Lately I have been wondering if such costs are justifiable. I like science. But why? We live in a technocratic world. But most people are totally clueless as to why this is important. I doubt it really is. It has little bearing on the lives of people.

Many people who do not know enough of fundamental science question it and many think only applied science should be allowed.

However, the thing with fundamental science is that ALL our technology that we use today is build on it! Fundamental science is about exploring the fundamental ways of the universe, finding out what makes it tick. And with that knowledge of how the universe ticks we can build new equipment and new ways of improving our lives.

So when you state "It has little bearing on the lives of people" you have to remember that all these people use some form of technology, ALL based on that fundamental research. From the internet to hygiene...


Kind regards,

The Traveler

How far is it going to go though? are they not more interested in why they seek, than what they seek? is that not wise? I think mankind really benefits from acting within rather than external. I think a lot of the worlds funding can be spent much more wiser.

I can sign off on this, but I don't think fundamental science is really where the waste is at.

Don't people read comic books anymore?


Doomsday devices are seldom a good idea.

Galactus is about to eat the earth--sure, grab the Ultimate Nullifier. Your a scientist who has a lazer and wishes to tear apart the vacuum of space--go rent a call girl and get over it!



(nerd)

I agree with onethousandk that fundamental science is not the thing to look at when you are looking for wasted money. Certain experiments can cost a lot of money but that is still low compared to the gains of new insights and certainly compared to your other industries.

For example, if you want to look at where large money is spend you might better take a peak into the defense industry, USA alone in 2010 spend 700 billion dollars on defense and the worlds total defense budget in 2010 was 1,546 billion dollars.

At the same time constructing and operating the Large Hadron Collider (the world's largest and highest-energy particle accelerator) has a budget of 7.5 billion euro's and that is spread over many years, many countries in the world combine their funding for big projects like the LHC. If you would stop all fundamental research then not much will be accomplished in reducing costs worldwide, you will actually see that it will rise since we cannot use new technology to make things more (cost) effective.

Also you have to remember that fundamental research is a pillar on which work other disciplines can develop further. From physics to philosophy to applied science, where all involved can think about why they are doing their research and constantly checking their own and others motivations. Assuming that people who do fundamental research never think about why they are doing that research sounds ignorant to me.


Kind regards,

The Traveler

The fabric of the Universe is Synthax, firing a laser is pointless

Further. And further. And yet further. The why of the seek is the what in the seek. That is, they seek because of the what. They seek to find out, to confirm or falsify what are devoloped on the chalkboards and their sheets of paper, to learn about what the hell all of this is and see what we are able to say about it, how we can describe it. Every major leap in our understanding opens the door for major leaps in technology as well. As is often said, the science of today is the technology of tomorrow, and this is a central characteristic of the history of science and technology. It is always like this.

Besides, what is wrong with seeking, just for the sake of it? What is wrong with asking questions about all of this, and go into the mystery honestly and rigourosly? Go out there and explore? What is wrong with actually finding something out? It is extremely intellectually satisfying and beautiful to discover new science, and I don't want humanity to live in ignorance, but to be enlightened. The same drive for understanding and curiosity among scientists probing the deepest mysteries of nature is the very same drive that makes many here on the nexus go face first into hyperspace and their own minds.

Imagine the state of our knowledge and technology if no one granted funds for research. A world you wanna live in? I don't.

Great posts by the way, Trav! Keep it up, you're spot on.

Imagine the state of our knowledge and technology if no one granted funds for war and idiotic religiion.





Recently, physicists announced that LHC had shown hints that the Higgs-Boson was “real.” However, experiments in the 145 billion to 466 billion electron volt range have excluded the boson’s existence. As Dmitri Denisov of Fermilab said: “We do not see the signal. If it existed, we would see it. But when we look at our data, we basically see nothing.”

"The so-called “god particle” is most likely an illusion."

The idea of a Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was originally proposed early in the 1980s. Since the Large Electron Positron Collider (LEP) was at the end of its life, and a machine capable of generating more power was needed, a 20 nation consortium, all members of CERN (Conseil Europeen pour la Recherche Nucleaire), started design work in 1994.

The LHC straddles the border between Switzerland and France, occupying a 27 kilometer long, circular tunnel. Its electromagnets force protons into a narrow beam, split it in two, and then send the two streams of charged particles around the ring in opposite directions, causing the twin beams to collide head on.

Although the LHC was built to carry out a number of experiments, most particle physicists will admit that the $10 billion was spent to find the Higgs boson.

Physicists postulate that matter is built from twelve fundamental particles, six quarks and six leptons. Note that protons and neutrons are not considered “fundamental,” since they are made of quarks. Quarks are defined as elementary particles with electric charges one-third or two-thirds that of the electron. Leptons are a group of elementary particles (and antiparticles), such as electrons, muons, or neutrinos that are affected by electromagnetic and weak interactions.

According to the standard theory of quantum mechanics, quarks are “colored” and “flavored,” but a detailed explanation of those fields of influence is not germane to this account. The quark flavors are up, down, bottom, top, strange, and charm. Each of the six quark flavors can have three different colors, red, green, or blue. The lepton table includes the electron, electron-neutrino, muon, muon-neutrino, tau, and tau-neutrino. The muon and the tau leptons are not stable, however, and quickly decay.

While leptons are thought to participate in weak atomic interactions, other particles such as mesons, baryons, and hadrons are more massive and are affected by strong force influences. Quantum mechanics proposes that there are four forces at work in nature: the strong force, which holds atomic nuclei together; the electromagnetic force, which holds atoms and molecules together; the weak force, which governs radioactive decay; and the gravitational force, which attracts matter to itself in an inverse square relationship over infinite distance.

According to nuclear physicists, a “force” is more like an exchange. When the strong force binds an atomic nucleus together, for example, the particles exchange “carrier particles,” called bosons. Each force requires its own boson. It is the photon that supposedly carries the electromagnetic force, and “gluons” carry the strong force. An ongoing problem for physicists is the detection of “gravitons” that supposedly carry the gravitational force.

In 1964, Peter Higgs speculated that space is permeated by a “field,” similar to an electromagnetic field. When particles travel through space, they encounter this field, acquiring “mass.” The concept can be illustrated by particles moving through a viscous fluid: the greater interaction of particles with the field, the greater their mass. The existence of the Higgs field is an essential component of his hypothesis.

As previously mentioned, quantum theory requires that fields be associated with carrier particles, so the expectation is that there must be a particle carrying the Higgs field: the Higgs boson. For the last few years, LHC’s focus has been to “find” the Higgs boson and determine if this mass origin hypothesis is correct.

Recently, physicists announced that LHC had shown hints that the Higgs-Boson was “real.” However, experiments in the 145 billion to 466 billion electron volt range have excluded the boson’s existence. As Dmitri Denisov of Fermilab said: “We do not see the signal. If it existed, we would see it. But when we look at our data, we basically see nothing.”

Electric Universe advocates propose that the entire quantum mechanical universe requires a new viewpoint. Since it is the electric force that governs the cosmos, the behavior, origin, and structure of matter needs to be revised. One of the most interesting aspects of this premise is the clues that exist within quantum mechanics, itself.

Plasma’s electrical and physical properties are scalable over many orders of magnitude. Laboratory experiments can model what is observed in space. Gravity’s force falls off with the square of the distance, while the attraction between electrified plasma filaments is linear and up to 39 orders of magnitude greater than gravity. Looking at the four hypothetical quantum forces, it can be seen that the strong force is also 39 orders of magnitude greater than gravity. Perhaps that relationship is better explained with the electric force.

Virtual models operating within computer algorithms have replaced direct observation in recent years: the natural philosophy of science has been abandoned. Computer models are used to build other models, which, in turn, are used to “confirm” further models. Physics used to mean investigating the nature and properties of matter and energy. Instead, it has become the handmaiden to mathematics.

With math and computer programs many simulations are done. After that we have to find a way to prove or disprove a theory so we know which direction to go next.

As such it is interesting that finding the Higgs-Boson is as important as NOT finding the Higgs-Boson (and thus excluding it from the model).


Kind regards,

The Traveler

Why is there hardly any funding for researching the viewpoint of "The Electric Universe" while there is so much evidence in our science and culture worldwide ?

Why are we funding research on "God Particles" and "Black Holes" wich only exist as mathematical models ?

I think we are doing it wrong, totaly wrong, but expressed in Dollars and Cents it all makes perfect sense.



Cheers, Sim.

Current models we have do work and as such we build further on them researching new sides of it. If it is found out in the end that it was the wrong path, other paths will be taken.

Ridiculing any form of science (or any other dicipline for that matter) plus including a conspiracy theory into it only makes your standpoint weaker. Doing this will only result in people taking you less serious and thus the words you carry with you too.


Kind regards,

The Traveler

I am not including a cospiracy here, that is just in the eye of the beholder, I'm just talking about human behaviour, you don't need a conspiracy for that, it is survival of the fittest and bigmouth.

I am not ridiculling science, I work with electronics but more and more I am discovering that things appear to work differently then that what I was thought at school, I just think "Truth is out of style"

A enlightened society is a paradox, society will seize to exist if enlightenment is reached.

That is just my point of vieuw, I really don't bother if people take me seriously or not, I have nothing to teach, I have nothing to sell, I have nothing to defend, the Universe I experience is not yours, it's mine, arguing about that is just as pointless as firing quodrillionquazillion lasers at a God particle


Cheers, Sim.

You do understand that this is trolling no?


The Traveler

No I don't.

I am just expressing myself in my natural humourous way.

I'll walk in silence.




Bye, Sim.

Sorry if this sounds a bit simple minded, I've not really looked into this with much depth, but how can anyone tear into the fabric of space? what fabric does space have if space is nothing?.. How can there be anything for a laser to touch if theres nothing for it to react with?.. And isn't there always going to inevitably be a vacuum to space as space is nothing, and nothing has and will always be?

Mathematical models are not simply "just" mathematical models. Just because they're models doesn't mean they're wrong, neither does it mean they're right. We fund such research in order to test our theories and our math against nature. As I said in an earlier post, we go out to test what has been devoloped on the chalkboards and sheets of paper by theoretical physicists. Einstein started out with just math and thinking too, but he was right, as we now know. Quantum Mechanics developed to a large extent purely in theory with very abstract mathematical formalism, but as we tested the theory in practice we saw that we were right, or at least on to something.

Many times physical laws and fundamental properties of nature are not discovered experimentally at first, but they are "discovered" through thought experiments, mathematics, imagination, intuition and careful theoretical work. It is not nonsense to test these things against nature, not at all. This is how science is ultimately done.

If you think we're doing it so terribly wrong in the most advanced physics today, then I suggest you develop your own theories and publish them. Let people know they're wrong, and show why!



Space, or vacuum, is not empty, it is teeming with activity - particles pop in and out of existence constantly.

Traveller, I'm not assuming this is pointless, please don't jump that far. Also it really does depend on whos judging when you call something fundamental. That laser isn't fundamental for me. I still however don't state that what they re doing is wrong. But personally given the budget they have I think I would spend it directly helping people, and teaching them about how you can attain peace on the inside without the use of technology or lasers. I think theres much more higher prioritys. And yes I agree, what the world spends on it's defences is unbelievable. It also goes without say that funding science has really helped mankind, please don't misjudge that.

I hear so much of using science to prove this or that, but for some, it's just simply not needed. I think you can work anything out, without anything. But me proving that to another in the way that I see that, might not be the way for some, in that case they may need a laser to be able to see the same insight.


"Space, or vacuum, is not empty, it is teeming with activity - particles pop in and out of existence constantly."

Sorry, but without being able to defy what a partical is, how can you say what's popping in and out? What's referred to as a partical, is only something you can percieve because of a contrast, but ask yourself what it is without contrast? get what I mean?

Like what's big, unless you have something to contrast it to? and even then when you have contrast theres still endless contradictions.


If your stating that 'space' is going to be teared apart, it's still regardless of what's said, impossible to tear something apart that isn't there, that has no structure that which is nothing. But maybe someone just needs to put that differently for me? Because come on, isn't that logical? ..


Please no one get hot-headed if they reply to me, my intention isn't bad.

Then why not have both, like we currently have? There are people teaching just like what you state.

It's not as simple as moving money away from one place to the other. And it's also not about placing a bag of money on a counter and then things will happen. Increasing funds does not guarantee results without knowing what you are after. What you are saying implies that we should pull all money spend on fundamental science and move it into educating people about the inner self, that sounds highly counterproductive to me.

You also have to question about how many people are actually willing to get the teachings you talk about, it sounds a lot like missionary teaching.

Also, do you know that many humanitarian people even state that helping 3rd wold countries like we do is about the worst we could ever do for them, most of the money we send ends up in corruption, bureaucracy and weapons.

So what I am trying to state: I don't think it's as simple as you are trying to imply here.


Kind regards,

The Traveler

Haha it does sound a bit like a missionary teaching ..

I do agree highly with what your saying. And I'm well aware it's not as simple as that. Life here is no fairytale..

Also no, certainly not implying that we shift all the money into educating about the inner self and so. I guess I just wish human awareness was directed a little differently..