September 21, 2011
is your ** theorist, you mentioned twice, **ASQ, I see him in **
No – he doesn’t interact with the public … its **IMQ
OK, I came across (**IMQ) some of his comments perhaps in ** blog site. I did not know this about **ESQ. **IMQ writes a lot and jumps the boundary, being a ** he may not realize this himself, experiment puts very strict constraints on what can be said and what can not be … (Don’t tell him this, he may take offense) Here on facebook **QRQ, a “**” also does that plenty, I had a ** discussion with him, he wrote a ** statement about **
People should think more, and research more before misleading the community. In-fact I wrote an article on my wordpress because of this. It’s a good thing that blogs have come up, people can put on record their stupidity … (as I do mine)
I have a story of Prof QTQ, the ** theorist, he was at **TQT**, I was there, will tell later … I wrote a blog (although what I wrote were meant to inspire **s to think outside the box, I do not know how many would have taken seriously, in any case, once on my twitter I said this “After Feynman every theoretical physicist thinks he is Feynman, before him they thought they are Clark Gable” …
Dash, it’s kind of u to share this information – I did want to ask u something though – a person just as good as feynman was Hans Bethe – after the war Feynman ended up at Cornell for a brief stint he was spent & intellectually speaking bankrupt … for 2 or 3 years he did nothing & he was just another professor be it a very young one … He would have been a footnote in history had it not been for an incident in the cafeteria of Cornell during lunch … someone was throwing up a plate in the air the plate was colored & the plate was spinning as it spon the colors looked like they were spinning in another direction if I’m not mistaken … he was inspired for the first time since the war and set out to work.out how the plate spon the way it did & why the colors spon in the direction they did .. from that work all of his great theories were inspired
The question Dash is this for all of Feynman accomplishments the post docs in theoretical physics today know more mathematics & deal with much more complicated ideas then he had to deal with … furthermore String Theory was beyond him while he was alive …
You are very *wrrongly* informed Sample. First of all *Americans* are very jelous of Feynman because they could never be like him. My PhD advisor was doing his PhD at Princeton in the 80s and that was the time when Feynman was at the peak of his glory, he had accomplished so many things (Feynman). Since Feynman was an alumni of Princeton, my advisor most certainly knew a story or two from this connection. As another matter Feynman was so famous I knew about him in my college in India, my advisor had already spent 25 years in US and was a postdoc in Los Alamos which also had a Feynman connection.
I asked him if he knows anything about Feynman and he simply said “I don’t know him”. This was in 2002/3 I had asked him. Wasn’t it a prejudice?
Reg. your point of mathematics being very complicated than Feynman’s time is like saying Mathematics in Feynman’s time was far more complicated than it was in Einstein or Bohr’s time. Only a genius solves real problem and everyone else seem too jelous of the genius, not accept their true contributions. Before the war Feynman had made his path integral formulation for which he won Nobel prize. He was exhausted from the earlier projects so he was given freedom to chose and work on newer problems and during this he rose to fame again.
The spinning plate is just one incident in his life out of 100’s of such examples that inspired him to continue his marvel. Actually it is unfair and unjustified to say he would be a footnote without this incident, it is he who solved the problem, why not others??? But others get as fat a salary as he did. I do not have words to describe how deeply it hurts me that he is painted as a low-life. He was the bravest man of science and considered one of the greatest scientists of the century. Only jelous people in the American academics who are not even 1 millionth of his brilliance spread such rumor and I have seen many during my 7 years in US.
You possibly do not know that string theory was not beyond him, rather he did not like pseudo science, he said “they don’t come with anything worthwhile or testable” String theory is heavily dependent on many of his work, so who is the loser here, string theory or him? Till today string theory isn’t providing any testable ideas, even sheldon stone** was deeply unsatisfied the way string theory goes. There are a lot of discussions regarding Feynman on American media. He was controversial at times because he was an extraordinary genius. You baffle me when you say that today’s postdocs know more mathematics. For what use? Today’s postdocs know ** of physics. They can not replace a Feynman.
The Feynman diagrams are today the marvel, widely used everywhere, particle physics would not be done without these, every great scientist including Schwinger were praising his intuitive way to solve Physics. Intuition was one thing where Einstein was a giant. Einstein’s mathematics was much simpler, only in later day complicated mathematics is used as a diversion to simpler and powerful maths, in any case nature does not necessarily need very complicated maths. For Physics one has to look towards Einstein and Feynman …
The spinning story is actually a little different: the spinning was a ratio to teh wobbling (that is orbital speed was 2 times faster than the up and down frequency of the plate). Also reg. Hans Bethe, on youtube there is a beautiful video what Bethe is saying about Feynman. Also Freeman Dyson tells real stories of Feynman from his personal experience with him… there are many good scientists and great scientists who tell his real story…
You’re right he solved the problem, ran to Bethe the next day full of enthusiasm & showed him the problem & solution … Bethe told him that’s great but what use does it have for which Feynman replied I don’t know but I thought it was neat …
I actually read the story many years ago in his wildly popular book surely you’re joking Mr feynman … I also read QED, his UCLA lectures made in 1983 on light – I expected it to be a very tough read .. it wasn’t easy but it wasn’t too bad either – that is a testament to how good a communicator & teacher Feynman was.
Dash, if I was to go into theoretical physics & was say 12 or 13 years of age … I would first do a Phd in general math both pure & applied – & then switch over to problems in physics … a degree in physics which would cover topics such as statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, heat transfer, em, solid state physics, field theory & QM … is good if you’re going to do applied work .. many mathematicians also.work.on string theory however they lack training in physics.
Dash, I do have a pressing question
There are very few child prodigies that do PhD at that age, extremely rare. Let’s us say you go at the age 20, your point is still valid. I took all these courses once at 20-21, once at 22-23 (but different contents etc). YES the mathematicians in string theory may be very rash in Physics and may have been there so that they could be of use to Physicists. On the other hand it’s the Physicists that are misleading Physics away, One need to have a feel and touch for Physics, it’s like driving a car, and not everyone is a very good driver. (I want to recount one story I have in Michigan and one story in Chicago of my driving adventures, but another time) With driving many people learn the trick, but with Physics, around the world only a few capable and dedicated people, because for any worth while progress in Physics one needs to continue the good work through the life, many people take honor and fat salaries but give up on any contribution long before their old age, I hate these B**, they are a disgrace …
What’s your pressing question, feel free to ask …
I did similar things when I was working on my PhD, and my advisor said you are playing around with these stuffs. I expressed that this is something worthwhile, it will do this or do that (monte carlo) turns out in the end I was right because I discovered the phenomena I was working towards, this was way back in 2005/6 when I discovered.
**correct myself Sheldon Stone >> Sheldon Glashow (the particle Nobel prize winner) …
I have described the approach of string theory in this article, read if you can afford some time: http://infyinfo.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/reductionism-anti-reductionism-and-reconstructionism/
Yes he left Harvard because he disagreed with university politics where it came to string theory research – wrong feynman was at the height of his powers during the 50s & 60s … in the 80s he was on the Wayne … his courses at Caltech dealt with the limits of computing by current day standards … not quantum computing … he also has a book out on computing … but it dealt with the limits of digital computing … it is important to note though … Feynman has many contemporaries like Frank Wilczek … Bob Jaffe etc … incidentally my understanding is that no Feynman did not go to Princeton … he graduated from MIT … well Dash, there are a lot of capable people in physics … they collaborate & solve vexing problems everyday … regarding quantum gravity … there is an institute started by Lee Smolin called the PerimeterIinstitute .. it is unique in trying all approaches ,loop quantum gravity, string theory & Relativistic Physics … along with other areas … talking about fundamental breakthroughs in.physics one I find fascinating is Alaine Connes non-commutative geometry … & it’s use in describing intrinsic properties of quantum particles … like the electron …
The question centered around dark matter – it is said DM constitutes some roughly 30% matter in the Universe with visible matter making up 4% & Dark Energy the rest … well it has been said that Dark Matter is nothing more than Dark Particles that don’t interact with ordinary matter particles … however it is also said that dark particles have large masses & that their masses are large hence the term WIMPs … as a result out of the 4 fundamental forces dark particles to interact with gravity … well then this is my question to u .. .take an Olympic size swimming pool & calculate the volume of water held in that pool, calculate the molar mass of all that water … Well by my reckoning there should be an unaccounted for surplus … that surplus should be your DM particles … this should also effect the weight of this volume of water … after all dark particles are present in higher concentration than ordinary ones, no?
Every great man when leaves one place it is said that he disagreed with University politics. I think, good for the great man, he can win some peace, but the way university politics cuts limbs of great inventors and knowledge shapers, it is a disgrace that the University only concerns itself with the mediocre majority and their honor, world wide phenomena. Sheldon Glashow is Sheldon Glashow, these great men are far more greater than the sulky and inefficient university policies of our time, that the Universities seem to understand. The universities are geared towards human rights, gay rights, alternative sexuality, University has no place in deciding what is good for science and what is not, how can a person who hardly understands the implication of Glashow’s idea can call a shot on him, this has become a trend of the day, very unfortunate.
No Feynman was at peak in 50/60 but I understand that he had had numerous peaks in his life and towards the end they are all cummulative, not stand alone periods, the so called quantum computing has not made much progress despite of drum banging and they certainly derived a great deal of direction from his 1959 talk ” … room at the bottom”, when a man surpasses all limits people find it easy to discredit than when they are not, that is why so many mediocres go away with fat compensations and survive on other’s good work. Seen a plenty of men like that. Frank W. was a student of him, perhaps, at caltech, you can see them on the same picture, talking, in caltech archive with Feynman wearing a cap, Frank had to note very interesting things about Feynman, simple search string will tell you, they were not contemporaries but met each other kind. Feynman did his PhD from Princeton (like my advisor, so I had asked him this in 2001) check wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman
I know about the Perimeter Inst., which is often visited by Hawking. But Quantum Gravity isn’t a reality yet (read Hawking’s recent Grand design) I have two long articles based on 2 chapters of Grand design I have read. In any case nothing of string theory as of now has ever been directly or indirectly tested by any experimental evidence, when I say indirectly I mean the other valid and established theory predict the results eg the Standard Model, String theory is merely trying to take these as input and fit with the former in some way so that a breakthrough in our understanding comes up, but unsuccessful, so far. Do send me the link of electron intrinsic properties theory you mentioned. I will answer your dark matter question in the next reply
The dark matter particles are hitherto undiscovered despite of their supposed interaction with ordinary matter through gravity known through galactic expansion and density. If you can know this from a pond full of water it means you know how to detect these particles. The fact is we only know how to measure and detect ordinary matter hence the mole-calculations etc are very restricted only to ordinary matter. If we know a lot about the dark matter someday we can extend these calculations to include the dark matter, we just do not know anything about them except that they exist and interact by gravitational like “repulsion”.
The repulsion is expansion of the Universe, not an aberration in the attractive gravity force. If the gravity is a space-time warping force then it can make a warp such that mass starts flowing outwards instead of inwards, e.g. in stead of a mass put at the center of a sheet you can have a sheet fixed at the top by a heavy mass and have smaller heavy masses at the bottom corners of the sheet, all tiny masses on the surface so created will start moving downwards, when the scale is so high such as that of galaxies this means at one surface location masses are merely receding away from each other, that is matter is expanding. The Darkmatter is like globs and lumps of these heavy heavy masses at various places of the Universe or Galaxy if you will, so that they cause every thing to recede away or expand. But on the whole Gravity is not repulsive rather attractive but there are so many lumps here and so many there. Analogy is a charge interaction, if you are close to a negative charge, the test charge feels more attraction from the closely placed negative charge and less attraction from a far away bigger negative charge, the reverse being possible as well. In effect the smaller negative charge in the close vicinity wins the tug of war in the first scenario. charges feel relative attraction even when fundamentally they should have been repelled. There may be a very different charge configuration than this which makes it possible different kind of effects.
Dash measure all the matter in the pool you know, the mass & hence the weight of that mass … it should fall short the pool should weigh more than what can be accounted for in the visible mass … that increase in weight can only be due to invisible heavy particles.
it is not that way Sample … There are two things here …
1. We know existence of dark matter from the scale of the galaxy and the density of matter at that scale not explainable through ordinary matter …
2. We just do not know any way to measure or detect these matter through our odinary instruments. Dark matter instruments are being deployed such as Xenon and CDMS, but these are at their nascent stage.
3. Your problem has a significance only after we have measured these matter particles on earth. It’s like not having a Higgs despite having hypothesized or theorized it, not having a graviton despite it’s impeccable theorizations, you are basing your method on the assumption that these have been found or detected …
What you do not seem to understand is leading me to speculate that “finding of dark matter particles on earth may lead to a change of the laws of molecular mass etc, not impossible, perhaps some of the dark matters *were* already being measured but we do not know this explicitly and it affects the way we calculate all molecular laws”.
Dash we are talking past each other … Hmmm … let me ask u this
DM particles are hypothesized to be massive at least heavier then say protons or neutrons right ??
as far as I recall YES. but this is only hypothesis, from the point of your “environment of pond”, who knows !! … one thing you are completely bypassing from my arguments is present day instruments are not sensitive to these new form of matter, or we would have detected these long ago … that is why we are building new instruments …
No u will not see the particles because they don’t interact electrically … however they do have mass & gravity does attract mass … that being the case *cummilatively* they will have a weight … there will be a weight excess that can’t be accounted for just by the presence of visible particles.
NO you did not grasp my explanation of the dark matter heavy masses being present that are “causing” the expansion of the ordinary matter we see in galaxy, we infer the dark matter from the lack of quantity, namely density of ordinary matter is not sufficent to account for the expansion, so we hypothesize that something merely heavy is present in the close or far vicinity that is warping the space-time in ways ordinary matter seems to be receding away from us, SO we think dark matter as we call it is interacting gravitationally. That’s all we know about these matter, not necessary that these are present at the scale of the pond. WE infered from the scale of the galaxy, not from every scale in the field-scope accessible to us. We don’t even know how to detect them even if they exist, so there are a bunch of ideas, without any firm founding yet,
WIMPS: (weakly interacting massive particles, not gravitationally mind it + we do not know any practical quantum gravity so how do we measure these tiny particles just because they have mass?)
note that (contrary to what you say) you can see these particles electrically because of electroweak interaction … if they are sufficiently channeled through various decay processes namely we have 3 forces that are unified, except the gravity at the scale of the quantum because all these other 3 are working at the quantum. That is why we do not measure the mass of the tiny particles through gravitational weighing but through their energetic interaction, energy is mass, hence we know what is their gravitational mass because we know their kinetic energy … and subtract that. Gravity does not play a role except through Milikan’s oil drop experiment, which is perhaps outdated …
Well Dash, u need to test this hypothesis …
Well then … since they are posited to be much more massive then ordinary matter particles it only follows that their kinetic energy should be much higher as well.
kinetic energy depends on how much total energy they have, not on their potential energy (gravitational potential energy here) that could be the reason they are not moving very fast but standing still in some regions of space where they warp the space-time like I described above, hence masses flow outwards … the pond hypothesis will not work without detailed knowledge about dark matter. It may work if we discover and know more abt the dark matter …
Dash, if their masses are greater than ordinary matter particles – then it only follows their energies are as well – remember mass & energy are equivalents – it also makes sense that they would not be moving very fast since they are so massive …
Either way with DM we are on the verge of new physics
Dash, I am surprised that the smartest minds in the world cannot think up of a table top experiment rather than a purified water tank or bleach tank 2 miles beneath the earth surface, to verify the existence of dark particles.
OK, you recognize that the mass-energy equivalence you said does not only correspond to pot. energy but all energy? E=mcc, is a result of energy conservation principle actually. SO massive particle just means more gravitational potential energy, not total energy, total energy will be higher given it’s a massive particle but kinetic energy can still be very small. Being massive, it warps space time much more than a lighter particle. The kinetic energy will depend on what total energy it has, but you are right being massive it will always slow down faster. Yes, DM is new physics, but we hardly know anything about them yet, if the experiments work very well that will be the way to go.
They are smartest, so they chose underground, it is for a reason. At that place underground, there is almost no background reactions that hides the true signal. Don’t underestimate today’s experimentalists. It’s a very effective method used in other experiments such as neutrino experiments. By placing everything underground we have made earth surface a shield that prevents all sorts of unwanted debris such as cosmic rays and solar neutrinos and this and that. For dark matter studies also this method works pretty well. Our goal is to study nature at any cost, think what if we successfully measure the dark matter, a flurry of new experiment will start, perhaps then you can propose the pond-dark-matter experiment and we can change all our calculations of molecular weight etc, if that is indeed warranted.
Much much more difficult problems have been solved in mathematics … one was Fermat’s last theorem by Andrew Wiles, he spent one and a half years in his attic every night till he cracked it though it had a technical error that was found later … needless to say he was on the right track … the proof a staggering 500 pages & less then 1% of the world’s mathematicians were qualified enough to verify it.
Mathematical problems are not difficult than Physics problems. One thing you may remember and thank me if another person tells you this. You probably do not know that I have recently invented a very easier way to solve Fermat’s theorem which was as you stated one of the dreaded mathematical problems and took centuries before it was solved. Read my new blog site for a new mathematical theorem I have invented at infyinfo.wordpress.com, If indeed my proof for Fermat’s theorem is correct then I am one of the polymath they had been waiting for. I have *invented* experimental particle physics processes, I can do any kind of Physics plus mathematics, needless to say I have had great deal of computational codes and algorithm to my credit.
My proof for Fermat’s theorem: practically works for small powers such as 6/7th power, but I am also trying to think of a higher power generalizations that will work. I have also worked out recetly other important number theory applications. Most of it is on my new blog site I just mentioned.
Mohan’s generalized 50-cent theorem, a new step in number theory
“Nature may speak mathematics but it’s often quiet … Mohan’s generalized 50-cent theorem: f(m,k)=5*m+P=n^k, m,k are integers and P is any integer between -(k-1) to (k-1) ”
Interesting observations in number theory
(perhaps never known before at-least most of these)
“I will post another article for my 50cent theorem and related facts, an interesting pattern for powers of 6: (6^2 .. 6^3.. 6^12), the last two ”
I will go to bed now, 4 am here, but do tell me of my new inventions
(work need to be done more, but still many things are firmly in place)