It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Freaky Higgs Physics Suggests The Universe Shouldn't Exist

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Ok, let's list the evidence for why the universe didn't collapse:

...
...
...

Hmmm... None... Ok therefore the answer to the question is currently, "I don't know." End science. That is how you logic my friend. I used the given evidence to form an observation about the question. Since there is no evidence then the only observation I can logically make is, "I don't know."


So the answer "I don't know" is more scientific than me explaining my stance? See how it is with you? You are saying my answer was not scientific and doesn't belong here, yet you say I don't know and deem that as acceptable? Come on


Because your answer makes assumptions about evidence that we don't have (or may not ever have). So yes the answer, "I don't know," is more scientific than your answer.

For every answer to a question that science can answer, there are an infinite more questions where the answer to them is currently, "I (we) don't know." When you start with that as your base answer, it opens allows for the quest for the ACTUAL answer to the question to go in any direction and not be possibly hindered by something like, say, dogma.


Yet you don't have an answer and are quick to tell someone else they are wrong? Your "I don't know" answer is not scientific, and for you to even defend that position is a joke. I am done here, we have mods for post police and I am tired of you policing my answers. This is a public forum, if I want to talk about my beliefs maybe someone will agree with me...It is better than posting I don't know and arguing with someone. If you are lonely and need a hug, I would be glad to do that for you to cheer you up! I didn't know someone talking about how they see things would affect you in the way it did...


See now you think I am attacking you. I am just saying that you are misapplying science. If you truly understood science, you would understand that "I don't know" IS a valid scientific answer. The rest of your post is irrelevant by the way. Just emotional appeal to rile my feathers, though it looks like your feathers have been riled a bit more than mine.

ETA: I want to clarify that I am by no way saying that you are wrong. You could be 100% correct for all I know. I am just saying that your answer isn't scientific or logical.
edit on 25-6-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
My space nut kiddo thinks the universe is like a recipe for a food. We know it's here, we're looking at it, touching things in it. We just can't tell what all the ingredients are yet, and full cooking instructions. That's pretty simplistic, and likely not far off, and from a 5 year old.

Looking at it from my kid's POV, it makes sense. We are like a person with next to no cooking skills wandering through a kitchen with very limited understanding of how the dishes are made. But they're right there, we can observe them. That's the universe for us, a delectably complex feast on a plate. Wouldn't it be nice to know what's in it, eh? Got to make the tools for that, test different things, we might be able to come up with a written approximate or even exact formula for that meal eventually.

But to come in & say "Emeril made it, Emeril is the answer!" is buffoonery. Emeril could be long dead & gone and will be of no use at that point. Explore, learn, and understand for ourselves, not someone not even present. (take that crap to the religion forum anyway, that's what it's there for)
edit on 6/25/2014 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Right now there are two hypotheses on what is going on:

- supersymmetry is involved, but this requires the discovery of particles called sparticles. We could possibly discover them if we built larger colliders.

- if the current theories regarding cosmic inflation are incomplete or have errors, then there was never any danger of the universe collapsing in the first place

I would bet that in a year from now, we will have a better understanding of this.

Edit: These are the current mainstream ideas of what's going on. But feel free to add your own ideas. Some ideas already posted are interesting and you could be right

edit on 25-6-2014 by ionwind because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Not to state the obvious but duh, the universe exists so somebody, I won't say who, but somebody is wrong.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Not to state the obvious but duh, the universe exists so somebody, I won't say who, but somebody is wrong.


You could be right. The new research was only presented for the first time yesterday:


In research presented today (Tuesday) at the Royal Astronomical Society’s National Astronomy Meeting in Portsmouth, UK, Malcolm Fairbairn and Robert Hogan of King’s College London (KCL) discussed the implications of recent discoveries in particle physics and the origins of our universe. Their conclusions will likely cause some unrest.


It will be interesting to see if the "unrest" becomes more than that.

Link



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Ever stop to consider that it's complicated physical principals like this that account for simple minded people's belief in god? If I could take a lighter back in time 200 years people would think I was godlike.
Anything less people know the physical principals of gas and sparks to make fire.
Go back 200 years and tell people you can talk to someone even just one mile away and they will think you're insane. Tell them you can go completely around the planet in about 16 hours and they will lock you up.
The more we advance in our understanding the less significant the concept of a supreme being becomes. e reply to: Chrisfishenstein



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Could be right? Do you have doubts to the existence of the universe?a reply to: ionwind



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   
There are plenty of theories out there regarding the make up of the universe, but what baffles me is the presumption that there is a fundamental, all-explaining particle upon which existence and matter would make sense.

Who's to say that there are not infinitesimaly smaller and smaller "god particles," a neverending array of such that goes smaller and bigger than our physical brain may perceive and that our science may ever even begin to postulate.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   
an intelligent CREATOR ENERGY GROUP (CEG) could instigate this reality perceived by human/others as a projection all the way to the beginning where many feel the big bang occurred. If this intelligent species mastered upgrading their original bodies to eliminate death processes via enhanced bodies w/ storage for say their more ethereal parts when needed who knows what they could be capable of. Like when their old bodies deteriorate or receive damage they upload their more ethereal parts into something until new bodies designed/grown...

Further if they encountered the ancient humanoid version of what the man energy vessel is today as master biological engineers and habitat architectural designers in which MANKIND or many are currently posting from and they CAN see the life and death process the human more astral/ethereal parts Soul/Spirit/Internal Energy goes thru and CAN interact with that more astral/ethereal aspect of MANKIND to the point of locating. 1 wonders how they would be perceived
from this atom based reality.
edit on 6/25/14 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Could be right? Do you have doubts to the existence of the universe?a reply to: ionwind



LOL, last time I checked the universe was still here.

What I meant was that either the new research is in error, or the current Standard Model needs to be updated. There will be many physicists looking at this new research very carefully. Peer review in science is very serious business.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ubei2
There are plenty of theories out there regarding the make up of the universe, but what baffles me is the presumption that there is a fundamental, all-explaining particle upon which existence and matter would make sense.

Who's to say that there are not infinitesimaly smaller and smaller "god particles," a neverending array of such that goes smaller and bigger than our physical brain may perceive and that our science may ever even begin to postulate.



Yeah, sometimes I get the feeling that the more we discover, the more we realize how much we don't know. Maybe we're just scratching the surface. Personally, I would like some new sparticles in the cosmic soup.



edit on 25-6-2014 by ionwind because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ionwind

Maybe it is all relative, what is millions of years for us is only a moment to the universe. Along those lines, they say the universe is expanding, maybe the explosion hasn't finished yet and at some point in time the center of that explosion will start decaying.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ubei2
There are plenty of theories out there regarding the make up of the universe, but what baffles me is the presumption that there is a fundamental, all-explaining particle upon which existence and matter would make sense.

Who's to say that there are not infinitesimaly smaller and smaller "god particles," a neverending array of such that goes smaller and bigger than our physical brain may perceive and that our science may ever even begin to postulate.



The nuclear physicists have tried all sorts of experiments involving smashing atomic nucleii and single protons into each other. They don't get anything else other than combinations of the fundamental particles. If you do try and pull the quarks inside a proton apart, so much energy is put into pulling them apart that a new quark/anti-quark pair are formed. Sometimes they do get oddball particles, but they only last a few milliseconds before disintegrating into other known particles.

It is like cooking (which really is chemistry) - you could mix various ingredients together, but unless you have self-raising flour, nothing will expand. If you don't add something to give it a tangy taste, it won't last. If you don't have a binding agent, everything will fall apart after cooking. Too much water and you get soggy goo. Too little water and you just get a crumblecake. Get the mix right and you get a cake that will last weeks.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I think the answer lies in the fact the universe is fundamentally non physical. I think the universe could be a non physical reality or non physical wave function that contains the information about ever probable state that matter can be in. There has been Scientist who have reached similar conclusions.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Max Tegmark has the (MUH) or Mathematical Universe Hypothesis


Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH) is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. That is, the physical universe is mathematics in a well-defined sense, and "in those [worlds] complex enough to contain self-aware substructures [they] will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world".[3][4] The hypothesis suggests that worlds corresponding to different sets of initial conditions, physical constants, or altogether different equations may be considered equally real. Tegmark elaborates the MUH into the Computable Universe Hypothesis (CUH), which posits that all computable mathematical structures exist


en.wikipedia.org...

This would mean the universe is carrying out some program or computation and the physical world that we see as "real" is the output of these programs and computations.

So there will always be paradoxes or things that don't add up if you try to look strictly at the material universe to try and explain the nature of reality.

So the material universe doesn't create the program or the calculation, they're the output of these programs and calculations.

So the universe will be something non physical that computes itself. It uses energy to carry out the computations and what we experience as physical "reality" is the output of these calculations.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

So who wrote the program? Who is making calculations? Jw



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TiedDestructor




Maybe it created itself......

Perhaps everything has already happened. And did in the blink of an eye, and is already gone, but because of how energy works, we are just the residue from something that is still happening, and has been forever, but is already over.

Time has no meaning in the Universe on a grand scale, all has already occurred.
Instantaneous creation and destruction.

We are already gone, but we have yet to exist.

But we are here, in the here and now.

The universe is very complex.

Much to complex for me to understand.

If they are correct that the universe was instantaneous and expanded like a muffin instantly, then it could have collapsed the same way, and it was so quick, that all that was left was what we now understand as the universe, which could be just the shadow of what was already here and gone....kind of a strange thought...lol

edit on 25-6-2014 by Darkblade71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ionwind




the universe should have collapsed soon after it was created.


But it didn't. Therefore, the equations are wrong. Once we start looking at shoulds and shouldn'ts, we are in over our head.





But aren't these very equations a crucial part of the consensus big bang theory?

I guess that makes everyone and everything in the universe "deniers."



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ionwind


Physicists are now trying to understand why the universe is here at all. Why is there something, instead of nothing?


In before someone comes in and answers this question by saying, "God". I like the answer, "we don't know." It leaves room for development of knowledge. When you already pretend to have an answer it fills up space in your world view that could be used to find the real answers to things you don't know.

I will say that it's crazy how we answer one question or questions and suddenly all NEW questions appear that are even MORE baffling than the ones we just answered. Good job OP, S&F.


Here's the thing: Just because a person believes in God doesn't mean they have to stop asking questions about the machinations of the universe. I'm not sure why that accusation is even in the atheist playbook when it's clear there are many scientists and great thinkers throughout the ages that have or do believe in a higher power.

If I believe in God, does that automatically mean I am supposed to stop being curious about how the world/universe around me works, and just chalk everything up to God? Does that belief somehow prevent me from being curious about how it all came about and what natural laws might be in place? Does a belief in God preclude a belief in the scientific process? No. It doesn't. So just stop.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   
The Royal Astronomical Society in the UK in a news release is starting to back peddle. They are now saying that there is doubt about the findings and interpretation of the Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization (BICEP2). What originally were thought to be gravity waves, may turn out to noise caused by dust in the Milky Way.

Link

If the research was based on this flawed observation, then it's conclusion is also flawed.

I tried to get a direct link to the Royal Astronomical Society, but it's website www.ras.org.uk... seems to have crashed. I guess others were scratching their heads looking for more information.

I am still amazed at how finely tuned our universe is.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ionwind

Well then back to the big bang....lol





new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join