Large Hadron Collider, Higgs Boson and Philosophy: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Large Hadron Collider, Higgs Boson and Philosophy » Large Hadron Collider, Higgs Boson and Philosophy

Large Hadron Collider, Higgs Boson and Philosophy

Page: 1 2

Large Hadron Collider, Higgs Boson and Philosophy

Baldinho
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2008

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 11

Posted 09/10/08 - 08:53 PM: Subject: Large Hadron Collider, Higgs Boson and Philosophy	#1
Form a Lehman's point of view, how would the discovery of a Higgs Boson and the ability to create worm holes and black holes affect modern philosophy? If multi dimensions are found and time itself is redefined, would we be closer to philosophical truths that disprove current existing philosophies?

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 3867

Posted 09/11/08 - 01:11 AM:	#2
The Higgs boson would provide evidence for how to reconcile QM and relativity. If mini-black holes are created, it would support the view of a multi-dimensional universe. No matter what the results are, the experiment should rule out a number of possibilities even if it does not resolve anything.

Budapest
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 14, 2008
Location: France

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 21

0 of 3 people found this post helpful Posted 09/13/08 - 02:20 PM:	#3
Baldinho, the possiblity of discovering Mr Higg's bosun is all a part of 'sexing it up', just like the mini black hole stuff. Scientists are forever in search of funding, and in the case of the LHC they've had about 5 billion Euros worth. Partical physics is not exactly a riveting subject (mainly because most folks find it hard to understand) and the 'world will end when they turn on the LHC' stuff helps to make it a bit more interesting, in the eyes of the public. It's like climate scientists, who are forever predicting doom and gloom, because that's how they get more funding (and I should add that the issue is not whether the earth's climate is changing, which it obviously is, but whether human activity is the cause of this change). Getting back to CERN, a bunch of partical physicists now have a big toy to play with, and whether they do or don't find Higg's bosun is not that important, because it's still all theoretical stuff, in the sense that we are unable to relate it to the macro world. I believe Penrose and colleagues are in the process of putting together an experiment at Oxford University which is attempting to find the join between the quantum world and the macro world. Folks like me will tell you that this is more significant than lots of particals whizzing around beneath the Swiss/French border (but don't get me wrong, lots of useful stuff will come from the LHC). To get back to your original question: how will the LHC effect philosophy? Who knows, because it all depends on what they discover, and whether you're more interested in theory or practice.
http://www.spiderbomb.com/burg42

Raugust
Dysangelist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 21, 2005
Location: United States

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 301

Posted 09/14/08 - 03:43 PM:	#4
Budapest wrote: Baldinho, the possiblity of discovering Mr Higg's bosun is all a part of 'sexing it up', just like the mini black hole stuff. Incorrect. The Higgs boson is one of the most important hypothetical particles in every mainstream model of the physical universe; demonstrating its existence would be a huge vindication to the efforts of physicists over the last 40 years and would open doorways to many significant new avenues of research; demonstrating its nonexistence would have an even more immense and revolutionary impact on physics, as it would show that the entire Standard Model which most of physics is currently based on is fundamentally flawed, and will need revision. To dismiss the Higgs boson as an example of 'sexing it up' demonstrates about as much scientific ignorance as if you had said that Einstein's theories of general and special relativity were just attempts to 'sex up' physics. As for the 'mini'-black hole stuff, most physicists agree that the LHC cannot create a micro-black hole. I fail to see how an implausible fringe idea, which most people are too ignorant to recognize the scientific benefits of anyway, would in any way constitute 'sexing up' physics even if CERN were claiming that this thing would create a micro-black hole. and the 'world will end when they turn on the LHC' stuff helps to make it a bit more interesting, in the eyes of the public. Pardon my frankness, but you are behaving like an utter fool. Propagating the belief that a device will end the world is not a good way to acquire funding, it's a good way to lose all funding as politicians cave in to public protests from ignorant and misinformed laypeople. The scientists have never been the ones claiming that the LHC will destroy the world, for obvious reasons. Rather, media reports have sensationalized the story in that way in order to attract more readership and viewership; it has nothing to do with getting funding for the scientists, which reporters really couldn't care less about. It's like climate scientists, who are forever predicting doom and gloom, because that's how they get more funding (and I should add that the issue is not whether the earth's climate is changing, which it obviously is, but whether human activity is the cause of this change). Neither of those is at issue because neither of those is seriously contested in the scientific community. Anthropogenic climate change is obvious, and your reality-warping, scientifically illiterate conspiracy theories do not constitute a valid rebuttal to any aspect of the consensus case for climate change. For someone who cares about the possibility that the LHC could destroy the world (which is a little bit lower than the possibility that your TV set will destroy the world), it is remarkable that you would care so little about actual threats to our ecosystem. Educate yourself and come back later. Not to ad hominem, but a good start would be to learn how to spell "boson" and "particle". Getting back to CERN, a bunch of partical physicists now have a big toy to play with, and whether they do or don't find Higg's bosun is not that important, because it's still all theoretical stuff, in the sense that we are unable to relate it to the macro world. Incorrect. Are you actually claiming that microscopic things have no relevance to the macroscopic world? I imagine that if you lived a few decades ago, you would be complaining that there is no possible use for splitting something as tiny as an atom.... attempting to find the join between the quantum world and the macro world. The Higgs boson is the join between the quantum world and the macro world, in one of the only areas where the two remain unjoined: quantum gravity. Finding the Higgs boson could be the first step in acquiring the experimental data necessary to construct a Theory of Quantum Gravity, itself a necessary prerequisite for constructing a Theory of Everything which could answer the most fundamental questions of existence for us. If that is not a worthy goal, then nothing in physics is.

Budapest
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 14, 2008
Location: France

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 21

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 09/15/08 - 01:33 PM:	#5
Hello, Raugust. My oh my, the level of intellectual debate on the internet thesedays is somewhere at the bottom of the pond. I don't have the time/energy to address all your points. If you don't understand what I was trying to say about scientific research there's not a lot more I can add (but whatever you do, don't go to Wiki for answers). You said: "The Higgs boson is one of the most important hypothetical particles" Which is exactly what I was saying, and whether Higg's bosun is found or not is neither here nor there, because it's all bloody HYPOTHETICAL (because it doesn't follow through to the MACRO world - forgive me for shouting). With regard to mini black holes, go read some of my other posts. As for the rest of what you posted, I really can't be bothered, because you obviously haven't read and understood what I said in this thread and other threads. It's all a learning curve, isn't it. If you want to discuss quantum mechanics with me I'll be quite happy to oblige. But be warned, I take no prisoners. IE, if you don't understand the relationship between science and politics/money then you're in for a rough time.
http://www.spiderbomb.com/burg42

Raugust
Dysangelist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 21, 2005
Location: United States

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 301

Posted 09/15/08 - 02:34 PM:	#6
Budapest wrote: If you don't understand what I was trying to say about scientific research there's not a lot more I can add I understood perfectly what you were saying. It was rather simple--dull, even. And, as it happens, factually incorrect, since CERN is not the one that has been propagating the 'micro-black hole' hysteria. Which is exactly what I was saying, and whether Higg's bosun is found or not is neither here nor there, because it's all bloody HYPOTHETICAL Incorrect. A particle is only hypothetical until it is discovered. As soon as the Higgs boson is found, it is no longer hypothetical, and becomes an actual, proven elementary particle just like quarks, electrons, photons, etc. (because it doesn't follow through to the MACRO world - forgive me for shouting). Incorrect. Atoms are not hypothetical, even though they are not macroscopic. Neither are oxygen molecules, even though they are not macroscopic. Neither are bacteria, even though they are not macroscopic. Hypothetical has nothing to do with size-scale, it has to do with whether unequivocal evidence (be it macroscopic or microscopic evidence) has been found at all. With regard to mini black holes, go read some of my other posts. If you have something relevant to say, you can say it here. I honestly don't have high expectations for the scientific or intellectual rigor of your other posts if you have no problem dismissing 40 years of scientific progress out-of-hand when you don't even have the basic level of education needed to know how to spell boson (not "bosun") or the name of the Higgs boson's discover, Peter Higgs (not "Higg" or "Higg's"). Again, I won't judge your arguments based on these rather strange lapses, but they do give an indicator of how little you know about this topic you are feigning an understanding of. IE, if you don't understand the relationship between science and politics/money then you're in for a rough time. Funny, you clearly have no such understanding, yet you seem to be getting along OK. Your inane and unsubstantiated suggestion that terrifying the public into thinking that the LHC might destroy the world is a money-making ploy by an evil cabal of scientists, for example, reflects the depth of scientific, psychological, and geopolitical understanding of a preteen. Get serious, now. The LHC is one of the most promising scientific experiments in decades; the fact that you do not understand it is not a basis for you to reject it as some sort of arbitrary and incoherent evil marketing ploy. It is perfectly possible to recognize that money plays a significant role in what scientific research occurs and what doesn't without devolving into a conspiracy nut.

Theo
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2008

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 44

Posted 09/30/08 - 04:35 AM:	#7
I'm not sure how relevant the Higgs boson (at least the one that breaks the electroweak symmetry) is to a theory of quantum gravity, excluding the fact that its mass is something a lot of the models usually considered under the rubric should be able to predict. One day. If we become convinced, however, that a Higgs boson does not exist (something which can't happen due to the LHC experiments), then things should get interesting, since an alternative mechanism for breaking the symmetries of the Standard model will have to be found. And as for there being no 'join [sic] between quantum physics and the macroscopic world' (I'm still trying to find the bloody quote button), yes that's true if we forget about things like chemistry, condensed matter physics, radioactivity, and so on.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 3728

Posted 09/30/08 - 06:47 AM:	#8
Budapest wrote: Baldinho, the possiblity of discovering Mr Higg's bosun is all a part of 'sexing it up', just like the mini black hole stuff. While this may be a big part of the PR for the project, does this make it incorrect? Additionally, while many particle physicists may be interested in naval positions, I believe that Higgs considered a boson, not a bosun. Scientists are forever in search of funding, and in the case of the LHC they've had about 5 billion Euros worth. Partical physics is not exactly a riveting subject (mainly because most folks find it hard to understand) and the 'world will end when they turn on the LHC' stuff helps to make it a bit more interesting, in the eyes of the public. Are you suggesting that the "end of the world" claims were part of a public relations campaign? Where is your evidence for this claim? What role did the vigorous denials of these scenarios by members of the LHC projects and other scientists play in this campaign? It's like climate scientists, who are forever predicting doom and gloom, because that's how they get more funding (and I should add that the issue is not whether the earth's climate is changing, which it obviously is, but whether human activity is the cause of this change). Yes, that is the issue. Considering that global warming was predicted about fifty years ago as the result of human activity, that is a spectacular case of a scientific theory meeting an unexpected prediction. But why should we not simply write off those who say that climate scientists do all their research because of a conspiracy lunatics just like we write off those who deny the moon landing? And, indeed, if I were a climate scientists, wouldn't I be guaranteed to get more money by doctoring my data to deny global warming and working with a carbon fuel company? These companies seem to have far more money than any scientific funding agency. Getting back to CERN, a bunch of partical physicists now have a big toy to play with, and whether they do or don't find Higg's bosun is not that important, because it's still all theoretical stuff, in the sense that we are unable to relate it to the macro world. Why do you say this? Aren't you happy with your computer and the internet, the products of research into particle physics. And this is in a direct way: without research into the fundamentals of quantum mechanics we would be unable to build computers in the way that we build them today. (but don't get me wrong, lots of useful stuff will come from the LHC). I must get you wrong, since I don't see any sign that you think that "lots of useful stuff will come from the LHC".
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 90
Total Posts: 1954

Posted 09/30/08 - 08:01 AM:	#9
So far, the claims for the Higgs Boson seems to be a mathematical formula alone. Now don't get me wrong; the parts which connect to other existing theories look quite sound (from limited understanding); but there are many ways in which you can then make any mathematical formula that would give you basically the same equality. At the moment; it seems like the LHC attempting to find the Higgs boson is the best way to continue this side of research; whether or not the mathematics is truly reflective of reality. Kwalish Kid. I always thought the origin of computers were the result of research into vacuum tubes and electricity flowing through macro objects. Agreeably current computers are alot "smaller"; but I thought that marketable computers are still only at best on the atomic or macro levels. Oh, and there are many different views of 'global warming'. Where I digress from the main-stream "humans are bad" aspect is whether or not we have an accurate long-term model of weather patterns; as well as whether or not we must always fluctuate between to relationships. I mean if a sun goes from living to dieing over it's lifetime; then it is not too far fetched that planets could observe similar behavior. Time could easily change said fluctuations. Of course, global warming has nothing to do with this thread... The problem with some philosophies Balhinho is that so many of them are vague. Given such; even if we did find extra dimensions; one could incorporate them into current ideals. Look at Star Trek and the Q continuum for instance. They've played with this idea a little bit.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion.

Kurt_Godel
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 25, 2008
Location: Long Island, NY

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 526

Posted 10/01/08 - 06:58 AM:	#10
Cadrache wrote: I always thought the origin of computers were the result of research into vacuum tubes and electricity flowing through macro objects. Agreeably current computers are alot "smaller"; but I thought that marketable computers are still only at best on the atomic or macro levels. Here's a quick answer. Today's high performace computers and other related devices are made possible by VLSI (very high scale integration) solid state electronics. Without a sound understanding and practical mastery of particle physical concepts such as electrons, holes, semiconductors etc, we wouldn't have ICs CPUs DSPs or any of the semiconductor circuit components that make possible the magic of digital and even analog devices.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.