Severian

Let me put it this way. If we had spent as much money developing nuclear power as we have spent developing oil, we would all be driving nuclear powered cars by now.

Yes' date=' the data will never [b']prove[/b] that the universe is flat - there will always be some error on the measurement. But the error is already small enough in my opinion to require any 'nearly flat' scenario to explain the fine-tuning required.

The first statement is correct, but the second is not. The WMAP data imply the universe is spacially flat, and temporally open. So (if they are correct) there will be no big crunch. The flatness measure is not a measure of the mass/energy density - it is an actual measurement of the geometry. Then one asks what mass/energy density is required to provide this geometry, which leads to the need for dark matter (and dark energy). The neutrino masses are far too small to provide the required dark matter, but there could be a sterile (right-handed) neutrino with a much larger mass which could do it.

No serious scientist claims there is evidence for strings or extra dimensions. There is now 30 years worth of experimental evidence for quarks. (I have no idea what you mean by 'hardly exist'.) Short of a quark knocking on your front door and introducing himself, I don't know what further evidence you require to be convinced. (Incidentally, the the evidence for the existance of quarks is orders of magnitude better than the evidence for evolution of the species by natural selection, which I would also claim as indisputable.) Go look at the latest WMAP data. Do you see just a 'couple of data points'? No - it is a very comprehensive analysis. The radiation given off by stars has a very different temperature and therefore a very different spectrum. the CMBR is a perfect black body spectrum at 2.7K, exactly as predicted.

There was no storm recently, and the aerial feeds into the sky box, which is ok. Well, someone is coming around tomorrow to take a look at it.

First of all, this is not really a new (or surprising) result. We have had good evidence for neutrino oscillations (and therefore mass) for some time. This is a confirmation of previous results (albeit with much better precision). Secondly, to say that it is a contradiction of the Standard Model is a little disingenuous. It is a correct statement, since the SM simply has the neutrino masses set to zero, but to build a 'new' Standard Model, with neutrino masses one simply removes the zero mass assumption. There is no inconsistancy in the SM with saying neutrinos have mass (which would not have been the case if, for example, we found the photon had mass). The more interesting question is why are their masses so small? To my mind, this is probably explained by the see-saw mechanism, but that is certainly not clear. And we still have no idea why the top quark is 350,000 times heavier than the electron....

Hmmm.... something tells me that 'Peak Oil Man' may have a vested interest in this topic...

Erm... it is well know that magnetism is a relativistic effect (an electric field in one reference frame is a magnetic field in another). Are you trying to say something new?

If Condoleeza Rice were (for some absurd reason) to be given the Republican nomination, do you think she would get votes from democrats simply for being balck and female? Or are the democrats not that stupid?

Number 3 could be used to declare the Higgs boson as pseudoscience, and number 7 seems to attack the whole of modern particle physics! Edit: My numbers are refering to the OP, not Bascule's post.

My TV stopped working today too. When I switch it on, it comes on for a fraction of a second and then switches itself off again. I am not sure what is wrong, but I was wondering if it is a static charge build up. I will try leaving it unplugged for a few days to see if that helps. I can't really afford a new TV right now

scienceforums.com has some funny threads though. http://forums.hypography.com/physics-mathematics/6002-explain-mass.html This one made me giggle - I think it is the way they try and appear knowledgable and then spout a load of garbage.

Well, I hope I am never tried in front of a Jury of Fox News journalists. Their idea of 'solid evidence' is a little bit suspect...

All lasting relationships are built on a foundation of lies. Go back to her, and tell her that you don't really love her after all. You were just confused (being at that boy to man stage) and mistook the urge for cheap meaningless sex for love. I am sure she will understand and you can both have a jolly good laugh about it. Whatever you do, don't tell her you went to an online forum to ask your nerd scientist buddies what you should do....

Incidentally, if you had a scalar with the same quantum numbers as the photon (and a coupling to the photon obviously) it would mix with the photon to give the photon a mass. This is exactly what happens to the Z-boson. The Higgs scalar field provides the longitudinal component of the Z boson's spin.

So point-like particles like the electron aren't physical?

Who is this 'we' you keep talking about?

I think Sezzybaby and logicBomb should arrange a meeting....

It is not so much that the three-bran is transparent to the photon - it is that the photon is constrained to always lie on the brane. So it cannot interact with anything not on the three-brane and thus we only see the brane and nothing else.

I fail to see why localisation need have anything to do with quantisation. A raindrop is localized water, but it isn't quantised - I can have big or small raindrops. Also, your idea places a special status for 'emitters/receivers' - you require a special property when interacting with them. Now, if the emitters/receivers where really 'us' (as you say) then I wouldn't be so worried about that, but the plate emitting the photon in the photoelectric effect is not 'us'. If the photon is quantised when leaving the plate, why would it not continue to be a quantised field?

It is good that you do. This is the Baryon Asymmetry problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry

And what causes this inequality of matter and anti-matter?

The photoelectric effect demands quantisation, which is exactly what QED gives you, so where is the problem?

But why do you think that is undesirable?