
The 'Sharpest Picture Yet' of the Higgs Boson - snake117
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-sharpest-picture-yet-of-the-higgs-boson
======
lisivka
For me, whole Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics looks like huge scam.
Mathematics is Turing-complete, so proper formula with right magic constants
can separate dogs from cats (see neural networks for example: they are pure
mathematics). However, I had belief in Theory of Relativity for my whole life
until I saw three effects: double slit experiment at macro level [0], magnetic
foam at the edge of Solar system [1], and Sagnak in _linear_ motion [2].
Sorry, but I lost my belief and I want explanation, not a magic formula.

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsaUX48t0w8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsaUX48t0w8)
[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suo7_u18C_s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suo7_u18C_s)
[2]
[http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0609222.pdf](http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0609222.pdf)
,
[http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0609235.pdf](http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0609235.pdf)

~~~
monknomo
I don't see what math's Turing-completeness has to do with models describing
physical system. It means that math can describe whatever model is most
accurate, but it can also describe plenty of unphysical models.

If you want explanations and not formulas, I'm not sure math or physics will
help. They are both famously bad at explaining why, beyond "if it were
different you would not be able to ask the question".

~~~
poelzi
This is a problem of mathematical logic that is used in QM. In a classical
logical system, you can't do this. You can only use formulas that have a real
relation in nature and not invent something out of the blue and use it for
substitution.

You can describe any physical implementation with any mathematical as long as
you use enough dimensions. Fact is: we are living in a 3 dimensional euclidean
space, this you can experience every day. Time is some other thing. The need
for 12 dimensions is just a absurd mathematical emergency exit for having
something fundamentally wrong.

~~~
monknomo
Time is some other thing? It isn't a dimension? How do you do Newtonian
physics like that?

As far as extra dimensions being a crutch, I must disagree. Take 6-axis mills
for instance. To accurately describe the position of the tool you need six
dimensions. That doesn't mean they are particularly strange or wrong, just
that they are a little complicated.

By the same token, if we invented a system of analyzing pirouetting
ballerinas, it would be useful to have not only the normal 3 euclidian
dimensions and time, but perhaps to have a spin dimension so we can compactly
describe the ballerina's direction of spin.

~~~
poelzi
Of course you can do a integral over time for example, but you logically
understand in the process that its only a virtual dimension in this case, not
a real euclidean one.

Your spin 'dimensions' still reside in 3 euclidean dimensions but for
technical reasons you implement those vectors as an axis.

Don't get me wrong, sometimes its useful to add a virtual dimension in the
mathematical sense to get a shortcut in calculation, but it should be clear
that those are not real ones. One the level of physical implementation,
everything requiring more then 3 looks unlikely.

