Physicists Say Can Find No Sign of 'God Particle'

Reuters / Yahoo ^ | December 5, 2001

[<1/1,000,000th%]

LOL! You make me laugh.

[OBAFGKM]

Sorry for not getting back sooner. I've enjoyed this thread.

Godel's Theorem applies only to mathematical systems that encompass arithmetic of whole numbers. Other systems may be exempt. In fact, Godel himself demonstrated consistency of the predicate calculus.

The point is that a formalist would argue that Godel's Theorem devolves from the axioms used to derive it. It's true only because of the structure of the axiom set.

Hard-core intuitionists may not even regard it as an established proof because its proof requires that arithmetic be consistent, and if it's true then the Theorem itself implies that arithmetic cannot be shown to be consistent through the underlying axiom set. That is, Godel's Theorem is provable only if you can prove something that Godel's Theorem shows to be unprovable.

[jlogajan]

Would the mass loss in a nuclear reaction be compensated in the relativistic way by the high speed of the resultant particles?

I'm not sure what you mean exactly. It is true that part of the mass loss is in the kinetic energy of flight of the particles -- but that particle could hit something and come to a dead stop, of course, and the mass loss of the original nuclear reaction is still the same.

[lds23]

Now if my friend Bugs Bunny was hidin' in the stove, would I turn on the gas and light this match?

[RightWhale]

you and the scientist of the world

I will keep asking until I receive a satisfactory response.

[henbane]

What does the Book of Genesis have to do with particle physics or physical science in general?

You have two complex belief systems attempting to interact here.

The term "God particle" creates the synapse.

[Physicist]

Godel's Theorem applies only to mathematical systems that encompass arithmetic of whole numbers. Other systems may be exempt.

Point taken, but the systems that do not address the topic of whole numbers--for that same reason--can't overturn Gödel's theorem, while the theorem applies to all systems that do address whole numbers. So the universality of the truth remains. If a system covers whole numbers, I can say before I see the axiom set that it is not both complete and consistent.

(I am laying aside the issue of whether Gödel may have been wrong, as I am not qualified to form my own opinion on the matter. There are always dissenters to any conclusion, certainly, but as an outsider I have to follow the strong consensus.)

The trade of mathematics is like cartography. Mapmakers make maps, and they use their choice of coordinate systems. Presumably, the properly made maps will all be correct according to their coordinate systems, but they rarely will look anything like each other when you compare them. Some cover different parts of the territory. Some cover the same territory, but use different projections (the shape of Greenland is very different in a Mercator projection than it is on a globe). Some use wildly different scales and rotations.

But here's the key: there is an objective territory to which the maps refer.

None of the arguments made by the formalists are wrong. It's just that they are arguments about maps. It is not possible to conclude on the basis of the maps that the maps are all that exist.

[Alas]

I will keep asking until I receive a satisfactory response.

Then it is time for you to ask your question. Be specific, do not bother me with theory and I will answer you question. If you get into some hairbrained defence of evolution, then be prepared to explain exactly how the Bombadier Beattle evolved.

If your question is honest and deals with Christian Theology, then I will do my absolute best to answer you. BUT, I have absolutley no intention nor desire to argue the lie called evolution.

We will be using the KJV

Alas

[cgbg]

We don't invent it, we discover it

Ah, this may not be an either/or proposition.

[cgbg]

As Kronecker said, "God created the whole numbers; everything else was man's handiwork."

That was a hilarious quote for many reasons.

Kroncker was not very pleased with Cantor creating notations to differentiate between different "infinities". Yet religious people at the time (and many still today) felt no hesitation in discussing God as infinitely wise or infinitely loving or infinitely whatever. Presumably Cantor's response would be to ask if that was referencing the infinite number of integers or infinite number of real numbers or the infinte number of integers taken to the power of the infinite number of integers.

So religion and Cantor's mathematics seemed to be interested in the same subject. ;-)

A brief comment on your metaphysics of mathematics discussion (and an interesting one it has been :-) )--

To be useful in the world we inhabit mathematics should set an outer bound of what is possible in physics but ultimately I would suggest that it is asking too much of mathematcs to try to have it address the issues that concern metaphysics.

Example: If we lived in a virtual world like in the movie "The Matrix" (showing on cable this weekend, btw) the mathematics would have to define what was possible in the matrix. It might or might not be relevant to the "outside' universe.

[RightWhale]

If you get into some hairbrained defence of evolution

Thank you for your forthrightness. You have answered my question.

[edsheppa]

...while the theorem applies to all systems that do address whole numbers.

Not quite. Not only can't the systems be too small (i.e. don't emcompass arithmetic) but they can't be too large. I think the technical lingo is that the methods of proof must be finitistic.

[PatrickHenry]

Even worse: Two physics guys fighting over a physics girl.

It gets even more geeky after one of them wins the girl.

[Alas]

Thank you for your forthrightness. You have answered my question.

You are most welcome.

Alas

[Bellflower]

The problem may be that they are only functioning in one dimension. It may be a little like someone who lives on a one dimensional page searching for what is a cube and not being able to conceive of it properly. God is involved in any number of "dimensions", certainly all of them. We have very little knowledge about any but them we are familiar with.