It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
According to Einstein's theory of general relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics — the two theories in physics that drive our understanding of the cosmos on incredibly large and extremely small scales — the Higgs field should be performing one of two tasks, says Cliff.
Either it should be turned off, meaning it would have a strength value of zero and wouldn't be working to give particles mass, or it should be turned on, and, as the theory goes, this "on value" is "absolutely enormous," Cliff says. But neither of those two scenarios are what physicists observe.
"In reality, the Higgs field is just slightly on," says Cliff. "It's not zero, but it's ten-thousand-trillion times weaker than it's fully on value — a bit like a light switch that got stuck just before the 'off' position. And this value is crucial. If it were a tiny bit different, then there would be no physical structure in the universe." Why the strength of the Higgs field is so ridiculously weak defies understanding. Physicists hope to find an answer to this question by detecting brand-new particles at the newly upgraded particle accelerator at CERN. So far, though, they're still hunting.
The distribution of dark matter is shown in blue and the gas distribution in orange. This simulation is for the current state of the universe and is centered on a massive galaxy cluster. The region shown is about 300 million light-years across.
Cliff's second dangerous number doubles as what physicists have called "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics." This perilous number deals in the depths of deep space and a mind-meltingly complex phenomenon called dark energy.
Dark energy, a repulsive force that's responsible for the accelerating expansion of our universe, was first measured in 1998. Still, "we don't know what dark energy is," Cliff admits.
"But the best idea is that it's the energy of empty space itself — the energy of the vacuum." If this is true, you should be able to sum up all the energy of empty space to get a value representing the strength of dark energy. And although theoretical physicists have done so, there's one gigantic problem with their answer: "Dark energy should be 10120 times stronger than the value we observe from astronomy," Cliff said.
"This is a number so mind-bogglingly huge that it's impossible to get your head around ... this number is bigger than any number in astronomy — it's a thousand-trillion-trillion-trillion times bigger than the number of atoms in the universe. That's a pretty bad prediction."
On the bright side, we're lucky that dark energy is smaller than theorists predict. If it followed our theoretical models, then the repulsive force of dark energy would be so huge that it would literally rip our universe apart. The fundamental forces that bind atoms together would be powerless against it and nothing could ever form — galaxies, stars, planets, and life as we know it would not exist.
On the other hand, it's extremely frustrating that we can't use our current theories of the universe to develop a better measurement of dark energy that agrees with existing observations. Even better than improving our theories would be to find a way that we can understand why the strength of dark energy and the Higgs field is what it is.
"We may be entering a new era in physics. An era where there are weird features in the universe that we cannot explain. An era where we have hints that we live in a multiverse that lies frustratingly beyond our reach. An era where we will never be able to answer the question why is there something rather than nothing."
We may be entering a new era in physics. An era where there are weird features in the universe that we cannot explain. An era where we have hints that we live in a multiverse that lies frustratingly beyond our reach. An era where we will never be able to answer the question why is there something rather than nothing."
The problem: science is at a point that is creates more questions than answers. And often those questions seem beyond our ability to answer.
originally posted by: Canamla
If it's really come to this point then maybe we should start doing comparative research (FINALLY) on possibly scientific philosophies of ancient cultures such as the Vedas of India and Qabbalah. Many might be opposed to the very notion of mingling science with theses, but if there is really no way to push forward then it's at least worth a consideration.
I'd put forth that an exploration of Consciousness is the next frontier for physics. That is, the relationships between entities and their world. The interaction of mind and matter.
Silliness to give up now!
originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: FamCore
This is actually one of the arguments for intelligent design.
I don't mean to advocate for whatever ridiculous arguments are made against science in preference of religion.
originally posted by: micpsi
The comparison has ALREADY been done in a highly quantitative way - with truly spectacular results. But I guess you never heard.....
The mathematics intrinsic to Kabbalah/Tree of Life HAS been correlated with fundamental discoveries in theoretical physics and with the group mathematics of the exceptional Lie groups, the largest of which (E8) has been shown to be embodied in the Tree of Life, whilst the 8-dimensional 421 polytope that represents its 240 roots has been shown to be isomorphic to the recent discovery of the inner form of the Tree of Life, now proved to be isomorphic to the Sri Yantra,
To say something like "8-dimensional 421 polytope that represents its 240 roots has been shown to be isomorphic" doesn't have any meaning to most people. What the hell is a "421 polytope"?? It sounds like some sort of eastern astrological gibberish.
originally posted by: schuyler
originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: FamCore
This is actually one of the arguments for intelligent design.
I don't mean to advocate for whatever ridiculous arguments are made against science in preference of religion.
Agreed. You needn't subscribe to some set of mythology advocated by some narrow religion, nor need it be an either/or proposition. But what if religions are hinting at a basic truth of the multiverse that they don't fully understand? (those "naive people" in Einstein's view.) What's in that "multiverse" that is "frustratingly close?" Could it be us in a different form? And in its wholesale rejection of anything the slightest bit tainted by religion, has science thrown out the baby with the bathwater?
I'm not an advocate for Intelligent Design per se, but they don't call the Higgs Boson the "God Particle" for no reason. And a Simulation Theory (ala Ready Player One) fits the definition as well as anything else. The reason physics is reaching the point suggested by the OP is because its insistence on a Rationalist approach has led them to a dead end and trap of their own making.
I'm reminded of an old joke that appeared in "Car and Driver" or "Road and Track"--one of those car magazines years ago, that showed bald guys in the distance in lab coats and glasses with clipboards making careful notes as they drove cars off a cliff. The punch line is, "Oh, that's the Consumer Reports team testing cars again."
In other words, they're missing the point. If they got their heads out of their butts and looked around, they might actually find something, but they REALLY are pre-disposed to NOT find it--not because it isn't as real as the dim scratch of light made by a obscure particle on a negative, but because they don't like the very idea.
The next great breakthrough in physics, one as large as the discovery of quantum mechanics and relativity combined, will be done by someone who manages to cross that "frustratingly close" barrier to prove the "multiverse" actually does exist, we are part of it, and we've been going there since the beginning of time. And that will be a true revolution in human understanding that has the potential to change everything.
originally posted by: VegHead
These issues are very much part of the intelligent design argument in cosmology.
Science will evolve. God stays the same.