Comments on: Ask a String Theorist! Or an Atomic Physicist. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/08/21/ask-a-string-theorist-or-an-atomic-physicist/ Random samplings from a universe of ideas. Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:21:44 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: The loss of the respectability of science « Society with Jimmy Crankn http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/08/21/ask-a-string-theorist-or-an-atomic-physicist/comment-page-1/#comment-31215 The loss of the respectability of science « Society with Jimmy Crankn Fri, 07 Dec 2007 08:15:31 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/08/21/ask-a-string-theorist-or-an-atomic-physicist/#comment-31215 [...] lins: Ask a String Theorist! Or an Atomic Physicist, The Best Arguments for Things I Don’t [...] [...] lins: Ask a String Theorist! Or an Atomic Physicist, The Best Arguments for Things I Don’t [...]

]]> By: Arch Little II http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/08/21/ask-a-string-theorist-or-an-atomic-physicist/comment-page-1/#comment-31191 Arch Little II Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:35:25 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/08/21/ask-a-string-theorist-or-an-atomic-physicist/#comment-31191 Well, this is great! Anyone know a site called "Get an answer after you ask a string theorist"? To continue, wouldn't gravity compact all of the google strings in a star right onto each other. Since they are one dimensional, this shouldn't be a problem, although the frequencey of the compacted strings would increace considerably. Then you would essentially have a closed loop string vibrating at an incredibly high freqency representing a"particle" with the mass of a star known commonly as the Kerr ring singularity. I'm not a string theorist. It just seems that it would be ironic if GR actually predicted string like structures. Well, this is great! Anyone know a site called “Get an answer after you ask a string theorist”?
To continue, wouldn’t gravity compact all of the google strings in a star right onto each other. Since they are one dimensional, this shouldn’t be a problem, although the frequencey of the compacted strings would increace considerably. Then you would essentially have a closed loop string vibrating at an incredibly high freqency representing a”particle” with the mass of a star known commonly as the Kerr ring singularity. I’m not a string theorist. It just seems that it would be ironic if GR actually predicted string like structures.

]]> By: Arch Little II http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/08/21/ask-a-string-theorist-or-an-atomic-physicist/comment-page-1/#comment-31211 Arch Little II Fri, 07 Sep 2007 17:20:21 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/08/21/ask-a-string-theorist-or-an-atomic-physicist/#comment-31211 Shouldn’t gravity crush a massive imploding star into a string? Kerr used GR with a dash of conservation of angular momentum to show that a star does not collapse into a point singularity since a star spins and naturally bulges at the equator. This would cause the star to spin downward, like water going down a drain, and form a ring shaped singularity instead. The ring would be infinitesimal, spin in one direction at near the speed of light and the surface of the ring would wriggle with quantum foam. It doesn’t take much imagination to see this as a closed loop string. Wouldn’t this be proof that strings do exist? Shouldn’t gravity crush a massive imploding star into a string?
Kerr used GR with a dash of conservation of angular momentum to show that a star does not collapse into a point singularity since a star spins and naturally bulges at the equator. This would cause the star to spin downward, like water going down a drain, and form a ring shaped singularity instead. The ring would be infinitesimal, spin in one direction at near the speed of light and the surface of the ring would wriggle with quantum foam. It doesn’t take much imagination to see this as a closed loop string. Wouldn’t this be proof that strings do exist?

]]> By: MattB http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/08/21/ask-a-string-theorist-or-an-atomic-physicist/comment-page-1/#comment-31188 MattB Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:11:23 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/08/21/ask-a-string-theorist-or-an-atomic-physicist/#comment-31188 RE: Post 8 Regular reader, not regular poster, but just wanted to drop a note of thanks to Count Iblis. The paper you linked to just happened to feed in to a short SF story I was writing - even though I didn't follow the maths (I'm a biologist by training, so...) it put some conceptual meat on the central concept. So, ta. RE: Post 8

Regular reader, not regular poster, but just wanted to drop a note of thanks to Count Iblis. The paper you linked to just happened to feed in to a short SF story I was writing – even though I didn’t follow the maths (I’m a biologist by training, so…) it put some conceptual meat on the central concept.

So, ta.

]]> By: Dave S http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/08/21/ask-a-string-theorist-or-an-atomic-physicist/comment-page-1/#comment-31214 Dave S Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:56:35 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/08/21/ask-a-string-theorist-or-an-atomic-physicist/#comment-31214 I noticed you avoided talking about teleportation, which has arguably received a tonne of public attention, albeit by science geeks and fictional writers - I guess it isn't as catchy of a fringe science as the multiverse? Speaking of teleportation, what are your thoughts on the recently published "Progressive field-state collapse and quantum non-demolition photon counting"? I've given a brief summary<a href="http://nouseforadave.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/schrodingers-light-switch-wheres-my-computer/" rel="nofollow"> here</a> and the press release can be found <a href="http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/ra-qlb082407.php" rel="nofollow"> here</a> I noticed you avoided talking about teleportation, which has arguably received a tonne of public attention, albeit by science geeks and fictional writers – I guess it isn’t as catchy of a fringe science as the multiverse?

Speaking of teleportation, what are your thoughts on the recently published “Progressive field-state collapse and quantum non-demolition photon counting”?
I’ve given a brief summary
here and the press release can be found here

]]> By: Ben http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/08/21/ask-a-string-theorist-or-an-atomic-physicist/comment-page-1/#comment-31213 Ben Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:50:57 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/08/21/ask-a-string-theorist-or-an-atomic-physicist/#comment-31213 Dr. Who said: <blockquote> The fact that the universe is accelerating is *more interesting* than the fact that brown dwarfs exist. One shouldn’t rub it in; but equally, one should not talk as if multiple universes, and even talk about multiple universes, are like some kind of scientific pornography. </blockquote> I would find this assertion about accelerating universes > brown dwarfs depressing, not because I disagree but because of the finality with which it's stated. Fortunately, I am confident that there is some other universe among the zillions in the multiverse, where a bunch of astrophysicists are posting to a blog to talk about how brown dwarfs are really cool but dark energy is a boring old crock that even Einstein gave up on. Dr. Who said:

The fact that the universe is accelerating is *more interesting* than the fact that brown dwarfs exist. One shouldn’t rub it in; but equally, one should not talk as if multiple universes, and even talk about multiple universes, are like some kind of scientific pornography.

I would find this assertion about accelerating universes > brown dwarfs depressing, not because I disagree but because of the finality with which it’s stated. Fortunately, I am confident that there is some other universe among the zillions in the multiverse, where a bunch of astrophysicists are posting to a blog to talk about how brown dwarfs are really cool but dark energy is a boring old crock that even Einstein gave up on.

]]> By: Talk On Physics: Little Things That Jiggle:.. Mindreef Expands Executive Team With.. » Science Discoveries . net http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/08/21/ask-a-string-theorist-or-an-atomic-physicist/comment-page-1/#comment-31189 Talk On Physics: Little Things That Jiggle:.. Mindreef Expands Executive Team With.. » Science Discoveries . net Fri, 24 Aug 2007 04:02:29 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/08/21/ask-a-string-theorist-or-an-atomic-physicist/#comment-31189 [...] Comment on Ask a String Theorist! Or an Atomic Physicist. by … Or an Atomic Physicist. Over at Uncertain Principles, Chad Orzel is on vacation and has handed the keys to the blog over to Aaron Bergman and Nathan (last name mysterious), specialists in string theory and atomic physics, respectively. … [...] [...] Comment on Ask a String Theorist! Or an Atomic Physicist. by … Or an Atomic Physicist. Over at Uncertain Principles, Chad Orzel is on vacation and has handed the keys to the blog over to Aaron Bergman and Nathan (last name mysterious), specialists in string theory and atomic physics, respectively. … [...]

]]> By: tyler http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/08/21/ask-a-string-theorist-or-an-atomic-physicist/comment-page-1/#comment-31190 tyler Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:35:38 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/08/21/ask-a-string-theorist-or-an-atomic-physicist/#comment-31190 Thanks Hag. Penrose is a great suggestion, I have only read Shadows of the Mind which I found interesting (in an utterly speculative sort of way) Thanks Hag. Penrose is a great suggestion, I have only read Shadows of the Mind which I found interesting (in an utterly speculative sort of way)

]]> By: Physical Science’s Discussion: Little Things That Jiggle: Richard Feynman and.. » Science Discoveries . net http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/08/21/ask-a-string-theorist-or-an-atomic-physicist/comment-page-1/#comment-31212 Physical Science’s Discussion: Little Things That Jiggle: Richard Feynman and.. » Science Discoveries . net Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:01:21 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/08/21/ask-a-string-theorist-or-an-atomic-physicist/#comment-31212 [...] Ask a String Theorist! Or an Atomic Physicist. Over at Uncertain Principles, Chad Orzel is on vacation and has handed the keys to the blog over to Aaron Bergman and Nathan (last name mysterious), specialists in string theory and atomic physics, respectively. … [...] [...] Ask a String Theorist! Or an Atomic Physicist. Over at Uncertain Principles, Chad Orzel is on vacation and has handed the keys to the blog over to Aaron Bergman and Nathan (last name mysterious), specialists in string theory and atomic physics, respectively. … [...]

]]> By: Roman http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/08/21/ask-a-string-theorist-or-an-atomic-physicist/comment-page-1/#comment-31187 Roman Thu, 23 Aug 2007 02:54:54 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/08/21/ask-a-string-theorist-or-an-atomic-physicist/#comment-31187 <blockquote>Sean, just FYI, as a card-carrying member of the Public I personally find the very technical articles you post much more interesting and valuable than the philosophy ones. I don’t post in them because I have nothing of substance to add and don’t want to cloud the waters with smartass jokesterism or observational metacommentary, which is about all I have to offer there. But I’ll gladly start posting "wow that’s interesting" comments so you don’t feel like you’re talking to the void.</blockquote> Absolutely, that's very well said. You guys have somewhat distorted view of the Public. The Public reads things like A Road to Reality and the Public don't necessary believe that Reality TV is real. I will conjecture that to the Public most of so called popular discourses about science by "the media" is naive.

Sean, just FYI, as a card-carrying member of the Public I personally find the very technical articles you post much more interesting and valuable than the philosophy ones. I don’t post in them because I have nothing of substance to add and don’t want to cloud the waters with smartass jokesterism or observational metacommentary, which is about all I have to offer there. But I’ll gladly start posting “wow that’s interesting” comments so you don’t feel like you’re talking to the void.

Absolutely, that’s very well said.
You guys have somewhat distorted view of the Public.
The Public reads things like A Road to Reality and the Public don’t necessary believe that Reality TV is real.
I will conjecture that to the Public most of so called popular discourses about science by “the media” is naive.

]]>