The LHC: the beginning of the end for postmodern physics

[RayTomes]

And I used to think that "the dog ate my homework" was a pretty good excuse

Nick, what about "The LHC ate my homework"?

[redeye]

Or, as Neilsen would claim, the God particle ate my homework!

Cheers!

[david barclay]

What does Thornhill/Smith think of the idea of a determined multiuniverse?

The word "Multiuniverse" is an oxymoron. Universe means everything that exists. You cannot have more than one.

Nick

There is only one universe, but there are different conditions of universe....each of which remains relative to the point and or system of reference. This allows for both past and future conditions to exist relative to each system simultaneously.

[jjohnson]

Right you are, I think, Nick. Terry Witt figures that (in a very dense logic exercise in Our Undiscovered Universe) there is the universe, which is all which actually is, and the null condition, which is void and everything that is not in the universe, which is...nothingness. Sort of yin and yang, is and is-not. The universe is a closed system without beginning or end. It conserves all its energy and momentum and mass. After that it gets strange and retains too much standard theory, and brings back tired light. Even though it has some intriguing ideas and explanations, I don't buy it nearly as well as the ideas espoused in the EU/PC approach to cosmology.

Multiverses and colliding membranes and parallel timelines and infinite splits and variations on histories is much too complicated a story to be plausible for me. Actually, I find something as "simple" as the Schroedinger's cat" thesis to be overly complex. People think "too hard", rather than "smart enough", too often. "The universe does not go to great lengths to hide itself from us". Occam's razor. Less is more. Stuff like that. It's not easy or non-complex, but it's not stupid, either. It is observable, testable, and eventually decipherable, in large part, it appears to me. It is also causal, with time being the separatrix which differentiates cause from effect (a measurement of a length dimension, as Miles says). "It [time] is what keeps everything from happening at once."

[david barclay]

It's not all that complicated......time runs slow or fast depending on where you are situated.

On the moon it runs fast, deep under our feet it runs fast, but on Jupiter and Saturn it runs slow in relation to a relative time differential.

Keep in mind that conventional science is as much about control as rule of law.

[nick c]

The word "Multiuniverse" is an oxymoron. Universe means everything that exists. You cannot have more than one.

Just a note, I wasn't criticizing any particular theory, only the use of the word "multiuniverse." If what we consider the "universe" (whatever that is) is in reality one of many, than it wasn't the Universe in the first place, but rather, only a part of the Universe. As an analogy, galaxies were once thought to be objects within the Milky Way, because it was originally thought that the Milky Way was the entire universe. When it was discovered that there were many other Milky Way's, they were given the name "island universes." The name faded from usage because there can be only one Universe, by definition.

Nick

[StevenJay]

Hi, jj -

"The universe does not go to great lengths to hide itself from us".

Heh, when one considers the degree of perception we assume upon incarnation here, it doesn't have to!

It is observable, testable, and eventually decipherable, in large part, it appears to me.

Yes, but at what level? For years now, I have been convinced that this thing we call "the physical universe" is merely an elegant mental construct into which we have all projected and are participating in. Whatever deciphering of this construct we do via testable observation is ultimately limited to the rules of the construct itself (a brilliant method of concealment in plain sight, if you ask me!). BUT, that same inside-of-the-box approach may also eventually point the way to the realization that all of this is just a thought excersize, after all. At that point, "physical" science and spirituality have been successfully reunited. But that's just my personal perception.

It is also causal, with time being the separatrix which differentiates cause from effect (a measurement of a length dimension, as Miles says). "It [time] is what keeps everything from happening at once."

I can't help but roll my eyes whenever time is treated as some sort of tangible thing. It's merely a perception; a navigational tool designed specifically for this construct. It is a methodology by which we fragment the infinite "now" into "past," "present" and "future." It is the mechanism through which the perception of "causality" is made possible.

"Everything is at the same time -
Nothing is vice-versa."

Obviously, the Zen Masters have known this for a long time.

My appologies if I've wandered too far off topic here.

[mharratsc]

Ok so... now that the LHC has test-fired, did any of those BS artists lose their tenure?? o.O

One successful run of that sucker blows them out of the water and puts their butts in a sling. Think anyone will fire them?


Mike H.

[RayTomes]

Ok so... now that the LHC has test-fired, did any of those BS artists lose their tenure?? o.O

One successful run of that sucker blows them out of the water and puts their butts in a sling. Think anyone will fire them?

It is a long time since tenured physicists or cosmologists were expected to make statements about the real world that could be verified. Sadly, they do not even know what testing propositions means.

[jjohnson]

StevenJay - no apology, please. These are not easy questions when one gets into the part about what is the difference between what the universe really is and what we believe we know it to be at any given time. "I think; therefore I am, but I'm not so sure I know what I really am." Thought is our mental construct of our senses, no doubt, and whatever the universe "actually" is, it does not change because this carbon-based life form or that silicon-based life forms has this or that conjecture about it.

I guess my approach is more that of a pragmatist, in that the better we know how our universe works for mostly what might be termed mechanical or engineering purposes, the happier I am about it because that feels more secure. I hesitate to attribute observed physical phenomena to magic, superstition, religious tenets, holograms, dark energy or matter or other phenomena which are, as defined, unobservable by definition. I like going fast. I don't want to be going fast and die suddenly because my limited knowledge left something important out. However, as pointed out in The Black Swan, we are not good at predicting well, even though we think we are, and occasionally without warning this will result in a sudden and wholly unexpected event (a "Black Swan"). It may be a good event, but it may be catastrophically bad. There are so many degrees of freedom that accurate long range prediction is not possible, despite our being convinced that it really is, in either direction, forward or into the past.

I try not to think too deeply about it all, knowing that my knowledge of anything is shallow enough to force me to stick to the basics. You don't go out far on the Sound on a foggy day without practicing navigation first and carrying lights. Better yet, avoid fog altogether and enjoy the tranquility of a quiet day in contemplative thought or reading.