Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => Haley Center Basement => Topic started by: djsimp on July 04, 2012, 10:23:07 AM
-
....this kind of scares me.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/04/us-science-higgs-idUSBRE86008K20120704
Sure, its an incredible find but this to me spells danger in the hands of any human.
-
The anti-log/inverse could prove dangerous, but it could also open the door to a new energy source.
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/shortcuts/2012/jul/04/how-explain-higgs-boson-discovery?CMP=twt_gu
How to explain Higgs boson discovery
Everyone's talking about the 'God particle' – but what if someone asks you to explain it. Well, it depends if it's an A-level physics student or a religious fundamentalist. Just use our guide
The possible discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN is obviously of tremendous importance to our understanding of the universe, but how does one explain the Higgs boson to a layperson, a child, an idiot? A lot depends on who you're talking to, and what they want to hear. Just use this handy guide to selective explanation:
For people you're trying to impress: "The Higgs boson is an elementary scalar particle first posited in 1962, as a potential byproduct of the mechanism by which a hypothetical, ubiquitous quantum field – the so-called Higgs field – gives mass to elementary particles. More specifically, in the standard model of particle physics, the existence of the Higgs boson explains how spontaneous breaking of electroweak symmetry takes place in nature."
For harassed, sleep-deprived parents: "If the constituent parts of matter were sticky-faced toddlers, then the Higgs field would be like one of those ball pits they have in the children's play area at IKEA. Each coloured plastic ball represents a Higgs boson: collectively they provide the essential drag that stops your toddler/electron falling to the bottom of the universe, where all the snakes and hypodermic needles are."
For English undergraduates: "The Higgs boson (pronounced "boatswain") is a type of subatomic punctuation with a weight somewhere between a tiny semicolon and an invisible comma. Without it the universe would be a meaningless cloud of gibberish – a bit like The Da Vinci Code, if you read that."
For teenagers studying A-level physics: "No, I know it's not an atom. I didn't say it was. Well, I meant a particle. Yes, I do know what electromagnetism is, thank you very much – unified forces, Einstein, blah blah blah, mass unaccounted for, yadda yadda, quarks, Higgs boson, the end. It was a long time ago, and I'm tired. Change the channel – we're missing Come Dine With Me."
For a member of the Taxpayers' Alliance: "Its discovery is a colossal, unprecedented, almost infinite waste of money."
For a child in the back seat of a car: "It's a particle that some scientists have been looking for. Because they knew that without it the universe would be impossible. Because without it, the other particles in the universe wouldn't have mass. Because they would all continue to travel at the speed of light, just like photons do. Because I just said they would, and if you ask 'Why?' one more time we're not stopping at Burger King."
For religious fundamentalists: "There is no Higgs boson."
-
Fuck all that science shit. Just tell me if we can split it and which country of non-white people we're going to throw it at.
-
Fuck all that science shit. Just tell me if we can split it and which country of non-white people we're going to throw it at.
Fuck YEAH!!! MURICAH!!!
-
For religious fundamentalists: "There is no Higgs boson."
Should have said "It's really just a Jesus booger."
-
Should have said "It's really just a Jesus booger."
[/u]
Maybe I'm a simpleton but I don't see how this discovery helps to prove or disprove that there is a God. Please, someone enlighten me.
-
[/u]
Maybe I'm a simpleton but I don't see how this discovery helps to prove or disprove that there is a God. Please, someone enlighten me.
I don't think anyone is saying that the discovery will do either of those things. The author was being funny.
-
Maybe I'm a simpleton but I don't see how this discovery helps to prove or disprove that there is a God. Please, someone enlighten me.
As a soul-less ginger, does it really matter?
-
As a soul-less ginger, does it really matter?
I was asking for a friend...
-
I was asking for a friend...
WTF ever. You don't have friends.
-
You do have gingervitis
-
WTF ever. You don't have friends.
You're right. I'm in a glass case of emotion!!!
-
[/u]
Maybe I'm a simpleton but I don't see how this discovery helps to prove or disprove that there is a God. Please, someone enlighten me.
I don't think it does either, this is the reason why I didn't start this thread at the University Chapel. It just my lack of trust in humans to be trusted with this kind of knowledge.
I will say however that, imo, this could actually be more proof of God than less.
-
I will say however that, imo, this could actually be more proof of God than less.
How so?
-
I don't think it does either, this is the reason why I didn't start this thread at the University Chapel. It just my lack of trust in humans to be trusted with this kind of knowledge.
I will say however that, imo, this could actually be more proof of God than less.
You are so right, Carl. As complex and mind blowing as all this is, it becomes even more difficult for me to not see some sort of divine hand in it.
-
How so?
For myself, I believe God is our creator. So when I see something like this, something so small but so complex, it kind of fascinates me. With that said, I can't find it in myself to believe that this "particle" was made by accident; ironically enough a particle that pulled everything else that was supposedly created by accident.......or just floating around with no purpose. I mean, its hard to even grasp the idea of how God would create all that there is we know, and so so much that we have yet to discover. Who's it to say God didn't create this particle for the sole purpose to pull all the other elements in to make the masterpiece. Its like a programmer creates events through .Net and then calls those events to create code.
-
Carl
?
-
For myself, I believe God is our creator. So when I see something like this, something so small but so complex, it kind of fascinates me. With that said, I can't find it in myself to believe that this "particle" was made by accident; ironically enough a particle that pulled everything else that was supposedly created by accident.......or just floating around with no purpose. I mean, its hard to even grasp the idea of how God would create all that there is we know, and so so much that we have yet to discover. Who's it to say God didn't create this particle for the sole purpose to pull all the other elements in to make the masterpiece. Its like a programmer creates events through .Net and then calls those events to create code.
Not to turn this into a religious discussion, but anything that intelligently creates something so complex must itself be complex. If one's logic is that X must have been created by Y because X is extraordinarily complex, then Y, as a complex entity, must also have been created by something complex. This logic becomes an infinite loop with no definitive conclusion.
Similarly, if you assume that the universe has collapsed upon itself and exploded in a big bang an infinite number of times (or if you assume that there is an infinite number of alternate universes), then it's statistically sound to conclude that the Higgs boson would appear in one of the infinite versions of the universe. But it's still an assumption that never gives you an answer as to how all matter originated.
What the above essentially boils down to for me is that the discovery of the Higgs boson doesn't lend more evidence to God's existence, or vice versa. The assumptions that believers and scientists have made prior to this discovery still apply, and the existence of the Higgs boson doesn't lend any more credence to either assumption.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#.22God_particle.22
The Higgs boson is often referred to as the "God particle" by the media,[70] after the title of Leon Lederman's popular science book on particle physics, The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?[71][72] While use of this term may have contributed to increased media interest,[72] many scientists dislike it, since it overstates the particle's importance, not least since its discovery would still leave unanswered questions about the unification of quantum chromodynamics, the electroweak interaction, and gravity, as well as the ultimate origin of the universe.[70][4] Higgs is an atheist, and is displeased that the Higgs particle is nicknamed the "God particle",[73] because in Higgs's view the term "might offend people who are religious".[74]
Lederman said he gave it the nickname "the God particle" because the particle is "so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive,"[70][71][75] but jokingly added that a second reason was because "the publisher wouldn't let us call it the Goddamn Particle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing."[71]
A renaming competition conducted by the science correspondent for the British Guardian newspaper chose the name "the champagne bottle boson" as the best from among their submissions: "The bottom of a champagne bottle is in the shape of the Higgs potential and is often used as an illustration in physics lectures. So it's not an embarrassingly grandiose name, it is memorable, and [it] has some physics connection too."[76]
I don't think it proves or disproves any existence of God either.
I do think maybe (hopefully?) it sheds some light on how some fundamentalists view science. When I say fundamentalists, I mean people that reject science outright, and find it threatening to their religion. Often, an argument for creationism is "It's a theory that's just as valid as evolution or the Big Bang. They're just theories too," as if Scientists are just guessing. Just throwing shit up against a wall to see what sticks. The fact that way back in 1964 something this specific and complex was "theorized" to be in existence, should hopefully highlight why this is a ridiculous notion.
-
?
:facepalm:
And you call yourself an Auburn man. Coach Jordan would be so disappointed.
-
What the above essentially boils down to for me is that the discovery of the Higgs boson doesn't lend more evidence to God's existence, or vice versa. The assumptions that believers and scientists have made prior to this discovery still apply, and the existence of the Higgs boson doesn't lend any more credence to either assumption.
Same here.
It's a cool particle to find. It has big physical implications. However, it's no different to me than figuring out that information can be passed through telephone lines. It's just another scientific discovery that tells us a bit more about how the universe functions and how we can improve our quality of life. As for "meaning of life" possibilities? Not much there.
-
:facepalm:
And you call yourself an Auburn man. Coach Jordan would be so disappointed.
Well, fuck me.
-
Not to turn this into a religious discussion, but anything that intelligently creates something so complex must itself be complex. If one's logic is that X must have been created by Y because X is extraordinarily complex, then Y, as a complex entity, must also have been created by something complex. This logic becomes an infinite loop with no definitive conclusion.
Similarly, if you assume that the universe has collapsed upon itself and exploded in a big bang an infinite number of times (or if you assume that there is an infinite number of alternate universes), then it's statistically sound to conclude that the Higgs boson would appear in one of the infinite versions of the universe. But it's still an assumption that never gives you an answer as to how all matter originated.
What the above essentially boils down to for me is that the discovery of the Higgs boson doesn't lend more evidence to God's existence, or vice versa. The assumptions that believers and scientists have made prior to this discovery still apply, and the existence of the Higgs boson doesn't lend any more credence to either assumption.
Ironic, since that the search for and discovery of the Higgs Bosun was started by the implication that the vacuum of space has energy (dark matter/dark energy) which prevents the universe from collapsing on itself. This basically guarantees that time goes in one direction and the universe doesn't "reset" itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6o2bUPdxV0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Uh5mTxRQcg&feature=g-all-u
This guy aboves videos are really good, if you have older kids who are at all interested in math or science watch his videos together.
This article talks about what the higgs field has to do with dark matter.
http://www.space.com/16444-higgs-boson-particle-dark-matter.html
-
Like I said, a discovery like this is not one strong enough to tilt someone off their already grounded beliefs. I do agree with Chizad that for so long many religious types have looked at science almost like
witchery. If we are made in Gods image then that includes more than just going to church on Sunday. That includes things like science and math. As a matter of fact, if this kind of stuff interest you then you should listen to Chuck Missler. I've mentioned this guys name on this board before and I'll tell you he is very interesting to listen to. From listening to this guy I learned that scientist believe there to be 10 dimensions and only 4 of them measurable. Does that prove one way or the other that there is God. No, it doesn't but it sure as heck tells me that with such an intricate detail and design, you can not deny that this whole thing is not some accident.
-
Ironic, since that the search for and discovery of the Higgs Bosun was started by the implication that the vacuum of space has energy (dark matter/dark energy) which prevents the universe from collapsing on itself. This basically guarantees that time goes in one direction and the universe doesn't "reset" itself.
The vacuum of space which has energy is theorized to be dark energy, which has the ability to push away objects as opposing to pulling them in with gravity via mass. Dark matter is non-visible matter with mass and a gravitational pull. Dark matter and dark energy aren't related, at least as far as the current theories are concerned.
At any rate, the example of the big bang theory was just used to show that many scientific theories assume that the universe is infinite in one way or another, and with an infinite number of possibilities, anything (even the most complex) will randomly occur somewhere.
-
. . . with such an intricate detail and design, you can not deny that this whole thing is not some accident.
Possibly, possibly not.
Are there an infinite number of universes? I don't know. But if I assume that there is, then complex structures could be created through an infinite number of random accidents.
-
The vacuum of space which has energy is theorized to be dark energy, which has the ability to push away objects as opposing to pulling them in with gravity via mass. Dark matter is non-visible matter with mass and a gravitational pull. Dark matter and dark energy aren't related, at least as far as the current theories are concerned.
At any rate, the example of the big bang theory was just used to show that many scientific theories assume that the universe is infinite in one way or another, and with an infinite number of possibilities, anything (even the most complex) will randomly occur somewhere.
Are you an engineer?
Because I think au2000 is.
-
Are you an engineer?
Because I think au2000 is.
Dark matter ≠dark energy. That fact stands true whether you are an engineer, a lawyer, or a bammer.
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/
-
Dark matter ≠dark energy. That fact stands true whether you are an engineer, a lawyer, or a bammer.
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/
Was just asking. The lawyers on the board always ride that high horse in legal debates. :poke:
Au2000 could probably in this one if he wanted.
-
Was just asking. The lawyers on the board always ride that high horse in legal debates. :poke:
Au2000 could probably in this one if he wanted.
Morgan Freeman taught me this shit. No one rides higher than Morgan Freeman.
-
Morgan Freeman taught me this shit. No one rides higher than Morgan Freeman.
I thought the only art form you knew was peeing In a dudes anus
-
I thought the only art form you knew was peeing In a dudes anus
Not movie Morgan Freeman; science Morgan Freeman.
(http://www.redorbit.com/media/uploads/2011/07/5ea76bd400d482ff829655c1fea69fff.jpg)
But due to Mr. Freeman, I also know how to perform the Alaskan Snow Dragon, which can be considered an art form.
-
I am an engineer - VV's primary interests in engineering are summing moments about a rigid body member.
-
I don't think it does either, this is the reason why I didn't start this thread at the University Chapel. It just my lack of trust in humans to be trusted with this kind of knowledge.
I will say however that, imo, this could actually be more proof of God than less.
Since this song got ignored in the other thread, I think it applies perfectly to this discussion.
http://youtu.be/v0agiTcUTls
-
I must be a complete dumb ass...I have no fucking clue what any of you are talking about...
Hey, did you see where the stache wants to get away from the small, quick LB's and go to a more physical style of play in the middle?
-
Will all these CERN nerds be at Dragon Con?
-
I was watching an animal show last night...what a great animal the walrus is. I love it...it's got flippers, tusks, a mustache. It looks like something God built last minute.
Like God was up on the 6th day exhausted..
"Oh this is due tomorrow?" ...
"I'm not feeling very creative, can I just put together some of my earlier work?" ...
"Do a best of?..maybe a God's greatest hits?"
"Yeah that will work..I will put together the seal, the elephant, and Burt Reynolds."
Why the mustache? That's what I love about the walrus. Like my 8th grade science teacher Mr. Jibly used to say "Animals adapt certain features to fit in with their environment."
What environment did the walrus find himself in where he was like ...shit I need a mustache? What was he a 70's porn star?
-
Disclaimer: 1) a renunciation of any claim to or connection with; 2)a disavowal; 3) a statement made to save one's own ass.
Though it'll go without saying ten minutes or so into these proceedings, View Askew would like to state that this film is- from start to finish- a work of comedic fantasy, not to be taken seriously. To insist that any of what follows is incendiary or inflammatory is to miss our intention and pass undue judgment; and passing judgment is reserved for God and God alone (this goes for you film critics too... just kidding).
So please - before you think about hurting someone over this trifle of a film, remember: even God has a sense of humor. Just look at the platypus. Thank you and enjoy the show.
P.S. We sincerely apologize to all platypus enthusiasts out there who are offended by that thoughtless comment about the platypi. We at View Askew respect the noble platypus, and it is not our intention to slight these stupid creatures in any way.
Than you again and enjoy the show.
-
The vacuum of space which has energy is theorized to be dark energy, which has the ability to push away objects as opposing to pulling them in with gravity via mass. Dark matter is non-visible matter with mass and a gravitational pull. Dark matter and dark energy aren't related, at least as far as the current theories are concerned.
At any rate, the example of the big bang theory was just used to show that many scientific theories assume that the universe is infinite in one way or another, and with an infinite number of possibilities, anything (even the most complex) will randomly occur somewhere.
Dark Matter has mass, anything that has mass receives that mass through its interactions with the Higgs particles.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48084815/ns/technology_and_science-space/#.T_b5NnhrVGQ
Early attempts to calculate vacuum energy (dark energy) failed as the calculations estimated that the energy should be 10^120 times higher than it was actually measured at. Particle interactions with the Higgs field (where Higgs Boson come from) explains why particles move slower in a vacuum than can be assumed through normal calculaitons
http://www.interactions.org/quantumuniverse/qu/questions/q2.html
And you are referring to the infinite universe theory which says that in an infinite universe any possibility will be certain to happen. But the problem is the universe isn't really considered infinite. There is a finite amount of matter/energy and a finite amount of time. Whether you assume time began at creation or big bang there is a definite start point. The end point is right now. I mean now? Is now now? You just missed it.
-
Dark Matter has mass, anything that has mass receives that mass through its interactions with the Higgs particles.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48084815/ns/technology_and_science-space/#.T_b5NnhrVGQ
Early attempts to calculate vacuum energy (dark energy) failed as the calculations estimated that the energy should be 10^120 times higher than it was actually measured at. Particle interactions with the Higgs field (where Higgs Boson come from) explains why particles move slower in a vacuum than can be assumed through normal calculaitons
http://www.interactions.org/quantumuniverse/qu/questions/q2.html
And you are referring to the infinite universe theory which says that in an infinite universe any possibility will be certain to happen. But the problem is the universe isn't really considered infinite. There is a finite amount of matter/energy and a finite amount of time. Whether you assume time began at creation or big bang there is a definite start point. The end point is right now. I mean now? Is now now? You just missed it.
Just don't fuck with the Reavers.
-
Just don't fuck with the Reavers.
Cruise is gonna' fuck that Jack Reavers role up.
-
Just don't fuck with the Reavers.
I aint going nowhere near Reaver territory.
-
Cruise is gonna' fuck that Jack Reavers role up.
Troglodyte
-
Just don't fuck with the Reavers.
(http://images.wikia.com/firefly/images/3/3b/Reaver.jpg)
mess you up
-
I aint going nowhere near Reaver territory.
This is a fertile land and we will thrive.
-
The end point is right now. I mean now? Is now now? You just missed it.
(http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b235/gezha/380spaceballs.jpg)
-
Troglodyte
http://youtu.be/VlRXQEA0yj0
-
This is a fertile land and we will thrive.
And we will call it.... This Land.
-
Dark Matter has mass, anything that has mass receives that mass through its interactions with the Higgs particles.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48084815/ns/technology_and_science-space/#.T_b5NnhrVGQ
Early attempts to calculate vacuum energy (dark energy) failed as the calculations estimated that the energy should be 10^120 times higher than it was actually measured at. Particle interactions with the Higgs field (where Higgs Boson come from) explains why particles move slower in a vacuum than can be assumed through normal calculaitons
I was moreso responding to the fact that you referred to the energy in empty space as "dark matter/dark energy." It made it look like you were referring to the two as one in the same.
And you are referring to the infinite universe theory which says that in an infinite universe any possibility will be certain to happen. But the problem is the universe isn't really considered infinite. There is a finite amount of matter/energy and a finite amount of time.
Not according to Einstein's theories. Einstein proposes that more space can come into existence, and will in fact come into existence if empty space has dark energy that can propel objects away. If space has energy, and more space can be created, then more energy can be created.
Granted, that's just a theory, and assumes that there is infinite room for expansion, as opposed to merely moving matter and energy within a finite space. But then again, assuming that the universe and its amounts of matter and energy are finite is also just a theory. We haven't identified the finite boundaries of our universe, so stating that the universe is finite in both time and space is a theoretical assumption, just like stating that the universe is infinite in both time and space is a theoretical assumption.
There are also theories about alternate planes/branes in which different universes reside, and that these universes could be infinite in number, if not also space. Similarly, some scientists theorize that each black hole could contain a separate universe. Assuming that universe also has a black hole, the theory could lead to an infinite number of universes. Again, these are all theories, but my point was that there are scientific assumptions regarding the infinite nature of the universe, just as there are religious assumptions about the finite starting point of the universe.
Whether you assume time began at creation or big bang there is a definite start point. The end point is right now. I mean now? Is now now? You just missed it.
True...if you assume there was a definite starting point. According to traditional theories of the conservation of mass/energy, matter can neither be created nor destroyed. So if matter can't be created, then there wasn't a starting point for its creation, and thus it must have always been present for an infinite amount of time. This is why the big bang was initially theorized not to be a one-time event that was the starting point, but a recurring event that continued for infinity. That has since been strongly doubted due to the theory of dark energy explaining why the universe is actually accelerating as opposed to slowing down, but was nonetheless a theory that many people believed (and some still believe).
But, if you assume Einstein's theory regarding the creation of space is correct, and thus that the creation of energy is possible, then the traditional conservation of energy theory wouldn't hold true. You could at that point argue that there was a definite starting point at which creation of all matter occurred, but it's still an assumption that relies on unverified theories. But then you have a conundrum in which energy can be created, yet you are also assuming that there is a finite amount of space. If there's a finite amount of space, then we can't create more energy or matter, but that's exactly what Einstein's theory regarding dark energy assumes.
Again, that's only one theory regarding dark energy and how it operates; there are tons of others. But the point is that some of the theories do tend to suggest that the universe is infinite, so I'm not of the opinion that we can definitely conclude that the universe is finite in time, space, or any other characteristic.
-
And we will call it.... This Land.
I think we should call it your grave.
-
I think we should call it your grave.
Curse your sudden, but inevitable betrayal!!!
-
Curse your sudden, but inevitable betrayal!!!
Ha ha ha, mine is an evil laugh, now die!
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmo2j0QGoj1qbgulto1_500.jpg)
-
Ha ha ha, mine is an evil laugh, now die!
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmo2j0QGoj1qbgulto1_500.jpg)
Yea, and I'd like to be king of all Londinium and wear a shiny hat.
-
There are also theories about alternate planes/branes in which different universes reside, and that these universes could be infinite in number, if not also space. Similarly, some scientists theorize that each black hole could contain a separate universe. Assuming that universe also has a black hole, the theory could lead to an infinite number of universes. Again, these are all theories, but my point was that there are scientific assumptions regarding the infinite nature of the universe, just as there are religious assumptions about the finite starting point of the universe.
Soooooo.... You have no problem with rattling off multi-verse theorem but in an older thread you couldn't understand religious people because what they believed in couldn't be proven. Got it.
-
Soooooo.... You have no problem with rattling off multi-verse theorem but in an older thread you couldn't understand religious people because what they believed in couldn't be proven. Got it.
God told him to do that.
-
Soooooo.... You have no problem with rattling off multi-verse theorem but in an older thread you couldn't understand religious people because what they believed in couldn't be proven. Got it.
Roasted.
-
Soooooo.... You have no problem with rattling off multi-verse theorem but in an older thread you couldn't understand religious people because what they believed in couldn't be proven. Got it.
You completely missed my point.
I never said that the scientific theories were proven, or that I personally believed in any one of them. In fact, you'll note that I cited various scientific theories, some of which are conflicting.
The purpose of citing those theories was to show that there are theories that involve infinite possibilities, and with infinite possibilities, a complex structure could randomly occur without intelligent design. But it requires an assumption to conclude that there are infinite possibilities in regard to our universe. Just like concluding that something complex must have been intelligently created is also an assumption, not to mention that it is logic which creates an infinite loop.
If you read what I've recently posted in conjunction with this initial post, it may make more sense:
Not to turn this into a religious discussion, but anything that intelligently creates something so complex must itself be complex. If one's logic is that X must have been created by Y because X is extraordinarily complex, then Y, as a complex entity, must also have been created by something complex. This logic becomes an infinite loop with no definitive conclusion.
Similarly, if you assume that the universe has collapsed upon itself and exploded in a big bang an infinite number of times (or if you assume that there is an infinite number of alternate universes), then it's statistically sound to conclude that the Higgs boson would appear in one of the infinite versions of the universe. But it's still an assumption that never gives you an answer as to how all matter originated.
What the above essentially boils down to for me is that the discovery of the Higgs boson doesn't lend more evidence to God's existence, or vice versa. The assumptions that believers and scientists have made prior to this discovery still apply, and the existence of the Higgs boson doesn't lend any more credence to either assumption.
-
Roasted.
More like misinterpreted. I never pointed to any one theory and said, "This is true!" I simply pointed to theories which do involve an infinite number of universes and/or space in response to AU 2000's statement that the universe is finite.
They're all theories that require assumptions. If they didn't, then we would know everything about the universe. That's my point: somewhere along the way, you have to make an assumption (theory) and run with it. Some scientists side with theories that the universe is finite, while others take the stance that it is infinite in one way or another.
Ultimately, the entire point of referencing any scientific theory at all was to compare it to religious beliefs, and to show how the discovery of the Higgs boson doesn't affect either side of the debate.
-
Scientific theories are much different than layman's theories.
Some scientists side with theories that the universe is finite, while others take the stance that it is infinite in one way or another.
I think you're confusing theory with hypothesis. I'm not a scientist, but I know that when scientists use the word "theory," it means that tests and analyses have consistently confirmed the hypothesis.
Which is why "M-Theory" is such science fiction bullshit. You can't test for it. It's not falsifiable making it hack science. To a person who studies science, bringing up m-theory is no different than a creationist claiming "God did it!"
-
Scientific theories are much different than layman's theories.
I think you're confusing theory with hypothesis. I'm not a scientist, but I know that when scientists use the word "theory," it means that tests and analyses have consistently confirmed the hypothesis.
Which is why "M-Theory" is such science fiction bullshit. You can't test for it. It's not falsifiable making it hack science. To a person who studies science, bringing up m-theory is no different than a creationist claiming "God did it!"
The question of whether a hypothesis is a theory depends upon how many tests or evidence you think is necessary for it to become a theory. M-theory, for example, is based upon string theory, which can be tested via microgravity experiments and particle colliders. Most scientists who study string theory seem to agree that there are at least 11 dimensions/branes/planes/whatever you want to call them, as that's the only way that they can get the math to match existing theories.
Now, the "theory" that these branes collided in order to make "bubbles" that create multiple (maybe infinite) universes is definitely more of a hypothesis, as we don't really see any evidence of that and don't have a way to test it, nor do we have an existing mathematical framework to try to fit that hypothesis into.
At any rate, you get to a point where any theory has an assumption. If it didn't, it wouldn't be a theory. Some "theories" may have more evidence than some "hypotheses," but they all have to make a conclusion based on an assumption. And that assumption could be wrong.
Until we find something definitive that clears up assumptions on either side, there won't be a prevailing belief that is verified as true. The Higgs boson does not, at this point in time, appear to be that definitive discovery that we need to rid ourselves of assumptions and identify a clear, completely factually based conclusion. It gets us further along in our understanding, but I think that it will create more questions than answers.
-
Just wanted to point this out as well:
To a person who studies science, bringing up m-theory is no different than a creationist claiming "God did it!"
That has basically been my point all along. The Higgs boson doesn't prove God's existence, nor does it disprove it. All of these assumptions that are made in a variety of scientific theories and religious beliefs are still just that: assumptions.
-
That has basically been my point all along. The Higgs boson doesn't prove God's existence, nor does it disprove it.
I don't think anyone here disagrees with this, sooooo, basically this has been everyones point.....
on the X.
-
Yea, and I'd like to be king of all Londinium and wear a shiny hat.
Mmm. They call it Mudder's Milk. All the protein, vitamins and carbs of your grandma's best turkey dinner, plus fifteen percent alcohol.