:shy: How did you guys become a science advisor in physics forums/ quantum physics?
Warren said > one hundred of rock-solid posts in the scientifical domains:maths,physcs,biology,engineering...
There's no "quantum physics science advisor",the medal makes no difference between a presumable "area of expertise" and another.
I'm not sure, I think it was a decision of the Swedish Academy of Science, wasn't it ?
Waow! Hard time for a young padawan to become a Master in this place.
Do you know who are the Dark and bright masters in this place?
I think Patrick is somewhere between the Dark and bright side of the force .
And you dextercioby? :uhh:
what exactly is the difference between a dark and a bright master. Sorry, i am not really a star wars fan
For the dark master, the one who adopts the point of view of the dark side of the force (it depends on the context of the threads: see the decoherence thread as an example).
e.g. dark side may be the confusion of the young padawan or the adoption of less respected physical theories :yuck: .
The dark master tries to push the young padawan towards the dark side of the force :surprised while the bright master tries to push him towards the bright side of the force .
Therefore are you a dark or bright master?
In short, you ask respectfully if I'm a crank ?
"Only Siths think in absolutes"
Do you think in absolutes, vanesch?
I find this to be a rather poor definition. I mean, the specifics you gave clearly do not demonstrate any master-capabilities, rather they show lack of physical knowledge. In Star Wars, the dark part of the force is still a force, you see. So there really has to be any kind of excelllence that is classified (for some reason) as being dark. Now, following the star wars movies, i very much prefer to be on the dark side because the "enlightened" caracters all suck (apart from Yoda perhaps, but he really also is on the dark side : that's the most common misconception of the movie-series).
A dark master would be a LQG theorist while the opponents would be the string theory guys...Since, science will be the first game where the bad guy actually wins, it is clear that LQG is the future because it holds on the GR and adapts QFT. In string theory it is the other way around
ps : also, in physics the dark masters are the theorists that are really developing science, the white masters are the experimentalists that operate machinery which has been developed based upon the principles of the theorists. I never understood how experimentalists can win Nobel Prizes>>>
Now, i'll just take up my laser sword and wait...
I don't know of much machinery that has been develloped based upon QCD or GR...
As much as the purely empirical discovery is more a matter of luck than anything else and doesn't really deserve a Nobel prize, I'd say that the idea of develloping a special experimental technique to demonstrate a certain effect merits as much such a recognition than a way of applying a theoretical idea to a specific situation, don't you think so ?
For GR : how about GPS-accuracy ?
For QCD, ok nothing yet, but then again, it QCD did not exist there would NEVER be anything made based upon quarks and gluons>>>There will be in the future...I mean some decades ago, you could have said the same of QM, right ?
well, isn't that a theory thing ? i don't really see the difference...sorry...the only experimentalists that deserve a Nobel prize are those that actually construct real time instruments...
Hehe, I was waiting for that one. Actually, the GPS accuracy is not implemented by using GR. Ok, admitted, the IDEA that the clocks could run at different rates and that one might have to do something about it is indeed a spin-off from GR. But the correction mechanism doesn't use GR: it is an auto-calibration technique by regularly checking the timing signals from earth stations, if I'm not mistaking. Looking at the resulting corrections, one can infer that the results are compatible with GR.
Most of nuclear technology is purely based upon empirical data, because nothing theoretical comes close to producing actual numbers that can be used to design working stuff, such as a reactor.
So the point is, that actual experimentalists have no need for actual theorists (they only need some old physics books that are more than 50 years old :-). But old theorists need modern experimentalists, while modern theorists seem to have given up completely on the subject
Ah you mean, engineers :-)
I think that the worst thing that happened to physics was the split between experiment and theory: it makes both kinds of physicists dumber...
But does it, at the same time, make the engineers smarter?
Yes, relatively speaking :tongue2:
You can't actually say that because you are then redefining what the Nobel Prize is for - Invention or Discovery. It doesn't say how or why so-and-so was invented or discovered. You can't redefine something when its existence was defined that way.
Furthermore, the more prepared you are, the luckier you get! If Nobel prize quality discovery is ".. more of a matter of luck...", then every Joe Schomoe would have done so ever few years. To be able to distinguish between something that is "interesting" and something that is "important" requires the "anything else" part.
Point taken. In fact, I think that it is impossible to give a Nobel prize for "purely theoretical work" ; it always has to have a link to experimental work or confirmation, if I'm not mistaking. That's probably why Witten will never get it :tongue2:
Ok, granted too. I don't know, apart from the high temperature superconductors, what work was actually receiving a prize for purely empirical discovery, though... Do you know of any ? Most if not all was the experimental demonstration of certain theoretical predictions, no ?
I think there's been a bunch of Nobels given out on experimental discovery followed by the developed theory. So not exactly experimental demonstration of theoretical predictions. Wasn't theory of superconductivity was formed on experimental discovery as was the quantum hall effect for example?
Ah, so someone thought up the idea of X-rays.. that person deserves the nobel prize and that is where science stops? >> engages sword >> The fact that experimentalists were able to use X-rays to discover the structure of DNA disproves that fact :tongue:
Ever heard of Sheldon Glashow,Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salam...? What about Planck...?(Compton did his experiments 4 yrs after Planck got the Nobel).
Yeah,yeah, i know, and they are probably using stuff like the root locus system in order to model the dynamical system at hand...you are very correct but that is not the point in my opninion. However the time aspect at really high velocities really is a special relativity thing, i must admit to that. But, the fact that time will evolve faster when the strength of the gravitational interaction is lower, is a Gr thing, right ? this is the aspect i had in mind.
Given the fact that these satellites are at about 20.000 km above the earth’s surface, they will feel only 25% of the gravity that we feel here on earth (beware this is 25% of the potential energy associated with gravity). This results in the fact that the clock on the satellite will be 45 microsecond ahead with respect to a clock here on earth.
Or maybe it is the other way around ??? I think we need to make a distinction. There is theoretical theory and practical theory. I mean, we all know the ingenious ideas behind the Schrodinger equation and QM, this is theoretical theory...However, apart from the H-case or the Helium case, we have many problems in solving this equation. The approximations that we use are ingenious themselves, this is what i call practical theory. Best examples are things like Hartree Fock Theory and DFT.
So trying to bypass the problems in theoretical physics and translate them to realtime usefull stuff is also a theorist's work...
i disagree, we need more practical theorists
you are right, in my opinion, this difference does not exists...they are all theorists of some kind...the rest are engineers
just my two cents
Separate names with a comma.