Seabreeze.com.au
Buy & Sell
Gallery
Gallery
Seabreeze Seabreeze
Weather
Buy & Sell Forums Gallery Login Join (Free) Help
Create new topic
Search Subscribed Active Create new topic

Higgs Particle Announcement July 4

> 10 years ago
Reply
Shooting the breeze.
Register to post, see what you've read, and subscribe to topics.
Mark _australia
Mark _australia
WA
23684 posts
Mark _australia Mark _australia
WA, 23684 posts
4 Jul 2012 8:31pm
evlPanda said...

Mark _australia said...

evlPanda said...

You got to the end of the movie?

The laws of M-theory allow for different universes with different apparent laws, depending on how the internal space is curled. M-theory has solutions that allow for many different internal spaces, perhaps as many as 10500 (that's 500 zeros people), which means it allows for 10500 different universes, each with its own laws. To get an idea how many that is, think about this: If some being could analyse the laws predicted for each of those universes in just one millisecond and had started working on it at the big bang, at present that being would have studied just 1020 of them. And that's without coffee breaks.

In one of those universes I'm not at work.

(an aside: I just had the most boring meeting/presentation. I fell asleep for about 2 minutes during one presentation. In my dream she was still talking, and then paused to put a video on. The video was her talking some more.)



That is the kind of crap I was talking about.
That is philosophy, not science.
It presupposes that string theory is correct for a start. Theories built upon other theories that are as yet unproven.

"Whenever there is a simple error that most laymen fall for, there is always a slightly more sophisticated version of the same problem that the experts fall for" Amos Tversky


Theories are allowed to predate observation. The theory, usually described mathematically, has to add up. Later observations, for example the atom bomb, prove them. Because of the maths there is often a lot of confidence beforehand.

The universe is not as we experience it. Observation has shown this again and again. Take relativity for example. The satellites used for GPS have to be constantly corrected because time for them is different than time for us. Time is relative. All this was in Einstein's head before we even invented satellites.

What makes you think there isn't a smaller particle, or that knowing about it won't lead to new technological advances?


Agree completely. However I just find it bemusing at the very least that they have come up with a theory to try and unify 5 other theories that are all unproven. And people get excited about it.... what if of the 5 choices one is right and then M-theory falls down and there was no need to unify them.
Seems a bit pointless
It also seems (and I may be very wrong here, but...) it is not always a case of math proving things - many times it is the fact that the maths does not disprove the theory and that is enough for them.

Now string theory has become a household word and it is pretty much accepted that stuff is made from little strings. It isn't fact!
decrepit
decrepit
WA
12885 posts
decrepit decrepit
WA, 12885 posts
4 Jul 2012 9:27pm
Mark _australia said...
>>>>>>>

Agree completely. However I just find it bemusing at the very least that they have come up with a theory to try and unify 5 other theories that are all unproven. And people get excited about it.... what if of the 5 choices one is right and then M-theory falls down and there was no need to unify them.
Seems a bit pointless
>>>>


That's why they had to find the Higgs Boson, the "standard model" predicts it, if it wasn't there, they'd have to do a rethink. The whole process is to get more and more certain about the nature of reality. Once relativity and Quantum theory are reconciled satisfactorily they'll be well on the way.
Macroscien
Macroscien
QLD
6809 posts
Macroscien Macroscien
QLD, 6809 posts
4 Jul 2012 11:37pm
Still pity that is not our Monash accelerator involved,
there could be one more Nobel for Australia
wait a minute
Are there any other particle still missing ?
We still have a chance to find that dark matter particle
I am afraid there are still plenty around
Poodle
Poodle
WA
868 posts
Poodle Poodle
WA, 868 posts
4 Jul 2012 9:48pm
sausage said...

Photo evidence of Higg's Bison







Gorgo
Gorgo
VIC
5124 posts
Gorgo Gorgo
VIC, 5124 posts
5 Jul 2012 10:39am
World's first Higgs Boson joke: 'A Higgs Boson walks into a Catholic Church during the Sunday service. The Priest asks "What are you doing here?". The Higgs Boson says to the priest "You can't have mass without me!"'
doggie
doggie
WA
15849 posts
doggie doggie
WA, 15849 posts
5 Jul 2012 8:59am
Mark _australia said...

evlPanda said...

Mark _australia said...

evlPanda said...

You got to the end of the movie?

The laws of M-theory allow for different universes with different apparent laws, depending on how the internal space is curled. M-theory has solutions that allow for many different internal spaces, perhaps as many as 10500 (that's 500 zeros people), which means it allows for 10500 different universes, each with its own laws. To get an idea how many that is, think about this: If some being could analyse the laws predicted for each of those universes in just one millisecond and had started working on it at the big bang, at present that being would have studied just 1020 of them. And that's without coffee breaks.

In one of those universes I'm not at work.

(an aside: I just had the most boring meeting/presentation. I fell asleep for about 2 minutes during one presentation. In my dream she was still talking, and then paused to put a video on. The video was her talking some more.)



That is the kind of crap I was talking about.
That is philosophy, not science.
It presupposes that string theory is correct for a start. Theories built upon other theories that are as yet unproven.

"Whenever there is a simple error that most laymen fall for, there is always a slightly more sophisticated version of the same problem that the experts fall for" Amos Tversky


Theories are allowed to predate observation. The theory, usually described mathematically, has to add up. Later observations, for example the atom bomb, prove them. Because of the maths there is often a lot of confidence beforehand.

The universe is not as we experience it. Observation has shown this again and again. Take relativity for example. The satellites used for GPS have to be constantly corrected because time for them is different than time for us. Time is relative. All this was in Einstein's head before we even invented satellites.

What makes you think there isn't a smaller particle, or that knowing about it won't lead to new technological advances?


Agree completely. However I just find it bemusing at the very least that they have come up with a theory to try and unify 5 other theories that are all unproven. And people get excited about it.... what if of the 5 choices one is right and then M-theory falls down and there was no need to unify them.
Seems a bit pointless
It also seems (and I may be very wrong here, but...) it is not always a case of math proving things - many times it is the fact that the maths does not disprove the theory and that is enough for them.

Now string theory has become a household word and it is pretty much accepted that stuff is made from little strings. It isn't fact!


BAZINGA
evlPanda
evlPanda
NSW
9207 posts
evlPanda evlPanda
NSW, 9207 posts
5 Jul 2012 1:27pm
^ Confused. If you doubt the ... I mean how else to prove (or disprove) the theory without experiments? Some people seem to think it's all a waste of time, and fantasy land. It's so far from.

See there are lots of theories that explain how things work at this size, that size over here and over there, yada yada. For example Newton's laws don't work at very small sizes, thus we have quantum mechanics. A lot of these theories overlap, but none of them describe everything. Together they don't describe everything either. Yet. It's a bit like a patchwork quilt. M-theory is the quilt.

It's really just a name that describes the collection of everything we know. Some parts are very well proven and often used in our daily lives, some parts are theory in the true layman's sense of the word. Nobody even remembers where the "M" came from, it just stuck in the media.
Mark _australia
Mark _australia
WA
23684 posts
Mark _australia Mark _australia
WA, 23684 posts
5 Jul 2012 12:33pm
Yes indeed they do and you are right. I just think that of all the fields in science, theoretical physics is the least 'scientific' - it is philosphy and making up wonderful stories supported by mathematics for it's own sake.
They build upon uproven theories and act like it is fact.
I can't think of any other field where you can get an unproven theory, link it to another unproven theory using maths, and be mega famous.

You can't postulate M-Theory until all the sub sets of string theory are proven and then you come up with the overarching theory to embrace the rest.

It is kinda like if they built a computer in 1600, hoping that electrons exist. No, prove the little bits first.

They may be right..... but I hope they discover a new particle that totally writes off string theory and they discover the Brane theory (or some other) camp were right.
evlPanda
evlPanda
NSW
9207 posts
evlPanda evlPanda
NSW, 9207 posts
5 Jul 2012 3:13pm
Well. Somebody doesn't like strings.
Mark _australia
Mark _australia
WA
23684 posts
Mark _australia Mark _australia
WA, 23684 posts
5 Jul 2012 1:25pm
hahahaha
southace
southace
SA
4803 posts
southace southace
SA, 4803 posts
5 Jul 2012 6:34pm
I'm a bit confused ! Cavemen were he with the dinsoursors then ice age came wiped all , then monkeys came and turned into man, then the man was jesus. Where does the big bang theory fit in or perhaps there was more than one big bang?
doggie
doggie
WA
15849 posts
doggie doggie
WA, 15849 posts
5 Jul 2012 5:21pm
southace said...

I'm a bit confused ! Cavemen were he with the dinsoursors then ice age came wiped all , then monkeys came and turned into man, then the man was jesus. Where does the big bang theory fit in or perhaps there was more than one big bang?


Bazinga
southace
southace
SA
4803 posts
southace southace
SA, 4803 posts
5 Jul 2012 7:20pm
doggie said...

southace said...

I'm a bit confused ! Cavemen were he with the dinsoursors then ice age came wiped all , then monkeys came and turned into man, then the man was jesus. Where does the big bang theory fit in or perhaps there was more than one big bang?


Bazinga


Yes Bazinga Bazinga Bazinga!
da vecta
da vecta
QLD
2515 posts
da vecta da vecta
QLD, 2515 posts
5 Jul 2012 11:22pm
sausage said...

Photo evidence of Higg's Bison





Gold!

It's actually the only thing I've understood so far.
GreenPat
GreenPat
QLD
4105 posts
GreenPat GreenPat
QLD, 4105 posts
6 Jul 2012 12:10pm
evlPanda said...

Nobody even remembers where the "M" came from, it just stuck in the media.


The way I remember it, the inventor of the theory that there was an M-theory (was it Edward Witten?) decided that until the theory was a theory of its own, and not just a theoretical theory, M didn't really stand for anything. Once it was actually formulated then the M could be made to stand for something by whoever sorted it out. That's the way I understood it anyway, I could be absolutely full of crap.
Macroscien
Macroscien
QLD
6809 posts
Macroscien Macroscien
QLD, 6809 posts
6 Jul 2012 12:19pm
Good that science is still a bit different to business.
Nobody could claim patents on bozon and other stuff.
Apple could purchase this discovery patent and we are all doomed or weightless
Skid
Skid
QLD
1499 posts
Skid Skid
QLD, 1499 posts
6 Jul 2012 2:01pm
southace said...

I'm a bit confused ! Cavemen were he with the dinsoursors then ice age came wiped all , then monkeys came and turned into man, then the man was jesus. Where does the big bang theory fit in or perhaps there was more than one big bang?


Dinosaurs first, cavemen later
southace
southace
SA
4803 posts
southace southace
SA, 4803 posts
6 Jul 2012 5:46pm
Skid said...

southace said...

I'm a bit confused ! Cavemen were he with the dinsoursors then ice age came wiped all , then monkeys came and turned into man, then the man was jesus. Where does the big bang theory fit in or perhaps there was more than one big bang?


Dinosaurs first, cavemen later


but im sure i seen cavemen fighting dinosaurs? perhaps that was a movie.
DUDE
DUDE
NSW
1132 posts
DUDE DUDE
NSW, 1132 posts
6 Jul 2012 6:29pm
southace said...

Skid said...

southace said...

I'm a bit confused ! Cavemen were he with the dinsoursors then ice age came wiped all , then monkeys came and turned into man, then the man was jesus. Where does the big bang theory fit in or perhaps there was more than one big bang?


Dinosaurs first, cavemen later


but im sure i seen cavemen fighting dinosaurs? perhaps that was a movie.


Or the "Flintstones"
Carantoc
Carantoc
WA
7283 posts
Carantoc Carantoc
WA, 7283 posts
6 Jul 2012 4:36pm
Interesting the announcment came on July 4 don't you think ?

4th of July ??? ring any bells ???

4-7-2012 ??

exactly 170 days until 21 Dec 2012 ???

know what I am saying ???
Mark _australia
Mark _australia
WA
23684 posts
Mark _australia Mark _australia
WA, 23684 posts
6 Jul 2012 6:45pm
Carantoc said...

Interesting the announcment came on July 4 don't you think ?

4th of July ??? ring any bells ???

4-7-2012 ??

exactly 170 days until 21 Dec 2012 ???

know what I am saying ???


I think you are close but not quite there.
Look at the date in USA format

7-4-12
The Higgs boson is the 5th subatomic particle if it is discovered. 12 - 5 = 7.

Now we have 7-4-7
Yes that's right, the aircraft that is spraying chemtrails at us. 747.

southace
southace
SA
4803 posts
southace southace
SA, 4803 posts
6 Jul 2012 8:37pm
really? what acid do you take? can I have some?
Poida
Poida
WA
1922 posts
Poida Poida
WA, 1922 posts
7 Jul 2012 10:58pm
So will they be able to use this theory to create or recreate new atoms, eg gold etc, from the particles that make up the atoms?
Poida
Poida
WA
1922 posts
Poida Poida
WA, 1922 posts
7 Jul 2012 11:04pm
Carantoc said...

Interesting the announcment came on July 4 don't you think ?

4th of July ??? ring any bells ???

4-7-2012 ??

exactly 170 days until 21 Dec 2012 ???

know what I am saying ???


www.scientificamerican.com/article/neither-maya-nor-world-calendar-ends-december-21-2012/
da vecta
da vecta
QLD
2515 posts
da vecta da vecta
QLD, 2515 posts
8 Jul 2012 10:47am
I am trying to follow all this but find myself staring at the screen with an expression like Quade Cooper squinting in the sun.
evlPanda
evlPanda
NSW
9207 posts
evlPanda evlPanda
NSW, 9207 posts
10 Jul 2012 2:08pm
Mark _australia said...

Yes indeed they do and you are right. I just think that of all the fields in science, theoretical physics is the least 'scientific' - it is philosphy and making up wonderful stories supported by mathematics for it's own sake.
They build upon uproven theories and act like it is fact.
I can't think of any other field where you can get an unproven theory, link it to another unproven theory using maths, and be mega famous.

You can't postulate M-Theory until all the sub sets of string theory are proven and then you come up with the overarching theory to embrace the rest.

It is kinda like if they built a computer in 1600, hoping that electrons exist. No, prove the little bits first.

They may be right..... but I hope they discover a new particle that totally writes off string theory and they discover the Brane theory (or some other) camp were right.


Mark's an anti-realist
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism

According to intuitionists (anti-realists with respect to mathematical objects), the truth of a mathematical statement consists in our ability to prove it. According to platonists (realists), the truth of a statement consists in its correspondence to objective reality. Thus, intuitionists are ready to accept a statement of the form "P or Q" as true only if we can prove P or if we can prove Q: this is called the disjunction property.


(.)(.)
Mark _australia
Mark _australia
WA
23684 posts
Mark _australia Mark _australia
WA, 23684 posts
10 Jul 2012 1:37pm
^^^ I feel a bit like going to the doctor and getting bad news...... but I am relieved there is a name for it so there must be other people with it too

doggie
doggie
WA
15849 posts
doggie doggie
WA, 15849 posts
10 Jul 2012 1:49pm
evlPanda said...

Mark _australia said...

Yes indeed they do and you are right. I just think that of all the fields in science, theoretical physics is the least 'scientific' - it is philosphy and making up wonderful stories supported by mathematics for it's own sake.
They build upon uproven theories and act like it is fact.
I can't think of any other field where you can get an unproven theory, link it to another unproven theory using maths, and be mega famous.

You can't postulate M-Theory until all the sub sets of string theory are proven and then you come up with the overarching theory to embrace the rest.

It is kinda like if they built a computer in 1600, hoping that electrons exist. No, prove the little bits first.

They may be right..... but I hope they discover a new particle that totally writes off string theory and they discover the Brane theory (or some other) camp were right.


Mark's an anti-realist
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism

According to intuitionists (anti-realists with respect to mathematical objects), the truth of a mathematical statement consists in our ability to prove it. According to platonists (realists), the truth of a statement consists in its correspondence to objective reality. Thus, intuitionists are ready to accept a statement of the form "P or Q" as true only if we can prove P or if we can prove Q: this is called the disjunction property.


(.)(.)


(.Y.) or (.).)
Please Register, or first...
Topics Subscribe Reply

Weather

Sydney weather

Melbourne weather

Brisbane weather

Perth weather

Adelaide weather

Darwin weather

Hobart weather

Canberra weather

Location Map

Location Search

Rain Radar

Activities

Kitesurfing

Windsurfing

Stand up paddle

Surfing

Boating

Sailing

Fishing

News

Articles

About

About us

Contact us

Support

Write To Us

Help/FAQ

Report Bug

Suggestion Box

Copyright © 1997-2026 Seabreeze.com.au
Terms of use
Privacy policy