This Wednesday scientists will work to recreate the big bang

I don't have any particle physics homework, and my studies are taking me a completely different direction in science.

This possible huge discovery, though...is quite exciting to me. It's the kind of experiment that inspires the minds of scientists in research with possibility and openness. I imagine this is how I would feel if I was a scientist contemporary of Einstein, Bohr, Oppenheimer and their ilk!

It's like seeing Paganini live

Jam it back in, in the dark.

So, Deni...how about the possibly marvelous correlation in particle physics?

Do you care?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Yes, I compared the experiment to Paganini. It's a comparison of the level of inspiration felt by the Romantic authors and musicians who saw the man playing and were inspired. He directly influenced most of the music of the 19th Century.

If you can't draw a correlation to discovery in the arts and discovery in the sciences, then that's too bad for you. I understand the fundamental importance of this experiment. Thus, I told of my excitement on par with scientists doing research in the earliest discoveries of quantum mechanics, where things that were so new and fresh were being discovered. It makes me want to discover, also.

And, to answer your question, yes! It's quite annoying to have some random guy be a jerk to you for no reason. We don't think on the same level. I don't think you need to attempt to belittle me and call me out on things you really don't seem to understand.


So, at any rate...

Do you guys think there would be any sort of principal application to us if in fact we do prove or disprove our operating theories of everything?

I'm specifically curious about how a supposed "Theory of Everything" could be applied to computational fields like quantum mechanics (using computers and the like). I mean, since a huge problem in solving systems (say, a protein's movements and conformational changes over 1 nanosecond) is uncertainty, does a proven theory of everything serve to eliminate those uncertainties? Any theoretical physicists in the house?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

The comment about thinking on different levels is not meant to imply that I think at a higher level than you. It just means that my perspective is a completely different one from yours, so it makes sense to me why you don't see this as an inspiration the way I do.

I doubt we work/learn in the same fields, so we have different manifestations of inspiration, IE different levels of thought. Sorry if I came off as arrogant, since I don't have a right to be to someone I don't even know.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I'm just saying the way we feel inspired is clearly different if you don't see the same parallels between music history and science history. I can't imagine information like this doesn't excite the imagination of everyone. At least, I hate to think of the people it doesn't inspire...

I'm just saying, science and music are both discovery. The great thinkers on both sides deserve equal respect, because it takes big minds to make symphonies as well as wrap your head around quantum mechanics and the like, and this is coming from a PhD Medicinal Chemistry student. My life is rooted in and depends on science. I'm also fascinated by the parallels between music, historically, empirically...in every way (you can't tell me that organic synthesis and music composition don't require the same mode of thought and creativity).

I'm still incredibly curious about my question, though. If you know a lot about string theory/membrane theory/whichever is supposed to explain everything, then maybe you could answer. Does this take care of the issue of probability? Could it eliminate uncertainty in atomic study?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Damn, Reav...I was really hoping otherwise. The whole concept of probability in physics is probably what tripped me up the most in my undergrad PChem.

How do you think this kind of discovery might apply to computer-aided modeling, though? Does it help in any way, since they're still using mainly classical mechanics to deduce general movement (since systems like proteins are much too large for quantum mechanics). I suppose what I'm asking is how does this change the fundamentals further? Will the next generation learn that gravity is a force exerted by mass, or will they learn something else?

Ugh...there's so much to think about.

Appended- I had no clue if the majority of the room knew or didn't know about Paganini. I'd say if anybody was curious about why I threw his name out there, then I'd happily explain what I meant. My naivety is in assuming that anybody here really cares, which I quickly realized they don't.

However, throwing out the name was quite an unconscious move for me. I was very happy to read about the news that it's actually going to move forward, and I didn't particularly think about what I was typing.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Oh, quantum computing would be neat, but I was talking more about software than hardware-wise. I know quantum computing is the current holy grail for computer scientists (computer engineers?), but I meant calculations using quantum mechanics (taking a broad definition of quantum mechanics to include string theory and its ilk, which may be a totally off-base definition...I have a sub-basal understanding of most of it) to predict movement of macro particles and molecules accurately, far more accurately than we've been able to so far.

FELIPE NO

It does nothing, particularly, except tell the HOW a god created the universe, if they choose to believe the results at all.

A teeny little ding in their thinking, which sure is a shame.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I doubt you'd be able to see much of anything going on. The particles will be smashed together inside giant detectors. The changes observed would probably be on a scale so small that they're undetectable to humans, save for the collision itself.

This is evidenced by the fact that they are going to "watch" the whole process via the data that appears on the computers that will do the real detecting. They'll get the information from the numbers generated, not what they see with their eyes.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

If they could make it simple enough for the layman, I'm sure they would

There's nowhere I can't reach.