View Single Post
franznietzsche
#22
Aug23-06, 08:22 PM
P: 1,783
Another blunt and harsh response coming up, just to warn you...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Quote Quote by christian_dude_27
My massive research consists of alot of interenet and reading searches on new or older discoveries, especially things that are close to my own. i've studied the Holographic universe, The String Theory, Relativity, Quantum Physics, Philadelphia Experiment, Rainbow Project, Montauk Experiment, MOND theory, and other things. none of these things am i an absolute professional at, but i have a rather balanced understanding of them all. alot of them take alot of understanding and just reading to understand in the first place.
Massive research?

I'm sorry, but its painfully clear that you really have no idea what you're talking about. First off, the kind of "research" you do for a high school "research paper" is not research. Not even remotely close.

Secondly, I think chroot is spot on with what he said about people thinking that pop-sci literature constitutes any kind of real education. Hawking's book wasn't so bad--of course I read it when I was twelve, and it didn't give me a firm grasp of quantum mechanics or relativity then, and it certainly still wouldn't. Nor would any pop-sci book.

You want to actually study physics (note how I didn't say 'research' physics, because you won't be doing that until you've studied it for years). Pick up a textbook. Work every problem like you were in the class.


I try to research what i can, things that interest me, things that seem to click with what i'm having difficulty to.
Again, you're not 'researching'. You're not even studying. Thats the problem. Now, I won't even say its impossible to self-study physics. But to do it, you need real textbooks. Not pop-sci books, and not stuff you read on the internet. Physics is learned by doing. By solving problems, proving theorems, and working out derivations. It requires skillsets, not just knowledge sets, and you don't acquire either in sufficient quantity as an armchair physicist.

Don't get me wrong--I think its great that you're interested in the workings of the universe and want to understand it. I really do. But in order to do that well, you have to pay due diligence first (as Frank Harlow once said).

My basic mode of thinking is, which seems to go against the very heart of physics, but is something that i absolutely must believe in and cannot give up for anything, is that science is not a finished product, and is far from it.
What? Against the heart of physics? No, that basically is the heart of physics.

if it were a finished product then we would have the ability to create the universe as perfect as it is by ourselves, and that just hasn't happened. therefore i must assume that, because it is a VERY unfinished product, anything outside of that realm must also be possible and there's no way of really saying it's not.
Then its not relevant. Only things that are falsifiable are relevant in science (*cough*String Theory*cough*).

if we try to say now that paranormal powers are not real, then we are really making ourselves look purposefully ignorant to teh universe around us, because, even though we can't test it and find out for sure, we have no way of absolutely saying it's not possible. if there is a possibility to gain the whole information of the universe, then that means thta we can create the universe, how exactly do you assume that will happen? definately not with natural terms, so it must be supernatural terms.
There are so many problems with this bit, I don't know where to begin.

1) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
2) Why does having "whole information of the universe" allow us to create one? I believe in your freshmen writing class in college that will be called "begging the question"--a logical fallacy.

such a mode of thinking definately gets me in alot of trouble, because, even though i don't believe in something, i still keep it as a possibility. i find it idiotic to just throw away information, no matter how stupid and 'against the laws of physics' it might be, because we don't know enough about these 'laws' to say that it isn't possible, as i said before, if we knew everything we could about these laws and much more, then we could create the universe ourselves, and that hasn't happened yet, so we must assume that anything from this point on is possible.
You really have no conception of how science works. Science is an iterative process--hypothesis are tentatively accepted and tentatively rejected all the time. And sometimes they are re-accepted--but only when sufficient evidence is presented. Experimental evidence is the key. Evidence is the only thing that matters, because thats the way the universe really is. Speculation because "we can't prove it isn't so" is useless. Follow the evidence. And only the evidence. Not your nose.

makes sense? maybe not, but this is the way i think. i agree with every word you said Zz, and i thank you for it, and i thank everyone else's responses as well, they all help. so, with a basic understanding of physics, and my goal is to reach into the realm of quantum physics, or at least use it mostly as my basis, just what kind of career would match my interests? i would like to at least have a head start and say, well, this is one possible way, and when i get to college, try to head off in the right direction from there.
For the record, you do not have a 'basic understanding of physics'. I do not have a 'basic understanding of physics'. Again, that takes due diligence. What is the physical significance of the principle of least action? What does it really mean, for the action integral to be stationary? I would have trouble explaining it well, but the principle of least action is probably the most important principle in classical physics (I would claim that relativistic invariance wins that prize for modern physics, but that could probably be well disputed).

I don't mean to discourage you--I wouldn't ever intend to discourage someone who really wanted to understand and study the way the universe works. But you need to realize, as chroot said, you don't know jack. Further, science is not about you, not about your ideas -- its about nature, and how nature works. Nothing else (I've met a few PhD physicists that need to learn this too).

I'm going to echo what ZapperzZ said: The more I learn, the more I realize, I don't know anything.

Finally:

Again, echoing what has been said a half dozen times: All physicists use quantum mechanics. All of them. Fields where quantum mechanics are most necessary include: Particle physics, Condensed Matter Theory(this field alone is quite probably bigger than all the fields you have ever heard of before, combined), Quantum Computing, Quantum Chemistry, and certainly many others that just aren't coming to mind right now. Fields where its important, but not central include every field in physics.