The infinity that mathematics embraces shows up in the equations which express how mass, space, and time change as one approaches the speed of light. We know, for example, that mass dilation occurs because we've measured it, and the measurements match the predictions of the Einstein-Lorentz equations. In order for anything with rest mass to attain the speed of light an infinite amount of energy must be expended. If you can find your way around that...well, I wish you the best of luck.

Consider though that if YOU hitched a ride on a photon (traveling at the speed of light) YOU would not be subject to the passing of time. Therefore, you can travel infinitely far without time passing which means when doing the math and dividing by zero, you are going infinitely fast. Ahhh, but that only takes you "to infinity.." Try hitching a ride on a neutrino and then you can say "and beyond"

It's a barrier because as an object approaches the speed of light its mass nears infinity.

Hey Jim,

You would not require an infinite amount energy if the packet bandwidth flattens out (soliton amplitude reduces while the bandwidth increases to approach a free wave, so as to maintain conservation of energy and momentum), as the propagation approaches the speed of light.

The question then becomes whether the soliton can reach and/or exceed the speed barrier, lose it's quantum numbers, change flavors and/or even become bosonic (reverse back to symmetry)

Some of these characteristics are showing up in those alleged superluminal neutrinos. One of the bloggers at arXra.log mentioned that OPERA has reached 5 sigma and neutrino are still superluminal. I cannot confirm if the 5 sigma is accurate but the result distribution are the same (exceed the speed of light).

It would not be such a stretch if the Lorentz transformations apply to mass/velocity as the do to velocity/time.

I always thought that Einstein wasn't that bright, when he stated the speed of light as a limit. We just don't know how to go faster....yet.

They asked what is the "top twist" and I'd have to say something thought to be faster than light. But since modern engineers have crashed spacecraft into Mars because of "math errors" and I wonder how many can really calculate this stuff correctly, I remain unconvinced at the moment. I expect someone to find the math error and dispute this claim.

I always thought that Einstein wasn't that bright

Seriously?? One of the greatest minds in recorded history and you are saying he "wasn't that bright"?

It took mankind 40 years just to begin to understand and apply his theory of 'general' relativity ('special' relativity was accepted and applied much earlier). So if Einstein "wasn't that bright", what does that say about the rest of us??

Seriously?? One of the greatest minds in recorded history and you are saying he "wasn't that bright"?

So if Einstein "wasn't that bright",

cjsks and mob_barley, his entire quote was: "I always thought that Einstein wasn't that bright, when he stated the speed of light as a limit." I still would not have typed that if I were him, but there is a difference between what he typed and what you quoted. Not trying to pick a fight with either of you, nor am I trying to defend Chuck's statement, but his entire quote has a different meaning than the part you two cherry-picked. I wish the both of you a Happy New Year!

Einstein was bright. It is not a qualitative question of whether we like what he says; it is the quantitative fact that anyone who can take the equations from the highest mathematics and mold them into unique theories is the brightest amongst us.

Happy new year to you as well Robert. But, I have to defend what I've said. I do not regard it as cherry picking. Whether or not you include the last part is irrelevant. The meaning, in this case, is the same. Chuck says that Einstein wasn't the bright. You could say "Einstein wasn't that bright because he ate lead paint chips as a boy" and you could say "Einstein wasn't that bright because he stated the speed of light as a limit." Both sentences have the exact same meaning - that Einstein isn't that bright.

And to go one further, I think it really shows a lack of understanding and/or respect (by Chuck) of the work that Einstein actually did to back up his ideas. It's not like he just used the speed of light as some arbitrary limit. It's not like he's eating paint chips because he's bored (lol). Einstein was incredibly bright and his special relativity has shown that the speed of light is the maximum speed at which all energy, matter, and information in the universe can travel.

But, I have to defend what I've said. I do not regard it as cherry picking. Whether or not you include the last part is irrelevant. The meaning, in this case, is the same.

Mob, fair enough and I can see the reasoning behind your statement. I personally interpreted Chuck's statement to mean Einstein was wrong on one particular point, not that he wasn't very bright. Kind of like the way I would type "General Lee was a brilliant tactician, but his decision to advance into Appomattox wasn't very bright." Our disagreement on that is minor; what is important is we both agree Einstein was a special human being that did the rest of us a favor and advanced mankind's knowledge. I'm going on a badly needed mini-vacation so there won't be any posting from me for a few days, but have a Happy New Year's celebration my friend. I'm sure we will have another chance to exchange ideas in the future.

I can see what you mean. Still, I have to say that there is still a difference between the General Lee sentence and the Einstein sentence. You are saying that Lee's decision is not bright, and Chuck is saying that Einstein himself is not bright, because of the one particular point. Chuck didn't phrase it that the point was the thing that was not bright. At least, that's not how I would interpret it.

However, I am notoriously bad at getting what people mean out of what they type, particularly when it comes to humor. So, I will yield to you on this topic, as you are probably right about what Chuck ultimately meant. Have a great New Year's and I'll catch you on the flip side.

Einstein's postulate, which science treats as holy grail fact, discounts his general theory of all things being relative to the observer. The velocity of light is immutable so long as one remains on our Earthly platform and it varies even then depending on our positional distance from the Sun. No two experiments conducted to determine the speed of light on Earth have ever yielded the exact same results. An experiment conducted in July will show a slightly higher velocity than one conducted in December-January. Mercury is a case in point, from our vantage point(Earth), Mercury does not close its orbit by some 7,500 miles per century. This is theoretically an impossibility unless Mercury beats to a different drummer timewise. Time is foreshortened on Mercury and to an observer on that platform he would detect no such anomaly, but looking out at Earth he would see our Planet arrive 7,500 miles ahead of schedule over the same period. The velocity of light in the vicinity of Mercury is about three miles slower than our value on Earth and not because it is in motion at a slower rate but simply because Mercury's time momentum is longer than ours. Our value for "c" is a composite average of every determination made over the years. All other determinants are viewed from this average value, so it is probably true that a neutrino could exceed this average value in some instances and conversely be under this average value in other experiments. The question is what is a neutrino. If it has a measureable mass it cannot exceed the velocity of light in any case.

It could be that when light hits the edge of the universe, it bounces. So, when we look up at the night sky, we could be seeing a giant hall of mirrors, and the distant galaxies may simply be reflections of other galaxies, or even our own. Furthermore, the universe may be way smaller than we ever imagined.

No scientific basis for any of that BTW. Just sort of pulled it out of my black hole.

The "edge of the universe" is simply the limit to how far we can see. Once the light coming from far away red-shifts to zero frequency (meaning it no longer has energy) we can't see it anymore, but that doesn't mean the original source doesn't exist. Our 13.7-billion-ish year old universe probably has a width of at least 78 billion light years (as calculated in 2004).

But, to the original question--yes, the extent to which light as traveled determines the size of the universe, because the universe consists of whatever volume from which we can receive information.

There's nothing out there against which light could bounce, I'm afraid.

It turns out that space actually *is* an expanding balloon and the "stuff" in space, light, intergalactic wind, etc., hitting the inside surface is what causes it's expansion. So light, et al, travels through space, reaches the "edge" of space, is absorbed by the "edge" causing that surface to become larger. Space is anchored to the surface, so as the surface expands the interior space is stretched. As the universe ages more material reaches this boundary and, having much more energy than light, causes the expansion at an increased rate.

This is where theories abound over the big bang and the time immediately after. If you believe in inflation (I'm not sure I do) then the universe exceeded the speed of light for a short time due to the strong and weak nuclear forces, the electomagnetic force and gravity not yet being four seperate and distinct forces in the universe. Therefore, the light from the big bang would be at the edge and would take longer to get to us than the current age of the universe. So if you assume inflation is true as currenty postulated, then you could come up with an example where the universe may be say 13.4 billion years old, but the edge of which is equal to a linear growth of a universe that is, say 13.8 billion years old due to inflation (nonlinear growth at the beginning). If there is light from the big bang, it simply doesn't have time to reach us from the edge and therefore we can't see it. We have detected an enormous blanket of radiation that coincides with a period in the universe before mass condensed to superheated pressures, i.e. before the first stars were born and shone their light on a dark universe. And "edge of the universe" does actually refer to a finite edge and we are still studying dark matter/energy.

On the subject of the nutrinos (I'm not a physicist so if I'm wrong please correct me..) E=MC^2 means that mass is the limiting factor to one's speed, not light. The light particle (photons) simply have the lowest mass of any particle discovered (before this year's extra peppy nutrinos) and would therefore require the least amount of energy to accelerate themselves lending them the title of "fastest @!$%#ing thing in the universe." If a nutrino or other particle can have a lower mass than a photon, they can theoretically travel (and accelerate/decelerate) at a faster rate than light speed. If you can magically negate your mass to where it is infinitesimally small, then you could (theoretically) win a race. But this isn't a videogame (*cough* MASS EFFECT *cough*) so don't expect that to happen anytime soon.

It turns out that space actually *is* an expanding balloon and the "stuff" in space, light, intergalactic wind, etc. hitting the inside surface is what causes it's expansion. So light, et al, travels through space, reaches the "edge" of space, is absorbed by the "edge" causing that surface to become larger. Space is anchored to the surface, so as the surface expands the interior space is stretched. As the universe ages more material reaches this boundary and, having much more energy than light, causes the expansion at an increased rate.

Dammit!! wouldn't you know it? I misspelled neutrino. Is there a way to go back and edit this stuff before it is locked up on the internet for the next 10^10^10 years? And don't tell me what that number is, please. Math gives me grief.

Does the theory of multiple universes explain some of the above 'conundrums'?

@a matter of fact: The fact that the '"edge of the universe" does actually refer to a finite edge' doesn't mean any edge exists. I can talk about lots of things that don't exist. No two-dimensional edge exists on a sphere; if you were confined to the surface of a sphere, you could travel forever without coming to an edge. Our universe *might* be analogous--you could travel forever in three dimensions without coming to an edge.

As for light particles, they not only have the lowest rest mass of any particle, it's actually zero, which is why they can (and must) travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. No acceleration is involved. Unless there's some new physics, the only way a particle could travel faster (given the physics we know) would be if its rest mass were an imaginary number--that's the mass hypothetical tachyons would have.

Mathematics can and does prove anything given an impirical number and any set of other mathematical signs whose definition we give them, can prove that up is down or any angle in between. There are over ten thousand postulates advanced by science and scientist to prove everything from black holes to parallel universes to singularities to worm holes. Yet none of these things have ever been directly observed other than from mathematical models. Science uses mathematics to advance fictional realms, I believe because they in some cases do not understand what they are observing.They would rather believe that a fictional god (small g intentional) particle created all of the observable mass in the amount of space it inhabits because this space is too large to be explained by a finite velocity of light in the alloted time of a big bang (small b's intentional). A whole field of science is devoted to proving the big bang theory and the time of its occurance some 13.7 billion years hence. But in cannot explain how matter (mass) is found some fifteen billion light years in all directions if light has one immutable velocity throughout the universe. A god particle, which did not or does not operate according to our existing physical laws would explain this. We can turn our telescopes in any direction and as our astronomers say see the universe as it was eight or ten billion years ago. If this is so in which direction did the big bang occur. A big bang indicates that it had a point of origination. If one can look in any direction and observe its beginning throes, this implies that it began all around us which is a oxymoroon of the first water. Hubble advanced this theory based on man's knowledge up to that point aided by two postulates by physicists of renown. Einstein said that light could move no faster than our value and Doppler said a receding train changes the pitch of the waves one hears. In Einstein's postulate he later modified it to include the observers position and in Doppler's case no proof exists that the electromagnetic wave changes pitch in a vacuum. Doppler's theory operates exclusively in a medium of transfer, air, water or the mass of the Earth. Hubble had to assume that if light speed was immutable, the so called red shift had to be caused by the source of light receding away from our observation platform (Earth) per Doppler's theory. If the big bang theory were proposed today it would be dismissed out of hand as being unworkable and too full of holes.

Thank you, N.C. I thought that I was the only "Big Bang" heretic. The idea that the unimaginable amount of matter and energy in the universe, even as we currently can measure it, was contained in an infinitely small point violates my sense of logic.

Soap Bubbles

Not disagreeing with anything brought up in response to my post but I wanted to add a couple of things. To the question of an edge: there is an excellent episode of Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman that talks about this very thing. Believe me, I understand that an edge does not directly translate into the Great Wall of Space China. With the reference to the sphere, this is an excellent illustration as the Earth has an edge (exosphere) that is not readily apparent as an edge from certain points of view.

In reference to the problem with the Big Bang Theory: Through the Wormhole discusses this as well. Basically, the universe started with a singularity. A singularity is at the heart of a black hole (which are observable, btw). The physics equations go to infinty which drives our physicists nuts. Essentially, the equations lose their meaning b/c the answer doesn't make any sense. Laws about the conservation of matter/energy/information don't literally apply b/c the equation says that the singularity exceeds their limitations. What does that mean? Does that mean a black hole is an interstellar exit door? Or that they are feeding other universes in this manner? Is a wormhole two interconnected black holes that bypass the singularity? Is a white hole the other side of a black hole? Who the @!$%# knows? These are mysteries, very exciting ones too. You're always bound to have some missteps in a search for answers that you hope one day you will have. Maybe we started with the big bang, maybe not. Right now, I think we did due to the evidence in favor of it. That doesn't mean it is correct or incorrect......yet. At least, as far as we humans know (it either is or it isn't; we just don't which yet).

There's nothing out there against which light could bounce, I'm afraid.

Ah, but indeed there is. What is the mathematical opposite of zero? Infinity. Yet, while they are exact opposites, they are the same. They both exhibit the same special behaviors in equations, and division by one will result in the other. So, what does this have to do with the edge of the universe? Well, what does the known universe contain lots of? Empty space, or space with nothing in it. What lies beyond the edge of the universe? The opposite of nothing, which one could still call nothing if they wish - an area of infinite density - or no density at all, depending on how you look at it. In any event, light would strike this infinitely dense "edge of the bubble" and bounce back.

So, based on nothing other than my runaway imagination, I put forth the idea that the universe is not a soap bubble, but in fact, is an air bubble in an ocean of infinity.

I guess that is why the Higgs boson called the "God Particle." It does not exist.

I predict the Higgs will be found in the next year or so and neutrinos will be found to no exceed the speed of light.

Also, by 2112 human beings will either be extinct or living like cavemen due to our inability to stop building better ways to kill each other.

Case in point of my assertion a host of words describing a host of situations all backed by mathematical models, proposed by a host of theoretical physicists. The universe has no beginning, no ending, and no time. It has gravity which is limited on any mass and gravity which is universal, irrisistable and complete on all individual masses, countered only by that individual masses motion through its transit through space. Time is unique to any given mass based on the mass composing that system. Each mass determines its own relative rate of motion based on its time, if it has an observer on that system. Absent an observer no time exists. The simplest explanation of gravity is, a larger object of mass always attracts a smaller object of mass, this creates a motion on the smaller object. If, and it is always so, the larger object has a motion, a situation of orbit may be created on the smaller object around the larger object of mass. The point mass center of a group of masses may not always be fixed on a particular mass but at a point in space representing the gravitational center of the composite of masses. The key to a mass accumulation on any one individual object is its relative motion through its space. No object of mass observed in the universe is without motion ergo mass cannot exist without motion. Whenever any mass or part of any mass loses its relative motion, i.e. ceases to have a motion it is reclaimed by all of the mass of the universe surrounding it. This is the nature of electromagnetic propagation in all of its forms. Because each system of mass creates its own time signature the relative velocity of these waves have an implied motion defined by the time of the system creating the waves. Time is a product of mass and the density of that mass at the point of determination. The key to this phrase is the density and point of determination. A singular object may have one density of mass at its surface and a far greater density near to or at its point mass center. The surface may appear to be in motion at one rate while its point mass center may be at or near zero motion at that point. We create nuclear explosions by concentrating mass of a density which causes that density's rate of relative motion to fall to zero motion on that bit of mass.

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." ... Albert Einstein

Well, perhaps, but it seems more likely that we are more like a virus than something useful to the planet.

If we did not exist we would have no need for a planet. The only reason we do anything that has a positive affect on this planet is because it affects us.

I don't think they do, but I have to wonder what the speed of light is through a passage in which light itself can't travel. (Unless someone knows how to get photons through 730km of rock without digging a tunnel.) I don't think it's a problem with the measurement. I think it's a problem with the benchmark.

Jim Hawk III: light is a form of EM radiation. These particles are smalll enough to fit inside spaces of molecules of objects. You can't see light shining through a rock because too few photons make it through. Most bounce around hitting other particles and result in absorption and diffusion. We can see objects billions of light years away due to the intensity (brightness, quantity, cohesiveness of the photons travelling together) of the light and the fact that gravity bends space and light travels along these bends (these bends were discovered proof-positive during studies of solar eclipses in centuries past). Light (radiation) travels fine through a vacuum. I am not versed on how the edge of our universe is specifically defined but light is used as a tool for ascertaining distance. While it is assumed that an edge to our universe would prevent light from passing through it (as you stated earlier, the universe is a container for information) I don't think you are being specific enough to state that an edge of the universe only coincides with the limitations of a photon.

a matter of fact: study poetry.

If we found that anything could go beyond the "edge of the Universe" then what would prevent us from including that area of beyondness in the Universe? The only "edge" of the Universe is that which is created by our limited perception - the light horizon. No matter where we move the light horizon moves with us and so there is no edge of the universe in the classical sense of an edge.

In matter of fact there is no limit to the real universe, our universal boundary will always be at the limit of our means to detect a boundary. Take a desert of a thousand miles of radial distance and an observer who can move a mile or two a day in any direction. A six foot man would have an observable distance no greater than a mile or two in any direction. That becomes his observable desert. Now lets give him a platform that is a hundred feet high. We extend his observable desert by possibly four or five miles but it is still all desert. We further give him a set of binoculars and he increases his observable desert by another five miles or so. Still desert. In our example even if we put the man on some contraption two miles high and he had his binoculars he would never be able to see a distance greater than one hundred forty one miles because the horizon of the Earth would preclude him seeing any further. This is the nature of our universe, while we may use gamma ray frequencies of detection we will reach a point where even they can detect nothing beyond those frequencies which is to simulate a horizon.

Then again we can always screw up and destroy ourselves.

The rumours tell us that next week ATLAS and CMS will announce a strong but inconclusive signal for the Higgs boson at about 125 GeV. This may be wrong and even if it is right there may be other candidate signals to think about, and it will take much more data to verify that the signal is indeed correct for the Higgs, but if it is right, what then are the implications of the Higgs at this mass?

This question will be the subject of much discussion in the coming months and I can only touch on it here. Certainly the central topic of the debate will be the stability of the vacuum and whether it implies new physics, and if so, at what scale?

It has been known for about twenty years that for a low Higgs mass relative to the top quark mass, the quartic Higgs self-coupling runs at high energy towards lower values. At some point it would turn negative indicating that the vacuum is unstable. In other words the universe could in theory spontaneously explode at some point releasing huge amounts of energy as it fell into a more stable lower energy vacuum state. This catastrophe would spread across the universe at the speed of light in an unstoppable wave of heat that would destroy everything in its path. Happily the universe has survived a very long time without such mishaps so this can't be part of reality, or can it?

... Philip Gibbs, Dec., 4, 2011, viXra.org

Is the scenario Mr Gibbs described similar to fission? Could we initiate such a reaction?

I doubt it since the energy we can manipulate is infinitesimal. But if we can take a couple of kilos of plutonium and convert to a nuclear explosion it really makes you wonder if He indeed did gave us the ability to destroy ourselves.

MmmMmmBeer, how important is something when the system that it is in is making those things progressively less accessible?

Rather cryptic post there, I assume you are saying that since you believe our health care system is flawed that advances in medicine are no longer important? Wow.

I guarantee more people have access to health care than they do the large hadron collider. Biology/genetics/health advancements >>>>> physics :)

If you voted for the thing that you thought was most important (in the poll that accompanied the article) then you should have your answer as to why all these comments are about neutrinos and the speed of light. When I took the poll more than 30% of the people had chosen faster than light neutrinos as the top twist of 2011.

I don't think this poll really equates to what people find "important". After all, there are people who would argue that prolonging life isn't important at all. There are people who just like to argue.

But, it would also be appropriate to mention that you can not know with any amount of certainty whether or not a better understanding of quantum mechanics would prolong the life of a patient with Huntington's. For example, a better understanding of quantum mechanics would almost certainly allow for increased computational power and thus systems like Watson (which can analyze and diagnose) could eventually reveal hidden clues to defeating problems like Huntington's.

So, who's to say that physics can't help the health field?

MmmMmmMmmBeer, I am not the one stating health care is unimportant. The system has already been implying that as far as millions of us go, for years now. The state of denial you are in prevents you from interpreting my statement. Sorry to have to tell you, we may not always depend on the status quo.

Eb,

If genetics is your favorite, I am sure you will enjoy this recent NOVA episode, if you had not already seen it;

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/darwin-never-knew.html

Thank you so much for that link, Ad'M! :)

Evilbeagle, you may find this bit of trivia interesting that I picked up from a National Geographic Magazine, and sorry, I do not remember the magazine date. The article about our ancestors stated that scientists now beleive that about 10% of the population still carries the Neanderthal gene.

I think I read something along those lines recently. Isn't it pretty much concentrated in European populations? It brings to mind another article from a few years back about Neanderthals carrying the gene for red hair. It makes sense to think that most redheads are of European background, where we find the genes in modern humans.

And hey now, no ginger jokes intended!

I beleive the article did state that the gene was predominate in European populations but I just do not have that article now. I did not read about the red-hair connection.

The red hair thing came out a few years before these new developments, and I don't remember where I read that either. However, it pretty much stated that when they were mapping the DNA, that they found the red head gene. I thought it was interesting in reading that the Neanderthal gene was predominant in Europe that the red head one would be as well, which makes sense, really.

What about the red hair of the Australian aborigines. Skin color and hair color as well as eye color are all products of environmental impacts in general caused by the amount of sunlight reaching the particular gene codes of any group of people. Environment dictates any number of physical attributes in all animal species including man. An abundance of sunlight tends to lead to a darker skin which protects against certain UV rays. Higher latitudes lessens the intensity of those same UV rays and thus the skin color became lighter over thousands of years. Africans consequently develop far less skin cancer than the caucasion race does today mainly because they have moved to lower latitudes where their skin color does not protect them from the increase in UV rays accompanying such lower latitudes of exposure. Italians are considered as caucasoids but have a slightly darker skin than the same group from Scandinavia or Norway. They are closer to the equator. Hair is needed for warmth at higher latitudes, as clothes begin to balance out the need for hair it became more prevalent on exposed parts of the body primarily the head. These are all environment driven aspects of the human species.

Good point, and I certainly won't argue that environmental factors do not impact the way we evolve to look or otherwise deal with the world around us. I'm lactose intolerant and am the only person in the UK, it seems, that doesn't smother her desserts in cream or custard due to that, as the pills only go so far, and it is understood that those from these northern climates lost that intolerance at some point during our evolution to cope with harsh winters. It's fact, and of course plays into the big scheme of things in a dramatic way. I just found it an interesting connection between red haired Neanderthals and Europeans, where the highest concentration of red heads with this particular gene live.

I do wonder, however, if that gene for red hair is the same in the European population as it is in the Australian aboriginal, though. This is pure speculation on my part, but the European red hair gene is generally accompanied by pale skin and sensitivity to medications/resistance to pain killers. I wonder if perhaps the Australian aborigine is similar in that regard, or if they carry a different gene entirely, as they are obviously of a different skin tone, and as far as I know (which is not much in this case!), don't have the same issues with meds/pain killers that so many European redheads do. Sure, a lot of it has to be environmental, but red hair is generally rare.

LOL, very nice Tea Earl Gray. I'll give it a shot.

Your premise basically assumes that bosons have a structure, and I agree with you. I also think that the construct is not like the proton but rather a spherical shell. The shell is in continuous oscillation as long as the quantum mechanical state maintains coherence.

Where the theory falls apart is that the Standard Model (SM) fails below Planck's scale. In order for a particle to have "less mass than photons" implies that they indeed need to travel faster than the speed of light (photon). It will require new physics to adjust the SM below Planck scale and either to account for superluminal particles or redefine the speed limit.

The superluminal neutrinos at OPERA could very well indicate the need to redefine the maximum speed. I hope this is the case because, as you say, "you would have something extremely exciting". As I mentioned in my early post, there is news that OPERA achieved 5 sigma in their last run and the neutrinos maintained the same synchronized distribution both at the source and target.

The possibility of superluminal fermions and a light Higgs (125 GeV) would be the biggest discovery in human history.

Good times for physics.

I agree that the 5 sigma is very important in this and would posture that it would indeed indicate that there must be structure involved which as you state would most likely be a sphere or at least rounded in nature. The fact that you have the same distribution at source and target means that something is maintaining the alignment of the particles beyond the magnetic field and I cannot think of a non rounded or non structured particle that would not tumble out of alignment. This of course assumes that there is not some entaglement among the particles producing a field that keeps them in alignment but that would fail the test at the output side since the alignment would have to already exist prior to or during the generation of the particle pre release or the act of entanglement would realign the particles in mid stream. Not impossible but I think not too likely. I think Planck will soon need a new scale.

Hey Gray,

What is the consequence of the 1/2 spin of the fermions?

SM requires the Higgs boson to be of spin 0, why?

The spin is zero I believe because it has no intrinsic angular momentum. That to me don't rule out the outside influence of gravity or electromagnetic fields in it's actual movement. As for why there is only a half spin for feminons I have a lot more trouble understanding that behavior especially as related to boson particles. The inablility of fermions to occupy the same quantum state I think I grap since it would lock them down on some level into a more rigid structure but what does it mean with the other Boson regarding their full spin? Would this not drive them apart or do they interact in some way like fermion separators (quantum insulators?) Sorry but being a lay person even the standard model gives me a headache but thats I why I look to people like you to straighten me out. Just have to take it a more lay physics level before I really grasp it.

Sorry I didn't fully answer that by acknowleging that the purpose of the Higg Bosson is to provide mass to matter. Which to me makes it kind of like my understanding of the purpose of a Nuetron on the larger atomic scale. I don't know if that would be a good analogy there either since the structure and function of subatomic particles may be completly different.

Economy Killer, A quote from the first page you linked to:

By the end of October, ice extent remained below the 1979 to 2000 average in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and in the Barents and Kara seas. Extent was near average in the East Greenland Sea. New ice growth has closed both the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route.

The second page you linked to shows a graph. The graph shows that 2011 has predominantly less ice cover than in 2005.

The third link sent me to a page stating "Your request cannot be processed..." There is a link on that page that takes you here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html and that page shows the November 2011 Temperature Departure from Normal. That graph (if that's the one you intended to link to) is really not useful in this conversation because it doesn't show any conclusive overall change. About the best thing you could say about it is that the East coast is hotter and the west coast is cooler than normal (for the last 30 years or so).

The liberal main stream media refuses to be unbiased and practice actual investigative journalism.

You certainly have plenty of conservative mainstream media sources that also refuse to be unbiased and practice actual investigative journalism.

Watson didn't just chime in exactly when Trebek stopped speaking. Watson was programmed to chime in only after it had reached a suitable level of likelihood that it had arrived at the correct answer. In other words, Watson "thought" about it and then "pressed the button" just like any human would. The difference, of course, is that Watson went through billions of calculations to arrive at a list of likely questions and chose the one with the highest likelihood of being the correct question for Trebek's answer. The fact that it lost at all reassures me that the playing field is as level as a man-vs.-machine playing field needs to be.

That might be cause your a Right-Wing Christian Conservative and nothing impresses you very much except killing everything and everyone on the planet earth.

Average Guy;

WOW so cold blooded but I LMAO. Great one.