Reply to: You don't get something for nothing....

[d000hg]

I don't mean trust that they're not lying... often you are not directly measuring stuff but measuring the effect it has on something else. As we get further and further away from laboratory conditions, this can be more than one level deep... we think X does something that will cause Y, and Y will cause Z which we can measure, so if we see Z X has happened. But are we 100% certain X does cause Y when we can't measure that directly either, and that Z can only happen due to Y.

The complexity in measuring is mindboggling, read anything about how the LHC detects Higgs and it's astounding.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Or we need a higher standard of education so that we don't get left behind.

We're so wealthy now compared to a few hundred years ago because of division of labour. Science will be no different (i think) so I don't think education will help.

I would say, though, that we will have to 'trust' scientists, rather than have 'faith' in them. I think it's a subtle, but important difference.

[doodab]

Furthermore, the measurements and techniques get more and more complicated so we mere mortals have to place ever increasing faith that what the scientists tell us is actually true.

Or we need a higher standard of education so that we don't get left behind.

[doodab]

bollux. you think we are ever going to know how the universe started?

Believing we will never know requires just as much faith as anything else.

[SpontaneousOrder]

bollux. you think we are ever going to know how the universe started?

Its tough enough finding out how cuk started.

Science is about probabilities. 'proof' is a subjective assessment - we can never prove anything with absolute certainly (like the moon isn't made of cheese), other than things which are a priori truths to begin with (e.g. 1 + 1 = 2).

Al we can do is say that something is so probably true that we are happy to consider it as being true, or that something is so unlikely that we can reasonably consider it to be false.

Supposing that we will never find out how the universe started says nothing about the science of studying how it may have started. Just because the degree of certainty when it comes to the probabilities is uncertain, doesn't make it not science. Or even bad science.

[d000hg]

That is a problem with public perception of science, not science itself.

To an extent yes, and scientists continually find ways to test seemingly untestable theories, but the further we get into the realms of multiverses, additional dimensions & hyper-energy entities, the harder it gets. Furthermore, the measurements and techniques get more and more complicated so we mere mortals have to place ever increasing faith that what the scientists tell us is actually true.

[BrilloPad]

That is a problem with public perception of science, not science itself.

bollux. you think we are ever going to know how the universe started?

Its tough enough finding out how cuk started.

[mudskipper]

You can laugh, but that might not be so far from the truth!

x_1 + x_2 + x_3 + .... + x_n = 0

x_1 x_2 x_3 ... x_n = 1

is a Calabi-Yau manifold for any n > 1 (and so, among other things, a vacuum solution of the field equations of General Relativity)

Also, for n = 4 (a case I've spent quite a while studying for a purpose unrelated to physics) it has some other intriguing properties, including what look like symmetries under special conformal transformation groups.

Plus is has an obvious composition property, whereby one combine two such manifolds additively and multiplicatively for the respective equations to get a new pair of the same form.

It's a pig to work with though. For example, it took me _ages_ to prove the trivial-looking fact that

x + y + z + t = 0 and x y z t = 1

is birationally equivalent to

X + Y + Z = T and X Y Z T = 1

(I think if it has any physical significance, the first pair may be remotely related to mass-energy and the second to spacetime, and this is a sort of "signature change" between the two.)

WHS

[doodab]

Science has become the new religion. Asseting stuff that cannot be proved and is a matter of faith.

That is a problem with public perception of science, not science itself.

[BrilloPad]

Science has become the new religion. Asseting stuff that cannot be proved and is a matter of faith.

[d000hg]

1 + -1 = 0

Where do I pick up my Nobel prize?

Except that we're not left over with 0, but 0.000...001.

[OwlHoot]

1 + -1 = 0

Where do I pick up my Nobel prize?

You can laugh, but that might not be so far from the truth!

x_1 + x_2 + x_3 + .... + x_n = 0

x_1 x_2 x_3 ... x_n = 1

is a Calabi-Yau manifold for any n > 1 (and so, among other things, a vacuum solution of the field equations of General Relativity)

Also, for n = 4 (a case I've spent quite a while studying for a purpose unrelated to physics) it has some other intriguing properties, including what look like symmetries under special conformal transformation groups.

Plus is has an obvious composition property, whereby one combine two such manifolds additively and multiplicatively for the respective equations to get a new pair of the same form.

It's a pig to work with though. For example, it took me _ages_ to prove the trivial-looking fact that

x + y + z + t = 0 and x y z t = 1

is birationally equivalent to

X + Y + Z = T and X Y Z T = 1

(I think if it has any physical significance, the first pair may be remotely related to mass-energy and the second to spacetime, and this is a sort of "signature change" between the two.)

[suityou01]

Well thermodynamics is a zero sum game, so ok I'm buying.

[doodab]

1 + -1 = 0

Where do I pick up my Nobel prize?

There is no Nobel prize for Mathematics. You need to turn penguin tulip into gold or something.

[MarillionFan]

1 + -1 = 0

Where do I pick up my Nobel prize?