On July 05 2012 04:03 Myrkskog wrote: You sound like a bitter alternative model physicist who just found out that his life's work was a waste of time.
Just kidding, you don't sound like a scientist at all. It's already all been figured out? Please enlighten us so we can stop spending millions of dollars at CERN. Plus you getting the Nobel prize would spare us the dilemma of the 3 person limit.
My alternative model is called relativity. Remember that? That thing that doesn't just fill charts full of non-descript particles which serve no practical purpose? You know the thing that describes how light, gravity, space, and time work?
Theres a new damn particle every 5 years discovered, a bunch of old men pat themselves on the back and NOTHING CHANGES.
I'm bitter because people like you say it's the standard model or no model. You people act like YOU make the rules instead of understand the existing ones.
General relativity is a classical theory, not a quantum theory. No matter how beautiful and appealing it is to you, it is incompatible with the quantum world, so will need revision. Standard model too will need some revision, but whether you like it or not it is the only theory we have consistent with all particle physics data.
Okay so the whole thing about time travelling to the future by flying closer to the speed of light is all a hoax? There is no such thing as time dilation or length contraction of an object relative to an observer's POV?
Please don't tell me that I have spent 20 hours studying nothing because I did believe that quantum mechanics of particles and the time travel due to relativity could co-exist!
Oh it's accurate as far as we can tell for what it applies to - just no one can reconcile it with Quantum Mechanics, and really smart people have been trying for a really long time.
Go to 6:07 from the link. I think the video explained very well the correlation between the particles and the theory. Really all that it is is the contraction of particles in space relative to a observer.
And woe betide anyone that actually ENJOYS that sort of hectic life style, something must be wrong with them, why living a peaceful, albeit boring, lifestyle on a farm in Amish country must be a lot better.[/QUOTE]
That's by far the most ignorant comment I've ever seen in my life. The Amish are probably the hardest workers in the United States or anywhere else for that matter. I'd love to see a New York business man keep up with one of them. The Amish work ethic is unbeatable.
On July 05 2012 04:03 Myrkskog wrote: You sound like a bitter alternative model physicist who just found out that his life's work was a waste of time.
Just kidding, you don't sound like a scientist at all. It's already all been figured out? Please enlighten us so we can stop spending millions of dollars at CERN. Plus you getting the Nobel prize would spare us the dilemma of the 3 person limit.
My alternative model is called relativity. Remember that? That thing that doesn't just fill charts full of non-descript particles which serve no practical purpose? You know the thing that describes how light, gravity, space, and time work?
Theres a new damn particle every 5 years discovered, a bunch of old men pat themselves on the back and NOTHING CHANGES.
I'm bitter because people like you say it's the standard model or no model. You people act like YOU make the rules instead of understand the existing ones.
General relativity is a classical theory, not a quantum theory. No matter how beautiful and appealing it is to you, it is incompatible with the quantum world, so will need revision. Standard model too will need some revision, but whether you like it or not it is the only theory we have consistent with all particle physics data.
Okay so the whole thing about time travelling to the future by flying closer to the speed of light is all a hoax? There is no such thing as time dilation or length contraction of an object relative to an observer's POV?
Please don't tell me that I have spent 20 hours studying nothing because I did believe that quantum mechanics of particles and the time travel due to relativity could co-exist!
Oh it's accurate as far as we can tell for what it applies to - just no one can reconcile it with Quantum Mechanics, and really smart people have been trying for a really long time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev9zrt__lec Go to 6:07 from the link. I think the video explained very well the correlation between the particles and the theory. Really all that it is is the contraction of particles in space relative to a observer.
General relativity is NOT just length contraction or time dilation--it describes gravity itself as a property of spacetime. Scientists have not found a way yet to combine GR with QM (although you can read up on several candidate theories above)
You should also look at this for a better understanding of what "combine GR with QM" actually means:
On July 05 2012 04:03 Myrkskog wrote: You sound like a bitter alternative model physicist who just found out that his life's work was a waste of time.
Just kidding, you don't sound like a scientist at all. It's already all been figured out? Please enlighten us so we can stop spending millions of dollars at CERN. Plus you getting the Nobel prize would spare us the dilemma of the 3 person limit.
My alternative model is called relativity. Remember that? That thing that doesn't just fill charts full of non-descript particles which serve no practical purpose? You know the thing that describes how light, gravity, space, and time work?
Theres a new damn particle every 5 years discovered, a bunch of old men pat themselves on the back and NOTHING CHANGES.
I'm bitter because people like you say it's the standard model or no model. You people act like YOU make the rules instead of understand the existing ones.
General relativity is a classical theory, not a quantum theory. No matter how beautiful and appealing it is to you, it is incompatible with the quantum world, so will need revision. Standard model too will need some revision, but whether you like it or not it is the only theory we have consistent with all particle physics data.
Okay so the whole thing about time travelling to the future by flying closer to the speed of light is all a hoax? There is no such thing as time dilation or length contraction of an object relative to an observer's POV?
Please don't tell me that I have spent 20 hours studying nothing because I did believe that quantum mechanics of particles and the time travel due to relativity could co-exist!
Oh it's accurate as far as we can tell for what it applies to - just no one can reconcile it with Quantum Mechanics, and really smart people have been trying for a really long time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev9zrt__lec Go to 6:07 from the link. I think the video explained very well the correlation between the particles and the theory. Really all that it is is the contraction of particles in space relative to a observer.
General relativity is NOT just length contraction or time dilation--it describes gravity itself as a property of spacetime. Scientists have not found a way yet to combine GR with QM (although you can read up on several candidate theories above)
You should also look at this for a better understanding of what "combine GR with QM" actually means:
Okay you lost me by bringing gravity into the equation In a spactime diagram with x, t, x', and t'. Gravity is pretty omitted. All variables are the speed of the moving object and how much time it takes.
On July 05 2012 04:03 Myrkskog wrote: You sound like a bitter alternative model physicist who just found out that his life's work was a waste of time.
Just kidding, you don't sound like a scientist at all. It's already all been figured out? Please enlighten us so we can stop spending millions of dollars at CERN. Plus you getting the Nobel prize would spare us the dilemma of the 3 person limit.
My alternative model is called relativity. Remember that? That thing that doesn't just fill charts full of non-descript particles which serve no practical purpose? You know the thing that describes how light, gravity, space, and time work?
Theres a new damn particle every 5 years discovered, a bunch of old men pat themselves on the back and NOTHING CHANGES.
I'm bitter because people like you say it's the standard model or no model. You people act like YOU make the rules instead of understand the existing ones.
General relativity is a classical theory, not a quantum theory. No matter how beautiful and appealing it is to you, it is incompatible with the quantum world, so will need revision. Standard model too will need some revision, but whether you like it or not it is the only theory we have consistent with all particle physics data.
Okay so the whole thing about time travelling to the future by flying closer to the speed of light is all a hoax? There is no such thing as time dilation or length contraction of an object relative to an observer's POV?
Please don't tell me that I have spent 20 hours studying nothing because I did believe that quantum mechanics of particles and the time travel due to relativity could co-exist!
Oh it's accurate as far as we can tell for what it applies to - just no one can reconcile it with Quantum Mechanics, and really smart people have been trying for a really long time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev9zrt__lec Go to 6:07 from the link. I think the video explained very well the correlation between the particles and the theory. Really all that it is is the contraction of particles in space relative to a observer.
General relativity is NOT just length contraction or time dilation--it describes gravity itself as a property of spacetime. Scientists have not found a way yet to combine GR with QM (although you can read up on several candidate theories above)
You should also look at this for a better understanding of what "combine GR with QM" actually means:
Just to explain further: Time dilation and length contraction come from special relativity, and is included in quantum field theory, which is the foundation of the standard model. So standard model, and particle physics in general, includes time dilation and length contraction. Time dilation is actually a large factor in making rapidly decaying particles travel quite far in the detector, as they are experience time slower, or equivalently they see the detector contracted in their rest rest frame. The same goes for atmospheric muons by the way.
Problem is including gravity at microscopical scale. If you try to add it in the most "obvious" way (obvious for the experts that is), you end up with infinities, and essentially predict that the entire universe should explode with infinite energy all the time. As this is not what we observe, people try to find other ways.
On July 05 2012 04:03 Myrkskog wrote: You sound like a bitter alternative model physicist who just found out that his life's work was a waste of time.
Just kidding, you don't sound like a scientist at all. It's already all been figured out? Please enlighten us so we can stop spending millions of dollars at CERN. Plus you getting the Nobel prize would spare us the dilemma of the 3 person limit.
My alternative model is called relativity. Remember that? That thing that doesn't just fill charts full of non-descript particles which serve no practical purpose? You know the thing that describes how light, gravity, space, and time work?
Theres a new damn particle every 5 years discovered, a bunch of old men pat themselves on the back and NOTHING CHANGES.
I'm bitter because people like you say it's the standard model or no model. You people act like YOU make the rules instead of understand the existing ones.
General relativity is a classical theory, not a quantum theory. No matter how beautiful and appealing it is to you, it is incompatible with the quantum world, so will need revision. Standard model too will need some revision, but whether you like it or not it is the only theory we have consistent with all particle physics data.
Okay so the whole thing about time travelling to the future by flying closer to the speed of light is all a hoax? There is no such thing as time dilation or length contraction of an object relative to an observer's POV?
Please don't tell me that I have spent 20 hours studying nothing because I did believe that quantum mechanics of particles and the time travel due to relativity could co-exist!
Oh it's accurate as far as we can tell for what it applies to - just no one can reconcile it with Quantum Mechanics, and really smart people have been trying for a really long time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev9zrt__lec Go to 6:07 from the link. I think the video explained very well the correlation between the particles and the theory. Really all that it is is the contraction of particles in space relative to a observer.
General relativity is NOT just length contraction or time dilation--it describes gravity itself as a property of spacetime. Scientists have not found a way yet to combine GR with QM (although you can read up on several candidate theories above)
You should also look at this for a better understanding of what "combine GR with QM" actually means:
Okay you lost me by bringing gravity into the equation In a spactime diagram with x, t, x', and t'. Gravity is pretty omitted. All variables are the speed of the moving object and how much time it takes.
You are confusing special relativity and general relativity.
On July 05 2012 04:03 Myrkskog wrote: You sound like a bitter alternative model physicist who just found out that his life's work was a waste of time.
Just kidding, you don't sound like a scientist at all. It's already all been figured out? Please enlighten us so we can stop spending millions of dollars at CERN. Plus you getting the Nobel prize would spare us the dilemma of the 3 person limit.
My alternative model is called relativity. Remember that? That thing that doesn't just fill charts full of non-descript particles which serve no practical purpose? You know the thing that describes how light, gravity, space, and time work?
Theres a new damn particle every 5 years discovered, a bunch of old men pat themselves on the back and NOTHING CHANGES.
I'm bitter because people like you say it's the standard model or no model. You people act like YOU make the rules instead of understand the existing ones.
General relativity is a classical theory, not a quantum theory. No matter how beautiful and appealing it is to you, it is incompatible with the quantum world, so will need revision. Standard model too will need some revision, but whether you like it or not it is the only theory we have consistent with all particle physics data.
Please don't tell me that I have spent 20 hours studying nothing because I did believe that quantum mechanics of particles and the time travel due to relativity could co-exist!
Oh it's accurate as far as we can tell for what it applies to - just no one can reconcile it with Quantum Mechanics, and really smart people have been trying for a really long time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev9zrt__lec Go to 6:07 from the link. I think the video explained very well the correlation between the particles and the theory. Really all that it is is the contraction of particles in space relative to a observer.
General relativity is NOT just length contraction or time dilation--it describes gravity itself as a property of spacetime. Scientists have not found a way yet to combine GR with QM (although you can read up on several candidate theories above)
You should also look at this for a better understanding of what "combine GR with QM" actually means:
Okay you lost me by bringing gravity into the equation In a spactime diagram with x, t, x', and t'. Gravity is pretty omitted. All variables are the speed of the moving object and how much time it takes.
Not sure what level you are at, but: Special relativity is calculated in Lorentz space, ie a flat space in time and space. You add a factor -1 (or "i" if you want) in front of the time, but otherwise a lorentz space behaves just like a four dimensional R^4 space.
General relativity is essentially to take this flat lorentz space, and bend it. So that the diagonal of two sticks at straight angle is no longer necessarily sqrt(2) times the length of the sticks. Then redo the special relativity formalism, but on this new bent lorentz space, and you get the effect of gravity. It is very beautiful.
On July 05 2012 04:03 Myrkskog wrote: You sound like a bitter alternative model physicist who just found out that his life's work was a waste of time.
Just kidding, you don't sound like a scientist at all. It's already all been figured out? Please enlighten us so we can stop spending millions of dollars at CERN. Plus you getting the Nobel prize would spare us the dilemma of the 3 person limit.
My alternative model is called relativity. Remember that? That thing that doesn't just fill charts full of non-descript particles which serve no practical purpose? You know the thing that describes how light, gravity, space, and time work?
Theres a new damn particle every 5 years discovered, a bunch of old men pat themselves on the back and NOTHING CHANGES.
I'm bitter because people like you say it's the standard model or no model. You people act like YOU make the rules instead of understand the existing ones.
General relativity is a classical theory, not a quantum theory. No matter how beautiful and appealing it is to you, it is incompatible with the quantum world, so will need revision. Standard model too will need some revision, but whether you like it or not it is the only theory we have consistent with all particle physics data.
Okay so the whole thing about time travelling to the future by flying closer to the speed of light is all a hoax? There is no such thing as time dilation or length contraction of an object relative to an observer's POV?
Please don't tell me that I have spent 20 hours studying nothing because I did believe that quantum mechanics of particles and the time travel due to relativity could co-exist!
Oh it's accurate as far as we can tell for what it applies to - just no one can reconcile it with Quantum Mechanics, and really smart people have been trying for a really long time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev9zrt__lec Go to 6:07 from the link. I think the video explained very well the correlation between the particles and the theory. Really all that it is is the contraction of particles in space relative to a observer.
That is by far the greatest video I have ever seen. My mind is blown. How could one man figure all of that out?
On July 05 2012 04:03 Myrkskog wrote: You sound like a bitter alternative model physicist who just found out that his life's work was a waste of time.
Just kidding, you don't sound like a scientist at all. It's already all been figured out? Please enlighten us so we can stop spending millions of dollars at CERN. Plus you getting the Nobel prize would spare us the dilemma of the 3 person limit.
My alternative model is called relativity. Remember that? That thing that doesn't just fill charts full of non-descript particles which serve no practical purpose? You know the thing that describes how light, gravity, space, and time work?
Theres a new damn particle every 5 years discovered, a bunch of old men pat themselves on the back and NOTHING CHANGES.
I'm bitter because people like you say it's the standard model or no model. You people act like YOU make the rules instead of understand the existing ones.
General relativity is a classical theory, not a quantum theory. No matter how beautiful and appealing it is to you, it is incompatible with the quantum world, so will need revision. Standard model too will need some revision, but whether you like it or not it is the only theory we have consistent with all particle physics data.
Okay so the whole thing about time travelling to the future by flying closer to the speed of light is all a hoax? There is no such thing as time dilation or length contraction of an object relative to an observer's POV?
Please don't tell me that I have spent 20 hours studying nothing because I did believe that quantum mechanics of particles and the time travel due to relativity could co-exist!
Oh it's accurate as far as we can tell for what it applies to - just no one can reconcile it with Quantum Mechanics, and really smart people have been trying for a really long time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev9zrt__lec Go to 6:07 from the link. I think the video explained very well the correlation between the particles and the theory. Really all that it is is the contraction of particles in space relative to a observer.
That is by far the greatest video I have ever seen. My mind is blown. How could one man figure all of that out?
He took a 'leap of faith' for believing that you can't go over the speed of light.
On July 05 2012 04:03 Myrkskog wrote: You sound like a bitter alternative model physicist who just found out that his life's work was a waste of time.
Just kidding, you don't sound like a scientist at all. It's already all been figured out? Please enlighten us so we can stop spending millions of dollars at CERN. Plus you getting the Nobel prize would spare us the dilemma of the 3 person limit.
My alternative model is called relativity. Remember that? That thing that doesn't just fill charts full of non-descript particles which serve no practical purpose? You know the thing that describes how light, gravity, space, and time work?
Theres a new damn particle every 5 years discovered, a bunch of old men pat themselves on the back and NOTHING CHANGES.
I'm bitter because people like you say it's the standard model or no model. You people act like YOU make the rules instead of understand the existing ones.
General relativity is a classical theory, not a quantum theory. No matter how beautiful and appealing it is to you, it is incompatible with the quantum world, so will need revision. Standard model too will need some revision, but whether you like it or not it is the only theory we have consistent with all particle physics data.
Okay so the whole thing about time travelling to the future by flying closer to the speed of light is all a hoax? There is no such thing as time dilation or length contraction of an object relative to an observer's POV?
Please don't tell me that I have spent 20 hours studying nothing because I did believe that quantum mechanics of particles and the time travel due to relativity could co-exist!
Oh it's accurate as far as we can tell for what it applies to - just no one can reconcile it with Quantum Mechanics, and really smart people have been trying for a really long time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev9zrt__lec Go to 6:07 from the link. I think the video explained very well the correlation between the particles and the theory. Really all that it is is the contraction of particles in space relative to a observer.
General relativity is NOT just length contraction or time dilation--it describes gravity itself as a property of spacetime. Scientists have not found a way yet to combine GR with QM (although you can read up on several candidate theories above)
You should also look at this for a better understanding of what "combine GR with QM" actually means:
Just to explain further: Time dilation and length contraction come from special relativity, and is included in quantum field theory, which is the foundation of the standard model. So standard model, and particle physics in general, includes time dilation and length contraction. Time dilation is actually a large factor in making rapidly decaying particles travel quite far in the detector, as they are experience time slower, or equivalently they see the detector contracted in their rest rest frame. The same goes for atmospheric muons by the way.
Problem is including gravity at microscopical scale. If you try to add it in the most "obvious" way (obvious for the experts that is), you end up with infinities, and essentially predict that the entire universe should explode with infinite energy all the time. As this is not what we observe, people try to find other ways.
On July 05 2012 05:39 Sovern wrote: It's pretty sad to see people arguing that finding some particle will "prove religious people wrong" and are egocentric about their beliefs. It makes the atheists out to look just as bad as the theists that go around telling people that they're going to hell.
I'm an atheist myself but still find this discovery boring and pointless but that's just my own opinion. I'm sure that those same scientists also find having fun and artistic things to be pointless and boring.
Furthermore, it is in my opinion that all of these scientific finding's based around particle physics or physics in general are pointless as everything that is, will always be there meaning that all of the particles and laws that scientists say are laws actually already exist and "discovering" things that already exist such as this Higgs Boson particle does nothing to change things.
Its just the human nature of labeling things as discoveries, theory's, and laws when in actuality they aren't laws but reality's observed and decoded by the human mind.
It didn't occur to you when you were typing this that these scientific discoveries are what allow us to have the technology that we do? Stuff like this has a lot more significance than just giving a bunch of scientists the ability to say "Ha! We were (almost certainly) right!".
To be honest, I could care less about the technology that it enables. I'd actually prefer to live a live completely free from technology and being attached to materialistic things as its much more peaceful and slower paced than the modern industrial world that we live in.
I refuse to believe that anyone could seriously type this while browsing internet forums for a computer game on their PC. 100% troll.
Not a troll, I said that I'd rather life a life style free from technology even if that means partially free. Its one of the main reasons why I don't have a "smart" phone and could care less about all of the new technology findings. I believe that people that live a life away from technology live a more enjoyable and peaceful life than some business man in New York that is always on his smart phone and works 40+ hours a week.
Ah yes, because everyone that lives a technologically influenced life is a business man in New York that is always on his smart phone and works 40+ hours a week.
And woe betide anyone that actually ENJOYS that sort of hectic life style, something must be wrong with them, why living a peaceful, albeit boring, lifestyle on a farm in Amish country must be a lot better.
And somehow, all of that contributes towards the discussion point of this thread, being the confirmation of the Higgs Boson particle.
Lmfao, gotta love TL.
I don't know anyone that enjoys a hectic lifestyle, but if you believe that a life free from technology is a "boring" life than I don't think that you have experienced nature for what it truly is.
A life "free from technology" won't be "boring."
A life "free from technology" will be short, cruel, and unpleasant.
You can thank technology for clean water, ample food, adequate shelter against weather, and medicine.
Me and your definition of technology obviously differs. When I mentioned technology I'm talking about modern technology such as smart phones, not things that have been around for a very long time and are mostly primative. I'm talking about electronics mostly. Celebrating the discovery of a particle seems very weird to me as it has always been around and always will be around and it is just that.....a particle whoop de do hahaha.
While CERN is wasting tons of money and celebrating the "discovery" of a particle thousands still die painful deaths related to hunger. I think that before wasting our time looking far off into space or deep down into particles we should focus on our present problems that are in front of us as a whole. This is also the reason why over 99% of the world population doesn't care about this discovery or anything that they're doing in space....it doesn't concern us in the least.
On July 05 2012 05:39 Sovern wrote: It's pretty sad to see people arguing that finding some particle will "prove religious people wrong" and are egocentric about their beliefs. It makes the atheists out to look just as bad as the theists that go around telling people that they're going to hell.
I'm an atheist myself but still find this discovery boring and pointless but that's just my own opinion. I'm sure that those same scientists also find having fun and artistic things to be pointless and boring.
Furthermore, it is in my opinion that all of these scientific finding's based around particle physics or physics in general are pointless as everything that is, will always be there meaning that all of the particles and laws that scientists say are laws actually already exist and "discovering" things that already exist such as this Higgs Boson particle does nothing to change things.
Its just the human nature of labeling things as discoveries, theory's, and laws when in actuality they aren't laws but reality's observed and decoded by the human mind.
It didn't occur to you when you were typing this that these scientific discoveries are what allow us to have the technology that we do? Stuff like this has a lot more significance than just giving a bunch of scientists the ability to say "Ha! We were (almost certainly) right!".
To be honest, I could care less about the technology that it enables. I'd actually prefer to live a live completely free from technology and being attached to materialistic things as its much more peaceful and slower paced than the modern industrial world that we live in.
I refuse to believe that anyone could seriously type this while browsing internet forums for a computer game on their PC. 100% troll.
Not a troll, I said that I'd rather life a life style free from technology even if that means partially free. Its one of the main reasons why I don't have a "smart" phone and could care less about all of the new technology findings. I believe that people that live a life away from technology live a more enjoyable and peaceful life than some business man in New York that is always on his smart phone and works 40+ hours a week.
Ah yes, because everyone that lives a technologically influenced life is a business man in New York that is always on his smart phone and works 40+ hours a week.
And woe betide anyone that actually ENJOYS that sort of hectic life style, something must be wrong with them, why living a peaceful, albeit boring, lifestyle on a farm in Amish country must be a lot better.
And somehow, all of that contributes towards the discussion point of this thread, being the confirmation of the Higgs Boson particle.
Lmfao, gotta love TL.
I don't know anyone that enjoys a hectic lifestyle, but if you believe that a life free from technology is a "boring" life than I don't think that you have experienced nature for what it truly is.
A life "free from technology" won't be "boring."
A life "free from technology" will be short, cruel, and unpleasant.
You can thank technology for clean water, ample food, adequate shelter against weather, and medicine.
Me and your definition of technology obviously differs. When I mentioned technology I'm talking about modern technology such as smart phones, not things that have been around for a very long time and are mostly primative. I'm talking about electronics mostly. Celebrating the discovery of a particle seems very weird to me as it has always been around and always will be around and it is just that.....a particle whoop de do hahaha.
While CERN is wasting tons of money and celebrating the "discovery" of a particle thousands still die painful deaths related to hunger. I think that before wasting our time looking far off into space or deep down into particles we should focus on our present problems that are in front of us as a whole. This is also the reason why over 99% of the world population doesn't care about this discovery or anything that they're doing in space....it doesn't concern us in the least.
The first steam engine was originally created in Greece. At that time, no one knew what it could do, or what potential it had. The Aeolipile was described by some:
"…a scientific invention [to] discover a divine truth lurking in the laws of the heavens."
But no doubt, there were many Greeks that had the same feelings as you and thought "man, why are these scientists working on this silly thing that has no practical applications to us, when we could be solving hunger in the streets".
Imagine if the Greeks figured out how to use a steam engine.
Personally, I don't even have a cell phone and I haven't had one for well over a year, all that technology does and searching for particles is blinds us from realizing the beauty that is already all over around us, the present moment and the beauty and peace that it offers.
And yet here we are, on an internet forum operating on that "technology" that you seem to despise as complicating our lives. I see your point of view that there can be such a thing as too much technology in our day to day lives, but is it not possible to live this life and at the same time enjoy everything around us?
Advances in modern science like this allow us to pave the way for future technologies. Of course the vast majority of society does not care or even understand this advancement, but I see it as another crucial piece of the puzzle fitting into place. Nobody can see the entire picture, but with this "piece", at least our understanding is one step closer to completion.
On July 05 2012 05:39 Sovern wrote: It's pretty sad to see people arguing that finding some particle will "prove religious people wrong" and are egocentric about their beliefs. It makes the atheists out to look just as bad as the theists that go around telling people that they're going to hell.
I'm an atheist myself but still find this discovery boring and pointless but that's just my own opinion. I'm sure that those same scientists also find having fun and artistic things to be pointless and boring.
Furthermore, it is in my opinion that all of these scientific finding's based around particle physics or physics in general are pointless as everything that is, will always be there meaning that all of the particles and laws that scientists say are laws actually already exist and "discovering" things that already exist such as this Higgs Boson particle does nothing to change things.
Its just the human nature of labeling things as discoveries, theory's, and laws when in actuality they aren't laws but reality's observed and decoded by the human mind.
It didn't occur to you when you were typing this that these scientific discoveries are what allow us to have the technology that we do? Stuff like this has a lot more significance than just giving a bunch of scientists the ability to say "Ha! We were (almost certainly) right!".
To be honest, I could care less about the technology that it enables. I'd actually prefer to live a live completely free from technology and being attached to materialistic things as its much more peaceful and slower paced than the modern industrial world that we live in.
I refuse to believe that anyone could seriously type this while browsing internet forums for a computer game on their PC. 100% troll.
Not a troll, I said that I'd rather life a life style free from technology even if that means partially free. Its one of the main reasons why I don't have a "smart" phone and could care less about all of the new technology findings. I believe that people that live a life away from technology live a more enjoyable and peaceful life than some business man in New York that is always on his smart phone and works 40+ hours a week.
Ah yes, because everyone that lives a technologically influenced life is a business man in New York that is always on his smart phone and works 40+ hours a week.
And woe betide anyone that actually ENJOYS that sort of hectic life style, something must be wrong with them, why living a peaceful, albeit boring, lifestyle on a farm in Amish country must be a lot better.
And somehow, all of that contributes towards the discussion point of this thread, being the confirmation of the Higgs Boson particle.
Lmfao, gotta love TL.
I don't know anyone that enjoys a hectic lifestyle, but if you believe that a life free from technology is a "boring" life than I don't think that you have experienced nature for what it truly is.
A life "free from technology" won't be "boring."
A life "free from technology" will be short, cruel, and unpleasant.
You can thank technology for clean water, ample food, adequate shelter against weather, and medicine.
Me and your definition of technology obviously differs. When I mentioned technology I'm talking about modern technology such as smart phones, not things that have been around for a very long time and are mostly primative. I'm talking about electronics mostly. Celebrating the discovery of a particle seems very weird to me as it has always been around and always will be around and it is just that.....a particle whoop de do hahaha.
While CERN is wasting tons of money and celebrating the "discovery" of a particle thousands still die painful deaths related to hunger. I think that before wasting our time looking far off into space or deep down into particles we should focus on our present problems that are in front of us as a whole. This is also the reason why over 99% of the world population doesn't care about this discovery or anything that they're doing in space....it doesn't concern us in the least.
Before I get into a discussion like this, let me say right off, that that video of Einstein's theory of relativity was mind-wrenching. In a good way.
To the above post, I respond with this: if you do not care about understanding the universe around us, you have a very narrow viewpoint (from your perspective, the rest of the universe looks smaller than from my perspective). I'm going with the pathos argument here -- what can be more human than conquering our world, understanding it, and then using that understanding to extend ourselves outside our world? You may as well call nuclear fission a waste of money when living in 1945 -- even though, in 2010, nuclear fission energy produced 13.5% of the world's energy.
Now for the logos argument -- back to nuclear fission. You know how we learned how to harness it? E=mc^2, and the other major particle physics research in the early 1900's that people like you decried. You know what we are trying to learn about in 2012, now? Particle physics. (I use that term loosely, to refer to this Higgs Boson research, for example.)
I'm not saying that we will harness the energy of Higgs Boson particles anytime soon, or at all. But this research is certainly concerning to humankind, because it contributes to our ability to control the universe.
I would go into your "or anything that they're doing in space" comment, too, but that would make this post too long.
Nice video. Sums it up. It did bother me in high school physics that things had no volume but did have mass. I should have made a connection from a previous video on the higgs boson but I didn't.
On July 05 2012 12:53 Cascade wrote: While we are posting educational youtubes... I guess many of you have already seen this one, but anyway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM
ROFL, was this video done by bored grad students? That's my favorite thing I've seen in this thread, excellent.
On July 05 2012 12:53 Cascade wrote: While we are posting educational youtubes... I guess many of you have already seen this one, but anyway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM
ROFL, was this video done by bored grad students? That's my favorite thing I've seen in this thread, excellent.
You can't imagine how little there is to do in the CERN area when you are not working....
On July 05 2012 04:03 Myrkskog wrote: You sound like a bitter alternative model physicist who just found out that his life's work was a waste of time.
Just kidding, you don't sound like a scientist at all. It's already all been figured out? Please enlighten us so we can stop spending millions of dollars at CERN. Plus you getting the Nobel prize would spare us the dilemma of the 3 person limit.
My alternative model is called relativity. Remember that? That thing that doesn't just fill charts full of non-descript particles which serve no practical purpose? You know the thing that describes how light, gravity, space, and time work?
Theres a new damn particle every 5 years discovered, a bunch of old men pat themselves on the back and NOTHING CHANGES.
I'm bitter because people like you say it's the standard model or no model. You people act like YOU make the rules instead of understand the existing ones.
General relativity is a classical theory, not a quantum theory. No matter how beautiful and appealing it is to you, it is incompatible with the quantum world, so will need revision. Standard model too will need some revision, but whether you like it or not it is the only theory we have consistent with all particle physics data.
Okay so the whole thing about time travelling to the future by flying closer to the speed of light is all a hoax? There is no such thing as time dilation or length contraction of an object relative to an observer's POV?
Please don't tell me that I have spent 20 hours studying nothing because I did believe that quantum mechanics of particles and the time travel due to relativity could co-exist!
There is no "time travelling" to the future. You have local clocks moving at different rates that allow you to move further into the future relative to, say, the Earth, but that is not really time travel. Also, the quantum field theory of a spin 2 massless particle (graviton) was shown by Feynman to reduce to exactly Einstein's equations in the classical limit, so these things we call "time" and "space" really are just specific backgrounds of gravitons, and all the normal effects of relativity come along with this theory for free.
On July 04 2012 16:57 georgir wrote: I don't get it. Gives other particles their mass? That doesn't even make sense, much like saying it gives other particles their energy or velocity. Why can this particle have its own mass but others can't? What gives the higgs boson its mass then? Is it turtles all the way down?
No, no. Think of it this way. You possess a characteristic called 'mass'. However, does that mean you'll be able to 'feel' other particles with 'mass'? How do you know that they are there? Even if you know they are there, what difference does your 'mass' make? The Higgs boson is the particle that tells your 'mass' what to do. It makes it so that objects with 'mass' are attracted to each other.
Um, sorry but I'm not with you. Do you mean like the virtual particles that supposedly mediate other forces? Those do not exist... Besides, there is no way you'll convince anyone that a particle 130 times heavier than a hydrogen atom, but which you can not easily detect, is responsible for making random easily detectable hydrogen atoms attract each other. Does not compute... Also I am quite certain that in a system which does not have enough energy for the formation of a higgs there still is gravity, and mass still does its thing just fine. How does that work then?
This is really pretty silly. You think modern physics is silly without good reason?
The theory is that the Higgs field gives particles their mass. If there is a Higgs field there needs to be a Higgs particle which would be a sufficiently big wave in the Higgs field.
Higgs bosons are supposed to be unstable and collapse within a second. So they don't normally exist. That's why they can't be detected..
EPT
