| From: Yoda Oz | 4/02/99
13:18:30 |
| Subject: Wormholes | post id:
299 |
| To Karl & Friends, I have heard and read a lot about wormholes. Apparently they are a "hole" through space-time where, instead of going around the curvatures of space-time you take a shortcut and go through a hole to decrease the travel time. How would you go about creating a wormhole, then when it is created, how do you keep it open without it collapsing on you while you are inside of it? Your mate, Yoda Oz PS There are two good books you should read by Lawrence M Krauss: 1. The Physics of Star Trek, & 2. The Physics of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Krauss. DAMN GOOD BOOKS! | |
| From: Partly Informed Contributer | 4/02/99
14:30:34 |
| Subject: re: Wormholes | post id:
328 |
| Finding science to justify a work
of fiction like Star Trek seems a lot like Creationists proving the earth
is only 5 000 years old, True science works on observation & experimentation, not making up something thats sounds like fun then talking about it till every one believes you. | |
| From: steve | 4/02/99
14:36:42 |
| Subject: re: Wormholes | post id:
333 |
| And yet many of the developments
we see in science were first postulated by science fiction writers. eg
Travel to the moon (Jules Verne), Radar (Arthur C.Clarke). So, why not time travel (HG Wells), force fields, phasers etc. | |
| From: Horace | 4/02/99
14:41:29 |
| Subject: re: Wormholes | post id:
335 |
| Steve said: "And yet many of the
developments we see in science were first postulated by science fiction
writers. eg Travel to the moon (Jules Verne), Radar (Arthur
C.Clarke). So, why not time travel (HG Wells), force fields, phasers etc." Hell, you're right! That just proves that time travel (and the rest) are possible. | |
| From: steve | 4/02/99
14:45:01 |
| Subject: re: Wormholes | post id:
340 |
| No, not necessarily, but at least
its an idea worth investigating. Ideas have to come from somewhere - why
not Star Trek?! | |
| From: Cass | 4/02/99
19:01:01 |
| Subject: re: Wormholes | post id:
382 |
| Because if the world turns into a
place where everyone - even the aliens - has American accents I will go
spare. | |
| From: Ronnie | 5/02/99
13:14:07 |
| Subject: re: Wormholes | post id:
453 |
| Dear PIC - don't you think that
'true' science is a bit of a fraud? I mean, noone can ever be truly
impartial or unbiased and the world is often too complex to be treated in
the reductionist manner that is enforced by scientific thinking - is if I
hold this and that constant and assume this, I can predict that - but we all know it doesn't really work that way. PS - yes, I am a scientist, but I can see that science has it's shortcomings and shouldn't become the atheist's religion! | |
| From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) | 5/02/99
15:32:08 |
| Subject: re: Wormholes | post id:
464 |
| Dear PIC - don't
you think that 'true' science is a bit of a fraud? Surely all human endevour, in the sense that it can never be "objective", is therefore fraud. However, I really do believe there are useful distinctions to be made in terms of degree of objectivity, or lack thereof. The rules of DOING science (as opposed to the various laws and theories of science) are valid, good, and useful. The fact that humans can never apply them perfectly doesn't negate the rules. And really, at the end of the day the proof of the pudding is in the eating - whether for good or bad, science has allowed PHENOMENAL PROGRESS to be made in both our understanding of the Universe and in our manipulation of the discovered laws of the Universe for our own ends. ... the world is often too complex to be treated in the reductionist manner that is enforced by scientific thinking In comparison to what??? What in science is more reductionist than the assertion that "if you are born on this day of this year in this location, then the stars decree that you will have this personality, and this destiny"? Reductionism as an overarching basis in fundamental physics went out earlier this century when it was realised that Newton and Descartes had simply "got it wrong" (viz. their deterministic view of the Universe). Unfortunately, those in pseudo-scientific circles usually think that the extent of human scientific inquiry effectively stopped with the discovery of calculus and Newton's laws of motion. if I hold this and that constant and assume this, I can predict that - but we all know it doesn't really work that way. It worked for Einstein, Fermi, Faraday, Shockley, etc., etc., etc... Maybe not each and every single time, but I don't think I've ever met a scientist that believes that the world isn't complex. In fact, probably the biggest single reason why science is not reported as much as it should be (certainly by all reports there is significantly more demand of scientific journalism than supply), is the reluctance of scientists to make the simplifications of their work REQUIRED BY THE MEDIA, in order that the essence of their work can be communicated in a 15 second grab. I can see that science has it's shortcomings and shouldn't become the atheist's religion! Much better that religion stay in the hands of priests who we can be assured won't abuse their position of power? To be fair, though, I agree - science should not be considered an alternative to religion as it serves a different social purpose to religion. However, if you mean that the skepticism and critical thinking required to practice good science should not be used to scrutinise the practices of the "Church" (e.g. covering up the sexual abuse of small children by theologians, taking part in incitement to violence, etc.) then I couldn't disagree more. Soupie twist, Ed G. | |
| From: Craigus | 5/02/99
16:51:33 |
| Subject: re: Wormholes | post id:
466 |
| In relation to Dr Ed's (my that
horse has come a long way ;-) ) response on "wormholes" HERE BLOODY HERE. I couldn't agree more, and wouldn't have been able to put it so eloquently. Just a though, but could this discussion somehow turn to chaos theary? I have a particularly limited understanding of it, and would be interested to hear what it's all about - preferably not in too technical a manner, but technical enough for a former psychology/biology student\musician/interested semi-lay person to appreciate. Burger ring casserole ;-) Craigus | |
| From: Conan | 5/02/99
16:58:07 |
| Subject: re: Wormholes | post id:
467 |
| Chaos theory... A butterfly flaps its wings, and on the other side of the world, a tornado happens. Love those quantum butterflies! | |
| From: Jeremy | 5/02/99
17:09:14 |
| Subject: re: Wormholes | post id:
468 |
| Regarding the "true science"
debate... a top notch account of this is by Sagan, I think the title is
"The myth of irrationality" Sub titled Science as a candle in the
dark. ( Can someone confirm the title ? ) | |
| From: Craigus | 5/02/99
17:10:39 |
| Subject: re: Wormholes | post id:
470 |
| "Chaos theory... A butterfly flaps its wings, and on the other side of the world, a tornado happens. Love those quantum butterflies!" Thankyou Conan :-+ Your insight into chaos theory is astonishing. I was hoping for something a tad more technical. It did make me laugh though. That probably caused a supernova somewhere ;-} Craigus | |
| From: Michael | 5/02/99
18:27:26 |
| Subject: re: Wormholes | post id:
475 |
| Chaos Theory. My very lay understanding is this: if we knew the exact location and direction of every particle in the universe, we could predict everything. But since this is impossible, events will occur that we cannot predict. If someone who knows if this is a good explanation could reply... | |
| From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) | 5/02/99
18:56:24 |
| Subject: re: Wormholes | post id:
478 |
| True science
works on observation & experimentation, not making up something thats
sounds like fun then talking about it till every one believes
you. Actually I don't think that that's necessarily true. Probably everybody has heard Albert Einstein's comment that "Imagination is more Important than Knowledge". Well, to some extent this idea plays an important part in scientific endeavour, even if it isn't technically part of a codifed "scientific method". While I will defend scientific method to my grave, I don't think it should ever be forgotten that scientist are practising human beings also. This means "scientific truths" must always be subject to ongoing scientific scrutiny (not to be confused with pseudo-scientific scrutiny) - it must constantly be held up to the light of physical evidence. As a result of this fallibility, many injustices have been either commited or justified in the name of "science". From the denial of voting rights to women and people of non-European ancestry, to the genocidal consequences of eugenics. Of course, the same injustices have also been redressed with the proper application of science, though it doesn't excuse or even prevent its misuse. But that's only the downside of the equation. True, the fact that scientists are human beings means they can get it wrong... but the same fact also means they can get it right in some of the most astounding ways imaginable. Einstein's theories of relativity are a case in point. Einstein took Newton's assertion that the laws of mechanics should be identical in all non-accelerating (inertial) frames of reference, and then extending it as a basic assumption to include ALL laws of physics including Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. At the time, this took one of the most phenomenal feats of imagination on Einstein's part, because an implication of this assumption was that the speed of light must be constant, and independent of the relative speeds of any non-accelerating observers with respect to a light source. In a sense he "made something up because it sounded like fun", or more accurately because such an assumption was simple and elegant. Like many other laws of physics it evolved not out of simple logic but aesthetics. Using only this single leap of imagination Einstein went on to formulate all of Special Relativity. And you know what? When they eventually to check the predictions of Special Relativity by observation the perihelion of Mercury as it orbited the Sun (it predicted that it light from it should be observed earlier than classical theory predicted) it was right on the mark. This was a perfect case of imagination not only guiding experiment, but completely pre-empting it. And so, while science fiction is often way out and completely out of touch with observed physical fact (for example Heisenberg's Uncertainly Principle fairly profoundly discounts any chance of teleportation as used in Star Trek, a fact acknowledged by Star Trek in its occasional reference to the "Heisenberg compensator" units needed for its operation), I really think it can serve as a tool to inspire imagination and thinking "outside the box" as it were. Soupie twist, Ed G. p.s. Einstein was a brilliant man (rumours of his so called failure at school are actually ficticious), and an accomplished physicist who knew exactly where there was room for our expectations of the nature of the Universe to be wrong. Lesson - if you want to revolutionise a discipline, it kinda helps to train in the discipline you're trying to revolutionise. | |
| From: Artos | 5/02/99
21:19:49 |
| Subject: re: Wormholes | post id:
483 |
| The title of Sagan's book
is: "The Demon Haunted World:Science as a Candle in the Dark". And I agree, it's an excellent dissertation on "true" science and truth in science, as well as being a penetrating insight into the various crackpot "pseudosciences" that plague humanity | |
| From: Artos | 5/02/99
21:22:59 |
| Subject: re: Wormholes | post id:
484 |
| I wouldn't complain,
Craigus... Conan might come around and swat you with his broadsword or something. (Sorry, Conan! Smile, go on, I was just kidding, smile, huh, okay...aw heck...) | |
| From: Cass | 6/02/99
14:10:15 |
| Subject: re: Wormholes | post id:
504 |
| On Einstein, I heard that while
it was true that he had failed a particularl class in school, that it was
because he had moved to a country where he didn't speak the language, so
of course he failed. That may be an urban myth, too,
though. | |
| From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) | 6/02/99
17:41:07 |
| Subject: re: Wormholes | post id:
521 |
| On Einstein, I
heard that while it was true that he had failed a particularl class in
school... Possibly, but the most popular myth I've heard is that he failed mathematics, which was simply not true. He apparently despised anything that involved only rote learning such as history (as it was taught at the time) and languages, but I don't know whether he managed to fail these or not. Soupie twist, Ed G | |