This Wednesday scientists will work to recreate the big bang

Originally Posted by deadally

does a proven theory of everything serve to eliminate those uncertainties?

Yes.

As time goes by, it will be more clear that someone sucks at every forum post he makes, not just one or two in between some good ones, the uncertainty. And one'll eventually learn why. Not uncertain anymore towards why it is so.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by deadally

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.

No, I was a jerk to you after you made a catty comment. What I did initially was diss you for making an eye-rollingly bad namedrop. I'm sorry your skin isn't thick enough to deal with someone on the internet thinking you're acting like a git when you, well, act like a git.

We don't think on the same level. That's adorable. I love people like Yama and yourself. Someone calls you on something, with specific references to what you're talking about, and your defense boils down to: "you just don't get it. I'm so clever you can't comprehend me." See, your problem, Princess, is that you think because someone doesn't speak like D'artagnan, they haven't read the same books you have.

The concerthall is back that way. Feel free to limp home whenever you like.

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

posting in an epic thread.

In all seriousness, I just expect to wake up and go to work on Wednesday.

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

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 was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by deadally

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.

That whole bit where I was saying I didn't care about? That was sarcasm. If I didn't care about it, I wouldn't know about it. Physics is a massive source of inspiration for anyone with an interest in the hard sciences. Being an atheist and not being inspired by science is akin to claiming to be a christian and saying you don't really care about the bible/god.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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?

FELIPE NO

No, because by matter/energy's own properties, things are probabilistic in nature at those very small scales. Having a uniform theory of everything wouldn't eliminate the properties of everything behaving as a probability wave.

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

Originally Posted by Denicalis

Being an atheist and not being inspired by science is akin to claiming to be a christian and saying you don't really care about the bible/god.

Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean you care about science. You could not believe in a higher power, but also not give a flying fuck how the universe was created.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by deadally

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.

I think unravelling the mysteries of the creation of the universe is more important than some violinist. I mean, he's not Buckethead, after all.

don't judge me I have a right to my opinion you asshole

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by deadally

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'm not saying there isn't a direct correlation between art and science, I'm saying coming into a room where you know the majority of people will have no idea who you're talking about and throwing around a name like Paganini without explanation makes you come off like a berke.

Think of it this way: It would be like me wandering into a room full of people obsessed with the show America's Next Top Model and claiming that the model's haircut reminded me of Louise Brooks circa her time in the movies of G.W. Pabst. It doesn't make me wrong, it just makes me look like a dick.

And as for the ToE, my understanding of things like string theory and the ToE are as rudimentary as most people's with an amateur interest in physics. As I understand it, the ToE is just an equation that solves the difference between the two major theories. So it doesn't eliminate probability or uncertainty, but rather just provides proof that both approaches are correct, and that you can explain pretty much anything. Prediction still being inherently difficult.

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

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.

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

Originally Posted by deadally

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?

Don't they already learn that gravity is curvature in spacetime? Anyway, if you're interested in these things, there is a great thread over at SA by a guy working with the LHC. It's very interesting. Also, here's his response regarding your earlier question about quantum computing:

Quote:

As far as I am aware, no one is really looking into this with regards to the LHC. Quantum computing is making use of existing quantum theory. I guess if we find anything new it may have an impact on this, but the two subjects are a little different.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

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).

Well, that's the thing. Once you get to large enough stuff, you don't need to use quantum mechanics anymore. Like, you can use QM to figure out the uncertainty in a baseball's position/momentum, but it's so small in relation to its other values that it's inconsequential. Just like how you can use general relativity to figure out the length contraction a baseball undergoes during a pitch, it's so small that it's an insignificant amount.

I'm not actually sure what practical uses the LHC will have. I imagine most of what comes out of it will be theoretical stuff that maybe in 5-10+ years we'll see something worthwhile come out of it.

FELIPE NO

Actually, I'm more curious about what a quantized 'Theory of Everything' and creation [as the Big Bang, for example] would do to all the religious zealots of the world.

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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Sousuke

Actually, I'm more curious about what a quantized 'Theory of Everything' and creation [as the Big Bang, for example] would do to all the religious zealots of the world.

You're talking about a group of people who claim god faked the age of dinosaurs (as seen in carbon dating) to fuck with science.

I think they'll get along just fine with this.

How ya doing, buddy?

I don't think Carbon 14 dating is actually use on dinosaurs. >.>

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Magi

I don't think Carbon 14 dating is actually use on dinosaurs. >.>

I think that's into Potassium-Argon dating territory.

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

Carbon Dating goes back only 60,000 years maximum, thanks to beta decay.

Potassium-Argon, as J-Man said, is in fact the biggie. It's used on many geological as well as biological dating estimations. It helped us narrow down the timing of the K-T boundary quite nicely, for example.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Eschbach

Thoughts?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I work a double shift on Wednesday. The world ending would be a fabulous vacation!

In all seriousness though, Ness IMing me about it today was the first time I've heard of this experiment. Granted, this last week I've been busy and haven't listened to NPR and the BBC as much as normal, but if this has been around for years, you'd think I'd have heard.

I think if there were any real threat it would have been made known, and rather publicly. People love to cover doomsday stories.

How ya doing, buddy?

This is the first I'veheard about it, could have interesting results. Don't know nearly enough about physics to say much beyond that. Kinda wish I was there to see what they were doing, experiments like this can be pretty interesting to watch- even if you've got only a basic idea of what's going on.

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.

First time I heard about this at all, what time do they even plan on "Turning it on" ? I mean I'd like to be asleep when it happens rather then out doing my job... Zzzzzzzzz....

In all seriousness though, a black hole? Our own sun doesn't even have the power to make one when it's life ends haha, maybe we'll just blow our planet into obilivion, much more likely lol

and blowing things up underground? Who's brilliant idea was that? I hope they have vents or something to release the pressure without collasping the rest of the land above it, if they're trying to hide it, even though it might be small, it sounds pretty powerful... Maybe it'll be the end of them, but I doubt the end of us.

There's nowhere I can't reach.