Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
Fri Jan 15, 2016, 07:24 AM Jan 2016

The 2 most dangerous numbers in the universe are threatening the end of physics

NOT MY HEADLINE............ I REPEAT NOT MY HEADLINE.

ANYWAY

A deeply disturbing and controversial line of thinking has emerged within the physics community.
It's the idea that we are reaching the absolute limit of what we can understand about the world around us through science.

"The next few years may tell us whether we'll be able to continue to increase our understanding of nature or whether maybe, for the first time in the history of science, we could be facing questions that we cannot answer," Harry Cliff, a particle physicist at the European Organization for Nuclear Research — better known as CERN — said during a recent TED talk in Geneva, Switzerland.

Equally frightening is the reason for this approaching limit, which Cliff says is because "the laws of physics forbid it."At the core of Cliff's argument are what he calls the two most dangerous numbers in the universe. These numbers are responsible for all the matter, structure, and life that we witness across the cosmos.

And if these two numbers were even slightly different, says Cliff, the universe would be an empty, lifeless place.

Dangerous No. 1: The strength of the Higgs field.............SNIP


Explanations in title

Dangerous No. 2: The strength of dark energy

Explanations in title


Anyway interesting read if you get beyond the hyperbole headline


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/two-most-dangerous-numbers-universe-194557366.html


Why its in yahoo finance in the first place ...... I got no clue.










15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The 2 most dangerous numbers in the universe are threatening the end of physics (Original Post) Ichingcarpenter Jan 2016 OP
How antrophocentric. DetlefK Jan 2016 #1
Life is a material phenomenon. rogerashton Jan 2016 #6
Anthropocentric rather means "human centered." Igel Jan 2016 #12
Well, "chemocentric" isn't a word. DetlefK Jan 2016 #13
Thanks, this IS interesting. djean111 Jan 2016 #2
Somebody's bucking for the Ig-Nobel Prize, I think. Proserpina Jan 2016 #3
I wonder if Lawrence Krauss bvf Jan 2016 #4
Dangerous numbers! That reminds me, why is 6 afraid of 7? Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #5
Because 7 8 9. n/t xocet Jan 2016 #8
9 is undead Javaman Jan 2016 #10
This message was self-deleted by its author Javaman Jan 2016 #9
My prediction would be the opposite. rogerashton Jan 2016 #7
Since 1969 anti-itillectionalism has ruled in schools. kickysnana Jan 2016 #11
The universe is very, very big. The human mind is very, very small. hunter Jan 2016 #14
The end of physics? BS! sakabatou Jan 2016 #15

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
1. How antrophocentric.
Fri Jan 15, 2016, 07:35 AM
Jan 2016

Life as we know it wouldn't exist. That doesn't mean there wouldn't be some other kind of life.

Igel

(35,300 posts)
12. Anthropocentric rather means "human centered."
Fri Jan 15, 2016, 09:06 PM
Jan 2016

It's saying that not only wouldn't there be humans, but spiders an bacteria and euglenas.

The sentence is as anthropocentric as it is arachnocentric, bacteriocentric, and euglena-centric.

Interpreting "life" as necessarily only including humans, well, now there's anthropocentric. (riposte!)

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
13. Well, "chemocentric" isn't a word.
Sat Jan 16, 2016, 03:08 PM
Jan 2016

Whatever these other life-forms would be, their biology would be different because the underlying chemistry would be different. But there's no shorthand word for that...

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
2. Thanks, this IS interesting.
Fri Jan 15, 2016, 07:43 AM
Jan 2016

Beats the hell out of my simplistic explanation to grandson that without the Higgs thing, we would all be just a part of molecule soup.
(No need to pick that apart, we laugh about it).

 

bvf

(6,604 posts)
4. I wonder if Lawrence Krauss
Fri Jan 15, 2016, 07:48 AM
Jan 2016

has weighed in on this, or David Deutsch.

Bookmarking.

(Yeah--Yahoo Finance?)

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #5)

rogerashton

(3,920 posts)
7. My prediction would be the opposite.
Fri Jan 15, 2016, 08:06 AM
Jan 2016

I'm thinking we will see a period of advances in physical theory more rapid than any period since the 1920's -- but it will be based on a new theory, quite different from either general relativity or quantum mechanics (but including them as special case approximations, as relativity includes Newtonian physics) and based on a new kind of mathematics.

kickysnana

(3,908 posts)
11. Since 1969 anti-itillectionalism has ruled in schools.
Fri Jan 15, 2016, 07:36 PM
Jan 2016

Yes we can understand almost anything, you just have to have the right people thinking and publishing. Many of them are not guerrilla-warriors needed to survive in corporate America or that can work under constant irrelevant stress with no acknowledgment or credit. I am not talking about rigorous academic review which is to be expected, but turning tricks for funding, politics etc.

That and any new idea first gets passed to the warriors to see if they can make a new and more horrible weapon before they look to see if there is any benefit to mankind.

I remember saying "I was born to brutally destroy all the brown people so be proud of me. Aren't I a spectacular human being?"

Somehow being human and being a successful American parted ways some time ago under unbridled capitalism.

hunter

(38,310 posts)
14. The universe is very, very big. The human mind is very, very small.
Sat Jan 16, 2016, 07:19 PM
Jan 2016

Even thousands of human physicists operating in perfect parallel processing mode are going to be blind to anything but the boldest outlines of reality. Even our most speculative explorations of reality are colored by our own evolution. Anything that doesn't matter to the propagation and survival of beings such as ourselves, beings made out of meat, all survivors, every one of us, by billions of years of natural selection, all these other aspects of the universe are essentially invisible and inaccessible to us.

Consider yourself. Every one of your ancestors, as far back as you wish to go in the story of life on earth, survived to reproduce.



Forget any lottery. You are a winner of the biggest lottery ever played.

But one consequence of this evolution is that we don't see the universe as it *IS* we only see the forces that most matter to our propagation as living beings. You are a larger mammal. Gravity can easily kill you. Elephants are even more aware of gravity than we are. Jumping is never an option for elephants. Jumping is death.



Anyone who doesn't look at the universe from that meaty perspective is considered a crackpot, and usually that assessment is correct. Yet I've met some brilliant mathematicians and physicists who are very clearly solidly grounded and celebrated in the realities of their chosen fields of study, who sometimes appear to be quite insane whenever they are pushing the limits of what is known, and what *CAN* be known by creatures such as ourselves.

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»The 2 most dangerous numb...