EVE General Discussion

Electrons, photons, bosons and other particles are make of quarks whose behavior is described by color theory.

The higgs boson, recently proven to exist within a 99.999% likelihood, is pretty much reality -- more so than a lot of theories. It completes the standard model of physics. The data was collected at the large hadron collider. We now have a fundamental understanding of the observed macro forces of the universe.

Most things are explained by the interactions of particles with their respective fields. The combination of quarks determine what quark and field we're talking about. Why quarks have these properties we don't know, but does it matter? The why is philosophical, but gives us little information about the what and how. And yet for almost everything science still gives us the why.

Science doesn't need to explain everything to be immensely helpful. And it is immensely helpful. Nothing else has a track record of producing repeatable, reliable predictions about the known universe like the application of the scientific method. Who cares if it doesn't answer every question. It's like the man who goes and sees the guru at the top of the mountain and learns the secrets to being content and good, but dismisses it all because he doesn't know the exact temperature of De Moines, Iowa. Science isn't a religion. It requires no creed, no dogma. It self-adjusts when proven wrong. It makes no philosophical judgments. It is simply there to provide a reliable way to design and test theories. Science converges on truth rather than diverges. Science is, and will continue to be, profoundly useful regardless of your opinion of it.

Look, I don't know how you can be so blind to it. But you just did it again. What makes the quarks? What exactly causes color? What is in between the quarks that causes them to interact and bond? Yes it matters. It matters because the only way to explain it with our (or I should say your) understanding is to make even tinier particles creating even tinier fields. Over and over again. It matters. It matters because there is a basic and fundamental flaw in your logic that creates a kind of feedback loop where a theory falls in on itself forever like matter into a blackhole. Yes it matters.


Also, just because they have detected something that they think is a Higgs Boson, does not mean that they have proven that it does what they think that it does. If it doesn't, then it's not a higgs boson after all is it? It's just another funky particle that has never been observed outside of a particle collider. I am not even convened that all of these new particles they claim they are detecting in particle colliders are in fact new particles at all. But I don't wish to g into that right now.



It always amazes and concerns me, how much a debate with a "pro-science" freak is to a debate with a born again religious zealot. They just cannot bring themselves to accept the many holes in their idea of everything. In the end, it is all about human Psychology, the need to feel safe and the need for the human ego to be "correct". Shrink the universe down small, put it all into a tiny box and invent a "god particle" that can do it all... just so the human monkey can think they can file, categorize and easily reference an incomprehensible universe spanning without end.


Well... I am not one of you. I see a bit more clearly. But please, don't worship me! I am merely a messenger!



@ Op
Time dilation is a relativistic effect. Right?

Future responses should probably be mailed to me.

They don't go about discovering particles by blasting random particles together and seeing if something just pops out. They come up with a hypothesis that says if a particle that exists that has the properties in question then if we collide these particles together then it should result in these other particles and this much energy. And they did that hundreds of millions of times and it was so consistent that they can say they know the higgs boson exists with 99.999% confidence.

And that there are things that we cannot scientifically test, that's okay. We don't need to know why electrons attract protons to know all sorts of things about electricity. And _we_ do know why electrons attract protons. We just don't know why there is an electrical field or a magnetic field. Someday we might, but until then it doesn't mean we can't make all sorts of predictions about how electrons and protons will interact with each other.

And I'll repeat *nothing* else even comes close to explaining how the universe works. Is your position that it just does and we shouldn't worry about it because we can't get all the answers right this second? Or even that some answers may not be within our reach? You don't need to know why to know what. We can very accurately describe the behavior of phenomenon without ever needing to know why that phenomenon exists.

As for your smaller field stuff. On that point the facts don't back you up. At this point the scientific consensus is that quarks are the smallest component of the universe and that everything is made up of quarks and different combinations of quarks spinning in different ways generates different physical behaviors. We've not discovered anything more elementary actually and frankly, nothing more elementary is required for the standard model of physics. All known natural forces now fit within the mathematical models produced for them. While it doesn't cover the quantum mechanics models and string theory -- we'll get there. String theory may be completely wrong, but ultimately it will be the application of the scientific method that will prove it wrong and not random skepticism from those who haven't educated themselves on the topic -- myself included.

Because the reality of combat in space won't be nearly as interesting.

pfft, you sir are wrong. Such a game already exists, it's called "going outside". I play it every time my significant other starts to complain.

It's not just "too hard" to model, its impossible and damn near game-breaking.

Debating the physics inside of a computer game is daft at the best of times. Here's an example for you, but first some background for those of you who are not as big a geek as I am..

Time runs slower in instances of higher gravity, relative to other instances of space time. So, Astronauts who go to the moon etc are actually living in an instance where time is running faster than it was running down on earth. When Astronauts come back from space they have experiences more time than we have on earth. So if two theoretical twins were born EXACTLY at the same time, one could go into space and come back older than their sibling. Now, in a warp bubble, you have separated yourself into your own instance of space time, separate from normal space time and therefore unaffected by the gravity of anything in normal space time. This would mean that you are in an instance of space time with almost infinitely less gravity. So, if you spend 2 minutes in warp that could work out as milliseconds or less for those outside of your isolated space time "bubble". Space time.

Why isn't that in the game, eh?

(There is a theory that would negate the above about time in warp bubbles etc, but I can't be bothered to go into it.)

Hell, you would see game changing portions of this phenomenon just by warping to the outer reaches of a solar system. So, let's say your in a safe spot waiting to warp in to help a friend. You are off grid 14 AU from anything. Now, even though you would receive their call for you to warp in simultaneously with quantum computing it could be no time at all before you arrived there for him, even though the journey would only 10-15 seconds for you.

You see now why talking about physics in relation to a computer game is pointless?



Also, not to play the devil's advocate here, but warp speed is not faster than the speed of light. If you were to actually achieve warp in real life, you wouldn't need to be moving at all. Space is moving instead.

Edit: This post is updated because I got the whole thing backward. Much thanks to the poster below for correcting me.

Yea, that's what I said. The further you are away from a celestial object the slower time is running for you compared to someone else. Hence the example of warping to a friend, if they are waiting for you to warp in (and they are closer to a large celestial object, ie in a gravity well), they will experience said wait as being longer than you experience it as.

Edit: Ohhh, I see where I messed up. Will change it, lol. One word wrong in the first sentence of my explanation >.<
Edit2: Nevermind, I got the whole thing backwards.

It's more than possible, it's achieved. They've been doing it with rats for some time now. I wish I had the reference... I may go take a look for it now.

I love people who can't read, it makes debates so much more entertaining. We get to fling allot more poop at each other along the way.

i'm kinda lost in this thread, uhh Nightfreeze!