Smeggy's Forums

Forums where you CAN vent!

Skip to content

LHC: Has the Higgs Bosun been found?

Into science? Chat about its amazing wonders here. E really does equal MC^2 -> Einstein would be proud!

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

annie27 wrote:WOW I am knackered just glancing through that debate :D ......my dumb observation is the Fact is we have NO facts :D Some Science seems to be based on If, Buts and Maybe's :D


There are no ifs, buts, or maybes in science. if there were it wouldn't be a science.
:D



User avatar
Super Smegsterwegsta
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:00 pm
How Hot Are You?: Centre Of The Sun
Current Mood: Changeable

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Rocky wrote:
annie27 wrote:WOW I am knackered just glancing through that debate :D ......my dumb observation is the Fact is we have NO facts :D Some Science seems to be based on If, Buts and Maybe's :D


There are no ifs, buts, or maybes in science. if there were it wouldn't be a science.
:D


Physicist Sheldon Stone of Syracuse University said: 'If it were to be real, it would be really exciting.'



The signal may be evidence of some other particle, Mr Stone said,


:roll: thats an "IF" and a MAY BE I do believe ..... :roll:




Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

smeggypants wrote:
ghostgirl wrote:
smeggypants wrote:
Channel Hopper wrote:
LordNibbler wrote:And if light is instantaneous, why are (for example), radio waves not instantaneous?


It does travel at the same speed as light, but the conversion back to good old analogue, and then out of the speaker at the speed of sound means it may not arrive in your head at the same time.


Light isn't of course instantaneous. And in most cases light doesn't travel at the speed of light. Any medium will slow it down. Light only travels at the speed of light in an absolute vacuum


You seem very sure that light isn't instantaneous, Smeggy, so let me ask you... why does light have to travel anywhere at all? Or perhaps, to put it another way... ...where in the Universe does light not exist already? :pp:


It's a fair question. OK, look at this way. look at something emitting light, such as an power LED on your phone/TV. then put your hand in the way. You cannot see the light from it anymore. Therefore the path between you eye and that LED has been broken as far as light is concerned. Of course your hand might not stop other electromagnetic waves, but it's stopping the light. Well most of it. A bright enough light will shine though your hand - but not bones :)

Your hand may stop you from seeing the LED, but the LED is still emitting light all around the room, even though you yourself can’t see it. Try moving to another part of the room and you will see the LED again.
In your thought experiment the only place where there is no light is inside your hand (i.e. inside Matter). Also, bear in mind that light must still be emitting from somewhere, otherwise you wouldn’t see your hand either. It’s very difficult to seal out light completely.
This was not the point I was trying to make however. If you imagine the Universe, with all it’s trillions of light sources (both from stars, and from the light from stars reflected upon other Matter such as meteors, space debris, moons, etc). Remember that light is both Visible and Invisible, it exists everywhere, but only becomes visible to you when it’s reflected off some Matter. You cannot see beams of light travelling across Space, you can only see the light of a star at either it’s source or it’s destination. Notice that my question was, ‘where in the Universe does light not exist already?’, not, ‘where in the Universe can light not be seen BY YOU?’. The only places that I can think of are inside black holes (possibly, although we are only sure that light can’t escape from a black hole, not that there is none inside), and inside particles of Matter, again only possibly).


In answer to Lord Nibs' question about radio waves...

It's true, for some reason radio waves don't seem to show particle-like behaviour, which I do agree is odd, especially if we're sticking with the Standard Model theory. Particularly considering the fact that the wave-length certainly of visible light, at least, is actually pretty close to that of a radio wave. And yet light is said to exhibit particule-like behaviour whilst radio apparently doesn't. The answer is that there's NO overall consensus in the physics community regarding this matter; some physicists are of the opinion that a radio photon-particle-quanta-whatever would have to be unfeasibly huge, while other 'experts' believe it must be a case of there being certain frequencies at which photons-particles-quanta-whatever just simply cannot be formed (great these experts, ain't they? :rofl: ).
There are probably other theories about this as well, but the majority of the rest are at least honest enough to admit that they simply haven't a clue why this should be the case. :confused:


In other words these packets are only mathmetical models and there isn't actual packets in reality.

Well, not exactly, physicists have shown that certain experiments show light behaving as though it is a wave, whilst other experiments show that it is made up of packets/quanta/particles. For example the double slit experiments appears to prove that light is a wave, whilst the photoelectric effect shows that light is made up of particles. But if you mean that a photon cannot be a particle (i.e. particles are made Matter), then in the strictest sense a photon is not a real matter particle, since it has no mass, particles are not always Massive though, there are Force-Carrying particles as well as Mass-carrying particles.
A photon has something called reletavistic mass though, what this means is that at rest it is massless, but just as you yourself gain mass when you are running or flying in a plane, so a photon gains reletavistic mass as it gains momentum. This is deceptive as well though, because strictly speaking if you could stop a photon from moving completely then it would cease to exist.


I'd just like to point out that we're all discussing Photons as if they have been proven to exist! ...But do they really definitely exist...??


See above

The problem with Light, as well as with any other type of high frequency radiation, is that the momentum of an individual quanta/packet/photon/whatever doesn't 'spread out',


how do you mean it doesn't "spread out" - Light waves diffract like any other wave


Yes, but if you read the above statement again you will notice that I was discussing photons, or packets of light, not light waves. Light waves diffract, an individual photon of light does not diffract or ‘spread’ it’s light out at all.
Here’s the logic…
* Particles (which are made up of Matter) ‘propagate’ their momentum from one point to another - they do not ‘spread out’.
* 'Photons ‘carry’ their energy (i.e. they are force carriers) and ‘transfer’ their momentum.
* Most EM waves DO ‘spread out ‘ BOTH their energy and their momentum over an ever-increasing area. (I say MOST EM waves because there are also certain waves that do not spread out, - a ‘plane wave’ surface is in constant phase and so appears more like an infinite parallel plane heading off in the direction to which it is being propagated.)



and so it can seem as if light is behaving like matter (or a wave) that's been imprisoned inside some sort of special sealed container that prevents the 'packet' from being able to spread out. But all MATTER has mass, and so it follows that if light particles were Massive also, then they would necessarily be restricted to a speed below that of actual light-speed too (which must obviously be wrong, since this would negate the very idea of light-speed).


I thought electromagnetic waves had no mass?

Neither EM waves nor a photon AT REST have Mass, although they do both have Energy of course.
As an aside, though, in considering this it should be remembered, - as Einstein himself proved - that Mass and Energy are very closely related. Energy = Mass x The Speed of Light Squared.

Image
"TONGUE-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I"

User avatar
Haunting Beauty
Posts: 4600
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:20 pm
Location: Scotland
Current Mood: Spine chillingly spooky

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

ghostgirl wrote:Your hand may stop you from seeing the LED, but the LED is still emitting light all around the room, even though you yourself can’t see it. Try moving to another part of the room and you will see the LED again.
In your thought experiment the only place where there is no light is inside your hand (i.e. inside Matter). Also, bear in mind that light must still be emitting from somewhere, otherwise you wouldn’t see your hand either. It’s very difficult to seal out light completely.
This was not the point I was trying to make however. If you imagine the Universe, with all it’s trillions of light sources (both from stars, and from the light from stars reflected upon other Matter such as meteors, space debris, moons, etc). Remember that light is both Visible and Invisible, it exists everywhere, but only becomes visible to you when it’s reflected off some Matter. You cannot see beams of light travelling across Space, you can only see the light of a star at either it’s source or it’s destination. Notice that my question was, ‘where in the Universe does light not exist already?’, not, ‘where in the Universe can light not be seen BY YOU?’. The only places that I can think of are inside black holes (possibly, although we are only sure that light can’t escape from a black hole, not that there is none inside), and inside particles of Matter, again only possibly).


You can only "see" light at the point when it reacts with an object, you never see it at its source so you only see it at its destination (although it isn't a destination, merely a point of absorption and reflection - unless you have the perfect absorber, some frequencies are absorbed and others are reflected and carry on bouncing around for a while). An object might be a light source but you only see it because the light waves hit your retina, not because you are seeing it at its source.



User avatar
Really Loves Smeggy's
Posts: 1878
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:41 am

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

And to answer "where in the universe does light not exist already?" then surely any percectly sealed opaque container that doesn't contain a light source is one answer - the film changing room of a darkroom would be one you can stand in and see what the absence of light is like.



User avatar
Really Loves Smeggy's
Posts: 1878
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:41 am

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

LordNibbler wrote:And to answer "where in the universe does light not exist already?" then surely any percectly sealed opaque container that doesn't contain a light source is one answer - the film changing room of a darkroom would be one you can stand in and see what the absence of light is like.

As I said, it's very difficult to seal out light 100%.

To find a place in the universe where you could find total darkness is not quite as simple as walking into a dark room and closing the door. Total absence of light means absolutely ANY frequency of light. There may be light in unmeasurably small quantum even in a darkroom, because only a small portion of light is actually visible. Electromagnetic radiation is light, and there is a cosmic background radiation keeping the universe constantly at approximately 3 degrees above absolute zero.


BTW I agree that light can only be detected as it hits matter (it's destination or, as you say, it's point of absorption or reflection), but in mentioning both source and destination I was attempting to discuss the issue of visible light whilst trying to remain in keeping with the limitations set by Smeggy's LED 'thought experiment'. I mentioned the source of the light as well as the destination because I had no other way of making my point understood in common language.

Image
"TONGUE-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I"

User avatar
Haunting Beauty
Posts: 4600
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:20 pm
Location: Scotland
Current Mood: Spine chillingly spooky

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Hang on, isn't light defined as the portion of the electro magnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye? The filim-changing room I mentioned is a black room with double-doors, painted black inside with no light source and no leaks - it is totally without the portion of the visible electro-magnetic spectrum.



User avatar
Really Loves Smeggy's
Posts: 1878
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:41 am

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

LordNibbler wrote:Hang on, isn't light defined as the portion of the electro magnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye? The filim-changing room I mentioned is a black room with double-doors, painted black inside with no light source and no leaks - it is totally without the portion of the visible electro-magnetic spectrum.


Prior to Planck, Einstein and others day that was about right, but then along came quantum theory. In modern quantum terms, EM radiation consists of a bunch of particles called photons, that are basically nothing more than packets, or quanta, of energy, moving at the speed of light (in a vaccuum, or somewhat less in other mediums). According to the particle theory of light, the brightness of a light is associated with the number of photons present, and the color of the light is associated with the amount of energy contained inside each photon. There are very few ways to exclude every single photon from a given container (or room).

Image
"TONGUE-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I"

User avatar
Haunting Beauty
Posts: 4600
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:20 pm
Location: Scotland
Current Mood: Spine chillingly spooky

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Well, assuming there is a very very very very small amount of light in a perfectly sealed dark room, how does this fit in with light not having to travel? :confused: If we are standing in this extremely dark room (so dark, you can't see you hand in front of your face or any signs of anything in the room) and someone opens the door, where is that extra light coming from if it in some way doesn't enter the room? :confused:



User avatar
Really Loves Smeggy's
Posts: 1878
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:41 am

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

ghostgirl wrote:
Well, not exactly, physicists have shown that certain experiments show light behaving as though it is a wave, whilst other experiments show that it is made up of packets/quanta/particles. For example the double slit experiments appears to prove that light is a wave, whilst the photoelectric effect shows that light is made up of particles. But if you mean that a photon cannot be a particle (i.e. particles are made Matter), then in the strictest sense a photon is not a real matter particle, since it has no mass, particles are not always Massive though, there are Force-Carrying particles as well as Mass-carrying particles.
A photon has something called reletavistic mass though, what this means is that at rest it is massless, but just as you yourself gain mass when you are running or flying in a plane, so a photon gains reletavistic mass as it gains momentum. This is deceptive as well though, because strictly speaking if you could stop a photon from moving completely then it would cease to exist.




I thought scientists had slowed a 'photon' down to zero velcity in a relatively recent experiment



Yes, but if you read the above statement again you will notice that I was discussing photons, or packets of light, not light waves. Light waves diffract, an individual photon of light does not diffract or ‘spread’ it’s light out at all.
Here’s the logic…
* Particles (which are made up of Matter) ‘propagate’ their momentum from one point to another - they do not ‘spread out’.
* 'Photons ‘carry’ their energy (i.e. they are force carriers) and ‘transfer’ their momentum.
* Most EM waves DO ‘spread out ‘ BOTH their energy and their momentum over an ever-increasing area. (I say MOST EM waves because there are also certain waves that do not spread out, - a ‘plane wave’ surface is in constant phase and so appears more like an infinite parallel plane heading off in the direction to which it is being propagated.)


But these plane waves will spread out if they are diffracted


and so it can seem as if light is behaving like matter (or a wave) that's been imprisoned inside some sort of special sealed container that prevents the 'packet' from being able to spread out. But all MATTER has mass, and so it follows that if light particles were Massive also, then they would necessarily be restricted to a speed below that of actual light-speed too (which must obviously be wrong, since this would negate the very idea of light-speed).


I thought electromagnetic waves had no mass?

Neither EM waves nor a photon AT REST have Mass, although they do both have Energy of course.
As an aside, though, in considering this it should be remembered, - as Einstein himself proved - that Mass and Energy are very closely related. Energy = Mass x The Speed of Light Squared.

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 120635
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

ghostgirl wrote:
LordNibbler wrote:Hang on, isn't light defined as the portion of the electro magnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye? The filim-changing room I mentioned is a black room with double-doors, painted black inside with no light source and no leaks - it is totally without the portion of the visible electro-magnetic spectrum.


Prior to Planck, Einstein and others day that was about right, but then along came quantum theory. In modern quantum terms, EM radiation consists of a bunch of particles called photons, that are basically nothing more than packets, or quanta, of energy, moving at the speed of light (in a vaccuum, or somewhat less in other mediums). According to the particle theory of light, the brightness of a light is associated with the number of photons present, and the color of the light is associated with the amount of energy contained inside each photon. There are very few ways to exclude every single photon from a given container (or room).


I was wondering how the frequency of the EM radiation related to the photons.

So is the higher the freqeuncy the more energy, or the higher the frequency the less energy?

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 120635
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Smeggy Wrote:
I was wondering how the frequency of the EM radiation related to the photons.


Photons don’t exist in classical electrodynamics, they came into being only with the advent of quantum electrodynamics. In the Standard Model it’s assumed that the EM fields are propagated in packets of energy (i.e. photons). Every photon has an energy of about 0.5\hbar\omega. This means that photons are related to frequency and magnitude of resulting fields. Prior to quantum electrodynamics the energy of the field was only dependent on its amplitude.

So if you’ve got a wave with an energy of 1 J and it has a frequency of 1 MHz then there would be fewer photons than if you had a 1 J wave with a frequency of 1 GHz because a photon of the higher frequency one would have more energy. I can’t remember for sure but I think its called granularity.

Also it might interest you to know that the type of electronic noise that’s called “shot noise” is the sort found usually only in low energy signals because it relates to the fact that there are only a few photons being received.

So all that goes to say that assuming you have 2 waves with the same amplitude then the one with the higher frequency will have a lower number of photons. So if you have a constant rate of photons then the higher their frequency the lower will be the amplitude of the wave fields.


Smeggy Wrote:
I thought scientists had slowed a 'photon' down to zero velcity in a relatively recent experiment


Yup. I think they have, but that has very little to do with whether or not light travels instantaneously, other than to say that the speed of light, - which used to be considered one of the universe's great all-encompassing constants, - is in fact …not.

You’re right though, I should perhaps have said that a photon ‘disappears’ at zero velocity, rather than that it ‘ceases to exist’, because once it’s speeded up again it is of course detectable again (if indeed it is the same photon, which is impossible to know at this time). Perhaps this is another form of the principle of physics that requires both an observer and an observed.



Lord Nibbler Wrote:
Well, assuming there is a very very very very small amount of light in a perfectly sealed dark room, how does this fit in with light not having to travel? If we are standing in this extremely dark room (so dark, you can't see you hand in front of your face or any signs of anything in the room) and someone opens the door, where is that extra light coming from if it in some way doesn't enter the room?



I didn’t say that light wouldn’t enter the room, I said that light would instantaneously enter the room. My instantaneous light speed theory is best explained with the help of 2 basic principles of Quantum physics:

That there must necessarily be a blurring of the distinction between observer and observed.

AND…

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, - i.e. Position and momentum of a photon can’t be measured simultaneously.


Ok, imagine you’ve got 2 dice, and that they are quantumly entangled. These dice would have a property such that if you were to throw one of them in China and the other one in Canada at the same time then they would always both show the same number. My assumption is that can only be the case because they are somehow able to communicate with one another instantaneously.

If you substitute the dice for photons then instead of the number that will show on the 2 dice it is the polarization of the photon that will be the same. You can separate the 2 photons by an entire galaxy, with an observer at each end ready to measure the polarisation of the separated photons, and yet both observers will still see identical polarisation.

It’s as if the 2 photons are capable of telepathy (or maybe teleportation, I haven’t decided which). But anyway either the information regarding each photons polarisation is either propagated instantly, or there is only one photon in the Universe that basically only shows up (becomes visible/measurable) when there is an observer there to view it. In my opinion it doesn’t matter which of those is true, one way or another the light-speed limitation hypothesis is broken. The thing is quantum physics doesn’t really deal in the philosophical side of things, so there isn’t really a science eye view of the ‘observer and observed’ combination to any great extent.

There is one more possibility, I suppose. It’s possible that the 2 separated photons know what polarisation YOU are going to CHOOSE, before you do, and so have time, - without breaking the upper limits of light speed, - to both settle themselves into your soon-to-be-chosen polarisation.

Image
"TONGUE-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I"

User avatar
Haunting Beauty
Posts: 4600
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:20 pm
Location: Scotland
Current Mood: Spine chillingly spooky

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

annie27 wrote:
Rocky wrote:
annie27 wrote:WOW I am knackered just glancing through that debate :D ......my dumb observation is the Fact is we have NO facts :D Some Science seems to be based on If, Buts and Maybe's :D


There are no ifs, buts, or maybes in science. if there were it wouldn't be a science.
:D


Physicist Sheldon Stone of Syracuse University said: 'If it were to be real, it would be really exciting.'



The signal may be evidence of some other particle, Mr Stone said,


:roll: thats an "IF" and a MAY BE I do believe ..... :roll:


Amazing reading this .... It seems you can have a "Theory " about "quantums" etc because thats all it is a Theory, no proof just based on a Theory of what if ?.




Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

annie27 wrote:
annie27 wrote:
Rocky wrote:
annie27 wrote:WOW I am knackered just glancing through that debate :D ......my dumb observation is the Fact is we have NO facts :D Some Science seems to be based on If, Buts and Maybe's :D


There are no ifs, buts, or maybes in science. if there were it wouldn't be a science.
:D


Physicist Sheldon Stone of Syracuse University said: 'If it were to be real, it would be really exciting.'



The signal may be evidence of some other particle, Mr Stone said,


:roll: thats an "IF" and a MAY BE I do believe ..... :roll:


Amazing reading this .... It seems you can have a "Theory " about "quantums" etc because thats all it is a Theory, no proof just based on a Theory of what if ?.


But that's exactly right, Annie, quantum mechanics IS almost all 'theory'! And the Standard Model is just one of the possible quantum arguments.

There's also Super-Symmetry, String Theory, M-Theory (Compactification Theory), Perturbation Theory, Supergravity... :groan:

Image
"TONGUE-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I"

User avatar
Haunting Beauty
Posts: 4600
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:20 pm
Location: Scotland
Current Mood: Spine chillingly spooky

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

ghostgirl wrote:
annie27 wrote:
annie27 wrote:
Rocky wrote:
annie27 wrote:WOW I am knackered just glancing through that debate :D ......my dumb observation is the Fact is we have NO facts :D Some Science seems to be based on If, Buts and Maybe's :D


There are no ifs, buts, or maybes in science. if there were it wouldn't be a science.
:D


Physicist Sheldon Stone of Syracuse University said: 'If it were to be real, it would be really exciting.'



The signal may be evidence of some other particle, Mr Stone said,


:roll: thats an "IF" and a MAY BE I do believe ..... :roll:


Amazing reading this .... It seems you can have a "Theory " about "quantums" etc because thats all it is a Theory, no proof just based on a Theory of what if ?.


But that's exactly right, Annie, quantum mechanics IS almost all 'theory'! And the Standard Model is just one of the possible quantum arguments.

There's also Super-Symmetry, String Theory, M-Theory (Compactification Theory), Perturbation Theory, Supergravity... :groan:


So if it is just a Theory ,why are so many people talking about it like it is fact :confused: scuse me for asking I am baffled .

I watched a Sky At Night special a few weeks ago (yes it does interest me )...we had Old wonderful Patrick Moore who can hardly speak to be understood bless him ,The Royal Astronamer who frightened the shit out of me to be honest :D , but seemed like a nice man ,and two ex band members , who in a few years have been thrust into the limelight as the voice of knowledge regarding the skies ...,call me a little sceptical .....but all Brian Cox does is read a script/tele prompter and from the live show not very well ;)
I would happily listen to a decent Scientist who has 30 odd years under his belt , who can be clear and concise ....but still lets us know " Remember its is still all based on Scientific theory not Scientific Fact " . But if every theory is based only on human intelligence ,and considering how we are still bombing the shit out of each other to settle disputes ,you must understand my simple way of thinking .... :D

here is the footage .....but no real answers ....its just seems to be about the "Human conception " of the Universe . and considering our achievments in space :roll: .....its all if buts and maybes which is fine by me , but not talked about as facts ......as such .





Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

God, I hate that as well!
Remember those documentaries about dinasaurs, a while ago? They talked about some of those long-LONG-extinct creatures as if they'd seen them in their natural habitat only last week! Oh and this one here ate by scrounging the dead bones of carrion, that one preyed on this little one over there, oh and yonder slim good-looking one with the moustache and bushy eyebrows made it's home in goosbery bushes, was interested in charity work and loved skiing and painting...

But yes, with quantum physics it's mostly a whole lot of theories based on probability. Astronomy and Cosmology as well to a great extent, I suppose.

If only they realised that none of it's real, that all of it, the whole entire Universe and everything in it, is all just a figment of my imagination... :pp:

Image
"TONGUE-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I"

User avatar
Haunting Beauty
Posts: 4600
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:20 pm
Location: Scotland
Current Mood: Spine chillingly spooky

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

ghostgirl wrote:God, I hate that as well!
Remember those documentaries about dinasaurs, a while ago? They talked about some of those long-LONG-extinct creatures as if they'd seen them in their natural habitat only last week! Oh and this one here ate by scrounging the dead bones of carrion, that one preyed on this little one over there, oh and yonder slim good-looking one with the moustache and bushy eyebrows made it's home in goosbery bushes, was interested in charity work and loved skiing and painting...

But yes, with quantum physics it's mostly a whole lot of theories based on probability. Astronomy and Cosmology as well to a great extent, I suppose.

If only they realised that none of it's real, that all of it, the whole entire Universe and everything in it, is all just a figment of my imagination... :pp:


The universe as we can grasp it in our limited human experience exists ....through a lens .....beyond that that everything is just a theory based on what our minds can grasp and understand and accept as human .... do you understand why I question this theory .....not that I doubt it either .....but as humans we are so limited at times .




Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

That's the whole point of it being called a theory and not a proven system.

Although having said that, the word 'theory' has a tendancy to mean something different in scientific usage than it does in everyday language. In science if a 'theory' has been repeatedly tested, or is widely accepted as an explanation of an event or phenomena, then it becomes a 'scientific theory'.
In everyday language almost (but not quite) the opposite is true - a 'theory' in everyday usage usually just means an untested, or inxplicably obtained hunch or speculation.

And yes, human's are limited to what they can receive using our five senses, so our understanding is necessarily incomplete.

Image
"TONGUE-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I"

User avatar
Haunting Beauty
Posts: 4600
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:20 pm
Location: Scotland
Current Mood: Spine chillingly spooky

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

ghostgirl wrote:That's the whole point of it being called a theory and not a proven system.

Although having said that, the word 'theory' has a tendancy to mean something different in scientific usage than it does in everyday language. In science if a 'theory' has been repeatedly tested, or is widely accepted as an explanation of an event or phenomena, then it becomes a 'scientific theory'.
In everyday language almost (but not quite) the opposite is true - a 'theory' in everyday usage usually just means an untested, or inxplicably obtained hunch or speculation.

And yes, human's are limited to what they can receive using our five senses, so our understanding is necessarily incomplete.


Quite ..words are invented of course , but then repeated as fact ,as a solid proof , although its just a human scientist interpritation and useing latin or what ever to give it a name ...but it seems that this becomes Quotable fact ...AKA We Have Black Holes ....sounds rational ...but as we know it is not a fact . Just a theory




Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Glad this thread has died ...never in my life I have I ever read such a load of crap in my life ...good for cut and paste I guess ;) :rofl:




Previous

Return to General Science

Similar topics

  • Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
    Top of Page

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests