- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 7,692
- Reaction score
- 3,368
- Location
- TN
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
It's not so Godly since some/most physicists have been going on the assumption that it's the correct model for quite some time now. So detecting it really doesn't change anything.
How many theoretical physicists specializing in General Relativity does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Two
One to hold the light bulb, a second one to rotate the universe.
This might have been asked and answered elsewhere but: Does anyone think the unofficial name "The God Particle" will cause all sorts of 'confusion' amongst the creationist crowd? Confusion over the particle not just the normal levels of confusion?
It gives their hypotheses merit so yes, it does change something.
When the Higgs boson was conjectured decades ago, it was named the God particle because it would need to exist for all other particles to exist. Physicists have a habit of giving things weird names. For example, Murray Gell-Mann named the quark from a line in the book Finegan's Wake. And there are 6 kinds of quarks - Up, Down, Strange, Charm, Top, and Bottom. The first two correspond to atomic structure as we know it. The others correspond to atomic structures found by smashing atoms, but which do not exist normally (although they are probably found in black holes). Some universes may consists of one of those families instead of the electron, proton, and neutron (proton=2 up quarks and a down quark, neutron=1 up quark and 2 down quarks). These "others" are the muon family of particles and the tao family of particles. Here's an interesting fact - The muon neutrino appears to move faster than the speed of light, but I think I disagree with that finding, because if they found a muon neutrino's position, then there is no way to know the velocity (according to the Quantum Measurement Problem), thus making that second measurement invalid.
The nerd in me wants to love this post.
Yea, I've been following this for a few years. This particle needed to be found. Otherwise, thousands of physicists would have given up their careers to become janitors, pizza delivery guys, and musicians. LOL.
Imagine them in an office building with a cubicle:
I think observing the coffee machine is relative to the observer. Half will find it in good working condition, and the other half will find it on the fritz. But, in reality, it is both working and non working at the same time, until observed. It is a live dead coffee machine. I wonder if there is a cat inside it? LOL.
NOTE: Albert Einstein frequently fantasized about putting poison in Schroedinger's coffee machine. LOL.
Dana and I for the NERD WIN!
Pfft, you don't even know the meaning of Nerd Win.
I do. Dana achieved it and I collaborated with him! :2razz:
Come back when you work in a D&D and Dr. Who reference into the mix as well.
I think observing the coffee machine is relative to the observer. Half will find it in good working condition, and the other half will find it on the fritz. But, in reality, it is both working and non working at the same time, until observed. It is a live dead coffee machine. I wonder if there is a cat inside it? LOL.
NOTE: Albert Einstein frequently fantasized about putting poison in Schroedinger's coffee machine. LOL.
So now we have a god particle and a "faith" in dark matter's existence, despite its empirical non-existence.
hmm.
Science is sounding more like a religion every day.
So now we have a god particle and a "faith" in dark matter's existence, despite its empirical non-existence.
hmm.
Science is sounding more like a religion every day.
To the religious....perhaps.
Everyone else knows its just the way we gain knowledge.
We gain knowledge by having faith in things that cannot be empirically confirmed as even existing?
Yeah, that's why when it comes to science it's best to listen to scientists.
I have faith in scientific method, but that faith is not the same type of faith that theists speak of or mean. To confuse the word faith when applied to science is fallacious, since obviously the majority is not talking about science as if it were a belief system comparable to religions. No one has a faith in dark matter (perhaps some new age folk do?) instead dark matter and dark energy are theories that are agreeably unproven. The fact that you are saying that scientists have some kind of faith in dark matter shows that you have really no understanding of scientific method.We gain knowledge by having faith in things that cannot be empirically confirmed as even existing?
I have faith in scientific method, but that faith is not the same type of faith that theists speak of or mean. To confuse the word faith when applied to science is fallacious, since obviously the majority is not talking about science as if it were a belief system comparable to religions. No one has a faith in dark matter (perhaps some new age folk do?) instead dark matter and dark energy are theories that are agreeably unproven. The fact that you are saying that scientists have some kind of faith in dark matter shows that you have really no understanding of scientific method.
The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation. Faith, defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded.
The scientific method can certainly be used in situations where the state of mind or consciousness of the participants is taken into account. It can be used to verify predictions made by those of faith.
For instance, my faith has me believing that a 12 dimensional superstring theory will be the best fit to the collected data and Allah will turn off beta decay crashing every computer on the planet.
Now, break out the method man...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?