Science & Mathematics Infinity

[Pie eyed]

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

If you mean carbon based and of cellular construction yes.
I was more thinking along the lines of shape, size, customs and or intelligence.
I believe the only other suitable and likely building block would be silicon (and not because of Aliens the movie) but this could be slightly outdated thinking.

I'll take $50 on it wont be found.
Quantum mechanics and Newtonian Physics are not meant to be unified.

Not speculating on yeh or nay, simply explaining the "grail" in lay terms.

 

[Malifice]

If you mean carbon based and of cellular construction yes.
I was more thinking along the lines of shape, size, customs and or intelligence.
I believe the only other suitable and likely building block would be silicon (and not because of Aliens the movie) but this could be slightly outdated thinking.

This is an intresting discussion right here. Probably deserving a thread of its own!

 

[Pie eyed]

That is what I love the most about science.
Every answer open a new discussion and leads to a new question.

Even though the goal is the explanation of life, the universe and everything, I think even the most fervent theorist would admit to being very disappointed the day after we get to the answer.
The fun, enjoyment and awe is in the discovery.

 

[Tim H]

Black holes suck up matter, and spit out matter in to another universe.

I like this theory.


Sorry but can't be true as Black holes increase in size [mass].

 

[Pie eyed]

Black holes suck up matter, and spit out matter in to another universe.

I like this theory.


Sorry but can't be true as Black holes increase in size [mass].

Current thinking is that Blackholes do return information to the our universe very, very slowly. I'll try and find a link to a readable explaination

 

[Mean Muggin]

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.

I agree, very suspect source, but I found the concept interesting. The Phi ratio has been a constant topic of interest for me ever since I found out that it appears in all of us no matter what shape or size, and it extends to plants, shell fish etc.

Pretty amazing that a seemingly random number appears in all things of nature.

 

[Mean Muggin]

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

How can you be so convinced? It's hard to imagine no beginning and no end to space, but to also imagine that - "and then there was light!" - almost seems religious, and not plausible, but then again either is no beginning, no end.

It's just there have been many on this thread who seem adament that there was nothing before the big bang. Is this based soley on what Stpehen Hawkin's and co think?


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.

Must admit I felt pretty foolish after posting that. My only source was a sci fi movie with James Spader in it, and this bloke gave a speech on how we are all stardust. At the time it sounded plausible, and still does in a way, but I understand it's more complicated than just dust.

Interesting about the past atoms line of thought.
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.

Soon as I get sound back on my PC I'm going to watch that clip Malifice posted on the subject. I love discussing this stuff and want to know more. It's good to see others think the same way.

 

[Pie eyed]

I agree, very suspect source, but I found the concept interesting. The Phi ratio has been a constant topic of interest for me ever since I found out that it appears in all of us no matter what shape or size, and it extends to plants, shell fish etc.

Pretty amazing that a seemingly random number appears in all things of nature.

Just off the top Phi is 6.18 I think (?) and has long held an interest in science and art. I have read bit about it but never really got too deeply into it as it does not appear to raise its head in quantum calculations, which if it was "the" magic number, it should.
No to say it is not very relavent but never really followed the topic too much.

All the sciences interest me immensely.

Regarding your next post..
1. I am not so much "convinced", though I am firmly of the belief that the Big Bang was responsible for our universe. Personally I think it the most likely scenario. It is the most common view although there are others who speculate about many different possibilities. It is as had to imagine no beginning or end as it is to imagine infinity in fact. Or that ones life simply ends.
Enter religion, not my cup of tea, and philosophy, also not really on my menu in regard to physics. Hawking is simply a very well known member of a fairly enormous group of physicists who would favour the "nothing" concept.


2. You are not wrong that we are all made of stardust at all, only the mechanisms. Carl Sagan, one of the greatest popularises of Science in the 80's, a driving force behind many unmanned exploratory space missions, does a fantastic job of explaining how we "are made of star stuff" in his series Cosmos, still available on DVD, but also on Youtube.

[YOUTUBE]iE9dEAx5Sgw[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Wally Carter]

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.

"Malifices Conundrum" raises its ugly head once again.

A holographic universe must by it's very essence bend to our will.

 

[Wally Carter]

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


From the HD version on Youtube, comments

Yes, I know.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16455137&postcount=6

 

[Pie eyed]

Now Wally, that you're back in the fray.
Your position on the LHC.

Are we playing with an unknown, which may at any second pop out a bit of strange matter or a foam of micro black holes which will slowly gobble up all matter in our region or are we in for one of the most enlightening few decades in particle physics so far........ woot.?
For the record I am for the later.

 

[Wally Carter]

Me too.

 

[Malifice]

"Malifices Conundrum" raises its ugly head once again.

A holographic universe must by it's very essence bend to our will.

And if we will this universe into destruction?

 

[Wally Carter]

And if we will this universe into destruction?

Who is doing that?

The LHC is about finding the mythical Higgs Bosun.

Perhaps are manifesting some deep rooted catholic dogma from your distant past?

 

[Malifice]

Who is doing that?

The LHC is about finding the mythical Higgs Bosun.

Perhaps are manifesting some deep rooted catholic dogma from your distant past?

For starters im not Catholic (or even Christian for that matter).

Poor form to even bring that into the discussion by the way. Really poor form.

More than a year after an explosion of sparks, soot and frigid helium shut it down, the world’s biggest and most expensive physics experiment, known as the Large Hadron Collider, is poised to start up again. In December, if all goes well, protons will start smashing together in an underground racetrack outside Geneva in a search for forces and particles that reigned during the first trillionth of a second of the Big Bang.

Then it will be time to test one of the most bizarre and revolutionary theories in science. I’m not talking about extra dimensions of space-time, dark matter or even black holes that eat the Earth. No, I’m talking about the notion that the troubled collider is being sabotaged by its own future.

A pair of otherwise distinguished physicists have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson, which physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.

Holger Bech Nielsen, of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, Japan, put this idea forward in a series of papers with titles like “Test of Effect From Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal” and “Search for Future Influence From LHC,” posted on the physics Web site arXiv.org in the last year and a half.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/science/space/13lhc.html?_r=3

Explosions, scientists arrested for alleged terrorism, mysterious breakdowns — recently Cern’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has begun to look like the world’s most ill-fated experiment.

The LHC may be sabotaging itself from the future — twisting time to generate a series of scientific setbacks that will prevent the machine fulfilling its destiny.

At first sight, this theory fits comfortably into the crackpot tradition linking the start-up of the LHC with terrible disasters. The best known is that the £3 billion particle accelerator might trigger a black hole capable of swallowing the Earth when it gets going. Scientists enjoy laughing at this one.


This time, however, their ridicule has been rather muted — because the time travel idea has come from two distinguished physicists who have backed it with rigorous mathematics.

What Holger Bech Nielsen, of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, are suggesting is that the Higgs boson, the particle that physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be “abhorrent to nature”.

What does that mean? According to Nielsen, it means that the creation of the boson at some point in the future would then ripple backwards through time to put a stop to whatever it was that had created it in the first place.

This, says Nielsen, could explain why the LHC has been hit by mishaps ranging from an explosion during construction to a second big bang that followed its start-up. Whether the recent arrest of a leading physicist for alleged links with Al-Qaeda also counts is uncertain.

Nielsen’s idea has been likened to that of a man travelling back through time and killing his own grandfather. “Our theory suggests that any machine trying to make the Higgs shall have bad luck,” he said.

“It is based on mathematics, but you could explain it by saying that God rather hates Higgs particles and attempts to avoid them.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article6879293.ece

Emphasis added.

 

[Mean Muggin]

That's some heavy stuff Malifice.

Did I just read that these two blokes are basically saying that nature / the universe is aware of itself and through time travel is trying to prevent this from happening?...and they have backed it up with maths???

I'd love to see that equation.

 

[Malifice]

That's some heavy stuff Malifice.

Did I just read that these two blokes are basically saying that nature / the universe is aware of itself and through time travel is trying to prevent this from happening?...and they have backed it up with maths???

I'd love to see that equation.

The theory is backed up by solid maths from reputable physicists. More importantly it is also falsifiable:

Dr. Nielsen and Dr. Ninomiya have proposed a kind of test: that CERN engage in a game of chance, a “card-drawing” exercise using perhaps a random-number generator, in order to discern bad luck from the future. If the outcome was sufficiently unlikely, say drawing the one spade in a deck with 100 million hearts, the machine would either not run at all, or only at low energies unlikely to find the Higgs.

For a discussion:

Nielsen and Ninomiya have suggested that setbacks to the LHC occur because of "reverse chronological causation," which is to say, sabotage from the future. The papers suggest that the Higgs boson may be "abhorrent to nature" and the LHC's creation of the Higgs sometime in the future sends ripples backward through time to scupper its own creation. Each time scientists are on the verge of capturing the Higgs, the theory holds, the future intercedes. The theory as to why the universe rejects the creation of Higgs bosons is based on complex mathematics, but, Nielsen tells TIME, "you could explain it [simply] by saying that God, in inverted commas, or nature, hates the Higgs and tries to avoid them."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1937370,00.html#ixzz0cvrWh8J5

Effectively: The universe "knows" we are ****ing with it and stops us from doing so.

In a similar way we are prohibited from discerning the nature of light (as either a particle or a wave) depending on if we are observing it or not. Think about that for a second: Light changes form from matter to energy depending soley on whether we are observing it or not.

 

[Pie eyed]

You forgot to include the final paragraph Malifice.

This weekend, as the interest in his theories continued to grow, Nielsen was sounding more cautious. “We are (not)sic* seriously proposing the idea, but it is an ambitious theory, that’s all,” he said. “We already know it is not very likely to be true. If the LHC actually succeeds in discovering the Higgs boson, I guess we will have to think again.”

The "NOT" does not appear in the published paragraph and is an obvious typographical error. Without the "NOT" the sentence and entire response makes no sense.

Theorists theorise, that's their job.
For every valid theory there are thousands which are postulated and through the scientific method are discounted.

The headline reads well and the bulk of the article, which simply muses on how some ideas from Science Fiction have in fact become real science, is simply padding before the game is given away as a purely intellectual exercise to explain the random accidents which occurred during construction, if anything unusual in their small number. and what would be normal hiccups in commissioning a Particle collider.

It's not like anything unusual at all has occurred.



I call "BUNKUM"
I have sent Holger Bech Nielsen an email to get confirmation of the typo.


Apologies for the multiple posts, which I've now deleted, but I think Optus is being "attacked" from the future in an effort to prevent me from posting this... that's just a topical joke by the way not a slight.

 

[Pie eyed]

Now the biggy I'd like to ask you Malifice.

I understand you hold fears that the LHC may for whatever reason bring about the end of mankind, the earth and possibly the solar system or even universe.

Are you basing your fear on the Hawaii Law Suit against LHC?

Can you name the people who hold this fear, particularly any physicists?

 

[Malifice]

You forgot to include the final paragraph Malifice.

I actually left more than the final paragraph out. And for the record, Yes im aware its one theory (of many) regarding the Higgs bosun.

Theorists theorise, that's their job.
For every valid theory there are thousands which are postulated and through the scientific method are discounted.

Well then lets attempt to falsify the theory.

All science is theory. There is no such thing as scientific fact. Its the key weakness of the scientific method (and also its key strecgth).

No scientific theoy is ever proven right. Its just never proven wrong.

 

[Malifice]

Now the biggy I'd like to ask you Malifice.

I understand you hold fears that the LHC may for whatever reason bring about the end of mankind, the earth and possibly the solar system or even universe.

Are you basing your fear on the Hawaii Law Suit against LHC?

No.

Can you name the people who hold this fear, particularly any physicists?

Nielsen and Ninomiya for starters.

 

[Pie eyed]

I'm pretty shocked you don't realise that Nielsen and Ninomiya are simply undertaking an intellectual exercise.
Did you even read the last paragraph of the Times articele you quoted?

If you are not using fears of Walter Wagner a his off sider as basis for your own then who? Other than the above.

Don't you think it is strange that the 7000 highly qualified physicists at CERN and the tens of thousands of respected physicists the world over think it is completely safe in this regard?

I have declined to provide a number of those who have fears over the CERN experiments because I only know of 2 physicists and they are the ones you names, and I highly doubt even they have any fears whatsoever.

 

[Pie eyed]

Well then lets attempt to falsify the theory.

All science is theory. There is no such thing as scientific fact. Its the key weakness of the scientific method (and also its key strecgth).

No scientific theoy is ever proven right. Its just never proven wrong.

And I said what?

Valid is the word I used. Valid as in stands up to scrutiny and peer review, or is supported by the evidence or in fact any evidence.

If the proponents of a theory openly admit it is simply an interesting concept, with no other support than it's conception then go on to say on the record “We already know it is not very likely to be true."

"They are playing around the edges of what we know"

If you can't see that for what it is then I am amazed given your other posts.

 

[Malifice]

I'm pretty shocked you don't realise that Nielsen and Ninomiya are simply undertaking an intellectual exercise.

Please explain how this is not a valid Scientific Theory?

They have witnessed a phenomenon, provided a reason why the phenomenon occurs, and included a circumstance that, if it exists, falisifies the theory.

Sounds like science to me.

Did you even read the last paragraph of the Times articele you quoted?

Yes I did.

If you are not using fears of Walter Wagner a his off sider as basis for your own then who? Other than the above.

There are more than just the three or four scientists you and I mention above that have expressed concerns for the LHC.

Don't you think it is strange that the 7000 highly qualified physicists at CERN and the tens of thousands of respected physicists the world over think it is completely safe in this regard?

No. I dont think that at all.

Virtually all of the greatest thinkers of the Age of Reason were of the opinion the world was flat when Columbus sailed off and discovered the Americas.

Didnt make it true now did it?

I have declined to provide a number of those who have fears over the CERN experiments because I only know of 2 physicists and they are the ones you names, and I highly doubt even they have any fears whatsoever.

I dont think you understand the argument Nielsen and Ninomiya make.

They have 'no fear' over the CERN experiment as their Theory proposes that the Higgs bosun wont let itself be created (as it would likley destoy the universe should it be found).

Thus we are safe.

Their theory actually strengthens your argument.

 

[Malifice]

FWIW Pie Eyed (and anyone else intrested in my view on this topic) I actually think we should be safe... As the Universe (as created by and an extension of us) wont let us detroy it.

It should work a lot like a Quantum suicide machine - just on a universal scale.

Unless we get too smart for ourselves and find away around that of course.