PDA

View Full Version here: : ITN: LHC Shows Particles in Cahoots


CraigS
25-09-2010, 06:06 AM
In the News: Finally somenews from the LHC …

Particles in cahoots (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/63679/title/Particles_in_cahoots)



The real news here may actually be that no-one really understands quantum chromodynamics …??

:)

Cheers

renormalised
25-09-2010, 09:05 AM
Nah...not QCD...small walkie talkies:):P:P:P

CraigS
25-09-2010, 09:28 AM
What we need are some heavy duty strings or branes that should do the trick !!
:):P

Cheers
PS: No offence intended towards quantum chromodynamicists ;)

renormalised
25-09-2010, 09:47 AM
And a couple of cans:):P

Rob_K
25-09-2010, 09:50 AM
As a chromedomecist, I resemble that remark!

Cheers -

CraigS
25-09-2010, 10:34 AM
But did you consult yourself before making yours ??

:):lol:

Cheers

avandonk
26-09-2010, 05:24 PM
If anyone here understands Quantum Chromodynamics I want a ten thousand page essay by next week and show all your mathematical workings. If in doubt ask me what your simple problem is and I will get back to you as your custom is important to this University.

Bert

CraigS
26-09-2010, 05:33 PM
:lol::lol::lol:

What a classic !!
You're one in a million, Bert !

Cheers

avandonk
26-09-2010, 06:17 PM
No Craig just like you one in six billion! A flea on the planet. What differentiates us from slime mould is about four billion years. It took us this long to crawl out of the primordial ooze. Let us not go back there yet. I do not really care what all you lot do after I am dead.

Just do not taze me bro!

Bert

CraigS
26-09-2010, 06:47 PM
Ok Bert;

I'm just about brain-dead from all this stuff today .. but … we are in the Science Forum, right ?

And your first and third statements were a demonstration of (i) the Cosmological Principle and (ii) the Perfect Cosmological Principle, respectively, right ? (Just kidding).

Are my 'Bert's University' fees due yet ?
(Not kidding).

:)

Tasers are for torture .. better call in the forum inquisitors ..
(Where are those guys today, anyway ?)

Cheers

avandonk
26-09-2010, 08:57 PM
Try doing 36 hours straight at the beamline in Japan without sleep. Have two days to sleep and do it all again. You tell that to the young ones today and they don't believe you!

Bert

sjastro
27-09-2010, 06:23 AM
Quantum Chromodynamics is relatively simple:).

In terms of difficulty here is my ladder (by all means not absolute).

(1) GR simple.
(2) QM simple.
(3) Quantum Electrodynamics harder.
(4) Quantum Chromodynamics harder still.
(5) Electroweak theory harder still.
(6) GUTs All very difficult.
(7) String Theory, Superstring Theory etc hardest of all.

What makes (7) so difficult it incorporates a lot of pure mathematics which is outside the scope for many physicists and applied mathematicians.

Steven

CraigS
27-09-2010, 06:39 AM
Steven !

At last you're here ! (and not for an inquisition, this time).
:)

Thanks for the above. I was actually wondering about all this and the 'hardness' scale.
What intrigues me is how to explain numbers like (5) to (7) without leaving the impression that its all mythical mumbo jumbo ?
Perhaps they are better off not being spoken of, except by Witten et al.

Cheers

sjastro
27-09-2010, 07:12 AM
The criteria for the mumbo jumbo element being removed from a theory is when the theory is experimentally verifiable.

So for example Quantum Chromodynamics predicted the existence of quarks while Electoweak theory predicted the W and Z bosons. Neither theory can be considered mumbo jumbo.

GUTs cannot be experimentally verified as the technology is unavailable while string theories have fundamental issues as to whether they are falsifiable or not.

Regards

Steven

CraigS
27-09-2010, 07:23 AM
So it may be more appropriate to refer to them as "hypothetical constructs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct_(philosophy_of_science))" ?

How can this be if these are built from the ground up ?
Ie: (1) to (6) are needed in order to conceptualise (7) ?
Or are they mutually exclusive ?

Interesting.

Cheers

sjastro
27-09-2010, 08:13 AM
It raises an interesting question. If we define an object we cannot observe, does it make the object a hypothetical construct?
If the answer is yes (as our EU friends assume unthinkingly) then by definition an electron is a hypothetical construct.
We cannot directly observe an electron due to the uncertainty principle but we can measure it's properties such as mass and charge as an effect.

In fact is our modern technology ranging from computers to the electric eye is based on a hypothetical construct? I don't think so.

While we cannot directly observe the strings that make up String Theory, the effects of the strings may make the theory falsifiable.
For example QFT is unable to nail down the precise mass of the Higgs boson, but String Theory is able to accomplish this.
Is this analogous to the electron example? This is the debate.

Examples (3) to (6) are branches of QFT. String theory is not a competing theory but an extension of QFT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_string_theory_ and_quantum_field_theory

Regards

Steven

CraigS
27-09-2010, 08:33 AM
Fascinating !

It seems to me that the Scientific process and its fundamental definitions may be in need of an update.

'Classical Scientific Philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Science)' has been used by pseudoscientists to justify some of their theories, (mind you, using some fairly tenuous logic) and yet, it allows for hypothetical constructs as a framework for making tangible observations, leading to predictions, etc, in mainstream science.

A two edged sword for the inquisitors ? :) (Just kidding here .. there is a difference between the two, as Steven has pointed out with his example of the electron).

It might all just seem to be about word-play to some, but I don't think so.
We are dealing with the foundations of Science on this one.

Cheers

renormalised
27-09-2010, 09:13 AM
I wouldn't call the EU's thought processes logical, even tenuous. More like chaotic and illogical (or maybe that should be illegible).

They're more contentious than String Theory.

Actually....there's #8 to add to that list of hard...the hardest of them all. EU/PC, not because it's difficult but because it's nonsense and they can't even figure it out themselves:)

CraigS
27-09-2010, 09:43 AM
An interesting page !

Hey Carl



Better give up the title or become 'a point like object' .. string's the thing and then M-Theory and then Ed Witten .. and then .. Witten's Hamster rules it all !!
:)

Cheers

CraigS
27-09-2010, 10:04 AM
More seriously, this relates to the 'building blocks' approach to Scientific Theory.

One surely shouldn't discredit the 'extremes' of mainstream simply because they 'have fundamental issues as to whether they are', (I'd say: may or may not be), falsifiable or not' (in the present time).

Some allowance in definitions should exist to describe this trait.

Cheers