Sayonara Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 Nah, it wasn't. No, it wasn't. Apparently blank quotes don't get parsed. Fixed.
JaKiri Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 So in light of the above quote, is the word, idea, concept(whatever) of Infinite[/b'] IS or IS NOT meaningless in Physics? Infinite values are annoying, and quite a lot of effort is spent in their removal. One of an infinite number of possibilities isn't annoying. See the difference?
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 according to theory, there is only one kind that the dimensions are curled into. they have yet to pick one. calibi-yau shapes have been in mathematics for ages. there are infinite calibi-yau shapes, therefore an infinite number of posibilities. they just haven't picke one yet
JaKiri Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 what do you mean fixed? I fixed it. It's not a theory, it's a postulate. There is a significant difference, as I explained before. And for someone who has been shown to attempt to make argument on the basis of the definitions of words, you're not doing a very good job at using the right words in your posts.
JaKiri Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 no, its a theory. it is string THEORY. No, it's a postulate. It's just referred to as a theory because Pop Science doesn't really go for the proper words. Plus people don't like saying 'postulate' every five minutes. Although strictly speaking, it's not even a postulate given it doesn't predict anything and doesn't explain much that we do know.
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 how doesn't it explain much? it tells y there r three families of elementary particles. it explains what really happens in particle accelerators. it explains where the properties of said elementary particles come from. it even combines quantum mechanics and relativity.
JaKiri Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 how doesn't it explain much? it tells y there r three families of elementary particles. it explains what really happens in particle accelerators. it explains where the properties of said elementary particles come from. it even combines quantum mechanics and relativity. You appear to be grossly overestimating the amount M-theory can actually do. It currently can do... pretty much nothing. If it could do everything you said, or even looked likely to, there wouldn't be the controversy in the scientific community over the amount of funding its getting.
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene it tells how it does all of that and more. it even has a history of strin/m-theory.
admiral_ju00 Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 Uhm, I think that since JaKiri does have a Ph.D in Physics and is an active researcher/teacher, he may not need to read that book, but that's just my wild speculation. Although I need to get it myself.
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 Appearently he does. If he is a researcher/teacher, then maybe he could talk to Witten or Greene himself.
JaKiri Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene I have. Note, however, that a. popscience books do NOT take precedence over proper scientists. b. it overstates it somewhat. However, I do remember that he tended to word it in terms of potential, so you may be misinterpreting somewhat.
JaKiri Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 Uhm' date=' I think that since JaKiri does have a Ph.D in Physics and is an active researcher/teacher, he may not need to read that book, but that's just my wild speculation. Although I need to get it myself.[/quote'] Woah, don't overestimate me. I've not even started my PhD yet, and the only teaching I do is in mathematics, which is pretty irrelevent.
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 well, u could talk to them anyway. and by that thinking, I have a bachelor's degree in Astronautical Engineering and I teach Physics and Algebra. try Fabric of The Cosmos, it came out this year
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 Most of the courses for astronautical engineering major are physics, so I'd have to disagree with you there
JaKiri Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 Most of the courses for astronautical engineering major are physics, so I'd have to disagree with you there I've never heard of the conflict between GR and QM coming up in ANY engineering course.
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 as you quoted most of the courses aren't engineering, they are physics
JaKiri Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 as you quoted most of the courses aren't engineering, they are physics I'd presume 'Astronautical Engineering' would be an engineering course. Forgive me if I'm jumping to unreasonable conclusions.
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 astronautical engineering is the major not a course do you even know what astronautical engineering is? the designing and building of spacecraft. 1 engineering course 6 physics
JaKiri Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 astronautical engineering is the major not a course It's not my fault you americans use the words incorrectly, with your stupid major/minor system. do you even know what astronautical engineering is? Given I have a reasonable knowledge of latin, yes.
jordan Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 Quite a little battle going on here. I'm going with the best answer, and that is "don't know".
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now