3, 4, and Extra Dimensions - General Discussion

[Evil Dr Ganymede]

Since the process of classification is in fact part of the scientific method, then why is it easier for science to "classify" it as "religious" (or other), and in fact dismiss it -- without at least allowing it to be put into some theory or formula somewhere as a possibility?

Because we wouldn't know where to begin to do that. Factoring that in would be a HUGE paradigm shift, and may have knock-on effects in all sorts of fields. If science is all about standing on the shoulders of giants, then this would be the equivalent of shooting off the bottom giants' kneecaps .

We can't put terms into formulae, equations and theorems that we just don't understand. To use a religious analogy, old religions could and did build statues to the 'unknown god' just in case they left someone out of their pantheons. Science can't do that.

Is there no existing theory, formula or equation that has an un-solved variable that could possibly be filled by a value that relates to "life force", energy flow (call it whatever makes sense to you)?

None that I know of. There are many more probable, known variables to use than resorting to fudge factors that we don't understand.

[don]

Because we wouldn't know where to begin to do that. ... We can't put terms into formulae, equations and theorems that we just don't understand. ...

Okay, I give up.

-Don G.

[don]

In an attempt to go get this mess(age) back on-topic, before we were dragged into the organic forest ...

Two of my original questions remain unanswered / uncommented on ...

6. Would it be possible that the expansion / acceleration of the universe is actually "causing" time to exist? When this expansion / acceleration stops, will time stop, creating eternity? EDIT: Later, I added, "or, the other way around, where time is causing the expansion?"

10. What do we expect to find in the warped or normal extra dimensions?

Fridger, has #6 been discussed, or is it a "not possible"? Also, since your team is exploring the potential wonders of warped extra dimensions, have they come across any numbers that tell them what to expect in these dimensions?

-Don G.

[Guest]

Regardless of the time, it is still part of the history of science. Has nothing since then turned science "upside down", in a manner of speaking? The
discovery of electricity? The assignment of dimensional status to "time"? The simple equation e=mc^2? Anti-matter? Black holes? ALL of these, and
many, many more, were predetermined to exist via theory or formulae before they were proven?

As far as Medieval science goes (excepting the Islamic kingdoms, at that time), what mattered was not testability of theories and reproducibility of results but whether or not new theories fitted with the Aristotlian branch of natural philosophy that the Church and most of the peoples held to be self-evident truth.

I suppose it all depends on what you regard as a revolution. There have been revolutions in scientific understanding since those times, but they were often achieved over long periods of time and by many different people working on the problem (if you're wondering how such a drawn out and complex process would constitute a revolution, I say that if it lead to radically new scientific understanding of a group of phenomena then it was a revolution). Sometimes massive changes occur like an oil tanker turning, work by several generations of scientists eventually contributing to a radical break with old models, and sometimes huge changes almost occur at a point in time with one event or a couple of events.

Examples of the long process I would give as electromagnetism (look how many names are involved in Maxwell's equations; Gauss, Ampere, Faraday, even the slightly dubious Lenz who managed to get his name on a single, but important minus sign), and quantum theory (Schrodinger, Bohr, Pauli, Born, Rutherford, etc etc etc). For the short process, we have Newton or perhaps Einstein, although I'm open to argument on the latter. I think the second type happens less often than the first, because the second type of revolution comes about when something very important is very badly incorrect or missing from the theories of the day.

Electricity was discovered by one individual, yes, but it took the work of generations to make any sense of it. So there have been revolutions all the time since people started being systematic about knowledge. Some slow, some fast. Fewer fast than slow, but the fast revolutions get the column inches because anyone can make it into a five-minute story to fit between somebody's dog stuck up a tree and the evils of the government/the weather/the animals/the environment, or into a popular book. Which is why people like fast revolutions.

... it's called experimentation, exploration, and even accidental science (as opposed to "research") ...

... This is all history. Nowadays, money determines everything and these "naive" ad hoc discoveries are remainders of boys dreams! Over, simply over....Just believe me. I do know that very well. I am directly involved...

Hmmmm, that means (like above) that the observation of superluminal particles/photons (?), high-temperature superconductors, FTL "tunneling" of electrons in computer circuits, Bose-Einstein condensate, and many other recent "discoveries" and observations, were all predetermined to exist via theory or formulae before their discovery?

What superluminal particles? And tunnelling does not permit the transfer of information FTL

Superconductors were a chance discovery. If we'd then stayed there, waiting for more chance discoveries, we'd still be stuck with mercury being superconducting at no more than 20 Kelvin or whatever it is. By making predictions based on theories, testing those predictions via experiment and throwing out theories that make flawed predictions, we can progress far faster towards room-temperature superconductors than by putting all our hopes on chance. But superconductivity is still a battlefield for theories - some die almost every day. Chance isn't irrelevant, especially in this field; sometimes a compound tested on the offchance or from some other field altogether turns out to be an interesting superconductor.

I think the BEC was predicted by theory - it's not something that you'd stumble across (low temperatures, laser traps, etc etc). People designed the equipment to test the theory, and got themselves a BEC. Examining BECs more closely provides more tests of the predictions of theories.

You can't think of a single instance in recent time, when an observation, measurement, or discovery was made that was not the direct result of
"looking for it" (research)? If this is the case, then the media and the scientists they interview have misled the public into thinking otherwise.

I can't help but think that if the public want a clear view of science, they should actually read what scientists publish and not rely on second-hand facts processed through journalists to tell them what to think about some piece of research.

If you're worried by the idea that most results have been predicted by a theory, consider that for every successful theory there are many more unsuccessful ones that, being tested, fall short.

As for this division of science into discovery and research, I think that's rather artificial. When research turns up data that no existing theory can account for, I suggest you'd have what you call a discovery. And then you need some new theories, and you need to test them...

[don]

As far as Medieval science goes (excepting the Islamic kingdoms, at that time), what mattered was not testability of theories and reproducibility of results but whether or not new theories fitted with the Aristotlian branch of natural philosophy that the Church and most of the peoples held to be self-evident truth.

Agreed, as well as regarding the long and short process of scientific revolution (or progress).

Hmmmm, that means (like above) that the observation of superluminal particles/photons (?), high-temperature superconductors, FTL "tunneling" of electrons in computer circuits, Bose-Einstein condensate, and many other recent "discoveries" and observations, were all predetermined to exist via theory or formulae before their discovery?

What superluminal particles?

At Google, a search of +"superluminal particles" returns 374 results (Sept. 10, 2003).

And tunnelling does not permit the transfer of information FTL

I do not know the specifics of tunneling. My understanding is that it was "discovered" as an anomoly/problem when CPU chips got to a certain scaled-down size.

Superconductors were a chance discovery.

You are saying that science was not specifically "looking for" high-temperature superconducting materials when they were found? If so, this is what I call "discovery", versus research (looking for something specific).

If we'd then stayed there, ...

What happens *after* a discovery has nothing to do with the fact that it *was* a "discovery", and not the result of research. Once a "discovery" has been made, the follow-up had darn well better be to "figure it out", which includes theories, math, etc. <smile>. From that point forward, I would classify it as research.

I think the BEC was predicted by theory ...

You are correct ... From the BEC Homepage, "Bose-Einstein Condensation in a gas: a new form of matter at the coldest temperatures in the universe... Predicted 1924... ...Created 1995."

I can't help but think that if the public want a clear view of science, they should actually read what scientists publish and not rely on second-hand facts processed through journalists to tell them what to think about some piece of research.

That's like saying, "If you want to know what's going on in Iraq, go to Iraq." It is a difficult enough task for any one specialist (Particle Physicist for example), who is educated in and has solid knowledge of the field, to keep up with all of the many papers published on a *daily* basis. I think it is a bit much to expect a layperson (accountant, manager, auto mechanic, etc.) to obtain the same education and knowledge in order to read and understand those same papers, just because they are interested in the field in a general way.

If you're worried by the idea that most results have been predicted by a theory, ...

Not at all. I view myself as an "explorer", where "discovery" is king <smile>. An explorer sets out on a journey of exploration (experimentation) with no road map telling them where to go. A researcher, on the other hand, follows a road map, where there may be dead ends that are not on the map, but the map is there and must be followed.

-Don G.

[Guest]

I note that I didn't consider your examples of E = mc^2, blackholes and antimatter in my previous message.

Black holes are most certainly a prediction of a theory (General relativity). Antimatter, I suspect, was predicted before it was discovered (Paul Dirac? Anyone know? Think it all started with his prediction of the positron, the anti-electron). E = mc^2 is a prediction of GR.

At Google, a search of +"superluminal particles" returns 374 results (Sept. 10, 2003).

I don't see any experimental papers on the first page, although there are some theorists making predictions that may or may not be testable. In general terms, I could write anything I liked about superluminal particles, put it on the web and google would still index it. On and off, I collect "Relativity is Bunk" webpage addresses. There are many of them, but you wouldn't get a good idea of what relativity is about from most of them.

I understand what you mean by tunnelling problems with semiconductors. Although FTL isn't involved, it will be an interesting problem in the future as devices on chips shrink to the scales at which electrons start showing more of their wavelike nature.

You are saying that science was not specifically "looking for" high-temperature superconducting materials when they were found? If so, this is what I call "discovery", versus research (looking for something specific).

No, they were not looking for superconductivity at all, at high or low temperature. Everyone's looking for high-temperature superconductivity today. I agree that that is part of discovery. I don't recognise your division into discovery and research, as in doing research, we certainly discover what we did not know before. I'd venture that the people measuring the conductivity of mercury and other metals at different temperatures considered that they were undertaking what you describe as research.

What happens *after* a discovery has nothing to do with the fact that it *was* a "discovery", and not the result of research. Once a "discovery" has been made, the follow-up had darn well better be to "figure it out", which includes theories, math, etc. <smile>. From that point forward, I would classify it as research.

My objection would be that this definition seems to exclude the possibility of anything except refinement ever coming from research. Consider the BEC, which came from a prediction of theory. Isn't that a radical new direction for materials science? I think that often new directions come from research as well as discovery. For instance, the latest class of exotic materials with negative refractive indices. They were deliberately constructed to have negative refractive index, with the aid of Maxwell's equations, which all arose from research following on the discovery of electricity. It's extremely unlikely that we'd stumble across such materials by chance.

That's like saying, "If you want to know what's going on in Iraq, go to Iraq." It is a difficult enough task for any one specialist (Particle Physicist for example), who is educated in and has solid knowledge of the field, to keep up with all of the many papers published on a *daily* basis. I think it is a bit much to expect a layperson (accountant, manager, auto mechanic, etc.) to obtain the same education and knowledge in order to read and understand those same papers, just because they are interested in the field in a general way.

Perhaps I'm saying something closer to "If you want to know what's going on in Iraq, don't expect to find out in short order from a brief article in a newspaper, or even a set of newspapers". The media works to a time budget. That's great for some things, and very bad for others. I think that a lot of science is what this is bad for.

Not at all. I view myself as an "explorer", where "discovery" is king <smile>. An explorer sets out on a journey of exploration (experimentation) with no road map telling them where to go. A researcher, on the other hand, follows a road map, where there may be dead ends that are not on the map, but the map is there and must be followed.

Well, as soon as a researcher comes up with results that don't agree with the predictions of an applicable theory, or that don't agree with other results, they are off the map. That happens very often in some fields, very rarely in others.

[don]

I note that I didn't consider your examples of E = mc^2, blackholes and antimatter in my previous message.

Thank you for the extra info.

At Google, a search of +"superluminal particles" returns 374 results (Sept. 10, 2003).

I don't see any experimental papers on the first page, ...

It was some time ago (late last year or early this year) when I came across a couple of papers describing an observed but "unknown" optical phenomenon (at the time) which was shortly thereafter theorized to be a display of superluminal particles/photons. This is allowed due to the fact that a negative value can be assigned to speed.

I do not know the current status of research into this. This observation was made while doing research into something else, which is why I thought of it as a "discovery", or to use your term, a "chance discovery", or to use Bob Ross' (an artist) term, a "happy accident".

I understand what you mean by tunnelling problems with semiconductors. Although FTL isn't involved, ...

Here again, I read of this measured "effect" some time ago (maybe years). It was indeed found that electrons were "tunneling" (between layers of the substrate?) from one part of the CPU chip to another, exceeding the speed of light (or having a negative speed). I don't have a clue as to how this effect was measured or where the current research stands, except that there are now "tunneling" capacitors, resistors, chips, and other electronic components available on the market. How they are used, I don't have a clue.

... it will be an interesting problem in the future as devices on chips shrink to the scales at which electrons start showing more of their wavelike nature.

Maybe this is the "problem" now. As superluminal particles are described, the *average* speed (wave front?) does not exceed c but the peak of the wave does. Maybe this is what is happening with tunneling in chips?

I don't recognise your division into discovery and research, as in doing research, we certainly discover what we did not know before.

I understand, and agree with your statement. All I was trying to do was to differentiate between "looking for something - on purpose", and "stumbling across something - by accident". And, as you wrote later in your message, yes science certainly can, and does, "discover" new things while following a road map laid out by the theorists.

I guess my thoughts of "discovery" go back to the "old days" of science, when it was more "experimental" (people like Tesla), when people "played" with the unknown (magnetism and electricity) and sometimes very dangerous (radioactive) elements / forces of our universe. They were called "inventors", and one person did everything from thought to theory to experimentation to implementation.

In today's world, there isn't much left to "play with" in any kind of safe manner. These days, one does not "play with" nuclear fusion, electromagnetic pulses, high-powered laser equipment, etc., unless one has a death wish.

Consider the BEC, which came from a prediction of theory. Isn't that a radical new direction for materials science?

Would this not be classified as "proof"? In my eyes, it would have been classified as a "discovery" in the theoretical formula where it showed up, in 1927 (?). We just didn't know what it "looked like", until 1995. Just my personal perception of discovery and proof.

Just as theoretical predictions, or "discoveries", can turn out to be wrong, so can real live experimental discovery. Both require proof -- and repeatability of that proof.

Perhaps I'm saying something closer to "If you want to know what's going on in Iraq, don't expect to find out in short order from a brief article in a newspaper, or even a set of newspapers".

Not if you want to know "history" as well as "today's developments". To find out what happened today, I would in fact rely on the media to learn this -- but no, not a complete minute-by-minute breakdown.

In the recent past, there were only one or two science-specific publications (ie. Scientific American) that a layperson could understand, for the most part, and they covered every aspect of science. Today, there seem to be magazines that cover just about every topic in science, so it would be much easier to use these new layperson tools than reading every theoretical and research paper published. And, hopefully a lot more accurate than hearing a 60-second blurb on CNN or reading a 2-colum story in the newspaper.

-Don G.

[Guest]

It was some time ago (late last year or early this year) when I came across a couple of papers describing an observed but "unknown" optical phenomenon (at the time) which was shortly thereafter theorized to be a display of superluminal particles/photons. This is allowed due to the fact that a negative value can be assigned to speed.

Photons cannot be superluminal. Apart from the language contradiction of a photon being faster than itself, they always travel at c anyway. As for other particles being superluminal, I don't know of any convincing evidence for same. Can you point me at an article?

Here again, I read of this measured "effect" some time ago (maybe years). It was indeed found that electrons were "tunneling" (between layers of the substrate?) from one part of the CPU chip to another, exceeding the speed of light (or having a negative speed). I don't have a clue as to how this effect was measured or where the current research stands, except that there are now "tunneling" capacitors, resistors, chips, and other electronic components available on the market. How they are used, I don't have a clue.

I only know of tunnelling diodes, which have been around for donkey's years (and again, FTL is not involved). These other components don't appear in any of the catalogues I've seen.

Maybe this is the "problem" now. As superluminal particles are described, the *average* speed (wave front?) does not exceed c but the peak of the wave does. Maybe this is what is happening with tunneling in chips?

But those aren't superluminal particles. You can get the phase velocity (the peak) to travel faster than light using plain old...light, but it doesn't mean much. It's similar to the situation with the beam of a lighthouse sweeping around the horizon. At sufficient distance from the lighthouse, the "tip" of the beam sweeps around with a linear velocity faster than light. But it can't carry any information between two points separated on the horizon, so there's no FTL.

I understand, and agree with your statement. All I was trying to do was to differentiate between "looking for something - on purpose", and "stumbling across something - by accident". And, as you wrote later in your message, yes science certainly can, and does, "discover" new things while following a road map laid out by the theorists.

I think you have an exaggerated idea of the strictures of theory. It varies from field to field, I suppose.

I guess my thoughts of "discovery" go back to the "old days" of science, when it was more "experimental" (people like Tesla), when people "played" with the unknown (magnetism and electricity) and sometimes very dangerous (radioactive) elements / forces of our universe.

I'd argue that science has got more experimental, not less. It may have got less individual, but I think that isn't the same. You just can't wind a wire into a coil and put a very high voltage across it and discover something new. Tesla did it first.

They were called "inventors", and one person did everything from thought to theory to experimentation to implementation.

Some people invented, yes. And some people didn't invent anything, but did research. And today there are still inventors, except they tend to work in teams.

In today's world, there isn't much left to "play with" in any kind of safe manner. These days, one does not "play with" nuclear fusion, electromagnetic pulses, high-powered laser equipment, etc., unless one has a death wish.

Fusion aside, on cost grounds, there is no obvious reason why not for the others. Tesla's experiments weren't safe. Franklin's experiments often weren't safe, famously so. Bell allegedly spilt acids on himself as he completed the first working electric telephone. Safety is not a reason. Neither inventing nor research were ever safe.

Would this not be classified as "proof"? In my eyes, it would have been classified as a "discovery" in the theoretical formula where it showed up, in 1927 (?). We just didn't know what it "looked like", until 1995. Just my personal perception of discovery and proof.

Just as theoretical predictions, or "discoveries", can turn out to be wrong, so can real live experimental discovery. Both require proof -- and repeatability of that proof.

I don't believe that a theoretical prediction is a discovery until it has some evidence under it.

Not if you want to know "history" as well as "today's developments". To find out what happened today, I would in fact rely on the media to learn this -- but no, not a complete minute-by-minute breakdown.

Perhaps I have an excessively cynical view of journalism.

In the recent past, there were only one or two science-specific publications (ie. Scientific American) that a layperson could understand, for the most part, and they covered every aspect of science. Today, there seem to be magazines that cover just about every topic in science, so it would be much easier to use these new layperson tools than reading every theoretical and research paper published. And, hopefully a lot more accurate than hearing a 60-second blurb on CNN or reading a 2-colum story in the newspaper.

Hopefully, yes. Although my faith, or lack of it, in the popular science press is regularly confirmed - witness the business over solar sails in New Scientist recently. But I agree hat the science press is rather better than the generalist media at science reporting.

[don]

Hello Guest,

Photons cannot be superluminal. ... Can you point me at an article?

As I wrote earlier, I am not an expert in this stuff. Here are some articles located quite easily with Google...

Nature (406, 277-279 (2000); doi:10.1038/35018520) -- "Gain-assisted superluminal light propagation":
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/google_referrer.taf?article_product_code=NATURE&fulltext_filename=/nature/journal/v406/n6793/full/406277a0_fs.html&_UserReference=C0A804EF4651073043FCE57976243F63364B

Applied Physics Letters (Vol. 80, #3 - January 21, 2002) -- "Long-range superluminal pulse propagation in a coaxial photonic crystal": http://www.umoncton.ca/sciences/physique/personnel/hachea/CAH6Q38S.pdf

J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electr. -- "Experimental observation of superluminal group
velocities in bulk two-dimensional photonic bandgap crystals": http://www.loqnl.ufal.br/publications/2003/artigo32003h.pdf

January 1, 1999 / Vol. 24, No. 1 / OPTICS LETTERS -- "Superluminal terahertz pulses": http://dutch.phys.strath.ac.uk/FRC/research/reprints/1999%20optlett%2024%20wynne%20-%20superluminal%20terahertz%20pulses.pdf

PHYSICAL REVIEW A, VOLUME 64, 044101 -- "Apparent superluminal behavior in wave propagation": http://www.nbi.dk/~lautrup/papers/pra44101.pdf

And thousands more.

I only know of tunnelling diodes, which have been around for donkey's years (and again, FTL is not involved). These other components don't appear in any of the catalogues I've seen.

Whether these devices are available to consumers or not, I do not know. The devices I listed were mentioned as being used in the experimental papers I read.

Maybe this is the "problem" now. ...

But those aren't superluminal particles.

Like I said, "maybe". I am not a physicist nor am I researching this topic. I merely included the word "superluminal" (which I have only read about in physics papers) in a sentence I wrote about "discoveries". That's all.

Neither inventing nor research were ever safe.

Very true.

I don't believe that a theoretical prediction is a discovery until it has some evidence under it.

Okay.

Perhaps I have an excessively cynical view of journalism. ... Although my faith, or lack of it, in the popular science press is regularly confirmed - witness the business over solar sails in New Scientist recently.

I have not personally read any of the science magazines in quite a few years. However, the title of this particular magazine would lead me to believe it is not of "normal" science anyway.

But I agree hat the science press is rather better than the generalist media at science reporting.

I would certainly hope so! Newspaper writers do not have the luxury of time to write a full investigative report on science topics, and I would assume have little to no training in math or science as well. On the other hand, I would expect a writer in the science publishing business to be allowed the necessary time to fully and properly investigate a topic and hopefully have some knowledge in math and science as well. But, this may not be the case.

-Don G.

[granthutchison]

... the title of this particular magazine would lead me to believe it is not of "normal" science anyway.

Never judge a book by its title . New Scientist is a weekly magazine of mainstream science journalism in the UK. See http://www.newscientist.com/news/ for a sample.

Grant

[t00fri]

... the title of this particular magazine would lead me to believe it is not of "normal" science anyway.

Never judge a book by its title . New Scientist is a weekly magazine of mainstream science journalism in the UK. See http://www.newscientist.com/news/ for a sample.

Grant

Definitely, so...it even contained a feature article about my wife a long long time ago
[subject: How did you manage to combine "hard-core" research and family...]

Bye Fridger

[t00fri]

... the title of this particular magazine would lead me to believe it is not of "normal" science anyway.

Never judge a book by its title . New Scientist is a weekly magazine of mainstream science journalism in the UK. See http://www.newscientist.com/news/ for a sample.

Grant

Definitely, so...it even contained a feature article about my wife a long long time ago
[subject: "How did you manage to combine "hard-core" research and family?"...]

Bye Fridger

[don]

Never judge a book by its title .

Grant and Fridger,

Sorry, didn't mean to be judgemental. The title conjurs up in my mind, things like cold fusion, ZPE, anti-gravity, etc. that would be on the bloody (unaccepted / unproven) edge of science. Sorry, this is just what comes to my mind when seeing the title.

Thanks for the URL.

-Don G.