Skip to comments.New Physics Complications Lend Support to Multiverse Hypothesis
Posted on 06/03/2013 5:18:54 PM PDT by BenLurkin
The spectacular discovery of the Higgs boson in July 2012 confirmed a nearly 50-year-old theory of how elementary particles acquire mass, which enables them to form big structures such as galaxies and humans. The fact that it was seen more or less where we expected to find it is a triumph for experiment, its a triumph for theory, and its an indication that physics works, Arkani-Hamed told the crowd.
However, in order for the Higgs boson to make sense with the mass (or equivalent energy) it was determined to have, the LHC needed to find a swarm of other particles, too. None turned up.
(Excerpt) Read more at scientificamerican.com ...
I'm glad to hear this because I'm too dumb to understand this stuff anyway.
It is said that in at least one of the Multiverses
the US Congress is NOT an abject treasonous,
selfserving failure, groveling to help
Enemies of the people of the USA.
It is said, but not seen on this planet.
Their model sure doesn’t make any sense. That is why they keep coming up with nonsense like “Dark Matter.”
I have to admit in delighting in the paradox that the more we believe we know about the universe the less we understand it.
Dark matter ?
That’s borderline racist.
“Can’t we all just get along?”
i question if they really found a higgs boson given the lack of expected particles. there is more than one explanation than it must mean a multiverse.
what i don’t understand is why people listen to these educated stupid people.
God is the explanation. More evidence for God than a multiverse.
“Yet a few constants including the mass of the Higgs boson are exponentially different from what these trusted laws indicate they should be, in ways that would rule out any chance of life, unless the universe is shaped by inexplicable fine-tunings and cancellations.”
And God laughs last.
One night, I travelled to another universe. All sorts of wild things were happening! Animals were talking! Water was air! Then I realized I was just watching a Spongebob Squarepants cartoon.
if there are an infinite number of universes then there are an infinite number of answers to any question
or, which would seem about the same thing,
no particular answer to anything?
When I was growing up, I took a particular interest in nuclear physics. And I majored in it in college, until I changed my mind and went elsewhere.
Frankly, science has gotten so politicized and ideological since then that you can scarcely believe anything you read these days. Global warming, multiverse theory, no one allowed to question evolution in the public schools. . . .
Yep, we just had to get the evil Spock, didn’t we?
I think we got stuck with the evil Spork, Evil Spock has a sense of honor if nothing else.
If the universe doesn't make sense, then literally anything is possible because reason (sense) can't rule it out... abracadabra magic, faster than light travel, God Himself. In trying to prove He doesn't exist, science seems to have tied itself into a knot.
It occurs to me that Higgs Boson would be an excellent name for a car model.
Now presenting the Multiverse: brought to you by Occam’s two-by-four.
If there are multiple universes can I click my heels and go to the one where Bozo is still a homosexual mule out of Afghanistan? (I guess I better be careful what I ask for.)
Agree with your #8.
The more I learn and speculate about God, the more likely it is to me that there are indeed multiverses. IMO, multiverses would give meaning and dimension to the concept of infinity.
Or it may make sense. The entire article doesn't advocate either position, but does say that experimental results in the next few years are likely to steer us down one path or the other.
A lot of scientists want to know how God created the universe. The experimental results that point to a multiverse also point to fine tuning.
Hmmm..Universe doesn't seem to be homogeneous...
I love science where there are theories, experiments to test theories, evaluations of the data, and acknowledgements of failures. It all makes science seem real again after having been inundated with trashy climate science.
I don’t recall reading before about naturalness/unnaturalness in the context of cosmology and particle creation. Maybe my memories were cancelled out?
Actually, the degree to which atheist materialists have embraced “multiverse” theory is quite amusing.
They profess to be empiricists and atheists have, at least traditionally, wielded Occam’s razor against the existence of an unobservable, transcendent deity. Now, in preference to one unobservable entity, they posit a vast, perhaps infinite, array of necessarily unobservable entities (if it can be observed, it’s in our universe, not another one), thereby ceding control of Occam’s razor to us theists.
You got that right.
Another thought: my favorite Einstein quote (other than “Goedel’s gone completely mad: he’s voting for Eisenhower!”) is “The mathematicians can’t tell me what I need to know,” uttered late in his life when he was trying to replace quantum mechanics with a classical “physically realistic” theory — a hopeless errand we now know thanks to the empirical violation of Bell’s inequalities.
The problem is not that the universe might not make sense, but that physicists are trying continually to hang onto the same mathematical toolbox that worked for classical physics and general relativity, when the best indications are that it doesn’t work to describe anything involving quantum phenomena — in particular, space-time won’t end up being a smooth manifold with a Minkowskian metric because the continuum model breaks down at fine scale. I suspect we mathematicians might now be able to tell them what they need to know, but most physicists aren’t asking.
What gets me is that some of the major founders of quantum mechanics such as Einstein and Schrodinger never accepted it as a final theory, or showed an outright dislike for it.
The article states that most scientists have resisted the "multiverse" theory. I think we get a biased view of the beliefs of scientists because journalists select scientific opinion that supports their agenda.
Don’t start somethin’, wont be nothin’.
we mathematicians might now be able to tell them what they need to know, but most physicists arent asking.
It seems this Soft Science guy (an Anthropology major 25 years ago) that once mathematicians have begun to address things cosmological, they have entered into a philosophical practice. Albeit one rendered sublime by the requisite discipline of mathematics.