By absolutely NO means is this anything new. This is being done world wide all over the place. In fact, with 2,000 dollars and a couple hundred collective hours, anybody could make them easily.
Before I switched majors from physics to CIS, I was planning on building one just as an experience buffer. It's extremely, extremely friggin' simple.
As if there's something wrong with the multiverse theory? The theory itself isn't hard at all to understand, and it doesn't even need string theory as a backbone of proof. The theory is relatively simple. There's three theories that I can think of that back up the multiverse theory, two of them which I completely disagree with. One is the brane theory, another being the idea that every quantum reaction creates its own universe. But there's another one that sounds the most plausible of the three. Back when inflation was evaporating just a couple moments after the big bang started, there were still parts of false vacuum that would decay, but they wouldn't decay completely. When it gets to a point where there's a field of false vacuum small enough, that part will literally shred itself from the universe (think of it like a droplet of water coming out of a faucet) and assuming that it has enough energy, it can actually create its own universe in the same way ours was.
It really isn't that complicated of a theory, and it's very aggravating when you hear common-folk complain that our physicists are on shrooms or what have you.
The anthropic principle is one of Creationists' favorite argument for the 'proof' of the existence of god. It is one of the most annoying, under-the-belt argument that has absolutely no actual bearing on anything whatsoever, but philosophers like Dinesh D'Souza play with it like a flute.
With studies like this, that argument is useless. It shows that the philosophers who use this argument are just blowing steam out of their pompous asses without any actual research. I really wish that I could see the faces on the folks who put this idea in to print, who are now making a fortune off of their hog-wash book.
What's even sadder, is that people will still use this argument, even though this research proves that it's near-completely invalid. I'm glad that somebody actually went forward and put work into this, though.
The short answer is this: according to the standard model, there are several different energy ranges that the higgs boson could possibly be in. I can't remember what the numbers are off hand, but I know that the Higg's boson energy is either small (from what they're trying to prove here), large - what LHC is trying to get at, and the holy-mother-of-god high. The latter would take an accelerator about the size of the Milky Way Galaxy to get to those energies using the same methods that we use in modern accelerators.
Like the first post said; nothing to see here, move along.
From what I can tell, peoplesoft is an unorganized pile of crap.
Because of peoplesoft, I'm listed in my company's payroll as the "Vice President of Communications". Hefty title, eh?
They can't find where the problem is, though. For four weeks, they were giving me a full-time paycheck instead of the part-time that I was doing. It took them about a week to find and fix that problem.
It's always a nice conversation starter, though.
Slashdot Mirror
By absolutely NO means is this anything new. This is being done world wide all over the place. In fact, with 2,000 dollars and a couple hundred collective hours, anybody could make them easily.
Before I switched majors from physics to CIS, I was planning on building one just as an experience buffer. It's extremely, extremely friggin' simple.
http://brian-mcdermott.com/fusion_is_easy.htm
As if there's something wrong with the multiverse theory? The theory itself isn't hard at all to understand, and it doesn't even need string theory as a backbone of proof. The theory is relatively simple. There's three theories that I can think of that back up the multiverse theory, two of them which I completely disagree with. One is the brane theory, another being the idea that every quantum reaction creates its own universe. But there's another one that sounds the most plausible of the three. Back when inflation was evaporating just a couple moments after the big bang started, there were still parts of false vacuum that would decay, but they wouldn't decay completely. When it gets to a point where there's a field of false vacuum small enough, that part will literally shred itself from the universe (think of it like a droplet of water coming out of a faucet) and assuming that it has enough energy, it can actually create its own universe in the same way ours was.
It really isn't that complicated of a theory, and it's very aggravating when you hear common-folk complain that our physicists are on shrooms or what have you.
With studies like this, that argument is useless. It shows that the philosophers who use this argument are just blowing steam out of their pompous asses without any actual research. I really wish that I could see the faces on the folks who put this idea in to print, who are now making a fortune off of their hog-wash book.
What's even sadder, is that people will still use this argument, even though this research proves that it's near-completely invalid. I'm glad that somebody actually went forward and put work into this, though.
The short answer is this: according to the standard model, there are several different energy ranges that the higgs boson could possibly be in. I can't remember what the numbers are off hand, but I know that the Higg's boson energy is either small (from what they're trying to prove here), large - what LHC is trying to get at, and the holy-mother-of-god high. The latter would take an accelerator about the size of the Milky Way Galaxy to get to those energies using the same methods that we use in modern accelerators. Like the first post said; nothing to see here, move along.
From what I can tell, peoplesoft is an unorganized pile of crap. Because of peoplesoft, I'm listed in my company's payroll as the "Vice President of Communications". Hefty title, eh? They can't find where the problem is, though. For four weeks, they were giving me a full-time paycheck instead of the part-time that I was doing. It took them about a week to find and fix that problem. It's always a nice conversation starter, though.