All of my science stuff

[Souper]

What if we can have a field where we could modify the quantity of Higgs Bosons? (zero gravity chamber anyone?)

If we can liberate or store protons / neutrons / electrons from a collection of atoms (such as a clay brick) does that mean we could change what material it was? (however such an action would use up / free electricity, radiation, light, and possibly more stuff)

If we gathered all the atoms of a dead man into what he once was, and then applied electricity, heat, blood, and other vital resources, then would be spontaneously jump back to life?

If the multiverese theory is correct, scientists think that there must be an infinite number of universes, which in turn means that there's one, oh, say, a universe made out of freefloating gold asteroids, or a universe filled with pure energy. Heck, there might even be one where Magic exists and ponies are really real. SO, if we tapped into one of those recourse-filled universes, we can get anything we want! (as well as sneakily sneak past Conservation of mass once and for all!)

If we had a pressure, heat, and acid blocking force field, that means we can put a human on Venus and let him survive!

Or we could bio engineer humans to survive on Venus with no protection whatsoever.

Call me insane, call me a crackpot, even call me a mad scientist, i think that at least 1 of these theories can be real.

[dbmorpher]

Venus colonization is a lot easier with balloons

Human technology is not advanced enough to develop/deliver the specific cells that must be in certain places

Occam's Razor says no multiverse.

[Souper]

dbmorpher, please try to properly formulate opinions before writing them down.

The whole point of colonizing the surface of Venus is to colonize the SURFACE of Venus. And trust me sir, that will happen eventually. For a multitude of reasons.

If it's not advanced enough now, then i'd bet 100 or so years in the future, yeah sure, it will be.

Occam's Razor merely SUGGESTS there is no multiverse. However, if you say nyet to other universes, how do you explain black holes? Or an experiment where energy shifted from one universe to another? Or the time when we discovered energy particles coming into OUR universe? It's weak, but good enough to prove there are other universes.

[ZetaX]

...colonize the SURFACE of Venus. And trust me sir, that will happen eventually. For a multitude of reasons.

There are actually not many reasons for colonization. You may want to put a (nonhuman) science outpost there, but it is pretty useless as a place to live. If we every get around to make a Dyson sphere, then the iron is definitely useful, but I would not call that colonization.

Or an experiment where energy shifted from one universe to another? Or the time when we discovered energy particles coming into OUR universe? It's weak, but good enough to prove there are other universes.

None of these were ever observed. And why should one need other universes to explain black holes¿ General relativity definitely does not and suffices for their existence.

[Souper]

Uhh, ZetaX, i do believe i watched a science documentary somewhere and discovered someone did a quantum experiment, where energy rapidly pulsed back and forth instead of doing the normal linear thing. I can't remember what exactly it was, but i do think it was proof that other universes exist.

and besides, there's not really any solid evidence other universes don't exist, and a little things hinting toward their existence.

In the end it really points toward two things that justify my claims.

Pretty much anything is possible in the future.

And if we don't know something, it can be anything.

[dharak1]

Science "documentaries" are usually unreliable sources of information. Especially ones on Discovery or any other major cable "science " networks .

[ZetaX]

Uhh, ZetaX, i do believe i watched a science documentary somewhere and discovered someone did a quantum experiment, where energy rapidly pulsed back and forth instead of doing the normal linear thing. I can't remember what exactly it was, but i do think it was proof that other universes exist.

So your evidence is that you maybe once saw someone saying it. Great!....

and besides, there's not really any solid evidence other universes don't exist, and a little things hinting toward their existence.

There is also no solid evidence the tooth fairy does not exist.

In the end it really points toward two things that justify my claims.

Two¿ And nope.

Pretty much anything is possible in the future.

So better prepare for living hell under the tooth fairy's regime.

And if we don't know something, it can be anything.

You don't know my real name, so yeah, I might be the tooth fairy.

[Nibb31]

dbmorpher, please try to properly formulate opinions before writing them down.

The whole point of colonizing the surface of Venus is to colonize the SURFACE of Venus. And trust me sir, that will happen eventually. For a multitude of reasons.

What sort of reasons would those be? There isn't a reason to colonize Antarctica or the Sahara desert, let alone the Moon or Mars, so why would we colonize the most hostile planet in our solar system?

Occam's Razor merely SUGGESTS there is no multiverse. However, if you say nyet to other universes, how do you explain black holes? Or an experiment where energy shifted from one universe to another? Or the time when we discovered energy particles coming into OUR universe? It's weak, but good enough to prove there are other universes.

Can you explain the relationship between black holes and multiverses? You might as well add pink unicorns and teapots.

[rtxoff]

O great, the great inquisitors of the holy science inquisition are back fulfilling their mission, eradicating the rest of creativity someone could have.

[wasmic]

What if we can have a field where we could modify the quantity of Higgs Bosons? (zero gravity chamber anyone?)

This should work. However, by setting the rest mass of something to 0, any amount energy (any temperature above 0 K counts as energy, too) would send that thing flying at the speed of light, literally.

But hey, you just got an FTL drive!

Occam's Razor merely SUGGESTS there is no multiverse. However, if you say nyet to other universes, how do you explain black holes? Or an experiment where energy shifted from one universe to another? Or the time when we discovered energy particles coming into OUR universe? It's weak, but good enough to prove there are other universes.

It's definitely not enough to prove a multiverse. Please link me to a peer-reviewed article about that experiment where energy shifted from one universe to another.

[N_las]

This should work. However, by setting the rest mass of something to 0, any amount energy (any temperature above 0 K counts as energy, too) would send that thing flying at the speed of light, literally.

No it wouldn't. I don't have the time to explain, but there is a video with a basic explanation:

[wasmic]

No it wouldn't. I don't have the time to explain, but there is a video with a basic explanation:

Right, thanks. Anyway, this means that just by eliminating the Higgs field, we would still have mass and there would not be zero-G.

[peadar1987]

Ponies are actually real:

[lajoswinkler]

i think that at least 1 of these theories can be real.

All cool, but none of those are theories. They're wishes.

[YourEverydayWaffle]

Occam's Razor merely SUGGESTS there is no multiverse. However, if you say nyet to other universes, how do you explain black holes? Or an experiment where energy shifted from one universe to another? Or the time when we discovered energy particles coming into OUR universe? It's weak, but good enough to prove there are other universes.

I'd say that the multiverse theory isn't really that complex when you compare it to other theories. Seems fairly simple at the core.

[NASAFanboy]

I don't get how Ockhams Razor says there are no multiverses; atleast, I never have interpreted it that way. I tend to believe that every multiverses exist except for a multiverse that doesn't have multiverses (As in form of scientific law, such as you can't go over the speed of light and how a apple falls because of gravity). As far as I know, Ockhams Razor says that the less assumptions a theory makes, the more likely it is to be correct.

The multiverse theories are making plenty of assumptions with little scientific fact, but it still is possible and somewhat plausible. I'm not physicist, but I'd have to say that our knowledge and technology simply isn't at all enough to make a conclusion about this at all.

tl dr; they may exist, they may not, too early to tell, wtf does Ockhams razor have to do with this

[Dominatus]

O great, the great inquisitors of the holy science inquisition are back fulfilling their mission, eradicating the rest of creativity someone could have.

... Because we are pointing out the difference between wishful thinking and actual scientific theory? Science doesn't punish creativity; science encourages it, just as it encourages us to recreate experiments and try to see if we can get a different result to discredit it. Skepticism and creativity are both highly valued by the scientific community. Take a look at Star Trek; communicators predicted cell phones, and plot development predicted dead zones... Thanks to Star Trek we also have things such as the Alcubierre warp metric, created after a guy was inspired by warp drives in Star Trek. Science fiction has provided imagination and inspiration for many technologies. However, to claim the OP's speculation as anything other than wishful thinking is incorrect.

[Vanamonde]

As always, folks, please talk about the ideas in the thread rather than each other.

[dbmorpher]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor#Applications

The razor is just a thought process where the simplest option wins. I'm not saying it disproves multiverse theory but seeing as there's no evidence I can't really rally behind it.

And speaking of "science" documentaries, the other week I had an argument with my English teacher because she believed that when someone dies they go to "Heaven" which is in another universe. (Doesn't work scientifically or theologically)

I'm sorry if my statements appear sporadic, my train of thought goes a little fast...

[Skyler4856]

Even if we could somehow manipulate the Higgs Field, and even if the Higgs applied to the proton and neutron, you're still neglecting basic relativity; mass has energy equivalence, and thus massless particles are affected by gravity, provided they contain energy, and this case they do.

[rtxoff]

... Because we are pointing out the difference between wishful thinking and actual scientific theory?

Yes, exactly because of that, you just even said it's actual scientific THEORY.

Science doesn't punish creativity; science encourages it, just as it encourages us to recreate experiments and try to see if we can get a different result to discredit it.

Well, tell this to some people here in the forum which would like to eradicate such people of the globe because they are annoying creative different thinkers.

Skepticism and creativity are both highly valued by the scientific community. Take a look at Star Trek; communicators predicted cell phones, and plot development predicted dead zones... Thanks to Star Trek we also have things such as the Alcubierre warp metric, created after a guy was inspired by warp drives in Star Trek. Science fiction has provided imagination and inspiration for many technologies. However, to claim the OP's speculation as anything other than wishful thinking is incorrect.

It's very interessting how people work with double standards. On one side they like Star Trek and all the fiction in it seems not to bother them but on the other god help us all if you dare to cross the line which is defined by serious science today. OP's speculation has it's own right to exist here on this forum either you like it or not. And if you say that the OP is nothing more then wishful thinking you will have to say this for the Alcubierre drive too. While the Alcubierre warp metric is something working in math and has it's right to exist it's practical use might never be achieved which puts it exactly in the wishful thinking category.

[Nibb31]

Yes, exactly because of that, you just even said it's actual scientific THEORY.

That word you just used. It doesn't mean what you think it means:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

(...)

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative)."

Wikipedia

Well, tell this to some people here in the forum which would like to eradicate such people of the globe because they are annoying creative different thinkers.

There's nothing wrong with being creative. Scientific method implies that when you formulate a conjecture, it has to stand up to criticism. If there is evidence that it's wrong, then it's your duty to admit it and move on to something else. If there is no evidence that it's wrong, then it just stays a conjecture with no value or merit. If you can substantially prove it AND explain it AND repeatedly predict the outcome of any experiments pertaining to it, then you might actually be on to something.

It's very interessting how people work with double standards. On one side they like Star Trek and all the fiction in it seems not to bother them but on the other god help us all if you dare to cross the line which is defined by serious science today.

Most people admit that science-fiction is more fiction than science. Its role is to entertain, not to provide a valid scientific background. It's a fantasy world where technobabble replaces magic as a plot device. Looking to Star Trek for science or predictions of a plausible future is just like looking a Lord of the Rings as a historical source.

OP's speculation has it's own right to exist here on this forum either you like it or not. And if you say that the OP is nothing more then wishful thinking you will have to say this for the Alcubierre drive too. While the Alcubierre warp metric is something working in math and has it's right to exist it's practical use might never be achieved which puts it exactly in the wishful thinking category.

Speculation is allowed. Criticism of that speculation is also allowed. That's how you learn and that's how science progresses.

[ZetaX]

To everyone trying to answer gpisic: do not try to convince him, his non-understanding of science is probably beyond what we can cure, especially because he is not open to rational arguments at all. Just take a look at my recent "dicussion" with him in the "FTL communication" thread.

Better focus on debunking his nonsense to others who might otherwise believe him. At least, this looks like a better way to spend your ressources (be it thinking or time) and looks morally better (why trying to help the stubburn guy when you can save many from his crap¿), too.

[rtxoff]

@Nibb31: I agree with all the above but i really must ask following questions:

Is critism on that critism allowed too? What qualifies someone to be a critic? Isn't it like there are more aspects someone could critic a particular matter? Did you even look into Wikipedia how a critic is defined?

If you had, you would most likely found out that a critic is in no way a scientific man. I cite:

A critic is a professional who communicates his or her opinions and assessments of various forms of creative work such as art, literature, music, cinema, theater, fashion, architecture and food.

A truly scientific soul will try to do something out of someones speculation even if at first it does not look like possible and that is how science progresses (Alcubiere metric). At no circumstances at all it is allowed for a true science guy to say the word impossible. Also the common phrase i often hear here is "we know". The only thing we know for real is that we don't know anything. That is the only statement that can be really true from a science perspective.

Critism on inspiration a creative mind can give here is no science at all. Critism is someones personal opinion about how he likes it or not, nothing less and nothing more.

So my conclusion: Criticism on speculation is allowed yes but only from a creative point of view not an scientific one.

[ZetaX]

There is a difference between the profession of being a critic and the act of being a critic. The latter has no professionality and can be done by everyone. The wikipedia article on professional critics has a disambiguation page, you know. Also, wiktionary is probably better for this kind of things and it very clearly says as first and third options: A person who appraises the works of others. One who criticizes; a person who finds fault.

And for everyone who really want to know what science is about: it is about deducing hypotheses form observed things, then testing these things. Not: making stuff up, then trying to reason why it is true.

As soon as someone debunks your stuff, it is done for; no "you are not imaginative enough"; you can come back if you have a better idea that does not have all those flaws.

Hint: the alcubierre drive was researched a lot before being published. It's not like some guy just shouted "Nah, FTL should work".