I announce the presence of two more Quarks:

The Serious Quark and the Spoof Squark!

Who knows what a "Theory of Everything" would lead to?

An army of robotic monkeys. Obviously.

otakucode

upinarms: I understand your confusion. I don't know a massive amount about physics, but I know enough to see that most particle physicists say "Oh yeah, big stuff obeys this set of laws, and the little stuff obeys this entirely different set of laws"... they don't seem to have a problem with it. Anyone who has taken a freshman-level course in logic will have a problem with it, but somehow they some up with it that way and they still think they're right. Then they go to explain the laws of the little stuff and there are exceptions to all the rules. This doesn't bother them either.

I need to find someone eventually who has a really good understanding of quantum physics and won't freak out at me when I tell them they have to be wrong because correct rules do not HAVE exceptions.

Actually what is actually happening is that the strong and weak forces operate on a very small scale (less than the radius of the atom). Electromagnetism doesn't affect atomic-level physics very much, and gravity almost none at all. However, macro-level interactions are almost completely gravity and electro. It's not really two different rule books, just on some scales some things happen more strongly relative to others.

Goalies can't use their hands outside the 18-yard box. The rules haven't changed, just the way things are arranged.

Once we've figured out everything, will there be nothing left to do?

Does my toaster have an inferiority complex from being in the same room as my microwave?

Are dogs smarter than humans, since they've figured out how to lick their own balls?

That's BOSAN, Moran!

Grey Alien.

1. No
2. No
3. Yes

wake me up when they prove frame dragging is real so I can invest in GE.

BigTuna Thanks man!

"Grimlock no boson, him king!"

You guys know EVERYTHING!!

Stop FARKing off and make me my flying car ; )

Zagloba
I see what your saying. But from what I have been reading (mainly the books written for laymen) is that they (QM and relativaty) work off of two different mathmatical models. I am hoping to understand them one day, figure out how it all works and win the Nobel. Until then, how can you assert that it's just about the forces when I'm reading that it's a difference in mathmatical models?

//waiting to get my arse spanked by someone who probably works for Fermilab

misterentropy:

Godel's theorem states that any axiomatic theory (theory built from a set of inferences from a fixed set of fundamental 'truths') must be either incomplete (which means that some things are true but not provable from first principles) or inconsistent (which means that some things are both true and false in the theory). This is true of any set of physics axioms, but more surprisingly it is true of math.

But this dosen't mean that there is a reason to stop looking. It just means that
-our current axioms are wrong, or
-we haven't found all the axioms.

Someone said it [problem with unified theory], continuity is a large part of the problem.

Goddamn, Spoofman_v2.0, it is frigg'n good to hear Grimlock again. Thanks - I'll probably sign off this thread on that upbeat note. Nice dorking out with all of you.

Until then, how can you assert that it's just about the forces when I'm reading that it's a difference in mathmatical models?

Heh, it's a difference in the mathematic models needed to describe the forces.

meshman: You are both right and wrong...

This part is right:
"The universe encompasses far more than what human perception is capable of. Trying to find any 'answer' to the universe from our perspective discards any portion of it we can't percieve, which could dwarf what we see as 'the universe'."

1. otakucode wrote:

meshman: To believe that there is something in the universe which is beyond human comprehension requires a leap of faith.

2. After witnessing such things, in my lifetime, as Reaganomics, the popularity of teevee "reality shows," Bush's presidency, O.J.'s trial and the Bills losing four straight Super Bowls, my "leap of faith" requires covering a distance approximately equal to Planck's constant. Such a leap is not even a matter of intent, but might happen with any random quantum fluctation.

But meshman, the universe is not infinite, neither one way nor the other. It is neither infinitely large, nor infinitely small, and, being quantized, is therefore finite. The greatest mistake of modern physics is to allow equations that give infinite results (IMHO).

Hard to believe we cannot comprehend a merely finite universe, but then we, too, are finite.

Good luck with the PhD elypse. Remember the farkers who helped you figure it out with your Nobel speech.

I recommend the tao of physics.

Bonus points if you read it concurrently with the Tao of Pooh.

Higgs bosun = very small sailor?

oldebayer

renormalizzze!
/ = whateva

Actually, I'm sure they'll straighten that one out eventually. I know nothing of the actual equations though, just the theory behind it.

Wouldn't it be ironic if this thread hit inifinty?

//How many messages need to be posted for that?

Please read

upinarms

About infinity=400 I think. Theorist now speculate there may be even larger numbers. 401? Time will tell.

Wouldn't it be ironic if this thread hit inifinty?

No.

//How many messages need to be posted for that?

The Toby Keith one just hit pi somewhere around 450. So, umm, more than that.

Food for thought, The discovery of the higgs boson does answer one really inportant question, where inertia comes from. Since Newton we have known that objects with mass have inertia, but have not understood what causes the inertia. There are certain questions that you can ask physicist and get a shrug or bullshiat. Where inertia comes from is one of them. Another is what causes gravity?

Can somebody explain what E(8) x E(8) means?

Nuke_waste

Spot on.

[So what happens when you get to the edge of the universe? Or does it wrap around, so there is no edge?]

Your theory of a doughnut shaped universe intrigues me.

Your theory of a doughnut shaped universe intrigues me.

Dougnut? What's a doughnut?

/Mom, it's raining again.

Big Tuna, upinarms,

I will attempt to make my invention something that facilitates fapping - that way I will be thanking farkers and will also be cutting them in on a share of the profits.

Respect to Sloth_DC for making me laugh with this:

When the Sloth field gets excited, it produces a stream of Sloth particles. So there!

Boojums. . .

insert snarky comment here.

Did anyone ever notice that an anus looks like a donut?

Sloth_DC

dougnut, hmmmm....damn, misspellings with possible homoerotic connotations sure are embarrassing, my apologies.

I think you'll find there's a restaurant at the end of the universe.

Man, I'm slow today. Not paying attention is even more embarrassing, I need a nap.

underdog,

Sound like a type of vector space symmetry. Look it up in a Linear Algebra text. I need to look it up myself but it sounds like an 8-d subspace that exist in Hilbert space. I'm an experimentalist in training. So I'm not for certain. I don't start my advanced linear algebra course until next week.

dougnut, hmmmm....damn, misspellings with possible homoerotic connotations sure are embarrassing, my apologies.

Heh, it was my misspelling. I was channelling poorly edited Simpsons scripts for some reason.

Doug Nuts fall achingly soft
Higgins Field Effect
Brings Doug out of closet now

Everything I learned about the Higgs Boson Particle, I learned from watching Martian Successor Nadesico!

"If you dont remove da Barriar..."

How many dimensions does our current best guess have? I thought it was 6...

Someone go read "Flashforward" By Robert J Sawyer. Excellent Canadian sci-fi authour who bases an entire novel around the discovery of the Higgs Boson.

I thought it was like 14--

Large Hardon Collider, high energy gay porn?

2004-06-10 03:00:50 PM underdog


How many dimensions does our current best guess have? I thought it was 6...

It's four.

Unless you think string theory is our best guess; then it's 11.

But the Standard Model only requires the usual 4 dimensions.

misterentropy, underdog;

Hilbert space is the basis space for Quantum Mechanics, and has infinite dimensions. How many dimensions exist in nature depends on what you define a real. Classical Mechanics uses 3, Relativity uses 4, QM uses infinite. String threory uses I think 12-16 depending on who you talk to.

Hilbert space is the basis space for Quantum Mechanics, and has infinite dimensions. How many dimensions exist in nature depends on what you define a real. Classical Mechanics uses 3, Relativity uses 4, QM uses infinite. String threory uses I think 12-16 depending on who you talk to.

That sums it up about as well as anything.

Alexis

Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?

Wow so much discussion on nothing, look they are only close, and in physics that is like the elusive big foot.