Tag Archives: quantum physics

I Want Higgs Contact!

I was trying to keep up with the physics4me feed when I came across an article that made me sad: Higgs boson signals fade at Large Hadron Collider. It’s not unexpected, but for a while there the news was pretty exciting. It seemed like maybe we’d finally found the Higgs.

That I felt sad made me realize hope much I was hoping for a Higgs. A Higgs Contact.

I said a while ago that I wanted Alien Contact. Of course, that does have the potential to go badly for us,… but it might not. It would be one of those life is never the same again major events. Not that plenty of major events haven’t happened in our various life times. We’ve walked on the moon, knocked down the Berlin wall and invented reality TV (and the iPhone).

Alien contact would be sudden and surprising. One minute it’s business as usual and the next, bam, alien contact. And that’s likely to change some of our views; our technical or religious views for example. Aliens might have warp drive. Or they might have religions of their own. What if we meet aliens, and they turn out to all be Buddhists?

But forget aliens. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Planck and Einstein also changed our views of reality. Not in the extreme way aliens would, but they (and many others) changed how we understood our reality. Those five, in particular, are associated with key discoveries that are a bit like the landings of a stair. Important landings regarding space, time, motion and energy.

And up that stair we (hope to) find the Higgs.

I remember when they found conclusive evidence of the Top quark. That was a big deal to me. The last quark found! By then it appeared there were just three families, so we had the whole set of fermions.

It was the bosons that were a bitch. First there’s the putative graviton. You need gravitons to mediate the gravitational force (if gravity is an actual force). And I hope they never do find gravitons. I don’t want gravity to be a force. I want Einstein to have been right: gravity is a consequence of how mass warps spacetime. I want gravity to be a “sliding down” the fabric of the cosmos. General Relativity makes sense to me; quantum physics is just plain goofy and obviously in need of some sort of revision.

(click to embiggen)

Finding the Higgs as predicted strengthens the standard model of quantum physics. Once again we find that it’s a wonderful, hugely useful description of reality. It can’t possibly be completely right—in fact it may be completely wrong—but it works beautifully. Finding more evidence that the standard model works isn’t big news, even if finding the long-sought Higgs is kind of a big deal for physics geeks.

Finding the standard model definitely wrong in some fashion, that would be huge. If the Higgs just fails to show up in any place the model says it should, that would be a blow, but not a fatal one. The model is sort of guessing about where the Higgs might be anyway; perhaps some part of that assumption is wrong. And there is the Higgs mechanism that is the actual thing behind the idea of how (some) particles gain mass. The mechanism doesn’t require the boson, so failing to find it just means things work differently.

But finding a clear violation of a standard model rule would be huge. It would demonstrate that the model has to be changed, that no matter how well it works, we’ve gotten it wrong. It might mean we need to focus on String Theory or Loop Quantum Gravity or some other model.

Of course, finding a violation in General Relativity would also be a huge deal. That’s a topic for a later article, but GR is another model of reality that works very well. It, too, has survived many challenges unscathed.

In fact, it’s such an important understanding of reality that GPS depends on it to work correctly. The mass of the earth warps spacetime enough that GPS devices must compensate for the effect that has on the satellite signals!

But it conflicts with that standard model of quantum physics.

One of them has to be wrong (at least a little).

Finding the Higgs won’t move that along one way or the other. But it would still be really cool to find one of the few remaining standard particles.

So I want Higgs Contact.


Existence and Consciousness

My recent post about how the Big Bang and “Let there be Light” seem equally fantastic to me triggered an interesting comment from a reader. A detailed response requires more elbow room than a comment allows, so here’s a follow-up article instead.

One of the points involved that our scientific ideas, no matter how inaccurate they may turn out to be, are at least based on evidence. And to the credit of science, when we recognize errors in our interpretation of the evidence, science changes to accommodate the new interpretation. This has been, as I mentioned in that post, hugely successful. One of the failures of our spiritual metaphysics is that it clings to frameworks defined thousands of years ago and often stubbornly refuses to accommodate new information.

However the idea that there is no evidence for the existence of God(s) seems wrong to me. There is the fact that the universe exists and the fact that we recognize and are aware of its existence. Existence and consciousness are daily experiences for us all, and they beg for some explanation. Yet for all its progress, science hasn’t answered those questions. One can argue it hasn’t even made much progress towards an answer. It has some guesses, but the more you study those guesses, the more you realize they are filled with assumptions (at least in the case of the Big Bang).

Continue reading


Big Bang? Let there be Light?

In an earlier post, I wrote that:

The problem for any honest theist is,
“What if it isn’t true?”
The problem for any honest atheist is,
“What if it is true?”

Ultimately both represent ways of looking at the universe. There is no factual conclusion, no proof, about either one; both are matters of faith and belief.  Science can argue all it wants that the Logic and Scientific Method is superior to believing in an ineffable reality, but given all we do know and all we don’t know, in the end it is still just a worldview.

Make no mistake. I am far more a scientist than a theist. (And to the extent I’m a theist, I’m far more a deist than theist, which means I can accept the idea of a Creator (or Creators), but I’m not too sure about the Presence of a Daily Hand. Specifically, I very much doubt that prayer is other than a form of personal meditation; I very much doubt Anyone is Listening.)

I do think Logic and the Scientific Method are far superior…

For some things. For many things. For many, many things.

But not for every thing.

It is a Yin to the Yang of what for now let’s just call meta-reality.

That science clearly works is amply demonstrated in everything from ships to radio to HD TV to robots on Mars. Math, a big part of science and logic, clearly also works (for many things, but not every thing).

Math describes so many aspects of life so well that it’s spooky. It forces the Plato and Aristotle distinction: Does math make reality; or did we just invent it so it describes reality.

Math is funny due to infinity (as in counting to) and infinite things (like how the digits of pi go on forever). The idea of an infinite collection of things, like hotel rooms, creates paradoxes, which suggests math is made up. And the simple ratio between a circle’s radius and rim creates a magic number that no math formula completely describes.

And yet, various maths do describe how reality behaves in eerily accurate fashion. The behavior of light, the path of a cannon ball, waves on the water; math describes them wonderfully well. Math is fascinating and cool, but I’ll leave that for another article.

The more I learn about the physics behind the Big Bang, the more it sounds just as fantastic as, “Let there be Light.” Or whatever world-creation myth or universe theory you prefer.  They all sound equally preposterous and equally fantastic to me. An age-old philosophical conundrum, “Brain in a Jar,” points out that it’s almost impossible to tell if this is the Matrix, Memorex or Reality.

It may sound preposterous that the universe was created as a conscious act of some kind by an incredibly powerful mind, but consider exactly what the Big Bang is.

Quantum physics has a well-established principle, called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It’s a law of physics, and it says that the more you narrow down certain aspects of reality, the more other aspects become not narrowed down. In fact, when you really crank on the narrowing down of one, the other property jumps all over the place. Seriously all over the place.

Two of these see-saw properties are space and energy. The more you narrow down space to a point, the more the energy value of that point jumps all over the place. If you narrow space down to a nearly infinitesimally small point, the energy can vary so much that it is statistically possible for it to be enough to make a Big Bang.

In this view, everything—you, the city around you, the earth, the sun, all the stars, all the galaxies, everything—is the result of a (wildly improbable, but possible) energy fluctuation of an infinitely small point. Einstein taught us that energy and matter are but two sides of one coin, so where you have a huge amount of energy, you can have a huge amount of matter. A whole universe of matter.

A question that occurs to me is that, against what background did this take place?  If spacetime was created by the Big Bang, if our laws of physics were created by the Big Bang, by what laws of physics, and in what environment, did the Big Bang occur?  If the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applies to physics in our spacetime, does it equally apply to the non-spacetime before the Bang?

So take your pick. Math simulation, Matrix machines, created by God(s), quantum fluctuation, turtles all the way down.  They’re all preposterous; they’re all fantastic.

Believe anything that suits you, that seems right, but be honest that it might be something else.  No matter what you think it is; it might be something else.

Good general principle in life, actually.


Sideband #19: LHC

The previous article contains a bit of doggerel I wrote as an informal writing assignment on a current events/blogging site I inhabited for a while a few years back. One of the other regulars, sometimes held online “parties” complete with musical playlists (suggested YouTube and other musical links) and multiple, simultaneous conversations. Basically a kick off article followed by a very long, branching tree of comments.

We all had to refresh the article a lot to see the new comments, but it was fun.  Especially as the evening wore on and some of us got a bit tipsy. (All from the safety of our homes, I point out. Virtual online parties: no one drives home!)

Anyway, in the course of one such evening, the “poem” below popped out of my mind. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN was just beginning its testing, and the “it’ll destroy us all” fervor was at its peak.

You probably need a bit of background in sub-atomic physics to completely get the poem below. Word choice, word position, line count and syllable count are all part of the poem. As a reference hint, there are three families of matter, each contains two quarks (six quarks total). And hadrons are particles made of quarks.  That’s all the clues you get.

Here’s the poem:

In honor of the LHC at CERN bringing about the end of the universe…

Little Hadronic Couplets

Up ’til now we’ve not gone,
Down into a black hole.
They say, last time’s a Charm,
And BOOM, now we’re all Strange.
Bottom line’s no Beauty,
Truth was once at the Top

If you’re deeply concerned about the LHC destroying us all, you can check this link:

Has the Large Hadron Collider Destroyed the World, Yet?

And if you’re genuinely concerned, don’t be… nothing can go worng…


Sideband #9: Analog vs Digital

In earlier Sidebands I have tried, as our English teachers used to say, to “compare and contrast” related pairs of concepts that are sometimes mistakenly conflated. The first pair, Truth and Facts, are similar enough to make distinctions between them debatable.  Even the language can twist you up once you start talking about true facts and false facts.  The next two pairs, Good vs Like and Ignorant vs Stupid, are well-defined and distinct.

In all three cases, there are similarities and differences (hence “compare and contrast”), but a key difference between those and the current topic, Analog vs Digital, is that none of them are really opposite pairs. There is no Yin and Yang aspect to them; one does not exclude the other. I’ve already mentioned true facts. Something can be both good and liked (or neither). Someone can be both ignorant and stupid (being neither is both good and likeable).

Not so with analog and digital. They are Yin and Yang pairs; one excludes the other. Although, as you’ll see, something can have both aspects depending on how you look at it. Usually depending on how closely you look at it. And if you recall the Yin/Yang discussion, analog and digital are opposing pairs, not “cup” pairs. They are truly opposing concepts; one is not the absence of the other.

Simple stated: analog is a ramp, digital is a stair.

A ramp takes you up (or down) smoothly. If you roll a wheelbarrow up (or down) a ramp, it rolls smoothly, and you can stop at any point. A stair takes you up (or down) in steps. If you try to take the same wheelbarrow up (or down) a stair, it bumps from step to step. You can try to stop it between steps, but it invariably lands on one step or the other.

(And yes, I know you can forcibly hold it in place, the wheel hovering between steps, but that muddies the metaphor. Besides, your arms will tire, you’ll drop the thing and it’ll go bashing down the steps, spilling its load, maybe injuring someone and creating a lawsuit. See what you’ve started?)

The key here is the smoothness of the ramp compared to the distinct levels of the steps. When something is said to be analog it has that same smoothness. It can take on any value from high to low. Take light for example. It can be any brightness (or dimness). Many of us have light dimmers that allow us to select the level of desired brightness. Compare that to a light switch, which allows only off or on. An important consideration here is it is the switch that makes the light digital in nature; light itself is analog.

Temperature is another good example. Although we measure temperature in steps, called degrees, temperature itself is an analog quantity. We just round off the value to the nearest degree. And degrees are close enough that we generally don’t see much difference between 66 and 67 degrees (but consider the worried parent stressing over a child’s 100.2 degree fever).

Distance is another analog quality we measure off in units: millimeters, feet, yards, miles, light years. But two things can be any distance apart. It all depends on how closely you want to measure them. The same can be said for pressure, weight, speed or musical pitch. We measure them in units, but they exist as smooth qualities.

Generally speaking, our world is analog. It is only when we measure it, talk about it, that we mark it off in units.

There is such a thing as an analog computer, but most computers—at least the ones you think of as computers—are digital. There are some technical reasons for this, but it boils down to being the same reason we mark the analog real world off in units: it allows us (and them) to talk about light, temperature, pressure, and so forth.

A ramp is not a stair, and a stair is not a ramp, but both take you up and down. That’s what makes them Yin/Yang opposites. One excludes the other despite having related functions. (Recall two other such pairs: up and down. Moving up excludes moving down but both change your altitude.)

But what if you stand far enough away from a stair that you can’t see the individual steps? That stair looks like a ramp.  Or what if you make a ramp with tiny steps too small to be seen without a magnifying glass? That ramp is actually a stair. In both cases you simply can’t see the steps.

It turns out the real world is like that, too. Quantum physics is the discovery that the real world is made of tiny steps. Despite our everyday experience, reality turns out to be digital. Any ramp, is made of atoms, which are extremely tiny steps (far too small to be seen with any magnifying glass). The atoms are also made of much smaller bits, called sub-atomic particles.

Even light, temperature, pressure and pitch turn out to be quantized. That is, they also consist of tiny steps. For example, you may have heard of photons. Those are the steps that make up light. It is harder, and very technical, to describe how temperature, pressure and pitch (let alone distance and speed) are also quantized. For now take my word for it that they are.

The real world… looks analog to us, but it’s really digital if you look closely enough.

I’ll leave you with this:Imagine an orange. Now make the orange bigger and bigger until it’s the size of the whole earth. If you did that, the atoms in the orange would be the size of cherries.

Try to imagine the whole earth made of cherries. Think about how many cherries it would take to make your house, your town, your state, your country, the whole earth including the seas, the mountains, everything made of cherries. (Yes, we’re talking about gazillions of them.)

That’s the scale we’re talking about with atoms:  Orange → Earth; Atoms → Cherries.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 369 other followers