Science & Mathematics Infinity

[Malifice]

It's still a poor comparison.

On what grounds?

 

[Wally Carter]

Projected statistical grounds.

 

[Malifice]

Projected statistical grounds.

And why wouldnt 'projected statistical grounds' apply to an assertion that a specific individuals odds of winning lottery (assuming they bought a ticket) are in the millions?

Back on topic (kind of) anyone notice the lightshow over the LHC the same night they switced it on?

Malfunctioning Russian ICBM my ass.

 

[Wally Carter]

And why wouldnt 'projected statistical grounds' apply to an assertion that a specific individuals odds of winning lottery (assuming they bought a ticket) are in the millions?

The chance that someone will win a random powerball draw?

Better than 50%

The chance that the LHC will create a black hole?

1 in 50,000,000

Back on topic (kind of) anyone notice the lightshow over the LHC the same night they switced it on?

Malfunctioning Russian ICBM my ass.

What is your theory for a physics experiment in France/Switzerland creating an anomoly in the sky over Norway?

 

[Malifice]

The chance that someone will win a random powerball draw?

Better than 50%

The chance that the LHC will create a black hole?

1 in 50,000,000

You misquote me. I was clearly refering to an indivduals odds of winning the lottery, not the odds of the lottery being won.

The distinction is self evident no? Or are you just arguing for the sake of it?

What is your theory for a physics experiment in France/Switzerland creating an anomoly in the sky over Norway?

Considering the scale of the LHC experiment, and particle physics in general, France to Norway is not exactly 'far away'

Would it have been more helpful if the phenomenon appeared directly overhead?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sof_QK1z4b4

You dont find the above a little odd/ co-incidental/ cause for any concern?

Of course, I dont want to sound like a consipracy nut. Its just worth considering all possibilities that all.

 

[Wally Carter]

You misquote me. I was clearly refering to an indivduals odds of winning the lottery, not the odds of the lottery being won.

The distinction is self evident no? Or are you just arguing for the sake of it?

As I have stated previously, it is a poor comparison because the lottery is always eventually won. Your comparison gives a misleading allusion.

Considering the scale of the LHC experiment, and particle physics in general, France to Norway is not exactly 'far away'

Would it have been more helpful if the phenomenon appeared directly overhead?

I am merely questioning your reasoning behind your hypothesis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sof_QK1z4b4

Yes, I saw it weeks ago.

You dont find the above a little odd/ co-incidental/ cause for any concern?

Of course, I dont want to sound like a consipracy nut. Its just worth considering all possibilities that all.

Do you have any hard parallels between the LHC and the Norwegian sky anomoly, or is it just a hunch?

 

[Malifice]

As I have stated previously, it is a poor comparison because the lottery is always eventually won. Your comparison gives a misleading allusion.

You do see the distiction between asserting:

a) the odds of the lottery being won, or
b) the indivdual estimated odds of a specified person actually winning the lottery?

I assume you do see the distinction, but are just being difficult.

If I used a different example to highlight equivalent 1 in 50 million odds, and then demonstrate an example of where that in fact happened notwithstanding such improbable odds, would that be better?

I am merely questioning your reasoning behind your hypothesis.

Not being either a particle physicist or a specialist in quantum mechanics Im afraid im ill qualified to provide a detailed mechanical expination behind my concerns.

However a 1 in 50 million chance that the experiment will go wrong and end the universe is... well a 1 in 50 million chance that the experiment will go wrong and end the universe.

Roll a 50million sided dice. It comes up a 1... game over.

And FWIW id love to know how someone calculated these odds considering the fact we dont even know what we're messing with. The only thing we do know about the experiments is no-ones sure exactly whats going to happen or what we are going to find.

Personally, seeing as we are dealing with factors such as the uncertainty principle and other oddities revolving around quantum physics, Im a little concerned.

The current theory why we havent found the Higgs bosun yet is basically because the universe knows were ****ing with it and doesnt want us to find it.

Think about that for a second.

Its the same reason that light appears to change from a particle to a wave depending on whether we observe it or not. And it does so regardless of when we observe it. Meaning of course that we can retrospectively alter light in the past.

Perhaps there is a reason why the universe rearranges itself on a sub atomic level to hide things from us.

Of course perhaps theres not a reason and its just how things are.

Either way, im concerned. And my concerns arent totally unfounded.

 

[Mean Muggin]

Whats a Higgs Bosun?

 

[Wally Carter]

Whats a Higgs Bosun?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

 

[Wally Carter]

You do see the distiction between asserting:

a) the odds of the lottery being won, or
b) the indivdual estimated odds of a specified person actually winning the lottery?

I assume you do see the distinction, but are just being difficult.

If I used a different example to highlight equivalent 1 in 50 million odds, and then demonstrate an example of where that in fact happened notwithstanding such improbable odds, would that be better?

I can only conclude that you do not know the meaning of "allusion".

And FWIW id love to know how someone calculated these odds considering the fact we dont even know what we're messing with.

So would I.

The only thing we do know about the experiments is no-ones sure exactly whats going to happen or what we are going to find.

I can't see how this is any different to any other experiment a human being has undertaken.

Personally, seeing as we are dealing with factors such as the uncertainty principle and other oddities revolving around quantum physics, Im a little concerned.

Why are you concerned about something that is uncertain in the first place? Is this some form of super uncertainty? <---I suppose I should add an LOL here.

The current theory why we havent found the Higgs bosun yet is basically because the universe knows were ****ing with it and doesnt want us to find it.

Think about that for a second.

That is A theory and it is a very obscure one.

It is not THE theory.

If the universe is aware then we will have nothing to fear as we are also a part of the universe and therefore subject to it's will.

Its the same reason that light appears to change from a particle to a wave depending on whether we observe it or not.

Actually, it's the other way around.

And it does so regardless of when we observe it. Meaning of course that we can retrospectively alter light in the past.

Really?

Can you explain that in more detail?

Perhaps there is a reason why the universe rearranges itself on a sub atomic level to hide things from us.

Perhaps we need a universal psychiatrist to help us find the answers?

Of course perhaps theres not a reason and its just how things are.

Either way, im concerned. And my concerns arent totally unfounded.

I hope you're taking the piss, but I have to admit, it would be a hell of a lot cooler if you weren't.

 

[Mean Muggin]

Higgs Bosun is way over my head, some sort of Universe Holy Grail is all I got.

I love this Wally Carter versus Malifice debate. Learning more than I would of otherwise.

 

[Malifice]

I can only conclude that you do not know the meaning of "allusion".

Yes I do, there's no need to be smug. However I simply thought my original analogy was sufficently specific enough for the casual reader to comprehend. You appear to be the only person whom was confused. Ill be more specific from now on in order to avoid any potential confusion or semantic splitting of hairs.

I can't see how this is any different to any other experiment a human being has undertaken.

Exactly how many times in human history have we sought to physically recreate conditions at or near the creation of the universe?

And on a quantum level?

And remember we arent playing with Newtonian physics here. Empiricism doesnt apply in the same way to Quantum mechanics as it does to classical physics.

Personally, I forsee a world where Newtonian physics is falsified to the point where it is held to be a quaint old fashioned belief structure, similar to the world being flat, of the earth being at the centre of the universe, or stars being holes to heaven and such.

A bit off topic but there you go.

Why are you concerned about something that is uncertain in the first place? Is this some form of super uncertainty? <---I suppose I should add an LOL here.

Again, you are being smug.

Uncertainty doesnt concern you?

That is A theory and it is a very obscure one.

Actually no, its the leading theory... amongst quantum physicists anyway. They of course will word it a lot more eloquently that I do, but there you go.

If the universe is aware then we will have nothing to fear as we are also a part of the universe and therefore subject to it's will.

Im not suggesting the Universe is 'aware' as such. But we (the observers) certainly are.

Think about that for a second.

Actually, it's the other way around.

You're a fan of semantics arent you? And notwithstanding this, the point still stands however.

I hope you're taking the piss, but I have to admit, it would be a hell of a lot cooler if you weren't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment

In the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment performed by Marlan Scully, pairs of entangled photons are divided into "signal photons" and "idler photons", with the signal photons emerging from one of two locations and their position later measured as in the double slit experiment, and depending on how the idler photon is measured, the experimenter can either learn which of the two locations the signal photon emerged from or "erase" that information. Even though the signal photons can be measured before the choice has been made about the idler photons, the choice seems to retroactively determine whether or not an interference pattern is observed when one correlates measurements of idler photons to the corresponding signal photons.

In other words we can restrospecively change the interference pattern.

Whether that is in fact reversed causality (basically - time travel) or not is currently in debate.

Higgs Bosun is way over my head, some sort of Universe Holy Grail is all I got.

I love this Wally Carter versus Malifice debate. Learning more than I would of otherwise.

Thanks dude. Check this video out for a basic insight into one of the principles we are discussing:

[YOUTUBE]a_qRKjeam5w[/YOUTUBE]

Its a trip.

The Higgs bosun is basically something we 'expect' to find. Basically for a while now the only way the numbers added up was if there was a certain thing that existed.

That 'thing' is the Higgs Bosun.

Think of it this way... its become apparent that for the numbers to hold up (and the current theories thus to be valid) there was a 'constant' that seemed to be missing.

In simple (and abstract) terms, 3 + 2 kept adding up to 6, and 2 + 2 kept adding up to 5, 5 + 5 added up to 11 etc.

Basically we expect to find the missing "1" - the Higgs Bosun.

If its not there, then a few theories are going to be on very shaky ground indeed.

 

[Malifice]

Just to clarify, when I say "the universe knows we are messing with it", I am referring to the universe as a Participatory Anthropic Universe and not a 'sentient' universe. or one governed by a 'God(s).'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Or in other words the universe I refer to is the one that is experienced, created (and maintained) by sentient living creatures. Such as the Wheeler model, or the model provided by Barrow and Tipler.

This is why I am hopeful that the universe wont 'allow' us to destroy it... in much the same way it hides things from us.

I only mention this as perhaps it makes my reasoning on the topic clearer.

 

[Wally Carter]

Exactly how many times in human history have we sought to physically recreate conditions at or near the creation of the universe?

And on a quantum level?

Hypothetically!!!!

And remember we arent playing with Newtonian physics here. Empiricism doesnt apply in the same way to Quantum mechanics as it does to classical physics.

Newtonian physics cannot be ignored, there must be a connection at some point.

Personally, I forsee a world where Newtonian physics is falsified to the point where it is held to be a quaint old fashioned belief structure, similar to the world being flat, of the earth being at the centre of the universe, or stars being holes to heaven and such.

A bit off topic but there you go.

How can Newtonian Physics be considered "falsified". We may come to have a different understanding, but gravity is still gravity. Newtonian physics is simply the language certain parts of our universe is written in to give us mutual understanding.

Uncertainty doesnt concern you?

Maybe, but I can't be certain.

Actually no, its the leading theory... amongst quantum physicists anyway. They of course will word it a lot more eloquently that I do, but there you go.

The leading theory amongst quantum physicists is that the LHC will create a black hole?

Can you support that notion with any evidence?

Im not suggesting the Universe is 'aware' as such. But we (the observers) certainly are.

Think about that for a second.

I have been aware of biocentrism for at least a decade now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment



In other words we can restrospecively change the interference pattern.

Whether that is in fact reversed causality (basically - time travel) or not is currently in debate.

This is not much different to the double slit experiment in that it takes interference to alter an outcome.

I have no idea where the notion of "time travel" arises.

 

[Wally Carter]

Just to clarify, when I say "the universe knows we are messing with it", I am referring to the universe as a Participatory Anthropic Universe and not a 'sentient' universe. or one governed by a 'God(s).'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Or in other words the universe I refer to is the one that is experienced, created (and maintained) by sentient living creatures. Such as the Wheeler model, or the model provided by Barrow and Tipler.

This is why I am hopeful that the universe wont 'allow' us to destroy it... in much the same way it hides things from us.

I only mention this as perhaps it makes my reasoning on the topic clearer.

Yes, I am aware of biocentrism.

 

[Malifice]

Hypothetically!!!!

Not hypothetically, just on a micro-scale.

Newtonian physics cannot be ignored, there must be a connection at some point.

They said that about Aristotles model of the universe for a little over a milleneum as well.

Hows it faring now?

How can Newtonian Physics be considered "falsified". We may come to have a different understanding, but gravity is still gravity. Newtonian physics is simply the language certain parts of our universe is written in to give us mutual understanding.

Firtly all scientific theories can be falsified. If they cant be falsified then they cant be a scientific theory. Its a key component of any scientific experiment. A theory that lacks falsifiability is not science.

Secondly Newtonian physics is the current in a long line of models that seek to describe the universe. Quantum theory has already started to punch some big holes in relativity for example (with entanglement and retrocausality).

As far as I understand it, the GUT is (amongst other things) attempting to bring the whole thing (Newtonian/ Atomic and Quantum/ Sub atomic) togther as a whole.

I (personally) dont think its going to work.

Just like we have had massive paradigm shifts in how we view and interpret the universe in the past (Animism to the medieval paradigm to the age of Reason and Science etc) its foolish (and a little naive) to suggest that scientific theory and scientific method (and thus Newtonian physics) will be the 'final' paradigm.

One day in the future we'll look back on Newtonian physics and find it odd and a little quaint in the same manner as we currently look back on say... Alchemy or the Aristotlean universal model and think they were quaint.

Maybe, but I can't be certain.

I pay that!

The leading theory amongst quantum physicists is that the LHC will create a black hole?

Mutli quote miscommunication. The leading theory is that the Universe wont let us **** with it.

I have been aware of biocentrism for at least a decade now.

And I can see from your reference to it a biocentrism that you rate the theory as highly as you would rate a wart recently discovered on your nose.

Personaly the Quantum Anthropomorphic model of the universe seems to be the only one that makes sense.

But each to their own for now I guess.

This is not much different to the double slit experiment in that it takes interference to alter an outcome.

I have no idea where the notion of "time travel" arises.

Read the bolded part of the attached quote again and consider the consequences.

By observing things in the present we can not only alter the current event (and of course the future outcome) but apparently we can also determine things that have occured in the past.

However as the signal photons can be measured before the choice has been made about the idler photons we can in fact choose at a later time to observe - or not to observe - the result. The end result is we are able to retrospectivley observe (or not) and thus alter (not just determine) the past.

Effectively the interference pattern is created a fraction of a microsecond before we make the choice to observe. However upon making that choice to observe we note that there is still no interference pattern (as we would expect if we were observing at the time of splitting) - and this is notwithstanding the fact that the photons have already interfered with each other and created the pattern.

The only logical explanation is that our observing the latter event altered the initial event.

Its called retrocausality I believe.

Similar principles exist in quantum suicide machines.

And for the similar reasons that a quantum suicide machine wont let you kill yourself, I have a feeling that the universe wont the LHC end it either.

But im worried we might get a little too smart for ourselves... In a way im reminded of a passage from Addams Hitchikers guide regarding the Babel fish:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.

Man was then so proud of himself he went on to prove black was white and got himself killed at the next zebra crossing.

 

[Wally Carter]

Not hypothetically, just on a micro-scale.

It's hypothetical. We do not know for certain that the universe had a beginning much less had photons smacking in to each other at near light speeds.

They said that about Aristotles model of the universe for a little over a milleneum as well.

Hows it faring now?

Aristotelian theory was the language that established the boundaries of physics in its time.

Rather than incredulously looking back and ridiculing previous schools of thought, would it not be more accurate to see them as essential stepping stones to a greater understanding?

Firtly all scientific theories can be falsified. If they cant be falsified then they cant be a scientific theory. Its a key component of any scientific experiment. A theory that lacks falsifiability is not science.

Secondly Newtonian physics is the current in a long line of models that seek to describe the universe. Quantum theory has already started to punch some big holes in relativity for example (with entanglement and retrocausality).

As far as I understand it, the GUT is (amongst other things) attempting to bring the whole thing (Newtonian/ Atomic and Quantum/ Sub atomic) togther as a whole.

I (personally) dont think its going to work.

You seem to have touched on my previous thought.

Just like we have had massive paradigm shifts in how we view and interpret the universe in the past (Animism to the medieval paradigm to the age of Reason and Science etc) its foolish (and a little naive) to suggest that scientific theory and scientific method (and thus Newtonian physics) will be the 'final' paradigm.

One day in the future we'll look back on Newtonian physics and find it odd and a little quaint in the same manner as we currently look back on say... Alchemy or the Aristotlean universal model and think they were quaint.

I never intimated that Newtonian physics is the "final paradigm", but I did suggest that the physics of the future must bridge from it, so it seems a little hypocritical to ridicule it.

Mutli quote miscommunication. The leading theory is that the Universe wont let us **** with it.

If that is the case then what are you worried about?

This also contradicts your notions of biocentrism.

And I can see from your reference to it a biocentrism that you rate the theory as highly as you would rate a wart recently discovered on your nose.

Personaly the Quantum Anthropomorphic model of the universe seems to be the only one that makes sense.

I actually have quite a bit of time for the theory and I have bought the matter up on this website in a previous life. The holographic universe makes some sense to me.

Read the bolded part of the attached quote again and consider the consequences.

By observing things in the present we can not only alter the current event (and of course the future outcome) but apparently we can also determine things that have occured in the past.

However as the signal photons can be measured before the choice has been made about the idler photons we can in fact choose at a later time to observe - or not to observe - the result. The end result is we are able to retrospectivley observe (or not) and thus alter (not just determine) the past.

Effectively the interference pattern is created a fraction of a microsecond before we make the choice to observe. However upon making that choice to observe we note that there is still no interference pattern (as we would expect if we were observing at the time of splitting) - and this is notwithstanding the fact that the photons have already interfered with each other and created the pattern.

The only logical explanation is that our observing the latter event altered the initial event.

Its called retrocausality I believe.

Similar principles exist in quantum suicide machines.

And for the similar reasons that a quantum suicide machine wont let you kill yourself, I have a feeling that the universe wont the LHC end it either.

But im worried we might get a little too smart for ourselves... In a way im reminded of a passage from Addams Hitchikers guide regarding the Babel fish:

The question must be asked, is the point when we become aware of thought the true point of thoughts origin?

What if we ourselves are holograms?

 

[Malifice]

It's hypothetical. We do not know for certain that the universe had a beginning much less had photons smacking in to each other at near light speeds.

I spose technically true, there is only one universal 'truth' (individual existence from ones own perspective).

But lets not run around in circles. There is:

a) A theory called the 'Big Bang', and
b) In that theory photons smacking in to each other at near light speeds created phenomenon that molded the early universe, and
c) Now we are attempting to recreate these phenomenon (on a micro scale) here on Earth.

And I have a slight problem with that. At the very least it raises questions.

Rather than incredulously looking back and ridiculing previous schools of thought, would it not be more accurate to see them as essential stepping stones to a greater understanding?

Again you misquote me.

Im certainly not ridiculing Aristotle (or Newton). Im simply stating it (Newtonian Physics) has a finite shelf life.

What annoys me at the moment is whenever a theorist discovers something new that threatens to falsify a Newtonian/ Einstein theory, we simply move the goal posts or try and merge the two.

It reminds me of how people used to 'fudge' the numbers in an attempt to keep the planets orbiting around Earth (rather than the Sun) each and every time someone came up with more data regarding the solar system rather than give up and accept the theory was wrong.

This also contradicts your notions of biocentrism.

Actually it doesnt. The universe is an extention of us. Techically we wont let the universe let us **** with it. No matter how hard we try. And probably for good reason.

I just hope we dont learn how to outsmart ourselves into anhilation. Thats where I see the problem.

What if we ourselves are holograms?

Three words:

Cogito, ergo sum.

 

[HarryTiger]

Some here might be interested in a new paper which presents a model for gravity, and more. It takes gravity to be an emergent phenomenom rather than a fundamental. Seems to be of some significance in that community.

Blogged about here
http://www.scientificblogging.com/hammock_physicist/it_bit_case_gravity

The paper
http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785

At least to start with it's surprisingly readable for something so heavy, and for someone so out of that league as me.

And should say, compliments of Dutch physicist Erik P. Verlinde.

 

[Pie eyed]

Awesome thread.
Thanks should go to Macquarie Eagle for starting it.
How long till Wallies off his RED?

What is your theory for a physics experiment in France/Switzerland creating an anomoly in the sky over Norway?

From the HD version on Youtube, comments

Bulava ICBM 3rd stage failure.

Great footage showing the rocket's early ascent: watch?v=oUoCc6eX7Ws

Similar events
Tomsk: watch?v=Jvs_anud2ws
China: watch?v=7egjgQEriBM
Russia: watch?v=9IFLH8GzQh4

The black "portal" is just an? engine cut out
evidenced here in the US launch of the WISE observatory
watch?v=YbsIn5OtEMM

Spiral time < 1 minute, Bulava 3rd stage burn time is 56 seconds... Total event time under 3 minutes, total Bulava burn time is 3 minutes...

Debunking: watch?v=1GSa2wRtZRI

 

[Malifice]

From the HD version on Youtube, comments

Ruining my excellent Norway lights/ LHC conspiracy theory there!

 

[Pie eyed]

Ruining my excellent Norway lights/ LHC conspiracy theory there!

LOL.
Looks the goods to me.

This is no doubt the most interesting thread running on BF at the moment.

Still have not read it all yet but I'm getting there, then I may contribute something more substantial.

 

[Pie eyed]

http://goldennumber.net/universe.htm



What's the opinion on this?

While I would be totally against "canning" the entire theory in an offhand manner perhaps reading this explanation of Phi from the site you link to may give a small insight to the site itself.

The use of the Greek letter Phi Phi (sic)to represent the golden number 1.618 ... is generally said to acknowledge Phidias, a 5th century B.C. sculptor and mathematician of ancient Greece, who studied phi and created sculptures for the Parthenon and Olympus.​

The message from scripture of all the major monotheistic religions is that God is One, Who created the universe from nothing, splitting nothingness into offsetting forces and elements. Today we understand the universe to consist of positive and negative atomic and subatomic particles and charges, matter and anti-matter, all coming from a singularity in what we term the "Big Bang."​

Curiously, the mathematical constant of 1.618 ... that is found throughout creation is represented by the symbol Phi, which is the symbol 0 for nothing split in two by the symbol 1 for unity and one. Could this be the true meaning behind the symbol Phi? (Oddly enough, to type Phi on your computer, you hold the Alt key and enter 1000 on the number pad, an interesting "alt"ernate look at 1 with a trinity of 0's!)​

 

[Pie eyed]

Firstly big bang cannot be the beginning as the gasses had to precede it.
Secondly infinity ends at the beginning.
Everything is a cycle.

Nothing was in existence before the Big Bang, not gas, not light, not time, not matter, in it's most popularly accepted theoretical guise.

On a different topic, the notion that we are all made of star dust suggests that it is quantifiable, however reproduction means that we can create matter (stardust) using the right tools. Therefore, if we originated from star dust, then this idea that we are a fluke and considered unique, is baseless IMO.
What's to say stardust didn't replicate itself into something similar elsewhere - especially if the universe is infinate?

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the phrase "made of star dust"?
We are made up of the elements, significantly carbon, created within stars and dispersed into space when the stars die and explode.
In reproduction we do not create matter, we use it to construct cells sure, but the matter was always there. We only re-order it for a time before it eventually returns to the universe. It is widely regarded that every living human being has right at this moment within their body at least 1 atom from every other human being who ever lived, such is the "recyclable" nature of matter.

I think the fluke part is the one chromosome that mutated in our nearest relatives that created humans.
If life exists elsewhere then the fluke would need to be replicated to produce a 'human form' of life. Long odds of that happening I would suggest.

If life exists anywhere else then it is highly unlikely that it has evolved in even remotely the same direction as to create anything even vaguely resembling a human being.
It is highly likely though that life has arisen elsewhere mathematically.

Most of this debate seems to be about the size of Universe and whether or not finite or infinite is possible but what about the size of the universe in terms of time? Sorry if this is a dumb question, but was there a before the Universe? If so, how was the "before" created and was it a fluke?

You have asked the same question the entire worlds Physicists have been striving to answer since the first Physicist. A question we as a race have spent countless time and money on searching for an answer, or even a hint.

It could hardly be a dumb question. No living human can answer your question, only offer theories and probabilities.

Higgs Bosun is way over my head, some sort of Universe Holy Grail is all I got.

I love this Wally Carter versus Malifice debate. Learning more than I would of otherwise.

In lay terms you are right.
The Higgs Bosun is a theoretical particle which, if found, will go a long way to unifying the various theories currently most likely to explain the history, state and future of our universe.
In that sense it is the "current" holy grail of physicists.

 

[Malifice]

Nothing was in existence before the Big Bang, not gas, not light, not time, not matter, in it's most popularly accepted theoretical guise.

Exactly.

Steven Hawking was asked once what came 'before' the Big Bang.

His response was "thats like asking: Whats North of the North pole."

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the phrase "made of star dust"?
We are made up of the elements, significantly carbon, created within stars and dispersed into space when the stars die and explode.
In reproduction we do not create matter, we use it to construct cells sure, but the matter was always there. We only re-order it for a time before it eventually returns to the universe. It is widely regarded that every living human being has right at this moment within their body at least 1 atom from every other human being who ever lived, such is the "recyclable" nature of matter.

That one kilogram of these elements, appropriately arranged in the human brain, can apprehend its own insignificance in the universe is a matter of considerable moment.

If life exists anywhere else then it is highly unlikely that it has evolved in even remotely the same direction as to create anything even vaguely resembling a human being.

Current theories suggest the opposite. The 'Aliens' will be FAR more like us than not.

Also remember im a believer that the Universe evolved to suit intelligent life and not the other way around.

It is highly likely though that life has arisen elsewhere mathematically.

Mathmatically speaking its so improbable that we are 'alone' in the universe its bordering on impossibility.

You have asked the same question the entire worlds Physicists have been striving to answer since the first Physicist. A question we as a race have spent countless time and money on searching for an answer, or even a hint.

Again the best way to think about it is whats North of the North Pole? Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

In lay terms you are right.
The Higgs Bosun is a theoretical particle which, if found, will go a long way to unifying the various theories currently most likely to explain the history, state and future of our universe.
In that sense it is the "current" holy grail of physicists.

I'll take $50 on it wont be found.

Quantum mechanics and Newtonian Physics are not meant to be unified.