Is Particle Physics About to Crack Wide Open?

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/is-particle-physics-about-to-crack-wide-open/ ^ | June 13, 2016 | Michele Redi

[samtheman]

This is by far the most exciting thing that has happened in particle physics over the last three decades. If this hint of new physics is confirmed—something that could happen within just a few weeks, or possibly even within days—it is difficult to state the importance of such a discovery. It would be bigger than the detection of the Higgs boson, which was just confirmation of what was already known.

[TXnMA]

"The evidence shouts that the universe is bounded, and that its boundary forms a near perfect sphere around our approximate location."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please cite your "evidence".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The speed of transport of information in this universe is limited to "C" -- the speed of light.

It is a simple fact that the speed of light (in a universe of sufficient age and size) always limits our observation to a space-time sphere -- centered, of course, on the observer's POV.

Your argument appears to be circular (in 4-D)...

[Rockingham]

The case for public financing of scientific research is strongest for basic research that does not have a clear prospect of practical benefit. In the later instance, commercial and non-profit funding sources are usually available because the benefits can be touted, while basic physics research can have immense value but on a longer time scale and with uncertain consequences.

As for basic physics research, we are still in the early phase of understanding quantum mechanics, but gains are more and more arriving in the marketplace in the form of new materials that make new products possible. For most of us, the connection between understanding and control of quantum mechanics and benefits in ordinary life is best manifested in computers, flat screen TVs, and smart phones -- all resting on foundations laid decades ago by Einstein, Dirac, Bohr, and many others.

If the physics pans out, basic research being done now could yield cheap and limitless clean electric power, routine travel throughout the solar system, and a new wave of innovation and prosperity. The hope for all that though depends on someone -- often the federal taxpayer -- funding decades of scientific drudgery that makes such advances possible. And, it deserves mention that in the modern era, the country that leads in science more or less also gets to run the world.

[TXnMA]

"On a related note, wouldn’t it be nice if we could append the [caucus] designation on some physics threads to forestall the pumping of Jesus and Creationism where they are not wanted?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Actually, as a physical scientist, I find zero conflict between science and belief in the Creator and His works -- or in His Son, as well.

Relativity, of course, frees me from constraints on the age of the universe (erroneously) imposed on it by ignorant (religious) adherents to the mind-barfs of a 17th-century Irishman...

Therefore, I'm perfectly comfortable discussing matters of science (cosmology, in this instance) completely independent of matters of faith.

Which should be apparent in my response to # 57...

[The Continental Op]

You could be right, was just teasing. But I really do want Michelson Morley redone. I know, crank.

[TXnMA]

Your conjecture is a tempting one. Even the imminent Dr. Theodor Seuss Geisel (not to be confused with the physicist, Theo Geisel) followed its tempting course in his seminal work, "Horton hears a Who"...

Of course, Seuss's work was preceded by the thought-progression of

"The Siphonaptera"

"Big fleas have little fleas,
Upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas,
and so, ad infinitum."

The above is seemingly related to lines by Jonathan Swift from his long satirical poem "On Poetry: a Rhapsody" (1733)

"The vermin only teaze and pinch
Their foes superior by an inch.
So, naturalists observe, a flea
Has smaller fleas that on him prey;
And these have smaller still to bite 'em,
And so proceed ad infinitum."

So -- your premise is not without precedent.

Of course, the boys who play with the really big toys have long since discarded your premise -- in favor of all sorts of colorful. quarky, leptonish quanta-thinguses that spin and flip -- and which bear no noticeable similarity to your infinite progression schema...

~~~~~~~~~

(If, by now, you haven't detected my tongue-firmly in cheek -- please take note, and enjoy that I haven taken the opportunity you offered to inject a quantum of levity into this already-horrific week... '-)

Peace and joy, FRiend -- and Good day to you, as well!

[samtheman]

“The evidence shouts that the universe is bounded, and that its boundary forms a near perfect sphere around our approximate location.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please cite your “evidence”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The speed of transport of information in this universe is limited to “C” — the speed of light.

It is a simple fact that the speed of light (in a universe of sufficient age and size) always limits our observation to a space-time sphere — centered, of course, on the observer’s POV.

Your argument appears to be circular (in 4-D)...

---

Good points, TXnMA.

Also, I would like to ask the writer if the observable universe is a perfect sphere around us, then isn’t it also a perfect sphere around a galaxy at the far edge of our “perfect sphere”.

So now there are 2 “perfect spheres”, the edge of the second one, we can’t possibly see, but must also contain galaxies at the distant edge of THAT “perfect sphere” which are, themselves, all centered within a “perfect sphere” of their own.

So where’s the boundary? Show me the boundary.

[TXnMA]

...isn’t it also a perfect sphere around a galaxy at the far edge of our “perfect sphere”?

~~~~~~~~

Right on target. That's why I specified, "...centered, of course, on the observer’s POV." (For those in Rio Linda or the YEC world, that acronym is translated, "Point Of View".)

It always amazes me that there are people who simply refuse to admit (or are incapable of comprehending) that the view of our universe from this third-rate ball of mud is infinitely far from the only one.

[bigtoona]

Very good points, this makes me feel better knowing that it is not a total waste.

[editor-surveyor]

Sam, when you provide some shred of evidence for an unbounded universe, I will make the effort to gather the abundant evidence that demonstates a boundary.

To date, no evidence of an unbounded state has shown itself. (and an unbounded expansion is illogical without evidence that it is possible Infinity is a logical and quantitative place keeper, not a reality. )

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> Also, I would like to ask the writer if the observable universe is a perfect sphere around us, then isn’t it also a perfect sphere around a galaxy at the far edge of our “perfect sphere”. <<

A “wish item” for which there are no facts in evidence.

[samtheman]

Sam, when you provide some shred of evidence for an unbounded universe, I will make the effort to gather the abundant evidence that demonstates a boundary.

To date, no evidence of an unbounded state has shown itself. (and an unbounded expansion is illogical without evidence that it is possible Infinity is a logical and quantitative place keeper, not a reality. )

---

editor-surveyor, let me get this straight, before I answer your statement to me:

Are you saying that our galaxy is the actual, only and unique center of the universe?

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks samtheman.

---

· String Theory Ping List ·

---

---

· Join · Bookmark · Topics · Google ·
· View or Post in 'blog · post a topic · subscribe ·

---

[TXnMA]

Before we continue this discussion any farther, let's be sure that each of us has current information on the state of scientific evidence and understanding of the question of the size of the Universe, and whether it has bounds.

To that end, each of us should begin by watching this little (4+ minute) video: "The most important image ever made -- The Hubble Ultra Deep Field"...

Please watch it (multiple times if need be) so that we can then proceed - using a common knowledge base...

Then, return here -- saying that you have watched it -- and we can have a fruitful discussion.

[samtheman]

You are welcome.

And thank you for all that you do.

[samtheman]

watching this now

[MHGinTN]

Hype ... the standard model, based on particle interctions is going to fall because a heavier than the Higgs is found? ... hyperbole

[samtheman]

That's a great little video clip.

I would argue only 1% as great as the the Natural History Museum Space Show.

Also, it adds nothing to the argument "are we the unique center of the universe", a question which the Space Show very clearly addresses.

(And I know, Tyson is basically a leftist POS global warming a-hole, but nevertheless, the Space Show is incredible and very much worth seeing. I'm going back for a second viewing, even though it ain't cheap.)

[TXnMA]

"Also, it adds nothing to the argument "are we the unique center of the universe""...

Possibly so, but, since we don't have access to the Museum show here, it provides a common starting point for our discussion (and, as you will see from my follow-on posts), it does have data which bear on the discussion at hand...

[samtheman]

Your video, which is good but doesn't mention the subject of center, plus any of a million discussions, such as this, picked almost at random: Where is the centre of the universe?

"There is no centre of the universe!"

[samtheman]

Mouse-dragging demo of the center of the universe