These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

I'm a Particle Astrophysicist, ask me anything
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Myxx
The Scope
#101 - 2012-02-07 03:51:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Myxx
explain, in normal terms, how your field relates to every day life and why caring about it should be interesting for me to ask you further questions.

also, extra props for you if your explaination lacks mathematical equations or references to pop culture icons, like the Tardis you referenced on the first page.
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#102 - 2012-02-07 12:58:02 UTC
When wavelengths are red shifted do to universal expansion (as in the cosmic background radiation) is there a corresponding drop in magnitude do to the laws of conservation of energy?


Wavelengths get longer and thus the emission becomes less intense?
Or does it remain at the same intensity?

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Tsadkiel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#103 - 2012-02-07 17:30:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Tsadkiel
just got into the lab and there's lots to cover :3

firstly...

Quote:
Before you said "evolution" and "Gravity" are in the end only theories. Just saying LOL.



This part reminds me of the latest computer model for the sun. It was deemed 98% accurate by some of the best minds in the world, and it predicted some of the most powerful solar storms in history, that should be occurring, oh... right about now. People were making a huge fuss over this, comparing it to 2012 prophecies and world ending solar storms knocking out power grids. Real "end of our civilization" kind of stuff.

Guess what happened...

We are currently in one of the weakest solar cycles in the past 100 years. so much for 98% accuracy. Oops? Ultimately, we live in an age where the new religion is the theoretical sciences, but as Tsadkeil had said prior, it is all just "theoretical" in the end. There are multitudes of unknowns that have remained unknown since the dawn of science. Although we are assured that science will figure it out "soon", the reality of it is that we are not all the much closer to answering those most basic questions now then we were 100's of years ago. The more we learn, the more unknowns we seem to find.


earlier in the thread i was asked about what topic i would like more people to know about, and i said the Philosophy of Science. this is a perfect example of why... i'm going to rant a bit here. flame on...

for, what i think is the second time in this thread, a THEORY is NOT a HYPOTHESIS ! the definition of a scientific theory is very VERY specific. the long and short of it is that a theory is simply a collection of evidence and principles that describe two things: WHAT is happening and HOW it is happening. theories are born from hypothesis. only once a hypothesis is verified does it become a scientific theory.

Gravity and Evolution are theories, and politicians and the layman like to use this to try and say "well, it's only a theory so that means we don't know if it's true". to be blunt, this is complete bullshit. we KNOW that Gravity and Evolution are true. why? because they are THEORIES. we have VERIFIED the associated HYPOTHESIS. the principles in the theory of gravity allow us to make PREDICTIONS. they allow us to put satellites in orbit and land people on the moon! the principles in the theory of evolution allow us to make PREDICTIONS. they allowed us to understand the appearance and disappearance of species in the fossil record and gave us an understanding about the genetic relation between present species before the concept of the gene as we know it even existed!

arguments like the one you presented make me unbearably mad because it says to me that you have succumb to unreason...

the entire rest of your post is equally as ridiculous as your first sentence...

Quote:
This part reminds me of the latest computer model for the sun. It was deemed 98% accurate by some of the best minds in the world, and it predicted some of the most powerful solar storms in history, that should be occurring, oh... right about now. People were making a huge fuss over this, comparing it to 2012 prophecies and world ending solar storms knocking out power grids. Real "end of our civilization" kind of stuff.


what the what?!? what is the name of this model? i've never heard of its like. if this were true it would mean that we could predict the solar dynamo with a far greater accuracy than what we can achieve predicting the weather!! and the weather happens on EARTH of all places!! wow! who are these minds you speak of? they are the best in the world you say?! that's amazing! and hey, it looks like it's done a bang up job too! why, just the most recent solar storm was one of the most potent we have seen in the past seven years...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9035758/Solar-flares-Earth-hit-by-biggest-space-storm-in-almost-seven-years.html

and that's just the one!

i'm not even listing the numerous others that occurred in 2011! unless of course you meant 2012, in which case i think it's a bit to early to say...

Quote:
We are currently in one of the weakest solar cycles in the past 100 years. so much for 98% accuracy. Oops?


oh wait, you aren't saying that? and you're throwing around a term like solar cycle like you know what it means? i mean, a solar cycle period of approximately 11 years and we have known this for almost two centuries! are you saying that the ones who made the model DIDN'T take this into account?! oh, here's a thought! maybe they did and there model was just off by a tiny bit. we would need more data to prove this though because if it cycles on 11 years, one year of data might not be enough to make a valid prediction... man, it's a good thing one data point makes a line or you would look like quite the fool!

Quote:
Ultimately, we live in an age where the new religion is the theoretical sciences, but as Tsadkeil had said prior, it is all just "theoretical" in the end. There are multitudes of unknowns that have remained unknown since the dawn of science. Although we are assured that science will figure it out "soon", the reality of it is that we are not all the much closer to answering those most basic questions now then we were 100's of years ago. The more we learn, the more unknowns we seem to find.


religion/faith is the literal opposite of science. I can't stress that enough. oh, and i never said anything of the sort you are implying.
Tsadkiel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#104 - 2012-02-07 17:40:24 UTC
Quote:
When wavelengths are red shifted do to universal expansion (as in the cosmic background radiation) is there a corresponding drop in magnitude do to the laws of conservation of energy?


Wavelengths get longer and thus the emission becomes less intense?
Or does it remain at the same intensity?


good questions! energy is not a frame invariant quantity. that is to say, the energy of a moving particle changes depending on your motion relative to it. from our perspective yes, it looks like there is an issue with conservation of energy, but from the frame in which the photon was emitted, everything works our just fine.

your second question is correct as far as i understand it! intensity is another quantity that varies with frame of reference. it depends on the flux of energy being emitted from the source and energy is not frame invariant. there are also interesting consequences that pop up with length contraction and so your distance to the source also depends on your frame of reference.
Tsadkiel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#105 - 2012-02-07 17:52:14 UTC
Quote:
explain, in normal terms, how your field relates to every day life and why caring about it should be interesting for me to ask you further questions.

also, extra props for you if your explaination lacks mathematical equations or references to pop culture icons, like the Tardis you referenced on the first page.


oooooo always a tricky one. i get this a lot. broadly speaking there are two different mentalities for doing research.

Altruistic research: which is the pursuit of knowledge simply for its gain

and

Philanthropic research: which is the pursuit of knowledge towards some perceived benefit to humanity

(these are not hard, defined terms that everyone knows. they are just what one of my professors told me and well, he was a bit crazy)

my research falls into the former category, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't care! the immediate benefits of altruistic research cannot be seen because the technology to wield it doesn't exist yet. take the discovery of radiation or the electron. neither of these was done with the intention of having an immediate benefit to humanity, but no one can deny that it has done so! the television! X-rays! transistors! Lasers! the list goes on and on.

my research focuses on the mechanics of very distant, very intense celestial bodies and the radiation they emit. while an understanding of this is unlikely to yield anything that will influence your day to day life, it does help us understand the nature of our universe (things like fusion, and gravity, and the fermi-boosting method) which could yield technology in the future.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#106 - 2012-02-07 17:52:18 UTC
Concerning the long ranty BB-code error post about the scientific meaning of theory and how the public misuse the term (reply to it to read it, people)...

My wife is a science teacher in Texas. She teaches about evolution, and every year there's at least one student who wants to get confrontational about it and spouts "it's just a theory and blah blah blah". This is a version of a speech I wrote for her to give her classes years ago to head this stuff off:

Evolution is a theory. A theory in science must have been tested and found to be accurate before it can be called a theory. For something to be a theory it has to accurately predict things we can observe. The theory of gravity lets us predict the motion of the moon, the planets, the stars, even distant galaxies. Yet we're learning new things about gravity all the time, and the theory gets revised as we learn new things.

Evolution is the same thing. It's a model that takes all the observations we've made to date and builds a system that explains those observations and makes predictions on future observations. It is science's best explanation for what has been observed so far.

New observations can certainly change the evolutionary model. If you want to dispute it, I suggest you become a biologist and devote your life to challenging the theory by searching for evidence of its error. If you aren't willing to go to that length, please don't try to argue about it here in this classroom.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Tsadkiel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#107 - 2012-02-07 17:54:30 UTC
Quote:
Is there a such thing as "Cosmic Gamma Ray Background radiation" similar to the microwave background radiation?


not that i know of. the term Gamma Ray carries two meanings in physics. first and foremost it is the technical term for light. in some contexts it can also mean light of very high energy. i doubt that there is a second radiation field like the CMB that we just haven't observed yet simply because of how the CMB came to be (see one of my earliest posts).
Tsadkiel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2012-02-07 17:56:10 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Concerning the long ranty BB-code error post about the scientific meaning of theory and how the public misuse the term (reply to it to read it, people)...

My wife is a science teacher in Texas. She teaches about evolution, and every year there's at least one student who wants to get confrontational about it and spouts "it's just a theory and blah blah blah". This is a version of a speech I wrote for her to give her classes years ago to head this stuff off:

Evolution is a theory. A theory in science must have been tested and found to be accurate before it can be called a theory. For something to be a theory it has to accurately predict things we can observe. The theory of gravity lets us predict the motion of the moon, the planets, the stars, even distant galaxies. Yet we're learning new things about gravity all the time, and the theory gets revised as we learn new things.

Evolution is the same thing. It's a model that takes all the observations we've made to date and builds a system that explains those observations and makes predictions on future observations. It is science's best explanation for what has been observed so far.

New observations can certainly change the evolutionary model. If you want to dispute it, I suggest you become a biologist and devote your life to challenging the theory by searching for evidence of its error. If you aren't willing to go to that length, please don't try to argue about it here in this classroom.


love it :3

<3
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#109 - 2012-02-07 18:05:13 UTC
Also, she tends to refer to it as the MODEL of evolution instead of theory, based on the idea that it is a model of biological history based on the fragments of it we can observe via fossil records. This shuts of the "it's only a theory" argument quite well.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Tsadkiel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#110 - 2012-02-07 18:27:50 UTC
oh! that's a great idea! i'll have to remember that for the future =D
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#111 - 2012-02-07 19:27:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
http://
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/30/scientists-issue-unprecedented-forecast-of-next-sunspot-cycle/


Quote:
BOULDER—The next sunspot cycle will be 30-50% stronger than the last one and begin as much as a year late, according to a breakthrough forecast using a computer model of solar dynamics developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)....

The scientists have confidence in the forecast because, in a series of test runs, the newly developed model simulated the strength of the past eight solar cycles with more than 98% accuracy.....




And Then This
http://
wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/09/the-smallest-sunspot-cycle-in-two-hundred-years/

Quote:
Current prediction for the next sunspot cycle maximum gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 62 in July of 2013. We are currently over two years into Cycle 24. The predicted size would make this the smallest sunspot cycle in nearly 200 years.


I guess I read wrong, this link says that it turned out to be the smallest sunspot cycle in 200 years instead of one. Did I read something wrong? Or... did the 98% accurate forecast drop the ball like saying the Titanic was unsinkable? Because that is how it is reading to me.

I mean.. I didn't make this up. I was at work and read it in either national geographic or Atlantic magazine. I don't remember which one.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
AlleyKat
The Unwanted.
#112 - 2012-02-07 19:39:47 UTC
Q: What is your favorite mathematical symbol?

This space for rent.
Tsadkiel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#113 - 2012-02-07 19:50:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Tsadkiel
right, so...

the first article you posted is referencing an NCAR release that occurred in 2006. the model has almost certainly changed since then. the other thing to note here is that the model's accuracy is quoted using past data. that is, they fed solar cycle data from the past several cycles into the model and compared the outcomes to get an accuracy estimate. the article makes no statement on how accurate the model will be at predicting future cycles. finally, we are three years into cycle 24 and the scientists who developed the model released new predictions given the current data, which is that we are in the weakest solar cycle in 200 years.

there was no ball dropped here. there was no "oops" that supports your previous "it's just a theory" arguments. the model was incorrect and it will be fixed. this is the nature of science. if you do science and you never make mistakes or incorrect predictions then you are doing it wrong.

here's the actual NASA article about the current cycle.
Tsadkiel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#114 - 2012-02-07 19:51:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Tsadkiel
AlleyKat wrote:
Q: What is your favorite mathematical symbol?


the Aleph is very fun to write and is used to denote different types of infinity.

integrals are also a fun time =D
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#115 - 2012-02-07 20:56:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
I just parroted an article in Atlantic/National Geographic magazine and then did my best to supply links as best possible. Since i trust their journalists integrity I also trust what was said in the article, despite my inability to find the appropriate links. Regardless, I do like this thread and do not want to deviate it, so I will tread lightly. But I think you deserve a counter rant, and so here it goes.


My Counter Rant

Once, scientists observed only what they saw around them (things like gravity) and then attempted to explain it with mathematics. They did so to great effect. These days however, you get people standing in front of a chalkboard/computer screen talking about things like string theory, a holographic universe, Branes, virtual particles, parallel universes and parallel dimensions (some are needed just to make their math work, like in string theory and super string theory). All are things that have never been observed, and theoretically cannot be observed. All of which are fantastic stretches of the imagination in themselves, every bit as "out there" as most of the mythological/religious notions that I have ever read.

Then, they publish their work for the masses to see. Most of whom could not read the mathematical "text" of their proposed evidence, any more then the illiterate masses of the medieval era could read a Latin bible. People of today, like the people of olden times, simply accept the word of those in authority when they tell them that "this is this way, and the evidence is here". Whether the facts are true or not is irrelevant because, the behavioral pattern is identical.

It is my strongly held opinion, that when people start to use math and theory to explain things that have never been observed, and then use it as part of a "grand explanation" that is assumed to superseded all other grand explanations that have preceded it, you are starting to tread on very thin ice.


So yes, technically science, specifically cutting edge theoretical science IS the new religion.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#116 - 2012-02-07 21:17:19 UTC
Tsadkiel wrote:
Quote:
Ultimately, we live in an age where the new religion is the theoretical sciences, but as Tsadkeil had said prior, it is all just "theoretical" in the end. There are multitudes of unknowns that have remained unknown since the dawn of science. Although we are assured that science will figure it out "soon", the reality of it is that we are not all the much closer to answering those most basic questions now then we were 100's of years ago. The more we learn, the more unknowns we seem to find.


religion/faith is the literal opposite of science. I can't stress that enough. oh, and i never said anything of the sort you are implying.


We seem to have a culture built around false dichotomies. Just look at politics: today's politicians use the word "moderate" as if it's an insult. If you don't pick one of their two sides, you're just indecisive and unfit to govern. That comes down to the so-called conflict between religion and science: far too many people have this notion that it's necessary to fully reject one if you're going to practice the other.

I've observed a troubling trend among scientists over the past few decades that I think goes along with this. Note that I'm not applying this statement to all or even "most" scientists, but that it's enough of them to be of concern to me. At some point scientists fell into this same trap of "us versus them" and started believing their science to be infallible. It's simple pride, really: they reject anything that demonstrates them to be wrong. This scientific dogma leads to self-assured scientists spouting off hypotheses as fact and theories as law. They forget that their field of study is fluid. When scientists reject new information solely because it conflicts with what they already "know", they've lost sight of the spirit of science.

I've long said that science and God don't mix. That's not to say that one must be an atheist to practice science; rather, you have to set God aside in order to pursue scientific inquiry. If "God did it" is ever an acceptable answer, you're not doing science. On the other hand science has no way to test for God, so any definitive statement on the existence of God is beyond the capacity of science.

TL;DR: Scientists need to be careful not to be dogmatic about their science, and religion and science can coexist best by not being applied at the same time. I see no point in throwing out one for the sake of the other.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#117 - 2012-02-07 21:20:30 UTC
Damn, well said FloppieTheBanjoClown. You get a great big Brutor Kiss and a free like!

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Tsadkiel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#118 - 2012-02-07 21:22:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Tsadkiel
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
I just parroted an article in Atlantic/National Geographic magazine and then did my best to supply links as best possible. Regardless, I do like this thread and do not want to deviate it, so I will tread lightly. But I think you deserve a counter rant, and so here it goes.


My Counter Rant

Once, scientists observed only what they saw around them (things like gravity) and then attempted to explain it with mathematics. These days however, you get people standing in front of a chalkboard/computer screen talking about things like string theory, a holographic universe, Branes, parallel universes and eleven dimensions just to make their equations work. All things that have never been observed, and theoretically cannot be observed. All of which are fantastic stretches of the imagination in themselves, every bit as "out there" as most of the mythological/religious notions that I have ever read.

Then they publish their work for the masses to see. Most of whom could not read the mathematical "text" of their proposed evidence, any more then the illiterate masses of the medieval era could read a Latin bible. People of today, like the people of olden times, simply accept the word of those in authority when they tell them that "this is this way, and the evidence is here". Whether the facts are true or not is irrelevant because, the behavioral pattern is identical.

It is my strongly held opinion, that when people start to use math and theory to explain things that have never been observed, and then use it as part of a "grand explanation" that is supposed to superseded all other grand explanations that have preceded it, you are starting to tread on thin ice.


So yes, technically science, specifically cutting edge theoretical science IS the new religion.



there are many scientists, myself included, who do not agree with string theory, branes, and eleven dimension, BECAUSE they cannot be tested. whether or not the universe is holographic is currently being tested at fermilab (and a holographic universe is not what you probably think it is). if it cannot be observed or tested it doesn't belong in a scientific theory. i have stated this. theories are born from hypothesis that have been verified.

so who are the ones who push these ideas as theories and fact? who are the ones who claim all scientists believe these things without evidence? people like you!

people who can't or won't learn to read the science that we publish.

people who read sensationalist articles in pop websites and take them to be true or accepted without ever attempting to find out for themselves.

people who think that it's the fault of the scientific community that they don't understand or can't wrap their minds around current scientific theories.

people who think you need to be good at math to do science, yet use the age old cop out that "i just don't get math" to avoid learning it in the first place.

people who sell themselves short before they even try!

no one in the scientific community expects everyone to accept their results, and to be honest, they don't need to! why? because we produce results and technology! look at GPS! this single piece of tech is born directly from General Relativity. it can not function without the complex mathematical backing that allows us to predict how much slower or faster time flows based on the local gravitational field!

as for modern science being a religion, this cannot be more false. by definition alone, science changes its views based on the evidence while religion is the denial of evidence so that belief and faith can be preserved. i can't see how you link the two...

we don't want you to just blindly accept what we tell you. we want you to LEARN!
Tsadkiel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#119 - 2012-02-07 21:24:13 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Tsadkiel wrote:
Quote:
Ultimately, we live in an age where the new religion is the theoretical sciences, but as Tsadkeil had said prior, it is all just "theoretical" in the end. There are multitudes of unknowns that have remained unknown since the dawn of science. Although we are assured that science will figure it out "soon", the reality of it is that we are not all the much closer to answering those most basic questions now then we were 100's of years ago. The more we learn, the more unknowns we seem to find.


religion/faith is the literal opposite of science. I can't stress that enough. oh, and i never said anything of the sort you are implying.


We seem to have a culture built around false dichotomies. Just look at politics: today's politicians use the word "moderate" as if it's an insult. If you don't pick one of their two sides, you're just indecisive and unfit to govern. That comes down to the so-called conflict between religion and science: far too many people have this notion that it's necessary to fully reject one if you're going to practice the other.

I've observed a troubling trend among scientists over the past few decades that I think goes along with this. Note that I'm not applying this statement to all or even "most" scientists, but that it's enough of them to be of concern to me. At some point scientists fell into this same trap of "us versus them" and started believing their science to be infallible. It's simple pride, really: they reject anything that demonstrates them to be wrong. This scientific dogma leads to self-assured scientists spouting off hypotheses as fact and theories as law. They forget that their field of study is fluid. When scientists reject new information solely because it conflicts with what they already "know", they've lost sight of the spirit of science.

I've long said that science and God don't mix. That's not to say that one must be an atheist to practice science; rather, you have to set God aside in order to pursue scientific inquiry. If "God did it" is ever an acceptable answer, you're not doing science. On the other hand science has no way to test for God, so any definitive statement on the existence of God is beyond the capacity of science.

TL;DR: Scientists need to be careful not to be dogmatic about their science, and religion and science can coexist best by not being applied at the same time. I see no point in throwing out one for the sake of the other.



i agree with this statement 100%
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#120 - 2012-02-07 21:25:52 UTC  |  Edited by: FloppieTheBanjoClown
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
It is my strongly held opinion, that when people start to use math and theory to explain things that have never been observed, and then use it as part of a "grand explanation" that is assumed to superseded all other grand explanations that have preceded it, you are starting to tread on very thin ice.


I do think it's important to remember that things like the Big Bang models and other such constructs obviously can't be repeated in any meaningful way. They do predict things that we can test, but in the end there is a level of "take all the data we have and fill in the blanks with something that makes it consistent." To put it rather bluntly (and make it sound far more trivial than it truly is), a lot of theoretical physics amounts to "this is our best guess until we get more data".

edit: You're also right about the faith in science by the populace. Mass media dilutes scientific findings to 30-second sound bytes, which people either summarily reject because an oversimplified statement conflicts with their worldview, or blindly accept it because SCIENCE. The problem, though, is a complete lack of critical thinking by an alarmingly large segment of the population.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.