86 replies to this topic

[Maloo]

As sarcastic as that is, it's true.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, then

[chess211]

Do you agree that "The Law of Conservation of Energy" is a description of our applicable observations of the way the universe works?
The law is not theoretically inviolable. It is a fundamental, and well supported, part of our understanding of the universe, yes, but it is not theoretically impossible for it to be violated, proven incomplete, and thus discarded or amended, yes?

To say that the law itself is not written into the foundations of nature is not misleading, it is true.
It's a human construct, nothing more.

If that is how you want to approach it, then yes conservation of energy could possibly be wrong. I was talking about our knowledge based on physical theory, which is that conservation of energy is always true on a global scale. To talk about anything else is to follow the greater idea that everything in science is falsifiable, as it is impossible to ever prove anything correct, as science is not mathematics, it is not based on a set of axioms with everything else logically derived from the axioms. In that sense, you are correct that conservation of energy is something that could change at some time in the future. In that sense, the only things that are absolutely true are pointless things in gaining a better understanding of the world. To this, either there would have to be an enormous amount of evidence to show a violation of the conservation of energy on the level of current observations, or the violations would have to take place in the regime of physics that is not well understood, energies above ~1TeV or extreme gravitational fields.

[Sweeney]

If that is how you want to approach it, then yes conservation of energy could possibly be wrong. I was talking about our knowledge based on physical theory, which is that conservation of energy is always true on a global scale.

I thought I made it very clear that I was talking about Theory of Knowledge, having mentioned it twice in the original post to which you replied.

Aside from that, you're preaching to the choir, here

[Sweeney]

Still looking for more input here, please

[ThreeDollarBill]

There has been this idea that the chances of having male offspring are the same as having female offspring.
Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist demonstrates in an essay that physically attractive parents are 26% more likely to have female offspring than male offspring.
Here's the article, for anyone who wants to check it out. It's quite interesting.
Beautiful parents have more daughters: A further implication of the generalized Trivers–Willard hypothesis (gTWH)

[Tetiel]

For the love of God, giving your child vaccines will not cause autism. It may prevent your child from getting whooping cough and measles, but who cares about that, right? I honestly wish Jenny McCarthy and all others like her could go to jail for all of the misinformation she has caused. Children are now actually dying from diseases because their parents are too stupid to actually do the research for themselves and instead listen to celebrities.

At least to me this is one of the most recent outbreaks of ignorance. Thinking about it really makes me want to slam my head into a brick wall repeatedly.

[Sweeney]

For the love of God, giving your child vaccines will not cause autism. It may prevent your child from getting whooping cough and measles, but who cares about that, right? I honestly wish Jenny McCarthy and all others like her could go to jail for all of the misinformation she has caused. Children are now actually dying from diseases because their parents are too stupid to actually do the research for themselves and instead listen to celebrities.

At least to me this is one of the most recent outbreaks of ignorance. Thinking about it really makes me want to slam my head into a brick wall repeatedly.

Actually not just their own children, either.
The reduction in vaccination rates has caused the collapse of the phenomenon known as Herd Immunity; whereby if a certain proportion of the population is immune, the rest are effectively protected by the drastically reduced risk of exposure.

The MMR "controversy" is, as you say, infuriating.

[Tetiel]

Actually not just their own children, either.
The reduction in vaccination rates has caused the collapse of the phenomenon known as Herd Immunity; whereby if a certain proportion of the population is immune, the rest are effectively protected by the drastically reduced risk of exposure.

The MMR "controversy" is, as you say, infuriating.

Yes, I've read that. It's especially bad in countries like Switzerland and Israel who have communities who don't believe in vaccinations for religious or "health" purposes. I read a case where a non-immunized 5-year-old child brought measles to a foreign classroom and infected about 10 kids. I believe one had to be hospitalized with encephalitis. It's awful. There have been outbreaks of it in America as well. Back in 2008 (when I did my study for university), there was a dramatic 200% increase in cases of measles in just one year alone.

[Charmender]

Misconception: aliens aint real
TRUTH: THEY ARE ALL AROUND YOU

[leurz]

You know, I always heard that earth/gravity/third law thing in terms of jumping off a chair. I thought it was more about your feet hitting the ground (and it hurting your feet) than the gravity aspect.

I don't know though, I don't have a strong enough opinion to counter-argue that if you decide to argue it.

I think what kittycat was trying to say was that in science, there are varying degrees of complexity, like f = ma becomes a much more complicated equation when you add in relativistic considerations. In this case, it is expedient to 'lie' to children considering that the f=ma equation works well for objects about our size and that the full truth is way above their heads. I guess there may be some cases, which I can't think of atm, which might fall into kindof a grey area between lying being ok and annoying.

However, I would agree with you that it doesn't really have anything to do with your third law of physics gripe.

One thing about physics that annoys me are these laypeople physics shows. They get some freaky-deeky wierd physics guy that the entire scientific community shuns to talk about improbable theories or obvious facts that nobody cares about. Once again, cant remember specifics and I'm burnt from reading that thousand page argument about post reqs.

Just for you though, i'll watch some pseudoscience shows on netflix and make a note whenever I rage.

Just remembered one: The freaking water with mean/nice words written on it. People think that just because one scientist does something, it's automatically true, even if it's researcher biased and not reproducible whatsoever.

Edit: I keep thinking of things I read on Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics where the guy writes scathing physics reviews of movies. I wanted to post them all and take credit, but I'm too lazy.

Sorry for the quadruple post, but i'm in the mood now and I got one. The misconception that bugs me is that many people don't understand what constitutes science. It's kinda big, but I have an example. And I came up with it myself.
Case in point:

Supersize Me: movie about a guy who eats stupid amounts of Micky-Ds' for thirty days, gains weight and is really dramatic because he's a vegan hippie wuss.
I liked supersize me though. Pretty good moveh.
Local ultra conservative says "man, this great movie on Netflix called Fat Head totally debunks Supersize Me (liberals blah blah)."
I watch Fat Head because that guy annoys me when he makes references to things I have not seen/read.
The Fat Head dude goes into a point by point rebuttal of Supersize Me for no apparent reason, apparently because it's bad science.
Well guess what? IT NOT SCIENCE AND NOBODY SAID IT IS. *hyperventilates*
At best, you could consider it a case study, which pretty much qualifies as one data point.
Doubtless, people took the variables: McDonalds and weight gain and feeling shitty, and made a causal link. I.E. eating a shit-ton makes you a whiny fatass
While it isn't a scientific claim, and it would be nice if people wouldn't do that, I think it's a reasonable thing to take away from Supersize Me. Any more than that and I sock you.
Back to the story, the Fat Head guy "disproves" Supersize Me by going on a 30 day diet that involves two bun-less meals a day at a variety of fast food restaurants, a third meal of a protein bar, and a half hour of walking per day. Guess what? He didn't gain weight. OMGGGG Supersize Me is a pack of lies charading as science!!!!!!!11111
Then he goes on to bring a group of sciencey talking heads (who write books, not papers) that support some pro-corporate argument about all the liberal nutritional deception.
He portrays it as some kind of conspiracy, while in reality,
there are just a huge number of factors to account for in the field of nutrition and professionals are split between two prevailing theories.
Even if the Fat Head guy had an identical program to Spurlock's and had lost weight, it wouldn't prove anything, all in all we would have two data points (uncontrolled for any number of variables.)

I'm not trying to say anything political (but I guess you can tell where I lean), but just the fact that people can reinforce any political beliefs based on this kind of "science" makes me rage. And then they come to me and say "wow, this movie like opened my eyes and stuff" And then I have to waste two hours of my life noticing what 'tards they are. >

Edited by leurz, 10 July 2011 - 06:53 PM.

[Sweeney]

You know, I always heard that earth/gravity/third law thing in terms of jumping off a chair. I thought it was more about your feet hitting the ground (and it hurting your feet) than the gravity aspect.

I don't know though, I don't have a strong enough opinion to counter-argue that if you decide to argue it.

I've actually just finished exporting the video on this topic. It should be up on YouTube later today, I'll post it.
I'm not really sure what you're getting at here, though, so if you have any questions after the video is up, please ask.

I think what kittycat was trying to say was that in science, there are varying degrees of complexity, like f = ma becomes a much more complicated equation when you add in relativistic considerations. In this case, it is expedient to 'lie' to children considering that the f=ma equation works well for objects about our size and that the full truth is way above their heads. I guess there may be some cases, which I can't think of atm, which might fall into kindof a grey area between lying being ok and annoying.

However, I would agree with you that it doesn't really have anything to do with your third law of physics gripe.

I know what she was getting at, but as you acknowledge, it was nothing to do with the point I was making.
I recognise that basic models are better for teaching younger childer; I'm a teacher. That's my job.
She was arguing that point with no one. I tried to bring her back to the actual topic, but she threw a shit fit and bowed out.

I'll come back to the rest of your post later when I'm not about to go to work Thanks, though.

[Raui]

Depends on what sort of level of understanding your assuming the viewer to already have. Many people ask why it's said that you cannot make a motor made completely from permanent magnets because of their misconception between force and energy. Now for something completely different! Here are not so much misconceptions of peoples understanding of science but more some flaws in scientific theory (at least from my understanding).

The Maxwell equations assume that charge carriers create electromagnetic waves and therefore electromagnetic waves cannot exist without them but we know from quantum physics that charge carriers/particles and electromagnetic waves are one and the same thing so really you can have electromagnetic waves without a charge carrier. One consequence is that there cannot be any such thing as longitudinal electromagnetic waves since there are no charge carriers in a vacuum but that is simply not the case.

The theory of relativity states that there is no ether and it is simply just free space or nothingness. While at the same time stating that electromagnetic waves travel through this empty space. Since the speed of light and therefore the propagation of light in a vacuum depend upon the permittivity and permeability of the medium they travel (in this case a vacuum, empty space, nothing) but how can nothing have properties. The consequence of this is that there is no such thing as free space since nothing by definition cannot be something.

There are a few more but that's just some food for thought. I could be wrong in my thinking and if I am please let me know (and I'm sure you will)

Peace.

[Sweeney]

Lo' and behold, here it is!

[leurz]

Depends on what sort of level of understanding your assuming the viewer to already have. Many people ask why it's said that you cannot make a motor made completely from permanent magnets because of their misconception between force and energy. Now for something completely different! Here are not so much misconceptions of peoples understanding of science but more some flaws in scientific theory (at least from my understanding).

The Maxwell equations assume that charge carriers create electromagnetic waves and therefore electromagnetic waves cannot exist without them but we know from quantum physics that charge carriers/particles and electromagnetic waves are one and the same thing so really you can have electromagnetic waves without a charge carrier. One consequence is that there cannot be any such thing as longitudinal electromagnetic waves since there are no charge carriers in a vacuum but that is simply not the case.

The theory of relativity states that there is no ether and it is simply just free space or nothingness. While at the same time stating that electromagnetic waves travel through this empty space. Since the speed of light and therefore the propagation of light in a vacuum depend upon the permittivity and permeability of the medium they travel (in this case a vacuum, empty space, nothing) but how can nothing have properties. The consequence of this is that there is no such thing as free space since nothing by definition cannot be something.

There are a few more but that's just some food for thought. I could be wrong in my thinking and if I am please let me know (and I'm sure you will)

Peace.

Thinking about apparent contradictions in fairly recent theory doesn't qualify for the purpose of this thread which I assume is to keep kids from propagating completely idiotic misconceptions

Now I see the distinction you are making, Sweeney.

We love thinking in terms of a single object, which is great when learning free body diagrams, but can definitely get us into trouble.
That bad movie physics site mentions gun recoil vs bullet impact as a cause for misconception, simultaneity is also key.
It also bugs me when people use the third law to explain some kind of karmic significance,
but I'm not sure whether they are just making an analogy or whether they are very, very stupid.

How long have you been a teacher? (This fall will be my first year which is why I am asking)
What age have you got by the way? High school right? Younger kids would probably be in the fetal position....

Edit: for hasty posting habits

Edited by leurz, 11 July 2011 - 04:54 AM.

[Raui]

Thinking about apparent contradictions in fairly recent theory doesn't qualify for the purpose of this thread which I assume is to keep kids from propagating completely idiotic misconceptions
What age have you got by the way? High school right? Younger kids would probably be in the fetal position....

No one restricted it to kids, that post was in a sense to keep adults from propagating completely idiotic misconceptions to their kids. By pointing out contradictions you can determine misconceptions so I see that as related.

Peace.

[leurz]

For your first example, wikipedia says that there are no longitudinal waves in a vacuum beyond a couple wavelengths, so it simply is the case. It looks like those issues were resolved a long time ago. Thinking Maxwell's equation doesn't apply in that specific case, or saying the right conditions haven't been generated (perfect vacuum etc) are both non-retarded ways to think about this. (I admit that i'm too dumb/inexperienced to come up with a non-wikipedia answer for this though)
....
But anyw---Oh my god your point is valid. If Morgan Freeman did a show about transverse waves in a vacuum and how Maxwells equations predict it and it's true (though I'm sure whoever generated them for fractions of a nanosecond used all kinds of complex scientific manipulation) and then average people walked around thinking they knew anything, that could be a problem. I can see it now. 'On this great science show, I learned how electricalmagnety waves just go straight, like big rolling pins. Guess old scientists were wrong and the new ones are right!'

As far as relativity, Einstein didn't theorize that there's no such thing as matter, as far as I can tell. If he did, there would be some pretty freaking huge contradictions to deal with. There can be different concentrations of stuff in various mediums, just usually with some free space in between them. I don't really see where the contradiction is. Most of the time you're doing relativistic stuff in space or air (they conveniently set the scale at one here). But yeah, you would have to adjust accordingly if you wanted hard numbers for jello space travel.

[chess211]

Nice job on the video, a good short explanation of the third law.

Now for the EM question.

The Maxwell equations assume that charge carriers create electromagnetic waves and therefore electromagnetic waves cannot exist without them but we know from quantum physics that charge carriers/particles and electromagnetic waves are one and the same thing so really you can have electromagnetic waves without a charge carrier. One consequence is that there cannot be any such thing as longitudinal electromagnetic waves since there are no charge carriers in a vacuum but that is simply not the case.

The Maxwell equations are equations that give how the electric and magnetic field change based on the movement of charge, both in the presence of charge, and in its absence. The first mistake is that an electromagnetic wave is the same thing as the charge carriers. The charge carriers are particles with charge, such as the electron, proton, and all the myriad of other changed subatomic particles that exists. The electromagnetic wave is, when quantized under quantum theory, denoted as the photon, which is a neutral of uncharged particle. The photon done not have charge, so it is not a charge carrier under any theory, it is the force carrier of the electromagnetic force. The Maxwell equations do not assume that charge carriers create electromagnetic waves, wikipedias article on Electromagnetic Radiation contains a good derivation of the vacuum wave solution, that the wave exists in the absence of material, thus no charge carries. The fact that longitudinal electromagnetic waves in a vacuum do not exists is because there is no solution in the absence of matter that allows that mode to exist. In the presence of matter, or boundary effects longitudinal waves do exist, and can be very important, especially in plasma physics.

[Raui]

For your first example, wikipedia says that there are no longitudinal waves in a vacuum beyond a couple wavelengths, so it simply is the case. It looks like those issues were resolved a long time ago. Thinking Maxwell's equation doesn't apply in that specific case, or saying the right conditions haven't been generated (perfect vacuum etc) are both non-retarded ways to think about this. (I admit that i'm too dumb/inexperienced to come up with a non-wikipedia answer for this though)
....
But anyw---Oh my god your point is valid. If Morgan Freeman did a show about transverse waves in a vacuum and how Maxwells equations predict it and it's true (though I'm sure whoever generated them for fractions of a nanosecond used all kinds of complex scientific manipulation) and then average people walked around thinking they knew anything, that could be a problem. I can see it now. 'On this great science show, I learned how electricalmagnety waves just go straight, like big rolling pins. Guess old scientists were wrong and the new ones are right!'

As far as relativity, Einstein didn't theorize that there's no such thing as matter, as far as I can tell. If he did, there would be some pretty freaking huge contradictions to deal with. There can be different concentrations of stuff in various mediums, just usually with some free space in between them. I don't really see where the contradiction is. Most of the time you're doing relativistic stuff in space or air (they conveniently set the scale at one here). But yeah, you would have to adjust accordingly if you wanted hard numbers for jello space travel.

First of all please don't try and use wiki in an argument of science. I did not say that because of this problem there was longitudinal electromagnetic waves which travel in a vacuum but that the assumption that they don't maybe considered unfounded. It was more food for thought than any sort of scientific slander. Personally I am hesitant to believe anyone who says a purely longitudinal wave can travel through a vacuum because I have seen little evidence for it. As for your comment about old vs. new scientists I'd like to say that I hold old scientists views in higher regard than say Hawking. Names which spring to mind when I think old scientists are Maxwell, Heaviside, Steinmetz and Tesla. Hawking these days is trying to tell people there is no such thing as consciousness and we are all biological machines..pretty scary thinking that he is practically the figurehead of modern science.

I also don't see where I said Einstein said matter doesn't exist? I said that Einstein said an ether doesn't exist and that electromagnetic waves propagate through empty space but the fact that you must assign properties to this 'empty space' implies that it is something rather than 'empty space'. Nothing by definition can only have 1 properties and that is that is has no properties. Infact nothing is an abstract form of thought and has no relation to reality.

The Maxwell equations are equations that give how the electric and magnetic field change based on the movement of charge, both in the presence of charge, and in its absence. The first mistake is that an electromagnetic wave is the same thing as the charge carriers. The charge carriers are particles with charge, such as the electron, proton, and all the myriad of other changed subatomic particles that exists. The electromagnetic wave is, when quantized under quantum theory, denoted as the photon, which is a neutral of uncharged particle. The photon done not have charge, so it is not a charge carrier under any theory, it is the force carrier of the electromagnetic force. The Maxwell equations do not assume that charge carriers create electromagnetic waves, wikipedias article on Electromagnetic Radiation contains a good derivation of the vacuum wave solution, that the wave exists in the absence of material, thus no charge carries. The fact that longitudinal electromagnetic waves in a vacuum do not exists is because there is no solution in the absence of matter that allows that mode to exist. In the presence of matter, or boundary effects longitudinal waves do exist, and can be very important, especially in plasma physics.

You've missed the point. I am not trying to argue that there is infact longitudinal waves existing in a 'vacuum'. I am saying that we must always go back and look for contradictions between new and old theory. The fact that most cite that longitudinal electromagnetic waves cannot (in a vacuum) exist because there are no charge carriers in a vacuum I've shown to be unfounded. Now that doesn't mean that there isn't evidence from another theory to say they cannot exist, it just means you cannot use that argument.

Peace.

[chess211]

I said that Einstein said an ether doesn't exist and that electromagnetic waves propagate through empty space but the fact that you must assign properties to this 'empty space' implies that it is something rather than 'empty space'. Nothing by definition can only have 1 properties and that is that is has no properties. Infact nothing is an abstract form of thought and has no relation to reality.

What 'empty space' means in this instance, is that an electromagnetic wave does not need to interact with anything except itself to propagate. The aether was a creation due to trying to find a parallel between sound waves and electromagnetic waves. Sound waves exist because a medium is vibrating giving rise to the sound wave, the sound is a property of the motion, and not of the material. So people tried to find the aether, the material that vibrated which is what electromagnetic radiation was. Nothing was found, and so Einstein decided that the solution would be to adopt full Lorentzian invariants for mechanical systems instead of trying to impose Galilean invariance on Electromagnetism which required the aether.

Properties to not need to be assigned to space for electromagnetic waves to fluctuate, the 'permeability of free space' and other similar constants are probably what you are referring to as the properties assigned to free space, but those are properties of the theory itself. The only properties that are assigned to space for the theory to work, is that space is a 4-dimensional Riemannian Manifold, which is just specifying what 'space-time' means. Everything else it understanding how the theory couples with itself in the absence of any other coupling terms.

You've missed the point. I am not trying to argue that there is infact longitudinal waves existing in a 'vacuum'. I am saying that we must always go back and look for contradictions between new and old theory. The fact that most cite that longitudinal electromagnetic waves cannot (in a vacuum) exist because there are no charge carriers in a vacuum I've shown to be unfounded. Now that doesn't mean that there isn't evidence from another theory to say they cannot exist, it just means you cannot use that argument.

Well, the first point I made was that there are no charge carriers in a vacuum, which is true by definition. An electromagnetic wave is a force carrier, but it is not a charge carrier. In quantum theory an electromagnetic wave is equivalent to the photon as a particle, and as I stated earlier the photon does not have any charge, so in a vacuum there are no charge carrier to interact with the wave. So I am still confused as how you have shown that charge carriers exist in the vacuum, could you clarify that point?

What we look for in contrasting old and new theories, at least ones with any predictive value at any level, side by side is 'what limit is the old a good approximation?' 'How divergent are the theories at certain energies, times, distances?' 'What new phenomena are predicted by the new theory that are impossible in the old?'

[Otna]

Ah, there are so many misconceptions. This is the one that pisses me off the most when people get it wrong:
"But evolution is just a theory, that means that there's no proof!"
No, this isn't about evolution, it's about people not understanding the difference between hypothesis and scientific fucking theory.

A few I've learned from med school.
"We only use 10% of our brains" - while that's probably true of some people () a normal person is using most of his/her brain, most of the time. If we used only 10% of our brains at any given time, we'd have to choose between breathing, or moving, or feeling, or seeing, or smelling, etc, but not more than one or two at a time.
"Getting cold makes you get sick" - False. Being in a very cold environment can lower your defenses, though not significantly so. What makes you sick is your urge to stay indoors with the windows shut, effectively recycling all the viruses and bacteria that are floating about. So basically, avoid sick people like the plague.
"When you shave, the hair grows back thicker" - You have no idea how many girls I know believe this. Almost all of them. Shaving is simply cutting hair at the shaft, which isn't alive at all. The hair follicle which is ingrained within the skin is unaffected and the hair will grow exactly like before. It can look thicker when it starts growing back because the end of the hair was left looking like a cylinder, rather than a tapered cone.
"Turn the light on, reading in the dark will ruin your eyesight" - Wrong. My parents always told me this but all it does is maybe give you a headache.
"You lose most of your body heat through your head" - I don't know where this one came from really, but the head accounts for about 10% only.

Sorry if I repeated any. I'm too lazy to read through all the posts.

Edited by Otna, 12 July 2011 - 12:09 PM.

[leurz]

Ughhh Well I hope Sweeney is working hard at his school. I guess I'll save him the trouble:
GUYS. The thread title is BASIC misconceptions of science. None of this is basic, and I wouldn't say that theories which don't play well together qualify as misconceptions, even if there are some misconceptions within the discussion. (But thanks for knowing your shit and all ) It wouldn't be basic unless you exclude everyone who doesn't have a P.H.D. in phsyics. Even then, they get confused. EM waves and relativity are both sneaky sneaky bastards.
Otna:


You got all those off the wikipedia article that was posted earlier in this thread. Please go die now. Please never post w/out reading the thread again.

[chess211]

It is, and that is why I have not pointed out many of the misconceptions based on more recent theory, just tried to correct or explain things when someone else posts something wrong.

One misconception, not sure how you would explain it is a short video is the difference between a chaotic system, and something that is random. A chaotic system is still deterministic, just generally sensitive to conditions to an extent that it is practically possible to perfectly model the system, while a random system can only be understood through probabilities as there is nothing deterministic about it.

[Raui]

What 'empty space' means in this instance, is that an electromagnetic wave does not need to interact with anything except itself to propagate. The aether was a creation due to trying to find a parallel between sound waves and electromagnetic waves. Sound waves exist because a medium is vibrating giving rise to the sound wave, the sound is a property of the motion, and not of the material. So people tried to find the aether, the material that vibrated which is what electromagnetic radiation was. Nothing was found, and so Einstein decided that the solution would be to adopt full Lorentzian invariants for mechanical systems instead of trying to impose Galilean invariance on Electromagnetism which required the aether.

Properties to not need to be assigned to space for electromagnetic waves to fluctuate, the 'permeability of free space' and other similar constants are probably what you are referring to as the properties assigned to free space, but those are properties of the theory itself. The only properties that are assigned to space for the theory to work, is that space is a 4-dimensional Riemannian Manifold, which is just specifying what 'space-time' means. Everything else it understanding how the theory couples with itself in the absence of any other coupling terms.






Well, the first point I made was that there are no charge carriers in a vacuum, which is true by definition. An electromagnetic wave is a force carrier, but it is not a charge carrier. In quantum theory an electromagnetic wave is equivalent to the photon as a particle, and as I stated earlier the photon does not have any charge, so in a vacuum there are no charge carrier to interact with the wave. So I am still confused as how you have shown that charge carriers exist in the vacuum, could you clarify that point?

What we look for in contrasting old and new theories, at least ones with any predictive value at any level, side by side is 'what limit is the old a good approximation?' 'How divergent are the theories at certain energies, times, distances?' 'What new phenomena are predicted by the new theory that are impossible in the old?'

The whole point of me posting those 'conflicts' (In my opinion at least) was merely to illustrate that we don't know everything and that one seemingly tiny error could lead to a complete rewrite of textbooks. I wasn't arguing for or against these points as I don't know either way but I do know that these two theories seem to contradict each other. Whether or not they do is an entirely different question well beyond the scope of this topic. To elaborate a little though, I didn't say there was charge carriers only that the argument for charge carriers having to exist in order for em waves was a sketchy one. Secondly, all particles can be represented as a wave not just photons.

Peace.

[Volition]

Derp. Is gravity a theory, law, or a bit of both?

I know Newton's got his F_g=Gm₁m₂/r² and I've heard of gravitational theory

[Raui]

One misconception, not sure how you would explain it is a short video is the difference between a chaotic system, and something that is random. A chaotic system is still deterministic, just generally sensitive to conditions to an extent that it is practically possible to perfectly model the system, while a random system can only be understood through probabilities as there is nothing deterministic about it.

One possible way would be to demonstrate a random system and a chaotic one and show the differences between the two. A random system is relatively easy to come by such as a dice or a shuffled deck of cards (at least random enough for this demonstration). Chaotic systems are a little harder to demonstrate in a setting where everyone will understand however I think I have a good example.

Get a cylindrical container and fill it up with glycerin and in the middle of the container place another cylinder which you can rotate, preferably solid such as a wooden dowel or something. Now place an drop of ink in the glycerin mixture and note it's properties. Next rotate the inner cylinder and one will note that the ink blot will change form from a drop to a thread-like structure until it disappears from view. Now rotate the cylinder the opposite way and you'll find that the ink will reappear morph into it's thread like appearance and then back to the drop. The stage where the ink drop is no longer seen could be viewed as a form of chaos as the ink particles are distributed all over the shop but when one rotates the cylinder oppositely they demonstrate that the seemingly random distribution of ink particles had an underlying order to it.

I know it's not an ideal demonstration but it'd work to explain the difference to most.

Peace.