Science addicts here?....

[whatevergirl]

If you're not already familiar with it, google the Miller Urey experiment.

Just looked it up. After all that, they still don't know for sure.

But, earth is the only planet so far as much as scientists know, that could possibly sustain human life.

[DuracellBunny]

Just looked it up. After all that, they still don't know for sure.

But, earth is the only planet so far as much as scientists know, that could possibly sustain human life.

The experiment (and the follow up one re volcanoes) shows us that certain predictions can be made though. If xyz conditions are on the planet (what we believed earth to have been like) then amino acids are going to form. Whether those amino acids then allow life forms to evolve or not is a different question, but it means that the amino acids are a statistical certainty given the number of planets.

Not bad for something from the 1950's.

From what I am given to understand, the vatican went crazy and denounced them, saying that they had cheated, life doesn't begin like that etc. The 1950s were very conservative and it was highly controversial.

[whatevergirl]

The experiment (and the follow up one re volcanoes) shows us that certain predictions can be made though. If xyz conditions are on the planet (what we believed earth to have been like) then amino acids are going to form. Whether those amino acids then allow life forms to evolve or not is a different question, but it means that the amino acids are a statistical certainty given the number of planets.

Not bad for something from the 1950's.

That's true, it was interesting to read. But, there are varying theories out there, who knows, maybe there are multi-verses. I sort of like that theory, actually. lol

From what I am given to understand, the vatican went crazy and denounced them, saying that they had cheated, life doesn't begin like that etc. The 1950s were very conservative and it was highly controversial.

The Catholic Church holds the stance that the universe was created out of nothing. They even accept the Big Bang theory, so long as God is the driver of the Big Bang.


Anyone see the moon last night? It was lighting up the streets, it was so bright.

[ElrondHubbard]

That's true, it was interesting to read. But, there are varying theories out there, who knows, maybe there are multi-verses. I sort of like that theory, actually. lol

The Catholic Church holds the stance that the universe was created out of nothing. They even accept the Big Bang theory, so long as God is the driver of the Big Bang.


Anyone see the moon last night? It was lighting up the streets, it was so bright.

The multiverse is an idea, but I don't think you can call it a theory, not in a scientific sense. There is, as far as I know, no way to test it.

[whatevergirl]

The multiverse is an idea, but I don't think you can call it a theory, not in a scientific sense. There is, as far as I know, no way to test it.

You're right. It's a hypothesis.

[DocHoss]

Gravitational waves finally detected - this is a biggie. Pretty much without a doubt, there will be a Nobel Prize here

https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10....ett.116.061102

[Wayne Evans]

Gravitational waves finally detected - this is a biggie.

The news just showed a segment of this discovery.
It also seems to confirm AE's take on it.

This reminds me of another gravitational enigma:
In our solar system the closer to the sun....the faster the planet travels in it's orbit.
In our Milky Way all stars travel at the same speed regardless of distance from the super massive black hole at it's center.

It pvsses me off knowing I'll probably leave the surface of orb Earth never knowing these answers.

Did I ever mention I love this stuff of cosmic mystery.

Thanks for contributing.

Back to it.....

[steffo99]

Gravitational waves finally detected - this is a biggie. Pretty much without a doubt, there will be a Nobel Prize here

https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10....ett.116.061102

This just popped up on my youtubes..

[DuracellBunny]

I have deliberately not looked any further than the headlines on the gravity waves. This has been going on for years and it is absurdly sensitive to false positives. I'll wait a few years for more data before I really look in to it.

[ElrondHubbard]

I have deliberately not looked any further than the headlines on the gravity waves. This has been going on for years and it is absurdly sensitive to false positives. I'll wait a few years for more data before I really look in to it.

Apparently the detection was made in September, and they've been holding off on the announcement while they tried to make sure it wasn't a false positive. The best evidence in favor is that there are two identical LIGO instruments a couple thousand miles apart, and they both recorded the same signal with just the right interval between them to assure it was not a local noise event.

[whatevergirl]

Seems like the more we know, the more we don't know.

[Wayne Evans]

This find was referenced on a USMC site that I try to contaminate daily.

Never been to this site but I found this quite interesting. (imagine that)

http://www.sunnyskyz.com/blog/28/An-...HOWuz1ERBI1.99

That's all I've got....a good weekend to all.....

[Wayne Evans]

I could not resist resurrecting:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0303133510.htm

Too bad the James Webb won't be with us until 2018.
Hope I'm still above the dirt at that time.

Carry on weed hoppers....and, have a great weekend.

[mslman71]

A few folks from the LIGO team (gravity wave experiment) were here the other week giving a presentation of their results. It was a great presentation and the auditorium was packed. Very interesting and easy to follow for non-specialists and their enthusiasm for the topic and the findings were still fresh.

Just finished "The Fabric of the Cosmos" (audiobook). The author pushes the hard sell on string theory but in general it's a great book. There are a few topics that are hard to follow (e.g., Bell's Theorem) but 99% of it is clear and doesn't require references to figures or tables. If you're into cosmology, QM, etc. this is a great read/listen.

[Wayne Evans]

A few folks from the LIGO team (gravity wave experiment) were here the other week giving a presentation of their results. It was a great presentation and the auditorium was packed. Very interesting and easy to follow for non-specialists and their enthusiasm for the topic and the findings were still fresh. If you're into cosmology, QM, etc. this is a great read/listen.

Ha...I'm into just about any physical science with an ology for a suffix.

Cool....would have loved to have been to the LIGO presentation.
Looks like a good book to delve into.

String theory?....I'm unable to envision that concept but I'm just a laymen science addict.

As previously touched upon, the more we discover the less we seem to actually understand.
I guess it's the perpetual mystery of it all that makes it so compelling to ponder.

Thanks for contributing.....back to it.

[mslman71]

Ha...I'm into just about any physical science with an ology for a suffix.

Cool....would have loved to have been to the LIGO presentation.
Looks like a good book to delve into.

String theory?....I'm unable to envision that concept but I'm just a laymen science addict.

As previously touched upon, the more we discover the less we seem to actually understand.
I guess it's the perpetual mystery of it all that makes it so compelling to ponder.

Thanks for contributing.....back to it.

The problem I have with string theory, aside from the same problem I have with most theories - nasty mathematics, is there isn't a fundamental principle or set of principles that define it. For example Special and General relativity are based on postulates about the speed of light, invariance, and the equivalence principle (between inertial and gravitational mass). While the math gets heavily quickly it all ties back to these basic concepts. Quantum mechanics is based on the probability wave and to a large extent the uncertainty principle. With string theory such a foundation doesn't really exist and the bit of math I have gone over pertaining to it, aside from some simple least action principles, is agonizing.

[JerryB]

I could not resist resurrecting:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0303133510.htm

Too bad the James Webb won't be with us until 2018.
Hope I'm still above the dirt at that time.

Carry on weed hoppers....and, have a great weekend.

Thanks for the reference. I have a list of books on astrophysics were the math is not beyond my college calculus.
The latest gravitational waves detected I guess will require additional confirmation.

[Wayne Evans]

mslman71:

Ha...yes...my perception of the math would be 'agonizing'.
It appears from your response that you have a more educated understanding that I do of cosmic math and associated mysteries.

JerryB:
You're welcome....I'm glad there's a few who find all this interesting enough to keep this thread alive.
'College calculus'&*%^?
Shvt....I hated math and still have a phobia about it.
My synapse will allow me to go as far as 2a+4=10. (a=3....so there!)
That's about it.

Thanks for contributing.....

[DuracellBunny]

The problem I have with string theory, aside from the same problem I have with most theories - nasty mathematics, is there isn't a fundamental principle or set of principles that define it. For example Special and General relativity are based on postulates about the speed of light, invariance, and the equivalence principle (between inertial and gravitational mass). While the math gets heavily quickly it all ties back to these basic concepts. Quantum mechanics is based on the probability wave and to a large extent the uncertainty principle. With string theory such a foundation doesn't really exist and the bit of math I have gone over pertaining to it, aside from some simple least action principles, is agonizing.

The problem with string theory is the language used. Trying to discuss it in English is much harder than discussing it mathematically, but that requires a level of fluency from both parties. (I personally don't like string theory by the way)

There is a good Feynman quote that is applicable, although he was talking about why particles with 1/2 spin obey fermi dirac statistics, not string theory.

"You know, I couldn't do it. I couldn't reduce it to the freshman level. That means we really don't understand it"

He was right. If something can't be discussed qualitatively with a college freshman, then the concept is often a theoretical ouroboros (the snake that devours it's own tail), in that the model exists to justify the existence of the model. I personally find string theory to be the perfect example of that.

[mslman71]

The problem with string theory is the language used. Trying to discuss it in English is much harder than discussing it mathematically, but that requires a level of fluency from both parties. (I personally don't like string theory by the way)

There is a good Feynman quote that is applicable, although he was talking about why particles with 1/2 spin obey fermi dirac statistics, not string theory.

"You know, I couldn't do it. I couldn't reduce it to the freshman level. That means we really don't understand it"

He was right. If something can't be discussed qualitatively with a college freshman, then the concept is often a theoretical ouroboros (the snake that devours it's own tail), in that the model exists to justify the existence of the model. I personally find string theory to be the perfect example of that.

Not to get political but from the outside string theory reminds me a bit of "race theory." It seems to be constructed in a manner that supports its own theories and results but largely isolated from outside scrutiny, or in SST's case, experimental testing. I gathered, again without comprehension, that the lack of evidence of supersymmetry from CERN/LHC to this point isn't encouraging though I guess there is a lot of ambiguity in what the predicated masses of the partner particles should be. Without this I imagine it's easy to say that "the energies just aren't high enough" indefinitely.

[DuracellBunny]

Not to get political but from the outside string theory reminds me a bit of "race theory." It seems to be constructed in a manner that supports its own theories and results but largely isolated from outside scrutiny, or in SST's case, experimental testing. I gathered, again without comprehension, that the lack of evidence of supersymmetry from CERN/LHC to this point isn't encouraging though I guess there is a lot of ambiguity in what the predicated masses of the partner particles should be. Without this I imagine it's easy to say that "the energies just aren't high enough" indefinitely.

Hence the ouroboros comment; string theory exists to prove the existence of string theory. The place that it occupies within the psyche of it's proponents is akin to religion. There is no evidence whatsoever, but it must be true because they believe it to be true. The arguments between people regarding it are extremely dogmatic too.

Most things out there can be derived from first principles or a single postulate and have a logical, if counterintuitive at times, progression (as oxymoronic as that sounds). You can only really derive string theory from within the theoretical construct of string theory, in a quasi chicken and egg situation.

It's not really my field. I'm a solid state guy, but I have some young grads working for me who are very into and excited by string theory, so I listen and nod politely where appropriate.

[JerryB]

Hence the ouroboros comment; string theory exists to prove the existence of string theory. The place that it occupies within the psyche of it's proponents is akin to religion. There is no evidence whatsoever, but it must be true because they believe it to be true. The arguments between people regarding it are extremely dogmatic too.

Most things out there can be derived from first principles or a single postulate and have a logical, if counterintuitive at times, progression (as oxymoronic as that sounds). You can only really derive string theory from within the theoretical construct of string theory, in a quasi chicken and egg situation.

It's not really my field. I'm a solid state guy, but I have some young grads working for me who are very into and excited by string theory, so I listen and nod politely where appropriate.

We have had disagreements on some topics, but I'm in agreement about religion.

[ElrondHubbard]

Too much gloom and doom in the forums lately, so time to bump to something more cheerful. SpaceX recently landed it's second successful attempt to return a first stage via ocean-going barge, and they just released a video of the landing. Talk about coming in hot and fast!

They weren't confident that they could pull this one off, considering the weight of the payload and the height of the orbit. But they did!

[Wayne Evans]

Too much gloom and doom in the forums lately, so time to bump to something more cheerful. SpaceX recently landed it's second successful attempt to return a first stage via ocean-going barge, and they just released a video of the landing. Talk about coming in hot and fast! They weren't confident that they could pull this one off, considering the weight of the payload and the height of the orbit. But they did!

Ha....I must have missed (read: ignored) the threads you mention.

Yes...this is quite an achievement to be sure.
No shvt....that muther was coming in hot and I'd bet there was some white knuckles at mission control.

I also find this interesting: https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0502111427.htm
Even though the SOL is still too slow for our liking with these discoveries it's still damn close comparatively speaking.
My take: there's all kinds of cellular bio-life out there to be found but I would not expect any to be like ourselves. (IE: bi-laterally symmetrical, etc.)

Thanks for keeping it alive.....back to it.

(on spread for contribution)

[ElrondHubbard]

Ha....I must have missed (read: ignored) the threads you mention.

Yes...this is quite an achievement to be sure.
No shvt....that muther was coming in hot and I'd bet there was some white knuckles at mission control.

I also find this interesting: https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0502111427.htm
Even though the SOL is still too slow for our liking with these discoveries it's still damn close comparatively speaking.
My take: there's all kinds of cellular bio-life out there to be found but I would not expect any to be like ourselves. (IE: bi-laterally symmetrical, etc.)

Thanks for keeping it alive.....back to it.

(on spread for contribution)

Multiple great mentions in one post!

I think most people under-appreciate just how significant this development by SpaceX is. It's much more than just an "accomplishment", it's a useful new technology which will have cascading effects throughout not only the space launch industry, but I think society as a whole. They've now recovered 3 out of their last 4 launched first stages, two of them with pinpoint precision at sea, and they're looking to refly them as soon as they safely can. The ability to launch payloads economically is going to change the way satellite companies design and operate their craft, it's going to allow more frequent launches of less expensive satellites in lower orbits, meaning they can transmit more powerful signals with less latency and lower power requirements, allowing true mobile broadband anywhere in the world. It will be disruptive in ways we can't predict, but it has the potential to dramatically increase everyone's access to information.

It still won't, unfortunately, fix stupid.

I'm a bit torn about the potential for life on the planets of a red dwarf. If it's easily possible, that really does mean gazillions of living planets in the universe, because the great majority of all stars are red dwarfs, and they have life spans in the hundreds of billions of years. However, because they're so cool, the planet has to be orbiting very close in to be warm enough to sustain life. That puts them in very deep gravity wells that require a huge amount of energy to escape from. A probe such as Voyager or New Horizons would be almost impossible to launch from such a planet without a tremendous amount of rocket power. Also, red dwarf tend to be in the habit of spouting huge flares pretty often, which could sterilize the surfaces of those close-in planets. If those planets have oceans, life could survive there or underground, but it seems unlikely that a species living on land and capable of gazing out at the stars and wanting to go there would be able to evolve.

Of course, I can't be sure of any of that, and if there are even just a few exceptions to the rule, it still may add up to more potential habitable worlds than would be found around the less numerous brighter stars like the Sun. There's only one way to find out.

And more economical rockets make for more economical research!

[Wayne Evans]

I'm a bit torn about the potential for life on the planets of a red dwarf. If it's easily possible, that really does mean gazillions of living planets in the universe, because the great majority of all stars are red dwarfs, and they have life spans in the hundreds of billions of years. However, because they're so cool, the planet has to be orbiting very close in to be warm enough to sustain life. That puts them in very deep gravity wells that require a huge amount of energy to escape from.

Mornin' E....

I hear ya.....you're making me think this morning.

But, in all my lofty, speculating imagination, given these numbers:
"According to astronomers, our Milky Way is an average-sized barred spiral galaxy measuring up to 120,000 light-years across. Our Sun is located about 27,000 light-years from the galactic core in the Orion arm. Astronomers estimate that the Milky Way contains up to 400 billion stars of various sizes and brightness." (http://www.universetoday.com/102630/...-the-universe/)

....I tend to think the mathematical odds of at least some form of cellular life could be expected even if 10% of them were similar to our sun's mass and had captured any orbiting spheres where water could accumulate and not be boiled away due to proximity to host star.

IMO....
I have no illusions about life like ourselves being out there.
I think we're alone in that respect (at least in our Milky Way) as there are far too many cosmic variables that would have to be exact for any life like ourselves to evolve and thrive over long periods of time.
I believe we are quite unique in the Milky Way galaxy. (NOTE: I did not say special )

It's quite enjoyable to ponder it all....wish I had real answers to these cosmic questions.

I need more coffee.....a good day to all.

[ElrondHubbard]

Mornin' E....

I hear ya.....you're making me think this morning.

But, in all my lofty, speculating imagination, given these numbers:
"According to astronomers, our Milky Way is an average-sized barred spiral galaxy measuring up to 120,000 light-years across. Our Sun is located about 27,000 light-years from the galactic core in the Orion arm. Astronomers estimate that the Milky Way contains up to 400 billion stars of various sizes and brightness." (http://www.universetoday.com/102630/...-the-universe/)

....I tend to think the mathematical odds of at least some form of cellular life could be expected even if 10% of them were similar to our sun's mass and had captured any orbiting spheres where water could accumulate and not be boiled away due to proximity to host star.

IMO....
I have no illusions about life like ourselves being out there.
I think we're alone in that respect (at least in our Milky Way) as there are far too many cosmic variables that would have to be exact for any life like ourselves to evolve and thrive over long periods of time.
I believe we are quite unique in the Milky Way galaxy. (NOTE: I did not say special )

It's quite enjoyable to ponder it all....wish I had real answers to these cosmic questions.

I need more coffee.....a good day to all.

Yep, we're unique. Just like everybody else!

I agree withh you, I do think that eventually our descendants will learn that there are a pretty fair number of life-hosting planets out there. The big question would be whether more than a vanishingly small number had ever evolved beyond the single-cell level of complexity. I'd sure love to find out.

[Wayne Evans]

Yep, we're unique. Just like everybody else! I agree withh you, I do think that eventually our descendants will learn that there are a pretty fair number of life-hosting planets out there. The big question would be whether more than a vanishingly small number had ever evolved beyond the single-cell level of complexity. I'd sure love to find out.

Ha....meeeee too!
I'm probably living the last chapter of my life as we speak and I regret that I probably won't be above ground level when/if these questions are ever answered.

Great dialogue here to mull over with more coffee.

[Wayne Evans]

Good day....

Looks like the Juno probe will be orbiting Jupiter by 4th of July.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0617105336.htm

Maybe not quite as intriguing as a rocky planet but I still look forward to any knowledge gems we discover.

Speaking of 'rocky' planets they now think there's tectonic activity on Pluto.
Interesting for such a small sphere of mainly ice. (smaller than our moon).
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1205152851.htm

That's all I have....a good weekend to all with family and friends.....imbibe safely.

[steffo99]

Forum interactions of the future could get interesting .... miscer-to-miscer interface?