Philosophy is dead...?

Soldato
Joined
2 Dec 2006
Posts
8,204
The three creative forces in the universe are the only three things not understood or explained by Physics.

Gravity,
DNA,
The mind,

Explain those three and I might go Athiest

You are incorrect. Gravity is explained very clearly by physics. Try google. I at least believe it is because I do maths at uni and hear things about gravity and alike all the time. ;)
 
Permabanned
OP
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
0
zero point energy, it's not really nothing though. Although the net energy of the universe remains zero as long as the particle pairs negate each other within Planck time it doesn't mean it's nothing, it means that in a flat universe model the mass/energy density must be equal to a critical density, which is about 5 atoms per m3, so not nothing, but something.
 
Permabanned
OP
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
0
You are incorrect. Gravity is explained very clearly by physics. Try google. I at least believe it is because I do maths at uni and hear things about gravity and alike all the time. ;)

The reason why paticles have mass is not yet understood, so why we know what Gravity does, we do not fully undrstand the mechanism. Hence the LHC and the search for the Higgs Boson and the theorys such as M-theory and String Theory.
 
Soldato
Joined
4 Mar 2003
Posts
5,247
Location
Herefordshire
The reason why paticles have mass is not yet understood, so why we know what Gravity does, we do not fully undrstand the mechanism. Hence the LHC and the search for the Higgs Boson and the theorys such as M-theory and String Theory.

The reason why particles have mass is because of the Higgs Boson, it's not been directly found yet but it is still fairly understood by prediction under the Standard Model.
 
Permabanned
OP
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
0
The reason why particles have mass is because of the Higgs Boson, it's not been directly found yet but it is still fairly understood by prediction under the Standard Model.

That's not true. The Higgs Boson is hypothetical, as are any elementary scalar Bosons. It's interesting however that you bring up this as the Higgs field is hypothesised to exist as a non-zero VEV so would make your nothing hypothesis moot.

But I digress, I was pointing out that although there are hypothesis' about the mechanisms, they are not proven and there are other models to consider and to say we fully understand Gravity is wrong.
 
Soldato
Joined
4 Mar 2003
Posts
5,247
Location
Herefordshire
That's not true. The Higgs Boson is hypothetical, as are any elementary scalar Bosons. It's interesting however that you bring up this as the Higgs field is hypothesised to exist as a non-zero VEV so would make your nothing hypothesis moot.

But I digress, I was pointing out that although there are hypothesis' about the mechanisms, they are not proven and there are other models to consider and to say we fully understand Gravity is wrong.

Do you actually know what you're talking about? It sounds like you're regurgitating parts of Wiki.
 
Permabanned
OP
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
0
Do you actually know what you're talking about? It sounds like you're regurgitating parts of Wiki.

Is that an argument against the hypothetical nature of a field you are attempting to pass off as fact? Or that the Higgs field is a non-zero energy state field?

As the Higgs field's lowest natural energy state is non-zero, and that it would according to the hypothesis permeate the universe, it would mean that unlike electromagnetic fields whose natural lowest energy state is zero, the universe would have a non-zero natural lowest energy state.

While I'm not a Physicist, my Brother is, and I have read extensively so I have some knowledge other than wiki, although I fail to see how that refutes what I said.

You are stating that the Standard Model explains Gravity, and the fact is that Gravity is the one thing that the Standard Model doesn't explain, hence the hypothetical Higgs Field, supersymmetric standard models and string theory. Explaining how quarks and electrons have mass is not yet fully understood and as such neither is gravity.

Attack the arguement, not the poster.:(
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
4 Mar 2003
Posts
5,247
Location
Herefordshire
You are stating that the Standard Model explains Gravity, and the fact is that Gravity is the one thing that the Standard Model doesn't explain, hence the hypothetical Higgs Field.

Attack the arguement, not the poster.:(

Sorry I didn't mean it as an attack was just questioning as to why you think non-zero VEV wouldn't be an inclusion of particle energy in the zero energy theory?

I didn't say the Higgs Boson explains Gravity, I said it accounts for Mass. Read my posts again. Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity are fairly understood. It's the unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics that isn't understood.

edit: you've edited your post now.
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
OP
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
0
Sorry I didn't mean it as an attack was just questioning as to why you think non-zero VEV wouldn't be an inclusion of particle energy in the zero energy theory?

I didn't say the Higgs Boson explains Gravity, I said it accounts for Mass. Read my posts again. Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity are fairly understood. It's the unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics that isn't understood.

Ok, no offence meant, none taken :)

I understand what you mean, I was just pointing out that whichever poster is was that said it, was correct in his assumption that Gravity wasn't fully understood, basically because we cannot adequately explain how electrons and quarks attain mass, yet gluons do not. Of course the Higgs field is a hypothetical construct to explain this.

second point,

Zero Energy Theory is basically if I understand it correctly based on the natural lowest energy state of the universe and is based on the zero lowest states of fields such as electromagnitism and so on.

The intoduction of a non-zero field such as Higgs which permeates the entire Universe (it is required to by the ssm) then the Universe must have a non-zero lowest energy state also. Of course this M-theory (which I have yet to read myself) conjectures that their are multiple Higgs fields each a differing mass, the Supersymmetry theory requires at least five, I would assume M-theory with 11 dimensional universes would be similar, but back on point, if we take the Standard Model and a single Higgs field, when all other fields have a natural zero lowest energy state, if you introduce a non-zero lowest energy state field that permeates the entire universe, then the Universe cannot have a zero lowest energy state.

I would assume that the multiple dimensional multiverse model used in M-theory balances this out somehow with dark and exotic matter that only exists in some of the dimensions. But hey, I may be completely wrong! I don't know whether M-theory extends the Standard Model like the SSM or whether it rewrites it completely. I look forward to Hawkings book.
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
OP
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
0
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/12/the-grand-design-stephen-hawking


The rest of the book is an attempt to account for the strange nature of reality as revealed by astronomers and physicists; to reconcile the apparent absurdities of quantum mechanics with the mind-stretching features of special and general relativity; and to explain why the forces of nature are apparently fine-tuned to allow the evolution of complex creatures such as ourselves. As Hawking and Mlodinow note, only the tiniest altering of the constants that control nuclear synthesis in stars would produce a universe with no carbon and no oxygen and therefore no humans.

"Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alternation," they state. "That is not easily explained, and raises the natural question of why it is that way." The answer, the authors say, lies with M-theory. (The M apparently stands for "master, miracle, or mystery". The authors are unsure which.) The vital point is that M-theory allows for the existence of 11 dimensions of spacetime that contains not just vibrating strings of matter but also "point particles, two-dimensional membranes, three-dimensional blobs and other objects that are more difficult to picture." Simple, really.

Crucially the laws of M-theory allow for an unimaginably large number of different universes. Thus we exist because the laws of our particular universe just happen to be tuned to the exact parameters that permit the existence of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and other key atoms and which also generate laws that allow these entities to interact in ways that build up complex chemical combinations. Other universes are not so lucky.

M-theory is the unified theory of physics that Einstein was hoping to find, state the authors, and if it is confirmed by observation, it will be the successful conclusion to a search that was begun by the ancient Greeks when they started to puzzle about the nature of reality. "We will have found the grand design," Hawking and Mlodinow conclude.

It is all entertaining stuff, skilfully assembled and described in a fairly droll manner. The wave-particle duality of particles is described as being as foreign as drinking a chunk of sandstone, for example. The book is also commendably brief and by and large illuminating about the complexities of modern cosmology.

So read it to understand the universe. But if it is God you are after, my advice is to steer clear.

So not much about God after all, but I still maintain that the existence of multiple Universes opens up philosophical questions about Why, beside the scientific reasoning about it is because it is?
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
2 Dec 2006
Posts
8,204
Ok, no offence meant, none taken :)

I understand what you mean, I was just pointing out that whichever poster is was that said it, was correct in his assumption that Gravity wasn't fully understood, basically because we cannot adequately explain how electrons and quarks attain mass, yet gluons do not. Of course the Higgs field is a hypothetical construct to explain this.

second point,

Zero Energy Theory is basically if I understand it correctly based on the natural lowest energy state of the universe and is based on the zero lowest states of fields such as electromagnitism and so on.

The intoduction of a non-zero field such as Higgs which permeates the entire Universe (it is required to by the ssm) then the Universe must have a non-zero lowest energy state also. Of course this M-theory (which I have yet to read myself) conjectures that their are multiple Higgs fields each a differing mass, the Supersymmetry theory requires at least five, I would assume M-theory with 11 dimensional universes would be similar, but back on point, if we take the Standard Model and a single Higgs field, when all other fields have a natural zero lowest energy state, if you introduce a non-zero lowest energy state field that permeates the entire universe, then the Universe cannot have a zero lowest energy state.

I would assume that the multiple dimensional multiverse model used in M-theory balances this out somehow with dark and exotic matter that only exists in some of the dimensions. But hey, I may be completely wrong! I don't know whether M-theory extends the Standard Model like the SSM or whether it rewrites it completely. I look forward to Hawkings book.

Maybe then it would be better to state that we do not yet fully understand the quantum side of physics hehe.

I must admit, when I stated that we did understand gravity I was not thinking about the tiny details. Just the grand scale of things. I guess I should have known better that someone would look into it a lot closer in a forum of geeks :p.

That being said of course. I don't know the full details as this is too deep into the physics side of maths. But provided they have energy they are not massless. As energy and mass are interchangeable so to speak.

Isn't science fun :).
 
Permabanned
OP
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
0
Maybe then it would be better to state that we do not yet fully understand the quantum side of physics hehe.

I must admit, when I stated that we did understand gravity I was not thinking about the tiny details. Just the grand scale of things. I guess I should have known better that someone would look into it a lot closer in a forum of geeks :p

That being said of course. I don't know the full details as this is too deep into the physics side of maths. But provided they have energy they are not massless. As energy and mass are interchangeable so to speak.

Isn't science fun :).





Photons are massless. Although there is a question over that, but that's a topic for another day.

I accept what you were saying and the context in which it was meant. I was merely pointing out that at a very basic level we don't as yet understand some of the mechanisms relating to Gravity.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Dec 2006
Posts
8,204
Photons are massless. Although there is a question over that, but that's a topic for another day.

I accept what you were saying and the context in which it was meant. I was merely pointing out that at a very basic level we don't as yet understand some of the mechanisms relating to Gravity.

Amusing that you should consider it the basic level. Which in reality it is the basics of life. But when you think about what you are talking about it is far from basic.

When I was at a level I did read quite a bit into the likes of photons and that because my teacher was beyond useless so had to teach my self so to speak. I had to teach her how to do simultaneous equations in front of the class because she couldn't answer her own question (year 9 maths).

I was always under the impression that if they were to be slowed down to a halt they would have mass?

Nothing is really testable though without presuming this and that as a foundation to base a theory on and test the evidence in the deception of isolation.

I bet saying that felt good haha :p
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Dec 2003
Posts
3,528
Location
Normandy
Nothing is really testable though without presuming this and that as a foundation to base a theory on and test the evidence in the deception of isolation.

When you start creating theories based on the unobserved and the unobservable it's pointless. At least with gravity we can observe its effects and extrapolate.
 
Permabanned
OP
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
0
Amusing that you should consider it the basic level. Which in reality it is the basics of life. But when you think about what you are talking about it is far from basic.

When I was at a level I did read quite a bit into the likes of photons and that because my teacher was beyond useless so had to teach my self so to speak. I had to teach her how to do simultaneous equations in front of the class because she couldn't answer her own question (year 9 maths).

I was always under the impression that if they were to be slowed down to a halt they would have mass?



I bet saying that felt good haha :p


Basic as in fundamental, not uncomplicated. But I think you knew that. :p
 
Back
Top Bottom