Ten of the greatest: 30-second theories

Analog

Lifer
Jan 7, 2002
12,755
3
0
article-1288584-0A0C8C3E000005DC-95_634x364.jpg
The physicist Richard Feynman proved that all 'indirect' routes interfere with each other, leaving only one viable path - the quickest


1. THE PRINCIPLE OF LEAST ACTION

This is a fancy way of saying that nature is lazy. Things happen in the way that requires least effort, which is why, among other things, light travels in straight lines. In fact,particles, and light, travel by the path which takes the least time. This explains why an angled light ray bends towards the perpendicular when it passes from air into glass, through which it moves more slowly (this reduces the amount of glass it has to pass through).The principle is especially important in quantum theory. At first sight quantum theory seems to imply that a particle such as an electron can go by any path from A to B, even if that means going to Mars and back.This would make it impossible to operate things like computers, which depend on electrons being well behaved. But the great physicist Richard Feynman proved that all 'indirect' routes interfere with each other, leaving only one viable path - the quickest.



article-1288584-0228057A00000578-276_306x423.jpg
Memetics is the term coined by Richard Dawkins to describe 'cultural replicators' that copy and transmit biological information

2. MEMETICS

Whenever we copy habits, skills, stories or any kind of information from person to person, we're dealing in memes. The term was coined by Richard Dawkins to describe 'cultural replicators' that copy and transmit biological information. Humans copy memes, including ideas and skills, through imitation and teaching; but they get changed, accidentally or on purpose, so that culture evolves. This echoes the way species evolve as genes mutate. Like genes, some memes are successful, while others aren't. It's obvious why some memes spread - they're useful, or aesthetically pleasing, like melodies. But some spread even though they confer no clear benefit - things like computer viruses.



3. QUANTUM FIELD THEORY

We're all familiar with the idea of a magnetic-field, the region around a magnet where its influence is felt. The way fields behave is described by field theory. Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell found the equations that describe magnetic and electric fields, and Einstein found the ones that describe a gravitational field. But in the Twenties physicists realised the 'fields' actually consist of particles moving through space: the 'quanta' of the field. When two electrically charged particles exert a force on each other, they do so by exchanging photons, the quanta of the electromagnetic field. The resulting quantum field theory (quantum electrodynamics, or QED) explains everything about the behaviour of the atoms that make up our world.

article-1288584-0A0C8D07000005DC-760_634x286.jpg
Svante Arrhenius suggested that life was brought to Earth by spores floating through space, an idea called panspermia, meaning 'seeds everywhere'

4. PANSPERMIA

Is all life on Earth descended from the bacteria left behind by aliens after a picnic? It sounds far-fetched, but it's an idea that was put forward seriously by the maverick astronomer Thomas Gold. He was building on a proposal made by the Swede Svante Arrhenius a century ago. Arrhenius suggested that life was brought to Earth by spores floating through space, an idea he called panspermia, meaning 'seeds everywhere'. A variation on this idea is the notion that the spores were sent deliberately by an alien civilisation - 'directed panspermia'. And then there's Gold's suggestion that the aliens happened to be passing by the Earth billions of years ago and stopped off for lunch. Crazy? Maybe. But one person who took the idea of panspermia seriously was Francis Crick, who co-discovered the double-helix structure of DNA.




article-1288584-0A0AD2AC000005DC-184_634x610.jpg
If you believe in it strongly enough, almost anything can have the placebo effect


5. PLACEBO EFFECT

If you're given a pill and told it'll cure your headache, and your condition improves even though the pill contains nothing but chalk, you have experienced the placebo effect. If you believe in it strongly enough, almost anything can have a placebo effect.

The placebo effect explains why treatments such as homeopathy work for many people - simply because the patients believe they will work. Scientific tests under controlled conditions have shown that placebo effects can be enhanced by giving people bigger pills, by giving them pink pills rather than white ones, and by the perceived seniority of the doctor who's prescribing the pill.

Until the 20th century, most medicines were completely useless, but consciously or unconsciously, the placebo effect was exploited to the fullest, especially when dealing with rich patients.



article-1288584-0A0C8BB9000005DC-291_634x558.jpg
Nobody knows what caused the Earth to freeze over 635 millions years ago, but once it did, the shiny white surface of the ice reflected heated and maintained the 'snowball' conditions


6. SNOWBALL EARTH SNOWBALL EARTH

For millions of years, over 635 million years ago, the Earth was shrouded in ice. At that time, most land was clustered around the equator, but the glaciers left their mark on the rocks even there. Nobody knows what caused the Earth to freeze, but once it did, the shiny white surface of the ice reflected heat and maintained the 'snowball' conditions, until CO2 released by volcanoes created a greenhouse effect strong enough to melt the ice. If the ice had covered the entire planet, life may have died out. But there's evidence slushy pools survived during this period, and primitive but hardy life forms survived in the pools. When the Earth thawed, life exploded out across the planet in a burst of evolution. We may owe our existence to this Snowball Earth event.



article-1288584-0A3384B8000005DC-945_634x389.jpg
Proponents of the Rare Earth idea point to a chain of circumstances that allowed our civilisation to emerge, even though that required nearly four billion years of evolution


7. RARE EARTH

Life in the universe may be common, but intelligent life may be rare. Proponents of the Rare Earth idea point to a chain of circumstances that allowed our civilisation to emerge, even though that required nearly four billion years of evolution. The sun is a relatively stable star, which has allowed life to evolve steadily over all that time. The giant planet Jupiter protects us from comets. Our large moon's gravitational pull stops the Earth from wobbling and tipping over, causing extreme changes in climate. And the Earth has an unusually strong magnetic field, shielding us from harmful radiation. The combination of these and other unusual features of our planet constitutes a chain of coincidences so unlikely that some astronomers think we may be the only intelligent form of life in the universe.



article-1288584-0A0FDB6A000005DC-647_634x560.jpg
Some cosmologists think our universe is one of a pair of three-dimensional universes, separated by a tiny distances (less than the diameter of of an atom) in an extra dimension


8. THE EKPYROTIC UNIVERSE


Here's a wild idea. Some cosmologists think our universe is one of a pair of three-dimensional universes, separated by a tiny distance (less than the diameter of an atom) in an extra dimension. Every point in space is next door to a point in the other universe, but the two are slowly moving apart. Billions of years from now, though, a spring-like force will pull them back together in a collision generating huge amounts of heat and light - a big bang. The two universes will then bounce apart and the whole process will repeat. This is the leading alternative to the Big Bang theory, and it asserts that the universe in a sense gives birth to itself.




9. ENTANGLEMENT

When any two quantum objects, such as electrons or photons (light particles) come into contact, they become 'entangled in a quantum sense. This means that forever after what happens to one of them affects the other, instantly, no matter how far away it is. If one particle is given a prod, the other twitches. This leads some people to hope that entanglement could be used for faster-than-light communication. The snag is, although you know from watching one particle that the other has been prodded, you don't know how it was prodded. But if that information is sent to us by conventional means, we can interpret the twitching - which means that quantum prodding could be used to send uncrackable coded messages.


10. FINITE

If the universe were finite, it could be shaped like a ring doughnut. And if that were the case, if you looked one way round the ring you'd see the same galaxies you could see by looking the other way round the ring, but from the other side. A more complicated topology would be a cube in which opposite faces are connected to one another. If you could travel up through the 'roof', you'd come back into the cube through the 'floor'. Some simple computer games work like this. Observations show that our universe doesn't have such a simple topology as this. But it could be shaped like a multi-dimensional dodecahedron.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mos...reatest-30-second-theories.html#ixzz0s33ABAyR
 

JJChicken

Diamond Member
Apr 9, 2007
6,165
16
81
what is this I don't even






On topic, it was an interesting read, thanks for posting.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,082
136
Some of those theories explain a great deal. Some of them explain nothing. Thus they are not theories but just cute little fantasy stories. At least, thats my theory.
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,161
126
#7 is a goofy relic of creationist philosophy. Otherwise interesting.

No, it is not. In fact, I actually believe it. It has nothing to do with creationism- it's just saying that out of all the chances for our set of circumstances to happen , we "won the lottery". If you think of everything that has to be just right for intelligent life to form, it's mind-blowing. Not only do you need the circumstances listed above, but you need plate tectonics so heavy elements are recycled and technology can be made for them (imagine being smart and not having any metals to build things with), you have to have abundant and easy to reach sources of food, your planet has to remain virtually unchanged for millions of years...there's 50 or more factors that played out in our own evolution. Take any one of them away, and either we wouldn't be here, or we would still be using spears made out of sticks.

There are so many stars in the Milky Way alone that I'm not going to say we're the only intelligent beings, but I am going to speculate that we are very rare indeed---I doubt there's any more than 10 or so self aware species out there, and even that is optimistic. Out of that 10, far less than that would probably develop any kind of advanced technology.

It's sad, but we may be destined to be the "seeders" of our part of the universe.
 

darkxshade

Lifer
Mar 31, 2001
13,749
6
81
2. MEMETICS Whenever we copy habits, skills, stories or any kind of information from person to person, we're dealing in memes. The term was coined by Richard Dawkins to describe 'cultural replicators' that copy and transmit biological information. Humans copy memes, including ideas and skills, through imitation and teaching; but they get changed, accidentally or on purpose, so that culture evolves. This echoes the way species evolve as genes mutate. Like genes, some memes are successful, while others aren't. It's obvious why some memes spread - they're useful, or aesthetically pleasing, like melodies. But some spread even though they confer no clear benefit - things like computer viruses.

Great... so basically we immortalized Chuck Norris and Rick Astley into our genetic code? Never gonna let you down is going to become our global anthem 1000s of years from now. :hmm:
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,161
126
Great... so basically we immortalized Chuck Norris and Rick Astley into our genetic code? Never gonna let you down is going to become our global anthem 1000s of years from now. :hmm:

People will pray to Google to show them the historic records by saying "Can I haz the histork rekerds pleze?"
 

darkxshade

Lifer
Mar 31, 2001
13,749
6
81
People will pray to Google to show them the historic records by saying "Can I haz the histork rekerds pleze?"


Google bless New America for those Apple Jihadists think they will get 42 free new and unused ipods for slaying those infidels.
 

Gigantopithecus

Diamond Member
Dec 14, 2004
7,664
0
71
No, it is not. In fact, I actually believe it. It has nothing to do with creationism- it's just saying that out of all the chances for our set of circumstances to happen , we "won the lottery". If you think of everything that has to be just right for intelligent life to form, it's mind-blowing. Not only do you need the circumstances listed above, but you need plate tectonics so heavy elements are recycled and technology can be made for them (imagine being smart and not having any metals to build things with), you have to have abundant and easy to reach sources of food, your planet has to remain virtually unchanged for millions of years...there's 50 or more factors that played out in our own evolution. Take any one of them away, and either we wouldn't be here, or we would still be using spears made out of sticks.

There are so many stars in the Milky Way alone that I'm not going to say we're the only intelligent beings, but I am going to speculate that we are very rare indeed---I doubt there's any more than 10 or so self aware species out there, and even that is optimistic. Out of that 10, far less than that would probably develop any kind of advanced technology.

It's sad, but we may be destined to be the "seeders" of our part of the universe.

/facepalm

This idea is firmly rooted in creationism, but for whatever reason 'enlightened' people seem to think that removing god from the equation makes it scientific, when it is not. Science doesn't prove negatives. This idea is nothing more than ascertainment bias on a grand scale. So it's not surprising you'd remark there are 'no more than 10 self aware species' when there are at least 4 more on this planet, even by human standards. And 'imagine being smart with no metal' - again, because most of our technology is metal-based, it's hard to imagine technology not based on metals.

Intelligent beings might not be common, but to think we're so special with our iFlock devices is the nadir of hubris.
 
Oct 27, 2007
17,009
5
0
Maybe someone can correct me, but I don't think memetics has developed to the point of theory yet. It's more of a hypothesis, and a particularly difficult one to test.

Feynmann's principle of least action is fascinating and I encourage people to read his book Quantum Electrodynamics in which he lays it out more formally, but still in a way in which dummies like me can understand it.
 

Gigantopithecus

Diamond Member
Dec 14, 2004
7,664
0
71
Maybe someone can correct me, but I don't think memetics has developed to the point of theory yet. It's more of a hypothesis, and a particularly difficult one to test.

Feynmann's principle of least action is fascinating and I encourage people to read his book Quantum Electrodynamics in which he lays it out more formally, but still in a way in which dummies like me can understand it.

When does a hypothesis become a theory?

Memetics isn't a theory. It's not even a branch of inquiry. 'Meme' is a clever term coined by Dawkins; the study of memes falls under the domain of sociologists, linguistic anthropologists, etc. The social sciences will have dominion over memes until we begin to understand specific genetic etiologies for specific behaviors...
 

dardarla

Senior member
May 27, 2010
392
0
0
My psychology teacher told me that a hypotheses is an "if, then" statement, whereas a theory is more of an idea. So really, it would be a theory first and when we try to scientifically test it it will become a hypotheses
 
Oct 27, 2007
17,009
5
0
My psychology teacher told me that a hypotheses is an "if, then" statement, whereas a theory is more of an idea. So really, it would be a theory first and when we try to scientifically test it it will become a hypotheses
You should drop that course because your psychology teacher is talking out of his/her ass.
 

disappoint

Lifer
Dec 7, 2009
10,132
382
126
Ugh. So much misinformation, so little time. I guess I'll just address the first one for now:

In fact,particles, and light, travel by the path which takes the least time. This explains why an angled light ray bends towards the perpendicular when it passes from air into glass, through which it moves more slowly (this reduces the amount of glass it has to pass through)

No it doesn't reduce the amount of glass it has to pass through. It could, but it doesn't necessarily. It could even increase the amount of glass it has to pass through. The reason light bends when changing mediums is a change in velocity of the photons. The reason the photons move slower in a medium with a higher index of refraction is that the photons are absorbed and retransmitted over and over again while passing through that medium.
 

grrl

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2001
6,204
1
0
My psychology teacher told me that a hypotheses is an "if, then" statement, whereas a theory is more of an idea. So really, it would be a theory first and when we try to scientifically test it it will become a hypotheses

You should drop that course because your psychology teacher is talking out of his/her ass.

I have an idea, let's make some waffles!

Wow, I just created a theory, and if I now go make the waffles it will become a hypothesis!
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
14
81
No, it is not. In fact, I actually believe it. It has nothing to do with creationism- it's just saying that out of all the chances for our set of circumstances to happen , we "won the lottery". If you think of everything that has to be just right for intelligent life to form, it's mind-blowing. Not only do you need the circumstances listed above, but you need plate tectonics so heavy elements are recycled and technology can be made for them (imagine being smart and not having any metals to build things with), you have to have abundant and easy to reach sources of food, your planet has to remain virtually unchanged for millions of years...there's 50 or more factors that played out in our own evolution. Take any one of them away, and either we wouldn't be here, or we would still be using spears made out of sticks.

There are so many stars in the Milky Way alone that I'm not going to say we're the only intelligent beings, but I am going to speculate that we are very rare indeed---I doubt there's any more than 10 or so self aware species out there, and even that is optimistic. Out of that 10, far less than that would probably develop any kind of advanced technology.

It's sad, but we may be destined to be the "seeders" of our part of the universe.

This is all based upon the supposition that all life in the universe has to be just like us. Take the magnetic field protection, for one. I don't see any reason why life on another planet couldn't evolve in such a way that they're not only unharmed by magnetic fields, but maybe they even obtain energy from it. Just because you can't imagine it doesn't make it true. Doesn't photosynthesis sound kinda outlandish when you think about it? Getting food from light and gas, preposterous!!!
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,161
126
/facepalm

This idea is firmly rooted in creationism, but for whatever reason 'enlightened' people seem to think that removing god from the equation makes it scientific, when it is not. Science doesn't prove negatives. This idea is nothing more than ascertainment bias on a grand scale. So it's not surprising you'd remark there are 'no more than 10 self aware species' when there are at least 4 more on this planet, even by human standards. And 'imagine being smart with no metal' - again, because most of our technology is metal-based, it's hard to imagine technology not based on metals.

Intelligent beings might not be common, but to think we're so special with our iFlock devices is the nadir of hubris.

?????

This is not trying to prove anything. It's saying that there are so many factors for intelligent life to come into being that it is most likely very rare, and technologically advanced species are even more rare. It took 4 billion years for a single intelligent species to evolve on this planet---that's just under 25% of the age of the entire universe. It has nothing to do with God, creationism, or proving anything, it's just showing the odds.

As for technology not built on metals, the laws of physics are the same everywhere. Metals can be molded, are strong, and they conduct electricity. There are no other common elements with these properties. You need metals to make technology, plain and simple. You can't make electronics without them, among other things. A lack of metal resources will limit the development of a race's technology.
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,161
126
This is all based upon the supposition that all life in the universe has to be just like us. Take the magnetic field protection, for one. I don't see any reason why life on another planet couldn't evolve in such a way that they're not only unharmed by magnetic fields, but maybe they even obtain energy from it. Just because you can't imagine it doesn't make it true. Doesn't photosynthesis sound kinda outlandish when you think about it? Getting food from light and gas, preposterous!!!

We think a magnetic field is needed to shield the planet from radiation. Radiation breaks cellular development, and too much radiation would sterilize the planet. True, life could grow underground or underwater, but this would limit the amount of energy resources available for advanced life to develop.

Life doesn't have to be like us at all, but we think that all life must have a few things in common- It most likely must have some kind of genetic coding to pass on traits to other generations, it must take in energy somehow, and it must have some form of propulsion in order to move around and mate/spread itself. Without a spinning metal core, a planet would have no defense against it's star's solar flares. Once a flare hits the planet, any life on the surface would die.

I've spent the last 8 or so years studying this subject and am pretty well versed. It really isn't as simplistic as people think.
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
14
81
We think a magnetic field is needed to shield the planet from radiation. Radiation breaks cellular development, and too much radiation would sterilize the planet. True, life could grow underground or underwater, but this would limit the amount of energy resources available for advanced life to develop.

Life doesn't have to be like us at all, but we think that all life must have a few things in common- It most likely must have some kind of genetic coding to pass on traits to other generations, it must take in energy somehow, and it must have some form of propulsion in order to move around and mate/spread itself. Without a spinning metal core, a planet would have no defense against it's star's solar flares. Once a flare hits the planet, any life on the surface would die.

This is all well and good but it's a pretty narrow view of the potential of the universe.


I've spent the last 8 or so years studying this subject and am pretty well versed. It really isn't as simplistic as people think.

And yet, you're got just as much experience with life outside of this rock as 6 billion other people. So it's all just educated guesswork.
 
Last edited:

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,161
126
This is all well and good but it's a pretty narrow view of the potential of the universe.




Appeal to authority; don't care.

:confused:

How exactly is this narrow viewed? I'm going off of what top people in the field have pieced together over the last 100 years or so of astrophysics and the new field of astrobiology. What are your views on the requirements for intelligent life?
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
14
81
:confused:

How exactly is this narrow viewed? I'm going off of what top people in the field have pieced together over the last 100 years or so of astrophysics and the new field of astrobiology. What are your views on the requirements for intelligent life?

Consider this simple analysis: of these four steps (observe, hypothesize, predict, test), which one have we failed to perform on this subject? All of your most intelligent scientists have created these theories based only upon knowledge we have gained so far concerning the origins of life. To presume that our knowledge of what can "make" life is complete, given a sample set of 1 planet (amongst the 10^21 estimated solar bodies), is flat out preposterous. Absolutely ridiculous. I consider this sort of thinking no different than an 19th century scientist, so sure of his knowledge and expertise, that he could not accept the idea that the speed of light is a constant. Newtonian physics ruled, and there was no reason to believe otherwise - all experimental evidence up to that point proved that F=MA for all observable phenomena. Of course now we know that to be incorrect because we've expanded the realm of what we can observe, and we now need Einstein's equations and quantum mechanics to explain what we see. We haven't even physically left our own solar system, we've only observed the rest of the universe electromagnetically, and you're telling me that we know how life could evolve on another planet under different conditions?
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,161
126
Consider this simple analysis: of these four steps (observe, hypothesize, predict, test), which one have we failed to perform on this subject? All of your most intelligent scientists have created these theories based only upon knowledge we have gained so far concerning the origins of life. To presume that our knowledge of what can "make" life is complete, given a sample set of 1 planet (amongst the 10^21 estimated solar bodies), is flat out preposterous. Absolutely ridiculous. I consider this sort of thinking no different than an 19th century scientist, so sure of his knowledge and expertise, that he could not accept the idea that the speed of light is a constant. Newtonian physics ruled, and there was no reason to believe otherwise - all experimental evidence up to that point proved that F=MA for all observable phenomena. Of course now we know that to be incorrect because we've expanded the realm of what we can observe, and we now need Einstein's equations and quantum mechanics to explain what we see. We haven't even physically left our own solar system, we've only observed the rest of the universe electromagnetically, and you're telling me that we know how life could evolve on another planet under different conditions?

Again you keep taking these suggestions as fact---they're gathering the odds based upon available information, not making facts. Believe me, nobody would be happier if intelligent life were everywhere than me! However, the odds are very much against it.