If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail) NewsFlash That's it. Science is done. Time to pack up all this stuff and go home (w/video)   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 629
    More: NewsFlash, sciences, LHC, Peter Higgs, Bosons, Standard Model, billionths, higgs particles, particle accelerators  
•       •       •

41399 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jul 2012 at 5:35 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

629 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-04 12:07:58 PM
Dr. Kleiner: Congratulations, Professor Boson! This truly is a momentous day for science.

www.gamasutra.com

tomorrow..

webnv.net

//a perfect time to procreate
 
2012-07-04 12:09:02 PM

downstairs: cchris_39: As a believer, I still don't see how this "proves" God's existence. What exactly is the thinking there?

/maybe a couple serious replies mixed in with the snarks please?

It has nothing to do with the concept of God. It was just a goofy phrase that most scientists didn't even like.

To put it simply, it was called the "god particle" because its sort of the "god" of all we've theorized about physics since almost forever. It explains why we have mass (I'm totally over-simplifying here)... which I think you can understand is a pretty big deal.

We've theorized many, many things about matter and energy and everything that makes up the universe. But those theories didn't have a concrete "reason" for existing. This is the reason. Or, a very big part of the reason.

Think of gravity. When you were a kid, you knew it existed. You dropped something and it fell to the floor. But you didn't know why. Now imagine this theory is someone figuring out why, and what it really is.

But as a believer, you have nothing to worry about. It doesn't disprove "God" or any of that.


Ding. Ding. Ding.

I'm not sure of your religious preferences, but you seem to actually get it. It was something that had already been theorized and now its apparently been proven correct (or as close as we can get right now). It really doesnt have a religious implication, aside from the dumb name given to it supposedly (by an atheist, no less) so people actually think it "proves God" and atheists who are champing at the bit to have a "A-ha, stupid theists" moment. I hate people sometimes.
 
2012-07-04 12:11:12 PM

The Billdozer: downstairs: cchris_39: As a believer, I still don't see how this "proves" God's existence. What exactly is the thinking there?

/maybe a couple serious replies mixed in with the snarks please?

It has nothing to do with the concept of God. It was just a goofy phrase that most scientists didn't even like.

To put it simply, it was called the "god particle" because its sort of the "god" of all we've theorized about physics since almost forever. It explains why we have mass (I'm totally over-simplifying here)... which I think you can understand is a pretty big deal.

We've theorized many, many things about matter and energy and everything that makes up the universe. But those theories didn't have a concrete "reason" for existing. This is the reason. Or, a very big part of the reason.

Think of gravity. When you were a kid, you knew it existed. You dropped something and it fell to the floor. But you didn't know why. Now imagine this theory is someone figuring out why, and what it really is.

But as a believer, you have nothing to worry about. It doesn't disprove "God" or any of that.

Ding. Ding. Ding.

I'm not sure of your religious preferences, but you seem to actually get it. It was something that had already been theorized and now its apparently been proven correct (or as close as we can get right now). It really doesnt have a religious implication, aside from the dumb name given to it supposedly (by an atheist, no less) so people actually think it "proves God" and atheists who are champing at the bit to have a "A-ha, stupid theists" moment. I hate people sometimes.


The name was given by a publisher who thought it would help the writer's book sell better. At least that's how I understand it and it apparently worked.
 
2012-07-04 12:16:39 PM
If the Higgs Boson is responsible for other particles having mass, then why is it they can only be produced in particle accelerators at pretty high energies and then they don't hang around for long? It seems like since nearly everything has mass and has it all the time, the Higgs should be everywhere.
 
2012-07-04 12:19:33 PM

vrax: Waiting for the outcry from clueless religious nutters.


To match and counterpoint the outcry from clueless atheists?
 
2012-07-04 12:19:45 PM

Befuddled: If the Higgs Boson is responsible for other particles having mass, then why is it they can only be produced in particle accelerators at pretty high energies and then they don't hang around for long? It seems like since nearly everything has mass and has it all the time, the Higgs should be everywhere.


Ask science on reddit has a really good thread about it. The particle existed at the big bang but has since become a field that interacts with other particles to give them mass. They needed so much energy to produce a particle because that's what was required to make a "ripple" in the existing field.
 
2012-07-04 12:20:06 PM
Okay. I'm not going to pretend I know anything about physics, because I don't. But, the last time they thought they found it I remember reading how physicists were all agitated seemingly not wanting it to be true. I remember reading about how if it does exist it would "turn physics upside down." Now everyone is saying it confirms what they have theorized. I'm confused
 
2012-07-04 12:20:36 PM
Some Kraut in 1870: "Because of the way that these cathode rays are behaving, I predict the existence of electrons"
Some dude 20 or 30 years later: "Yep, we just proved electrons exist"
Some fark dude 10 hours later: "Why haven't you invented integrated circuits yet? You science jerks are wasting our money"
 
2012-07-04 12:22:01 PM

The Billdozer: I'm not sure of your religious preferences, but you seem to actually get it. It was something that had already been theorized and now its apparently been proven correct (or as close as we can get right now). It really doesnt have a religious implication, aside from the dumb name given to it supposedly (by an atheist, no less) so people actually think it "proves God" and atheists who are champing at the bit to have a "A-ha, stupid theists" moment. I hate people sometimes.


My preference is in the "I don't know" category. Not athiest, agnostic, or a believer. I just believe I'm not meant to know.

But I love science, and know enough about science to realize its not really out there trying to prove or disprove God. God generally has no bearing on science.

Science will never, ever prove everything. That's impossible. So there will always be room open for a God to exist.

Believe what you want. I respect that 100% up until the point where you try to call someone else a lesser person (or worse) for not agreeing with your beliefs.
 
2012-07-04 12:22:29 PM

Jenthelibrarian: This amazing announcement needs Professor Brian Cox

*lustful swoon of heartfelt appreciation...

[farm5.staticflickr.com image 333x500]


Yep. That man is dreamy.
 
2012-07-04 12:23:10 PM

miss diminutive: DownDaRiver: Not going to click a Daily Mail link.
Anyone know where the original story in the US the article originated from? The one that the Daily Fail got it from?

The link has a live feed from the CERN news conference, so maybe you can click a Daily Fail site and not feel ashamed.

Time to expand your horizons. It's what the Higgs boson would want.


For people who have compulsions to not click on certain links, that is genetically impossible.
 
2012-07-04 12:23:21 PM
This is bad news.. For Obama.
 
2012-07-04 12:23:36 PM
Okay. I'm not going to pretend I know anything about physics, because I don't. But, the last time they thought they found it I remember reading how physicists were all agitated seemingly not wanting it to be true. I remember reading about how if it does exist it would "turn physics upside down." Now everyone is saying it confirms what they have theorized. I'm confused

You sure you're not confusing neutrinos maybe being faster-than-light with the Higgs Boson?
 
2012-07-04 12:23:47 PM

cybernia: Okay. I'm not going to pretend I know anything about physics, because I don't. But, the last time they thought they found it I remember reading how physicists were all agitated seemingly not wanting it to be true. I remember reading about how if it does exist it would "turn physics upside down." Now everyone is saying it confirms what they have theorized. I'm confused


I've never heard that. I've only heard that if these experiments DIS-proved the Higgs, THAT would turn all of physics upside down.
 
2012-07-04 12:23:50 PM

Fail in Human Form: The Billdozer: downstairs: cchris_39: As a believer, I still don't see how this "proves" God's existence. What exactly is the thinking there?

/maybe a couple serious replies mixed in with the snarks please?

It has nothing to do with the concept of God. It was just a goofy phrase that most scientists didn't even like.

To put it simply, it was called the "god particle" because its sort of the "god" of all we've theorized about physics since almost forever. It explains why we have mass (I'm totally over-simplifying here)... which I think you can understand is a pretty big deal.

We've theorized many, many things about matter and energy and everything that makes up the universe. But those theories didn't have a concrete "reason" for existing. This is the reason. Or, a very big part of the reason.

Think of gravity. When you were a kid, you knew it existed. You dropped something and it fell to the floor. But you didn't know why. Now imagine this theory is someone figuring out why, and what it really is.

But as a believer, you have nothing to worry about. It doesn't disprove "God" or any of that.

Ding. Ding. Ding.

I'm not sure of your religious preferences, but you seem to actually get it. It was something that had already been theorized and now its apparently been proven correct (or as close as we can get right now). It really doesnt have a religious implication, aside from the dumb name given to it supposedly (by an atheist, no less) so people actually think it "proves God" and atheists who are champing at the bit to have a "A-ha, stupid theists" moment. I hate people sometimes.

The name was given by a publisher who thought it would help the writer's book sell better. At least that's how I understand it and it apparently worked.


That's what I've gathered as well. If you want to see humanity really lose its shiat, wait if they discover a Unified Theory of Everything. That would be ultimate "We dont need god/God did it" argument for both sides.
 
2012-07-04 12:25:06 PM

dervish16108: When am I getting my hoverboard?


My kid already built one. Didn't you read the June issue of Wired magazine?
 
2012-07-04 12:25:11 PM
Double whammy!

www.nightmarepark.com



www.nightmarepark.com
 
2012-07-04 12:25:47 PM

Will-Mun: Wow... This is pretty damn significant. Four years of smashing particles together at the speed of light, four years of searching for this one tiny speck. Considering the nature of this particle, I'm surprised we found it so soon. Cheers all around, and I await with bated breath what this means, exactly, for physics and science in general.

Your move, God.

croesius: This is a repeat from next week.

Old news is exciting!

Ha!


Would some genius please explain to me why this has some terrible implication for the existence or nonexistence of God? Seriously. I really don't see that it has any bearing one way or another.
 
2012-07-04 12:25:56 PM

cybernia: Okay. I'm not going to pretend I know anything about physics, because I don't. But, the last time they thought they found it I remember reading how physicists were all agitated seemingly not wanting it to be true. I remember reading about how if it does exist it would "turn physics upside down." Now everyone is saying it confirms what they have theorized. I'm confused


You know how I know you watch fox news?
 
2012-07-04 12:27:11 PM

BigBooper: So now for the important questions.
Will this help me get my porn faster? Or will it help me get laid?

If not, this is a giant waste of money.


you'll need the Higgs-Bosom for that.
 
2012-07-04 12:27:31 PM

Aar1012: James F. Campbell: Aar1012: It would take decades of work by thousands of scientists in a particle accelerator powered by dump trucks of flaming grant money.

You're not just an asshole, you're an ignorant asshole. Feel proud of yourself.

Wow...someone really doesn't like 'Futurama'


And has absolutely no sense of humor.

Must be a Liberal.
 
2012-07-04 12:27:38 PM

The Billdozer: That's what I've gathered as well. If you want to see humanity really lose its shiat, wait if they discover a Unified Theory of Everything. That would be ultimate "We dont need god/God did it" argument for both sides.


Not really. Like I said above, science will never prove everything. The best we can ever, ever get to is what the properties of that "point" from which the big bang exploded from *is*. And then everything beyond that.

"Is" is the best we can get to, though. Not "why". There's no way to prove or disprove of a "God" that created that "point".

We can know every single thing about our physical universe. And maybe even other dimensions and other universes. But we'll never know why its all here.
 
2012-07-04 12:28:20 PM

The Billdozer: Fail in Human Form: The Billdozer: downstairs: cchris_39: As a believer, I still don't see how this "proves" God's existence. What exactly is the thinking there?

/maybe a couple serious replies mixed in with the snarks please?

It has nothing to do with the concept of God. It was just a goofy phrase that most scientists didn't even like.

To put it simply, it was called the "god particle" because its sort of the "god" of all we've theorized about physics since almost forever. It explains why we have mass (I'm totally over-simplifying here)... which I think you can understand is a pretty big deal.

We've theorized many, many things about matter and energy and everything that makes up the universe. But those theories didn't have a concrete "reason" for existing. This is the reason. Or, a very big part of the reason.

Think of gravity. When you were a kid, you knew it existed. You dropped something and it fell to the floor. But you didn't know why. Now imagine this theory is someone figuring out why, and what it really is.

But as a believer, you have nothing to worry about. It doesn't disprove "God" or any of that.

Ding. Ding. Ding.

I'm not sure of your religious preferences, but you seem to actually get it. It was something that had already been theorized and now its apparently been proven correct (or as close as we can get right now). It really doesnt have a religious implication, aside from the dumb name given to it supposedly (by an atheist, no less) so people actually think it "proves God" and atheists who are champing at the bit to have a "A-ha, stupid theists" moment. I hate people sometimes.

The name was given by a publisher who thought it would help the writer's book sell better. At least that's how I understand it and it apparently worked.

That's what I've gathered as well. If you want to see humanity really lose its shiat, wait if they discover a Unified Theory of Everything. That would be ultimate "We dont need god/God did it" argume ...


I'm an atheist but I don't think science will ever disprove the concept of "God". Science will cut the legs out from under some of the reasons people use to justify their belief in a god but you can always keep moving the goalposts beyond our understanding of the universe if you're so inclined.
 
2012-07-04 12:29:22 PM

Naesen: However, again as an engineer, I wonder how we can harness it to do those things on command. If the HB doesn't exist naturally like some radioisotopes and exists for such a short period of time, I wonder what we can do with it...


Many of the immediate products of atomic fission are also ephemeral, yet we've found some uses for those.
 
2012-07-04 12:30:41 PM

Aar1012: New questions arise because of this.

Why are the laws of physics what they are? Instead of some other laws?


Anthropic principle.
 
2012-07-04 12:31:57 PM
I'm still trying to wrap my poor brain around this information but I do understand that it is HUGE.

So like a monkey marking his territory I'm over here peeing in the corner just to say "I wuz heer" on this momentous day.

/very glad Prof. Higgs was still around to see the conformation of his theory
 
2012-07-04 12:32:12 PM

WhyteRaven74: Today is one of the greatest days in the history of science. It's that big.

And just think, if the SSC had been built in Texas, we would've had this result years ago.


The cancellation of that project was tragic.
 
2012-07-04 12:32:14 PM

Befuddled: If the Higgs Boson is responsible for other particles having mass, then why is it they can only be produced in particle accelerators at pretty high energies and then they don't hang around for long? It seems like since nearly everything has mass and has it all the time, the Higgs should be everywhere.


It's like that girl who gave you herpes. She gave everybody herpes, but she doesn't hang around for long.
 
2012-07-04 12:32:58 PM

Easy Reader: Cool. In three years we'll be able to manufacture them en masse, and they'll be be even smaller and used in all kinds of applications.


Probably a new "Mass bomb" that sucks everything within the explosion radius into a black hole.
 
2012-07-04 12:37:39 PM

downstairs: The Billdozer: That's what I've gathered as well. If you want to see humanity really lose its shiat, wait if they discover a Unified Theory of Everything. That would be ultimate "We dont need god/God did it" argument for both sides.

Not really. Like I said above, science will never prove everything. The best we can ever, ever get to is what the properties of that "point" from which the big bang exploded from *is*. And then everything beyond that.

"Is" is the best we can get to, though. Not "why". There's no way to prove or disprove of a "God" that created that "point".

We can know every single thing about our physical universe. And maybe even other dimensions and other universes. But we'll never know why its all here.


uhhhhhh, understanding the conditions at which the universe existed moments before the big bang and then understanding the conditions immediately afterwards and the causes for those changes would be understanding "why it's all here." Your question is the type endemic is freshmen philosophy classes: pointless, flowery, and without any real meaning behind it. I doubt you're using any of those terms in a way that either a physicist or a philosopher would agree to using them.
 
2012-07-04 12:38:36 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Naesen: However, again as an engineer, I wonder how we can harness it to do those things on command. If the HB doesn't exist naturally like some radioisotopes and exists for such a short period of time, I wonder what we can do with it...

Many of the immediate products of atomic fission are also ephemeral, yet we've found some uses for those.


Right, I get that. We harness heat energy and leftover products. But I still wonder what we could actually do with a higgs boson. I'm not doubting we can do something, don't get me wrong, but even in my imagination's dreams there isn't anything obvious to me.
 
2012-07-04 12:40:59 PM

othmar: John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.


In this thread? 10/10
 
2012-07-04 12:42:12 PM
And Higgs was alive to see the day. EPIC.
 
2012-07-04 12:42:51 PM

Naesen: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Naesen: However, again as an engineer, I wonder how we can harness it to do those things on command. If the HB doesn't exist naturally like some radioisotopes and exists for such a short period of time, I wonder what we can do with it...

Many of the immediate products of atomic fission are also ephemeral, yet we've found some uses for those.

Right, I get that. We harness heat energy and leftover products. But I still wonder what we could actually do with a higgs boson. I'm not doubting we can do something, don't get me wrong, but even in my imagination's dreams there isn't anything obvious to me.


I doubt we'll do anything with the actual particle. The existing Higgs Field on the other hand....

/I still want a hover board
 
2012-07-04 12:42:57 PM

WhyteRaven74: AverageAmericanGuy: I assumed he meant to do this to an existing star.

Well if you want a star to go nova, just dump some iron in it. It's iron that causes it to happen naturally. Very tiny, relative to the mass of the star, amounts of iron. Imagine if something the size of a grain of salt could cause an oil storage tank, that holds tens of thousands of gallons of oil, to explode. That's a single grain of salt making a volume billions of times greater than itself go boom. That's roughly how it is with iron and stars.


I'm no stellar physicist, but I believe you're mistaken about this. You probably read that stars collapse when they star fusing iron, which is true, because that reaction requires more energy than it produces, so the star can't hold itself up anymore. But that situation happens when the star has run out of other fusiles -- not when you just dump iron into it. If you dump iron into a star that's still working normally, you just get gaseous iron.
 
2012-07-04 12:44:48 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Will-Mun: Wow... This is pretty damn significant. Four years of smashing particles together at the speed of light, four years of searching for this one tiny speck. Considering the nature of this particle, I'm surprised we found it so soon. Cheers all around, and I await with bated breath what this means, exactly, for physics and science in general.

Your move, God.

croesius: This is a repeat from next week.

Old news is exciting!

Ha!

Would some genius please explain to me why this has some terrible implication for the existence or nonexistence of God? Seriously. I really don't see that it has any bearing one way or another.


Well in my case I was just kind of being snarky. I little joke not meant to mean anything, which is why it was an aside at the end of my post. Though in the broad scope (as I cannot speak for everyone here) the more we understand about the nature of the universe, the smaller the margins left over for religion. As I mentioned previously the Higgs Boson Particle is a big farking deal and, as other's have discussed, has the unfortunate moniker of the 'God-Particle' which has come to some contention from both the science and religiously minded. Science minded folks saying that the nick name is completely ridiculous, and religious minded saying it's bordering on blasphemous.

But in the end God can only exist where science had not explored, and this is a rather huge key in the department of scientific understanding of the universe. It means we can now (possibly) definitively answer why matter has mass, and it can no longer be left up to the observation that 'well maybe that's where God comes in'.

Again, though, in my case, I was just being an asshole.
 
2012-07-04 12:44:48 PM

cybernia: Okay. I'm not going to pretend I know anything about physics, because I don't. But, the last time they thought they found it I remember reading how physicists were all agitated seemingly not wanting it to be true. I remember reading about how if it does exist it would "turn physics upside down." Now everyone is saying it confirms what they have theorized. I'm confused


I think you and my boss should have a chat and try to work through this.:

But the short version is: the result announced today has no relation whatsoever to the 'Faster than light neutrinos' story from several months ago.
 
2012-07-04 12:46:18 PM
Apparatus from a Mexican book and at CERN:

https://www.box.com/s/6de5f7451ee2c68b93ca

Coincidence?
 
2012-07-04 12:47:58 PM

phrawgh: miss diminutive: Truly a momentous day for science. That being said...

[img232.imageshack.us image 633x405]

Is he wearing an armband? Is this a NAZI research initiative!?!?!

You should see their moon base!

[theshootening.files.wordpress.com image 640x320]


Goody, another Iron Sky fan.
 
2012-07-04 12:48:41 PM

Mr. Carpenter: uhhhhhh, understanding the conditions at which the universe existed moments before the big bang and then understanding the conditions immediately afterwards and the causes for those changes would be understanding "why it's all here." Your question is the type endemic is freshmen philosophy classes: pointless, flowery, and without any real meaning behind it. I doubt you're using any of those terms in a way that either a physicist or a philosopher would agree to using them.


You would seriously be satisfied that we know everything about how- and more importantly- why the universe exists by merely knowing the "conditions at which the universe existed moments before the big bang "?

We can keep going backwards asking "Ok, but what created that"... or "Ok, but how did that happen"... but only until a certain point.

Look, I don't believe or disbelieve in God. I have zero opinion.

I just believe that if we spent an infinite amount of time and resources trying to figure out the universe... we'll still be left with at least one question. "Ok, what created that"
 
2012-07-04 12:49:39 PM
So... The finding of the higgs bosun happened on the same day as the end-of-the-world tomb was opened?

Dun-dun-duuuuuuun
 
2012-07-04 12:49:44 PM

bwilson27: cybernia: Okay. I'm not going to pretend I know anything about physics, because I don't. But, the last time they thought they found it I remember reading how physicists were all agitated seemingly not wanting it to be true. I remember reading about how if it does exist it would "turn physics upside down." Now everyone is saying it confirms what they have theorized. I'm confused

You know how I know you watch fox news?


You know how I know you're a jackass?
 
2012-07-04 12:50:28 PM

James F. Campbell: Aar1012: James F. Campbell: Aar1012: It would take decades of work by thousands of scientists in a particle accelerator powered by dump trucks of flaming grant money.

You're not just an asshole, you're an ignorant asshole. Feel proud of yourself.

Wow...someone really doesn't like 'Futurama'

I've seen all of the old episodes and none of the new ones. I've also spent too much time in the Politics tab; I simply thought you were an ignorant anti-science asshole conservative (but I repeat myself) who was implying that this sort of research was a waste of time with the "flaming grant money" line.


Whoa! SOMEbody here thinks in stereotypes and soundbytes!

Or maybe just got a case of the Mondays?
 
2012-07-04 12:51:28 PM

dillengest: cybernia: Okay. I'm not going to pretend I know anything about physics, because I don't. But, the last time they thought they found it I remember reading how physicists were all agitated seemingly not wanting it to be true. I remember reading about how if it does exist it would "turn physics upside down." Now everyone is saying it confirms what they have theorized. I'm confused

I think you and my boss should have a chat and try to work through this.:

But the short version is: the result announced today has no relation whatsoever to the 'Faster than light neutrinos' story from several months ago.



Ah, thanks.
 
2012-07-04 12:52:14 PM

ksdanj: AverageAmericanGuy: This makes me proud to be an American.

Came here for this.

Sadly, I'm old enough to remember when the United States used to do cool shiat like this. One of my earliest memories is of watching Neil Armstrong stepping onto the moon secret soundstage on our old black and white TV.

 
2012-07-04 12:53:11 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: James F. Campbell: Aar1012: James F. Campbell: Aar1012: It would take decades of work by thousands of scientists in a particle accelerator powered by dump trucks of flaming grant money.

You're not just an asshole, you're an ignorant asshole. Feel proud of yourself.

Wow...someone really doesn't like 'Futurama'

I've seen all of the old episodes and none of the new ones. I've also spent too much time in the Politics tab; I simply thought you were an ignorant anti-science asshole conservative (but I repeat myself) who was implying that this sort of research was a waste of time with the "flaming grant money" line.

Whoa! SOMEbody here thinks in stereotypes and soundbytes!

Or maybe just got a case of the Mondays?


That's an ass-kicking.
 
2012-07-04 12:55:32 PM

downstairs: Mr. Carpenter: uhhhhhh, understanding the conditions at which the universe existed moments before the big bang and then understanding the conditions immediately afterwards and the causes for those changes would be understanding "why it's all here." Your question is the type endemic is freshmen philosophy classes: pointless, flowery, and without any real meaning behind it. I doubt you're using any of those terms in a way that either a physicist or a philosopher would agree to using them.

You would seriously be satisfied that we know everything about how- and more importantly- why the universe exists by merely knowing the "conditions at which the universe existed moments before the big bang "?

We can keep going backwards asking "Ok, but what created that"... or "Ok, but how did that happen"... but only until a certain point.

Look, I don't believe or disbelieve in God. I have zero opinion.

I just believe that if we spent an infinite amount of time and resources trying to figure out the universe... we'll still be left with at least one question. "Ok, what created that"


I think its funny that he went off on you and then doesn't know the difference between "how" and "why".

I do have to say that its nice how this discovery hasn't led to a ton of crazy zealotry on the 'Net (aside from the usual places).
 
2012-07-04 12:56:23 PM

Crocodilly_Pontifex: gumpy: slotz: AverageAmericanGuy: slotz: It's nice to know how, but what keeps me up at night is why.

Why do caterpillars crawl? Why is there a sky? Why is there a world at all?

And why do you ask why?

Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. EXACTLY MY POINT.

Doesn't matter.


You really don't need a why. A why is largely irrelevant.

the fark? "Why" is what brought us, oh, I dunno... EVERY scientific breakthrough EVER.

in the last 200 years, "why" has taken us from candles and horse carts to flying to motherfarking moon.


Actually, it really is the 'how' rather than the 'why,' though to be forgiving, many people say one when they mean the other. So this argument can also break out over just the semantics, even if both parties otherwise agree.

In context of natural laws, 'how' appropriately means "by what mechanism (rule, law, etc.)" does such-and-such do what it does, behave as it does, and so on. While 'why' more tends to imply, "by what reason" or "for what purpose." In science, 'why' is often considered irrelevant not in the sense of having no value, but in the sense that the reasons for things (apart from the mechanisms) are not approachable by scientific methods. In that view, 'why' is a question for spiritualists and philosophers, not scientists -- but not because scientists don't care, or believe it's meaningless to ask such questions, only that it's not a scientific question.

By analogy, a man hired to paint something a particular way, for example, may know full well how, but still not know why, and that's okay: he's not there to ponder the meaning of it, only the method. Yet that doesn't mean he has no interest in that, or feels that it's without meaning; it's just not his job, that's all.

A lot of people will ask something like, "Why do things fall?" Which is a perfectly fine common question. In scientific context, though, this becomes a 'how' question, in that the 'why' doesn't ask what the reason or purpose is, but only the mechanism involved. That's all that's going on here, I think: some confusion of what each of you means by 'why'.
 
2012-07-04 12:58:14 PM
The scientists are done, now it's time for the engineers to take over.

/Not really scientists, we still need room temperature superconductors.
 
2012-07-04 01:00:08 PM

WhyteRaven74: Then there's the graviton, which if it exists, is going to be real hard to observe. And if the name isn't enough of a hint, the graviton is the carrier particle for gravity.


If graviton is discovered and, eventually, uinderstood; could that lead to the establishment of an habitable atmosphere on the Moon or Mars?
 
Displayed 50 of 629 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report