**WHOOPEE* !

VERY excited about this, but sad that due to shortsightedness, it wasn't discovered in Waxahachie, Texas, where the collider was SUPPOSED to have been built.

Originally Posted By Ray (17 JUL 2012 10:47am)

VERY excited about this, but sad that due to shortsightedness, it wasn't discovered in Waxahachie, Texas, where the collider was SUPPOSED to have been built.

Is that actually so ??

I didn't kow that.

Cheers - Len (ex-Physiocs teacher :~ ((

Well now there's a God Particle, is there also a Devil Particle?  Probably have the number 666 appearing in quantum physics or whatever science all this particle stuff is involved in.

Reasonable suggestion !!

At least as valid as some of the other theories of today's ultra-modern quantum mechanics as applied to infinitessimally tiny sub-atomic particles !!

Originally Posted By chronotigger65 (17 JUL 2012 5:17pm)

Well now there's a God Particle, is there also a Devil Particle?  Probably have the number 666 appearing in quantum physics or whatever science all this particle stuff is involved in.

Honestly, the most truly hilarious comment you've ever posted Chrono - and there have been a few!  This one made me laugh out loud. 

Originally Posted By Caroline (17 JUL 2012 9:54pm)

Originally Posted By chronotigger65 (17 JUL 2012 5:17pm)

Well now there's a God Particle, is there also a Devil Particle?  Probably have the number 666 appearing in quantum physics or whatever science all this particle stuff is involved in.

 

Honestly, the most truly hilarious comment you've ever posted Chrono - and there have been a few!  This one made me laugh out loud. 

 

 

Actually the Devil Particle came to me from a caption shown in between commercials during Adult Swim.  The 666 things was my own doing.  Can't remember what AS said about it.  Anyone here can recall what they said or have video for it?

Back to levity.

Another article on Newsweek called "The Godless Particle".

http://www.holypal.com/profiles/blog/show?id=921995%3ABlogPost%3A382269&commentId=921995%3AComment%3A382141&xg_source=activity

Seems to be more critical, sceptical and maybe cynical ???

HA a devil particle. That's a good one.

Ok Len as far as physics go if I remember correctly, mass X acceleration= Force. M.A=F ok. So the particle accelerator has yet to be able to speed up beyond the speed of light right, even though they have put enough mass and acceleration into it, it refuses to go beyond just under the speed of light. My question or perhaps comment for discussion is have we hit a limit in our known universe? A wall so to speak for lack of a better term. Is it possible that something fantastical would happen if they could accelerate it beyond like what Einstein postulated about time travel. What do you think. 

What interests me about that Newsweek op-ed is that the author starts off by giving what is one of the clearest, for the layman, explanations of how the concept of the Higgs boson and field can explain the origin of matter, but then segues into what is his real agenda- to bolster his premise that this scientific advance supports the fact that this is proof of 'something from nothing' and thus signifies a random, rather than a God-given, origin of the universe.

Personally, I don't believe that Higgs theory and the various tenets of religion have to be mutually exclusive. Plus, while I think I understand the theory behind the Higgs boson and the big bang, what I really want to know is what gave rise to the big bang? Silly me, but it seems to me that there had to be something there before the big bang...

The eternal now...

Science struggles no more comfortably with infinity, the implications of the eternal, than do our earth-bound religions and philosophies.

God, or God Particle, leave us very much where we started off with in our contemplation of the universe.

Originally Posted By SirDave (24 JUL 2012 11:33am)

What interests me about that Newsweek op-ed is that the author starts off by giving what is one of the clearest, for the layman, explanations of how the concept of the Higgs boson and field can explain the origin of matter, but then segues into what is his real agenda- to bolster his premise that this scientific advance supports the fact that this is proof of 'something from nothing' and thus signifies a random, rather than a God-given, origin of the universe.

 

Personally, I don't believe that Higgs theory and the various tenets of religion have to be mutually exclusive. Plus, while I think I understand the theory behind the Higgs boson and the big bang, what I really want to know is what gave rise to the big bang? Silly me, but it seems to me that there had to be something there before the big bang...

 

 

Wow, my head is still spinning from your post. There are some serious intellect and inteligence postings in here, but just wow Sir Dave. So apparently the guy who is creditted with coining the phrase Big Bang denies that he was trying to suggest a theory with it and was simply comparing two other models. Hmmm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1503721.stm

I don't think that we should mix science with religion (which in any case is not allowed  here

All these possible modern theories (or the old classical ones) neither support nor rereject/oppose religion.

The book title including the word God (or Godless) particle gives a wrong impression from that point of view.

Wowie – you certainly remember your classical physics.
I taught this stuff (in Hebrew) for around 40 years but am so glad I retired and got involved in computers.
Classical Physics could be understood by anybody with a logical mind  - and not as too often taught (badly IMO) with mathematics !!!

One of the chief troubles IMO is the complete inability to describe sub-atomic particles and their behaviour in terms  of everyday phenomena – particles being in 2 or several places at once; particles not existing until we try to 'observe them; many more than Einsteinian 4 dimensions – seven have been proposed.

I must say – that I personally am almost completely baffled by recent Physics & cosmology – now way would I attempt to teach what I myself just do not understand.

The line between "Physics" and "Science Fiction" is IMHO more blurred than it used to be – and not to my liking – but I believe that others feel differently !!.
 

Originally Posted By SirDave (24 JUL 2012 11:33am)

[...] Plus, while I think I understand the theory behind the Higgs boson and the big bang, what I really want to know is what gave rise to the big bang? Silly me, but it seems to me that there had to be something there before the big bang...

You want the skinny on the big bang SirDave?   I can tell you gossip about what happened that night.  Mr God came home late after carousing with his buddies and Mrs God saw red and threw it all at him bar the kitchen sink. 

Being Gods, and possessing incredible strength, everything she hurled at him passed through the invisible barrier between dimensions and entered THE VOID.  Being liberated in the vacuum of space it just kept on going..... and it's still travelling today.

Originally Posted By Elliot (24 JUL 2012 11:05am)

Ok Len as far as physics go if I remember correctly, mass X acceleration= Force. M.A=F ok.

/quote]

"YES" !
Classical Physics is often taught badly and causes too many people in school and in later life saying "NOT FOR ME – especially when physics teaching is mixed up **UNNECESSARILY" with lots of mathematics. 

   

  PITY !!

As you wrote  - FORCE is defined by the simple Newtonian classical equation :_
Force  = Mass x Acceleration.
In simple non mathematical terms it simply means that you need very many times the force to accelerate a 10 ton truck than to accelerate a compact car.
Likewise it takes much more force to achieve the huge  acceleration necessary for a  Grand Prix  race than it does for it top simply accelerate a little from garage to start line.

Newton wrote three laws of motion in addition to his brilliant & revolutionary (for the time) Law of universal Gravitation !
The above equation is actually the mathematical expression of  Newton's 2nd Law of Motion which simply states in words that Force is equal to Mass times Acceleration.

I don't know how widely it is recognized or explained that Newton's more famous 1st  Law of Motion, the Law of Inertia is actually not really an independent law at all and hence there are REALLY only TWO original laws discovered by Newton

If this sounds a bit pretentious, the so called first law is simply one special case of the more general 2nd law – just as a square is simply a special case of a rectangle or a circle a special case of an ellipse.
In case this is not clear … if the Force acting on a solid body is zero then either the mass of the body or its acceleration MUST be zero.
Since (until Einstein's special theory of relativity anyway) the mass of a body is unalterable and cannot be zero, then the only possibility is that the acceleration MUST be zero..
But this is simply a special (unique) case of Newton's vitally important SECOND LAW OF MOTION since zero acceleration means that if no force acts on anything then it will EITHER remain at rest or continue with constant velocity ---- i.e. INERTIA.
**FOOTNOTE** Actually the abovementioned law (which as pointed out is not really an independent law) was not discovered by Newton as were his other 2 laws !!!
It was actually discovered by *GALILEO* before Newton !!!!

----------------------------------------------------

 

The boast of heraldry, the pomp of power,
And all that beauty, all that wealth e'er gave,
Awaits alike th' inevitable hour:-
The paths of glory lead but to the grave.

Originally Posted By Elliot (24 JUL 2012 11:05am)

So the particle accelerator has yet to be able to speed up beyond the speed of light right, even though they have put enough mass and acceleration into it, it refuses to go beyond just under the speed of light. My question or perhaps comment for discussion is have we hit a limit in our known universe? A wall so to speak for lack of a better term. Is it possible that something fantastical would happen if they could accelerate it beyond like what Einstein postulated about time travel. What do you think. 

If I recall my physics correctly, then I think that I can answer this.

Simply put, the amount of energy called for to accelerate an object does not increase linearly as its speed increases, nor does it stay constant.  Rather, the closer that you get to the speed of light, the more energy is called for to keep accelerating.

As a result, accelerating to the speed of light produces a mathematical issue - in essence, it would call for the input of infinite energy.

Note however that, if I recall correctly (and I'll confess that I am uncertain on this point), this does not mean that an object cannot be travelling at faster than the speed of light - only that it may not accelerate past it.

I think that the increase in energy input is a result - at least in part - of the fact that, as one approaches the speed of light, one's mass increases, approaching infinite mass at the speed of light.

In a sense it is a limit (one that has been a part of the physics for some time, I believe).  As to something fantastic happening, I don't know (aside from the now-standard stuff like time dilation, the above-mentioned change in mass, etc.).

Your comment seems to imply that those running that accelerator are attempting to accelerate a particle to a speed greater than that of light - had you heard that somewhere?  That seems odd to me, and unlikely to my intuition.

You may be interested in this Wikipedia article, in particular the section title "Consequences".

Originally Posted By Caroline (24 JUL 2012 4:58pm)

Originally Posted By SirDave (24 JUL 2012 11:33am)

[...] Plus, while I think I understand the theory behind the Higgs boson and the big bang, what I really want to know is what gave rise to the big bang? Silly me, but it seems to me that there had to be something there before the big bang...

 

You want the skinny on the big bang SirDave?   I can tell you gossip about what happened that night.  Mr God came home late after carousing with his buddies and Mrs God saw red and threw it all at him bar the kitchen sink. 

 

Being Gods, and possessing incredible strength, everything she hurled at him passed through the invisible barrier between dimensions and entered THE VOID.  Being liberated in the vacuum of space it just kept on going..... and it's still travelling today.

At first I thought you were on to something- a highly original theory on the origin of the universe- until I realized that this was just another lame attempt to credit a woman for the event.

Nowadays Physics seems to have (degenerated er)   developed into the realms of pure speculation with very little chance of experimental verification.

It has takrn the form of Science Fiction rather than true Science bolstered to some extent by the complex mathematics which I can't even **START** to understand even though  I have an old fashioned subsidiary Degree & additional Diploma in maths.

It seems to me to be more Mertaphysics than Physics.

I have  watched at least three TV 2012 broadcasts on the latest cosmology.

Everything is "Maybe", "Possibly", "One theory is ----", etc., etc.

Whether it be string theory, or alternative Universes, sub -atomic particles existing (so long as we DO NOT TRY TO EXAMINE THEM !!!) in more than 2 locations at once (whatever that may mean these days), or the validity of the BIG-BANG itself -IMHO 

Trouble is IMO that we CANNOT POSSIBLY describe what maybe going on (or has gone on) in terms of our lives.

We can analogise (Don't know whether there IS such a word) a photon being a packet of energy similar to the kinetic energy of a small bullet from a gun - or a wave like that produced on the surface of a stagnant pond if we drop a stone into the middle of it.

A  bit more difficult to imagine the two phenomena together which caused  a rumpus  the best part of a century ago until quantum mechanics came up with an "answer" - outside the realm of our everyday experience.

We can visualise the law of conservation of momentum with the behaviour of billiard balls or gravitaional attraction (or even close quarter repulsion) with the everyday behaviour of simple bar magnet poles or static electrical charges on a day with extremely low humidity.

But it's impossible for my simple mind  to visualise a particle in the 7th dimension consisting of a pair of "particles" gyrating around each other one clockwise & the other anti -clockwise, one of which is simply not there if/when I try to observe them whilst the other rotates in the opposite direction in a different dimension entirely  - and so on and so forth these days.

As I have said previously  - no possible way could I teach pupils or students such scuff !@!!

Actually, if I'm not much mistaken, all of the effects that I directly mentioned in my above post have been experimentally supported - and indeed, I seem to recall that GPS systems don't work properly at all if one doesn't factor in time dilation.  I also seem to think that I've heard of electronics having reached scales on which effects like tunnelling (a favourite of mine) are real and extant problems.  Even wave-particle duality has been experiemtnally supported, I think.

As to new theories, surely it's only natural that they should start off as "we think" and "possibly" before experiment catches up?  I seem to think that at least some of these are being tested and sought after.  After all, the Higgs boson was not long ago a case of "we think", was it not?

I look forward to the next generation of optical telescopes - actually to the evolution of visual astronomy in general. I have a sneaking suspicion that we will continue to observe events and objects as we peer further and further back in time and space - and way way past the accepted 14 billion year limit proposed by 'big bang' theorists...

@Thuamaturge

Thanks for clearing that up. I did have it wrong. That was an interesting article indeed, although the time dilation (which I had never heard of) mentioned later was very intriguing and provable in essence. Also the idea that it would take infinite energy to acelerate something that fast is something I will have to consider for a while. Seems like theres some interesting thought and implication there. Thanks now my head is spinning all over again. LOL It's a good spin though. This is a great thread and really interesting. 

@Len Green

I equally was not aware that Newtons first law was plagerized or that it was disproven that was fantastically interesting. Thanks for clearing that up for me. 

Originally Posted By Elliot (25 JUL 2012 9:27am)

@Thuamaturge

Thanks for clearing that up. I did have it wrong. That was an interesting article indeed, although the time dilation (which I had never heard of) mentioned later was very intriguing and provable in essence. Also the idea that it would take infinite energy to acelerate something that fast is something I will have to consider for a while. Seems like theres some interesting thought and implication there. Thanks now my head is spinning all over again. LOL It's a good spin though. This is a great thread and really interesting. 

 

@Len Green

I equally was not aware that Newtons first law was plagerized or that it was disproven that was fantastically interesting. Thanks for clearing that up for me. 

I wouldn't say that Newton PLAGIARIZED Galileo's original principle.

[size= medium]Newton's so called 3 laws of motion were first  unveiled in his 3 volume "PRINCIPIA" (1687)   considered to be one of the most important scientific books ever written.  They laid the basis for the whole (classical) subjects of Mechanics & Dynamics !

It was written in Latin and although I had 2 years of Latin when I was 12 years old (What a waste !!) I could never read it.

So how he introduced "his" 1^st law I don’t know !!"

That first law of motion (INERTIA) is not "wrong" of course it is simply basically redundant being just one special case of the 2n'd Law.

To summarize --- apart from his brilliant work on light and other fields and the invention of CALCULUS and of course his most revolutionary work" invention" of gravity. He really produced only two original basic  laws of classical  motion i.e. the 2^nd law (which contains the son called 1^st law) and the 3^rd law (Action/Reaction.

I suppose it is known that Einstein's UPDATED laws of motion contain Newton's also as special cases  at "low" velocities.

In other words, Einstein's rather more complex equations reduce to the classical simpler Newtonian ones so long as the velocities of the (solid) bodies concerned are no more tan say a few hundreds of thousands of kilometers per hour – i.e. negligible velocities compared to the speed of  electromagnetic waves (including LIGHT).

Originally Posted By SirDave (24 JUL 2012 11:33am)

What interests me about that Newsweek op-ed is that the author starts off by giving what is one of the clearest, for the layman, explanations of how the concept of the Higgs boson and field can explain the origin of matter, but then segues into what is his real agenda- to bolster his premise that this scientific advance supports the fact that this is proof of 'something from nothing' and thus signifies a random, rather than a God-given, origin of the universe.

 

Personally, I don't believe that Higgs theory and the various tenets of religion have to be mutually exclusive. Plus, while I think I understand the theory behind the Higgs boson and the big bang, what I really want to know is what gave rise to the big bang? Silly me, but it seems to me that there had to be something there before the big bang...

 

 

Only partially related - This post brings back to me many discussions on the concept of "nothing" and our brains inability to truly wrap our heads around it. What is "nothing"? Absence of "anything"?