Higgs boson?

#76
#76
I think quantum field theory is much more reasonable than string theory.

Like Einstein's theory of General Relativity and Newton's classical laws of mechanics before him, quantum field theory works wonderfully to a certain point. Gravity's scope and role is major issue with quantum field theory. The mathematics of string theory seemingly overcomes those problems (basically adopting all the good things from quantum field theory while fixing the problems).

Quantum theory can be proven with experimentation, but correct me if I'm wrong, string theory cannot.

True.

String theory is mostly mathematical. Experimentation is practically impossible due to scale. It is just inferred from larger scale experiments dealing with quantum field theory, standard partial model, etc. and pure mathematics.
 
#77
#77
What are your issues with QFT? Anything other than its inability to explain gravity at this point?
 
#78
#78
If you are into string theory you might like this blog: the reference frame

The author is a Czech string theorist who used to teach at Harvard but was purportedly run off because of his outspoken conservative views. I read it more for the political and global warming commentary but currently it is all about the Higgs boson.

Stephen Hawking is reported as having lost his bet against the Higgs boson.
 
#79
#79
What are your issues with QFT? Anything other than its inability to explain gravity at this point?

Problems with the cosmological constant (now known as Dark Energy but once thought of as Einstein's greatest blunder) among other very technical things. I am not well versed enough in quantum field theory to accurately describe those technical details but I am aware that they are there. To be fair, just about every theory as technical problems of sorts.
 
#80
#80
Can this save us before the Mayan apocalypse or are we doomed? Gonna have to figure out that time travel pdq.
 
#87
#87
No problem.

String theory is the theory that the most fundamental things in the universe are vibrating strands of energy called "strings". Some strings are "open" and others are "closed" (you can think of this as either a single piece of rope vs a rope tied in a circle). Similar to the strings on a guitar, each string is able to function differently to produce a different result (on a guitar, sound). Depending on how they vibrate (both amplitude and frequency), these strings of energy give rise to everything in the universe. Remember, matter and energy are indistinguishable in physics; hence E=mc2.

When string theory was being developed, theoretical physicists and brilliant mathematicians were competing to map out the language of string theory (the mathematical equations). They were basically all attacking the same problem from all different directions. This caused there to be many different competing "string theories". The math for all of them seemed to be correct. This caused wide spread confusion and scientists turned away from string theory as a viable theory.

In walks a theoretical physicist (from Michigan I believe, his name escapes me) with a couple undergraduate colleagues and flips everything upside down. They realized that all the different competing string theories were correct. They were just describing different sides of the same coin, if you will. The different string theories had different calculations, equations, and number of different dimensions. These guys realized that all the string theories fit perfectly within a 11-dimension universe. The math was beautifully perfect. This 11-dimension, master version of string theory is M-theory. The "M" stands for either "magic", "mystery", or "matrix".

The 11-dimension universe consists of the three spatial dimensions we are accustom to (x plane, y plane, z plane), time, plus seven more that we are unaware of as humans.

So, M-theory and string theory are essentially one-in-the-same. Here are some implications:

1) The Big Bang Theory as we know it could be in trouble. Under M-theory, our universe could have very easily been cause by two D-Branes (basically whole universes) colliding. If true, another D-Brane could be a trillionth of an inch away from your nose and if it was to ever collide with your nose, another Big Bang would happen.

2) Our grade school version of gravity is entirely false. Gravity is nothing more than a force from another universe interacting with our own universe.

3) Parallel universes exists. The probably are connected. They are probably infinite in number. Everything you do in this universe, has a equal and opposite reaction in another. Basically, every choice you have made in this life, in another universe you have done the opposite. Wrap your head around that. Other universes almost certainly have different laws of physics, biology, chemistry, and mathematics. Oh btw, there are probably passageways from our universe to them, also known as wormholes.

4) Eternal return is possible. Nietzsche will be validated in his belief that life is absurd. He went crazy from the implications of eternal return because he thought eternal return was fact.

5) Ghosts, if you believe in them, could be energy trapped in other dimensions.

6) Some people we deem as "crazy" in our society and lock up in a insane asylums might not be crazy at all. They might for whatever reason be able to tap into one of the other 7 dimensions. They would actually be aware of a higher reality than us.

7) It strengths the hologram principal first discovered in the lab. Basically, our reality is nothing more than a hologram. The only thing that matters is information which cannot be destroyed.

8) Given 1,4,and 7, if the universe is finite, and gravity has the power to overcome dark energy and dark matter, the big crunch will ensue. If such a thing happens, Frank Tipler's Omega Point Theory would gain validity. His theory would seemingly predict immortality for everything. Big, big if's, but it's intriguing none the less.

Hope this helps.

I am a strong believer in M theory.

I'm also gonna throw this out for giggles.

One dimension is heaven

One dimension is hell.

There are mutliple leavels of hell and thus hell would take up multiple dimensions.

Angels and demons have the ability to go between dimensions.

Jesus was able to create things out of thin air due to pulling from tother dimensions where the mass/matter already existed.

Your sould can travel between dimensions but your body cannot.

When you die your body stays on this realm but your soul goes somewhere else.
 
Last edited:
#88
#88
what exactly do you mean by this? There is no worry.

that the lhc could be used to open a black hole.in theory could it happen?the best way to study dark energy or dark matter would be to open a black hole and study it up close.so,could or would this be done?
 
#89
#89
You'll have to explain to me how you are going to create enough mass, that it would collapse in on itself and create a black hole.

I have heard talk of the possibility of creating super tiny "black holes" that would disappear in an instant. They would not possess enough gravity to destroy anything.
 
#90
#90
that the lhc could be used to open a black hole.in theory could it happen?the best way to study dark energy or dark matter would be to open a black hole and study it up close.so,could or would this be done?

Trasher screams Dr. Hans Reinhardt
 
#91
#91
And I meant explain what you meant when you said the Higgs Boson had the same characteristics as a black hole. You've been reading too much Yahoo.
 
#93
#93
And I meant explain what you meant when you said the Higgs Boson had the same characteristics as a black hole. You've been reading too much Yahoo.

this wasn't in yahoo,it was in dubovsky.it was talking about the phases of gravity in a higgs.
 
#94
#94
I am a strong believer in M theory.

I'm also gonna throw this out for giggles.

One dimension is heaven

One dimension is hell.

There are mutliple leavels of hell and thus hell would take up multiple dimensions.

Angels and demons have the ability to go between dimensions.

Jesus was able to create things out of thin air due to pulling from tother dimensions where the mass/matter already existed.

Your sould can travel between dimensions but your body cannot.

When you die your body stays on this realm but your soul goes somewhere else.

Not sure if serious.
 
#95
#95
You'll have to explain to me how you are going to create enough mass, that it would collapse in on itself and create a black hole.

I have heard talk of the possibility of creating super tiny "black holes" that would disappear in an instant. They would not possess enough gravity to destroy anything.

This.
 
#96
#96
I am a strong believer in M theory.

I'm also gonna throw this out for giggles.

One dimension is heaven

One dimension is hell.

There are mutliple leavels of hell and thus hell would take up multiple dimensions.

Angels and demons have the ability to go between dimensions.

Jesus was able to create things out of thin air due to pulling from tother dimensions where the mass/matter already existed.

Your sould can travel between dimensions but your body cannot.

When you die your body stays on this realm but your soul goes somewhere else.

I giggled.
 
#97
#97
Not sure if serious.

Not sure if he's being serious either, but it is creative thinking. I'm not saying I agree with his theory, but I always believe in keeping an open mind. New scientific discoveries are always on the horizon. What if one day science proved the existence of God? To dismiss the possibility is to be as narrow minded as those who dismiss science. Science and religion do not have to be exclusive. It would be poetic if the two intertwined in some way.
 
#98
#98
Not sure if he's being serious either, but it is creative thinking. I'm not saying I agree with his theory, but I always believe in keeping an open mind. New scientific discoveries are always on the horizon. What if one day science proved the existence of God? To dismiss the possibility is to be as narrow minded as those who dismiss science. Science and religion do not have to be exclusive. It would be poetic if the two intertwined in some way.

It depends on your definition of "God". It is certainly possible that it could prove certain aspects of various theologies, but it is also equally certain that science will never be able to prove other certain aspects of "God".

If you want an interesting theory that tries to bridge the two, I'd recommend you check out The Omega Point by Frank Tipler.
 
#99
#99
It depends on your definition of "God". It is certainly possible that it could prove certain aspects of various theologies, but it is also equally certain that science will never be able to prove other certain aspects of "God".

If you want an interesting theory that tries to bridge the two, I'd recommend you check out The Omega Point by Frank Tipler.

Such as? Why is it hard for scientists to believe in a guiding power? They had faith in the existence of the Higgs boson, did they not? Some things just take longer to prove than others.

Understand, I am mostly just playing devil's advocate(ironic) here. My beliefs are constantly adjusting as I learn more in life. I try to see things from as many POVs as possible so that I can understand and learn. I take what I learn and adjust my beliefs accordingly. IMO, many Christians take a close-minded approach to science, and many scientists take a close minded approach to religion. I just don't think the two have to be mutually exclusive. I think it is possible they can coexist and still both be correct. In the end, it's all just interpretation of data.
 
Such as? Why is it hard for scientists to believe in a guiding power? They had faith in the existence of the Higgs boson, did they not? Some things just take longer to prove than others.

Understand, I am mostly just playing devil's advocate(ironic) here. My beliefs are constantly adjusting as I learn more in life. I try to see things from as many POVs as possible so that I can understand and learn. I take what I learn and adjust my beliefs accordingly. IMO, many Christians take a close-minded approach to science, and many scientists take a close minded approach to religion. I just don't think the two have to be mutually exclusive. I think it is possible they can coexist and still both be correct. In the end, it's all just interpretation of data.

Well, quite simply I cannot fathom science ever being able to prove the nature of God: being personal characteristics, sentiment, past actions, intent, ect.

As for the existence of "God" and physical facts of God (if they exist), it's theoretically possible.
 

VN Store



Back
Top