Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Friday, August 07, 2009

Zvi Bern's epiphany came in October 2005 when he read in the newspaper about that year's Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine. Barry Marshall and J. Robin Warren took the honors for discovering that peptic ulcers are caused not by stress or diet but by a bacterium. When skeptics scoffed at the idea, Marshall gave himself the bugand an ulcerand cured himself with antibiotics. From the tale, "it was clear that in science the big money is in overturning the accepted beliefs," says Bern, a theoretical physicist at the University of California, Los Angeles. So he decided to return to a project that might upend a pillar of physics lore: the belief that standard quantum theory and gravity don't mix.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

Zatoichi

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

YAWN

Would be interesting if they could demonstrate this. "Quantum physics" has demonstrated its accuracy time after time. Yet there is still much doubt about it. A lot of that because, it appears, QP seems counterintuitive. String theory seems to be the same way. It is fun reading about both, though.

-many theorists think it is impossible to make a quantum theory of pointlike particlesa "quantum field theory"that also incorporates Einstein's theory of general relativity

The so called Theory of everything that encapsulates both short and long time scales, both macro cosmological and micro atomic scale environs.

Way cool stuff.

Kinda like the QM idea that gravity is a weak force because it leaks into our dimension from another.

Interesting too that the strings in String Theory have something to do with sound/vibrations.

www.lifespirit.org

www.superstringtheory.com

After all, the BBT shows instant "creation", with a "singularity" micro-seconds prior to said creation of all the necessary elements.

"God spoke (sound), and nothing (no space/time prior to the BB) became everything (all the elements created)."

Literally or metaphorically, it is interesting in both itself and fun for the veins it causes to pop in some people's foreheads.

The one thing I hate about these threads is that they alway have a fight that is above my head. It always looks like a fun fight too, but I just can never follow it. I don't even understand the jokes in these threads.


K

String Theory Primer

in mostly plain English

String theory essentially was born in order to describe how everything worked together, at both large and small scales and more importantly, incorporate gravity. Gravity has always been somewhat of a "black sheep" in the world of forces. It seemed like it was never really able to mesh well with any theory and any existing theory that it was added to seemed to break down.

Here is the basic idea of what a string is: every elementary particle is actually made up of a vibrating string, similar to that of a guitar or piano string. Each particle is a different note or different vibration. This helps support the merging of quantum mechanics and general relativity because string theory does not require events to occur at a single point as in particle physics.

www.mattjonesblog.com

...Zvi Bern's epiphany came in October 2005 when he read in the newspaper about that year's Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine. Barry Marshall and J. Robin Warren took the honors for discovering that peptic ulcers are caused not by stress or diet but by a bacterium....

They were correct about bacteria being responsible for the cause of peptic ulcers. It isn't diet and/or stress but rather H-pylori bacteria.

A couple years ago a friend of mine told me his doctor was treating him with antibiotics for a duodenal ulcer -- something relatively new from the way doctors had for years previously treated patients with stomach ulcers. For years the treatment was usually to just change their diet and give them Maalox for the symptoms. After finishing the course of antibiotics to kill the H-pylori bacteria his duodenal ulcer was cured.

As for the rest of what's written in this article -- I don't have a clue.

#5 | Posted by Corky

Cool. Now explain (not _describe_) quantum mechanics/physics.

I don't know how true it is, seems more like an urban myth, but it has been said that only a handful of people truly understand QM. One of those, I don't remember who) has recently said that there is more than a little re QM that doesn't make sense to him. Hard to argue with results, though.

Quantum Primer

www.quantum.bowmain.com

Ask, and you shall receive.

Each particle is a different note or different vibration. This helps support the merging of quantum mechanics and general relativity because string theory does not require events to occur at a single point as in particle physics.

I feel like I am in an eye exam. Better, but still blurry =D. I feel like Lister from Red Dwarf:

Rimmer: Can you explain it a little simpler Hollie?

Hollie: How simple do you want it?

Rimmer: So that Lister can understand it.

Hollie: Oh dear...

Quantum Primer

www.quantum.bowmain.com

Ask, and you shall receive.

Hey thanks, Corky.

I bookmarked it.

Red Dwarf is one of my all time favs.

Rimmer: So that Lister can understand it.

Hollie: Oh dear...

So frakkin' funny!

Mine too. Got all 8 seasons, both books (I don't believe the books the two wrote separately count) and quote it often to friends and family.

#8 | Posted by Corky

Again, cool. But that _describes_ QM, doesn't _explain_ it. Feynman made his statement re the understanding/explaining part. Probably because, like once happened to me, someone will start explaining it and in the middle say something to the effect "but I don't understand why it does this or that".

-someone will start explaining it and in the middle say something to the effect "but I don't understand why it does this or that".

I had a psychology professor in college that would begin talking on a subject, this one in particular was "phantom pain" where a client would have pain in an appendage that no longer existed; his missing hand hurt.

This guy and another prof actually had a clinic for phantom pain in East Texas... but I digress...

at any rate, he would be speaking in front of a group of grad students and other professors, and you could actually watch as he continued and one by one people would reach their own point of being able to understand what he was saying, until finally they would fall off and there was no one who could follow him and he would stop.... but you knew he could have gone farther.

What is amusing is that many things have been built based on some aspect of QM or other. So, at the very minimum, it is correct to that degree. Yet it is still very much counter-intuative.

"Would be interesting if they could demonstrate this. "Quantum physics" has demonstrated its accuracy time after time. Yet there is still much doubt about it. A lot of that because, it appears, QP seems counterintuitive. String theory seems to be the same way. It is fun reading about both, though."

ailtd, interesting post. Einstein, for all his brilliance in creating a theory to explain the experimental contradictions of physics (best raised by Michelson at the Naval Academy), railed against QM. In fact, Einstein's vehemence was a bit of an embarassment to other physicists.
In a hundred years they will be laughing at us the same way we laugh at the 1800's science. I chuckle at global warming. Back in the 1800's laughing at phrenology was evidence of ignorance.
The moral is: science is not a religion. It changes doctrines with every new discovery.

Can Gravity and Quantum Particles Be Reconciled After All?

Ummm...Were they headed for Divorce Court?

Gravity has always been somewhat of a "black sheep" in the world of forces. It seemed like it was never really able to mesh well with any theory and any existing theory that it was added to seemed to break down.

Must be because of the extra weight....Add Gravity into any situation-you just add weight.

Frank, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Hahaaha, just move on.

Just imagine I am a GOD, Frank... all knowing, all seeing.

We may as well cut the glass as close to reality as possible.

Ahhh, rexxy-go fuck yourself with an untreated telephone pole.

Just imagine I am a GOD

REALLY????
Pffft. ONLY to St Sarah! and the other rtards on this Board.

I am the all-seeing god, Frank...

I've spent my life in preperation for this postition.

I am god.

www.youtube.com

Dedicated to Standard Cosmology

House of Four Doors - Moody Blues

Happy Birthday to me...

www.youtube.com

This dovetails with the conversation in the Hadron failure thread.

This 'proof' of the illogic of 'black holes' can be understood by most who have normal intelligence.

One mistake is a school kid howler.

The mathematical infinity generated by treating an extended object as a point mass and letting the radius of gravitational attraction tend to zero is invalid. The center of mass is a geometric convenience that has its uses for such things as calculating moments of inertia and deriving planetary orbits, but to reify it into a gravitating "thing" is an exercise in human imagination, not reality. The expression for gravitational field strength at a point inside an extended object isn't the same as for a point outside it. But invoking a point mass makes every part of the object "outside." Within a gravitating mass, the force diminishes as you move inward from the surface and more of the downward pull is offset by mass that now lies above, until at the center of a sphere it becomes zero. The surrounding region is therefore not under intense compression, which precludes any formation of a black hole. The debate over general relativity is ephemeral and of no real consequence. Massive public funding of research in relativistic cosmology should stop and those responsible for the unconscionable waste of time and resources held to account. It should be obvious that gravity is a property of matter and not of empty space.

Gravity is a pulling force. Still waiting for gravitationists to explain how planets maintain a constant orbit around the sun without drifting on a collision course.

Supergravity has been in and out of the spotlight for years.....a bunch of math. While mathematically different from string theory, they are both of the same ilk....mathematical conjecture. Now, when they start making testable predictions that are uniquely predicted and answered by the theory in question, I'll take notice.....by the way, if I'm not mistaken, N=8 means that the theory invokes 8 spacial dimensions....I remain unenthused.....

I'm off on vacation....good luck, all! Feel free to solve the problem without me....

The center of mass is a geometric convenience that has its uses for such things as calculating moments of inertia and deriving planetary orbits, but to reify it into a gravitating "thing" is an exercise in human imagination, not reality.

If I understand that right, the idea of a black hole, in actuality, presumes gravity without matter.

Ray says, "If I understand that right, the idea of a black hole, in actuality, presumes gravity without matter."

It shows that the math is similar to Xeno's paradox, an illogical construct.

It can't say what causes gravity, and since gravity can't explain why that mathematical center of mass would experience zero gravity, instead of the highest based on the mass above that center.

Neither Zat nor Up will comment ... watch ...

"Neither Zat nor Up will comment ... watch ..."

#32 | Posted by tadowe at 2009-08-08 12:36 PM | Reply | Flag: wrong again on all counts

Done those homework problems yet, liar?

i179.photobucket.com

You couldn't pass 3rd grade physics.

I said, "Neither Zat nor Up will comment ... watch ..."

Zat replies, "You couldn't pass 3rd grade physics."

Wow! A *reply*! Of course, I meant that Zat would not comment on the mathematical paradox created by reifying 'mass' as causing 'gravity', according to Einsteinian cosmology.

Like Xeno's 'tortoise' (mass), the closer the center/finish line is approached, the less likely it is that Achilles (gravity) will win the 'race' ...

Hey, Zat!?!

If you passed 3rd grade physics (you must have gone to an advanced school, right?) then answer the paradox that the mathematical center could not form a black hole, since all the 'mass' is above that center ...

Easy, peasy for you since you're a practicing physicist ... right?

Never mind, 'quantum' ad hoc science ...

Looks like Zat is one of those Institution of Science faithful, and will refuse to answer, while hiding behind the 'robes' of Albert Einstein ...

You started this thread, Zat, and now run away like the Georgie Porgy intellectual you actually turn out to be.

Pathetic ...

Perhaps this should have been addressed on the recent Hadron Collider thread, but at roughly 5 billion dollars for its construction, is the collider the greatest amount of money ever spent on purely one singular kind of scientific experiment?

If so, I can't help but wonder how such funding was justified to bureaucrats.

It makes me wonder if the promise of some practical application was part of the "sales pitch." And if so what could it have been?

YAWN

#1 | Posted by chickenrancher

Just about the speed of a CHICKENCHOKER!

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable