The Science Thread here

Originally posted by Arbitrageur


But if by problem you mean that the universe can't possibly work this way because it offends our preferences on the way we'd like the universe to work, I have to respond by saying it appears the universe is indifferent to our preferences, and whether we like or dislike what it does and how it does it.

Einstein didn't like God playing dice with the universe when he made his famous quote "God doesn't play dice with the universe". But all experimental results so far have demonstrated the universe doesn't work according to the preference of Einstein in this specific regard, where all experiments show that in effect, "God plays dice with the universe" so to speak. So you are in good company with Einstein, if the universe doesn't work the way you'd like it to.

Yes I dont think the universe can possibly work like that; I dont think it is a logical perspective (logic meaning truth...and me speaking as a transient manifestation of logic, leaving my humanness and feelings and belief behind, and attempting to successfully align with objective truth, on the basis of logic, causes and affect, reality) to claim that eternal nothingness existed. Then everything appeared. And that everything will disappear for eternity. There is no basis to exclaim that. There is no ground to stand on that. It makes no sense. It is not real. It cant be truth and real, because it is impossible and meaningless. There is no hypothetical or theoretical explanation as to how that would be possible, without obfuscating ( ) the meaning of the word and concept nothing. Literally a childish and cowardice move, in order to not have to admit that energy exists eternally, instead of dealing with what appears to be the most probable reality, some 'scientists' would rather believe the reality they feel most comfortable imagining exists.



If in that theory it is left open for the potential that after 'everything turns back into nothing' for eternity, everything will once again manifest into a new establishment of potential everything, then that self refutes the idea of heat death. For that would mean that the process of heat death leads to the creation of a new universe. It would not be wrong in that case to say that heat death exists, and is the end of this (act/chapter) manifestation of universe/energy, but it would be wrong (if it is possible that after this universe dies, there will not be eternal nothingness) to claim that entropy will equal 100% and nothing will ever exist again.

Do you understand at all my problem and perspective of this? There is no reason or explanation as to why and how eternal nothingness could exist, then a little blip on the screen of infinite eternal nothingness exists relatively long lasting relative everything, and then that blip disappears. And that is all that ever has happened and ever will happen in the history of reality. You cant explain that. (Because true logic will tell you so strongly, that it does not make sense, and is not possible). Try to come up with an explanation as to how that is possible.

and I only meant my analogies at face values, the examples used were silly. Not what the examples and analogies were trying to analogize.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Try to come up with an explanation as to how that is possible.

Lawrence Krauss did, but you didn't like his explanation.

From my perspective, we should worry less about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" issues like the birth and death of the universe, and worry more about immediate issues in the present, like figuring out what the other 95% of the universe is made of (bedsides the 5% baryonic matter), which should be answerable.

Questions of the birth and death of the universe may be a good discussion topic over some beers, but without any way to experimentally confirm the ideas they may never amount to more than speculation.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I agree, yet all I am saying is, if we were drinking beers and discussing the birth of the universe with Lawrence Krauss and he said "hey guys I got this great Idea I wrote books on and do lectures all around the world and teach all my students; Its how the universe can come from nothing", I would take a sip and with a sigh tell him he is wrong.

I agree the mystery of space/vacuum/dark energy Is a grand and interesting mystery, one which I cant wait for it to lose some of its mysteriousness and then more.

Do you agree that energy/matter is either really real, as in physical and really existing. Or energy/matter is some immaterial illusion. Are there any other possibilities I am missing? The only way something real and physical and existent can come from nothing is if it is not really something real and physical. It would be if the universe is some kind of computer projection, or the result of digital computation of functions. Because then space and energy wouldnt actually have real physical values, it could be manifested symbolically by the interaction of functions and algorithms that run the program. The big bang singularity, would then be the beginning of the program. Would be a weird and interesting truth, but that being the reality of reality, is the only way I can see Krauses idea being true. And that would mean dark energy would be some built in rendering of space.

We are in an extremely interesting time when it comes to dark matter at least.

High energy physicists have done a nice job of trying to inform the media that super-symmetry is dead and doesn't work with the discovery of the Higgs. Many people have chosen to latch onto this and say "Oh that means dark matter is dead too". This is not entirely true, all it does is push the measurement of possible super-symmetric models out of the reach of the LHC. Hate to sound like a typical conspiracy theorist but part of the external gushing of information and stories regarding the Higgs and what it means for super-symmetry is a fairly glossy way of saying... We cannot search for it without the linear collider or possibly it would be a stretch for even that, so to the media we will say "Super-symmetry as a theory is dead." The only negative thing I will say about my colleagues in high energy physics is that they don't want to admit that the LHC cannot do everything, and as they seem to have discovered that super-symmetry might be an order or two in magnitude out of reach, they would rather suggest that it is a failed theory. Theorists would say exactly what iv just said however. Even the most simple Super-symmetric models are alive and well and still fold very nicely into the framework.

Still the LHC has a long and great physics program ahead of it and i'm sure there will be more new and interesting things there!!!

The Higgs measurement as I said doesn't invalidate anything, it does however push the energy region of the lightest super-symmetric particles way way up, this is quite important for physics because the current generation of Dark Matter experiments are getting extremely close to being turned on. The biggest dark matter detector on the Earth is due to turn on early later this year (DEAP) and it will be theoretically possible to get enough data to start poking into the region of interest. A high mass WIMP is the most observationally favoured and it being pushed a bit higher has little to no consequence on the detection in a big dark matter detector. We would simply see more energy from the interaction.

It is a difficult one to conceptualize what created the universe, what existed then, and indeed what is outside the space time bubble we call the universe. Is it nothing? if it is nothing, what does nothing even mean when it isn't space time? lots of interesting questions and its great to think about the possibilities. I think sometimes debate is stifled however when people make general 'matter of fact' statements as if they are prophets of knowledge when the reality is they are prophets of pure ignorance and arrogance. Shame there are so many many many of them around...

Originally posted by ErosA433
High energy physicists have done a nice job of trying to inform the media that super-symmetry is dead and doesn't work with the discovery of the Higgs.

Except for the fact that all of the statements in this sentence are false. We haven't been trying to tell the media that supersymmetry is dead, some crackpots did and we've been trying to tell them the opposite. It not only is not inconsistent with the Higgs, is is perfectly consistent with it and the rest of the measurements made by the LHC and everyone else.

Many people have chosen to latch onto this and say "Oh that means dark matter is dead too".

Right, because many people don't understand dark matter or supersymmetry at all.

This is not entirely true, all it does is push the measurement of possible super-symmetric models out of the reach of the LHC.

That is entirely false. The current measurements say literally nothing about dark matter, and very little about supersymmetry.

Supersymmetry is a very generic and powerful model, and it is in absolutely no danger of being ruled out experimentally or observationally.

Pretty interesting really given that my post comes from the reading of about 30 papers on the subject and what you said in your post essentially is an ambiguous nod of "yes you are right" while trying to also state that i am wrong, while also saying absolutely nothing.

padding the numbers?

why not contribute?