Am I Crazy?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 12:44 am
I have had arguments with people about the importance of science and the giant atom smasher at CERN. A few see this as a waste of time and money and not important to try and discover how the universe began because "It won't make any difference".

This gets me really angry because how the **** can anyone in their right mind not want to know where the universe came from or even how it functions??? Is it just me? Is it just me who would love to know? Are these people right when they say we should not waste money with these experiements, or, am I right in thinking they are just idiots?

Jesus Christ I am so glad these type of people do not have a say in the matter!

I would like to see your responses...

Oh yeah, check out my blog on religion i you are interested. I just made it...

God Says Kill
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 12:47 am
@TurboLung,
as a matter of interest, do you know why the Higg's boson is referred to as 'The God Particle'?
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 12:50 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;174531 wrote:
as a matter of interest, do you know why the Higg's boson is referred to as 'The God Particle'?



Because the media need to entertain idiots?
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 02:38 am
@TurboLung,
No it is much more interesting than that, and quite related to your thread. There was a book on it, I will dig it out and provide some of the ideas - it was by a physicist.

BTW, when you say 'where the universe came from', do you think this is potentially discoverable by understanding the nature of matter? I mean, already the picture of what matter is, is extremely difficult to understand for anyone who is not a mathematical physicist. So if they did come up with a set of equations that described the whole 'particle zoo', why do you think this might tell us 'where the universe came from'?
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 02:53 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;174528 wrote:
am I right in thinking they are just idiots?
It seems unlikely, as there are relevant physicist who think colliders are a waste of money and dont demonstrate anything.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 02:57 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;174548 wrote:
It seems unlikely, as there are relevant physicist who think colliders are a waste of money and dont demonstrate anything.


Really? I didn't know that.
 
Soul Brother
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 03:33 am
@Zetherin,
TurboLung;174528 wrote:
This gets me really angry because how the **** can anyone in their right mind not want to know where the universe came from or even how it functions??? Is it just me? Is it just me who would love to know?


Some people (I have spoken to some) wether theist or atheist are simply satisfied, they are thankful for they're life and what they have but they are also grateful for the universe, and as such are more than satisfied with what they have without the need to demand more answers for feelings of satisfaction. It is simply a view that the universe is and has been and will be and that is all I need to know, and I guess I can respect this view, it is like a dog that eats the food provided from his master without the disrespect of demanding answers as to how the food came about, or what was the means of obtaining the food provided, no, he simply does his job which is accept that what is given and is more than thankful and grateful for what is given without demanding for more.

TurboLung;174532 wrote:
Because the media need to entertain idiots?


This is true, however it is not the reason of why term was put forth.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 03:35 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;174531 wrote:
as a matter of interest, do you know why the Higg's boson is referred to as 'The God Particle'?


Another person taken in by a joke. The reason it was referred to as that was because it was and still is highly theoretical. They had a lot of assumptions about it and a lot of ideas, but it was still unproven. So one scientist jokingly referred to it as the god particle because just like god, it was unproven and at the time the figured there wouldn't be a way to prove it.

The other thing about it was that if they could prove it or create one, then it would tie everything we know about quantum mechanics together in a nice elegant way. But like mentioned before it remains a theory, but we are on the verge of determining if it exists. However I already know the answer if god exists, which is a no.

Of course the theists take these sorts of stories and run with it as if it is to give validity to their theology. But it is completely taken out of context, bent around, manipulated and then spread around as lies. When one person lies because they refuse to take in the whole story, all those others who quote it spread lies.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 03:42 am
@TurboLung,
Krumple;174558 wrote:
Another person taken in by a joke.


Not at all. Everybody has answered this question incorrectly, so far. The reason why the Higgs boson is called the God particle is because it was called that in the title of a book published in 1993 called The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question, by physicist Leon Ledermann, and Dick Teresi.

And you may think God doesn't exist, but I can say the same things about atoms, so there!

---------- Post added 06-08-2010 at 07:43 PM ----------

ughaibu;174548 wrote:
It seems unlikely, as there are relevant physicist who think colliders are a waste of money and dont demonstrate anything.


You provided a link in another post about this, I don't suppose you could point to it again please?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 03:52 am
@TurboLung,
jeeprs wrote:
And you may think God doesn't exist, but I can say the same things about atoms, so there!


You're being sarcastic, right?
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 03:54 am
@TurboLung,
There are no atoms. Some bloke called Rutherford proved that in (I think) 1927.

Remember, 'atom' means 'indivisible'. We now have a 'particle zoo', which is not 'an atom'. Furthermore until the last piece turns up, we really don't have a complete zoo.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 03:57 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;174568 wrote:
There are no atoms. Some bloke called Rutherford proved that in (I think) 1927.

Remember, 'atom' means 'indivisible'. We now have a 'particle zoo', which is not 'an atom'. Furthermore until the last piece turns up, we really don't have a complete zoo.


Yeah, I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. But, just so you know, there are atoms.
 
Eudaimonia
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:02 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;174544 wrote:

BTW, when you say 'where the universe came from', do you think this is potentially discoverable by understanding the nature of matter?


Well, matter is a part of spacetime that exists from the big-bang, correct? So then understanding the nature of particles doesn't seem to explain the first part of the equation, namely, the "cause" of this bang (matter/space/time being the effects). Maybe I'm just being pessimistic-- I've been filing The Beginning of It All in the "unanswerable" pile for a little while now. Does the bang need a cause?
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:11 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;174569 wrote:
Yeah, I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. But, just so you know, there are atoms.


There are no atoms in the sense that the word was understood in the heyday of materialism. It was thought that they were fundamental units of reality. Atom means indivisible. There really is no such thing. I kid you not, and I am not wrong about it.

Philosophy is about 100 years behind physics in all of this. The philosophical implications of quantum theory are extremely mind-boggling.

---------- Post added 06-08-2010 at 08:12 PM ----------

Eudaimonia;174571 wrote:
Well, matter is a part of spacetime that exists from the big-bang, correct? So then understanding the nature of particles doesn't seem to explain the first part of the equation, namely, the "cause" of this bang (matter/space/time being the effects). Maybe I'm just being pessimistic-- I've been filing The Beginning of It All in the "unanswerable" pile for a little while now. Does the bang need a cause?


That is not really what I am saying. I am just saying that there are no atoms in the sense of fundamental particles. Somebody will say, the electron is a particle. And then I will say, actually it is also a wave. And a wave is not a particle.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:13 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;174572 wrote:
Philosophy is about 100 years behind physics in all of this.
Of course it isn't.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:13 am
@TurboLung,
Disclaimer: I am not a physicist and not trained in mathematical physics, but everything I have said, thus far, is common knowledge.

---------- Post added 06-08-2010 at 08:14 PM ----------

ughaibu;174574 wrote:
Of course it isn't.


Can you provide us an update on the latest thinking about the philosophical implications of Bell's Theorem?
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:18 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;174575 wrote:
Can you provide us an update on the latest thinking about the philosophical implications of Bell's Theorem?
1) who, other than you, is included in "us"?
2) is Bell's theorem anywhere near 100 years old?
3) do you mean more recent than the Kochen-Conway theorem?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:20 am
@TurboLung,
jeeprs wrote:
It was thought that they were fundamental units of reality.


So we've learned more since then. So what? That doesn't mean the word was used differently. People used the word "atom" to refer to atoms then, just as they do now. The only difference is that we've learned more about the atom and subatomic particles since then.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:36 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;174562 wrote:
You provided a link in another post about this, I don't suppose you could point to it again please?
http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/logic/7854-good-arguments-bad-arguments-lhc.html#post140773
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:41 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;174577 wrote:
1) who, other than you, is included in "us"?
2) is Bell's theorem anywhere near 100 years old?
3) do you mean more recent than the Kochen-Conway theorem?


OK, sorry, I will try and explain myself better.

Prior to the discovery of quantum theory and sub-atomic particles, it was assumed that the universe consisted of indivisible particles ('atoms') that could be understood in terms of Newtonian mechanics. The probabilistic nature of QM however, along with the ambiguous ontological status of some of the so-called 'fundamental particles', has shown that the world picture of so-called 'classical science' was fundamentally flawed.

Bell's theorem shows that paired sub-atomic particles appear to be able to affect each other regardless of their remoteness. This suggests that information is being transmitted at faster than the speed of light.

The nature of 'quantum indeterminacy' and such paradoxes as Bell's theorem were a source of deep disquiet to Einstein, who spent almost his entire career in America attempting to resolve these problems, without success.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 03/08/2021 at 10:06:11