The higgs boson revealed in all its naked spelndor

[Elizabeth (imported)]

The thing I love about science, is also the thing that a lot of people hate about science.

Science cannot be taken as 100% proof. Our understandings and our learning is only the best understanding we have right now. When new evidence comes along, and it better fits the facts than our understanding of it, we can change our understanding. I love that. It is humility, that we cannot know everything.

A lot of people get angry at science when it changes its position. We were taught one thing, now something completely different is being taught.

I remember my poor out of date school in Saskatchewan. I wanted to learn about the planets, and found a textbook in the library on the subject. It told all about Venus, and its thick cloud cover. It suggested that Venus must have much more water than earth, and because it was closer to the sun, that water was constantly becoming clouds. It even went so far as to suggest that there might be great swamps and endless amounts of life, down on the surface we couldn't see. This was an inspiring assertion. It was based on the best evidence they had, at the time the book was written. (1930 or 1940)

Now we know that Venus has no water, and its surface cannot in any way we know of, support life. Yet it was once taught in schools the exact opposite.

Science is not married to any one opinion, or idea, only to the facts. When a new idea is created, and it better fits the facts, then that is the newly accepted idea.

When there is a persistent theory like the Higgs Boson particle, we cannot just accept it as fact. We have to experiment, and see what the facts are. We have to improve our methods and keep trying until we can put that theory into the "facts column" or the "Not true column". If it turns out there is no Higgs Boson, that is just as exciting as if we prove it exists. It is the facts we learn along the way that makes the process exciting.

It was once thought the Neutrino had no mass, because we couldn't detect its mass. We had to invent newer and more sophisticated technology for that to happen.

Learning something new shouldn't make people feel hurt, or wronged. It should inspire people to know there will always be something new to learn.

The idea of neutrino mass is only inferred by it's oscillation from one type of neutrino to another. To change it needs time, things at the speed of light do not experience time, so things at the speed of light can not change. If it travels less than the speed of light and experiences time, it must have some small mass. However, the fact that we can only infer the presence of neutrinos and directly interact with them, makes measuring their mass out of our reach with current detectors.

There are lots of things put on TV shows that are supposed to be science, that are treated as if they were universally accepted theory, that are not. Lots of what is widely believed is still in scientific dispute. That is one of the things I love about higher education. They teach you all of the ideas and let you know that what is correct is up to you to decide. Because of that, there are many ideas out there that are not universally agreed upon and that is as it should be.

Elizabeth

[moi621 (imported)]

Not from what I watched on Nova. Three part series, of being human.

River

All mitochrondrial DNA, the part that is only from the maternal line is all -

"out of Africa" in modern people.

Yet nuclear DNA results that came later reveal hybridization. Not just by "marker" genes but an active gene involved with immunity.

How can this be?

Gunutz the goat herder helped me confirm my theory.

People are like goats. African female goats are fertile regularly throughout the year. European goats are only fertile in season. Menstrual vs Estrus. Makes sense not to be able to birth at the wrong time of year in the northlands, eh? In a mixed population, the "available all year" females will eventually dominate the genome.

By classic science one can figure out why all maternal DNA in modern populations are Out of Africa, yet somatic is not. No new theory needed.

(YES, I developed this theory, I did not read it anywhere.)

Therefore, friend River, Neanderthal is appropriately termed

Homo sapien neanderthalis. Genus, Species, Population.

Members of the same species can produce fertile off spring.

Moi

Advocate for Scientific Truthiness

[Dave (imported)]

Well actually River, the redhead gene is from Neanderthals.

That's why they are great lovers (beastly, no holds barred sex) And we hump them wildly over it.

I asked myself: GEE Dave, are you making a silly joke about redheads?

And I answered myself: Why yes I am, Why do you ask?

[moi621 (imported)]

There are several genes that can create Red Hair.

As evident as the various shades of Red Hair we witness.

Although Neanderthal has evidence of Red Hair, it is wrong to suppose all Red Haired people are "gingers" from Neanderthal contributions.

Some Polynesians have blond hair and black skin with no evidence of the European genome.

See how misleading that Red Hair article and "the gene" found in Neanderthal was?

Moi

for Truthiness in Science.

[janekane (imported)]

For those who delight in the mathematics, perhaps the late Robert Rosen's "Fundamentals of Measurement and Representation of Natural Systems" would be worthwhile reading for those who have not already read it.

Checking www(dot)worldcat(dot)org informs me that there are 187 copies apparently to be found in lending libraries. With my copy, there may be 188, or more, copies around that can be read, not counting the eBook (not available to readers because of copyright issues). A fair number of universities in the U.S. have a copy...

Rosen did as thorough a job of deconstructing reductionism as the way to ultimate truth as any deconstruction I have yet read. Reductionism? Taking something apart is the way to find out what the something is made of...

My understanding of the deconstruction of reductionism is very simple. Consider "an electron." Is it a particle? Is it a wave? Or, does the wave-particle duality give the observer the right to decide which it is when it is whichever it is?

Or, is an electron neither a particle nor a wave? Whaat? Heresy in physics?

In the observing of an electron, there surely is the electron observed, the observer of the electron, and the observation made by the observer of the observed electron. The observer only has the observation, and not the "actual" electron totally bereft of the observation if it. The observation, per se, is of the observer because it is within the observer, and therefore is not exactly of the observed.

So, what is an electron? How about an electron being a probability pattern which, when observed in a particular way, is observed to have a particle characteristic; and when observed in a wavy way, is observed to have a wave characteristic, and which characteristic is observed is a mutual property of the probability pattern of the electron and the probability pattern of the way the probability pattern is observed, and of the observational repertoire of the observer?

The observed is never the observation and the observation is never the observer, though it is possible to observe observers observing.

And thus...