Large Hadron Collider

Higgs boson is the so called "god particle", basically a theorized particle that would "explain/connect" current theories concerning origin of mass.
This collider if powerful enough should answer the question if it exists or not.

What I find interesting is the research into darkmatter.

I love the theory and such, but I suck at math lol, so much for my science future.

Sanvean said:

What I find interesting is the research into darkmatter.

I agree 100%. Dark matter is what really drew me into paying attention to this in the first place, along with the possibility of learning much more about anti-matter and it's possible practical uses.

blackroseMD1 said:

On the other hand...you could come out on the other side of the black hole...maybe at Milliway's. If you do, I'll buy you a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster.

Not possible, a black hole only has a centre, there is no other side, unless of course, you use a time warp then anything is possible!

mitchell65 said:

Not possible, a black hole only has a centre, there is no other side, unless of course, you use a time warp then anything is possible!

Theoretically, it's not possible. However, science hasn't gotten to the point that they can say for certain that there isn't another side to a black hole. Without going into my own beliefs, we have no real evidence of anything when it comes to black holes and the width/depth/length/... of the universe.

jimbo45 said:

As an old Sceptical Engineer I want to be able to BUILD or DETECT something before I believe it exists.

Cheers
jimbo

I can completely understand that. Seeing is believing, as the saying goes. Which kind of goes along with the point that I was making...mitchell65 said that it was impossible to go out the other side of a black hole because a black hole only has a center. My question is: Who has gone in and confirmed that as absolute fact? No one. Therefore, as seeing is believing, I choose not to believe that there can't be an alternate universe/dimension/whatever on the other side of a black hole.

You mentioned the maximum observational view of the universe. That is the furthest that we know of. In our fallible opinion, the universe is ~14 billion years old. We can't prove that it isn't older than that, as of now. There is always the chance that the universe is billions of years older than we think, and that this universe is just a microcosm inside a much larger universe.

Anyway...I've been up for 42 hours at this point doing research, and my bed is calling to me very much. Thanks for the interesting conversation. :)

Hi Jimbo
I think we need to always use the term "Observable Universe" rather than just "Universe". It could be argued that "Our Observable Universe" is an even better phrase to use. But isn't that just the whole joy of the subject that lends itself to so many differing interpretations of the same thing. The term "dark matter" was coined as it best described the undescribable. The gravitation effects within the "OU" was such that it suggested that there was much more mass within the OU than first thought. The calculated number of galaxies only amounted to about 5%, I think it was, of the mass that was needed to produce the detected gravitational effect. So "Dark matter" was invented.
When Jimbo says "As an old Sceptical Engineer I want to be able to BUILD or DETECT something before I believe it exists"
That's fine until you start looking at the large and small ends of the Universe. The normal laws of physics no longer obtain when you get deep into Quantum Mechanics and as for the so called "Arrow of Time" no laws at all exist.
In science we must always be prepared to make assumtions and then try to prove or disprove them. That's how Neptune was discovered by the Cornishman John Couch Adams , he was studying an unusual gravitational pull on the planet Uranus and worked out the theory that there was an unknown body exerting the pull. By mathmatics he worked out where the object should be and then went on to prove his theory by actually observing Neptune.
So there's the great advantage of this subject, we can all hold different views but at the same time agree to disagree with each other. The one thing to remember is we MUST all respect other viewpoints as no matter how bizarre the view seems to be we know so little of the subject that anything is possible.

Goodnight Blackrose and thanks for your interesting input!

mitchell65 said:

Hi Jimbo
I think we need to always use the term "Observable Universe" rather than just "Universe". It could be argued that "Our Observable Universe" is an even better phrase to use. But isn't that just the whole joy of the subject that lends itself to so many differing interpretations of the same thing. The term "dark matter" was coined as it best described the undescribable. The gravitation effects within the "OU" was such that it suggested that there was much more mass within the OU than first thought. The calculated number of galaxies only amounted to about 5%, I think it was, of the mass that was needed to produce the detected gravitational effect. So "Dark matter" was invented.
When Jimbo says "As an old Sceptical Engineer I want to be able to BUILD or DETECT something before I believe it exists"
That's fine until you start looking at the large and small ends of the Universe. The normal laws of physics no longer obtain when you get deep into Quantum Mechanics and as for the so called "Arrow of Time" no laws at all exist.
In science we must always be prepared to make assumtions and then try to prove or disprove them. That's how Neptune was discovered by the Cornishman John Couch Adams , he was studying an unusual gravitational pull on the planet Uranus and worked out the theory that there was an unknown body exerting the pull. By mathmatics he worked out where the object should be and then went on to prove his theory by actually observing Neptune.
So there's the great advantage of this subject, we can all hold different views but at the same time agree to disagree with each other. The one thing to remember is we MUST all respect other viewpoints as no matter how bizarre the view seems to be we know so little of the subject that anything is possible.

Well said Mitchell. When it comes to our observable universe, I think the agree to disagree thing is the best idea, seeing as how we don't have the ability to go out and prove most of the points we are making. Theories are what make science interesting.