Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.

Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.

Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.

You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

I too find particle physics to be very screwy.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^COriolanus:
Can any one provide a link for an opposing view?

The one I have been reading about is MOND
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOND
There is also the newer, or newer to me, QG unification theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity
I think there is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic rules of matter, energy, time and space. I don't have much evidence to support this idea. It might be the same problem Einstein had with QED that I have with dark matter, it's messy. It seems like we are creating something first because of the maths we have agreed are true instead of questioning the fundamental understanding. I compaire it to Quine's web of belief. I could be wrong, perhaps there is some wacky matter out there that behaves the exact opposite of real matter, is most of the stuff in the universe, and doesn't interact electromagnetically with our plane of existence...but it seems like reaching for straws.


It's wrong that Dark Matter is just some wacky thing created because of the maths. It is observed, through its gravitational interaction. Just because it doesn't interact electromagnetically doesn't mean it's invisible. It's also wrong that Dark Matter behaves the exact opposite of real matter. The Standard Model of particle physics is far from complete, and we already know of particles that interact through one force of nature and not through others. To posit a new fundamental particle that could fit the Dark Matter profile is not really that far fetched. There are even candidates obtained through Supersymmetry that may or may not provide the right answer. I don't find this messy at all, and frankly, Nature doesn't care if you think its rules are messy or not.

Also, if you don't like messiness, MOND is really not the right answer for you. Modified Newtonian Dynamics is an interesting concept with some interesting results for their own sake, and it may still ultimately prove correct. The idea that extrapolation from high gravitational fields to low ones might be unsound is something that should not be dismissed. But so far, the data are not in MOND's favour.

>> ^Sagemind:

OK, Just a minute, I'll be back once I've finished my Masters in Physics and Mathematics and learn Feynman Diagrams - Then I will make a comment.
Now..., Where do I register for the courses?


I was thinking the same thing, I didnt understand any of this. With that said, in the amazing age of the internet, there are quite a few paths to courses atleast leading up to this, for example, check out the Kahn Academy, it's brilliant: http://www.khanacademy.org/

I wouldn't like to be so specific as to ask about cold fusion or lightning or even how do we solve the energy crisis, or how do we cure cancer (though these are all good questions and I would be hard pressed to come up with anything better in the spur of the moment).

It would seem to me that given the power of such a miraculous hypothetical situation, the key to getting the most out of it would be to strike deeper than the obvious and immediate problems. The kid had the spirit with the light question (impressively so). The answer to that question would fill volumes, and a complete answer would very likely supersede what we already know.

On further reflection, I think really deep physics questions would be the way to go...

What is the nature of gravity (in full)?

What is wrong with the general theory of relativity?

How is our current Standard Model of particle physics wrong?

Even if we didn't understand the answers, it would be immensely helpful to have some extra meat to chew on.

Of course, I'm just biased...some spiritual question might be worthy too. I'm just inclined to believe that there are no real answers there.

This is also stating the obvious, but subsurface scattering, per-particle physics, lens synthesis, and all the photon tracing in the world won't get 3D out of the Uncanny Valley. This is very pretty, tho.

Recommendation:

Deep Down Things: The Breathtaking Beauty of Particle Physics
by Bruce A. Schumm. Johns Hopkins Press.

Particle physics?? Cooool! Yeah I did get that crap offa wiki, and my math skills are non-existent...thanks for the correction, guess self-offin' themselves is a minor past time. Geiger, Fuckin' A...Oh yeah...those doggies with booze or hot chili on their collars in cute little barrels..St Bernards!

We must never forget the finest man ever to mic-over and ride his bike....Albert Hoffman @ the Sandoz Laboratories in Besel!! LSD-25...Concocted In Switzerland!

Sorry it took so long to respond, I had a busy weekend.

They are not simple probabilistic events, and they are operating off the same basic principles, that does not mean that systems do not have qualities which their component parts lack.

Does a piston have the capacity to convert petrol into kinetic energy? Does an internal combustion engine have this capacity? Which part of the engine imbues it with this power?

Systems are qualitatively different from their component parts, and some sets of systems, such as systems which decide, are qualitatively different from systems which don't

I'm going to need a definition of "decide" I suppose. It seems like you are dancing around these squishy intuitive concepts instead of having a specific physical distinction to point out. The amoeboid is composed of a lipid bilayer membrane riddled with intricate protein micro-machines that detect changes in the environment, and behaviorally compensate. To discount the intricacy of the mechanisms of genetic expression and chemical signaling that exist even in the simplest of eukaryotic organism is foolish IMHO. Many of the modern models of genetic expression, and compensation for environmental factors look strikingly similar to the connectionist network models of the brain. The computations are similar in the abstract.


You are anthropomorphizing the mold, it does move, this motion increases its chances of finding food, it survives/reproduces. It in no way displays evidence of doing any of this "in order" to accomplish some goal. If you want to suggest that evolution, as a system, displays intelligence, by selecting molds which move in certain ways, I would be willing to acknowledge that intelligence, not a consciousness, but an intelligence.

Well, more likely I'm moldopomorphizing us. What goals do we have that are ultimately distinct from survival, reproduction, and the general continuity of our species? Even something as seemingly unrelated as making music, or art could be cast as some sort of mating ritual. When you somehow separate our behavior from the rest of life on Earth it's as though you want to draw a barrier between us and them. You want to somehow separate us from the natural order. I hate to break it to you, but it just isn't so. We are just demonstrate the spatial heterogeneity of the second law of thermodynamics.


Why is context necessary for experience? What do you experience in infinitesimal time? Why should we posit some sort of experience which is entirely distinct from the type we claim to have?

I experience the moment. In fact, that's all I'm ever experiencing, although my sensation of it may run a little behind. I never experience my memory, I merely compare my experience to memory. Further, what I'm suggesting is not entirely distinct from any experience we claim to have. Some autistic individuals, for instance, report an extremely chaotic existence, in which causal models can't be formed as sensory modalities are not unified in the same way as ours. They are experienced as independent inputs, not reflective of a coherent physical world. Still, they experience it.

Physical laws are not obeyed, they are enforced. electron movements are completely deterministic, like billiard balls, they roll down hill, they don't decide if/when to do so.

Things can not be enforced without an enforcer. Further, as you've conceded the determinism of our brains, again, how are we not passively allowing the laws of nature to push us around? What exactly are we deciding?


I don't believe that you are claiming that electrons have tiny field sensors which feed into a neural network which analyzes them for patterns and then attributes meaning to them by comparing them to earlier similar sensation patterns. Perhaps you can state this more clearly.

No, I believe that by some other physical mechanism, likely involving quarks and particle physics that I admittedly have a poor understanding of, the electron receives information from not immediately proximal locations, and physically displaces itself to a location with more desirable properties given its current energy state. I don't see how that's different than cuddling up to a warm fire.


You seem to be positing that the structure of the universe is not topological, but that it is instead the consequence of 10^80 atoms all working on concert to decide what the laws of the universe are at this moment. If this is your thesis I am inclined to ask on what basis you think it is even vaguely likely that they would came to a consensus, such as they must to allow the functioning of a universe like ours.

Something like that , although I still don't like the word decide. I don't necessarily think they do come to a consensus. It's just that, as with an attractor network, or similar guaranteed convergence dynamical systems, certain macroscopic states are just more likely than others, despite chaos at the subordinate level. The reason I'd rather drop the word decide is because I don't necessarily want to open the door to something like free will. To cast it in a "God" metaphor, I imagine more of an omniscient God, than an omnipotent God.


Please provide some basis to believe that there is a phenomenal experience.

I can't other than to refer you to what I presume you to have. I could suggest focussing on your breathing, or what have you. I can point you towards literature showing that people that claim to focus on their consciousness can perform physical feats not previous considered possible (for instance monks rewriting the books on the physical tolerance of the human body to cold). Otherwise, I can't. I will say this, however, I take it to be the atomic element of inductive reason. The natural "laws" you are taking as primary are secondary. There is a simple reason for this as Alfred North Whitehead pointed out. If suddenly we were to observe all bits of matter floating away from one another, and were to confirm we were not hallucinating, and perhaps have the experience corroborated by our colleagues, it would not be the experience which was wrong, it would be the laws of nature. Experience has primacy. Matter is merely the logical consequence of applying induction to our particular set of shared experiences.


And that will persist as long as we are not talking about anything. You say "X exists". I say "What is X?". You say "You can't disprove X". And here we are talking about nothing.

I told you, in the best english I can, what X is. It's the qualia of phenomenal experience. Now I can't provide you with direct evidence for it, but I can tell you that nearly everyone I talk to has some sense of what I mean.


You must be using an alternate form of the word "believe". How can someone believe something, and simultaneously be completely unwilling to assert that it is a fact?

I take the Bayesian sense of the word. All probabilities are subjective degrees of belief. I adopt this degree of belief based on anecdotal experience and generalizations therein. None of this would be accepted as evidence by any reviewer, nor should it, and thus I wouldn't want to risk my credibility by asserting it as fact. I can believe some hypotheses to be more likely than others on the basis of no evidence, and in fact do all the time. That's how I, and all other scientists, decide what experiment to run next. I should not, however, expect you to believe me a priori, as you may operate on different axioms, and draw from different anecdotal experience. Thus, I would not feel compelled to assert my beliefs as fact, other than in so far as they are, in fact, my beliefs.

Refreshness on theoretical physics should be always welcome , however to be technically careful with new proposals is mandatory !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Surfer dude stuns physicists with theory of everything

By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
Published: 6:02PM GMT 14 Nov 2007
Comments 596 | Comment on this article

The E8 pattern (click to enlarge), Garrett Lisi surfing (middle) and out of the water (right)
An impoverished surfer has drawn up a new theory of the universe, seen by some as the Holy Grail of physics, which has received rave reviews from scientists.
• Garrett Lisi: This surfer is no Einstein...
• Test tube universe hints at unifying theory
• Surfer Dude's Theory of Everything - The Movie
Garrett Lisi, 39, has a doctorate but no university affiliation and spends most of the year surfing in Hawaii, where he has also been a hiking guide and bridge builder (when he slept in a jungle yurt).

Related Articles
• 19 March 2007: Is this the fabric of the universe?
• College course to learn surfing
• Large Hadron Collider: What will it find?
• The Big Bang: what will we find?
• Tree man 'who grew roots' hopes to marry after 4lb of warts removed
• Monty Python theme tune: music to madness
In winter, he heads to the mountains near Lake Tahoe, Nevada, where he snowboards. "Being poor sucks," Lisi says. "It's hard to figure out the secrets of the universe when you're trying to figure out where you and your girlfriend are going to sleep next month."
Despite this unusual career path, his proposal is remarkable because, by the arcane standards of particle physics, it does not require highly complex mathematics.
Even better, it does not require more than one dimension of time and three of space, when some rival theories need ten or even more spatial dimensions and other bizarre concepts. And it may even be possible to test his theory, which predicts a host of new particles, perhaps even using the new Large Hadron Collider atom smasher that will go into action near Geneva next year.
Although the work of 39 year old Garrett Lisi still has a way to go to convince the establishment, let alone match the achievements of Albert Einstein, the two do have one thing in common: Einstein also began his great adventure in theoretical physics while outside the mainstream scientific establishment, working as a patent officer, though failed to achieve the Holy Grail, an overarching explanation to unite all the particles and forces of the cosmos.
Now Lisi, currently in Nevada, has come up with a proposal to do this. Lee Smolin at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, describes Lisi's work as "fabulous". "It is one of the most compelling unification models I've seen in many, many years," he says.
"Although he cultivates a bit of a surfer-guy image its clear he has put enormous effort and time into working the complexities of this structure out over several years," Prof Smolin tells The Telegraph.
"Some incredibly beautiful stuff falls out of Lisi's theory," adds David Ritz Finkelstein at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta. "This must be more than coincidence and he really is touching on something profound."
• Is this the fabric of the universe?
• Are we missing a dimension of time?
• Quantum genesis: How life was born on Earth
The new theory reported today in New Scientist has been laid out in an online paper entitled "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" by Lisi, who completed his doctorate in theoretical physics in 1999 at the University of California, San Diego.
He has high hopes that his new theory could provide what he says is a "radical new explanation" for the three decade old Standard Model, which weaves together three of the four fundamental forces of nature: the electromagnetic force; the strong force, which binds quarks together in atomic nuclei; and the weak force, which controls radioactive decay.
The reason for the excitement is that Lisi's model also takes account of gravity, a force that has only successfully been included by a rival and highly fashionable idea called string theory, one that proposes particles are made up of minute strings, which is highly complex and elegant but has lacked predictions by which to do experiments to see if it works.
But some are taking a cooler view. Prof Marcus du Sautoy, of Oxford University and author of Finding Moonshine, told the Telegraph: "The proposal in this paper looks a long shot and there seem to be a lot things still to fill in."
And a colleague Eric Weinstein in America added: "Lisi seems like a hell of a guy. I'd love to meet him. But my friend Lee Smolin is betting on a very very long shot."
Lisi's inspiration lies in the most elegant and intricate shape known to mathematics, called E8 - a complex, eight-dimensional mathematical pattern with 248 points first found in 1887, but only fully understood by mathematicians this year after workings, that, if written out in tiny print, would cover an area the size of Manhattan.
E8 encapsulates the symmetries of a geometric object that is 57-dimensional and is itself is 248-dimensional. Lisi says "I think our universe is this beautiful shape."
• The answer to the universe and everything?
• Trapped rainbow heralds computer revolution
• How About That: Unusual, funny and bizarre stories
What makes E8 so exciting is that Nature also seems to have embedded it at the heart of many bits of physics. One interpretation of why we have such a quirky list of fundamental particles is because they all result from different facets of the strange symmetries of E8.
Lisi's breakthrough came when he noticed that some of the equations describing E8's structure matched his own. "My brain exploded with the implications and the beauty of the thing," he tells New Scientist. "I thought: 'Holy crap, that's it!'"
What Lisi had realised was that he could find a way to place the various elementary particles and forces on E8's 248 points. What remained was 20 gaps which he filled with notional particles, for example those that some physicists predict to be associated with gravity.
Physicists have long puzzled over why elementary particles appear to belong to families, but this arises naturally from the geometry of E8, he says. So far, all the interactions predicted by the complex geometrical relationships inside E8 match with observations in the real world. "How cool is that?" he says.
The crucial test of Lisi's work will come only when he has made testable predictions. Lisi is now calculating the masses that the 20 new particles should have, in the hope that they may be spotted when the Large Hadron Collider starts up.
"The theory is very young, and still in development," he told the Telegraph. "Right now, I'd assign a low (but not tiny) likelyhood to this prediction.
"For comparison, I think the chances are higher that LHC will see some of these particles than it is that the LHC will see superparticles, extra dimensions, or micro black holes as predicted by string theory. I hope to get more (and different) predictions, with more confidence, out of this E8 Theory over the next year, before the LHC comes online."

Let us put in a correct perspective quantum string theory for TOE. Firstly it is important to remark that a full understanding of what is really Quantum Mechanics is far to be completely understood in its foundational aspects ,althougth its huge operational-quantitative success.For instance, even in the usual non relativistic quantum mechanics , certainly the notion of electronic orbitals in N-electron atomic physics appears to be a mathematical suitable approximation for the full N-electron atomic wave function.On the other hand in Quantum Field Theory , this ad-hoc choice of what is free and what is interaction is not so "ad-hoc", at least in the QFT (perturbative) scattering sector: free in and out fields are primary objects producing physically observables free N-particles (lorentz invariant!) wave functions-so perturbation is building around them and carrying with the formalism all notions of renormalizations , dispersions relations etc.. .Now quantum strings : Strings are supossedly observable for us mainly through scattering among its excitations by means of an already fixed sigma-model two-dimensional quantum dynamics taking place in the somewhat ficticious purely two dimensional string parameter space-time, where are operating two scales of interaction : one is entirely ruled by the intrinsic string topological genera and other governed by the extrinsic space-time coupling constant , namely : The Regge Slope parameter. So string theory for TOE is a proposal for pure S-Matrix "Heisenbergnian" on-shell "theory" for all particles scattering in Nature (including gravitons). Now the theory's "granus salis" (points not completely grasped-at least for this reader !): Back ground fields are fixed extrinsic classical field configurations fully determined by the imposition of conformal invariance for any genera (which certainly does not affects the intrinsic 2d UV-theories'behavior,but affects its IR intrinsic behavior as a 2d QFT) and at any order in the Regge Slope coupling (all these conformal invariance phenomena quite specific to Polyakov's action proposal , possibly not for a Nambu-Goto string action reformulation of TOE).And at the same time , they are expected to be Schwinger sources (even quite non linear) for the string excitations and to be functionally differentiated in the string path-integral later .Another point is related to Kaluza-Klein Theories -It appears that quantum geometrical theories appear to be trivial QFT theories when used to describe scattering in space-time extrinsic manifolds of higher dimensionality (lambda four scalar QFT is expected to be trivial for D strictly greater than four!). As a conclusion : at most Strings are useful theoretical labs for a fully understanding of what really is Quantum Mechanics (SchrodingerX HeisenbergXEinsteinXNelson) , if there are no experimental tests for its predictions .By the way,space-time supersymmetry still remains solely as a theoretical lab in Particle Physics, nothing more!.

>> ^NobleOne:
Why are they using the CERN to find the God particle?


I'll move off-topic a bit in defense of CERN and the LHC. Sorry, I can't help myself.

In short: they're not. First of all, the "god particle" is a dumb hype name popularized by the media for the hypothesized Higgs boson, a scalar particle the existence of which is predicted by the standard model of particle physics. The misconception is that, if found, it would 'explain all of physics', which is, again, a major overstatement. Secondly, they're using the LHC for a variety of different purposes - you should read the wikipedia article, because it's a fascinating experiment and people are, for the most part, largely ignorant or misinformed about it.

^I took AST 205: Stars and Galaxies awhile back and had to learn all about the particle physics, GUT and spectroscopy, etc.

Bear with me, it was a few semesters ago so I may forget/muddle some of the details. Basically, as the molecules of hydrogen, helium and other trace gases are squeezed together by gravity, the electron shells of the individual atoms begin to collide with one another. When they do, the electrons collide and change their orbit around the nucleus, and then revert back to their original orbit. This releases a store of energy as photons. The same thing happens when an X particle strikes a weak boson. The larger the bang, the farther the change in orbit and the more energy is released, when it returns back to its original orbit. Or something like that. Look up the Bohr model, Planck's Constant, etc for more info.

Long story short, the resulting photons which are released make up the electromagnetic energy in the universe, depending on frequency, etc.

It's all through measuring light via spectroscopy and a little triangulation that we can tell the size, rotation speeds, mass, velocity, age, composition, etc, of the stars and galaxies, nebulae and other celestial objects. Pretty crazy once you get your head all wrapped around it.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'particle physics, science, universe' to 'particle physics, science, universe, Kim Griest, UCTV' - edited by mauz15