|
Stephen66515
|
 |
« on: December 12, 2011, 06:34:37 PM » |
|
http://www.dailymail.co.u...rticle-expected-CERN.htmlThe âGod particleâ, hailed as the holy grail of physics, may have been glimpsed for the first time.
Excited scientists at the Large Hadron Collider â the worldâs biggest atom smasher â are expected to announce today that they have spotted the Higgs boson particle.
While they will not claim definitive proof, they are tipped to reveal tantalising evidence of the particleâs existence.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
No trees were harmed during the creation of this message. Millions of electrons, however, were terribly inconvenienced
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen66515
|
|
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2011, 06:39:13 PM » |
|
47 Years in the waiting!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
No trees were harmed during the creation of this message. Millions of electrons, however, were terribly inconvenienced
|
|
|
|
|
zridling
|
|
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2011, 12:42:37 AM » |
|
Ironically, the misnomer "god particle" for the Higgs Boson, if discovered, would effectively kill off the idea (or need) to explain god. The Standard Model will be complete at that point, showing us how matter interacts, and gains mass and attraction. Not sure god-believers would know whether they should be depressed, but then nothing would let them give up their metaphors.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Deozaan
|
|
« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2011, 01:04:12 AM » |
|
I admit my ignorance in physics (supposedly I'm dumber than a monkey when it comes to physics) and especially about the Higgs Boson, but why would the knowledge of how matter interacts and gains mass and attraction remove the need/idea of God?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mahesh2k
|
|
« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2011, 01:20:32 AM » |
|
God particle has nothing to do with "concept of god" as far as LHC is concerned . It was named only to simplify the concept of smallest possible particle that could answer some of the questions related to BBT and Singularity (universe formation, which is linked with the theological concept of god) and other puzzles in particle physics. As far as particle physics folks are concerned, I doubt they give any weight to concept of god unless ofcourse if they're heavily brainwashed in camp or Sunday morning meetups. Those who want to believe, find ways to bend the concept of god in their favor irrespective of lack of evidence. That aside, I guess it's the peak at which we can dig particle physics. I don't know if there is anything else left in theory for them to conduct more research in this domain once this stuff finishes.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IainB
|
|
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2011, 02:16:25 AM » |
|
Ironically, the misnomer "god particle" for the Higgs Boson, if discovered, would effectively kill off the idea (or need) to explain god.
âNow it [the Babel Fish] is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.â
- the Narrator in Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
zridling
|
|
« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2011, 11:28:26 PM » |
|
And that's the exact point: what would be left to explain? We figured it out; it wasn't written in the bible, and despite the internet, there's been no "revelation" from any gods in more than a millenia according to the established religions.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
superboyac
|
|
« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2011, 12:18:06 AM » |
|
You know, I'd like to comment here. I was heavily involved with physics research when I was in school and all this stuff was a big deal. The scientists, if I'm not mistaken, HATE that this thing has become called the god particle.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Shades
|
|
« Reply #9 on: December 16, 2011, 08:24:30 AM » |
|
@zridling:
You forget about the Mormons. According to them their president is a prophet...and those have a direct connection with the almighty one, is it not? ;-)
Guess they could not invent a better title for the top position (their church is part of a corporation after all, hehehe).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
EĂłin
|
|
« Reply #10 on: December 16, 2011, 10:23:07 AM » |
|
Here's an awesome explanation of why the scientists cannot claim to have proof yet, but are nonetheless super excited and confident - Starts with a Bang - The Large Hadron Collider, the Higgs, and Hope. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Interviewer: Is there anything you don't like?
Bjarne Stroustrup: Marketing hype as a substitute for technical argument. Thoughtless adherence to dogma. Pride in ignorance.
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #11 on: December 16, 2011, 10:43:43 AM » |
|
WOW! Great find there Eoin! Thanks for the link!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Strength in Knowledge
|
|
|
|
40hz
|
|
« Reply #12 on: December 16, 2011, 05:43:29 PM » |
|
You know, I'd like to comment here. I was heavily involved with physics research when I was in school and all this stuff was a big deal. The scientists, if I'm not mistaken, HATE that this thing has become called the god particle.
They do. Here's a report from the Washington Post on where the term "god particle" came from: In truth, the term âGod Particleâ was coined more by marketing than by theologians or scientists. The name was coined by Leon Lederman, a Nobel-Prize-winning physicist, for the title of a book -- The God Particle: If The Universe Is The Answer, What Is The Question?Itâs a great title, and whether it actually boosted sales or not, it is far easier to sell God than a Higgs Boson. How many people know what that is? Of course the same can be said for God, which is where this story gets more interesting. The God Particle does not threaten faith and doesnât even claim to do what most people imagine when they hear the term: replace God. Having found the God Particle, scientists would be the first to admit that they story is not over - that this new piece of information will help explain many things and open doors to new and even more complex questions One overly clever and entertaining physicist trying to get in a soundbyte - an endless series of pointless and totally unnecessary arguments birthed in its wake.  ----- Note to physicists: Please don't try to get cute or indulge in wordplay with people who cannot deal with paradox and ambiguity; or who tend to take things very literally. That way madness lies. For all of us!  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 16, 2011, 05:51:11 PM by 40hz »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fred Nerd
|
|
« Reply #13 on: December 17, 2011, 05:10:57 AM » |
|
Not only do scientist hate the term, but so do Christians. It makes fun of both science and religion for the sake of a cheap word. Or maybe its just me. I see no problem with finding the Higgs Boson or finding anything else. Was it Galileo who said that the Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go? Well the Higgs Boson is the opposite. Also just because that means it was possible that it all happened with an expansion of a waveform or something, it still doesn't mean that's what happened. Sort of the 'God made the world complete with old dinosaur bones' theory. Its all good fun  You see the results your way, I see them mine and everyone has a good time. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kyrathaba
|
|
« Reply #14 on: December 17, 2011, 08:25:45 AM » |
|
Not sure god-believers would know whether they should be depressed, but then nothing would let them give up their metaphors. Of course, non-believers' belief (that god-believers' beliefs are metaphors only and not based in a factual God) is simply itself an opinion, because science and philosophy can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a God. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Win 7 Home Premium 64bit-SP1 AMD Athlon II X2 220 Socket AM3 (938) @ 2.1GHz 6GB RAM Firefox 20.0 _________________________________________________________________________________________ I'm fighting against patent trolls. Join me and tell your representative to support the #SHIELDAct: https://eff.org/r.b6JJ /via @EFF http://kyrathaba.dcmembers.com/donate.htm |
|
|
|
IainB
|
|
« Reply #15 on: December 17, 2011, 12:11:16 PM » |
|
Of course, non-believers' belief (that god-believers' beliefs are metaphors only and not based in a factual God) is simply itself an opinion, because science and philosophy can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a God.
Spot on. There seems to be no proof that God exists. There seems to be no proof that God does not exist - though Thomas Paine's biting criticism of the Bible and religion in "The Age of Reason" (Published in 1794 and 1796) arguably came pretty close. My 10-year old daughter understands that to believe in God or anything else that you do not know for sure to be true (e.g., ghosts, invisible friends, fairies at the bottom of the garden, the emperor's new clothes) necessitates credulity and the suspension of reason. Despite that, she understands when I tell her that that some people do not believe in the god(s) of religion or myth, but yet have apparently had a direct experience that enabled them to know that there is something (e.g., typically: it felt like pure, unconditional love, and maybe it's "God", and that it has always loved us, is loving us now, and always will, for every moment of our existence). This kind of direct experience or revelation has been relatively well-documented. Maybe some of these people were hallucinating and "hearing voices", but it seemed real enough to them. For example, Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus (New Testament, Acts 9), where he - a non-believer full of hatred - had a vision of Jesus Christ. Who is to say that a person's direct experience - which you cannot share directly as he did - is valid/true or not? To say it were either thing (i.e., valid/true or not) would seem to be irrational in itself. How could you possibly know? We are irrational by nature and so we tend to form an "opinion", to which our ego becomes attached and causes us to stick by that opinion and defend it to the death. This is why I made this post in a separate thread about the Higgs Boson: Yes, I found this about the theoretical Higgs boson in Wikipedia: The Higgs boson is a hypothetical massive elementary particle that is predicted to exist by the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics. Its existence is postulated as a means of resolving inconsistencies in the Standard Model. Experiments attempting to find the particle are currently being performed using the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, and were performed at Fermilab's Tevatron until Tevatron's closure in late 2011. Recently the BBC reported that the boson will possibly be considered as "discoverable" in December 2011, although more experimental data is still needed to make that final claim.
The Higgs boson is the only elementary particle predicted by the Standard Model that has not been observed in particle physics experiments. It is an integral part of the Higgs mechanism, the part of the SM which explains how most of the known elementary particles obtain their mass. For example, the Higgs mechanism would explain why the W and Z bosons, which mediate weak interactions, are massive whereas the related photon, which mediates electromagnetism, is massless. The Higgs boson is expected to be in a class of particles known as scalar bosons. (Bosons are particles with integer spin, and scalar bosons have spin 0.)
Theories that do not need the Higgs boson are described as Higgsless models. Some theories suggest that any mechanism capable of generating the masses of the elementary particles must be visible at energies below 1.4 TeV;[4] therefore, the LHC is expected to be able to provide experimental evidence of the existence or non-existence of the Higgs boson.
Interestingly, there are apparently two groups of scientists: (a) Higgs: those scientists who are believers in the SM (Standard Model) predictions and who apparently: ... expect the LHC experiment to be able to provide definitive experimental evidence of the existence of the Higgs boson. and (b) Higgsless: those scientists who are non-believers in the SM - and who thus hold instead that the HM (Hiiggsless Model) is the Truth and who apparently: expect the LHC experiment to be able to provide experimental evidence of the non-existence of the Higgs boson. Scientists! They're a funny lot aren't they?  I don't know how many of either group might be climate scientists. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kyrathaba
|
|
« Reply #17 on: December 20, 2011, 09:24:49 PM » |
|
Love his tongue-in-cheek "translation" of the Bible into HBP-speak |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Win 7 Home Premium 64bit-SP1 AMD Athlon II X2 220 Socket AM3 (938) @ 2.1GHz 6GB RAM Firefox 20.0 _________________________________________________________________________________________ I'm fighting against patent trolls. Join me and tell your representative to support the #SHIELDAct: https://eff.org/r.b6JJ /via @EFF http://kyrathaba.dcmembers.com/donate.htm |
|
|
|
IainB
|
|
« Reply #18 on: December 21, 2011, 02:49:35 AM » |
|
Yes, I think that's what they call "Taking the Mickey", isn't it?
The rest of his blog makes for interesting reading too.
He doesn't mince his words.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mahesh2k
|
|
« Reply #19 on: December 21, 2011, 03:01:59 AM » |
|
5th Comment explains exactly How I see this research as of now. This comment was epic  reader Edstock said... âș6
Seems like God lost His marbles. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
