Twenty Years After

Gill sahib,

A lot of people on this group, like me are still deficient in real sceintific understanding of the stuff you talk about. Even though we have studied physics untill our high-school but we lack some real understanding of more advanced stuff. May be you can, with your knowledge bridge the gap with a series of articles titled something like `ultra modren physics for dummies`. That will be a great thing for us ignorants.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

irfanhamid:

Thanks for your illumining feedback. Those who have their minds made up from the beginning are the ones with `closed minds`. I wish and hope we could break our cocoon like shells, see the light of the day and participate in the scientific endeavor in which the international community of scientists is engaged. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

@Cayenne,

Most of what is cutting edge science today will hopefully become part of the engineering domain in a few decades time. I`m sure that when Einstein was writing his Noble-prize winning paper on the photoelectric effect even he didn`t have any idea that in less than a century it would give birth to photodiodes and light activated sensors. All of that is now in the purview of electrical engineering and gives benefit to mankind. Maxwell`s work on electromagnetism was at the edge of science in his day. Yet is now taught to first year engineering students who go on to make power generation plants so some schmuk can turn on his/her PC and rant against the Maxwells of this day and age.

I am no physicist, I`m not even a scientist in the true sense of the word. But I have enough sense to see that money spent on pure science is a nessecity, not a waste. Even if string theory (or any scientific endeavor) fails to achieve its objective, it is not a total loss, as it reduces the possible set of solutions.

It is blatantly obvious that you are part of the disagree-for-the-sake-of-it brigade (obvious from your compeers fiasco). News flash; the angry young man routine went out of fashion with the 80s. Find a new persona, hopefully one that is more laid back :)

(Enter the lion)

Lion: Did somebody call me?

Cayenne: No, go away!

Lion: Okay! (Starts to leave, then pauses) What’s that sound?

Cayenne: What sound? That’s just your tummy rumbling!

Lion: Hmmm…(Eyes Cayenne)

Cayenne: Don’t even think about it!

Lion: (Continues to eye Cayenne and moves closer)

Cayenne: (Getting nervous) Wait! (To himself) Let me try another tack. (Aloud, sweetly) Look you are a nice kitty! I am nice too. Let’s be friends.

Loud booming voice (LBV) from the background: You said… “You betcha.I like the attention.I`m vain too and i have no qualms about it.”

LBV (continuing): … “I`m a good looking guy and have no qualms about it.Okay, cute.I love the superficiality of it all.My looks, i mean .`Cause i can get away with stuff that `normal` or ugly people would get basted for.I`m by no means young, but a skinny frame combined with some gym work makes me look much younger than my years.”

Lion: (Starts drooling)

Cayenne: Wait.

Lion: (Thinking) Should I first make mincemeat of him or only “string” him out?

(Loud thumping sounds of running feet)

Chowk censor (CS): (Jumping in) Hold it. No violence is permitted on Dr. Gill’s board. (Pleading to the lion) Look, the guy has kids!

Lion: (Looking doubtful) Are you sure I should let him go?

CS: This time, just this once, please…

Lion: But what about my rumbling tummy?

CS: That sound wasn’t your rumbling tummy. Just Cayenne blowing hot air!

Lion: But I didn’t see his lips move!

CS: He didn’t use his mouth!

Lion: (Holds his nose and slowly starts walking away)

(Exit the lion)

Sounds from the den: zzzzzzzz….

Re: # 22

and the end of a boring story.......after a short nap the ``LION`` was off to his next trick.His motto..`` a trick a day``.A satisfied `CAYENNE` went back to his family and lived happily ever after.

shobig, thanks. In fact the new scientific method of thought experiments and mathematical models deserves an article on its own.

cayenne:

Good, at least you wrote something appropriate to the article. There are several top-notch physicists who do not think much of the string theory. Others equally competent and capable, hope that string theory will unify the fundamental forces of nature. I am just a by-stander. All that I try to do is to bring it up for general knowledge of those readers who are not so very scientific by education and training. If you feel bored by this stuff, you can easily move on and read stuff which is more to your liking. I assure you though of one thing, there are very many readers who like to read about string theory. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 20

Nuclear catastrophe, Iran-Iraq, String theory....What`s next Dr.Gill...Are you a `Jack of all Trades`` or a `Master of None`?.Or, do you just have an insatiable urge to write?.I can understand that.

I won`t pretend to understand all or even most of this theory, but it is a real `beauty` in every sense of the word. It`s almost transcendental.

cayenne:
What is the prpose of your one liners? Don`t you have something meaningful to contribute? You keep on writing meaningless personal posts. You should be writing something about the article if you`ve anything meaningful to contribute. If not, silence is golden. The pointless things that you`ve written so far shows that you probably did not even read the article. Grow up man! Wishing you well,
Mohammad Gill

Re: # 16 Dr. Gill, he was most probably born in a rest frame of reference, what question of growth? ;)

#1 Cayenne, just for a change, next time you log into the internet, instead of meandring about into porn-sites, why not browse through the website pasted by Rahul? Who knows, you might find intellectual-provocation more enjoyable than sexual-provocation. Try it for once, i bet you have got a lot more concealed inside, than you tend to exhibit. ;)

#12 Rahul, modern particle physics is actually divided into three categories; theory, phenomenology and experimental particle/high-energy physics. Yes, theory is all about mathematics, since mathematics is the only tool that helps a physicist present his `imagination` or ideas in a decipherable, or so to say `physical` form, but the mathematics should be apprehensible from a physics point of view, rather than abstrat mathematics. But then, this implication of the said is not only limited to particle physics, mathematics is an important pre-requisite in all forms of science, even biology, which most would consider to be its antithesis.
Expretimentalists are doing a worthwhile job in giving a physical shape to the forms, ideas, or models developed by the theorists. Lots of work is being done by thousands of experimental particle physicists in various huge laboratories in the world, CERN, Fermilab, DESY, to name a few. And, the fact is, out of all the theoretically hypothecised particles, only one - the Higgs Boson - remains to be discovered, or observed experimentally! Phenomenlogits are a link between these two classes of physicsts, they mould the theory into a more experimentally viable for for the experimentalists and likewise help theorists to develop theory further on the basis of experimental findings.
I hope i did not get carried away, and addressed your question properly and precisely.
regards

Re: # 17

Shobig

I will.I do have a lot more concealed than i can legally exhibit.

freethinker aka Mohammed Gill

I am offended that you are offended.This `string theory` thingy is overblown.`Models` are `made` and then `un-made`. Cosmological models coming out of or inspired by string theory show that nearly all of them are somehow unstable or internally inconsistent.How relevant is all this in this site?.Really?.Join a scientific discussion board, por favor.

The current crises in theoretical physics is not only ludicrous, but unprecedented in all the history of science, and that such erudite discussion of esoteric knowlege is being paid for, to the tune of billions, by patrons who have no idea what the issues are, let alone why they arouse such passionate discourse amongst the learned benefactors of their largess. It`s a good thing too, because if they did, they might rise up and cut off all these high-priests who cloak themselves in the robes of the false priesthood we call academia.

And, that is my humble opinion.I`m tired of every two-bit who thinks they`re scientists.

Re: # 19 See, that`s what I meant!
I do agree with you on that cayenne, and do appreciate your concerns. But every professional has got his biases towards his and prejudices against others` professions. True,that lots of money is going into research in this particular field, but rest assured that all that money being spent all across the globe is by no means in comparison with the money flowing into the US space program or the US military endeavours! Not that this is a very plausible arguement, but humans have had to pay price for their passion, at least for a limited group`s passion, throughout history. and particle physicist call their very subject `intellectual leisure`, and nobody would be willing to give up his liesure at any cost, would he? And about string theory, my friend, this is the only form of particle physics that exists only on `paper` and has got nothing to do with experiment, so cannot be held responsible for snatching even a millicent of all that money going into experimental research.

Sadia:
Strings are mathematical constructs; their physical ``ontology`` is a matter of logical speculation. Even the experts have problems in understanding the string theory. I cut and paste Martin Rees`s answer to a question regarding the string theory, in the following:

HM: Are you alluding to string theory? Does this theory shed new light on multiple universes?

MR: One feature of string theory is it requires six extra-spatial dimensions. The debate is about whether those dimensions all are so tightly wound that they manifest themselves on a microscopic scale. Each point in our ordinary space would be like origami, tightly wound to six other dimensions.

But the more exciting possibility is that not all the extra dimensions are tightly wound together. There could be other universes that are separate three-dimensional spaces, separated from us because we are all embedded in four-dimensional space.

We are unaware of them in the same way that bugs crawling around on a sheet of paper might be unaware of bugs on a different sheet of paper. Each think they are in a two-dimensional universe, and have no concept of a third. So there could be another universe just a millimeter away from us.

That`s one of the many ideas opened up by string theory. The ideas are very speculative because there`s no direct measurement we can make, but they have made people more open-minded about different possibilities. Physical reality is much more complicated than we can observe with our telescopes.

Indeed, some extreme versions of this idea suggest that physical reality might be as complicated as biology, and that what we call our ``observable universe`` may be, in the perspective of cosmic reality, no more than one twig on one tree in some enormous forest.

HM are the initials of Helen Matsos who had interviewed Rees. Martin Rees is Britain`s Astronomer Royal. It`ll be quite a while when string theory may be adequately explained in layman`s terms. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Hi Dr. Gill,
Nice article. The first time I heard about `` String theory`` was when I watched this 3 hour long documentary `` The Elegant Universe`` , hosted by Brian Greene. I can understand how this theory can attract so many physicists, as the documentary kept me interested throughout even though I hate physics. No offense. I was amazed by the beauty of this theory. I think this theory is on the right track, we just don`t have that technology yet to prove it (Well, Greene sonuded pretty convincing!). One thing that I found hard to understand was the presence of a large string in the universe produced by the big bang. If that`s the case, shouldn`t it be easy to detect it by telescopes? So how come it`s not happened yet? And also is it possible to make strings vibrate more widely by pumping energy into them to the point they are detectable? I`d appreciate it if you could clarify things for me somewhat.

Thanks.
Sadia.