E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
CERN
Lead-ion collisions recorded by the Large Hadron Collider's ALICE detector during this month's run show up in green on this graphic. Oxford physicist Frank Close says the LHC could solve cosmic puzzles.
In his new book, "The Infinity Puzzle: Quantum Field Theory and the Hunt for an Orderly Universe," Oxford physicist Frank Close reviews decades' worth of brain-teasing theories and looks ahead to puzzles yet to be solved.
Close traces the decades-long effort to find the deep connections between the fundamental forces of nature and resolve the "infinity puzzle" — that is, the fact that the mathematics of quantum theory came up with nonsensical numbers. That puzzle was eventually solved, as Close describes in the book, but an even bigger puzzle remains: Why is the cosmos built the way it is?
Some clues could emerge from Europe's Large Hadron Collider, where physicists are looking for a mysterious particle known as the Higgs boson. Close delves into the strange role that the Higgs plays in contemporary physics, but he emphasizes that his latest book is about much more than the science.
"'The Infinity Puzzle' is not just another story about the physics of the LHC," he told me this week. "It's focusing on the people. Science is a pure ideal, but the scientists who do it are people. And we all have the same desires and pressures. ... There are heroes and villains in science, as there are everywhere."
Close's tale illustrates that the course of true science doesn't always run smooth. It may well turn out that the long-sought Higgs boson is a will-o'-the-wisp, and physicists will have to go back to square one. But even that won't render "The Infinity Puzzle" out of date.
"If the Higgs boson turns out not to exist, and we have to completely rewrite everything, this book will show how we got to this conundrum," Close said. "And if it does exist, hopefully it will explain why it was so important."
The book is particularly timely, considering that this year's Nobel Prize ceremonies are due to take place in Stockholm and Oslo next week. During a wide-ranging interview, Close discussed his book as well as the people and the puzzles that inspired it. Here's an edited version of the Q&A:
Cosmic Log: Could you explain what the "infinity puzzle" is?
Frank Close: The Large Hadron Collider at CERN is the biggest experiment that particle physics has ever set out to do. It's trying to find the answer to why there is structure in the universe. The buzzword you hear is the Higgs boson, and the question is, who is Higgs, what's the boson, what's it all about?
Well, what it's all about is what "The Infinity Puzzle" is trying to answer. In telling the story, the book focuses on the people who brought us to this remarkable point in history. And in particular it focuses on a group of scientists who discovered two separate things, half a century ago. First, how to unite the electromagnetic force, the force that holds you and me together and makes magnets work, with the weak force of radioactivity, which plays a very important part in how the sun burns. This is called the electroweak theory today.
The other part of the story is how to make a theory, which works beautifully if there is no mass in anything at all, work in a world where particles have mass. That has become known as the Higgs mechanism, and the consummate object we're looking for is the Higgs boson. The questions surrounding whether these things are named correctly, whether the people who won Nobel Prizes in the past were the right people, and whether there are going to be controversies over Nobel Prizes in the future for all of these things — those are the themes of the book. It's about the politics of science, the way that people are driven to want to get the big prizes. Scientists suffer the same emotions that everybody else does.
Q: You touch on many of those personalities — some who received Nobels, and some who didn't but deserved to. Do those personalities actually shape the science? Are there things in the universe that we see in a particular way just because a scientist first described it in that way?
A: It's a very interesting question about the role of personality in being able to tease out the secrets of nature. There are some people who are strong mathematical calculators but don't necessarily have great vision. There are other people who have got great vision, but aren't particularly strong calculators. It's when these two types get together that rapid progress is often made.
Frank Close, author of "The Infinity Puzzle," talks about the story of the men whose breakthroughs led to the Large Hadron Collider.
Ultimately, there's a truth out there, and we're trying to find what it is. It's different for artists. If you're a Beethoven, if you're proposing some symphony and you don't publish it, the chance that somebody else will create the very same symphony someday ... well, that just doesn't happen. But in the case of science, nature has already constructed the symphony, and we're trying to find what it is.
The challenge is, suppose that you have uncovered a bit of the symphony, but you're not sure whether you want to go public with it, so you don't publish it. Then, a short time later, somebody else does publish it, a bit braver than you, and you realize that you were right all along. You've lost the credit. There's a certain point where you have to be brave enough to jump off the diving board and take the plunge, to mix in another metaphor. There are many examples of people who didn't take that last step, for one reason or another. You know the names of the winners, but you don't know the ones who didn't quite make it.
Q: When it comes to the Higgs boson, the question has arisen as to whether it actually exists. One of my colleagues has joked that if it's found, that's worth a Nobel. And if it's ruled out, that's worth a Nobel as well. Is that the way it works?
A: The idea that has led to the Higgs boson is a piece of beautiful mathematics. Whether nature actually does it is a question that only experiments can answer. Although the theorists are the ones that get all the press ... the Einsteins and the other names that trip off the tongue ... it's ultimately the experiments that decide. That's where we are at the moment.
The idea that there should be a Higgs boson, or something else that masquerades as that particle, has been around for a long time. It's only now that are finally able to do the experiments that will tell us one way or the other if that is the case. And if it is the case, we might find out exactly how nature plays this particular trick. When Peter Higgs and a group of other people first put the idea forward, they were trying to solve a particular conundrum, and they came up with the simplest way of doing it — that is, that there was a single particle known as the Higgs boson. That was 50 years ago. Since then, people have refined those original ideas, based on the discoveries we have made.
Basic Books
Oxford physicist Frank Close's book traces the decades-long quest to solve one of the biggest puzzles of quantum physics.
There are several possible ideas as to how nature might actually do this conjuring trick. It might be there's a whole family of particles called Higgsinos and other weird names. It might not be a simple particle. It might be a compound — just as an atom has a nucleus that's made of protons and neutrons, which are made of smaller things called quarks, there might be new sorts of particles waiting to be found, called techniquarks, which collectively act as if they were a single boson.
It might be those, it might be something else. We simply don't know. And that's the exciting thing. Nature knows the answer at the moment, and we're trying to find out at last what it is.
Q: Is the Higgs boson the only door to new physics, or are there other routes to going beyond the Standard Model of physics?
A: We certainly know that the Standard Model cannot be the final answer. It describes everything that we currently have explored, but there are many things we have to put in by hand. The mass of the electron is put in by hand. Why it is what it is, we don't know. But if it were different, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You start by putting in all these measured numbers, and then we can describe a vast amount of stuff. But there must be some richer theory out there that will show why the Standard Model is as it is.
An analogy is Newton's laws of mechanics, which worked perfectly for hundreds of years. They were later incorporated inside Einstein's theory of relativity, which is a much richer, more powerful theory that includes Newton in it. We suspect there is a "theory of everything" out there which will contain the Standard Model. We are hoping we'll get close to the nature of that theory at the Large Hadron Collider. The LHC is exploring regions of nature we've never been able to explore before. We've seen them from afar — it's a bit like knowing there's somebody around the corner but you haven't seen them yet.
We are entering new territory. We're creating in the laboratory the conditions that the universe experienced about a trillionth of a second after the big bang. There are observations that have taken us to a billionth of a second after the big bang, so we've been pretty near. You might think, "Oh, why would we want to get nearer?" It's because the stuff that you and I are made of was created in that cauldron of the big bang's aftermath, and there are puzzles yet to be solved.
For example, why is anything left today? Antimatter is real, and matter and antimatter annihilate when they meet. So why didn't the newborn universe annihilate itself after the big bang. There must be something that tipped the balance. What that is, we don't know for sure, but some hints are beginning to emerge from the Large Hadron Collider.
The real thing is, we're exploring a new continent, and the LHC will show us what is there. That will then answer many of these questions —and if I knew the answers now, I'd be riding off to Stockholm.
Q: You mentioned the fact that some of the values in the Standard Model have to be put in by hand, and that scientists are trying to find out if there's a deeper theory that explains why those values are as they are. Some physicists have said that it might just be a lucky break that we have those values, and that our universe might be merely one of the "bubbles" sitting on the wider landscape of the multiverse. Do you subscribe to that landscape view of the multiverse?
A: Well, of course, the simple answer is, I don't know. And to be honest, nobody knows. I feel sometimes it's a bit of a cop-out. The universe I find myself in is difficult enough to describe. The idea that it is one of a huge number of universes ... that might indeed be true, but if we cannot experimentally answer whether it is true or not, I'm not sure whether the question is actually scientific. It's interesting philosophically. It's possible that someday we might be able to come up with an experiment that can answer whether there are other universes, but then you get into interesting tautological questions. The "universe" is presumably everything we can be aware of. If there are other universes that we cannot be aware of, then they're beyond the capability of science to investigate. But if they are investigatable through science, they are in a sense part of our universe.
The real question is this: Are the masses of electrons and other fundamental particles essential numbers in their own right, or are they no more fundamental than the radii of the planets around the sun? We don't know yet. I can't imagine anything that the Large Hadron Collider will discover that will give us a clear insight as to why particles have the masses that they do. But if we discover the Higgs boson, or whatever it is, we may well find out where mass comes from. And there may be some interesting quirk that comes out of that discovery that will give us a clue as to why the masses are as they are. The excitement of science is that until you've done it, you don't know.
Q: It seems to me that you were on a BBC program some years ago that touched on this whole discussion over whether a particle collider could destroy the world.
A: Yes, and the world hasn't ended yet.
Q: Some people would say the controversy was actually good for physics because it was a "teachable moment" that got people interested in physics. How do you see it?
A: Well, to be fair, it was a controversy that no scientist really subscribed to. It was something that somebody dreamt up, and it created an interesting sensation. But it does give the opportunity to explain what the Large Hadron Collider is and is not. The idea that we are doing things in the Large Hadron Collider that have never been done before is not the case. It's the first time that we have been able to do them. But the universe at large has collided particles together at energies far in excess of anything we do at the LHC or will ever be able to do. Cosmic rays in outer space are subatomic particles whipped into violent motion by magnetic fields in the cosmos — and they hit the upper atmosphere at energies far in excess of anything at the LHC.
Nature has done the experiments before, and we're still here. It's just the first time that we have been doing them under controlled conditions to tease things out. There are more things in life to worry about than that.
More about the puzzles of physics:
- Three win Nobel for discovering cosmic speedup
- Physics prize highlights puzzles
- Hidden universes revealed
- Special report on the Large Hadron Collider
Close will make an appearance at Town Hall Seattle at 7:30 p.m. PT Friday to talk about his book and the Large Hadron Collider, and is due to visit Kepler's Books in Menlo Park, Calif., at 7 p.m. PT Dec. 6.
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
So far the LHC has found:
no string/brane exotica,
no sparticles,
no WIMPs,
no supersymmetry exotica,
no extra-dimensions,
no mini-black holes,
no Randall-Sundrum 5-D phenomena (gravitons, K-K gluons, etc.)
no porker Higgsy,
no evidence for ADS/CFT duality,
and nothing beyond the considerably pre-LHC standard model, which has 26-30 adjustable parameters.
Then there is the 120 orders-of-magnitude vacuum energy density crisis.
Then there is the bizarre and theoretically awkward conventional Planck, which bears no resemblance to anything in nature.
The relevant question is: Do we keep adding epicycles to the faltering aged paradigm, or do we seek a revolutionary new paradigm?
RLO
- Discrete Scale Relativity
"As above so is below" is a very old saying, but people just don't listen. :)
BTW the mass/gravity relationship is contrived and therefore useless. All motion is purely geometric and therefore harmonically scalable. Like musical tones arranged in octaves.
I find this article very interesting and something that I need to learn about, but what is heartbreaking to me is when I go to the comment section of the article, I find that over half of the conversation turns into a political war between the Republicans and Democrats, and to me, this is senseless, and a waist of time, instead, why don’t you people give it up and try to learn something for a change, and quit fighting over your petty political positions, it will not solve anything. Read the Article and learn something.
Have a good day Time and Lyn
The greatest discoveries are not in the affirmative--they are the unexpected. Being proven wrong has led to some of the greatest discoveries of mankind.
Amen Tom
Well, I asked for science and look what I got. A headache.
I agree Tom, but it is a waste of time, not waist of time.
ssb9
LOL I know that my friend My eyes are not very good anymore and I have to hunt an peck the keys LOL My eyes are very bad from being a land surveyor for 27 years and working out in the bright sun. But I will say that I try to spell all my words right but I have a hard time doing it.
You have a good day My friend , Tom And Lyn
Stop me if I am wrong you guys, I know very little about particle physics and I am one guy to admit when I am wrong. One of the things I am thinking about is some of these particles mite end up in another dimension, and until we learn more about other dimensions (If they exist) then we may never see all of the particles that are created when we smash the atoms together.
Have a good day, Tom And Lyn
Tom,
As the name suggests, the LHC, Large Hadron Collider, smash hadrons against each other. The hadrons are composite particles which contain the whole package, all the discoveries that remain are in these packages. So, they are meticulously combing across the mass energy spectrum in search of what ever pops out of the mysterious quantum confinements of spacetime.
They are hoping to see some evidence of supersymmetry but only if the Higgs boson can be found with sufficient time (slow enough decay rate) to study the effects. Hence, working backwards we may get some information on supersymmetry.
It is an exercise of creating and observing effects with sufficient certainty and deduce the causes then increasing the energy and repeat the process further backwards until we run out of causes.
Ad'M
Thank you my friend, I have learned more from your insight then a few people who think they know, we all here want to learn and gain some wisdom for why we are here, and why we need to continue learn more. we need not to say we know, but to ask the question why, that is how we learn and solve problems.
Thanks for your time my friend, Tom And Lyn
Ad'M
Please tell me if this video I have found is part and/or what you are saying. thanks agian Tom And Lyn
Here is the link to the video in question
'The God Particle': The Higgs Boson http://youtu.be/1_HrQVhgbeo
Here is another good video that helps me understand most of what we are talking about here, The Higgs Boson is a feild that the all particles go through in order to create Mass. if this is true then we would not exist with out it.
here is the video, The Higgs Boson and Mass http://youtu.be/RFGpNMe5eEQ
Tom,
I don't know your level of knowledge in quantum physics but below is a lecture given by the master himself, Dr. Steven Weinberg. He explains in layman language the links between the LHC, Higgs boson, and supersysmmetry quite well, of course. He is considered to be at the leading edges of quantum physics.
It is a one hour lecture but I am sure you will enjoy it. It is the real thing, especially at the start where he is forgetful about using the microphone. It is by no means signs of age but rather his great mind total submerged in the wonderful world physics.
I hope you will enjoy it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl4W3DYTIKw
Ad'M
Thanks :-) I need to go to work, I will be back In 8 hours, as soon as I get home I will be right on that video you have there. I have been a Land Surveyor for 27 years, been a amateur astronomer sense I was 7 years old, that would be 38 years, served 5 years in the US Air Force working on radar systems at Barksdale Air Force Base in Shreveport Louisiana, and I have a Masters in both Electronics and Computer Science. That is pretty much it for my education, one more thing I am pretty much losing my eye sight lol, but I just need the money to fix that problem, I am developing cataracts and I need surgery for it. So if you see bad spelling lol I just cant see the keys on my keyboard.
Ad'M If you are interested, here are a few videos I made and put on YouTube.
Take a look you will enjoy them.
"The Solar System" http://youtu.be/BT49AiYFV98
"Hubble's Jewel Box" http://youtu.be/CjzJNab3P1Q
You have a good day, Tom And Lyn
Right with ya Robert, I'm no microphysics expert, but this stuff, along with so called 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' all just make me wonder if we are completely barking up the wrong tree.
The UFOs are from the sub quantum world which the SM had been trying to write off for a century. It is the inertial locking of space which needs to be understood and STR needs to be modified before LHC folks can read what they see. I had been conducting experiments and some information could be found on my site anadish.com . You may not take me seriously for the time being; however, with 'time' things will change, as the need to explain the anomalies at LHC grow!
Silly, they're just humans from the future. They can travel backwards in time limited distances, and are trying to figure out what went wrong on Earth so they can save our future.
Anadish,
It is Max Planck fault. :-)
I have a question for you. In Brian Fraser's essay he wrote:
What techniques is he talking about? Any references?
@Ad'm
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp
@Mr Oldershaw: IMO, you are absolutely correct. In my view we are looking inward when we should be looking outward. We observe phenomena and attribute it to a multitude of particles. Most of which create more questions than answers. Then we observe the known Universe with the same mindset of pre-Columbus peasants wondering what happens when we get to the end... In my view, the age of the Universe and the distances involved to the most distant spaces is off by an unknown factor. Looking for dark energy and matter is a fool's errand IMO. The visible, measured, and perceived Universe, well it's hubris to presume that's all there is. Measure our Oort Cloud, and take direct readings of interstellar space before indulging in more mysterious matter, particles, or forces. Yes, Mr O, let's step back for a moment. What is the most dominant form in the Universe? It is the circle, round and concentric. The tide doesn't go out and keep going. Go round the world and you don't wind up in a different dimension. IMO we should be looking for the curve of the Universe and consider alternate principles rather than create justifications, back stories, and drama for every particle and quirky (quarky?) observation we make. In other words: THE UNIVERSE IS ROUND.
Deficiencies of the Standard Model of Particle Physics
The Standard Model is primarily a heuristic model with 26-30 fundamental parameters that have to be “put in by hand”.
The Standard Model cannot predict the masses of the fundamental particles that make up all of the luminous matter that we can observe.
The Standard Model did not predict the existence of the dark matter that constitutes the overwhelming majority of matter in the cosmos. The Standard Model describes heuristically the "foam on top of the ocean".
The vacuum energy density crisis clearly suggests a fundamental flaw at the very heart of particle physics. The VED crisis involves the fact that the vacuum energy densities predicted or measured by particle physicists (microcosm) and cosmologists (macrocosm) differ by up to 120 orders of magnitude (roughly 1070 to 10120, depending on how one estimates the particle physics VED).
The Planck mass is highly unnatural, i.e., it bears no relation to any particle observed in nature, and calls into question the foundations of the quantum chromodynamics sector of the Standard Model.
Many of the key particles of the Standard Model have never been directly observed. Rather, their existence is inferred from secondary, or more likely, tertiary decay products. Quantum chromodynamics is entirely built on inference, conjecture and speculation. It is too complex for simple definitive predictions and testing.
RLO - Discrete Fractal Cosmology - Discrete Scale Relativity
If the solutions (observables) from two or more events are the same and repeatable then the events must be describing the same cause.
This is the fundamental premise of the SM and this is why the beautiful math allowed Peter Higgs to postulate the Higgs field.
The question for me is not whether the Higgs boson exists or not but rather is the Higgs field is the resultant force of free energy vortices? That specific space and time where the vortices line up to transfer angular momentum from one "boson" to an adjacent one.
It's funny that these collision experiments are done within an intense magnetic field to see the paths that particles follow. Kinda like what path will you follow when you enter a Walmart or Target store.
The electron is probably the most important particle ever to exist in terms of what it does. Bonding, electricity, the work involved in producing light etc. The versatility of that thing called the electron is astounding.
Take a good hit of strong acid and figure it all out. Then get back to us........if you can find your way back.
That is all very interesting, but as a republican, I would like to know the following:
1) How is all this going to lower taxes for corporations and the wealthy?
2) Are you trying to replace God with a set of formulas? And if so, I hope someone stops funding for this devil work.
3) the supposed "global warming" scam has taught us all that scientist will say anything to get government money. Why should we believe anything you liars say?
4) God created man in his image. Why do you want to look behind the curtain at the puppet show? Do you want to deconstruct the mystery and joy of life itself? I know that scientists are athiests, and thus have no moral basis (how can anyone have morals if the rules haven't been divinely bestowed and they don't fear punishment for immoral behavior?). Thus science is immoral and wrong and only will lead mankind astray.
5) Joe the Plumber knows more about the world than you eggheads. He FEELS it in his gut. That is human! You eggheads just make up a bunch of crazy unbelievable stuff that only you understand and expect the rest of us to take your word on faith. Well I tell you, my faith has a 2000 year head start on yours, so basically you can shove it.
lol,
You're in jest, right?
LOL............You must get back on your meds as soon as possible. Not understanding something is common, however you don't dis other peoples work because you are ignorant. Your post confirms your lack of understanding and exposes your lack of education. If you don't know or don't understand something there is no use in disembling with remarks that would make a moron cringe. Just pass on these subjects, don't get in over your head.
Interesting that you founded your questions on your being a republican. It's becoming obvious that the republican party is composed of a very few extremely intelligent but morally deficient wealthy at the top and masses of ignorants below who are led around like sheep by their rich masters. It serves the masters well to keep the sheep as ignorant as possible. You are a prime example.
1) So.. making the rich richer and the poor poorer is the solution? Perhaps we should go back to serfs and slaves?
2) One could argue they are God's formulas in the first place. After all, if he made everything they must be how He ordered it, hmmm?
3) Why are you posting against science on a tool created by science? Shed you chains of technology and return to a life of innocence, faith, and simplicity !!! Your cave and stone age tools cry out for your return. At night you can gaze up at the fires of God in the sky.
P.S. Remember to bang the rocks together !
I find it very sad that people are now so acustom to science being attacked in ridiculous fashion that what should be obvious satire is taken seriously.
LOL,
My apologies then. It is sad to find that running it out to the edge in sarcasm appears to be the normal old everyday rightwing idiocy rap. It's happened to me a few times when my sarcasm was taken seriously. Tis sad.
And we thought the Neanderthal was extinct....[ enjoyed the satire....]
I got a chuckle.
great troll, I lol'd.
But give us the best physics and engineering possible, where weapons are concerned...
(And understand,we do have enemies, but it's sad that the people that LOL-at-AZ is satirizing, think of 'science' only where defense and security are the issue...)
That's just what I was going to say!
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax asked whether I had any suggestions for where theoretical physics went off track.
My answer is below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitely!
Physics has suffered because of its inability to bring the fundamental symmetry: relativity of scale, into its theories.
Weyl, Einstein, Dirac and a host of others tried repeatedly to accomplish this, but it never seemed to work.
However, if your emphasis is on studying nature, instead of studying mathematical models, then you can see how nature accomplishes this.
Nature cannot have continuous conformal symmetry because that strongly violates our empirical knowledge of nature.
But discrete conformal symmetry does not need to conflict with empirical results.
If the laws of physics, especially gravitation, are recast with discrete conformal symmetry, then you get a new and completely different understanding of nature in terms of a discrete self-similar hierarchy that has no bounds.
With this new paradigm you can unify GR and QM, explain the fine structure constant, demystify h-bar, resolve the vacuum energy density crisis, predict the exact nature of the dark matter, retrodict the masses of all particles (including the electron), and have a proper understanding of the hierarchy of Planck scales.
This new paradigm predicted pulsar-planets, and it predicted the hundreds of billions of unbound planetary-mass objects recently inferred as roaming free throughout the Galaxy. It makes an exact prediction for the dark matter mass spectrum.
I have a website that serves as a teaching resource for this new paradigm.
RLO
Fractal Cosmology
Discrete Scale Relativity
Robert,
Let me lay a joke out here. Take the saying "in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god, all things were made by........", then change out the "word" with "gnosis" (to know?), then collapse the wave with consciousness and what do you come up with? You are part of the creation?
I believe that all these mathematical models of reality that leave out consciousness will eternally spin in circles and never come up with any final answer.
Exactly, IMHO.
I hate to do this, because I simply love quantum mechanics, but...
"[...]but an even bigger puzzle remains: Why is the cosmos built the way it is?"
I can answer this, but no one will like the answer.
The cosmos is built the way it is because....
It simply has to be. No other way would work and allow for life to have come into existence on this planet in the matter in which it has. Had even a single lepton been anywhere else as the universe formed, we would not be here right now having this discussion.
Indigo-Rage:
Everything in the universe is as is, as it would be different if is wasn't.
The problems occur when thinking what if a part of is wasn't where it was suppose to be or not here at all?
Do we then have a different Universe with different laws and elements, or do we have one that is almost exactly the same, just without the missing part? Would we even know at this point?
If this Universe can not be anything else than what it is, then was it predetermined or just is because this is all we know it to be? I think it is all we know it to be as when a part is missing, we will not miss it, if we don't know it is missing.
If it was predetermined then you get into a Divine presence and everything is as it was designed to be. Including the puzzles we are trying to decode.
In the end eveything seems to equal to zero or infinity, once we have an answer, it again equals to zero or infinity. and if we have an answer to everything then its an infinate loop or started at zero, and on and on and on; even though im not religious, the concept of "god" is also infinity.....the rest can get blown out into its own topics and subtopics
Brownh,
Think of the infinity of the number ONE. To even think of "one" makes two. The "one" and the other "one" thinking about it. Just can't be dealt with in any form of dualistic reality. Can't be thought about in any meaningful way. But there are those who say it "can be experienced". I think this is what was meant by the statement "God is One".
I think quantum physics comes into this in what they call the "collapse of the wave" in that it is consciousness that brings an event from the infinite probabilities into the manifest reality. In the beginning was the gnosis, in other words.
Deep subject and all of the attempts through history to explain it in terms of philosophy, science, and religion have all come up short. I doubt if we are going to solve it here on this forum.
I just want to track this discussion!
I'm very interested in what CERN comes up with.
For some reason, though, even though I do believe the Higgs force is real, I don't think the boson being looked for exists. I definitely buy into parallel and multiple universes, so I think that some very interesting multidimensional interference patterns from the vibrations of all those different dimensions on each other is what is acting as the Higgs force affecting different particles as they vibrate in it which we then perceive as mass. So then there is no particle to find.
However, once we actually observe this force at work, a particle may spring into existence from those interference waves into matter simply through the act of observation.
Wouldn't it be ironic if the observers as just men created matter from nothing while looking for what the media has dubbed the "God Particle"?
Mike,
You are not that far off by much. I do suggest to drop the multidimensional interference stuff, that only clouds the visual effects.
Have a look at this:
http://www.pks.mpg.de/~henkel/Articles/arXiv:1102.2121.pdf
Conclusion:
We are getting close, stay tuned.
I wonder what Mr. ScienceMan has to say about The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
also
The LHC - Gonna kill you dead...
Higgs Boson found in the lint in my dryer. Please send the Nobel Prize in the attached self addressed envelope.
Hey, I already found the Higgs Boson in my belly button, too. Trust me, its not everything its 'cracked up' to be. Talk about super symmetry, though!
And I thought physicists were finally looking into the Female Org@sm.
Science is beautiful. Scientists attempt to find an answer to a single question, only to discover a thousand more questions.
Some of the things said in these comments seem perfectly rational, but for the most part, I'm drowning in all the 'not even wrong' physics-babble...
See ya. I have to go up for air now.
An Embarrassingly Obvious Theory Of Everything
EOTOE, Some Implications (I)
A.
EOTOE is an Embarrassingly Obvious Theory Of Everything.
In essence it states that all things in the universe, nouns and verbs objects
and processes, originate and derive from the energy-mass dualism.
Origin and essence of this derivation are expressed mathematically by
E=Total[m(1+ D)] (D = distance travelled by mass since singularity)
Which suggests that the universe cycles between two poles: singularity/all-mass
, and maximum-expanded/nearly-all-energy.
The “nearly” all-energy leaves behind some mass formats that begin consolidating by gravity, when it eventually overcomes expansion as the mass fueling the expansion is nearly depleted, becoming very small m multiplied by very large D = E .
B.
Thus the essence/definition of gravitation is:
“Gravitation Is the propensity of energy reconversion to mass”.
Gravitation is the “monotheism” and the “ genesis” of the universe.
Singularity, at D = 0, is the very brief all-mass pole of the universe. The Big-Bang-inflation did not produce matter or anti-matter. It was the beginning of mass reconversion into energy, of increasing D fueled by decreasing m.
The conjectured gravitons, smallest basic particles, most probably do exist, but must be with mass, and gravitons microclusters must “big-bang” during the on-going expansion at a resolution of their energy-mass superposition.
This is rationally commonsensical, therefore it is scientifically probable.
Inflation started with the whole universe m shattering into fragments that evolved into, became, the galaxy clusters. The clusters expansion is fed at a constant rate by m-fuel. Since expansion accelerates, since the clusters depart from each other at an ever increasing velocity, we learn that the rate of m-to-E reconversion in the universe is constant. The accelerated expansion derives from the ever decreasing m of each cluster.
C.
Thus the essence/definition of evolution, natural selection is:
Mass formats attaining temporary augmented energy constraint in their successive generations, with energy drained from other mass formats, to temporarily postpone, survive, the reversion of their own constitutional mass to the pool of cosmic energy fueling the galactic clusters expansion.
This explains why black holes and humans, in fact all mass formats, must feed themselves in order to survive.
This explains that the essence of quantum mechanics of all processes is the detailed procession steps, the evolution details, between physical states ordained for natural selection.
D.
Thus comes to light the universe inspected progressively in greater detail.
Science reveals the universe’s nature-scope and directing drive, followed by technology studying its evolution details-aspects, followed by engineering exploitation of the attained information. This suggests the specific weight, importance, of science, technology and engineering in considering of research or enterprise plans and implementation.
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/
PS1:
Definitely: Dark energy and dark matter YOK! Universe's m reconverts to E at a constant rate…
Universe accelerated expansion is per Newton's motion laws, obviously…
Also, universe physics constants should vary, probably slightly, between galaxies clusters due to different clusters sizes...
Also, the clusters formed by dispersion at inflation…
PS2:
The singularity constituents must have been the smallest elementary particles.
They may be designated gravitons, but they MUST HAVE MASS. They were born at the energy-mass superposition resolution, together with the fragments that became galaxies clusters.
At expansion D increases, therefore m decreases, which per Newton mandates mass and matter acceleration. This goes on, most probably, at a constant rate of mass-to-energy reconversion, at an energy-mass resolution, mandated by the equality of both sides of the top equation.. And this resolution is, for each graviton, most probably in a format of a minuscule big-bang.
This is a lesser fantasy than the dark matter and energy fantasy. Such mass-energy gravitons may be omnipresent within each galaxies cluster, maintaining each cluster as a primordial Newtonian body and being the fuel-driver of expansion.
DH
==============================
EOTOE, Some Implications (II)
This equation describes the presently expanding universe:
E=Total[m(1 + D)] D = distance travelled by mass since singularity
This equation describes the future contracting universe:
E=Total[m(1 + D)] D = reduced expansion distance travelled by mass in the preceding expansion phase
Implications:
The base units of mass - may be designated gravitons but MUST have mass - are not temporal, they never disappear.
In the present expanding universe they are in motion as mD away from the singularity point.
Those of them that hit a whatever mass format and move it become inert. This will go on until all or nearly all of them cease moving forward, i.e. until D ceases growing.
When D ceases growing gravitation will overcome the inertial motion away from the singularity point and will start pulling them back towards it. It is then that D will start diminishing, to maintain the equation’s equality…
And MORE, MUCH MORE:
The rational commonsensical, and therefore scientifically probable, implication is that Space is imbued with these massed gravitons that are continuously left behind during Expansion… also as micro clusters sized between gravitons and neutrinos…
DH
=========================
EOTOE, Some Implications (III)
Classically:
Energy = dynamic quality, the capacity of acting or being active, a fundamental entity of nature that is transferred between componentsts of a system in the production of physical change within the system and usually regarded as the capacity for doing work.
Mass = Mass is the quantity of inertia possessed by an object or the proportion between force and acceleration referred to in Newton’s Second Law of Motion.
Per EOTOE :
E=Total[m(1 + D)] D = distance travelled by mass since singularity
Energy is mass in motion.
The mass of the universe is either in motion or in the form of inert massed gravitons, with which the universe is imbued.
m of the EOTOE equation is only the energetic m, the m which is in motion.
The inert gravitons do not play a role in the E,m,D relationship. At the (present) universe expansion phase mass reconverts to energy at a constant rate, leaving behind inert gravitons. Inert gravitons become energetically active when they are reset in motion, i.e. when acted upon by energy, such as by gravity during the universe re-contraction phase.
Dov Henis (comments from the 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com
On Light And Dark Mass And Energy
http://universe-life.com/2011/10/03/on-light-and-dark-mass-and-energy/
=======================
EOTOE, Some Implications (IV)
This equation describes the future contracting universe:
E=Total[m(1 + D)] D = reduced expansion distance travelled by mass in the preceding expansion phase
Elaboration and conjectured implications:
D is the distance travelled by mass in all spatial directions emanating from the Big-Bang singularity point. During contraction it decreases, accompanied with increasing m effected by the constant E.
A commonsensible conjecture is that contraction is initiated following the Big-Bang event, steadily re-forming the Universe Singularity simultaneously with the inflation and expansion, i.e. that universal expansion and contraction are going on simultaneously.
Additional conjectured implications are that the Universe is a product of A Universal Black Hole with a Singularity consisting of mass gravitons, and that gravitation is a weak force due to the graviton’s size.
Dov Henis
(comments from the 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/2011/10/07/eotoe-some-implications-i/
http://universe-life.com/2011/10/14/eotoe-some-implications-2/
http://universe-life.com/2011/10/26/eotoe-some-implications-iii/
Dov, I don't want to hurt your feelings but you got it all backward. E=mc2 means Energy equals accellerated mass therefore m=E/c2 means that mass equals decellerated energy. Therefore singularity is all energy and mass (or appearance of mass) is created only when this energy expands and 'slows' down according to Lorentz force and angular momentum. The LF and AM is the same principle but on different scales.
EOTOE, Some Implications (v)
The Gravitons Nature-Origin Puzzle
My model for the EOTOE has been evolutionary biology. Since life must be just another mass format, and due to the oneness of the universe, it is commonsensical that natural selection is ubiquitous and that life, self-replication, is its extension. And it is commonsensical, too, that evolutions, broken symmetry scenarios, are ubiquitous in all processes in all disciplines and that these evolutions are the "quantum mechanics" of the processes.
However, there is yet an origin of origins puzzle.
Whereas the genesis of genes, life's primal organisms, is rationally commonsensical, thus highly probably, the "naturally-selected" RNA nucleotides - the existence, origin and nature of the rationally commonsensical conjectured massed graviton are yet much farther from probable than the nucleotides life's genesis. The gravitons are more enigmatic because science has not yet accumulated the extent and variegated considerations and examinations required to approach the comprehension of the origin of origins of the universe.
PS: From
http://universe-life.com/2011/12/13/21st-century-science-whence-and-whither/
notwithstanding…
"The origin-reason and the purpose-fate of life are mechanistic, ethically and practically valueless. Life is the cheapest commodity on Earth. Human life is just one of many nature's routes for the natural survival of RNAs, the base primal Earth organisms.
It is up to humans themselves to elect the purpose and format of their life as individuals and as group-members."
===========================
EOTOE, Some Implications (VI)
Yet something about the gravitons
Yet one possible conjecture about the gravitons is that they, too, must have a dual mass-energy nature…
From singularity it is a rationally commonsensical conjecture that they are a mass format, the smallest elementary mass particles.
Nevertheless from the Big-Bang it is a rationally commonsensical conjecture that they must also be energy, i.e. mass in motion, even at singularity. This is rationally commonsensical since otherwise the Big would not Bang…
This raises the origin of origins puzzle to an unknown power…
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/
PS: Wondering what/why black-hole scientists think/conjecture re this…
Dov,
According to your model, life should exist in almost every solar (star) system in the universe.
I don't disagree with your analogue of the processes, but I think you have it backwards. The self-replication of the initial mechanism evolved into higher and higher order structures leading up to life forms. I believe biological organisms are at the higher end of the universal mechanisms.
Simply identifying a particle, graviton, and postulating an extension of the Standard Model is not enough. I don't disagree that the graviton could very well be the smallest quanta, we still need the correct mechanism for it's creation and it's evolution to the higher order particles.
I believe the key to solving the TOE is a clear understanding of the fourth dimension, time. As Dr E once stated, it was man who entangled time into the equations because it was so commonsensical. But maybe we just clouded the issue and maybe we need to go back and have a closer look at the depended variables. As I see time as over simplifying reality, I see string theory as over complicating reality.
The most interesting proposition I have heard so far is to maybe we should formulate using a Lorentz transformation using space/velocity ratios, instead of space/time. To assume there must be a linear transformation between velocity and time is an over simplification and as I already mentioned probably our fundamental error in our equations.
Oh. where are you Dr E, you left us to early.
Happy hunting Dov. :-)
Universe-Energy-Mass-Life Compilation
http://universe-life.com/2012/02/03/universe-energy-mass-life-compilation/
A. The Universe
From the Big-Bang it is a rationally commonsensical conjecture that the gravitons, the smallest base primal particles of the universe, must be both mass and energy, i.e. inert mass yet in motion even at the briefest fraction of a second of the pre Big Bang singularity. This is rationally commonsensical since otherwise the Big would not have Banged, the superposition of mass and energy would not have been resolved.
The universe originates, derives and evolves from this energy-mass dualism which is possible and probable due to the small size of the gravitons.
Since gravitation Is the propensity of energy reconversion to mass and energy is mass in motion, gravity is the force exerted between mass formats.
All the matter of the universe is a progeny of the gravitons evolutions, of the natural selection of mass, of some of the mass formats attaining temporary augmented energy constraint in their successive generations, with energy drained from other mass formats, to temporarily postpone, survive, the reversion of their own constitutional mass to the pool of cosmic energy fueling the galactic clusters expansion set in motion by the Big Bang.
B. Earth Life
Earth Life is just another mass format. A self-replicating mass format. Self-replication is its mode of evolution, natural selection. Its smallest base primal units are the RNAs genes.
The genesis of RNAs genes, life's primal organisms, is rationally commonsensical thus highly probable, the "naturally-selected" RNA nucleotides. Life began/evolved on Earth with the natural selection of inanimate RNA, then of some RNA nucleotides, then arriving at the ultimate mode of natural selection, self-replication.
C. Know Thyself. Life Is Simpler Than We Are Told
The origin-reason and the purpose-fate of life are mechanistic, ethically and practically valueless. Life is the cheapest commodity on Earth.
As Life is just another mass format, due to the oneness of the universe it is commonsensical that natural selection is ubiquitous for ALL mass formats and that life, self-replication, is its extension. And it is commonsensical, too, that evolutions, broken symmetry scenarios, are ubiquitous in all processes in all disciplines and that these evolutions are the "quantum mechanics" of the processes.
Human life is just one of many nature's routes for the natural survival of RNAs, the base primal Earth organisms.
Life's evolution, self-replication:
Genes (organisms) to genomes (organisms) to monocellular to multicellular organisms:
Individual monocells to cooperative monocells communities,"cultures".
Monocells cultures to neural systems, then to nerved multicellular organisms.
Human life is just one of many nature's routes for the natural survival of RNAs, the base Earth organism.
It is up to humans themselves to elect the purpose and format of their life as individuals and as group-members.
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
An Embarrassingly Obvious Theory Of Everything
http://universe-life.com/2011/12/10/eotoe-embarrassingly-obvious-theory-of-everything/
http://universe-life.com/2011/12/13/21st-century-science-whence-and-whither/