Yes...and no. There is the usual frustration, but... I walk through work every day and think, "this is the coolest place in the world". I actually feel lucky to work in the environment I do. We are doing things that man has never done. We can't look to somebody else for guidance with our issues as no one has ever been here before. We see phenomena occurring that we don't understand - and that is so cool. The quest for understanding is like an addictive drug.

Insanely cool is about right.

The funny thing is that the average John Q Public really has no idea what really goes on at the cutting edge of physics (and other disciplines). It is truly amazing.

Competentone,

Here's something practical derived from theory:

Suppose that a box has been constructed. Objects can be arranged in a certain way inside the box so that it becomes full. The possibility of such arrangements is a property of the material object "box", something that is given with the box, the "space enclosed" by the box. This something which is different for different boxes, something that is thought quite naturally as being independent of whether or not, at any moment, there are any objects at all in the box. When there are no objects in the box, it's space appears to be "empty". -Albert Einstein from the revised edition of Relativity, the Special and General Theory: A Popular Exposition. London: Methuen, 1954.

Now I ask you Competentone, how is it possible that anyone, even the average John Q Public, could ever have thought a box with no objects in it appears to be empty without the Special and General Theories of Relativity? It is truly amazing.

- this is a common misunderstanding - one we see re the "theory" of evolution all the time

in science, a 'theory' is nothing like the common usage

a scientific theory is a well-supported, rel. complex model of how part of nature works

Rilly. Rilly? Please elaborate. The rock that made Meteor Crater was going 25,000 to 45,000 MPH... I would guess that's fast enough to punch a hole in something we put together with titanium rivets, but who's counting. Besides you, I mean.

Well, I've gotten somewhat of an idea when attempting to discuss politics with JE928, Darisc, dipslo, and a few others, but that's not why we're here. *bahdump-tssssh* Thanks, remember to tip your waitresses and drive safely.

Seriously, of course the emptiness of deep space wins the emptiness trophy... no doubt. But doesn't stuff bang into other stuff all the time and send debris flying through said deep space... which, being a vacuum, never slows this stuff down? Just sayin.'

*burp*

B!tchin'... thanks, dude... you're pure magic if you can do that. ;)

Yer full of it, but at least you gave it your best shot, and we love ya for it.

Ok.... I just skimmed through the last 2 pages... All I have to say is that you guys are NERDS....

You best keep your head down, bubba... there could be a few OKIE's tossed in your direction soon. :)

Most of that speed is the Earth approaching something that's pretty much floating in space. Things are not generally flying through open space at tens of thousands of miles an hour. There's debris still floating around from when the Moon was formed, billions of years ago. The planets have long since cleared 99% of the stuff up, the few things still hanging around are from collisions in the asteroid belt.

Just because something is well understood and supported, even enough to make assumptions based on it, does not make it law. A theory is a definition. It is unproven to all extents of its definition. Many theories are used day in and day out, but they have not been proven. Otherwise they would be law.

Its a fine line, especially in light of such topics as evolution, but it is a line nonetheless.

In the end, I agree with you, but by definition, unproven scientific hypothesis, well supported, are still theories and can be faulty in some respects. This isn't so much helpful in subjects like evolution, but testing has shown that assumptions based on theory often result in unknown consequences.

Scratch the above RWebb.

What I tried to say, and managed to do so poorly, is that particle physics test are in their relative infancy and many theories are being tested. Original comment was that you can't explain particle physics theory with newtonian concepts.

And HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

I go further in my definition (or, I'm more classic in my definition).

A theory not only is a hypothesis that has been verified via experimentation, but it must also PREDICT something. It must take standard input, and predict something that could not be known a priori. THEN, said prediction must be verified. Only then would I call something a theory.

The Standard Model has predicted several things, such as the top quark, which have been verified. This makes it a theory. If they show that the Higg's boson is either (a) WAY different in mass than predicted or (b) doesn't exist (impossible?), then it will no longer be a theory, it will be wrong :D

Now, quantum mechanics (at least the Dirac solution of the electron) is also a strong theory. It predicted the positron, which was later detected. General relativity has 5 major predictions, all of which have been verified. These are all theories.

to me (and my ilk, at least) a theory is not a hypothesis - a theory is a larger conceptual structure

a hypothesis is a "single, testable* question"

* testable by experiment; as opposed to an idle speculation or idea, which can sometimes be transformed into a hypothesis

Why not?

Because some "top scientists" say you cannot?

What if certain atomic/sub-atomic "particles" are behaving in seemingly "non-Newtonian" ways because there are unrecognized forces acting on them and not because they are following some "special" laws?

(Get ready for "Pazuzu" to fly into a rage or spew cynical laughter...)

Certain particle behavior -- along with directly observable phenomena above the molecular level -- can be explained well if we apply the old concept of an "ether medium" filling space. In fact, one is pretty much at a complete loss in proposing any qualitative explanations for certain observed "attractive forces" -- like magnetism or gravity -- without an idea of some type of sub-atomic medium.

The "quantumists" may be as foolish as the moron who decries Newtonian physics because "he can see that a feather does not fall at the same rate as a stone." The moron ignores the evidence of the existence of the medium of air when making his observations; the "quantumists" may be ignoring the existence of an "ether medium" when making their observations and may be jumping to a similar wrong conclusion thinking that Newtonian physics "just doesn't apply" in the sub-atomic realm.

Empty space may not be so "empty."

which ones.

Oh, and the reason that atomic processes don't obey Newtonian laws is because Newtonian laws are 100% WRONG. Wrong theory, wrong math, wrong idea, wrong universe, just wrong. NOTHING obey Newtonian laws. Why would particles be any different?


Ether...that's some good stuff there...at least we now know what he's been huffing.

this sounds like God/Religion claptrap in place of science.

Are these same unrecognized forces responsible for Jesus walking on water?

Because numerous top scientists have done experiments.

THAT is why they say "you cannot."

yes - also those same forces levitated the fakirs in India

As I also said in that post: "...one is pretty much at a complete loss in proposing any qualitative explanations for certain observed "attractive forces" -- like magnetism or gravity -- without an idea of some type of sub-atomic medium."

What is your qualitative explanation of magnetism and gravity?

If Jesus was a space alien, then perhaps, yes.