redacted.
And God chuckles…
If found, would support/fill in the gaps of a lot of major theories. It has to exist for the theories to be correct, so actually finding it is huge in the science world. It’s a potentially big deal to everyone else, but they have more important things to focus on like American Idol and sales at the mall and such.
I’ve always been facinated by physics… Just never had the brain power to actually study in the field.
I’m stuck watching Big Bang Theory.
Please don’t go OT in this short thread by trying to turn it into a God discussion per another thread just ruined… I respect your right to discuss God/religion in a thread specific to that topic, is it possible for you et al to respect others having a purely science based discussion?
So how did the god particle get there?
Fun little fact, Higgs wanted to call it the God Damned Particle but was not allowed to.
An imaginary super hero put it there.
Or… short of having the needed science/physics knowledge for what is on the very edges of current science (meaning it’s a challenging topic even for many scientists in the field) look to write ups on theoretical physics/quantum physics for non scientists on what the current thinking is there.
Ditto. Had I the real math brain for it, would have focused on it more to be sure.
Does anyone else think that we’re meddleing with things that we shouldnt??
Nope, if God is omnipotent and omnipresent we would be unable to go where we shouldn’t, and if there is no God who is to say what we should meddle in?
Nope.
Just checking, kinda makes me nervous…dont really know why.
You feel like this because…
If a scientist (group) of scientists found something that would mean unlocking ALL of the mysteries of the universe, but upon doing so would mean the imminent destruction of life as we know it…they would.
Simply to KNOW, for a few minutes.
Its like the red pill/blue pill.
Or the anology I prefer, the little kid with a big shiny button.
“Dont push it!”
While some theoretical physicists postulate confirmation of the Higgs Boson will allow them to put the final piece in place for confirmation of the Standard Model of particle physics by explaining the origin of mass in the universe, there are others who speculate the entire notion of seeking a fundamental explanation for the universe may prove to be a fool’s errand.
One of the many reasons I have ceased to engage in debate with religious “true believers” is a fundamental disagreement as to what constitutes proof of any particular system of “beliefs” (and the arguments over semantics can be just as tiresome as the larger debate). Suffice it to say that I am an empiricist, I prefer facts to faith, and subscribe to Karl Popper’s principle of falsifiability. In essence, an assertion should be subject to being proven false if evidence comes to light which shows that initial assertion to be in error. In my view, science meets that requirement. Theories are proposed to explain observed phenomenon and experiments are devised to test those theories which can be replicated and independently verified. Should the day come when someone discovers something new which throws a wrench in the works, the old theory is discarded, another one is devised which can incorporate the new evidence, and the process repeats itself.
Contrast that with the “true believers” who subscribe to a particular system of beliefs based on faith and whatever selectively chosen evidence whose veracity is confirmed by a tautology (“it’s true because it says it’s true”). Their beliefs cannot be challenged because there is no way to disprove any of it. They believe it to be true and that is sufficient. For them.
I’m not looking to get into a cat fight over all that. Folks are free to believe as they will. If it works for them, so be it. We each have to find our own path to truth which satisfies our evidentiary requirements. All of this is simply an introduction to a fascinating conundrum rapidly developing in the world of theoretical physics.
A recent essay in Harper’s entitled “The Accidental Universe: Science’s Crisis of Faith” by Alan Lightman, a professor of physics at MIT (http://www.harpers.org/media/pages/2011/12/pdf/HarpersMagazine-2011-12-0083720.pdf) explores the notion of the “multiverse” and how the acceptance of such a concept might very will place science in the same box as religious faith. To wit, if our observed universe is only one of an infinite number of possible universes and the basic features of our universe are the result of simple random chance, there are no fundamental causes and principles to ultimately explain our universe, much less the proposed infinite multiverse. As lightman notes in his essay:
“If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true. Our universe is what it is because we are here.”
Lightman uses the analogy of a school of fish wondering why their world is filled with water and seeking to prove the universe is similarly filled with water. After years of unsuccessfully attempting to prove that proposition, a particularly imaginative fish suggests perhaps their water-filled world is only one of many, with others being completely dry and with everything in between. There’s just one catch. The fish can’t offer any proof (at least as it has been defined) that those other worlds exist.
Back to Lightman’s essay:
“That same uncertainty disturbs many physicists who are adjusting to the idea of the multiverse. Not only must we accept that basic properties of our universe are accidental and uncalculable. In addition, we must believe in the existence of many other universes. But we have no conceivable way of observing these other universes and cannot prove their existence. Thus, to explain what we see in the world and in our mental deductions, we must believe in what we cannot prove.”
So, much to my chagrin, the science I have long believed capable of leading us towards some ultimate explanation of the universe (or multiverse) might leave me in the same boat as the “true believers,” i.e. having to accept an explanation lacking evidence and supported only by belief.
Interesting, no?
Shit we’ve known about the multiverse for years. Just watch Stargate SG-1. LOL every other episode was about time travel, alternate universes.
Uhm, off topic? It’s called it the God Molecule, actually the God particle.
Doesn’t this particle relate in some way to the search for a unifying theory to explain quantum, and macro ( probably not the right term) physics?
PBS has a good Nova series online right now called the fabric of the universe. It talks about the god particle and string theory and such. Highly recommend watching it.