July 04, 2012 11:00 AM
July 04, 2012 11:00 AM
"These computer things will never work out, they've taken hundreds of years to do anything and for nothing. We should just give up."
"Automobiles? Pah! What's wrong with good old horses? They go at a perfectly good rate."
"Calculations of pi? Waste of time."
And the things you mentioned, marksyzm, are stuff theat we knew would improve stuff. What is this going to achieve? New power source? New method of travelling? Breakthrough in cancer research?
Exactly that... the search for and drive to discover the Higgs Boson has led to the creation of advancements in all of those fields.
Without the Higgs field, as it is known, or something like it, all elementary forms of matter would zoom around at the speed of light, flowing through our hands like moonlight. There would be neither atoms nor life.
Why is gravity so weak? What is dark matter, this invisible stuff that clings around galaxies? What is dark energy? What is driving the expansion of universe? There is so much that physics cannot explain at the moment, far more than it can explain. And they are hoping that something quirky about the particle they found will give them a clue where to go next.
FlyOnTheWall, I hope I misunderstand you, but do you actually mean that the effort to understand the fabric of the universe is a waste of time? Or is it something specific about these experiments or the standard model that you disagree with?
.... and a few of the other aspects mentioned here...
CERN only started their experiments to try and confirm and determine Higgs Boson in 2010. The Internet was started at CERN by Tim Berners-Lee in 1990. The creation of the WWW/Internet was great to assist in communicating Higgs-Boson, Higgs-Boson did not cause the invention of the Internet.... Inverse logic does not work in this case...
Gravity is not weak. Because of gravity, all our planets revolve around the Sun, galaxies typically stay together, etc - this is a HUGE force. We don't understand everything about gravity though - a lot is still theory
Dark Matter and its existence is also an inferred theory. It is not proven that it actually exists - it is one of the "explanations" used to try and explain certain types of gravity, specificallt when it comes to galactic rotation, but there are other theories which contradict the inferrence of Dark Matter.
My issue here is that Higgs-Boson is another inference, based on a mixture of OTHER theories, some of them inferred.
What I am trying to say, is that I agree that CERN has done a lot of positive things for mankind. However, as my brother-in-law is a Professor in Curved-Space-Theory etc, and I talk and debate with him quite a bit, we both agree that the mathematically proven fact (using inference) that 1+1=3 is one of the examples of how some theories are just that - theories. We all know that 1+1=2, so the inference is actually not true, even though it is proven...
I have no problem with us trying to understand the Universe, et al. My issue is that that £2.6bn could be used for something more relevant, like new propulsion methods, new energy, cancer research, etc, etc, etc....
it's going to take a few years of more research to find the true potential of this discovery. Just like it did when they discovered DNA. yes they found DNA, but genetic modifications didn't just appear the next day, it took years of research to develop the techniques needed.
The same principle exists here. Be patient, and in years to come you will see that your initial doubts were unfounded.
Yes, I have great belief that they have discovered something/put themselves on the path of discovery, that could well end up with great big mahoosive spaceships, and all sorts of cool stuff. The next 20 years are going to be very interesting times to live in.
The quest for knowledge is what created the internet. Your contention is that searching for the Higgs Boson is a waste of time. It isn't, for the same reasons all scientific research isn't, because it leads to the discovery of things we use every day.
Compared to you, yes, gravity is not weak. Compared to much of the way it should operate in the universe, it is weak.
The rest of your post is basically saying that because something is a theory, it isn't worth putting time into researching, which is just a ridiculously stupid way of looking at scientific study. So I won't even waste my time trying to explain the significance of trying to understand things we don't understand if you can't figure that out yourself.
But what it seems like you don't understand is that, discovering the way atoms, matter, life, and the universe are created, will give us advances in all of those areas that we never even dreamed possible. I am really at a loss here because you mention things like propulsion, energy, and cancer research, which are all created through scientific discovery. But then you say that figuring out possibly the most significant information about the creation of the entire universe is a waste of time. Don't you think if we figured out how to create matter, atoms, and even life, it would lead to the understanding of physics in a way that would greatly improve our abilities to make advances in all of those fields?
My last say - seeing that I seem to upset a lot of the followers of Higgs-Boson.
There are other alternative models also just as good at explaining what CERN is trying to explain with HB (called Higgs-less models). Maybe you should go read up on this as well, before you take this new "discovery" as the Alpha and Omega:
Top Quark Condensate theory where this role is performed by the top quark and its anti-quark
Sundance Bilson-Thompson's Braid Model compatible with loop quantum gravity models (which is what my BIL subscribes to)
Extra-dimensional Higgsless model, whre the role of HB is played by a different fifth component of the gauge field
Haha, I don't take it as the Alpha and Omega, because I don't think of anything in those terms.
I'm familiar with alternative models, but that doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about.
What I am saying is that TRYING to discover the Higgs-Boson is not a waste of time. Because even if we never do, or if we do and it turns out not to be what we expected, it will still further our understanding of the universe in ways that will greatly aid us as a whole. And what doesn't make any sense to me, is that you are saying that trying to prove the Higgs-Boson is a waste of time and money, but trying to prove any or all of these alternative models isn't. That makes no sense at all. Why would putting time and money into any of these alternatives be better than putting the same resources into the HB? Researching and trying to prove or disprove any scientific theory is not a waste of time or money, because we gain knowledge from it. Which, in turn, helps us create advances in all of the fields of study you listed in your earlier posts.
Who's to say that ALL the theories wont be tested at some point in the future?
You're both talking like the higgs-boson test is the only one that is going to be done ever.....
I can't wait for them to discover a way of keeping cars clean and shiny no matter how much dirt gets chucked at them....
Seems like I am STILL going to say one last thing...
I am NOT against scientific studies. Far from it. It was and will always be my favorite subject, and I make my money from it.
However, my question is, why don't we put the same amount of effort into something we basically ARE at the sum of what we can ever know, namely the human body, or replacing the need for fossil fuels everywhere where it is being used. If we put all this brain-power together to research things which (in MY humble opinion) can be used on MUCH more important and pressing issues that actually affect us on a daily basis, and then from THERE work our way up to the more ethereal issues, it would be of more benefit to this planet and its inhabitants....
I am questioning the RELATIVE importance of this research....
relatively speaking, the CERN discovery COULD lead to new fuels. If the make-up of any given substance could be altered from a higgs-boson point of view, then surely it's not a great leap of faith to assume that one day we could still be driving our petrol cars around, but with the harmful parts of the emissions removed.
Jus sayin.... jeez....
Jus sayin.... jeez....
SO how long before we can miniaturise an LHC to the point where I can put it in my car? (I know!!!! - that is not the purpose of yesterday's exercise). Practicalities! And our major problem with fossil fuels is not the emissions anymore, but the fact that we are going to run out of it LONG before something like HB will be of any use... spend resources like time, money, brainpower in developing OTHER methods of generating propulsion, energy etc.
The humbleness was a little lost among the bombastic claims of time being wasted But thanks for the clarifications, I was starting to worry you were completely bonkers (slightly bonkers I'm fine with)
Well, in all fairness, we do have research into those areas as well, they just aren't as widely publicized as CERN unless they make a significant breakthrough. But the small advances don't get as many readers or ratings as articles about discovering the origins of the universe.
Does your friend know whether they are just giving this project the larger weight of priority over the alternative methods you mentioned, and does he know whether these aren't being worked on the same relatively necessary scale? And is the scientific community as a whole more giving hb the greater benefit of doubt for good reason or not?