Actually, I protest. About any decent physics department on earth has more people not working on string theory than people who do. Heck, I even know some universities that don't have string theory group.
Problem is that the other fields are far more difficult to explain and draw little to no attention.
Actually, you are wrong. At this point string theory does NOT incorporate perfectly all observations that can be explained by any of the following theories:
- The standard model
- General Relativity
That being about the only two (actually one can ommit the about) most basic theories, we can safely assume ST does not mesh perfectly with reality yet.
Otherwise I would appreciate pointers to an approriate paper.
You could also take the point of view that this is theoretical physics we are talking about. Combine that with the fact that purly theoretical research is cheap and your argument about sucking up money for research is going nowhere.
On the other hand could you please point me towards some more valid competing theory. The more clause ruled out the only competitor I know about: loop quantum gravity. The later is at a no better point as string theory. Which by the way is only realy string theory in some dark corner of the M-theory moduli space.
This may be a late reply, but according to me there is not a single paper out there that reproduces the whole standard model as it stands today (including all parameters). If there is I would like to see a refrence to it.
1. Of course you are right by saying that if one adds a "if this theory is correct" clause one can formulate any theory. But (just to make a point) you can add that phrase to some (sufficiently complicated) crackpot thories too and the physics community doesn't buy any of these.
2. My feeling that it is "total nonsense" is to some extend a feeling (as long as there is no proof or disproof, one is allowed such an opinion right?). On the other hand, I have read some of the key articles, seen some of these people give talks, more importantly read some of the articles pointing out where al these large extra dimensions theories go wrong (or are at least missing some key features).
3. On the other hand, even if these relatively large extra dimensions exist, the theorists involved like giving it a zest of "we might find evidence of this real soon" by cranking down the potential size until where is just not detectable today but will be at the LHC. AND they do this without any motivation at all. A good motivation to me would be: well if we put the size to this or that we can reproduce (parts of) the standard model.
Can you please enlighten me how exactly this is anything like "a scientist who fixes the observation to meet their theory". Two things are wrong with your reasoning:
1. They are trying to fix the theory. Note that this does not automatically implie their results/ideas are right nor that I am defending them. I always found the whole "large extra dimesions that are just small enough so we haven't observed them but will at the LHC,..." thing total nonsense.
2. As clearly explained in TFA these should be observable in the near future. On the other hand, a theory of everything (if it does exist) is bound to at least have some features that are unobservable. Reproducing the big-bang, or some equivalent singular event near the origin of the universe is probably impossible.
(I am a former string theorist, which does not imply I am a believer)
The most easy solution is to enter a forward/futures contract to sell this stock in some time (T) for an agreed strike price (K). If the price of the stock at the end of this contract (S) is lower than the strike (K) you can buy the stock cheap at S and sell it to the counterparty for K => profit = (K-S)
This of course could be bad in the unlikely event that the companies stock goes up...
Alternatively buy put options with a very low strike price (K), these give you the right but not the obligation to sell the stock at some time (T) for price (K)... then the same applies: If the price of the stock at the end of this contract (S) is lower than the strike (K) you can buy the stock cheap at S and sell it to the counterparty for K => profit = max(K-S,0)
This protects you from the unlikely event that the companies stock goes up... and is realy cheap if you take K to be sufficiently low.
In this case the problem would be to find a counterparty to trade these options with.
Well you are right in some sense... the individual photons always travel at the speed of light. The phase velocity however can be slower (and in fact also be faster) tha the speed of light. It is the later al these articles refer to since this is the classically measured propagation of a coherent bunch of photons aka a beam of light.
The fact that two particles that were very close to each other before they entered separate tubes has no bearing at all on how far they will be after they enter the tubes. Well, they will at no point be further away then ct where c is lightspeed and t is the time elpased, even if they traveled trough different "tubes".
basically, every "mirror" particle has to be accounted for, including the infinite copies of the particle itself There is only one particle. One might think that because of the mirrors there are an infinite amount of particles because one can "see" an inifinte amount of them but this is no different from standing in a mirror-room, there are no extra copies of you even tough you see loads of them.
It may have great bearing on the details of the force laws that they interact under I agree on this one.
It would amaze me if ID-controll would ever stop anyone from hijacking a plane. Not that I think showing your ID is a problem, in Europe we have to flash ID every time we travel. But using it as a terrorist/hijack prevention that is just giving people a fake feeling of security.
It always stuns me how they take away, nailclippers an the like but let you take glass bottles of liquor on the plane. Pair of nailclippers VS broken bottle: 1-0 so again they just want to give a fake feeling of security.
euhm, last time I checked there was a revert to original option somewhere in the app, so your original picture is never lost and no need tracking it down with finder or alikes...
Well, actually if you read it right the first sentence is totally correct, and gives hard arguments (provided his proof wich we will see in the upcoming paper is correct).
The second sentence is speculation, but since it only concerns interpretation on what pysically happens some handwaving is normal.
Well, we are all still waiting for the paper to appear... a talk only gives a hint of wath the author has been up to. To understand it the corresponding paper would be nice...
Okay some facts about black holes:
- The no hair theorem says that a black holes is described by 2 parameters, the mass M and the angular momentum J (classical spin if you must use that word). In case of a charged black hole you have to add the charge Q to get 3 parameters. From this one can argument that once information falls in a black hole it is lost since we only see 3 parameters. But others say that is just trapped inside the black hole. (the jury is still out)
- The Beckenstein-Hawking formula (giving the bound) is related to the radiation of a black hole in the following way. A black hole radiates thermal radiation, with that one can associate a themprature, with that temprature an entropy wich after calculation turns out to be proportinal to the area.
- Since this is proportinal to the area t'Hooft suggested tha holographic principle.
- I don't think this is a real problem now, since no-one said that the infomation is really lost, so recuperating it might not be a problem. What could be is that the radiation turns out to be non thermal and then it could de harder (no idea how to do that) to calculate the entropy classically. But string theory for instance can calculate the entropy explicitly without the need for thermal radiation and an associated themprature.
Hope that helps somewhat (hope I made only correct statements too)
Indeed, this paper is/seems like only a short history of the Riemann Hypothesis. Anyone a link with the original paper? (or just an answer to the question, was it long?)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I protest. About any decent physics department on earth has more people not working on string theory than people who do. Heck, I even know some universities that don't have string theory group.
Problem is that the other fields are far more difficult to explain and draw little to no attention.
Hum,
Actually, you are wrong. At this point string theory does NOT incorporate perfectly all observations that can be explained by any of the following theories:
- The standard model
- General Relativity
That being about the only two (actually one can ommit the about) most basic theories, we can safely assume ST does not mesh perfectly with reality yet.
Otherwise I would appreciate pointers to an approriate paper.
You could also take the point of view that this is theoretical physics we are talking about. Combine that with the fact that purly theoretical research is cheap and your argument about sucking up money for research is going nowhere.
On the other hand could you please point me towards some more valid competing theory. The more clause ruled out the only competitor I know about: loop quantum gravity. The later is at a no better point as string theory. Which by the way is only realy string theory in some dark corner of the M-theory moduli space.
This may be a late reply, but according to me there is not a single paper out there that reproduces the whole standard model as it stands today (including all parameters). If there is I would like to see a refrence to it.
1. Of course you are right by saying that if one adds a "if this theory is correct" clause one can formulate any theory. But (just to make a point) you can add that phrase to some (sufficiently complicated) crackpot thories too and the physics community doesn't buy any of these.
2. My feeling that it is "total nonsense" is to some extend a feeling (as long as there is no proof or disproof, one is allowed such an opinion right?). On the other hand, I have read some of the key articles, seen some of these people give talks, more importantly read some of the articles pointing out where al these large extra dimensions theories go wrong (or are at least missing some key features).
3. On the other hand, even if these relatively large extra dimensions exist, the theorists involved like giving it a zest of "we might find evidence of this real soon" by cranking down the potential size until where is just not detectable today but will be at the LHC. AND they do this without any motivation at all. A good motivation to me would be: well if we put the size to this or that we can reproduce (parts of) the standard model.
Can you please enlighten me how exactly this is anything like "a scientist who fixes the observation to meet their theory". Two things are wrong with your reasoning:
1. They are trying to fix the theory. Note that this does not automatically implie their results/ideas are right nor that I am defending them. I always found the whole "large extra dimesions that are just small enough so we haven't observed them but will at the LHC,..." thing total nonsense.
2. As clearly explained in TFA these should be observable in the near future. On the other hand, a theory of everything (if it does exist) is bound to at least have some features that are unobservable. Reproducing the big-bang, or some equivalent singular event near the origin of the universe is probably impossible.
(I am a former string theorist, which does not imply I am a believer)
The most easy solution is to enter a forward/futures contract to sell this stock in some time (T) for an agreed strike price (K). If the price of the stock at the end of this contract (S) is lower than the strike (K) you can buy the stock cheap at S and sell it to the counterparty for K => profit = (K-S)
This of course could be bad in the unlikely event that the companies stock goes up...
Alternatively buy put options with a very low strike price (K), these give you the right but not the obligation to sell the stock at some time (T) for price (K)... then the same applies: If the price of the stock at the end of this contract (S) is lower than the strike (K) you can buy the stock cheap at S and sell it to the counterparty for K => profit = max(K-S,0)
This protects you from the unlikely event that the companies stock goes up... and is realy cheap if you take K to be sufficiently low.
In this case the problem would be to find a counterparty to trade these options with.
You forgot:
5. Profit!
Saving me the time to look it up on the arXive.
...
P -PH/0604255 ) has been cited 5 times since. I fail to see how this is news.
Date (v1): Thu, 27 Apr 2006 20:31:59 GMT
Date (revised v4): Sun, 1 Oct 2006 15:25:25 GMT (343kb)
So the article in question is nearly a year old and, upon further investigations ( http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep?c=HE
Well you are right in some sense... the individual photons always travel at the speed of light. The phase velocity however can be slower (and in fact also be faster) tha the speed of light. It is the later al these articles refer to since this is the classically measured propagation of a coherent bunch of photons aka a beam of light.
There is a nice tribute at Piled Higher & Deeper:i d=807
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comic
Why not pack them like minidiscs. No scratches, no dust... If only they would have done that with DVD. Imagine a world without glitches...
It would amaze me if ID-controll would ever stop anyone from hijacking a plane. Not that I think showing your ID is a problem, in Europe we have to flash ID every time we travel. But using it as a terrorist/hijack prevention that is just giving people a fake feeling of security.
It always stuns me how they take away, nailclippers an the like but let you take glass bottles of liquor on the plane. Pair of nailclippers VS broken bottle: 1-0 so again they just want to give a fake feeling of security.
Euhm, nice mod done here (not), the guy is actually telling the truth and he did not even start this.
Modding =/= giving troll mods to someone who's opinion does not agree with yours...
euhm, last time I checked there was a revert to original option somewhere in the app, so your original picture is never lost and no need tracking it down with finder or alikes...
Well, actually if you read it right the first sentence is totally correct, and gives hard arguments (provided his proof wich we will see in the upcoming paper is correct).
The second sentence is speculation, but since it only concerns interpretation on what pysically happens some handwaving is normal.
Well, we are all still waiting for the paper to appear... a talk only gives a hint of wath the author has been up to. To understand it the corresponding paper would be nice...
Okay some facts about black holes: - The no hair theorem says that a black holes is described by 2 parameters, the mass M and the angular momentum J (classical spin if you must use that word). In case of a charged black hole you have to add the charge Q to get 3 parameters. From this one can argument that once information falls in a black hole it is lost since we only see 3 parameters. But others say that is just trapped inside the black hole. (the jury is still out) - The Beckenstein-Hawking formula (giving the bound) is related to the radiation of a black hole in the following way. A black hole radiates thermal radiation, with that one can associate a themprature, with that temprature an entropy wich after calculation turns out to be proportinal to the area. - Since this is proportinal to the area t'Hooft suggested tha holographic principle. - I don't think this is a real problem now, since no-one said that the infomation is really lost, so recuperating it might not be a problem. What could be is that the radiation turns out to be non thermal and then it could de harder (no idea how to do that) to calculate the entropy classically. But string theory for instance can calculate the entropy explicitly without the need for thermal radiation and an associated themprature. Hope that helps somewhat (hope I made only correct statements too)
Well, it has been this way for over a decade but only for a limited amount of fields.
Uhm, because none of the media have the experts to check if claims like this are true. And there is no harm in publishing that a claim has been made.
Indeed, this paper is/seems like only a short history of the Riemann Hypothesis. Anyone a link with the original paper? (or just an answer to the question, was it long?)
See http://www.arxiv.org/ for a good example on how it should be. All preprints and final versions of papers are freely available.
http://www.ipodbattery.com/ Might help.