mooeypoo

When we go into "infinite", almost anything is possible. That means that there *are* other yous out there, because there are *infinite* possibilities. I do agree that there are a whole lot more 'non you' universes, probably a vast majority of 'not even having life' or 'not even having gravity' or 'having weird quantum mechanics' universes (universii?) but the point is that when you go up to "infinite", rules of statistics tend to give you some sort of number of things that up 'till then were almost impossible. Physics' wise, you're probably right. It'd utterly ridiculous. We'd find way more universes with bizarre effects (like lack of gravity or lack of matter or weird universal constants, etc) than anything even remotely resembling us. HOWEVER. For the sake of playing around, I do have a few caveats. First, not *everything* is luck. That is, even if there are variations in universes, they're not entirely infinite because things go by certain rules. Once you set up those rules, the universe goes by them. So, for example, once the universe has gravity and quantum mechanics, then molecules are attracted, matter is formed, etc. In the absolute majority of universes with gravity and quantum mechanics that allow for them, this will happen. Then, the variations are *relatively* small, though I do agree that they *lead* to big changes eventually. But I think you're expecting more variation than there probably will be; at some point, "similar enough" universes will have more or less similar *basic* structures. Does that make sense? Second, even if there are infinite number of universes and only a tiny amount of them are close enough to us -- if we already build equipment to "jump" between universes (which I think is much more of a problem here, btw) -- why can't we assume that equipment 'checks' for universes that are similar to ours? We can simply say that the universes we see in StarGate, StarTrek and Fringe are similar due to selection bias. They *chose* the universes that *do* exist and *are* similar to us. We're taking such a big leap by assuming there are other universes, and that there are infinite universes, and that we can 'jump' between them, that this above assumption seems to me to be rather small. So let's separate between two things here. * Physically speaking -- yeah, I agree with you. It's probably ridiculous. Though I would say that there probably are some "type of stuff" that are more likely to be repeated, like the formation of matter and stars and certain gasses and elements, etc, which might lead to other statistically more prevalent stuff. * Entertainingly speaking -- let it go, they do it for the drama ~mooey p.s I don't have a problem with the reply editor, it sounds like there might be a glitch for you. If you send me a PM with what browser you're using, I'll make sure an admin will take a look and help out.

This is the same type of problem as with planetary travel, though. Notice how all the SciFi shows like Star Trek, StarGate, etc that have visits to other planets seem to have *very* similar life forms (either to humans or to things we find on Earth) and very similar environment. In StarGate they even started laughing at their own expense at some point when O'Neil (the "army man") asked Carter (the "scientist") if she ever noticed how each planet has green trees and grass, etc. The writers of the show solved this by having her start answering with a semi-coherent answer (something about how the gate-system they're traveling in was built by people who looked for specific planets) but then cut her off mid-thought with an action scene, so it was never *properly* explained. It was, however, amusing, and a point well taken - the show itself hinted at you to suspend your disbelief. I love when that happens, it instantly boosts the show's quality for me. I think it's more or less the same in the other shows with regards to universes. We had a lecture in Campus about universes, M-theory and quite a lot about antropy, etc. It was mentioned there that even the slightest tiniest change in *any* universal constant might make the universe completely unsuitable for life, or matter not be able to form. So we're not just talking about "small change = you went to a different kindergarten". We are talking about "small change = the planets never existed in the first place". That's huuuuge difference for a tiny tiny change. So here's what I love about sci-fi: It makes people *think* about this, and then *talk* about this, and get into the *actual* physics behind things. That's what StarTrek and StarGate did for me, honestly. I know the physics is mostly junk, but it made me think of which parts of it might be true, and made me go out and look, get interested, and eventually get a Physics degree. I think we should not expect SciFi shows to be realistic They should have enough 'grain' of realism and enough internal consistency to grab us and keep us watching. They should be honest to their audience in what to expect; you can see that a show like Fringe is scifi and not 'based on a true story' - it's quite obvious. And if it sparks our imagination to go out and look for what *does* make sense in reality? All hail that show. ~mooey

I actually agree, this is a huge pet peeve of mine as well. Two things, though: 1. I let go of this pet peeve in Sci Fi movies/shows a while ago in favor of suspended-disbelief. I mean, let's face it. Having an alternate universe with "alternate us" makes for good television, so I let it go. I liked sliders, despite the blatant physics mistakes (your point was probably the least of their errors btw ) 2. This is a pop-sci explanation of alternative universes. That is, I doubt many physicists really think what Fringe or Sliders present. That said, if I understand it correctly, the cosmos theories (I never really understood M-theory, so excuse me if I got this part wrong) speak of *infinite* universes. When you talk about infinite universes, the chances that you get an alternate 'you' that is slightly similar to the real 'you' is small, but the 'infinite' part makes the actual number a lot bigger, and plausible. Add to that the idea that many SciFi shows have about "calibrating their equipment" to "find" "viable alternate universes" and this gets from funny and ridiculous to something you might succeed in suspending disbelief over. ~mooey

Don't get me wrong, I agree that there have been periods in our history where discoveries were overlooked -- discoveries that would, very likely, have been revolutionary. I actually thought of writing a short story, a kind of "what if" scenario, of what if those discoveries were *not* ignored, and where would the human development be today. But I think that thinking we'd be ahead a thousand years, or even a hundred, is over simplifying history. The reason these discoveries weren't used isn't just because they were "ridiculed". There were a lot of other dicoveries that were ridiculed but when they were demonstrated to actually work, the ridicule was meaningless. There are a lot of factors that affected a lot of those discoveries. In many of them, the *ideas* were in the right *direction* but not quite finalized in the right way, which made them not work, and not catch. It took us a while longer -- to figure other things out, to discover other ways, etc -- to go back to the initial ideas and refine them and make them work. In that sense, the scientific method is supposed to help us avoid 'skipping' good ideas, while keeping us focused rather than jump on any new invention that comes along even if it has no basis in reality, just because it sounds good. ~mooey As often happens, you summarized the point I was trying to make at the end of my post. Agree 100%.

No, it's progress. We didn't "lose" these things. They contributed in their own time to produce progress, and when we were ready to either use them or develop them or test them properly, we did so. Part of that reason is why we developed the scientific method -- so that we have a more reliable method of testing ideas than "simply" the "ridicule" or "perception" or the public. That, too, is progress. ~mooey

We have something similar in our college but we call it a learning center, and students come to get some sort of tutoring after the main classes in math and physics. To teach/tutor advanced physics, though, you have to be a grad student. The goal is great, but we have our flukes; the requirement to teach is to have at least an A in all required courses and physics, which imho is not enough to teach. It's also why, most likely, there were barely any physics 'tutors' around in the undergrad level (other than me and one more person). The way things are done in your campus sound pretty cool for the physics students too, seeing as you learn the subject matter better when you teach it, I just hope that not anyone can get in, and you have to demonstrate more than just "getting an A" in the class.

I'd take open source CMS system like Drupal or Joomla. They're stable enough to stand on their own, and the project of how to set them up and sort the data and customize the installation will keep you plenty occupied. Save time on programming the system if the system already exists...

I have a few question too! 1. What do you plan to do with your physics degree? (I think we talked about this, but things changed somewhat so I'm curious) 2. Do you think your experience in SFN -- as an admin but also as a moderator and as a participant in the discussions -- helped you in whatever you're going to do in the future? And how? 3. Related to the above question -- You once told me that you grew up a lot since you joined (at age 12), and I assume you didn't just mean the numerical age -- do you think SFN had a part in that growth? How much did participating here affected your way of thinking, or your goals, etc? ~mooey

No one's perfect. However, if you promise to cook me your famous schnitzels, you have a deal. I think in psychology you call this "Negotiation skills", although it doesn't always empirically work... In any case, just a pointer, in all things "international" I can help out, since I am one atm. You will need to work on having an "I-20", which is a document from your potential school (after you get in) that you then take to the US Embassy to get yourself an "F-1" visa, which allows you to study. You should be aware that an F-1 visa only allows you to work in school *or* in places that are directly related to your degree. And you are only allowed 20-hours-a-week (which is part-time) during semesters, and full time (40-hours a week) during semester breaks. The money from work will *not* cover your study expenses, so you might want to consider going to a public university or get a scholarship or fellowship. Don't dismiss public universities too fast. I know that from outside the US, especially due to hollywood movies (sadly), it seems like if you aren't in the big private schools, you won't really get anywhere. That's a myth. Of course going to Princeton or Yale is considered more prestigious, but there are *excellent* programs in public universities as well. As an example, my friend got accepted to the Solar Physics specialty in the University of Michigan, and it's considered one of the best in this specialty. Think about the specialty you want to do, and search schools by specialty and professors. Of course, try for the prestigious ones, but don't limit yourself. You might find that there are schools you never heard of (being out of the US) that are considered EXTREMELY good programs. Finally, one last tip of the day -- I remember mom helped me look for scholarships in Israel to study abroad. Students from all over the world do that in their prospective countries too; sometimes specific groups *in* the original country help subsidize degrees abroad. When I checked this we found a number of potential places for physics, but for me it wasn't relevant because all of them dealt with graduate programs, and I was an undergrad. You should look up Israeli/American alliance groups or educational foundations that might help you as an Israeli student to cover some expenses abroad. Welcome to the forum, sistah ~mooey Whaddayaknow, incidentally, she seems to have a birthday in Hanukkah... la la ..la.. You mean this guide? http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4270096.aspx ? It's funny, I work on the same type of book for physics now! ha. Anyways, is it really helpful? Touche. Living with me for her entire life, I think it would probably go more like "I have PTSD, can I help research it?!" which, technically, should be even more valuable. Now she's on the boards, so feel free to communicate directly, and thank you VERY much for all of this. I might (ab)use your email myself... mahaha ~mooey

! Moderator Note Since this is far (far far far) from mainstream, the thread is moved to speculation. So other than pretty colorful pictures, what is this supposed to mean? It's November 11th.

Awesome, Capn! Yay! Now I want an audio interview.

You guys rock, and thanks a lot, PhDwannabe for the lengthy and awesome response! I sent my sister an email and pointed her to this page. I am hoping she'll sign up and ask you guys directly (she understands psychobabble much more than me, the meek physicists ) but seriously, we're all grateful! Thanks! ~mooey and her sister Oh, and btw, the reason she got a bit panicky and bummed was because I told her exactly what you say here below, and especially regarding the process being rather late. She isn't planning on getting into a PhD program by 2012, but rather a year later, so this gives her enough time to do all the exams, figure things out and apply. As for sofa space, I will only give her mine if she admits psychology is not as empirical as physics... ~mooey

You weren't just calling them ignorant, and it wasn't about the content of your post, it was the attitude, and it wasn't just one post. ! Moderator Note The argument isn't the problem. The way you present it is. We don't require people to agree with one another, we require people to be civil. Please don't argue with moderation notes in the thread. If you think you experienced some injustice, use the report button and (other) moderators will examine it (again), or contact an admin.

Thanks CharonY! I know that for physics, the main agencies that can be approached for fellowships are the NSF, NCSE, national labs, etc. Are there any well known agencies for psychology in that aspect? We'll check out the APA, but that's about the only agency I know in terms of psychology. Any other ideas on that? She's going to do all exams (TOEFL, GRE and subject-GRE) this coming year to cover her bases, I think. Thanks for the help, and I'm sorry if these are questions that might be obvious -- she's all stressed out and i have no idea where to start, really. I think our best bet for the moment is a more extensive google search and have her talk to her professors, see if any of them studied in the US. Thanks again! ~mooey

Hi guys, My sister finished her BSc in Psychology in Ben Gurion University in Israel. She wants to continue to a PhD and eventually become a practicing psychologist, and she wants to study in the USA. She has research experience (whatever a BSc research experience is worth) and while her paper wasn't peer-reviewed-published (it's not yet a full fledged psychological research, more of a primer) she made us all squee in pride when her work appeared in the news (!). I know that news items aren't very "science" valid, but it's something. Also, her grades are great and she speaks very good English. I have no idea about the requirements of a psychology PhD or any graduate program in psychology. Do you need to do a Masters first, or do you go straight to PhD? How do you choose schools? Are there different programs? Which exams do you need to do, is it just GRE or also subject-GRE? etc. We are now starting a massive google search to start her out and learn what she needs to do and how to do it, but I was wondering if anyone might have any advice for her. My only expertise is in google searching and in physics programs, so I don't even know what the requirements are or if the process is the same to psychology as it is to physics... Does anyone have any suggestions as to websites or resources we can point her towards? Anyone knows about any programs that offer some sort of fellowship or scholarship so she can afford school, even to International Students? ((In physics, if you go to a PhD, you're 99% of the time covered in some scholarship or fellowship -- is this true of psychology too?)) Any help will be much appreciated! I'll try to get her to post here directly for specific questions that come up, she's a bit stressed out over everything. For now, we're just trying to organize it all and see how to just start the process and where to learn more about it. Thanks! ~mooey

! Moderator Note Seriously? Psycho, you're not a new member here. You already know our code of conduct. Being rude doesn't add credibility to your posts, and makes it extremely hard to read what you are writing. It's also against the rules. If you guys think other posters warrant the attention of staff, use the report button. Lowering yourselves to the level of rudness will just make us respond to the civility issue rather than a potentially more important underlying issue. Tone it down, please.

! Moderator Note There's absolutely NO reason being rude. Any point you want to make can be made in a civil manner. If you don't have a constructive comment to add to a thread, don't add anything. This goes to everyone, please. Stay civil.

Okay, I agree, and I see what you mean. I didn't mean to come off too condescending; it struck me as odd that the OP makes what I found as definitive claims and then shift the argument. You are right, though, and I might have gotten carried away. I still slightly disagree with minor points you're making as to the way I understood the posts, but the bigger point about attitude makes them rather moot. In any case, I think post #4, which is a rather blatant shift of the argument, drove me a bit farther into frustration and hence condescension. I apologize.

Not verified does not equal "not working". Although with due respect, in the scientific context, it kinda does. And yet that's not what I said, I said it's not verified, and the fact that other effects exist don't mean the more extreme one is true. I would imagine that would be something we agree on? Yep, we could, and I would if I had time. As it goes, I didn't, and since I am not the one making the claim that it *can* replace hypnosis, the burden of proof is on him. If you want to help out and look for evidence, feel free. Wait, the fact that the mechanism is poorly understood doesn't mean it's *impossible* for science to understand it. It might be -- and that's something I'm actually in complete agreement with -- that we didn't research it enough. Or, alternatively, that we don't have the proper tools just yet to completely understand all the effects. That said, I want to emphasize, again, that there seem to be two main issues here. Whether or not hypnosis works, and to what extent. The scientific literature seems to support the idea that hypnosis works, even though it's not quite clear *how* (which is something science SHOULD be able to fix given time, resources and more data). However, it seems to me that the OP jumps to the conclusion that therefore hypnosis works to a relatively *extreme* extent. That's fine, but he supplied no proof for that, which is why I raised a flag. I'm annoyed by shifting of argument and moving the goal posts. We all have our pet peeves. The original post was not about whether or not hypnosis has any effect, it was posted as a conclusion with faulty premises: Hypnosis isn't regarded as science because hypnosis is a tool, that was pointed out. The poster makes the BOLD claim that the use in surgery is recorded and verified. That required evidence, which is what we requested. The evidence produced were not good enough, at least in my opinion, which is why I supplied a counter-video and requested *proper* evidence. Even the evidence you supplied are not quite to the level of what the OP suggests. Then, the original post continues the conclusion to jump ahead of itself and asks a question that I'm not even sure makes any sense (he starts with "x is proven" and then claims 'proven' isn't good.. ?) In any case, I have no argument against hte beneficial effects of hypnosis, or self hypnosis, as I said, I've been doing it for years. However, I won't go around claiming that it's proven and recorded to work in surgery without proper proof. My own anecdotal experience that it helped me consistently for 25 years is irrelevant. So is the original poster's. I'm not sure what the problem is, Capn.

You're right, but in order to figure this out, you need to look at WHICH studies the meta analysis looked at, and make sure the studies the meta-analyses looked at were, individually, well formed and scientific. Otherwise,the meta analysis is worthless.

You know, critiques are great, but there are ways to present them. Starting one with "Pretty much sucks" without giving much of an explanation is not really critiquing. I know we encounter a lot of intentional crackpots around here, but I think it would serve all of us quite well if we get into these things with a bit less cynicism. I don't know about you, Dr Rocket, but I wasn't born with critical thinking. I was born with natural curiosity and very profound skepticism, but critical thinking is something you need to either formulate, learn, or practice. Even for the sake of trying to help a member research more and get more involved, I'd suggest that if you don't have anything constructive to say (and constructive doesn't have to be good, it just needs to be polite) then just don't say it at all. I'd much rather encourage people to BECOME critical thinkers than to beat them down to a pulp and have them run away from "people like us" because we're cruel, closed minded and condescending like the crackpots we fight so hard against claim we are. ~mooey Twinbird, our main 'problem' here is that all aspects of "psi" is unproven scientifically, and many of them were shown to be fraudulent. You seem to start your paper with the assumption that Psi exists, and then use references from meta-analyses and other sources to support very specific minor claims you're making. The problem with meta analyses is that they're not real experimental proofs. Meta analyses is research about resaerch; it's the grouping of multiple findings int eh same subjects to see if there's a trend. The problem in this particular case is that the experiments with regards to 'psi' are unreliable in general, and show very small effect (if any). They're not blinded, they lack proper controls and they are not usualyl replicable. A meta analysis of bad experiments yields a grouping of bad results. The main issue with this paper is that you start iwth a CONCLUSION (that psi exists) instead of asking whether or not it does, and searching to see what all the available information shows you. If you start with a conclusion, you will always be able to make the information fit (which is what you seem to be doing, knowingly or not). Btu if you start with a general question and look at *all* the evidence available, you get get a more realistic answer. Ask yourself: Did you search for research papers that *disprove* psi as well as those that prove it? Did you check if the experiments done were repetitive and peer reviewed? Were they all statistical analyses? How big was the sample group? ~mooey

Hang on, I didn't say it's NOT effective. I said the evidence he supplied doesn't make it effective. Also, please notice that the OP doesn't just claim hypnosis is effective on pain, he claims hypnosis is effective as used INSTEAD of general or local anastesia. That is yet unproven. I find this whole thing ironic. I, myself, meditate a form that's called "self hypnosis" almost nightly, since I was five. I use it to manage stress as well as pain, and I find it incredibly beneficial. I just don't see how you can make the *huge* leap from personal experience and some mild-effects and meta-studies to "it can replace anastasia" and "maybe science can't research it". There's quite a significant difference in what I said. Namely, now I have actual evidence to sift through and continue a proper debate, which we did not have before.