ITN: Hawking Radiation 'Observed' !

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Karls48

Steven, I do appreciate that we always had different point of view on almost anything. You may be under false impression that I do resent your talent and knowledge of mathematics. Far from it I do admire your talent and ability. But not everyone can be good musician, singer, mathematician, writer or any other of human endeavour in which some excel and some do not. Beside of hard work it takes talent to be good on something.
You don’t need to read between the lines – I do not refer to “ Tall poppy syndrome” I was simply saying that Alex makes very valid observation about science and faith. I do also believe that Alex got Degree in Law and dismissing his observation about human nature of scientist and faith is just as bad as him dismissing the nature of gravity.
Unless you disagree ( peer reviewed paper required) scientists are humans. Therefore any observations of human behaviour is just as valid for scientist as it is for politicians, cleaners, bus drivers, police officers or people in any profession you can think of.
If you consider yourself different – I got no problem with that, as I don’t know you personally. But for the rest of the scientific community – they exhibit same good and bad traits as rest of the humanity.

Karl,

One needs to differentiate between Science and scientists. Scientists being human beings have all the frailties of others and some scientists may operate on the basis of faith. However Science itself doesn't work that way.

Science is greater than the individual. Considering that scientists are a collection of atheists, agnostics, religious fanatics, moderates, left wing, right wing, anarchists, royalists etc, doesn't leave much scope for the influence of the individual.

The Scientific Method doesn't allow Science to develop into a dogma. A theory stands or falls through observation or experiment. If Science is dogmatic then there is no necessity for experiment or observation.
Hence my earlier reference to Alex's comments being a circular argument.

Science doesn't have to convince Mr Average or engage in popularity contests.

Yes it does. If it is funded by public money. Try to make living working in any company that derive their income from the public and use your Mr Average philosophy. I wonder how long you are going to last in your position.

No it doesn't. The public doesn't determine the budget strategies of governments. A certain percentage of the budget is allocated to Science. Science needs to convince the politician for funding, not Mr Average.

For being a "clever country", the percentage of GDP invested by Australian goverments in Research and Development is low when compared to other major economies.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Karls48

Craig – generally speaking – yes. And as I have say previously some forty years ago I would vehemently disagree with what I’m saying now. But it is not that simple.
You are well read guy and most likely in your tweenies. Your interests encompass astronomy and physics. You know more then I can ever hope to know about those subjects. Does it make you “wise”? No – as I see it. But because of not being “wise” you may purse idea that “wise” man would consider hopeless. You may succeed or you may fail, but you have taken path that wise man would not. In that endeavour you may contribute to the cumulative human knowledge and taken further to being “wise”

Karl;

Wisdom is a human quality available to all. Knowledge is part of what defines wisdom, as are: perceptiveness, self awareness (identity), freedom of choice, questioning, values and decision, just to name a few.

All of these are available to youth, because I say so.

They are not available to youth because you say so.

Which of these perspectives is the wiser ?

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

And now, we've got someone "hawking" radiation!!!!

I wonder how much they're selling it for??

[avandonk]

I always am rather amused when people want us scientists to explain our work to them in detail. I would have difficulty explaining what I did for work all my life to third year University science students. They just do not have the tools or basic knowledge to fully comprehend. A hand waving type explanation does not cover the depth let alone the breadth of cutting edge research. Three years working in the lab with at least an MSc and you might pick up a rudimentary knowledge to at least start to understand some of what is going on.

How many people here can tell me how their mobile phone works, remote control for any appliance, jet airliner etc etc and last but not least the computer you are reading this thread on. Your explanation should be good enough to build a working example to someone who has never seen one before. One intelligent layman to another and you would both be struggling to get to a basic diagram let alone a real solution.

The vast majority of members of our modern society do not have a clue how even everyday stuff works. They all take it for granted and then have the nerve to say that science is boring!

I have even been told by young people that I was just jealous because I did not have computers and mobile phones when I was a teenager like them. I simply ask them who invented all these devices your generation takes for granted. They are shocked when I tell them it was our generation wot did it.

Science is not obvious by applying common sense as most of science is counterintuitive.

This is alright for vacuous stuff like philosophy and religion as it is just circular arguments of made up stuff to prove other made up stuff by applying logic and common sense to argue what is total nonsense. It is all delusion posing as logical thought.

All that matters is more real knowledge backed up by real experiments!

As for the results or inferences of this experiment to simulate an event horizon by cunning manipulation of photons and matter I would like to see some sort of control experiment. Are these photons produced in the system when the 'simulated event horizon' is not there?

Anyone remember M rays?

Bert

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Science is not obvious by applying common sense as most of science is counterintuitive.

This is alright for vacuous stuff like philosophy and religion as it is just circular arguments of made up stuff to prove other made up stuff by applying logic and common sense to argue what is total nonsense. It is all delusion posing as logical thought.

All that matters is more real knowledge backed up by real experiments!

I'd like to raise the point that Science is rooted in Philosophy. The philosophical principles behind science are a vital basis which separate Science from religion/belief. We need to re-inforce these philosophical differences, by demonstration (if that involves using logic, so be it). Not doing this, will result in science being seen alongside all of our other delusions, and will collapse. This is the real issue I see that we are confronting in these conversations. Therefore, questioning the philosophy underpinning science is a valid/useful exercise. (Albeit, very tiresome )

As for the results or inferences of this experiment to simulate an event horizon by cunning manipulation of photons and matter I would like to see some sort of control experiment. Are these photons produced in the system when the 'simulated event horizon' is not there?

After reading thru the paper again, it seems that the Event Horizons were created because of (a) the dielectric chosen and (b) because of the use of carefully, (intentionally), selected laser pulse characteristics. Thus, if either of these do not meet certain specifications, no Event Horizons could be inferred, and thus no photons with Hawking Radiation characteristics (?)

Anyone remember M rays?

Have to read up on that one !

Cheers & Rgds

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by avandonk

This is alright for vacuous stuff like philosophy and religion as it is just circular arguments of made up stuff to prove other made up stuff by applying logic and common sense to argue what is total nonsense. It is all delusion posing as logical thought.

Philosophy is vacuous? Is this a blanket statement about philosophy or does it relate to certain areas of philosophy?

Steven

[avandonk]

I did not want to denigrate philosphy per se, just the misuse by many for their own ends. The term circular is the important word. Then it becomes vacuous.

I was still amazed at the fool who said that Dawkins is ignoring philosophy and religious knowledge so everything he says is wrong!
This from people who have invisible friends.

Lately I have been amazed at the total lack of knowledge with optical fibre vs wireless claims, where the proponents of wireless and copper wish to overturn the laws of Physics as far as bandwidth is concerned. They always allude to some yet undiscovered technology that can be better than optical fibre when applied to radio or satellite transmission.
This statement is made as fact when they do not even understand the current technology.

I won't go on as I will wear out my keyboard.

I do realise that nothing we observe is real as it is all based on our senses and our brain just interprets the stream of neurones firing.
Or are we in someone elses dream?
Nothing is therefore real?

A firm smack will restore reality to this sort drivel!

Sorry!



Bert