Thing is, if they somehow get a breakthrough and DO manage to produce significant quantities... makes nukes seem like a firecracker. And if I remember correctly, no residual effects like nukes. Of course residual being relative and all...:eek:
Oh yeah baby! 3.5 TeV, and counting. http://www.aolnews.com/science/arti...adron-collider-smashes-energy-record/19407271
I'm a quantum mechanics neo-neophyte... I could never grasp the math, but I do think I understand the concepts, albeit a bit iffy. Nitro and/or others will have to set me straight. QM states that the Universe is probabilistic as opposed to deterministic. Or, if you will, on the principle of sovereignty. Now, on a scientific level, this totally destroys the "god has plan for me" or any other predetermined concepts... this intrigues me as such because at first glance, this contradicts what an omnipotent being should have: control. BUT, upon further review, could he be the ultimate chess player and of knowing ALL probable outcomes? If he is what he is, logic (for lack of a better word) should say yes... then Occums' kicks in and says no, not possi... probable. Then I realize against an almighty, I become inferior and myopic. (The Princess Bride anyone?) Round and round we go. Except QM has the empirical evidence to prove itself many times over. So, if we let go of the whole god thing for awhile, it frees us up to concentrate on some really interesting theories of space time and superposition and entanglement... of which I find almost, dare I say... magical... Like I purposed in my other thread: we imagined the car, we drew the car, we built the car, but we are definitely not ready to drive it yet.
We are all QM neophytes. No one really understands QMs. It says something a little more subtle than that. It says that nature will respond to probes on the extremely microscopic levels depending on how you ask the question. In some cases, the result will be probabilistic, but in other you will always get the same answer. Well, you are sort of mixing metaphors here. This stuff sphere of influence is on the extremely small. As soon as you put a bunch of particles together into atoms, molecules, or any system where there are large numbers of these things, new emergent properties take over that are "physics" of the large system. It is as if you can't say, if I put all these atoms together, I get a person that is a poet. Where exactly is the poet in each atom? So it is very very very incorrect to justify life on scales even as large as an omeba and use things like QMs on even this scale. In my vision of GOD, GOD may have designed the Universe, but is not active day-to-day in anything in the Universe, except possibly maintenance once every trillion or so years after each new Big-Bang. There may be a GOD field of some sort, but I doubt that even if it exists, it will be found by reductionist science. This is very possible, but fantastic to think about. Yep. Science is far stranger and richer than most science fiction and religion. But it is either in you or not. Just like you cannot try to convince someone of the incredible beauty of a Beethoven piano concerto, same here. If it isn't in you already, it will likely never will be. Consider yourself one of the lucky few that sees the astonishing beauty in the Universe in it's raw form. Well, one of the design decisions that GOD made was clearly that you should not have to know any of the inner workings of how the Universe works to be happy just existing and to derive great joy from living. We do the same things in our own designs, just like in the example you give. A car is a fantastically complicated thing, but even my mother can drive one and derive joy and utility from one.
You talk'in about Schrodinger's Cat here? The reason I ask is because how you worded it: "... depending on how you ask the question." Which I interpret as how you observe it. To me, as long as you're testing, asking, observing, etc., according to the theory, you've already sealed the probable (not anymore) outcome. And if you extend this theory out... well, let's just say it really boils the cookie. Yes I agree. Sort of a demarcation line where QM gives way to popular mechanics and the rules of our physics take over. But, even though the sphere influence is very small, it still influences correct? What else would explain the outliers of any system - those not falling w/in a boundral grouping? That poet could've just as well been born with 6 fingers on each hand and been a hell of a penist... or a one armed canoe paddler. All these clarifier's seem to happen early at the atomic level, no? I used to think exactly this way. Now, I'm more inclined to go with the theory from "Contact", in which we never will find out. It's just there along with the ancients. I'm ok with that. I think our life is better served on this planet making it a better place, goodwill to your fellow man and just enjoying the sheer beauty and magical wonder of it all. The Gnostics had something going.
So how long `til we "see" (or not see) the Higgs Boson? BTW Every time I see this thread in CC, I mistake the last word.
I think along with that and perhaps of equal stature is the "other" stuff they may find on their way... :eek:
No not really. I have always opined that these thought experiments confuse more than educate. I agree wholeheartedly. I have always had the same objection privately. We are not really discovering how the Universe works, only how the Universe works in response to our questions. Those two things are not the same thing, especially in a quantum mechanical setting. As you point out, maybe all we are doing with our machines is affecting the experiment before it even runs, and what we get back is the way the universe works inside that particular machine. That is why one day, when our perception of the universe is far more mature, our age will be called the age of preconceived technology. String Theory (M-Theory) is very different from old ways of doing science, and many people hate it because it gives answers to an almost infinite number of questions (or is it the other way around?), all of which are beyond testing. There is no constraint (note well, constraint is another word for machine that measures - old style science) that forces an answer. So they claim this is not "science" at all. But this may be the way the universe works! Well sort of. You should be keying on the word Emergent and leave your study of Quantum Mechanics for a while. It will give you a broader perspective on what we sort of believe today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence I don't follow... Never is a long time.