It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The 2 Most Dangerous Numbers in the Universe are Threatening the End of Physics

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 08:04 PM
Let me guess...the two numbers are "zero" and "infinity".

Yep, pretty scary indeed!!!

posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 08:18 PM

originally posted by: VegHead
Science will evolve.

God stays the same.

Yet the word of God has evolved like science ie: adjusted to suit current trends as our knowledge expands

Which suggests to me that Gods word is as fallible as science

posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 08:24 PM

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: vethumanbeing

"What happens if the Higgs Boson number changes... Do we vanish?"

We're still here, therefore it either has not changed, or if it has, we don't vanish. It's the anthropic principle in action. Besides, how would it change?

the multiverse theory seems to be the one.. then the real question is, can the different dimensions affect each other or spill into each other?? great topic....

It's an idea that has issues. As someone said above (that I can't see at the moment) string theory is inherently unverifiable, therefore it can be said that it is not even science. And those "dimensions" in string theory are very, very small. They aren't like science fiction dimensions. You can't go there. But actually I don't disagree with your point. Seems to me it is touching on the key issue here.

When we realize that this universe is only one of an infinite number of them then we may finally know something.

....And that is God!

That's just silly. If there are many dimensions, and infinite number or not, that has nothing to do with "God." It just means that the universe is bigger than we thought. The basic idea here is the pursuit of reality and proving it. You know: experiment, results, verify, replicate, see number 1. If you resort to "God" as an explanation you've just blown the whole thing and gone all religious on us. That's exactly what we do not want to do.

My belief is that we actually do know intuitively what is going on here, but we're not willing to face up to it and the fact is, intuition alone is insufficient. The original OP is talking about how physics is perhaps reaching a limit (NOT "all science"), an impasse of sorts, and how the solution may be that we are "digging in the wrong place." However, that doesn't mean we need to resort to religious metaphor. That's why "Kaballah/Tree of Life" stuff doesn't work. It's the wrong language. Except to people who "feel moved!" by such language, it's useless.

And it's also why saying stuff like, "We all know the standard model is all bunk!" is unhelpful. It does not contribute. It does not suggest that the perpetrator knows a damn thing about reality.

posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 08:24 PM
If dark matter is responsible for accelerating the Universe, and the Higgs field allows all matter to exist, then I think the two are obviously linked. If everything began out of singularity, then the Big Bang, dark matter and the Higgs field might be one in the same.

Or does dark matter also pass through the Higgs field?

Did the Higgs field and/or dark matter exist before the Big Bang?

posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 08:27 PM
a reply to: game over man

If dark matter is responsible for accelerating the Universe
It isn't.

and the Higgs field allows all matter to exist,
It doesn't.
Dark energy (not matter) is what is causing the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe. The Higgs field is what gives matter mass.

posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 08:58 PM

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Let me guess...the two numbers are "zero" and "infinity".

Yep, pretty scary indeed!!!

Here is nut cracker what if zero and infinity are the same number.

posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 09:22 PM
What must be understood is that this universe is not the only reality

God is everything and nothing at the same time

posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 09:30 PM

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: FamCore

This is actually one of the arguments for intelligent design.

It's also a completely flawed argument. Saying the universe is perfectly designed for us is like saying the Earth is perfectly designed for us. We only find ourselves existing on Earth because it has the right conditions to support life. There may very well be a huge number of other planets capable of supporting life, with the people on those planets thinking "wow this planet must have been made for us". Likewise, there could be a huge or infinite number of other universes and many of them could probably support life. Just because our universe appears to be fine-tuned doesn't mean it was manually fine-tuned by some sort of intelligence. All it means is that there must be a huge number of other universes, and we find ourselves living inside one which happens to have all the right physical values for life to evolve.
edit on 16/1/2016 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 10:15 PM
a reply to: FamCore

Maybe the reason we don't observe the full unrestricted force of either one is due to the affects of them working against each other. Like offsetting penalties in a football game.

If one has an attractive force and the other has a repelling force, maybe what we're witnessing in the cosmos is a combination of forces that are both diminished by the other's opposing force.

Just my 2 cents worth, if it's even worth that.

posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 10:42 PM
Nice thread, FamCore, with some really interesting replies.

Harry Cliff presents a pretty compelling case to support the conundrum physics finds itself faced with these days. For all the success the Standard Model has enjoyed over the years, it’s slip is starting to show as it’s limits are being tested. Although the pressure on the physics community is mounting, the dilemma it’s in comes as no surprise. It’s a brick wall that was seen coming. And even though a solution is not yet in sight, I’m not sure I would call it “the end of physics” yet.

A lot of the following is from a post I made about a year ago, but I think pertains to this thread, as well.

DM/DE is beyond the limits of our current knowledge. A lot of folks are taking their best shot at it, but at present we just can’t get there from here. It may well turn out that our entire approach to the problem is on shaky ground. Considering the current state of physics, I can’t help but think that the entire logical foundation is questionable, and at best inadequate to explain even the observable universe, let alone the unobservable.

Physicists like Einstein and Newton viewed problems through the lens of both a scientist/mathematician and a philosopher, rather than practicing the ‘shut up and calculate’ method of quantum physics. To me, understanding the significance of a calculation is somehow more satisfying than taking it at face value and thinking, “It’s futile to assign any fundamental reality to a calculation - as long as the numbers add up, your job’s done”. I realize I’m interjecting ‘feelings’ into the process, which could be stifling for progress, but I’m unable to view the universe from the perspective of a machine intelligence. To begin with, I don’t think that humans are capable of absolute objectivity, which may place serious boundaries on our ability to “know”, but I also think a universe without meaning would be unfulfilling.

Much of physics (classical mechanics, relativitisic mechanics, quantum mechanics) is based on a foundation of either ‘quantum logic’ or ‘classical logic’ or a mixture of the two. However, neither approach is without flaws. To tackle the universe as a whole, as a system, may require a completely different logical framework/perspective; one better suited to allow the anomalies observed. This logic might require more flexibility than a human mind can currently accommodate. It seems we’re continually observing phenomena outside our ability to reason. Fuzzy, dark areas that fall into unexplainable niches like:

real, but not quite
with properties, but not quite
there, but not quite
then, but not quite
causal, but not quite
deterministic, but not quite

Using currently accepted logic, which of the following is considered true?

1 - reality is continuous
2 - reality is discrete
3 - either 1 or 2
4 - both 1 and 2
5 - neither 1 nor 2

Answer: Who knows? The jury’s still out. Although a lot of hot debate is ongoing, there’s still no consensus. At any rate, physics is currently on the hot seat and in dire need of a paradygm shifting breakthrough. I hope one comes soon.

IMO, it may be we’ll never understand the most fundamental of truths. It may be too vast to attain, or simply beyond our capacity to understand as humans. But at the same time, it’s a challenge that can’t be ignored, and I don't think we've reached the end game yet. Just my 2 cents...

Cool thread...

PS: By the way, some of you might find THIS LINK half-way interesting, It involves a study of the fine-structure constant, and brings some of our assumptions about it into question.

posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 02:46 AM
a reply to: FamCore

Good find and I've been talking about things like the Vacuum Catastrophe for years.

I don't Physics is coming to and end but it will have to change. The notion of an objective material reality somehow giving rise to our universe is becoming an antiquated notion.

So it will have to switch from Physics of the material to a digital or non physical science.

With Physics, certain values need to match or come close to predicted values that match observations. Your article clearly shows this isn't the case. They can't explain how random physical processes can give rise to these observed values. There's other areas that are like this like the Axis of evil in Cosmology.

These things have a better explanation if programs and information shape what we call "physical."

It's like this website. You see home, about, forums and other things but they are all shaped by the computer code for the website. When you look at the code it doesn't have a one to one correspondence with the website you see unless you understand the language it's coded in.

This could be the same with the universe. So the program that runs the universe makes sense because the value of Dark energy is needed to run the program that shapes the universe. So there wouldn't be a one to one correspondence unless you know the language and code that runs the universe.

So if you look at a website coded in HTML you may see #0000FF. This combination of numbers and letters don't have any physical meaning but they create a physical result that we see as the color blue.

So the science of the physical may have reached it's limit because it's information that shapes the world that we see. So you will have things like this that don't correspond to what we call physical reality because they're values that are the imput of a program that runs our universe vs an objective material reality somehow magically giving rise to itself through blind, random processes.
edit on 17-1-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:37 AM
The answers can be found in the jungles of Peru.
'___' is what will teach the next generation about the truths in this world since it goes beyond the the constructed reality and teaches you what reality really is. In the future it will be used in schools to help open the minds of those who needs it.

posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 07:16 AM
a reply to: FamCore

" Why the strength of the Higgs field is so ridiculously weak defies understanding."

I would hazzard an explanation that the Higgs field is so rediculously weak is because that is what it needs to be to successfully interact with massless photons..which are essentially the 'glue' that literally holds everything together in every single atom. The electromagnetic force that holds / binds electrons to a nucleus is literally particles of..light.

And particles of light have no mass...or at least have a ridiculously small amount of mass to make it virtually zero...a vitually zero mass, gluing the Universe together, would by definition require a ridiculously weak Higgs field to interact with them...a stronger or weaker Higgs field would be too strong or too weak, where the Higgs field strength is at the 'Goldilocks' strength...not too strong and not too weak..but just right for keeping atoms, molecules, planets, stars, you and me...together.

posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 08:31 AM

originally posted by: FamCore
A deeply disturbing and controversial line of thinking has emerged within the physics community. It's the idea that we are reaching the absolute limit of what we can understand about the world around us through science.

Been hearing the same story for millennia!
50,000 years ago we hear; "We know all there is to know about rock!"
Next week, someone breaks it open, and the journey, again, begins!

"...scientists are condemned by their unexamined assumptions to study the nature of mirrors only by cataloging and investigating everything that mirrors can reflect. It is an endless process that never makes progress, that never reaches closure, that generates endless debate between those who have seen different reflected images, and whose enduring product is voluminous descriptions of particular phenomena." - The Adapted Mind

On the other hand, science is a limited means of learning of Reality!
There is that of Reality that does not lend itself to 'scientific method'!
The transcendental, the unconditional, for instance, can only be Known by being experienced!!

edit on 17-1-2016 by namelesss because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 08:47 AM
In order to find the two numbers they used Pi, which could take all of the energy in the universe to find the last digit of.

They also used straight lines and perfect circles, neither of which exists in the real world.

Science is only as true as what you can do with it.

posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 08:54 AM
If particle physics come to a lull, or a halt because they have reached some temporary barrier, then other fields of sciences should and will pick up.

I encourage more investment in deep space exploration, colonization of other planets, life extension.

My two cents.

posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 09:00 AM
a reply to: greencmp

There is a quote running around out there somewhere that some scientists live in perpetual fear that when they finally climb the mountain they'll find the theologists already there.

But I think there is a lot more to discover before we actually reach that point assuming we ever do.

I think it's colossal hubris for anyone to declare we know all there is to know without actually having gone beyond the limits of the solar system in any tangible way beyond one pitiful remote satellite.

posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 12:05 PM
a reply to: FamCore

And the numbers are?

posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 12:20 PM

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: greencmp

There is a quote running around out there somewhere that some scientists live in perpetual fear that when they finally climb the mountain they'll find the theologists already there.

The quote is from Robert Jastrow:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 12:55 PM
Well said Richard

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: FamCore

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

Richard P. Feynman

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in