Infinite possibilities do not require repetition. If there are so few possibilities that another you need exist elsewhere, then the possibilities are finite, not infinite.

So does this mean Jet Li, is "The One"?

Those laws only work in our universe. They do not apply to the multiverse, the increased dimensionality complicates everything.

So I guess we can gather that you are not one of the science educated types? I don't think that pseudoscience or science differs much in confusing the undereducated. They are undereducated, they are not going to know the difference in what they hear. With what Brain Greene will be talking about, even the highly educated will have difficulty understanding it in total.

Can you clarify you first sentence please. I don't follow your logic there.

I know what Greene is talking about. Its half BS but the other half is sound thinking. So in total its pretty much BS.

I'd guess that the only people who will understand much of it are people who already understand it, to whatever degree it can be understood. I'd expect a lot of CGI attempting to turn mathematical abstraction into visual perceptions, accompanied by verbal explanations as 'captions' for the video, to bridge the math with the animations, but very likely unable to increase the understanding of anyone, like myself, who doesn't have the math to validate the concepts. But there's no use complaining about it, it might be fun for some people to watch.

Sure Ill watch it too. And dont worry about the math because none of these theoretical physicists know it either. Those idiots still think that c(squared) stands for the speed of light.

rush, it's "c", not c(squared), that stands for the speed of light - by definition. And yes, we know that.

Ok so what does c(squared) means then?

Rush, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove but let me take a swing at why I think you hate this show so much.

Judging by your comments so far you are either still in college or recently graduated. You took a lot of advanced math and/or science classes which means you think you know everything there is to know about the subject. You write a blog somewhere about how awesome and smart you are and how every other person's theories are dumb, but you have never been published in any sort of scientific research. To counter that fact you go on forms all day trying to prove how a TV show made for entertainment and basic educational purposes is the worst thing ever.

Now I may be way off on this assumption but that is how your acting, and I can guarantee to you that no one is impressed.

This show will probably be interesting if nothing else. It is made to make people think and be creative about our lives and our place in the universe, not to be submitted for scientific study.

Lewis this is not a "Psychology Today" section. So take your profiling and shove it.

C (Squared) is part of the equation E=MC2, which is energy/mass equivalency. C stands for 'Constant' as the speed of light in a vacuum is constant.

C = 299,792,458 Meters Per Second.

Lol, I read the Wikipedia entry on Brian Greene, and at the risk of going all "Psychology Today," I can only guess that some people don't like string theory because the proportion of imagination and speculation to observation and perception has to be pretty high, from what I gathered. I assume it still stands squarely in the realm of science, because I probably would have heard about it being discarded, if that had happened - and also they wouldn't be making this show.

Well this is all nice and dandy but the expression is "c(squared)" not "c". And I have yet to hear from anyone about what this expression really means. :)

I was fascinated while watching The Elegant Universe and his explanations on String theory and M theory. I can't wait to see how he follows up in the search for unification.

Rush, it looks to me like you've been answered. Do you disagree?

What? Are you from the psychoprofiling section too? You people are confusing the crap out of me now.

So, a horse walks into a bar.

Bartender says- why the long face?

What do you see in this picture?

(.)

i see a right breast.

Rush, stating "c (squared)" is simply speaking the mathematical equation. To find E (energy), you take m (mass) and multiply by c (speed of light in a vacuum). However, to properly calculate the formula, we need to multiply c by itself (i.e. c²). So, saying "c squared" is simply saying we need to take the value of c (speed of light in a vacuum) and "square" it (producing c² in mathematical written terms).

If the value had instead needed to be cubed (to the third power) rather than squared (to the second power), the equation would have been E=mc³

rush: "Those idiots still think that c(squared) stands for the speed of light."

I've never heard anybody who thinks that, so if you really need to insult people, please be more specific.

jock. So answer my question then. What does "c (squared)" mean?

HFM this doesn't answer my question. So your explanation doesn't fly.

rush: "HFM this doesn't answer my question. So your explanation doesn't fly."

Then explain your question better, rather than trying to make it someone else's fault.

Rush, the speed of light is simply C, not C (squared). C (squared) is part of an equation, that equation being E-MC2, where E = Energy, M=Mass, C=Speed of Light, and 2(squared) being a mathematical operative.

You do not refer to the speed of light as C (squared), but rather simply as C.

The speed of light in vacuum, usually denoted by c, is a physical constant important in many areas of physics.

Red I perfectly understand what you are saying. But its not what I was asking. I asked this question for a reason. And the reason is to see how many people understand what E=mc2 really means. And you are coming up with a typical 'nonanswer' like its squared because its squared. But thats the whole point. Nobody can articulate what this mathematical expression of 'c2' means. Why is it squared, what it signifies and what the ramifications are? But that is the key piece of information that allows you to understand the theory and without it its doesn't make any sense.

Maybe Alan Boyle can answer this. He's the smart guy in charge around here.

rush, if you want to dazzle us with your brilliance, then tell us the answer you are looking for and let us be the judge. Nobody appreciates the condescension game you are playing.

Listen lady, what is your purpose on this blog? Obviously you are not interested in physics just in airing laundry. You are at this very moment in a combative mode and pestering me with some silliness, and accusing me of some behavioral issues. I said nothing to you to warrant this much attention so do me a favor and leave me alone. I'm not looking for friends at this particluar time.

It's c**2 because that's the way the universe works, just like kinetic energy = 1/2 m v**2, where v is the velocity relative to some reference frame, and m is of course the mass. This is the non-relativistic form; the relativistic form is more complicated.

BTW, the first derivative of 1/2 m v**2 wrt v is mv, which happens to be the momentum of an object with mass m moving at v relative to the reference frame. And the second derivative is of course m, which is the object's rest mass.

Clearer?

Not really. why is velocity squared then?

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646 –1716)

rush, if you want to try impressing us with somehting you have to say about the most famous equaion in the world, then just say it. If you keep insulting everyone on the way, and otherwise acting like a condescending know-it-all, nobody is going to care anymore, if they ever did.

I think you got things confused a bit. The only derogatory statement I made was about the show. Not the posters. Yet I was attacked (verbally) and I responded. And I wasn't talking about the most famous equaiton in the world but another equation which came before the one you referring to. Read and comprehend, please.

"Read and comprehend, please."

Even if you feel condescension is justified, it really doesn't accomplish anything, except perhaps supporting your own feelings of superiority. But it doesn't help any of us learn anything, and it doesn't help any of us have a pleasant conversation about science.

Are we back to psychology again? Is this a gay science blog? Do you want to hold hands? :)

You still didn't answer my question which was about physics BTW.

I have no intention of answering your anything. I only enjoy conversations with civil people. And people don't have to hold hands to be civil. And I have no idea where your homophobia came from.

rush - Based upon what you have said on some previous posts, I would take it that your question is in regards Newton's second law F = ma or momentum P = mv, instead of Einstien's E= mc^2.

In regards to your question of where does the c^2 come from, assuming that c is the speed of light, Einstein used a Lorentz transformation and made the time variable, in Minkowski's 4-dimensional space-time, t = sqr root of -1 times ct, when the distance between two points is taken, the equation becomes sqr root x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = ct. Square both sides, you have x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = c^2t^2.

Next question?

TReed you're in the ballpark but I was looking for a simple answer. No need to pull out Minkowski here or even Lorentz. Shows me you are not clear on the meaning of c2 just like the rest.

As for the equation its not what I meant. I said mass/energy equation. Was there something confusing about that statement? Maybe to some, but if mass is m and energy is E then there is only two equations I can think of E=mc2 and m=E/c2 and I meant the latter. And thats the one that Lorentz himself used for his Nobel prize.

rush - Try Appendix I and II of Einstein's book Relativity Edition 15, pages 115 - 122, Crown Publishing. Lorentz received his Nobel Prize in 1902 for his work with Pieter Zeeman on the Zeeman effect, Special Relativity was published in 1905.

I think in the end the real answer will be that Rush needs a hobby.

TReed. OK so his Nobel was for something else. But it doesn't change the fact that it wasn't Einstein who came up with that equation. It was Poincare in 1900 actually, but there were a few wrinkles that Einstein worked out later and took credit for it. Lorentz, Poincare and others were working on theories of relativity of motion before Einstein. Einsteins theory was called "special relativity". You can read about the history of it I dont remember all the details.

Here's another one.

A dyslexic walks into a bra.

Ooops.

And the answer I was looking for with the c2 was very simple, common sense answer. Without going deep into mathematics, when you multiply speed by speed you get acceleration. So what c2 or v2 represent is accelleration. But its not Newtonian or angular acceleration its exponential. So if mass=energy/acceleration then mass is basically a 'decelerated energy' or 'decelerated light'. So this means that when you pick up a rock its really just a chunk of very slow light and the mass you measure is just a byproduct of its motion. Slower is bigger and more massive, while faster is smaller and less massive. And if its accelerated to the speed of light the mass ceases to exist (as well as time and space) and becomes pure timeless energy. So to give you a perspective its like your body vs your mind. Body big and slow while your mind is fast and massles and timeless. So the conjecture here is that "dark matter" they are talking about is really a Universal Conciousness. Get it?

"Universal Consciousness" Are we back to psychology again? Is this a gay blog? Do you want to hold hands and pray? :)

Thats all you have to say? Pity.

Sometimes, when people can't get their facts straight, they are still right. I guess.

I will be watching this PBS program, for sure. And playing with a ball of string.

they are talking about is really a Universal Conciousness.

Universal Conciosness doesn't exist (so far in our understanding of the Universe) because Hawkings has calculated the Wave Function of the Multiverse. So, no observant is needed to solve the Schrodinger paradox.

Hey here's another one:

yo Mama so stupid that she took a piece of paper and taped it on the t.v and called it paperview

(SO FAR, in our understanding of the Universe) being the operative phrase in this case. And judging by the comments here, people's understanding of anything, even the written language, leaves alot to be desired.

rush - Acceleration is the rate of change with a unit measurement of m/s^2. The unit measurement for c and v (velocity) is m/s, so when either is squared, it becomes m^2/s^2. Are you trying to follow one of those anti-Einstein conspiracy theories?

For dark matter, the leading candidate is WIMP's, weakly interacting massive particles, these particles have no charge which is why they don't interact with normal matter, they only use the weak force and gravity. The assumption was that dark matter clumps, with this finding, there are other forces in play that they didn't think would occur or is something totally new that they were not aware of.

Rush is a troll. An intelligent troll, but a troll nonetheless.

Rush is a troll. An intelligent troll, but a troll nonetheless.

And a bit of a bully, if you ask me. But it takes trolls and bullies to make the internet what it is, evidently.

Its conceptual exponential acceleration not practical Newtonian. And Im not embarking on some quest to offer you detailed mathematical proof of this concept you can dial Minkowski for that. Im here for fun not hard work. :) The expression increases the rate of speed and that by definition is accelleration.

*extends hand through the gate to feed the troll*

Rush, are you related to Rush Limbaugh by the way?

Trolls are even sometimes mean and disagreeable with the people who agree with them. So is Rush Limbaugh. Yep, so they do have something in common.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." ... Albert Einstein