Unutterably Silly So what are you doing RIGHT NOW?

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

This (Higgs preventing itself from being discovered) sounds about as scientific as string theory. I swear these physicists have lost it.....if they ever had it....

String theory is very plausible, and according to physicists it would resolve many unsolved problems in particle physics. The mathematics are solid. The only thing missing is any tangible evidence. The LHC may yield evidence of higher spacial dimensions required by string theory. It may also prove the existence of the Higgs particle. If no evidence of higher dimensions are found, that doesn't disprove string theory, however; it just means that the CERN couldn't find it. If no evidence is found for the Higgs boson when the LHC gets up to full power, however, that could be a major problem for current quantum theories. It could mean it's time to go back to the drawing board, as current theories are founded upon the belief that it's the Higgs that gives mass to other particles. Proof that the Higgs doesn't exist could be a big problem for theoretical physicists everywhere.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

Then why is it expanding if there is nowhere to do it? Is it creating space as it does?

Yes.



Seriously. That's the current theory.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

String theory is very plausible, and according to physicists it would resolve many unsolved problems in particle physics. The mathematics are solid. The only thing missing is any tangible evidence. The LHC may yield evidence of higher spacial dimensions required by string theory. It may also prove the existence of the Higgs particle. If no evidence of higher dimensions are found, that doesn't disprove string theory, however; it just means that the CERN couldn't find it. If no evidence is found for the Higgs boson when the LHC gets up to full power, however, that could be a major problem for current quantum theories. It could mean it's time to go back to the drawing board, as current theories are founded upon the belief that it's the Higgs that gives mass to other particles. Proof that the Higgs doesn't exist could be a big problem for theoretical physicists everywhere.

Lee Smolin in "The Trouble with Physics" makes a great case for String Theory being mostly wishful thinking. He was involved in the research for may years before abandoning it. I tend to agree with his analysis and his arguments. There are too many unknowns and possible variables as well as the lack of any unique predictions (that might be measured by the LHC).

The Higgs is the big one. If the LHC fails to detect it then all of physics could be at a crisis point.

[vivaldirules]

The idea that the universe is expanding and that there is no center of the universe never made sense to me until a few years ago. I had naively thought that they meant that the boundaries of the universe are moving outwards so I couldn't figure out why there couldn't have been a center of it that still exists. But they mean that everything inside the universe (even the space itself) is expanding. They literally mean that the distance between things (everything) is getting larger. So the place where the big bang occurred is everywhere in the current universe. Think of the big bang filling the entire (but very tiny) universe when it occurred. Then it expands tremendously fast as it continues to do so now. The distances between everything in it continuously grows at about the speed of light and the space between things increases, too. Even the wavelength of the light from the big bang becomes longer because, heuristically, the distance between crests of those light waves increases tremendously. This last part was the hardest for me to grasp.

I can't help but think of John Neihardt's book Black Elk Speaks where the author relates Black Elk's vision which he had on Harney Peak (the center of the world). "'But anywhere is the center of the world', he added."

[yvanleterrible]

Thinkin' bacon... I like that!

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Lee Smolin in "The Trouble with Physics" makes a great case for String Theory being mostly wishful thinking. He was involved in the research for may years before abandoning it. I tend to agree with his analysis and his arguments. There are too many unknowns and possible variables as well as the lack of any unique predictions (that might be measured by the LHC).

The Higgs is the big one. If the LHC fails to detect it then all of physics could be at a crisis point.

Roger Penrose is another who has little use for string theory or even more conventional theories of quantum mechanics. There's an interesting interview that was published in the September 2009 issue of Discover in which he says that pretty much everyone has it wrong.

[Lady Blue]

I'd still like to know what it was that went BANG in the first place, where did IT come from, and what sparked the BOOM???

I know I just opened myself up to an in-depth science lesson here , or . . . someone again asking me if I'm stupid (which is a strong possibility), but hey . . .

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

I'd still like to know what it was that went BANG in the first place, where did IT come from, and what sparked the BOOM???

I know I just opened myself up to an in-depth science lesson here , or . . . someone again asking me if I'm stupid (which is a strong possibility), but hey . . .

I'd like to know that myself. Hawking famously said that asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking what's north of the North Pole.

Near the point of the singularity, all the theories break down.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

I'd still like to know what it was that went BANG in the first place, where did IT come from, and what sparked the BOOM???

I know I just opened myself up to an in-depth science lesson here , or . . . someone again asking me if I'm stupid (which is a strong possibility), but hey . . .

According to science the answer is we don't know and not only that, can't know.

[FlorenceArt]

I read a book a few months ago about all the different shapes the universe could be. Still scratching my head about that one

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

I'd still like to know what it was that went BANG in the first place, where did IT come from, and what sparked the BOOM???

BANG. It's the Big BANG. Not the Big BOOM. Jeez, how many times do I have to tell you people?!

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

Thinkin' bacon... I like that!

Protein. Good for da noggin'.

[Lady Blue]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

BANG. It's the Big BANG. Not the Big BOOM. Jeez, how many times do I have to tell you people?!

Just one more time, puppy chow, please? Tell us again how it went BANG and not BOOM. I love it when you tell that story. Soothes me to sleep every time. You were there, right? Were you scared?

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

Just one more time, puppy chow, please? Tell us again how it went BANG and not BOOM. I love it when you tell that story. Soothes me to sleep every time. You were there, right? Were you scared?

Here's how it really went:



(Yes, I know I posted this earlier in another thread.)

[Sparrow]

And another thing that baffles me - the 'space' inside an atom.

As I understand it (using the word 'understand' extremely loosely here) there is, very literally, nothing separating the nucleus from the electrons (or fuzzy probability clouds or wotnot) - so, is it a perfect vacuum in there?
And if there really is nothing separating the nucleus from the electrons how can they be separate?