All of my science stuff

[N_las]

Yeah ! we will have fun with a closed thread again...

[Dodgey]

If it is scientific speculation then it is subject to scientific critisism. That's how it works else it is useless in the world of science. I mean what is creative critisism? You weren't very imaginative with coming up with your speculations? Your speculations aren't out there enough? I just don't understand what use that is.

[rtxoff]

If it is scientific speculation then it is subject to scientific critisism. That's how it works else it is useless in the world of science. I mean what is creative critisism? You weren't very imaginative with coming up with your speculations? Your speculations aren't out there enough? I just don't understand what use that is.

There is no such thing as "scientific critisism" it's a logical fallacy. It is very subtle but it is as i pointed out in the post before.

[Dominatus]

Now, I think we've gotten this out of the way... Let's steer this thing back on course, before it gets locked.

So, since this thread is more about scientific speculation, let's speculate on the plausibility and theories mentioned by the OP.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Dominatus

[ZetaX]

There obviously is "scientific critisism". There is a huge difference between being very very improbable and just not being confirmed. You can claim that the sky is green all you want, but the scientific critisism is simply "no it is not".

@Dominatus: in regard to the thread starter, it might be on topic. Discussion directly with gpisic is not and cannot be.

[Dodgey]

@Gpisic. Sorry but you didn't, what you provided was one of the definitions for a critic, as in a person who is a critic, not a defination of criticism. Of which there are many, for example:

1.the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.

2.the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.

3.the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc.

4.a critical comment, article, or essay; critique.

(Source:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criticism)

And in anycase your entire argument is just semantics, I could very easily say that I'm not criticizing, I am judging or questioning the merits. As to your comments about "knowing" personally I think that they deserve a dedicated thread to have a propor discussion as I think we can "know" some things. Feel free to swing us a PM if you want to discuss it further.

Oh yes, back on topic.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Dodgey
Clarified whom I was talking to.

[N_las]

I try to answer the OP as good as I can.

What if we can have a field where we could modify the quantity of Higgs Bosons? (zero gravity chamber anyone?)

It is a common misconception, that mass is caused by the higgs field. But to say it simply: Energy is causing mass. If the energy content of a system rises, its mass rises. The equation E=mc² doesn't say that you can convert mass to energy, or energy to mass. It means that energy and mass is literally the same. If you compress a metalic spring (like the one in a ball pen), it directly increases its mass.

Most of your mass comes from the energy inside the nuclei of your atoms. The protons and neutrons, and the quarks inside them, are attracted very strongly to each other. This constitue to a huge amount of energy, which is the reason for your mass.

The higgs field is just an explanation for the mass of a few particles. For the electron to have mass, there has to be a corresponding energy somewhere. This energy comes from the interaction of the electron with the higgs field.

So by influencing the higgs field, we may cause all kinds of weird stuff (I suspect that chemistry would go bonkers). But we wouldn't cause zero gravity by modifying the higgs field.

If we can liberate or store protons / neutrons / electrons from a collection of atoms (such as a clay brick) does that mean we could change what material it was? (however such an action would use up / free electricity, radiation, light, and possibly more stuff)

Yes, if we could manipulate the protons / neutrons / electrons directly, we could change every kind of matter to everything else. But such a direct controll of matter is beyond science fiction. We can't even imagine a mechanism that would allow for such direct control.

But nuclear power is somewhat a control of the protons / neutrons inside an atom. We really change the material of the fission material we are using in reactors. But this is nowhere near a direct control.

A variation of your idea is much more realistic: Using nanotechnology to reassamble matter on the atomic level. We can't change the kind of atoms with that, but we could use it to change a pile of crap to a nice sandwich (as long as the right kinds and amounts of atoms are present)

If we gathered all the atoms of a dead man into what he once was, and then applied electricity, heat, blood, and other vital resources, then would be spontaneously jump back to life?

Maybe. There isn't really a reason why it shouldn't work. But if we would have this kind of technologie, we would't need it to heal the death. We could heal any illness and injury, so nobody would die anymore.

If the multiverese theory is correct, scientists think that there must be an infinite number of universes, which in turn means that there's one, oh, say, a universe made out of freefloating gold asteroids, or a universe filled with pure energy. Heck, there might even be one where Magic exists and ponies are really real. SO, if we tapped into one of those recourse-filled universes, we can get anything we want! (as well as sneakily sneak past Conservation of mass once and for all!)

If by multiverse, you mean the many-worlds-interpretation of quantum mechanics, than I have to disappoint you. There wouldn't be an infinite amount of universes, just every possible one. And impossible universes wouldn't exist.

If we had a pressure, heat, and acid blocking force field, that means we can put a human on Venus and let him survive!

Yes we could. But what is the merit of this idea? It is like saying: "If everybody could make air to food, nobody would starve anymore." While true, it is a meaningless statement.

Call me insane, call me a crackpot, even call me a mad scientist, i think that at least 1 of these theories can be real.

While you have fantasy, your ideas are just not interesting. You are like a kid that dreams of a world made of ice-cream. To make your ideas interesting, you have to add the mechanisms:

What would we use to liberate or store protons / neutrons / electrons?

How would you reasamble the atoms of the dead man?

How would that pressure / heat / acid force-field work?

[KerikBalm]

There is a difference between uninformed speculation with the intellectual lazyness that results in not doing any research or nor proposing a way to actually do what you want, and creativity.

You have to be creative to get what you want. Saying things you want, but have no idea how to do, and not even trying to come up with a way to do it, is not creativity, but rather the absensce of it.

Nothing has been created, at most its an invitation for others to create for you a way to do something.

I don't find vague undeveloped wishes to be creative at all.

[rtxoff]

I find N_las last post a very good response, it's something i would wish more often here.

+rep

[dbmorpher]

I have been reading on the higgs field and I was wondering, it says it is a scalar field which means directionless and every point has a parameter. Does this this correspond directly with density or is it independent?

Assuming we have a device that can alter the strength of the higgs field in a certain area could we use it as a propulsion device? Or if we could make the higgs scalar negative would that create negative mass for a warp drive such as a diametric drive?

[Z-Man]

I have been reading on the higgs field and I was wondering, it says it is a scalar field which means directionless and every point has a parameter. Does this this correspond directly with density or is it independent?

Formally, yes, scalar fields are densities. Though not always charge or mass/energy densities. What kind of density a field is depends on the interaction with other fields and itself. Here, it's ... just Higgs.

(Nitpick protection: "Scalar" is taken to mean "Scalar wrt space/time transformations".)

Assuming we have a device that can alter the strength of the higgs field in a certain area could we use it as a propulsion device?

With that broad description, yes. Though probably not a very efficient one. Nothing about the Higgs field makes it particularly well suited for the task.

Or if we could make the higgs scalar negative would that create negative mass for a warp drive such as a diametric drive?

No. First, the Higgs field is complex and only its absolute values matter. So making it negative relative to its current value changes nothing. Secondly, the state it is in now is the ground state*. Any changed configuration would have a higher energy, not the lower energy the various exotic states of matter for stable wormholes and warp drives require. And that's before the machinery required to change the field's value is taken into account.

* Hopefully. It may be a metastable state that can decay into an even lower state. If that is the case, the decay event would be a bad day for everyone, so triggering it should be avoided.

[How2FoldSoup]

I try to answer the OP as good as I can.

It is a common misconception, that mass is caused by the higgs field. But to say it simply: Energy is causing mass. If the energy content of a system rises, its mass rises. The equation E=mc² doesn't say that you can convert mass to energy, or energy to mass. It means that energy and mass is literally the same. If you compress a metalic spring (like the one in a ball pen), it directly increases its mass.

Most of your mass comes from the energy inside the nuclei of your atoms. The protons and neutrons, and the quarks inside them, are attracted very strongly to each other. This constitue to a huge amount of energy, which is the reason for your mass.

The higgs field is just an explanation for the mass of a few particles. For the electron to have mass, there has to be a corresponding energy somewhere. This energy comes from the interaction of the electron with the higgs field.

So by influencing the higgs field, we may cause all kinds of weird stuff (I suspect that chemistry would go bonkers). But we wouldn't cause zero gravity by modifying the higgs field.

Damn I hate to nitpick but parts of this is actually incorrect. I was just talking to my physics professor 2 weeks ago about the possibility of photons not being massless(Irrelevant to this topic) which led me to discuss the higgs field with him. I know this isn't the greatest source and I apologize for it being so, but according to a particle physicist(who is not my prof, only one who got his PHD alongside him) the higgs field only governs particles that rely on the weak nuclear force to bond to each other. So sorry folks, this means that the electron and electromagnetic particles are not governed by the higgs field and subsequently the electron must get it's mass from somewhere else. That being said, your proton and neutrons and all the sub-particles should work just fine under the higgs model.

This is the summary of what I got from it, and I would love to have K^2 or another particle physicist come by and correct me on this because it's been seriously messing with my head the last 2 weeks. As far as I know, we have no way of governing how an electron gets its mass.

Here's hoping for a satisfying response that explains this which is probably unlikely due to how this thread has been behaving. Who cares if it's conjecture guys, satisfy his and your own curiosity. If he's wrong, tell him so but politely. This is the kerbal forums, don't let it degenerate into the cesspool of the rest of the internet.

[Rickenbacker]

What if we can have a field where we could modify the quantity of Higgs Bosons? (zero gravity chamber anyone?)

Would be pretty cool, but would probably require exotic materials like "exotic matter" (which would, incidentally, also make Alcubierre drives a likely possibility).

If we can liberate or store protons / neutrons / electrons from a collection of atoms (such as a clay brick) does that mean we could change what material it was? (however such an action would use up / free electricity, radiation, light, and possibly more stuff)

Sure, that's entirely plausible in the not-so-near future. Doesn't break any laws of physics, just takes very fine control over individual particles, which we don't have today.

If we gathered all the atoms of a dead man into what he once was, and then applied electricity, heat, blood, and other vital resources, then would be spontaneously jump back to life?

In theory. But just storing the information about all those atoms would take more storage capacity than we've ever had, and are probably likely to have. So this one is very unlikely to actually happen. It's more likely that we learn to grow "empty" bodies and transfer our consciousness to them after death.

If the multiverese theory is correct, scientists think that there must be an infinite number of universes, which in turn means that there's one, oh, say, a universe made out of freefloating gold asteroids, or a universe filled with pure energy. Heck, there might even be one where Magic exists and ponies are really real. SO, if we tapped into one of those recourse-filled universes, we can get anything we want! (as well as sneakily sneak past Conservation of mass once and for all!)

No one knows, and we'll most likely never know. Plus, infinite universes doesn't mean that there will be an infinite number of universes full of gold or unicorns, even if we could get to them. It only means that there are infinite numbers of universes out there.

If we had a pressure, heat, and acid blocking force field, that means we can put a human on Venus and let him survive!

Or we could bio engineer humans to survive on Venus with no protection whatsoever.

Sure, we could do it with physical shielding too, though what materials to use and how to get them there I don't know. Not entirely sure why we'd want or need to go to the surface of Venus for, though . By the time we can do that, we've probably at least started planning for the colonization of other solar systems anyway.