New Theory Could Kill the Multiverse Hypothesis

Though galaxies look larger than atoms and elephants appear to outweigh ants, some physicists have begun to suspect that size differences are illusory. Perhaps the fundamental description of the universe does not include the concepts of “mass” and “length,” implying that at its core, nature lacks a sense of scale. This little-explored idea, known as scale symmetry

The concept seems far-fetched, but it is garnering interest at a time of widespread soul-searching in the field. When the Large Hadron Collider at CERN Laboratory in Geneva closed down for upgrades in early 2013, its collisions had failed to yield any of dozens of particles that many theorists had included in their equations for more than 30 years. The grand flop suggests that researchers may have taken a wrong turn decades ago in their understanding of how to calculate the masses of particles.

the Higgs boson’s interactions with other particles tend to elevate its mass toward the highest scales present in the equations, dragging the other particle masses up with it.

at a scale about a billion billion times heavier known as the “Planck mass,” there exist unknown giants associated with gravity. These heavyweights would be expected to fatten up the Higgs boson — a process that would pull the mass of every other elementary particle up to the Planck scale. This hasn’t happened; instead, an unnatural hierarchy seems to separate the lightweight Standard Model particles and the Planck mass.

supersymmetry used standard mathematical techniques, and dealt with the hierarchy between the Standard Model and the Planck scale directly. Supersymmetry posits the existence of a missing twin particle for every particle found in nature. If for each particle the Higgs boson encounters (such as an electron) it also meets that particle’s slightly heavier twin (the hypothetical “selectron”), the combined effects would nearly cancel out, preventing the Higgs mass from ballooning toward the highest scales. Like the physical equivalent of x + (–x) ≈ 0, supersymmetry would protect the small but non-zero mass of the Higgs boson. The theory seemed like the perfect missing ingredient to explain the masses of the Standard Model — so perfect that without it, some theorists say the universe simply doesn’t make sense.
Read More at
http://www.wired.com/2014/08/multiverse/

To the previous statement I say Ddddddddddduuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh !!

How can an unconscious and non-sentient grouping of materials "have a sense" of scale?

Why would anyone expect non-living matter to "have sense" of anything?

Of course "nature has no sense of scale!"

WE have sense of scale, though, which is why it matters. It's the same with human time perception: it's only relevant to US.

But then, WE ARE NATURE... so, nature does indeed "have a sense of scale," because we sense scale, or the differences between things' sizes, relative to other comparable/observable things.

I think it's only possible for the universe to "make sense," if we humans stop imposing upon it, the seemingly arbitrary requirement that it must "make sense."

Any "sense" will naturally reveal itself to those who have sensed the prerequisites of the next sense.

I've always thought it was pretty ironic and baffling, that the only way the universe can "make sense," is according to circular logic.

it either came from nothing, or was always here (but in a different form). Both of those seem incomprehensible and astonishing to me. Both seem necessarily supernatural in origin. Not sure which is more or less.

Maybe it "makes perfect sense," but we're just over-thinking it, and not approaching it in the right ways which would allow it to naturally make sense?

Maybe the only way it can "make sense," is if we accept that "something we cannot understand" occurred... and that "not making sense" actually makes perfect sense, because we should not expect to be able to understand what we cannot experience.

I find incredibly interesting, the link between these notions, and the fact that people have used hallucinogens to access a feeling of "understanding the universe," through what i should call an entirely unconventional and seemingly counter-intuitive means.

Scientists are like "okay, now it doesn't make sense."
"Psychonauts" are like "i get it now! Amazing!"

Seems to fit perfectly? lol.

Meh...

When we finally figure out gravity, and the strong and weak nuclear forces responsible for binding EVERYTHING together, then we might actually be able to figure some shyte out.

Until then it's all one big theoretical circle jerk IMO.

theory, hypothesis, supposition.....
hooey!

I like the multi-verse idea, personally.

H.M. Murdoch said:

I like the multi-verse idea, personally.

Click to expand...

Same

so you are saying I am not fat?

Not fat. Fluffy.

So they make up the perfect ingredient in their particle stew and then proclaim the universe makes no sense without it.

Maybe not to THEM...

But here we are anyway.

"How can?" Reasonv?

This is the hard hard, quantum science of supersymmetry.

"How can?" is never the question. It is always and nothing but "When can?"

See? In this realm, not only is anything possible, everything must be possible.

I've said many times and per Aldus Huxley, we are limited sensory beings. Of course we don't know what the Universe is. Only in my lifetime did we even understand there were galaxy formations out there.

We used to call this Our Island Universe. It was Hubble that peered out into a small hole of nothing between our local stars and found everything. We are just beginning to make sense of "Why" it appear the way it seems in various frequencies of our iimitied imagination.

Supersymmetry is the Grail of Science. It is the main candidate for the Theory of Everything.

How can you ask these human limit questions? We are so far beyond common understanding already, you need to read up about it, I think.

Doer said:

"How can?" Reasonv?

"How can?" is never the question. It is always and nothing but "When can?"

How can you ask these human limit questions? We are so far beyond common understanding already, you need to read up about it, I think.

Click to expand...

Your google degree is failing you.

TakeTheTicket said:

Your google degree is failing you.

Click to expand...

I took your Ticket to Ride. What sort of Degree to you have? Turd Tasting?

Doer said:

I took your Ticket to Ride. What sort of Degree to you have? Turd Tasting?

Click to expand...

Sure

Doer said:

How can you ask these human limit questions?

Click to expand...

Because i am merely human, and unable to know just how limited my own perception actually is, because i cannot perceive "The All" with which to compare "the all i can perceive."

I have to ask "human limit" questions, because i am merely that: a limited human with seemingly unlimited questions.

Though i think that, like Jung said, just thinking naturally will take us most of the way to the most complete understanding possible in a limited human perception... fortunately, we have science and scientists to figure out the mysterious details that "thinking naturally" will inevitably miss.

One cool thing though, is that usually, when "science" declares discoveries and explains them... i feel like it "makes sense," even without being "a scientist" myself (though i tend to mostly understand and appreciate the scientific method, and tend to apply it to every situation i find it applicable... so you could almost call me a scientist, sort of, just not in an official and/or formal way; just like how you could call me "a philosopher," despite that ruffling the feathers of those who have official PhD certificates...).

You need the math. Science is not philosophical. Where did you get that?

Science is about ruling all out that does not fit the experiments.

Doer said:

You need the math. Science is not philosophical. Where did you get that?

Science is about ruling all out that does not fit the experiments.

Click to expand...

I didn't get that. I merely compared the two abstractly similar disciplines based on my similar relationship with each (technically, i am neither scientist nor philosopher, but frequently use elements of both, on a fairly regular basis).

reasonevangelist said:

I didn't get that. I merely compared the two abstractly similar disciplines based on my similar relationship with each (technically, i am neither scientist nor philosopher, but frequently use elements of both, on a fairly regular basis).

Click to expand...

Well, my point is, by the time these discoveries get into popular science and exposed to untrained thinkers, it doesn't resemble the actual experimental result. It has turned into a Popular Fantasy.

Is that what you mean?

Doer said:

Well, my point is, by the time these discoveries get into popular science and exposed to untrained thinkers, it doesn't resemble the actual experimental result. It has turned into a Popular Fantasy.

Is that what you mean?

Click to expand...

Not sure i'd say that's "what i mean," but i do agree with your statement here, about how "regular people" typically don't really understand the "science" that is disseminated to them under that label. But some laymen understand better than others.