Shoutbox Posted July 2, 2012 Posted July 2, 2012 Yes, it is my reasoning to take on the more pressing need first. Should you pay the bills or get luxuries? Pay the bills. Same thing here. Should you save people or interest people? Minute-= small, unimportant. Never said sub-atomic particles are unimportant. They have a strong influence on our lives and we wouldn't have many things if we didn't study on them. This "God Particle" is unimportant; so what if we discovered it? What effect does it have in our lives? Please watch this video in its entirety (it's only 2 minutes of your time):
Optometric Insight Posted July 2, 2012 Posted July 2, 2012 Please watch this video in its entirety (it's only 2 minutes of your time): youtube.com/watch?v=VjY0vqgDMnE&feature=relmfu That's completely changed the way I look at science.
DC Tom Posted July 2, 2012 Posted July 2, 2012 Oh, and maybe someone (ahem, Tom) can help me understand how the HIggs Boson is attracted to other particles. I realize gravity isn't totally understood, but isn't the main tenet that attraction is based on mass? So if there is no mass prior to an interaction, what gives? Feel free to call me an idiotTM for asking a question that you already deferred to Feynman, but I'm just hoping you've got another clever analogy to dumb it down for me. No, I won't call you an idiot for that; it's a good question. And the answer is that you asked the wrong question: the Higgs boson isn't "attracted" to other particles. The interaction between the Higgs field and the particle defines the mass...the Higgs boson is merely the particle expression of that field. I can't even think of an analogy that makes that make sense. It's as if the Higgs field exists, but the particle moving* through the field is what creates the boson, hence the boson is not "attracted" to the particle per se, but is a result of that particle being in the field. (*Keeping in mind that "moving" in this sense includes time as a dimension, which is why a particle at rest has mass, since it's "moving through time". Now your mind should be completely blown.) That's completely changed the way I look at science. In addition to what that video says (which is accurate), there's also the simple fact that "pure" science might become "applied" science a few generations down the road. Einstein won his Nobel Prize for figuring out the photoelectric effect...something that had absolutely no practical application at the time, but turned out to be such a vital theory that almost every electronic device you use today simply wouldn't exist if that were never figured out. It's the same reason IBM has a staff astronomer, or AT&T hires (hired?) mathematicians...because, who knows what the applications of pure research will be down the road?
uncle flap Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 No, I won't call you an idiot for that; it's a good question. And the answer is that you asked the wrong question: the Higgs boson isn't "attracted" to other particles. The interaction between the Higgs field and the particle defines the mass...the Higgs boson is merely the particle expression of that field. I can't even think of an analogy that makes that make sense. It's as if the Higgs field exists, but the particle moving* through the field is what creates the boson, hence the boson is not "attracted" to the particle per se, but is a result of that particle being in the field. (*Keeping in mind that "moving" in this sense includes time as a dimension, which is why a particle at rest has mass, since it's "moving through time". Now your mind should be completely blown.) Thanks. I don't really understand the particulars of quantum mechanics but I like to think of it like Horton Hears a Who; There's always another "universe" on a bigger or smaller scale. The rub is we are seemingly limited by our perception. As I understand it, particles like quarks are the smallest particles not made up of other particles. But doesn't "something" have to make up the quarks? Isn't it just that scientists have not yet been able to differentiate the components of a quark? Up until relatively recently, atoms were thought to be the fundamental components of the universe...Just wondering out loud. And yeah, time is an interesting monkey wrench to throw in the mix. Since time is construct of our perception, it seems we are again limited. I've heard of Planck time but isn't that based on no discernable difference from one "moment" to the next? But what if/when scientists find a way to discern a difference? Sheesh. Time to give my brain a break
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Thanks. I don't really understand the particulars of quantum mechanics but I like to think of it like Horton Hears a Who; There's always another "universe" on a bigger or smaller scale. The rub is we are seemingly limited by our perception. As I understand it, particles like quarks are the smallest particles not made up of other particles. But doesn't "something" have to make up the quarks? Isn't it just that scientists have not yet been able to differentiate the components of a quark? Up until relatively recently, atoms were thought to be the fundamental components of the universe...Just wondering out loud. And yeah, time is an interesting monkey wrench to throw in the mix. Since time is construct of our perception, it seems we are again limited. I've heard of Planck time but isn't that based on no discernable difference from one "moment" to the next? But what if/when scientists find a way to discern a difference? Sheesh. Time to give my brain a break Now, think...what if the known universe is just a quark in an infinitely larger physical reality? INCEPTION
CosmicBills Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Now, think...what if the known universe is just a quark in an infinitely larger physical reality? INCEPTION Ha! Bastard. I'm not sober enough for that kind of mind f*@k.
uncle flap Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Now, think...what if the known universe is just a quark in an infinitely larger physical reality? INCEPTION http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39qmbl7mpJQ
DC Tom Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 And yeah, time is an interesting monkey wrench to throw in the mix. Since time is construct of our perception, Technically, so's space. (Now your mind should REALLY be blown.)
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Technically, so's space. (Now your mind should REALLY be blown.) So's gravity. Free fall, do you feel gravity?
DC Tom Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 So's gravity. Free fall, do you feel gravity? And so's a punch to the face. Which begs the metaphysical question: does anything exist that we aren't immediately perceiving?
JÂy RÛßeÒ Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 And so's a punch to the face. Which begs the metaphysical question: does anything exist that we aren't immediately perceiving? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrCPIrs90eg&feature=player_embedded
DrDawkinstein Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 That's completely changed the way I look at science. If you liked that, there is a lot more Neil Degrasse Tyson on the net and published. Search it out. He's great at putting things in terms us "regular folk" can understand.
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) And so's a punch to the face. Which begs the metaphysical question: does anything exist that we aren't immediately perceiving? Punch to the face different. Involves non gravitational acceleration and therefore Resistance of mass to movement. Edited July 3, 2012 by Jim in Anchorage
DC Tom Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Punch to the face different. Involves non gravitational acceleration and therefore Resistance of mass to movement. Gravitational acceleration involves "resistance of mass to movement" (a/k/a "inertia"). In fact, that's specifically caused by...the Higgs boson.
DrDawkinstein Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) And so's a punch to the face. Which begs the metaphysical question: does anything exist that we aren't immediately perceiving? Have you ever read The Self-Aware Universe by Amit Goswami? If not, Im sure youve read many similar books/papers. Basically talks about exactly what you mentioned. It's consciousness that makes the Universe/matter what it is. It is our existing and perceiving that creates our world. Edit: Monistic Idealism is the term I was looking for! Man, I need to dust that book off, havent read it since college. Edited July 3, 2012 by DrDareustein
DC Tom Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Have you ever read The Self-Aware Universe by Amit Goswami? If not, Im sure youve read many similar books/papers. Basically talks about exactly what you mentioned. It's consciousness that makes the Universe/matter what it is. It is our existing and perceiving that creates our world. Edit: Monistic Idealism is the term I was looking for! Man, I need to dust that book off, havent read it since college. Actually, I think I came up with that idea on my own, too. By Schroedinger's quantum formalism, the existence of the universe requires something to observe it. As good an argument for God as any, frankly. Too bad Schroedinger's ideas were basically a dead end.
DrDawkinstein Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) Actually, I think I came up with that idea on my own, too. By Schroedinger's quantum formalism, the existence of the universe requires something to observe it. As good an argument for God as any, frankly. Too bad Schroedinger's ideas were basically a dead end. Agreed. There is my biggest gripe with the religious folks who dig in and refuse to bring their ideas up to speed with science. So many of them see Science as "the bad guy" who is opposed to God, when they should be embracing it as a way to discover (or come closer to) God. And Schroedinger's ideas are only a dead end if you look in the box Edited July 3, 2012 by DrDareustein
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Agreed. There is my biggest gripe with the religious folks who dig in and refuse to bring their ideas up to speed with science. So many of them see Science as "the bad guy" who is opposed to God, when they should be embracing it as a way to discover (or come closer to) God. And Schroedinger's ideas are only a dead end if you look in the box Don't look in the box. There's a dead cat in there. Or a really pissed off cat.
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Gravitational acceleration involves "resistance of mass to movement" (a/k/a "inertia"). In fact, that's specifically caused by...the Higgs boson. I don't believe that's correct. Did not one of Einsteins "eureka" moments come when he realized a man in a falling elevator feels no Resistance to accelerating 32/feet per second?
Ramius Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 And so's a punch to the face. Which begs the metaphysical question: does anything exist that we aren't immediately perceiving? Its all perception and expectation. Anything can be done if you can convince your mind as to what the expected result should be.
Recommended Posts