What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
All-time Low Fares for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up. Nifty all-airline calendar identifies absolute cheapest dates to fly.
83 Comments
- cerejota, on 07/07/2009, -0/+32What? Science pwns Science?
What that means is:
Science, FTW! - Nydendarin, on 07/07/2009, -1/+30I would rather spend a lifetime in the pursuit of knowledge that will always escape me, than consign myself to the practice of 'Eh, let's just say God made it'.
- inactive, on 07/07/2009, -0/+28"YOU CANNOT BREAK THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!!", Montgomery Scott
- inkswamp, on 07/07/2009, -0/+18Given that science has saved lives as well as improved the quality of life immeasurably, I can pretty much live with its "replaceable logic." In fact, I view that as a virtue rather than a drawback. I'd rather have that than the fixed, immovable dogma that accompanies most religions.
And when the day comes that religion starts saving as many lives as science, we'll talk. - cerejota, on 07/07/2009, -0/+16You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I suggest you keep to topics more your brain size:
It is precisely the ability of science to both deliver practical results, and takes yesterday's establishment and laugh at it today that makes science so amazing.
From ether to string theory, from alchemy to chemistry... such is the march of science. No other epistemology in the entire human history has shown such resilience and ability to quickly discard that which is wrong, and adopt that which is right. - piieerrrree, on 07/07/2009, -0/+16peer review?
- gutistg, on 07/07/2009, -0/+12Science is the process, don't confuse science with the products of science.
- jihadjohnson, on 07/07/2009, -0/+11I don't think its fair to say they 'broke the laws of physics,' such a thing cannot be done. Nature will always adhere to the laws of physics and its our job to understand them, and we're just getting better and better at it.
- karmabandit, on 07/07/2009, -0/+10I'm willing to bet that the article is referring to this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3279
Even though that is a very technical paper, I think it's introduction is pretty generally accessible. Regardless, I'll try to give a short summary. As a few previous posters suggested, the authors did not break any laws of physics. Instead they settled an apparently longstanding puzzle about how various things scale with size on fractal networks.
The who-what scales with what-now, you ask? "Scaling with size" means how rapidly properties of the network increase as you make the network larger. A network is basically anything you can imagine making out of tinkertoys, or gumdrops and toothpicks-- basically a bunch of blobs (nodes) connected with lines (paths). A fractal network is just a network that is a fractal (surprise!) and has the interesting property that basic quantities scale with *fractional* powers when you make the fractal larger. Anyway...
Previously, people proved (yes, "proved", as in the mathematical sense) that with a few assumptions fractal networks would scale in one particular way. So, they postulated that this was universal, that it worked even when the assumptions didn't apply. But these guys have now shown that it is not universal, and gave a specific example where it does not work. Moreover, they give a new equation, which works in their new case and also in the old cases, and they postulate that this is now the universal relation. I believe they claim to have proved that, but I'm not in any position to judge whether that's correct or not.
So, in summary, it's just progress as usual. The paper's introduction gives examples of how these results are useful "in real life", and gives much more detail about it. So read it if you're at all interested! - NegativeDigg, on 07/07/2009, -0/+9I hope you have this same logic if you ever get cancer and are looking for a treatment.....
- piieerrrree, on 07/07/2009, -0/+8... did you even read the article? The law that was broken didn't work _in some instances_, and it was improved upon. That means it does work in many instances, just not in all, and the improvement would help the results. These laws will probably be even more elaborate in the future.
That's how science works. - DirtyVicar, on 07/07/2009, -1/+9"YE CANNA break the laws of physics"
- changedmind, on 07/07/2009, -0/+67|-|3'/ Ph0U|\|D 7|-|@ d3_DU57 7074LL'/ p\/\/|\|5 d3_DU572 4|\|D 901|\|9 U|\|D3R 7|-|3 bR1D93 /\/\19|-|7 74|<3 L0|\|93R 7|-|4|\| 901|\|9 7|-|R0U9|-| 7|-|3 7U|\||\|3L 3\/3|\| 7|-|0U9|-| 7|-|3'/ r 7|-|3 54/\/\3 d1574|\|(3
- inactive, on 07/07/2009, -0/+5Replacing old theories with new ones is the ***** point of science.
- vizerei, on 07/07/2009, -2/+7Is it just me or does this article have very little explanation of the science? And does it sound like it was written for a 5th grader to understand?
Dunno, I usually like PhysOrg, this article sucks ass though. I still have no idea how they broke the laws of physics, why they broke, or what they even did besides something having to do with fractals and an animal foraging for food in an easier way. - Cl1mh4224rd, on 07/07/2009, -0/+4> "I don't think its fair to say they 'broke the laws of physics,' such a thing cannot be done. "
There's an implied "as we understand them" attached to that phrase. - jimbs, on 07/07/2009, -0/+4What on earth are the "fractal-Einstein and Alexander-Orbach" laws? I'm not a physics dummy, but these laws are new to me. When I google them, they look more like math theory than physical theory.
- iMick, on 07/07/2009, -0/+4Dugg for UQ, my old stomping ground!
- flossdaily, on 07/07/2009, -0/+4except then he did.
- bilious, on 07/07/2009, -0/+4Original source, with much fewer advertisements: http://www.uq.edu.au/news/index.html?article=18753
Posting from within the lovely UQ St Lucia campus right now. (It's pretty, go Google Image search it.)
As far as the actual content of the article goes, sure it seems like it's a no-brainer, but the difficulty lies in defining the problem and describing it mathematically. You can't really submit "f(x) = Common sense. Duh." for a PhD thesis. - Paranor01, on 07/07/2009, -0/+3@zincroth: What a silly thing to say, science cannot be trusted. It's not some entity that speaks. Science is the pursuit of knowledge... nothing more, nothing less. Knowledge itself is neutral - it is what it is.
Man however is not neutral, he dances around from the extremes of one side to the other side and everywhere in between. Man is responsible for how knowledge is used. It's our responsibility... all of ours.
"There is nothing to fear but fear itself." is a wise saying that explains your comment, and anyone else of similar view. It is not science that you fear, but the men who do with science what their bias' allows them to do. For seeming good and bad. It is the plight of moral people to see that good always comes from knowledge. But without knowledge, you cannot rise above a bias.
And open mind see's more wonderment than one that is closed and fixed. - cerejota, on 07/07/2009, -0/+3Well said!
- LumenMelano, on 07/07/2009, -0/+3Well it isn't pretty today, pretty overcast as I look out the Steele building. And we haven't broken ***** around here. :p
- iEATcatFOOD, on 07/07/2009, -1/+4that's *natural* selection, not darwinian.
- DirtyVicar, on 07/07/2009, -0/+3I'm not sure I'd trust a rational argument from someone who starts off by writing "theorys".
Science = knowledge, and knowledge is ***** king. - sooperdooper, on 07/07/2009, -0/+3Haha, I like the suspense in the title.
"*Phew!* I was afraid they had broken a REAL law! Nope, just physics!" - SirBruce, on 07/07/2009, -1/+4They didn't really "break" a law of physics. What they showed was that what was thought to be a mathematical "law" about the behavior of the diffusion of molecules in a fractal system was in fact wrong, at least for a certain class of fractals. Since many subsequent theroies have relied on this law (actually two laws), the result has wide-ranging implications.
Basically they proved some previous scientists didn't prove their case rigorously enough and were in error. Science is now in the process of adapting to the new truth. - Cl1mh4224rd, on 07/07/2009, -0/+2Oblig: "Science. It works, bitches."
http://xkcd.com/54/ - Yage2006, on 07/07/2009, -0/+2I will wait for this to get peer reviewed before judging its merits.
- Yage2006, on 07/07/2009, -0/+2@zincroth
More proof that science works dumbass its other scientists using the scientific method that can make new discovery's
You however are more proof that the American public needs better education in science or else you would never make such a statement.
And would you prefer we do away with science and do what exactly ? - cc08, on 07/07/2009, -1/+3So I suppose we should turn to God then right?
- Gusbob, on 07/07/2009, -0/+2Scientific Theories are not just the 'theories' in everyday language connotation. They have to be rigorously proven and able to make accurate predictions.
- inactive, on 07/07/2009, -0/+2Yeah being a UQ student also, I feel I deserve some credit.
- samk, on 07/07/2009, -0/+2I've always suspected the Alexander-Orbach law was BS. That Orbach was such a twit.
- blix797, on 07/07/2009, -0/+2We didn't break the laws of physics, we found a new way to describe a particular law of physics.
- rotundo, on 07/07/2009, -0/+2“Under the old laws, the probability of the animal locating food in either valley was equal, regardless of which was easier. Intuitively we can see that this just isn't the case."
My intuition is apparently broken :/ - sooperdooper, on 07/07/2009, -0/+2Solomon Grundy, born on a Mundy?
- djamp42, on 07/07/2009, -0/+2The fact is, the "Laws of physics" are not laws at all, rather theories that have yet to be proven wrong.
- spriggig, on 07/07/2009, -0/+1It's our understanding of physics that progresses and changes--out with the old and in with the new that more closely models observed reality. Unlike superstition, science can be used to make accurate predictions about our physical world.
- guruboyguru, on 07/07/2009, -1/+2If you think you broke the laws of physics, your laws were wrong.
- inactive, on 07/07/2009, -0/+1GPS. I have no room. Just an IT student :( One day!
- appleofdischord, on 07/07/2009, -0/+1/agree
The only way in which intuition suggests the easier path is the wider one is if we take into account how far away you can see food from. I would have expected the more difficult path to contain more food (or at least equal) for the following reasons:
1) There are more places for food to hide
2) If food is more plentiful on the "easy" side, predation would increase until chances of finding food on each side are approximately equal.
That's at least what my intuition tells me. - theviceroy, on 07/07/2009, -0/+1Its one catchy -- byline!
- inactive, on 07/07/2009, -0/+1dammit the one time i dont check comment history.
- darkened, on 07/07/2009, -0/+1Unless you changes the laws.
- An800lbGorilla, on 07/07/2009, -0/+1AIBN building., number 76 near the UQ lakes.
- phrstbrn, on 07/07/2009, -0/+1It's too bad the internet doesn't have a sarcasm meter, that way I wouldn't hear the *wooshing* sound over dandaman's and Turambar's head.
ps. bad troll is bad - Mujokan, on 07/07/2009, -0/+1Cannae actually.
- Paranor01, on 07/07/2009, -1/+2Dugg for Trek
- Eurynom0s, on 08/17/2009, -0/+1But Star Trek broke its own rules so many god damn times.
Aye Captain, it did. -
Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is