God Particle Found, But Does Anyone Care?

[Army of GOD]

the "percents" here are really vague. Are we talking about the makeup of the matter, volume, mass, etc?

We're talking about the total energy in the universe, assuming that we can treat DE as "standard" energy.

ah

also, NASA agrees with you

It turns out that roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe.

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/fo ... rk-energy/


It's sad to realize that I originally went into college with hopes to to research on dark matter and dark energy and now that's pretty much all but gone =( (you know, because the US gov'ment is pulling funding out of science)

[oss spy]

Yes, it really is tragic for anyone who is going into physics (such as myself.) It forces physicists to either do insanely well and head to CERN, settle for "smaller scale" experiments at FermiLab or Berkely, or go theoretical (which sucks because of the insane amount of math one will need to have fun.)

[BigBallinStalin]

I hear that the US military is always interested in physics.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I hear that the US military is always interested in physics psychics.

FTFY

[oss spy]

I hear that the US military is always interested in physics.

Not modern physics.

[D4 Damager]

I like this take on the discovery: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2012/jul/04/higgs-like-discovery-inside. The fact that we managed to observe something based purely on a testable mathematical prediction is incredible.

As for the name "God particle", that article at the top of the thread is mistaken. It comes from a quote by (I think) Steven Hawking who said that if we discover the Higgs then it would be like "knowing the mind of God". I don't think this was intended in an anti-religious sense, more saying that we would have a better picture of what the laws of physics really are.

Finally, about this quote from the article

The discovery of the Higgs boson brings us no closer to understanding why there is a universe, not to mention whether life has meaning.

How can he possibly know this? The discovery has already provided more information than we had before and has eliminated some theories previously thought possible. Our understanding HAS improved. Who knows where that will lead?

[PLAYER57832]

I hear that the US military is always interested in physics.

Not modern physics.

Or Chemistry.. or Biology.. and certainly not geology (unless its mineral exploration).

But hey, we are still pushing forward... "no child left behind" and all that.. because technology IS our future!

[Woodruff]

I hear that the US military is always interested in physics.

Not modern physics.

I must disagree very strongly with this. The US military absolutely is. In fact, it seems extremely odd to me that anyone would believe they are not.

I hear that the US military is always interested in physics.

Not modern physics.

Or Chemistry.. or Biology.. and certainly not geology (unless its mineral exploration).

Again, I must disagree very strongly.

But hey, we are still pushing forward... "no child left behind" and all that.. because technology IS our future!

What does "No Child Left Behind" have to do with the US military?

[PLAYER57832]

I hear that the US military is always interested in physics.

Not modern physics.

I must disagree very strongly with this. The US military absolutely is. In fact, it seems extremely odd to me that anyone would believe they are not.

I hear that the US military is always interested in physics.

Not modern physics.

Or Chemistry.. or Biology.. and certainly not geology (unless its mineral exploration).

Again, I must disagree very strongly.

But hey, we are still pushing forward... "no child left behind" and all that.. because technology IS our future!

What does "No Child Left Behind" have to do with the US military?

OK, I misread.. I was thinking "government", not military.

But the military is actually only interested in narrow aspects of this, natural, but that military applications are one of the exceptions... and yet something not really supported by the overall educational system , is worrisome.

[oss spy]

I hear that the US military is always interested in physics.

Not modern physics.

I must disagree very strongly with this. The US military absolutely is. In fact, it seems extremely odd to me that anyone would believe they are not.

This ought to be good. Tell me, what use would the US military have for dark matter, antimatter, dark energy, and string theory?

[BigBallinStalin]

I hear that the US military is always interested in physics.

Not modern physics.

I must disagree very strongly with this. The US military absolutely is. In fact, it seems extremely odd to me that anyone would believe they are not.

This ought to be good. Tell me, what use would the US military have for dark matter, antimatter, dark energy, and string theory?

"Antimatter? Dark energy? Is that some kind of ray gun? BUILD IT!"

[Timminz]

Weaponized anti-matter would be pretty impressive.

[Woodruff]

I hear that the US military is always interested in physics.

Not modern physics.

I must disagree very strongly with this. The US military absolutely is. In fact, it seems extremely odd to me that anyone would believe they are not.

This ought to be good. Tell me, what use would the US military have for dark matter, antimatter, dark energy, and string theory?

Are you seriously equating "modern physics" with "theoretical physics"? Because the two are absolutely not the same thing. One is a small subset of the other, in fact.

And I promise you that the military is interested in antimatter for the same reason they were interested in nuclear reactions.

[InkL0sed]

I hear that the US military is always interested in physics.

Not modern physics.

I must disagree very strongly with this. The US military absolutely is. In fact, it seems extremely odd to me that anyone would believe they are not.

This ought to be good. Tell me, what use would the US military have for dark matter, antimatter, dark energy, and string theory?

Nuclear fusion
Invisibility
Quantum computing
Antimatter Weaponry

Just off the top of my head.

And we know pretty much nothing about dark matter and dark energy. How can you know a use for something when you're not even sure what it is? Knowledge tends to have very significant and useful applications, even if you don't realize what those are beforehand.

[Army of GOD]

yea, I would assume the military is pretty hot on modern physics.

Maybe not CERN-involved, but hell, if it helps them kill people, they'll want it.

[oss spy]

I hear that the US military is always interested in physics.

Not modern physics.

I must disagree very strongly with this. The US military absolutely is. In fact, it seems extremely odd to me that anyone would believe they are not.

This ought to be good. Tell me, what use would the US military have for dark matter, antimatter, dark energy, and string theory?

Are you seriously equating "modern physics" with "theoretical physics"? Because the two are absolutely not the same thing. One is a small subset of the other, in fact.

And I promise you that the military is interested in antimatter for the same reason they were interested in nuclear reactions.

You must be confusing modern physics with applied physics. The two are not the same, and I promise you that nobody is interested in antimatter weaponry. Don't believe me? Think about it: how will anyone create a bomb one atom at a time?

I hear that the US military is always interested in physics.

Not modern physics.

I must disagree very strongly with this. The US military absolutely is. In fact, it seems extremely odd to me that anyone would believe they are not.

This ought to be good. Tell me, what use would the US military have for dark matter, antimatter, dark energy, and string theory?

Nuclear fusion
Invisibility
Quantum computing
Antimatter Weaponry

Just off the top of my head.

And we know pretty much nothing about dark matter and dark energy. How can you know a use for something when you're not even sure what it is? Knowledge tends to have very significant and useful applications, even if you don't realize what those are beforehand.

1. Usable fusion is not possible. Physics doesn't work that way.
2. Applied physics is not modern physics.
3. Engineering physics is not modern physics.
4. Tell me how you're going to build a bomb one atom at a time and then we'll talk.

It's easy for me to say those things about dark energy and dark matter because I actually understand what we're talking about. Only a nonscientist would dare to say they have some unforseen use.


All I've seen so far is applied physics, engineering, and a lack of knowledge of particle physics. No one is taking anything on the fronteier of physics and applying it.

[Army of GOD]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_we ... on_weapons

[Army of GOD]

also, how the hell can you say nobody is interested in anti-matter weaponry, when clearly, in the link Inkl00sed posted, people are interested in anti-matter weaponry?

the thing is, if the military was working on high-end physics weapons, why the hell would they leak that information?

[Woodruff]

I hear that the US military is always interested in physics.

Not modern physics.

I must disagree very strongly with this. The US military absolutely is. In fact, it seems extremely odd to me that anyone would believe they are not.

This ought to be good. Tell me, what use would the US military have for dark matter, antimatter, dark energy, and string theory?

Are you seriously equating "modern physics" with "theoretical physics"? Because the two are absolutely not the same thing. One is a small subset of the other, in fact.

And I promise you that the military is interested in antimatter for the same reason they were interested in nuclear reactions.

You must be confusing modern physics with applied physics. The two are not the same

That doesn't even make basic sense. You seem to believe that "modern physics" is the same as "theoretical physics", and I really don't see why you would make that equation.

and I promise you that nobody is interested in antimatter weaponry. Don't believe me? Think about it: how will anyone create a bomb one atom at a time?

I have thought about it. I can assure you that the military is absolutely interested in it. I would further suggest to you that the idea that someone WOULDN'T create a bomb "one atom at a time" (which isn't actually necessary, considering waterfall reactions) isn't looking at the situation objectively...if it will do damage, the military will be interested.

It's easy for me to say those things about dark energy and dark matter because I actually understand what we're talking about. Only a nonscientist would dare to say they have some unforseen use.

I honestly have to say that sounds like the sort of thing a non-scientist would say when they want to sound like they know what they're talking about.

All I've seen so far is applied physics, engineering, and a lack of knowledge of particle physics. No one is taking anything on the frontier of physics and applying it.

I would suggest to you that you don't have a very strong understanding of the military, the military-industrial complex, or even the R&D of weaponry.

1. Usable fusion is not possible. Physics doesn't work that way.

What? Egad, man. Why are you in this conversation with statements like that? Good Lord, I did a term paper on fusion weapons when I was in high school.

[oss spy]

also, how the hell can you say nobody is interested in anti-matter weaponry, when clearly, in the link Inkl00sed posted, people are interested in anti-matter weaponry?

the thing is, if the military was working on high-end physics weapons, why the hell would they leak that information?

You must've missed the part where I asked how people were going to make it one atom at a time.

That doesn't even make basic sense. You seem to believe that "modern physics" is the same as "theoretical physics", and I really don't see why you would make that equation.
=

You seem to believe that modern physics means anything else. I expect that much from an keyboard scientist such as yourself.

I have thought about it. I can assure you that the military is absolutely interested in it. I would further suggest to you that the idea that someone WOULDN'T create a bomb "one atom at a time" (which isn't actually necessary, considering waterfall reactions) isn't looking at the situation objectively...if it will do damage, the military will be interested.

You cannot create antimatter more than one atom at a time, and therefore you will have to make a bomb one atom at a time. It's also extremely expensive to make...as in "holy fucking shit, that costs a ton" expensive. I'll quote the part of wikipedia that you ignored:

A milligram of antimatter will take 100,000 times the annual production rate to produce.(or 100,000 years)[2] It will take billions of years for the current production rate to make an equivalent of current typical hydrogen bombs.[3] For example, an equivalent of the Hiroshima atomic bomb will take half a gram of antimatter, but will take CERN 2 billion years to produce at the current production rate.

Go ahead and tell me that the military is interested in it. The spokesperson mentioned in the article only talked about its potential, a key part that you must've missed.

I honestly have to say that sounds like the sort of thing a non-scientist would say when they want to sound like they know what they're talking about.

The "no u" argument fails here. I'm telling you this now: dark energy and dark matter are not things that can be weaponized. You're going to disagree, so let me explain why you're wrong:

Dark matter is composed of WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle) or MACHOs (MAssive Compact Halo Object.) If a particle interacts weakly, then how do you expect it to make a feasable weapon? That just doesn't make sense. Neutrinos (a weakly interacting massive particle) could go through a wall of lead one light-year thick and not interact once. Tell me, is any target going to be that large? As for MACHOs, they would be pretty devastating- that is, of course, assuming you can bring a neutron star crashing into our solar system. You'll win any war with that by ensuring that nobody will be alive to fight it. Does that seem feasable to you?

As for dark energy...well, I fail to see a reason why it would harm anyone. If the Chameleon Particle hypothesis is correct, the particle will have low energy when it is around massive bodies (such as the solar system) and therefore its potential as a weapon will be nullified.

Feel free to disagree with any of the above. I'll have confirmation that you're a nonscientist then.

I would suggest to you that you don't have a very strong understanding of the military, the military-industrial complex, or even the R&D of weaponry.

I would suggest that you research into things before you start speaking on them. Given what you've said about physics so far, you seriously need to get started.

What? Egad, man. Why are you in this conversation with statements like that? Good Lord, I did a term paper on fusion weapons when I was in high school.

Sorry, that was a poor word choice. I should've said efficient fusion. Oh, and are you aware that the use of nuclear weapons is outlawed and that the US is supposedly cutting back on nuclear weapons? Just saying.



Also, why haven't you told me how you're going to build a bomb one atom at a time?

[Army of GOD]

say "build a bomb one atom a time". I dare you. I double dare, motherfucker.


Seriously, though, you can stop

[Woodruff]

That doesn't even make basic sense. You seem to believe that "modern physics" is the same as "theoretical physics", and I really don't see why you would make that equation.

You seem to believe that modern physics means anything else. I expect that much from an keyboard scientist such as yourself.

For someone so arrogant, I would expect you to understand the basic definition of the term "modern".

Go ahead and tell me that the military is interested in it. The spokesperson mentioned in the article only talked about its potential, a key part that you must've missed.

I didn't miss anything. If you don't think the potential interests the military, you don't understand the military. And if they're interested in the potential of the thing, then they are interested in the thing. This is all really very basic.

I honestly have to say that sounds like the sort of thing a non-scientist would say when they want to sound like they know what they're talking about.

The "no u" argument fails here.

That's pretty much all you've done this thread.

Feel free to disagree with any of the above. I'll have confirmation that you're a nonscientist then.

I would expect someone so arrogant to have the intelligence necessary to properly quote in a forum. Obviously, I overestimated that.

I would suggest to you that you don't have a very strong understanding of the military, the military-industrial complex, or even the R&D of weaponry.

I would suggest that you research into things before you start speaking on them. Given what you've said about physics so far, you seriously need to get started.

Brilliant! I still don't believe you understand a bit of what you're talking about. I think you go to websites, try to read up on them a little bit, and pretend that you understand it.

What? Egad, man. Why are you in this conversation with statements like that? Good Lord, I did a term paper on fusion weapons when I was in high school.

Sorry, that was a poor word choice. I should've said efficient fusion.

Those weapons are pretty efficient in their purpose, actually.

Oh, and are you aware that the use of nuclear weapons is outlawed and that the US is supposedly cutting back on nuclear weapons? Just saying.

Because the United States has never done anything that would be considered illegal under the terms of their treaties in order to gain an upper hand. Just saying.

Also, why haven't you told me how you're going to build a bomb one atom at a time?

I'm still waiting for you to sound more intelligent instead of more arrogant. Regardless, I'M not the one that is going to be building it. I am quite certain, however, that the military has the ingenuity to do so if they deem it worthwhile.

[oss spy]

For someone so arrogant, I would expect you to understand the basic definition of the term "modern".

You're welcome to keep playing semantics all day, but please do it with someone else.

I didn't miss anything. If you don't think the potential interests the military, you don't understand the military. And if they're interested in the potential of the thing, then they are interested in the thing. This is all really very basic.

Good job not responding to the rest of my point and quoting me out of context. I'll repost the whole point for you, since you think ignoring it is the way to go:

You cannot create antimatter more than one atom at a time, and therefore you will have to make a bomb one atom at a time. It's also extremely expensive to make...as in "holy fucking shit, that costs a ton" expensive. I'll quote the part of wikipedia that you ignored:

A milligram of antimatter will take 100,000 times the annual production rate to produce.(or 100,000 years)[2] It will take billions of years for the current production rate to make an equivalent of current typical hydrogen bombs.[3] For example, an equivalent of the Hiroshima atomic bomb will take half a gram of antimatter, but will take CERN 2 billion years to produce at the current production rate.

Go ahead and tell me that the military is interested in it. The spokesperson mentioned in the article only talked about its potential, a key part that you must've missed.

I would expect someone so arrogant to have the intelligence necessary to properly quote in a forum. Obviously, I overestimated that.

I didn't say anything that required quoting because I didn't quote anything. Also, you must've ignored my point again so I'll put it up again for you so you can respond to it:

The "no u" argument fails here. I'm telling you this now: dark energy and dark matter are not things that can be weaponized. You're going to disagree, so let me explain why you're wrong:

Dark matter is composed of WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle) or MACHOs (MAssive Compact Halo Object.) If a particle interacts weakly, then how do you expect it to make a feasable weapon? That just doesn't make sense. Neutrinos (a weakly interacting massive particle) could go through a wall of lead one light-year thick and not interact once. Tell me, is any target going to be that large? As for MACHOs, they would be pretty devastating- that is, of course, assuming you can bring a neutron star crashing into our solar system. You'll win any war with that by ensuring that nobody will be alive to fight it. Does that seem feasable to you?

As for dark energy...well, I fail to see a reason why it would harm anyone. If the Chameleon Particle hypothesis is correct, the particle will have low energy when it is around massive bodies (such as the solar system) and therefore its potential as a weapon will be nullified.

Brilliant! I still don't believe you understand a bit of what you're talking about. I think you go to websites, try to read up on them a little bit, and pretend that you understand it.

You're not much of an armchair detective, are you? Allow me to make a claim of the same level as yours: you're a pink unicorn in a closet that leads to Narnia. Don't get my point? Here it is: baseless assumptions meant as insults only make you appear stupid.

Those weapons are pretty efficient in their purpose, actually.

I thought it was obvoius that I was talking about industrial usage.

Because the United States has never done anything that would be considered illegal under the terms of their treaties in order to gain an upper hand. Just saying.

The past is nonindicative of the present or future. Please stop making arguments based on your ignorance.

I'm still waiting for you to sound more intelligent instead of more arrogant. Regardless, I'M not the one that is going to be building it. I am quite certain, however, that the military has the ingenuity to do so if they deem it worthwhile.

I'm waiting on you to prove your point, which you have not done. My point is that it is impossible to create an antimatter bomb, and you just can't fucking see it. The frontier of physics has no practical applications because of the very nature of particle physics and saying otherwise just makes you wrong. You're either stupid, you just can't read, or you're trolling me. Regardless of your issue, I suggest that you do some research into the subjects you're trying to discuss with me.

[jimboston]

I totally see the similarity between those things and an invisible particle.

Oxygen is also invisible.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I really have no interest in this pissing contest, but 2 points in that last post irk me.

The past is nonindicative of the present or future. Please stop making arguments based on your ignorance.

You do realize all of science is based on the belief that induction is possible, right? If the past is nonindicative of the future then we know literally nothing.

My point is that it is impossible to create an antimatter bomb, and you just can't fucking see it.

Maybe it's really unlikely, I don't know and I don't care, but if you're gonna claim to be some sort of scientist stop throwing around words like impossible please. History has shown us time and again that is an unwise thing to do.
E.g.: I'm sure it seemed quite impossible at the time that the descendant of babbage's difference engine would routinely beat grandmasters in chess, yet here we are.