The 2 most dangerous numbers in the universe are threatening the end of physics

Discussion in 'Science' started by Space_Time, Jan 15, 2016.

  1. Space_Time

    Space_Time Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Messages:
    12,422
    Likes Received:
    1,965
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are we doomed? Is there a limit to what science can tell us about the universe? Have we found God?

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/two-most-dangerous-numbers-universe-194557366.html

    The 2 most dangerous numbers in the universe are threatening the end of physics
    Business Insider By Jessica Orwig
    9
    CERN has announced that the LHCb experiment had revealed the existence of two new baryon subatomic particles.

    A deeply disturbing and controversial line of thinking has emerged within the physics community.
    It's the idea that we are reaching the absolute limit of what we can understand about the world around us through science.

    "The next few years may tell us whether we'll be able to continue to increase our understanding of nature or whether maybe, for the first time in the history of science, we could be facing questions that we cannot answer," Harry Cliff, a particle physicist at the European Organization for Nuclear Research — better known as CERN — said during a recent TED talk in Geneva, Switzerland.

    Equally frightening is the reason for this approaching limit, which Cliff says is because "the laws of physics forbid it."

    At the core of Cliff's argument are what he calls the two most dangerous numbers in the universe. These numbers are responsible for all the matter, structure, and life that we witness across the cosmos.

    And if these two numbers were even slightly different, says Cliff, the universe would be an empty, lifeless place.

    Dangerous No. 1: The strength of the Higgs field

    The first dangerous number on Cliff's list is a value that represents the strength of what physicists call the Higgs field, an invisible energy field not entirely unlike other magnetic fields that permeates the cosmos.
    As particles swim through the Higgs field, they gain mass to eventually become the protons, neutrons, and electrons comprising all of the atoms that make up you, me, and everything we see around us.

    Without it, we wouldn't be here.

    We know with near certainty that the Higgs field exists because of a groundbreaking discovery in 2012, when CERN physicists detected a new elementary particle called the Higgs boson. According to theory, you can't have a Higgs boson without a Higgs field.

    But there's something mysterious about the Higgs field that continues to perturb physicists like Cliff.
     
  2. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No.
    No according to this article. We could be limited in what we’re capable of using science to find out and we could be limited in the amount of time, money and resources we’re willing to put in to finding out. I think the latter is the angle the interviewee was (probably too) subtly hinting at.
    No.
     
  3. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    13,830
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It might be the case that physics has reached the limits of what is allowable in nature. We just can't fit a square peg in a round hole.

    It might also be the case that we made an error in the Laws of nature and we just need to get over the old stuff to find a way to the new stuff. Young minds produce fresh ideas. There might be something we thought was impossible and actually we just made an error about what's possible or not.
     
  4. Doberman1

    Doberman1 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Higgs field as conceptualized is not a given. Until solid evidence is presented for the existence of the field, it should not be used as a denominator to revise all of physics.
     
  5. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When I began learning about the origin of the universe it was obvious that science was changing. Around the same time computers were bumping the light speed and other barriers. Also there was the questionable spin off theories of string theory and other eyebrow raising claims from the secular science establishment that were 'lacking' somehow. As the years passed the thing was lacking was that science is struggling to accommodate its own methodology.

    String theory is a good example. It did not produce one verifiable claim for over ten years (see notes) but it was lauded as practically fact or factual in its claims. It was the darling of science. It should not have been anything of the sort. Embracing a theory such string theory that doesn't meet a keystone element of the scientific method is getting very close to metaphysics and religious claims. Not a bad thing for the soul really, but it is bad for science!

    So we have Hawking saying that we can not understand what happened at (or before) the big bang, ie beginning of the universe (AKA T-0) unless we develop a new physics. Now we have these scientists saying we are all wrong about the structure of the universe etc etc unless we find two particles. The CERN scientists and others say if they can't find it in three years (more) its doubtful that they exist. If these particles can not be found everything changes, and it looks good for theistic considerations. More later.


    Note;

    Data vs Theory: The Mathematical Battle for the Soul of Physics ...
    www.huffingtonpost.com/.../data-vs-theory-the-mathem_b_8886292.html
    ‎Dec 30, 2015 ... January 18, 2016 density of the universe, ... String theory has yet to produce any prediction that verifiable
     
  6. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    to quote Lord Kelvin over 100 years ago:

    "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

    the nature of this debate (limits of human knowledge) has been ongoing for millennia.

    I doubt we are even remotely close to those limits.
     
  7. MrNick

    MrNick Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    9,234
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Agreed....

    The problem is these fools (academics) are so sure they're right they will never admit to errors - it' hilarious to see them confused tho..
     
  8. MrNick

    MrNick Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    9,234
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    0


    It's pretty simple - the laws of physics aren't absolute...
     
  9. silverspirit2001

    silverspirit2001 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    28
    See someone does not understand scientific methodology in hard sciences.

    It is not the same as the soft sciences corrupted by cultural marxism.
     
  10. Gelecski7238

    Gelecski7238 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,592
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    These scientists blame everything but themselves for their self-imposed predicament of painting themselves into a corner. They don't want to admit that they are beating a dead horse, actually a dead paradigm, the one where objective physicality is assumed to be the fundamental from which everything else is derived.

    Starting about ninety years ago, the double slit experiment and subsequent variations such as Wheeler's delayed eraser showed convincingly that particles are not the fundamental source of reality. Focused particle patterns are the manifested result of values being locked in. Unfocused particles produce a probability distribution pattern. Prior to that, they are energy waveforms.

    A reality that is not based on objective physicality is a virtual reality, one in which its manifestation is information-guided. Welcome to the future, folks.
     

Share This Page