One question for Dr. Matt:
Was Lisi even remotely close to right on anything regarding higgs-boson?
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
DrMatt - these are serious questions:
do you think aliens/ other forms of life exist in the universe? [/quote]
It is very possible, I would even go so far as to say very likely. As for the odds of there being alien civilizations that are way more advanced then ours is not as likely. Life began on Earth around 3.8 billion years or so ago, which is right around the beginning of when conditions existed in most of the universe to begin to support life so any other civilizations would probably be around the stage of development as ours, give or take a few thousand years.
It is possible that there are extremely advanced alien civilizations though. I don’t think they are likely to make contact with Earth, though. Once they get close enough to receive radio transmissions and hear that “Call me, maybe” song they will decide we are not worth it and turn around.
[quote]
do you believe in God?[/quote]
No, and I do not disbelieve in a god/gods either. I just do not know and it is not all that important to me. I lead a good life and am generally a good person. If that is not enough for any deity that may exist, then oh well.
[quote]
do you believe in other dimensions? [/quote]
I don’t usually bother much with “beliefs.” There is a lot of evidence for other dimensions outside of the 4 we can perceive, but not enough to say yes, I am certain that these dimensions exist. The whole point of experimentation is to figure these things out.
It is not a matter of thinking, time travel is possible through an effect called time dilation, which has been proven experimentally. Moving backwards in time is another matter, though. There are some theories that do allow for particles to travel backwards in time, but all experiments done on the matter have shown no evidence for the phenomenon or the existence of these particles. I tend to lean towards no, backwards time travel is not possible.
Basically, you are asking if I subscribe to the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. No, I do not. It makes no sense and is not a valid scientific argument no matter how one looks at it (hence the term interpretation instead of theory). The guy who came up with the idea, Everett, was more interested in science fiction then actual science.
[quote]Raging_Teddy wrote:
The following toes the border between science theory and philosophy:
The basis for my explanation lies in two experiments.
The first is a thought experiment called The Schrodinger’s Cat experiment.
This is a “real world” explanation of the second example:
The second is called the two slit experiment. Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia
The point here is that every time a “decision” is made, all possible outcomes of the event exist simultaneously, until an observation is made, and one outcome is “chosen.” One could say that the universe exists in multiple states at this time, or that more than one universe exists until a “choice” is made.
Before an observation is made, all outcomes (universes) exist equally until one is “chosen,” at which point the other possibilities (universes) essentially evaporate as far as we are concerned. But, the chosen outcome is not what we are interested in here. We’re talking about the other possibilities (universes) that were not chosen.
Let’s use Schrodinger’s Cat as an example. Before the box is opened, there’s a universe where the cat was killed, and universe where the cat is alive. These universes exist simultaneously in equal capacities. Now, let’s say we open the box and the cat is dead. Our universe continues on without the cat. But, for a time, there existed a complete duplicate of our universe where the cat is alive.
So, before an observation is made, both universes exist. The question is: What happens to the universe where the cat lived AFTER the observation is made. As far as our universe in concerned, that universe is kaput. However, this universe has a future which differs from ours in that it contains one extra cat. In this way, the universe forms a sort of “tree” of reality, starting with the big bang, because every chance event and every decision ever made spawns a new branch of the tree (a new universe) which could have happened, but didn’t.
But exactly how real are this alternate universes? Do they exist as strongly as you and me? I tend to think not. I think they exist purely as possibilities. What could have or would have been is not as real as what is.[/quote]
You are making the Schrodinger’s Cat thought experiment way more complicated then you need to. I explained it in a PWI thread, but I can’t find it so I will do it again. First, stop thinking of all the possible outcomes as belonging to separate universes, that kind of crap belongs in science fiction like the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which has been torn to shreds by the likes of none other then Niels Bohr himself. If any of your instructors explained it to you this way, they should have been fired, especially since you are only a third year student which means you have at best taken an intro to quantum mechanics class if any. That kind of stuff should not even be addressed at all until you start work on a PhD thesis.
Schrodinger’s Cat is used to explain the principle of superposition and wave function collapse, which you should have learned the basics about in your waves and optics class, as it applies to quantum mechanics:
You have a cat that is inside a box that is completely isolated from all methods of observation. Inside the box with the cat is a vial of poison, a geiger counter, and enough of a radioactive element that the probability of one atom decaying in an hour is 50%. The geiger counter is connected to the vial of poison in such a way that if radiation is detected, the vial will break and the cat will die. At the end of one hour, the chance of the cat being dead is 50% and the chance of the cat being alive is 50%, so which is it? Without any way of observing the state of the inside of the box we have no idea and thus the condition of the cat (alive or dead) can only be thought of as a superposition of both states, which means that it could be either one and we don’t know. It is only by observing the state of the inside of the box and “collapse the wave function” that we can know the actual state of the cat.
If you ever do graduate work in advanced quantum mechanics you will learn about another explanation for apparent wave function collapse called quantum decoherence that is becoming more and more popular among physicists, but it is very complicated so just concentrate on getting the basics down for now. I will talk about the Double Slit Experiment later.
[quote]pat wrote:
One question for Dr. Matt:
Was Lisi even remotely close to right on anything regarding higgs-boson? [/quote]
Not really, at least not on anything he wrote that contradicted what the standard model predicted. It has been a while since I have bothered to read any of his work so I can’t say for sure, except that he has been totally discredited in the field of physics. I should also point out that we are still in the process of confirming this particle as a Higgs Boson. For now, we know that this is a new particle that is the approximate mass of what a Higgs Boson should be and has many of the characteristics that a Higgs Boson should have, but we are not done verifying all of those properties.
Dr matt dropping gem bombs all day in her.
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Yep, Dr. Matt is the man… I have enjoyed some really good conversations with him.[/quote]
I know there are quite a few questions piled up and I will get around to them when I get to my office tomorrow morning as well as share some info about this new particle that has been discovered.[/quote]
Atta boy Matt, I usually don’t post on my own time either![/quote]
I do about 95% of my posting from work (tenure kicks ass). At home I usually have too much to do. That is the great thing about working in a field like physics: unless I am actually doing an experiment, which is rare for me these days, I can do it anywhere and at any time.
[quote]chillain wrote:
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
Does anyone think humans will colonize planets say one thousand years from now (or much sooner) or do you guys think we will always live on Earth, bar say maybe a few hundred or thousand people dotted around on a couple of planets?[/quote]
Well you know we can’t always live here on Earth, that we will eventually have to leave.
And despite being a (likely) optimist in this regard, I’ll still say less-than-zero chance of interstellar travel in next thousand years (or less).
[/quote]
Well, I am glad that we have a couple of billion years left then.
Also, humans will never fly.
Nothing heavier than air possibly could.
Bummer.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
DrMatt - these are serious questions:
do you think aliens/ other forms of life exist in the universe? [/quote]
It is very possible, I would even go so far as to say very likely. As for the odds of there being alien civilizations that are way more advanced then ours is not as likely. Life began on Earth around 3.8 billion years or so ago, which is right around the beginning of when conditions existed in most of the universe to begin to support life so any other civilizations would probably be around the stage of development as ours, give or take a few thousand years.
[/quote]
Glad I read the last bit.
The give or take a few thousand years worries me.
Also, if the dinosaurs had not run into a bit of bad luck they might have gotten there millions of years sooner.
Maybe they already were where we are now, or close to it, we cannot possibly know.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
DrMatt - these are serious questions:
do you think aliens/ other forms of life exist in the universe? [/quote]
It is very possible, I would even go so far as to say very likely. As for the odds of there being alien civilizations that are way more advanced then ours is not as likely. Life began on Earth around 3.8 billion years or so ago, which is right around the beginning of when conditions existed in most of the universe to begin to support life so any other civilizations would probably be around the stage of development as ours, give or take a few thousand years.
[/quote]
Glad I read the last bit.
The give or take a few thousand years worries me.
Also, if the dinosaurs had not run into a bit of bad luck they might have gotten there millions of years sooner.
Maybe they already were where we are now, or close to it, we cannot possibly know. [/quote]
You are right, there is no way of knowing for sure but any other planet that supports life will have experienced extinction level events as well. It should also be noted that the specifics of any alien race will have a factor in their development. A species with a much higher average intellectual ability then humans will likely be more advanced in many ways.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
DrMatt - these are serious questions:
do you think aliens/ other forms of life exist in the universe? [/quote]
It is very possible, I would even go so far as to say very likely. As for the odds of there being alien civilizations that are way more advanced then ours is not as likely. Life began on Earth around 3.8 billion years or so ago, which is right around the beginning of when conditions existed in most of the universe to begin to support life so any other civilizations would probably be around the stage of development as ours, give or take a few thousand years.
[/quote]
Glad I read the last bit.
The give or take a few thousand years worries me.
Also, if the dinosaurs had not run into a bit of bad luck they might have gotten there millions of years sooner.
Maybe they already were where we are now, or close to it, we cannot possibly know. [/quote]
You are right, there is no way of knowing for sure but any other planet that supports life will have experienced extinction level events as well. It should also be noted that the specifics of any alien race will have a factor in their development. A species with a much higher average intellectual ability then humans will likely be more advanced in many ways.
[/quote]
See, there is in interesting questions.
I think, but this is most likely due to a diet heavy in SF literature during my adolescence that planets older than ours will be closer to the galactic core.
So, it would be interesting to know whether ELEs are more probable in the galactic core and its surroundings than in a relative backwater like our neighborhood.
Still does not mean that there wasnt one planet located there whose inhabitants were just incredibly lucky and wonder what all the fuss is all about.
On the other hand, I do not think that they would be any trouble, they would happily inhabit a Dyson sphere and watch us with detached amusement.
[quote]orion wrote:
On the other hand, I do not think that they would be any trouble, they would happily inhabit a Dyson sphere and watch us with detached amusement. [/quote]
I find it difficult to be amused by ants.
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
On the other hand, I do not think that they would be any trouble, they would happily inhabit a Dyson sphere and watch us with detached amusement. [/quote]
I find it difficult to be amused by ants.[/quote]
Then, lets hope for some kind of, …, alienity, as one of their core values and that their kids dont have spy glasses.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
On the other hand, I do not think that they would be any trouble, they would happily inhabit a Dyson sphere and watch us with detached amusement. [/quote]
I find it difficult to be amused by ants.[/quote]
Then, lets hope for some kind of, …, alienity, as one of their core values and that their kids dont have spy glasses. [/quote]
I’ve had a mildy amusing thought along these lines. What if in a few seconds some kid is going to be scolded by his parents for setting off a fire cracker. That firecracker being our universe.
I will say one thing for physics, your guys ability to hype the shit out of things is quite impressive.
[quote]Swolegasm wrote:
I will say one thing for physics, your guys ability to hype the shit out of things is quite impressive.[/quote]
I haven’t seen that from pioneering bodies
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]Swolegasm wrote:
I will say one thing for physics, your guys ability to hype the shit out of things is quite impressive.[/quote]
I haven’t seen that from pioneering bodies[/quote]
Ach, come on, Hawkins book was pure pandering to the masses.
A cheap shot if you will.
Anyone with an IQ of a mere 140 has certainly grasped the gist of it?
Possibly?
In short, it was a species of literary slumming.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]Swolegasm wrote:
I will say one thing for physics, your guys ability to hype the shit out of things is quite impressive.[/quote]
I haven’t seen that from pioneering bodies[/quote]
Ach, come on, Hawkins book was pure pandering to the masses.
A cheap shot if you will.
Anyone with an IQ of a mere 140 has certainly grasped the gist of it?
Possibly?
In short, it was a species of literary slumming. [/quote]
I haven’t read it
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]Swolegasm wrote:
I will say one thing for physics, your guys ability to hype the shit out of things is quite impressive.[/quote]
I haven’t seen that from pioneering bodies[/quote]
A certain particle being faster than the speed of light could ruin physics. Oh meh godz!!
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]Swolegasm wrote:
I will say one thing for physics, your guys ability to hype the shit out of things is quite impressive.[/quote]
I haven’t seen that from pioneering bodies[/quote]
Ach, come on, Hawkins book was pure pandering to the masses.
A cheap shot if you will.
Anyone with an IQ of a mere 140 has certainly grasped the gist of it?
Possibly?
In short, it was a species of literary slumming. [/quote]
All of the major authors are like that: Hawking, Kaku, Greene, all their books are full of garbage and false claims of what theories mean and possible applications of things like string theory. I admire the goal of explaining physics to lay people, but doing so by misrepresenting modern physics theories and their applications with overhyped claims is just plain wrong.
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]Swolegasm wrote:
I will say one thing for physics, your guys ability to hype the shit out of things is quite impressive.[/quote]
I haven’t seen that from pioneering bodies[/quote]
Ach, come on, Hawkins book was pure pandering to the masses.
A cheap shot if you will.
Anyone with an IQ of a mere 140 has certainly grasped the gist of it?
Possibly?
In short, it was a species of literary slumming. [/quote]
I haven’t read it[/quote]
Then, please do.
It is a very educational experience when someone tries to be as simple and straightforward as he can and yet you have no idea what he is talking about.
Of course, if we must force blame on anyone, it is him, for failing to bridge the gap, but that is hardly a consolation.