What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Meet Keith: Best Buy Employee and Possible Singing Sensation. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - One employee proves he has the chops and the passion to star in Best Buy’s holiday campaign.
139 Comments
- DaleMCourtney, on 07/06/2009, -5/+62"Super-conductivity at high temperatures has long been a 'hot issue' in physics."
*facepalm - costumemaker, on 07/06/2009, -4/+40Whatcha got there, a bunch of words?
- Astrad, on 07/06/2009, -2/+34Headline is misleading. The physical reality of string theory wasn't demonstrated; mathematical formulas derived from string theory were used to explain high temperature superconductivity.
- robdiggity, on 07/06/2009, -14/+44As this demonstration occurred in The Netherlands, shouldn't we actually be talking about Striing Theoeöeory?
- JigoroKano, on 07/06/2009, -1/+24Correct me if I am wrong, but no physical reality of string theory has been demonstrated here.
It was conformal field theory (CFT) that applied to the superconductor. CFT and AdS have a purely mathematical correspondence.
They did some AdS calculations and translated them back to CFT for superconductor application. There was no black hole in the superconductor for Christ's sake. - Seth024, on 07/06/2009, -0/+16"snaartheorie" would be the correct translation.
- yocouchdigga, on 07/06/2009, -2/+18Congratulations, you just leveled up!
+5 Observation
+3 Tech
+1 Science
You Learned a New Skill:
TL;DR Wave - Stun Opponents with a sea of information, 25% chance of inflicting Paralyze
(dugg for effort, BTW) - sonnybobiche, on 07/06/2009, -3/+18A mathematical model that corresponds with reality in one instance is not proof of that model's accuracy. It's not falsifiable. Now if they could PREDICT the existence of a phenomenon and then demonstrate its existence, that would be evidence.
- meridian, on 07/06/2009, -1/+14pssh, still can't calculate the entropy of a black hole.
- empath, on 07/06/2009, -0/+13It's a UK english thing.
- staffa, on 07/06/2009, -1/+14I stopped reading at the point where you gave us a link to even more text, which wasn't even halfway through your wall of text.
Two points.
1. Aristotle and Plato were both right. The scientific method explicitly requires both the empirical evidence(experimentation) and the deductive reasoning(hypothesis)
2. Your first paragraph eschews deductive reasoning as being wrongheaded, stupid and without merit. Your 4th paragraph is in contradiction to this point by suggesting we 'go back to the drawing board'
As for your point, dark matter and dark energy are errors in the predictive power of relativity, there are several suggested fixes and as soon as one of them makes an experimentally provable prediction they will gain much weight. This could include alternative formulas for gravity(MOND for example) or an unknown form of non radiating matter(dark matter), or abandoning the Copernican principal with respect to the extremely large scale(dark energy) - seanoneil14, on 07/06/2009, -6/+17The Observer Effect in physics has absolutely NOTHING to do with what Jesus said in Luke. Thank you for corrupting the purity of science with religious dribble. Now get the ***** out.
- physixd, on 07/06/2009, -3/+13The article is rubbish. They do not demonstrate the reality of string theory. They use string theory methods, the so-called AdS/CFT correspondence, to study a problem of phase transitions. Their theory says nothing about whether string theory can be used as a theory of quantum gravity. Moreover, they are certainly not the first to apply these mathematical methods to condensed-matter problems. It remains to be seen if their calculations actually are correct (i.e., are confirmed by experiments).
- gendou, on 07/06/2009, -0/+8True, the highest vindication of a theory is that it describes a phenomena not-yet-seen which turn out to be real. Still, it's also acceptable to start with an unexplained phenomena (say, high temperature superconductivity), and build a new model to explain it, while maintaining correspondence with the old theory. Correspondence is the key here, because no super-string theory has yet been invented which corresponds with the established laws of physics (general relativity and quantum mechanics).
You said, "it's not falsifiable" referring to a model's prediction of only phenomena, which is untrue. You can rule out a theory right away once you find at least one physical phenomena it disagrees with. You cannot, however, stop there and say, "all done". You have to check that it upholds correspondence as I mentioned above.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_princi ... - BlueTunicLink, on 07/06/2009, -0/+7superconductors are cool!
- joecomputerguy, on 07/06/2009, -3/+10Or run Crysis
- yocouchdigga, on 07/06/2009, -1/+8I CAME.
- pln2bz, on 07/06/2009, -3/+10Congratulations, you've just repeated some garbage that somebody else told you.
The theory of quantum mechanics may attempt to EXPLAIN observations of semiconductor physics, but to say that the computer revolution would never have occurred without quantum mechanics is a complete misunderstanding of laboratory science. I suppose that you also believe that Einstein helped create the atom bomb too, eh? - DifferentAngle, on 07/06/2009, -0/+7Different parts of the world are different.
"1 billion" doesnt even mean the same thing there - harmlessdrudge, on 07/07/2009, -0/+6As they say in The Netherlands: wat een eikel!
- nullcodes, on 07/06/2009, -2/+8I stopped trying to follow what you were saying after you started rambling about Aristotle and Plato. Maybe you have a point, but I didn't want to go bat-***** insane trying to figure out what it was.
- dafragsta, on 07/06/2009, -1/+7From your first paragraph, you clearly show your ignorance to the fact that you DO need to sit around with a bunch of equations before you can even narrow down which empirical evidence to go after. Einstein did this, yet here we are in the modern age with nuclear reactions and the speed of light as a universal constant that has yet to be surpassed. You sketch before you paint. You make blueprints before you build. You make mathematical observations before you go after extremely expensive, dangerous, and tiny bits of matter. In layman's terms: "Measure twice, cut once."
You also disregard the fact that most of the famous physicists, philosophers, mathematicians, etc. have several theories and ideas that wound up tossed in the garbage. More layman's terms: "You gotta break eggs to make an omelet."
"Playing with physics equations has never created a product of any kind, "
Wrong ... but it's a lovely story and you tell it so well ...with such enthusiam. - dafragsta, on 07/06/2009, -0/+6I'd say you're a Santa Claus DM if you are granting those kinds of bonuses for this *****.
- kingmanic, on 07/06/2009, -1/+7pln2bz: I hope you read this. You are being supported by the creationists.
- robdiggity, on 07/06/2009, -3/+8Oh it's Dutch baby... IT'S DUTCH!!
/Costanza - Mujokan, on 07/06/2009, -1/+6I am also extremely interested in science and programming and last week I was able to create a zero-temperature quantum phase transition in my refrigerator but unfortunately my Fermi liquid wasn't renormalized strongly enough and so it spilled inside the refrigerator but I mopped it up using Conformal Field Theory which replicated the spectral functions of the fermions and a state emerged with all the features of the Fermi-liquid so I didn't need to start all over again so though I know you may not understand these technical terms this doesn't seem so revolutionary to me because anyone can do it if they just keep trying and if you need help please just ask me.
- consonance, on 07/07/2009, -1/+5IF YOU LIKE TO DO GRAPHITY, DONT DO IT.
- lostlyrics, on 07/07/2009, -0/+4we have a lift off.
one of our elevators has a malfunction. - kanojo1969, on 07/06/2009, -0/+4I find it bizarre that you think your own knowledge, based on a single TV show, is sufficient to be able to decide that a particular idea is 'obviously' wrong.
Meanwhile, over a period of several decades, thousands upon thousands of real, live, geniuses, people with freakish intelligence and decades of experience, people who fight with each other and try day and night to prove that their theories are wrong, these guys are all just idiots. Not as clever as you, a guy who's watched one TV show.
Your ignorance is understandable, your stupidity is breathtaking, but your arrogance is simply unbelievable. Your understanding of mathematics and the scientific process is so bad, you may as well be a creationist. It's that weak. - Ackoogin, on 07/06/2009, -1/+5Mathematics -> maths is correct, no? :P (perhaps not for Americans)
- pagit, on 07/07/2009, -0/+4what about sitting at a desk in front of a computer playing with words and experimenting with cut and paste?
- dafragsta, on 07/07/2009, -1/+4You say so much, yet it makes no sense. Words in great number do not legitimize nonsense.
"Mathematics are necessary as a means of testing ideas -- but not at all useful in concocting them to begin with."
Do we really even need to get into why that's *****? Without math, you don't know what you should expect to see. Without math, you don't get a jumping off point on which to even build that expectation. You measure small things, compare and contrast them in formulas, and try to figure out what the missing pieces are. Earlier, you shat on the whole concept of dark matter and dark energy, yet, you don't acknowledge that these are just a step (a highly researched and likely one) to understanding the makeup of the universe. The fact is that galaxies would fly apart and stars at the center of galaxies would travel at different speeds of those on the outside if it wasn't for something holding them together.
So clearly something is there. There are going to be potshots taken which lead to scientists narrowing down what it could be and what to test for. I just watched a documentary on the insane guesswork that went into understanding how DNA is constructed and what the molecular similarities are that make them inclined to bond in the primordial stage of life. In no case, has a great discovery been made based on one guess and one experiment. In fact, life itself is a learning process based on failure and speculation. The scientific process is a process of elimination based on experiments, not experiments that just miracle themselves onto a lab table, all set for success.
Here's some ***** that should make your head explode that can only be explained in theoretical math, because it deals with different sizes of infinity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect - kanojo1969, on 07/06/2009, -0/+3I'm afraid the answer is that your understanding of the scientific process here is wrong. People are not allowed to just make up theories with no real evidence and have them stand as proof for other theories with no evidence. The scientific community is painfully aware of the problems with string theory, but even so the mathematical proofs that are used in it's defense are solid, verifiable tools that undergo extensive testing and peer review.
One of the problems with string theory is that most people simply cannot understand the mathematics involved, without years of training and experimentation. I certainly don't. It becomes all too easy to assume that it's not real, that it can be twisted and turned to suit whatever the scientist wants to prove.
But it's not like that at all, when you see a whiteboard covered in weird symbols, these actually do mean something and they are all based on previous work that has been rigorously tested over decades.
Quite apart from all that, a key difference is that string theory has absolutely ZERO endorsement from the scientific community as a proven theory. They all know it's infuriatingly difficult to prove, or to test. There's a large number, perhaps a majority, of physicists and mathematicians who outright reject it. Even those that tentatively accept that it *could* be true, regard it with a great deal of skepticism. The number of reputable scientists who have made the leap of faith and truly believe that Strings are the answer is a tiny, tiny fraction of all scientists.
Look at some assertion from the bible, let's say moses parting the red sea. If you believe that happened then you are taking a story in a book to be true with no evidence whatsoever, that contradicts every known physical law. Everyone in the church says they believe it, although none of them could ever test it or try to imagine how it could happen.
The contrast between that and string is considerable. String advocates are putting huge effort into fitting their model into existing laws and theories. No scientist with a clue will just 'believe' that it is correct, they all want real proof. And despite the fact that we as mortals don't understand it, the mathematical proofs created so far *do* create a compelling case. but still, it's not going to be accepted in the same way as the theory of general relativity until real-world evidence is found that agrees with the theory and can be repeated at will.
The very, very short version: You're well wide of the mark, this string theory stuff isn't even remotely like the kind of blind faith that you need to beleive in a God. - staffa, on 07/07/2009, -1/+4Do you realize you come off as ***** insane? You might want to work on that.
Just as an fyi.
Ionized gas does not ignore gravity, it may overcome gravity due to the electromagnetic force, but it does not ignore it.
Also just because plasma contains charged particles that doesn’t mean plasma is itself charged, it just means that the electrons are free to roam about on their own. A plasma can be neutrally charged with an equal number of electrons and protons roaming around inside it.
And it’s invisible dimensions, not alternate. You really come off as a ***** human being when you intentionally misphrase the opposing view like that and I don't even like string theory myself. - Joshislong, on 07/06/2009, -0/+3Here's some Cherenkov Radiation.
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/image/37182 - cacarpenter89, on 07/07/2009, -0/+3"Really though, who cares if we're talking invisible or alternate? Isn't this really just semantics? Are there any physical ramifications to the difference?"
Yes, there actually are, and they're pretty major. Invisible dimensions are ones that we can't experience because we exist in four dimensions: three spacial and one temporal. An n-dimensional space can be represented as a stack of (n-1)-dimensional spaces. For example, a line can be represented as a stack of points, a plane as a stack of lines, and depth as a stack of planes. Imagine if you only had length and depth. You would be unable to conceive of moving up or down or to visualize it. So, when it comes to extra spacial dimensions, we simply can't comprehend them because we don't exist in them. There obviously is nothing stopping a 3-dimensional particle from dropping through a horizontal plane, but if you could view something from a planar perspective, then you would view only the infinitely thin edge of the object. Visualizing what a 4-dimensional particle passing through our perceived three dimensions would look like is very difficult when you think about it. However, just like the 2-dimensional example, it is definitely plausible.
When discussing alternate dimensions, on the other hand, you begin to deal with spacial and temporal dimensions in other universes rather than higher spacial dimensions in our own. Not saying that higher temporal dimensions aren't possible in our universe, just don't really want to get into that. :)
As for the experimentation vs. mathematics, you can't design an experiment without the math behind it. You come up with a mathematical concept, then design an experiment to see if you're right. If you aren't, you see where you went wrong, find something else that could work, and go at it again. What good are the results of an experiment if you just accept them at face value without having or attempting to gain any knowledge of how they came about? - leva, on 07/07/2009, -0/+3Uhh you're not in if you don't know about Moon People. That and the three wolves shirt will be the dominating style for years to come.
Nevermind, I think he seriously talks like that. - Minnyhaha, on 07/06/2009, -3/+6tl/dr
In all seriousness, this a sweet discovery. Sorry loop quantum gravity, I'm a fan of string theory now. - kingmanic, on 07/07/2009, -1/+4@blindhammer @p1n2bz
The actual point is Crazed leper is simply anti-science. Your science. My science. Any science. He sincerely believes it to be evil. Thus you are being supported by him only because you antagonize science. - PowderedToasty, on 07/06/2009, -1/+3why do you talk like that?? I know a guy who talks like that.
- TrevorBradley, on 07/06/2009, -4/+6I've spent most of my life being a harsh string theory skeptic. It was pretty easy in the 90's when I was finishing my degree (with a minor in physics). Sure the math looked right but with no independent discoveries or explanations of observations that weren't already it all felt like pie in the sky, mathematical construct. That attitude appears to have held for many well into this decade.
I'm *slowly* beginning to be turned around. In a sense, it's only natural. The things in the universe that are both fall in the realm of physics explained by relativity and quantum physics are very few and are usually impossible to create in the lab. But if it can be used to explain many weird "exception to the rules" I'm (almost) all in.
I think it might be time to pick up a few books and catch up on the subject. - Gimli, on 07/07/2009, -0/+2I'm sure my twin in a different dimension is typing the opposite in what I'm typing thus negating this.
- rhinofinger, on 07/07/2009, -0/+2I think that's the name of the table I bought last week at Ikea
- XeN0cidE, on 07/07/2009, -0/+2jjesus, you just killed the thread..
- gendou, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2Who else has applied AdS/CFT correspondence to condensed-matter problems? It would be interesting to see how these other papers reported the significance of any success they might have had. It would also be interesting to see what, if anything, the Leiden paper does uniquely.
- dafragsta, on 07/07/2009, -1/+3AT LEAST you cited something I can go read now. It does not excuse the dismissive attitude you have for theoretical particle physics. I certainly haven't read much about plasma cosmology, so that's something to chew on, but it does not right the majority of long-winded rhetorical spew that just sounds of bitter refusal to accept the fact that theoretical science must eventually become applied science or grants get pulled.
Theoretical physics has produced experiments that have yielded observations too weird for anyone to categorize into a tidy pigeon hole. We know quarks exist and must pass through matter as if it weren't even there. We know subatomic particles exist in a state of superposition that collapses when observed based on probability. The reason this gets so much money and press is that quantum weirdness has been observed in experiments and people want to know more. CERN would not be producing the world's most expensive, largest, and possibly one of the most dangerous experiments if there had been no observational science predating it. All science begins with shots taken in the dark. - kheptril, on 07/07/2009, -1/+3Double Dutch, obviously...
- nextekcarl, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2I'm just glad you didn't say, "I'm interested in science and electronics blah blah blah so I know this to be true blah blah blah"
When String theory starts to predict something (anything) that we can test then we can start to talk. Anything before that is premature at this point.
Some people have become fanatics and are thinking more with their Hearts than their brains. They so disparately want to be the gifted as to be the first to understand Everything (the theory of) that they forgot: Our Hearts lie to us all the time. It tells us what we want to hear, not what necessarily is the truth. Looked at critically, String Theory might pan out, but it might not. There is no reason to be certain either way yet, since it hasn't made any predictions that we can actually test and therefore prove one way or another. - Ranzera, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2You could have just summed it up as "An answer looking for a problem".
I think that it's a worthwhile approach in that it's another way of looking at things. More perspective if always a good thing. - kingmanic, on 07/07/2009, -0/+2blindhammer: When you initiate a conversation on something by incorrectly attacking the metaphysic basis of a philosophy as pln2bz did you are attacking that philosophy. He is trying to discredit deductive science because a lot of the evidence for our cosmology is deductive because of out inability to actually get out there. Science is a highly specialized practical philosophy. If he objects to deductive reasoning and math oriented theoretical work then in fact he is attacking the basis of science and being antagonistic. His and your stance that there is a procedural flaw with our science which ignores his pet theory is antagonism is he cannot supply supporting data. All either of you supply is conjecture from the same handful of kooky unreferenced web sites. Unreferenced meaning they do no cite any primary data sources. They just hand wave at organization they think may support them like the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (note they aren't a primary science research group. Their a professional organization which occasional puts out applied science white papers. They do not support the 'electric universe' model but 'electric universe' supported like to site them because they have 'electrical' in their name)
Since he poses no alternative to this only wishing to ban a aspect of science that is particularly damaging to his pet theory he is not being constructive in his approach. CrazedLeper supports the attack ont he metaphysics because both of crazedleper and pln2bz require some parts of science to be ignored to continue believing in their cosmology. CrazedLeper has a feverishly religious cosmology while pln2bz has a heavily unsupported but pseudo scientific one.
see crazedlepers post for evidence of a irrationally anti-science position. -
Show 51 - 100 of 140 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is