TED Conversations

pedro jose dos santos neto

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

How does the discovery of the Higgs boson affect our real life?

Some times people in general have the feeling that the cutting-edge science does not affect the real life. I mean, how does the housewife or the cab driver are affected by researches as Higgs boson or strings theory? What is the real impact on the price of food, the school taxes or this kind of real thing and ordinary?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Nov 27 2013: Thats where the great majority of the population are at a disadvantage. we aren't physics teachers. From the B ig Bang theory, to quarks and string, we watch the story unfolding with open mouths. The world that the scientists occupy has a language of it's own. It seems to be the equivalent of the mediaeval church scholars teaching the bible in Latin. I don't think many people outside the scientific community give any credence to any of it. No matter how long the equation "proving" that everything was once concentrated into an infinitely small space, it remains fundamentally unlikely.
    • thumb
      Nov 27 2013: it is like the 3rd time you try to draw a parallel between an intentional attempt to make something unaccessible to people in order to maintain a caste of "wizards", and science being so difficult that you don't understand.

      the two things can not possibly be any more different. science is open, and a great attempt is made by many individuals to make it as accessible to people as it can be. the problem is the sheer amount of knowledge necessary, namely, busy years of learning the subject to even comprehend its tool set and problem set, so to be able to even discuss the sciences "at the border".

      if you don't see the difference, you are welcome to join a cult that refuses to use technology or medicine, and believes in eywa or something.
    • thumb
      Nov 27 2013: "No matter how long the equation "proving" that everything was once concentrated into an infinitely small space, it remains fundamentally unlikely."

      What brings you to this conclusion ? Any evidence for your perspective that you could share with us ?
      Btw, I assume you are aware that scientific theories are not based on guesswork or the constellations of stars, right ?
      Scientists tend to explain and support their theories using what is called evidence.
      • Nov 27 2013: Most people tend to believe the evidence of their own eyes first, followed by a sound dose of common sense. The is not a scrap of real evidence for the Big Bang theory. It is a theory, the clue is in the name. I love the term "share with us" that instinctive circling of the wagons. We are all free to draw conclusions from what we see and experience. I have seen sunsets and waterfalls. I believe in them. I have not seen a big bang, and neither has anyone else. Nor will anyone ever see such a thing. The idea is based on reams of calculations, understood by only a few, this is my point of view. You have a different one. Thats what makes life interesting. Btw, associating natural scepticism with astrology is not intelligent debate.
        • thumb
          Nov 27 2013: Well, there's lot of evidence for the big bang theory, you only have to read it.
          But then, evolution is a theory and relativity is a theory as well. Theory doesn't mean it's hearsay.
          You have not experienced the moon by yourself, does that mean you assume it's made of cheese ? Hopefully not.
          Skepticism is a good thing, however, you have to understand what you are skeptic about and why. Just ignoring evidence for the sake of ignoring it without having a better alternative is a bit silly I think.
          Example: you say the evidence supporting the big bang is bogus or doesn't exist. Ok, you are counter to the view the scientific community holds, which in itself isn't a sin. However, if you run against common wisdom be prepared to present, explain and support your views and not only discredit or belittle great scientific accomplishments.
      • thumb
        Nov 27 2013: Some of the weirdest stuff in quantum mechanics makes "guesswork or the constellations of stars" look almost logical.

        QM tells us that consciousness plays a big part in the existence of particles - even whole objects.

        - Waveforms collapse down to particles when observed.

        - A waveform therefore exists only as a probability when NOT observed.

        - Particle/wave duality is a testable state.

        - A particle can exist in several places at once.

        - One particle can be related to another particle light years away, in superposition, and whose speed of communication is instantaneous, and therefore faster than that of light.

        Is Quantum Mechanics making a mockery of deterministic science?

        Given that consciousness now plays a huge part mainstream science, is the universe more thought than matter?

        And (tell it not in Gath), are we therefore nearly talking about God?
        • thumb
          Nov 27 2013: Yes, all that and much more happens in the quantum world.

          Are we nearly talking god ? No we don't.
        • Nov 27 2013: Lovely, mind opening stuff. The idea that our search and subsequent observation of the Higgs Boson actually had an effect on it's existence was how I got into this debate. You lead me to want to learn more.
        • Nov 28 2013: Are we nearly talking about God? maybe we are.The "nearly" is a good touch. One can drown within reach of the river bank. You can think you are within touching distance of God without actually believing in the received version of God. I happen to think it not impossible that we are one of a series of infinite possible worlds. I find it quite easy, in a possible infinite universe to imagine the term 'distance' to be meaningless. It seems to me that there is only comparative distance, and of course no distance exists compared to infinity(aren't we coming closer to this idea with the evidence of particles, light years apart, mimicking each other's behaviour). Speed and motion are self evidently comparative. I am sure these thoughts are enshrined in existing theories. I don't seek to prove I am right about any of this. I'm always aware that, in all things I could be mistaken. I suppose if there was a God, then it might as well be the universe itself.
    • thumb
      Nov 28 2013: Sometimes in science you have to ignore the fact that something seems fundament unlikely as the mounting evidence dictates. There are afterall monkeys in south America and tortoises on the Galapagos islands.
      • thumb
        Nov 28 2013: case in point quantum mechanics which is counter to all we experience on a daily basis.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.