T Nation

The Collider, the Particle and a Theory About Fate

it is going to be really hard to mask power politics in multiverses in stead of religion. we may all have to become fascists.

That reasoning depends on human observers being required for the universe or things in it to exist, which is absurd (as personal opinion), problematic (as the universe existed before man), and unnecessary.

EDIT: I read your post too fast. The above was figuring you were employing a Copenhagen-ish sort of reasoning. Instead however your reasoning seems to depend on an axiom that human life in its entirety or maybe even individually cannot end, of which I don’t know the physical basis.

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Let me try to give an idea of what they could possibly be onto. Let us assume for one moment that there is a multiverse where every possible scenario can and does paly out. Let us alo assume that an individual existance once created cannot be terminated. So for all extents and purposes Lets say we have a caveman who is about to get eaten by a sabertooth tiger. To all the observers of the atack, thier existance does not end if he is eaten so thier reality is that he is eaten. To the caveman who is eaten, there is a 1 in a trillion, trillions chance that an alien craft will swoop by and beam him aboard or some other such miraculous way he survives such an event. So in the cavemans reality, his future death, predicted what his future would be bacause he had to survive the event. Life cannot be extinguished, it was shot to another branch of the multiverse where the life does not end.

So perhaps a fully functioning LHC does indeed produce a planet consuming black hole which destroys the entire planet and ever human life on it. THEN the future would demand that the entire species of human, who individually cannot die, would together hit another branch of the multiverse where the black hole does not destroy the earth. The most logical way for this to happen, is for the LHC to malfunction and never produce the future black hole.

Now what is pretty cool about this is that eventually, every person who dies is going to have to have some way to continue with thier existance, so either a demensional shift at death, passing on to another plane or whatever, but perhaps, there are some realities where our species is far far far more advanced and has conquered the secrets to eterneal life or that reality was given to them from outside sources (Aliens).

This of course is just my interpretation of what they could possibly be saying.

V[/quote]

I need a drink.

This is what we get when physicists literally go crazy.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
That reasoning depends on human observers being required for the universe or things in it to exist, which is absurd (as personal opinion), problematic (as the universe existed before man), and unnecessary.

EDIT: I read your post too fast. The above was figuring you were employing a Copenhagen-ish sort of reasoning. Instead however your reasoning seems to depend on an axiom that human life in its entirety or maybe even individually cannot end, of which I don’t know the physical basis.[/quote]

Not entierely, but in the multiverse theory, there is a chance that a life never ends, and therefore, there is a reality where it doesn’t end. So, who is to say that instead of the individual actually being extinguished, he or she is not branched to an existance where the life did not end. Either they mysteriously gain superpowers and survive, or some other thing intervienes, etc… Or in the LHC, one reality is that it keeps breaking down and we never get it to work properly to create the black hole that will eventually kill us all.

The multiverse theory is based on branching. A Branch is made when a person makes a choice. Essentially, you are looking at a box of cookies. You decide to not eat any cookies. There is also a you that ate one cookie. There is also a you that ate two, there is one that ate three etc… Untill one fatass version of you ate the whole box. Now, is it possible for previously branched selves to re-join on a particular reality or does reality just have very similar branches for such purposes.

I would like to know personally, WHY if this is really the true theory of everything or whatnot… WHY do I experience this one reality? I mean is one or many of my other branched selves sitting there saying why in the same way? And if I as a person make every decision, but only ride the branch I am on, so one of my multiverses I am the evelist most cruel person to ever have walked the planet and another is more good than Ghandi?

Also this gives the size of everything new meaning, not only do you have one infinately spaced thing existing, no you have a new one branching off every time you make a decision. And is there another new one branching off everytime anyone on earth makes a decision? What about animals? What about insects? where does it start and stop?

V

In physics right now there isn’t a good explanation for why things have mass. There are a few theories, but right now in the standard model anytime you try and figure out the mass of the smallest particles you get an infinite response. Theorists hypothesize that this is due to particles being treated like points and thus they can get infinitely close, thus have infinite mass.

There are two explanations right now as to fix this. One being string theory. If instead of points, the smallest particles are strings, then they cannot be infinitely close to each other.

The other theory is that there is a field that permeates the universe and certain particles have ‘drag’ through this field, thus giving them mass. A guy named Higgs thought of this, and thus its known as the Higgs field. In particle physics, if you have a field you also will have a particle associated with it. This would be the Higgs boson. Now the Higgs boson would be a very heavy particle and would almost instantly break apart into smaller particles. So after the Big Bang there would have been a lot of these Higgs boson’s, but they would have all immediately decayed.

The LHC is attempting to recreate the first billionths of a second after the big bang and if it is succesful, it would allow the physicists to see the remnants of these higgs bosons. They would then know whether they are correct in their assumptions. If no higgs bosons, then we are wrong with our current theories and have to work backwards to find out where we went wrong.

The article is stating that some physicists think that the higgs boson is such an anomaly in the currect space time that the universe is preventing us from making one.

Or I’m drunk…

I <3 this thread.

Physicists throw a lot of theory around. It all sounds good until it’s put into practice by engineers who design and build these simulators and accelerators. They’re gauging parts with paper clips and measuring with instruments with an error tolerance just wide enough to throw off the particle path to render a lesser or no effect.

So I wouldn’t worry about creating a black hole. Keep this in mind:

If it smells bad, it’s Chemistry
If it moves, it’s Biology
If it doesn’t work, it’s Physics.

V excellant posts, most excellant.

I’ll jot some stuff down later, but those 2 posts are quite good.

[quote]Yo Momma wrote:
Physicists throw a lot of theory around. It all sounds good until it’s put into practice by engineers who design and build these simulators and accelerators. They’re gauging parts with paper clips and measuring with instruments with an error tolerance just wide enough to throw off the particle path to render a lesser or no effect.

So I wouldn’t worry about creating a black hole. Keep this in mind:

If it smells bad, it’s Chemistry
If it moves, it’s Biology
If it doesn’t work, it’s Physics.[/quote]

Ow …

I would like an expansion on this ?

I assure you Physics works, and works quite well. Maybe it doesn’t work 100% of the time all the time, but to make an omellete one must break some eggs.

The Black Hole view is quite over rated, more fear mongering than any notion it will happen… more like Y2K kind of a view. If we don’t know what will happen assume the worst !

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
That reasoning depends on human observers being required for the universe or things in it to exist, which is absurd (as personal opinion), problematic (as the universe existed before man), and unnecessary.

EDIT: I read your post too fast. The above was figuring you were employing a Copenhagen-ish sort of reasoning. Instead however your reasoning seems to depend on an axiom that human life in its entirety or maybe even individually cannot end, of which I don’t know the physical basis.

Not entierely, but in the multiverse theory, there is a chance that a life never ends, and therefore, there is a reality where it doesn’t end. So, who is to say that instead of the individual actually being extinguished, he or she is not branched to an existance where the life did not end. Either they mysteriously gain superpowers and survive, or some other thing intervienes, etc… Or in the LHC, one reality is that it keeps breaking down and we never get it to work properly to create the black hole that will eventually kill us all.

The multiverse theory is based on branching. A Branch is made when a person makes a choice. Essentially, you are looking at a box of cookies. You decide to not eat any cookies. There is also a you that ate one cookie. There is also a you that ate two, there is one that ate three etc… Untill one fatass version of you ate the whole box. Now, is it possible for previously branched selves to re-join on a particular reality or does reality just have very similar branches for such purposes.

I would like to know personally, WHY if this is really the true theory of everything or whatnot… WHY do I experience this one reality? I mean is one or many of my other branched selves sitting there saying why in the same way? And if I as a person make every decision, but only ride the branch I am on, so one of my multiverses I am the evelist most cruel person to ever have walked the planet and another is more good than Ghandi?

Also this gives the size of everything new meaning, not only do you have one infinately spaced thing existing, no you have a new one branching off every time you make a decision. And is there another new one branching off everytime anyone on earth makes a decision? What about animals? What about insects? where does it start and stop?

V[/quote]

A problem with this is that it is, quite literally, not science.

That is to say, it presents no thesis which if untrue, the authors admit of any way, nor can anyone else conceive, that it could be shown to be untrue.

Fundamentally, it’s equivalent to talking about the different phyla of life on the 5th planet of the 275,743th brightest star in a particular galaxy 5 billion light years away.

A person can say all they want about how these life forms use, or do not use, DNA coding the same as ours, but it’s not science, as it is not falsifiable (admits of no way of being shown incorrect, if incorrect.)

It falls into the category, instead, of philosophical speculation, and of a type where personal preference is all.

[quote]dbpusher wrote:
In physics right now there isn’t a good explanation for why things have mass. There are a few theories, but right now in the standard model anytime you try and figure out the mass of the smallest particles you get an infinite response. Theorists hypothesize that this is due to particles being treated like points and thus they can get infinitely close, thus have infinite mass.

There are two explanations right now as to fix this. One being string theory. If instead of points, the smallest particles are strings, then they cannot be infinitely close to each other.

The other theory is that there is a field that permeates the universe and certain particles have ‘drag’ through this field, thus giving them mass. A guy named Higgs thought of this, and thus its known as the Higgs field. In particle physics, if you have a field you also will have a particle associated with it. This would be the Higgs boson. Now the Higgs boson would be a very heavy particle and would almost instantly break apart into smaller particles. So after the Big Bang there would have been a lot of these Higgs boson’s, but they would have all immediately decayed.

The LHC is attempting to recreate the first billionths of a second after the big bang and if it is succesful, it would allow the physicists to see the remnants of these higgs bosons. They would then know whether they are correct in their assumptions. If no higgs bosons, then we are wrong with our current theories and have to work backwards to find out where we went wrong.

The article is stating that some physicists think that the higgs boson is such an anomaly in the currect space time that the universe is preventing us from making one.

Or I’m drunk…[/quote]

I think the dead ends of point particle physics as described above is the best evidence for string theory. I think string theory will eventually explain many things we do not yet understand and I think it will be the unifying theory of physics. What I worry about is that it appears that our current theories are far ahead of our technology to test them. I do not foresee a time when we can build a collider large enough to find evidence of the smaller theoretical particles…thus we will continue to infer them with the math.

As to the multiverse theories, I have a fundamental problem with that theory. It seems to me that such a theory adopts this paradigm that the universe or muliverses exists for us when in fact the universe predates “us”. I think we are pretty damn insignificant to the universe. The idea that our choices and such open other multiverses plays rigth into this paradigm that the universe exists for and reacts to puny humans. I think the human condition is woe to ponder an endpoint and I believe it is this condition that spawned religion, afterlife theories and yes, multiverses :slight_smile:

We accept that the insect, once crushed or dead, is gone…although it’s energy and matter is transmuted to another form eventually. Why do we believe we are that different than the insect? Why do we believe we have a “purpose”. The soil, our water, plants, insects, animals, humans, so forth and so on, are but one expression of what we refer to as “life”. Solar systems, stars, etc. are but another expression. It is all energy in one form or another. And all throughout the universe, “life” or energy comes and goes without much notice. Whole stars are extinguished, galaxies torn apart and other celestial bodies can be wiped out in a second, and the “universe” does not pause, rest or otherwise hiccup. Why then are we convinced we matter so much :slight_smile: ?

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
That reasoning depends on human observers being required for the universe or things in it to exist, which is absurd (as personal opinion), problematic (as the universe existed before man), and unnecessary.

EDIT: I read your post too fast. The above was figuring you were employing a Copenhagen-ish sort of reasoning. Instead however your reasoning seems to depend on an axiom that human life in its entirety or maybe even individually cannot end, of which I don’t know the physical basis.

Not entierely, but in the multiverse theory, there is a chance that a life never ends, and therefore, there is a reality where it doesn’t end. So, who is to say that instead of the individual actually being extinguished, he or she is not branched to an existance where the life did not end. Either they mysteriously gain superpowers and survive, or some other thing intervienes, etc… Or in the LHC, one reality is that it keeps breaking down and we never get it to work properly to create the black hole that will eventually kill us all.

The multiverse theory is based on branching. A Branch is made when a person makes a choice. Essentially, you are looking at a box of cookies. You decide to not eat any cookies. There is also a you that ate one cookie. There is also a you that ate two, there is one that ate three etc… Untill one fatass version of you ate the whole box. Now, is it possible for previously branched selves to re-join on a particular reality or does reality just have very similar branches for such purposes.

I would like to know personally, WHY if this is really the true theory of everything or whatnot… WHY do I experience this one reality? I mean is one or many of my other branched selves sitting there saying why in the same way? And if I as a person make every decision, but only ride the branch I am on, so one of my multiverses I am the evelist most cruel person to ever have walked the planet and another is more good than Ghandi?

Also this gives the size of everything new meaning, not only do you have one infinately spaced thing existing, no you have a new one branching off every time you make a decision. And is there another new one branching off everytime anyone on earth makes a decision? What about animals? What about insects? where does it start and stop?

V

A problem with this is that it is, quite literally, not science.

That is to say, it presents no thesis which if untrue, the authors admit of any way, nor can anyone else conceive, that it could be shown to be untrue.

Fundamentally, it’s equivalent to talking about the different phyla of life on the 5th planet of the 275,743th brightest star in a particular galaxy 5 billion light years away.

A person can say all they want about how these life forms use, or do not use, DNA coding the same as ours, but it’s not science, as it is not falsifiable (admits of no way of being shown incorrect, if incorrect.)

It falls into the category, instead, of philosophical speculation, and of a type where personal preference is all.
[/quote]

I hope my sputzing on about the multiverse theory does not have you thinking I am sold on this as THE theory. I was just explaining what they may be onto with thier statements. I also think they may be trying to lend credible scientific process to make the theory or whichever precise one they will be trumpeting along with this. They were looking at the probablilities of things happening and in essence are trying to say the probability of such and such, such and such, AND such and such are so remote, then there must be some “thing” which is making it go down this way, like weighted dice.

I don’t even know if they are claiming what I was rambling on about the multiverse, I just saw it as one possible way the future could in fact effect the past. (theoretically)

V

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
dbpusher wrote:
In physics right now there isn’t a good explanation for why things have mass. There are a few theories, but right now in the standard model anytime you try and figure out the mass of the smallest particles you get an infinite response. Theorists hypothesize that this is due to particles being treated like points and thus they can get infinitely close, thus have infinite mass.

There are two explanations right now as to fix this. One being string theory. If instead of points, the smallest particles are strings, then they cannot be infinitely close to each other.

The other theory is that there is a field that permeates the universe and certain particles have ‘drag’ through this field, thus giving them mass. A guy named Higgs thought of this, and thus its known as the Higgs field. In particle physics, if you have a field you also will have a particle associated with it. This would be the Higgs boson. Now the Higgs boson would be a very heavy particle and would almost instantly break apart into smaller particles. So after the Big Bang there would have been a lot of these Higgs boson’s, but they would have all immediately decayed.

The LHC is attempting to recreate the first billionths of a second after the big bang and if it is succesful, it would allow the physicists to see the remnants of these higgs bosons. They would then know whether they are correct in their assumptions. If no higgs bosons, then we are wrong with our current theories and have to work backwards to find out where we went wrong.

The article is stating that some physicists think that the higgs boson is such an anomaly in the currect space time that the universe is preventing us from making one.

Or I’m drunk…

I think the dead ends of point particle physics as described above is the best evidence for string theory. I think string theory will eventually explain many things we do not yet understand and I think it will be the unifying theory of physics. What I worry about is that it appears that our current theories are far ahead of our technology to test them. I do not foresee a time when we can build a collider large enough to find evidence of the smaller theoretical particles…thus we will continue to infer them with the math.

As to the multiverse theories, I have a fundamental problem with that theory. It seems to me that such a theory adopts this paradigm that the universe or muliverses exists for us when in fact the universe predates “us”. I think we are pretty damn insignificant to the universe. The idea that our choices and such open other multiverses plays rigth into this paradigm that the universe exists for and reacts to puny humans. I think the human condition is woe to ponder an endpoint and I believe it is this condition that spawned religion, afterlife theories and yes, multiverses :slight_smile:

We accept that the insect, once crushed or dead, is gone…although it’s energy and matter is transmuted to another form eventually. Why do we believe we are that different than the insect? Why do we believe we have a “purpose”. The soil, our water, plants, insects, animals, humans, so forth and so on, are but one expression of what we refer to as “life”. Solar systems, stars, etc. are but another expression. It is all energy in one form or another. And all throughout the universe, “life” or energy comes and goes without much notice. Whole stars are extinguished, galaxies torn apart and other celestial bodies can be wiped out in a second, and the “universe” does not pause, rest or otherwise hiccup. Why then are we convinced we matter so much :slight_smile: ?

[/quote]

I guess I misunderstood the whole multiverse idea then.

I alwways figured it something like this: Let’s say an electron wants to get from point A to point B, how many paths can this electron follow? Yep, and infinit amount. So, each posible path does infact represent each individual universe.

It is not focused on humans or life, it is focused on the myriads of different posiblities there are for each and every particle. In other word, every posible state is not just posible, but is true.

But I guess I was way off then?

[quote]Vegita wrote:
I hope my sputzing on about the multiverse theory does not have you thinking I am sold on this as THE theory. I was just explaining what they may be onto with thier statements. I also think they may be trying to lend credible scientific process to make the theory or whichever precise one they will be trumpeting along with this. They were looking at the probablilities of things happening and in essence are trying to say the probability of such and such, such and such, AND such and such are so remote, then there must be some “thing” which is making it go down this way, like weighted dice.

I don’t even know if they are claiming what I was rambling on about the multiverse, I just saw it as one possible way the future could in fact effect the past. (theoretically)

V[/quote]

Well, accepting for a moment the multiverse theory, no matter how meritful or flawed it may be, but accepting it at face value - it would seem to be at odds of ever attempting to “sabatoge” a bad outcome as it would only be one outcome in one universe among an infinite number of other outcomes in an infinite number of universes. Where such an infinite number of outcomes can simultaneously exist, there should be no preference to one outcome over another.

If in fact, something is trying to sabotage the collider, it would be evidence for linear time and single universe outcomes as we perceive/experience it. Make sense?

How will this collider actually help the human race?

[quote]asusvenus wrote:
I guess I misunderstood the whole multiverse idea then.

I alwways figured it something like this: Let’s say an electron wants to get from point A to point B, how many paths can this electron follow? Yep, and infinit amount. So, each posible path does infact represent each individual universe.

It is not focused on humans or life, it is focused on the myriads of different posiblities there are for each and every particle. In other word, every posible state is not just posible, but is true.

But I guess I was way off then?
[/quote]

I’m not sure…in my mind, you are describing an infinite number of potential outcomes in our own universe and I believe what you describe is our basic hinderance to predicting the future. My understanding of the multiverse is that all the those infinite outcomes are actually occuring in other universes? I may be wrong…never studied it.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
How will this collider actually help the human race? [/quote]

I hate that line of thinking SO FUCKIN’ much.

Who cares about the human race? Knowledge is everything.

Yes, I know I’m contradicting myself, but that question is just like the peeps in gradeschool going, “Uhm, Why do I need to learn “Insert math topic of the week””

Then again, you’re right, let’s invest money in nukes… yaaaa!

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
How will this collider actually help the human race? [/quote]

The possibility is limitless. It’s like asking, how can landing on the moon help the human race? Well, a number of technologies were borne from that venture. We cannot possibly foresee what new technologies or applications new discoveries will bear.

A better question might be an economically based analysis given the billions that will be spent.

[quote]asusvenus wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:
dbpusher wrote:
In physics right now there isn’t a good explanation for why things have mass. There are a few theories, but right now in the standard model anytime you try and figure out the mass of the smallest particles you get an infinite response. Theorists hypothesize that this is due to particles being treated like points and thus they can get infinitely close, thus have infinite mass.

There are two explanations right now as to fix this. One being string theory. If instead of points, the smallest particles are strings, then they cannot be infinitely close to each other.

The other theory is that there is a field that permeates the universe and certain particles have ‘drag’ through this field, thus giving them mass. A guy named Higgs thought of this, and thus its known as the Higgs field. In particle physics, if you have a field you also will have a particle associated with it. This would be the Higgs boson. Now the Higgs boson would be a very heavy particle and would almost instantly break apart into smaller particles. So after the Big Bang there would have been a lot of these Higgs boson’s, but they would have all immediately decayed.

The LHC is attempting to recreate the first billionths of a second after the big bang and if it is succesful, it would allow the physicists to see the remnants of these higgs bosons. They would then know whether they are correct in their assumptions. If no higgs bosons, then we are wrong with our current theories and have to work backwards to find out where we went wrong.

The article is stating that some physicists think that the higgs boson is such an anomaly in the currect space time that the universe is preventing us from making one.

Or I’m drunk…

I think the dead ends of point particle physics as described above is the best evidence for string theory. I think string theory will eventually explain many things we do not yet understand and I think it will be the unifying theory of physics. What I worry about is that it appears that our current theories are far ahead of our technology to test them. I do not foresee a time when we can build a collider large enough to find evidence of the smaller theoretical particles…thus we will continue to infer them with the math.

As to the multiverse theories, I have a fundamental problem with that theory. It seems to me that such a theory adopts this paradigm that the universe or muliverses exists for us when in fact the universe predates “us”. I think we are pretty damn insignificant to the universe. The idea that our choices and such open other multiverses plays rigth into this paradigm that the universe exists for and reacts to puny humans. I think the human condition is woe to ponder an endpoint and I believe it is this condition that spawned religion, afterlife theories and yes, multiverses :slight_smile:

We accept that the insect, once crushed or dead, is gone…although it’s energy and matter is transmuted to another form eventually. Why do we believe we are that different than the insect? Why do we believe we have a “purpose”. The soil, our water, plants, insects, animals, humans, so forth and so on, are but one expression of what we refer to as “life”. Solar systems, stars, etc. are but another expression. It is all energy in one form or another. And all throughout the universe, “life” or energy comes and goes without much notice. Whole stars are extinguished, galaxies torn apart and other celestial bodies can be wiped out in a second, and the “universe” does not pause, rest or otherwise hiccup. Why then are we convinced we matter so much :slight_smile: ?

I guess I misunderstood the whole multiverse idea then.

I alwways figured it something like this: Let’s say an electron wants to get from point A to point B, how many paths can this electron follow? Yep, and infinit amount. So, each posible path does infact represent each individual universe.

It is not focused on humans or life, it is focused on the myriads of different posiblities there are for each and every particle. In other word, every posible state is not just posible, but is true.

But I guess I was way off then?
[/quote]

That is another multiverse theory. I believe there are many of them (how ironic). Esentially though, the one you just listed would include the other theories. So instead of humans being the branch divider, or anything living, then matter itself and the arrangement of every particle in the universe, and it’s relationship to every other particle would exist. The complete vastness of this is really hard to even think about. I mean lets just take how many different ways we could arrange the atoms in a grain of sand. Now the atoms on earth? Now in our solar system? It goes from out of hand to really really reduculously out of hand in complexity.

If god exists, dudes mind is, well mind blowing.

V