From Youtube Via UCTV.com: “Hunting The Higgs”

—————————–

University of California TV interviews Vivek Sharma in Spetember 2011, who is in charge of finding the Higgs if it’s there.  Thanks to a friend for the link, for interested laypeople like myself.

Related On This SiteE=mc2……From 3 Quarks Daily: Richard Feynman Talks About A Pool And A Not-So-Pretty GirlHaving Trouble With Electricity and Magnetism? MIT Can HelpRepost-’More On “Dark Flow” From Space.com’

Add to Technorati Favorites

From A Quantum Diaries Survivor: ‘Firm Evidence Of A Higgs Boson At Last!’

Full post here.

How firm?

Some links for non-scientists like myself:  A commenter links here.  CERN article here and background article here.  One page explanation by different physicists about what it is and why they’re looking for it.

Related On This SiteFrom Scientific Blogging: ‘Einstein On Steroids: Dirac, The Higgs, And Speeding Neutrinos’

Repost-From Scientific Blogging: The Humanities Are In Crisis-Science Is NotA Short Post On Red Sprites And Blue Jets: Cosmic Origins Of Lightning?

Add to Technorati Favorites

From Bloggingheads: Adam Frank And Eliezer Yudkowsky Discuss The Epistemology Of Science

Discussion here.

Frank is an astrophysicist, and has written a book entitled The Constant Fire: Beyond the Science vs. Religion Debate

Even if ancient cultures had very precise (mathematical, observational) understanding of the the natural world as well as religious myths and rituals that they performed alongside that understanding, is Frank’s book a faithful attempt at addressing the problems of the epistemology (theory of knowledge) of science that has developed since then?

Does he more aim to just mold and change engrained popular opinion on the subject; re-focusing the debate away from creationist/darwinist dualism?

It’s interesting to hear two such bright people discuss such ideas.  Your thoughts are welcome.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Here’s a quote I put up last week…from Albert Einstein discussing Hume and Kant, among other ideas, in his Remarks On Bertrand Russell’s Theory Of Knowledge:

“The following, however, appears to me to be correct in Kant’s statement of the problem: in thinking we use, with a certain “right,” concepts to which there is no access from the materials of sensory experience, if the situation is viewed from the logical point of view.

As a matter of fact, I am convinced that even much more is to be asserted: the concepts which arise in our thought and in our linguistic expressions are all — when viewed logically — the free creations of thought which cannot inductively be gained from sense experiences.

Also On This Site: Hilary Putnam on the philosophy of science found here, do we keep building and building our scientific edifice?:  Bryan Magee’s Talking Philosophy On YouTube…Bertrand Russell was a fan of the accomplishments of Pythagoras, but no fan of the Pythagorean cult: Ron Csillag In The Toronto Star: Math + Religion=Trouble...From Scientific American: Was Einstein Wrong?

A Debate: Would We Better Off Without Religion?


by neilcreek

Add to Technorati Favorites

Sean Carroll And Jennifer Oullette At Bloggingheads: LHC And Higgs Boson

Full diavlog here.

What is the Higgs-Boson field/particle and how does it give other particles mass?  What are fields?

What is the universe?: Carroll states:  “A set of fields obeying the rules of quantum mechanics”

It makes me wonder…

Do we need philosophers, anyways?: 

The lesson to draw from his [Kant’s] careful discussion of this subject might well be not that there must be a form of reality lying beyond space and time but rather that nothing can be real that does not conform to spatial and temporal requirements. Space and time are bound up with particularity, and only what is particular can be real.”

Related On This SiteSean Carroll Is Live-Blogging The LHC Startup and Sean Carroll: What Will The LHC Find?

Add to Technorati Favorites