Is Modern Physics near a working model for "Everything"?

[Stoker]

With the Large Hadron Collider now fully operational, the announcement that "we" are nearing a perfect understanding of the Universe is being made - again.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2841650/large_hadron_supercollider_breaks_records.html?cat=15


Every 5 or 10 years there seems to be this same announcement, and with every announcement, the theories get more complicated to try to explain some newly discovered phenomenon and how it fits into the current framework of our understanding of the Universe, which is currently based primarily on the "Theory of General Relativity" formulated by Albert Einstein.When newly observed phenomena contradict Einseins Theories, the reaction is always to invent whatever is necessary to shoe-horn what is observed into what Einstein had predicted we should observe. Dark Matter is a good example of this behavior.http://www.darkmatterphysics.com/Dark Dark Matter is now included in basic Physics Theory education. Dark Matter was "invented" to explain why the Gravitational effects observed in Galaxies lacks around 90% of the mass required to make their behavior fit into our current model of the universe. So the current theory is that "we" have almost everything figured out, with an asterisk noting that about 90% of the Universe might be composed of something whose basic nature is unknown and whose existence is impossible to prove, we can't even observe it.  I think that the theories keep getting more complicated and outlandish because there are flaws in some basic assumptions about the nature of our universe. Sir Isaac Newton's theories were an improvement and much more useful compared to the previous model, based mostly on the works of the ancient Greeks such as Archimedes and Aristotle, and allowed the engineering of things like the Steam Engine and Internal Combustion Engine. Einstein's theories allowed even neater things like Atomic Weapons and Electronic Computers to be developed, but the increasing number of Band-Aids required to keep these theories afloat suggests that perhaps there are flaws in our understanding of the basic nature of the universe. C, the speed of light, is the bedrock upon which all currently accepted theories rest. The most basic assumption about our universe is that the Speed of Light is a Constant and the exact characteristics of which are Scientifically established.  I question whether this is true, and I will try to explain why I think this. Firstly I ask:

What is the Speed of Light?

[alaric89]

The fastest thing scientists have ever found.(so far)

[Cyro]

299,792,458 meters per second (within a vacuum.)

[Stoker]

299,792,458 meters per second (within a vacuum.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

O.K. So we have a value of 299,792,458 Meters per Second in a certain condition - a "vacuum".  This is the currently stated Speed for Light, and it is considered the prime Constant, which is why the symbol for it is "c".

First, what is a Meter? According to Columbia Encyclopedia:

meter, abbr. m, fundamental unit of length in the metric system. The meter was originally defined as 1/10,000,000 of the distance between the equator and either pole; however, the original survey was inaccurate and the meter was later defined simply as the distance between two scratches on a bar made of a platinum-iridium alloy and kept at Sevres, France, near Paris. More recently, it has been defined as the distance light travels through a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. The meter is now the legal standard of length for most of the world, other standards, such as the yard, being defined in terms of the meter.

So the Speed of Light is defined using the Meter and Second, and the Meter is defined by the Speed of Light and the Second. This is Circular Logic and is not Scientific in nature. It is akin to describing a Foot as 12 inches, and then describing an inch as 1/12 of a Foot. If there is a stable base for our unshakable Speed of Light Constant, it must certainly lie in the Second.

What is a Second?
Columbia Encyclopedia:

second, abbr. sec or s, fundamental unit of time  in all systems of measurement. In practical terms, the second is 1/60 of a minute, 1/3,600 of an hour, or 1/86,400 of a day. Since the length of the day  varies, however, the second must be defined in more precise terms. For many years it was defined as 1/86,400 of the mean solar day (see solar time), thus eliminating seasonal variations. Because the rotation of the earth itself is not constant, the second was redefined (1956) in terms of ephemeris time (ET), which is calculated from the motions of celestial bodies in accordance with the laws of motion; 1 sec is 1/31,556,925.9747 of the length of the tropical year for 1900. In 1967 the second was redefined to be 9,192,631,770 periods of vibration of the radiation emitted at a specific wavelength by an atom of cesium-133.

So the Second is defined using a the transition between "hyperfine states" of a particular element, Cesium-133 , and these pulses are "counted" while the material is at a Ground State, at Absolute Zero.

What is Cesium-133? Cesium is an isoptope of Cesium which has 55protons  78Neutrons, with an isotopic mass of 132.905451933.(u)- "u" is the symbol for Atomic Mass Units - From Columbia Emcyclopedia :

"u" representing atomic mass unit or amu, in chemistry and physics, unit defined as exactly 1/12 the mass of an atom of carbon-12, the isotope of carbon with six protons and six neutrons in its nucleus. One amu is equal to approximately 1.66 × 10−24 grams.

So Cesium is defined using Grams, which are defined by of course the Meter and the Speed of Light. Again, this is circular logic and not scientific. That which is being defined is being used to define itself.It is also true that the method of counting these pulses of radiation from Cesium-133 involves calculations involving both the speed of light and the Meter.

How about measuring at Absolute Zero?- From Wikipedia:

Absolute zero is the theoretical temperature at which entropy would reach its minimum value. The laws of thermodynamics state that absolute zero cannot be reached because this would require a thermodynamic system to be fully removed from the rest of the universe.

An accurate measurement by this method is impossible, it requires an impossible condition.

About Vacuum from Columbia Encyclopedia:

"vacuum, theoretically, space without matter in it. A perfect vacuum has never been obtained; the best man-made vacuums contain less than 100,000 gas molecules per cc, compared to about 30 billion billion (30×1018) molecules for air at sea level. The most nearly perfect vacuum exists in intergalactic space, where it is estimated that on the average there is less than one molecule per cubic meter."

If a vacuum is an impossible condition, how can one claim to have measured light in it? This is of course not including the current theories concerning Dark Matter that suggest that this matter is everywhere. That throws an even bigger monkey wrench in the formula. There are also issues with special conditions concerning Gravity, and that a truly accurate measurement of the Speed of Light would require being removed from the Universe completely.

The Speed of Light, which is the supposed "Prime Constant" and the Bedrock of all Physics is not Scientifically defined.

[Ecolitan]

+ 10

[Stoker]

let me know when you get to star-trek, beam-me-uppish transportation....
until then, quiet the fuck down

Thanks for the encouragement, but I am not currently working on an alternative theory of everything. I am merely making the point that the Gospel of Modern Physics is based on circular logic and that we are nowhere near a complete understanding of the Universe.We don't even have a proper starting point to describe the Universe, let alone have a complete understanding of it.

Burn the Heretics! How darest thou question the word of the new God: Science!

[anarchir]

I'm going to have a jetpack within my lifetime. So long as the gov. doesnt step in.

[Turd Ferguson]

I figured out all the answers to the universe with one of these........







I'm not about to tell anyone what I found though. Its too scary.

[Stoker]

I figured out all the answers to the universe with one of these........

I'm not about to tell anyone what I found though. Its too scary.

Your method of learning about the our Universe is not too far removed from what "mainstream science" does today. The difference is that "mainstream science" is capable of producing some whiz bang things to dazzle the masses, akin to ancient Kings who were able to dazzle and frighten the rabble by predicting Ecilpses and other phenomenon.



IF "mainstream science" has made fundamental discoveries about the Universe, it is being kept from the masses. What we are being told about why things are the way they are is a bunch of non-scientific mumbo jumbo. This is amply illustrated by realizing that the primary building block of all "mainstream science", The Speed of Light , is in fact an arbitrary assumption based on empirical observation from our limited vantage point,  not Science.

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: much of physics revolves around the concept of static 'elements' or attributes to describe the whole of physical systems and their consequences. Thus, they lead to many theories that seem rationalized, but oftener they're predicated on assumptions that are easily refuted such as M-theory, which is more of an exercise in mathematics than actual experimentation and falsification. Physics today has more in common with astrology than natural science.

[Andy]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: much of physics revolves around the concept of static 'elements' or attributes to describe the whole of physical systems and their consequences. Thus, they lead to many theories that seem rationalized, but oftener they're predicated on assumptions that are easily refuted such as M-theory, which is more of an exercise in mathematics than actual experimentation and falsification. Physics today has more in common with astrology than natural science.

Maybe so, but that doesn't make his "circular reasoning" argument any less retarded or trollish.

[alaric89]

Whats wrong with Stoker's reasoning? Physics uses mathematics and is very useful in a practical sense what does it have in commen with astrology?
I haven't really given the "circular theory" thing much thought, but it will come in handy next time I talk to some Environmentalist nutfudge. (If they can use unproven bullshit and lies, I can use stupid ass BBS theories that I haven't really studied.)

"See, the scientist say that there is global warming because scientist say they have proved the earth is getting warmer because of man."
*Watch green Earthers head explode*

[cavalier973]

Has "Dark Matter" not been observed?
What are these guys looking at, then?

http://home.slac.stanford.edu/pressreleases/2006/20060821.htm


edit: Nevermind

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2007/10/31-01.html

[Ecolitan]

Maybe so, but that doesn't make his "circular reasoning" argument any less retarded or trollish.

There's nothing trollish about that.

I thought maybe retarded but since it made so much sense to me I've been waiting for someone competent to explain why it's retarded.  That's not you. 

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

I think the problems he pointed out are somewhat warranted, but at this point in time work for what we are using the stuff for.  I'll consider this a little more later on and post a better reply.