test
Page 1 of 1 [ 6 posts ] 

PatrickNeville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2010
Age:24
Posts: 1,136
Location: Scotland

05 Apr 2011, 12:47 am

Exploring the goal of attempting to discover what the higgs field really is and how the vacuum could determine the properties in areas with mass

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-vKh_jKX7Q[/youtube]


_________________
<Insert meaningful signature here> ;)


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age:78
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

05 Apr 2011, 3:31 am

PatrickNeville wrote:
Exploring the goal of attempting to discover what the higgs field really is and how the vacuum could determine the properties in areas with mass

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-vKh_jKX7Q[/youtube]


Interesting lecture.

It also shows the poverty of ordinary everyday language when applied to the unseen parts of reality. Without the math it is mostly babble-gab. Philosophy is dreck, and physics needs mathematics to make sense.

ruveyn



PatrickNeville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2010
Age:24
Posts: 1,136
Location: Scotland

05 Apr 2011, 1:12 pm

Philosophy and maths are both needed. Philosophy can often be, depending on how you interpret it what gives a scientist that clear headed picture of what actually makes sense in relation to reality and moment of genius. Maths is crucial to be able prove any potential insight.

Philosophy without observable evidence is just an idea.

Maths without philosophy can potentially, (but not necessarily) become a framework of calculations which are describing a non existent phenomena.


_________________
<Insert meaningful signature here> ;)


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age:78
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

05 Apr 2011, 1:55 pm

PatrickNeville wrote:
Philosophy and maths are both needed. Philosophy can often be, depending on how you interpret it what gives a scientist that clear headed picture of what actually makes sense in relation to reality and moment of genius. Maths is crucial to be able prove any potential insight.

Philosophy without observable evidence is just an idea.

Maths without philosophy can potentially, (but not necessarily) become a framework of calculations which are describing a non existent phenomena.


1. Philosophy is mostly babble and of little use. It has been an impediment to real science since the time of Plato and Aristotle.

2. Purely theoretical and formal math is a form of entertainment (for mathematicians, primarily) and mental masturbation. Most formal (theoretical math) is not intended to clarify physical reality. Strangely enough, some purely formal disciplines have later on turned out to be useful.

ruveyn



PatrickNeville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2010
Age:24
Posts: 1,136
Location: Scotland

05 Apr 2011, 2:37 pm

ruveyn wrote:
PatrickNeville wrote:
Philosophy and maths are both needed. Philosophy can often be, depending on how you interpret it what gives a scientist that clear headed picture of what actually makes sense in relation to reality and moment of genius. Maths is crucial to be able prove any potential insight.

Philosophy without observable evidence is just an idea.

Maths without philosophy can potentially, (but not necessarily) become a framework of calculations which are describing a non existent phenomena.


1. Philosophy is mostly babble and of little use. It has been an impediment to real science since the time of Plato and Aristotle.

2. Purely theoretical and formal math is a form of entertainment (for mathematicians, primarily) and mental masturbation. Most formal (theoretical math) is not intended to clarify physical reality. Strangely enough, some purely formal disciplines have later on turned out to be useful.

ruveyn


That is your interpreation of it. If I were to say you had a philosophy or to say anyone had a philosophy, I would say that it is using you common sense to judge whether the information available to you is rational. That is a totally acceptable interpretation of philosophy.

I was also making a general point that it possible for some areas of science to be founded in error then later need to be re-examined to make an existing model work or possibly be completely changed altogether. That would require insight. Insight which can be provided by maths.


_________________
<Insert meaningful signature here> ;)


PatrickNeville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2010
Age:24
Posts: 1,136
Location: Scotland

07 Apr 2011, 12:43 am

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2 ... tml?ref=hp

Possibility of some new kind of particle being detected, but also strong chances that it was a random fluke.


_________________
<Insert meaningful signature here> ;)