Einstein unveiled his theory around nine decades ago, and it does not describe gravity as a force, as did Sir Isaac Newton's, but as a warping of space and time.
Now...
I hope this is the beginning of the creation of *warp gates*, so I can vacation on a luscious, tropical planet in a galaxy far, far way.
:)
Can we then put a giant frickin' laser on the moon and call it a 'death star'?
That's no moon.
I was under the impression that a scientific theory can not be proven, but is considered valid until disproven. Einstein didn't put forward the "Hypothesis of General Relativity," after all.
I was under the impression that a scientific theory can not be proven, but is considered valid until disproven. Einstein didn't put forward the "Hypothesis of General Relativity," after all.
As a (hopefully soon to be hired) scientist, the way I have been taught is that scientists don't actually prove anything. We keep trying to disprove things. Something becomes a theory when it explains stuff and hasn't managed to be disproven yet. It becomes a law when everyone gives up on disproving it;)
It becomes a law when everyone gives up on disproving it;)
How is 'everyone' classified?
It becomes a law when everyone gives up on disproving it;)How is 'everyone' classified?
Broadly speaking, when the majority of scientists all agree that something works, e.g. the laws of thermodynamics or gravity. Since scientists are generally insular, we don't care that much what the lay people think on these matters;)
Humor aside, that's how my physics professor described the process. You'll note that I'm an ecologist by training and that aren't exactly a lot of laws in my branch of science.
When I saw this post title I knew Tensor was the likely OP.
She always brings the NEATO!
Humor aside...
Actually, I was not being quite as sarcastic as I usually am. I realize 'everyone' only included the scientific community. It just seems the scientific community is constantly arguing amongst itself. It is a wonder we know anything. And yet, we have made such technological advances.
You'll note that I'm an ecologist by training
Biologists unite. *raises fist*
|
Actually, I was not being quite as sarcastic as I usually am. I realize 'everyone' only included the scientific community. It just seems the scientific community is constantly arguing amongst itself. It is a wonder we know anything. And yet, we have made such technological advances.
Indeed, the point is, if you keep arguing, eventually someone gets proved wrong, and then the other person can get a nobel prize, and wait for someone else to come along later and prove them *wrong*.
The other way to look at it, is that most theories, don't get proven wrong, they just get shown to be part of some bigger, usually simpler, system.
I.e. Relativity becomes Newton's laws at speeds normal on Earth.
Science (or at least physics), doesn't actually answer very many questions (and those it does answer, lead to other questions) it simply models the observable, repeatable, portions of the universe. Of course, that tends to have spin off benefits, such as medicine and technology....
/disclaimer I am a theoretical physicist with a background in the philosophy of physics so I go on a bit. It's an occupational hazard.
I'd argue that physics does answer a lot of questions - such as the nature of space and time, the fundamental forces that underpin every process, how the universe began and how it will end. I'll claim that qualifies as 'many' :)
I'd suggest that there are two parts to any theory. One is a pattern that describes a series of different phenomena. The other is the philosophical explanation for that pattern. Now Newton explained why all planets have their different orbits, and why comets have their orbits, and why an apple dropped from a tree falls at a given rate. The pattern that he identified related all of these things was remarkably mathematically simple and dealt with force and mass. His philosophical underpinning was that all objects exert an instantaneous force on all other objects due to their gravititational attraction. The pattern was true then and remains true now, but we have found out that the philosophy was false. Gravity is not transmitted instantaneously, and is due to the warping of space and time.
The pattern that Newton identified between the behaviour of objects must be incorporated into any future theory - so relativity reproduces the patterns of Newtonian mechanics at low velocities. In this way we can say that the old theories are incorporated into the new theories. However the progress that we make is usually due to significant changes in the underlying philosophical underpinnings.
We (generally) claim that something is a new theory when we can make a new prediction. So if we have two theories that are indistinguishable by any means then they shouldn't really be called different theories at all. In that case they would have the same patterns, but different philosophies (to use the terminology from earlier).
So the short version is that a theory is confirmed when it predicts a new phenomenon and that phenomenon is observed. Normally this really means that an old theory has been disproved - so the new theory incorporates a pattern that is closer to reality. In a sense we can say the new theory is 'more true'. This means of choosing between theories by experiment means that our theories encompass more and more of the phenomena we see as we go forward. Relativity encompasses Newtonian mechanics as a limit, so it explains everything Newton explained as well as explaining a lot more besides (Newtonian mechanics can't explain nuclear power stations for example).
Thus we're never going to say a theory is true - because we're likely to find a better theory in the future, but it can be more true than previous theories.
I guess that's a long winded way of saying that yes, physics does model the observable, repeatable portions of the universe, but it also does so by making statements about much deeper questions through the philosophical underpinnings of those explanations. If all we did was model the repeatable phenomena, then we would never make new predictions.
As for LISA - the experiment mentioned - it will look for gravitational waves. If a supernova goes off on the other side of the galaxy then it creates ripples in space and time that spread out at the speed of light. LISA would see the variation in distance between the satellites caused by those ripples. I too am very sorry that it is not a warp gate...
|
|
/disclaimer, I only got the BSc, and would have loved to do the philosophy courses, but couldn't at my uni at the time....
Ok, I'll give you the gravity, but I would argue that physics cannot explain the other forces, except to say that they are there, and probably mediated by massless particles....
So, so I'd say that physics is getting there, but still has a long way to go before it explains more than gravity (not that explaining that is a small thing ;) )
On the theories getting more precise, I think we siad the same thing, in different ways...
As an aside, I'm beginning to get worried how much we have in common Mr Roberts!
/disclaimer, I only got the BSc, and would have loved to do the philosophy courses, but couldn't at my uni at the time....
Ok, I'll give you the gravity, but I would argue that physics cannot explain the other forces, except to say that they are there, and probably mediated by massless particles....
So, so I'd say that physics is getting there, but still has a long way to go before it explains more than gravity (not that explaining that is a small thing ;) )
On the theories getting more precise, I think we said the same thing, in different ways...
As an aside, I'm beginning to get worried how much we have in common Mr Roberts!
Edit: Dr Roberts for the purpose of this thread :)
Indeed we do - but then I guess RPGs and scientists do tend to go together. I've never worked in a department where I haven't run a regular game.
I'd say that we have a good idea of the other forces - certainly as much as we know about gravity. Electromagnetism has had a solid mathematical framework since the 19th century. In the 1920s we learned that it's mediated by particles of light - the photon. So when you use a magnet to pick up a nail, the force is transferred by photons. We have gone on to test that light and electromagnetism is indeed communicated by individual photons. As for the strong and weak force - well the weak force is certainly not mediated by massless particles. It's mediated by the W and Z bosons and they have well measured masses - 80 and 91 times heavier than the proton respectively. We also now pretty much everything about them. So I'd say we know about the weak force. The strong force is mediated by gluons which are massless. Now we can never see one in the wild and the nature of the force being strong makes is a bugger to calculate. However we know how gluons and quarks interact and when we use them to make predictions for scattering of bundles of them off one another (say colliding two protons under Switzerland) then we get it right - so I'd say we understand the strong force.
The standard model of particle physics doesn't just include those three forces, but it relates them to one another. It tells us how the strength of the forces change with the energy of the particles that are interacting. That turns out to work remarkably accurately. It also tells us that electromagnetism and the weak force are really two sides of the same coin - both come from one unifying electroweak force. To get electromagnetism and the weak force from the electroweak force we need the Higgs boson. So we're looking for it. If we find the Higgs or something similar that does the same job then I'll say happily that we understand the four (or really three) forces of nature. I expect that we'll then go on to unify them further. Possibly using supersymmetry to unify electroweak and the strong force, and string theory to unify these with gravity.
Interesting discusions. Thanks for the ideas everyone!
|
|
I'd say that we have a good idea of the other forces - certainly as much as we know about gravity. Electromagnetism has had a solid mathematical framework since the 19th century. In the 1920s we learned that it's mediated by particles of light - the photon. So when you use a magnet to pick up a nail, the force is transferred by photons. We have gone on to test that light and electromagnetism is indeed communicated by individual photons. As for the strong and weak force - well the weak force is certainly not mediated by massless particles. It's mediated by the W and Z bosons and they have well measured masses - 80 and 91 times heavier than the proton respectively. We also now pretty much everything about them. So I'd say we know about the weak force. The strong force is mediated by gluons which are massless. Now we can never see one in the wild and the nature of the force being strong makes is a bugger to calculate. However we know how gluons and quarks interact and when we use them to make predictions for scattering of bundles of them off one another (say colliding two protons under Switzerland) then we get it right - so I'd say we understand the...
But that's my point Dr Roberts... We know that they all work (well except gravity, probably) in a similar way, force with mediation particles, and we have names for the particles, and we can even define EM and Weak in the same framework...But we have no idea why those particles actually interact to produce those forces. Just that they do....
Why does a very similar interaction, between very similar particles create an attractive force in the weak, and an opposive force in the strong? (Or the other way around, I forget, it's 8 years since I seriously did physics now...)
Like I said originally, each new discovery tells us more, and gives us useful predictions/applications, but also just opens up more questions.....
That's a fair criticism. We know what the forces are and how they interact. It's certainly not clear why they had to be those forces rather than any others. There's some discussion of parallel universes with different forces and we happen to be in the universe that has forces that allow for the creation of large scale objects. In a sense, we have to be in that one because we see it to be the case. There's nothing to say that there aren't an infinity of other universes where the forces are different and there's no compound objects like atoms or molecules.
That's certainly an interesting question, and one people (especially string theorists) are working very hard on. They are trying to explain the ultimate root of the forces. The downside is that string theory is very light on testable predictions so it'll be quite some time before we turn over that particular rock to see what lies beneath.
|
|
LOL, never liked the anthropomorphic principle myself :)
If I wasn't quite so bad at quantum Mechanics (Or rather at Maths, which is why I got a BSc and not an MPhys) I'd have kept up with things a lot better than I have. As it is, I'm very tempted to do an OU Philosophy degree at some point. When I have a bit of cash, and less toddlers running around.....
Thanks for taking the time to argue with me Dr. It's been fun, and something I've missed for a while :)
Well I share offices with physicists and string theorists (sic) and don't get to do as much philosophy as I'd like. And for the record I hate the anthropomorphic principle myself.
When/if you do get the chance I'd recommend phil of phys and sci - it's a fun course, or a knowledge and epistemology course. Both worth the time.
NASA and the European Space Agency are planning to launch three spacecraft into orbit around the sun, three million miles apart, and have them fire lasers at each other to prove the theory of general relativity.
...
I hope this is the beginning of the creation of *warp gates*, so I can vacation on a luscious, tropical planet in a galaxy far, far way.
I don't! I don't want them accidentally warping our light/heat source away!
Well I share offices with physicists and string theorists (sic) and don't get to do as much philosophy as I'd like. And for the record I hate the anthropomorphic principle myself.
When/if you do get the chance I'd recommend phil of phys and sci - it's a fun course, or a knowledge and epistemology course. Both worth the time.
Where are you based? In a college, if so which one?
I'm a theoretical physics undergrad, doing a special relativity exam in two hours. Is the 'anthropomorphic principle' the same as the 'anthropic principle'?
As for philosophy vs. hard science!
:) That's really very good.
Yes, I should have referred to it as the anthropic principle - anthropomorphic is something a little different.
I'm a researcher currently based at NYU. Good luck with the SR exam!
Humor aside...Actually, I was not being quite as sarcastic as I usually am. I realize 'everyone' only included the scientific community. It just seems the scientific community is constantly arguing amongst itself. It is a wonder we know anything. And yet, we have made such technological advances.
That is what engineers are for.
That is what engineers are for.Humor aside...Actually, I was not being quite as sarcastic as I usually am. I realize 'everyone' only included the scientific community. It just seems the scientific community is constantly arguing amongst itself. It is a wonder we know anything. And yet, we have made such technological advances.
In the life of every project there comes a time when you you have to kill the engineers and begin production.
I was under the impression that a scientific theory can not be proven, but is considered valid until disproven. Einstein didn't put forward the "Hypothesis of General Relativity," after all.As a (hopefully soon to be hired) scientist, the way I have been taught is that scientists don't actually prove anything. We keep trying to disprove things. Something becomes a theory when it explains stuff and hasn't managed to be disproven yet. It becomes a law when everyone gives up on disproving it;)
I don't think this is exactly the definition - though we'll have to get one of these scientific types to really explain it. That said just because everyone agrees on something does not make it a law.
1+1=2 is pretty universally agreed upon. Still its not a law, its simply an element of numbers theory.
|
What a creative way to waste an enormous amount of money.
Actually, a small amount of money in terms of the budgets of nations. In return, we retain some exceptionally bright scientists and engineers in theoretical lines of work where they occasionally turn up something of vast benefit to society.
Speaking as someone who works on the periphery of missions like this one, I'm quite glad that a portion of my monthly tax bill goes towards things like this.
Also, I would presume that the majority of folks would take one look at the word 'Subscriber' in our tag-lines and call that a waste of money - it's easy to call something a waste when you have no comprehension of the benefits.
But there is no benefit to me for a project like this.
This is where your ignorance shows, I bet you think the LHC was a total waste because it's been slow to get going. But even with that, it has advanced quantum and super computing years when they were buildng data banks to store and process the huge amounts of information, this can all be brought back to telecommunications and regular computing and the improvement thereof.
What I'm saying is, science like this is always of benefit, not just to you but to the entire planet as findings are almost always shared. It's a long term investment, but given that even auxilliary discoveries and innovations vastly benefit the world, I'd say its better than alot of things, and to be lauded and applauded.
It's not that there is no benefit, its that you can't see it because you've not educated yourself on the benefits, you don't have the imagination or won't expend the effort to grasp anything more long-term and complex than money in, money out, or both. This viewpoint annoys me, especially from intelligent people.
anthropomorphic --> an-throw-po-more-fik
anthropic --> an-throw-pic
Awesome stuff.
But there is no benefit to me for a project like this.This is where your ignorance shows, I bet you think the LHC was a total waste because it's been slow to get going. But even with that, it has advanced quantum and super computing years when they were buildng data banks to store and process the huge amounts of information, this can all be brought back to telecommunications and regular computing and the improvement thereof.
What I'm saying is, science like this is always of benefit, not just to you but to the entire planet as findings are almost always shared. It's a long term investment, but given that even auxilliary discoveries and innovations vastly benefit the world, I'd say its better than alot of things, and to be lauded and applauded.
It's not that there is no benefit, its that you can't see it because you've not educated yourself on the benefits, you don't have the imagination or won't expend the effort to grasp anything more long-term and complex than money in, money out, or both. This viewpoint annoys me, especially from intelligent people.
+1000000. Also back in the early 1960s, scientists demonstrated a new system that focused light into a coherent beam, a sytem called light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation (LASER). At the time nobody saw any practical use for this setup. Fast forward a few decades and laser systems are now ubiquitous. Never underestimate human creativity and ability to find a use for seemingly useless ideas.
I was under the impression that a scientific theory can not be proven, but is considered valid until disproven. Einstein didn't put forward the "Hypothesis of General Relativity," after all.As a (hopefully soon to be hired) scientist, the way I have been taught is that scientists don't actually prove anything. We keep trying to disprove things. Something becomes a theory when it explains stuff and hasn't managed to be disproven yet. It becomes a law when everyone gives up on disproving it;)I don't think this is exactly the definition - though we'll have to get one of these scientific types to really explain it. That said just because everyone agrees on something does not make it a law.
1+1=2 is pretty universally agreed upon. Still its not a law, its simply an element of numbers theory.
I'm paraphrasing and I admit I don't remember the answer real well; it's been 6 years and a lot of other classes. My teacher was also a theoreticist, so his explanations got a bit wordy. I think he's also retired now, so asking him would be difficult. Maybe I should ask my old adviser....
But there is no benefit to me for a project like this.This is where your ignorance shows, I bet you think the LHC was a total waste because it's been slow to get going. But even with that, it has advanced quantum and super computing years when they were building data banks to store and process the huge amounts of information, this can all be brought back to telecommunications and regular computing and the improvement thereof.
What I'm saying is, science like this is always of benefit, not just to you but to the entire planet as findings are almost always shared. It's a long term investment, but given that even auxiliary discoveries and innovations vastly benefit the world, I'd say its better than a lot of things, and to be lauded and applauded.
It's not that there is no benefit, its that you can't see it because you've not educated yourself on the benefits, you don't have the imagination or won't expend the effort to grasp anything more long-term and complex than money in, money out, or both. This viewpoint annoys me, especially from intelligent people.
I'd be careful about that. If people don't see the value in a project then calling them ignorant is not going to help. I'm totally ignorant about stem cell research, but I believe people when they tell me that it's important because they can tell me what the clear benefits are. If someone's ignorant about the benefits of pure physics research then it's because we haven't made it clear. Calling someone ignorant certainly doesn't help. It's very dangerous for scientists to say - "clearly my research has value and I don't need to explain why because other fun research in the past looked like nonsense but turned out to be useful!". That just irritates people and results in politicians cutting our funding. Science needs to argue its corner just like any other section of the budget.
So why should we do pure research? What value does it provide? Firstly, vagrant-poet is right. Research at this scale requires new technologies. The Large Hadron Collider under Geneva is the largest machine ever created and has required substantial developments in superconducting magnets, solid state detectors, electronics and radiation shielding. Almost all of these are done by private companies who wouldn't be able to do the R&D without this project. They also keep the patents to those technologies after they have completed the project. Coutries that fund the project get a consummate share of the funds back to their high tech industries to create the machine. So the money pumped into CERN creates jobs in your own high tech industries. This is built in at the start of these projects now - so funding countries can see a return on their investment even without worrying whether the experiment changes our theories of subatomic physics. These technologies tend to be very useful - note that the internet is a direct result of research requirements at CERN. (oh, and a point of information - the LHC has nothing to do with quantum computers, but it does use large scale grid computing).
But of course then you can say - why bother getting this R&D by building something else - why not just spend the money directly on superconducting magnet research or designing new computer structures? One answer is that people push themselves further when they have a goal, so these large projects move research along faster as a whole than if it was lots of individual companies doing their own thing without a unifying goal. However the better answer is that this way we get all of the useful technological spin offs and we get to move forward with our fundamental understanding of the universe. Now we can't say what use that will be. If I could tell you what the next revolution in physics would produce I wouldn't need to do the research. This truly is uncharted water. The only way to give a good answer is to look back and say that when people discovered electromagnetism they had no idea what it was good for. Now electricity is fundamental to our lives. Electromagnetism arose from the discovery of Maxwell that electricity and magnetism could be unified. The results were enormously important - but his endeavour was obscure and purely theoretical. Now we look to unify electromagnetism with the weak nuclear force. It may have an effect on our lives through the development of a new technology. It may have no effect but to increase our knowledge of the universe. However there are enough revolutionary technologies that come out of pure physics research for me to claim that it is not a waste of money in the long term. You invest a relatively small amount of money (and trust me - in national budgets these really are small amounts) and we might get a revolutionary technology.
Those are two answers that address the value for money aspect. However I'd also say that knowledge in itself has value. We pay people to sit and think in universities for all sorts of reasons, we pay composers to come up with scores for operas, we pay singers to create pop songs. None of these have intrinsic economic value but they do add to the sum of human experience. They are our culture and our sum of learning. We don't need to put a price on it. Our theories of science give us a deep understanding of the universe. That in itself is something that I find very valuable. However I can look at a Jackson Pollock and have no understanding of its value. I won't claim its not valuable, but I don't understand it myself. The cultural value of science is subjective, but unlike many other things, its economic value is not.
I hope that helps answer the question? I'll be happy to specific cases in more detail if they are areas that I work in.
So why should we do pure research?
Poodle point.
|
You invest a relatively small amount of money (and trust me - in national budgets these really are small amounts) and we might get a revolutionary technology.
That's the trick. I'm sure it costs more, time and money, writing a bid for funding than the funds you seem to receive - once overheads and other things that I'm sure are artificial constructs of accountants to justify their existence have been removed!
<sigh> - returns to bid writing...
S.
I'd be careful about that. If people don't see the value in a project then calling them ignorant is not going to help. I'm totally ignorant about stem cell research, but I believe people when they tell me that it's important because they can tell me what the clear benefits are.But there is no benefit to me for a project like this.This is where your ignorance shows.
I really can't disagree with that. My ignorance was showing.
I apologize to NPC Dave, genuinely. It's exam season and time and temper is short.
(oh, and a point of information - the LHC has nothing to do with quantum computers, but it does use large scale grid computing).
I probably misread something, but I thought they were doing something with Quantum computing of the data collected in one of the english colleges related to the LHC. Again, I could just have misread an article.
Can we then put a giant frickin' laser on the moon and call it a 'death star'?
Well, first we plan on lasering off that "CHA" up there.
Can we then put a giant frickin' laser on the moon and call it a 'death star'?Well, first we plan on lasering off that "CHA" up there.
You can't remove that! It's a monument! A record! A legacy! And it's not finished! We already paid for the bloody laser!