Unknown theories

One of the most amazing things in physics is the amount of different theories that arise. Each is just (well usually) as elegant as the previous and explains observational results.

As you might know, after a bumpy start the LHC began pumping out data for the first time a few months ago. One of the main goals of the research at the massive particle accelerator is to catch a glimpse of the elusive Higgs Boson. This (or I might have to say these) particle(s) is supposed to be responsible for the mass of every particle that has the privilege of having mass. The idea is that 'popular' particles will attract more of the Higgs and as such have a higher mass (if you have ever been to a physics talk on the subject, undoubtedly you would have seen the picture on the top right where a politician is being swarmed by a group of reporters and been slowed down on his way to the other side of the room -- to do whatever it is politicians do on the other side of the room). The current Standard Model of Physics is quite dependent on the Higgs and predicts that there is only one Higgs particle. The slightest change to the Higgs could mean revision of the model -- not that there is anything wrong with that just means...well.. we were wrong, but that would not be the first time.

Now before any results from CERN of finding something close to the 'God' particle, there have been a few indications of a slight change in the theory behind the Higgs. This started off with the Higgs possibly being lighter, which would make the detection more difficult. Now the idea has expanded to having five different Higgs particles -- now talk about creating particle out of thin air.

It is amazing theories that support our idea of the universe -- in this case the very structure of it -- can change so dramatically so quickly. As Fermi labs completes its final push to look for the mass giving particle, the LHC should start shedding some light on all of these theories -- and who know what other ones. Now to paint an obscene amount of walls.

-Mr. V
__________
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." ~Einstein

Scientific mind; Artistic soul

Not too long ago I had someone tell me that ‘Scientists are boring’ and it is those that study the arts are the ones that bring a spark to life. This statement has been nagging at me for quite a while now and I decided to answer it for myself. I really think that, like many other things, this comes down to balance.

There is no point denying that art brings out one’s creativity but I must ask: When you think of a scientist what do you think? A strict, rigid, unbending mind? Someone who is guided by laws and nothing more? Yet, to be a good scientist there has to be a spark of passion, innovation and most importantly imagination (and if you do not believe me all you really have to do is listen to Richard Feynman and you might be glued to the computer for an hour). Science has always been associated with being a very clinical job, where you must present your evidence without prejudice, and this is quite true but there is a flip side to the coin. Try to imagine the flow of electrons, the movement of molecules, the formation of the universe, the rapid chemistry of a cell, the evolution from primate to human. These are all things which sprouted from science. Each and everyone of these broke convention, posed new questions, unlocked a segment of our universe and now I ask 'what could be more thrilling?' Clearly, Science is in itself an art.

The same questions can be asked but taking a look at artists. Do they operate in a void of laws? Do they simply obscure our ideas of nature? but what is our idea of nature? These laws need to be pushed and new possibilities explored. Much like science, the arts looks at us, at our origin, and at the definitions of our surroundings. The approaches taken to answer these questions are quite different. Arts allow the incorporation of humanity into the universe, while the sciences provide the definition for the universe.

It seems that the two are part of a whole, and examples are not hard to come by. History is filled with scientists who melded the two together(from Ptolemy to Aristotle to da Vinci -- and yes even Feynman ). Yet, as we move into the future we seem to have separated these subjects into very distinct division (sometimes one holding prejudice against the other -- I won't deny the slight jab here and there). This divide comes from the fact that, like many subjects, specialization is taking over. With the amount of information out there, it is difficult to be able to study all of it and science has become a key player in the development of new technologies and the advancement of our knowledge. Yet, it is crucial to understand that a synergy, personal and societal, between the arts and the sciences is required.

The leaps forward in science require an ethical perspective, someone to interpret that consequences that would be imparted onto society. Many scientist say that science is self correcting, but those who do not know science must be able to account for implication of its use. All you really have to do is take a look at a small oil puddle making big headlines to understand. People expect science to have all the answers but there are limitations to what can be done and people need to listen. There are many powerful tools at out disposal for brining this pair together and a prime example is The Symphony of Science . Ultimately, science must derive from the arts and the arts must derive from science ( Wolfram does not seem to agree).

-Mr. V
__________

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." ~Einstein

Beginning

Well... I guess here goes nothing. I have been telling myself to start one of these blogs for quite a while and I guess this is the day.

One might ask 'what is the reason for making this blog?'. Well the purpose of this is to develop ideas about life, philosophy, society, science, nature -- our Universe and our place in it. After all you can sit there all day and have a deep conversation with yourself but perhaps it might not be too bad of an idea to bounce some of those thoughts around.

I am however unsure where to start (I have always found that the first words are usually the hardest to pick). I guess a little bit about me. I am somewhat of an aspiring theoretical physicist and as a consequence I spend a good deal of my day wondering about our place in the Cosmos. I tend to have a strong opinion about many things and expressing them has never been too big of a problem --really this has never gotten me into any trouble (ehem). I believe that everyone should have a chance to have their opinion heard but not at the expense of others. With my ideals and my love for science I do not leave much room for religion -- at least not organized religion-- yet I know there are certain things I know we cannot explain and will never be able to. This leaves room for something (I have yet to find and appropriate name for this something; a presence, a being, mother nature?) but this something is far from omnipotent or micromanaging. Yet I am going off on a tangent and will save that discussion for another time.

Now since this is the first post for this Blog, I thought it appropriate to mention something about the name. Everyday we take so many things for granted, and it is easy to do so with all of the technology available at our fingertips. I am not talking about our computers, cellphones, mp3 players and so much more. I am talking about the simpler things around us, the ones that we use unconsciously and without even giving a thought as to how they work or where they come from. That is out pens, pencils, kettles, toothbrushes -- next time you use any of these try to think of exactly how they work (this is a very interesting hobby I have developed). Yet, nothing is taken advantage of more than our clocks. These instruments began as simple sun dials and developed into the complex single ion experiments of today. I have recently started working in a measuring institute and found myself a little taken aback at how little I knew about how our clocks work and the complexity that goes into it (and I am not talking about the cesium ion clock beating away in the other room). Our little time keepers have gone from the large instruments -- the grandfather clocks that ticked away the seconds with their momentous pendulums-- to the precise digital instruments of today. Our world is based on their movement, the precision of a second, the flow of time. This relative objective that is so intertwined in physics defines our lives and allows us to function -- imagine having 6 billion people all on different time zones with different definitions for seconds, minutes, hours, days -- I think you get the point. So long as we exist the pendulum will beat -- perpetually.

-Mr. V

___________________________________________________________________________

~Si nous n'avions point de défauts, nous ne prendrions pas tant de plaisir à en remarquer dans les autres.

-La Rochefoucauld