I've just seen on the nightly news, that scientists in Geneva have announced they've found the Higgs boson - otherwise known as the God Particle.
This is an elementary subatomic particle, theorized for the past 48 years and finally found to exist, that gives all matter in the universe actual, tangible mass. Through seriously advanced physics that even I can't begin to understand let alone explain to others, the Higgs boson also makes possible the existence of other universes, thus legitimizing all those kooky multiverse sci-fi storylines.
Combined with the recent growth of support for a theory that states the universe's conception, the Big Bang, is more likely the shifting of matter and energy from one 'parent universe' to its offspring (us) through a super-massive black hole, the concrete proof of the Higgs boson is likely going to revolutionize what we believe/know about time and space. The boson and this new theory of shifting universes actually mesh more smoothly together than previously accepted concepts of the Big Bang coming from nothing, or from some all-knowing flying spaghetti monster.
So, does this mean anything to you as an aspiring author? I doubt it, other than having to rewrite that magnum opus of a space opera you were secretly working on. Nonetheless, I'd love to hear peoples' thoughts on this.
Was it God, Joshua Jackson and J.J. Abrams, the Big Bang, African American holes (don't say black, it's racist), or was it the one-armed man?
I'm a Christian. I don't really believe anything in science has ever stood fundamentally in opposition to the existence of God, nor that fights picked by ignorant religious zealots should ever be taken seriously, nor that the occasional clash between religion and science (ignorance or egoism on either side) should have any effect on one's opinion of either.
It's a pretty amazing discovery, at least as far as I can understand it, which of course isn't very far. I'm not smart enough to internalize it on any real level, but I'm curious to see what comes out of this going forward. And I certainly hope to avoid getting into any pointless religious debates over it.
I think Apollo is in charge of the Higgs boson.
Well, you could argue that peace is achieved by keeping the peace. But peace in this life is always temporary, because nobody can keep it forever. And... it's funny, I literally just texted this to my girlfriend a few minutes ago: "In our revulsion and our despair, our spirits are tempered. Peace never taught a lesson."
Either way, there are certain debates I feel rarely achieve anything, so I try to avoid them. We've only got so much time on this rock, you know? Some things just don't seem worth the investment of time, or the vehement conflict doesn't seem often to lend itself to any real growth. Argue with the right person and that may be totally different, but as a rule, I find a lot of those debates to be rough just because nobody's willing to come to the middle enough for any real discussion.
Based on what I heard on the radio (BBC) I think the Higgs particle was necessary to explain how what we call "space" can actually exist rather than "be" nothing more than the completely empty area between other particles. I'm not sure on that.
As far as multi-verses go, I don't know. Supposedly there's some math which shows the possibility of alternate universes; such theorems are surely above my reading-level. I'm not sure I believe in "possibilities" over absolute determinism. Just because we don't know specifically why some particles jump around the way they do, it doesn't mean there aren't laws governing those movements too, right? Again, any proofs either way would be over my pay-grade.
And, oddly enough, I have been working on a story/novel wherein the main character muses on some theoretical physics, but this discovery won't force me to rewrite it or anything.
nothing like quantum physics discoveries and discussions to make me go to bed feeling dumber than when I woke up this morning
Just convert to ________ and stop asking questions.
(Or, to be fair, ask different questions.)
But they don't require post-graduate degrees to answer.
Silly man. Every good religion encourages its followers to question everything.
"I don't have faith because of what I don't understand, I have faith because of what I do understand."
Religions, like most "world-views," are reductive. Is there anything wrong with that? I guess not; since no one can actually know everything, who's to say how much knowledge is enough / too little / too much? We all are and therefore no one in particular is. Which doesn't mean we shouldn't tell people we think they're wrong, only that we shouldn't be surprised when they disagree.
It's because Grey's Anatomy gives people hope, while Firefly deals only in the cold hard facts.
EDIT - Zing!
I thought Firefly was stupid.
I never saw either show, though I'm familiar with the concepts. But, if I may draw your attention to the parallel between the two shows, my assignation of their effects, and the topic at hand ...
Steering the talk was not my intention; explaining my joke allegory was.
G'night.
"I don't have faith because of what I don't understand, I have faith because of what I do understand."
No offense, but this is meaningless without knowing what he does and doesn't understand, not to mention the nature of his faith.
Well, it could have a very abstract meaning, in that it shows that a guy can have what he calls "faith" despite some indeterminate "lack of understanding" thanks to his (abstractly speaking) equally indeterminate "understanding."
I wrote a very long response to this thread that detailed my own views on faith versus understanding, the plight of middle-American ignorance and laziness, and a bunch of other stuff, then my dog jumped on the power supply.
I really have to learn to start writing long responses in a text editor. This is the 2nd time I've lost something.
Anyway, hopefully I'll have the wherewithal to try it again at some point.
UGH! I stopped reading with parent universe. String Theory? Serious? Bull shit. You CAN'T prove String Theory or M-theory or Brain-theory or whatever bull shit they want to call it now, therefore it is philosophy, not science. Such a load of shit. Not to mention a myriad of mathematical absurdities which would arise in an "infinite multiverse". Infinity, what a load of shit.
I am honestly not sure why the Higgs would be called the "God Particle" it's only a mass/transmitter and they didn't find it; they think they found it. Besides, find the Higgs field if you want to do something worth doing. Or how about the force carrier for gravity.
The world is still the same as it was: a universe appeared out of no where and no when thirteen trillion years ago which seems to sync a Creator and science. As it should be.
End rant. Yeah shitty grammar, but I'm not fixing it.
Also Firefly does suck.
The cat is only dead if observed being dead. I am only Hitler if observed being Hitler.
"compare you to Hitler"
Godwin's law of internet debates.
"No offense, but this is meaningless without knowing what he does and doesn't understand, not to mention the nature of his faith."
This is true. I'll have to think of someone to attribute it to. Give me some time. I'll come up with someone important and awe inspiring.
I could see that. The cat is alive....and pissed.
Rated R
I don't buy the big bang as a singular action. Nor God. Both, to me, beg the question: 'kay, so what came before?
Now the popcorn multiverse theory makes more sense to me. There just always was stuff (and always will be stuff). Our particular universe popped into somethingness 13 billion years ago, give or take. Other universes are doing the same thing as I write this.
Of course, the same could be said of a god. It always was and always will be.
When I look around, I don't see the hand of a god in anything. Others, however, do. They don't understand how I can't see god in everything, and I don't understand how they do see god in everything. Tangential thought - I've often wondered why the Judeo-Christian god stopped doing cool stuff 2000+ years ago? And I'm talking about the obvious, holy crap, some other being must have done this: people into pillars of salt, arks full of animals, messiah sons, turning stuff into fish and loaves, etc.
God is eternal, which indicates the absence of dimension. Time would in fact be irrelevant. However in an infinite multiverse anything would happen, no matter how statistically improbable and the fucked thing, it would happen an infinite amount of times. I realize you could make that case with Heisenberg, however in the macro world we live, there is no evidence of that and therefore that is nothing more than a human construct.
So to prove my point: an elephant would have to appear next to your computer as you read this. It's statistically improbable, but in a multiverse it will happen. Not only that it will happen an infinite amount of times. Where's the elephant? Oh, right. We don't live in that world.
There is no way to prove M-theory, which means, you are subscribing to a philosophy, NOT science.
For the tangent- If the bible is the word of God, it wouldn't matter if say...Job existed or not. You are taking away the value of the lesson, not the facts. So, if you read it, said to yourself you can learn from Job's suffering, it wouldn't matter if he existed or not, the truth of the lesson wouldn't be negated.
Also you have made a strong case for multiverse using your tangent. A salt column isn't probable, but on a long enough timeline it would happen. Also since there is no way to prove M-theory/String Theory or God for that matter, they have to be taken on faith, which you are demonstrating by saying: "it makes sense to me"
Well then you are both demonstrating faith. End of story.
@Gary - Depending on how literally you take the Bible, big obvious miracles often came in spurts with huge chunks of no recorded miracles between them. Most of the time before the Jews were in Egypt as slaves, right before Jesus, etc.
I deny the possibility that any group of people on this silly little rock has a damned clue about the true nature of things on a spiritual level, "
Agreed.We lack the mental architecture necessary to comprehend any of this, let alone even ask the questions. This might be a case of not being evolutionarily viable and not needed, or as per God, or both, however it would behoove us all to be more than spare parts and at least try.
Hi, just wanted to stop by and comment on a minor technical point of no interest to anyone but myself (likely) but:
I don't buy the big bang as a singular action. Nor God. Both, to me, beg the question: 'kay, so what came before?
That is not actually 'begging the question'. Remember that the phrase actually means 'to assume the premise' (yes in a very weird broad definition of beg that we don't really use in polite conversation, you can blame the same people that thought prepositions shouldn't go at the end of sentences...)
So saying that: "God exists because God is eternal" is begging the question. Using the premise (God has always existed) of the argument to support the argument (God exists) is begging the question. Or my favorite logical fallacies of today: "To allow every man an unbounded freedom of speech must always be, on the whole, advantageous to the State, for it is highly conducive to the interests of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments"
Sorry for the interruption. Carry on.
The internet: Where science and theology smoke weed together, forget how they got there and stab each other in the head.
M-theory can't be proven. Yet. Some scientists believe supersymmetry can be proven within a decade, which is one step along the path. If supersymmetry is shown to be false, then I'll have to alter my worldview. If supersymmetry can be proven, then maybe a way can be found to prove other aspects of string theory. So, for now, it is faith. Though, to be honest, I think that's too strong of a word for my personal beliefs. M-theory sounds reasonable to me; I don't believe in it with all my heart. If it's proven false, so be it. However, I do believe that, given enough time (i.e., we don't blow ourselves up or get blown up by outside factors), that M-theory could be proven. That a way will present itself to either prove or disprove it. In that, I have faith, though it's a faith based on a history of scientific progress.
Another tangential thought about gods. They have the ability to prove their own existence. If a god showed up tomorrow, I wouldn't see much choice but to alter my worldview, though (as others have stated), the existence of a god doesn't preclude the existence of the Big Bang or a multiverse, so I could keep thinking a multiverse feels reasonable even as Apollo rides his chariot into the sky.