SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the unterminated-strings-cause-inflation dept.
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
Our universe: An expanding bubble in an extra dimension
According to string theory, all matter consists of tiny, vibrating "stringlike" entities. The theory also requires there to be more spatial dimensions than the three that are already part of everyday knowledge. For 15 years, there have been models in string theory that have been thought to give rise to dark energy. However, these have come in for increasingly harsh criticism, and several researchers are now asserting that none of the models proposed to date are workable.
In their article, the scientists propose a new model with dark energy and our Universe riding on an expanding bubble in an extra dimension. The whole Universe is accommodated on the edge of this expanding bubble. All existing matter in the Universe corresponds to the ends of strings that extend out into the extra dimension. The researchers also show that expanding bubbles of this kind can come into existence within the framework of string theory. It is conceivable that there are more bubbles than ours, corresponding to other universes.
Journal Reference:
Souvik Banerjee, Ulf Danielsson, Giuseppe Dibitetto, Suvendu Giri, Marjorie Schillo. Emergent de Sitter Cosmology from Decaying Anti–de Sitter Space. Physical Review Letters, 2018; 121 (26) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.261301
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30 2018, @05:13PM (5 children)
Good ol' string theory. Pulling bubbles out of their ass since the beginning.
Actual evidence optional and in fact absent...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 30 2018, @06:19PM (3 children)
I've always wondered where they find these extra dimensions. I wouldn't mind having a couple spares.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday December 30 2018, @07:43PM
Really... We are prisoners in a finite 'flatland'... like those guys sent off in that Superman movie
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheGratefulNet on Monday December 31 2018, @12:10AM
they are inside the socks that are 'lost' in the drier.
well, actually, on the outside of the-
oh, nevermind.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 31 2018, @02:43AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30 2018, @08:08PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30 2018, @05:16PM (9 children)
I realize that these stories are abstracts of information given by scientists who are dumbing it down for reporters, who are in turn dumbing it down even more when they write it. So judging the actual state of the field from this is simply not appropriate, really. But not being a cosmologist, or physicist, or whatever, this stuff is all I've got to work with.
Having said that... am I the only one who's starting to think all this tinkering with this theory or that theory is sounding more like a desperate science fiction author trying to tweak a story to get it past a deranged editor who keeps changing what he wants? With perhaps the author being a bit stoned? "Like, man, what if the whole universe, was, like, just the edge of a huge bubble, man?"
Is it overly cynical to wonder if string theory is trying to explain the universe, or is trying to keep the grant money coming in?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30 2018, @06:51PM (1 child)
here's a specialists' view on it: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
this is a blog where a physicist tries to explain why current theories of high energy physics are mostly junk, but the community refuses to do anything else. most of the entries deal with this problem.
string theory is a beautiful mathematical abstraction that has so far not given one verifiable result.
well, they did predict the cosmological constant. and they failed miserably. after which they made their theory even more abstract, so now it can predict any value of the cosmological constant you want it to, in many different ways --- so many that you can't actually use it for anything.
unfortunately, these "physicists" have tenured positions, and they're sticking to their idiotic nonsense, keeping out the people with alternative ideas.
the entire community of theoretical high energy physics is basically trapped in a cycle where if you don't work on the popular stuff you don't get a permanent position, even though the popular stuff doesn't predict anything that can be verified by experiment. and if you do get a permanent position by working on the popular stuff, you want to continue working on it (either because you believe it's the right thing to do because you're an idiot, or because it's easy).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30 2018, @11:05PM
Thank you for that link, it is most enlightening.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30 2018, @07:07PM
"wonder if string theory is trying to explain the universe, or is trying to keep the grant money coming in?"
You are asking
Number1) is it fake? No, look at the paper, it is filled with formulas that can be proven/disproven by other scientists
Number2) is it Valuable?
Just because it does not produce immediately tangible benefits does not make it worthless. An analogy: think of all those annoying people who question the value of exploring space; solve the problems on earth first they say. The same responses to them apply here.
(Score: 2) by seeprime on Sunday December 30 2018, @09:42PM (2 children)
What better job than one where you theorize a reality that can never be proven? Possibly a TV weatherman, who is rarely correct more than 48 hours out.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Monday December 31 2018, @12:13AM (1 child)
"tonite, its going to be dark. real dark.
followed, tomorrow, by random scattering of light."
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Touché) by coolgopher on Monday December 31 2018, @02:24AM
Cue full moon in a clear sky followed by a dark and stormy day.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ledow on Sunday December 30 2018, @11:41PM (1 child)
What you know as physics is actually just maths.
Quantum physics is utter horseshit from a real-world viewpoint. Nobody would have ever come up with that nonsense and been respected.
But what we did was generate the maths that we already had. Took it a step further. Solved equations that we couldn't previously solve. And for nearly 100 years people like Einstein were laughed at as it was all just nonsense on paper that had no visible real-world analogue. Until we found out that, actually, the stuff that dropped out of the equations was out there, in the world, visible, testable, verifiable.
Things like relativity, quantum physics, and anything sub-quantum are the same. They are there because they are a consequence of the mathematics. Now, they may just be deadends and nonsense, literally mathematical facts that are "correct" but which are damn useless without context, 11-dimensions, or the missing pieces, or even a decent interpretation of the numbers that we KNOW are right.
String theory is no different. GR/Quantum physics were nearly 100 years old before anyone could actually see any use or proof in them. String theory could be no different, or it could be a nonsense deadend. Nobody knows.
Fact is, the entirety of high-end physics is mathematics. Because you have to PREDICT and then OBSERVE, not OBSERVE and then make up nonsense that might explain. The latter is where we are at. We're measuring dark matter and other things, and stabbing at physical explanations for them. But until we can derive equations that naturally leave space for dark matter, and then predict a way for us to observe it, and THEN we can observe it by following what those equations tell us should happen? We're just plucking at straws.
We've been plucking at straws for at least 20, maybe more, years in these areas. We don't have the magic equations that explain everything, or even some that could predict something unusual that we don't expect to see but could actually later observe. We have an handful of really-open-answers that aren't much cop until we can use them. And no practical and feasible experiments that would reveal if they are useful or even vaguely correct.
It'll come someday. But at the moment, we lack the mathematical link, not just the interpretation of that mathematical link that might help us understand something new.
Most of these equations are so difficult-to-solve and open-ended that even with a field of supercomputers and a plethora of mathematicians working on them for decades, we get no closer to anything substantial and definitive, and the only answers we've ever got ever since quantum-physics/GR are basically so difficult to solve that they can only give extremely vague and wide-ranging answers dependent on so many unknown variables that we just can't ever know, that we haven't progressed in a long time.
All we can do is come up with a million theories, and then next time we discover something unusual eliminate all the models that no longer fit. It's like a huge game of Guess Who - all we know is that the guy is male, so we can knock down the female theories, but other than that there are still dozens of viable candidates and until we can ask the next question and get a distinguishing answer, we can only add more characters to the board.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 31 2018, @12:17AM
Wow, you are an idiot.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday December 31 2018, @08:23AM
"am I the only one who's starting to think all this tinkering with this theory or that theory is sounding more like a desperate science fiction author trying to tweak a story"
I would be a bit more charitable. It seems to me that physicists are just missing some essential insight. The universe exists, and we can understand a lot of the interactions that we see, but the why of it eludes us. Quarks exist, but why do they exist? Why is there an electromagnetic force? Why is there gravity? Even if string theory were to prove out, it's only one more turtle in the stack, because why are there strings?
Maybe these are questions beyond our capabilities. Being inside the universe and subject to its laws, are we even capable of imagining what underlies it?
Personally, intuitively, (IANAP = not a physicist) I am happiest with the "we are a simulation" explanation. It would intuitively explain so much. For example, quantum mechanics is just revealing the finest level of resolution available. Of course, this still begs the question: what are the rules of the simulation? Can we derive them? Understand them? Manipulate them from the inside? Evil laugh Can we become malware?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Sunday December 30 2018, @06:41PM (4 children)
String theory and dark energy.... let's throw in dark matter too.
And ghosts.... hey, unicorns too!
Throw it all into a blender with the
(wouldn't want to offend people like Trump did) and you have a whole mess of imaginary shit that people throw up when they have no answers.
Why don't i have two heads? Because dark matter! Booyah!
Why are my poops sometimes red? Beets me...maybe string theory? HEY!!! BOOYAH!!
Sigh: we need better scientific answers than string-out-the-butt-theory, dark energy and dark matter.
Lets spend money on REAL SCIENCE!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 4, Touché) by hopdevil on Sunday December 30 2018, @07:27PM (3 children)
I'm not sure I understand where your rage is coming from; this idea is a great example of how theoretical physics (or other sciences) tend to play out.
There are a bunch of unexplainable events/measurements that don't quite fit any existing theory. So people attempt to explain (hypothesize) in the most rigorous way a new theory that fits old and new data. Then they identify experiments that can prove or disprove this hypothesis. The scientific method isn't perfect, but it is sure better than anything else humanity has come up with.
Don't take so seriously dark matter/dark energy as proven things; they are the "leftovers" that can't be explained from the last-best-theory.
Are you mad that people get paid money to come up with new ideas and push the envelope? Or that coming up with the next best explanation for the universe is difficult and yes, expensive (people hours/computation)? What do you propose, give up until everyone agrees with what you think is "REAL SCIENCE"?
There is also the issue where it is quite difficult to make experiments, we only recently demonstrated we could measure gravitational waves. So 80 years+ of technological advancements and many millions in $$$ funding necessary.
I would say ask your doctor, but you might not give much thought to biological sciences either..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30 2018, @07:31PM (1 child)
Gaaark is a dark matter truther.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday December 30 2018, @08:16PM
No, Gaaark just likes the scientific method not hand-waving.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 4, Interesting) by zocalo on Sunday December 30 2018, @08:17PM
*Some* people do anyway. A common complaint leveled by critics of string theory is that its proponents have yet to provide any testable experiments to go with their hypothesis, and while I've not performed an exhaustive search this does appear to be the case. The flipside of that is that whenever a flaw *is* found in their hypothesis they just come up with an even more elaborate workaround to continue the research (or get more funding, to take the cynical view). All in all, it sounds remarkably similar to the whole flat earth thing, only with funding grants and tenure.
Dark matter/energy advocates on the otherhand might not be having much luck (so far at least) working out what the stuff really is, but they are at least ruling out possible theories and once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. Of course, that might just turn out to be string theory. :)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by BK on Sunday December 30 2018, @06:43PM (1 child)
Doesn't that make THIS the extra dimension(s)?
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Monday December 31 2018, @12:15AM
at the end of the meal, any extra dimensions are just given as scraps to the dog.
(makes as much sense as tiny strings. don't tell me they can't be sub-divided, either, since that's just crazy talk)
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30 2018, @06:45PM
Our Universe is a mere 4 dimensional zit on the face of an n-dimensional reality...
(Lets just hope there isn't an n-dimensional equivalent of zit cream...or something capable of popping the buggers...)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hendrikboom on Sunday December 30 2018, @06:48PM
It looks as if the phenomena "explained" by dark energy can instead be explained by noticing the universe is lumpy. Which it is.
Dark energy is needed to get the general relativistic equations to match experimentally observed expansion acceleration only if we assume the universe is smooth. Which it isn't.
-- hendrik
(Score: 5, Informative) by johnlongjohnson on Sunday December 30 2018, @08:44PM (13 children)
I keep seeing so many replies along the lines of "I don't understand it, it must be false" or "string theory is only for grant money" or "where's these supposed extra dimensions" and bunch of other general anti-science viewpoints.
If you don't understand something admit it and ask for help. Don't sit and denigrate it. You guys sound like climate deniers. You're making the same claims and based on even weaker arguments than the anti-vax and climate deniers.
Every theory we have is incomplete period. There is no theory we have which predicts all we see.
The best theories we have, still miss important things like gravity.
This doesn't mean that they are wrong.
It just means there's more between heaven and earth than we comprehend at the moment.
Yet all these advances in theory eventually shake out to something.
115 years ago we couldn't explain why striking a metal plate with a light produced a voltage at all.
Then once we figured out why we still couldn't explain why varying the intensity of the light didn't change the voltage.
Eventually we realized that light was in fact a quantized excitation of the electromagnetic field and because it was quantized, the frequency i.e. color of the light determined the voltage while the intensity of light determined the number of electrons being moved, i.e. the amperage.
To get from Maxwell's theories to Einstein's theory of corpuscular light took > 70 years
We got lucky with Einstein because not only did he essentially invent quantum mechanics, he also gave us relativity.
Now we have a problem. Relativity does a great job explaining gravity. Quantum Field Theory does a great job explaining everything else, but gravity is a square peg in a round hole.
Enter Feynman who managed to come up with a relativistic solution to Schrodinger and Kaluza & Klein who realized that extending gravity to 5 dimensions produces a force cogent to gravity that happens to match Maxwells equations for electromagnetism and you have double trouble. Can we keep extending relativity into multiple extant dimensions in hopes we find the other forces, dimensions by which by all accounts we can't see or feel, or do we look for a way to try and get gravity to play nice with the other forces?
It literally took until 2018 before we could falsify Kaluza Klein. EM and Gravity come to us through the same number of dimensions. Gravity isn't leaking in from higher dimensions, at least not dimensions which are macroscopic. Thus the only way to persue KK theory while maintaining intellectual honesty is to assume compact dimensions.
But this has been known for a long time because Kaluza himself proposed it way back when.
In fact it was Kaluza's idea that every point in space and time must have 1 extra spatial dimension, a dimension which is compact and curled onto itself. Sound familiar?
String theory is not some new theory that came out of the blue. It is the natural evolution of what we already had. Interestingly enough, one thing that keeps shaking out in string theory and the thing that makes it so fascinating is that predicts gravity. In fact it's really, really hard to have string theory which doesn't immediately start pumping out gravitons.
This tells us something about string theory or as it's called now M theory.
Gravity comes to us in almost all formulations of the theory. This means that simply searching the parameter space of the theory is almost guaranteed to produce gravity if and when it produces other forces and they've already found certain parameters again that yield EM and Gravity.
So what are these parameters?
Specifically it is the shape of the 11 dimensions in relation to one another. Unfortunately this is a geometry problem that has a lower bound of 10^500 possibilities. But these possibilities are in a single parameter, the shape of the dimensions. Compare this to QFTs minimum of 18 parameters which must all be fine tuned. M theory is a superior theory based on this. But it's a damned hard problem to solve and all indications are that there is something still more fundamental and therefore simpler, but to arrive at that we either need a revolution in thought similar to Einstein which is something that happens only perhaps once a millenia, or we need to take what works with our existing theories and keep working them until we figure out literally "the shape of the thing".
So yes, M theory actually produces lots of physically testable predictions. The problem is that they are not testable with current technology and the search space if really, really huge. Perhaps if we had access to a black hole and some metric craptons of unobtainium we might be able to physically test these things and start whittling them down. But the same was true of QM and GR a mere 100 years ago. So my guess is that we will have the field narrowed down in short order a grand unified theory of everything is just beyond the grasp of our current technology and abilities to test.
We've had modern versions of M theory only since the 1990s. That's a mere 20 some years. If you want this process to hurry up, then instead of knocking it, learn about it and pitch in. Science is the ultimate open source project and what better project could you possibly contribute to than trying to decompile the source code for the omniverse?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30 2018, @09:20PM (9 children)
I'm a physicist with a PhD.
i want money to go into fusion research and building a colony on Mars, not string theory and a bigger version of the LHC.
I want intelligent young people (i.e. grad students) to work on making technology more energy efficient, food production cheaper, and climate change mitigation schemes. I want them to build a space elevator so we can get off this rock already and establish self-sustaining colonies that won't be wiped out when asteroid/nuclear bomb or whatever happens.
I DON'T want them wasting their energy and getting high on highdimensional imaginationland.
I agree that the theories are beautiful and worth studying, but we have limited resources.
general relativity and quantum mechanics are incomprehensible to most people, and they are beautiful imaginationland births, but they were generated because there were EXPERIMENTS pointing to problems (photoelectric effect and conceptual contradictions between Newtonian gravity and special relativity). If your theory makes predictions that are, in practical terms, out of reach of experiments, then it's not a theory. it's just pretty math.
I will not agree to giving money for polock's "paintings", and I will not agree to giving money for string theory research.
if you as a private person want to work on it with your resources, or fund someone to do it, go ahead.
but I think society has better things to focus its money and labor on.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by johnlongjohnson on Sunday December 30 2018, @09:47PM (3 children)
Clearly you're not.
First off a physicist with a PhD would understand the applicability of fundamental research to each of the topics listed as "want".
Secondly you're posting AC.
Thirdly if you had anything above a high school diploma, you'd understand that the general public doesn't have to understand a theory in order to reap it's benefits. For example GR is why GPS shows you being home rather than several miles away. And you'd understand why QFT is absolutely fundamental to modern solid state electronics and upcoming spintronics. This list is actually endless so I'll leave it with those two.
Fourthly your definition of a theory without practical experiments being "just pretty math" is flat wrong. Math itself is an experimental tool. It is a way of exploring and experimenting with things that are beyond our current tech and it is precisely how we devise tests that might be physically realizable either now, in the past or in the future. For example Bell's inequalities in the 1960s leading to us being able to prove entanglement via Aspect et al in 1982 which has lead to huge advancements in everything from fiber optics to information theory.
The fact is string theory, M theory etc currently serve to inform modern QFT and GR researchers about which directions to look to expand their theories. And yes we do get predictions that are unrealizable or intractable under certain formulations of QM without tossing in M theory. For example AdS/CFT correspondence has been instrumental in solving the black hole information paradox. In that way, these theories serve as a short cut through the endless math in much the way that Feynman's path integral formulation and perturbation theory have served as shortcuts through the intractable infinities in earlier theories.
So yes it's math, and yes it's pretty.
But deciding you don't like a theory because disregarding it to focus on immediate practical applications, is now the cool hipster thing...
Well it just shows you're a hipster, and the inability to think beyond the now and perhaps the immediate future, shows you're probably a millennial.
Sorry to break it to you but fundamental research doesn't work that way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30 2018, @10:13PM
I made a point in distinguishing between GR and quantum mechanics, on one side, and string theory on the other.
I didn't decide I don't like string theory (in fact I would love to have the time to learn it properly). I am saying that we have limited resources, and currently our best and brightest are busy trying to solve a nonproblem. They have beautiful math that can describe everything, and absolutely no empirical method to pin down the description enough in order for it to be useful.
Either come up with a theory that is descriptive, or start working on other problems (that humanity is having), because the theory you have now does not describe the real world. At best, it describes many worlds and ours is one of them (and we have no way of telling which) --- which essentially means it's not a theory of our world.
Here's a different way to put it. It's wrong in the particulars, but mainly right: I have a opaque box with billiard balls inside.
You can make an infinity of correct theories of how the balls interact based on their color, all of them correctly predicting how the box reacts to outside inputs, all of them incompatible, all of them predicting different things that will happen when we finally have a knife sharp enough to cut the box. But if nobody is working on sharpening the knife, all of those theories are useless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30 2018, @11:16PM
You sound like the posters above who don't understand string theory so they claim it is false.
If you disagree with the PhD then mod the post "Disagree". But you can't claim the poster is not a PhD because s/he posted as an AC and you don't like their opinions.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 31 2018, @08:01AM
I have a PhD in math (area was QFT) and I mostly agree with AC. There's a difference between fundamental research and useless research.
WRT string theory, there's two things to keep in mind. First, it's incredibly cheap as far as research goes and does have some utility on the math side. On the former, the world-wide effort of string theorists is probably a couple of orders of magnitude cheaper than the LHC. Even if it never pans out as a physical theory, it's still making a positive contribution to our understanding of math approaches to this situation.
Second, where's the testable predictions? It's not fundamental physics research, if it doesn't have those predictions!
If only that were true. The cool hipsters seem to be on the other side of that particular argument. I've never seen a lot of people criticize the way science is done. It should be more than it is.
Back at you on that. This is the "throw money at the wall and find out in a few decades whether any of it stuck" strategy.
My view on this is that if you can't show any sort of near future benefit - which can include merely bettering our understanding of the problem, its math, etc. - then you're not doing research, fundamental or otherwise, you're just cashing checks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30 2018, @11:24PM (4 children)
"but I think society has better things to focus its money and labor on."
The amount of money society "wastes" is truly monumental.
Did you know some people consider space exploration a waste of money while others consider the whole sports industry a waste. Why not go after one of the huge wastes ... Like plastic shopping bags... Ban them and save $4billion/year
https://conservingnow.com/plastic-bag-consumption-facts/ [conservingnow.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 31 2018, @12:18AM (2 children)
Clearly, people value having plastic shopping bags at more than $4billion, otherwise they wouldn't spend that on them.
That there might be externalities that you don't like and which would be mitigated by a legal ban doesn't mean you are saving $4billion, if just means you are using legal means to control other peoples' behaviour.
The correct method is to determine the cost of the externality and charge it to the people making and using the plastic bags, and then to use that money to correct the problem. That is the important bit.
If it is not enough money to fix the problem, you raise the tax on bags until it is. At some price point people will start using less plastic bags. At some further point in the ratcheting tax, the money collected will be enough to fix the problem.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 31 2018, @08:03AM
And if that change of behavior doesn't happen at a price point that reflects the real externality, then it's a solid indication to move on, the problem doesn't need to be solved any further.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 31 2018, @02:18PM
You are going to need 1000% tax on a 10 cent bag to even get people to notice. It is incandescent lights all over again, the current inefficient product is just too cheap and as long as it is even available people will keep using it. The alternative is to bring your canvas bags or re-use the store's boxes (from incoming shipments). other countries like the Philippines have done bans and just like incandescents, the US will be one of the last countries to implement a ban.
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Monday December 31 2018, @02:11AM
Cost to retailers of $4 Billion/Year does not mean that eliminating them will save $4 Billion a year and could easily result in highers costs, pollution and carbon footprint.
More details here on Paper vs Plastic
http://www.allaboutbags.ca/papervplastic.html [allaboutbags.ca]
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 31 2018, @12:40AM
A Conway game of life's hypothetical aware creature sees the universe in terms of full/empty cells. Theoretically it can come up with a unified formula that codifies all the rules of the simulation but it's no better, in fact it is worse because needlessly complex, than the mere list of rules. So personally I am more interested in experiments and outcomes than in interpretations. But whatever I think should not bother you in your quest. Have fun.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday December 31 2018, @02:13AM (1 child)
What's wrong with this place is we have a festering, suppurating right-wing nutjob infestation. Those folks, you may have noticed, have an anti-intellectual streak a mile wide. As hangers-on, we get the tech-head mediocrities who have fairly deep but very narrow knowledge in one or two fields and think they've got a PhD in Everythingology; there is substantial personality overlap between these two groups, as well.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Bot on Monday December 31 2018, @07:02PM
Your comment history, and the one of those who debated you, is out there. One can count the ad hominem vs actual arguments. The lumping together of people based on a couple metrics oppa Nazi style and talking about anti intellectualism in the following sentences is a troll gem, good one!
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30 2018, @09:04PM
i guess it's something cool to think about when in a tight spot, like getting a flat tire on the highway in the middle of nowhere, or getting dumped by some hot chick out of the blue or other stuff you know can happen but never think about because thinking about it might make it come true :)
anyways, it's a theory "thrown out here" to keep smart brains busy until some irrefutable fact under the stewardship of lesser (but more brutal) brains is revealed to the betterment of humankind (think: aliens are real!)?
also, i like to think about how strong magnetic fields shrink matter ... not something everybody knows :)
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30 2018, @11:28PM (1 child)
I expect we will see a lot more physics like this from Canadian "scientists" now that they've legalized hard drugs in Canada.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 31 2018, @01:01AM
Hard drugs like alcohol?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 31 2018, @09:51AM
..or does anyone else think the idea of Tubgirl being the center of the universe is hilarious?
if you don't know tubgirl tread carefully when trying to find out