joao3v16 – Member
Apparently Big Bang theory boils down to six fundamental numbers. If any of these deviate by just 1% (in one case, by several billionths of a %), life could not exist or have evolved on Earth.
So to my mind, the universe consists of millions of factors that need to coincide in very specific quantities/ways/etc, and I’ve yet to be covinced by any theory as to how this occurred without intervention.

Nobody would recognise it (a designer) even if there was as we’ve all closed our minds to the possibility of one existing.

I’m not really sure why Big Bang theory has come up on a quantum theory thread, but I find the attitude to it above slightly confusing when it’s a theory that was first proposed by a priest. I’d guess that he’d have said his mind was open to that possibility.

Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble[1][2]. He was also the first to derive what is now known as the Hubble’s law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble’s article.[3][4][5][6] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his ‘hypothesis of the primeval atom’.[7][8] As he was a secular priest, he was called Abbé, then, after being made a canon, Monseigneur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

But getting back to the Higgs boson- wasn’t Max Planck, the founder of quantum theory, a Lutheran minister?
I don’t really understand why a successful day in scientific research causes this religious argument against science.

It’s typical of the current Scientific Arrogance that presumes every aspect of our existence is explainable by reductionist analysis.

Lol.. this scientific arrogance is entirely made up by anti-scientists. No real scientists think like that, the idea is laughable. Science is entirely concerned with answering unknown questions, so the fact that it is still going on means that scientists acknowledge that there is a lot they don’t know!

He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble

On what reasoning though? A lot of people back then just made stuff up based on whimsy and some were just lucky. Hubble actually observed red shift and deduced from that. I don’t think a lucky guesser should get credited, tbh – if that’s what that guy was.

Surely the main difference is……….

Scientists can believe in god (but regulalry chose not to)

Godists can believe in science (but regulalry chose not to)

The difference is the Scientists can prove the existance of stuff, godists point to a book written at varying times over the past 2000 years of which most of it has been shown to be wrong and/or made up, if a Scientist submited the bible (say genesis to a physics jopurnal, or the story of the Ark to a meterological journal) as a paper for peer review, what tdo you think the reaction would be? acceptance or Rejection?

molgrips,
Check your facts please, Lemaitre published his theory (which was pretty much the same as Hubble’s) in 1927. Hubble published his in 1929.
They were working from a lot of the same data, but that’s what happens if you publish in Belgiam. 😉

Google Hubble’s law if you like.

Fact is, neither physicologists nor religionists can come up with an explanation that boils down to any more than “trust me, I believe I’m right”

You have just revealed your position on the nutter scale.

Rational
^
| “There is stuff we don’t know, but thats OK becuase we can use science to find it, until then we don’t
| know but we can have a good guess”
|
|
| “There is stuff we don’t know, so god must have done that stuff”
|
|
| “That stuff that you “know”, thats wrong because it says so in my big book. God did all that stuff”
v
Nutter

I don’t really understand why a successful day in scientific research causes this religious argument against science.

Because someone intimated that the Higgs boson was proof of Intelligent Design, and the wheels came off.

Did bosan -hagan win today’s stage?

We ll

Did he??

molgrips – Member
this scientific arrogance is entirely made up by anti-scientists. No real scientists think like that, the idea is laughable.

Thing is mol, many of the people I’ve worked with have had exactly that attitude to their work.
I’ve always applied a pretty simple rule to the science I’ve practiced, if I can’t explain roughly what I do, why I’m doing it and what it’s potential consequences are to the “average person” then I’m failing as a scientist.
Just done a “back of an envelope” calculation and I reckon I’ve personally ‘spent’ over £5 million of public funding, if the “man in the street” is paying, then they should be able to understand what they’re paying for, and why……

….Blue Sky stuff is all well and good, but if more of the resources put into it were used to apply the knowledge already obtained, I think the world could be a “better place” – that’s all

as someone I can’t be bothered to Google once said “information is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom” 🙂

when i get asked this by people I explain simply
Scientia potentia est
works every time
HTH

PS Frank Zappa said it – if you wish to take life lessons from him then who am I to argue

jfletch – Member
You have just revealed your position on the nutter scale.

why thank you 😀

“There is stuff we don’t know, but thats OK becuase we can use science to find it, until then we don’t know but we can have a good guess”

Science is only one of many thought constructs by which “the world we live in” can be analysed….

if the “man in the street” is paying, then they should be able to understand what they’re paying for, and why

Blimey, if that’s your criteria then good luck getting funding for anything other than better fake boobs and hangover cures. 😀

Science is only one of many thought constructs by which “the world we live in” can be analysed….

That doesn’t even mean anything.

GrahamS – Member
…. then good luck getting funding

hilldodger – Member
I reckon I’ve personally ‘spent’ over £5 million of public funding

Worked so far 😀

Junkyard – Member
PS Frank Zappa said it – if you wish to take life lessons from him then who am I to argue

😀

I don’t really understand why a successful day in scientific research causes this religious argument against science.

Science used to deal with explaining things that could easily be experienced by everyday folk. The earth being round, the earth orbiting the sun, gravity etc are all fairly simple and impossible to refute on any level becuase they are easily observed.

But things like the big bang and the higgs aren’t the same, they can’t be simply observed (although they can be observed), and to add fuel to the fire they directly contradict the religious doctrine upon which people have based their entire belief systems. So when someone shows them evidence that they are wrong they get all het up and start flame wars.

Science is only one of many thought constructs by which “the world we live in” can be analysed….
That doesn’t even mean anything

Worked so far

MMMM what does the evidence say 😉
More importantly what are your kids names 😀

molgrips,
Check your facts please

I wasn’t accusing, just asking a question. Thanks for clearing it up 🙂

… Back on the “Do you know anyone famous?” thread…

Tom Kibble was my PhD supervisor 8) . Very humble gentleman. The Nobel committee have their work cut out.

A good day for science that is beginning to signal the end for experimental Particle Physics.

EDIT: and to bring in some gratuitous cycling content, Tom is a keen cyclist and always used to ride into Imperial. Funny thing was, I never saw him on my commute, and when I asked him what time he got in of a morning, I realized why 😳 .

Particle Physics gives me a hadron

Now that I want on a tee shirt! 😆

Do any of you lot get how un freaking interesting the whole freaking religion debate actually is.

It makes my brain turn to grey jelly and dribble out of my ear.

This started off as a thread about the incredible effort of science to understand the world we live in and all you’ve done is reduce it to a great big pile of steaming shite.

Please, do us a favour and **** off onto another thread. Leave those of us with an ounce of intellect to enjoy this discovery.

jfletch – Member
Science is only one of many thought constructs by which “the world we live in” can be analysed….

That doesn’t even mean anything.

to you perhaps, let me try to explain my viewpoint if I may….

….”Scientific Method” is a product of the human intellect striving to explain “stuff” by a system (usually reductionist) of observation, measurement and deduction.
It has, as you say, been successful in taking “us” beyond the there be monsters stage of understanding the world/universe etc. It has also, via applied technology, made us more independent of (some of) the pressures of our physical existence. (It has also provided countless ways to frak up each other and our environment, but let’s not digress too much)

I do believe however, despite a long, productive and modestly successful career as a “Scientist”, that other intellectual methods are equally as valid at explaining many aspects of our existence.
To dismiss the findings of these methods on the basis of them being “unscientific” is a misunderstanding, and one which I think has been a failure of our (Western) society.

I guess if I were to try and sum it up, I’d say Science provides some answers, but not the answers……

I prefer Bose-Higson:

geetee1972 – Member

Apparently they’ve invited a bunch of the people involved in the development of the theory, including Peter Higgs, to the presentation, hence the excitement that they are going to announce something big.

And co-inventor M Bison from Streetfighter II. Apparently he’s going to Psycho Crusher everyone who mis-spells his name.

Bose-Higson:

*applause*

I though this was all sorted out on 25th May, 1977 and called “The force” 🙂

About time they started working on Starships and lightsabers much more useful 😀

Bindun?

This thread cheered me up no end during a hard working day. I liked the way us 13yr olds giggled with silly jokes, those that berated religion got heated up trying to explain God “n” all and best of it all the closet scientists came out of the woodwork.

Just like being back at skool.

Perfect.

Carry on.

Please, do us a favour and **** off onto another thread. Leave those of us with an ounce of intellect to enjoy this discovery.

I’d agree and don’t enter these threads except to announce that the usual drivel puts me off, then I realise how inane this type of comment is and just stay away and not say anything because it makes me look like a twunt.
Sorry.
PS. Pretty profound stuff that I’d love to understand. Hats off to CERN.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0ZP152mALk[/video]

One thing I heard on the news that amazed me was physicists only know 4% of what makes up the universe. It’s a pretty big discovery either way.

One thing I heard on the news that amazed me was physicists only know 4% of what makes up the universe.

The rest is turtles, all the way down.

Oh, and red elastic bands, fluff & old extention leads.

I do believe however, despite a long, productive and modestly successful career as a “Scientist”, that other intellectual methods are equally as valid at explaining many aspects of our existence.

Is that “equally valid” as in “can correctly predict observable outcomes” or just “interesting philosophy and mental gymnastics”?

To dismiss the findings of these methods on the basis of them being “unscientific” is a misunderstanding, and one which I think has been a failure of our (Western) society.

What “findings” are these specifically? Is there any evidence they are correct or is that too scientific?

Please, do us a favour and **** off onto another thread. Leave those of us with an ounce of intellect to enjoy this discovery.

What like everybody does at (INSERT RELIGIOUS OCCASION OF CHOICE)round here?

One thing I heard on the news that amazed me was physicists only know 4% of what makes up the universe

Why is that amazing? Did you expect more? And besides I don’t think they meant what you appear to think they meant.

Is that “equally valid” as in “can correctly predict observable outcomes” or just “interesting philosophy and mental gymnastics”?

Valid as in “of value to people”

If the Higgs Boson gives mass to everything – can we forget about “superstrings” and 15 dimensions of space now?

If the Higgs Boson gives mass to everything – can we forget about “superstrings” and 15 dimensions of space now?

No such luck – The Higgs accounts for inertial mass, not gravitational mass. The latter is the realms of relativity, which is not within the standard model. String theory is one attempt at unifying the standard model with relativity.

So – now we need some evidence of strings. Get to work, boffins…

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmzwuYj5w1U&feature=player_detailpage[/video]

One thing I heard on the news that amazed me was physicists only know 4% of what makes up the universe

So, ‘we’ know pretty much next to nothing, in the scheme of things. Still. I suppose they’ve got to start somewhere.

to you perhaps, let me try to explain my viewpoint if I may….

….”Scientific Method” is a product of the human intellect striving to explain “stuff” by a system (usually reductionist) of observation, measurement and deduction.
It has, as you say, been successful in taking “us” beyond the there be monsters stage of understanding the world/universe etc. It has also, via applied technology, made us more independent of (some of) the pressures of our physical existence. (It has also provided countless ways to frak up each other and our environment, but let’s not digress too much)

I do believe however, despite a long, productive and modestly successful career as a “Scientist”, that other intellectual methods are equally as valid at explaining many aspects of our existence.
To dismiss the findings of these methods on the basis of them being “unscientific” is a misunderstanding, and one which I think has been a failure of our (Western) society.

I guess if I were to try and sum it up, I’d say Science provides some answers, but not the answers……

Philosophy will always trump science when it comes to asking unanswerable questions but science will always win when it comes to finding answers.

Yesterday we found a fairly big answer.

I think the most amazing thing about knowing roughly 4% of how everything works is that it’s only taken us about – what – 500 years give or take since Galileo Galilei more or less kicked the whole shebang off? Good stuff.

Before that, we knew zero for about 200,000 years and had to make up stories about it.