PassedOut Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 How many of you know what Axioms are, why they are needed, and who it is developing them?Every educated person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 They are in the Bible, they are needed as otherwise we would be committing genocide without divine mandate and we can't have that, and no one with out limited existence of sinful depravity can develop/modify them. God's divine, eternal Word created them the moment he and Jesus said 'Let there be light!' what did I win? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 I was watching this with amusement. Becky, in the other room, was half listening: "What are you watching? You don't watch stuff like that." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
32519 Posted March 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 gwnn, PassedOut, Vampyr and mikeh Come an explain to us in layman's term why the Standard Model was abandoned in favour of the BBT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Both the Standard Model and the Big Bang Theory are the most accurate ways known to describe the observations they concern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 How many of you know what Axioms are, why they are needed, and who it is developing them? An Australian rock band from the 1960's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 How many of you know what Axioms are, why they are needed, and who it is developing them?32519 Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 gwnn, PassedOut, Vampyr and mikeh Come an explain to us in layman's term why the Standard Model was abandoned in favour of the BBT.It was not abandoned. They are not rival theories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
32519 Posted March 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 I have just found myself a new favourite theory! Check this one out, The Theory of Everything, or ToE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Here is my theory of everything: Any theory that explains everything is wrong. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 I have just found myself a new favourite theory! Check this one out, The Theory of Everything, or ToE.Ummm... there is no need to check it out, because everyone else has already heard about it. It would be so exciting watching you discover science, except for the fact that you then inexplicably hate everything you learn about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
32519 Posted March 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Seems like our fancy theorists have lined up work for themselves for the next 1,000 years. They have compiled this list to keep themselves in a job, List of unsolved problems in physics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Seems like our fancy theorists have lined up work for themselves for the next 1,000 years. They have compiled this list to keep themselves in a job, List of unsolved problems in physics. Given an arbitrary compact gauge group, does a non-trivial quantum Yang–Mills theory with a finite mass gap exist? This problem is also listed as one of the Millennium Prize Problems in mathematics. I was just asking Becky about this possibility this morning. She was busy fixing toast and eggs, but promised to work it out later today. I'll get back to you on this. Actually I like the list. Baryon asymmetry is an old one of course. I seem to recall philosophical discussions about this as a teenager. I think we decided that there must be a parallel universe where anti-particles are dominant. Presumably they are not called anti-particles in that universe. My classmates suggested I shut up about this crap if I wanted to make it home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Seems like our fancy theorists have lined up work for themselves for the next 1,000 years. They have compiled this list to keep themselves in a job, List of unsolved problems in physics.Are there any unsolved problems with the Bible, too, perchance? This is a relatively short list: http://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html The difference being that the physicists never claimed that their papers are the perfect word of the creator of the universe, nor do they claim that it the current state of theory is complete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Seems like our fancy theorists have lined up work for themselves for the next 1,000 years. They have compiled this list to keep themselves in a job, List of unsolved problems in physics. Thanks for the link; I didn't know about some of these. Exciting stuff! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Seems like our fancy theorists have lined up work for themselves for the next 1,000 years. They have compiled this list to keep themselves in a job, List of unsolved problems in physics. thanks for the link Not sure about 1000 years but maybe at least until 2050 and the "Singularity". :) "The Singularity. The event when the rate of technological change becomes human-surpassing, just as the advent of human civilization a few millenia ago surpassed the comprehension of non-human creatures. So when will this event happen? There is a great deal of speculation on the 'what' of the Singularity, whether it will create a utopia for humans, cause the extinction of humans, or some outcome in between. Versions of optimism (Star Trek) and pessimism (The Matrix, Terminator) all become fashionable at some point. No one can predict this reliably, because the very definition of the singularity itself precludes such prediction. Given the accelerating nature of technological change, it is just as hard to predict the world of 2050 from 2009, as it would have been to predict 2009 from, say, 1200 AD. So our topic today is not going to be about the 'what', but rather the 'when' of the Singularity. " http://www.singularity2050.com/the_singularity/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
32519 Posted March 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 Gwnn, PassedOut, mikeh and Vampyr Kindly explain to us in layman’s terms why you guys needed to create all these Axioms in the first place. Then you went further by creating Logical Axioms and Non-logical Axioms. Why was it necessary to create these two distinct groups? How about telling us which of all your theories contain the Logical Axioms, and which contain the Non-Logical Axioms. What would really fascinate all of us is: Which of all these theories contain both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 Gwnn, PassedOut, mikeh and Vampyr Kindly explain to us in layman’s terms why you guys needed to create all these Axioms in the first place. Then you went further by creating Logical Axioms and Non-logical Axioms. Why was it necessary to create these two distinct groups? How about telling us which of all your theories contain the Logical Axioms, and which contain the Non-Logical Axioms. What would really fascinate all of us is: Which of all these theories contain both. Why do you assume that other people want to do your research? If you are interested in these questions, do your own reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
32519 Posted March 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 Here is a List of Theoretical Physicists who are recognised in Theoretical Physics. Here is an Academic Genealogy of Theoretical Physicists. You need to read this. These are the guys who had a Doctoral Advisor helping them develop these theories (sorry, thesis). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 Here is a List of Theoretical Physicists who are recognised in Theoretical Physics.Actually, that is a Wikipedia article. There is no single official list of recognition of theoretical physicists evil conspiratory heretics. There is a Nobel prize for evil, deluded heresy but that is just a decision made by a committee. What is worse, they also often award it to experimental black magic, not only for theory. Dan Schechtman, zionist alchemist of the year 2011, said that experimentalists are always the real conspirators, not theorists. In unrelated news, do you actually read the Wikipedia articles you link here? I know that you very rarely read the posts on these forums, especially the ones addressed to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
32519 Posted March 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 This pursuit of madness started with the Tevatron which was completed in 1983 at a cost of $120 million and significant upgrade investments were made in 1983–2011. The Tevatron ceased operations on 30 September 2011, due to budget cuts and because of the completion of the LHC, which began operations in early 2010 and was far more powerful. And still they only think they found the Higgs-Boson! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
32519 Posted March 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 People, this madness had many predecessors before the LHC. Here are some that I managed to dig up – Bevatron, which began operating in 1954, has reached the end of its life. The demolition of the Bevatron began in 2009 and was scheduled for completion in 2011.Tevatron (see my previous post).Superconducting Super Collider was under construction when the project was officially cancelled on 21 October 1993 due to budget problems after $2 billion had been spent.DESY is a national research centre in Germany which still operates. The research centre has an annual budget around € 192 million.UNK Proton Accelerator was Russia’s foray into this madness as well. Seems like this came to an end in 1996 after the breaking up of the Soviet Union. Now we have the LHC and still no progress has been made while the cost keeps on mounting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 Gwnn, PassedOut, mikeh and Vampyr Kindly explain to us in layman's terms why you guys needed to create all these Axioms in the first place. Then you went further by creating Logical Axioms and Non-logical Axioms. Why was it necessary to create these two distinct groups? How about telling us which of all your theories contain the Logical Axioms, and which contain the Non-Logical Axioms. What would really fascinate all of us is: Which of all these theories contain both. My experience has been that when people begin with "Kindly explain" they really are not remotely interested in an explanation. But for anyone who is, it goes something like this: The axiomatic approach has proved to be a very effective way of advancing knowledge. Partly it is a good way of dividing up work. We start by saying "Let's assume so and so and see what the logical consequences are". Sometimes the logical consequences are in contradiction to observations and we scratch the axioms and search for others. In other cases, we find that the axioms imply some previously unobserved phenomenon. We search to see if we can find this phenonemon, and if we do we regard it as supporting evidence for the axiomatic system. If we don't find it then we have to judge whether we have not looked hard enough, or cleverly enough, or whether the axiomatic basis is wrong. All in all, this leads to the advancement of knowledge. As to logical and non-logical axioms, this is no big deal. Personally, I had never heard of the distinction but I can see why a philosopher would divide these up as indicated in the article. My guess is that most mathematicians, physicists, biologists, etc happily pursue their scientific aims without giving this much thought. People think in this axiomatic way all the time. Someone tells us a story of what happened. We say, or think, "If I believe that then I also have to believe this other thing which appears to follow logically from what he said". Then we decide, logically analyzing the consequences of what we are asked to believe, whether we should believe it. Science is the same, on a much grander scale. I have focused on real world interactions with axioms here. In mathematics it's a bit (but not all that much) different. For example, there are axioms for finite geometries (plural intended). This is not because mathematicians are thinking that the universe might consist of only 37 points. Rather it happens that sometimes there are 37 objects in a problem and these objects are inter-related in a somewhat geometric fashion. So we haul out a study of finte geometry to see what it has to say. In cases like this, it's just a matter of not being too literal minded in the use of words like "geometry". We are not attempting to metry the geo. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted March 23, 2014 Report Share Posted March 23, 2014 If you want to cancel out all of the progress made by LHC by vacuous, ignorant posts, you're gonna need a bit more effort than that, 32519. While you are here reposting "no progress" over and over, the LHC is actually producing valuable scientific knowledge. On this site: https://lpcc.web.cern.ch/lpcc/index.php?page=lhc-articles I count 210 publications in the last 12 months. Maybe you could write a short explanation (let's say, about 100 words, like a scientific abstract) on each of the 210 explaining why none of them constitutes progress? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.