight into what is "really" happening. New theory is born that makes the same predictions, but has bizarre interpretations.

3. Someone takes theory from step 2, and declares that it doesn't give us insight into what is "really" happening. Repeats process in step 2.

4. Goto 2.

5. All humans are dead.
 
2009-07-18 1:25:41 PM  
Right off the bat:

"Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so there is no way heat radiation could have travelled between the two horizons to even out the hot and cold spots created in the big bang and leave the thermal equilibrium we see now."

Particles exceed the speed of light all the time.

Check this out for an example of how not only can particles exceed the speed of light, but also emit radiation when travelling at such speeds.

Not even going to read the rest of those because it might incite me to write many walls of text.
 
2009-07-18 1:44:21 PM  
J. Frank Parnell:

"Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so there is no way heat radiation could have travelled between the two horizons to even out the hot and cold spots created in the big bang and leave the thermal equilibrium we see now."

Particles exceed the speed of light all the time.


Not the speed of light in vacuum, which is what people (including the above poster) usually mean when they talk about exceeding the speed of light.

It's a fairly reasonable description of the cosmological horizon problem which inflation was introduced (in part) to solve. But the rest of the thread kind of goes off the rails into "whoah man, listen to this stuff I sort of remember from reading the `Elegant Universe'" territory.
 
2009-07-18 1:50:07 PM  
I feel jipped. I clicked the link expecting actual naked scientists.
 
2009-07-18 1:50:22 PM  
What if "c. a. t." really spelled "dog?"

/nerrrrrrrds
 
2009-07-18 1:50:45 PM  

Ambitwistor: Not the speed of light in vacuum


The speed of light in a vacuum is still relative to the mass of the particle. Particles with no mass openly mock the speed of light constraint.
 
2009-07-18 1:56:14 PM  
To be clearer, the speed of particles in a vacuum is relative to their mass, and particles without mass don't abide by the speed of light rules, and exceed it like it ain't no thang.
 
2009-07-18 2:20:00 PM  
J. Frank Parnell:

To be clearer, the speed of particles in a vacuum is relative to their mass, and particles without mass don't abide by the speed of light rules, and exceed it like it ain't no thang.

In vacuum, particles with no mass (such as photons) travel at exactly the speed of light, no faster and no slower. They don't violate the speed of light constraint.

Things get a little sticky in classical relativity if you allow particles to have imaginary mass (i.e., tachyons), but once you grind that through quantum field theory, you find out that no mass-energy or information gets propagated faster than the speed of light in vacuum.
 
2009-07-18 2:20:37 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: To be clearer, the speed of particles in a vacuum is relative to their mass, and particles without mass don't abide by the speed of light rules, and exceed it like it ain't no thang.


io.comView Full Size
 
2009-07-18 2:26:40 PM  

ActionJoe: I got to the part where someone said astrophysicists get away with saying the universe expands into nothing.

It is true though. When you are dealing only with what you can see then it is not worth dealing with something that you can not see. It is like asking what is north of the north pole.


Fortunately, because the Universe is our only standard, it's easy to get away with dismissing the "nothingness" into which we are expanding. Not only does the nothingness have no matter or energy, but it has no *time*. "Things" never "occur" in the nothingness. As the nothingness is invaded by our spacetime, it doesn't "give in" or "go away" because nothing ever occurs to it.

As for the supra-light and spooky action: years ago, everyone was all hyped on the quantum soup. Then they walked away from it. I'm still sold on the idea. We are trying to use SS and other theories to flesh out the quantum soup, but I think the soup stands alone: quantum value changes occur between the prosaic universe and a sub-atomic world where mass and time do not exist - the nothingness. I like to think of it as a flat plane beneath everything. All energy exchange occurs from prosaic>soup>prosaic. Photons seem to travel at the speed of light because that is their nature in the prosaic>soup>prosaic exchange. Since time does not exist in the quantum soup, it is possible for the prosaic>soup>prosaic exchange to occur in what appears to us as "instantaneously". Everything in the soup is instantaneous; there is only ever one point in time, which means no time at all.

The quantum soup neatly describes a lot of stuff: spooky action, tachyons, the evenness of the CBR, the speed of light and all the way down to the action of photons and free valence electrons. The problem with the soup is that it's the cosmological equivalent of the "aether". It's a lazy catch-all.

That's why I plan to visit the quantum soup and come back with evidence. I will need someone to join me, if anyone's interested. It will involve folding ourselves into a toaster, setting it to 7 (perfect toast), and rigging the pop-up mechanism to a 8GeV Tesla coil. Be sure to bring a pad and pen; you'll want to take notes.
 
2009-07-18 2:45:51 PM  

CitizenTed: Fortunately, because the Universe is our only standard, it's easy to get away with dismissing the "nothingness" into which we are expanding. Not only does the nothingness have no matter or energy, but it has no *time*. "Things" never "occur" in the nothingness. As the nothingness is invaded by our spacetime, it doesn't "give in" or "go away" because nothing ever occurs to it.

As for the supra-light and spooky action: years ago, everyone was all hyped on the quantum soup. Then they walked away from it. I'm still sold on the idea. We are trying to use SS and other theories to flesh out the quantum soup, but I think the soup stands alone: quantum value changes occur between the prosaic universe and a sub-atomic world where mass and time do not exist - the nothingness. I like to think of it as a flat plane beneath everything. All energy exchange occurs from prosaic>soup>prosaic. Photons seem to travel at the speed of light because that is their nature in the prosaic>soup>prosaic exchange. Since time does not exist in the quantum soup, it is possible for the prosaic>soup>prosaic exchange to occur in what appears to us as "instantaneously". Everything in the soup is instantaneous; there is only ever one point in time, which means no time at all.

The quantum soup neatly describes a lot of stuff: spooky action, tachyons, the evenness of the CBR, the speed of light and all the way down to the action of photons and free valence electrons. The problem with the soup is that it's the cosmological equivalent of the "aether". It's a lazy catch-all.

That's why I plan to visit the quantum soup and come back with evidence. I will need someone to join me, if anyone's interested. It will involve folding ourselves into a toaster, setting it to 7 (perfect toast), and rigging the pop-up mechanism to a 8GeV Tesla coil. Be sure to bring a pad and pen; you'll want to take notes.


Amazing... that is exactly what I was thinking.
/minus all the crazy
 
2009-07-18 2:49:03 PM  

benlonghair: chemist


Someone got your (obscure?) reference. You win the internets.

/You missed a part though.
//"You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is."
 
2009-07-18 2:50:02 PM  
And I only quoted part of your quote. :/
 
2009-07-18 3:05:47 PM  
R.I.P. Douglas Adams. You are missed.

//Especially here...

The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair.
 
2009-07-18 3:10:25 PM  

Ambitwistor: In vacuum, particles with no mass (such as photons) travel at exactly the speed of light, no faster and no slower. They don't violate the speed of light constraint.


Yeah, only particles without mass can reach the speed of light, because of the whole mass expansion thing. But the existance of Tachyons is supported by the same models and equations, as long as they exist above the speed of light for their entire existance.
 
2009-07-18 3:25:56 PM  
J. Frank Parnell:

But the existance of Tachyons is supported by the same models and equations, as long as they exist above the speed of light for their entire existance.

Classically, faster-than-light tachyons are a permissible solution of the equations (although no such particles have ever been observed). Quantum mechanically, tachyon fields are unstable and don't remain tachyonic. And as I noted above, their quantum mechanical status becomes more dubious as no information propagates faster than light. More info here and here.
 
2009-07-18 3:43:02 PM  
I totally agree. It seems to me that with a metaphysical paradigm which encompasses quantum mechanics above classical mechanics, the only way in which the subatomic world can be theorized is through a dual-universe approach in which the macroscopic world forms the first-order universe, which is governed by classical mechanics, and the subatomic world forms the second-order universe which is governed by quantum mechanics thanks to "imaginary but mathematically-viable and potentially observable" subatomic particles such as tachyons, bosons, and the like. This way, the discrepancies with classical mechanics are answered, as subatomic particles would not interfere with our first-order universe and not violate classical mechanics, but operate completely within the boundaries of their second-order universes according to quantum mechanics. This theory bears weight, as fourth-dimensional movement within their second-order universe would likely not largely impact our own first-order universe and conform completely to both quantum and classical mechanics, therefore not necessitating a complete paradigm shift. Unfortunately, the only way really to prove this would be to bounce the graviton particle beam off the main deflector dish; that's the way we do things lad, we're making shiat up as we wish. The Klingons and the Romulans pose no threat to us, 'cause if we find we're in a bind we just make some shiat up.

/Obscure?
 
2009-07-18 3:45:16 PM  

Ambitwistor: J. Frank Parnell:

But the existance of Tachyons is supported by the same models and equations, as long as they exist above the speed of light for their entire existance.

Classically, faster-than-light tachyons are a permissible solution of the equations (although no such particles have ever been observed). Quantum mechanically, tachyon fields are unstable and don't remain tachyonic. And as I noted above, their quantum mechanical status becomes more dubious as no information propagates faster than light. More info here and here.


Well, certainly we'd have trouble spotting things travelling faster than light, kind of hard to take a snapshot with any shutter speed at any magnification to prove they exist, or prove they exist through the effects their mass has on nearby things because they have no mass, but i thought particles exceeding the speed of light was more accepted in theory.

Wouldn't give up on the idea, myself. Einstien himself said his laws were in no way perfect, so i always cringe when people treat them as if they are infallible. It stymies progress and is the last thing a paradigm shifter like him would have wanted.
 
amo
2009-07-18 4:46:54 PM  

that bosnian sniper: The Klingons and the Romulans pose no threat to us, 'cause if we find we're in a bind we just make some shiat up.

/Obscure?


Not at all. You should also check out his Sexy Data Tango.^ (possibly NSFW language)
 
2009-07-18 4:49:19 PM  

amo: that bosnian sniper: The Klingons and the Romulans pose no threat to us, 'cause if we find we're in a bind we just make some shiat up.

/Obscure?

Not at all. You should also check out his Sexy Data Tango.^ (possibly NSFW language)


I've seen it. It's funnier than the USS Make shiat Up, but the latter was easier to use in this case.
 
2009-07-18 4:52:50 PM  
From the Boobies:

"Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light"

That's BS. Spaceballs 1 can go to Ridiculous and even ludicrous speed!
 
2009-07-18 5:21:17 PM  
This stuff is way less confusing to me than the computer threads we get here.
 
2009-07-18 8:10:01 PM  
CitizenTed

You do mean a 8GV Tesla coil, right?
\8GeV is about the mass energy of a mouse fart
\\just sayin'

\\\ducks
 
2009-07-18 10:30:13 PM  
In other words...

No matter where you go, there you are.

/Buckaroo Bonzai
 
2009-07-19 12:53:02 AM  
some ppl say 14billion years, others -- 6 thousand. whats wrong with infinity? always has been, always will. matter never ends.
 
2009-07-19 12:54:32 AM  

total_looser: some ppl say 14billion years, others -- 6 thousand. whats wrong with infinity? always has been, always will. matter never ends.


I find that statement to be the most comforting and understandable in this entire thread.

/subby.
 
2009-07-19 7:51:14 PM  
buddhists say we should all bask in the eternal golden sunrise of the universe which is constantly creating and recreating itself.

/i'll wait for you all to catch up...
 
2009-07-20 10:48:43 AM  
Applied quantum physics:

I'm your only friend
I'm not your only friend
 
2009-07-20 11:16:34 AM  
All science is is a bunch of words, once you realize that you understand everything. You can work for NASA.
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.