Comments on: Ubiquitous Data http://www.randomwire.com/ubiquitous-data?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ubiquitous-data Exploring asian culture, travel and technology Sun, 12 Feb 2012 04:41:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: David http://www.randomwire.com/ubiquitous-data/comment-page-1#comment-38952 David Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:25:29 +0000 http://www.randomwire.com/?p=224#comment-38952 Wow, you get the award for the longest and most in-depth post on my site ever!! If you want the position of resident Science journalist you're hired!<br><br>I don't personally know a lot about physics (I last studied it at GCSE level!) but still I find it quite interesting :-)<br><br>Global warming/cooling/dimming (etc) is definitely a problem we should be worrying about rather than anything as far-fetched as this right now! Wow, you get the award for the longest and most in-depth post on my site ever!! If you want the position of resident Science journalist you're hired!

I don't personally know a lot about physics (I last studied it at GCSE level!) but still I find it quite interesting :-)

Global warming/cooling/dimming (etc) is definitely a problem we should be worrying about rather than anything as far-fetched as this right now!

]]> By: Kitty http://www.randomwire.com/ubiquitous-data/comment-page-1#comment-38951 Kitty Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:13:11 +0000 http://www.randomwire.com/?p=224#comment-38951 :D Well I guess he could certainly say he succeeded in making art that didn't look like art.<br><br>I remain unconvinced by nearly all of the physics article but don't have enough knowledge yet to dispute much of it. It does remind me of an article in New Scientist ages ago about computers that could work out the answer to any problem instant because once it had worked out an answer it sent it back in time. That way the computer could just check its data bank find it had the answer and never have to work anything out. It was a perfect principal other than the inventor had no idea how to send the answer back in time just that is might be possible theoretically. A theory although fun and exciting is not much use unless an experiment can be performed to test the theory (I would say prove but that would imply I believe a theory can be proved true and I don't, it is only possible to prove a theory to be incorrect). As far as I am aware (and I could be wrong because I have been keeping up with developments less since I have started university) there are currently no predictions made by string theory clear enough to test or that gives solutions that contradict the standard model (although the standard model can’t be said to be a theory of everything). String theory as far I as I remember from what I have read does involve putting in a lot of random constants and physicists do hope to find a theory that explains itself and doesn’t need numbers entered from theoretical research. The other thing with string theory is you are starting to get to a theory that depends so much on abstract mathematics it takes the most advanced super computers in the world to work out the equations and solving them is almost impossible. The other point is although many of the things they suggest are probably theoretically possible according to the laws of physics actually carrying them out would be nearly impossible so I do have to confess I think the Universe and mankind is doomed. This could be tragic but instead of worrying about the end of the universe I would think the delicate balance of the climate required to give life on Earth (i.e. global warming) is a much more serious problem and one that will present trouble far sooner. :D Well I guess he could certainly say he succeeded in making art that didn't look like art.

I remain unconvinced by nearly all of the physics article but don't have enough knowledge yet to dispute much of it. It does remind me of an article in New Scientist ages ago about computers that could work out the answer to any problem instant because once it had worked out an answer it sent it back in time. That way the computer could just check its data bank find it had the answer and never have to work anything out. It was a perfect principal other than the inventor had no idea how to send the answer back in time just that is might be possible theoretically. A theory although fun and exciting is not much use unless an experiment can be performed to test the theory (I would say prove but that would imply I believe a theory can be proved true and I don't, it is only possible to prove a theory to be incorrect). As far as I am aware (and I could be wrong because I have been keeping up with developments less since I have started university) there are currently no predictions made by string theory clear enough to test or that gives solutions that contradict the standard model (although the standard model can’t be said to be a theory of everything). String theory as far I as I remember from what I have read does involve putting in a lot of random constants and physicists do hope to find a theory that explains itself and doesn’t need numbers entered from theoretical research. The other thing with string theory is you are starting to get to a theory that depends so much on abstract mathematics it takes the most advanced super computers in the world to work out the equations and solving them is almost impossible. The other point is although many of the things they suggest are probably theoretically possible according to the laws of physics actually carrying them out would be nearly impossible so I do have to confess I think the Universe and mankind is doomed. This could be tragic but instead of worrying about the end of the universe I would think the delicate balance of the climate required to give life on Earth (i.e. global warming) is a much more serious problem and one that will present trouble far sooner.

]]>