Ask a physicist anything. (2)

[Doveaman]

And I'll give you the same answer from that thread:

Oh, it's you again.

Weird... The first five links regarding the The Big Bang Theory (not the TV show,) after searching for it on Google show wording such as this...

Question: Aren’t those guys on the “TV show” real scientists? I think Steven Hawkins is one of them. In fact, I know he is.

 

[sandwiches]

Oh, it's you again.

Ditto.

Question: Aren’t those guys on the “TV show” real scientists? I think Steven Hawkins is one of them. In fact, I know he is.

Stephen Hawking? Yes, he is. He's a theoretical physicist. I'll await your youtube or quote or whatever from some show where Hawking talks about the Big Bang without saying "I think" or "maybe." In other words, as Hangman might say, I'll await for you to clutch at some more straws.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ditto.


Stephen Hawking? Yes, he is. He's a theoretical physicist.

Hawking is on The Big Bang Theory?! I missed that episode!

Though the one with Summer Glau... very, very good.

 

[Doveaman]

Ah, now that is a question .

The best one on this thread so far, I’d say.

It's to do with the nuance between scientific and colloquial nomenclature, with simplifying established scientific knowledge for the layman, and even slips of the tongue.

First, a 'fact' in science is used more loosely than in strict epistemology: a fact is any established truth. In epistemology, it's anything which is strictly known to be true with 100% certainty; in science, it's known to very high (but not necessarily 100%) certainty.
The existence of atoms is a scientific fact: the evidence for their existence is so overwhelming that they've been proven to exist beyond all reasonable doubt. They aren't know to exist with 100% certainty, so they're not an epistemological fact, but they are a scientific fact.
The difference is similar to that between 'theory' in science and in the public eye; the former considers a theory to be a well-evidenced explanation, while the latter generally consider it to be just a guess.

Second, it is impractical to preface everything with "The evidence suggests", or "We think", or "We conjecture", or "We hypothesis", etc, and it also erodes the public's confidence in science. One need only to look to the USA to see how dangerous that erosion can be.

Third, some scientists (especially those talking outside their field) genuinely make mistakes. A biologist may say that the Big Bang theory "proves the universe began 13.5 billion years ago", despite that being false.

Well, I must say that I'm very impressed by the way scientists make things that are not 100% certain seem like they are 100% certain.

Then again, that maybe just a perception of a poor layman like myself.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The best one on this thread so far, I’d say.
Well, I must say that I'm very impressed by the way scientists make things that are not 100% certain seem like they are 100% certain.

Then again, that maybe just a perception of a poor layman like myself.

That's more than likely. Look in actual scientific publications (Nature, etc); scientists are much more careful with their language and use proper scientific terminology when talking to other scientists.

 

[sandwiches]

Hawking is on The Big Bang Theory?! I missed that episode!

Though the one with Summer Glau... very, very good.

I misunderstood the question. I forgot there was a TV show called Big bang. I thought he was asking if there were scientists on TV like Stephen Hawking.

 

[Hespera]

The best one on this thread so far, I’d say.
Well, I must say that I'm very impressed by the way scientists make things that are not 100% certain seem like they are 100% certain.

Then again, that maybe just a perception of a poor layman like myself.

Its the perception of someone who is stubbornly committed to only seeing what he thinks he sees. Religionist thinking. An unprejudiced "layman" wouldnt have any trouble knowing what they are saying.

If someone thinks that he perceives that them scientists make things seem 100% certain, well, that is what he thinks he sees. Its not the way they think, talk, believe or work though.

You might of course, think about how incredibly pedantic and awkward it would be to precede every statement with a list of disclaimers and definitions of what a theory is.

The essence of being a scientist is to be open to the discovery that your ideas are wrong. The essence of being a religionist is the opposite.

Dont try to tar scientific thinking with the religionist brush. You guys are proud that you think that way; others are glad that they dont.

 

[Doveaman]

Religionist thinking ...

The essence of being a religionist ...

the religionist brush ...

Is Buddhism a religion?

Does it have a deity?

Is He worshiped?

Is He prayed to?

What is his name?

 

[pgp_protector]

Is Buddhism a religion?

My Understanding it's more of a Philosophy than a Religion.

Does it have a deity?

No.

Is He worshiped?

See above

Is He prayed to?

See above

What is his name?

See above

 

[Doveaman]

My Understanding it's more of a Philosophy than a Religion.
No.
See above
See above
See above

What about reincarnation?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is Buddhism a religion?

Yes.

Does it have a deity?

A few branches have one, but by and large, no. In that respect, it's an atheistic religion: it has no gods, though adherents are free to believe in them.

Is He worshiped?

Is He prayed to?

What is his name?

Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha. He's revered, but not worshipped in the same way that Christians worship Jesus.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What about reincarnation?

A Buddhist once told me that he doesn't believe in reincarnation, because he doesn't believe in anything that can reincarnate. Wise man was he.

 

[Jazmyn]

LOL!!!

Who put those tags there?

 

[catzrfluffy]

Below a certain really hot temperature, light and matter separate, if the temperature reaches that again, do light and matter join together?

Can atoms melt?

That light that can detect blood by making it glow, how does it make it glow?

Ever done an experiment that went wrong?

I was once wearing those really naff scratchy goggles they give you in science at school, so none of us can actually see, then I picked up a plastic cup thinking it was empty, and shook it wondering why it was heavier than the other one, then my sleeve got all wet with what I thought was water, but then my friend came back from filling up the cups and told me it was sulphuric acid. Argh! But that stuff was so diluted it didn't actually do anything. That was a short, pointless story.

(my ebil *guards ebil*)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Below a certain really hot temperature, light and matter separate, if the temperature reaches that again, do light and matter join together?

I'm not sure what you mean. How do they 'separate'?

Can atoms melt?

No. Melting is the phenomenon whereby the molecular structure of a material breaks down due to the amount of heat: the rigid structure of a solid is held together by bonds, but these are broken by sufficient heat.

That light that can detect blood by making it glow, how does it make it glow?

The haemoglobin in blood reacts to ultra-violet light by absorbing it, then emitting light of a lower (and thus visible) wavelength. The phenomenon is called 'fluorescence', whereby an object emits visible light after absorbing light of a different wavelength.

Ever done an experiment that went wrong?

Lots of times! Not because the underlying theory was wrong, but because I was just crap at setting it up .

I was once wearing those really naff scratchy goggles they give you in science at school, so none of us can actually see, then I picked up a plastic cup thinking it was empty, and shook it wondering why it was heavier than the other one, then my sleeve got all wet with what I thought was water, but then my friend came back from filling up the cups and told me it was sulphuric acid. Argh! But that stuff was so diluted it didn't actually do anything. That was a short, pointless story.

I once lent over to pour some water away, then realised I'd lent right over a Bunsen burner. Suffice to say, my school jumper has a massive hole in it to this day.

 

[catzrfluffy]

LOL!

What's the coolest experiment ever?

I just like that squeaky-pop thing where someone puts a splint into a test-tube filled with something, and it makes a *pop* noise. Ceaseless amusement. But then I haven't seen anything special sciency wise. Your opinion?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

LOL!

What's the coolest experiment ever?

I just like that squeaky-pop thing where someone puts a splint into a test-tube filled with something, and it makes a *pop* noise. Ceaseless amusement. But then I haven't seen anything special sciency wise. Your opinion?

Aaaah I loved doing that! We also stuck a bubble maker to a gas tap and made giant gas bubbles: then popped them with a lit splint. EDIT: And once they were popped with the flaming splint, they burst into a great billowing cloud of flame. Great times.

My favourite, though, is the volcano experiment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mJbcMOa0GA

 

[Sanguis]

I remember in high school, we were doing this experiment, where we timed how long it would take for copper and sodium thiosulphate to make a cross drawn on a bit of paper under the beaker disappear.

I was kinda bored, so I started doodling on the beaker with a felt tip pen. I picked up the beaker to wipe it off and start doodling again, with a clean beaker to doodle on, and the bottom came off, perfectly. No shattered glass, or cracks, just a perfect cut about 4/5ths of the way down the beaker, all the way around. I got covered in one of the two (I forget which. Think it might've been sodium.), anyone who's done that experiment knows how much it absolutely reeks, and I spent the rest of the day (We had science first period) reeking of rotten eggs, regardless of how much I tried to wash it off.

 

[catzrfluffy]

LOLs!

Where does all the extra stuff come from in that volcano experiment?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

LOLs!

Where does all the extra stuff come from in that volcano experiment?

The orange stuff (Ammonium Dichromate) burns and puffs up. There's nothing extra: it's like popcorn that explodes massively, or water that gets bigger when it freezes.