Royston

Well I have a 'passion' for music, I own a production studio...but I still consider it a hobby i.e I'm not in it for money or success or any other reason than just to write music. I have the same attitude with physics...I only stated 'no results', because I'm not going to sulk if I don't accomplish anything new e.g I'm serious about music, but I'm not serious about a success in music (if that makes sense.) I find the field of physics absolutely fascinating, and most important for me is having the ability to manipulate ideas i.e 'shut up and CALCULATE', I would consider a career in a scientific field as a very good added bonus. For instance the university I'm with had a team of fifteen helping with the Cassini-Huygens mission, that would be a dream to work on, and if I'm lucky enough to get involved in such a project then great. For me, the career isn't so important, I just wanted to know, if I really want to be serious about theoretical physics, who should I be listening to, and going by the responses so far, it's a case of playing it by ear, and working very hard.

I agree, it was really in response to abskebabs, spending a lot of time was probably a slight exaggeration, but if you asked me 'what rocks my world', it's meditating (for want of a better word) on the principles and possible relationships of the fundamentals...I don't see any problem at thrashing out ideas, that could possibly be used, or disregarded later on. Going back to the OP, I was really concerned with should I start on further reading / study outside my degree, in a particular field. This now appears to be rather fruitless, my main concerns now, are getting my mathematical ability to a level that I could produce my own theoretical papers, and obviously making every effort to attain a good grade for my degree. That way, whatever the field of physics is doing in X amount of years, I wouldn't of spent a lot of time chasing the ideas of a particular field e.g string. I realize now, I was completely jumping the gun, and whatever path I take, it's my technical ability that really needs attention, so I can start calculating my pondering (that is what I'd really like to do), whatever career I may be doing at the time. I realize this may all sound far too hopeful, and naive, but theory is really what I'm interested in. I'm completely aware that I may end up with no results whatsoever, like Fredrik, it may end up just as a hobby, which personally would be great...I can set my own deadlines However, this has all been invaluable advice, so thanks all for your responses.

I appreciate the advice, but I have several long term goals and projects, my degree and hopefully post-grad education being one of them. What I tried to make clear is that this 'slump', just happens, I've had it for long enough to analyze what could possibly trigger it (it definitely appears random), and I've tried various techniques to 'think my way out of it', which I can do quite easily if I'm stressed at work for example. Like I said, it's the opposite of how I am usually. But as it only lasts a few days. and I've had it as long as I can remember, I've never really thought about seeking advice. Considering (so far) it hasn't really hampered anything I'm trying to accomplish, I really hate the thought of wasting a GP's time with it. But, when I do get a bout of the blues, it's really not pleasant.

I noticed this... http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/member.php?u=12366 what is it exactly, a VB error, or somebody hacking the forums ?

Shot in the dark, but is the ceremony being held at the Pavillion ? I live just a few miles down the road...a friend of mine recently got married there.

Congrats ajb ! That's great news, and I wish the both of you a very happy future together. Out of interest, are you getting married in the UK ?

I've had this since I can remember, and probably why I've done nothing about it i.e I'm used to it, but it's now becoming rather tiresome and sometimes embarrassing. I guess because I'm now (ancient to some, young to others) 30 and I'm getting rather irritated that I get this mood, which reminds me of an introverted teenager, completely lacking in self esteem. I get these slumps in mood, and I can't pin point it to any activity I may have recently been doing, or any change in my circumstances e.g work becoming stressful. However, and it only lasts a couple of days at a time, and also happens without warning, but I just sink into this incredibly low state, where I feel anything I say has no worth, that I'm just a useless sack of crap, and I also take things incredibly personally, and become very defensive. I also beat myself up (not physically) if I get something wrong, or don't understand something. I'm just coming out of a recent slump, that I've been going through the last couple of days. When I don't get these bouts, I'm almost the exact opposite. I don't seem to experience this mood swing enough to warrant treatment and certainly not medication, I just wondered if this is actually normal (whatever that is), because it's quite a clear and distinct effect, and I can't rationalize why I feel like it enough, to literally 'think myself out of it.' I can pretend in social situations that everything is fine, but this can sometimes prolong the mood. Like I said, it is getting rather annoying, (especially when I've been labelled weird and insane in the past) so why is it so short lived, and why does it seem to occur with no warning, and no influence from any external changes? Should I seek help, or get a diagnosis, or am I worrying about nothing ?

You've pretty much summed up my thoughts, and it's the fundamentals and possible connections between fundamental theories that constantly keep me up at night....this may seem rather pretentious, because I don't hold the technical know how, but a lot of my time is spent, quite literally, sitting in the back garden and pondering on the fundamentals, and how they are part descriptions of some unique and not yet considered view of nature...yeargh, that really does sound pretentious. Martin summed up what this thread was really about. So really, it was a hopelessly naive question, not only that, I came across as though I presumed I had what it takes to reach PhD level, which really wasn't what I intended...so I apologize if that caused offence to anybody. Taxi for Snail

But the OP didn't mention pregnancy, and it was made clear that no examination took place, it's probably better to resolve exacty what the problem is before recommending specialists.

<slaps forehead> Oops, you're right, I stupidly missed one word out, yet I was still reading the statement as how I intentionally meant to write it, i.e 'by that definition the universe is everything'...oh dear. I didn't really think my other responses through properly, so I apologize for that.

I think you've skewed my point Lucaspa... I didn't state the universe is 'everything', I was arguing the basis of that statement assumed the universe is everything, hence 'stands alone'. I believe certain areas are undefined until they can be tested. I think 'deity' is undefined, and open to interpretation...interpretation can't be tested. I also don't think 'deity' is appropriate for the discussion. I would also argue that the universe includes what we're yet to discover, so 'what we can observe' will change over time. However, 'what we can observe' is another matter of convenience, and I completely agree with that definition as far as science is concerned.

I must admit I didn't realize it was still very competitive in the UK, not the standard, but the number of students. I realize I'm completely tied by my performance, and the positions available...I think I was over estimating the influence string theory had on other fields, hence my question. Overlooking the numerous specialized areas in QFT, string theory, cosmology et.c the areas of research (I thought) are geared towards falsifying theories such as string, so I thought this may have a heavy influence, whichever field I may end up in. Thanks for the advice. I'd personally be more than happy just to pass my degree, plus what I aim for, and what actually happens are obviously different. It was more a hypothetical question...i.e if I were given the choice. I'll look into it, thanks. EDIT: BenTheMan, thanks as well...that's all very useful information.

I'm approaching the end of my first year physics degree (part time, so second year of study) and I aim to go as far as Phd level. My question is, there's a lot of talk on here of 'string theory is good because of blah blah blah', and 'string theory is bad, because of blah blah blah', from experienced and inexperienced members. I can understand why experienced members may find views on string theory, perhaps, sometimes insulting, because the views are from people who don't have the knowledge to give a truly informed opinion. However it's up to the authorities in string camp, and say (an example) LQG camp, and whatever other branch you care to mention, to inform people in my position, what is the area of interest I should be focusing on, when eventually I wish to study for my Phd. From my point of view, I try and grab as much info on different opinions concerning the (somewhat) segregated branches of theoretical physics, to try and ascertain what I should be planning to concentrate my study on. This is all I have, I have the basics to intermediate in applied maths / physics / chemistry / biology et.c As well as all the further reading, and learning on here. However, I don't possess the level of knowledge to understand highly technical explanations, that would favour one theory over another, I have hand wavy ideas, but it's not enough. I've heard lots of convincing arguments, primarily about testing said theories, and I'm now at a loss whether there's sources of bias, or uncertainty, or perhaps bitterness fueling the whole string debate. So lets suppose I've completed my masters today, and I now have to make a choice between what area of research I wish to concentrate on, I've heard arguments on both sides, advocating string theory, and slamming string theory. What really should I be choosing, string or no string...and why ? EDIT: If it's impossible to answer, please say.

<sigh> Approximations doesn't mean 'wrong', take Newtonian mechanics for example, it makes predictions and it works for all manner of scenarios, but the equations are still approximations, just because a theory is incomplete doesn't mean it's 'wrong', there is a difference. Hypercube, I don't understand your 'point', lets take an example such as calculus, simple differentiation is one dimensional...a point particle on a plane, vector calculus is two or more dimensions and so on. I'm not versed in string theory, but it's a mathematical construct, so to say one dimension can't exist physically AFAICS, is completely missing the point.

It could be a number of things from infection to Gonorrhoea, why your GP diagnosed the problem without an examination is odd. I'd perhaps try a different GP, and as you said, demand an examination. It's generally not a good idea to get ideas for treatment off the internet, especially when the problem hasn't been properly diagnosed.

So did you, ahem, settle your rent with alternative payment arrangements. With the OP, maybe you should make good of a bad situation. Have you thought of starting a flea circus ? Who knows, in a few years time you'll be running your own dinosaur theme park on a small island, 170 miles off the coast of Costa Rica.

Lack of (darkness), doesn't mean opposite (in physics terms) if that's the answer you're looking for. The photino is the photons superpartner, but I know very little about gauge theory and supersymmetry, but I do know that it doesn't class as an anti-photon, as already mentioned, they don't exist anyway.

REM sleep isn't a disorder like you said...it's essential, but sleep paralysis certainly isn't essential, like Lockheed I used to experience this as well, when taking afternoon naps, you can see your surroundings (as though you're awake) but you can't move and you can't breathe properly. It can be very scary if you've never experienced it before.

Almost exactly, apart from the strong gangster rap influence, there's a definite influence from rave culture, where clubs across Britain have accommodated for teenage nights, where they'll play trashy happy hardcore, and European dance music (imagine the crazy frog music, minus crazy frog) excruciatingly unimaginative and irritating. Dumbed down music, if you like. Which ties in with the media catering for the market. Which is a shame, because, there's been some incredibly good music to come from the hedonistic late eighties / early nineties of Britain. Yes, chav isn't really gender specific...female chavs, let's call them chavettes, certainly fill the criteria you've mentioned. The only ethical solution, or at least part of the solution is clogging the artery of dumbed down media influence, and perhaps enforcing mandatory ethics classes at school, unfortuantely I doubt the latter would have any effect. Also, there's much more to the problem as already mentioned in earlier posts.

My bad, this was just from memory (a book I read some time ago) and 'nothing can exist outside the universe' is just an assumption to concentrate on hypotheses that can be experimentally tested, it's a matter of convenience. As Bascule pointed out the other night, the statment as it stands alone is a tautology anyway, if we're to take the universe as 'everything', which by definition the universe is.

I remember experiencing acute deja vu when I visited 'Isla del Sol' in Bolivia...when I say acute, I just couldn't shake the feeling off, even when I went into other environments e.g like one of the tiny restaurants, I was convinced I'd been there before, it was very strange and unique to that place.

Right, sorry I must of missed this when it was mentioned. See bold...this was one of my concerns, as well as vice versa...using science to refute certain belief systems, that are clearly outside of science. As I said, I didn't realize you were revamping the moderation or isolating the section...so GOOD LUCK ! But personally I'm going to opt out. It's a real shame the 'philosophy of science' lost momentum as some of the subjects were very interesting, and no mention of religion...which is one of those subjects you don't bring to the dinner table, as well as, I discovered a while ago...chimpanzees I'm personally against it, because I got fed up with saying 'but science has nothing to say on the matter', ' but that's completely up for interpretation', 'but that's outside science.' I hope for the sake of this site, the same tired arguments don't keep cropping up, which they might not, but I'm rather tired of debating the subject of religion...it's a tricky subject to debate, and kudos if you guys can pull it off.

I smoke roughly 6 to 8 a day (roll ups) though I've noticed this goes up when I try to quit, due to the stress of trying to give up I used to smoke more when I was younger IIRC, however I do smoke quite heavily when doing assignments...so for me personally it fluctuates, depending on what I'm doing et.c Congrats John F, I'm planning on quitting 'again' at the end of the summer, when my course has finished.

I voted '1000', just because I'd imagine research in string to be steady, until some evidence that falsifies string theory comes about, which I don't think is very likely this year. Also, because it seems so popular (in the States at least) I would doubt there would be a slump even if new evidence did come to light...I get the general impression that advocates of string would probably come up with something else (not too sure on this...the sources of my general impression maybe bias.) I must admit, I've never heard of the study of 'string phenomenology', do they have their own definition of the word, because as already mentioned, surely that's a contradictory term.

Going by the OP, I think I might know the problem. If you assume that space-time has some fixed background e.g imagine a three dimensional lattice and introduce a sphere moving within it, the lattice distorts inwards at the position of the sphere, and leaves a residual effect due to it's motion (the damage.) However, space-time isn't some seperate fixed entity in which objects move in, it's a product of those objects and their motion. So there can't be any damage, because space-time is defined by the effects of motion of objects e.g gravity waves, it's very dynamic. Saying that Foofighter probably had something completely different in mind.