/sci/ - Science & Math

Define 'soon.'

>Define 'soon.'

Hell I dunno, 1-3 years from today?

There is no chance.
It is either going to happen or not happen.

God does not play dice with the Universe.

I come from australia (we live in the future, time zones and stuff) and i can tell you , its already been discovered !!!!! watch your news its gonna happen today !

>>1467842
I was unable to recognize Einstein whenever you talked about him in either your letter or your manuscript. It seemed to me as if you had erected some dummy Einstein for yourself, which you then knocked down with great pomp. In particular Einstein does not consider the concept of `determinism' to be as fundamental as it is frequently held to be (as he told me emphatically many times) ... he disputes that he uses as a criterion for the admissibility of a theory the question "Is it rigorously deterministic?"... he was not at all annoyed with you, but only said that you were a person who will not listen

We find what we're looking for.

It doesn't fit the theory.

Now what?

>>1467809
>particles
>enormous collisions

>>1467885
Announce the discovery with great celebration, and lobby for the building of larger colliders to learn about the new physics.

it would be kinda cool if they did find something. Then we could ask What that is comprised of and one-day find tiny subconstituents we would name boson quarks and the like. U could say a quark is made up of quark stuff and is pure quark, even if this is true what is quark stuff; what force holds it together and what is this force made up of. We cannot even fully argue that there is any pure substance. This adds to the smallness of our perception in an amzingly deep multiverse. The lie is that we know the smallest elements that make up our world.

>>1467904
Well yeah, but the Theory explains a lot of things really well. If this Boson, a central piece of the theory, turns out not to fit, then the entire theory is probably bogus.

What would the truth be in that case? Is the universe more complex than we ever imagined?

>even if this is true what is quark stuff; what force holds it together and what is this force made up of

Nothing, a Quark is just pure energy which fused together to make a fucking Quark. Piece can come together to make protons/neutrons but overall a Quark is just "pure quark stuff" - I like to call it energy

>>1468015
What causes energy to fuse together and form things? Why wouldn't it just float about and be energy?

>>1468029
Big bang, I would assume. very very small particles whizzing about the universe at extremely intense speeds collide and "fuse" to form things.

What causes them to fuse? I would assume the Higgs Force which uses the Higgs-Boson particles to make up matter. If not the Higgs force, some other force which behaves exactly like the Higgs force is predicted to behave (but maybe with slight alterations we've overlooked)

>>1468040
So, all matter is presumably the result of leftover momentum from the Big Bang?

>>1468040
Neither the Higgs Force or the Higgs Boson have been proven to exist yet. They are theoretical constructs, with just as much meaning behind them as Phlebotinum.

We might as well say God is the force holding all things together.

Oh wait, that's actually in the Bible.

on the one hand you have the potential beauty of the higgs boson, on the other some unperceivable beauty. (That's how they talk at CERN now :) all of them constantly using the word beautiful about the rare particles they are seeing) This is a really big time, I believe they will still be colliding at record power for several more months before shutting down till next year?

http://twitter.com/cern
yup