O.k here we go...

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

The murkiness that you speak of is nonetheless very real.

Thank you:) It's nice to know it isn't just me having trouble sorting it out.

[REASON]

You probably are looking for Dr. Michio Kaku.

 

He's a physicist and 'futurist' specializing in string theory (I think).

 

-modest... I need to get one of his books

 

Yes, I would bet he is exactly who DD is referring to. I have seen him on the Science Channel too, most notably as the narrator on a documentary called Time.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Yup...that's him.

[alexander]

back after a long weekend, and still little time to do anything. Actually i've been noticing, it seems to me that the length of the weekend matters very little, it almost seems that you still get the same amount of work done, and still have no time for any of the fun things ;)

 

Technically, you're correct. Generally speaking though, legitimate scientists aware of the fact that their hypotheses are untested, don't push them off as believable. Others might. And still others might even misrepresent the position of scientists by implying that they are pushing them off as believable.

I wouldn't even push it that far, i have seen plenty of legitimate scientists, even here on hypo, pushing an otherwise unproven theory, well-based theory, but a theory non-the-less as a fact. Now, ofcourse not to say that they are pushing it in a religious manner, but it sometimes feels something of that magnitude, simply due to the fact that they use a theory as an end-all discussion stopper, one of those "I am right, and there ain't nothing you can do about it" attitudes.

 

Science is about methodically exploring human curiousity. Currently, science can make no valid claims about the beginning of existence. That doesn't stop us curious humans from trying though.

I wouldn't overgeneralize that, not to say that that description is not perhaps the best description of what science is, that i have ever read though, props to you, freez :)

 

But yeah, i wouldn't say human curiosity, it almost feels though you are talking about the human race, but in all reality, it is the curiosity of some particular humans that gets methodically explored by, generally, themselves... :shrug:

 

Light is better thought of as energy.

*in professor Farnsworth's voice* Oooh, yes! a wave of photons zooming through space at c, whzzz, whzzz. (not a quote, though i thought it would give a more relaxed feel to it)

 

Scientific theories that are impossible to prove are not science at all, indeed.

I wouldn't take it that far now, come on, you can't write off all of theoretical physics as gibberish, now, let's be sensible to what we shall call scientific theory and what we call a nonscientific theory.

 

In it's more appropriate form, the equation is actually:

but they are not the same equivolence, same value, but different power, in order for the equation [math]E=mc^2[/math] and [math]E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4[/math]

should it not be something equal to E? or [math]E=\sqrt{p^2c^2+m^2c^4}[/math]

which is

[math]E=\sqrt{c^2*(p^2+m^2c^2)}=c*\sqrt{p^2+m^2c^2}[/math]

therefore i think einstein's energy equivalence equation should really look like

[math]E=c*\sqrt{p^2+m^2c^2}[/math]..... right now only to remember that ;)

 

even the short version is oversimplified, should it not technically be stated as [math]\delta E=c^2\delta m[/math]

i dunno, i argue that for any object at rest you should use the shorter version anyways, or change your math to reflect the same frame of reference as the frame of reference in which the object appears to be at rest (though it's not always that easy.... but who am i to judge)

 

BTW, can someone please translate this to into english for me, i'd really appreciate an explanation

rest mass is the relativistic length of the energy-momentum four-vector

 

Going on now...

 

If something is not scientifically provable, then yes, it is "religion" in some sort of a way, because the only way you could believe in the truth of an unprovable concept requires a leap of faith.

Once again, you dont have to believe in a theory, or accept it, you may just use it for the moment, therefore it does not necessarily be any sort of a religious experience. It could just require a leap of trust, a leap of not knowing anything else that would work in a situation, not necessarily faith in anything though... i think anyways

 

This point has already been picked up, but I would suggest that if you are going to comment on scientific ideas then you need to understand the terminology. Light is a physical entity. Physical entities include material entities (matter), electromagnetic phenomena (light and magnetism) and gravity. Light is not a material entity.

I think DISTRUBD understands it better then you give him credit for ;)

 

which is exactly the opposite of the scientific method. One system explicitly says ideas have to be tested while the other explicitly says they should never be tested.

This is my biggest problem with Judeo-Christian religions, i dont think there has ever been a greater stopping force for science then any religion that falls under that. I respect religious people, but god damn is it hard to talk to people that can't grasp simple concepts, especially those of time. And i dont mean time in einstein sense, not at all, time in historical sense. When you tell a religious person that their manuscript is a collection of creationism stories from 3000 years ago, some of which are blatantly plagiarized, and meant to explain the world to primitive people, by primitive people, they still ask stupid questions like "Well how come monkeys dont turn into humans today..." gah (btw when you see me use that, it's no more then a gasp) tis not worth the breath, leave beliefs to those who believe them, let's go explain something new.

 

Just had to run to the bathroom, and thought this analogy up on the way, i dunno if any religious people would buy it, but think of human race history as a life of a person. In your infancy, parents come up with lame ways to explain things, because they don't want to introduce concepts that are otherwise incomprehensible at one's young years, because they lack the logical ability to understand them. Any of you that have kids, would likely agree, when you kid asks you "Where do babies come from" at the age of two, i doubt that most parents will go into explaining the intricacies of human brain chemistry, hormonal changes of a maturing human, mating patterns, etc. Hell, try explaining it to most parents, and they will start getting confused about chemistry, hormones, and neural cell interactions... to them, they have sex, mom gets pregnant, child comes out, simple, easy, explains their world simply enough. But back to my point, so these primitive, though i should not call them that, they were rather advanced, they simply lacked our understanding of the world today, and certainly did not lack the mental capacity, i will call them, early people; so these early people, having no idea idea of how things happen around them, had to come up with explanations, and eventually collections of those, ones that sounded the closest to what was observed, got put together in tomes of scriptures, and eventually, more and more people heard these stories, and came to believe them to be true. But were there people that talked about the big crunch, the religious folk would have been all up and investing into current day researchers working on this theory... Point, it was explained as best as they knew how, in the human infancy, we are more mature now, and have new ways of explaining those same things, it's time to let go now of the stories mothers used to tell their 2 year olds...

 

The only problematic thing I see is “where’d [the universe’s matter] come from?” That is not a bad philosophical question but I don’t think it is something a scientific theory can address with our current knowledge.

Well this can have and does have a few explanations already, problem is, they are based on assumptions. For example, assuming that there are multiple universes, 2 ran into each other and released a lot of energy at the point of contact, then the materia of space-time receeded and we had the big crunch. Problem is, on one hand it's theoretical, or rather philosophical question, on the other hand, if such was the case, there is a lot of math to show that by such a process, universe that would come out of such interaction, somewhat resembles what we observe today, pattern and behavior-wise.

[alexander]

continued yet :)

 

It expanded - and expands. Distances between points in the universe are increasing. The geometry is expanding. Since things are getting further apart with time, we can rewind the clock back to a time when everything was touching. This is the singularity or primordial atom.

and it is expanding at a faster rate, as well, it is still accelerating, counting that, one can also figure out initial velocity, and energy required for the universe embangen...

 

New information that leads to inconsistency with current theory is not only welcome, it is sought with great effort.

in other words everyone is out to disprove everyone else... you think its a good idea for an MMO. Bunch of avatars of scientists running around, trying to disprove everyone else's theories. Getting quests from newton, battling it out with the church ;)

Got ya! This is a problem of poor education and misinformation I think as I (and others) was under the impression that BBT was science's explanation for the origions of the universe.

It's not a definite theory, nor is it a single theory, it is kind of like a wrapper theory with every other scientist having their own interpretation based on their findings and their math...

 

this truely get's to the heart of what I've been trying to ask and understand

Well this is interesting, because this cuts into philosophical ideas of what science is, though science and philosophy are near brothers, there is a rather simple separation in the two, science is the philosophical pondering of the world with an attempt to recreate the phenomena in controlled environments to come up and test a mathematical equivalence used to describe that or those particular phenomena on a macro scale (here meaning for all occurences of thereof). (this would be my explanation of what science is)

 

For me, it's about understanding that science is a process or a method that is used to try and find answers to questions by gathering some sort of evidence or proof in support of a theory.

well, only if by theory, you also undermine an idea of how something might work. I find myself pondering ideas that are not worthy of being theories, niches, if you will, i am sure it is similar with real scientists, but i would think you meant those under theories as well (i consider niches not to be full theories, though)

 

Do some scientists investigate the "imaginary" or when they decide to investigate something which seems fanciful (time travel or worm holes for instance) does that then become scientific study or physicists daydreaming? This I don't get.

Theoretical scientists do. Though it needs to be said, imaginary is a rather vague term ;) For example have we ever seen a black hole, because they are black, and the background of the universe is black, and there is lots of space dust in the way, nevertheless it does not stop us from figuring out the physics of such an object, as well as a possibility of such an object occurring under the current universe model.

 

He's a physicist and 'futurist' specializing in string theory

What a pleasant surprise, i specialize in the string theory too.... g string, v string, t string, you name it, i specialize in all sorts of strings :cool:

 

I have seen him on the Science Channel too, most notably as the narrator on a documentary called Time.

Oh that guy, i personally envy him, he seems to be a really cool guy, at that a rather mathematically inclined physicist, a professor at some university (he mentioned it in the documentary about physics in general, relativity and string theory, now only to find where i posted a link to the like a load of sessions on this stuff :| hmm, have to find and rewatch that one ;) it went from Newtonian model to the M theory and scientific evolution of the theory of everything :) rather good i shall add :)

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

I think DISTRUBD understands it better then you give him credit for

Thanks I only hope you aren't giving me too much credit alot of things here require quite a bit of effort to understand them.

 

What a pleasant surprise, i specialize in the string theory too.... g string, v string, t string, you name it, i specialize in all sorts of strings

???????????;) What the heck king of instrument.....Never mind.

 

*in professor Farnsworth's voice* Oooh, yes! a wave of photons zooming through space at c, whzzz, whzzz. (not a quote, though i thought it would give a more relaxed feel to it)

:hihi: Are you sure? :hihi:

 

Though it needs to be said, imaginary is a rather vague term

Any suggestions for a more suitable replacement? Seriously, If you got one it would be appreciated.

 

 

Now that the earlier pesky religion issue is pretty much out of the way I'm actually glad I started this thread...Lots of great posts.:)

[alexander]

Seriously, If you got one it would be appreciated.

imaginary - theoretically-plausible, probable, or i could always make up a term

 

Before i make one up though, i should say what imaginary means for me, in scientific view i guess, not to say that i am a scientist in any way tho. The reason i said that imaginary is a vague term is because, imaginary, also means things that are not real and not true, to the extent that a possibility of those things even being real, are really close to being [math]\frac{1}{\infty}[/math]. No self-respecting scientist will try to investigate the chemical composition of a ghost... i mean some rather imaginary things are more imaginary then others, they are not scientifically appropriate, very probable nor very theoretically-plausible.

 

so i made a couple of words to suite the need:

 

erudiginary - imaginary based on known facts, ideas, etc :)

sciosophical - philosophical in a scientific way

theorerudiginary - imaginary, based on factual theories

[C1ay]

If a theory (or belief) isn't testable it isn't science but "Bupkis", faith or fantasy? Am I right in my understanding so far? (This is my impression when I hear/read comments like these)

 

Science is a system of acquiring knowledge via the scientific method and the body of knowledge acquired via the same. It is an organized method of scientific inquiry with the goal of achieving knowledge that is verifiable using empirical evidence. In general it requires:

 

1. the observation of some phenomena

2. the formulation of a hypothesis or theory concerning the phenomena

3. the development of methods to test the validity of the hypothesis or theory

4. Experiments to use these methods

5. a conclusion that supports or modifies the hypothesis

 

As the hypothesis is modified more tests are developed and new experiemnts are performed until there is certainty that the hypothesis is true in understanding the phenomena.

 

The Big Bang is actually an example of a testable theory and there are many tests being performed to support or refute it as an origin of the universe. We may never know with a desired level of certainty that it is the origin but we can keep trying to refute it none the less. You are not halted at step 2.

 

On the other hand the God theory as a hypothesis of the origin of the universe does not lend itself to testing or experimentation by the scientific method. That doesn't mean its not a possible answer to the origin of the universe, just that its not really a scientific option. There is no way to test it and confirm or refute it. All you have done is make it to step 2 in forming a theory but there is no way to devise any methods to test it in order to support or refute it. Step 2 is the end. That places it outside the realm of science.

 

Pursue faith and belief as answers to your question all that you want but understand that neither will provide verifiable knowledge of the truth. That is what science seeks.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Pursue faith and belief as answers to your question all that you want but understand that neither will provide verifiable knowledge of the truth. That is what science seeks.

You misunderstand my purpose here. It is not persue to attempt to support "faith" as scientific or acceptable theory or encourage folks here to do the same. It IS to understand how Science decides how and where the line is drawn to separate itself from "faith" of "belief" based "theories".