These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Desperate Scientists Try To Prove Their Theory Of “Everything”

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2014-01-14 18:16:47 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
And this goes for the Higgs Boson too... a particle with absolutely no unique properties whatsoever

It's very unique. It's a 125GeV particle with zero spin.

That's an interesting hypothesis about light having mass. One way to test photons travel speed versus wavelength might be to observe the pulses of various neutron stars and see if different wavelengths reveal pulses happening at different times. Now I had previously already thought that light travels different speeds at different wavelengths. I don't know what the explanation is behind it though.

I find the article's validity dubious due to the author talking about the "lifespan" of photons, and not the "halflife" of photons. Measuring a minimum lifespan so small when no decay was detected seems to me to be a misinterpretation of the evidence. If their halflife were within 5-10 powers of the age of the universe, then it would seem likely that the microwave background radiation would be rich with decay products, unless the decay products are very difficult to detect.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#102 - 2014-01-14 22:16:41 UTC
Slade Trillgon wrote:
Eternum Praetorian wrote:

If you presume ____________ before you prove that it actually does (and all of the other things that comes with mass) you are shooting yourself in the foot.


I know what you are getting at, but the way you word it makes it sound like you are saying hypotheses are wrong. All scientists should create experiments without bias, but that does not mean that they are not allowed to 'think/presume' something happens a certain way.

I agree that if a scientists speaks in 'truths', about a hypothesized phenomena without 'proper' research and findings to support said 'truth's, then they are spitting in the face of the scientific method.

*returns to lurking the thread*



I can see how one can draw to that conclusion from what I have said. I guess to put as simply as possible, a hypothesis should remain a hypothesis, and we do not award Nobel prizes for those. After comes a Theory, and once a theory is supported through repeatable observations... then you are really on to something. After that awards can start to be handed out.

I'll try to be more accurate with my wording in the future Big smile

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#103 - 2014-01-14 22:28:10 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
And this goes for the Higgs Boson too... a particle with absolutely no unique properties whatsoever

It's very unique. It's a 125GeV particle with zero spin.



Following Slade's suggestion, I should have said "interaction" in place of "properties" as that is closer to what was intended in that statement.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#104 - 2014-01-14 22:38:20 UTC
Oh and I forgot... Pions also have 0 spin.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#105 - 2014-01-17 08:36:09 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
[...]
Quote:
Because of this latter effect, observations of the sun’s magnetic field (they presume photons are carriers of the electromagnetic force there) have already proved that the photon, if it weighs anything at all, must be extremely light. The current experimental limit on the possible mass of the photon is 10 (-54) kilogram

Do you see the word IF? That is a totally different word than "does" or "sure" or "certain". It is in fact "IF" as in it is still in question and is not an absolute known.

NOTHING in science is ever "an absolute known".
But until it is PROVEN wrong, we go ahead AS IF it's the absolute truth even if we fully know it's possibly not.
Everything is always up for debate, and as soon as what we previously thought we knew is conclusively proved wrong, everything else adjusts accordingly.


Photons MIGHT have rest mass, but they more likely have no rest mass, and so far, there's no proof they do have a rest mass.
If they do have any rest mass at all it will necessarily be very small, and so far we only know for sure it's less than an incredibly tiny value.
Even if they do turn out to have some infinitesimally small rest mass, most of physics would not radically change, just be slightly adjusted.

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#106 - 2014-01-17 08:46:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
I guess to put as simply as possible, a hypothesis should remain a hypothesis, and we do not award Nobel prizes for those. After comes a Theory, and once a theory is supported through repeatable observations... then you are really on to something. After that awards can start to be handed out.


So, wait... how much longer do we have to wait until we pass your so-called criteria anyway?
Let's look at the timeline here...

It USED to be a hypothesis back before 1962. It became a somewhat working model by 1964, basically the same model independently reached by three separate teams.Additional supporting work was done by 1967.
Then for over 40 years, physicists have been trying to EITHER prove or disprove it by, what a shocker, repeated tests and observations. Massive supercolliders that cost inordinate amounts of money have been constructed PRECISELY to accurately test theories such as this one. Keyword, TEST. Not confirm, test.
In fact, quite a few scientists would have been far more excited if they would not have found any evidence whatsoever the Higgs boson existed because that would have meant there might be something else more accurate than the "Standard Model" underpining reality as we used to know it, but with it being there, the existing theories stand. For now. As with anything else in science.
And finally, after half a century of theorizing and testing and data analysis, they are certain enough that something that can be accurately enough described as a Higgs boson indeed does exists.
Oh, and they're NOT stopping there. They're ramping up collision power and data volumes even further, just to be extra extra extra sure, even if they're already quite sure enough (and also to find out if there's more than one Higgs boson).

When exactly should the awards start being handed out again? Arbitrarily wait half a century longer? Or just wait until we're extra extra extra extra sure in 5 to 10 years? When is enough enough? The scientists said it's enough already. When will YOU be satisfied it's enough?

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#107 - 2014-01-17 13:03:18 UTC
Akita T wrote:
Photons MIGHT have rest mass, but they more likely have no rest mass, and so far, there's no proof they do have a rest mass.
If they do have any rest mass at all it will necessarily be very small, and so far we only know for sure it's less than an incredibly tiny value.

I might be wrong about this, but I think our belief that photons have no rest mass goes beyond an inability to measure amounts that small.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#108 - 2014-01-17 16:59:09 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Akita T wrote:
Photons MIGHT have rest mass, but they more likely have no rest mass, and so far, there's no proof they do have a rest mass.
If they do have any rest mass at all it will necessarily be very small, and so far we only know for sure it's less than an incredibly tiny value.

I might be wrong about this, but I think our belief that photons have no rest mass goes beyond an inability to measure amounts that small.

The measurement needs to be indirect, and a few methods of measurement were proposed.
At the currently available instrumental precision, no effect which would arise from a photon that does indeed have mass has been observed.

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#109 - 2014-01-17 19:37:40 UTC
I just find the idea of being skeptical of science (wtf else is there ????????, the answers ain't gonna be in the Bible), anti-science, or calling it's methodology flawed from top to bottom, to be a scary and dangerous mindset.

These self-absorbed know-nothings should get to work on their own methodologies, then report back to us with results, and quit pestering people for "definite" answers of which there are none, especially for what's being discussed here.

I really feel sorry for a lot of people, and what they find to be their life "priorities", and how much more could be accomplished in other directions with their energy expended on argumentative nonsense.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#110 - 2014-01-17 19:59:14 UTC
While I agree with that, I don't feel that Eternum Praetorian has been doing that here. His points may need a bit of work but he admits that. He's pointing out flaws he sees in the work, and whether or not I agree that these are real flaws, I can see what led him to believe they are. EP is not one of your common close-minded fools. He just has a different point of view. In the interest of science, that is a thing that should be encouraged, not discouraged.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#111 - 2014-01-17 23:34:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
Well, I suppose I can sometimes see why he thinks some things are flaws when they in fact are not.

That being said, the problem is (speaking from longer-term past experience, not just this particular thread), he seldom (if ever) acknowledges when he's clearly been proven to be wrong and just goes off on a different tangent.
Also, his (superficially"novel" and "insightful") ideas rarely even try to go past a "fast-food for thought" mental contortionist act, with no real attempt at a design of an experiment that could prove or disprove his ideas, let alone any practical application.
And THAT is a thing that doesn't really need any encouragement.

His threads are sadly generally limited to mere entertainment value and not much more.

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#112 - 2014-01-18 00:27:56 UTC
Well maybe instead of shooting him down, it would be more effective to show him examples of ways to increase the effectiveness of his argument. Don't tell him he's wrong, but show him where he can get a better insight and let him figure that out for himself, and then show him how to present his greater findings in a more refined way that explains his points and research better.

I'm not telling you what to do but I have noticed you are putting considerable time and energy into commenting on this thread. I can only assume you are trying to help. Well I think this is the way. If you want him to take you seriously, you've got to encourage him, not break him down. The point isn't to show him the error of his ways (though that might be one of your goals), but the real point, and the one that'll have the most effective results is to give him a tool that he can use to become more and greater. Don't fear that he will use it to play Devil's Advocate; if he (or anyone else in a similar situation) is actually close-minded and is presenting destructive viewpoints, that person won't really listen to your help--but if they did, they might open their eyes and see the error of their ways. On the other hand, when you have someone who is listening, you've got to realize that person does want to learn but that person also has an ego and wants to be right. Don't tell him he is wrong, tell him what he is right about and guide him in the right direction.

And lastly, you have an ego too. We all do. Your first instinct is to prove him wrong so that you are seen as right. You may even fool yourself into believing that it is a noble act, but it's misguided. If you can steer him in the right direction and change his viewpoints to something better, then you have helped him. And if you take yourself off your pedestal and admit to yourself (not saying you personally have not done this) that your ideas aren't 100% superior to his, you can wind up learning from him while you help him. It's a win-win scenario and once you realize what you have done, you feel great (as long as you aren't a sociopath).

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
IbanezLaney
The Church of Awesome
#113 - 2014-01-20 02:08:47 UTC
To answer the thread title directly.

To upset 3rd world morons who think an imaginary fairy created all of the things.

https://soundcloud.com/ibanezlaney
Slade Trillgon
Brutor Force Federated
#114 - 2014-01-20 02:18:29 UTC
IbanezLaney wrote:
To answer the thread title directly.

To upset 3rd world morons who think an imaginary fairy created all of the things.




WoW!

I really hope the above is a troll. The morons are the ones in the Industrialized nations that have been educated and still believe in 'imaghinary faries' and those that just may be serious when they call 3rd world people morons because they have not access to........well just about anything other than what their parents told them before and their parents before them..... Ugh
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#115 - 2014-01-20 02:58:57 UTC
No he's saying the scientists are desperate to finish the Standard Model in order to upset superstitious people in 3rd world countries. The funny thing is, it'll more likely be upsetting superstitious people in first world countries. Now THAT's irony.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
IbanezLaney
The Church of Awesome
#116 - 2014-01-20 03:02:49 UTC
Slade Trillgon wrote:
IbanezLaney wrote:
To answer the thread title directly.

To upset 3rd world morons who think an imaginary fairy created all of the things.




WoW!

I really hope the above is a troll. The morons are the ones in the Industrialized nations that have been educated and still believe in 'imaghinary faries' and those that just may be serious when they call 3rd world people morons because they have not access to........well just about anything other than what their parents told them before and their parents before them..... Ugh




I rest my case.

https://soundcloud.com/ibanezlaney
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#117 - 2014-01-21 02:14:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Kitty Bear
Akita T wrote:
[quote=Eternum Praetorian]When will YOU be satisfied it's enough?


When they can explain exactly what is happening in a black hole.
When they can explain accurately the cause of the initial creation of energy and it's subsequent decay into matter and lesser types of energy.
When they can accurately prove or disprove the possibility of there being a multidimensional universe, and how those other dimensions work, and explain them in a rational, meaningful way.
When they can accurately determine if the universe is finite or infinite, and how that ties into the above questions.

All the current science either falls apart at these levels, or there are conflicting theories for them.

It's not that much to ask is it ??
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#118 - 2014-01-21 03:10:41 UTC
Kitty Bear wrote:
All the current science either falls apart at these levels, or there are conflicting theories for them.

Once those questions are answered, more questions will be asked. We haven't reached a wall in science yet. There's no reason to think we will in the forseeable future.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Slade Trillgon
Brutor Force Federated
#119 - 2014-01-21 13:39:24 UTC
IbanezLaney wrote:
Slade Trillgon wrote:
IbanezLaney wrote:
To answer the thread title directly.

To upset 3rd world morons who think an imaginary fairy created all of the things.




WoW!

I really hope the above is a troll. The morons are the ones in the Industrialized nations that have been educated and still believe in 'imaghinary faries' and those that just may be serious when they call 3rd world people morons because they have not access to........well just about anything other than what their parents told them before and their parents before them..... Ugh




I rest my case.


Your case would be rested if I had proven that I was upset about the research being discussed in this thread, which I am not. My case is rested Blink
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#120 - 2014-01-21 21:26:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
Kitty Bear wrote:
Akita T wrote:
When will YOU be satisfied it's enough?


When they can explain exactly what is happening in a black hole.
When they can explain accurately the cause of the initial creation of energy and it's subsequent decay into matter and lesser types of energy.
When they can accurately prove or disprove the possibility of there being a multidimensional universe, and how those other dimensions work, and explain them in a rational, meaningful way.
When they can accurately determine if the universe is finite or infinite, and how that ties into the above questions.

All the current science either falls apart at these levels, or there are conflicting theories for them.
It's not that much to ask is it ??

Actually, it *IS* way, waaaaay too much to ask for.
I mean, considering we're talking about the stage where you simply have to decide whether the Higgs Boson actually exists or not.
Or better said, whether some people deserve an award for its discovery (since we're pretty darn sure it does exist, at least one of them).
It's not about "the ultimate scientific secret of the universe" or whatnot else, just about the Higgs boson.
Nobel prizes have been handed out for lesser contributions, and also less conclusive contributions too.

Regarding the other things...

You can at best try to model what might happen inside a black hole, but actually getting observations from inside it lies way beyond the limits of even near-future technology. That's kind of the reason we even call it a "black hole".
As far as "the beginning of the universe" goes, you can also not (or, as far as we know practically not, assuming time travel and FTL are indeed impossible for the near future technology level we have) get any actual observation to DIRECTLY test any hypothesis, theory or whatnot.
As far as "multidimensional universes" go, I'm not completely sure whether you mean just extra actual dimensions beyond our current perception, parallel universes, or a combination of those concepts? Either way, accurately DISPROVING any of that might be practically impossible, while proving any is contingent on them existing, and even if they do, interaction might be impossible so proving that might also be impossible.
And finally, again, given the premise of no FTL and no time travel, determining whether the universe is finite or infinite might also be impossible, but anyway, it doesn't really actually matter all that much (whether the universe ends just slightly beyond the range of the observable or goes on for thousands or millions or any arbitrarily high number of times the size of the observable universe doesn't really make much of a practical difference).

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC